Loading...
May 14, 2003 Regular Meeting 608 A Regular Meeting ofthe Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on May l4, 2003, at 6:45 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Vice Chairman W. Harrington Smith, Jr.; Robert M. Sager; Margaret B. Douglas; Sidney A. Reyes; Gina A. Forrester; and Lynda 1. Tyler. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the meeting to order. CLOSED SESSION BOARD RETIRES INTO CLOSED SESSION Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Sager, the Board retired into Closed Session in accordance with the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Section 2.2-3711, Subsection A, (5) to discuss an Economic Development Industrial Prospect. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye BOARD WITHDREW FROM CLOSED SESSION Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the Board withdrew from Closed Session. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye BOARD RECONVENED INTO REGULAR SESSION Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the Board reconvened into Regular Session, and certified nothing other than what was noted as reason for going into Closed session was discussed. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 609 The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye INVOCATION The invocation was delivered by Reverend Philip Roby ofthe Amazing Grace Fellowship. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADOPTION OF AGENDA Administrator Riley advised that under County Officials, Dean Lynch was unable to attend this meeting; therefore, this item will be pulled from the Agenda. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the agenda was adopted, as amended, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye CONSENT AGENDA Administrator Riley suggested the following tabs for approval under consent agenda: 1. Resolution from Winchester and Western Railroad Re: Rail Preservation Application - TabD; 2. Resolution Designating Adams Road (Route 689) as a Rural Rustic Road - Tab E; 3. Request from Fire and Rescue Department for Approval of Mutual Aid Agreement with Hampshire County, West Virginia - Tab G; 4. Approval Concurrence by Frederick County for Millwood Station Fire and Rescue Company 21, Inc. to Issue Exempt and Taxable Debt - Tab H; 5. Road Resolution - Fairfield Estates, Section I - Tab T. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Tyler, the consent agenda was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 610 W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye CITIZEN COMMENTS John Hood, representative with Winchester and Western Railroad, thanked the Board for the approval of their resolution approved under consent agenda. Sam Lehman, Back Creek District, advised the Board that they just raised his real estate taxes 20%, and cut his trash service one of the few services the citizens get in south central Frederick County. Board didn't have any problem finding money to give County employees a salary increase or to bribe Home Depot into coming to the County which will raise taxes even more. Marie Straub, Red Bud District, addressed the Board meeting on April 23, and the Northeast Land Use Plan. She was very pleased that the Board voted 6-1 to correct the Northeast Land Use Plan maps to reflect the verbiage in the Comprehensive Plan. She asked the Board to stop using the word change or revision in your correspondence as this is not a change or revision, it is a correction. She feels option #4 is a request for a rezoning put forward by a developer. She does not feel option #4 should be part of the Northeast Land Use discussions. Evan Wyatt, Red Bud District, stated at the last Board meeting there was discussion in what appeared to be some confusion about the delineated Developmentally Sensitive Area portion ofthe Northeast Land Use Plan Maps. He advised that three years ago he was very close to this process; therefore, his comments are intended to provide his perspective regarding this matter. The Developmentally Sensitive Area was intended to protect the historical areas by recommending more significant buffering then required by ordinance when development activities acquire within proximity of these significant features; however, it was never intended to prohibit rezonings or by right development under current zoning in these areas. A classic example of this is the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park. Jim Giraytys, Back Creek District, referred to the environmentally sensitive areas representing a very real part of our environmental develop bank, if you will. It was a deposit that was made, a one time deposit, we can't make additional capital deposits to that particular account. We can live on the dividends that mother nature provides. We have a resource that can never be replaced. He stated that the air improvement task force is moving very rapidly toward making recommendations in terms of meeting the ozone requirements from EP A. He hopes this Board and Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 611 City Council will approve the final draft of this material. He urged the Board to find out what is happening now with this committee. Glen Penton, Stonewall District, thanked the Board and staff for looking into the DSA, and correcting, and revising the document from which we will work. We only have this land that we can protect one time. He told the Board they should consider looking at the water and sewer and the UDA line on Welltown Pike and Route 81. He feels it is regrettable that the Board selected #4 at the last meeting for the Northeast Land Use Plan. Cindy Brockwell, Back Creek District, advised she is really concerned about the Board considering land outside ofthe UDA to be brought into the UDA, and that potentially a whole town could be built in the Northeast Corridor. MINUTES Chairman Shickle advised that on page 14 ofthe minutes ofthe Regular Meeting of February 26,2003, the vote should indicate that he and Supervisor Smith voted Nay, rather than Aye. Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the minutes of the Regular Meeting ofFebrnary 26, 2003, were approved, as amended, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 10,2003, were approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the minutes of the Budget Public Hearing on March 24,2003, were approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 612 Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye COUNTY OFFICIALS Dean Lynch with the Virginia Association of Counties (V ACo) could not be present at the meeting; therefore, his presentation was canceled. PRESENTATION BY THE ALLIANCE FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY AND THE CENTER FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION RE: BUILDERS FOR THE BAY PROGRAM. (POSTPONED FROM APRIL 23. 2003 BOARD MEETING) - REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMISSION Assistant County Administrator Kris Tierney presented this request to the Board advising that at the Board's request, representatives of the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and the Center for Watershed Protection were present for their presentation on the Builders for the Bay Program. Scott Myer addressed the Board advising they are here to provide additional information to the Board in the hopes they will better understand what this program is about, and hopefully, feel it is something Frederick County would like to commit to. Rye Yeong Kwon, from the Center for Watershed Protection, provided a presentation showing various areas ofthe country where this program is in place, and the difference it made in the overall view of residential property within the various subdivisions. Following discussions by the Board members they felt there were some issues they were not clear on and felt this should be sent back to the Planning Commission. Supervisor Forrester asked if staff would prepare an analysis on what has been presented so far and what the cost and effect would be on county ordinances. Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Douglas, the request by the Builders for the Bay Program be sent back to the Planning Commission for further review and recommendation back to the Board. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye LORD FAIRFAX EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMITTEE (LEPC) KRIS Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 613 TIERNEY. ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. APPOINTED BY THE BOARD ALTHOUGH HE IS CURRENTLY SERVING IN THAT CAPACITY Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, Assistant County Administrator Tierney was appointed to the Lord Fairfax Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC). Assistant Tierney is currently serving on this Committee. Board Members did not feel it was necessary for a Board Member to serve in addition to Assistant Tierney. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye JAMES I. BRUMBACK APPOINTED TO BOARD OF ASSESSORS FROM BACK CREEK DISTRICT Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Sager, James 1. Brumback was appointed to the Board of Assessors from Back Creek District. Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye JEAN A. WESTLER APPOINTED TO BOARD OF ASSESSORS FROM RED BUD DISTRICT Upon motion made by Supervisor Forrester, seconded by Supervisor Tyler, Jean Westler was appointed to the Board of Assessors from Red Bud District. The above appointment was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye RESOLUTION (#059-03) FROM WINCHESTER AND WESTERN RAILROAD RE: RAIL PRESERVATION APPLICATION - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 614 WHEREAS, the WINCHESTER & WESTERN RR desires to file an application with the VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION for safety and improvement projects; and WHEREAS, the identified improvement projects are estimated to cost $8,872,503.00; and WHEREAS, The 2003 General Assembly has approved funding for the acquisition, lease or improvement of railways within the Rail Preservation Program budget; and WHEREAS, the WINCHESTER & WESTERN RR is instrumental in the economic development of the WINCHESTER/FREDERICK COUNTY area, and provides relief to the highway system by transporting freight, and provides an alternate means of transporting commodities; and WHEREAS, THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK supports the project and the retention of rail service; and WHEREAS, the COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD has established procedures for all allocation and distribution ofthe funds approved by the 2003 General Assembly. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK does hereby request the VIRGINIADEP ARTMENT OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION to give priority consideration the projects proposed by the WINCHESTER & WESTERN RR totaling $8,872,503.00 in THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK and THE CITY OF WINCHESTER. RESOLUTION (#061-03) DESIGNATING ADAMS ROAD (ROUTE 689) AS A RURAL RUSTIC ROAD - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA WHEREAS, during the 2002 session of the General Assembly, legislation was passed to revise 933.1-70.1 ofthe Code o/Virginia, to allow for the improvement and hard surfacing of certain roads deemed to qualify for and be designated a Rural Rustic Road; and WHEREAS, VDOT has expressed a willingness to adopt this concept on a pilot basis until the program is fully implemented to assist in developing and defining the guidelines to be used for the program; and be evaluated by VDOT with regard to safety, resident concerns, and environmental issues; and WHEREAS, such roads must be located in a low-density development area, and have no more than 500 vehicles per day; and WHEREAS, there is no known pending development that will affect the existing traffic on the road; and WHEREAS, the citizens that utilize this road have indicated their support ofthis road being paved with minimal improvements; and WHEREAS, a road that traverses an area known for its scenic vistas or a historic and relaxed ambiance in one that should be considered for designation as a Rural Rustic Road; and WHEREAS, this board believes that Route 689. Adams Road, should be designated as a Rural Rustic Road, from Route 600 South to Route 600 North, owing it its qualifying characteristics; and WHEREAS, the road aforesaid is in this board's six-year plan for improvements to its secondary system of state highways. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED this board hereby designates and requests the Department's Resident Engineer to concur in the aforesaid road as a Rural Rustic Road. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 615 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this board requests that this road be hard surfaced and, to the fullest extent prudent, be improved within the existing right-of-way and ditch-lines to preserve as much as possible the adjacent trees, vegetation, side slopes, and rural rustic character along the road in their current state. BE IR FURTHER RESOLVED, this board pledges to discourage more development on this road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy ofthis resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. PROPOSED ABANDONMENT OF ROUTE 660. OPEOUON CREEK FORD AND A PORTION OF ROUTE 644 - TO BE SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Tyler, the proposed abandonment of Route 660, Opequon Creek Ford and portion of Route 644 to be scheduled for public hearing. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT WITH HAMPSHIRE COUNTY. WEST VIRGINIA- APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA This agreement is on file in the Office of Fire and Rescue, or the County Administrator's Office. APPROVAL CONCURRENCE BY FREDERICK COUNTY FOR MILL WOOD STATION FIRE AND RESCUE COMPANY 21. INC. TO ISSUE EXEMPT AND TAXABLE DEBT - (RESOLUTION #063-03) APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA A complete copy ofthis Bond Issue is on file in the Office ofthe County Administrator and Millwood Station Fire and Rescue Company 21, Inc. REOUEST FROM THE SHENANDOAH V ALLEY BATTLEFIELD FOUNDATION REOUESTING FREDERICK COUNTY TO ACT AS APPLICANT AND FISCAL AGENT FORAN AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION PROGRAM (ABPP) GRANT RESOLUTION (#062-03) - APPROVED Administrator Riley presented this request to the Board. Supervisor Forrester asked if this grant is approved will the Foundation be willing to also provide some funding? Director Howard Kittell advised they would. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Snpervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 616 Chairman Shickle asked if someone else could be fiscal agent? Director Kittell replied yes, but they preferred that Frederick County do it, as they prefer to have local government. Supervisor Tyler moved for approval, with Supervisor Smith seconding the motion, the following resolution was approved: WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors supports the development of heritage tourism based upon the historic and scenic resources of Frederick County as an economic engine for the area; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors supports efforts ofthe Shenandoah Battlefield Foundation to protect, through fair-market purchase in fee simple or through acquisition of easements, portions of the core battlefield of the Second and Third Battles of Winchester; and, WHEREAS, the National Park Service's American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) offers grant funds for Battlefield acquisition, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors does hereby agree to apply for and be fiscal agent on an ABPP grant application to be prepared by the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye COMMITTEE REPORTS PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT The Public Works Committee met on Tuesday, April 29, 2003, at 8:00 a.m. All members were present except George Ludwig. The following items were discussed: ***Items Requiring Action*** 1. Landfill Issues The committee reviewed the following landfill issues which had been previously endorsed by the landfill oversight committee in a meeting held on April 17, 2003 (Attachment 1): a) New Billing Procedures: The committee unanimously approved new billing procedures for landfill transactions. These procedures will include either a payment bond with each new credit account or a payment via a credit or debit card at the scale house. The amount of the bond will be equal to an average of three (3) months tipping fees or $10,000, whichever is greater. The new procedures will be coordinated through the Frederick County Treasurer's Office and will take effect on July 1,2003. - Approved Upon motion made by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the above request Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 617 was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye b) Proposed Maximum Weights for Citizen Tipping: The committee unanimously endorsed staffs recommendations to limit individual citizen refuse loads to 1,000 pounds without incurring a tipping charge, (per trip). If this weight is exceeded, the citizen will be charged for the entire load at a rate of$25 per ton. This policy would take effect on July 1, 2003. - Approved with the insertion of (per trip) as indicated. Upon motion by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Sager, the above request was approved as amended by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes -Nay Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye c) Proposed Upgrades to Wastewater Treatment Facility: The committee unanimously approved a proposed upgrade to the landfill's wastewater treatment facility. The upgrade will enhance our current aerated lagoon system and allow daily discharge regardless of the stream flows. It is estimated that the upgrade will cost approximately $550,000. Funds are available within the landfill reserve account to cover the cost of this upgrade. - Approved Upon motion made by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye 2. Request for Additional Personnel - Buildinl: Inspections - ADD roved The Building Official, Mr. John Trenary, requested two (2) new positions to cope with the increased workload generated by the current building boom. The attached memorandum dated April 29,3003, provides the justification and recommended funding for these positions and corresponding support costs. (Attachment 2). A motion was made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr. and seconded by Jim Vickers to approve the two (2) referenced positions and associated costs totaling $88,606. The motion was unanimously approved by the committee. Upon motion made by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Douglas, the above request Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 618 was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye ***Items Not Requiring Action*** 1. Automated InsDection ReDorts The building official presented a proposed plan to utilize wireless, hand-held computer note pad units to transmit inspection reports from the field to the office. This technology will eliminate the need for printed tickets and enable scheduling via the AS/400 computer directly to the field inspectors. Frederick County is currently working with Culpeper County to revise the Bright and Associates permitting program to accomplish these technological advances. The attached article from The Column highlights this technology. (Attachment 3) 2. Pavinj! Citizens' Convenience Areas The Director of Public Works informed the committee that the past winter has exacted a heavy toll on the paved areas associated with the citizens' refuse areas. We plan to pave as many of the sites as possible using revenues from this year's budget. Bids should be available for the committee's review at the next scheduled meeting. It is anticipated that some transfers will be required to fund this paving project. 3. Clerical Position - ShawneeLand The Director of Public Works informed the committee that the advisory committee has expressed a desire to fill the vacant clerical position prior to the commencement of the Fiscal Year 2003/2004 budget. Staff will coordinate the necessary transfers of funding with the Finance Department to accomplish this goal. Additional funding will not be required because sufficient allowances had been included in the Fiscal Year 2002/2003 budget for part-time labor. 4. Miscellaneous Reports a) Tonnage Report (see Attachment 4) b) Recycling Report (see Attachment 5) c) Animal Shelter Dog Report (see Attachment 6) d) Animal Shelter Cat Report (see Attachment 7) PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING - OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT - REOUEST OF REVEREND PHILIP ROBY. AMAZING GRACE FELLOWSHIP. FOR SHENANDOAH VALLEY GOSPEL CAMP MEETING. PURSUANT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 86.-3 C. PERMIT REQUIRED: APPLICATION: ISSUANCE OR DENIAL: FOR AN OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT FOR SHENANDOAH VALLEY GOSPEL CAMP MEETING. FESTIVAL TO BE HELD ON JULY 7 THRU JULY 13. 2003: MONDAY-FRIDAY 7:00 P.M.- 10:00 P.M.: SATURDAY 5:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M.. AND SUNDAY 9:30 A.M. - 11 :30 A.M.: AT CANDY HILL CAMPGROUND. WARD AVENUE. WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA - APPROVED Arthur Littman, owner of Candy Hill Campground, appeared before the Board on behalf of Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 619 this request, advising ofthe many times this camp meeting has been held at this location, and there has never been any problems, only positive remarks. Supervisor Tyler asked about this type of request being done in house, and where is staff on this proj ect? Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the Outdoor Festival Permit of Amazing Grace Fellowship was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT - REQUEST OF ROCKY TOP RIDING CLUB FOR ANNUAL TRAIL RIDE. PURSUANT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 86. FESTIVALS: SECTION 86-3 C. PERMIT REQUIRED: APPLICATION. ISSUANCE OR DENIAL: FOR AN OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT FOR ROCKY TOP RIDING CLUB. ANNUAL TRAIL RIDE. FESTIVAL TO BE HELD ON SATURDAY. JUNE 7.2003. FROM 1: 00 P.M. -1 :00 A.M. ON PROPERTY OWNED BY ROSE MCDONALD. ROCKY TOP RIDING CLUB. INC.. 1085 COLLINSVILLE ROAD. CROSS JUNCTION. VA - APPROVED Susan ?, Treasurer of Rocky Top Riding Club, appeared before the Board on behalf ofthis request. There was no public comment. Upon motion made by Supervisor Reyes, seconded by Supervisor Tyler, the Outdoor Festival Permit request of Rocky Top Riding Club was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION (#060-03) REQUESTING TAX EXEMPT STATUS REQUEST FROM FORT CQLLIER CIVIL WAR CENTER. INC.. A NONPROFIT VIRGINIA ORGANIZATION. TO BE DESIGNATED AS A HISTORICAL ORGANIZATION WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 6(3) (6) OF ARTICLE X OF THE CONSTITUTION OF VIRGINIA. THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE REQUEST HAS A 2002 ASSESSED REAL EST ATE VALUE OF $506.900.00 AND WAS TAXED $3.092.09 - APPROVED Administrator Riley presented this request to the Board advising that the General Assembly has delegated this action and decision back to the local Board of Supervisors. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 620 George Sempeles, Red Bud District, advised the Board that he did not feel now was the time to be forgiving $3,092.09 in taxes. Upon motion made by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the following tax exempt status request from Fort Collier Civil War Center, Inc. was approved: WHEREAS, the Fort Collier Civil War Center, Inc., a nonprofit organization, has requested the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick to grant a tax exemption pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia for a ten acre parcel of land owned by said organization in the County of Frederick; and WHEREAS, the property is located in the Stonewall Magisterial District (Tax Map 54-(A)- parcel 81 G), has an assessed value of $506,900, and was taxed $3,092.09 in 2002 in county real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors examined and considered the provisions of Section 58.1-3651 (B) of the Code of Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, hereby grants to the Fort Collier Civil War Center, Inc., a real estate tax exemption, pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia provided: 1. That the property owned by the organization maintains its historical character and that it is used by the organization in accordance with the purpose for which the organization is classified and designated pursuant to the Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-3651 (A); and 2. That the organization currently, and continuously, satisfactorily meets the provisions of section 58.1-3651 (B). ADOPTED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on the 14th day of May 2003, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jf. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE - SALARIES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - PURSUANT TO SECTION 15.2-1414.3 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA. 1950. AS AMENDED. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO FIX THE ANNUAL SALARIES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AS FOLLOWS: CHAIRMAN. $10.800; VICE CHAIRMAN. $10.200; AND REMAINING MEMBERS AT $9. 000 - APPROVED Administrator Riley presented this proposed ordinance to the Board. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Tyler, to raise the $9,000 to $9,500. The above motion was defeated by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Nay Robert M. Sager - Nay Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 621 Sidney A. Reyes - Nay Gina A. Forrester - Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Nay BE IT ORDAINED, the annual salary for each member ofthe Frederick County Board of Supervisors, for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2003, shall be as follows: Chairman, $10,800; Vice Chairman, $10,200; and each other member of the board of supervisors at $9,000. Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, and seconded by Supervisor Smith, the above ordinance was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, JI. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 158. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC: ARTICLE III. COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES: SECTION 158-9. FEES: SECTION 158-10. TREASURER'S RESPONSIBILITIES. LICENSE PERIOD OF VALIDITY. PRORATION: AND SECTION 158-13. TRANSFER OR REPLACEMENT OF LICENSE. THE PURPOSE OF THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IS TO AMEND THE LICENSE TAX. FEE. OR CHARGE (DECALS) ON MOTOR VEHICLES FROM TWENTY DOLLARS ($20.00) TO TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($25): SECTION 158-10. PARAGRAPH A: VEHICLE LICENSE TAX. FEE OR CHARGE SHALL BE TEN DOLLARS ($10) FOR ALL MOTOR VEHICLES NOT REQUIRED TO BE LICENSED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. EXCEPT FOR MOTORCYCLES. WHICH LICENSE TAX. FEE OR CHARGE SHALL BE FIVE DOLLARS ($5): AND SECTION 158-13. PARAGRAPH B: TRANSFER OR REPLACEMENT OF LICENSE TAX. FEE OR CHARGE TOBE TWELVE DOLLARS. FIFTY CENTS ($12.50). THESE VEHICLE LICENSING FEE AMENDMENTS WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FISCAL YEAR 2003- 2004 BUDGET THAT WAS ADOPTED APRIL 9. 2003. - APPROVED Administrator Riley presented these amendment requests to the Board advising that Treasurer, C. William Orndoff, Jr., was also present. Chairman Shickle questioned the fee. County Attorney Larry Ambrogi advised it is a tax and it has to be done by ordinance. There was no public comment. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the following ordinance amendments were approved: AN ORDINANCE TO AMENDMENT THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 158, VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC; ARTICLE III, COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES; SECTION 158-9, FEES; SECTION 158-10, TREASURER'S RESPONSIBILITIES, LICENSE PERIOD OF VALIDITY, PRORATION; AND SECTION 158-13, TRANSFER OR REPLACEMENT OF LICENSE. THE PURPOSE OF THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IS TO AMEND Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 622 THE LICENSE TAX, FEE, OR CHARGE (DECALS) ON MOTOR VEHICLES FROM TWENTY DOLLARS ($20.00) TO TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($25); SECTION 158-10, PARAGRAPH A: VEHICLE LICENSE TAX, FEE OR CHARGE SHALL BE TEN DOLLARS ($10) FOR ALL MOTOR VEHICLES NOT REQUIRED TO BE LICENSED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1 OF THE LICENSE YEAR, EXCEPT FOR MOTORCYCLES, WHICH LICENSE TAX, FEE OR CHARGE SHALL BE FIVE DOLLARS ($5); AND SECTION 158-13, PARAGRAPH B: TRANSFER OR REPLACEMENT OF LICENSE TAX, FEE OR CHARGE TO BE TWELVE DOLLARS, FIFTY CENTS ($12.50). THESE VEHICLE LICENSING FEE AMENDMENTS WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 BUDGET THAT WAS ADOPTED APRIL 9, 2003. BE IT ORDAINED, that Chapter 156, Vehicles and Traffic, Article III, Vehicle Licenses, by the amendment of Section 158-9, Fees, to read as follows: ~158-9. Fees. There is hereby levied and assessed a license tax, fee or charge on all such motor vehicles required to be licensed in the county in the amount oft~ e-nt:y($20.) twenty-five ($25.) dollars, except motorcycles, for which the license tax, fee or charge is ten ($10), and further except that such license tax, fee or charge shall in no event be greater than the amount ofthe license tax, fee or charge by the commonwealth on such motor vehicles. BE IT ORDAINED, that Chapter 158, Vehicles and Traffic; Article III, County Vehicle Licenses; by the amendment of Section 158-10, Treasurer's Responsibilities; License Period of Validity; Proration, Paragraph A, to read as follows: ~158-10. Treasurers' responsibilities; license period of validity; proration. A. The Treasurer shall issue a county license for each motor vehicle upon which such license tax, fee or charge has been paid, subject to the provisions of 158-12; provided, however, the Treasurer may issue a county license prior to payment and bill the license tax, fee, or charge on the next personal property tax bill. If such license tax, fee or charge is not paid by the due date for such personal property tax, such license shall thereafter be invalid and display of such license on a motor vehicle shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00). All license taxes, fees or charges collected by the Treasurer under this Article shall be deposited by the Treasurer in the same manner as prescribed for other county funds, and all revenue derived from county license tax, fee or charge shall be applied to general county purposes. County licenses shall be valid from the 15th day of February in the year issued to the following 15th day of February, at which time such license shall expire. The Treasurer shall begin issuance of the license on the first day of January of each year. Any person required to purchase a county license may purchase the same at his or her request prior to January 1 of the license year, provided that the Treasurer is in possession of the county license for issuance of the license year requested. The county license tax, fee or charge for a license year shall be prorated as follows: Vehicle license tax, fee or charge shall be-$5 $10 for all motor vehicles not required to be licensed prior to November 1 of the license year, except for motorcycles, which license tax, fee or charge shall be $2 $5. BE IT ORDAINED, that Chapter 158, Vehicles and Traffic; Article III, County Vehicle Licenses; by the amendment of Section 158-13, Transfer or Replacement of License, Paragraph B, to read as follows: ~158-13. Transfer or replacement of license. B. A replacement license shall be issued for a lost, stolen or mutilated license upon application by the owner or operator, satisfactory proof that such license has been lost, stolen or mutilated and payment of the license tax, fee, or charge of$-9:5B $12.50. These amendments shall become effective July 1,2003. The above ordinance amendment was approved by the following recorded vote: Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 623 Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 155. TAXATION; BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW ARTICLE ENTITLED TECHNOLOGY ZONE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROPOSED ADDITION IS TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES THRU TAX ABATEMENTS FOR OUALIFYING TECHNOLOGY BUSINESSES THAT ARE INVOLVED IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND/OR PRODUCTION OF ANY PRODUCT. DEVICE. OR SERVICE THAT IS RELATED TO PHARMACOLOGY - APPROVED Administrator Riley presented this amendment request to the Board. He advised that the Board asked that this particular ordinance be referred to the Planning Commission for review and approval, this has been done and the Planning Commission unanimously endorsed the concept, and EDC Director Patrick Barker is here, ifthe Board has any questions. Chairman Shickle asked for clarification on what is before the Board for the public hearing tonight, both the creation ofthe zone and the recommendation on the SWSA? Administrator Riley advised the ordinance creating the technology zone. Administrator Riley advised that staff might have to go back and fix this. It says, the Technology Zone shall be located within the County's UDA. We can adopt this, but the Planning Commission had recommended that it be the water and sewer service area (SWSA). We may have to adopt the ordinance and go ahead and amend the specific article dealing with boundaries to reflect SWSA, unless you want to hold it all over and do it all at the same time. It was advertised as UDA. Supervisor Tyler advised that the Planning Commission recommendation was the SWSA. Assistant Tierney advised that he felt it was somewhat a technical issue, and the reason for making it the SWSA is because ofthe location of it, he feels that is the intent to have it out the Route 50 corridor. Could this be considered a technical change in verbiage and not have to be readvertised, he is not sure. Supervisor Smith stated that he was afraid it would come back to haunt the Board. Administrator Riley advised that he felt the ordinance could be adopted tonight, we would need to come back at the June meeting with the amendment to the text, ifthe Board decides to do that. Chairman Shickle advised the Boards' options are to carry this over and readvertise or go Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 624 ahead and adopt it as is, with an intent to change it, if that is the desire of the Board. Administrator Riley advised that is correct. Supervisor Sager suggested that the public hearing be held at this time. Supervisor Smith suggested we bypass this at this time, and bring the whole thing back at the next meeting and approve it. He put this in form of a motion to postpone the public hearing, readvertise it with the Planning Commission recommendation that it follow the SWSA rather than the UDA Supervisor Reyes seconded the motion. Supervisor Douglas advised that she saw no reason to postpone the Technology Zone public hearing. The above motion was denied by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Nay Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Nay Lynda J. Tyler - Nay The public hearing was conducted at this time. Cindy Brockwell, Back Creek District, does support a Technology corridor, as she feels it is a good move in the right direction. She would like to suggest that instead of having limitations on it, she knows the reasons for that, but there are ways of getting things done if you want to without it being in the UDA or SWSA. She feels the Planning Commission and staff should proceed with caution on this Technology Zone issue. Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Douglas, to approve the Technology Zone amendment as follows: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 155, TAXATION; BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW ARTICLE ENTITLED TECHNOLOGY ZONE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROPOSED ADDITION IS TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES THRU TAX ABATEMENTS FOR QUALIFYING TECHNOLOGY BUSINESSES THAT ARE INVOLVED IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND/OR PRODUCTION OF ANY PRODUCT, DEVICE, OR SERVICE THAT IS RELATED TO PHARMACOLOGY. BE IT ORDAINED, that Chapter 155, Taxation; by the Addition of a New Article Entitled Technology Zone; to read as follows: CHAPTER 155 ARTICLE XXIV Technology Zone Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 625 Art. I. Art. II. Art. III. Art. IV. General Provisions Tax Rebates and Exemptions Rebate of Land Development Fees Education and Promotion ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS Purpose. The County of Frederick finds that the development of its commercial and industrial tax basc requires incentives, and determines that the most appropriate method of offering incentives for the area described below is to create a technology zone in that area, as guided and authorized by the Code of Virginia, 958.1-3850. The County believes that the establishment ofa technology zone will improve the economic conditions of Frederick County, which could, in turn, benefit the welfare of the citizens following procedures set forth in this article. Administration. The Administrator of the Frederick County Technology Zone shall be the County Administrator or his designee. The Administrator shall determine and publish the procedures for obtaining the benefits created by this chapter and for the administration ofthis chapter following procedures set forth in this article. Definitions. F or the purposes ofthis chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings, unless clearly indicated to the contrary: QUALIFIED TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS. The term qualified technology business shall mean a business, to the extent that it is involved in research and development and/or productions of any product, device, or service that is related to pharmacology and is further defined by the following Standard Industrial Classifications, Industry Groups, by the US Department of Labor: 283 Drugs to include 2833 Medicinal chemical and botanical products 2834 Pharmaceutical preparations 2835 In vitro and in vivo diagnostic substances 2836 Biological products, except diagnostics substances 3699 Ultrasonic cleaning equipment 3841 Ultrasonic medical cleaning equipment 3845 Audiological equipment, electromedical 3845 Endoscopic equipment, electromedical 3845 Laser systems and equipment, medical 3845 Respiratory analysis equipment, electromedical 3845 Ultrasonic medical equipment, except cleaning 5047 Diagnostic equipment, medical- wholesale 5047 Electromechanical equipment - wholesale 5047 Laboratory equipment, dental and medical- wholesale 5047 Medical equipment - wholesale 5049 Laboratory equipment, except medical or dental - wholesale 7352 Invalid supplies rental and leasing Medical equipment rental and leasing 7629 Medical equipment repair, electrical 7699 Medical equipment repair, except electric 8371 Commercial physical and biological research To qualify, the company must have a minimum ofthree (3) employees and a taxable investment of Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 626 at least ten thousand dollars ($10,000). The taxable investment may be established by the value of personal property; real estate owned; or the value of a lease of real property for the operation of the technology business. Existing Frederick County companies outside the boundaries of the technology zone which qualify under any of the criteria set forth above may be qualified as a technology company at the time ofthe adoption of this ordinance. A company meeting the criteria which moves into the technology zone may also qualify. QUALIFIED ZONE RESIDENT. The term qualified zone resident shall mean an owner or tenant of real property located in the technology zone who expands or improves such property to facilitate the operation of a qualified technology business within the technology zone. The term property for this subsection shall be the unit or units for which a site plan is submitted or for which a building code application is submitted. Boundaries. The technology zone shall be that area located within the Frederick County's Urban Development Area (UDA). Any future modifications to the technology zone's boundaries will parallel those of the UDA. As stated in the above section, existing companies outside of the technology zone's boundary as of the time of the adoption ofthis ordinance shall be eligible to receive the benefits set forth in this ordinance. ARTICLE II TAX REBATES AND EXEMPTIONS Taxes Eligible for Rebate. Qualified technology businesses shall receive a rebate of a percentage of the utility tax on local telephone usage, electric usage and cable television usage imposed by this chapter. Taxes Eligible for Exemption. Qualified technology businesses shall be exempted from a percentage ofthe following local taxes: The business, professional and occupational license taxes and fees imposed by this chapter. Amount of Rebate or Exemption The amount of each type of tax rebate or exemption under this article shall be a percentage of that tax paid or due by the qualified technology business each year. The percentage rebated or exempted each year shall be determined by the following schedule: Year I 100% Year 280% Year 360% Year 440% Year 520% Year 1 is the calendar year in which the business becomes a qualified technology business if it qualified prior to June 30 ofthe year. Otherwise, year 1 shall be the year following the year in which the business becomes a qualified technology business. Qualified technology businesses shall receive the tax rebates or exemptions established by this article for five years. Once a business has qualified as a technology business, it shall not be entitled to additional periods of five years or any parts thereofby reason of expansion of investment or number of employees. If a business ceases to be a qualified technology business during a year in which the rebates or exemptions apply, they shall be prorated for the months the business was a qualified technology business. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 627 If a majority of the gross receipts of a qualified technology business is derived from the operations which qualify the business, all of its gross receipts shall be included in the rebates and exemptions. If a minority of a business' gross receipts is derived from such operations, the rebates or exemptions shall be applied only to that part ofthe gross receipts which is based on the sales or services via such qualifying operations. Procedure for Rebate or Exemption. In the case of rebates, each business desiring inclusion in the program shall pay the taxes in the manner prescribed in this chapter. The business shall apply to the Administrator for certification as a qualified technology business. The application must be made within twelve (12) months ofthe month in which the applicant met the definition of a qualified technology business. The Administrator shall investigate such matters. Upon certification and proof that no taxes are outstanding at the time of application, the qualified technology business shall be entitled to the rebates created by this article. The Commissioner shall rebate taxes on a quarterly basis. Failure of the business to pay in full by the due date any of the taxes listed in this article, or other taxes imposed by the County, shall result in forfeiture ofthe rebate ofthat tax for that year upon a finding by the Administrator that such delinquency is significant. In the case of tax exemptions, the business shall file all necessary tax applications. The business shall apply to the Administrator for certification. The application must be made within twelve (12) months ofthc month in which the applicant met the definition of a qualified technology business. The Administrator shall investigate such matters. Upon certification and proof that no taxes are outstanding at the time of application, the business shall be entitled to the exemptions created by this article. Failure of the business to pay in full by the due date any taxes imposed by the County shall result in the loss of the exemption for the remainder of the current year. ARTICLE III REBATE OF LAND DEVELOPMENT FEES Applicability of Rebate of Land Development Fees. The fees identified in this article shall be rebated as follows: (1) Any owner of real estate located within the area delineated in this article who plans to perform alterations to or to construct a structure in order to allow occupancy by one or more qualified technology businesses may apply, in writing, to the County Administrator, or his designee, for a rebate of the fees described in this article, provided at least 40% of the cost of the construction, expansion or rehabilitation of the structure is to house a "qualified technology business" as defined by this article. (2) The County Administrator, or his designee, shall carefully review the application to determine whether or not the applicant meets the definition of "qualified zone resident" as defined by this article, and to determine whether or not a "qualified technology business" physically occupies the structure which is the subject of the application, as well as the additional criteria specified in (1), above. (3) Notwithstanding any other provisions ofthis chapter, if the County Administrator, or his designee, determines that all of the conditions specified in (1) and (2) above have been met by the applicant, he is authorized to rebate not more than twenty percent (20%) of the total amount of fees described in this article and paid by the applicant. (4) The applicant who initially qualifies hereunder may, thereafter, once each year for a period of five (5) years measured from the date ofthe first application, reapply for additional rebate of the same said fees, but shall be entitled to no more than twenty percent (20%) per year of the initial total of all such fees. At the time of each such Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 628 subsequent application, the applicant must meet all of the criteria herein specified, and failure to do so will disqualify the applicant entirely from any further consideration for any additional rebate of such fees. However, an applicant who initially qualifies hereunder for a rebate shall not thereafter be disqualified solely because the qualified teclmology business is no longer occupying the subject structure if another qualified teclmology business has replaced it in the same structure. Building Permit Fees. Qualified zone residents shall be rebated the building permit fees as prescribed by the board of supervisors and the Frederick County Code. Zoning Ordinance Fees. Qualified zone residents shall be rebated the fees as prescribed by the board of supervisors and the Frederick County Code. Subdivision Ordinance Fee. Qualified zone residents shall be rebated the fees for the submission of a subdivision plat as prescribed by the board of supervisors and the Frederick County Code. Nonwaiver. This article shall not be construed to waive the requirement of any application, permit, or approval from the County as mandated by other code sections. Nothing in this article shall be construed as waiving the right of the County of Frederick to collect any fines or penalties as imposed by other sections of the code. Restrictions. ARTICLE IV EDUCATION AND PROMOTION Education and Promotion. The Administrator or his designee shall develop programs to educate the public and potential businesses of the benefits of the teclmology zone. Supervisor Forrester asked is this only for pharmaceutical types? Administrator Riley advised that is correct. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Chairman Shickle asked Board Members if they wanted the Administrator to readvertise to change the wording from the UDA to the SWSA. Minute Book Nnmber 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 '629 Supervisor Smith so moved, with Supervisor Reyes seconding the motion. Supervisor Forrester asked if this could be expanded in order that we do not end up with a number of ordinances for each line of technology. Administrator Riley advised he would work with Director Barker on this issue, do some research, and get back to the Board. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #03-03 OF HARVEST RIDGE - APPROVED Planner II Jeremy Camp presented this request to the Board advising that this master development plan request was formally submitted prior to the approval of the new woodlands ordinance revisions. The applicant's representative pointed out existing woodland areas around the perimeter of the site, which will be preserved and supplemented with additional landscaping, in order to create a buffer around the site. He further advised that the applicant had agreed, as part of the rezoning proffer, to plant a full landscaped screen along the property lines where dense tree coverage does not exist. He further advised that a geotechnical study would be performed and any issues brought forward would be addressed. Supervisor Reyes advised he thought the woodland disturbance issue had been decided some time ago by the Board saying the applicant would no longer need to come in for a waiver. Chairman Shickle advised that he thought this had been properly dealt with and had been recorded on the master plan, and was not an issue at this time. Director Lawrence advised that this master plan has been going through the process, based on the old ordinance, at the Boards' last meeting the ordinance was amended, we no longer need the woodlands waivers, as we have various landscape options available. This project does not need the woodlands waiver because they can satisfy the woodlands issue with the new ordinance amendments. The staff report was taken through the Planning Commission under the old ordinance, Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 630 and now it is before the Board under the new ordinance. Supervisor Smith asked for the terminology "restricted age" be defined for him as it pertains to this development. Ron Mislowsky, advised it is what the State Code says, 55 years of age and over, 80 % of the inhabitants of the lot. It will probably float with the Code. Chairman Shickle stated it is not noted on this master plan. Ron Mislowsky replied no. He is not familiar with the State Code; however, he knows children are not allowed. Everything in this development is private. Chairman Shickle asked that the definition of an "age restricted community" be noted on this master development plan. Ron Mislowsky advised that should not be a problem. Director Lawrence advised that on the proffer for this rezoning, the proffer statement spells out that it would be "age restricted" and does provide a definition, and that definition is on the master plan as presented to the Board tonight. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Sager, Master Development Plan #03-03 of Harvest Ridge was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jf. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye PROPOSED AMENDMENT FOR HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR SPECIFIC PARTS OF SCHOOL STRUCTURES - APPROVED FOR PUBLIC HEARING Planner II Camp presented this proposed amendment to the Board advising that the Planning Commission at their meeting of May 7, believed the increased height limitation was appropriate, provided that Fire and Rescue Services could accommodate the structures with their existing equipment. The Fire Marshal is satisfied the increased height can be accommodated. This proposed amendment was discussed by Members of the Board as there were questions dealing with the actual school building and whether other structures at the sight were included. Chairman Shickle had some questions about some of the wording. Director Lawrence advised ifthe Board feels a public hearing is necessary, staff will work Miuute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 6"31 on the wording. Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the proposed Amendment for Height Exception for Specific Parts of School Structures will be brought back by staff at a later date for a public hearing. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye REVISIONS TO THE NORTHEAST LAND USE PLAN'S DEVELOPMENT ALLY SENSITIVE AREAS - APPROVED Director Lawrence advised the Board that staffhas drafted revisions to the Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) of the Northeast Land Use Plan per the Board's directive of April 23. Specifically, the directive was to revise the Northeast Land Use Plan map to reflect the text narrative (page 6-36.1) of the 2000 Comprehensive Policy Plan. This text and map are part of the 2000 Comprehensive Policy Plan, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 27,2000. Director Lawrence further advised that the revisions reflect incorporation of the core of Stephenson's Depot. (2nd Battle of Winchester), the Byers House, and Milburn Road, into the Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA). The DSA for the Milburn Road corridor, Stephenson's Depot, and the 3'd Battle of Winchester, as currently depicted in the 2000 Comprehensive Policy Plan map, is consistent with the illustrations included in the Battlefield Network Plan, and the Route 11 North Land Use Plan. The Battlefield Network Plan was adopted by the County in 1995; the Route 11 North Land Use Plan was adopted and incorporated into the 1996 Comprehensive Policy Plan. He further advised that he is looking for direction from the Board as to whether this is what they want, and if not, tell him what it is they are looking for. Supervisor Forrester advised that she was the one that brought forward the motion at the meeting, and her motion specifically said, to fix, to correct the maps so that they reflect what the verbiage in the Comprehensive Plan states.(referred to map located behind Board). She further stated that the Board is not here to revote on what the DSA is, because that was determined when the Board adopted the September 2000 Comprehensive Policy Plan. Ifthe Board wants to change Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 632 what the Comprehensive Policy Plan is including for the DSA it is going to require public hearings. All this was, was a house keeping task to correct an error. The map was pictorially supposed to reflect what the text defined, and it did not, so even though this is going to cause us problems, that is what would really hold up in a court oflaw, is what is in that 2000 Comprehensive Policy Plan Text. She did not ask for staffto come back and ask for our endorsement, as we voted that night for the correction. She has listened to the tape a few times to make sure, and it was a six to one vote for staff to make the corrections. Chairman Shickle advised for the purposes of discussion, he would have to disagree with a number of statements that Supervisor Forrester made. When the Board originally voted it was a map that he looked at. It was a map that did not look like the map currently being referred to. He does not think that anyone at that time ever intended for property already developed would be so designated, and he does not think the verbiage says that. He does not agree that it is an error. He does feel that, by majority vote, the Board should try and dispose of this matter at this meeting. He feels it was appropriate to bring it back to the Board to make sure that everyone is on the same page, and feels totally comfortable with the direction in which the Board is proceeding. He does not feel that was a bad thing to do, nor did he expect that some map would go out, that he would never see, after Supervisor Forrester's motion, and his vote at the last meeting. Supervisor Forrester advised if Chairman Shickle is making a suggestion that the Board make a plan now to change the Comprehensive Policy Plan for what we are going to define as a Developmentally Sensitive Area, then that would be a new item. Chairman Shickle stated that he did not feel a piece ofland that falls within a historic area, that has been developed, is any longer developmentally sensitive. He does not feel this is an accurate definition. Supervisor Forrester advised she is not arguing with what Chairman Shickle is saying. There are a lot of problems because this has not been publicly correct since 2000, this map did not accurately reflect the Stephenson Depot area, and some of the Milburn area, the Branson House, Kennilworth, the Byers House, the Milburn Road corridor, but your text, that you adopted, said that's what the Developmentally Sensitive Area was. That is what would hold up in a court oflaw, so she is going to ask this body to not only go by their Comprehensive Policy Plan, but also by their Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 633 own vote. This body voted 6-1 at the last meeting for the correction. It does not preclude, at another time, somebody coming back with suggestions for changing that Developmentally Sensitive Area, but that would be another public hearing issue, it is not something we could do on our own. Chairman Shickle advised Board Members that they have heard the opinion of Supervisor Forrester. She advised that your vote, at the last meeting, basically places this map in effect. Supervisor Forrester asked for clarification. It is not her opinion, it was what staff came up with. She did not tell them where to draw the lines. Chairman Shickle advised that staff has brought the map before the Board for comfort, no action, probably leaves it there. Some action is subject to challenge, as Supervisor Forrester has outlined. He asked Board members where they would like to go? He asked staff to make any comments they felt appropriate, as well as counsel. Supervisor Reyes advised that he was very confused as to what memorialized means. Administrator Riley advised that whatever the Board does is part of the Board's minutes, it is memorialized in the minutes of the Board of Supervisors. He further advised that what staff did was take a literal interpretation from the text of the Comprehensive Plan and apply that literal interpretation to a second map. This was provided to the Board based on the vote the Board did to make the correction. When you make a correction the literal interpretation places all ofthat property west of Route 11 into a Developmentally Sensitive Area, to include Zuckerman's Industrial Recycling, Easy Living Mobile Home Park, Lumber Yards, houses, that is the literal interpretation of the text, as directed by Supervisor Forrester. If that is what the Board wants, we will do it. Do you want to put Zuckerman's and other industrial zoning in a Developmentally Sensitive Area, it would appear to him to be a dichotomy? Supervisor Forrester advised that she would like to clear up something that Administrator Riley had said. This is not her literal translation. This is what the text said. Administrator Riley stated to Supervisor Forrester what she is saying literally, this text says this is where the Developmentally Sensitive Area is. Supervisor Forrester replied, and that is what would be upheld in a court oflaw if somebody would challenge it. Administrator Riley replied no, because the Comprehensive Plan is not a literal specific Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 634 document. It is a document that speaks to generalities as to what is taking place. He thinks the Board had a good healthy discussion on this yesterday with the Town of Stephens City, when we are looking for a conceptual plan, guides, policy documents, as to how things should be, it is not a zoning map, it is not a specific map. Supervisor Forrester advised she agreed with that, but for you to omit completely Stephenson Depot, The Second Battle of Winchester, Kennelworth, Branson House, the Milburn House, The Byers House, Milburn Road corridor, that is an obvious omission on the map and needs to be rectified. Administrator Riley advised that he agreed with Supervisor Forrester to a certain extent on the Milburn House and the other houses in there that were not specifically designated, but as far as the Milburn Road corridor, the Stephenson Depot Battlefield, Second Battle of Winchester, based on National Park Service maps and all ofthe documentation that was provided to us, we attempted to try and identify those in a generalized way. We were not planning to get to the specific of where a particular battle was fought on a Comprehensive Plan Map, but the literal interpretation ofthe text transposes the DSA on a much larger area. Those areas, years ago, were not significant as far as the Second Battle of Winchester or Stephenson's Depot and were obviously developed, but if you take the history and apply it to the text - - - - -.(tape changed) Supervisor Forrester - - - - whether or not that is the correction, that is what this Board voted on and approved at the last meeting and it is the official direction of this Board. You are asking us to come back and redo something that we have already voted on. Chairman Shickle advised with one caveat. He was one of those that voted on the original Comprehensive Plan, and he knows what the attorney said about words or picture, but it was the picture he voted on. He is very receptive to expanding the picture to add more battlefield acreage in it, but that is not what he voted on back when he voted on the Plan. Someone is now saying you did not pass that, you passed something else, and this is hard for him to follow, as this is not what he voted on, he voted on a picture. Supervisor Forrester stated that she understood what Chairman Shickle is saying, but she feels the text is what is going to hold weight, and so any changes we make should go from what we have in the text, and the map should reflect that. This was really a big bone of contention during the Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 635 Shockey Industrial Park rezoning, that those areas were designated for industry, when they were developmentally sensitive because of their historic value to the community. Chairman Shickle stated that he thought there had been a court decision on that, and asked Administrator Riley about it. Supervisor Forrester advised that the court decision left it up to the locality if they want to list the historic areas. There was a disagreement about whether the word "shall" made it mandatory or not, but that has never been reflected in the text of the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan, so as it stands today, and as we voted at our last meeting, those historic areas are now, and have been since 2000, Developmentally Sensitive Areas. If we need to make changes and adjustments, because past Boards have been going by the maps, instead of the text of their Comprehensive Policy Plan, she understands this is something we need to deal with, but we should move forward on that, but for now this is - - -. She would stand firm that what is in her text is going to weigh more than what is on the maps. Supervisor Reyes advised that he agrees wholeheartedly with Supervisor Forrester and he would like for Attorney Ambrogi to reiterate what he said before, that the verbiage takes precedence over the maps. Attorney Ambrogi advised that was a general question, it does, if you have the deed, meets bounds, degrees, a statue, if you have an ordinance, if you have a County Code. He was not given the benefit of any of that information before. This apparently is what this map is based on. You have two things to consider. This is a Comprehensive Policy Plan, this is not an ordinance, it is not a statue, it is fairly vague, and it certainly is not precise. He guessed the area,(pointed to area on map), all encompassing is an interpretation of this, or is a reflection of that, in a map. It is not the same as a meets and bounds description, which does prevail. Here you have certain items described, and apparently this green area was drafted on here to include all of these. He referred to what Chairman Shickle said earlier about all the industrial businesses, as well as subdivisions, that are currently located within this area, this certainly is not considered Developmentally Sensitive, not now, it might have been at one time. Supervisor Tyler advised that she appreciates trying to get the DSA designation on properties that are not zoned anything other than RA. How difficult is it for Planning to exclude what is Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 636 already zoned? It would be good to know what is coming before the Board with a change, where the DSA areas are. Director Lawrence advised staff can basically create any map the Board wants, they are requesting direction at this time. He further advised that the Land Use Plan is a bubble. Supervisor Sager stated that the DSA is there for the Board's review, it should not be mandated to the Board just because it is in DSA. Supervisor Forrester advised if we do that we really need to change the text of our Comprehensive Policy Plan, not just the pictorial maps, the two should match. That was the reason for the original motion, especially when the Board is going to be looking at four different Land Use Alternatives in the Northeast area. She would like it clear on the map where the Developmentally Sensitive Areas are. Administrator Riley advised, as a compromise, and maybe to bring this to closure so everyone understands what we have done, would it be appropriate to pull the DSA line back to roughly the east side of Route II? The areas that identify the Milburn House and those things are accomplished. We take those areas that have been developed out ofthe DSA as literally interpreted, and we have an agreement. Supervisor Reyes, does that mean you have to change the text? Administrator Riley replied no. He feels the text is fine, and he thinks Supervisor Forrester raised a good point on that, but you can't literally, there has to be some give and take in the text and he feels everyone here tonight agrees that those areas that are not developed, that have been identified as historically significant, should be recognized. You do not want to recognize that Zuckermans is in a Developmentally Sensitive Area, it is contradictory, it does not make any sense. Chairman Shickle asked what if we take one step further and we do that, only the undeveloped land would be left in, Counsel would be asked to look at this wording in the book, and the map, and give the Board his opinion as to whether they are significantly close enough to be a match. Administrator Riley advised Chairman Shickle this should be done by the next Board meeting, no questions, because Supervisor Forrester is right, we are getting ready to do this all over again. We should have the County Attorney and the Planning Director develop this and have it back Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 637 to the Board at the next meeting. Chairman Shickle advised he could be wrong, but he thinks Administrator Riley is right, he feels everyone wanted to end up at the same place. Administrator Riley stated we do. He does not want it to appear that staff is trying to be an obstacle, but when this goes out of the office, he wants it to be right. Supervisor Smith advised that he did not feel the Board is ready to act on this tonight. Supervisor Forrester asked about the significant historic areas and whether the Board is in agreement that those are the ones that are listed. Administrator Riley stated that he feels the literal interpretation, the Board does not want to pick up the areas that have been developed and rezoned. If the Board will give staff two weeks he feels we will have what everyone is okay with. Supervisor Forrester asked if the Board can delay in the Planning Commission looking at their alternative, until the Board sees what staff has come up with. That way it can be incorporated in their work. Administrator Riley advised that he thought the advertisement has gone out for the Planning Commission. Director Lawrence advised it has and the agendas have been mailed. Supervisor Forrester advised that it seems like a senseless exercise, ifthey do not have what the Board is going to be using for the Developmentally Sensitive Area. Director Lawrence advised that the Board makes the ultimate decision. The Planning Commission has four alternatives to look at. They can make a recommendation on one of those alternatives, and that will give the Board more information for when it comes to them. Supervisor Forrester asked ifthe Board ends up with four alternatives before them, then staff will make sure that the overlay clearly defines the DSA. Director Lawrence replied that was correct. Administrator Riley advised either Chairman Shickle or Supervisor Tyler would be at the Planning Commission meeting when this item is being discussed. Administrator Riley repeated his suggestion on how this matter needs to be handled, at the request of Supervisor Reyes. His suggestion is that the County Attorney and the Planning Director Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03 638 get together and determine that the text and the map are consistent. Within that, the text will not change, but staff will bring back the map that reflects the intent of the text to address those areas that are considered Developmentally Sensitive, such as Stephenson's Depot, core battlefield area, the houses that have been identified and discussed. This would be back to this Board for clarification at its next meeting, which is in two weeks. Supervisor Reyes moved to approve the verbiage as stated by Administrator Riley. Supervisor Smith seconded the motion. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye ROAD RESOLUTION (#064-03) - FAIRFIELD ESTATES. SECTION I - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Supervisor Tyler referred to what Jim Giraytys said earlier under Citizen Comment about Early Action Compact for the Air. City Council representative and herself set on this committee, and this has been discussed with Administrator Riley. There was never any intent on Councilman Bauserman or herself to take any action, or decision, or to sign off on any thing without the Board seeing it first. The Board will be seeing the initial proposals. Supervisor Sager brought up the salaries ofthe Board Members, and asked that this be looked into before another year. He feels there must be a system out there that addresses this. Chairman Shickle advised that he and Administrator Riley attended the annual meeting of VDOT in Staunton, this date, and he left the meeting very upset. Route 37 had nothing to do with him being upset, regardless ifhe were for it or against it, he would have felt the same way when he left this meeting. He is fairly convinced that VDOT does not pay enough attention to this area with funding. He feels that we have probably the best in the State with Mr. Copp and Dennis Morrison, and he is not referring to either one ofthem. The hierarchy ofVDOT, how it does business, and how it pays attention to this locality is despicable. He will quote what Administrator Riley said, he feels we would do better if we applied to the VDOT in West Virginia, we would get better service and Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14103 639 more money. He has asked Mr. Allen to visit with him tomorrow. It is not a 37 issue with him, he feels this area does not get enough attention. It is worse, it is not better. Supervisor Forrester asked what did the County get? Chairman Shickle replied, a pittance. Administrator Riley replied the County got three traffic lights. They put Route 277 back in, but that is not a new project, as they should not have taken it out to start with. UPON MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR SAGER, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR SMITH, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. (TIME: 9:43 P.M.) \L-~Q c-~~'L,,--) Richard C. Shickle Chairman, Board of Supervisors .f}Jti-lf f Jo . Ri ey, Jr. Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minutes Prepared By: ;I/JI&:>L 77~A:,~11.h"'-<il) Carol T. Bayliss Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/14/03