Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 11, 2003 Regular Meeting 666 A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on June 11,2003, at 6:15 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 J. Tyler. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the meeting to order. INVOCATION Supervisor Sager delivered the invocation as the scheduled minister was present, but had to leave before the invocation was done. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADOPTION OF AGENDA Administrator Riley advised he had nothing to add. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the agenda was approved as presented 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 CONSENT AGENDA Administrator Riley advised he had nothing to add. There were no tabs listed for approval under the Consent Agenda. CITIZEN COMMENT Administrator Riley read the names of those citizens signed up to speak. Cindy Brockwell, Back Creek District, addressed the boundary line adjustments being discussed by members and staff of the Town of Middletown. She understands they asked the Frederick County Planning Department for assistance with this project. This was sort of done without the citizens knowing about it, and they weren't real pleased, as they were hoping the Town would take care ofthis themselves. It is her understanding that a letter was received from Assistant Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11103 667 County Administrator Kris Tierney wherein he advised the County would prefer the Town of Middletown take care ofthis matter, and involve the citizens in the process. She thanked Assistant Administrator Tierney for his advice in this matter. Pam Kennedy, Gainesboro District, addressed the Chesapeake Bay resolution asking the Board to recognize that it has the potential for extremely high density development. Advised that many ofthe Board members have gone on record in the past of being opposed to that sort ofthing. Howard Kittell, Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, thanked the Board for endorsing their request to be the fiscal agent for a grant they made to the American Battlefields protection program for funding, to help preserve land at Stephenson's Depot. He gave the Board an update on this project. They have met with the landowners to discuss the easements. They have signed letters from the landowners expressing their interest in moving forward with a conservation or preservation easement on the lands that are commonly called Stephenson's Depot and part of Second and Third Winchester. The application has been filed for funding by deadline of June 1. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Chairman Shickle asked Administrator Riley about Tax Relief for the Elderly Program, and where it is in the process? Administrator Riley advised it is scheduled to be brought before the Code & Ordinance Committee with their recommendation forwarded to the Board. MINUTES Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Douglas, the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 9, 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 COUNTY OFFICIALS COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS REVEREND PHILIP ROBY APPOINTED TO THE SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD FROM STONEWALL DISTRICT Upon motion made by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, Reverend Philip Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11/03 668 Roby was appointed to the Social Services Board from Stonewall District. This is a four year term. The term will commence on June 11,2003, and expire on June 30, 2007. 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 KIM DODD APPOINTED TO THE WINCHESTER-FREDERICK COUNTY TOURISM BOARD Upon motion made by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Smith, Kim Dodd was appointed to the Winchester-Frederick County Tourism Board. This is a three year term. The term will commence on June 30, 2003, and expire on June 30, 2006. This appointment is joint with the City of Winchester and is contingent upon like approval. 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 EDWARD S. STURDIVANT APPOINTED TO THE SHA WNEELAND SANITARY DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Sager, Edward S. Sturdivant was appointed to the Shawneeland Sanitary District. This is a three year term. The term will commence on July I, 2003, and expire on June 30, 2006. 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 RESOLUTION (#055-03) RE: ALLIANCE FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY AND THE CENTER FOR WATERSHED PROTECTIONRE: BUILDERS FOR THE BAY PROGRAM - DENIED Administrator Riley presented this resolution to the Board. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11/03 669 Supervisor Tyler moved to approve the resolution with Supervisor Douglas seconding the motion. The above motion was denied by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Nay Robert M. Sager - Nay Sidney A. Reyes - Nay Gina A. Forrester - Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye REOUEST FOR APPROPRIATION FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION DIRECTOR RE: IMP ACT MODELING UPDATE - APPROVED Administrator Riley presented this request to the Board. Director Patrick Barker advised the Board per their directive, that the Economic Development Commission has diligently facilitated Frederick County's Development Impact Modeling Work Group. The Work Group has reached a position on the next steps ofthis extended process. He further advised that the Work Group solicited proposals from eleven professional consultants in addition to publicly advertising. Two responses were received, one from Tischler and Associates (T A) and Springsted Associates (SA). He further advised the Work Group recommends the hiring of T A to complete a development impact model as dictated in their proposal for a lump- sum cost of$64,nO, plus $10,000 one-time licensing fee. Upon motion made by Supervisor Forrester, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, a supplemental appropriation from Fund Balance in the amount of$64,nO plus $10,000 for a one time licensing fee was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Nay 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 REOUEST FOR APPROPRIATION FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION DIRECTOR RE: OZONE EARLY ACTION PLAN - APPROVED Administrator Riley presented this request to the Board advising that Director Patrick Barker was present to answer any questions the Board might have. EDC Director Patrick Barker advised that the collective agreement by the Northern Shenandoah Valley Air Quality Improvement Task Force is that Wilbur Smith Associates, in Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11/03 670 conjunction with Environ, is the consultant of choice to complete our community Ozone Early Action Plan. Supervisor Forrester asked how long before a working model would be ready. Director Barker replied approximately six months. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, an appropriation in the amount of$55,266.00 to fund Wilbur Smith Associates was approved with the understanding that one-half of this amount will be paid by the City of Winchester. 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 RESOLUTION (#065-03)AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING RE: ANNANDALE MILLWORK/ALLIED SYSTEMS CORPORATION (ACC) - APPROVED Administrator Riley presented this information to the Board. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Sager, the MOU, (a copy of which is on file in the office of the County Administrator) and the following resolution was approved: WHEREAS, Annandale Millwork/Allied System Corporation currently operates in Frederick County, Virginia and has made known its intent to expand its operations by acquiring new real estate and equipment and adding new jobs; and WHEREAS, the company meets the policy guidelines of the Frederick County Economic Development Incentives Fund as established by the Winchester-Frederick County Economic Development Commission in 1995; BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby approve the payment of $70,000.00 to the Industrial Development Authority of Frederick County, Virginia from the Frederick County Economic Development Incentive Fund to assist in expanding Annandale Millwork/Allied System Corporation operation to include a manufacturing and distribution center for roof trusses at their Frederick County, Virginia facility. BE IT RESOLVED, that said funds are subject to an executed Memorandum of Understanding outlining the required performance criteria. BE IT FURTHERRESOL VED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does authorize the County Administrator to execute the Memorandum of Understanding on its behalf. The above resolution and MOU, as presented, wcrc approved by the following recorded vote: Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11103 671 Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, II. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda I. Tyler - Aye PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 155. TAXATION: RECENTLY ADOPTED NEW ARTICLE ENTITLED TECHNOLOGY ZONE: SECTION BOUNDARIES. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS TO AMEND THAT THE TECHNOLOGY ZONE SHALL BE THAT AREA LOCATED WITHIN THE FREDERICK COUNTY SEWER AND WATER SERVICE AREA (SWSA). AS DELINEATED BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN. RATHER THAN THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA (uDA) - APPROVED Administrator Riley presented this proposed amendment to the Board. There was no public comment. BE IT ORDAINED, that Chapter 155, Taxation; Article Entitled Technology Zone, by the Amendment of Section: Boundaries, to read as follows: CHAPTER 155 ARTICLE XXIV Technology Zone 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 base 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. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings, unless clearly indicated to the contrary: Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11103 672 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 of three (3) employees and a taxable investment of at least ten thousand dollars ($l 0,000). 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 ofthe technology zone which qualify under any ofthe 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 Ulball DGvGlopmcnt A.Ga (UDA) Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) as delineated by the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. Any future modifications to the technology zone's boundaries will parallel those ofthe l::fIM: Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). As stated in the above section, existing companies outside ofthe technology zone's boundary as of the time ofthe 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. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11103 673 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 of the 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 ofthat 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 of the 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. If a majority ofthe 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the 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. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11/03 674 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 ofreal 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 ofthe 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 ofthe application, as well as the additional criteria specified in (1), above. (3) Notwithstanding any other provisions ofthis chapter, ifthe 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) Thee applicant who initially qualifies hereunder may, thereafter, once each year for a period of five (5) years measured from the date of the 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 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 technology business is no longer occupying the subject structure if another qualified technology 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. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11/03 675 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 technology zone. Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the above amendment 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 - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 7. ELECTIONS: ARTICLE II. ELECTION PRECINCTS: SECTIONS 7-7 PRECINCTS AND RESPECTIVE POLLING PLACES ENUMERATED: AND SECTION 7-8. BOUNDARIES. THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE AT THE REOUEST OF THE VOTER REGISTRAR AND ELECTION ADMINISTRATION. THE PURPOSE IS TO RELOCATE A POLLING PLACE FOR ONE OF THE RED BUD DISTRICT PRECINCTS AND A CLARIFICATION OF PRECINCT NAMES WITHIN THE RED BUD DISTRICT. THE CHANGE OF THE POLLING PLACE WILL BE TO ESTABLISH MILLBROOK HIGH SCHOOL AS A VOTING LOCATION - APPROVED Administrator Riley presented this amendment request to the Board. County Registrar Mike Janow appeared before the Board to further explain this request. There was no public comment. Upon motion made by made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the following amendment was approved: BE IT ORDAINED, that Chapter 7, Elections; Article II, Election Precincts; to Amend Section 7-7 Precincts and Respective Polling Places Enumerated; and Section 7-8, Boundaries, to read as follows: ~ 7-7. Precincts and respective polling places enumerated. A. Back Creek Magisterial District. Precinct Polling Place Cedar Creek Precinct Gore Precinct Kemstown Precinct Russells Precinct Middletown Elementary School North Mountain Fire Hall Orchard View Elementary School Round Hill Fire Hall Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11103 676 B. Gainesboro Magisterial District. Precinct Polling Place Albin Precinct Gainesborough Precinct Redland Precinct James Wood High School Gainesboro Elementary School Indian Hollow Elementary School C. Opequon Magisterial District. Precinct Polling Place Stephens City Precinct Canterburg Precinct Newtown Precinct Bass Hoover Elementary School Sherando High School Robert E. Aylor Middle School D. Red Bud Magisterial District. Precinct Proposed Polling Place Millbrook Precinct Ash Hollow Precinct Greenwood Precinct Glcenvvuud [;1'-' Hall Millbrook High School Dowell J. Howard Vo-Tech Center SWS,-,uy Rvad DlcmGlltalY School Greenwood Fire Hall E. Shawnee Magisterial District. Precinct Polling Place Carpers Valley Precinct Shenandoah Precinct Parkin's Mill Precinct Senseny Road Elementary School Armel Elementary School Bowman Library F. Stonewall Magisterial District. Precinct Polling Place Clearbrook Precinct Neffs Town Precinct White Hall Precinct Stonewall Elementary School Red Bud Run Elementary School Apple Pie Ridge School ~ 7-8 Boundaries. C Opequon Magisterial District. (3) Newtown Precinct. Beginning at Valley Pike (US. Highway Route II South) with the northern corporate limits of the Town of Stephens City; thence in a western and southern direction with the corporate limits ofthe Town of Stephens City, to its intersection with Stephens Run (the town's southern corporate limit); thence in an eastern direction with Stephens Run to its intersection with US. Interstate Route 8l; thence in a southern direction with U.S. Interstate Route 81 to its intersection with the Warren County, Virginia line; thence in an eastern direction with the Warren County, Virginia line to its intersection with Double Church Road (State Route 641); thence in a northwestern direction with Double Church Road (State Route 641) to its intersection with Aylor Road (State Route 647); thence in a northwestern direction from Double Church Road (State Route 641) to US. Interstate Route 81 at the corporate limits of Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11103 677 the Town of Stephens City; thence along the northern corporate limits ofthe Town of Stephens City in a western direction to its intersection with Valley Pike (US. Highway Route 11 South). D. Red Bud Magisterial District. (1) MillblOOk Greenwood Precinct. Beginning at the intersection of Valley Mill Road (State Route 659) with Greenwood Road (State Route 656); thence in an eastern direction with Valley Mill Road (State Route 659) to its intersection with Berryville Pike (Virginia Primary Route 7 East); thence in a eastern direction with Berryville Pike (Virginia Primary Route 7 East) to its intersection with the Clarke County, Virginia line at Opequon Creek; thence in a southern direction with the Clarke County, Virginia line along Opequon Creek to its intersection with Sulpher Spring Road (State Route 655) thence in an western direction with Sulpher Spring Road (State Route 655) to its intersection with Greenwood Road (State Route 656); thence in a northern direction with Greenwood Road (State Route 656) to its intersection with Valley Mill Road (State Route 659). (2) A~I, IIulluVv Millbrook Precinct Beginning at the intersection of Berryville Pike (Virginia Primary Route 7 East) with US. Interstate Route 81 (the eastern corporate limits ofthe City of Winchester); thence in a eastern direction with Berryville Pike (Virginia Primary Route 7 East) to its intersection with Valley Mill Road (State Route 659); thence in a southern and western direction with Valley Mill Road (State Route 659) to its intersection with Berryville Pike (Virginia Primary Route 7 East) and US. Interstate Route 81 (the eastern corporate limits of the City of Winchester). (3) Glcm~ood Ash Hollow Precinct. Beginning at the intersection of Berryville Pike (Virginia Primary Route 7 East) with U.S. Interstate Route 81 (the eastern corporate limits ofthe City of Winchester); thence in an eastern direction with Berryville Pike (Virginia Primary Route 7 East) to its intersection with Valley Mill Road (State Route 659); thence in an eastern direction with Valley Mill Road (State Route 659) to its intersection with Greenwood Road (State Route 656); thence in a southern direction with to its intersection with Greenwood Road (State Route 656) to its intersection with Senseny Road (State Route 657); thence in a western direction with Senseny Road (State Route 657) to the intersection of US. Interstate Route 81 (the eastern corporate limits ofthe City of Winchester); thence in a northern direction with US. Interstate Route 81 (the eastern corporate limits of the City of Winchester) to its intersection with Berryville Pike (Virginia Primary Route 7 East). 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 PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 155. TAXATION: TO ESTABLISH A NEW ARTICLE XXV ENTITLED EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROPOSED ADDITION IS TO PROVIDE REAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTION STATUS TO DESIGNATED NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS - APPROVED Assistant Administrator Tierney presented this request to the Board. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11103 678 There was no public comment. Upon motion made by Supervisor Reyes, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the following amendment was approved: Whereas, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors has learned that the Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-3651 was recently enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia; Whereas, the text ofthose new statues allow the county, by ordinance, to exempt qualified organizations from real estate taxation; Now, Therefore, Be It Ordained, that a new article entitled Exemption from Taxation be added to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 155 to read as follows: CHAPTER 155 ARTICLE XXV Exemption from Taxation Property Exempted from Taxation by Designation The real property of an organization designated by a section within this article and used by such organization exclusively for a religious, charitable, patriotic, historical, benevolent, cultural or public park and playground purpose as set forth in Article X, Section 6(a) ofthe Constitution of Virginia, the particular purpose of which such organization is classified being specifically set forth within each section, shall be exempt from taxation so long as such organization is operated not for profit and the property so exempted is used in accordance with the purpose for which the organization is classified. In addition, such exemption may be revoked in accordance with the provisions of 58.1-3605. Exemptions of property from taxation under this article shall be strictly constructed in accordance with the provisions of Article X, Section (6)(f) of the Constitution of Virginia. Fort Collier Civil War Center, Inc. (Property Identification Number 54-A-81G) 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 PUBLIC HEARING - PURSUANT TO SECTION 33.1-151 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA. 1950. PUBLIC INPUT WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE PROPOSED ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF SECONDARY ROUTE 660 (WRlGHTS MILL ROAD) FROM 0.43 MILE NORTH OF ROUTE 645 TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY LINE. A DISTANCE OF 0.17 MILE. THIS ABANDONMENT WILL RESULT IN THE CLOSING OF THE ROUTE 660 FORD AT THE OPEOUON CREEK - PULLED DUE TO INCORRECT INFORMATION - TO BE RESCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/1 I/03 679 PUBLIC HEARING- UPDATE OF THE NORTHEAST LAND USE PLAN (NELUP). THE NORTHEAST LAND USE PLAN. A COMPONENT OF FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN. CONTAINS GENERAL LAND USE CONCEPTS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE NORTHEASTERN PORTION OF FREDERICK COUNTY- NO ACTION - NORTHEAST LAND USE PLAN (NELUP) WILL REMAIN AS IT CURRENTLY IS FOR NOW Planning Director Eric Lawrence presented this information to the Board advising that during the past twelve months the County has been revisiting the NELUP. This plan was adopted in September of2000 by the Board of Supervisors and made part of the 2000 Comprehensive Policy Plan for the County. At the Board Meeting of May 28, 2003, the Board revised the Developmentally Sensitive Areas in reference to the Stephensons' Depot Area. The alternatives before you tonight have had the (DSA) incorporated to reflect the meeting of May 28. In June of 2002, the Board directed staffto reexamine recommended land uses and policies included in the Northeast Land Use Plan, specifically the Board's directive included 5 points for review, location and amount ofland designated for industrial use, recognition of numerous historical sites and areas, examination of policies regarding provisions of sewer and water, the rural community centers, as well as for provisions for the sewer and water service area. Incorporate changes, such as rezonings, which would have occurred over the past couple of areas, within the study area. Inclusion of citizen liaison input, and public meetings throughout the process. The Comprehensive Plans and Programs subcommittee reviewed this starting in July of last year, and after six months of discussions forwarded a recommendation of Alternative #3, (located behind Supervisor Smith). Staffpresented Alternatives that came out of the committee, and this information was taken to the Planning Commission in February, and subsequently to the Board of Supervisor on February 12,2003, as a discussion item. Staff was directed to hold community meetings, as a result of the February 12, meeting, to solicit comments from the community on these four alternative plans. This was done and the information brought back to the Board on April 23, 2003. Staff was directed to schedule public hearings for this project. The Board motioned a preference for Alternative #4, but suggested that all four Alternatives be taken through the public hearing process. On June 21, the Planning Commission held public hearings to review the four Alternative Plans. The Board's preference for Alternative #4 was mentioned to the Planning Commission, but at the same time staff presented all four Alternatives to the Planning Commission. A motion was made at the Planning Commission meeting for a hybrid, if you will, of Alternative #3, not identical of Alternative #3, but similar Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11/03 680 characteristics, that motion failed, and a subsequent motion for Alternative #4 was raised at the Planning Commission and that is what is before the Board tonight. At this time Director Lawrence reviewed the four Alternatives that were being presented to the Board. Supervisor Forrester advised that she wanted to bring forward a modification Titled Alternative B. She felt it would be easier for the Board and everyone concerned to have a map in front of them. She advised that she tried to get it to everyone ahead of time. She felt it would help tonight ifthe community could see it. She asked Director Lawrence to explain the map at this time. Director Lawrence advised with this Alternative, which Supervisor Forrester has raised, it is very similar to, he guessed it is a hybrid of a couple of the Alternatives. You have commercial concentration around the interstate interchanges. All the development stays west of the rail line, so the sewer and water service area would actually follow the rail line down to Clearbrook, pick up Route 11, down to this area, and basically continue south. Most of your development is going to be non-residential, it is going to be commerciallindustrial. It will be generally speaking, west of Route 11 and up in this area, you are going west ofthe rail lines, commercial concentrations again at your interstate interchanges. Supervisor Forrester asked that this information be passed out in the event the Board members did not have it. She also included the verbiage that staff has worked up as far as what the acreage IS. Chairman Shickle asked ifthere was any other discussion or questions for staff? Brenda Berry, Shawnee District, asked the Board not to vote for Alternative #4. She feels rural areas should remain rural. High density development will turn our beautiful valley and our county into another Loudoun County, or worse yet, a Fairfax County. Jeff Rezin, Back Creek District, addressed the Ozone Early Action Plan and Air Quality Improvement that is being worked on together between Frederick County and the City of Winchester. Feels Stephenson Village will provide our community with environmentally sustainable design opportunity. Tom Stephenson, Stonewall District, addressed the numbers that were on the Alternatives presented by staff at the public meetings, and there are some disparities. Stonewall District has 12% Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11/03 681 of Frederick County's total area. Stonewall District currently has 55% of the County's M 1 industrial zoning. Stonewall District currently has 48% of the County's M2 zoning. Stonewall District has 40% of the B3 zoning, land that is currently zoned, any oftheAlternatives 1,3, or4 will increase the Ml and M2 proportions in Stonewall District. He urged the Board to cut down on the industrial development in the Stonewall District, share the wealth somewhere else. Dennis Kennedy, Gainesboro District, asked i fthese battles have not been fought before over the same land in Stephenson? He feels Alternative #4 is a direct slap in the face of Stephenson and Frederick County. Alternative #4 replaces industrial with high density residential. Map #4 represents business as usual and the fleecing of Frederick County taxpayers. It does not represent smart growth. He does not see how a plan of this magnitude can even be taken seriously. Nancy Simbeck, representing Top of Virginia Builders Association, supports Alternative #4. This shows a good mixed use plan, and then we can, in the future, debate the specific merits of any project brought forward for rezoning. Doug Cochran, Stonewall District, does not agree with designation, of what is commonly referred to as the ----- as industrial, business R4 or UDA. His concern is there are three incorrect thought processes being used by the members of the Board to justify the proposed R4 designation over the documented objections of the residents of Stonewall District. He asked the Board not to sell the citizens of Stonewall District out now by telling us you are saving us future pain. Sam Lehman, Back Creek District, the argument that high density clustering of development is going to preserve rural land, is false. What it will do is dispose rural land owners. What the three financial experts is, is pure bologna. He does not agree with the statement that clustering saves the building of roads. Bill Daley, Back Creek District, referred to a hearing many years ago in a County far away from Frederick County where a governing body adopted charts similar to those directly behind the Board of Supervisors, and when you drive 60 miles to the east you will be in Fairfax County, and see the result. He feels the decision before the Board tonight is a very simple one, do you want Frederick County to look like Fairfax or Manassas or any ofthe other clogged areas to the east, and if you do, that is your vision for the future, vote for Alternative #4. Minnte Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11/03 682 Glen Penton, Stonewall District, we have all been through this process for the past two years, and he feels this is quite difficult, quite mixed up. He feels this is sounding very much like a rezoning hearing. This is the Northeast Corridor Land Use Plan, not a zoning hearing. No one that he has ever talked to in Stonewall District is interested in 2800 houses. Bill Shepherd, Gainesboro District, we currently have approximately 8,000 lots in the UDA, lots in which density housing will be built. Housing that does not pay in taxes what it consumes in services. Every house built in the UDA represents a tax increase. Why are we thinking about expanding the UDA? David Hurd, Stonewall District, over the last couple of years he has been talking with a number of fellow citizens, and the predominant interest in the Stonewall District is to maintain a rural atmosphere, 95% ofthe residents wants this. He referred to the election in Fairfax County held yesterday where the former chairman of the board of supervisors was defeated for his attempt to come back on the board. The message sent there, was your time has passed. You did the building in Fairfax County. We want to do something different. David Darsie, Stonewall District, wanted to show the Board hard facts that show part of the human cost of out of control growth. His model is very simple, it is Route 7 east in Frederick County, it is less than four miles. He knows it all too well as he traveled it to work every day for the last twenty-two years. He has spoken at many meetings like this, about his concerns. He referred to a graph that was passed out to the Board. He referred to data supplied to him from the Virginia State Police addressing the official crash data for the past five years on this less than four miles stretch of highway. Twenty eight injuries last year, due to crashes, on this section of road. He asked the Board not to vote to expand the UDA. Shannon Daley, Stonewall District, grew up in Loudoun County. We are talking about smart growth and growth in this county is inevitable. We are seeing that growth already. Working in northern Virginia is easier than working in Frederick County. Smart growth is the key. The growth is going to come. Cindy Brockwell, Back Creek District, referred to two of the previous speakers, re: smart growth. Smart growth is when the growth occurs around existing infrastructure, and it occurs at a rate that is sustainable, that is the definition of smart growth. The resources are not available in Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11/03 683 Frederick County yet, to support any type of development that is any where close to Alternative #4. There is no train service in this entire county. She asked that this be tabled until the Board deals with the Stephens City issue and rail service is available in the county. Katherine Whitesell, Stonewall District, advised that she wanted to clarifY that she does fully support the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation and their grant regarding Stephensons Depot Battlefield. She is very confident that the membership ofthis Foundation Board does not support an urban development area on core battlefield. She preceded to read a letter addressed to Chairman Shickle outlining her concerns about possibly not being able to get this grant. She does not favor Alternative #4. Kevin Kennedy, Gainesboro District, advised that he could not get away from the word extortion. You approve these 2800 houses. You are going to get that industrial park back in your face again, so you better do this. This is a zoning change coming out of a land use plan. There are battlefield concerns here. It appears to him that there is part ofthe core battlefield in the UDA. He asked the Board why would they do that? Mary Ann Posey, Stonewall District, advised a number of people are forgetting that this piece of property is in the Comprehensive Plan for industrial. She is not willing to risk the next election to lose this to industrial as we have come too far and fought too hard for this for our community. She feels Supervisor Tyler and Mr. Shockey are putting honest intentions into this plan. Mr. Shockey advised he would work with the neighbors and she does not feel he has been given much of a chance. Vaughn Fora, Red Bud District, is in favor of Alternative #4. Smart growth, as a concept, preserves open space and lowers cost of public service and protects our quality oflife. He is a home owner in the community. Pat Gouchenour, Red Bud District, referred to a speech she made in high school, and the honors she received for this speech. She felt parts of this speech applied to this subject being discussed. Mike McMillan, Opequon District, it is clear to him on each side of tonight's discussion people understand that there are very serious consequences associated with Alternative #4. Whether they consider those consequences to be good or bad, is not really important. The fact that many Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11/03 684 consequences are associated with it, and the question for the Board is, are you prepared? Are you prepared for those consequences? We have no vision or stated strategy for this County at this point as a Board. That says to him that we are not prepared. Pam Kennedy, Gainesboro District, we are face to face with our destiny and we must meet with a high and resolute courage. Frederick County is facing its destiny. Within 2 years Frederick County, as we know it, will be unrecognizable for the following reasons, which she stated. Why is it necessary to develop every square foot of undeveloped land, where is it written, show her? This is not smart growth. This is a calculated effort to engender a new type of sprawl. We care and we ask the Board to show they care as well. Sharon Boyd, Gainesboro District, referred to what the Board and people ofthe County went through two years ago. She held up letters and newspapers. She does not feel Shockey will destroy the battlefield. She asked what is a clean alternative to industry? She also asked what about those citizens that would be living next to 2800 homes. Greg Aiken, Stonewall District, he and his wife Tonie Wallace own Jordan Springs. They enjoy history, thus one of their reasons for purchasing Jordan Springs. We have to embrace the change, or else we will die, and we have to be flexible. He favors Alternative #4 as he feels history can work hand in hand with the future. He appreciates the Board's time and their effort. James Stillwell, Stonewall District, would ask the Board to adopt a plan at this meeting. He does not feel Alternative #3 is good as there is too much industrial. Shockey has worked very hard with the citizens and many groups to try and resolve something on the property. He does not feel that Alternative #4, as drawn, is correct. It has UDA lines on too many areas ofthe battlefield. It has other UDA lines that might need to be modified slightly. Asked ifmaybe a remedy to this would be to mark it residential with a limited density. He is not referring to zoning, which can occur at some future date. If Shockey is willing to give up the Civil War site and do some other things that would tie into the Red Bud District, he feels he deserves to be rewarded with extra density. He feels density should not exceed one unit per acre. Ty Lawson, local attorney, appeared before the Board on behalf of Stephenson Associates. He advised the Board the reason they are here tonight is to simply update the Northeast Land Use Plan. He has heard a great deal before this meeting about rezoning issues, and the fact remains Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11/03 685 there is no rezoning before this Board tonight. We are not here to talk about a planned community with its park and school sites, soccer and ballfields, and recreation centers. The issue tonight is the Land Use Plan. Four Alternatives are before the Board tonight in addition to B. The fact remains that Alternative #4 is the Alternative preferred previously by this Board and has been recommended by the Planning Commission for approval. Pursuant to the County's only survey of those individuals that expressed an opinion, stated that they preferred Alternative #4. Alternative #4 is also the only viable alternative for the Northeast Land Use Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is and has been slated for industrial. An industrial plan was submitted and rejected. It is not agricultural land, as we all know it is poor soil. This area has been confirmed by this Board to be served by public sewer and water. The Northeast Land Use Plan should be R4, and that is again the land use, the majority of the people, surveyed by the County, preferred. He asked the Board to vote tonight to confirm R4 land use for the Northeast Plan. Mark Stivers, Stonewall District, his life with the Northeast Land Use Plan began in December of 1999. He had the opportunity at that time to serve as a liaison for the citizenry of Stonewall. He has followed, very intently, what has been happening with this particular area ever since. His concern is that he does not feel the Board is ready. He feels we need to move forward. He wants more than anything for this community a win, win situation. He feels many struggled and labored very hard during the last rezoning application that pertained, what has commonly been referred to as "the lungs", in the current Northeast Land Use Plan. He does not feel we should lose site ofthe fact that the Shockey Companies have demonstrated, unequivocally a willingness to work with the community. He does not feel it would be fair to conclude that citizenry hasn't also expressed a willingness to work toward some medium or happy ground. He feels some of the objections that have been raised tonight about Alternative #4 are valid concerns. Even though it as been said, that we are not here to debate the zoning issue tonight, yet in a round about way we are doing exactly that. He asked the Board to permit more time to reach a compromise. John Good, Jr., Stonewall District, urged the Board to support Alternative #4. He advised it has taken a lot of rewiring to get him out of the industrial mode and into the residential planned community. He is convinced this is the path to take. The County's ordinance states that R4 is quote, "An appropriate balance between residential employment and service uses." He feels this is Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11103 686 important to be remembered as this issue is further considered. The major landowners affected strongly support this. Referred to two letters Don Shockey and Judith McCann Slaughter had sent to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors requesting that they consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Policy Plan to change the Land Use designation for their properties from future industrial land to future residential planned community. Evan Wyatt, Red Bud District, advising that he agrees with several ofthe previous speakers. The issue this evening is a land use issue for the update of the Northeast Land Use Plan, not a rezoning, as that is another issue for another day. The issue tonight is should the Board prefer Land Use Alternative #4 for residential planned use be something that is received favorably by this Board as recommended by the Planning Commission. He addressed residential planned communities. The residential planned community land use designation does represent smart growth principles and good planning practice, which will provide for the future growth ofthe community. He does concur with the Board on the preferred Alternative #4. Mark Smith, Greenway Engineering, advised as you go through comprehensive planning and land use, in this area, R4 makes a lot of sense, and the reason it makes sense is because ofland mass. You do have the ability to plan. You have the ability to plan regionally. The land plans give guidance and direction. Diane McMillian, Opequon District, does not want a 2800 house development anywhere in Frederick County. Due to developments such as this Loudoun County built 33 schools in the last nine years. Their budget went from $89 million to $866 million in the same period oftime. The 20% increase that Frederick County residents saw this year will be nothing. We have no metro, no jobs to support this. This will be the beginning of the end ofthe quality oflife we know. Asked the Board to say no to Alternative #4. Howard Kittell, wanted to clarify a point regarding the values of the battlefield area in any of the Alternatives. An appraisal is being done at this time for the battlefield area, and is almost completed. The appraisal is based on the appraiser looking at the current comprehensive plan that calls for that land use to be industrial. Any of the changes now would be changing that industrial proposed use to a lower use, even within the urban development area. The likelihood that any of Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11/03 687 these changes would actually reduce land value, rather than increase are at best a moot point. He does not want the battlefield to become a football in another contest. Jim Lawrence, Stonewall District, wanted to echo the sentiments of Mr. Stillwell, and Mr. Stivers in terms of the possibilities afforded to a modified Alternative#4 Plan. He would also like to bring to the Board's attention the tremendous amount of effort that has been put forth by Mr. Shockey and his associates, Mr. Wyatt in particular. The tremendous amount of work that has been put forth in the protection of historic and natural resources on this property. Mike D-?, Stonewall District, is not prepared to speak, but has been doing a lot oflistening. He has heard a lot of sales talk here tonight, beware of the sales talk. You need to look around at the community you live in now. You need to look at the roads you travel now. Go down Route 7 in the evening look toward the east and see the traffic coming from that direction. You stop at the traffic light at Sheetz and you sit there for 45 minutes waiting to go over the bridge at Route 81, there are no accidents it is just density. On a Friday afternoon when you are trying to get off of Route 81 north bound onto Route II south, you are actually sitting out on Route 81, stopped in the right lane with all the north bound traffic trying to get around you. It is not safe, it is not good, it is not planned. The five million dollar bridge at Rest Church should have gone in way before the Flying J Truck Stop ever thought about going in. Don Shockey, Stephenson Associates, this is not a rezoning, but a discussion about the Northeast Land Use Plan. It is proposed to take this land in Stephenson from an industrial park to a planned residential community. Should the Board vote to go with Alternative #4 he will not take it as an endorsement of any anticipated rezoning, rezoning is a separate issue. What goes into an R4 district, how many houses, road improvements, ballparks, shops, etc. that is a discussion for another day. The neighbors that live near this land have overwhelmingly said that they want this land to be planned residential, not industrial. What that planned residential community will look like has been an educational process for him and the neighborhood. They have listened to their neighbors, they are flexible and the neighbors know that. This Board should embrace R4 because it gives you more control, a better opportunity to create a quality community and he gives his word to listen to their concerns, be flexible in the discussion of the planned community as it should be. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11/03 688 Supervisor Sager, if Alternative #4 is not supported, what is the land use plan that will be used? Director Lawrence advised if the Board does not make a decision tonight, then the current land use plan that has been on the books for the last two years is the active land use plan. Supervisor Sager, which is not 1,2,3,4, or anything out there. Director Lawrence advised it is close to #3, but you are correct, it is not 1,2,3, or 4. Supervisor Tyler advised that she has met with a number of residents within the community that has concerns about the urban development area on the battlefield. The sewer water service area currently goes around that, correct. There is an opportunity then if we want to preserve that battlefield, that to her, it does not make any sense to have urban development designation on it. That is a possibility, the Board can give directive to do pretty much what they want to do with it, is that correct. Director Lawrence replied that is correct. Supervisor Tyler advised with the R4 designation, is the thought process for that density four units per acre, is that correct? Director Lawrence advised that the R4 zoning ordinance allows for density up to four units per acre. Through this land use exercise, the board, you all, get to designate what density you think is appropriate. Supervisor Tyler, so that does not mean we have to rewrite our ordinance? Director Lawrence, not at all. Supervisor Tyler advised that she had been accused of not getting out of her community. She has been accused of not listening to the people, she has been accused of all sorts ofthings. She has been accused of not making eye contact with individuals, not returning e-mails that she has been CCD on, and not directed to. She has a lot of issues with some of the things that have been said here. She spends every day in her community. She goes to Ellis Market, ballfields with 400 people around her every single night as a member ofthe board and in charge ofthat. She spends time at the landfill and at the convenience sites, and she sits there and listens to people. She opens her mouth and asks them directly, and she has heard from substantial number of people who would like to see Frederick County start planning their community. What happens if we don't plan our community, Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meetiug of 06/11/03 689 is what happened last month. Last month we had close to 400 lots plotted in the rural area, if you think that is sustainable, she takes issue with that. That battlefield is going to be preserved. She moved to adopt Alternative #4 with the exception of the battlefield DSA being outside ofthe, the elimination of the urban development area in there. This is not a rezoning and we will handle that battle when it comes. Supervisor Forrester amended the motion by striking out the motion to approve Alternative #4 and inserting it with a motion to approve modified Alternative B ofthe Northeast Land Use Plan drafted June 9, 2003. Supervisor Reyes seconded the motion. Chairman Shickle advised that we have a motion to amend Supervisor Tyler's motion. He asked if everyone understood the amendment? There was no response to indicate they did not understand the amendment. Chairman Shickle asked if everyone was ready to vote? Supervisor Forrester advised she would like to have some discussion. Supervisor Forrester advised she would like for the Board to listen to some of her reasons of why she feels the Board should go with modification Alternative B which is before the Board on the left. With the addition of Supervisor Tyler's comment of removing the urban development area from the battlefield. The reasons we should go with this modification is it supports the rural character of this area, which is in keeping with what the residents have stated is what they prefer. It supports the Developmentally Sensitive Area which keeps the Stephensons Depot Battlefield in the condition that the Civil War Preservation Trust and the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Network groups want in order for them to continue working toward preservation. It will place the sewer and water service area parallel with 1-81 and Route 11 north to support a business corridor which makes good use ofthree highway interchanges as well as use of our railroad. It does not support 2800 high density homes, which will bring with it the need for more schools, transportation improvements to Route 7 and 11 minimumly, not to mention, what providing these will cost us in future tax increases. We say we are here tonight to not consider a land use rezoning, but what we are doing is choosing to adopt a land use plan which will either open the door for Alternative #4, which is coming through the pipe with 2800 houses, or it will make it more difficult for this kind of high density growth to Miuute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11103 690 occur. We received a request this past Monday, the CPPS for another 1900 acres, which will be right adjacent to this property. They asked for a designation that will increase sewer and water service area as well as the UDA. They started with the sewer and water service area. This Alternative #4, she knows that Mr. Shockey has tried to work hard and he has tried to meet with the citizens, but it is not a good example of what a planned urban development should be for R4. It proposes 95% residential and only 5% business. The purpose of a planned urban development is for folks to be able to live, work and shop within this planned urban development. With only 5% business proposed, she doubts there will be real employment opportunities within this PUD, not to mention any business tax revenue for the County for years to come. Alternative #4 would open the door for the Shockey project. It is an impact, not just to the residents of Stonewall, it is an impact to all the residents of Pre de rick County. Without this proposed plan, which would add 30% to our housing, we already today have a need for a middle school, and an elementary school. Next year we are already planning for a real estate reassessment which means high real estate taxes. This year we raised taxes 12 cents, and we still were not able to fund all the needs in the County, and we had to make some really hard cuts, which are going to show up in lower quality of service to our residents. The Shockey proffers are positioned to look like they will pick up more costs associated with this project. These numbers are based on using an outdated capital facilities fiscal impact model. Tonight, we voted and approved having this model updated so our Board and future Boards will know the real cost of any new development in today's dollars, not yesterday's dollars, not what it cost a decade ago. Transportation is an issue, it was an issue with the Shockey industrial park application, it is still an issue with this project. Route 7 and Route 11 north will be unbearable. We have a new high school and elementary school right there within this proximity. It will be a disaster. VDOT and the applicant's engineers have tried to foresee traffic problems, but we know they cannot anticipate everything, for if they could, we would never be in the position of needing road improvements in this County. We all know as a result of new projects that have sprung up over the last decade, that there are plenty of places in our districts and County, which need VDOT improvements now, but there are little VDOT dollars available. Our VDOT dollars are scarce, and to add this type of residential development would take precious dollars away from Mr. Sager's district, Harrington's district, and yes, her district. These are the areas which are now planned for Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11103 691 urban high density growth, not the Northeast Land Use area. We are not ready to open up a new frontier for growth when we can't provide infrastructure in a timely manner for the growth that is already here, that is already taking place, that is already in the pipeline. As Mr. Golliday was quoted in Tuesday's Winchester Star, "we never created the sewer and water service area to serve anything but business and industrial property. The reason the proposed Stephenson Village lies in the SWSA is because it is still planned as industrial in the County's Comprehensive Plan, which may change as early as Wednesday." A vote for modified Alternative B would fix this. It would pull the SWSA in so that it parallels Route 81, Route 11 north and no longer have it extending into our rural areas, and she hopes the Board will consider this tonight. Chairman Shickle, other discussion? Supervisor Sager, having just received this tonight, he has looked over them, but he is not so sure that he has had sufficient time for the Alternative B proposal to really ask questions, etc., and he is approaching this as not really understanding exactly everything that he is looking at. Supervisor Forrester, point of clarification. Mr. Sager I sent out these maps earlier in the week, and you should have received your copies. Supervisor Tyler advised that she did not receive her map. She received an e-mail this afternoon. Supervisor Sager advised he did not receive anything. Supervisor Forrester advised staff sent them out yesterday morning. Staff mailed them to your e-mail addresses. She advised Supervisor Sager that she called him and left a message to make sure. Supervisor Sager advised yes, today. Supervisor Forrester again repeated her amendment to the motion. The amendment to the motion was defeated by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Nay Robert M. Sager - Nay Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. -Nay Margaret B. Douglas - Nay Lynda J. Tyler - Nay Chairman Shickle, the amendment to the motion fails. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11/03 692 Chairman Shickle, I had a motion, the amendment to it failed, I am waiting on a second. Chairman Shickle , there is not a second? Then the motion dies for lack of a second. Supervisor Forrester, can I go ahead a make a new motion? Chairman Shickle, is it significantly different from the amendment? Supervisor Forrester, it is not the amendment, but it is the same motion. Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Forrester we could go through that process, but I think it failed, if we can't look at a new subject, what is the use? Supervisor Forrester, advised that she thought that previously some of the members wanted to see how the vote would go down on Supervisor Tyler's vote before deciding on this second motion, so now that they know how that went down, she would like to see how they feel about the modified plan. Chairman Shickle advised he would allow that. Supervisor Forrester moved to approve modified Alternative B of the Northeast Land Use Plan, which was drafted June 9, 2003. Supervisor Smith seconded the motion. Chairman Shickle advised he was allowing that because of the previous vote. The above motion was defeated by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Nay Robert M. Sager - Nay Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, II. - Nay Margaret B. Douglas - Nay Lynda J. Tyler - Nay Chairman Shickle, the message is clear. Asked if there was another alternative action that the Board wants to consider, or should we move forward on the agenda? He takes it that the Land Use Plan, for the time being, stays as is. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 165. ZONING ORDINANCE. ARTICLE IV. SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS; SECTION 165-24. HEIGHT LIMITATIONS; EXCEPTIONS. WHICH ADDRESSES HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR ACCESSORY PARTS OF SCHOOL STRUCTURES-APPROVED Planner II Jeremy Camp presented this request to the Board advising the proposed amendment to Section 165-24; height limitations; exceptions, would allow a height exemption, up Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06111103 693 to 75 feet, for portions of school buildings which are accessory and inconsequential to the primary use of the building. Therefore, gymnasium ceilings, sloped roofs, and stage towers would qualify for this exemption; whereas, classrooms and offices would not qualify. Just as with the other height exemptions in Section 165-24, an increased setback will be required for every foot a building exceeds the maximum height of the underlying zoning district. He further advised this proposed amendment was initially proposed by Greenway Engineering on behalf of the Lord Fairfax Community College. He further advised that the County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed amendment at their public hearing held on June 4. Evan Wyatt with Greenway Engineering appeared before the Board asking that they endorse this amendment. Upon motion made by Supervisor Forrester, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the following ordinance amendment was approved: ~ 165-24. Height limitations; exceptions. [Amended 4-10-1991] A. No structure shall exceed the height limitations described in this chapter. B. Exceptions to height requirements. (1) The maximum height requirements shall not apply to the following: a) Barns and silos. b) Belfries. c) Bulkheads. d) Chimneys. e) Church spires and towers. t) Flagpoles. g) Monuments. h) Domes and skylights. i) Masts and aerials. j) Radio and television transmission towers and commercial telecommunication facilities [Amended 4-9-1997] k) Smokestacks and cooling towers. 1) Utility poles and towers. m) Water tanks n) Windmills. (2) Parapet walls may be up to four feet above the height ofthe building on which the walls rest. (3) Solar collectors, air conditioners and other mechanical equipment may exceed the height limitations if they are screened from the public view of surrounding properties and rights-of-way. (4) Automated storage facilities in the Ml and M2 Zoning Districts shall be exempt from the maximum height requirement. This exemption shall be granted only when the facility is provided with full sprinkling for fire protection according to the specifications of Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regnlar Meeting of 06/11/03 694 applicable codes. Such exemptions shall be approved by the Frederick County Fire Marshal. In no case shall the height of these facilities exceed 100 feet in height. (5) All of the above exceptions shall be alIowed only if they accomplish the purpose for which they are intended, ifthey are not intended for human occupancy and if they do not infringe on the solar access of surrounding properties. (6) General office buildings in the B2 and B3 Zoning Districts and hotel and motel buildings in the B2 Zoning District shall be exempt from the maximum height requirement of those zoning districts. In no case shall the height of such buildings exceed 60 feet. When such exemptions are proposed adjacent to existing residential uses, the Planning Commission shall review the site development plan pursuant to the provisions of 9165-37A(3). [Added 3-8-2000 EN] (7) Buildings used for schools without residential components may exceed the maximum height of the underlying zoning district. The only portions of buildings used for schools without residential components that may exceed the height in the underlying zoning district are those which are accessory and inconsequential to the primary function of the building. In no case shall any portion of the building exceed 75 feet in height. ffl (8) If any of the above exceptions exceed the height limitation of the proposed zoning district, the structure shall be required to be set back the normal setback or required buffer distance plus one foot for every foot over the maximum alIowed height of that zoning district. [Added 6-9-1993; amended 3-8-2000] 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 OTHER PLANNING ITEMS REVISIONS TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (CIP) PROCESS - APPROVED Senior Planner Abbe Kennedy advised the Board had directed staff to research other jurisdictions and the methods they use in forming their respective Capital Improvements Plans. She is providing the following information for their review and consideration: Planning Staff researched the roles assigned to various departments in other localities in the project prioritization process, and the role of the Planning Commission in ensuring conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Included in this information is a table outlining the methods used by these other localities. Planner Kennedy further advised that staff is seeking direction regarding the scope and timing of desired procedural modifications regarding the proposed CIP process revisions. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11/03 695 This proposed process revision suggests serious directional change to the existing format of the CIP; implementation of this plan will take extensive staff and CPPS time. Supervisor Forrester asked if the first project would be delayed? Chairman Shickle stated that he did not see that there was a requirement that this be started this June versus any June. It would be done on an annual basis, correct? Planner Kennedy replied that was correct. Supervisor Tyler asked if we leave the CIP process the way it is now, with the exercise the Board went through this year where everyone got jumbled up, individual departments, that won't happen again, is that correct? Planner Kennedy replied that is correct. Chairman Shickle asked Administrator Riley for his thoughts on the work load and the time table? Administrator Riley replied after discussing this with staff, they feel this is the most appropriate way to try and address this issue and spread the work load a little. Upon motion by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the revised CIP process was approved, as presented. 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, May 27, 2003, at 8:00 a.m. All members were present. The following items were discussed: ***Items Requiring Action*** 1. Transfer Request - Refuse Collection Bud~et - Approved The Director of Public Works requested a transfer of funds within the refuse collection budget to accommodate the paving of the county's refuse collection sites which were adversely Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11/03 696 impacted during the recent winter. The attached memorandum dated May 23, 2003, highlights the request and provides specific line item references. (Attachment 1) A motion was made by Jim Wilson and seconded by George Ludwig to approve the proposed $55,400 transfer. The motion was unanimously approved by the committee. Upon motion made by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Sager, 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 1. Tyler - Aye **Items Not Requiring Action*** 1. Review Reauest from Private Citizen The committee reviewed and unanimously denied a request from a Frederick County citizen to allow her neighbors who live in Shenandoah County to dispose oftheir refuse at the Star Tannery dumpster site. The committee did not want to set a precedent and did not believe that Frederick County should provide trash disposal to non tax paying citizens from another county. (Attachment 2) 2. Certification Requirement for Residential Site Plans The committee reviewed a proposed policy change within the erosion and sediment control application requirements which would require an engineer's certification letter in addition to the as- built plan requirement. After much discussion, the committee tabled the issue until such time that Jim Vickers has an opportunity to obtain input from the local building community. (Attachment 3) 3. Suvvlemental Avvrovriation: Old Court House Frederick County has finally received approval of a federal grant in the amount of $150,000 for the renovation of the old court house. In particular, the grant will be used to renovate the old court room. A supplemental appropriation in this amount will be required prior to proceeding with the development of design documents and the subsequent construction activity. A motion was made by Jim Vickers and seconded by George Ludwig to endorse the request for a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $150,000 for the referenced renovation. The motion was unanimously approved and will be forwarded to the Finance Committee for their review and approval. 4. Carrv Forward Requests (Fiscal Year 2002/2003 to Fiscal Year 200312004) The committee reviewed and unanimously endorsed the proposed carry forwards outlined in attachments 4 through 6. These items will be submitted to the Finance Committee for their review and action prior to submittal to the board of supervisors. 5. Miscellaneous Reports a) Tonnage Report (see Attachment 7) b) Recycling Report (see Attachment 8) Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11/03 697 c) Animal Shelter Dog Report (see Attachment 9) d) Animal Shelter Cat Report (see Attachment 10) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Supervisor Sager asked if our schools are zoned RA? Administrator Riley replied no. Administrator Riley asked if the Committee Reports could be moved to the first part ofthe agenda, as they were before the Rules of Procedure were adopted? Board members were in agreement with this request. Supervisor Forrester thanked the Planning Department for their research on the CIP report. UPON MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR SMITH, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR FORRESTER, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. (TIME: 9:15 P.M.) Qs ~ ~---L,,--, Ricbard C. Shickle Chairman, Board of Supervisors FJl~-t 1- John "ley, Jr. Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minutes Prepared By: &. -J .7 \..7<0 'fl. '^ ./I) Carol T. Bayliss Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 06/11/03