Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 09, 1985 Regular Meeting185 A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on October 9, 1995, at 7:30 P.M., in the Board of Supervisor's Meeting Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT: Kenneth Y. Stiles, Chairman; Will L. Owings, Vice - Chairman; Robert M. Rhodes; Rhoda W. Maddox; Thomas B. Throckmorton and C. William Orndoff, Jr. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order. INVOCATION The invocation was delivered by the Reverend J. William Hough of the Braddock Street United Methodist Church. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Upon motion made by C. William Orndoff, Jr., seconded by Robert P.A. Rhodes and passed unanimously, the Agenda was adopted as submitted. COUNTY OFFICIALS Upon motion made by C. William Orndoff, Jr., seconded by Robert M. Rhodes and passed unanimously, the Board tabled the two resolutions of W. French Kirk and Margaret S. Russell until the next Board Meeting. OLD BUSINESS BOARD APPROVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE TO SELL MIDDLETOWN SCHOOL PROPERTY Mr. Riley stated that a certain party was still interested in the property and that he should have a definite answer for the Board at the October 23rd Board Meeting. Upon motion made by Will L. Owings, seconded by Thomas B. Throckmorton and passed unanimously, to postpone the public hearing on the sale of the Middletown School until the Board Meeting of October 23rd. GYPSY MOTH UPDATE Dr. Gary DeOms, Extension Agent, appeared before the Board to give an update on gypsy moth within the County and to request that the Board consider funding a full time position to coordinate this program. He further stated that the Gypsy Moth Committee had discussed this and they too were in agreement that a coordinator he hired and that this should be done as soon as possible. Mr. W. H. Miller, resident of Lake St. Clair, appeared before the Board and stated that he was in favor of the spraying program in order that the moth might be controlled. ffirWroi X 61 s The individual hired for this position will be housed in the Permit Center. FIRST AMENDMENT TO FREDERICK - WINCHESTER SERVICE AUTHORITY AGREEMENT - APPROVED Upon motion made by Robert M. Rhodes, seconded by C. William Orndoff, Jr. and passed unanimously, the following amendment was approved with the clear understanding that wholesale rates will be on capacity while the plant is non - operational: THIS AGREEMENT made as of the 3rd day of October, 1985, by and between the CITY OF WINCHESTER, a municipal corporation (the CITY), the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, acting for and on behalf of Frederick County (the COUNTY), and FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY, a public body politic and corporate organized and existing under the provisions of the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act, Section 15.1 -1239, et. seq., Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, (the SANITATION AUTHORITY) and the FREDERICK - WINCHESTER SERVICE AUTHORITY, a public body politic and corporate organized and existing under the provisions of the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act, Section 15.1 -1239, et. seq., Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, (FREDERICK - WINCHESTER) provides that: WHEREAS, the parties entered into a Frederick - Winchester Service Authority Agreement dated as of September 12, 1983 (the SERVICE AGREEMENT), providing for the treatment of sewage and details related thereto; and WHEREAS, the Authority is contemplating issuing its revenue bonds (the BONDS) to finance the construction of a wastewater treatment facility and interceptor line (the PROJECT); and WHEREAS, the parties find in order to obtain bond insurance for the Bonds, it is in their best interest that the Service Agreement be amended to provide payment of principal and interest on bonds issued by the Authority regardless of whether the Project is operational; NOW, THEREFORE, in considerating of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter contained, the parties agree as follows: 1. Section 6.1 of the Service Agreement is hereby amended to provide as follows: SECTION 6.1. RATES IN GENERAL FREDERICK- WINCHESTER shall fix and determine from time to time rates to be charged to the CITY and the SANITATION AUTHORITY. Such rates shall be established by FREDERICK - WINCHESTER at such levels as may be necessary to provide funds, together with other funds that may be available, sufficient at all times to pay (a) the cost of operating and maintenance of the Project, (b) reserves for purposes such as replacements and improvements to the Project, and (c) the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds, as the same become due, and reserves therefor. Such rates shall be charged to the CITY and the SANITATION AUTHORITY regard less of whether the Project is completed or operational 2. Section 6.2 of the Service Agreement is hereby amended to provide as follows: SECTION 6.2. RATES FREDERICK - WINCHESTER shall establish a wholesale rate based on flows to the Project for recovery of capital, operational, and reserve costs while the Project is operational and otherwise based on the capacity of the Project between the CITY and the SANITATION AUTHORITY pursuant to this Agreement FREDERICK - WINCHESTER agrees to charge both the CITY and the SANITATION AUTHORITY the same wholesale rate. 18'7 3. Section 6.4 of the Service Agreement is hereby amended to provide as follows: SECTION 6.4. DETERMINATION OF CHARGES FREDERICK - WINCHESTER shall determine wastewater treatment charges by applying the rates determined pursuant to Section 6.2 to the total amount of wastewater received from the CITY and the SANITATION AUTHORITY, as obtained by their respective wholesale meter readings or allocated capacity as the case may be 4. Section 6.5 of the Service Agreement is hereby amended to provide as follows: SECTION 6.5. PAYMENT OF CHARGES FREDERICK - WINCHESTER may present charges based on budget estimates, subject to adjustment on the basis of an independent audit at the end of each fiscal year. All charges of FREDERICK- WINCHESTER shall be billed and shall be payable upon presentation. In the event the CITY or the SANITATION AUTHORITY shall fail to make payment in full within thirty (30) days after presentation, interest on such unpaid amounts shall occur at the highest rate of interest payable by FREDERICK- WINCHESTER on any of the Bonds then outstanding. FREDERICK- WINCHESTER shall bill the CITY and the SANITATION AUTHORITY, and no one else, for the wastewater treated or the charges set forth in this Article 6. The charges to the CITY and the SANITATION AUTHORITY are several and not point obligations. CITY OF WINCHESTER By /s/ Wendell L. Seldon ATTEST: /s/ Pat Ashby Clerk of Council F3OARD OF SUPERVISORS- FREDERICK COUNTY By /s/ Kenneth Y. Stiles ATTEST: /s/ John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY By /s/ Donald R. Hodgson ATTEST: /s/ G. W. Borden Secretary- Treasurer FREDERICK - WINCHESTER SERVICE AUTHORITY By /s/ C. Robert Solenberger ATTEST: /s/ Wellington H. Jones Secretary- Treasurer REZONING APPLICATION #008 -85 - DONALD L. FOWLER - STONE- WALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED Mr. Riley presented this rezoning application and stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval. Mr. Stiles stated that this was a public hearing and all questions would be addressed to the Board. Mr. Harry Benham, Attorney for the petitioners, appeared before the Board and explained what was planned for the area in question and showed the Board pictures of trailers (interior and exterior) that were planned for a • 6 certain portion of this plan. He further stated that these homes would have lap siding and shingle roofs and the approximate cost would range from $18,000 to $40,000. Mr. Benham further stated that unless the entire project could be rezoned, it would not be worth the petitioner's time to only have a portion of the rezoning done. Mr. Benham explained the building plans by way of a large map, exactly where each housing project, etc. was planned to go. He stated that the property has some natural barriers and if additional screening were necessary along Route 81 it would be used and that he did not feel the development would be visible from Route 7. In closing, he stated that this will be a residential community and a model development and that the petitioners are willing to stake their reputations in this community in order to develop this project as stated. Mr. Chuck Maddox, Engineer of G. W. Clifford and Associates, appeared before the Board and stated that he felt this land was very suitable for this type of development and that the property owners wanted this to be a quality environment for individuals to live in. Mr. Stiles asked what the development time is for this project. k4r. Benham replied approximately five to six years. Mr. Throckmorton asked who would own the trailers. Mr. Benham replied that the homeowners would own the trailer while the lot would be owned by the developer. Mr. Throckmorton asked whose responsibility it would be to keep up the common area of this development. Mr. Benham replied both the homeowners and the property owners. Mrs. Maddox asked if these mobile homes could be moved. Mr. Benham replied yes, they could if necessary. No one else spoke in favor of this request. Mr. Manuel Semples, resident of Red Bud Road, appeared before the Board to oppose this rezoning as he felt there were too many vague areas that no one had definite answer for such as would this development create a traffic problem, would these homes be brought in on wheels, has a comprehensive impact study be done and what happens if this property is sold after two years? He asked for a show of hands of those residents present that were opposed to this rezoning. Approximately thirty five to forty residents raised their hands. Mr. Semples further stated that he felt this was the wrong location for a mobile home park. f Mr. Bernie Swartzman, resident of Red Bud Road, appeared before the i Board to oppose this rezoning. He stated that if a mobile home is built i like a trailer and it looks like a trailer then in his opinion it is a trailer. He further stated that trailers are dangerous and how would this increase in population affect the schools and stated more police and fire protection would be needed and he did not feel the County could handle this added expense. Mrs. Cindy Jones, resident of Shenandoah Hills, appeared before the Board to oppose this request stating that Senseny Road Elementary School would not be able to accommodate the School increase in population that this project would cause. Mrs. Maria Darascu, owner of historic Hackwood, appeared before the Board to oppose this request stating that she was concerned about security, added traffic, problems and annoyances associated with low income projects and the devaluation of all surrounding properties. 'i Dr. John McAllister, resident of Red Bud Road, appeared before the Board to oppose this request stating that he felt an impact study should be done on this before the Board made their decision. He presented the Board with a petition bearing fifty three landowners names that were opposed to this request. Dr. Wayne Seipel, resident living approximately one mile from the site, appeared before the Board to oppose this request stating that he felt it would be a burden on the County. Mr. Ray Herring, resident of Red Bud Road, appeared before the Board to oppose this request stating that he hoped to be able to pass his property on to his children and grandchildren and he would hate to see the Board pass this rezoning request as it could only damage the view of the Countryside. Mr. Gary Oates, resident living North of this project, appeared before i the Board to oppose this rezoning request and referred to the County's downzoning of October, 1980. Mr. Don Fowler, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Board to explain the material that would be used in the building of these mobile homes as well as the foundations. Mr. Patrick McTiernan, area resident, appeared before the Board to i oppose this request and asked if these homes would depreciate or appreciate i in value and who was going to pay for the new Schools that would be needed to educate the children living within this area. He further stated that he 190 felt there were a lot of items dealing with this request that had not been fully considered by the Board. Mr. Charlie Boyd, resident of Red Bud Road, appeared before the Board to oppose this request stating that it concerned him as to what these homes would look like in thirty years, and further that he would like for the Board to consider the show of residents that were present at tonight's meeting opposing this request. Mr. Swartzman appeared once again and asked the Board to consider the incentives of a homeowner versus those of a trailer owner and as far as he was concerned, they are completely different. Mr. Riley read the following letter from Mr. Stephen A. DeHaven opposing this request: Route 7, Box 89 -A Winchester, Virginia 22601 October 4, 1985 Mr. John R. Riley County Administrator P. O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Riley: During the time in which the Board of Supervisors will review the rezoning application of Donald Fowler, I will be out of the State and would like for the following remarks to be read into the record during this meeting on Wednesday, October 9, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. I, Steven A. DeHaven, adjacent landowner to the proposed rezoning property earnestly request the Board of Super- visors to consider these comments: 1. Due to the nature of the rezoning application, the largest part of this property will be used for a mobile home community. With the reputations of the mobile home communities, landowners do not have a desire to be located nearby them. However, under- standing the present value of this property, and its present use, development seems inevitable, therefore, I would like to see a screen (evergreens) be placed between existing homes and businesses. 2. The recreation area marked on the concept plan be located centrally on the property and not as indicated. The present location makes for large concentration of young people that cannot be supervised properly. 3. Due to our present state of mobile home communities in our County and the promises that stated to make an attractive area when they were in the planning, then due to lack of funds and other excuses the proposal was not adhered to. Would it not be in the best of interest for the Board of Supervisors and Frederick County to only rezone a portion of this property to RP and MH -1, with the remainder left in Industrial and Commercial. Assuming the MH -1 was developed in the manner that has been propsed, then another application for rezoning could be reviewed for future development. Should our County give birth to a prince and later have it develop into a frog because of excuses. 1.91 4. With the actual area proposed for MH -1 according to the Concept Plan, 98 acres will contain mobile homes on 600 lots. This is 6.12 homes per acre. Present ordinances allow 8 per acres. All of this adds up to the problems we see in other mobile home communities -- congestion and crime. History has proven that the more concentrate people live, the more problems are generated. 5. Mobile home communities would have to depreciate the value of surrounding properties. Please, ask yourself, would you choose to live next to mobile home communities such as "Sandy's ", "Arcadia ", or "Easy Living ". Would you pay top dollar for a home adjacent to these properties? My earnest and sincere prayer for the Frederick County Board of Supervisors is that they will use wisdom and discernment in their decision concerning this rezoning proposal. Thank you, /s/ Steve A. DeHaven Steve A. DeHaven SD /dd Upon motion made by C. William Orndoff, Jr., seconded by Robert M. Rhodes and passed unanimously, the above letter was made part of the record. Upon motion made by C. William Orndoff, Jr., seconded by Robert M. Rhodes and passed unanimously, the following letter from Mrs. Darascu was made a part of the record: 8 October, 1985 "Hackwood" Route 8, Box 503 Winchester, Virginia 22601 TO: The Board of Supervisors Mr. Kenneth Stiles, Chairman Being the owner of historic "Hackwood ", I am very much against the proposed zoning re: 008 -85 including a mobile home park. I feel more time is needed to make a comprehensive impact study on what effect this will have on the neighborhood. I am concerned about security, added traffic, problems and annoyances associated with low income projects, and, of course, devaluation of all surrounding properties. Scenic Route 7 being a major thoroughfare, careful study should be given to what kind of development will be approved. 1 certainly would not consider mobile houses being one of them. Being prime location with important history surrounding the area, a total concept should be strived for. Thought should be given to a much higher grade of housing development with a major hotel (Marriott - Sheridan), golfcourse, and a country club, etc. The future renumeration for the County could be enormous. I hope the Board will reconsider this and vote against the proposed mobile park houses. Sincerely, /s/ Maria E. Darascu Maria Darascu 192 Copies to: Mr. Will Owings Mr. Thomas Throckmorton Mr. Bill Orndoff Mrs. Rhoda Maddox Mr. Robert M. Rhodes Mr. John Riley Mr. Orndoff asked if the Board felt there would be any benefit in send- ing this back to the Planning Commission in light of what they have heard at this meeting. Mr. Stiles stated that he felt that the Planning Commission had taken all of these concerns under advisement but if the Board felt it should go back to the Planning Commission, then this is what would be done. Mr. Stiles further stated that water and sewer is currently available to this project and given this fact, development would come to this area at one time or another. Mr. Orndoff stated that this was a very difficult decision for him, but based on all the current facts and on the plans that had been submitted, he would move for approval of this request. Upon motion made by C. William Orndoff, Jr., seconded by Will L. Owings and passed unanimously, rezoning application number 008 -85 of Donald L. Fowler, P. 0. Box 809, Winchester, Virginia, to rezone 200 acres from A -2 (Agricultural General) to MH -1 (Mobile Home Community) and RP (Residential Performance) for a planned residential development, located at the end of Warner Lane leading Northeastward from Route 7 was approved. This property is identified on Tax Map Numbers 54 and 55 as Parcel Number 27 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. REZONING APPLICATION #009 -85 - RONNIE WARD - SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED Mr. Riley presented this rezoning application and stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval. Mr. Ward appeared before the Board to answer any questions they might have. Mr. Throckmorton asked Mr. Ward if he was committed as to how many houses he would be building on this area. Mr. Ward replied that he was not sure at this time. Mrs. Lennie Mather, area resident, appeared before the Board to oppose this request stating that it would increase traffic which is already a problem, especially during peak times and that this area did not need another subdivision. She further stated that RP zoning needed to be more 19.3 fine tuned as it is creating problems for the County as it is currently written. Mrs. Nina Clark, adjoining property owner, appeared before the Board to oppose this request stating that the run -off that would come from this project concerned her inasmuch as it would be draining on her property and she felt that sixteen houses on this small acreage was entirely too many. Mr. Stiles stated that any additional drainage that would be created by this project cannot be any more than is currently there. Mrs. Dorothy Kern, area resident, appeared before the Board and stated that she was not opposed to one or two houses being built on this acreage but not sixteen. Mr. Douglas Clark, son of Mrs. Nina Clark and resident of Senseny Road, appeared before the Board and stated his property is a few feet West of the acreage in question, to oppose this request as he felt sixteen houses on this amount of acreage was too many and that it would only make road conditions that are already bad, especially during the Winter months, worse, and further how the run -off, created by this project, would affect his parents. Mrs. Sandra Carper Ambrose, area resident, appeared before the Board to oppose this request and referred to when the Planning Commission downzoned certain properties and whether or not the Board felt this was poor planning for three acres of land. Mrs. Maddox asked what would be the determining factor on how many building lots there would be. Mr. Ward stated that he would be submitting a plan that would determine how many lots. Mr. Stiles stated that the Planning Commission needed to go back and take a long hard look at the County's residential zoning. Mrs. Maddox stated that she felt that the Board also needed to look jinto the Comprehensive Plan as this area was designated as agricultural. Mr. Stiles stated that due to the Regional Plant being constructed, is area is slated for development and he felt if this were denied the oard would more than likely end up in Court. Mr. Throckmorton stated that he could understand Mr. Stiles feeling is way because of the availability of water and sewer in this area but hat about the present zoning, did that not make any difference? He stated 194 that he did not agree as this was a request for land to be rezoned from what it is presently zoned. Mr. Ambrogi stated that the Board needs to use their discretion, they do not have to approve every rezoning request just because water and sewer is available in that particular area. Mrs. Ambrose stated that reference had been made several times to the Regional Plant and she wondered if this request could be delayed until this plant has been completed. Upon motion made by Thomas B. Throckmorton and seconded by Rhoda W. Maddox to deny rezoning application number 009 -85 of Ronnie Ward, P. O. Box 207, Winchester, Virginia, to rezone 3.4 acres on Route 657 from A -1 (Agricultural General) to RP (Residential Performance) for single family residences. This property is identified on Tax Map Number 65 as Parcel Number 29 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. The above motion was denied by the following recorded vote: Aye - Rhoda W. Maddox and Thomas B. Throckmorton. Nay - Kenneth Y. Stiles, Will L. Owings, Robert M. Rhodes and C. William Orndoff, Jr. Upon motion made by Robert M. Rhodes and seconded by Will L. Owings, to approve the rezoning application number 009 -85 of Ronnie Ward. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Aye - Kenneth Y. Stiles, Will L. Owings, Robert M. Rhodes and C. William Orndoff, Jr. Nay - Rhoda W. Maddox and Thomas B. Throckmorton. CUP #010 -85 - CHERYL L. ANDERSON - BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED Mr. Riley presented this conditional use permit request and stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval. Mrs. Anderson appeared before the Board to answer any questions they might have. After discussion by the Board, they felt the dogs that would be housed at this kennel should be brought inside by 9:00 P.M. and not let out before 8:00 A.M. Upon motion made by Robert M. Rhodes, seconded by C. William Orndoff, Jr. and passed unanimously, the above condition to the conditional use permit of Cheryl L. Anderson was approved. Upon motion made by Robert M. Rhodes, seconded by C. William Orndoff, Jr. and passed unanimously, conditional use permit number 010 -85 of Cheryl L. Anderson, P. O. Box 264, Stephenson, Virginia, for a kennel on the East 195 side of Route 600 was approved. This property is identified on Tax Map Number 50 as Parcel Number 16 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 10 FIRE PROTECTION; ARTICLE I, BURNING OF LEAVES, BY RENUMBERING SECTION 1 -2 AS PARAGRAPH 1 -1 -9 AND SECTION 1 -3 AS PARAGRAPH 1 -1 -10 - APPROVED Upon motion made by Robert M. Rhodes, seconded by C. William Orndoff, Jr. and passed unanimously, the above Ordinance amendment was approved. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 10, FIRE PROTECTION; ARTICLE I, BURNING OF LEAVES, BY THE DELETION OF SECTION 1 -4, INCLUDING PARAGRAPH 1 -4 -1 - APPROVED Upon motion made by Robert M. Rhodes, seconded by C. William Orndoff, Jr. and passed unanimously, the above Ordinance amendment was approved. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 10, FIRE PROTECTION, BY THE ADDITION OF ARTICLE 11, r*CKIEDAi EIRE oQnTF(�TIl1W - APPRnVFD Upon motion made by C. William Orndoff, Jr., seconded by Thomas B. Throckmorton and passed unanimously, the following Ordinance amendment was approved: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 10, FIRE PROTECTION, BY THE ADDITION OF ARTICLE II, GENERAL FIRE PROTECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE II GENERAL FIRE PROTECTION 2 -1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 2 -1 -1 PURPOSE - The purpose of this standard is to consolidate into one document the necessary requirements for the prevention or minimizing of loss of lives and property that may result from fire in Frederick County. 2 -1 -2 SCOPE - The Code requirements in this Article shall be administered by the Frederick County Director of Planning and Development or his designated representative. The Director or his designated representative shall interpret this Section, where necessary, and that interpretation shall be binding and final. This Article shall apply to all developments that are required to submit a site development plan under Chapter 21 of the Code, and; other nonresidential developments as determined necessary by the Director of Planning and Development of his designated representative. 2 -2 DEFINITIONS DEFINITIONS - Words defined in this standard are intended for use only with sections of this standard. Definitions set forth in any document referenced by this standard shall be the acceptable definitions for use of that document only. Words not specifically defined in this standard or other referenced documents shall be interpreted as being the ordinary usage of the word as set forth in Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, as published by the G & C Merriam Company, Springfield, Massachusetts, in 1966. 2 -2 -1 APPROVED - Acceptable to the Frederick County 196 Director of Planning and Development or his designated representative. 2 -2 -2 AUTOMATIC FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM - Any system which is designed and installed to detect a fire and subsequently discharge an extinguishing agent without human activation or direction. 2 -2 -3 CURB CUT - Reduced curb height to facilitate vehicle passage over or across a curb. Curb cut can be an abrupt reduction or may be a tapering reduction for the length of the curb on each side of the means of access. 2 -2 -4 DWELLING - A single unit providing complete and independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. 2 -2 -5 EXISTING CONDITION - Any situation, circumstance, or physical makeup of any structure, premise or process which was on -going or in effect prior to the adoption of this standard. 2 -2 -6 FIRE DEPARTMENT - The local volunteer fire company having primary jurisdiction in an area. 2 -2 -7 FIRE DOOR - A tested, listed or approved door and door assembly constructed and installed for the purpose of preventing the spread of fire through openings in walls, partitions, or other horizontal or vertical construction. 2 -2 -8 FIRE HYDRANT - A valved connection on a piped water supply system having one or more outlets and which is used to supply hose and fire department pumpers with water. 2 -2 -9 FIRE LANE - The road or other passageway developed to allow the passage of fire apparatus. 2 -2 -10 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM - Any fire alarm device or system or fire extinguishing device or system, or their combination, which is designed and installed for detecting, controlling, or extinguishing a fire or otherwise alerting occupants, or the fire department, or both, that a fire has occurred. 2 -2 -11 GRADE - The reference plane representing the average elevation of finished ground level adjoining the building at all exterior walls. 2 -2 -12 MEANS OF ACCESS - The method or arrangement by which entry or approach is made to a building area by fire department apparatus. 2 -2 -13 PRIVATE DRIVE - The same as a private street. 2 -2 -14 PRIVATE DWELLING - The same as a dwelling. 2 -2 -15 PRIVATE ROAD - The same as a private street. 2 -2 -16 PRIVATE STREET - Any access way normally intended for vehicular use in the movement between points within a building site area or between a building site and a street. 2 -2 -17 ROADWAY - Any street, private street or fire lane. 2 -2 -18 STANDPIPE - A pipe and attendant hose valves and hose (if provided) used for conveying water to various parts of a building for fire fighting purposes. 2 -2 -19 STORY - That portion of a building included between the upper surface of the floor and the upper surface of the floor or roof next above. 197 2 -2 -20 STREET - A public thoroughfare (street, avenue or boulevard) which has been dedicated for vehicular use by the public and can be used for access by fire department vehicles. 2 -2 -21 STRUCTURE - Any building, monument or other object that is constructed with the ground as its foundation or normal resting place. 2 -2 -22 SUPERVISED AUTOMATIC FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM - Any automatic fire extinguishing system which is constantly monitored so as to determine its operating condition at all times. 2 -3 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS The following requirements shall apply to all construction or land development activities in areas of the County served by public or private water distribution systems consisting of water mains and hydrants. 2 -3 -1 MEANS OF ACCESS FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT APPARATUS 2 -3 -1.1 Means of Access for fire department apparatus shall consist of fire lanes, private streets, streets, parking lot lanes, or a combination thereof. 2 -3 -1.2 Parking in any means of access shall not be permitted within 20 feet (6m) of a fire hydrant, sprinkler or standpipe connection or in any other manner which will obstruct or interfere with the fire department's use of the hydrant or connection. 2 -3 -1.3 "No Parking" signs or other designation indicating that parking is prohibited shall be provided at all normal and emergency access points to structures and within 15 feet (6m) of each fire hydrant, sprinkler, or standpipe connection. 2 -3 -2 FIRE LANES 2 -3 -2.1 The Building Official, in concert with the local volunteer fire company, may designate both public and private fire lanes as required for the efficient and effective use of fire apparatus. Said fire lanes shall be marked in a manner prescribed by the Building Official and the local volunteer fire company. Parking in a designated fire lane shall be controlled by Chapter 13 of the Frederick County Code. 2 -3 -2.2 Fire lanes shall be at least 20 feet (6m) in width, with the road edge closest to the structure at least 10 feet (3m) from the structure; and be constructed of a hard all weather surface adequately designed to support any fire apparatus likely to be operated in such fire lane; or be of subsurface construction designed to support the same loads as the above surfaces and be covered with no more than 3 of soil, sod, or both; and be designed with radii of sufficient length to allow for safe turning by any fire apparatus likely to be operated on such fire lane. 2 -3 -2.3 Fire lanes connecting to public streets, roadways or private streets shall be provided with curb cuts extending at least 2 feet (0.6096m) beyond each edge of the fire lane. 2 -3 -2.4 Chains or other barriers may be provided at the entrance to fire lanes or private streets, provided that they are • installed according to the requirements of the fire department having jurisdiction. 2 -3 -3 PARKING LOT LANES 2 -3 -3.1 Parking lot lanes shall have a minimum of 15 feet (7.5m) clear width between rows of parked vehicles for vehicular access and movement. 2 -3 -4 LOCATION OF STRUCTURES 2 -3 -4.1 At least three perimeter walls of all industrial, commercial, public or semi - public, or residential structures with three or more dwelling units per structure shall be within 200 feet (61m) of an approved fire lane or street. 2 -3 -4.2 Structures exceeding 30 feet (9m) in height shall not be set back more than 50 feet (15m) from a street, fire lane, or private street. 2 -3 -4.3 When any combination of private fire protection facilities, including, but not limited to, fire resistive roofs, fire separation walls, space separation and automatic fire extinguishing systems, is provided and approved by the Building Official as an acceptable alternative, 2 -3 -4.2 shall not apply. 2 -3 -4.4 The Director of Planning and Development, in concert with the local volunteer fire company, may require at least two means of access for fire apparatus to all commercial and industrial structures. Those accessways shall meet the requirements of 2- 3 -2.3. 2 -3 -4.5 Landscaping or other obstructions shall not be placed around structures or hydrants in a manner so as to impair or impede accessibility for fire fighting and rescue operations. 2 -3 -5 WATER SUPPLY 2 -3 -5.1 Water supply systems shall be designed so as to be capable of supplying at least 1,000 gpm at 20 psi. 2 -3 -5.2 In areas developed with single - family detached or duplex dwelling units, there shall be a fire hydrant within 400 feet of all units; in areas developed with three to five dwelling units per structure, there shall be a hydrant within 300 feet of all units; in areas developed with six or more dwelling units per structure, there shall be at least two hydrants within 300 feet of all units; in areas developed with industrial or commercial development(s), there shall be a hydrant within 300 feet of all portions of any structure, and where one hydrant is dedicated to the operation of a standpipe system, there shall be at least one other hydrant meeting the distance requirements set forth above; the hydrant dedicated to the operation of the standpipe system shall not be farther than 50 feet from the standpipe. Distance measurements under this section shall be along centerline roadway surfaces or along surfaces meeting the requirements of a fire lane (designated or undesignated) where appropriate, but in all cases access to each hydrant shall be directly from a roadway and /or fire lane. 2 -3 -5.3 Fire hydrants shall be marked in accordance with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority Policy. 2 -3 -5.4 Fire hydrants located in parking areas shall be protected by barriers that will prevent physical damage from vehicles. 2 -3 -5.5 Fire hydrants shall be located within 3 feet (0.9144m) of the curb line of fire lanes, streets, or private streets, when installed along such access ways. 199 2 -3 -5.6 Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with the standards of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. 2 -3 -5.7 Threads on fire hydrant outlets shall conform to Frederick County Sanitation Authority Policy. 2 -3 -5.8 Fire hydrants shall be supplied by not less than a 6 -inch (15cm) diameter main. 2 -3 -6 FIRE PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION 2 -3 -6.1 Trash, debris, and other combustible material shall be removed from the construction site as often as necessary to maintain a firesafe construction site. 2 -3 -7 PLANS 2 -3 -7.1 Complete as -built building floor plans, site plans, and plans of fire suppression systems shall be submitted to the Building Official for the use of the local volunteer fire company, within 30 days of issuance of the Final Certificate of Occupancy. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY INDUCEMENT BONDS - APPROVED Upon motion made by Thomas B. Throckmorton, seconded by C. William Orndoff, Jr. and passed unanimously, the following resolution was approved: WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Frederick, Virginia, (the "Authority "), has considered the application of HWA Enterprises, (the "Applicant ") , requesting the issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000, (the "Bonds "), to assist in the construction of a commercial office building to be located in the County of Frederick, Virginia, at the intersection of 522 South and Route 50, Dominion Avenue, Frederick County, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on September 27, 1985; and WHEREAS, Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of industrial development bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of industrial development bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds; and WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of Frederick, Virginia, (the "County "); the Project is to be located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, (the "Board "), constitutes the highest elected govern- mental unit of the County; and WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing, and a Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with the Board; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Applicant, as required by Section 103(k) and Section 15.1- 1378.1 of the Virginia Code, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Project or the Applicant. 2,00 3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary Income Tax Regulations Section 5f.103 -2(f) (1), this Resolution shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of its adoption. 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Upon motion made by C. William Orndoff, Jr., seconded by Thomas B. Throckmorton and passed unanimously, the following resolution was approved: WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Frederick, Virginia, (the "Authority "), has considered the application of Shockey Realty Company, (the "Company "), requesting the issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $1,200,000, (the "Bonds "), to assist in the financing of the Company's acquisition, construction and equipping of a warehouse consisting of approximately 50,000 square feet, (the "Project "), to be located on the North side of Brooke Road, approximately one tenth of a mile East of Route 11 in the Fort Collier Industrial Park, in the County of Frederick, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on September 27, 1985; and WHEREAS, Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of industrial development bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of industrial development bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds; and WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of Frederick, Virginia, (the "County "); the Project is to be located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, (the "Board "), constitutes the highest elected govern- mental unit of the County; and WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing, and a Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with the Board; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Company, as required by Section 103(k) and Section 15.1 - 1378.1 of the Virginia Code, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Project or the Company. 3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary Income Tax Regulations Section 5f.103-2(f) (1) , this Resolution shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of its adoption. 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT Mr. Orndoff, Chairman of the Public Works Committee, presented the following report: The Public Works Committee met on October 2, 1985, at 11:00 A.M., in the Conference Room. All members were present. Also present were John Riley, John Dennison, Ty Cather, Walt Cunningham, Robert Whitacre, Perry 201 j Silva, Roger Lamborne and Bob Harriman. The following items were discussed: I. Items Requiring Action I A. Discussed recommended changes in the building permit fees. Although invitations had been given to contractors /builders to attend the meeting, there was no one present to speak for or against. The Committee voted 3 -0 (1 abstain) to adopt the new fee schedule. It is recommended that I the Board accept the fee schedule as presented (attached) to be effective November 1, 1985. Upon motion made by C. William Orndoff, Jr., seconded by Thomas B. Throckmorton and passed unanimously, the above recommendation was approved with the understanding that staff will not exceed revenues. B. The Committee recommended after much discussion that the Board accept the Architect's proposal to move the Board meetings to the Old Court- house. Upon motion made by C. William Orndoff, Jr., seconded by Thomas B. Throckmorton and passed unanimously, the above recommendation was approved. C. The Committee reviewed the bids for the landfill compactor and selected the Bomag Model K -351 for the purchase price of $117,154.00, plus $670 for an extended engine warranty of five years or 8,000 hours. Bids are attached. The Committee recommends that the Board accept the bid of L. B. Smith, Inc. Upon motion made by C. William Orndoff, Jr., seconded by Thomas B. Throckmorton and passed unanimously, the above recommendation was approved. II. Items Not Requiring Action A. The Committee met with representatives of the various fire companies in regard to the job description of a County Fire Administrator and after a lengthy discussion asked the association to define explicitly the organizational and command structure. The definition should include a typical organizational chart. The County Administrator advised that accountability of this position should be directly to the Board thru the County Administrator. B. The Committee addressed the contents of a letter (attached) from Mr. Throckmorton regarding permit fees. The present County policy, as established by the Supervisors in August of 1983, is that all organizations pay the permit fee with the exception of County employees doing work on County property. The Board and the Committee struggled with the concept of 202 "volunteer" organizations. The consensus at that time was that, rather than requiring value judgements by staff, all would be required to pay. The Committee agreed to continue with the present policy. C. The Committee discussed the dry hydrant question raised by Mr. Throckmorton. The Public Services Director was asked to approach the City on this issue. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND COURTS COMMITTEE REPORT Mr. Rhodes, Chairman of the Law Enforcement and Courts Committee, presented the following report: A meeting of the Law Enforcement and Courts Committee was held on Thursday, October 3, 1985, at 10:00 A.M., in the Conference Room. Present were Robert M. Rhodes, Chairman of the Committee; Rhoda W. Maddox; Larry P. Coverstone; Charles R. Mcllwee and John R. Riley, Jr. The Committee submits the following: Discussion of Appeal to State Compensation Board The County Administrator presented the attached information to the State Compensation Board on September 23, 1985 as support documentation for the allocation of an additional $24,000 for the payment of overtime. The Compensation Board, along with Mrs. Rhoda Maddox, ruled that the Sheriff would receive $25,000 for overtime. The State did rescind their previous action of providing one temporary State position for a Road Deputy. The Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors endorse the action of the State Compensation Board. Upon motion made by Robert M. Rhodes, seconded by Rhoda W. Maddox and passed unanimously, the above recommendation was approved. Salary Inequities in the Sheriffs Department The County Administrator will meet with the State Compensation Board representative to discuss salary inequities in the Sheriff's Department. The meeting will take place on October 11, 1985. No action is required by the Board. County Funded Investigator's Position in the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney The Law Enforcement and Courts Committee will meet on October 24, 1985, at 10:00 A.M., in the Conference Room, to review and discuss the request as recommended by the Finance Committee. FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT tiO3 Mr. Owings, Chairman of the Finance Committee, presented the following report: The Finance Committee met on Tuesday, October 1, 1985. All members were present. The following items require Board action: Request from Social Services for General Fund Appro- priation in the Amount of $15,774 - Approved Request for a General Fund appropriation of $15,774 from the Department of Social Services. Even though a local match of $3,321 is required, these funds can be transferred from the current budget. No additional local funds are required. (See Attached) The Committee recommends approval. Upon motion made by Will L. Owings, seconded by C. William Orndoff, Jr. and passed unanimously, the above recommendation was approved. Discussion of Funding for Swimming Pools After reviewing again the options for the funding of the Frederick County swimming pools, the Committee recommends the General Fund Reserve, 11 out of fund balance, $600,000.00 to be set aside to build two swimming pools in Frederick County. These funds are not to be released until total funds are secured to build both pools. The Committee also recommends that an application for a State grant be filed as soon as possible (which could bring up to $200,000) and that a fund raising effort, to be conducted by Parks and Recreation, for donations from the community, begin immediately to raise the remaining funds to build the two pools. Motion was made by Will L. Owings and seconded by Robert M. Rhodes to approve the above. The motion was denied by the following recorded vote: Aye - Will L. Owings, Robert M. Rhodes and Thomas B. Throckmorton. Nay - Kenneth Y. Stiles, Rhoda W. Maddox and C. William Orndoff, Jr. Following further discussion, it was felt an amendment was in order to the original recommendation. A motion for an amendment to the Finance Committee recommendation was approved by the following recorded vote: Aye - Kenneth Y. Stiles, Rhoda W. Maddox, Thomas B. Throckmorton and C. William Orndoff, Jr. Nay - Will L. Owings and Robert M. Rhodes. Upon motion made by C. William Orndoff, Jr. and seconded by Rhoda W. Maddox, that the following amendment to the Finance Committee recommendation be approved, which is that the second sentence, "These funds are not to be 204 released until total funds are secured to build both pools ", be deleted from this recommendation. The above motion was denied by the following recorded vote: Aye - Kenneth Y. Stiles, Rhoda W. Maddox and C. William Orndoff, Jr. Nay - Will L. Owings, Robert M. Rhodes and Thomas B. Throckmorton. Mr. Stiles suggested that this be referred back to the Finance Committee for further study and recommendation. Mr. Riley stated that he felt the Finance Committee had studied this to the point that nothing would be accomplished in sending it back to them, and further that the Board needed to take action on this matter once and for all. Mr. Rhodes made a motion that at a time when fund raising seems to come to a halt - - - -at which time Mr. Stiles made a suggestion. Mr. Stiles suggested that 75% of the total cost for both pools be raised through fund raising at which time construction will begin on the one pool with the Committee continuing to raise money for the second pool. This will give fund raising a goal and both localities will get their pool. He further stated that this will mean that fund raising will raise approximate- ly $600 to $700 thousand dollars for two pools. Mr. Stiles asked for a motion requesting the construction of one pool once 75% of the total cost of two pools has been raised through the Fund Raising Committee. Mr. Owings moved for the above amendment as recommended by Mr. Stiles with Mr. Orndoff seconding the motion and was passed unanimously by the Board. Donations for the Construction of Swimming Pools The Committee recommends that donations collected for the construction of the swimming pools be accounted for in a separate fund. (Fund 80 - Parks and Recreation Capital Projects Fund). Upon motion made by Will L. Owings, seconded by C. William Orndoff, Jr. and passed unanimously, the above recommendation was approved. Request for Courthouse Complex Appropriation in the Amount of $60,000 - Approved The Committee reviewed a request for a Courthouse Complex appropriation in the amount of $60,000 for final payments on the construction of the Joint Judicial Center. These funds are currently in the Courthouse Complex Fund and will not require any General Fund expenditure. The Committee recommends approval. 205 Upon motion made by Will L. Owings, seconded by C. William Orndoff, Jr. and passed unanimously, the above recommendation was approved. The following item is for information only: 1. The Committee reviewed a request from the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office for an Investigator. The Committee recommends that the Common- wealth's Attorney's request be referred back to the Law Enforcement Committee. The Committee also recommends that the Commonwealth's Attorney furnish justification for the position in writing and that the Law Enforce- ment Committee consider the possibility of transferring the two County funded Investigator positions from the Sheriffs Department to the Common- wealth's Attorney's Office. BOARD REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION TO TAKE LONG HARD LOOK AT THE RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE ZONING FOR THE COUNTY Upon motion made by Robert M. Rhodes, seconded by C. William Orndoff, Jr. and passed unanimously, the Planning Commission was requested to study the Residential Performance Zoning for the County. UPON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, z ERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADJOURN. M_" 0�� lq 1,6 � �- ha man, Board of upervisors Cie ry , Board of Supe. v sf ors