HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 24, 2003 Regular Meeting
100
A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on September
24, 2003, at 7:15 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administration
Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia.
PRESENT
Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Robert M. Sager; Margaret B. Douglas; Sidney A. Reyes;
Gina A. Forrester; and Lynda J. Tyler.
ABSENT
Vice Chairman W. Harrington Smith, Jr., - due to illness. County Attorney Lawrence R.
Ambrogi, out of town. Assistant County Attorney Jay Cook was present.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Shickle called the meeting to order.
INVOCATION
The invocation was delivered by Reverend Phillip Roby of the Amazing Grace Fellowship
Church.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Administrator Riley advised he had one item to add. The ratification ofthe Declaration of
Emergency that was declared on September 18, due to the threats proposed by Hurricane Isabel.
Supervisor Reyes requested to make a motion on the agenda.
Chairman Shickle, what is your motion?
Supervisor Reyes, respectfully requests that agenda item H, Stephenson Village, be taken off
tonight's agenda for the following reasons:
1. The particulars of this rezoning application are vastly different from that which was
approved by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for the
September 10th public hearing. As such, he recommends that it be sent back to the
Planning Commission for review, evaluation of the particulars and for public hearing.
2. Moreover, the applicant invited five of the seven Supervisors to review the particulars
ofthe amended proposal. Two ofthe Supervisors were simply ignored and not extended
the same courtesy to way the merits o[this proposal.
3. He is in no rush to put closure on this matter, and by no means consider this rezoning
application "beating a dead horse."
4. The citizens of Frederick County deserve every opportunity to way the pros and cons of
this rezoning application, especially one of this magnitude.
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
101
5. Sending it back to the Planning Commission for public hearing is the appropriate way
to proceed with this application.
Chairman Shickle, we have a motion by Supervisor Reyes, to remove the public hearing for
Stephenson Village from the proposed agenda, is there a second.
Supervisor Forrester seconded the motion.
The above motion was denied 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. Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Nay
Lynda J. Tyler - Nay
Chairman Shickle, we are now back to the proposed agenda.
Supervisor Sager moved to approve the original agenda, with Supervisor Tyler, seconding
the motion.
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes -Nay
Gina A. Forrester - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
CONSENT AGENDA
Administrator Riley suggested the following tabs for approval under the Consent Agenda:
1. Parks and Recreation Commission Report - Tab D;
2. Public Safety Communications Report - Tab E.
Upon motion made by Supervisor Forrester, seconded by Supervisor Douglas, the consent
agenda was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Teasha Burrow, Red Bud District, addressed the loss of funding for middle schools team
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
10
planning. She has two students in Middle School. She feels this loss has a definite impact on
students, teachers and parents. She asked the Board to please reconsider the budget requests of the
school division eliminating the School Board from choosing between Core Team Planning and
closing the school.
Marie Straub, Red Bud District, read excerpts from the Winchester Star over the past four
years concerning the Channing Drive Project.
Mike Weber, Stonewall District, addressed property across from his business on Route 11
North, and its current condition with debris, etc. He advised this has been an on going problem. He
further advised of his many conversations with county staff and some Board Members concerning
this issue and he feels it has not received the attention it should have.
Doug Cochran, Stonewall District, addressed the sign up process initiated by the Board a
couple of months ago, and advised of his reasons for disagreeing with how this is being handled.
He feels this needs to be reviewed and his recommendation is that the sign up sheet be done away
with dealing with Citizen Comments.
Eric Voelkel, Red Bud District, addressed Canyon Road as this is where he lives, and the
recent ruling by the Courts. He advised of his thoughts as to how this ruling will effect his
neighborhood. He feels the proffer was not written and reviewed properly. He feels this can be
repealed.
David Darsie, Stonewall District, addressed treated water in this County. He advised the
County is using over 5 million gallons of water per day. It is over a 25% increase year over year.
This troubles him because we are dealing with a quarry system. Do we actually have a viable water
source at Clearbrook? He asked for this information over a year ago, as it stands now it is not viable.
The ground water in this area does not belong to the Sanitation Authority.
Katherine Whitesell, Stonewall District, read statement for Vickie West, candidate for the
Board of Supervisors for Back Creek District, as she arrived too late to sign the Citizen Comment
sheet.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS
There were no additional comments at this time.
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the minutes ofthe
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
103
Regular Meeting of July 9, 2003 were 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. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
RESOLUTION (#016-03) DECLARING STATE OF EMERGENCY DUE TO
EFFECTS OF HURRICANE ISABEL - APPROVED
Administrator Riley presented this resolution:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does hereby find that:
1. Due to Hurricane Isabel, the County of Frederick is facing dangerous conditions from
high winds and flooding;
2. Due to Hurricane Isabel, a condition of extreme peril oflife and property necessitates the
proclamation of the existence of an emergency.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY PROCLAIMED by the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Frederick, Virginia, that an emergency exists throughout the county; and
IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED AND ORDERED that during the existence of said
emergency that powers, functions, and duties of the Director of Emergency and the Emergency
Service Organization of the County of Frederick shall be those prescribed by state law and the
ordinances, resolutions, and approved plan of the County of Frederick in order to mitigate the effects
of said emergency.
ADOPTED this 24th day of September 2003.
Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the above
resolution 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. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
PRESIDENT OF THE WEST CENTRAL COMMISSIONERS OF THE REVENUE
ASSOCIATION JUNE HOSAFLOOK PRESENTED FREDERICK COUNTY
COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE WITH MASTER COMMISSIONER
DESIGNATION
Commissioner Murphy was present to accept her award.
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
No appointments at this time.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
104
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT - APPROVED UNDER
CONSENT AGENDA
The Parks and Recreation Commission met on September 16, 2003. Members present were:
Joyce Duvall, Cheryl Swartz, Robert Hartman, Steven White, Clarence Haymaker, Victoria Keelon.
Submitted for Board Information Onlv
1. Anneals Committee - The Appeals Committee recommended a reduced one year
suspension for a juvenile park patron to one year of supervised parental probation while participating
in Parks and Recreation activities on Parks and Recreation property, seconded by Mr. White, carried
unanimously. (6-0)
2. Finance Committee (Fees and Chan!es) - The Finance Committee recommended the
following increases for 2004-05: $2 drag and line increase for baseball/softball fields at
Clearbrook/Sherando Parks; $5 increase for open space rental; $.50 increase in park maintenance
labor at events and $.75 per hour increase in park ranger labor at events, seconded by Mr. White,
carried unanimously (6-0).
3. CIP/Buildin!!:s and Grounds - The CIP Buildings and Grounds Committee
recommended the Commission approve the CIP priorities submitted for 2004-05, seconded by Mr.
Hartman, Carried unanimously (-0).
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS REPORT - APPROVED UNDER
CONSENT AGENDA
The Frederick County Public Safety Committee met Friday, September 5, 2003 at 2:00 p.m.
Committee members present were: County Administrator John Riley, Sheriff Robert Williamson,
Frederick County Fire & Rescue Director Gary DuBrueler, Bob Sager, Larry Ambrogi and James
Hockman. Also in attendance was Northrop Grumman Business Development Firm. There were
not enough members in attendance to meet a quorum. The following items were discussed:
1. Pronosed Public Safety Buildin!!:
Northrop Grumman presented an informal plan of the Frederick County Public Safety
Building. The site would be located near the Winchester Airport and would back up Carpers Valley
Golf Course and the Army Corps of Engineers. This site would be approximately 150,000 square-
feet and would house Fire and Rescue and the Sheriffs Office with room available for future
expansion and the placement of Communications.
Formal presentation will be made to the Board in a couple weeks. Northrop Grumman will
provide financing
2. Fire & Rescue Personnel Request
The Personnel Committee has approved 14 new hires out of33 requested. The remainder
will be placed within the next budget cycle.
3. Sherifrs Office Personnel Request
Sheriff Williamson is requesting 9 new hires for the Sheriff s Department. These hires would
fill the following positions, 4 Deputies, 1 School Resource Officer, 3 Investigators, and 1 Civil
Officer. This request will be brought before the Personnel Committee.
4. Radio System Update and Needs
The new tower site is up and running at this time. There are problems with Verizon's phone
lines not meeting standards. There has been little success getting Verizon to do the work needed to
repair this problem. John Riley suggested a sit down meeting with Verizon to discuss these issues.
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
105
Meeting Date: The next meeting of the Public Safety Committee will be called on an as
needed basis.
FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
The Finance Committee met in the First Floor Conference Room at 107 North Kent Street
on September 17,2003 at 8:00 a.m. The committee approved agenda items 2,3,4,6 and 8 under
consent agenda. Don Butler was absent
Upon motion made by Supervisor Forrester, seconded by Supervisor Sager, the
recommended consent agenda was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
1. The Director of Fire and Rescue requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in
the amount of $780.494.00. This amount represents an annualized amount that could be reduced
depending on the timetable. The original request that was presented to the personnel committee was
for $1,688,896.00 and has been reduced at the request of the personnel committee before being
referred to the Finance Committee. Additional local funds are required. See attached memo, p.1-48.
The committee recommends approval; however, a request exceeding $500,000.00 requires a public
hearing and it is requested that action be taken on advertising for a public hearing. - Approved for
Public Hearing
Upon motion made by Supervisor Forrester, 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. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
2. The Director of Fire and Rescue requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in
the amount of $17,096.54. This request represents a carryforward of state grant funds and is
requested to be placed in line item 3505-5413-000-000 Operating Supplies. See attached memo,
p.49-50. The committee recommends approval. - Approved Under Consent Agenda
3. Lord Fairfax Community College requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation
in the amount of$397,250.00. These funds were budgeted in FY03 for the Science building and
need to be carried forward for continuation of the project. See attached memo p.51-54. The
committee recommends approval. - Approved Under Consent Agenda
4. The Winchester Regional Airport requests an Airport Operating supplemental
appropriation in the amount of$15,OOO.00. It is requested that these funds be appropriated in line
item 17-8109-5413-000-002 Security Materials/Supplies. No additional local funds will be required
since the funding source will be from the Airports fund balance. See attached memo, p.55. The
committee recommends approval. - Approved Under Consent Agenda
5. The Virginia 4-H requests consideration for a contribution funding the Wildlife Habitat
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
Evaluation National Invitational. See attached memo, p.56-58. The committee considers that the
Frederick County contribution for FY04 to the Northern Virginia 4-H Educational Center in the
amount of$5,000.00 can be spent at their discretion and approved no additional local funds.
6. The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of
$1.911.78. This amount represents donations and is requested to be placed in the following line
items: $628.93 in line item 3102-5413-000-001 Drug Program, $700.00 in 3102-5408-000-000
Vehicle & Powered Equipment, and $582.85 in 3102-5413-000-007 Forfeited Property-Surplus. No
additional local funds are necessary. See attached memo, p.59-62. The committee recommends
approval. - Approved Under Consent Agenda
7. The Director of Parks and Recreation requests a General Fund supplemental
appropriation in the amount of$122,056.00. These funds are allocated as follows: Carryforwards
of$89,200.00 in federal grant funds, $22,300.00 for the local match, and $10,556.00 for insurance
proceeds to replace a gazebo at Sherando Park. See attached memo, p.63. The committee
recommends approval. - Approved
Upon motion made by Supervisor Forrester, 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. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
8. The Economic Development Commission requests a General Fund supplemental
appropriation in the amount of$469. 74. This amount represents federal funds received in FY03 that
need to be disbursed to the Shenandoah Valley Te1ebusiness Center. No additional local funds are
required. See attached memo, p.64-68. The committee recommends approval. - Approved Under
Consent Agenda
9. The Director of Information Services requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation
in the amount of$26, 7 5 2.00. This amount represents funds needed to purchase a new battery backup
system and includes $10,874.00 in carryforward funds. Additional local funds are required. See
attached memo, p.69. The committee recommends approval. - Approved
Upon motion made by Supervisor Forrester, 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. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
10. The Finance Committee recommended that a spreadsheet be provided to Finance
Committee members onjoint funded projects, funding formulas, and the local required cost ofthese
joint projects. A list of charitable contributions was also requested for review. This information is
requested to be provided prior to the FY05 budget discussions
***For Information Only***
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
107
1. The Finance Director provided a report on fund balance. (See attached report, p. 70)
2. Attached is a letter of appreciation from Bluemont Concert. (See the attached memo.
p.71.)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED SCHOOL BOND FINANCING BY THE COUNTY
OF FREDERICK. VIRGINIA. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY
OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA (THE "COUNTY") WILL HOLD A PUBLIC
HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 15.2-2606 OF THE CODE OF
VIRGINIA, 1950, AS AMENDED, ON THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS (THE "BONDS") OF THE COUNTY IN THE
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $6,375,000 TO FINANCE CERTAIN
CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL PURPOSES. A RESOLUTION
(#017-03) AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS WILL BE
CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT THIS MEETING ON
SEPTEMBER 24, 2003 - APPROVED
Administrator Riley presented this request to the Board.
Assistant Superintendent ofInstruction Patty Taylor appeared before the Board on behalf of
School Superintendent William Dean, who could not attend. Assistant Taylor explained a fourth
middle school would be built with these funds. She further explained that the property has been
purchased and the building has been designed. 2005 is the year this building will be completed and
ready for use.
Carla Reese, Back Creek District appeared before the Board advising she feels this school
is desperately needed.
Angela Bennett, Shawnee District, addressed the over crowded conditions, and endorses the
building of an additional middle school.
Reverend David R. Witt, Shawnee District, has three children in county school system. He
feels the middle school is definitely needed.
Upon motion by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the following resolution
was approved:
At a Regular meeting ofthe Frederick County Board of Supervisors held on the 24th day of
September, 2003, the following resolution was adopted by a majority of the members of the Board
of Supervisors by the following roll call vote, as recorded in the minutes of the meeting:
PRESENT:
VOTE
Richard C. Shickle
Lynda J. Tyler
Aye
Aye
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
108
Robert M. Sager
Margaret B. Douglas
Gina A. Forrester
Sidney A. Reyes
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
ABSENT:
W. Harrington Smith, Jr.
RESOLUTION (#017-03) AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A
MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $6,375,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS
OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA TO BE SOLD TO THE
VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY AND PROVIDING FOR THE
FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County of Frederick, Virginia
(the "County") has determined that it is necessary and expedientto borrownotto exceed $6,375,000
and to issue its general obligation school bonds to finance certain capital projects for school
purposes.
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on September 24, 2003 on the issuance ofthe
bonds (as defined below) in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.2-2606, Code of
Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code").
WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has requested by resolution the Board to
authorize the issuance of the Bonds and has consented to the issuance ofthe Bonds.
WHEREAS, the objective ofthe Virginia Public School Authority (the "VPSA") is to pay
the County a purchase price for the Bonds which, in VPSA's judgment, reflects the Bonds' market
value (the "VPSA Purchase Price Objective"), taking into consideration such factors as the
amortization schedule the County has requested for the Bonds, the amortization schedules requested
by other localities, the purchase price to be received by VPSA for its bonds and other market
conditions relating to the sale ofVPSA's bonds.
WHEREAS, such factors may result in requiring the County to accept a discount, given the
VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, under which circumstance the proceeds from
the sale of the Bonds received by the County would be less than the amount set forth in paragraph
1 below.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA:
1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby determines that it is
advisable to contract a debt and to issue and sell general obligation school bonds ofthe County in
the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $6,375,000 (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing
certain capital projects for school purposes. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of
the Bonds in the form and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution.
2. Sale of the Bonds. It is determined to be in the best interest of the County to accept the
offer of VPSA to purchase from the County, and to sell to the VPSA, the Bonds at a price
determined by the VPSA and accepted by the Chairman of the Board or the County Administrator
and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution. The County Administrator and the
Chairman ofthe Board, or either ofthem, and such officer or officers ofthe County as either of them
may designate, are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the Bond Sale Agreement with the
VPSA providing for the sale of the Bonds to the VPSA in substantially the form on file with the
County Administrator, which form is hereby approved ("Bond Sale Agreement").
3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be issuable in fully registered form in
denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples thereof; shall be dated the date of issuance and
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
109
delivery ofthe Bonds; shall be designated "General Obligation School Bonds, Series 2003" (or such
other designation as the County Administrator may approve) shall bear interest from the date of
delivery thereof payable semi-annually on each January 15 and July 15 (each an "Interest Payment
Date"), beginning July 15, 2004, at the rates established in accordance with paragraph 4 of this
Resolution; and shall mature on July 15 in the years (each a "Principal Payment Date") and in the
amounts established in accordance with paragraph 4 ofthis Resolution. The Interest Payment Dates
and the Principal Payment Dates are subject to change at the request ofVPSA.
4. Principal Installments and Interest Rates. The County Administrator is hereby authorized
and directed to accept the interest rates on the Bonds established by the VPSA, provided that each
interest rate shall be no more than ten one-hundredths of one percent (0.10%) over the interest rate
to be paid by the VPSA for the corresponding principal payment date ofthe bonds to be issued by
the VPSA (the "VPSA Bonds"), a portion of the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the
Bonds, and provided further, that the true interest cost ofthe Bonds does not exceed six percent (6%)
per annum. The County Administrator is further authorized and directed to accept the aggregate
principal amount of the Bonds and the amounts of principal of the Bonds coming due on each
Principal Payment Date ("Principal Installments") established by the VPSA, including any changes
in the Interest Payment Dates, the Principal Payment Dates and the Principal Installments which may
be requested by VPSA provided that such aggregate principal amount shall not exceed the maximum
amount set forth in paragraph one and the final maturity ofthe Bonds shall not be later than 21 years
from their date. The execution and delivery of the Bonds as described in paragraph 8 hereof shall
conclusively evidence such Interest Payment Dates, Principal Payment Dates, interest rates, principal
amount and Principal Installments as having been so accepted as authorized by this Resolution.
5. Form of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be initially in the form of a single, temporary
typewritten bond substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A.
6. Pavrnent: Paving Agent and Bond Registrar. The following provisions shall apply to the
Bonds:
(a) For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds, all payments of
principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be made in immediately available
funds to the VPSA at or before 11 :00 a.m. on the applicable Interest Payment Date, Principal
Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if such date is not a business day for
Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before 11 :00 a.m. on the business
day next preceding such Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment
or redemption;
(b) All overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by law, interest shall
bear interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds; and
(c) SunTrust Bank, Richmond, Virginia, is designated as Bond Registrar and Paying
Agent for the Bonds.
7. Prepayment or Redemption. The Principal Installments ofthe Bonds held by the VPSA
coming due on or before July 15,2013, and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the
VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2013 are not subject to prepayment or
redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the
VPSA coming due after July 15, 2013 and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the
VPSA may be exchanged that mature after July 15, 2013 are subject to prepayment or redemption
at the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after
July 15, 2013 upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of
Principal Installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth
below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption:
Dates Prices
July 15,2013 to July 14, 2014, inclusive
July 15, 2014 to July 14, 2015, inclusive
July 15, 2015 and thereafter
101%
100.5
100;
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
110
Provided, however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their
stated maturities as described above without first obtaining the written consent of the registered
owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond
Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty
(60) days before the date fixed for prepayment or redemption. The County Administrator is
authorized to approve such other redemption provisions, including changes to the redemption dates
set forth above, as may be requested by the VPSA
8. Execution of the Bonds. The Chairman or Vice Chairman and the Clerk or any Deputy
Clerk of the Board are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal
of the County thereto. The manner of such execution may be by facsimile, provided that if both
signatures are by facsimile, the Bonds shall not be valid until authenticated by the manual signature
of the Paying Agent.
9. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. For the prompt payment of the principal of, and the
premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due, the full faith and credit
of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any of the Bonds shall be
outstanding there shall be levied and collected in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax upon
all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient in amount to provide for the
payment of the principal of, and the premium, ifany, and the interest on the Bonds as such principal,
premium, if any, and interest shall become due, which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or
amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other
funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose.
10. Use of Proceeds Certificate: Non-Arbitrage Certificate. The Chairman ofthe Board and
the County Administrator, or either of them and such officer or officers of the County as either may
designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Non-Arbitrage Certificate, if required by
bond counsel, and a Use of Proceeds Certificate setting forth the expected use and investment ofthe
proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show
compliance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and
applicable regulations relating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds and on
the VPSA Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that (i) the proceeds from the
issuance and sale ofthe Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in such Use of Proceeds
Certificate and the County shall comply with the covenants and representations contained therein
and (ii) the County shall comply with the provisions of the Code so that interest on the Bonds and
on the VPSA Bonds will remain excludable from gross income for Federal income tax purposes.
II. State Non-Arbitrage Program: Proceeds Agreement. The Board hereby determines that
it is in the best interests ofthe County to authorize and direct the County Treasurer to participate in
the State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with the Bonds. The County Administrator and the
Chairman of the Board, or either ofthem and such officer or officers of the County as either of them
may designate, are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with
respect to the deposit and investment of proceeds ofthe Bonds by and among the County, the other
participants in the sale ofthe VPSA Bonds, the VPSA, the investment manager, and the depository
substantially in the form on file with the County Administrator, which form is hereby approved.
12. Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The Chairman of the Board and the County
Administrator, or either of them, and such officer or officers of the County as either of them may
designate are hereby authorized and directed (i) to execute a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, as
set forth in Appendix F to the Bond Sale Agreement, setting forth the reports and notices to be filed
by the County and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with
the provisions ofthe Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 and (ii) to make all filings
required by Section 3 of the Bond Sale Agreement should the County be determined by the VPSA
to be a MOP (as defined in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement).
13. Filing of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are hereby
authorized and directed to cause a certified copy ofthis Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court
of the County.
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
111
14. Further Actions. The County Administrator, the Chairman ofthe Board, and such other
officers, employees and agents ofthe County as either ofthem may designate are hereby authorized
to take such action as the County Administrator or the Chairman of the Board may consider
necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and any such action
previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed.
15. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia,
hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting
of the Board of Supervisors held on September 24, 2003, and of the whole thereof so far as
applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. I hereby further certify that such meeting was
a regularly scheduled meeting and that, during the consideration of the foregoing resolution, a
quorum was present. The front page of this Resolution accurately records (i) the members of the
Board of Supervisors present at the meeting, (ii) the members who were absent from the meeting,
and (iii) the vote of each member, including any abstentions.
WITNESS MY HAND and the seal ofthe Board of Supervisors ofthe County of Frederick,
Virginia, this 24th day of September, 2003.
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
of the County of Frederick, Virginia
PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING #06-03 OF STEPHENSON VILLAGE,
SUBMITTED BY GREENWAY ENGINEERING, TO REZONE 794.6 ACRES FROM
RA (RURAL AREAS) DISTRICT TO R4 (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
COMMUNITY) DISTRICT. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF MILBURN
ROAD (ROUTE 662), SOUTH OF OLD CHARLES TOWN ROAD (ROUTE 761),
AND SOUTHWEST OF JORDAN SPRINGS ROAD (ROUTE 664),
APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET EAST OF MARTINSBURG PIKE (ROUTE 11
NORTH). THE PROPERTIES INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICA nON ARE
IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS 44-A-31
{PORTION}' 44-A-31A, 44-A-292, AND 44-A-293 IN THE STONEWALL
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED
Chairman Shickle advised the next public hearing is the Rezoning 06-03 of Stephenson
Village. For the benefit ofthe people in the audience, we will have a presentation by staff and the
applicant of the ten modification waivers and the rezoning. We will then have a public hearing at
which time we will allow those who have signed up to speak. Following that we will take each of
the ten modifications separately and vote and finally the rezoning vote. We will be attempting to
follow the same process used by the Planning Commission for those of you who were there. Proceed
Assistant Mohn.
Assistant Mohn appeared before the Board at this time. He advised this application is a
request by Greenway Engineering on behalf of Stephenson Associates, L.C. to rezone three parcels
and a portion of a fourth comprising 794.6 acres from RA, rural area, to R4, planned residential
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
112
community. This rezoning would enable development of 2,465 dwelling units comprised of a mix
of housing types and the dedication of approximately 44 acres for public school and recreational
usage.
He further advised the subject properties are located east of Milburn Road, south of Old
Charles Town Road and southwest of Jordan Springs Road approximately 2,000 feet east of
Martinsburg Pike in the Stonewall Magisterial District. If you'll refer to the map on the screen to
your left you will get an opportunity to kind of orient yourself. Here's the property of course in
question. It is surrounded by the highlighted red line. Martinsburg Pike, Route 11 here, Old
Charles Town Road, Jordan Springs Road and Milburn Road here, as well. The land uses abutting
the sites are predominately residential and agricultural and the subject site is largely unimproved
with portions used intermittently for agricultural purposes. The parcels included with this rezoning
application are all located within the boundaries ofthe Northeast Land Use Plan and are located only
within the urban development area. The Northeast Land Use Plan designates the subject site for
planned unit development land use. The planned residential community proposed by the application
is therefore consistent with the adopted land use policies ofthe Comprehensive Plan. The applicant
has proffered development to occur within five distinct land bays which are identified to develop
with an elementary school, public park, mixed residential, active adult residential and commercial
center uses respectively. In total, 44 acres will be dedicated for public uses within the project.
Specifically, the applicant will dedicate 20 acres to the Frederick County School Board for use as
a public school site and 24 acres to be dedicated to Frederick County for public recreation uses. The
applicant has proffered to develop a maximum of 2,465 residential units comprised of a mixture of
housing types of which a minimum percentage will be age restricted dwellings. The applicant has
proffered to phase construction ofthe non- age restricted residential units at a rate not to, to exceed
8 percent per year.
As proffered, a maximum of 1,665 non- age restricted units may be developed within
Stephenson Village which would result in an annualized rate of construction of approximately 133
dwellings per year. It is noted that age restricted housing and affordable housing for the elderly
would not be subject to the phase-in program. The overall unit cap proffered by the applicant will
result in a maximum gross residential density of 3.1 units per acre. The commercial center land bay
consists of 26 acres and is intended to accommodate 250,000 square feet of commercial land uses
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
113
of which the applicant has guaranteed construction of 60,000 square feet no later than issuance of
the 1 ,200th non-age restricted building permit. Small nodes of neighborhood scale commercial and
service uses may also develop within the mixed residential land bay, but are not planned to comprise
more than seven acres. Thus, the minimum land area dedicated for commercial land uses within
Stephenson Village will be 33 acres which is roughly 4 percent ofthe total project area. If you use
the board behind Mr. Sager I can give you a little bit of a, an orientation. The yellow area is the
mixed residential land bay. That would be a, a mixture ofthe non-age restricted housing types and
potentially some age restricted or active adult units. This blue area here is the school site and the
green is the public recreation site or public park site and this red area is the planned commercial node
with the orange being the area designated at this point for active adult, age restricted uses. The
applicant has proposed to serve the project with a multi-modal transportation system that includes
a major collector road as well as bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The major collector road will
extend from the project entrance on Old Charles Town Road to its ultimate terminus at Martinsburg
Pike where it will be aligned with the entrance to the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. Construction
of transportation improvements will occur pursuant to actual traffic generation bench marks
established by proffer. The transportation improvements proffered by the applicant will result in???
service Category C conditions on both internal and external roads serving the site throughout the
majority of the development process. However, at project build-out several intersections proximate
to the site are projected to function at level of service Category D during peak traffic conditions,
most notably those intersections located at or near the Interstate 81 interchange. It is noted that
VDOT has accepted the transportation improvement program proffered by the applicant as sufficient
to mitigate the impacts attributable to the proposed development. The applicant is requesting
approval of nine modifications to requirements of the zoning and subdivision ordinances. The
applicant is pursuing these modifications to permit enhanced regulatory flexibility to enable
implementation ofthe proffered development program for Stephenson Village. It is noted that these
modifications have been proposed by the applicant as proffered conditions and are necessary for
acceptance of the proffered statement as currently written. Moreover, the ability to seek
modifications is enabled by Article 7 ofthe Zoning Ordinance. The applicant'sjustification for each
request is included with Exhibit F ofthe proffered statement which may be found in your agenda
packet. If necessary, any questions concerning the meaning or justification for a given modification
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
114
request relative to the Stephenson Village project should be directed to the applicant. Due to the
critical role played by each modification request of the proffered development program, it is
recommended that the Board take action on each modification request prior to its final action on the
application as a whole. It is noted that during its meeting on August 20th, 2003 the Planning
Commission recommended approval of each of the nine modification requests except for
Modification Number 3. I will now provide you with a brief summary of each modification request.
Of course, as Chairman Shickle noted, I will be providing an overview again to assist in your
deliberations and decisions on -- of the nine modification requests following the public hearing.
Through Modification Number 1 the applicant is seeking approval to allow a larger percentage of
the land area planned for housing in Stephenson Village to consist oftownhouses, multifamily and
multiplex-type units. The R4 district stipulates that no more than 40 percent of the land area
designated for residential land use in a planned community can consist of such unit types effectively
requiring that the majority of the housing be comprised of single family detached units. The
applicant proposes that the ordinance be modified to allow a maximum of 60 percent of the total
residential land area to consist of housing types included under these townhouse, multifamily and
active adult categories. Through Modification Number 2 the applicant is seeking approval to allow
housing types not currently enabled by the zoning ordinance. Moreover, this modification proposes
the dimensional standards for the new unit types and further includes alternative dimensional
standards for single family, small lot and townhouse units which are housing types permitted in the
zoning ordinance. Approval of this modification would be necessary to accept the new housing
types and associated dimensional standards proffered by the applicant. Through Modification
Number 3 the applicant is seeking approval to limit commercial development within Stephenson
Village to 4 percent of the project's gross land area and to focus such development predominately
within a single commercial node. The R4 district requires that a minimum of 10 percent of the
planned community's gross land area be dedicated for commercial land uses and that nonresidential
uses be integrated with each phase of development. In part, this requirement is to intended is
intended to facilitate a walkable community where neighbor --neighborhood level commercial uses
are easily accessible to residents throughout the development cycle of a planned community. With
this modification the commercial uses planned for Stephenson Village will be enabled to locate
predominately within a centralized commercial node. As noted previously, the Planning
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
115
Commission recommended by majority vote that the Board deny this modification request and
thereby require the applicant to meet both the minimum commercial and industrial requirement of
the R4 district and the requirement for dispersal of such uses in each phase of development. Through
Modification Number 4 the applicant is seeking approval to utilize the monetary value of a tot lot
facility as a means of quantifying conformance with the recreational unit requirements ofthe zoning
ordinance. A tot lot is identified by the zoning ordinance as a single recreational unit, but it is
currently difficult to assess the value of alternative facilities such as swimming pools and clubhouses
against the standard. This modification would provide the clarification necessary to effectively
administer the recreational unit requirements for Stephenson Village. Through Modification
Number 5 the applicant is seeking approval to allow the age restricted component of Stephenson
Village to develop with a system of private streets. Additionally, this request seeks to allow housing
within the mixed residential land bay to be served by private access roads in limited circumstances.
This modification would be necessary to develop the age restricted portion of the community
exclusively with private roads so that it may be gated as, as envisioned by the applicant. Through
Modification Number 6 the applicant is seeking to be exempted from the R4 district standard
requiring the provision of a phasing plan specifying the concluding year of each phase of
development. In lieu of an annualized phasing schedule the applicant has proffered to phase
development through two alternative measures. Specifically, development of non-age restricted
dwellings will be phased at the rate of 8 percent per year and transportation improvements will occur
in phases triggered by actual traffic counts within the community. Through Modification Number
7 the applicant is seeking approval to reduce the width ofthe road efficiency buffer required adj acent
to the planned major collector road. Specifically, the applicant is proposing to reduce the inactive
portion of the buffer from 40 feet to 25 feet in certain places. In lieu of the distance required by
ordinance the applicant has indicated that increased landscaping would be installed within the buffer
area. Through Modification Number 8 the applicant is seeking approval to provide a proffered
generalized development plan with the rezoning application in lieu of a full master development
plan. The zoning ordinance requires that a full master development plan be submitted with, as to
opposed to after a petition for R4 zoning. With approval ofthis modification the master plan would
follow the rezoning action in the traditional sequence of application review. Through Modification
Number 9 the applicant is seeking approval to provide a series of master development plans to
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
116
accommodate the incremental development of Stephenson Village over time. The zoning ordinance
requires that the scope of a master plan and its contents address the --address a proposed
development in its entirety as a comprehensive outline for a given project. This modification would
allow multiple master plans to guide the implementation of the proffered development program
through a more gradual process than is customary with the preparation of a single master plan, the
design of which is intended to ensure that the various components of a given project develop in a
unified, coordinated and coherent manner. It is noted, however, that approval of this modification
request will not preclude the requirement that master plans be shared with the Board and public prior
to administrative approval thereby ensuring public awareness ofthe design and status ofthe project
throughout the development cycle. Again, the applicant has offered justification for each
modification request through the community design modification document that's included with the
proffer statement which I believe they will address there -- address there in their presentation this
evening. Furthermore, it is important to reiterate that each modification request is essential to the
overall development program proffered by the applicant. A recommendation concerning each
modification would be appropriate with your final action concerning this application. In conclusion,
this application is a request to rezone 794.6 acres from RA to R4 to facilitate development of a 2,465
unit planned residential community. The proffered development program includes mixed housing
types, land dedicated for public uses, recreational amenities, environmental protection areas and a
multi-modal transportation system organized on a planned major collector road. This application
also includes nine requests for modifications to applicable ordinance requirements to enable
enhanced design flexibility. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted land use policies
of the Comprehensive Policy Plan which envisioned development of planned unit development land
use on the subject parcels. At its meeting on August 20th, 2003 the Planning Commission
recommended approval of this rezoning application by a majority vote to include a recommendation
for denial of Modification Number 3. Should the Board decide to accept this recommendation, the
proffer statement submitted by applicant to include the generalized development plan would require
amendment to reflect denial ofthe referenced modification. I would be glad to answer any questions
that you have concerning this application and the staff report that was prepared for this meeting. I'd
also note that Ben Lineberry and Jerry Copp are both in attendance from VDOT to answer any
questions concerning transportation impacts and, of course, Mr. Don Shockey and others associated
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
117
with Stephenson Village.
Chairman Shickle, any questions of Staff at this time?
Supervisor Forrester, Mr. Chair? Did you want to...
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Forrester.
Supervisor Forrester, did you want to have questions after the presentations and then the
public hearing?
Chairman Shickle, I think that would be best, but.
Supervisor Forrester, okay, that...
Chairman Shickle it's your pleasure.
Supervisor Forrester, no, I'll hold mine if that's...
Chairman Shickle, okay.
Supervisor Forrester ...what we're going to do.
Chairman Shickle, the applicant does have a presentation.
Mr. Shockey, Board members, good evening. I'm Don Shockey of Stephenson Associates,
the group responsible for proposing the Stephenson Village residential planned community. I'm
very pleased and excited to propose the first residential planned community in Frederick County.
My family has operated a business in this community for over 100 years. I'm committed to this
community and I'm further committed to making our residential planned community vision a reality
for current and future generations. The vision for Stephenson Village is based on Braemar, a
residential planned community located in western Prince William County. When I saw Braemar I
was very impressed, I wanted to know the team that made Braemar a reality. We are very fortunate
to have two key individuals from the Braemar project on our team. One is Jim Baish, an award
winning land planner responsible for the design of Braemar. Jim is the lead land planner for
Stephenson Village. Another is Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering, the lead engineer or our
team. Mark worked on the engineering design of Braemar before coming to this community to
run Greenway Engineering. Another member of our team who is well known in the county is Evan
Wyatt, the lead architect of the pro -- of the proffered package for Stephenson Village which
provides the guarantees we have promised. Evan has been involved in community planning for 15
years. Ty Lawson is the attorney representing Stephenson Associates. Ty has been involved in the
development of the proffer package, as well. His involvement was to ensure that promises are kept
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
I
118
and all appropriate matters have been included in the official record during this process. Bill Hardig
is our public relations counsel. He has been the lead in providing information and answers to the
community regarding Stephenson Village. John Callow of Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates has
been the lead for the transportation related matters associated with the proposal. John has conducted
many transportation studies in our community including the Winchester Medical Center expansion
and the McTiernan project, and Rutherford Farms Industrial Park. Len Bogorad of Charles Lesser
& Company is the lead economist for Stephenson Village. Len and his company have extensive
experience in conducting economic analysis for the public and private sector. Len's positive
economic analysis of Stephenson Village was further substantiated by two national economic firms
that you, as a Board, approved. Last but not least, John Good, and I think he's also known around
Frederick County. John is the Treasurer for Shockey Companies. He's been instrumental in all the
facets of this project including the coordination of our community outreach efforts. They include
the project hot line, the guided tours of Braemar, over a dozen presentations to civic clubs and
organizations and the many community meetings at the historic Jordan Springs Hotel. The process
to present Stephenson -- the Stephenson Village community to you this evening has taken almost
a year. I wanted this project to involve the county, the professional staff and the decision makers
and the community and, in particular, out neighbors in Stephenson. This involvement has made
Stephenson Village a better proposal. Together we have learned a lot about smart growth and
community design. Our project team has listened to the many suggestions over the course ofthe past
year and we've built many ofthese ideas into the program. Most recently we listened to comments
made by Board -- by the Board regarding density and phasing and have modified the Stephenson
Village program accordingly. These modifications have resulted in a density reduction to 3.1 units
per acre and more than a 20 percent reduction in potential school age households and an increase in
age restricted households which now represents one-third of the total housing units in Stephenson
Village. Over the past year each Board member has been invited to attend our tours of Braemar, to
attend our many community meetings and to meet with the mem -- members of our project team and
I would like to thank the Board members for their participation. At this time I will turn the
presentation over to Jim, Evan and John. Following their presentation all members of our team stand
ready to answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Baish, good evening, Mr. Chairman and Board members. My name is Jim Baish and I'm
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
119
with Land Planning & Design Group. Over the last year I have been presenting our vision of
Stephenson Village to a lot of citizens at work sessions that we've had in the evenings, trips to
Braemar, we've met with citizens groups. Staff has participated in this, the Planning Board and
many of you have gone along. You've probably seen the presentation more than once. We've made
improvements along the way based on input that we've received from everyone, addressed their
comments and the one thing that's been consistent throughout is our vision for Stephenson Village
hasn't changed. We've been consistent and stayed the course. Our concepts have, have been
thorough and consistent throughout the entire process. Tonight, rather than review the same
presentation that you've probably seen before we've condensed it into seven slides and I believe that
they clearly represent our vision for Stephenson Village. Stephenson Village under the R4 zoning
designation is a residential planned community. But what is a residential planned community?
That's a question that's come up throughout this entire process regularly by citizens as we've gone
through it. We've taken them to Braemar to show them the type of community and design concept
that we have in mind, but one question is, you know, is this a standard subdivision? They keep
coming back to that and we keep telling them, no, this is far from the standard subdivision, this is
unlike anything that you've seen before. It offers a tremendous amount of value to the people that
live here as well as the people who live outside of Stephenson Village. First of all, what makes a
residential planned community is, is a mix of housing types. Now, certainly a lot of these housing
types -- well, excuse me, not a lot -- three of the housing types that are illustrated here are housing
types that you've all seen before. They're not unique. This represents the condominium home that
will be our starter, our entry level home. We'll have town homes of varying footprint sizes, square
footage and widths
that offer a wide range of opportunity to people who are moving up from a condominium and then
the type of home that you're more used to seeing, the conventional single family detached home,
front loaded garage. And that offers the three that you're used to seeing. Now, that's where
Stephenson Village takes a step away from the conventional. We offer -- or have introduced a
neo-traditional element to balance out the housing in the rest of Stephenson Village. The house styles
here in the right corner is a neo-traditiona1 single family detached home. As you can see, it sits
rather close to the street with front -- full front porch and in the rear is where the alley would serve
the garage. So, you have a very clean street scape. You're not cluttering that street scape with
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
120
automobiles. This is another neo-traditional style home with, again, the porch being repeated. It
doesn't have the opportunity for an alley so the garage is set deep to the rear and you access it from
the front, but when coupled with these, this other single family house along the street scape, and I
know a lot of you were on the bus trip we took to Braemar, you cannot see the garages, you cannot
see the cars that -- it's a very clean street scape that offers tremendous opportunity for landscaping.
It's, it's very visually pleasing. The neo-traditional style home here is a single family detached
cluster of five homes. We call this the courtyard cluster. They're detached, they all face with their
doors and garages onto one common court. So, as you travel up and down the main street, again,
you don't see garage doors, you don't see the front doors of a lot of these homes. They're privately
located into this courtyard cluster area. And here's a product that, when I say the words you're going
to say, oh, I know what that is, but look at this picture. You've never seen a duplex that looks
anything like this. This is a very unique housing style. It's a duplex home. What makes it a duplex
is the fact that the garage is attached to the rear ofthe house. Again, neo-traditional style with a rear
loaded automobile access being to the, the back of the home off of an alley. The fronts are very
clean. We're repeating that porch theme throughout and it is a duplex, as I said, only because the
garage is attached. We've taken the party wall which would normally be in this location and we've
separated the house providing an air space with lots of window visibility and light penetration. So,
that also offers us the opportunity to, to provide architectural fenestration that differs the houses as
you go up the street so that they don't look like duplexes at all. The, the introduction of this
neo-traditional style home into our program offers the opportunity for us to have a small town
feeling, the type of town that we grew up in where we have front porches where we can sit on them
in the evening and talk to our neighbors as we, they go by. The porches are closely located -- closely
related to the sidewalks. We have a wide range of income opportunities here for housing and we've
covered a wide range of age groups. Now, the one thing that's been left out so far here is the
attention to age groups being the elderly or active adults, but that's where we've taken the extra step.
We've done something here that's very often forgotten and left out of a conventional residential
planned community. We've introduced that element. We have affordable elderly housing and active
adult. The affordable elderly housing is shown right here. This is going to be 144 homes or
residences for the elderly. It offers an opportunity for those that may not have the financial means
nor the desire to maintain a conventional home. Mr. Shockey has built this successfully in
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
121
Warrenton. He's very familiar with this type of, of home style. We're also including the active adult
segment in our community. As, as was mentioned earlier we will have 800 active adult homes all
in one development envelope and they will have their own recreation facilities. You'll see this is the
clubhouse, they'll have other site amenities and recreation facilities all included in that residential
land bay exclusive to that active adult segment of the housing. This is an age restri - age restricted
housing area. This is a streetscape that you've probably seen in Braemar. It's a combination of
attached and detached homes of varying footprint sizes, again, neo- traditional. We're repeating that
theme here. The alleys are in the back serving the automobile use and the front street scape, as you
can see, it's very clean and heavily landscaped providing opportunities for guest parking, but other
than that you don't drive down the street and see a lot of garage doors. By introducing and paying
attention to the active adult needs we have created a community that is a multi-generational
community. It's the -- it's a type of community where I grew up. It's where three generations, I can
live there, my children can live there and the grandparents can live there. All in the same
community, all within easy walking distance of each other. I remember where I grew up in
Pennsylvania the town was very much like this. My grandmother lived two blocks away from me
and she could pick me up at school at the end of the day and take me home on the days my mom
worked and it was quality time that, you know, those are memories that I'll never forget, the
opportunity to spend that time with her and my grandfather, that you don't get today. In a standard
community you don't have that opportunity, but here we're mixing the housing types to create that
type of community that we've gotten away from. It's a thing that we've lost. If you visited Braemar
and you've been there in the afternoon you've seen this very thing happen. The mothers are over at
the elementary school picking up the kids. They're not driving, they're walking, but more
importantly you'll see grandmothers, grandfathers over there walking them home on a nice day or
taking them over to their house to stay and play for a while before they go home. Now, another
element that we need in a residential planned community is community shopping, office and day
care. That's exactly what we're proposing for Stephenson Village. We're not only providing a mix
of housing, but we're going to be providing a mix of employment, employment opportunities. We're
going to have a day care center that's conveniently located, centrally located in our community, we're
going to have commercial shopping that not only serves the community of Stephenson Village, but
because of its location on our central spine road will be easily accessible to those who live outside
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
122
of Stephenson Village. And then, located adjacent to this is our commercial-- or excuse me -- our
office segment. In our office area we provide opportunities for businesses with full time career
employment needs. There'll be doctors, lawyers, dentists, realtor offices there. We also will have
the opportunity for grocery clerks and bank tellers. So, as you can see, we'll have a wide range of
opportunities for professionals as well as the stay at home mom that may not have the opportunity
or ability to work a full time job. She'll be able to have a part-time job and work here, too. This is
something that I like to throw in and talk about because it's something that's often forgotten.
Communities rush through the process and nobody stops to pay attention to the details, the details
that set a community apart to make it unique. If you went to Braemar you see these types of details.
They were thought out well in advance and they were incorporated into the design program from the
beginning. We have an entrance monument that sets the tone for the type of materials that are being
used. In this case it was stone with precast, with a letter style and, and the paint that occurs in there
is a, is a theme color. We've used that same theme color in stone and materials in the smaller
community neighborhood signs throughout Braemar and the same thing is going to happen in
Stephenson Village. We're going to use the same theme. We have a theme color that we selected
for the community which is used on our custom street signs and stop signs as well as the ironwork
on our benches. That'll be the same community theme color. The ironwork on the light fixtures, and
these will be custom light fixtures used throughout the community, that ironwork will be painted the
same theme color from the neighborhood. The landscape used at the entrances and throughout at
key locations of the community are going to be selected carefully to repeat themes and colors. The
fall color ofthe trees, the spring color ofthe trees. It's all going to be well thought out and, and it's
going to create a sense of place so that no matter where you're at in Stephenson Village at any time,
you could be in the townhouses, the commercial area, the single family detached, wherever you're
at you're going to feel like you're home, you're going to feel like you belong to Stephenson Village.
This will create that sense of place so that you feel like you have arrived at Stephenson Village long
before you ever stick you key in your front door and go home. You'll drive up and you'll see that
main entrance and you'll know you've arrived. Stephenson Village is a planned residential
community. We've talked about a lot of elements that make a planned residential community. Here
we have our generalized development plan located in the center. Surrounding that are some images
that I'll discuss in a moment. But the first point I want to make and stress is this gray area. It's hard
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
123
to see that it's gray, I'm outlining it here or highlighting it. That represents the core battlefield. That's
35.6 acres of core battlefield that has been recognized, identified by the National Park Service. It's
accounted for and it has been removed from the zoning application. It will be preserved. We have
road frontage on Old Charles Town Road which is our spine road which loops through the
community and then returns out to Route 11. The yellow portion, as was indicated earlier, represents
that mix of housing that I talked about and the active adult portion is down at the bottom ofthe site.
That's the 800 homes that have their own recreation facilities all included. We have our commercial
site located in a central location offthe main spine road and, as I indicated, people who live outside
of Stephenson Village will easily be able to come down here and shop. And within that commercial
area we're offering a, a satellite office for the county where you'll be able to, as a resident ofthis area
of Stephenson Village or outside, be able to come here and pick up your dog tags or your auto decal
or pay your taxes. So, it will be convenient for everyone. We have a school site, 20 acres, and a 24
acre park site which has our six ball fields and six soccer fields. And if you note the co-location it's
an economic benefit to both ofthem to co-locate because they'll share facilities, they'll share parking
during the, the overflow time when they have activities going on, where they have excessive parking
they'll share back and forth. So, it's a good thing to have the co-location. And if you look at the
location we have frontage on, on Jordan Springs Road and Old Charles Town Road which means
that the access to these will be available to the outside without having to come into Stephenson
Village. Anybody that lives outside of Stephenson Village will be able to participate in and use
these activities directly, they'll have their own outside access. Stephenson Village, of course, will
have its own pedestrian links and access from inside, but we will not provide a cross link. This is
not a cut-through situation that we're providing here. Our only source of entry will be along our
main spine road for all of our trips. The day care facility which is illustrated here is located in a
central location. It'll be easily accessible, walkable to everybody in the community, it'll be walkable
to the school site. So, they'll have after school day care here. And closely located to that we have
our rec center, clubhouse, meeting room, swimming pool, tot lots, all right here closely located to
the day care. The day care can come over in the summertime and utilize the pool and take full
advantage ofthat. Again, centrally located, easily walkable to everybody in the community. We've
got our 250 acres of, of open space preservation which we've surrounded Hyatt Run with and another
environmental sensitive area we've preserved, all make up that 250 acres of open space. And along
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
124
Hyatt Run we have a pedestrian trail system. And from that trail system we link up into our
residential land base so that this community will be walkable. It'll be very pedestrian friendly. As
you can see, we've more than covered the elements that make a planned residential community, but
this will not be an exclusive community. And by that I mean we're going to be offering a housing
mix here that appeals to a wide range of buyer. We've going to be offering housing that appeals to
a wide age -- wide age group of buyer. We're also going to be providing facilities here that benefit
the community at large, not just Stephenson Village. They'll be able to shop here, take advantage
ofthe park, ball fields and school without even coming into Stephenson Village for the park and ball
field. So, what have we created? We have a true community. We have a community like the
community that I grew up in as a child where you can live, work, play, shop, attend school all within
easy walking distance of where you're, where you're living. If you've visited Braemar you've seen
this very thing occur, you've seen the success of it. I know it works, I've done it before and you
know it works if you were there and you saw it happen. This is a good thing, it's a great type of
community to have in your county. That concludes our vision of Stephenson Village. I'd like to
thank you
for your time and I'll turn the presentation over to Evan Wyatt.
Mr. Wyatt, Thank you, Jim.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, for the record I'm Evan Wyatt with Greenway
Engineering. What I wanted to speak on this evening as part of the presentation are the things that
make the vision that Mr. Baish described the reality which is the proffer package, the guides, the,
the legal requirements that make what we're saying that will occur. And what I wanted to do in my,
in my presentation, I wanted to talk about two things. I wanted to talk about the proffer statement
in general, the community design modification document that Mr. Mohn referred to in his
presentation and then finally a brief overview ofthe revisions ofthe program from the time this went
to the Planning Commission. Starting back with the proffer statement, once again as Mr. Baish said,
there is a need to provide for a variety of housing types if we're going to create a community. And
one of the questions is, well, how do you guarantee that? And, of course, the proffer is, is your way
of doing that. The proffer statement for Stephenson Village has been provided. You may recall
seeing a table that is a matrix of housing unit types. It establishes a minimum percentage and a
maximum percentage and those run the gamut from single family detached, to townhouses,
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
125
duplexes, active adult, et cetera. That is a guarantee that you're not going to land one housing type
that's going to dominate the community. Along with that, as we mentioned, one housing type that
we think is very important for this project is affordable housing for the elderly and there's a proffer
that allows us to provide for that housing type. Once, again, as was stated earlier within the matrix
there's a minimum percentage for housing types. One-third ofthe housing types within Stephenson
Village are proffered that they will be age restricted units. And the other thing that's part of the
proffer, once again, is a phasing proffer. And what this applies to is the building permits that are for
the non-age restricted households and that is limited to 8 percent or a maximum of 133 permits
annually. Another section of the proffer statement that I want to speak to is the transportation
section. As was stated, a traffic impact analysis was prepared by John Callow and this was done as
a result of several meetings with VDOT where we, where we did scoping meetings and determined
what would be appropriate to provide in this traffic impact analysis. And the on-site improvements,
the off-site improvements and the regional improvements were determined based on this traffic
impact analysis, as well as working with VDOT. The improvements will occur, and they're based
on thresholds, will be achieved throughout the life ofthis project. And these thresholds, and I think
it's important to note -- and this is one ofthe proffered conditions -- are determined by actual traffic
counts. Not projections, but actual traffic counts. They're, they're consistent with what the traffic
impact analysis recommends and what VDOT agrees with. And what we're doing to do this as part
of the proffer, in our entrances at the northern and southern ends of the project there will traffic
counters installed. And those traffic counters are to do, once again, get actual counts so we know
what the counts are and where we are as far as the improvements we need to install. Now, the
proffer is also further modified to say that when we achieve 80 percent ofthat threshold that sets it
in motion. What that requires us to do is begin design of the required improvement and to install
the improvement and that's required to be completed within 18 months of when we reach that 80
percent number. And I think that's very significant because what that means is we are planning and
constructing the improvements before the traffic impact analysis say they're warranted. With the 18
month window for construction we're going to have the improvements in place either at the same
time or before the actual impact is realized by the community. And this is something that is
unprecedented for, for proffers in Frederick County. Once again, what I would like to do briefly is
defer to the display behind Mrs. Douglas and once again this shows the, the project area that we've
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
126
described and what we're talking about is a senes of improvements. You have on-site
improvements, you have off-site improvements, you have traffic signalization. All these will be
provided by the proffer and once again thresholds are established, how far you build a road
internally, when it's time to take it to Route 11, when it's time to improve Old Charles Road, when
it's time to improve turn lanes on Route 11, when it's time to put in traffic signalization. All that is
guided by the proffer statement and it's been done in an attempt to meet the requirements of the
traffic impact analysis. Another part of the proffer that I think's important to talk about is water and
sewer. Once again, as was stated earlier, Frederick County approved the Sanitation Authority's plan
to provide water and sewer service to the northeast area of our community and as a part ofthat, of
course, this property falls within those boundaries. The Sanitation Authority has recognized that
there needs to be a regional pump station within this portion of the community and our proffer
provides for that regional pump station. Furthermore, our proffer provides for water and sewer lines
that are installed at the cost of the developer that are sized to not only take care of Stephenson
Village, but also to provide for the outlying community. And, once again, the infrastructure cost is
borne by the developer. However, the Sanitation Authority will realize revenues from this because
of sewer and water tap fees. And with those, which are currently at $5,500 for both, in today's
dollars you're talking about revenues generated of about $13.7 million based on the program we
have. As we've said before, Stephenson Village will be the catalyst of providing sewer service for
the Stephenson community and it certainly seems like there will be revenues available maybe to
utilize to help improvements in those areas. Mr. Baish spoke to the commercial center. I want to
also mention that as part ofthe proffer statement. What we've done is we've provided a commercial
center. We've done that central to the project so it can be easily accessible by both means of our
community through walking, it's also available for the outlying community and along the major
spine road. The economic analysis that was prepared for this identifies that there is a potential of
250,000 square feet of commercial land use. The applicant, Mr. Shockey, has guaranteed within
Stephenson Village as part of this proffer that one- quarter of that or 60,000 square feet will be
provided. So, it's not just a blank promise that there will be commercial, there is guaranteed
commercial which, once again, is unprecedented as far as proffers. As Mr. Baish also mentioned,
the county will receive a 2,500 square foot shell space in the commercial center for satellite facilities.
It's rent free for 10 years and, once again, that has excellent customer service potential. One element
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
127
that I don't think has been talked about to any great degree, and I do want to talk about it now, is the
environmental enhancements that are part of our proffer statement. One thing that Mr. Mohn noted
in your staff report is that there are two significant drainage channels on this property. Number one
is the Hyatt Run corridor which is a perennial stream in the central part ofthe project and then there
is an intermittent ravine channel in the northeastern portion ofthe project. Both of those drain to the
Opequon. So, once again, the concern there is with water quality. And what we've done with the
proffer statement is we have attempted to create issues where we're using low impact development
techniques and treatments to protect and promote water quality in this development. We've
established resource protection areas for the Hyatt Run and the intermittent ravine channel corridors.
We've established resource management areas that are established to protect these features. With
that we've also proffered the creation of buffer areas. And what that means is those are areas that
are currently void of vegetation, we will come in there, we will plant them and that will allow us to,
through that reforestation process, mitigate natural erosion occurrences which, which happen today.
Also within the development we're, we're looking at doing bio retention areas to promote water
infiltration. We're using natural drainage channels and we're using best management practices for
large parking lots, commercial areas to get first blush runoff. With that as part of the proffer I do
believe that there is credit that needs to be given. We certainly were interested in doing this, but the
technical expertise came from Jim Lawrence locally and some of the technical assistants from people
that he brought to the table. I know Mr. Lawrence provided you with a letter, I have a copy of it, and
I want to touch on a couple things in this letter because I believe that they solidify what I've just said
about our proffer statement. His letter, and I'm not going to read the whole thing, just a portion of
it. It says, I would like to commend Mr. Shockey, Mr. Good and Greenway Engineering for their
approach to protect the natural resources in the Stephenson Village proposal. About a year ago I was
contacted by Mr. Wyatt to help provide technical resources to assist in the design ofthe project that
would ensure minimal impact on water quality. Various state and federal agencies and nonprofit
organizations were consulted including the Center for Watershed Protection, the Virginia
Department of Forestry and the Department of Conservation and Recreation. Throughout this
collaborative process all suggestions regarding protection and enhancement ofnatural resources were
given favorable consideration. This project represents what I believe is the first attempt at
community based planning and watershed management of our area. Another section ofthe proffcr
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
128
I want to touch on briefly is the master development plan because there I, I think there's been some
confusion in that regard. What we've proffered to do for the rezoning portion ofthis is a generalized
development plan which Mr. Baish described earlier. The generalized development plan is being
utilized for the rezoning process. However, it does not become the only plan that we use for the
development of this project. If the rezoning is approved the general development plan becomes a
guideline for a series of master plans to follow. Those master plans will meet all design
requirements ofthe zoning ordinance and all procedural and policy requirements and that they will
all be submitted, reviewed by your staff, brought before the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors for review and approval. And these master plans will provide aggregate data as the
project evolves to ensure that the building blocks we talk about, identified in our proffers are
achieved as the proj ect develops. Once again, the proffer guarantees that that will occur. The master
development plans that will come before the Board in the future for this project, once again, require
your all's approval. Therefore, there is no loss of control through the process as there is for any other
development project. The final portion ofthe proffer statement I want to talk about is the monetary
contribution section. You may recall that at the onset of this project when we were talking about
2,800 units the staff ran your capital facilities fiscal impact model for this proposal and what we have
done since then, of course, is we've reduced the program. We are now 2,465 units. However, even
though we've reduced the program we have maintained the cash contributions that were utilized
assuming 2,800 units. The cap, capital facility impacts have been exceeded now by the cash
contributions alone independent ofthe land donations for the public park and the public school site.
The monetary contributions for this project, they place premiums for fire and rescue impacts for both
the active adult housing and for the affordable elderly housing which increases the payments to fire
and rescue by 50 percent and 100 percent respectively. And these additional cash contributions,
once again, are for the active adult and, and elderly apartments. What that means is there's more than
one and a quarter million dollars through the cash proffers that are being provided to the fire and
rescue for capital costs which, once again, can be used for building construction, land acquisition
or equipment purchase. However, in addition to that one and a quarter million dollars that fire and
rescue is receiving through capital impacts, there is also an additional $200,000 that is directed to
Clearbrook Voluntary Rescue Company. And that $200,000 is a direct contribution to them and may
be used as they deem appropriate because they're the first responder unit to this project. Now, the
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
129
cash contributions in our proffer statement for parks and recreation will receive $1.5 million. Once
again, this is above and beyond the donated public park land and it's also above and beyond the
recreational amenities that will be within Stephenson Village that Mr. Baish described including the
recreational facilities, the clubhouses, the swimming pools, the public walking trails, et cetera. The
cash proffers for the public schools, once again not counting the 20 acre donated site, exceeds $6.5
million in cash. And in addition to that there is also a, a portion of our proffer statement which
guarantees an additional cash payment of 3925 per student annually if the student enrollment
exceeds 60 students per year from our project. So, once again, should there be a sudden impact to
schools we, we've attempted to cover that through additional cash payments. Finally, with our
proffers and monetary proffers all the capital costs that I've mentioned in our proffer statement will
be adjusted for inflation every two years using the Consumer Price Index. Once again, this is
another thing that's unprecedented in Frederick County as far as monetary proffers. So, that is a
broad brush of our proffer statements. As you know, the proffer statement has 23 sections. There's
also several exhibits including the community design modification document. A lot ofthe proffers
that we did not discuss go into ensuring some of the visions that Mr. Baish presented, to ensure
community design, continuity, et cetera. All that's part of the design package and the proffer
statement. What I'd like to do at this time now, Mr. Chairman, is talk about the community design
modification document. And as you know, Mr. Mohn presented nine items that fall within that. Of
course, the county's zoning ordinance does allow for R4 communities to come forward with
modifications to R4 proposals. The process is, as we've demonstrated, what the existing ordinance
requirement is, what we believe an appropriate alternative standard should be and a justi fication why
we think it should be appropriate. And, once again, the first one Mr. Mohn mentioned was that the
way the ordinance is written right now only 40 percent of the land area within a residential planncd
community can be used for housing types other than standalone single family detached. And
because, once again, we're doing a complete mix of housing types in here, active adults, cottage
houses, et cetera, there's going to be a great number of houses that the county ordinance terms to be
multifamily. And because ofthat we believe that there is a, a need to have additional land area to
develop these products. And we're not asking for an increase in the number of units, we're not
asking for any difference in density or any ofthat. The only thing we're asking for is more land area
to allocate those units to. The second modification that was mentioned by Mr. Mohn is the permitted
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
130
use section. And once again that talks about the housing that is allowed and it references the housing
types in our RP zoning district. Several of the housing types that Mr. Baish showed you are not in
the zoning ordinance. Therefore, in order for them to become part of Stephenson Village we need
approval of the modification to do that. The justification for that is to provide dimensional
requirements and to demonstrate that what we're providing is -- represents good planning practice,
good building design and does not have a problem from a public safety issue. And we've done that.
A lot of these issues have been looked at not only by your planning staff and VDOT, but also by the
fire marshal's office and everybody is comfortable with what we're doing there. The third
modification that was brought up regards, once again, the idea that the ordinance currently states that
10 percent of the area within a residential planned community, and the ordinance is clear, it says
shall be used for commercial and industrial land use. Now, we recognized when we began this
process that industrial land use was not something that on this specific property in the southeastern
portion of the Northeast Land Use Plan it was acceptable to the community. As a result ofthat we
proffered out land uses that would include heavy commercial and light industrial land uses. That's
in our proffer statement. Now, because of that and because of our market analysis demonstrating
that we have the potential of doing about a quarter million square feet, we looked at what would be
a reasonable land use area for that. And what we've determined is that we have 4 percent ofthe land
area that could accommodate that type of land use. Once again, that 4 percent is factored on using
a Florida area ratio assumption of .2 which is standard and somewhat conservative and it allows for
us to allocate what we think is reasonable. The 33 acres that we talked about, to put it in perspective,
is equivalent to, if you look at the Creekside Village Center over in Kernstown and if you couple that
with the Martins Plaza on South Pleasant Valley Road, those areas combined are about what you
would see on a 30 acre site. Also, the, the way the modification is written is it allows us to have a
centralized commercial center with some neighborhood commercial whereas the ordinance currently
says every phase should have commercial in it. I think I need to mention that with commercial
development, although it's not an option to do either/or, if, if we were required to do 10 percent
commercial alone, that would exceed the land area that the Apple Blossom Mall sits on.
Modification Number 4 once again is fairly simplistic. The Parks & Recreation Department has
always used the value of a tot lot to determine the equivalent value for other recreational facilities.
However, that's not a written policy, it's a good, common sense approach that they've used for a long
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
131
time. However, we want to make sure that that, that common sense approach stays. So -- so,
Modification Number 4 assigns the value of one tot lot and then what the equivalent value of other
recreational units are accordingly. Modification Number 5 once again is a road access issue. The
RF ordinance currently states that all roads within a planned unit development or a residential
planned community must be state maintained streets. Of course, this flies in the face of doing a
gated community for the active adult and so what we've attempted to do is we've proved information
to the Department of Transportation and the office of the fire marshal to review for our street
systems within the active adult community. They're offered to be designed to meet or exceed
sectional base and pavement standards for VDOT requirements for our private streets and they've
also been reviewed from the office of the fire marshal for the potential of accessability and
connectivity and, once again, the, the agency comments for those are positive. Modification Number
6 is a phasing requirement. The ordinance currently states that you have to specify the specific
calendar year in which a phase will be approved. The market's going to dictate that. We're not
going to be able to predict that and I'm not really sure where that is a beneficial requirement. So,
we've requested a modification for that. However, what we have done in our justification and in our
alternative design standard is we've provided this, that larger phases are developed in, in, in phase,
in smaller phases that are acceptable to you through your master plan review process and this is done
to make sure that there are reasonable connectivities and continuations of road systems, recreational
open space, et cetera. And, of course, all ofthose will be required to be bonded by the county so you
have the ability to ensure that all development phases are, are moving along as you, as you thought
they would through this modification. Modification Number 7 is a buffer and stream requirement.
Once again, the, the requirement is to meet the road efficiency buffer standards in the zoning
ordinance. We think that there can be some flexibility that can result in some good design. This
modification reflects the reduction in the inactive portion to a minimum of25 feet and it provides
for a cross sectional look at the landscaping elements and the opaque elements that could be done
to put in there. So, that gives us some design flexibility in making sure that the road efficiency
buffers are adequate Modification Number 8 requires a complete master plan submitted with the
rezoning application. Once again, we see this as being very problematic. With a project like this,
to do a complete design master plan at this stage we would be guessing on what future years would
hold and as a result ofthat we will be wrong. And because we will be wrong and because that is a
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
132
proffered document, in order to fix that document it would require that us and the county to go
through a rezoning public hearing process every time we wanted to modify the master plan. That's
not how it's done in other zoning districts. It doesn't make sense in this zoning district, either. The
generalized development plan provides for a reasonable guide for master plans to follow and that's
what this modification's all about. And then finally, the last modification represents, once again, on
the master plan in process. Instead of trying to attempt to demonstrate a complete master plan that's
going to be wrong it allows for us to provide you a series of master development plans that would
require review and approval over time and to make sure that the aggregate totals that are in our
proffer statement and the consistency with our generalized development plan are realized. That,
once again Mr. Chairman, is the modifications that are being requested and our justification for why
we believe they're appropriate. Finally, what I would like to conclude my presentation with is a, is
a brief summary of the revisions to the proffer statement and to Stephenson Village before you
tonight. As you know, the Planning Commission on August the 20th recommended approval ofthe
program that we have which was 2,800 units. Very simply, we reviewed our program accordingly.
Our density has been reduced from 3.5 units per acre to 3.1. Our unit cap has been reduced from
2,800 units to 2,465 units. We've reduced our potential school age households, it was 2,125, down
to 1,665 which is a reduction of over 460 units. We've reduced the potential school age household
permits from 170 maximum to 133 . We've increased the age restricted, active adult from a minimum
of 19 percent to a minimum 000 percent and we've increased the inflation adjustment from once
every seven years to once every two years. So, once again, the majority ofthe proffer is how it has
always been. All the sections we described have not been rewritten. We're still utilizing the more
conservative projections based on the 2,800 program and we're comfortable doing that because we
know we can mitigate those impacts. We have not asked for a reduction in our cash contributions
for the county even though we've reduced our units and that has gone down, also. So, once again,
all you need to remember, the only difference tonight is less density, less units, less potential school
age households, less building permits, more active adits, more updates to the inflation factor. Mr.
Chairman, that concludes my portion ofthe presentation. Mr. Good would like to speak briefly on
the economic analysis and then I'll return to the podium.
Mr. Good, Chairman Shickle, members of the Board, let's talk economics. The good news
is you get the product that Jim and Evan have described for you this evening and a bonus of a surplus
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24103
133
to the county treasury. The village is projected to generate excess revenues of over $54 million over
the 23 year build-out period and to generate $5.5 million a year of net positive revenue to the county
each year thereafter at today's tax rates. Experienced, well qualified, nationally known professional
firms determined this. The Robert Charles Lesser Company's work was double and triple checked
by Robinson, Farmer, Cox & Associates and Springstead, companies hired by the county and
beholding to the county with the cost paid for by Shockey. Theirs was not a perfunctory check. They
did models of their own. One model generated numbers very close to the, the model that Len
Bogorad of Robert Charles Lesser developed and the other firm actually came up with numbers
substantially more positive. The county's firms were given the proprietary model data that Mr.
Bogorad used so that it could be verified. Nothing was withheld. All costs were accounted for. For
example, if we added an additional student we put in the cost of educating that student in addition
to a 3 percent annual price inflation factor. Unqualified critics of this work should leave serious
economic analysis to professionals who do it for a living. Furthermore, for those who just cannot
get enough studies and feel this decision needs to be delayed pending some new proffer model, let's
be straightforward. Three very positive professional studies are more than enough. Most projects
in Frederick County, indeed anywhere, do not even have one. I'm now going to give Mr. Riley a
copy ofthese studies. In fact, two ofthe studies originated with you since the county contracted for
them. Let's talk about jobs. I'm not looking for ajob tonight, but if you don't vote for Stephenson
Village I may be looking for one tomorrow. That's the begging part of my presentation. Stephenson
Village is projected to create approximately 700 jobs within the village itself excluding jobs related
to construction activity. The village office development should attract professional firms that would
be interested in its high speed Internet, broadband service at affordable prices made possible because
of the amount of development in one spot. And this can be the latest fiberoptic lines along with an
attractive residential area with lots of amenities for corporate executive families as well as others.
Many folks may even work from home under these conditions. The village is located within a short
distance of three major employment centers, the Fort Collier, Stonewall and Rutherford Farm
Industrial Parks that do not have a residential component. Finally, with a very significant component
of the village being dedicated to the active adult project -- product, many of our residents will be
retired or near retirement. Therefore, we believe, Stephenson Village as presented provides a great
live, work and play balance within the community. Chairman Shickle, that concludes my
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
134
presentation. However, we would like to ask for the opportunity to speak at the conclusion ofthe
citizen comments.
Chairman Shickle, Mr. Wyatt, did you say you were coming back up?
Mr. Wyatt, Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, that concludes our presentation for you this evening. We,
as Mr. Shockey said, stand ready to answer any questions if this is the appropriate time. If you want
to defer until after public hearing then I'll certainly.
Chairman Shickle, We may have some questions now. Supervisor Forrester did you some
now?
Supervisor Forrester, I'm going to wait for the public hearing.
Chairman Shickle, Any questions from staff or the applicant prior to the public hearing?
Chairman Shickle, Mr. Sager?
Supervisor Sager, I, I realize we have a lot of speakers, but could we take just five minutes
or would that be, if you don't mind, this, 1...
Chairman Shickle, That's a reasonable request, Mr. Sager. I think we will recess for five
minutes.
RECESS
Chairman Shickle, First name, please.
Administrator Riley, Yes, sir. I will tell the Board we have 43 individuals registered to
speak. I'm assuming it's the Board's pleasure that I will call the name and if they are not here move
on to the next speaker. All right, sir...
Chairman Shickle, Please, please limit your comments to three minutes.
Administrator Riley The first speaker is David Hepler, Stonewall District.
David Hepler, I'm the President of Hepler Construction, I'm the President Elect ofthe Top
of Virginia Builders Association. I stand before you tonight not as a representative of either ofthose
two entities, but as a lifelong resident of Frederick County. Like most everyone here I, too, am
concerned about growth issues in the county. In my eyes Frederick County is a model community,
good people, friendly neighbors, great schools, farmland, orchards, parks, battlefields, mountain
views, the Shenandoah River and all wrapped around the City of Winchester with all of its history,
its shopping, its great restaurants and other amenities. With our close proximity to the nation's
capital it's no wonder people want to live here. My concern is that as people move here and as our
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
135
children buy their first homes and as other lifelong residents move up to new homes and as our
active adults decide to move, they'll be forced to purchase lots of five acres or more and take away
from our natural resources. I believe it's naive to think we can stop growth and it's going to be
important to manage it. Through proffers Stephenson Associates has addressed schools,
transportation, the preservation of the battlefield, water and any cost to Frederick County for
services. Ifwe do not accept this plan as proposed, the same 2,400 residents and their families over
the next 24 -- over the next 23 years will simply move to more than 12,000 across our landscape.
Pervert -- preserve our resources and vote yes to Stephenson Village.
Phil Lemieux, Red Bud District, the residents of Frederick County have been demanding that
the development bar be raised in our area. This was accomplished with Sovereign Village
several years ago and now has been set t even greater heights again with Stephenson Village.
Stephenson Village is a, is smart, is smart growth as defined by virtually every and any agency that
will define the term. Many people are stating that they do not want this development in their back
yard. I don't, either, but that doesn't mean that this is a bad plan. This is a fantastic plan designed
by some of the best people available. Some people are saying that the fiscal, the fiscal numbers
proposed within this development are flawed. Yet I have yet to see the names of the professional
agency saying so made public. Many vocal groups are stating that the Supervisors should say no
to this development because the people don't want this. My firm belief is that the Supervisors were
elected to office to prepare Frederick County for the future while reflecting on the past decisions.
You were not elected to be persuaded by the vocal minority. In closing, this development is good
for Frederick County and to many aspects and I urge you to support this rezoning.
Rob Wilson, I've lived in Stephenson for 20 years. I'm sure by now all of you are filled to
capacity with facts and knowledge about this project so I'm not here to present new facts, old facts
or new twists on old facts, I'm here to tell you how I feel about a few things. For myself and the
people of Stephenson I say thank you to our Supervisor, Linda Tyler, thank you to Don Shockey.
This is so much better than industrial development. Actually given all the different interest groups
from those strongly bent on turning this land into an industrial Mecca, to the environmentalists, the
historians, the taxpayers, the people who just live next door, this is probably the best solution when
you consider everyone. Stephenson will not become an industrial sinkhole. Instead we are going
to become Frederick County's first model of a profitable and environmentally and historically
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
136
sensitive community. In the future neighboring government planners will be visiting our community
to see firsthand how a planned community can benefit their community. A project of this scope can
only be considered by a developer if the developer gives all the interests of the community due
consideration. Mr. Shockey has done this with those concerned with battlefields, the environment,
the roads, schools, economics, density, phasing, the list is long, but it is complete and commendable.
Not everyone is getting everything they want, but everything is getting --everyone is getting
something. For the people of Stephenson our property values won't be falling through the floor.
Instead, the closer we move to this project, the greater our properties will increase in value. This is
cost free, apportioned compensation for the property owners most directly impacted. My greatest
concern remains to be the roads. The county must be diligent to keep pressure on the developer and
the state to be pro-active in implementing transportation solutions. This is planned and scheduled
growth and road improvements must be planned and scheduled, as well. Slow growth is a very
subjective term, but I think there's no disputing that this is controlled growth. This is smart. I am
for this one hundred percent.
Mac Rutherford, Stephenson, I'm here as a preservationist in support of Stephenson Village
and I want to ask the Board of Supervisors to become a model for the entire nation and vote yes for
this village to show the nation how a municipality, preservationists and developers can work together
for smart growth, controlled growth and preserve an important historic site. Just briefly, historic site
is important, yes. Do you know what happened there in the pre-morning -- predawn morning hours
of May -- June 15, 1863? Gettysburg was fought there literally. It opened the way to Gettysburg,
the defining moment of our nation. If it hadn't have happened, if things had happened differently
there would be no Gettysburg as we know it, our history would be altered and those immortal words
that are carried on the wind oftime, four score and seven years ago would never have been spoken.
Now, if Mr. Shockey is willing to preserve this, let's give him the opportunity. He has repeatedly
stated he will preserve the core battle site with walking trails, artillery pieces east of Milbum Road
and historic markers and will work with the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation to acquire
the land west of the railroad. Now this is, to me, vital because without this, without preserving our
heritage we have nothing for the future. So, therefore, gentlemen and ladies or ladies and gentlemen,
let's do the right thing and approve Stephenson Village for our future. I mean, I'm not too concerned
about Mr. Shockey's houses, but I am concerned about what he wants to do with the battlefield and
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
137
that is my whole concern. Now, ifit's not Mr. Shockey, a very civic minded individual, then it will
be another developer with lawyers high up enough to win this case and then what happens to the
battle site? It's under thousands of houses and we have lost hallowed ground. Now, Mr. Shockey,
I want to thank you for your offer to preserve this battle site and, once again, thank you very much
and I hope these ladies and gentlemen see the right way to go.
Nancy Sinbeck, Top of Virginia Building Association, I'm here representing the Top of
Virginia Building Association. The Top of Virginia has voted at the board level to support Mr.
Shockey in his request for rezoning for his Stephenson Village project. The Top of Virginia
Building Association has six established tenants of smart growth that we, as the local association,
support. They are anticipating and planning for economic development and growth in a timely,
orderly and predictable manner, the establishment of a long term comprehensive plan in each local
jurisdiction that makes available an ample supply ofland for residential, commercial, recreation and
industrial uses, as well as land set aside for meaningful open spaces and to protect environmentally
sensitive areas, to remove barriers that allow for innovative land use planning, techniques to be used
in building higher density and mixed use developments as well as infield developments in suburban
and inner city neighborhoods, planning and constructing new infrastructure in a timely manner to
keep pace with the current and future demands for housing and find a fair and broad based way to
underwrite the cost ofthe infrastructure investment, achieving a reasonable balance in the land use
planning process by using innovative planning concepts to protect the environment and preserve
meaningful open space, improve traffic flow, relieve overcrowded schools and enhance the quality
of life and, finally, ensuring that the process for reviewing site specific land development
applications is reasonable, predictable and fair. We believe this project meets every smart growth
tenant we support and is in keeping with the direction we believe the county should be going. We
hope the Board recognizes that this project is exactly what this community needs if it intends to
protect the rural nature of our county. At this time we strongly urge you all to support the rezoning
brought before you tonight by Mr. Shockey.
Vaughn F oura, I actually live in the Red Bud District. I'm here tonight to speak in favor of
the Stephenson project. I'm a long time citizen of Frederick County and I believe we need this
project for two reasons. As a community we need projects that promote cluster development. Cluster
development such as the Stephenson project concentrate building and services in a specific area
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
I
138
leaving the majority ofthe countryside rural in nature. I hunt, fish and enjoy the rural landscape and
do not want to see the county carved up for big, expensive houses on 5, 10 and 20 acre lots. I would
rather see 2,400 homes on 800 acres than 2400 homes on 12,000 acres. To me this is an easy choice.
I want to see the rural character of our county maintained and I believe this project supports this
view. This project supports also the affordable housing concept. Building homes on large lots in
our rural areas prices most homeowners out ofthe market. We, as a community, have an obligation
to provide housing for all income levels, not just for the wealthy, and this project provides housing
to a broader base of people who dream of owning their own home. Please vote in favor of the
Stephenson project rezoning so we can promote our world heritage and provide housing for a larger
group of home buyers.
Les Johns, Stephenson, I want to, I want to thank every one of you for all of your hard work
and your dedication as none of you make enough money for what you have to go through. I
especially want to thank Linda Tyler, my Supervisor, for her moderation and her compromise on
many issues and I hope tonight she votes yes for this along with the rest of you, but if Linda votes
no, then I have full faith in her that she has made this decision based on all the facts that she's been
given. 15 years ago my wife and I moved into the county. We have four kids. We planted some
trees in front of our home. Some of those trees did not grow and I do not call those no growth or
slow growth trees, I call those dead trees. They're dead, and I think we've created in this area over
the last 15 years, our Board of Supervisors, an area that is dead. My wife said, let's go out and look
and see if you can find one subdivision in that area -- and I'm not talking about a 2,000 lot, 1,000 lot,
500 lot, 100 lot, one 50 lot subdivision that has been approved other than the McTiernan and
Shockey tracts in the last 15 years. Now, I know there is the Regency Lakes, a gentleman mentioned
that he lives in Regency Lakes, but as I've covered this part of the county I can find very little
approved subdivisions that have been done here. I think it's about time for this subdivision to be
approved. I also feel that, I read in the newspaper an article, an editorial that talked about, well, just
because Mr. Shockey didn't get the industrial approval that doesn't mean we have to change this to
residential. We can leave it how it is forever. Wow. I was astounded. My teeth, I almost had
cardiac arrest that somebody in our county can actually think that we can just leave things like they
are forever. I call this the Peter Pan theory. We don't want to, we do not want to grow up. It is
going to happen. Someone, and I think Mr. Shockey -- the reason to have Mr. Shockey do this, I
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
139
don't know him, I never met him until tonight, I wouldn't know him from Adam. I wasn't for the
industrial. I am for this residential and I believe that -- I've been in the real estate industry for 26
years. I've seen developers who, who bulldoze tactics. I've seen developers who don't care about
your battlefield at all. They don't care. And Mrs. Whitesell and Mr. Shockey need to be
congratulated for coming together and comprising to dedicate some of this for a battlefield. A lot
of people won't --wouldn't do this and don't care. I think Mr. Shockey is not entirely about money.
I believe Mr. Shockey is doing it partly because he wants to put state of the art, for lack of a better
word, he wants to put a beautiful thing in this community. He's not going to be alive unfortunately
or, you know, 20 or 30 years from now Mr. Shockey's probably not going to be here. This
community is. Well, guy, I'm sorry, but hey, I might not be, but let me just say -- I'm sorry, but you
know, and I think this is important to him that this is done right. He lives locally here. If something
goes wrong he's here to talk to about it.
Chairman Shickle, You need to conclude, sir.
Chairman Shick1e, Please, the Board does not want citizen reaction to a speaker either for
or against. Please don't put me in a position where I have to begin to do something about that. We
have a long night and we want to hear what somebody has to say. We don't care whether you
express an opinion in favor of it or against it. So, please keep your, your noise quiet.
Nicki Suma, I just recently, about a year and a half ago, moved to Frederick County and we
proud of being Frederick County residents. I've been in civil engineering for almost 20 years and
I've been working on several successful residential planned communities and one of them is
Braemar. I'm, I was proud being a part ofthe team with Jim Baish working Braemar and that is very
successful one. Stephenson Village, residents ofthat community will be the first in this county and
with the time span, many hours, days, weeks, months and years molding and massaging it's
everything, but what it takes to make it right and with public involvement I assure you this one will
be a successful one, too. I did talk to some of my college friends that is moving to residential
planned community. I just tried to get an input. Some ofthe answer I would like to share with you
and it's mainly positive thing they are telling me about it and I make a comment. A few of them
actually, this is almost like confirming what Mr. Jim Baish had to say about residential planned
community, some of what they say about it I must share it with you. They feel like they have more
sense of community in their subdivision and they congregate more within the community. And what
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
140
they realize also, cultural diversity what exists there from the present...is, is there, they could see
that. And they also have come to realize that they become more actively involved in the community
functions and while I'm not saying that they share their life, they enjoy, they enjoy the pool side,
recreational amenities. So, finally, I would like to say and to hope that Chairman and Board
members will approve Stephenson Village residential planned community because I know this is
where we're raising the bar of the subdivision standards in our county here and it is the right thing
to do.
Bernie Schwartzman, I am a 30 year resident of Stonewall District. I live on Red Bud Road
and I adjoin the applicant's property. I believe in planned growth. When I first moved to this area
there was a very lengthy article in both the Washington Post and I also believe the Winchester Star
concerning the megalopolis that would exist in a few short years, and this was 30 years ago, from
Boston to Virginia Beach. It has come to pass. I'm not against growth, I'm for planned growth. In
all my years in Frederick County the Board has consistently sided with planned growth and
expanding the community in a reasonable manner. I have to fault the Board in recent years because
you have not planned for a road structure to handle growth as it is occurring now. The applicant's
project will greatly increase traffic on the roads that already exist. His meager exit onto Route 11 for
traffic for people who will most likely live to the east ofthis community or work to the east of this
community, have to go through six traffic lights from Stephenson to the Millwood Schoo\. Six
traffic lights in basically five miles. If you went further from Greenwood intersection on Route 7
there would be but two traffic lights to the Kennedy Center. Traffic, the traffic study in the
applicant's proposal I believe is flawed because people coming from the north, from West Virginia,
from Stephenson, from the northern part of the county will not tolerate six traffic lights to get past
Millwood Schoo\. They already come down Red Bud Road. We call it the Red Bud Raceway. If
you plug up Red Bud Road they're going to go down Jordan Springs Road to the other two roads to
cross 7 and that is a bad intersection at both Morgan's Mill and Woods Mill because it's an elevated,
divided highway. It's not good. I think earlier comments this evening stated that there was probably
a water problem and to handle 2,600 additional homes would be not good. In the applicant's
proposal I don't believe any mention was made of sidewalks. There were pictures with sidewalks,
but I don't believe anything was written into the proposal for sidewalks. How do pedestrians get
from one part of this development to another? Nine -- I think that's enough. There will be other
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
141
comments.
David Burgess, Shawnee District, I don't have a big speech or anything, I've just got some
questions I hope Mr. Good would write them down and maybe you can answer them later. First of
all, what -- I'm a little upset about the rules. You know, the plan came forth and it went to the
Planning Commission and changes were made and we're stepping out of the, out of the box and
going away from what we're supposed to be doing by going back to the Planning Commission which
was suggested by Mr. Reyes. The first question I have is the children. I heard something about there
was adjustments.
Chairman Shickle, Burgess, please address the Board.
Mr. Burgess, I'm sorry. Chairman Shickle ...and Mr. Good can...
Chairman Shickle, Mr. Burgess.
Mr. Burgess, okay, I heard that there was going to be possible adjustments to the children.
From what I understand there's zero children as planned in the restricted area or the age restricted
area and I want to ask if children do -- are there going to be guards at the gate to keep children out?
What happens if older folks in there, God forbid, if their children die and they have to take on their
grandchildren, are they going to be forced to sell their houses and move out? I want to make sure
there's plenty, that there's allowances for that in there before this goes forward. The second thing
is, you're talking about jobs. We've got the home builders up here supporting this thing. I want to
know how many of our local home builders will actually get work in here, you know, how many of
them will be allowed in or are all these parcels going to be divvied up to the big builders like Tolls
and the other bigger national companies? Let's see. Another thing is the number crunchers. They're
talking about these professionals exposing the numbers. Others have questioned these numbers.
They're mocked and ridiculed, like Dr. Shepherd and Sam Lehman, who probably has more
credentials than, you know, you can list on the length of your arm, I don't know why they have to
be mocked. Why can't we sit them down and, and find out precisely what their differences are and
answer the questions? I think that's about it on my notes.
Pam Kennedy, Gainesboro District, money lost, nothing lost; courage lost, everything lost.
It isn't often that we can be present at an historic moment, but tonight we are. You, the Supervisors,
will with your vote determine the course that this county will take for decades to come. You
literally hold the county and its residents in your hands. It's an important decision. Are you truly
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
142
aware of this? If you approve the Stephenson Village proposal with it's 2,500 or so homes, this is
what we all will see. Roadways jammed with commuter cars, an increase in police involvement
because of accidents, domestic disputes and crime, a dramatic increase in the need for fire and rescue
services. Older people need help, houses catch on fire, soccer and ball fields that need to be built
at a cost of many thousands. At least one new school that the taxpayers must build and pay to staff.
Many, many new residents who will daily travel in and out of the county who will have little time
for positive community involvement. Another Northern Virginia commuter suburb. A demand for
water. There will be future droughts. Who will deal with this? Who will pay for these very costly
services? The residents of the county. All the residents, not just the new residents. How much?
Well, we know that each new school results in taxes jumping several percentage points. Couple that
with the need for more professionally trained police, fire and rescue personnel and the needed
increase in tax dollars is enormous. Because the village plans now reflect a decrease in its
commercial aspect, few people will work there and few tax dollars can be collected from nonexistent
of downgraded businesses. And what is the end result? Well, that is the problem. There will be no
end result because there is no end. The need for tax dollars will be forever. One thing is certain, this
need will increase with each step in the village's build-out. So, the key question is, why such a rush
to approve? You are funding or assisting with various tools that can help you in responsible decision
making, air quality studies, the MPO, the economic impact study, water availability study. Why not
wait for the completion of these to help you? To decide now, tonight, without the tools soon to be
at your disposal can only be viewed as careless. You are toying with the citizens' money and you
are jeopardizing their trust. Stop and really think about the legacy you are about to create. Stand
with Teddy Roosevelt. We are face to face with our destiny and we must meet it with high and
resolute courage.
Marie Straub, Red Bud District, when this plan came before the Planning Commission I
argued that this plan had not come from the Comprehensive Plan and Program Subcommittee. That
subcommittee was expanded in membership by citizens of the Stonewall District according to a
request made by Supervisor Tyler, came up with three plans none of which is the plan they presented
tonight. The plan was not discussed by that subcommittee. Maps were displayed which were flawed
in that they did not correctly show the current urban development area boundaries or
developmentally sensitive areas. However, wc were told that's okay. Now, correct me ifI'm wrong,
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
143
but typically future land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan are shown as future industrial,
future residential, future business, not Ml, M2, not Bl, B2 and certainly not R4. Subsequently
planned for was the R4 designation passed through the Planning Commission and so it's here tonight.
Other than the above this plan has other serious flaws and loopholes. There's no master development
plan. This I believe is a huge mistake and will set a precedent for other large developments one of
which is being planned for the southeast area of the UDA. The plan is to have only one school
which is woefully inadequate. Stephenson Village will generate approximately 1,300 students. It
needs at least two schools within the village, but .not at the artificially inflated price of three --
$30,000 per acre, a 1,000 percent increase of the original first -- You're looking at least 4,000 cars
coming out of the village. And the access road into the village goes right through the battlefield.
when Mr. Shockey originally processed -- proposed this plan he said the residents of the village
would live, play and work inside the village and would hardly ever have to leave. With a proffer of
only 4 percent of the land for commercial I cannot see the residents of the village doing anything
other than going elsewhere to get jobs that will pay them enough to be able to afford the homes in
the village. There was a presentation by Mr. Thomas Hilton sponsored by Stephenson Associates
who said a development of this type belongs in urban areas. Stonewall District is a rural area and
many I have talked to do not want this huge development put in Stephenson. Mr. Smith, during the
Supervisor hearing of2002, said from this day forward it's going to be tough for me to approve any
more RA's or RP's. Unfortunately, Mr. Smith is not here tonight. This development is huge and it
will cost every taxpayer in the county. We'll have to pay for the building of schools, parks, ball
fields and pay for supplying emergency services. We've been told that the information you -- the
projected profit for Stephenson Village is proprietary information. Until our Frederick County
impact model is completed this project should be tabled until we have all the pieces ofthis enormous
puzzle.
Jim Vickers, Back Creek District, I've lived here about 30 years. I'm here in favor of the
Stephenson Village project. Looking at the amenity package ofthis project it's just enormous. The
positive impact it will have on the future residents of Stephenson Village, it's going to be a positive
project for them. Looking at the proffer statements that were made has definitely raised the bar for
all future development. I have been building in this community for the past 30 years and it's, it's just
amazing for me to see this level of commitment from the Shockey organization in bringing this forth
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
I
144
with the high level of, of work and effort put in it to make sure all the details are totally worked out
and that it will have a positive impact not only on Stephenson Village, but the entire Frederick
County. Looking at another element ofthe proffer statement is the amount of units that will be built
per year. I think this is an excellent way to really monitor and control the amount of homes built in
a given time frame in a given area. The projected time frame is between 15 to 25 years. This is not
going to be built next year. This is going to be built over a long period oftime. I want to mention
about the Shockey organization and the Shockey family. They have been dedicated to Frederick
County. They have actually helped build Frederick County over the past 100 years. They have built
many of our schools. They have built this building. They have been involved in projects throughout
the county in every area you can imagine. They are committed to nonprofit organizations. They
have -- currently they are building a project on Cameron Street for -- to house a number of nonprofit
organizations through the Our Help project. They're doing this at cost. These are the types of people
that are bringing this project to you tonight. They're committed to the area and have been committed
to the area for many years. I urge you tonight to vote yes.
Glen Penton, Stonewall District, Board members, we meet again. This has been a long
battle. It's gone through an industrial process, it's gone through a housing process which seems
tremendously excessive. The numbers for this residential use, in Don Shockey's words, are
shocking. The need for residential use in this area is way out of scale. History should teach us a
lesson. Throughout history housing has done nothing but cost the county money. More houses,
more taxes, more citizens in the county that have been here for a number of years will have to pay
more taxes for more houses to be built. The traffic will increase. It's without question. Presently
you cannot get through the intersection at 11, 30, 7 and 81 as it is and we're going to increase that
demand to how the traffic will be impacted. And to, and to go back to the schools, which we started
with earlier with the School Board's comments. The over- crowdedness, 23 trailers, our kids are
going to school and they wait in shifts and lines to eat their lunch and we're going to build more
houses, more kids, more schools, more, more, more. Don't we need to slow down and give our kids
a break? Don't we need to staff our schools properly? Don't we need to support our schools? Do
we need more houses or better schools? Frederick County does not want to become Loudoun
County. We've got to slow down. We can't build on every piece ofland that's available. For the
R4 use, land use, it's supposed to be a mixture, a balance. There's no balance here, it's all houses.
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24103
145
It's a mixture of houses. There's no balance in community at all. No one will work here. No
commercial development would be here. It's too far off ofthe beaten track ofll and 81 and 37. The
Stephenson citizens do not want 2,400 houses in their back yard. It will ruin their way of life. We
must slow down. The county is going too fast. This is too big, it's in the wrong place and the
citizens don't want it.
Kevin Kennedy, Gainesboro District, on the national level we have seen examples of
assertions strongly made which cannot be disproven except through doing the action in question.
These are assertions made because ofthe opinions of so-called experts. These are assertions which
have had powerful, long range effects for the people and for the economy. And so, we have been
given such things as a war to find weapons of mass destruction which couldn't be found, massive
tax cuts to stimulate an economy which remains moribund. Locally we have the largest residential
development ever proposed in the county and we are all told that it will pay for itself and the only
way we can find out if it will or if it won't is to try it. Is that the chance you want to take with the
county's financial future? Trust us. Well, we already know that one of the figures used is wrong,
using the 3 percent per year rate of increase for the cost of county services when the actual figure
is more like 10 percent. I would ask that each of you make a statement as to why you vote the way
you do on this when the night is through. Your vote is that important. The citizens deserve that
information. Now, remember, this is no longer live, work and play in the same, same community.
The bait and switch has already occurred. The commercial part has been essentially withdrawn.
What you're voting on is basically a giant commuter village. Any of you who vote for this need to
say what your vision of the transportation in the Stephenson area is once this development is
underway. Where are all the construction vehicles going to travel? Why, on Routes 11 and 7, of
course. The 37, 11 and 81 area is already Grade D at times according to VDOT, is it not? At the
end of build-out this development would contain 5,000 or more resident vehicles. Since residents
can't work there and only those with soccer or baseball playing children can play there, all of these
cars will be leaving there, getting on the already crowded Routes 11 and 7. Those who have read
about a grocery store in the development need to know that it would be 10 years, if then, before one
would be built. So, more traffic out on Route 11 and 7 for all shopping. I hope no one is under the
illusion that Shockeyville will be filled with elderly people who just won't leave the development.
There will only be a limited number of slots for docents to give guides of the battlefield to tourists.
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
146
The rest will have to leave the property by way of Routes 11 and 7, of course. Those who would
vote for this need to explain to the citizens how this traffic is to be managed. 5,000 or more cars will
mean an estimated over 50,000 vehicle trips per day. Those of you who are up for reelection need
to explain the transportation solution to the voters. And please don't start talking about 37 East as
a solution. It's clear from the state that this wouldn't even be started for at least 10 years even if it
was approved right now.
Doug Cochran, Stonewall District, I have several issues, but I'm going to try and limit my
conversations to the school system. Several weeks ago I tried to contact Stephenson Associates to
get, to gain some information and wasn't had a call returned. Today I finally managed to contact Bill
Hardig. He was very helpful. He stated that he would have liked to have had more time to rerun the
school economic numbers since the number of houses changed. He was very unsure ofthe current
numbers pertaining to the dollars to be contributed per student. He thought it was in the
neighborhood of $7,000 to $7,500 per student. Later I contacted the Planned Development
Committee and I talked to Chris Mohn who was also very helpful. In some discussions with him
he was unable to find the $7,000 figure. According to some percentage breakouts he thought it was
more in the neighborhood of$5,000. But let's assume for a minute thatthe $7,000 number is correct.
County data which I have just passed out, and you'll see that -- by the fact sheet that that came from
the School Board -- indicates that the current cost per student is $7,592. Nothing that could be found
in the proffers adjusts this figure for inflation. The only thing that's adjusted for inflation is the 3925
figure that's for students over the 60 cumulative, but that is tied to the CPI, Consumer Price Index,
which is averaging about 2 percent increase. If you look at the data that's from the Frederick County
school system, the cost per child increased 5 percent from the '02-'03 actual to the '03-'04 projected.
Mr. Wyatt stated that Stephenson Associates would contribute $6.5 million for new students that the
project brings on. Let's assume that's correct. We just heard tonight representatives from the
Frederick County Public Schools request $6 million to begin the construction of a 20 plus million
dollar school. I'm just not sure how this is all going to pan out. Some other things that I have issue
with that I'll use my last 40 seconds on is setting aside land for historic preservation, yet we're going
to put an 80 foot wide four-lane road right through the corner of it. Guaranteed 60,000 square feet
of commercial usage is an unheard of proffer. Well, if you look at the R4 requirements, it requires
10 percent which is 250,000 square feet. Donating land for schools and recreational fields, yet
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
147
receiving tax credits on those. And as one speaker said, it's not tens ofthousands of dollars to build
those ball fields, according to information on the Internet it's tens of millions to build a three ball
field, three soccer field complex. So, I'm not sure where that money is coming from. Thank you for
your time.
Mike Weber, Stonewall District, I'm a lifelong resident of Frederick County, right in the
area where this development would be built. I'm sure Mr. Shockey would do an ideal job building
this. I've heard many comments about how much he's done for Frederick County and this is true,
but Frederick County has also done a lot for the Shockey Company. We are looking, if this
development is built, at a lot of new schools. Most of the schools in this county have been built by
Shockey Company. The last, Sherando High School, we aren't talking $20 million cash, let's talk
$50 million which is actual. This development now says that they will cut 335 houses. To quote
in the editorial of the Winchester Star today says that Shockey says this will cut 398 to 557 pupils.
Well, I took this ratio and multiplied it out on the 2,465 which is 1.2 to 1.6 students per household
and came up with this project will produce 2,933 to 4,092 students, not the 1,000 or 1,300 we've
heard. The age restricted community with this reduction which should be allowed to increase which
we heard tonight will go to 800 units plus 144 units attached in one section. We were told that there
would be 700 jobs in this community. Well, let's take just the 2,465, we're coming to about 2,500
and there's at least two working people in each household, that's 5,000 jobs needed. We are told
they're going to go to Stonewall Industrial Park and Stein's Industrial Park which are basically full.
Where are they going to work in this community? Now, they want to reduce from 10 percent to 4
percent the commercial and industrial saying we're going to proffer out industrial because people
don't want it. People didn't want heavy industry. There's nothing wrong with technical jobs,
computer industry and things like this that could be added on this site. The Star said today in their
editorial, it'll change the face of Frederick County. It won't change the face, it will change the
complexion. It will change Frederick County. You will double, over double Stonewall District and
you will set a precedent for more ofthese which another one has already been introduced at the other
end of the county. Fire and rescue will need a new building, probably, not just a donation. It's going
to have to be built and the traffic will be immense. You're talking 3,300 units here. Everybody says
2,465, there's 944 aged units. Even if those people don't travel, people are going to visit them.
These people are going to work. Where are they going to go? The roads at all these intersections
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
148
where it's going to come out, Woods Mill, Red Bud, 7 and 11 are highly congested now. You're just
going to add to it.
JeffRezin, Back Creek District, and I'd like to provide a health perspective on community
design. Stephenson Village is the opportunity for Frederick County to establish a new paradigm for
creating an active community. The Center for Disease Control estimates that a difference of 100
calories of exercise per day, the equivalent of 20 minutes of walking, could eliminate the obesity
epidemic that we are now experiencing. Walking communities promote health by changing the way
people can live their lives. Who would ever have thought that people in sprawling communities like
Gonco County, Ohio and Walton County, Georgia would weigh more and have higher blood
pressure than people living in New York City? Nowadays the majority of children are driven to
school rather than walk or ride a bike. Adults must drive cars to work and even on short errands
drive their cars rather than walk. The engineering innovations that created labor saving devices like
garage door openers may also be affecting our health. Interestingly enough, a number of new studies
have now linked community sprawl to obesity and hypertension. Sprawl's effect on health is
discussed in two August journals, The American Journal of Public Health and The American
Journal of Health Promotion. Both publications describe a significant link between sprawl and
obesity and between sprawl and hypertension. Additionally, they call upon urban planners and
zoning commissioners to consider public health in designing neighborhoods. How you build things
influences health in a much more pervasive way than I think most health professionals realize said
Dr. Richard Jackson for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention who also helped edit both
joumals. Almost half of all premature deaths in the United States and other developed countries are
caused by lifestyle related problems says Dr. Michael P. O'Donnell, founder of The American
Journal of Health Promotion. We have been hearing that the vast majority ofthe American public
is sedentary, that despite two decades of programs encouraging us to exercise and eat properly and
now we learn that some of that baggage is due not only to how we live, but also where we live. It
is not so much geographically or regionally attributable as it is to the type of community that we live
in that provides better health benefits. The emerging field of health promoting community design
and active living by design is a strategy of designing work places and whole communities to
engineer activity back into people's lives. So, what exactly are they suggesting? By building
communities to promote health say, for instance, like Stephenson Village. City planners need to
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
149
consider the health impact of communities they build. Our opportunity to make a lifestyle change
that promotes health is at hand. We must seize the opportunity to approve Stephenson Village
project for the health of our community and its citizens. The Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency have both said that walking communities are
directionally correct to promote improving regional air quality. And now the health perspective also
promotes walking communities as affecting people's health in a positive manner. All that is left for
our community is to start building Stephenson Village.
Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District, God's earth will survive. These were wonderful words to
hear after having spent the past two years as Chair of Environmental Justice and Survival on the
Board of Church and Society for the Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church. These
reassuring words came through loud and clear and brought great joy and comfort to me. I was
attending an ecumenical conference in Denver, Colorado of church leaders across the nation who
were trying to find solutions to the mounting environmental issues not only facing our country, but
around the world. However, the words which he spoke after the initial statement are still echoing
in my ears. God's earth will survive, it is mankind who will, will become extinct and the sad part
about this is that these two-legged creatures will take many four-legged and winged creatures with
him into extinction. This conference was held 10 years ago and still the political powers in our
nation and local communities, as well, are not acting in a responsible way to address these crucial
issues ofland use, air pollution and the quality and quantity of our water supply. Through the years
my committee have - - and I have tried to educate not only members of our church, but the public
as well as being involved with Earth Day and other conservation movements based on our first social
principle and I quote, all creation is the Lord's and we are responsible for the way in which we use
it and abuse it. Water, air, soil, minerals, energy sources, plants, animal life and space are to be
valued and conserved because they are God's creation and not solely because they are useful to
human beings. God has granted us stewardship of creation. We should meet these stewardship
duties through acts of love, loving care and respect, unquote. Frederick County does not have
available, sustainable water source and we are also dealing with not being in compliance with air
quality. Therefore, I ask each member of this Board not to rezone any more rural land until all the
stakeholders in Frederick County and the residents, the landowners, the developers, real estate
agents, business and industry, schools and churches can come to the table to design a game plan for
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
150
Frederick County's glorious future. Everyone should know their water source and how are they
going to protect it?
Mark Smith, Shawnee District, also with Greenway Engineering. I'm in support of the
project. I'd like to make two short comments in lieu of the time tonight. A project like Stephenson
Village is made by commitment and commitment with a design team that you've got before you this
evening. Someone like Jim Baish that has his heart and soul in a project, and I think you saw that
as you went to Braemar, and down to the point of when Mark, as an engineer, when you design a
dry pond let's go study the bottom and decide we're going to keep the trees that are water tolerant.
You've also got Evan Wyatt which, as many of you know him, he leaves no stone untumed. The
facts are correct. He's asked this design team very pointed questions and they've been answered and
they are here before you and they are correct. Then you've got a commitment of an owner that is
willing to spend the time, the effort and the monetary dollars to get you to a package, a rezoning
package that is very comprehensive and is correct and I urge you to support it. Right before a
gentleman this evening was leaving, he had came to support the project and he left early, he handed
me a note and says, Mark, I have a son who lives in Braemar. What I've heard here tonight is
absolutely true. We marvel every time we go there. The design and landscape are beautiful.
Steve Slaughter, I actually reside in the City of Winchester. I do own a business in the
Stonewall District of Frederick County. I have been a lifelong resident ofthis community. I would
like to thank the Board of Supervisors for this opportunity for myself and everybody, really, to voice
our opinions on this project. I have been a business associate and a business neighbor of Don
Shockey and his companies for over 30 years. I know Don to be a good corporate citizen. He
continues to carry on a manner of business that has been the mantra of the Shockey companies for
over 100 years. Don and his companies have been a positive influence in our community and its
development for a very long time. I cannot fathom how many jobs, tax revenues and charitable gifts
have been created or given to the benefit ofthis community by Don and his companies. I would like
to pose this question to you. How have Don and his companies reached this level of success?
Simply put the answer is the Shockey Company slogan, partner of choice. People choose to do
business with them because of an extremely long history of honestly, integrity, commitment and
quality. I have no doubt this project will be something the entire community can be and will be
proud of. Don Shockey has given his word on this and Don Shockey is a man of his word. I ask this
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
151
- - the Board to vote yes to the Stephenson Village project.
Donald W. Luttrell, Opequon District, and I also have some property in the Gainesboro
District. Now, I can't see one thing that this project will bring to Frederick County that we don't
already have except more pollution, more crime, more taxes, things of that nature. We do not have
any unemployment in Frederick County and, therefore, we do not need to provide a bunch of jobs.
What this will do is it will bring people in to live in these 2,400 units and it's a Catch 22 and that's
going to bring the taxes higher and higher and higher and higher. Now, the school, people from the
School Board who were in a while ago, they gave you a little breakdown of wherever we are now
insofar as the school needs. We just saw a 20 cent tax increase to pay for the school needs, the
school that just opened. So, you can, you can just figure it out what's coming. Now, it's been said
that this project is going to bring so many million dollars into the county, but how about the new
school that they're going to, that they're going to cost us? That's any 25 to 40 million dollars and
that's just for the land and the building and then it's going to go every year, just what it takes to run
it. Now, when Shockey & Associates bought this land it was zoned RA agriculture and they knew
that and it should be left RA agriculture. You people should not secondguess the people that came
before you and rezoned it RA agriculture to protect the citizens and the future of Frederick County.
So, unless you think you are smarter than them or whatever your reason may be, it's beyond me.
Now, I'm going to, I'd like to break this down a little bit. Margaret, what will this property, how will
it benefit the people of Back, Back Creek District? It won't. Sidney, will it benefit the people of
Gainesboro? Bob, will it, will it benefit the people of the Opequon District? Mr. Shickle, you
represent all the districts, how will it benefit those people? Miss Tyler, you were elected primarily
because the people ofthe Stonewall District looked to you to protect the RA zoning of the Stonewall
District. Now, each one of you, Margaret, you have spent all your adult life working with young
people, asking them to Just Say No. That's what I'm asking you to do tonight, Just Say No to this
project which will destroy, it will greatly enhance the destruction of the way of life. I am fifth
generation of Frederick County. So, let me assure you, I know for what I speak.
Lynda Hyre, Stonewall District, due to the lateness of the hour I'm going to shorten my
prepared remarks. It's the dawn of a new era in Frederick County as well as many other communities
around the country. We are not unique. The difference between those that move forward and
prosper and those that stagnate and fail will be the strength and intelligence of our elected leaders.
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
152
I'm a realist. The future, just like a growing populace will come. So, instead of living in a fantasy
world of stopping growth I ask you to prepare for it. The voters elected you as our leaders.
Leadership is more than it's either my way or no way. It's about compromise, foresight and the
ability to see the big picture over little egos. Where would America be today if our Founding
Fathers had been afraid to look to the future and take bold, new steps for the benefit of their fellow
man? I ask you to vote in favor of Stephenson Village. Vote for it on its merits, merits based on
fact. Yes, Stephenson Village is a brand new concept for Frederick County. Yes, it's an innovative
approach to acknowledging that growth will happen and we can prepare for it. Yes, it's a village
which will stop sprawl from gobbling up 12,000 acres of rural land in the next 20 years. It represents
three-tenths of 1 percent ofthe land in Frederick County. Yes, it's a development designed to foster
the traditional values upon which the true quality of life depends. Yes, it's not the typical
subdivision you're used to voting on. It's a planned community based on the concepts of protecting
our historic, environmental and natural resources as proffered to have a positive impact on Frederick
County. And, yes, it will take men and women with courage, wisdom and foresight to approve this
project, but I believe that most of you sitting there are smart enough and care enough about Frederick
County and, yes, and I think history will report you as true leaders with the strength and character
and intelligence to plan for the future of Frederick County by raising the bar and approving this bold,
new model for development in our community.
Ron Bowers, I reside in the Town of Stephens City and I've lived in this area for 66 years.
I have had some experience in dealing with the zoning, planning and development. I would like to
make some comments relating the ones that Don had made earlier. I had the privilege of working
for the Shockey, excuse me, companies for 23 years as their Corporate Safety and Security Director.
In doing my time there Don had certain policies that, that he had set forth to deal with customers.
One fthose was be honest, be fair, ensure quality and with safety in mind. And I think that Don has
implemented all four of these in the development of Stephenson Village. I will make it short.
Growth is inevitable. However, planned growth is essential and I think he has met this criteria.
Stephanie Seay, I'm a resident of nearby Harpers Ferry, West Virginia and I am also the Field
Coordinator for the Civil War Preservation Trust, landowners in this county, and tonight I ask you
to reject Shockey's zoning request. What you plan to do here is spreading like a cancer all over the
region and, frankly, we're sick of it. The historic integrity in this county is fading fast. Recent
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
153
statements made in the press seem to indicate that a deal has been struck to save Stephenson's Depot
battlefields, but this isn't the case. There's no preservation guarantee. There's nothing that
guarantees the battlefield will be saved. Even so, the visual and noise pollution would make it a
miserable place to interpret or visit. Stephenson's Village proposal will transform a historic and rural
community and turn it into a 2,500 house artificial city that will overrun the local transportation
network. And further, the Shockey plan will serve as a magnet for additional sprawl in the county,
sprawl that will destroy more battlefield land and require millions oftaxpayer dollars for new roads,
new schools and police and fire protection. Stephenson's Depot is located within Frederick County's
Milburn Rural Historic District which has been eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
since 1997. The Milburn Rural Historic District is rich with Native American, Revolutionary and,
of course, Civil War history, but regardless ofthis the county has still not taken the necessary steps
to recognize its National Register eligibility, leaving the land wide open to threat. The recently
approved Northeast Land Use Plan conveniently neglected to mention its existence. The developers
plan ignores it, as well, as if it might as well not even exist. So, on behalf of the Civil War
Preservation Trust I urge the County Board of Supervisors to reject rezoning request for
Stephenson's Village. Otherwise a unique and irreplaceable part of Frederick County's heritage will
be lost forever. And, moreover, the citizens of Frederick County and most importantly those in the
Stonewall District have urged you time and again to reject this rezoning request. Please do so.
David Darsie, Stonewall District, and I'm asking you tonight, tonight to vote no. What is
wrong with this? My thoughts are very simple, it's very, very simple. It's the scale of the
development is all wrong. This project and its residences are all -- is bigger than the existing
Stonewall District today. Somewhere between 500 acres ofM2 industrial, 185 five acre homes or
2,500 UDA homes there is a reasonable compromise out there somewhere. We are not unreasonable
people in the Stonewall District. We're bright, we're intelligent, we know this community's going
to grow, but what do we have to accept? We don't have to accept that living in Stephenson means
that you are the redheaded stepchild of Frederick County. M2 industrial, 2,500 UDA homes, come
on, there's something in the middle. How much money do we have to be paid off with? It's not a
choice for me. My other thoughts are, one ofthe most interesting people that Mr. Shockey brought
to his meeting was Mr. Hilton. He really, really hit what I consider to be common sense in what
really is lacking in common sense on our Board of Supervisors and the, and the people in our
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
I
154
development community and it had to do with the UDA. He was very, very distinct in how he
described what smart growth is. When he talked about smart growth he was talking about something
akin to our UDA. Set the line and stand by it until you fill it. Just last year, now we're looking at
1,000 acres ofUDA up in Stephenson now. Isn't it great? No, it's not great. We set aside in the
Comprehensive Plan a designated area and what are we doing? We're always changing the line,
changing the line, changing the line and you look inside that UDA and you still see huge blocks of
open land. I wish I had a better choice. I, I appreciate Mr. Shockey and his meetings he had. It's
a beautiful thing, it's wrong. I showed you the numbers on Route 7, the 250 percent increase in
traffic, the injuries out there. It's real, it's happening. The water, I told you earlier tonight, 25
percent increase over a year. When do we, when do say no? This is a pretty way of doing the same
old thing.
Tim LaPorte, Opequon District, I'm here tonight to talk about the taxpayers and what I've
seen as a very good marketing program. The Powerpoint presentation has been excellent, a lot of
good information and they have raised the bar and as a taxpayer I do appreciate that. But what I'm
really here to, to share with you is have they raised the bar enough and the only way to understand
that is, and to really understand around the impact on the community and the taxpayers is to wait for
the economic impact model that's going to be developed and implemented within the next six
months. If that is in place we can make our judgments from data. And so, tonight I'm asking you
to reject that, the proposal and wait for that economic impact model to be in place.
Jim Giraytys, Back Creek District. I've been sitting, like you have, for a long time trying to
sort through facts and statements. The presentation is very difficult in 43, or whatever they are, three
minute sound bytes to try and present a very coherent picture of what people might or might not
think. So, I've been trying to weigh in my own mind, what have we really got here and what are we
trying to, to analyze? Eisenhower said, plans are worthless, planning is everything. The reason for
that is that once you have approved a particular plan it never goes the way that you want it to go. It
will always go in some other direction. Now, we heard tonight that there are modifications to
various plans that have been made in the past to make this particular plan go forward and that these
are absolutely essential. There will be modifications to this plan in the future, there's no question
in my mind. You look at that time line behind you that stretches out to 2027, that's a very long
period. It cannot be planned over that period of time. There is no question about that. So, what do
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
155
we have? We have a wonderful vision. We have a vision of grandmothers holding little children's
hands, but the affordable elderly won't be built until 2020, 2022, someplace in there. As someone
said before, Mr. Shockey and probably myself won't be here to see those particular things happen.
What you're doing tonight is making a vote, you're giving a vote to Mr. Shockey one way or another
you're saying to him with a yes vote, go ahead and do this, but we know full well that the vision you
have given us will not, in fact, be achieved. Something else will be achieved. You have to make
your own judgment whether that will be something you wish to buy into or not. What does a no vote
do? A no vote buys another year. You've heard all kinds of arguments from several different
people, not just one or two, that say there are a number of unanswered questions that still need to be
answered before we can have even some clue as to whether this is going to be an effective program
or not. I can urge you very strongly to vote no. Give yourselfthat time to answer questions which
are still out there whether they're water, air quality, traffic, whether schools, whatever they are, they
need to be answered.
Hal Duff, Shawnee District, my comments will be brief given the hour. I come not as a
representative or a resident in the district that is being affected nor do I come as a representative of
anyone that would benefit directly from that. I'm a taxpayer of Frederick County and a business
person. From what I have seen and from what I have read and what I have heard and mostly what
I believe, if the county is going to grow, and I do believe that it is, this is the right way to go. I'm
in favor of the development. I ask that you vote yes tonight for the rezoning.
Darryl Sebastian, Back Creek District, for the last five years I've worked in the community
of Braemar. It's everything that, that Mr. Baish and Mr. Shockey have said it is. You guys have
seen it. Won't go into the details of that, but what I would like to cover with you is the fact of how
many jobs that community creates. There are at least 500 to 1,000 individuals on that site every day,
many of which come from Frederick County, surrounding counties and beyond to get that work. In
addition, these national builders that we've heard oftonight employ very few people directly. These
are subcontractors and they are one hundred percent local subcontractors. These jobs extend to
companies like Trex, American W oodmark, smaller companies as such D&M Mechanical and others
that I've employed directly as a national builder. The majority of the folks do work directly there
and I, I think it would be good for Frederick County and, and me as a resident of Frederick County,
to have these opportunities closer to my home. I currently drive a minimum of 70 miles and
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
I
156
sometimes as much as 120 to get to my workplace every day and I go down with a multitude of
construction workers that have to travel that far. And it's truly a hardship to have to go that far every
day to find consistent work. We can get lucky and find some jobs here every once in a while, but
they're, they're certainly not long term and I would appreciate it if you would consider that in your
thoughts tonight as far as this project goes.
Rita Wilson, Shawnee District, I am a, at least a 30 year resident of Frederick County. I'm
here tonight to ask - - urge you to vote in favor ofthe Stephenson Village. I've lived in Frederick
County, I love Frederick County. This village will give people a home choice, not your regular
subdivision. It gives generations the choice to live together. A planned smart growth community
is another word for a town with all attributes of a town, shops, recreation, walking trails, schools are
all within that town. I urge you to support Shockey. He is my choice.
Conroy Wilson, Shawnee District, Mr. Chairman, members ofthe Board, I urge you, I urge
you to vote yes tonight on Stephenson Village. We read a lot about the needs of developers to cover
the services developments require. There is no question after three economic studies that Stephenson
Village will return more than its fair share to the county coffers. We read a lot about the need to
slow growth. Mr. Shockey has placed limits on the pace of development that stretch this project out
over a minimum of 15 years. We read a lot about the need to preserve historic resources. Mr.
Shockey has made a very large donation to preserve the battlefield land. We read a lot about the
need to preserve farmland. If the homes built on one square mile, one square mile of Stephenson
Village were spread around the county on five acre lots, which can be done by rights, we would use
20, that's 20 square miles of rural land. I say let's stop talking, stop the talking and do something.
Approve this wonderful concept of Stephenson Village.
Dave Madason, Back Creek District, I'm here in favor of the plan. I believe it's a strong
asset to this community not only today, but in the future. As we go forward planned growth is what
we should have.
Robert Lee Hodge, you might wonder why I'm from Fairfax County here tonight. Took me
about two hours to get here through traffic and that's why I'm here. I come here to spend money at
the Apple Blossom Festival, I come to the North- South Skirmish Association shoots, I spend my
money and I leave and the sprawl that I see in eastern Loudoun and the spraw1-- well, there's no, you
know, Fairfax is totally built out, I guess that's why it's overspilling in this direction. I came to
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
157
Virginia the first time in 1977, originally I was from Ohio, and there was two things about Virginia
I fell in love with, the beauty of the Shenandoah Valley and the Blue Ridge and the history. And
Virginia, for me, is the most important state in America. It's so historic and so beautiful. And when
I live in -- when I moved to Fairfax in 1991 my, my idea of Virginia was totally changed and when
I started going to the battlefields I saw just fragments protected. And you see the development and
you see the sprawl in Stafford and in Spotsylvania and Prince William and Loudoun and so forth.
And so, it's disturbing to me to see the density that would be built here and that's why I'm here. And
there's a lot of glossy pictures, there's a lot of nice semantics and so forth and I've heard it from other
developers, Dogwood Development in Spotsylvania and so forth and you never know what it really
looks like till it's, till it's built. And my biggest concern's about the traffic, the density and, you
know, the people that will live there, where, where will they work? And my guess is, is that the vast
majority will live in the -- or work in the Washington, D.C. area. Another thing I want to mention
is that the 150th Anniversary of the Civil War will be coming up in a few short years and is
Winchester, is Frederick County prepared for the possible heritage tourism revenue that could be
generated if they would promote and protect their sites better? Gettysburg generates $116 million
a year. I'm often concerned about the motives of people speaking, that are for this project. A lot of
them are in the building industry and they have a right to speak in favor of it. They have mouths to
feed and they have money to make and I understand that. I'm not here for any financial motive
except for the financial motive ofthis county, heritage tourism. And I wonder what this county will
look like in 20 years or 50 years. Will it look like Fairfax? It's a big precedent that could be set
here. What will the, our children's children see in the future? I just want to encourage you not to
Fairfax Frederick County.
Dianne McMillan, Opequon District, to set the record straight, Clarke County has a .8
percent growth rate, growth can be slowed. I believe Don Shockey lives there. Don Shockey says
he's not in a hurry, he wants to do Stephenson Village right. That's what should happen tonight.
Table this monster until the Frederick County fiscal impact model is finished some time first quarter
next year. What's six months? We'll know if it truly will or will not cost the Frederick County
taxpayers, using the taxpayers model not three secretive models paid by Shockey. Have you ever
heard the old adage garbage in, garbage out? Why wouldn't the economists share this with the
Supervisors in two different meetings if not the public? Frederick County is also in the midst of a
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
158
water study, an air quality study and creating an MPO for their roads. All of these studies should
be in place before 2,500 houses are added to the mix. In response to John Good's letter to the editor
in today's Star, if Don Shockey doesn't table this project until the Frederick County impact model
is complete, the only person masquerading for Halloween is Don Shockey as the partner of choice.
Katherine Whitesell, Stonewall District, French and Indian War sites, George Washington's
Headquarters, the largest and bloodiest battle ofthe Civil War in the Shenandoah Valley. These are
just a few of the historic treasures that the Winchester/Frederick County area can boast of. The area
is surrounded by beautiful landscapes dotted with apple orchards and working farms. So, why are
our historic sites threatened? In Frederick County alone the historic value of battlefields has been
questioned by elected officials for years. Individual citizen's groups have formed to protect the
Kernstown battlefield as well as historic Fort Collier, the site of the culmination ofthe Third Battle
of Winchester. Other landowners have pledged that their other parcels will be preserved and are
working toward placing easements on those parcels. However, the current administration of this
county in the past until just recently has seemed to overlook the value of our battlefield sites, in fact,
made a quote to my sister, you tell your sister I'll be glad when here are no more battlefields, ha, ha.
The citizens have fought long and hard to preserve the Stephenson's Depot Battlefield. People like
Adrian O'Connor were the first people that came out and said that they wanted to save this battlefield
and we certainly do. A lawsuit that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Virginia challenged
the proposed Milburn Historic District encompassing Stephenson's Depot as eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. The litigation failed, we're still fighting for this treasure. Citizens have
said that Shockey has a buyer for this land and I hope that that's not true, but I'd like this Board to
understand that the battlefield preservation is paramount to the citizens of this county and should
come before the rezoning is approved. Again, the Conservation Fund, whom I asked Supervisor
Tyler to get an opinion about this project from which we have not yet seen, says that it is this type
of growth that is incompatible with preserved sites. So, what are we doing? Also says that, it cites
Kernstown Battlefield as an example of poor planning. We're nationally known because of what
we've done at Kernstown with a high density development. I ask you, don't let this proposal come
first over the preservation. If we're going to do it regardless, why not let's just do it? Let's work
together to try to find something that we're all happy with so we don't have to take sides out here.
There is one thing that I want to say, I have 10 seconds. We want to save this battlefield. I think
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
159
that's a consensus. Think about it. It could begone if something happens.
Howard Kittell, Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Association, I just want to clarify a point
about the, the preservation of the Stephenson's Depot Battlefield area or second and third
Winchester. The Shenandoah Battlefield Foundation has a letter of commitment from the Shockey
companies, from Stephenson Associates, to preserve the core area battlefield that is under their
ownership. So, in terms of, obviously there's other battlefields under other ownership that's in debate
and discussion right now, but in terms of the land that the Stephenson Associates own they have
made a commitment to the preservation of that land and we're working along with the Virginia
Outdoors Foundation to complete that preservation effort.
Chairman Shickle, we are about two minutes from II :00 and according to the Board's new
bylaws I am going to poll the Board on their desire to go past this time. I think the Board has several
options available to it one of which might be an attempt to finish tonight, attempt to finish the public
hearing tonight are probably the two that I can think of.
Supervisor Sager, I think we're too far into the process to close it out tonight. I think we
need to bring this to fruition. I think we need to go ahead and proceed with this. How many more
people are on the list for the public?
Chairman Shickle, We either have two or four.
Supervisor Tyler, I'm comfortable to continue. We've been here much longer than this.
Supervisor Reyes, Continue.
Supervisor Douglas, Continue.
Supervisor Forrester? I think we're set to go.
Supervisor Sager, do you need that break now?
Supervisor Sager, No sir, but I might later.
Chairman Shickle, Let's try to get past our three or four citizens.
Sam Lehman, Back Creek District, John said I was masquerading as an economist. So that
he not be wrong, I will put on the mask of someone who is recognized as an economist, Alan
Greenspan, Chairman ofthe Fed. I do have some knowledge in, in that field, however. I built two
businesses each of which employed 200 people and for 13 years we served big business and big
government doing engineering and financial analysis. In 1964 the Urban Coalition hired me to
criticize the federal budget with a view toward reordering priorities from overseas to domestic. I did
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
I
160
that, Congress bought it and in 1965 the Office of Management and Budget paid me to plan the
federal budget and Congress enacted that, it was a great society. That was vastly more complicated
than this project, but I can tell you that this project is not going to make us $54 million or one dollar.
In my opinion it will lose us several times that. One reason I say that -- and when I say us I don't
mean the county government, I mean the taxpayers of Frederick County. What you haven't heard
here when you hear about Braemar is that in that county the taxes are 2 point -- taxes and fees for
such a development are 2.6 times the taxes and fees in Frederick County. They have several PUDs.
There's one called Piedmont. Their real estate tax -- well the county- wide real estate tax there is half
again as much as ours. They have a special fire and rescue tax for these PUDs that is just about
equal to our whole tax rate. It's .726 instead of73. Now, in addition they have solid waste fees,
storm water fees and property owner association fees and if you live in a town, a town tax, but in
general it adds up to 2.6 times Frederick County's taxes. That's Braemar and Piedmont and those
other PUDs. They have a lot ofthese PUDs. I think the people masquerading as economists are the
developers who pay financial consultants and I've got several reasons for saying that. One reason
that's obvious is that we have a parade of commuters coming here to live who can't afford to live in
the counties where they work. These are the counties that one of those financial consultants bragged
he had a good reputation in. A good reputation with who? The developers, that's who, the people
we hear here. I have a lot more, but let me give you one more thought. GC Metro...
Chairman Shickle, You need to stop...
Sam Lehman area just had a study where they found that only one- fourth of the commuter
mileage.
Chairman Shick1e, You need..
Sam Lehman, was to work.
Chairman Shickle, you need to stop.
Todd Bunn, Red Bud District, I'm a new area resident and I'm happy to be a resident
ofthe county. I think that this project is a unique project and it has something for everybody. It can
be beneficial for everybody. The people who want to stop sprawl can have something in this project.
When you look at the buy right use in this project, what you see in this project is the ability to
preserve open space by planning and clustering the housing. That preservation of the open space
gives the people that want to stop the sprawl what they want. It also gives the residents that want
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
161
to live and work in their same community that opportunity to live and work in their community and
I would urge you to vote yes for the Stephenson Village project.
Kay Muterspaugh, City of Winchester, I do not live in the county, I live in the City of
Winchester. And the reason that I am here is because of a concern that I have, and I'm sure this is
not going to be popular with everyone in this room, but I am a realtor and I have been a realtor for
23 years and I'm very, very concerned about the fact that real estate prices have escalated so quickly
in this area in the past few years at a rate that is not parallel with increases in salary. I am concerned
that if we do not okay this project or you do not okay this project that present real estate will become
even more expensive because of the supply and demand issue. We have people, yes, that are coming
into this area, but the truth of the matter is that if we consider the industry that we now have and do
not take into consideration industry that is coming in, that what we presently have is a situation of
one out of four new residents are coming in because of new industry. So, what I am saying to you
is, the people that are coming in, three out of four to this area, are going to still come into this area
because ofthe growth of the present industry, for family reasons or whatever. Now, we already have
a situation where young people cannot afford, a lot of them, to buy homes. This project has been
planned out well so that we have a price range starting, as I understand it, somewhere in the range
of $90,000 going up to $500,000 or so, and it covers a variety of age groups and it also affords
family living. In other words, we have generations that can live in the community. Also, the person
who's starting out at a starter range can move up within that community and, likewise, one that has
moved up to the top of the scale perhaps. And I'm finished.
Dr. Bob Tucker was signed up to speak, but was not present when his name was called.
Assistant Director Mohn, would you come back up, sir? Now, are there questions from staff
or from ordinary people to staff or the applicant before we ask the applicant to come back up? Well,
let me, let me reverse that, perhaps let the applicant go first, here. Do you have a statement you'd
like to make following the public hearing? We have closed the public hearing.
Attorney Ty Lawson, Mr. Chairman, members ofthe Board, my name's Ty Lawson and we
do have just a, a brief matter to get into the record and then we'll turn it over very quickly. I know
you all would have some questions. I, I think it's important and one thing that hasn't been addressed
is, how did we get here, what, what's the history of this project and, and I feel compelled for the
purposes ofthe record to remind everybody that, of course, this was the property that was the subject
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
162
of a previous rezoning request to allow or requesting to allow for the construction of an industrial
park. At the time that that rezoning was filed the property was designated as industrial in Frederick
County's Comprehensive Plan. As you'll recall that rezoning request, despite repeated efforts by the
owner to modify the rezoning request to satisfy opposition failed. Again, you have that, that history
in your record. Subsequent to that failed rezoning effort this property has been under a land use
microscope with this Board and its various committees studying the property and its various
attributes in order to determine the best use for the property. After numerous committee meetings
and public hearings it was determined that the property was suitable for a mixed use development.
Along the way various uses were considered for the property, but they were rejected and those were
pretty much everything else that's left, industrial, residential, agricultural and commercial. What you
have before you now is a rezoning that has developed over a year, has been greatly influenced by
numerous public meetings, county committee meetings, Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors hearings. It is a development that is guaranteed through an extensive proffer package
the likes of which Frederick County has never seen or experienced before.
As I said, this is a rezoning that is the result of significant public input that has gone on for well over
a year and if you include the, the history, well beyond that. It has earned your approval and we ask
you on behalf of Stephenson Associates for your vote approving the rezoning and the modifications.
And we are pleased to respond to any questions that you all may have.
Chairman Shickle, okay. Do we have questions of staff or the applicant or Mr. Wyatt, did
you want to make some remarks first?
Evan Wyatt, No sir, we're here to answer any questions.
Chairman Shickle, you're just prepared.
Supervisor Tyler, I have some questions.
Chairman Shickle, I think Supervisor Forrester had some earlier.
Supervisor Forrester, I'll wait for Supervisor Tyler.
Supervisor Tyler, thank you. I'm not sure, I guess who's going to, you tag team and tell me
who the appropriate person is to ask. The age restriction, I have an understanding that an age
restriction is an age restriction and, yes, people if they want to have children come into this
community they will not be allowed to live past X amount of time. That is fact or is it not a fact?
Who's able -- you probably can both answer this question.
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
163
Evan Wyatt, you're, you're correct. The age restricted portion of our proffer is consistent
with the Fair Housing Law standards in the State of Virginia Code and it says that you have to have
a resident in the house age 55 years or older. Our specific proffer does not allow anybody under the
age of 19 to reside there.
Chairman Shickle, is that the end of your questions?
Supervisor Tyler, why -- no, I've got a few, but I don't want to take up all the time.
Chairman Shickle, well, let's, let's, let's go one at a time, then. Supervisor Forrester, you still
want to defer?
Supervisor Forrester, you're not through, are you?
Chairman Shickle, well, I think we need to do one of the questions and go around and come
back to Supervisor Tyler if she has multiple questions.
Supervisor Forrester, oh, okay, then I'll, yes, I'll ask a question. My question may actually
be for VDOT if they're still hanging around than -- thank you. I'm confused in here when it
references that the traffic impact analysis concluded that some ofthe improvements would still land
our roads with the level of service ofD during peak traffic conditions and I'm confused as to why,
then, that VDOT did sign off on that?
Ben Lineberry, primarily because ofthe, because the background traffic already shows that
it would be, regardless of the development it will make it a, that area will become a level service D
anyway.
Supervisor Forrester, what's the level of service at present during peak time?
Ben Lineberry, at present?
Supervisor Forrester, during peak hours?
Ben Lineberry, do you have a particular area?
Supervisor Forrester, the ones that would become a failing level of service ofD during peak
hours.
Ben Lineberry, okay, as failing meaning D, is that what you're talking about?
Supervisor Forrester, D and below.
Ben Lineberry, D or below? Currently, let me just go through some of the various
intersections. Starting in the south at the southbound off ramp of Route 11 we have both showing
an F and E. That's an unsignalized intersection. Southbound on that inter -- at that intersection in
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
164
the morning you have a level of service B and in the p.m. peak hour you have D. Moving further
north at 661 you have coming out of 661 a D and an F. Going northbound on Route 11 you have
both a.m. and p.m. peaks ofB's and southbound you have A's. Moving on up to Charles Town you
have southbound level of service A's -- and, and this is existing --level of service A southbound and
Band C coming out of Old Charles Town.
Supervisor Forrester, and those would all go to D?
Ben Lineberry, existing.
Supervisor Forrester, and then they will drop to D?
Ben Lineberry yes.
Supervisor Forrester, so, they're...
Ben Lineberry, in...
Supervisor Forrester, a now?
Ben Lineberry, in a couple different scenarios. Are you talking about build-out 2015?
Supervisor Forrester, yes.
Ben Lineberry, Okay. yes, ma'am.
Supervisor Forrester, okay, thank you.
Supervisor Sager, I just wanted to clarify, I'm not trying to do Mr. Wyatt's or staff's work.
I believe that an age restricted community, the federal law allows you to have in your home your
grandchildren or your children for 45 days within the 365 day period.
Evan Wyatt, it's 60.
Supervisor Sager, 60 days, thank you. So, it, it's not that you can't have your children or
grandchildren come visit you ifthere's a -- you know, I just wanted to clarify that point.
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Douglas, or Supervisor Reyes, before we go back to
Supervisor Tyler?
Supervisor Reyes, I have a question for staff.
Supervisor Reyes, and ifthis is not appropriate for you I'd go to the applicant. I was told by
county staff that the success of Stephenson Village depends largely, largely on the commercial
aspect. At what point in time do you envision the commercial aspect ofthis to take place or to come
to fruition?
Assistant Director Mohn, that's difficult for staff to answer. I would defer to the applicant
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
165
to provide that based on their economic analysis to indicate where on their time line they envision
that coming to fruition.
Supervisor Reyes, okay, applicant?
Leonard. Bogorad, for the record, I'm Leonard Bogorad. I conducted the market analysis and
fiscal impact analysis for the project. We, we did a market analysis to determine when we thought
it would be feasible and when we determined it would be feasible to have the commercial
development occur and we, we, we always are conservative. And so, I, I think actually Mr. Shockey
expects to build this sooner, but our analysis assumed that the retail would begin with 90,000 square
feet in 2013 and 50,000 square feet of office in 2013 and several other phases beyond that. Again,
we wanted to be conservative because we were using this for the purpose of the fiscal impact
analysis. I think it is important to note that this is, although Mr. Shockey has proffered the
commercial, that the project would still be positive even if you did not have the commercial
development basically because of all the active adult units which are so phenomenally positive.
Chairman Shickle, Assistant Mohn or somebody should at least address, that was the, the we
expect, but there is a requirement within the proffer, also?
Assistant Mohn, certainly, and I, was going to offer that. From a staff perspective the only
guarantee we can provide you is what's included in our proffer statement which the applicant has
made that commitment to the 60,000 square feet of commercial space that would come on line with
the 1,200th building permit for the non-age restricted units. So, from a proffer perspective we look
at it in terms ofthat's when we can expect that as a guarantee. However, of course, the market may
dictate that that comes on line much earlier.
Supervisor Reyes, well, how does 60,000 square feet in -- of revenue?
Assistant Mohn that's not a question that I can answer. When we put this in, information into
the impact model the analysis shows us what the impact is for the per unit impact for the
development which that model included the 60,000 square feet, but actually a total of250,000 square
feet assumed at build-out. Again, what I would refer to is the fact that three economic, three sets
of economic analysis indicated that this was a positive outcome with those numbers and with the unit
mix that they provide. I can't tell you with certainty, not being a, an economist, when that revenue
is such that, that it becomes a, a boon to the economy necessarily.
Supervisor Reyes, perhaps the applicant can answer that. I'm looking at 60,000 square feet
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
166
that is proffered and I don't see any revenue coming from just space.
Assistant Mohn, well... Supervisor Reyes, Your comments.
Assistant Mohn, yeah, two, two issues. I, we, we conduct, we do market analyses for
developers and for retailers all the time. That's really the core of our business and we help them
figure out when things are going to be profitable. And so, we're very comfortable with our
conclusion that you could have 90,000 square feet in 2013 and more beyond that as well as 50,000
square feet of office in 2013. We have assumed that in our, in our base, basic marketing and basic
fiscal analysis and that is part of the input into our results, but as I said, we did test out what would
happen if there was only 60,000 square feet in the whole project as was proffered and it would
definitely be positive even with that and, in fact, it would be positive without any commercial
development at all. Again, it's important to recognize this is not a normal kind of residential
development and you can, depending on the prices that might or might not be positive, it might very
well be negative, but what we have here is a very high percentage of age restricted units that will not
have any school costs at all associated with them and that -- a lot of states and counties have found
that's the best economic development they can get and actually those are the best fiscal kind of
results they can get because it has no significant cost to the county and it's very significant revenue.
So, there you have a lot of revenue sources here whatever happens with the commercial. That's,
that's really the key, key point, but you don't need that commercial to have a positive development.
Obviously, we think it's going to be there, we think there's definitely a market for it and that you'll
have even more positive results.
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Douglas, any questions?
Supervisor Douglas, No.
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Tyler, back to you.
Supervisor Tyler, I just had some questions and perhaps the person who did the traffic
analysis or VDOT, either one.
Chairman Shickle, you can have them both.
Supervisor Tyler, okay. Well, I keep hearing about the flawed traffic report, the flawed
traffic report, the flawed traffic report. Will you, I'm not an expert, I'm not going to pretend to be
an expert. I do know that those particular roads are challenged. I'll give you that and I drive my son
to middle school every day. We do the band thing, I pick him up in the afternoon and I go through
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
167
that intersection numerous times a day. We have all the background issues...
John Callow, what, what intersection?
Supervisor Tyler, oh, excuse me, Route 11,37,81, that, that challenged corner. However,
that occurs a couple times a day at peak times. We have a lot of background issues that are going
on, but we also have some improvements that are forecasted, hopefully, and I think signalization is
one of them that's going to certainly improve some ofthat area. Who knows what the widening of
I-81 is going to bring. When are we ever going to get Route 11 to be four lanes, I don't know, that
sort of thing, but do you feel comfortable in defending your traffic analysis?
John Callow for the record, I haven't said who I am. I'm John Callow, I'm Vice President of
Patton, Harris, Rust. This is my 40th year as a transportation planning consultant and I'm also very
comfortable in working with the, the Edinburg residency of VDOT. We've been doing a lot of
projects. I guess I'm now at every interchange on 81 in Frederick County. The study itself points
out improvement. Right now there's a single signalized intersection, the northbound off ramp.
There's a proffered signal by Rutherford on the southbound off ramp. The major problem at the
interchange in a short term kind of basis is that Red Bud Road comes in there and you end up with
several little intersections in, all mixed up in there. What we have suggested and we've offered to
help resolve this once the spine road is completed within Stephenson Village, that Red Bud Road
goes up and ties in with that instead of coming out at 11 right in the middle of the interchange.
Where Red Bud Road is now, shift the northbound off ramp over and match up with the northbound
on ramp, one signalized intersection. That will buy quite a bit of time and improve the level of
service there quite a bit. The two signals then can be coordinated with, as you move down 11 to the
east of this. We all agreed that we were going to stop at the interchange, but we've been talking
about further down the road. A coordinated signal system means that once you get off, the trucks
particularly coming up from 81 from the south turning left and then they can just keep the signals
green while they clear it. That's, that's what can really resolve all this and this development is
offering money to, to VDOT, to you, however you want to spend it there. So, we have made
suggestions. The other comfort level is that we------are, Rutherford, which I did earlier, that was
a three-way intersection. We're making it a four-way intersection obviously to tie our spine road in
with it, but we're also adding a lot more turn lanes as well as carrying the four-lane divided up
through the intersection. Right now it stops below that.
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
168
Ben Lineberry, Rutherford's intersection.
John Callow, Rutherford's intersection. And then up at Old Charles Town Road, at Charles
Town Road at points during the -- which is characterized up there, we will widen the road from the
two lanes to the three lanes, still being able to live within the military bridge there, signalize the
intersection of 11 and Old Charles Town Road and add turn lanes, et cetera up there. That buys a
lot of time. And the answer to the, your question about the, I'll, I'll try one more time. The
background traffic, when, when you assume build-out in the year 2015, we're not there. Everybody
else is there. Everything that we've all agreed to is -- would be there. Rutherford's built out, this,
the background traffic's been growing at a constant rate of 5 percent per year which is what the, what
goes on out here. That's when we see, only at the Rutherford and a couple places in the interchange
do we see the D's. When we add our development, a, a pure measure on top ofthat and we add our
improvements that we're putting in there, we don't really change any of the levels of service. And,
in fact, I supplied staff and VDOT the other day with, just picking up some statistics in the back of
the report, I didn't do anything new, the effect of putting Stephenson Village on top of the
background will give you at Old Charles Town Road and Route 11 an additional!'7 seconds of
delay as you travel through, 1. 7. The -- actually the Rutherford interchange, intersection, it's just sort
of a wash. It's about the same. Down at the ramps, themselves, at the northbound ramp it will add
in the morning 4 seconds of delay and 1 second of delay in the evening and at the southbound ramp,
which is the worst, it will add 10 seconds of delay. These numbers are created from a federal
highway sponsored program that's been going on for decades with lots of data on how to calculate
capacity. All of us in the industry use this procedure. It's been scrutinized by the Staunton District
Office several times and that's why the answer to your immediate question, that's why I'm
comfortable with the study.
Supervisor Tyler, thank you.
Chairman Shickle, before you leave, sir, not meant to offend, who pays you?
John Callow, doctor -- doctor, Don Shockey.
Chairman Shickle, VDOT, do you agree with everything he just said?
Ben Lineberry, yes. Chairman Shick1e, we, we've gone through this analysis and reviewed
it many times. We've had many meetings to go over, make sure that the things do make sense, that
the proffers that, that have been laid out do take care of the concerns that we have in, in this area.
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
169
Basically.
Chairman Shickle, well, basically, it boils down to, as he said, this project's not there, there's
a level of service deterioration.
Ben Lineberry, correct.
Chairman Shickle, if the project is there the level of service deterioration is no worse and
because of the proffered improvements and you agree with that?
Ben Lineberry, correct. There, there are a few areas that do show going from a, it -- what the
background show in the afternoon a level of service C and with his development shows a level of
service D. And I can specifically cull those out, if you wish.
Chairman Shickle, no, that's not, unless somebody else -- I just wanted to make sure you all
were in agreement
Ben Lineberry, very much so.
Supervisor Sager, Mr. Chairman. Well, that's the end of that question?
Supervisor Tyler, he can go, yes, that's fine.
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Forrester's actually next unless it's the same topic. Is it the
same topic, Supervisor Sager?
Supervisor Sager, no, different topic.
Chairman Shickle, well, let's let Supervisor Forrester, if she has one.
Supervisor Forrester, okay, I do have a question. My question, I'm not sure who to direct
this to, probably the applicant.
Supervisor Forrester, somebody from-- I have a question about the preservation of the core
battlefield areas. I'm reading the note here that says that on the proffered generalized development
plan that the major collector road planned for this project will traverse a portion of core battlefield
land. Moreover, the generalized development plan depicts the development of the next residential
land use that's adjacent to the core battlefield area. And I was wondering how that goes together
with what you were saying about preserving the core battlefield when this says it's dependent upon
the collector road going through that core battlefield?
Evan Wyatt, the county's Comprehensive Plan has shown a major collector road through that
specific area since it was originally drafted in '96. We, we have the road in the location that
complies with the plan. It does, of course, traverse an area that's designated as core within the 135
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
170
acres. That's not part of the rezoning, that's part ofthe commitment John Callow talked about, but
John Callow, in, in his previous presentations has advised that with, with the road going through
there that it is appropriate to do that.
Supervisor Forrester, but your plan is contingent upon this collector road? In order for all
the traffic improvements and everything to work we need this, this major collector road through the
core battlefield?
Evan Waytt, when, when the county planned this land for future land use they, they
determined a collector road was needed and that was the point that it went through.
Supervisor Forrester, more directly, your application is dependent upon this major collector
road? In, in other words, the traffic flow that we're hoping for...
Evan Wyatt, yes, on our...
Supervisor Forrester, will not work without this?
Evan Wyatt, a major collector road will be required to move the traffic efficiently.
Supervisor Forrester, through the core battlefield.
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Sager.
Supervisor Sager, probably Evan Wyatt, or someone from, from the staff could answer it. I've
become excited about affordable homes and, as you know, we haven't built affordable homes in
Frederick County since the mid '80s and $90,000 is well within the HUD standard for 60 percent of
the average family income which meets the criteria. And families today cannot afford to go into any
of the 1,200 empty homes that are in Winchester/Frederick County. But my question, I guess, is
going to be related to the build-out for these affordable homes. What happens during the build-out
when a home is $90,000 to start in, in the first part ofthe build-out and reassessments occur and then
that house goes up in value. How do you protect the affordability of these homes so they still meet
the 60 percent HUD statement? If that's a difficult question, I'm sorry, but I, Ijust want to make sure
that we always have affordable housing designated and being built in that. Do you, did I confuse
you?
Evan Wyatt, no, the affordable housing for the elderly, of course, is, is a different housing
product where the, where the housing, the rent if you will, is based on what the, the person has, the
elderly person. The starter homes in the community that you're referring to, they will fluctuate and
go up as, with the market as will all starter homes in the community. There is no, there is nothing
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
171
in our proffer that guarantees they'll stay then they'll stay at a set rate, say at $90,000.
Supervisor Sager, so, ifthe HUD standard doesn't increase with the real estate market, then,
and reassessments, then the affordability of the homes will be, won't be there?
Evan Wyatt, it'll be just like the affordability of, of starter homes throughout Frederick
County.
Supervisor Sager, okay.
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Douglas, Reyes, and Tyler.
Supervisor Tyler, I have a, a question I guess concerning the schools needs. We, we keep
hearing that we need two school sites or three school sites or whatever it is. You met with, I guess
the school system's not here any more. I was hoping that Mr. Orndorff might still be here, but
anyway, can you explain to me how they determined, you determined whatever it might be?
Evan Wyatt, we met with the public school administration early on in the process and the
question became for them, as far as a need, what, what type of school would you need if this
community developed and at that time, of course, we were talking 2,800 homes with a different
percentage mix. And based on what Mr. Orndorff used to determine that, which was the county's
fiscal impact model which represents .7 children per single family, .54 for townhouses and so on,
they came up with a number and then they determined that an elementary school would be the site
they would need. With that said, what, what the School Board tries to do with elementary schools,
is they need 15 acres to do it, then if they get 20 acres they can also provide public use facilities on
them, recreational use. So, we provided the, the 20 acre type site so they could have the school and
the Parks and Recreation could have some benefit there. But, once again, the, the determination of
the 20 acre school site was done through discussions with that group.
Mr. Bogorad, Evan, just a, a little more commentary in response to your question and some
of the other comments that were made because I think there was a lot of confusion about the school
numbers that I've heard around certainly tonight. First of all, the, the actual number of students with
the reduced number of, of non-age restricted units, based on census data in terms of what really
happens in this county, it would be 604 students. There have been other numbers thrown around.
There was one, one comment in the audience that there were be thousands of school, school kids that
was, I think, a miscalculation because there was nothing and kind of the fact that the mix of units
was changing significantly with the change that was proposed recently. There will be a lot fewer
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
172
non-age restricted units. So, that's not all fair. It's not just us saying it, it's your own consultants.
Springstead looked at this issue in, in some depth in their report, I think you all have copies of that,
and they looked at the census data and they confirmed that the rates that we were using were in fact
the correct ones. The numbers, even the 7 numbers and so on are really taken from another county
and are not based on, on the facts here. So, I think it's, and one other issue was on the cost. We, we
have assumed in our, in our models with the other consultants that the, the full cost of operating the
school per child was currently, I think it's $7,995, was included in our analysis and despite that there
was this huge benefit to the county way over and above that to pay for anything else that the county
wanted to use the funds for.
Chairman Shickle, sir, before you leave, now you have me confused. Six, 1,665, that's close,
sir, right?
Mr. Bogorad, I'm sorry?
Chairman Shickle, 1,665 child, child possible units, that's the right number or, or
approximately?
Mr. Bogorad, that's correct.
Chairman Shickle, okay, times .7?
Mr. Bogorad, no, it's no point, those, that's what I'm saying, those numbers are...
Chairman Shickle, that's what I thought I heard you say and it's a bigger number than 600.
So, straighten me out.
Mr. Bogorad, yeah. The, the correct numbers, and again we've, they're numbers that we've
derived from the census, from the actual data, Springstead looked at the same thing and came up
with the same results. The, the correct numbers, which you can find in our, our report here, are
.5442 per single family detached, which is generally the same kind of number that the School Board
has used, but single family attached, which you haven't had that many of in the county so far, but
every, every expert around the country would, would acknowledge and would know that those are
considerably -- are going to generate a lot fewer school children per unit. Those are .2908 per unit
.and multifamily units would be .1564 students per unit. You just have a fewer...
Chairman Shickle, so, you.
Mr. Bogorad, school children in those. We applied each ofthose times the number of units
in, that are proposed for the development, obviously not including the active adult units because
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
173
those will not have any school children, and that adds up to the 604.
Chairman Shickle, so, you used various student per unit multipliers?
Mr. Bogorad, exactly, and that's, that's what the county model does, as well. They just
happen to not be based on the fact...
Chairman Shickle, so, you didn't use the .7 for anything?
Mr. Bogorad, that's correct.
Chairman Shickle, okay. I thought I heard you say something else.
Mr. Bogorad, no. I was saying that that was not a -- we did not find that to be a correct
number when we actually looked at the facts and neither did Springstead who is working for the
county.
Chairman Shickle, okay.
Evan Wyatt, Chairman Shickle, the one thing we did use the higher school numbers for was
to determine the capital facilities impact costs. Our capital facilities impact costs, in other words,
the cash proffers for the schools are based on the higher numbers.
Chairman Shickle, on the. 7?
Evan Wyatt, Yes, sir.
Chairman Shickle, okay.
Mr. Bogorad, yeah, I mean, I must say Mr. Shockey didn't ask me. I've been involved in, in
hundreds of proposed developments and I've, I've never seen such generous proffers, to be honest
with you. This is, a lot ofthings that were offered that I would not have necessarily recommended
that he do and certainly that's one, one case where I think the, they are overpaying for the school,
quite honestly, because that's more school children than you're really going to get.
Chairman Shickle, that was Supervisor Tyler's question?
Supervisor Tyler, right.
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Forrester, do you have any others?
Supervisor Forrester, Mm-hmm. (Indicating affirmatively.)
Chairman Shickle, okay, go ahead. Who for?
Supervisor Forrester, applicant. It wasn't clear to me what the minimum and maximum
ranges were for the affordable elderly. Can you go into that?
Evan Wyatt, the affordable elderly housing we've been stating was going to be 144 units
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
174
mlmmum. We did not factor them into the overall unit mix of2,465, they being above and beyond
that. The feeling is, and this is as far as the density issue, they are not going to impact the services
and, and it's actually a community service to provide this type of housing. So, we based our impacts
on the, on the active adult, the single family, the townhouse and the multifamily, but not the
affordable housing for the elderly.
Supervisor Forrester, do you have a maximum for that range?
Evan Wyatt, no, we do not.
Supervisor Forrester, I notice with the other, with all the other ratios you gave us kind of the
bottom and the top.
Evan Wyatt, right, but the affordable housing for the elderly, once again, our, our program
has been based on the assumption of 144. If we're able to land more then that's only a better thing
for the community.
Supervisor Forrester, okay, thank you.
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Sager?
Supervisor Sager, Evan Wyatt, is the 144 units for the elderly that you designate as
affordable, will there be affordable housing for young families just starting out?
Evan Wyatt, once again, that's the whole concept of the mixed unit development, of having
a variety of housing types, for starter homes transitioning into other homes, single family homes for
families and retirement homes. The, the whole concept is, is you're not locked into a, a 12,000
square foot lot with a quarter million plus dollar house.
Supervisor Sager, that's what I thought I had understood in there. Then, that's why my
question concerning how do we protect the availability of affordable homes in the build-out. If
you're going to build it in 15,20,25 years, at what point in time does reassessment eliminate the
affordability of these homes? Is there some way, and I'm asking this out of ignorance because I'm
not smart enough to determine how to do it other than, you know, maybe HUD release or something
as people, you know, become interested in these units. It certainly doesn't taint my, my, the way I,
I plan on voting. However, it is a concern in the future that we would eliminate affordability if,
indeed, that is going to be a mixed community.
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Reyes?
Supervisor Reyes, Evan Wyatt, the Stephenson Village proposal has been promoted as a
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
175
place to live, work and play, and as I hear the, the commercial aspect being reduced or trying to be
reduced from 10 to 4 percent and that the success of this doesn't depend on the commercial aspect
of the Stephenson Village proposal, you correct me ifI'm wrong, I envision this, then, as a place to
live and play. It won't be a place to work until that comes to fruition in 2015.
Evan Wyatt there's a couple things. First of all, what Mr. Bogorad was advising you of was
the economic analysis and how it works and how it's positive with or without it. That's not to say
that it's not going to have it. We've always planned for commercial. I do believe it's erroneous to
say 10 percent commercial because what the ordinance requires is 10 percent of commercial and
industrial. And, once again, when you look at a quarter million square feet, which is what we think
based on market analysis that this could sustain and when you look at the land area on how to place
it, it becomes clear that 80 acres is too much which is what 4 percent means. Now, one thing I do
want to further clarify is that the way the proffer is written is that the commercial component is a 4
percent minimum. And, once again, it's based on what we believe we can truly sustain and what we
can get there. However, if we're wrong and we're able to get more, the proffer is written where we
can have more. But the 4 percent represents the relationship of the 10 percent which would be
commercial and industrial. After we took out the industrial 4 percent is a reasonable assumption for
the commercial.
Chairman Shickle, Evan Wyatt, is it not also true if the percentage of commercial goes up,
the proffer goes down into the model?
Evan Wyatt, that is true.
Supervisor Forrester, Chairman Shickle, would you repeat that, please?
Chairman Shickle, ifthe percentage of commercial went up and it was flowed back into the
model, the proffer calculation would come down, the 3965.
Supervisor Tyler, is that, for today's discussion you're saying?
Chairman Shickle, Huh?
Supervisor Tyler, for today's discussion, yeah.
Chairman Shickle, yeah, I guess.
Supervisor Tyler, okay.
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Tyler, you have another question?
Supervisor Tyler, not particularly. No, not right this moment.
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
176
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Forrester?
Supervisor Forrester, I have a statement to make, I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to
make it tonight.
Chairman Shickle, can't help you with that, you'll have to decide that. Do you want to wait
and see ifthere's any other questions and then...
Supervisor Forrester, Mm-hmm. (Indicating affirmatively.)
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Sager, you got another question?
Supervisor Sager well, your last comment concerning the proffers down and is this because
the revenue base of industry, the industry...
Chairman Shickle, correct, given.
Supervisor Sager, I just want to, I want the public to know that the money's the same, it's just
an adjustment in the, in the computation, is that correct?
Chairman Shickle, yes. well...
Supervisor Sager, it's close.
Chairman Shickle, ...does the staffwant to comment on it? I, I opened the door, do you want
to straighten everybody out or -- if, if there was a 10 percent requirement instead of a 4 percent
requirement, I have no idea whether the applicant would volunteer or staff would make them rerun
the proffer model, but if it was, then the proffer would go down.
Assistant Mohn actually, the, the residential proffer would stay the same as proffered through
this application.
Chairman Shickle, I'm, I'm sorry, the impact model would kick out a different number. I
used the wrong word.
Assistant Mohn, if we were to...
Chairman Shickle, 3965 would go down.
Assistant Mohn, ifwe were to run different numbers it, it could result in a, in a lesser impact.
Chairman Shickle, okay. Is it clear or not?
Supervisor Sager, It's clear. And the only other question I have is, is if we're developing the
availability oflight industry in this area, whether it be 4 percent or 10 percent, what part does the
county play in the review process of what comes in and et cetera?
Assistant Mohn, well, as with any commercial or -- commercial enterprise we would
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
177
certainly apply the site plan requirement. They would ask for the site to have approval and there
would be...
Supervisor Sager, the process wouldn't change?
Assistant Mohn, no, sir.
Supervisor Sager, thank you.
Chairman Shickle, okay. Ifthere are no other questions -- there is a question.
Supervisor Tyler, I just have a question and, and actually 1 don't know who it's going to be
and it might be John Callow, or it might be the lady from the Civil War Preservation Trust, either
one. I want to know about the Outdoors Foundation and building of roads on a piece of property. Is
John Callow still here?
Chairman Shick1e, yes. John Callow, would you mind coming up to the podium?
Supervisor Tyler, is it -- it's not inappropriate to have him come up here for that I wouldn't
think. I have a question for you. The Outdoors Foundation...
John Callow, Mm-hmm. (Indicating affirmatively.)
Supervisor Tyler, ...and road access, would you talk about that, core battlefield having roads
on them and were you involved with Bristo Station that, I know the Civil War Preservation Trust
came out and it highly endorsed, but they're building on a core battlefield. So, I'm a little confused
here about what we're talking about. So, I don't know if you were involved with Bristo.
John Callow, no, we were not. We, we looked at it as this project was developing. And the
proposal for the preservation of the battlefields, we looked at what, for other models, if you will.
And with Bristo Station there was a, a compromise struck wherein the developer was going to
preserve a portion ofthe core battlefield, but then was allowed to develop part of the core battlefield,
as well, for housing. In this case, as we met with the Stephenson Associates and then with the
Virginia Outdoors Foundation, we discussed the road and its appropriateness in the easement, but
because the road is already shown in the county's planning the Outdoors Foundation said that they
would accept an easement with a road in it.
Supervisor Tyler, okay, now, I have another question too, though, concernmg the
management plan. And I sit on the cluster group and I'm quite aware of what goes on with that.
John Callow, Mm-hmm. (Indicating affirmatively.)
Supervisor Tyler, to have the experience you have to have access, correct?
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
178
John Callow, Correct.
Supervisor Tyler, okay, thank you. That'll do.
Chairman Shickle, ifthere are no other questions I think Supervisor Forrester wants to make
a statement.
Supervisor Forrester, well, I do have a question.
Chairman Shickle, okay, a question.
Supervisor Forrester, this is a big, a big application. I have a question and I don't know if
he's here tonight, but there was a comment by the county engineer talking about the, the curbside
trash pickup and its enforceability and I didn't' see whether that had been resolved. I might have
missed that paper in here, but is there something?
Evan Wyatt, the, the curbside pickup is being proffered as a program within Stephenson
Village. It accomplishes a few things. It provides convenience to the people and it also takes trips
off of people going up to Clearbrook Park to dump their trash. What Public Works Director
Straw snyder, I think was trying to point out was as far as a proffer the county is not going to be
involved in that particular issue. They're not going to monitor it, they're not going to police it. The
residents that live within the community are going to pay for the service and in all likelihood are
going to use it, but you can't say with certainty that there's not going to be a time when somebody
misses a day and, and goes to Clearbrook or has to go to the regional landfill for a reason. But I
think Mr. Strawsnyder was trying to point out the fact that that's not something that's enforceable
by the county. I would, though, remind you, I think it was August of this year that the five year
window for the study of the county potentially having community pickup within the urban
development area can be effective. So, in my mind and in, in short term this will take care of it. In
the long term it will be something that the county will be bidding anyway.
Supervisor Forrester, staff, maybe you can address this. The engineer stated in here that the
responsibility for private curbside trash collection will be ineffective without an enforceable
guarantee. It is further noted that any such guarantee must be fully enforceable without county
intervention. Do we have that?
Assistant Mohn, well, again, I think that's going to be something through the HOA. lfthat's
going to be something enforced at all it'll be through a private mechanism such as that.
Supervisor Forrester, okay. So, there's no assurances that this isn't going to require county
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
179
intervention?
Assistant County Administrator Tierney, well, I think with, with any proffer there's always
a challenge as to, with the wording to make sure that in some way, shape or form the county's going
to be able to intervene in some way.
Supervisor Forrester, okay.
Assistant Tierney, in this case we've got the applicant saying that they will provide curbside
pickup. They will at some point in time have to provide us with deed covenants and so forth.
Supervisor Forrester, okay.
Assistant Tierney, so one, one provision is that we could ensure that when we get those deed
covenants that they have, in fact, provided for curbside pickup. I think part of what Director
Straw snyder, was pointing out is that the, they will be county residents and if one of them chooses
to take his pickup truckload of debris to...
Supervisor Forrester, right.
Assistant Tierney ...the landfill, we can't deny them access. So, you have an assurance that
curbside pickup will be provided as part of the homeowner's association. Could we enforce that?
Ultimately I think the only enforcement we have, as with any deed covenant, is to ensure that there
is a covenant that says it will be provided. If that helps.
Supervisor Forrester, have we reviewed the homeowners association charter to see what all's
been laid out? There's a lot of responsibility that are referenced in here that would be turned over
to the homeowners association. Have we reviewed those to see if they are, in fact, enforceable to
keep us out of that type of thing?
Assistant Mohn, that's not something that has been prepared to date and/or something that
staff has been involved with. That would come at the subdivision stage ofthe development review
process.
Assistant Tierney, what, what the staff will have to do with many of these proffers, is at the
time they become relevant they'll have to do what they can to ensure that they're in place. And that's,
that's true of any proffer. In other words, when we get a deed covenant with any portion of the
subdivision we'll have to ensure, reviewing the proffers, that all the components ofthe proffers are
addressed. So, when we get these covenants we'll have to ensure that that's...
Supervisor Forrester, that's done. So, there will be a --
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
I
180
Assistant Tierney, Yeah.
Supervisor Forrester, thank you.
Chairman Shickle, you are still up, Supervisor Forrester.
Supervisor Forrester, No.
Chairman Shickle, your statement? I don't think there was anything down here.
Supervisor Forrester, well, the last one was Miss Tyler. It's been a long night, it's been a long
year. I think, though, that, that tonight what I've heard about is, to me what keeps resonating is that
there's a difference between planning for growth and encouraging growth and I think this plan will
just encourage Frederick County down a path that a lot of us don't want to see happen. It's always
said that just because something is designated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan forresidential uses,
that it doesn't guarantee an automatic rezoning. That's up to this Board to determine if the timing
of the request and the provisions of the application are right for the community and I don't think
either are right at this time for a multitude of reasons. Because of the rapid rate of our growth over
the last decade Frederick County is already fiscally struggling to meet the needs of our growing
community. The county's debt burden is growing as well as our tax rate. Frederick County
taxpayers have just been struck with a 20 percent tax increase and are having their properties
reassessed at this time for more taxation. This is because past proffers have not even come close
to meeting the real cost to the taxpayers of our growth. The Shockey proposed a status that their
project will mitigate the fiscal impact to the community, but they know and this Board knows that
they are basing these figures on a model which is a decade old. That model's in the process of being
updated now to use today's figures to find out what the real costs are to our community. This Board
shouldn't make decisions using decade old data. It would be like taking the money out of taxpayers
pockets and putting it directly into the developers. This Board, with the exception of Supervisor
Shickle, has voted to have the capital facilities impact model updated to more accurately predict the
real cost to Frederick County when considering all rezoning requests. The update of this tool is just
a few months from completion. For a project with an estimated build-out of over 20 years we should
minimally wait these few months for this tool. We need to know as close as we can the real cost of
this project to Frederick County taxpayers before we make our decision. Additionally, we must
consider the overall context in which this application has come forward. My opponents who
consistently label me as no growth instead for slowing growth are asking this Board to ignore the
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
181
current state of Frederick County and consider this project in a vacuum, but we must consider that
at our current rate of growth we already have 10 years of approved growth coming through the
pipeline now. This growth is coming and it's demanding new facilities and services from the county.
This translates into more tax increases. Our school system is experiencing growing pains. The
School Board made the decision this year to cut a middle school planning period in order to keep
the Gainesboro Elementary School open during the last budget cycle. What instructional needs will
they cut next year? The Superintendent of Schools has already identified a need for another
elementary school inside an area ofthe county without the addition of Stephenson Village. We are
in the process now of construction and soon will be staffing a new middle school. The elementary
school that would need to be built to accommodate Stephenson Village will be on top ofthese needs.
Again, more tax increases. We must meet the existing needs in our school system before we create
new needs. How about the condition of fire and rescue? Through our county's rapid growth our fire
and rescue director and volunteers are presently asking for help in the form of paid personnel and
restructuring of their departments. Bottom line, fire and rescue asked, but did not receive the
funding for what they have identified as their needs during this last budget cycle and for that matter,
for the past two years I've been on the Board. The combination of new industry and population
growth has put a strain on the backs of our volunteer system. This Board needs to consider this
when weighing this application. We have to consider that just two months into the current budget
cycle our fire and rescue department is back at our door with a legitimate request for supplement
appropriation of $800,000. This, this equates to another three to four cents on our real estate taxes
and this would be reoccurring cost. Public safety needs cannot be put off. Age restricted housing
may have less impact on our school system, but what will it do to our fire and rescue department.
Age restricted developments have three times the call volume due to medical emergencies than
non-age restricted development. We must include our knowledge of the present condition of our
volunteer system that may have to become more and more reliant upon paid personnel to meet the
demands of a growing community when weighing this application. We cannot put the public safety
of our constituents at risk. When our volunteers who give of themselves so tirelessly are asking for
this Board's help you know Frederick County has a problem This project at this time on top of what
is already approved and in the pipeline would just add to their problem. Our job is to determine if
this project stands on its own merits and in the context of existing conditions in Frederick County.
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
182
I say it does neither. Mr. Shockey has done nothing wrong in packaging this application in the most
favorable light, but it is this Board's job to probe beyond this packaging and see if this plan puts our
citizens first. We do not owe Mr. Shockey anything other than a fair review of his application. We
do not owe him a yes to rezone his land if his project does not mitigate the impacts to our
community and the timing is wrong. What we do owe is a responsibility to our citizens who elected
us to make a thorough review ofthis application. Whatever time it takes to get this right, we should
take that time. We owe this minimally to our citizens, our families, our friends and our neighbors.
As a small example of what could happen if we don't, I have had a situation arise over the last two
weeks in my district which will negatively impact the residents of Bedford Village, Apple Ridge and
Senseny Glen. The Channing Drive project, a development one-third the size of Stephenson Village
has a legal loophole which resurfaced almost four years after this Board's approval of the rezoning
request. With no disrespect intended, the Commonwealth Attorney has a full time job and with
growth already in the pipeline, its time for this county to have its own land use attorney reviewing
our rezoning applications and changes to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. This project which we
are considering tonight is more complex, easily three times the size and only includes a generalized
development plan. Loopholes could well surface to the detriment of the county and our present and
future citizens if we move forward on this application without at least the proper review of an
independent, experienced land use attorney. We owe this to our present and future taxpayers, but
because we are here tonight I'd like to make a motion to deny this application.
Chairman Shickle, we haven't had a presentation of it. My instructions at the beginning was
we'd go through the articles of modification and the rezoning would come last. If you could hold
the motion on the rezoning until then...
Supervisor Forrester, until what...
Chairman Shickle,..I'd appreciate it. In fact, if! had known the nature of your statement we
probably should have had a motion on the floor before we had such a lengthy statement.
Supervisor Forrester, that's why I was...
Chairman Shickle, but I think your instructions to the Board and cautions take -- it would be
wise to the information more appropriate and so I think it balances out there, but...
Supervisor Forrester, thank you.
Chairman Shickle, ...we'll move on if you don't mind. The Board concurs with the
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
183
modifications. If you, if you would probably shorten it up a little bit unless the Board has questions
we'll probably get to the heart of each one and we'll try to take a vote and we will not, we will not,
however, shorten the questions on behalf of the Board.
Assistant Mohn, certainly. Let's start...
Supervisor Sager, excuse me. We're going to vote on each modification?
Chairman Shickle, yes.
Supervisor Sager, And then we'll vote on the...
Chairman Shickle, The rezoning, yes.
Supervisor Sager, ...on the rezoning.
Assistant Mohn, Modification Number 1. The applicant is seeking approval to allow a larger
percentage ofthe land area planned for housing in Stephenson Village to consist ofthe townhouse,
multifamily and multiplex-type units. The applicant therefore proposes that the ordinance be
modified to allow a maximum of 60 percent ofthe total residentia11and area to consist ofthese unit
types. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Shickle, does the Board have any questions?
Supervisor Sager, how do you want the motion?
Chairman Shickle, we're going to, probably going to look to Supervisor Forrester since it's
her district to be and then we'll go from there. If she has a motion that prevails...
Supervisor Tyler,
Chairman Shickle,...and ifnot, then somebody else can make a motion.
Supervisor Forrester, I'm sorry, Chairman Shickle, I'm having trouble hearing you.
Chairman Shickle, I'm sorry.
Supervisor Forrester, I know it's late.
Chairman Shickle, I've got whatever everybody else has. What I'd like to do is look to
Supervisor Tyler for the lead motion since it's her district. If her motion fails then we'll look
elsewhere. So, Supervisor Tyler, what would be your motion?
Modification Number 1- Section 165-71 Mixture of Housing Types Required.
Supervisor Tyler, I move for approval of Modification Number 1.
Supervisor Sager, seconded the motion..
Chairman Shickle, all right, we have a motion and a second. Discussion? Hearing none, the
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
I
184
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. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Modification Number 2 the Applicant is Seeking Approval to Allow Housing Types not
Currently Enabled by the Zoning Ordinance.
Approval of this modification is necessary to accept new housing types and associated
dimensional standards that have been proffered by the application.
Chairman Shickle, any questions of staff? Supervisor Tyler?
Supervisor Tyler, I'd move for approval of Modification Number 2.
Supervisor Sager, second.
Any discussion? Supervisor Tyler, how do you vote?
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. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Assistant Mohn, Through Modification Number 3 the applicant is seeking approval to
limit commercial development within Stephen -- Stephenson Village to 4 percent of the
project's gross land area and to focus such development predominantly within a single
commercial node.
Chairman Shickle, all right, questions of staff? Supervisor Tyler?
Supervisor Tyler, move for approval of Modification Number 3.
Supervisor Sager, second.
Chairman Shickle, any discussion?
Supervisor Tyler, yes, Chairman Shickle, I would just like to appeal to the Board to give this
some consideration for approval. I know that this is a, an area of concern. However, this is a
minimum and I think the applicant, if were to be trying to put in 10 percent commercial, I don't think
the residents of Stephenson want to have an Apple Blossom Mall or anything with those traffic
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
185
impacts.
Chairman Shickle, other discussion? Hearing none.
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Nay
Gina A. Forrester - Nay
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Assistant Mohn, Through Modification Number 4 the applicant is seeking approval to
utilize the monetary value of a tot lot facility as a means of quantifying conformance with the
recreational unit requirements of the zoning ordinance.
Chairman Shickle, any questions of staff or the applicant? Hearing none, Supervisor Tyler.
Supervisor Tyler, I move for approval of Modification Number 4.
Supervisor Sager, second.
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. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Assistant Mohn, Through Modification Number 5 the applicant is seeking approval to
allow the age restricted component of Stephenson Village to develop with a system of private
streets. Additionally this request seeks to allow housing within the mixed residential land bay
to be served by private access roads in limited circumstances.
Chairman Shickle, any questions of staff or the applicant? Supervisor Tyler, a motion?
Supervisor Tyler, I move for approval of Modification Number 5.
Supervisor Sager, second the motion.
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Nay
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Nay
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09124/03
186
Assistant Mohn, Through Modification Number 6 the applicant is seeking to be
exempted from the R4 district standard requiring the provision of a phasing plan that specifies
the concluding year of each phase of development. In lieu of an annualized phasing schedule
the applicant would be enabled to phase development through alternative measures.
Chairman Shickle, any questions of staff or the applicant?
Supervisor Tyler, and his alternative means?
Assistant Mohn,: the two alternative measures would be, number one, the 8 percent phasing
rate on the non-age restricted units and the other phasing mechanism would be the phasing of the
transportation improvement by actual traffic counts.
Supervisor Tyler, I move for approval of Modification Number 6.
Supervisor Sager, seconded the motion.
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Assistant Mohn, Through Modification Number 7 the applicant is seeking approval to
reduce the width of the road efficiency buffer required for the planned major collector road.
Chairman Shickle, any questions of staff or the applicant?
Supervisor Tyler, yes, I have a question. I understand that they are trying to do this and
enhancing the screening measures and that is proffered in there, correct?
Assistant Mohn, they've included an illustrative that specifies the, some enhanced
landscaping in that area.
Supervisor Tyler, Mm-hmm. (Indicating affirmatively.)
Assistant Mohn, and that's what we would follow during implementation.
Supervisor Tyler, okay, thank you.
Supervisor Tyler moved for approval of Modification Number 7.
Supervisor Sager seconded the motion.
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Nay
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Assistant Mohn, Through Modification Number 8 the applicant is seeking approval to
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
187
provide a proffer generalized development plan with the rezoning application in lieu of a full
master development plan. With approval of this modification the master plan would follow
the rezoning action in the traditional sequence of application review.
Chairman Shickle, any questions of staff or...
Supervisor Tyler, I have a question just for clarification for just the public's awareness. I'm
not going to ask you the question, Mr. Mohn, to say that we've lost control, but I want you to
basically tell us how this doesn't let us lose control?
Assistant Mohn, well, effectively through the proffer statement, through the proffer
generalized development plan the template for the development will be in place and, of course, as
proffers, if they're adopted and accepted by the county they would be enforceable as an ordinance
for this project, for this particular R4 zoning. And furthermore, they would still have to go through
master plan, the master plan process subsequent to rezoning just like any other project would
although the sequencing or the, the scope ofthose master plans may be different depending upon the,
the outcome of another modification.
Supervisor Tyler, but when they come back to us it's an administrative procedure at the point
with the master development plan?
Assistant Mohn, correct.
Supervisor Tyler, and what is going to trigger that master development plan is the proffers
and side documents, is that correct?
Assistant Mohn, the master development plan is going to be the means through which we
implement the proffer statement.
Supervisor Tyler, okay, thank you.
Chairman Shickle, Assistant Mohn, I guess the really hard question that was buried in there
somewhere is more control or less control or the same control?
Assistant Mohn, I think you may lose a level of specificity at this stage of the development
review process, but I don't believe you sacrifice any control.
Chairman Shickle, okay.
Supervisor Tyler, moved to approved Modification Number 8.
Supervisor Sager, seconded the motion.
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
188
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Nay
Gina A. Forrester - Nay
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Assistant Mohn, Through Modification Number 9 the applicant is seeking approval to
provide a series of master development plans to accommodate the incremental development
of Stephenson Village over time. The zoning ordinance currently requires that the scope of
a master plan and its contents address a proposed development in its entirely as a
comprehensive outline for a given project. This would enable this incremental approach
through a series of multiple master development plans that would be submitted, reviewed and
approved over the course of the development cycle.
Chairman Shickle, questions of applicant or staff? Hearing none. Supervisor Tyler
Supervisor Tyler, moved for the approval of Modification Number 9.
Supervisor Sager seconded the motion.
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes -Nay
Gina A. Forrester - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Chairman Shickle,..I do want to give, please give us some introduction and I'll give the
applicant another opportunity to make any statement and then the Board will take over.
Assistant Mohn, certainly. Just in summary, this application is a request to rezone the 794.6
acres from RA to R4 to facilitate development of a 2,465 unit planned residential community. A
proffer development program which has been outlined by the applicant this evening includes mixed
housing types, land dedicated for public uses, recreational amenities, environmental protection areas
and a multi modal transportation system organized on a planned major collector road. Moreover,
as you have just approved all nine modifications to the zoning ordinance that were requested by the
applicant there is no need for the applicant to make any adjustments to the proffer statement as it is
currently written and so your action...
Chairman Shick1e, repeat again the number of acres you just said?
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
189
Assistant Mohn, 794.6.
Chairman Shickle, okay. I thought I heard a different number. Does the applicant wish to
make any statement?
Evan Wyatt, Mr. Chairman, with the modifications document approved we feel the proffer
statement as presented adequately mitigates the impacts. Your professional review comments are
all positive and we would request approval ofthis rezoning application.
Chairman Shickle, are there any questions of staff or the applicant that remain before we can
discuss her motion, are there any questions? All right, Supervisor Tyler, what is your motion?
Supervisor Tyler, well, yes, I'd like to move for approval of Rezoning Number 06-03 of
Stephenson Village.
Chairman Shickle, all right, we have a motion to approve, is there a second?
Supervisor Sager, seconded the motion.
Chairman Shickle, discussion?
Supervisor Tyler, It's been requested that we, before we vote, we state how we're going to
vote. So, I'm going to go ahead and take an opportunity to do that. I have no prepared comment.
I would like to say, however, that I think anybody who's been following politics here in Frederick
County for a very long time, at least since 1996 knows that this plan has been a source of contention
in this county and division. It looks as if it's appearing to be the same way except the volumes of
numbers of people turning out is extremely different. I do live in that community and I live at
Ground Zero, if you want to call it. I believe that any project that's brought that has half the traffic
impacts using twice the amount of land and the water resources and such is somewhat of a
compromise. The battlefield was a cry to be faced. I remember the September 11 th anniversary, the
first year anniversary, I got frantic calls from citizens in Stephenson, stop him, whatever you have
to do, stop him from destroying the battlefield, buy right five acre development would destroy the
battlefield. I thought that was important, but obviously I was mistaken in this matter. However, it
is very critical and important to me. Density's another one. I'm not a no growther, I'm not a slow
growther and density is not a bad word. Density is a way for us to be able to provide services. If
you think that by not approving any residential performance district anywhere in this county that you
are going to somehow slow growth, you are not. You are going to push that growth further out into
the county and we cannot provide the services for it. I did not run on a platform of no growth or
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
190
slow growth. I ran on the platform of smart growth and if anybody thought I was any different than
that they were sorely mistaken. In fact, I remember calling numbers of people and Katherine trying
to put my name in ads and bumper stickers and such with no growth and I did not appreciate it, did
not like it, but we need to plan for it and we need to manage it. If you approve residential
performance you're not encouraging it to come, you're managing it. What is happening is that we
are gobbling up acres and acres and we cannot provide any services. We have no tax support to help
build those schools. I want to mention to everyone, too. So, back to the question is, why am I
supporting this? Because I do think that this is a compromise of sorts. It is not a vile, disgusting
project. You don't have great volumes of citizens here sitting here saying please don't, wearing those
stickers, holding signs. Yes, they'd rather have nothing happen. Something is going to happen on
that property. If we decide not to move now, we have no idea what that might be and actually I
believe there's some recourse for the, for the applicant as well. And I'm not afraid to say that I
support this project.
Chairman Shick1e, any other discussion?
Supervisor Reyes, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Reyes,
Supervisor Reyes, would you entertain another motion?
Chairman Shickle, only an amendment, but if you try to tell me what you're trying to do I
might try to...
Supervisor Reyes, I would like to...
Chairman Shickle,..I'1I surely try to help.
Supervisor Reyes, amend this motion to table this until the fiscal impact model is completed.
Chairman Shickle, I believe we've already voted on that when you asked whether it would
be on the agenda or not. I don't think that the outcome would be any different. That was the subject
of that request, correct?
Supervisor Reyes, well, that was before it was entertained as an agenda item. So, now it is
an item, I'd like to make that motion.
Administrator Riley, I believe it' out of order, Chairman Shick1e, at this point.
Chairman Shickle, I believe so, too.
Supervisor Forrester, Chairman Shickle, can...
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
191
Chairman Shickle, no, Administrator Riley, I believe that may not be right. Are you looking
at the same charter I am?
Administrator Riley, I'm sorry, I, I made a...
Chairman Shickle, so, let's take Supervisor Reyes motion...
Administrator Riley all right.
Chairman Shickle, but could you, well, you did. The little chart said to a specific time and
you're saying that specific time is when the...
Supervisor Reyes, the fiscal impact model...
Chairman Shickle,.fiscal impact model is...
Supervisor Reyes, completed.
Chairman Shick1e, completed?
Supervisor Reyes, right.
Chairman Shickle, so, we have a -- does everybody understand, a motion to postpone vote
until the fiscal impact model is complete?
Speaker? Without a date?
Chairman Shickle ,there is no date.
Speaker? that's what I said, without a date.
Chairman Shickle, yes, sir, yes. We have a motion, is there a second to that motion?
Supervisor Forrester seconded the motion.
Chairman Shickle, seconded by Supervisor Forrester. Any discussion? It is a --
on her motion and the main motion.
Supervisor Forrester, I'd like just a moment of discussion first.
Chairman Shickle, oh, well, go ahead.
Supervisor Forrester, okay. I think it's really important that, that we know what the, the real
numbers are. I mean, the Board voted to update that capital facilities impact model because we
know we're using figures that are a decade old. So, whenever we're talking about what the true
impact is to the taxpayer we really don't have anything to evaluate and the three independent studies
all used that old model as the basis oftheirs. So, I would really hope that we would be looking out
for the taxpayers tonight and say we can wait another three or four months until we have that
information. And that should be in there. We've been asking for this fiscal impact model update for
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
192
almost a year now. So, I would assume we should see something real soon.
Chairman Shickle, any other discussion?
Supervisor Tyler, sure, Chairman Shickle.
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Tyler, I sit on the Development Impact Model Group. We're
talking two different things. There's a development impact model which is what we are currently
underway of bringing forward. It is not a capital facilities impact model. They're two distinct
animals. It's not the end all, be all. I think the beautiful thing about our development impact model
is that we are going to be able to play what if scenarios, we'd going to do build-out analysis, we're
going to be able to do a great number of things with this, but to say that this model is going be the
end all, be all, I think it's going to be interesting to run anything and the capital facilities model that
we use is not -- yes, it's decades old, but the inputs and the percentages and the numbers and the
multipliers are current day information. So, that's all I wanted to say about that. I sit on that, that,
that committee, it is not the end all, be all and Assistant Tierney or Administrator Riley, I don't know
who, or Director Lawrence, you sit on that committee. I think that there's this misunderstanding of
what this model is going to be capable of doing. Anybody care to elaborate or no?
Administrator Riley, I'd rather pass at this point.
Supervisor Tyler, okay, that's fine.
Chairman Shickle, any other discussion?
Supervisor Douglas, well, we vote, now we're voting on the amendment?
Chairman Shickle, no, we're voting, we're voting on a motion to postpone the vote. It's not
an amendment to the previous motion. It's a, it's a motion to postpone. Everybody clear? So, yes
means it is postponed and no means we, we go forward here tonight.
The above motion was denied 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. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Nay
Lynda J. Tyler - Nay
Chairman Shickle the motion was defeated, so now we are back to Supervisor Tyler's motion
for approval which has a second and discussion of that if any additional discussion.
Supervisor Sager, I, I have a comment. I was kind ofhoping....until after the vote, sir, but
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
193
I think it needs to be said. Over the past several months I have received 280 e-mails whichjust about
locked up my computer. They were form letters which were sent to me concerning this, I received
35 other letters. In the e-mails, when I tried to answer these e-mails to the people that according to
the addresses that were on them, I could not correspond with them. Even if I was interested in
talking to them I couldn't reach them because I found out through a company that people just sent
their names into, I guess some kind of register, and a form letter was developed and sent e-mail to
me. I sort of resent that because if you want me to deal with someone one on one and talk to people,
you have to give me the resource to answer and, and develop that communication which they didn't.
I did receive 35 other letters that were mailed to me and since they were form letters I didn't answer
these letters. I felt if someone was really interested in talking to me about preservation, about
development, what have you, the least they could have done is written an original letter. So, I, I
don't think this is the way that I, you know, would see doing business when people have a difference
or want to indicate their, their, their interest is preser - preservation of historic areas or what have
you, I just wanted to say that and I just resent the fact that they came in that way and I couldn't
communicate with them.
Chairman Shickle, other discussion?
Supervisor Douglas, I would like to comment.
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Douglas, I think this has been talked about and discussed and
I think everybody in the county has had plenty of time to make your comments known and your
questions answered and I think it's a good plan and ifit keeps these farms from being cut up into five
acre lots, I'm all for it. I think it's a wonderful plan.
Chairman Shickle, other discussion? I probably will have a lot to say about this, this vote
and this project at a later date, but tonight I would like to say one thing, and that's that what I thought
should have happened to the property, there were hundreds of people who came out to numerous
locations and told me I was wrong, that that's not what they wanted. This Board in its infinite
wisdom decided not to do those things which is industrial development. I have had less than 20
people talk to me, correspond with me or voice opposition to this project and most ofthem are here
tonight. That's a pretty loud message to send to an elected official about what the sentiments ofthe
community are. I just want to share that. Are we ready to vote? Supervisor Tyler?
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
194
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Nay
Gina A. Forrester - Nay
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Is there, are there any other Supervisor comments?
Supervisor Tyler, I have one.
Supervisor Tyler, I'm going to make this very, very quick. This is just for your information.
I'm certain that this Board is aware that there is a very important meeting tomorrow at the Virginia
Inland Port at 6:00 o'clock dealing with your expansion of 1-81 with the Florence Carr proposal and
I will be there to plan with him. Is that...
Chairman Shickle, the meeting, that's tomorrow?
Supervisor Tyler, yes.
Chairman Shickle, do you know that any -- well, there are a couple of folks here that have
got to be elsewhere, but...
Supervisor Tyler, yes, I will be there.
Chairman Shickle, any other...
Supervisor Forrester, do we need to make a motion to adjourn?
Chairman Shickle, yes, ma'am.
Supervisor Forrester, I so move.
Chairman Shickle, is there a second?
Supervisor Reyes, second.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD,
THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. (TIME: 12:30 A.M.)
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
195
~~
Richard C. Shickle
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
~/
Jo. . . Riley, Jr.
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Minutes Prepared By:
~i~ '-h\Zfa,.. hZl---4)
Carol T. Bayliss I
Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors
and
County Court Reporters
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03