November 12, 1980 Regular Meeting111
A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors was held on November 12, 1980, at 7:00 P.M. in the
Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester,
Virginia.
PRESENT S. Roger Koontz, Chairman; Will L. Owings, Vice-
Chairman; William H. Baker; Rhoda W. Maddox; R. Thomas Malcolm
and Kenneth Y. Stiles.
CAll TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
INVOCATION
The invocation was delivered by Reverend Malcolm Lerch of
the Stephens City Lutheran Church.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Mr. Malcolm requested that an item be added to the agenda
prior to old business regarding county officials.
The Board concurred.
Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles, seconded by Rhoda W.
Maddox and passed unanimously, the agenda was adopted as
amended.
PROPOSED LEGISLATION REGARDING REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM -
DISCUSSED
Mr. Stiles stated that he was opposed to the program
inasmuch as he felt it was nothing more than the federal
government printing money it does not have and distributing it
back to the Counties. Several Board members stated that although
they agree with Mr. Stiles in part, they felt Frederick County
should receive their fair share of funding if the program is
reinstated.
Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm and seconded by
William H. Baker,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Frederick, Virginia, does herein declare their support of the
NACO organization and others to have the revenue sharing program
reinstated.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded
vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, William H. Baker, Will L. Owings,
R. Thomas Malcolm and Rhoda W. Maddox. Nay - Kenneth Y. Stiles.
112
D
,SION OF SCI
CONTRACT FOR J
The County Administrator read a letter from School
RI
Superintendent Wright regarding discussion of cost of the James
Wood Ridge Campus advising that the School Board would meet with
the Board of Supervisors to discuss this matter when the project
is completed and that a full report would be made at that time.
Mr. Stiles stated that he would be willing to concede to
waiting to have his questions answered sometime after January 5,
1981 when the School is occupied. He added that due to the im-
precise nature of the remainder of the project, he felt the
questions could be answered immediately after occupancy of the
School, i.e. one of the Board Meetings in January.
Mr. Stiles advised that he wanted to make it very clear that
cost was only one thing he was concerned about; that he was
concerned about the noncompliance of various specific details in
the contract regarding cost overruns as well as schedule
overruns. He added that many of the contractors are working
overtime and Saturdays to complete the project in December and
are sustaining this cost themselves. Mr. Stiles stated that he
was concerned about whether or not the procedures set forth in
the contract to prevent overruns had been implemented and if they
had why they had failed, he further stated that he was aware of
the fact that any changes approved by the School Board which
would increase the cost would be the responsibility of the Board
of Supervisors to pay for. He then asked for input from other Board
Members stating that he felt he, as well as the public, were
entitled to some answers.
Mr. Owings stated that the Board of Supervisors had been given
a guaranteed maximum cost and any cost above this figure would be th
responsibility of the contractor.
Mr. Koontz stated that the School Board could not spend more th
the Board had approved and he felt any Board Member who had a ques-
tion regarding the project should have those questions answered at
upcoming meeting with the School Board. Mr. Stiles stated that he
would suggest the Board address possible cost overruns before they
reached the point where there is nothing which can be done about th
113
Mr. Baker stated that he felt the Board should wait until, the
School is completed and if there are overruns the Board should
then analyze the situation and ask the School Board for an
explanation of said overruns.
Mrs. Maddox stated that the new School had been built to
provide a better education for the children but because of the
delay in the opening we have compromised one -half year of their
education. She added that she felt questions other than those
relating to finance need to be answered as well.
Mr. Malcolm stated that he was concerned about the Board's
right to inject themselves into a contractual matter which shoul
be within the purview of the School Board. He added that if any
Board member knows that there is in fact something illegal takin
place the entire Board should know about it now. He added that
if the project comes in overbid then he felt the Board had a
legitimate right to get involved. He noted that anything up to
that point would be speculation and could be a waste of time.
Mr. Stiles stated that he had made no allegations of
improper conduct.
The Chairman stated that all of the Board members are
interested in the School, its cost and the impact it will have or
the taxpayers and that he would endeavor to arrange a meeting in
January to get answers to questions Board members might have.
BUSINESS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CUP #011 -80 -
DI$TRICT - AP
OMP'S GARAGE) - GAINESB
Mr. Riley presented the request for Conditional Use Permit
of Ralph Poe and read the reviewing agency comments. He stated
that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the permit
with conditions.
Mr. Malcolm expressed concern regarding issues coming before the
Board for approval after the fact. He noted that a sign fitting
the description of the one requested in the conditional use
permit has been in existence at this location for some time. He
asked if this was a justifiable concern.
Mr. White stated that he agreed with Mr. Malcolm very
strongly that is has been discussed briefly and there is an item
114
on the agenda dealing with this matter. He noted that this is a
matter the Board should address and if they are serious about
their ordinances they should be consistent in the enforcement
thereof.
Mr. Poe appeared before the Board in support of his request
and stated that pursuant to the Planning Commission recommeda-
tion the sign had been moved seventy -five feet from the proper-
ty line.
There was no opposition.
Upon motion made by Rhoda W. Maddox and seconded by Kenneth
Y. Stiles,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve conditional use
permit #011 -80 of Ralph Poe for the location of an off - premise
directional sign at Omp's Garage, Rt. 522 North in the Gaines -
boro Magisterial District with the following conditions:
1. This is a one year permit to be reviewed each
January by the Frederick County Planning Commission
and the Board of Supervisors.
2. The sign as permitted will be maintained and kept
at the original size.
3. The sign shall be placed seventy -five feet from
the Church property line.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded
vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Will L. Owings, William H. Baker,
Rhoda W. Maddox, R. Thomas Malcolm and Kenneth Y. Stiles.
CUP #012 -80 - JOHN AND LINDA MARTIN - GAINESBORO DISTRICT -
APPROVED
Mr. Riley presented the request for conditional use permit
of John and Linda Martin and read the reviewing agencies com-
ments. He noted that the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the request with conditions. Mr. Martin appeared
before the Board in support of his request and stated that he
understood the conditions and is satisfied with them.
Mr. Malcolm asked Mr. Martin if his business is operational
now and he replied that it was. Mr. Malcolm then asked how he
had discovered the procedure for a conditional use permit and Mr.
115
Martin replied that he has been in other businesses for the pas
eight years and this requirement has been enacted during that
period of time. Mr. Malcolm again expressed concern regarding
people operating businesses without the required conditional us
permit.
There was no opposition.
Upon motion made by Rhoda W. Maddox and seconded by
Y. Stiles,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the Count
of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve conditional use
permit #012 -80 of John and Linda Martin to conduct a home - occupa
tion in their dwelling for use as a gun dealer and stock related
supplies, located on the east side of Rt. 654, 1/2 mile from Rt.
522 North in the Gainesboro Magisterial District with the fol-
lowing conditions:
1. This is a one year permit to be reviewed each
January by the Frederick County Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
2. Off - street parking shall be provided.
3. Noone may be employed other than members of
the immediate family residing on the premises.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded
vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Will L. Owings, William H. Baker,
Rhoda W. Maddox, R. Thomas Malcolm and Kenneth Y. Stiles.
CUP #013 -80 - DOYLE E. WHITTINGTON - GAINESBORO DISTRICT -
r nnn n<ro r.
Mr. Riley presented conditional use permit #013 -80 of Doy
E. Whittington and read the reviewing agencies comments. He
stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval with
i
conditions. Mr. Riley noted that an additional condition shoulc
be added which should read: "If the use is discontinued, or occL
pancy or ownership changes, this conditional use permit shall
expire and a new conditional use permit will be required." The
Board concurred. The Board also agreed to amend the hours of
operation to 7 :00 A.M. to 8 :00 P.M. Outside storage and screen-
ing were discussed and Mr. Whittington advised that the only out
side storage would be a piece of equipment which would have to
be removed to work on a tractor and Mr. Riley stated that the
screening would consist of evergreen plantings.
116
The matter of the continuation of nonconforming uses was
discussed briefly and Mr. Malcolm stated that he felt the Board
should address the matter in the near future.
There was no opposition.
Upon motion made by Rhoda W. Maddox and seconded by Kenneth
Y. Stiles,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve conditional use
permit #013 -80 of Doyle E. Whittington to renew a nonconforming
use for farm tractor repair and service, located at the Old
Dillon Fence Company, located on Rt. 522 North in the Sunnyside
Area in the Gainesboro Magisterial District with the following
conditions:
1. This is a one year permit to be reviewed each
January by the Frederick County Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors. If
any condition is violated at any time, the
conditional use permit shall be brought before
the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors for consideration.
2. Storage and outside repair shall be screened
from all residential uses.
3. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 A.M. to
8:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday.
4. If the use is discontinued or occupancy or
ownership changes, this conditional use permit
shall expire and a new conditional use permit
will be required.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded
vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Will L. Owings, William H. Baker,
Rhoda W. Maddox, R. Thomas Malcolm and Kenneth Y. Stiles.
ZMAP #017 -80 - J. P. DARLINGTON - STONEWALL DISTRICT -
APPROVED
Mr. Riley presented the rezoning request of J. P. Darlington
and read the reviewing agencies comments. He stated that the
Planning Commission recommended approval of this request. Mr.
Randolph Larrick, attorney, and Mr. Ron Ward appeared before the
Board in support of this request and Mr. Ward described the type
of development proposed for the property. The acreage set forth
on the application was corrected from 17.67 acres to 17.39 acres.
Mr. Sam Lehman stated that he felt this type of development was
detrimental to the County and when you try to build cities in the
County you raise taxes and disposess many County residents.
117
Mr. Koontz stated that he also was opposed to this type of
zoning.
Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles and seconded by
William H. Baker,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County
1 of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve ZMAP #017 -80 of J. P.
Darlington to construct 32 duplex units (64 dwelling units) on
17.39 acres located on the west side of Baker Lane extended in
the Stonewall Magisterial District.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded
vote: Aye - Will L. Owings, William H. Baker, Rhoda W. Maddox,
R. Thomas Malcolm and Kenneth Y. Stiles. Nay - S. Roger Koontz,
CREATION OF SOUTH FREDERICK AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT - APPROVED
The following report was presented regarding the request for
creation of the South Frederick Agricultural District:
MEMORANDUM
November 7, 1980
TO: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors
FROM: John R. Riley, Secretary, Planning Commission
SUBJECT: PROPOSED SOUTH FREDERICK
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT
The Frederick County Planning Commission, on October 1,
1980, unanimously recommended to the Board of
Supervisors approval of the proposed South Frederick
Agricultural District.
The Planning Commission based their decision on the
Comprehensive Plan which states that prime farmland in
the County generally follows the belt of Frederick -
Carbo- Christian soils association East of Little North
Mountain and West of Interstate 81. The goal of the
Plan being to maintain a balanced community that
provides managed growth opportunities for agriculture,
commercial, industrial and residential uses and the
objective to prevent encroachment of homes and commerce
into our prime agricultural areas also played a role in
the decision making.
The Planning Commission also has taken into con-
sideration that the Agricultural Advisory Board has
deemed the South Frederick Agricultural District
agriculturally significant. (Please see attached
report.)
Attached you will also find a copy of the ordinance
which must be adopted in order to officially create the
South Frederick Agricultural District.
j If you have any questions or comments regarding any of
the attached information prior to the meeting, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
JRR:bjs
118
REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY BOARD
LOCATION
The South Frederick Agricultural District is located in the
Back Creek and Opequon Magisterial Districts, lying between North
Mountain and Interstate 81.
TOPOGRAPHY
The general relief of the District is that of a broad roll-
ing valley, flanked on the west by Little North Mountain, which
rises abruptly above the valley floor. To the east it is bound-
ed by the shale uplands. The northern part of the District is in
the Opequon Creek watershed and the southern part is in the Cedar
Creek watershed. Water is available from ponds, wells and
springs.
The historical use of the land indicates that orchard pro-
duction and beef cattle operations have been the predominant use
for a number of years and will continue to be engaged in similar
agricultural pursuits.
SOILS
The soils in the District are of many different kinds and
are formed in material weathered from limestone, shale and sand-
stone. Most of the soils, with the exception of those on the
steeper slopes, are suited to a wide variety of farm uses. Most
of the soils utilized for production are in cultivated crops,
orchards, hay and pasture. (Please see attached list for speci-
fic soils present in area.)
It should be indicated that the majority of these soils
would not be classified as prime agricultural land. The agri-
culturalists in this area have taken the technology and applied
practices from the soil science experts and utilized these re-
sources to improve the production capabilities of the existing
soils. It is important to note that soils as they exist do not
always indicate a high success rate for crop production, since
production can be indicative of how well an individual utilizes
the land to the best of its capabilities.
AGRICULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
Within the proposed district the quality of investments is
indicated by predominant agricultural operations which center
around apple and peach production and beef cattle operations.
Approximately 40 percent of all the fruit produced in Frederick
County comes from the proposed district. Many large cow -calf
operations with supporting agronomic crop production (corn,
small grain, hay) lie within the confines of the District. The
production capabilities of this land vary with average corn
crops of 90 -120 bushels of corn per acre. There are also three
dairy operations within the boundaries of the proposed District.
The property within the proposed District displays a strong ef-
fort to maintain bona fide farming operations.
CONTRIBUTION TO ECONOMY
The 1978 Census for agriculture in Frederick County for
gross market value of agricultural products sold before expenses,
taxes, and marketing charges was $17,703,725. Estimates for
1980 would be approximately $25,000,000 for the County. It is
estimated that the contribution of this proposed District to
local economy would be about 20 percent or $5,000,000. It
should be noted that these figures are very conservative and are
only estimates based on the 1978 Census.
119
ZONING
The majority of the land within the proposed District is
zoned Agriculture. There is one proposed subdivision which is
zoned Residential, but is not included in the District. The
Agricultural zoning will contribute to the protection of the
land within the proposed District and identifies permitted uses
such as general farming, dairying, forest, orchards, and other
related agricultural activities.
There is a strong potential for increasing the size of the
District due to the fact that other farming activities are
located in close proximity. The reason that these properties
were not included in this proposal was the limited physical cap-
abilities of the volunteers who put the District together to
contact everyone who might have been interested.
Another reason that the District was not increased was that
some people are still unsure about committing their land for a
period of time to an agricultural use.
There is also the potential that the District could be de-
creased in size because of gas and oil leases which have been
signed by a number of landowners with the oil companies.
The oil companies are speculating that there could be
deposits of oil and natural gas in the western half of the
County. If it is found to be economically feasible to extract
the resource, pressure to withdraw land from the District to de-
rive the greatest economic benefit could be substantial.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Agricultural Advisory Board's recommendation is to
approve the establishment of the South Frederick Agricultural
District. The reasons for this recommendation are as follows:
1. The land is agriculturally significant.
2. Approximately 40 percent of all the fruit produced in
the County comes from this proposed District.
3. Average corn crop yields are 90 to 120 bushels of corn
per acre. Three daily operations.
4. Most of the soils, with the exception of those on the
steeper slopes, are suited to a wide variety of farm
uses.
5. The ability of this proposed District to be increased
in size due to surrounding agricultural activities.
The recommendation of approval is based upon background in-
formation which was obtained through the following sources and
review procedures:
1. An educational seminar was conducted on August 19, 1980
with Mr. Charles Carter, Director of Planning for Cul-
peper County, Va. Questions and comments regarding the
purpose and intent of the Virginia Agricultural and
Forestal District Act were the major topics of discus-
sion. The proposed South Frederick Agricultural Dis-
trict also was discussed in comparison to the Virginia
Enabling Legislation.
2. On August 28, 1980 the formal meeting of the Board took
place to consider recommending the proposed District to
the Frederick County Planning Commission. Present at
the meeting was the committee which formed the District
(Messrs. Anderson, Bauserman, Snapp and Rinker).
Questions on the formation of the District were answered
by the committee members regarding specific parcels.
3. The professional staff of Dr. Gary DeOms ((Extension
Agent), Mr. Robert Holmes (Soil Scientist) and Mr. John
Riley (County Planner) compiled a staff report for the
Agricultural Advisory Board to be used as information
for making a decision.
4. The Agricultural Advisory Board was also generally
familiar with the agricultural activities taking place
within the proposed District.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Carl C. Ay
Carl Ay, Chairman
/s /John R. Riley
John R. Riley, Secretary
SOUTH FREDERICK AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT
62C
LEGEND OF SOILS PRESENT
IN AREA
very rocky
Symbol
Name
74B
Slope
2B
Frederick loam
2
to
7%
2C
Frederick loam
7
to
15%
2D
Frederick loam
15 to
25%
4B
Frederick cherty loam
2
to
7%
4C
Frederick cherty loam
7
to
15%
18B
Swimley silt loam
2
to
7%
18C
Swimley silt loam
7
to
15%
8
Pagebrook silt loam
0
to
5%
29B
Carbo silty clay loam
2
to
7%
29C
Carbo silty clay loam
7
to
15%
30B
Timberville silt loam
2
to
7%
58B
Endcav silt loam
2
to
7%
58C
Endcav silt loam
7
to
15%
62C
Carbo - Endcav silty clay loam,
very rocky
2 to 15%
74B
Frederick loam, very
rocky
2 to 7%
74C
Frederick loam, very
rocky
7 to 15%
74D
Frederick loam, very
rocky
15 to 25%
1211
s 74E
Frederick loam, very rocky
25
to
45%
104B
Frankstown silt loam
2
to
7%
104C
Frankstown silt loam
7
to
15%
104D
Frankstown silt loam
15
to
15%
109
Massanetta loam
0
to
5%
155B
Guernsey silt loam
2
to
7%
158B
Endcav silt loam, rocky
2
to
7%
158C
Endcav silt loam, rocky
7
to
15%
1748
Frederick loam, rocky
2
to
7%
174C
Frederick loam, rocky
7
to
15%
174D
Frederick loam, rocky
15
to
25%
195B
Chilhowie silty clay loam,
rocky
7
to
15%
X9C
Carbo- Endcav Rock outcrop
complex
2
to
15%
2B -
Frederick Loam, 2 to 7% Slopes
This
deep, well drained, gently sloping soil
is on narrow to
broad
convex slopes. The soil has a silt
loam surface and a
clay
subsoil.
Permeability of this soil is moderate and
the available water
capacity is moderate. Tilth is good. The
soil is moderate in
natural fertility and low in organic matter.
This soil has a good potential for farming. It is well suited to
cultivated crops, pasture and hay crops.
2C - Frederick Loam, 7 to 15% Slopes
Same as above except steeper slopes.
2D - Frederic Loam, 15 to 25% Slopes
Soil has same internal characteristics as above except that
steepness of slopes make it poorly suited to cultivated crops.
It is used mainly for pastures and orchards.
4B - Frederick Cherty Loam, 2 to 7% Slopes
i
This deep, well drained, gently sloping soil is on narrow to
broad convex slopes. This soil has a surface layer of loam
which contains 20 to 50 percent fragments. The subsoil is clay.
Permeability of this soil is moderate and the available water
capacity is moderate. Tilth is fair. Chert content in the sur-
face interferes with tillage but does not make it impractical.
The soil is moderate in natural fertility and low in organic
matter.
This soil has fair potential for farming and much of the acreage
is farmed. This soil is suited for cultivated crops.
4C - Frederick Cherty Loam, 7 to 1 5%_Slopes
Same as above except steeper slopes.
18B - Swimley Silt Loam, to 7% Slopes
This deep, well drained soil has a surface layer of silt loam and
a clay subsoil.
Permeability of this soil is moderate and the available water
capacity is moderate. Tilth is fair. The soil is high in natu-
ral fertility and low in organic matter.
122
This soil has a very good potential for farming and most of the
acreage is in crops and pasture. This soil is well suited to
crops, pasture and hay crops.
18C - Swimley Silt Loam, 7 to 15% Slopes
Same as above except steeper slopes.
8 - Pa ebrook Silt Loam, 0 to 5% Slopes
This deep, nearly level to gently sloping soil is moderately
well drained.
Permeability of this soil is slow, and the available water
capacity is moderate. Surface runoff is slow. Erosion hazard is
slight. The surface layer is friable and easily tilled when
moist. The soil is low in organic matter content and high in
natural fertility.
This soil is well suited to cultivated crops, pasture and hay.
29B - Carbo Silty Clay Loam, 2 to 7% Slopes
This gently sloping, well drained soil has a silty clay loam sur-
face layer and a clay subsoil.
Permeability of this soil is slow and the available water capaci-
ty is moderate. Tilth is fair and the soil is medium in natural
fertility. The subsoil is very plastic and has a high shrink -
swell potential. This soil has rock outcrops and is a factor in
the use of this soil.
The soil has a fair potential for farming and much of the acre-
age is farmed.
29C - Carbo Silty Clay Loam, 7 to 15% Slopes
Same as above except steeper slopes.
30B - Timberville Silt Loam, 2 to 7% Slopes
This deep, gently sloping, well drained soil is in depressions
along drainageways in the limestone uplands.
Permeability of this soil is moderate and the available water
capacity is low to moderate. This soil is medium in natural
fertility. This soil has a good potential for farming and most
of the acreage is in crops and pasture.
58B - Endcav Silty Clay Loam, 2 to 7% Slopes
This deep, well drained, gently sloping soil is on the smoother
slopes in the limestone valley.
Permeability of this soil is moderately slow, and the available
water capacity is moderate. Surface runoff is medium. The ero-
sion hazard is moderate. The surface layer is friable and easi-
ly tilled when moist, but breaks up in clods if tilled when too
wet or too dry. The subsoil has high shrink -swell properties.
The soil is low in organic matter content and medium in natural
fertility.
This soil is suited to cultivated crops, pasture and hay.
58C - Endcav Silt Loam, 7 to 15% Slopes
This deep, well drained, gently sloping soil -is on the smoother
slopes in the limestone valley.
Permeability of this soil is moderately slow, and the available
water capacity is moderate. Surface runoff is moderately rapid.
The erosion hazard is moderate. The surface layer is friable
and easily tilled when moist, but breaks up in clods if tilled
when too wet or too dry. The subsoil has high shrink -swell
123
properties. The soil is low in organic matter content and medi-
a um in natural fertility.
This soil is suited to cultivated crops, pasture and hay.
62C - Carbo- Endcav Silty Clay Loam, Very Rocky, 2 to 15% Slopes
This unit consists of sloping, well drained soils that are
intermingled so closely that it was not practical to map them
separately. Rock outcrops are about 30 to 100 feet apart.
Sinkholes are common. This unit is 50 percent Carbo soils and
45 percent Endcav soils.
The surface layer is silt loam or silty clay loam. The subsoil
is clay. Limestone bedrock is from 32 to 50 inches.
Permeability is slow and the available water capacity is low.
Tilth is fair with proper mositure content. This mapping unit
is not suited to cultivated crops, but is moderately well suited
to pasture. Rock outcrops are major management concern.
74B - Frederick Loam, Very Rocky, 2 to 7% Slopes
This deep, well drained, gently sloping soil occurs on undulat-
ing areas in the limestone valley.
Permeability of this soil is moderate and the available water
capacity is moderate. Runoff is medium. The soil is moderate
in natural fertility and low in organic matter, but rock out-
crops make tillage impractical.
This soil is poorly suited for cultivation, as rock outcrops in-
terfere with tillage. Some acres are used for pasture, with
some in orchards and some in woodland.
74C - Frederick Loa m, Very Rocky, 7 to 15% Slopes
Same as above except steeper slopes.
74D - Frederick Loam, Very Rocky, 15 to 25% Slopes
Same as the foregoing except steeper slopes.
74E - Frederick Loam, Very Rocky, 25 to 45% Slopes
Same as the foregoing except steeper slopes.
104B - Frankstown Silt Loam, 2 to 7% Slopes
This deep, gently sloping, well drained soil is on uplands in
the limestone valley over the Elbrook Formation on Apple Ridge
and near the base of Little North Mountain in the southern part
of the county.
Permeability of this soil is moderate, and the available water
capacity is moderate. Surface runoff is medium. The surface
layer is friable and easily tilled when moist, but breaks up in
clods if the soil is tilled when too wet or too dry. The sub-
soil has moderate shrink -swell properties.
Most areas of this soil are in orchards, hay crops and pasture.
104C - Frankstown Silt Loam, 7 to 15% Slopes
124
Same as above except steeper slopes.
104D - Frankstown Silt Loam, 15 to 25% Slopes
Same as above except steeper slopes.
109 - Massanetta Loam, 0 to 5% Slopes
This nearly level, moderately well drained soil is on flood
plains. The surface layer is very gray loam. The subsoil is
dark gray, silty clay loam and silt loam with marl fragments.
Permeability of this soil is moderate and available water capac-
ity is moderate. This soil is high in natural fertility and or-
ganic matter content.
This soil has fair potential for farming. Much of the acreage
is in pasture. The soil has good potential for grasses and
trees.
155B - Guernsey Silt Loam, 2 to 7% Slopes
This deep, gently sloping, moderately well drained soil is at
and near the bases of mountains and foothills, sometimes near
streams. Areas of this soil are irregularly winding, irregular-
ly rectangular and irregularly circular.
Permeability of this soil is moderately slow and the available
water capacity is moderate. Surface runoff is medium. The ero-
sion hazard is moderate. The surface layer is friable and easi-
ly tilled when moist but breaks up in clods if the soil is til-
led when too wet or too dry. The subsoil has moderate
shrink -swell properties. The soil is medium in organic matter
content and medium in natural fertility.
This soil is well suited to cultivated crops, pasture and hay
crops.
195B - Chilhowie Silty Clay Loam, Rocky, 7 to 15% Slopes
—I
This gently sloping, well drained soil is on strong convex side -
slopes of hills and ridges. Most areas of this soil have shal-
low drainageways about 100 to 200 feet apart.
Permeability of this soil is slow and the available water capac-
ity is low. Runoff is rapid. Tilth is fair with the proper
moisture content. The soil is high in natural fertility but low
in organic matter.
This soil has a limited potential for farming. It has a fair
potential for growing grasses and trees.
X9C - Carbo- Endcav Rock Outcrop Complex
This soil complex consists of gently sloping to moderately
steep, well drained soils and limestone rock outcrops that are
intermingled so closely that it is not practical to map them
separately. The complex occurs on gently undulating to moderate-
ly steep areas over high grade limestone. Slopes are commonly
steep areas over high grade limestone. Slopes are commonly com-
plex and are 100 to 400 feet long.
Permeability is moderately slow to slow and the available water
capacity is moderate. Runoff is medium. This soil is medium in
natural fertility and low in organic matter. The subsoils are
very plastic and have a high shrink -swell potential.
This complex is not suited to cultivated crops, but is moderate-
ly well suited to pasture. Rock outcrops are a major management
problem.
1251
ORDINANCE
To create the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District
within Frederick County.
Public Hearing November 12, 1980
Approved as to form and legality by
the Commonwealth Attorney
WHEREAS, landowners in the County of Frederick, have filed
an application for the creation of an agricultural district on
the 12th day of January, 1980.
WHEREAS, the application was referred to the Planning
Commission on the 20th day of August, 1980, and
WHEREAS, the application was referred to the Agricultural
Advisory Board and the Advisory Board has reviewed the applica-
tion and reported its findings and recommendations to the
Planning Commission on the 1st day of October, 1980.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did publish notice of the
pendency of the application on the 22nd day of September and
29th day of September, 1980 in the Winchester Evening Star, a
newspaper of central circulation in the County of Frederick, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did publish notice of the
pendency of the application on the 22nd day of September and
29th day of September, 1980 in the Winchester Evening Star, a
newspaper of general circulation in the County of Frederick, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold the public hear-
ing on the 1st day of October, 1980.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission forwarded the application
with its findings and recommendation for approval to the Board
on the 1st day of October, 1980.
The County of Frederick ordains:
(1) That the SOUTH FREDERICK AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT land
which requires conservation and protection for the production
of food and other agricultural and forestal products and as such
is a valuable natural and ecological resource providing open
126
spaces for clean air and adequate and safe water supplies and
other aesthetic purposes and is therefore valuable to the public
interest.
(2) That the SOUTH FREDERICK AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT is here-
by established for a period of 4 years beginning this 12th day of
November, 1980, in accordance with the provisions of Title 15.1,
Chapter 36, Sections 15.1 -1506 through 15.1 -1513, Code of
Virginia, (1950) as amended.
(3) That the district shall consist of 11,563.57 acres
and shall be located in the Back Creek and Opequon Magisterial
Districts, and shall include the following parcels:
Name of Owner
Map /Parcel
Acreage
Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc.
73/11
96
Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc.
73/13
96
Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc.
73/16
135.3
Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc.
73/49
10.7
Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc.
73/48
15
Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc.
73/46
6.3
Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc.
73/38 & 73/93
62.53
Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc.
84/42 & 84/42A
16.24
Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc.
84/39
8
Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc.
84/40
116
Betty Lou Stine
73/39
12.5
Charles W. Barton
73/2
39.8
James R. Pence
73/91
2
Gary & Dianne DeOms
74/10B
3.1
John L. Lowe
72/50
160.95
John L. Lowe
72/51 -52
2
Larry Hottle
72/10C
1.1
Roy & Patricia Beatty
73/30F
1.8
Donald & Stella Redmiles
84/41
6
Wayne & Sherry McDonald
84/2
137
Albert McDonald
84/1
218
Albert & Sylvia McDonald
72/53
197
Blanch Ford
72/49
37
Ruby Ridings
73/28
4
Ruby Ridings
73/29
50
L. V. Ridings
73/24
10
L. V. Ridings
73/100
95
L. V. Ridings
84/44
58
L. V. & Ruby Ridings
73/27
4
Tilden & Frances Strosnider
84/47
140.75
L. V. & Ruby Ridings
73/94
12.35
Tilden & Frances Strosnider
84/49
240.03
George & Sarah Newlin
73/33
20.70
George & Sarah Newlin
73/33A
5
Lenard & Annabelle Richard
72/30
72.5
James & Mary Richard
73/36
134
James & Mary Richard
72/63
1.16
James & Mary Richard
72/64
69.83
Arthur & Anna Ewing
73/26
12
Stanley & Shirley Bauserman
73/101
69
Charles Bauserman
83/18
147
Ralph Bauserman
72/60
15
Ralph Bauserman
73/19
197.72
Charles Bauserman
73/18
139
Ralph Bauserman
73/20
237
Harold & Elizabeth Nichols
73/97
89.63
Harold & Elizabeth Nichols
84/17
105.50
John Pickeral
84/7
245
J. K. McDonald
84/46
150
Roy McDonald
72/84
Roy McDonald
84/48
James Garrett
84/16
James Garrett
90/10
James Garrett
90/11
J. E. & Jean Beatty
91/8
James & JoEllen Huey
73/103
Donald & Vasihki Baughman
72/58
Donald & Vasihki Baughman
72/59
W. R. Legge
62/71
R. M. Anderson
73/30A & 30B & 30C
Kenneth Staples
74/20
William Pfahl
83/3
Ellen Sharp
83/1
Ruth B. Rinker
73/102
Ruth B. Rinker
73/95
Ruth B. Rinker
73/99
Susan & Richard Shively
74/11
Susan & Richard Shively
74/10D
William & Pamela Thompson
74/15A
Philip & Lilian Whitney
74/14
Philip & Lilian Whitney
74/15
Cheryl Humphries
74/15B
James & Kathleen Swing
73/4
VPI & SU, Clarence Hill
73/3
Kent Barley
73/104
Kent Barley
74/13
Kent Barley
74/18
Kent Barley
85/1
R. Roland Snapp & Thomas
L.
Fawcett
61/6
R. Roland Snapp & Thomas
L.
Fawcett
61/8
R. Roland Snapp & Thomas
L.
Fawcett
61/8A
R. Roland Snapp & Thomas
L.
Fawcett
61/9
R. Roland Snapp & Thomas
L.
Fawcett
61/41
R. Roland Snapp & Thomas
L.
Fawcett
61/43A
R. Roland Snapp & Thomas
L.
Fawcett
61/44
R. Roland Snapp & Thomas
L.
Fawcett
61/43B
R. Roland Snapp & Thomas
L.
Fawcett
61/43
R. Roland Snapp & Thomas
L.
Fawcett
61/45
R. Roland Snapp & Thomas
L.
Fawcett
72/12
Esther Snapp
61/40
Henry M. Brumback,
Woodbine Farms
61/128
Henry M. Brumback,
Woodbine Farms
61/129
Henry M. Brumback,
Woodbine Farms
61/130
Henry M. Brumback,
Woodbine Farms
61/131
Henry M. Brumback,
Woodbine Farms
61/37
Henry M. Brumback,
Woodbine Farms
61/30
Henry M. Brumback,
Woodbine Farms
61/31
Henry M. Brumback,
Woodbine Farms
61/34
Henry M. Brumback,
Woodbine Farms
73/73
Henry M. Brumback,
Woodbine Farms
73/67
Henry M. Brumback
Woodbine Farms
73/66
Henry M. Brumback,
Woodbine Farms
73/31
127
2
187
104
140
67
40
31.5
168.5
20
6
66.2
162
175
215
52.8
22.5
85.5
1.25
1
1
3
34.8
1.23
160
120
111.8
167
188
189
51
5
5
97
42
37.5
2
10
8.5
37.25
89.75
28
137.5
48
30
7.75
11.6
44
52.3
14
45.5
23
297
86.25
128
Henry M. Brumback,
Woodbine Farms
73/21
271
Henry M. Brumback,
Woodbine Farms
84/50
197
Henry M. Brumback,
Woodbine Farms
84/29
106.5
John R. Marker
61/127
170.5
John R. Marker
61/119
16
John R. Marker
61/120
10.9
Henry Brumback
73/64
3
Ada Ruble
62/29
392
Carlton Snapp
61/49
1
Carlton Snapp
61/48
28
James Brumback
73/32
3.75
Frank Brumback
73/65
3.75
Cloverdale Farms, Inc.,
Robert Boyd
62/23
250
Cloverdale Farms, Inc.,
Robert Boyd
62/69
150
Robert Boyd, T/A Cloverdale
Farms
52/305 & 305A
433
Harry A. Jackson & Lorraine
Boyd
62/77
25
Carl & Mary Nichols
2.9
Mary E. Rudolph
62/53
88.87
Robert Glass Simmons
62/57
160
Sharon R. and Gary W. McDonald
83/98A
6.8
Samuel F. McDonald &
Beatrice L. McDonald
83/96 -98 & 72/87
99
Gary W. McDonald
83/99
66.1
Glen & Mary K. Barley
74/12
9
Joseph J. & Phyliss S. Swack
73/30H
6.15
Donald E. Boyce & Betty R.
Boyce
73/30D
18
Donald E. Boyce & Betty R.
Boyce
73/30E
14
Allen Richard Boyd
72/52
3
Jennings R. Marston
62/1
63
Helen B. Marston
61/76
7.5
James E. Boyd & Sue M. Boyd
61/76
7.5
Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc.
61/21
305.47
Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc.
61/23
34
Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc.
61/24
154.75
Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc.
61/25
20.16
Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc.
73/10
5.5
Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc.
73/17
194.5
Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc.
73/63
160
J. Kenneth Robinson
74/4
341.5
R. & T. Packing, Inc.
73/88
78
R. & T. Packing, Inc.
74/3
191.17
Carlton & Beatrice Hehle
62/21
24.56
A map showing the location of these parcels is attached to
this ordinance and incorporated herein.
(4) That these parcels qualify for land use value assess-
ment provided the parcels meet the criteria of Sections 58 -769.5
and 58 -769.1 of the Code.
(5) That the owners of land within the SOUTH FREDERICK
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT shall not terminate the district except in
accordance with Section 15.1 -1513 of the Code.
(6) That lawful termination of any owner's association in
the district shall not serve to terminate the existence of the
district, but the district shall continue in effect until the
review required by Section 15.1 -1511E of the Code.
129
There was a brief discussion regarding the impact on . a land-
owner in an Agricultural District and Mr. Riley stated that the
District is in effect for a period of four years and then it must
be renewed. He noted that if the property owner desires to sell
his property he must make the purchaser aware of its status; that
if he desires to get out of the District he must petition the
Board to do so and would have an appeal process through the
Circuit Court. He also noted that a landowner who desires to
join the District, may petition to do so, provided he is located
within a one mile radius thereof.
Subdivisions within the District were discussed and Mr.
Riley advised that when the ordinance requirement regarding large
lot subdivisions is addressed it should set forth in the
ordinance that no subdivisions, other than family variances, will
be permitted within the Agricultural District.
Mr. Gary DeOms, Mr. Michael Snapp and Mr. Dudley Rinker
appeared before the Board in support of the Agricultural
District.
Upon motion made by Will L. Owings and seconded by William
H. Baker,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve the following
ordinance on third and final reading as set forth above.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded
vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Will L. Owings, William H. Baker,
Rhoda W. Maddox, R. Thomas Malcolm and Kenneth Y. Stiles.
MEMO RE: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ACTION - T END
OF MEETING
Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles, seconded by R.
Thomas Malcolm and passed unanimously, the Board tabled the
Memo Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action until the end of the
t
meeting.
RESOLUTION OF HONOR - ELMER M. VENSKOSKE - APPROVED
Upon motion made by Rhoda W. Maddox, seconded by William H.
Baker,
The BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK,
VIRGINIA, both corporately and individually, take note of
the passing of ELMER M. VENSKOSKE, long time friend and
member of this body. It is with both sadness and joy that
we recognize, honor and remember him for his many contri-
butions to his community, and to this County in partic-
ular.
130
Elmer's quiet manner and firm convictions, his sense of
duty, of humor, and of fair play, and his empathy for his
fellowman, are all attributes of his character. By his
example this Board is challenged to continue the work which
he has so tirelessly advanced.
In a spirit of brotherhood and fond remembrance, individual
members of the Board express their pleasure in their associ-
ation with him. All are singularly honored for having had
the privilege of serving jointly with him, and counting him
as a friend.
As a tribute to the memory of ELMER M. VENSKOSKE, this
resolution of respect is publicly read and officially
adopted, and shall be spread upon the minutes of this meet-
ing of the Board of Supervisors.
Adopted and dated this twelfth day of November, in the year
of our Lord, nineteen hundred eighty.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded
vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Will L. Owings, William H. Baker,
Rhoda W. Maddox, R. Thomas Malcolm and Kenneth Y. Stiles.
REPORT OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE
Mrs. Maddox presented the report from the Law Enforcement
Committee and the following action was taken:
Gold And Silver Ordinance Adopted As Emergency Legislation
Mrs. Maddox reported that the Committee reviewed a draft of
an ordinance relating to the licensing and regulations of dealers
in the business of purchasing precious metals and jewels.
The Committee made numerous revisions to the ordinance and
recommends that the attached ordinance be adopted by the Board of
Supervisors. The Committee further recommends that this
ordinance be adopted as emergency legislation effective upon
passage and that pursuant to statute, the Board would have 60
days to advertise the public hearing to enact the ordinance on a
permanent basis. The Committee feels that any deficiencies or
necessary changes in the ordinance could be identified during
this 60 day period and that a compatible ordinance between the
City and County can be developed in that manner. The Committee
notes a copy of the draft ordinance has been shared with the
City.
Mr. Harrington Smith appeared before the Board and stated
that he felt the County had been very lax in adopting such an
ordinance. He cited several cases of robbery which he felt an
ordinance could have prevented. Mr. Stiles noted that consider-
able time had been spent to prepare the ordinance and he felt
that this was far superior to many of the other ordinances the
131
County had reviewed and would be reasonably easy to enforce.
There was no opposition.
Upon motion made by Rhoda W. Maddox and seconded by William
H. Baker,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Frederick, Virginia, does herein adopt the following ordi-
nance as emergency legislation upon passage on third and final
reading:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE OF 1976 BY
ADDING A SECTION NUMBERED 15 -8 RELATING TO THE LICENSING
AND REGULATION OF DEALERS IN BUSINESS OF PURCHASING
PRECIOUS METALS AND JEWELS.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE OF 1976 BY ADDING
A SECTION NUMBERED 15 -8 RELATING TO THE LICENSING AND REGULATION
OF DEALERS IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASING PRECIOUS METALS AND
JEWELS
BE IT ORDAINED, By the Board of Supervisors, that pursuant
to authority granted by the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended)
the Code of Frederick County, Virginia 1976 is hereby amended by
adding Section 15 -8 as follows.
Section 15 -8.1. License Required
No person, firm or corporation, operating as either an
itinerant or permanent dealer, as defined in Section 15.8.2
herein may purchase gold, silver, platinum, platinum - plated, or
pewter including but not limited to such items as tableware, or
other household items, watches, jewelry or coins without a
license as provided for herein.
Section 15 -8.2. Definition of Dealer
Dealer within the meaning of the article is a person, firm
or corporation who shall engage in, or transact any business on
temporary, itinerant or permanent basis in the County of
Frederick in the purchase of any article(s) as set forth in
Section 15 -8.1 herein containing any degree of gold, silver,
platinum, pewter, gems or semiprecious stones.
Section 15 -8.3. Issuance of License and Fee
(A) Licenses shall be issued by the Commissioner of Revenue
to any person able to produce satisfactory evidence of good
character, which Licensee shall designate the premises on which
the Licensee will conduct his business and specify the date or
dates upon which the business may be conducted.
(B) All applicants for license, shall first appear at the
Frederick County Sheriff's Department where the prospective
licensee shall be fingerprinted and checked against FBI records
for any prior arrests, convictions and aliases.
(C) Before any license may be issued a non prorated license
fee of $100.00 per month shall be charged and received.
Section 15 -8.4. Lice Non - Transferra
The license issued hereunder shall be a personal privilege
and shall not be transferrable, nor shall there be any abatement
of the tax upon such license by reasons of the factthat the
Licensee shall have exercised the privilege for any period of
less than which it was granted. The license shall at all times
be kept publicly exposed by the Licensee on his business
premises.
132
Section 15 -8.5. False Statements Void License
Any false statement made on the application form voids the
license from the beginning.
ion 15 -8.6. Identity, Address and Credenti
s
The licensee shall ascertain the name, address, and age of
sellers by requiring an identifier issued by a governmental
agency with a picture of the subject and one other corroborating
means of identification.
Section 15 -8.7. Records to be Kept
Every Licensee shall keep at his place of business, a record
on forms provided by the County Sheriff, at a reasonable fee
reflecting the form's actual cost of production, which shall be
fairly written in English and clearly legible, at the time of the
presentation of the articles by a seller, an accurate account of
the articles and the seller setting forth the following
information:
(a) a complete and accurate description of the goods,
articles or things presented,
including the number of items;
(b) the time and date of receiving the same;
(c) the name and complete and accurate address of the person
selling the goods articles, or things, together with a
particular description of such person as required by the
form provided by the County Sheriff as referenced above.
Section 15 -8.8. Records Open to Ins ection
The records required to be maintained by Section 15 -8.7 of
this Code shall be open to inspection by any Federal, State or
Local law enforcement officer during business hours.
Section 15 -8.9. Officers May Examine Records or Property
Every Licensee shall admit to his premises at any time any
Federal, State, or Local law enforcement officer to examine any
of the items purchased by the Licensee and to search for and to
take into possession any article known by such law enforcement
officer to be missing or known or believed by such officer to
have been stolen.
Section 15 -8.10. Reports to Sheriff
(A) Every Licensee shall submit to the Sheriff at the end of
each business day a copy of all the forms required by Section
15 -8.7 used to record the transactions for such day.
(B) The Sheriff may specify that the reports required by
Section 15- 8.10(A) may be submitted at
some other less frequent interval; such waiver to be
noted in writing to the Licensee and
Commissioner of Revenue, but in no event shall articles
be melted down, defaced or altered
until reports have been submitted and accepted by the
Sheriff.
Section 15 -8.11. Retention of Articles
No articles purchased by a Licensee shall be melted down,
defaced or altered until after being held for inspection by duly
authorized law enforcement agencies for a minimum of seven (7)
days.
Section 15 -8.12. Purchase from Minors Prohibited
No purchases may be made from anyone under the age of
eighteen (18).
133
Section 15 -8.13. Bond Required
Every dealer so licensed shall at the time of application
for the license and before the same shall be issued, enter with
either one corporate or two personal sufficient sureties into a
joint and several recognizance to the County in the penal sum of
FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000.00) conditioned upon due observance
of the term of this Article.
Section 15 -8.14. Private Action on Bond
If any person shall be agrieved by the misconduct of any
Licensee, and shall recover against him therefor, such person
may, after the return unsatisfied, either in whole or in part, of
any execution upon such judgment, maintain action in his own name
upon the bond.
Section 15 -8 .15. Penalty for Violation
Violation of any provision of this Code shall be a
misdemeanor, Class One.
Section 15 -8.16. Liability for Acts of Agents
Any conviction under the provisions of this code, either by
the Licensee or by his agents, clerks, or employees shall
automatically result in the revocation of the license.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, That this ordinance was duly
advertised for public hearing, pursuant to the provisions of
Section 15.1 -507 of the Code of Virginia,,1950, as amended, on
December 31, 1980 and January 7, 1981 and the public hearing was
held on 14 January 1981 at which meeting, upon motion duly made,
passed unanimously, this ordinance was adopted.
Adopted 14 January 1981
Approved as to form by
Commonwealth's Attorney
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded
vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Will L. Owings, William H. Baker,
Rhoda W. Maddox, R. Thomas Malcolm and Kenneth Y. Stiles.
Community Diversion Incentive A ct
Mrs. Maddox reported that the Committee heard a report by
Pat Flegal, a representative of the Regional Jail Project,
summarizing the purpose and the intent of the Community Diver-
sion Incentive Act. The act provides funding to localities for
diverting certain felons from incarceration. Funding for the
program is provided on the basis of a competitive grant applica-
tion and could provide up to $4,000.00 per inmate for diversions.
Ms. Flegal's report was informational to the Committee. It was
noted that a grant application intent form has been submitted.
The final grant application will be reviewed by the Regional
Jail Project Board of Directors, which will prepare a recommenda-
tion for review and recommendation by the Law Enforcement
Committee which will subsequently be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors for endorsement. Ms. Flegal presented material
which is included with this report for the information of the
Board.
134
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PAR AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR
THE NAMING OF THE PARK IN THE STEPHENS CI TY ARE -
SHERANDO - APPROVED
Mr. White presented a recommendation from the Parks and
Recreation Commission wherein it was stated that the Commission
had voted unanimously to submit the name "Sherando" for approval
by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors for the name of the
Park located in the Stephens City Area.
Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Will L.
Owings and passed unanimously,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Frederick, Virginia, does herein name the Park located off
Rt. 277 in Opequon Magisterial District, "Sherando ".
BOARD RETIRES INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles, seconded by R.
Thomas Malcom and passed unanimously, the Board retired into
Executive Session in accordance with Section 2.1 -344 (a)(6) of
the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended to discuss potential
litigation.
BOARD WITHDRAWS FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION
Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles, seconded by Will L.
Owings and passed unanimously, the Board withdrew from Executive
Session.
BOARD RECONVENES INTO REGULAR SESSION
Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles, seconded by Will L.
Owings and passed unanimously, the Board reconvened into Regular
Session.
ATTORNEY AUTHORIZED TO PROCEED WITH
AernALS - KZ: 04 bumbtx LVMYANY
Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles and seconded by R.
omas Malcolm,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the
ounty of Frederick, Virginia, does herein authorize the Common -
ealth's Attorney to proceed on behalf of the Board of Super -
isors to appeal the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals re-
arding the granting of a height variance on a sign constructed
t the 84 Lumber Company in Stonewall Magisterial District in the
ircuit Court of Frederick County.
13n
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded
vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Will L. Owings, William H. Baker,
Rhoda W. Maddox, R. Thomas Malcolm and Kenneth Y. Stiles.
UPON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, IT
IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW ADJOURN.
Clerk, Board of Supervisors