April 22, 1981 Regular Meeting26
A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Supervisors was
held on April 22, 1981, at 7:00 P.M., in the Board of Super-
visors' 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 the Reverend Conrad
Christianson of the Bethel Lutheran Church.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Mr. White stated that he had received a letter from the
Commonwealth's Attorney, Lawrence Ambrogi, with regard to
additional members serving on the Planning Commission which
should come under "County Officials ", and that he had two
matters to be discussed in Executive Session with regard to
personnel and legal matters.
Mrs. Maddox stated that she had a question from the Library
Board to come under "Unfinished Business ".
Mr. Koontz stated that he had a letter from VACO to the
Board of Supervisors.
Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles, seconded by R.
Thomas Malcolm and passed unanimously, the agenda was adopted as
amended.
OFFICES TO CLOSE MAY 1, 1981 IN OBSERVANCE OF APPLE BLOSSOM
FESTIVAL - APPROVED
Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm and seconded by
Kenenth Y. Stiles,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve the closing of
County Offices on May 1, 1981 in observance of the Apple
Blossom Festival.
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.
BOARD FEELS VACO OFFICES SHOULD BE MOVED TO RICHMOND
263
Mr. Koontz stated that correspondence had been received
from the Virginia Association of Counties requesting the Boards'
opinion on whether or not the offices should remain in Char-
lottesville or be moved to Richmond.
Upon motion made by William H. Baker and seconded by Rhoda
W. Maddox,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Frederick, Virginia, does herein agree that the offices of
the Virginia Association of Counties should be moved from Char-
lottesville to Richmond.
OPINION FROM COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY AMBROGI RE: HIS
OPINION ON TWO ADDITIONAL MEMBERS BEING ADDED TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Mr. White stated that a letter had been received from the
Commonwealth's Attorney stating that he knew of no reason why
two additional members could not be added to the Planning Com-
mission.
Mr. Baker stated that he felt the Board had waited long
enough for this opinion and feels the Board should act on this
tonight.
Mr. Stiles stated that he felt this should be delayed inas-
much as a few months had passed since this had been discussed by
the Board.
Upon motion made by William H. Baker and seconded by Rhoda
W. Maddox,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Frederick, does herein agree that the two appointments to the
Frederick County Planning Commission that had been tabled, be
removed from table and acted upon at this time.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded
vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Will L. Owings, William H. Baker,
Rhoda W. Maddox and R. Thomas Malcolm. Nay - Kenneth Y.
Stiles.
Upon motion made by William H. Baker and seconded by Rhoda
W. Maddox,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Frederick, Virginia, does herein agree that the two
264
appointments for the Planning Commission be taken from the table
and added to this evening's agenda.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded
vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Will L. Owings, William H. Baker,
Rhoda W. Maddox and R. Thomas Malcolm. Nay - Kenneth Y.
Stiles.
ROBERT ECKMAN EMPLOYEE OF SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT ADDRESSES
BOARD
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board:
I appreciate the opportunity to address each one of you as
representatives of each magisterial district this evening. I
have always tried to live by an old proverb which says,
"Remember from whence thou cometh, remember who you are, and
what you are, and who helped you to achieve where you are." It
is with that thought in mind tonight that I have asked to
appear before you.
I have been employed as an investigator for the Frederick
County Sheriff's Department with a total of seven years in the
service of this county. It is with some regret that I will
resign from the department becoming effective May 1, 1981. I
could not leave this county however by just submitting my resig-
nation to the sheriff. As I look back on those years I have
spent with the county, I find that I have many people to
which I owe my thanks. I could not meet with each individual
and thank them personally, so I will thank you gentlemen who are
the representatives of the citizens of Frederick County.
I extend my thanks to former Sheriff Lacy Anderson for his
confidence in me when other law enforcement agencies felt that I
was too small to handle the job. I extend my deepest gratitude
to former Sheriff Carroll Mauck. It was during his
administration that I was promoted to investigator. It was also
during his term that I became well trained in specialized areas
of law enforcement. A major reason for my extensive training
was only because of the cooperation of the Sheriff and the Board
of Supervisors desiring a more professional and well trained
Sheriff's Department.
I thank the present Sheriff, Roscoe Bruce, for his con-
tinued confidence in me when he took office which has allowed me
to continue my employment, training and service to the county.
It was during those seven years that I progressed from correc-
tional officer to dispatcher to civil processor to road deputy
and finally to investigator. It was only through the coopera-
tion of the elected sheriffs and the elected Board of Super-
visors that I was able to achieve these rankings.
I extend my thanks to the citizens of Frederick County,
especially those in the Mountain Falls and Cross Junction areas
for their continued support. It was by their tax dollars that I
was supplied a living and an opportunity to become a well -
trained officer.
I also thank the citizens of Frederick County who by their
cooperation I was able to arrest and bring about prosecution of
those who violated the law, and to even those who had the
unfortunate opportunity to be arrested by me, I thank them, for
they gave me a better understanding and insight of my fellow man
and society.
I extend my great appreciation to those board members, both
past and present, who helped enact the injury leave policy which
was of great benefit and help to me during my years of physical
impairment.
265
As I leave this county and the department, I feel that I
should express a great concern to you the governing body of
Frederick County. Our county is no longer a small rural county
it once was. As Chief Justice Warren Burger stated, "Our
society is being held hostage to crime." One out of every three
persons will be faced with a crime against themselves or against
their property. Frederick County is not exempt from this. In
recent months, the criminal activity has risen greatly in the
county. This past winter has been alarming in regards to
increased criminal activity. I do not envy those remaining in
county law enforcement with summer coming on. The economy is
partly to blame for this. I have seen in recent months that
this county is not immune to organized criminal activity. This
is evident by the cases that I. and others, have worked
recently.
The sheriff's department must be able to keep up with the
advancing criminal activity in this county. This can only be
done if stability is practiced within the department. This is
not a reflection on the current sheriff though. As the country
is becoming more concerned about the efficient use of our tax
dollars, I would hope that this body of county government would
take a good look at the department, its manpower, its salaries,
and the job security for the men it trains.
In my case, the county has sent me to correctional
officers' school, police school, DEA drug school. They have
sent me to the University of Louisville, Kentucky for sex crime
investigation, to the University of Delaware for robbery and
burglary investigation, to school by the FBI for sex crimes and
to college for other law enforcement courses. I would estimate
that the county has spent at least $10,000 just to educate and
train me.
Each year the county loses well trained and educated men to
low pay and other benefits, and to elections. The men never
know from election to election whether or not they have a job.
Some of us are getting too old to disregard job security.
Frederick County cannot be compared to other law enforce-
ment agencies which have the same amount of men. This county
has had more quality of officers which was only because this
board and past boards worked in cooperation with this sheriff
and past sheriffs to insure quality and professional
officers.
I would hope that this board might in the future months
find some way to save its trained and veteran officers by estab-
lishing job security, top pay, and benefits which are in tune
with the quality of personnel. This solution will save endless
amounts of tax dollars and bring about job stability within the
department.
In closing, I would once
citizens of Frederick County
they and this county has done
best in future years.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
again extend to you and all other
my deepest appreciation for what
for me and I wish this county the
Thank you,
/s /Robert Clay Eckman
Robert Clay Eckman
CITGO PROPERTY TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE CITY OF WINCHESTER
APPROVED
Mr. Malcolm stated that he agreed with Mr White's memo that
is in this Board agenda, stating that there are explicit stipu-
lations in the approved agreement and it seems unnecessary to
266
hold up County approval for the deed transfer of the County
owned property pending City approval for its deed transfer.
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 approve the transferring of
the County owned Citgo property to the City of Winchester for
the construction of a parking garage.
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.
HANDLEY LIBRARY AGREEMENT - DISCUSSED
Mrs. Maddox stated that the Handley Library Board had met
and would like for the County to sign the agreement as soon as
possible as it has to be in Richmond by the end of May in order
for them to receive state funding.
Discussion followed as to the section of the agreement that
called on the County for a certain percentage of the total
amount that would be requested by the Library Board.
Mr. Stiles noted that the Board had not seen the agreement
and therefore, he did not feel how he could vote on it at this
time.
Mr. Koontz requested that Mrs. Maddox get more information
concerning this and report back to the Board.
AN ORDINANCE TO MEND THE FREDERICK COUNT CODE, CHAPTER
7, ARTICLE III, OPTED JUNE 28, 1971, T , Ll AMEN SECTION
7- 11(h). 7- 11(e). - 12(a)(1), 7-12(b)( ;k), 7- 12(e)(2) AND
Upon motion made by R.
Malg6lm and seconded by
William H. Baker,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the
of Frederick, Virginia, does Orein
of Supervisors of the County
the following
amendment be made to the Frkderick Count�\Code:
AN ORDINANCE TO AM D THE FREDERICK CO TY CODE, CHAPTER 7
ARTICLE II, ADOPT D JUNE 28, 1971, TO AM D SECTION
7 11(b), 7 - 11(e , 7 12(a)(1) , 7 12(b)(2), 7 12(e)(2) AND
BY THE ADDITIO OF SECTION 7 12(a)(2)D AS F LOWS:
Section 7 -1 (b) Shawnee Magisterial District
Carpers Valley Precinct Senseny d. School
Shenandoah Precinct Shenanda
oGas Co.
.•
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 7,
ARTICLE II, ADOPTED JUNE 28, 1971, TO AMEND SECTION 7 -7 AND
SECTION 7 -8 APPROVED
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 approve the following amend-
ments be made to the Frederick County Code:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 7,
ARTICLE II, ADOPTED JUNE 28, 1971, TO AMEND SECTION 7 -7 AND
SECTION 7 -8 AS FOLLOWS:
Article II. Magisterial Districts
Sec. 7 -6. Pursuant to authority contained in Code of Virginia
(1950) as amended, secs. 15.1 -37.4 through 15.1 -37.8 and Sec.
15.1- 571.1, the magisterial districts of Frederick County, Vir-
ginia, are hereby created and established as set forth in this
ordinance.
Sec. 7 -7 . The magisterial districts with populations set forth
are as follows:
Back Creek Magisterial District 6660
Gainesboro Magisterial District 6653
Opequon Magisterial District 7265
Shawnee Magisterial District 6997
Stonewall Magisterial District 6575
Sec. 7 -8 . The boundaries of the respective magisterial
districts are as set forth below:
(a) Back Creek Magisterial District
Beginning at the intersection of U.S. Highway Route No. 50
with the West Virginia State Line; thence in an easterly
direction with U.S. Highway Route No. 50 to its intersection wit
the corporate limits of the City of Winchester; thence in a
southern direction with the corporate limits of the City of
Winchester to its intersection with U.S. Interstate Route No. 81
thence in a southern direction with U.S. Route 81 to its inter-
section with the corporate limits of the Town of Stephens City;
thence in a west and southern direction with the corporate limit
of the Town of Stephens City to its intersection with State Rout
No. 631; thence westward with State Route No. 631 to its inter-
section with State Route No. 628; thence west with State Route
No. 628 to its intersection with the Shenandoah County line;
thence west with the Shenandoah County line to its intersectio
with the West Virginia line; thence north with the West Virginia
State Line to its intersection with U.S. Highway Route No. 50.
(b) Gainesboro Magisterial District
Beginning at the intersection of U.S. Highway Route No. 50
with the Hampshire County Line (West Virginia); thence in a
northern direction with the Hampshire County Line to its inter-
section with the Morgan County line; thence in an eastern
direction with the Morgan County line to its intersection with t e
Berkeley County line; thence in an eastern direction with the
Berkeley County line to its intersection with State Route No. 73
(West Virginia Route No. 26); thence in a southern direction with
State Route No. 739 to its intersection with U.S. Highway Route
No. 522; thence in a south eastern direction with U.S. Highway
•• C
Route No. 522 to its intersection with the corporate limits of the
City of Winchester to its intersection with State Route No. 37,
thence south with State Route No. 37 to its intersection with
U.S. Highway Route 50; thence in a western direction with U.S.
Highway Route No. 50 to its intersection with the Hampshire
County Line.
(c) Opequon Magisterial District
Beginning at the intersection of Interstate Route 81 with
Opequon Creek; thence in a southern direction with Interstate 81
to its intersection with the corporate limits of the Town of
Stephens City limits; thence in a western and southern direction
with the corporate limits of the Town of Stephens City, to its
intersection with State Route No. 631; thence in a western
direction with State Route No. 631 to its intersection with State
Route No. 628, to its intersection with the Shenandoah County
Line; thence in a southern direction with the Shenandoah County
Line to its intersection with the Warren County Line; thence in an
eastern direction with the Warren County line to its intersection
with the Clarke County line; thence in a northern direction with
the Clarke County line to its intersection with U.S. Highway Route
No. 522; thence in a north west direction with U.S. Highway Route
No. 522 to its intersection State Route No. 642; thence in a
western direction with State Route No. 642 to its intersection
with Opequon Creek; and thence in a western direction with the
Opequon Creek to its intersection with U.S. Interstate Route
81.
(d) Shawnee Magisterial District
Beginning at the intersection of State Route No. 7 with the
corporation limits of the City of Winchester; thence in a southern
direction with the corporate limits of the City of Winchester and
with U.S. Interstate Route 81, to its inter- section with Opequon
Creek; thence in an eastern direction with Opequon Creek to its
intersection with State Route No. 642; thence in an eastern
direction with State Route No. 642 to its intersection with U.S.
Highway Route No. 522; thence in a southern direction with U. S.
Highway Route No. 522 to its intersection with the Clarke County
line; thence in a northern direction with the Clarke County line
to its intersection with State Route No. 7; thence in a western
direction with State Route No. 7 to its intersection with State
Route No. 656; thence in a southern direction with State Route No.
656 to its intersection with State Route No. 659; thence in a
western direction with State Route No. 659 to its intersection
with State Route 7; thence in a western direction with State Route
No. 7 to its intersection with the corporate limits of the City of
Winchester.
(e) Stonewall Magisterial District
Beginning at the intersection of State Route No. 739 (West
Virginia Route No. 26) with the Berkeley County line (West
Virginia), thence in an eastern direction with the Berkeley County
Line to its intersection with the Clarke County Line, thence in a
southern direction with the Clarke County line to its intersection
with State Route No. 7, thence in a western direction with State
Route 7, to its intersection with State Route No. 656, thence in a
southern direction with State Route No. 656 to its intersection
with State Route No. 659, thence in a western direction with State
Route 659 to its intersection with State Route No. 7, thence in a
western direction with State Route No. 7 to its intersection with -
the corporate limits of the City of Winchester to its intersection
with U.S. Highway Route No. 522, thence in a western direction
with U.S. Highway Route No. 522 to its intersection with State
Route No. 739, thence in a northern direction with State Route No.
266 -C
739 to its intersection with the Berkeley County line (West
Virginia).
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.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 7,
ARTICLE III, ADOPTED JUNE 28, 1971, TO AMEND SECTION
7- 111hl_7- 11(a)_ 7- 12(x)( 7- 12(b) (2). 7- 12(e)(2) AND BY
I
- 12(a)(2) -
Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm and seconded by Willi
H. Baker,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Frederick, Virtginia, does herein approve the following
amendment be made to the Frederick County Code:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 7,
ARTICLE III, ADOPTED JUNE 28, 1971, TO AMEND SECTION 7 -11(b)
7- 11(e), 7- 12(a)(1), 7- 12(b)(2), 7- 12(e)(2) AND BY THE
ADDITION OF SECTION 7- 12(a)(2) AS FOLLOWS:
Section 7 -11(b) Shawnee Magisterial District
Carpers Valley Precinct Senseny Rd. School
Shenandoah Precinct Shenandoah Gas Co.
267
Section 7 -11(e) Back Creek Magisterial District
Kernstown Precinct Stonebrook Club
Russells Precinct Community Building
Gore Precinct Gore School
Sec. 7 -12. Boundaries
(a) Shawnee Magisterial District
(1) Carpers Valley Precinct
Beginning at the intersection of State Route No.7 with
the corporate limits of the City of Winchester; thence in a
— southern direction with the corporate limits of the City of
Winchester to its intersection with U. S. Highway Route No. 50
East; thence in a southeastern direction along U. S. Highway No.
50 East to its intersection with the Clarke County line: thence
in a northern direction with the Clarke County line to its
intersection with State Route No. 7; thence in a western
direction with State Route No. 7 to its intersection with State
Route No. 656; thence in a southern direction with State Route
No. 656; to its intersection with State Route No. 659; thence in
a western direction with State Route No. 659 to its intersection
with State Route No. 7; thence in a western direction with State
Route No. 7 to its intersection with the corporate limits of the
City of Winchester.
(2) Shenandoah Precinct
Beginning at the intersection of U. S. Highway No. 50
East with the corporate limits of the City of Winchester; thence
in a southern direction with the corportate limits of the City
of Winchester and U. S. Interstate Route. No. 81 to its
intersection with Opequon Creek; thence in an eastern direction
with Opequon Creek to its intersection with State Route No. 642;
thence in an eastern direction with State Route No. 642 to its
intersection with U. S. Highway Route No. 522; thence in a
southern direction with U. S. Highway Route No. 522 to its
intersection with the Clarke County line; thence in a northern
direction with the Clarke County line to its intersection with
U. S. Highway No. 50 East; thence in a northwestern direction
along U. S. Highway No. 50 East to its intersection with the
corporate limits of the City of Winchester.
(b) Opequon Magisterial District
(2) Stephens City Precinct
Beginning at the intersection of U. S. Interstate
Route No. 81 with the Opequon Creek; thence in a southern
direction along U. S. Interstate Route No. 81 to its
intersection with the corporate limits of the Town of Stephens
City; thence in a western and southern direction with the
corporate limits of the Town of Stephens City, to its
intersection with State Route No. 631; thence in a western
direction with State Route No. 631 to its intersection with
State Route No. 628; thence in a western direction with State
Route No. 628 to its intersection with State Route No. 638;
thence in an eastern direction on State Route No. 638 to its
intersection with State Route No. 625; thence in a northern
direction on State Route No. 625 to its intersection with State
Route No. 638; thence in an eastern direction on State Route No.
638 to its intersection with U. S. Highway Route No. 11; thence
in a northern direction on U. S. Highway Route No. 11 to its
intersection with State Route No. 725; thence in a southern
direction on State Route No. 735 to its intersection with State
Route No. 636; thence in an eastern direction on State Route No.
636 to its intersection with State Route No. 641; thence in a
southern direction on State Route No. 641 to its intersection
with the Warren County line; thence in an eastern direction with
the Warren County line to its intersection with the Clarke
County line; thence in a northern direction with the Clarke
County line to its intersection with U. S. Highway Route No.
268
522, (north of the intersection of U. S. Highway Route No. 522
and State Route No. 277); thence in a northwestern direction
with U. S. Highway Route No. 522, to its intersection with the
State Route No. 642; thence in a western direction along State
Route No. 642, to its intersection with Opequon Creek; thence
along Opequon Creek to its intersection with Interstate Route
No. 81.
(e) Back Creek Magisterial District
(2) Kernstown Precinct
Beginning at the intersection of U. S. Interstate
Route No. 81 with the Opequon Creek; thence in a southern
direction along with U. S. Interstate Route 81 to its
intersection with the corporate limits of the Town of Stephens
City ; thence in a western and southern direction with the
corporate limits of the Town of Stephens City, to its
intersection with State Route No. 631; thence in a western
direction with State Route No. 631 to its intersection with
State Route No. 628; thence in a western direction on State
Route No. 628 to its intersection with the Shenandoah County
line; thence in a northwestern direction along the Shenandoah
County line to the intersection of the former boundary line
between the old Back Creek District and Opequon Disrict; thence
northwardly along the said line which follows the ridge of
Little North Mountain to its intersection with the centerline of
new U. S. Highway Route No. 0; thence in an eastern direction
with U. S. Highway Route No. 50 to its intersection with the
corporate limits of the City of Winchester; thence in a southern
direction with the corporate limits of the City of Winchester,
to its intersection with U. S. Highway Route No. 81; thence in a
southern direction with Interstate Route No. 81 to its
intersection with Opequon Creek.
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.
OPERATIONAL AND FISCAL SUMMARY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1979 -80
SIX YEAR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Mr. Riley stated that the Office of Planning and Develop-
ment had received the full report from the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation regarding the operational and
fiscal summary fiscal year 1979 -1980 for the six year road
improvement plan for Frederick County and that the full report
is available in the Office of Planning and Development for
review.
PUBLI NOTICE FOR PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT ROUTE 681
Mr. Riley stated that the public notice from the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation indicating their will - �..
ingness to hold a public hearing regarding the above referenced
project had been received by the County and that this is one of
the six priorities in the Frederick County six year road t
improvement plan. (i
269
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT AND STATUS AND UPDATE OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Mr. James Golladay, Planning Commission member, appeared
before the Board and presented the following subcommittee report
with regard to the Comprehensive Plan:
FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT - DISPOSITION OF RURAL LANDS
March 4, 1981
INTRODUCTION
Function of the Subcommittee
The particular function of this subcommittee is to review
and update the Comprehensive Plan. This function is reflected
in the proposed Study Design, Appendix A.
The responsibility of this Subcommittee is to study and
make recommendations to the full Planning Commission regarding
strategy and policy formulation for the update of the
Comprehensive Plan. The total review process starts at the
subcommittee level which studies and recommends policy
statements and recommended courses of action to the full
Planning Commission who, in turn, endorses the proposal and
passes its recommendations on to the Board of Supervisors. The
Board either approves or recommends a further study be conducted
on a project and sends the recommendation back through the
planning process.
The two other functioning subcommittees will be the Capital
Improvements Subcommittee, whose responsibility will be to
formulate and implement a Capital Improvements Program the first
phase of which will be interview and inventory; a Subcommittee
for Ordinance Update will convene once the Planning Commission
has set its goals and objectives for the Comprehensive Plan
Update.
The function of the Subcommittee for Ordinance Update will
be to draft ordinances for full review by the Planning
Commission. The ordinances will reflect the policies and goals
that have been established by the Subcommittee for the
Comprehensive Plan Update.
Topics for General Discussion and Recommendatio
The topics that have been identified for Comprehensive Plan
update in appendix A of the proposed Study Design are (1) the
disposition of rural land, (2) an economic development strategy,
and (3) disposition of residential and urban lands.
Each of the abovementioned topics will go through the
subcommittee process for review and recommendation to the full
Planning Commission and board. The conclusion of each topic
will entail a full subcommittee report to the Planning
Commission outlining the summaries and tentative recommendations
that the Subcommittee has endorsed.
TOPIC OF DISCUSSION - DISPOSITION OF RURAL LANDS IN FREDERICK
COUNTY
The Subcommittee convened three times on February 10, 18
and 25 to discuss the topic of the disposition of rural lands in
Frederick County.
The Subcommittee identified several key issues that should
be addressed regarding rural land in the County. The issues are
as follows: (1) environmental constraints to development, (2)
270
the agricultural economy, (3) service costs to rural residents,
and (4) rural population growth and its political ramifications.
These issues are comprehensively outlined in Appendix B of this
report.
Issue (1) - Environmental Constraints
Under the issue of environmental constraints, several
proposals were reviewed regarding the disposition of rural land
in Frederick County; in particular, appropriate ways to allow
subdivisions in these areas. The Subcommittee felt, based on
the information submitted by the staff and included in Appendix
B, the most feasible way to approach development in rural lands
of Frederick County would be based on the carrying capacity
theory. The theory indicates that the land should dictate the
density allowed. By this we mean that certain criteria must be
addressed such as flood plains, wetlands, steep slopes, soil
erosion and type and unique natural resources. If the land will
permit subdivision at a certain density based on the carrying
capacity of a parcel, then that particular density would be
allowed. The Subcommittee felt that drawing lines and
establishing zones did not really address the problem. The
rapidly changing geological characteristics of the County make
it difficult to designate certain areas as allowable for
subdivision and certain areas not to be allowed for
subdivision.
The Subcommittee also felt that the soil maps were of prime
importance in identifying significant agricultural land and it
was important to provide incentives to maintain this
agricultural land. They felt that the soil maps would not have
to be completed in order for the Planning Commission
Subcommittee to establish policy, but that the soil maps would
be invaluable in identifying lands that were agriculturally
significant and making agriculturally significant land a
criteria which must be considered in an area that was being
proposed for subdivision activity.
To summarize the environmental issue the Subcommittee feels
that it is crucial to improve and maintain an environmental data
base. This base should identify critical environmental areas
such as major aquifer recharge areas for ground water storage,
scenic areas, natural resources, woodlands, prime agricultural
lands, and slopes. These areas must be identified and factually
substantiated in order for them to be effectively used as
planning tools in evaluating alternative proposals for land
use.
Issue (2) - Agricultural Economy
The second issue discussed was the agricultural economy.
The Subcommittee concluded that the agricultural sector of
Frederick County's economy has traditionally been of vital
importance, has accounted for a significant portion of the
employment in the area, and generates a significant amount of
income for County residences. As the population of the County
grows and commercial and industrial growth proceeds, the
agricultural sector could come under increasing pressure to
convert to other uses.
In further addressing this issue, the Subcommittee felt
that an exclusive agriculture zone should be set up in the text
of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. This exclusive
agricultural zone would identify and select only pure
agricultural pursuits. The agricultural zone would be put in
place in the Ordinance and not arbitrarily placed on zoning
maps. The individual who would be interested in pursuing this
pure agriculture zone would apply on a voluntary basis and would
be approved subject to certain criteria being met. The
exclusive agricultural zone would be available for those
generally interested in pursuing pure agricultural endeavors and
are opposed to the subdivision of land for residential purposes.
1 E
It puts the commitment on the individual to preserve the
agricultural land.
In allowing subdivision activity within the exclusive
agricultural district, the Subcommittee felt that some method
should be available for an individual farm owner to sell lots on
a limited basis when income from such sales was necessary. One
possible method of regulating these limited sales would be a
sliding scale zoning concept. Such a system is now in use in
Clarke County.
The Subcommittee also supports the Agricultural and
Forestal District Act and further contends that the Act should
be encouraged and supported as one method to the protection of
valuable farmland.
The Subcommittee also reviewed, briefly, the issue of land
use taxation. It was concluded by the Committee that the
existing land use taxation program was being abused in the
County. It felt that it was most important that the law be
strengthened at the State level in order for the program to be
effective. The ability of the program to be administered at the
local level is severely limited due to the fact of being able to
police the program as written.
Issue (3) - Service Costs of Residents
The Subcommittee addressed the issue of the cost of
providing services to rural residents, i.e. schools, school
transportation, fire protection and police. After consideration
of some of the information submitted by various agencies in the
County, it was felt that at the present time that the service
costs to rural residents might not necessarily be an issue at
this point in time. The function of service cost is more
directly related to the delivery of services and the quality of
delivery of services to more urban residential concentrated
growth patterns. The members did recognize that service costs
could become an issue in the future if significant population
growth was experienced in the rural areas. They felt, however,
that during the time period before the next Comprehensive Plan
Update, the issue of service costs would not be crucial. They
felt that the Comprehensive Plan should briefly recognize the
issue and put the County on record as being concerned with the
issue and willing to address it if it does become a problem.
In continuing, the Subcommittee felt that the concept of
the rural service centers should still be pursued. The concept
has changed somewhat due to the fact that the suitability of
land development in and around these service centers has
decreased considerably due to poor soil conditions or the
existing development which has taken place over the years that
would dictate unsuitable lands for residential development. The
Committee did feel however, that inclusion of service district
zones within the Zoning Ordinance would be a most appropriate
way to try and address this issue. The concept supported by the
Subcommittee indicates that revitalization of these rural
service centers for commercial service to the surrounding area
would be the most appropriate way to approach this matter. The
delivery of necessary services to households could be
accomplished by allowing certain commercial activities to locate
in the service centers and allow them to operate in such a way
as to reduce the cost of energy in traveling to more urbanized
commercial centers to provide the necessary services needed.
Issue (4) - Rural Population Growth and Its Politi
Ramifications
The Subcommittee finally addressed the entire political and
economic issue of rural population growth in Frederick County.
They recognized, as present land use patterns were developing,
that severe imbalance of population would come about between the
eastern and western parts of the County. The members did
recognize the political ramifications of such a pattern but did
27�
not feel that the County Government at this point in time could
significantly change the overall pattern of population growth.
Sewer and water would dictate the areas of intense population
growth and the committee felt that the best method to address
the issue of imbalance would be to everything possible to
minimize its effects. Some methods discussed were innovative
design criteria for residential and commercial development to
minimize the cost of serving these areas. From a strict cost
point of view, one possible method of equalizing the burden of
development cost would be the establishment of service districts
in the County. These districts could, to a certain extent,
place more of the cost on the users of expensive urban -type
services. This would not explicitly address the political
ramifications of imbalance, but could minimize the financial
burden placed on all county residents whether they are
benefiting from urban -type services or not.
CONCLUSION
The Comprehensive Plan Update Subcommittee concludes its
report by making the following tentative recommendtions to the
Frederick County Planning Commission:
Environmental Constraints for Land Development
Recommendation
1. Establish a rural open space conservation district that
would allow subdivision activity based on the carrying
capacity concept. This concept would provide for the
land to dictate the allowable density based upon
environmental criteria.
2. Improve environmental data base.
Agricultural Economy
Recommendation
1. Establish an exclusive agricultural zone. This zone
would be set up to allow only for bona fide
agricultural pursuits to exist and their related
facilties.
2. Research the idea of allowing sliding scale zoning to
apply within this exclusive agricultural district or
zone. By allowing sliding scale zoning in this zone,
farmers would be allowed an alloted number of lot sales
per tract of land in order to recover costs during bad
farming years.
3. Support the concept of the Agricultural and Forestal
District Act and to amend ordinances to support the
objective of preserving agricultural farm land.
4. Use the soil maps in determining the characteristics of
land to support land uses.
5. Further research the land use taxation amendment at the
State level to strengthen it so that localities can
more effectively use the land use taxation ordinance as
it was originally set up.
Service Costs to Rural Residents
Recommendation - Currently service costs to rural residents
may not necessarily be an issue since growth in the rural
sections of the County is widely disbursed. The Comprehensive
Plan should recognize the issue and put the County on record as
being concerned with the issue and willing to address it if it
does become a problem. Identify remote rural service centers in
the County and allow for limited commercial activity to serve
the rural residents surrounding these centers.
73
Rural Popu lation Growth and Its Political Ramifications
Recommendation - Minimize the impact of the delivery of
service costs to urban residential residents by managing growth
through innovative design criteria for residential and
commercial development. Research the possibility of creating
service districts in the County to reduce the cost of service
delivery to all areas of the County.
Respectfully submitted,
James Golladay,
Chairman
Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles and seconded by Rhoda
W. Maddox,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Frederick, Virginia, does herein agree to accept the report
and general endorsement of the subcommittee report and status of
the Comprehensive Plan, as submitted by Mr. Jim Golladay.
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.
MR. JOHN HORNE ADDRESSES BOARD - RE: ESTABLISHMENT OF
INFORMATIONAL BOOKLET FOR DISTRIBUTION TO PROSPECTIVE
BUSINESSES INTERESTED IN LOCATING IN FREDERICK COUNTY
Mr. Horne stated that he would like to present to the Board
a sample of an informational booklet that would be made
available to prospective businesses interested in Frederick
County and perhaps in locating within the County. Mr. Horne
further stated that the cost of 400 copies of such a booklet
would be approximately $2,900.00, with the cost being shared by
both the County and City. $1,831.00 to the County which would
come from the Industrial Development Authority funds and
$1,069.00 from the City.
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 approve the preparation of
an informational booklet to be given to a prospective
bussiness interested in Frederick County and perhaps in locating
here.
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.
27
Mr. Riley stated that the Industrial Development Authority
was in the process of trying to coordinate a joint organization
or centralized location that would be the contact for inquiries
of interested persons concerning information with regard to
Frederick County.
SUBDIVISION REQUEST - DAVID B. HOLLIDAY - FAIRFIELD ACRES
SUBDIVISION - SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED
Mr. Riley presented this subdivision request and stated
that all agencies had given approval.
Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm and seconded by
Kenneth Y. Stiles,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve the subdivision
request of David B. Holliday, for 8 lots zoned R -3 (Residential-
General), in Shawnee Magisterial District.
This approval is subject to all proper bonds and fees.
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.
LETTER FROM COUNTY OF YORK, VIRGINIA REQUESTING THAT THE
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA ENDORSE OCTOBER 19TH AS A
STATE AND NATIONAL HOLIDAY - NO ACTION
Upon motion made by Will L. Owings and seconded by Kenneth
Y. Stiles,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Frederick, Virginia, does herein take no action on the
request submitted by the County of York, Virginia.
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.
FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Baker presented this report and recommendations to the
Board:
Mr. Baker requested Mrs. Helen Locke, Director of Data
Processing, to address the Board with regard to her request
concerning computer equipment.
Mrs. Locke addressed the Board stating that a committee was
formed and this committee assisted her in selecting the computer
equipment that had been presented to them from various vendors,
275
this Committee, consisted of Judge David G. Simpson, Wallace J.
Jones and Morris A. Smallwood, and their recommendation to the
County was that this equipment be purchased from Sperry Univac
with a seven year purchase option, and renting the first year
for a total purchase price of $315,236.
Upon motion made by William H. Baker and seconded by Will
L. Owings,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Frederick, Virginia, does herein accept the report from Mrs.
Helen Locke, Data Processing Director, and her recommendation
that the new Data Processing Equipment be purchased from Sperry
Univac, with a seven year purchase contract price of $315,236.
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.
COUNTY AUDIT TO BE DONE BY STATE AUDITORS - APPROVED
Mr. White stated that the Finance Committee had recommended
that the County Audit be done by the State Auditors.
Upon motion made by William H. Baker and seconded by Will
L. Owings,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Frederick, Virginia, does herein agree that the state
auditors be retained to do the auditing of the County of
Frederick for FY80 -81.
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.
APRIL 30TH SET AS WORK SESSION ON THE BUDGET
After discussion of different dates it was decided that
April 30th would be set as a date for a work session on this
year's budget.
BUDGET SESSION
Mr. Baker presented the following progress report on the
budget stating that the Finance Director does have copies of the
budget as it stands to date, recommendations by the departments
and also recommendations as finalized on by the Finance
Committee as well as those committees that have been involved in
276
the budget process this year. Some of the items that we would
like to bring to the attention of the Board at this time, to be
discussed at the scheduled meeting on Thursday, April 30th at 7
P.M. are:
1. The four new road deputies for the Sheriff's Department
will cost, per deputy, $33.500, this includes salary,
car, insurance, etc.
2. Fuel is being calculated at $1.50 per gallon for all
general fund departments. ! -
3. General Fund salaries are being figured at 10% for
planning purposes. Further adjustments will be forth-
coming at the completion of the salary study which is
now underway.
4. There is an inclusion of an assessment tax, under the
Virginia Code Section 42.1 -7 for $1.00 assessment for
civil action to be used for the law Library.
5. There is a Business and Occupational License Tax pro-
posal to replace the Merchants Capital Tax with an
estimated net gain of $300,000.
6. The Committee has so far reduced the general operating
request by $710,976 and the capital request by
$1,433,785 and the total general fund by $2,144,761.
7. General Fund budgets are up by 4.94% from current
appropriations.
8. After discounting carried forward funds, the general
budgets are up by 9.43% overall from $7,633,056 to
$8,010,252.
9. The purposed school budget is up 15.61% overall and
represents a 33.83% increase in local money.
The school budget has been reviewed and we have scheduled a
meeting to further discuss the situation. This meeting will be
held Monday, the 27th of April.
The current deficit of the budget is $2,393,250 based on
current rates of taxation.
Mr. Stiles stated that if no further reductions are made,
then what we are talking about is over 50% increase in the tax
rate.
Mr. Koontz stated that the Finance Committee would continue
to work on this budget and will bring a package to the Board for
further discussion.
BOARD RETIRES INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Upon made by Will L. Owings, seconded by William H. Baker
and passed unanimously, the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Frederick, Virginia, does herein retire into Executive
2771
Session in accordance with Section 2.1 -344, Subsections, (a)(1)
and (a)(6), to discuss legal and personnel matters.
BOARD WITHDRAWS FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION
Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles, seconded by William
H. Baker and passed unanimously, the Board of Supervisors
withdrew from Executive Session.
BOARD RECONVENES INTO REGUALR SESSION
Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles, seconded by William
H. Baker and passed unanimously, the Board of Supervisors
reconvened into Regular Session.
UPON MOTION MADE BY WILL L. OWINGS, SECONDED BY RHODA W.
MADDOX AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW
ADJOURN UNTIL 7:00 P.M., APRIL 30TH.
r
C� an, o rd of t
51erk, Board of Supervisors