The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMay 26, 2004 Regular Meeting 510 A Closed Session of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Wednesday, May 26,2004, at 6:30 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA. PRESENT Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Vice Chairman Barbara E. Van Osten; Gary W. Dove; Bill M. Ewing; Gina A. Forrester; W. Harrington Smith, Jr.; and Lynda J. Tyler. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the meeting to order. BOARD RETIRES INTO CLOSED SESSION Vice-Chairman Van Osten moved that the Board of Supervisors convene in Closed Session pursuant to Va. Code Section 2.2-3711 a (7) for consultation with Legal Counsel. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Tyler and passed by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye BOARD WITHDRAWS FROM CLOSED SESSION Upon a motion made by Vice-Chairman Van Osten, seconded by Supervisor Tyler, the Board withdrew from closed session. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye BOARD RECONVENES INTO REGULAR SESSION Upon a motion by Vice-Chairman Van Osten, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the Board reconvened into Regular Session and certified that nothing other than what was noted as reason for going into closed session was discussed. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 511 Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jf. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the Regular Meeting to order at 7: 15 P.M. INVOCATION In the absence of a minister, the Board observed a moment of silence. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Supervisor Smith led the Pledge of Allegiance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised that he had no additional items to add to the agenda. Upon a motion by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the Board adopted the agenda, as presented, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED Administrator Riley suggested the following tabs for approval under the Consent Agenda: 1. Resolution in Recognition of William M. Bass, III - Tab C; 2. Resolution Requesting the Installation of "Watch for Children" Signs - Canter Estates Subdivision - Tab E; 3. Parks and Recreation Commission - Tab I; Upon motion by Supervisor Forrester, seconded by Supervisor Tyler, the Consent Agenda was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye CITIZEN COMMENTS Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 I 512 Cynthia Cornwell, Red Bud District, advised that she would like the additional monies received from the state to go to the school, in full. She stated that the main purpose of her appearance was to address the Channing Drive phases 9 & 10 plan. She thanked Vice-Chairman Van Osten for coming back from vacation for this meeting. She also thanked the Planning Commission for their support. Ms. Cornwell stated that it was a sad day when a plan gets approved out of fear of being sued. She urged the Board to vote no on this plan. She then submitted the following written statement for the record: "We respectfully request that you vote NO tonight to the master development plan for sections 9 & 10 of Sovereign Village. Toll Brothers has not exhibited themselves as a good neighbor. They also have drastically increased the density of the homes in this section. They have not completed the proper agency studies such as the Fire Marshal's Office, VDOT, Sanitation Authority, Environmental and Public Works. (Please see copy ofthe article attached from May 19 issue of The Winchester Star.) They also intend to use Canyon Drive in Senseny Glen as the only access to the subdivision for years to come thus reneging on their promise to build Channing Drive before opening up this area to residential construction. All ofthe construction traffic will come right in front of our homes. There are no curbs and sidewalks in our neighborhoods thus saving developers thousands of dollars. One result is that when we walk with our children and our pets we have to walk in the street. To allow major construction traffic on our streets, as well as traffic for nearly 150 homes is scandalous. All the residents of Frederick should be notified that any developer could come along and bully their way through their neighborhood any time anywhere when they want to make a big buck. The last home was built and sold in Senseny Glen last year. The neighborhood heaved a collective sigh of relief. Relief from all the construction traffic associated with the construction of new homes. Apple Ridge has been completed for many years. Residents who have bought homes and raised families here are greatly dismayed as to why developers would be allowed to use our neighborhoods as the sole access to a new subdivision. Toll Brothers did not work with the two adjacent neighborhoods, Senseny Glen, Apple Ridge and Bedford Village, at any time in the design phase ofthe development nor are they willing to make any concessions on keeping construction traffic out of our neighborhood. There are many reasons why Senseny Glen should not be the only access to Sovereign Village sections 9 and 10. Traffic concerns top the list including safety of our children, our pets and ourselves due to vehicles speeding, running stop signs, and simply too many vehicles given the narrowness of the roads. Heavv construction traffic in an established neighborhood is a bad idea. The loss in value of our properties is also another concern. We have asked VDOT to make the four-way intersection ofSenseny Glen Drive and Canyon Rd. to be a four-way stop, since it currently only has stop signs coming off of Canyon. VDOT stated that they do not like to use stop signs to control speeding traffic, only to prevent accidents. We all know speeding traffic causes accidents. We ask that Frederick County officials assist us in getting this changed to a four-way stop sign since it is inevitable that residential traffic will increase. There are no parking areas on Canvon Road so where is the construction traffic going to park for the months required to building the construction entrance? It's also a violation ofthe covenants in Senseny Glen for anyone to park on the street. Construction traffic will greatly diminish the quality of our lives as well as the value of our homes. As will the coming residential traffic for nearly 150 homes to be constructed in the coming years. It could take 10 years for Toll Brothers to build out the south side of sections 9 and 10. I Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 513 know they practice "slash and burn" methods of home construction in Northern Virginia, but is that the way Frederick County wants to allow developers to conduct their business here? Even several Planning Commission members felt that Toll Brothers' tactics are a slap in the face of Frederick County Government. There are many problems with the master plan for the development itself. The lots for the single-family homes are tiny, some being 6000-7000 square feet. There is no vehicular access to the homes on the south side of the lake from any road other than Canyon Rd. There is no vehicular access to the north side of the lake from the south side. There also will be no access to the lake for sections 1 through 8 when Channing Drive is completed. This means that ifthere is a community event at the "community center," residents will have to drive out of their neighborhood, through Senseny Glen, down Senseny Rd., down Greenwood Rd. to Valley Mill Rd., through the "cluster housing" to the community center. This is approximately 4 miles. There is no significant parking for the community center visible on the master development plan either. If there are community events, you cut off more 2/3 of the neighborhood. On the south side. the only homeowners that will be able to access the lake will be the residents that own propertv on the lake. Toll Brothers keeps saying there are "hiking trails," but what family, especially with young children, is going to walk in the snow and ice or blistering heat with a cooler, picnic basket and strollers to a community event on the other side ofthe lake. You also shouldn't walk on hiking trails at night. It's not safe, especially for women as we've seen in the news. The "communitv center" is reallv onlv for the cluster houses off of Vallev Mill Road. That's no community if you ask me. As the secretary of Senseny Glen Homeowner's Association, I don't know that I would have volunteered to run for office if! had to drive so far to get to meetings. We are all busy raising our families and working. Access to the community center needs to be convenient and inclusive to the entire neighborhood. Wetland areas have also not been addressed. The master development plan only allows for 50 feet between Senseny Glen and Sovereign Village. The creek and wetlands extend farther than 50 feet. Has the county compared the existing wetlands to the master development plan? Why can't Toll Brothers be a good neighbor and spend money on a construction road instead of suing Frederick County? We were told that residential traffic in Senseny Glen and Apple Ridge would not be opened until construction of Channing Drive was completed. Now Toll Brothers plans to use Canyon Rd. in Senseny Glen as their only access for both construction and residential traffic for the nearly 150 homes on the south side of the lake. Please help us prevent this disaster in the making. Help us continue the high quality oflife we enjoy in Frederick County." Ms. Cornwell also submitted the following written statement addressed to the Chairman and Members of the Board of Supervisors from David Grosso, resident and member of the Board of Directors, Senseny Glen Homeowners Association: "I would like to address the issue ofthe development of the FU-SHEP parcel ofthe Channing Road Project in Eastern Frederick County well in advance ofthe schedule originally proposed in the initial Master Plan for this project. The difficulty with beginning development at this time is that the current proposal would, for several years, funnel construction traffic as well as residential traffic from the new subdivision solely through a single neighborhood, i.e. Senseny Glen. In brief, the position of the SGHOA is that approval of this proposal should be delayed until there are multiple points of access to this property. Alternatives to the applicant's proposal exist. First, the applicant owns a 75 ft. right-of-way from Senseny Glen to the FU-SHEP parcel. This could be used as an access route for construction traffic. In that case, Canyon Road could support residential traffic from the new subdivision, with the exclusion of construction traffic. Second, Channing Drive could be finished ahead of schedule to accommodate construction Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 514 and/or residential traffic. This proposal would require some agreement among the affected developers. With the Board's insistence that this proposal be successfully pursued before approval would be granted, I would hope the applicant would see the wisdom of this option to the advantage of all and agree to its active pursuit. We believe that it would be regrettable for the Board to approve the proposal to open the FU- SHEP parcel at this time with the only access being through Senseny Glen. Approving the current proposal would negatively impact Senseny Glen and its residents in three important ways. First, the quality of life that our residents currently enjoy in a quiet essential neighborhood would deteriorate significantly; a consideration, by the way, mentioned by each ofthe homeowners with whom I have talked recently as a reason for locating here in the first place. Secondly, concerns for safety are very important to the residents. Not surprisingly, this is especially a concern to those who live along the streets which would be most severely impacted if the current proposal were approved, i.e. the 300 block of Canyon Road and Senseny Glen Drive. Because the only outlet for the residents ofthe new development will be through Senseny Glen, until Channing Drive is EVENTUALLY completed, this would effectively double the traffic through Senseny Glen, as the two subdivisions are roughly the same size. This extra traffic would continue until other outlets of the new subdivision were opened some time in the future. Thirdly, residents are concerned that the first two issues will have a negative impact on the property values of homes in the Senseny Glen neighborhood. It is not a stretch to imagine that a prospective buyer, all other things being equal, who has a choice between a quiet residential neighborhood with well-maintained homes (Senseny Glen today) with a neighborhood with a combination of construction and high-volume residential traffic (Senseny Glen, if this proposal is granted) would choose the former rather than the latter. The homeowners ofSenseny Glen implore the Board to reject the current proposal and direct the applicant to return with a more acceptable proposal, i.e. one that would maintain the quality of life and the safety of residents ofa small comer of Frederick County." Dan Busby, Red Bud District and President of Senseny Glen Homeowners' Association, appeared before the Board to address the Channing Drive Master Development Plan. He advised that the Association would do whatever it could to keep the developer from using Canyon Road as the sole access to the property. He acknowledged that Canyon Road would be open, but it should not be the sole entrance into this new development. He went on to say that ifthe developer moves ahead unfettered then the residents would not have a choice, but to stand up. Mr. Busby concluded by saying that this was an example of free enterprise at its worst. He submitted a petition signed by 96 homeowners. Lennie Mather, Red Bud District, advised the Board that she has been a resident of Canyon Road since 1980. She wanted to know why the road could not be blocked until the development is completed. She asked the County Attorney to appeal Judge Prosser's decision. Thomas Carey, Red Bud District and past president of Senseny Glen Homeowners' Association, advised that he has been a resident of Senseny Glen since 1994. He stated that, based Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 515 upon his professional background, it would take approximately 800 dump trucks to fill in the valley in order to allow the construction of the road to continue. He felt Channing Drive should be completed and used to access the property because there are currently no homes along the road and it has a large right-of-way. Molly Tinsman, Red Bud District and a resident of Canyon Road, advised that she was present on behalf of her three children. They live at the current cul-de-sac, which will become the beginning of the new road, if this project is allowed to go forward. She concluded by saying that her family moved into that home because of the quiet and open space. Glenda Vemati, Gainesboro District, appeared before the Board to address the school budget and additional monies. She advised that she attended that last school board meeting and they decided to keep Gainesboro Elementary open. She asked the Board to put the money where it should be put and she believed that a child's education is the best thing in which to invest. Jason Miller, Opequon District, appeared before the Board to support the School Board's request for additional money. He stated that the young people deserve everything we can give them and the County should support students as they achieve their goals by keeping the money where it belongs. Pat Grosso, Red Bud District and President of Frederick County Education Association, appeared before the Board to address the additional monies the County received from the state. She stated that the Frederick County Education Association urged the Board to fund the schools. Eric Voelkel, Red Bud District, appeared before the Board to address the Channing Drive Master Development Plan. He advised that he was not going to sit by and be a test case for this development. He stated that he and his family did not move into their home to have someone put dump trucks into the community. He expressed concern about the safety of his children and the other children in the community. He asked the Board to unify the County and resolve this issue. Matt DeRamus, Red Bud District, advised that he shared the same concerns as his neighbors and he asked the Board not to make him feel like he made a mistake. Jeff Mullan, Red Bud District, advised that he lives in the cul-de-sac on Canyon Road, which would change if the proposed plan is approved. Oscar Roeder, Red Bud District, advised the Board to look at Loudoun County as they have had several issues with Toll Brothers. He stated that the developer is not interested in providing the Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 516 necessary infrastructure. He concluded by saying that the trucks in the streets would be dangerous for Senseny Glen. Marie Straub, Red Bud District, read an article from the November and December 1999 issues of The Winchester Star. She stated that she argued against this development when it was first proposed. She advised that ifthe construction entrance is put through on the existing easement, then it would damage adjoining yards, etc. Ms. Straub went on to say that if the Board allows these things to happen they would be allowing a national developer to challenge our rezoning process. Cynthia Richards, Red Bud District, advised that she lives at the end of Canyon Road, which would be the beginning of the proposed new road for this development. Jim McNeill, Red Bud District, advised that there is a speed issue on the existing street. Nancy Morris, Red Bud District, advised that she lives on Canyon Road. She stated that she did not think construction traffic should be allowed to go through. Walter Brown, Red Bud District, advised that he was concerned about safety ofthe children in the neighborhood because of added traffic. He stated that there must be an alternative entrance to this community. Elizabeth Cain, Gainesboro District, appeared before the Board to address the issue of school funding. She advised that she had two kids in school and they are concerned about its closing. She stated that she believed the Board supports Gainesboro School and doesn't want to see it close. She requested the Board pass along the additional $2.2 million from the state to the schools, along with the $2.6 million from the County. Gerald Harris, Red Bud District, appeared before the Board to address the access to the Fu- Shep property. He is concerned about safety. He agrees with the connection of the properties, but stated that it does not make sense to send large construction equipment down that road. He asked the Board to consider a way to get other access to the site. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Supervisor Forrester advised that she heard the concerns expressed by the citizens and she would take them seriously. MINUTES-APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Tyler, the Board approved the minutes from the May 6, 2004 Information Session with Shenandoah University by the following Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 517 recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Abstained as he was not present at the meeting. Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Abstained as she was not present at the meeting. W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Upon a motion by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Vice-Chairman Van Osten, the Board approved the minutes from the May 11,2004 Worksession with the Planning Commission by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Upon a motion by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the Board approved the minutes from the May 12, 2004 Regular Meeting by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye COUNTY OFFICIALS PROCLAMATION (#063-04) RE: HARRY F. BYRD. JR. DAY - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Vice-Chairman Van Osten, the Board adopted the Harry Byrd, Jr. Day Proclamation: WHEREAS, 2004 marks the 50th anniversary of the Winchester Star Leadership Award being presented at graduation to outstanding student leaders at each of the Frederick County high schools; and WHEREAS, $317,000 has been presented to student leaders in the high schools of the counties of Clarke, Frederick, and Warren and the City of Winchester during this fifty year period; and WHEREAS, these awards were originated and presented by the publisher of The Winchester Star, The Honorable Harry F. Byrd, Jr., to recognize outstanding high school students for their achievements and to encourage them to continue their education or vocational training; and WHEREAS, the success ofthe awards program is reflected in the lives ofthe recipients who have received the awards and who will gather on June 12,2004, as guests of Harry F. Byrd, Jr. and The Winchester Star to celebrate this significant and continuing awards program. Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meetiug of OS/26/04 518 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County that June 12,2004 is hereby proclaimed as Harry F. Byrd, Jr. Day in honor and recognition of his 50 year commitment to this unique leadership awards program and for his many abiding contributions and service to this community, the Commonwealth, and the nation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk shall prepare and transmit a copy of this resolution to Harry F. Byrd, Jr. and to cause the County seal to be affixed to said proclamation. Adopted this 26th day of May, 2004 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye RESOLUTION (#064-04) IN RECOGNITION OF WILLIAM M. BASS. III - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA WHEREAS, William M. Bass, III was a resident of Stephens City, Virginia, a 1946 graduate of Stephens City High School and whose family name is borne by Bass-Hoover Elementary School; and WHEREAS, William M. Bass, III pursued an academic career in the fields of Psychology and Anthropology at the University of Virginia culminating with a Doctorate in Anthropology from University of Pennsylvania; and WHEREAS, William M. Bass, III had a distinguished career as professor of Anthropology at several universities ending at the University of Tennessee, where he served as Director of the Forensic Anthropology, was named Professor Emeritus and where he created the world's first laboratory devoted to the study of decomposition; and WHEREAS, he received numerous National and International educational accolades among which was National Professor of the Year, William M. Bass, III is the author or co-author of200 plus published articles in the field of Forensic Anthropology; and WHEREAS, William M. Bass, III has also served the public through his professional work with law enforcement across the nation including the United States Air Force, United States Armed Forces, Tennessee Bureau ofInvestigation, and Federal Bureau ofInvestigation; and WHEREAS, William M. Bass, III is recognized internationally as one ofthe world's leading forensic anthropologists, and whose research has revolutionized the field of forensic science. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia that William M. Bass, III, Ph.D., is hereby recognized for his outstanding contributions to the field of Forensic Anthropology and his continuing commitment to public servIces. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that William M. Bass, III is an example of dedication, hard work, and education for the residents of his hometown, Stephens City, Virginia, and all of Frederick County, Virginia. Adopted this 26th day of May, 2004. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS REAPPOINTMENT OF DON R. ARNOLD TO THE BOARD OF BUILDING Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 519 APPEALS-APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Vice-Chairman Van Osten, the Board reappointed Don R. Arnold to the Board of Building Appeals. This is a five year term, said term to expire June 26, 2009. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye REAPPOINTMENT OF RICHARD CRANE TO THE SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD AS REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE RED BUD DISTRICT - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Forrester, seconded by Vice-Chairman Van Osten, the Board reappointed Richard Crane to the Social Services Board as representative from the Red Bud District. This is a four year term, said term to commence July I, 2004 and expire June 30, 2008. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye REAPPOINTMENT OF BILL WILSON TO THE SHAWNEELAND SANITARY DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the Board reappointed Bill Wilson to the ShawneeLand Sanitary District Advisory Committee. This is a three year term, said term to commence July 1,2004 and expire June 30, 2007. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye RESOLUTION (#065-04) REOUESTING THE INSTALLATION OF"W ATCH FOR CHILDREN" SIGNS - CANTER ESTATES SUBDIVISION - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 I 520 WHEREAS, the 1997 Session of the Virginia Assembly amended the Code of Virginia adding Section 33.1-210.2 relating to the installation and maintenance of "signs alerting motorists that children may be at play nearby"; and WHEREAS, this act provides for the adoption of a resolution by the governing body of any county requesting the Virginia Department ofTransportation to install and maintain this type of sign; and WHEREAS, the source of funding for the installation of this sign shall come out of the secondary system construction allocation to the affected county. The costs of maintaining such sign shall be paid out of the secondary system maintenance allocation to the affected county; and WHEREAS, Latigo Court (Rt. 1500) and Brentwood Court (Rt. 1501) are located in a residential area and is within the secondary road system and is a viable candidate for "Watch for Children" signs. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors does hereby request that the Department of Transportation install "Watch for Children" signs specifically at Latigo Court (Rt. 1500) from White Oak Road (Rt. 636) .15 miles to cuI de sac; and Brentwood Court (Rt. 1501) from Latigo Court (Rt. 1500) .2 miles to cuI de sac. The signs should be placed in accordance with the provisions of Section 33.1-210.2 of the Code of Virginia. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy ofthis resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. ADOPTED this 26th day of May, 2004. REOUEST FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE FOR REFUNDS - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised that this was a request from the Commissioner of Revenue to refund or roll credits as needed for Lucien T. Bannister, If. in the amount of$2,809.17 for 2002 and 2003. These are abatements of tax charged on vehicles that have now proven to be located in the jurisdiction of the City of Winchester. Upon a motion by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the Board approved the Commissioner of Revenue's request. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, If. - Aye Lynda I. Tyler - Aye Administrator Riley advised that this was another request from the Commissioner of Revenue to refund or roll credits as needed for Pen Day Enterprises, Inc. tJa State Line Exxon in the amount of $4,129.22 for an over reporting of gross receipts from 2003 and an overpayment of business Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 521 license for 2004. Upon a motion by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the Board approved the Commissioner of Revenue's request. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye REOUEST FROM FREDERICK COUNTY SCHOOL FINANCE DEPARTMENT FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION OF ADDITIONAL STATE FUNDS - ADVERTISE FOR PUBLIC HEARING Administrator Riley advised that this was a request from the School Board for Board of Supervisor approval for an increase in the school board FY 2005 operating budget by $2,188,846.00, which are additional state funds received by the County. Dr. William Dean, Superintendent, stated that the School Board is requesting the Board conduct a public hearing to allow the school to use the $2.1 million received from the state to amend its FY 2005 operating budget by a like amount. This funding would be used as follows: - $1,127,959 reinstatement of program cuts including the closure of Gainesboro Elementary School. - $708,594 reinstatement of additional teaching positions, middle school support positions, and a maintenance position. - $352,293 reinstatement of increased funding for school buses and building repair projects. Supervisor Dove moved that the Board commit to appropriating the necessary additional funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia in order to keep Gainesboro Elementary School open, advertise for public hearing at its June 9, 2004 meeting to receive input on the possibility of expending additional state funds that have been received, and request a joint work session with the Board of Supervisors and the School Board to discuss this very important matter. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Ewing. Supervisor Tyler stated that she appreciated the Board utilizing this opportunity to address these areas. Chairman Shickle polled the Board regarding keeping Gainesboro Elementary School open. Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 I 522 Supervisor Ewing stated that he supported keeping it open. Supervisor Smith stated that he supported keeping it open. Supervisor Forrester stated that she supported the School Board deciding where the money should be placed. Vice-Chairman Van Osten supported Supervisor Forrester's remarks. Supervisor Tyler stated that she supported the School Board deciding where the money should be placed. Chairman Shickle supported keeping Gainesboro open. There being no further discussion, above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye DISCUSSION AUTHORITY HEARING OF APPOINTMENT OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT - ADVERTISE CREATION OF AUTHORITY FOR PUBLIC Assistant Administrator Tierney advised that this item was a follow up to the Board's May 11,2004 joint work session with the Planning Commission. He stated that staff had spoken with Attorney Bob Mitchell to discuss the legal process and with Chuck Johnston, Clarke County Director of Planning, regarding Clarke County's conservation easement program and process that they went through in creating this entity. Assistant Administrator Tierney went on to say that in order to create the authority, the Board must adopt an ordinance following a public hearing. He further advised that staff has received a list of interested individuals who would be willing to serve on the authority. Assistant Administrator Tierney concluded by saying that ifthe Board moves forward, they should advertise this item for public hearing at its July meeting. Upon a motion by Supervisor Forrester, seconded by Supervisor Tyler, the Board approved advertising the creation of a conservation easement authority for public hearing at the July meeting. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meetiug of OS/26/04 523 Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye COMMITTEE REPORTS PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Parks and Recreation Commission met on May 18, 2004. Members present were: Charles Sandy, Steven White, Victoria Keelon, Ronald Madagan, Michael Ruddy. Submitted for Board Information Onlv: 1. ShawneeLand Request - Mrs. Keelon moved that the Commission deny the request from the ShawneeLand Advisory Board to lease land to the department, second by Mr. White, carried unanimously (5-0). 2. Standin!! Committee Reports - Mrs. Keelon moved to deny a request for commuter parking space at Clearbrook Park, second by Mr. Madagan, carried unanimously (5-0). CODE & ORDINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT - APPROVED The Code & Ordinance Committee met on Tuesday, May 11, 2004,at2:30 P.M., in the First Floor Conference Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. Present were chairman of the committee Supervisor Gary W. Dove, Supervisor Bill M. Ewing, Stephen G. Butler, and Michael L. Bryan. Also present were Fire and Rescue Director Gary DuBrueler, Fire Marshal Denny Linaburg, Sheriff Robert Williamson, County Attorney Lawrence R. Ambrogi and County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr. The committee submits the following: ***Items Requiring Board Action*** 1. V chicles and Traffic Code Re: Parkin!: Issues - To Be Advertised for Public Hearin!: The Committee reviewed proposed changes to Frederick County Code Chapter 158, Article II, Stopping, Standing, & Parking. The Committee recommended the following changes: - The language pertaining to fines should be changed to read "The fine shall be the maximum amount allowed by law, as determined by the Court." - The fines in Section 158-6, Fire lanes and hydrants, section B was increased to $40. - Section 158-4 B, which pertains to parking in front of the courthouse was removed. There being no further changes or additions, the Committee unanimously recommended these changes to the Board for public hearing and subsequent adoption. (See Attachment A). Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Vice-Chairman Van Osten, the Board approved advertising this proposed amendment for public hearing at its July 14,2004 meeting. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Minute Book Nnmber 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 524 Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye 2. Le!!:islation Re!!:ardinl: Panhandlinl: - To Be Advertised for Public Hearin!!: The Committee reviewed draft legislation pertaining to panhandling and solicitation for charitable organizations. It was decided that the proposed draft was too onerous and went beyond addressing the problem of individuals accosting motorists at intersections along county roads. The Committee discussed similar ordinances adopted by the Town of Lees burg and Loudoun County, as well as the pertinent Virginia Code sections. The Committee redrafted a proposed ordinance and unanimously recommended it to the Board for public hearing and subsequent adoption. (See Attachment B). Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Vice-Chairman Van Osten, the Board approved advertising this proposed amendment for public hearing at its July 14, 2004 meeting. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye 3. Pronosed Amendments to Chanter 56. Numberin!!: of Buildin!!:s and Namin!!: of Roads - To Be Advertised for Public Hearinl: The Committee reviewed proposed changes to the existing Chapter 56, Numbering of Buildings. The Director of Geographic Information Systems informed the Committee that the proposed changes would give his department the responsibility for administration and enforcement of not only the requirement that all structures in the County be numbered, but also the review and approval authority for any road names in Frederick County. The Committee unanimously recommended that this new Chapter 56 be forwarded to the Board for public hearing and subsequent adoption. (See Attachment C). Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Vice-Chairman Van Osten, the Board approved advertising this proposed amendment for public hearing at its July 14,2004 meeting. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye ***Information Items Only*** 1. Discussion of the Fire Prevention Code The Committee discussed proposed changes to Frederick County Code, Chapter 90, Fire Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 525 Prevention Code. Several concerns were expressed over the proposed changes, including: - Permitting requirements and excessive regulation. - Cost of administration. - The need for the Fire Marshal to have total police powers, similar to those of the Sheriff and/or his employees. - Too much regulation. The Committee voted to table this item in order for staff to revise the requirements to make them more pertinent to current services being provided by the Fire Marshal and his staff. The Commonwealth Attorney was also directed to review and report back to the Committee regarding Virginia Code Chapter 27 as to the police powers possessed by the Fire Marshal. The Committee will review modifications to Chapter 90, which are not technical in nature, with the intent of forwarding those proposed changes to the Board for public hearing. FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT - APPROVED The Finance Committee met in the First Floor Conference Room at 107 North Kent Street on May 19,2004 at 8:00 a.m. Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 were approved under consent agenda. Committee member Gary Lofton was absent. Upon a motion by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the Board approved Items 1,2,3,4,5, and 7 under consent agenda. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye 1. The Director of Division of Court Services requests a Court Services Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $2.600. This amount is needed to replenish a line item that was depleted due to the unexpected purchase of a new hot water heater. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, p. 1. The committee recommends approval. - Approved Under Consent Agenda. 2. The Director of Division of Court Services requests a Court Services Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $20.000. This amount is needed to purchase 50 Alcohol Sensor III units. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, p. 2. The committee recommends approval. - Approved Under Consent Agenda. 3. The Sheriffrequests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of$2.043. This amount represents DARE donations from various organizations and is requested to be appropriated to the Drug Program line item. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memos, pp. 3-7. The committee recommends approval. - Approved Under Consent Agenda. 4. The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $11.025. This amount represents an insurance reimbursement and is requested to be appropriated into line item 3102-5408-000-000 Vehicle and Powered Equipment Supplies. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, p. 8. The committee recommends approval. - Approved Under Consent Agenda. Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 05/26/04 526 5. The VJCCCA Directorrequests General Fund budget transfers in the amount of$12.600. This transfer is needed for additional services and supplies. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, p. 9. The committee recommends approval. - Approved Under Consent Agenda. 6. The Director of Public Works requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $17.325. This amount is needed to purchase a vehicle for Inspections. Actual revenue collected exceeds budgeted revenue for Inspections and is cited as justification for this purchase. The Director of Public Works also requests a General Fund budget transfer in the amount of $22.000. This amount is needed to purchase a vehicle for Engineering and is requested to be transferred from Stormwater Improvements. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, pp. 10-15. The committee recommends approval. - Approved the Supplemental Appropriation in the Amount of $17,325. Upon a motion by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Tyler, the Board approved the General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $17,325 to purchase a vehicle for Inspections. Supervisor Ewing advised that items like this should have been included in the budget and he would have to vote against the request. Supervisor Tyler stated that this is one of the items that is budgeted, but gets cut year after year. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Nay Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Supervisor Smith moved that the Board approve the request for a General Fund budget transfer in the amount of$22.000 to purchase a vehicle for Engineering with funds to be transferred from Stormwater Improvements. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Tyler. The above motion failed by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Nay Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Nay Bill M. Ewing - Nay Gina A. Forrester - Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye 7. The Clerk ofthe Circuit Court requests a General Fund budget transfer in the amount of $20.400. This amount is needed to purchase two Kodak Reader-Printers. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, p. 16. The committee recommends approval. - Approved Under Consent Agenda. Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26104 527 8. The Executive Director ofthe Regional Airport requests an AiIJ'lort Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $11.550. This amount is needed to purchase mowers for grounds maintenance and may be offset by unanticipated additional revenue. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memos, pp. 17-18. The committee recommends approval. - Approved. Upon a motion by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Tyler, the Board approved the above request by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye 9. The School Board was present to discuss the accounting of expenditure refunds and supplemental appropriations. See attached memo, pp. 19-20. The committee requested clarification on the legality of expenditure refunds to increase funds available to spend from the auditors. - Information Only. 10. The County Administrator requests a General Fund budget transfer in the amount of $30.000. This amount is to be transferred from Operational Contingency to Professional Services to cover pending legal matters. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, p. 21. - Approved. Upon a motion by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the Board approved the above request by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye 11. The Commissioner of Revenue requests a General Fund budget transfer in the amount of$11.000. This amount is needed so that Blue Ridge Appraisal can continue with more field work without having to wait until July 1. This same amount can be reduced from the FY 2005 budget. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, p. 22. - Approved. Upon a motion by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Vice-Chairman Van Osten, the Board approved the above request by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye ***For Information Only*** The Finance Director provided a report on fund balance. See attached memo, p. 23. Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 528 PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE - SALARIES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -PURSUANT TO SECTION 15.2-1414.3 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA. 1950 AS AMENDED. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO FIX THE ANNUAL SALARIES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AS FOLLOWS: CHAIRMAN. $10.800; VICE-CHAIRMAN. $1 0.200; AND EACH OTHER MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT $9.000 - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised that, per Board procedure, it is necessary to hold a public hearing to set the salaries for the Board. The proposed salaries are: Chairman - $10,800; Vice- Chairman - $10,200; and Other Members of the Board - $9,000. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the Board adopted the salaries as noted: BE IT ORDAINED, the annual salary for each member of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2004, shall be as follows: Chairman $10,800; Vice- Chairman, $10,200; and each other member of the Board of Supervisors at $9,000. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #06-04 OF EAST SIDE RAW BAR & GRILL FOR A RESTAURANT USE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1815 MILLWOOD PIKE (ROUTE 50 EAST) AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS 64-A-144 AND 64-A-145 IN THE SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED Planner I Mark Cheran appeared before the Board on behalf ofthis item. He advised that this property is located in the Shawnee Magisterial District. There were no adverse agency comments and approval of this Conditional Use Permit would bring the property into conformance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Planner I Cheran advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions: Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meetiug of OS/26/04 529 _ All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. _ Any future expansions ofthis restaurant use shall be in compliance with Section 165-27 ofthe Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, as related to parking areas and landscaping. All improvements shall be in place prior to any building permits being issued. _ Any change of use or modification more than 2,000 square feet (deck or building) shall require a site plan and new Conditional Use Permit. He concluded by saying that the applicant was present to answer any questions the Board might have. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no citizen comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion of Supervisor Smith, seconded by Vice-Chairman Van Osten, the Board approved Conditional Use Permit #06-04 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - SOLENBERGER TRUST - WITHDRAWAL FROM AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT - APPROVED Planner I David Beniamino appeared before the Board on behalf of this item. He advised that this was a request to withdraw 183.01 acres from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. This request was prompted by the adoption of the West Jubal Early Land Use Plan, which calls for suburban residential and mixed use development on land located north and adjacent to the subject acreage. Removal from this district is necessary to begin planning efforts for the subject acreage that are necessary to result in its inclusion within the county's Urban Development Area. Planner I Beniamino stated that the Agricultural District Advisory Committee recommended approval of the request as did the Planning Commission. Evan Wyatt, Greenway Engineering, appeared before the Board on behalf of the applicant. He advised that the Board's process to amend the Comprehensive Plan requires that applications be submitted by June 1st. Staffrecommended the applicant request this removal as a first step in that process. He concluded by saying that keeping this property in the district would compromise the Agricultural and Forestal District integrity. Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 530 Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Vice-Chairman Van Osten, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the Board approved the request by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 165. ZONING: ARTICLE X. BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS: SECTION 165-82 C. B3 INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION DISTRICT. TO ALLOW RESTAURANT USE IN THE B3 DISTRICT - APPROVED Planner I Cheran appeared before the Board on behalf of this item. He advised that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee discussed adding restaurant use to the B-3 district and recommended approval of this amendment. Staff concurred with this recommendation. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment and it is before the Board this evening for a public hearing. He concluded by saying that it would be appropriate for the Board to take action on this item following the public hearing. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Vice-Chairman Van Osten, the Board approved the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow restaurant use in the B-3 (Industrial Transition) Zoning District: ARTICLE X Business and Industrial Zoning Districts S 165-82. District Use Regulations C. B3 Industrial Transition District. The intent of this district is to provide for heavy commercial activities, involving larger scale marketing or wholesaling, in locations that are separate but in the vicinity of business and industrial areas. In some cases, such areas may be transitional, located between business and industrial areas. In these areas, there will be a mixture of automobile and truck traffic. Some ofthe uses in this district will require large areas ofland and may have outdoor storage and display. It is intended that the uses in this district shall not be sources of noise, dust, smoke or other nuisances. Such industrial Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 531 transition areas shall be provided with safe and sufficient access. Allowed Uses Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Restaurants 58 The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Barbara E. Van Osten - Aye Gary W. Dove - Aye Bill M. Ewing - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye OTHER PLANNING ITEMS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #05-04 OF CHANNING DRIVE. PHASES 9 & 10- DENIED Chairman Shickle: Our next item is a master development plan 05-04 of Channing Drive, Phases 9 & 10. Mr. Lawrence. Eric Lawrence: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. Before you this evening is a master development plan 05-04 for phases 9 & 10 within the Channing Drive Master Development Plan project. A couple ofthings to just bring you up to date, this project in addition to the properties immediately to the west were rezoned in 1999, which allowed for approximately, based on density calculations, close to 850 homes within the three property, three development area. In 2001, a master plan encompassing all three projects was approved by the County and since that time, Sovereign Village has begun construction and Lynnehaven has begun construction and a portion of Channing Drive, the road itself, has been constructed. Earlier this year, actually in March, the Board adopted a resolution which enabled the three developers to severe their relationship as far as the master plan goes. Tonight we are reviewing the Fu-Shep portion ofthe property, which is the first master plan that's being brought before you as a separation from the overall. Essentially, the reason for the separation was that based on the master plan requirements, the original master plan was signed by three property owners so any revisions to that would require three property owners to overcome that. The county adopted the resolution so that each property, each development itself, could stand on its own. Some other issues you'll notice in the staffreport that you have this evening, there is reference to the court case. This project is in litigation. It's being brought to you this Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 I 532 evening as an effort to comply with the consent order, which the court issued in late April. Two key aspects pertaining to the master plan in that consent order was that the applicants would submit a complete master plan application by April 29th and then the County would proceed through the review process of that master plan. In good faith, while the applicant did not submit all of the information by that April 29th deadline, staff felt it was appropriate to process what we had with the master plan in an attempt to comply with the consent order. So what you have tonight, and it shows up in your staff report, is a history as to what, how, what information we've gotten and when we got it. The reason I point that out is when the Planning Commission reviewed this master plan last week their agenda package was incomplete. They hadn't received any agency comments. At the Planning Commission meeting agency comments were presented to the Planning Commission and since that time they have been included in your agenda, but you can see that over the past month, information has been coming in to complete the master plan package. With that said, that brings us up to the current date and what you have. We have a master plan for the Fu-Shep tracts, which allows for density of 220 units. The current master plan, which was approved a couple of year ago, allowed for 263 units I believe. So there is a slight reduction in the overall density. The road system is generally consistent with the original master plan so there is no significant changes to road layouts, if you will. The most significant change, if! can point it out, is the introduction of single- family small lots, which allows for lot sizes as small as 3,750 square feet. This is a significant decrease from the original master plan, which was a 12,000 square foot minimum lot size. I would note that on the preliminary subdivision plans, that have been presented to staff, the lots are ranging from about upper 6,000 square foot up to close to 19,000 square feet. So there is a wide range, but the master plan that you have for consideration tonight would allow, if approved, would allow for lots as small as 3,700 square feet. (End of side of tape.) (Begin new side of tape.) ...to get together and socialize. And the community center should be placed, by ordinance requirements, within easy access of walking environment, if you imagine an age restricted community. I point that out because at this point staff has not been presented with any information indicating, on this master plan, where the community center is. By ordinance it should fall in phase 9 somewhere, but we haven't seen that. So that's one of the outstanding issues, which is identified Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 533 in your agenda, but I just wanted to point that out. A couple of other things as far as reviewing all of the staff agency comments. As I noted, we did get them last week. They have been included in your agenda. Generally speaking, there's no significant issues identified by the various agencies. There are some technicalities that the agencies are going to want to work through. A couple ofthe major things that haven't been addressed through the agency comments is the lack ofa community center, the inadequate riparian buffer requirements. The zoning ordinance requires 35 feet on either side of the riparian stream be provided. That hasn't been provided at this point. The residential separation buffer per zoning ordinance requirements has not been provided on a master plan for staff to review either. So those are three key things that haven't been addressed. They were identified in the Planning Commission staff report. They were identified in letters to the applicant. And as of this afternoon, staff has not received a master plan, which addresses those issues. The, as I noted, overall the densities are consistent with the proffered densities. There are actually less units than the previous master plan presented to you because of a reduction in lot size. That is one of the key elements here that triggers the community, so that is for your consideration this evening. With that said, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. I would note that the Planning Commission, at the review, they did forward recommendation for this plan for approval. They recognize the consent order and that the County was supposed to process a master plan so that they felt it was important to get it to you all, but the Planning Commission did note and recognize that some of the, some major issues in the zoning ordinance hadn't been addressed. Those are the community center, riparian buffers, and residential separation buffers, which are all zoning ordinance requirements. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have and would note that the applicant is represented by Mr. Ty Lawson. Chairman Shickle: Any questions of staff? Supervisor Van Osten. Vice-Chairman Van Osten: No question in particular just a comment that the extensive amount of discussion from the Planning Commission was in regard to the access to the neighborhood through the Canyon Drive through the existing subdivision. Chairman Shickle: Any other discussion? Questions? Did the applicant wish to make a presentation? Ty Lawson: We do. For the record my name is Ty Lawson and I'm here on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board of Supervisors, we are here on behalf of the Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 534 admitted master development plan regarding sections 9 & 10, known as Sovereign Village, which was recommended for approval by your Planning Commission at its May 19th meeting. As Mr. Lawrence has told you, the Sovereign Village development was rezoned in 1999 and a master plan was approved in 2001. The original master plan allowed, in sections 9 & la, for 293 homes. This plan that is before you is asking for 220 homes, so it is 73 less. We are able to be here as a result of this Board's resolution allowing for the filing of amended master development plans and also, as has been relayed to you, as a result of the Frederick County Circuit Court's order of April 28th. This plan, that was originally filed, the one that is before you, was originally submitted in 2002. It's been, as you all know, a long struggle to have the opportunity to present it and we do appreciate, finally, the opportunity to be able to do that. I want to emphasize some ofthe bullets, if you will, ofthe plan that is before you. It is a plan that includes the very same road network, that was approved in the original plan. It is a plan that lives up fully to the proffers of the original plan. There was a comment made by Mr. Lawrence about severing the relationship. The relationship I think he is referring to is the original master plan, which called for proffers, and I can't emphasize enough, we stand fully behind those and it is not our desire to sever anything. It is a plan that provides for extra walking trails. I believe we've actually got an additional 1,000 feet from what was originally provided for in the original plan. It actually provides for more community center improvements than what was provided in the original plan. It is a plan that saves more than an additional 2 or excuse me, 20 acres of trees. It does also provide for two points of access. We heard the comments this evening and pursuant to a court order of some time ago, this actually provides for an access across Canyon Drive and also across a 3.8 acre piece, which is owned in fee simple by this applicant. It's also a plan, as I've pointed out, that calls for less density and, in fact, seventy three fewer homes than what was originally approved. And it is a plan that satisfies all of the agency comments and, in fact, in the course of getting this before not only you all, but the Planning Commission, those comments were actually adopted and put into the revised amended master plan and is something that is before you. I'm not sure exactly where the comment came that the agency comments were not in front ofthe Planning Commission when we appeared before them and, point offact, that is not accurate. And the only reason why I know that is that my office personally delivered all of the agency comments to each and every member of the Planning Commission the day before the hearing. And Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 535 as soon as we got them in we walked them, literally walked them, to each member. Also, not sure about the comment about the community center. I'll note that staffs report does point out that, to use the word ofthe report, "applicant plans to restore the existing structure located on the other side of the lake, converting it to an additional community center." Need to point out that the original plan provides for a community center within the Sovereign Village development and that was accepted as being sufficient for the entire development, including sections 9 & 10. Nevertheless, this plan that is in front of you is submitting that the home, the existing home that exists on the lake is gonna be converted into a community center. So we actually exceed any requirements for a community center at the property. We do have a brief presentation and if we could, just to get everybody oriented. As you know, we are located behind the subdivisions ofSenseny Glen and Apple Ridge and its along Senseny Road. This is an aerial photograph that shows the property. There is a very nice lake that exists on the property and one ofthe key, frankly it is the keystone to the development. And your going to see a photograph, in a minute, ofthe lake taken from the dam. I show you that because that's as it exists today and because of the way we have been able to do our development and actually put in fewer homes. And, as I've pointed, the 20 acres of trees saved, the view that you see today will be very much, ifnot identical to what you'll see once this development is completed. Gives you some of the components and elements of the project: total acreage, the zoning, which is RP it has always been when the plan was approved. And again the total density that was approved in the original rezoning and in the original master plan and, of course, we are proposing less than that. It was originally put in at 293 and, of course, our density is also less than what was originally approved. Going to phase 9, what we are doing is submitting a plan that allows within the RP, there are different types of uses or lot sizes or styles and the current is an urban, which is a 12,000 square foot rectangle, if you will. What we are proposing is a small lot, which again is allowed under the RP zoning. And again if you will look at the total number of units that was allowed under the rezoning and what we are proposing, it's the 209 and we are proposing 149 and the density is less. This compares, the next slide compares the differences between the urban and the small lot designation and it also gives the setbacks and qualities of each. There was a comment made by staff that it does allow the minimum lot size, under the small lot, does allow for 3,750 square feet. We've actually submitted a subdivision plan as well. Our actual smallest one is 7,776 square feet and not the 6,000 that was represented. Ironically, our average is right around 11,000, which matches up Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 very well with what was allowed in the original plan. Point this out to show you what could have been done, was not desired to be done, but what could be done with the same number oflots under an urban layout. And we point this out and you can see the shaded areas because those are the trees that we would say would be affected, in fact they would have been removed had this gone forward under the urban layout. And then as we go forward, this is, this shows the plan that we are submitting and the additional acres of trees that are saved. And I'm sure you all have seen the site, been near it or on it and it is heavily wooded; and one of our desires was to keep it in that situation and, again, to preserve the view from the dam. We're keeping those trees in place. This gives you a snapshot of the differences between what has been approved and what is being proposed. And again, the areas, this is just phase 9, of disturbances. There are almost 14 acres less. The right-of- way area is less, 1.3 acres. And of course, the open space increases by 14 acres. This is an example of the homes that will be constructed in phase 9. This, this actually can be seen here in town. This is in Harvest Ridge, as an example, which is off of Cedar Creek Grade. And then, show you some other examples of some of the homes that will be installed in phase 9. Now phase 10, much like the story in phase 9 in the sense that it is less than what was originally approved. Total units that were allowed under the rezoning is 74, what's being proposed is 71. Of course, along with that the density for what is proposed is less. This gives you the same comparison between the urban and the single-family multi-plex and also gives you the various qualities, setbacks, things of that sort for each. Point this out to show you the tree saved areas as a result of, this is what would have been and this is the affected areas that would have been had an urban layout been put in place. As a result of using the multi-plex, you'll note that the areas that were shaded in green before those remain as is. The hardwoods, the trees that are there now remain as they are. 6.8 acres that will be undisturbed. And then this is an example, some people have asked what is this, this product type? What it is and what you see there are three units. They are very large units. Approximately 3,000 square feet. We do not have an example of that in this community at this time. There are certainly examples of it and Toll Brothers has built these in other areas, but this will be a first for Frederick County. I mentioned the nature trails. What was proffered in the original master development plan was 5,100 feet, this project actually will have 6,1 00 feet. The buffer requirements, things that we Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 537 want to point out, if! could, in the lower, just as an example, the buffer that is required there is 25 feet. What were are proposing to do is, actually, and are able to do as a result of our layout to preserve a 50 foot natural tree safe area as a buffer. We think it's certainly preferable than pulling those trees out and replanting with a 25 foot screen. Mr. Lawrence made some comment about the other buffering issue and I think, frankly, it may be the only issue that needs to be discussed, about the residential separation buffers. The issue there is to whether we are an interior or a perimeter location at that point, depending upon how you look at this thing. We believe we are part of Sovereign Village. As I said before, we intend to fully live up to the proffers that were submitted and; therefore, we have submitted that the buffer that should be there is 10 feet as opposed to 25 feet, and I think that is the one thing that Mr. Lawrence was referring to. So this is a summary of the project. Again, we did hear the comments at the beginning of the presentation. Can't emphasize enough and I'm not sure where the information came out, but this is less. This is less units than what was approved. It is more trails. Our density is certainly less. As far as the access points, we are, we are using two. One is the 3.8 acre tract that we own in fee simple and the other is across Canyon. It is not all exclusively across Canyon. And with that, we would ask for your approval, as was recommended by the Planning Commission, and we'd be happy to answer any questions. Chairman Shickle: Any questions of the applicant? Supervisor Dove. Supervisor Dove: I have a question. I guess the zoning that you went under for these small lots was one that we have set up basically for our retirement units. I believe in that you are allowed to have some private streets. Do we have private streets in here? Ty Lawson: We do have. Right there. Can you see that arrow? That's hard for me to see, but we do. Supervisor Dove: I have glasses. Ty Lawson: Thank you. We did not. I'm sure you heard the lot size that is allowed is much smaller than what we actually end up with. Supervisor Dove: Right. Yeah, I know it was designed for retirement units. These are not going to be retirement units by any means. Ty Lawson: No, this is not proposed as an age restricted community. Vice-Chairman Van Osten: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Shickle: Supervisor Van Osten. Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 538 Vice-Chairman Van Osten: I'd just like to clarify Mr. Lawrence's comment about the agency comments having been distributed that night. I, that is the scenario. They weren't in the Planning Commission packets when they were sent out. Just to clarify. I don't, I as a liaison didn't have time to review them that night, so Ijust wanted to make sure that that is understood. That was the case. Chairman Shickle: Mr. Lawson, are all the roads that you indicated earlier, are they on that picture? Ty Lawson: Yes, I mean that, that is the plan that has been proposed. Yes. Chairman Shickle: Where are they again? You said there were three? Did I hear you wrong? Ty Lawson: There are two points of access, if that's your question. Chairman Shickle: I thought you had said three. Something about a 13 acre parcel owned fee simple. Ty Lawson: Oh, 3.8 acre parcel and that is also, it is, it is that 75 foot portion ofland that runs from where the arrow is to Senseny Road. Chairman Shickle: Well you had a picture a minute ago and it had three arrows on it, I thought. Red arrows? Am I thinking wrong? Ty Lawson: That may have been a tree save arrow. Additional tree save? Chairman Shickle: Probably. I, I heard you speaking and looked at the picture and didn't read the box. Ty Lawson: There are several actually with arrows. Primarily, I think those point out the trees that are saved as a result of this layout. Chairman Shickle: Now, that last picture you had up there. Is that, is that my picture here that I have? Ty Lawson: I can't see it. Chairman Shickle: Are they one and the same? There be any changes to this to your last plat up there? Ty Lawson: We're not sure. What you have in your hand is? Chairman Shickle: This is what you submitted. Ty Lawson: That should be the latest yes. Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 539 Eric Lawrence: The road system will be the same as what you are seeing up there, but it is not the same master plan. That master plan is dated April (unintelligible). Ty Lawson: Oh, okay, okay. And so we're clear, when we received agency comments and I made the comment that we actually incorporated them into the plats, accepted their comments and made the revisions that were recommended. We have done that, in fact, we have submitted that to staff. Yesterday? So they've been updated is what I'm telling you. Chairman Shickle: I've got some questions for staff, but does anybody have any more questions for applicant? Vice-Chairman Van Osten: Actually, I have a question. Chairman Shickle: Go ahead. Vice-Chairman Van Osten: You made reference to two points of access, one being your 7S foot right-of-way. Ty Lawson: Actually it's a piece ofland that's owned in fee simple. Vice-Chairman Van Osten: Right Ty Lawson: Yes. Vice-Chairman Van Osten: And then the other being Canyon Drive. Ty Lawson: Yes. Vice-Chairman Van Osten: The access on your, how would, how would you detennine whether traffic would enter on which road? Ty Lawson: The access, and we discussed this, and you'll remember, in front of the Planning Commission. The access is as was prescribed by a court's order and what it provided for was an access point along Canyon Drive, where previously there had been a reference that it should be barricaded. And then the other provided for a construction entrance along the 3.8 acre parcel that's also referred to as the 75 foot wide strip. Chairman Shickle: Other questions of applicant? Thank you sir. Mr. Lawrence. My question probably could be best handled by beginning with a short crash course in master plan approval and what is included in the master plan and not. I saw a lot of things here this evening on slides that I couldn't have extracted from what is before me. How much of what I saw there is in the approval process ofthe master plan versus what I have in my packet here? Can you differentiate? I know some of it is subdivision layout later, but tell me where the lines are here. Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 540 Eric Lawrence: What you have in your packet, what ultimately is approved, the document, that your's is dated April 29th. Everything that, everything that the zoning ordinance requires and all ofthe agency comments require, and any comments that you and the Planning Commission have will have to be on this document to be a requirement. What this document doesn't require is, it doesn't require the location of the individual lots, it basically, the master plan says where the road systems, where the houses, generally are going to be located, but not the exact lot locations, if you will. So, while he was showing you the lot locations and all of that, you are not going to see that on the master plan. Chairman Shickle: Stop there. Go a little slow. Eric Lawrence: Okay. Chairman Shickle: Total number oflots and sizes oflots. Where is that tied down? Eric Lawrence: That, there should be a narrative. There is a requirement that there is a narrative on the master plan, which tells you the minimum lot sizes, the average lot size, the number oflots. And I believe that is on this submission. It is on the front cover. Chairman Shickle: The number you've probably got from here is not the number that Mr. Lawson just used. Is that correct? Eric Lawrence: Yes. Whatever, the best way to look at it, whatever is on the document that the County, you ultimately, you know, pass along for staffto approve, that, that is, that is the official number. Chairman Shickle: Would it be the 7,000 or the 6,000 number? As an example. Eric Lawrence: It will be whatever's on here. If, if they, if they're suggesting it's 7,000 then I would have to make sure it's on here also at 7,000. Chairman Shickle: So some changes in this would be made. Do you get the slide presentation? How do you translate what's said this evening into what's on this document? Eric Lawrence: I get a lot of, I was fortunate because they submitted the subdivision plan. We were able to get minimum lot sizes off of the subdivision plan so we knew what was coming. What we need to do is make sure the minimum lot size and the average lot size is reflected on the actual master plan document. It's not on there at this point. The minimum, zoning ordinance requirements, the 3750 is on here, but the actual, the 7,000 square foot is not on the master plan. Chairman Shickle: I guess, I guess I keep gravitating to back to the fact that for such a Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 541 sensitive project or what has become a sensitive project, I saw a lot of things this evening that I had not seen before and could not have possibly got from this packet. And it doesn't seem like I always feel that way about every project that comes before us for a master plan and I don't know ifit's the sensitivity of the project or, you know, I'm not the best blueprint reader, but I'm not bad. I just couldn't have extracted as much as I saw tonight. Eric Lawrence: Normally you have everything on your plan that you have to review. Supervisor Dove: Question. For example, on here it says 293 units, but they're saying 220 units. What is supposed to be on this plan? Eric Lawrence: If this is the plan you approve then 293 units is what your.. that's the proffered line. Chairman Shickle: That would be after staff approves it. Eric Lawrence: Correct, yeah, if the County approves this document. You, we are, we are approving, actually there are two numbers. Weare approving and recognizing the proffered density, which would allow 293, but they have specified under that in another table the number oflots as 220. Chairman Shickle: So are you sort of saying that if, if we sent it along to you to clean up details then if the presenters said one number, but it says another number on here, you would not have a change? Eric Lawrence: I, no. If, if something, I mean quite honestly, ifit shows up on your screen during the presentation, that's a presentation, but ifit's not showing up on the actual document that the County signs then don't pay attention to the presentation, pay attention to the document. Chairman Shickle: Well, I know the applicant has already told me that the $100,000 per lot is a mistake. That would get fixed wouldn't it? Eric Lawrence: Certainly. Chairman Shickle: I mean, you wouldn't, that wouldn't be what we'd send along for approval is it? Eric Lawrence: If it's corrected and we discuss it and its clarified in discussion for the record that's what will show up on here. Chairman Shickle: It seems like a lot of numbers in here are going to be changed. Okay. Other questions or discussion. Supervisor Dove: Are there some others that you can tell us about? Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 I 542 Eric Lawrence: Well just, I mean, what I mentioned. If it shows up there and not in here, the conversation about the community center continues to come up. I looked at, staff received a plan dated yester.., we received a new revision yesterday and there's still no community center referenced or anything on it. Chairman Shickle: But that's not the plan that is before us? Eric Lawrence: That's not the plan that's before you, but neither the plan before you, that you got in your package nor the plan that was, plan that was presented to staff yesterday identifies where a community center is. The applicants stated that they were going to renovate a house on the lake. Its, there's no indication of that anywhere on the plans. Chairman Shickle: If, I guess, if you had the presentation and the minutes of the meeting, could you reconcile the presentation to that latest master plan. Eric Lawrence: I, from a comfort level, if it's stated in a motion from you all, if its specifically stated in discussion, specifically stated in a motion as you are passing on authority to staff to finalize the document, I'm, I've got a comfort level there. If its not mentioned by you all.. Chairman Shickle: Well I guess I find myself wanting to try to recall what was said and then almost wanting to go back and read what is a fair amount of small print to see if it said that or if it needs to get changed or not. I find myself sort of in that position. Eric Lawrence: We certainly like to present to you, and have it in your packet, a document that has all of the i's dotted and t's crossed. So you know exactly what you are looking at. Chairman Shickle: Do we really have that document right now? Eric Lawrence: I don't think you have that in your possessions simply because I received another document yesterday, which you all don't have. Chairman Shickle: Okay. Other questions. Supervisor Forrester: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Shickle: Supervisor Forrester. Supervisor Forrester: Yeah, Mr. Lawrence, is the 7 Yz foot strip notated on the master development plan as being the sole means of access for the construction traffic. Eric Lawrence: The 7 Yz feet? Group: 75 feet. Supervisor Forrester: The 75 feet I mean, I'm sorry. Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 543 Eric Lawrence: There is a notation that states, it doesn't say it will be the sole access. There is a notation on this plan, which points to the 70 foot strip and.... Chairman Shickle: For clarification, that plan is not the one here right? Eric Lawrence: Right. It's the plan that I have. It's not the plan that you all have. It may be on your plan, I don't know, but the plan I'm looking at, it says temporary construction access and it points an arrow to your 70 foot, but it doesn't say that's the sole access, ifthat was your question. Supervisor Forrester: Are there any provisions or stipulations that ensure that it would be even installed or used at all? Eric Lawrence: If, the way it's noted here, it says its temporary construction. It doesn't necessarily state that that is the sole access and doesn't say that they have to use it for construction. It just, I guess you could interpret it says it's an available alternative because it doesn't state that that is the way to get on the property. It's open for interpretation. Supervisor Forrester: Okay, so you're saying that there are no stipulations really. Eric Lawrence: Yeah. Vice-Chairman Van Osten: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to follow up on that. So, in other words, that (end of side of tape.) Eric Lawrence: The access, they could elect not to use it. I think that is what you're asking. Chairman Shickle: Other questions of staff? Supervisor Dove: I don't know if we have a plan here we can approve. Chairman Shickle: Supervisor Forrester what's your pleasure? Eric Lawrence: I'm sorry, I thought you had a question. Supervisor Forrester: No, I was waiting for you. Do you say that all of the conditions have been satisfied? Eric Lawrence: I mean the biggest thing that jumps out is the community center keeps. There's been discussion on it, but it hasn't shown up in any of the revisions. So that alone suggests that there's an outstanding issue floating around. Supervisor Forrester: Okay then. Eric Lawrence: But there are little ones. Supervisor Forrester: Then I will move to deny this application based on the applicant's Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 544 failure to meet the request our zoning ordinances. Supervisor Tyler: Second. Chairman Shickle: We have a motion by Supervisor Forrester and a second by Supervisor Tyler. Discussion? Supervisor Forrester: Just a comment, I would expect, expected to have had this worked out prior to our being up here having this public meeting. I really don't like this approach where that we're receiving documents the evening of. It doesn't give anyone time to really take a look at them. I think it would curry some good will if the applicant would at least respect our process by turning things in a timely manner. Chairman Shickle: Other comments or discussion? Hearing none, we'll vote. Supervisor Dove. Supervisor Dove: Aye. Chairman Shickle: Supervisor. This is a motion to deny. Supervisor Tyler. Supervisor Tyler: Aye. Chairman Shickle: Supervisor Van Osten. Vice-Chairman Van Osten: Aye. Chairman Shickle: Supervisor Smith. Supervisor Smith: Aye. Chairman Shickle: Supervisor Forrester. Supervisor Forrester: Aye. Chairman Shickle: Supervisor Ewing. Supervisor Ewing: Aye. Chairman Shickle: The Chairman votes aye and the motion to deny is unanimously approved. The master plan is not approved. BOARD LIAISON REPORTS There were no Board Liaison reports. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were no citizen comments. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Supervisor Forrester thanked staff for answering all of her questions over the last few weeks. Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04 545 ADJOURN UPON A MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR EWING, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR SMITH, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. (9:26 P.M.) i\)r-,(;,..,'- r:, \\ .::::..- --x.. ----l(., '--_-?"-~_J.L__~~~ Richard C. Shickle Chairman, Board of Supervisors Minutes Prepared By: (-""~ EI.'/~ Jay E. Ti s Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minute Book Number 29 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of OS/26/04