Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 07, 1980 to May 21, 1980355 A Public Hearing on the proposed Fiscal Year 1981 Budget was held on the 7th day of May, 1980, at 7:00 P.M. in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT: S. Roger Koontz, Chairman; Will L. Owings, Vice Chairman; William H. Baker; Rhoda W. Maddox; R. Thomas Malcolm; and Kenneth Y. Stiles. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order. RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSED • The Chairman presented rules of procedure which he requested be followed for the public hearing on the proposed budget. Following a brief discussion, the Board agreed to read the rules prior to the beginning of the public hearing in order to inform the participants of the guidelines to be followed. HEARING ADJOURNED TO JAMES WOOD HIGH SCHOOL Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles, and ' passed unanimously the hearing was adjourned to the multipurpose room at James Wood High School due to the limited space in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room. • Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles and passed unanimously, the Board agreed to relocate the hearing to the auditorium of James Wood High School due to the large number of people in attendance for public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING - FISCAL YEAR 1981 BUDGET The Chairman welcomed the citizens to the public hearing on the proposed budget, stating that the budget represents the amount of money planned to be spent on the services available to the citizens of this County. He explained the purpose of the budget stating that in essence it determines the type of • I community in which we live. The Chairman read the rules of procedure to be followed during the public hearing. The Chairman then introduced Mr. William H. Baker, Chairman of the Finance Committee, who read the explanation of the-.fiscal plan set forth on Page 1 of t budget. He stated that this explanation sets forth the methods followed by the Finance Committee to bring the deficit from $2.3 million to $422,000. Mr. Baker stated that the Finance Committee recommended that any unexpended funds from 1979 -1980 budget be applied to the capital facilities project and the same would • apply to unexpended funds in the 1980 -81 budget. He advised that the Committee further recommended that a quarterly review be made of the budget in order to insure that the document is adhered to and that funds expended be used in the year 1981 -82. The Chairman then asked for comments from the floor. Ms. Pat Patton of Opequon District appeared before the Board in support of the proposed budget and stated that an increase in school expenditures is cost effective. She reviewed the need for adequate salaries for teachers stating th the beneficiaries of good education are the children who will ultimately be the 356 leaders in the future. Mrs. Patton stated that the teachers salaries in Winches were the highest in the area followed by Clarke County, Frederick County, and Warren County. She noted that she had sent out forms through the Bass Hoover Elementary School to determine how parents felt about the increase in teachers salaries and she had received back 124 in favor and only one in opposition. Mr. Stiles asked how many forms had been sent out and Mrs. Patton replied .M Mrs. Retha Crosen of Gainesboro District appeared before the Board in support of the school budget. She stated that she felt the increase in teachers salaries was crucial to maintaining good, quality education in the County. She urged the Board to approve the budget as presented. Reverend Conrad Christianson of Gainesboro District appeared before the Board in support of the school budget stating that we are not only educating our chi for the County but for the state and nation and therefore we need to equip them with the best education possible. Manuel Semples of Stonewall District appeared before the Board in support of the school budget stating that the teachers need this increase because of the large rise in the cost of living over the past few years. He urged the Board to approve the increase in order to maintain quality education in the County system. Mr. Bill Reuter from Stonewall District appeared before the Board in opposi- tion to the budget and asked what services the farmer receives for his taxes. He stated that he felt the farmers were overassessed and pay the taxes for other people. He stated that he felt the elderly should be exempt from full taxation. Mr. Bill Owens from Opequon District appeared before the Board in support of the budget and stated that he felt his taxes were grossly low for the size house he owns. He added that he would be glad to pay additional taxes inasmuch as there has not been an increase for the past several years in the tax rate. He added that for the County services he receives, such as schools, parks and recreation, etc., he is getting his money's worth. Mrs. Mae Wakeman from Opequon District appeared before the Board in opposi- tion to the proposed 128 increase stating that she had worked in industry for 23 years and has never received a 128 increase. Mr. Leo Clowser of Gainesboro District appeared and stated that he was con- cerned about the across - the -board increase. He questioned the amount set forth for the Board of Supervisors and Mr. Stiles explained that this includes the sa of the Board members, the salaries for 1 1/ 2- :,positions,:agendas,.postage - etc. Mr. Clowser questioned the Sheriff's budget in the amount of $960,994, the $138,258 expenditure for building permits when construction in on the decline, and $628,497 for parks and recreation which was mainly for maintenance. Mr. Koontz replied that the parks and recreation figure is for the operation of the parks, and maintenance and upkeep and equipment needed for the parks. He added that there is also a revenue side to the parks and recreation budget such as fees paid by the various ball teams to participate in the Mr. Clowser stated that it seemed a very small percentage of the citizens were taking advantage of the parks and recreation facilities due to the location • n • • 7 7 .I • 357 Board fully understands the budget and further that the vote on the budget should be withheld until such time as the conflict of interest issue involving Mr. Koontz and Mr. Malcolm is resolved. He stated that he felt the increase should be an increment one and not an and it seemed to be a special group inasmuch as all we have are ball fields. He 1979 graduate of James Wood and stated that he did not feel the Board was fullfilling the desires of the people in support of the budget as of Frederick County. He stated that the budget represents a $7,000 expenditure school system per person based on a 30,000 population. He added that he did not think the Board fully understands the budget and further that the vote on the budget should be withheld until such time as the conflict of interest issue involving Mr. Koontz and Mr. Malcolm is resolved. He stated that he felt the increase should be an increment one and not an presented especially the school budget. He stated that the school system is of vital importance to the County. He added that a group of concerned parents had met and although there are rising inflationary pressures, they recognize the necessity of supporting the County school system. Ms. Mary C. Butler of Gainesboro District appeared in support of the across - the -board increase. salaries stating that she was a 1979 graduate of James Wood and • Roger Zebarth of Shawnee District appeared in support of the budget as presented especially the school budget. He stated that the school system is of vital importance to the County. He added that a group of concerned parents had met and although there are rising inflationary pressures, they recognize the necessity of supporting the County school system. Ms. Mary C. Butler of Gainesboro District appeared in support of the above the call of duty. Ms. Butler stated that if the teachers increase is not approved, the system will lose their good teachers and the people who will real lose are the students. Mr. Thomas Rosenberger of Back Creek District appeared before the Board and stated that he had a great deal of respect for the Frederick County school syst He expressed concern regarding funding for capital facilities and Mr. Malcolm replied that the timetable tentatively established was 36 months but this could be extended if necessary. He added that the amount of money which has been set • �I aside, along with unexpended funds from this year's budget, and next year's budget, will be applied toward this project and he felt this would be sufficient 1 11 to match with the city's funds to get the project underway. Mr. Rosenberger expressed concern regarding the impact of the tax increase proposed in the budget on many citizens in the County who will have a difficult time paying their taxes. He further. stated that he wanted to go on record as supporting Mr. Stile's position on this budget in that he felt his outlook was proper.and more money should have.been put in capital facilities and less in II salaries. • Ms. Kim Elliott of Gainesboro District appeared in support of the teachers salary increase. She added that the teachers are trying to catch up with in- flation and if salaries are not raised the quality teachers will be lost. She stated that the students are in support of the salary increase and urged the Board to give them a fair chance for a quality education. Ms. JoAnne Clowser of Gainesboro District appeared before the Board and stated that she felt the teachers deserve a salary increase but she objected to the tradition of all County employees getting the across - the -board increase. in teachers' salaries stating that she was a 1979 graduate of James Wood and appreciates the background received from the County in that she school system it has made her college classes much easier. She stated that the teachers • .deserve this increase inasmuch as they work hard and spend many hours over and above the call of duty. Ms. Butler stated that if the teachers increase is not approved, the system will lose their good teachers and the people who will real lose are the students. Mr. Thomas Rosenberger of Back Creek District appeared before the Board and stated that he had a great deal of respect for the Frederick County school syst He expressed concern regarding funding for capital facilities and Mr. Malcolm replied that the timetable tentatively established was 36 months but this could be extended if necessary. He added that the amount of money which has been set • �I aside, along with unexpended funds from this year's budget, and next year's budget, will be applied toward this project and he felt this would be sufficient 1 11 to match with the city's funds to get the project underway. Mr. Rosenberger expressed concern regarding the impact of the tax increase proposed in the budget on many citizens in the County who will have a difficult time paying their taxes. He further. stated that he wanted to go on record as supporting Mr. Stile's position on this budget in that he felt his outlook was proper.and more money should have.been put in capital facilities and less in II salaries. • Ms. Kim Elliott of Gainesboro District appeared in support of the teachers salary increase. She added that the teachers are trying to catch up with in- flation and if salaries are not raised the quality teachers will be lost. She stated that the students are in support of the salary increase and urged the Board to give them a fair chance for a quality education. Ms. JoAnne Clowser of Gainesboro District appeared before the Board and stated that she felt the teachers deserve a salary increase but she objected to the tradition of all County employees getting the across - the -board increase. 358 Mrs. Katherine Monte of Opequon District appeared before the Board and stated are paid there, but New York is also bankrupt. She urged the Board to consider that her family has lived in New York for over 150 years and marvelous salaries this in making their budget decision. Mr. Charles Boyd of Stonewall District appeared before the Board and stated that from his viewpoint as a small businessman, he felt that where there is a will there is a way and that there were other issues before the Board than money. Ms. Brenda McIntyre of Stonewall District appeared in support of the pay raise for teachers. She compared the teaching profession to prostitution, stating they are the oldest professions known to..man; that teaching is-respectable but.-not very profitable while prostitution is profitable and not very respectable. She urged that the Board approve the increase in order to insure quality teachers in the Frederick County school system. Dr. Raymond L. Fish of Gainesboro District appeared before the Board and stated that noone would object to a raise in taxes if they knew it would be re- turned 30 to 50 fold, but this is not the case in that some people do not know if they will ever have a salary increase. He questioned the way the budget had been prepared and asked why the most important question regarding the budget, that being salaries, was decided with- out deference to the Finance Committee and without deference to the other Board members. Dr. Fish asked why an inordinately large pay raise for all County employees was recommeded by the Chairman who will benefit by several thousand dollars by this recommendation and why are the higher paid employees receiving a considerably larger raise than-the lower paid personnel. Dr. Fish then questioned the makeup of the Finance Committee asking why the chairman of this important committee was given to a neophyte member and why was the minority party excluded from this committee entirely. Mr. Bob Hart of Stonewall District appeared before the Board and requested that funds be reinstated in the school budget for the activity buses in order that students might continue to participate in extracurricular activities. Mr. Jim Hall of.Shawnee District appeared before the Board and stated that of 95 counties in Virginia in 1978, Frederick County was lower than 76 and higher than 16 (Frederick County was 17th from the bottom). He added that of 41 cities, Frederick County was lower than all. He stated that he supported the teachers' raises but questioned across - the -board raises. He added that our children are our greatest asset and it is'our responsibility to provide them the best possible education. Mr. James Moyer of Shawnee District appeared representing the Frederick Coun Taxpayers Association and stated that they had passed a two -part resolution and the theme they were presenting was moderation and equitability and if there should be a salary increase it should reflect anit - inflation guidelines as set by Preside Carter. He added that the second part of.the resolution relates to equitablility and that those on the higher end of the scale will receive a higher increase than • • 1 • 359 on the lower end. He stated that the taxpayers support the merit pay issue. Mrs. Madeline Wade of Gainesboro District appeared in support of the pro- , posed budget and stated that the citizens of Frederick County are getting a bargain in the educational system in the County in that the amount of money spent is much lower than the national average and considerably lower than the local average; that the County is getting award winners on the national, state and local levels. Ms. Wade stated that teachers in the County spend an average of $3,000 a month from their own pocket for extra supplies for the students in the system which they feel the children need. She stated that all people • involved in the system are not paid fairly. She added that education is expens- ive, but ignorance is disasterous. Mr. Sam Lehman of Back Creek District and Vice President of the Taxpayers Association appeared and stated that he felt the County wasted over $1 million dollars on the steepness of the Campus II site and more when we locked our County into transporting all our high school students from our whole 440 square mile area to it and Campus I for the foreseeable future. He added that to com- pete with other high schools that large, we must bus our teams up to 100 miles • each way. Mr. Lehman stated that our county government has spent hundreds of thousand of dollars of our rural taxes to plan, zone and sewerran 6 times the size of Winchester, an urban voting majority in our tax jurisdiction whose service costs could dispossess most of our rural residents. He added that we tax appraise that 108 of the county land at 1/5 to 1 /10 of its fair market value (until it is developed); and we use -tax half the land in the County 1/3 as much as the other half, despite little difference in the land or its use. Mr. Lehman stated that this budget taxes $900,00 from everyone's electricit and phone bills,,but taxes the Frederick County Sanitation Authority property • and bills not at all, and provides it office space free, although it serves less than 1/6 of this county's residents. He added that 608 of the Sanitation Authority's 12 years revenue came from government loans and grants and although our Red Bud sewage treatment plant is now operating at only 1/4 capacity, the County has committed another $225,000 of our taxes for a regional plant which will sewer 1/5 of Frederick County. He noted that the Board had appropriated $200,00 to sewer a private developer's mall and gave $20,000 to Amoco's stock- holders by paying for their water line; that the $40,000 water tank for fire • protection at Campus II has grown by $271,000 of our federal taxes to service a big new area for_uzb�n growth. Mr. Lehman added that we now have 5 times as much park land as national urban standards call for but it is in a couple of big chunks that most county children never see. He noted that this budget will spend 13 times as much on recreation operations as users are willing to pay fees for. Mr. Lehman stated that the Taxpayers Association felt that Mr. Koontz ' and Mr. Malcolm should abstain from voting on the budget inasmuch as it affects their working conditions and wealth. 360 Pastor John Gowdy of Back Creek District appeared in support of the budget and stated that he felt 128 was not enough. He added that where he works, the company is negotiating a contract which would make this one look sick and that the last contract negotiated by his company would also make the proposed budget look sick. He stated that he did not feel the teachers were getting what they were worth. He cited the effect of Proposition 13 stating that it was disasterous but it did not effect education. He added that he wanted the best education for the young people and he'felt the school budget should be expanded and the activity buses continued; that the low salaries should be adjusted 108 and then begin work on the 128 increase. Mr. Stiles announced that he would hold a public meeting in his district on May 8, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. at Stonewall Elementary School to discuss the budget. He invited anyone who wanted to attend to do so. The Chairman thanked all the participants for speaking on the budget and stated that all their comments would be considered very carefully when a decision is made on the budget. UPON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT HE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW ADJOURN. A.Regular Meeting of the Frederick County _Board of Supervisors was,held_on _ . ChaiVman , the 14th day of May, 1980, at 7:00 P.M. in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT: S. Roger Koontz, Chairman; Will L. Owings, Vice - Chairman; William H. Baker; Rhoda W. Maddox; R. Thomas Malcolm; and Kenneth Y. Stiles. fLlerk, Board of Supervisors F_ I L C , J • CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order. INVOCATION The invocation was delivered by the Reverend James Guthrie of the Burnt Presbyterian Church. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Stiles stated that in the minutes of April 23, 1980, on Page 6 regarding the renewal of the winterization program, the vote on this issue should be corrected to show that he voted Nay. The Board concurred with this correction. Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles, seconded by Will L. Owings, and passed unanimously, the minutes of the Regular Meetings of March 26, 1980, April 9, 1980 and April 23, 1980 were approved with the above correction. Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles, seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm, and passed unanimously, the Board approved the minutes of the Public Hearing held on May 7, 1980 on the Fiscal Year 1981 Budget. LJ • 1 361 ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Stiles requested that a matter of concern which had been raised by several ' u residents in his district be added to the agenda for referral to the proper com- mittee for study and recommendation. The Board concurred. Mr. Malcolm asked if Mr. Fred Stine would appear before the Board tonight to discuss the access road into his industrial park and Mr. White advised that he had talked with Mr. Stine and he would prefer to appear at the May 28th meeting inasmuch as he would have more complete plans by that date to present to the Board. • II Upon motion made by Will L. Owings, seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm and passed I unanimously, the Board adopted the agenda with the amendment set forth above. APPOINTMENTS TO SCHOOL BOARD - VIRGINIA L. CONNER AND CHARLES HOTT - APPROVED Mr. Stiles moved to table the appointments to the School Board until the May 28th meeting inasmuch as Judge Woltz ruling that Mr. Koontz and Mr. Malcolm could vote on the issue was rendered at such a late hour, thereby precluding the filing of an appeal this date. He noted that he felt the matter would be appealed ' and therefore felt the appointments should be delayed in order to provide the attorneys time to file an appeal in this case. The motion died for a lack of a • second. Mr. Baker introduced his nominee, Mrs. Virginia L. Conner to the Board and stated that her integrity was beyond reproach and he felt she would be a great asset to the School Board. Mr. Stiles asked Mrs. Conner to state her views regarding public employees collective bargaining. Mrs. Conner stated that insofar as binding arbitration and collective bargaining are concerned, if the School Board was dealing with a legally recognized union, she felt they would be bound to abide by the law. She added that if there is not a legally recognized union, then the School Board must use its judgement and consider the circumstances in reaching a decision. Mrs. • Conner stated that if Mr. Stiles was speaking of school employees, the School ' Board would have to use whatever remedies are within the law to settle any kind of salary negotiations if there is no union. Mr. Stiles then asked Mrs. Conner if she has talked with any of the other Board Members and she replied that she had, but not to the extent she had talked with him. Mr. Stiles then stated that he would like to make a statement; that if he milked cows for a person other than his mother, he would, of course, be prevented • from voting on any issue this person might bring before the Board because he would be his employer. He added that he had researched this matter at length with attorneys and would suggest that the situation with Mr. Koontz and Mr. Malcolm in this matter is the same. The Chairman stated that Mr. Stiles was out of order and requested him to refrain from presenting a general philosophy. Mr. Stiles replied that he had never been a part of a public body or viewed a public body where the chairman could arbitrarily cut off discussion on an issue. The Chairman replied that if Mr. Stiles had questions of Mrs. Conner, they 362 would be permitted but addressing other Board Members would be ruled out of order. Mr. Stiles stated that in light of the Chairman's ruling, he must protest the attempt of the Chairman to keep him from stating his opinion and he felt the Chair- man's effort -to prevent statements from becoming part of the record is just another indication of conflict of interest. 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 appoint Mrs. Virginia L. Conner to serve as the representative from Back Creek District on the Frederick County School Board for a term of four (4) years, said term to commence on July 1, 1980 and terminate on June 30, 1984. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - Kenneth Y. Stiles, William H. Baker, Rhoda W. Maddox and Will L. Owings. Abstaining - R. Thomas Malcolm stating that inasmuch as the order was entered at 5:00 P.M. and is not yet an official decree, he would abstain from voting on the matter. Mr. Koontz abstained for the same reason. Mr. Charles Hott then appeared before the Board as the nominee from the Stone- wall District. Mr. Baker asked Mr. Stiles if he would ask the same question of his nominee as he had of Mrs. Conner and Mr. Stiles replied that he would. Mr. Hott replied that personally he did not favor either one for public employees. Mr. Stiles stated that the only reason he had asked this question was because when he was advocating a change in the selection process for school board members, he had made the statement that this would be the only particular issue which would affect his vote on a nominee and he felt this was important. Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles and seconded by Will L. Owings, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein appoint Mr. Charles Hott to serve as the representative from Stonewall District on the Frederick County School Board for a term of four (4) years said term to commence on July 1, 1980 and terminate on June 30, 1984. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - Kenneth Y. Stiles, William H. Baker, Rhoda W. Maddox and Will L. Owings. Abstaining - R. Thomas Malcolm and S. Roger Koontz for the same reason set forth in the fore- going resolution of appointment of Mrs. Conner. RESOLUTION ON ABANDONMENT OF SECTIONS OF ROUTE 761 - APPROVED Upon motion made by Rhoda W. Maddox and seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles, WHEREAS, Secondary Route 671, from .08 miles west of Route 741, to .76 miles west of Route 741, a distance of .68 miles, has been altered, and a new road has been constructed and approved by the State Highway and Transportation Commissioner, which new road serves the same citizens as the road so altered; and, WHEREAS, Certain sections of this new road follow new locations, these being shown on the attached sketch titled, "Changeb in Secondary System Due to Relocation and Construction on Route 671, Project 0671 - 034 -135, C501, dated at Richmond, Virginia, February 25, 1980" NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the portions of Secondary Route 671, i.e., Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, shown in red on the sketch titled, "Changes in Secondary System Due to Relocation and Construction on Route 671, Project 0671- 034 -135, C501, dated at Richmond, Virginia, February 25, 1980," a total distance J E C , J n LA E i I .363 of .53 miles, be, and hereby is, added to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to Section 33.1 -229 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. And further, that the sections of old locations, i.e., Sections 1, 2, 3, 4A, and 6, shown in blue on the aforementioned sketch, a total distance of .45 miles be, and the same hereby are abandoned as a public road, pursuant to Section 33.1- 299 of the Code of Virginia, of 1950, as amended. And further, that the section of old location, i.e., Section 5, shown in • green on the aforementioned sketch, a total distance of .03 miles be retained in the Secondary System of State Highways. And further, that the connection to Route 671, i.e., Section 12, shown in brown on the aforementioned sketch, a total distance of .04 miles, be, and hereby is, added to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to Section 33.1 -229 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. And further, that the State Highway and Transportation Commission be • to take the necessary action to discontinue the section of old location, i.e., Section 4, shown in yellow on the aforementioned sketch, a total distance of .08 miles, as a part of the Secondary System of State Highways as provided in Section 33.1 -150 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. 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 and Kenneth Y. Stiles. FOR SECONDARY ADDITION - ASH HOLLOW CIRCLE IN ASH HOLLOW 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, 1 Virginia, does herein request the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta- tion to accept into the Secondary Road System the following road in Ash Hollow Industrial Park, in Stonewall Magisterial District, pursuant to the provisions of Section 33.1 -299 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended: Ash Hollow Circle - from Route 7, Southeast .21 miles to cul -de -sac - Length 21 miles BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this Board does guarantee the Commonwealth of Virginia an unrestricted right -of -way of sixty (60) feet with necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage recorded in Deed Book 495, Page 282, dated July 20, 1978; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this request is contingent upon the posting • of a proper and acceptable bond with the Virginia Department of Highways. 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. WINTERIZATION PROGRAM REPORT P Mr. Raymond Ratcliffe, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Lord Fair- i fax 27th Planning District Winterization Program, appeared before the Board and presented a report regarding the goals and objectives of the winterization progr stating that they have now received their charter and are moving forward as quickly as possible. He noted that they would be glad to have a representative from the Board of Supervisors to work with them on this project should the Board so desire. He explained the guidelines to be followed regarding workers in the -364 program, funding, eligibility requirements, etc. Mr. Ratcliffe stated that if a Supervisor knew of a person who needed this service in his district, he could contact Mr. Michael Toht of the Shenandoah Area Agency on Aging. The Chairman thanked Mr. Ratcliffe for his presentation. FISCAL YEAR 1981 BUDGET AND TAX RATE APPROVED Mr. Baker, Chairman of the Finance Committee, presented a resolution approving the Fiscal Year 1981 Budget and Tax Rate and moved for the approval of same. The motion was seconded by Will L. Owings. Mr. Stiles presented information to the Board Members he had gathered regardinc the budget and its impact in the next several years. :!He-reviewed brieflyathe figure set forth in the data and stated that he felt the Board was passing a budget, $19 million dollars of which the Board has not spent thirty seconds talking about. He stated that he objected to the fact that the tax increase is being blamed on previ- ous Boards; that he felt it was unfair to give pay raises wherein two teachers could receive different raises; that the Board had refused to exercise its legal authority to make categorical cuts in the school budget. Mr. Stiles stated that as far as he is concerned, he felt this budget represents the democrats on the board using tax dollars to pay -off the leadership of the teachers union for their support in last Fall's election, which he felt was contemptible. Upon motion made by William H. Baker and seconded by Will L. Owings, WHEREAS, A notice of public hearing and a budget synopsis has been published and a public hearing held on May 7, 1980, in accordance with Title 15.1, Chapter 4, Section 15.1 -162 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, that the budget for the 1980 -1981, fiscal year, as outlined in the document entitled "Fiscal Plan 1980 -1981, Frederick County, Virginia ", be hereby approved in the amount of $22,976,437 and that appropriations in the amount of $22,976,437 be hereby authorized for the 1980 -1981 fiscal year; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein adopt the tax rate for the fiscal year 1980 -1981 as herein presented at a rate of $2.95 to be applied to real estate and the rate of $4.00 to be applied to personal property; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That appropriations are hereby authorized for the Central Stores Fund, Special Welfare Fund, School Textbook Fund and Unemployment Compensation Fund equal to the total cash balance on hand at July 1, 1980, plus the total amount of receipts for the fiscal year 1980 -1981; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the fund structure and the Uniform System of Accounts as presented in the "Fiscal Plan 1980 - 1981 ", is herein approved for the County of Frederick, Virginia. 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. SITE PLAN #007 -80 - ASH HOLLOW ESTATES - STONEWALL DISTRICT - APPROVED Mr. John Riley presented the site plan request of Ash Hollow Estates and read the comments from the reviewing agencies. He noted that the Planning Commiss- 365 ion unanimously recommended approval of this plan. There was no public comment. Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles and seconded by Will L. Owings, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve Site Plan #007 -80 of Ash Hollow Estates on the north side of Route 659 in the Stonewall Magisterial District containing 61 townhouse units and parking on 10.6 acres. 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 Malcolr and Kenneth Y. Stiles. SITE PLAN #008 -80 - C & S BANK - WITHDRAWN Mr. Riley advised that site plan #008 -80 of C & S Bank had been withdrawn and the operation will be closed within 60 to 90 days. Mr. Stiles advised that the Planning Commission had discovered that there C 1 J is no provision in the ordinance to prevent a business being operated from a trailer in a B District. 'He noted that he had requested Mr. Riley to draft in trailers but not permanent ones. an ordinance to address this matter; that temporary businesses would be permitted PUBLIC HEARINGS AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 21 TO AMEND SECTION 21- 149(e) AND SECTION 21- 149(8) - THIRD AN READING - APPROVED Mr. Riley presented the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance stating that the purpose of the amendment was to have final review of site plans at the Planning Commission level with the stipulation that the applicant would have the right of appeal to the Board of Supervisors should he not be satisfied with the Planning Commission decision. There was no public comment. 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 approve, on third and final reading, the following ord amendment: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK JULY 12. 1978. TO AMEND SECTION 21. R 21, ZONING, ADOPTED This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption by the Board • of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia. Section 21- 149(e) - Site development plans which conform to the standards and requirements of this article shall be approved or modified by the Planning Commission or by their authorized agent. Section 21- 149(g) - Approval, modification and approval, or disapproval, of a site development plan by the Planning Commission or its agent shall occur within ninety days of filing of the required documents in the office of the agent, unless abnormal circumstances exist in which case the time may be extended by the action of the Planning Commission. 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. i _6 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 21, ZONING TO AMEND SECTIONS 21 -1; 21- 16(L); 21- 26(L); 21 -35; 21- 36(L); DELETE SECTION 21- 36(m); AMEND SECTION 21 -43; 21- 44(c); DELETE SECTION 21- 44(7.): AMEND SECTION 21 -52(i) AND DELETE SECTION .21 -52(p) - THI AND FINAL READING - APPROVED Mr. Riley presented the proposed amendments to the home occupation sections of the Zoning Ordinance stating that the purpose of the amendments, is to require a conditional use permit for all home occupations; to allow home occupations in an agricultural district from an accessory structure; and to prohibit home occupations from accessory structures in residential districts. Mr. Stiles stated that he was not in complete agreement with the banning of home occupations in accessory structures in residential districts and this may very well have to be addressed in the future. Mr. Riley stated that the ordinance would probably need refining in the but this would be a starting point wherein the Planning Commission can monitor home occupations and perfect the ordinance as required. Mr. Owings moved to table the ordinance amendment until such time as further clarification is made. Mr. Baker seconded the motion and it was defeated by the following recorded vote: Aye - Will L. Owings, William H. Baker and S. Roger Koontz. Nay - Kenneth Y. Stiles , R. Thomas Malcolm, and Rhoda W. Maddox. There followed a brief discussion regarding the need for this amendment and Mr. Malcolm stated that he felt the most important fact was that we do not now have an ordinance; that if there are problems, they may dictate the solution. Mr. Riley stated that this was the feeling of the Planning Commission and the ordinance could be amended when necessary. There was no public comment'. Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles and seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve the following ordinance on third and final reading: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 21, ZONING, ADOPTED JULY 12, 1978, TO AMEND SECTION 21 -1; AMEND SECTION 21- 16(L); AMEND SECTION 21- 26(L); AMEND SECTION 21 -35: AMEND SECTION 21- 36(L): DELETE SECTION 21- 26(m); AMEND SECTION 21 -43: AMEND SECTION 21- 44(c): DELETE SECTION 21- 44(1,); AMEND SECTION _21 - 52 (i); DELETE SECTION 21 -52(p) This ordinance shall be in (full force and effect upon adoption by the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia. Section 21 -1 Home Occupation - Agricultural Any occupation or business use conducted entirely within a dwelling house, by members of the family residing on the premises, and is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the building excluding commercial repair or storage of automobiles, or other motor vehicles, or restaurants. Home Occupation - Residential Any occupation carried on within a dwelling use by the occupant of the dwelling, as an incidental secondary use in connection with which there is no display, and no one is employed other than members of the family residing on the premises such as professional offices (e.g. medical, dental, legal, engineering and architectural) con- ducted within a dwelling house by the occupant. Home Occupation- Accessory Structure (Agricu ltural): Any occupation or business, as defined in and permitted by this ordinance, conducted entirely within any existing accessory structure by members of the family residing on the immediate premises, and that is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the parcel or premises; provided, however, that the following conditions are met in addition to all other applicable restrictions (a) The Planning Commission may require adequate screening to protect surrounding properties from sight, noise, dust, or any other adverse effects of any home occupation in an accessory structure. is • • • (b) There shall be no adverse effects on surrounding properties. 367 Section 21 -16(L) - Home Occupation - Agricultural as defined, only with a conditional use permit. ' Section 21 -26(L) - Home Occupation - Agricultural as defined, only with a conditional use permit. Section 21 -35 - Home Occupations are permitted with a conditional use permit. Section 21 -36(L) - Home Occupation - Residential as defined, only with a conditional use permit. Section 21 -36(m) - Home Occupation- accessory structure: delete. Section 21 -43 - Home occupations are permitted with a conditional use permit Section 21 -44(c) - Home Occupation - Residential as defined, only with a • conditional use permit. Section 21 -44(L) - Home occupations- accessory structure: delete. Section 21 -52(i) - Home Occupation - Residential as defined, only with a conditional use permit. Section 21 -52(p) - Home occupations- accessory structure: delete. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Rhoda W. Maddox, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. Nay - Will L. Owings and William H. Baker. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 21, ZONING TO • AMEND SECTION 21 -13 - THIRD AND FINAL READING - APPROVED Mr. Riley presented the ordinance amendment to Section 21 -13 of the County Code and stated that this amendment addresses off - street parking and loading and that the Planning Commission recommended approval of this amendment. Mr. Malcolm asked what criteria had been used to develop this amendment and Mr. Riley replied that they had used well founded criteria and experience; information from manuals and other ordinances used in counties the same size as Frederick County were also utilized. Mr. Stiles stated that there is a provision in Section 12 of the ordinance wherein the Public Works Director can approve parking lots which are not paved • when paving is not necessary. There was no public comment. ' Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles and seconded by William H. Baker, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve the following ordinance amendment on third and final reading: • AN ORDINANCE COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 21, ZONING TnN 91-IA Sec. 21 -13. Off - Street Parking and Loading Sec. 21 -13.1 Off - Street Parking Off- street automobile storage or parking space shall be provided on every lot, tract, or parcel on which any permitted use or special exception is established in accordance with this Ordinance. (a) General Requirements: For the purpose of this section, the following general requirements are specified: (1) The parking requirements above are in addition to space for storage of trucks, campers, recreation vehicles; or other similar vehicles used in connection with any use. (3) The parking requirements in this Article do not limit specia requirements which may be imposed, at the time of approval of a conditional use permit or special exception. (2) The parking requirements in this Article do not limit other parking requirements contained in the district regulations. •i (4) Where fractional spaces result, the parking spaces required shall be construed to be the next highest whole number. (5) Except as otherwise provided, the number of employees shall be compiled on the basis of the maximum number of persons employed on the premises at one time on an average day or average night, whichever is greater. Seasonal variations in employment may be recognized in determining an average day. (6) The-parking space requirements for a use� specifically listed in the chart shall be the same as for a listed use of similar characteristics of parking demand generation. (7) In the case of mixed uses, uses with different parking requirements occupying the same building or premises, or in the case of joint use of a building or premises by more than one use having the same parking requirements, the parking spaces required shall equal the sum of the requirements of the various uses computed separately. (8) Whenever a building or use is changed or enlarged in floor area, number of employees, number of dwelling units, seating capacity or otherwise, to create a need under the requirements of this Article for an increase in parking spaces of 10 percent or more, such additional spaces shall be provided on the basis of the change or enlargement. No additional spaces shall be required for the first change or enlargement which would result in an increase of spaces of less than 10 percent of those required before the change or enlargement, but this exception shall not apply to a series of changes or enlargements which together result in a need for an increase in parking space of 10 percent or more. (9) All off - street automobile storage or parking facilities shall be designed with appropriate means of vehicular access to a street or lane. However, except for single - family and two - family dwellings fronting on a minor or local street, no required off - street parking facilities shall be arranged so as to require backing from the space directly onto a public street. (10) General off - street parking plans shall be submitted as part of the proposed site plans. Such plans shall show the proposed layout of all parking areas, the total number of off - street parking spaces to be provided, and the dimensions of the typical individual parking space. Off - street parking plans including driveways and curb cuts shall be approved by the Planning Commission staff. (11) Individual parking spaces shall have the minimum dimensions of ten (10) feet in width and twenty (20) feet in length unless off - street parking is to be provided in common parking bays or lots, in which case the minimum dimensions may be reduced by the Planning Commission. (12) All common off - street parking facilities, including spaces and maneuvering area shall be graded to provide adequate drainage. All such facilities, with the exception of those'in an agricultural'zone,'shall be paved with a double prime and seal surface or equivalent surface. Within an agricultural zone, the County Department of Public Works may approve other] types of surfaces provided; (1) all areas are capable of accommodating the maximum anticipated traffic without significant deterioration of the surface, (2) all areas shall remain open and accessible to parking at all times, (3) there are no adverse effects on surrounding properties. All entrances or exits to common off - street parking areas shall be surfaced with the same material as the adjoining highway, road, or street. All required off - street parking areas shall be maintained to provide safe access. (13) Along those lot lines of parking area which abut residential districts, a solid, artificial or compact, natural screen of no less than five (5) feet in height shall be erected or planted. The screen shall begin five (5) feet from the right -of -way line of a public street and continue for the entire length of the property lines abutting a residential district. (14) No curb cuts shall be allowed within fifty (50) feet of the intersection of the right -of -way line of two public streets. Except in residential zones, no curb cut which is cut shall be allowed within twenty - five (25) feet of any other curb cut on or off -site. (15) Any light used to illuminate required parking areas shall be arranged so that the light is reflected away from adjacent properties. (16) No sign (permanent or temporary), light standard, or screenin( material shall be placed so as to inhibit the orderly use of a parking facility or in a manner which reduces the number of usable parking spaces. No sign, light standard, or material shall be placed so that it obstructs visibility for drivers or pedestrians; and in no case shall a sign or light standard be placed nearer than fifteen (15) feet to any curbline of a public street. (17) All off - street parking spaces located in common parking bays or lots shall be marked by a durable painted stripe designating no less than the required minimum parking space area. J • • • • r 369 (18) No motor vehicle repair 'work of any kind shall be per- mitted in conjunction with off - street parking areas except minor repair of vehicles owned by the occupant or resident of the principle use for ' which the off - street parking is intended. (19) No commercial vehicles or tractor - trailers with rated capacity of more than one ton shall be parked in a residential district. (20) If the required off - street parking space cannot be reasonably provided on the same lot, tract, or parcel on which the principle use is conducted, the applicant may be permitted to provide such space on other off - street property, provided such space lies within 300 feet of the property line of such principle use. Such space may be parking provided for other uses provided that the utilization of the parking area by the proposed activity does not conflict with the activities associated with the primary use and that the applicant obtains written authorization to use the facility on a continuing basis. • (b) Specific Requirements by Use: Off- Street Parking Use of Use Category Spaces Required (1) Single or Mult- Family 1 per dwelling unit Dwellings. (2) Church, temple, synagogue 1 per 5 seats or bend or similar place of assembly seating spaces (seats in main auditorium only) home, home for the aged, or similar institution (9) Motel, motor hotel, motor 5 spaces plus 1 per lodge, hotel or tourist sleeping room or court suite (10) Rooming, boarding, or lodging 1 per 2 sleeping roo house • (11) Hospital 1 per patient bed pl 1 for every two em- ployees (12) office or office building 1 per 400 square feet (other than medical) post of floor area, 3 office, studio spaces minimum (13) Medical offices or clinic 1 per 200 square feet of floor area; 10 spaces minimum for a clinic ' (14) Funeral Home 1 per 50 square feet of floor area exclud- ing storage and work area, 30 spaces min- imum (3) College or high school 1 per 4 seats or benc ' seating spaces (seats in main auditorium or field house only whic • ever is larger) or on for each 4 students whichever is greater (4) Elementary, junior high, 1 per 10 seats in mai or nursery school assembly room or 2 pe classroom whichever is greater (5) Country club or golf club 1 per 5 members or 1 or other private club with - for each 400 square out sleeping rooms feet of floor area whichever is greater (6) Public library, museum, art 10 per use plus 1 gallery, or community center additional space for each 300 square feet of floor area in ex- cess of 1,000 square feet • (7) Private clubs, fraternities, 2 per 3 sleeping room sororities, and lodges, with or suites or 1 per 5 sleeping rooms active members, which ' ever is greater (8) Sanitarium, convalescent 1 per 3 patient beds home, home for the aged, or similar institution (9) Motel, motor hotel, motor 5 spaces plus 1 per lodge, hotel or tourist sleeping room or court suite (10) Rooming, boarding, or lodging 1 per 2 sleeping roo house • (11) Hospital 1 per patient bed pl 1 for every two em- ployees (12) office or office building 1 per 400 square feet (other than medical) post of floor area, 3 office, studio spaces minimum (13) Medical offices or clinic 1 per 200 square feet of floor area; 10 spaces minimum for a clinic ' (14) Funeral Home 1 per 50 square feet of floor area exclud- ing storage and work area, 30 spaces min- imum Me] (15) Restaurant or other establish- 1 per 100 square ment for consumption of food feet of floor area, or beverages inside a building 3 spaces minimum on the premises (16) Restaurant, drive -in 1 per 100 square feet of floor area, 25 spaces minimum (17) Retail store or personal 1 per 200 square service establishment and feet of floor area; banks retail food stores over 4,000 square feet: 1 per 100 square feet of floor area (18) Automobile service station 3 for each service bay (19) Furniture or appliance store, 1 per 300 square machinery, equipment, and feet of floor area; automobile and boat sales 2 spaces minimum. and service Automobile sales and service, 10 minimum (20) Auditorium, theatre, gymnasium, 1 per 4 seats or stadium, arena, or convention seating spaces hall (21) Bowling Alley 5 per lane (22) Food storage locker 1 per 200 square feet customer service area (23) Trailer sales.; 1 per 200 square feet of sales office area, 10 spaces minimum (24) Amusement place, dance hall, 1 per 100 square skating rink, swimming pool, feet of floor area. or exhibition hall, without Does not apply to fixed seats accessory uses. (25) General service or repair 1 per 3 employees establishment, printing, on premises. publishing, plumbing, heating, Auditorium for broadcasting station broadcasting station requires space as above (26) Animal Hospital 1 per 400 square feet of floor area; 4 spaces minimum (27) Manufacturing or industrial 2 per 3 employees establishment, research or maximum working shif testing laboratory, creamery, plus space for bottling plant, wholesale, storage of trucks warehouse, or similar establish- or other vehicles ment used in connection with the business or industry (28) Shopping Centers by Gross Leasible Area: 0- 150,000 Square Feet One (1) space for each 150 square feet of leasible area 150,001 - 500,000 square feet One (1) space for each 165 square feet of leasible area 500,001 - or more square feet One (1) space for each 180 square feet of leasible area is • • 371 E • • Sec. 21 -13.2 Off- Street Loading Off- street loading and unloading space shall be provided as herein- after required by this Ordinance and Resolution. (a) General Requirements: For the purpose of this section, the following general requirements are specified: (1) The term "off- street loading and unloading space" shall mean an area having the minimum dimensions of 14 feet in height, 12 feet in width, and 50 feet in length plus adequate maneuvering area to facilitate entry into and exit from the space. The Planning Commission may, upon sufficient demonstration that a particular loading space will be used exclusively by small trucks or vans, reduce the minimum dimension requirements accordingly. (2) Each required off - street loading space shall have direct access to a street or have a driveway which provides satisfactory ingress and egress for trucks. The width of the access way shall be at least 25 feet wide but not greater than 50 feet wide and shall have a minimum radius at the curb line of 25 feet. (3) Each required off - street loading space shall be so designated as to avoid undue interference with other vehicular or rail access, use of public streets, or other public transport system. No curb cuts shall be allowed within fifty (50) feet of the intersection of the right -of -way line of two public streets. Except in residential zones, no curb cut shall be allowed within twenty -five (25) feet of any other curb cut on or off -site. (4) All off - street loading facilities, including spaces and maneuvering area shall be graded to provide adequate drainage. All such facilities shall be surfaces with a material which is approved by the County Department of Public Works provided: (1) all areas are capable of accommodating th :e= maximum._anticippted.traffic without deterioration of the surface, (2) all area shall remain open and accessible to loading at all times, (3) there are no adverse effects on surrounding properties. (5) Along those lot lines of the loading area which abut a . residential district, a solid, artificial or compact, natural screen of no less than five (5) feet in height shall be erected or planted. (6) Any light used to illuminate required off - street loading areas shall be arranged so that the light is reflected away from adjacent properties. No light standard shall be erected within fifteen (15) feet of any curbline of a public street. (7) All off - street loading areas and their respective maneuver ing areas shall be setback not less than five (5) feet from a public right -of -way. (8) No portion of the area required for off - street parking shall be used for off - street loading, unloading, or maneuvering space. (b) Loading Requirements by Use: Land Use (1) Hotels and Motels One (1) space for each 20, 000 square feet of floor area (2) Private clubs, lodges and One (1) space for each 20, fraternal building not 000 square feet of floor providing overnight accommoda- area. tions (3) Schools, all types (4) Bowling Alleys (5) Hospitals, sanitariums, nursing homes, and similar institutional uses (6) Food stores One (1) space for each structure having more than 100,000 square feet of flo area One (1) space for each structure having more than 20,000 square feet of floor area One (1) space for each 100,000 square feet of area One space (1) for the first 10,000 square feet of floor area plus one (1) space for each additional 30,000 square feet of floor area 372 (7) Restaurants, night clubs, taverns, lounges, and similar establishments (8) Office buildings except medical, dental and health clinics (9) Retail stores, department One (1) space for first stores, commercial or personal 10;000 square feet of service establishments except floor area plus one (1) food stores space for each additional 50,000 square feet of floor area (10) Shopping Centers (11) Manufacturing and Industrial establishments (12) Wholesale trade establishments (13) Transport terminal facilities (c) Uses not specified: In the case of a use not specifically mentioned above and where there is a need for loading and unloading space, the requirements !for off - street loading facilities .shall.be determined by the Planning Commission. Such determination shall be based upon the requirements set forth for the most comparable use specified in Section (b) (d) The Planning Commission may at their discretion, reduce the minimum number of loading spaces required for a specific use by Section (b) above provided that sufficient evidence is presented justifying the need for a reduction in the requirements and every effort has been made to provide off - street loading in accordance with the stipulations of this section. 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 One (1) space for the first 10,000 square feet of floor area plus one (1) space for each additional 30,000 square feet of floor area One (1) space for struc- tures between 30,000 square feet and 100,000 square feet of floor area plus one (1) space for each additional 100,000 square feet of floor area One (1) space for each 50,000 square feet of floor area One (1) space for each 40,000 square feet of floor area One (1) space for each 40,000 square feet of floor area One (1) space for each 30,000 square feet of floor area • L • Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. CONDITIONAL `002 -80 - RC INC. - BACK CREEK Mr. Riley advised that due to problems with the proposed location of the septic system on the property, reengineering of the Roadway Express, Inc. site plan would be necessary and therefore the Planning Commission had tabled this until their June 4th meeting. The Board agreed to table the matter until such time as a recommendation is received from the Planning Commission. CANCELLATION OF INACTIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - APPROVED Mr. Riley presented a listing of inactive conditional use permits and stated that the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended cancellation of said permits with the exception of Conditional Use Permit #051 -76 of Denny's, Inc. which the owner had requested be maintained. He stated that every effort had been made to contact the people involved and in many cases, the conditional use permit had never been used. He stated that the only person who requested that his conditional use permit remain in effect was Mr. Dennis T. Cole. The renewal process was discussed briefly and Mr. Riley advised that the permits are reviewed and renewed annually by the staff unless there is a change • 373 in use or occupancy. Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles and seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm, is • E • BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve the cancellation of the following inactive condi al use permits with the exception of Conditional Use Permit #051 -76 of Denny's, Inc., which shall remain in effect: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 001 -73 OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA MARBLE COMPANY, ROUTE 1, BOX 40A, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA, 2 ACRES, ZONED BUSINESS - GENERAL (B -2), REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MANUFACTURE AND DISPLAY OPERATION. THIS PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 58(A) BLOCK C, LOT A IN THE GAINESBORO MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 012 -74 OF RICHARD F. GILES, ROUTE 657, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA, 2 ACRES, ZONED AGRICULTURAL - GENERAL (A -2), REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ANTIQUE SHOP. THIS PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS PROPERTY IDENTIFI- CATION NUMBER 65(A)37 IN THE SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 014 -74 OF ROBERT H. BOYD, ROUTE 7, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 8 ACRES, ZONED BUSINESS - GENERAL (B -2), REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A ROLLER SKATING RINK. THIS PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 54(A)99B IN THE STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 017 -74 OF TRUS -JOIST CORPORATION, ROUTE 11, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA, 8 ACRES, ZONED INDUSTRIAL- GENERAL (M -2), REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A STORAGE SHED. THIS PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 63(A)87A IN THE BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 023 -74 OF MIKE AND SUSAN KILIJIAN, ROUTE 6, BOX 449, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA, 1 ACRE, ZONED RESIDENTIAL- LIMITED (R -2), REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOME OCCUPATION /PHOTOGRAPHY. THIS PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 64C, (2), 7 IN THE SHAWNEE MAGISTE DISTRICT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 028 -74 OF DELMAR A. BAYLISS, ROUTE 657, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA, 1 ACRE, ZONED RESIDENTIAL- LIMITED (R -2), REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LOCATION SIGN. THIS PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS BEING LOCATED ON ROUTE 657 IN THE SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 030 -74 OF LANNEY EUGENE SNYDER, ROUTE 3, BOX 4511, ZONED INDUSTRIAL - LIMITED (M -1), 5 ACRES, REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A WAREHOUSE. THIS PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 63(4)4C IN THE BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 031 -74 OF GEORGE B. SAVAGE, ROUTE 652, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA, 6 ACRES, ZONED RESIDENTIAL- GENERAL (R -3), REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NURSING HOME. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON ROUTE 652 IN THE BACK CREEK DISTRICT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 039 -75 OF ROBERT D. LEONARD KENNELS, ROUTE 636, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA, 57 ACRES, ZONED AGRICULTURAL- GENERALA A -2), REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A KENNEL. THIS PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 75(A)113 IN THE OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 064 -76 OF WHITE OAK TRADING POST, ROUTE 277, STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA, 10.47 ACRES, ZONED BUSINESS - LIMITED B -1, REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DIRECTIONAL SIGN. THIS PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION TAX MAP 85, PARCEL 148 IN THE OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 007 -77 OF MYERS HOME FOR ADULTS, ROUTE 6, BOX 634, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA, 1 ACRE, ZONED RESIDENTIAL- GENERAL (R -3), REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOME FOR ADULTS. THIS PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 65(A)59 IN THE SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 011 -77 OF ARVIL A. AND STELLA M. DYE, PLYMN OWENS ESTATES, STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA, 9.588 ACRES, ZONED AGRICULTURAL - GENERAL (A -2), REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FARM MARKET AND GARDEN CENTER. THIS PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 77(A)20 IN THE SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. CONDITIONAL, USE PERMIT NO. 005 -78 OF COLLIER CONSTRUCTION, ROUTE 11, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA, 1 ACRE, ZONED AGRICULTURAL- LIMITED (A -2), REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PARKING AND REPAIRING TRUCKS. THIS PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 84(A), 82 IN THE OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 013 -78 OF S. BLAINE AND BETTY M. WILSON, ROUTE 1, BOX 272A, WINCHCHESTER, VIRGINIA, 5 ACRES, ZONED INDUSTRIAL- LIMITED (M -1), REQUESTING AN OFF - PREMISE SIGN. THIS PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 64(A)80C IN THE SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. 374 referred to the Stream Standards Committee for investigation and recommendation back to the Board and that they particularly investigate the discharge of effluent from the sewage treatplant plants into the Opequon. The Board concurred. BOARD RETIRES INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by Will L. Owings, seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles and passed unanimously, the Board retired into Executive Session in accordance with Section ' 2.1 -344, Subsection (a)(1), of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to discuss personnel. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 027 -74 OF WASTE REDUCTION, INC., ROUTE 50E, 20 ACRES, ZONED INDUSTRIAL - GENERAL (M -2), REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RESOURCE RECOVERY PLANT. THIS PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 64(A)80 IN THE SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 029 -74 OF BETTY WILLIAMS, ROUTE 5, BOX 374A, WINCHESTER, , VIRGINIA, 1 ACRE, ZONED RESIDENTIAL- GENERAL, (R -3), REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOME OCCUPATION /BOOKKEEPING SERVICE. THIS PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 43A, 145 IN THE STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 007 -80 OF BERNARD L. CLOUD, 3521 JONES ROAD, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA, 3.6 ACRES, ZONED AGRICULTURAL - GENERAL (A -2), REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ANTIQUE SHOP. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON ROUTE 11 SOUTH OF STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA, IN THE OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. 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. SUBDIVISION REQUEST - MARVIN N. DOVE - STONEWALL DISTRICT - APPROVED Mr. Riley presented the subdivision request of Marvin N. Dove and stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request with the stipulation that no new subdivision request would be granted until the new road is constructed. Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles and seconded by William H. Baker, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, ' Virginia, does herein approve the subdivision request of Marvin N. Dove for one (1) lot (22,980 square feet) located at the south end of Blossom Drive in the • Shenandoah Hills Subdivision in the Stonewall Magisterial District.with the stipula- tion that no new subdivision request will be granted until the new road is con- structed. 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. VACO -VML MEETING DISCUSSED Mr. White stated that the VACO -VML meeting in "Legislation and Issues Affecting Local Government" would be held on 29 May, 1980 in Manassas. He requested that • any Board Member desiring to attend the meeting should contact his office as soon as possible in order that a car pool might be formed. , CITIZENS CONCERN RE: MIDGE PROBLEM IN OPEQUON CREEK REFERRED TO STREAM STANDARDS COMMITTEE FOR STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION Mr. Stiles stated that he had received several calls from citizens regarding a mosquito problem along the Opequon Creek; that upon investigation of the complaint it had been determined that the problem was not so much mosquitoes breeding along the Opequon, but what is known as midges which are known to breed in particularly polluted water. He added that the Opequon Creek, for this early in the Spring, • looks and smells worse than he can ever recall. He requested that this matter be referred to the Stream Standards Committee for investigation and recommendation back to the Board and that they particularly investigate the discharge of effluent from the sewage treatplant plants into the Opequon. The Board concurred. BOARD RETIRES INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by Will L. Owings, seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles and passed unanimously, the Board retired into Executive Session in accordance with Section ' 2.1 -344, Subsection (a)(1), of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to discuss personnel. 375 BOARD WITHDRAWS FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION I Upon motion made by Will L. Owings, seconded by Rhoda W. Maddox and passed unanimously, the Board withdrew from Executive Session. BOARD RECONVENES INTO REGULAR SESSION Upon motion made by Will L. Owings, seconded by Rhoda W. Maddox and passed unanimously, the Board reconvened into Regular Session. UPON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT • Z i , , -0 erk Board of Supervisors The Board of Supervisors held a joint work session with the Frederick County n U THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW ADJOURN. Planning Commission on May 21, 1980, at 7:00 P.M. in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT: S. Roger Koontz, Chairman; Will L. Owings, Vice - Chairman; William H. Baker; Rhoda W. Maddox; R. Thomas Malcolm; and Kenneth Y. Stiles. CALL TO ORDER Due to the fact that the Chairman arrived late, the Vice - Chairman called • the meeting to order, and introduced Mr. John Riley, Planning and Development Director, to discuss the plan for comprehensive rezoning of Frederick County as recommended by the Planning Commission. He presented a brief background of the plan stating that the purpose is to provide for orderly growth in the County and it is a flexible document which can be changed. Mr. Riley explained how the plan was developed and reviewed briefly the recommendations set forth therein and identified the various parcels of land which would be affected on map showing the current zoning and the proposed zoning. Mr. Riley requested that the Board consider adopting the tax maps as the official maps of the County when the comprehensive rezoning is completed. The Planning and Development Director explained that the area in the vicinity E of Lakeside Estates and Fredericktowne had not been recommended for downzoning in order to allow for natural expansion. The Baker property, located on Route 7 East, was discussed. Mr. Stiles stated that they are currently mining 4.33 acres of the 30 acre tract and he has reapplied for another mining permit. The property proposed for the location of the new elementary school in the Middletown area was discussed and Mr. Owings expressed concern regarding down- zoning this property to agricultural when it had been designated for school ' construction. 376 Mr. Stiles requested that the Board give direction to the Planning Commission regarding the following areas of concern in this project: (1) industrial area, i.e. Stine Industrial Park, Gilpin Industrial Park, and the Industrial Development ' Authority property; (2) already developed residential areas on major arterial highways; and (3) the question of subdivisions which are scattered throughout the County zoned residential but are in an agricultural district. Mr. Riley advised that the plan, insofar as the Kernstown area is concerned where the Industrial Development Authority property is located, recommends that the property on the north remain industrial because of the accessibility to water and sewer and the property on the south be downzoned. There followed a brief discussion regarding • this proposal and Mr. Riley stated that the Planning Commission is investigating the possibility of incorporating a planned industrial district in the ordinance which would tie the location of industrial districts to arterial highways. The legality of the proposal to reduce the Gilpin and Stine Industrial Parks by approximately one -half was discussed and Mr. Stiles suggested that perhaps some of these legal questions should be addressed in executive session. ' Other areas on which Mr. Stiles requested Board input were: (1) the Costello property in Opequon District which is zoned residential and is in land use; (2) • the Brick Kiln property containing 202 acres zoned M -2; (3) Welltown Acres where the developer had developed only one section; (4) the R -6 area on Fox Drive; and (5) the Chemstone property, which operation may expand from Shenandoah County into Frederick County. BOARD RETIRES INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles, seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm and passed unanimously, the Board retired into Executive Session. BOARD WITHDRAWS FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles, seconded by Rhoda W. Maddox and passed unanimously, the Board withdrew from Executive Session. • BOARD RECONVENES INTO REGULAR SESSION Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles and seconded by William H. Baker and ' passed unanimously, the Board reconvened into Regular Session. WORK SESSION SET FOR JUNE 10, 1980 AT 8:00 P.M. The Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission set the date of June 10, 1980 at 8:00 P.M. for another Joint Work Session on the proposed comprehensive rezoning plan of Frederick County. UPON MOTION DULY MADE', SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW ADJOURN. • � s al' Ch ran, oa d of uperviso s, C rk, Board of Supervisors i