Loading...
October 12, 1977 to February 22, 197814.1 A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on October 12, 1977 in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 9 Court Square, Virginia. PRESENT: S. Roger Koontz, Chairman; Thomas B. Rosenberger, Vice Chairman; Dr. Raymond L. Fish; R. Thomas Malcolm; and Dennis T. Cole. ABSENT: Will L. Owings The Chairman Called the meeting to order. INVOCATION The invocation was delivered'by the Reverend Bob Richard of the Grace United Methodist Church. APPROVAL OF MINUTES E Upon motion made by Dennis T.- and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of this Board held on September 28, 1977, as submitted. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - • S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. Mr. Rosenberger stated that as a point of clarification with regard to finance Committee review of the budget before full Board review as contained within the above minutes, it was the intent of the Finance Committee to have some input into the budget inasmuch as they are a smaller group and deal with finances throughout the year; that the Board would then have every right to either accept or reject it. DISCUSSION CAPITAL FACILITIES NEEDS Mr. Koontz presented a draft agreement between the city and the County re- garding capital facilities needs for consideration by the Board and their consti 'Mr. Renalds read the agreement in full. There followed a lengthy discussion regarding the annexation provision in is the agreement with several Board members expressing dis- agreement with said pro- vision. Mr. Rosenberger questioned the legality of the contract. Dr. Fish stated that he was skeptical of feasibility studies and especially one where on consultant would be representing two parties who may be at odds. Mr. Malcolm stated that he felt the problem all along had been that no one wants to make a hard and fast decision. There followed a discussion as to whether or not the County wanted to enter into a joint facility with the City and if not, what other alternatives might be explored. Mr. Rosenberger then moved to refer this matter to the Capital Facilities • Committee so that they might meet with the City to arrange for a joint study of capital facilities needs, the cost of said study to be shared 50/50 between the City and the County. The motion died for lack of a second. Thereupon, Mr. Koontz requested the Board members to study the proposed tract:and-'discuss it with their constituents so that a decision might be reached as to how the County wants to proceed in this matter at the November 9, 1977 Board Meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS -77 - JIC. LTD. TO RE M -1 - THIRD Mr. Berg presented the rezoning request of JIC, Ltd. and stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval. 1.4.2 Mr. Malcolm stated that this request would put the property back.to the original zoning; that it had been changed to accomodate a re- cycling center which never materialized. He added that he had not received any adverse comment regarding this request. There was no opposition. Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm and seconded by Dennis T. Cole, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve the following rezoning request on third final reading: ZMAP NO. 012 -77 OF JIC, LTD., 32 EAST MAIN STREET, BERRYVILLE, VIRGINIA, HEREBY REQUESTS THAT 10.00 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, LOCATED ON ROUTE #728 JUST OFF ROUTE 50 NOW ZONED INDUSTRIAL - GENERAL (M -2) B; REZONED: INDUSTRIAL- LIMITED (M -1) . THIS PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS PARCEL NO. 80 ON TAX MAP 64 AND IS IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas'B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm and Dennis T. Cole. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: MRS. ADAM B. MYERS - SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED W. Berg presented the request for conditional use permit of Mrs.-Adam B. Myers to operate a home for adults in the Shawnee Magisterial District stating that the Planning Commission recommended approval of this request with four restrictions. Mr. Cole stated that he objected to these restrictions inasmuch as he felt they were excessive. Mr. Berg stated that these restrictions were in compliance with state and health department regulations. Mr. Malcolm stated that Mrs. Myers is fully aware of the restrictions and is interested in continuing her operation on a small scale. He advised that Mrs. Myers intends to hook onto the water and sewer line as soon as it is-available in that area. Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm and seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger, BE IT RESOLVED, That- the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does herein approve the Conditional Use Permit No. 007 -77 of Mrs. Adam B. Myers to operate a home for adults on her property located on the west side of Broad Avenue (Rt. 831) in the Lockhart Subdivision in the Shawnee Magisterial District for a period of one (1) year with the following conditions: (1) Care limited to four (4) ambulatory patients only. (2) All fire safety and building code requirements must be met by March 1, 1978 (3) If a State license is received by March 1, 1978, then the permit ! is subject to review. (4) Septic tank must comply with Health Department requirements. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, and R. Thomas Malcolm. Nay - Dennis T. Cole. 2 06 -77 - Mr. Berg presented the request for conditional use permit of Ralph W. Poe for a campground and stated the the Planning Commission recommended denial of said .. request.. The Health Department approval of this application was read in full. :. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the potential traffic hazard on Ward Avenue and the possibility of two entrances into the property. Mr. R. C. King of the Virginia Department of Highways appeared before the Board and stated that • L i • • J the Highway Department felt that Ward Avenue iaould"be-sufficient , to handle the traffic from the proposed campground and could foresee no traffic hazard because of this development. Mr. Cecil Gray, a resident of Ward Avenue appeared before the Board and pre- L sented pictures of Ward Avenue stating that he did not feel the road was wide enough to handle the increased traffic should this application be approved. Mr. Bryan Booker, a resident of the Ward Avenue area appeared and stated that he felt the road was sufficiently wide enough inasmuch as one of his neighbors drives a tractor - trailer over this road without any problem. The speed limit on Ward Avenue was discussed and Mr. King advised that after • 758 of the road is developed it can be posted at the request of the residents with a 25 mph speed limit, however he felt because of the length of this road, this speed limit would be difficult to enforce. Mr. Everett Wetzel, a reiident Merriman's Estates appeared and presented • a petition in opposition to this proposed campground stating that they felt it would create a potential hazard to the water supply of the residents of Merriman's Estates. Mr. Will Stivers stated that inasmuch as no old information would be heard at this hearing, he would request that all previous hearing on this matter be made a part of this record. Mr. Cole then moved to approve the campground striking the staff comments from this application. Following a brief discussion, Mr. Cole withdrew this motion. Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of "Supervisors of the County of Frederick, • Virginia, does herein approve Conditional Use Permit No. 006 -77 of Ralph W. Poe to construct a 70 space travel trailer campground on his property, Candy Hill Farm, located at the end of Ward Avenue, bounded by Route 31, Lockhart Subdivision, an old subdivision to the west and the W $ W Railroad on the south in Back Creek Magisterial District. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - Dr.-:Raymond L. Fish, Dennis T. Cole and Thomas B. Rosenberger. Nay - S. Roger Koontz and R. Thomas Malcolm. SUBDIVISION ALLEN PROPERTIES, INC. - OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED Mr. Berg presented the Allen Properties subdivision and described the current • and proposed use of the property. He stated that the Planning Commission re- commended approval of this subdivision and that inasmuch as it was a commercial use, no recreational impact fee would be required. Mr. Cole stated that he had never seen a subdivision of this type come before the Board before and requested Mr. Berg to produce files wherein this had been done. The Board withheld action on this matter for several minutes so that Mr. Berg might produce the requested files. Mr. Berg presented the file on the Pine Investment Company property located on Route 277 ih'Opequon District stating that this was essentially the same type subdivision as that:requested by the Allen properties. There followed a brief discussion as to whether or not subdivisons of B -2 property required Board action and Mr. Renalds explained that this was a matter of subdivision and not rezoning and was required by the Subdivision Ordinance. 143: 0 Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dennis T. Cole,. 144 BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve the subdivision of the northwest portion (39,059 square feet) of the 10.466 acres Allen Properties, Inc. Land in Opequon Magisterial District as recommended by the Planning Commission. S. Roger Koontz, Thomas.B. Rosenberger, Or. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm 9he above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - and Dennis T. Cole. LENOIR CITY COMPANY OF VIRGINIA LOTS - STONEWALL DISTRICT - APPROVED W. Berg presented the subdivision request of Lenoir City Company and stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval. He described the proposed use of the property stating that a Johnny Blue operation would be located on one lot a - :- sand and.' gravel operation on the second lot and he did not know what would be located on the third lot. There was a discussion as to whether or not restrictions could'be placed on this subdivision to require some type of screening of the property to insure the beautification of the area. Mr. Renalds advised that the Board can not place restrictions on a subdivision, but when the site plan is presented to the Board restrictions might be placed on the property at that time. Mr. Cole asked if the plat of the property which had been approved by the Planning Commission showed a 75 foot setback line and Mr. Berg advised that the plat set forth a 35 foot set back line but that the Planning Commission had been made aware of this and had agreed that the plat must be-changed to show a 75 foot setback line. Mr. Cole asked Mr. Manuel DeHaven, a member of the Planning Commission if the plat had been changed at the meeting and Mr. DeHaven stated thatiit was explained that the plat-must be changed to show the 75 foot line. Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger, _ B; IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve the'subdivision of the Lenoir City Company of Virginia Lots located in the Stonewall Magisterial District as recommended by the Planning'Commission The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - R. Thomas Malcolm, Dennis T. Cole, and Dr. Raymond L. Fish. Nay - S. Roger Koontz, and Thomas B. Rosenberger. The Board recessed for ten minutes. FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: Mr. Rosenberger presented the recommendations of the Finance Committee and the following action was taken: STUDY TO BE CONTINUED ON CENTRALIZED PURCHASING - APPROVED Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Drr Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does herein approve the recommendation of the Finance Committee that the County Purchasing Agent and the School Purchasing Agent work together to study possible cost savings to be realized through joint purchasing of equipment and supplies and that the current County and School purchasing operations shall not in any way be readjusted at this time. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. • J • • I • BUDGET ADJUSTMENT - EDA FUNDS - APPROVED Upon motion made by Thomas B..Rosenberger.and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED,.-By the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, that the following 1977 -78 budget adjustment is hereby authorized-in order to accept grant funds from the Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. GENERAL REVENUE FUND: (Increase Revenue Estimate 05 -6874 Federal Grants - EDA $491,000.00 "'.GENERAL OPERATING FUND: (Increase MEN riations) 0- O1OH -601D Extension of Water Mains - EDA Grant $491,000.00 The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - • S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. ADDITIONAL CETA POSITIONS - APPROVED Dr. Fish advised that the Finance Committee had agreed to recommend acceptance of these positions through CETA with the understanding that when the program comes to an end, in all probability, these positions will not be refunded by the County. Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger, • BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does herein approve the following CETA positions as recommended by the Finance Committee: Sheriff Deputy Trainee (4) Clerk Typist Aquatics Director Maintenance Assistant Parks Custodian Wastewater Treatment Operator Utilities Maintenance Laborer Wastewater Treatment Plant Laborer Sanitarian Nurse (2) The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - • S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. LEASE RATE COUNTY ,TRASH TRUCK TO KWICK KLEAN - APPROVED Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does herein approve the lease rate of $35.00 per day of the County owned trash truck to Kwick Klean Refuse Division, with the stipulation that Kwick klean Refuse Division be rsponsible for all repairs and maintenance on said vehicle. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - 11 S.. Roger Koontz, Thomas B..ROSenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm. and Dennis T. Cole. REQUEST OF'CITY OF WINCHESTER TO REL OCATE DRINKING FOUNTAIN ON COUNTY PROPERTY'- APPROVE Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does herein approve the request of the City of Winchester to relocate the drinking fountain currently located on the Loudoun Mall onto County property as set forth on the plan submitted by the City through a letter from the City Manager dated October 4, 1977. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. 145 V 146 APPROPRIATION TRANSFER - CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT - APPROVED Lpon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, (Virginia, that the following appropriation transfer within the General Operating desk for the Clerk-of the Circuit Court: Fund is hereby authorized, said'purpose being to purchase a double face slope top TRANSFER FROM 18- 018E -299B Reserve for Contingencies $1,945.00 TRANSFER TO: 19 -004A -403 Furniture and Fixtures $1,945.00 The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. APPROPRIATION TRANSFER - FALSE ARREST INSURANCE - APPROVED Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia that the following General Operating Fund appropriation transfer is hereby authorized. TRANSFER TO: 06 -006A -211 Insurance Premiums - False Arrest $4,232.00 TRANSFER FROM 18- 018E -299B Reserve for Contingencies $4,232.00 The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T: Cole. ' FYING Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, B; IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia that the action taken by this Board on September 28, 1977 setting the fee for the Commonwealth Attorney for the collection of delinquent taxes be -' modified to read as follows: A fee to be paid to the Commonwealth Attorney on delinquent tax cases shall be 58 of the taxes collected after the delinquent tax information has been turned over to the Commonwealth Attorney to institute legal proceedings. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL POSITION AT LANDFILL - CARRIED FORWARD TO NEXT MEETING Mr. Rosenberger stated that an additional position at the Landfill had been requested, said position to have a salary of $8,000. Mr. Renalds presented several pieces of data regarding overtime and main- tenance costs currently being experienced at the landfill, stating that he felt. this additional position would alleviate these costs somewhat. Cpon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger and passed unanimously, the Board agreed to carry this request forward to the next meeting. NTS TO ROAD', GHT The Board discussed the guidelines and purpose of the Road Names Committee, i.e. whether or not all roads in the County are to be named, the number and desig- nation of which roads shall have road signs, etc. I n lJ • is • 1 4 147' Mr. Koontz stated that all the roads have names and this Committee will conduct research to verify these names. He added that the Committee would then recommend to the Board of Supervisors which roads they felt should have road signs. Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, ' BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of County of Frederick, Virginia does request that Road Names Committee to establish the names of all the roads in Frederick County subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors with road signs to be erected on said roads and the funds become available. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S..Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. • Thereupon the following appointments were made to the Road Names Committee II Gainesboro Magisterial District - Mr. Leslie Campbell Shawnee Magisterial District - Mr. Larry Coverstone Stonewall Magisterial District - Mrs. Mary Leight APPOINTMENT OF MRS. MARY WHITACRE TO WELFARE BOARD - APPROVED The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. Mr. Malcolm requested the County Administrator to notify Mrs. Whitacre that the next meeting of the Welfare Board would be held on October 21, 1977 so that she might be in attendance at said meeting. ESTATE TAX Mr. Renalds stated that further research was necessary on this ordinance and • suggested that the public hearing on said ordinance not be held for at least sixty ' II days. Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm and seconded by Dennis T. Cole, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve the following ordinance on•.first and second reading and does direct that the public hearing on said ordinance not be scheduled for at least sixty days. AN ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE REAL ESTATE TAX RELIEF FOR THE PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED • The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, II and Dennis T. Cole. JOINT MEETING WITH FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SET Mr. Koontz requested that Board members to make plans to meet with the Frederick County Planning Commission on October 19, 1977 at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room to continue discussions on the proposed work plan of the Commission. The Board concurred. MONTHLY STAFF REPORT - ACCEPTED After review, the monthly staff report was accepted: 0 Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm, ' BE IT RESOLVED, Virginia, does herein That the Board of Mrs. Mary Supervisors of the County Whitacre to the of Frederick, Gainesboro_District appoint serve as representative on the Frederick County Welfare Board, said term of service to be • established at such time as the Opequon District representatve appointed. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. Mr. Malcolm requested the County Administrator to notify Mrs. Whitacre that the next meeting of the Welfare Board would be held on October 21, 1977 so that she might be in attendance at said meeting. ESTATE TAX Mr. Renalds stated that further research was necessary on this ordinance and • suggested that the public hearing on said ordinance not be held for at least sixty ' II days. Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm and seconded by Dennis T. Cole, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve the following ordinance on•.first and second reading and does direct that the public hearing on said ordinance not be scheduled for at least sixty days. AN ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE REAL ESTATE TAX RELIEF FOR THE PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED • The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, II and Dennis T. Cole. JOINT MEETING WITH FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SET Mr. Koontz requested that Board members to make plans to meet with the Frederick County Planning Commission on October 19, 1977 at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room to continue discussions on the proposed work plan of the Commission. The Board concurred. MONTHLY STAFF REPORT - ACCEPTED After review, the monthly staff report was accepted: 0 148 REQUEST FOR VARIANCE - WITHDRAWN Mr. Koontz announced that the request set forth on the.Agenda had been withdrawn Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dennis T. Cole. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does herein request that Potomac Edison Company proceed as soon as possible with the replacement of foilage on rights -of -way currently being cleared across the southern part of Frederick County for a high voltage power line in the interest of maintaining the environmental quality of the area. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - RESOLUTION TO RE ON POWER LINE r • S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B.- Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. BOARD RETIRES INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm, seconded by Dennis T. Cole and passed unanimously, the Board retired into Executive Session in Accordance with Section 2.1 -344, Subsection (6) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended to discuss legal matters regarding the collection of taxes. BOARD WITHDRAWS FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by Dennis T.'Cole, seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm and passed unanimously, the Board withdrew from executive session. BOARD RECONVENES INTO REGULAR SESSION Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole, seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm and passed unanimously, the Board reconvened into Regular Session. UPON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW ADJOURN. 0 d2- r- � Seretary, Board of Supervisors October 24, 1977 in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 9 Court Square, A Special Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Virginia. PRESENT: S. Roger Koontz, Chairman; Thomas B. Rosenberger, Vice Chairman; Dr. Raymond L. Fish; R. Thomas Malcolm; and Dennis T. Cole. ABSENT: Will L. Owings. The Chairman called the meeting to order. 'T AMENDMENTS TO E Mr. Rosenberger stated that last week the Planning Commission had taken action which they considered necessary regarding lot sizes, depth, frontage, etc. and that since that time Mr. Berg had investigated the problem. He advised that Mr. Berg would make a presentation to the Board regarding recommendations on this matter as approved by the Planning Commission earlier this evening. • • • Mr. Berg presented the proposed amendments to the Frederick County Division II ' of Land Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission stating that these amendments covered three major areas of concern: (T) - , the defiriitidn::.of 'subdivisi:on having to do with five acre lots and their requirements; (2) requirements regarding street construction; and (3) frontage -- - - Ll -- 1..4.9 to depth ratio on large lots in large lot developments. Mr. Berg stated that under Section 18 -2 the first change would be the definition of Subdivide, that subsections (a), (b), and (c) would remain unchanged. Mr. Berg then presented the proposed definitions for subdivision, large lot, subdivision, recreational lot, and subdivision residential and other. Mr. Berg stated that the first recommendation for _....modification was to Section 18 -35 regarding lot width to depth and that the proposed ratio would be one foot of frontage to three feet of depth. He stated that Section 18 -46.1 "Minimum widths" would be deleted; that re- 0 quirements for right-:of-way would be put under individual sections for the type of subdivision lot necessary to serve the development. Mr. Berg then read thel'.proposed Section 18 -47 regarding construction requirements Mr. Cole asked if this would be in conformance with state law and Mr. Berg stated that this was correct and that this section would also set forth provisions for the disposition of natural and storm water. Mr. Cole stated that he did not think it was fair that R -5 subdivisions did `J • not have any roadway requirements when all other subdivisions had them. Mr. Cole requested that the words "Virginia Department of Highways" be inserted before the word "engineer" in Section 18- 47 -c(3). The Board concurred with this request. Under Section 18- 47 -c(3) the requirements for street grades was discussed and the Board agreed that this section should be amended to read that "street grades shall not exceed ten (10) percent unless approved by the Administrator ". Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, • • Virginia, does herein enact through emergency legislation in accordance with Section 15.1 -504 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, the following amend-._ ments to the Frederick County Division of Land Ordinance with the provision that the legal format for said ordinance be drawn up by the County Administrator and the Commonwealth Attorney for purposes of advertisement and adoption: SUBDIVIDE: To divide any tract, parcel, or lot of land into two (2) or more parts, except however, a. The Administrator may permit the separation of a building site that conforms to zoning and shapei requirements intended for members of the family owning any such agricultural lands; or b. The Administrator may permit the separation of one (1) parcel from a tract of land without complying with all requirements of the Ordinance if it is: 1) not in conflict with the general meaning and purpose of the Ordinance, 2) no new streets are required to serve the parcel, 3) meets the requirements of the zoning district, and 4) not less than 150 -foot frontage on a right-6f-way accepted for maintenance by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; or C. The administrator may permit a bona -fide division or portion of agricultural land for agricultural purposes. Subdivision, Large Lot: To divide any tract, parcel, or lot of land into lots or parcels of five (5) acres or more. Subdivision, Recreational: Any area zoned R -5 Residential Recreational Community under the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Subdivision, Residential and Other: To divide any tract, parcel, or lot of land into lots or parcels of five (5) acres or less. 18 -35.1 Restriction on large lot subdivisions The ratio of lot width to depth shall be not less than one foot of frontage to three feet.of depth. 18 -46.1 Minimum Widths: Delete .15 0 18 -47 Construction Requirements: a. Large lot subdivisions Class III roads are required. (1) All Class III roads shall have a minimum of fifty (50) foot right -of -way. (2) The road shall be graded to a minimum of twenty -four (24) feet in width. (3) Base shall be at least sixteen (16) feet in width and six (6) inches in depth for minimum CBR 10 conditions, and be of stone, gravel or other satisfactory material approved by the Admini- strator. Where unusual soil, slope drainage or erosion con- ditions exist, the Administrator may require a more permanent type of pavement. (4) All provisions deemed necessary by the Administrator for the adequate disposition of natural and storm water shall be met. (5) Grades of roads shall not exceed ten (10) percent except where approved by the administrator. Absolute minimum stopping sight distance shall be one hundred fifty (150) feet. (6) Each deed of conveyance shall state that a Class III road is not publicly maintained and shall be maintained by all the owners of lots which are provided access by way of said Class III road. (7) Each lot owner shall include a similar restriction any deed of conveyance upon resale of the lot. B. Recreation Subdivisions. No roadway requirements. C.. Residential and other Subdivisions. All construction shall conform to tha standard of Frederick County, or, in the event no standard exists, to the standard of the Virginia Department of Highways. (1) Minor streets with 0 -400 vehicle trips per day shall have not less than fifty (50) feet of right -of -way with twenty (20) feet of pavement. (2) Major streets with more than 400 trips per day shall have not less than sixty (60) feet of right -of -way with twenty -two (22) feet of pavement. (3) The grades of-streets submitted shall be approved by the Admin- istrator upon recommendation of the Virginia Department of High- ways Engineer. Street grades shall not exceed ten (10) percent unless approved by the Administrator. (4) An adequate drainage system for natural and storm water shall be provided for each subdivision street by means of culverts under streets, side, lead or outlet ditches, catch basins, curb inlets or other devices including piping where necessary. All struct- ures shall conform to Frederick County or the Virginia Depart- ment of Highways' standards. (5) All streets shall be inspected and approved by the Virginia Department of Highways. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. UPON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW ADJOURN. __?'F�Lietary, Board of Supervisors A Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, inia, was held on October 26, 1977 in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, Court Square, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT: S. Roger Koontz, Chairman; Thomas B. Rosenberger, Vice Chairman; . Raymond L.' Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm; and Dennis T. ABSENT: Will L. Owings. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Cole. I 1 U I • 1 C , J �J APPROVAL OF MINUTES 151 Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm and seconded by Dennis T. Cole, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, rginia, does herein approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of this Board held October 12, 1977, as submitted. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - i. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION - WITHDRAWN Mr. Koontz announced that inasmuch as the Board has met in Special Session on Planning Commission recommendation set forth in the agenda, this item had been • thdrawn. SUBDIVISIONS: WAKELAND MANOR, SECTION E - 21 LOTS - OPEQUON DISTRICT - APPROVED Mr. Renalds presented the plat of Wakeland Manor, Section E and stated that 1 was recommended. Mr. Cole asked if this subdivision:.had not previously been by the and Mr. Ben Butler, appeared representing Mr. Ralph Wakeman, and stated that I 1J the plat had not been recorded within the specified time. Mr. Renalds stated that the original plat contained 50 lots but the section submitted tonight contains 21 lots and is referenced as Section E. Mr. Rosenberger asked if the water and sewer service would be provided by Water and Sewer Company and Mr. Butler stated that it would. Dr. Fish asked if the recreational impact fee would be $100 per lot and Mr. lds replied that it would be $111 per lot. Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, • Jirginia, does herein approve the plat of Wakeland Manor, Section E containing 21 lots, located in Opequon Magisterial District, with the provision that a recreational impact fee of $111 per lot be paid. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - i.. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 0 DISTRICT - APPROVED MAGISTERIAL Mr. Rosenberger presented the application for conditional use permit of A. Carter stating that it was recommended for approval for a one year permit inasmuch as there is a question regarding a state license. Mr. Rosenberger then moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit as recommended • the Planning Commission. Mr. Malcolm seconded this motion. Mr. Cole then moved to amend the motion to provide for a t90 year permit. The ion died for lack of a second. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, ginia, does herein approve Conditional Use Permit No. 009 -77 of Margaret A. Carter to operate a part -time hairdressing operation in her home located on the south side of Route 661, Welltown Pike in the Stonewall Magisterial District for a period of (1) year. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - . Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. n 152 BOARD OPPOSES NORTHERN VIRGINIA AREA WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES Mr. Koontz stated that the Planning Commission had requested comments on the pump -over alternative set forth in the Northern Virginia Area Water Supply Alter- natives Report. report inasmuch as it would appear that we would lose control of our water sources. Dr. Fish stated that he objected to Items 4, 7 and 11 as set forth in the The Board discussed the various alternatives and their implications on the County. Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and seconded by Dennis T. Cole, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein advise the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission that they are vigorously opposed to the inter -basin transfer of water resources and more specifically in the Shenandoah River pump -over alternative for supplying water to the Occoquan, Goose Creek or Cedar Run watersheds as proposed in the Northern Virginia Area Water Supply Alternatives Report. T! The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. - COUNTY TO PARTICIPATE ON REIMBURSEMENT BASIS - Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein elect to participate on a reimbursement basis for unemployment compensation benefits for County employees as provided by Section 60.1 -89, 60:1 -89.1 and 60.1 -89.2 of the Virginia Unemployment Compensation Act, and does further direct that the County Administrator notify the Virginia Employment Commission of this action prior to November 1, 1977. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. APPROPRIATIONS TRANSFER - LANDFILL FUND - APPROVED Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, that the following appropriation transfer within the 1977 -78 Frederick - Winchester Landfill Fund is hereby authorized: TRANSFER FROM 10 7010J -399 Reserve for Contingencies $8,000.00 TRANSFER TO: 10- OIOJ -136D Compensation of Equipment Operator $8,000.00 The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. BOND RELEASE - STONEBROOK FARMS, SECTIONS IV, V AND VI - APPROVED Lpon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dennis T. Cole, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors•,of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein release the performance bond being held by the County in the amount of $20,000 on Section IV and V and the performance bond in the amount of $18,000 being held on Section VI, of Stonebrook Farms Subdivision'.in Back Creek Magisterial District in accordance with notification received from the Virginia Department of Highways that the roads in said sections of Stonebrook Farms Sub- division have been accepted into the Secondary Roads System:. u l E • • The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - W 15.3 S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosehberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. WATER LINE CONSTRUCTION IN VICINITY OF OLD CHARLES TOWN ROAD DISCUSSED Mr. Cole stated that he strongly objected to the memorandum from Mr. W..'H. r Jones of the Sanitation Authority stating that at the present time a water line is not planned to be built along the Old Charles Town Road because of the coordin- ems :with'•.theahighway contractor and the lack of funds in the EDA project. He stated that inasmuch as the road is currently being built, now is the-time to put the water lines in so that the road will not have to be torn up at a later date. Mr. Koontz advised that the bids have not been opened on this project yet:: • and should the Authority have sufficient funds, the line will be continued on this road. Dr. Fish stated that he felt it was unforgiveable to go.back and cut up E this road to lay the water lines when they might possibly be laid before the road is completed. Mr. Renalds stated that should the Board desire to appropriate the money, he felt sure the Sanitation Authority would go ahead and put this line in. However, inasmuch as the bids had not been opened the Authority did not know how far the line could be laid and there was a possibility it could continue on down the old: Charles Town Road. Following a brief discussion, the Chairman requested that this matter be tabled in order that a member of the Sanitation Authority might meet with the Board to discuss this matter. The Board agreed. HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMBERSHIP The Board requested the County Administrator to contact Dr. William Hatfield, • • Director of the Frederick - Winchester Health Department and request that he present a nomination to the Board to.:represent the Health Department on the Planning Commission to replace Mr. Roy Williams who has resigned. REQUEST FOR INDUSTRIAL ACCESS ROAD - FORT COLLIER INDUSTRIAL ESTATES - APPROVED Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, WHEREAS, A request has been made for the construction and maintenance of an industrial access road by Fort Collier Industrial Estates to serve the Ron- MCDole, Inc. property, said road to be an extension of State Route 1322 in an easterly direction from,the end of state maintenance to a point midway in the boundary fronting the McDole site as shown on the plat prepared by Greenway Engineering and Surveying Company, Inc. dated February 13, 1976, and Howard Shockey & Sons, Inc. dated July 29, 1977, hereto attached; and, WHEREAS, The property is bounded on the north, east, and south by property of Fort Collier Industrial Estates and on the west by property of Kingsdown, Inc; and, WHEREAS, The State Highway Commission, pursuant to the provisions of Section 33.1 -221 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, may construct industrial access roads; and, WHEREAS, The State Highway Commission has indicated its willingness to con- structf:and maintain the said industrial access road provided the right -of -way is made available and all adjustments have been made for utilities; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, Thit Boardoof Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia hereby approves the construction of an industrial access road as shown on the site plan attached hereto, provided that the project is com- pleted pursuant to the provision of Section 33.1 -221 of the Code of Virginia, 1.5 . 4 1950, as amended, and further provided that the land on which the industrial access road is to be constructed shall be provided without cost to the Commonwealth of Virginia and that the necessary adjustment for utilities is made without cost to the Com monwealth'-of Virginia. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas-B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. Following a brief discussion, the Board directed the County Administrator to contact Mr. Stine to ask that consideration be given to locating a second entrance into the industrial park'site inasmuch as a congestion problAm is becoming apparent in this area. DISCUSSION - CAPITAL FACILITIES Mr. Rosenberger asked if anything further had been accomplished on the proposed contract with the City for capital facilities. He stated that he would present data to the Board at the Regular Meeting in November but would wait until that time in order that the County /City committee might study the contract further. Mr. Koontz stated that there had been informal meetings on this matter and he felt a mood of cooperation existed between the City and County on this problem. Mr. Rosenberger stated that he did not feel the Board should delay action on this matter much longer and further that the Capital Facilities Committee could do no further work until they are given some guidelines. Mr. Cole asked if the City should not pay one -half of the cost of the jail renovation which is now underway inasmuch as they own half of the building and Mr. Koontz stated that this would be discussed with City officials. REAPPOINTMENT J. O. RENALDS, III AND H. RONALD BERG TO LORD FAIRFAX PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION - APPROVED Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein reappoint J. O. Renalds, III, Frederick County Administrator and H. Ronald Berg, Frederick County Director of Planning and Development, to serve as representatives from Frederick County on the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission for a term of three years, said term to commence on November 1, 1977 and terminate on October 31, 1980. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. BOARD RETIRES INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm, seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and passed unanimously, the Board retired into Executive Session, in accordance with Section 2.1 -344, Subsection (1) to discuss personnel with Mr. Thomas McCann, a representative from Municipal Advisors, Incorporated. BOARD WITHDRAWS FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION r Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole, seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, and passed unanimously, the Board withdrew from Executive Session. BOARD RECONVENES INTO REGULAR SESSION Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole, seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and passed unanimously, the Board reconvened into Regular Session. Mr. Koontz Summarized the discussion in Executive Session of the personnel • • • L •. 1: I study conducted by Municipal Advisors, Incorporated stating that the salary data would referred to the Finance Committee for study and recommendation; that the Board would plan to act on the Affirmative Action Plan at the November 9, 1977 Board Meeting; and that a Policies Committee consisting of Thomas B. Rosenberger and R. Thomas Malcolm had been appointed to study and make recommendations on the personnel policies section of the study. DIS 11 NORTH WATER P Mr. James Diehl, Chairman of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority appeared -the and stated that in regard to the memorandum from Mr. Jones pre- E vously discussed, the reasons the Authority was not planning to put the water line down the old Charles Town road were that the purpose of the project was to go to Clearbrook when the County applied for EDA funds and the decision was to go north on Route 11 as far as possible. Therefore, Mr. Diehl advised, the proposal is to in Ll:the water line on Route 664 and swing back south to go as far as possible on Route 761. He advised that reconstruction of Route 761 and the possibility of coordina -. ting the installation of the water line on 761 with the reconstruction was discussed sf-.the last :Author- ty.`.meeting. Mr. Diehl stated that the Authority currently plans to run water east on Route • 64 to the intersection of Routes 664 and 761 and that if the bids come in low, then Authority would put in water lines down Route 761 as far as funds would allow. He advised that the Authority had decided at their last meeting to jack under to 761 because coordination problems with the road contractor would possibly nflate costs of the water project. Mr. Diehl informed the Board that the Sanitation Authority is making a water to determine water needs in the County UPON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW ADJOURN. C airman, S retary, Board of Supervisors A Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, was held on November 9, 1977 in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT: S. Roger Koontz, Chairman; Thomas B. Rosenberger, Vice Chairman; • Dr. Raymond L. Fish; R. Thomas Malcolm; and Dennis T. Cole. ABSENT: Will L. Owings. The invocation was delivered by the Reverend Anthony Wadsworth of the Gainesboro United Methodist Charge. The Chairman called the meeting to order. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and seconded by Dennis T. Cole, Virginia does herein approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of this Board BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, held on October 14, 1977 and the Regular Meeting held on October 26, 1977, as submitted. 155 The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - 1.5.6 S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm and Dennis T. Cole. APPOINTMENTS Mr. Herbert Sluder Appointed to Serve as Health Department Liaison Representative) on Planning Commission ' Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm and seconded by Dennis T. Cole, BE IT RESOLVED,. That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein appoint Mr. Herbert Sluder to serve as the liaison representati from the Frederick County Health Department on the Frederick County Planning Commission.. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. Road Names Committee • Appointments from Back Creek and Opequon Districts to the Road Names Committee carried forward to the next meeting. Mr. William E. Bridcreforth, Jr.. Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger, • I BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein appoint Mr. William E.. Bridgeforth, Jr. to serve as a repre- ' sentative on the Frederick County Industrial Development Authority for a term • of our years, said term to commence on November 11, 1977 and terminate on November 10, 1981; and, I I II' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board does herein reappoint Mr. J. D. Shockey, r. to serve as a representative on the Industrial Development Authority for a term four years, said term to commence on November 11, 1977 and terminate on November, 10. 1981. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, nd Dennis T. Cole. Mrs. Ralph Bassett Appointed to Welfare Board and Terms Set for Mrs. • I Bassett and Mrs. Whitacre Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm on behalf of Will L. Owings and ;seconded Dennis T. cole, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, ginia does herein appoint Mrs. Ralph Bassett to serve as the Opequon District sentative on the Frederick County Welfare Board; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLOVED, That the Board does herein set the term for Mrs. Bassett at four years, said term to commence on July 1,, 1977 and terminate on June 30, 1981, and term for Mrs. Mary Whitacre, at two years, said term to commence • on July 1, 1977 and terminate on June 30, 1979. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and.: Dennis T. Cole. DOG LICENSE FEES SET AT $4.00 FOR UNNEUTERED DOGS AND $1.00 FOR NEUTERED DOGS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1979 Mr. Harold Whitacre appeared before the Board and stated that he felt there ' should be some type of incentive to have dogs neutered but he did not know whether the proposed change in the-license fee would accomplish this. Mrs. Keckley stated that she favored a straight fee of $5.00 inasmuch as a Lfferent fee for neutered and unneutered animals would create - a large amount of )rk. N Following a brief discussion, Dr. Fish stated that he could not see that this method would create a large problem but may help alleviate the problem of putting so many dogs to sleep. Mrs. Keckley advised that should this procedure be adopted, the veterinarians would have to be very careful to mark the rabies certificate with the necessary information. Dr. Fish stated that everyone must cooperate to make this work and he that the fee be set at $5.00 for unneutered dogs and $3.00 for neutered dogs. Mr Cole stated that he felt setting the fee at $4.00 for unneutered dogs • l and $1.00 for neutered dogs would provide more incentive for individuals to have their dogs neutered. Mr. Malcolm suggested trying this method for one year to see how it works and Dr. Fish stated that one year would not be enough time to see if it will be effective; that it would take approximately 5 years to determine its effectiveness. Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, L Virginia does herein set the fee for dog license for the calendar year 1979 at $4.00 per tag for unneutered dogs and $1.00 per tag for neutered dogs. The above resolution.was.passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. Nay - Thomas B. Rosenberger. jAbstaining - Dr. Raymond L. Fish. PUBLIC HEARINGS AN THE Mr. Berg presented the amendments to the Junk Car Ordinance and briefly LJ described the changes thereto. He stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of these amendments. Mr. Cole stated that he could not vote for the ordinance as amended with the terms "sanitary landfills and garbage dumps" contained therein. He stated that he felt the large companies in the area have enough problems without any more restrictions and that one business had already been closed down because of these restrictions. Mr. Renalds advised that this same language is contained in the existing ordinance. Dr. Fish stated that he felt this language changes the complexion of the a ordinance insofar as the title is set forth. Dr. Fish then moved to delete the words "sanitary landfill and garbage dumps" • from the ordinance. Mr. Cole seconded the motion. Mr..Malcolm asked if someone from the Planning Commission could explain why this language was put into the ordinance and Mr. Lang Gordon, Chairman of the Planning Commission, stated that perhaps the Commission had not looked at this particular language as closely as they should have. Mr. Huffman appeared before the Board in opposition to the ordinance and stated that he has been in business for thirty years and stores disabled vehicles until the insurance company or the owner can take them. He stated that he had received a letter telling him to close his business within 15 days. : ^Mr. Huffman stated that he did not like someone telling him what', could do with his own property which he had bought and paid taxes on. He further stated that he had no intention of buying county stickers for the disabled vehicles on his property. 157 158 Mr. Huffman stated that there is a difference of opinion of what junk is what.one person considers junk, another may not. Another gentleman in the audience stated that he too stores abandoned and isabled vehicles on his property at his own expense and-that he rebuilds cars th the parts from these automobiles. Mr. Huffman stated that the state law regarding disposition of these cars quite restrictive and can cause a great deal of.expense. He suggested that County issue some type of permit for the disposition of said vehicles within ty days. Mr. Berg stated that the ordinance is in accordance with state law. Mr. ogi advised that this is correct and that the procedure is quite cumbersome most of the owners of these automobiles do not want to reclaim them. Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, irginia, does herein table the Ordinance to Amend an Ordinance Adopted December 2, 1973, Entitled the Junk Car Ordinance and does refer the same to the Committee n Law Enforcement a n9 Courts for further study and recommendation and does request hat the input received at this meeting be considered by the Committee. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, nd Dennis T. Cole. Mr. Malcolm requested that the Board members give input to the Planning and Mr. Berg so that they might be aware of the Board's wishes before further materials. Dr. Fish requested that the ordinance be fully reviewed by legal counsel before t is returned to the Board so that all legal questions might be resolved prior Board actions. The Board recessed for 10 minutes. FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. Rosenberger presented the recommendations of the Finance Committee and following action was taken: TO ADJUST HUD Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, t the following General Operating Fund appropriation transfer is hereby authorized in order to adjust the budget of the HUD grant approved for the Sunnyside /Freetown ects: FROM: TO: Freetown Area Water and Sewerage Facilities $24,450,00 Sunnyside Water Facilities $24,450,.00 The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - . Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, Dennis T. Cole. SHENANDOAH APPLE BLOSSOM FESTIVAL REQUEST - APPROVED Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dr.,. Raymond L. Fish B; IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, inia does herein grant permission to the Shenandoah Apple Blossom Festival ittee to use the County parking plaza for rides and concessions during the 51st I • • L J • 1.59 Shenandoah Apple Blossom Festival on the dates of May 4, 1978 through May 7, 1978 with the stipulation that no stakes will be driven into the asphalt and further that the Apple-Blossom Festival Committee will assume full responsibility for any and all damage done to the plaza as a result of this function; and, I BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That permission is also granted to the Shenandoah Apple Blossom Festival Committee to use the steps of the Frederick County Courthouse for band concerts prior to the Firemen's Parade on May 5th and the Grand Feature Parade on May 6th./ The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - • IS. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, I and T. Cole. 'S Mr. Rosenberger stated that a new base station is direly needed by the Firemen's • Association and that said base station has been ordered and paid for by the Middletow Fire Company. However, one company in the association would not approve the purchase of this station and inasmuch as a unanimous vote is necessary for approval the funds could not be paid out of the Association's budget. The Association is there- fore requesting reimbursement of these funds and the base station would become the property of the Association. Colonel Hess, Treasurer of the Firemen's Association, appeared before the Board Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dennis T. Cole, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, q • Virginia, does herein approve a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $2,760.00 for the purchase of the base station for the Frederick County Firemen's Association, said check to be made payable to the Middletown Fire and Rescue Company inasmuch as this organization has paid for the base station out of their own funds and it is the desire of this Board to reimburse Middletown for the cost of the base station in support of this request and stated that they can no longer get spare parts to repair the old radio and hence the necessity of a new one. and that the owner of the base station IASsociation. shall be the Frederick County Firemen's The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - IS. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, land Dennis T. Cole. BOARD RETIRES INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger, seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm, • discuss property for public use. BOARD WITHDRAWS FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole, seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, and passed unanimously, the Board withdrew from Executive Session. BOARD RECONVENES INTO REGULAR SESSION Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole, seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm, and passed and passed unanimously, the Board retired into Executive Session in accordance with Section 2.1 -344, Subsection (2) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, to junanimously, the Board reconvened into Regular Session. 160 Mr. Koontz stated that in Executive Session the Board had discussed a sible agreement between the City;.and County for capital facilities. Mr. Rosenberger stated that the City and'County are in disagreement on the period preventing moratorium action set forth in the contract.and that in Executive Session the Board felt very-strongly about this point. Upon.motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dennis T. Cole, BE IT RESOLVED, That-:the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein authorize the Capital Facilities Committee to consider the options avaiiable to the County in order to build court facilities and other County office facilities within the County and report said findings back to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. ribe above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. Mr. Malcolm asked what time frame the Board desired regarding receipt of this report and the Board concurred that the report would be presented during the month of January, 1978. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COMMITTEE ON ENGINEERING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT Mr. Malcolm presented the recommendation from the Committee on Engineering and Code Enforcement and the following action was taken: REVISED BUILDING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE - APPROVED Mr. Carroll Brown, Building Inspector, appeared before the Board and presented a revised building inspection fee schedule which was recommended for approval by the Committee on Engineering and Code Enforcement:. and briefly explained the changes thereto. He stated that the biggest changes are in the plumbing inspection fee schedule and that the building contractors are aware of the proposed changes and to date he has received no opposition to them. Mr. Rosenberger asked what the specific changes were and Mr. Brown replied that the $7.50 fees would-be raised to $10.00 and that billboards, carnivals and circuses, and temporary occupancy for commercial construction had been added. Mr. Cole stated that he objected to the inspection fee for underground and above ground storage tanks as set forth on the schedule; that he felt the County was becoming overprotective of the people. Dr. Fish suggested that temporary bleachers be included in tlie and carnival inspections and Mr. Brown stated that he felt this could be done. Mr. Cole stated that he felt the inspection of wood stoves was too restrictive and he strongly objected to this section. Mr. Brown advised that he has prepared and made available to the public a flyer regarding wood stoves inasmuch-as there has been such a great increase in them over the past year or two and that the department's main concern in this area is one of safety. There followed a brief discussion regarding the average inspection fees charged in the County, the inspection services provided the citizenry at no cost, and the recommended changes in the fee schedule. Mr. Brown advised that the categories set forth in the schedule are basically ssame.with'ithe•-:exception of the additional items set forth above. He further advised that he is preparing a.phamplet which will set forth basic information regarding inspections in the County, such as when the permit is necessary and the various fees charged, in order that the average citizen might become more informed regarding this service in the County • • r� U i Mr. Malcolm stated that the Committee considered that the schedule has not revised for quite some time and hopefully this schedule, if adopted, will take of the department for the next three to four years. Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, rginia does herein approve the following revised fee schedule for the Department Inspections: 6 -3 - FEES • (A) No permits as required by the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, as amended and supplemented, shall be issued until the fees prescribed by this section shall have been paid, nor shall an amendment to a permit be approved until the additional fee, if any, shall have been paid. (B) The permit fee schedule for inspections of buildings or structures (whether new, remodeled, or added to) shall be as follows: (1) One and two family dwellings, townhouses, vacation shells; • • (C) The fee for a building permit for the removal of a building or structure from one lot to another or to a new location on the same lot shall be at a rate of 40 cents per one hundred dollars of the estimated cost of moving plus the cost of new foundations and all work necessary to place the building or structure in its completed condition in the new location (D)' The fee for a mobile home permit shall be $35.00 (E) The term "Estimated" as used in this Section, means the reasonable value of all services, labor and materials necessary for the proposed work. '(F) The permit fee schedule for plumbing inspections shall be as follows: (1) Base plumbing permit plus $3.00 per fixture $10.00 (2) Renewal of building sewer without other changes to the existing system $ 5.00 (3) Installation of air conditioning requiring water connections $ 5.00 (4) Water supply to heating system $ 3.50 (5) Well pumps $ 2.00 each (6) New water and sewer line $'15:'00. (7) Each additional inspection due to delay in work, improper material, etc. $10.00 (G) The permit fee schedule for storm sewer inspections shall be as follows: (1) Private property storm sewer (2) Laterals (3). Roof drains (4) Outside leader (5) Manhole (6) Area drain $ 3.00 apartment and additions .06 per sq. (2) Restaurants, motels, hotel's :10 per sq. (3) Commercial and industrial .10 per sq. (4) Warehouses .10 per sq. (5) Acdessory"buildings $10.00: (6) Demolition $ 7.50 (7) Swimming pools (Commercial) $30.00 (8) Swimming Pools (Private) $15.00 (9) Garages & Carports $10.00. (10) Decks and porch additions $10.00 (11) Remodeling .06 per.rsq. (12) Re- roofing $10.00 (13) Re- siding $10.00 (14) Shelters $10.00 (15) Retaining Walls $10.00 (16) Signs $10.00 (17) Billboards $15.00 (18) Carnivals & circuses (Sponsored non - profit) No Fee (19) Carnivals & circuses (Commercial) $75.00 (20) Underground tanks $10.00 (21) Aboveground tanks $15.00 (22) Radio towers and like structures $15.00 (23) Fire inspections (Requested) $25.00 (24) Special inspections (Requested) $25.00 (25) Churches, schools, etc. .06- per.:sq.. (26) Use and occupancy (Commercial) $10.00 (27) Temporary occupancy (Residential) $ 5.00 (28) Renewal of permit (1st year N/C 2nd year) $10.00 (29) Refund - (A) No work started 758 (B) Work started 508 (30) Additional inspections due to delay, or not being ready $10.00 (31) Farm buildings No Fee (32) Fireplace's and stoves $10.00 (33) Minimum fee $10.00 (34) No fee shall be charged for construction cost less than $500.00 including labor and materials unless listed in the fee schedule. (C) The fee for a building permit for the removal of a building or structure from one lot to another or to a new location on the same lot shall be at a rate of 40 cents per one hundred dollars of the estimated cost of moving plus the cost of new foundations and all work necessary to place the building or structure in its completed condition in the new location (D)' The fee for a mobile home permit shall be $35.00 (E) The term "Estimated" as used in this Section, means the reasonable value of all services, labor and materials necessary for the proposed work. '(F) The permit fee schedule for plumbing inspections shall be as follows: (1) Base plumbing permit plus $3.00 per fixture $10.00 (2) Renewal of building sewer without other changes to the existing system $ 5.00 (3) Installation of air conditioning requiring water connections $ 5.00 (4) Water supply to heating system $ 3.50 (5) Well pumps $ 2.00 each (6) New water and sewer line $'15:'00. (7) Each additional inspection due to delay in work, improper material, etc. $10.00 (G) The permit fee schedule for storm sewer inspections shall be as follows: (1) Private property storm sewer (2) Laterals (3). Roof drains (4) Outside leader (5) Manhole (6) Area drain $ 3.00 each $ 5.00 each $ 5.00 each $ 5.00 each $ 5.00 each $ 5.00 each 1 9 162 (H) The permit fee schedule for electrical inspections shall'be; set by..tho. ;Middle Department of Inspections Agency, unless otherwise specified by the Board of Supervisors. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, and R. Thomas Malcolm. Nay - Dennis T. Cole. Dennis T. Cole then moved to advertise the new fee schedule in the newspapers and over the radio stations, the motion died for lack of a second ORDINANCES - FIRST AND SECOND READING Mr. Renalds read the following ordinances on first and second reading: 1. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ADOPTED JANUARY 14, 1976. 2. ZMAP #015 -77 OF ROBERT E. BURTON, C/O SUN OIL COMPANY, 280 NORTH EAST STREET, YORK, PENNSYLVANIA HEREBY REQUESTS THAT 2.693 ACRES .ADJACENT TO ROUTE 11 NORTH NEAR ROUTE 37, NOW ZONED INDUSTRIAL- LIMITED DISTRICT (M -1) BE REZONED: BUSINESS - GENERAL DISTRICT (B -2). THIS PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED ON TAX MAPS 43(a), 42. and 43(3)D AND IS IN STONEWALL MAG- ISTERIAL DISTRICT. WATER LINE PROJECT DISCUSSED Mr. Charles Hott appeared before the Board and requested that Route 761 be served with water should it prove feasible for the Sanitation Authority to do so. He stated that the people in this area have a very serious water problem. Mr. Koontz advised that the Sanitation Authority will receive bids on the Stephenson project on November 15th and will open said bids on November 18th. He stated that he hoped the bids would be low and.. funds would be available to extend the water line should the Board so desire. Mr. Rosenberger asked if funds are available to extend the line, would Clearbrook still be served and Mr. Koontz replied that it would. UPON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW ADJOURN. V rman, Se "etary, Board of Supervisors C� J • 0 A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on 23, 1977, in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room, 9 Court Square, Winchest rginia. PRESENT: S. Roger Koontz, Chairman; Thomas B. Rosenberger, Vice Chairman; . Raymond L. Fish; Will L. Owings;.R. Thomas Malcolm; and Dennis T. Cole. The Chairman called the meeting to order. INVOCATION The invocation was delivered by the Reverend Robert Jackson of the First resbyterian Church. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the"County rt Frederick,. irginia, does herein approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of this Board held on November 9, 1977 as submitted. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, • I T homas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. '1:6.3 Dr. Wright appeared before the Board and stated that schematic drawings of the proposed new high school would be shown to the Board. He stated that all committees had been approached, along with the County Parks and Recreation Commission and the State Department of Education and their input had been considered in the drawings. He advised that there have been a considerable number of changes proposed,and some of them will have to be made. Dr. Wright then introduced Mr. Hubert Stratton and his associate, Mr. Landry • who presented slides showing the proposed new senior high school and described the various facilities and their location in the building. Mr. Stratton stated that they are now reviewing the input received from the Committees; that the next step will be the design development state of the project land submittal of the plans to Richmond for consideration and approval. Di. Fish asked if the school, as it is now planned, could be expanded or con- • everted into a four year high school in the future without great cost and Mr. Stratton) stated that this had been considered in the plans and these changes could be accomplished without any major changes. every little rock had been found and that they therefore did not anticipate any Mr. Stratton advised that borings had been made on the property and relatively great problem or expense in grading the site. Mr. Rosenberger requested that the Board of Supervisors meet with the School (Board to review the final plans. The Board and Dr. Wright concurred with this request. SUBDIVISION - HARRY F. STIMPSON AND ALLEN PROPERTIES, INC. - OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED Mr. Harry F. Stimpson and Mr. William A. Johnston; his attorney, appeared • before the Board in support of this 'subdivision and Mr. Johnston stated that a sixty (60) foot right -of -way, between this property and the Allen property had been Idedicated. Mr. Rosenberger stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of this subdivision and was agreeable to the right -of -way as dedicated. sufficient to accomodate.this subdivision.and Mr. Renalds stated that it was. Mr. Koontz asked if the capacity of the Sanitation Authority plant would be Mr. Malcolm asked if a'traffic problem might be created with three businesses inl this small area and Mr. Johnston stated that the Highway Department would have jurisdiction in this area. Dr. Fish stated that he was concerned about the possible future of Route 277 • and that he considered this a very dangerous road. Mr. Cole stated that when the need is justified, the federal government will widen the road. Mr. Rosenberger stated that when the Kentucky Fried Chicken facility was approved there was no provision for a service road,:. now this will be an additional approval without a service road. He stated that in the future, the Board should consider this situption very carefully. Mr. Koontz rec;Absted that the Board's.concern in this matter be noted. Upon motion made by Will L. Owings and seconded by Dennis T.:Cole, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does herein approve the subdivision request of Harry F. Stimpson and Allen Properties, Inc. fronting on Route 277 between the acreage of Allen Properties,) Inc. and Ridgefield Subdivision containing two (2) commercial lots located in the 164 Magisterial District. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - . Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, ill L. Owings, and Dennis T. Cole. INTRODUCTION OF PROPOSED NEW FREDERICK COUNTY EXTENSION AGENT Dr. Ben Weddle, District Supervisor of the V.P.I. and S.U. Extension Service, appeared before the Board and reviewed briefly the qualifications they had looked for in securing a new agricultural extension agent for Frederick County. Mr. Weddle then introduced Mr. Gary DeOms as their selection for the position presented a brief background of Mr. DeOms' experience and education. Mr. Koontz welcomed Mr. DeOms to Frederick County and stated that the procedure Board would like to follow would be to review his resume and then meet with him ividually and collectively and then reach a decision at the next Board meeting. Mr. Rosenberger asked what procedure would be followed should the Board desire look at another applicant and Mr. Koontz stated that Mr. Weddle would be requested select another applicant for the Board's review. The'.ZBoardr- discussed the formation of an Advisory Committee to work with the Service, consisting of members from each of the various organizations thin the County who work with the Extension Service. Dr. Fish stated that he felt the appointments to this Committee were most im- and suggested -that the organizations submit two or three nominations for M tion by the Board. Mr. Rosenberger and Mr. Owings agreed that the Committee not be formed hastily. Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, herein agree to appoint an Advisory Committee to work in conjunction with the County Extension Service;: said committee to consist of a representative each of the following organizations: Extension Homemakers 4 -H Youth Council Farm. Bureau Frederick County ASCS Office Beef Cattle Dairy Cattle Orchardists General Farmer Fair Association Poultry Farmers 4 -H Leaders Council The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - . Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, ..Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. RESIGNATIONS OF STEVE LOCKE ACCEPTED Mr. Koontz announced that he had received a letter of resignation from Mr. Steve from the Frederick County Extension Service. He stated that Mr. Locke plans continue his education.: and that the County is now in the process of seeking agent to replace Mr. Locke. Mr. Weddle stated that he felt the District Office would be ready to make an ntment to this position by the end of December. APPOINTMENT MR. TOM DICKS TO ROAD NAMES COMMITTEE - APPROVED Upon motion made by Will L. Owings and seconded by Dennis T. Cole, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia herein appoint Mr. Tom Dicks to the Road Names Committee to represent the Op ial District. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - • • • • J 165' S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings,. R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. APPOINTMENT OF DR. RA' COMMISSION - APPROVED L 0 Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisdrs,of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein.iappoint Dr. Raymond L. Fish to serve as a representative from the Board of Supervisors on the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission for a term of four years, said term to commence on January 1, 1977 and expire on December 31, 1980. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - • S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. TO FREDERICK Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does herein reappoint Mr. C. Langdon Gordon to the Frederick County Planning Commission for a term of four (4) years, said term to commence November 1, 1977 and terminate on October 31, 1981. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - • S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, and R. Thomas Malcolm:. Nay - Dennis T. Cole stating that inasmuch as Mr. Gordon is in the real estate business he felt a conflict of interest might be created with service on the Commission. )F JAMES SUMPTIO ANI 1;7 - APPROVED Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and seconded by Will L. Owings, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, • • Virginia does herein reappoint Mr. James Sumption to serve as a representative from Frederick County of the Chapter 10 Board for a term of three year$, said term to commence on January 1, 1978 and terminate on December 31, 1980; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board does herein reappoint Mr. Robert Sowers to serve as a representative from Frederick County on the Chapter 10 Board for a t one (1) year, said term to commence on January 1, 1978, and terminiate on December 31, 1978. The above resolution was passed by the 'following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. FOR CHRISTIAN Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does herein recommend to the Honorable Robert K. Woltz, Judge of the Twenty -sixth Judicial Circuit Court, the reappointment of Mr. H. C. Christianson to the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - i S. Roger Koontz, Thomas-B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. The Board recessed for ten minutes. BOARD AGREES NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN BEVERAGE CONTAINER ORDINANCE AT THIS TIME The Board reviewed correspondence received from Shenandoah County regarding a proposed beverage container ordinance. 16.6 Mr. Malcolm suggested that the County wait to see if the State can properly address this probelm and not become active at this time nor participate as an in- dividual County in this endeavor. Er. Fish stated that he felt this is a problem which should be addressed and on which the County should be kept up to date. , Mr. Cole stated that he was totally against an ordinance of this type, and that he felt it would only increase prices and would not solve the problem. Mr. Owings stated that he would be more interested in several counties par- ticipating in such an endeavor rather than just an isolated few. Mr. Rosenberger stated that he felt the state would have more control in a matter such as this rather than an individual County. Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm and seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger, II • BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Haven Terrace a Virginia, does herein agree not to become active with other area counties at this time, nor participate as an individual County', in the proposed beverage container ordinance. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Will L. Owings, and R. Thomas Malcolm. ' Nay - Dennis T. Cole and Dr. Raymond L. Fish. ZMAP #014 -77 ORPHA G. MARTIN, N. W. GARRISON, AND SHASTA B. GARRISON TO • REZONE 28.054 ACRES FROM R -2 TO R -6 IN STONEWALL DISTRICT - FIRST AND SECOND W. Renalds.read the following ordinance on first and second. ZMAP #014 -77 OF ORPHA G. MARTIN, N. W. GARRISON AND SHASTA B. GARRISON, 20 & 21 COLONIAL HEIGHTS, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA,. HEREBY REQUESTS THAT 28.054 ACRES, ADJACENT TO ROUTE 7, ON THE SOUTH SIDE AND ROUTE 659, NOW X)NED RESIDENTIAL- LIMITED DISTRICT (R -2) BE REZONED: MULTI - FAMILY RESI_ LENTIAL DISTRICT (R -6). THIS PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS PARCELS NO. 54(A)100, 54(A)111, and 54(A)112, AND IS IN STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. REQUEST FOR ROAD ADDITIONS HERITAGE HILLS SUBDIVISION APPROVED Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm and seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein request the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to accept into the Secondary Roads System the following roads in Heritage Hills • Subdivision, in Shawnee Magisterial District, pursuant to the provisions of Section ' 33.1 -229 of the Code of-Virginia, 1950 as amended. 1. Crest Circles a distance of .33 miles 2. Village Road a distance of .25 miles 3. Haven Terrace a distance of .15 miles 4. Huntcrest Road a distance of .24 miles 5. Idylwood Drive a distance of .05 miles 6. Dale Court a distance of .07 miles B; IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the 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 409, Page 197, Deed Book 424, II • -Page 497, and Deed Book 461, Page 112; and, EE 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, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. , BOARD RETIRES INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm, seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger, and passed unanimously, the Board retired into Executive Session in accordance with Section 2.1 -344, Subsection (6) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended to discuss legal matters. 1617 BOARD WITHDRAWS FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm, seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and passed unanimously, the Board withdrew from Executive Session. BOARD RECONVENES INTO REGULAR SESSION 1 Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole, seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger and ssed unanimously, the Board reconvened into Regular Session UPON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT 0 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW ADJOURN. i j A SD- C ,d�� Bo ;d of Supervisors Sbtretary, Board of Supervisors A Special Joint Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors and the County Planning Commission was held on December 12, 1977, at 3:30 P.M in • Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia. WAIVER OF NOTICE 07SPECIAL MEETING We, the undersigned Members of the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, inia, the Commonwealth Attorney, and the Clerk of the Board, do hereby waive of Special Meeting to be held on Monday, December 12, 1977,. at 3:30 P.M. in Frederick County Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester, irginia, for the following purposes: 1. Meeting with the Frederick County Planning Commission. 2. Such other business as may come before the Board. Signed and attested this 12th day of December 1977. is 40 /s/ S. Roger Koontz S. Roger Koontz Chairman ATTEST: /s/ J. 0. Renalds, III J. O. Renalds, III Clerk of the Board.of Supervisors. /s/ Thomas B. Rosenberger Thomas B. Rosenberger Vice Chairman Back Creek District /s/ Dr. Raymond L. Fish Dr. Raymond L. Fish Gainesboro District /s/ Will L. Owings Will L. Owings Opequon District /s/ R. Thomas Malcolm R. Thomas Malcolm Shawnee District /s/ Dennis T. Cole _ Dennis T. Cole Stonewall District /s/ Lawrence R. Ambrogi Lawrence R. Ambrogi Commonwealth Attorney 7:a • f PRESENT: Board of Supervisors - S. Roger Koontz, Chairman; Thomas B. Rosenberger, ce Chairman; Dr. Raymond L. Fish; Will L. Owings; R. Thomas Malcolm; and Dennis . Cole. Planning Commission - C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; W. French Kirk; James W. laday; and Manuel C. DeHaven. ' ABSENT: Board of Supervisors - None Planning Commission - Frank Brumback and Elmer Venskoske Vice Chairman Thomas Rosenberger called the meeting to order inasmuch as Mr. tz arrived late. The members of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission discussed t length the proposed amendment to the Division of Land Ordinance. The areas iscussed were: the situation where there is a 25 foot right -of -way and additional ght -of -way is not available, and whether or not variances would be granted from proposed requirements in such cases; the 108 slope requirement; the width to ratio; the CBR requirements; another zoning where the provisions for fifty foot right -of -way would not apply so that citizens who desire to remain an area where there is little traffic might be able to do so; the lack of in recreational subdivisions. Mr. Owings stated that he felt the Board must consider the welfare of the over - County and not try to adopt ordinance to cover every individual case. Mr. Cole stated that he felt the provisions for a fifty foot right -of -way minor streets was ridiculous and that the Highway Department does not require much. Mr. Malcolm stated that he was concerned with the definition of subdivision as any division of land would be termed a subdivision and therefore some- who might want to sell one parcel of land, without any intention of subdividing property, would be considered a subdivider and would fall under the requirements for same; however, on the otherhand, if requirements are not set forth, sub- visions could be developed one parcel at a time with no provisions having been . He added that he felt if we are going to control growth in the County, we st be as restrictive as our neighbors. Mr. Gordon advised that the road requirements set forth are to assure that the roads might be brought up to state standards and be taken into the highway system should this be the desire of the property owners in the future. Mr. Malcolm stated that when the roads;!will..not_ be_ brought,:.up :to.:state standards, the purchaser should be made aware of this'when he purchases the property. BOARD RETIRES INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger, seconded by Dennis T. Cole and sed unanimously, the Board and Planning Commission retired into executive session, in accordance with Section 2.1 -344, Subsection 6, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended to discuss a legal matter. BOARD WITHDRAWS FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, seconded-by Dennis T. Cole and passed unanimously;: the Board withdrew from Executive Session. BOARD RECONVENES INTO REGULAR SESSION Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole, seconded bye-Dr. Raymond L. Fish, and passed unanimously, the Board reconvened into Regular Session. J • • 1 J 11 .:168 Mr. Rosenberger.stated that the Board and Commission had discussed a more definite definition of a large lot subdivision and another legal matter which would be discussed further at the Wednesday night regular meeting. UPON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT J THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW ADJOURN. Sectary, Board of Supervisors • I II A Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, was held on December 14, 1977, in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT: S. Roger Koontz, chairman; Thomas B. Rosenberger, Vice Chairman; Dr. Raymond L. Fish;.Will L. Owings; R. Thomas Malcolm; and Dennis T. Cole. I) The Chairman called the meeting to order. INVOCATION • Reverend Warren Reeves of the Stephens City United Methodist Church delivered 11the invocation. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of this Board held on November 23, 1977 as submitted. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. • II RETIRING SUPERVISOR, DENNIS T. COLE HONORED Mr. David Fahnestock, Chairman of the Frederick County Parks and Recreation ' 11 Commission, appeared before the Board and presented to Mr. Dennis T. Cole a certificate of recognition for his many hours of work and the contributions he has made to the recreation program during his service on the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Koontz announced this this would be the last meeting for Dennis T. Cole s 11Supervisor from Stonewall District. He stated that Mr. Cole had given a tre- mendous amount to Frederick County and its citizens and would long be remembered • for his service, He than presented a plaque from the members of the Board of Supervisors to Mr. Cole:. Mr. Cole thanked the Board and the Recreation�Commission for their re- cognition and stated that he had enjoyed serving on the Board of Supervisors over the past six years. SCHOOL BOARD LITERARY LOAN RESOLUTION - APPROVED Mr. Donald Perrault appeared '.before the Board and requested approval of an ' application'by the School Board for a literary loan in the amount of $1,000,000 at 1 3% interest. Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole, and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, WHEREAS, The School Board for the County of Frederick, on the 14th day of December, •1977, presented to this Board, an application addressed to the State Board of Education of Virginia for the purpose of borrowing from the Literary 1.7 0 Fund $1,000,000 for the new school building (or for adding to or improving the present school buiding) at Rts. 522'N and 37 N on 739, to be paid in 20 annual installments, and the interest thereon at 3 percent paid annually; RESOLVED, That the application of the County School Board to the State Board of Education of Virginia for a loan of $1,000,000 from the Literary Fund is here- ' by approved, and authority is hereby granted to the said County School Board to borrow the said amount for the purpose set out in said application. The Board of Supervisors for said County will each year during the life of this loan, at the time they fix the regular levies, fix a rate of levy for schools or make a cash appropriation sufficient for operation expenses and to pay this loan in annual installments and the interest thereon, as required by law re- gulating loans from the Literary Fund. • The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. APPOINTMENT OF H. I. PHILLIPS TO ROAD NAMES COMMITTEE - APPROVED Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dennis T. Cole, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein appoint Mr. H.I. Phillips to serve as the Back Creek ' District representative on the Road Names Committee. • The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will..L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. APPOINTMENT OF MR. GARY DEOMS AS FREDERICK COUNTY EXTENSION..AGENT.'CONFIRMED Mr. Koontz stated that the Board had met with Mr. Gary DeOms the Extension Agent recommended by VPI AND SU for Frederick County. He advised that Mr. DeOms would not necessarily be a replacement for Mr. Wolfe. Upon motion made by Will L. Owings and seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of-Frederick, Virginia does herein confirm the appointment of Mr. Gary DeOms as Extension Agent • for Frederick County as recommended by VPI &' :SU. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye•- , S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #010 -77 FREDERICK COUNTY FAIR ASSOCIATION - APPROVED Mr. Roger Crosen appeared.before the Board representing the Frederick County Fair Association, and requested approval of a conditional use permit to provide camping during activities being held at the fairground. • Mr. Owings stated that this application is not as restrictive as the one approved last year and would permit camping at any time. Mr. Cole stated that he had not received any complaints regarding the use of the fairgrounds for camping for activities such as carnivals and circuses and felt the permit should be approved without restrictions. Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and seconded by Dennis T. Cole, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, , Virginia, does herein approve Conditional Use Permit #010 -77 of the Frederick County Fair Association to provide space for camping units for people connected with a carnival, circus, rodeo, flea market, or similar activity, whenever that event is being held on said fairgrounds during the calendar year 1978; to provide ' space for camping units of the Wally Byam Caravan in April -May 1978; and to provide 171 space for camping units of the Wally Byam Caravan Club during their weekend rally in August 1978. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - L7_ S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. PUBLIC HEARINGS • 14 -77 -. 2 Mr. N. W. Garrison and his attorney, Mr. John Prosser appeared before the Board in support of this rezoning request. Mr. Prosser stated that the request to have this property rezoned to R -6 would make it more compatible with the area and that the structures were there before we had a zoning ordinance. Mr. Garrison then presented pictures.-of the property and stated that water and sewer is available and there is proper drainage on the property. There was discussion as to the number of units planned for the property and the time -table for development of the property and Mr. Garrison advised that the property would not be developed for at least the next five years. Mr. Koontz stated that the Board and the Planning Commission had worked many i 1] hours trying to look at future development and its effect on the County. He stated that we must be aware that the more people we have the more services are required and therefore the higher the taxes must be. Mr. Malcolm stated that the Land Use Plan calls for medium density re- sidential use for this area. He asked Mr. Berg if the proposed use would meet this criteria and Mr. Berg stated that it would not. Mr. Malcolm then suggested that perhaps an impact study should be made on the proposed development. Mr. Rosenberger stated that this rezoning request had been tabled by the • Planning Commission and passed to the Board of Supervisors with no recommendation inasmuch as ten acres of the property is already developed leaving the remainder of approximately 17 acres. Mr. Gordon stated that the Commission did not appear to be opposed to re- zoning a portion of the property when ten acres is already covered with buildings, some of which are single family units. However, they did not appear to be in favor of rezoning the entire tract. Mr. DeHaven stated that he could see no reason why this property should not be rezoned inasmuch as the services are available and in Sunnyside there are tracts larger than this which are zoned R -6. Several of the Board members stated that the Board must be concerned with 11 the growth of the County and cannot continue to permit rezonings of large tracts of land where the potential development is unknown. Concern was also expresssed regarding the number of parcels of land which have been rezoned and have not as yet been developed. Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein deny the #014 -77 of Orpha G. Martin, N. W. Garrison and Shasta B. Garrison, 20 and 21 Colonial Heights, Winchester, Virginia, to rezone 28.054 acres, adjacent to Route 7, on the south side and Route 659, from Residential- Limited District R -2 to Multi- Family Residential District R -6, said property designated as Parcel No. 54(A)110, 54(A)111, and 54(A)112 in Stonewall Magisterial District. The above resolution was.passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - 172 i. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish,: Will L. Owings, and R. Thomas Malcolm. Nay - Dennis T. Cole. ZMAP #015 -77 - - TO REZONE 2 Mr. Berg presented the rezoning request of Robert E. Burton, c/o Sun.Oil stating that the Planning Commission recommended approval. RIAL W. Joseph White, Attorney, appeared before the Board with Mr. Ronald Miller, t of the Bank of Frederick County, in support of this rezoning request stating that the proposed use of the property is a branch bank which has been approved by the State Corporation Commission. There was no opposition. Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve the following rezoning request on third and final reading: ZMAP #015 -77 OF-ROBERT E. BURTON, C/O SUN OIL COMPANY, 280 NORTH EAST STREET, YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, HEREBY REQUESTS THAT 2.693 ACRE, ADJACENT TO ROUTE 11 NORTH NEAR ROUTE 37, NOW ZONED INDUSTRIAL - LIMITED DISTRICT (M -1) BE REZONED: BUSINESS - GENERAL DISTRICT (B -2). THIS PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED ON TAX MAPS 43(a), 42, AND 43(3)D AND IS IN STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. TREASURER'S REPORT LATE FILING PENALTY Mrs. Dorothy Keckley, Treasurer, reported that she is receiving nunerous complaints regarding the late filing penalty and that she felt this was because many people did not understand the penalty and did not realize that the forms for filing were contained in their state income tax package. She further stated that new residents and many elderly citizens do not receive a state income tax package. Mr. Owings presented a tax bill showing a penalty and asked Mrs. Keckley for an explanation as to why the penalty had been added to the bill on December 2nd. She replied that the bill had been brought down to the postage meter on December 2nd at a quarter till four but was not postmarked until December 5th and that the penalty had been imposed on December 2nd just incase the bill was not received until December 5th. Mr. Owings stated that in cases such as this he did not feel that penalty should be assessed and Mrs. Keckley agreed. W. Cole stated that he felt the Constitutional Officers should have a postage meter of their own in order to alleviate problems of this nature. Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Will L. Owings, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does herein refer the request of the Constitutional Officers.-for a postage machine to the Finance Committee for study and recommendation and does direct that the Constitutional.•_ Officers be invited to the next meeting of the Finance Committee to discuss this matter as well as the problem with the late filing penalty. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. • 1 • is i • AN Mr. Berg read the proposed amendment to the Division of Land'Ordinance in full. Mr. Koontz stated that both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors were concerned with the problems of large lot subdivisions and had therefore enacted. emergency legislation regarding this matter until such time as citizen input could be weighed and thorough discussions could-be held in order to determine what changes should be made in the ordinance. Mr. Renalds reviewed briefly the changes which had'been made to the original • • amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Fred Larrick appeared before the Board in opposition to the proposed amendment and stated that the Board must consider the economical feasibility of the requirements set forth in the amendment and that the larger the lot the greater the expense would be. He advised that within the next 35 years our population will double; that these people must have a place to live and with these provisions the people will not be able.. to afford to buy a home. Mr. Larrick stated that he felt those people who had purchased property many years ago and who had no control over the entrance into their property should be protected because in many cases, additional rights -o£ -way were not available. He suggested that perhaps this could be achieved through a grandfather's clause. Mr. Koontz stated that the intention of the amendment was to protect and not to punish. He advised that two lots are exempt but should a developer develop more than two lots, he must have a fifty foot right -of -way. Mr. Koontz stated that the requirements are set forth so that in the future, should the property owners so desire, the roadways might be brought up to state standards. Mr. R. M. Larrick appeared before the Board and stated that he was a property i1 • owner in Back Creek District and had begun developing his property in 1932. He advised that the roadway leading into his property is a private roadway and is so designated; that there is an average of 8 to 10 people per weekend on this road and that to bring it up to state standards would be prohibitive. He further advised that the landowners pay a certain amount each year for maintenance of the road. OONIIII Mr. Koontz advised that the Board does recognize the problems of recreational subdivisions and that Dr. Fish had suggested that perhaps another R category should be developed. He stated that this type problem would be addressed by the Board. Mr. Clinton R. Ritter appeared before the board and stated that he was con- cerned about the legal implications of the proposed amendment inasmuch as many people had purchased land but had not recorded their sales contract or had entered into the sale on a contract of good faith and that this would necessarily cause a cloud on the title. He stated that he felt the Board was combining two or three different types of developments and this was unfair; that many people wanted private secluded property without public roadways. He suggested that if the Board was in fact going to consider another R category for mountain development, this should be done as soon as possible and that full time residential subdivisions in agricultural zones should be eliminated. He stated that the Board should keep in mind that these mountain developments are not permanent residences, but are temporary recreational homes. 173 174'. Mr. Koontz stated that the Board is aware of these problems but the Board must also still deal with five acre tracts which may potentially become year- round residences. Mr. John Chiles, Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Highways, appeared before the Board and explained the Highway Department requirements for acceptance of roads into the State Secondary System. He stated that many times purchasers initially do not want a state maintained road, but then ten years later they decide that they do want such a road and there is not enough available right -of -way. Mr. Chiles stressed that the provisions for drainage easements are very important. Mr. Sherwood Hedrick appeared before the Board and stated that should the proposed amendment be approved a developer would not be able to afford to develop five acre tracts and therefore the County would be divided into smaller lots thereby generating more people. He stated that should the Board require only that additional right -of -way be available, this could perhaps be accepted. Mr. John Pickeral appealed before the Board and stated that if the County was going to have good planning and development to protect the taxpayers, he felt restrictions were necessary and that recreation subdivisions should have the same requirements as residential subdivisions. Mr. Clinton L. Ritter appeared before the Board and stated that he had dev- eloped and sold over 3,000 acres of property in Frederick County. He stated that many people do not want the accessibility of public roads. He further stated that he would not be opposed to right -of -way requirements to provide better ingress and egress. Mr.. Ritter stated that many acres of land in the County.bring in tax dollars but do not cost the taxpayer anything. He stated ,that he felt land sold for retirement purposes should be treated as such. Mr. Woodrow Carlisle, an excavator, appeared before the Board and stated that he felt the proposed road requirements would put the small developer out of business. Mr. Koontz advised that the amendment would not require that roads be con- structed to state standards, but that a fifty foot right -of -way be available so that this might be done in the future should the lot owners so desire. Mr. Mason Larwood stated that there was no guarantee that people who purchase lots in recreational subdivisions will not become permanent residents. Mr. Larwood suggested that any properties not developed or built upon within one year after rezoning be reverted back to the original zoning so that some of the deadwood on the zoning maps might be cleared out. Mr. George Cornwell appeared before the Board and stated that if this amen- dment is passed, it will impose a hardship on the farmers inasmuch as they, from time to time, need to sell a lot or two off their farms to supplement their in- comes and with the provisions in the proposed amendment, it would not be feasbible to do so. Mr. Koontz advised that the revised ordinance requires merely rights -of -way. W. Eds Coleman, Attorney representing Fort Collier Industrial Estates, appeared before the Board and presented the following letter and requested that this ..,;be made a part of the record. The Board agreed. f • I is • • 175 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Gentlemen: December 14, 1977 ' (3) Timing and response are important elements to an industrial developer in In response to your recent enactment of emergency legislation requiring subdivision approval of large lot subdivisions in Frederick County, I would like to present attracting and-retaining potential clients. Prior to the current emergency the following for public record. buyer were facilitated through private contract following site plan approval of First of all let me assure you that I support your objective to maintain an orderly the industry's basic building plan. The site plan approval process has been and growth of land development in Frederick County. It is my understanding that your on either party. The primary services of water, sewer and roadway are contained primary concern is with the number of large lot subdivisions being developed and in the contract agreement between developer and industry and must meet with the incidents in which the subdivider or developer has provided adequate services specifies a separate presentation of data a 45 -day period for preliminary plat and /or roads to a planned residential subdivision. review and approval (without any guarantee) and potential for:fuither'delay. if Fort Collier is a land owner still engaged in farming but planning a future long further demands upon ;the developer :for 'documentation; performance_bonds;'•fees, etc. range development of a 400 acre industrial tract. There are serious concerns to Such-!.process mus.t careffilly .if efficient and timely response is to be registered with respect to the requirements set forth in the Subdivision (4) Fort Collier and other industrial park developers are not advocates of ill Ordinance as it would apply to industrial development. These are enumerated as conceived or poorly controlled buildingexpansion, but planned growth is certainly follows: • objective through the imposition of covenants and restrictions upon his own development. FortiCollier's basic restrictions and planning standards are an (1) Large lot subdivision for industrial development should not be compared to • mental and building restrictions established. Before a residential- oriented multi -site residential projects. A High degree of flexibility is necessary in ordinance is applied to an entirely different classification of developer, one the planning.of an industrial park in order to attract both prime corporations as compare the Class III road specifications contained in the emergency legislation well as small businesses. In planning a• residential development, the residential with_:thbse requirements self- imposed by Fort Collier to meet Virginia Highway market can be studied and then all lots can be platted as being essentially the Industrial Park). same. A residential developer can accurately predict the population of his sub - (5) The enactment of the large lot subdivision approval requirement could prove dividison and - therefore can project the necessity for access and the probable could discourage the gradual, planned growth of light industry to Frederick County. demands on public utilities created by his subdivision. On the other hand, an It could also have an adverse -impact upon new clients for "in place" water and industrial developer cannot be as certain in projecting his subdivision. Because ' Frederick County has come a long way in providing opportunities for growth with its industries differ greatly in size and in function, the industrial developer must expanded services and facilities. Fort Collier believes the governing bodies to be be able to provide different size lots and be able to act to ensure that in- sently is strongly attracted to Frederick County and such attractiveness should not compatible types of industry are not forced to 'co -exist side by side or even in be discouraged. Fort�Collier is not asking to be given special treatment, but merely requesting that, if new legislation is to be enacted; the drafters consider the the same section of the industrial subdivision. Industries employ various numbers unique problems faced by industrial developers and requesting that any such legis- lation be drafted with due consideration of the business environment of Frederick of people and make varying demands on public utilities, thus an industrial dev- County. eloper cannot accurately reflect the amount of access needed or the extent of use • of public utilities. Although a master plan is an absolute necessity, such plan must allow for the type of flexibility necessarily required in industrial dev- elopment. (2) The economics of industrial development are not embodied in the simple transfer of property between seller and buyer. The industrial developer must ensure that the basic services are available within a cost and time frame to meet the needs of the client. Road, water and sewer extensions must be evaluated to enhance the best alternatives for future expansion. Also expansion of services cannot be laid out as in a residential development. The individual developer extends public utilities to meet the needs of new-industry - attempting to avoid duplication, unwarranted expense and at the same time controlling the park environment. Important issues of access, traffic movement and type of industrjr- community must be faced by the industrial developer.in order to meet the needs of, and to satisfy, the industry purchasing land the development. /s/ I. Fred Stine, Jr. Fort Collier Industrial Estates (3) Timing and response are important elements to an industrial developer in attracting and-retaining potential clients. Prior to the current emergency legislation, negotiations between an industrial developer and the industrial buyer were facilitated through private contract following site plan approval of • the industry's basic building plan. The site plan approval process has been and remains an important control power of the County without imposing serious delay on either party. The primary services of water, sewer and roadway are contained in the contract agreement between developer and industry and must meet with the industry's approval. The procedure within the Subdivision Ordinance now specifies a separate presentation of data a 45 -day period for preliminary plat review and approval (without any guarantee) and potential for:fuither'delay. if "details" remain open. A final plat and site plan is_to.= be::submitted and_there; tare further demands upon ;the developer :for 'documentation; performance_bonds;'•fees, etc. Such-!.process mus.t careffilly .if efficient and timely response is to be made to the industrial client. (4) Fort Collier and other industrial park developers are not advocates of ill conceived or poorly controlled buildingexpansion, but planned growth is certainly the desired objective of all concerned. The industrial developer recognizes this objective through the imposition of covenants and restrictions upon his own development. FortiCollier's basic restrictions and planning standards are an example. Fort Collier has turned away industry which did not meet the environ- • mental and building restrictions established. Before a residential- oriented ordinance is applied to an entirely different classification of developer, one must first study the effect on the industrial developer. (i.e., for reference compare the Class III road specifications contained in the emergency legislation with_:thbse requirements self- imposed by Fort Collier to meet Virginia Highway Department requirements and,which serve as a basic for all roads in Fort Collier Industrial Park). (5) The enactment of the large lot subdivision approval requirement could prove costly and time consuming to the business community involved in development, and could discourage the gradual, planned growth of light industry to Frederick County. It could also have an adverse -impact upon new clients for "in place" water and sewer services and upon those who serve as a source-of tax revenue. ' Frederick County has come a long way in providing opportunities for growth with its expanded services and facilities. Fort Collier believes the governing bodies to be dedicated to preserving the quality of life enjoyed in this area. Industry pre- sently is strongly attracted to Frederick County and such attractiveness should not be discouraged. Fort�Collier is not asking to be given special treatment, but merely requesting that, if new legislation is to be enacted; the drafters consider the unique problems faced by industrial developers and requesting that any such legis- lation be drafted with due consideration of the business environment of Frederick County. Respectfully submitted /s/ I. Fred Stine, Jr. Fort Collier Industrial Estates Mr. Sam Lehman appeared before the Board and stated that the provisions set forth in the proposed amendment to the ordinance would put anyone who subdivides lots; into the money game and that many people could not afford-this. Mr.-Clinton Ritter suggested that due to the large amount of opposition, the table this matter for further study and discussion with the developers. Mr. Rosenberger stated that when the emergency legislation was passed, the thing the Board members were concerned about was rights -of -way. He advised much study and many deletions had been made to the original proposed amendment Q it less restrictive. The Planning Commission recessed from the meeting for approximately twenty The Planning Commission returned and Mr. Gordon stated that the Planning Comm- n-had dis.cussed.=- -.-the situation and had recommended approval of the proposal th several modifications. Mr. Berg then presented the modifications as recommended the Planning Commission as follows: (1) Subdivisions of lots that are larger 30 acres are exempt; (2) Rural roadway requirements do not apply to roads serve less than two lots; (3) There will be no requirements for base stone, structures or minimum sight distance as set forth in the 14, 1977 . The Commission makes this recommendation with the understanding that con- of sale are to be honored and variances given where possible to developments underway. Mr. James W. Golladay then moved to approve the ordinance to amend Chapter 18 the Frederick County Code, Subdivision of Land, Adopted January 14, 1976 with above mentioned modifications made after the public hearing. This motion was by Mr. Elmer Venskoske. Mr. Golladay then stated that he questioned how the Planning Commission could complete this job in a weeks time. He stated that he realized that they d come back and work on the ordinance to amend it but he did not like to vote something he was not comfortable with and he was not comfortable with the osed ordinance. Mr. DeHaven stated that he concurred with Mr. Golladay and that he felt with 1 the amendments and deletions, everyone was confused. r Mr. French stated that he was concerned about the landlocked property in the unty and did not feel he could vote for the ordinance as it now stands. Mr. Venskoske stated that he felt they had come up with the best solution ey could at the present time.. Mr. Brumback stated that he felt the ordinance needed a lot of work and study t we must start somewhere and he felt this was a good start. Mr. Gordon stated that he felt there were inadequacies in the ordinance but t enough that we can not accomplish what we wish to accomplish. He too stated at he felt we must start somewhere. Mr. Golladay's motion was then defeated by the following recorded vote: ay; W. French Kirk, Nay; James W. Golladay, Nay; Manuel C. DeHaven, Nay; Elmer enskoske, Aye; Frank Brumback, and Langdon Gordon: R'Mr. Rosenberger did not ote with the Planning Commission. Mr. Malcolm then moved to approve the ordinance as presented this date with following modifications: On page 1, large lot subdivisions shall be changed m 40 to 30 acres; in Section 18 -47 section (1) to remain the same; Section (a) remain the same; section (1) to remain the same; section 2 road grade to minimum 24 feet in width to remain the same; section 3 delete; section 4 to remain the I • • • • 177 same; section 5 delete; section 6 to remain the same; section 7 to remain the same; section (b) to remain the same; and section (c) to remain the same. This emotion was seconded by Will L. Owings. Dr. Fish then moved to amend'Mr: Malcolm's motion with regard.to Section 2 r� u to provide for a road graded to a minimum width of 16 feet. Mr. Rosenberger seconded this motion to amend. The motion was passed by the following recorded vote: Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Aye; Thomas B. Rosenberger, Aye; S. Roger Koontz, Aye;-R. Thomas Malcolm, Nay; Will L. Owings, Nay; and Dennis T. Cole, Abstaining. Therefore, upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm, seconded by Will L. Owings, • and amended by motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,- Virginia does herein approve, on third and final reading the following amendment Ito the-Frederick County Code, Chapter 18, Subdivision of Land, Adopted January 114, 1976, as amended: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ADOPTED JANUARY 14, 1976 • • • BE IT ENACTED, By the County of Frederick, Virginia: Section 1 18 -2. Definitions Street, Major A heavily traveled thoroughfare or highway that carries a large volume of through traffic exceeding 400 vehicles per day. Street, - Minor A street that is used primarily as a means of public access to abutting properties with anticipated traffic of less than 400 vehicles per day. SUBDIVIDE: To divide any tract, parcel, or lot of land into two (2) or more parts, except however, a. The Administrator may permit the separation of a building site that conforms to zoning and shaEa requirements intended for members of the family owning any such agricultural lands; or b. The Administrator may permit the separation of one (1) parcel from a tract of land without complying with all requirements of the Ordinance if it is: 1) not in conflict with the general meaning and purpose of the Ordinance, 2) no new streets are required to serve the parcel, 3) meets the requirements of the zoning district, and 4) not less than 150 -foot frontage on a right -of -way accepted for maintenance by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; or C. The Administrator may permit a bona -fide division or portion of agricultural land for agricultural purposes. d. The Administrator may permit the straightening or rearranging of property lines of adjoining parcels, if such rearrangements conform to the intent of the Ordinance. e. The division of land into lots or parcels of land of thirty (30) or more acres. Subdivision, Large Lot: To divide any tract, parcel, or lot of land into lots or parcels of five (5)_ acres or more, but less than thirty (30) acres. Subdivision, Recreational: Any area zoned R -5 Residential Recreational Community under the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Subdivision, Residential and other: To divide any tract, parcel, Or lot of land into lots or parcels of less than five (5) acres. Section 2. 18 -35.1 Restriction on large lot subdivisions The ratio of lot width to depth shall be not less than one foot of frontage to three feet of depth. Section 3. 18 -46.1 Minimum widths DELETE Section 4. 18 -47. Construction Requirements. a. Large lot subdivisions, rural roads as specified below are re- quired when the roadway serves more than two (2) lots. All rural roads shall have a minimum of fifty (50) foot right -of -way and connect to a public road or an existing fifty (50) foot right -of -way to a public road. (2) The road shall be graded to a minimum of sixteen (16) feet in width. 178 .(3) Grades or roads shall not exceed 12 percent except grades of relatively short lenghts to 300 feet) may be increased by 50 percent.upon approval by the Administrator when the 3ationale shows that such steep grades will cause an intolerable maintenance situation. (4) Each deed of conveyance shall state that a rural road is not publicly maintained and shall be maintained by all the owners of lots which are provided by access by way of said rural road. (5) Each Lot i.owner'shall include a similar restriction in any deed of conveyance upon resale of the lot. b. Recreational Subdivision. No roadway requirements. c. -Residential and other Subdivisons. All construction shall conform to the standards of Frederick County, or, in the event standamd exists, to the standards of the Virginia Department of Highways. (1) Minor streets with 0 -400 vehicle trips per day shall have not less than fifty (50) feet of right -of -way with twenty (20) feet of pavement ' (2) Major streets with more than 400 trips per day shall have not less than sixty (60) feet of right -of -way with twenty -two (22) feet of pavement. (3) The grades of streets submitted shall be approved by the Administrator upon recommendation of-the Virginia'Department of Highways Engineer. Street grades shall not exceed ten (10) percent unless approved by the Administrator. (4) An adequate drainage be provided for each under streets, side, curb inlets or other All structures shall Virginia Department system for natural and storm water shall subdivision street by means of culverts lead or outlet ditches, catch basins, devices including piping where necessary. conform to Frederick County or the if Highways' standards. (5) All Streets shall be inspected and approved by the Virginia Department of Highways. ion 5. Penalties. Any owner or proprietor of any tract of land who subdivides that tract of land and who violates any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than ten dollars nor more than two hundred and fifty dollars, and each day after the first during which such violations shall continue a separate violation:. 6. 7 Severability. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason declared to be unconstitutional or invalid, by the valid judgement or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect December 15, 1977. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - . Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, R. Thomas Malcolm, Will L. Owings. Nay: - Dennis T. Cole. Mr. Malcolm stated that this document will require additional work and that zoning classification and administrative review could be discussed at a ter date. Mr. Koontz requested the Planning Commission to further study this ordinance order to make it more equitable and report back to the Board in January. Mr. Gordon agreed to this request. SITE PLAN #026 -77 - Z & M SHEET METAL - STONEWALL DISTRICT - APPROVED Mr. Berg presented the site plan of Z & M Sheet Metal, Inc. in Stonewall isterial District. Mr. Kenneth Gilpin appeared and stated that this property is located behind rown, Cork and Seal on Lenoir Drive and will be used for a manufacturing plant. Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by R. Thomas.Malcolm, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, rginia, does herein approve Site Plan #026 -77 of Harry McCauley and Joe Zivic, & M Sheet Metal, Inc. to construct a manufacturing plant which will employ enty -five persons on their property located on the west side of Lenoir Drive the Stonewall Magisterial District with the stipulations that there will be outside storage and the open space on the lot will not be used without amending I • • • • .171�r' the site plan. The above resolutions was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B.-Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owing, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. SITE PLAN 0029 -77 - EVERETT G. EMERSON - MAGISTERIAL Mr. Everett Emerson appeared before the Board in support of his site plan and stated that he had been advised by the Highway Department that he could place his fence on the property line and plant his shrubbery on the state property within five feet of the fence. Mr. Douglas Grim appeared before the Board and stated that he was an • adjacent property owner to the subject property and was opposed to the site plan. Mr. Grim stated that the past development of this property had necessitated chlorination of his well and further development would cause problems with wells in the area. He stated that he felt this type of development would devalue his property. Mr. Emerson stated that he had nothing to do with the past development of • the area; that he had been advised that his operation had to be in an M -1 zone which this is; and that he intends to take good care of his property and not in- fringe upon the rights of others. Mr. Gilpin stated that he would be glad to help Mr. Emerson with the planting of the shrubbery to screen the property. Dr. Fish stated that while this is not in his district, he passes this location • n LJ quite frequently and he considers this to be an attractive area. He stated that he felt there was a potential for a problem here and he would be watching to see that the property is kept in good order. Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole, and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve Site Plan #029 -77 of Everett G. Emerson to operate the Johnny Blue Portable Toilet System and Emerson Wood Company on his property located in the Gilpin Industrial Park fronting Lenoir Drive in the Stonewall Magisterial District; the proposed building will be used for an office, storage of chemicals and supplies, and storage of portable units; the fenced area will contain: a toilet storage area, a wood storage area, and an area for vehicle and const- ruction office storage; the mobile homes and buses to be rented as construction offices will be remodeled for that purpose on the site, said approval being given with the stipulations that (1) the entrance will be modified to the Virginia Department of Highways standards; (2) the entire storage area will be fenced with a chain link fence six'.. feet in height with blue vinyl stripping; and (3) that the fence may be placed on the property line with the shrubbery planted on state property. (.,'. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L.�Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Finance Committee Recommendations Mr. Rosenberger presented the recommendations of the Finance Committee and the following action was taken: AUTHORIZATION FOR PURCHASE OF SITE FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION - APPROVED Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm, 'i BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia,-does herein authorize the purchase of a site needed for solid waste collection on the east side of Route 11 North at Stephenson owned by the Common- wealth of Virginia, Department of Highways and Transportation, the cost to be after appraisal and require future action as to amount. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, ar R. Thomas Malcolm. Nay - Dennis T. Cole. SUPPLEMENTAL•APPROPRIATION TO PURCHASE NEW VEHICLE FOR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR APPROVED Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dennis T. Cole. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does herein approve a supplemental appropriation in-the-amount of.$5,800 for the purchase of a vehicle to be utilized by the County Administrator, the current vehicle to be transferred to the Department of Inspections to be utilized by the plumbing inspector. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. ? :. SECTIONS IV, V AND VI OF THE PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - APPROVED Mr. Rosenberger stated that the Finance Committee recommended approval of Sections IV, V, and VI of the Personnel Management System as amended, to become effective January 1, 1977. Mr. Cole stated that he had not received a copy of this material until this date and therefore had not been able to read it. Mr. Rosenberger apologized to Mr. Cole inasmuch as he had not been able to read the materials, but stated that should its adoption be further delayed it would involve a tremendous amount of work to refigure the entire thing. Upon motioned made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, that Sections IV, V, AND VI of "A Personnel Management System for the County of Frederick, Virginia, 1977" as proposed by Municipal Advisors, In- r corporated, as amended by the Board of Supervisors.. an official copy of which is on file in the office of the County Administrator is hereby approved and adopted; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the titled, ranges, steps and salaries as listed on the attached County Employee Allocation List, dated December 13, 1977, an official copy of which is on file in the,office of the County Administrator, is hereby approved and adopted, effective January 1, 1978; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the anniversary date of all employees employed January 1, 1978 and included in this Personnel Management System shall be July 1, 1978 and subsequent July firsts for purposes of awarding merit increases in accordance with -the system; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That Title II Anti - Recession Funds, in the amount of $11,805, are hereby appropriated to implement said pay plan for Frederick County employees included in the Personnel Management System effective January 1, 1978; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the following budget adjustment is hereby approved:ll i General Revenue Fund Increase Revenue Estimate 05 -6872 Public Works Employment Act - Title II Supplemental Appropriation (ASAP) $11,805 1,424 TOTAL $13,230 1� is r� lJ • • 18:x. General Operating Fund: (Increase Appropriations) Appropriations are hereby directed to be increased as required to implement the Personnel Management System in the total amount of $13,230 Frederick - Winchester Landfill Fund: (Increase Appropriations) Appropriations are hereby directed to be increased as required to implement the Personnel Management System in the total amount of $985. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, and R. Thomas Malcolm. Dennis T. Cole, Abstaining. COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO BE PAID $30 PER MEETING ATTENDED Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger, and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. • L • Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does herein direct that the citizen committee members, serving on the three-Board standing committees (i.e. Finance, Engineering and Code Enforcement, and Law Enforcement and Courts) be paid $30.00 per meeting attended for the Committee on which they servOa:• effective January 1, 1978. POLICIES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS - APPROVED Sections I, II and III of Personnel Management System - Approved Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia that Sections, I, II and III of a Personnel Management System for the County of Frederick, Virginia, 1977 as proposed by Municipal Advisors, Incorporated, and amended by the Board of Supervisors, an official copy of which is on file in the office of the County Administrator, is hereby adopted; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That any regulations currently in effect which are in conflict with the above document are hereby repealed; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the above document is to be effective January 1, 1978. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - • S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. . All Boards and Agencies Urged to in Personnel Management System Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm, and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, • Virginia, that the Board does hereby urge all 'county officials and agencies not under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors or County Administrator, accept the plan entitled a Personnel Management Study for the County of Frederick, Virginia, 1977, which includes Board policies and pay plan provisions, as submitted to the County by Municipal Advisors, Incorporated and adopted by the Board of Supervisors as amended; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors does hereby give notice J to all concerned who elect not to be placed in conformity with this document that no guarantees are made'by the Board with regard to pay increases for these' excluded employees as they relate to pay increases approved by the Board for those employees under. the system.= The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz-,Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. RECOMMENDATION FROM COMMITTEE ON ENGINEERING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT MOON Mr. Malcolm presented the recommendations from the Committee on Engineering and Code Enforcement and the following action was taken: Contract with Weems and Company for Cost Allocation Plan - Approved Mr. Malcolm presented the proposed contract with Weems and Company for a cost allocation plan stating that this contract will enable us to recover some of the County's indirect costs of obtaining previous future grant money. Dr. Fish asked for a clarification of Section 15 of said contract and Mr. Ambrogi stated that it appeared that something had been omitted in this par- ticular section. Mr. Renalds suggested that the contract be approved with the provision that Section 15 be rewritten to the satisfaction of the Commonwealth Attorney. The Board concurred. Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm and seconded by Will L. Owings, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick Virginia, does herein approve the contract with Weems and Company for a cost allocation plan with the stipulation that Section 15 be redrafted by the Common- wealth Attorney in the proper form: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA AND WEEMS & COMPANY THIS AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO THIS day of , 1977 by and between WEEMS & COMPANY, hereinafter called "CONSULTANT" and the COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA, hereinafter called the "CLIENT" witnesseth that: WHEREAS, the CLIENT has programs which it operates with Federal funding,. and WHEREAS, the CLIENT supports these programs with support services paid from the county appropriated funds, and WHEREAS, the State of Virginia will pay a fair share of these costs if supported by an approved cost allocation plan, and WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT has, through the use of David M. Griffith the Associates, Ltd., personnel knowledgeable and experienced in the requirements of developing and negotiating such governmental cost allocation plans, and WHEREAS, the CLIENT desires to engage the CONSULTANT to assist in developing a plan which conforms to Federal requirements and will be approved by their representatives; NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. EMPLOYMENT OF CONSULTANT The CLIENT agrees to engage the CONSULTANT and the CONSULTANT hereby agrees to perform the following services. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICE 0 The CONSULTANT shall do, perform, and carry out in good and professional.... manner the following services: A. Development of a central services cost allocation plan which identifies the various costs incurred by the CLIENT to support and administer Federal programs. This plan will contain a determination of the allowable costs of providing each supporting service such as purchasing, legal counsel, disbursement processing, etc. B. Negotiation of the completed cost allocation plan with the repre- sentatives of DHEW and the State of Virginia. C. Assistance in preparing the initial claims to the State.'of Virginia for recovery of funds due the CLIENT. CONSULTANT will also monitor the progress of claims through the State'to insure the CLIENT receives all recoveries due it. .D.: Provide . training to an appointed member of the CLIENT's staff to insure perpetuation of the plan.. necessary to insure future years' recoveries will be carefully covered with CLIENT's representatives. 3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE The services to be performed hereunder by the CONSULTANT shall be under- taken and completed in such sequence as to assure their expenditious completion and best-carry out the purposes of the agreement. The cost allocation plan will be available no later than forty -five days from initiation of this effort.for review and negotiation with Federal and State representatives. 4. COMPENSATION I I is u • 11 • The CLIENT agrees to pay the CONSULTANT a fee not to exceed six thousand five hundred dollars ($6,500.00) for all services required herein, which shall include reimbursement for expenses incurred. The exact fee paid shall be determined by the fee arrangement selected by the CLIENT, by the placement of the initials of the authorized representative of the CLIENT in the appropriate spaces'below: Contingent Fee Payment No fee shall be paid unless the CLIENT recovers funds as a result of the plan developed under this agreement and then not until the funds are actually received by the CLIENT. When such recoveries are received by the CLIENT, the CONSULTANT shall, within five days, be paid one -half of each such payment received, up to a maximum fee of six thousand five hundred dollars ($6,500.00) Accepted Rejected Advance Fee Payment A fee of two thousand nine hundred and twenty -five dollars ($2,925.00) shall be paid within five days, when the plan to be developed under the terms of this agreement is completed by'the CONSULTANT and submitted to the CLIENT. No additional fee shall be paid unless the CLIENT recovers funds as a result of the plan.developed, and then not until the funds are actually received by the CLIENT. When such funds are received, the CONSULTANT shall, within five days be'paid one -half of all funds in excess of two thousand nine hundred and twenty -five dollars ($2,925.00), up to a maximum total fee of five thousand eight hundred and fifty dollars ($5,850.00). Accepted Rejected Standard Fee Payment A fixed fee of five thousand two hundred dollars ($5,200.00) shall be paid to the CONSULTANT by the CLIENT, with a first payment of two thousand and eighty dollars ($2,080.00) made thirty days after initiation of the project effort by the CONSULTANT, a second payment of.two thousand and eighty dollars ($2,080.00) made upon completion and submission of the indirect cost allocation plan to the CLIENT and a final payment of one thousand and forty dollars($1,040.00) made upon notification to the CLIENT from the State that the plan has been prepared in a complete and acceptable manner. Accepted Rejected S... CHANGES The CLIENT may, from time to time, require changes in the scope of the services of the CONSULTANT.to be performed hereunder. Such changes, which are mutually agreed upon by'•and between the CLIENT and the CONSULTANT, shall be in- corporated in written amendment to this agreement. 6. SERVICES AND MATERIALS TO BE FURNISHED BY CLIENT The CLIENT shall furnish the CONSULTANT with all available necessary information, data, and material pertinent to the execution of this agreement..' The CLIENT shall cooperate with the CONSULTANT in carrying out the work herein, and shall provide adequate staff for liaison with the CONSULTANT and other agencies of the CLIENT's government. 7. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT FOR CAUSE n LJ `J If, through any cause, the CONSULTANT shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner his obligations under this agreement, or if the CONSULTANT shall violate any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this agreement, the CLIENT shall thereupon have the right to terminate'this agreement with or without cause, by giving written notice to the CONSULTANT of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. Upon such cancellation, the CLIENT shall reimburse the CONSULTANT for expenses and fees incurred by the point of conclusion of all work including any-monies-then owned the CONSULTANT but being held back by the CLIENT but not to exceed 808 of the total agreement amount. 8. INFORMATION AND REPORTS The CONSULTANT shall, at such time and in such form as the CLIENT may require, furnish such periodic reports concerning the status.of the project, such statements, certificates, approvals, and copies of proposed and executed plans and claims and other information relative to the project as may be re- quested by the CLIENT. The CONSULTANT shall furnish the CLIENT upon request, rith`cbp'ies- °of.'all documents and other materials prepared or developed in relation with or as part of the project. Working papers prepared in conjunction with the cost allocation plan will be turned over to the CLIENT for safe - keeping. 9. RECORDS AND INSPECTIONS The CONSULTANT shall maintain full and accurate records with respect to all matters covered under this agreement. The CLIENT shall have free access at all proper times to such records, and the right to examine and audit the same and to make transcripts.therefrom, and to inspect all program data, documents, proceedings, and activities. 10. ACCOMPLISHMENT-OF PROJECT I The CONSULTANT shall commence, carry on, and complete the project with all practicable dispatch;. in a sound economical, and efficient manner, in accordance with the provisions thereof and all applicable laws. In accomplishing the project, the CONSULTANT shall take such steps as are appropriate to insure that the work involved is properly coordinated with related work being carried on by the CLIENT. I. — a 11. PROVISIONS CONCERNING CERTAIN WAIVERS Subject to applicable law, and right or remedy which the CLIENT may have under this contract may be waived - in writing by the CLIENT by a formal waiver, if, in the judgment of the CLIENT, this contract, as so modified, will still conform to the terms and requirements of pertinent laws. 12. MATTERS TO BE DI The titles of the several sections, subsections, and paragraphs set forth in this contract are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of the provisions of this contract. 13. COMPLETENESS OF CONTRACT This contract and any additional or supplementary document or incorporated herein by specific reference contain all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties hereto, and no other agreements, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this contract or any part thereof shall have any validity or bind any of the parties hereto. 14. CLIENT NOT OBLIGATED TO THIRD PARTIES The CLIENT shall not be obligated or liable hereunder to any party other than the CONSULTANT. 15. WHEN RIGHTS AND REMEDIES NOT WAIVED 0 In no event shall the making by the CLIENT of any payment to the CONSULTANT constitute or be construed as a waiver by the CLIENT of any breach of covenant, or any default which may then exist, on the part of the CONSULTANT and the making of any such payment by the CLIENT while any such breach or default exists shall in no way impair or prejudice any such right or remedy available to the CLIENT. 16. The CONSULTANT represents that he has, or will secure at his own expense, all personnel required in performing the services under this agreement. Such personnel shall not be employees of or have any contractual relationship with the CLIENT. All of the services required hereunder will be performed by the CONSULTANT or under his supervision, and.all personnel .:engaged..in -.the -shall be:fully..quali :fied to perform such services. 17. FINDINGS CONFIDENTIAL Any reportsf, information data, etc., given to or prepared or assembled by the CONSULTANT under this agreement shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the CONSULTANT without the prior written approval of the CLIENT except for appropriate agencies of the United State's. 18. CONSULTANT LIABILITY IF AUDITED The CONSULTANT will assume all financial and statistical information provided to the CONSULTANT by the CLIENT's employees or representatives is accurate and complete. Any subsequent disallowance of funds paid to the CLIENT under the plan is the sole responsibility of the CLIENT. CONSULTANT will, however, provide assistance to the CLIENT should an audit be undertaken of CLIENT's indirect costs. 19. NOTICES Any notices,.bills, invoices, or reports required by this agreement shall be sufficient if sent by the parties in the United States mail, postage paid, to the addresses noted below: Frederick County P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Weems & Company 2300 Ninth Street, South Arlington, Virginia 22204 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CLIENT and the CONSULTANT have executed this agreement as of the date first written above. COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA By: Title: WEEMS & COMPANY II By: /s/ W. Edward Weems, Jr. W. Edward Weems, Jr. President ATTEST: i I� • • i Court or evidenced by affadavit of said contract by one of the party or rties seeking to have the instrument recorded. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - . Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, • R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. RESOi. rIONS REGARDI N - OIN Dv WITH CITY OF WINCHESTER EQR rAPTTAT, FACILITIES - APPROVED Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. dish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, inia, does herein reject the proposed agreement with the City of Winchester joint capital facilities wherein a twenty (20) year moratorium on annexation 11 from January 1, 1971 is proposed. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - 3. Roger-Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. 1.8 5 Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm, The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. Authorization to Consider.funds for Purchase of Fire -proof Vault and Construction of a Necessary Location - Approved ' Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm by Dennis and seconded T. Cole, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve consideration of funds for the purchase of a fire- ' proof vault and construction of a necessary location for safekeeping of data processing and other valuable records. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, • R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. ORDINANCE - FIRST AND SECOND READING ZMAP #016 -77 - Frederick County Planning Commission for James L. Bowman, et al Mr. Renalds read the following ordinance on first and second reading: ZMAP #016 -77 SUBMITTED BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR JAMES L. & MARY BOWMAN, P. 0. BOX 6, STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA, RODGER L. AND JOHN R. SAGER, P. O. BOX 128, STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA, AND HOWARD R. ' AND KATHERINE G. MILLS, P. 0. BOX 99, STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA, WHO HEREBY REQUEST THAT APPROXIMATELY THREE '(3) ACRES ON ROUTE 11, SOUTH AT STEPHENS CITY NOW ZONED RESIDENTIAL- GENERAL DISTRICT (R -3) BE REZONED: BUSINESS- GENERAL DISTRICT (B -2). THESE PROPERTIES ARE DESIGNATED AS PROPERTY • IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS 74A2(4)10, 74A2(A)4, AND 74A2(A)5 AND ARE IN THE BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. MONTHLY STAFF REPORT ACCEPTED After review the monthly staff report was accepted. RESOLUTION PROVIDING DIRECTION TO CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT•REGARDING RECORDATION OF SUBDIVISION PLATS - APPROVED = Mr. George Whitacre asked for direction from the Board as to what procedure - to follow in the recordation of subdivision plats as they relate to the emergency legislation and amendment to the subdivision ordinance as approved by the Board. ' Following a brief discussion the following resolution was passed.. Upon motioned by Dr.LRaymond L. Fish and seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm, BE IT RESOLVED, That lots, parcels, or plats of thirty (30) acres or less, purchased prior to the Emergency Amendment to the Subdivision of Land Code, dated ' October 24, 1977, on which there is a contract of sale, the contract of sale of said property must be evidenced by recordation in the office of the Clerk of the Court or evidenced by affadavit of said contract by one of the party or rties seeking to have the instrument recorded. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - . Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, • R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. RESOi. rIONS REGARDI N - OIN Dv WITH CITY OF WINCHESTER EQR rAPTTAT, FACILITIES - APPROVED Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. dish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, inia, does herein reject the proposed agreement with the City of Winchester joint capital facilities wherein a twenty (20) year moratorium on annexation 11 from January 1, 1971 is proposed. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - 3. Roger-Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Dennis T. Cole. 1.8 5 Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm, .• BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick Virginia, will enter into a joint study with the City of Winchester to locate tal facilities in the City of Winchester when we have received from the City Winchester a written contract which states that the City will any of Frederick County for twenty (20) years from the date of the contract, th the stipulation that the contract shall become null and void should the joint not prove feasibility or be rejected by either party. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owing, Thomas Malcolm_ -..._. UPON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, IT IS ORDERED .T THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW ADJOURN. 0 V/• c S,Oeretary, Board of Supervisors A Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, was held on January 11, 1978, in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT: S. Roger Koontz, Chairman; Thomas B. Rosenberger, Vice Chairman; Dr. Raymond L. Fish; Will L. Owings; R. Thomas Malcolm; and Kenneth Y..Stiles. INVOCATION The invocation was delivered by the Reverend Glenn Jude of the Greenway Baptist Church. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Upon motion -made by R. Thomas Malcolm and seconded by Will L. Owings, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of this Board held on December 12, 1977 and the Regular Meeting of this Board held on December 14, 1977 as submitted. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. ORGANIZATION OF BOARD and P es of Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Kenneth Stiles, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does herein establish the following dates, time and place for the Regular Meetings of this Board: Date of Meeting: Second and Fourth Wednesdays of each month Time of Meeting: 7:00 P.M. Place of Meeting: Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this Board does herein accept Roberts Rules of Order as the reference for parliamentary procedure of this Board. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. • • • s r • • Election of Vice Chairman - Thomas B. Rosenberger Will L. Owings nominated Mr. Thomas B. Rosenberger to serve as Vice Chairman of the Board for a second term. Mr. R. Thomas Malcolm seconded this nomination. There were no other nominations and Mr. Rosenberger was elected Vice Chairman of the Board by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. Committee Appointments Mr. Koontz made the following Committe Appointments: Standing Committees Thomas B. Rosenberger Finance Committee Planning Commission Dr. Raymond L. Fish Finance Committee Law Enforcement & Courts Will L. Owings R. Thomas Malcolm Engineering & Code Enforcement ecreation Commission Welfare Board Engineering & Code Enforcement Liason New School Finance Committee Shalom et Bene- dictus LFPD Comm. School Board Regional Jail Capital Facili Braddock House Kenneth Y. Stiles Law Enforcement & Courts Capital Facili Extension Advi Committee Policy Established for Public Hearings The following policy for public hearings was established by the Board: 1. A representative of .an identifiable group will be given 15 minutes to address the Board on a specific matter 2. An individual will be given 10 minutes to address the Board on a specific matter. These limitations may be extended by the majority vote of the Board upon request of any Board Member SUBDIVISIONS LESTER C. FOSTER SUBDIVISION - ONE LOT - SHAWNEE DISTRICT :--APPROVED Mr. Berg presented the Foster Subdivision and stated that all requirements • 1 had been met and that the Planning Commission recommended approval of said subdivision. Upon motion made by R.-Thomas Malcolm and seconded by Will L. Owings. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve the Lester C. Foster.Subdivision, consisting of one lot fronting a private right -of -way in Shawnee Magisterial District. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - u S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. SUNSET ESTATES SUBDIVISION - STONEWALL DISTRICT - APPROVED Mr. Berg presented the Sunset Estates Subdivision and stated that the Highway Department had suggested that the driveway entrance be located closer to Route 618• because the lots are located on a curve. He further advised that all requirements had been met and the Planning'Commission recommended approval of this subdivision. Mr. Rosenberger stated that he was familiar with this subdivision and was 1 satisfied with the recommendation of the Highway Department. Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Will L. Owings, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does herein approve the Sunset Estates Subdivision, consisting of two fronting on Route 608 in the Back Creek Magisterial District with the ipulation that the right -of -way between the two lots be left at eighteen (18) 1-8:7 X X .. feet in accordance with the recommendation of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. SITE PLAN #030 -77 - DAWSON INVESTMENTS - STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED I Mr. Berg presented the site plan of Dawson investments stating that this is the first of three warehouses to be built on a five acre tract in the Stine Industrial Park. Mr. Berg stated that the proposed access to the site would be from Smithfield Avenue. Mr. Eds.Coleman appeared before the Board representing Mr. I. Fred Stine and Mr. Bruce Dawson and presented a modified site plan requesting a temporary service road via Smithfield Avenue. Mr. Coleman stated that a.second road would be constructed when the second lot is built upon and the access from Smithfield Avenue would then be discontinued. Mr. Malcolm asked-if this revised plan had been presented to the Planning Commission or to the City for consideration and Mr.' Coleman stated that it had not because of the crucial time frame for the project, but that it had been discussed with the staff of both the City and County. Mr. Dawson stated that he had the proposed building leased to Harris Intertype Company and he must let them know this month whether or not he can build the building. He decribed briefly the proposed operation stating that there would be approximately 20 employees and a few deliveries each week. The Board discussed at length the possibility of routing the traffic off Brook Road rather than Smithfield Avenue-and the City's reaction should the Board approve this site plan. Mr. Dawson stated that timing was a factor and he did not have time to build the road and still maintain the proposed contract with Harris Intertype. Mr. Owings stated that he felt this alternate plan should be submitted to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. Mr. Malcolm then moved to refer the alternate site plan of Dawson Investments back to the Planning Commission with the request that the County Planning Commission meet with the City Planning Commission as quickly as possible in order to study this plan and bring about a reasonable solution�to this problem so that this Board might act upon this matter at the end of this month. This motion was seconded by Will L. Owings. Dr. Fish asked if there was another solution to the problem if the developer is denied access from Smithfield avenue and is subsequently denied the now proposed alternative to use said street temporarily. Mr. Rosenberger stated that this matter has been before the Planning Commission three times and he felt the man had been held up long enough; that the property lies in Frederick County and he did not feel it was inappropriate for the Board of Supervisors to take a stand on the matter. Mr. Rosenberger stated further that this type of industry is needed in the County and he did not think the Board would want to lose it by delaying action on this matter. Mr. Malcolm stated that even if the Board should take a position and approve the'site plan:and the City would subsequently deny it, nothing would be accomplished.) He again suggested that the two jurisdictions work together to find a solution to the problem. • • • Mr. Stiles stated that he felt Mr. dawson had made a good faith offer to comply 189' with everything the Board and Planning Commission had requested and had sub- sequently presented what appeared to be a workable solution. Mr. Koontz stated that he felt a time limit should be-placed on the temporary - i • use of Smithfield Avenue and Mr. Dawson advised that the use of the street would not exceed 18 months. Mr. Rosenberger then moved to amend Mr. Malcolm's motion to approve the site plan of Dawson Investments to serve the one presently proposed building ex- clusively, with the stipulation that when the building is constructed, the site plan will come before the Board and Planning Commission for approval and the temporary use of Smithfield Avenue will be discontinued upon construction of a second building or within a period of eighteen (18) months whichever occurs first. This motion to amend was seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles. Mr. Malcolm asked if there was sufficient right -of -way for construction of a road and if the ownership of said right -of -way had been determined. Mr. Dawson stated that Mr. Stine advised that everything was in legal order • for use of the right -of -way. He further advised that Mr. Stine has a legal right- of -way in front of the Board of Education property and that his property adjoins this property. Mr. Koontz asked if a legal contract could possibly be drawn up stating that the use of Smithfield Avenue would be discontinued after eighteen months and Mr. Ambrogi advised that conditions could be placed on a conditional use permit but not on a site plan approval. Dr. Fish stated that he had studied this matter and had followed it through the Planning Commission and that he felt the developer had made an honest attempt to resolve the problem and that his proposal did seem to meet the City's objections. He stated that he felt someone needed to take a stand on this matter. Mr. Ambrogi stated that this matter may not need approval of the City insofar , • as the property lies wholly in the County and is not subject to control by the City. Mr. Malcolm asked how long this matter had been in the mill and Mr. Berg stated that it first came before the Planning Commission :in December. aware of a problem when he learned of a letter from the City dated October 28, 1977. Mr. Dawson advised that he had started procedures last summer and was first The problem of other means of egress and ingress into the industrial park was discussed as length and Mr. Coleman advised that Mr. Stine has been to court regarding this problem and is negotiating with various landowners. Mr. Berg advised that before the property can be subdivided the road must be E platted inasmuch as the 45 foot right -of -way does not meet the requirements of the County Code. Thereupon Mr. Rosenberger withdrew his amendment to Mr. Malcolm's motion and Mr. Stiles withdrew his second to Mr. Rosenberger's motion. Mr. Malcolm then withdrew his motion and Mr. Owings withdrew his second to Mr. Malcolm's motion. Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles., BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick Virginia, does herein approve Site Plan No. 030 -77 of Dawson Investments to construct a parking and loading area composed of six (6) inch base prime and double seal, a 15,000 square foot warehouse, and a 3,000 square foot attached office area on their property located in the Stine Industrial Park in Stonewall Magisterial District with temporary access from Smithfield Avenue to serve the IM one currently proposed warehouse exclusively, with the stipulations that when the second building is constructed, the site plan will come before the Board and Planning Commission for approval and the temporary use of Smithfield Avenue.will be dis- continued upon construction of a second building or within a period of eighteen (18) months, whichever occurs first. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. PROCEDURES TO BE.FOLLOWED BEFORE MATTERS ARE PRESENTED TO BOARD TO BE CONSIDERED Mr. Malcolm stated that on several occasions matters have come to the Board with recommendations from the Planning Commission or staff and then at the last minute new information is presented changing the entire status of the matter. He suggested that some policy be established where all options are explored, i.e., by legal counsel, staff, etc., before the matter is brought.before..the "boaid for consideration. The Board agreed to consider this suggestion. PUBLIC HEARINGS ZMAP #016• -77 OF JAMES L. BOWMAN,..ET. AL - OPEQUON DISTRICT TO REZONE 3 ACRES FROM R -3 TO B -2 - APPROVED Mr. Berg presented the rezoning request of the Planning Commission for James L. Bowman, et al and stated that it has been the policy of the Planning Commission when there has been an..error on the zoning maps to correct this error by public hearing and that this rezoning request is such a case. He advised in 1972 the subject property was rezoned from residential to business use and this was not posted on the zoning maps and therefore not carried forward. Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Will L. Owings, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does herein approve the following zoning map amendment petition on third and final reading: ZMAP #016 -77 SUBMITTED BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR JAMES L. & MARY BOWMAN, P. O. BOX 6, STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA, ROGER L. AND JOAN R. SAGER P. O. BOX 128, STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA, AND HOWARD R. AND KATHERINE G. MILLS, P. O. BOX 99, STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA, WHO HEREBY REQUEST THAT APPROXIMATELY THREE .(3) ACRES ON ROUTE 11 SOUTH AT STEPHENS CITY NOW ZONED RESIDENTIAL- GENERAL DISTRICT (R -3) BE REZONED BUSINESS GENERAL DISTRICT (B -2). THESE PROPERTIES ARE DESIGNATED AS PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS 74A2(4)10, 74A2(A)4, AND 74A2(A)5 AND ARE IN THE BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles.. THE HOUSING PLAN COMPONENT OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - THIRD AND FINAL READING - APPROVED Mr. Berg presented the Housing Plan Component of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan stating only the recreation component remains to be completed to complete the Comprehensive Plan. He reviewed briefly the contents of the Housing Plan Component and stated that Pages 10 and 11 require the most attention. He advised that the Board should note two trends; population in Frederick County is increasing and there are fewer persons per household. Mr. Berg said that as population increases and number of persons per household decreases, it will take more houses to serve the people in the County. He advised that estimates indicate that 7,197 new households will be needed to house the population of Frederick County by 1990, not including substandard houses which should be replaced. Mr. Berg advised that there is a high proportion of substandard housing in Frederick County that cannot be served by water and sewer connections and • �J L J that this problem needs to be addressed between now and 1990. Mr. Berg then read and explained briefly the goals and objectives set forth. in the Housing Plan Component. Following a lengthy discussion, the following modifications were approved to the Housing.Component. Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles and passed unanimously, Implementation Method 1 under Goal 1, Objective 2 was deleted. Upon motion made by R.-Thomas Malcolm, seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and passed unanimously, the word "encourage" was changed to "consider" in Implementation Method 3 under Goal 1, Objective 2. Mr. Stiles voiced a strong objection to Implementation Methods 1 and 2 under • Goal 2, Objective 1 and subsequently moved to delete said section. The motion dipd for lack of a second. Goal 2, Objective 1, Implementation Methods 1 and 2 were retained as • submitted by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Di. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm. Nay - Kenneth Y. Stiles. k Following a brief discussion, the Board by majority agreed to retain Im- plementation Method 2, under Goal 2, Objective 2 as it was submitted. Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and seconded.by R. Thomas Malcolm, EE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve, on third and final reading the Housing Plan Component of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as amended and does direct that a copy of said plan be kept on file in the Office of the County Administrator. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. I COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: FINANCE COMMITTEE • Mr. Rosenberger and Dr. Fish presented the recommendations of the Finance Committee and the.£ollowing action was taken: RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH USE OF COUNTER - CYCLICAL FUNDS - APPROVED Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that the following • I expenditures of counter - cyclical funds are'hereby approved and that the necessary budget adjustments to reflect this approval are authorized to be made: Sheriff's Department: Photographic Dark Room Equipment $ 2,996.00. Two IBM Selectric Typewriters and 2 manual-typewriters 2,200.00 Ten electronic Sirens 2,900.00 Two handheld portable radios 1,700.00 Twenty bulletproof vests 2,500.00 One grenade launcher 500.00 General District Court 307.00 Refencing dog Kennel 5,000.00 Tax Maps and Zoning Maps 700.00 Commi s s ioner:: of.:Revenue : Typewriter 850.00 Copy Machine 1,000.00 Treasurer: Chairs 450.00 Coin Wrapping Machine 620.00 Circuit Court Clerk: Binding Books 2,821.00 Typewriter 800.00 Chair 150.00 192 r Commonwealth Attorney: Desk and Chair Tape recorder Dictating equipment Chairs (2) Three filing cabinets Table Typewriter stand Extension service.radio equipment Capital Facilities Plan Parks & Recreation: Typewriter Radio Equipment Fencing at Landfill (to accomodate a County large container site) Landfill radio equipment Regional Jail funding (year beginning March 1, 1978) Sanitation:.Authority (radio equipment) $ 400.00 300.00 800.00- 100.00 525.00 40.00 68.00 1,000.00 11,000.00 750.00 4,500.00 4,000.00 1,500.00 735.89 2,000.00 TOTAL: $53,212.89 The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L...Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth..Y. Stiles. RESOLUTION APPROVING FREDERICK COUNTY'S SHARE OF REGIONAL JAIL PROJECT FOR YEAR BEGINNING MARCH 1, 1978 - APPROVED Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish acid seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve funds in the amount of $735.89 to fund the Frederick County share of the Regional Jail Project for the year beginning March 1, 1978, and further directs that the-appropriate revenue and expenditure budget adjustments be authorized to be made to reflect this approval. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm and Kenneth Y..Stiles. AMENDMENTS TO COUNTY CODE - APPROVED Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve the following amendments to the Frederick County Code in order to conform with legislation passed in the 1977 Session of the General Assembly: Section 9 -1.1 Add an amendment to reflect that the County intends that personal property taxation exemption be granted for grains used for the nurture of farm animals as well as the other exemptions in the current ordinance. Section 9 -5 Since the County has adopted a fiscal tax year under 58 -851 but continues to assess as of January 1, add the following proviso to the end of the first sentence of subsection (a): "Provided, that such application must be submitted for any year at least sixty days preceding the effective date of the assessment for such year." Section 9 -12 "(e) the fact that persons who are otherwise qualified for tax exemption pursuant to this article are residing in hospitals, nursing homes, convalescent homes or other facilities for physical or mental care for extended periods of time shall not be construed to mean that the real estate for which tax exemption is sought does not continue to be the sole dwelling of such persons during such extended periods of other residence so long as such real estate is not used by or leased to lothers for consideration. • CJ L� • 1 t iO3 The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. MINIMUM PURCHASE REQUIRING SEALED COMPETITIVE BIDS INCREASED TO $2,500 - APP Upon motion made by ?Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dr..Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, rginia, does herein approve the revision of the minimum amount of a purchase sealed competitive bids from $1,000, the current requirement, to $2,500 that the County purchasing procedures will be aligned with state statutes. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - • S. Roger Koontz, Thoma s B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS T.0 BE PAID $30 PER MEETING - APPROVED Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger, and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, inia, does herein approve the payment of $30.00 per meeting to the members of Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals effective January 1, 1978. • The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr.. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, 2. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF FILE CABINET TO GREENWOOD FIRE COMPANY - APPPROVED Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does herein approve transfer of ownership of a file cabinet(value $50) the County to the Greenwood Fire Company inasmuch as the fire company paid the file cabinet through the County and the County is no longer required to for this property which was purchased from the federal government. The above resolution was passed by the following.recorded vote: Aye - • . Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr.-Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. PERSONNEL Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, , does herein amend the resolution passed on December 14, 1977 with regard to implementation of the Personnel Management System to reflect that all loyees whose date of employment falls after July 1, 1977 will use that date • as the date for consideration for merit increases rather than the date.utilized employees employed prior to July 1, 1977. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kennth Y. Stiles. Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does herein direct that the Treasurer, Commissioner of Revenue, Sheriff and Commonwealth Attorney, be included under the Personnel Management System, effective January 1, 1978 in accordance with written requests received from these four constitutional officers. 19'4 The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - • Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, • Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Board of Supervisors of the County of rederick, Virginia to provide for the inclusion in the "Personnel Management 7stem" of Constitutional Officer employees as well as employees under the authority E the Board and County Administrator should the individual Consititutional Officer Lect to have his or her employees participate and the Board of Supervisors concurs ad the Constitutional Officer transmits said request in writing to the Board; and, WHEREAS, it is recognized that certain changes in Section III "Installation ad Administration" of the system are desirable; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County f Frederick, Virginia, that the following changes for Constitutional Officers' covered by the document entitled "A Personnel Management System for the of Frederick, Virginia 1977" are hereby approved and adopted as amend- nts to Section III "Installation and Administration" of the system, all other ections of the "Personnel Management System" being applicable to Constitutional ficer employees covered by the system as these sections were approved and by the Board of Supervisors on December 14, 1977: �5 age 19 ection 1.5 line 2 change line 3 change ection 1.6 line 1 change line 5 change ection 1.7 line 2 change . and strike th age 25 ection 5.5 line 4 change "County "County. "County "County "County words "County Administrator" Administrator" Administrator" Administrator" Administrator" '...or his desi Administrator" to "Constitutional to "Constitutional to "Constitutional to "Constitutional to "Constitutional gnee" in line 3. to "Constitutional Officer" Officer" Officer" Officer" Officer" Officer" age 27 ection 6. 5a .line 3:•. change ..•'SCounty,.Administrator" to...•..CBnstitiitional Officer" age 28 ection 6.6 line 4 change "County Administrator" to "Constitutional Officer" ection 6.6b line 1 change - "County Administrator" to "Constitutional Officer" ge 29 •1b ction 6.6b line 1 change "-County Administrator" to "Constitutional Officer" ction 6.8 3 change "County Administrator" to "Constitutional Officer" ction 6.8b lines 1 `2') change "County Administrator" to Constitutional Officer" age 30 ection 6.9b lines 1 & 2 change "County Administrator" to "Constitutional Officer" ection 6.10b lines 1 & 2 change' "County Administrator" to "Constitutional Officer" age 31 hange " County Administrator's Review" to "Constitutional Officers' Review" ection 6.12 line 1 change "County Administrator" to "Constitutional Officer" age 34 tep;III.. line 2.6hinge County Administrator" to "Constitutional Officer" line 4 change "County Administrator" to "Constitutional Officer" line 8 change "County Administrator" to "Constitutional Officer" line 10 change "County Administrator" to "Constitutional Officer" line 13 change "County Administrator" to "Constitutional Officer" age 35 tep IV line 1 change "County Administrator" to "Constitutional Officer" line 3 change "County Administrator" to "Constitutional Officer" line 10 change "County Administrator" to "Constitutional Officer" line 11 change "County Administrator" to "Constitutional Officer" line 18 change "County Administrator" to "Constitutional Officer" (Page 36 (Step IV7 - shall be changed to read as follows: "The majority decision of the panel shall be submitted to the Constitutional Officer':for-:zeview." 37 on 7.2 line 6-change "County Administrator" to "Constitutional Officer" on 7.2a - add the words "except those files of the Constitutional Officers' employees" at the end of the line. • • • J. 38 11 - the sentence shall read as follows: "All official personnel files of the 19 48 ion 7.9 line 3 change "County Administrator" to "Constititutional Officer" line 5 change "County Administrator" to "Constitutional Officer" 41 ion 7.5A line 3 change "County Administrator" to "Constitutional Officer" 51 The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - . Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. IN CIRCUIT COURT CLERK' E of the Constitutional Officers' employees shall be reviewed in the presence of the Constitutional Officer of his designee. 7.12 line 16 change "County Administrator" to "Constitutional Officer" Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, ' V inia does herein agree to continue paying, the supplements on the salaries • the employees of the Clerk of the Circuit Court as follows: Title by the general increase granted other County employees on July 1, 1978. County Supplement ty $11;871 $812 ty $ 8;939 $639 k II $ 8,266 $616 k III $ 7,132 $532 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board does direct that the.supplements be The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - . Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, Thomas Malcolm and Kenneth Y. Stiles. BUDGET ADJUSTMENT - LANDFILL FUND - APPROVED Upon motion made by Thomas. B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that'the following t adjustment is approved for the Frederick - Winchester Landfill fund and that necessary revenue and expenditure adjustments are hereby authorized in order • • reflect this approval: 10- 01OJ -213B 10- 01OJ -215A 10- 01OJ -215B 10 -01OJ -290 10 -01OJ -295 Total Total Salary $ 1,259.39 68.68 6,000.00 10,000.00 3,000.00 $ 20,328:07 The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - i. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION - DIVISION OF COURT SERVICES RELOCATION - APPROVED Upon motion maye by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of. Supervisors of the County. of Frederick, rginia does herein approve a supplemental appropriation in the amount of 5,3.00 to facilitate a relocation of the offices of the Division of Court Services rom the Frederick County Courthouse to 137 West Boscawen Street, with the under- ng that the additional money to be spent must be derived from revenue ted by the Division of Court Services and that no local tax dollars will be The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - Roger Koontz, Thomas B.:.Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, Thomas Malcolm,-and Kenneth Y. Stiles. RESOLUTION - REVENUE SHARING TRUST FUND REFUND - APPROVED 19.6 CHANGE IN LANDFILL RATE NOT NECESSARY AT THIS TIME Mr. Rosenberger stated that the Finance Committee had determined that a in the landfill rate was not at this time. is holding on Heritage Hills Subdivision, Section 1 -A in the amount of $16,500 BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick ia, does herein authorize the release of the performance bond the County Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, a refund in the amount of $8,700.00 is hereby directed to be made from the ral Revenue Fund to the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund to repay said funds expended rary to Revenue Sharing regulations during the fiscal year 197.6 -77. Zhe above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - . Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. RELEASE OF BOND - HERITAGE HILLS, SECTION 1 -A - APPROVED Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and seconded by Will L. Owings, accordance with a letter received from the Virginia Department of Highways' Transportation advising that the roads have been accepted into the-State econdary System. I The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - . Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, DI Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. REPORT ONIPOSTAGE MACHINE FOR CONSTI Mr. stated that at the RS meeting the request for a postage for use by the Constitutional Officers had been referred to the Finance set forth on the plat of Elva G. Tevault Estate, from the 10 foot alley in a northwesterly direction eastward to the land of Katherine W. Sims, copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the County Administrator, in the Opequon Magisterial District in accordance with Section 15.1 -465, seq, of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended: 1. Pearl Street 2. The alley lying between Pearl Street and Guyer Street 3. Guyer Street 4. The alley lying between Guyer Street and Grand Street 5. Grand Street 6. The alley lying between Grand Street and U. S. Route 11 (Main Street) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this action is taken pursuant to a letter of st dated November 14, 1977 from Mr. J. R. Nicely, Agent for the Elva G. It Estate. mmittee for reconsideration. He advised that the Constitutional Officers had thdrawn their request for said machine and therefore no action was necessary this matter. COMMITTEE ON ENGINEERING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT Mr. R. Thomas Malcolm presented the recommendations of the Committee on ineering & Code Enforcement and the following action was taken: REQUEST FOR ABANDONMENT OF ROAD - ELVA G. TEVAULT ESTATE - APPROVED Uon motion made by Will L. Owings and seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does herein abandon the portions of the following streets and alleys The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - 3. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm and Kenneth Y. Stiles. • • • • 1. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this action is taken pursuant to a letter of dated November 14, 1977 from Mr. J. R. Nicely, Agent for the Elva G. ult Estate. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - F . Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. COMMITTEE ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND COURTS Dr. Fish presented the recommendations from the Committee on Law Enforcement Courts and the following action was taken: .ODE - SECTIONS 1 -6 AND • .Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and seconded by Will L. Owings, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of <: Frederick, Jirginia, does herein approve the following amendments to the Frederick County in order to conform to legislation passed by the 1977 Session of the • inia General Assembly: CHAPTER 1 1 -6 (15.1. -505): Revise to read as follows: "Section. 1 -6. General 'penalty; continuing violations. Whenever in this Code or in any other.ordinance of the county an act is prohibited or is made or declared to be unlawful or-an offense or misdemeanor, or the doing of any act is required, or the failure, neglect or refusal to do any act is declared to be unlawful or an offense or misdemeanor, where no specific penalty is provided therefor, the violation df. any such provision of this Code or such ordinance shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or imprisonment;(provided, however, that such penalties shall not exceed those penalties.-prescribed by the Code of Virginia for like offenses.; Each day'any violation of this Code or of any other of the County shall continue shall constitute a separate offense, except where otherwise provided." "ARTICLE IV. DOGS. DIVISION 1. (.GENERALLY itions. For the purposes of this article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively to them by this section: • J Dog Warden Any dog warden or deputy dog warden appointed pursuant to section 5 -13. Kennel. An enclosure wherein dogs are kept and from which they cannot escape. Livestock Cattle, horses, sheep, goats, swine and enclosed domesticated rabbits or hares. Owner. Any person having a right of property in any dog, subject to the provisions of this article, and any person who keeps or harbors such dog, or has the dog in his care, or who acts as its custodian, and any person who permits a dog to remain on or about any premises occupied by him. Poultry. All domestic fowl, and game birds raised in captivity. • Treasurer. The county treasurer and his assistants or other officer designated by law to collect taxes in the county. To run at large. A dog shall be deemed "to run at large" while roaming, running or self- hunting off.the of its owner or custodian and not under its owner's or custodian's immediate control. Vaccinate, vaccinated or vaccination. The immunization of a dog against• rabies, whether by inoculation, vaccination or any other method of treatment approved by the county health officer. Veterinarian. Any-licensed veterinarian authorized to practice veterinary medicine in the state. I . Dog warden and de (a) The dog warden and deputy dog wardens shall be appointed by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 29 -213.8 of the Code of Virginia.-Such officers shall be paid such compensation as the board of supervisors may prescribe. (b) The powers of enforcement of this-chapter and all laws for the protection of domestic animals shall be vested in the dog warden and such deputy dog wardens as may be appointed. Deputy dog wardens shall have all the powers and duties of a dog warden. 197 J , Sec. 5 -14. Running at lar _ e - Prohibited. r_ It:•shall belunlawful to2•permit ,ainy:_ dog to-, atalarge.:within the County at any time during the year. Any, person who permits his to run at large, or remain unconfined, unrestricted or not penned up shall be deemed to have violated the provisions of this section. It shall be the duty of the dog warden and deputy dog wardens to cause all dogs found running at large in violation of this section to be caught and penned up in the county dog pound. Sec:.:.5 -15. Same -- Vicious or destructive dogs. , It shall be unlawful to permit any vicious or destructive dog to run at large within the county, and any person owning, having control or harboring any such dog is hereby required to keep the same confined within his premises. Sec. 5 -16. Confinement and disposition of dogs; pound. •(a) The of supervisors shall cause to be constructed and maintained a pound or enclosure of a type approved by the county health department. . The dog warden shall cause dogs running at large contrary to the provisions of this article to be confined therein. Any dog which has been confined for a period of five days and has not been claimed by the owner thereof may be destroyed by the dog warden or otherwise disposed of in.accordance with • this section. (b) Any dog confined under any of the provisions of this chapter may be redeemed by its owner at any time after confinement, if such dog has not been otherwise disposed of under the of this section; upon payment of the proper fees:. No dog shall bed released to any person claiming owner- ship until! prodf of current dog license receipt or tag and current valid vaccination certificate presented. ,(c) If the dog has not been claimed, it may be humanely destroyed or disposed of by sale or gift to a federal agency, or state - supported in- stitution, agency of the Commonwealth, agency of another state, or a licensed federal dealer, or by delivery to any local human society, shelter, or to any person who is a resident of the county who will pay the required license tax on such animal. No provision herein shall prohibit the de- struction of a critically injured or critically ill dog for humane purposes. The pound shall be accessible to the public at reasonable hours during the • week. Sec. 5 -17. Killing unlicensed dogs. It shall be the duty of the dog warden to capture and euthanize any dog of unknown ownership found running at large on which the license tax has not been,.paid; provided, that the dog warden may deliver such dog to any person in his jurisdiction who will pay the required license tax on such dog, with the understanding that should the legal owner thereafter claim the dog and prove his ownership, he may recover such dog by paying to the person to whom it was delivered by the dog warden, the amount of the license tax paid by him and a-reasonable charge for the keep of the dog while in his possession. Any dog warden euthanizing a dog under this chapter shall cremate, bury or sanitarily dispose of the same; provided;6however, that prior to disposition by euthanasia or otherwise, all the provisions of section 5 -16 shall have been complied with. Sec. 5 -18. Dogs deemed personal propert All dogs shall be deemed personal property and may be the subject of • larceny and malicious or unlawful trespass, and the owners thereof may maintain any action for the killing of any such dogs, or injury thereto, or unlawful detention or use thereof as in the case of other personal ' property. The owner of any dog which is injured or killed contrary to the provisions of this chapter by any person shall be entitled to recover the value thereof or the damage done thereto in an appropriate action at law from such person. A dog warden or officer finding a stolen dog, or i a dog held or detained contrary to law, shall have authority to seize and hold such dog pending action before a.:general district court or other court.' If no such action is instituted within seven'days, the dog warden or other officer shall deliver the dog to its owner. The presence of a dog on the premises of a person..other than its legal owner shall raise no presumption of theft against the owner and the dog warden may take such dog in charge and notify its legal owner to remove him. The legal owner of the dog shall pay a charge as specified by'the board df supervisors for the keep of such dog while in the possession of the dog warden. • Sec. 5 -19. Dogs killing or injuring livestock or poultry. It shall be the duty of the-dog warden who may find a dog in the act of killing or injuring livestock or poultry to kill such dog forthwith whether such dog beaks a tag or not,: and any person finding a dog committing any of the depredations mentioned in this section shall have the right to kill such u dog on sight. Any court shall have the power to order the dog warden or other officer to kill any dog known to be a confirmed livestock or poultry killer, and any dog killing livestock or poultry for the third time shall be considered a confirmed killer. Any warden or other person who has reason to believe that any dog is killing livestock, or committing any the depredations.mentioned in this section, shall apply to a magistrate of the county who shall issue a warrant requiring the owner or custodian, if known, to appear before a district court at a time and place named therein, at which time evidence shall be heard, acid if it�shall appear that such a dog is a livestock or poultry killer, or has committed any of the depredations mentioned in this section ";. the dog shall be ordered killed immediately, which the warden or other officer designated by the judge of the district court to act shall do. 19.9 . 5 -20. C ation for livestock killed by dons.. Any person who has any livestock or poultry killed or injured by any dog not his own shall be entitled to receive as compensation the fair market value of such livestock or poultry; provided, that the claimant has furnished evidence within sixty days of discovery of the quantity and value of the dead or injured livestock and the reasons the claimant believes that the death or injury was caused by a dog. The dog warden shall conduct an investigation and if his investigation supports the claim, such claim shall be paid. If there are not sufficient moneys in the dog fund to pay these claims, they shall be paid in the order they'are received when moneys become available. Upon payment under this section the board of supervisors shall be subrogated to the extent of com- pensation paid to the right of action to the owner of the livestock or poultry against the owner of the dog and may enforce the same in an appropriate action at law. The owner of any dog which had died from disease or other cause shall forthwith cremate or bury the same. If, after . notice, any owner fails to • do so, the dog warden shall bury or cremate the dog and he may recover on behalf of the county from the owner his costs for his service. It shall be unlawful for any person to own a dog six months or over unless such dog is licensed, as required by the provisions of this division. Sec. 5 -24. What dog license shall consist of. A dog license shall consist of a license receipt and a metal tag. The • tag shall be stamped or otherwise permanently marked to show the name '.'Frederick County," the sex of the dog, the calendar year for which issued And bear a serial number. Sec. 5 -25. Duplicate license tags. If a dog license shall become lost, destroyed or stolen, the owner or custodian shall at once apply to the treasurer- or his agent who issued the same for a duplicate license tag, presenting the original license receipt. Upon affidavit of the owner or custodian before the treasurer or his agent that the original license tag has been lost, destroyed or stolen, he shall issue a duplicate license tag which the owner or custodian shall immediately affix to the collar of the dog. The Treasurer of his agent shall endorse the number'of the duplicate and the date issued on the face of the original license receipt. The fee for a duplicate tag for any dog shall be one dollar. Sec. 5 -26. Disolavina receipts: doas'to wear tags. Dog license receipts shall be carefully preserved by the licensees and exhibited promptly on request for inspection by any dog warden. Dog license tags shall be securely fastened to a substantial collar by the owner or custodian and worn by such dog, and it shall be unlawful for the owner to permit any licensed dog six months old or over to run or roam at large at any time without a license tag. The owner of the dog may remove the collar (a) The following shall be unlawful acts and constitute misdemeanors punishable by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars: (1) License application For any person to make a false statement in order to secure a dog license to which he is not entitled. (2) License tax. For any dog owner to fail to pay the license tax required by this chapter before February first for the year in which it is ' due. In addition, the court may order confiscation and the proper dis- position of the dog. (3) Running at large. For any dog owner to allow a dog to run at • large in violation of sections 5 -14, 5 -15 and 5 -25. (4) Dead dogs For any owner to fail to dispose of the body of his dog in violation of section 5 -21. (5) Diseased dogs For the owner of any dog with a contagious or infectious disease to permit such dog to1stray from his premises if such disease is known to the owner. (6) Removing collar and tag. For any person, except the owner or custodian, to remove a legally acquired license tag from a dog. (7) Concealing a dog. For any person to conceal or harbor any dog on which the license tax has not been paid, or to conceal a made dog to keep the same from being killed. (8) Any other violation of this article for which specific penalty is not provided. • (b) The following act shall be punished as a misdemeanor as provided in section 1 -6: False Claim. For any person to present a false claim or to receive any money on a false claim under the provisions of section 5 -20. DIVISION 2. LICENSES Sec. 5 -23. Unlicensed do s. rohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to own a dog six months or over unless such dog is licensed, as required by the provisions of this division. Sec. 5 -24. What dog license shall consist of. A dog license shall consist of a license receipt and a metal tag. The • tag shall be stamped or otherwise permanently marked to show the name '.'Frederick County," the sex of the dog, the calendar year for which issued And bear a serial number. Sec. 5 -25. Duplicate license tags. If a dog license shall become lost, destroyed or stolen, the owner or custodian shall at once apply to the treasurer- or his agent who issued the same for a duplicate license tag, presenting the original license receipt. Upon affidavit of the owner or custodian before the treasurer or his agent that the original license tag has been lost, destroyed or stolen, he shall issue a duplicate license tag which the owner or custodian shall immediately affix to the collar of the dog. The Treasurer of his agent shall endorse the number'of the duplicate and the date issued on the face of the original license receipt. The fee for a duplicate tag for any dog shall be one dollar. Sec. 5 -26. Disolavina receipts: doas'to wear tags. Dog license receipts shall be carefully preserved by the licensees and exhibited promptly on request for inspection by any dog warden. Dog license tags shall be securely fastened to a substantial collar by the owner or custodian and worn by such dog, and it shall be unlawful for the owner to permit any licensed dog six months old or over to run or roam at large at any time without a license tag. The owner of the dog may remove the collar 200 ct."I license tag required by this section (1) when'the dog is engaged in lawful i_. hunting, (2) when the dog is competing in a dog show, (3) when the dog has a skin condition which would be exacerbated'by the wearing of a collar, (4) when the dog is confined or (5)-when the dog is under the immediate _ control of its owner. Sec. 5 -27. Effect collar as evidence Any dog not wearing a collar bearing a license tag of the proper calendar year shall prima facie be deemed to be unlicensed and in any proceedings under this article the burden of proof of the fact that such dog has been licensed, or is otherwise not required to bear a tag at the time shall be on the owner of the dog. �c. 5 -28. How tc Any person residing in the county may obtain a dog license by making ral or written application to the treasurer, accompanied by the amount of icense tax and certificate of vaccination as required by this division.' The' reasurer or other officer charged with the duty of issuing dog licenses shall my have authority to license dogs of resident owners or custodians who reside ithin the boundary limits of the county and may require information to this ffect from any applicant. Upon receipt of proper application and certificate f vaccination as required by this division, the treasurer or other officer harged with the duty of issuing dog licenses shall issue a license receipt for he amount on which he shall record the name and address of the owner or custodian, he date of payment, the year for which issued, the serial number of the tag, hether male, unsexed female, female or kennel, and deliver the metal license ags or plates provided for herein. The treasurer may establish substations n convenient locations in the county and appoint agents for the collection f the license tax and issuance of such license. Sec. 5 -29. Evidence showing inoculation for rabies prerequisite No license tag shall be issued for any dog unless there is presented, to the treasurer or other officer - of the county charged by law with the duty of issuing license tages for dogs at the time application for license is made, evidence satisfactory to him showing that such dog has been inoculated or vaccinated against rabies by a currently licensed veterinarian. 30. Li -- Amounts License taxes shall be as follows: Male For a male dog, three dollars. n Unsexed male or female. For an unsexed male or female dog, three dollars Female. For a female dog, three dollars Kennels. For twenty dogs, fifteen dollars Kennels. For fifty dogs, twenty -five dollars No license tax shall be levied on any dog that is trained and serves as a guide dog for a blind person. Sec. 5 -31. Same -- When (a) on January 1 and not later than January 31 of each year, the owner of any dog six months old,.or older shall pay a license tax as prescribed in section 5 -30. (b) If a dog shall become six months of age or come into the possession of any person between January 1 and October 31 of any year, the license tax for the current calendar year shall be paid forthwith by the owner. (c) If a dog shall become six months of age or come into the possession of any person between November 1 and December 31 of any year, the license tax for the succeeding calendar year shall be paid forthwith by the owner and such license shall protect.such dog from the date of purchase. Sec. 5 -32. Same -- Payment subsequent to summons! Payment of the license tax subsequent to a summons to appear before a court for failure to do so within the.time required shall not operate to relieve such owner from the penalties provided. Sec. 5 -33. Same -- Disposition of funds. The treasurer shall keep all money collected by him for dog license taxes in a separate account from all other funds collected by him. The County shall use the funds for the following purposes. (a) The salary and expenses of the dog warden and necessary staff; (b) The care and maintenance of a dog pound; (c) Payments for the treatment of any person bitten by a rabid animal as provided in section 5 -36; (d) The maintenance of a rabies control program; (e) Payments as a bounty to any person neutering or spaying a dog up to the amount of one year of license tax as provided herein; • E • C� (f) Payments for compensation as provided in section 5 -20; I • �.J • (g) Any part or all of any surplus remaining in such account on December 31 of any year may be transferred by the board of supervisors into the general fund of the county. The county may supplement the dog fund with other funds as they consider appropriate but they-shall do so to the extent necessary to provide for (a), (b) and (c) above. . DIVISION 3. RABIES CONTROL (a) All- dcgs:shall_ber'vaccinated'for rabies.on or before becoming six months olds. (a) When there is sufficient reason to believe that a rabid animal is at large, the board of supervisors shall have the power to pass an emergency ordinance which shall become effective immediately upon passage, requiring owners of all dogs therein to keep the same confined on their premises unless leashed under restraint of.the owner in such a manner that persons or animals will not be subject to the danger of being bitten thereby. Any such . emergency ordinance enacted pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be operative for a period not to exceed thirty days unless renewed by the board of supervisors. (b) Dogs showing active signs of rabies or suspected of having rabies shall be confined under competent observation for such -a time as may be necessary to determine a diagnosis. If confinement is impossible or impracticable, such dog shall be destroyed. (c) Every person having knowledge of the existence of an animal apparently afflicted with rabies shall report immediately to the county health officer the existence of such animal, the place where seen, the owner's name, if known, and the symptoms suggesting rabies. (d) Any animal bitten by an animal beleived to be afflicted with rabies.. shall be destroyed immediately or confined in a pound, kennel or enclosure approved by the county health department for a period not to exceed six months at the expense of the owner at a cost of fifty cents.per day;.provided that if the bitten dog has been vaccinated against rabies within one year, the dog shall be revaccinated and confined to the premises of the owner for thirty days. (e) At the discretion of the county health officer, any animal which has bitten a person shall be confined under competent observation for ten days, unless the animal develops active symptoms of rabies or expires before that time; provided that a seriously injured or sick animal may be humanely euthanized and -its head sent to the state health department for evaluation. . Treatment of persons bitten Any person bitten by a rabid animal in the county shall be paid the costs of necessary treatment by the county',_ not to exceed five hundred dollars; provided, that the county health officer shall first treat any such case of rabies, and no person shall be entitled to recover the cost of necessary • treatment herein provided unless he first applied to such officer for .treatment and such officer refuses or fails to treat the case. ' The_ above._ resolution was passed:.by_the.following recorded vote: -Aye.= ..: II .1 Roger. Koontz. Thomas}B. Rosenberger; .Dr. Raymond..L. Fish,. Wi11,:L. Owings, _. . Qt:--Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth'-Y. Stiles. GRANT.APP.LICATIONSnr WINCHESTER GENERAL DISTRICT COURT;:.:SHERIFF'S.DEPARTMENT AND REGIONAL JAIL PROJECT - APPROVED Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and seconded by Will L. Owings, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of ' Supervisors of the County of Frederick, • irginia, does herein approve following applications for grant funds: 1. Winchester - Frederick General District Court in the amount of $10,274 (Federal $9, 2501 .,•.State`$513;.= LOCa1_.$514) to provide a program to establish pre trial diversion for selected misdemeanor offenders. 2-. Frederick County Sher'iff's Department'in the amount of $3,333 (Federal $3,000; State $166; Local $167) to provide a property and evidence system for the Frederick County Sheriff's Department. 3. Regional Jail Project in the amount of $35,550 (local funds $735.89) for the continuation of this project for a second year. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B.-Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. 201 I. Z 2.02 REPORT CAPITAL FACILITIES COMMITTEE Mr. Malcolm requested that this matter be placed at the end of the agenda in order that the Board might go into executive session to discuss this report. The Board concurred. Mr.- Rosenberger..sta-ted that he understood the City of Winchester was considering the County's proposal for a 20 year moratorium on annexation as a part of the City - County contract regarding a study for capital facilities. He stated that if this is correct he would be in favor of considering proceeding in this direction Dr. Fish asked if Mr. Rosenberger's intentions were to proceed on both fronts, i.e. to investigate the possibilities of locating capital facilities in the City as well as in the County and Mr. Rosenberger stated that this was correct. Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein direct that should the City of Winchester approve the County's proposal for a twenty (20) year annexation moratorium from - the date of the proposed contract for a joint feasibility study for capital facilities, located within the City of Winchester, that the legal aspects of said proposal be explored and further directs that the Capital Facilities Committee meet with representatives of the•City of Winchester on this matter at the earliest possible date should the twenty (20) year annexation moratorium be approved. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. Abstaining - R. Thomas Malcolm. ORDINANCE - FIRST AND SECOND READING Mr: Renalds read the following ordinance on first and second reading: ZMAP #017 -77 OF J. J. RUSSELL;: JR, ROUTE 1, BOX 107', WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA, AND ELIZABETH K-. AND EVERT BEEKMAN, JR., ROUTE 1, BOX 109, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA, HEREBY REQUESTS THAT THE PORTIONS.OF THEIR PROPERTIES, LOCATED TO THE EAST OF STATE ROUTE 522, NOW ZONED RESIDENTIAL- LIMITED (R -1) BE REZONED: AGRICULTURAL - GENERAL (A -2).. THESE PROPERTIES ARE DESIGNATED AS REAL PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION CODE NUMBERS 64(A)37 AND 64(A)36 AND ARE LOCATED IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. MONTHLY STAFF REPORT - ACCEPTED After review, the monthly staff report was accepted. CITIZENS CONCERN Mr. Rosenberger presented the following items for consideration by the Board: 'R- clamation of Shale Pits Mr. Rosenberger requested that the Board investigate the procedures for iring the reclamation of shale pits-in the County inasmuch as they are a on the County's landscape and are a danger to citizens. The Board referred s request to the County Staff for study and recommendation. Trash Collection Areas Discussed Mr. Rosenberger stated that he,felt the trash collection areas should be inasmuch as blowing trash the debris is becoming an increasing problem n the County. The Board discussed the need for possible additional sites, enforcement the trash container regulations „ and the possible future need to extend ra n U E • • s tion hours at the County Landfill. Name for New Senior High School Discussed Mr. Rosenberger asked if the Board would have any input into the name for new senior high school soon to be constructed. The Board members concurred they were under the impression that the new school would be named the "James d Senior High School ". The Board requested Mr. Owings, School Board.Liaison, request input from the School'Board on this matter. -- WITH BOARD TO ivaau� Mr. Stiles requested that the School Superintendent be requested to meet with Board at their next meeting to discuss the recent report on the County's school building needs as well as the new senior high school. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REQUESTED TO_'DRAFT LETTER TO CONGRESSMEN REGARDING • RESTRICTIONS ON COUNTER - CYCLICAL FUNDS Following a brief discussion, the Board requested the County Administrator to draft a letter to our congressmen regarding the restrictions on counter- lical funds for consideration by the Board. 2.03 GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED FOR ROAD NAMES COMMITTEE The following guidelines were established by the Board for the recently appointed Road Names Committee: ' 1. Propose sign erection on the County's primary roads 2. Research the names of all roads in the County and inform the Board • of those roads which do not have names 3. Identify the twenty -five (25) oldest roads in the County REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY RE: ROBERT E. FLETCHER Mr. Koontz reported that a letter had been received from Mr. Dabney Watts, City Attorney, stating that he did not feel there were any charges to be pressed within the City against Robert E. Fletcher, the former Director of the Parks_.and Recreation Department. EXTENSION AGENT REQUESTS EXECUTIVE SESSION Mrs. Pauline Baccary, Extension Agent; appeared before the Board and requested an executive session with the Board to discuss personnel. • The Board discussed with the Commonwealth Attorney whether or not this would be permissable under state statutes and the Commonwealth Attorney advised that he ' felt this be would permissable. BOARD RETIRES INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles, seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and passed unanimously, the Board retired into Executive Session in accordance with section 2.1 -344, Subsections 1 and 2, of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to discuss personnel and the acquisition of property for public use. • BOARD WITHDRAWS FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION .Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm, seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, and passed unanimously, the Board.'iwithdrew from Executive Session. BOARD RECONVENES INTO REGULAR SESSION Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm, seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles, and passed unanimously, the reconvened into Regular Session. Mr. Malcolm stated that the Capital Facilities Committee Report had been discussed in Executive Session. He advised that seven tracts;df:_lah.d owned by five individuals had been viewed and that all are within a reasonable distance of the geographic center of the County. Mr. Malcolm stated that the names of the property owners would not be released at this time but that all of the information would be compiled into an overall proposal to study city and county problems relating to 2.03 e facilities. UPON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW ADJOURN. 0 � ,� �Q- Sec etary, Board of Supervisors A Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, was held on the 25th Day of January, 1978, in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia., PRESENT: S. Roger Koontz, Chairman; Dr. Raymond L. Fish; Will L. Owings; R. Thomas Malcolm; and Kenneth Y. Stiles ABSENT: Thomas B. Rosenberger. The Chairman called the meeting to order. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Malcolm requested the following corrections to the minutes and the Board concurred: (1) On Page 4 on the Sunset Estates Subdivision recorded vote, the name Dennis T. Cole,% should be changed to Kenneth Y. Stiles, and (2) On Page 21 under the title "Committee on Engineering and Code Enforcement" the words Law Enforcement and Courts should be changed to read Engineering and Code Enforce- ment. Upon motion made by Will L. Owings and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, EE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does - herein approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of this Board held on Janaury:ll, 1978 with the corrections as set forth above. 9Se above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S.-Roger Koontz, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. DISCUSSION WITH SCHOOL BOARD Request to Place Early Order for School Buses - Approved n Mr. Ray E. Boyce, Chairman of the Board of Education.;: stated that Dr. Melton Wright would make the presentation to the Board of Supervisors on behalf of the Board of Education. Dr. Wright appeared before the Board and requested approval to place an early order for eight new school buses for use during the 1978 -79 school year, at a total cost of $112,676.08. Mr. Tom Sine, Supervisor. of Transportation appeared before the Board and stated that placing this order at an early date would result in a savings to the County. He described the type buses to be:.ordered and stated that six would be replacements and the other two would be used on two additional routes to be put into effect next year. Upon motion made by Will L. Owings and seconded'by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, B; IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does'herein approve the request of the Frederick County Board of Education to place the order for eight (8) new school buses for use during the 1978 -1979 school year in the total amount of $112,676.08. i • • • • i,. 205. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - � 1 • L J 'S. Roger Koontz, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will.L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. Discussion of New High School and School Building Needs Dr. Wright presented several pieces of written material to the Board members and requested that they look at the first page regarding reduction of square footage in the new high school. He advised that approximately 15,000 square feet had been taken out of the original plans; that this revised plan had been co- ordinated with the State Department of Education and resubmitted to them for appr and that no additional footage could be removed-and still maintain a good high school. Dr. Wright stated that three classrooms and various other areas have been eliminated or reduced and that the projected enrollment for the school is now 1,300 pupils. He stated that they expected approximately 1,140 pupils the first year and therefore the proposed plan would provide some room for growth. Dr. Wright explained many of the programs offered to County students and the amount of space required for said programs. He advised that many of the facilities will be used by the community as well as the students and many times would be in use from approximately 7:30 A.M. until 10:00 P.M. Dr. Don Warner explained the areas which had been reduced and the reasons therefor. Mr. Stiles asked how many students in the 11th and 12th grades were participating in physical education classes and Dr. Wright stated that he was not sure but there were very few inasmuch as space was not sufficient to require it. He added that it was highly inconsistent not to offer physical education after the 10th grade when it is stressed to the students how important it is. Mr. Stiles asked what the auxiliary gym would be used for and Dr. Wright f � i replied that it would be used for a multiplicity of things such as a practice area for varsity and junior varsity sports for both boys and girls; physical education classes; gymnastics and after school activities. Dr. Wright stated that the School Board felt that they were at a point where they could state approximately the amount of money which would be required to build and equip the new school. He added that the figures presented on the EDA application were the best they could estimate at that time but that they had made it very clear from the beginning that these figures were not firm. He advised that the minimum cost to build the school would be $36 per square foot; that the reduced plan would provide a total gross area of 188,854 square feet; and that total cost would be approximately $8,200,000. Dr. Wright explained the proposed financing of the project as follows: VPSA bonds sold in 1977 - $1,000,000; VPSA bond sale April, 1978 - $2,000,000; .VPSA bond sale September, 1978 - $1,000,000; Literary Fund of Virginia Loan, Spring, 1979 - $1,000,000; VPSA bond sale, April, 1979 - $2,000,000; Local Funds /Revenue Sharing 1978 -1979 $1,000,000; Balance of current projects plus building fund balance 1978 -1979 - $200,000. He advised that building costs had increased 108 since work on this project had begun. Dr. Wright stated that 126 square feet per pupil is the minimum amount the state will accept. Mr. Stiles asked if 126 square feet per pupil had been used to prepare the $7.5 million dollar estimate and Dr. Wright stated that when this estimate was prepared there were no sketches or designs and that the EDA application had to be 2.06 prepared within a week. He advised that they had made it very clear that in order to get the application prepared in the hopes of getting EDA money this would not necessarily be the plan or design of the building. Mr. Owings stated that now there is no;� assurance that $8.2 million dollars will be sufficient and Dr. Wright stated that a very credible builder has stated that he feels we can build the type of building we want and equip it for an amount not to exceed $8.2 million dollars. Mr. Stiles asked what Dr. Wright-meant when he spoke of equipment and Dr. Wright replied such things as chemistry equipment, cabinets, etc. He further advised that a large amount of vocational equipment would be provided by the state. Mr. Stiles then asked if this equipment included athletic equipment and Dr. Wright stated that it would include the large facilities such as a practice field, a stadium type football field, tennis courts, and practice baseball field. Mr. Stiles asked what the seating would be and Dr. Wright advised that the plans are not far enough along at this point to state what the seating capacity will be. Mr. then asked why the football games could not be played on the field at James Wood and Dr. Wright replied that they could but that if we.� are going to build a new school why spend money at a later date to develop the football field at the new site.at a greater cost. He stated that we are building a new, modern high school which will operate for the next 40 to.50 years and that these facilities should be included when the school is built. He added that building these facilities at a later date would cost more money. Mr. Stiles asked what the field at James Wood would be used for should the new facilities be built and Dr.-Wright stated that it would be used by the 9th and 10th grades, the junior high schools, the recreation department, and various other organizations. Mi. Stiles.:stated that he felt it was ridiculous and extravagant to have two lighted fields. Dr. Fish stated that it had been 8 or 9 months since the Board had voted to fund this facility and that at that time it had been spelled out in very clear terms that we were funding a facility for $7.5 million dollars and that in the past few months this figure has increased 108. He stated that he felt the message from the Board of Supervisors to the School Board should be to come back with a figure within the range set forth several months ago. Dr. Wright stated that the School Board had not subscribed to the $7.5 million dollar figure; that this was the figure used in the EDA application and that the facilities are designed as the people have asked them to be designed. Dr. Fish stated that he felt it could be shown where the $7.5 million dollar figure was set forth and Dr. Wright stated that this could not be done inasmuch as they have said repeatedly that they could not give the Board a definite figure but they would do the best they could. He stated that everything has been done that can be done to reduce the building and that it could not be built one year later for the same amount. Mr. Stiles stated that when the Supervisors met with the School Board at Carpers Valley last spring the specific question was asked if the $7.5 million dollars would allow for inflationary pressures and Dr. Wright stated that it would, that this was not an open ended thing. He stated that Dr. Wright had stated that it would not-go over $7.5 and if it did it could be reduced to stay within that figure. i n U • • u 207 Mr. Ralph Shockey stated that when the EDA application was prepared they had 0 used the best tools available to come up with a figure which would be strictly budgetary and could vary 108 to 208 when we got into final figures. He advised that these figures were out -of- the -hat figures which were based on good, sound planning but not intended to be the actual cost of the school. Mr. Stiles asked if $36 per square foot was a reasonable cost and Mr. Shockey stated that he felt it was but that it would take close monitoring. He advised that should the project be delayed another 6 to 8 months it would cost a great deal more. Mr. Stiles then asked if he felt the $36 per square foot would go up and Mr. • Shockey stated that he did not think it would if we proceed as we now plan to. Mr. Stiles then asked if they would be willing to commit themselves to this. and Mr. Shockey stated that they would not inasmuch as these are just single line drawings'and that a committment could not-be made until the final design is completed. Dr. Warner advised that the building as planned contains only essential space • and any further reduction would cut into the programs. Dr. Wright stated that if we are going to build the school we must move ahead and further delays will cost more and more money. Mr. John Solenberger stated that a lot of people had had input into the plan for the new school and because of the cost factor.it had been adjusted down as much as possible. He added that we need the school now and that the School Board had worked jointly with the Board of Supervisors on this project. Mr. Solenberger stated that additional delays will only increase the cost more and more. Mr. Koontz stated that Mr. Rosenberger had asked for irput into this matter and therefore he would prefer that a decision be reached at.the first meeting in February in order to allow Mr.'Rosenberger the opportunity to review the discussion ld tonight and to express his on this matter. Dr. Wright advised that they were on a tight schedule and a decision should • be reached as quickly as possible. Mr. Koontz stated that he felt the Board would want to look at the revenue I � _ I as much of the school as possible through revenue sharing funds rather than county sharing funds and the predictions for this year inasmuch as we want to finance taxes. Mr. Malcolm stated that he felt a decision should be reached on this matter • M on February 8th and that any further delay will increase the cost. He stated that he hoped the public would contact their supervisors to provide their input on his matter before the next meeting so that a decision could-be made. Mr. Koontz asked Mr. Boyce if a decision on the 8th of February would suit the School Board and Mr. Boyce stated that he could see no reason for the School Board to come back inasmuch as the facts have been presented. Mr. Koontz then stated that the Board would reach a decision on February 8th as to whether to proceed with this figure or a comparable one. Mr. John McIntire appeared before the Board and stated that there has not been enough space in our schools for the past several years and he did not want to see the space in the new high school reduced. He stated that the people want a high school built to state standards. Mr. McIntire asked if the.Board was prepared to pay any increase in cost caused by delay from their own pockets. He added that he felt the Board had made a commitment and should proceed with the project. Mr. Stiles stated that he did not feel anybody was advocating delay of the s." T1: school. He stated that he felt we should have the best facility we can afford and should proceed to have it built but that Dr. Wright had stated that it could be done for $7.5 million dollars and if we went over that figure certain things could be cut to keep it within that range. Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein table the discussion with the Frederick County Board of Education regarding construction of a new senior high school until the next regular . meeting of this Board scheduled for February 8, 1978. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger-Koontz, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. Dr. Wright reported that the School Building Needs Report recommended that elementary schools be built in the Middletown, Gainesboro and Gore areas; that if these schools can not be constructed within a reasonable time, additions should be built to provide facilities which are desperately needed. Dr. Wright described the facilities in the Middletown, Gore and Gainesboro schools and stated that Middletown was the number one priority. He advised that another recommendation was that Kline School be converted to house the school board offices, administrative and supervisory offices and the improvement center. He stated that these facilities are now located in four buildings in very cramped space which causes a great deal of difficulty in coordination. He stated that if this can:: not be worked out, then they would request that space be included in the County facilities for the school board. W. Stiles stated that Dr. Wright had mentioned transferring some students from Star Tannery and Mt. Williams to Middletown. He asked if this would not alleviate some of the pressure on Gore School. He stated that the capacity of- Apple Pie Ridge is 865 and this year's enrollment is 713. He asked if some students from Gainesboro could be transferred to Apple Pie Ridge to help alleviate the problems at Gainesboro. Dr. Wright stated that if the Board wants to continue with trailers, then space could be provided this way. He stated that this school is not planned with a two year period but within a 4 to 5 year period and that the Committee and the School Board felt that Middletown should be the number one priority. Mr. Stiles stated that before we got into anything along this line, he would like to see something on reshuffling the school districts with the use of Apple Pie Ridge and the Middletown school inasmuch as he understood growth in these two areas would be severely limited. Mr. Stiles stated that if it becomes obvious that this solution will not be adequate perhaps the board should consider the use of Kline School rather than building a new school. Mr. Stiles then asked if the reason the School was not being built on the Robinson property was because of the excessive cost of water and sewer and Dr. Wright stated that this was one reason and another was that the property in front of the site would have to be purchased. Mr. Stiles asked if this was not still the case, just as it had been two years ago, and Dr. Wright stated that there was a possibility that water and sewer might be in this area. He added that therefore this site is unacceptable for a school and will be unacceptable for the forseeable future. W. Owings advised that the Land Use Plan is only a guideline and not a law. L • u • J • Dr. Fish asked why there was not specific recommendation for the E & S Center in Stephens City and Dr. Wright stated that he thought the Committee was looking at the four building situation and did not want to recommend an addition or renovation to those facilities. He stated that the building has considerable limitations for the handicapped. He advised that the E & S Center would probably grow to include all the counties in the Health District with the exception of Page County and that when this occurs, federal funds might be available for another building. i Dr. Wright stated that he and the School Board wanted to make it clear that the • knew school will be a part of James Wood High School and will be a two campus school. JHe stated that it would possibly be identified as James Wood High School, Apple I Pie Ridge Campus a ni James Wood High School, Amherst Street campus. CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT - REPORT ON EXCESS FEES 1977 Mr. George Whitacre appeared before the Board and stated that for the year 1977 excess fees amounted to $71,226.29; that the County would get 2/3 of this amount or $27,484.53 back from the State. He stated.that these fees had been realized from the recordation of 4,492 instruments. Mr. Whitacre requested consideration of the Board for additional space for his office and that of the the Treasurer. The Board recessed for ten minutes. SUBDIVISIONS HOWARD AND MARGARET STARLIPER - STONEWALL DISTRICT - APPROVED 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 Subdivision of Howard and Starliper, consisting of one lot located behiTd two one acre lots fronting Route 661 in Stonewall Magisterial District. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - • S. Roger Koontz, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. ARTHUR L. SHILEY - SHAWNEE DISTRICT - APPROVED Upon motion made by Will L. Owings and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve the Subdivision' of Arthur L. Shiley consisting of J one lot fronting Route 642 between its intersection with Route 643 and the Opequon Creek in the Shawnee Magisterial District. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - • S. Roger Koontz, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. FREDERICKTOWNE, SECTION III, LOTS 130 & 131 - OPEQUON DISTRICT - APPROVED Mr. Stiles asked why a house was constructed over a property line and'Mr. Renalds replied many times corners are not marked before a house is constructed and that in many cases pins are knocked out during construction. Upon motion made by Will L. Owings and seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles, H BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve the plat revision of Fredericktowne, Section III, Lots 130 and 131 in the Opequon Magisterial District as recommended by the.Planning Commission to adjust boundary line between said lots. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Di.•.Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. Zia GLENROY W. DUCKWORTH - GAINESBORO DISTRICT - APPROVED Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and seconded by Kenneth Y� Stiles, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, 0 Virginia, does herein approve the Subdivision of Glenroy W. Duckworth consisting of one lot located off Route 703 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District with a 900 foot setback line as recommended by the Planning Commission. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. -Roger Koontz, Dk..•: Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. APPOINTMENTS Appointments to the Advisory Committee for the Frederick County Extension Service were discussed and several names were submitted for consideration. Mr. Koontz stated that the people would be contacted regarding service on this Committee 'and the appointments could be made at the next meeting. Mr. Koontz stated Mr. Stiles would serve as the Bbard'•s liaison member on this Committee. Mr. Koontz then stated that the appointment from the Back_Creek District to the Highway Safety Commission would be made by Mr. Rosenberger upon his return. BUDGET-ADJUSTMENT SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.- APPROVED Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve a budget adjustment as requested by the Sheriff's Department to transfer $750 from Line Item 6B -2158 in order to cover the additional cost of the renovation work at the Sheriff's office. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. PUBLICATION OF 1976 -1977 BUDGET SUMMARY APPROVED Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm and seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein direct that the condensed statement of cash receipts and disbursements by funds for the year ended June 30, 1977 be published in accordance with the provisions of §15.1 -165, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended; this state- ment is condensed from Exhibit F of the Report on Examination of the Account and Financial Records for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1977, as submitted by the Auditor of Public Account, Commonwealth of Virginia, to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. PROPOSED SETTLEMENT FAULKNER ESTATE - APPROVED Mr. Koontz stated that a letter had been received from the Executor of the Faulkner Estate wherein he requested permission to retain $3,340:79 from each beneficiary from the proceeds of the estate to be held in escrow until such time as his fiduciary income tax returns have been audited. Following a brief discussion the Board agreed that if request is approved, it should be set forth in the letter to the Executor that the Board is relying solely upon the personal responsibility of the executor in regard to the funds escrowed. is • • \J r Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, r Virginia, does herein approve the proposal for settlement of the Phillip O. Faulkner Estate as set forth in the letter from Guy R. Avey, Jr., Executor, wherein ' $2,240.79 will be retained in escrow by Mr. Avey until such time as his fiduciary in- come tax returns•have be audited; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board does herein direct that Mr. Avey be notified that the Board is relying solely upon his personal responsibility in regard to the funds escrowed. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - • S. Roger Koontz, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y..Stiles. ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRAL ABSENTEE VOTER ELECTION DISTRICT - APPROVED Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles, BE- IT-RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County,of Frederick, • Virginia does herein establish a Central Absentee Voter Election District and does designate the location of said polling place as the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia, for all elections held from February 1, 1978 through February 1, 1979. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Dr•.,..Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. 0 DRAFT LETTER REGARDING COUNTER CYCLICAL FUNDS - APPROVED 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 direct that the following letter be sent to our congressmen_ and senators regarding counter - cyclical funds: Dear Representative /Senator January 27, 1978 The Frederick County Board of Supervisors has requested that-this letter be sent to you requesting your support in opposing the allocation of future counter - cyclical funds under the Economic Development Act with the current restrictions that are imposed on the use of these funds. Frederick County has currently received over $100,000;,under this program but the restrictions which prevent the use of these funds for capital facilities, the prohibition to purchase items over $1,000 and other general restrictions on these funds severely restrict the County in utilizing these funds for expenditures which are actually needed. The County does not wish to spend federal dollars for expenditures which vu� would not otherwise have been made had this money not been available, but would very much like to have the counter - cyclical funds in order to help offset the financial burden upon the County; for instance, the purchase of police cars, the use of this money for capital facilities, etc. Your consideration in this matter would be greatly appreciated and any further information that Frederick County might provide will be sent to you upon your request. With kindest personal regards; I remain, SRK:ctb Sincerely yours, S. Roger Koontz Chairman Frederick County Board Of Supervisors 21 S 21'2 The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Dr.., Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. CRIME PREVENTION WEEKS PROCLAIMED Mr. Koontz announced that he and Mayor Bell had proclaimed the weeks of. February 13th through the 27th, 1978 as Crime Prevention weeks for our area. PROPOSED LEGISLATION DISCUSSED Mr. Malcolm stated that in the legislative bulletin dated January 19th, there are items on which the Virginia Association of Counties-'is suggesting we contact our delegates to express our views. He stated that perhaps the Board should be thinking about whether or not we want to respond to these various bills. Dr. Fish stated that he felt individual letters would possibly be as effective as accollective,. one. FAIRFAX PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION - VIRGINIA CITI Following a brief discussion, the Board agreed to recommend to the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission a representative to serve Virginia Citizens Planning Advisory Committee at their next regular meeting. SHMENT OF POLICY ON Mr..:Koontz referred the request for the establishment of a•policy on re- creational impact fees on large lot recreational subdivisions to-the-Committee. on Engineering and Code Enforcement for study and recommendation. WATER RUN -OFF ROUTE 654 DISCUSSED Dr. Fish stated that on Route 654 there is a very serious problem with water run -off. Mr. George Johnston appeared before the Board and stated that the road is in poor engineering condition and the residents in the area are concerned about pollution from the run -off on this road. He requested that the Board investigate this matter and stated that a letter would be sent regarding this problem to the Health Department with a copy to Dr. Fish. Dr. Fish requested that the following letter be made a part of the minutes of this meeting: Frederick County Health Department 150 Commercial Street Winchester, Va 22601 13 January 1978 Re: Water Run -off, possible contamination, Gainesboro Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia Gentlemen: The events of recert weeks have demonstrated great quantities of'run -off . water from the residences along Route 654 between its intersection, Route 677 (Cedar Grove Cash Grocery) and at Route 522 (Cross Roads Grocery). The excessive run -off is so severe as to create pockets and sheets of ice on the road surface; sometimes exceeding as much as 8 or 10 inches in depth. Further, it may well be that a number of the homes immediately adjacent with Route 654 have inadequate waste water treatment facilities which adds to the run -off problem previously described and constitutes an unsanitary condition because of the dangers associate with untreated or inadequately treated effluent from the residences along Route 654, as previously mentioned. Therefore, we would very much appreciate your investigating this matter to determine the severity of the problem, and we stand ready to assist you in any way we can. GWJ /alh Sincerely LAKE SERENE, INC by /s/ George W. Johnston, III Secretary cc: Reginald C. King, Resident Engineer • • • • Virginia Department of Highways The Honorable Raymond L. Fish, Supervisors Frederick County Board of Supervisors Mrs. Carolyn Lewis, President Lake Serene, Inc. • bcb: H. W. Butler, Jr. Mr. Koontz stated that this is one of the roads slated-to be completely rebuilt l and that the Highway Department will not spend funds on it until such time as the whole road can be rebuilt. Dr. Fish stated that when this matter had been discussed before, Mr. King advised that this project could be moved up on the priority list should the Board Aso desire. He suggested that inasmuch as the Annual Road Hearing is coming up, the Board might want to be considering this matter. The problem of snow removal was discussed and Mr. Koontz stated that he felt some procedural guidelines should be set forth by the Highway Department concerning Ithis matter. CITY- COUNTY JOINT FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES DISCUSSED Mr. Koontz stated that the Winchester City Council had passed a resolution u with regard to the proposed 20 year agreement between the City and the County to lbegin a joint feasibility study on capital facilities. Mr. Renalds read the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Council of Winchester recinds its 9, 1977 regarding a WINCHESSTER- FREDERICK COUNTY AGREEMENT regarding a joint feasibility study for joint solutions relative to governmental facilities needs; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Council of the City of Winchester will participate equally with the County of Frederick in a FREDERICK- WINCHESTER GOVERNMENT FACILIRIES STUDY to locate all capital facilities in the City of Winchester; further agreeing that the City will not annex any portion of Frederick County for twenty (20) years from the date of this resolution,. with the stipulation that this agreement shall become null and void should the joint facilities study not prove feasible or any part thereof be independently rejected by either party. Mr. Malcolm asked if Mr. Rosenberger's motion stated that if the City agreed 1with our resolution we would be in favor of proceeding in this direction and Mr. Koontz replied that it did so long as Mr. Ambrogi agreed with the terminology and JMr. Ambrogi had stated that he could see nothing wrong with the terminology. Dr. Fish stated that he would have to object to the words "all capital facilities within the City of Winchester ". Mr. Koontz stated that this is not a contract and that he would expect the u Capital Facilities Committee to work very closely with the City Committee and all others concerned on this matter. He advised that the Capital Facilities Committee 1would look at other alternatives as well so that the Board would have a selection and could pursue the best route. The Board agreed to proceed on the basis of the previous resolution passed lby the Board and Mr. Koontz requested the Capital Facilities Committee to meet 1with the appropriate City committee to commence work on this project. CARPERS DRIVE DISCUSSED Mr. Stiles requested the Board to investigate the current situation and possible solution to the problems on Carpers Drive in Sunnyside. The Board agreed and the County Administrator was requested to write to the Highway department for an update on the situation regarding this road. WATER LINE ON OLD CHARLES TOWN ROAD Mr. Stiles requested that the Board and the Sanitation Authority move toward a solution regarding the problems of installing a water line on the old Charles (Town Road. 213 M 2.14 Mr. Koontz advised that this project would be feasible if 50 signatures of residents in this area could be obtained on a petition before February 22, 1978 and 10.people will appear:.:at the Sanitation Authority meeting to present this request. Mr. Roy Jennings stated that he.did not feel there would be any problem meeting these requirements inasmuch as water is desperately needed in this area. BOARD RETIRES INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION I Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm and passed unanimously, the Board retired into executive session in accordance with Section 2.1 -344, Subsection 6 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to discuss a legal matter. BOARD WITHDRAWS FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by Kenneth: Y. Stiles, seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm, and passed unanimously the Board withdrew from executive session. BOARD RECONVENES INTO REGULAR SESSION Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm, seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles and passed unanimously, the Board reconvened into Session. [PON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW ADJOURN.- J 8 retary, Board of Supervisors A Special Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on February 6, 1978, at 7:30 P.M. in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, Court Square, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT: S. Roger Koontz, Chairman; Dr. Raymond L. Fish; Will L. Owings; Thomas Malcolm; and Kenneth Y. Stiles. ABSENT: Thomas B. Rosenberger, Vice Chairman. WAIVER OF NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING We the undersigned members of the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, irginia, the Commonwealth Attorney, and the Clerk of the Board, do hereby waive of Special Meeting to be held on Monday, February 6, 1978, at 7:30 P.M. the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 9 Court Square, , Virginia, for the following purposes: 1. Frederick County Extension Service 2. Such other business as may come before the Board. Signed and attested this 6th day of February, 1978. /s/ S. Roger Koontz S. Roger Koontz Chairman /s/ T. B. Rosenberger Thomas B. Rosenberger Vice Chairman Back Creek District f • • • 21:5:: /s/ Raymond L. Fish Raymond L. Fish Gainesboro District /s/ Will L. Owings Will L. Owings Opequon District L� /s/ R. Thomas Malcolm R. Thomas Malcolm Shawnee District /s/ Kenneth Y. Stiles Kenneth Y. Stiles Stonewall District /s/ Lawrence R. Ambrogi Lawrence R. Ambrogi Commonwealth Attorney • ATTEST: /s/ J. O. Renalds, III J. 0. Renalds, III Clerk of the Board of Supervisors DISCUSSION EXTENSION SERVICE PERSONNEL Mr. Koontz announced that Dr. William Van Dresser and Dr. Ned Lester of VPI & SU were present to discuss the personnel situation in the Extension Office with the Board. BOARD RETIRES INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm, seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles and passed unanimously, the Board retired into Executive Session in accordance with Section 2.1 -344, Subsection 1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended to discuss personnel. IDARD WITHDRAWS FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles and passed unanimously, the Board withdrew from Executive Session. BOARD RECONVENES INTO REGULAR SESSION Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, seconded by Will L. Owings and passed unanimously, the Board reconvened into Regular Session. Mr. Koontz advised those present that the Board had discussed the personnel situation in the Extension Service with the representatives from VPI & SU and that the Board is now cognizant of the fact that responsibility for extension personnel rests with Virginia Tech as was made clear in the meeting held in December. UPON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, IT IS ORDERED • r THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW ADJOURN. go 0 A Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick inia, was held on the 8th day of February, 1978, in the Board of Supervisors' ing Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT: S. Roger Koontz, Chairman; Thomas B. Rosenberger, Vice Chairman; . Raymond L. Fish; Will L. Owings; R. Thomas Malcolm; and Kenneth Y. Stiles. The Chairman called the meeting to order. 2.1.6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Rosenberger asked for an explanation of the words "all capital facilities thin the City of Winchester" on Page 20 of the minutes and Mr. Malcolm stated at he felt this would be cleared up when the joint committee meets and the scope the study is decided. Mr. Rosenberger asked if the Board and City Council ld inform the Committee as to the scope to be explored and Mr. Malcolm stated t this would be one of the first things the Committee would do. Upon motion made by Kenneth'; Y. Stiles and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, does herein approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of this Board, d on January 25, 1978, as submitted. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. s SCHOOL BOARD REQUEST FOR $8.2 MILLION DOLLARS. FUNDING FOR NEW SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL - DENIED Mr. Koontz stated that all Board Members had received a letter from the School setting forth their position on the new senior high school and that they nput into this matter and that each speaker would be allowed ten minutes to make not be present at this meeting. He advised that the Board would take public s presentation. Mr. Sam Lehman appeared before the Board representing the Frederick County axpayers Association and stated that this organization wanted to know what the is of the individual major items in this project would be. He stated that their rs felt the Board should have, as a minimum, a breakdown of the costs of these items and should be sure it understands what it is getting for the money ich will be spent. Mr. Ed Bridgeforth appeared before the Board in support of the funding request r $8.2 for the new senior high school ntation of the Shawnee District. He commended Mr. Malcolm for his repre- W. Bridgeforth stated that his comments were made not only as an active member f the James Wood Athletic Association and an individual but also reflected the lings of the silent majority of the citizens of Frederick County. He strongly the Board not to reduce the $8.2 funding request for the new school stating such a reduction would eliminate the facilities we have lacked for so many s. He advised that the $7.5 figure was an estimate only and the increase of 700,000 was less than 108. Mr. Bridgeforth urged the Board not to cut the athletic facilities stating that our children need and deserve a first class facility. He stated that transporting students between the two campuses is a great handicap for teachers, students and coaches and is also quite expensive. Mr. Bridgeforth requested that the size of the auxillary gym not be reduced inasmuch as this facility is used by many people and that it is a necessary facility to provide the required units of physical education for students. He pointed out that James Wood at its present location does not have an adequate basketball court and therefore.must use the one at the Frederick County Junior High School which necessarily interferes with the activities of that school. Mr. Bridgeforth stated that space must be provided for girls athletics as required by law. He stated that the Board should consider very carefully the impact a reduction of these facilities could have on a potentially outstanding athlete. C • • 11 • r W. Owings stated that he was interested in athletics but felt that we should 2-1 thinking about studies rather than athletics and Mr. Bridgeforth replied that order to compete an individual needs a sharp, open mind encased in a strong, thy body. Mr. Stiles stated that he had had some questions.concerning the auxillary but now has resolved in his mind the need for this facility. Dr. Bryan Landes appeared before the Board in support of the funding request asked how much the $700,000 increase would cost the average taxpayer in the and Mr. Stiles stated that it would amount to approximately 7¢ on the tax . He added that it would range, according to the value of the property, from tely $16 to $100 per year. Mrs. Retha Crosen appeared before the Board in support of the requested • stated that she too felt a well- rounded education was important but that a part f this comes from participation in athletics. She stated that many students in the would not be afforded "_a college education if it were not for athletic scho ships and that many students would not even stay in high school if it were not for the athletic program. She stated that she felt neither classrooms, athletic faci- lities or any other feature should be cut from the proposed new school. Mr. Jerry Chisam appeared before the Board and stated that if the athletic facilities were removed there would be no outside activities left for the children in the community. He urged them not to eliminate these facilities. Mr. John Pickeral appeared before the Board in opposition to the requested ding stating that it seemed that the question had come down to athletic ilities and he felt the issue was much larger. He stated that he had been opposed the location of the school from the beginning and felt it should be built where children are. He stated that he felt the Board was being pushed into a position open -ended funding. He stated that he felt the plan for the school was not well ught out before it was presented to the Board. Mr. Pickeral stated that if the 1 Board has their way new schools will be built and others abandoned and he did feel the County could afford this. Mr. Bob Howard appeared before the Board and stated that he almost completely agreed with Mr. Pickeral. He stated that he felt misleading statements had been as to the funding of the school and that the School Board had asked for more and more space than was necessary to accomodate 1,400 pupils. Mr.-.Carl Ay appeared bofore the Board and stated that he felt athletic i facilities proposed for the new school would benefit only a limited number of students and he felt this was a great deal of money to spend when so.few students use these facilities. Mr. James Casey, Athletic Director at James Wood High School, appeared before the Board and stated that when James Wood was.constructed the gym had been enlarged at the very last minute and still is not adequate inasmuch as the seating capacity is only 350. He advised that because of this inadequacy the James Wood basketball games must be played at the Frederick County Junior School. He urged the Board not to make the same mistake with this new school. Mr. Casey advised that many students at James Wood, both boys and girls, participate in athletics and that the facilities would be used by many individuals in many instances all day long and into the evening. He described the athletic program at James Wood and stated that it would be almost impossible to carry on a good program if the students must-be (transported between the two campuses. Mr. Casey stated that the facilities at James Wood are not at..all comparable to any other school in our league. s II Mr. Sam Lehman stated that he felt the important question was not what.. people 21 c wanted, but'what we can afford. Dr. Forrest Racey, former President of Shenandoah College & Conservatory, appeared before the Board and stated that when the College was constructed eighteen years ago they had made the mistake'of building too small and that now they are paying a tremendous financial cost by not building large enough in the first place. W. Stiles asked if the cost of building the facilities to stand unused until they are needed had been calculated and Dr. Racey- stated that actually they had been needed the second year and they had been paying for it ever since. He advised that he had called a leading architectural firm in Roanoke who designs schools to ascertain what the cost per square foot was running and found that it was between $32 to-$38-per square foot. Dr. Racey advised that the Handley. Library addition was going to cost from $42 to $47 per square foot. Mr. Stiles stated that he felt there were several misconceptions which needed to be cleared up. $7.5 figure was sort of a it was unreasonable for tl Mr. Stiles stated that in fie had found that on Page Mr. Rosenberger had asked He stated that the School Board contends that the round figure which had been batted around and.:that As Board to suggest that this was a maximum figure.! researching the minutes over a several year period 339, Minute Book 14 at the meeting on February 9,' 1977, if $7.5 would be the maximum figure for the new school and that this amount included athletic facilities which could be deleted to keep within this maximum amount and Dr. Wrigtlt had concurred with this statement; secondly that the Board would have input into the construction of the building and be-kept informed as to exactly how the money is being spent as the building is constructed and that Mr. Boyce had.advised that members of the School Board. has agreed with this. Mr. Stiles stated that it is very clear that the Board is being asked to increase a figure which has been given clearly as a maximum. He advised that he did not want to see the athletic facilities cut. W. Stiles stated that he had talked with Mr. John±. - Hammill of the State Department of Education in Richmond regarding the requirements for square foot- age per student in new schools and that Mr. Hammill had advised that approvals were given from 95 to 1"46 square feet and that 125 square feet is an average and that when it goes over 125 square feet it should be investigated to see if the cost and space is justified. Mr. Stiles stated that Mr. Hammill advised thatauditoriums such-as the one proposed for the new school are generally being done away with because of the cost factor. He advised that the cafeteria could be designed with a stage at one end and be used for assemblies etc. and if there is a strong drama program, then the little theater concept could be explored. Mr. Stiles pointed out the various auditoriums located within Winchester and Frederick County which could be utilized. Mr. Malcolm stated that this Board, both in the past and recently_ had committed themselves to build this school and had agreed to fund it. He stated thatrin the minutes of February 9, 1977 it is set forth in the resolution passed by the Board that the $7.5 figure was an estimated figure. He stated that in those minutes Dr. Wright did concur with the statement made above but the Board had also been a party in asking the.School Board to'hurriedly prepare an EDA application in the hopes of receiving funds. Mr. Malcolm stated that in the same minutes it is documented that Mr. Stiles stated that should the school be n • • • rA L 101 28 J built as proposed, it would be operating at capacity when it opened and that he subsequently denied that he-had said this. He stated that he felt we have been guilty of providing short range solutions toolong range problems, and that we are not much farther along on this project than we were in 1973 Mr. Malcolm stated that the Board of Supervisors has been responsible for delaying this project and therefore must share the responsibility in the increased cost inasmuch as several proposals had been presented to the Board and refused. Mr. Malcolm stated that according to the consumer report the average inflation C� costs have been from 98 to 158 and that this project is less than 98. He added that no builder in this community would admit that this increase is at all out of line. Mr. Malcolm pointed out that another Board Member had opposed the location of the proposed school but had stated that he would support the School Board in the project even though he did not agree with it and that now this is not the case. He asked if the Board's decision would be based on fact and sound business judgment exclusive of previous disagreements on location, program or'design and personalities. Mr. Malcolm pointed out that in our own budget several of the Board Members • had sought to have a $90,000 contingency fund established but the Finance Committee felt this was too large and it was reduced to $30,000 to balance the budget. He added that in the first six months of the budget, this amount has been exceeded by $37,639. Mr. Malcolm stated that there 'is a_possibility that some day this new school will become a four year school and t e gym, auditorium, athletic facilities, etc. will cost more to construct at a later date. Mr. Malcolm stated that he had contacted as many citizens in his district • • as possible and that he had talked with approximately 30 people and only one had disagreed with the current planning and financing of the new school. He urged the Board to consider the points he had presented and not allow the issues to be clouded, by past disagreements. Mr. Owings stated that he had been opposed to the school on Apple Pie Ridge and still felt the same way. He stated that he felt there should be two 4 -year high schools and that he felt schools should be constructed where the children are. He stated that with two schools twice as many students could participate in athletics He added that when the School Board voted to go with the present location and concept he had stated he would support the project but that the figure it was based upon at that time was $7.5 million dollars. He stated that he could not support any further expenditures for this school. Dr. Fish stated that he took exception to the first sentence contained in the letter from the School Board wherein the words "pseudo agreed upon construction figures" were set forth. He stated that he did not feel there was anything pseudo about the $7.5 million figure and that the fact that the - school Board was not in attendance tonight was very significant. He stated that there are personalities involved but that there are other things which far surpass personalities. He stated that the Board had been told by the man in charge of construction management only a few nights ago that the.building has not yet been designed. Dr. Fish stated that he felt the Board was being asked to buy a large unknown property. Dr. Fish stated that he felt the Board had been guilty of short range planning for far too long and that we need to provide for the needs of children for many years to come. He added that he had predicted an increase in cost of this project many months before and that it would appear that the project could approach a figure of ten million dollars. He added that with these things in mind• he felt :2;2:0 the Board should hold the line on the previously understood figure. Mr. Rosenberger stated that the $7.5 figure had been discussed openly last year and a lot of questions had been asked at that time regarding athletic facilities. He stated that it was his understanding from Dr. Wright and the School Board that the athletic facilities would be-included in this figure and if this was not possible they could delete them to stay within this figure. He added that he felt that since the School Board had been considering another high school since 1973, this was ample time for them to have received input from the various departments as to their needs when the matter was acted upon one year ago. Mr. Rosenberger stated that he had met with the Finance Committee of the School Board in October and at that time had asked if the $7.5 figure would stand. He advised that he was told that it would or a figure very near it. He added that he did not feel the Board was unreasonable but that they should have been informed regarding the $700,000 increase before this point in time. Mr. Rosenberger stated that this will mean an increase in taxes and for some it will not seem like a lot but for others it will be very difficult to pay. Mr. Rosenberger stated should a new school be necessary in the Stephens City - Middletown area in the near future,.athletic facilities would be necessary there and further that should growth continue around Winchester, there is a ty the new school could be converted to a four year school with athletic facilities added at that time. He added that he felt we might be hasty in building athletic facilities at the site before we know what::thek.growth patterns will be. W. Rosenberger stated that as far as the over expenditure in the contingency k fund was concerned, he felt this was not such a great amount when you are dealing with a $17.5 million dollar budget. Mr. Rosenberger stated that he could not accept the $700,000 increase in its present form but would be willing to give the School Board an additional $200,000 because of inflation. Mr. Malcolm stated that if we choose to ignore the fact that when we applied for the EDA funds it was done in a very short time we are being less than honest. He stated that he found it difficult to rationalize why it was allright for the Board to make an error in.budgeting but it was not allright for someone else. Mr. Stiles stated that the EDA application was based on $35 per square foot and this figure is based on $36 per square foot, therefore the question is not really inflation but that the facility has been designed larger than had been expected. He advised that the School Board had stated that there was a reasonable chance the school would come in under the $7.5 figure and the question was whether it would take all of this.amount. Mr. Stiles stated that he felt the Board had been consistently misled regarding the proposed new high school. Dr. Fish stated that it has been said that the $7.5 figure was one which was put together in haste and was only an estimate. He added that it would not take weeks or months of planning and computation to come up with an estimated number of students; that this could be multiplied by X number of square feet and this multiplied by Y number of dollars per square foot to arrive at an estimated figure. He added that he felt this is what had been done to come up with the new estimate and that according to the construction management consultant we are no.: closer to a true estimate than we were when the-$7.5 figure was estimated. Mr. Malcolm stated that if there is any intention of building athletic facilities at the new school it should be done now and that to delay would be somewhat narrow minded inasmuch as it would cost more in,.the future. • I 1 U L� ��J 22:1 Mr. Stiles stated that it is not the Board'of Supervisors decision to make as to what to do about the athletic facilities that this is a decision the School Board must make. He added that the decision of the Board of Supervisors was what the tax payers can afford. He stated that he understood the desirability of athletic facilities but that he still questioned the practicality. Mr. Koontz thanked the Board for their extensive research and participation on this matter. He stated that many areas had been discussed and the Board should rise above the past disagreements in reaching a decision on this matter. He stated that this decision would have a longer range effect on the community than any other decision the Board might make. The Board then recessed for ten minutes. n \J Mr. Rosenberger stated that when the Board committed itself to the $7.5 figure a year ago they felt very sure that this was the final figure and there- fore he would move to deny the request of the School Board for funding in the amount of $8.2 million dollars. Mr. Stiles stated that he felt he had done everything possible to determine i • if the request for funding was justified and that he had tried to the best of his ability to eliminate-personalities from the issue. He added that he was voting in full confidence for what he felt was best for Frederick County and that he felt the facility could be built for $7.5 million dollars. Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Will L. Owings, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does herein deny the request of the Frederick County Board of Education for funding for the new senior high school in the amount of $8,200 1'000. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. Nay - S. Roger Koontz and R. Thomas Malcolm. Mr. Rosenberger stated that as he had said earlier he felt that $7.5 figure • 7 LJ was more than an estimate but that due to inflation he would move to authorize the School Board to proceed with the project and to increase the figure by $200,000 making the total figure $7,700,000 with the understanding that it be madeavery clear that this is the final, maximum figure for funding the new high school. This motion was seconded by R. Thomas Malcolm and defeated by the following recorded vote: Aye - Thomas B. Rosenberger, S. Roger Koontz, and R. Thomas Malcolm. Nay - Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. Mr. Louis Costello called for a point of order in the proceedings and requested \J to see a copy of a letter from the Attorney General regarding votes cast by Mr. a copy of this letter several times but has not yet seen it. Koontz and Mr. Malcolm on school related issues. He stated that he had requested Mr. Koontz stated that the letter does in fact exist and Mr. Costello would be permitted to see said letter. Mr. Costello then asked if Mr. Koontz and Mr. Malcolm would withdraw their j J votes and Mr. Koontz stated that the previous action would stand. Mr. Koontz then declared Mr. Costello out of order and the matter was not discussed further. PUBLIC HEARING ZMAP #017 -77 OF J. A PORTION OF THEIR Mr.,Renalds read the rezoning request of J. J. Russell, et al. there was no opposition; 22:2' Upon motion made by R. Thomas BE IT RESOLVED,. That the Board of JVirginia, does herein approve on third request: ZMAP #017 -77 OF J.. J.. RUSSELL, JR., ROUTE 1, BOX 107, , WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA, AND ELIZABETH K. AND EVERT BEEKMAN, JR., ROUTE 1, BOX 109, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA, HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE PORTIONS OF THEIR PROPERTIES, LOCATED TO THE EAST OF STATE ROUTE-522, NOW ZONED RESIDENTIAL- LIMITED (R -1) BE REZONED: AGRICULTURAL - GENERAL (A -2). THESE PROPERTIES'ARE DESIGNATED AS REAL PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION CODE NUMBERS 64(A)37 AND 64(A)36 AND ARE LOCATED IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - IS: Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, JR. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. APPOINTMENTS: Highway Safety Commission Mr. Rosenberger stated that he would have a nominee from the Back CrP.FA..Dis.Yeiot at the next meeting to fill the vacancy on the Highway Safety Commission. Virginia Citizens Planning Association - Mr. Sam Lehman Nominated Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, E; IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein submit the name of Mr. Sam Lehman to the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission for consideration for appointment as a representative , on the Virginia Citizens Planning Association. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - IS. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, JR. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. Extension Advisory Committee Appointed Mr. Rosenberger moved to accept the nomination of Mrs. Loretta McDonald to represent the Frederick County 4 -H Leaders Association on the Extension Advisory Committee. This motion was seconded by Will L. Owings and passed unanimously. Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, B; IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve the following appointments to the Frederick County Extension Advisory Committee with the stipulation that each nominee agree to serve Ion said Committee: EKtensiori Homemakers 4 Youth Council PYederick Count ASC Committee Fair Association Frederick County 4 -H Leaders Assoc Beef Cattle Dairy Cattle Orchardist General Farmer Poultry Farmer Farm Bureau Liaison Board Member and seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles, of the County of Frederick, final reading the following rezoning Mrs. Courtney Bragg Barbara Richard Elmer Venskoske Roger Crosen Mrs. Loretta McDonald John Goode Bill Rickard Tommy Watt, Jr. Winston Huffman Henry Cline ike Philips Kenneth Stiles . f 9he above resolution was :passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas Rosehberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Committee on Law Enforcement and Courts Dr. Fish presented the recommendations of the Committee on Law Enforcement and Courts and the following action was taken: JUNK CAR ORDINANCE - SECTION 11 -17 DELETED Dr. Fish stated that should Section 11 -17 of the proposed amendment to the • r1 LJ r1 U • 4 1. u %2223 Junk Car Ordinance be deleted, the ordinance would then track the State Code and that the Law Enforcement and Courts Committee recommended that said section be deleted. Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does herein approve the deletion of Section 11 -17 Authority to Restrict Keeping of Vehicles on Private Property from the proposed amendment to the Junk Car Ordinance as recommended by the Committee on Law Enforcement and courts. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - C� S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. RE OP NEW GUI Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does oppose the new guidelines of the State-Compensation Board regarding reimbursement for mileage of Sheriff's deputies; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this Board does herein support House Bill 571, • Expenses of Sheriffs, and does urge our state legislators to take whatever action is necessary to have the new guidelines of the State Compensation Board nullified in order that the County might.continue to be provided funding by the State to continue the level of service provided by the Sheriff's Department as is previous years. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. ORDER FOR SIX Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, • Virginia, does herein authorize the placing of an order for six (6) additional police cars for the Frederick County Sheriff's Department as recommended by the Committee on Law Enforcement and Courts. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. - Finance Committee Mr. Rosenberger presented the recommendations of the Finance Committee and • the following action was taken: TE Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, I that the following appropriation transfers within the 1977 -78 General Operating Fund Budget are hereby authorized: Transfer From: 10- 010 -123 130 136A 136B 136C 199 215A 215D 215E 300 304 Compensation of Laborers Compensation of Superintendent 1/2 Compensation _ Truck Driver Compensation - Truck Driver Compensation - Truck Driver Compensation - Extra Help Repair and Replacement - Vehicles Repair and Replacement - Radio Repair and Replacement - Containers Auto Tires, Parts,:.Etc. Chemical Supplies $ 5,600.00 $ 7,042.00 $.6,963.47 $ 5,016.68 $ 6,500.00 $ 500.00 $14,000.00 200.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 3,500.00 $ _ 800.00 - "224 10 -01OG -312 .319 .399 •!406 19 -01OG -400 499A Gas, Grease and Oil. Office Supplies Unclassified Supplies Small Tools Truck Chassis Containers Total Transfer To: 10 -OIOG -200 213B 215B 226 19 -01OG -600 601 Advertising Insurance Premiums - Vehicles Repair and Replacement - Buildings and Grounds Special Services Purchase of Land Site Preparation Total $ 3,000.00 $ 25.00 $ 68.00 $ 50.00 $40,000.00 $20,000.00 $113,995.15 $ 50.00 $ 423.47 $ 1,500.00 $92,021.68 $10,000'.00 $10 $113,995.15 The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote:. Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger',. Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y./Stiles. STATE TO CONDUCT COUNTY Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish; BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, that the State Auditor of Public Accounts is hereby requested to conduct the 30, 1978. annual audit of the records of Frederick County for the fiscal year ending June 9he above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. IPPROPRIATION OF COUNTER CYCLICAL FUNDS - APPROVED W. Rosenberger presented the recommendation of the Finance Committee for appropriation of counter cyclical funds and reviewed the recommended amounts for each department. Mr. Rosenberger stated that he had reservations about including the $10,000 item from the City- County study on capital facilities when the Board had approved $11,000 at the January 11, 1978 meeting for a study. Mr. Malcolm advised that the $11,000 approved at the January 11th meeting was for the study on a Capital Improvements Program which a consultant will do, wherein this $10,000 will be used to finance the County portion of the City- County study on joint:.facilities, i.e., courts, offices etc. Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Will L. Owings, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia that the following appropriation of counter - cyclical funds be approved as recommended by the Finance Committee: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Adding Machine $ 190.00 Dictaphone 475.00 $ _ 665.00 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Calculator 270.00 File Cabinet - 3 drawer 275.00 File Cabinet - 4 drawer 170.00 Desk & Chair 425.00 File - 3 Drawer 355.00 Chair & Mat 150.00 Tube File 660.00 Furniture •285.00 $ 2,590.00 PARKS & 1 • r1 LJ • r1 LJ \1� Tools 3;500.00 Desk & Chair 425.00 Chair 325.00 Secretarial Chair 115.00 225 r-, File Cabinet Storage Cabinet Calculator Conference table & Four Chairs Road into Clearbrook Park (repair) Recreation equipment for parks Employee clothing Trees. & shrubbery Boats DATA PROCESSING Calculator Schedule Board Computer vacuum cleaner 18,616.00 505.11 F 1 LJ �J ADMINISTRATORS OFFICE Lock -file 355.00 125.00 200.00 550.00 1,000.00 5,000.00 1,471.00 800.00 4.750.00 155.00 270.00 80.11 BUILDING & GROUNDS Carpeting in County Administration Building SCHOOL BOARD Tires Audio - visual Motion pictures SOCIAL SERVICES DEPT. SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT COUNTY PORTION OF COUNTY -CITY STUDY Civil Defense radios Air conditioners 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 TOTAL: 700.00 2,000:00 6,000.00 4,000.00 13,080.00 10,000.00 350.00 1,900.00 $60;406.11 The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L.-Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. ENGINEERING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Mr•.,.Malcolm presented the recommendations from the Committee on Engineering and Code Enforcement and the following action was taken: POLICY NOT TO COLLECT RECREATION IMPACT FEES ON LARGE LOT SUBDIVISIONS - APPROVED • Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm and seconded by Will L. Owings, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, on large lot subdivisions (where lots are five acres and larger). Virginia does herein establish the policy not to collect recreation impact fees The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - • S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. BIDS RECEIVED ON TWO COUNTY TRASH TRUCKS REJECTED Mr. Malcolm stated that the Engineering Committee felt the bids received on the two trash trucks were really low and recommended that the bids be rejected and -the trucks rebid. Mr. Rosenberger stated that he had talked with a gentleman who seems to be knowledgeable on the value of trucks such as these and he felt this bid was fair. He stated that it would be-a gamble to rebid them inasmuch as we may not get a bid as high as those already received. Mr: Malcolm stated that a minimum acceptable price could be set forth on the bid documents. Mr. Rosenberger then moved'to accept the high bid received on the two County trash trucks. This motion was seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles and defeated by the following recorded vote: Aye - Thomas B. Rosenberger and Kenneth Y. Stiles. Nay - S. Roger Koontz, Will L. Owings, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, and R. Thomas Malcolm. 2 Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm and seconded by Will L. Owings. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick Virginia, does herein reject the bids received on February 3, 1978 on the two County trash trucks and does direct that a minimum acceptable price of $15,000 for the Ford Truck and $25,000 for the White truck be established; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board does direct that bid documents be re -sent to all those bidding on the first bid for the purpose of submitting a new bid. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. Nay - Thomas B. Rosenberger. BOARD RETIRES INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by Dr. Raymond L. Fish and seconded by"R. Thomas Malcolm, and passed unanimously, the Board retired into Executive Session, in accordance with Section 2.1 -344, Subsection 6 of the Code of.Virginia, 1950, as amended to discuss legal matters. BOARD WITHDRAWS'FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by R. Thomas Malcolm, seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles and passed unanimously, the Board withdrew from Executive Session. BOARD RECONVENES INTO REGULAR SESSION Upon motion made by Will L. Owings, seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles, and passed unanimously, the Board reconvened into Regular Session. TO RESCIND RECENT AME Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger and seconded by Dr. Raymond L. Fish, EE IT RESOLVED, That due to questions that have arisen concerning the legality of the ordinance, it is the intent'of the board of Supervisors to rescind the recent amendment to the,County Ordinance pertaining to large lot subdivisions and does refer it back to the Planning Commission for consideration. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, and R. Thomas Malcolm. - Abstaining - Kenneth Y. Stiles. ORDINANCE FIRST AND SECOND READING The following ordinance was presented on first and second reading: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ADOPTED JANUARY 14, 1976. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Stiles noted certain bills pending before the General Assembly which needed attention. W. Koontz advised that the Board would be meeting with the Virginia Department of Highways and .transportation in the near future to discuss snow plowing priorities. Dr. Fish stated that he felt a good job had been done by the Highway Department in the recent plowing operations. Mr. Rosenberger inquired as to the status'of sites for trash collection and Mr. Renalds advised that we would commence construction on new large container sites when weather conditions permit. , 11 • • • �1J .227 UPON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, IT IS ORDER THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW ADJOURN. 0 0 11f S etary.,.,.Boardi,of Super . - ssors::,. s A Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, I U Virginia, was held on February 22, 1978 at 7:00 P.M. in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT: S. Roger Koontz, Chairman; Thomas B. Rosenberger, Vice Chairman; Dr. Raymond L. Fish; Will L. Owings, R.-Thomas Malcolm; and Kenneth Y. Stiles. The Chairman called the meeting to order. INVOCATION The Reverend Anthony Wadsworth of the Gainesboro United Methodist Charge • delivered the invocation. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Stiles pointed out that Page 20 of the minutes of the meeting of February 8, 1978 was blank. The Deputy Clerk presented the original Page 20 and after examination, each supervisor initialed said page thereby approving it as presented. Mr. Stiles then stated that on Page 5 of the minutes of February 8, 1978 the name "Aye" should be corrected to "Ay" and on page 2 of the minutes of February 6, 1978 the word "NO" should be corrected to "DO ". The Board concurred with these Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles and seconded by Will L. Owings, • I BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, nia, does herein approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of this Board on February 6, 1978 and the Regular Meeting held on February 8, 1978 as amended. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - . Roger Koontz, Thomas.B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, . Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. APPOINTMENT HIGHWAY SAFETY COMMISSION - BACK CREEK DISTRICT Mr. Thomas B. Rosenberger requested that Mr. David Owings be appointed as Back Creek District representative on the Frederick County Highway Safety The Board concurred with this request and Mr. Owings was appointed • to said Commission. APPOINTMENT FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY - OPEQUON DISTRICT Upon motion made by Will L. Owings and seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the.County'of Frederick, nia does herein reappoint Mr. G..-W. Borden to serve as the Opequon - District representative on the Frederick County Sanitation Authority for a term of four (4) said term to commence on April 15, 1978 and terminate on April 15, 1982. The above resolution was passed by.,the following recorded vote: Aye.- S. Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, R. Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. n 228 APPOINTMENT.FREDERICK COUNTY 4 -H EXTENSION AGENT - LESTER RITENOUR Mr. Stiles reported that the Frederick County Extension Advisory Committee met twice; the first time to organize and the second time to interview a idate for the Frederick County 4 -H Extension Agent position. He then asked Ben Weddle, VPI,& SU District Agent, to introduce the candidate to the Board. Dr. Weddle appeared before the Board and introduced Mr. Lester Ritenour and that both VPI & SU and the Frederick County Extension Advisory Committee nded Mr. Ritenour to fill the position of 4 -H Extension Agent for Frederick Mr. Ike Phillips, Chairman of the Frederick County Extension Advisory Committee, ed that the Committee felt that Mr. Ritenour was capable of filling this tion and recommended his appointment. W. Ritenour then appeared before the Board and described briefly his work n the extension field over the past three years in Halifax County. Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles and seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, irginia does herein accept the appointment of Mr. Lester Ritenour to the position f 4 -H Extension Agent for Frederick County. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - • Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr. Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, • Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. PROCEEDS'FAULKNER ESTATE RECEIVED Mr. Koontz announced.that a check in the amount of $97,500 had been received rom Mr. Guy R. Avey, Jr., Attorney at Law, representing proceeds from the Estate Phillip Ov..Faulkner. INTENT TO PARTICIPATE IN VPSA BOND SALE - APPROVED Mr. Koontz requested authorization to execute a document intitled "Intent Participate in Bond Sale of VPSA if Interest Rates are Acceptable" so that the my might be included in said sale on March 22, 1978. He advised that the Board ld be required to meet at noon on that date in order to either accept or reject interest rate on said bonds. W. Rosenberger stated that when the Board committed to build the new school, s was one of the methods of financing which was discussed. Mr. Stiles stated t he would like to have known that this was coming up before it was presented the Board Meeting. n Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger. and: ;seconded by Will L. Owings, B; IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, rginia, does herein authorize Mr. S. Roger Koontz, Chairman to execute the ment entitled "Intent to Participate in Bond Sale of VPSA if Interest Rates Acceptable" dated February 22, 1978 in order that.Frederick County might be igible for participation in the bond sale scheduled for March 22, 1978. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - L . Roger Koontz, Thomas B. Rosenberger, Dr.- Raymond L. Fish, Will L. Owings, Thomas Malcolm, and Kenneth Y. Stiles. Mr. Stiles stated that he felt very strongly that before the Board accepts he bonds in the upcoming bond sale, more information on what we are getting for 71/2 million dollars should be presented to the Board. Mr. Rosenberger requested that the School Board be invited to meet jointly ith the Board of Supervisors in order to review the plans, sketches and design f the new school. • • • • tl 229., The Board agreed with suggestion and Mr. Koontz requested Mr. Renalds to arrange such a meeting. LETTER CONCERNING GOLDEN TRIANGLE PRESENTED TO BOARD Mr. Koontz presented a letter from Mr. George Jones concerning road access to "The Golden Triangle" area of 'the County to thbBoard for their information and review. PENDING LEGISLATION DISCUSSED Mr. Rosenberger asked if there was any pending legislation before the General • Assembly that the Board should discuss and Mr. Koontz stated that the House Document 10 which is of interest has been postponed for another year and that the proposed annexation legislation is changing from day to day. Mr. Malcolm suggested that after adjournment of the General Assembly, perhaps the Board could meet with our representatives, so that they might review any legislation which might-affect the County. Mr. Koontz stated that he felt this be a good idea and requested Mr. Renalds to bring this matter to the attention of the Board at- such time as the General Assembly is adjourned. SAM LEHMAN, PRESIDENT_FREDERICK COUNTY TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION ADDRESSES BOARD • Mr. Sam Lehman, President of the Frederick-County Taxpayers Association, appeared before the Board and stated that it was the feeling of the Association that the Board of Supervisors should reach decisions at public meeting after having received input from the public, rather than having made up their minds prior to said meetings. Mr. Lehman requested that a reply to severa'1 questions presented by the Caxpayers Association to the Board at the last meeting regarding the new high school be forthcoming. Mr. Koontz advised that the Board invited public participation and does weight the input received. BOARD RETIRES INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by Raymond L. Fish, seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles and passed • 2.1 -344, Subsection 1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended to discuss personnel. unanimously, the Board retired into Executive Session in accordance with Section BOARD WITHDRAWS FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger, seconded by Kenneth Y. Stiles and ssed unanimously, the Board withdrew from Executive Session. BOARD RECONVENES INTO REGULAR SESSION Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles, seconded by Raymond L. Fish, and ed unanimously, the Board reconvened into-Regular Session. • PROBLEM OF CONFISCATED VEHICLES REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND COURTS Mr. Koontz noted a problem with confiscated vehicles being held by area businesses for law enforcement agencies. He referred this concern to the Committee )n Law Enforcement and Courts for consideration and recommendation. UPON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW ADJOURN. Chai man, card of , erviso cretary, Board of Supervisors I