Loading...
June 12, 2002 Regular Meeting 077 A Closed Session ofthe Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on June 12, 2002, at 5 :00 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Vice Chairman W. Harrington Smith, Jr.; Robert M. Sager; (Not present during this portion of the meeting, he arrived at 6:58 P.M.) Margaret B. Douglas; Sidney A. Reyes; Gina A. Forrester; and Lynda J. Tyler. BOARD RETIRED INTO CLOSED SESSION Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the Board retired into Closed Session in accordance with the Code a/Virginia, 1950, as amended, Section 2.2-3711, Subsection A, (1) to Discuss Personnel. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent at this time Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye BOARD WITHDREW FROM CLOSED SESSION Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Tyler, the Board withdrew from Closed Session. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent at this time Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye BOARD RECONVENED INTO REGULAR SESSION Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the Board reconvened into Regular Session and stated that nothing other than what was stated as reason for going into Closed Session was discussed. (TIME: 5:59 P.M.) The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 078 W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent at this time Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye CHAIRMAN SHICKLE CALLS FOR THE BOARD TO GO INTO A WORKSESSION SUPERVISOR FORRESTER REOUESTS A SHORT RECESS BOARD GOES INTO WORKSESSION Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the Board went into a worksession to discuss the following: 1. Discussion of Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) - Alternatives for Expansion (Beverly Shoemaker Property). (Brought Back to Board at Request from May 22,2002 Board Meeting.) 2. Discussion of Fiscal Impact Model (Annual Update of Capital Facilities Proffer). The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent at this time Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye CHAIRMAN CALLS FOR 5 MINUTE RECESS DISCUSSION OF SEWER AND WATER SERVICE AREA (SWSA) - ALTERNATIVES FOR EXPANSION (BEVERLY SHOEMAKER PROPERTY), (BROUGHT BACK TO BOARD AT REOUEST FROM MAY 22. 2002 BOARD MEETING.) Planning Director Lawrence presented this information to the Board once again advising that information pertaining to this request has been prepared by Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering. Mr. Smith has requested the expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) to incorporate a lO.03 acre parcel in the Opequon Magisterial District. The site is presently in residential use. The property owner intends to ultimately utilize the existing residential structure as an office. He further advised that when this was presented to the Board at their meeting in May, various Board members felt it would be prudent to again look at the four previous SWSA alternatives for this area that were discussed earlier this year. He further advised that staff has assembled these four alternatives, modified to reflect a Board approved SWSA expansion which occurred in February 2002. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 079 Supervisor Smith asked to have Mr. Leonard's property included in this plan. He further advised that the Board has discussed which properties in the area of Route 636 - 277 intersections should be included within the SWSA numerous times over the past ten years. The Fulton property was put in some years ago, at least three requests were considered from the Ritter's to provide service to the trailer park before the Board agreed to allow it. The four proposals were discussed earlier this year for inclusion into SWSA. He further advist:d that each time this issue is discussed concerning failing septic systems, the Board has allowed the properties on Route 636 and Route 277 to be served, based on that concern. He has constituents on Route 636 North and Route 277 with similar problems. He has had one property owner contact him and asked that his property be considered for inclusion into this request. He feels these citizens with similar problems need to be treated the same. He would like to see the Board take a more thorough look at what should be placed within the SWSA, rather than revisiting the issue every six months. Administrator Riley asked Director Lawrence ifthere is a logical point of demarcation wherc the water and sewer service line could be moved, that is currently on Route 636 going northeast. This would make sense as far as consistency is concerned, not only for Mr. Leonard, but anything else within that large area such as a gravity fed sewer. Director Lawrence advised that at this point, staff has not done any research to that degree. Generally speaking, the water and sewer service lines follows property lines, roads, historically follows the drainage lines, peaks and hills. In this area there is some drainage, but there are not significant property lines, so additional research would be needed in order to determine a good location. Supervisor Smith asked for clarification on the two maps that are showing the Leonard property. He wanted to know which one was correct. Director Lawrence advised that he felt the map provided by Mr. Leonard would be the more accurate one. Supervisor Smith asked Director Lawrence to pursue this further and let the Board know what is correct, as this has been going on too long. Supervisor Forrester asked if staff could set up some type of policy with a rating scale that would give the Board criteria and that way the Board would not be in the situation Supervisor Smith referred to in that the Board is revisiting this issue every six months. Minnte Book Nnmber 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 080 Director Lawrence asked for clarification ofthis directive, are you saying from the land use perspective. Supervisor Forrester replied yes. Something to determine how something is weighted in making a decision. She would like to see consistency. Assistant Administrator Tierney advised that he was not recommending this necessarily, but one possibility would be in situations like this, rather than moving the line, because every time we move the line someone else is now adjacent to the line. The County could conceivably adopt a policy that if your property, in a situation where 636 is the sewer and water service area line, and your frontage is on 636, you would be eligible to tap into a sewer line, should it be on 636. That way, only those that have frontages would be considered eligible to tie into the sewer line. This is an option, he is not necessarily recommending it. Chairman Shickle advised if staff can handle alternatives as to how this can be looked at, it will be back before the Board. His particular problem on Route 277 is when citizens tell him they have water, but they cannot hook up to sewer because they are not in the water and sewer service area, this confuses him as to how he should be discussing this issue. Director Lawrence advised that he is hearing that the Board wanted some type of criteria created in order to evaluate projects. The second suggestion is that staff come up with a recommendation that might address Mr. Leonard's situation and whether or not he should be included in the sewer and water, whether it's through policy or through boundary adjustment. He further asked for direction as to whether all ofthis should be brought back together or did the Board want to act on the Shoemaker property separately. The consensus ofthe Board was that everything should be included and brought back to the Board at one time. DISCUSSION OF FISCAL IMPACT MODEL (ANNUAL UPDATE OF CAPITAL FACILITIES PROFFER) Director Lawrence presented this information to the Board advising that during the March 2002 Planning Commissioners Retreat a section ofthe agenda concentrated on the County's Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model. He further advised that at the conclusion of the retreat staff was directed to present the updated model to various agencies for their input. This model was presented to Parks and Recreation Commission, School Board, Department of Fire and Rescue, and the Top Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 081 of Virginia Builders Association. Each ofthese agencies/organizations was encouraged to provide staff with written comments/reactions to the proposed model update. Three ofthe four groups did respond in writing. He further advised that staff is seeking direction at this point as to whether to proceed with a public hearing to adopt the updated model; what percentage of impacts the County will expect an applicant to address; and the date the updated model would be enacted. He further advised that this model is based on the enabling legislation which allows the County to accept cash proffers, so this model is linked to that it is looking at the impact on capital facilities within our community, not operating budgets. Supervisor Smith stated that it was his understanding that some do not have to pay this. Director Lawrence explained the way the fiscal impact model work is staff utilizes it at the Planning Department level when someone comes through for a rezoning. Properties zoned prior to the acceptance of cash proffers in Frederick County do not have to address the impact model projections. He further explained there are still some properties that are rezoned occasionally and they do not have to address the impact model. Supervisor Smith asked how much this brought into the County coffers per year? Director Lawrence advised that he did not have this information with him. Administrator Riley advised that in FY2001 it generated $132,169, FY2002 $317, 215.79 for a total of about $449,000 over two fiscal years. Supervisor Smith inquired as to whatever happened with the recording fee collected. Administrator Riley advised that as far as he knows that is still in use; however, he does not believe that much is generated. Assistant Tierney advised that he feels a very important point for everyone to understand is that the proffer model resulting in monetary proffers are strictly a function of conditional zoning. The only time the model is used, and the only time proffers come into play is when property is rezoned. Any property that was rezoned prior to the enabling legislation, allowing the County to begin accepting cash proffers, started in 1990, is not part of the process. Supervisor Smith asked what the dollar figure was based on. Assistant Tierney advised that it was based on a series of formulas that staff tries to look at based on the nature ofthe development proposed, and the fiscal financial impact that development would have on the County's Capital Facilities budget. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 082 Supervisor Reyes stated that due to the fact this is a worksession he would like to have as much input as he could get. He has had discussion with Supervisor Smith's appointment Bill Rosenberry to the Planning Commission and he feels he provides a lot of good comments regarding the impacts, capital facility impacts and proffers and he would like for Mr. Rosenberry to address the Board at this time with his comments on this issue. Chairman Shickle asked Administrator Riley if this would be a problem. Administrator Riley advised that it was the pleasure of the Board. Bill Rosenberry appeared before the Board at which time he read from a prepared statement. He advised that he was appearing before them with one simple objective, to differentiate between key concepts associated with evaluating planned development and to suggest a way for the County to improve upon its planning processes. He spelled out what he feels are the key concepts, Impacts, Capital Facilities Impacts and Proffers. (This Development Planning Model Report is on file in the Office of the County Administrator.) Chairman Shickle explained that he had trouble understanding exactly where Mr. Rosenberry was going based on what he thought was supposed to be discussed on this subject. Mr. Rosenberry further explained what he was trying to accomplish in his report and asked Chairman Shickle if that was of any help. Chairman Shickle advised that he did not understand completely, but felt it was probably enough for now. Chairman Shickle asked Director Lawrence what he saw as a logical plan for the Board. Director Lawrence explained what staffis seeking. The Board adopted the model a few years ago, and at that time the request was for this plan to be presented to the Board annually for acceptance of the update and then reconsider the percentage of the models for schools and parks. Staff feels like they have updated the model, and if the Board feels it is acceptable with the new figures. Staffwill schedule a public hearing and at that point accept a new model. Chairman Shickle asked Director Lawrence ifhis representation at this time is that the model includes all allowable capital costs, and the only numbers that he has available are historic numbers, with the most current being 2001? Director Lawrence advised that the model right now is using 1999 figures, and updated 2001 figures. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 083 Chairman Shickle asked if one were to continue engaging in the proffer voluntary system then the only variable is the percentage of cost. Director Lawrence advised that was correct. He further advised that he neglected to mention earlier that he did attach the three position letters received from three of the four groups they had spoken with. The School Board feels it should be at 100%, Parks and Recreation feels it should be 100%, and Top of Virginia feels discussion should continue and that the model does not address all the pros and cons. Chairman Shickle asked Director Lawrence to speculate, given what he had said earlier about "grandfathered properties" and buildings outside the UDA that does not require rezoning. He asked what percentage of new housing starts actually are accessed a proffer. Director Lawrence replied approximately 20%, one in five houses. Supervisor Smith stated with this proffer cost per house, in addition to the water and sewer cost, there would be sixteen to seventeen thousand dollars tied up before construction even begins. Assistant Administrator Tierney explained the model that was originally created in 1990 was used for a period of years with no modification, as explained by Director Lawrence earlier, when it was finally updated through the hiring ofR.E.R in 1998, there was a significant jump in the proffer amount. There was approximately ten years without any update, so when the update was performed there were significant increases in the projected impacts. Supervisor Smith asked what this was attributed to, more houses? Assistant Tierney advised just the cost our tax rates and general inflationary factors. As a result of that, when the updated model was adopted by the Board, they chose to implement it at 50% for schools and parks and recreation. That was done to try and make it a more gradual transition from the old, outdated model, to the new one. It was discussed then when the model was brought back each year one of the things that would be up for consideration was whether or not the 50% should stay at 50% or be adjusted in some way. This is really a policy question. Chairman Shickle asked about the increase. If the percentage is not changed, the new numbers are put in as shown in the report presented to the Board. Director Lawrence replied yes. Supervisor Forrester asked Director Lawrence how they calculated the fire & rescue impacts. Director Lawrence advised that the variables the model allows staff to put in for fire and Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 084 rescue is by each fire company, how many calls they have responded to etc. According to the Director of Fire and Rescue, they have a better system of keeping track of how many calls they have now then they did in previous updates, as there was not a hard number in the past. Supervisor Forrester asked ifthere was a level of service standard set for them? Director Lawrence replied no. The model has a general cost figured in as to what it would cost to build a new fire company. The model would then divide it by how many calls they had, and then you get a cost per call. Supervisor Smith asked about the cost of the equipment. Director Lawrence replied that is included with the brick and mortar and the heavy equipment. Supervisor Smith stated that it sounds like "bureaucracy at it's worse." There has to be an eaSIer way. (Supervisor Sager arrived at this time.) Supervisor Forrester referred to the Government Service Lending Projects rating where it stated the County has received a rating of nine with ten being the worse, and one being the best. There is nothing that kicks in that Capital Facilities Impact Model currently that would trigger this. Administrator Riley asked Supervisor Forrester if she was talking about the ISO rating? Supervisor Forrester replied yes. Administrator Riley advised that it doesn't, but that could certainly be part of the equation. The biggest problem the county has had with Fire and Rescue is trying to treat them fairly, because with the volunteer component, it is very tough to assess a municipal charge for what they do on a voluntary basis. They build their own fire stations, they buy their own trucks, what the County tried to do was fuse into the model a flat rate that would at least get them a 100% of what they determined would be the impact, and the County has tried to work off that formula. Supervisor Forrester asked if there was any thing in this plan, if the fire company was not meeting the call needs of that part ofthe community, is there a liability to the Board, ifthey do not step in and take action to provide those services to our residents. The Board could translate into a fiscal number the county's capital facilities model. Administrator Riley replied that he felt it would be a stretch. It is something staff could look into. This is a very sensitive turf issue as far as their definition of meeting the need, versus the Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 085 county's definition. Supervisor Forrester advised she was looking more along the lines ofthe States' definition. Asked if there was something in the State Code? Administrator Riley advised there is a uniform requirement on a response time that they are supposed to meet based on State or Federal ratings as far as the standard response time, number of people on the truck, etc. Do we meet those things, probably not? Assistant Tierney referred to Supervisor Smith's remark, that is sort of, "bureaucracy at it's finest," maybe true, but he feels what needs to be pointed out, in the absence of a model, monetary proffer becomes just absolute stabs in the dark. One of the criticisms state wide of conditional zoning to begin with is that it is contract zoning. If someone pays enough money to offset the impacts, they get their rezoning, and there are legal cases where counties have tried to overly influence the applicants to squeeze more money out ofthem for proffers, some they have won, some they have lost. The whole purpose of the County adopting a model was to try and make it as scientific and systematic as they could so that they did not get into situations where it became sort of a bartering system. It is complicated, it is cumbersome, and it is not perfect, but without it the County was sort of groping in the dark. Chairman Shickle explained that he participated in the earlier meetings and it was tough. Supervisor Reyes asked Director Lawrence ifhe had any comments about Mr. Rosenberry's suggestion that a joint committee be appointed to assist with this issue? Director Lawrence replied that he felt it would assist the decision makers more so. He felt the model addressed tonight helped staff identify what the capital impacts are. Assistant Tierney advised that to respond to what Mr. Rosenberry has suggested, we are looking at two different types of models that would be used for two very different purposes. He believes he is suggesting that the County would develop a completely different kind of model that would be used for a different purpose. Supervisor Forrester requested to have Mr. Rosenberry respond to this. Bill Rosenberry replied that he felt generally, Assistant Tierney was right. We are talking about two models with two purposes, but he wanted to make the point that he felt they were complementary, they support each other. Supervisor Forrester stated she would like to make a motion. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 086 Chairman Shickle advised this was a worksession. Supervisor Forrester advised she felt the Board needed to work on a joint committee. Mr. Rosenberry has volunteered to serve as someone who worked on the original committee, and she is interested in seeing the work completed. Administrator Riley asked Supervisor Forrester if she wanted the committee to take information they have and develop something, or does she want the committee to do research such as entertain proposals from consultants that generate these types of models. Supervisor Forrester explained that she felt there was enough in-house expertise to do this along with the volunteers. She would like to see some levels of service standards for each category so when the County gets a rezoning application there is some sort of weighed criteria that's reflected on those applications that tell the County staff where we are as far as our level of service with our roads, our schools, fire and rescue and parks and rec. So that each time the Board looks at a change in land use they will have that information clearly in front of them. Chairman Shickle advised that type of model would be used in the decision making process. Supervisor Forrester - stated that a lot ofthose decisions translate into fiscal dollars and a lot of times when you have a level of a service standard then it will put the Board in a position of recognizing that the County is getting close to triggering the need for a new school or whatever. That might alter the County's land use decisions. Chairman Shickle inquired of Director Lawrence as to what keeps a locality from packing it's Capital Improvements Plan? Are there limits what does he extract from the plan that he puts into the model? Director Lawrence advised that the most direct is from parks and recreation projects. He feels they try to be consistent with the Virginia Outdoor Plan. Chairman Shickle advised that he thinks the Board has a variation that is a comprehensive impact model committee, but we still have the issue ofthe proffer fiscal impact model to deal with, a percent as a guidance factor. He asked Board members and staffifthere were three things or not? 1. Complete fiscal impact analysis - - request suggestion. 2. An appropriate model that exists for proffer calculations which might be impacted by new data that was from the first one. 3. Percentage of proffer implementation in the model. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 087 It is his understanding that staff is just asking for guidance because there is a process that has to be gone through. He asked if the update of the model, with new numbers, requires a public hearing or only a change in the percent? Director Lawrence advised the County has held public hearings in the past to accept the updated model and determine what the percentages are and identify the date the model will become active. Staff is looking for direction. Supervisor Reyes asked Supervisor Forrester to reduce her suggestions to writing and forward same to the Board, and ifthey agree, they would forward the info onto Director Lawrence. Director Lawrence stated ifhe understood what was being said, the Board is not comfortable with the model presented, and they want to work on a different one. If this is the case, staff will continue to use the current model as it will not be updated at this point. Chairman Shickle is comfortable with the proffer model, he is not adverse to further study of the total impact analysis study he is not opposed to that at all. He probably does not favor an increase of the current model until he knows more about the actual cost it generates. Supervisor Tyler advised that she would like to see the Board proceed with a public hearing, and she would like to see the Board work on the issue of the percentage of what they would like to see it increased to. She further advised in order to have a public hearing, we would need to know the percent. Director Lawrence, that is correct. You can use 50% for schools and parks, or you could change it, depending on what the Board prefers. Supervisor Forrester stated that what we are really talking about here is are we going to change the percentages we are using for parks and rec. and the schools. She stated that had we not had the gap between 1990 and 1999, perhaps we wouldn't be faced with trying to dig ourselves out of a hole at this time. She would like to see the Board proceed, using the new figures and then increase the percentages to help offset the impact to the community. Chairman Shickle asked the Board for their thoughts. Supervisor Tyler - advertise at a 100% and use revised numbers from 2001. Supervisor Reyes - Same. Supervisor Douglas - Yes. Supervisor Smith - Yes. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 088 Supervisor Sager - Yes. Chairman Shickle I believe we have a consensus. CHAIRMAN SHICKLE CALLED FOR A SHORT RECESS CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the regular meeting to order. INVOCATION The invocation was delivered by Reverend Philip Roby of the Amazing Grace Fellowship Church. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADOPTION OF AGENDA Administrator Riley advised that he had two items: 1. Supervisor Reyes has requested the County to reconsider restoring hours at the County compactor sites. 2. Mr. Fuel (Arogas) has withdrawn its rezoning application. He explained if this application is to be reconsidered by the Planning Commission and the Board it would have to be readvertised, and considered by both bodies. Everything starts over. Supervisor Sager moved for approval as amended. Supervisor Forrester called for a Point of Order. The request to "reconsider the motion", page 2 of the Agenda, is out of order with Robert's Rules of Order, and that is what the Board adopted at their first meeting in January, and she would like the request "to reconsider" to be struck from the agenda. Supervisor Reyes seconded the motion. Chairman Shickle asked Administrator Riley to speak to this issue. Administrator Riley referred this to Attorney Ambrogi. Attorney Ambrogi - That it is out of order. In my opinion it is not out of order, it is according to Robert's Rules that was adopted by the County, according to the Attorney General's opinions that he has researched and other attorneys within his office have researched. There has been a lot of time and effort put into this to be sure it was done right, and in his opinion it is consistent with Roberts Rules as adopted by this Board and used by this Board. Supervisor Forrester - "Point of Information," she asked Attorney Ambrogi to show her, because what she has read in the Rules of Order states that a "reconsider" must come up in the same Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 089 meeting, during the same session, it cannot wait until another month. Attorney Ambrogi - That is not correct. The way this is being done it has to come up at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Forrester - Point ofInformation, can you show me please, before we adopt the agenda this evening. Chairman Shickle - Point ofInformation of what? Supervisor Forrester - I would like a Point of Information to see reference, as she has her Robert's Rules of Order. Attorney Ambrogi - This is an issue that could have been presented to me, your concern about this, prior to this meeting. I had no advance warning. I have researched this issue, I have read Attorney General's opinion, I have looked at Robert's Rules, I have discussed it with Mr. Riley, with other attorneys in my office, and in his opinion it is a proper motion being made at the proper time. Supervisor Forrester - She is not satisfied with this response. She does not need to go to Attorney Ambrogi ahead of time to get his opinion on this. She has a copy of Robert's Rules of Order and it states clearly that a "reconsider" must be brought up during the same session. Attorney Ambrogi - That is your opinion, it is not my opinion. Supervisor Forrester - It is not my opinion, it is Robert's Rules of Order, show me. It is a Point ofInformation. Attorney Ambrogi - That is why it should have been brought up prior to this meeting. Supervisor Forrester - Incorrect. Attorney Ambrogi - If you had some concern about it, it should have been addressed. Everybody has known for some time that this motion was going to be made at this meeting tonight. Supervisor Forrester - We were just notified through our agenda on Friday, after five is when she received her packet, but if we are going to do the business ofthepublic, in the public's eyes, then we need to follow the Rules of Order. It is what this body adopted at their January meeting, and it is clear in those Rules of Order that is what we are supposed to do. Chairman Shickle - I know when this item was made known to him he asked Mr. Riley, as parliamentarian, to research it, and then he and Administrator Riley asked Attorney Ambrogi to research it, and we have received County Attorney opinion. He referred the question to Administrator Riley, given the circumstances that we have a motion and a second on an "Out of Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 090 Order,"does the Board vote on that or does it, because of Attorney opinion, ignore the motion. He asked for instructions. Administrator Riley advised that he felt it would be appropriate for the Board to vote on Supervisor Forrester's, is that correct? Attorney Ambrogi replied yes. Chairman Shickle we have a motion and a second. Supervisor Forrester - That is not correct, that is for Point of Information. Her point of inquiry should be satisfied before there is a vote by this Board, and if we need to recess until she can be shown Robert's Rules of Order where that it says that, then we can move on and adopt the agenda, but until she sees that, she will not consent to adopt this agenda this evening. She believes it is a clear violation of the Boards' Rules of Order. Chairman Shickle - Mr. Riley. Administrator Riley - You have a motion and a second. The County Attorney has ruled that Supervisor Forrester is Out of Order as far as her motion is concerned, and I suppose Supervisor Forrester has two options. She can vote nay on the adoption of the agenda, or the Board can vote on the motion presented by Supervisor Forrester and seconded by Supervisor Reyes. Supervisor Reyes asked Administrator Riley what the Point of Order entailed? Administrator Riley advised that Point of Order is exactly just as Attorney Ambrogi has stated. He has researched the matter and feels like the motion contemplated by Supervisor Smith is appropriate. Supervisor Forrester - Point of Order again I'm reading now from Robert's Rules of Order, the Simplified and Applied Version Second Edition adopted by this Board in January, page 135 at the top. A motion could be made, but not considered when other business is pending, go down farther, the motion "reconsider" allows the assembly to change its mind about how the membership voted on the motion in a group whose meetings last one day. Members must make this motion at the same meeting in which the vote was taken. This is what we have adopted. Chairman Shickle - What says the parliamentarian. Supervisor Forrester - The parliamentarian is Administrator Riley, Administrator Riley would you comment please. Administrator Riley - My opinion has to be based on the advice that he has been given by Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 091 legal counsel, and I cannot override that decision. Supervisor Forrester - The legal counsel is there to advise the Board, but we do not have to take his counsel. I'm asking you for a parliamentary ruling, based on, do I need to get up and come down there and bring my book so that we can look at it? Administrator Riley - That is a negative. Supervisor Forrester - So there is nothing to refute what I am reading in my book as being accurate, correct? Administrator Riley - Based on the County Attorney, he is saying that is not correct. Supervisor Forrester - What is he basing this on? Attorney Ambrogi - Attorney General's opinion, research of Robert's Rules provided to him that this Board is using, or operates under, also the Code of Virginia some case law. Supervisor Forrester - I am dissatisfied with that response. Advised Attorney Ambrogi that he has shown her nothing in writing at this meeting that would override what she has read, with her own two eyes, out of Robert's Rules of Order that she has before her. Attorney Ambrogi - Well, you are not an attorney, and you should have presented this to me earlier. Supervisor Forrester advised that she had consulted attorneys on this, and she feels very confident in her interpretation of this, through their interpretation. Attorney Ambrogi - That is your opinion, and I have mine. Supervisor Sager - Mr. Chairman can we call the motion? Chairman Shickle - Sir? Supervisor Sager - Would it be appropriate to call the motion? Supervisor Forrester - A Point of Order is in violation of Roberts Rules of Order, it is not a motion that you rule on based on the majority vote. I would say Rule of Order is violation of parliamentary procedure. We don't pick and choose which rules we follow. Chairman Shickle - Your Point of Interest and Order came after your motion to strike the item from the agenda. Supervisor Forrester - But then I asked for Point ofInformation, and that supersedes a Point of Order. It is a higher motion. Chairman Shickle - It wasn't a motion, it was a Point of Order. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 092 Supervisor Forrester - But that is a motion, that is a parliamentary motion. Chairman Shickle - I am sorry Supervisor Forrester, you are beyond my skill level, so I will have to look to the parliamentarian. Administrator Riley - The question, as I understand it, can a member change his or her vote. Yes, a member has the right to change his or her vote until a result is announced. After a result is announced, the member's vote can be changed only by the permission ofthe assembly, permission can be granted by general consent or by a vote to grant permission, which needs a second, and is undebatable, and takes a majority vote to adopt. Supervisor Forrester - Mr. Riley, are you reading out of Webster's Roberts Rules of Order, Simplified and Applied, Second Addition? Administrator Riley - Yes. Supervisor Forrester - Would you repeat that again, please. Administrator Riley - Repeated what he had read earlier. Supervisor Forrester - What page number are you looking at, please. Administrator Riley - Page 76; therefore, he rules that the motion, as presented, is in order. Supervisor Forrester - I appeal. Chairman Shickle - Appeals go where, Mr. Riley? Administrator Riley - The Chair needs to rule. Chairman Shickle - The Chair rules with the parliamentarian. Supervisor Reyes - The motion by Supervisor Smith is to reconsider Board action. He asked Administrator Riley to read what "reconsider" entails. Administrator Riley advised that he couldn't read it, but he told him that the action previously taken by the Board. In this particular case, the action was to deny the request of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority to extend services into the Northeast area of the county. Supervisor Tyler - Asked for clarification. If these are the rules we go by, to reconsider the vote, to prevent a misuse ofthe motion, the only member who voted on the prevailing side can move to reconsider, that is Supervisor Smith. An important point to remember is that the motion to reconsider must be made on the same day that the motion it is reconsidering was adopted, unless the organization has adopted rules to the contrary. She thinks what they are wanting is clarification, if we have rules to the contrary. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 093 Supervisor Forrester - Which we do not. The rules that govern us are the Robert's Rules of Order. If you actually go on and read the next sentence it says, City and County Government officials frequently misuse this motion believing that they can reconsider a motion on a vote a month later. Chairman Shickle - Mr. Riley an appeal of the Parliamentary's decision and back to the Chairman goes where? Administrator Riley - The Chair has to rule whether the Point of Order is in fact valid or not. Chairman Shickle - The Chair did, and it was appealed. Administrator Riley - It rests with the Chair, so he would imagine at this point the Chair - - The Chair will call for a vote on the original motion to strike the item from the agenda. Supervisor Forrester - No, you cannot do that. Chairman Shickle - Supervisor Forrester what - - Supervisor Forrester - I didn't mean that in the inter - - -. What she meant was that it is not a decision that is made by the vote of the Board. It is a decision made on parliamentary rules and the rules are in Robert's Rules of Order, and on page 277 it says, an important point to remember is that members must make the motion to reconsider on the same day the motion it is reconsidering was adopted. These are the rules we have adopted in our January meeting. This is what it says we have to do if a reconsider comes to us. It is a violation ofthe Board's Rules of Order if we adopt an agenda which has a request to bring a motion before this body which violates our governing rules. Chairman Shickle - Supervisor Forrester, the only thing I can tell you is that I questioned both Attorney Ambrogi and Administrator Riley on the use of "reconsider" for those purposes and asked and inquired about the use of the term "rescind," and was told by legal counsel and the parliamentarian ofthe Board that "reconsider" was the more appropriate issue. I can only rely upon that expertise. Ifit is a Chair decision, which if you are appealing the Chair decision, you need to tell me what it is that you think should happen after that. The Chair can only rely upon the research that was provided to him. Supervisor Forrester - What I am asking the Chair to do is uphold the Rules of Order. Chairman Shickle - I raised the question and this is the answer I received. Supervisor Forrester - With the information we brought forth tonight, this should clarify for you that under Robert's Rules of Order "reconsider" must have been made during the same meeting Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06112/02 094 as when the original motion was made. Chairman Shickle - That specific issue was raised with the County Administrator and the County Attorney, and I received the opinion that was rendered tonight. Supervisor Forrester - If you would like we could, I could have you read this. Chairman Shickle - I have read it. Supervisor Forrester - There is no misinterpreting this. An important point to remember is that members must make the motion to "reconsider" on the same day that motion it is reconsidering was adopted. There is nothing up for interpretation. I think that - - if you ignore the Rules of Order, then what you have done is ignored any kind of governing. Chairman Shickle - I have not ignored the rules, I have questioned the rules and relied upon legal advice. That is all I can tell you. Supervisor Forrester - I would hope that you would rely on - - Chairman Shickle - Knowing what Supervisor Smith's wishes were, I inquired about the proper way for him to do what it is that he wanted to do, and questioned two specific paths, "reconsider" and "rescind." He was told that "reconsider" would be the appropriate thing for him to do. Supervisor Forrester - Because you were misinformed does not mean that it is okay for the Board not to follow Robert's Rules of Order. Chairman Shickle - I do not know what you do unless you rely upon expert advice. Supervisor Forrester - I am appealing to you - - Chairman Shickle - Administrator Riley or Attorney Ambrogi, do you have a change of heart or mind here. Attorney Ambrogi - No, if this was properly brought to me in advance as an issue like this should be. He does not know how many days ago because it was anticipated that it would happen so, Administrator Riley and the Chairman inquired. We have researched it based on the Roberts Rules used by this Board, based on Attorney Generals Opinions', based on research, based on information provided to his office, and he has received no information to the contrary. This is the first time he has heard of this tonight, this is why these things should be brought in advance. They have spent a lot oftime on it. Supervisor Forrester - I have also spent a lot of time researching this and consulting with Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 095 attorneys, and she feels very confident. She has talked with attorneys from different areas that advise their county Boards in the State of Virginia, in the Commonwealth, and it is very clear to them that when they read this that the motion to "reconsider" should have been made during the same session in which the original motion was made. Attorney Ambrogi - Well, they are not the attorney for Frederick County. Supervisor Sager - Mr. Chairman can we move off and dispose of this? Chairman Shickle - I am waiting for Supervisor Forrester to tell me, given our current status and her appeal of that what she believes the proper - - - Supervisor Forrester - Advice from Counsel in writing, the supporting document that they mean, to recess until she can be provided that, then so be it, but I'm not - - -. Chairman Shickle - Administrator Riley I am looking for the next action. Administrator Riley - You have a motion to strike. Chairman Shickle - Yes, and a second. Administrator Riley - Yes. Supervisor Forrester - You also have a motion that we can "recess," which is a higher motion, if necessary to be provided with the information that basis this decision that contradicts what this Roberts Rules of Order says what we should be doing. Administrator Riley advised that he believes the motion to strike takes precedent, and you have a second. Supervisor Forrester - A motion to "recess" is a higher motion. Administrator Riley - But the motion on the floor is to "strike." Supervisor Forrester - I can amend my original motion then, to have us "recess" until the proper documentation has been provided to this Board, so that the Board can adopt an agenda which does not violate our Roberts Rules of Order. Administrator Riley advised that maybe the proper thing to do, in order to be about the public's business, is that on this particular request you can bypass it until counsel has a chance to research it, and we can revisit this particular issue at a later time on this agenda this evening. Supervisor Forrester - State that again, please. Administrator Riley - If it is your request to do the appropriate research, then it would be appropriate, in his opinion, for the Board to bypass this particular item on the agenda until legal Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 096 counsel has an opportunity to research this particular request, and it can be revisited, at a later time on the agenda. Supervisor Forrester - How would that work, point of inquiry, when we go to adopt the agenda? Administrator Riley - You would request that we bypass this particular item on the agenda to a later point in the meeting. Supervisor Forrester - I am not satisfied with that, because that would in effect say that the Board was going to consider the request to "reconsider" at a later point in our meeting. Administrator Riley - You are basically saying show me. You have to give counsel an opportunity to do that, you can bypass the item and come back to it. Supervisor Forrester - I would rather make a move to "recess." I think counsel was prepared that we were going to be questioning this this evening and I would hope that it would not take long to provide her with the information. Chairman Shickle asked Administrator Riley if a motion to "recess"is a higher order than the original motion? Supervisor Reyes - Do we need a second? Chairman Shickle - I don't know. Supervisor Reyes - I second the motion. Chairman Shickle - We have a second. Administrator Riley - You have a motion on the floor to strike. Chairman Shickle - Correct. Supervisor Forrester - No, I amended my motion. Supervisor Douglas - Is this the time for discussion? Supervisor Forrester - No. Supervisor Sager - Ifwe have a motion and a second, why can't we discuss it? Administrator Riley - We have the public's business to conduct, if it would be of any consequence to temporarily delete this from the agenda until the County Attorney has an opportunity to research, and then it can be added, or bring it back on the agenda at some point later in the meeting so that it gets due consideration. Supervisor Forrester - You can't consider it because the whole point of having it come back Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 097 to us is a request to "reconsider," is mute, that you are not able to bring the motion back before the Body. Administrator Riley - If you temporarily pass it by, he thinks you would have the ability to do this. Supervisor Forrester - I would be more comfortable if we "recessed" and got the information now, please. Supervisor Sager - We have two motions, don't we? Chairman Shickle - Yes, we need the higher order of the two. Supervisor Forrester - I amended my original motion, and asked that we recess. Chairman Shickle - We have a motion and amended to recess, and I believe it was seconded. Supervisor Forrester - Correct. Richard C. Shickle - Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Nay Robert M. Sager - Nay Margaret B. Douglas - Nay Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye Chairman - The motion fails. The slate is clean at this moment. The agenda is before us. Supervisor Sager - My original motion to adopt the agenda as amended. Supervisor Douglas seconded the motion. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye CONSENT AGENDA Administrator Riley suggested the following items for approval under the consent agenda: 1. Resolution Re: Changes in the Primary and Secondary System Due to Right-of-Way Abandonment, Relocation and Construction on Route 656 - Tab I; 2. Resolution Re: Changes in the Primary and secondary System Due to relocation, Construction and Right-of-Way Abandonment on Entrance and Exit Ramps on Route 37 at its Intersection with Route II North - Tab J; 3. Parks and Recreation Commission Committee Report - Tab L; Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 098 4. Landfill Oversite Committee - Tab M. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Douglas, the consent agenda, as noted above, was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye SUPERVISOR SMITH MOVED TO HAVE THE VOTE RECONSIDERED FROM THE MEETING OF MAY 22. 2002 IN THE PLANS SUBMITTED BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE W ATERAND SEWER SERVICE TO THE NORTHEAST PORTION OF THE COUNTY - APPROVED Supervisor Smith moved to have his vote reconsidered with reference to the plans submitted by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority to provide water and sewer service to the Northeast portion of Frederick County to the Board at their Regular Meeting held on May 22, 2002. Supervisor Sager seconded the motion. Supervisor Forrester asked ifthere was going to be debate again on this, ifit is a Reconsider. Chairman Shickle - I called for discussion, was there some. Supervisor Forrester - Yes, she has a question as to why there is not going to be citizen comment on this issue this evening. Chairman Shickle - It is his understanding that Administrator Riley and Attorney Ambrogi advised that it did not require a public hearing. Supervisor Forrester - Ifit is a debatable motion, then it does, and it is a debatable motion. So it does require public comment. Chairman Shickle - The Chair disagrees with that, only those things, there has already been a public hearing on this matter. The public has already been heard from. Supervisor Forrester - The public heard from something that evening, but most ofthe public was not aware of this issue coming back before this Board this evening. Chairman Shickle - What is your Point of Order? Supervisor Forrester - This is a motion that is debatable under Robert's Rules of Order, then we are supposed to have citizen comment this evening prior to this Board taking any action on this motion. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 099 Chairman Shickle - He was not aware that Robert's Rules of Order ca1led for public hearings. Supervisor Forrester - Because for allowing debate. Chairman - Debate amongst the voting members. Supervisor Forrester - We can allow for public comment. Chairman Shickle - Can allow, but it does not require it. Supervisor Forrester - Doesn't require it, but I think under the circumstances it would certainly be welcomed. Chairman Shickle - There is welcome debate under discussion of a motion by the voting body, but I know of no Robert's Rules that requires a public hearing or public input. Supervisor Forrester - She is not referencing a hearing, she just meant, usually things that are debatable like this, we allow for citizen comment, and she finds it kind of interesting that we are putting this prior to "Citizen Comment" considering this is going to impact so many citizens. Chairman Shickle - That appears to be some sort of judgement. If you can find me some Point of Order, he would be glad to deal with it. Supervisor Forrester - Stated that she would like to have "Citizen Comment" prior to this Board reconsidering this motion. Chairman Shickle - That seems to be a desire and not a Point of Order. Supervisor Forrester - I am making a motion. Supervisor Reyes - Seconded the motion. Chairman Shickle - We have a motion and a second to have public comment on this prior to the vote. Everyone understands where we are? Supervisor Sager - Discussion? Chairman Shickle - Discussion. Supervisor Sager - He thinks the day after, from that day on until today, the public was well aware, and the media, that Supervisor Smith had made a mistake in his vote. He thinks it would be presumptuous to say that the public was not informed of what was going to happen tonight. Secondly, we have already had our hearing on this, and this is a revote. I am not going to quote Robert's Rules of Order, but it would not require a public comment again. Supervisor Douglas - I agree with Supervisor Sager. Supervisor Forrester - I agree with Supervisor Sager that a lot of people may be aware Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 100 because ofthe articles in the newspaper, and she is certain by looking out, that there are a lot ofthem present that would like to readdress this issue, and would like to know what new information has come to light that would have this even come before the Board as a Reconsider Motion. Supervisor Smith restated his earlier motion. Supervisor Forrester - Mr. Chair, I made a motion that we allow for "Citizen Comment"before we have this come before us. Chairman Shickle - That is correct, I am sorry, thank you. Supervisor Tyler - From the original time that we all came together and the Northeast Land Use Plan with the matching SWSA to go with it was wrapped around a very tiny issue. It was hidden very deep in there. The opinion that was rendered and asked of Attorney Ambrogi was simply to find out if we will circumvent whether the Hiatt Meadows Subdivision, outside of the Urban Development Area, can be satisfied with sewer and water? That is the opinion we were supposed to be rendering. Now we have moved beyond to wrap that tiny little issue, we haven't even discussed the issue of our Comprehensive Plan being violated by adopting the Northeast Land Use Plan. To her that is extremely disturbing, that is why you have the objections coming forward from some Board members, that our opinion, and the seven day rendering when Director Jones came forward and he gave the information based on the whole Northeast Land Use Plan. She plans to send the Northeast Land Use Plan, if she gets Board permission tonight, so why do we vote to extend sewer and water for the entire Northeast Land Use Plan when she feels in light ofthe past Shockey's rezoning, that is a flawed plan and it needs to be sent back. We are not putting sewer and water outside of our Urban Development Area for anything other than industrial and commercial development. We are sitting here debating about the Northeast Land Use Plan when the real issue is, does Hiatt Meadows Subdivision, a rural preservation lot subdivision in the RA areas, get sewer and water and circumvent the urban development area and our Comprehensive Plan? This is what this discussion should be on. Chairman Shickle - Other discussion. Chairman Shickle - The motion is to hold public input or receive public input. The above motion was denied by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Nay Robert M. Sager - Nay Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 101 Margaret B. Douglas - Nay Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye Chairman Shickle - Motion fails and now we are back to the original motion, Supervisor Smith's motion. Chairman Shickle - Discussion. Supervisor Forrester - Have we adopted the agenda? Chairman Shickle - Yes, we have. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Nay Lynda J. Tyler - Nay Gina A. Forrester - Nay SUPERVISOR SMITH READ STATEMENT EXPLAINING HIS REASON FOR AMENDING HIS VOTE OF MAY 22. 2002 BOARD MEETING WITH REGARD TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY REOUEST Supervisor Smith advised that he regrets the confusion surrounding the most recent vote taken on the Sanitation Authority's Plan to serve the Northeastern area ofthe County with water and sewer. All along my intent was to approve the request, my reasons for this action are as follows: 1. Commitment to serve area through three adoptions of the Northeastern Plan. I was the author of this request in 1995. 2. Service to public facilities such as rest stops, schools, and parks. 3. Commitment to serve commercial and industrial zone areas like the Rutherford Farm. 4. Long term commitment to service those citizens that have poor water quality issues and failing septic systems problems. 5. Limit our liability by excluding or limiting the extension of the UDA which will allow residential development at the urban densities. Again, I apologize for the confusion, but this is a most critical need in the County and it must be addressed now. Consequently, Mr. Chairman having said that, I move to approve the Frederick County Sanitation Authority's Plan to provide water and sewer service as presented. Supervisor Sager seconded the motion. Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 102 Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Nay Lynda J. Tyler - Nay Gina A. Forrester - Asked that it be read one more time to her. Nay SUPERVISOR SMITH READS COPY OF E-MAIL HE RECEIVED Supervisor Smith advised that the following e-mail was sent to the Executive Director ofthe Virginia Association of Counties whom he has known for many years. Upon receiving the e-mail he felt he knew who they were referring to and mailed it to him. 1 have a few questions regarding County Supervisors. Is there anything in the Code of Virginia regarding a Supervisor Member taking a leave of absence for medical reasons? How does he request such leave? Can a motion that has been defeated be revised anytime? One of our county supervisor's wife had a critical medical problem. (Supervisor Smith, it was severe, it was not critical. I did not go to Jones and amps and get ready.) He is trying to deal with that and has asked if taking a leave of absence is possible. (Supervisor Smith, who the hell he asked, he will never know. He asked no one.) 1 am a member of VISION in Frederick County and we are an information al pack. This is the kind of support we provide our supports. (Supervisor Smith, God knows ifthat is support, he would hate to see anything else.) Please let me know if you should need any information. Thank you, and so and so. (Supervisor Smith - that is the kind of stuff you get. Half truths and innuendos, throw it out the window, say anything you want. He takes care of his constituents, my constituents are taken care of and I see a lot of you in this room. You call me at 9 at night, I'm at your house at 9: 15 that same night. 1 have always done that. I have always felt free to call Mr. Copp at any hour, and he will give an answer. He just wanted to straighten a little bit of that up, you know, you just don't walk on water. Nothing worse than half truth. The truth is great, they will find you out. A lie, they will find you out, but a half truth is lethal, it can kill you as fast as a AKA7.) Supervisor Sager - He hopes this is not out of order. The "Citizens Comments" is this effective as of tonight. Chairman Shickle - No sir. It can be if the Board desires it to be. He passed it out as some thoughts he had. It mayor not be the desire ofthe Board. Supervisor Sager - He would like to address it tonight, may be not right now, but to address it. Chairman Shickle - We are about to enter "Citizen Comment" so if you had any desire for Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 103 it to be tonight, you should speak now. Supervisor Sager advised that he felt it was very much needed; however, the citizens are not aware of its contents. Chairman Shickle advised that he would be happy to read it. Supervisor Sager stated that he would like to hear it, as he feels it protects the integrity ofthe Board. Supervisor Forrester - Point of Order. Are you suggesting that we read this to implement it this evening? Chairman Shickle - No, Chairman Sager just asked that it be read. Chairman Shickle advised that he has asked the Board to consider clarifying the "Citizen Comments" portion of the meeting. The request he has made to the Board is that "Citizen Comments" will only be heard if comments are related to one of the following: 1. Topics that are currently before the Board, except items that require a public hearing. 2. Topics that will come before the Board or topics that are being requested to come before the Board. 3. Any citizen who wishes to speak during "Citizen Comments" must: 1. Give their name. 2. Their magisterial district. 3. Declare the subject oftheir comments and assure the Board that their comments are related to: a. A topic before the Board except items that require a public hearing or b. A topic that will come before the Board or c. A topic being requested to come before the Board. 4. Limit comments to three minutes. 5. Address the Board only once per meeting during "Citizen Comments." He further advised that he had provided this to Board members for their comments and instructions to the Chairman, if they would like to clarify "Citizen Comments," but as Supervisor Sager said, they are not in effect tonight. We will do as we have always done, if a member of the citizenry wants to speak to the Board about any topic that is not scheduled for public hearing tonight, now is the time to do so. Supervisor Tyler - Asked Chairman Shickle to read the purpose, and give a little background as to why he feels this is important. Chairman Shickle advised that he would be glad to. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 104 1. To protect the integrity and dignity of the Board. 2. To place a value upon the time commitment made by all those who wish to participate in the function of local government. 3. Enable the Board to complete the business offue County as set forth in the agenda in a timely and efficient manner. Jim Giraytys, Back Creek District, two things have come up fuat he feels must be said. He is a member of VISION also. What Mr. Harrington read is in no way, under any circumstances, a policy of VISION, nor is it their policy to have that kind of information go forward. We try to be honest, and we will be honest with you and any ofthe Members ofthe Board. He speaks for all the people who really do belong to VISION and wish VISION to make it a really constructive part of this community. He feels the Chairman is absolutely wrong in trying to put that kind of restriction on the citizens in their "Citizens Comments." He understands he is trying to protect the Board, but please Mr. Chairman, understand that the Board is hcre to serve the people. This is one ofthe very few places that we can get up and speak our mind about what Democracy is all about in this County. If you or Mr. Ambrogi or anyone else thinks that "Citizens Comments" are meant to be derogatory, they are meant to express our opinion. If they happen to be quite emotional that is because people feel emotional about these things, and I think you must hear these statements. You should not muzzle in any way the comments of the citizens. Kevin Kennedy, Gainesboro District, addressed the issue he raised at the meeting of May 22, 2002 concerning Chairman Shickle's issue with Supervisor Reyes and his use of county stationary. He feels this issue has not been resolved and asked Chairman Shickle to take care of it. He feels this Board needs a collective vision about what they would like for the County to look like in the future. Asked why this has not been done, is it a leadership problem that prevents this from being done. Feels it has been shown that this Board is divided and that the Chairman needs to get them together. Addressed current development in the County advising that there are a few developers fuat would like to develop every square inch of the County. Please formulate a vision. Bill Rosenberry, Shawnee District and member ofthe Planning Commission, and a member of VISION. He advised that he had heard a rumor some time ago that someone was going to act on Harrington getting a leave of absence. He stated at that time ifthat action took place he would split from VISION. He spoke wifu VISION'S President concerning this and was assured by him, at that time, that VISION would not be doing anything like that. He trusts that this came from an Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 105 individual, and not from VISION. This is not VISION'S charter to act like that. Manuel Sempeles, Stonewall District, referred to the current water and sewer problems in the northern corridor of Frederick County and the fact these problems have existed for at least twenty years. He advised ofthe many accomplishments of past Boards and stressed the point ofthe current Board members to work together, and ifnot the moral fiber of Frederick County will be destroyed. What is wrong, why can't he do what he wants to with his own land. Why should this Board make a decision for him? Work together, show your vision, for up to this point he has not seen any vision, from anyone ofthe Board members, they are very negative. Pam Kennedy, Gainesboro District, advised the Board to call upon resources that are available to them. Expert opinions are important and should be used by the Board. Asked why some Board members act in such haste, why are some so quick to vote without allowing all the facts and information to be presented, what is the worry here? Who questions the decisions that you make, who stands to gain, who is pushing for change, for growth, for expansion? Is it the ordinary citizen who is unable to pull up stakes when the roads become clogged, the water table drops, she thinks not. Dave Holliday, Back Creek District, addressed proffer models and impacts. He asked the Board to give some very serious thought to the impact model when it is presented to them again. He knows this model does not consider BPOL Tax. The developer and the contractor pay BPOL Tax as does the material handlers and sub contractor and the realtor. This means that a $300,000 house effectively grosses on about one million. This is not considered as a positive. He is not opposed to the fire departments and does donate to them generously. He volunteered for ten years himself, but they are volunteers, they pay for their stations, and they pay for their equipment the Board pays for their operating. He questions whether it is legal that there is any proffer, he especially questions that it went from $59 to $850 in 1998. That aside, we have worked and lived with it, and we are not happy with it. We want to pay our share. He would rather see a transfer tax. What is going to happen when you go from $5,000 to $10,000, like Supervisor Smith just said, on top of the $5400 connection fee that is added cost in the UDA. It is like a penalty to developers to be in the UDA, its added value in the RA 2.3 units per acre times $15,000, you just added $40,000 added value to every single acre in the RA, and it is discriminatory for they do not pay one nickel, and those school buses go much further out to get them on a lot worse road. It is discriminatory, not Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 106 by State Law, just ethics. It is inequitable and the reason it hasn't worked. The reason the monies aren't in the coffers is because probably 2/3 to 3/4 of the lots being built on, that are owned now have no proffers, so it is inequitable. He personally controls about 500 lots. He would love to see the County double this cause you just put $5 million in his pocket, because he is going to add it to his prices. So it is ineffective, it is inequitable, it is discriminatory, it's causing sprawl. There is not an orchardist, farmer or speculator that won't look at those added values on the RA land. Little builders can stroke ten grand at a building permit, remember that. Ron Evans, Stonewall District, stated that Mr. Fuel is trying to put this contraption in his front yard and he is already suffering from fuel contamination. Chairman Shickle advised Mr. Evans that this request was withdrawn. Mr. Evans advised that yes, he was aware of that, and he is glad it was withdrawn, and he is glad that this is not going to happen. Sam Lehman, Back Creek District, advised the Board of a recent trip he took to the Fairfax Water Authority. He advised they had given up on wells and groundwater a long time ago. He addressed the wells that the County will be drilling in places where there will be urban development, doesn't feel this makes much sense. He recently looked at some numbers concerning the Regional Jail and according to these number's, Winchester has about 3.1 times as many inmates per capita as Frederick County does. He feels that 95% of Frederick County in general has more land to tax, commit fewer crimes, have less traffic congestion and less traffic lights. He further addressed the current school population. Sharon Boyd, Gainesboro District, advised at the last Board meeting, which she observed from her home, there were a couple of things mentioned that she would like to address at this time. A question was presented to the Board whether or not the Board had looked into the reason why there was a pump and haul system at Stonewall Elementary School. She wondered at the time what the individual was talking about, and in turn asked some questions. She found a paper that said there was a pump and haul at the school. There was a request for it from the County Offices as the drain field for the septic system had been damaged by the contractor, and the subcontractor, who had been working on the school. She questioned whether the Board was aware ofthis as she has also learned that the County is paying like $30,000 a year for pump and haul, and her question is why is the contractor not paying for this rather than the taxpayer. She asked the Board to look into this and Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 107 determine if this information is correct and to let the community know one way or the other. Her second question has to do with the water and sewer in the Stonewall District and an agreement between the Sanitation Authority and the owner ofthe property on the Core Battlefield for drilling wells. It states in this agreement that the owner will receive 10% ofthe water free and will be paid a lump sum of money, either $48,000 or $58,000, depending on the yield. She also questions this. Does this mean that the property owner now becomes a landlord, and a person that will now be selling water to our community? This agreement has been signed by Jimmy Anderson and by Bunny Benham who is acting on behalf ofthe Trust. She has heard that Harrison and Johnston law firm are the attorneys for the Sanitation Authority. She is wondering if Mr. Benham is an employee of that firm, or a partner in that firm, what would that mean as far as this contract, for he is also representing the trustees of the land, acting as trustee for the land. Catherine Whitesell, Back Creek District, she decided to attend this meeting so she might see what was going to happen with the Northeast Land Use Plan. She doesn't feel anyone on the Board had the intentions of denying the projects that they had rezoned in the past, maybe even a month prior of water and sewer. She feels it is excessive to act like we know we have the water for almost six thousand acres ofland. She commends everyone that wants the water and sewer on their property for business or commercial, industrial, it will bring money in, but the other issue at hand is the residential growth in that area. When this was brought before the subcommittee in Planning, the intent was for this not to be another Stephens City, and to try and concentrate the business growth in that area. She hopes that is what will happen on that corridor. She wanted to clarify one thing that Director Jones said, and that was that Brucetown would not be getting water and sewer service. She doesn't know ifthat has changed. She found it interesting that Supervisor Smith had two votes at this meeting, one was to extend sewer service to the Northeast Land Use Plan, the second being to adopt the Sanitation Authority, so she feels this very clearly states that it was not the water and sewer service area, that had not been established prior. MINUTES Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the minutes ofthe Regular Meeting of April 22, 2002 were approved, as presented, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 108 Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye COUNTY OFFICIALS RESOLUTION (#050-02)OF APPRECIATION TO EXTENSION AGENT DR. GARY DEOMS - APPROVED WHEREAS, Gary C. DeOms served as an Extension Agent in the Frederick County Extension Office from April I, 1971, until his retirement on July 1,2002; and, WHEREAS, through countless hours, he generously gave his time and talents for the benefit of the Agriculture/Natural Resources Program and those, it serves; and, WHEREAS, his role in the growth and development of the greenhouse and ornamental horticulture industry will continue to be a lasting inspiration for those, who carry on the work which he established; and, WHEREAS, Frederick County recognizes his support and dedication for the agriculture industry during his tenure as County Extension Agent. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that on this 12th day of June 2002, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors does hereby officially express its gratitude to Gary C. DeOms for his dedication and commitment oftime and energy to the betterment of his community and overall dedication to the Agriculture/Natural Resources Program. ADOPTED, this 12th day of June 2002. Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the above resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye RESOLUTION(#051-02) OF APPRECIATION TO EXTENSION AGENT OF 4-H LESTER RITENOUR - APPROVED WHEREAS, Lester A. Ritenour served as an Extension Agent in the Frederick County Extension Office from January 1, 1975, until his retirement on July 1,2002; and, WHEREAS, through countless hours, he generously gave his time and talents to develop the Frederick County 4-H Program to the high standards which now exist; and, WHEREAS, his selfless devotion and tireless efforts have been, and will continue to be, a lasting inspiration for those who carry on the work of the Frederick County 4-H Program, always striving, as he did, to meet its goals and objectives; and, WHEREAS, he is a loyal and caring friend whose many kindnesses and uplifting spirit touched the lives of so many people; and, WHEREAS, his example will live in the hearts and minds of his many friends and Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 109 colleagues. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that on this 12th day of June 2002, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors does hereby officially express its gratitude to Lester A. Ritenour for his dedication and commitment oftime and energy to the betterment of his community and overall dedication to the Frederick County 4-H Program. ADOPTED, this 12th day of June 2002. Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the above resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye Dr. DeOms and Mr. Ritenour were present to accept their resolutions. They thanked the Board and citizens for all their help during their time with Frederick County. They know they will miss seeing and working with the many students and citizens that they have met and worked with for these many years, but also know they are looking forward to their retirement. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS There were no appointments made at this time. MEMORANDUM RE: PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE AGENDA FOR 2003 GENERAL ASSEMBLY SESSION - APPROVED Administrator Riley presented the following information: As stated previously, the 2002 legislative agenda included fiscal impact issues to include an increase in local option sales tax; meals tax; lodging tax; real estate transfer tax in lieu of cash proffers; equal taxing power for counties as related to cities; and modifying the Dillon Rule for counties. Input from the board for the 2003 legislative agenda thus far includes: Land Use and Taxation 1 Modification of the Dillon Rule. 2. Real Estate transfer tax in lieu of cash proffers. Human Services 1. Allow for provision for public employee collective bargaining. 2. Reduce a threshold amount (currently $10,000) on violating conflict of interest act. 3. State should participate in funding opportunities for volunteer fire and rescue retirement program. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 110 Transportation I. Eliminate the non attainment status currently imposed on Frederick County; the county is being penalized because it has an interstate traversing its border. 2. Encourage rail service for trucks and passenger service to alleviate congestion on 1-81. A recommendation to forward to the Virginia Association of Counties (V ACo) would be appropriate. Administrator Riley further advised that Supervisor Tyler had requested the following two HB to be included in this list: HB 899 Virginia Public Procurement Act; procurement of professional services. Allow state and local entities to negotiate and award multi-phase professional service contracts for construction or infrastructure projects. Under current law this authority is limited to the Department of Transportation for certain professional services related to highways and bridges. PATRON-Purkey HB 256 Rezoning property to previous zoning designation in counties. Allows a county to include in its zoning ordinance provisions that permit the county to grant any rezoning with a condition requiring that an approved site plan or final subdivision plan be obtained for the development within a specified period of not less than 10 years. If no such approval is obtained during the specified period, the county may rezone the property to its previous zoning designation. PATRON- McQuigg Chairman Shickle asked what was the time table for this information being forwarded to Richmond? Administrator Riley advised that it was his understanding that Virginia Association of Counties is looking for submittals by the end of this month. Supervisor Tyler asked if under the land use and taxation, or any ofthe adopted items from Administrator Riley, ifthey are carry overs or are they still requiring patrons. She knows they are still looking for a patron for the real estate transfer tax. Administrator Riley advised that yes, they are still looking for a patron for the transfer tax, modification of the Dillon Rule normally ends up somewhere in the legislative process. Supervisor Tyler asked how the County could obtain patrons. Administrator Riley explained that through Supervisors Tyler and Forrester's services on the standing committees of V ACo they would become very familiar with the process this Summer and Fall and will be able to either identify a patron or work with another County such as Stafford or Spotsylvania in trying to move these agendas forward. Chairman Shickle asked Administrator Riley to explain those listed under Human Services. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 111 Administrator Riley advised there is currently a provision in that Virginia is a right to work state and that collective bargaining, or public employee unions are not recognized. The only way that public employee collective bargaining could be recognized is through changes in the State Code to allow for same. Chairman Shickle asked what would be the impact to Frederick County? Administrator Riley advised for example, if the Board authorized a two percent salary increase and the County employees wanted 10, if we had a union, I guess we could come in and try and "ruffle your feathers"a little bit under a competitive negotiated contract to try and raise the County's standards. Reduce threshold speaks to, if you enter into a contract that would be in conflict with your duties as a Board Member. The threshold amount in the act is currently $10,000, this is to whether it is a violation ofthe act as to what you might gain momentarily. He believes the interest in the request was to reduce the current amount to a lower amount. Supervisor Sager moved to adopt as presented and to include Supervisor Tyler's two House Bills included in the agenda. Supervisor Reyes seconded the motion. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye Supervisor Tyler asked if due to time constraints no more could be added to this list, or is there still time? Administrator Riley advised if any Board members had any additional items they need to advise the County Administrator's Office of same. Supervisor Reyes advised that under Human Services, the number 2 item, reducing the threshold amount, he had provided this information to Administrator Riley as he felt the $10,000 amount was ridiculous, as someone could get rich in just keeping under this amount. REOUEST FROM VIRGINIA DEP ARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RESIDENT ENGINEER TO APPROVE SECONDARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION BUDGET- APPROVED Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 112 Engineer Jerry Copp appeared before the Board and he advised he would like to present the Secondary Construction Program, and the 2002-03 Secondary Construction Budget and would request that they be voted on separately. Engineer Copp outlined the following: 1. 2002 comparison to previous Six Year Program 2001. 2. Tentative secondary construction and unpaved road allocation. 3. The Secondary System Improvement Plan 2002-03/2007-08 with the impact of the revised allocation. He advised Baylor Road will be reduced another 2 years. He further advised that the cost is $500,000 per mile for gravel road, and this year VDOT would not even get a mile. He advised that he was recommending that the Incidental Construction Line Item be dropped. Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the Secondary System Budget from July 1, 2002 - June 30, 2003, in the amount of $2,246,451, was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye Upon motion made by Supervisor Forrester, seconded by Supervisor Douglas, for the process of updating the County's Secondary Construction program with the public hearing process to proceed as needed. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye RESOLUTION (#052-02) FROM VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RE: CHANGES IN THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT. RELOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 656 - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has provided this board with a sketch dated December 17, 2001 depicting required changes in the Secondary Systems of State Highways, which sketch entitled "Changes in the Secondary Systems Due to Relocation and Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 .113 Construction on Route 656, Project 0656-034-118, C502," is hereby incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, a new road, identified in Red, now serves the same citizens as the old portion of old road, identified in Blue, to be abandoned and the portion to be abandoned no longer serves a public need, and a portion of old road, identified in Orange, still serves the citizens and is to be renumbered. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does hereby concur with abandoning from the Secondary System of Highways the portions identified in Blue on the aforementioned sketch, and further identified as Sections 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 8, pursuant to 33.1-155 ofthe Code a/Virginia, 1950, as amended; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board ofS upervisors for the County of Frederick, requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation add to the Secondary System of Highways the portions identified in Red on the aforementioned sketch, and further identified as Sections 9, 10, 11,12,13,14,15 and 16, pursuant to 33.1-229 of the Code a/Virginia, 1950, as amended; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick requests the Virginia Department of Transportation add to the Secondary System of Highways the portions identified in Brown on the aforementioned sketch, and further identified as Sections 17 and 18, pursuant to 33.1-229 of the Code a/Virginia, 1950, as amended; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to renumber the portion of old road identified in Orange on the aforementioned sketch, and further identified as Sections 7 and 19; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. ADOPTED this Ith day of June 2002. RESOLUTION (#053-02) FROM THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RE: CHANGES IN THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO RELOCATION. CONSTRUCTION AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT ON ENTRANCE AND EXIT RAMPS ON ROUTE 37 AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH ROUTE 11 NORTH - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has provided this board with sketches dated December 13, 2001 depicting required changes in the Primary and Secondary Systems of State Highways, which sketches entitled "Changes in the Primary and Secondary Systems Due to Relocation and Construction on Route 37, Project 6037 -034-103, C50 1," are hereby incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, new roads, identified in Red, now serves the same citizens as the old portion of old roads identified in Blue to be abandoned and the portions to be abandoned no longer serves a public need. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does hereby concur with abandoning from the Primary System of Highways, the portion identified in Blue on sketch 1 of2 of the aforementioned sketches, and further identified as Section 5, pursuant to 33.1-148 of the Code a/Virginia, 1950, as amended; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, does hereby concur with abandoning from the Secondary System of Highways the portions identified in Blue on sketch 2 of2 ofthe aforementioned sketches, and further identified as Sections 8 and 9, pursuant to 33.1-155 ofthe Code a/Virginia, 1950, as amended; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 114 requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation add to the Secondary System of Highways the portions identified in Red on sketch 2 of2 ofthe aforementioned sketches, and further identified as Sections 6 and 7, pursuant to 33.1-229 of the Code a/Virginia, 1950, as amended; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that a certified copy ofthis resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. ADOPTED this 12th day of June 2002. RECESS The Board took a five minute recess. REOUEST BY SUPERVISOR TYLER TO SEND THE NORTHEAST LAND USE PLAN BACK FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVISION - APPROVED Supervisor Tyler moved to have the Northeast Land Use Plan be sent back to the Planning Staff in order that they may reexamine the recommended land use policies in light of recent events in particular she would like the following issues addressed: 1. The location and the amount ofland designated by our current plan as future industrial. 2. The recognition and identification of the Milburn Rural Historic District, the core battlefield areas of the 2nd and 3Td Winchester, and the Jordan Springs Historic Area Overlay. 3. The examination of policies related to the provision of sewer and water service to RA zoned land located within the SWSA. 4. Some provision of sewer and water looked at for the community of Stephenson. Sewer particularly for Clearbrook, Burketown for existing homes with failing systems that includes water and sewer. 5. Incorporate changes made by the County since the adoption ofthe Plan on September 27, 2000. She would expect that this effort is to include public meetings, as appropriate, and ultimately the revised plan be brought back before the Frederick County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for public hearings and adoption. This should also include the public meetings and subcommittee prior to submission to Planning Commission. Supervisor Smith seconded the motion. Supervisor Smith asked if this will change anything that is in process? Supervisor Tyler asked Supervisor Smith to be a little more specific. Supervisor Smith - There are going to be new rules and regulations on the new one. Supervisor Tyler -We are going to have to look at a whole bunch of different issues here. Supervisor Smith - If something is in progress it is not going to pertain to that individual. Supervisor Tyler asked Supervisor Smith ifhe was talking about Rutherford Farm, VDOT, Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 115 or was he talking about something in particular. She advised that she had no intent, when the Board was presented with the Northeast Land Use Plan SWSA to ever deny Rutherford Farms or to look at bringing VDOT, and their request of a visitor's center. She would like to see Stonewall School be taken off of pump and haul as she does have a problem with taxpayers paying for this, that is a whole other issue. I feel we need to look at the whole gamut. If you run just a quick fiscal impact model, which they have just discussed the by-right portion ofthis 4400 acres ofRA land hooked to sewer and water, is a $7 million tax bill to Frederick County, not to mention the four schools that will need to be built. These are things this Board needs to address, and she hopes to do that through recooking at the Northeast Land Use Plan. With the Northeast Land Use Plan there are portions of that plan that she agrees with. The corridor between Route 81, Route 11 and the rail spur is absolutely perfect for industrial and commercial development. The topography is there, the rail is there, the infrastructure is there. She feels the Board needs to look at this in light of what has happened to this community and the decisiveness that has happened, what is going to happen to the rest of this plan. Several components of the Plan she has objections to and would like to have it revisited. Supervisor Smith asked how soon. Supervisor Tyler advised that she would hope within six months. The Planning Department will start with public vision meetings, which Stonewall was an active role in, they weren't listened to particularly well, go through that process again, and then it will go to the Planning Commission for public hearing and then come to the Board for public hearing. Supervisor Forrester asked if a particular time could be set for this to come back to the Board, so that it does not get lost in committee. Administrator Riley asked if the Board set a time, staff would do their best in order to get it back to them. If the Board says six months that will be staffs goal, and they will do their best to get it done. Supervisor Tyler amended her motion to include this time limit. Chairman Shickle asked Administrator Riley if it has been the practice of Frederick County to review the Comprehensive Plan annually? Administrator Riley replied that was correct. Chairman Shickle asked when this would have started. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 116 Director Lawrence replied the review would start any time now as the Plan would be presented to the Board in the Fall of the year. He further advised that at present they have a "plate full" of things going on and he is not sure they are going to get to the review this year. It could be done and some other things would have to be pushed aside, ifthat is the directive ofthe Board. Supervisor Douglas stated that she could not support sending this Plan back as it is the one that has been worked on for years, it does not go on the shelf to gather dust, but is looked at each year; therefore, she sees no reason why it should be sent back. Supervisor Sager stated that he felt somewhat the same way; however, there are so many issues now that he has no objections to the Board reviewing this again. Chairman Shickle asked if we identify what projects will not be done, as this is revisited? Director Lawrence advised if staff is to revisit the Northeast Land Use Plan, that the corridor study be shelved for the time being, as the public meetings have not started on this portion. Supervisor Forrester asked Director Lawrence how close were they to scheduling the public hearings on the corridors? Director Lawrence advised that a worksession was being looked at with the Board for some time in August. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Nay Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye SUPERVISOR REYES REOUESTS TO HAVE HOURS OF OPERATION AT DUMPSTER SITES REMAIN AS THEY CURRENTLY ARE - APPROVED Supervisor Reyes advised the Board that he would like to propose leaving the current hours of operation at the County Dumpster sites. The hours at these sites were scheduled to be reduced on July 8, as a result ofthe budget approval in April, and taking effect on July 1. He further advised that he knew what would happen ifthe hours were reduced. The Board member's phones would be ringing off the hook from County residents complaining. Administrator Riley advised that this amount, $160,000 had been cut from the budget and Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 117 ifthis action ofthe reduced hours was not approved, these funds would have to be put back into the budget. Director Strawsnyder appeared before the Board advising of discussions on this matter during budget deliberations. The decision was made then to reduce the hours of operation because ways were being discussed for the budget to be reduced. He advised that fliers had been printed telling the citizens ofthe reduced hours, and some employees were told oftheirreduced hours of work, and had made other working arrangements. He further explained that he had funding to last until the end of June and asked what was he to do after that? Supervisor Reyes moved, with Supervisor Smith seconding the motion, to reinstate the hours at the County Dumpster sites as of July 1. These hours are to remain as they were prior to July 1. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Nay Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Nay Gina A. Forrester - Aye COMMITTEE REPORTS PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Parks and Recreation Commission met on May 21, 2002. Members present were: Charles Sandy, Robert Hartman, Joyce Off, Victoria Cauline, Clarence Haymaker, Cheryl Swart, Lynda Tyler. Submitted for Board Action: 1. By-laws Revision - Mr. Hartman moved to amend the Parks and Recreation Commission bylaws to include an eighth member for the Red Bud Magisterial District, second by Mrs. Off, carried unanimously (6-0). The Change can be found under ARTICLE 3, Membership, Section 1. (attached). Submitted for Board Information Onlv: 1. Policies - Mr. Hartman moved to adopt four policies for the department, second by Mrs. Off, carried unanimously (6-0). 2. Reauest from Frederick County Public Schools - Mr. Hartman moved that a contract be signed by the School Board and the Commission allowing Sherando High School to use the Community Room for classes from approximately September 1, 2002 to June 15, 2003 between the hours of8:00 a.m. - 2:30 p.m.. When the Department resumes use ofthe Community Room, the Commission expects the room to be returned in the condition in which it was received, second by Mr. Haymaker, carried unanimously (6-0). 3. Mr. Hartman moved to approve a request from the School Board for exclusive use of the Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12102 118 Department's weight room at Sherando High School from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., second by Mrs. Off. The Chairman asked that all in favor ofthe motion signify by aye; opposed like sign. Motion failed by a unanimous vote of 6-0. LANDFILL OVERSITE COMMITTEE REPORT - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The landfill oversight committee met on Wednesday, May 22, 2002, at 8:00 a.m. All committee members were present except Tim Cone. The following issues were discussed: 1. Electronics Recvclinl! Event The second electronics recycling event has been scheduled for June 1,2002, at the James Wood Middle School. The attached memorandum dated May 20, 2002, from Gloria Puffin burger, Recycling Coordinator, described the upcoming event. (See Attachment 1) 2. Update on Poultry Disposal The landfill has ceased accepting dead poultry from Rockingham and Augusta Counties effective May 20,2002. To date, we have received at the landfill approximately 820 tons of poultry. We ceased accepting the Avian Flu infected birds because the Department of Environmental Quality reneged on their promise to provide an emergency permit to allow vertical expansion. Consequently, the staff decided to cease accepting dead poultry because the disposal was encroaching on our permitted vertical limits. 3. Litter Fencinl: A contract has been awarded to ACE Golf Netting to provide approximately 5,800 Linear Feet oflitter control fencing at the landfill. A summary of the bid results is attached. The fencing will be 20 feet in height and have a ten (10) year warranty. (See Attachment 2) 4. New Positions and Salarv Adiustments The landfill manager, Mr. Steve Frye, requested a new job classification, landfill technician IV and an additional new position. The attached memorandum dated May 21, 2002, describes the need for the added position and the new classification. The committee unanimously endorsed this request. (See Attachment 3) 5. Fund Transfers for Tire Pro~ram The attached memorandum dated May 9, 2002, requests a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $45,000 to cover increased tire flow above original projections. This item is totally reimbursable. No additional funding is required. (See Attachment 4) 6. Construction/Demolition Debris (ADm Landfill Expansion The latest ADD expansion has been satisfactorily completed by Perry Engineering Company, Inc. It is anticipated that the landfill operations will not need to move into this new cell until the fall of 2002. 7. Update on New Convenience Site at the Landfill A preliminary site plan was developed by S.S. Engineers for a new citizen's convenience center to replace the existing site. Staffrejected this plan because it encroached on the footprint of future landfill development. Another plan will be developed in an attempt to site the convenience center. Mr. John R. Riley, Jr. expressed a desire to be included in the review ofthis new site plan. 8. Closed Session A closed session was convened in accordance with the Code of Virginia g2.2-37l1 Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 119 Subsection A, (7), Legal Issues. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT The Public Works Committee met on Tuesday, May 28,2002, at 8:00 a.m. All members were present. The following items were discussed: ***ltems Requiring Action*** 1. Review Bids for Third Floor Improvements - Approved The Director of Public Works presented the bid results for completing the third floor interior finishes at the Frederick County Office Complex. After discussing the base bids and the five (5) alternates, a motion. was made by George Ludwig and seconded by Jim Wilson to approve the base bid submitted by R)ckets Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of$640,000 and alternates 1, 4 and 5 if allowed by procurement regulations. This motion was amended to include negotiating with the contractor for a lump sum of$668,200 if the procurement regulations required acceptance of the alternates in the order of presentation. This amount represents funding available for the project. However, this amount does not include a contingency allowance. The modified motion was unanimously approved. (See Attachment 1) Upon motion made by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Sager, the above request was approved, as presented, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye ***ltems Not Requiring Action*** 1. Request from Buildin~ Official for Additional Part-time/Overtime Fundinl! for Fiscal Year 200212003 The committee reviewed and endorsed a request from Mr. John Trenary, Building Official, for a supplemental appropriation of $28,200 for the Fiscal Year 2002/2003 budget year. This funding will allow the Inspections Department to continue to use part time labor and pay overtime to accommodate the increase in permits and inspections. This request will be forwarded to the finance committee for their review and action. (See Attachment 2) 2. Reauests from Landfill Manal!er to Create a Landfill Technician IV Classification and Add a New Position A request from Mr. Steve Frye, Landfill Manager, to create a new classification and add a new position was reviewed and endorsed by the committee. This request was previously endorsed by the landfill oversight committee on May 22, 2002. In his motion to approve the request, Mr. Jim Wilson recommended that the action also include a complete salary survey for the entire landfill staff. This request with the endorsement of the public work's committee will be forwarded to the personnel committee for their action. (See Attachment 3) 3. Discussion of Draina~e Issues A discussion was initiated by the Director of Public Works concerning an increased number Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 120 of citizen complaints related to standing water within yard areas. It was explained that the department had established a policy of giving priority response to drainage problems that affected life or property. We have been able to respond and resolve these types of drainage issues. However, complaints related to wet yards or wet drainage easements have become the dominant issue. At the present time, staff does not have an easy solution to this problem especially in the shale geology where podded water and perched water tables are common. Staff will prepare a list of options for the committee's review at the next scheduled meeting. 4. Miscellaneous Reports a) Tonnage Report (see Attachment 4) b) Recycling Report (see Attachment 5) c) Animal Shelter Dog Report (see Attachment 6) d) Animal Shelter Cat Report (see Attachment 7) PERSONNEL COMMITTEE REPORT Supervisor Douglas presented this report to the Board. The Personnel Committee met on Wednesday, June 5, 2002 with the following members present: Margaret Douglas, Chairman; Philip Farley, Verne collins, Gina Forrester, Bill Still, John R. Riley, Jr., Kris Tierney, and Debby Didawick. 1. Reauest for New Position in Public Works - Approved The Committee reviewed a request from Ed Strawsnyder, Public Works Director for a new position of Solid Waste Manager. He recommends Gloria Puffin burger fill this position at a salary range 23, second step - $38,780. No additional funding will be required for fiscal year (FY 0 l-02). An estimated $8,000 General Fund supplemental appropriation is requested for FY03. The Recycling Coordinator position would remain vacant and unfunded at this time. The Committee recommends approval of this request. Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 2. Reauest to Reclassifv Two EDC Positions and Modifv Executive Director's Job Description - Approved The Committee reviewed a request from Patrick Barker to reclassify the Assistant Director position to Marketing Coordinator and the part-time Project Specialist to part-time Secretary II position. No additional funding is required for FY03. The Committee recommends approval of this request. Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 121 Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 3. Request for Amendment to the Personnel Policies Section V Recruitment. Selection and Emnlovment 5.1 to Comply with Commission of Corrections Standard - Approved The Committee reviewed the request from the CFFW Regional Jail for additional wording to be added to the Employee Handbook to comply with ADA requirements that were sited during the Commission's audit. The Committee recommends approval of this request. Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 4. Request for Planner I Position in Planninl! Denartment - Ann roved The Committee reviewed the request from Eric Lawrence, Planning Director, for a new Planner I position. He proposed the position be filled by Candice Mills, an intern who has been working with the department. No additional funding will be required for fiscal year (FYOI-02). A General Fund supplemental appropriation carry forward of $36,000 is requested for FY03. The Committee recommends approval. Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 5. Request for Denartment Directors Pay Ran~e Increase - Approved The Committee-reviewed the request from John Riley, County Administrator, to increase the minimum salary from $50,000 to $55,000 and the maximum from $75,000 to $90,000 in order to be competitive when recruiting Department Directors. The Committee recommends approval. Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Sager, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 122 Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 6. Personnel Department Goals - Approved The Committee reviewed additional goals requested by Debby Didawick, Personnel Director. They include a training program/training calendar, job vacancy report for all departments and area schools, and a quarterly employee newsletter. The Committee recommends approval. A request for $1,000 for training budget and an additional $280 for cost of the newsletter was approved to be recommended as a transfer from the contingency line item. Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING - OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT - REQUEST OF MARY CLEVENGER- SLEEPY CREEK TRAIL RIDE. PURSUANT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 86. FESTIVALS: SECTION 86-3C. PERMIT REOUlRED: APPLICATION: ISSUANCE OR DENIAL: FOR AN OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT FOR SLEEPY CREEK TRAIL RIDE. FESTIVAL TO BE HELD ON SATURDAY. JULY 13.2002. ON PROPERTY OWNED BY MARY CLEVENGER AND LEDA DEHAVEN. SLEEPY CREEK ROAD (ROUTE 734). WHITACRE. VIRGINIA - APPROVED Administrator Riley presented this request to the Board. Ms. Clevenger appeared before the Board on behalf of her request. There was no public input. Upon motion made by Supervisor Reyes, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the request of Mary Clevenger was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 79. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL. TO DELETE AND REPEAL THE CHAPTER IN ITS ENTIRETY AND READOPT A NEW/REVISED CHAPTER 79. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL - APPROVED Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 123 Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the following ordinance amendment was approved: BE IT RESOLVED, that Chapter 79, Erosion and Sediment Control, be repealed in its entirety and to readopt a new/revised Chapter 79, Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance, to read as follows: (SEE ATTACHED) This ordinance is to become effective July 1, 2002. Frederick County Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance Chapter 79 Section 79-1. Purpose, Title and Authority This ordinance shall be known as the "Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance of Frederick County, Virginia." The Frederick County Board of Supervisors desires to prevent the degradation of properties, stream channels, waters and other natural resources of Frederick County by establishing requirements for the control of soil erosion, sediment deposition and nonagricultural runoff and establish procedures whereby these requirements shall be administered and enforced. This Chapter is authorized by Title 10.1, Chapter 5, Article 4 ofthe Code of Virginia, (Sec. 10.1-560 et seq.), known as the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law. Section 79-2. Definitions. As used in the ordinance, unless the context requires a different meaning: AGREEMENT IN LIEU OF A PLAN means a contract between the plan-approving authority and the owner that specifies conservation measures that must be implemented in the construction of a single-family residence; this contract may be executed in lieu of a formal erosion and sediment control plan. APPLICANT means any person submitting an erosion and sediment control plan for approval or requesting the issuance of a permit, when required, authorizing land-disturbing activities to commence. BOARD means the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS means the Frederick County, Virginia Board of Supervisors. CERTIFIED INSPECTOR means an employee or agent of a program authority who (1) holds a certificate of competence from the Board in the area of project inspection or (2) is enrolled in the Board's training program for project inspection and successfully completes such program within one year after enrollment. CERTIFIED PLAN REVIEWER means an employee or agent of a program authority who (1) holds a certificate of competence from the Board in the area of plan review, (2) is enrolled in the Board's training program for plan review and successfully completes such program within one year after enrollment, or (3) is licensed as a professional engineer, architect, certified landscape architect or land surveyor pursuant to Article 1 (Sec. 54.1-400 et seq.) of Chapter 4 of the Code of Virginia. CERTIFIED PROGRAM MANAGER means an employee or agent of a program authority who (1) holds a certificate of competence from the Board in the area of program administration or (2) is enrolled in the Board's training program for program administration and successfully completes such program within one year after enrollment. CLEARING means any activity which removes the vegetative ground cover Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12102 124 including, but not limited to, root mat removal or top soil removal. COUNTY means the County of Frederick, Virginia. DEPARTMENT means the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS means the Frederick County, Virginia Department of Public Works. DEVELOPMENT means a tract ofland developed or to be developed as a single unit under single ownership or unified control which is to be used for any business or industrial purpose or is to contain three or more residential dwelling units. DIRECTOR means the director of the Department of Conservation and Recreation. DISTRICT of SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT refers to the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN or PLAN means a document containing material for the conservation of soil and water resources of a unit or group of units of land. It may include appropriate maps, an appropriate soil and water plan inventory, and management information with needed interpretations and a record of decisions contributing to conservation treatment. The plan shall contain all major conservation decisions to assure that the entire unit or units ofland will be so treated to achieve the conservation objectives. EROSION IMPACT AREA means an area of land not associated with current land- disturbing activity but subject to persistent soil erosion resulting in the delivery of sediment onto neighboring properties or into state waters. This definition shall not apply to any lot or parcel ofland of 10,000 square feet or less used for residential purposes. EX CA V A TIN G means any digging, scooping or other methods of removing or altering the placement of earth materials. FILLING means any depositing or stockpiling of earth materials. GRADING means any excavating or filling of earth material or any combination thereof, including the land in its excavated or filled conditions. LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY means any land change which may result in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediments into State waters or onto lands in the Commonwealth, including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, excavating, transporting and filling of land, except that the term shall not include: A. Minor land-disturbing activities such as home gardens and individual home landscaping, repairs and maintenance work; B. Individual service connections; C. Installation, maintenance, or repair of any underground public utility lines when such activity occurs on an existing hard-surfaced road, street or sidewalk provided such land- disturbing activity is confined to the area of the road, street or sidewalk which is hard- surfaced; D. Septic tank lines or drainage fields unless included in an overall plan for land-disturbing activity relating to construction of the building to be served by the septic tank system; E. Surface or deep mining; F. Exploration or drilling for oil and gas including the well site, roads, feeder lines, and off- Minute Book Number 28 Board 01" Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 125 site disposal areas; G. Tilling, planting, or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural, or forest crops, or livestock feedlot operations; including engineering operations and agricultural engineering operations as follows: construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, desilting basins, dikes, ponds not required to comply with the Dam Safety Act, Article 2, (Sec. 10.1-604 et seq.), Chapter 6 of the Code of Virginia, ditches, strip cropping, lister furrowing, contour cultivating, contour furrowing, land drainage, and land irrigation. However, this exception shall not apply to harvesting of forest crops unless the area on which harvesting occurs is reforested artificially or naturally in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II (Sec. 10.1-1100 et seq.) ofthis title or is converted to bona fide agricultural or improved pasture use as described in Subsection B of Section 10.1-1163 of the Code of Virginia; H. Repair or rebuilding ofthe tracks, rights-of-way, bridges, communication facilities and other related structures and facilities of a railroad company; 1. Disturbed land areas ofless than 10,000 square feet in size; J. Installation of fence and sign posts or telephone and electric poles and other kinds of posts or poles; K. Shore erosion control projects on tidal waters when the projects are approved by local wetlands boards, the Marine Resources Commission or the United States Army Corps of Engineers; and L. Emergency work to protect life, limb or property, and emergency repairs; provided that if the land disturbing activity would have required an approved erosion and sediment control plan. If the activity were not an emergency, then the land area disturbed shall be shaped and stabilized in accordance with the requirements of the plan-approving authority. LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT means a permit issued by the Department of Public Works for the clearing, filling, excavating, grading, transporting of land or for any combination thereof or for any purpose set forth herein. LOCAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM or LOCAL CONTROL PROGRAM means an outline of the various methods employed by the Department of Public Works to regulate land-disturbing activities and thereby minimize erosion and sedimentation in compliance with the state program and may include such items as local ordinances, policies and guidelines, technical materials, inspection, enforcement, and evaluation. NOTICE TO COMPLY means a written notice sent to the Responsible Land Disturber or appropriate agent specifying the corrective erosion and sediment control measures needed on a land disturbing project to comply with the approved plan. OWNER means the owner or owners ofthe freehold ofthe premises or lesser estate therein, a mortgagee or vendee in possession, assignee of rents, receiver, executor, trustee, lessee or other person, firm or corporation in control of a property. PERMITTEE means the person to whom the permit authorizing land-disturbing activities is issued or the person who certifies that the approved erosion and sediment control plan will be followed. PERSON means any individual, partnership, firm, association, joint venture, public or private corporation, trust, estate, commission, board, public or private institution, utility, cooperative, county, city, town or other political subdivision of the commonwealth, any interstate body, or any other legal entity. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 126 PLAN-APPROVING AUTHORITY means the Department of Public Works is responsible for determining the adequacy of a plan submitted for land-disturbing activities on a unit or units oflands and for approving plans. PROGRAM AUTHORITY means Frederick County, Virginia which has adopted a soil erosion and sediment control program approved by the Board. RESPONSIBLE LAND DISTURBER means an individual from the project or development team, who will be in charge of and responsible for carrying out a land- disturbing activity covered by an approved plan or agreement in lieu of a plan, who (1) holds a Responsible Land Disturber certificate of competence, (2) holds a current certificate of competence from the Board in the areas of Combined Administration, Program Administration, Inspection, or Plan Review, (3) holds a current Contractor certificate of competence for erosion and sediment control, or (4) is licensed in Virginia as a professional engineer, architect, certified landscape architect or land surveyor pursuant to Title 54.1, Article 1, Chapter 4 of the Code of Virginia (Section 54.1-400 et. seq.). SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES means a structure designed to be occupied by one household as defined by the county's Zoning Ordinance. However, for purposes of this regulation, "mobile homes" shall be defined as one-family dwellings. STATE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAMS or STATE PROGRAMS means the program administered by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board pursuant to the Code of Virginia including regulations designed to minimize erosion and sedimentation. STATE WATERS means all waters on the surface and under the ground wholly or partially within or bordering the Commonwealth or within its jurisdictions. STOP WORK ORDER means a written notice sent to the Responsible Land Disturber or appropriate agent that stops all land disturbing activity on the project for a specified time period. TRANSPORTING means any moving of earth materials from one place to another place other than such movement incidental to grading, when such movement results in destroying the vegetative ground cover either by tracking or the buildup of earth materials to the extent that erosion and sedimentation will result from the soil or earth materials over which such transporting occurs. Section 79-3. Local Erosion and Sediment Control Program A. Except as modified below, pursuant to Section 10.1-562 of the Code of Virginia, the County hereby adopts the regulations, references, guidelines, standards and specifications promulgated by the Board for the effective control of soil erosion and sediment deposition to prevent the unreasonable degradation of properties, stream channels, waters and other natural resources. Said regulations, references, guidelines, standards and specifications for erosion and sediment control are included in, but not limited to, the "Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations" and the latest edition of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, as amended. The following subsections are hereby changed of V AC 50-30-40 ofthe Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations: 1) Subsection 6.b - The following language is hereby changed: Surface run-off from disturbed areas that is comprised of flow from drainage areas greater than or equal to three acres shall be controlled by a sediment basin. The minimum storage capacity of a sediment basin shall be 134 cubic yards per acre of drainage area. The outfall system shall, at a minimum, maintain the structural integrity ofthe basin during a 100-year-storm of 24-hour duration. Runoff coefficients used in runoff calculations shall correspond to a bare earth condition or those expected to exist while the Minute Book Number 28 Board of Snpervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 127 sediment basin is utilized. 2) The provision found in subsection 19 b.(l) is deleted. B. Before adopting or revising regulations, the County shall give due notice and conduct a public hearing on the proposed or revised regulations, except that a public hearing shall not be required when the County is amending its program to conform to revisions in the state program. However, a public hearing shall be held if the County proposes or revises regulations that are more stringent than the state program. C. Pursuant to Sec. 10.1-561.1 ofthe Code of Virginia, an erosion control plan shall not be approved until it is reviewed by a certified plan reviewer. Inspections ofland-disturbing activities shall be conducted by a certified inspector. The Erosion Control Program ofthe County shall contain a certified program administrator, a certified plan reviewer, and a certified inspector, who may be the same person. D. The County hereby designates the Department of Public Works as the plan-approving authority. E. The program and regulations provided for in this ordinance shall be made available for public inspection at the office of the Department of Public Works. Section 79-4. Submission and Approval of Plans; Contents of Plans A. Except as provided herein, no person may engage in any land-disturbing activity until he has submitted to the Department of Public Works an erosion and sediment control plan for the land disturbing activity and such plan has been approved by the Department of Public Works. Where land-disturbing activities involve lands under the jurisdiction of more than one local control program, an erosion and sediment control plan, at the option of the applicant, may be submitted to the Board for review and approval rather than to each jurisdiction concerned. Where the land-disturbing activity results from the construction of a single- family residence, an "agreement in lieu of a plan" may be substituted for an erosion and sediment control plan if executed by the Department of Public Works. B. The standards contained within the "Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations," this code and the latest edition of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook are to be used by the applicant when making a submittal under the provisions of this ordinance and in the preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan. The Department of Public Works, in considering the adequacy of a submitted plan, shall be guided by the same standards, regulations and guidelines. When the standards vary between the publications, the State regulations shall take precedence except where the County has adopted more stringent regulations. C. The Department of Public Works shall, within 45 days, approve any such plan, ifit is determined that the plan meets the requirements ofthe local control program, and if the person responsible for carrying out the plan certifies that he or she will properly perform the erosion and sediment control measures included in the plan and will conform to the provisions ofthis ordinance. In addition, as a prerequisite to approval of the plan, the person responsible for carrying out the plan shall provide the name of a Responsible Land Disturber, who will be in charge of and responsible for carrying out the land- disturbing activity, in accordance with the approved plan. The review time for single family agreement in lieu of plans shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Building Code requirements which is less than 45 days. D. The plan shall be acted upon within 45 days from receipt thereofby either approving said plan in writing or by disapproving said plan in writing and giving specific reasons for its Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 128 disapproval. When the plan is determined to be inadequate, the Department of Public Works shall specify such modifications, terms and conditions that will permit approval of the plan. If no action is taken within 45 days, the plan shall be deemed approved and the person authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. E. An approved plan may be changed by the Department of Public Works when: (1) The inspection reveals that the plan is inadequate to satisfy applicable regulations; or (2) The person responsible for carrying out the plan finds that because of changed circumstances or for other reasons the approved plan cannot be effectively carried out, and proposed amendments to the plan, consistent with the requirements of this ordinance, are agreed to by the Department of Public Works and the person responsible for carrying out the plans. (3) In order to prevent further erosion, the County may require approval of a plan for any land identified in the local program as an erosion impact area. (4) When land-disturbing activity will be required of a contractor performing construction work pursuant to a construction contract, the preparation, submission, and approval of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be the responsibility of the owner. (5) Electric, natural gas and telephone utility companies, interstate and intrastate natural gas pipeline companies and railroad companies shall file general erosion and sediment control specifications annually with the Board for review and written comments. The specifications shall apply to: (a) Construction, installation or maintenance of electric, natural gas and telephone utility lines, and pipelines; and (b) Construction ofthe tracks, rights-of-way, bridges, communication facilities and other related structures and facilities of the railroad company. Individual approval of separate projects within subdivisions I and 2 of this subsection is not necessary when Board approved specifications are followed; however, projects included in subdivisions 1 and 2 must comply with Board approved specifications. Projects not included in subdivisions 1 and 2 of this subsection shall comply with the requirements of the County's erosion and sediment control program. State agency projects are exempt from the provisions of this ordinance except as provided for in Section 10.1-564 of the Code of Virginia. Section 79-5. Permits; Fees; Security for Performance A. Agencies authorized under any other law to issue grading, building, or other permits for activities involving land disturbing activities may not issue any such permit unless the applicant submits with his application an approved erosion and sediment control plan and certification that the plan will be followed. B. No person may engage in any land-disturbing activity until they have acquired a land disturbance permit, unless the proposed land-disturbing activity is specifically exempt from the provisions of this ordinance, and has paid the fees and posted the required performance bond, cash escrow or letter of credit. C. An administrative fee shall be paid to the Department of Public Works at the time of Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 129 submission of the land disturbance permit. The land disturbance permit fee is separate from all other fees paid to other departments in the county. (See Appendix 1 for fee schedule). D. No land disturbance permit shall be issued until the applicant submits with his application an approved erosion and sediment control plan and certification that the plan will be followed. E. All applicants for permits shall provide to the Department of Public Works a performance bond, cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit acceptable to the program administrator in order to ensure that measures could be taken by the Department of Public Works at the applicant's expense should the applicant fail, after proper notice, and within the time specified, to initiate or maintain appropriate conservation measures required of him as a result of his land-disturbing activity. The amount of the security for performance shall not exceed the total of the estimated cost to initiate and maintain appropriate conservation action based on unit price for new public or private sector construction in the locality and a reasonable allowance for estimated administrative costs and inflation which shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the cost of the conservation action. Should it be necessary for the Department of Public Works to take such conservation action, the Department of Public Works shall collect from the applicant any costs in excess of the amount of the surety held. (See Appendix 2 for estimated amounts). Within sixty (60) days of adequate stabilization, as determined by the Departmcnt of Public Works in any project or section of a project, such bond, cash escrow or letter of credit, or the unexpended or unobligated portion thereof, shall be either refunded to the applicant or terminated, based upon the percentage of stabilization accomplished in the project or project section. Section 10-5 .E. shall not apply to the construction of single- family residences. F. These requirements are in addition to all other provisions relating to the issuance of permits and are not intended to otherwise affect the requirements for such permits. Section 79-6. Monitoring, Reports and Inspections A. The Department of Public Works shall require the person responsible for carrying out the plan to monitor the land disturbing activity. The person responsible for carrying out the plan will maintain records of these inspections and maintenance, to ensure compliance with the approved plan and to determine whether the measures required in the plan are effective in controlling erosion and sedimentation. B. The Department of Public Works shall periodically inspect the land-disturbing activity in accordance with Section 4V AC50-30-60 of the "Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations" to ensure compliance with the approved plan and to determine whether the measures required in the plan are effective in controlling erosion and sedimentation. The owner, permittee, or person responsible for carrying out the plan, shall be given notice of the inspection. The inspection frequency shall comply with Frederick County's approved alternate inspection schedule. (See Appendix 3). If the Department of Public Works determines that there is a failure to comply with the plan, notice shall be served upon the permittee or person responsible for carrying out the plan by registered or certified mail to the address specified in the permit application or in the plan certification, or by delivery at the site of the land-disturbing activities to the agent or employee supervising such activities. The notice to comply shall specify the corrective measures required to comply with the approved plan and shall specify the timeframe within such measures shall be completed. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 130 Upon failure to comply with the notice within the specified time, the land disturbance permit may be revoked and the permittee or person responsible for carrying out the plan shall be deemed to be in violation ofthis ordinance and shall be subject to the penalties provided by this ordinance. If the land disturbance permit has been revoked, the permittee shall re-apply for the land disturbance permit and pay all applicable fees prior to re-commencing the project. C. Upon determination ofa violation of this ordinance, the Department of Public Works shall, in conjunction with or subsequent to a notice to comply as specified in this ordinance, issue an order requiring that all or part of the land disturbing activities permitted on the site be stopped until the specified corrective measures have been addressed. lfland disturbing activities have commenced without an approved plan, the Department of Public Works shall, in conjunction with or subsequent to a notice to comply as specified in this ordinance, issue an order requiring that all or part of the land disturbing activity be stopped until an approved plan and a land disturbance permit has been obtained. Immediate stabilization may be required until the plan is approved and a land disturbance permit issued. Where the alleged noncompliance is causing or is in imminent danger of causing harmful erosion of lands or sediment deposition in waters within the watersheds of the Commonwealth, or where the land-disturbing activities have commenced without an approved plan or any required permits, a Stop Work Order shall be issued without regard to whether the permittee has been issued a notice to comply as specified in this ordinance. Otherwise, such an order may be issued only after the permittee has failed to comply with such a Notice to Comply. If the alleged violator has not obtained an approved plan or a land disturbance permit within seven days from the date of the Stop Work Order, the Department of Public Works may issue an order to the owner requiring that all construction and other work on the site, other than corrective measures, be stopped until an approved plan and a land disturbance permit has been obtained. The Stop Work Order shall be served upon the owner by registered or certified mail to the address specified in the land disturbance permit or the land records of Frederick County. The Stop Work Order shall be served in the same manner as a notice to comply, and shall remain in effect for a period of seven days from the date of service pending application by the enforcing authority or permit holder for appropriate relief to the Circuit Court of the County. The owner may appeal the issuance of a Stop Work Order to the Circuit Court of the County. Any person violating or failing, neglecting or refusing to obey an order issued by the Department of Public Works may be compelled in a proceeding instituted in the Circuit Court ofthe County to obey same and to comply therewith by injunction, mandamus or other appropriate remedy. Upon completion and approval of corrective action or obtaining an approved plan or any required permits, the order shall immediately be lifted. Nothing in this section shall prevent the Department of Public Works from taking any other action authorized by this ordinance. Section 79-7. Penalties, Injunctions, and Other Legal Actions A. Violators of this ordinance shall be guilty of a Class I misdemeanor. B. Any person who violates any provision of this ordinance shall, upon a finding of the District Court ofthe County, be assessed a civil penalty. The civil penalty for anyone Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 131 violation shall be $100, except that the civil penalty for commencement of land- disturbing activities without an approved plan shall be $1,000. Each day during which the violation is found to have existed shall constitute a separate offense. In no event shall a series of specified violations arising from the same operative set of facts result in civil penalties which exceed a total of$3,000, except that a series of violations arising from the commencement of land-disturbing activities without an approved plan for any site shall not result in civil penalties which exceed a total of$IO,OOO. C. The Department of Public Works, or the owner or property which has sustained damage, or which is in imminent danger of being damaged, may apply to the Circuit Court of the County to enjoin a violation or a threatened violation of this ordinance, without the necessity of showing that an adequate remedy at law does not exist. However, an owner of property shall not apply for injunctive relief unless (i) he has notified in writing the person who has violated the local program, and the program authority, that a violation of the local program has caused, or creates a probability of causing, damage to his property, and (ii) neither the person who has violated the local program nor the program authority has taken corrective action within fifteen days to eliminate the conditions which have caused, or create the probability of causing, damage to his property. D. In addition to any criminal penalties provided under this ordinance, any person who violates any provision ofthis ordinance may be liable to the County in a civil action for damages. E. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this section, any person violating or failing, neglecting, or refusing to obey any injunction, mandamus or other remedy obtained pursuant to this section shall be subject, in the discretion of the court, to a civil penalty not to exceed $2,000 for each violation. A civil action for such violation or failure may be brought by the Department of Public Works. Any civil penalties assessed by a court shall be paid into the Treasurer of the County, except that where the violator is the locality itself, or its agent, the court shall direct the penalty to be paid into the state treasury. F. With the consent of any person who has violated or failed, neglected or refused to obey any regulation or condition of a permit or any provision of this ordinance, the Department of Public Works may provide for the payment of civil charges for violations in specific sums, not to exceed the limit specified in Subsection E of this section. Such civil charges shall be instead of any appropriate civil penalty which could be imposed under Subsection E. G. The County Attorney shall, upon request of the Department of Public Works, take legal action to enforce the provisions ofthis ordinance. H. Compliance with the provisions of this ordinance shall be prima facie evidence in any legal or equitable proceeding for damages caused by erosion, siltation or sedimentation that all requirements of law have been met, and the complaining party must show negligence in order to recover any damages. Section 79-8. Appeals and Judicial Review A. Any applicant under the provision of this ordinance who is aggrieved by any action of the Department of Public Works or its agent in disapproving plans submitted pursuant to this ordinance shall have the right to apply for and receive a review of such action by the County Board of Supervisors provided an appeal is filed within 30 days from the date of the action. Any applicant who seeks an appeal hearing before the County Board of Supervisors shall be heard at the next regularly scheduled meeting provided that they and other involved parties have at least 30 days prior notice. In reviewing the agent's actions, the County Board of Supervisors shall consider evidence and opinions presented by the Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 132 aggrieved applicant and agent. After considering the evidence and opinions, the County Board of Supervisors may affirm, reverse or modify the action. The County Board of Supervisors' decision shall be final, subject only to review by the Circuit Court of the County. B. Final decisions ofthe Department of Public Works under this ordinance shall be subject to review by the Circuit Court ofthe County, provided an appeal is filed within 30 days from the date of any written decision adversely affecting the rights, duties, or privileges of the person engaging in or proposing to engage in land disturbing activities. Sections 79-9 through 79-25 (Reserved) The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING - REOUEST OF ROY AND LORETTA MCDONALD TO REMOVE TWO PARCELS TOTALING 37.95 ACRES FROM THE SOUTH FREDERICKAGRICUL TURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT. THESE PARCELS ARE IDENTIFIED AS PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 84-A-49B LOCATED ALONG V AUCLUSE ROAD (ROUTE 638), AND PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 72-A-85 LOCATED ALONG MIDDLE ROAD (ROUTE 628). IN THE BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT- APPROVED Planner II Abbe Kennedy presented this request to the Board advising that the Planning Commission recommended approval. Supervisor Tyler asked Mr. McDonald ifthere was anything that could have been done so that he would not have had to make this request? Mr. McDonald replied no. Diane McMillan, Opequon District, advised what she felt could have been done in order to have kept these two parcels within the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. She feels the County needs to do more to get the plight of the farmers turned around. Dr. Gary DeOms, County Extension Agent, feels the State needs to become more involved with this program as he feels they have not been doing their share. He further encouraged the Board to approve this request. Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the above request of Roy and Loretta McDonald was approved by the following recorded vote: Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 133 Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - REOUEST OF MARKER-MILLER ORCHARDS L.P.. TO REMOVE ONE PARCEL TOTALING 234.33 ACRES FROM THE SOUTH FREDERICK AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT. THIS PARCEL IS IDENTIFIED AS PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 62-A-29 IN THE BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED Planner II Abbe Kennedy presented this request to the Board advising that the Planning Commission recommended approval. Pam Kennedy, Gainesboro District, stated that she was sorry to see this happen. Mr. Marker was present on behalf of this request. Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the above request of Marker-Miller Orchards was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - REVISED REZONING APPLICATION #1 0-99 OF AROGAS. INC. ("MR. FUEL"). SUBMITTED BY TRIAD ENGINEERING. TO REZONE 9.73 + ACRES FROM M2 (INDUSTRIAL GENERAL) TO B3 (INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION) AND TO 1A (INTERSTATE AREA OVERLAY) DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED 500' + SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF REST CHURCH ROAD (RT. 669) AND MARTINSBURG PIKE (ROUTE 11). BETWEEN ROUTE 11 AND 1-81 CONTINUING SOUTH TO DUNCAN RUN. AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS 33-A-91 AND 33A- A-12 IN THE STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - WITHDRAWN OTHER PLANNING ITEMS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #03-02 OF HARTWOOD SUBDIVISION - APPROVED Planner II Abbe Kennedy presented this request to the Board advising that the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. She further advised that the applicant's representative indicated the 25'-30' area of off-site dedicated right-of-way for Double Church Road (Route 641), incorporated into the MDP, which will allow tapering for safety and better alignment with the entrance to Woodside estates to the north. The applicant's representative indicated that this Minute Book Nnmber 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 134 design, which was a part of the rezoning proffer, mitigates VDOT's concerns. Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Smith, Master Development Plan #03-02 of Hartwood Subdivision was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Supervisor Smith addressed the drainage problems that are occurring in his district and it continues to be a real problem for him. He feels it is the biggest problem he has within his district. Supervisor Sager addressed the concerns with the West Nile Virus within the County and asked all citizens to check any areas for stagnant water and should they have any questions to please contact the State Health Department. Supervisor Forrester advised that many ofthe Board's meetings have been starting early and running pretty late, and by the end of the meeting she is pretty rung out. She knows many people have worked all day, including staff, and she was wondering if the Board could follow the same procedure as the Planning Commission, in that they adjourn all their meetings at 10:00 P.M. The unfinished business would be taken up at the next regular meeting. Administrator Riley stated that ifhe could vote, he would vote for that. Supervisor Tyler stated that during the Board Vision meetings this had been discussed and a work session would be held on the items that does not require action, so much, and have your public hearings once a month, etc. Perhaps this is something the Board could work on. She is not interested in having the public hearings during the day, but sometimes a worksession to take care of great volumes. Administrator Riley advised the Board that staff would look at a couple of options and provide this information back to the Board. Chairman Shickle asked Supervisor Forrester for a little more information on what she would like to see done. Supervisor F orresterwas looking for something in the interim until such time as the By-Laws ofthe Board are approved. It would be more fair to staff, given that many ofthem have been here Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 135 since 8:00 A.M. this morning and now it is 11:00 P.M., and the first part of this meeting started at 5:00 P.M. with a worksession. We should not feel rushed that we have to finish everything and sit here feeling so tired that no one wants to bring another issue up, if we could just set a time, and anything left after that item would be taken up at the next meeting. She feels if we start at 7 P.M. then we could adjourn at 11 P.M.; however, ifthere is an earlier worksession then she feels a good time to adjourn would be 10:00 P.M. Chairman Shickle asked the Board ifthey would like Administrator Riley to draw up a draft on this issue and bring it back for the Board's review at a future meeting. Administrator Riley advised that he would have it at the next meeting. Supervisor Tyler - Talking about our vision process. I understand the reason for the "Public Comment" period to be changed, I understand with earnest that the Chairman and the Administrator want somehow to protect us or whatever. She is not interested in that, it doesn't matter to her as she is at the meetings to hear both sides of the story. She wants the public to come up and feel free to be able to speak without being muzzled, this is her opinion. She wanted to talk about a consensus for the Board and she spoke to the division. The division is not present amongst the Board members. She feels the division has been going on for a year and a half or longer in this community. For the present Board to be blamed, whether they are old remaining Board Members or new Board Members is not doing a service. Administrator Riley in his wisdom, and perhaps not so wisdom thought that this Board could come together to find consensus. She thought that when the Board was meeting during their visioning that it was working quite well. She thinks the Board has a lot of commonality, but if something does not change quickly with this Board coming back to the Visioning process, which she keeps pulling the people back to the table again. I would suggest, as she did at the last subcommittee meeting, perhaps they need to take all seven chairs into each magisterial district and listen to what the people say. Instead of a top down driven vision, it's a bottom up driven vision. It is not this Board that is so torn and divided, it is the County as well. We need to work together in a community. Ifwe do not find a middle ground and a moderate road, some of us will either hold one direction, the other side will be continuing with their old agenda, and nothing is getting accomplished, staff is not being lifted up and the community is continuing to be divided. She is not going to play those games, she is trying not to play those games, but she is being accused of dividing, the Board is being divided because of us, excuse me, it was the other way around. This Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 136 community has been divided for a very long time, and hopefully when we work on this Northeast Land Use Plan, which is what a lot of people in the County have problems with, this can be something that everyone can work together, find our common ground, work toward those means and lets go on with business. UPON MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR FORRESTER, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR SMITH, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. (TIME: 10:55 P.M.) ~ f ~() ~ Richard C. Shickle Chairman, Board of Supervisors Minutes Prepared By: ~~ \-~ < :D"-'-,-, '~-'--"--~) Carol T. Bayliss \ Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02