Loading...
August 27, 1975 to September 24, 19751 .I At a Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir ginia, held on the 27th day of August, 1975, in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT: Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman; J. Robert Russell, Vice Chairman; Dennis T. le; Donald R. Hodgson; and Richard F. Madigan. The Chairman called the meeting to AL OF MINUTES Upon motion made by J. Robert Russell and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virgini does herein approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of this Board held on July 23, • 1975 as submitted. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. ; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard . Madigan, Aye. APPROVAL OF BILLS Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virgini does herein approve the bills for the month of July, 1975 in the amount of $26,074.84 • and does order the same paid by Warrants #11117- #11164. Madigan, Aye. ; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy E HOME PERMIT - RICHARD SMITH - APPROVED Upon motion made by J. Robert Russell and seconded by Richard F. Madigan, BE IT- RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virgini herein approve the mobile home permit of Richard Smith located on Route 608 in Gainesboro Magisterial-District. • The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. REQUEST FOR REFUND - REZONING FEE - BEST FLEET CONTRACTORS - APPROVED Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virg herein approve a refund in the amount of $101.00 to Best Fleet Contractors for payment of a rezoning fee, as recommended by the Frederick County Planning r � LJ The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy ; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard Madigan, Aye. DEED OF EASEMENT - COUNTY OF FREDERICK AND FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY - APPROVED Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan, BE IT RESOLVED,-That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virg s herein approve the following Deed of Easement between the County of Frederick and Frederick County Sanitation Authority and does herein authorize the Chairman and County Administrator to execute said agreement on behalf of the County: THIS DEED OF EASEMENT, made this day of G 1975, by and between County of Frederick, of the one part, hereinafter call- ed the Grantor, and Frederick County Sanitation Authority, of the other part, hereinafter called the Grantee. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Dollars ($ ), cash in hand paid, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor herewith grants and conveys, unto the Grant- ee, with General warranty of Title, a permanent sewer easement 10 feet in width together with ad jacent temporary construction easements 10 feet in width on both sides of said permanent easement, all being as shown on plat of Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. dated May, 1975, attached hereto and incorporated herein in full by this reference, said easements being over and upon land dedicated to the County of Frederick by deed of dedication dat- ed February 28, 1967, and duly recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 404, at Page 90. The 10 foot wide permanent easement for sewer herein conveyed grants to the Grantee the perpetual right to install, lay and maintain a sanitary sewer main, including the right to go on, over and upon the said permanent ease- ment for the purpose of installing, laying, maintaining, repairing and re- placing the same as needed, and the said temporary construction easements grant to the Grantee the right to enter upon them to the extent necessary for and during the original construction, installation and laying of the said sanitary sewer main, said temporary easements to expire upon complet- ion.of construction of the said main. Grantor shall retain the right to use its land which is subject to the easements acquired herein in any manner which shall not interfere with the use and enjoyment of said rights by Grant- ee. Grantor shall at all times have the right to cross over and upon the said easements and to use the surface over the easements in such manner as will neither injure nor interfere with the construction, operation or main- tenance of the sanitary sewer main, except that no building or other struc- ture shall be erected over said 10 foot wide permanent easement unless by mutual consent of the parties or their successors. Whenever the enjoyment of its rights hereunder requires Grantee to disturb the surface of the ground, it shall be the obligation of Grantee to restore the same to its condition prior to being so disturbed at Grantee's expense. WITNESS the following signature and seal: COUNTY OF FREDERICK By Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman Frederick County Board of Supervisors Attesting Seal: J. O. Renalds, III County Administrator STATE OF VIRGINIA, OF To -wit: I , a Notary Public in and for the State and aforesaid, do certify that Raymond C. Sandy, whose name as Chairman of Frederick County Board of Supervisors, is signed to the foregoing writing, bearing date on the day of 1975, personally appeared before We this day in my said and in the name and on behalf of the said County, acknow- ledged the said writing as the act and deed of the said County, and made oath that he is Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the said County and that the seal affixed to said writing is the true seal of the said County and that it has been affixed thereto by due authority. Given under my hand this day of 1975. My commission expires Notary Public The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. SUBDIVISIONS GARBER SUBDIVISION - GAINESBORO MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED Mr. Sandy stated that this subdivision was tabled at the August 13, 1975 Meeting in order that the Commonwealth Attorney might research this request to determine whether or not this request would constitute a plat revision or the establishment of a new subdivision, and that Mr. Ambrogi had advised that no legal action was necessai inasmuch as the request was to reset the subdivision lines. Upon motion made by Donald R. Hodgson and seconded by J. Robert Russell, • E • • L JI BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir -.. 3 ginia does herein approve the request of Garber Subdivision in Gainesboro Magisterial District to redivide two 3- acre.lots into three lots of two acres or more. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Abstaining stating that he felt the property should be rezoned before ac- tion is taken. LONE OAK SUBDIVISION - OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED Mr. Sandy stated that this subdivision request was tabled at the August 13, 1975 • Meeting in order that the Commonwealth Attorney might research this request to deter- mine the proper procedure to be followed by the Board. Mr. Berg stated that Mr. Ambrogi had advised that this is a revision of the plat and not a change in the deed covenants. Mr. Clinton Ritter stated that he felt everything was in order on this subdivi- sion request and the Board should act accordingly. Mr. Madigan asked if signatures from the lot owners should be obtained and Mr. • Ritter stated he did not feel this was necessary inasmuch as the intent of the subdi- vision would not be changed and there was no variance in the deed of dedication. Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- I ginia does herein approve the request of Lone Oak Subdivision located in Opequon Mag- isterial District for a plat revision to enlarge several lots. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote Raymond C. Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan,. Abstaining stating that he did not clearly understand the procedure ed by the Board. FRAULA, CHAIRMAN - ELECTORAL BOARD - ADDRESSES BOARD - RE: KERNSTOWN PRECINCT Mr. Bill Fraula appeared before the Board and stated that he wanted to address • the Board in response to the recent change in the Kernstown Precinct polling place from Schenk Foods to the Shenandoah Gas Company. He explained the reasons the Elec- toral Board had in making this request and stated that the Electoral Board would re- quest that the change be retained. A discussion followed and it was the feeling of the Board to leave the Kernstown Precinct polling place location at Shenandoah Gas Company for the present time. Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- • ginia does herein direct that the polling place in Kernstown Precinct be retained at Shenandoah Gas Company as approved by this Board on July 9, 1975. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. PRESENTATION OF OPINION FROM COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY - NONCONFORMING LOTS Mr. Renalds presented the following opinion from the Commonwealth Attorney on nonconforming lots: Section 17 -6 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance adopted November 1, 1973 reads as follows: . "NONCONFORMING LOTS: Any approved lot of record at the time of the adoption of this ordinance which is less in area or width than the minimum required by this ordinance may be used as originally approv- ed subject to the zoning uses in effect immediately prior to the adopt - ion::of this ordinance." In view of this, it is my opinion that the Zoning Administration must - - - -u W enforce provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and cannot consider in his de- cisions the requirements of any Subdivision Ordinances or provisions made on plats or in Deed Restrictions. /s/ Lawrence R. Ambrogi Lawrence R. Ambrogi Commonwealth Attorney The Board accepted this recommendation. FREDERICK COUNTY PARKS AND R JOINT MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CREATION COMMISSION PHASE I - STEPHENS CITY PARK - Mr. William Pike stated that neighborhood meetings had been held in the last fewl weeks to get the citizens input on the future development of the Stephens City Park. Mr. James Bell appeared before the Board and presented the Master Plan of the Stephens City Park. A lengthy discussion followed on the different Phases of this plan and the var- ious facilities to be provided at the park. Funding was discussed at length and Mr. Bell explained the method to be fol in order to receive state - funding from the COR. Upon motion made by Donald R. Hodgson and seconded by Richard F. Madigan, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia does herein approve Phase I of the Stephens City Park as submitted this date the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Commission and their consultant Mr. James Bell. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and F. Madigan, Aye. CITIZEN COMPLAINT - DUST CONTROL CLEARBROOK PARK PARKING LOT A gentleman in the audience appeared before the Board and stated that he lived next to the parking lot at Clearbrook Park and that he was experiencing severe pro- blem with the dust from the parking lot. He requested the Board to make some impro ment to the parking lot in order to alleviate this problem. The Board requested Mr. Pike to get estimates on the paving of this parking lot and present them to the Board at the next Regular Meeting. Mr. Pike advised the Board that there were several problems at Clearbrook Park that needed attention such as more parking space, better sign markings in the park, and restroom facilities. The Board advised Mr. Pike to consider all of these things when he prepares his programs and budget next year. DIRECTOR OR PARKS AND RECREATION TO ATTEND COMMUNITY SCHOOLS CONFERENCE Mr. Walters stated that inasmuch as the County is in the process of building a new high school, the Commission felt the Board should consider entering into a com- munity school program wherein school facilities and recreational facilities are used jointly to provide better programs for the citizens. He further stated that there would be a Community Education Awareness Conference in September in Charlottesville and he would request that the Board allow Mr. Pike to attend this conference. He further requested the Board to approve Mr. Pike working very closely with Dr. Wright while the new high school is being planned and constructed in order that this prograi might be included when the school is completed. Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia does herein approve the attendence of William D. Pike, Director of Parks and I • E • n U Recreation, at the'Community Education Awareness Conference to be held on September and 29, 1975 in Charlottesville, Virginia, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board does direct Mr. Pike to work very closely with Dr. Wright and the Frederick County School Board in the planning and of the new high school in order that a Community School Program might be included the school is completed. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. S ye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. UPON.MOTION DULY MADE SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY IT IS ORDERED THAT THE • BOARD DO NOW ADJOURN. rman Ba.•o At a Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- • Iginia, held on the 10th day of September, 1975, in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT: Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman; J. Robert Russell, Vice Chairman; Dennis T Cole; Donald R. Hodgson; and Richard F. Madigan. DR. WRIGHT ADDRESSES BOARD RELATIVE TO PROPOSED HIGH SCHOOL SITE Dr. Wright appeared before the Board and presented a report from the School Boa on an option taken on a site for the proposed new high school. He presented enroll- ment documents and a fact sheet on the proposed tract of land and explained the meth of financing proposed by the School Board for the purchase of the property stating t through this method the land would cost approximately $4,196 per acre. 9 Dr. Wright described the location of the property and stated that the Site Selec • tion Committee had viewed several sites and had decided that this would be a very goo site for the new high school. He stated that the property could be served with water and sewer, was within easy access to the rest of the County and would tie in very closely with James Wood. Dr. Wright advised that the School Board had taken a sixty day option and would welcome any comments on the proposed site prior to the option deadline of October 31, 1975. Mr. Sandy asked what information was discussed in relation to areas of popula growth and population trends in the county. Dr. Wright stated that the School Board felt it would be best not to locate the • new school in a highly congested area or an area containing industry and therefore felt the southern section of the County where the fastest growth is taking place at the present time not be as good a location as the proposed site.. He also sties ed that the site should be as close to James Wood as possible inasmuch as this would be one school on two campuses. Mr. Sandy suggested that the School Board considered remodeling James Wood to I serve as one high school and then constructing another high school in the southern part of the County. Dr. Wright stated that this decision should have been reached before the renova- tion at James Wood began. He further stated that the Board should consider the fact that should the County have two high schools, many departments would have to be dup- licated, as well as personnel. M There was lengthy discussion as to how soon the County could expect to outgrow the new facility as it is presently planned and Dr. Wright advised that he felt the Board could expect to build another school in the future according to present growth projections. Mr. Sandy again stated that he felt the ideal situation would be to have two hi schools, one at each end of the County. Dr. Wright suggested that the Board of Supervisors and the School Board hold a joint meeting to discuss this matter at length before the option deadline on October 31,.1975. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT - SECONDARY ROAD BUDGET PRESENTED - SUPERVISORS REQUESTS PRESENTED Mr. Chiles appeared before the Board and presented the Secondary Budget for the Secondary Roads System for'fiscal year 1975 -1976. He stated that this year the funds for Virginia had been reduced by $40 million dollars and that Frederick County's allo- cation had been reduced by $98,000. Mr. Chiles then briefly reviewed the budget as i relates to Frederick County. Mr. Cole asked Mr. Chiles when the bridge on Route 660 damaged in the recent flooding would be repaired and what funds would be used to do this repair work. Mr. the bridge to be repaired before winter. Chiles advised that the money would have to come from other projects and he expected Mr. Madigan requested the Highway Department to check into a curve at the bottom) of Fox Ridge on Route 608 inasmuch as he had received a complaint from a school bus driver that this is a dangerous curve. Mr. Chiles agreed to check into this matter. Mr. Russell asked Mr. Chiles what progress had been made on the turn on Route 501 West where several accidents have occurred in the past two years. Mr. Chiles stated that this section of road had recently been resurfaced inasmuch as the Highway Depar ment felt that the slippery conditions had caused the above mentioned accidents. He advised that the Highway Department is currently seeking funds to locate guard rails in the area as well as warning signs. STATE DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST FORMS DISCUSSED The state disclosure of interest form was discussed. The discussion included what would be listed on the form and when and where it should be filed. Mr. Ambrogi advised the Board that the form should be completed and filed with the Clerk of the (Circuit Court by December 31, 1975 and should list any business, partnership, etc. in which they might have an interest in the State of Virginia. Mr. Cole stated that he felt this form should also be filed by members of the (Sanitation Authority, Planning Commission, School Board and any other commissions, )boards and authorities of the County. Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein request an amendment to Section 2.1- 353.1, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended to expand the coverage for disclosures of real estate holdings to include all Boards, Authoritites and Commissions of a locality. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard) F. Madigan, Aye. Mr. Elmer W. Verguson, appeared before the Board, representing Lakeside Estates VIRGINIA LAKESIDE WATER AND SEWER COMPANY - APPL AND CONVENIENCE - APPROVED Water and Sewer Company, and stated that they had received several complaints about FOR CERTIFI OF NECESSITY I 1 J • • • I � l L • �7. the condition of the water. He explained the situation and the steps necessary to cc rect the problem. He advised that they were working diligently to solve the problem. Mr.. Madigan asked Mr. if they had considered hooking onto the lines whi were within 4000 feet of this subdivision and Mr. Verguson stated that they had not considered this and it would depend upon the cost involved. Mr. Madigan asked what would happen when the Sanitation Authority is ready to serve this area and Mr. Renalds stated that Danac would have the right to serve this ea. Mr. Renalds then read a recommendation from the Frederick County Sanitation Au ty wherein the Authority advised that they did not have plans to serve this area in near future. • I Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell, WHEREAS, The Virginia Lakeside Sewer and Water Company has purchased all the as- sets of the Lakeside Sewer and Water Company which had been operating an approved al sewer and water system servicing a certain tract of.land containing 360 acres in the Opequon Magisterial District; located about one and one -half (1 1/2) miles Ea f U. S. Highway 11, and about two and one -half "(2 1/2) miles to three (3) miles Nor east of the town of Stephens City, Virginia; and, WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, did by resoluti enacted on August 11, 1969, approve the application of Lakeside Sewer and Water Compa • to the State Corporation Commission for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Neces sity in the area designated therein; and, WHEREAS, The Code of Virginia prohibits the transfer of the Certificate of Con- and Necessity to a successor in interest; and, WHEREAS, Section 56 -265.3 requires the Board of Supervisors to approve the appli tion of the Virginia Lakeside Sewer and Water Company for a Certificate of Conven- and Necessity pursuant to the requirements >of Chapter 10.1 of the Code of Vir- inia entitled "Utility Facilities Act "; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That upon examination of the application of Vir- ginia Lakeside Sewer and Water Company for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity in the area aforementioned, the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County do hereby grant approval for said petition. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C- Sand Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Abstaining. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - BLUE RIDGE MOBILE HOME PARK - APPROVED Mr. Berg presented the application for conditional use permit of Mr. Jerry UpDyk • Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park, for the addition of 10 spaces stating that the Board had previously approved 10 spaces in this mobile home park about a year ago. He stated that health permits had been obtained on the additional 10 lots. Mr. Madigan expressed concern about the size of the park when it is completed, stating that the Board had previously turned down a mobile home park because of its size and impact on the County. Upon motion made by Donald R. Hodgson and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein approve the application for conditional use permit of Jerry UpDyke Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park,:,Aocated in Shawnee Magisterial District, for the additio of 10spaces to said mobile home park. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sand 0 Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard) F. Madigan, Nay. REPORT AND CLAIM - CARPER - APPROVED Mr. Harold Whitacre, County_Dog'Warden,_ appeared before the Board and - esented his..monthly report,_;.and one claim -for livestock kill. Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein approve the claim for livestock kill of James H. Carper for the loss of 1 cow and 1 calf in the amount of $150.00. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard) F. Madigan, Aye. Mr. Whitacre stated that the road into the dog kennel through the old landfill site is not working out satisfactorily and there was very little police protection at the kennel due to the fact that the deputies cannot get in to patrol the area. He stated that there had been several break -ins at the kennel and he requested that the dog kennel road be repaired in order to alleviate the problem. Mr. Cole asked Mr. Whitacre if he could prove someone was breaking in and steal -I ing dogs at the kennel and if he had ever gotten a conviction on this charge. Mr. Whitacre stated that he could prove there were break -ins and he had gotten al conviction on this above mentioned charge approximately 3 weeks ago. There was discussion as to the cost involved in repairing the road either with County equipment or a private firm. Mr. Cole stated that the County presently has a road through County property and he felt the Board should look toward the future and plan to make use of this property He stated that he felt any money spent on a road should be a road on County property. Mr. Madigan moved to approve the repair of the road to the dog kennel with coun property and if the repair could not be accomplished with county property the repair be put out to bid. This motion died for lack of a second. • ACCEPTANCE OF BID STUART M. PERRY, INC. FOR APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTA APPROPRIATION IN T PARK PARKING LOT AND Mr. Renalds presented the bids received for the paving of the parking lot at Clearbrook Park as follows: Stuart M. Perry, Inc. - Alternative #1 $6,575 Alternative #2 $10,950 Perry Engineering Inc.- Alternative #1 $7,122 Alternative #2 $12,325 Mr. Sandy stated that he felt this money could be spent elsewhere in the County for a much better purpose than resurfacing the parking lot at Clearbrook Park. Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein accept the bid of Stuart M. Perry, Inc. for the paving of the par ing lot at Clearbrook Park in the amount of $10,950.00 set forth on the bid proposal as Alternative #2, said work to be performed in accordance with the specifications ecuted by Stuart M. Perry, Inc. and delivered to the County Administrator's Office on September 9, 1975; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this Board does herein approve a supplemental appro- I priation in the amount of $10,950.00 to cover the cost of the above bid proposal for Ithe paving of the parking lot at Clearbrook Park. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: J. Robert Russel • a Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; Richard F. Madigan, Aye; and Raymo C. Sandy, Nay. Mr. Pike stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission further suggested that a pub lic meeting be held in this area to receive public input on this proposal. Mr. Renalds stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission could hold a public hearing to receive public input and then report back to the Board for action on this • proposal. The Board agreed to this procedure. PROCEDURE FOR BIRD REMOVAL - CLEARBROOK PARK - DISCUSSED Mr. Pike reported that the State Agriculture Department, Bird Specialist, would be assisting in the removal of the birds at Clearbrook Park. He further stated that the cost of this procedure would be approximately $300.00 and Mr. David Gochenour had agreed to pay one —third of this cost. • $500 DONATION - ABEX CORPORATION - REPORTED Mr. Pike reported that the Parks and Recreation Department had received a $500 donation from the Abex Corporation and this donation had been deposited with the County Treasurer. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CETA TITLE II CONTRACT - APPROVED Mr. Renalds stated that a resolution was necessary by the governing body approv- ing the execution of the CETA Title II Contract in order to receive the funds allocat ed for Frederick County under this program. Mr. Dickson explained the program and some of the positions requested under this • SALE OF ARMEL COMMUNITY CENTER - DISCUSSED Mr. Pike stated that the Parks and Recreation had suggested selling Armel Com- the positions requested an munity Center at public auction due to the decline in interest in this particular com munity. He stated that the building is rarely used and perhaps the funds derived fro] the sale of the building could be used in the development of the Stephens City Park. Mr. Pike stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission further suggested that a pub lic meeting be held in this area to receive public input on this proposal. Mr. Renalds stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission could hold a public hearing to receive public input and then report back to the Board for action on this • proposal. The Board agreed to this procedure. PROCEDURE FOR BIRD REMOVAL - CLEARBROOK PARK - DISCUSSED Mr. Pike reported that the State Agriculture Department, Bird Specialist, would be assisting in the removal of the birds at Clearbrook Park. He further stated that the cost of this procedure would be approximately $300.00 and Mr. David Gochenour had agreed to pay one —third of this cost. • $500 DONATION - ABEX CORPORATION - REPORTED Mr. Pike reported that the Parks and Recreation Department had received a $500 donation from the Abex Corporation and this donation had been deposited with the County Treasurer. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CETA TITLE II CONTRACT - APPROVED Mr. Renalds stated that a resolution was necessary by the governing body approv- ing the execution of the CETA Title II Contract in order to receive the funds allocat ed for Frederick County under this program. Mr. Dickson explained the program and some of the positions requested under this • program. Mr. Cole requested that the Finance Committee discuss the positions requested an ' make a recommendation to the Board on this matter. Mr. Dickson stated that the deadline for execution of the Contract was September 12th and the positions and /or amendments could be approved at the Board meeting on th 24th of September. Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that the Board does hereby grant authority to the County Administrator to execute the CETA Title II Sub- Contract Agreement between the County of Frederick and the Virginia Employment Com- mission; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the County Administrator act as the official repre- sentative of the County in dealing with this grant; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the standard assurances and certificates will be complied with. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and R F. Madigan, Aye. Mr. Sandy stated that he felt the funds should be used in the County and not in the towns of Stephens City and Middletown inasmuch as they have the taxing power to , provide for additional personnel in their respective jurisdictions. 10 RECESSES FOR Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed unanimously, the Board recessed for at 5:05 P.M. ,RD RECONVENES The Board reconvened into Regular Session at 7:00 P.M. The Chairman called the meeting to order. APPROVAL OF BILLS Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- nia, does herein approve the bills for the month of August in the amount of $76,596. does order the same paid by Warrants #11334 through #11495. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard Madigan, Aye. )ROVAL OF PAYROLL Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- inia, does herein approve the payroll for the month of August in the amount of 67,266.16 and does order the same paid by Warrants #11165 through #11272% The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard Madigan, Aye. LE HOME PERMITS - KECKLEY, TRIPLETT TURNER - APPROVED Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein approve the following mobile home permits: 1. Winfred Keckley - Back Creek District 2. William Triplett - Back Creek District 3. Jean Darling - Gainesboro District 4. Betty F. Turner,- . District The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. S e; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973 TO REZONE 1144.297 ACRES OF J. L. BOWMAN AND F. L. GLAIZE, III IN OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM AGRICULTURAL, GENERAL (A -2) TO RESID RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY - Mr. Bill Tisinger appeared before the Board with the petitioners in support of r application for rezoning. He described the plan for the proposed development stated .that it is intended to be a recreational community as opposed to a perman- t home community, Mr. Tisinger described the features to be included in the subdi ision including a lake, a dam, village centers, swimming pools,.tennis.courts, base- ball fields, picnic areas, and open spaces. He stated that the development would ha a private security system and nothing therein would be dedicated for public use. Mr. Tisinger stated that the impact figures for this development had not been c pleted in time for the meeting and therefore he requested that action on this rezoni request be delayed until the next regular meeting of the Board in order that these f ures might be available for inspection by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Ambrogi if it would be proper to hold the public hearing at this time and delay action until the next regular meeting and Mr. Ambrogi stated that U$ • 0 • 11 it would be proper to follow this procedure. Mr. Cole stated that he did see how the Board could hold a public hearing on matter when all the facts are not being presented at this time. Mr. Mason Larwood appeared before the Board in opposition to this rezoning • Ll and stated that he felt Mr. Cole's points were well taken. He then asked what assura the Board would have relative to the safety of the dam and who would inspect it to se that it remains in a safe condition. He asked if the erosion control ordinance had been complied with and if ,the County had made an inspection of the site for said com- pliance. Mr. Larwood stated that he felt the developers might be in conflict with a feder lation in their construction of the lake and asked that this be investigated. He d the Board to delay action on this matter until the impact study is presented an public has time to digest this information. Mr. -Ralph Myers appeared before the Board and urged the Board to delay action on request until ail the information is presented and considered by the Board and t public. He stated that this property is good agricultural land and he felt it should be kept in that use. Mr. Myers asked what assurances or control the Board would have to see that the development remains a recreational one as opposed to a permanent home development. He stated that he would question the acceptability of this land for sep tic systems and wells inasmuch as his property adjoins the proposed development and h has been unable to get a permit for such a system. Mr. Leonard Ellis appeared before the Board representing the Executive Board of Frederick County Taxpayers Association and presented the following statement: STATEMENT OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION FOR RELEASE SEPTEMBER 10, 1975 The Executive Board of the Frederick County Taxpayers Associa- tion is compelled to intervene in decisions being made by the County Board of Supervisors under a cloud of potential impropriety. There are currently pending, at various stages of planning, sev- eral proposals for development in Frederick County. I 1 LJ L J I An inventory of all of the decisions which this Board could make, which will be binding upon future County Supervisors, includes a var- iety of projects related to growth and representing millions of dol- lars in:costs to the county taxpayers. Among them are: *Committing the county to construction of a new high school while enlarging an existing one. *Rezoning 1144 acres of agricultural land for the wheat - lands recreational community. *Plans to develop the newly- acquired Stephens City Park. *Designating orchard /agricultural lands west of Route 37 for future development. *Plans for a regional sewage treatment plant. *Approval or disapproval of a long- awaited comprehen- sive Land Use Plan. The current of Supervisors is in the unique po.sture of - being investigated by the state police and a special grand jury. In the result - ant-environment of distrust and suspicion, our county government should exercise a higher degree of care to avoid even the appearance of impro- priety in its present decision - making activities. The ongoing investigations of past and present Board transactions should serve as a strong indication to Supervisors and other county offic- ials that their conduct will be carefully scrutinized and openly question- ed by county taxpayers. Virtually every day we learn of additional "potent- ial misconduct" by county officials - -- from HUD, from the Virginia State Police, from the County Auditor, and others. Under such a cloud of suspi- cion, it is difficult to understand why the Board does not defer its major planning and zoning decisions until a newly - elected Board assumes office in less than four months, and until a comprehensive Land Use Plan is in oper- ation. To continue its haphazard decision - making process will only further detract from the integrity of our county government which is already called into question; and will further hamstring the next county administration in executing a realistic Land Use Plan. As a "lame duck" body, this Board should merely finish its administrative housekeeping in the next few months and send these major proposals back to the drawing board. es 12_ The Frederick County Taxpayers Association will not stand by and watch county officials, who are virtually unaccountable to their constituents, destroy the agricultural character of our community and bankrupt the county treasury to help private developers finance haphazard growth in our county. Mr. Tisinger stated that he would investigate the various questions presented by the opposition. Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Tisinger if he had researched the bonding on the proposed velopment and Mr. Tisinger answered that he had looked into the matter but would not be so presumptuous as to offer the Board advice on this matter. Mr. Madigan asked Mrs:. Ambrogi if there was an unresolved legal question about bonding of such a subdivision or had this matter been resolved. Mr. Ambrogi stated that he thought it had been resolved when the Board amended their ordinance to read that a cash or surety bond was mandatory. Mr. Madigan asked if a bond would be required in a subdivision where the amenit are not to be dedicated to public use. Mr. Ambrogi stated that he would have to refer to the Attorney General's opinion the Board had requested a year or so ago. He stated that the Board had asked him for an opinion and he had given one and then they requested him to write to the Attorney General to get an opinion on this matter. Mr. Ambrogi stated that he had written a three or four page letter, and he would have to get the letter to provide any additioi al information on this matter. Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Renalds if he had the letter to which Mr. Ambrogi referred and Mr. Renalds stated that he did. Mr. Madigan asked if a bond was required when the amenities would not be dedica for public use. Mr. Ambrogi read the following section from the Frederick County Division of Ordinance: 4 -13. BOND: Before any subdivision plat will be finally approved and be- fore acceptance of dedication for public use of any right -of -way located within any subdivision which has constructed therein, or proposed to be constructed therein, any street, curb, gutter, sidewalk, drainage or sew- erage system or other improvement, financed or to be financed in whole or in part by private funds,the owner or developer must (1) - certify to the governing body that construction costs have been paid to the person con- structing such facilities, or (2) - furnish to the governing body a certi- fied check in the amount of the e costs of construction or a bond, with surety satisfactory to the governing body, in an amount sufficient for and conditioned upon the construction of such facilities. Mr. Madigan stated that if he understood the above section correctly, it applied to any amenities that would be dedicated to public use. He then asked Mr. Tisinger i any of the facilities in the proposed development would be dedicated for public use and Mr. Tisinger stated they would not: Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Ambrogi if it was correct that no bond would be required lasmuch as none of the amenities would be dedicated for public use. Mr. Cole stated that he felt according to the section of the ordinance prev read (4 -13) a bond would be required. Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Ambrogi if a bond would be required if the developers put lin their own water and sewer plant and Mr. Ambrogi stated that the County has been re- lquiring a bond to insure that the amenities are completed by the developer. Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Ambrogi where the Board gets the authority to require such la bond and Mr. Ambrogi stated from state statutes and the local ordinance. Mr. Madigan stated that in the case of Lake Holiday the Board bonded the devel Iment and not the utility company. Mr. Ambrogi stated that the bond was required to insure that the developer of Lake Holiday would complete the facilities. • • • • L IB Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Renalds who accompanied him on the trip to Richmond to 13 J cuss the bonding question with the State Corporation Commission and the Attorney General as requested by the Board on January .9, 1973. Mr. Renalds stated that Al Smith, Chuck Duvall, Ron Berg, Bob Fletcher, and Larry Ambrogi accompanied him on trip. Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Ambrogi what advice they had been given at this meeting IMr. Ambrogi stated that the matter had been discussed several hours and the State oration had subsequently written them a letter relative to this discussion. Mr. Renalds then read the letter from the State Corporation Commission. Mr. Madigan asked if the State Corporation Commission checks the finances and is sign for a utility company and then it falters what to the utility company then; does it become the County's responsibility to complete the project, put the lin in, finish the plans; whose responsibility is it to see that these utilities are fin- ished. Mr. Ambrogi stated that he felt the developer would be responsible because he would be bonded to the County. Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Ambrogi if the Governor had the authority to take over any 1 public utility to see that the services are performed and Mr. Ambrogi stated that he felt that under certain circumstances and conditions there are probably provisions f this action; that the governor has certain executive powers in emergency situations. Mr. Ambrogi stated that he felt this would apply to the larger public utilities such as VEPCO, PEPCO, etc. and not the smaller public Mr. Madigan stated that the Board would have to resolve this question inasmuch they are now facing a big project. He then requested Mr. Ambrogi to read Section 156 -509 of the Code. Mr. Ambrogi stated that he felt the matter had been resolved when the ordinance n U lwas amended. He then read Section 56 -509 of the Code as follows: §56 -509. Declaration of policy. -- The continuous,..uninterrupted and proper functioning and operation of public utilities engaged in the business of fur- nishing water, light, heat, gas, electric power,-transportation or communica- tion, or any one or more of them, to the people of Virginia are her de- clared to be essential to their welfare, health and safety. It is contrary to the public policy of the State to permit any substantial impairment or suspension of the operation of any such utility and it is the duty of the government of the State to exercise all available means and every power at its command to prevent the same so as to protect its citizens from any dan- gers, perils,.calamities or catastrophes which would result therefrom. It is therefore further declared that such utilities are clothed with a vital public interest and to protect the same it is necessary that impairment or suspension of the operation of any such utility for any reason be prevented to the extent and by the means hereinafter provided. Mr. Madigan then asked Mr. Ambrogi to read Section 56 -510 of the Code. Mr. • Ambrogi read said Section as set forth below: §56 -510. Duty of Governor when there is threat of curtailment, interruption, etc., of operation -- Whenever in the judgment of the Governor there is an imminent threat of substantial curtailment, interruption or suspension in the operation of any public utility hereinabove mentioned he shall promptly make an investigation to determine whether, in his opinion, an actual cur- tailment, interruption or suspension of operation will constitute -a serious menace or threat to the public health, safety or welfare, and if he con- cludes that it will, he shall forthwith issue an executive proclamation so declaring and stating that at the time of such curtailment, interruption or suspension of operation he will take immediate possession of the utility, its plant and equipment, or so much thereof as maybe necessary, for the use of and operation by the Commonwealth. Where the Governor finds it ad- visable for effectuation of the purposes hereof he may by proclamation,ad- vance or defer such taking of possession. Mr. Madigan stated that he felt according to Section 56 -510 when any public util ity has a curtailment of operation by its present owners, it becomes the responsibili of the governor to take charge and not the County Board of Supervisors. Mr. Ambrogi stated that the County has the duty to insure that the developer pro vides the services. He further stated that the County is not bonding the utility com -' pany,.but the developer to insure that the amenities are completed. e Mr. Madigan stated that suppose the County has a $900,000 bond,be it a perform- 14 ance bond issued by a surety company or a corporate bond issued for performance, and by the time the developer falters the cost has risen to one and a half million dollars; if the County did not have a bond then the governor could take possession. Mr. Ambrogi stated that is one of the problems discussed by the Board previously. Mr. Cole stated that he had received a copy of a letter from the Attorney Gener - II ' al's Office recently asking what problems Frederick County was having with recreation al subdivisions and what the opinion of the governing body was in regard to writing stricter regulations on said subdivisions. He stated that he felt the state was try- ing to tell us something. Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Renalds if he had sent the Board a memorandum relative to the contents of the letter received on January 23rd from the State Corporation Com- mission and Mr. Renalds stated that to the best of his recollection, he felt the Boar • had received this letter. He further stated that the letter had been discussed at length both in executive and regular sessions and that he did not remember whether he had passed it out at a Board meeting or sent it through the mails. Mr. Cole stated that he had a copy of the letter. that Mr. Renalds write and get answers as to what the complaints were specifically an Mr. Sandy stated that he did not get a copy of the letter and he asked the re- maining Board members if they had received a copy of the said letter. They stated they had not. Mr. Madigan asked if it would be possible to write to the Attorney General and gel a cut and dried opinion on what we can bond in a subdivision, roads, streets, etc; whether we can bond the developer to keep his promises with a public utility with ' Mr. the Board Sandy should stated have that he access felt there was to all these a breakdown materials when in communications and he fel making such important deci- • sions. He further stated that he felt this was matter of a serious nature. Mr. Madigan read sections of the letter from the Attorney General stating that complaints had been received on recreational subdivisions in this area. He requested that Mr. Renalds write and get answers as to what the complaints were specifically an who made them and that copies of this information be sent to the Board Members. Mr. Sandy stated that it also disturbed him that the letter from the Attorney General had been received by the County Administrator on August 19th and was not for- warded to the Board until September 9th. Mr. Renalds stated that this letter had been addressed to him personally and he • had sent it to the Board in order to get their input before a reply was prepared. Mr. Renalds stated that if Mr. Sandy were going to make statements or insinuations ' he would prefer that they be very clear. He further stated that he had not in the past, nor would he in the future; knowingly withhold any information from the Board. Mr. Madigan asked if it would be possible to write to the Attorney General and gel a cut and dried opinion on what we can bond in a subdivision, roads, streets, etc; whether we can bond the developer to keep his promises with a public utility with which he'is an affiliate. • Mr. Ambrogi stated that we must distinguish what type subdivision we are talking about. Mr. Madigan stated that from the Code sections previously read, he could see no point in meddling in the authority that is given to the governor by the State Legisla- ture as far as bonding a public utility. Mr. Madigan then asked Mr. Ambrogi if he had reviewed all the bonds issued by Th Summit? Mr. Ambrogi answered that he had read them. Mr. Madigan stated that he felt it was time to sit down and draft the right ques , tions for each type of subdivision and each type of facility and get the right answerE from the Attorney General and get them in the minute books. Mr. Madigan then asked that copies of the letters previously discussed be sent the Board members and Mr. Ambrogi agreed to this request. 1 5 Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- i U ginia, does herein table the rezoning request of J. L. Bowman and F. L. Glaize, III, to rezone 1144.297 acres in Opequon Magisterial District from Agricultural, General (A -2) to Residential Recreational Subdivision (R -5) until the next regular meeting of this Board on September 24, 1975. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. S IAye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T... Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard IF. Madigan, Aye. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973 TO REZONE 12.692 ACRES OF S. L. SHACKLEFORD ESTATE IN OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Mr. Herbert Shackleford appeared before the Board in support of his rezoning application and stated that he felt his request for rezoning to B -2 was in order inas much as the property adjoining his land is presently zoned B -2. He further stated that the entrance to the property is only 60 feet from the right-of-way of I -81. Mrs. Barbara Ratcliffe appeared before the Board and asked what type business Mr • Shackleford plans to locate on the property. She stated that the residents in the area were under the impression that he still plans to locate a farm implement busines on the property. She stated that she represented 908 of the residents in Lakeside Estates and.that they are not opposed to B -2 zoning but the nature of the business to be located there. She presented petitions in opposition to this rezoning containing signatures of the residents in the Lakeside Estates Subdivision. Mr. Shackleford stated that under the ordinance the business proposed for the perty would be permitted in the B -2 zone.- Mr. Cole asked Mr. Berg if Farm Machinery Sales and Service is permitted in the B -2 zone as it is now written in the ordinance and Mr. Berg stated that it is not set forth as such in this section and that there is an amendment now pending which will clarify this section:. Mr. Joseph Stossel appeared before the Board and stated that he was opposed to 1 this rezoning inasmuch as it was not clear what Mr. Shackleford plans to locate on property. He stated that he was also concerned about the expansion of business in area and the possible devaluation of property should the rezoning be approved. Mr. Stossel stated that he did not feel the property would be suitable for a farm machinery sales and service business and that the entrance to the property is not 60 feet from I -81 as stated by Mr. Shackleford but is 1/4 mile from said right -of -way. Mr. Stossel pointed out that there is a school in the area and he felt commercia L� businesses in this area could create a safety hazard. He stated that he would not ject to some sort of small store or similar business in this area but was opposed to heavy commercial use there. Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein table the rezoning request of S. L. Shackleford Estate to rezone 12.692 acres in Opequon Magisterial District from Residential, Limited (R -2) to Busi- ness, General (B -2) until the next regular meeting of the Board on September 24, 1975 in order that the Commonwealth Attorney might issue a written opinion as to whether o not farm machinery sales and service businesses can be located in the B -2 zone. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sand Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; and Donald R. Hodgson, Aye. Richar F. Madigan abstained from both the discussion and vote on this matter. 16 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973 TO REZONE 3.53 ACRES OF V. V. CUTSHAW IN STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM AGRICUL TURAL, GENERAL (A -2) TO BUSINESS, GENERAL (B -2) - APPROVED Cutshaw appeared before the Board in support of his rezoning application. There was no opposition. Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein approve, on third and final reading the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEM- BER'l, 1973, TO-REZONE 3.53.ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OF V. V. CUTSHAW ON THE EAST•SIDE OF ROUTE 11 NORTH, APPROXIMATELY ONE- EIGHTH (1/8) MILE NORTH OF INTERSECTION WITH ROUTE 761; IN STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT; FROM AGRICULTURAL, GENERAL (A -2), TO BUSINESS, GENERAL-(B-2). The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sand Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973 TO REZONE 1.81 ACRES OF CHARLES W. BOYLES AND PAUL E. RICHARD IN STONEWALL MAGISTERI DISTRICT FROM AGRICULTURAL, GENERAL (A -2) TO MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R -6) The applicant appeared before the Board in support of the rezoning application. There was no opposition. Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board fo Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein approve, on the third and final reading, the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOV- EMBER 1, 1973, TO REZONE 1.81 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OF CHARLES W. BOYLES AND PAUL E. RICHARD, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 739; ABOUT TWO - TENTHS (2/10) MILES NORTH OF INTERSECTION WITH ROUTE 671; IN STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT; FROM AGRICULTURAL, GENERAL (A -2) TO MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R -2) The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sand Aye; J. Robert:Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Abstaining. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973 TO REZONE 20.6 ACRES OF GARLAND R. AND LOUISE S. CATHER IN BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DIS TRICT FROM AGRICULTURAL, GENERAL (A -2) - APPROVED Mr. Sandy stated that this rezoning request had been tabled at the August 13, 1975 meeting of the Board in order that the members of the Board might have sufficien time to gather additional information and study this rezoning request. Mr. Cather appeared before the Board and presented a brief resume' on the history of the property for which he was requesting rezoning. He described the nature of the area and presented pictures showing the various uses now located there. Mr. Cather stated that he did not feel that he should be required to furnish a buffer zone for the quarry property should his rezoning request be approved. Mr. Ben Butler appeared before the Board representing Perry's Quarry in opposi- tion to this rezoning request. He presented a geological map showing the rock bed be- ing mined by the quarry and stated that he felt the County had seen enough problems develop when residences are located next to a quarry. He pointed out that the Perry Quarry is an open quarry operation and would be a safety hazard to children. Mr. Butler stated that he would again emphasize to the Board that the Planning Commission had recommended denial of this rezoning application. ° Mr. Butler stated that he felt the Board must decide whether or not the lands in this part of the County will remain agricultural as they have stated in the past they would. Mr. Butler advised the Board that Perry Quarry is contemplating the construction of a concrete plant on the quarry property in the future. M 17 Mr. Russell asked what the zoning of the quarry property is and Mr. Berg stated that it is zoned M -2. There was discussion as to how far the quarrying operation would extend and what impact a subdivision in this area would have upon the application of Perry Quarry for a permit to extend their operation. Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Cather if he had ever sold him any tractors and Mr. Cather answered that he had purchased one garden tractor from Mr. Sandy several years ago and other tractors had been purchased from his competitors. Mr. Cole stated that he did not feel that Mr. Cather should be required to buffer zone for the quarry. Mr. Sandy stated that he felt a man should be able to do with his land what he • 11 wanted. Mr. Russell stated that he did not think this was proper zoning inasmuch as it ld place an M -2 zoning area adjacent to residential and agricultural areas. Mr. Madigan stated that he would abstain from voting on this matter inasmuch as felt he had undue pressure applied upon him by Mr. Cather. He stated that he had in- mess the conversation. Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson, • Iginia, does herein approve the following ordinance on third and final reading: the property upon request by Mr. Cather and had taken a deputy with him to wi BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEM- BER 1, 1973, TO REZONE 20.6 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OF GARLAND R. AND LOUISE S. CATHER, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 654, ABOUT FOUR - TENTHS (4/10) MILES SOUTH OF INTERSECTION WITH ROUTE 803; IN BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DIS- TRICT; FROM AGRICULTURAL, GENERAL (A -2) TO RESIDENTIAL, LIMITED (R -1) The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy ; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; J. Robert Russell, Nay; and Richard Madigan, Abstaining. $5.00 REAPPLICATION FEE FOR LAND USE TAXATION - APPROVED Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole, • BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- I ginia does herein approve the $5.00 reapplication fee for land use taxation as recom- I ended by the Finance Committee. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sand ; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard Madigan, Aye. ORDER MANUAL - ADOPTED AS SUBMITTED • Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- inia, does herein adopt the Purchase Order Manual as submitted to the Board this date aid manual to be kept on file in the County Administrator's Office. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. S e; J. Robert Russell, Aye;.Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard Madigan, Aye. OF BID OF C. EDWARD SHIRLEY FOR WELL DRILLING AT NEW LANDFILL SITE - Upon - motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- inia, does herein accept the bid proposal of C. Edward Shirley for well drilling at new landfill site as set forth below, said work to be performed in accordance with INK RiM bid specifications executed and reviewed by said C. Edward Shirley: 150 foot well at $2.00 per foot $ 300.00 50 foot casing at $3.95 per foot 197.50 50 foot grout, complete 100.00 $ 597.50 Test pumping of well, per hour $25.00 while pulling, installing and testing - Specs call for 16 to 30 hours testing The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Nye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye;.and Richard Madigan, Aye. %CCEPTANCE OF BIDS FOR SALE OF SURPLUS COUNTY EQUIPMENT - AP Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- 3inia, does herein accept the following bids for the sale of surplus county property: • 1. Virginia Fruit Sales Service, Inc. - One fiberglass golf cart - $150.00 2. Douglas C. Legge - One 15 foot Pelican Canoe - $201.01 3. Bell Manor Farm, Inc. - Fairbanks -Morse Scales - $751.00 4. Garland Owens - One 1961 Chevrolet School Bus - $350.00 The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy; Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. ACCEPTANCE OF BID - RENOVATION OF FRONT OF COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING - S AND S CONSTRUC - :' ' • TION COMPANY - APPROVED Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein accept the bid of S & S Construction Company in the amount of $5,625.00 for the renovation of the building front of the County Office Building at 12 -14 North Loudoun Street, said work to be performed in accordance with all specifi- cations hereinbefore reviewed and agreed upon by S & S Construction Company and the County of Frederick. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard • F. Madigan, Aye. RECOMMENDATION FOR CHANGE IN PROCEDURE FOR MOBILE HOME PERMITS - APPROVED Mr. Berg presented a recommendation from the Planning and Development Committee whereby mobile home permits would be abolished and replaced by building permits. He stated that the reason for this recommendation was because the State now requires that mobile homes be anchored and these anchors must be inspected. He further stated that this procedure would relieve the homeowner and the Board of Supervisors of the time footing • consuming system of mobile home approval and place these homes on an equal with other types of houses. Mr. Sandy stated that he felt mobile home permits should be viewed by the Board but that he agreed with the intent of the recommendation. Mr. Cole stated that he was in favor of this recommendation inasmuch as he felt mobile homes should have to abide by the same regulations as homeowners in such areas as side yard requirements. He further stated that the inspection of mobile home sites would insure that these regulations were being adhered to. , Mr. Madigan stated that he too felt the mobile home permits should be reviewed b Board. Mr. Renalds stated that should the recommendation be approved it would not go effect until the zoning ordinance is amended to include these requirements. Upon motion made by Donald R. Hodgson and seconded by Dennis T. Cole, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein accept and approve the recommendation of the Planning and Develop- ment Committee to change the procedure for the issuance of mobile home permits, said i Ipermits to be issued under building permits through the Department of Inspections. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. S e; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard Madigan, Nay stating that he felt the recommendation had merit but he felt the should have the priviledge of approving the location of mobile homes in the �c�unLy. FORMATION OF AD HOC COMMITTEE TO STUDY IMPLEMENTATION OF 911 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUM— BER — APPROVED Mr. Cole stated that the Committee on Law Enforcement and Courts has recommended that an ad hoc committee be formed to study the possible implementation of a 911 emer- gency telephone number for Frederick County. He stated that the cost for this service would be minimal and the service rendered would be of great benefit to the people. Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein approve the formation of an ad hoc committee to study the possible implementation of a 911 emergency telephone number for Frederick County. • The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard; . Madigan, Aye. iability arising out of the sale of confiscated vehicles held by him, whereby the ty assumes this liability and so directs that the sale of these vehicles be esta lished each four months, in accordance with procedural directives established by the Commonwealth's Attorney. ' The above resolution was..passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sand Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. RESOLUTION APPROVING PAYMENT OF STATE AND LOCAL SHARE ON EMPLOYEES OF CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AFFECTED BY GOVERNOR'S FREEZE ON HIRING 19 Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan, ADDITIONAL POSITION AND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION - ASAP - APPROVED Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein approve an additional position for the Alcohol Safety Action Pro- gram and does herein approve a budget increase in the amount of $7092.80 to fund said position, said funds to be reimbursed through fees collected under this program; and, • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this Board does herein approve a supplemental appro priation in the amount.:of $600.00 to the Alcohol Safety Action Program for capital ex for office equipment and furniture, said funds to be through fe penditures reimbursed collected under this program. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sand, Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. RESOLUTION SAVING HARMLESS THE SHERIFF OF FREDERICK COUNTY IN THE SALE OF CONFISCATED • VEHICLES - APPROVED Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Sheriff of Frederick County be hereby relieved of all iability arising out of the sale of confiscated vehicles held by him, whereby the ty assumes this liability and so directs that the sale of these vehicles be esta lished each four months, in accordance with procedural directives established by the Commonwealth's Attorney. ' The above resolution was..passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sand Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. RESOLUTION APPROVING PAYMENT OF STATE AND LOCAL SHARE ON EMPLOYEES OF CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AFFECTED BY GOVERNOR'S FREEZE ON HIRING 19 Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan, W WHEREAS, The Frederick County Board of Supervisors believes that full funding of the positions in the offices of the Constitutional Officers of the County of Freder rginia is vital to the maintenance of efficient services to the people of Frederick - -ounty in the interest of their general health, safety, and welfare; and, WHEREAS, The Compensation Board has ordered a hiring freeze.on all employees of 1 Sheriffs, Treasurers, Commissioners of Revenue, and Commonwealth's Attorneys; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that State Compensation Board be hereby requested to fund the positions previously au- ized.by the Board of Supervisors and the Compensation Board for Fiscal Year 1975- L976; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Com- pensation Board and to each Constitutional Officer of Frederick County so affected. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Nye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. ION FOR RESOLUTION P - APPROVED JULY 9, 1975, DIRECTING THE REBID O] Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors does herein repeal the resolution passed by this Board on July 9, 1975, which stipulates that gasoline to be dispensed from the Frederick County Jail be rebid inasmuch as the rebiding of gasoline at this time would not be advisable. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. MONTHLY STAFF REPORT ACCEPTED After review the monthly staff report was accepted by the Board. SANITATION AUTHORITY REPORT ACCEPTED After review the monthly report of the Sanitation Authority was accepted by the Board. REFUND COUNTY AUTO STIC - CHARLES R. LOY - APPROVED Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein approve a refund in the amount of $10.00 to Mr. Charles R. Loy for a county automobile sticker which Mr. Loy purchased but did not use. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. APPOINTMENT OF MR. TED MORGAN TO CHAPTER 10 BOARD - APPROVED Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein appoint Mr. Ted Morgan to serve as a representative from Frederick County on the Chapter 10 Board to fill the unexpired term of Mrs. Joseph Sharp, said term to expire on December 31, 1976. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. 1, r • • • • ai MEDIA TO PRINT ARTICLE AGING, INC. Mr. Cole requested the news media to print an article requesting volunteers for service on the Shenandoah Area Agency for Aging, Inc. The Board agreed to this request. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION ON LAND USE PLAN SET FOR OCTOBER 1, 1975 Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, • BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- inia does herein set the date of October 1, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. for a joint public aring with the Frederick County Planning Commission on the proposed Land Use Plan, id meeting to be held in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room, 9 Court Square, Win- ster, Virginia. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy ; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R: Hodgson, Aye; and Richard Madigan, Aye:. S LISTING OF DELINQUENT TAX ACCOUNTS FROM r • • • The Board accepted the listing of delinquent tax accounts received from the Trea FOR SERVICE ON SHENANDOAH AREA AGEN- 'S OFFI urer's Office. UPON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED "UNANIMOUSLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE DO NOW ADJOURN. .i of Supervisors N sors At a Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ia, held on the 24th day of September, 1975, in the Board of Supervisor's Meeting m, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT: Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman; J. Robert Russell, Vice - Chairman; Dennis T. le; Donald R. Hodgson; and Richard F. Madigan. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- inia, does herein approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of this Board held on t 13, 1975, and the Regular Meeting held on August 27, 1975, as submitted. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard Madigan, Aye. X.AND USE PLAN PRESENTED TO BOARD Mr. Keith Williams, Chairman of the Frederick County Planning Commission, appeare efore the Board and stated that he had asked Mr. Ron Berg to present a brief summary i f the highlights of the Land Use Plan to the Board and the plan would be discussed in ' more detail at the public hearing to be held on October 1st. Mr. Berg described briefly the various sections of the plan and outlined changes which had been made at the request of the Board of Supervisors and the input received I at the public meetings. Mr. Berg explained briefly the difference between a land use plan and zoning, stat- ng that a land use plan is a guide for establishing various land use regulatory tools 22 it would serve as the basis for zoning and subdivision activities. He stated thatll n order to support zoning you must have a comprehensive land use plan. Mr. Berg ad- ised that the plan would be reviewed and updated every five years. Mr. Cole stated that he had attended two meetings at Stonewall School and changes ecommended by those citizens attending the meetings had never been made. He stated hat he was not in favor of the 400 foot frontage requirement on major highways set orth in the plan inasmuch as he felt this would drive the small man out of business. Mr. Williams stated that this requirement is designed to control the random strip zoning on major roads leading through the County and to serve as a deterrent to strip zoning along these highways.. He added that it is also designed to encourage cluster development and to preserve the senic: beauty along the highways leading into the area. Mr. Cole stated that he had not heard any one speak in favor of this requirement and he felt the plan was not what the people want but what the Chairman of the Plann- ing Commission wants. Mr. Cole further stated that he did not agree with the provision that anyone de- siring to develop, for example, a 20 acre parcel of ground into five 4 acre tracts would be required to have central water and sewer. Mr. Garland Cather appeared before the Board and requested that the Round Hill Community Center be included in the Land Use Plan. Mr. Thomas Glass appeared before the Board and stated that he too was concerned about the requirement for central water and sewer on any tract of land less than five acres. He urged the Board to consider this requirement very carefully inasmuch as there are very nice areas in the County that can not be watered and sewered in the foreseeable future. Mr. Sandy thanked the members of the Planning Commission for meeting with the Board and stated that the Public Hearing would be held on the proposed Land Use Plan on October 1st at 7:30 P.M. RECONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPT NOVEMBER 1, 1973, TO REZONE 1144.297 ACRES OF J. L. BOWMAN AND F. L. GLAIZE, III IN nPRnIMM MAaTSTRRTAT. DISTRICT FROM AGRICULTURAL, GENERAL (A -2) TO RESIDENTIAL RECREA Mr. Bill Tisinger appeared before the Board representing Mr. Bowman and Mr. Glaiz and stated that he had been advised that the Board members had received copies of the impact study prepared by Mr. Rosser Payne on the proposed Wheatlands Subdivision. He then presented Mr. Rosser Payne who described briefly the outline used in the prepara- tion of the impact report. Mr. Cole asked why water and sewer service was not mentioned in the impact study and Mr. Payne answered that the water and sewer system would be designed, constructed and maintained by the developers and there would be no public cost whatsoever. Mr. Cole asked what assurances the developers could give that their projections that 338 of the homes would be retirement homes, 338 would be second homes and 338 would be premanent homes would be followed. Mr. Payne stated that he could give the Board no assurances; that this must be done by the developers. He stated that the projections in the report had been develor ed through comparison of the proposed development with similar developments in the state of Virginia. Mr. Cole stated that he did not feel many people could afford second homes with the economy as it is now. Mr. Payne stated that he could only compare this development with what had hap- pened with similar developments in the State of Virginia during the past 15 or 20 yea] Mr. Cole asked if any of the subdivisions referred to by Mr. Payne were located 1 • • • 23 as close to major highways as this one would be and Mr. Payne stated that he could think of three that were. Mr. Sandy asked what factors would make this development successful when sales at 1 • the present time in recreational developments are down. Mr. Payne stated that the factors would include the location and $700,000 worth of amenities; the useability and accessibility to those amenities. He stated that th developers would have good and bad years. He stated that the lot sales would proceed far more rapidly than would the actual Ms. Ann Nuri appeared before the Board and asked who wanted this recreational su division besides Mr. Bowman and Mr. Glaize. She stated that the developers had state that they will provide water and sewer for this development and asked where do they propose to get the water and sewer and have they made any studies and can they give. any costs for these facilities. A gentleman asked how this recreational subdivision would differ from a standard r 40 • residential subdivision. Mr. Payne stated that the major difference would be the de- sign and orientation of the community and type of structure to be placed in the sub- division would be of a second home nature. He pointed out that the sale of the lots would be directed to a recreational market and the prime thrust would be the sale of the lots. He stated that this would not be a preplanned subdivision in which the builder builds the homes and then markets them. Mr. Thomas Glass appeared before the Board representing Trico Associates and sta ed that he had done research on the water system for this development. He advised th there are two ways to serve the property; one is to pipe the water from the existing mains in the area if this can be worked out with the Sanitation Authority and the oth method would be a system of wells on the property. He stated that the Health Depart- ment had advised that wells on property in this area would produce approximately 30 t 60 gallons of water per minute. He stated that based on the low figure of 30 gallons per minute it would take approximately 18 wells spread throughout the development to provide the water system. tem could also be done in two ways; one would be through an arrangement with the Fred Mr. Glass introduced Mr. John Beach, his partner, who stated that the sewer sys- erick County Sanitation Authority and the other would be through a private sewage ment plant. A gentleman asked if the development is approved will it have to comply with the ster plan for zoning of the County. Mr. Berg stated that the Land Use Plan presented tonight is not a zoning plan • that the development does meet the major recommendation of the Land Use Plan. Mr. Ralph Ogle asked if the developers would be required to provide a central water and sewer system and Mr. Sandy stated that he felt this would have to be a re- quisite with a development this large. Mr. Larwood asked what effect a water and sewer system as described would have the water table in the area surrounding this development. Mr. Beach stated that having the lake located in the area there would be more i filtration of water into the area than would be taken out by the wells. Mr. Larwood asked if the dam was safe, who is responsible for inspection of the m, if the developers would be required to comply with the recently adopted Erosion ntrol Ordinance and had the developers obtained a permit from the Corps of Engineer Mr. F. L. Glaize appeared before the Board and stated that Gilbert W. Clifford 3 Associates and Soil Consultants had designed the dam and it is inspected daily. Mr. Tisinger stated that he had reviewed some of the statutes and feels that a 24 permit is necessary if the stream is navigable. He stated that there is a law which gives the government the right to inspect and inventory the dam. Mr. Larwood presented a letter from the Corps of Engineers which he stated re- quires the developers to have a permit for a dam of this type. Mr. Ambrogi stated that he felt Mr. Tisinger was correct in assuming that this requirement applies to navigable water and the question is whether the lake will be navigable. There followed lengthy discussion as to whether the lake or the stream feeding the lake would be termed "navigable ". Mr. Athey asked if there had been any consideration given as to how Warren and Clarke Counties feel about this development inasmuch as there will be a sewage treat- ment plant located so close to the county lines. Mr. Sandy stated that he felt the Board would hear from Clarke and Warren Counties before any decision is made. A gentleman asked what guarantee the Board would have that the County would not have to bear the cost of cleaning and maintaining the lake and Mr. Tisinger advised that there would be an owners association who would be responsible for the control of the lake and the other amenities within the subdivision. Mr. Cather stated that over the 4th of July residents in Shawneeland did not any water. He stated that he felt the Board should be sure that there will be adequa water facilities in developments of this type. Mr- Athey asked if the owners association could petition the County to become a town and what effect would this have on the County tax base. Mr. Sandy replied that it could become a township within the county such as Stephens City and Middletown but it would not affect the tax structure as the County collects taxes from townships within the County. Mr. Sam Lehman asked if the two twenty acre sites set aside for townhouses had been considered in the impact study and Mr. Payne advised that they had. Ms. Nuri stated that she had moved to this area because of the beauty of the She stated that she had seen similar areas developed with residential subdivisions she urged the Board to consider the rural nature of this area and the desirability of the area as a place to live. She stated that there are very few areas like this left in the country. She stated that she felt this subdivision would benefit just the de- velopers and not the people of the County. Ms. Nuri stated that there was no need another subdivision in the County inasmuch as there is an abundance of housing now available here. She stated that she felt the Board should not approve this deve until there is a need for additional housing. Mr. Sandy asked Ms. Nuri where she resides and where she moved from. She answer led that she moved from Maryland and now resides in the Gainesboro area Mr. Madigan asked Ms. Nuri where she had moved from and she replied Maryland. Mr. Madigan asked Ms. Nuri if she wanted to deny others who might wish to come Frederick County the same privilege she had enjoyed when she moved here and she sta that she felt the time to build more developments was when there was an apparent need) Ifor more homes. Mr. Athey asked if this development will make feasible the 186 unit trailer park l already zoned in this area and how much other land in this area has already been re- ]zoned and is ready for development. Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Glass if he was correct in stating that this property was not in the same drainage area and Mr. Glass stated that this was correct. Water and sewer service, provided through a private system, was discussed and Mr. (Sandy stated that the service area for Mr. Bowman and Mr. Glaize would be assigned by • 40 • 1 • Mr. Madigan stated was correct and trailers cost the County $199 a iece. Mr. Cole stated that when Mr. Yost came before the Board requesting approval of IEJ ile home park Mr. Madigan's projections were that the park would break even and Mr. Madigan stated that he had worked the same thing out for Mr. Yost as he had or Mr. Van Dyke and the reason he had voted for Mr. Yost's mobile home park was be- he felt it was a good thing, if controlled. He stated that he felt it would se the standard of living for some of the people who had to live in a mobile home. Mr. Russell stated that the Board had received a great deal of information and i ' put and he felt they needed more time to digest it in order to make a realistic de- cision on this matter. Mr. Sandy stated that he agreed with Mr. Russell and felt that the Board needed itional time to review the information prior to making a decision on this matter. added that it is a large development and needs careful consideration. 25 Mr. Cole moved to table this matter until March of 1976 so that the new Board the State Water Control Board. Mr. Athey asked if the Board approves this development won't they also have to approve the trailer park for Mr. Yost which they previously denied and Mr. Sandy re- plied that he felt this was a consideration the Board would have to make. Mr. Cole stated that there are only 98 days until the end of this year and 99 day until the new Board takes office; anything this size should be tabled until the new Board takes office inasmuch as they will be the ones who will have to provide the ser- vices for this development such as schools, police protection,•trash collection, etc. He stated that this rezoning takes in 1144.297 acres and had the design of a potential population of 9,100 people. He added that the new Board would be the ones who would have to appropriate the taxes for these services and lot sales won't begin until the • year 1979. He asked why the rush to get this development approved tonight. Mr. Madigan stated that based on the two recreational subdivisions in the County at the present time he had prepared a report on the taxes paid by these subdivisions, and that said taxes amount to $231,466.80 per year. He stated that the County service that -these subdivisions receive amount to $38,002.01 therefore showing a profit to the County of $193,464.79. He pointed out that without these two subdivisions it would take 20.22 cents in a tax increase to make up the difference. He stated that resident in these subdivisions up to six times the taxes for the they pay services receive. He then presented projections of tax revenue which would be received from the prc • posed development stating that in 1979 the taxes would be $15,016 over and above ex- penditures incurred by the County. He stated that the revenue would increase yearly and in 1989 the taxes would be $87,002.30. He stated that he had not included ameni= ties to be included in the subdivision which would generate another $16,000 in revenue Mr. Madigan stated that since the County had lost a lot of its economic base in the re cent annexation and we don't seem to be able to get shopping centers, it seemed to hin that the next best thing in order to curtail tax increases was recreational develop- ments. He further stated that not included in his report was the money flow generated in our economy, the creation of jobs in the building industry, etc. • Mr. Madigan stated that he felt the lake already constructed by the developers was a great conservation measure. Mr. Cole stated that the meeting wherein Mr. Van Dyke was requesting additional mobile home spaces, Mr. Madigan had given a report on cost projections and in that re- port he stated that this would cost the County money. Mr. Madigan stated was correct and trailers cost the County $199 a iece. Mr. Cole stated that when Mr. Yost came before the Board requesting approval of IEJ ile home park Mr. Madigan's projections were that the park would break even and Mr. Madigan stated that he had worked the same thing out for Mr. Yost as he had or Mr. Van Dyke and the reason he had voted for Mr. Yost's mobile home park was be- he felt it was a good thing, if controlled. He stated that he felt it would se the standard of living for some of the people who had to live in a mobile home. Mr. Russell stated that the Board had received a great deal of information and i ' put and he felt they needed more time to digest it in order to make a realistic de- cision on this matter. Mr. Sandy stated that he agreed with Mr. Russell and felt that the Board needed itional time to review the information prior to making a decision on this matter. added that it is a large development and needs careful consideration. 25 Mr. Cole moved to table this matter until March of 1976 so that the new Board 26 might take action on this matter inasmuch as they will be the ones who will have to appropriate the money and set the tax rate to provide for this development. He added) that he felt they should have some say in this matter. Mr. Cole's motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Cole then moved to table the matter until February of 1976 for the same rea -I sons stated in the above motion. Mr. Cole then withdrew his second motion. Mr. Russell stated that he felt this Board had been elected until the last day of this year and these major decisions should be acted upon. He stated that he felt the present Board could act on this matter and he would not want to carry something of magnitude over for action by a new Board. Upon motion made by J. Robert Russell and seconded by Richard F. Madigan, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virgin • does herein table the rezoning application of J. L. Bowman and F. L. Glaize, III, to rezone 1144.297 acres in Opequon Magisterial District from Agricultural, General (A -2 to Residential Recreational Community (R -5) until the Regular Meeting of this Board o October 22, 1975. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. S Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; Richard F. Maidgan, Aye; and Dennis T. Cole, Nay. TRANSCRIPT FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION OF PERFORMANCE BONDING MR. SANDY: At the last meeting Mr. Johnston, we started talking about bonding of recreational subdivisions and since you were in here on several occa sions discussing this particular issue with the Board, and you have do right much research into the area we asked you to come in tonight and try to help us to phrase questions to the Attorney General's Office th would give us the answers that we are looking for. It seems like we come up with amenities in a subdivision and then try to distinguish whether they are for public use or not for public use. And this is wh we would like to resolve tonight so we could get the proper answer. W have one large recreational subdivision before us here tonight which will require considerable bonding, for the water and sewer systems and etc. and we want to be sure that we are right with the state and with our own ordinances and whoever else we should be complying with. I think that basically, could you give us a little bit of history into what has taken place as far as discussing bond before this Board befor I think it was discussed basically with The Summit. Could you give us a brief review from your notes there please? MR. JOHNSTON: My memory is that beginning early in 74 the Board had before it the question of the then ordinance dealing with the bonding of subdividers for amenities in the subdivision and at the request of the Board, the Commonwealth's Attorney was in correspondence with the Attorney Gener- al's office on several subjects, the results of which certain advice was given. A letter came back from the Attorney General's office in answer to certain questions that were posed to it. It was at that t • • • I believe that we first came into the matter on behalf of The Summit. 27 It was our advice to The Summit at that time that the questions that had been posed to the Attorney General fisted the answers but that actually the questions weren't directed, Z7e felt, to the matter that U • L J the Board was dealing with. Without going into the specific questioi they are in the correspondence I am sure is in your file, the ques- tions revolved around whether the ordinance that the County had adopt ed with regard to bonding, tracked or followed the granting, enablinc legislation in the Virginia statutes. There were some conferences be tween the staff and myself and I think one or two members of the Boai were at the meeting, and as a result a delegation of us went to Rich- mond about mid -year, as I recall it, and met with Mr. Harris Parker, Assistant Attorney General, whose advice it was at that time - -- he had advice for us about how to resolve the specific problem of The Summit that we were dealing with and as I understand it, basically was resolved on that basis which was that as long as the developer was willing to post his corporate bond, that he thought that would bf an acceptable handling of the matter and he saw no necessity of sure upon that bond and he recommended that consideration be given to re- drafting of the ordinance to track the statutes. With regard to the specific questions that listed the answers that the Board is looking for, I think basically, as I understand the nature of your interest in the matter at this time, it follows the line of what are - -- what falls within the definition of public amenities which under the state statutes would give you the power to require bonding. I think any questions that were calculated to elicit answers in that specific concern that you have would be helpful. It is my opinion and belief that any subdivider who has a subdivision approved where roads, for instance, are not to be dedicated to public use, who has public wate: and sewer that is not be become a part of the water and sewer system falls within the meaning of that and I have no doubts personally abol that opinion, but it may be that you'd like to see that kind of ad- vice in the form of a letter of opinion from the Attorney General's office. MR. MADIGAN: Is there a way to getting a simple answer to, say, this question - can the County require of a public utility a bond, period. MR. JOHNSTON: Yes sir. I think the State Corporation Commission - I don't think you have any jurisdiction or authority. MR. MADIGAN: We have no jurisdiction or authority - can we get just an answer the Attorney General, quote "No" or "Yes" and if "Yes" just what do we bond and why? Then, can we get another settlement answered - ame ities which are not to be dedicated to the public or should the County require a bond of the developer on amenities which are not -to be dedicated to the public required, yes or no? If so, if its yes, what are they and why? MR. JOHNSTON: I think you should phrase that by calling attention to the specific stature that gives you the power to bond if it is going to be dedi- cated and ask the Attorney General to express an opinion whether by implication, that means that when there is no dedication to public use, are you without the authority to bond. MR. SANDY: Well, then, also you would have to define public use too, I would ), t 28 the power to do this. , MR. COLE: 'May' wasn't it, or something like that? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, 'may' in that sense means if you wish to do so you may do whateVEC the statute permits. But in the specific questions I was directing my remarks to then, the problem I saw in asking the Attorney General that was that neither side ever contended that The Summit's roads wer believe. • JOHNSTON: Well, it may be. I understand there has been some uncertainty about that. There is that letter from the staff attorney of the State Corp- oration Commission that is addressed to some of those questions. I don't recall specifically whether they deal with - that is the letter , if you recall it that tells you about the separate jurisdictions and the State Corporation Commission and how that falls within their area of power. • COLE: Mr. Johnston, correct me if I'm wrong - didn't at one time you write a letter to the County Administrator over this very issue of public use and I think as well as I remember, were you talking about taking it to court to settle the issue. • • JOHNSTON: Well, I - • COLE: Didn't you state that in that letter? • JOHNSTON: I am not sure I recall the referenced - I may have made reference in this context, that if there is uncertainty on these things, there is always the right of the parties to seek a declaratory judgement. The letter that I am thinking of when you make that statement Mr. Cole, is to Mr. Ambrogi or Mr. Renalds, I for ' the letter that I wrote, probably get, after the Attorney General wrote his letter. • • COLE: You was representing The Summit at that time, and I think you presente it to us that night. • JOHNSTON: Yes, there was a presentation on that at that time. For instance, the Attorney General had been asked a question at that time whether in the event that a plat attached to a deed of dedication which shows the roads in a subdivision to be public roads, and which plat requires under the ordinance, the signature and the stamp of approval of the Board, whether in the event of a discrepancy between the language con- tained in the plat and that of the deed of dedication which the Board doesn't have to approve, which controls? • COLE: Wasn't these the same questions that the Attorney General answered once, and as well as I remember, there was one opinion the reading of , the law is shall, or something like that, and I believe it said 'may' require a bond or something like that. Whether you could or not I would certainly believe - JOHNSTON: Yes, that's right. It is a discretionary authority, but it says, this is in a statute which says that these are the things which you may hav e in your ordinance and then it says in the event of dedication to public - • use, you may require that it be paid for or that t. COLE: But 'may' doesn't make it law, I mean its kind of a - is 'may' a doubt word - usually in law it says shall or not shall. Z. JOHNSTON: No. Well not in that context Mr. Cole, because that is an enabling or- dinance granting you authority. The state is not telling the Board that it shall do this and it shall do that. It's saying you shall ha the power to do this. , MR. COLE: 'May' wasn't it, or something like that? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, 'may' in that sense means if you wish to do so you may do whateVEC the statute permits. But in the specific questions I was directing my remarks to then, the problem I saw in asking the Attorney General that was that neither side ever contended that The Summit's roads wer 29 • to be public roads and so the answer to that question I didn't see had any light on the questions you had before you. It asked anothe question.-whether the recording of the plat operated under another section, to, by that act, make those-public the property of public; yes, it does, but nobody ever claimed that those roads were intended to be, by the language that was in the document, public roads. That was our difficulty in understanding the questions put the Attorney General at that time. We thought that the - and I had in that letter that you are referring to, a section as to specifica ly what questions should be asked to get those answers. MADIGAN: I have another question. Would the County have the right to meddle or interfere in the bargaining of a public utility with a developer in requiring of the developer a bond, a performance bond, which eventually guarantee to the public utility that the various ameniti would be complete? Would that be meddling? • JOHNSTON: I don't think so. I don't think there is any jurisdiction as I undel- stand it there. My understanding of the way the law is built is that under the State Corporation Commission statutues, under a chapter called "Affiliated Contract Agreements ", any agreement that is of a certain kind that they call an affiliated agreement comes within th jurisdiction of the State Corporation Commission, so any arrangemen that is going to expect the discharging of the responsibilities of the public service corporation between anybody else, you, me, the developer, or anybody else, has got to have their approval. The util�- ity is - another way to say.it is that the utility is without power to enter into such a valid agreement without the stamped approval the State Corporation Commission and I think - MADIGAN: Can we get a yes or no answer from the Attorney General on that par ticular question? i • JOHNSTON: I'm sure you can. I would suggest this subject to.Mr. Ambrogi's ad vice, that if you gentlemen could just give Mr. Ambrogi a memo of t areas of concern, maybe an abstract of this - a transcript of this discussion, I feel sure that we can adapt the questions to present the Attorney General and /or the State Corporation Commission staff that will respond adequately to them. SANDY: I think the main thing here that we are dealing with, like you say, the amenities within a political subdivision - in a recreational su division that are not to be dedicated for public use and all these other things. It seems like that we leave the words "public use" when we ask this question and then it seems like it takes a diffe meaning. This would be my request, that if Mr. Ambrogi and Mr. Ritter can sit down and work with you•.with this transcript that we have here tonight and phrase these questions so that we can get an answer. Do you think it would be possible to get that done by our September - our October meeting which would be on the 8th? AMBROGI: Get the questions framed? Get the answers? SANDY: Get the questions definitely framed by that time. AMBROGI: Oh yes. It wouldn't be possible to get the answers by that time. SANDY: No. At least get the.questions framed for our review. JOHNSTON: We might. I don't know about the time frame. They are a little un 30 certain of the time schedule but this would not be a novel question iJ MR. COLE: Do you represent either one of these as a personal lawyer? MR. JOHNSTON: My firm does, yes. MR. COLE: Cause I was wondering, I mean really, is someone paying you to be tonight or anything? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes sir. The Summit.. MR. COLE: The Summit? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes sir. MR. COLE: Well, that's what I wanted to get to the point because The Summit - I mean they haven't got anything coming up. We've already settled that I mean they've gotten everything they've asked for. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Cole, I am here in response to a letter from J. 0. dated Septembe 17th. MR. COLE: That's what I wanted to clear because The Summit has done been cleare< MR. JOHNSTON: The Summit has no specific problem before you right now dealing with this problem. I understood that I was being asked to come because of the interest that we have had for The Summit last year dealing with this question. MR. SANDY: Okay, if this is the proper way to dispose of it then meet with Mr. Ambrogi, I am sure you can find some schedule that will correspond. MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. We will have this for you by the October meeting. MR. SANDY: Okay, this will be fine. We certainly thank you for coming Mr. Johnston. 1 C�1 I • r • J put back to Mr. Parker's office. He would have a background on it. MR. SANDY: But you said while ago that during our oral discussion down there, the fact that they thought it would be okay to come back and accept a cord orate bond under these circumstances, is this correct? This is your interpretation of what was said? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes it was, and it was - we presented it to him, Mr. Ambrogi, and I, and whoever else was there, I don't - MR. SANDY: Did you go down Bobby? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Russell went. MR. SANDY: I know lawyers don't agree because that's the way you make your livin( MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I think we really were in agreement and I sensed that when we gi to the end of it, Mr. Parker was - had an understanding of the dilemm+ that we faced, and that he was stating that for whatever it was worth to us, that he saw no objection to taking the bond since it was will= ingly given, but that -- and that perhaps that would be a good enough solution of the problem for the time being but for the long run, I think I am correct in saying that he urged us to go back and give ser ious consideration to rephrasing our ordinance to bring it into line with the statute. MR. MADIGAN: When was this meeting again? When was the date of this meeting? MR. JOHNSTON: November 4, 1974. MR. MADIGAN: Thank you. MR. COLE: Mr. Chairman, could I ask - I know its the discussion of performance bonds on here. Mr. Johnston are you here tonight, are you represent- ing either Mr. Glaize or Mr. Bowman about this rezoning, sir? MR. SANDY: Mr. Johnston came at my invitation tonight because it was something that we wanted to discuss. MR. COLE: Do you represent either one of these as a personal lawyer? MR. JOHNSTON: My firm does, yes. MR. COLE: Cause I was wondering, I mean really, is someone paying you to be tonight or anything? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes sir. The Summit.. MR. COLE: The Summit? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes sir. MR. COLE: Well, that's what I wanted to get to the point because The Summit - I mean they haven't got anything coming up. We've already settled that I mean they've gotten everything they've asked for. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Cole, I am here in response to a letter from J. 0. dated Septembe 17th. MR. COLE: That's what I wanted to clear because The Summit has done been cleare< MR. JOHNSTON: The Summit has no specific problem before you right now dealing with this problem. I understood that I was being asked to come because of the interest that we have had for The Summit last year dealing with this question. MR. SANDY: Okay, if this is the proper way to dispose of it then meet with Mr. Ambrogi, I am sure you can find some schedule that will correspond. MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. We will have this for you by the October meeting. MR. SANDY: Okay, this will be fine. We certainly thank you for coming Mr. Johnston. 1 C�1 I • r • J 31 AN.ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973, TO REZONE 12.692 ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF S. L. SHACKLEFORD ESTATE, IN BACK CREEK MAG- ISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM RESIDENTIAL, LIMITED (R -2) TO BUSINESS, GENREAL (B -2) - APPROV] Mr. Shackleford appeared before the Board in support of his rezoning application I and stated that he had nothing more to add the statements he had made at the prev- ious meeting of the Board. He pointed out that the property he is requesting be re- zoned is near an interchange and further that should the rezoning be approved he woul abide by the B -2 district in the zoning ordinance in locating a business on said pro- perty. He asked if Mr. Ambrogi would respond to his question at the previous meeting as to whether farm machinery, sales and service is permitted in the B -2 district. Mr. Ambrogi stated that Farm Machinery, Sales and Services is not listed as such • in any zoning category and therefore the Board must look to the statement of intent i the B -2 category. He stated that he felt in the absence of anything more specific, this use should be allowed under the B -2 category, machinery sales and service. Mr. Sandy stated that he did not feel farm machinery, sales and service should be placed in the M -1 category as suggested by the staff. He.stated that he did not'know of another dealership in the state of Virginia in an M -1 category. A gentlemen in the audience stated that Case Tractor Company would locate a bus- 0 iness on this property if it is rezoned and they will deal with industrial tractors and equipment and this was what the residents in the area are opposed to. Mr. Shackleford stated that he was not sure the Case Tractor Company would still locate on the property inasmuch as the option had expired. He further stated that he would abide by the requirements_set forth in the B -2 category. Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Shackleford if he had any plans to have any additional land • to the south of this particular property zoned B -2 and Mr. Shackleford stated that he did not at this time. He stated that he would not request property on the other side of the Opequon Creek be zoned anything but residential since it is in such close prox imity to the townhouses and Lakesdie Estates. Mrs. Ritenour appeared before the Board representing the residents in the area i opposition to this rezoning. She asked if this operation would be kept under cover. Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Ambrogi if the Board could put restrictions on the rezoning to insure that the operation would be kept under cover and Mr. Ambrogi stated that they could not inasmuch as the operation would be permitted under the B -2 category. Mr. Steve Locke appeared before the Board in opposition to this rezoning request and stated that he did not feel the Board should grant this rezoning when they did know what the property would be used for, especially in light of the fact that the idents were opposed to it. Mr. Sandy stated that he felt the residents were concerned about the housekeepi • for the business of this type more than the rezoning request. Mr. Cole stated that he felt the property along I -81 and the interchanges should be zoned B -2 and that the B -2 category did not provide for heavy equipment, fabricat- ing, welding or operations of this type. He further stated that the B -2 zoning of th property would be compatible with the area inasmuch as the property adjoining it is zoned B -2. Upon motion made by Donald R. Hodgson and seconded by Dennis T. Cole, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein approve, on third and final reading, the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973, TO REZONE 12.692 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OF S. L. SHACKLEFORD ESTATE, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 642, APPROXIMATE- LY SIX- TENTHS (6/10) MILES SOUTH OF KERNSTOWN INTERCHANGE 79; IN BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT; FROM RESIDENTIAL, LIMITED (R -2) TO BUSINESS, GENERAL (B -2). WE The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Abstaining. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS - SECONDARY ROAD BUDGET - APPROVED Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein approve the Virginia Department of Highways Secondary Road Budget as presented to this Board at their Regular Meeting on September 10, 1975, for fiscal year 1975 -1976. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. MOBILE HOME PERMITS - BRILL, FOSTER, KRAUS, FANSLER & LUTTRELL - APPROVED Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein approve the following mobile home permits: Helen Brill - Back Creek Magisterial District Kenelia Foster - Gainesboro Magisterial District James L. Kraus - Opequon Magisterial District James M. Fansler - Shawnee Magisterial District Gregory Luttrell - Gainesboro Magisterial District The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sand Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. APPOINTMENT TO SHENANDOAH AREA AGENCY ON AGING, INC. DISCUSSED Mr. Dickson advised the Board that he had talked with one person who might be in- terested in serving on the Shenandoah Area Agency on Aging Committee but that he had not received a definite answer as yet. The Board agreed to carry this appointment forward in order that volunteers might be sought for this committee. POSITIONS TO BE SUBMITTED FOR FREDERICK COUNTY UNDER COMPREHENSIVE EMPLOYMENT TRAIN- ING ACT - TITLE II FUNDS - APPROVED Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein approve the submittal of the following positions for Frederick County to be funded under the Comprehensive Employment Training Act, Title II: Sheriff Deputy Trainee - 2 Assistant Dog Warden - 1 Maintenance Assistant - Parks - 2 Account Clerk - 1 Paramedic /Jailer - 1 Utilities Facilities Inspector - 2 Maintenance Laborer - 2 Case Co- ordinator - 1 Social Services Worker - 1 The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sand., Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and F. Madigan, Aye. AUTHORIZATION TO EXTEND POSITIONS UNDER CETA TITLE VI FUNDS - APPROVED Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T -. Cole, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein authorize the extension of the maintenance assistant, maintenance assistant- parks, truck driver, laborer, and right -of -way agent positions currently • F • Ll • J 33 funded under the CETA Title VI Program through June 30, 1976. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. S Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole,.Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. PURCHASE OF NEW AUTOMOBILE FOR ASSESSOR - TABLED Mr. Madigan stated that the Finance Committee had recommended that a new automo- bile be purchased for the County Assessor and the one currently being used by the Assessor be turned over to the Assistant Dog Warden. The Board discussed the bids received on various vehicles and Mr. Cole requested that this matter be carried for- ward until bids are obtained on a six cylinder vehicle as he had previously requested The Board agreed to this request. The Board was in general agreement that the vehicle currently being used by the Assessor be turned over to the,Assistant Dog Warden..when a new vehicle is purchased. AMENDMENT TO GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE FOR FREDERICK COUNTY - APPROVED Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein approve the following amendment to the current Frederick County Grievance Procedure at the end of Step II: If the grievance is not resolved at this point, the grievant shall make a request in writing to the Commonwealth Attorney for a ruling on grievability of the issue at hand. The ruling of grievability shall be made by the Commonwealth Attorney within five (5) days after receipt of the grievant's request. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandi, Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. STATE AND LOCAL HOSPITALIZATION RATES - APPROVED Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors, of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, that the following daily rates for State - Local Hospitalization during the fiscal year 1975 -76 are hereby approved: Winchester Memorial Hospital $72.01 Shenandoah County Memorial Hospital 61.13 Medical College of Virginia Hospitals 99.87 University of Virginia 99.87 The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sand, Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. CERTIFIED LAND SURVEYOR TO BE OBTAINED TO ESTABLISH FRONT PROPERTY LINE ON A LOT IN GREEN ACRES IN ORDER THAT LEGAL ACTION MIGHT BE TAKEN FOR VIOLATION OF THE ZONING O Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein approve the recommendation of the Finance Committee that a certi- fied land surveyor be obtained to establish the front property line on a lot in Green Acres Subdivision in order that legal proceedings might be taken against the lot for violation of the Zoning Ordinance, said funds to be expended from the $15,000 set aside under Category lA titled Special Services. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandi, Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye, Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richa F. Madigan, Aye. 34 AMENDMENT TO MINUTES.OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1975, TO RESCIND RESOLUTION RELATIVE TO PAYMENT OF STATE AND LOCAL SHARE BY COUNTY OF ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AF FECTED BY THE GOVERNOR'S FREEZE ON HIRING - APPROVED Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia does herein amend the minutes of the Regular Meeting of this Board to rescind the resolution passed authorizing payment by the County of both the state and local share of employees in the Constitutional Officers' offices affected by the governor's freeze on hiring; further, the Board directs that these positions be filled if funding is obtained from the State Compensation Board for same to match the already committed local share. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sand Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye;-Donald-R.-Hodgson, Aye; and.Richard F. Madigan, Aye. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PROPOSED LEGISLATION FOR THE VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM TO PERMIT LOCALITIES TO IMPOSE A LOCAL OPTION INCOME TAX - APPROV Mr. Madigan presented a recommendation from the Finance Committee to support pro posed legislation of the Virginia Association of Counties Legislative Program to per- mit localities to impose a local option income tax. Mr. Cole stated that he was opposed to any local income tax inasmuch as he felt there are enough taxes with federal tax, state tax, personal property tax and real estate tax. Mr. Kenneth Stiles stated that he felt this could be a good thing if it is de- signed to replace part of the property tax but if it was an additional tax he would be opposed to it. Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein declare its support for the proposed legislation for the Virginia Association of Counties Legislative Program to permit localities to impose a local option income tax in order that the heavy burden on the County real estate tax and th inequities arising therefrom might be alleviated. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sand Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; Richard F. Madigan, Aye; and Dennis T. Cole, Nay. REQUEST FROM FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY FOR APPOINTMENT TO FILL UNEXPIRED TERM OF JAMES ROBESON - DISCUSSED Mr. Sandy read a letter of resignation from Mr. James Robeson from the Sanitatio Authority stating that Mr. Robeson would be moving to Alabama in.the near future. He then read a request from the Sanitation Authority for an appointment to fill the un- expired term of Mr. Robeson on the Authority. Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein direct that a letter of appreciation be sent to Mr. James Robeson for his service on the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sand Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. Mr. Madigan stated that he would have a suggestion at the next regular meeting of the Board for consideration for appointment to fill this vacancy. REQUEST FROM BELL MANOR FARM, INC. TO WITHDRAW BID ON FAIRBANKS -MORSE SCALES - DENIED A , CJ u I re L C J 1 35 Mr. Renalds stated that he had received a request from Bell Manor Farms,'Inc. be allowed to withdraw their bid of $751.00 for the Fairbanks -Morse scales by this Board on September 10, 1975. After discussion and advice from the Commonwealth Attorney, the Board directed ' County Administrator to advise Bell Manor Farm, Inc. that this request was denied. AUTHORIZATION FOR CHAIRMAN AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR..TO EXECUTE DEED - FRED M. KERNS AL AND FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - CONVEYANCE OF ADDITIONAL 10 FOOT RI OF -WAY - APPROVED Mr. Renalds stated that authorization was needed for the Chairman and the County trator to execute a deed to accept an additional 10 foot right -of -way on a of land being deeded from Fred M. Kerns, et ux to Eugene M..Kerns in accordance th the Frederick County Division of Land Ordinance, requiring a 30 foot right -of • 11adjacent td each piece of property. Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein•iauthorize the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator t execute the deed accepting an additional 10 foot right -of -way on a parcel of land be- ing conveyed from Fred M. Kerns, et ux to Eugene M. Kerns in accordance with the Fred ' erick County Division of Land Ordinance wherein a thirty (30) foot right -of -way is re quired adjacent to each property. • II The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. ; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard Madigan, Aye. HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL PERMIT - J. T.. BAKER CHEMICAL CO. - APPROVED Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- inia, does herein approve the request of J. T. Baker Chemical Company for a hazardous to disposal permit, said permit to be accompanied by an "Industrial Waste Hauler's " as required by the Solid Waste Ordinance. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. ; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard Madigan, Aye. ADVISED OF VARIANCE FOR RALPH W. POE Mr. Ambrogi advised the Board that he had received a letter from Eugene Gunter, ttorney representing Ralph Poe, requesting a variance on a house and lot owned by Mr.l Mr. Ambrogi stated that he is currently seeking an opinion from the Attorney for clarification of the definition of a "Subdivision" which would include n LJ vision of a parcel of lnad into three or more lots rather than two or more lots, as ated in the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, in order to determine if this riance can be granted under the County ordinance. He stated that he would keep the Board advised of the opinion received in this tter and subsequent action to be taken. UPON MOTION DULY MADE,_SECONDED, AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE i 1 OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW ADJOURN.