June 27, 1973 to September 18, 1973i
At the Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, on the 27th day of June, 1973.
PRESENT: Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman; J. Robert Russell, Vice Chairman; Donald R.
1
Hodgson; Dennis T. Cole; and Richard F. Madigan.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole the minutes
of the Work Session held on June 6, 1973 were approved unanimously.
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT REPORT
State Route 1314 - Named Hickory Street - Approved
Mr. Sandy presented a request from the citizens of Darlington Subdivision to name
State Route 1314 Hickory Street.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan,
WHEREAS, A request has been received from County Citizens residing along State
Route 1314 to have said road named Hickory Street,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia, that State Route 1314 be named Hickory Street and that the Virginia Department
of Highways be advised of this action and requested to concur, subject to applicable Highway
Department requirements and regulations.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Abandonment of Route 837 - Approved
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan,
WHEREAS, The Frederick County Board of Supervisors has been petitioned by a County
Property Owner for the abandonment of a portion of the State Secondary System and railroad
crossing; and,
WHEREAS, due notice of such intent to abandon said road and railroad crossing has
been posted at the front door of the Frederick County Courthouse and along the road to be
abandoned and notice has been published in two (2) issues of a newspaper havingggeneral
circulation in the County, and notice has been given to the State Highway Commission; and,
WHEREAS, no petition has been received from any landowner in Frederick County to
hold a public hearing on such abandonment; and,
WHEREAS, all of the above requirements have been met in accordance with Title
3311, Chapter 1, Article 11, Section 33.1 -151, Code of Virginia (1950) as amended,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia, in accordance with Title 33.1, Chapter 1, Article 11, Section 33.1 -151, Code of
Virginia (1950) as amended, that the following section of road and railroad crossing be
hereby abandoned altogether as a public road and public crossing,: Route 837 and railroad
crossing from just east of the Penn Central Railroad track crossing of Route 837 westward
to the eastern most right of way line of Interstate I -81.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
SCHOOL BOARD RESOLUTION AMENDMENT - APPROVED
Dr. Wright appeared before the Board and requested an amendment to the Transfer of
Funds Resolution passed on June 13, 1973, wherein the Frederick County School Board would
be authorized to use additional funds allocated from the State as well as funds within the
limits of the approved Literary Loan Fund and the Virginia Public School Authority Loan for
school construction.
2
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Board of Supervisors amends the resolut
TRANSFER OF FUNDS approved June 13, 1973, as follows:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Frederick County School Board is hereby granted
permission to use any additional funds allocated from the State as well as funds within the
limits of the approved Literary Loan Fund and the Virginia Public School Authority Loan for
school construction.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Dr. Wright expressed appreciation to the Board on behalf of the School Board and
the Advisory Board of Dowell J. Howard Vocational School for the traffic lights installed on
Route 7 near the entrance to the road leading to the school.
Dr.
Wright stated
that the
School Board had approved the bid
from Howard Shockey
for the school
at Apple Pie
Ridge.
He stated it was higher than they
had anticipated but
they hoped through change orders to reduce the estimate.
a
COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH AND RETARDATION BOARD CHAPTER 10 - APPROVED
Dr. Brown appeared before the Board and presented a request to the Board for the
creation of a Mental Health and Retardation Board in conjunction with the local governments
of the counties of Clarke and Warren and the City of Winchester. She gave a brief explanat
of the services rendered by this Board and stated that anything coming before the Board
would have to be approved by the Board of Supervisors and the Winchester City Council.
Mr. Cole stated that an ad hoc committee would make recommendations to the Board
of Supervisors for the three appointees to this Board. This was agreeable to the Board.
Mr. Cole suggested that the names be submitted to Mr. Renalds for the July 11th meeting.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole,
WHEREAS, Chapter 10, (Community Mental Health and Mental Retardation Services), of
Title 37.1 (Institutions for the Mentally Ill; Mental Health Generally) of the 1950 Code of
Virginia, as amended, provides for the establishment of a community mental health and mental
retardation services program; and,
WHEREAS, Section 37.1 of said Code requires the establishment of a Community Mental
Health and Mental Retardation Board when a community mental health and mental retardation
program is established; and,
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia,
to establish such a program and Board, with the intent of implementing the provisions of the
aforesaid Chapter 10 of Title 37.1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia so amended; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED, That there be established by the Board of Supervisors of Frederick
County, Virginia, in conjunction with the local governments of the counties of Clarke, and
Warren, and the City of Winchester, a community mental health and mental retardation
services board to be known as the Northwestern Community Mental Health and Mental Retardation
Services Board. It shall be understood that the counties of Page and Shenandoah may join
this program and the Board at a later date if they so desire.
The Northwestern Community Mental Health and Mental Retardation Services Board shall
consist of not less than five (5) or more then fifteen (15) members to be appointed by the
Boardsodf Supervisors of the counties represented and the Council of the City of Winchester.
Initially, nine (9) members shall be appointed on the basis of one (1) representative for
each eight thousand (8,000) people in each jurisdiction involved: Clarke County, one (1);
Frederick, three (3); Warren County, two (2); Winchester, three (3). The members of the
n,
I II
3
Board shall serve the following terms for the date of the first appointments:
1/3 members for a period of three years
1/3 members for a period of two years
1/3 members for a period of one year
l
The term of each member of the Board after the initial appointments shall be for
three (3) years from January 1 of the year appointed, except that vacancies shall be filled
for the balance of an unexpired term.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
MR. MICHAEL QUINN INTRODUCED TO BOARD
Mr. Renalds introduced Mr. Michael Quinn to the Board stating that Mr. Quinn was a
senior student at the University of Virginia working with the Virginia Historic Landmark
Commission.
Mr. Sandy welcomed Mr. Quinn to Frederick County and asked what sort of work he
would be doing in the area.
Mr. Quinn stated that he would be making a survey of the old homes in the county
during the summer.
MANUEL SEMPELES ADDRESSES BOARD IN OPPOSITION TO THE
PROPOSED SEWER PLANTS
Mr. Sempeles appeared before the Board and presented a petition containing the name;
of people in the Stonewall District objecting to the sewer plants at the proposed locations;
one at Kernstown, one on Abrams Creek and one on Red Bud Run. He stated that he could not ur,
understand why the Board of Supervisors and the City of Winchester could not get together
on one central sewage plant and that an 85% grant could be obtained on a joint venture. He
stated that the main objections of the people to these plants were the contamination of
Abrams Creek, the pollution of Red Bud Run, the odor factor and the affect on property values
of the properties near the plants.
He stated that previously Time Freight had dumped residue into Red Bud.causing
pollution of the creek.
Mr. Sempeles cited a water plant in Fairfax County which was supposed to be
foolproof but
in
April
the
plant
failed
and dumped 1.2
million gallons of raw
sewage into
the stream.
He
stated
that
the
citizens
were concerned
that this might occur
in Frederick
County.
Mr. Sempeles further stated that the County had had three (3) studies made, one by
L�
McNair, one by Wilson and one by Potter and to date nothing had been done.
Mr. Sempeles said that he felt it was a waste to have a plant in Kernstown as this
plant would only serve General Electric, and three plants of this type would be quite expen-
sive. He said that he felt one central sewer plant would take care of all the areas that
needed service. He appealed to the Board to consider a regional plant.
Mr. Sandy stated that the Board was well aware.of the 85% grant available. He
stated that the Board, two years ago, sent their request to the Water Control Board for this
money and when the priorities came down, Frederick County was slated for 1979 -1980. Since
that time the priorities have been revised to 1978 -79 becuase of the growth of the County and
the work being done between the County and the City to solve the problems
the County is on the waiting list and high.on the priorities.
He stated that
Mr. Sandy said the plants proposed are stop gap measures until the master plant is
built. He said he felt the regional plant would become a reality if the City and County
worked together. However, he stated that he did not feel the County could ask the citizens
who needed these services to wait until 1979 or 1980 for relief of the problems.
Mr. Sempeles asked if it would not be more feasible to up date the present city ,
facility and Mr. Sandy stated that there were no funds available for updating the present
plant and that this must be done on a regional basis in order to receive the funds.
Several people in the audience voiced objections to the three proposed plants
stating that they felt the cost was exorbitant and the pollution factor was too great.
Mr..Sandy thanked the people for their comments. ,
PUBLIC HEARINGS - REZONING APPLICATIONS
Lenoir City Company - Rezoning Application - Wi th d r a wn:
Mr. Sandy stated that the application of Lenoir City Company of Virginia to rezone
18.07 acres in Stonewall District from A -2 to M -1 had been withdrawn inasmuch as this property
was already zoned M -1 and the rezoning was not necessary.
Robert K. Stickley - Rezoning Application - Tabled
Mr. Sandy presented the petition of Robert K. Stickley to rezone 27 acres in
Opequon Magisterial District from A -2 to B -1. There was no one present in support of this
application.
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 does herin
herein table the rezoning application of Robert K. Stickley to rezone 27 acres in Opequon ,
Magisterial District from A -2 to B -1 inasmuch as no one appeared in support of this
application.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
James L. Bowman - Rezoninq Application - Approved:
Mr. Sandy presented the petition of James L. Bowman to rezone 101.278 acres in
Opequon Magisterial District from A -2 to R -2.
Mr. Bowman appeared in support of this application.
There was no opposition.
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 does herein
approve the application of James L. Bowman, et ux to rezone approximately 101.278 acres of
land; located Northeast of Stephens City along Route 642 in the Opequon Magisterial District; '
from Agricultural (A -2) to Residential (R -2), Z. A. N. 122.
The above resolution was passed uanimously.
James L. Bowman - Rezoninq Application - Approved
Mr. Sandy presented the petition of James L. Bowman to rezone 24 acres in Opequon
Magisterial District from A -2 to R -2. I
Mr. Bowman appeared in support of this application.
There was no opposition.
Updn 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 does herein
approve the rezoning application of James L. Bowman et ux to rezone approximately 24 acres of
land; located South of Route 277 on the East side of Route 641 in the Opequon Magisterial
District; from Agricultural (A -2) to Residential (R -2), Z.A.N. 123.
5
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Fred L. Glaize, III - Rezoning Application - Approved
Mr. Sandy presented the petition of Fred L. Glaize, III to rezone 123.610 acres in
Opequon Magisterial District from A -2 to R -2.
Mr. Glaize appeared in support of this 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, Virginia,
does herein approve the rezoning application of Fred L. Glaize, III et al to rezone
approximately 123.610 acres of land; located East of Route 81 on Route 647 in the Opequon
Magisterial District from Agricultural (A -2) to Residential (R -2), Z.A.N. 124.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
W -D Company, Inc. - Application for Rezoning - Approved
Mr. Sandy presented the petition of W -D Company, Inc. to rezone 42.775 acres in
Back Creek Magisterial District from R -1 and B -2 to
Mr. Bayliss appeared before the Board in support of this application.
Mr. Stratton stated that W -D Company had agreed to comply with the recommendations
of the Planning Commission concerning the cemetary located on the proper-tyyand in the
churchyar-ddin that a ten foot buffer zone would be established and an access walkway would
be established from the closest public street to the existing cemetaries.
There was no opposition.
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 does
herein approve the rezoning application of W -D Company, Inc. to rezone approximately 42.775
acres of land; located along Route 652 and Route 706 in Back Creek Magisterial District from
Residential (R -1) and Business :( +B=2) to Residential (R -2), Z.A.N. 125.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Earl Lee Cather, et ux - Rezoning Application - Approved
Mr. Sandy presented the petition of Earl Lee Cather and Edith A. Cather to rezone
1.08 acres in Back Creek District from A -2 to B -2, known as Cather's Farm Market.
Mr. Sandy stated that this business was ilready in operation and that this zoning
action was being taken in order to comply with the zoning ordinance, in order to protect the
owners in the event of loss such as fire
prior to the zoning ordinance.
He stated that this business was in existence
Mr. Ben Butler appeared before the Board in support of this rezoning application
representing Mr. and Mrs. Cather,
There was no opposition.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole,
P
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board df Supervisors of the County of Frederick does herein
approve the rezoning applicationnof Earl Lee and Edith A. Cather to rezone approximately 1.08
acres of land; located along the South side of Route 50 West known as Cather's Farm Market in
Back Creek Magisterial District, from Agricultural (A -2) Business (B;�2), Z.A.N. 126.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
A
Brand Associates - Rezoning Application - Tabled
Mr. Sandy presented the petition of Robert S.'Barbour, et al t/a Brand Associates
to rezone 14.266 acres in Opequon Magisterial District from A -2 to M -2.
Mr. John Chipman appeared before the Board, representing Brand Associates, in
support of this rezoning application, and stated that they felt this area was quite conducive '
to M -2 zoning because of Interstate 81 and the Route 66 Interchange being located close by.
Mr. Sandy asked where the property was situated in respect to Belle Grove. Mr.
Chipman stated it was across Rt. 11.
The
Supervisors discussed the various zonings in the area.
Mr. Sandy stated that
their main concern
was even though there
was an M -2 zoning in this area,
the area was zoned
'
residential in
character.
Mr.
Chipman stated he felt the
area was already industrial
because of the M -2
zoning of the
Western Union and the noise
resulting from Interstate
81 and the Route 66
Interchange.
Mr: Sandy called for opposition. There was none.
Mr. Madigan stated that the Board would like to have more time to consider this
application because of the character of the area.
Mr. Sandy stated that he felt many people did not realize what M -2 zoning encom-
passed and he felt the people in the area would not be happy with a truck terminal being
located there.
Mr. Barbour appeared before the Board and stated that the plans for the area were
not definite at this point but that he was in negotiation for either a truck terminal or a '
highly computerized business. He stated he did not intend to establish any objectionable
industry in the area. He stated that they had looked very hard for an area contiguous to
this zoning.
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 does
herein table the rezoning application of Robert S. Barbour et al t/a as Brand Associates to
rezone approximately 14.266 acres located in Opequon Magisterial District from A -2 to M -2
until the July 11, 1973 meeting of the Board in order that the Board might have more time to
consider this application.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
L. O. Dick Estate - Rezoninq Applications - Den
Mr. Sandy presented the petitions of L. O. Dick Estate to rezone approximately '
39.00 acres from A -2 to M -2 and approximately 21.00 acres from A -2 to M -2, said property
located in Stonewall Magisterial District.
Mr. Robert Mitchell appeared before the Board in support of this application
representing the L. O. Dick Estate. Mr. Mitchell stated that there were no specific plans
for the property at the present time, but that the proposed purchaser hoped to interest ,
industry in the area.
Mr. Cole objected to this rezoning because of the possible pollution to the stream
which feeds the C1earBrook Park Pool.
Mr. Mitchell stated that the purchaser had no intention of locating anything there
that would pollute the stream.
z
Mr. Sandy called for opposition to the rezoning applications. There was none.
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 does herei
i�
deny the rezoning applications of L. 0. Dick Estate to rezone approximately 39.00 acres of
land located at the intersection of Route 81 and Route 672 on the Northeast side front
approximately 1000 feet on Route 11 and-approximately 650 feet on Route 672 in Stonewall
Magisterial District, from Agricultrual (A -2) to Industrial (M -2), and approximately 21.00
acres of land located at the intersection of Route 81 and Route 672 on the Southeast side,
fronting approximately 650 feet on Route 672 with a depth of approximately 2000 feet in
Stonewall Magisterial District from Agricultural (A -2) to Industrial (M -2), inasmuch as the
applicant has not set forth the intended use of the property and therefore the effect on the
stream supplying Clearbrook Park Pool can not be determined.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Marion F. Lineberg - Rezoning Application - Approved
Mr. Sandy presented the petition of Marion F. Lineberg to rezone approximately
0.335 acres of land located-in Back Creek Magisterial District from A -2 to B -2.
Mr. Lineberg appeared before the Board in support of this rezoning application.
Mr. Sandy read the recommendat-ionsodf the Planning Commission wherein they recom =_e!
mended this property not be rezoned because the side yard was too small, it was not at
street grade and there was no space for customer parking, and there were not other businesses
in the area.
Mr. Lineberg stated that he felt there was adequate room for ten (10) cars to
be parked and there had been other businesses in the area, less than a quarter of a mile c;
away, rezoned for businesses of this type. He stated that the property would be used to show
model vacation homes.
Mr. Madigan stated that he was concerned whether or not a business in this area
would be successful, and Mr. Lineberg-stated that he felt his product would be sufficient
to make the business successful.
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 does herein
approve the rezoning application of Marion F. Lineberg to rezone approximately 0.335 acres of
land located on the Sputhwestern Highway Boundary Line of Route 50 West and the Northeastern
Highway Boundary Line of Route 803 in the Back Creek Magisterial District from Agricultural
(A -2) to (B -2), Z.A.N. 127.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Smithfield Farms Addition, Inc. - Rezoning Application - Approved
Mr. Sandy presented the petition of SmithfieldaFarms Addition; Inc. to rezone
approximately 22.06 acres located in Stonewall Magisterial District from Industrial (M -2)
to Residential (R -2).
Mr. Joe Butler appeared before the Board in support of this rezoning application
representing Smithfield Farms Addition, Inc.
Mr. John Mitchell, the contract owner of the property, appeared before the Board
and stated that he planned to develop the property with garden apartments and townhouses.
Mr. Sandy called for opposition to this rezoning. There was none.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan,
A
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does here
approve the rezoning application of Smithfield Farms Addition, Inc. to rezone approximately
22.06 acres of land located at the end of Van Fossen Street, Apple Street and Butler Street
between Smithfield Avenue and Battle Avenue in Stonewall Magisterial District from Industrial
(M -2) to Residential (R -2), Z.A.N. 128.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Marjec Inc. - Rezoning Application - Approved
Mr. Sandy presented the petition of Marjec, Inc..to rezone approximately 6.8378
acres in Back Creek Magisterial District from A -1 to R -2 stating that this application had
been tabled at the June 13, 1973 meeting.
Mr. Massie appeared before the Board in support of this application and stated that
the objections to this rezoning set forth at the previous meeting, concerning the two holes
on the golf course which would be taken_by this rezoning, had been considered and Marjec, Inc.
would relocate these two holes.
Mr. Sandy asked if this course would then be dedicated in order to assure the
residents that there would be no further alteration of the course.
Mr. Massie stated that these recreational facilities were not dedicated inasmuch
as the facilities were made available by Marjec, Inc. for use by the members in good standing
of the Country Club.
Mr. Cole stated that he felt if these facilities were dedicated the Country Club
would have no control over the members who were delinquent.
Mr. Lambourne stated that they had been developing Shawneeland for seventeen years
and they had not done away with any of the facilities but had moved and improved them for the
convenience of the residents. He stated that he felt Shawneeland was a credit to the communi
and they had no intention of doing anything but improve the facilities.
Mr. Sandy called for opposition.
Mr. Hedrick appeared before the Board and requested the following letter from Mr.
StephensBrooks be introduced into the minutes of this meeting:
TO: Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Frederick County, Virginia
DATE: June 19, 1973
SUBJECT: Rezoning Application df Marjec,
from A -1 to R -2.
Inc. of a Seven -Acre Plot in Shawneeland
In order to provide the Board of Supervisors, in more detail, with our positi
on the above rezoning application, I wish to summarize information relating to our
interest in the rezoning.
First: The par 3 golf course is included in the plans announced by Marjec, Inc
While over a period of years an 18-'hole championship course with other facilities
associated with it has been in the plans, a par 3 course - - -in good condition - - -is
acceptable to many of the property owners. We therefore request that Marjec make
available to the Board of Supervisors a comprehensive construction plan that would
include the addition to the golf course simultaneous with the buildings.
Second: The condition of the water from the present water system is not
entirely satisfactory. It would be appropriate to include plans to relieve this
situation.
T ir7?Third: It is our understanding that only a small portion-of the seven acres
is required to put the pilot building program into effect. It would therefore
appear that approval of a smaller tract at this time would give us an opportunity
have greater insight as to the feasibility of future rezoning for additional buil
At the meeting on June 27th, 1973, Mr. Sherwood Hedrick is authorized to
represent the Civic Association of Shawneeland in reference to this matter.
Any consideration on behalf of the property owners at Shawneeland will be very
much appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen L. Brooks
Stephen L. Brooks, President
Civic Association of Shawneeland
Mountain Falls Route, Box 77 -D
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Telephone: 667 -8674
L'
r
Mr. Hedrick stated that the residents would "also like to see some improvement to
present water
present water system and a sufficient water supply planned for the proposed condominium.
Mr. Madigan asked if the golf course would be relocated at the same time the
condominium was being constructed.and Mr. Lambourne stated that it would be done at the same
time or before construction of the condominium.
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 does
approve the rezoning application of Marjec, Inc. to rezone approximately 6.8378 acres of land
located at Shawnee Land in Back Creek Magisterial District from Agricultural (A -1) to
Residential (R -2), Z.A.N. 121.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
SUBDIVISIONS
Marjec, Inc. - Shawneeland Subdivision - Plat 15, Section 22; Plat 30, Section 23; Plats 2 -5
Section 24; Plats 1 -8, Section 25 - Approved
Mr. Renalds presented the plats submitted by Marjec, Inc. for approval and the
staff comments concerning these plats.
Mr. Massie appeared before the Board in support of this subdivision.
Mr. Tom Glass, surveyor for Shawneeland,Lappeared before the Board and presented the
guidelines used in preparing these plats. He stated that a subdivision on top of a mountain,
such as Shawneeland, could not be platted like one on a flat piece of ground.
Mr. Massie stated that the building permits would be issued on these lots subject
to approval on an individual lot basis by the Health Department.
Mr. Cole stated that he felt this developer should pay the recreational impact fee
just as other developers in the area do.
Mr. Massie stated that Shawneeland was not subject to this fee inasmuch as this
was a recreation development and therefore provided recreation facilities for its residents.
Upon motion made by Richatd F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does herein
approve the following Subdivision Plats of Shawneeland - Marjec, Inc.,:
Plat 15, Section 22
Plat 30, Section 23
Plats 2 -5, Section 24
Plats 1 -8, Section 25
By recorded vote with Raymond C. Sandy, J. Robert Russell, and Richard F. Madigan
voting "Aye" and Dennis T. Cole and Donald RT_Hodgson voting "Nay" the above resolution was
passed.
19
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A Public Hearing was held at 8:45 P.M. on the following ordinances:
ORDINANCE PROVIDING EXEMPTION FROM LOCAL TAXATION
OF POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES
THIRD AND FINAL READING - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy presented the Ordinance to Provide Exemption of Pollution Control
Equipment and Facilities from Local Taxation by the County of Frederick, Virginia. Mr.
Madigan read the ordinance in full.
Mr. Sandy called for opposition to this ordinance. There was none.
10
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, Virginia
does herein approve on third and final reading the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE EXEMPTION OF POLLUTION
CONTROL EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES FROM LOCAL
TAXATION BY THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Frederick, Virginia, pursuant to Section 58 -16.3, Article 3,
Chapter 1, Title 58, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, as follows:
Section 1 - That certified pollution control equipment and
facilities as defined in the above cited section
of the Code of Virginia, shall be exempt from
taxation by the County of Frederick, Virginia.
Section 2 - Such equipment and facilities shall be required
or ordered to be installed by the appropriate
agency 6f the Commonwealth of Virginia, and shall
be in conformity with the requirements of said
agency.
Section 3 - Such equipment upon installation shall be certified
in'-= writing by the appropriate state agency. One
copy of said certification shall be directed to
the Commissioner of Revenue of Frederick County,,
one copy to*the Frederick County Board of Super-
visors, and one copy to the State Department of
Taxation.
Section 4 - Determinations as to eligibility for tax exemption
under this ordinance shall be made by the Commis-
sioner of Revenue of Frederick County, Virginia.
Section 5 - This ordinance shall become effective on the date
of passage and shall be retroactive to January 1, 1973.
Section 6 - Should any article or provision of this ordinance
be determined to be invalid or unconstitutional,
such decision shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of any other:section
provision of this ordinance.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO OUTDOOR FESTIVAL ORDINANCE
THIRD AND FINAL READING - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy presented the amendment to the Outdoor Festival Ordinance. AMr.MMadigan
read the amendment to the ordinance in full.
Mr. Sandy called for opposition. There was none.
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 does
herein approve on third and final reading the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK,
VIRGINIA, CHAPTER 14A, SECTION 14A -3 (C) PERTAINING TO
OUTDOOR FESTIVALS
BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Frederick, Virginia, pursuant to Section 15.1 -510, Articld 1,
Chapter 12, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, that
Section 14A -3 (C) of the Frederick County Code shall be amended to
read as follows:
The Board shall act on such applications not later
than the next scheduled regular meeting of the Board of
Supervisors, provided that the application has been on
file with the Clerk to the Board for at least seven (7) days
prior to said meeting. If granted, the permit shall
be issued in writing on a form for the purpose and mailed
by the Clerk to the applicant at the address indicated.
If denied, the refusal shall be in writing and the reasons
for such denial stated therein, and mailed by the Clerk
to the applicant at the address indicated.
Should any article or provision of this ordinance be determined
to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the
validity or constitutionality of any other section or provision of this
ordinance.
1
Ci
11
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its adoption
and enactment by the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE TO IMPOSE PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO FILE PERSONAL
PROPERTY RETURNS - THIRD AND FINAL READING - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy presented the ordinance to impose penalties for failure to file personal
tax returns by May 1st of each year. Mr. Madigan read the ordinance in full.
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 does
herein approve on third and final readingsthe following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO IMPOSE PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO FILE PERSONAL
PROPERTY RETURNS BY MAY 1ST OF EACH FOR THE COUNTY OF
FREDERICK, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Frederick, Virginia.
Section 1 - Pursuant to authority granted in Section 58 -847
of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended, the following provisions
are hereby enacted.
Section 2 - The annual returns of taxable tangible personal
property, machinery,and tools, and merchants capital for the County
of Frederick, Virginia, shall be filed with the Commissioner of
Revenue for Frederick County on or before the 1st day of May
of each year.
Section 3 - A penalty for failure to file such return on or
before the 1st day of May of each year, shall be charged at the rate
of ten per cent (10 %) of the tax assessable or due on such property
of the sum of Two Dollars ($2.00), whichever shall be the greater.
Section 4 - Should any section or provision of this ordinance
be declared invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not
affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section and
provision of this ordinance.
Section 5 - This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon
its adoption and enactment by the Board of Supervisors of Frederick
County, Virginia.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
FIREWORKS PERMITS - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy presented requests from Shawneeland and The Summitr:for fireworks permits.
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 does
herein approve the request of Shawneeland for a fireworks permit for July 7, 1973 and the
request from The Summit for a fireworks permit for July 4, 1973; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board does herein diract the County Administrator
to issue any additional fireworks permits directly through his office.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
BOARD OF BUILDING APPEALS - TERMS OF OFFICE SET
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 does
herein set the terms of office of the Board of Building Appeals as follows:
Back Creek District - 1 year
Gainesboro District - 2 years
Opequon District - 3 years
Shawnee District - 4 years
Stonewall District - 5 years
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
12
BUILDING PERMIT REFUNDS - 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 does
herein approve the following Building Permit Refunds, upon the recommendation of the
Director of Inspections:
1. C. R. Hodgson - $7.50
2. Harry Stine - $7.50
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
RESIGNATION - JOHN L. SCIPIONE RECREATION COMMISSION - ACCEPTED
DAVID FAHNESTOCK APPOINTED TO FILL VACANCY
Mr. Sandy read a letter of resignation from John L. Scipione, a member of the
Recreation Commission.
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 does
herein appoint David Fahnestock to the Parks and Recreation Commission to fill the vacancy
created by the resignation of John L. Scipione; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board does herein direct a letter of appreciation
be sent to Mr. Scipione for his service on this commission.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
MOBILE HOME PERMITS
Mr. Madigan stated that he had seen the location of the application for mobile
home permit of William and Anna Wolfe, which had been tabled at the June 13, 1973,.meeting,
and felt it was in 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 does
herein approve the following mobile home permits:
1. William and Anna Wolfe, Route 600, Back Creek District, Zoned A -1.
2. David Holtzbaur, Route 608, Gainesboro District, Zoned A -1.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
REPRESENTATIVES TO WINCHESTER S.P.C.A. - TABLED
Mr. Sandy presented a request from the Winchester S.P.C.A. for representatives to
be appointed from each Magisterial District to attend the Winchester S.P.C.A. monthly meeting.
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 does herein..
table the appointment of a representative from each magisterial district to attend the
monthly meetings of the Winchester S.P.C.A. until the next regularly scheduled meeting in
order that the supervisors might have time to consider these appointments.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS CONFERENCE NOTED
Mr. Renalds advised the Board of a Local Government 0fficials Conference to be
held at the University of Virginia. He stated that further information would be forthcoming.
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 does
herein approve the bills as submitted and does herein direct that the same be paid by Warr
#03236 to #03274 in the amount of $42,621.83 from the General Fund and by Warrants 4425 to
in the amount of $2,030.88 from the Parks and Recreation Fund.
1
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
13
u
TREASURER "S REPORT.- ACCEPTED
Mr. Sandy'presented the Treasurer's Report -' Statement of Income Actual and
Estimated for the period ended May 31, 1973. The report was accepted unanimously.
APPROPRIATION TRANSFERS - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy presented the appropriation transfers requested by the Director of
Accounting.
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 does
herein approve the following appropriation transfers in order to facilitate closing of accoun
as of June 30, 1973, and to allow for the purchase of the refuse collection equipment
received to date:
Transfers From
1
Transfers To
TOTAL $101,896.30 $101,896.30
03- 003A -109A
301.40
01 -001A -2010
1,568.99
04 -004A -2180
36.26
-2140
600.00
06- 006A -106G
215.75
-2990
1,780.00
06- 006A -106H
722.25
-3190
3,500.00
06- 006E -106C
433.81
01 -001C -1010
1,474.71
10- 01OA -109A
398.79
-109A
2,263.36
11 -011A -2180
37.17
-2990
540.74
11 -011A -3260
5,000.00
01 -001D -1020
69.22
12- 012A -215D
•100.00
-1090
992.36
12 -012A -3000
112.16
01 -001F -1020
2,191.47
-3)20 -3120
130.82
-1090
3,048.73
-3250
295.98
-2140
1,000.00
13 -013A -1000
150.00
-3190
329.63
-2090
120.00
01 -001G -1020
1,437.49
-2140
230.00
02 -002A -1020
402.21
-2180
188.75
-109A
581.59
-2200
140.90
-109B
209.92
13 -013B -1020
1,076.10
-109C
204.08
14 -014A -2070
'573.76
-109D
191.18
-215B
1,234.84
-109E
303.96
-2230
401.08
-109F
81.53
14 -014B -2070
631.45
-215A
201.09
15- 015A -226A
9.20
03 -003A -1020
374.96
17- 017J -299A
4,800.00
1-109C
238.19
18- 018E -702E
3
05 -005A -1210
325.80
19- 001G -403B
2
05 -005C -1020
916.62
19- 001G -403E
1,064.05
-102 -102A
312.90
19 -006A -4000
10,712.21
-109B
426.13
19 -OIOJ -4000
42,001.73
06 -006A -1020
271.01
19- 010J -400A
25,007.47
-106A
205.86
-106B
173.43
-106C
154.73
-106D
193.31
-106E
190.79
-106F
222.44
-1061
3,263.00
-106K
458.29
-106L
153.51
-106M
97.22
-106N
708.33
-2110
565.00
-2180
191.52
06- 006B -106A
166.71
-106B
153.51
-106D
110.40
-106E
330.00
-106F
7,046.64
-3100
1,371.81
07 -007A =2080
769.59
08 -008D -2250
2,896.83
08 -OOBF -2260
245.00
09 -009A -2290
1.00
09 -009B -2140
3,164.40
10- 010A -109B
19.05
-109C
1,179.31
10 -01OB -1130
833.29
10 -01OH -3260
28
10 -010J -1230
405.61
-1300
620.20
-1360
485.74
-215C
398.79
-2900
20.483.12
TOTAL $101,896.30 $101,896.30
14
APPOINTMENTS - CIVIL DEFENSE - APPROVED
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia
that the individuals occupying the positions listed below shall hold such Civil Defense
positions as set forth below:
County Position Civil Defense Position ,
Chairman, Board of Supervisors - Director
County Administrator - Deputy Director
Deputy County Administrator - Coordinator
Deputy County Engineer - Deputy Coordinator '
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
J. ROBERT RUSSELL - REAPPOINTED TO WELFARE BOARD
Mr. Sandy stated that Mr. Russell's term on the Welfare Board would expire soon and
that the concensus of the Board was to reappoint Mr. Russell inasmuch as he was doing such an
outstanding job on this Board.
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 does here
reappoint J. Robert Russell to the Frederick County Welfare Board for a term of four years.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
DOG WARDEN REPORT
Mr. Harold Whitacre appeared before the Board and presented his monthly report.
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 does
herein approve the livestock claim of William Griffith of Gainesboro District for two guineas
in the amount of $1.00 each.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
NORTHWESTERN PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION - APPROVED
Mr. Madigan reported that the Finance Committee had recommended unanimously to
approve the supplemental appropriation requested by the Northwestern Psychiatric Clinic.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors considers the employment of a fulltime
psychologist for the Northwestern Psychiatric Clinic to be a most worthwhile and beneficial
aid to the people of Frederick County; and,
WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors has previously indicated its favorable intentions
'
of supporting the employment of a psychologist,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia, that in accordance with the recommendation of the Finance Committee a supplemental
appropriation in the amount of $3,241.43 from the General Operating Fund be hereby approved
,
for the Northwestern Psychiatric Clinic for FY 1973 -1974.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
WINCHESTER- FREDERICK COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS - DENIED
Request for Additional Personnel - Denied
Mr. Madigan reported,that due to the tight budget the County would be operating
under during FY 1973 -1974, the Finance Committee had recommended that the request for
additional funds by the Winchester - Frederick County Health Department be denied.
15
Mr. Cole stated that he did not'agree with this recommendation because last fall
the Board had indicated that they would support the Health Department in this request.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert - Russell,
WHEREAS, Frederick County will be operating under austere budgets for future
fiscal years due'•to certain established financial committments.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia that the Board does not concur in the proposed personnel program for the Frederick-
Winchester Health Department for the next biennium as presented, in accordance with the
recommendation of the Finance Committee.
Donald R. Hodgson voting "Aye" and Dennis T. Cole voting "Nay" the above resolution was
By recorded vote with Raymond C. Sandy, J. Robert Russell, Richard F. Madigan, and
passed.
Request For Proposed Land Purchase - Denied
Mr. Madigan stated that the Finance Committee had recommended denial df the request
of the Health Department for purchase of the land adjacent to the present facility, inasmuch
as they felt the cost was excessive for the small amount of acreage involved.
Mr. Cole objected to this recommendation stating that he felt the Board had
indicated to the Health Department their support in this request and that it had been
presented to the Board prior to the preparation of the Budget.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
WHEREAS, Frederick County will be operating under austere budgets for future fiscal
years due to certain established financial committments, and,
WHEREAS, Additional traffic congestion is anticipated in the vicinity of the presen
Frederick - Winchester Health Department and costs for proposed land purchases are excessive
for the small acreage involved,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of'Frederick,
Virginia that the Board does not concur in the purchase of additional land adjacent to the
present facility of the Frederick - Winchester Health Department in accordance with the
recommendation of the Finance Committee.
By recorded vote with Raymond C. Sandy, J. Robert Russell, Richard F. Madigan and
Donald R. Hodgson voting "Aye" and Dennis T. Cole voting "Nay" the above resolution was pas
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS - DENIED
1
Mr. Madigan stated that the Finance Committee recommended denial of the request for
additional funds by the Chamber of Commerce due to the tight budget the Board would be
operating under.
Mr. Cole objected to this recommendation stating that this was presented to the
Board prior to the preparation of the Budget.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
WHEREAS, Frederick County has previously approved its budget for FY 1973- 74;aand,
WHEREAS, The County will be operating under an austere budget for FY 1973 -74,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia, that the Board does.herein accept the recommendation of its Finance Committee and
deny the request of the Winchester - Frederick County Chamber of Commerce for additional funds
in the amount of $5,500.00.
16
By recorded vote with Raymond C. Sandy, J. Robert Russell, Richard F. Madigan, and
Donald R. Hodgson voting "Aye" and Dennis T. Cole voting "Nay" the above resolution was
passed.
to 1500 pounds; and $1.85 for each whole ton (2000)pounds) for consideration by the Board.
Mr. Sandy stated that the rate proposed of $1.85 was a break even rate which would
pay for . the equipment at the Landfill, its maintenance and operation; without any reserve.
He stated that the present Landfill site could be used for a maximum of two more years and
when the County moves into the new site many expenses will be incurred such as the purchase
of new scales, the installation of the scales, and building a road into the area. He
stated that various means of new revenue were being considered by the County to meet these
expenses, but he felt the Board should prepare now to meet these expenses, rather than in the
years when they are going to be hard pressed for money.
Mr. Cole stated that he felt the County Engineer should be making plans now for the
new landfill inasmuch as the preparation of this area would require a great deal of time.
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, Virginia,
does hereby establish rates for dumping solid waste at the Sanitary Landfill effective
July 1, 1973, as follows:
1.
LANDFILL -
RATES SET
$
Mr. Hodgson presented
a proposed rate
of $0.95 for
0 to 100 pounds; $1.40 for 1000
to 1500 pounds; and $1.85 for each whole ton (2000)pounds) for consideration by the Board.
Mr. Sandy stated that the rate proposed of $1.85 was a break even rate which would
pay for . the equipment at the Landfill, its maintenance and operation; without any reserve.
He stated that the present Landfill site could be used for a maximum of two more years and
when the County moves into the new site many expenses will be incurred such as the purchase
of new scales, the installation of the scales, and building a road into the area. He
stated that various means of new revenue were being considered by the County to meet these
expenses, but he felt the Board should prepare now to meet these expenses, rather than in the
years when they are going to be hard pressed for money.
Mr. Cole stated that he felt the County Engineer should be making plans now for the
new landfill inasmuch as the preparation of this area would require a great deal of time.
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, Virginia,
does hereby establish rates for dumping solid waste at the Sanitary Landfill effective
July 1, 1973, as follows:
1.
0 to
1000 pounds
$
1.00
2.
1000
to 1500 pounds
$
1.50
3.
each
whole ton (2000 pounds)
$
2.00
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That emergency rates for dumping at the Sanitary Landfill
are established as follows:
1. Pick -up truck $ 1.20 per load
2. All other units not other-
wise indicated $ 1.00 per measured cubic yard
3. Packer units $ 1.00 per cubic yard of rated capacity
1BE 'IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this rate shall be put into effect at the direction of
the County Administrator upon the failure of the present weight system to function properly.
BE'IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this emergency rate shall be suspended by the directio
of the County Administrator upon correction of any defaults in the weight system.
LANDFILL - COMPLAINTS RECEIVED
Mr. Jim Wilson appeared before the Board and stated that he would like to see a
efficient operation at the Landfill and cited various problems encountered by the users such
as the poor condition of the roads. He stated that he felt these conditions were dangerous
and expressed a concern that someone could be injured if this condition is not corrected. He
further stated that the personnel at the Landfill were not performing their jobs efficiently
and the equipment was not being used to its full capacity. He asked that the Board check
into these complaints in order that operations at the Landfill might be made more efficient.
He said that he felt if he had to pay the rates charged at the Landfill he should be able to
expect safe and efficient conditions.
Mr. Cole stated that the County has the personnel and equipment to run the Landfill
r:
property and he requested Mr. Krueger to look into the matter.
17
Mr. Sandy stated that the Board had expended large sums of money for personnel and
equipment of the Landfill and the operation should be efficient. He asked Mr. Krueger to see
that these complaints were taken care of.
REGULAR WASTE DISPOSAL FEE FOR CLARKE COUNTY - DISCUSSED
Mr. Hodgson presented a proposed contract for a regular fee for waste disposal for
Clarke County. The Board discussed the proposed contract in respect to Clarke County's usage
of the Landfill and their yearly cost for refuse disposal. There was further discussion as
to the effect a contract such as this would have on the private enterprise in the County.
The Board agreed to take no action on this proposed contract at this time.
I
UPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO
NOWAADJOURN.
S 99retary, Board of Supervisors Chairman, Board of Super eo rs
M
At the Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, II
Virginia, held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia, on
the 11th day of.July, 1973
PRESENT: Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman; J. Robert Russell, Vice Chairman; Richard F.
Madigan; Donald R. Hodgson; and Dennis T. Cole.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING - FREDERICK COUNTY
ZONING ORDINANCE SET
t
Mr. Sandy stated that a special meeting had been requested in writing by Supervisor
Richard F. Madigan and Donald R. Hodgson in accordance with Section 15.1 -538 of the Code
of Virginia (1950) as amended for the purpose of holding a public hearing on the Zoning
Ordinance of Frederick County, Virginia.
The Board agreed to hold this meeting on August 1, 1973 at 2:00 P.M. in the Board
Room. Notice was then duly served by Deputy from the Frederick County Sheriff's Department
upon each member of the Board of Supervisors, the Commonwealth's Attorney, and County
Administrator.
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT - REPORT
Mr. John Childs appeared before the Board and gave the monthly report of the
�l
Highway Department. He presented a brief outline to the Board on how the funds allocated for
the secondary system in Frederick County would be used.
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 does
approve.and order the bills for the month of June, 1973, be paid from the General Fund in the
amount of $66,694.09 by Warrants #03275 to #03480.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF PAYROLL - JUNE
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 does
herein approve the payroll for the month of June, 1973 in the amount of $34,685.21 paid from
M
the General Fund by Warrants #03153 to #03221 and Warrants #03234 to #03235 and in the amount
of $2,893.16 paid from the Parks and Recreation Fund by Warrants #03222 to #03233.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
STATE AND LOCAL HOSPITALIZATION CONTRACT 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, Virginia,
,
that the following daily rates for State -Local Hospitalization during the fiscal year
197321974 are hereby approved:
Medical College of Virginia $81.28
University of Virginia 81.28
,
Shenandoah County Memorial Hospital 52.15
Winchester Memorial Hospital $59.35
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
JAIL PHYSICIAN - COMPENSATION INCREASE
REFERRED TO FINANCE COMMITTEE
Mr. Sandy read a letter from Douglas 0. Hill, M.D., Jail Physician for the
Winchester - Frederick County Jail, requesting an increase in compensation to $250.00 per
month. Mr. Renalds,stated that the present compensation is $150.00 per month. Mr. Madigan
stated that the City of Winchester and the Health Department had been notified and until we
hear from these two agencies he felt the matter should'be referred to the Finance Committee
for consideration.
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, Virginia,
'
does herein refer the request of Dr. Douglas 0, Hill, Physician for the Winchester - Frederick
County Jail, for an increase in compensation to $250.00 per month to the Finance Committee for
consideration and recommendation to the Board.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
REZONING APPLICATIONS
Brand Associates - Rezoning Application - Withdrawn
Mr. Sandy.stated that the application of Brand Associates had been withdrawn prior
to the meeting.
Robert K. Stickley - Rezoning Application - Deferred
Mr. Sandy presented the rezoning application of Robert K. Stickley to rezone
approximately 27.00 acres in Opequon Magisterial District from A -2 to B -1..
Mr. Stickley appeared before the Board in support of this rezoning application.
,
He stated that the use of the property would not be objectionable to residents in the area.
Mr. Sandy explained the location of the property and Mr. Renalds read the businesses
allowed in B -1 areas.
Mr. Sandy read a letter of opposition to this rezoning from Dr. Roger L. Sager.
,
Mr. Sandy called for opposition to this rezoning.
Mr. Charles E. Bass appeared before the Board representing himself and several
other residents in the area. He stated that they objected to this rezoning because it
encompassed such a large tract of land and they felt it would be detrimental to this
residential area to have such a large piece of land zoned business.
19
Mr. Lou Costello appeared before'the Board in opposition to this rezoning stating
that his wife objected to the noise and the lighting connected with this business zoning. He
stated that he felt perhaps a portion of it should be zoned business but the whole parcel
would be too large for this type of zoning. He further urged the Board to consider the new
' proposed zoning ordinance before acting on this rezoning application.
Mr. Combs appeared before the Board and stated that he represented himself and his
brother and they also objected to this rezoning for basically the same reasons set forth by
Mr. Bass and Mr. Costello.
Mrs. Zaye stated that she felt the Board should consider that this is a residential
area and the appearance of the entrance into the town of Stephens City should be considered.
Mr. Madigan stated that he felt Mr. Stickley and the various residents in the area
who object to this rezoning, should get together and discuss the matter in order that a
decision might be reached acceptable to all concerned.
Mr. Stickley then asked the Board to defer action on this petition for rezoning
until the September meeting.
Mr. Sandy stated that this request would be acceptable to the Board. Therefore
the rezoning application of Robert K. Stickley was deferred until the September, 1973,
meeting of the Board.
SUBDIVISIONS
Albin Acres Subdivision - Approved
Mr. Berg presented the plat of Albin Acres Subdivision, located in Gainesboro f "r
I � District.
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 does
herein approve the final plat of Albin Acres Subdivision consisting of seven (7) lots in
Gainesboro Magisterial District, subject to the signature of the Health Department and the
Recreation Fee being paid.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Gordondale Subdivision - Approved
Mr. Berg presented the plat of Gordondale Subdivision located in Stonewall
Magisterial District and stated that the discrepancies set forth by the Planning Commission
had been corrected.
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 does
herein approve the preliminary plat of Gordondale Subdivision, located in Stonewall
Magisterial District, consisting of fif -ty -seven (57) lots.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Oak Hill Subd vision - Approved
'
Mr. Berg presented the preliminary plat of
Oak Hill Subdivision,
located in Back
Creek District, and stated that the applicant had not
submitted a master plan of the entire
forty (40) acre tract. Mr. Sandy stated that he felt
the applicant should
submit such a
plan if he intends to develop the entire tract.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and
seconded by Dennis T.
Cole,
20
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein approve the preliminary plat of Oak Hill Subdivision, located in Back Creek Magisterial)
District, consisting of two lots.
The above resolution.was.passed unanimously.
Zeiger Subdivision - Approved
Mr. Berg presented the final plat of Zeiger Subdivision located in Back Creek
Magisterial District stating that it was in conformance with all the regulations.
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 does
herein approve the final plat of Zeiger Subdivision located in Back Creek Magisterial
District, consisting of six (6) lots.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Charles E. Cooper Subdivision - Approved
Mr. Berg presented the final plat of the Charles E. Cooper Lots located in
Stonewall District stating that this was in conformance with all regulations.
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 does
herein approve the final plat of the Charles E. Cooper lots located in Stonewall Magisterial
District, consisting of three (3) lots.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
ZONING ORDINANCE OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGI
FIRST AND SECOND READINGG- APPROVED
Mr. Sandy presented the Zoning Ordinance of Frederick County, Virginia for first
and second reading by title.
Mr. Cole questioned the section of the ordinance wherein the water and sewer
requirements are set forth. He stated that he was very much concerned with this section
inasmuch as the County had had many problems with sewer on these small lots and he wanted
to see this taken care of in the new ordinance.
,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, Virginia,
does herein approve, on first and second reading by title only the following ordinance:
ZONING ORDINANCE OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA.
The above resolution was passed unanimously..
DOG WARDEN REPORT
Mr. Harold Whitacre appeared before the Board and presented his monthly report.
Livestock Claims 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 does
herein approve the following livestock claims:
1. Dr. Mark McHale, Shawnee Magisterial District, 1 Ewe at $10.00.
2. George Cornwell, Opequon Magisterial District, 35 chicks @ $17.50 and 5
@ $7.50 - total $25.00
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
WINCHESTER S.P.C.A. - AGREEMENT - APPROVED
Mr. Madigan read a letter addressed to Mr. Sandy from Mr. E. P. Browning "III,
21
wherein the Winchester S.P.C.A. offered assistance,to the Board in the disposition of stray
and unwanted cats and requested the Board to appoint a member from each magisterial district
to attend the monthly meeting of the S.P.C.A..
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, Virginia,
does herein accept the offer of assistance of the Winchester S.P.C.A. for the disposition of
stray or unwanted cats on a temporary basis for one (1) year at a rate of fifty (50) cents
per cat; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board does herein appoint Dennis T. Cole as l iaiso
' member from this Board to the S.P.C.A. in order that recommendations might be made for the
appointment of a representative from each magisterial district to attend the monthly meetings
of the Winchester S.P.C.A.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
MOBILE HOME PERMITS
Mobile Home Permits Denied
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 does
herein deny the following application for mobile home permit inasmuch.as they have not been
approved by the Health Department:
1. Ann Clark, Rt. 277, Opequon District
2. Raymond Chorney, Rt. 644, Back Creek District
' The above resolution was passed unanimously:
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 does
herein deny the mobile home application of Charles M. Davin, Rt. 611, Back Creek Magisterial
District, because of improper zoning, the said property being zoned A -1.
By recorded vote with Raymond C. Sandy, J. Robert Russell, Donald R. Hodgson,
and Richard F. Madigan voting "Aye" and Dennis-T. Cole abstaining, the above resolution was
passed.
Mr. Cole stated that he abstained from the above vote inasmuch as mobile homes
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
' Mobile Home Permits 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 does herein
approve the following mobile home permits:
1. Mildred C. Fridley, Rt. 642, Shawnee District.
2. Albert Messick, Rt. 649, Back Creek District
3. Craven Edwards, Rt. 522 N., Gainesboro District
had been permitted in A -1
zones in the past.
Mobile Home Permit Tabled
Upon motion made
by Donald R:,Hodgson and seconded by Richard
F. Madigan,
BE IT RESOLVED,
herein -table the mobile home
That the Board of Supervisors of the County of
application of Arthur A. Grove, Rt. 5225.,
Frederick does
Shawnee District,
in
order that the supervisor
in Shawnee District might have an opportunity
to inspect the
location.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
' Mobile Home Permits 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 does herein
approve the following mobile home permits:
1. Mildred C. Fridley, Rt. 642, Shawnee District.
2. Albert Messick, Rt. 649, Back Creek District
3. Craven Edwards, Rt. 522 N., Gainesboro District
22
4. Tony Bayliss, Old Route 50 West, Back Creek District.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
WHITFIELD SUBDIVISION RESIDENTS' COMPLAINT - RECEIVED
Mr. Richard Neff appeared before the Board and presented a complaint from the
residents of Whitfield Subdivision in Opequon District stating that the roads had not been '
hard surfaced as promised the property owners and he wanted to know why this had not been
done.
Mr. Ambrogi stated that the County is not responsible for bringing the streets into
the highway system but that it was the responsibility of the developer. He stated that he
could not state at this time how it had happened but apparently the subdivision plat had ,
been approved by the Board without all the proper signatures.
Mr. Sandy stated that the Board would look very closely upon any further subdivisions
that this particular developer submits in the future to see that all requirements are met;,
The Board referred the complaint to Mr. Ambrogi to determine the legal aspects
involved and directed Mr. Renalds to handle the Supervisors aspects in the matter.
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS - REPORTS ACCEPTED
Upon review the Board accepted unanimously the monthly reports submitted by the
Constitutional Officers, said reports being on file in the County Administrator's Office.
DEPARTMENT HEADS - REPORTS ACCEPTED
Upon review the Board unanimously accepted the monthly reports submitted by the
Department Heads, said reports being on file -in the County Administrator's Office.
Mr. Fletcher, Director of Parks and Recreation, presented his monthly report. ,
He stated that there are 685 people participating in the Recreation Department's.Summer
Programs.' Mr. Fletcher gave'the ..following.report.oh Clear Brook Park:
Weekend average daily attendance------------- - - - - -- 6,485
Total Receipts to 7- 11- 73-------------------- - - - - -- $14,553.25
Pool -------------------- $8,812.00
Concessions------- - - - - -- $4,315.35
Boats ------------------- $1,375.00
Fishing Fees ------------ $ 50.00
Mr. Fletcher stated that the park had been opened a total of 42 days of which 13 of
these were inclement weather. He stated that two more shelters had been completed, The
Shawnee Lions Club Shelter and the James Wood Key Club Shelter. Mr. Fletcher commended his
staff for doing such a fine job this summer.
The Board thanked Mr. Fletcher for the excellent .job he was doing with recreation
in the County. '
REPORT - CONTAINERS POINT COLLECTION SYSTEM
Mr. Renalds reported that a total of 40 containers had been placed in the County
to date, and that ultimately there would be 77.
APPOINTMENT - BOARD OF BUILDING APPEALS ,
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 does
herein appoint H. C. Christianson, to serve on the Board of Building Appeals, representing
Shawnee District, for a term of four years.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
23
APPOINTMENTS TO PLANNING COMMISSION - DEFERRED
Mr. Sandy presented a request from the Planning Commission for the appointment of
two more members to the Commission.
The Board deferred this matter in order to obtain more information on these
' appointments'.
SOIL SURVEY - PROPOSED AGREEMENT - DISCUSSED
Mr. Renalds stated that he had received the proposed agreement from the Soil
Conservation Service on the soil survey for Frederick County and it had been reviewed by the
County Extension Agent, the County Engineer, the County Planner, and himself. He stated
that several comments had been made concerning the proposed agreement; essentially that the
entire County should be mapped, that fifty copies of the study be provided instead of 25; and
that the County should be able to_able to use -the informatioh submi.tted'as they' -see fi.f:'.
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 does herein
direct the County Administrator to draft a reply to the Soil Conservation Service regarding
the proposed agreement for a soil survey in Frederick County with the following requests set
forth:
1. That the entire County be mapped.
2. That 50 copies of the studylbe provided instead of 25.
3. That the County be permitted to use the information submitted as they see fit.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That upon receipt of the agreement in final form between
the Soil Conservation Service and the County of Frederick, said agreement shall be submitted
to the Board ofiSupervisors for review and action.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
COURT HOUSE BELFRY - DISCUSSED
Mr. Madigan stated that the belfry atop the Court House was in bad need of paint
and repair. He suggested that the Board consider having the County Seal painted on the
round covers on the belfry where the clock had been.
UPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD DO NOW ADJOURN.
Secretary, Board of Supervisors Chairm Board of Supe isors
an
At the.Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia, held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia, on
the 25th day of July, 1973.
PRESENT: Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman; J. Robert Russell, Vice- Chairman;_Dennis T.
�7
Cole; Richard F. Madigan; and Donald R. Hodgson.
The Chairman called the Meeting to Order.
AMENDMENT TO MINUTES OF MEETING OF JULY 11, 1973 - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy stated that an amendment to the minutes of the meeting of April 11, 1973,
was needed in respect to the water and sewer permit issued for the proposed Howard Johnson.
Upon motion made by Richard F. and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
24
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia,
does herein amend the minutes of the meeting of this Board held on the 11th day of April,
1973, in regard to the water and sewer permit granted unto William A. Johnston (Proposed
Howard Johnson) to read as follows:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does '
herein approve the request of William A. Johnston, Esquire, for the extension of water and
seweinfac lit es- tors- ,par-celfo'filand located at the northwest corner of the Intersection of
Route 11 and Route 81 east of Welltown Pike, on an interim basis until substitute facilities
are provided by the Sanitation Authority of Frederick County to the property, subject to final
details being worked out between the Sanitation Authority and the City of Winchester.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
MINUTES - BOARD MEETING - JUNE 13, 1973 - A PPROVED ,
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 does
herein approve the minutes of the meeting of this Board held on the 13th day of June, 1973,
as submitted.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
CIVES CORP. - REQUEST FOR INDUSTRIAL ACCESS ROAD - TABLED
Mr. Jim Largent appeared before the Board representing Cives Corporation and Shade
Equipment Company in their request for an industrial access road.
Mr. Cole asked what bearing this industrial access road would have on Time Frcdight'
and Mr. Largent stated that they could use the road also; that it was not for the benefit of
one company.
Mr. Cole stated that since this road would take part of Time Freight's land it
would cause a severe handicap to Time Freight in the operation of their business. Mr. Largent ,
stated that Time Freight was protected under their lease until the expiration of the lease
in February, 1974.
Mr. White, manager of Time Freight, appeared before the Board in opposition to this
industrial access road and stated that Time Freight had been in this location since 1947 and
have used this road quite extensively during that time. He stated that if this request was
granted they would lose approximately one -half of the crossing accessibility they now have.
He further stated that he felt the traffic involved would create a hazard.
Mr. Cole asked if Time Freight had any intention of moving and Mr. White stated
that he had no knowledge of any such plan.
Mr. Largent stated that Time Freight's lease would expire in February of 1974 and
this request was contingent upon this lease.
Mr. Renalds stated that these funds were only available at certain times and they
are separate from the funds allocated for improvements to the secondary, primary, and
interstate construction. He stated that twme could be a factor in receiving these funds.
Mr. Cole asked how many employees Time Freight had at this time, and Mr. White
stated approximately 260. II
Mr. Cole stated that Time Freight had informed him that they did not know about II w ,�
this request until today and he felt the Board should consider this matter more thoroughly.
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 does herein
table the request for industrial access road of Cives Corporation until the August 8, 1973,
meeting of this Board in order that the Board might have more time tbAstudyythe request.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
25
MOBILE HOME PERMIT
Mobile Home Permit Tabled at Juiv 11. 1973 Meetina - Aooroved:
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 does herein
' approve the mobile home permit of Arthur A. Grove located on Route 522 in Shawnee Magisterial
District which was tabled at the July 11, 1973 Meeting.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
MOBILE HOME PERMITS MADE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
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 does herein
'direct that henceforth all mobile home applications shall be acted upon administratively
through the supervisor of the respective district.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
WATER AND SEWER PERMIT - CAVALIER SCOTTISH INNS - 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 does herein
approve the request of Cavalier Scottish Inns for the extension of water and sewer facilities
to a parcel of land located on Route 627, North of Middletown, on an interim basis until
substitute facilities are provided by the Sanitation Authority of Frederick County to the
property, subject to final details being worked out between the Sanitation Authority and
the City of Winchester regarding water and the Town of Middletown regarding sewer.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
APPROPRIATION REQUESTS - "APPROVED
Appropriation Transfer Request - Dept. of Planning and Development - Approved
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole,
BE IT RESOLVED, Byathe Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, that the
following appropriation transfer is authorized in the 1973 -74 budget.
From To
O1 -OO1G -326 $700.00 19 -OO1G -405 $700.00
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Mr. Madigan stated that the above transfer was requested in order to purchase a
typewriter and office furniture for the Department of Planning and Development.
Appropriation Transfer Request - Automobile Purchase - 'Approved
' Mr. Madigan stated that this request was being made in order to purchase automobiles
for the Plumbing Inspector and the Department of Planning and Development.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, that the
following appropriation transfers within the budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974,
are hereby authorized:
From To
O1 -OO1G -326 $6,500.00 19 -OO1G -400 $3,250.00
19 -0;1OC -400 $3
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
M
F
Me
RESOLUTION - SOLID WASTE CONTAINERS PLACED ON
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RIGHTS -OF -WAY - APPROVED
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan,
WHEREAS, it becomes necessary from time to time for Frederick County to obtain
permits from the Virginia Department of Highways to install, construct, reconstruct, maintain,
and operate certain public works along, across, over and upon the highway system of Virginia;
and,
WHEREAS, expense, damage or injury may be sustained by the Commonwealth of Virginia
growing out of the granting to said County by the Virginia Department of Highways of said
permits for the work aforesaid.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That Frederick County will indemnify and save harmless
the Commonwealth of Virginia from any expense, damage or injury which she may sustain growing
out of the granting to said County by the Virginia Department of Highways of said permits for
such works.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That if said County shall let to contract any works as
aforesaid the contractor shall be required before commencing such work to furnish to the
Virginia Department of Highways an indemnifying bond with approved surety in the amount of
One Thousand Dollars ($1,000).
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
JAIL PHYSICIAN.- SALARY INCREASE - APPROVED
Mr. Madigan stated that the Finance Committee recommended the approval of the request
for salary increase for the jail physician.
Upon motion-made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole,
BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia,
that, pursuant to the same request being approved by the State Department of Welfare and Institut:•;
n
Institutions and the City of Winchester, the monthly salary of the Jail Physician for the
Winchester - Frederick County Jail is hereby increased to $250.00 per month.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR THE GUARD AND RESERVE - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy read a letter from the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
concerning employer support of the Guard and Reserve and requesting the Board to execute
said statement of support.
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 does herein)
approve the Statement of Support for the Guard and Reserve; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman, shall execute said
Statement of Support on behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
APPOINTMENTS TO CHAPTER 10 BOARD - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy presented the names submitted by the Ad -Hoc Committee for appointment to
the Chapter 10 Board. There was discussion concerning the length of the terms and Mr.
Renalds stated that they would be staggered terms agreed upon by the localities participating
in the program.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
zr
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein make the following appointments for the County of Frederick to the Community Mental
Health and Mental.Retardation Services - Chapter 10 Board:
1. Mrs. Joseph Sharp
2. Mr. Robert Sowers
' 3. Reverend Warren Reeves.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
The meeting-was recessed for five minutes.
The meeting was reconvendd.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - REZONING APPLICATIONS
A Public Hearing was held at 8:00 P.M. on the following rezoning applications:
CABANISS - REZONING APPLICATION - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy presented the rezoning application of Charles P. Cabaniss and Patricia
Cabaniss to rezone approximately 90.00 acres located in Back Creek Magisterial District from
A -2 to R -1.
Mr. Cabaniss appeared before the Board in support of this rezoning application.
There was no opposition.
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 does
herein approve the rezoning.application of Charles P. Cabaniss and Patricia Cabaniss to
rezone approximately 90.00 acres of land; located on the south side of Route 608 opposite
' Cabaniss Subdivision and approximately 300 feet southeast of intersection of Route 608 and
Route 619 in Back Creek Magisterial District from Agricultural (A -2) to Residential (R -1),
Z.A.N. 129.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
DUFFY - REZONING APPLICATION - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy presented the rezoning application of Maurice J. Duffy to rezone
approximately 2.975 acres of land located in Opequon Magisterial District from A -2 to M -1.
Mr. Duffy appeared before the Board.in support of this rezoning application.
There was no opposition.
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 does herein
approve the rezoning application of Maurice J. Duffy to rezone approximately 2.975 acres of
land located on the north side of Route 277 about 2.5 miles East of Stephens,City, Virginia
' in Opequon Magisterial District; from Agricultural (A -2) to Industrial (M -1), Z.A.N. 130.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
SOLENBERGER - REZONING APPLICATION - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy.presented the rezoning application of John T. Solenberger to rezone
' approximately 10.23 acres of land located in Stonewall Magisterial District from R -2 to B -2.
Mr. Solenberger appeared before the Board in support of this 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 of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does herein
approve the rezoning application of John T. Solenberger to rezone approximately 10.23 acres of
and located on Route 7 East behind the Jno. 9: Solenberger, and Co., Inc. property and Clarke
lymouth, Inc. property in Stonewall Magisterial District, from Residential (R -2) to
ness (B -2), Z.A.N. 131.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
M
CRIM - REZONING APPLICATION - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy presented the rezoning application of Harry Benjamin Crim to rezone
approximately 17.439 acres of land in Shawnee Magisterial District from R -1 to B -2.
Mr. Ben Butler appeared before the Board, representing Mr. Ciim in.support of this
application, and stated that the proposed use of the property would be a small nursery,
garden center (retail) and other small service businesses.
There was no opposition.
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 does
herein approve the rezoning application of Harry Benjamin Crim and Freida White Crim to rezone
approximately 17.439 acres of land located at the intersection of Route 657 (Senseny Road) and
Route 656 (Greenwood Road) located in Shawnee Magisterial District from Residential (R -1) to
Business (B -2), Z.A.N. 132.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
CAVALIER SCOTTISH INNS, INC. - REZONING APPLICATION - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy presented the rezoning application of Cavalier Scottish Inns, Inc. to
rezone approximately 5.598 acres of land located in Opequon Magisterial District, from A -2 to
B -2.
Mr. Tisinger appeared before the Board, representing Cavalier Scottish Inns, Inc.,
in support of this rezoning application.
There was no opposition.
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 does herein
approve the rezoning application of Cavalier Scottish Inns, Inc. to rezone approximately
5.598 acres of land located on the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Route 81 and
Route 627, near Middletown, Virginia, in Opequon Magisterial District from Agricultural (A -2)
to Business (B -2), Z.A.N. 133.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
SUBDIVISIONS
The Summit - Sections 6B and 8A - Approved
Mr. Berg presented the final plat of Sections 6B and 8A of The Summit to the Board
and stated that all signatures had been obtained but that water and sewer plans had not been
submitted and no bond had been given.
Mr. Moss, President of The Summit, appeared before the Board in support of this
subdivision.
Mr. Ambrogi stated that the company proposed to pledge a corporate bond instead of
la surety bond. He stated that a performance bond had always been required by the Board, but
Isince a surety bond would take some time to secure, the company was offering a corporate bond
Iin lieu of the surety bond. He stated that the corporate bond would be subject to the finarc' l a,:,
(financial assets of the company. He further stated that the company was offering an $800,000
corporate bond. Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Krueger if this amount was sufficient and Mr. Krueger
stated that he could not estimate whether this amount would be sufficient in that no plans
Thad been submitted.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan, seconded by J.. Robert Russell and passed
l unanimously, the Board adjourned into executive session in order to discuss the financial
iassets of The Summit.
i
29
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan, seconded by Donald R. Hodgson and passed
unanimously, the Board went out of executive session.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan, seconded by J. Robert Russell and passed
lunanimously, the Board went back into Regular Session.
Mr. Sandy stated that the Board had discussed the financial assets of the company
with respect to a corporate bond versus a surety bond.
Mr. Thomas McCann, Jr. appeared before the Board in opposition to the subdivision
and stated that he was a property owner at The Summit and the residents had not received many
of the services they had been promised when they purchased their property such as water and
sewer and several recreational facilities.. He stated that he felt the company should honor
these committments before any further sections were approved.
Mr. McCann stated that the company had provided a well and septic system for him
until the water and sewer system is completed but that this was to be a temporary facility
for a short period of time. He presented a report from H. U. D. where it was stated that
water and sewer would be installed within two years and he had been a property owner for
almost three years and as yet no lines have been laid. He stated that many of the property
owners were ready to build homes if the facilities were available.
Mr. Moss stated that the company had suffered many delays but that the facilities
would be completed as soon as possible. He stated the projected completion dates for many
of the facilities. He further stated that the company is providing temporary facilities at
no cost to the property owners until the water and sewer lines are complete. He stated that
none of the property owners had been billed for the maintenance or use of any of the facilitie
which had been completed and were being used because they felt this'would'not be fair until
more of the facilities were completed.
Mr. Harold Patton, a property owner at The Summit, appeared before the Board in
support of the subdivision and stated that he felt The Summit had been fulfilling their
obligations as well as they could with the delays they had experienced. He stated that the
facilities that had been completed were of the finest quality and he felt the company had been
fair in every respect and would complete the facilities as soon as possible.
Mr..Russell stated that he had followed the construction of The Summit quite
closely and felt that they were proceeding as well as possible. He further stated that he
felt it was one of the most beautiful developments in the country and he had found the company
to be most fair and honest.
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 does herein
approve Sections 6B and 8A of Lake Holiday Estates, Inc. and does herein accept the corporate
bond in the amount of $900,000, subject to said corporate bond being replaced by a performance
bond from a qualified security company within ninety (90) days from this date; and;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman of this Board, and J. O.
Renalds, III, Subdivision Administrator of Frederick County, be directed by this Board to
sign the subdivision plat of Sections 6B and 8A of Lake Holiday Estates, Inc.
By recorded vote with J. Robert Russell, Richard F. Madigan, and DonaldFR. Hodgson
voting "Aye" and Raymond C. Sandy and Dennis T. Cole voting "Nay" the above resolution was
passed.
Mr. Cole stated that he could not vote for approval on this subdivision on the basis
of a corporate bond.
30
Mr. Sandy stated that he concurred with Mr. Cole concerning the acceptance of a
corporate bond and secondly that he did not feel he could vote for accepting a corporate
bond when the assets of the company had not been audited by a certified public accounting
firm.
WHITFIELD SUBDIVISION H ,
A citizens group appeared before the Board in reference to the street improvements I p l l
in Whitfield Subdivision.
Mr. Ambrogi stated that the citizens could bring suit against the developer in a
civil court. He stated that his office could not bring a civil suit but could prosecute the
developer in a criminal proceeding. I
There was discussion concerning what procedure the Board might take in order to
prevent this type of thing from happening again.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia
that the Subdivision Administrator be hereby directed to cause to be issued a criminal warrant
charging violation of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance by any developer of a
subdivision in Frederick County, Virginia, where there appears to be a violation thereof.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
UPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO
NOW ADJOURN.
c9. -�
Sec etary, Board of Supervisors Chairman, Board of Supery ors
At the Special Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia, held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia, on
the 1st day of August, 1973.
PRESENT: Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman; J. Robert Russell, Vice - Chairman; Richard F.
Madigan; Donald R. Hodgson; and Dennis T. Cole.
" The Chairman called the meeting to order.
COMMENTS FROM RESIDENTS
Signs:
Mr. Warren Teates, representative for Tastee Freeze, stated that there were still
some areas in the Ordinance that needed some work; and since they were technical in nature,
Mr. Paul Stotts, counsel for Tastee Freeze, came forward to speak to the Board. He presented
to the Board copies of suggested revisions relating to signs.
Mr. Stotts stated that:
1. In the sign area, there was an elimination of "General Advertising Signs."
Many businesses rely on this general advertising. The small businesses may
not be able to afford the advertising, whereas, the large business can.
2. Second, there is the Political Campaign Advertising to consider. This is
general advertising. Not a location sign.
3. Sign industry does a great deal of Public Service Advertising. (Heart fund,
cancer fund, etc.). This is prohibited without general advertising.
I
F1
31
Mr. Stotts suggested that all signs be erected up to the property line. It will
permit signs to be erected in front of a building and not beside of it as now required.
Mr. Stotts questioned Section 15 -6, (Page 71) relating to Conditional Use Permits
for off premises signs. He stated that it would create an unnecessary administrative
burden on the County.
Mr. Stotts continued that in Section 15 -8 (Page71) it stated that the maximum height
of a sign attached to a building be not higher than two (2) feet from the lowest point of the
roof line. Mr. Stotts suggested that it be amended to read:
"The maximum height of any sign attached to a building must be not more than
two (2) feet above the roof of the building."
In Section 16 -1 -3, Mr. Stotts stated that nonconforming uses should be changed from
one (1) year to two (2) years to conform with the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended,
15.1 -492. He presented written suggestions relating to the sign provision of the ordinance
which are attached hereto and made a part of these Minutes.
A -1 and Site Plan
Mr. Randolph Larrick, representative for Shawneeland, stated that at present,
Shawneeland is zoned A -1. Under this zoning, the only recreational activities permitted
would be skiing, hunting, boating and golf. The minimum lot area is 70,000 square feet which
would be prohibitive and would result in a nonconforming use and that Mr. Don Lamborne, Owner
of Shawneeland, would not be able to further develop his land if it stays A -1. His lodge
is not permitted now, in which he houses overnight guests.
Mr. Larrick suggested that the Board permit what Mr. Lamborne calls a Residential
Recreational Community which would permit him to continue developing his land.
In reference to Page 57, under Site Plan Requirement, Mr. Larrick stated that a
site development plan is required for any development with automobile parking spaces that
is to be used by more than one (1) establishment. He further stated that this could mean that
if two houses have parking places used by both, then it could be interpreted that a site plan
would be required.
Mr. Pete Johnston came before the Board to speak for Mr. E. E. Bayliss, Jr. He
stated that the R -3 zoning that is proposed for The Summit in the ordinance is not correct.
He further stated that it puts the Board in the "dilemma" of having to approve an ordinance
that is not proper for that development.
Mr. Johnston stated to the Board that the zoning maps were not correct in that The
n
J
Summit was in R -3 zoning and Shawneeland in A -1. He further stated that the maps could not be
amended today and enacted upon with the amendments.
Historic Areas and A -1
Mr. George M. Smith came forward to speak to the Board of the Historical Areas of
1
Frederick County. He had been asked by Mr. James Biddle, President of the National Trust, to
state that they are endorsing the proposed ordinance for Frederick County and added that they
will help, in any way possible, by giving technical assistance to the Planning Commission or
the Board, in providing for adequate protection for Historic Areas and Districts within the
County.
ComplgtE Ordinance
Mr. Boris Luts appeared before the Board to express his own comments on the Proposed
Ordinance. He stated that it was essential that an ordinance be enacted to guide the people
of Frederick County.
3.2
R -2 Zoning
Mr. N. W. Garrison came before the Board to make a few suggestions on the size of
lots in R -2. He stated that it was a waste of land to have a 100 foot frontage on lots. He
added that it would be more economical to buy lots that are smaller in width because the
developer doesn't have to have that much for a street. ,
Mr. Sandy stated that basically the reason for that width is that there are many
subdivisions with 80 foot lots that have 70 foot houses on them; and rambler type homes do
take -up quite a bit of land.
Land Surveyor
Mr. Richard U. Goode, Surveyor,
came forward to speak to the
Board stating that the
,
Zoning Ordinance was a good thing to have
for the people of Frederick
County. He compared
the Proposed Ordinance to that of Loudoun
County. He stated that the
ordinance from Loudoun
County should be checked into for further
study.
Realtor - A -1 and A -2
Mr. E. E. Bayliss, Jr. appeared
before the Board to comment
on A -1 and A -2 zonings.
He recommended that the Frontage in A -1 be changed from 200 feet to 150
feet; and the same
thing done for A -2 zoning.
He further recommended that in
the "R" sections where a 100
foot frontage is allowed,
this should be changed to 80 feet. He added that ten (10) per cent of
the frontage on each
side would be adequate for a side yard requirement.
Superintendent of Schools
Dr. Melton Wright came before the Board to commend the Board for trying to develop '
a situation that will have some control and direction as to the construction of buildings
in Frederick County. He hopes that this plan will provide for orderly growth and development
in Frederick County.
Grandfather Clause
Mr. Sherwood Hedrick appeared before the Board to askywhy a "Grandfather Clause"
could not be included in the new Zoning Law.
The Summit
Mr. Eugene Bayliss came forward to speak on behalf of The Summit. He stated that
in Section 6 -4 (Page 19), on frontage•regalations; he feels that the width at the lot line
should remain 80 feet in order to try to encourage the developers to put in central water
and central sewer systems. If the width should increase to 100 feet, then it would increase
the cost to 25 per cent if central water and sewer were put in. '
Mr. Bayliss pointed out that in Section 6 -1 (Page 17) under Use Regulations, the
following are items that The Summit proposes to have but cannot under the R -3 Zoning:
1. Stables and Bridal Paths
2. Ski Lodges ,
3. Golf Course (Pro Shop) '
4. Lake and Marina
5. Swim and Tennis Clubs
6. Club House and Game Course
7. Beaches
8. Offices
33
Mr. Bayliss stated that Section 6 -2 -1 (Page 18) calls for a minimum of 12,000 square
feet for a lot size. He stated that in his opinion, where central water and central sewer
are available, 10,000 square feet would be adequate, but that the over -all average should be
12,000 square feet.
' In the R -4 District, under Section 7 -9 (Page 27), Mr. Bayliss pointed out that there
are no provisions for a minimum lot size, no provisions for a minimum setback, and maximum
percentage of lot coverage, no minimum width and no frontage requirements.
Mr. Bayliss suggested that where the roads are dedicated in a private development
that they be maintained by private firms and not by tax monies.
' Controls in the County
Mr. Andrew Hoszowski appeared before the Board to support the Board and the action
they are taking to secure a well - developed County.
READING OF THE ORDINANCE
The Proposed Zoning Ordinance was read by: Mr. James Boyd, Mr. William.Riley, Mr.
Richard Madigan, and Mr. Don Krueger.
0xtl2Xy
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 does
herein recess the Public Hearing until 7:30 P.M.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
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 does herein
reconvene the Public Hearing.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
COMMENTS, CONTINUED
Complete Ordinance
Mr. J. R. Nicely came forward to speak to the Board commenting on the complete
ordinance. He suggested that in R -1 Zoning that the wording "center line" should-be substitu
for "right of way" line.
Mr. Nicely spoke to the Board on the various setbacks mentioned in Section 5 -3. He
stated that there were two (2) setback lines established in the same zoning district. He
would like to have these changed.
Mr. Nicely stated that in the R -3 District, the ordinance states that the side yard
requirements are based on a percentage of the frontage. He added that since there would
be multi - family dwellings in the district, it would be advisab'le.to on the
side yard requirement. He further commented that the 2,000 square foot rqquirement for each
unit above three (3) would cause some concern in a multi - family dwelling unit.
Concerning Section 6 -10 -1, (Page 20), Mr. Nicely stated that the requirement for
eight (8) units per acre should be changed to 12 units per acre to balance out the amount of
opennarea.
Mr. Nicely stated that one and one -half Wj) parking spaces per unit would be
sufficient in place of the required two (2) offstreet parking spaces.
34
In the Planned Residential Community section of the Ordinance, (R -4), Mr. Nicely
stated that the population density stated is not feasible. He added that the developer would
put in a street using only the minimum requirements necessary in this district.
Mr. Nicely stated he was greatly concerned with the Site Plan requirement needed for
a rezoning set forth in Section 14 -1 -2. He said this involved a good deal of money with no ,
guarantee that the rezoning would be granted.
Mr. Nicely stated that the offstreet parking provisions in Section 17 -5 -1 should
be changed. He doesn't think the parking should be behind the setback line.
Mr. Nicely stated that overall, the Ordinance seemed to limit the low cost housing
development. He added that he was concerned with the liberal use of Conditional Use Permits '
throughout the Ordinance. He further stated that there was no provision for how large a sign
could be.
Comments from Developers
Mr. Joseph Massie came before the Board to speak on behalf of Developers in Freder
County. He stated that the Industrial Zoned area on Route 11 North was not put on the
Proposed Zoning Maps. He stated that because of this oversight, that it would cost his
company several thousands of dollars to get the land zoned again. He further stated that
there was no great urgency for the adoption of this ordinance; that it should be given careful
consideration before it is adopted.
Mr. Massie commented on the fact that the Proposed Zoning Ordinance was not made
readily available to the public. He stated that the public could not acquire a copy to take I
home, or wherever, to be read leisurely.
Lake Holiday Estates
Mr. Harold Moss, President of Lake Holiday Estates, appeared before the Board to
express his views on the Proposed Ordinance. He stated that The Summit is presently zoned
R -3 in the new ordinance. He added that this zoning would create some very serious problems
such as:
1. Width of the lot at the setback line would be increased to 100 feet.
2. The area of the lot would be increased from 10,000 to 12,000 feet.
Mr. Moss suggested that The Summit be placed in a separate zoning, such as.
Residential Recreational Community.
A -1 and A -2 Zoning
Mr. Claude S. Stowers, Jr. appeared before the Board to present his views of the '
Proposed Zoning Ordinance. He stated that he was the County Supervisor for the Farmers Home
Administration. Mr. Stowers stated that the Farmers Home Administration has the authority to
finance low income housing in rural areas only. He added that if the A -1 and A -2 Zoning is
passed, the Administration would eliminate a lot of low income families from being able to own
a modest, or above modest dwelling. '.
Mr. Stowers questioned the requirement for a lot size in A -1. He asked why 70,000
square feet has to be required in this A -1 zoning.
Mr. R. Wesley Williams, Administrative Supervisor for the Health Department, stated
that the reason for such a large lot was due to the fact that the septic systems are large.
A short discussion followed in which Mr. Madigan, Mr. Williams and Mr. Stowers dis-
cussed the need for low cost housing in the County and the possibility for a solution to the
problem.
35
Developer's Comments
Mr. Bill Butler came before the Board stating that the County should take'its time
to complete the ordinance. He added that a map should be put in the newspaper with the colors
of the zoning for the proposed districts.
' u Shawneeland
I Mr. Don Lamborne came before the Board to present his views on the Proposed Zoning
Ordinance. He stated that it was his desire that he be allowed to continue operating the
same as he had been doing in the past. He urged the Board to take very careful consideration
'
of the Proposed Ordinance.
Mr. Lamborne stated that in Section 14 -6 -24 (Page 69), that the definition of STREET
PRIVATE would allow the Public to have access.
He stated that the police force for Shawneeland,would not be able to keep the publi
off the streets as the definition is now written.
STATEMENTS FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
Mr. Dennis T. Cole stated that the permitted uses in A -1, which constitute
approximately 40 per cent of the County, are very limited. He further stated that there
are no gift shops, no gas stations or motels out on Route 522. He added that in A -2 there
were no commercial uses.
Mr. Cole stated that signs should be permitted at the property line. He said that a
sign should not have to be the same as building setbabk lines.
' Mr. Cole stated that he did not agree with the 100 foot frontage needed for central
water and sewer.
Mr. J. Robert Russell stated that the County needed to wait for this ordinance. He
further commented that the public usually waits until the Board meets before coming forward to
express their views. He added that the Planning Commission also needed to know the public's
views on the various issues.
Mr. Donald R. Hodgson asked if all rezonings should be deferred until the ordinance
was passed. He added that he thought the Board should put a moratorium into effect.
A short discussion followed between the Board and Mr. Joseph Massie in which Mr.
Massie suggested that a joint meeting be held with the maps being brought up to date. Also
discussed was the problem of advertising. Mr. Massie stated that the ads in the newspaper
should stand out more. He added that the ads were hard to find unless you were looking for
'
them.
Mr.
Madigan stated that all
'
suggestions should be in
submitted writing.
Mr.
Russell stated that the
Board should meet in conjunction with the Planning
Commission at
their next work session
so that the Board could get a better understanding.
Mr.
James W. Golladay, Chairman
of the Planning Commission, stated that after the
'
suggestions were received, the Board
and the Planning Commission should meet in a work session
to finalize the Zoning Ordinance. He
added that they should get together with the Administrate
Officers, the
Attorneys and the Advisory Member of the Health Department.
Mr. Raymond C. Sandy commented on the suggestions made. He stated that they were
very good and that the ordinance was basically a good one. He added that out of the some
27,000 people represented in the County, that 18 came forward with their suggestions.
36
EXECUTIVE SESSION
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 does
herein move into Executive Session.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
REGULAR SESSION
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 does
herein move back into Regular Session.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
ZONING ORDINANCE - DEFERRED
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 does herein
defer action on the Zoning Ordinance until a later date to allow the Board, time to review and
study all relevant and bona fide suggestions and criticisms submitted to the Board in writing
within the next ten (10) days; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board herein refers the Zoning Ordinance and all
suggestions and criticisms back to the Planning Commission for review and resubmission to the
Board of Supervisors; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That upon completion of this work that a joint public heari
of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors be held.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
MORATORIUM
A short discussion followed in which Mr. Cole stated that a clarification was
needed concerning the action to be taken on rezoning applications now on file that are to go
before the Planning Commission.
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, pursuant
to Section 15.1 -504 of the Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, enacts an emergency ordinance
to provide for a moratorium on all rezoning applications not before the Planning Commission or
the Board of Supervisors in Frederick County for a period of 60 days from this date. During
the interim period the Board will duly advertise and hold public hearings for an extended
moratorium if additional time is needed to finalize the Zoning Ordinance of Frederick County,
Virginia; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAt ho rezoning applications shall be heard or acted upon
for a period of 60 days by the Board of Supervisors.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
ATTACHMENTS (REFER TO PAGE 31)
SUGGESTIONS RELATING TO THE SIGN PROVISIONS
OF THE PROPOSED FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
1. A. In Article II, Agricultural, Limited, add a new section as follows:
" §2 -1 -24. General advertising signs."
1
J
37
b.• In Article III, Agricultural, General, add a new section as follows:
11 §3 -1839. General advertising signs."
C. In Article VIII, Business, add a new section as follows:
" §8- 1! -:34. General advertising signs."
' d. In Article X, Industrial, Limited, add a new section as follows:
" @10 -1 -23. General advertising signs."
e. In Article XI, Industrial, General, add a new section as follows:
"911 -1 -25. General advertising signs."
REASON As the ordinance is presently drafted, no general advertising signs would
be permitted in any district, and it is felt that the total elimination of such signs in these
areas would have a detrimental effect on certain landowners, business interests and other
citizen T of Frederick County.
Many large national concerns, such as automobile manufacturers, use a national
program of advertising and one of the media employed is general advertising signs. This type
of advertising is designed to provide the local businessman with low -cost advertising andkin
this manner to assist him in the promotion of his business. Many of these small businesses
would not be in a position to undertake such an advertising campaign on their own and, there-
fore, welcome this type of advertising to help them financially. The elimination of this type
of advertising from the county entirely will certainly have an adverse economic effect on such
businesses and in turn on the economy of the county.
Political advertising is also displayed on general advertising signs and the
' elimination of such signs will affect this type of advertising since political advertising
can not be considered to fall into any of the other types of signs permitted under the
ordinance. The effect of this elimination is self - explanatory.
A third benefit from general advertising signs which is quite frequently overlooked
is the public service performed by such signs. On numerous,occasions sign companies provide
advertising space to promote various charitable and public service features which are in the
public interest and which could not be promoted in this manner without the donation of such
space by the advertising companies.
While additional signs would be permitted under this suggestion, there will be
sufficient control over the erection and maintenance of general advertising signs in those
districts in which they are permitted since there are many other factors which operate
to control and limit the erection of such signs. Some of these factors are:
' a. The location.and erection of general advertising signs are regulated by State
and Federal regulations which regulations place very strict restrictions on signs adjacent to
the Interstate and Federal -aid primary highways of which Route 81, Route 522 and Route 50 are
a part. These restrictions apply to the size, spacing and lighting of such signs and only
allow them in Industrial and Commercial areas within 660 feet on either side of such highways.
' Attached you will find as "Exhibit All a copy of the Highway'Commission's resolution setting
forth these regulations.
b. Economics also control the erection of signs and they are only erected on major
highways upon
which
there
is
sufficient traffic to
justify their erection.
Consequently,
many highways
do not
have
any
general advertising
signs.
C. Another limiting factor is the natural terrain which in many areas of the
county excludes the erection of signs since such sites are unsuitable for sign locations.
d. Many property owners will not permit signs to be erected on their property or
the location of buildings or'other structures prevent the erection of signs, thereby eliminating
these areas from consideration for sign erection. '
2. Amend H 2 -3, 3 -3, 4 -3, 5 -3, 6 -3, 6 -12 -1, 8 -3, 10 -4 and 11 -4 by changing the language
"except that signs advertising sale or rent of premises may be erected up to the property line'
to the following:
"except that signs may be erected up to the property line."
REASON: As presently proposed, it would appear that signs are required to observe
'
the setback in each district and the effect will be to require a business or industry that
constructs its building at the setback line to locate its signs beside the building and not in
front, general advertising signs will have to be constructed larger in an effort to adequately
inform the motoring public of the availability of goods and services within the county and
such signs will probably be ineffective in many cases, and it will require the erection of
advertising signs in the middle of a farmer's field instead of at the edge of such field. By
adopting this suggestion, all signs could be erected adjacent to the right of way line and
this would result in a business or industry that constructs its building at the setback line
being able to locate-its sign in front of the building, signs would not have to be located
in the middle of a farmer's field and would be more acceptable to the landowners and signs
could be smaller while still being more effective in informing the motoring public of services
and goods available within the county.
'
3. In Article XV add a definition for general advertising signs as follows:
GENERAL ADVERTISING SIGNS:
A sign which directs attention to a product, commodity or service not necessarily
available on the premises.
REASON: With the addition of general advertising signs in the districts as proposed
above there should be a definition of such signs.
4. Delete all definitions relating to signs in Article XXII and relocate such definitions
in Article XV.
REASON: This will place all sign definitions in one location and will eliminate any
conflict resulting from the two different sign definitions now contained in the ordinance.
5. Delete 5 -6 relating to conditional use permits for off premises signs.
REASON: It is felt that this places an unnecessary administrative burden on the
County as well as the person seeking to locate the sign and that the ordinance provides
'
sufficient controls without this additional control. With this provision left in the ordinance
every location, directional and other similar type signs would be forced to apply for a
conditional use permit.
6. Amend 5 -8 of the ordinance to read as follows:
'
"The maximum height of any sign attached to a building must be not more than two (2)
feet above the roof of the building."
REASON: This change will make it clear that this provision only applies to signs
attached to buildings and will simplify the application and determination as to proper height.
7. Amend 916 -1 -3 to provide two years instead of the present one year.
REASON: § 15.1 -492 of the Code of Virginia permits nonconforming uses to continue
as long as they are properly maintained and such use is not discontinued for two years. The
ordinance as presently drafted is in conflict with this section.
business and cause a loss of income which is presently being derived from certain signs now
located within the county.
THAT, WHEREAS, the 1966 session of the General Assembly passed legislation to regu-
late Outdoor Advertising on the Interstate and Federal -aid Primary highways in conformity
)i
with the Federal Highway Beautification Act of 1965; and
WHEREAS, the State Highway Commission adopted interim standards governing the size,
spacing and lighting of Outdoor Advertising signs in zoned and unzoned commercial and
industrial areas until permanent standards could be agreed upon with the Federal
Government; and
WHEREAS, the State Highway Department and the Federal Government have now reached
agreement regarding permanent standards;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the State Highway Commission hereby adopts the
It is
felt that the above suggested changes
in the proposed zoning
ordinance would
'
help landowners,
business people and all citizens of
Frederick County without
doing any harm
where the locality has regulations
to the ordinance
as a whole. Without these changes,
certain property owners
and other
citizens of the
county could find that the ordinance
would have a detrimental
effect on their
business and cause a loss of income which is presently being derived from certain signs now
located within the county.
THAT, WHEREAS, the 1966 session of the General Assembly passed legislation to regu-
late Outdoor Advertising on the Interstate and Federal -aid Primary highways in conformity
)i
with the Federal Highway Beautification Act of 1965; and
WHEREAS, the State Highway Commission adopted interim standards governing the size,
spacing and lighting of Outdoor Advertising signs in zoned and unzoned commercial and
industrial areas until permanent standards could be agreed upon with the Federal
Government; and
WHEREAS, the State Highway Department and the Federal Government have now reached
agreement regarding permanent standards;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the State Highway Commission hereby adopts the
B. In all other zoned and unzoned commercial and industrial areas, the criteria
set forth below shall apply:
SIZE OF SIGNS
1. The maximum area for.any advertisement shall be 1200 square feet with a
maximum height of 25 feet and maximum length of 60 feet, inclusive of any
border and trim but excluding ornamental base or apron supports and other
structural members.
2. The area shall be measured by the smallest square, rectangle, triangle,
circle or combination thereof which will encompass the entire advertisement.
I 3. A sign structure may contain one or two advertisements per facing, not to
exceed the maximum area.
4. Double -faced structures will be permitted with the maximum area being
allowed for each facing.
SPACING OF SIGNS
1. Interstate Highway and Freeways on the Federal -aid Primary System
a. No two structures shall be spaced less than 500 feet apart.
b. No structure may be located within 500 feet of an interchange, or
intersection at grade, or rest area (measured along the Interstate
or freeway from the sign to the nearest point of the beginning or
ending of pavement widening at the exit from or entrance to the
main traveled way.)
following regulations pursuant to
Chapter 663, Acts of
Assembly of 1966, to control
Outdoor Advertising signs in zoned
and unzoned commercial and industrial areas;
'
A. In zoned commercial
and industrial areas
where the locality has regulations
governing the size,
spacing and lighting
of signs, such regulations shall
control and govern.
B. In all other zoned and unzoned commercial and industrial areas, the criteria
set forth below shall apply:
SIZE OF SIGNS
1. The maximum area for.any advertisement shall be 1200 square feet with a
maximum height of 25 feet and maximum length of 60 feet, inclusive of any
border and trim but excluding ornamental base or apron supports and other
structural members.
2. The area shall be measured by the smallest square, rectangle, triangle,
circle or combination thereof which will encompass the entire advertisement.
I 3. A sign structure may contain one or two advertisements per facing, not to
exceed the maximum area.
4. Double -faced structures will be permitted with the maximum area being
allowed for each facing.
SPACING OF SIGNS
1. Interstate Highway and Freeways on the Federal -aid Primary System
a. No two structures shall be spaced less than 500 feet apart.
b. No structure may be located within 500 feet of an interchange, or
intersection at grade, or rest area (measured along the Interstate
or freeway from the sign to the nearest point of the beginning or
ending of pavement widening at the exit from or entrance to the
main traveled way.)
M
2. Non - Freeway Federal -aid Primary Routes
a. Outside of Municipalities - no two structures shall be spaced less
than 300 feet apart.
b. Inside Municipalities - no two structures shall be spaced less than
100 feet apart.
3. Explanatory Notes
Activities
C. At any time that a locality adopts comprehensive zoning which includes the
'
a. Official and "on premise'." signs, as
defined in section 131(c) of
be transferred from Section B to Section A of these regulations.
title 23, United States Code, shall
not be counted nor shall
f.
measurements be made
from them for
purposes of determining com-
a building
pliance with spacing
requirements.
considered commercial or industrial:
'
b. The minimum distance
between signs
shall be measured along the nearest
edge of the pavement
between points
directly opposite the signs along
each side of the highway.
T _ T(_ TJrV TN!_
Signs may be illuminated, subject to the following restrictions:
1. Signs which contain, include, or are illuminated by any flashing,
intermittent, or moving light or lights are prohibited,:except those
giving public service information such as time, date, temperature,
weather, or similar information.
2. Signs which are not effectively shielded as to prevent beams or rays of
lights from being directed at any portion of the traveled ways of the
Interstate or primary highway and which are of such intensity or '
brilliance as to cause glare or to impair the vision of the driver of any
motor vehicle, or which otherwise interfere with any driver's operation
of a motor vehicle are prohibited.
3. No sign shall be so illuminated that it interferes with the effectiveness
of, or obscures an official traffic sign, device or signal.
4. All such lighting shall be subject to any other provisions relating to
lighting of signs presently applicable to all highways under the juris-
diction of the Commonwealth.
Activities
C. At any time that a locality adopts comprehensive zoning which includes the
300
regulation of Outdoor Advertising, the regulation of signs in such area shall
the nearest
be transferred from Section B to Section A of these regulations.
of
For the purpose of these regulations, the following definitions shall apply:
f.
1. Commercial or industrial activities mean those activities generally
conducted
recognized as commercial or industrial by zoning authorities in this
a building
Commonwealth, except that none of the following activities shall be
used
considered commercial or industrial:
a residence.
a. Outdoor advertising structures.
b. Agricultural, forestry, grazing, farming, and related activities,
including, but not limited to, wayside fresh produce stands.
C. Transient or temporary activities.
d. Activities not visible from the main traveled way.
e.
Activities
more than
300
feet from
the nearest
edge
of
the right of way.
f.
Activities
conducted
in
a building
principally
used
as
a residence.
g. Railroad tracks and minor sidings.
��.�J ;
.'����
,
2. Zoned commercial or industrial areas mean those areas which are reserved
for business, commerce, or trade pursuant to a comprehensive State or local
zoning ordinance or regulation.
3. Unzoned commercial or industrial areas mean those areas on which there is
located one or more permanent structures devoted to a business or industrial
activity or on which a commercial or industrial activity is actually conducted,
whether or not a permanent structure is located thereon, and the area along the
highway extending outward 500 feet from and beyond the edge of such activity.
Each side of the highway will be considered separately in applying this definiti
All measurements shall be from the outer edges of the regularly used
No permits shall be issued pursuantrtoxthese.regulatkrs for _ any: Outdoor 'Advertisingi.si.gnsnon - .
Interstate System which would be less restrictive than the regulations as previously agreed
upon between the highway Department and the Federal Government under the bonus agreement.
These regulations shall become effective August 1, 1967 and the interim regulations
I�
on the same subject matter are rescinded as of that date.
L'
buildings, parking lots, storage or processing areas of the activities, not from
the property lines of the activities, and shall be along or parallel to the
edge or pavement of the highway.
UPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD DO NOW ADJOURN.
arvisors
Board of Supervisors
At the Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia, held on the 8th day of ,August, 1973, in the Board of Supervisors Room, 9 Court
Square, Winchester, Virginia.
PRESENT: Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman; Dennis T. Cole; Richard F. Madigan; and
Donald R. Hodgson. ABSENT: J. Robert Russell.
The meeting was called to order.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
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 does
herein approve the minutes of the meetings of this Board held on June 27, 1973 and July
11, 1973 as submitted.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
REPORT - CLEARBROOK PARK
Mr. Sandy presented the following report submitted by Mr. Fletcher on Clearbrook
Park through August 8, 1973:
Concessions from Pool ------- - - - - --
Concession Stand --------------- ---
Paddle Boats =--------------- - - - - --
Fishing Fees ---------------- - - - - --
Day Camp --------------------------
Total
-- - - - - -- $12,184.25
-- - - - - -- 7,324.77
-- - - - - -- 2,070.15
-- - - - - -- 60.00
-- - - - - -- 9.29
-------------- - - -- -- $21,648.46
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION - PARKS AND RECREATION DEPT. - APPROVED
Mr. Fletcher requested a supplemental appropriation in the amount of at least
$800.00 to be used for the purchase of a used truck from the Highway Department for use by
the Parks and Recreation Department. He stated that thisrequest had been approved by the
Board in April. The Board unanimously agreed with this request.
CIVES CORPORATION - INDUSTRIAL ACCESS ROAD - APPROVED
Mr. Largent appeared before the Board representing Cives Corporation in their
42
request for an industrial access road. He stated that since the last meeting he had talKea
with Mr. White, Manager of Time D. C. and that the Cives Corporation had also been in touch
with Time Freight concerning this matter. He stated that the road would not interfere with
the operation of Time D. C. and it would be constructed over thirty (30) feet of Shade
Equipment Company land and the existing twenty (20) foot right -of -way.
Mr. White appeared before the Board and stated that Time D. C. had no objection to
this access road as long as it did not interfere with their operation.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole,
WHEREAS, A request has been made for the construction and maintenance of an indus-
trial access road, by Cives Corporation, extending in a westernly direction from U. S. Route 11
as shown on the plat prepared by Lee A. Ebert C.L.S., dated June 21, 1973, hereto attached.
WHEREAS: The property is bounded on the North by the property of Penvir Realty
Company, Inc. and the Cives Corporation and bounded on the South by the property of Shade
Equipment Company, Incorporated.
WHEREAS: The State Highway Commission, pursuant to the provisions of Section 33.1 -221
of the Code of Virginia, as amended, may construct industrial access roads.
WHEREAS: The State Highway Commission has indicated its willingness to construct and
maintain the said industrial access road provided the right of way is made available and all
adjustments have been made for utilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Board of Supervisors for the County of
Frederick, Virginia, hereby approves the construction of an industrial access road as shown
on the plat attached hereto, provided that the project is completed pursuant to the provisions
of Section 33.1 -221 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, and further provided that the land on
which the industrial access road is to be constructed shall be provided without cost to the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and that the necessary adjustment for utilities is made without
cost to the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION - 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, Virginia,
does herein approve a supplemental appropriation in the amount of One Thousand ($1,000)
Dollars to the.Parks and Recreation Department for the purchase of a dump truck.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF BILLS - JULY
Mr. Sandy stated that each member of the Board had a copy of the bills in his agenda
and asked if there were any questions concerning the same.
Mr. Madigan questioned the item listed in the bills in the amount of $16.50 to
Harry Palmer for work at the Park.
Mr. Sandy stated that this was for work at Clear Brook Park when there was an
unusually heavy amount of traffic and parking. He said that this request had been made by
Mr. Cole and coordinated through the Sheriff's Department.
Mr. Madigan stated that he did not want the Board to set a precedent wherein the
deputies would expect to be paid for overtime work.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does herein
approve and order the bills for the month of July, 1973, be paid from the General Fund in the
amount of $85,025.98 by Warrants #03563 to #03768.
The above resolution was passed with Raymond C. Sandy, Donald R. Hodgson, and Dennis
T. Cole voting "Aye" and Richard F. Madigan "Abstaining ".
APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein approve the payroll for the month of July, 1973, in the amount of $40,149.34 and does
herein direct that this payroll be paid from the General Fund by Warrants #03481 to #03562.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS REPORTS - ACCEPTED
The reports of the constitutional officers were reviewed and accepted by the Board
for the month of July.
BUILDING PERMIT REFUNDS - APPROVED
F
Mr. Sandy presented two requests for building permit refunds.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
43
F7,
Lj
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein approve the following requests for Building permit refunds:
1. Tri State Homes, 2400 Valley Avenue, Winchester, Va.
Permit #0492 and Permit #0493 - $132.00
Reason - Neighbors refused to permit construction
2. Mr. Harold E. Rapczyk, Rt. 1, Box 98, White Post, Virginia - Permit
#0656 - $30.00 - Reason - Overcharged
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
TREASURER PERMITTED TO TRANSMIT SALES TAX
BY TREASURER'S CHECK - APPROVED
Upon motion inade by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan,
BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, that
the Treasurer of Frederick County is hereby authorized to transmit by means of Treasurer's
checks to the State Department of Taxation, sales taxes collected by Frederick County.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
RESIGNATION- WILLIAM B. McCORMICK - HIGHWAY SAFETY
COMMISSION - ACCEPTED
Mr. Sandy.read a letter of resignation from Mr. William B. McCormick, Chairman
of the Highway Safety Commission.
i ,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 does
herein accept the resignation of Mr. William B. McCormick as Chairman of the Highway Safety
Commission.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE - HEATING SYSTEMS - APPROVED
FIRST AND SECOND READING
A Public Hearing was held at 7:30 p.m. on the ordinance adopting the BOCA Mechanical
Code. Mr. Sandy presented the t- ordinance for first.and second reading.
After discussion, the Board agreed unanimously to strike Section 7 "Right of
Entry" from the ordinance.
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 does
herein approve the following ordinance on first and second reading:
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR INSPECTION OF THE
DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF HEATING SYSTEMS,
VENTILATING SYSTEMS, COOLING SYSTEMS, .:
STEAM AND HOT WATER HEATING SYSTEMS, PROCESS PIPING
BOILERS AND PRESSURE VESSELS, APPLIANCES
UTILIZING GAS „LIQUID OR SOLID FUEL, CHIMNEYS
AND VENTS, MECHANICAL REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS,
FIREPLACES, BARBECUES, INCINERATORS, CREMATORIES
AND FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE — PLUMBING - APPROVED
FIRST AND SECOND READING
Mr. Sandy presented the Ordinance accepting the BOCA Plumbing Code for.adopton
on first and second reading. The Board agreed unanimously to strike Section 7 of this
ordinance regarding the "Right to Entry ".
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 does
herein approve on first and second reading the 'following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR INSPECTION OF THE
DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF PLUMBING SYSTEMS,
INCLUDING SANITARY AND STORM DRAINAGE, SANITARY
FACILITIES, WATER SUPPLIES, STORM WATER AND
SEWERAGE DISPOSAL IN BUILDINGS LOCATED IN THE
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE - SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL - APPROVED
FIRST AND SECOND READING
Mr. Sandy presented the ordinance on Solid Waste Disposal for first and second
reading.
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 does
herein approve on first and second reading the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR AND REGULATING THE OPERATION
OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
M A
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
- MORATORIUM REGARDING REZONING APPLICATIONS -
APPROVED - FIRST AND SECOND READING
Mr. Sandyrjpresented the ordinance regarding a six month moratorium on rezoning
applications.
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 does
herein approve the following ordinance on first and second reading:
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A SIX MONTH MORATORIUM
ON HEARINGS AND ACTIONS ON REZONING APPLICATIONS
BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
SUBDIVISIONS
Surrey Square Subdivision - Withdrawn:
Mr. Berg presented the preliminary plat of Surrey Square stating that the population
would be approximately 700.
Mr. James Kniceley appeared before the Board in support of this subdivision and
stated that the owner requested that this plat be withdrawn and resubmitted at the next Board
meeting in order that revisions could be made of the plat.
The Board unanimously agreed to this withdrawal.
Z e g.exr Subdivision - Section 2 - Approved:
Mr. Berg presented the plat of Zeiger7 Subdivision stating that this was Section 2
of the subdivision and contained four lots. He stated that the staff had found this
preliminary plat to be in order.
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 does
herein approve the preliminary plat of Zeiger Subdivision, Section 2, containing four (4)
lots located on Route 616.
The aboveoresolution was passed unanimously.
Braddock Hills Estates - Final Plat - Approved.
Mr. Berg presented the final plat of Braddock Hills Estates and stated that this
plat had been approved by the Board in July of 1971 but had not been recorded. He stated
that both the Highway Department and the Health Department had signed the plat and a
recreation fee had been paid.
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 does
herein approve the final plat of Braddock Hills Estates containing thirteen (13) lots located
in Gainesboro Magisterial District.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Wakeland Manor Subdivision - Section E - Approved:
Mr. Berg presented the preliminary plat of Wakeland Manor, Section E. stating
that a recreation fee of $100.00 per lot had been agreed upon.
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 does
Iherein approve the preliminary plat of Wakeland Manor Subdivision, Section E, located in
lOpequon Magisterial District.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
DOG WARDEN - REPORT
Mr. Whitacre appeared before the Board and presented his monthly report:
Livestock Claims 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
does herein approve the following livestock claims for the amounts indicated upon the
recommendation of Harold Whitacre, Frederick County Dog Warden:
1. Mr. John Coe - 33 chicks @ 50(� each - $16.50
2. Mr. Frank Fout - 3 ewes @ $10.00 each and 1 lamb @ $15.00 - $45.00
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Mr. Whitacre requested that the Board write Mr. Manuel Sempeles a letter inform-
ing him that his claim for livestock kill presented in July of this year had been denied
in that his livestock had not been assessed. Mr. Sandy stated that this would be done.
He stated that the Board would not pay any livestock claim wherein the livestock had
not been assessed.
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - INCENTIVE PAY PLAN - APPROVED
Mr. Renalds presented the proposed Incentive Pay -R1ah far the Sheriffi!s Depart-
ment and stated that this had been done at the request of Cole. He stated that the
Committee on Law Enforcement and Courts, consisting of Judge Simpson, the Commonwealth
Attorney and Mr. Cole, had prepared this plan and it was being presented to the Board
for adoption.
Mr. Cole stated that Judge Simpson and Mr. Ambrogi had worked very diligently
to prepare this plan.
Mr. Madigan asked if this plan was a progressive schedule and Mr. Ambrogi
stated that in the respect that the more hours the man gets the more incentive pay he
received it was progressive.
Mr. Madigan requested that the wording be stated that the increase would be
based on the base salary and would not be on a progressive scale.
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
does hereby adopt the Incentive Pay Plan as recommended by the Committee on Law Enforce-
ment and Courts, percentage of said plan to be based on the current base pay for the
current fiscal year; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this is not a progressive incentive rate.
17
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING ANNOUNCED
Mr. Madigan stated that the Finance Committee would hold a meeting on Monday,
August 13, 1973, at 7:00 P.M. in the Board Room and requested that the Board of Super-
visors, the Sanitation Authority, Mr. Renalds, the Commonwealth Attorney, and the Clerk
of the Court be present at this meeting.
Mr. Sandy stated that this request was in order and asked Mr. Renalds to send
out notices to the individuals who were invited to the Meeting. Mr. Sandy stated that
the press was also invited to attend this meeting.
Upon motion made by Donald R. Hodgson and seconded by Richard F. Madigan, the
Board recessed into executive session in order to discuss a legal problem with the
Commonwealth Attorney.
M
This motion was passed unanimously.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole and
sed unanimously the Board came out of executive session.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole and passed
the Board reconvened into regular session
PROPOSE 2
- Tn RR ACTED
Mr. Sandy stated that the business conducted in the executive session was to discuss)
with the Commonwealth Attorney the legality of adopting the proposed zoning ordinance at the
next regular meeting of the Board which would be on the 22nd of August, 1973. He stated that
all changes which had been submitted, which the Board felt had metit, had been made. Mr.
Sandy said that a ten day limit had been set for the Board to receive comments and after
seven days, no comments had been received. He stated that it was the opinion of the
Commonwealth Attorney that the Board could rescind the action taken at the last meeting
wherein they sent the proposed ordinance back to the planning commission for study, changes,
readvertising and joint public hearing and could act upon it at their next regularly
scheduled meeting. He stated that the Board would give the Planning Commission a sixty day
limit to present a recreational communities section to be incorporated into the ordinance.
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, Virginia,
rescinds its prior motion of August 1, 1973, which referred the proposed zoning ordinance
back to the Planning Commission of Frederick County for revision, and readvertising, and
joint public hearing; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors will act on the aforesaid
proposed ordinance at its next regularly scheduled meeting called for Wednesday, August 22, 1973
considering all recommendations and proposed changes; that the Planning Commission is
hereby directed to an amendment to said ordinance setting forth a zoning classification II
for residential recreational communities to be finalized by the Planning Commission for I
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors within sixty (60) days after the enactment of
the proposed zoning ordinance by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors.
By recorded vote with Raymond C. Sandy, Donald R. Hodgson, and Dennis T. Cole
voting "Aye" and Richard F. Madigan abstaining. The above resolution was passed.
Mr. Madigan stated that he felt he probably should have been a little stronger in
the Planning Commission some time ago in setting forth the recreational type community zoning
because he felt all of this could have been brought forth at one time and dispensed with.
WHITFIELD SUBDIVISION - STREETS TO BE CONSTRUCTED
Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Ambrogi if the problems presented by the citizens at a
previous meeting concerning the streets in Whitfield Subdivision had been resolved. Mr.
Ambrogi stated that a letter had been received wherein the developer had contracted to
have these streets constructed.
Mr. Renalds then presented the following letter:
Dear. Mr. Renalds:
In reply to your letter dated July 26, 1973,
concerning road construction for Mr. James L. Bowman
in the Whitfield Subdivision southeast of Stephens
City of State Route 641, this is to advise that we do
have a contract with Mr. Bowman to perform this
work. Although the contract is dated October 28, 1970
J
47
lthe`. wdrkCwas -stheduled3 ;fof-.thb:.sdhson of 1971,
However, due to a shortage of asphalt it was
r
postponed until last season and somehow the
contract was lost in our files and the work was
never performed. I have now discussed this
matter with our paving superintendent, Mr. Cecil
Rowe and-he assures me that this work- can
completed by September 30, 1973.
'We .:trustfithat =:this -will:fie >'!sa�t sfactory
and I personally will follow through to see that
this work is completed.
I Very truly yours,
Perry Engineering Company, Inc.
/s/ Furman W. Perry, President
A representative from Whitfield Subdivision thanked the Board for their assistance
in this matter.
UPON MOTION DULY MADE'AND SECONDED, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD DO NOW ADJOURN.
Se etary, Board of Supervisors
At the regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Cpdnty of Frederick,
�7
rginia, held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia,
n the 22nd day of August, 1973.
PRESENT: Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman; J. Robert Russell, Vice Chairman;
chard F. Madigan; Dennis T. Cole; and Donald R. Hodgson.
The meeting was called to order.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 25. 1973
Upon motion by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
approve the minutes of the meeting of this Board, held on the 25th day of July,
1973, as submitted.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
BICYCLE.SAFETY WEEK - PROCLAIMED
Mr'. Dale Lonheim, Bicycle Safety Chairman, Winchester Jaycees, appeared before
Board requesting a proclamation be issued proclaiming Bicycle Safety Week.
Mr. Sandy agreed to execute this proclamation declaring Bicycle Safety Week
r""''the''iaeek of September 8 through 15, 1973, stating that he felt this was a most
rthwhile project.
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT SECONDARY ROAD BUDGET - APPROVED
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan,
WHEREAS, The Virginia Department of Highways has submitted their Secondary
ad Budget to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors for Fiscal Year 1973 -1974; and,
WHEREAS, The Frederick County Board of Supervisors has reviewed said budget,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Board of Supervisors does
approve the Secondary Road Budget for Fiscal Year 1973 -1974 for. Frederick County
submitted by the Virginia Department of Highways; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That a copy of this resolution be filed with the
rginia State Highway Commission.
The above resolution was passed unanimously:
GORDONDALE SUBDIVISION - APPROVED
Mr. Berg presented the preliminary plat of Gordondale Subdivision and stated that
everything was in order on the plat except for the signature of the Highway Department.
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 does
approve the preliminary plat of Gordondale Subdivision subject to Highway.Department x.,.[)
approval.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
ZONING ORDINANCE - REFERRED BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, the
and recessed into executive session.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, the
and reconvened from executive session.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell the
and returned to regular session.
Mr. Sandy stated that the Board had gone into executive'"session"to'discuss a
gal point concerning the change made in the zoning ordinance pertaining to the addition of
e R -5 section on Recreational subdivisions. He stated that there was a question as to
ether or not this was a major change. He stated that the Attorney General's Office was of th
inion that the Board could make this change and still consider it a minor change.
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 does
rein direct the following:
1. That the proposed zoning ordinance be referred back to the Planning Commission
r reworking.
2. That five hundred (500) copies of the proposed zoning ordinance be printed,
t not to exceed a cost to the county of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000); that a charge be
de for copies of the proposed zoning ordinance at the County's cost to the public.
3. That we recommend to the planning Commission the inclusion of the R -5 zoning
at is proposed. Also to be included, the land areas of those recreational subdivisions that
alify under this ordinance.
4. That the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meet in work session
rework the ordinance and then advertise said ordinance and meet in joint public session
r hearings on the ordinance.
5. That this public hearing for this proposed zoning ordinance be held the second
! eting of the Board of Supervisors in October, that being the fourth Wednesday in October.
By recorded vote with Raymond C. Sandy, J. Robert Russell, Richard F. Madigan and
Innis T. Cole voting "Aye" and Donald R. Hodgson voting "Nay" the above resolution was passed.
Mr. Cole stated that he felt the Board was doing the right thing in referring this
-dinance back to the Planning Commission for reworking in that several people had not been abl
> get copies of the ordinance for review.
CHANGES OF POLLING PLACES - APPROVED
Mr. Alfred Snapp, a member of the electoral board, appeared before the Board and
:quested several changes in polling places. He stated that these requests were being presented
acause the new locations would be more convenient for the voters and would pro Vide better
irking facilities.
Upon motion made by Ridhard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole
r
t
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick
herein approve the request of the Electoral Board to change the following polling
GAINESBORO MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
Gainesboro Precinct: Change from Fire Hall to Gainesboro School
' STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
Clearbrook Precinct: Change from Fire Hall to Clearbrook School ,
OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
Stephens City Precinct: Change from Fire Hall to Robert E. Aylor,
as. High School
' Middletown Precinct: Change from the Fire Hall to Middletown School
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - ORDINANCES
Public Hearings were held at 8:00 P.M. on the following ordinances.
ORDINANCE - HEATING SYSTEMS - APPROVED
THIRD AND FINAL READING
Mr.,Madi,gan read the ordinance in full.
There was no opposition to this ordinance.
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 does
herein approve, on third and final reading, the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR INSPECTION OF THE DESIGN AND INSTALLATION
OF HEATING SYSTEMS, VENTILATING SYSTEMS, COOLING SYSTEMS, STEAM AND
HOT WATER HEATING SYSTEMS, PROCESS PIPING, BOILERS AND PRESSURE VESSELS,
' APPLIANCES UTILIZING GAS, LIQUID OR SOLID FUEL, CHIMNEYS, AND VENTS,
MECHANICAL REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS, FIREPLACES, BARBECUES, INCINERATORS,
CREMATORIES AND FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS.
BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia that:
Section 1. Adoption of the BOCA Basic Mechanical Code, 1971:
This code shall be known as the BOCA Basic Mechanical Code and is herein
referred to as the Mechanical Code or "this code ".
Section 2. Purpose and intent:
It is the purpose and intent of this code to establish minimum standards in
terms of performance objectives, implemented by specific requirements, which will
ide reasonable safeguards to protedt the public health and safety against the
hazards of inadequate, defective or unsafe mechanics installations.
Section 3. Establishment of Mechanical Inspection Department:
(a) The position of Mechanical Inspector is hereby created.
' (b) The Mechanical Inspector shall be under the supervision of the Director
of Inspections.
(c) During temporary absence or disability of the Mechanical Inspector, an
acting inspector shall be appointed.
' Section 4. Duties of the Mechanical Inspector:
(a) The Mechanical Inspector shall devote his whole time to the duties of
his office. He shall receive applications required of this code issue permits and
rnish the prescribed certificates. He shall examine premises for which permits have
en issued and shall make necessary inspections to see that the provisions of the
chanical Code are complied with. He shall, when requested by proper authority; or
en the public interest so requires make investigations in connection with matters
ferred to in the Mechanical Code and render written reports on same. To enforce compliance
th law, he shall issue such notices or orders as may be necessary.
50
(b) The Mechanical Inspector or his duly appointed assistant shall make all
inspections required by the Mechanical Code.
(c) The Mechanical Inspector shall keep comprehensive records of applications, of
permits issued of certificates issued, of inspections made, of reports rendered, and of
notices or orders issued. He shall retain on file copies of required plans and all documents
relating to Mechanical work so long as any part of the building or structure to which they
relate may be in existence.
(d) All such records shall be open to public inspection for good and sufficient
reasons at the stated office hours, but shall not be removed from the office of the Mechanical
Inspector without his written consent.
(e) The Mechanical Inspector shall make written reports to the Board of Supervisors
once each month or oftener if requested, including statements of permits and certificates
issued and orders promulgated.
Section 5. Liability of Mechanical Inspector:
The Mechanical Inspector or any employee charged with the enforcement of this
Code, acting in good faith and without malice for the County in the discharge of his duties
shall not thereby render himself liable personally and he is hereby relieved from all
personal liability for any damage that may accrue to persons or property as a result of any
act required or by reason of any act or omission in the discharge of his duties. Any suit
brought against the Mechanical Inspector or employee, because of such act or omission
performed by him in the enforcement of any provisions of this code, shall be defended by
the legal department of the County until final termination of the proceedings.
Section 6. Cooperation of Other Officials:
The Mechanical Inspector may request and shall receive so far as may be
necessary in the discharge of his duties, the assistance and cooperation of other
officials of the County.
Section 7. Definitions:
(a) wherever the word "Municipality" is used in the Mechanical code, it shall be
held to mean the County of Frederick.
(b) wherever the term "Corporation Counsel" is used in the Mechanical code, it
shall be held to mean the Attorney for the County of Frederick.
Section 8. Saving Clause:
Nothing in this ordinance or in the Mechanical Code hereby adopted shall be
construed to affect any suit or proceeding now pending in any court, or any rights
acquired, or liability incurred, nor any cause or causes of action accrued or existing,
under any act or ordinance repealed hereby. Nor shall any right or remedy of any character
be lost, impaired or affected by this ordinance.
Section 9. Validity:
The invalidity of any section or provision of this ordinance or.of the
Mechanical code hereby adopted shall not invalidate other sections or provisions thereof.
Section 10. Inconsistent Ordinances Repealed:
Ordinances or parts thereof in force at the time that this ordinance shall take
effect and inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 11. Any construction subject to the provisions of this ordinance,
not started upon the date of passage of this ordinance shall be subject to the regulation,
fees and requirements of this ordinance.
Section 12: This ordinance shall take effect upon passage of the Board of
i
J
Supervisors.
51
The above resolution was passed by-the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
J. Robert Russell, Richard F. Madigan, Dennis T. Cole, and Donald R. Hodgson all voting "Aye ".
ORDINANCE - PLUMBING SYSTEMS - APPROVED
THIRD AND FINAL READING
Mr. Madigan read the ordinance in full.
There was no opposition to this ordinance.
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 does
herein approve, on third and following reading the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR FINAL INSPECTION'OF-L THE::DESIGN
AND INSTALLATION OF PLUMBING SYSTEMS, INCLUDING
_SANIIPARYRANV."f4T0RM DRAINAGE, SANITARY FACILITIES,
WATER SUPPLIES, STORM WATER AND SEWERAGE DISPOSAL
IN BUILDINGS LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK,
VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia
that:
Section 1. Adoption of BOCA Basic Plumbing Code, Second Edition, 1970 and
its supplements:
This code shall be known as the BOCA Basic Plumbing Code and is herein referred
to as the Plumbing Code or "this code ".
Section 2. Purpose and intent:
It is the purpose and intent of this code to establish minimum plumbing standards
in the terms of performance objectives, implemented by specific requirements, which will
provide reasonable safeguards for sanitation to protect the public health against
hazards of inadequate defective or insanitary plumbing installations.
Section 3. Establishment of Plumbing Inspection Department:
(a) The position of Plumbing Inspector is hereby created.
(b) The Plumbing Inspector shall be under the supervision of the Director of
Inspections
(c) During temporary absence or disability of the Plumbing Inspector, an
acting inspector shall be appointed.
Section 4. Duties of the Plumbing Inspector:
(a) The Plumbing Inspector shall devote his whole time to the duties of his
7
office. He shall receive applications required of this code, issue permits and
furnish the prescribed certificates. He shall examine premises for which permits have
been issued and shall make necessary inspections to see that the provisions of the Plumbing
Code are complied with. He shall, when requested by the proper authority; or when the public
interest so requires, make investigations in connection with matters referred to in the
Plumbing Code and render written reports on same. To enforce compliance with law he shall
issue such notices or orders as may be necessary.
(b) The Plumbing Inspector or his duly appointed assistant shall make all
inspections required by the Plumbing Code.
(c) The Plumbing Inspector shall keep comprehensive records of applications,
of permits issued, or certificates issued, of inspections made, of reports rendered,
and of notices or orders issued. He shall retain on file copies of required plans
and all documents relating to Plumbing work so long as any part of the building or
structure to which they relate may be in existance.
(d) All such records shall be open to public inspection for good and
sufficient reasons at the stated office hours, but shall not be removed from the office
52
of the Plumbing Inspector without his written consent.
(e) The-Plumbing Inspector shall make written reports to the Board of Supervisors
once each month or oftener if requested including statements of permits and certificates
issued and orders promulgated.
Section 5. Liability of Plumbing Inspector:
The Plumbing Inspector or any employee charged with the enforcement of this '
Code, acting in good faith and without malice for the County in the discharge of his duties
shall not thereby render himself liable personally and he is hereby relieved from all
personal liability for any damage that may accrue to persons or property as a result of any act
required or by reason of any act or omission in the discharge of his duties. Any suit brought '
against the Plumbing Inspector or employee, because of such act or omission performed by him
in the enforcement of any provisions of this code, shall be defended by the legal department o
the County until final termination of the proceedings.
Section 6. Cooperation of Other Officials:
The Plumbing Inspector may request and shall receive so far as may be necessary
in the discharge of his duties the assistance and cooperation of other officials of the
County.
Section 7. Definitions:
(a) Wherever the word: "Municipality" is used in the plumbing code, it shall
be held to mean the County of Frederick.
(b) Wherever the term "Corporation Counsel" is used in the Plumbing Code, it shall
be held to mean the Attorney for the County of Frederick.
Section 8. Saving Clause: '
Nothing in this ordinance or in the Plumbing Code hereby adopted shall be construed
to affect any suit or proceeding now pending in any court, or any rights acquired, or
liability incurred, nor any cause or causes of action accrued or existing, under any act or
ordinance repealed hereby. Nor shall any right or remedy of any character be lost, impaired
or affected by this ordinance.
Section 9. Validity:
The invalidity of any section or provision of this ordinance or of the building
code hereby adopted shall not invalidate other sections or provisions thereof.
Section 10. Inconsistent Ordinances Repealed:
Ordinances or parts thereof in force at the time that this ordinance shall take
effect and inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 11. Any subject to the provisions of this ordinance, hot
,
started upon the date of passage of this ordinance shall be subject to the regulation
fees and requirements of this ordinance.
Section 12. This ordinance shall take effect upon passage of the Board of
Supervisors.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
'
J. Robert Russell, Richard-F. Madigan, Donald R. Hodgson, and Dennis T. Cole all voting "Aye ".
ORDINANCE - SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL - APPROVED
THIRD AND FINAL READING
Mr. Madigan read the ordinance in full.
Mr. Sandy called for opposition from the floor.
Several area refuse haulers requested changes in the wording in Sections 2 -3,
3 -2 -08, 3 -6, and 3 -7. These requests were approved by the Board.
53
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
BE'TT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County
County of Frederick does herein approve on third and final reading the following ordinance:
1 7 1 "Solid Waste" (Short Title "Refuse ") means garbage, refuse, and other dis-
carded solid materials, including solid -waste materials resulting from industrial, commercial,
and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or
dissolved material in domestic sewage or other significant pollutants in water resources,
such as silt, dissolved or suspended solids in industrial waste water effluents, dissolved
materials in irrigation return flows, or other common water pollutants.
' 1 -2 "Noncombustible Waste" means refuse which is incapable of burning or being
incinerated; this term.excludes hazardous wastes listed in 1 -5 below, and it includes,
but is not limited to, the following:
1 ^2.01 natural earth
1 -2.02 rock, sand and gravel
12.03 paving fragments
1 -2.04 concrete
1 -2.05 brick, earthenware, pottery and other clay products
1 -2.06 plaster and other gypsum.1 products
1 -2.07 glass
1 -2.08 Asbestos products
1 -2.09 metal and metal products, except automobile bodies
1 -3 "Combustible Waste" means refuse which is capable of burning or being
incinerated in whole or in part; this term excludes hazardous wastes listed in 1,-5 below,
and it includes, but is not limited to, the following:
1 -3.01 paper and paper and paper products, including tar paper and roofing
material
1 -3.02 dloth and clothing
1 -3.03 wood and wood products
1 -3.04 brush, shrubbery, lawn clippings and sod
1 -3.05 street sweepings
1 -3.06 rubber and rubber products, including automotive tires
' 1 -3.07 plastic and plastic products
1 -3.08 leather and leather products
1 -3.09 drums, cans or other containers, which have substantially been emptied
of their contents
1 -3.10 garbage, including all animal and vegetable waste, except the waste
products of slaughter houses, packing plants and fowl processing plants.
1 -4 "Liquid Waste" means inorganic refuse in a liquid or semi - liquid state;
' this term excludes hazardous wastes listed in 1 -5 below,, and it includes, but is not
limited to, the following:
1 -4.01 sludge from automobile wash racks and steam cleaning products
1 -4.02 mud and water from laundries
1 -4.03 ceramic, pottery and glass wastes .
1 -4.04 sludge derived from the softening of water by the lime -soda process
1 -4.05 paint sludge recovered from water circulated in paint spray booths
1 -4.06 water containing lampblack and mud from floor washing.
1 -5 "Hazardous Waste" includes those materials which, because of their inherent
nature and /or quantities, require-special handling during disposal to avoid creating
environmental damage or hazards to public health or safety.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR AND
REGULATING THE OPERATION OF SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL.
'
An ordinance establishing standards for and regulating the operation
of solid waste disposal facilities in Frederick County, Virginia,
approving locations of solid waste disposal facilities; regulating
the use of county solid waste disposal facilities; establishing
requirements and regulations for and providing for the issuance of
permits for the operation of solid waste disposal facilities, and
for the hauling of solid waste; and providing penalties for vio-
lation; in order to promote and protect the public health, welfare
and safety. Let it be known that the County of Frederick obtains
its authority and declaration of policy from Section 15.1 -510 of
the Code of Virginia, (1950), As Amended, which provides, among
other things, that "Any county may adopt such measures as it may
deem expedient to secure and promote the health, safety and general
welfare of the inhabitants of such county,...:, and from Section
15.1 -28.1 of the Code of Virginia, (1950), As Amended, which pro-
vides, among other things, that the governing body of the county
may, "By ordinance, impose license, taxes upon and otherwise
regulate the services rendered by any business engaged in the
pick -up and disposal of garbage, trash or refuse,..,. ".
The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, does ordain:
SECTION 1 - DEFINITIONS: The following words and phrases when used in this
ordinance, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, shall have the meanings ascribed
to them in this section.
1 7 1 "Solid Waste" (Short Title "Refuse ") means garbage, refuse, and other dis-
carded solid materials, including solid -waste materials resulting from industrial, commercial,
and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or
dissolved material in domestic sewage or other significant pollutants in water resources,
such as silt, dissolved or suspended solids in industrial waste water effluents, dissolved
materials in irrigation return flows, or other common water pollutants.
' 1 -2 "Noncombustible Waste" means refuse which is incapable of burning or being
incinerated; this term.excludes hazardous wastes listed in 1 -5 below, and it includes,
but is not limited to, the following:
1 ^2.01 natural earth
1 -2.02 rock, sand and gravel
12.03 paving fragments
1 -2.04 concrete
1 -2.05 brick, earthenware, pottery and other clay products
1 -2.06 plaster and other gypsum.1 products
1 -2.07 glass
1 -2.08 Asbestos products
1 -2.09 metal and metal products, except automobile bodies
1 -3 "Combustible Waste" means refuse which is capable of burning or being
incinerated in whole or in part; this term excludes hazardous wastes listed in 1,-5 below,
and it includes, but is not limited to, the following:
1 -3.01 paper and paper and paper products, including tar paper and roofing
material
1 -3.02 dloth and clothing
1 -3.03 wood and wood products
1 -3.04 brush, shrubbery, lawn clippings and sod
1 -3.05 street sweepings
1 -3.06 rubber and rubber products, including automotive tires
' 1 -3.07 plastic and plastic products
1 -3.08 leather and leather products
1 -3.09 drums, cans or other containers, which have substantially been emptied
of their contents
1 -3.10 garbage, including all animal and vegetable waste, except the waste
products of slaughter houses, packing plants and fowl processing plants.
1 -4 "Liquid Waste" means inorganic refuse in a liquid or semi - liquid state;
' this term excludes hazardous wastes listed in 1 -5 below,, and it includes, but is not
limited to, the following:
1 -4.01 sludge from automobile wash racks and steam cleaning products
1 -4.02 mud and water from laundries
1 -4.03 ceramic, pottery and glass wastes .
1 -4.04 sludge derived from the softening of water by the lime -soda process
1 -4.05 paint sludge recovered from water circulated in paint spray booths
1 -4.06 water containing lampblack and mud from floor washing.
1 -5 "Hazardous Waste" includes those materials which, because of their inherent
nature and /or quantities, require-special handling during disposal to avoid creating
environmental damage or hazards to public health or safety.
54
Hazardous waste includes, but is not limited to, such items as petroleum
wastes; paints; plastics; explosives; acids; caustics; chemicals; poisons; drugs; radio-
active materials; asbestos fibers; imported wool fibers; pathogenic wastes from hospitals,
sanatoriums, nursing homes, clinics, and veterinary hospitals; waste from slaughterhouses;
poultry processing plants; and the like, and solvents.
1 -6 "Refuse Disposal Facility" means any site or operation used for the disposal
of refuse from two or more residences or from any commercial or industrial operation,
including sanitary landfills, incinerators and dumps.
1 -7 "Sanitary Landfill" means a refuse disposal facility -which uses a method
of disposing of refuse on land without creating nuisances or hazards to public health or
safety, by utilizing the principles of engineering to confine the refuse to the smallest:.prac-
tical area, to reduce it to the smallest practical volume, and to coves - it with a'-layer of ear
at the conclusion -of each day's operation, or at such more frequent intervals as may be necessary.
1 -8 "Incinerator" means a refuse disposal facility which uses a furnace or similar
device to reduce the volume of refuse by burning, as part of the disposal process.
1 -9 "Dump" means a refuse disposal facility other than a sanitary landfill or
incinerator, and includes any parcel of land where refuse is accepted for deposit or
permitted to be deposited without earth cover.
1 -10 "Person" means the state or any agency or institution thereof, any munici-
pality, governmental subdivision, public or private corporation, individual, partnership,
or other entity, and includes any officer or governing or managing body of any municipality,
governmental subdivision, or public or private corporation.
1 -11 "County Board" means the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia,
or its duly appointed representative.
1 -12 "Transfer Station" means an intermediate solid waste disposal facility in
which solid waste collected from any source is temporarily deposited to await transportation
to the final disposal site or facility.
SECTION 2 - RESTRICTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS '
2 -1 "General" It is unlawful for any person to establish, operate and maintain
a sanitary landfill without first securing a permit to do so from the County Board.
A permit shall not be required for any site used for the disposal of solid waste from a
single family or household, a member of which is the owner, occupant or lessee of
the property, under this ordinance, but such site shall be operated and maintained in
a nuisance -free and aesthetic manner consistent with the intent of this ordinance.
•2 -2 "Sanitary Landfill Permits" The County Board may issue a permit for the
operation of a sanitary landfill at an approved location, upon compliance with the
following requirements:
2 -2.01 Filing of an application for a sanitary landfill permit, upon a form
provided by the County Board.
2 -2.02 Filing of and maintaining a performance bond with sufficient sureties,
in the sum of $10,000.00, and conditioned upon the applicant's full com-
pliance with all regulations set forth in this ordinance. Said bond is
to be subject to the approval of the County Board.
2 -2.03 Proof of ownership of the land upon which the sanitary landfill is to
be located.
2 -2.04 Statement that the operator is to be in compliance and conformity with
the rules and regulations of the State of Virginia's Department of Health.
2 -2.05 Submission of a comprehensive plan of operation, including a survey or
drawing of the site, plans for compliance with the regulations set forth
in this ordinance, and plans for land use upon termination of the
sanitary landfill operation. Such comprehensive plan shall be' subject
to the approval of the County Board and the State Department of Health.
The following information shall be submitted in the comprehensive plan:
(1) A current map or aerial photograph of the area showing land use and
zoning within h mile of the solid waste disposal site. The map or aerial
photograph shall be of sufficient scale to show all homes, building, lakes,
ponds, water courses, wetlands, dry runs, rock outcroppings, roads, and
other applicable details, and shall indicate the general topography with
contours and drainage patterns. Wells shall be identified on the map or
aerial photograph, U.S.G.S. datum shall be indicated, and a north arrow
drawn. A location insert map shall be included (Scale 1" = 2000').
(2) A plot plan, including'legal description of the site and adjacent'land-
owners, showingddimensions; location of soil borings; present and planned
pertinent features, including but not limited to roads, fencing and cover
stockpiles; the plan of development, including any excavation, trenching,
and fill. The scale of the plot plan shall be 200 feet per inch'.
(3) An ultimate land -use plan, including intermediate stages, identifying
- the total and complete land use., The scale of the ultimate land -use plan
shall be 200 feet per inch.
(4) A report shall accompany the plans indicating:
G
0
55
-!
. J
(a) Population and areas expected to be served by the proposed site.
(b)• Anticipated type, quantity and source of to be disposed
of at the site.
(c) Geological formations and ground water elevations to 'a depth of at least
i�' tHe� htwae r o�aine v �y 1O SOiQ f borings l orl ud-
o er app pr - -1a e means,
(d) Source and characteristic of cover material and method of pro-
tecting cover material for winter operation.
(e) Type and amount of equipment to be provided at the site for
excavating, earth moving, spreading, compacting and other needs.
.(f) Area of site in acres.
(g) Owner of site.
(h) Persons responsible for actual operation and maintenance of the
site and intended operating procedures.
(5) An application for permission to dispose of hazardous wastes within the
site, if the same is desired. Such application shall contain plans, specifi-
cations, design data and proposed operating procedures for such disposal.
The area in which disposal of the hazardous wastes shall take place shall be
indicated on the plot plan. If the applicant does not specifically herein
request permission for the disposal of hazardous wastes within the subject
sanitary landfill, none shall be allowed unless later requested and granted
pursuant to 2 -2C of this ordinance.
(6) Written approval from a town government shall be provided where the pro-
posed site is located within the corporate limits'of the town.
.06 Payment of a permit fee in the amount of $100.00. Payment of the permit fee
may be waived by the County Board if the applicant is a governmental agency.
-2.07 Sanitary landfill sites are prohibited within known flood plains.
-2.08 Sanitary landfill sites are prohibited in major ground -water recharge areas.
-2.09 Such measures as may be necessary shil be taken to seal the site sufficiently, so
that wastes and leachings will not reach any ground or surface water.
-2.10 Visual screening of the sanitary landfill site, as approved by the County Board,
shall be provided by use of natural objects, trees, plants, seeded soil berms,
fences, or other suitable means.
-2A "Transfer Station" Any transfer station shall be constructed, established,
maintained and operated in accordance with the following provisions:
2A.01 A permit shall first be obtained from the County Board to construct,
establish, maintain or operate a transfer station. The permit fee shall be
$50.00 per transfer station. The application for a permit shall contain the follow -
'ing information.
(1) Location, size and ownership of the land upon which the station will
operate.
(2) General description of property use in the immediate vicinity of
the transfer station.
(3) Complete plans and specifications, proposed operating procedures
for the transfer station, place -of ultimate disposal, and equipment to be
used.
A.02 The following shall be established and maintained at the transfer station site:
(1) A sign, subject to the approval of the County Board, shall be posted
on the premises indicating the station name, the schedule of days and
hours it is open to the public, and prices for use.
(2) Roads on the premises shall be subject to the approval of the County
Board. The premises shall be constructed and landscaped in such a manner
as to be aesthetically pleasing in appearance.
(3) Adequate sanitary facilities and shelter for personnel shall be provided
on the premises.
n
(4) Records approved by the County Board shall be maintained indicating
the type and quantity of solid waste passing through the transfer station.
(5) The transfer station shall be so situated, equipped, operated and
maintained as to minimize interference with other activities in the area.
.03 A transfer station operator shall comply with the following regulations:
(1) The operator shall take away all solid waste, wash, clean, and
disinfect the station at the end of each day of use.
(2) The premises, entrances and exits shall be maintained in a clean,
neat and orderly manner at all times.
(3) iAll incoming and outgoing traffic shall be controlled by the operator
in such a manner as to provide orderly and safe ingress and egress onto
public roads as approved by the Virginia Department of Highways.
(4) All unloading of solid waste from contributing vehicles shall be
conducted in such a manner as to eliminate odor and litter outside the
station.
"Incineration" This section applies only to existing and new incinerators having a
capacity greater than 6,000 pounds per hour and those for the incineration of
toxic or hazardous wastes. All incinerators shall be designed and operated in a
manner to conform to emission limitations of state and local air pollution control
regulations.
R
56
2 -2B.01 It is unlawful for any person to construct, establish, maintain or operate an
incinerator without first acquiring a permit from the County Board. Each
application, with a permit fee of $100.00, shall be submitted to the County
Board. The following information shall be submitted as a part of the
application:
(1) A minimum of three (3) sets of plans and specifications, prepared by
an engineer registered by the State of Virginia, clearly indicating the
construction which will be undertaken. These details shall include a plot
plan showing the land use, zoning, and the location, type and height of all
buildings within 500 feet of the proposed installation.
(2) An engineering report including furnace design criteria and expected
performance data, the present and future population and area to be served by the
incinerator, and the characteristics, ,quantities and sources of solid waste to
be incinerated.
(3) Plans for the disposal of incinerator residue, and emergency disposal of
solid waste in the event of major incinerator plant breakdown.
(4) Owner of the site and /or plant.
(5) Persons responsible for actual operation and maintenance of the plant and
intended operating procedures.
(6) Such additional clarifying data as may be requested by the County Board.
(7) Written approval from a town government shall be provided where the
proposed installation is located within the corporate limits of the town.
(8) Proof of compliance and conformity with the rules and regulations of
the Virginia Department of Health.
2 -2B.02 The incinerator operation for each proposed installation shall be considered
for approval on its own merits, shall be in compliance with the following cri-
teria, and in accordance with accepted engineering practices:
(1) The incinerator plant shall be situated, equipped, operated and maintained
as to minimize interference with other activities in the area.
(2) Shelter and sanitary facilities shall be available for plant personnel.
(3) A permanent sign shall be posted at the site entrance identifying the
operation and showing the State Air Pollution Control Board registration number
and indicating the hours and days when the plant is open for public use. Access ,:o
to the plant shall be limited to those times when authorized personnel are on
duty.
(4) All incoming solid waste to be incinerated at the plant shall be confined
to the unloading area. Adequate holding bind capacity shall be provided.
(5) Facilities shall be designed to provide for dust control in the unloading
and charging area.
(6) The incinerator plant shall have weighing facilities available. Permanent
records shall be maintained indicating the total weight of material incinerated,
the total quantity of resulting residue and total hours of plant operation.
These records shall be available for inspection upon request of the County
Board.
(7) Adequate fire- fighting equipment, meeting the standards of Underwriters
Laboratory, Inc. or. other approved nationally recognized safety standards, shall
be available in the storage and charging areas and elsewhere as needed.
(8) Arrangements shall be made with local fire companies to provide fire
fighting forces in an emergency.
(9) Adequate communication facilities shall be provided for emergency purposes.
(10) Equipment shall be provided in the storage and charging areas and
elsewhere as needed to allow cleaning after each day of operation or sooner
as may be required, in order to maintain the plant in a sanitary condition.
(11) The charging openings as well as all equipment throughout the plant
shall be provided with adequate safety equipment.
(12) During normal operation, the temperature in the combustion chambers
shall conform to the Regulations of the State Air Pollution Control Board
now or hereafter adopted, to produce a satisfactory residue and to result
in an odor -free operation.
(13) A w-ontinuously recording pyrometer shall be provided in order to
maintain continuous records of temperature in the combustion chambers. A
copy of such records shall be available to the County Board upon request.
(14) All residue removed from the incinerator plant shall be promptly disposed
of in a manner that will prevent nuisances, pollution and public health
hazards. Residue containing combustible material shall be disposed of in a
sanitary landfill.
(15) Upon completion of plant construction and prior to initial operation,
the County Board shall be notified to allow their personnel to inspect
the plant both prior to and during the performance tests.
(16) Performance tests of the plant may be required by the County Board.
A report covering the results of the performance tests in such cases shall
be prepared by the design engineer of the project and submitted to the.County
Board with the copy of all supporting data.
(17) All waste water from the incinerator plant shall be disposed of in
a manner approved by the Virginia Department of Health and the State Water
Control Board.
2 -2C "Hazardous Wastes" shall be disposed of in a manner proposed by the producer and
approved by the Health Commissioner of Virginia according to the regulations adopted under
Section 32 -9.1 of the Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended.
2 -3. Refuse Hauling.
2 -1.01 Vehicles transporting or removing refuse must provide against refuse
leaking, spilling, being blown or hurled from or deposited upon any street or
public way during loading or while in transit. Two types of vehicles will be
permissable:
(a) A vehicle with a watertight body, completely enclosed and covered.
Ll
(b) A vehicle with a non - watertight body, with built in cover, or with tarpau
or equally effective cover. Such a vehicle must have secured and covered
watertight containers for all liquid or semi -solid material.
(c) All vehicles must be provided with an affixed fire extinguisher of not less
than one -quart capacity.
J
2 -3.02 Refuse Collection:
(a) Refuse shall be and removed in such a manner that it does not create
a nuisance or adversely affect public health, safety and welfare nor create
any unnecessary noise.
(b) Refuse shall be removed in such a manner.and transported so that it does not
spill or fall into a street or public way, nor shall it be dumped, spilled, or
thrown into any street, court, lane, alley, sewer inlet, or public or private
lands.
(c) Collection points must be left clean and free of debris, trash, and
other refuse after. refuse is collected.
(d) No known harmful material, including materials which are explosive, toxic,
radioactive, highly combustible by nature or burning, shall be knowingly
removed for disposal by the Refuse Hauler except by written permission
required of the Board of Supervisors. Responsibility for obtaining said
permit shall rest with the person desiring the,removal of such material.
This section however, is not applicable to material loaded and carried at
the direction of public officials or public servants executing their
duties in emergencies.
(e) Each vehicle used by any person for refuse removal or transportation
shall be completely emptied each time it is dumped and thoroughly cleaned
once a day when in use.
2 -3.03 No:vehicle ?containing combustible, liquid or hazardous waste shall be emptied
in the County on any ground or location other than an approved refuse disposal
site.
2 -3.04 Each vehicle used for the transportation of refuse in or through the county
shall transport the refuse in such a manner as not to create a nuisance or
adversely affect the public health. The refuse shall not be spilled, dumped
or thrown onto any street, court, lane, alley, sewer inlet, or vacant lot.
Liquid and semi - liquid refuse, when hauled in non - watertight bodies, shall be
carried in watertight containers.
2 -3.05 The Refuse Hauler shall notify in writing the approving authority and each
customer at least thirty (30) days prior to date of fact of the Refuse Hauler's
termination and discontinuance of his business.
SECTION 3 - REGULATIONS FOR LANDFILL OPERATION. The following regulations shall govern
the operation of all sanitary landfills in Frederick County, Virginia.
3 -1 "General"
3 -1.01 Before commending operation of a sanitary landfill the permittee shall have
completed the site preparation in accordance with his approved comprehensive
plan of operation.
3 -1.02 The permittee shall construct and maintain survey monuments, boundary
fences and bench marks as shown on his approved comprehensive plan of
operation or as the County Board may otherwise require for reference and
control of operations.
3 -1.03 The permittee shall at all times provide and maintain all fences, appliances
and other equipment as set forth in his approved comprehensive plan of
operation or as may otherwise be required by the County Board so as to
prevent or eliminate any public nuisance created by dust, odors, blowing of
papers, or otherwise.
3 -1.04 Sufficient equipment in good operating condition shall be available on the
premises at all times in order to comply with the permittee's approved
comprehensive plan of operation and the provisions of this ordinance.
3 -1.05 The permittee shall advise the County Board in writing as to the names,
addresses and telephone numbers of all authorized persons who are to be
placed in responsible charge of operations of the sanitary landfill. At
least one such authorized person shall be on duty at all times during hours
of operation. At all other times, the entrances shall be secured with locked
gates in order to restrict access.
3 -1.06 At each operating road entrance to the sanitary landfill, the permittee
shall erect and maintain a sign to be approved by the County Board stating
the name of the facility and the schedule of days and hours the facility
will be open. The sign shall have letters of sufficient size and color
contrast so that it may be read at a distance of 100 feet by a person with
normal vision.
3 -1.07 During the posted hours of operation, the permittee must accept all refuse
approved for that landfill, provided that it is delivered by a refuse hauler
with a valid permit and that the required fee is paid.
3 -1.08 No refuse shall be accepted for disposal before 8:00 A.M. nor after 5:00 P.M.,
Monday through Friday or before 8:00 A.M. nor after 2:00 P.M. Saturday from
May 1 to October 31; and before 7:00 A.M. nor after 4:00 P.M. Monday through
Friday or before 8:00 A.M. nor after 2:00 P.M. Saturday from November 1 to April
30. Nor shall refuse be accepted for disposal on New Year's Day; Washington's
Birthday; Memorial Day; Independence Day; Labor Day; Veterans Day; Thanksgiving
Day; Christmas Eve (,� day); and Christmas Day.
3 -1.09 Operation of the sanitary landfill shall at all times be in accordance with
the approved comprehensive plan of operation. Final covering of deposited
refuse shall be made with not less than two (2) feet of compacted natural
earth or other material approved by the County Board. This final cover shall
be placed and brought to final elevation, as shown on the approved comprehen-
sive plan of operation, within six (6) months after completion of fill
operations in any portion of the sanitary landfill. Upon final termination of
operation of the sanitary landfill the final "finish elevation shall be as shown
on the approved comprehensive plan of operation, no deviation shall be permitted
for subesequent settlement or subsidence.
3 -1.10 Accurate daily records of site operations shall be maintained. These records
shall.contain information pertinent to site operation. Intake of solid waste
in tons or cubic yards shall be daily recorded in a manner acceptable to the
County,:Board;: �General-areap:in_which a type of solid waste disposal
takes place within the landfill be filed_. Disposal of_toxic and hazardous
wastes shall be recorded the day each disposal takes place and shall include
the amount and type of waste disposed of, and the name and address of the source
of the wastes. These records shall be available at all times for review and
inspection by the County Board or anyone they instruct to do so.
3 -1.11 Owner shall be responsible after termination of fill operation for maintaining
drainage to prevent ponding on the site.
3 -2 "Handling of Refuse"
3 -2.01 At the direction of the landfill operator, noncombustible waste may be
deposited at any sanitary landfill in accordance with the approved comprehen-
sive plan of operation.
3 -2.02 Combustible waste, whether or not mixed with noncombustible waste and /or
liquid waste shall be compacted in layers not greater than three (3) feet
in thickness. Each day's accumulation of compacted refuse shall be covered
with not less than six (6) inches of compacted materials as specified in 3 -2.05
below at the end of each working day.
3 -2.03 Provision shall be made for weighing of all refuse delivered to a sanitary
landfill before being deposited in fill.
3 -2.04 All liquid wastes accepted for disposal by the permittee shall be accompanied
by an "industrial waste hauler's report" on forms provided by the County.
This form shall be signed by the producer of the waste and by the hauler, and
shall describe the nature of the liquid waste. This report shall then be
signed by the landfill operator on duty, and retained at the sanitary landfill
until requested by the County Board.
3 -2.05 Cover material will consist of earth, clay, loam, sand, etc. or a mixture
of at least 50 per cent of earth and other inert materials, such as ashes,
cinders, or gravel. A minimum depth of 12 inches of compacted cover and
final spread cover material shall be kept on all inactive faces of the landfill
at all times.
3 -2.06 Combustible waste and liquid waste, once deposited and compacted, shall
not be re- excavated or disturbed by later operations.
3 -2.07 Before the close of each day's operations all refuse on the site shall be
covered with sufficient cover so that no refuse is visible.
3 -2.08 Salvaging and Scavenging of any material deposited at the site is prohibited,
without authorization of the Board of Supervisors.
3 -3 "Sanitation and Health Requirements"
3 -3.01 All buildings on the site shall be so constructed and maintained as to prevent
the harboring of rodents.
3 -3.02 No rodent infestation shall be permitted at any refuse disposal facility in
Frederick County; if in the opinion of the County Health Officer, an
infestation occurs which constitutes a public nuisance, or a menance to
public health or safety, he may order the facility closed and the
rodents controlled at the expense of the owner or operator of the facility.
3 -3.03 An approved sanitary drinking water supply shall be provided and maintained
on the premises.
3 -3.04 Adequate toilet facilities shall be provided and properly maintained for the
use of employees.
3 -4 "Fire prevention and Air Pollution Requirements"
3 -4.01 A water supply system adequate for fire fightinf and other purposes shall be
constructed in accordance with the approved comprehensive plan of operation
and shall be maintained and operated as circumstances demand.
3 -4.02 The permittee shall immediately construct and constantly maintain a
fire break around the perimeter of the area of landfill operations, if
directed to do so in writing by the County"B$'ard.
3 -4.03 Arrangements shall be made with the local fire companies to provide fire - fighting
forces in an emergency.
3 -4.04 Adequate communications facilities shall be provided for emergency purposes.
3 -4.05 No burning of any kind shall be permitted in connection with disposal
operations. Any inadvertent fire which may occur on the premises or any
underground smoldering shall be promptly reported to the fire department
and to the County Board by the person in responsible charge of operations.
In addition, it shall be the responsibility of the operator to immediately
extinguish any such fire or underground smoldering to the satisfaction of
the Fire Department and the County Board.
3 -4.06 Emergency first -aid equipment to provide adequate treatment for accidents.
3 -5
"Water Pollution and Flood Control Requirements"
LJ
r
59
-5.01 No materials o£ any kind snail be deposited in any natural drainage
channel or.bed of any river, stream or wash either directly or indirectly
without making adequate provisions for the drainage of the area.
3 -5.02 No material other.than non combustibel waste shall be deposited below the
known high -water elevation, and any material so deposited in violation of
this ordinance shall be removed by the permittee at his expense.
3 -5.03. Adequate facilities shall be provided to divert flood or storm waters from
adjacent areas around the sanitary landfill site, or to carry such waters
' across or through the site in a manner which wuuld permanently prevent
percolation of such waters through the filled areas on the site.
3 -5.04 An all- weather haul road to the site shall be provided.
3 -5.05 Putrescible wastes shall not be deposited with five (5) feet above the
highest known water table at the landfill site.
3 -5.06 Equipment sufficient for spreading, compacting, and covering operations
' to include sufficient reserve equipment or araangements to immediately
provide for equipment during periods of breakdown shall be provided.
3 -5.07 A minimum separating distance of twenty (20) feet shall be maintained between
the disposal operation and the adjacent property line unless otherwise
approved by the County Board.
3 -5.08 At the County'Board's discretion, a ground and surface water monitoring
system may be required, at the permittee's expense.
3 -5.10 Within one month after final termination of a site, or a major part thereof,
the area shall be covered with at least two (2) feet of compacted cover
material adequately sloped to allow surface water runoff. No holes or
depressions which might result in collection of surface water shall remain
or exist after such covering. This cover material shall be brought to final
elevation'shown on the approved comprehensive plan of operation.
3 -6 "Transportation Requirements" Refuse delivered to a sanitary.landfill by
refuse haulers shall be accepted for disposal only if transported in a vehicld
displaying a current permit sticker or emblem approved by the County Board.
3 -7 "Inspection" The permittee shall be required to allow free access for inspection
of the facility at all reasonable times to the County Board or to
the proper representative of any other governmental agency for the purpose
of making such inspections as may be necessary to determine compliance with
the requirements of this ordinance or any other applicable statute, ordinance
or regulation.
3 -8 "Continued Inspection and Maintenance ". The County Board will require continued
inspection and maintenance of completed sanitary landfills to be ensure the
integrity of the covered material.
3 -9 "Final Site Plan" A detailed description and a plat of the completed sanitary
landfill shall be filed with the County Board within one month after approval
of the final condition of the landfill. This description shall include the
general type and location of deposited waste, original and final
terrain descriptions, and other pertinent characteristics of the completed
sanitary landfill site.
3 -10 "Ultimate Landfill Use ". Construction techniques necessary to avoid landfill -
associated hazards to all structures and facilities that area built upon the
fill will be utilized single - family residential construction will be prohibited
over the fill.
SECTION 7 - PENALTY. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not
to exceed $250.00 and /or imprisonment in the County Jail not to exceed 90 days. Each
day that the violation continues to exist shall constitute a separate offense.
SECTION 4 - NONCONFORMING SITES AND FACILITIES. Waste disposal facilities in
existence at the time of the enactment of this ordinance, and operation of such facilities
shall be modified to conform to the requirements of this ordinance as promptly as
possible. The County Board, at its discretion, may grant temporary variances from
'
the requirements of this ordinance. Applications for such variances shall be made in
writing to the County Board not later than sixty (60) days after enactment of this
Ordinance, and shall be accompanied by a comprehensive plan for achieving conformity
with the ordinance, including specifications and time schedule. Variances so approved
by the County Board may be extended and modified from time to time.
SECTION 5 - INTERPRETATION, PURPOSES-AND CONFLICT. The-provisions of this
ordinance shall be construed to be the minimum requirements for the promotion of
public health, safety and welfare. In any case where a provision of this ordinance
is found to be in conflict with the provisions of any other ordinance or code in force
in Frederick County, the provision which establishes the higher standard for the
'
promotion and protection of the health, safety and welfare of the people of Frederick
County shall prevail. ,
SECTION 6 - VALIDITY. Should any section, clause or provision of this ordinance
be declared by a court or competent jurisdiction to.be invalid, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the ordinance as a ,whole or any part thereof, other than
the part so declared to be invalid.
SECTION 7 - PENALTY. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not
to exceed $250.00 and /or imprisonment in the County Jail not to exceed 90 days. Each
day that the violation continues to exist shall constitute a separate offense.
OR
SECTION 8 - DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
after its passage and publication according to law.
This ordinance was duly considered following a Public Hearing held on August 22, 1973
and was adopted by the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia at its Regular Meeting
held on August 22, 1973.
The above
resolution was
passed
by
the following
recorded
vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
'
J. Robert Russell,
Dennis T. Cole,
Donald
R.
Hodgson, and
Richard F.
Madigan all voting "Aye ".
'
ORDINANCE - SIX MONTH MORATORIUM ON REZONING
APPLICATIONS - APPROVED - THIRD AND FINAL READING
The ordinance was read in full by Mr. Madigan.
Mr. Sandy stated that when the public hearing was held on the zoning ordinance on
'
August 1, 1973, the Board enacted a sixty day emergency ordinance declaring a moratorium on
zoning in Frederick County. He stated that the Board had sent the ordinance back to the
Planning Commission for updating in an earlier action of this meeting. Mr. Sandy stated that
the County is working on a comprehensive plan which we feel can be completed in six months.
Therefore, the Board advertised the ordinance establishing the moratorium and the public
hearing would be held tonight.
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 does herein
approve, on,third and final reading, the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A SIX MONTH MORATIUM
ON HEARINGS AND ACTIONS ON REZONING APPLICATIONS
BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance of Frederick County, Virginia, adopted March
'
3, 1967 is outdated and of little effect in formulating zoning patterns and regulating growth
and development in an orderly and beneficial manner and,
WHEREAS, an effective zoning ordinance is vitally needed in order to promote
and insure the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Frederick County and to
further accomplish the objectives of Section 15.1 -427 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as
amended, and,
WHEREAS, pladniHg is iii pr6gk6 ss i4hidh Will rdVisb Add - strengthen zoning
regulations by the formulation of a new zoning ordinance for enactment by the Frederick County
Board of Supervisors and,
WHEREAS, the planning process ;;and enactment of the new zoning ordinance
is expected to be completed within a finite and reasonable time; not to exceed (6) months,
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of '
Frederick, Virginia:
Section 1 . Pursuant to authority contained in the Code of Virginia (1950)
as amended, Sections 15.1 - 491, 15.1 - 427 through 15.1 - 431, 15.1 - 486 through 15.1 - 493,
15.1 - 504 and 15.1 - 510, the following provisions are set forth:
Section 2 . There is hereby established a moratorium for a period of six ,
months from August 23, 1973 on hearings and actions by the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors on zoning applications.
Section 3. Should any section or provision of this Ordinance be declared
invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality
of any other section or provision.:of this Ordinance.
0
61
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its
adoption and enactment by the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C.
Sandy, J. Robert Russell, Donald R. Hodgson, Dennis T. Cole, and Richard F. Madigan all
voting "Aye"
TAX RELIEF FOR THE ELDERLY COMMITTEE - REPORT PRESENTED
Mr. Allen Rogers, Co- Chairman of the Tax Relief for the Elderly Committee,
appeared before the Board and presented the report of this committee.
Mr. Sandy read the names of the people who had served on this committee and
thanked each of them for the work they had done to compile this report. He stated that':
he felt tax relief for the elderly people in the county would be a fine thing to pursue.
Mr. Madigan thanked the Committee and the students at James Wood High School
who had worked on this study.
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 does
herein refer the report submitted by the Tax Relief for the Elderly Committee to the
Finance Committee for study and recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
LAND USE TAX COMMITTEE - REPORT PRESENTED
Mr. Sandy read the names of the people who had served on this committee and
thanked them for their service.
Mr. Donald Baughman, Chairman of the Land Use Tax Committee, appeared before
the Board and presented the report of this committee. He gave a brief outline of the
report and the recommendations of the committee.
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 does
herein refer the report of the Land Use Tax Committee to the Finance Committee for stdy
and recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C.
Sandy, J. Robert Russell, Richard F. Madigan and Donald R. Hodgson voting "Aye" and
Dennis T. Cole "Abstaining ".
- ADDrovea:
Mr. Berg appeared before the Board and presented the preliminary plat of
Surrey Square, stating that this plat had been withdrawn at the last meeting. He stated
that revisions had been made to the plat and it was being resubmitted tonight.
Mr. Cole asked how the subdivision would be watered and sewered and Mr. Berg
stated that they would make application to the city.
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 does
herein approve the preliminary plat of Surrey Square Subdivision located in Stonewall
Magisterial District.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL POLICY - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy stated that it had been brought to his attention by developers in
the County that surety bonds for performance bonds were very hard to obtain in the County.
62
j
He stated he felt there was a need for some policy to be established in this regard.
Mr. Renalds stated that he felt that as long as the Commonwealth Attorney was satis-
fied with the bond offered by the developer, whether it be a certified check or a bond other
than a surety bond, procedure would be satisfactory.
Mr. Cole stated that he was not in favor of a corporate bond in any case. He stated
that he felt the Board should require either a certified check or a surety bond from a
registered bonding company.
Mr. Madigan stated that he felt a surety bond was the most acceptable bond.
The possibility of accepting a first trust on a parcel of property as bond was dis-
cussed at some length.
Mr. Cole stated that he did not feel the Board should vote on this tonight unless
they set forth either cash or a surety bond will be accepted until the administrative staff
can give the Board some recommendations.
Mr. Ralph Wakeman, developer in the County, appeared before the Board and
stated that he had had great difficulty in securing a surety bond in the County.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia,
that the following policy is hereby adopted regarding approval of subdivision plats:
Effective this date, August 22, 1973, final subdivision plats will be approved and
signed by County Officials only on the day of a Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board
of Supervisors. At the time of approval by County Officials, all required signatures other
than the Board Chairman and Subdivision Administrator must be on the plat, a bond satisfactory
to the County for all improvements shall be attached, the deed of dedication shall be
attached, a copy of all construction plans shall be in the hands of the Subdivision
Administrator, the subdivision review fee shall have been paid, and all other requirements for
ppproval of final plats as outlined in the Frederick County Code shall have been satisfied.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
SOIL SURVEY AGREEMENT —APPROVED
Mr. Renalds' the proposed agreement on the soil survey.
Mc. Sandy stated that a resolution was needed authorizing Mr. Renalds and the
Chairman of the Board to execute the contract.
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, Virginia,
does herein authorize Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors,
and J. 0. Renalds, III, County Administrator of Frederick County, to execute the Cooperative
Agreement between Frederick County, Virginia and the Soil Conservation Service, United States
Department of Agriculture, dated the 1st day of September, 1973, as submitted to the Board.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
COURT HOUSE STUDY AGREEMENT - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy presented the Court House Study Agreement for approval by the Board.
Mr. Madigan questioned Section 2 wherein the word "owner" is used. He stated it
not clear who the owner is.
Mr. Ritter suggested that a clause setting forth the parties to the agreement be
inserted at the beginning of the contract.
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 does
herein accept the Court House Study Agreement with the architectural firm of Walton, Madden &
63
Cooper, as recommended by the Court House Advisory Committee, with the amendment of a
party clause being inserted at the beginning of the contract; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board does herein authorize Raymond C. Sandy,
1
Chairman of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, and J. O. Renalds, III, County
Administrator of Frederick County, to execute said contract as amended.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
APPOINTMENT - HIGHWAY SAFETY COMMITTEE - TABLED
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 does
herein table the appointment to the Highway-Safety Committee until the next regularly
scheduled meeting.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
JAIL CONTRACT - APPROVED
Mr. Renalds presented the Jail Contract as recommended by the Committee on Law
Enforcement and Courts. He stated that this contract was agreeable to the City of
Winchester. 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 does
herein approve the Frederick County - Winchester Jail and Lock -Up Agreement as recommended
by the Committee on Law Enforcement and .Courts; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board does herein authorize Raymond C. Sandy,
1
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and J. O. Renalds, III, County Administrator to
execute said contract.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
ADOPTION_OF WORK PLAN '.APPROVED
Mr. Sandy presented a work plan recommended to the Board by the Finance Committee
and finalized by the County Staff. The Board reviewed the plan in full.
BOARD WORK SESSIONS (TO BE RESUMED)
Mr. Sandy stated that he felt the Board should resume their work sessions. He
stated that he felt a study committee should be formed consisting of the board members,
the commonwealth attorney, the county administrator and the press in order that these
sessions might be resumed. There was lengthy discussion as, to whether these sessions
should be held as regular work sessions or as committee meetings.
The question was raised by members of the press that if these sessions were
held as committee meetings, would the press be asked to not report various topics. Mr.
Sandy stated that there might be some matters the Board would ask not be discussed but
he felt the working relationship between the Board and the press was such that there
would be no problem in this area.
Mr. Cole stated that he felt the committee meetings would not stand up and
would be abolished.
The Board unanimously agreed to resume the work sessions as usual and not
form a committee at this time.
$850 EXPENDITURE APPROVED FOR PURCHASE OF DUMP TRUCK
FOR USE BY ENGINEERING & RECREATION DEPARTMENTS APPROVED
Mr. Renalds stated that an $850.00 expenditure was requested in order to pay
for the dump truck purchased for use jointly by the Department of Engineering and the
Department of Parks and Recreation.
M 94
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 does
herein authorize the payment of $850.00 be made for the purchase of a dump truck to be used
jointly by the Department of Engineering and the Department of Parks and Recreation.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
STATE WATER - CONTROL BOARD MEETING - DISCUSSED
Mr. McTernan asked the Board if they had received a letter from the State Water
Control Board concerning a meeting to be held on September 12th. Mr. Kruger stated that the '
letter had been received and the meeting would be held in Bridgewater at 1:30 p.m. on
September 12, 1973. Mr. Renalds stated that members of the Sanitation Authority would
attend this meeting.
STUDENT GOVERNMENT DAY DISCUSSED
Mr. Allen Rogers asked the Board to consider holding a student government day in
the County.
The Board agreed with this request and asked Mr. Rogers to work out the details and
coordinate the matter through the County Administrator's Office.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole and passed
unanimously the Board retired into executive session.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole and passed
unanimously the Board came out of executive session.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis.T. Cole the Board
reconvened into regular session.
Mr. Sandy stated that the Board had retired into executive session in order to
discuss a legal matter they had pending with Mr. Eugene Gunter.
DO NOW ADJOURN.
cretary, Board of Supervisors
UPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
A Work Session was held by the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia,
PJ
J
on Wednesday, September 5, 1973, at 7:30 P.M. in the Board Room at 9 Court Square, Winchester,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Raymond C. Sandy, J. Robert Russell, Richard F. Madigan, Donald R. Hodgson
r
and Dennis T. Cole.
Also present were Eston O. Rudolph, Commissioner of Revenue, Dorothy B. Keckley,
Treasurer, and George B. Whitacre, Clerk of the Circuit Court. Members of the press
attending the meeting were Jim Ackley, Winchester Evening Star, James Copen, W.H.P.L., and
David Lewis, W.I.N.C.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Mr. Sandy explained that the purpose of this session was to discuss a number of
issues the Board will have to face in the near future.
CONTINUOUS REASSESSMENT
Mr. Sandy requested the Commissioner of Revenue and the County Administrator to
explain to the Board the possibility and the steps in a continuous reassessment for Frederick
0
65
County. Certain problems that other counties in Virginia have had in establishing a
continuous reassessment were discussed. The Chairman directed the County Administrator
and the Commonwealth Attorney to check state statutes in order to see exactly how often
a continuous reassessment can be effected.
LAND USE TAX
The Chairman again asked the Commissioner of Revenue for an explanation of the
procedures to be followed in establishing a land use tax. He pointed out to thce present
that this subject had been referred to the Finance Committee for their recommendations
and that this information was being discussed tonight in order that all present might
be aware of the procedures to be followed. It was pointed out by the Chairman that although
an ordinance would not have to be passed at this time establishing a land use tax, that
direction would have to be given to the assessors who will begin the reassessment in
January if the County desires to go to land use taxation within the next two years.
Mr. Rudolph pointed out that the cost to the County would be approximately
$8,000 to $10,000 more than the normal reassessment without land use taxation. The
Commissioner of Revenue answered questions from those present in regard to the various
aspects of implementation of the land use tax. No further action is to be taken until
the Finance Committee makes a recommendation on this subject.
STAGGERED TERMS FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
The County Administrator presented to the Board certain provisions made by the
I_
General Assembly in the 1973 Session which provide for staggered terms for board members.
It was pointed out that this method could be implemented either by resolution of the
Board or by referendum. The supervisors were presented written copies of the legislation
for further study.
STREET LIGHTS
A copy of the current County Code regarding street lights was presented to the
Board. It was pointed out that the County is not now enforcing this particular section
of the-Code. It v ;as also pointed out that certain street lights in Green Acres Subdivision
were being paid for by the County.- The Chairman directed that this item be put on
the agenda for the September 12th meeting for further discussion and for statement of
policy.
VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
REGIONAL AND ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING
The County Administrator informed the Board of the November business meeting
CLARKE COUNTY CONTAINERS AT LANDFILL
The Chairman directed that this item be put on the agenda for the September
of the Virginia Association of Counties to be held in Roanoke. He also pointed out
that a regional meeting of the counties in the general area should be held prior
to the annual business meeting. The Chairman directed the County Administrator
to contact Mrs. Elizabeth Malta, a member of the Warren County Board of Supervisors,
in regard to setting up a regional meeting.
OFFICE SPACE - JUDGES SIMPSON AND GERMELMAN
The Chairman presented a letter to the Board from Judge Simpson in regard to
additional office space for himself and Judge Germelman. This item was referred to
the Committee on Law Enforcement and Courts for their recommendation.
12th meeting for consideration. It was the general opinion of those present that Frederick
County should not provide dumping service or containers for Clarke County inasmuch as
the County would be competing with private enterprise should this be done.
Teej
LETTER TO STATEtWATER,CONTROLJBOARh=
At, the. request_ o£_Mr. Cole,�Mr. Sandya_directed� the • County: Adm nistr-ator t::
write -a letter. to' the ':State - Water - ,Control- rBo'ard requesting information as to the design
capacity and current loading of all sewage treatment plants in Frederick County.
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
The Finance Committee meeting was set for Tuesday, September 10, 1973, at 6:00
P. M. in the Board Room.
A committee meeting of the Committee on Law Enforcement and Courts was set for
Monday, September 10th, 1973 at 4:00 P.M., in the Board Room.
ZONING ORDINANCE
Several members of the Board expressed concern regarding the provision in the
proposed zoning ordinance which requires a rezoning to expand an existing non - conforming use.
The Board members decided to defer the discussion on this subject until a joint work session
can be set up between the Board and the Planning Commission.
BOARD - STAFF PICNIC
Mr. Fletcher advised that with the Boards' concurrence, a Board -Staff picnic would
be set for Friday, September 14, 1973 at Clear Brook Park at 6:00 P.M. Mr. Sandy emphasized
that this would be a family type picnic with no alcoholic beverages allowed.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:15 P.M.
At the Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia, held in the Board of Supervisors Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia, on
the 12th day of September, 1973.
PRESENT: Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman; J. Robert Russell, Vice - Chairman; Richard
F. Madigan; Dennis T. Cole; and Donald R. Hodgson.
The meeting was called to order.
AMENDMENT TO MINUTES - JUNE 13, 1973 - APPROVED
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia,
that the Board Minutes of June 13, 1973, regarding a permit for water and sewer for Delco
Plaza be amended to read as follows:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,does
herein grant a water and sewer permit to Delco Plaza, Route 5225 and Route 50E for the
purpose of extending City water and sewer lines to said property.
MINUTES 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, Virginia
does herein approve the minutes of the meetings of August 8, 1973 and August 22, 1973, and
the work session of September 5, 1973, as submitted.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
PROCLAMATION - PUNT PASS, AND KICK COMPETITION
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 does
i
herein issue the following proclamation:
sr
WHEREAS, The President's Council on Physical Fitness stresses the continued importance
and necessity o£ building strength, stamina and endurance in our nation's youth by emphasiz-
ing daily vigorous exercise; and,
WHEREAS, The Winchester - Frederick County Jaycees, in cooperation with Lamar Sloan Ford,
the Ford Dealers of America, and the National Football League have undertaken to sponsor
and,
local Punt, Pass and Kick Competition for youngsters between the ages of eight and thiiteen;
WHEREAS, Punt, Pass aid Kick offers youngsters an opportunity to compete in a national
(program which underlines the importance of physical conditioning basic.to other forms of
lexcellence, and at the same time allows for supervised participation in a competitive
sports situation;
NOW THEREFORE, I, Raymond C. Sandy, hairman of the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the day of September 29, 1973 as PUNT, PASS AND KICK DAY
in the County of Frederick and call upon our citizens to observe the day with the
traditional American spirit of competitiveness and good sportsmanship.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT REPORT
Mr. King appeared before the Board and presented his monthly report. Mr, King
presented a copy of the'Fiscal Summary of the past fiscal year stating that there was
a surplus of $84.,000 which would be carried forward for work in the coming year. He
stated that this surplus was due to a mild winter, an extra $21,000 granted due to the
Hurrican Agnes flood damage, and the wet spring wherein some of the work was not
completed before the end of the fiscal year.
Mr. King requested the Board's authorization to expend $26,000 from the secondary
road budget to supplement the industrial access funds already applied for in order to
complete three industrial access roads previously authorized by the Board. Mr. King
stated that industrial access funds can be obtained only while the plants are under
construction or expanding.
Mr. Cole questioned taking $26,000 from the secondary road budget inasmuch as the
1
County roads are in need of repair.
Mr. Russell asked if we could apply for funds that were not used in last year's
budget and Mr. King stated that this could not be done. He further stated that if the
roads were not completed while the plants were either under construction or expanding,
industrial access funds would not be available and the county would have to bear the
entire expense of improving these roads.
Mr. Madigan stated that if the road at Unisil had to be built by the County, it
would cost much more than $26,000 and Mr. Kinq stated that the estimated cost of this
road is $115,000 of which $89,000 will come from industrial access funds.
Mr. Cole asked why the county could not build two roads this year with the existing
industrial access funds and apply for further funds next;- to complete the other road.
Mr. Renalds stated that if the plants were completed before next year no funds would
be available for these roads and if this occurred, the County would be forced to improve
these roads from the County secondary highway budget before other roads could be
improved because the vehicle count was higher on the industrial access roads.
Mr. King stated that these funds are administered on a first come first served basis
and there was a possibility that these funds would not be available next year.
J
7 00
Mr. Sandy stated that these roads would serve not only the plants but the people
in the County.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan,.and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
WHEREAS, Three (3) new industries, General Electric, Cives Corporation, and
C. E. Mineral, have located in Frederick County, and an existing industry, Unisil Corporation
is expanding its facilities; and, '
WHEREAS, The Board has requested that Industrial Access Funds be provided for
General Electric, Cives Corporation, and Unisil Corporation (with C. E. Mineral using the
same road as Unisil Corporation); and,
'WHEREAS, General Electric is located on existing Secondary Routes 651 and 652, and ,
Unisil Corporation and C. E. Mineral are on existing Route 632; and,
WHEREAS, The estimated cost of constructing and reconstructing these roads
exceeds the maximum amount ($150,000) each county is allowed by the Industrial Access
Funds in accordance with Section 33 -136.1 as amended, of the Code of Virginia (1950) and
the policies of the Highway Commission;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County does
hereby request that funds which are designated Secondary Road Funds be used to supplement
the Industrial Access Funds, assuming all three (3) roads are granted Industrial Access
Funds. It is the understanding of the Board that the amount of Secondary Road Funds which
would be subject to use under this resolution would be approximately $26,378.00, but would
not be limited strictly to this amount.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
J. Robert Russell, Richard F. Madigan, and Donald R. Hodgson all voting "Aye" and Dennis T.
,
Cole "Abstaining ".
ESSANEE REZONING APPLICATION - DISCUSSED
Mr. Ben Butler appeared before the Board representing Real Estate General
Corporation, concerning the petition of Essanee to rezone approximately 38 acres on
Senseny Road to B -2 and R -2. He gave a brief history of this rezoning application
stating that it had been denied by the Planning Commission because of the density of the
plan, and consequently, after meeting with Mr. Berg, the County Planner, the plan had been
modified to decrease the density.
Mr. Butler stated that it was their contention that this rezoning application
should not be affected by the moratorium inasmuch as it had been before the Planning
Commission before the moratorium took effect and they felt they were being stopped in
mid - stream. He stated that under state statute if the Planning Commission does not
,
report back to the Board within ninety days, the application is deemed to be approved
by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Carlin Smith appeared before the Board and stated that the contract on
this property would run out in approximately 40 days and the purchasers would not be in a
position to make a decision to execute the contract under these circumstances.
'
Mr. Ambrogi stated that a moratorium meant that everything comes to a
standstill.
Mr. Renalds suggested that the Board write to the Attorney General's office to
see if the ninety day statute supersedes the moratorium, or the Board could table the
application.
Mr. Sandy stated that he felt an opinion from the Attorney General's office
should be obtained.
.•
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 does
herein refer the question of Board action on the rezoning application of Essence to the
Commonwealth Attorney in,:order that a clarification can be obtained from the Attorney
General's office as to whether or not this rezoning application comes under the
jurisdiction of the moratorium on rezoning applications now in effect in Frederick
County.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
APPROVAL 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,
does herein approve the payroll for the month of August, 1973, in the amount of $43,229.31
and does herein direct that this payroll be paid from the General Fund by Warrants
403770 through #03852.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF BILLS - AUGUST
Upon motion by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein approve and orderithe bills fort'the.`.monthjof Augu §ti:1973,abeupaidlfrom the
General Fund in the amount of $60,284.07 by Warrants #03853 through #04083.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
DOG WARDEN REPORT
Mr. Harold Whitacre appeared before the Board and presented his monthly report
and two claims for livestock kills.
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 does
herein approve the following claims for livestock kills:
1.
George
Cornwell
- 14
chickens at
50
cents each - $7.00
2.
Robert
Koons - 2
pigs
at $22.50
each
- $45.00
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Mr. Sandy stated that the Board had discussed, sometime ago, the possibility
of the Highway Department building a road into the Dog Pound and asked if anything
further had been done on this project. Mr. Hodgson stated that this construction could
be done on a cost basis. Mr. Sandy requested Mr. Whitacre to contact the Highway
Department relative to this matter and report back to the Board.
TAX REFUND - WILLETTA H. HIMELRIGHT - 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
i
u
does herein approve a tax refund in the amount of $19.60 to Willetta H. Himelright
for taxes erroneously paid to the County of Frederick.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
SUBDIVISIONS
Shawneeland - Preliminary Plat Approved:
Mr. Renalds presented the preliminary and final plats of Shawneeland, Section AA,
containing approximately 6 acres, located in Back Creek Magisterial District and stated
that the Planning Commission had taken action on the preliminary plat and also the final
70
plat at the same time; they then forwarded it to the Board as a final plat. Mr. Renalds
stated that everything was in order except the water and sewer plans, which apparently had no
been drawn up as yet. He stated that there were three lots on this plat.
Mr. Sandy asked what type units would be constructed on this property and Mr.
Lambourne stated that they would be 20 unit, multiple family, two story units.
Mr. Fletcher appeared before the Board and stated that the Recreation Department
had reviewed this plat and they felt that since these condominiums were permanent dwellings,
with year round residents, the developer should be required to pay the recreational fee
charged other developers in the area. He stated that if this type of development was
allowed in Shawneeland, it would encourage other developers in the County to go to recreation 1
subdivisions in order to escape the payment of the impact fee they are now being charged.
Mr. Cole stated that inasmuch as Lake Holiday had been required to put up a
performance bond for water and sewer, he felt shawneeland should also be required to
furnish such a bond.
Air. Sandy stated that he felt all developers should be required to follow the
same procedures on recreational impact and water and sewer facilities.
Mr. Madigan stated that in a recreational subdivision 30% to 40% of the land
was available for recreation, with facilities such as lake, pools, hunting, golf courses,
etc., and the Board had been requiring either 10% of the land or $100.00 per lot for
recreation in the County.
Mr. Sandy stated that the problem was that there was no reciprocal use.
Mr. Cole stated that in his opinion when a developer sets forth a facility,
such as a golf course, in his sales program, this facility should be provided and not
altered at a later time.
Mr. Russell asked if the part of the golf course which is being removed at
Shawneeland will be located in another area. Mr. Lambourne stated that he would like to
comment on several items; one, if the Board of Supervisors passes the proposed zoning
ordinance, there would be a 35% open space preservation which in the case of Shawneeland
would be approximately 3500 acres; secondly, he pointed out this is three and one half
times as much as the present requirement of ten percent or $100 per lot. He stated
that the water and sewer requirements had been approved for this particular tract of
land. He further stated that the golf course would not only be relocated, but enlarged,
and this would be completed before construction on the subject tract of land is begun.
He asked the possibility of making a $300.00 contribution to the recreation fund for
this tract of land without obligating Shawneeland in the future to pay this fee.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and by Donald R. Hodgson,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein approve the preliminary plat of Shawneeland, Section AA, containing approximately
six acres, located in Back Creek Magisterial District subject to the following provisions
being resolved before presentation of the final plat:
1. A determination of recreational impact be made.
2. A performance bond be posted for the collection lines for this portion
of the subdivision.
3. Final plans approved by the Sanitation Authority for water and sewer
facilities.
u
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
71
I Stonebrook Farms - Preliminary Plat - Section II - Approved:
Mr. Renalds presented the preliminary plat of Stonebrook Farms, Section II, containing
61 lots, located in Back Creek Magisterial District. He stated that this plat had been
recomended for,approval by the Planning Commission with a few minor changes
Mr. Fletcher stated that Stonebrook Farms had agreed to pay the recreation fee
for Section I, but as yet this fee has not been paid.
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 does herein
approve the._preliminary plat of Stonebrook Farms, Section II, located in Back Creek
Magisterial District, containing 61 lots.
The above resolution passed unanimously.
Oak. Hill Subdivision - Final Plat - Approved
Mr. Renalds presented the preliminary plat of Oak Hill Subdivision and stated
that every thing was in order on this plat. _
Mr. Sandy stated that if Mr. Strawson had plans to develop any more of this property,
a master plan should be 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 does
herein approve the final plat of Oak Hill Subdivision consisting of two lots located
in Back Creek District.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Hedrick Lots - Preliminary Plat - Approved:
Mr. Renalds presented the plat of the Sherwood Hedrick Lots stating that the plat
consisted of three lots or approximately two acres each and that the Planning Commission
had recommended approval.
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 does
herein approve the preliminary plat of the Sherwood Hedrick Lots .located on Route 688
innGainesbororMag steri•altDistrict':.'
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
F redericktowne - Preliminary Plat - Approved:
Mr. Renalds presented the preliminary plat of Fredericktowne consisting of six lots,
located in Opequon Magisterial District, stating that the Planning Commission had
recommended approval with the stipulation that a temporary easement be granted into
the Frederick County Sanitation Authority Pump Station located in this area, until
such time as said access can be provided from Section 3.
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 does
J
herein approve the preliminary plat of Fredericktowne consisting of six lots located
in Opequon Magisterial District, with the stipulation that a temporary easement be
granted into the Frederick County Sanitation Authority pump station located in this
area until such time as said access can be provided from Section 3.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
WATER AND SEWER PERMITS - APPROVE
ECONO TRAVEL MOTEL AND RAMADA INN
Mr. Renalds read the following recommendations from the Frederick County Sanitation
Authority to the Board concerning the water and sewer permits of Econo Travel Motel and
72
Ramada Inn.
"Be advised that the Sanitation Authority at the Regular Meeting held
September 11, 1973, did consider.the application for extension of
water and sewer to the proposed Econo Travel Motel to be located at
the northeast corner of the intersection of Interstate 81 and U. S. Route
50. Upon motion duly made, seconded and passed, the Authority
does recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve this application.
Also be advised that the Authority reconsidered the application of
Ramada Inn to be located at the southeast corner of the same inter-
section, and does recommend that the Board of Supervisors amend its
prior action and approve the application of Ramada Inn."
fir. Sandy asked what the original resolution was concerning the approval of the
Ramada Inn application. Mr. Renalds stated that the original resolution provided for
interim connection and the Sanitation Authority was recommending that the word "interim" be
deleted.
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 does
herein approve the water and sewer permits for Econo Travel Motel located at the northeast
corner of the intersection of Interstate 81 and U. S. Route 50, and Ramada Inn Located at
the same intersection for the purpose of extending city water and sewer lines to said
properties; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the previous action of the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors as taken on June 13, 1973, be hereby rescinded.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE
LEASES FOR SOLID WASTE CONTAINER SITES
Mr. Renalds stated that the county staff is negotiating leases for locations for the
solid waste container sites and authorization was needed to execute these leases.
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 does
herein authorize the County Administrator to execute leases,-upon receipt and review by the
Commonwealth Attorney, for the placement of the solid waste containers in the County of
Frederick.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
REQUEST TO DUMP CLARKE COUNTY CONTAINERS - DENIED
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 does
herein deny the request of Clarke County to dump their containers at the sanitary landfill
inasmuch as it is the feeling of this Board that this would encroach upon private enterprise.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
STREETLIGHTS REFERRED TO ORDINANCE COMMITTEE
RESIDENTS OF GREEN ACRES TO BE BILLED
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, That tte Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does herein
rect that the section of the Frederick County Code entitled "Streetlights" be referred
to the Ordinance Committee for study; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the residents of Green Acres Subdivision be billed
for the street light services rendered them from January, 1972; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the residents of Green Acres Subdivision shall
reafter be billed for this service on a yearly basis, said charges to accompany the county
bills.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
J
73
ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE FOR JUDGES - APPROVED
Mr. Cole explained the need for additional office space for Judges Simpson and
Germelman. He stated that office facilities were now available in the Grachien Building.
Court for the purpose of renting offices in the Grachien Building; and,
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Board of Supervisors does herein
approve a supplemental appropriation of $1,800 to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this motion shall be pending upon similar approval
by the City of Winchester to share equally in the renting of these offices.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
EARL RIDDICK - APPOINTED TO HIGHWAY
ETY COMMISSION
Mr. Renalds explained the function of this committee stating that it was set
up to study, on a continuing basis, any safety problems that might arise in Frederick
County. He further stated that there were funds available from the State for certain
projects. Mr. Cole requested that the County Administrator activate this committee as
soon as possible.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and. by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein appoint Earl Riddick, who is presently serving as an alternate, to the Highway
Safety Commission to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of William B. McCormick;
and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board shall appoint an alternate to this
Commission at their next regular meeting to be held on September 26, 1973.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
DATE SET FOR JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION
After discussion the Board set the date of Tuesday, September 18, 1973, at
1:00 P.M. for a joint work session between the Board of Supervisors and the Planning
Commission.
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS REPORTS ACCEPTED
f
After review the monthly reports of the Constitutional Officers were accepted.
DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS ACCEPTED
After review the monthly reports of the Department Heads were accepted.
REPORT - CLEAR;BRODKPPARK
Mr. Fletcher appeared before the Board and presented the following report
on Clear Brook Park through September 12, 1973:
Concessions $10,053.11
Day Camp 929.00
Pool 16,462.70
Fishing 65.00
Boat Rentals 2,920.77
Total $30,430.58
Mr. Fletcher stated that they had had 135 bookings for the shelters since July
11th representing 32,830 people. He said that 185,000 people,.through September 12,
1973, had passed through Clear Brook Park.
74
Mr. Fletcher stated that the following donations were received during fiscal year
1972 -73, but this was by no means all of them:
Shawnee Lions Club Shelter $:4,000
Kiwanis Club Shelter 5,500
James Wood Key Club Shelter 2,000
Carl Frye Mobile Homes donation of mobile office 5,000
'
Total $16,500
Mr. Fletcher then gave a brief outline of his winter program and his plans for
Clear Brook Park for next year.
Mr. Russell stated that the Kiwanis Club had recently held a luncheon and dedicated
,
their shelter at the Park to the County. He expressed the appreciation of the County and
stated that a lot of individual effort had gone into this project and he felt this club
deserved a lot of praise for this contribution to the County.
Mr. Fletcher stated that the Kiwanis planned to add other improvements to the
shelter in the future such as a sound system, a barbecue pit and others.
Mr. Sandy commended Mr. Fletcher for the outstanding job he is doing at Clear Brook
Park.
APPOINTMENT - ADDITIONAL MEMBER TO PLANNING COMMISSION - TABLED
Mr. Renalds stated that there was a request from the Planning Commission to
appoint an additional member. Mr. Cole suggested a lady realtor be appointed to serve
in this capacity.
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 does
table the appointment of an additional member to the Planning Commission until the
xt regularly scheduled meeting on September 26, 1973, in order that recommendations from
Planning Commission and the Board members can be reviewed.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
st
REPORT - FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING - SEPTEMBER 13 1973
Mr. Madigan presented the.;ffollowd:ng report of the meeting held by the Finance
ttee on September 11, 1973.
ect to
1 Court House Tower - Aba ndoned:
Mr. Madigan reported that the Finance Committee had recommended that the project
paint the County Seal on the Court House Tower had been abandoned because of the excessive
li
ns of the Land U
Mr. Madigan reported that the Finance Committee had voted to recommend to'the Board
adoption of the Land Use Tax as recommended by the Land Use Tax Committee and that the
be instructed to conduct their reassessment on the basis of land use. He stated
at it would take effect on January 1, 1976 and according to state law the ordinance must be
opted this year and individuals requesting land use taxation on their property would have
file for the same before November 1st. This would give us ample time to make projections
the effect on the revenue for the next fiscal year. He stated that it would cost between
1 000 and $10,000 more for the reassessment if we plan to use the land use tax formula. Mr.
3igan stated that we must let the assessors know right away if we plan to do this.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole,
t t�8 t *f
t q t t t t t
1
BE�IT''RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does herein
adopt the recommendations of the Land Use Tax Committee and that the assessors be instructed
to conduct their reassessment on the basis of land use.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Tax Relief for the Elderly Committee - Recommendations Accepted:
Mr. Madigan reported that the Finance Committee recommends that the Board adopt an
ordinance as recommended by the Tax Relief for the Elderly Committee. He stated that the Co
ittee felt the effect on the tax revenue would be minimal and that the Tax Relief for the
Elderly Committee be retained to research the possibility of tax relief for the elderly rente
at a later date. He said that the Finance Committee recommended that the Board follow the
outline of the Tax Relief for the Elderly Committee report with the exception of Clause #6
which requires a two year residency before they qualify. It was the opinion of the Committee
to refer this matter to Mr. Ambrogi for an opinion from the Attorney General's Office as to
whether this was discriminatory.
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 does
herein accept the recommendations of the Tax Relief for the Elderly committee and directs
that an ordinance be drafted for adoption setting forth the guidelines for tax relief to
the elderly; and,
BE IT RESOLVED, That Clause #6 in said recommendations of the Land Use
Tax Committee, dealing with the two year residency requirement, be referred to Mr. Ambrogi,
Commonwealth Attorney, in drder that an opinion can be received from the Attorney General's
Office as to whether this requirement is discriminatory; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Land Use Tax Committee be retained to research
the feasibility of tax relief for the elderly renters at a later date.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Continuous Reassessment: _
Mr. Madigan stated that the Committee hadodiscussed co.attsuousi :reaosessatent, and .the
Committee recommends- to,, the: Board .the' establishment. of; ae.£o-ur fi4.).- year,:cycle - instead of the
present -six (6) year. cycle •, that the-,Committee ;felt,�that con'.tinuouaLreassessmMatt
would ,, cost , .entir -eity__tooFmuch and at:,the'_,pre sent L time. the four year.limit would be sufficient.
Mr. Cole asked if a person rezones his property, is it then immediately
reassessed. Mr. Renalds stated'that this was required by the Code of Virginia.
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 does
herein direct the Commissioner of Revenue to reassessess any parcel of land after it is
rezoned; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the County Administrator shall supply the Commissioner
of Revenue with any and all applications for rezoning prior to and after action is taken
on said applications, in order that these parcels of land can be entered into the
records in accordance with the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Revenue Sharing -
Mr. Madigan stated that Revenue Sharing was discussed by the Finance Committee
and they were brought up to date on existing problems and monies received during the first
entitlement period. He stated that these funds may have to be spent during this fiscal
year. He stated that Mr. Boyd, the Director of Accounting, would write to the Census
Bureau and the Treasury Department for a clarification of these problems as to when the
money has to be appropriated and when it must be spent.
New Jail - _iiscussed:
Mr. Madigan reported that a letter from the Department of Welfare and Insti-
tutions was read and the Committee was informed that the County would be-forced to either
build a new jail or renovate the existing facility.
He stated that the Committee recommends to the Board that the County Administrator
contact the City of Winchester to ascertain their proposed input, this being the suggestion
by the Department of Welfare and Institutions, and their feelings toward a regional
facility and /or a City,-County Jail housed in a new county complex. It was also recommended
to the Board of Supervisors that the County Administrator correspond with the Department
Df Welfare and Institutions and inform them that our county complex study is now underway
and will include a jail facility as recommended and approved.
M
76
I
Mr. Cole stated that he and Mr. Madigan were on the Jail Committee and their recommen-
dation was to meet with the City Jail Committee to discuss this matter and try to work out
of the problems.
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 floes herein
accept the report of the Finance Committee with respect to the Winchester - Frederick County
Jail.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Health Department Request for Additional Land - Denied:
Mr. Madigan stated that the Board had again been asked by the Winchester - Frederick
County Health Department for $15,000 for the purchase of additional land on Commerce Street
east of the present building, and the Committee recommends that the additional land request
be denied and the Health Department future needs be encompassed in the county complex study.
Mr. Cole expressed concern in this matter stating that the Health Department provided
many services for people who would not otherwise receive them. He stated that he felt they
definitely needed more room and he was concerned about the length of time they could wait for
additional facilities.
There was discussion concerning the location of the property and the design of the
building in that it could not be expanded upward. Satelite units, located in other sections
of the County, were discussed.
the Health Department's needs and facilities.
Chamber of Commerce - $3,000 Appropriation - Approved:
The Board requested the County Administrator to obtain a comprehensive report on
Mr. Madigan reported that the finance Committee had reviewed the request from the
Chamber of Commerce for a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $3,000 to finance
a brochure on the Winchester - Frederick County Area. He stated that the Committee recommended
approval of this request.
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 does herein
approve a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $3,000 to the Winchester- Frederick
County Chamber of Commerce to finance a brochure on the Winchester - Frederick County
area
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
County Insurance Program - Discussed:
Mr. Madigan reported that the report from the Ad Hoc Insurance Committee had been
reviewed by the Finance Committee and the County's insurance coverage had been discussed
at length. He stated that the Finance Committee recommended to the Board that the Ad
Hoc Committee be dismissed with.thanks and that the members who served on this committee
implement the County's insurance coverage and the package plan now in effect be can-
celled and a refund received for the unused portion. He stated that the Committee further
recommended that this committee appear before the Board on September 26, 1973, to present
their proposed plan and recommendations.
77
Mr. Sandy asked if this would then be put out on bid and Mr. Madigan stated
• 1 3ti3C Cq 3rom � _F._.- , � t i _ ti ,f -- -
that it would not because a program of this type must have the specifications set up by
qualified people. He stated that the County was very much uninsured at the present time
and there are many'de£iciencies in the present contract. Mr. Madigan stated that the
Finance Committee felt that the men on the Ad Hoc Insurance Committee were qualified and
should be the people to set up such a program for the County.
The Board unanimously agreed with this procedure.
Health Department- Investigation - Approved:
Mr. Madigan moved that due to the many problems with the Winchester - Frederick
County Health Department, especially with perk tests, the Board of Supervisors do send a
request to the Governor of the State of Virginia asking him to have conducted a full
and comprehensive investigation of the Winchester - Frederick County Health Department's
adtivities and manner in which they conduct their business.
Mr. Sandy stated that he too had received numerous complaints against the
sanitarians in the last six months.
Mr. Russell and Mr. Cole both stated that they felt the Board should first
meet with the Health Department Officials.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
the Board adjourned into executive session.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
and passed unanimously, the Board came out of Executive Session.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole, and
passed unanimously, the Board reconvened into Regular Session.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole, and
passed unanimously the motion previously made by Richard F. Madigan requesting an
investigation of the Health Department by the Governor's Office was withdrawn.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of.Frederick County, Virginia,
that the Governor's Office be requested to send qualified personnel from the State Level to
Frederick -- Countytoeproy ide- -gu- ide percolation tests and compare the methods
of the Winchester - Frederick County Health Department with state standards to insure com-
pliance with established state statutes and regulations.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
UPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
DO NOW ADJOURN.
Sthretary, Board of Supervisors
A joint work session was held on September 18, 1973, between the Frederick County
Board of Supervisors and the Frederick County Planning Commission in the Board of Supervisors'
Rosa at 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia.
PRESENT:
Board of Supervisors - Raymond C. Sandy
J. Robert Russell
Richard F. Madigan
Dennis T. Cole
Donald R. Hodgson
M
Planning Commission - James W. Golliday
Keith Williams
Manuel DeHaven
Roy Williams
The meeting was called to order by Richard F. Madigan. Mr. Madigan stated that
Mr. Sandy and Mr. Russell would be late for the meeting but Mr. Sandy had requestedlthat.ithe
meeting go on as scheduled. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. Golladay, Chairman of
the Planning Commission.
Mr. Golladay stated that the Planning Commission had suggested the following
changes:
1. On Page 5 of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance in Section A -1 and A -2,
increase the minimum size of a mobile home subdivision to 20 acres.
2. In Section A -1 and A -2, increase lot size to 30,000 square feet where
private water or sewer are used.
After discussion, the following changes were approved:
1. In A -1 and A -2, Section 2 -8 the minimum size of a mobile home
subdivision shall be not less than 20 acres.
2. In Section 2 -9 in A -1 and A -2, the last sentence in this section be
deleted and the minimum lot
size was increased to 40,000 square feet with a minimum of 120 foot
frontage, said 120 foot frontage to be on the set back line where
no water and sewer are available.
3. In Section 2 -10, the minimum lot size was changed from 5,000
square feet to 10,000 square feet where public water and sewer
are available; 10,000 square feet was changed to 30,000 square
feet where public water or sewer are available, but not both; and
15,000 square feet was changed to 40,000 square feet where no
public facilities are available.
Mr. Cole stated that he felt the 120 foot frontage and the 40,000 square feet
(minimum lot size should apply all through the ordinance, even in the R -5 section.
Mr. Berg stated that he did not think this should be done because R -5 was a planned
1community.
Mr. Berg then stated that with the increase in the lot sizes the densities would
1have to be recomputed.
Mr. Cole stated that he felt with all the highways in this district small
businesses such as gift shops, filling stations, grocery stores, etc. should be permitted.
1Mr. DeHaven agreed with this suggestion.
Mr. Madigan read the statement of intent of this district stating that these
things would change the zoning and the character of the district and would not be within
the intended use of the district.
Mr. Russell asked about the businesses already in the area and Mr. Golladay said.
theseawere considered non - conforming uses.
Mr. Golladay stated that any one could apply for a rezoning in this district and
in this way the County had some control over the development. He stated it was the intention
lof the Planning Commission to have these businesses in a cluster and not scattered throughout.
Mr. Cole and Mr. DeH objected to this suggestion.
Y
Mr. Cole stated that he felt the entire ordinance should be published in the
J
(newspaper in order that the public could see what is being done.
79
After discussion, the lot size of 35,000 square feet was changed to 40,000 square feet.
Mr.'Cole stated that he felt R -3 should have smaller frontages and the side
' yard requirements should also_be smaller because of central water and sewer. He stated
that this would make lots available to people in the lower income bracket and also
elderly people.
'Mr. Golladay stated that an 80 foot lot with a minimum side yard of ten feet
on each side would not accomodate many of today's houses.
After discussion the frontage regulation in Section 6 -4 of the R -3 District was
changed from 100 feet to 80 feet and the lot size was changed in Section 6 -2 -2 from 20,000
square feet to 30,000 square feet with a 100 foot frontage where central water is provided.
Mr. Hodgson stated that he felt these small lots would create problems such as
are now prevalent in Green Acres.
Mr. Golladay stated that the Planning Commission recommended adding fire stations
as a permitted use throughout the ordinance. This was agreed upon by the members.
' Mr. Cole requested the addition of rescue units to the fire station provision
and this was agreeable to the membership.
B -1 DISTRICT
Heliports were discussed and added by a unanimous vote to the B -1 District.
Mr. Cole asked if there would be a B -2 zoning in the ordinance. Mr. Berg stated
' that there would be a B-2 zoning but it had to be redrafted and would be added later.
Mr. Madigan asked if the membership wished to have heliports with a conditional
use permit.
After discussion it was decided to include the heliport with a conditional
use permit.
RESTORATION OR REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT
Section 16 -7 -1 was discussed wherein the 50% burn out factor was set forth.
Mr. Cole stated that he felt this should be increased to perhaps 75% because of the hardship
it might-cause on various business owners in the County.
Mr. Golladay suggested that 500 copies of the ordinance be published for sale
to the public, _
After discussion the statement of intent in A -1 was left unchanged by a four to
two vote with Mr. Cole and Mr. DeHaven objecting. -
Heliports were discussed and Mr. Berg advised that this be discussed in the B -2
'
section since it is a business use.
Mr. DeHaven stated that he felt it shouldibe included in all categories.
Mr. Golladay stated that the ordinance should be considered as it is now written
and amendments of this nature made at a later time.
'
After discussion it was agreed to consider the heliport in the B -2 category.
Mr. Cole questioned the requirement set forth in this district wherein a -'
business was burned out over 50 %, the owner must have the property rezoned, submit a site
plan, etc. before he could rebuild.
It was the opinion of the majority'that this'was - a necessary requirement.
Mr. Cole stated that the 40,000 square foot lot size should be carried through the
A -1, A -2, R -1, R -2, R -3, and R -4 Districts.
Mr. Golladay presented the recommendation of the Planning Commission with respect
to Districts R -1, R -2 and R -3 wherein the frontage would be increased to 120 feet and the
lot size would be reduced to 35,000 square feet for individual water and sewer systems.
After discussion, the lot size of 35,000 square feet was changed to 40,000 square feet.
Mr.'Cole stated that he felt R -3 should have smaller frontages and the side
' yard requirements should also_be smaller because of central water and sewer. He stated
that this would make lots available to people in the lower income bracket and also
elderly people.
'Mr. Golladay stated that an 80 foot lot with a minimum side yard of ten feet
on each side would not accomodate many of today's houses.
After discussion the frontage regulation in Section 6 -4 of the R -3 District was
changed from 100 feet to 80 feet and the lot size was changed in Section 6 -2 -2 from 20,000
square feet to 30,000 square feet with a 100 foot frontage where central water is provided.
Mr. Hodgson stated that he felt these small lots would create problems such as
are now prevalent in Green Acres.
Mr. Golladay stated that the Planning Commission recommended adding fire stations
as a permitted use throughout the ordinance. This was agreed upon by the members.
' Mr. Cole requested the addition of rescue units to the fire station provision
and this was agreeable to the membership.
B -1 DISTRICT
Heliports were discussed and added by a unanimous vote to the B -1 District.
Mr. Cole asked if there would be a B -2 zoning in the ordinance. Mr. Berg stated
' that there would be a B-2 zoning but it had to be redrafted and would be added later.
Mr. Madigan asked if the membership wished to have heliports with a conditional
use permit.
After discussion it was decided to include the heliport with a conditional
use permit.
RESTORATION OR REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT
Section 16 -7 -1 was discussed wherein the 50% burn out factor was set forth.
Mr. Cole stated that he felt this should be increased to perhaps 75% because of the hardship
it might-cause on various business owners in the County.
io 8
Mr. Berg stated that Section 16 -7 7 3 provided for the 75% burn out factor on a non-
_ ., ,.,• �;_•. :'
conforming• structure :and Sect an ,16= Z= l:-dealt . with ._the_nonconfor -mingjac.tivity.
Mr. Golladay stated that this requirement gives the Countyicontrol over the changin
complexity of the community.
By a vote of five. to two the requirement was left unchanged.
A -2 DISTRICT
'
Mr. Madigan read the statement of intent of the A -2 District.
Mr. Cole stated that he felt small businesses should be allowed in this area because
they provided services to the people in the area.
Mr. Golladay stated that he felt if a business was necessary in an area, the
,
property could be rezoned for said business.
After lengthy discussion, the following were added with a conditional use permit:
(1) Kennels, (2) Restaurants, (3) Gas Stations, (4) General Merchandise Stores, (5) Cemetaries,
(6) Veterinary and Pet Hospitals with animals housed inside.
In Section 3 -1 -15 kennels were stricken from "Veterinary or dog or cat hospitals
or kennels ".
The membership agreed to include service stations, general merchandise stores and
kennels in the A -1 District with conditional use permits.
R -1 DISTRICT
Mr. Madigan read the statement of intent of the R -1 District.
Mr. Ross, a gentleman in the audience, asked if there would be limitations on
the recreational uses intended in Section 4 -1 -4.
The membership decided to change the wording of Section 4 -1 -4 to read "Public parks,
'
playgrounds, and recreational uses with a conditional use permit."
In Section 4 -2 -2 the lot size was changed from 30,000 to 40,000 square feet.
R -2 DISTRICT
Mr. Madigan read the statement of intent of the R -2 District.
There was discussion as to whether a golf course would be a commercial use. Mr.
Madigan stated that the statement of intent clearly stated there would be no commercial
use permitted in this district.
Section 5 -1 -4 in the R -2 district was changed to read "Public parks, playgrounds,
and recreational uses with a conditional use permit ". Section 5 -1 -11 "Golf Course" was
stricken.
R -3 DISTRICT
Mr. Madigan read the statement of intent of the R -3 District.
'
Section 6 -1 -10 was changed to read "Public parks, playgrounds and recreational
uses with a conditional use permit ".
Section 6 -1 -19 "Golf Course" was stricken.
In Section 6 -4 "Frontage Regulations ", the minimum lot width at the set back
,
line was changed to 80 feet.
R -4 DISTRICT
Mr. Madigan read the statement of intent of the R -4 District.
In Section 7 -7 -2 "Golf course and country clubs" the words, "with a conditional
use permit" were added.
The membership agreed to add the words "with a conditional use permit" to the
recreational uses set forth in this district.
R -5 DISTRICT
Mr. Madigan read the statement of intent of the R -5 District.
Mr. Cole stated that in the whole county, where there are drain fields we have
set guidelines, in all other districts and `he` felt they should be set in the R -5 district also
Mr. Golladay stated that this section was set up on the population per acre.
Mr. Keith Williams stated that he felt the last sentence in Section 8 -10 -1
(which stated "private septic tanks and wells may be permitted if approved by local health
Idepartment authorities" was sufficient.
Mr. DeHaven stated that he felt this district should have to follow the same
I guidelines as all the other districts in the ordinance.
Mr. Cole stated that he.would like to have a minimum frontage of 120 feet and
40,000 square feet minimum lot where there is no central water or sewer; that with a
(septic system and central water, a 100 foot frontage and 30,000 square feet lot size; and
Ithat with both central water and sewer 15,000 square feet lot size.
The requirement in the R -5 district of 35% open area was discussed and
Ar. Golladay stated that this was not required in the other districts.
Mr. Madigan stated that he felt the density figures would be a much better method
to follow than the lot size. Mr. Cole stated that he felt it was wrong to rezone a large
tract of land like this and open it wide up which is what we will be doing if we adopt this
rdinance.
Mr. Sandy agreed that and stated that only the area being developed should be
zoned R -5 and not the whole tract of land.
Mr. Roy Williams of the Health Department stated that any recreational tried
Ito get as many lots as possible from his tract of land. He stated that the lots had to be
of sufficient size to accomodate a drain field and since more and more people were using
these homes as permanent residences the systems had to be designed to accomodate the
needs of the dwelling.
Mr. Madigan asked if the membership desired to go strictly by the lot and
water and sewer regulations as set forth in the R -3 district or did they desire to leave
it like it is. By a vote of 4 to 3 the membership decided to leave the district as
itten
Mr. Cole stated that he was under the impression they were voting on the 80 foot
frontage set forth in the R -3 section.
Mr. DeHaven stated that he had nothing to do with the writing of the R -5
istrict.
Mr. Madigan stated that the other members on the Planning Commission did take
time and work on this district.
Mr. DeHaven stated that he felt all the County should come under the same requirement¢.
Mr. Madigan said the Health Department would have control as to whether a septic
ystem would be approved.
Mr. Russell stated that he felt if the County had better control over the R -5 distric
this ordinance than they do now, the R -5 section should be approved.
The membership voted to include in the R -5 zoning the land already rezoned in
the case of The Summit and the land already platted in the case of Shawneeland.
B -1 DISTRICT
Mr. Madigan read the statement of intent of the B -1 District.
It was agreed to insert "Other similar retail uses with a conditional use permit ".
Mr. Cole objected to this addition and Mr. Golladay stated that when the B -2 district
Ls written, many of these uses will be taken from the B -1 district and placed in the B -2 district.
! 0
Mr. Sandy suggested adopting the B -1 and B -2 districts from the old ordinance
and the elimination of the B -1 district set forth in the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Golladay stated that he agreed with this suggestion and after the adoption
of the ordinance, the Planning Commission and the Board could study and rework these districts.
This proposal was agreed upon unanimously.
Mr. Ross stated that some of the uses set forth in the statement of intent were not
listed in the Use Regulations of this district and Mr. Madigan stated that this would be
corrected.
By a unanimous vote, the membership agreed to include Heliports in the B -2 district.
PLANNED SHOPPING DISTRICT
Mr. Madigan read the statement of intent of the Planned Shopping District. There
no corrections or additions to this district.
M -1 DISTRICT
Mr. Madigan read the statement of intent of the M -1 District.
Mr. Sandy suggested that under Section 11 -2 -5 "Automobile graveyards and junk yards"
this should be placed in the M -2 District. This was agreed upon by the membership.
The membership agreed to place Section 11 -1 -7 "Truck Terminals" into the M -2
District and remove it from the M -1 District.
Section 11 -1 -16 "Veterinary or dog or cat hospitals, kennels" was discussed. Mr.
(Sandy stated that he felt veterinarians should be included in the B -2 district. It was
l agreed upon by the membership to strike this section from the M -1 district and place it in
Ithe B -2 District.
M -2 DISTRICT
Mr. Berg read the statement of intent of the M -2 District.
Automobile graveyards and junk yards were added to the M -2 District.
Conservation areas, Section 12 -1 -20 and Game Preserves, Section 12 -1 -21 were stricken
from the M -2 District and placed in the A -1 and A -2 Districts.
FLOOD PLAIN DISTRICT
Mr. Madigan stated that this section was required by the government and therefore
knot be changed.
AIRPORT DISTRICT
Mr. Berg stated that this district had been written by the FAA and their requiremen
had been incorporated into the ordinance.
SITE PLAN REQUIREMENT
Mr. Madigan stated that this in this district, in Section 15 -1 -1 the word "and"
should be changed to "but ".
Mr. Cole asked why we have to have a site plan requirement.
Mr. Williams stated that this was done so that the Planning Commission would be
laware of the property involved, could study the plan and act intelligently on the request.
Mr. Cole stated that he felt this should not be required of a small business and Mr.
l Berg stated that only the requirements of the agent for development of two acres or less was
l required and therefore the small business would not have to submit a site plan unless
Ito do so by the agent.
Section 15 -2 -13 was discussed and the membership voted to leave the requirement
r�
las it is written in the ordinance regarding two foot contour intervals.
M
AMENDMENTS
Mr. Berg stated that on Page 88 in the Amendments Section, it had been suggested
that all back taxes must be paid before a rezoning application will be heard.
This was agreed upon unanimously.
u
ORDINANCE RECOMMENDED FOR PRINTING
Mr. Madigan asked if the membership agreed that the ordinance was ready to go
to the printer after it is redrafted and proofed.
The membership voted unanimously to go to press with the ordinance after the
changes had been made and the ordinance proofed.
1000 COPIES OF ORDINANCE TO BE PRINTED
Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed it was directed that one thousand
(1,000) copies of the ordinance be printed and made available to the public at a nominal
cost.
Mr. Hodgson objected to this number stating that he did not feel 1,000 copies
would be necessary and that 500 would be sufficient.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED.
Sec tary, Board of Supervisors
At a special meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, held on
t ,
the 20th day of September, 1973, in the Board of Supervisors Room at 9 Court Square, Wincheste
Virginia.
PRESENT:
Board of Supervisors: Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman; J. Robert Russell, Vice Chairman;
Dennis T. Cole; Donald R. Hodgson; and Richard F. Madigan.
Health Department: Dr. William Hatfield; Dr. A. F. Sheele; Mr. Roy Williams, Mr.
Herbert Sluder, Mr, Paul Musick, Mr. Robert Wittman, Mr. Bernard Shutt, and Mr. Gene Milar.
The Chairman called the meeting to order. Mr. Sandy stated that this meeting
had been called in light of a resolution made by Supervisor Madigan at the last regular
meeting of the Board wherein it was requested that the conduct of the Health Department
be investigated by personnel on the state level.
Dr. Hatfield read an opening statement:
STATEMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SFjp.tember 20, 1973
I should like to submit a written statement from the Frederick County Health
Department in reply to the resolution passed by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors
on the evening of September 12, 1973 requesting "the Governor's office to send qualified
personnel to provide local percolation guidelines and compare local testing methods with
State standards to ensure compliance with State laws ".
I think it rather amazing that the resolution was even considered, especially
in light of the fact the Health Department was not consulted nor was it aware of any
serious difficulties. The resolution perhaps does suggest a lack of awareness on the
part of the Board of the Health Department's definition, role and performance in soil
evaluation for subsurface disposal of•human waste. I should like to reply at this time
in a spirit which would ignore any implied inadequacies of any Health Department personnel,
• I
and without peak, rancor, or recrimination respecting the implications of the resolution.
All of the Health Department personnel consider themselves first as Frederick County
citizens and employees, and only secondarily as State Health Department employees. It is
our responsibility to deliver health care and sanitation surveillance according to legislati
mandates, which include the Rules and Regulations of the State Health Department under which
ordinances are subsumed.
This mission as dictated by laws and regulations has been adhered to scrupulously
and meticulously in every case. The dictates of the law and the good work and intentions
of our worthy and conscientious sanitarians are always reinforced by skilled levels of
supervision, including a District sanitation supervisor, a Regional sanitarian and finally
by a Soil Scientist on loan from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
reporting directly to the Commissioner of Health. It should be noted here that the
sanitarians, in addition to their day to day administrative supervision, are being exposed
to a continuing educational program. We are particularly grateful for the long years
of stable employment of the sanitarians, - reflecting many years of service to Frederick
County and pride in being citizens in this county.
Maintaining a proper image in the community is one of the primary objectives of
the Health Department. Our personnel are constantly made aware of their roles as public
servants in providing service to all citizens, while at the same time, trying to maintain
and enforce the laws. Their unhappy lot sometimes is to suffer abuse and even overt
bribes relative to their routine daily work performance.
The only understanding that I can have regarding the recent unhappy resolution
is that there is a current and past lack of communication between the Health Department
and the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors should be reassured that a
necessary part of our policy is to communicate with them and to be available at their
request for information pertaining to all Health Department questions.
Perhaps we should all be reminded that the Health Department considers the
following points as most important in the evaluation of soils:
Point (1): Soil evaluation pertaining to the issuance of a Health Department
permit for the installation of a subsurface sewage system is the sole responsibility of the
Health Department under State Law. The Health Department must evaluate soils without
respect to expediency or pressure for approval or disapproval of the soils.
Point (2): The speedy evaluation of the soils pertinent to the issuance
of a Health Department permit depends directly on an adequate number of sanitarians and the
supervision of these sanitarians. Parenthetically, it should be noted here, the upcoming
biennium for the years 1974 -76 recommended one additional sanitarian supervisor, and 20%
for the services of a soil scientist. These additions in personnel were recommended to meet
the present and increasing demands for the soil evaluation in Frederick County, which
is indeed not blessed with very good or available soil to begin with. The Board of
Supervisors has rejected in principle this request for personnel. We hope they will
reevaluate this rejection at a later date.
Point (3): Conformity to local and State laws is at the very heart and is the
very essence of the sanitation program.
Point (4): Rapid management of citizens complaints is humbly and efficiently
carried out with the limited sanitarian staff available. The sanitarian is instructed to
make every effort to meet citizens demands, providing there is no conflict with State and
local laws.
r
Point (5): As ,stated above, the maintenance of an ongoirg, educational.
program in soil eval stion is a.high priority program: '
Point (6): The sanitarians are conscientious and highly trained, working
long hours, taking calls after hours which are contrary to state policy, and have
their supervisor's greatest respect.
' In the past, limitation to small lots, by local.ordinance, has resulted.in (1)
failing drainfield systems; (2) limitation in the expansion of those systems if necessary;
(3) limitation in the.placement of the sewage system; (4) the possible elimination of
certain lots in the subsequent development of property because the sewage system might
' compromise the water supply; (5) possible water supply contamination; and (6) oftentimes
resulting in citizens complaints because of the above factors. Happily ordinances are
constantly being revised and updated, and it is hoped these factors will less and less
plague the Board of Supervisors and the Health Department.
A corollary to updating the ordinances regarding individual sewage systems is
the immediate need for planning and funding for extended central water and sewerage
facilities to the citizens of Frederick County. Sufficient planning should be expedited
now, even though extended facilities may not at present be economically feasible. The
Health Department lends its every encouragement and resource to the Frederick County
Board of Supervisors in promoting central water and sewage.
With respect to the resolution, perhaps the only expertise for evaluating
the local health department's performance is structured in the State Health Department.
The Deputy Commissioner of Local Health Services has directly requested me to ask
' certain authorities and experts in the State Health Department to appear with me before
the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. These authorities are Dr. A. F. Scheele,
Deputy Director of the State Health Department for Local Health Services for Regions
6., 7, 8, 9, 16, and 17 comprising 28 counties and 12 cities: Mr. William Meyer, State
Soil Scientist on the Staff of Dr. Mack I. Shanholtz; and Mr. Bernard Shutt,
Regional Sanitarian of Planning Districts 5, 6, 7 who for 27 years has been a sanitarian
with the Virginia Health Department, 8 of these years as a Regional Sanitarian. These
are the same gentlemen who perhaps would be named by the Governor to possibly honor your
resolution. Others here with me are from the Lord Fairfax Health District. Mr. R. Wesley
Williams, Administrative Supervisor, represents 22 years-in soil evaluation; Mr. Gene
Millar, District Sanitarian Supervisor, has 23 years of service; and the following
Frederick County Sanitarians; Mr. Herbert Sluder, Mr. Paul Musick, and Mr. Robert
I Wittmann, represents respectively 10, 8, and 3 years of service.
We are met together tonight hopefully to establish new lines of communication.
We should like to receive in particular all grievances or any information pertaining to
misconduct or impropriety of any Health Department personnel.
I hope that our future relationship will be reinforced by mutual and
reciprocal efforts in adequate communication. I suggest to the Board the Health
Department's urgent need for the appointment of a Health Committee of Board members which
we can relate to both formally and informally.
In conclusion, perhaps this resolution, although having done considerable damage
to the image of the local Health Department, might have the ultimate effect of making
us a more closely knit team in delivering health'and sanitation services to meet the
needs of the citizens of Frederick County.
Mr. Sandy asked for opening comments from Members.
Mr. Madigan, addressing the members of the Health Department, stated that he would
not use the names of members of the Health Department, nor specific places or.dates in his
comments, but could substantiate each of his allegations with sworn documents.
Mr. Hodgson had no comment.
Mr. Russell had no comment.
Mr. Cole stated he would have some questions later.
Mr. Madigan read an excerpt from a statement by Judge Albert A. Riggs dealing with
the attitude and responsibilities of public officers in their work with the people they are
serving.
Mr. Madigan stated that it was his opinion, through communications with the people
he represents, that the attitude is bad in the Health Department. He stated that when a
person comes to a public official and is having problems and is angry the public official
must expect him to be angry and must rise above this and display a healthy and good attitude.
He further stated that he could not understand why a sanitarian would get upset with a
person when that person reported the sanitarian to his supervisor because he could not get
a satisfactory. solution to his problem. He stated that public officials were expected to
listen to all the problems of the people and anyone who is paid by tax dollars has no right
to be disrespectful to the public but must listen and help to work out the problem within
reason.
Mr. Madigan stated that he had gone to see Dr. Hatfield and had given him the
names of two people who were experiencing problems. Two weeks later one of the people told
Mr. Madigan that the sanitarian had been there twice. Upon contact with the Health Department,
they advised that they had no record of this person having applied for a perk test or a soil
evaluation. He stated that if this was the case, he wanted to know why the sanitarian was
there, why he told this person his land would not perk and why he was rude to this individual.
He stated that he could .quote several instances like the one above and instances
where the developers in the area had had lots turned down during the last few months.
Mr. Madigan stated that he had personally asked the State Police to make an
investigation about alleged irregularities in the Health Department, whether they were
from hear say or the people were misunderstanding the sanitarians. He stated that he also
kn(4W thgt the Health Department had found out they were being investigated and called the
State Police Headquarters in Culpeper and asked about the investigation. He stated that
he would like to know how this member of the Health Department had found out about the
investigation. Mr. Madigan stated that the investigation had disclosed that there was a
lack of.communication and understanding and a poor attitude by some members of the Health
Department.
Mr. Madigan stated that he would like to know how a sanitarian could look at a piece
of ground with vegetation growing on top and know what is under that piece of ground and
whether it will perk or not without putting an instrument in the soil. He further asked
why a piece of property was approved when water came up from a hole dug on the property like
a spring. He further stated that he would like to know how the sanitarian could tell a
person to go ahead and put his lines in and he would issue the permit later.
Mr. Madigan stated that he would like to know how a.sa3listal ar:neoa3cL:take-..a-�40;i000
square - foot lotr. -and ;dig; =a -few: 4holes= zdte5varko -,srlocations on the property and tell whether
or not it would perk. He stated that there could be a half dozen different soils on this
piece of property.
Z
Mr. Madigan asked how a piece of land could be perked over the telephone and
if a piece of land perks this year why would it not perk next year. He stated that land did
not change that rapidly.
He stated that the reason for this resolution at the previous meeting was because
f j
he was fed up with this type of procedure and that he wanted someone to come in who was
qualified to treat his people as respectable citizens, give them service and give them
suggestions. He stated that he was very much concerned about the sanitarians making sugges-
tions to people to have the right person to do the work and the land would perk and they
would not have any trouble. He stated that he had viewed a piece of property where four
holes had been dug and filled with a fire truck. He stated that one emptied in ten minutes,
one in fifteen or twenty minutes and the other had about a gallof water, mud and all, in
about forty five minutes.
Mr. Madigan asked about an alleged holding tank at a nursing home in the County.
IHe stated that he knew of a man who wanted to put in a holding tank and was refused but
another man wanted to build a residence and was allowed to install a holding tank.
Mr. Madigan stated that he would like to know why some people were allowed to
build a residence and put in a septic system and were told that if it did not work he
would have to move it. He stated that all the people did not have this opiniog, only some.
He stated that any animosities caused by the investigation by the State Police
Department should be directed to him and not his people.
Mr. Madigan stated that he would give names, dates, placesrand all information in h
I�
i possession to the proper committee. He stated that he felt the proper committee would be a
committee sent here by the governor's office. He further stated that there were certain
items he might wish to take up before the Grand Jury.
Dr. Hatfield stated that Mr. Madigan's people were also the Health
Department's people and they felt they were as dedicated to the people as Mr. Madigan
was. He stated that the Health Department had emphasized to the sanitarians that it was
more important'to honor the people than to analyze the'land. He stated that the Health
Department did not like to turn anyone down for a septic system but they must adhere to
state law. He stated that because of this practice the Health Department often suffers
great abuse. He stated that he felt the Health Department had been done a great
disservice and that they were honorable people and had tried diligently to observe the law
and give due respect to the people in the County.
Dr. Hatfield stated that inuendoes and implications are destructive and if the
II
Board had anything that is suggestive or fact which shows a breach of the law by the
th Department, it should be brought to light and made a part of the record so that
Commonwealth Attorney and the State's Attorney General can be brought to bear on this.
e stated to his knowledge there was no such breach of the law by the Health Department. He
tated that he thought it behooved the Board of Supervisors to request Mr. Madigan to put
orth any thing in his possession that will subject any of the Health Department personnel
o criticism or to law suit.
Dr. Scheele stated that he was sure the allegations made by Mr. Madigan had a lot
substance and he was reciting them as he had received them. Dr. Scheele stated that he was
ncerned because the Health Department had not had a chance to answer these allegations
ectly to the.Board of Supervisors. He stated that he felt a program'of education on soil
luation was needed in this situation. He outlined the course of instruction given
the sanitarians on soil evaluation. He stated that the perk test is only one of the tools
the sanitarian and not the overriding consideration, but the character of the soil was
M 0 0
the guiding factor.
Dr. Scheele stated that the interest of the Health Department was public health and
that the purpose of the Health Department was to serve all the citizens of the County.
He stated that their main concern was to establish functioning systems and that the
sanitarians had a supervisor, and the supervisor, in turn had a soil scientist he could contadt
if a problem develops. Dr. Scheele stated that he felt the problem here was strictly a lack '
of communication:
Dr. Scheele read the definition of soil evaluation and the method prescribed by stat
law which the sanitarians are required to follow in making such evaluations. He stated that
if the sanitarians, or any other health department personnel, did not have a constructive
attitude or were disrespectful to the public, the Health Department wanted to know about it.
Mr. Cole asked Dr. Scheele if he felt Frederick County had soil scientists qualified
enough to look at a piece of property and ddtermine whether or not it would perk.
Dr. Scheele stated that he felt the sanitarians in Frederick County could make such
a determination by making several borings into the earth. He described how the soil could
change in a matter of inches, where there is very hard rock in one area and two inches away
very good soil.
He stated that he felt the sanitarians in Frederick County were qualified to make
a judgment as to whether the soil was acceptable, not acceptable, or questionable, for a
septic system.
Dr. Hatfield stated that the Health Department tried in every way possible to
approve septic systems for the people in the County providing they could do so within the
realm of the state laws. He stated that the state had passed a law in July of 1972 requiring
�= '
the state health department and the local health department to follow the guidelines
aforementioned to determine whether or not the soil was adequate. Dr. Hatfield stated
that this is the reason you seem to have had all these complaints in the last seven or eight
months. He stated that the Health Department would like to have a soil scientist in Frederick
County to help the people with this type of problem.
Mr. Cole stated that he had voted for the request for additional funds for the
Health Department to employ a soil scientist.
Mr. Cole asked why the sanitarians could not be rotated on a yearly basis and Dr.
Scheele stated that this is done in some areas and there are good arguments on both sides.
Dr. Hatfield stated that rotation is a very costly process and that the Health
Department feels that if a man is there:, and by and large he is a good man, and is conscientio
sly
motivated, that his expertise will increase as his knowledge and experience with the soil is
'
spread over a long period of time. He further stated that these men are under very strict
supervision.
Mr. Roy Williams stated that he felt the people were confusing the perk test with
soil evaluation and if this meeting could clarify the use of the perk test and its value,
it would be well worth while. He stated that the Health Department had been trying to
'
de- emphasize the importance of the perk test and put it in its proper perspective, according
to a memorandum received in June from the State Health Department.
Mr. Williams stated that visual inspection is the best way to evaluate soil. He
stated that you do not perk a shale soil if you have a water table problem because it tells
you absolutely nothing.
Mr. Williams further stated that the policy of the Health Department was if a
a large area.was to be checked, the area that was most suitable was checked first and if you
0
can't find suitable soil you check a second area and if at that time you can not find a
a suitable soil you have done all you.can do with that particular lot. You then recommend
to the lot owner that he seek other soil analysis.
He stated that if a sanitarian turns down a lot the citizens can seek other advice.
This does not have to be the ultimate decision.
Mr. Sandy stated that he felt this would be a good idea in ttat each sanitarian
might make a different judgment on a particular piece of property and perhaps some were
more strict than others.
Mr. Williams stated that in the L.F.P.D. there is a monthly meeting of all the
sanitarians in the district to discuss matters such as this. He stated that,the request
to rotate the sanitarians would be taken under advisement.
Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Williams what he meant by visual inspection. Mr. Williams
said that he meant going down 36 or 40 inches into the earth and examining the soil.
Dr. Hatfield stated that in many instances the inspection could be made without
the use of the auger and simply by viewing the land.
Mr. Madigan asked if an inspection could be done over the telephone. Dr. Hatfield
stated that if a person did this it would be absurd, however the sanitarian might know
certain things about the land in the respective district.
Mr. Williams stated that his explanation of visual inspection was given with
the understanding that the landscape was suitable and therefore an auger would be used to
inspect the soil.
Mr. Madigan stated that he agreed that the perk test was only a small part of the ,
soil evaluation process.
Dr. Hatfield stated that the state receives 100,000complaints a year and Frederick
County has very few in respect to this number. He stated that the average rejection rate
in the state is approximately 10% and Frederick County's rejection rate is approximately
20 to 25% because of the shale and limestone land and the good land being used in orchards.
Dr. Hatfield stated that some counties had a much higher rate than Frederick County.
Mr. Madigan asked if the hole for a perk test could be dug with an auger, post
hole digger or back hoe and Mr. Williams agreed that it could be dug with any of these.
Mr. Madigan stated that he felt the hole would have to be a certain size and a certain
of water put into the hole to get a true test.
Mr. Shutt stated that a backhoe is not used to make a perk test. The backhoe was
used to make soil evaluation.
Dr. Scheele read the guidelines for making a'-hole for a perk test and stated
that the state had made an effort to get some uniformity in this procedure.
Mr. Russell asked if more emphasis had been put on perk tests before the passage
�I
of the law in 1972 which Dr. Hatfield spoke of earlier.
Dr. Scheele stated that it depended upon what county you were in.
Mr. Russell stated that he could understand why the public was confused because he
too was confused. He stated that he felt what was needed was education on_the procedures
used to make these evaluations. -He cited an instance of a church in Gainesboro wherein
more lines were required when they put in a new system. He said the people could not
understand this. He cited another instance where'a man had been turned down in an area
where 3 other houses in the area had working systems and the man could not understand
this in light of the fact that he could put two lots together and have a larger area.
M e
Mr. Williams stated that a larger area did not always mean the land would be
suitable. He further stated that in the instances of the church, the system had to be
for the capacity of the church and not for the number of people who attend. The system must
be designed for peak loading and not the number of people involved.
Mr. Williams stated that a permit was issued on a yearly basis because circumstances
might warrant a change after a year.
Mr. Madigan asked if the booklets the Health Dept. was quoting from were available
to the public and Dr. Hatfield stated that they were.
Dr. Hatfield stated that he would like to comment further on the rotation of
the sanitarians. He stated that the Health Dept. would consider this request and come up with
an answer for the Board.
Mr. Cole stated he felt this would help determine the "validity of some of the comp-
laints he had received.
Mr. Madigan asked if a fair analysis could be made by making one hole on a lot.
Mr. Shutt stated that they try to put a hole in each corner, however, if the
sanitarian is very familiar with the lot perhaps this could be done.
Mr. Madigan asked on what basis a permit would be issued for a holding tank and
Mr. Shutt stated this is usually dong only on a temporary basis.
Mr. Madigan asked about a sand filtering system and Mr. Shutt stated that can be do
only with permission of the Water Control Board.
Mr. Sandy asked if there was any substitute for the present drainfield type system.
Dr. Scheele stated at this time there is the pit privy which is on its way out and the sand
filtering system. Dr. Scheele said there are others but they have not been approved in
Virginia. However individuals could make application for such a system if they so desired.
Dr. Hatfield stated there areca number of systems under research right now.
Mr. Madigan asked how one sanitarian could approve a lot and when another one
checked it he disapproved it.
Dr. Hatfield stated this should not happen and if it did the Health Department wantec
to know about it.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia
herein recommend to the Frederick County Health Department that the sanitarians be
tated among the various districts in Frederick County.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Dr. Hatfield stated that this was in the direct perview of the Health Department
it would be taken under advisement. He stated that the only way they could determine if
s was successful was to receive input from the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Cole stated he did not feel this was too much to ask.
•11 Mr. Madigan asked if these conditions could be corrected and the Health Department
rsonnel instructed to be courteous and respectful to the people and Dr. Hatfield stated that
s would be done. Dr. Hatfield requested that the Health Department be notified of any
lms that may arise.
Mr. Sandy stated that people having complaints would submit their complaints in
itten form to be answered by the Health Department.
Dr. Hatfield stated that the Health Department would cooperate and would like to
have these complaints in order to check through their files.
Mr. Sandy stated that he would like to see some means established where a person
would know whether a piece of property was acceptable before he purchased it.
91
Dr. Hatfield agreed with this suggestion •*and :s the t.Healtn Department
would work together with the people in this respect.
Mr. Hodgson asked if the Health Department could do anything about the odor in the
Senseny Road area from the City Plant.
Mr. Williams stated he had discussed this with city officials and was advised
that this was being-caused by the apple processing in the area at'this time. He stated
that he was advised this would last about 6 weeks. Mr. Williams stated that he was advised
by city officials that they were awaiting plans to upgrade the present facility.
Mr. Hodgson stated the people in the area were very discouraged and were ready
to seek help from the State Water Control Board.
Dr. Hatfield stated that he felt the Health Department, the Board; city officials,
state engineers and the State Water Control Board should meet together and work out the
problem.
Mr. Hodgson stated that the people in the area felt this problem could be corrected
if treated properly.
Dr. Hatfield stated that problem could have been exaggerated by a recent oil slick a
the city plant. He further stated that he was new and requested sufficient time to
investigate the problem.
Mr. Williams stated that the city plant was not the direct responsibility of the
Health Department.
Mr. Sandy thanked the Health Department for meeting with the Board and stated
that he hoped the problems could be resolved through cooperation between the Board and
the Health Department.
UPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED.
retary, Board of Supery
At the Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia, held on the 26th day of September, 1973,'in the Frederick County Court House.
PRESENT: Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman; J. Robert Russell, Vice - Chairman; Richard
F. Madigan; Donald R. Hodgson; and Dennis T. Cole.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
AMENDMENT TO MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 1973 - 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 does
herein amend the minutes of the meeting of this Board held on August 22, 1973, to include
the following statement:
Mrs. Dorothy Keckley, Treasurer of Frederick County, presented
the delinquent local taxes as of June 30, 1973 for the tax:•years 1970,
1971 and 1972. The above resolution was passed unanimously.
MINUTES - AUGUST 1. 1973 - PUBLIC HEARING
ZONING ORDINANCE - 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,
Virginia, does herein approve the minutes of the meeting.of this Board held on the
1st day of August, 1973. said meeting being the Public Hearing on the proposed Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance.
I
e
M e
and the maintenance of the vehicles for the Sheriff's Department.
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 does herein
approve the request of Sheriff Anderson to either sell or turn over to another department, '
two police cruisers which have already been taken off the road in conjunction with police
work.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
WATER AND SEWER PERMIT - COUNTRY CLUB APARTMENTS - TABLED
Mr. Renalds read a recommendation from the Frederick County Sanitation Authority
wherein they recommended to the Board that this application for water and sewer permit be t
until further information can be obtained.
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 does herein
table the application for water and sewer permit of Country Club Apartments until further
information is received regarding the capacity of the Winchester Sewage Plant.
The above resolution was passed unanimously. '
REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - ACCEPTED
Mr. Sandy read a report from Mr. James Golladay, Chairman of the Planning
Commission.
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 does
herein accept the following report from the Frederick County Planning Commission and does
herein direct that the County Administrator do so advise the Planning Commission:
The following rezoning applications that had been accepted
and advertised for Public Hearing prior to the Moratorium imposed by the
Board of Supervisors were heard by the Planning Commission on August 2,
1973:
1. Marjec Inc., Shawneeland, application to rezone 475 acres
to R -2. The Planning Commission tabled this application
for further study.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION - ELM STREET
AIKENS SUBDIVISION
4PPROVED
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
WHEREAS, It appearing that Elm Street in the Harry W. and June E. Aikens Subdivision,
,
located in Stonewall Magisterial District, .complies with the Highway Commission's policy for
the addition of subdivision streets developed prior to July 1, 1949.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That Elm Street, from Route 672 to Pine Street into
the Harry W. & June E. Aikens Subdivision, a total distance of .07 miles, is hereby requested
to be added to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to Section 33.1 -229 of the
'
Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and that a forty foot (40) unrestricted right of way is
guaranteed. This right of way is recorded in the Clerk's Office of Frederick County in
Deed Book 196, Page 430 and was admitted to record on June 6, 1946.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
REQUEST FROM SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
DISPOSAL OF VEHICLES - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy stated that Sheriff Anderson was requesting permission to dispose of two
vehicles which had over 60,000 miles in order that the State could participate in the cost
and the maintenance of the vehicles for the Sheriff's Department.
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 does herein
approve the request of Sheriff Anderson to either sell or turn over to another department, '
two police cruisers which have already been taken off the road in conjunction with police
work.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
WATER AND SEWER PERMIT - COUNTRY CLUB APARTMENTS - TABLED
Mr. Renalds read a recommendation from the Frederick County Sanitation Authority
wherein they recommended to the Board that this application for water and sewer permit be t
until further information can be obtained.
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 does herein
table the application for water and sewer permit of Country Club Apartments until further
information is received regarding the capacity of the Winchester Sewage Plant.
The above resolution was passed unanimously. '
REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - ACCEPTED
Mr. Sandy read a report from Mr. James Golladay, Chairman of the Planning
Commission.
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 does
herein accept the following report from the Frederick County Planning Commission and does
herein direct that the County Administrator do so advise the Planning Commission:
The following rezoning applications that had been accepted
and advertised for Public Hearing prior to the Moratorium imposed by the
Board of Supervisors were heard by the Planning Commission on August 2,
1973:
1. Marjec Inc., Shawneeland, application to rezone 475 acres
to R -2. The Planning Commission tabled this application
for further study.
2. William and Leroy Edmonson application to rezone
1066acres to M -1. The.Planning Commission recommends
approval.
3. Carlin Smith and Lester Elliott, ESSANEE,
application to rezone 33.5 acres to R -2
The Planning Commission recommends disapproval.
4. Thomas Rosenberger application to rezone 8 acres to
B -1. The Planning Commission
recommends approval.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - AD HOC INSURANCE COMMITTEE - APPROVED
Mr. Madigan stated that this committee had made a study of the "County Insurance
Program and had submitted a report setting forth their findings. He stated that the
Finance Committee recommended that the Ad Hoc Committee appear before the Board and give
their report„ that it be dismissed with thanks and that the committee be allowed to
write the insurance 'for the County.
Mr. Goode appeared before the Board and stated that the report was recommended
by the Committee and submitted in the Agenda.
Mr. Madigan stated that if the Board had not had time to carefully consider
the report, he felt it should be tabled until the next meeting so that a determination
could be made on the County insurance program.
Mr. Russell stated that he felt a determination should be made as soon as possible
in that this was a very serious matter which should be taken care of as soon as possible.
Mr. Cole stated that if the County had no liability insurance on the property
occupied by the A. & N. Store, as set forth in the report, he felt the Board would be
foolish to wait for another two weeks to take action on this matter.
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 does
herein dismiss the Ad Hod Insurance Committee with thanks for a job well done in bringing
to light the items of importance and inadequacies in our present insurance coverage; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the County Insurance Program be turned over to the
agencies of Bryarly and Louthan, Henry T. Goode, and J. V. Arthur, Inc., these being
the people who comprised the Ad Hoc Insurance Committee.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
FEASIBILITY OF FORMING A UTILITY COMPANY TO BE STUDIED
1 .. t
Mr. Cole discdssed the water system at Clearbrook Park and stated that he felt
the County should be receiving'some revenue from the system. He stated that he felt Mr.
could be formed and the County could charge for these services.
Renalds should check into the matter to see whether or not a public utility company
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
does herein direct the County Administrator to study the feasibility of forming a
public utility company with respect to the water system at Clearbrook Park in order
that the County might charge for the services rendered by this system.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
APPOINTMENT - ALTERNATE MEMBER TO HIGHWAY
COMMISSION - TABLED
The Board agreed unanimously to table the appointment of an alternate member to
the Highway Safety Commission until the next regular meeting of the Frederick County
Board of Supervisors.
APPOINTMENT - ADDITIONAL MEMBER TO PLANNING COMMISSION - TABLED
The Board agreed unanimously to table the appointment of an additional member to
the Planning Commission until the next regular meeting of the Frederick County Board of Super-
visors.
PERSONNEL GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES - APPROVED
Mr, Renalds stated that these procedures were required by the State of Virginia ,
and must be adopted by July of 1974. He stated these procedures had been drawn up and
submitted and approved by the State Division of Personnel.
Upon motion by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does herein
approve the following Personnel Grievance Procedures as submitted: ,
COUNTY OF FREDERICK GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
Virginia legislation requires that all local governments adopt an employee grievance
procedure that will coincide with that which the Commonwealth had adopted. For purposes of
Grievance Procedures, a grievance shall be a complaint or dispute of an employee or employees
regarding the application, meaning or interpretation of personnel policies as they affect
the work activity of such an employee or employees. The term grievance as used herein shall
not be interpreted to mean negotiations of wages, salaries or fringe benefits.
An employee filing a grievance has the right to follow all the steps,outlined below
of the grievance procedure with complete freedom from reprisal. This does not, however,,con-
fer the right upon anyone to make slanderous or libelous statements.
Step I. An employee who has a grievance, will discuss the problem directly
with his immediate Department Head. The grievance need not be reduced to
writing at this step.
Step.II. If the grievance is not resolved within ten (10) working days
after the completion of Step I, the grievant may file a written grievance
with his immediate Department Head and the Deputy County Administrator.
This statement will be the employee's explanation of what has occurred.
The employee's immediate Department Head and the Deputy County Administrator
will then meet with the grievant within two (2) working days of receipt df written
statement. If more than two levels of supervision exist between the grievant
and the Department Head, they may also attend this meeting if,so requested by
the Department Head or grievant. Further, the grievant may also have a
representative of his choice present at this meeting.
A written reply by the Deputy County Administrator '
shall be made to the grievant within three (3) working days following
the completion of this step. A copy of the grievant's statement
and the Department Head's response shall be given to the County
Administrator.
Step III If the Deputy County Administrator's response does not resolve
the grievance, the grievant may proceed with the grievance by requesting
a panel hearing. This request is made in writing to Deputy County
Administrator and states the'-reasons for a panel= hearing:,. This.request must be
received+ -; - DeputyxCounty, Administrator -withini'(7 days of the
grievant's r- eceipt of_a response:. om with a copytgoing to the County
Administrator. The County Administrator will supply the Deputy County Administrator
within five (5) working days with prospective panel members to hear the grievance,
none of which may have been,'-involved in an earlier phase of the grievance: The
panel shall be composed of three (3) members chosen as follows: One (1) member
selected by the Department Head, one (1) member selected by the grievant,'and
the remaining member chosen by the two (2) appointees'.
The panel has the responsibility to interpret the application of appropriate County
s and procedures in the case. It does not have the prerogative to formulate or to
policies or procedures.
The panel shall then select its Panel Chairman, set the time for the hearing which
hall be held as soon as practicable, but no more than ten (10) full working days after the
anel has been selected, and notify the employee.
The grievant may have present at this meeting a representative or legal counsel
t his own expense. Copies of the written grievance shall be sent by the County Administrator
o the panel members.
The conduct of the hearing shall be as follows:
a. The panel shall determine the propriety of attendance at the
hearing of persons not having a direct interest in the hearing.
b. The panel may at the beginiing of the hearing ask for statements
clarifying the issue involved.
C. Exhibits, when offered, may be marked and made part of the record.
d. The grievant and Department Head, or their representative, shall
then present their claim and proofs and witnesses who shall submit
to questions or other examination. The panel may, at its discretion,
C"
All time period listed in this procedure may be extended by mutual agreement
of the grievant and the County Administrator. However, the employee's failure to
process a grievance within the time limits shall constitute termination of the
grievance.
Nothing in this procedure is intended to circumscribe or modify the existing
right of the local government to do the following, provided, however, that none of
these rights may be exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner:
a. D
k. Direct the work of its employees;
b. Hire, promote, transfer, assign and retain employees in
positions within the agency;
C. Demote or dismiss employees for proper cause;
d. Maintain the efficiency of governmental operations;
e. Relieve employees from duties because of lack of work or
for other legitimate reasons;
f. Take actions as may be necessary to carry out the duties of
the agency in emergencies; and
g. Determine the methods, means and personnel by which operations
are to be carried on.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
The Board recessed for thirty minutes
The meeting was reconvened at 8:00 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - HEALTH DEPARTMENT COMPLAINTS
Mr. Sandy stated that this public hearing was being held in order to receive and
' answer specific complaints from citizens of Frederick County against the Frederick County
Health Department.
Mr. Sandy introduced Dr. Hatfield, Director of the Health Department.
Dr. Hatfield stated that he felt the procedure set forth by the Board to
review each complaint was satisfactory. He then introduced Mr. Roy Williams, Administrative
Supervisor for the Lord Fairfax Health District.
Mr. Williams introduced Mr. Bernard Shutt, Regional Sanitarian, Dr. A. F. Scheele,
Regional Director, Mr. William Myer, VIP Soil Scientist, Mr. Herbert Sluder, Sanitarian,
Mr. Robert Whitman, Sanitarian, and Mr. Ed Musick, Sanitarian.
Dr. Hatfield stated that the Health Department wanted to resolve these problems
without rancor or recrimination and he felt the meeting held the previous week had been
a -good beginning. He stated that the article in the Winchester Evening Star was shocking
to him and quoted a portion of the article which stated that the Health Department had
I
vary this procedure but shall afford full and equal
opportunity to all parties and witnesses for presentation
of any material or relevant proofs.
e.
The parties may offer evidence and shall produce such
additional evidence as the panel may deem necessary to an under-
standing and determination of the dispute. The panel shall be
the judge of relevancy and materiality of the evidence offered.
All evidence shall be taken in the presence of the panel and
'
of the parties.
f.
The majority decision of the panel shall be final in all its
determinations.
, -g.
Failure to comply with a panel decision, or reprisals taken as
a result of a panel decision shall be grievable.
The
Panel Chairman shall specifically inquire of all parties whether
they have
'
any further
proofs to offer or witnesses to be heard. Upon receiving negative
replies,
the Chairman shall declare the hearing closed.
The
hearings may be reopened by the panel on its own motion or upon
application of
a party for
good cause shown at any time before the award it made.
The
decision shall be filed in writing by the Panel Chairman with the
County
Administrator, the Department Head, and the employee not later than fifteen
(15) full
working days after the completion of the hearing.
All time period listed in this procedure may be extended by mutual agreement
of the grievant and the County Administrator. However, the employee's failure to
process a grievance within the time limits shall constitute termination of the
grievance.
Nothing in this procedure is intended to circumscribe or modify the existing
right of the local government to do the following, provided, however, that none of
these rights may be exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner:
a. D
k. Direct the work of its employees;
b. Hire, promote, transfer, assign and retain employees in
positions within the agency;
C. Demote or dismiss employees for proper cause;
d. Maintain the efficiency of governmental operations;
e. Relieve employees from duties because of lack of work or
for other legitimate reasons;
f. Take actions as may be necessary to carry out the duties of
the agency in emergencies; and
g. Determine the methods, means and personnel by which operations
are to be carried on.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
The Board recessed for thirty minutes
The meeting was reconvened at 8:00 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - HEALTH DEPARTMENT COMPLAINTS
Mr. Sandy stated that this public hearing was being held in order to receive and
' answer specific complaints from citizens of Frederick County against the Frederick County
Health Department.
Mr. Sandy introduced Dr. Hatfield, Director of the Health Department.
Dr. Hatfield stated that he felt the procedure set forth by the Board to
review each complaint was satisfactory. He then introduced Mr. Roy Williams, Administrative
Supervisor for the Lord Fairfax Health District.
Mr. Williams introduced Mr. Bernard Shutt, Regional Sanitarian, Dr. A. F. Scheele,
Regional Director, Mr. William Myer, VIP Soil Scientist, Mr. Herbert Sluder, Sanitarian,
Mr. Robert Whitman, Sanitarian, and Mr. Ed Musick, Sanitarian.
Dr. Hatfield stated that the Health Department wanted to resolve these problems
without rancor or recrimination and he felt the meeting held the previous week had been
a -good beginning. He stated that the article in the Winchester Evening Star was shocking
to him and quoted a portion of the article which stated that the Health Department had
I
M
been under investigation for the past several months. He further stated that the Health
Department had been acquainted with the fact for several months that a member of the
Health Department had been under criminal investigation. He stated that in talking
with Mr. Sandy, after the Board resolution calling for an investigation of the Health
Department on a state level was passed, he was advised that the Board passed the resolution
with a sense of urgency because the Health Department was under investigation by the State
Police Department.
Dr. Hatfield stated that the State Police Department had been contacted and they
advised that the Frederick County Health Department has never been investigated and this
was not within their province but was in the province of the State Health Commissioner. He
further stated that apparently Mr. Richard F. Madigan had turned over a letter from a Mr.
Boyd of Washington who said he was turned down for a sewage permit for some property in
Frederick County and he was upset about this because some of his neighbors had received
permits. He stated that the Health Department in- Richmond received over 100,000 complaints
like this in the last fiscal year and no complaint was turned over to the Police Department
for investigation in the suspicion that there might be some criminal activity involved.
Dr. Hatfield stated that because this matter had become a public issue, the image
of the Health Department had been shattered. He further stated that the State Police Depart-
ment did investigate the.complaint Mr. Madigan sent them and a spokesman for the State
Police said that this was investigated exhaustively and nothing was found in their
investigation that :justified the request for the police department to act on a criminal
offense and the person investigated was exonerated one hundred percent and the case closed.
Dr. Hatfield stated that the Health Department was trying to serve the County as best they
could within the realm of the law for sub - surface sewage disposal. He stated that if the
Health Department could be shown where they were in error in judgment, they would be happy
to admit the error and issue a permit.
Mr. Madigan asked Dr. Hatfield if he could document in writing the validity of his
statement concerning the state police investigation.
Dr. Hatfield stated he did not have it in writing but could get it if this was
requested.
Mr. Shutt described briefly the duties of the sanitarian in evaluating a piece of
property for a sewage system. He stated that the perk test was only one tool of the
sanitarian which he might use in making an evaluation.
Dr. Hatfield stated that the perk test was primarily an aid to the sanitarian
in designing the sewage system for a piece of marginal land and not whether or not this piece
of land will be passed or rejected.
Dr. Hatfield stated that of the 100,000 complaints received by the State Health
Department in Richmond, Frederick County should have somewhere around 550 plus complaints
and at this time there are only 24 complaints to be heard. He stated that since the soils
in Frederick County are very poor and in light of fact that all the good soils are being
in orchards, he felt this small number of complaints was amazing.
The complaints from the Back Creek District were reviewed first. Dr. Hatfield stated
t Mr. Sluder was the sanitarian in this district and the Health Department held him in deep
spect.
The first complaint was from Mr. J.C. Bayliss stating that the owner wanted to put in
new lines and perhaps a new box to hook onto, but the Health Department wants the owner
0
put in a pump and let the efflent drain through his yard into a septic tank. The
97
admits that his septic tank does overflow in wet weather but does not "cause serious
problems and'no- ever complained. " The ' owrner -w"as -told that a pump would '
have-to,bs installed within thirty days�and was threatened with a subpeona'i£ the work
was.not done•. The owner -was offended by the threatening attitude displayed by
the sanitarian.- e
Mr.- Bayliss appeared and affirmed that this was his complaint.
Mr. Madigan stated that he had inspected Mr. Bayliss property personally. He
asked how the sanitarian could determine that the land would perk better in another
location than it did in the present one when no perk test nor soil evaluation was taken.
He further stated that he did not feel Mr. Bayliss should have been threatened with a
subpoena.
Dr. Hatfield stated that the Lord made the soil and the Legislature passed the
0
law and the Health Department must adhere to this law even in sad circumstances such as this.
He stated that the Health Department did not like to turn down any citizen,
especially one the age of Mr. Bayliss.
Mr. Sluder, the sanitarian who had inspected the property, stated that he had
received a complaint from a person who had identified himself as a member of a Fire Company
near the Bayliss property. He stated that he and Mr. Milar had inspected the property and
it was obvious there was sewage on top of the ground. He further stated that the area where
Mr. Bayliss' system is located is a low area where water collects. Mr. Sluder.said that
he advised Mr. Bayliss that he would have to make extensive repairs and would have to locate
the system on the hill for better drainage. When Mr. Bayliss had made no repairs within
three or four months, Mr. Sluder stated he had sent him -a certified letter advising him
he must make these repairs or legal action would have to be taken.
Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Sluder how he could tell this land would perk.
Mr. Shutt stated that apparently, upon visual inspection, there was obviously
a failing system.
Mr. Bayliss asked if he could repair the system where it is now located and
Dr. Hatfield stated that there was not room for expansion because the system was failing..
Mr. Myer stated that apparently the drain field was in a low area and the
addition of lines was a waste of money. He stated that this would work for a short
period of time but would eventually fail.
Dr. Hatfield stated that the Health Department would call in Mr. Shutt and
Mr. Myer to review Mr. Bayliss' problem.
Mr. Sandy stated that all the problems could not be resolved tonight and the
purpose of this meeting was to let the people know that their complaints are being received
and that there is a course of appeal open to them when they receive a rejection from the
Health Department.
Mr. Sandy stated that the next complaint was from Mrs. Estella Dyke in Back
District wherein her lot had been rejected and other adjoining lots had been
. He stated that there were a number of complaints of this type.
-Mr. Sandy stated that the next complaint was from Jack E. Hoover in Shawneeland.
read the complaint stating that the lot had been passed in 1969 with water running
hout and since that time a culvert and driveway had been constructed to divert the
ter to a stream. He said that the lot was rejected in 1973 and another source stated
that there was no reason the lot should have been rejected.
T 0
Mr. Sluder stated that a permit had been issued on this lot in 1969. He further
stated that the lot lies in a drainage area and the day he visited the lot there were pools
of water laying throughout the property. He said that on this basis he had no choice but to
reject the lot.
area
Mr. Sandy presented the complaint of Larry and Shirley McIlwee in the Star Tannery
Mrs. McIlwee appeared before the Board and stated that her property had been
rejected by Mr. Sluder who advised her that the lot would not perk. She stated that Mr.
Sluder'was not courteous to her. She further stated that she had subsequently had another
party run perk tests on her property and was advised that it would perk. She presented
the report on the perk test and stated that Mr. Sluder had told her if she could find
something that would perk to let him know.
Dr. Hatfield stated that the Health Department would review this complaint and that
perk tests were not a definitive measure in soil evaluation. He further stated that the
Health Department would like to have a soil scientist here in Frederick County to assist
in soil evaluations.
Mr. Madigan asked Dr. Hatfield how the Health Department would feel if the County
employed a professional soil scientist and would they override the decisions he might make.
Dr. Hatfield stated that the Health Department would be over joyed to have a
professional soil scientist in Frederick County and that the Health Department would override
his decision if the circumstances warrantedi-it.
Dr. Hatfield stated that the Health Department had requested funds in their biennium
budget to employ a soil scientist but the Board had turned this down.
Mr. Madigan asked Dr: Hatfield if there was a soil scientist in the County by the
name of Mr. Kain and Dr. Hatfield stated that this was correct and that Mr. Kain was very
qualified.
Mr. Sandy presented the complaint of William S. Stickley. The complaint stated
that he was concerned about the Health Department disapproving large tracts of mountain land;
that he was in agreement with the concept of rotating the sanitarians and felt that more
should be hired so that a more careful examination of the large tracts of land could be
made.
Mr. Myer stated that when the people began moving to the suburbs and they went to
septic systems, this'put a burden on the land. He stated that they are asked to review not
only individual lots but also subdivisions and many people assume that each lot will be
reviewed. He further stated that a developer has to have at least 80% of the lots
suitable in a subdivision to break even and when the property is found to have 20% of the lots
unsuitable, the developer is so advised.
Dr. Hatfield stated that each lot is reviewed in Fairfax County but that they
have 60+ sanitarians working there. He stated that he had been advised in Richmond that
the Health Department must go onto the property and eyeball it.and test it and if it did not
appear that generally an adequate percentage of the lots could be approved in the future,
the subdivision should be rejected.
Dr. Hatfield further stated that the Health Department will be coming out with a
fee schedule and if the fee is approximately $25.00, at the rate of 900 permits a yeas,
this would produce sufficient funds to employ additional sanitarians.
He stated that the Health Department had urged developers to come in and have the
property tested before they purchased it.
":- - .
1.
LI
Dr. Hatfield stated that the sanitarians are instructed that the first
consideration is to the people and that they would not object to the citizenry going to
a supervisor if they felt they had been treated unfairly.
Mr. Sandy presented the complaint of Irving.Weiss which stated that his lot had
rejected and other adjoining lots had been approved. Mr. Weiss was not present.
Mr. Sandy presented the complaint of Anna Jane and William Wolfe which had been
because of a high water table.
Dr. Hatfield stated that when a water table problem exists the property must be
1,. . •
jected.
Mr. Sandy presented the complaint of Mr. O'Rear. Mr. O'Rear appeared before
Board and stated that he was a real estate salesman and had sold several lots in
which had been turned down. He stated that one lot in particular had houses
both sides of it and had systems which had been functioning for approximately six years.
stated that some of his clients had purchased the lots thinking they were worth
e to four thousand dollars and now they are practically worthless.
. : 1,.: -I
Mr. O'Rear stated that until a year ago almost any lot could be approved
Dr. Hatfield stated that Shawneeland consisted of approximately 10,000 acres
land and during the past year the Health Department has turned down approsimately
500,000 worth of lots, however if the soil was not suitable within the realm of the law,
t must be rejected. He further stated that because two lots adjoin each other, this
Dr. Hatfield invited Mr. 0.'Rear to come into the Health Department to discuss
is problem and perhaps arrange a review of his property.
Mr. Madigan stated that he had received a complaint wherein a sanitarian had said
would not drill any more perk holes in Mount Falls Park or Shawneeland. He asked Dr.
tfield to comment on this.
Dr. Hatfield stated that the Health Department just did not have enough time
evaluate every lot in a recreational subdivision
a soil scientist to do these tests.
Shawneeland with no perk test.
s not make both suitable because of the nature of the soil.
.
He stated that the subdivision should
Mr. Sandy presented the complaint of Christoper R. Watt wherein the complaintant
stated that the attitude of the sanitarian was poor and he could not get definite answers
to his questions as to why his property was rejected.
Mr. Sluder stated that he had inspected the Watt property and-it would not perk.
He stated that when he advised Mr. Watt of his findings Mr. Watt contacted Mr. Milar who
'
subsequently concurred with Mr. Sluder's findings. He further stated that Mr. Milar
suggested that Mr. Watt try the property north of the piece he preferred to build on, but
Mr. Watt insisted on that particular piece of property.
Mr. Watt stated that he felt he was getting very little cooperation from the
'
Health Department as he had been awaiting approval of this lot "for three weeks. Dr. Hatfield
stated that the Health Department is doing the very best they can, but they are very
understaffed.
Mr. Madigan stated that if the Health Department could not meet the schedules of
two or three weeks, could they at least improve the attitudes of the sanitarians and would
the sanitarians have any objections to the citizens going to a supervisor if he feels
he has not been treated fairly.
Dr. Hatfield stated that the sanitarians are instructed that the first
consideration is to the people and that they would not object to the citizenry going to
a supervisor if they felt they had been treated unfairly.
Mr. Sandy presented the complaint of Irving.Weiss which stated that his lot had
rejected and other adjoining lots had been approved. Mr. Weiss was not present.
Mr. Sandy presented the complaint of Anna Jane and William Wolfe which had been
because of a high water table.
Dr. Hatfield stated that when a water table problem exists the property must be
1,. . •
jected.
Mr. Sandy presented the complaint of Mr. O'Rear. Mr. O'Rear appeared before
Board and stated that he was a real estate salesman and had sold several lots in
which had been turned down. He stated that one lot in particular had houses
both sides of it and had systems which had been functioning for approximately six years.
stated that some of his clients had purchased the lots thinking they were worth
e to four thousand dollars and now they are practically worthless.
. : 1,.: -I
Mr. O'Rear stated that until a year ago almost any lot could be approved
Dr. Hatfield stated that Shawneeland consisted of approximately 10,000 acres
land and during the past year the Health Department has turned down approsimately
500,000 worth of lots, however if the soil was not suitable within the realm of the law,
t must be rejected. He further stated that because two lots adjoin each other, this
Dr. Hatfield invited Mr. 0.'Rear to come into the Health Department to discuss
is problem and perhaps arrange a review of his property.
Mr. Madigan stated that he had received a complaint wherein a sanitarian had said
would not drill any more perk holes in Mount Falls Park or Shawneeland. He asked Dr.
tfield to comment on this.
Dr. Hatfield stated that the Health Department just did not have enough time
evaluate every lot in a recreational subdivision
a soil scientist to do these tests.
Shawneeland with no perk test.
s not make both suitable because of the nature of the soil.
.
He stated that the subdivision should
O. , ,
Mr. Myer stated that the land in an area like this has a lot of rock and it is virtual:
impossible to drill holes in some of the land.
Mr. Myer described the problems involved in trying to find suitable land in which to
install a drain field in mountain land.
Mr. Myer further stated that the Health Department tried to locate drain fields- , iihere_
the water would drain and dry and not travel and contaminate the water supply.
Dr. Hatfield stressed that the Health Department does the best it can for the citizen
but they are compelled to obey the law.
Mr. Hedrick appeared before the Board and stated that Lot 14, Section 1 in Shawneeland
had a 600 gallon tank and 300 feet of system and was installed eight years ago. He stated
that this system had been used by three adults and 5 children with no problem. He stated
that now the requirement was a minimum tank of 1,000 gallons and 900 feet of system. He cited
an incident where a three bedroom house trailer was being installed and the requirement was
for 1,500 feet of field. He stated that he had had septic systems approved and some disapprovec
by the Health Department but had always had the utmost cooperation, and they had always helped
him work his problems out. He stated that he felt that sometimes the strict interpretation
of the law caused injustice to the people.
Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Hedrick what he meant by being able to work out his problems
with the Health Department and Mr. Hedrick stated that the Health Department had spent hours
explaining the problem to him and helped him to find a suitable solution to it.
Mr. Earl Armel appeared before the Board and stated that he had worked with the Health
Department over the years and some of their decisions were very good and some were very poor.
He stated that he had put in many drain fields over the past twenty years and he had been
turned down on land that he felt most certainly would perk. He stated that he had drilled
holes on one tract of land and the holes filled up with water and he was issued a permit. He
cited another instance where a piece of property was tested and it did not work very well
but the sanitarian told him to go ahead and put in the drainfields and the permit would
be issued at a later time. Subsequently the permits were issued. He cited another
incident where application was made for a septic system on a eight acre tract and was
refused. He stated that subsequently this property was sold and another sanitarian came
out drilled fourteen inch holes, performed the perk test and approved the property and issued
the permit.
i
Dr. Hatfield stated that the Health Department had the responsibility of evaluating
the soil and that there could be differences of opinion but he felt the Health Department
had the expertise to carry out this responsibility.
Mr. Myer stated that you could not always look at soils and evaluate them and he
further stated that if rates were the only problem, the perk test would be valid.
Mr. Shutt stated that he had examined Mr. Armel's property and he had a very shallow
soil and the Health Department had suggested that Mr. Armel move to an area where there was a
slope. He further stated that the Health Department did not deny Mr. Armel a permit but
advised him to go to another area and if he found anything suitable they would come back
and check it.
J Dr. Hatfield requested that only specific complaints be discussed tonight as set
forth by the Board.
Dr. Scheele stated that a fifty acre tract could be developed into a large subdivision
and the Health Department was also thinking of the consumer that might purchase a home in this
u
subdivision and they must consider what the consequences might be.
101
Mr. Madigan asked if Dr. Hatfield would have any objection if he appeared with
Mr. Armel at the Health Department office and Dr. Hatfield stated that this would be most
acceptable to him.
Mr. Sandy stated that there seemed to be some conflict of personalities coming
forth from the complaints heard during this meeting. He asked about a specific case where
' a drain field was turned down by the Health Department and the property was subsequently
approved by people qualified to perform the perk test.
Dr. Hatfield stated that the Health Department encouraged the citizens to avail
themselves of this type service for consultation or advice when a problem arose. He stated
' that if the Health Department decision.was in conflict with the results of the test performed
by another agency, the citizen could appeal this decision.
Mr. Myer suggested that an appeal be held here at the Health Department before it
is taken to Richmond because many times the problem is a lack of communication.
Dr. Hatfield requested the Board to meet at a later time with the Health
Department so that Mr. Myer could present a program of slides on soil evaluation.
Mr. Sandy stated that all the complaints received would be answered. He
presented the following list of complaints:
Gainesboro District: Stephen R. Feltner, Valerie S. Morgan, Guy Owens.
Opequon District: Clarence R. Bradfield, Orville L. Comer, Orville L. Comer
Excavating, Verna C. Burcham, A. R. Magnum, Robert F. Martin, Douglas M. Renner,
William Ludwick, Jr., Wilbur A. Moffett, Garland and Gladys Peck, and Loma and Marie
� Whitacre.
I
Stonewall District: Russell Swimley and Nathan Kave.
Mr. Sandy stated that the above complaints would be reviewed by a committee
of the Board and the Health Department and the citizens would be given a plan to
follow if an appeal was necessary.
Dr. stated that he would like to know whether or not the Board would
like him to file a complaint against the Winchester Sewer Plant in reference to the odor
in the Senseny Road Area.
Mr. Madigan asked who states the case for the State at the Court of appeals and
how is it handled.
Dr. Hatfield stated that this procedure was set forth in the manual discussed at
the previous meeting and that this manual was available to the public.
Dr. Scheele stated that any citizen could appeal his case to the State Health
' Commissioner. He urged that the appeals be heard first in the local Health Department
before going to Richmond.
Mr. Madigan stated that he was concerned about the attitude of the sanitarians
in the Health Department toward the people and that he felt everyone should be treated
' the same.' '
Dr. Hatfield stated that he felt the Health Department had made it quite clear
that this was also their desire. He further stated that the Health Department had made
a tentative review of the request by the Board to rotate the sanitarians and as far as
he could see this would be permissable and perhaps would help with the various problems
encountered by the citizens. He urged the citizens to call him personally if they
experienced any 'difficulty with the sanitarians.
Mr. Hohensee urged the Board to set forth regulations in the county wherein lots
would have to be approved for septic systems before they are sold. He stated that this
102
would solve most of the problems now occurring in the County.
Dr. Hatfield stated that the Health Department had recommended in the newspaper to the
people that they come to the Health Department for approval of the property before they pur-
1
chase it.
A lady in the audience asked what degrees the Health Department had to back up their
statements and how many cases of appeal had been won by the public.
Each member of the Health Department panel introduced himself and gave his educational
background and experience.
A lady in the audience stated that she had heard a lot of promises and she wanted
the Board to know that she had lived in Frederick Heights for the past eight years and had
been around and around with the Health Department with reference to the sewage problem in
this area. She stated that a member on the Health Department Board had purchased property
in the area with sewage floating on top of the ground and had subsequently rented it and then
sold it. She stated that she had a child and he could not go out to play because of the
sewage on the ground. She wanted to know what was going to be done about this situation.
Mr. Madigan stated that during the rest of his term he would be working very closely
with the Health Department to find an equitable solution to this problem and other problems
in the County.
Dr. Hatfield stated that this is a very unhappy situation and hopefully this area
would have central water and sewer in the near future.
A gentleman stated that a piece of property on the Paper Mill Road had been turned
and he accepted this decision. He asked why open dumping was allowed.
Dr. Hatfield stated that septic tanks should be emptied periodically and this
should be inspected by the sanitarians periodically.
Mr. Williams stated that the Health Department is working on a solution to this
lem at the present time.
Dr. Scheele stated that this problem existed throughout the United States. He stated
t he had requested the State Health Department authorities and the sanitary engineers to
a written statement as to how this material should be disposed of and they are working
n such a statement now. He described some of the methods of disposal being discussed.
..
A gentleman in the audience appeared before the Board and presented a permit on
piece of property in Shawneeland issued in 1960 and asked if this would still be valid.
Dr. Hatfield stated that this permit was 13 years old and would have to be looked at
ry carefully. He requested the gentleman to send him a copy of the permit and it would
checked again. He stated that a permit over one year old is outdated.
Mr. Don Lamborne appeared before the Board and stated that Shawneeland had made every
t to cooperate with the Health Department. He stated that he was aware that the Health
tment was understaffed and they wanted to help remedy the situation. He offered equipment
Shawneeland to assist the Health Department in digging holes for perk tests. Mr. Lamborne
tated that he had talked with two soil scientists about making tests for Shawneeland and when
y found out they might be in conflict with the Health Department, they both backed out.
Dr. Hatfield stated that he felt this was because they were aware of the consistency
the Health Department. Mr. Lamborne questioned soil evaluation by feeling the soil stating
that if a sanitarian had a callous on his hand this might make some difference in his decision.
He further questioned whether or not color blindness could affect a sanitarian's decision.
Mr. Myer stated that he did not feel these circumstances would create problems.
Mr. Lamborne stated that he had had tests run on eight lots in Shawneeland and the
103
tests showed that only two of the lots should have been turned down.
Dr. Hatfield stated that the Health Department was willing to cooperate to the
fullest extent with other opinions. He further stated he felt the answer to all
the problems would be central water and sewer in Frederick County.
Mr. Lamborne stated that he agreed with this concept and felt this should be given
consideration in.the new proposed - zoning ordinance.
Dr. Hatfield stated that he felt the Planning Commission was doing a great job
and he had read the proposed zoning ordinance and thought it was very good.
Dr. Hatfield stated that he was in sympathy with Mr. Lamborne's problems in
Shawneeland and the Health Department would cooperate with him to help solve these problems.
Mr. Sandy asked if there was any one else who wanted to speak. There was not.
UPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
DO NOW ADJOURN.
Se6retary, Board of Supervisors
At the Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia held on the 10th day of October, 1973, in the Board of Supervisors 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,
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Cole stated that on Page 25 concerning the Chamber of Commerce appropriation,
the words "Frederick County Health Department" should be changed to read the "Frederick
County Chamber of Commerce ". The Board agreed to this correction.
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 does
herein approve the minutes of the meeting of this Board held on the 12th day of September,
1973, as corrected.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
ROAD ABANDONMENT - PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD
J
Mr. Largent appeared before the Board in support of this request for road
abandonment representing The Flintkote Company. He stated that Flintkote Company
proposed to relocate a portion of Rt. 648 because they owned property on both sides of
the road and plan to quarry on both sides.
Mr. Cole stated that he felt that since part of the road was in Stephens
City, the Board should hear their comments before taking any action.
Mr. Madigan stated that he knew that several citizens in the area are opposed
to this request.
Mr. Madigan asked if the company planned to quarry north of Rt. 648 and Mr.
0
Giannini, representing Flintkote Company, stated that they had no plans to quarry, mine,
or carry on any other activity in this area.
Mr. Madigan stated that he understood that the company had been seeking options
On other land north of 648 and the citizens were concerned that the mining operations would
spread.
104
Mr. Giannini stated that the company owned approximately 44 acres north of 648
which they had purchased as a buffer zone between their operation and any other landowner.
He stated that they planned to continue their operation to the south and the west and would be
completely finished in within 5 to 8 years.
Mr. Largent stated that he did not think the objection was material to this
application for abandonment.
'
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 does
herein direct that the request of Flintkote Company to abandon a portion of Rt. 648 be duly
advertised and a public hearing held on said request at the meeting of the Board of
,
Supervisors on November 14, 1973.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
WATER AND SEWER PERMIT - COUNTRY CLUB APARTMENTS - WITHDRAWN
Mr. Sandy stated that the request for water and sewer permit for Country Club
Apartments had been withdrawn prior to the meeting by the applicant. He stated that this
application would be heard at the November 14th meeting of the Board.
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy read a request from the Sheriff's Department for a supplemental
appropriation to cover the cost of moving confiscated vehicles to the school bus maintenance
shop for storage.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors o
herein approve a supplemental appropriation in the amount
Sheriff's Department for the purpose of moving twenty two
cost of $6.00 per vehicle, to the Frederick County School
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
by J. Robert Russell,
E the County of Frederick does ,
of $132.00 to the Frederick County
(22) confiscated vehicles, at a
Bus Maintenance Shop for storage.
FREDERICK COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
REQUEST APPEARANCE TO DISCUSS NEW HIGH SCHOOL
MEETING DATE SET
Mr. Sandy stated that the School Board had requested a joint meeting with the
Board to discuss the feasibility of a new high school.
The date of Tuesday, October 16, 1973, was set for this meeting.'
PARENTS CONCERN FOR SAFE BUSING
Mr. Sandy stated that the Board had received a request from a group of concerned
parents to appear before the Board to advise them of certain grievances they had against '
the Frederick County School Board.
Mrs. Gary Pierce appeared before the Board and'stated that several parents in the
County were concerned with the safety of busing in the County. She stated that the parents
were seeking better training for the drivers and also that they be required to have a first ,
aid course. She stated that the parents were also requesting school bus aides for the buses
in order that discipline could be maintained.
Mr. Madigan asked Mrs. Pierce if these things had been discussed with Dr. Wright
and the School Board and Mrs. Pierce stated that they had been briefly discussed at the
last School Board meeting and it appeared that the School Board would not take any
affirmative action on these requests.
Mr. Madigan asked if Dr. Wright had knowledge of this complaint coming the
Board and Mr. Renalds stated that he did.
105
Mr. Sandy asked Mrs. Pierce if she had any specific request to make of the Board
and she stated that she would like to have the Board of Supervisors recommend to the School
Board that these things be considered very thoroughly.
Mr. Sandy stated that the Board had only financial control over the School Board
L�
and that he felt the problem was that the School Board needed to be more responsive to the
people.
ROUND HILL P. T. A. REQUEST
Mr. Sandy read a request from the Round Hill P.T.A. for a full time secretary
at the Round Hill School in order that the principal, Mr. Wallace, could assume his duties.
Mrs. Louise Dick appeared before the Board and stated that the P.T.A. felt that
a full time secretary was needed at the school in order that Mr. Wallace could perform
his duties as principal. She stated at the present time Mr. Wallace is called out of his
class to attend to other duties and often has to leave his class unattended._ She further
stated that the P.T.A. felt a full time secretary could also assist the other teachers
in the school. -
Mr. Sandy thanked her for bringing this matter to the attention of the Board.
He stated that the.Board has no way of knowing of these things unless the people advise
them of the problems.
SCHOOL BOARD REQUEST TO ORDER SCHOOL BUSES - APPROVED
Mr. Madigan presented the request of the School Board to order school buses
for the 1974 -75 school year now. He stated that the Finance Committee recommended that
this request be 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 does
herein approve the request of the Frederick County School Board to place an order for
six (6) school buses for the 1974 -75 school term as soon as possible.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
Mr. Renalds stated that there was an additional bill of $29.00 for precinct
rosters for the Circuit Court Clerk to be included in the total amount.
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 does
a
herein approve and order the bills for the month of September, 1973, be paid from the
General Fund in the amount of $56,192.02 by Warrants #04164 through #04357.
APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
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
does herein approve the payroll for the month of September, 1973, in the amount of
$43,823.16 and does herein direct that this payroll be paid from the General Fund by
Warrants #04084 through #04163.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE - FIRST AND SECOND READING
Mr. Golladay stated that he had no comments to make at this time.
Mr. Cole stated that he felt the Board and the Planning Commission had agreed to
change the lot size to 40,000 square feet with 120 foot frontage in the A -1 and A -2 categor
Mr. Renalds stated that this was discussed but that no official action was taken
on it.
.. 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 does hereir
adopt on first and second reading the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
DOG WARDEN - REPORT
Mr. Whitacre appeared before the Board and presented his monthly report.
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 does
herein approve the claim for livestock kill of Bryan Richards and does order that this claim
be paid as follows:
3 ewes at $12.00 per head (assessed value) -
The above resolution-was passed unanimously.
Mr. Whitacre stated that the livestock claim presented by Fred Crane appeared
to be a bear kill.
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 does
herein deny the livestock claim of Fred Crane for seven lambs killed on September 21 and
22, 1973, inasmuch as this was a bear kill and predator kills are not paid.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Mr. Whitacre reported that Mr. King had advised him that the road to the Dog Pound
could not be constructed until next spring and the cost would be approximately $17,000.
Mr. Childs of the Highway Department appeared before the Board and stated that the
Highway Department could not start on this road until spring and he suggested that the County
contact a local contractor with regard to this work.
APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board agreed to invite the Councils of Stephens City and Middletown to appoint
a member to represent them on the Frederick County Planning Commission.
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 does
herein appoint Mr. Langdon Gordon of Delmar Bayliss Real Estate Agency, to serve as a member
at large on the Frederick County Planning Commission, said appointment effective Nov. 1, 1973.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Mr. Golladay stated that he felt the Planning Commission should have someone who
represents industry to serve on the Commission.
The Board agreed to consider appointing a member with industrial background to
the Planning Commission within approximately one to two months.
APPOINTMENT TO HIGHWAY SAFETY COMMISSION
Upon motion made by J. Robert Russell and seconded by Dennis T. Cole,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein appoint Colonel Allen Myers to serve as a member of the Frederick County Highway
Safety Commission.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Mr. Renalds advised the Board of the various appointments necessary to this
Commission in order to receive state funds.
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 does
herein appoint Board Member Dennis T. Cole to serve as a member on the Frederick
1
County Highway Safety Commission
107
Highway Safety Commission.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION - HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL - APPROVED
Mr. Renalds stated that this resolution would create a Health Planning Council
through the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission. He stated that most of the
jurisdictions within the Lord Fairfax Planning District had adopted the resolution.
Mr. Madigan read the resolution in full.
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, Virginia,
I I that:
HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL - RESOLUTION
that; BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia,
WHEREAS, The Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission, encompassing the counties
of Clarke, Frederick, Page, Shenandoah, and Warren, the Towns of Front Royal and Luray and
the City of Winchester, is authorized under Section 15.1 -1403 of the Code of Virginia as
the Commonwealth's public comprehensive area -wide planning agency; and,
WHEREAS, The Region VII Health Planning Council is a component part of the
Comprehensive Health.Planning Division of the Commonwealth of Virginia as provided by
Public Law 89 -749, known as the Comprehensive Health Planning and Public Health Services
Amendments of 1966 and approved by the subdivision of Region VII; and,
WHEREAS, The Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission and the Region VII Health
Planning Council of Virginia are both concerned with health planning; and,
WHEREAS, The Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission and the
Region VII Health Planning Council of Virginia wish to cooperate and coordinate their
efforts to avoid duplication of manpower and expense in the health planning functions
for Region VII;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Region VII Health Planning Council of
' Virginia will become a technical committee within the structure of the Lord Fairfax
Planning District Commission; such committee will be governed as outlined below; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Commissioners of the Lord Fairfax
Planning District delegate to the Comprehensive Health Planning Committee:
1. Responsibility and authority for health planning, its
structure to be in a manner acceptable to the Department
of Health, Education and Welfare and as granted by the
Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission; and
2. Authority to select a health planning director and recommend
his appointment to the Lord Fairfax Planning District
Commission, subject to final approval by the Lord Fairfax
Planning District Commission and with the stipulation that
the health planning director shall be an employee of the Lord
Fairfax Planning District Commission who will work with the
Health Planning Committee for the conduct of health planning
programs; and
3. Authority to originate recommendations concerning matters of
personnel, staffing, budget and operating costs for comprehen-
sive health planning with the stipulation that concurrence of
the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission is necessary to
insure general conformity with overall Lord Fairfax Planning
'
Commission policies and Bylaws; and
4. Responsibility for making recommendations on proposed
health facilities, services and related matters with
such recommendations to be forwarded to the Lord Fairfax
Planning District Commission for appropriate action. The
findings and recommendations of the Committee on Health
Planning will be forwarded along with those of the Lord
Fairfax Planning District Commission to the appropriate
'
agency; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Health Planning Committee will prepare Bylaws
consistent with this resolution with such Bylaws to be approved by the Lord Fairfax Planning
District Commission; and adhered to by the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That either the Health Planning Committee or the Lord.
Fairfax Planning District Commission will have the right on its own initiative to terminate
this agreement by simply giving six months' written notice to the other party the decision
to .terminate this agreement; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That any matters of disagreement between the Health
Planning Committee and the Commission will be referred to the Executive Committee of the
Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission for consideration and recommendation to the entire
Commission, except that recommendations on proposed health facilities, services and related
matters will not be subject to this paragraph as to disagreement and subsequent referral as oui
lined in this paragraph. When a disagreement occurs and the matter is to be considered by the
Board of Commissioners, a member (s) o£.the technical committee on health will be asked to
represent the committee on health in the deliberations.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION TO VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
TO BE PRESENTED TO GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Mr. Cole stated that this resolution was being presented in order that the County
of Frederick might have two supervisors per district and the Chairman could be elected from
the County at large, thereby creating an eleven member board. He described the method of
election stating that the Board would serve on staggered terms. He further stated that he
felt this method would give the County better government.
Mr. Sandy stated that he would like to see this issue brought before the people
by referendum.
Mr. Russell stated that he also thought this should be done on local option with
the people deciding whether-or not they wanted this type of government.
Mr. Madigan stated that he also felt the people in the County should have a
definite voice in the type of representation they want.
Mr. Hodgson stated that he would like to have the resolution sent to the Virginia
Association of Counties and then come back before the people for their decision.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole, and seconded by Richard F. Madigan,
BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia,
that the following method of election for a Board of Supervisors Chairman be hereby
endorsed by this Board and recommended to the Virginia Association of Counties for inclusion
in the Association's Legislative Program for the 1974 Session of the Virginia General Assembl,
There may be chosen by the qualified voters from a County at large, a supervisor
who shall serve as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors.
The selection of this method of election of a Chairman shall be a local option
and determined by a County -wide referendum.
By recorded vote with Dennis T. Cole, J. Robert Russell, and Donald R. Hodgson
voting "Aye" and Raymond C. Sandy and Richard F. Madigan voting "Nay" the above resolution
was passed.
APPOINTMENT - BOARD MEMBER TO SERVE AS
LIAISON MEMBER TO HEALTH DEPARTMENT
TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT
Mr. Sandy stated that the Health Department had requested that a member of the
Board of Supervisors be appointed to serve as -a liaison member to the Health Department.
There was discussion as to whether the Board desired to appoint one member to
serve in this capacity or direct the Committee on Human Resources to serve as a liaison
committee to the Health Department.
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 does
herein direct that the Committee on Human Resources take under advisement the appointment
o,f a liaison member to the Health Department and make such recommendation to the Board for
consideration.
r
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
.109
JUNK CAR ORDINANCE - APPROVED
FIRST AND SECOND READING
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 does
herein approve, on first and second reading, by title only, the following ordinance:
'
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, CHAPTER
12, ARTICLE I, SECTION 12.1, PERTAINING TO LICENSING AND CONTROL
OF INOPERATIVE AND /OR ABANDONED MOTOR VEHICLES AND THE PARKING
AND STORAGE OF MOTOR VEHICLES NOT FIT FOR HIGHWAY USE.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
TRAILER ORDINANCE - APPROVED
'
FIRST AND SECOND READING
Mr. Sandy presented the Trailer Ordinance and stated that this ordinance was
being drawn in order that people living in mobile homes in the county would be obligated
to pay their fair share of taxes. He stated that many of the people are driving
automobiles with West Virginia licenses, no county stickers, and have children in the
County Schools. He further stated that in a survey conducted last year, 13.7% of the
children in the County schools live in mobile homes.
There was discussion as to whether the tax should be a flat fee or computed
on square footage.
Mr. Renalds stated that this could be changed at the public hearing if the Board
so desired.
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 does
herein direct that the license fee in the.Trailer Ordinance be set at $50.00.
By recorded vote with Raymond C. Sandy, J. Robert Russell, Donald R. Hodgson
and Richard F. Madigan voting "Aye" and Dennis T. Cole voting "Nay" the above resolution
was passed.
Mr. Cole stated that he voted nay on this motion because some of the mobile
homes in the county are assessed as real estate and he did not think this was fair.
ORDINANCE - BURNING OF LEAVES
FIRST AND SECOND READING - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy presented the ordinance providing for the burning of leaves in
the County of Frederick.
Mr. Madigan read the ordinance in full.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by :J: Robei {t- Russell,
'
BE IT'RESOLVED, Thatsthe Board of , . Supervisors of_.lthe,-7 County- of. Frederick
Glues herein. approve., off first ( second reading, the " following ordinances
AN ORDINANCE TO 'REGULATE THE BURNING =.OF LEAVES
IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
'
FLOOD INSURANCE RESOLUTION - APPROVED
Mr. Madigan read the proposed resolution in full.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
WHEREAS; certain areas of Frederick County are subject to periodic flooding
and /or mudslides from the Opequon Creek, Cedar Creek, Red Bud Run, and other streams
causing serious damage to residential properties within these areas; and,
WHEREAS, relief is available in the form of flood insurance as authorized by the
National Flood Insurance act of 1968 as amended; and,
110
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this Board to comply with land use and management
criteria regulations as required in said act; and,
WHEREAS, it is ahsm the intent -of tt -hJ:s Board to recognize and duly evaluate flood
and /or mudslide hazards in all official actions relating to land use in the flood plain
and /or mudslide areas having special flood and /or mudslide hazards; and,
WHEREAS, The Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, Section 15.1 -447, 15.1 -446, and ,
15.1 -489 authorizes Frederick County to adopt land use and control measures;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That this Board hereby assures the Federal Insurance Admin-
istration that it takes the following legislative action:
(1) Appoints the Frederick County Engineering Department with the responsibility, ,
authority, and means to:
(a) Delineate or assist the Administrator, at his request, in delineating the
limits of the areas having special flood and /or mudslide hazards on available local maps
of sufficient scale to identify the location of building sites.
(b) Provide such information as the Administrator may request concerning present
uses and occupancy of the flood plain and /or mudslide area.
(c) Maintain for public inspection and furnishing upon request, with respect to
each area having special flood hazards, information on elevations, (in relation to mean sea
level) of the lowest floors of all new or substantially improved structures; and
(d) Cooperate with Federal, State, and local agencies and private firms which undertake
to study, survey, map, and identify flood plain or mudslide areas, and cooperate with
neighboring communities with respect to management of adjoining flood plain and /or mudslide '
areas in order to prevent aggravation of existing hazards.
(e) Submit on the anniversary date of the community's initial eligibility, an
annual report to the Administrator on the progress made during the past year within the
community in the development and implementation of flood plain and /or mudslide area
management measures.
(2) Take such other official action as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the
objectives of the program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this Board hereby appoints the Frederick County
Engineering Department with the overall responsibility, authority and means to implement
all commitments made herein
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION - PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR BUILDING PERMITS IN FLOOD ZONES - APPROVED
'
Mr. Madigan read the proposed resolution in full.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
WHEREAS, The County of Frederick has adopted and is enforcing the Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code, a Zoning Ordinance, and a Subdivision Regulation; and,
WHEREAS, Section 5.4 of the Subdivision Regulation, Section 873.5 of the Building
,
Code adopted by Frederick County prohibits any person, firm or corporation from erecting,
constructing, enlarging, altering, repairing, improving, moving or demolishing any building
or structure Vithout first obtaining a separate building permit for each building or structure
from the Building Inspector and; `.
WHEREAS,.The Building Inspector must examine all plans and specifications for the
proposed construction when application is made -to him for a building permit:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County as
follows:
B
1. That the Building Inspector for Frederick County when reviewing applications
for building permits, including the plans and specifications for the proposed construction,
will review all building permit applications to determine if the.proposed construction is
consistent with the need to minimize flood damage.
2. That the Building Inspector shall review all building permit applications
to determine if the site of the proposed construction is reasonably safe from flooding
and to make recommendations for construction in all locations which have flood hazards.
3. That the Building Inspector in reviewing all applications for construction
in flood hazard locations within the County shall require that any such proposed construc-
tion must:
a. Be designed and anchored to prevent the
flotation, collapse or lateral movement
of the structure or portions of the structure
due to flooding.
b. Use of construction materials and utility
equipment that are resistant to flood damage.
C. Use of construction methods and practices that will
minimize flood damage.
d. Provide adequate drainage in order to reduce
exposure to flood hazards.
e. Locate public utilities and facilities on the
site in such a manner as to�be elevated and
constructed to minimize or eliminate flood
damage, such utilities and facilities including
sewer, gas, electrical and water systems.
4. It is further resolved that the Subdivision Administrator in reviewing
subdivision applications shall make findings of fact and determine if:
a. All such proposed developments are consistent with
the need to minimize flood damage.
b. Adequate drainage is provided so as to reduce
exposure to flood hazards.
C. Adequate drainage is provided so as not to
increase the exposure to flood hazards of adjacent
lands.
1
d. All public utilities and facilities are located,
elevated and constructed so as to minimize or
eliminate flood damage, these utilities and
facilities to include sewer gas, electrical,
and water systems.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
PETITION OF RESIDENTS IN GREEN ACRES AREA
AGAINST WINCHESTER SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT PRESENTED TO BOARD
Mr. James Nicely appeared before the Board and presented a petition from the
in the Green Acres area of the County, containing 251 signatures, against the
or emanating from the Winchester Sewage Treatment Plant. He stated that the petitioners
re requesting the Board of Supervisors to take immediate action to work with the city
112
to eliminate this problem and consider the study of a regional sewage plant. He stated
that they had appeared before the Winchester City Council and were advised that deodorizing
equipment had been purchased which may or may not solve the problem. He further stated
that the City had advised them that they are willing to work with the County on a regional
sewage plant and had discussed the possibility of not extending any more lines into the
County.
Mr. .Sandy...stated that--this complaint was received* each year and in _the past the
City had there was no problem.
Mr. Madigan stated that he was very happy to see that the City had recognized the
problem and perhaps would do something about it.
Mr. McTernan urged the County to work with the City to obtain the funds to build
a regional plant.
RESOLUTION - METROPOLITAN REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
PLAN - APPROVED
Mr. Madigan read the proposed resolution in full.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
WHEREAS, the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission has requested recommenda-
tions regarding the Regional Water Quality Management Study being prepared by Wiley and
Wilson,:Inc.; and
WHEREAS, representatives of the City and Frederick County met with representatives
of the State Health Department and Water Control Board in August, 1971, and were advised
that a regional plant would have to be constructed in the Opequon Creek drainage area, in
accordance with stream standards to be available in December 1971; in addition, the Water
Control Board recommended the establishment of an ad -hoc committee to formulate an "institu-
tional arrangement" for the regional facility; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority entered into
an agreement with Alexander Potter Associates to prepare a study and report on the
feasibility of a regional plan for sewage treatment in December, 1971, to be completed
in eight (8) months, subject to establishment of effluent standards by the State Water
Control Board; and the water quality standards were received from the Water Control Board
in February, 1973, and the Alexander Potter Associates Report is presently in final draft
form; and
WHEREAS, the City and County governing bodies appointed three representatives
each to an "Ad -Hoc Committee" in June, 1972, and elected a Chairman and Secretary, as
requested by the Water Control Board. This Committee has met, while awaiting the Alexander
Potter Associates report; and
WHEREAS, The Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission authorized a contract
with Wiley and Wilson, Inc.,' to complete a Regional Water Quality Management Plan in
October, 1972, to be completed by May, 1973, and
WHEREAS, Frederick County has endeavored to cooperate with the City of
Winchester in providing services within the immediate vicinity of the City, and the
City of Winchester has been the controlling party in providing water service, and also the
sewer in the fringe areas of the City; and the City has charged County residents a higher rate
than the City residents for water and sewer service; and
WHEREAS, City facilities within the County are a major factor in annexation
proceedings; and the City has continued to make sewer connections to their system despite
the fact that their sewage treatment plant is overloaded; and State Regulations require
provision for plant expansion when a particular plant reaches 95% of design capacity; and
WHEREAS, the County has requested for three years for the City to remedy an extreme
odor problem with the City sewage treatment plant which is located in the County and has had
an adverse effect on County residents in the area; and the City has accepted County
connections to the overloaded City System even though areas annexed by the City have yet to be
provided the service mandated in the annexation order with the apparent intent of establishing
a basis for future annexation; and
WHEREAS, the County maintains that the ability to manage and operate a sewage
treatment plant is not necessarily inherent because of past experience in the field since
the Commonwealth of Virginia requires certified operators for all sewage treatment plants;
and
WHEREAS, the County believes that a regional treatment plant should be operated
by the County in that the potential for future growth and sewer connections exists almost
exclusively in the County; and
WHEREAS, County officials have met with City officials on several occasions within
the last few months in an effort to work out a mutually acceptable regional approach to
water and sewer service; and
�
I
113
WHEREAS,• Alexander Potter Study as commissioned by the City and County
Sanitation Authority does not include a definite recommendation for an institutional
arrangement as submitted in draft form; and does not discuss alternatives for an
institutional arrangement; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Water Quality Management Plan recommends that the Frederick
County Sanitation Authority own and operate the proposed regional sewage treatment
plant and wholesale service to the City; and
WHEREAS, the County of Frederick does believe that County ownership and operation
of the regional treatment plant will provide "a counterbalance for utility contractual
negotiations" which is a valid and equitable arrangement; and
WHEREAS, guidelines from the U. S. environmental protection agency for
Metropolitan.Regional Water Quality Management Planning stipulate that a definite
recommendation for an institutional arrangement will be a part of such Water Quality
Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, technical revisions to the Water Quality Management Plan have been
submitted by the County as requested; '
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the
Virginia that this Board does hereby go on
Water Quality Management Plan for the Lord
with technical changes as previously submi
District Commission to adopt and implement
that State and Federal funds might be made
Board of Supervisors of Frederick County,
record as approving the Metropolitan Regional
Fairfax Planning District in its present form
tted and does urge the Lord Fairfax Planning
the Plan at the earliest possible date in order
available; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board does hereby adopt the institutional
arrangement whereby the Frederick County Sanitation Authority would build, operate, and
maintain a regional sewage treatment plant for the Frederick County - Winchester area
and wholesale service to the City of Winchester; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County representatives of the joint Frederick
County- Winchester "Ad -Hoc" Committee are directed to negotiate the institutional arrange-
ment as specified above as the primary solution to the management arrangement; and
I
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the only alternative institutional arrangement
which the County "Ad -Hoc" Committee members are authorized to negotiate is the following:
Joint County -City ownership and operation of sewage treatment plants and
interceptor sewers, water treatment plants and major transmission mains, and solid waste
disposal sites within the confines of Frederick County and Winchester said ownership
and operational control to be vested in a joint Authority with equal representation
from Frederick County and the City o£'Winchester and one additional individual to be
chosen jointly by both governing bodies.
The above resolution was passed. ..unanimously.
Mr. Cole stated that he felt the Board should be the people negotiating the
project and not an Ad Hoc Committee.
Mr. Madigan stated that the Board would be happy to meet with the City.
DEPARTMENT HEADS' REPORTS - ACCEPTED
After review the reports of the Department Heads were accepted by the Board.
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS' REPORTS-- '�EC-EPTED
After review the reports of the Constitutional Officers were accepted by the
Board.
UPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
DO NOW ADJOURN.
7
.-1
Seuretary, Board of Supervisors
Board of Supervisors
At a Special Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the.County of Frederick,
Virginia, held on the 16th day of October, 1973, in the Board of Supervisors' Room,
9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia.
PRESENT:
Board of Supervisors: Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman; J. Robert Russell, Vice
Chairman; Dennis T. Cole; Donald R. Hodgson; and Richard F. Madigan.
Board of Education: Ray E. Boyce, Chairman; Roscoe D. Bowers; Clyde Logan;
John T. Solenberger; Robert E. Aylor, III; Ed Lizer; Elizabeth Sheetz; and Dr. Melton
Wright.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
114
Mr. Sandy announced that the resolution for consideration by the Virginia
Association of counties as set forth on the agenda had been withdrawn.
MINUTES - JOINT WORK SESSION - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
PLANNING COMMISSION - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy asked if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes of ,
the Joint Work Session between the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission.
Mr. Cole stated that it was his opinion that the lot size had been set at
40,000 square feet in the A -1 and A -2 Districts. He stated that he felt square footage
would be a better requirement than density figures. Mr. Cole stated that there are lots ,
scattered throughout Frederick County that have been sold and the purchaser is stuck with
the lot because he can not get the Health Department Approval. He further stated that he
objected to approving these plats on an individual lot approval basis and felt the recreat-
ional subdivisions should not be allowed to have smaller lots than other districts.
Mr. Renalds stated that the minutes were what had transpired at the meeting
and corrections to the ordinance could be made at the public hearing.
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,
Virginia, does herein approve the minutes of the Joint Work Session between the Frederick
County Board of Supervisors and the Frederick County Planning Commission on the 18th day of
September, 1973.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
SCHOOL BOARD - DISCUSSION OF'NEW HIGH SCHOOL '
Mr. Sandy welcomed the members of the School Board to the meeting. He
stated that the meeting had been called to discuss the possibility of a new high school
rather than renovate James Wood. Mr. Sandy stated that the meeting had been called to
discuss the possibility of a new high school rather than renovate James Wood. Mr. Sandy
stated that he felt something must be done inasmuch as James Wood could not be left as it
is now.
Mr. Boyce stated that at one of the recent School Board meetings some of the
members felt we were making a mistake in the renovation of James Wood and it was agreed that
have a meeting with the Board and perhaps something could be worked out that would be
agreeable to everyone.
and that the students deserved a good high school.
Dr. Wright stated that the estimate on'the cost of renovation of James Wood
had been increased from the original one and a decision must be made as quickly as possible
in that sometime in November the work drawings would be complete'and sent to the State
Department for approval. He stated that the next step would be to let bids and therefore
if a change is going to be made it must be done as soon as possible. He further stated that
Mr. Logan stated that he felt we should go ahead
with James Wood because we need
the
school now. He stated that he felt the County should be
looking into the future and the
,
possibility
of perhaps purchasing the Shackleford property near
the western by -pass for a
new
school as this would be an ideal location.
Mr. Solenberger stated that he felt it would be
more feasible to renovate James
Wood
and'keep it the same size and then build a new high school
rather than spend four to
five
million dollars to renovate James Wood and then have to
build a new high school in
'
the
next four or five years. He stated that he felt we had
the financial backing to do this
and that the students deserved a good high school.
Dr. Wright stated that the estimate on'the cost of renovation of James Wood
had been increased from the original one and a decision must be made as quickly as possible
in that sometime in November the work drawings would be complete'and sent to the State
Department for approval. He stated that the next step would be to let bids and therefore
if a change is going to be made it must be done as soon as possible. He further stated that
115
M 'v
Mr. Russell asked<what.'.the top enrollment should be for a new high school and
Dr. Wright answered that you should have a school for at least 2600 pupils.
Mr. Russell stated that if we build a new high school for 2600 students and
' eliminate James Wood it would not be very long before we would have to be thinking about
another high school.
Dr. Wright stated that this was correct.
Mr. Sandy asked what the first estimate on the James Wood project was and Dr.
ght said between 3.8 million and 4 million dollars.
Mr. Madigan stated that the original estimate had been 3.6 million.
the study which has been done on James Wood could still be used even if the project is dropped
because something would have to be done with the school regardless of what grade students
were put in there. Dr. Wright stated that one of the biggest problems involved was what would
be done with James Wood if a new high school was built.
Dr. Wright said that he felt with the renovation of James Wood, the tie -in with the
'
Vocational School and the operation of two schedules, the County could handle the educational
needs until the early 1980's, but of course this depends upon the growth factor. The enroll-
ment at James Wood at the present time is 1,416 in the tenth through twelfth grades. There
are 534 ninth graders and this would give you a total of approximately 1,950 students. He
stated that in two years we will have 2,050 students and he felt the school could accomodate
'
approximately 2,300 with the interaction. of students to the vocational school.. He further
stated that the addition could probably take care of the student needs until the early 1980's
but a new high school would be needed by the middle 1980's. Dr. Wright pointed out the
complications in transportation which would be created if James Wood were made a ninth and
tenth grade school along with the elementary schools and two middle schools.
The plan of K -5, 6 -8 and 9 -12 was a good plan and was the trend throughout the
country, according to Dr. Wright.
He stated that the latest estimate on the James Wood addition was $4,325,590. He
pointed out that we have a two million dollar loan already with V.P.S.A. at 4.9% and we
have two approved literary loans of $750,000 each. He stated we are projecting two additional
0
V.P.S.A. loans at two million dollars at an estimated interest of 5% and the big question is
whether or not the County could handle a new high school financially.
'
Dr. Wright pointed out that the projected annual debt repayment is $15,505,674
and the 1976 -77 debt payments are running around $1,000,000. In addition to this figure
there is $1,000,000 which the Board has committed to be raised from local funds. He stated
that he did not think James Wood could be used for any group of students without
renovation in the neighborhood of $1,000,000 and this would not include an addition. He
further stated that one of the problems at James Wood is the limited land available. Dr.
Wright said that he felt we should go ahead with the James Wood project and as soon as
possible purchase land for another high school.
The new Garfield High School, which is a 2600 pupil school was discussed and
Dr. Wright stated that this school cost $7,226,815 and if Frederick County were to build
a new school it would be in the neighborhood of seven or eight million dollars.
Mr. Russell asked how many students James Wood could handle after the renovation
and addition and Dr. Wright said between 2,000 and 2,300 with the interchange between the
'
Vocation School and the work programs.
Mr. Russell asked<what.'.the top enrollment should be for a new high school and
Dr. Wright answered that you should have a school for at least 2600 pupils.
Mr. Russell stated that if we build a new high school for 2600 students and
' eliminate James Wood it would not be very long before we would have to be thinking about
another high school.
Dr. Wright stated that this was correct.
Mr. Sandy asked what the first estimate on the James Wood project was and Dr.
ght said between 3.8 million and 4 million dollars.
Mr. Madigan stated that the original estimate had been 3.6 million.
Mr. Sandy asked if the new figure was still without air conditioning and Dr. Wright
stated that this was correct.
Dr. Sandy asked what the figure would be to renovate James Wood without the addition.
Dr. Wright stated that he felt it would take at least a million dollars to take care
of basic problems.
Mr. Sandy asked what was included in the figures set forth for plumbing and elec-
trical work and Dr. Wright said that this figure included renovating and replacing the
plumbing and electrical systems.
Mr. Sandy stated that he could not understand why a building no older than James
Wood needed new plumbing and wiring. He stated that if the new addition were omitted, it
'
would appear that there would not be such a large expense from plumbing and wiring.
Dr. Wright stated that he was not in a position to say how adequate James Wood
would be without the addition nor how much renovation would be needed if the addition were
omitted.
Mr. Russell stated that he felt there would be some conflict if there was one new
school and one old school.
Mr. Sandy stated that he felt James Wood should be renovated to the condition
of a new school but he did not feel there should have to be such extensive work done on
the plumbing and wiring if the addition were omitted. He said that he knew the heating
system needed to be replaced but he could not see why the wiring and plumbing needed to be
replaced.
Mr. Solenberger stated that he felt James Wood Should be used for a ninth and
tenth grade school after it is brough up to standards and a new high school built for the
,
eleventh and twelfth grades.
Mr. Sandy stated that if a new school was built for 4600 students whereas the
( James
Wood renovation and addition will accomodate 2,000 students, this only gives a 600 stude
t
cushion. He said that he felt we were at the point now where we need two high schools
Mr. Russell stated that he felt that the county people would accept James Wood
as a ninth and tenth grade school and one new school for the eleventh and twelfth grades,
even if new buses had to be purchased, better than they would accept two high schools
A twelve month school program was discussed and Dr. Wright stated that he felt this
would be very difficult to do in Frederick County. He suggested that Kline School could
be used for the school administration building.
Mr. Madigan stated that we can not afford to build a new high school in this County.
He stated that the average wage in this community is $3.00 a hour and the wealth is held '
by a few. He said that we must realize that only 10 to 12 percent of the people in this
community can afford to own a home.
Mr. Madigan stated that when he worked on the five year projected budget, a 7.2
million dollar building program was the figure set for the entire building program. He '
further said that the Apple Pie Ridge School cost was now $2,097,700 and we had talked
about $1,800,000 for this school, and $1,800,000 for the Bass- Hoover school. He said that
the cost for James Wood is now $4,325,590 and we discussed $3,600,000. He stated that he
felt the County could hardly pay for the 7.2 million dollar building program previously
discussed. He stated that now the total figure is $8,520,990, an.additional $1,320,990.
Mr. Madigan stated that this creates a new debt service payment of approximately $106,000. He
stated that there should be some way to leave the fanfare out of these schools and bring the
figures back down to reason.
117
He stated that if the taxes had to be raised to cover this cost the people
could not pay it. He further stated that perhaps when the County has water and sewer
the picture will be different.
Dr. Wright stated that there was no turning back on the Apple Pie Ridge
' I School and that if reductions must be made they would have to be made in the Bass -
Hoover school.
Mr. Sandy stated that if more room was needed it could best be done with two
schools. He further stated that at a per pupil cost of $3,000, a new school for
1500 students.would cost approximately $4,500,000 and he felt :We: be getting
' much more for the money if James Wood were renovated for 1500 students and a new high
school built for 1500 students.
Mr. Madigan stated that he was in favor of purchasing the land for a new high
school as soon as possible.
Dr. Wright stated that he did not feel one million dollars would be sufficient
to do the renovation necessary to James Wood.
Mr. Cole stated that he felt perhaps James Wood should be updated and a new
1500 student high school built. He further stated that he felt in one large high school
you lost identity with the students and he felt there would be better control with
two smaller high schools.
Mr. Sandy stated that -the main thing needed was a cost figure to renovate James
Wood to bring it up to standards without all this excessive plumbing and electrical cost.
' Dr. Wright stated that you would have to add on to James Wood to make it
adequate as a senior high school. Mr. Sandy said that the figure needed would include
all the necessary additions and renovations.
Mr. Sandy further stated that the Board would need a"1 - ot of'public opinion
on this problem and that we must make people realize that they are receiving a service
and they must pay for the services they receive.
Mr. Solenberger stated that he felt the taxes in this County were very low
in comparison to other counties.
Mr. Madigan stated that the wages are also low.
The Board of Supervisors requested the School Board to make a study of
the cost to renovate James Wood up standards for a 1500 - student high school and
the of constructing a new 1500 student high school and then present these figures
to the Board of Supervisors in order that a decision could-be made.
The Board of Education agreed to this proposal.
SANITATION AUTHORITY - REQUEST FOR RESOLUTION ON
ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS WITH REFERENCE TO WATER AND
SEWER CONNECTIONS IN STEPHENS CITY AREA - APPROVED
' Mr. Sandy stated that connections were being held up in the Stephens City
area until the capacity of the sewage treatment plant could be enlarged and that the
Sanitation Authority recommended that building permits be issued in this area for
construction with the understanding that no water and sewer connections would be
allowed until the capacity of the plant has been increased to handle additional connections.
There was discussion as to how long it would take to update the system.and
Mr. Cole stated that he would like to see this item acted upon at the next regular
meeting in order that the Board could receive additional background material on this
recommendation.
118
0
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 does
herein accept the recommendation of
that building permits will continue
by the Authority's sewage treatment
of a notarized statement of the own
permit will not be occupied or sold
sewer connections.
the Frederick County Sanitation Authority and does direct
to be issued for the area east of Stephens City served
facility and that these permits only be issued upon recei
ar stating that any building constructed under this
until such time as the Sanitation Authority.permits new
By recorded vote with Raymond C. Sandy, J. Robert Russell, Richard F. Madigan and
Donald R. Hodgson voting "Aye" and Dennis T. Cole "Abstaining" the above resolution was
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Sandy stated that the Board desired to go into executive session in order to
discuss a proposed purchase of property.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson, and
passed unanimously the Board retired into executive session.
REGULAR SESSION
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded-by J. Robert Russell, and
passed unanimously, the Board came out of Executive Session.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson and
passed unanimously the Board reconvened into regular session.
UPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD DO NOW ADJOURN.
At the regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on the 24th day of October,
1973, in the Board of Supervisors' Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia.
PRESENT:
Board of Supervisors: Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman; J. Robert Russell; Vice Chairman;
Dennis T. Cole; Donald R. Hodgson; and Richard F. Madigan.
Planning Commission: James W. Golladay, Chairman; Keith Williams, Vice Chairman;
Maurice W. Perry; Elmer Venskoske; Manuel DeHaven.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Sandy.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
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 does
herein approve the minutes of the meeting of this Board held on the 20th day of-September,
1973, and on the 26th day of September, 1973.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR BILLS - APPROVED
Mr. Ambrogi stated that he was requesting reimbursement for expenses incurred by
former Sheriff Robert DeHaven and former County Jailor, Marion C. Cooper as a result of their
being named defendants in a suit brought against them in their official capacities while
serving Frederick County, Virginia.
em in their official capacities while serving Frederick County, Virginia, and does
rein direct that a supplemental appropriation be made to cover this expense.
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, does
in approve the reimbursement of $139.78 each to Robert DeHaven aid Marion C. Cooper for
nses incurred as a result of their being named defendants in a suit brought against
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
FREDERICK COUNTY TRAILER ORDINANCE
FIRST AND SECOND READING APPROVED
Mr. Sandy stated that the Trailer Ordinance was being reintroduced for first and
second reading.
Mr. Cole stated that a $50.00 fee had been set in the previous meeting and in the
ordinance tonight the fee is set at 50 cents per foot. He requested the Board to vote on
this particular section of the ordinance. Mr. Cole stated that a mobile home owner pays
real estate taxes on the property on which his mobile home is located; taxes on the personal
ty assessment on the mobile home; and in a mobile home court, a tax on the mobile home
stand. He stated if this tax is imposed this would be a fourth tax and if a business tax is
charged at a later date, this would be a fifth tax.
Thereupon, Mr. Cole made a motion to delete this section of the Frederick County
ailer Ordinance. This motion died for lack of a second:
Mr. Sandy asked if this fee was in addition to the license fee and Mr. Berg
stated that this was the license fee.
Mr. Sandy stated that the fee should be left at $50.00 per trailer and the 50
119
per foot fee should be stricken until the ordinance is heard at public hearing.
Mr. Madigan read the ordinance by title only.
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 does
approve, on first and second reading, the proposed Frederick County Trailer Ordinance.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE TO REGULATE THE BURNING
OF LEAVES IN FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA - APPROVED
Mr. Madigan read the ordinance in full.
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, Virginia,
es herein approve, on third and final reading, the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO REGULATE THE BURNING OF LEAVES IN
THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia,
that leaves originating on the premises of private residences may be burned on those premises
iding that:
1. Such burning is done between 9:a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and all embers
are totally extinguished at the end of this period.
2. No material will be added to the fire after 3:00 p.m.
3. The location of burning is not less than 300 feet from any occupied
building unless the occupant has given prior written permission.
4. To minimize the possibility of contaminant emmission from inadvertent
fires, at no time shall the fire be unattended.
120
5. All burning of leaves permitted under this ordinance shall not be
commenced and shall be immediately terminated upon declaration of
an alert warning or emergency stage of the Air Pollution Episode
when proclaimed by either the Executive Director of the State Air
Pollution Control Board or his designated representative.
6. Should any section or provision of this ordinance be declared invalid
or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of any other section or provision of this Ordinance.
7. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its adoption
and enactment by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING
FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE - APPROVED
THIRD AND FINAL READING
Mr. Sandy stated that the Zoning Ordinance would be read in full and two James
students would read the ordinance by section.
Miss Thweatt read Sections A -1 and A -2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Sandy called for discussion on these two sections.
Mr. Cole recommended that in A -2 the minimum lot size be changed from one acre and
150 foot frontage to 40,000 square feet with 120 foot frontage.
Mr. Golladay stated that this ordinance was being presented as written as a result
the joint work session between the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission.
Mr. Cole stated that it was his understanding that the lot size had been set at
0,000 square feet with 120 foot frontage at this meeting.
Mr. Sandy stated that the minutes and tapes were researched and this matter had
been discussed but no vote was recorded setting forth this change.
Richard Goodling from Farmers Home Administration appeared before the Board and
stated that the F. H. A. would be greatly restricted by the requirements set forth in this
ordinance in that the cost of a piece of property in this area to meet these requirements
was too excessive for their program. He stated that under his program homes were financed
for people with an income of not more than $10,200 and a house of not more than $24,000. He
stated that if the requirements were too stringent the F. H. A. would not be able to provide
funding for people with moderate to low incomes in this area. He stated that personally he
felt an acre or 40,000 square feet was adequate.
Mr. Sandy stated that the main intent of the ordinance was to prevent large farms
ing subdivided into small lots less than 70,000 square feet thus creating water and sewer
lems.
Mr. Cole stated that homes financed by the F.H.A. must be on a state maintained
road and there were very few farms with more than 600 feet road frontage.
Mr. Golladay stated that the Planning Commission had received a request from the
Health Department to have all lots served by private water and sewer be not less than one
acre
Mr. Delmar Bayliss stated that according to Mr. Roy Williams the Health Department
was more than satisfied with 35,000 square feet and 120 foot frontage.
There was a discussion as to the possibility of having these homes financed by
F. H. A. placed in subdivisions rather than strung out along the secondary roads thus creating
possible water and sewer problems and strip development.
121
Upon motion made by Elmer Venskoske, and seconded by Keith Williams, the Planning
ission voted to approve the A- 1"Section of the Zoning Ordinance as it is written.
vote was recorded as follows: Mr. Perry, Mr.'Williams, Mr. Golladay, Mr. Venskoske,
and Mr. Madigdn "Aye" and Manuel DeHaven voting "Nay ".
Upon motion made by Maurice Perry and seconded by Elmer Venskoske, the Planning
Commission voted to approve the A -2 Section of the Zoning Ordinance as it is written. The
vote was recorded as follows: Mr. Perry, Mr. Williams, Mr. Golladay, Mr. Venskoske, and Mr.
Madigan voting "Aye" and Mr. DeHaven voting "Nay ".
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, The
Board of Supervisors voted to approve the A -1 Section as written, The vote was recorded as
follows: Donald R. Hodgson, Richard F. Madigan, Raymond C. Sandy, and J. Robert Russell,
Nvoting "Aye" and Dennis T. Cole voting "Nay ".
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson, The Board
k f Supervisors voted to approve the'A -2 Section of the Zoning Ordinance as written. The
�Ivote was recorded as follows: Donald R. Hodgson, Richard F. Madigan, Raymond C. Sandy, and
�J. Robert Russell voting "Aye" and Dennis T. Cole voting "Nay ".
Mr. Cole made a motion to amend the above motion to read 40,000 square feet with
120 foot frontage in the A -2 Section. The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Madigan read the R -1, R -2 and R -3 Districts in full.
Mr. Sandy called for discussion on the R -1, R -2 and R -3 Districts. There was
I none.
Miss Thweatt read the R -4 District in full.
Mr. Sandy called for discussion.
Mr. Cole questioned Section 7 -9 of this District stating that there were no
minimum lot sizes, set back lines, no minimum width, no frontage requirement and no maximum
percentage of lot coverage as set forth in the R -1, R -2 and R -3 Sections.
Mr. Renalds stated that before a plat is approved a final plan must be submitted
showing all lots, streets, etc. and if the Board doesn't approve the plan you can have
the developer change it. This gives control.
Mr. Berg stated that this is a new style of development so that everyone does not
live in a straight line or row and it is designed to give the developer some flexibility.
He stated that this is why there is such a stringent open space requirement in
this section.
Mr. Richard Hohensee stated that he was concerned about the purchaser being able
to build on the property after he purchases it if there are no guidelines set forth. He
stated that without these restrictions the purchaser could not be sure he could build on
phis property.
Mr. Berg stated that the set back requirements can be required on the final plan.
J
Mr. Sandy said that he did not see how this could work with the sale of individual
lots.
Mr. Tom Glass stated that he was working under this type plan in Fairfax County
now and it is working very well. He stated that this is the way Reston was developed.
Mr. Joseph Massie suggested deleting the words "other than single family
dwellings" in Section 7 -9.
Mr. Cole stated that there were still no guidelines to set forth footage
regulations.
Mr. Ray Nicely stated that he felt that this was one of the best sections of the--,
122
inance and that this is a concept for a different type of development. He said you are
riving the developer the option of setting the set back lines with final Board approval.
Mr. Renalds suggested adding the words "set back lines, rear and side yard lines
shall be shown on the plat"
Mr. Golladay stated he did not feel anything would be accomplished by changing any
portion of this particular ordinance as it would be reviewed in five years and it could be
amended. He stated that he felt there was sufficient control set forth as it is now written.
Mr. Massie stated that he felt this would be very difficult to enforce as it is
written and that it was ambiguous.
Upon motion made by Keith Williams and seconded by Maurice Perry the Planning
Commission approved the addition of the following section to the R -4 Section of the Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance:
7 -9 -1 Building restriction lines shall be shown on the final plan.
The vote was recorded as follows: Mr. Perry, Mr. Williams, Mr. Golladay, Mr.
Venskoske, Mr. DeHaven, and Mr. Madigan all voting "Aye ".
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole the Board
approved the addition of Section 7 -9 -1 as written above. The vote was recorded as follows:
Mr. Cole, Mr. Russell, Mr. Sandy, Mr. Madigan and Mr. Hodgson, all voting "Aye"
After discussion both the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission agreed
l unanimously to add the words "which plans shall demonstrate generally accepted professional
practice" to Section 7 -2 -1.
Mr. Madigan read the R -S District in full.
Mr. Sandy called for discussion on this Section.
Mr. Cole stated that under this entire district, where there is no central water
and sewer and lots will be sold with wells and drain fields, there are no lot sizes set
forth to regulate the building. He further stated that we have adopted lots sizes in
R -1, R -2 and R -3 and he felt there should be designated lot sizes in this district on lots
that do not have central water and sewer. He suggested a lot size of 40,000 square feet
with 120 foot frontage.
Mr. Hohensee suggested that in Section 8 -10 -1 the following words be added: "and
must be approved prior to submission of final plan ", meaning that each lot should be approved
before the final plan is approved.
Mr. Massie stated this is set forth in section 8 -12 -1.
Mr. Cole stated that the Health Department approves these plats .w'i'th the stipulatior
Ithat it is subject to approval on an individual lot basis.
Mr. Sandy stated that the approval of a lot by the Health Department is only valid
for one year, and Mr. Hohensee stated that if there was prior approval by the Health Depart-
ment of a lot the purchaser could be sure he could build on that lot. He stated that if each
lot were approved individually before the final plan is approved the purchaser would be pro-
tected from buying a piece of property he can not build upon.
Mr. Glass stated that the practicality of this suggestion was not feasible and
there was no way the Health Department could go out and check on all the lots in a large
subdivision. He stated that he felt it would be better for a minimum area requirement to
be set rather than having the lots approved on an individual basis. He further stated
that in his development all sales contracts are contingent upon Health Department approval.
Mr. Hohensee stated that we must have each lot approved before the plat is
N
approved otherwise we will have unplanned development. He suggested that a fee be charged
123
n each lot for this service.
Mr. Glass stated that he felt a better solution would be not to require that all
is be approved prior to approving the subdivision, but to require before any lot in that
vision is sold it must be approved by the Health Department.
Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Willi'ams of the Health Department if there was a rule wherein
' a certain percentage of the lots in a development would have to be suitable for septic tanks
before the Health Department approves it and Mr. Williams answered that this is up to the
developer; the Health Department has no such rule.
Mr. Massie stated that the lot sizes would vary according to the Health Department
recommendation for water and sewer approval.
' Mr. Cole stated that he felt the requirement of 40,000 square feet with 120 foot
frontage would be sufficient.
Mr. Roy Williams stated that the larger the lot the better the chance for approval
t just because you have a large lot does not mean you will get approval on it.
Mr. Lamborne appeared before the Board and stated that he felt the suggestions for
t approval were excellent but that the Health Department simply could not inspect each
vidual lot. He suggested that developers employ a qualified soil scientist to assist in
btaining approval for their lots.
Mr. Renalds asked Mr. Williams if it was feasible for a developer to employ a soil
cientist -to make these tests and how would the Health Department feel about this procedure.
Mr. Roy Williams stated that the Health Department would be very happy with this
rangement:
Mr. Hohensee stated that he felt it was unfair to have a man own a piece of property
and be unable to build on it. He stated that he felt the developer should not be able to
sell a piece of property that can not be built upon.
Mr. Sandy suggested changing the density figures in section 8 -6 -4 to read "ten
persons per acre of gross residential area - served by central water and sewer systems and five
sons per acre where individual water systems and sewer systems are used ".
Mr. Cole asked how many square feet a density of five provides and Mr. Berg stated
tely 32,000 square feet.
Mr. Sandy asked what the density of four would be and Mr. Renalds stated approxi-
Imately 40,000 square feet.
Mr. Lamborne stated that in the R -5 district the developer is required to give up
5 percent of his property for open space and this was not required in the R -1,R -2 and R -3
stricts. He stated that there were 300 homes in Shawneeland on one half acre lots and all
ere perking except one. He further stated that he did not feel it was fair to lock
these developers in R -5 to 40,000 square feet but he did feel the density figures were fair.
Mr. DeHaven stated he did not feel this section was fair as it is written inasmuch
as in the A -1 District there was a 70,000 square foot requirement.
Mr. Berg stated that these are two different types of development.
'
After lengthy discussion, the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission
agreed to change 8 -6 -4 to read as follows:
8 -6 -4 The population density within an " A " area shall not
exceed ten (10) persons per acre of gross residential
area served by central water and sewer systems, six
(6) persons per acre where one or the other is available,
or four (4) persons per acre where individual systems
are used, which term gross residential area shall
include roads within such area; the population density
within a "B" area shall not exceed twenty -five (25)
persons per acre of gross residential area and the
population density of a "C" area shall not exceed thirty
(30 persons per acre of a gross residential area.
124
The Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission agreed to add'section 8 -9 -2
to read as follows:
8 -9 -2 Building restriction lines shall be shown on the Final Plan.
The Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission agreed to add the words "which
plans shall demonstrate generally accepted professional practices" in section 8 -2 -1.
Mr. Hohensee stated that in the statement of intent, the 500 acre requirement was
restrictive and he could see no purpose served by this requirement.
Mr. Cole stated that he felt each development should be zoned upon its merit.
Mr. Russell asked Mr. Ambrogi if there would not have to be guidelines to go by
in order to determine whether or not a development is recreational and Mr. Ambrogi stated
that you must have guidelines set forth.
Mr. Russell stated that he felt there would have to be some definite amount set
forth in the R -5 District to determine whether or not the development is recreational.
Mr. Cole asked if the Board felt this amount should be less than 500 acres and Mr.
Sandy stated that originally the acreage had been set at 1,000 and then reduced to 500.
Mr. Berg stated that it should be 1,000 acres as it is the only progection we have
I to prevent some large company from coming in and developing all of the western part of Fred-
erick County and then leaving.
Upon motion made by Keith Williams and seconded by Elmer Venskoske the Planning
Commission approved the changes set forth above in Sections 8 -2 -1, 8 -6 -4, and 8 -9 -2. The
vote was recorded as follows: Mr. Perry, Mr. Williams, Mr. Golladay, Mr. DeHaven, Mr.
Venskoske and Mr. Madigan all voting "Aye ".
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell the
Board of Supervisors approved the changes set forth above in Sections 8 -2 -1, 8 -6 -4, and 8 -9 -2.
The vote was recorded as follows: Mr. Cole; Russell, Mr.'Sandy,.Mr. Madigan:andeMr.
Hodgson, all voting "Aye ",
The lest of the ordihancerwas read
Mr. Madigan thanked all those who helped read the ordinance and Mr. Sandy directed
that a letter of thanks be sent to the two James Wood Students for their help in reading
the ordinance.
Mr. James Ross asked if the maps had been brought up to date and Mr. Berg stated
that they had.
Mr. Massie stated that in the B -1 District there was a provision for "professional
offices" but not for office buildings and in the B -2 District there was a provision for
"office buildings" and "professional offices ".
Mr. Sandy stated that the same terminology should be used in both districts.
The Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission agreed to change Section
9 -1 -5 in the B -1 District to read "Professional Offices and Office Buildings" and Section
10 -1 -11 in the B -2 District to read "Professional Offices ".
Mr. Sandy called for comments on the Planned Shopping District.
Mr. Ross stated that on Page 45 in the last paragraph, the third line from the
bottom, there seemed to be some mistake in the wording.
The Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission, after reviewing said section,
approved Section 11 -4 -9 in the Planned Shopping District to read as follows:
After the final development plan has been approved and when in
the course of carrying out this plan, adjustment or rearrangements of
buildings, parking areas, entrances, heights, or yards are requested
by the developer and such requests conform to the standards established
by the approved development plan for the area to be covered by building
spaces, entrances, height, setback, and lot area requirements, such
adjustments may be approved by the Board of Supervisors, upon application,
without fee, and after receiving the recommendations of the Planning
Commission.
it
125
Mr. Cole stated that he felt five foot contours would be sufficient.
Mr. Golladay stated that the difference in the fee for a two foot contour as
opposed to a five foot contour was only $1.00 to $1.50.
Mr. Cole stated that he had paid a lot more than that in 1968.
Mr. Nicely stated that each piece of land could be different. He stated that
th five foot contours you could take information from the U. S. G. S. Quad Sheet or the
Virginia State Department of Highways topography that was done for Interstate 81. He
stated that the only place you would need two foot contours would be on a particularly flat
of land in order to provide for good drainage.
Mr. Keith Williams stated that two foot contours are easier to work with in
ilding design.
After discussion, The Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission agreed
Mr. Sandy
called
for
discussion
on the
M- L and M -2 Districts.
feet to the inch for all multi - family, industrial and commercial
There was
none
not less than one hundred (100) feet to the inch for single -
family residential sites.
Mr. Sandy
called
for
discussion
on the
Airport District.
Mr. Golladay, Mr. Venskoske, Mr. DeHaven and Mr. Madigan all voting "Aye ".
There was
none
Upon motion made by F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson, the
Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the amendment to Section 16 -2 -13 set forth
Mr. Sandy
called
for
discussion
on the
Flood Plain District.
Mr. Ross stated that in Section 17 -1 -1 there appeared to be a wrong reference
to Section 11 -2 -5 and Mr. Berg stated that the words "except those dealt with in Section
There was
none.
11 -2 -5" should be stricken. This was unanimously approved by both the Board of Supervisors
and the Planning Commission.
Mr. Sandy
stated
that
in the district
on Site Plan Requirements, Section 16 -2 -13
had been debated concerning
the
two foot
contour
intervals set forth in this district.
Mr. Cole stated that he felt five foot contours would be sufficient.
Mr. Golladay stated that the difference in the fee for a two foot contour as
opposed to a five foot contour was only $1.00 to $1.50.
Mr. Cole stated that he had paid a lot more than that in 1968.
Mr. Nicely stated that each piece of land could be different. He stated that
th five foot contours you could take information from the U. S. G. S. Quad Sheet or the
Virginia State Department of Highways topography that was done for Interstate 81. He
stated that the only place you would need two foot contours would be on a particularly flat
of land in order to provide for good drainage.
Mr. Keith Williams stated that two foot contours are easier to work with in
ilding design.
After discussion, The Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission agreed
to amend Section 16 -2 -13 as follows:
Existing topography accurately shown with a maximum of two (2)
foot contour intervals at a scale of not less than fifty (50)
'
feet to the inch for all multi - family, industrial and commercial
sites. A maximum of five (5) foot contour intervals at a scale of
not less than one hundred (100) feet to the inch for single -
family residential sites.
Upon motion made by Maurice Perry and - seconded by Elmer Venskoske the Planning
Commission unanimously approved the above amendment to Section 16 -2 -13 of the Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance. The vote was recorded as follows: Mr. Perry, Mr. Williams,
Mr. Golladay, Mr. Venskoske, Mr. DeHaven and Mr. Madigan all voting "Aye ".
Upon motion made by F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson, the
Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the amendment to Section 16 -2 -13 set forth
above. The vote was recorded as follows: Dennis T. Cole, J. Robert Russell, Raymond
C. Sandy, Richard F. Madigan, and Donald R. Hodgson all voting "Aye ".
Mr. Sandy called for discussion on the section on non - conforming uses.
Mr. Ross stated that in Section 17 -1 -1 there appeared to be a wrong reference
to Section 11 -2 -5 and Mr. Berg stated that the words "except those dealt with in Section
11 -2 -5" should be stricken. This was unanimously approved by both the Board of Supervisors
and the Planning Commission.
After discussion concerning the wording of Section 17 -1 -4, the Board of
Supervisors and the Planning Commission agreed to approve this section as written.
The Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission approved the addition
of the words "from Section 17 -1 -3 above" to Section 17 -1 -5.
After discussion the Board of Supervisros and the Planning Commission agreed
unanimously to amend Section 17 -3 to read as follows:
Section 17 -3 REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE
On any building devoted in whole or in part to any
nonconforming use, work may be done in any period
of twelve (12) consecutive months on ordinary repairs
or on repair or replacement of non - bearing walls,
fixtures, wiring or plumbing, provided that the cubic
126
content of the structure as it existed
a- t«the,stime—,of :;�passage?or- amendments - ofT
this ordinance shall not be increased.
Nothing in this ordinance shall be
deemed to prevent the strengthening or
restoring to a safe condition of any
structure or part thereof declared to be
unsafe by any official charged with
protecting the public safety, upon order
of such official.
Mr. Berg stated that Section 18 -3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT should be added to the
ordinance. The Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission approved this addition to
the section entitled "GENERAL PROVISIONS ":' "'''
was none.
Mr. Sandy called for discus`sion`on the section "Provisions for Appeal ". There
Mr. Sandy called for discussion on the section "Violation and Penalty" There was
Mr. Sandy called for discussion on the section "Amendments:." There was none.
Mr. Sandy called for discussion on the section "Administration and Interpretation ".
There was none.
-Mr. Sandy called for discussion on the section "Definitions:. There was none.
Mr. Cole stated that he would like to have the 500 acreage requirement set forth in
R -5 district lowered to 250 acres or less.
Mr. Cole moved to amend the 500 acreage requirement set forth in the R =5 District to
50 contiguous acres under one ownership and control. The above motion died for lack of
second.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Keith Williams,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission of Frederick County, Virginia does
rein recommend the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance as amended to the Board of Supervisors
r approval.
The above resolution was passed unanimously by the following recorded vote: Mr.
erry, Mr. Williams, Mr. Golladay, Mr. DeHaven, Mr. Venskoske, and Mr. Madigan, all voting
Aye ".
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, Virginia,
herein adopt the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance as amended, said ordinance shall
effective at 12:01 A.M. on November 1, 1973:.
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
ZONING ORDINANCE
4hereas, by act of the General Assembly of Virginia as provided in Chapter 11, Article 8,
Section 15.1 -486 through 15.1- 503 -1, Code of Virginia and amended hereto, the governing body
of any county or municipality may, by ordinance, divide the territory under its jurisdiction
into districts of such number, shape, and area as it may deem best suited to carry out the
purposes of this article, and in each district it may regulate, restrict, permit, prohibit
and determine the following.
(a) The use of land, buildings, structures and other premises for agricultural, commercial,
industrial, residential, flood plane, and other specific uses;
(b) The size, height, area, bulk, location, erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration,
repair, maintenance, razing, oreremoval_of structures;
(c) The areas and dimensions of land, water, and air space to be occupied by buildings,
structures, and uses, and of courts, yards, and other open spaces to be left unoccupied by
uses and structures, including variations, the sizes of lots based on whether a public or
community water supply or sewer system is available and used;
1
1
(d) The excavation or mining of soil or other natural resources.
127
efore, be it ordained, by the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, for the
ose of promoting the health, safety, or- general welfare of the public and of further
mplishing the objectives of Section 15.1 -427, that the following be adopted as the zoning
nance of Frederick County, Virginia, together with the accompanying maps. This ordinance
been designed,
(1) to provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access, and safety from fire, flood,
and other dangers; (2) to reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; (3) to facili -_
tate the creation of a convenient, attractive, and harmonious community; (4) to expedite
the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense,
transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, school, parks, forests, playgrounds,
recreational facilities, airports, and other public requirements; (5) to protect against
destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas; and (6) to protect against one or more
of the following: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the
community facilities existing or available, obstruction of light and air, danger and conges-
•r tion in travel and transportat-i•on.or : loss,of..life,.health, or property from fire, flood,
panic, or other dangers.
ARTICLE I
DISTRICTS
1.1 For the purpose of this ordinance, the unincorporated areas of Frederick County,
Virginia are hereby divided into the following Districts:
Agricultural, Limited A -1
Agricultural, General A -2
Residential, Limited R -1
Residential, Limited R -2
Residential, General R -3
Residential, Planned Community R -4
Residential, Recreational Community R -5
Business, Limited B -1
Business, General B -2
Planned Shopping Center SC
Industrial, Limited M -1
Industrial, General M -2
Airport AP -1
Flood Plain FP
ARTICLE II
AGRICULTURAL, LIMITED
DISTRICT A -1
Statement of Intent
This district covers the unincorporated portions of the County which are occupied by various
open uses, such as forest, parks, farms, lakes or mountains. This 'district is established
for the specific purpose of facilitating existing and future farming operations, conservation
of water and other natural resources, reducing soil erosion, protecting water sheds, and
reducing hazards from flood, and fire. Uses not consistent with the existing character of
the district are not permitted.
2 -1. USE REGULATIONS
In Agricultural, Limited, District A -1, structures to be erected or land to be
used shall be for one -or more of the following uses:
2 -1 -1. Sing1e'fanily` dwellings.
2 -1 -2. CGeneral farming and agriculture, orchards, nurseries and horticulture.
-1 -3. Dairying and forestry.
-1 -4. Schools
-1 -5. Churches
-1 -6. Public parks and recreation.
-1 -7. Preserves and conservation areas.
? -1 -8.
2 -1 -9.
2 -1 -10.
2 -1 -11.
Historical preservation areas.
Outdoor - recreation and - facilities such as skiing, hunting-,. boati -ng; -golf .
Sawmills, as defined.
Cemeteries.
Home occupations as defined
-13. Public utilities including booster, generating or relay stations, transformer
substations, transmission lines and towers, pipes, meters and other facilities
for the provision and maintenance of public, utilities, railroads and facilities,
and water and sewer facilities and lines.
128
2 -1 -14. Off- street parking as required by this ordinance.
2 -1 -15. Fire Stations, companies, and rescue squads.
2 -1 -16. Accessory uses as defined.
2 -1 -17. Business signs, only to advertise the sale or rent of the premises upon which erected
2 -1 -18. Church bulletin boards and identification signs and church and civic location signs.
2 -1 -19. Directional signs.
2 -1 -20. Home occupation signs:
2 -1 -21. Location signs.
2 -1 -22. Permitted exceptions only with a conditional use permit:
a. Mobile homes
b. Mobile home parks
C. Service stations
d. Country general stores
e. Kennels
2 -2. AREA REGULATIONS
The minimum lot area for permitted uses shall be seventy thousand (70,000) square
feet.
2 -3. SETBACK REGULATIONS
2 -3 -1. No structure, except signs, shall be located between the setback line and the
street, road or highway center line.
2 -3 -2. 'The setback line shall be ninety (90) feet or more from, and parallel or concentric
to, any highway, street or road center line.
2 -4. FRONTAGE REGULATIONS
The minimum frontage for residential uses shall be two hundred (200) feet'at the
setback line. For all other permitted uses the minimum frontage shall be two
hundred (200) feet at the setback line.
2 -5. YARD REGULATIONS
Side - The minimum
side yard for each main
structure and accessory building shall
,
2 -5 -1.
be fifteen (15) feet
and the total width of
the two (2) required side yards shall
be thirty -five (35)
feet.
2 -5 -2. Rear - No structure
shall be built closer
than fifty (50) feet to the property line.
2 -6. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FORrCORNER LOTS!
2 -6 -1. Of the two (2) sides of the corner lot the front shall be deemed to be the shortest
of the two (2) sides fronting on streets.
2 -6 -2. The minimum side yard on the side facing the side street shall be thirty -five (35)
feet or more for both main and accessory buildings.
2 -6 -3. Each corner lot shall have a minimum width at its setback line of two hundred (200)
feet.
2 -7. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISIONS
2 -7 -1. Mobile home subdivisions shall be governed by the following regulations.
2 -7 -2. Minimum size: A mobile home subdivision shall be not less than twenty (20) acres.
2 -7 -3. Lot size: Each lot shall contain a mobile home stand seventy (70) feet by twenty -
four 24 feet equipped with all utilities buried in the ground.
The minimum lot area, exclusive of the mobile home stand, shall be not less than
ten thousand (10,000) square feet where public water and sewer are available; or
not less than thirty thousand (30,000) square feet where public water or sewer
are available but not both; or forty thousand (40,000) square feet with one
hundred twenty (120) feet of frontage where no public facilities are available.
2 -7 -4. Mobile Home Stands: No mobile home stand shall be placed within twenty (20) feet
of another, provided, that with respect to stands arranged end to end, the distance
shall be not less than fifteen (15) feet.
2 -7 -5. Yards Abutting Common Areas: The distance from the line or corner of the mobile j
home stand to a private access drive, or common parking area, a common walk or
other common area shall be fifteen (15) feet minimum.
2.8. FRONTAGE REGULATION
No mobile home shall be placed less than one hundred fifty (150) feet from any
existing through street.
2 -9. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION CORNER LOTS
2 -9 -1. Of the two (2) sides of the corner lot the front shall be deemed to be the shortest
of the two (2) sides fronting on the street.
129
2 -9 -2. The minimum side yard on the side facing the side street or abutting property
shall be thirty -five (35) feet or more for both mobile home and accessory buildings.
2 -9 -3. Each corner of the.property being subdivided that abuts existing or proposed
streets or highways shall have a minimum width at the setback line of two hundred
(200) feet.
ARTICLE III
AGRICULTURAL, GENERAL
DISTRICT A -2
Statement of Intent
This district is designed primarily to accommodate farming and kindred rural activities.
While the basic aim is to preserve and promote this utilization of the land; the uses per-
mitted are broad enough to allow development of urbanized areas, since it is recognized that
certain rural areas logically may be expected to develop in this manner. This district is
established for the specifc'lpurpose'bf - :�I
(1) Providing for the orderly expansion of urban development into territory
surrounding incorporated areas within or adjacent to the county,
(2) Encouraging such development in locations that can feasibly be supplied
urban -type facilities, and
(3) Discouraging the random scattering of residential, commercial, and
industrial uses within the area.
3 -1. USE REGULATIONS
In Agricultural District A -2, structures to be erected or land to be used shall be
for one or more of the following uses:
F_�
3 -1 -1. Single - family dwellings.
3 -1 -2. Agriculture, general farming, dairying and forests.
3 -1 -3. Orchards, nurseries and horticulture.
3 -1 -4. Outdoor recreation and facilities such as skiing, hunting, boating and golf.
3 -1 -5. Schools.
3 -1 -6. Public parks and playgrounds.
3 -1 -7. Churches.
3 -1 -8. Professional offices within dwelling.
3 -1 -9. Veterinary or dog or cat hospital.
3 -1 -10. Preserves and donservation areas.
3 -1 -11. Winchester Airport.
3 -1 -12. Home occupations as defined.
3 -113. Public utility generating, booster or relay stations, transformer substations,
transmission lines and towers, pipes, meters and other facilities for the provision
and maintenance of- public utilities, including railroads and facilities, and
water and sewer facilities and lines.
3 -1 -14. Off- street parking as required by this ordinance.
3 -1 -15. Accessory uses as defined, however, garages or other accessory structures such as
carports, porches, and stoops, attached to the main building. No accessory building
may be closer than fifteen (15) feet to any property line.
3 -1 -16. Business signs.
3 -1 -17. Location signs.
3 -1 -18. Church bulletin boards and identification signs.
3 -1 -19. Directional signs.
3 -1 -20. Home occupation signs.
3 -1 -21. Radio and television towers and their accessory buildings, meeting all requirements
of all agencies having control over their use and location.
3 -1 -22. Fire stations, companies, and rescue squads.
3 -1 -23. Frederick County Sanitary Landfill.
3 -1 -24. Permitted exceptions with conditional use permit:
A. Poultry and egg production, including hatcheries.
B. Fish hatcheries and fish processing.
C. Manufacturing or sale of feed and other farm supplies.
130
D. Fruit Packing plants.
E. Convalescent and nursing homes.
F. Gift and antique shops:
G. Motels.
H. Sawmills and planning mills as defined.
I. Television or radio stations.
J. Hog farms.
K. Restaurants.
L. Cemeteries.
M. Mobile homes.
N. Mobile home parks.
0. Wayside stands.
P. Family camp ground.
Q. Grocery stores.
R. Service Stations.
S. Kennels
3 -2. AREA REGULATIONS
The minimum lot area for permitted uses shall be one (1) acre.
3 -3. SETBACK REGULATIONS
3 -3 -1. No structure, except signs, shall be located between the setback line and the street,
road or highway center line.
3 -3 -2. The setback line shall be ninety (90) feet or more from, and parallel or concentric to
any highway, street or road center line.
3 -4. FRONTAGE REGULATIONS
The minimum frontage for residential uses shall be one hundred fifty (150) feet at the
setback line. For all other permitted uses the minimum frontage shall be two hundred
(200)feet at the setback line.
3 -5. YARD REGULATIONS
3 -5 -1. Side - The minimum side yard for each main structure shall be fifteen (15) feet and
the total width of the two (2) side yards shall be thirty -five (35) feet.
3 -5 -2. Rear - Each main structure shall have a rear yard of fifty (50) feet or more.
3 -6. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR CORNER LOTS
3 -6 -1. Of the two (2) sides of a corner lot the front shall be deemed to be the shortest of
the two (2) sides fronting on streets.
3 -6 -2. The minimum side yard on the side facing the side street shall be thirty -five (35) feel
or more for both main and accessory building.
3 -6 -3. For subdivisions platted after the enactment of this ordinance, each corner lot shall
have a minimum width at the setback line of two hundred (200) feet.
3 -7. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISIONS
3 -R -1. Mobile home subdivisions shall be governed by the following regulations:
3 -7 -2. Minimum size A mobile home subdivision shall be not less than twenty (20)acres.
3 -7 -3. Lot size: Each lot shall contain a mobile home stand seventy (70) feet by twenty -
four 24) feet equipped with all utilities buried in the ground.
The minimum lot area,.exclusive of the mobile home stand, shall be not less than ten
thousand (10,000) square feet where public water and sewer are available; or not
less than thirty thousand (30,000) square feet where public water or sewer are
available, but not both; or forty thousand (40,000) square feet with one hundred twe
(120) foot of frontage where no public facilities are available.
3 -7 -4. Mobile home stands No mobile home stand shall be placed within twenty (20) feet of
another, provided, that with respect to stands arranged end to end, the distance shall
be not less than fifteen (15) feet.
3 -7 -5. Yards abutting common areas The distance from the line or corner of the mobile home
stand to a private access drive, or common parking area, a common walk or other common
area shall be fifteen (15) feet minimum.
3 -8. FRONTAGE REGULATION
No mobile home shall be placed less than one hundred fifty (150) feet from any exist
through street.
3 -9. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR CORNER LOTS
3 -9 -1. Of the two (2) sides of the corner lot the front shall be deemed to be the shortest
of the two (2) sides fronting on streets.
1
3 -9 -2. The minimum side yard on the side facing the side street or abutting property shall
be thirty -five (35) feet or more for both mobile home and accessory building.
3 -9 -3. Each corner of the subdivision that abuts existing or proposed streets br• highways sha]
have a minimum width at the setback line of two hundred (200) feet.
131
ARTICLE IV
RESIDENTIAL,'LIMITED
DISTRICT R -1
Statement of Intent
This district is composed of certain quiet, low - density residential areas plus certain open
areas where similar residential development appears likely to occur. The regulations for
' this district are designed to stabilize and protect the essential characteristics of the
district, to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life where there are
children, and to prohibit all activities of a commercial nature. To these ends, development
is limited to relatively low concentration and permitted uses.are limited basically to single
unit dwellings providing homes for the residents plus certain additional uses such as schools,
parks, churches, and certain public facilities that serve the residents of the district. No
home occupations (including room renting) are permitted.
4 -1. USE REGULATIONS
' In Residential District R -1, structures to be erected or land to be used, shall be
for one or more of the following uses:
-1 -1. Single - family dwellings.
-1 -2. Schools.
-1 -3. Churches.
-1 -4. Public parks, playgrounds, and recreational uses with conditional use permit.
1 -5. Off - street parking as required by this ordinance.
1 -6. Accessory buildings are defined, however, garages or other accessory buildings such
as carports, porches and stoops attached to the main building shall be considered
part of the main building. No accessory building may be closer than ten (10) feet
to any property line.
1 -7. Public utilities including poles, lines, distribution transformers, pipes, and
meters, water and sewer facilities and lines.
Business signs only to advertise the sale or rent of the premises upon which erected.
' 4 -1 -9. Church bulletin boards and identification signs.
4 -1 -10. Directional' signs.
4 -1 -11. Fire stations, companies, and rescue squads.
4 -2. AREA REGULATIONS
4 -2 -1. For lots containing or intended to contain a single permitted use served by public
water and sewage disposal, the minimum lot area shall be twenty thousand (20,000)
square feet.
2 -2. For lots containing or intended to contain a single permitted use served by public
water systems, but having individual sewage disposal, the minimum lot area shall be
thirty thousand (30,000) square feet.
2 -3. For lots containing or intended to contain a single permitted use served by individ-
ual water and sewage disposal systems, the minimum lot area shall be forty thousand
(40,000) square feet.
4 -3. SETBACK REGULATIONS
4 -3 -1. No structure shall be located between the setback line and the street, road or
highway, center line: '
' 4 -3 -2. The setback line shall be sixty -five (65) feet or more from, and parallel or concen-
tric to, any highway, street or road center line.
4 -4. FRONTAGE REGULATIONS
The minimum lot width at the setback line shall be one hundred (100) feet or more;
one hundred twenty (120) feet or more where individual water and sewage systems
are used.
Buildings may be erected up to thirty -five (35) feet in height except that:
-6 -1. The height limit for dwellings may be increased up to forty -five (45) feet and up to
three (3) stories provided there are two (2) side yards for each permitted use, each
of which is fifteen (15) feet or more plus one (1) foot or more of side yard for
each additional foot of building height over thirty -five (35) feet.
4 -5.
YARD
REGULATIONS
'
4 -5 -1.
Side.
The minimum side yard for
each main structure
shall be fifteen (15) feet or
more
and the total of the two (2)
required side yards
shall be thirty -five (35) feet.
4 -5 -2.
Rear
- Each main strubture shall
have a rear yard of
-five (35) feet or more.
4 -6.
HEIGHT REGULATIONS
Buildings may be erected up to thirty -five (35) feet in height except that:
-6 -1. The height limit for dwellings may be increased up to forty -five (45) feet and up to
three (3) stories provided there are two (2) side yards for each permitted use, each
of which is fifteen (15) feet or more plus one (1) foot or more of side yard for
each additional foot of building height over thirty -five (35) feet.
132
4 -6 -2. A public or semipublic building such as a school, church, or library may be erected
to a height of sixty (60) feet from grade provided that required front, side, and
rear yards shall be increased one (1) foot for each foot in height over thirty -five
(35) feet.
4 -6 -3. Church spires, belfries, cupolas, monuments, water towers, chimneys, flues, flag
poles, television antennae and radio aerials are exempt. Parapet walls may be up
to four (4) feet above the height of the building on which the roof rests.
4 -6 -4. No accessory building which is within twenty (20) feet of any party line shall be
more than one (1) story high. All accessory buildings shall be less than the main '
building in height.-
4 -7.
SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR CORNER LOTS
4 -7 -1.
Of the
two sides of corner lots the front shall
be deemed to be the shortest of the
two
sides fronting on streets..
5 -1 -7.
Public utilities such as poles, lines, distribution transformers, pipes, meters,
4 -7 -2.
The
side yard on the side facing the side street
shall be thirty -five (35) feet or
water and sewer facilities and lines.
more
for both main and accessory building.
Business signs only to advertise the sale or rent of the premises upon which erected.
,
4 -7 -3.
For
subdivisions platted after the enactment of
this ordinance, each corner lot shall
Directional signs.
have
a minimum width at the setback line of one
hundred and twenty -five (125) feet.
5 -2.
ARTICLE V
RESIDENTIAL, LIMITED
DISTRICT R -2
Statement of Intent
This district is composed of ' certain quiet; low- density residential areas plus certain open
areas where similar residential development appears likely to occur. The regulations for
this district are designed to stabilize and protect the essential characteristics of the
district, to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life where there are
children, and to prohibit all activities of a commercial nature. To these ends, development
is limited to relatively low concentration and permitted uses are limited basically to single
unit dwellings providing homes for the residents plus certain additional uses such as schools,
parks, churches, and certain public facilities that serve the residents of the district.
No home occupations (including room renting) except by permit.
5 -1. USE REGULATIONS ,
In Residential District R -2, structures to be erected or land to be used shall be
for one or more of the following uses:
5 -1 -1. Single - family dwellings.
5 -1 -2. Schools and churches.
5 -1 -3. Home occupations as defined, conducted by occupant, only with a conditional use
permit.
5 -1 -4. Public parks, playgrounds and recreational uses with a conditional use permit.
5 -1 -5. Off - street parking as required by this ordinance.
5 -1 -6.
Accessory buildings as defined, however, garages or other accessory buildings such
as carports, porches and stoops attached to the main building shall be considered
part of the main building. No accessory building may be closer than five (5) feet
to any property line.
5 -1 -7.
Public utilities such as poles, lines, distribution transformers, pipes, meters,
and /or other facilities necessary for the provision and maintenance,.including
water and sewer facilities and lines.
5 -1 -8.
Business signs only to advertise the sale or rent of the premises upon which erected.
'
5 -1 -9.
Church bulletin boards and identification signs.
5 -1 =10.
Directional signs.
5 -1 -11.
Fire stations, companies, and rescue squads.
5 -2.
AREA REGULATIONS
'
5 -2 -1.
For lots containing or intended to contain a single permitted use served by public
water and sewage disposal, the minimum lot area shall be fifteen thousand (15,000)
square feet.
5 -2 -2.
For lots containing or intended to contain a single permitted use served by public
water systems, but having individual sewage disposal, the minimum lot area shall be
thirty thousand (30,000) square feet.
5 -2 -3.
For lots containing or intended to contain a single permitted use served by
individual water and sewage disposal systems, the minimum lot area shall be forty
thousand (40,000) square feet.
133
i
5 =3. SETBACK REGULATIONS
5 -3 -1. No structure shall be located between the setback line and the street, road or
highway center line.
5 -3 -2. The setback line shall be sixty -five (65) feet or more from, and parallel or
concentric to, any highway, street or road center line.
5 -4. FRONTAGE REGULATIONS
The minimum lot width at the setback line shall be one hundred (100) feet or more;
one hundred twenty (120) feet or more where individual water and sewage system's
are used.
5 -5. YARD REGULATIONS
5 -5 -1. Side - The minimum side yard for each main structure shall be fifteen (15) feet
or more shd the two required side yards shall be thirty -five (35) feet.
5 -5 -2. Rear - Each main structure shall have a rear yard of thirty -five (35) feet or
more.
5 -6. HEIGHT REGULATIONS
Buildings may be erected up to thirty -five (35) feet in height except that:
5 -6 -1. The height limit for dwellings may be increased'up to forty -five (45) feet and
up to three.(3)_stories provided there are two (2) side yards for each permitted
use, each of which is fifteen (15) feet or more plus one (1) foot or more of side
yard for each additional foot of building height over thirty -five (35) feet.
5 -6 -2. A public or semipublic building such as a school, church, library, or general
hospital may be erected to a height of sixty (60) feet from grade provided that
required front, side, and rear yards shall be increased one (1) foot for each
foot in height over thirty -five (35) feet.
5 -6 -3. Church spires, belfries, cupolas, monuments, water towers, chimneys, flues,
flag poles, television antennae and radio aerials are exempt. Parapet walls
may be up to four (4) feet above the height of the building on which the roof rests.
5 -6 -4. No accessory building which is within twenty (20) feet of any party lot line
shall be more than one (1) story high. All accessory buildings shall be less
than the main building in height.
5 -7. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR CORNER LOTS
Of the two sides of a corner lot the front shall be deemed to be the shortest of
the two sides fronting on streets.
3-7 -2. The side yard on the side facing the side street shall be thirty -five (35) feet
or more for both main and accessory building.
3- 7 -3.'" For subdivisions platted after the enactment of this ordinance, each corner lot
shall have a minimum width at the setback line of one hundred twenty -five (125)
feet.
ARTICLE VI
RESIDENTIAL, GENERAL
DISTRICT R -3.
Statement of Intent
This district is composed of certain medium to high concentrations of residential uses,
ordinarily located between residential and commercial areas, plus certain open areas where
' similar development appears likely to occur. The regulations for this district are designed
to stabilize and protect the essential characteristics of the district, to promote and
encourage, insofar as compatible with the intensity of land use, a suitable environment for
family life composed of an adult population with some children. All residential types of
structures for both permanent and transient occupancy and including institutions, are
permitted plus structures for commercial uses conforming to the pattern of the district. This
residential district is not completely residential as it includes public and semipublic,
institutional, and other related uses.
6 -1. USE REGULATIONS
' In Residential District R -3, structures to be erected or land to be used shall be
for one or more of the following uses:
6 -1 -1. Single - family dwellings.
6 -1 -2. Two - family dwellings.
6 -1 -3. Multiple - family dwellings.
6 -1 -4. Townhouses
6 -1 -5. Rooming and Boarding houses.
6 -1 -6. Tourist homes.
134
6 -1 -7. Schools.
6 -1 -8. Churches.
6 -1 -9. Convalescent and nursing homes.
6 -1 -10. General hospitals with a conditional use permit.
6 -1 -11. Public parks, playgrounds, and recreational uses with a conditional use permit.
6 -1 -12. Home occupations, as defined, conducted by the occupant.
6 -1 -13. Off- street parking as required by this ordinance.
6 -1 -14. Accessory buildings permitted as defined, however, garages or other accessory struc-
tures such as carports, porches, and stoops attached to the main building shall be
considered part of the main building. No accessory building may be closer than five
(5) feet to any property line.
6 -1 -15. Public utilities such as poles, lines, distribution transformers, pipes and meters,
including water and sewer line.
6 -1 -16. Business signs.
6 -1 -17. Church bulletin boards and identification signs.
6 -1 -18. Directional signs.
6 -1 -19. Home occupation signs.
-20. Fire stations, companies, and rescue squads.
2. AREA REGULATIONS
2 -1. For lots containing or intended to'contain a single permitted use served by public
water and sewage disposal, the minimum lot area shall be twelve thousand (12,000)
square feet, with a minimum lot width at the setback line of eighty (80) feet.
2 -2. For lots containing or intended to contain a single permitted use served by public
water systems, but having individual sewage disposal, the minimum lot area shall be
twenty thousand (20,000) square feet, with a minimum lot width at the setback line
of one hundred (100) feet.
2 -3. For lots containing or intended to contain a single permitted use served by individ-
ual water and sewage disposal systems, the minimum lot area shall be forty thousand
(40,000) square feet, with a minimum lot width at the setback line of one hundred
twenty (120) feet.
2 -4. For lots containing or intended to contain more than a single permitted use served
by public water and sewage disposal systems, the minimum lot area shall be:
two (2) units... Twelve thousand (12,000) square feet or more. Three (3) units...
Fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet or more. For each additional unit above
three (3) ... one thousand (1,000) square feet.
The lot width at the setback line shall be ninety -five (95) feet plus five (5) feet
of additional width for each unit.
6 -2 -5. For permitted uses utilizing individual sewage disposal systems, the required area
for any such use shall be approved by the Health Official. The administrator shall
require a greater area if considered necessary by the Health Official.
6 -2 -6. Townhouses shall governed by the regulations set out in Article 6 -8 to the extent
that those regulations differ from or contradict any of the regulations in this
ordinance or in the Frederick County Subdivision Regulations.
6 -3. SETBACK REGULATIONS
-3 -1. No structure shall be located between the setback line and the street, road or
highway center line.
-3 -2. The setback line shall be sixty -five (65) feet or more from, and parallel or
concentric to, any highway, street or road center line.
-4. YARD REGULATIONS
-4 -1. Side (Single permitted use) - The minimum side yard for each main structure shall be
ten (10) feet and the total width of the two required side yards shall be twenty -
five (25) feet.
-4 -2. Rear - Each main structure shall have a rear yard of twenty -five (25) feet.
-5. HEIGHT REGULATIONS
Buildings may be erected up to thirty -five (35) feet in height from grade except
that:
-5 -1. The height limit for dwellings may be increased up to ten (10) feet and up to three
(3) stories provided there are two (2) side yards for each permitted use, each of
which is ten (10) feet or more, plus one (1) foot or more of side yard for each
additional foot of building height over thirty -five (35) feet.
1
135
6 -5 -2. A public or semipublic building such as a school, church, library or hospital
may be erected to a height of sixty (60) feet from grade provided that required
front, side, and rear yards shall be increased one (1) foot for each foot in
height over thirty -five (35) feet.
6 -5 -3. Church spires, belfries, cupolas, monuments, water towers, chimneys, flues, flag
poles, television antennae and radio aerials are exempt. Parapet walls may be
up to four (4) feet above the height of the building on which the roof rests.
6 -5 -4. No accessory building which is within ten (10) feet of any party lot line shall
be more than one (1) story high. All accessory buildings shall be less than the
main building in height.
6 -6. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR CORNER LOTS
6 -6 -1. Of the two sides of a corner 'l'o't 'the' front shall be deemed to be the shortest to
the two sides fronting on streets.
6 -6 -2. The side yard on the side facing the side street shall be thirty -five (35) feet
or more for both main and accessory building.
6 -6 -3. For subdivision platted after the enactment of this ordinance, each corner lot
shall have a minimum width at the setback line of one hundred (100) feet.
6 -7. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR TOWNHOUSES UNDER R -3
6 -7 -1. Townhouses shall be subject to the following regulations which shall be controlling
in all cases where they are in conflict with or different from other regulations in
this ordinance and in all cases of variance or conflict with the Frederick County
Subdivision Regulations.
6 -8. HEIGHT REGULATIONS
6 -8 -1. Buildings may be erected up to thirty -five (35) feet in height from the average
level of the ground adjacent to the front wall.
6 -9. AREA REGULATIONS
6 -9 -1. The minimum lot area for any townhouse shall be 1,600 square feet. The maximum
number of lots per gross acre of the development shall not exceed ten (10) lots
per acre.
6 -10. YARD REGULATIONS
6 -10 -1. Side - Each main building group shall have side yards of twenty (20) feet when
adjoining single family detached residence districts. In no case shall a side
yard of less than ten (10) feet in width be provided for each end residence in
the group of townhouses.
6 -10 -2. Rear - Each dwelling shall have a rear yard of twenty (20) feet.
6 -11. SETBACK REGULATIONS
6 -11 -1. No structure shall be located between the setback line and the street, road or
highway center line.
6 -11 -2. The setback line shall be sixty -five (65) feet or more from, and parallel or
concentric to, any highway, street or road center line.
6 -12. WIDTH REGULATIONS
6 -12 -1. The minimum lot width at the setback line shall be eighteen (18) feet.
6 -12 -2. In case of a corner lot of the ends of groups of townhouses, the minimum width
at the setback line shall be thirty (30) feet.
6 -13.' SPECIAL REGULATIONS
6 -13 -1. No more than eight (8) townhouses shall be included in any townhouse grouping.
6 -13 -2. Attached dwellings shall be separated by a noncombustible party wall to the roof
line, with a fire resistance of not less than two (2) hours duration.
6 -13 -3. Each townhouse shall front on a dedicated public street or a thirty -four (34)
foot minimum width access easement.
6 -13 -4. The facades of dwelling units in a townhouse development shall be varied by
changing front yards by not less than two-(2) feet and varying materials or design,
so that no more than four (4) adjacent dwelling units will have the same front
yard depth or the same or essentially the same architectural treatment of facades
and roof lines. ..
6 -13 -5. Common areas shall be maintained by and be the sole responsibility of the
developer -owner of the townhouse development until such developer -owner conveys
such common area to a non - profit corporate owner whose members shall be all of
the individual owners of the townhouses in the townhouse development. Said land
shall be conveyed to and be held by said non - profit corporate owner solely for
recreational and parking purposes of the owners of the individual townhouse
lots in the development. In the event of such conveyance by the developer -owner
to a non - profit corporate owner, deed restrictions and covenants, shall provide,
among things, that any assessments; charges for cost of maintenance of such
common areas shall constitute a pro -rate lien upon the individual townhouse lots.
136
Maintenance of townhouse exteriors, lawns, refuse handling, lighting and drainage sha:
be provided in a similar manner so as to discharge any responsibility from Frederick
County.
6 -13 -6. For each dwelling unit there shall be an average of two (2) off - street parking spaces
provided on the lot or within one hundred fifty (150) feet thereof.
ARTICLE VII
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT R -4
Statement of Intent
This district is intended to permit development in accordance with a master plan of cluster -
type communities containing not less than one hundred fifty (150) contiguous acres under.one
ownership or control, in a manner that will protect and preserve the natural resources, trees,
watersheds, contours and topographic features of the land, protect and enhance the natural
scenic beauty and permit the greatest amount of recreational facilities by leaving as
permanent open area not less than`'twenty- five`(25)' per cent of the''to'tal acreage. Within
such communities, the location of all improvement shall be controlled in such manner as to
permit a variety of housing accomodations in an orderly relationship to one another, with
the greatest amount of open area and least disturbance to natural features. "Open area" shall
include parks, roads, roadways, walkways, trails, school sites, playground and recreation.
facilities, sports facilities, non - residential clubhouse grounds and rights of way and
surface easement for drainage and other utilities over areas not within the lines of any
residential lot. A planned residential district may include a variety of residential
accomodations and limited commercial facilities in Village Centers to an extent necessary to
serve the neighborhood needs of the particular residential planned community, but no indus-
trial development is permitted.
Establishment
7 -1. REQUEST AND MASTER PLAN
Request for establishment of a residential planned community shall be made initally
to the Planning Commission and subsequently to the County Board of Supervisors
accompanied by a "Master Plan" for the proposed community of not less than one
hundred fifty (150) contiguous acres under one ownership or control.
7 -2. APPLICATION
7 -2 -1. The applicant shall furnish with his application for establishment of a Residential
Planned Community ten (10) copies of a Master Plan prepared by a surveyor, engineer
or architect, duly authorized by the State to practice as such, which plans shall
demonstrate generally accepted professional practice, upon which shall be shown
the approximate location of the open areas which shall comprise not less than twenty -
five (25) per cent of the whole and the general location of the various types of
land uses, including the general location of any Village Center and the residential
density classifications of each residential area.
7 -2 -2. The applicant shall further submit with his application ten (10) copies of a set of
schematic preliminary, plans which shall indicate a method by which the Master Plan
may be implemented and show the general location of all public and private roads, the
location and particular use of all open areas, the location and type of such proposed
improvements and buildings as are required to be shown on the Final Plan, and general
sewer, storm drainage and water supply plan.
7 -2 -3. Upon approval by the County Board of Supervisors of the Master Plan, the Residential
Planned Community shall be deemed established. After approval, the Master Plan may
not be altered without approval of the County Board of Supervisors, but the pre-
liminary plans shall be superseded by the Final Plans hereinafter provided for.
DEVELOPMENT
7 -3. FINAL PLAN
7 -3 -1. Following the establishment of a Residential Planned Community by approval of the
Board of Supervisors of a Master Plan therefore, the applicant shall furnish to the
Planning Commission ten (10) copies of a Final Plan of any part or section of the
community comprising not less than five (5) acres of land shown on the Master Plan
and from time to time thereafter shall submit additional Final Plans comprising
the whole area of the Master Plan. The Final Plan shall be prepared or certified by
surveyor, engineer, or architect. The Final Plans shall be consistent with the
Master Plan as approved but may vary from the Preliminary Plans to any degree which
the Planning Commission believes does not vary the basic concept or character of
the development.
7 -3 -2. Each Final Plan shall be drawn in accordance with site plan requirements, Article XVI
of this ordinance.
7 -3 -3. The applicant shall furnish with a Final Plan a proposed deed of easement including
restrictions safeguarding the permanent use of open areas and preventing encroachment
thereupon. The applicant•shall. furnish simultaneously with, or prior to, approval of
any Final Plan a deed or deeds, without consideration, to any land within its area
determined by the County Board of Supervisors to be reasonably required by the
particular community for public school purposes.
F___
L
137
7 -3 -4. When the final Plan and deed of dedication shall have been approved by the Planning
Commission as being in conformity with this ordinance and the Master Plan as approv-
ed by the County Board of Supervisors, the Final Plan shall be submitted to the
Board of Supervisors for approval.
-4. ADDITIONAL LAND
Additional land area may be added to an existing Residential Planned Community
if it is adjacent and forms a logical addition to the existing Residential
Planned Community and if it is under the-same ownership or control.
The procedure for an addition shall be the same as if an original application were
filed, and all of the requirements of this ordinance shall apply except the mini-
mum acreage requirement of one hundred fifty (150) acres.
7 -5. COMPUTING POPULATION DENSITY
7 -5 -1. On computing average density on any Final Plan of a part of a Residential
Planned Community, any excess in land area over that required to support an average
density of eight (8) persons per acre of gross area in any Final Plan previously
recorded may be included. So, as each successive Final Plan is submitted, the
overall density of all areas shown on recorded Final Plans within the proposed
Residential Planned Community as shown on the Master Plan shall be recomputed
so that the average population density of the aggregate gross area within all
the recorded sections of the community shall never at any time in the history of
its development exceed a density-of eight (8) persons per acre.
7 -5 -2. On computing population density, a factor of three and seven - tenths (3.7) persons
shall be used per detached single family dwelling, three (3) persons per townhouse,
two (2) persons per unit in a multi - family structure of three (3) stories or less +,
and one and five - tenths (1.5) persons per unit in residential club house, hotel,
motel or high rise (elevator) apartment,or other structure of more than three (3)
stories above ground.
7 -6. PERMITTED POPULATION DENSITY
7 -6 -1. The overall population density shown on the Master Plan of a Residential Planned
Community shall not exceed an average density of eitht (8) persons per acre
including.open area and Village Centers.
7 -6 -2. Three residential density areas shall be permitted in the Residential Planned
Community generally in the location shown on the Master Plan. Such density areas
shall be designated as follows:
"A" Areas for detached single family dwelling units
"B "_ Areas for townhouse units
"C" Areas for multi - family residential structures of not
more than three (3) stories above ground.
7 -6 -3. The population density within an "A" Area shall not exceed ten (10) persons per
acre of gross residential area which term gross residential area shall include
roads within such area; the population density within "B" Area shall not exceed
twenty -five (25) persons per acre of gross residential area and the population
density of a "C" Area shall not exceed thirty (30) persons per acre of gross
residential area.
7 -7. USE REGULATIONS
7 -7 -1. All uses permitted by right or by special permit in the Limited Residential
District R -1 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance shall be permitted in the
Residential Planned Community, as well as the following uses. All uses are subject
to the limitations hereinafter provided.
7 -7 -2. Golf courses and country clubs.
7 -7 -3. Multi- family residential.
7 -7 -4. Theaters and entertainment.
7 -7 -5. Preserves and conservation areas.
7 -7 -6. Public and private recreation areas.
7 -7 -7. Commercial uses provided under Section 7 -8 -3 of this ordinance.
7 -7 -8. Fire stations, companies, and rescue squads.
7 -7 -9. Public facilities such as schools, or water and sewer lines and stations.
7 -8. LIMITATIONS
7 -8 -1. Commercial uses shall be located in "Village Centers" shown on the Master Plan
and on the.Final Plan. Village Centers shall be light commercial and office
areas within which neighborhood commercial uses are permissible.
7 -8 -2. Not more than twelve (12) acres are to be devoted to commercial uses per thousand
people permitted in the Residential Planned Community, and such commercial uses
are to be limited to the areas designated as Village Centers on the Master Plan
and on the Final Plan.
I _. ..
We
7 -8 -3. Commercial uses permissible in Village Centers, and not otherwise permissible
in a residential district, shall -be limited to restaurants, stores, motels and
hotels, and service uses adequate to provide neighborhood shopping and business
convenience for the particular community.
7 -8 -4. Uses in a Residential Planned Community shall be permissible only in the general
location shown on the approved Master Plan as previously set forth.
7 -8 -5. The use of any area within a Residential Planned Community shall be shown on the
Final Plan as previously set forth.
7 -9. BUILDING LOCATION REQUIREMENTS
The location of all structures shall be as shown on the Final Plan as required
in Section 7 -3 -2 (other than single family dwellings) as to which building
restriction lines or construction area limit shall be shown with respect to each
lot. The proposed location and arrangement of structures shall not be detrimental
to the existing or prospective adjacent dwellings or to the existing or
prospective development of the neighborhood.
Open spaces between structures shall be protected where necessary by adequate con -
venants running with the land, conveyances or dedications. There shall be no
minimum lot size, no minimum setback lines, no maximum percentage of lot coverage,
no minimum width and no frontage requirement on a public street in a Residential
Planned Community on a public street in a Residential Planned Community District
except as shown on the approved Final Plan.
7 -9 -1. Building restriction lines shall be shown on the Final Plan.
7 -10. UTILITIES
Prior to approval of the Final Plan, the applicant must submit Plans and Specifica-
tions of a public or private sewer and a public or private water supply system ade-
quate to serve the area covered by the Final Plan in conformity with standards of
the Virginia State Water Control Board and the Virginia State Health Department.
7 -11. OPEN SPACE
7 -11 -1. In order to secure proper improvement and maintenance of all common open space in
the Residential Planned Community, the landowner shall provide for and establish
an organization for the ownership and maintenance of any common open space. Such
organization shall be made up of all property owners in the Residential Planned
Community, and membership shall be mandatory. Such organization shall not be
dissolved nor shall it dispose of any common space, by sale or otherwise, without
first offering to dedicate the same to Frederick County.
7 -11 -2. In the event that the organization established to own and maintain commonlopen
space, or any successor organization, shall at any time after establishment of the
Planned Unit Development fail to maintain the common open space in reasonable order
and condition in accordance with the plan, Frederick County may serve written
notice upon such organization or upon the residents and owners of the planned
unit development setting forth the manner in which the organization has failed
to maintain the common open space in reasonable condition, and said notice shall
include a demand that such deficiencies of maintenance be cured within thirty (30)
days thereof. If the deficiencies set forth in the original notice or inthe
modifications thereof are not cured within said thirty (30) days or any extension
thereof, the County in order to preserve the taxable values of the properties within
the Residential Planned Community and to prevent the common open space from becoming
a public nuisance, may enter upon said common open space and maintain the same
for a period of one (1) year. Said entry and maintenance shall not vest in the
public any rights to use the common open space except when the same is voluntarily
dedicated to the County by the residents and owners. Before the expiration of
said year, the County shall, upon its initiative or upon the request of the
organization theretofore responsible for the maintenance of the common space,
call a public hearing upon notice to such organization, or the residents and owners
of the planned unit development, to be held by the governing body, at which hearing
such organization or the residents and owners of the Residential Planned Community
shall show cause why such maintenance by the county shall not, at-the election .
of the county continue for a succeeding year. If Frederick County shall determine
that such organization is ready and able to maintain said common open space in
reasonable condition, the�County shall cease to maintainusaid common'open space
at the end of said.year. If�Frederick County shall - determine= siuchcorganization.is
not ready and -able to maintain said common open -space in a� reasonable condition
the County may continuerto' maintain said-common-space during the next-succeeding
year and subject to a similar hearing and determination in each year thereafter.
7 -11 -3. The decision of the County in any case shall constitute a final administrative
decision subject to appeal for judicial review.
7 -11 -4. The cost of such maintenance by the County shall be assessed ratably against
the properties within the Residential Planned Community and shall become a tax
lien on said properties. The County, at the time of entering upon said common
open space for the purpose of maintenance, shall file,a notice of such lien in
the office of the County Clerk upon the properties affected by such lien within
the planned unit development.
7 -12. STREET IMPROVEMENTS
7 -12 -1. All streets shall comply with Virginia Department of Highways regulations and
standards.
139
7 -12 -2. Cul -De -Sacs. Generally, minor terminal streets (cul -de- sacs), designed to have -
one end permanently closed. Each cul -de -sac must be terminated by a turn - around
of not less than one hundred (100) feet in diameter.
ARTICLE VIII
RESIDENTIAL RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY
RRC
DISTRICT R -5
Statement of Intent
This district is intended to permit development in accordance with a Master Plan therefor
of cluster -type communities containing not less that five hundred (500) contiguous acres
under one ownership or control, to be developed and subdivided for residential recreational
use, in a manner that will protect and preserve the natural resources, trees, watersheds,
contours, and topographic features of the land, protect and enhance the natural scenic
beauty and permit the greatest amount of recreational facilities by leaving as permanent
open area not less than thirty -five (35) per cent of the total acreage. Within such
communities the location of all improvements shall be controlled in such manner as to permit
a variety of housing accommodations in an orderly relationship to one another, with the great-
est amount of open area and the least disturbance to natural features. "Open area" shall
include parks, lakes, dams, roads, roadways, walkways, trails, swimming pools, forests,
hunting areas, golf courses, playgrounds and recreational facilities, ski slopes and other
sport facilities, non - residential clubhouse grounds and rights of way and surface easement
for drainage and other utilities over areas not within the lines of any residential lot and
other areas. A residential recreational district may include a variety of residential
accommodations and light commercial facilities in Village Centers to an extent necessary
to serve the neighborhood needs of the particular residential recreational community, but no
industrial development is permitted.
Establishment
8 -1. REQUEST AND MASTER PLAN
8 -1 -1. Request for establishment for a residential recreational planned community shall
be made initially to the Planning Commission and subsequently to the County Board
of Supervisors accompanied by a "Master Plan" for -the proposed community of not
less than 500 contiguous acres under one ownership or control.
8 -2 -1: The applicant shall furnish with his application for establishment of a Residential
Planned Community ten (10) copies of a Master Plan prepared by a surveyor, engineer
or architect, duly authorized by the State to practice as such, which plans shall
demonstrate generally accepted professional practice, upon which shall be shown
the approximate location of the open areas which shall comprise not less than
thirty -five (35) per cent of the whole and the general location of the various
types of land uses, including the general location of any Village Center and
the residential density classifications of each residential area.
8 -2. APPLICATION
8 -2 -2. The applicant shall further submit with his application ten (10) copies of a set
of preliminary plans which shall indicate a method by which the "Master Plan"
may be implemented and show the general location of all public and private roads,
the location and particular use of all open areas, the location and type of such
proposed improvements and building as are required to be shown on the Final
Plan, and a general sewer and water supply plan.
8 -2 -3. Upon approval by the County Board of Supervisors of the "Master Plan ", the
Residential Recreational Community shall be deemed established. After approval,
the Master Plan may not be altered without approval of the County Board of
Supervisors but the preliminary plans shall be superseded by the Final Plans
hereinafter provided for.
DEVELOPMENT
8 -3. FINAL PLAN
8 -3 -1. Following the establishment of a Residential Recreational Community by approval
of the Board of Supervisors of a Master Plan therefore, the applicant shall
furnish to the Planning Commission ten (10) copies of a Final Plan of any part
or section of the community comprising not less than five (5) acres of land
shown on the Master Plan and from time -to -time thereafter shall submit additional
Final Plans comprising the whole area of the Master Plan. The Final Plans shall
be prepared or certified by a surveyor, engineer or an architect. The Final Plans
shall be consistent with the Master.Plan as approved but may vary from the
preliminary plans to any degree which the Planning Commission believes does not
vary the basic concept or character of the development.
8 -3 -2. Each Final Plan shall be drawn in accordance with site plan requirements, Section
XVI of this Ordinance.
8 -3 -3. The applicant shall furnish with a Final Plan a proposed deed of easement including
restrictions safeguarding the permanent use of open areas and preventing encroach-
ment thereupon.
140
3 -3 -4. When the Final Plan deed of dedication shall have been approved by the Planning
Commission as being'in conformity with this ordinance and the "Master Plan" as
approved by the County Board of Supervisors, the Final Plan shall be submitted to
the Board of Supervisors for approval.
3 -4. ADDITIONAL LAND
3 -4 -1. Additional land area may be added to an existing Residential Recreational Planned
Community if it is adjacent and forms a logical addition to the existing Residential
Recreational Planned Community and if it is under the same ownership or control.
8 -4 -2. The procedure for an addition shall be the same as if an original application were
filed, and all of the requirements of this Ordinance shall apply except the minimum
acreage requirement of five hundred (500) acres.
B -5. COMPUTING POPULATION
8 -5 -1. On computing average density on any f.inal.plan of a part of a Residential- Recreation
al Community, any.excess in area other than required to support an average
density of eight J-8) persons per acre of gross area in any Final Plan previously
recorded may be2inclnded. So, as each successive Final Plan is submitted, the
overall density of all areas shown on recorded Final Plans within the proposed
Residential Recreational Planned Community as shown on the "Master Plan" shall
be recomputed so that the average population density of the aggregate gross area
within all the recorded sections of the Community shall never at any time in the
history,of its development exceed a density of eight (8) persons,per acre.
8 -5 -2. On computing population density, a factor of three and seven tenths (3.7) persons
shall be used per detached single family dwelling, three (3).persons per townhouse,
two (2) persons per unit in multi - family structures of three (3) stories or less,
and one and five- tenths (1.5) persons per unit in residential clubhouse or lodge.
8 -6. PERMITTED POPULATION DENSITY
8 -6 -1. The overall population density shown on the Master Plan of a Residential Recreation-
al Planned Community shall not exceed an average density of eight (8) persons per
acre including open area and Village Centers.
8 -6 -2. Single family dwelling units shall constitute eighty -eight (88) per cent of all
dwelling units, townhouses and multi - family dwellings may constitute twelve (12.)
per cent.
8 -6 -3. Three (3) residential density areas shall be permitted in the Residential Recreation
al Planned Community generally in the location shown on the "Master Plan." Such den
sity areas shall be designated as follows:
"A" Areas for detached single - family dwelling units
"B" Areas for townhouse units
"C" Areas -for multi - family residential structures of not more than
three (3) stories above ground.
The population density within an "A" area shall not exceed ten (10) persons per
acre of gross residential area served by central water and sewer systems, six (6)
persons per acre where one or the other is available, or four (4) persons per
acre where individual systems are used, which term gross residential area shall
include roads within such area; the population density within a "B" area shall .
not exceed twenty -five (25) persons per acre of gross residential area and the
population density of a "C" area shall not exceed thirty (30) persons per acre
of a gross residential area.
8 -7. USE REGULATIONS
7 -1. In the Residential Recreational Planned Community, structures to be erected or
land to be used shall be for one (1) or more of the following types:
Dwellings
Schools
Churches
Indoor and Outdoor Recreational Facilities
Shops and Stores in Village Centers
Preserves and Conservation Areas
Restaurants and Lodges with overnight accommodations
Yacht Clubs and Service Areas
Service Stations
Camp Grounds (Private)
Heliport or Air Strips
TV, Radio Stations & Towers
Fire Stations, Companies, and Rescue Squads
8 -7 -2. Accessory buildings permitted as defined, however, garages or other accessory
structures such as.carports, porches, and stoops attached to the main building
shall be considered part of the main building. No accessory building may be closer
than ten (10) feet to any property line.
8 -7 -3. Maintenance depots, .public utilities such as poles, distribution transformers,
lines, pipes, and meters, including water and sewer lines, the maintenance of
streets, roads, facilities or areas as required by the developer, accessory build-
ings and tanks and facilities or structures relative to same.
8 -8. LIMITATIONS
8 -8 -1. Commercial uses shall be located in "Village Centers" shown on the "Master Plan" and
on the Final Plan. "Village Centers" shall be light commercial within which neigh-
borhood commercial uses are permissible.
141
8 -8 -2. Not more than twelve (12) acres are to be devoted to commercial uses per thousand
lot owners in the residential Recreational.Planned Community and such commercial
uses are to be limited to the areas designated as "Village Centers" on the Master
Plan and on the Final Plan.
,-1
r i
J
8 -8 -3. Commercial uses permissible in a "Village Center" and not otherwise permissible
in a residential district shall be limited to restaurants, stores, lodges and
service uses adequate but not more adequate to provide neighborhood shopping
for the particular community or development needs. Home occupations (such as auto
repairs, beauty parlors and etc.) are not permitted in residential areas.
8 -8 -4. Uses in a Residential Recreational Planned Community shall be permissible only in
the general location shown on the approved Master Plan as previously set forth,
and each deed shall be restricted to the permitted class of land use (Residential
or Commercial, etc.).
8 -8 -5. The use of any area within a Residential Recreational Planned Community shall be
shown on the Final Plan as previously set forth.
8 -9. BUILDING LOCATION REQUIREMENTS
8 -9 -1. The location of all structures shall be as shown on the Final Plan other than
single family dwellings as to which building restriction lines or construction
area limit shall be shown with respect to each lot. The proposed location and
arrangement of structures shall not be detrimental to the existing or prospective
adjacent dwellings or to the existing or prospective development of the neighbor-
hood.
8 -9 -2. Building restriction lines shall be shown on the Final Plan.
8 -10. UTILITIES
8 -10 -1. Prior to approval of the Final Plan, the applicant must submit preliminary plans
and specifications for central sewer and central water supply systems adequate
to serve the area covered in the Final Plan in conformity with standards of the
Virginia State Water Control Board and the Virginia-State Health Department.
Private septic tanks and wells may be permitted if approved by local health
authorities.
8 -10 -2. All townhouses, multi - family dwellings and village centers shall be served by
central water distribution and sewage collection disposal systems.
8 -11. SPECIAL PROVISIONS
8 -11 -1. If following the establishment of a Residential Recreational Planned Community
a Final Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as herein before
provided, such Final Plan shall be deemed approved by the Planning Commission if
no action has been taken by the Planning Commission within sixty (60) days after
such submission.
8 -11 -2. Junk or abandoned cars, vehicles or motorized equipment, debris (such as
household effects - appliances and the like) shall be prohibited on a residential
lot. It shall further be prohibited to abandon such in any part of a public or
private right of way or in any part thereof.
8 -12. AREA REGULATIONS
8 -12 -1. For permitted uses utilizing individual sewage disposal systems, the required
area for any such use shall be approved by the Health Official. The administrator
shall require a greater area if considered necessary by the Health Official.
8 -13. SPECIAL REGULATIONS
8 -13 -1. No more than eight (8) townhouses shall be included in any townhouse grouping.
8 -13 -2. The facades of dwelling units in a townhouse development shall be varied by
changing front yards by not less than two (2) feet and variation in materials
or design, so that no more than four (4) abutting units will have the same
front yard depth or the same or essentially the same architectural treatment
of facades and roof lines.
8 -14. OPEN SPACE
8 -14 -1. Open space, roads, shall be maintained by and be the sole responsibility of
the developer /owner of the recreation development until such time as the
developer /owner conveys or sells such common area to a non - profit corporate
owner or association whose members shall be all of the individual owners in
the development. Said land shall only be conveyed to and be held by said
non - profit corporate owner or association of the individual owners in the
development.
8 -14 -2. In the event that the organization established to own and maintain common open
space, or any successor organization, shall at any time after establishment of the
Residential Recreational Community fail in maintaining the common open space in
reasonable order and condition in accordance with the plan, Frederick County may
serve written notice upon such organization or upon the residents and owners
of the planned unit development setting forth the manner in which the organization
has failed to maintain the common open space in reasonable condition, and said
notice shall include a demand that such deficiencies or maintenance be cured
within thirty (30) days thereof. If the deficiencies set forth in the original
notice or in the modifications thereof are not cured within said thirty (30) days,
or any extension thereof, the County in order to preserve the taxable values of
the properties within the Residential Recreational Community and to prevent the
142
common open space from becoming a public nuisance, may enter upon said common-open
space and maintain the same for a period of one (1) year. Said entry and maintenance
shall not vest in the public any rights to use the common open•space except when
the same is voluntarily dedicated to the County by the residents and owners. Before
the expiration of said year, the County shall, upon its initiative or upon the re-
quest of the organization theretofore responsible for the maintenance of the common
space, call a public hearing upon notice to such organization, or the residents
and owners of the planned unit development to be held by the governing body, at
which hearing such organization or the residents and owners of the Residential
Recreational Community shall show cause why such maintenance by the County shall
not, at the election of the County, continue for a succeeding year. If Frederick
County shall determine that such organization is ready and able to maintain said
common open space in reasonable condition, the County shall'cease to maintain said
common open space at the end of said year. If Frederick County shall determine
such organization is not ready and able to maintain said common open space in a
reasonable condition, the County may continue to maintain said common space during
the next succeeding year and subject to a similar hearing and determination in
each year thereafter.
The decision of the County in any such case shall constitute a final administrative
decision subject to appeal for judicial review.
8 -14 -3. The cost of such maintenance by the County shall be assessed ratably against the
properties within the Residential Recreational Community and shall become a tax
lien on said properties. The County, at the time of entering upon said common
open space for the purpose of maintenance, shall file a notice of such lien in the
Office of the County Clerk upon the properties affected by such lien within the
planned unit development.
8 -15. STREETS AND ROADS
8 -15 -1. Streets and roads within the developed area shall effectively serve all subdivided
residential lots and all other facilities therein and shall, if dedicated for
public use and accepted by the Virginia Department of Highways, meet the require-
ments of Frederick County, Virginia.
8 -15 -2. Private streets and roads, which shall also effectively serve all- subdivided
residential lots and other facilities in the area are permitted. When private
streets and roads are used the County shall not be bound in any way to provide
public services to the recreational community and such streets as are indicated
on the recorded plats shall recite the fact they are not dedicated to general
public use, and such private roads and streets shall not be required to meet state
or county requirements.
8 -15 -3. All dedicated public streets shown on the Final Plan shall meet all requirements
of the Virginia Department of Highways Standards. Before approval of any Final
Plan, the Resident Engineer shall so certify.
8 -16. CUL - DE - SAC
8 -16 -1. Generally, minor terminate streets (cul -de -sacs) are designated to have one end
permanently closed. Each cul -de -sac must be terminated by an adequate turn - around.
8 -17. OFF STREET PARKING
8 -17 -1. The off street parking requirements as stipulated in GENERAL,PROVISIONS of this
Ordinance shall apply except there shall be no requirements for off street park-
ing for single family residential use.
ARTICLE IX
BUSINESS, LIMITED
DISTRICT B -1
Statement of Intent
The primary purpose of this district is to establish and protect a business district
that will serve the surrounding residential districts. Traffic and parking
congestion is to be held to a minimum to protect and preserve property values
in the surrounding residential districts and, insofar as possible, all neighbor-
hood business development shall take place in a limited business district. The
district shall include such activities as are necessary for the day -to -day
operation of a normal household.
9 -1. USE REGULATIONS
In Business District B -1, structures to be erected or land to.be used shall be for
one or more of the following uses:
General retailing uses, including but not limited to, grocery stores, bakeries,
drug stores, gift shops and clothing stores.
9 -1 -2. Personal services including but not limited to, laundries, dry cleaning, barber
and beauty shops.
9 -1 -3. Service Stations with repair under cover.
9 -1 -4. Banks.
9 -1 -5. Professional Offices and Office Buildings.
143
9 -1 -6. Public utilities such as poles, lines, distribution transformers, pipes, meters
and /or other facilities necessary for their provision and maintenance,and
including water and sewer lines and stations.
9 -1 -7.
9 -1 -8.
9 -1 -9.
' 9 -1 -10.
9 -2.
Off street parking as required by this ordinance:
Business signs.
Directional signs.
Restaurants.
AREA REGULATIONS
Permitted uses utilizing individual water supply or sewage disposal systems,
the required area for any such area shall be approved by the Health Official.
The administrator may require a greater area if considered necessary by the
Health Official.
' 9 -3. SETBACK REGULATIONS
9 -3 -1. No structure, except signs, shall be located between the setback line and the
street, road or highway center line.
9 -3 -2. The setback line shall be sixty -five (65) feet or more from, and parallel or
concentric to any highway, street or road center line.
9 -4. FRONTAGE AND YARD REGULATIONS
For permitted uses the minimum side yard adjoining or adjacent to a residential
or agricultural district shall be twenty -five (25) feet, and off- street parking
shall be in accordance with the provisions contained herein.
9 -5. HEIGHT REGULATIONS
Buildings may be erected up to thirty -five (35) feet in height from grade
except that:
9 -5 -1. The height limit for buildings may be increased up to forty -five (45) feet and
up to three (3) stories provided there are two (2) side yards for each permitted
use, each of which is twenty -five (25) feet or more, plus one (1) foot or more
of side yard for each additional foot of building height over thirty -five (35)
' feet.
9 -5 -2. A public or semipublic building such as a school, church, library, or general
hospital may be erected to a height of sixty (60) feet from grade provided that
required front, side, and rear yards shall be increased one (1) foot for each
foot over thirty -five (35) feet.
9 -5 -3. Church spires, belfries, cupolas, monumeHts,.water towers, chimneys, flues, flag
poles, television antennae and radio aerials are exempt. Parapet walls may be
up to four (4) feet above the height of the building on which the walls rest.
9 -5 -4. No accessory structure which is within twenty -five (25) feet of any party lot
line shall be more than one (1) story high. All accessory'structures shall be
less than the main structure in height.
ARTICLE X
BUSINESS, GENERAL
DISTRICT B -2
Statement of Intent
' Generally, this district covers that portion of the community intended for
the conduct of general business to which the public requires direct and frequent
access, but which is not characterized either by constant heavy trucking other
than stocking and delivery of light retail goods, or by any nuisance factors
other than occasioned by incidental light and noise of congregation of people
and passenger vehicles. This includes such uses as retail stores, banks,
theaters, taverns, and garages and service stations, business offices, newspaper
offices, printing presses, restaurants.
' 10 -1. USE REGULATIONS
In Business District B -2, structures to be erected or land to be used shall
be for one or more of the following uses:
10 -1 -1. Retail stores.
10 -1 -2. Bakeries.
10 -1 -3. Dry cleaners.
10 -1 -4. Laundries..
10 -1 -5. Wearing apparel stores.
10 -1 -6. Drug stores.
144
10 -1 -7. Barber and beauty shops.
10 -1 -8. Home appliance services and sales.
10 -1 -9. Theaters, assembly halls.
10 -1 -10. Hotels, motels.
10 -1 -11. Professional Offices and Office Buildings.
10 -1 -12. Churches.
10 -1 -13. Libraries.
10 -1 -14. Hospitals, general.
10 -1 -15. Funeral homes.
10 -1 -16. Service stations (with major repair under cover).
10 -1 -17. Clubs and lodges.
10 -1 -18. Auto sales and /or service.
10 -1 -19. Lumber and building supply (with storage under cover).
10 -1 -20. Plumbing and electrical supply (with storage under cover).
10 -1 -21. Wholesale and processing not objectionable because of dust, noise or odors with
conditional use permit.
10 -1 -22. Machinery sales and service.
10 -1 -23. Furniture stores.
10- 1 -24.• Public utilities such as poles, lines, distribution transformers, pipes, meters
and /or other facilities necessary for the provision and maintenance, including
water and sewer lines.
10 -1 -25. Restaurants.
10 -1 -26. Veterinary or dog or cat hospital or kennel with a conditional use permit.
10 -1 -27. Off- street parking as required by this ordinance.
10 -1 -28. Public billiard parlors and pool room bowling alleys, dance halls, and similar
forms of public amusement only after a public hearing shall have been held by
the governing body on an application submitted to the body for such use. The
governing body shall request that the commission submit a recommendation to them
concerning such use applications. In approving any such application the governing
body may establish such special requirements and regulation for the protection
of adjacent property, and make requirements as they may deem necessary in the
public interest.
10 -1 -29. Business signs.
10 -1 -30. Location signs.
10 -1 -31. Professional offices.
10 -1 -32. Banks.
10 -1 -33. Helicopter landing facilities.
10 -1 -34. Newspaper offices.
10 -1 -35. Printing shops.
10 -2. AREA REGULATIONS
For permitted uses utilizing individual sewage disposal systems, the required area
shall be approved by the Health Official.
10 -3. SETBACK REGULATIONS
10 -3 -1. No structure, except signs, shall be located between the setback fine and the
street, road or highway center line.
10 -3 -2 The setback line shall be sixty -five (65) feet or more from, and parallel or con-
centric to any highway, street or road center line.
10 -4. FRONTAGE AND YARD REGULATIONS
For permitted uses the minimum side yard adjoining or adjacent to a residential
or agricultural district shall be twenty -five (25) feet, and off - street parking
shall be in accordance with the provisions contained herein.
10 -5. HEIGHT REGUERTGONSn • a
Buildings may be erected up to thirty -five (35) feet in height from grade except
that:
145
10 -5 -1. The height limit for buildings may be increased up to forty -five (45) feet and up
to three (3) stories provided there are two (2) side yards for each permitted use,
each of which is twenty -five (25) feet or more ;plus one (1) foot or more of side
yard for each additional foot of building height over thirty -five (35) feet.
10 -5 -2. A public or semipublic building such as a school, church, library, or general
hospital may be erected to a height of sixty (60) feet from grade provided that
required front, side and rear yards shall be increased one (1) foot for each foot
over thirty -five (35) feet.
10 -5 -3. Church spires, belfries, cupolas, monuments, water towers, chimneys, flues, flag
poles, television antennae and radio aerials are exempt. Parapet walls may be up
to four (4) feet above the height of the building on which the walls rest.
10 -5 -4. No accessory structure which is within twenty -five (25) feet of any party lot
lllne shall-be more than one .(l) story high. All accessory structures shall be
less than the main structure in height.
ARTICLE XI
PLANNED SHOPPING DISTRICT
DISTRICT SC
Statement of Intent
I
Community shopping centers are intended to provide a wide variety of goods and services to
trade areas composed of several neighborhoods. A community shopping center provides not only
for "convenience goods" such as food, drugs and personal services, but also for "shopping
goods," such as,:apparel and furniture, as well as banking and professional services and
recreation. The size of the center is intended to be directly related to the quantity of
purchasing power available for the support of these uses permitted in this zone. A community
shopping center is designed and located so as to minimize traffic congestion on public
highways and streets in its vicinity and to best fit the general land use pattern of the
area to be served by the center. The protective standards contained in this district
are intended to minimize any adverse effect of the shopping center on nearby property values
and to provide for safe and efficient use of the shopping center itself.
11 -1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: The governing body may authorize as an amendment to the
Zoning Map the designation of an area as an "SC" Shopping Center District for the
location.of an integrated shopping center, subject to the regulations of this
and any per- t -inent Article.
11 -2. USE REGULATIONS: In an "SC" Shopping Center District, a building or combination
of buildings may be erected or used, and a lot area may be used or occupied for
any of the following purposes, and no other:
11 -2 -1. Retail stores, including retail outlet or show room for uses permitted in Paragraph
11 -2 -8, hereof but not including automobile sales agency, provided that no goods
shall be displayed on the exterior of any building or on that lot, and provided
that only incidental storage, including floor samples, shall be permitted.
11 -2 -2. Restaurant.
11 -2 -3. Following personal service shops dealing directly with customers, beauty parlor,
barber shop, clothes cleaning (not including a cleaning and dying plant), automatic
self- service laundry, dress - making, millinery or similar shop provided all repair
or processing work is conducted in accordance with Paragraph 11 -2 -8 below.
11 -2 -4. Theater-(not including outdoor motion picture establishment), assembly hall, or
community building, indoor recreational establishment or library, child day center.
11 -2 -5. Bakery, confectionery, custom shop for the production of articles to be sold
at retail on the premises, provided that all baking or processing is conducted
in accord with Paragraph 11 -2 -8 below.
11 -2 -6. Bank.
11 -2 -7. Electric Substation telephone and telegraph offices.
11 -2 -8. The following uses provided that if such uses are located on the
shall not be located within twenty (20) feet of the'front of the
provided that they shall be effectively screened from the front
building by a wall or partition.
1. General Servicing or repair.
2. Upholstering.
3. Carpentry or woodworking.
4.. Electrical, radio, television repair.
5. .Hand laundering, dry cleaning, or pressing, provided
no inflammable fluids are used.
6. Tailoring, dress - making, or repair.
7. - Millinery repair.
8. Baking -, confectionery- making, or similar processing.
9. Any similar use involving repair, processing or storage
activity. ,.
11 -2 -9. Accessory use customarily incidental to any of the above uses.
ground floor they
building and
portion of the
146
11 -2 -10. Any use of the same general character as any of the above permitted uses, when
authorized as a special exception by the Planning Commission, provided that such
use shall be permitted subject to.such reasonable.restrictions as the.Planning
Commission may determine, and further provided that no trade or business shall
be permitted which is either noxious or hazardous.
11 -2 -11. Signs when erected and maintained in accordance with Article XVIII of this Zoning
11 -3 -7.
Ordinance.
11 -2 -12.
No area shall be zoned for "SC" District use if there exists in the area sought to
be zoned, any residential, industrial, or other use which would be non - conforming
under the terms of this Section. The governing body may zone the area "SC" Distric
however, if the developer guarantees the removal or discontinuance of the non-
conforming use.
11 -2 -13.
If the development of the Center is to be carried out in stages, each stage shall
11 -3 -8.
be so planned that the foregoing requirements and the intent of this Ordinance
shall be fully complied with at the completion of any stage. The initial stage
of development shall comprise a total ground floor area of not less than twenty
thousand (20,000) square feet or at least five (5) of the permitted uses.
11 -3.
DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS: The general plan for a shopping center shall include
evidence and facts showing that it has considered and made provision for, and
the development shall be executed in accordance with the following essential condi-
11 -3 -10.
tions:
11 -3 -1.
The development shall consist of a harmonious selection of uses and grouping of
buildings, service and parking areas, circulation and open spaces, planned and
11 -3 -11.
designed as an integrated unit, in such manner as to constitute a safe, efficient,
and convenient retail shopping center.
11 -3 -2.
The proposed development shall be constructed in accordance with an overall plan
and shall be designed as a single architectural unit with appropriate landscaping.
11 -3 -3.
No more than twenty percent (20 %) of the lot area shall be occupied by buildings.
11 -3 -4.
The distance at the closest point between any two (2) buildings or groups or
units of attached buildings shall be not less than twelve (12) feet.
11 -3 -5.
The maximum height of any building or structure erected or enlarged in this
District shall be thirty -five (35) feet except that the height of any such other
building may be increased to a maximum of sixty -five (65) feet when approved by
the Planning Commission, provided that for every foot of height in excess of
thirty -five (35) feet there shall be added to each yard requirement one corres-
ponding foot of width or depth.
11 -3 -6.
Adequate areas shall be provided for loading and unloading of delivery trucks"
and other vehicles; servicing of shops by refuse collection, fuel, fire and
other service vehicles; automobile accessways; and pedestrial walks. Service
areas shall be screened from view from any abutting roadway and from within
the parking area.
11 -3 -7.
Provision shall be made for safe and efficient ingress and egress to and from
public streets and highways servicing the center without undue congestion to or
interferience with normal traffic flow. All points of vehicular access to and fron
public streets shall be located not less than two hundred (200) feet from the
intersection of any public street lines. The Planning Commission shall satisfy
itself as to the adequacy of the thoroughfares to carry the additional traffic
engendered by the shopping center.
11 -3 -8.
No building may be located closer than one hundred (100) feet to the ultimate
right -of -way of any public street, no closer than fifty_(50) feet.of a side
or rear property line adjacent to an agricultural or residential district, or
within twenty -five (25) feet of any property line.
11 -3 -9.
No parking access and service area may be located closer than twenty -five
(25) feet to a side or rear property line adjacent to an agricultural or
residential district.
11 -3 -10.
Not less than one (1) automobile parking space with suitable access shall be
provided for each two hundred (200) square feet of floor area devoted to patron
use.
11 -3 -11.
Parking, loading, or service areas used by motor vehicles shall be located entire-
ly within the lot lines of the shopping center and shall be physically separated
from public streets.
11 -3 -12. Lighting facilities shall be arranged in a manner which will protect the highway
and neighboring properties from unreasonable direct glare or hazardous inter-
ference of any kind.
11 -3 -13. The shopping center shall be permanently screened from adjoining and contiguous
residential districts by a wall, fence, evergreen hedge and /or other suitable
enclosure of minimum height five (5) feet and maximum height seven (7) feet,
placed at least ten (10) feet inside the "SC" District property line. The area
between such enclosure and the property line shall be landscaped to form a
permanent screening area. The Planning Commission may waive the requirement for
a screening enclosure and /or screening area if equivalent screening is provided
by existing parks, parkways, recreational areas, or by topography or other
natural conditions.
EE17
11-3-14. A landscaped planting area shall be provided along street frontage occupied
by a "SC" District at least seven (7) feet in depth and must be located between
theiproperty line and,a_ line parallel to and seven (7) feet inside the "SC"
District property line.
11 -3 -15. No shopping center permitted in an "SC" District shall be erected or used that
is not adequately served with both sanitary sewers and public water unless
authorized as a special exception and upon submission of satisfactory evidence
to the fact that sanitary sewers and public water supply are not feasible in
the particular location in question. Such evidence may include, but shall not
be limited to, a specific recommendation from the County engineer, official
representative of the State Health Department, and /or the County Sanitation
Authority.
11 -3 -16. For the purpose of calculating the minimum area lot dimension, and yard require-
merits established by this Section, a single planned shopping center district
cannot lie on two (2) sides of a public street or alley. , Any area designated as
being an "SC" District and lying on both sides of a public street shall be
deemed to be two (2) "SC" Districts, and all minimum requirements shall be met
by the buildings on each side of said public street as separate districts.
11 -3 -17. The Planning Commission and the governing body may prescribe particular require-
ments or any further reasonable conditions deemed appropriate with respect to the
suitability of the shopping center in the "SC" District.
11 -4. APPLICATION AND REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL BY THE GOVERNING BODY.
11 -4 -1. Preliminary plans for any "SC" District use shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission. If, however, portions of the project are to be completed in
successive stages, a less detailed sketch or layout of the area scheduled for
immediate development will suffice initially, provided that as further developments
occur, a plan showing all of the required detail shall then be submitted prior to
the construction of any portion. Information to be shown on all shopping center
plans or on attached reports shall include, in addition to the site plan as
required in Article XVI:
1. Architectural plans for any proposed buildings.
2. Engineering and architectural plans for the treatment
and disposal of sewage, including the general
drainage system.
3. The stages which will be followed in the construction of
the planned shopping center.
4. A market analysis suitable for the size center proposed,
showing the desirability of a shopping center in the
location requested.
11 -4 -2. The Planning Commission shall review all preliminary plans for "SC" District
uses submitted to them and.shall submit these plans, with recommendations
thereon, to the governing body for approval.
11 -4 -3. Upon receipt of preliminary plans for any "SC" use and recommendations thereon
by the Planning Commission, the governing body shall have the power of approval
or disapproval of these plans, and the rezoning of the area desired for "SC"
District use.
11 -4 -4. Upon approval of the zoning change and the adoption and approval of"thbe
.:preliminary plan, the developer-shall-submit, within not more than one calendar
year, unless otherwise extended by the governing body, a final development
plan to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendations. The
Planning Commission may require that the final development plan be submitted
separately for the first and each successive stage.
L
11 -4 -5. The Planning Commission shall determine that each stage, or all of the final
development plan, conforms to the intent of the preliminary plan on which the
zoning change was made. The Commission, having reviewed the final development
plan for any or all stages of the development and finding that it is in
compliance with the intent of the preliminary plan shall present its
recommendations to the governing body.
11 -4 -6. Upon approval of the final plan, construction shall begin in accordance
with the approved plan within one year from final approval, unless otherwise
extended by the governing body. If the Center is to be developed in stages,
the initial development must be completed within two years after the final
development plan has been approved, unless otherwise extended by the
governing body. In the event that construction is not started within the
specified time, the planning commission shall review the zoning and the progress
which has taken place, and if deemed.necessary, recommend to the governing body,
the reclassification -of the property in a manner consistent with the comprehen-
sive plan of the County.
11 -4 -7. In the event that initial development has not been completed within the specified
time limit, and the property has been rezoned from "SC" District to another
classification and the shopping center has been partially constructed, such
partial construction shall not be considered a non - conforming use as defined
in this Ordinance.
. - A, - -
om
11 -4 -8. The final development plan, drawn to scale and with controlling dimensions shall
contain all the necessary information and be accompanied by the supporting date
as required by this Article.
11 -4 -9. After the final development plan has been approved and when in the course of
carrying out this plan, adjustment or rearrangements of buildings, parking areas,
entrances, heights, or yards are requested by the developer and such requests
conform to the standards established by the approved plan for the
area to be covered by building spaces, entrances, height, setback, and lot area
requirements, such adjustments may be approved by the Board of Supervisors, upon ,
application, without fee, and after receiving the recommendations of the Planning
Commission.
ARTICLE,' xia-` ;
INDUSTRIAL, LIMITED
DISTRICT
M -1 ,
Statement of Intent
The primary purpose of this district is to permit certain industries which do not in any way
detract from residential desirability to locate in any area adjacent to residential uses.
The limitations on (or provisions relating to) height of building, horsepower, heating,
flammable liquids or explosives, controlling emission of fumes, odors and /or noise, land-
scaping, and the number of persons employed are imposed to protect and foster adjacent
residential desirability while permitting industries to locate near a labor supply.
12 -1. USE REGULATIONS: In Industrial District M -1 any structure to be erected or land
to be used shall be for one or more of the following uses:
12 -1 -1. Assembly of electrical appliances, electronic instruments and devices, radios
and phonographs. Also the manufacture of small parts such as coils, condensers,
transformers, and crystal holders.
12 -1 -2. Automobile assembling, painting, upholstering, repairing, rebuilding, recondi-
tioning, body and fender work, truck repairing or overhauling, tire retreading
or recapping, or battery manufacture.
12 -1 -3. Blacksmith shop, welding or machine shop.
,
12 -1 -4. Laboratories -- pharmaceutical and /or medical.
12 -1 -5. Manufacture, compounding, processing, packaging, or treatment of such products
as bakery goods, candy, cosmetics, dairy products, drugs, perfumes, pharma-
ceuticals, perfumed toilet soap, toiletries and food products.
12 -1 -6. Manufacture, compounding, assembling or treatment of articles or merchandise
from the following previously prepared materials: bone, cellophane, canvas, cloth,
cork, feathers, felt, fiber, 'fur, glass, hair, horn, leather, paper, plastic,
precious or semi - precious metals or stones, shell, straw, textiles, tobacco,
wood, yarn, and paint.
12 -1 -7. Manufacture of pottery and figurines or other similar ceramic products, using
only previously pulverized clay, and kilns fired only by electricity or gas.
12 -1 -8. Manufacture of musical instruments, toys, novelties and rubber and metal stamps.
12 -1 -9. Light industrial manufacturing assembling, processing and compounding of glass
(but only as a component part of the manufacturing, assembling, processing and
compounding thereof), metal and plastic products from prepared and raw materials,
together with associated operations, including machining, stamping, treating
and plating, excluding punch presses and drop hammers exceeding forty (40)
ton rated capacity, provided, however, that plastic or metal compounding and
processing shall only involve previously prepared plastic or metal material and '
that no compounding or processing will be done using coke and coal as fuel.
12 -1 -10. Building material sales yards, plumbing supplies storage.
12 -1 -11. Coal and wood yards, lumber yards, feed and seed stores.
12 -1 -12. Contractors' equipment storage yards or plants, or rental of equipment commonly
used by contractors. '
12 -1 -13. Cabinets, furniture and upholstery shops.
12 -1 -14. Boat building.
12 -1 -15. Monumental stone works.
12 -1 -16. Wholesale businesses, storage warehouses.
12 -1 -17. Off- street parking as required by this ordinance.
12 -1 -18. Public utility generating, booster or relay stations, transformer substations,
transmission lines and towers, and other facilities for the provision and
maintenance of public utilities, including railroads and facilities, and water
and sewer facilities and lines.
1*4 9
J
12 -1 -19. Business signs.
12 -1 -20. Location signs.
12 -2. REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITTED USES
12 -2 -1. Before a building permit shall be issued or construction commenced on any
permitted use in this district, or a permit issued for a new use, the plans,
in sufficient detail to show the operations and processes shall be submitted
to the zoning administrator for study. The administrator shall refer these
plans to the Planning Commission for recommendation. Modification of the
plans may be required by the Planning Commission or administrator.
12 -2 -2. Permitted uses shall be conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building
or within an area enclosed on all sides by a solid masonry wall, a uniformly
_paintedcsolid_ board fence.•orl'evergreen' -hedge six (6) feet in height. Public
utilities and signs requiring natural air circulation, unobstructed view, or
other technical consideration necessary for proper operation may be exempt
from this provision. This exception does not include storing of any material.
12 -2 -3. Landscaping may be required within any established or required front setback
area. The plans and execution must take into consideration traffic hazards.
Landscaping may be permitted up to a height of three (3) feet and to within
fifty (50) feet from the corner of any intersecting streets.
12 -2 -4. Sufficient area shall be provided (a) to adequately screen permitted uses
from adjacent business and residential districts, and (b) for off- street
parking of vehicles incidental to the industry, its employees and clients.
12 -2 -5. Automobile graveyards and junkyards in existence at the time of the
adoption of this ordinance are to be considered as nonconforming uses. They
may be allowed up to three (3) years after adoption of this ordinance in which
to completely screen, on any side open to view from a public road, the
operation 6r use by a masonry wall, a uniformly painted solid board fence, or
an evergreen hedge eight (8) feet in height.
12 -2 -6. The administrator shall act on any application received within thirty (30)
days after receiving the application. If formal notice in writing is given
to the applicant, the time for action may be extended for a thirty (30) day
period.
12 -3. AREA REGULATIONS: For permitted uses utilizing individual sewage disposal systems
the required area for any such use shall be appointed by the health official.
12 -4. SETBACK REGULATIONS:
12 -4 -1. No structure, except signs, shall be located between the setback line and
the street, road or highway center line.
12 -4 -2. The setback line shall be one hundred (100) feet or more from, and parallel
or concentric to, any highway, street or road center line.
12 -5. FRONTAGE AND YARD REGULATIONS: For permitted uses the minimum side and rear
yards adjoining or adjacent to a residential district shall be one hundred
(100) feet. The minimum side and rear yards abutting all other districts shall
be twenty -five (25) feet. Off- street parking shall be in accordance with
the provisions contained herein.
12 -6. HEIGHT REGULATIONS: Buildings may be erected up to a height of thirty -five
(35) feet 'For buildings over thirty -five (35) feet in height, approval
shall be obtained from the administrator. Chimneys, flues, cooling towers,
flag poles, radio or communication towers or their accessory facilities
not normally occupied by workmen are excluded from this limitation. Parapet
walls are permitted up to four (4) feet above the limited height of the
building on which the roof rests.
ARTICLE XIII
INDUSTRIAL, GENERAL
DISTRICT
M -2
Statement of Intent
The primary purpose of this district is to establish an area where the principal use of
land is for heavy commercial and industrial operations, which may create some nuisance, and
which are not properly associated with, nor particularly compatible with, residential,
institutional and neighborhood commercial service establishments. The specific intent of
this district is to (1) encourage the construction of and the continued use of the land
for heavy commercial and industrial purposes; (2) prohibit residential and neighborhood
commercial use of the land and to prohibit any other use which would substantially inter-
fere with the development, continuation or expansion of commercial and industrial uses in
the district;'and - (3) encourage the discontinuance of existing uses that would notrbe
permitted •-as - usesrunder, the , provisions ;of ethis ordinanoes`
150
13 -1. USE REGULATIONS: In Industrial District M -2, buildings to be erected or land to
be used shall be for one or more of the following uses:
13 -1 -1. Truck terminals.
13 -1 -2. Sand and gravel operations.
13 -1 -3. Crushed stone operations.
13 -1 -4. Wood, : preserving.pperations.
13 -1 -5. Abattoirs.
13 -1 -6. Acid manufacture.
13 -1 -7. Cement, lime, gypsum manufacture.
13 -1 -8. Fertilizer manufacture.
13 -1 -9. Petroleum storage.
13 -1 -10. Petroleum refining, including by- products.
13 -1 -11. Asphalt mixing plant.
13 -1 -12. LumberF,products.manufacturing.
13 -1 -13. Paper and Pulp manufacture.
13 -1 -14. Brick manufacture.
13 -1 -15. Boiler shops.
13 -1 -16. Junk storage (screened), including automobile junkyards.
13 -1 -17. Meat, poultry and fish processing.
13 -1 -18. Off- Street parking as required by this ordinance.
13- 1 -19. Public utility generating, booster or relay stations, transformer substations,
transmission lines and towers, and other facilities for the provision and
maintenance of public utilities, including railroads and sewer facilities, and
water and sewer lines.
13 -1 -20. Accessory uses as defined.
13 -1 -21. Business signs.
13 -1 -22. Location signs.
13 -2. REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITTED USES:
13 -2 -1. Before a building permit shall be issued or construction commenced on any
permitted uses in this district, or a permit issued for a new use, the
plans, in sufficient detail to show the operations and processes, shall be
submitted to the zoning administrator for study. The administrator shall
refer these plans to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for
a conditional use permit.
13 -2 -2. Landscaping may be required within any established or required front setback
area. The plans and execution must take into consideration traffic hazards.
Landscaping may be permitted up to a height of three (3) feet, and to within
fifty (50) feet from the corner of any intersecting streets.
13 -2 -3. Sufficient area shall be provided (a) to adequately screen permitted uses
from adjacent business and residential districts and (b) for off- street parking
of vehicles incidental to the industry, its employees and clients.
13 -2 -4. Automobile graveyards and junkyards in
of this ordinance are to be considered
allowed up to three (3) years after ad
completely screen, on any side open to
by a masonry wall, a uniformly painted
hedge six (6) feet in height.
existence at the time of the adoption
as non - conforming uses. They shall be
3ption of this ordinance in which to
view from a public road, the operation
solid board fence, or an evergreen
13 -2 -5. The administrator shall act on any application received within sixty (60) days
after receiving the application. If formal notice in writing is given to the
applicant, the time for action may be extended for a thirty (30) day period.
Failure on the part of the administrator to act on the application within the
established time limit shall be deemed to constitute approval of the application.
13 -3. AREA-REGULATIONS: For permitted uses utilizing individual sewage disposal
systems, the required area for any such use shall be approved by the health
official. The administrator may require a greater area if considered necessary by
the health official.
13 -4. SETBACK REGULATIONS:
13 -4 -1. No structure, except signs, shall be located between the setback line and the
street, road or highway center line.
151
13 -4 -2. The setback line.shall be one hundred (100) feet or more from, and parallel or
concentric to, any highway, street or road center line.
13 -5. FRONTAGE AND YARD REGULATIONS: For permitted uses the minimum side yard adjoin-
ing or adjacent to a residential or agricultural district shall be three hundred
(300) feet. The side yard of corner lots shall be one hundred fifty (150) feet
or more. Off- street parking shall be in accordance with the provisions contained
herein.
' 13 -6. HEIGHT REGULATIONS:
Buildings may be erected up to a height of thirty five (35) feet. For buildings
over thirty -five (35) feet in height, approval shall be obtained from the
administrator. Chimneys, flues, cooling towers, flag poles, radio and
communication towers, or their accessory facilities not normally occupied by
workmen are excluded from this limitation. Parapet walls are permitted up to
four (4) feet above the limited height of the building on which the walls rest.
' ARTICLE XIV
AIRPORT DISTRICT AP -1
Statement of Intent
This district has been established to insure the complete safety of Winchester Airport
and to prevent the creation or establishment of airport hazards and the elimination,
removal, alteration, mitigation, or marking and lighting existing airport hazards. This
district is imposed upon, and is in addition to, the zoning districts that adjoin the
Winchester Airport.
14 -1. ZONES: In order to carry out the provisions of this district, there are
hereby created and established certain zones which include all the land lying
within the instrument approach zones, non - instrument approach zones, transition
zones, horizontal zone and conical zone. Such areas and zones are shown on the
Frederick County Map which is attached to..this Ordinance and made a- hereof.
The various zones are hereby established and defined as follows:
14 -1 -1. INSTRUMENT.NtPPROACH_ =ZONE: An instrument approach zone is established at each
end of the instrument runway for.instrument landings and takeoffs. The instru-
ment approach zones shall have a width of one thousand (1,000) feet at a distance
of two hundred (200) feet beyond each end of the runway, widening thereafter
' uniformly to a width of sixteen thousand (16,000) feet at a distance of fifty
thousand two hundred (50,200) feet beyond each end of the runway, its centerline
being the continuation of the centerline of the runway.
14 -1 -2. NON- INSTRUMENT APPROACH ZONE: A non - instrument approach zone is established at
each end of all non - instrument runways for non - instrument landings and takeoffs.
The non - instrument approach zone shall have a width of five hundred (500) meet
at a distance of two hundred (200) feet beyond each end of the runway, widening
thereafter uniformly to a width of two thousand, five hundred (2,500) feet at
a distance of ten thousand, two hundred (10,200) feet beyond each end of the
runway, its centerline being the continuation of the centerline of the runway.
14 -1 -3. VFR APPROACH ZONE: A visual flight rules approach zone shall have a width of
two hundred (200 feet at a distance of 100 feet beyond each end of the runway
widening thereafter uniformly to.a width of five hundred (500) feet at a distance
of three thousand, one hundred (3,100) feet beyond each end of the runway.
14 -1 -4. TRANSITION_ZONES: Transition zones are hereby established adjacent to each
instrument and non- instrument runway and approach zone as indicated on the
zoning map. Transition zones symmetrically located on either side of runways
have variable widths as shown on the zoning map. Transition zones extend
outward from a line of 250 feet on either side of the centerline of the non -
instrument runway, for the length of such runway plus 200 feet on each end;
and 500, feet on either side of the centerline of the instrument runway, for
the length of such runway plus 200 feet on each end; and are parallel and
' level with such runway centerlines. The transition zones along such runways
slope upward and outward one (1) foot vertically for each seven (7) feet
horizontally to the point where.they intersect the surface of the horizontal
zone. Further, transition zones are established adjacent to both instrument
and non - instrument approach zones for the entire length of the approach
zones. These transition zones flare symmetrically with either side of the
runway approach zones from the base of.such zones and slope upward and outward
at the rate of one (1) foot vertically for each seven (7) feet horizontally
to the points where they intersect the surfaces'of the horizontal and conical
zones. Additionally, transition zones are established adjacent to the instrument
approach zone-where -.it projects through-and. beyond, the- .limits of the conical
zone,rextending a dis,tance.of 5.,000 feet measured - horizontally from ;the edge
of the instrument approach
_,iones at_ right- angles .to ,the continuation of, •the
centerlinedof the runway. 30..`
14 -1 -5. HORIZONTAL ZONE: A horizontal zone is hereby established as the area within
a circle with its center at the Airport Reference Point and having a radius
of 7,000 feet. The horizontal zone does not include the instrument and non -
instrument approach zones and the transition zones.
14 -1 -6. CONICAL ZONE: A conical zone is hereby established as the area that commences
at the periphery of the horizontal zone and extends outward therefrom a distance
of 5,000 feet. The conical zone does not include the instrument approach zones
and transition zones.
152
14 -2. HEIGHT LIMITATIONS: Except as otherwise provided in this district, no structure or
tree shall be erected, altered, allowed to grow, or maintained in any zone created
by this ordinance to a height in excess of the height limit herein established for
such zone. Such height limitations are hereby established for each of the zones
in question as follows:
14 -2 -1. INSTRUMENT APPROACH ZONE: One (1) foot in height for each fifty (50) feet in'
horizontal distance beginning at a point 200 feet from and at the centerline
elevation of the end of the end of the instrument runway and extending to a distance
of 10,200 feet from the end of the runway; thence one (1) foot in height for each
forty (40) feet in horizontal distance to a point 50,200 feet from the end of
the runway.
14 -2 -2. NON- INSTRUMENT APPROACH ZONES: One (1) foot in height for each forty (40)
-- or- twenty 20 feet in- horizontal distance beginning at a point 200 feet from and
at the centerline elevation of the end of the non- instrument runway and extending
to a point 200 feet from and at the centerline elevation of the end of the
non - instrument runway and extending to a point 10,200 feet from the end of the
runway. .
14 -2 -3. VFR AIRPORT APPROACH ZONES: One (1) foot in height for each twenty (20) feet in
horizontal distance beginning at a point 100 feet from and at the centerline
elevation of the end of the runway and extending to a point 3,100 feet from the
end of the runway.
14 -2 -4. TRANSITION ZONES: One (1) foot in height for each seven (7) feet in horizontal
distance beginning at any point 300 feet normal to and at the elevation of the
centerline of non - instrument runways,extending 200 feet beyond each end thereof,
and 500 feet normal to and at the elevation of the centerline of the instrument
runway, extending 200 feet beyond each end thereof, extending to a height of
150 feet above the airport elevation which is 701.0 feet above mean sea level.
In addition to the foregoing, there are established height limits of one (1) foot
vertical height for each seven (7) feet horizontal distance measured from the edges
of all approach zones for the entire length of the approach zones and extending
upward and outward to the points where they intersect the horizontal or conical
surfaces. Further, where the instrument approach zone projects through and
beyond the conical zone, a height limit of one (1) foot for each seven (7) feet
of horizontal distance shall be maintained beginning at the edge of the instrument
approach. zone and extending a distance of 5,000 feet from the edge of the
instrument approach zone measured normal to the centerline of the runway extended.
14 -2 -5. HORIZONTAL ZONE: One hundred fifty (150) feet above the airport elevation or
a height of 872.5 feet above mean sea level.
14 -2 -6. CONICAL ZONE: One (1) foot in height for each twenty (20) feet of horizontal
distance beginning at the periphery of the horizontal zone, extending to a height
of 1122.5 feet above the airport elevation.
14 -2 -7. EXCEPTED HEIGHT LIMITATIONS: Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed as
prohibiting the growth, construction of maintenance of any tree or structure to
a height up to 35 feet above the surface of the land. Where an area is covered
by more than one (1) height limitation, the more restrictive limitations shall
prevail.
14 -3. USE RESTRICTIONS: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this district, no use
may be made of land within any zone established by this Ordinance in such a manner
as to create electrical interference with radio communication between the airport
and aircraft, make it difficult for flyers to distinguish between airport lights
and others, result in glare in the eyes of flyers using the airport, impair
visibility in the vicinity-of thecairport or otherwise endanger- the.landincy;
taking off, or maneuvering of aircraft.
14 -4. NONCONFORMING USES (Airport District)
(a) Regulations not Retroactive The regulations prescribed by this ordinance
shall not be construed to require the removal, lowering, or other changes or
alteration of any structure or tree not conforming to the regulations as of the
effective date of this ordinance, otherwise,interfere with the continuance of any
nonconforming use. Nothin herein contained shall -'requ ire any change�in the construc-
tion alteration or intend"ed*use'of any structure construction or alteration
of which was begun prior to the effective date of this ordinance, and is diligently
prosecuted.
(b) Marking and Lighting Notwithstanding the preceding provision of this section,
the owner of any nonconforming structure or tree is hereby required to permit
the installation, operation, and maintenance thereon of such markers and lights
as shall be deemed necessary by the FAA Standards to indicate to the operators of
aircraft in the vicinity of the airport, the presence of.such airport hazards.
Such markers and lights shall be installed, operated, and maintained at the
expense of the owner or leasee of said airport.
14 -5 -1. Future uses Except'as specifically provided in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 hereunder,
no material change shall be made in the use of land and no structure or tree shall
be erected altere6 planted or otherwise established in any zone hereby created
unless a permit therefor shall have been applied for and granted. Each application
for a permit shall indicate the purpose for which the permit is desired, with
sufficient particularity to permit it to be determined whether the resulting use,
structure or tree would conform to the regulations herein prescribed. If such
determination is in the affirmative, the permit shall be granted by the Board of
Supervisors.
I�
153
14- 5 -1 -1. In- the area lying within the limits of the horizontal zone and the conical
zone, no permit shall be required for any tree or structure less than 75
feet of vertical height above the ground, except when because of terrain,
land contour or topographic features such tree or structure would extend
above the height limits prescribed for such zone.
14- 5 -1 -2. In the areas lying within the limits of the instrument and non - instrument
approach zones but at a horizontal distance of not less than 4,200 feet from
each end of the runways, no permit shall be required for any tree or structure
' less than 75 feet of vertical height above the ground, except when such tree
or structure would extend above the height limit prescribed for such
instrument on non - instrument approach zone.
14- 5 -1 -3. In the areas lying within the limits of the transition zones beyond the
perimeter of the horizontal zone, no permit shall be required for any tree
or structure less than 75 feet of vertical height above the ground except when
such tree or structure, because of terrain, land contour or topographic
features would extend above the height limit prescribed for such transition
' zones. Nothing contained in any of the foregoing exceptions shall be con-
strued as permitting or intending to permit any construction, alteration or
growth of any structure in excess -of-anycof the height,limitsi established
by this ordinance except as set forth in the previous section.
14 -5 -2. Existing Uses No permit shall be granted that would allow the establishment
or creation of an airport hazard or permit a nonconforming use; structure, or
tree to be made or become higher, or become a greater hazard to air navigation,
than it was on the effective date of this ordinance or any amendments thereto
or than it is when the application for a permit is made. Except as indicated,
all applications for such a permit shall be granted.
14 -5 -3. Nonconforming Uses Abandoned or Destroyed Whenever the Planning Commission or
Governing Body determines that a non conforming structure or tree has been
abandoned or more than 80 percent torn down, physically deteriorated, or
decayed, no permit shall be granted that would allow such structure or tree to
exceed the applicable height limit or otherwise deviate from the zoning
regulation.
14 -5 -4. Variance Any person desiring to erect or increase the height of any structure,
or permit the growth of any tree, or use his property, not in accordance
with the regulations prescribed in this Ordinance, may apply to ,the-,Board
of Zoning Appeals for a variance from such regulations. Such variances shall
be allowed where it is duly found that a literal application or enforcement of
the regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship
and the relief granted would not be contrary to the public interest but
will do substantial justice and be in accordance with the spirit of this
ordinance.
14 -5 -5. Hazard Marking and Lighting Any permit or variance granted may, if such
action is deemed advisable to effectuate the purpose of this ordinance and
be reasonable in the circumstances, be so conditioned as to require the
owner of the structure or tree in question to permit the Airport Proprietor
at its own expense, to install, operate, and maintain thereon such markers
and lights as may be necessary to indicate to flyers the presence of an airport'
hazard.
14 -6. DEFINITIONS As used in this district:
14 -6�-1. Airport - means Winchester Municipal Airport.
14 -6 -2 Airport Elevation - The highest point of an airport's landing area
measured in feet from mean sea level.
14 -6 -3. Airport Hazard - Any structure or object of natural growth located on or in
the vicinity of a public airport, or any use of land near such airport, which
obstructs the airspace required for the flight of aircraft in landing or
takeoff at such airport or is otherwise hazardous to such landing or takeoff
of aircraft..
' 14 -6 -4. Structure - An object constructed or installed by man, including, but without
limitation, buildings, towers, smokestacks, earth formation, and overhead
transmission lines.
14 -6 -5. Tree - Any object of natural growth.
14 -6 -6. Nonconforming Use - Any pre- existing structure, object of natural growth,
or use of land which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance
or an amendment thereto.
' 14 -6 -7. Height - For'the purpose of determining the height limits in all zones set
forth in this Ordinance and shown on the Zoning Map, the datum shall be
mean sea level elevation unless otherwise specified.
14 -6 -8: Person - An individual, firm, partnership, or corporation; company,
association, joint stock association, or governmental.entity. It includes
a trustee, receiver, assignee, or similar representative of any of them.
14 -6 -9. Runway - A defined area on an airport prepared for landing and takeoff of
aircraft along its length.
0
154
14 -6 -10. Visual Runway - A runway intended "solely for the operation of aircraft using vis-
ual approach procedures with no straight -in instrument approach procedure and no
instrument designation indicated on an FAA approved airport layout plan, a
military service's approved military airport layout plan, or by any planning
document submitted to'the FAA by competent authority.
14 -6 -11. Utility Runway - A runway that is constructed for and =intended to be used by
propeller driven aircraft of 12,500 pounds maximum'gross weight and less.
14 -6 -12. Non - Precision Instrumerit'Runway.- A runway having an existing instrument approach
procdure utilizing air navigation facilities with only horizontal guidance, or
area type navigation equipment, for which a straight -in non - precision instrument
approach procedure has been approved or planned, and for which no precision
approach facilities are planned or indicated on an FAA planning document
or military service's military airport planning document.
14 -6 -13. Precision Instrument Runway - A runway having an existing instrument approach
procedure utilizing an Instrument Landing System (ILS) or a Precision Approach
Radar (PAR). It also means a runway for which a precisions approach system is
planned and is so indicated on an FAA approved airport layout plan; a military
service's approved military airport planning document.
14 -6 -14. Primary Surface - A surface longitudinally centered on a runway.. When the runway
has a specially prepared hard surface, the primary surface extends 200 feet beyond
each end of that runway; but when the runway has-no specially prepared hard surface
or, planned hard surface,.the primarytsurface; ends at:each.end of that runway.
The width of the primary surface of - a runway wi11'be that width prescribed in Patt
77 of the Federal Aviataon Regulations.(FAR) for the most precise approach- exist -
ing.or planned for either -end of that runway.T The elevation of any point on the
primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway
- centerline.
ARTICLE XV
FLOOD PLAIN DISTRICT
DISTRICT FP
Statement of Intent
Generally, to encourage only that development of_flood:plain areas which is appropriate in
light of the probability of flood damage and the need to reduce flood loses, is an
acceptable social and economic use of the land in relation to the hazards involved, and
does not increase the danger to human life; and to discourage all other'development.
15 -1. USE REGULATIONS In Flood Plain, District'FP, structures to be erected or land
to be used, shall be for one or more of the following uses:
15 -1 -1. General farming and agriculture.
15 -1 -2. Dairying and forestry.
15 -1 -3. Public parks and recreation.
15 -1 -4. Preserves and conservation areas.
15 -1 -5. Small boat docks.
15 -2. BUILDING REQUIREMENTS:
15 -2 -1. All buildings shall designed and anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or
lateral movement of its structure and use construction methods and practices
that will minimize flood damage.
15 -2 -2. Water supply systems and /or sanitary sewage systems shall'be designed to minimize
or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from
the systems into flood waters, and onsite waste disposal systems shall be located
so as to avoid impairment of them or contamination from them during flooding.
ARTICLE XVI
SITE PLAN REQUIREMENT
16 -1. DEVELOPMENT OF LAND USE REQUIRING A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A site development .plan
required and shall be submitted for the following:
16 -1 -1. Any development of two (2) acres or less shall submit a site plan as required
by the Agent, but is otherwise exempt from the requirements of this article.
16 -1 -2. Any development in which automobile parking 'space is to be used by more than
one (1) establishment.
16 -1 -3. Any use or development in residential recreational community, residential planned
community, business, and industrial zones.
16 -1 -4. All public and /or semi - public buildings.
16 -1 -5. All other uses involving a structure required to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission under Section 15.1 -456 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
J
155
16 -2. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - INFORMATION REQUIRED: Every site development plan,
as hereafter provided, shall contain the following information:
16 -2 -1. Location of tract or parcel by vicinity map at a scale of not less than one
(1) inch equals 2,000 feet, and land marks sufficient to properly identify
the location of the property.
16 -2 -2. A boundary survey of tract or site plan limit with an error or closure
within the limit of one in five thousand (5,000) related to the true
meridian, and showing the location and type of boundary evidence.
16 -2 -3. A certificate.signed by the engineer or surveyor setting forth the source
and title of the owner of the tract and the place of record of the last
instrument in the chain of title.
16 -2 -4. Existing and proposed streets and easements, their names, numbers and widths,
existing and proposed utilities of all types; water courses and their names;
owners, zoning, and present use of adjoining tracts.
16 -2 -5. Location, type and size of ingress and egress to the site.
16 -2 -6. Location, type, size and height of all fencing, screening and retaining walls
where required under the provisions of applicable ordinances.
16 -2 -7. _All off- street parking an&•park ng.bays,tcloading spaces, .and walkways indicating t)
of .surf acing; - zsize angle of - stalls; "width of aisles fand =at specific . schedule
showing the number of parking spaces provided and the number required in
accordance with Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. All epaces shall have a
minimum of 180 square'feet -per car, and adequate space for moving and turning.
16 -2 -8. Number.of floors, floor area, height and location of each building, and
proposed general use for each building - if a multifamily residential
building, townhouse, the number, size, and type of dwelling units shall be
shown.
16 -2 -9. Front elevations shall be shown on all commercial, industrial, and multifamily
developments, regardless of height.
16 -2 -10. Existing and proposed water and sanitary sewer facilities indicating all
pipe sizes, types and grades and where connection is to be made to an existing
or a proposed central water and sewer system.
16 -2 -11. Provision for the adequate disposition of natural and storm water in accordance
with design criteria and construction standards of the Commonwealth of Virginia
and /or Frederick County in effect at the time the site plan is submitted
indicating location, sizes, types and grades of ditches, catch basins and pipes,
and connections to existing drainage system.
16 -2 -12. Provision and schedule for the adequate control of erosion and sedimentation
indicating proposed temporary and permanent control practices and measures
which shall be implemented during all phases of clearing, grading and con-
struction.
16 -2 -�3. Existing topography accurately shown with a maximum of two (2) foot contour
intervals at a scale of not less than fifty (50) feet to the inch for all
multi - family, industrial and commercial sites. A maximum of five (5) foot
contour intervals at a scale of not less than one hundred (100) feet to the
inch for single - family residential sites.
16 -2 -14. Proposed finished grading by contour supplemented where necessary by spot
elevations.
16 -2 -15. All horizontal dimensions shown on the site development plan shall be in
feet and decimals of a foot to be closest to one hundredth of a foot; and
all bearings in degrees, minutes and seconds to the nearest ten seconds.
16 -3. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - PREPARATION.AND SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE SHOWN
16 -3 -1.
The site
plan or any portion thereof, involving engineering, architecture, city
planning,
urban design, landscape architecture, or land surveying, shall be
prepared
by persons qualified to do such work. Final site plans shall be
certified by an architect engineer or land surveyor within the limits
of their
respective licenses authorized to practice by the State of Virginia.
16 -3 -2.
The site
plan shall show the name and address of the owner or developer,
magisterial
district, state, north point, date, and scale of
drawings
and number of sheets. In addition it shall reserve a blank space
four (4)
inches by four (4) inches in size on the plan face for the use of
the approving
authorities and initial blocks on each subsequent sheet.
16 -3 -3.
The site
plan shall be prepared to the scale of one (1) inch equals fifty (50)
feet or larger;
no sheet shall exceed 42 x 60 inches in size.
16-3-4.
The site
plan may be prepared on one or more sheets. If prepared on more
than one
sheet, match lines shall clearly indicate where the several sheets
join.
16 -3 -5. Ten (10) clearly legible blue or black line copies of a site development
plan shall be fixed with the agent for Frederick County.
156
16 -3 -6.
Plan and profiles shall be submitted for all sanitary and storm sewers, streets,
and curbs adjacent thereto, and other utilities, and shall be submitted on stan-
dard federal aid plan and profile sheets. Special studies as required may be
submitted on standard cross section paper and shall have a scale of one (1) inch
equals (50) feet horizontally and one (1) inch equals five (5) feet vertically.
No sheet size shall exceed forty -two (42) inches by sixty (60) inches. Flood
plain limit studies required shall be shown on profile sheets with reference
to properties affected and center lines of stream.
16 -3 -7.
In addition to the information required.above, the following specific items
shall also be on all site development plans:
'
A. Right -of -way lines, 'center line, lot lines, lot numbers, subdivision limits,
limits of construction, and building location.
B. Center line curve data, including delta, radius, arc, and chord and tangent..
C. Radius of all curb returns to face of curb and on streets where curb and
gutter are not required indicate radius to edge of bituminous treatment.
'
D. Street names and state route numbers on all existing streets in vicinity.
E. The edge of proposed street surface or the face of curb as the case may be
for full length of all streets.
F. The width of rights -of -way, and all easements, and the width of surface
or distance between curb faces and relation to center line. Easements
and rights of all utilities shall be clearly defined for the purpose intend-
ed, and whether they are to be publicly or privately maintained.
G. When proposed streets intersect with or adjoin existing streets or travel
ways, both edges of existing pavement surface or curb and gutter must
indicated for a minimum of 100 feet or the length of connection, whichever
is the greater distance.
H. Existing and proposed drainage easements and the direction of drainage flow
in streets, storm sewer, valley gutters, streams, and subdrainage, etc.
I. The location of all streams or drainage ways related to the street con-
struction as proposed by the developer and proposed drainage ditches
or stream relocation. Easements shall not be considered part of the
street right -of -way. Furnish detail typical drainage section and type
of stabilization to be provided: Type of stabilization to be approved by
the agent for Frederick County and the resident engineer for the Department
,
of Highways, Virginia.
J. Type or class of concrete or treated metal drainage pipe to be installed
and paved road side ditches as required.
K. The proper drive -way entrance type, computed culvert size and /or Virginia
Department of Highways design designation.
L. Provision at ends of curb and gutter for erosion control.
M. Typical street sections to be used on the site development plan.
N. Symmetrical transition o£ pavement at intersection with existing street.
Indicate road edge delineators.
0. Connection to proposed Virginia Department of Highways construction when
necessary.
P. Any necessary notes that may be required to explain the intent and purposes
of specific items on the plan or profile.
16 -4.
MINIMUM STANDARDS AND IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED
16 -4 -1.
All improvements required by this Article shall be installed at the cost of
,
the developer. Where cost sharing or reimbursement agreements between the County
of Frederick and the developer are appropriate, the same shall be recognized by
formal written agreement prior to site development plan approval, and shall be
subject to the Virginia Department of Highway's review and acceptance. Where
specifications have been established by either the Virginia Department of
Highways for streets, etc., or by this Ordinance for related facilities and
utilities, such specifications shall be followed. The developer's performance
bond shall not be released until construction has been inspected and accepted by
the County and by the Virginia Department of Highways.
'
16 -4 -2.
Prior to approval of any site plan there shall be executed by the owner or
developer an agreement to construct required physical improvements located
within public rights -of -way or easements or connected to any public facility
together with a bond with surety approved by the Governing Body in the amount
of the estimated cost of the required physical improvements as determined by
the agent for Frederick County. The agreement and bond or condition
shall provide for completion of all work within a time specified to be
determined by the agent.
157
16 -4 -3. Lot sizes for residential areas shall conform to the Zoning Ordinance in
effect for the County at the time of filing of the development plan.
16 -4 -4. Condominium and common wall house projects of all types shall indicate on
the plat those areas reserved for rental purposes and those areas reserved
for sale purposes. All common wall housing projects where programmed tar.
sale purposes shall be required to submit a subdivision plat showing all
lots as required by the Subdivision Ordinance of Frederick County.
' 16 -4 -5. All street and highway construction standards and geometric design standards shall
be in accord with those specified.in this ordinance and the, Subdivision- Ordinance
o£= tFtedeGick .County,,unless design �sLandards only are specifically
m'odifi'ed by the Governing Body.
16 -4 -6. The pavement of vehicular travel lanes or driveways designed to permit vehicular
travel on the site and to and from adjacent property and parking areas shall be
not less than twenty (20) feet in width.
16 -4 -7. On any site bordering a primary, arterial, or interstate highway, or adjacent
to an existing service system, the developer, in lieu of providing travel
lanes or driveways that provide vehicular travel to and from adjacent parking
areas and adjacent property, may dedicate where necessary, and construct a
service road under County and State standards for such roads. In such event,
the setback requirements shall be no greater if the service road is dedicated
,than the setback required without the dedication, except in no instance shall
a building be constructed closer than twenty (20) feet from the nearest right -
of -`way line.
16 -4 -8. Upon satisfactory completion, inspection and only upon application by the
developer, the County shall take the necessary steps to have such service
road accepted by the Virginia Department of Highways for maintenance.
16 -4 -9. Cul -de -sacs shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the street
standards specified in the Subdivision Ordinance of Frederick County, and may
not be constructed or employed as a parking bay.
16 -4 -10. Parking bays shall be constructed to contain the same type surface as the
appurtenant public street to which the parking bay is connected.
16 -4 -11. 'Where geometric design standards are modified from those required in the
Subdivision Ordinance of Frederick County as set forth in item 16 -4 -6 above,
the developer shall be responsible for the placing of "NO PARKING" signs on all
travel lanes, driveways, or streets to prohibit parking in such roads or driveways
' 16 -4 -12. Adequate easements shall be provided for drainage and all utilities. Minimum
easement width shall be ten (10) feet. Where multiple structures or pipes
are installed, the edge of the easement shall be five (5) feet clear of the
outside pipes. Where easements do not follow the established lot lines, the
nearest edge of any easement shall be a minimum of five (5) feet from any
building.
16 -4 -13. Adequate drainage for the disposition of storm and natural waters both on and
off -site shall be provided. The extent and nature of both on -site and off -site
treatment is to be determined by the developer in conference with the agent for
Frederick County.
16 -4 -14. Provision shall be made for all necessary temporary and permanent erosion and
sedimentation control measures, both on- and off -site. The extent of the
control measures, both on- and off -site are.ito =be established by
developer in conference with the agent for Frederick County.
16 -4 -21. Connections shall be made wherever possible of all walkways and equestrian ways
with similar facilities on adjacent development.
16- ,4-15.
When central water and /or sewer systems having sufficient capacity either
'
exist or are proposed within a reasonable distance the area of the site
development plan, provisions shall be made to connect to the system.
i
16 -4 -16.
All public facilities, utility and drainage easements outside the right -of -way
of public streets or accessways are to be shown on the final site development
plan: Where it is necessary to place public utilities in public rights -of -way,
a permit shall first be obtained from the Governing Body or its agent for
such installation. Utility installations to be installed in public streets
and rights -of -way shall be coordinated with street construction plans and
profiles approved by the Virginia Department of Highways resident engineer
for Frederick County and /or agent for Frederick County. •
16 -4 -17.
Adequate fire hydrants and distribution systems shall be provided by the
developer in areas where central or public water systems are available.
16 -4 -18.
Provision shall be made for sidewalks and pedestrian walkways which will
enable patrons and /or tenants to walk safely and conveniently from one building
'
to another within the site and to buildings and /or uses on adjacent sites as
well.
16 -4 -19.
Where feasible, pedestrian underpasses or overpasses are to be encouraged in
conjunction with major vehicular routes.
16 -4 -20.
Provision shall be made where appropriate for pedestrian walkways and equestrian
ways in relation to private and public areas of recreation and open space, e.g.,
schools, parks, gardens, and areas of similar nature.
16 -4 -21. Connections shall be made wherever possible of all walkways and equestrian ways
with similar facilities on adjacent development.
158
16 -4 -22. Landscape planting, screening, fences, walks, curbs, gutters and other physical
improvements as required by Ordinance and the regulations of the Virginia Depart-
ment of Highways shall be provided by the developer.
16 -4 -23. One set of approved plans, profiles and specifications shall be at the site at
all times when work is being performed.
16 -4 -24. Upon completion of all required improvements shown on the approved site develop-
ment plan, the developer shall submit to the agent for the Governing Body six (6)
copies of the completed as -built site plan or building location plat certified
by an engineer,. architect or surveyor. The "as -built site plan" shall be submitte
at least one (1) week prior.to the anticipated occupancy of any building for the
review and approval by the Agent for conformity with the approved site plan and
the ordinances and the regulations of Frederick County and state agencies.
16 -4 -25. The approval of a site development plan or the installation of the improvements
as required in this Ordinance shall not obligate the County to accept improvements
for maintenance, repair or operation. Acceptance shall be subject to County
and /or State regulations, where applicable, concerning the acceptance of each
type of improvement.
16 -5. ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS
16 -5 -1. The Zoning Administrator is designated the Agent for Frederick County.
16 -5 -2. The Agent shall be_ responsible for the receipt,.processing and approval of site
development plans.
16 -5 -3. The Agent may request opinions and /or decision's from other departments divisions,
agencies, or authorities of the County government; officials, departments or
agencies of the Commonwealth of _Virginia; or from other persons as may from time
to time be retained.
16 -5 -4. The Agent, subject to approval of the Governing Body, may from time to time
establish reasonable administrative procedures necessary for the proper
administration of the Section.
16 -5 -5.
Site development plans which conform to the standards and requirements of this
section shall be approved or modified by the Governing Body or its authorized
Agent following the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
16 -5 -6.
Any person aggrieved of any decision of the Agent pursuant to this Section may
within ten (10) days of such decision appeal, in writing, to and have a
16 -5 -10.
determination made by the Governing Body.
16 -5 -7.
Approval, modification and approval, or disapproval, of a site development plan
by the Governing Body or its Agent shall occur within 90 days of filing of the
required documents in the office of the Agent, unless abnormal circumstances
16 -5 -11.
exist in which case the time may be extended by the action of the Governing Body.
16 -5 -8.
No public easement, right -of -way or public dedication shown on any site developee
plan shall be accepted for dedication for public use until such proposed dedica-
16 -5 -12.
tion shall first be approved by the Governing Body and evidence of such approval
shown on the instrument to be recorded.
16 -5 -9.
Approval of a site development plan pursuant to this Section shall expire 18
months after the date of approval unless building permits have been obtained
for construction. Extensions may be granted upon written request by the
applicant to the Agent for Frederick County prior to lapse of approval, and
extension of all bond and surety agreements.
16 -5 -10.
No permit shall be issued by any administrative officer or agent of Frederick
County for the construction of any building or improvement requiring a permit in
any'area coveredtby the site development plan except in-conformity to the provis-
ions of this Section and after approval of a site development plan.
16 -5 -11.
County and State Agencies responsible for the supervision and enforcement
of this Section shall periodically inspect the site during the period of
construction.
16 -5 -12.
Upon compliance with the terms of this Section and the satisfactory completion
of construction, the Governing Body shall release all of the bonds which may have
been furnished...
16 -5 -13.
No change, revisions, or erasure shall be made on any pending or final site
development plan nor on any accompanying data sheet where approval has been
endorsed on the plat or sheets unless authorization for such changes is granted
in writing by the approving body or the Agent.
16 -5 -14.
Any site development plan may be revised, provided request for revision shall
be filed and processed in the same manner as the original site plan.
16 -5 -15.
The Board of Supervisors, by resolution, shall establish from time to time•a
schedule of fees for the examination and approval or disapproval of site
development plans. Such fees shall be payable to the Treasurer of Frederick
County, Virginia,and shall be submitted to the Agent.
16 -6.
DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of this one particular Article the following definitions are
to be included.
159
16 -6 -1, ACCENT - Giving prominence to one or more elements of site design.
16 -6 -2. ACTIVE RECREATIONAL AREAS - Area designed for intensive play or athletic
activity by either juveniles or adults.
16 -6 -3. BUILDING - A structure having one or more stories and a roof designed primarily
for support and shelter of persons, animals, or property of any kind.
16 -6 -4. BLOCK - That land abutting on one side of a street, extending to the rear
lot lines (or,•£or parcels of land extending through to another street, to
a line midway between two streets) and lying between the two nearest inter-
secting and .or_ ,be,tween .nearest cintersecting or intercepting street_ and=
boundary of any railroad right -of -way, park, school ground or unsubdivided acreage
or center line of any drainage channel twenty (20) feet or more in width.
16 -6 -5. CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT - Development premised on unit density which allows unit
credit based on gross acreage but permits development including lots and streets
only on a specified percentage of overall gross site.
specifically allotted to the parking of motor vehicles.
16 -6 -17. ON -SITE - That area within the boundary of any land to be developed, or planned.
16 -6 -18. OPEN SPACE - Water or land left in its natural state or developed as a
landscaped area unoccupied by habitable buildings, streets or parking lots.
16 -6 -19. PARCEL - Any tract of land or water not subdivided.
16 -6 -20, PASSIVE RECREATION AREA-- Natural areas, primarily scenic; for passive activities,
e.g. sitting, walking, riding or picnicking.
16 -6 -21. SIMPLICITY - Directness of expression in design.
16 -6 -22. SITE PLAN - Detailed drawings indicating all building construction
and land improvements, including landscape treatments and related information
as required by this section.
16 -6 -23. SPECIFICATIONS - A detailed, precise presentation of the materials and procedures
to be employed in the construction of all physical improvements required by
' the ordinances applicable in Frederick County,
16 -6 -24. STREET, PRIVATE - A .local or collector street guaranteed to be maintained by a
private corporation by means of a covenant, deed, and easement acceptable to
Frederick County,
16 -6 -25. STREET SCAPE - ...Visual appearance of the horizontal and vertical dimensions of
streets or buildings.
' 16 -6 -26. STREET WIDTH - The total width of the stip of land dedicated or-reserved for
public travel including roadway, curb and gutter, side walks, planting strips,
and where necessary utility easements.
16 -6 -27. TRAVELLANE - Space specifically designated and reserved on the site for the
movement of vehicular traffic.
16 -6 -28. USE - Activity proposed for any portion or part of a parcel, tract, or lot.
16 -6 -29. U.S.G.S. - U. S. Geological Survey.
16 -6 -30. U.S.C. & G.S. - U. S. Coast & Geodetic Survey.
16 -6 -6.
COHERENCE - Logically consistent arrangement of plan elements.
16 -6 -7.
DRIVEWAY OR ACCESSWAY - That space specifically designated and reserved on the
site for movement of vehicles from one site to another site.or from the site
to a public street.
16 -6 -8.
DUSTLESS SURFACE - A surface adequately covered in accordance with good con-
struction practice; with a minimum of either two applications of bituminous
surface treatment, concrete, or bituminous concrete approved by the agent for
Frederick County and to be maintained in good condition at all times.
16 -6 -9.
EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS - Those associations pertaining to both on and off -site
considerations.
16 -6 -10.
GEOMETRIC DESIGN - Typical cross sections used in street design.
16 -6 -11.
ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL - Accompanying pictorial and written data.
16 -6 -12.
INTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS - Those associations pertaining to on -site considerations.
16 -6 -13.
LANDSCAPE DESIGN -.The planned treatment of land, structures and flora com-
plementing building construction or land development.
16 -6 -14.
MATERIALS - The physical elements of which something is made or fabricated.
'
16 -6 -15.
OFF -SITE - Any area which does.not fall within the boundary of property to be
developed, or planned, but generally in proximity thereto.
16 -6 -16.
OFF- STREET PARKING OR PARKING BAYS - Such space not in a dedicated right -of -way
specifically allotted to the parking of motor vehicles.
16 -6 -17. ON -SITE - That area within the boundary of any land to be developed, or planned.
16 -6 -18. OPEN SPACE - Water or land left in its natural state or developed as a
landscaped area unoccupied by habitable buildings, streets or parking lots.
16 -6 -19. PARCEL - Any tract of land or water not subdivided.
16 -6 -20, PASSIVE RECREATION AREA-- Natural areas, primarily scenic; for passive activities,
e.g. sitting, walking, riding or picnicking.
16 -6 -21. SIMPLICITY - Directness of expression in design.
16 -6 -22. SITE PLAN - Detailed drawings indicating all building construction
and land improvements, including landscape treatments and related information
as required by this section.
16 -6 -23. SPECIFICATIONS - A detailed, precise presentation of the materials and procedures
to be employed in the construction of all physical improvements required by
' the ordinances applicable in Frederick County,
16 -6 -24. STREET, PRIVATE - A .local or collector street guaranteed to be maintained by a
private corporation by means of a covenant, deed, and easement acceptable to
Frederick County,
16 -6 -25. STREET SCAPE - ...Visual appearance of the horizontal and vertical dimensions of
streets or buildings.
' 16 -6 -26. STREET WIDTH - The total width of the stip of land dedicated or-reserved for
public travel including roadway, curb and gutter, side walks, planting strips,
and where necessary utility easements.
16 -6 -27. TRAVELLANE - Space specifically designated and reserved on the site for the
movement of vehicular traffic.
16 -6 -28. USE - Activity proposed for any portion or part of a parcel, tract, or lot.
16 -6 -29. U.S.G.S. - U. S. Geological Survey.
16 -6 -30. U.S.C. & G.S. - U. S. Coast & Geodetic Survey.
160
ARTICLE XVII
NONCONFORMING USES
17 -1.
CONTINUATION
17 -1 -1.
If at the time of enactment of this ordinance, any legal activity, which
is being pursued, or any lot or structure legally utilized in a manner or
17 -6.
for a purpose which does not conform to the provisions of.this ordinance,
such manner of use or purpose may be continued as herein.
17 -1 -2.
If any change in title of possession or renewal of a lease of any such lot or
structure occurs, the existing use may be continued, so long as the requirements
of Section 17 -1 -3 are complied with.
17 -1 -3.
If any nonconforming use (structure or activity) is discontinued for a period
17 -7 -1.
exceeding one (1) year after the enactment of this ordinance, it shall be
deemed abandoned and any subsequent use shall conform to the requirements of
this ordinance.
17 -1 -4.
Whenever a nonconforming structure, lot or activity, has been changed to a more
17 -7 -2.
limited nonconforming use, such existing use may only be changed to an even.more
limited use.
17 -1 -5.
Temporary seasonal nonconforming uses that have been in continual operation for
a period of two (2) years or more prior to the effective date of this ordinance
are excluded from Section 17 -1 -3 above.
17 -2. PERMITS
17 -2 -1. All owners and /or operators of nonconforming uses shall apply to the zoning.
administrator for a zoning permit and certificate of occupancy within sixty
(60) days after the adopiton of this ordinance. Zoning permits and certificates
of occupancy will be issued within one hundred twenty (120) days after the.adop-
tion of this ordinance, provided that the owners and /or operators of such non-
conforming uses are in compliance with the terms of this ordinance.
17 -2 -2. The construction or use of a nonconforming building or land area for.which.a
permit was issued legally prior to the adoption of this ordinance may proceed,
provided such building is completed within one (1) year.
17 -3. REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE
On any building devoted in whole or in part to any nonconforming use, work may
be done in any period of twelve (12) consecutive months on ordinary repairs
or on repair.or replacement of non - bearing walls, fixtures, wiring or plumbing,
provided that the cubic content of the structure as it existed at the time
of passage or amendment of this ordinance shall not be increased. Nothing.in this
ordinance shall be deemed to prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe
condition of any structure or part thereof declared to be unsafe by any official
charged with protecting the public safety, upon order of such official.
17 -4. CHANGES IN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
Whenever the boundaries of a district are changed, any uses of land or buildings
which become nonconforming as a result of such change shall become subject.to
the provisions of this Article.
17 -5.
EXPANSION OR ENLARGEMENT
17 -5 -1.
A nonconforming structure to be extended or enlarged shall conform with the
provisions of this ordinance.
17 -6.
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 approved subject to the zoning uses in effect immediately prior to
the adoption of this ordinance.
17 -7.
RESTORATION OR REPLACEMENT
17 -7 -1.
If a nonconforming activity is destroyed or damaged in any manner to the extent
that the cost of restoration to its condition before the occurrence shall exceed
fifty per cent (50 %')' "of- the�cost of reconstructing thenentire activity or struc-
ture, it shall.be restored- only,if such use complies with this ordinance.
17 -7 -2.
If a nonconforming structure is destroyed or damaged in any manner to the extent
that the cost of restoration to its condition before the occurrence shall exceed
seventy -five (75) per cent of the.cost of reconstructing the entire structure,
it shall be restored only if it complies with the requirements of this ordinance.
17 -7 -3. When a conforming structure devoted to a nonconforming activity is damaged
less than fifty (50) per cent of the cost of reconstructing the entire
structure, or where a nonconforming structure is damaged less than seventy -
five (75) per cent of the cost of reconstructing the entire structure, either
may be repaired or restored provided any such repair or restoration is started
within twelve (12) months and completed within eighteen (18) months from the
date of partial destruction.
17 -7 -4. The cost of land or any factors other than the cost of the structure are excluded
in the determination of cost of restoration for any structure or activity devoted
to a nonconforming use.
161
ARTICLE XVIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
18 -1. ZONING, BUILDING AND MOBILE HOME PLACEMENT PERMITS
18 -1 -1. Buildings, signs, or structures shall be started, reconstructed, enlarged,
or altered only after a zoning and building permit has been obtained from the
administrator.
18 -1 -2. The commission may request a review of the zoning permit approved by the
administrator in order to determine if the contemplated use is in accordance
with,' the district in which the construction lies.
18 -1 -3. Each application for a zoning permit shall be accompanied by three (3) copies
of a scale drawing. The drawing shall show the size and shape of the parcel of
land on which the proposed building is to be constructed, the nature of the
proposed use of the building or land, and the location of such building or
use with respect to the property lines of said parcel of land and the right of
way of any street or highway adjoining said parcel of land. Any other information
which the administrator may deem necessary for consideration of the application
.ma y.be required. If the proposed building or use is in conformity with the
provisions of this ordinance a permit shall be issued to the applicant by the
administrator.
18 -2. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
Land used or occupied and buildings structurally altered or erected may be
used or changed in use only after a.certificate of occupancy has been issued
by the administrator. Such a permit shall state that the building or the
proposed use, or the use of the land, complies with the provisions of this
ordinance. A similar.certificate shall be issued for the purpose of maintaining,
renewing, changing or extending a nonconforming use. A certificate of occupancy
either for the whole or a part of a building shall'be applied for simultaneously
with the application for a zoning permit. The permit shall- , be _issued,wi,thin
thirty+ , '(30)days after the erection or structural alteration of such building
or part, has conformedc with_ the provisions; of this ordinance._
Goni;.rME-'. _ . t orC V1s_1_ZS t,il s
18 -3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I
18 -3 -1. The Board of Supervisors shall approve or disapprove conditional use permits
for uses requiring these permits and other uses not specifically permitted
in this ordinance. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Board
may, when granting a permit, impose conditions thereon, such as provisions
for fencing, planting or other landscaping, additional set -backs from
property lines, location and arrangement of lighting, setting of reasonable
time,limitations, and other reasonable requirements deemed necessary to
.safeguard the interest of the general public.
18 -3 -2. In fulfilling the purposes and intent of this ordinance the Planning Commission
and the Board of Supervisors shall be guided by the following standards:
To protect the resident of the county from the harmful
results of haphazard and ill- advised growth patterns.
To protect residential sections from unnecessary traffic,
fire hazards, noise, noxious fumes, or offensive odors
and other unwholesome conditions and influences.
To protect the general health and welfare of the area
in which the proposed use is to be located..
To assess any sanitary or health problems that may be
caused by approval of the permit and drainage of the
area covered by the permit.
18 -4. USES NOT PROVIDED FOR
If in any district established under this ordinance, a use is not specifically
permitted and an application is made by a property owner to the administrator
for such use, the administrator shall refer the application to the planning
commission which shall make its recommendations to the governing body within
sixty (60) days. If the recommendation of the planning commission is approved
by the governing body, the ordinance shall be amended to list the use as a
permitted use in that district, henceforth. Both planning commission and .
board of supervisors shall hold a public hearing after advertising in„
accordance with Section 15.1 -431, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended.
18 -5. MINIMUM OFF - STREET PARKING
There shall be provided at the time of erection of any main building or at
the time any main building is enlarged, minimum off- street parking space
with adequate provisions for entrance and exit by standard size automobiles,
as follows:
18 -5 -1. In all residential _districts there shall be provided either in a private
garage.or on the lot, space for 'the parking of two (2) automobiles for each
dwelling unit in a new building, or each dwelling unit added in the case of
the enlargement of an existing building; such parking space should be behind
the setback line.
162
18 -5 -2. Tourist homes and motels shall provide on the lot, parking space for one (1)
automobile for each accommodation.
18 -5 -3. For church, high school, college and university auditoriums, and for theatres,
general auditoriums, stadiums and other similar places of assembly, at least
one (1) parking space for every five (5) fixed seats provided in said building.
18 -5 -4. For hospitals, at least one (1) parking space for each one (1) bed capacity,
including infants' cribs and children's beds.
18 -5 -5. For medical and dental clinics, at least ten (10) parking spaces. Three (3)
additional parking spaces shall be furnished for each doctor or dentist having
offices in such clinic.in excess of three (3) doctors.or dentists.
18 -5 -6. For tourist courts, apartments and apartment motels, at least one (1) parking
space for each individual sleeping or living unit. For hotels and apartment
hotels at least one (1) . parking space for each two (2) sleeping rooms, up to
and including the first twenty (20) sleeping rooms, and one parking space for
each three (3) sleeping rooms over twenty (20).
18 -5 -7. For mortuaries and liquor stores, at least thirty (30) parking spaces.
18 -5 -8. For retail stores selling direct to the public, one (1) parking space for each
two hundred (200) square feet of retail floor space in the building.
18 -5 -9. Any other commercial building not listed above hereafter erected, converted, or
structurally altered shall provide one (1) parking space for each one hundred (1007
square feet of business floor space in the building.
18- 5 -10.. Parking space as required in the foregoing shall be on the same lot with the
main building, except that in the case of buildings other than dwellings, spaces
may be located as far away as six hundred (600) feet. Any lights used to
illuminate said parking areas shall be so arranged as to reflect the light away
from adjoining premises in a residential district.
18 -6. SIGNS
18 -6 -1. SIGN:
18 -6 -2.
18 -6 -3.
18 -6 -4.
18 -6 -5
18 -6 -6.
18 -6 -7.
Mall 11
18 -6 -9.
Any display of any -letters, words, numerals, figures, devices, emblems, pictures,
or any parts or combinations thereof, by any means whereby the same area made
visible for the purpose of making anything known, whether such display be made
on, attached to or as a part of a structure, or any other thing including, but
not limited to, the ground, and rock tree, or other natural object which
display is visible beyond the boundaries of the parcel of land on which the
same is made.
BUSINESS SIGN:
A sign which directs attention_to_a ,product, commodity, or service available
on the premises. _ - I 1 1.
HOME OCCUPATION SIGN:
A sign not exceeding four (4) square feet in area directing attention to a
product, commodity, or service available on the premises, but which product,
commodity, or service is clearly a secondary use of the dwelling.
LOCATION SIGN:
A sign which directs attention to the approximate location of an establishment
from which the advertised product may be obtained.
DIRECTIONAL SIGN:
A direction sign is one Gone end of which may be pointed,, or on which an arrow
may be painted), indicating the direction to which attention is called, giving the
name only of the farm, or business responsible for the erection of same.
All off- premises signs shall have a conditional use permit.
Animated signs are prohibited.
The maximum height must be not more than two (2) feet above the roof of the
building. i
No sign may be painted directly onto the exterior surface of any building.
ARTICLE XIX
PROVISIONS FOR APPEAL
19 -1. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
19 -1 -1. A board consisting of five (5) members shall be appointed by the circuit court
of Frederick County. Appointments for vacancies occurring otherwise than by
expiration of term shall in all cases be for the unexpired term.
FJ
163
19 -1 -2. The term of office shall be for five years, except that of the first five (5)
members appointed, one (1) shall serve for five (5) years, one (1) for four (4)
years, one (1) for two (2) years, and one (1) for one (1) year. One of the
five appointed members shall be an active member of the planning commission.
19 -1 -3 Members may be removed for cause by the appointing authority upon written charges
and =after public hearing.
19 -1 -4. Any member of the board shall be disqualified to act upon a matter before
'
the board with respect to property in which the member has an interest.
19 -1 -5. The board shall choose annually its own chairman and the vice chairman who
shall act in the absence of the chairman.
19 -2. POWERS OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Boards of zoning appeals shall have the following powers and duties:
19 -2 -1. To hear and decide appeals from any order, requirement, decision or determination
made by an administrative officer in the administration or enforcement of this
article or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto.
To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of the
1 19-2-2,
ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, when owing to special.
conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions will result in unnecessary
hardships; provided that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and
substantial justice done, as follows:
19 -2 -3. When a property owner can show that his - property was acquired in good faith
and where by reason the exceptional narrowness, shallowness, size or shape
of a specific piece of property at the time of the effective date of the
ordinance, or where by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other
extraordinary situation or condition of such piece of property, or of the use
or development of property immediately adjacent thereto, the strict application
of the terms of the ordinance would effectively prohibit or unreasonably
restrict the use of the property or where the board is satisfied upon the
evidence heard by it, that the granting of such variance will alleviate a clearly
demonstrable" hardship .ap pro achirig confiscation, as distingu shed.fiom a special
privilege,o'r: convenience . .sought by the applicant, provided - that all variances
shall'be in harmony-with-the intended spirit and purpose of the ordinance.
No such variance shall be authorized by the board unless it finds: (a) that the
'
1 19-2-4.
strict application of.the ordinance would produce undue hardship; (b) that
such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning
district and the same vicinity; and (c) that the authorization of such
variance will -not be of substantial detriment to adjacennt property-and that
'the character of the distric'u� wal=l no_.t. -by thec of the
variance. No such variance' sliall authorized except after notice and hearing
as required by Section 15•:1 -431 of the Code of Virginia 1950 as amended.
19 -2 -5. No variance shall be authorized unless the board finds that the condition or
situation of the property concerned or the intended use of the property is not
of so general or recurring nature as to make reasonably practicable the fo•r-.mula-
tionCOfwa.general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance..
19 -2 -6. In authorizing a variance the board may impose such conditions regarding
the location, character and other features of the proposed structure for
use as it may deem necessary in the public interest, and may require a
guarantee or bond to insure that the conditions imposed are being and will
continue to be complied with.
19 -3. RULES AND REGULATIONS
19 -3 -1. The board of zoning appeals shall adopt such rules and regulations as it may
consider necessary.
19 -3 -2. The meeting of the board shall be held at the call of its chairman.or..at such
time as a quorum of the board may determine.
'
19 -3 -3. The chairman, or in his absence the acting chairman, may administer oaths
and compel the attendance of witnesses.
19 -3 -4. The board shall keep minutes of its proceedings, showing the vote of each
member upon each question, or if absent or failing to vote, indicating
such fact. It shall keep records of its examinations and other official
actions, all of which shall be immediately filed in the office of the board
and shall be a public record.
19 -3 -5. All meetings of the board shall be open to the public.
19 -3 -6. A quorum shall be at least three (3) members.,
19 -3 -7. A favorable vote of three (3) members of the board shall be necessary
to reverse any order, requirement, decision, or determination of any adminis-
trative officer:. or to decide in favor of the applicant on any matter upon
which the board is required to pass.
19 -4. APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
164
An appeal to the board may be taken by any person aggrieved
or,by -any officer ,_depar-tment -board or bureau of- the= dounty affected ..
by any decision of the zoning administrator. Such appeal shall be taken
within thirty days after the decision appealed from by filing with the zoning
administrator, and with the board, a notice of appeal specifying the grounds
thereof. The zoning administrator shall forthwith transmit to the board all
papers constituting the record upon which action appealed was taken. An
appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from
unless the zoning administrator certifies to the board that by reason of facts
stated in the certificate a stay would in his opinion cause imminent peril
to life or property, in which case proceedings shall not be stayed otherwise
than by a restraining order granted by the board or by a court of record, on
application and on notice to the zoning administrator and for good cause shown.
19 -5. APPEAL PROCEDURE
19 -5 -1. Appeals shall be mailed to the board of zoning appeals c/o the zoning adminis-
trator, and a copy of the appeal mailed to the secretary of the planning
commission. A third copy should be mailed to the individual, officer, depart-
ment, or agency concerned, if any.
19 -5 -2. Appeals requiring an advertised public hearing shall be accompanied by a certified
check for twenty dollars ($20.00).
19 -6. PUBLIC HEARING
The board shall fix a reasonable time for the hearing of an application or appeal,
give public notice thereof as well as due notice to the parties in interest and de-
cide the same within sixty days. In exercising its powers the board may reverse
or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision or
determination appealed from. The concurring vote of three members shall be
necessary to reverse any order, requirement, decision or determination
of an administrative officer or to decide in favor of the applicant on any
matter upon which it is required to pass under the ordinance or to effect any
variance from the ordinance. The board shall keep minutes of its proceedings
and other official action which shall be filed in the office of the board and
shall be public records. The chairman of the board or in his absence, the acting
chairman may administer oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses.
19 -7. DECISION OF BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
19 -7 -1. Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the board
of zoning appeals, or any taxpayer or any officer, department, board, or bureau
of the county may present to the circuit court of the county a petition specifying
the grounds on which aggrieved within thirty days after the filing of the decision
in the office of the board.
19 -7 -2. Upon the presentation of such petition, the court shall allow a writ of centiorari
to review the decision of the board of zoning.appeals and shall prescribe therein
the time within which a return thereto must be made and served upon the relator's
attorney, which shall not be less than ten (10) days and may be extended by the
court. The allowance of the writ shall not stay proceedings upon the decision
appealed from, but the court may, on application, on notice to the board and on
due cause shown, grant a restraining order.
19 -7 -3. The board of zoning appeals shall not be required to return the original papers
acted upon by it, but it shall be sufficient to return certified or sworn
copies thereof or of such portions thereof as may be called for by such writ.
The return shall concisely set forth such other facts as may be pertinent and
material to show the grounds of the decision appealed from and shall be verified.
19 -7 -4. If, upon the hearing, it shall appear to the court that testimony is necessary
for the proper disposition of the matter, it may take evidence or appoint a
commissioner to take such evidence as it may direct and report the same to the
court with his findings of fact and conclusions of law, which shall constitute
a part of the proceedings upon which the determination of the court shall be
made. The court may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the .
decision brought up for review.
19 -7 -5. Costs shall not be allowed against the board, unless it shall appear to the court
that it acted in bad faith or with malice in making the decision appealed from.
ARTICLE XX
VIOLATION AND PENALTY
20 -1. All departments, officials and public employees of this jurisdiction which are
vested with the duty or authority to issue permits or licenses shall conform to the
provisions of this ordinance. They shall issue permits for uses, buildings, or
purposes only when they are in harmony with the provisions of this ordinance.
20 -2. Any person, firm or corporation, whether as principal, agent, employed or other-
wise, violating, causing or permitting the violation of any of the provisions of
this ordinance shall be guilty of a.misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, may
be fined up to two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00), such person, firm or
corporation shall be deemed to be guilty of a separate offense for each and every
day during which any portion of any violation of this ordinance is committed by
such person, firm or corporation, and shall be punishable as herein provided.
i
r
165
ARTICLE XXI
AMENDMENTS
21 -1. The regulations, restrictions and boundaries established in this ordinance
may, from time to time, be amended, supplemented, changed, modified, or
repealed by the governing body, provided:
' 21 -1 -1. At the time of application to amend this ordinance the applicant shall post
on the properties for which rezoning is sought, a sign 36" x 48" with full
rynformationion the change soughttand.the date,_time, and place of ther- hearing
by the governing body. Such sign shall be placed at the property line and be
maintained so as to be legible until the date of the hearing held by the
governing body.
21 -1 -2. Every petition or application or reapplication for rezoning shall be accompanied
by a fee in the amount of eighty dollars ($80.00) plus one dollar ($1.00) per
' acre to cover the costs of the advertising and other expenses connected with
the processing of a petition or application or reapplication.
21 -1 -3. Every application shall include proof that all property taxes due and payable
to the county are paid and that no delinquent taxes are outstanding.
21 -1 -4. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one (1) public hearing on such
proposed amendment after notice as required by Section 15.1 -431 and may make
appropriate changes in the proposed amendment as a result of such hearing.
Upon the completion of its work, the commission shall present the proposed
amendment to the governing body together with its recommendations and appropriate
explanatory materials.
21 -1 -5. Before approving and adopting any amendment, the governing body shall hold at
least one (1) public hearing thereon, pursuant to public notice as required by
Section 15.1 -431, after which the governing body may make appropriate changes
or corrections in the proposed amendment; provided,-however, that no additional
land may be zoned to a different classification than was contained in the
public notice without an additional public hearing after notice required by
Section 15.1 -431. An affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the
governing body shall be required to amend the zoning ordinance.
ARTICLE XXII
ADMINISTRATION AND INTERPRETATION
22 -1. This ordinance shall be enforced by the administrator who shall be apppinted
by the governing body. The administrator shall serve at the pleasure of that
body. Compensations for such shall be fixed by resolution of the governing body.
22 -2. Nothing contained herein shall require any change in the plans of construction
of any building or structure for which a permit was granted prior to the
effective date of this ordinance. However, such construction must commence
within thirty (30) days after this ordinance becomes effective. If construc-
tion is discontinued for a period of six (6) months or more, further construction
shall be in conformity with the provisions for the district in which the
operation is located.
22 -3. INTERPRETATION
Unless district boundary lines are fixed by- dimensions or otherwise clearly
shown or described, and where uncertainty exists with respect to the boundaries
of any of the aforesaid districts as shown on the zoning map, the following
rules shall apply:
22 -3 -1. Where district boundaries are 'indicated as approximately following or being
at right angles to the center lines of streets, highways, alleys, or railroad
main tracks, such center' lines or lines at right angles to such center
' lines shall be construed to be such boundaries as the case may be.
22 -3 -2. Where a district boundary is indicated to follow a river, creek, or branch
or other body of water,-said boundary shall be-construed to follow the
center line at low water or at the limit of the jurisdiction, and in the
event of change in the shoreline, such boundary shall be construed as moving
with the actual shoreline.
22 -3 -3. If no distance, angle, curvature description or other means is given to
' determine a boundary line accurately and the foregoing provisions do not
apply, the same shall be determined by the use of the scale shown on said
zoning map. In case of subsequent dispute, the matter shall be referred to
the Board of Zoning Appeals which shall determine the boundary.
22 -3 -4. When district boundaries are changed by the process of rezoning there shall
accompany each application for rezoning a location plan and a site plan
in accordance with Article XV of this Ordinance.
22 -4. EFFECTIVE DATE
The effective date of this ordinance shall be from and after its passage and
legal application, and its provisions shall be in force thereafter until
repealed.
166
22 -5: SEVERABILITY
Should any section or provision of this ordinance be decided by the courts to
be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
ordinance as a whole, or any part thereof other than the part so held to be un-
constitutional'or invalid.
22 -6. CONFLICTING ORDINANCES
All conflicting ordinances or parts thereof which are inconsistent with the
provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. '
22 -7. This zoning ordinance of Frederick County, Virginia, shall be effective at and
after 12:01 A.M. November 1, 1973.
22 -8. A certified copy of the foregoing zoning ordinance of Frederick County shall
be filed in the office of the zoning administration of Frederick County,
Virginia; and in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick
County, Virginia.
ARTICLE XXIII ,
DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of this ordinance, certain words and terms are defined as follows: Words used
in the present tense include the future. Words in the singular include the plural, and the
plural includes the singular.
23 -1. ABATTOIR: A commercial slaughter house.
23 -2. ACCESSORY USE OR STRUCTURE: A subordinate use or structure customarily incidental
to and located upon the same lot occupied by the main use or building.
23 -3. ACREAGE: A parcel of land, regardless of area, described by metes and bounds which
is not a numbered lot on any recorded subdivision plat.
23 -4. ADMINISTRATOR, THE: The official charged with the enforcement of the zoning
ordinance. He may be any appointed or elected official who is by formal
resolution designated to the position by the governing body. He may serve with
or without compensation as determined by the governing body.
23 -5. AGRICULTURE: The tilling of the soil, the raising of crops, horticulture, forestry, ,
and gardening, including the keeping of animals and fowls, and including any agri-
cultural industry or business such as fruit packing plants, dairies, or similar
uses.
23 -6. ALTERATION: Any change in the total floor area, use, adaptability,.or
external appearance of an.lexisting structure.
23 -7. APARTMENT HOUSE: A building used or intended to be used as the residence of three
(3) or more families living independently of each other.
23 -8. AUTOMOBILE GRAVEYARD: Any lot or place which is exposed to the weather upon
which more than five (5) motor vehicles of any kind, incapable of being operated,
and which it would not be economically practical to operative, are placed,
located or found.
23 -9. BASEMENT: A story having part but not more than one -half ('h) of its height
below grade. A basement shall be counted as a story for the purpose of height
regulations, if it is used for business purposes, or for dwelling purposes by
other than a janitor employed on the premises.
23 -10. BOARDING HOUSEI A building where, for compensation, meals provided
for at least five (5) and up to fourteen (14) persons.
23 -11. BUILDING: Any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls, for the
housing or enclosure of persons, animals, or chattels.
23 -12. BUILDING ACCESSORY: A subordinate structure customarily incidental to and located
'
upon the same lot occupied by the main structure. No such accessory structure"
shall be used for housekeeping purposes.
23 -13. BUILDING, HEIGHT OF: The vertical distance measured from the level of the curb
or the established curb grade opposite the middle of the front of the structure
to the highest point of the roof if a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard
roof; or to the mean height level between the eaves and ridge of a gable, or
gambrel roof. For buildings set back from the street line, the height shall be
,
measured from the average elevation of the ground surface along the front of
the building.
23 -14. BUILDING MAIN: The principal structure or one of the principal buildings on a
lot, or the building or one of the principal buildings housing the principal use
on the lot.
23 -15. BUILDING LINE: The line established with reference to the front lot line in front
of which no building may be built. The distance from the front lot line to the
building line shall not be less than the setback.
23 -16. CELLAR: A story having more than one -half of its height below grade and which may
not be occupied for dwelling purposes.
167
ThE :
23 -18.
23 -19.
unty,
DAIRY: A commercial establishment for the manufacture and sale of dairy
products.
DISTRICT: Districts as referred to in the State Code, Section 15.1 -486.
23 -30. GARAGE, PUBLIC: A building or portion thereof, other than a private garage,
designed or used for servicing, repairing, equipping, renting, selling, or
storing motor- driven vehicles.
23 -31. GENERAL STORE, COUNTRY: A single store, the ground floor area of which is
four thousand (4,000) square feet or less and which offers for sale primarily
most of the following articles; bread, milk, cheese, canned and bottled foods
and drinks, tobacco products, candy, papers and magazines, and general hardware
articles. Gasoline may also be offered for sale but only as a secondary activity
of a country general store.
23 -32. GOLF COURSE: Any golf course, publicly or privately owned, on which the
game of golf is played, including accessory uses and buildings customary
thereto, but excluding golf driving ranges as defined herein.
23 -33. GOLF DRIVING RANGE: A limited area on which golf players do not walk but
onto which they drive golf balls from a central driving tee.
23 -34. GOVERNING BODY: The board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia.
' 23 -35. GROSS AREA: All the land area contained within the boundaries of the lot
or tract.
23 -36. GUEST ROOM: A room which is intended, arranged, or designed to be occupied,
or which is occupied, by one or more guests paying direct compensation therefor,
but in which no provision is made for cooking. Dormitories are excluded.
23 -37. HISTORICAL AREA: As indicated on the zoning map to which the provisions of
the ordinance apply for protection of a historical heritage.
J 23 -38. HOG FARM: A farm where hogs are kept and fed primarily on garbage transported
from other places.
23 -39. " °HOMERGARDEN. . garden in-asresidential- distfict for: =the production of
fruits and flowers generally for use and /or consumption by the occupants of the
premises.
23 -40. HOME OCCUPATION: An occupation carried on by the occupant of a dwelling as a
secondary use in connection with which there is no display, and no one is
employed other than members of the family residing on the premises such as the
rental of rooms to tourists, the preparation of food products for sale, and
similar activities, professional offices such as medical, dental, legal,
engineering, and architectural conducted within a dwelling by the occupant.
23 -20.
DWELLING: Any structure which is designed for use for residential purposes
except hotels, boarding houses, lodging houses, tourist cabins, apartments,
and automobile trailers.
'
23 -21.
DWELLING MULTIPLE-FAMILY: A structure arranged or designed to be occupied
by more than three (3) families.
23 -22.
DWELLING, TWO FAMILY: A structure arranged or designed to be occupied by
two (2) families, the structure having only two (2) dwelling units.
23 -23.
DWELLING, SINGLE FAMILY: A structure arranged or designed to be occupied by one
(1) family, the structure having only one (1) dwelling unit.
23 -24.
-�DWELLING, "HOUSE:. A singlemfamily dwelling ' unyit -being one of_a group'•of three
or more such units attached to the adjacent dwelling or dwellings by party walls
with lots, utilities and other improvements being designed to permit individual
and separate ownership of such lots and dwelling units.
23 -25.
DWELLING UNIT: One or more rooms in a dwelling designed for living or sleeping
purposes, and having at least one (1) kitchen.
23 -26.
DUMP HEAP (TRASH PILE): Any area of one hundred (100) square'feet or more lying
within one thousand (1,000) feet of a State Highway, a residence, a dairy barn,
or food handling establishment where trash, garbage, or other waste or scrap "
material is dumped or deposited without-being covered by a sanitary fill.
23 -27.
FAMILY: One or more persons occuping a premises and living in a single
dwelling unit as distinguished fron an unrelated group occupying a boarding
house, lodging house, tourist home or hotel.
23 -28.
FRONTAGE: The minimum width of a lot measured from one side lot line to the
other along a straight line on which no point shall be farther away from the
street upon which the lot fronts than the building setback'line as defined and
required'.herein.
23 -29.
GARAGE, PRIVATE: Accessory building designed or used for the storage.of not
more than three (3) automobiles owned and used by the occupants of the building
to which it is accessory. On a lot occupied by a multiple -unit dwelling, the
'
private garage may be designed and used for the storage of one and one -half
(1 -�I) times as many automobiles as there are dwelling units.
23 -30. GARAGE, PUBLIC: A building or portion thereof, other than a private garage,
designed or used for servicing, repairing, equipping, renting, selling, or
storing motor- driven vehicles.
23 -31. GENERAL STORE, COUNTRY: A single store, the ground floor area of which is
four thousand (4,000) square feet or less and which offers for sale primarily
most of the following articles; bread, milk, cheese, canned and bottled foods
and drinks, tobacco products, candy, papers and magazines, and general hardware
articles. Gasoline may also be offered for sale but only as a secondary activity
of a country general store.
23 -32. GOLF COURSE: Any golf course, publicly or privately owned, on which the
game of golf is played, including accessory uses and buildings customary
thereto, but excluding golf driving ranges as defined herein.
23 -33. GOLF DRIVING RANGE: A limited area on which golf players do not walk but
onto which they drive golf balls from a central driving tee.
23 -34. GOVERNING BODY: The board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia.
' 23 -35. GROSS AREA: All the land area contained within the boundaries of the lot
or tract.
23 -36. GUEST ROOM: A room which is intended, arranged, or designed to be occupied,
or which is occupied, by one or more guests paying direct compensation therefor,
but in which no provision is made for cooking. Dormitories are excluded.
23 -37. HISTORICAL AREA: As indicated on the zoning map to which the provisions of
the ordinance apply for protection of a historical heritage.
J 23 -38. HOG FARM: A farm where hogs are kept and fed primarily on garbage transported
from other places.
23 -39. " °HOMERGARDEN. . garden in-asresidential- distfict for: =the production of
fruits and flowers generally for use and /or consumption by the occupants of the
premises.
23 -40. HOME OCCUPATION: An occupation carried on by the occupant of a dwelling as a
secondary use in connection with which there is no display, and no one is
employed other than members of the family residing on the premises such as the
rental of rooms to tourists, the preparation of food products for sale, and
similar activities, professional offices such as medical, dental, legal,
engineering, and architectural conducted within a dwelling by the occupant.
23 -41. HOSPITAL:. An institution rendering medical, surgical, obstetrical, or convalescent
care, including nursing homes, homes for the aged and sanitoriums, but in all cases
excluding institutions primarily for mental or feeble- minded patients, epileptics,
alcoholics, or drug addicts. (Certain nursing homes, and homes'for the aged may
be "home occupations" if they comply with the definition herein).
23 -42. HOSPITAL, SPECIAL CARE: A special care hospital shall mean an institution render-
ing care primarily for mental or feeble- minded patients, epileptics, alcoholics, or
drug addicts.
23 -43. HOTEL: A building designed or occupied as the more or less temporary abiding place '
for fourteen (14) or more individuals who are, for compensation, lodged with or
without meals, and in which provision is not generally made for cooking in
individual rooms or suites.
23 -44. JUNK YARD: An establishment or place of business which is maintained, operated,
or used for storing, keeping, buying or selling junk, or for the maintenance or
operation of an automobile graveyard, and the term shall include.garbage dumps
and sanitary'fills. ,
23 -45. KENNEL: A place prepared to house, board, breed, handle or otherwise keep or
care for dogs for sale or in return for compensation.
23 -46. LOT: A parcel of land occupied or to be occupied by a main structure or group of
main structures, together with such yards, open spaces, lot width and lot areas
as are required by this ordinance, and having frontage upon a street either shown
on a plat of record or considered as a unit of property and described by metes
and bounds.
23 -47.
LOT, CORNER: A lot abutting on two or
more streets at their intersection.
Of
fabrication, on streets and highways on its own wheels, built on a metal chassis
the two sides of a corner lot the front
shall be deemed to be the shortest
of
or underframe and arriving at site where it.is to be occupied as a dwelling com-
the two sides fronting on streets.
plete and ready for occupancy; except for minor and incidental unpacking and assemb
y
23 -48.
LOT, DEPTH OF: The average horizontal
distance between the front and rear
lot
lines.
23 -49.
LOT, DOUBLE FRONTAGE: An interior lot
having frontage on two (2) streets.
State of Virginia.
23 -50.
LOT, INTERIOR: Any lot other than a corner
lot.
MOBILE HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION: Any area designed to accomodate two or more mobil
23 -51.
LOT; WIDTH OFI� The",average"horizontal
distance between side'lot lines.
23 -52.
LOT OF RECORD: A lot which has been recorded
in the clerk's office of the
Circuit
parks, roads, roadways, walkways, trails, swimming pools, forests, hunting areas,
Court of Frederick County, Virginia.
recreational facilities, right -of -ways and surface easements for drainage.
23 -53.
MANUFACTURE AND /OR MANUFACTURING: The
processing and /or converting of raw
un-
,
finished materials, or products, or either
of them, into articles or substances
of different character, or for use for
a different purpose.
23 -54:
MOBILE HOME: A mobile home is a dwelling designed for transportation, after
fabrication, on streets and highways on its own wheels, built on a metal chassis
or underframe and arriving at site where it.is to be occupied as a dwelling com-
plete and ready for occupancy; except for minor and incidental unpacking and assemb
y
operation, location on jacks or permanent, foundations, connection to utilities and
the like. These unit's are titled by Virginia State Division of Motor Vehicles,
and carry the seal of the Mobile Home Manufacturing Association, as well as the
State of Virginia.
23 -55.
MOBILE HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION: Any area designed to accomodate two or more mobil
homes intended for residential use where residence is in mobile homes exclusively.
23 -56.
NET AREA: All the land contained within the boundaries of the lot or tract less
parks, roads, roadways, walkways, trails, swimming pools, forests, hunting areas,
recreational facilities, right -of -ways and surface easements for drainage.
23 -57.
NONCONFORMING LOT: An otherwise legally platted lot that does not conform to
the minimum area or width requirements of this ordinance for the district in
which it is located either at the effective date of this ordinance or as a
result of subsequent amendments to the ordinance.
'
23 -58.
NONCONFORMING ACTIVITY: The otherwise legal use of a building or structure or a
tract of land that does not conform to the use regulations of this ordinance
for the district in which it is located, either at the effective date of this
ordinance or as a result of subsequent amendments to the ordinance.
23 -59. NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE: An otherwise legal building or structure that does not
conform with'the lot area, yard, height, lot coverage, or other, area regulations of
this ordinance, or.is designed or intended for a use that does not conform to '
the use regulations of this ordinance for the district in which it is located,
either at the effective date of this ordinance or as a'result of subsequent
amendments to the ordinance.
23 -60. OFF- STREET PARKING AREA: Space provided for vehicular parking outside the
the dedicated street right of way.
23 -61. "dPEN* A small enclosure concentrated confinement housing of'animal:
oY poultry; a place for feeding and fattening animals; a coop. Enclosed pasture or
range with an area in excess of one hundred (100) square feet for each hog or
small animal or two hundred (200) square feet for each larger animal shall not be
regarded as a pen.
169
PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM: A water or sewer.system owned and operated
by a municipality or county, or owned and operated by a private individual
or a corporation approved by the governing body and properly licensed by the
State Corporation Commission, and subject to special regulations as herein set
forth.
I J
23 -63.
RESTAURANT: Any building in which for compensation food or beverages are
dispensed for consumption on the premises including, among other establish-
ments, cafes, tea rooms, confectionery shops or refreshment stands.
23 -64.
RETAIL STORES AND SHOPS: Buildings for display and sale of merchandise at
retail or for the rendering of personal services'(but specifically exclusive
of coal, wood, and lumber yards), such as the following which will serve as
illustration: drug store, newsstand, wood store, candy shop, milk dispensary,
drygoods and notions store, antique shop and gift shop, hardware store,
household appliance store, furniture store, florist, optician, music and radio
store, tailor shop, barber shop, and beauty shop.
23 -65.
SAWMILL: A portable sawmill located on private property for the processing
of timber cut. only from that property or from property i.mmed'ia,telyFcoatiguous
and r adjacent ^thereto: ; .:.d .1;, ce ! t}.
23 -66.
SETBACK: The minimum distance by which any building or structure must be
separated from the front lot line.
23 -67,
SIGN: Any display of any letters, words, numerals, figures, devices, emblems,
pictures; or any parts of combinations thereof, by any means whereby the
same are made visible for the purpose of making anything known, whether such
display be made on, attached to, or as a part of a structure, surface, or any
other thing including, but not limited to, the ground, and rock, tree, or
other natural object which display is visible beyond the boundaries of the
parcel of land on which the same is made. A display of less than one (1)
square foot in area is excluded from this definition.
23 -68.
SIGN STRUCTURE: Includes the supports, uprights, bracing, and framework of any
structure be it single- faced, double faced, V -type, or otherwise exhibiting a
sign.
23 -69,
SIGN, TEMPORARY: A sign applying to a seasonal or other brief activity such
as, but not limited to, summer camps, horse shows, auctions, or sale of land.
Temporary signs shall conform in size and type to direction signs._
23 -70, STORE: See item 23 -64, Retail Stores and Shops.
23 -71. 'f)STORY: That *y t,ar building; ho. therathahathesbasement ;;:incluided between
the surface or the floor and the surface of the floor next above it. If there
be no floor above it, the space between the floor and the ceiling next above it,
23 -72. STORY, HALF: A space under a sloping roof which has the line intersection
of roof decking and wall face not more than three (3) feet above the top
floor level, and in which space not more than two - thirds of the floor area
is finished off for use,
23 -73. STREET, ROAD: A public thoroughfare which affords principal means of access
to abutting property,
23 -74, STREET- CENTER LINE; , A line estab'lished.as,a center line of a street by any
State, County, or other official agency or governing body having jurisdiction
thereof and shown as such on an officially adopted or legally recorded map.
23 -75. STRUCTURE: Anything constructed or erected the use of which requires permanent
location on the ground or - attachmentic-to something :hauingi_a3 permanent, locatiom..on'
ground. includes, among other things, dwellings buildings, signs, etc.
23 -76. TOURIST COURT, AUTO COURT, MOTEL, AUTEL, CABINS, OR MOTOR LODGES: One or more
buildings containing individual sleeping rooms designed for or used temporarily
by automobile tourists or transients, with garage or parking space conveniently
located to each unit,
23 -77. TOURIST HOME: A dwelling where only lodging.is provided for compensation
for up to - fourteen (14) persons (in contradiction to hotels and boarding
houses) and open to transients.
23 -78. TRAVEL TRAILER: A mobile unit less than 29 feet in length and less than
4,500 pounds in weight which is designed for human habitation.
23 -79. USE, ACCESSORY: A subordinate use, customarily .indidental to and located upon
the same lot occupied by the main use.
23 -80. VARIANCE: A variance is a relaxation of the terms of the zoning ordinance
where such variance will not be contrary to the public interest and where,
owing to conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of the action
of the applicant, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in
unnecessary and undue hardship. As used in this ordinance, a variance is
authorized only for height, area, and size of structure or size of yards and
open spaces; establishment or expansion of a use otherwise prohibited shall
not be allowed by variance, nor shall a variance be granted because of.the
presence of nonconformities in the zoning division or district or adjoining
zoning divisions or districts. -
170
23 -81.
WAYSIDE STAND, ROADSIDE STAND, WAYSIDE MARKET: Any structure or land used forth
sale of agricultural or horticultural produce, livestock, or merchandise produced
by the owner or his family on their farm.
23 -82.
YARD: An open space on a lot other than a court unoccupied and unobstructed from
the ground upward, except as otherwise provided herein.
23 -83 =1.
FRONT - open, unoccupied space on the same lot as a building between the front
line of the building (excluding steps) and the front lot or street line, and
extending across the full width of the lot.
23 -83 -2.
REAR - An open, unoccupied space on the same lot as a building between the rear
line of the building (excluding steps) and the rear line of the lot, and extend-
ing the full width of the lot.
23 -83 -3.
SIDE - An open, unoccupied space on the same lot as a building between the side
line of the building (excluding steps) and the side line of the lot, and
extending from the front yard line to the rear yard line.
23 -84.
ZONING"P.ERMIT: That .portion of the.application.forva Building Permit that must
be signed by the Zoning Administrator.
The above resolution was passed unanimously by the following recorded vote: Mr.
Hodgson, Mr. Madigan, Mr. Russell, Mr. Cole, and Mr. Sandy all voting "Aye.
DONATION TO GREENWOOD VOLUNTEER FIRE CO. - APPROVED
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Board of Supervisors does hereby
acknowledge the assistance of Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company on May 3rd and 6th, 1973,
and does donate the sum of $1,078.51 to Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company for repairs to
equipment damaged while providing this assistance in accordance with the recommendation
of the Engineering and Code Enforcement Committee.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
DAVID G. DICKSON APPOINTED AGENT FOR
DISASTER RELIEF REIMBURSEMENT
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
BE IT RESOLVED, By the Frederick County Board of Supervisors of the County of
Frederick, Virginia, that David G. Dickson, Deputy County Administrator, be and is hereby
authorized to execute for-and in behalf of ^Frederick County, Virginia, a public entity'
established under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, this application and to file
it in the appropriate State Office for the purpose of obtaining certain Federal financial
assistance under the Federal Disaster Act (Public Law 606, 91st Congress).
The above resolution was unanimously.
REVISED EMERGENCY LANDFILL RATES - APPROVED
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Board of Supervisors does hereby amend
its action of June 27, 1973 and does establish the following emergency dumping rates for
the Sanitary Landfill:
Pick -Up Truck
Packer type trucks
All other trucks
$0.60 per load
$0.50 per yard of rated capacity
$0.50 per yard of measured load
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this rate shall be in effect as required effective
this date,tDttober 24, 1973.
The above resolution was' passed'unarrimous3y.
REPAIR OF DOG POUND SEPTIC SYSTEM - APPROVED
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
4
At the Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, held on I
BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia that a
supplemental appropriation in the amount of $1,500 for repair and upgrading of the septic
system at the County Dog Pound be hereby approved.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
LANDFILL BILLS WRITEOFF- APPROVED
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County,
does hereby release the Treasurer from the collection of the following landfill accounts:
Account Number
Beauty Barber Supply
Clarke, W. H.
Hoovers Roofing Co.
Kannay, A. R.
Printz, Earl
Sunoco Service Station
Taylor, R. N.
that these names be placed on.a non - payment list and that a new account
shall not be started for any of the above until such time as the above accounts are
rectified
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors does hereby release the
Treasurer from the collection of the following accounts which were erroneously billed:
nr r�„r,+ NT, mho,
Snapp, Arthur A.
Tinsman, C.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
UPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED. IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
DO NOW ADJOURN.
nervisors
the 14th day of November, 1973, in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room at 9 Court
Square, Winchester, Virginia.
PRESENT: Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman; J. Robert Russell, Vice Chairman; Donald
R. Hodgson; Richard F. Madigan; and Dennis T. Cole.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Upon motion by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of this Board held on the 10th day of
October, 1973, and the minutes of the Special Meeting of this Board held on the 16th day
of October, 1973:
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
171
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
172
That
of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
approve and order to be paid the bills for the month of October, 1973, in the amount of $97,5371.44
Warrants #04438 through #04651.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
1 APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
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 does
herein approve and order to be paid the payroll for the month of October, 1973, in the amount
of $44,052.63 by Warrants #04358 through #04437. ,
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
APPLICATION FOR WATER AND SEWER PERMIT
COUNTRY CLUB APARTMENTS - WITHDRAWN FOR THIRTY DAYS
Mr. Henry Whiting appeared before the Board representing Mr. Ben Bell, developer of
Country Club Apartments. He stated that the developer needed to begin construction as soon
as possible and was aware that there might be a problem with the capacity of the Winchester
Sewage Plant to handle these apartments. He stated that if the Winchester Plant could not
handle the apartments, the developer would have to go with the Sanitation Authority, if
possible, or install a central system.
Mr. Madigan stated that he felt it would be wise to wait until,we know whether or
not the Winchester Plant has the capacity to handle this connection before a permit is ,
issued.
Mr. Whiting stated that if the developer waited for this decision he would have to
refinance the project and this would be at a higher interest rate. He further stated that
construction must begin as soon as possible in order for the developer to meet his mortgage
committment and construction deadline.
Mr. Cole asked if the natural drainage of the property was toward the City Plant
or the County system and Mr. Krueger stated toward the City Plant.
Mr. Hodgson stated that there already existed an odor problem in this area and he
did not feel this connection should be allowed inasmuch as the plant is already overloaded.
He further stated that he did not feel the odor was being caused so much by the overloading,
but by the treatment process at the City Plant.
Mr. Hodgson asked what the developer would do if the State did not approve their '
connection to the City Plant and Mr. Whiting stated that they were aware of this possibility
and the risk involved, but in that case they would try to work with the Sanitation Authority,
if possible, or perhaps install a central system.
There was discussion concerning the updating of the present City facility and the
possibility of a city- county regional plant. '
Mr. Sandy stated that he felt the Board needed more definite information as to
the design capacity of the present City facility, and whether or not they get approval from
the State Water Control Board in order to act upon this request intelligently.
Mr. Russell stated that he felt other areas should have priority over any new
connections, especially in light of the fact that the plant is already overloaded.
173
Mr. Chiles stated that he would inspect the•road again to see if some improvements
could be made.
PUBLIC HEARING.- FLINTKOTE COMPANY REQUEST
FOR ROAD ABANDONMENT - TABLED
Mr. Jim Largent appeared before the Board representing Flintkote Company in support
their request for abandonment of a portion of Route 648. He stated that the abandonment
ld still be subject to Highway Department approval even if the Board of Supervisors
the request.
Mr. William F. Giannini, Manager of M. J. Grove Lime Company, appeared before the
Board and introduced Mr. Bob Young a geologist for Flintkote Company.
Mr. Young explained, with the aid of an aerial map, the necessity of the relocation
o£ this road in order to complete the mining of the limestone in the area. He stated that
Rt. 648 crosses the limestone belt in two places and if the quarrying is to proceed as a
surface'operation, Route 648 must be relocated.
The engineer for Flintkote Company, Mr. Hank Kyhkynen, appeared before the Board
and stated that the present mining operation would be cbmplete in a few months and if the
oad is relocated the remainder of the mining would continue for approximately eight to
ten years. He stated that.the relocation of the road was essential to the continuation of
the mining operation.
Mr. Hankin, Manager of M. J. Grove Lime Company, Lime Kiln, Maryland, appeared
fore the Board and stated that this operation had been established in the Stephens City
a for many years and further stated that if only the tonage involved was at stake and it
new operation, the request would not have been made.
Mr. Cole stated that he did not feel it was fair for the Board to issue
water and sewer permits to other applicants and then single out one individual and deny
them, inasmuch as the Board had been aware for several months of the city plant's condition.
He stated that these apartments would benefit the County inasmuch as housing is badly
needed.
Mr. Renalds stated that the Board did not have knowledge of the overload at the
City plant when the Delco Plaza and Ramada Inn permits were issued.
Mr. Whiting stated that his client, Mr. Ben Bell, requested withdrawal of this
application for thirty days.
'
The Board agreed to this withdrawal in order that more information could be
received and directed that the application Country Club
of Apartments would be heard at
I the Regular Meeting of this Board on December 12, 1973.
CITIZENS' COMPLAINT - ROUTE 612
Mr. Ray Stelzl appeared before the Board representing a group of citizens and
presented a complaint regarding Route 612. Mr. Stelzl stated that the road is very narrow
and that it floods whenever there is a heavy rain. He stated that the Highway Department
had dug a ditch to alleviate the flooding but a bigger pipe is needed to carry the water.
Mr. Chile's of the Highway Department stated that the traffic count on this road
is 17 cars a day and the Highway Department felt that it was in pretty good shape. He
further stated that the Highway Department had no major plans for improvement of this
road.
Mr. Stelzl stated that this road is used by 13 families, two hunt clubs, mail
carriers and school buses and it is too narrow and floods because of the need for a larger
drain pipe.
Mr. Chiles stated that he would inspect the•road again to see if some improvements
could be made.
PUBLIC HEARING.- FLINTKOTE COMPANY REQUEST
FOR ROAD ABANDONMENT - TABLED
Mr. Jim Largent appeared before the Board representing Flintkote Company in support
their request for abandonment of a portion of Route 648. He stated that the abandonment
ld still be subject to Highway Department approval even if the Board of Supervisors
the request.
Mr. William F. Giannini, Manager of M. J. Grove Lime Company, appeared before the
Board and introduced Mr. Bob Young a geologist for Flintkote Company.
Mr. Young explained, with the aid of an aerial map, the necessity of the relocation
o£ this road in order to complete the mining of the limestone in the area. He stated that
Rt. 648 crosses the limestone belt in two places and if the quarrying is to proceed as a
surface'operation, Route 648 must be relocated.
The engineer for Flintkote Company, Mr. Hank Kyhkynen, appeared before the Board
and stated that the present mining operation would be cbmplete in a few months and if the
oad is relocated the remainder of the mining would continue for approximately eight to
ten years. He stated that.the relocation of the road was essential to the continuation of
the mining operation.
Mr. Hankin, Manager of M. J. Grove Lime Company, Lime Kiln, Maryland, appeared
fore the Board and stated that this operation had been established in the Stephens City
a for many years and further stated that if only the tonage involved was at stake and it
new operation, the request would not have been made.
174
He stated that if this request was denied it would result in a major impact
on
Frederick County financially inasmuch as M. J. Grove Lime Company employs 100 people,
has
a of $1,000,000 annually, local purchases of $250,000 and energy purchases of
$375,000
payroll
annually.
Mr. Madigan asked what the company plans to do with the property at the end
of their
operation and Mr. Hankin stated that he could not state at this time what the disposition
of
,
the property would be inasmuch as this is a board decision.
Mr: Charles Bass appeared before the Board in support of this request and
stated
that this road was in very poor condition and if this request was approved it would be
of
great benefit to the people in the area.
,
Mr. Madigan asked what the traffic count was on this road and Mr. King
stated approximately 50 cars per day.
Mr. Lewis Costello appeared before the Board, representing Mr. Marshall Conner, and
stated that Mr. Conner had been in favor of improving this road for a long time. He
further
stated that if all the quarrying operations could be kept on the eastern side of the
road,
this would be a vast improvement over many of the roads in the County which now have
quarrying
on both sides.
Mr. Largent presented a letter from the Stephens City Town Council which set forth
the Council's support of the request for abandonment and relocation. Mr. Largent stated
that the Board must consider many things in making a decision on this request. He stated
that he did not feel that the people objected so much to the new location of the road but
moreover to the operation of the limestone plant. He stated that Flintkote Company had '
been operating for many years in this area and has always followed the reclamation regulations
which are becoming more stringent each year. He pointed out that the Board must consider
the people employed by the company and the consequences involved if the quarrying operations
could not continue.
Mr. Phil Whitney appeared before the Board representing a delegation of approximate-
ly 20 people in opposition to the request for road abandonment. He stated that a meeting
had been held with the officials of the Flintkote Company, Supervisor Richard F. Madigan
and several members of the delegation present at tonight's meeting, and that they had been
under the.impression that a solution had been reached on the problem but this was not the
case. He further stated that the delegation was petitioning the Board to table this request
until such time as the County has some written assurance from Flintkote Company as to the
length of time the company will take to correct some of the problems presently experienced
by the people in the area and setting forth the ultimate disposition of the property at the ,
end of the quarrying operations. He stated that some of the problems the delegation would
like to bring to the attention of the Board were as follows: (1) limestone dust created
by the mining operations was abrasive to automobiles which must travel in the area; (2)
the mounds around the pits were unsightly and there was no assurance that these mounds would '
be rounded off and seeded; (3) some of the residents in the area had sustained damage from
blasting done at the quarry; (4) the element of danger caused by the deep open pits to
children and animals in the area; (5) air pollution from the plant experienced in the Stephen
City area; (6) the value of real estate was affected by the operation of a limestone plant
in the area.
Mr. Whitney stated that it was the opinion of the delegation at the conclusion of
the meeting with the company officials, that the property would be donated to the County of
I,
175
rederick and perhaps converted into a lake and park, however this was not the case. He
rther stated that if these pits were allowed to fill with water, they could supply an
ffective water supply for the County.
Mr. H. B. Alexander expressed concern about the height of the mounds created by
quarrying operations and the fact that the County has no assurance as to the disposition
dof the. property when the limestone is exhausted.
Mr. Carbaugh stated that improvements were badly needed on this road and that he
1had never experienced any of the problems set forth by Mr. Whitney.
Mr. Chile's of the Highway Department stated that the Highway Department felt
(this request would be a great improvement and that on the list of priorities it would be
quite some time before the Highway Department would improve this particular road.
Mr. Sandy asked if most of this road was in the boundary of the town of Stephens
(City and Mr. Chiles stated that this was correct. 'Mr. Sandy then asked why this request
Jhad been brought before the board and not the Stephens City Town Council and Mr. Largent
stated that this was required by statute.
Mr. Sandy asked when construction on the remainder of the road could be done and
Mr. Chiles stated that this would have to be budgeted and planned for. He further stated
that he felt if the bulk of the road was done by the company, the state could possibly
work on the other ends when the surface treatment is applied.
Mr. Sandy asked how much traffic Flintkote would have on this road when it was
completed and Mr. Giannini stated very little.
Mr. Sandy asked if the company could make a statement as to what disposition
would be made of the property at the termination of the quarrying operations and Mr.
Largent stated that Mr. Hankin could not speak for the Board of Directors and he did not
feel the company could make any definite statement as to what would be done with the
property eight years from now.
Mr. Russell asked how much water is being pumped at the quarry now and Mr.
Kyhkynen stated approximately 2,000 gallons per minute.
Mr. Sandy suggested that a committee be formed consisting of representatives
from the.Flintkote Company and the delegation in opposition to this request so that
they might meet together and work out some solutions to the problems expressed and then
the Board would make a decision.
Mr. Sandy called for comments from the Board members.
Mr. Hodgson had no comment.
Mr. Madigan stated that he felt Mr. Sandy's suggestion was an excellent idea.
Mr. Cole stated that Mr. Whitney's major complaint was the lime dust and he
felt the Air Pollution Control Board should be asked to come before the Board and outline
what steps are being taken by all the quarries in the area to take care of these problems.
Mr. Largent stated that the reports can be obtained from the Air Pollution
Control Board with respect to Flintkote's adherence to these regulations.
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 does
herein table the request of Flintkote Company to abandon a portion of Route 648 to the
next regular meeting of this.Board to be held on November 28, 1973.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
0
176
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REQUEST
REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Irvin Shendow and Mr. John Lewis appeared before the Board representing the
Downtown Development Committee and requested permission from the Board of Supervisors to
allow the sidewalk in front of the County Court House and the A & N Store building
cons to conform to the plans set forth by the Downtown Development Committee. Mr. '
Shendow stated that this would be done at no cost to the County in that the cost would be
borne by the City of Winchester and the various landlords. Mr. Lewis presented several
charts showing the proposed construction of the Loudoun Street Mall.
Mr. Sandy asked if the County would be considered the landlord for the A & N Store ,
property and Mr. Shendow stated that the County was not considered the landlord unless they
were paying taxes to the City of Winchester. He stated that the project is being funded
through a special tax cents pei $100 valuation imposed upon the landlords of the
properties involved.
There was discussion as to whether the Downtown Development Committee would request
the renovation of the front of the A & N Store property to conform with the overall plans.
Mr. Shendow stated that the Committee was encouraging property owners to paint and repair
the store fronts in order to beautify the mall but that there were no specific requirements
set forth.
The Board agreed to refer the request of the Downtown Development Committee to
the Committee on Planning and Development for study and recommendation to the Board.
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT II '
CECIL BOYCE - PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD DECEMBER 12, 1973 V
Mr. Bill Riley, Zoning Administrator, appeared before the Board and presented
the request of Cecil Boyce for a conditional use permit for a mobile home court and stated
that this application was made under the old zoning ordinance. Mr. Riley stated that Mr.
Boyce had submitted the necessary information required under the ordinance.
Mr. Ben Butler appeared before the Board in support of Mr. Boyce's request and
stated that he felt everything was in order on the application submitted by Mr. Boyce.
Mr. Madigan asked if there would be one acre reserved for recreation and Mr.
Boyce stated that one acre in the back of the property, next to the wooded area would definite
y
be reserved for recreation.
Mr. Manuel'DeHaven appeared before the Board representing approximately 40 property
owners in the area where Mr. Boyce proposes to locate his trailer park. He presented a peti-
tion with approximately 40 signatures opposing the request of Mr. Boyce. Mr. DeHaven stated
that the delegation was opposed to the location of this trailer park because the property is
directly in a drainage area and floods whenever there is a heavy rain.
Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Butler if he had a topographic map of the area and Mr.
Butler stated that the area had been checked by the Health Department. He further stated
'
that as long as Mr. Boyce meets the requirements of the ordinance it is not relevant whether
or not the neighbors like trailers or not.
Mr. Madigan stated that the Board was responsible for the safety, health and
welfare of the people and that they did not want to put anyone in an area that is subject
to flooding.
177
Mr. Cole stated that two or more trailers constitutes a trailer park and
at the present time Mr. Boyce has two trailers on the property. Mr. Cole asked Mr. Ambrogi
if Mr: Boyce was in violation of the Frederick County Trailer Ordinance if he does not
have permits for these trailers and Mr. Ambrogi stated that in his opinion it would appear
that he would be in violation of the ordinance.
Mr.'Riley stated that Mr. Boyce had made application for a permit but apparently
it had been held up•at the Health Department.
Mr. Russell stated that a permit should be obtained before a trailer is located
on the property.
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 does
herein table the application of Cecil Boyce for a conditional use permit to establish a
trailer park until the regular meeting of this Board 1 on December 12, at which
time a public hearing shall be held on said application; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this Board does herein direct that the applicant
furnish topographic maps of said property showing the flood plain areas at the public
hearing.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
M. AUSTIN CREASY - APPROVED
Mr. Austin Creasy appeared before the Board in support of his application
for a conditional use permit for a mobile home park and stated that he planned to locate
three mobile homes on the property which consists of approximately 31 acres. He stated
that the trailers would be occupied by members of his family only.
Upon motion made by J. Robert Russell and seconded by Dennis T. Cole,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the application for conditional use permit of M. Austin
Creasy to establish a trailer park is herein approved with the stipulation that this will
be a family trailer park with no rental spaces provided.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING A SIX MONTH MORATORIUM
ON REZONING APPLICATIONS - FIRST AND SECOND READING - APPROVED
Mr. Madigan read the ordinance in full.
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
s herein approve, on first and second reading, the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE 'REPEALING' A SIX MONTH MORATORIUM ON HEARINGS AND
ACTIONS ON REZONING APPLICATIONS THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
SUBDIVISIONS
Mr. Berg stated that the.plats of Fredericktowne and Sherwood Hedrick had
!n withdrawn.
Subdivision -
reek District - _Approved:
Mr. Berg presented the plat of Woodchuck Heights Subdivision stating that the
178
property was located on Route 654 in Back Creek Magisterial District and contained one acre
of land which was being divided into two lots. He stated that Health Department and Highway
Department approval had been given and a recreation fee of $100 per lot was recommended. He
further stated that the staff recommended approval of this plat.
Mr. Sandy stated that if there were any further plans for development of this
property a plat should be submitted showing the overall plan of the subdivision.
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 does
herein approve the preliminary plat of Woodchuck Heights Subdivision, located on Route 654
in Back Creek Magisterial District, containing one acre of land.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Stonegate Subdivision - Shawnee District - Approved:
Mr. Berg presented the plat of Stonegate Subdivision and stated that the property
is located just off Senseny Road in Shawnee Magisterial District. He further stated that the
Recreation Department had recommended a $2,300 recreation fee and the staff comments were:
(1) Lot 16 is not provided with water and sewer and this will have to be redrafted; (2) the
set back lines are not shown; (3) Lots 1, 2, and 3 on Senseny Road are roadside lots and
the Planning Commission recommended that these lots carry the covenants required internally.
He further stated that they would have central water and sewer through the Winchester Plant.
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 does here-
in approve the preliminary plat of Stonegate Subdivision located in Shawnee Magisterial
District subject to the changes recommended by the Planning Commission and staff and further
subject to a decision being reached as to whether the Winchester Sewage Treatment Plant can
provide water and sewer services.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
BOARD REQUESTS OPEN SEASON ON FOXES IN FREDERICK COUNTY
Mr. Bill Boden appeared before the Board representing a number of sportsmen in the
County and presented a request for an open season on foxes in the County. He stated that
the foxes are in overabundance and are endangering the small game in the County. He further
stated that our neighboring seven counties have an open season on foxes.
Mr. Cole stated that this condition could also produce a rabies problem and he felt
the Board should act on this problem immediately.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia that this
Board request the Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries to establish and prescribe
a continuous open season for trapping and hunting foxes in Frederick County, Virginia.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE - TAX RELIEF FOR THE ELDERLY - TO BE
ADVERTISED FOR PUBLIC HEARING
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, Virginia
does herein direct that the Oidinance providing for Tax Relief for the Elderly be-advertised
for public hearing at the regular meeting of the Board gh December 12, 1973.
The above resolution was passed unanimously
1
179
AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE LANDFILL DEED - APPROVED
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 does
herein authorize and direct the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County
Administrator to execute the deed for the new Sanitary Landfill site.
' The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
J. Robert Russell, Donald R. Hodgson, and Dennis T. Cole all voting "Aye" and Richard F.
Madigan voting "Nay"
APPOINTMENTS TO HIGHWAY SAFETY COMMISSION
' 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 does
herein make the following appointments to the Highway Safety Commission for a term of four
(4) years:
Dr. Brian Landes; Larry Ambrogi, Commonwealth Attorney; John Goodwin, Insurance
Agent; Lynn Comer, Mayor of Stephens City; Neil Stallings, Mayor of Middletown; and C.
Richard Legge, Vice President of the Frederick County Fireman's Association.
The above resolution was passed unanimously. '
LORD FAIRFAX PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION - REGIONAL
YOUTH COUNCIL - COMMITTEE TO MAKE APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Renalds presented the request of the Lord Fairfax Planning District
Commission for the appointment of three teen agers to serve on a Regional Youth Council,
which council would examine the activities available to teen age citizens in the Planning
' District and recommend additional activities which could be instituted.
After discussion the Board recommended the appointment of Debbie Lowe to this
Council and appointed a committee composed of Mr. Renalds, Mr. Cole and Mr. Russell to
s
make two additional appointments.
DATE SET FOR JOINT MEETING BETWEEN
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND SANITATION AUTHORITY
The Board of Supervisors set the date of Tuesday, November 20, 1973, at
6:30 P.M. for the joint meeting between the Board of Supervisors and the Sanitation
Authority.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE
Supplemental Appropriation $4000 - Construction of Exercise Yard - Approved:
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan,
' BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors the County of Frederick that a
supplemental appropriation in the amount of $4,000 be hereby approved for construction.of
an exercise.-yard at the.Frederick County- Winchester Jail in °with the recommenda-
tion of the Committee on -Law Enforcement'and Courts, one -half of said expenditure to�tie
reimbursed the City of Winchester.
' The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Supplemental Appropriation $90OO - Improvement of Winchester - Frederick County Lockup -
Approved
Upon motion..made by,Dennis T. Cole and.seconded by Richard F.
BE,IT RESOLVED, By Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick.that
a supplemental appropriation in the amount of be hereby approved for the
of the Frederick Lockup in accordance with the recommendation of the
ttee on Law Enf
City of Winchester.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DIRECTED TO OBTAIN BIDS ON
MODIFICATION OF OFFICES IN COURT HOUSE
to the offices located
,
Mr. Cole stated that Judge Woltz had requested modifications
on the first floor of the Court House in order that he might occupy them.
The Board directed Mr. Renalds to obtain bids on the required modifications for
presentation to the Board.
DEPARTMENT HEADS REPORTS - ACCEPTED
,
After review the following Department Heads Reports were accepted by the Board:
Parks and Recreation Department; Data Processing Department; Department of Inspections;
Department of Accounting; Department of Planning and Development; Engineering Department;
and the Dog Warden.
DAY CAMP FEE REFUND - MRS. PEGGY FLOWERS - 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, Virginia,
does herein approve a refund in the amount of $15.00 to Mrs. Peggy Flowers for overpayment
of day camp fees to the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS REPORTS - ACCEPTED
After review the following Constitutional Officers Reports were accepted: Clerk
'
of the Circuit Court; Commissioner of the Revenue; and Frederick County Sheriff.
ENERGY CONSERVATION RESOLUTION - APPROVED
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole.
WHEREAS, it -has become apparept-_to. the - 71reder-i`6k County Board o.f Supervisors that
a shortage of heating fuels and other sources of energy will exist during the ensuing
winter months; and,
WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia desires to take
all measures possible to assist in preventing hardships for the citizens of Frederick
County;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia
that the Board urges all citizens of the County to implement the following procedures:
1. Reduce thermostats in all structures to 68 '
2. Eliminate all unnecessary use of motor vehicles and hold speeds
to not greater than 50 miles per hour during vehicle use. Make
use of car pools whenever possible.
3. Eliminate all unnecessary uses of electrical power in homes,
businesses, and elsewhere.
The above resolution was passed unanimously. ,
DATE SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING O TRAILER ORDINANCE
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 does
herein direct the County Administrator to advertise for public hearing the proposed Frederick
County Trailer Ordinance to be heard at the regular meeting of this Board on December
26, 1973.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
181
Mr. Russell requested that a work session be set up to discuss .
the trailer ordinance before the public hearing is held. After discussion the Board agreed
to hold a work session on the date of the next regular board meeting on November 28, 1973.
THE SUMMIT - EXTENSION OF CORPORATE BOND - APPROVED
Mr. Thomas McCann appeared before the Board and stated that on July 26, 1973
the Board had approved a corporate bond for the Summit with the provision that this bond
be replaced within 90 days by a performance bond. He asked if this had been done.
A letter was presented from Mr. Harold Moss, President of the Summit, wherein
he requested an extension of 60 days on the corporate bond. Mr. Russell stated that he knew
that Mr. Moss was working on the replacement of this bond and he was in favor of granting
the sixty day extension.
Mr. stated that he felt the Board must take immediate action in that the bond
was due on October 26, 1973.
Mr. Madigan stated that he felt the Board must work with both the developers
and the people in the County.
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 does
in approve the request of the Summit for a sixty day extension of the corporate bond
sted on July 26, 1973, said extension to be effective from the date of October 26, 1973.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: J. Robert
Russell, Richard F. Madigan, and Donald R
i
and Dennis T. Cole voting "Nay ".
Hodgson, voting "Aye" and Raymond C. Sandy
UPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
NOW ADJOURN.
ary,
isors
boara o
ors
At a Special Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, Frederick
County Sanitation Authority and the Winchester City Council held on the 15th day of
November, 1973 in the New John Kerr School at 536 Jefferson Street, Winchester, Virginia.
PRESENT:
FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman; J. Robert
Russell, Vice Chairman; Richard F. Madigan; Donald R. Hodgson; and Dennis T. Cole.
FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY James L. Bowman, Chairman; Don E. Kreuger,
Director, Frederick County Sanitation Authority; S. Roger Koontz; William A. Morrison; T. G.
Adams; and James H. Diehl.
WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL Stewart Bell, Jr., Mayor; James Fleming; Roy Bayliss;
Shirley 0. Bly; William Mote; Thomas C. Glass; George Garber; William Keyton;,Charles
Zuckerman; Charles W. Dorton; and Ben B.. Dutton.
OTHERS Stephen D. Carnes, Jr.., Financial Advisor Frederick County Sanitation
Authority; James W. Givens, Utilities Supt., City of Winchester; J. 0. Renalds, III, Fred-
erick County Administrator; H. Ronald Berg, Frederick County Director of Planning; James
E. Boyd, Director of Accounting; Wendell L. Seldon, Winchester City Manager; J. L. Shipp,
Winchester Assistant City Manager; Bently Kinney, WINC; James Copen,WHPL -WEFG; S. H. Reaves,
Consultant for Utilities Dept., City of Winchester; J. R. Rofman, Alexander Potter
Associates; and J. Galandak, Alexander Potter Associates.
m
The meeting was called to order by City Manager, Wendell L. seldon.
Mr. Seldon introduced everyone and then presented Mr. J. R. Rofman of Alexander
Potter Associates for the presentation of the feasibility study for a regional sewage treat-
ment plan as commissioned by the City of Winchester and the Frederick County Sanitation
Authority.
Mr. Rofman stated that after studying the area his firm had gone through the usual
engineering procedures for a study of this type and had arrived at the conclusion that either
you have a multiplicity of small treatment plants or a lot of pumping stations. He said
that the pumping stations are really more desirable.
Mr. Rofman pointed out on a map five designated drainage districts and stated that
they had done a detailed study, road by road, supplemented by field inspections, to get
the feel of the terrain and then had plotted the data. He stated that it was a time consum-
ing job but it was the only way they could arrive at something that would make sense both fro
a'regional viewpoint and from a strictly local viewpoint. Mr. Rofman said that this was
supplemented by studies of development and on Sheet 1 of the report there were areas which
had been studied in detail for this report. He stated that these areas are the ones with the
greatest population on their roads, highways and streets; where development is likely to take
place; and where sewerage improvements would be justified in the near future. He stated that
this entailed a study of population growth in which they utilized available sources and some
data they had developed. He further stated that detailed work had been done to determine
which way the flow would go, where the collections could be made, and where the points of
concentration are in each of the drainage districts. He said that they had done this for a
special purpose; that being, if they were going to approach this problem from the viewpoint
of regional treatment, the implication is that there had to be regional collection of waste.
On the other hand, we must look at what you would have to do to sewer local areas in any of
the five drainage districts. For purposes of treatment by a regional plant,of one kind or
another, interceptors would have to extend like fingers to the Opequon Creek to pick up
suitable points of concentration where the waste of the entire area can be collected He
stated that they had found that in addition to the interceptors which are presently part
of the study for a regional plant, there will be additional interceptors within the areas
which are really part of the local collection system. He further stated that in their
opinion grants in aid should be available not only for the regional systems but for the
larger diameter pipes in the local collection system which are in effect interceptors.
Mr. Rofman stated that when they had finished establishing what the flows are
likely to be and what all the factors that develop flow are likely to be, (population,
industrial development, commercial development) this data had been studied, part by part,
to see where zoning permits one thing or another, where industrial 'development could take
place, and where residential development would be relatively dense or where residential
development would be so sparsely developed that it would not be wise to construct sewers.
He stated that everything outside of the corporate limits of the City of
Winchester had been called the Opequon Drainage Basin and everything within the corporate
limits had been called Winchester.
Mr. Rofman said thaC when they had completed the study for the entire basin, three
possibilities were considered: First, that a single treatment plant is conceivable in an
area of this size, although not very large population wise, even in terms of the year 2020,
the estimated density population is such that we would have something on the order of less
J
183
than 80,000 people in the whole 100 square mile area; (2) Second, it was conceivable that
the drainage basin, which was under the supervision of the Sanitation Authority could have
a regional plant and the City of Winchester, under its own local government could have a
regional plant of its own. We designed those plans, estimated their cost, estimated the
cost of intercepting sewers to reach them, estimated the operating costs and you will find
' this summarized in the report; Third, we then considered an extreme condition where grants
in aid are not available for one reason or another, the pressure of doing something for the
local population or local developers to treat their waste, particularly in view of the fact
that the Water Control Board is rather strict in their requirements, in fact they are quite
stringent, that it might be necessary, if the larger objective can not be realized and you
' can not go to a regional plant, you might be faced with building and operating five small
plants which would probably never receive any aid from any governmental source because they
are looked upon as facilities which have a life of about 10 or 15 years and would have to
be abandoned and replaced by a regional plant ultimately.
He stated that the next thing you have to consider, if you are going to a regional
plant where you have treatment for a large area, and we know what the Water Control Board
requires, what type of scrubbings they want the engineers to do in the treatment plant so
as to send out an effluent which is really almost as good as the.stream into which you send
it and ultimately by the year 1985 it really may become national policy that no contamination
will be sent out into public streams. Mr. Rofman said that when he compared this to the time
when every stream was considered something that could be utilized as a public sewer, it
is tremendous progress.
' He then introduced Mr. Galandak who stated that the main concern in designing
a treatment plant is in the effluent requirements. He said that these requirements have
been established for the Opequon Creek and Abrams Creek by the State Water Control Board
and these ) are'a BODS "of 10 mil'l'igrams per liter, suspended solids of 5 milligrams per liter,
phosphorous, 0.5 milligrams per liter, and the dissolved oxygen has to be brought up to
90% of saturation. He said that at a later time there might be a requirement for nitrogen
1. Mr. Galandak explained that these terms are measures of pollution. He further
[that you are planning something in terms of many years and storm drainage sewers,
sewers and interceptors have to be planned for at least a period of fifty years. He
rther stated that in terms of expenditures„ the estimates made were approximate and they
Id be reduced if certain areas were not developed.
__ _ _ -
explained the components of the effluents and their effect on the stream when they.are not
kept to standards. He stated that the minimum amount of treatment that can be used now,
if a grant is to be obtained, is secondary treatment. He said that in secondary treatment
the requirements are 30 milligrams per liter of BOD and 30 milligrams per liter of suspended
solids and therefore it can be seen that the requirements for the Opequon Basin are much
more stringent. He stated that since secondary treatment alone would not be sufficient
'
A.W.T. (Advanced Waste Treatment) must be utilized. He stated that A.W.T. alone will
not do the job and therefore the treatment required is a• secondary biological treatment
followed by A.W.T. He the.flow diagrams set.forth in the study, and said that
the diagrams depicted the types of facilities that will be required in the regional plant
'
or plants.
Mr. Rofman stated that in order to develop the concept of a comprehensive study,
all things.were considered and that they did recognize that there were portions which
would not be developed,at an early date. He further stated that the fact could not be
[that you are planning something in terms of many years and storm drainage sewers,
sewers and interceptors have to be planned for at least a period of fifty years. He
rther stated that in terms of expenditures„ the estimates made were approximate and they
Id be reduced if certain areas were not developed.
__ _ _ -
in
Mr. Rofman explained the contents of Table I -1 of .the report and stated that they
considered the portion of each drainage district that will be developed for.residential pur-
poses, trailer parks, motels, industrial, commercial, warehouses and schools. He stated that
for each of those, certain things have been allowed. He said that where there will be
residential development, the problem of flow will be relatively simple in that ample, good
data is available on the quantity of water people normally consume and the quantity of waste
they normally discharge. Mr. Rofman said that when you are dealing with the industrial and
commercial development, a good deal of judgment had to be used and judgment is predicated on
measurement made in the past, on past experience, etc. He stated that for each drainage
district they had tabulated the acreage likely to be developed, the population and the
expected flows and this gave them the basis for the flows they would have to deal with in a
regional plant of one kind or another. He stated that similar studies had been made on the
growth and development and population increases in the City of Winchester and they had arrived
at what they would expect to take place.
Mr. Rofman stated that in terms of money, if the entire drainage districts were
developed, the tabulations for each district were set forth in the study in Page SFC -4. He
stated that the estimates are realistic but were all geared to the present price structure
and the construction industry. He stated that over the last twenty years there had been
a steady rise in construction costs for sewers and treatment plants. He stated that in the
construction industry the rise has been roughly 9% per year for the last six years and
there is no indication that there will be a reversal of this trend. He further stated
that the figures shown in the study would have to be increased for the period of time that
the estimate was made and when the construction is begun. Mr. Rofman stated that concerning
the treatment plants, again the estimates are based on the current prices and again the same
thing would prevail. He stated that the economic analysis in comparison between doing Project
A versus Project B permits conclusions which are equally valid in the present price structure.
If Project A is cheaper now and prices go up and both projects are effected equally, Project
A will still remain the more desirable project. He stated that it would be extremely risky
to try to predict what the course would be five to ten years from now.
Mr. Rofman stated that after they had determined what the City of Winchester would
have to do to provide a treatment plant of a regional type to serve its needs and what the
Opequon Basin would require to provide a treatment plant to serve its needs, we were able
to supplement that with the cost of interceptors to get some conception of what the total
project would cost, again in terms of realistic figures, geared to the present price
structure. He stated that in this report they have labeled this Alternative Method 1 -Plan A
and Plan B, one for Winchester and one for the Basin.
Mr. Rofman stated that concerning interceptors, the types to be constructed along
the Opequon�wouldcbe e1ther..gra.vity sewers where they - are -feasible -or pump stations and force
mains at other locations where we have to push it up to get it to the treatment plant. He
stated that of necessity, the points of treatment had to be along the Opequon and that they
have considered possible locations. He further stated that they did not feel it would be
advisable in a report of this type to make a hard recommendation as to where to put the
treatment plant, but merely to indicate the locations which are suitable. He stated that
the four locations that they had selected were shown on Sheets 4 and 5 of the report. He
stated that a minimum of 14 acres would be required in the case of a plant to serve the
needs of the Opequon Basin only and that a minimumcof 25 acres would be required to serve
Winchester and the Opequon Basin. He stated that before final design further surveys would
1 1M
have to be made of the area'and a particular evaluation would have to be made as to whether thg
land can be acquired at a reasonable price'.and they felt that this should be left.to the local
agencies. He stated that from an economic point of view the difference in going to the
nearest site and the most remote site is on the order of one half million dollars, which
is not a large sum in relation to the total project. He stated that the reason they had
' not gone further north was that larger flows would have to be pumped a greater distance
instead of treating it and letting the Opequon Creek carry the flow. He stated that
the economics dictated that the plant not be located too far north.
Concerning plant capacities, Mr. Rofman stated that when you are talking about
' a plant of 10 mgd (million gallons per day) in 1995 and 50 mgd in 2050, again the reserva-
tions just indicated would apply equally to this. Now with that as a starting point, we
proceeded to evaluate cost. He stated that a separate plant for the Opequon Drainage Basin
would be 5 mgd plant and the related intercepting sewers would be quite costly, something
on the order of $14 million dollars, and it would all be eligible for state and federal
aid and probably would cost the locality approximately $2,300,000.
He stated that if Winchester went on its own, it would be a 1 mgd plant which
would cost about $10 million and grants in aid would reduce the local cost to about $1.6
million.
He further stated that if the two jurisdictions went together and decided to build
a single regional plant, there would be three considerations that would come to light: (1)
to serve areas in which Winchester does not participate and does not have any of its
sewage flow. He stated that in terms of the treatment plant, it would be a 10 mgd plant
at a cost of approximately $14,500,000 and federal and state aid would reduce the cost
to be locally funded to about $2,350,000. He stated that on Page SFC -10 the cost is set
forth for the plant and for the interceptors used jointly and for the interceptors that
would be built to serve only the needs of the Opequon Basin. On the allocation of cost
of the treatment plant to each jurisdiction, that is the $2,500,000, Winchester's share
would be about 58% and the Opequon Basin's share would be about 42 %. He further stated
that this was based ontwo factors: (1) There are certain units in the plant that are
designed strictly on a basis of volume and then each entity participates in it in
relation to the volume of waste it is expected to produce; (2) There are certain
units which are based on the removal of contaminants and here the consideration is no
longer volume alone but volume plus the facilities to remove contaminants and here you
' find a division of 42% Opequon Basin and 58% Winchester and when you add up all the figures,
the locally funded amounts would be about $1,660,000 for the Opequon Basin and $1,860,000 for
the City of Winchester. This would not include operating costs, etc. which are set forth
on page SFC -11. The economics dictate that there are strong advantages to a single
regional plant to serve both jurisdictions and when you look at the operational and
maintenance cost, you find that the annual cost for each jurisdiction, assuming that an
85% grant would be available, for the Opequon Basin would be $352,000 and for Winchester
$433,000 total annual operating cost:
Construction costs indicated that in terms of cost to construct separate plants,
Winchester and
the Opequon Basin would
use jointly
certain interceptors and they would
participate in
the cost in relation to
the capacity
provided for each jurisdiction. Our
'
estimates were
related on a plant at a
more remote
location at the point of confluence
between Lick Run and the Opequon Creek.
He stated
that on the interceptors we have,
Winchester's share would be about 81%
and the Opequon
Basin's share would be about 19 %.
In addition to
this there are certain
interceptors
that the Opequon Basin has to build
to serve areas in which Winchester does not participate and does not have any of its
sewage flow. He stated that in terms of the treatment plant, it would be a 10 mgd plant
at a cost of approximately $14,500,000 and federal and state aid would reduce the cost
to be locally funded to about $2,350,000. He stated that on Page SFC -10 the cost is set
forth for the plant and for the interceptors used jointly and for the interceptors that
would be built to serve only the needs of the Opequon Basin. On the allocation of cost
of the treatment plant to each jurisdiction, that is the $2,500,000, Winchester's share
would be about 58% and the Opequon Basin's share would be about 42 %. He further stated
that this was based ontwo factors: (1) There are certain units in the plant that are
designed strictly on a basis of volume and then each entity participates in it in
relation to the volume of waste it is expected to produce; (2) There are certain
units which are based on the removal of contaminants and here the consideration is no
longer volume alone but volume plus the facilities to remove contaminants and here you
' find a division of 42% Opequon Basin and 58% Winchester and when you add up all the figures,
the locally funded amounts would be about $1,660,000 for the Opequon Basin and $1,860,000 for
the City of Winchester. This would not include operating costs, etc. which are set forth
on page SFC -11. The economics dictate that there are strong advantages to a single
regional plant to serve both jurisdictions and when you look at the operational and
maintenance cost, you find that the annual cost for each jurisdiction, assuming that an
85% grant would be available, for the Opequon Basin would be $352,000 and for Winchester
$433,000 total annual operating cost:
Construction costs indicated that in terms of cost to construct separate plants,
0
H
it would cost 35% more for the Drainage Basin and about 13% less for the City of Winchester
as compared with a single regional plant for each. Furthermore, operation and maintenance
cost will be substantially lower for a single regional plant. In,terms of annual cost for
debt service, operation, maintenance cost will be substantially lower for a single regional
plant. In terms of annual cost for debt service, operation, maintenance cost will be
substantially lower for a single regional plant. In terms of annual cost for debt service,
'
operation, maintenance etc., Winchester's cost would be about 3% lower than if they proceeded
on their own, and it is for this reason that we recommended a single regional plant to serve
both entities. He stated that the only way to work this out was with good will between the
Frederick County Sanitation Authority and the City of Winchester.
,
He stated that as his firm sees it, there are no serious problems whatsoever in
sending out the effluent from a single regional plant into the Opequon Creek.
Mr. Rofman asked if there were any questions.
Mr. Tom Glass stated that Mr. Rofman said that either you went with a whole lot of
intermediate plants versus pumping stations and one single plant or two major plants and had
referred to each of these as regional plants. He asked if this was correct terminology.
Mr. Rofman stated that there are instances where the federal people have considered
a city as a region in itself.
Mr. Galandak stated that certain areas are studied as an entire region.
Mr. Sandy asked how soon a regional sewage treatment plant could be a reality
considering the engineering and design problems and Mr. Rofman said about four or five years
considering all the factors involved.
Mr. James Fleming asked what the chances would be for getting funding for separate
,
facilities and Mr. Rofman stated not really as good as getting it for a single regional plant.
Mr. James Diehl stated that he could not accept the 4 to 5 year time frame set
forth inasmuch as the State Water Control Board is very understaffed and Mr. Rofman
answered that this could be true.
Mr. George Garber asked if the cost of the land was included in the estimate and
Mr. Rofman stated that arbitrary allowance was made and they did not put any value on the
land.
Mr. James Bowman stated that the Sanitation Authority had'been advised by a bonding
agent that the Authority's bond interest would be 64% and this was more than had been project-
ed in the study. He asked Mr. Rofman if he thought this figure was high.
Mr. Rofman stated that before they used the 5% figure, they had contacted one of
the very reputable brokerage houses and inquired of their bond specialist the interest '
Winchester or Frederick County would have to pay if they come out'with a bond issue and he
came back with a figure of 5 %. He stated that this was in the early part of the summer and
interest rates do fluctuate.
Mr. Tom Glass asked Mr. Rofman if in the analysis of whether one or two plants ,
would be best, was the consideration of this time lag studied as far as feasibility of
being able to wait that long in the County or City without improving the city's system or
without the interim plants in the County.
Mr. Rofman stated that they had used current prices and although the validity
would remain the same the cost would not. Be further stated that if you spend a good deal
of money on rehabilitating the plant and it is not acceptable on a regional scheme you have
wasted that much money.
Mr. Galandak stated that the State Water Control Board would be lenient if they
see progress being made.
in
Mr. Charles Zuckerman asked what happens when the Winchester Sewage Treatment
Plant is at capacity; what do we do in the meantime to take care of the present needs until
the regional plant is available.
Mr. Rofman stated that expanding the existing plant is not a simple procedure
and it gets to be a very costly thing and it points to getting a regional facility at an
early date while federal and state money is available.
Mr. Sandy stated that the County has three basic drainage areas that they are
, considering at this time and we are talking about bonds of $5 million dollars and of this
amount $700,000 is Frederick County's portion to help subsidize this issue. Considering
these drainage areas which will probably take two years to complete, do you think this
' is spending money foolishly when perhaps in five years we can have a regional plant.
Mr. Rofman stated that he would not say that it is money spent foolishly but
if you have to .do this you must do it.
There was discussion as,to the use of package plants until the regional plant
is completed.
Mr. Galandak stated that package plants could be utilized. The recovery cost
was discussed and Mr. Galandak stated that each individual case must be-studied to make
such a determination.
Mr. Glass asked if the interim plants were necessary while the work is being
done on the regional plant, would there also be 15% money available on these interim
plants.
Mr.. Rofman answered no money would be available for anything that would be
' abandoned in ten or fifteen years.
Mr. Bowman asked if this also applied to,the interceptors and Mr. Rofman stated
that those are built to last about fifty years and this would not be the same thing.
Mr. Stewart Bell asked for further clarification -of the cost to the jurisdictions
set forth in Article 12 on Page SFC -11 and Mr.,Rofman explained the costs for each juris-
diction for a single regional plant.
Mr. Roy Bayliss asked if it was not true that in order to be eligible for grant
money there must be just one regional treatment plant.
Mr. Rofman stated that when a region is large enough it can have its own plant.
He.stated that we are dealing with a 100.square mile area and the region outside Winchester
is perfectly eligible for its own plant and within the corporate limits of Winchester it
is also eligible for its own plant.
Mr. Galandak stated that it would be determined by the State as to whether or
not an area constitutes a region.
Mr. Roger Koontz asked if the,Regional Sewage Treatment Plant would be best as
far as the State Water Control Board is concerned and Mr. Rofman stated that in studying
the problem the two possibilities were considered and in the opinion of his firm one plant
' makes more sense economically, operationally, etc.
Mr. J. Robert Russell asked if funding would be easier to get on one plant and
Mr. Rofman stated that he felt it would be easier for one plant.
Mr. Don Krueger stated that he felt the funds were available for a regional
sewage treatment system as soon as the institutional arrangements were worked "but.
Mr. Rofman stated that a single regional plant would be at the top of their
priority list and prompt action must be taken to get the money.
0
Mr. Bell asked if the Opequon Creek can handle the flow from either one or two
plants. -
Mr. Rofman stated that a study was made on seven consecutive days in 1965, and
according to this study, his firm was of the opinion that the Opequon Creek could handle the
flow.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED.
Board of Supervisors
At a Special Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors and the Frederick
County Sanitation Authority held on the 20th day of November, 1973, at 6 P.M., in the
Pagoda Room at Duff's Rebel Restaurant, Winchester, Virginia.
PRESENT:
Frederick County-Board of Supervisors: Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman; J. Robert
Russell, Vice Chairman; Donald R. Hodgson; and Dennis T. Cole.
Frederick County Sanitation Authority: James L. Bowman, Chairman; Don E. Krueger,
Director, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, S. Roger Koontz and William A. Morrison.
Others: Stephen D. Carnes, Jr., Financial Advisor Frederick County Sanitation
Authority; J. 0. Renalds, III, Frederick County Administrator; H. Ronald Berg, Frederick
County Director of Planning; Lawrence Ambrogi, Frederick County Commonwealth Attorney, James
E. Boyd, Frederick County Director of Accounting; Lacy H. Anderson, Sheriff of Frederick
County; William A. Stevens, President, W. A. Stevens Company; Miss Treamer, Representative,
W. A. Stevens Co; Mr. Herbert Rosenbloom, Attorney for the Frederick County Taxpayers
Association, Mr. Raymond Weisgerber; and Mr. Pat McTiernan.
The meeting was called to order by Mr. James Bowman, Chairman of the Sanitation
Authority. Mr. Bowman stated that the purpose of the meeting was to inform the Board of the
activities of the Sanitation Authority with respect to the proposed bond issue.`.
Mr. Bowman introduced Mr. Stephen Carnes, Jr., Financial Advisor to the Sanitation
Authority.
Mr. Carnes introduced Mr. W. A. Stevens, Jr. and Ms. Treamer of the firm of W. A.
Stevens Company in Richmond, Virginia. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. Stevens.
Mr. Stevens stated that he and his assistant felt that a very important part of
their job was to promote good will to the general public with reference to the proposed bond
issue. He pointed out that there were some real problems related to selling a bond issue
and that a bond issue of this type must lean on itself. He explained some of the various bond
issues his firm works with throughout the state. Mr. Stevens said that we need to build a
revenue bond issue that is feasible from the standpoint of being able to generate the ability
to raise enough revenue from the water and sewer services to handle the debt. He stated
that the first thing to be secured are competent feasibility studies in that investors
in such a bond issue would want to know if feasibility studies had been made to justify that
the revenue would be realized to service the debt. He said that he and Mr. Don Krueger would
be working on securing these feasibility studies.
Mr. Stevens stated he had been appraised of the method by which the County
plans to support and help this project and that the financial support of the County was
P 0 0
Mr. Stevens stated that a bond issue of this type is controlled by a trustee, that is a
bank, who is required to handle the flow of funds. This takes it out of the hands of the
Authority. The Authority dictates how they want the funds distributed and the trustee
sees that the rules and procedures are followed. Mr. Stevens stated that another thing
that is necessary in an issue of this type is a mandatory connection arrangement and he felt
within four or five years we should be able to expect that areas served would have to
connect.
Mr. Cole asked if the 5.4 million was the total cost and Mr. Stevens stated that
this was a rounded figure and would be the total cost.
Mr. Cole asked what would be done with the $700,000 contribution by the County
and Mr. Stevens answered it probably would be used and whatever is not used is held in
reserve. He explained that it was important in financing a project like this for the
investors to know the interest on their bonds will be paid and they will be paid off when
they mature. He pointed out that this is based on the services sold and rendered. Mr.
Stevens said that they would require a two year debt service be set aside and put in reserve
and maintained as long as possible.
Mr." Stevens stated that if the projections are met, $250,000 will be paid back
to the County in 1983 and the $450,000 will be paid out as soon as all the bonds are
paid off.
Mr. Carnes stated that this would be carried on the books of the Sanitation
Authority as a non interest bearing loan from the County; this is not a gift.
Mr. Stevens stated that he felt the water contract with the City would be worked
out satisfactorily. He pointed out that the contract is for twenty years and the bond
issue is for twenty -four years and the investors would want to know that this contract
can be renewed.
Mr. Herbert Rosenbloom, Attorney for the Frederick County Taxpayers Association,
stated that it would be his understanding that the Board of Supervisors would have to approve
a $700,000 loan and they would have to have a public hearing to do this. He asked if this
hearing had been held.
Mr. Sandy stated that these amounts are set forth in the budget and a public
hearing is held each year on the county budget.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if this had been advertised as a non interest bearing loan
to the Sanitation Authority.
vitally necessary to get this bond issue. He further stated that the surcharge arrangements
were important parts in the success of the bond issue. He pointed out that another problem
to be solved was theneed to have firm contracts to handle the project.
Mr. Stevens stated that his firm had drawn up a maturity schedule; that this
schedule is based on an original $5,500,000 revenue issue and they expect a total contri-
'
bution of $700,000 from the County in 1974. He said that they expected surcharge
contributions of $87,000 a year 1974 -79 and $58,000 in 1980. He further stated that they
had projected, based on market conditions now, a 6'h% interest rate on the bond issue. He
said that they intend to have serial bonds that will mature from 1980 through 1988 and
this was done for investment banking reasons to get a better interest rate. He stated
'
that the projected date for pay off on the bond issue would be 1996. He stated that an
operating reserve would be set up fcr use in'a controkledlway for unexpected developments.
Mr. Stevens stated that a bond issue of this type is controlled by a trustee, that is a
bank, who is required to handle the flow of funds. This takes it out of the hands of the
Authority. The Authority dictates how they want the funds distributed and the trustee
sees that the rules and procedures are followed. Mr. Stevens stated that another thing
that is necessary in an issue of this type is a mandatory connection arrangement and he felt
within four or five years we should be able to expect that areas served would have to
connect.
Mr. Cole asked if the 5.4 million was the total cost and Mr. Stevens stated that
this was a rounded figure and would be the total cost.
Mr. Cole asked what would be done with the $700,000 contribution by the County
and Mr. Stevens answered it probably would be used and whatever is not used is held in
reserve. He explained that it was important in financing a project like this for the
investors to know the interest on their bonds will be paid and they will be paid off when
they mature. He pointed out that this is based on the services sold and rendered. Mr.
Stevens said that they would require a two year debt service be set aside and put in reserve
and maintained as long as possible.
Mr." Stevens stated that if the projections are met, $250,000 will be paid back
to the County in 1983 and the $450,000 will be paid out as soon as all the bonds are
paid off.
Mr. Carnes stated that this would be carried on the books of the Sanitation
Authority as a non interest bearing loan from the County; this is not a gift.
Mr. Stevens stated that he felt the water contract with the City would be worked
out satisfactorily. He pointed out that the contract is for twenty years and the bond
issue is for twenty -four years and the investors would want to know that this contract
can be renewed.
Mr. Herbert Rosenbloom, Attorney for the Frederick County Taxpayers Association,
stated that it would be his understanding that the Board of Supervisors would have to approve
a $700,000 loan and they would have to have a public hearing to do this. He asked if this
hearing had been held.
Mr. Sandy stated that these amounts are set forth in the budget and a public
hearing is held each year on the county budget.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if this had been advertised as a non interest bearing loan
to the Sanitation Authority.
190
Mr. Sandy stated that the advertisements would have to be checked to obtain this
information.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if this was an intrastate or interstate bond issue and Mr.
Stevens stated that this was a municipal bond issue.
did not.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if it had to be registered and Mr. Stevens stated that it
Mr. Rosenbloom asked what the four individual projects were.
F
Mr. Krueger stated that the four projects were first, one the Authority has
existing which has been financed temporarily with local funds in the area east of Stephens
City; second, there was a project referred to as the Abrams Creek Project which serves an
area east of Winchester; third, there is a project referred to as the Red Bud Run Project
which serves an area north and east of Winchester; and fourth, the project which is called
Kernstown which serves an area south and east of Winchester.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if the Taxpayers Association could have copies of the feasi-
bility studies on these projects and Mr. Krueger stated that they had not as yet been
prepared in written form.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked for copies of the memorandum which had been distributed
to members of the Sanitation Authority on the feasibility studies to be given to members of
the Taxpayers Association and Mr. Krueger stated that there was no written memorandum but
that the information had been given verbally.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if this was done in a public hearing and Mr. Krueger stated
that it hadrbeen done at public meetings.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if these meetings had been advertised and Mr. Krueger stated
that they had not inasmuch as they were regularly scheduled meetings of the Sanitation
Authority and the meetings are open to the public.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if a special meeting was held for the discussion of the
issuance of the bonds and Mr. Krueger stated he did not remember.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked what the surcharge is.
Mr. Carnes stated that the surcharge is a grant in aid of construction. He stated
there are approximately 11 to 14 property owners who own small to fairly sizeable tracts of
land where the water and sewer will be in the proximity of their property. He stated that
the Authority knew the bond issue was so thin that they had gone to these people to explain
that if the water and sewer were going to ever be a reality, that because perhaps the value
of their property would be enhanced, they should be willing to make some contribution,
non - recoverable in every sense of the word, to help make this project feasible. He stated
that they do not have firm contracts yet but they do have indications from between 11 and 14
property owners that if it means getting this project off the ground, they will contribute
a total of $582,000 over a six year period just to help the feasibility of the bond issue.
He stated he felt that it is perfectly legitimate and proper to ask these people to make this
contribution because they are the ones that are going to benefit from it. Therefore it is
called a surcharge and it is only going to be coming from 11 to 14 people.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if written responses had been received from these people and
Mr. Carnes stated that written responses had been received from some and verbal responses
from others, but until firm contracts were received from 11 to 14 people this bond issue will
never come to market.
191
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if the Commonwealth,Attorney was negotiating these contracts
and Mr. Bowman stated that speaking as Chairman of the Sanitation Authority, he had no
intention of submitting to cross examination and if Mr. Rosenbloom had any further questions
they should be submitted in writing. He said that if Mr. Rosenbloom would come to a public
meeting of the Sanitation Authority they would be glad to answer his questions.
' Mr. Rosenbloom stated that this was a public meeting and he had every right, as
counsel for Mr. Ray Weisgerber and the Frederick County Taxpayers Association, to ask these
questions and have them answered. .
Mr. Bowman stated that if any of the other members wanted to answer Mr. Rosenbloom's
J
questions, they could do so but that he would not answer any further questions.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked Mr. Carnes who is negotiating these contracts for the
Sanitation Authority.
Mr. Carnes stated that he would abide by the Chairman's decision and would not
answer any further questions.
Mr. Rosenbloom stated that his questions must be answered since'this is a public
I
hearing.. = y.
Mr. Renalds stated that this is not a public hearing but a public meeting in that
a public hearing must be advertised in accordance with law.
Mr. Rosenbloom stated that this was a public meeting and as a representative of
members of the public he had the right to ask these questions.
He then redirected his question to Mr. Carnes who gave no response.
Mr. Rosenbloom then directed his question to Mr. Ambrogi as Commonwealth'
Attorney. Mr. Ambrogi stated that he would not answer Mr. Rosenbloom's question.
He stated that Mr. Rosenbloom was not accomplishing anything but was merely harassing
the people who were trying to discuss the bond issue. He stated that his questions were
not in response to the matters being discussed.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked Mi. Stevens if the trustee had been decided upon and would
this have to'be done before the sale of the bonds.
Mr. Stevens stated that the trustee has not been decided upon and it is not
required before the sale of the bonds. He stated that it is usually left to the under-
writers and a competent bank is selected to serve as trustee.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if the Authority could make the selection and Mr. Stevens
stated that the Authority must give its approval.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if the bank had to have trust powers and Mr. Stevens
answered that he did not think the Authority would want to have a bank that did not
have proper trust powers.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked Mr. Sandy if the Board of Supervisors had had a public
hearing with respect to the mandatory connections and Mr. Ambrogi stated that this would
have to be done by ordinance and at present he knew of no such ordinance.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked Mr. Krueger if the feasibility studies had been done on
each project.
Mr. Krueger stated that he would not answer Mr. Rosenbloom's questions. Mr.
Rosenbloom asked Mr. Krueger why he would not answer his questions and Mr. Krueger stated
because he would abide by the Chairman's decision to have the questions submitted in written
form. He stated that this was the advice given the Authority by their counsel, William A.
Johnston.
192
Mr. Rosenbloom asked why Mr. Cole's questions had been answered and Mr. Krueger
stated because Mr. Cole's questions were relevant to what was being discussed.
Mr. Rosenbloom stated that he was trying to find out, on behalf of his clients,
what is going on and if the..members_of. the Au'thotity ref used .to,answer tions counsel
believes are relevant just because they are not in_wrtten form, he could not understand
how this could be a public hearing to discuss the feasibility of the proposed project. ,
Mr. Krueger stated that this is not a public hearing but a public meeting to make
the Supervisors aware of the Authority's proposed financing.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if it was not to make members of the public aware also and
Mr. Krueger stated that it was not. '
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if the public had been invited to attend this meeting and Mr.
Kreuger stated that it was an public meeting.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked I if the public could ask question's and Mr. Kreuger stated
that they could ask questions but they may not get answers.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if the transcript of this meeting would be transcribed and
Mr. Berg stated that he could not say.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked who makes this decision and Mr. Berg answered Mr. Renalds.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked Mr. Carnes if he had said that Mr. Johnston was negotiating
the arrangements with the adjacent land owners and Mr. Carnes stated that he did not say.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked who was negotiating the arrangements with the adjacent
property owners and Mr. Bowman answered, the Authority.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked who, on behalf of the Authority was negotiating the contracts ,
and Mr. Bowman answered the Authority's counsel and employees.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if any of the employees were present and he stated that he
was trying to find out who the adjacent land owners are.
Mr. Bowman stated that this information is a matter of public record and if he
would come into the office they would be very glad to furnish the information to him.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if one of the members of the Frederick County Taxpayers
(Association could get this information and Mr. Bowman stated that the Authority's books
have always been available to them and as long as he was Chairman they would remain open
Ito them.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked who the accounting firm was for the Authority and if this
Iwas a local firm.
Mr.
Bowman stated that the firm was
Barbour, Drunagel, and Renner and they were
a local firm.
'
Mr.
Rosenbloom asked if there was a
recent audit of the Sanitation Authority and
would this be
available to his clients and Mr.
Krueger stated that there was such an audit
and it could be seen.
Mr. Bowman asked Mr. Rosenbloom if he had been advised by members of the Taxpayers '
Association that they had not received full cooperation from the employees of the Authority
when requesting to see the Authority's books.
Mr. Rosenbloom stated that one or two of the members of the Association had
expressed some difficulty in obtaining the records.
Mr. Bowman asked specifically what difficulty and Mr. Rosenbloom stated he did
Inot know.
193
Mr. Rosenbloom stated that he felt with 'a little 'assistance from the Authority,
from the Board, and from the Taxpayers Association the matters could.be worked.out without
name calling or harrassment of either side. He stated that as counsel for the Taxpayers
Association he looked forward to working very closely with the Sanitation Authority and with
Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Stevens if he felt the rates and connection fees were reason-
able and Mr. Stevens stated that he felt they were very fair.
Mr. Bowman stated that if anything they were on the low side.
Mr. Stevens stated that he knew of many communities that had a much higher charge.
Mr. Sandy asked if he could cite some of the areas where he knew they were higher
and -Mr. Stevens said that he knew of one area where the initial connection charge was $700
and here it is $400 and he could cite cases where a $1200 fee was charged.
Mr. Bowman stated that the Authority had the right to raise the connection fees
if they ran into trouble to meet their obligations.
Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Stevens if these rates were charged both on the areas where
the developer puts in the lines and where the people hook onto the lines, did he feel
i
the system would be utilized enough to make it work.
Mr. Stevens stated that he knew the area generally and he did not feel this
would be a problem. He further stated that the bonds must'be sold to insurance companies
and people all over the country who do not know the area and that is why it is necessary
to establish the mandatory connection charge, and he felt a four or five year requirement
was reasonable.
Mr. Sandy asked how our arrangement compares with others and Mr. Stevens stated
that he had been advised by Mr. Carnes that it was quite reasonable.
Mr. Sandy stated that he felt the charges were somewhat low and he felt it
would be more feasible for the bond issue if the rates were raised.
Mr. Stevens stated that flexibility should be built into this project so that
' adjustments could be made.
Mr. Carnes stated that perhaps new construction connections should be'raised but
when it is an existing connection it must be realized that the people must bear the
expense to convert from a well and septic system to get to the Sanitation Authority lines
and therefore he did not think the connection fees could be raised on existing connections.
Mr. Sandy stated that the people in the County must pay for the services they
receive and he did feel the rates were low.
Mr. Carnes stated that the rate schedules had not been adopted, only proposed.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if there is a proposal that the connection fee will be
raised within the next four or five years wherein the fee would be more if you did not
hook on the first year.
0
the Board
in
these matters.
Mr.
Bowman stated that Mr. Rosenbloom's help was solicited.
Mr.
Stevens explained the bond issue that had been set up by
the Sanitation Authori
in James
City
County wherein Anheuser -Busch owned the property and was
the primary developer.
He stated
that
the Anheuser -Busch Company had backed up the bond issue
there. Mr. Stevens
said that
all
bond issues are different and it was determined by going
into an area and
'
analyzing
the
situation on the basis of the feasibility of the area and etc. and then
the bond
issue
was decided to meet the needs of the area.
Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Stevens if he felt the rates and connection fees were reason-
able and Mr. Stevens stated that he felt they were very fair.
Mr. Bowman stated that if anything they were on the low side.
Mr. Stevens stated that he knew of many communities that had a much higher charge.
Mr. Sandy asked if he could cite some of the areas where he knew they were higher
and -Mr. Stevens said that he knew of one area where the initial connection charge was $700
and here it is $400 and he could cite cases where a $1200 fee was charged.
Mr. Bowman stated that the Authority had the right to raise the connection fees
if they ran into trouble to meet their obligations.
Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Stevens if these rates were charged both on the areas where
the developer puts in the lines and where the people hook onto the lines, did he feel
i
the system would be utilized enough to make it work.
Mr. Stevens stated that he knew the area generally and he did not feel this
would be a problem. He further stated that the bonds must'be sold to insurance companies
and people all over the country who do not know the area and that is why it is necessary
to establish the mandatory connection charge, and he felt a four or five year requirement
was reasonable.
Mr. Sandy asked how our arrangement compares with others and Mr. Stevens stated
that he had been advised by Mr. Carnes that it was quite reasonable.
Mr. Sandy stated that he felt the charges were somewhat low and he felt it
would be more feasible for the bond issue if the rates were raised.
Mr. Stevens stated that flexibility should be built into this project so that
' adjustments could be made.
Mr. Carnes stated that perhaps new construction connections should be'raised but
when it is an existing connection it must be realized that the people must bear the
expense to convert from a well and septic system to get to the Sanitation Authority lines
and therefore he did not think the connection fees could be raised on existing connections.
Mr. Sandy stated that the people in the County must pay for the services they
receive and he did feel the rates were low.
Mr. Carnes stated that the rate schedules had not been adopted, only proposed.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if there is a proposal that the connection fee will be
raised within the next four or five years wherein the fee would be more if you did not
hook on the first year.
0
194
Mr. Carnes_stated^thattthe rate schedule has not been adopted only proposed. He
cited-an example wherein :thehconnection feerin 1974 would_be'3$750,9ind in the year,1984
would be $1500 and it progresses $75.00 every year.. He stated that in subdivisions where
the developer has put in the,lines himself and donated them to the Authority, the beginning
figure would be $425 in 1974 and in 1983 it would be $650.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if in the residential lots, when they are developed and donated
to the Authority, does this include lot lines and Mr. Carnes stated that everything in the
streets and everything that leads to the lot lines is donated to the Authority.
Mr: Rosenbloom asked if a company had been selected to do the feasibility studies
and Mr. Krueger stated it had not.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if Mr. Stevens or the Authority would make the selection
of the engineer to do the feasibility-studies and Mr. Krueger stated that since it is the
Authority's money he felt the Authority would decide.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if this would be done on open bid or would the Authority choose
one that has done work before.
Mr. Krueger stated that this is up to the Authority to decide however, it is
unethical for engineers to bid on jobs.
Mr. Koontz stated that these questions were irrelevant to this meeting and if.Mr.
Rosenbloom had further questions he should come to a Sanitation Authority Meeting and have
them answered.
Mr. Rosenbloom stated that he felt this was an open public meeting.
Mr. Sandy stated that tonight's meeting was designed to.present information to the
Board and the Sanitation Authority and he had no intention of competing with Mr. Rosenbloom to
present his questions. He further stated that both he and the other members of the Board
had questions to ask and therefore the meeting would follow the guidelines intended.
Mr. Rosenbloom stated that he apologized if the Board felt he had disrupted the
meeting but he felt he had followed the guidelines for a public meeting. He further stated
that he felt he had only asked questions which he felt were relevant.
Mr. Sandy stated that he felt the big thing to consider was how soon the joint
plant can be put in and if there is a 6 to 10 year period perhaps interim plants would have
to be considered.
Mr. Krueger stated that he did not feel the four year time frame set forth at the-
meeting with Alexander Potter Associates was realistic. He stated that the estimate of
1979 -80 was a good,tfirm ,time frame.
Mr. Sandy asked how much of this money is for the master plant in relation to
connection lines and Mr. Krueger stated approximately 72 %.
Mr. Sandy asked if any of the lines put in under this project would count toward
our percentage of the $1.6 million dollars and Mr. Krueger said that there is a possibility
of grant funds.
Mr. Sandy asked how much this would reduce the cost and Mr. Kreuger stated he did
not know.
Mr. Sandy stated he did not want to put in three or four plants and then come back
in five years and put in a master plant.
Mr. Cole asked if the four to five year plan was realistic, and Mr. Sandy stated
that it had been put back several times, but he felt we needed some concrete evidence as
to what time frame is realistic.
n
L__J
195
Mr. Pat McTiernan asked Mr. Sandy if he as Chairman of the Board, had ever contacted the State Water
Control Board to get this evidence and Mr. Sandy stated that he had talked with three members of the State
Water Control Board in Mayor Bell's chambers, and they had advised us that we were put back one year as far
as priority is concerned.
money.
Mr. Mdriernan stated that the institutional arrangements must be made before we can apply for the
Mr. Koontz stated that he felt progress was being made on these institutional arrangements.
Mr. McTiernan stated that the people at the State Water Control Board could give the Board the
answers as to when the money would be available, how long construction would take, etc.
Mr. Sandy stated that he felt the County and City were getting closer together on the institutional
arrangements.
Mr. McTiernan asked if the time frame had been established'to finalize these arrangements in order
to get grant money and Mr. Sandy stated that he was confident that things could be worked out satisfactorily
for both sides within the time frame set forth.
Mr. J. Robert Russell asked if the deadline was January 1st or March lst and Mr. Krueger stated
January lat.
Mr. Cole stated that we are discussing four projects tonight and since G.E. has already hooked onto
the City lines and the regional plant is so close, is it feasible for us to go-ahead with the Kernstown project.
Mr. Sandy stated that he would like to know if G.E. goes into the City, would this have a major
effect on the feasibility of the Kernstown project.
Mr. Carnes stated he did not think so inasmuch as $134,000 of the surcharge money is coming from the
Kernstown area other than G.E. and if this project is dropped he felt it would weaken the feasibility rather
than strengthen it.
Mr. Sandy asked what the cost of ther Kernstown Project was and Mr. Carnes stated about $1,340,000.
Mr. Sandy asked if we must spend $1.4 million dollars to get $100,000 surcharge money to make a $5.4 million
collar project work.
Mr. Carnes stated that there were guaranteed connections in this area and Mr. Krueger stated that he
felt this was a fantastic growth area.
Mr. Sandy stated that he felt we must know whether or not we are going to have G.E.
U Mr. Cole stated that he had asked this question because he wanted to know if this was a feasible
project inasmuch as we are so close to a regional plant and therefore he did not feel water and sewer would be
consideration in annexation.'
Mr. Bowman stated that it would be many years before the people in the Kernstown area would get
services even after the regional plant is in.
1
Mr. Krueger stated that this would ultimately be part of the regional plant but not right now. He
further stated that he did not agree with Mr. Oole's statement about annexation inasmuch as anything you own,
Mr. Bowman stated that one of the biggest reasons that Kernstown is in the picture is because we
were mandated by the Supervisors to proceed with all due haste on this project. .N:t.
Mr. Cole stated that at the time this was being discussed it was also stated that G.E. would donate
$255,000 to the Sanitation Authority and this amount has vanished as far as G.E. is concerned. Be further
Mr. Cole asked Mr. Bowman if the City had offered to sell the Authority 1900 feet of line and would
this not be a part of the regional plant.
when it is annexed, must be purchased and ownership of additional water and sewer lines and other things
materially affect annexation as to how much burden anybody annexing can bear.
stated that this amount had been reduced to $85,000 and this is a long way from $255,000.
196
196 '
Mr. Bowman stated that the biggest reason for the Kernstown system is to provide services to that area
to stop annexation and if you don't do it you might as well give up in that area.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if the Kernstown. area project would be a duplication of service in this area with
respect to G.E. and is the County position that the Frederick County Sanitation Authority would attempt to take
the contract away from the City.
Mr. Bowman stated that the Authority would not in that they have a memorandum of agreement from the
City of Winchester which states that they will'sell the Authority the lines we had intended to duplicate.
Mr. Rosenbloom asked if a duplicate line will be built and Mr. Bowman stated that it would not.
Mr. Sandy stated that he felt we should have some concrete evidence in this matter.
Bowman stated that the Sanitation Authority does not have the power to stop G.E. from hooking
onto the city system but perhaps the Board of Supervisors had this power.
Krueger stated that negotiations are still going on with G.E.
Bowman called for further questions. There were none.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Donald
1121 31 it MR 1 M4
E ` - an �
R. Hodgson, the meeting was adjourned.
irman, Board u
At the Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, held on the
28th day of November, 1973, 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.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
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 does herein approve the
minutes of the meeting of this Board held on the 24th day of October, 1973, as submitted.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE REPEALING SIB MONTH MORATORIUM ON REZONING
APPLICATIONS IN FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA - APPROVED
The ordinance was read in full by Mr. Madigan.
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 does herein approve on third
and final reading the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING A SIX MONTH MORATORIUM
ON HEARINGS AND ACTIONS ON REZONING APPLICATM
BY THE FREDERICK CODNTr BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to repeal an ordinance adopted
August 22, 1973, which established a six month moratorium on hearings and actions on rezoning applications, for
a six -month period, the purpose for which said moratorium was imposed having been accomplished,
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia:
Section 1. The Ordinance of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors dated August 22, 1973 which
established a six month moratorium on hearings and actions on rezoning applications by the Frederick County
Board of Supervisors is hereby repealed.
196A MOX
Section 2. Should any section or provision of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unconstitutional,:
such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section or provision of this
Ordinance.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its adoption and enactment by the
Board of Supervisors of the county of Frederick, Virginia
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
REQUEST FOR ROAD ABANDONMENT
FLINTKOTE COMPANY - APPROVED
Mr. Jim Largent appeared before the Board representing Flintkote Company in their request to abandon
and relocate a portion of Route 648. He stated that pursuant to the request of the Board that representatives
of Flintkote Company meet with a Citizen's Committee, said meeting was held and the result was a list of writt
assurances from Flintkote Company with respect to the various complaints expressed by the citizens. Mr.
Largent then presented a duly authorized letter containing these assurances to the Board.
Mr. Montagu Hankin, Manager of M.J. Grove Lime Co., stated that he felt the company had made an
honest effort to comply with the wishes of the people and to comply with what they felt was the desire of the
Board. He stated that time is of the essence in reaching a decision on this request in order that quarrying
operations can continue. He stated that the present operation would be completed in approximately three to
four months and the company requested a decision be made on the matter tonight.
Mr. Phil Whitney appeared before the Board representing a citizen's group and stated that the group
was not completely satisfied with the written assurances given by M.J. Grove Lime Company. He said that they
had hoped to see a guarantee of results and not the methods to be employed. He further stated that they had
hoped for screening of the debris piles and that no substantial concessions had been made by M.J. Grove Lime
Company. He stated that the citizens had understood that the operations would cease in eight years and now
they understand this is not the case. Mr. Whitney stated that the group would request that it be stated that
the debris piles would not exceed 56 feet in height.
Mr. Sandy asked if the group understood that the eight year time frame was set forth for surface
mining only and Mr. Whitney stated that the group was concerned about the possibility of M.J. Grove Lime Co.
selling to another mining company who would mine lower grade products and that they had been under the im-
pression that the operations would cease in eight years.
Mr. Cole asked who owned the mineral rights under the road. Mr. King stated that the rights would
belong to the abutting property owners and the Highway Department only enjoys an easement to maintain a road.
He stated that this easement had been granted in 1932 and in the procedures used today the right of way is
deeded to the County.
Mr. Alexander stated that he felt it was up to the Board of Supervisors as to who should be protected
in this matter.
Mr. Sandy asked what type assurance the citizens would request and Mr. Whitney stated that they had
requested that some sort of screening take place before the cessation of operations.
Mr. Sandy asked if the underground mining would increase the stockpile about the height of 56 feet
and Mr. Largent stated it would not inasmuch as all of the product is utilized in the underground mining
operation.
Mr. William G. Giannini stated that the stockpiles could not possibly be screened while they are
being utilized. He further stated that these stockpiles would be reclaimed upon the cessation of the
Mr. Sandy asked if the stockpiles could be reclaimed after the completion of the open pit mining
and Mr. Giannini stated that they were required to reclaim them by state law.
Mr. Madigan asked if Flintkote Company owned all of the Carbaugh property and if so was the topo-
graphy of the'land such that a screen of trees could be planted to hide these stockpiles.
Mr. Giannini stated that the company planned to place the screening on the berm but that his company
would look at the area again regarding this suggestion. He further stated that this is good farm land and is
being farmed on a daily basis.
Mr. Alexander stated that it would take eight years to get the high grade ore and perhaps another six-
teen years to get the ore underground.
- Mr. Alexander asked if the pit on the south side of Route 631 had been abandoned and Mr. Giannini
stated that they still have their main pumping station down there and also an old quarry shop in this location.
,
Mr. Hankin stated that at this time the company has no definite plans to do any underground mining and
this decision will be made based upon whether or not it is economically feasible.
Mr. Madigan asked how soon the company will be willing to relinquish the land upon cessation of
operation and Mr. Hankin stated perhaps six months or less.
,
Mr. Alexander stated that he did not feel the vacuum sweeper which the lime company has ordered will
do a very effective job juring certain weather conditions and Mr. Giannini stated that this machine along with
the more stringent standards for control of dust would cause this to diminish.
Mr. Gary Stoneburner of the State Air Pollution Control Board appeared before the Board and gave a
brief resume on the air pollution problems in Frederick County and the various rules and regulations the Air
Pollution Control Board Enforces.
He stated that there are four quarries operating in Frederick County. He described the inspection
process that it followed at a quarrying operation and the various methods used by the quarrys to meet the Air
Pollution Control Board standards.
Mr. Stoneburner told of each operation at the four quarries and presented their schedules for com-
pliance with the Air Pollution Control Board Standards.
Mr. Cole stated that he had heard a report several months ago wherein the requirements for dust levels
,
set by the Stated Air Pollution Control Board was 15 tons per square mile per month. He asked when the local
quarries would be required to meet this requirement inasmuch as their levels ran from 27 to 37.
Mr. Stoneburner stated that as long as they are operating under control programs and are trying to
bring the levels down there is nothing the Air Pollution Control Board can do about it.
Mr. Largent stated that the company would amend Paragraph 8 by adding the words "this would include
no stockpiling" and Paragraph 10 by adding the words "at any time ". Mr. Madigan requested that the words
"should operations cease fof a period of one year" be added to Paragraph 9 and Mr. Largent stated that this
would be acceptable to the company.
Mr. Sandy stated that he felt most of the problems had been worked out.
Mr. Cole stated that he felt the question was whether or not the M.J. Grove Lime Company would be
allowed to expand.
Mr. Sandy stated that he felt the group was not Apposed to the expansion of the plant but would like
to have some indication of the time element of the operation.
,
Mr. Cole asked if anyone in the group was opposed to the road being relocated and Mr. Alexander stated
that if M.J. Grove was unable to move the road then that would be the end of the messy operation.
Upon request by Richard F. Madigan the Board recessed for five minutes to discuss the petition.
Mr. Sandy called the meeting to order.
'
There was discussion concerning the question of whether or not M.J. Grove company could give a date
of completion of the operation and Mr. Hankin advised that this was not possible.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
WHEREAS, A petition has been filed before the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, to
abandon Virginia Route 648 between points 1 and 2 as shown on Exhibit 1 filed with the petition; and
WHEREAS, The petitioner is engaged in quarry operations on both sides of the existing Virginia Route
648 between the said points; and
I r
WHEREAS, The petitioner proposes to relocate Virginia Route 648 as shown on Exhibits 2 and 2A, at
the cost of The Flintkote Company; and
WHEREAS, The new road will serve the same citizens as the old road; and
WHEREAS, This petition has been submitted to the State Highway Commissioner for his approval;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisros of the County of Frederick, Virginia here-
, by finds that Virginia Route 648 between points 1 and 2 as shown on Exhibit 1 filed herein, should be abandoned,
provided however, that a new road be constructed in lieu thereof, at the cost of the Flintkote Company, to
serve the same citizens as the old road, and be approved by the State Highway Commissioner, all of which is
authorized pursuant to the provisions of Section 33.1 -155 of the Code of Virginia, as amended; and,
' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the following written assurances made by M.J. Grove Lime Company, a
Division of the Flintkote Company, are hereby made a part of this resolution:
1. A vacuum sweeper of industrial size is in our 1974 budget and will be in operation
during the first quarter of 1974, subject, however, to the manufacturer's delivery. Compliance
with our air pollution program filed with the Air Pollution Board will further reduce the
problem of lime dust. A copy of the air pollution compliance program is filed herewith, with
a letter of acceptance from the Board.
2. The M.J. Grove Lime Company, a division of the Flintkote Company, has and will comply
with all Federal and State Regulations applicable to its operation.
3. This is covered by our compliance program with the Air Pollution Board. Company
trucks which haul a product from the plant that would emit dust during hauling are canvassed.
Fine material transported within the plant will be loaded from vacuum - telescoping bin loading
chutes into closed beds or tanks. It is the policy of the Company to advise customers that
the transportation of fine materials must be done in accordance with State laws.
4. The air pollution program provides for the measures to be taken by the M.J. Grove Lime
Company to comply with the air pollution law which will be completed by June, 1975.
7. The Company will assume liability for any acts for which it is legally responsible.
8. The Company will cease its quarrying operation (surface mining) of high calcium
carbonate limestone in approximately 8 years, which operation will be conducted in an area
bounded on the East by the B & O Railroad; on the North by the Southern boundary of the
Fox property; on the West by the Eastern boundary of the proposed Route 648; and on the
South by the Northern boundary of 631, which area is located in the Town of Stephens City,
Virginia. The Company may, however, conduct mining operations (beneath the surface) in the
event that it is economically feasible. This will involve no stockpiling.
9. The Company will enter into an Option Agreement with the County to purchase all of
that certain property bounded on the East by the B & O Railroad, on the North by the Southern
boundard of the Fox property, and on the West by the Eastern boundary of the proposed Route
648, and on the South by State Route 631, after it has been abandoned by the Company, for
and in consideration of the fair market value of the said property at the time of abandonment
to be determined by three appraisers agreed upon by the Company and the County.
10. The Company assures the County of its willingness to discuss the use of water on the
said property at any time. Upon the completion of surface mining in said area, the Company
will advise the County within a period of twelve (12) months of its intention to proceed
' with underground mining or to discontinue its operation in said area.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, J. Robert Russell,
Donald R. Hodgson, and Dennis T. Cole all voting "AYE" and Richard F. Madigan voting "NAY ".
REAL ESTATE TAX RELIEF FOR THE ELDERLY ORDINANCE
' FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA - FIRST AND SECOND READING
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 does herein approve, on
first and second reading, the following ordinance:
REAL ESTATE TAX RELIEF FOR THE ELDERLY ORDINANCE
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
An ordinance to provide real estate property tax relief to certain circumstanced elderly persons. Section 58-
760.1 of the Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, authorizes local governing bodies to enact an ordinance provid-
ing for exemption of taxes on real estate of certain circumstanced elderly persons.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County Virginia that:
11
5. No waste pile shall exceed a
height of 56 feet. These waste piles will be seeded and
planted with trees upon completion of
the
quarrying operation pursuant to the State and Federal
reclamation laws.
'
6. The Company will comply with
the
mining laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia which
presently provide for fencing only in
the
event of abandonment. Guards are provided seven (7)
days a week, and No- Trespassing signs
are
posted.
7. The Company will assume liability for any acts for which it is legally responsible.
8. The Company will cease its quarrying operation (surface mining) of high calcium
carbonate limestone in approximately 8 years, which operation will be conducted in an area
bounded on the East by the B & O Railroad; on the North by the Southern boundary of the
Fox property; on the West by the Eastern boundary of the proposed Route 648; and on the
South by the Northern boundary of 631, which area is located in the Town of Stephens City,
Virginia. The Company may, however, conduct mining operations (beneath the surface) in the
event that it is economically feasible. This will involve no stockpiling.
9. The Company will enter into an Option Agreement with the County to purchase all of
that certain property bounded on the East by the B & O Railroad, on the North by the Southern
boundard of the Fox property, and on the West by the Eastern boundary of the proposed Route
648, and on the South by State Route 631, after it has been abandoned by the Company, for
and in consideration of the fair market value of the said property at the time of abandonment
to be determined by three appraisers agreed upon by the Company and the County.
10. The Company assures the County of its willingness to discuss the use of water on the
said property at any time. Upon the completion of surface mining in said area, the Company
will advise the County within a period of twelve (12) months of its intention to proceed
' with underground mining or to discontinue its operation in said area.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, J. Robert Russell,
Donald R. Hodgson, and Dennis T. Cole all voting "AYE" and Richard F. Madigan voting "NAY ".
REAL ESTATE TAX RELIEF FOR THE ELDERLY ORDINANCE
' FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA - FIRST AND SECOND READING
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 does herein approve, on
first and second reading, the following ordinance:
REAL ESTATE TAX RELIEF FOR THE ELDERLY ORDINANCE
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
An ordinance to provide real estate property tax relief to certain circumstanced elderly persons. Section 58-
760.1 of the Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, authorizes local governing bodies to enact an ordinance provid-
ing for exemption of taxes on real estate of certain circumstanced elderly persons.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County Virginia that:
11
1 :7! 1 7 M
Section 1. Definitions.
For the purposes of this Ordinance, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respect-
ively ascribed to them by this section:
!!Affidavit" shall mean the Real Estate Tax Exemption Affidavit.
"County" shall mean Frederick County, Virginia.
"Dwelling" shall mean the full -time residence of the person or persons claiming exemption. '
"Exemption" shall mean exemption from the Frederick County Real Estate Tax according to the provisions
of this Ordinance.
"Taxable Year" shall mean the calendar year, from January 1 until December 31, for which exemption is
claimed.
Section 2. Eligibility for Exemption '
Exemption from real estate tax shall be subject to the following provisions:
(a) The head of the household occupying the dwelling and owning title or partial title thereto shall
have reached the age of sixty -five (65) prior to the taxable year forcwhich the exemption is claimed.
(b) The title or partial title to the real estate for which exemption is claimed shall be arced on
Uanuary 1 of the taxable year by the person or persons claiming such exemption.
(c) The total combined income during the immediately preceding calendar year from all sources of the
owners of the dwelling living therein and of the owners' relatives living in the dwelling does not exceed
seventy -five hundred dollars, provided that the first twenty -five hundred dollars of income of each relative,
other than the spouse, of the owner, who is living in the dwelling shall not be included in such total.
(d) The net combined financial worth including equitable interests, as of the thirty -first day of
December of the immediately preceding calendar year, of the owners, and of the spouse of any owner, excluding
the value of the dwelling, and the land,
not exceeding one acre, does not exceed
twenty thousand dollars.
,
Section 3. Claiming of an Exemption.
(a) Application for exemption
shall be made annually between February
1 and May 1 of each taxable
year for which the exemption is claimed.
The persons claiming such an exemption
must make application on the
forms supplied by the County. The application must be filed with the Commissioner of Revenue.
(b) The affidavit shall set forth, in a manner prescribed by the Commissioner of Revenue, the names
of the related person(s) occupying the dwelling for which exemption is claimed, their gross combined income,
and the total combined net worth of the owners and spouses.
(c) Tf after audit and investigation, the Commissioner of Revenue determines that the person or
persons are qualified for exemption, he shall so certify to the Treasurer of Frederick County who shall deduct
the amount of the exemption from the claimant's real estate tax liability.
(d) If any person applies for exemption but is determined to be ineligible by the Commissioner of
Revenue, such a person will be notified in writing by the Commissioner of Revenue. '
Section 4. Amount of Exemption.
For eligible claimants, the amount of exemption from real estate tax for any taxable year shall be as
follows:
Amount of Income Percentage of Exemption
$ 0 to $4,000 1000 '
$4,001 to $4,500 95%
$4,501 to $5,000 80%
$5,001 to $5,500 65%
$5,501 to $6,000 55%
$6,001 to $6,500 351
$6,501 to $7,500 20%
Off 71 - :71-
Section 5. Change in Status.
Any change in respect to total combined income, net combined financial worth, ownership of the dwel
7
� J
exempted, or other factors, which occur during the taxable year for which the affidavit is filed, and which has
the effect of exceeding or violating the limitations and conditions of this ordinance, shall nullify any
exemption for the then current taxable year, and the taxable year immediately following.
Section 6. Claimant Death.
If an eligible claimant should die during the year, the exempted taxes will be pro rated to the day
of death and the remaining year's taxes will be paid by the new owner providing the new owner is not also
exempt by provisions found in this ordinance.
Section 7. Administration of this Ordinance.
The exemption from real estate tax for elderly persons shall be administered by the Commissioner of
Revenue according to the provisions of this Ordinance. The Commissioner of Revenue is hereby authorized to
prescribe, adopt and enforce such rules and regulations in conformance with the provisions of this Ordinance,
including the right to require answers under oath, as may be reasonably necessary to determine eligibility for
exemption. The Commissioner of Revenue may also require the production of certified tax returns to establish
total combined income or net »combined financial worth.
Section 8. Violations.
Any person or persons falsely claiming an 'exemption or deferral shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and,
upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than fifty dollars ($50) nor more than five hundred dollars
($500.) for each offense.
Section 9.
Should any section or provision of this ordinance be decided to be invalid or unconstitutional, such
a decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section or provision of this
ordinance.
The above resolution was passed unanimoubly.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED TRAILER ORDINANCE
Mr. Sandy gave a brief resume on the proposed trailer ordinance and stated that the ordinance had been
drafted with the hope of being acceptable to most of the people involved.
Mr. Cole stated that this ordinance does not particularly pertain to the mobile home courts. He said
there are very few mobile homes on real estate in this county, perhaps only one or two percent, and therefore
this ordinance will effect every mobile home in the county.
Mr. Sandy stated that the basic thing it will effect will be the tax and if there were a nominal tax
he did not feel this would be the big consideration. He further stated that the main concern of the Board was
to get everyone on the tax books so that everyone would pay their fair share.
Mr. Russell stated that he felt the taxing of trailers as personal property was very important and
that the committee had gone over this very carefully. He stated that he felt personal property should be com-
according to value rather than footage as has been done in the past. He further stated that this would be
more fair way of"combuting the tax.
Mr. Cole asked if the Board felt travel trailers should be set forth in a separate ordinance apart
from the trailer ordinance. He stated that he felt travel trailers should be deleted from this ordinance.
Mr. Jack Wampler appeared before the Board representing the mobile home park owners in the County. He
that meetings had been held during the past two months between mobile home park operators, mobile home
, and several individuals and that they also felt travel trailers should be in a separate ordinance.
He asked if the $25.00 fee would be removed from the park operators and if so, would the figure of
.00 be imposed.
Mr. Madigan stated that the $25.00 fee had been removed and the $10.00 fee applied only to travel
196F
Mr. Sandy stated that a figure for the license fee had not yet been set.
Mr. Wampler stated that the park owners felt that Section 20 -4 Paragraph B, should be stricken in
if a unit is moved it can not be taken back.
Mr. Madigan stated that the meaning of this section was that the trailer can be replaced by another
trailer but a new owner desiring to locate a trailer on the lot would have to comply with the provisions set
forth in Article 3.
Mr. Wampler stated that in Section 20 -6 he felt the inspection of sites should be restricted to the
Health Department.
Mr. Burg stated that this section would give a member of the county staff the authority to
complaints other than health complaints.
Mr. Wampler asked in Section 20 -13 if each lot would be approved under this clause and Mr. Sandy
stated not if the same person were using the lot.
Mr. Wampler asked in Section 20 -16 if an approved lot would have to be reapproved when some of the
property is utilized and then the remainder is used at a later time and Mr. Berg stated that once the property
is approved, that is all that is necessary.
Mr. Payne asked how long a health permit remained valid and Mr. Renalds stated that the health permit
is valid for one year.
Mr. Wampler asked for a clarification of Section 20 -17 regarding the approval of abutting property
owners and Mr. Cole stated that he felt the applicant should not be required to have the approval of the
abutting property owners. Mr. Sandy stated that this provision was set forth in order that the Board would be
aware of the feelings of the people in the area and would serve as an indicator as to whether public hearings
should be held.
Mr. Gregory stated that he understood this section to read that if one property owner stated that he
did not approve of the application, it would be denied and Mr. Sandy stated that this is not the intent, and
perhaps this section should be re- worded in order to make the intent clearly understood.
Mr. Cole suggested that the words "trailer lot" be deleted.
Mr. Russell suggested that it be put into the ordinance that in the event there is substantial dis-
cussion on an application for a conditional use permit, a public hearing will be held.
Mr. Sandy stated that the section would be reviewed before the final draft is drawn.
Mr. Wampler suggested that the Board use the NAM Mobile Home Guide Book to get the correct value of
mobile homes for assessment purposes.
There was discussion as to the license fee set forth in Section 20 -21 and Mr. Sandy stated that a
small fee would be imposed to cover the cost of the stickers and the policing that would be necessary.
Mr. Russell stated that the Board wanted to have some control over the ingress and egress of mobile
homes in the County.
Mr. Sandy stated that the Board will request the park owners to report any new resident in his park
within ten days.
Mr. Wampler stated that the park owners would not have any objection to this procedure.
Mrs. DeWitt stated that she had some residents in her park who have never paid taxes to this County
and she had reported than.
Mr. Cole asked Mrs. DeWitt how many spaces she had in her park and the amount of turn-over she
experiences each year.
Mrs. DeWitt stated she had 53 spaces and during the past year she had had ten people move.
Mr. Sandy stated that this would vary throughout the different mobile home parks.
Mr. Wampler stated that the park owners would request the requirement for 4,000 square feet set
F
forth in Section 20 -27 be reduced to 3,600 square feet and Mr. Sandy stated that this would be considered.
Mr. Wampler stated that in Section 20 -28 under paragraph 2, the owners would request the ten foot
requirement be stricken in that this was not always possible.
Mr. Cole stated that the Arcadia Mobile Home Park was designed with wide streets to accommodate on
street parking and this worked very well.
Mr. Sandy stated that this request would be considered.
Mr. Wampler stated that in Section 20 -30 the owners felt a ground marker for the individual lots
would be a hazard. He further stated that in Section 20 -31, the owners felt the responsibility for storage
facilities should be that of the mobile home owner.
Mr. Gregory stated that there are some trailers that are elevated and the space under the trailer is
used for storage.
Mr. Madigan stated that perhaps there should be something put into the ordinance where storage areas
would be guilt in compliance with set standards.
Mr. Sandy stated that he felt the opinions of the hark owners concerning the yard markers had a lot
of merit and would be considered.
Mr. Wampler stated that the owners were of the opinion that the bathroom facilities required in the
ordinance for travel trailers were excessive and Mr. Sandy stated that since the number of self - contained units
has increased so greatly he also felt this was excessive.
Mr. Wampler stated that the owners were of the opinion that the garbage pick up requirement of three
times a week was excessive and Mr. Sand# stated that the Board also felt this was excessive and would be
reviewed.
Mr. Wampler stated that in Section 20 -40 the requirement for a recreational park and playground was
neither possible nor practical and Mr. Sandy stated that this was designed for the planning of future parks
and he felt the children must have a place to play other than in the streets.
A man in the audience requested that Section 20 -32 be rewritten and asked if the grandfathers
clause would apply across the board and this section would not affect the parks already established.
Mr. Gregory stated that he felt that it would be impossible for anyone to build a park in this area
under these restrictions and Mr. Berg stated that these are the standards required by Housing and Urban
Development for any loan they make and that they are also the Mobile Home Manufacturers recommendations. Mr.
Sandy requested the committee to take a close look at this section of the ordinance.
Mr. Sandy complimented the park owners on their presentation and stated that he felt a lot had been
accomplished through this discussion.
Mr. Russell stated that the Owners did request that the words "trailer camp" be changed to "mobile
Home Court" and Mr. Berg stated that the words "trailer camp" must be used according to law.
Mr. Ralph Poe appeared before the Board and stated that he is a resident of Shawnee District. He
'
stated that he would like to commend the Board in their desire to tax all new residents equally.
Mr. Poe stated that he was presently building an approved campground in the Back Creek District at
a cost of a quarter million dollars. He further urged the Board to omit campgrounds from the ordinance because
campgrounds are the overnight homes of travelers and people seeking recreation and that the whole atmosphere
of the campground would be impossible to maintain if the requirements of this ordinance were met.
'
Mr. Poe stated that the requirements set forth in Section 20 -36, Paragraph 1, would be totally im-
practical. He stated that practically 996 of all travel trailers are self contained and therefore these
requirements are not necessary. He described the various sanitation facilities he would provide within his
campground and the requirements set forth for campground sanitation facilities by the Health Department. Mr.
Poe produced a entitled "Rules and Regulations of the Board of Health of the Commonwealth of Virginia
Governing Campgrounds "and stated that his sanitation facilities were within the requirements set forth in this
pamphlet. He further stated that the requirements set forth in the above pamphlet call for one toilet facility
per every 15 campsites. He said that one toilet facility for every 25 would be feasible rather than one for
every five as set forth in the ordinance and one shower for every 25 or 30 units is quite ample.
Mr. Poe stated that he had worked with Mr. Sluder of the Health Department who had just designed his
second sewer system and he had the permit to proceed with installation, this being strictly for individual site
sewage set ups. He stated that the septic system for a bathhouse has just been completed, at his campground. '
Mr. Poe described the various facilities to be provided in this campground and stated that he would again urge
the Board to withdraw this section dealing with campground from the ordinance and provide another ordinance
vhich more feasible to govern 'campgrounds.
Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Poe if he was presently building a campground in Back Creek District and Mr. ,
Poe stated that he was.
Mr. Poe stated that he had authorization to proceed with the planning and buildinJ of the campground
in his possession and had given Mr. Madigan a copy of this authorization.
Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Poe if he had a conditional use permit and Mr. Poe stated he did not have a
conditional use permit but that he had authorization to proceed with the planning and building of the camp-
ground from the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development dated September 19, 1973.
Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Poe when he started and what he built first.
Mr. Poe stated he had begun in the summer and had built a barn first.
Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Poe if this was a barn or a store.
Mr. Poe stated that the store was not yet built but he would use one section of the barn for the store
Mr. Madigan asked if the intent of the barn was to house animals in a farming operation or was the
intent to build a campground operation—
Mr. Madigan asked when Mr. Poe started building the campground and Mr. Poe stated that he had begun I
on September 28, 1973.
Mr. Cole stated that he had travelled across the United States and viewed many campgrounds and he felt
Mr. Poe's was going to be one of the finest in the area.
Mr. Hohensee appeared before the Board and stated that there had been no difinitive statement as to
whether travel trailer campgrounds would be considered a part of this ordinance and Mr. Sandy stated that this
would be set forth in a separate section or in a separate ordinance.
Mr. Hohensee stated that the state requirement for toilet facilities did not specify flush toilets.
He suggested that the requirement of flush toilets be deleted from the ordinance and Mr. Berg stated that they
had been required by Frederick County since 1971. Mr. Hohensee stated that campgrounds pose no burden on the
County whatsoever but provide a high rate of revenue to the County.
Mr. Hohensee stated that the public hearing on the trailer ordinance is set for December 26th and he
felt this was an inconvenient date for the public. '
Mr. Sandy stated that one of the purposes of the meeting tonight was to work out many of the problems
of the ordinance with the public and that the ordinance must be enacted on December 26th in order to be effect-
ive the first of the year.
Both Mr. Hohensee and Mr. Poe stated that they did not feel a tax should be imposed on the camping
trailers inasmuch as they are not a burden to the county but bring revenue into the County. I
Mr. Alex McDowell, owner of the Cove, stated that campers bring about $12 per day of occupancy to the
local area and therefore he did not feel the tax was fair.
Mr. Hohensee stated that he too felt the campground recreation park should be deleted from this
ordinance. He stated that campground are under very stringent regulations by the State.
Mr. Sandy thanked the trailer park operators for coming in and expressing their view.
UPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW ADJOURN.