January 09, 1974 to March 27, 1974241
At the Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, held on the
9th day of January, 1974, 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. Hodg-
son, and Richard F. Madigan.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
' ELECTION OF BOARD CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN
Mr. Madigan stated that on January 10, 1973 on Page 288, Book 11, of the Minutes of the Board of Super-
visors, upon motion made by J. Robert Russell, seconded by Dennis T. Cole the Board unanimously adopted a
ion that the Chairman of the Board would be elected on a rotating basis for a term of one (1) year, with no Board
I member serving for more than one (1) year and that the same procedure would be followed for the position of Vice -
Chairman.
Mr. Madigan made a motion, seconded by Mr. J. Robert Russell that this motion be rescinded.
The above motion was passed with Raymond C. Sandy, J. Robert Russell, Richard F. Madigan and Donald R.
Hodgson voting "Aye" and Dennis T. Cole voting "Nay ".
The Chairman then with consent of the Board appointed Mr. Renalds to act as Chairman for the purpose of
electing a Chairman and Vice Chairman for the coming year.
Mr. Renalds called for nominations for the position of Chairman of the Board for the calendar year of
1974.
Mr. Madigan nominated Raymond C. Sandy for the Chairmanship of the Board of Supervisors.. Mr. Russell
seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations. Mr. Sandy was elected Chairman by the following
recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, "Aye "; J. Robert Russell, "Aye "; Dennis T. Cole, "Aye "; Richard F. Madigan,
"Aye "; and Donald R. Hodgson, "Aye ".
' Mr. Renalds congratulated Mr. Sandy on his re- election as Chairman of the Board and returned the chair
to Mr. Sandy.
Mr. Sandy called for nominations for the position of Vice - Chairman.
Richard F. Madigan nominated J. Robert Russell for the position of Vice Chairman of the Board of Super-
visors. The nomination was seconded by Dennis T. Cole. There were no other nominations. Mr. Russell was elect-
ed Vice Chairman by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, "Aye "; J. Robert Russell, "Aye "; Dennis T.
Cole, "Aye "; Richard F. Madigan, "Aye "; and Donald R. Hodgson, "Aye ".
Mr. Sandy made a few brief remarks and stated that for the first time, Frederick County would have an
annual report for the past year and it would be forthcoming within the next few months.
Mr. Sandy expressed appreciation to the Board, the Constitutional Officers and the Staff for their
cooperation and support during the past year.
BOARD MEETING DATES SET FOR 1974
' Mr. Sandy asked for suggestions for dates and times of Board Meetings in the coming year.
Mr. Cole suggested that the Board return to having one meeting per month with a second meeting if it
was needed.
Mr. Russell asked if it would be possible to have one meeting per month starting at 3:oo P.M. in the
I afternoon and then continuing on into the evening for any public hearing or other necessary work.
Mr. Renalds stated the problem has been that we have been having a lot of special meetings.
Mr. Cole stated he felt we could go to one meeting a month and any other meetings we need we could
a special meeting at any time and he felt the Board could do as the City of Winchester has been doing in taking
care of some of the business in committee meetings. He further stated we were not, in his opinion, doing enough
work out of committees.
Mr. Madigan stated that he felt the committees were already overloaded with meetings.
Mr. Renalds advised they could give the one meeting a month a trial and if they found it did not work,
they could go back to two meetings later in the year.
Mr. Cole asked if this could be done at any time and Mr. Renalds replied it could.
242
Mr. Sandy expressed belief we need the second meeting right now and that it was necessary to have the
public hearings at night in order that the people who work could arrange to attend.
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 elect
to continue to hold the regular meetings of the Board of Supervisors on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each
month, at 7:00 P.M.
This motion passed unanimously.
APPOINTMENT OF STANDING COMMITTEES
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 made the
committee appointments for the coming year:
Finance Committee Richard F. Madigan, Chairman; Raymond C. Sandy; Director of Accounting; Treasurer;
er of Revenue; and Director of Data Processing.
Law Enforcement and Courts Committee Dennis T. Cole, Chairman; Donald R. Hodgson; Sheriff; Commonwealth At
Deputy County Administrator; Clerk of the Courts; and Judge of the County Court.
Planning and Development Committee J. Robert Russell, Chairman, Richard F. Madigan; Chairman of Planning
Commission and Director of Planning.
Engineering and Code Enforcement Co mmittee: Donaffi R. Hodgson, Chairman; Dennis T. Cole; Deputy Engineer; Di
of Inspections; and Engineer- Director of Sanitation Authority.
Human Resources Committee Raymond C. Sandy, Chairman; J. Robert Russell; Director of Parks and Recreation;
Director of Welfare; and Superintendent of Schools.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Mr. Sandy stated the committees for the past year had worked very hard and commended them for the
efforts they had put forth.
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 28th day of November, 1973, as submitted.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT REPORT
Mr. King appeared before the Board and presented his monthly report.
SECONDARY ROUTE 622 RESOLUTION APPROVED
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 herein approve the following
resolution as presented;
WHEREAS, Secondary Route 622, from .44 mile north of the Shenandoah County Line to the Shenandoah
Line, a distance of .44 miles, has been altered, and a new road has been constructed and approved by the State
Highway Commissioner, which new road serves the same citizens as the road so altered; and
WHEREAS, certain sections of this new road follow new locations, these being shown on the attached
sketch titled, "Changes in Secondary System Due to Relocation and Construction on Route 622, Project 0622- 034 -133
C501 dated at Richmond, Virginia November 21, 1973.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the portions of Secondary Route 622, i.e., section 2, shown in
on the sketch titled, "Change in Secondary System Due to Relocation and Construction on Route 622, Project 0622-
034 -131, C501, dated at Richmond, Virginia November 21, 1973 a total distance of .21 miles be, and hereby is,
added to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to Section 33.1 -229 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended;
And further, that the State Highway Commission be requested to take the necessary action to discontinue
;
i
the sections of old location, i.e., Section 1, shown in yellow on the aforementioned sketch, a total distance of
243
.21 miles, as a part of the Secondary System of Stare Highways as provided in Section 33.1 -150 of the Code of
Virginia of 1950, as amended.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Mr. Cole expressed his appreciation to Mr. King and his department for having the railroad crossings
at Stephenson repaired.
FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Dr. Wright appeared before the Board and requested a transfer of funds within the 1973 -74 school
budget in order to complete construction costs of the Bass - Hoover School.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan,
BE IT RESOLVED; That the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants the request of the Frederick
County School Board to make transfers within the 1973 -74 school budget to provide for needed expenditures to
various categories of the budget, including Administration, Transportation, Fixed Charges, Maintenance,
of School Plant, Instruction, Capital Outlay, Building Funds and so forth;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED; That the request is made on condition that the Frederick County School Board's
expenditures for the year from county tax funds and the state one percent sales tax earmarked for education will
not exceed the 1973 -74 appropriation; except that $155,202.82 Revenue Sharing funds shall be credited to the
School Building Fund and shall be spent only in behalf of construction expenditures for the erection of the Bass
Hoover Elementary School, said funds to be expended on or before June 30, 1974;
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;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED; that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors authorize the transfer of any
for continued use in the 1974 -75 budget, said balance to be credited to the Board of Supervisors local contri-
balance in the 1973 -74 school budget to the Building Fund and that the total Building Fund balance be retained
bution to the pledged $1,000,000:00 for the School Building Fund.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
BUSINESS LICENSE TAX ORDINANCE FIRST AND SECOND READING APPROVED
The Business License Tax Ordinance was introduced on 1st and 2nd reading.
Mr. Cole asked when these licenses would be in effect.
Mr. Madigan replied they would be in effect in 1975, and Public hearings will be held in 60 days.
Upon motion by Richard F. Madigan, seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby approve
i
the following ordinance on 1st and 2nd reading.
AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING LICENSES TAXES ON BUSINESSES, TRADES, PROFESSIONS, OCCUPATIONS, CALLINGS,
CARNIVALS, AND CONTRACTORS: AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PROCEDURE FOR THE ASSESSMENT, COLLECTION
AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE SAME IN FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 58- 266.1, 58 -283
and 58 -302.1 CODE OF VIRGINIA 1950 AS AMENDED.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
The Bad Check Ordinance was introduced on lst and 2nd reading.
Upon motion by Richard F. Madigan, seconded by Dennis T. Cole,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby
the following ordinance on 1st and 2nd reading.
AN ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE A FEE FOR PASSING BAD CHECKS TO THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE POSITION OF FIRE INSPECTOR - APPROVED
Mr. Cole stated it was the opinion of the Committee that the position of Fire Inspector for Frederick
County should be approved. The committee also recommended that the Fire Inspector work under the Sheriff's
244
Department.
Mr. Madigan stated that since the Fire Inspector position would not require full time, the Sheriff
could utilize his services for the balance of his time on duty.
Mr. Cole stated the car for the Fire Inspector would be two - thirds state funded and would be under the
Sheriff's Department.
Mr. Madigan remarked it would not be necessary for the Fire Inspector to have a secretary, office '
facilities, etc., on this basis.
Mr. Sandy asked if the Inspector would be uniformed and Mr. Renalds stated that in his discussion with
the Sheriff it was his understanding the Inspector would not have to be uniformed and would not need a police
car. His requirements would be to serve as bailiff in the Court, assist in the Sheriff's office and the balance ,
of his time would be devoted to the duties of Fire Inspector.
Mr. Sandy asked where the salary would be funded from for this year.
Mr. Cole replied it would be funded from the Sheriff's department.
Mr. Renalds stated for this year the two -thirds on the car would not be forthcoming. He stated the
Sheriff had not hired anyone this year because he applied for seven deputies and only got six approved for State
funding. Mr. Renalds further stated that there is money within the current budget and the position will not in-
volve any supplemental appropriations.
Mr. Sandy stated that this salary would have to come from building permit fees, reviews and this type
of work.
Upon motion be Richard F. Madigan, seconded by Dennis T. Cole,
BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia that the position of
Fire Inspector for Frederick County be hereby established and that the following necessary Budget transfers be
approved for funding this office in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Finance and the ,
Committee on Engineering and Code Enforcement.
06- 006A -106T $ 7,000.00
10- OIOB -113B 2,423.00
9,423.00
8LO]
1OD -010D -113
$ 4,750.00
1OD -01OD -206
100.00
1OD- 01OD -213C
225.00
IOD -01OD -218
50.00
1OD -01OD -300
25.00
1OD -01OD -312
200.00
IOD -01OD -325
300.00
1OD -01OD -399
50.00
19 -01OD -400
3,323.00
19 -OIOD -403
400.00
$ 9,423.00 N '
The above resolution was passed unanimously. V
LANDFILL BILLS REFUND
Upon motion hV.I)Richard F. Madigan, seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, that due to landfill over-,...
charges during the Presidential Price Freeze of 1973, refunds or credits to the respective landfill accounts in
the amount of $2,000.30 is hereby approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Director of Accounting is hereby directed to prepare the necessary
refund checks or credit the proper amounts to the various landfill accounts.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
ADOPTION OF PERSONNEL POLICIES AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Renalds to explain how the organizational Chart had been changed over the one
used last year.
245
Mr. Renalds explained that the lines on the original chart could not be reproduced therefore they were
changed to dotted lines. This was one change made.
Another change was the Dog warden, who although responsible to the Board, was attached to the Sheriff's
Department since he-does work directly with the Sheriff's Department.
The Virginia Extenstion Service was included which was missing on previous organizational charts.
The balance of the chart remains basically the same.
Upon motion by Richard F. Madigan, seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, that the Personnel
Policies dated January 2, 1974 and set forth below and the County Organizational Chart as presented this date
and included herein be hereby adopted by this Board in accordance with the recommendation of the Finance Commi
I
PERSONNEL POLICIES
This Regulation sets forth certain administrative policies for employees of the Board of Supervisors
i which are to be implemented by the County Administrator. it has been prepared to acquaint prospective, new,
and old employees with policies which affect each employee. The policies contained herein have been made in
accordance with good administrative practices and are utilizing the best practices of theCommonwealth of
1. HOLIDAYS
The County shall observe all state holidays and such other holidays which may be prescribed by the
Board of Supervisors, and those days so proclaimed by the President of the United States and/or the Governor
of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
If a holiday falls on a day a person is scheduled to work, he or she will be given the day off. If it
falls on Sunday or Saturday, the following Monday will be observed as a holiday. If a person must work on a
holiday, he will be given another day off. Holidays falling within a period of vacation or sick leave will not
' be charged against vacation or sick leave taken.
2. VACATIONS
The amount of vacation earned each year depends on the length of time a person had been employed. A
new employee earnsi.vacation at the established rate without any probationary period. Vacation is taken with the
concurrence of the
County
Administrator.
days
Years of Service
1 -i[ working days
Vacation
Earned/month Maximum Accum.
1 -5
1 working day
24 Working
days
5 -10
1 -i[ working days
30 working
days
10 or more
1 -h working days
36 working
days
when an employee terminates his position, such a person is entitled to compensation for unused annual
leave.
3. SICK LEAVE
' One and one - quarter days of sick leave is accumulated for each month worked and may be accumulated up
t
to ninety -(90) days. This may be used when a person is unable to work because of illness or has a doctor or
dental appointment. Consideration for extended sick time will be given to that employee who has contributed to
and faithful service to Frederick County. A limited amount of sick leave may be utilized at the discretion of
the County Administrator when a member of the individual's family (immediate family) is sick. The term "immedi
family" means the employee or his wife (or husband), mother, father, child, brother, sister, or any relative of
his or her spouse's if this relative lives in their household.
4. EMPLOYEE SICK LEAVE BANK
Any and/or all full -time employees may enter into an agreement which establishes an employee sick bank.
Such a bank would be operated as follows:
a. Each person having membership in such a sick bank would be required to donate a day each year of
their personally accumulated sick leave. All such donated days shall be accumulated up to a maximum of 75 days.
b. A member of the sick bank would then be allowed to draw sick time from this bank upon the pre-
sentation of a doctor's written explanation and after such person would deplete their personal accumulated
246
of sick time.
c. An employee must have earned a day of sick leave each year to donate in order to become a member
of such a sick bank.
5. RETIREMENT PAY FOR SICK DAYS
Upon the retirement of an employee from Frederick County and V.S.R.S., such person shall receive his
regular compensation for each accumzlateiisick day not used, up to a total of 90 unused days.
6. DEATH IN THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY
If a death occurs in the employee's immediate family (as listed above), the circumstances will be
sidered by the County Administrator and he may allow the employee reasonable time off from work with no loss of
pay. The amount of time off will be determined by the County Administrator but will not exceed three calendar
days
7. JURY DUTY
If an employee is called to serve on jury, he or she will be given time off with pay to carry out
duty
8. EMERGENCY LEAVE
An employee may be granted a leave with or without pay by the County Administrator if he needs the
time off from work because of some personal emergency or for study related to his job.
9. MILITARY LEAVE
If an employee enters military service after having become a regular, permanent employee, he will
continue as an employee on military leave of absence without pay. If he returns to his job within 90 days from
discharge, he will be reinstated with continuous service, provided such discharge was honorable and he is able
to perform his job. If an employee is a member of a reserve unit or National Guard, he may be given fifteen
calendar days of military leave with pay each year to participate in the annual training program.
10. COMPENSATORY LEAVE
An employee may be given compensatory leave by the County Administrator on an hour for hour basis for
any time he or she is required to work beyond the normal working hours.
11. OVERTIME
The County Administrator may authorize overtime payment on one and one -half (1 normal hourly rate
for work beyond a normal working week (40 hours). However, an employee may not receive both compensatory leave
and overtime payment. The County Administrator will decide which form of compensation will be granted.
12. HOSPITALIZATION
A hospitalization plan will be provided for full -time employees. The full cost for such a plan will
be borne by the County.
13. PAY
The employees shall be paid on the last working day of each month. If an employee quits or is fired
before a month is completed, that employee will be compensated on a per working day basis. Therper day pay
will be established by dividing the number of yearly working ?days into the employee's annual pay check. An
hourly employee will be compensated for each hour worked.
14. PAY INCREASE
Cost of living increases will take place as of July 1st of each year and merit pay increases will
place on the anniversary of the employee's inception of work.
15. MERIT INCREASE VIA TRAINING '
If an individual employee upgrades his job related knowledge and capacity through an education leave
or training, such person will be given merit increases in pay as deemed worthy by the Board of Supervisors.
16. TRAINING PROGRAMS AND COURSES
The County Administrator may recommend Board approval of payment for courses, seminars, and on -the -j
training as he may deem advisable to prepare individual employees for professional advancement or to raise sta
247
competence levels in specific work areas. The County Administrator may design in- service training programs
and/or an on -the -job training program during normal office hours to prepare the individual employee for pro-
fessional advancement.
17. WORKMEN'S OOMPENSATION
Workmen's compensation is required by Virginia law and is paid in full by the County. This covers the
J
employee in the event of occupational sickness or injury. Any accident on the job, no matter how small, should
be reported to the County Administrator.
18.
SOCIETIES
Any permanent employee may be reimbursed for his or her membership fee in a professional society.
reimbursement will be at the discretion of the County Administrator so long as such society is directly related
to the work of the individual and results in benefits to the County. No fees will be paid for a new employee,
except those coming due and payable upon or after his employment.
19. EXPENSES
Any expenses of the staff with regard to meals, lodging, tolls, conferences travel, etc. incurred in
the performance of his or her duties shall be borne by the County. Expense vouchers with attached reciepts
will be submitted and signed by the employee at the end of each pay period for approval by the Director of
Accounting. Abnormal expense loads may qualify for covering advances at the discretion of the County Administra
tor. Travel by employees for the purpose of County business in privately owned and/or operated vehicles will
be reimbursed at a rate established by the Board of Supervisors. The County Administrator shall be authorized
to allow additional expenses accrued for meals, etc., of other officials when in the conduct of County business.
20. EMPLOYEES
ON AN HOURLY BASIS
Hourly employees do not receive any paid vacation, sick leave, holidays, jury, voting, death, com-
pensatory, maternity or military leave and have no re- employment rights except that an employee in that position
is not required to work on a holiday which is recognized by the County.
21. PARKING
Full -time employees are allowed to park in the first three rows behind the Cameron Street Citgo
Station on a first -come, first -serve basis providing that the employee has secured a parking sticker from the
County Administrator's Office.
The office hours are officially from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. The County Ad-
ministrator is authorized to change office hours at such time as requirements may dictate.
23. HIRING
The Board of Supervisors shall appoint all Department Head level personnel with the advice of the
County Administrator. All other personnel shall be hired by the respective Department Heads with the approval
of the County Administrator. Frederick County does not discriminate in its hiring policies in regard to sex,
age, race, or national origin.
24. DISCHARGE
An employee below the Department Head rank may be discharged by that employee's particular Department
Head as long as the County Administrator concurs. Employees of the Department Head status may be discharged
by the Board of Supervisors at the request of the County Administrator. After being discharged, an individual
may apply for reinstatement within seven (7) days to the Chairman of the Board, who will bring this to the
attention of the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors will have final authority in such matters.
25. POLITICAL ACTIVITY
E
No employee may do any electioneering on property of the County and no employee may continue in his
job after he becomes a candidate for nomination or election to any public office. Employees are strongly urged
to eliminate any participation in a political process which is likely to reduce their professional effectiveness
as a member of the County Staff.
26. GARNISHMENT OF PAY
An employee whose wages are garnished may be discharged if considered appropriate by the County Ad-
ministrator.
27. TELEPHONE CALLS, MAIL, VISITORS
Telephone calls, mail, and visitors which are of a personal nature should be handled by the employees
out of the office and during non - working hours.
28. MATERNITY LEAVE
Any female employee may be granted maternity leave for a period not to exceed one year. The granting
of such leave shall be approved with the understanding that reinstatement will be based upon the County's needs,
availability of position, and that there will no moral obligation on the part of the County to reinstate the
employee. The point at which the employee must take such leave may be determined by the County Administrator.
If the employee is re- employed within one year, the previous longevity obtained for purposes of pay, sick leave
and vacation at the time of departure will not be lost. Such benefits for those reinstated after more than a
year may be awarded at the discretion of the County Administrator.
29. VIRGINIA SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM
Membership into the V.S.R.S. is compulsory for full -time employees by Virginia law. In addition, it
is illegal for the employer to pay any portion of this retirement payment.
30. GENERAL
The County Administrator shall have authority and responsibility for actions not explicitly reserved
by the Board but shall report such actions to the Board.
T ury
[Ip1 0l
IM toml
[Ormnlr].Orr,r
a n...ti.
Co,rtvreeplle
alor ner
$Mall
r(EY
-� A,peyllT , {brr11
OvOCI Gwnrol
- -- Slofl ("dimlbe
SIOfe rNW.l
Il
14 T1 r_ q((
` l 1� r j i�%!• ,r
r
_I • A
VOTERS
11, ,
r lt.'s Y4
} 'y
,.I
]vldr teem/
r _ 4
IemiN]hmar '
•Ki �
I I I
L
�
1 r
PpY] tM
R,nOOlbn
RdmdnO wN
DONOOrn]I
1
J I I
r.
lueudren
I
Clul men
Il
14 T1 r_ q((
` l 1� r j i�%!• ,r
r
_I • A
"
\ 3 ,2 .... .
} 'y
]vldr teem/
r _ 4
IemiN]hmar '
•Ki �
I I I
L
�
1 r
PpY] tM
R,nOOlbn
RdmdnO wN
DONOOrn]I
IrN l* MNN n; {'
r C\
Oe e
1cOq,tYq Il \ Aee�t]�IO EnpNOOrMp
�rw
Ivey
.�+6 Y4 t . 15.21A
I�� q sv :ai•�" V 'Y�[•11 C 9a 1Nn
•. ^._�s0�1 LS l ' �r� r+ � ..CWCIM
_) !�K.i R '�• �. 'yP` gt
J r �r 11 =2l`r.A �«. '.(�
{ � � "' +y '���F G� - �(J ��•�.
;y .
L. •>�`•, < terry cwt 7, - �
77 lino coi'T It .jgr�.y„�h,r•..�';w'�`fyy�•��, }' Yr, �`P'
,[ J.• `.+. �r LL� �plf t
L
,. +. { -•,
al - --I
'nr•a
I
1
Y
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
t
- 1111V.' � i.C[<T 61 fi11n \W, -•
L
11 _
]vldr teem/
r _ 4
IemiN]hmar '
•Ki �
I I I
L
�
1 r
PpY] tM
R,nOOlbn
RdmdnO wN
DONOOrn]I
1
J I I
Ccr�S.cn I
I
r• Pc.r\ 0.0 P..
L---------- - -- - - -
a
p♦ .
• Mit
. '
NNIm, Boone
PNYR wnryr, �'I
T° " e '
- EMelard !E
ea a Ed�rtpnee
Ce- ,c]• +.r, -• I
�—
Ehelaol hev0
Cemnl p1•j \Irw
Y
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
t
- 1111V.' � i.C[<T 61 fi11n \W, -•
L
11 _
249
REQUIRED SIGNATURES ON COUNTY CHECKS
Upon motion by Richard F. Madigan, seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1 -117
of the Code of Virginia, the signature of the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors will no longer be required
on warrants drawn on any accounts of Frederick County.
' The above resolution was passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION CREATING THE FREDERICK - WINCHESTER SERVICE AUTHORITY
FIRST AND SECOND READING - APPROVED
Mr. Renalds announced that Mr. Koontz of the Frederick- Winchester Joint Ad-Hoc Committee on Water and
Sewer was present and requested Mr. Koontz to present the resolution creating the Frederick - Winchester Service
' Authority of first and second reading.
Mr. Koontz announced two changes made on Pages 4 and 8 and passed out a copy of these changes to the
members present.
Upon motion by Richard F. Madigan, 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 the joint resolution creating the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority as corrected; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the name of C. Robert Solenberger be accepted as the fifth member of the
Frederick- Winchester Service Authority) and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the meeting date for the Public hearing on the Frederick - Winchester
Authority be set for January 24, 1974 at 7:30 P.M. in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room.
The motion was passed unanimously.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973 - THIRD AND FINAL READING - APPROVED
' Mr. Berg presented the Ordinance to amend the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance adopted November 1,
1973.
Mr. Cole objected to Item No. 7, concerning the extension of R -5 boundaries to include all land owned
by Marjec, Inc. and all land owned by Lake Holiday Estates, Inc.
Mr. Cole made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hodgson to delete this item from the amendment.
The motion was passed unanimously.
Mr. Hohensee was recognized by the Chairman and stated he found the amendment extremely ambiguous.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve
the following ordinance as amended on third and final reading.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973. PURSUANT
TO SECTION 15.1 -493 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA, (1950) AS AMENDED.
' 1. 2 -3 -2. The setback line shall be located sixty (60) feet or more from any highway, street or road
3 -3 -2.
right -of -way which is fifty (50) feet or greater in widt¢, or eighty (80) feet or more from
the center line of any street with a right -of -way less then fifty (50) feet in width and
parallel or concentric to the center line.
line of any street with a right -of -way less than fifty (50) feet in width and parallel om
concentric to the center line.
2. Correct and close boundary on Route 11 North Quarry.
3. Remove A -2 boundary line from around the Clearbrook Park.
u_
4 -3 -2.
The setback line shall
be located thirty -five (35) feet or more from any highway, street or
5 -3 -2.
6 -3 -2.
road right -of -way which
is fifty (50) feet or greater in width or
sixty (60) feet or more from
'
9 -3 -2.
10 -3 -2.
the center line of any
street with a right -of -way less than fifty
(50) feet in width and
parallel or concentric
to the center line.
12 -4 -2.
The setback line shall
be located seventy -five (75) feet or more
from any street right -of -way
13 -4 -2.
which is fifty (50) feet or greater in width or one hundred (100)
feet or more from the center
line of any street with a right -of -way less than fifty (50) feet in width and parallel om
concentric to the center line.
2. Correct and close boundary on Route 11 North Quarry.
3. Remove A -2 boundary line from around the Clearbrook Park.
u_
250
4. Correct the A -2 district designation on the small tract of land in the lower right of Map #9 to cor-
-1,j respond with the R -2 district on Map #10.
5. Correct B -1 designation to B -2 for Route 656 and 657 Intersections; Armel Trailer Sales on Route 50
West; Fort View Furniture on Route 522 South; and Route 7 East - Business Strip; and everything North
of Route 50 and west of Route 522 Intersection.
6. Correct Sunnyside R -3 boundary to extend East and include the land of Carlin Smith presently in the M -1
I
district.
THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT UPON ADOPTION BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AND
ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE NEW FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973 SHALL REMAIN IN FULL
FORCE AND EFFECT.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, "Aye "; J. Robert
Russell, "Aye "; Donald R. Hodgson, "Aye "; Dennis T. Cole, "Aye "; and Richard F. Madigan, "Aye ".
RESOLUTION OF SYMPATHY ::ROBERT B. DEHAVEN 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 hereby extend its
sympathy to the family of Former Sheriff Robert B. DeHaven.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
REZONING APPLICATION OF THOMAS B. ROSENBERGER
THIRD AND FINAL READING - APPROVED
Mr. Madigan stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of this application if Mr. Rosen-
Berger would rezone a total of eight (8) acres.
Mr. Madigan stated the only problem the Commission could forsee would be that this would be spot
and it couid open Route 600 to other commercial uses such as service stations, vacation home lot sales, etc.
Mr. Cole asked if it would not open it anyway if someone down the road wished to do the same thing.
Mr. Madigan called on Mr. Douglas Swift, who was representing Mr. Rosenberger, to give an explanation
of what Mr. Rosenberger was requesting.
Mr. Swift stated that a similar request had been made a year ago and there was considerable opposition
but that the permission had been granted.
Mr. Swift said the one exception in the permit being.sought tonight from the one referred to of a year
ago is that the rezoning he referred to was for a much denser use namely an iron works or welding operation and
in the Rosenberger instance it is a much less dense use classification zoning.
Mr. Swift stated to his knowledge there had been no opposition to this rezoning in the Planning
sion.
Mr. Cole asked if Mr. Rosenberger had originally asked for approximately 1.025 acres.
Mr. Swift replied that was what Mr. Rosenberger applied for originally because he felt that was a more
reasonable request than to ask for a larger tract.
Mr. Madigan stated that at the Planning Commission, Mr. Rosenberger had agreed to include the extra
acreage.
Mr. Swift replied that Mr. Rosenberger had agreed to the change if the Planning Commission made it a
prerequisite.
Mr. Cole asked about the sewer services.
Mr. Swift said it would still be necessary to get approval for these services from the Health
Mr. Madigan stated one problem that had been discussed in the Planning Commission was the traffic
this rezoning would create at the entrance to Shawneeland.
Mr. Swift said Mr. Rosenberger had stated if this did present a problem he was prepared to take care
this.
Mr. Madigan asked how Mr. Rosenberger proposed to get the road changed.
I
Mr. Swift said he was not an engineer and could not answer whether or not the road would have to be
251
I changed and if so howx it would be done.
Mr. Madigan asked if it would not be a good idea to go back to the Planning Commission now and ask for
the additional acreage.
Mr. Swift replied that he did not agree because Mr. Rosenberger filed his application before the
moratorium was put on and Mr. Rosenberger had hoped to build before bad weather set in this fall but the applica-
ition had been tabled and he felt it would be extremely unfair to him as a petitioner to in effect penalize him
land filing another application would only cause futher delpy.
Mr. Madigan asked waht guarantee the Board would have that Mr. Rosenberger would rezone additional
acreage if the Board approved this petition now.
Mr. Swift replied that he was not certain adding additional acreage would be beneficial. However,
IMr. Swift stated Mr. Rosenberger had originally wanted to do as the Board was asking.
Mr. Cole asked if he was going to use this for a general store.
Mr. Swift replied it was to be used for a Seven - Eleven type store, which would be a little more modern
Ethan the ordinary type country store.
Mr. Sandy asked for an explanation of spot zoning.
Mr. Swift explained it could apply to 30, 40 and 50 acre tracts and again could be as little as a 1
jacre tract. He further stated that spot zoning in broad terms is a use which is substantially different in terms
lof density.
Mr. Madigan stated that his concern was safety and a planned commercial district.
A citizen stated he appreciated Mr. Madigan's concern about the safety view because several accidents
had occurred at the bridge near this proposed rezoning and he felt something should be done on this. As far as
a store being put on the corner he felt it would not be hazardous.
Mr. Swift stated the highway department would have to approve this also.
Mr. Sandy called for any opposition.
There was none.
Upon motion by Dennis T. Cole, seconded by Richard F. Madigan,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does herein approve the
following ordinance on third and final reading.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973 TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY
1.025 ACRES OF LAND OF THOMAS B. ROSENBERGER, LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 600 AND
ROUTE 613 IN BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT; FROM AGRICULTURAL, GENERAL (A -2) TO BUSINESS
LIMITED (B -1).
The resolution was passed unanimously.
REZONING APPLICATION OF WILLIAM E. AND LEROY W. EDMONDSON
THIRD AND FINAL READING - APPROVED
Mr. Swift stated that there did not seem to be too much question on this rezoning so far as the Plan-
ning Commission acting on it. He said supporticg documents had been submitted, and the use for the property would
be warehousing and a similar type use that would be supportive to the airport.
Mr. Swift stated that last week one of the Supervisors had questioned the water and sewer requirements
and he stated it is not contemplated that this property would require heavy water and sewer uses.
Mr. Swift stated that both the Health Department and the Department of Building Inspections
would have to be met.
Mr. Swift further stated that on one side of the property there is agricultural zoning but on the other
side industrial types of zoning exist and that this was not a case of spot zoning.
Mr. Sandy asked for any opposition.
There was none.
Upon motion be Richard R. Madigan 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 third and final reading.
252
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973, TO REZONE 106 ACRES MORE OR LESS,
OF WILLIAM E. EDMONDSON AND LEROY W. ELMONDSON LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF U.S. ROUTE 50 AND ROUTE
728 AND ADJACENT TO THE WINCHESTER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT; FROM AGRICULTUR7
GENERAL (A -2) AND INDUSTRIAL, GENERAL (M -2) TO INDUSTRIAL , LIMITED (M -1).
This resolution passed unanimously.
REZONING APPLICATION OF CARLIN L. SMITH AND LESTER A. ELLIOTT
DOING BUSINESS AS "ESSANEE" THIRD AND FINAL READING - APPROVED
Mr. Benjamin Butler appeared before the Board representing Carlin L. Smith and Lester A. Elliott doing
business as "ESSanee" and explained the petitioners had withdrawn the application for multiple family dwellings
and the development of townhouses and were requesting that 175,000 square feet be rezoned to B -2 to allow for a
small professional services building.
Mr. Sandy asked for any objections.
There were none.
Upon motion by Donald R. Hodgson, seconded by Dennis T. Cole,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does herein approve the
following ordinance on third and final reading.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973 TO REZONE 175,000 SQUARE FEET OF
LAND OF CARLIN L. SMITH AND LESTER A. ELT. OTT, DOING BUSINESS AS "ESSANEE ", A PARTNERSHIP, LOCATED
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE 657 (SENSENY ROAD) AND EAST OF FAIRWAY ESTATES IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL
31STRICTf FROM RESIDENTIAL (R -1) TO BUSINESS GENERAL (B -2).
This resolution was passed unanimously.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OF RALPH W. POE DENIED
Mr. Henry Whiting appeared before the Board representing Mr. Poe and presented photographs and
ions of the property involved and what Mr. Poe planned to do with it.
Mr. Whiting stated according to the plat there would be no place where the road will not be five (5)
feet higher than the existing ground level.
Mr. Whiting further stated the opposition of this conditional use permit is from people in Merriman's
Estates.
Mr. Whiting then presented pictures showing the view of the proposed campground from Merriman's Estates
and also photographs taken from the campground looking towards Merriman's Estates.
Mr. Whiting also presented a map showing the distance between the proposed campground and Merriman's
Estates.
Mr. Whiting stated in the beginning Mr. Poe got a permit to build a barn, and later decided to develop
the property into a campground. In August Mr. Poe corresponded with the State Department of Health advising
them of his interest and asked them what they would require. Mr. Poe received a response to this letter and it
was his opinion that he had complied with those requirements.
Mr. Whiting further stated that in September, Mr. Poe consulted with the Zoning Administrator in regard
to what would be required in order to get the campground underway.
Mr. Whiting said that the Zoning Administrator consulted with counsel and then advised Mr. Poe he was
proceeding properly and should go ahead with his plans.
Mr. Whiting stated that later there was a question raised as to whether or not Mr. Poe was planning a
mini- trailer campground and the Zoning Administrator had written Mr. Poe inquiring if this was true. Mr. Whiting
said Mr. Poe had replied to that letter stating this was not his intention.
Mr. Whiting stated Mr. Poe had received approval of his sewer facilities from the health department.
Mt. Whiting stated Mr. Poe has spent $25,517.00 up to the time the zoning ordinance was adopted in
on this project.
Mr. Whiting said the campsite would operate for approximately 180 days during any one season and would
approximately $116,040 in the community.
Mr. Madigan asked how much of this $116,040 would be spent at the campsite.
Mr. Poe replied that none of it would be spent at the campsite.
F B I
L_ J
1
253
Mr. Madigan asked if the road bearing capacity of Ward Avenue had been exceeded.
Mr. Poe replied the weight would be in accordance with the limitations recommended.
Mr. Whiting asked that those present who were in opposition of this proposal and who lived in the city
limits please raise their hands.
Mrs. Thelma Clore remarded the only reason they were in the city was because the judges put them
A discussion concerning the heavy traffic followed.
Mr. Madigan asked about the safety factor since there are no sidewalks. He stated there were children
living along the road to the campground who probably would be playing in the road at times.
Mr. Poe replied there was a 7 mile per hour speed limit in the campground.
Mr. Madigan stated he was talking about in the County.
Mr. Poe stated there were no sidewalks in the County but parents living along the road had signed a
statement that they were in agreement with the campground.
Mr. Madigan asked that since there was a barn at the campsite now, did Mr. Poe intend to have horses
and a riding stable.
Mr. Poe said he had intended that originally but had dismissed the idea because of insurance restrict-
ions.
Mr. Madigan asked what control Mr. Poe planned to have over alcoholic beverages.
Mr. Poe replied ordinarily this would not present a problem but if an unruly situation development the
person would be asked to leave.
Mr. Madigan stated that this had been a concern of the people.
Mr. Poe replied it was the concern of every campground owner.
Mr. Madigan asked what hours people would usually be entering and leaving the campsite.
Mr. Poe stated that the campers usually enter the campgrounds between 4:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. in order
to get a place and hook up to water, etc., during the daylight hburs. If they are overnight campers, Mr. Poe
stated, they leave at approximately 8:00 in the morning. Those who are week -end campers would stay until Sunday
afternoon and leave in the afternoon.
Mr. Sandy stated at this time the Board would hear from the opposition.
Mr. Robert Mitchell stated he and Mr. Thomas Monahan represented those in opposition to issuance of
this permit.
Mr. Mitchell stated the issue is whether or not a conditional use permit should be granted to permit
this type of travel trailer campground to be located in an area which is substantially and primarily residential
in character.
Mr. Mitchell then introduced Mr. Rosser Payne and gave a brief resume' of his experience in
planning.
Mr. Payne addressed the Board and said he is currently a member of the Virginia Legislative Council on
Land Use Planning
Mr. Payne stated the Board is being asked to approve a precedent setting condition and suggested the
Board look at Section 15.1456 of the State of Virginia Code on comprehensive planning.
Mr. Payne stated the proposed campground was to be constructed in a predominately residential area
with the exception of a few commercial uses which face right on Route 50.
Mr. Payne stated that because of the lack of a plan the Board would have to place a great deal of
dependence on the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Payne further stated a definition of campground cannot be found in the present zoning ordinance
and asked how the Board expected to enforce whatever decisions were made at this meeting.
Mr. Payne said it is true conditions can be attached but without a legal definition in the ordinance
it would be extremely difficult.
He called attention to Article 18, Section 18 -1 where it specifically states the ordinance is to
protect against haphazard and ill- advised growth.
254
Mr. Payne stated planners work under the Code 15.1489 which is to promote the public health, safety and
welfare and his question would be what evidence has been given to promote that condition.
Mr. Payne said the proposed campsite was not in a valley as described by a national geographic survey
but was in a bowl.
Mr. Payne said access was important from a planning point of view. He said access is by a standard
Virginia Secondary Road, and, as Mr. whiting had said earlier, on a 40 ft. right -of -way which is the same right-
of-way fround in the mountains or anywhere else in Virginia. The paved surface at the entrance is without pave-
ment or gutter and Mr. Payne stated in his opinion there is not sufficient access available for a car pulling a
trailer.
Mr. Payne stated that approval of campsites are the function of zoning and not the Health Department.
Since no lot size for campsites had been designated, any number of sites could be put into this area.
Mr. Payne stated there is no time limit on the time a camp site can be held except that he had seen one
memorandum stating that three sites could not be held longer than several days.
Mr. Payne said that solid waste disposal under Title 32 and Title 62 of the Code and Article 3 of the
Health Department regulations quite clearly requires a detailed site plan of the entire site be approved by a
sanitary engineer before a campground can be developed. He asked if that should not be required by the County
as a matter of policy prior to issuance of a use permit. He also pointed out that this was a matter of state law
and he would be of the opinion that this should be a prerequisite before a use permit is considered.
Mr. Payne asked if, when the County adopted the Zoning ordinance, they really intended to put a
commercial recreational area adjacent to these single family homes, which had been developed through the years.
He said screening of the site could not be done because these homes were at least 50 and 60 feet above the site.
He added that the central part of the campsite could be seen from all sides.
Mr. Payne stated in his professional opinion that to draft the application under these conditions would
be a difficult and poor planning decision.
Mr. Sandy asked for any questions.
Mr. whiting asked if, in Mr. Payne's opinion, all land around this proposed campsite was zoned for
single family residential use.
Mr. Payne replied the area to the East is zoned R -2 and the area on which the campsite is located is
zoned A -2.
Mr. Whiting asked about the area on the West of the proposed campsite.
Mr. Payne replied that he believed most of it was zoned A -2.
Mr. whiting asked if single family dwellings had been developed on all four sides of the campsite.
Mxr.Payne replied this was true.
Mr. Whiting again presented some pictures of Mr. Payne and asked if Mr. Payne felt the campsite could
be seen from dwellings in Merriman's Estates.
Mr. Payne stated the pictures being shown had been taken at the cul -de -sac or lowest point of Merriman'
Estates and he maintained that the largest number of houses look down on the campsite.
Mr. Payne said that the map he had shown was the total area and that Mr. Whiting was attempting to get
him to say that on the lower lots where several houses are located in Section 2 of Merriman's Estates they could
not see over the ridge and Mr. Payne said that fact was correct. Mr. Payne said he still maintained that the
largest number of houses look down on the campsite.
Mr. Madigan asked what area Mr. whiting and Mr. Payne were talking about.
Mr. Payne stated the people fronting on the lower end would not see it from the street elevation but
they would be able: to see it from the sedond story of their houses.
Mr. whiting asked Mr. Payne how far away the houses were.
Mr. Payne said he did not know.
Mr. Whiting asked what the barriers were that are used by planners to delineate different zoning areas.
255
Mr. Payne replied lines are drawn where it is best appropriate for the area.
Mr. Whiting asked if it was not a fact that frequently interstate highways are the logical dividing
line between different uses of property.
Mr. Payne said this occurred largely due to happenstance and not planning.
Mr. Whiting asked if Mr. Payne meant you did not have to have planning.
Mr. Payne said he did not say that. He referred to West Springfield, Red Fox Forrest, and West Fair
Estates and stated these are located on interstate highways and have subdivisions which have single family lots
on both sides for a distance of more than forty miles.
Mr. Whiting asked if there were any non - limited access road and interchanges on those.
Mr. Payne replied there were.
Mr. Whiting asked what happened at the interchanges.
Mr. Payne replied in most cases the property at the interchanges are commercial.
Mr. Whiting asked if the same could not be expected here.
Mr. Payne said Mr. Whiting was talking about a big piece of land. He stated there are probably, with
the acreage in this application plus the other vacant land, more than 100 acres of ground. Mr. Payne further
stated there is no need here for 100 commercial acres.
Mr. Whiting asked if Mr. Payne knew how much land was in the livestock market.
Mr. Payne said he did not know exactly.
Mr. Whiting asked Mr. Payne if it was his suggestion to the Board of Supervisors that they had no
way of attaching conditions to the permit.
Mr. Payne said he was not saying that but he was saying he could not see how the Board would enforce
a conditional use permit according to the standards that are there now.
Mr. Whiting asked if this meant Mr. Payne was saying that no conditional use would be proper under
the present ordinance.
Mr. Paynce stated he felt the language should be in the ordinance and that when a person said he was
going to do something it could be enforced. Also he felt that campground should be defined.
Mr. Whiting asked if Mr. Payne was saying no conditional use should be issued for any campground.
Mr. Payne said that was exactly right until something was done with the ordinance.
Mr. Payne asked if he might ask a question since he felt he had been cross - examined.
Mr. Sandy said this was not a court and the Board members were not acting as judges. He said they
were here to seek information.
Mr. Payne said the only question he had was whether or not every member of the Board had had a chance
to look at the map he had given them.
The members of the Board indicated they had looked at it.
Mr. Payne asked if anyone on the Board had any questions as to the contours drawn on the map.
Mr. Sandy said he felt what was being attempted to be shown on the map was that on some of the lower
lots the campsite was not in view but as you went farther out it could be seen from the higher lots.
Mr. Madigan asked if Route 37 was an interstate.
Mr. Whiting replied it was a big road.
Mr. Monahan, the attorney for the opponents, was recognized.
Mr. Monahan stated a lot of talk had been heard about a 90 acre travel trailer park or a 90 site one.
He stated the application is for a travel trailer park campground with all facilities including but not limited
to a fishing lake, recreation building, comfort station, laundry room, swimming pool, office and store.
Mr. Monahan said he understood this had been expanded by an amendment which was added to say that Mr.
Poe had requested the following information be put on his conditional use permit that the use would include camp
rallies as a use by this campground which would involve additional trailers and spaces.
Mr. Monahan said there had been no mention of that tonight nor anything which indicated to him that Mr
Poe had established any limitation upon the number of sites or trailers which he would permit on the premises.
256
Mr. Monahan asked that the Board keep in mind they were being asked to grant what has been written and
it is not in accord with what has been stated.
Mr. Monahan also said he wished to mention a couple facts made by the proponent. He said they did not
have anything fancy but they did have one picture taken from the house mentioned as being under construction,
which he believed would be Mr. Whitesell's proposed house. He passed the picture to the Board stating from
that point one could see the major part of the campground, which included the barn that had already been con= '
structed under a permit for a barn without anything for a campground.
Mr. Monahan pointed out there had been a discussion about the fact that at the railroad there would be
a 30 ft. elevation but Mr. Whiting did not say how much this rise for Route 37 will be limited to a minimum of
five feet. Five feet of course would permit a normal person, even the ladies, to see this campground whether ,
they are on their porch, looking out their window or standing in their yard, if that is the only barrier that
exists.
Mr. Monahan stated that there was a question in his mind as to whether the distance of 525 feet from
Mr. Stivers' line to the campsite constituted any form of a sound barrier, sight barrier or any other type
barrier so far as distance was concerned. He stated in that area at 525 feet only half of some of the yards
have been crossed.
Mr. Monahan stated that according to Mr. Whiting, Mr. Poe was very considerate in moving his bathhouse,
which he was building, from one location to another upon certain objections being made. He said if he recalled
correctly, that was the bathhouse Mr. Poe was building before he had a permit for it and which he was told not
to build, and therefore to stop doing what you are not supposed to do is not really a great deal of concession.
Mr. Monahan said Mr. Wfifting had called attention to a 40 ft. street, Ward Avenue, but he had not
pointed out that it was a 40 ft. right -of -way and there is an 18 ft. road surface which would be expected to
carry all of the traffic generated by this campsite. How many vehicles that will entail is unknown. He stated ,
the traffic would not only be the vehicles pulling the trailers but also the vehicles required to service the
campsite.
Mr. Monahan said Mr. Poe had indicated that ncneof the residents on Ward Avenue objected and that they
had all been on the petition he presented. Mr. Monahan stated there was a resident along Ward Avenue who object-
ed to the campsite and his signature would be found on the objectionsc petition presented by the opponents.
Mr. Monahan said he did not go to Ward Avenue and check all the residents, however Mr. John Holliday
of Ward Avenue had been in Mr. Monahan's office a few days before on other business and Mr. Monahan had asked Mr.
Holliday if he had signed the petition in favor of the campsite. Mr. Monahan then read a statement from Mr.
Holliday stating his objection to the proposed campsite.
Mr. Monahan stated his reason for asking Mr. Holliday the question was that because an unsolicited
copy of a letter to Mr. Poe from a resident of Clark County allegedly in favor of the campsite, had been deliver-
ed to Mr. Monahan and in the letter the resident advised Mr. Poe he wished his name removed from the petition
,
supporting the proposed campsite.
Mr. Monahan then read a copy of a letter to Mr. Poe signed by Ralph Meade Dorsey in which Mr. Dorsey
alleged he had been misled at the time he signed the petition in favor of the campsite and since his residency
in Clark County made his signature invalid anyway, he requested his name be removed from the petition in favor
of the campsite.
'
Mr. Monahan stated that in Mr. Whiting's presentation he gave a run -down on what Mr. Poe had supposedly
done in good faith in terms of prior correspondence and meetings with members of the Planning Commission. Mr.
Monahan said obviously Mr. Poe is not taking the position he is not required to obtain a use permit. He is here
tonight seeking one. If Mr. Poe has any complaint, it is not this forum which should decide. It is this forum'
sole and only purpose to decide whether, on the merits of this campsite proposal, it should be granted a Condit-
ional use permit.
Mr. Monahan pointed out to the Board that at the hearing before.the Planning Commission, it was
257
out that Mr. Poe had no site plan approved by the Department of Sanitation in Richmond and that such an approval
is a prerequisite to the granting of a campground use permit. Mr. Monahan stated he still had not seen an
approval based on the submission of an adequate site plan nor had he seen, in fact, a legitimate sight plan unde
which Mr. Poe intends to be bound in this case. Mr. Monahan also pointed out the list of expenditures up to
November 1st as being impressive stating it impressed him because it constituted expenditures which Mr. Poe made
' without firstrobtaining a conditional use permit and in many cases not bven obtaining building permits for the
expenditures which he made.
Mr. Monahan stated he was somewhat impressed by Mr. Poe's statement that $12.00 per site would be
if the national average was lived up to and he gave the amount of what 90 sites, if filled to capacity, for i80
' days would bring in. Mr. Monahan stated that obviously the figure was misleading because in answer to other
questions Mr. Poe pointed out that the week ends are a time of maximum occupancy and other times are not. Mr.
Monahan pointed out there was one "kicker" in the figures in that the $12 figure sound impressive until you
figure out that one of these units averages, about 3 1 1 to 4 miles to the gallon when pulling a trailer. That
would mean every vehicle which had come as much as 80 miles would have to fill up with gas. if 20 gallons of
gas if purchased, at present prices, that is $10 of the anticipated $12 right there. He admitted it would be
beneficial in the terms of dollars paid to gasoline stations right then but he called attention that when using
Mr. Poe's figures with the gasoline shortage it would mean 1,800 gallons per day, 54,000 gallons a month and
roughly 324,000 gallons of gasoline for any year's operation which would be taken out of the local community at
a time when we know that the allocation of gasoline available to the local stations for the use of all persons
has been cut on an allocated basis this year and this outlines to a certain extent the amount of gasoline avail-
able. Mr. Monahan asked where the quarter of a million gallons of gasoline was to be made up from if it was not
from the local citizenry if the trailer park was to operate in the fashion Mr. Poe said it would operate. Mr.
' Monahan stated he was not saying he believed it would operate at full capacity all of the time.
Mr. Monahan said the matter of safety had not been adequately discussed. He stated he did not see how
it could be felt there would be no safety problem when in the morning hours between 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock
during the school year there might possibly be 90 tailers pulling into Route 50 and at the present time the
traffic problem was such that it required special police on duty at the James wood School during those hours.
He stated that it was his belief it would present a traffic problem all year long. He called attention to the
fact that Ward Avenue being only 18 ft. wide was not adequately designed to handle the traffic problem.
Mr. Monahan said the obvious objections to the use of the property in terms of the immediate neighbor-
hood had been stated but he suggested there are many broader implications to the location of this trailer park
which will be close into town in an area naturally designed for the expansion of residential homes. From this
point, Mr. Monahan stated, he felt to grant the permit would be armistake.
Mr. Monahan said the people occupying the campgrounds would be transients and would in no way contri
' to the tax base of the County for they would not be paying any personal property or real estate tax.
He stated that the entire concept is contrary to the good of the County, contrary to the good of the
county people who would have to travel Route 50 and contrary to the good of the immediate area in that it will
slow or stop development in that area and therefore it should not be permitted at this time.
' Mr. Monahan further stated that he repeated his original opinion that Mr. Poe had given nothing but a
broad request asking for an open permit to do whatever he wants with that property without presenting a site pla
which would establish the number of sites and would allow him to turn it into a trailer park as he might sub-
sequently determine.
Mr. Cole called to Mr. Monahan's attention no one had brought up the Farmers Livestock Market and the
odor it might create.
Mr. Monahan said that the Farmers Livestock Market is on Route 50 and in his opinion it does add to
the traffic situation. As to whether it makes propetty in that area less desirable for residential development,
258
he stated, he felt it could be simply said that immediately adjacent to the livestock market perhaps it does but
it has been seen that it does not effect the expansion of Merriman's Estates and it has not diminished the value
of the property on three sides of what would now be proposed for a campground and he did not believe it had that
much detrimental effect. Mr. Monahan added he did not believe the property along Route 50 would develop into a
residential area but he did feel the property off of Route 50 and in the area where the campground was proposed
would develop and he added in fact it had developed and there were homes already there of which he felt the Boar
had knowledge concerning their value.
Mr. Cole and Mr. Monahan engaged in a discussion about the noise and the odor presented by the
market in which Mr. Cole offered a question of whether or not the noise and odor were objectionable and Mr.
han said he had no knowledge of any objection to this.
Mr. Sandy asked for any other questions.
Mr. Sandy recognized Mr. Whiting.
Mr. Whiting asked for those present from Ward Avenue who supported the petition to raise their hands.
He asked Mr. Scruggs, who lives in the parsonage on Ward Avenue, how he felt about the trailer park
and if he felt it would be dangerous to the people on Ward Avenue.
Mr. Scruggs said he was notan educated man but it was his understanding the Board went along with
recommendations made by the Planning Commission and in his opinion there must have been a lot of mistakes made
in the past if they are wrong on this.
Mr. Monahan remarked that this was not now under the Planning Commission.
Mr. Scruggs apologized and said he had been under the impression this was the Planning Commission.
Mr. Whiting explained this was the Board of Supervisors and asked Mr. Scruggs if he felt this was a
detriment to the people on Ward Avenue.
Mr. Scruggs said the livestock market was facing his property and he received quite a lot of noise and
odor too. He said he had not been there too long but so far the odor had not bothered him.
Mr. Scruggs stated before the property was sold to Mr. Poe the field around it was always occupied by
turkeys or animals and it was his understanding there is no zoning to prevent hogs from being put in the back
yards. He stated he would not sign a petition against the campground because from what he had seen he believed
it would be a good thing. He stated that before Mr. Poe purchased the property, fences were down and turkey
houses were there.
Mr. Scruggs said he talked with some of the people on Ward Avenue before he came tonight and they felt
the trailer court could not hurt the area as the stock sale had not. He said the people he talked to felt if
the stock sale could bring animals in and some of them laid out dead and other detrimental circumstances existed
from the stockyard and it had not hurt the area, then the trailer court could not hurt it. He stated he had
talked to six or seven families who felt the stockyard had been there long enough and they had to live with it
and they felt the trailer park would be a good thing.
Mr. Madigan asked if Mr. Scruggs meant at the stock sale they buried dead animals in the back and also
that there were dead animals laying out.
Mr. Scruggs stated he had questioned a gentleman living across from him whose name he did not know,
fore coming to the meeting tonight and the gentleman had said at times dead animals laid out at the stock sale
and at times there was an odor from this.
Mr. Madigan requested the County Administrator to get with the Health Department tomorrow morning to
check this out.
Mr. Monahan asked Mr. Scruggs if he had any children under the age of 10.
Mr. Scruggs replied he did not.
Mr. Sandy said he felt both the proponent and opponent sides had been provided with the necessary time
to present their arguments by counsel on this matter and he would now reserve the time for questions of members
L F
of the Board.
i
259
Mr. Russell asked the Commonwealth Attorney if Mr. Poe had complied with all the obligations under the
old ordinance.
A discussion followed between Commonwealth Attorney Lawrence Ambrogi and Mr. Russell. Mr. Ambrogi
said Mr. Poe was submitting this under the new ordinance. Mr. Russell said that if the proposal is turned down
under the new ordinance then what Mr. Poe had done under the old ordinance was killed.
Mr. Ambrogi replied he did not quite understand the statement.
Mr. Cole stated he felt what Mr. Russell was referring to was toe letter of September 19, 1973,
to Mr. Poe by Mr. Bill Riley, Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Ambrogi said he had explained to the Board previously that what they would have to determine was
whether or not when Mr. Lawrence of Clearbrook applied for this same type of campground in the same type of
zoning for a conditional use had any bearing on this request.
Mr. Ambrogi said of course this was acted upon by the prior Board and the present Board was aware of
the prior Board's intentions; that the prior Board had been advised of what would happen if they did approve the
campground at Clearbrook under A -2 in that campgrounds would be made a conditional use under all A -2 zoning.
He said the Board was aware of this, at that time, and their choice was to make this a permitted use under A -2.
Mr. Ambrogi further stated that for some reason the minutes do not reflect whether that Board approved
or denied the application. He said that in order to determine this, it would be necessary to call in the
of the prior Board and furthermore it would be necessary to find out if it had been properly advertised as re-
quired by law since this would be rezoning.
Mr. Cole read the letter of September 19, 1973 to Mr. Poe from Mr. Riley advising Mr. Poe he might
proceed with the campground and asked what bearing this letter had on the Board's legal standpoint.
Mr. Monahan said this was an application under this ordinance and not under any prior ordinance.
Mr. Ambrogi agreed that this application does not involve the old zoning ordinance but comes under the
new zoning ordinance.
Mr. Russell said that most anything passed had the grandfather's clause in it.
Mr. Monahan replied that Mr. Poe was not asking for anything under a grandfathers clause but was in-
stead asking for new rights.
Mr. Russell stated he had gone to the site with Mr. Poe after all this controversy had started and he
believed at that time the only thing in question was the swimming pool.
Mr. Monahan stated Mr. Poe had started the swimming pool without a permit.
Mr. Russell said he did not know about that but that he did advise Mr. Poe in order to keep the record
straight he should obtain a conditional use.permit.
Mr. Ambrogi said another thing that should be determined was exactly when Mr. Poe's operation was
commenced, and what portion of it constitutes commencement of activity. Was it prior to November 1st, or was it
some application or physical act he started after November lst7
Mr. Russell said he felt there was one important issue that needed a legal point of view and that was
if the Board turned the application down ton -:ght would that stop Mr. Poe's entire operation as a campsite.
Mr. Ambrogi stated Mr. Poe had other remedies.he could pursue. There are possibly legal remedies he
can pursue.
Mr. Russell stated he was chairman of the Planning and Development Committee in the County and it was
his personal feeling that a campsite proposed to be put in should have a public review. He said he believed
this was started under the old ordinance but if the Board was going to act on it under the new ordinance, it
would stop Mr. Poe from ever having a campsite. He said he felt any citizen deserved the benefits of the grand-
father's clause when he started a project under the rules of the ordinance in effect at that time.
Mr. Cole asked what was being done here tonight, if the campground in Clearbrook was being operated
under the grandfather's clause then he did not know why this issue was being brought up tonight.
Mr. Ambrogi stated the only way he could answer that was to get all the members of the old Board to-
.
260
gether and find out what they did in fact do; not what they intended to do, but what they did in fact do, and
asked if this
then go through the records of the newspaper office to determine if there was the required advertising and that
,
still might not settle it.
said it was.
Mr. Cole said he did not wish to take anyone's rights away from him.
Mr. Monahan asked Mr. Ambrogi if it was not correct that refusal of this permit would not take away
and rights that might be had under the grandfather's clause.
,
Mr. Ambrogi said it would not.
Mr. Monahan said that the issue tonight concerned new and different rights under the present ordinance
Mr. Cole asked Mr. Monahan what rights Mr. Poe could get tonight if he already had them under the old
ordinance.
Mr. Monahan replied if Mr. Poe had the rights he did not need the conditional use permit and he was
'
contending if the Board gives Mr. Poe a conditional use permit at this time then the opponents had no way of
finding out whether or not he had those rights.
Mr. Cole told Mr. Monahan he wished they had taken the matter to court so he would know where he was.
Mr. Ambrogi stated certain acts had taken place some years ago that are not recordad and that was what
presented the difficulty. He said there apparently were certain acts that took place and whether or not they
had been carried out properly and through the required procedures is not known for certain and that is one of
the problems. He stated it was not anybody's fault, it was just one of those things that happen.
Mr. Russell said he would have to say again that he thought Mr. Poe was in the fight up to the point
in time when he talked with him.
Mr. Ambrogi said he felt Mr. Russell, having been a member of the old Board and having knowledge of
what transpired and remembering it, he felt sure Mr. Russell had done as other members of that time and related
back to the issue at Clearbrook and Mr. Lawrence, who was the first one in the county who applied for something
'
like this and it was of particular significance and is probably the reason it is remembered.
Mr. Cole said this was probably the reason for Mr. Riley's letter of September 19th.
Mr. Russell stated Mr. Poe showed him the letter from Mr. Riley at the time he visited the site and
that Mr. Poe also showed him several other letters and Mr. Russell had thought that what Mr. Poe had done up
until that time was in order.
Mr. whiting said they were here asking for a conditional use permit and they were asking for it in ord
r
to resolve all the clouds and undertainties that have come about due to a combination of unfortunate things. He
said they felt it was necessary to look at the total background, the area, what went on in the area before the
ordinance was adopted, what person did what act of assurance and the total picture.
Mr. whiting stated they were requesting a conditional use permit because they felt the evidence pre-
sented had established such was in order.
Mr. Madigan
asked if this
was under the new ordinance.
,
Mr. Whiting
said it was.
He said they contended you could not consider these things in a vacuum but
must consider what went on in July, August, September and October of last year and also by November of last year
Mr. Poe had done certain things. He had committed his property to a certain use.
Mr. Whiting stated when the ordinance was adopted a question arose as to whether or not Mr. Poe should
have a conditional use permit under the new ordinance. He said what Mr. Poe had done must be considered and it '
could not be looked at in a legal vacuum.
Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Poe when he started his barn.
Mr. Poe replied it was started in April..
Mr. Madigan asked when it was completed.
Mr. Poe replied it was still not completed. He said while he had started it as a barn, he had made
some modifications after he had received the letter of approval from the planning commission office. He had
then decided'to change it to an amusement area for teenagers and for an office and store on one side and a
261
registration office for the campground.
Mr. Madigan read an excerpt from the Winchester Evening Star which said after action of the Planning
Commission last week if the Supervisors deny the permit it was Mr. Poe's intention to take the matter to court.
Mr. Madigan asked if the Board was then acting under intimidation.
Mr. Poe stated he certainly hoped the Board was not acting under intimidation.
Mr. Madigan commented on the histpry of zoning in this country and he said the Board had the power as
public trustees to make the decision on this.
Mr. Madigan read a statement in which he stated it did not make sense for the Board not to exercise
their powers just because an individual had selfish interests and the love of the dollar bill. He said a house
or any real estate property cannot be economically moved from the site where it was originally built.
Mr. Madigan stated the Board had had an opportunity tonight to hear the opinion of a professional
planner.
Mr. Madigan stated he had tried to look at the application from Mr. Poe's point of view and also from
the point of view of the residents of Merriman's Estates and he felt that in view of the type homes and planning
that was being done in that area a cancer should not be allowed in or near the area.
Mr. Madigan stated there are only three commercial enterprises in that area and it was the opportunity
i
and responsibility of the Board as elected officials to act in the best interests of the residents of the County.
Mr. Madigan stated he represented Back Creek District and 988 of the people in that district were
opposed to the campsite and it was his feeling the Board should obey their wishes.
Mr. Madigan madea'rimotion that the Conditional Use Permit be denied for this campsite on the grounds it
is not compatible with the area in which it wishes to locate.
Mr. Sandy called for a second to the motion but Jrhe motion died for the lack of a second.
Mr. Hodgson asked if it could be tabled for two weeks.
Mr. Sandy asked if this was to obtain further information.
Mr. Hodgson said it was because lie felt the Board members had questions in their minds about it and
he was not sure he was ready to vote on the subject at this time.
Mr. Cole said he knew it had been said it did not make any difference about the letter of September 19
and the part about the grandfather's clause was just not clear'tto him. He questioned why Mr. Poe was being
denied a building permit if this comes under a grandfather's clause and he asked Mr. Ambrogi if he could explain
why. Mr. Poe was denied a building permit after the letter of September 19th.
Mr. Ambrogi asked if Mr. Poe was in fact denied a building permit.
Mr. Cole asked Mr. Poe if he had been denied a building permit.
Mr. Poe stated his contractor on the bathhouse, had done as many contractors do, and started prior to
obtaining the permit. Mr. Poe said the contractor was busy on many sites and neglected to get it and when he
went to apply for it he had been asked to wait due to the fact there had been some opposition to the matter. He
was not given a permit and a stop work order was put on it.
Mr. Cole asked if Mr. Poe meant he was denied a permit.
Mr. Poe said he did not know if it was denied or not but it certainly was not given. He said he would
say it is of an opinion status.
Mr. Madigan asked if Mr. Riley's letter or any member of the staff can obligate the Board or change
law.
Mr. Cole asked if it was in the grandfather's clause who was to say it was necessary for Mr. Poe to
have a conditional use permit in order to continue to operate.
Mr. Ambrogi said that was what everybody was here for tonight and he did not think Mr. Poe or the
residents of Merriman's estates object to the issue being handled under an application for a condition use permi
Mr. Madigan asked if that was under the new ordinance.
Mr. Ambrogi replied that it was under the new ordinance.
Mr. Madigan said if this was under the new ordinance then the old ordinance was not in question
262
Mr. Cole said it was, because if the letter was under the old ordinance, why did Mr. Riley have the
right to deny him a building permit.
Mr. Madigan said they should ask Mr. Ambrogi.
Mr. Cole asked Mr. Ambrogi why, if the grandfather's clause prevailed, did Mr. Riley tell Mr. Poe he
could not obtain a building permit until he had a conditional use permit.
Mr. Madigan commented maybe Mr. Riley didn't have the right to do either one in the letter.
Mr. Russell said he would like to make the statement he had been on a "hot seat" many times but he
believed this was the hottest seat he had ever had to sit on with the Board of Supervisors. He said he sympath-
ized with both sides and he wanted to do the right thing and this was putting a lot of pressure on him. He
stated org reason he did not take Chairmanship of the Board was because of the pressure involved but he could see
now where pressure was coming outside the Chairmanship too.
Mr. Russell stated he did not wish to remove any of Mr. Poe's rights from him and for that reason he
would like to see additional information prior to answering the questions tonight.
A resident of Frederick County requested permission to speak and asked why the Board was not prepared
to act on the request before it tonight and why the grandfather's clause does not come up at another time.
Mr. Russell asked if the decision of the Board tonight would jeopardize Mr. Poe's rights.
The resident replied from what the many attorney's present tonight had said, it certainly would not.
She asked why the Board could not make a decision based strictly on land usage for a trailer camp in Back Creek
District under the new ordinance.
Mr. Whiting said he would repeat again that the conditional use permit had been applied for against
the total background here. He said we have to look at what Mr. Poe did all last summer and what he had done in
the fall to see where he was on November lat. Mr. Whiting stated Mr. Poe has come to the administrative body
asking for a conditional use permit under the new ordinance because he was advised he should do so in order to
proceed with his plans. Mr. Whiting continued that they were here now with all of the background and what he
had done under the old ordinance and what he seeks under the new ordinance.
Mr. Whiting stated it was his opinion that the total background must be considered before deciding
whether or not the permit should be granted and it would be necessary to look at the total zoning picture. All
of the criteria of the zoning the Board knows must be considered and then they should make a value judgement but
the value judgement must be made on what happened up until November lat. He said it is not two separate things
but everything must be considered together.
Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Whiting if Mr. Poe was applying under the new zoning ordinance why would it be
necessary for the Board to even consider the old zoning ordinance.
Mr. Whiting replied he was not asking the Board to consider the old zoning ordinance he was asking
the Board consider what the posture was of this property at the time the new zoning ordinance was adopted. Mr.
Whiting said that $25,000 had been committed toward a campground.
Mr. Madigan said then if the Board turns down the application it will have no bearing on Mr. Poe's
status because it would revert back to the old zoning ordinance.
Mr, whiting said that was not true because as he had said before you could not place the matter in a
vacuum and if the Board does turn Mr. Poe down it will not only cause him a whole lot more trouble but will also
be more expensive for Mr. Whiting's service.
Mr. Whiting also said if the Board turns Mr. Poe down it is possible Mr. Poe could wind up with $25
on a stump out there that he can't do a thing with.
Mr. Monahan said Mr. Whiting could, and that Mr. Whiting had made a much better speech than he had but
he said Mr. Whiting was very studious in his ability to use words and ignored the fact that the Board is
about whether or not Mr. Poe has rights under a grandfather's clause.
Mr. Russell asked who had the application for the conditional use permit and what was on it.
i
He was told there was a copy of it in his Agenda.
263
Mr. Cole asked how Mr. Riley had the authority to tell Mr. Poe he could not get a building permit unles
he got a conditional use permit if he was operating under the grandfather's clause.
Mr. Cole said he knew it had been said that point did not matter but it mattered a whole lot to him.
Mr. Berg said they have people coming in every day asking if they do one thing or another and their
office replies at that particular time they may do that particular thing but when a person comes in for a buildinc
permit it is governed by the zoning laws under which we:7 are operating at that time. He said prior'to November
1st they did write letters but when Mr. Poe came in to apply for a permit to operate a campground it was the
first application for a building permit that had been received under the new zoning ordinance and so he was ad-
vised to seek a conditional use permit.
'
Mr. Cole asked if Mr. Berg was saying Mr. Poe was not operating under the grandfather's clause.
Mr. Berg replied he was not.
Mr. Cole said he felt it was not something the Board should decide then, but instead should be decided
by the Judge.
Mr. Madigan said he thought so too.
Mr. Monahan commented that was the only way a legal determination could be obtained.
Mr. Madigan again made a motion that the petition be denied on the grounds it was not compatible with
the area.
Mr. Sandy called for a second to the motion.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Ambrogi stated that the hearing had been set for tonight under the new zoning ordinance and he felt
both sides were in agreement on this. He said nobody can tell what will happen if it is approved or if it is
denied. He stated both sides had a recourse regardless of what the Board does tonight and that it is not so
'
much a legal issue as it is a factual issue based on the facts, evidence, illustrations and testimony presented
to the Board tonight.
Mr. Russell asked if the Board's decision tonight would have any bearing on Mr. Poe's rights as an
individual.
Mr. Ambrogi said it would not except only as far as time goes, and then it might have a bearing as to
when Mr. Poe may or may not operate.
A discussion followed between members of the Board and Mr. Ambrogi in which Mr. Ambrogi stated that
what the old board did might have some bearing on the matter but because it was not recorded in the minutes as to
just what they did, it was almost impossible to know what they did do and what their intentions were.
Mr. Russell gave a rundown on dates of when the campground was started and when certain parts of it
were unaccomplished or started.
The Board was asked if Mr. Jack Wampler could speak and the Chairman granted Mr. Wampler permission.
'
Mr. Wampler asked if Mr. Riley had the right to write the letter of September 19, 1973 to Mr. Poe. Mr.
Wampler stated that undoubtedly he did have the right and if he did then it would seem to Mr. Wampler that Mr.
Poe already has all he needs.
Mr. Sandy stated that first of all he believed Mr. John Riley had acted properly under the old
' He further stated the request tonight is a conditional use permit under the new ordinance.
Mr. Sandy said the conditional use permit is being presented under the new ordinance, while Mr. Poe
might have all the rights in the world under the old ordinance. He stated Mr. Poe thinks he does and perhaps the
feeling is that he does, but unless you go back and look at the issue under the old ordinance the opponents have
no say whatsoever.
Mr. Sandy stated that if we pass this tonight they have no recourse whatsoever. but if we deny this to-
night under the new ordinance they do have a recourse where they can sit back, examine all the facts and come to
logical conclusion.
Mr. Cole asked if Mr. Poe had rights under the grandfather's cluase, who had the right to deny him a
permit.
26.4
Mr. Sandy replied at that time they did not have sufficient information to make the determination.
Mr. Cole asked that even after November 1st if Mr. Poe was operating under the grandfather's clause,
who had aright to deny him a building permit.
A discussion followed on this and Mr. Madigan stated if the Board does not issue a permit tonight,
give the residents of the area along with Mr. Poe an opportunity to seek the solution to the problem at a higher
level= but if we pass it tonight we deny the residents of Back Creek District and Merrimans Estates any of their
rights
Mr. Poe asked if the Board was saying at the present time he does not need any further approval for
another 200 spaces.
Mr. Cole replied that he would need further approval.
Another discussion followed this.
A resident in the meeting asked if this conditional use permit was granted what it would permit Mr.
to do
Mr. Sandy replied it would permit Mr. Poe to continue with what he wants to do.
0
The resident asked if this would permit him to continue with his swimming pool and bathhouse and Mr.
Sandy said that it would.
The resident then asked how this could hurt the people on Merrimans Lane since he =already had the
other part finished. She asked how many people present were campers.
The Chairman advised the resident she was out of order by directing questions hereself but instead
the questions should be directed to him and he would redirect the questions.
Mrs. Burkholder was recognized by the chairman and she stated Mr. Poe had employed a very competent
attorney in Mr. whiting and that Mr. Monahan, the opposing attorney, had stated he felt Mr. Poe was attempting
tozwork under the grandfather's clause but since Mr, whiting had not confirmed this, she assumed Mr. Whiting did
not think so.
Mr. Sandy stated the whole discussion had become repetitious, and he did not believe further
would accomplish too much since the Board had heard all the arguments already: the only other alternative to Mr.
Madigan's motion for denial would be a motion for approval.
Mr. Whiting said if they had 40 spaces he did not feel they had any right under the grandfather's
clause to come and get 80 spaces from the Board. He said they are part way through at the present time and are
simply asking for the right to expand it and if they could not expand then everything that has been done up to
this point has been wasted.
A spokesman for the opponents stated they felt the letter of September 19th to Mr. Poe was in error.
Mr. Sandy said it was not in error at that time.
Mr. Monahan stated he felt that from what had been done, it would be advantageous to have the view
of Mr. Ambrogi.
Mr. Sandy asked if Mr. Monahan meant before the Board or before a higher'-level.
Mr. Monahan said he felt one thing that needed to be made clear was that they could not go any higher
if, in fact, they were foreclosed by the Board granting a new conditional use permit and he felt when a vote was
taken this should be taken into account.
Mr. Whiting said nobody could say what might happen later and it could not be said that nobody has a
court recourse. He said he did not feel it should be decided on that basis but rather on what the Board has
before them tonight.
Mr. Madigan stated he felt the residents of the area should be given equal opportunity with Mr. Poe to
settle this at a higher level.
Mr. McTiernan said Mr. Russell and Mr. Cole seem to be going back to a grandfather's clause. He asked
1
how these two gentlemen voted on the new ordinance.
i;
Mr. Cole stated many questions were raised at the time.
265
Mr. McTiernan said his question was how had Mr. Cole and Mr. Russell voted on the new ordinance.
Mr. Cole asked Mr. Renalds, if it were not true that on the new ordinance, when they voted, their vote
did not refer to any grandfather's clause.
Mr. Renalds replied that this was correct.
Mr. Renalds also stated, as he recalled, the vote was unanimous in favor of the new zoning ordinance.
' Mr. Sandy asked for the pleasure of the Board; stating they had tried it one way and asking if they
wished to try it another.
Mr. Madigan stated he would like to try it the same way again and give everyone an equal opportunity.
A resident said a lady sitting behind him had said Mr. Poe's conditional use permit was only asking for
' a permit for a swimming pool and bathhouse. He said if this was true and the Board granted the;: permit and Mr.
Poe went on with other things, then the residents of the area could come back to the Board with the complaint
Mr. Poe had violated his permit. He said he believed he was right in saying this but if not then he thought Mr.
Poe certainly had a right to his grandfather's clause and up to that point he was partially in operation and he
did not see how the Board could deny Mr. Poe's request.
Another resident asked what the contents of the letter to Mr. Poe from Mr. Riley were.
Mr. Cole read the letter in which Mr. Riley advised Mr. Poe he must follow the provisions set forth
in the Board of Health of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
A discussion followed this.
A citizen present said he pays taxes in Frederick County but no longer lives there so he cannot vote,
however he had been somewhatshocked at the performance of counsel and by the motions made and others sit there
with their mouths shut. He said he overlooks this property and no one said it was going to be changed from a
turkey farm, which he liked, to a campground with a dance hall for kids and a lot of noise or with snowmobiles
' rough riding around. He said he had paid no attention to the whole thing until a few nights ago when we had our
big snow and the snowmobiles went until two o'clock. He said he felt the residents of Merriman's Estates were
entitled to more from the Board than just their own member making a motion and the other members doing nothing.
He said that looked pretty much like "Virginia Politics ".
Mr. Sandy addressed the Board and told them thissmatter must be disposed of in some way.
A citizen asked to speak and was granted permission. He said up to this point there had seemed to be
an assumption that there was a grandfather's clause. He said he could assume many things but that did not make
them fact. He said he felt it was a matter for a court of law to decide because if they were turned down here
tonight what recourse would they have. He said he felt this was true of all citizens who want to see the County
developed properly. He said he felt it was a legal case.
Mr. Sandy said he agreed 100%.
Mr. Madigan said the only answer would have to come from a higher level.
' A citizen asked if this was not passed or was turned down tonight did it mean they would come back in
two weeks for the fourth time and go over the entire thing again.
Mr. Sandy said he certainly did not want to hear it all again.
The resident replied all they were asking for was a vote.
I Mr. Sandy called for a motion.
Mr. Madigan said he was going to make a motion again to deny the permit.
Mr. Madigan stated that it was the third time he has made this motion and he felt it was necessary
because if others were sitting in that place and had been elected by a group of people to represent them then it
be their duty to represent those people. He said the people were there to have a question decided which,
in his mind, could not be decided by this Board. He said in order to have this issue decided in a court of law
it was necessary to get a denial of this application for a conditional userpermit by the Board. He stated every
citizen deserved to have the matter decided properly.
Mr. Madigan made a motion seconded by Mr. Russell that the conditional useepermit be denied Mr. Poe.
Mr. Sandy called for a discussion by members of the Board.
next regular meeting on January 23rd.
This motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Sandy said a list of any additional information to be heard at the meeting on January 23rd should
be stated here tonight and only that information would be considered at that meeting.
Mr. Whiting stated he could not attend the meeting on January 23rd.
Mr. Madigan asked if the last meeting in February would be acceptable.
Mr. Whiting said that would be fine with him.
Mr. Poe stated this was only holding him up.
Mr.Whiting said he would have someone else come with Mr. Poe for the meeting of January 23rd.
Mr. Sandy asked what questions should be considered that evening.
Mr. Cole stated he would like to have a statement of explanation of the letter of September 19th in
writing.
Mr. Russell asked that the grandfather's clause be interpreted as to what it had to do with the new
application.
A question was asked if both sides could submit their questions to the Commonwealth Attorney.
Mr. Sandy replied he thought this was a good idea. '
Mr. Sandy called a five minute recess.
The chairman called the meeting to order.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADDITION TO MOBILE HOME PARK
RUSSELL SWIMLEY - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy recognized Mr. Russell Swimley, who said he would present his own request.
Mr. Swimley stated he was here to request a permit for additional mobile homes to be permitted in his
mobile home park.
Mr. Cole stated Mr. Swimley had originally come before the previous Board requesting permission for
4 acres at Brucetown for use as a mobile home park. At that time the Board approved the request for 2 mobile
homes in the park.
Mr.
Cole said that since that time, Mr. Swimley has decided he would like a permit
for six more. He
added that Mr.
Swimley has the approval of the Health Department and all neighbors adjoining
Mr.
Madigan
called on every member of
the Board to weigh the issue well in their mind and the conse-
,
quences of their vote
tonight and the effect it
might have on all those people concerned with the issue.
Mr.
Sandy called for a vote.
Mr.
Madigan
and Mr. Sandy voted "Aye ".
Mr. Russell and Mr. Hodgson voted "Nay ". Mr. Cole abstained.
Mr.
Sandy stated this gave them a 2 to 2 vote and we have still not accomplished what they sat down to
do tonight.
'
Mr.
Madigan
made a motion seconded by
Mr. Hodgson to bring this matter back before the Board at the
next regular meeting on January 23rd.
This motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Sandy said a list of any additional information to be heard at the meeting on January 23rd should
be stated here tonight and only that information would be considered at that meeting.
Mr. Whiting stated he could not attend the meeting on January 23rd.
Mr. Madigan asked if the last meeting in February would be acceptable.
Mr. Whiting said that would be fine with him.
Mr. Poe stated this was only holding him up.
Mr.Whiting said he would have someone else come with Mr. Poe for the meeting of January 23rd.
Mr. Sandy asked what questions should be considered that evening.
Mr. Cole stated he would like to have a statement of explanation of the letter of September 19th in
writing.
Mr. Russell asked that the grandfather's clause be interpreted as to what it had to do with the new
application.
A question was asked if both sides could submit their questions to the Commonwealth Attorney.
Mr. Sandy replied he thought this was a good idea. '
Mr. Sandy called a five minute recess.
The chairman called the meeting to order.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADDITION TO MOBILE HOME PARK
RUSSELL SWIMLEY - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy recognized Mr. Russell Swimley, who said he would present his own request.
Mr. Swimley stated he was here to request a permit for additional mobile homes to be permitted in his
mobile home park.
Mr. Cole stated Mr. Swimley had originally come before the previous Board requesting permission for
4 acres at Brucetown for use as a mobile home park. At that time the Board approved the request for 2 mobile
homes in the park.
Mr.
Cole said that since that time, Mr. Swimley has decided he would like a permit
for six more. He
added that Mr.
Swimley has the approval of the Health Department and all neighbors adjoining
Mr. Swimley's land
on both sides
are in favor of his request to enlarge the mobile home park from 2 to B.
,
Mr.
Cole stated also that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this
application.
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
application for the conditional use permit of Russell Swimley to add six additional spaces to his existing I
trailer park located in Stonewall Magisterial District.
The motion was passed unanimously.
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 and order
to be paid for the month of December 1973, the payroll in the amount of $45,509:84 by Warrants #04968 through
#05053.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
267
APPROVAL OF BILLS
There was some discussion and questions on burial expenses listed on the bills.
Mr. Sandy requested that a research of the past minutes before the next meeting be made to see what
amount had been previously approved for burial expenses of welfare cases in Frederick County. He stated he
believed it to be somewhere between $200 and $250.
' Upon motion be Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does hereby approve and order
to be paid the bills for the month of December, 1973, in the amount of $39,440.70 by Warrants #430 through #596.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
NOTTAWAY TOWNHOUSE SUBDIVISION - APPROVED
Mr. Ron Berg, County Planner, stated that it had been recommended that the recreational inpact at
Nottaway Townhouse Subdivision be assessed at $100. per unit. He said this has been conveyed to the developer
and the developer had also agreed to deliver bond to cover the Subdivision to the County Administrator the
following morning. He stated all signatures had been received and everything was complete.
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
final plat of Nottaway Subdivision located in Opequon Magisterial District.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
WAKELAND MANOR SUBDIVISION - DISCUSSED
Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Renalds how this Subdivision had progressed.
Mr. Renalds stated that the hold up at the present time is due to the Highway Department and the
Health Department. He said that an earlier resolution was passed stating that no subdivision would be approved
until everything was in order. He stated he felt the plat could be looked at and Mr. Wakeman could be given
the general guidelines if the plat looked OK. He said he did not know how it could be approved tonight, bec
two lots had to be resized and put on the plat and he did not think that had Keen done yet.
Mr. Sandy stated the main interest of the developer was to get the Boards' intention so that he might
get his pipe and requirements in because of scarcity of supplies.
Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Berg for staff comments in order that some indication might be given as to how
Board might go on this subdivision.
Mr. Berg indicated several staff comments had been given to the Planning Commission but they have not,
as yet, been incorporated on the plats. He said he could locate the plats the Planning Commission had used if
the Board wished to see that.
Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Berg to let the Board look at those plats.
Mr. Berg explained that the plat submitted had not yet been approved by the Health Department or the
' Highway Department.
Mr. Berg stated that it would be necessary for adjustments to be made on Lots 57 and 58 and Lots 82,
87 and 88. He stated these lots were being reworked by Mr. Nicely.
Nicely on the plat and the plat had been taken to Edinburg. He said Mr. King had told him approval should be
forthcoming very shortly.
Mr. Sandy said then as soon as signatures of the Health Department and the Highway Department are
received he felt approval would be forthcoming from the Board.
AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE ON REFUSE RECYCLING
FIRST AND SECOND READING - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy presented the amendment to add Section 13 -1 -23 to the zoning ordinance passed November 1,
1973.
Mr.
Sandy asked Mr. Wakeman if he had any idea when the
Health Department would approve the plat.
Mr.
Wakeman stated that under date of August 25, 1973,
Dr. Hatfield of the Health Department had
'
approved it,
and he had supplied Mr. Renalds with a copy of this
letter.
Mr.
Wakeman stated that the corrections recommended by
the Highway Department had been made by Mr.
Nicely on the plat and the plat had been taken to Edinburg. He said Mr. King had told him approval should be
forthcoming very shortly.
Mr. Sandy said then as soon as signatures of the Health Department and the Highway Department are
received he felt approval would be forthcoming from the Board.
AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE ON REFUSE RECYCLING
FIRST AND SECOND READING - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy presented the amendment to add Section 13 -1 -23 to the zoning ordinance passed November 1,
1973.
ITO
Upon motion by Mr. Cole seconded by Mr. Madigan,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does hereby
approve the following ordinance on first and second reading.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973 TO ESTABLISH SECTION: 13 -1 -23,
REFUSE RECYCLING OPERATIONS.
The above resolution passed unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE TO REALIGN BOUNDARY OF FREY QUARRY
FIRST AND SECOND READING - APPROVED
Upon motion by M=.: -Cole seconded by Mr. Madigan,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby approve
the following ordinance on first and second reading.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973 TO REALIGN THE BOUNDARY OF FREY
QUARRY ON MAPS 96 AND #10.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
REZONING APPLICATION OF LEWIS H. FOLTZ AND FRANCIS P
IRST AND SECOND READING - REFERRED BACK TO PLANNING
Mr. Ben Butler appeared before the Board and stated he represented Mr. Lewis H. Foltz and other owners
of property located on the South side of Route 50 East and requested the amendment to rezone 9.0 acres more or
less of this land from B -1 to M -2 be referred back to the Planning Commission for additional consideration of
information to be submitted to the Commission.
Mr. Buter stated the reason for this request was due to the fact it is a request for rezoning to allow
a recycling center and some points had been overlooked.
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 herein refer the re-
zoning application of Lewis H. Foltz and Francis P. Lages back to the Planning Commission for further consider-
ation as requested by Mr. Ben Butler, Attorney for the applicants.
The motion was passed unanimously.
OFFICERS R EPORTS - ACCEPTED
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 acdept the
of the following constitutional officers: Clerk of the Circuit Court; Commissioner of the Revenue and the Fred-
erick County Sheriff.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
DEPARTMENT HEADS REPORTS - ACCEPTED
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 accept the
of the following department heads: Data Processing; Department of Inspections; Engineering Department; Depart-
ment of Accounting and Department of Planning and Development.
DOG WARDEN REPORT
The Dog Warden reported the loss of a calf by Carl Bayliss in the Gainesboro District and 2 ewes were
lost by Dr. Sam Whitacre.
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. Carl Bayliss - Gainesboro District
1 calf - $40.00
2. Dr. Sam Whitacre - Stonewall District
2 ewes @ $20.00 each - $40.00
1
J
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
269
COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
J
1
Mr. Sandy announced that the Committee on Human Resources had nominated Richard F. Madigan to act as
Liaison officer between the Board of Supervisors and the Winchester Frederick County Health Department.
Upon motion by Donald R. Hodgson, seconded by Dennis T. Cole,
BE TT RESOLVED, That Richard F. Madigan is hereby named Liaison Representative between the Frederick
County Board of Supervisors, Frederick County, Virginia and the Winchester- Frederick County Health Department.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND PLANNING COMMISSION SET FOR FEBRUARY 13, 1974
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 set the date of
February 13, 1974 for a joint public hearing on the Division of Land Ordinance (Subdivision Ordinance).
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Mr. Sandy read a letter of regret from Mr. William Whitehead, Regional Coordinator, Region II Office
of Emergency Services, stating he would not be able to be present for the meeting tonight.
RESIGNATION OF DAVID HEADLEY
FROM PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Mr. Sandy read a letter dated January 1, 1974 directed to Mr. Renalds from Mr. David Headley stating
he was resigning from the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Mr. Sandy said he wished to submit the name of Mr. William McCormick to replace Mr. Headley in this
capacity.
Upon motion by J. Robert Russell, seconded by Dennis T. Cole,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, does herein appoint William
B. McCormick to serve on the Commission on Parks and Recreation to fill the vacancy created by the resignation
of David Headley.
This resolution was passed unanimously.
Mr. Sandy requested Mr. Renalds to write Mr. Headley a letter of appreciation for the services he had
rendered in the past.
THE SUMMIT - LAKE HOLIDAY ESTATES, INC.,- BOND DISCUSSED
Mr. Cole said that on July 24, 1973 the Board took a corporate bond for $900,000 to guarantee sewer
and water in Sections 6B and RA of the Summit and 90 days later the Board allowed an extension of 60 days which
would have made it due December 26th and as of this time they have not complied. Mr. Cole stated the attorneys
for Lake Holiday Estates were present and he felt the matter should be discussed.
Mr. Sandy stated in view of the fact it did involve discussion of personal finances he felt the
matter should be heard in executive session rather than before the public.
Mr. Cole asked Mr. Ambrogi how long it would take after the first and second reading of the ordinance
for the developer to come up with the surety bonds.
Mr. Ambrogi replied they would have until February 13th.
Mr. Cole stated this was necessary for the County to have and he felt personally they had been given
ample time to meet the requirements.
Mr. William A. Hohnston, Attorney for Lake Holiday Estates addressed the Board and stated at the time
Lake Holiday Estates expressed their willingness to the Board they did not realize that in cost and expense it
meant borrowing the same amount of money. He said if the developer was required to post a surety bond, for the
sewer he must construct, as a precondition to recording his plats, it would change the cost of development of
the subdivision by several million dollars.
Mr. Johnston gave as an example the fact that the developer has a development loan from a real estate
investment trust for $13,400,000. That togbther with the cash throw -off the developer anticipates to generate
and secondary financing arranged between banks and lending institutions provides a total of about $21,000,000 or
$22,000,000 which is programmed in a very careful schedule to develop out the project from the first engineering
n
270
right through the end.
in 1970 Sections 1 and 2 were approved and put to record.
In 1973 the sewer for Sections 1 and 2 was completed and had to be paid for in the sum of $1,060,000.
Beginning in 1973 that $1,060,000 is a draw against the development loan for which the developer pays in 159
interest rate. The developer had to put that money up in 1970. It would have paid 159 interest on that amount
for that 3 year period or something approaching one half million dollars.
The financing is available for the construction of the development in accordance with the anticipated
cost of development. This would be an unanticipated cost of development and would throw a serious wrinkle in
those plans. That is basically the problem the developer had when he attempted getting the surety bond.
Mr. Johnston said that they had determined a second legal point which had apparently been overlooked
by both parties in the original thinking on the bond requirement in that sewer for the entire Summit project is
regulated by the State Corporation Commission rules and the responsibility of the Lake Holiday Estates Utility
Company a private public utility which is chartered and franchised and is owned by the same stockholders that ow
the development. However, it is a separate company and has a separate type of existence because it is a company
which has gone before the State Corporation Commission and been granted a charter as a private public utility
and which under that body of law is charged with serving the people of that franchised area which is the Summit
land with sewer.
Mr. Johnston stated that it appeared to them that the County's thinking last summer was that the
County's role was more direct than it is and that the responsibility of the County for the failure of the
er was a more direct back -lash.
Mr. Johnston stated as they had presented to the staff meeting earlier in the week, the developer is --°I
sensitive to the County's interest in the matter and is willing to do whatever they can that does not seriously
jeopardize the planning that has gone in to the development at this point. A suggestion has been made and the
developer offers a performance bond be Civen by the company for all of the sewer that is now planned. The
status report shows that sections 1 and 2 have been completed and paid for and within a week or two the facilit-
ies will be actually transferred to the utilities company but sections 3, 4, 5 6A and 8 or BA have neither been
accompanied by bonds or plans for the sewer. They may have predated the plan for the ordinance that the County
had.
Mr. Johnston said the developer is willing to, if it is legally possible, have the Utilities Company
sign the performance bond as surety for doing this. He stated he was advised earlier this week by counsel in
Richmond that this might be possible and it would require approval of the State Corporation Commission under
what isfcalled the Public Utilities Associates Act, because a person or corporation having any contractural
interest in the public utility must meet the approval of the Commission. The reason for this being that rates
and charges are subject to regulation and they are not going to suffer this company to have the relationship
without prior approval.
The counsel in Richmond had advised Mr. Johnston that because the company had the duty to serve in the
area under the law the Commission might not see it as being an unreasonable extension of that duty.
Mr. Johnston stated this is the advice he had given Lake Holiday.
him.
Mr. Johnston stated they had worked with Mr. Ambrogi on the matter and are willing to work further
Mr. Johnston stated the developer is perfectly willing to meet with the Board and go into the matter
more fully if the Board feels that is the proper procedure.
Mr. Madigan asked if when an individual or corporation applies to the State Corporation Commission
the State Corporation Commission examine the application for feasibility and soundness of the application.
Mr. Johnston said at the time an application is filed rate charges, construction estimates and a plan
1
1
of how it is to be paid for must also be filed. He said an order was entered in November, 1973 granting a
franchise to the area. He said a certificate is not issued until a finding that a public issue is served.
271
Mr. Madigan asked if when the State Corporation Commission issues a certificate does it indicate it is
their belief the project will not fail.
Mr. Johnston stated the Commission makessa complete study and does not issue a certificate unless they
feel it is justified.
Mr. Madigan commented then, as he understood it, when the Commission issues a certificate so far as
' the Commission knows, the public interest is protected.
Mr. Johnston said the Commission is a public body and that would behhis thought and since the infor-
mation is on public file he believed the Board would be entitled to consult with the Commission to confirm if
their reliance is justified.
Mr. Johnston said it had been their advice to the developer that if the lot owners did not receive
the promised service at reasonable rates, they would have a legal redress to go against the developer on his
promises. They could go against the developer on his performance bond, to the Board or they could go against
the Utility Company as the monopoly holder in the area for the service. The express statutory jurisdiction of
the Commission is to require that company to furnish the service.
Mr. Madigan stated,, in other words, the State of Virginia forces that company to furnish the service.
Mr. Johnston stated that was true as far as feasibility is concerned.
Mr. Johnston stated in his opinion if a lot owner was to come against the Board of Supervisors in a
court action to compel the Board to do something, he would not have standing.
Mr. Johnston stated while the Board may have some political responsibility to the lot owner there is
no judicial responsibility.
Mr. Madigan asked if this was like the Lakeside project.
A discussion followed and Mr. Joseph Massie, who also represented Lake Holiday, stated it is a
' public service utility but has not been granted a certificate as a public utility necessity.
Mr. Massie stated the Charter or Articles of Incorporation for Lake Holiday Utilities Company were
filed a couple years ago. The Certificate of Incorporation for the Articles was granted a couple of years ago.
In February it filed for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity. At the same time, it filed a
Certificate for Affiliate Interest which is also required under another section of the State Corporation Act
because it was getting its financing from Lake Holiday Estates, Inc.
Mr. Massie stated that provision is that when a certificate to operate a public utility is granted by
the State it is the same as the permission or certificate given the telephone company, electric company or any
other public utility company and if the company goes broke another section of the statute states the State will
take over and operate the utility company until it gets back on its,feet. However, the State Corporation
Commission doesn't want to be in the position of ever having that happen.
Mr. Cole stated the Board had taken the Corporate Bond in good faith with the understanding it would
' be replaced in 90 days by a surety bond.
Mr. Johnston explained the State status concerning public rights -of -way that are dedicated and stated
this subdivision does not have public rights -of -way that are dedicated.
Mr. Cole siad the Board had still granted the Corporate Bond with the understanding the Surety Bond
would follow in 90 days.
' Mr. Johnston said in this respect the Board was asking the Summit for something nobody ever gave the
Board the power to ask.
Mr. Cole asked Mr. Ambrogi if this was true.
Mr. Ambrogi read the code relating to this.
A discussion followed.
Mr. Madigan stated the Board's attorney was present and the attorney for Lake Holiday was present and
he would like an explanation of the difference between Lakeside Estates and the situation there and Lake Holiday
and the situation there in the operation of sewerage facilities.
272
Mr. Massie explained that Lakeside is a private operation without any monopoly to any one particular
area.
Mr. Madigan asked if the Board could get in trouble on that one by not requiring a bond.
Mr. Massie said they could.
Mr. Johnston said if Lakeside was providing service for over 50 connections, they were subject to in-
junction by the Commission, either on its own motion or the motion of some interested party. '
Mr. Johnston said it would be his understanding that the responsibility of the Board in the Lakeside
situation would be the same as it is with Lake Holiday because of the shape the ordinance is in.
The Engineer study made by Clifford and Associates estimated the cost of project to be $5,000,000.
Lake Holiday Estates Inc., agreed to put up 408 of the total cost of water and sewer systems. This '
means that the utility company is only paying 608 for the utilities and they have therefore an equity of 408 in
this business. This was approved by the State Corporation Commission on that basis.
Mr. Massie stated in the Lakeside situation this was a corporation that had never gotten off the groun
as far as a public service corporation is concerned.
He further stated Lake Holiday had a series of accountants, economists and engineers work this out and
then go down to the State Corporation Commission and testify before the Commission as to the engineering,
financial aspects, and as to the rate structure to pay for this and how it will be paid for.
He said that there were several hearings in fact and that the Board had been notified of these meeting
.
Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Ambrogi if the Board would have any financial obligation to the County.
Mr. Ambrogi said in his opinion the Board would not have a financial obligation to the County and he
thought Mr. Madigan was thinking of the moral obligation the Board might have to the County rather than the
financial obligation.
Mr. Cole made a motion seconded by Mr. Madigan that the Board retire into Executive Session.
'
This motion carried and the Board went into Executive Session.
A motion was made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole that the Board withdraw from
Executive Session. The motion was carried and the Board withdrew from Executive Session.
A motion was made by Mr. Madigan seconded by Mr. Cole that the�iBeard return to regular session.
The motion carried and the Board returned to regular session.
Mr. Sandy announced that after considerable discussion in the Executive Session it was still the
opinion of the Board that they should get the opinion of the Clerk of the State Corporation Commission and have
him to explain some of these items in detail as much as possible. At the same time in order to facilitate
bringing the people in here in a more rapid fashion it was a decision of the Board to enact the ordinance on
first and second reading giving sufficient time to hear this at the meeting on March 27th.
Mr. Cole read the ordinance in full on first and second reading by title only.
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 hereby approve
on first and second reading the following ordinance,
AN ORDINANCE VACATING THE PLATS OF SECTIONS 6B AND 8A OR "THE SUMMIT ", A SUBDIVISION DEVELOPED BY
LAKE HOLIDAY ESTATES, INCORPORATED.
The resolution passed with Mr. Sandy, Mr. Cole and Mr. Hodgson voting "Aye ". Mr. Russell and Mr.
,
Madigan abstained.
Mr. Johnston commented he felt it was a serious mistake to take this action because of the innocent
third parties who have bought lots and would naturally be affected by this.
He also said it brought adverse action on the developer and was an unjustified way of dealing with the
matter.
A lengthy discussion followed concerning the corporate bond and the surety bond.
Mr. Moss addressed the Board and requested that the matter be reconsidered in order to provide time
273
to get information from the State Corporation Commission and to prevent publicity on the matter. He said he had
done his best to meet the promises made and gave explanation of why the bond had not been ready as promised and
stated he had been assured by the Trust Company that he could get the money within three or four days.
Mr. Massie stated he did not feel the Board was taking the proper action and that the Board was doing
a great injustice to the people who had projected money into the County, the people who had contracted to build
houses on the lots in this subdivision and to the corporation itself.
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, Virginia, does herein grant
a two week extension on the effective date of the Ordinance Vacating the plats of Sections 6B and 8A of the
Summit during which time Mr. Harold Moss shall furnish to this Board a set aside letter from Independence Mortt
gage Trust in the amount of $900,000, said amount to be a part of the total committed loan from said institution
to Lake Holiday Estatesp. Inc., and earmarked for construction of water and sewer service in Section 6B and 8A of
The Summit;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this Board does herein direct the County Administrator to contact
representatives of the State Corporation Commission in order to clarify the definition of the public utility
company as opposed to a private utility company.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandyy "Aye "; J. Robert
"Russell, "Aye "; Richard F. Madigan, "Aye "; Donald R. Hodgson, "Aye "; and Dennis T. Cole voting "Nay ".
MADE AND SECONDED, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD
, noara o
At the Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, held on the
23rd day of January, 1974, 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.
MINUTES APPROVED
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors oP' the .County of Fr6deiick;_Virginia does hefein .r
approve the minutes of the meetings of this Board held on December 10, 1973, December 12, 1973 and December 19,
1973, as submitted.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
BAD CHECK ORDINANCE - THIRD AND FINAL READING - APPROVED
Mr. Madigan read the ordinance in full.
J
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, on third and final reading, the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE A FEE FOR PASSIM BAD CHECKS TO THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, Section 15.1 -29,4 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, provides that the governing body
r
of Frederick County, Virginia, is authorized to adopt an ordinance which places a fee on those persons who pass
bad checks onto the County.
BE IT ORDAINED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, that there shall be
a Ten Dollar ($10.00) fee placed on any person, or business for uttering, publishing, or passing of any check or
draft for payment of taxes or any other sums due, which is subsequently returned for insufficient funds or
there is no account, or the account has been closed; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, That should any article, section, subsection, or provision of this ordinance
be deblared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not
affect the validity or constitutionality of this ordinance as a whole or any part thereof other than the part
274
so delcared to be invalid or unconstitutional; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, That this ordinance shall be in full force and effective upon passage.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, "Aye "; J. Robert
Russell, "Aye "; Dennis T. Cole, "Aye "; Donald R. Hodgson, "Aye "; and Richard F. Madigan, "Aye ";
HOUSE NUMBERING PLAN FOR FREDERICK COUNTY
THIRD AND FINAL READING - APPROVED
Mr. Madigan read the ordinance in full.
Mr. Berg explained how the numbers would be assigned according to the grid system and stated that at
this time numbers would be assigned only to those areas located close to the city limits of Winchester. Mr.
then presented a letter for the Winchester- Frederick County Chamber of Commerce endorsing this plan.
Mr. Madigan requested that two additional sections be added to the ordinance: Section 7 - Validity
Section 8 - Effective Date. The Board approved these additions.
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
on third and final reading, the following ordinance:
HOUSE NUMBERING PLAN FOR FREDERICK COUNTY
WHEREAS, Section 15.1 -427 of the Code of Virginia,(1950), as amended, encourages local governments to
improve public health, safety, convenience or welfare and to plan for the future development of communities to
the end that transportation systems be carefully planned; that new community centers be developed with adequate
highways, utility, health, educational, and recreational facilities; that the needs of agriculture, industry and
business be recognized in future growth; that residential areas be provided with healthy surroundings for family
life; and that the growth of the community be consonant with the effecient and economical use of public funds;
and
WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors recognizes the need for a uniform system of house numbering for the
County as a whole,
BE IT ORDAINED, By the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County
Section 1 - Numbering of Properties and Buildings - Uniform Numbering System Adopted.
A uniform system of numbering properties and principal buildings, as described in the document of
August 1973, identified by the Title "Proposed House Numbering Plan for Frederick County ", which is filed in the
office of the County Planning Director, or his agent, is hereby established. This document and the supplemental
map are hereby adopted and made a part of this article.
Section 2 - Same - Maintenance of Numbering System
The County Planning Director, or his agent, shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining the
numbering system, being guided by the provisions of section 3.
Section 3 - Same - Assignment of Numbers - Generally; Posting.
(a) All properties or parcels of land within the County to which a number is assigned by the County
Planning Director, or his agent, shall thereafter he identified by reference to the uniform numbering system
adopted by section 1. Properties and buildings shall be assigned numbers in accordance with a schedule deter-
mined by the County Planning Director, and thereafter shall conform to the system adopted herein within thirty
days from the date of notification by the office of the County Planning Director, or his agent.
(b) Numbers will be assigned at intervals determined by the County Planning Director, or his agent.
Direction of streets will also be determined by the County Planning Director.
(c) Numerals indicating the official numbers f5r each principal building or each front entrance to
such building shall be posted in a manner as to be visible and distinguishable from the street on which the
property is located.
Section 4. - Same - Records
The Office of the County Planning Director, or his agent, shall keep a record of all numbers assigned
i
under Section 3.
275
Section 5. - Street Names
An official atlas of all street names shall be compiled by the office of the County Planning Director.
Duplication of street names shall be eliminated, and new street names shall not duplicate or closely approximate
street names already assigned.
Section 6 - Penalty for Violation
' Any violation of this chapter shall be a misdeameanor and may be punished by a fine from twenty -five
to three hundred dollars.
Section 7,- Should any article, section, subsection, or provision of this ordinance be declared by a
court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity
' or constitutionality of this ordinance as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so declared to be in-
valid or unconstitutional.
Section 8 - This ordinance shall be in full force and effective upon passage.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, "Aye "; J. Robert
Russ &ll, "Aye "; Dennis T. Cole, "Aye "; Donald R. Hodgson, "Aye "; and Richard F. Madigan, "Aye ".
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A SECTION FOR REFUSE RECYCLING OPERATIONS
THIRD AND FINAL READING - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy read the amendment to the zoning ordinance in full.
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 AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973, TO ESTABLISH SECTION:
13 -1 -23, REFUSE RECYCLING OPERATIONS
' The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, "Aye "; J. Robert
Russell, "Aye "j. Dennis T. Cole, "Aye "; Donald R. Hodgson, "Aye "; and Richard F. Madigan, "Aye ".
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973, TO REALIGN THE BOUNDARY
OF PREY QUARRY ON MAPS #6 AND #10
Mr. Sandy read the amendment to the zoning ordinance to realign the boundary of Frey Quarry on Maps
#6 and #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
on third and final reading, the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973, TO REALIGN THE BOUNDARY OF
FREY QUARRY ON MAPS #6 and #10.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, "Aye") J. Robert
Russell, "Aye "; Dennis T. Cole, "Aye "; Donald R. Hodgson, "Aye "; and Richard F. Madigan, "Aye ".
' REQUEST FOR FUNDS TRANSFER - APPROVED
Mr. Boyd presented a request for funds transfer stating that the transfer was requested to include
$10,000, funds received from the P.E.P. grogram and $32,720, funds received from an Action Grant for improvement
of police communications to the 1973 -74 Budget in order to balance the landfill container account.
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 budget changes:
Revenue Increase
05 -6700
05 -6710
$10,000.00
32,720.00
$42,720.00
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Expenditure Increase (General Operating Fund)
18 -01SH -123 $10,000.00
19- 006A -499B 18,000.00
19 -01OG -499 14,720.00
$42,720.00
RESOLUTION - REGARDING PUBLIC HEARINGS - APPROVED
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
276
BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, . that the following
policy be hereby established for public hearings:
Representatives of both sides of an issue considered at public hearing will be allowed a maximum of
twenty minutes each for their presentations and each side will be allowed a maximum time of ten minutes each for
rebutting the ppposing side. Discussion in excess of this time will be allowed only upon motion duly made and
passed by the Board of Supervisors. The Board will receive evidence, exhibits, etc., in advance of the public
hearing should individuals desire to present same in order to expedite the public hearing.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
REZONING APPLICATION - ROBERT K. STICKLEY - APPROVED
Mr. Joseph White appeared before the Board representing Mr. Robert K. Stickley. Mr. White stated
several meetings had been held with the residents in the area and many of the problems had been resolved. Mr.
White stated that Mr. Stickley's application had been filed under the old Zoning Ordinance and the Planning
Commission had recommended approval of his application. He further stated that Mr. Stickley was now requesting
only 5 - acres be rezoned to B -1. He stated that there was a need in this area for this type of development
that the area was going in the direction of commercial development.
Mr. Madigan asked what type of development Mr. Stickley was proposing for the area and Mr. White
that Mr. Stickley's plans were not as yet firm but whatever development is put there, it would have to conform
to the B -1 category with no nuisance factor.
Mr. Cole asked what the property is presently zoned and Mr. White stated that it had been zoned A -1
and after the passage of the new zoning ordinance, it bacame R -2.
Mr. Lou Costello appeared before the Board representing the opposition to this rezoning application
stating that they were opposed.to this rezoning °request inasmuch as they'felt'it would develop a commercial
entrance into Stephens City much like the one into the City of Winchester. He stated that the residents con-
sidered this to be a residential area and would like to see it kept residential. He stated that they did not
want a commercial development in this residential area.
Mr. Costello stated that most of the homes in this area are very old and have historic value and it
was the contention of the residents that a commercial development in the area would destroy the historic value
of these homes.
Mrs. Donald Zea, another resident in the area, stated that Mr. Costello had presented the views of the
residents in opposition quite thoroughly.
Mr. White stated that it was not Mr. Stickley's intention to destroy the historic value of the area.
He further stated that the type of business located in the B -1 district would not destroy the value of the area
but would provide a service in the area.
There was discussion as to the topography of the land and the uses set forth in the B -1 Section of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Cole asked Mr. Berg what the permitted uses were in the B -1 district and Mr. Berg answered that
permitted-.uses were doctor's offices, professional offices, professional services, and general retail uses.
Mr. Sandy stated that he felt the area could be put to some commercial use but he would like to see
specific plans as to what type of development would be established there.
Mr. white stated that Mr. Stickley's plans were not yet firmly established but any development he
would put there would have to conform to the B -1 district.
Mr. White stated that he felt several factors should be brought to the attention of the Board. He
stated that the Planning Commission approved this rezoning application in its entirely at their meeting on June
7, 1973, and that the property was not suitable for residential development but would be economically feasible
for commercial use. He further stated that the ordinance prescribes the permissible uses to which the land can
be put.
Mr. Cole moved that the application for rezoning of Robert K. Stickley be approved and the motion was
seconded by Donald R. Hodgson.
277
Mr. Madigan stated that heowas concerned about the possibility of this rezoning changing the character
of the area.
Mr. Sandy stated that he could remember a similar rezoning several years ago wherein the proposed
restaurant turned out to be a quonset but type structure. He stated that he would like to see definite plans for
the type of structure to be put on the property so that it would blend in with the character of the surrounding
area.
Mr. Madigan moved to amend the motion to state that the application be approved upon the submission of
a site plan approved by the Board together with architectural renderings of the type of structure to be erected
on the property. There followed discussion as to the type of business which could be located on the property.
�Mr. Madigan subsequently withdrew his motion to amend.
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
application of Robert K. Stickley to rezone 5 - acres of land, located south of the Stephens City Corporate
(Limits bounded on the east by Interstate 81, on the west by Route 11 and on the north by Stephens City Corporate
limits in Opequon Magisterial District from R -2 to B -1.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Dennis T. Cole, Donald R. Hodgson, and
J. Robert Russell voting "Aye ", and Raymond C. Sandy and Richard F. Madigan voting "Nay ".
DIVISION OF LAND ORDINANCE - APPROVED
FIRST AND SECOND READING
Mr. Sandy presented the Division of Land Ordinance 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
land second reading the following ordinance:
DIVISION OF LAND ORDINANCE FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
SOIL SURVEY - RESOLUTION - APPROVED
J
Mr. Madigan read the resolution in full.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
WHEREAS, THE BUDGET BILL, House Document No. 1 of the 1974 Session of the Virginia General Assembly
]includes funds to continue the current program of soil surveys and mapping of Virginia localities, but does not
include funds for beginning additional soil surveys for the 1974 -76 biennium; and,
WHEREAS, There are now 9 counties, including Frederick County, waiting for funds and manpower to begin
comprehensive soil surveys; and,
WHEREAS, This Board believes such comprehensive soil surveys will prove to be highly valuable for
Ilocalities not presently covered by a soil survey; and further that any delay in accomplishing said soil surveys
(will prove detrimental to the overall health, safety and welfare of Virginia's localities;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that the Virginia General
Assembly be hereby urged to amend THE BUDGET BILL, House Document No. 1 to include additional funds in the
Ifor soil surveys and mapping in order that funding will be available to initiate additional soil surveys in the
Commonwealth; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That attested copies of this resolution be immediately filed with the appropri-
ate individuals or offices to be presented to the Virginia General Assembly.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
TAX REFUND REQUEST - APPROVED
Mr. Madigan presented a request from Dorothy Keckley, Treasurer, for a refund to Mr. Frederick Donica,
Sr. in the amount of $133.69, said amount representing a partial payment for real estate taxes. Mr. Keckley
stated that the new owner of the property had paid the entire amount of the taxes.
278
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 a tax
refund in the amount of $133.69 to Frederick Donica, Sr. for taxes erroneously paid.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
RALPH W. POE - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - DENIED
Mr. Henry Whiting appeared before the Board representing Mr. Ralph W. Poe and stated that a letter had
been received from the Highway Department wherein they advise that Rt. 1317 would be sufficient to serve Mr. Poe'
proposed campground. He then presented a document showing approval of the Health Department of the sewage dis-
posal system at the proposed campground. Mr. Whiting stated that at the last Board Meeting the Supervisors had
asked for a memorandum of law as to whether or not a letter from an administrative officer, such as the one sent
to Mr. Poe from Mr. Bill Riley, Zoning Administrator, would be binding upon the County. He stated that he could
not find a particular case one way or the other and that in some instances it seems the County would be bound
and in others it did not. Mr. Whiting stated that the question was whether or not the area was suitable for such
a development and pointed out the location was ideal for a campground and there were natural boundaries in that
interstate highways are natural boundaries for land use. He stated that the area was not surrounded by single
family dwellings as Mr. Rosser Payne had set forth in the previous meeting. Mr. Whiting presented several letter
from camping associations stated that this was an ideal location for such a development. He stated that there
were people in the area who are in favor of the proposed campground facility. Mr. Whiting asked the Board to
consider all the facts when making a decision on this request for conditional use permit.
Mr. Thomas Monahan appeared before the Board representing the opposition to the application for a
conditional use permit and stated that the delegation opposed this conditional use permit inasmuch as this was
a residential area and they did not feel that it would be to the best interest to either the residents or the
community to locate a facility of this type in this particular area. He stated that Mr. Poe had not submitted a
site plan nor any other plans wherein the Board could draw a conclusion as to what this campground facility would
be like. He stated that Mr. Poe had also not complied with the regulations of the Board of Sanitation in Richmon!
Mr. Monahan stated that it was the contention of the opposition that if this conditional use permit is granted it
would be a blank check to Mr. Poe for his campground development. He stated that there would be a safety hazard
created by the amount of traffic generated by the campground on Rt. 1317 and also on Rt. 50 where the vehicles
would have to turn onto Rt. 1317. Mr. Monahan stated that a facility such as this would be detrimental to the
community in this particular area.
Mr. Cole stated that he was concerned about the liability of the County with reference to the letter
written to Mr. Poe by Mr. Riley.
Mr. Ambrogi stated that he did not feel the County would be liable inasmuch as Mr. Riley was acting
according to what the Board had done in the past.
Mr. Madigan asked if the Board should consider any prior work done at this location or expenses incur-
red by Mr. Poe in proceeding with this work, and Mr. Ambrogi stated that he felt the Board must make their decis-
ion based upon the new Zoning Ordinance and nothing else.
Mr. Whiting appeared before the Board in rebuttal and stated that Mr. Poe was not asking for a blank
check but was asking for a conditional use permit and the Board could put whatever restrictitonsT on the permit
they desire.
Mr. Stivers, a resident of Merriman's Estates, then presented a slide presentation showing the location
of the proposed campground with respect to the Merriman's Estates Subdivision.
Mr. Russell asked what the permitted uses are in the A -2 District and Mr. Berg cited the permitted uses
and the uses permitted under this district with a conditional use permit.
Mr. Russell asked who would put the restrictions:on a conditional use permit should one be granted and
Mr. Berg stated that the Board could set forth these restrictions or they could refer it back to the Planning
1
Commission for their recommendations.
279
Mr. Madiganvstated that he felt the Planning Commission had done a very thorough job in examining and
deliberating upon this application and had recommended denial because they felt it would be poor planning and
the property does lie in a bowl as Mr. Rosser Payne had stated previously. He stated that he hoped the Board
would respect the decision of the Planning Commission and the feelings of the residents in the area. He further
stated that he could foresee traffic problems on Route 50 and could see no real service to be provided to the
community by theoproposed campground.
Mr. Sandy stated that we do have a Planning Commission in the County which is appointed and he felt
that they had a distinct advantage in that they could look at a situation on its merit rather than on a politica
standpoint. He stated that he felt the issue before the Board tonight was the application for a conditional use
permit under the new zoning ordinance and not what had been done prior. He further stated that it was the con-
sensus of opinion that if this permit was granted it would constitute a character to be retained hereafter. He
stated that the Board would like to keep the ordinance as it is written.
Mr. Cole moved to go into executive session to discuss the legal aspects of the application for
conditional use permit with Mr. Ambrogi, Commonwealth Attorney. The motion was seconded by J. Robert Russell
and passes unanimously. The Board therefore adjourned into executive session.
Richard F. Madigan moved that the Board adjourn out of executive session. This motion was seconded by
Dennis T. Cole and passed unanimously.
Richard F. Madigan moved that the Board reconvene back into regular session. This motion was seconded
by Dennis T. Cole and passed unanimously.
Mr. Sandy stated that the Board had considered in executive session the application for conditional use
permit of Ralph W. Poe.
Mr. Russell stated that he was still very concerned about the situation and that there were a lot of
things to consider. He stated that he was concerned about the community; he was concerned about the Planning
Commission vote on this particular application; he was concerned about the supervisor from this district support-
ing this decision so strongly; and he was concerned about the feelings of the constituents in the area. Mr.
Russell stated that he had thought a lot about Mr. Poe going ahead with the construction of his campground before
obtaining the conditional use permit.
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 deny the applicat-
ion for conditional use permit of Ralph W. Poe to construct a campground facility on his property located off
Route 1317 in Back Creek Magisterial District.
The above resolution was passed by the Following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, J. Robert Russell,
and Richard F. Madigan voting "Aye" and Dennis T. Cole and Donald R. Hodgson voting "Nay ".
REZONING REQUEST - ROBERT MARTIN
EMERGENCY LEGISLATION ENACTED
Mr. Cole requested that the Board hear Mr. and Mrs. Robert Martin concerning a zoning problem with
reference to a building permit. Mr. and Mrs. Martin appeared before the Board and Mr. Martin stated that their
home was located in Sunnyside and he wanted to make an addition to his home to accomodate his elderly mother and
his wife's elderly father, both of whom are incapable of taking care of themselves. He stated that he had been
refused a building permit inasmuch as the property is zoned B -1. He stated that he had previously been advised
by the Department of Planning and Development that he could obtain a building permit. He stated that the process
of having the property rezoned is very lengthy and his need is immediate. Mr. Martin stated that he had seven
children and needed more room to accomodate their parents.
Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Berg what had transpired between Mr. Martin and the Department of Planning and
Development.
Mr. Berg stated that he had advised Mr, and Mrs. Martin to send him a letter requesting the Planning
Commission to reconsider the zoning of their property and that the letter had not been received until a few days
ago. He stated that he had advised Mr. Martin to submit this letter more than six weeks ago.
There was discussion as to whether the addition to the property would constitute a motel which is a
permitted use in the B -1 district.
Mr. Cole asked if a building permit could he issued by reason of hardship and Mr. Ambrogi suggested
that emergency legislation be enacted to acoomodate the Martins due to their hardship.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan,
BE IT ORDAINED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does herein enact emergency
legislation for a period of sixty (60) days to rezone the property of Robert Martin located in Sunnyside, Stone-
wall Magisterial District from B -1 to R -3.
The above ordinance was passed unanimously.
FREDERICK COUNTY "ON SITE ASSISTANCE REPORT"
ACCEPTED AND REFERRED TO PLANNING, & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Mr. William Whitehead of the Office of Emergency Services appeared before the Board and presented a re-
port on the Frederick County on Site Assistance Plan. He requested a resolution from the Board approving the
action plan.
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 accept the Freder-
ick County On Site Assistance Plan and does herein refer the same to the Planning and Development Committee for
review and recommendation.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
EXPIRATION OF BUILDING PERMITS - DISCUSSED
Mr. Sandy stated that some building permits had been issued in the County, which are valid for six
months, and the builders have been delayed inasmuch as they have not been able to get materials, etc. He asked
if they would have to reapply and pay another fee when the present building permit expires.
Mr. Renalds stated that he felt they could be renewed without additional fees.
Mr. Sandy requested Mr. Renalds`to advise Mr. Blair Webber, Building Inspector, that these permits
would be issued without additional fees according to the wishes of the Board.
USE OF PLASTIC PIPE IN CONSTRUCTION
REFERRED TO ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FOR REPORT
Mr. Sandy stated that he would like a clarification of the county's policy on the use of plastic pipe
in the construction of subdivisions.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors does herein refer the use of plastic pipe in construction
in Frederick County to the Engineering Department for a full and comprehensive report on the use of this pipe
versus conventional pipe.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
UPON �MOTIO�N DULY �MADE AND SECONDED, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPER ORS DO NOW ADJOURN.
ry,Board of Supervisors Chai1 , Board of
At a Special Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, held on the 24th
day of January, 1974, 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. Hodg-
son; and Richard F. Madigan.
The Chairman called the meeting to order and stated that the purpose of the meeting was to consider a
joint resolution between the City of Winchester and the County of Frederick for the creation of the "Frederick-
Winchester Service Authority ".
Mr. J.O. Renalds, III, Frederick County Administrator, presented the executed Certificate of Notice of
Special Meeting which was unanimously accepted by the Board of Supervisors and duly made a part of these minutes
L
as attached hereto.
281
Mr. Renalds then presented the following Memorandum from the Joint City of Winchester - Frederick County
Ad -Hoc Committee which was unanimously accepted by the Board of Supervisors:
JOINT CITY OF WINCHESTER - COUNTY OF FREDERICK AD-HOC COMMITTEE
r
MEMORANDUM TO;, Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Winchester City Council
SUBJECT: Report on Regional Sewage Facilities
On August 30, 1971, the State water Control Board called a meeting of representatives of the City,
County and engineers regarding a preliminary discussion on the:need for and the feasibility of a regional treat-
ment plant.
As requested by the Water Control Board, a joint City - County Ad -Hoc Committee was appointed. The City
i
representatives, appointed by the President of Council September 9, 1971, were Councilman Roy W. Bayliss, Jr.,
Chairman of the Utilities Committee; Councilman H.W. Butler, Jr., member of the Utilities Committee; Councilman
S.H. Reaves, Utilities Superintendent. (Councilman H.W. Butler, Jr., was replaced by the City Manager upon
termination of his term as Councilman September 1, 1972 and S.H. Reaves continued to serve after his retirement
as Utilities Superintendent January 1, 1973.) The Chairman of the FCSA advised October 21, 1971, that Mr. S.
Roger Koontz, member of the FCSA; Mr. Don E. Krueger, Engineer- Director of the FCSA; and Roger H. Alderman,
Executive Secretary of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, were Frederick County's representatives on the
Ad -Hoc Committee. (Mr. J.O. Renalds, III, replaced Mr. Alderman upon appointment as County Administrator
April 16, 1973.)
Also, as a result of this meeting, Alexander Potter Associates were authorized to prepare a Study and
Report on a Regional Plan for Sewage Treatment within the Opequon Drainage Basin, by the City and FCSA on Dec-
ember 17, 1971.
This report was held up pending receipt of effluent quality standards of Abrams Creek, Opequon Creek,
and the Shenandoah River.
The Committee met intermittently and organized, with Mr. Bayliss being elected Chairman and Mr. Reaves
Secretary, while awaiting the effluent quality standards.
The Water Control Board was advised of the organization of the Ad -Hoc Committee and the necessity of
effluent quality standards February 4, 1972, June 20, 1972, and July 17, 1972. The Water Control Board Report
on Water Quality for the Opequon Creek Drainage Area was received March 5, 1973, and the Study and Report on
Feasibility of a Regional Plan for Sewage - Treatment was presented at a joint City - County meeting November 15, 19
by representatives of Alexander Potter Associates.
Upon receipt of this Report and the draft of the Metropolitan /Regional Water Quality Management Plan
of the LFPDC, the Ad -Hoc Committee held ten sessions, including meetings with legal counsel, and have unanimously
agreed on the attached draft resolution for both governing bodies.
As the Committee set about its work we considered both reports that had been made which concerned the
area under study (1) "Regional Water Quality Management Plan" prepared by Wiley and Wilson for the Lord Fairfax
Planning District and (2) "Feasibility of a Regional Plan for Sewage Treatment" prepared by Alexander Potter
ociates for Frederick County Sanitation Authority and the City of Winchester. We also had legal advice from
liam A. Johnston of Winchester and Harry Frazier, III, of Richmond. Mr. Johnston has been serving as legal
advisor for the Frederick County Sanitation Authority and Mr. Frazier was the author of the agreement between the
City of Charlottesbille and Albemarle County.
Members of the committee also visited the "Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority" created by the City of
lle and Albemarle County and the "Sewer Authority" created by the City of Harrisonburg and Rockingham
In our search for an "institutional arrangement" that would serve the community well, we covered a lot
ground and a number of different plans. It would not serve any purpose here to list the hours spent in this
rch, but it should be stated that during all of our negotiations the attendance has been excellent and the
282
spirit one of community concern. To say that we have had some differences would be an understatement, but at all
times our primary concern has been to come up with an "institutional arrangement" that would serve the entire
community of Winchester and Frederick County not only for today and tomorrow but for the distant future as well.
The following items are submitted by the Ad-Hoc Committee which is charged with recommending an
ional arrangement for the operation of proposed regional sewage treatment facilities in the Opequon Creek Drain-
age Area. The purpose is to define intent of the concurrent resolution presented to the governing bodies of the
County of Frederick and the City of Winchester.
1. It is the mutual feeling and agreement of the Committee that though the Committee was originally
formed to consider regional sewage service only, that sewage treatment facilities and interceptors, water treat-
ment facilities and transmission mains, and solid waste disposal facilities, all should be the responsibility of
one agency. This agency's intended function is to wholesale the above services to the City, the County, and
other parties as are addressed in the concurrent resolution.
2. It is the intent of the proposed concurrent resolution that a regional service authority be
established as the agency to provide the services as stipulated in Paragraph one (1) above. It is acknowledged
that these services shall be incorporated at different periods of time in the life of the Regional Authority.
3. With regard to Section 4 of the concurrent resolution which deals with the guiding principles of
the Regional Authority, the Committee deems it necessary to outline the intent of each of the subsequent sub-
sections under that Section.
Section 4. (1) The Regional Authority has as its first and foremost project the planning and con-
struction of a regional sewage treatment plant and interceptors in the Opequon Creek Drainage area to serve both
County and City.
Section 4. (2) The City's water supply facilities and transmission mains are to be purchased by the
Regional Authority if such purchase is economically feasible. The County may make appropriate donations, loans
or advances to the Regional Authority to effect the economic feasibility should it so desire.
Section 4. (3) It is the intent in creating the Regional Authority that this Authority shall become
the technical and administrative agency for sewage treatment, water treatment and refuse disposal and'that all of
the above mentioned facilities located within the County and/or City may be acquired by this Authority should it
desire.
Section 4. (4) It is the intent of Section 4 (4) that the Regional Authority shall have first right
to construct and operate any subsequent proposed sewage treatment facilities and interceptors, water treatment
facilities and transmission mains, or refuse disposal facilities within the County and /or City. However, nothing
shall prevent the County or City, within their respective corporate areas, from construction or acquiring these
facilities in areas where the:.Re'ional Authority elects not to exercise its right.
4. With regard to the purchase of facilities now owned by the County or City, the intent of the
Committee is that the purchase price of the facilities will be determined jointly by engineers for the parties
negotiating the pruchase. Should the engineers be unable to agree upon the purchase price, they shall retain an
additional engineer to settle any. and all differences and establish a final purchase price.
mittee.
After the Committee began meeting regularly, further information has come to the attention of the Com-
The State Water Control Board called a meeting September 12, 1973, attended by the City and County and
their engineer, Alexander Potter Associates, to review the information being required with the submittal of a
grant application by January 1, 1974. A staff progress report was presented to the Water Control Board at their
regular meeting December 11, 1973, regarding City - County activities toward developing the necessary institutional
arrangements.
The Water Control Board letter of November 2, 1973, states that "if the Board feels sufficient progress
[
has not been made, they may elect to advise the City and County that the necessary arrangement would have to be
283.
completed or the grant would be lost. The Board could then direct the City and County to make the necessary
changes so that stream standards are met on the Opequon ".
In view of the aforementioned information contained in this memorandum, the Committee recommends that
both governing bodies take affirmative action at their earliest convenience to implement the recommendations.
The Ad -Hoc Committee wishes to express it3 appreciation to the governing bodies of both the City and
County for their confidence and patience and assures both that the attached resolution and articles of incorpor-
ation has their complete support and acceptance.
Respectfully submitted,
CITY OF WINCHESTER
/s/ Roy W. Bayliss, Jr.
Councilman Roy W. Bayliss, Jr. Chairman
Utilities Committee
/s/ Samuel H. Reaves
S.H. Reaves, Secretary
Utilities Superintendent (Retired)
/s/ Wendell L. Seldon
Wendell L. Seldon
City Manager
FREDERICK COUNTY
/s/ S. ROGER KOONTZ
S. Roger Koontz, Member
Frederick County Sanitation Authority
/s/ Don E. Krueger
Don E. Krueger
Engineer- Director
Frederick County Sanitation Authority
/s/ J.O. Renalds, III
J.O. Renalds, III
County Administrator
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION - APPROVED BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Mr. Renalds read the Concurrent Resolution signifying the intention of the Winchester City Council and
Frederick County Board of Supervisors to create the "Frederick- Winchester Service Authority" in its entirety.
Mr. Sandy called for comments from Board members.
Mr. Cole stated that he was very pleased with the resolution and felt the Ad-Hoc Committee had done
a wonderful job in the preparation of the resolution.
Mr. Madigan stated that he felt everyone was very pleased that the people of Winchester and Frederick
County are trying to solve their problems in a mutual way and that he felt this was a very good sign.
Mr. Sandy stated that he felt this was a very healthy situation, and he too was pleased with the
resolution. He further stated that he and Mayor Bell had discussed recently how far the City and County had come
in the area of cooperation. Mr. Sandy stated that although the City and County had decided a number of years ago
to keep their identity, it would be foolish to go separate ways when problems could be solved more economically
together. He stated that the biggest expenditure facing the City and the County is the expenditure for solid
waste disposal, water systems, and sewer systems and if the City and:.Connty could organize to solve these problem
more efficiently, he felt this was a step in the right direction.
Mr. S. Roger Koontz, a member of the Ad -Hoc Committee, appeared before the Board and stated that he
felt this was a real move in the right direction for the people in the area. He stated that he had been extremel
pleased with the positive response of the people.
Mr. James Wilkins, Jr. appeared before the Board, representing the Winchester - Frederick County Chamber
of Commerce, and presented a letter of endorsement of the resolution to the Board from the Chamber of Commerce,
said letter being attached hereto and made a part of these minutes.
There being no opposition to the proposed resolution creating the Frederick - Winchester Service Authorit
the Board elected not to call for a referendum on the question of the resolution creating the Frederick - Wincheste:
Service Authority.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan,
284
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approvel
on third and final reading, the following resolution:
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION SIGNIFYING THE INTENTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINCHESTER AND
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FREDERICK COUNTY TO CREATE THE "FREDERICK WINCHESTER SERVICE AUTHORITY"
UNDER THE VIRGINIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITIES ACT AND SETTING FORTH ITS ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
WHEREAS, The City of Wincheter owns and operates facilities for furnishing water and sewer service for
the City and certain outlying areas, and Frederick County, acting through Frederick County Sanitation Authority,
owns and operates certain facilities and is planning additional facilities for furnishing water and sewer service)
for certain areas in the County; and
WHEREAS, The State Water Control Board has tentatively approved Federal and State grants to the City
of Winchester and Frederick County aggregating approximately $19,000,000 for sewage treatment facilities but has
advised the City and the County that as a condition to receipt of a major portion of subh grant funds, the City
and the County shall designate or establish a single political entity to represent both the City and the County
and it has been determined that this can best be accomplished by an authority to be created by the City and the
County pursuant to the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act (Chapter 28, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia of 1950,
as amended) (the Act); and
WHEREAS, The City of Winchester and Frederick County recognize that problems and concerns common to
of them render it desirable to place the responsibility for water supply and sewage disposal for the City and the
County under the supervision of the same political entity;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINCHESTER AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
(,COUNTY, IN SEPARATE MEETINGS ASSEMBLED:
Section 1. The Common Council of the City of Winchester and the Board of Supervisors of Frederick
County hereby signify their intention to create a service authority under the Act, to be known as Frederick-
)Winchester Service Authority.
Section 2. The purposes for which the Authority is to be formed are stated in its Articles of
lation hereinafter set forth.
Section 3. The Articles of Incorporation of the Authority shall be as follows:
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
OF
FREDERICK- WINCHESTER SERVICE AUTHORITY
The Common Council of the City of Winchester and the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County having
(signified their intention to create an Authority pursuant to the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act
128, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended), which shall be a public body politic and corporate, hereby
Icertify:
(a) The name of the Authority shall be "Frederick- Winchester Service Authority" and the address of its
principal office shall be Winchester, Virginia.
(b) The names of the incorporating political subdivisions are the City of Winchester, Virginia, and
JFrederick County, Virginia.
(c) The purposes for which the Authority is created are:
(1) To acquire, finance, construct, operate and maintain facilities for providing a supply of
potable water for the City of Winchester and Frederick County, including sources of water
supply, water intakes, filtration and purification plants, pumping stations, transmission
lines and storage facilities, together with all appurtenant equipment and appliances and
properties, rights, easements and franchises related thereto or deemed necessary or con-
venient by the Authority for their operation, but not including water distribution facilities
(2) To acquire, finance, construct, operate and maintain facilities for the abatement of pol-
lution by the treatment of sewage collection from the City of Winchester and Frederick County
7
L
1
including treatment plants, trunks or interceptors and pumping stations, together with all
285 on
appurtenant equipment and appliances and properties, right, easements and franchises related
thereto or deemed necessary or convenient by the Authority for their operation, but not in-
cluding sewage collection facilities.
(3) To acquire, finance, construct, operate and maintain garbage and refuse disposal facilities
L�
for the City of Winchester, and Frederick County, including landfills, incineration and othe
disposal facilities, together with all appurtenant equipment and appliances and properties,
rights, easements and franchises related thereto or deemed necessary or convenient by the
Authority for their operation, but not including garbage and refuse collection facilities.
(d) The Authority may undertake any project in furtherance of the foregoing purposes.
(e) The Authority may contract with the City, the County or any authority therein created pursuant to
the Act to furnish water and to treat sewage and dispose of garbage and refuse delivered to the Authority's
facilities upon such terms as the Authority shall determine; provided, however, that any such contract shall in-
clude as parties thereto the Authority, the City and the County (or any agency of the County designated for that
purpose by its Board of Supervisors). The Authority is expressly prohibited from contracting with any other part:
desiring service, except upon the written consent of the City and the County (or any agency of the County design-
ated for that purpose by its Board of Supervisors).
(f) The powers of the Authority shall be exercised by a Board of five (5) members consisting of the
four (4) persons holding the offices, from time to time, of City Manager of the City of Winchester, Utilities
Superintendent of the City of Winchester, County Administrator of Frederick County and Director of Frederick
County Sanitation Authority and a fifth person appointed by the concurrent action of the Common Council of the
City of Winchester and the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County
are:
The names and addresses of the first
Wendell L. Seldon
631 Pennsylvania Avenue
Winchester, Virginia 22601
James W. Givens
121 Linden Drive
Winchester, Virginia 22601
J.O. Renalds, III
Fredericktowne Subdivision, Route 1
Stephens City, Virginia 22655
Don E. Krueger
530 N. Barddock Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
C. Robert Solenberger
1656 Margaret Drive
Winchester, Virginia 22601
The terms of the members of the Board serving as such by virtue of their offices with the City and County shall
expire upon their ceasing to hold such offices. Any person hereafter holding any such office shall automatically
succeed to the membership of his predecessor in such office on the Board of Authority. The initial term of the
appointed member shall expire on the 31st day of December, 1975, and his successor shall be appointed for a term
of two (2) years, except that a vacancy shall be filled only for the unexpired term. The appointed member shall
hold office until his successor has been appointed and qualifies and he shall be eligible for reappointment to
succeed himself. The appointed member shall receive such compensation not to exceed $1,800 per year as the Board
of the Authority may determine, but bhose members of the Board who are employees of the City, the County or the
Sanitation Authority shall serve without compensation., Each member shall be reimbursed the amount of his actual
expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of his duties.
(g) The Authority shall cause an annual audit of its books and records to be made by the State Auditor
of Public Accounts or an independent certified public accountant at the end of each fiscal year and a certified
copy thereof to be filed promptly with the Common Council of the City of Winchester and the Board of Supervisors
of Frederick County.
286
(h) Pending completion of necessary engineering studies and estimates, it is not practical to set
herein preliminary estimates of capital costs and initial rates for services of proposed projects.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The Common Council of the City of Winchester, Virginia, and the Board of Supervisor
of Frederick County, Virginia, have caused these Articles of Incorporation to be executed in the names of the
City of Winchester and Frederick County, respectively, by their presiding officers and their seals to be affixed
and attested by their Clerks, this day of
197
CITY OF WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
By
(SEAL)
Attest:
Clerk of Council
(SEAL)
Attest:
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
FREDERI F- TY, VIRGINIA
By -
Chairman, Board of upe sors
Section 4. The powers of the Authority shall be exercised by the Board in such manner as it shall
to be in the best interests of the citizens of the City of Winchester and Frederick County, subject to the follow-
ing guiding principles which, by the adoption of this resolution by the Common Council of the City of Winchester
and the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, are deemed essential to securing their joint agreement to the
formation of the Authority, namely:
(1) The Authority shall forthwith proceed with the planning and construction of a Regional
Treatment Facility in the Opequon Creek drainage area.
(2) Commencing two (2) years after the said Regional Sewage Treatment Facility has been
and put into operation, and at any time thereafter, the Authority shall acquire from the City of Winch-
ester and'.the City of Winchester shall sell to the Authority its water supply system, including source
of supply, intakes, filtration and purification plants, pumping stations, transmission lines and storag
facilities and all appurtenant equipment and appliances, upon payment to the City of the fair market
value thereof at the time of acquisition.
(3) The Authority may acquire from the City of Winchester, Frederick County or Frederick County
Sanitation Authority such other water supply facilities, sewage treatment facilities or garbage and
refuse disposal facilities as the Authority may beem appropriate to the carrying out of its purpose.
(4) Nothing herein shall prevent or prohibit the City of Winchester, Frederick County or
County Sanitation Authority from acquiring, financing, constructing, operating and maintaining water
distribution systems, sewage collection systems and garbage and refuse collection systems and facilit
nor shall anything herein prevent or prohibit the City, the County or the Frederick County Sanitation
Authority from acquiring, financing, constructing, operating and maintaining such facilities for the
supply of water, treatment of sewage, and disposal of garbage and refuse as shall not be in competition)
with systems or facilities owned or operated by the Authority.
Section 5. The first members of the Board of the Authority shall be those persons specified in the
Articles of Incorporation. Their terms of office shall begin on the date of issuance to the Authority of a
certificate of incorporation by the State Corporation Commission and shall expire as specified in the Articles of
Incorporation. The appointed member shall receive such compensation not to exceed $1,800 per year as the Board
of the Authority may determine, but those members who are employees of the City, the County or the Sanitation
Authority shall serve without compensation. Each member shall be reimbursed the amount of his actual.expenses
necessarily incurred in the performance of his duties.
�J
en
Section 6. The proper officers of the City of Winchester and Frederick County are hereby authorized
and directed to execute the Articles of Incorporation in substantially the form set forth above, to cause the
executed Articles of Incorporation to be filed with the State Corporation Commission, and to do all things
necessary and appropriate for the creation the Authority.
Section 7. Public hearings on this resolution shall be held by the Common Council of the City of
Winchester at 7:30 P.M. on January 24, 1974, in its Council Chamber in City Hall and by the Board of Supervisors
lof Frederick County at 7:30 P.M. on January 24, 1974, in the Board of Supervisors Room in the County Office
Building. Immediately following such public hearings or any adjournment thereof, each governing body shall cause
to be filed with the State Corporation Commission a record of the proceedings thereof which shall indicate
' such governing body desires to proceed with the creation of the authority and whether such governing body called
for a referendum pursuant to Section 15.1 -1244 of the Act. A copy of this resolution shall be published one
time at least ten (10) days prior to the date of such public hearings in "The Winchester Evening Star ", a news-
paper having general circulation in the City of Winchester and Frederick County, preceded by a notice as follows:
"NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS"
"Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held as set out below on the following concurrent
resolution heretofore adopted by the Common Council of the City of Winchester, Virginia and the Board of Super-
visors of Frederick County, Virginia, signifying their intention to create a water and sewer authority as set
out therein."
CITY OF WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
By /s/ Stewart Bell, Jr.-
Mayor
(SEAL)ADOPTED February 12 , 1974
' Attest:
/s/ B.M. Perrero
Clerk of Council
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
By /s/ Raymond C. Sandy
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
(SEAL) ADOPTED January 24 , 1974
Attest:
/s/ J.O. Renalds, III
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, "Aye "; J. Robert
Russell, "Aye "; Dennis T. Cole, "Aye "; Donald R. Hodgson, "Aye "; and Richard F. Madigan, "Aye ".
CERTIFICATE OF NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
January 24, 1974
' We, the undersigned members of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors do hereby certify that we were
served Notice of Special Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors for January 24, 1974, at 7:30 P.M.
in the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia by Mr. Harry
Richards, Deputy Sheriff of Frederick County, said notice having been served on January 9, 1974, in accordance
' with the attached notice, at a Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with
Section 15.1 -538 of the Code of Virginia 1950 as amended.
Should any deficiency in this procedure be found, we the undersigned hereby waive notice of special
meeting for above cited date.
/s/ Raymond C. Sandy
Raymond, C. Sandy, Chairman
/s/ J. Robert Russell
J. Robert Russell, ViceCChairman
/s/ Dennis T. Cole
Dennis T. Cole
one
/s/ Donald R. Hodgson
Donald R. Hodgson
/s/ Richard F. Madigan
Richard F. Madigan
WINCHESTER - FREDERICK COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC.
29 South Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
January 23, 1974
Mr. Raymond Sandy, Chairman
Frederick County Board of Supervisors and
Members of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors
9 Court Square
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Sire:
On January 10, 1974 your Winchester - Frederick County Chamber of Commerce in joint session of the
1973 and 1974 Boards of Directors heard a presentation by representatives of the Ad -Hoc Committee
appointed by the city and county. The committee was appointed for the purpose of determining ways
and means by which the county and city could cooperate on the development of water and sewerage
facilities in our community. The presentation was made by Roger Koontz and Roy Bayliss, members of
that committee.
Your Chamber Boards deferred action on this important matter until legal notice was published
and each member acid an opportunity to examine the proposed agreement. Each member of the Boards has
been polled and the results were unanimous in favor of adoption of the proposal as published on Jan-
uary 12, 1974.
Respectfully yours,
/s/ Carl Napps
Carl Napps
President, 1974
/s/ James R. Wilkins, Jr.
James R. Wilkins, Jr.
President, 1973
sfw
, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF
V
At a RegulariMeeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia, held on the 13th day of February, 1974, in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting
Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia.
PRESENT: Raymond C. Sandy, Chariman; J. Robert Russell, Vice Chairman; Dennis T.
Cole; Donald R. Hodgson; and Richard F. Madigan.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
MINUTES AND AMENDMENT - APPROVED
Upon motion made by J. Robert Russell and seconded by Richard F. Madigan, -
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does herein
approve the minutes of the meeting of this Board held on the 26th day of December, 197,4,
as submitted.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
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 Special Meeting of this Board held on the 24th day
of January,1974, with the following amendment added to Page nine of said minutes:
There being:no opposition to the proposed resolution creating the Fred-
erick- Winchester Service Authority, the Board elected notto call for a
referendum on the question of the resolution creating the Frederick -
Winchester Service Authority.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT REPORT - MR. KING PROPOSED !A BANDONMENT - Route 835
Mr. King appeared before the Board and stated that'he.has a request for the
abandonment of� 835 iaa�Stonewall Magisterial District, said road being south of
Stonewall School running between the County Fairgrounds and the Ruritan Club Pro-
perty. He stated that the road serves no one.
Mr. Cole stated that the Ruritan Club had voted unanimously to abandon this
road and the Fair Association would vote on this proposed abandonment on February 18th.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
t
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does herein direct that the
proper procedures be commenced for the abandonment of Route 835 in Stonewall Magisterial District.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Elm and Maple Streets - Darlington Subdivision - Accepted into Secondary System
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and Seconded by J. Robert Russell,
WHEREAS, The abutting property owners on Elm Street and Maple Street in the J.P. Darlington Subdivision
have requested the addition of this street to the Secondary Highway System and have donated the sum of $1,475.00
as their share of the estimated cost of constructing these streets and applying a bituminous surface in a
with the policy of the Highway Commission adopted July 1, 1964.
' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That Maple Street in the J.P. Darlington Subdivision from Oak Street tc
Elm Street, a total distance of .04 mile, and Elm Street in "the J.P. Darlington Subdivision from Maple Street to
0.1 mile south, a total distance of 0.1 mile, be, and hereby are added to the Secondary System of State Highways
pursuant to Section 33.1 -229 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended.
AND FURTHER, That Commercial and Savings Bank Cashier's Check Number 80877, dated February 12, 1974,
in the amount of $1,475.00 donated by the property owners of these streets be forwarded to the Department of
Highways with this resolution.
A fifty foot unrestricted right -of -way is guaranteed. This right -of -way is recorded in Dee8 Book 218,
Page 553 dated April 27, 1951.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Oak Street - J.P. Darlington Subdivision - Accepted into Secondary System
Upon motion made by J. Robert Russ611 and seconded by Dennis T. Cole,
WHEREAS, The abutting property owners on Oak Street in the J.P. Darlington Subdivision have requested
the addition of this street to the Secondary Highway System and have donated the sum of $1,425.00 as their share
of the estimated cost of constructing this street and applying a bituminous surface in accordance with the policy
of the Highway Commission adopted July 1, 1964.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That Oak Street in the J.P. Darlington Subdivision, From Route 522 to
.14 mile south of Route 522, a total distance of .14 mile south, be, and hereby is, added to the Secondary
of State Highways pursuant to Section 33.1 -229 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended,
AND FURTHER, That Farmers and Merchants National Bank Cashier's Check Number 016194, dated February
4, 1974, in the amount of $1,425.00 donated by the property owners of this street be forwarded to the Department
of Highways with this resolution.
A fifty foot unrestricted right -of -way is guaranteed. This right -of -way is recorded in Deed Book 218,
Page 553 dated April 27, 1951.
The Above resolution was passed unanimously.
Caldwell Lane - Accepted into Secondary System
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole,
WHEREAS, The abutting property owners on Caldwell Lane, a road off Route 644 in Back Creek Magisterial
District, have requested the addition of this street to the Secondary Highway System.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That Caldwell Lane, from Route 644 to .45 mile southwest of Route 644, a
' total distance of .45 mile, be, and hereby is, added to the Secondary System of State Highways pursuant to Sectio
33.1 -229 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended.
A forty foot unrestricted right -of -way is guaranteed. This right -of -way is recorded in Deed Book 424,
Page 637 dated February 11, 1974.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
ANNUAL ROAD HEARING 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 date for
annual Road Hearing for March 27, 1974, in the County Court House.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND PLANNING COMMISSION
DIVISION OF LAND ORDINANCE, FREDERICK ODUNTY, VIRGINIA
THIRD AND FINAL READING - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy introduced the members of the Planning Commission and the ordinance was read in full.
Mr. Golladay asked for comments from the members of the Planning Commission.
0
291
Mr. Keith Williams stated that he felt the wo =d "engineer" should be included in
Section 8, Definitions, and Mr. Berg stated that the definition is included in the body of
the ordinance.
Mr. Williams then stated that iminSection 4 -33 -7 he felt the parking requirement was
a bit excessive.
Mr. Williams asked for a clarafication of Section 4 -32 -3 regarding subdivision of
land into three or more building lots and Mr. Berg stated that a residential development in
anC A -1 District would have to be rezoned to an R category.
Mr. Williams stated that he felt the bond provisions might be punitive in some cases
particularly to developers of small parcels of land and limited means.
Mr. Berg stated that those localities requiring bonds were requiring 100% bond in
lieu of construction.
Mr. Madigan asked why the requirement in Section 4 -24 was set at 80 feet for a major
street.
Mr. Berg stated that this requirement had been incorporated in the previous ordinance
also.
Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Renalds to read the section of the Code dealing with bonds.
Mr. Renalds read this section and Mr. Madigan stated that he felt this section of the
Code should be incorporated in the ordinance in asmuch as he f < the wording presently
used was much too restrictive. He stated that he felt the bond should be one that is
acceptable to the governing body.
Mr. Cole stated that he felt the only financial statement appropriate to present to
the Board would be a certified statement of a corporations assets and liabilities.
Mr. Russell stated that he also felt this section should be reworded.
Mr. Williams asked why the words "in lieu of construction" has been used.
Mr. Renalds explained that this had been done so that a developer, should he desire
not to post bond, could build the entire development with all improvements before selling
any lots.
Both the Planning Commission and the Board agreed that the wording of the State
' Code, with reference to the bond provisions, would be used in the ordinance excluding the.
words "contractor's bonds ".
Mr. Madigan asked how Section (f) on the first page of the ordinance, pertaining to
bonds for construction of streets, would apply to recreational subdivision. Mr. Berg stated
that recreational subdivisions are specifically excluded in the body of the ordinance.
Mr. Berg stated that in Section 4 -25 the words "R -5 Subdivisions are specifically
exempt" should be added.
Mr. Joseph Massie appeared before the Board and stated that he felt Section 8 -2,
pertaining to subdivision of land, was very restrictive. Mr. Berg explained this section
stating that this provision was an updating to conform with state law.
Mr. Massie stated that with regard to Section 4 -13 he would be in favor of the adopt-
ion of the wording of the Code with respect to bonds.
In Section 4 -24, Mr. Massie suggested that the words "collector street" be included
in the definitions -
Mr. Sandy stated that he felt the intent of the ordinance was clear enough.
Mr. Massie stated that he felt Section 4 -5, the requirement for building site, where-
in the slope could not exceed 25% was too restrictive. He ?.stated that this requirement
would prevent the construction of many modern homes. He suggested - that the requirement be
increased to 45 %.
Mr. Berg stated that the section also stated "without the approval of the governing
body" and therefore there was a possibility of building on a slope cE more than 25%
There was discussion as to whether the type of soil in Frederick County would warrant
such a restriction.
Mr. Roy Williams of the Winchester - Frederick County Health Department stated that the
Health Department considered a_25 %'.slope a good requirement for septic system.
Mr. Russell suggested that the 25% slope be retained in the ordinance with the ad-
dition of a 45% requirement with acceptable sewage system.
Mr. Keith Williams moved to amend Section 4 -5 of the Division of Land Ordinance to
increase the percentage of slope to 45 percent with adequate provisions for sewage disposal.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Langdon Gordon and passed unanimously by the Planning
Commission.
292
I I
R
293
Recordation of plat as transfer of streets, etc.- The recordation of
such plat shall operate to transfer, in fee simple, to the respective counties
and municipalities in which the land lies such portion of the premises
platted as is on such plat set apart for streets, alleys, or other public use
and to transfer to such county or municipality any easement indicated
on such plat to create a public right of passage over the same; but
nothing contained in this article shall affect any right of a subdivider
of land heretofore validly reserved.
There was lengthy discussion as to whether this section of the Code would apply to ro
' in the R -5 Districts.
Mr. Berg suggested that in Section 4 -25, roads in the R -5 Subdivisions be exempt
from the requirements. This was agreed upon by the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr.
Mr. Russell moved to amend Section 4 -5 of the Division of Land Ordinance to increase
implied that
the percentage.of slope to 45 percent with adequate provisions for sewage disposal..The motion
time you need a service drive is when streets end in a dul -de -sac.
was seconded by Dennis T. Cole and passed by the following recorded vote: Richard F.
that the
Madigan, J. Robert Russell, and Dennis T. Cole voting "Aye" and Donald R. Hodgson and Raymond
C. Sandy voting "Nay ".
Nicely suggested that in Section 3 -5 the land proposed to be reserved
Mr. Massie suggested that in Section 4 -8, EASEMENTS, the words "under the provisions
forth on
of Title 21„ Chapter 8 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended" be added.
plat.
Mr. Massie stated that in Section 4 -10 wherein it was stated that water and sewer
service would be extended to properties that are when public water and sewer is
Mr.
available within 500 feet of the boundary line, the words "if feasible" should be added.
Planning
It was agreed by the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission to revise this
section to read as follows:
Commission
4 -10. PUBLIC WATER AND/OR SEWER: Where public water and /or sewer is
availableewithin 500 feet of the boundary line of the subdivision, the
'
service shall be extended to all lots within.:said subdivision, if feasible.
2.
Mr. Massie stated that roads within a recreational subdivision are private roads and
should not be governed by the restrictions in the subdivision ordinance.
County that Sections 15.1 -465 through Sections 15.1 -485 of the
Mr. Cole asked how the roads in the R -5 Subdivisions could be private roads when they
become County roads when the property is platted.
Mr. Massie contended that these roads were provate roads inasmuch as there is a
into this ordinance by reference.
guard at the gate and roads are only used by the residents of the subdivision and are not
S
3:
open to public use.
Mr. Renalds read Section 15.11 -478 of the Code which states:
Recordation of plat as transfer of streets, etc.- The recordation of
such plat shall operate to transfer, in fee simple, to the respective counties
and municipalities in which the land lies such portion of the premises
platted as is on such plat set apart for streets, alleys, or other public use
and to transfer to such county or municipality any easement indicated
on such plat to create a public right of passage over the same; but
nothing contained in this article shall affect any right of a subdivider
of land heretofore validly reserved.
There was lengthy discussion as to whether this section of the Code would apply to ro
' in the R -5 Districts.
Mr. Berg suggested that in Section 4 -25, roads in the R -5 Subdivisions be exempt
from the requirements. This was agreed upon by the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr.
Jim Nicely appeared before the Board and.stated that Section 8 -31
implied that
the only
time you need a service drive is when streets end in a dul -de -sac.
He suggested
that the
words "streets ending in a cul -de -sac" be omitted.
Mr.
Nicely suggested that in Section 3 -5 the land proposed to be reserved
be set
forth on
the preliminary plat as such,and then shown subdivided on the final
plat.
Mr.
Berg presented the following proposed changes and the Board and the
Planning
Commission
concurred with these changes:
1.
Add subtitle: Subdivision Ordinance.
2.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, By the Board of Supervisors of Frederick
County that Sections 15.1 -465 through Sections 15.1 -485 of the
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, are hereby incorporated
into this ordinance by reference.
S
3:
Add paragraph: "Construction Plans" Construction plans shall
be submitted with the Final Plat.
4.
Add: "Subdivision of part of tract" Whenever part of a
tract is proposed for platting and it is intended to subdivide
additional parts in the future, a master plan for the entire
tract shall be submitted with the preliminary plat. This
master plan is merely for informational purposes and is not
binding on the (subdivider or the governing body. Said master
plan shall contain such information as.the administrator deems
advisable.
Mr. Russell stated that he felt Section 5 -12 -8, wherein it states the improvements
must be completed in two years, would be in conflict with the H U D requirement of four
years.
Mr. Sandy stated that the government does not provide a time frame for completion
of improvements, that the time frame is approved by H U D after submission of the plans
by the developer.
Mr. Massie stated that a large developer might need more than two years to complete
the improvements in a large development, whereas a small developer could complete his
facilities within two years.
�.l
295
DIVISION OF LAND ORDINANCE
' (Subdivision Ordinance)
Frederick County, Virginia
An ordinance to improve public health, safety, convenience or welfare and to plan for the
future development of communites to the end that transportation systems be carefully plan-
ned; that new community centers be developed with adequate highway, utility, health,
educational, and recreational facilities by rejplation of subdivision of property into lots,
streets, alleys, and other public areas, to provide for the making and recording of plats
of such subdivision and the certification of same and provide for the approval of plats.
WHEREAS, Article 7 of the Virginia Planning Act found in the Code of Virginia,`.(1950),
as amended, Section 15.1 -465, dt seq.,-the governing .
1 , : body of Frederick County, Virginia, is authorized to adopt regulations to provide:
E a) For size, scale and other plat details;
(b) For the orderly development of the general area;
(c) For the coordination of streets within and contiguous to the subdivision with other
Mr. Sandy stated that this section was designed to insure that the facilities are
completed within one section at a time and he felt two years was sufficient time to complete
one section of a development. He stated that he felt this section of the ordinance would
prevent developers from developing several sections when the facilties have not been com-
pleted in the first section.
Mr. Madigan stated that he felt the size of the development should have a bearing on
the time frame allowed for completion of the facilities. He suggested that the words
'
"approved time frame" be used in this section of the ordinance.
Mr. Golladay suggested that the two year time limit be retained in the ordinance with
a provisibn that the Board of Supervisors be authorized to grant a two year extension should
this be necessary and feasible.
Mr. Venskoske moved to retain the two year time limit set forth in Section 5 -12 -8 of
the Subdivision Ordinance, Mr. Madigan seconded the motion. The motion was defeated by
the following vote: Elmer Venskoske voting "Aye" and Maurice Perry, Richard F. Madigan,
and Lang Gordon voring "Nay" and Keith Williams abstaining.
Mr. Madigan moved, as a member of the Planning Commission, to change the two year time
limit set forth in Section 5 -12 -8 of the subdivision ordinance to "an approved time frame ".
This motion was seconded by Mr. Gordon and passed by the following vote: Richard F. Madigan,
Langdon Gordon and Maurice Perry voting "Aye" and Keith Williams and Elmer Venskoske
"Abstaining ".
Mr. Sandy called for action on this section by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Cole moved to retain the two year time frame in the Subdivision Ordinance. This
motion was seconded by Donald R.Hodgson. The vote was as follows: Raymond C. Sandy and
Dennis T. Cole voting "Aye: and Richard F. Madigan and M. Robert Russell voting "Nay" and
Donald R. Hodgson "Abstaining ".
Thereupon Mr. Cole again moved to retain the time frame as set forth in the ordinance.
This motion was seconded by Donald R. Hodgson and defeated by the following vote: Raymond
C. Sandy and Dennis T. Cole voting "Aye" and J. Robert Russell, Richard F. Madigan and
Donald R. Hodgson voring "Nay"
'
Mr. Madigan then moved to change the two year time limit in Section 5 -12 -8 of the
subdivision ordinance to "an approved time frame ". The motion was seconded by Dennis T.
Cole and passed by the following vote: Donald R. Hodgson, J. Robert Russell, and Richard
F. Madigan voting "Aye" and Dennis T. Cole and Raymond C. Sandy voting "Nay"
There was discussion as to the method to be employed to insure that this time frame
was just and fair to all developers.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Robert Russell.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors does herein direct the County Admin-
istrator to prepare the guidelines to be followed by the Board of Supervisors wherein
the approval of the time frame for completion of facilities in subdivisions will be just
and fair to all developers.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Keith Williams, the Planning
Commission voted unanimously to recommend for approval the Division of Land Ordinance for
Frederick County, Virginia, as amended, to the Board of Supervisors.
Upon motion made by Michard 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 Division of Land Ordinance of Frederick County,
Virginia, as amended by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors in joint
session, and set forth below:
DIVISION OF LAND ORDINANCE
' (Subdivision Ordinance)
Frederick County, Virginia
An ordinance to improve public health, safety, convenience or welfare and to plan for the
future development of communites to the end that transportation systems be carefully plan-
ned; that new community centers be developed with adequate highway, utility, health,
educational, and recreational facilities by rejplation of subdivision of property into lots,
streets, alleys, and other public areas, to provide for the making and recording of plats
of such subdivision and the certification of same and provide for the approval of plats.
WHEREAS, Article 7 of the Virginia Planning Act found in the Code of Virginia,`.(1950),
as amended, Section 15.1 -465, dt seq.,-the governing .
1 , : body of Frederick County, Virginia, is authorized to adopt regulations to provide:
E a) For size, scale and other plat details;
(b) For the orderly development of the general area;
(c) For the coordination of streets within and contiguous to the subdivision with other
296
L
297
existing or planned streets within the general area as to location, width, grades and
drainage;
(d) For adequate provisions for drainage and flood control and other public purposes, and
for light and air;
(i) For the administration and enforcement of such ordinance, not inconsistent with the
provisions contained in the act, and specifically for the imposition of reasonable
fees and charges for the review of plats and plans, and for the inspection of
facilities required by any such ordinance to be installed; such fees and charges
shall in n o instance exceed an amount commensurate with the services rendered taking
into consideration the time, skill and administrator's expense involved; and
WHEREAS, Article 3,.Chapter'8, Section 15.1 -271, any city, town, or county may establish
and conduct a system of public recreation and playground; may set apart for such use any
land or buildings owned or leased by it; may acquire land.,.buildings and other recreational
facilities by gift,.purchase, lease, condemnation or otherwise and equip and conduct the
- csamegfmaycemploga director of recreation and assistants; and may expend funds for the
aforesaid purposes. (Code 1950, Section 15 -697, c. 623.)
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, By the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, that
the following regulations are hereby adopted for the subdivision of land within unincor-
porated portions of the County of Frederick andfrom and after the effective date of this
ordinance, every owner or proprietor of any land to which these regulations apply who
' subdivides such tract as provided in these regulations shall cause a plat of such subdivision
developed to be prepared in accordance with these regulations, with reference to known or
permanent monuments, to be made and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Court wherein
deeds conveying such land are required by law to be recorded..
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, By the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County
15.1 -465 through Sections 15.1 -485 of the Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, are hereby
incorporated into this ordinance by reference,
SECTION I - PURPOSE AND TITLE
1 -1. PURPOSE:
The Purpose of this ordinance is to establish certain subdivision standards and
procedures for Frederick County, Virginia, and such of its environs as comes under the
jurisdiction of the governing body as provided for in the Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended.
These are a part of a long -range plan to guide and facilitate the orderly beneficial
growth of the community, and to promote the publicihealth, safety, convenience, comfort,
prosperity, and general welfare. More specifically, the purpose of these standards and
procedures is to serve as a guide for the change that occurs when lands and acreage become
urban in character as a result of development for residential, business, or industrial pur-
' poses, to provide assurance that the purchasers of lots are buying a commodity that is
suitable for development and use; and to make possible the provision of public services
in a safe, adequate, and efficient ananner. Subdivided land sooner or later becomes a public
responsibility in that roads and streets must be maintained and public services customary to
urban areas must be provided. This ordinance assists the community in meeting these respon-
siblities.
1 -2. TITLE
This ordinance is known and may be cited as the "Division of Land Ordinance
(Subdivision Ordinance), Frederick County, Virginia.
SECTION II - ADMINISTRATION
2 -1. ADMINISTRATOR: The agency or person appointed by the governing body who is hereby
delegated to administer this ordinance. If no such agency or person is appointed as admin-
istrator, the governing body shall be deemed the administrator and so act until an admini-
strator is duly appointed. The Administrator shall be considered the administrator of the
governing body, and approval or disapproval by the administrator shall constitute approval
or disapproval as though it were given by the governing body. The administrator shall
also consult with the Commission on matters contained herein.
(e)
For the extent to which and the manner in which streets shall be graded, traveled or
otherwise improved and water and storm and sanitary sewers and other utilities or
other facilities installed;
(f)
For the acceptance of dedication for public use of any right -of -way located within any
'
subdivision which has constructed therein, or proposed to be constructed therin, any
street, curb, gutter, sidewalk, drainage or sewerage.system or other improvements,
financed or to be financed in whole or in part by private funds only if the owner or
developer (1) - certifies to the governing body that the construction costs have been
paid to the person constructing such facilities, or (2) - furnishes to the governing
body a certified check in the amount of the estimated costs of construction or a bond,
with surety satisfactory to the governing body, in an amount sufficient for and
conditioned upon the construction of such facilities;
'
(g)
For monuments of specific types to be installed establishing street and property lines;
(h)
That unless a plat be filed for recordation within a reasonable time after final
approval therof, such approval shall be withdrawn and that plat marked VOID and re-
turned to the approving official; and
(i) For the administration and enforcement of such ordinance, not inconsistent with the
provisions contained in the act, and specifically for the imposition of reasonable
fees and charges for the review of plats and plans, and for the inspection of
facilities required by any such ordinance to be installed; such fees and charges
shall in n o instance exceed an amount commensurate with the services rendered taking
into consideration the time, skill and administrator's expense involved; and
WHEREAS, Article 3,.Chapter'8, Section 15.1 -271, any city, town, or county may establish
and conduct a system of public recreation and playground; may set apart for such use any
land or buildings owned or leased by it; may acquire land.,.buildings and other recreational
facilities by gift,.purchase, lease, condemnation or otherwise and equip and conduct the
- csamegfmaycemploga director of recreation and assistants; and may expend funds for the
aforesaid purposes. (Code 1950, Section 15 -697, c. 623.)
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, By the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, that
the following regulations are hereby adopted for the subdivision of land within unincor-
porated portions of the County of Frederick andfrom and after the effective date of this
ordinance, every owner or proprietor of any land to which these regulations apply who
' subdivides such tract as provided in these regulations shall cause a plat of such subdivision
developed to be prepared in accordance with these regulations, with reference to known or
permanent monuments, to be made and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Court wherein
deeds conveying such land are required by law to be recorded..
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, By the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County
15.1 -465 through Sections 15.1 -485 of the Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, are hereby
incorporated into this ordinance by reference,
SECTION I - PURPOSE AND TITLE
1 -1. PURPOSE:
The Purpose of this ordinance is to establish certain subdivision standards and
procedures for Frederick County, Virginia, and such of its environs as comes under the
jurisdiction of the governing body as provided for in the Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended.
These are a part of a long -range plan to guide and facilitate the orderly beneficial
growth of the community, and to promote the publicihealth, safety, convenience, comfort,
prosperity, and general welfare. More specifically, the purpose of these standards and
procedures is to serve as a guide for the change that occurs when lands and acreage become
urban in character as a result of development for residential, business, or industrial pur-
' poses, to provide assurance that the purchasers of lots are buying a commodity that is
suitable for development and use; and to make possible the provision of public services
in a safe, adequate, and efficient ananner. Subdivided land sooner or later becomes a public
responsibility in that roads and streets must be maintained and public services customary to
urban areas must be provided. This ordinance assists the community in meeting these respon-
siblities.
1 -2. TITLE
This ordinance is known and may be cited as the "Division of Land Ordinance
(Subdivision Ordinance), Frederick County, Virginia.
SECTION II - ADMINISTRATION
2 -1. ADMINISTRATOR: The agency or person appointed by the governing body who is hereby
delegated to administer this ordinance. If no such agency or person is appointed as admin-
istrator, the governing body shall be deemed the administrator and so act until an admini-
strator is duly appointed. The Administrator shall be considered the administrator of the
governing body, and approval or disapproval by the administrator shall constitute approval
or disapproval as though it were given by the governing body. The administrator shall
also consult with the Commission on matters contained herein.
•:
F0 • •
2 -2. TO CONSULT: In the performance of his duties the administrator may call for opinions
or decisions, either verbal or written, from other departments in considering details of any
submitted plat. This authority by the administrator shall have particular reference to
the Resident Highway Engineer and the Health Officer.
2 -3. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY: In addition to the regulations herein contained for the platting
of the subdivisions, the administrator may, from time to time, establish any reasonable
additional, administrative procedures deemed necessary for the proper administration of this
ordinance.1
' 2 -4. PRIVATE CONTRACTS: This ordinance bears no relation to any private easement, convenant,
agreement or restriction, ncstis the responsibility of enforcing such private easement, cov-
enant, agreement or restriction imp3 herein to any public official. When this ordinance
calls for more restrictive standards than are required by private contract, the provisions
of this ordinance shall control.
2 -5. FEES: There shall be a charge for the examination and approval or disapproval of every
subdivision reviewed by the administrator. At the time of filing the Final Plat, the sub-
' divi¢1ei shall deposit with the administrator checks payable to the Treasurer of Frederick
County, in the amount of twenty -five dollars ($25) per plat and one dollar ($1) for each
lot if the subdivision contains five (5) or more lots; if the sudivision contains less than
five (5) lots, the charge shall be ten dollars ($10) per plat and one dollar ($1) for each
lot.
SECTION III
RESERVATION OF LAND FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES
3 -1. The Administrator may require subdividers of residential subdivisions to set aside land
for parks, playgrounds, schoolq libraries, municipal buildings, and similar public and semi-
public uses, subject to the following regulations.
3 -2. Subdividers shall not be required to reserve land for public purposes other than
streets, drainage, schools, parks and playgrounds, except on a reimbursement basis. They
shall be reimbursed by the jurisdiction or agency requiring land. They shall not be
required to hold the land longer than eighteen (18) months following the recording of the
plat for such purpose. If.i.the land is not purchased within the _ , said eighteen (18) months
it may be sold as lots for the same purposesfor which the subdivision was platted. To
facilitate such possible eventual sale of reserved land as separate lots, the subdivider
shall show on his final plat, by dotted lines and dotted numbers, the area and dimensions
of lots to be created within the boundaries of any such reserved land, and may sell such
lots, after the expiration of the reservation, by lot number, without filing an
amended plat.
' 3 -2 -1. Where land is required in excess of this amount, the reimbursement by the governing
body shall be based on a proportionate share of the (1) -cost of raw land, (2) -cost of im-
provements including interest on investments, (3)- development costs, (4) -plus not more than
ten (10) per cent profit on the total of such costs.
3 -2 -2. The administrator shall make certain that lands so reserved are divisible in the
same manner as the remainder of the subdivision so that the subdivider will not be required
to reserve an unusable portion of his subdivision.
3 -2 -3. Nothing herein shall be construed to mean that land may be set aside for commercial
purposes in a residential district without the land so required for commercial use being
zoned appropriately in accordance with the zoning ordinance.
3 -3. All persons subdividing or developing land for residential purposes, prior to the
final approval of the Final Plat or Site Plan, shall, at the discretion of the adminis-
trator:
(a) Dedicate a portion of such land for the Frederick County Parks and Recreation
Program; or
!b)
(b) Make an equivalent monetary contribdtion based upon an acreage value of the
land requirements; or
(c) Establish a private park or recreation area and insure that they will be
perpetually used, maintaineddand owned by an automatic homeowners association
or by the owner of rented properties; or
' (d) Provide an equitable combination of dedication, provate facilities, and monetary
contributions as set forth in this policy for the purpose of providing park and
recreation sites for the general welfare of the future residents.
3 -4. Under the terms of this section subdividerz3 or developers shall not be required to ded-
icate more than ten (10) per cent of the gross area of the subdivision without reimbursement
by the governing body. Land dedication required elsewhere in this ordinance or in the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance is not a part of this calculation.
' 3 -5. The following criteria shall guide the dedication of land or the acceptance of monetary
contributions.
3 -5 -1. The judgement of the administrator shall be based upon the size of the parcel of-
fered, the slope and drainage of the area, the location of the parcel within the subdivision,
access to the parcel, and the soils and ground cover.
3 -5 -2. The following population data shall be used to compute the acreage for dedication;
a factor of 3.7 persons per detached single - family dwellings, and mobile homes, three (3)
persons per townhouse, two (2) persons per unit in a multi - family structure.
300
3 -5 -3. Required dedication shall be based upon population per dwelling unit the National
Recreation and Park Association Recommendations of fifteen (15) acres of park land per
1,000 population, or$30.00 per person. Based upon this data, the open space requirements
are as follows:
a. For A -1, A -2, R -1, and R -3 zoning districts, the dedication shall be .015 acres
or $30 per person.
b. For R -4 zoning districts and mobile home subdivisions, the dedication shall be
.0075 acres or $15 per person.
C. For R -5 zoning districts, the dedication shall be .00375 acres or $7.50 per
person.
SECTION IV
GENERAL REGULATIONS AND LOT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
4 -1. No persons shall subdivide any tract of land that is located within Frederick County,
Virginia,.as defined in Article 7 of the Virginia Planning Act except in conformity with the
provisions of this ordinance, or without a bona fide survey by a certified land surveyor.
All required improvments shall be installed by the subdivider at his cost. In cases where
specifications have been established either by the Vi ;ginia Department of Highways or by
local ordinances and codes, such specifications :shall be followed. The subdivider's per-
formance bond shall not be released until construction has been inspected and approved by
the appropriate engineer.
4 -2. MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY: There is a mutual responsibility between the subdivider and
Frederick County, Virginia, to divide the land so-as to improve the general use pattern of
the land being subdivided.
4 -3. LAND MUST BE SUITABLE: The administrator shall not approve the subdivision of land
if from adequate investigations conducted by all agencies concerned, it has been determined
that in the best interest of the public the site is not suitable for platting and develop-
ment purposes of the kind proposed.
4 -4. FLOODING: Land subject to flooding and land deemed to be topographically unsuitable
shall not be platted for residential occupancy, nor for such other uses as may increase dange
of health,-life or property, or aggravate erosion or flood hazard. Such land within the
subdivision shall be set aside on the plat for such uses as shall;'not be endangered by
periodic or occasional inundation or shall not produce conditions contrary to public welfare.
4 -5. BUILDING SITE: No building will be permitted in areas where slope exceeds forty -
five (45) per cent slope even with adequate provisions for sewage disposal without specific
approval of the governing body, or where soil': subsoil, or flooding conditions would create
dangers to health or safety. The administrator may require the subdivider to provide ele-
vation and soil profiles sufficient to demonstrate the land to be completely free of danger
to health or safety.
4 -6. EROSION CONTROL: All excavated areas shall be seeded with a suitable grass mixture
as construction is completed. Appropriate erosion control measures shall be taken during
construction and such measures shall be indicated on the construction plans and specifi-
(cations:.
4 -7. FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE: The subdivider shall provide all necessary information
needed to determine what improvements are necessary to properly develop the subject property,
including contour intervals, drainage plans and Flood control devices. The subdivider shall
also provide plans for all such improvements together with a properly qualified certified
enginee's or surveyor's statement that such improvements, when properly installed, will be
adequate for proper development. The Highway Engineer shall then approve or disapprove the
plans. The subdivider shall also provide any other information required by the Highway
Engineer.
4 -8. EASEMENTS: The administrator may require that easements for drainage through ad-
joing property be provided by the subdivider. The size of such easements shall be deter-
mined by the appropriate agency, under provisions of Title 21, Chapter 8, of the Code of
Virginia, (1950), as amended.
4 -9. SEPTIC 'TANKS:: The administrator shall not approve any subdivision where a sani-
tary sewer system is not provided unless the administrator shall receive in writing from
the Health Official, a statement to the effect that the area contained in the subdivision
is generally satisfactory for the installation of septic tank system, and that such ap-
proval by the administrator is only with the understanding that where septic tank systems
are to be installed, these must be approved on an individual lot basis by the Health Official
4 -10. PUBLIC WATER AND /OR SEWER: Where public water and /or sewer is available within
500 feet of the boundary line of the subdivision the service shall be extended to all lots
within said subdivision, if feasible.
4 -11. PRIVATE WATER AND /OR SEWER: Installation of privately owned water distribution
systems or sewage collection and treatment facilities, must meet all of the requirements
of'the State Water Control Board, and State Health Department, and any other state or local
regulation having authority over such installations.
n __
4 -1l. FIRE PROTECTION: The installation of adequate fire hydrants in a subdivision at
locations approved by the administrator shall be required, where central water is available.
The Administrator shall consult with the proper authority before approving such location.
4 -13. BOND: Before any subdivision plat will be finally approved by the administrator,
the.subdivider shall, (1) - certify to the governing body that the construction costs have
been paid to the person constructing the required improvements , or (2) - furnishes to the
governing body certified check in the amount of the estimated cost of construction or
a bond, with surety satisfactory to the governing body, in an amount sufficient for and
conditioned upon the construction of the required improvements in a workmanlike manner,
and in accordance with specifieations and construction schedules established or approved by
the appropriate engineer. It shall further be the requirement of all bonds that an amount
not exceeding the whole shall be retained after construction and until the improvements are
accepted.
i
301
4?14. SUBDIVISION OF PART OF TRACT: WhEne.ver-r part of a tract is proposed for platting
and it is intended to subdivide additional parts in the future, a master plan for the entire
tract shall be submitted with the preliminary plat. This mater plan is merely for infor-
mation purposes and is not binding on the subdivider or the governing body. Said master
plan shall contain such information as the administrator deems advisable.
4 -15. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS: Nine (9) blueprints and one(10)reproducible copy
of the plans and specifications for all required physical improvements to be installed, shall
_ be prepared by an engineer or surveyor licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia to do such
work and shall be submitted to the administrator for approval or disapproval - and returned
' within 45 days. If disapproved, one (1) copy bearing certification of such disapproval
shall be returned to the subdivider with the reason for disapproval in writing.
4 -16. SHAPE: The lot arrangement, design and shape shall be such that lots will pro-
vide satisfactory and desirable sites for buildings, and be properly related to topography,
and conform to requirements of this ordinance. Lots shall not contain peculiarly shaped
elongations solely to provide necessary square footage of area.
4 -17. LOCATION: Each lot shall abut.a street dedicated by the subdivision plat, or
ant existing publicly dedicatedd'strebt,sordpaiti -of the_oighway- system. _.If the existing
streets are not of sufficient width to comply with the ordinance, the subdivider shall
dedicate enough land to provide a street of sufficient width to conform to the require-
ments of this ordinance, measuring from the center line of said existing street for � of
total width. This section shall also apply to Section 8 -2 (a -2).
4 -18. SIDE LINES: Side lines of lots shall be approximately at right angles, or radial .
to the street line.
4 -19. SEPARATE OWNERSHIP: Where the land covered by a subdivision includes two or more
parcels in separate ownership, and lot arrangement is such that a property ownership line
divides one or more lots, the land in each lot so divided shall be transferred by deed to
single ownership, simultaneously with the recording of the final plat. Said deed is to be
deposited with the Clerk of the Court and held with fianl plat until the subdivider is-
ready to record same, and they both shall then be recorded together.
4 -20. ORIENTATION: Where a proposed subdivision will adjoin a major road, and to pre-
vent unnecessary ingress or egress, the administrator may require that the lots back upon
said highway and a street be dedicated to serve the subdivision.
4 -21. ALIGNMENT -AND LAYOUT: The arrangement of streets in new subdivisions shall make
provision for the continuation of existing streets.in adjoin ngrar-e'a% The street arrange
ments must be such as to cause no unnecessary hardship to owners of adjoining property
when they plat their own land and seek to provide for convenient access to it. Where, in
the opinion of the administrator, it is desirable to provide for street access to adjoin..
iimg property, proposed streets shall be extended by dedication to the boundary line of
such property. Half streets along the boundary of land proposed for subdivison shall not
be Wherever possible, streets should intersect at right angles. In all hill-
' side areas, streets running with contours shall be required to intersect at angles of not
less than 60 degrees, unless by the administrator upon recommendation 6£ the
Highway Engineer.
4 -22. SERVICE DRIVES: Wheneverr: a proposed subdivision contains or is adjacent to a
limited access highway or expressway, provision shall be made for a service drive or access
street approximately parallel to such right -of -way at a distance suitable for an appropriate
use of the land between such highway and the proposed subdivision. Such distances shall
be determined with due consideration of the minimum distance required for ingress and
egress to the main thoroughfare. The right -of -way of any major highway or street project-
ed across any railroad, limited access highway or expressway shall be of adequate width to
provide for the cuts or fills required for any future separation of grades.
4 -23. APPROACH ANGLE: Major streets shall approach major or minor streets at an
angle of not less than eighty (80) degrees, unless the administrator, upon recommendation
of the Highway Engineer, shall approve a lesser angle of approach for reasons of contour
terrain or matching of existing patterns.
4 -24. MINIMUM WIDTHS: The minimum width of proposed-streets, measured from lot line to
lot line, shall be as shown on the major street plan, or if not shown on sbch plan shall,
be:
(a) Major streets - not less than eighty (80) feet;
(b) Minor streets - not less than sixty (60) feet;
(c) Alleys, if permitted, not less than twenty (20) feet nor more than twenty-
' eight (28) feet.
4 -25. CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS: In cases where the Virginia Department of Highways
specifications are lacking or are less restrictive than the requirements of this ordinance
this ordinance shall prevail, but in all cases streets shall be inspected and approved by
the Department of Highways (exceptions: Areas zoned R -5 Residential Recreational Community).
(a) The roadway shall be graded to a minimum of thirty (30) feet exclusive of side
ditches.
(b) Depth of base shall be approved by the Virginia Department of Highways.
' (c) If the subdivider constructs curbs and gutters or sidewalks or both, the minimum
pavement width for an eighty (80) foot wide right -of -way from face of curb to
face of curb shall be sixty -five (65) feet, and for sixty (60) foot wide right -
of -way the pavement shall be forty -five (45) feet from face of curb to face of
curb. The curbing shall have a minimum width of six (6) inches on either side
of the street, then there shall be a minimum of a two (2) foot width on either
side of the street for placing of utilities, and then a sidewalk on either side
with a maximum width of five (5) feet and a minimum width of four (4) feet and
adjacent to the property line.
(d) Streets constructed without curb and gutter and /or sidewalks shall have a minimu
pavement width of twenty -two (22) feet constructed of material passing Virginia
Department of Highways specifications. The pavement will consist of a bituminou
oil primer treatment and double sealed treatment with rates of application to be
in accordance with the Virginia Department of Highways specifications.
302
(e) The grades of streets submitted on subdivision plats shall be approved by the
administrator upon recommendation of the Highway Engineer prior to final action
by the administrator. Wherever feasible, street grades shall not exceed ten
(10) per cent unless approved by the Administrator.
4 -26. CUL-DE-SACS: Generally, minor terminal streets (cul -de -sacs) are designed to have
one end permanently closed. Each cul -de -sac must be teminated by a right -of -way turnaround
of not less than one hundred (100) feet in diameter.
4 -27. ALLEYS: Alleys should be avoided wherever possible. Deadend alleys, if unavoid-
able, shall be provided with adequate turnaround facilities as determined by the administrator
4 -28. STREETS AND RESERVE STRIPS: Every subdivided property shall be served from a
publicly dedicated street. There shall be no reserve strips controlling access to streets.
4 -29. NAMES: Proposed streets which are obviously in alignment with other already ex-
isting and named streets, shall bear the names of the existing streets. In no case-shall the
names of proposed streets duplicate existing street names irrespective of the use of the
suffix street, avenue, boulevard, drive, way, place, lane or court. Street names shall be
indicated on the preliminary and final plats,, and shall be 'a`pproved?by_:the - adm!.iiistrato =a'
NiWe�_v£'ex sting streets-'shall not be changed except by approval ofthe governing body. The
administrator shall keep a list of all street names.
4 -30. IDENTIFICATION SIGNS: Street identification signs of a design approved by the
administrator shall be installed at all intersections.
4(431. MONUMENTS
4 -31 -1. VISIBLE FOR INSPECTION: Upon completion of streets, sewers and other improvements,
the subdivider shall make certain that all monuments required by the administrator are
clearly visible for inspection and use. Such monuments shall be inspected and approved
by the administrator before any improvements are accepted by the governing body.
4 -31 -2. LOCATION - CONCRETE: Concrete monoments four (4) inches in diameter or square,
three (3) feet long, with flat top, shall be set in cast iron monument boxes at the inter-
section of street center lines, at all points where street center lines intersect ex-
terior boundaries of the subdivision and in the center line at points of curve in each street
and at subdivision boundary corners. The top of the monument shall have an appropriate mark
to properly identify the location.
4 -31 -3. LOCATION - IRON PIPE: All other lot corners shall be marked with iron pipe not
less than one -half (�) inch in diameter and twenty -four (24) inches long and driven so as
to be six (6) inches above the finished grade. When rock is encountered, a hole shall be
drilled four (4) inches deep in the rock, into which shall be cemented a steel rod one -half
(�) inch in diameter, the top of which shall be six (6) inches above the finish grade line.
4 -32. SUBDIVISION LOT REQUIREMENTS
4 -32 -1. LOT SIZE: Lot size shall be regulated by the Frederick CountyiiZoning Ordinance.
4 -32 -2. CORNER LOTS: Corner lots shall be in accordance with the Frederick County
Zoning Ordinance.
4 -32 -3. RESTRICTION: Subdivision of land into three (3) or more residential building lots
is not permitted in A -1 zoning districts.
4 -32 -4. HEALTH APPROVAL: The Administrator shall require approval from the Health
Official be submitted as a basis for passing upon subdivisions dependent upon individual
water and sewage disposal systems.
4 -32 -5. REMNANTS: All remnants of lots below minimum size left over after subdividing
of a tract must be-added to adjacent lots, or otherwise disposed of rather than allowed
to remain as unusable parcels.
4 -32 -6. WIDTH: Blocks shall be wide enough to allow two (2) tiers of lots except where
fronting on major streets (see Orientation and Service Drive, unless prevented by top-
ographical cond &tions or size of the property, in which case the administrator may approve
a single tier of lots of minimum depth.
4 -33. MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION LOT SIZE AND DESIGN REQUIREMENT
4 -33 -1. MINIMUM SIZE: A mobile home subdivision shall be not less than twenty (20)
acres.
4 -33 -2. HEALTH APPROVAL: The administrator shall require approval from the Health Official
bb - submitted as a basis for passing upon subdivisions dependent upon individual water and
sewage disposal systems.
4 -33 -3. REQUIRED RECREATION AREAS:
(1) There shall be one or more recreation areas within the subdivision which
shall be easily accessible to a subdivision resident.
(2) The total size of such recreation area shall be based upon a minimum of
500 square feet for each lot with a minimum of one (1) acre in the total subdivision. No
single recreation area shall contain less than 2,500 square feet.
(3) Recreation areas shall be so located as to be free of .traffic hazards and
should, where the topography permits, be centrally located.
(4) Open Space;
a. In order to secure proper improvement and maintenance of all common open
space in the Mobile Home Subdivision, 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 Mobile Home Subdivision, 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.
b. In the event that the organiation established to own and maintain common
,open space, or any successor organization, shall at any time after establishment of the
subdivision fail to maintain the common open space im:.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 subdivision setting forth the manner in which the
303
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 with-
in thirty (30) days thereof. If the deficiancies 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
Mobile Home subdivision 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 main-
tenance of the common space, call a public hearing upon notice to such organization or the
residents and owners of the Mobile Home Subdivision 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 reasonalbe condition, the
County may continue to maintain said common open 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.
c. the cost of such maintenance by the County shall be assessed ratably against
the properties within the Mobile Home Subdivision and shall become a lien on said pro-
perties. 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 subdivision.
4 -33 -4. LOT SIZE:
(1) Each lot shall contain a mobile home stand 70 feet by 24 feet equipped with
all utilities buried in the ground.
(2) The minimum lot area, inclusive of the mobile home stand, shall be not less
than 10,000 square feet public water and sewer are available; or not less than
30,000 square feet where public water or sewer are available, but not both; or 40,000
square feet where no public facilities are available.
'(3) 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 enj the distance
shall be not.less than fifteen (15) feet.
(4) YARDS ABUTTING COMMON AREAS: The distance from the line or corner of the
mobile home stand to a common parking area, a common walk or other common area, shall be
fifteen (15) feet minimum.
5 -1. DRAW AND CERTIFY: Every such plat shall be prepared by a surveyor duly licensed by
the State of Virginia, who shall endorse upon each plat a certificate signed by him setting
forth the source of the title of the land subdivided, and the place of record of the last
instrument in the chain of title.
4 -33 -5. MOBILE HOME STAND: That part of an. individual lot which has been reserved for
'
the placement of the mobile home.
(1) Placement: The mobile home stand placement shall provide for practical
placement on and removal from the lot of both the mobile home, its appurtenant structures,
and the retention of the home on the lot in a stable condtition and in satisfactory re-
lationship to its surroundings.
(2) Location: The location of'each mobile home stand shall be at such ele-
vations, distance and angle in relation to the access street and the mobile home access -
way that placement and removal of the mobile home is practical.
(3) Construction: Appropriate material, properly graded, placed and compact-
ed so as to be durable and adequate for the support of the maximum anticipated loads dur-
ing all seasons.
(4) Gradient: There shall be zero to five per cent longitudinal and adequate
crown or cross gradient for surface drainage.
4 -33 -6. PLACEMENT OF.MOBILE HOMES
(1) All mobile homes shall have underpinning,cskirting or.shall be set on
masonry foundation.
(2) All mobile homes shall have wheels and hitch removed within 30 days after
hook -up of water.and electricty. ,
(3) All mobile homes shall meet the minimum standards for plumbing, heating
and electrical systems as defined by the American Standards Association Project A 119.1
'
approved March 12, 1963, as revised. Movile homes that display the official seal and reg:
ister number of the Mobile Home Manufacturers Association and the Trailer Coach Association
will be considered to comply with the Americann Standards Association Standard A 119.1
(4) No portion of this ordinance shall be interpreted to exclude other types
of factory built or prefabricated homes, provided that such homes meet the size and con-
struction requirements of the ordinance.
4 -33 -7. PARKING: Parking space shall be provided at the rate of at least two (2) car
spaces for each mobile home lot.oRequired car parking spaces shall include at least one
'
(1) car space on each mobile home lot and in addition shall include a sufficient number
of car spaces in conveniently located parking bays'to bring the total number of parking
spaces up to the required two (2) car spaces per mobile home lot. Each such parking space
shall be not less than eight (8) feet wide and eighteen(18) feet deep, shall be surfaced
for its entire area with durable, hard material, suitable for all weather use and shall
have unobstructed access to a public street or common street highway. No parking space .
shall be more than 250 feet from the mobile home lot which it serves.
SECTION V - PLAT REQUIREMENTS AND PLAT REVIEW PROCEDURES
5 -1. DRAW AND CERTIFY: Every such plat shall be prepared by a surveyor duly licensed by
the State of Virginia, who shall endorse upon each plat a certificate signed by him setting
forth the source of the title of the land subdivided, and the place of record of the last
instrument in the chain of title.
304
When the plat is of land acquired from more than one source of title, the outlines of the
several tracts shall be indicated upon such plat, within an insert block, or by means of
a dotted boundary line upon the plat.
5 -2 OWNER'S STATEMENT: Every such plat shall contain in addition to the surveyors
certificate, a statement to the effect that " the above and foregoing subdivision of
(here insert the correct description of the land subdivided) as appears in this plat is with
the free consent and in accordance with the desire of the undersigned owners, proprietors,
and trustees, if any, and shall be duly acknowledged before a Notary Public, and when thus
executed and approved as herein specified shall be filed and recorded in the Office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court, and indexed under the names of the land owners signing such
statement and under the name of the subdivision."
5 -3. APPROVAL REQUIRED BEFORE SALE: Whenever any subdivision of land is proposed, and
beforeiariy permit for the erection of a structure shall be granted, the subdivider or his
agent shall apply in writing to the administrator for the approval of the subdivision plat
and submit 9 copies and one (1) reproducible copy of the preliminary plat, including the
lot, street and utilities layout. No lot shall be sold until a final plat for the subdiv-
ision shall have been approved and recorded in the following manner.
5 -4. PRELIMINARY SKETCH: The subdivider may, if he so chooses, submit to the adminis-
trator a preliminary draft of the proposed subdivision prior to his preparing engineered
master plans, preliminary and final plats. The purpose of such preliminary sketch is to
permit the administrator to advise the subdivider whether his plans in general are in
accordance with the requirements of this ordinance. The commission, upon submission of
any preliminary sketch, shall study..it, and advise the subdivider wherein it appears that
changes would be necessary. The administrator may mark the preliminary sketch indicating
necessary changes and any such marked sketch shall be returned to the subdivider with the
preliminary plat. The preliminary sketch shall be as follows:
a. It shall be drawn on white paper, or on a print of a topographic map
of the property. It shall be drawn to a scale of 200 feet to the inch.
It shall show the name, location and dimensions of all streets entering
the property, adjacent to the property, or terminating at the boundary
of the property to be subdivided. It shall show the location of all
proposed streets, lots, parks, playgrounds and other proposed uses of the
land to be subdivided and shall include approximate dimensions.
5 -5. PRELIMINARY PLAT: The subdivider shall present to the administrator 9 copies and
one (1) reproducible copy of a preliminary layout at a scale of 200 feet to the inch
as a preliminary plat or a site plan as required by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance.
The preliminary plat shall include the following information:
1. The Title "PRELIMINARY PLAT" or "PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN."
2. A Blank oblong space 3 inches by 5 inches shall be reserved for the signatures
of the approving a uthority.
3. A Blank oblong space 1" by 5" shall be reserved on each succeeding page for the
initials of the approval authority.
4. Each page shall be numbered and the total number of sheets numbered included.
Each sketch shall have match lines for subsequent sketches.
5. Name of subdivision, owner, subdivider, surveyor or engineer, date of drawing,
number of sheets, north point and scale. If true north is used, method of
determination must be shown.
6. Location of proposed subdivision by an inset map at a scale of not less than 1
inch equal 2,000 feet showing adjoining roads, their names and numbers, towns,
subdivisions, and other landmarks.
7. The boundary survey (see 5 -10 -6) or existing survey of record provided such
survey of record shows a closure with an accuracy of not less than one in ten
thousand, total acreage of subdivided area, number and approximate area and
frontage of all building sites, existing buildings within the boundaries of
t he tract r�amesof omrs ang their property lines within.the boundaries of the
rac an a joining suc oun arses.
8. All existing, platted and proposed streets, their names, numbers and width;
existing utility or other easements, public areas and parking spaces; culverts,
drains and water courses, their names and other pertinent data.
9. The complete drainage layout, including all pipe sizes, types, drainage ease-
ments and means of transporting the drainage to a well defined natural drainage.
10: A cross section showing the proposed street construction, depth and type of
base, type of surface, etc.
11. A profile or contouurmap showing the proposed grades for the streets and drain-
age facilities including elevations of existing and proposed ground surface
at all street intersections and at points of major grade change along the
center line of streets together with proposed grade lines connecting therewith.
12. Proposed connections with existing sanitary sewers and existing water supply or
alternate means of sewage disposal and water supply.
13. All parcels of land to be dedicated for public use and the conditions of such
dedication.
14. A copy of all protective covenants and deed restrictions shall accompany the
plat.
5 -6. PROCEDURE: The.administrator or his appointed representative shall discuss the
preliminary plat with the subdivider in order to determine whether or not his preliminary
plat generally conforms to the requirements of the subdivision ordinance and of the zoning
ordinance. The subdivider shall then be advised in writing within 45 days, which may be'
by formal letter or by legible markings on his copy of the preliminary plat, concerning
any additional data that may be requires% the character and extent of the public improve-
ments that will have to be made, and ari estimate of the cost of construction or improve-
ments and the amount of the performance bond which will be required as a prerequisite to
approval of the final subdivision plat. In determining the cost of required improvements
and the amount of the performance bond, the administrator may consult with a duly licensed
engineer who shall prepare this data for the administrator, or may require a bona fide
estimate of the cost of improvements to be furnished by the subdivider.
305
5 -7. NO GUARANTEE: Approval by the administrator of the preliminary plat does not con-
stitute a guarantee of approval of the final plat.
5 -8. SIX MONTHS' LIMIT: The subdivider shall have not more than six (6) months after
receiving official notification concerning the preliminary plat to file with th=_administrator
a final subdivision plat in accordance with this ordinance. Failure to.do so shall make
preliminary approval null and void. The administrator may, on written request by the
subdivider, grant an extension of:ithis time limit.
5 -9. NECESSARY CHANGES: No change, erasure or revision shall be made on any preliminary
' or final plat, nor on accompanying data sheets after approval of the administrator hashbeen
endorsed in writing on the plat or sheets, unless authorization for such changes has been
granted in writing by the administrator.
5 -10. FINAL PLAT AND FINAL SITE PLAN: The subdivison plat submitted for final approval
by the governing body and subsequent recording shall be clearly and legibly drawn in ink -
upon tracing cloth at a scale of 100 feet to the inch on sheets having a size of nine
(9) inches by fifteen(15) inches. In addition to the requirements of the preliminary plat,
the final plat shall include the following:
1. The title "FINAL PLAT"
2. Certificates signed by the surveyor setting forth the source of the owners of the
land'subdivided and the place of record of the last instrument in the chain of title.
3. A Statement to the effect that the subdivision as it appears on this plat is with
the free consent and in accordance with the desires of the owners, proprietors and trustees,
if any, and shall be duly acknowledged before some officer authorized to take acknow-
ledgements of deeds.
4. When the subdivison consists of land acquired from more than one source of title
the outlines of the various tracts shall be indicated by dash - lines, and identification
of the respective tracts shall be placed on the plat.
5. The accurate location and dimensions by bearings and distances with all curve
data on all lots and street lines and center lines of streets, boundaries of all proposed or
existing easements, parks, school sites or other public areas, theccnumber and area of all
building sites, all existing public and private streets, their names number and widths
existing utilities, and those to be provided such as sanitary sewers, storm drains, water
mains, manholes and underground conduits including their size and type, water courses and
their names, names of owners and their property lines, both within the boundary of the'sub-
division and adjoining said boundaries.
- 6,. Distances and bearings must balance and close with an accuracy of not less than one
in ten thousand. All bearings shall be calculated from State Grid North, and two (2) ad-
jacent reference points shall show State Plane Coordinates and be located by concrete
monuments not less than five hundred (500)i.feet apart if a known state grid reference point
' is located within 2,500 feet of the subdivision.
7. That data of all curves along the street frontage shall be shown in detail at the
curve or in a curve data table containing the following: Delta, radius, arc, tangent, chord
and chord bearings.
8. Deed of Dedication and construction plans shall accompany the final plat.
9. See 5 -5 -2 through 5 -5 -.6
5 -11. CONDITIONS: The plat shall not be approved until the subdivider has complied with
the general requirements and minimum standards of design in accordance with this ordinance,
and has made satisfactory arrangements for performance bond to cover the cost ofrnecessary
improvements, in lieu of construction, to the satisfaction of the administrator. Approval
of Final Plat shall be written on the face of the plat by the administrator. The subdivider
shall record the plat within 14 days after fianl approval and provide proof to the
administrator; otherwise, the administrator shall mark the plat VOID and return same to
subdivider.
5 -12. PROCEDURE FOR PLATTING ( Subdivison Policies): The following sequence of events
and policies are to be followed in the subdivision of land:
1. Confer with agencies that must approve the plat:
Frederick County Subdivision Administrator
Virginia Department of Highways
Frederick County Sanitation Authority
Lord Fairfax Health District
' Frederick County Recreation Department
2. Submit nine (9) blueprint.copies and one (1) reproducible copy.of the Preliminary
Plat or a site plan as required by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Also submit
five (5) copies of a Master Plan if additional sections are to be subdivided. All additional
sections must be in accordance with the Master Plan unless a revised Master Plan is sub-
mitted and approved. Submit copies, Preliminary Plat and Master Plan applicable to sub-
division administrator. Preliminary Plat and Master Plan must be in accordance with Frederic
County Subdivision Ordinance, and must be received ten (10) days prior to next scheduled
' Planning Commission meeting for consideration at that meeting.
3. At the discretion of the Administrator, the Preliminary Plat may re referred to
the Planning Commission for.its recommendation. Owner or representative of land to be
subdivided should be present at the Planning Commission Meeting.
4. Subdivider submits detailed construction plans for submission to the Subdivision
Administrator, for new roads, water systems, sewerage systems and drainage structures.
5. Final Plat or Final Site Plan, nine (9) blueprint copies and one (1) reproducilbe
copy, submitted to the Subdivision Administrator along with approved construction plans
approved by the agencies listed in paragraph 1 as applicable, and the Plat Review Fee. Final
Plat must be received by the subdivsion administrator within six (6) months of preliminary
plat approval.
e
306
6. Planning - Commission considers Final Plat and submits recommendatin to the Board of
Supervisors. I
7. Plats will not be placed on the Agenda of the Board of Supervisors for action until
final written approval is received from reviewing agencies listed in paragraph 1.
B. If approved by the Board of Supervisors, the Final Plat will be signed by the County
Administrator upon receipt of an adequate performance bond executed in favor of Frederick
County, guaranteeing that roads, utilities, and other improvements will be completed within
an approved time frame, and upon verification that all required easements have been recorded.
The Final Plat may not be recorded until this procedure is accomplished.
9. Final Plat must be recorded within 14 days of.the date of approval by the Board of
Supervisors.
10. Proceed with construction.
11. Upon completion of construction, the applicant may request that 80 per cent of the
bond be releases. This request mint be accompanied by:
a. Approval from Highway Department of street construction.
b. Approval from the appropriate agency on water and sewer construction.
C. Certification by an engineer or surveyor that storm drainage facilities
have been completed in accordance with approved plans.
d. One (1) set or reproducible as -built water, sewer and storm drainage plans
12: Upon meeting all requirements of the Highway Department, the applicant shall make
a request to the Board of Supervisors to have the streets taken into the Secondary Highway
Systems (exception is recreational subdivision - 'District R -5 of the Frederick County
Zoning Ordinance).
Applicants must maintain streets and storm drainage at their expense in any
interim period from time of completion to acceptance into Virginia Department of Highways
System and must post a "DEFECT" bond with the Virginia Department of Highways upon.re-
questing streets be taken into Virginia Department of Highways' System.
13. Upon notification from the Highway Department that the streets have been taken into
the Secondary Highway System, the total amount of Bond covering street construction will
be released.
14. Upon acceptance of central water and /or sewer facilities by the appropriate agency
80% of the bond covering water and sewer construction may be released. The remainder of
the water and sewer bond shall be held for a one (1) year period, for maintenance, after
acceptance.
SECTION VI - ADVERTISING STANDARDS
6 -1. A: subdivider, when advertising a subdivided tract of land for sale, shall be specific
as to the following items:
a. Whether officially approved water and sewage facilities are available.
b. The.status of streets and roads, who owns them, who may use them, and who must
maintain them.
SECTION VII - EFFECTUAL CLAUSES
7 -1. EXCEPTIONS: Where the subdivider can show that a provision of these standards would
cause unnecessary hardship if strictly adhered to, and where, because of topographical or
other conditions peculiar to the site, in the opinion of the administrator a departure may
be made without destroying the intent of such provisions, the administrator may authorize an
exception. Any exception thus authorized is to be stated in writing in the report of the
agent with the reasoning for the departure set forth and justified. No such variance of this
ordinance may be granted by the administrator which is opposed in writing by the county br
highway engineer or health officials.
7 -2. PENALTIES: Any owner or proprietor of any tract of land who subdivides that tract
of land and who violates any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a mis-
demeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $250, and each day after
the first during which such violation shall continue shall constitute a separate violation.
7 -3. ENFORCEMENT: The administrator shall be charged with the enforcement of this
ordinance.
7 -4. VALIDITY: Should any article,'section, subsection or provision of this subdivision
ordinance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional,
such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of this subdivision
ordinance as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so declared to be invalid or
unconstitutional.
7 -5. REPEAL: All Ordinances or portions of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are
hereby repealed to the extent of their conflict.
7 -6. AMENDMENTS: This ordinance may be amended in whole or in part by the governing body
provided that any such amendment shall either originate with or be submitted to the Planning
Commission for recommendation; and further provided that _.no such amendment shall be adopted
without a Public Hearing having been held by the governing body, notice of the time and
place of the hearing shall have been published once a week for two(2) successive weeks in some
newspaper published or having general circulation, not less than five (5) days nor more than'
21 days prior to the said meeting.
SECTION VIII- DEFINITIONS
J
8 -1. For the purpose of this ordinance, certain words and terms used herein shall be
interpreted or defined as follows; Words used in the present tense include the future, words
in the singular number include the plural, and the plural the singular, unless the natural
construction of the work indicates otherwise; the word "LOT" includes the word "PARCEL "; the
word "SHALL" is mandatory and not directory; the word "APPROVE" shall be considered to be
X followed by the words "OR DISAPPROVE "; the reference to this ordinance includes all ordinance:
amending or supplementing the same; all distances and area refer to measurement along a
horizontal plane.
8 -2. SUBDIVIDE: To divide any tract, parcel or lot of land into two (2) or more parts,
except however,
' a. The term "to subdivide" shall not include:
1. A bona fide division or partition of agricultural land for agricultural
purpose' or
2. A building site that conforms to zoning and shape requirements intended for
members of the family owning any such agricultural lands, or
3. The division of land into lots or parcels of land of five (5) or more acres.
In this case, only a plat shall be ;submittal to the administrator for review
and shall otherwise be exempt from the requirements of this ordinance.
' b. The administrator may, however, permit the separation of one (1) parcel from a
tract of land without complying with all requirements of the ordinance if it is (1) -not in
conflict with the general meaning and purpose of the ordinance, (2) -no new streets are
required to serve the parcel, (3) meets the requirements of the zoning district, and (4)-
not less than 150 foot frontage on a right -of -way accepted for maintenance by the Virginia
Department of Highways (See 4 -17).
8 -3. SUBDIVIDER: An individual, corporation or registered partnership, owning any tract,
lot or parcel of land to be subdivided, or a group of two or more persons owning any tract,
lot of parcel of land to be subdivided, who have given: their power of attorney to one of
their group or to .another individual to act on their behalf in planning, negotiating for,
in representing, or executing the legal requirements of the subdivision.
8 -4. ADMINISTRATOR: The representative of the governing body who has been appointed to
serve as the administrator of the Board in approving the subdivision plats.
8 -5. ALLEY: A permanent service way providing a secondary means of access to abutting
properties.
8 -6. BUILDING LINES: The distance from any street or roadway boundary line shall be not
less than 35 feet and not more than 75 feet and shall be shown on the plat and in the
restrictions; no building shall be built in front of this line. This line shall be not
closer to the right -of -way than the setback required by the zoning ordinance.
8 -7. COMMISSION: The Planning Commission of Frederick County, Virginia.
' 8 -8. CUL -DE -SAC: A Street with only one (1) outlet and having an appropriate turnaround
for a safe and convenient reverse traffic movement.
9 -9. DEVELOPER: An owner of property being subdivided, whether or not represented by an
agent.
8 -10. EASEMENT: A grant by a property owner of the use of land fora specific purpose or
purposes. •
8 -11. ENGINEER: A licensed as such by the Commonwealth of Virginia as a Professional
Engineer.
8 -12. GOVERNING BODY: The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia.
8 -13. HEALTH OFFICIAL: The Health Director'of the Lord Fairfax Health District, or his
representative.
8 -14. HIGHWAY ENGINEER: The Resident Engineer employed by the Virginia Department of
Highways who has jurisdiction in Frederick County, Virginia.
8 -15. JURISDICTION: The area or territory subject to the legislative control of the
Governing Body.
8 -16 LOT: A numbered and recorded portion of a subdivision intended for transfer of owner-
ship or for building development.
8 -17. LOT, CORNER: A lot abutting upon two (2) or more streets at their intersection; the
shortest side fronting upon a street shall - be .considered the front of the lot, and the
longest side fronting upon a street shall be considered the side of the lot.
' 8 -18. LOT, DEPTH OF: The mean horizontal distance between the front and rear lot lines.
8 -19. LOT, DOUBLE FRONTAGE: An interior lot having frontage on two (2) streets.
8 -20. LOT INTERIOR: A lot other than a corner lot.
8 -21. LOT OF RECORD: 'A lot which has been recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court.
8 -22. LOT WIDTH OF: The mean horizontal distance between the side lot lines.
' 8 -23. MOBILE HOME:. A wheeled vehicle, a trailer, titled by the Virginia State Division
of Motor Vehicles and /or constructed on a metal under carriage, and approved by the Mobile
Home Manufacturing Association.
8 -24. PLAT: Includes the terms: Plat, map, plan, plot, replat, replot; a map or plan of a
tract or parcel of land which is to be, or which.has been subdivided.
8 -25. PROPERTY: Any tract, lot, parcel or several of the same collected together for the
purpose of subdividing.
8 -26. RECREATION OFFICIAL: The Recreation Director of Frederick County, or representative
of the governing body appointed to serve as Recreation Official.
8 -27. ROAD: A road shall be defined as a street.
8 -28. STREET: The principal means -of vehicular access to a property.
'8-29: STREET OR ALLEY, PUBLIC USE OF: The unrestricted use of a specified area or right -
of -way for ingress and egress to two or more abutting properties.
8 -30. STREET, MAJOR: A heavily traveled thoroughfare or highway that carries a large volume
of THROUGH traffic dkeeediiiq 500 vehicles per day.
8 -31. STREET, MINOR: A street that is used primarily as a means of public access to the
abutting properties with anticipated traffic of less than 500 vehicles per day.
8 -32. STREET, SERVICE DRIVE: A public right -of -way generally parallel and 'contiguous to
a major highway, primarily designated to promote safety by eliminating promiscuous ingress
and egress to such major highway by providing safe and orderly points of access to the
highway and streets ending in cul -de -sac.
8 -33. STREET, WIDTH: The total width of the strip from property line to property line
dedicated or reserved for public use or travel, including roadway, curbs, gutters, side-
walks and planting strips.
8 -34. SURVEYOR: A person licensed as such by the Commonwealth of Virginia as a certified
land surveyor.
8 -35. TOWN HOUSE: A single family attached dwelling.
8 -36. TRAILER: "Trailer" shall mean:
a: Any vehicle used or constructed for use as a conveyance upon highways, so designed
and constructed as to permit occupancy thereof as a dwelling or sleeping place for
one or more persons;
b. A mobile home, or
C. An office or a place of business as in "a" above.
8 -37. ZONING ORDINANCE: The current Zoning Ordinance of Frederick County, Virginia, as
amended.
THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT UPON ADOPTION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
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 ".
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
ORICK CEMETERY - APPROVED
Mr. Berg presented a brief outline of the need for a conditional use permit by Orick
Cemetery and stated that the Planning Commission receommended approval. He stated that the
staff recommended that certain conditions be attached to the permit.,
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 application for conditional use permit of Orick Cemetery for approximately
fourteen acres in Shawnee Magisterial District with the following conditions:
1. Fencing of the site.
2. Proper landscaping.
3. Provision for direct access to and from the site.
4. Maintenance of the site in good order and free from nuisances in perpetuity.
5. Operation within and in accordance with the Orick Cemetery, Inc. Charter with
the State Corporation Commission.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
OMPS GARAGE- APPROVED
Mr. Berg presented the application for conditional use permit of Charles Omps (Omps
'Garagd stating that this would be an'additon to -the present -garage 4 in the form of a
storage shed for tires and oil. He stated that the Planning Commission and staff recommend
approval of this application.
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
approve the application for conditional use permit of Charles Omps (Omps Garage) located in
Gainesboro Magisterial District to build an addition to his present garage, said addition to
be used for storage.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
GLEN RUSSELL - APPROVED
Mr. Berg stated;.that this application was for a two space trailer park in Stonewall
Magisterial District and that the Planning Commission recommends approval.
i
J
309
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the Codnty of Frederick does herein
approve the application for conditional use permit of Glen Russell for the construction of
a two (2) space trailer park in Stonewall Magisterial District.
The above resolutionuas passed unanimously.
SITE PLAN - JIM WILSON - KWICK KLEAN REFUSE - APPROVED
'
Mr. Berg presented the site plan for Kwick Klean Refuse stating that it would be a
storage and maintenance building for the refuse trucks. He stated that the Planning Commis-
sion recommends approval of the site plan.
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 Site Plan of Jim Wilson, Kwick:Klean Refuse, for the proposed construction of a
'
storage and maintenance building for the rufuse trucks used in his operation.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
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 for the month of January, 1974, in the amount of $59,324.79 and orders
the same to be paid by Warrants #802 -' #985.
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 January, 1974, in the amount of $46,783.61 and does
order the same to be paid by Warrants #711 - #801.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT SENATE BILL NO. 70 - APPROVED
Mr. Renalds explained- Senate Bill No. 70 dealing with industrial development and
revenue bonds. •
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 declare their support of Seante Bill Number 70 to be presented in the 1974
Session of the Virginia General Assembly, said bill presenting amendments to the Industrial
Development and Revenue Bond Act as recommended by the Industrial Facilities Financing
Study Commission.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
REPORT - PLASTIC PIPE
REFERRED TO ENGINEERING COMMITTEE
Mr. Don Krueger, County Engineer, appeared before the Board and presented his report
on Olastic pipe, said report recommending that no additional plastic water and /or,'sewer
pipe be allowed to be installed until the investigation of the existing systems indicates
satisfactory results.
Mr. Cole introduced Mr. David Gochenour of Pacesetter, Irn a manufacturer of plastic
pipe who appeared before the Board in support of plastic pipe. He presented a written report
to the Board and discussed many of the assets he felt were available with plastic pipe. He
'
presented in his report several recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for their con-
sideration of the use of plastic pipe in Frederick County.
Mr. Cole suggested that the use of plastic pipe izm Frederick County be referred to the
Engineering Committee for study, review and recommendation to the Board. He also suggested
a meeting be set up with the Engineering Committee and manufacturers of plastic pipe such as
'
Mr. Gochenour to discuss plastic pipe. The Board concurred with these suggestions and the
meeting was set for Monday,.February 18th at 7:00 P.M. in the Board Room.
(. . _ DOG WARDEN - REPORT AND CLAIMS
Mr. Harold Whitacre appeared before the Board and presented his monthly report.
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
deny the claim for livestock kill of Kinley Alfred, Back Creek Magisterial District for 2
ewes, 1 buck and 1 lamb inasmuch as these animals have not been assessed.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
310
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 claim for livestock kill of Amy Russell, Stonewall Magisterial District, for
seven hens and does order that she be reimbursed at the rate of $1:50 for each hen or a
total of $10.50 for this livestock kill.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
SHERIFF ANDERSON - REQUEST FOR SALARY INCREASES
REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON LAW ENFORCEMENT & COURTS
Sheriff Anderson appeared before the Board and requested an increase in salary for four
deputies inasmuch as they would be made sargeants.
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
refer the request of Sheriff Anderson for an increase in salary for four deputies to the
Committee on Law Enforcement and Bourts for study and recommendation.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS REPORTS - APPROVED
After review the reports of the Constitutional Officers were approved by Board.
DEPARTMENT HEADS REPORTS - APPROVED
After review the reports of the Department Heads were approved by the Board.
IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE- REQUEST FOR
T AX EXEMPTION - 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 request for tax exemption of the .Izaak Walton League until the next regular
meeting of February 27, 1974.
The above reolution was passed unanimously.
PARKS AND RECREATION - REQUEST FOR FUNDS TRANSFER - DENIED
The Director of Parks and Recreation, Mr. Bob Fletcher appeared before the Board and
requested the transfer of $1,000 from the Stonewall District Recreation Funds to.the Parks
and Recreation Budget for repair work at Clearbrook Park.
There was discussion as to whether or not this $1,000 had been earmarked for,lights on
the ball diamonds at Clearbrook:Park.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does herein
deny the request of Mr. Bob Fletcher to transfer #1,000 from the Stonewall Recreation Fund
to the Parks and Recreation Budget and does direct that this $1,000 be retained in the
Stonewall Recreation Fund and earmarked for lights on the ball diamonds at Clearbrook
Park.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
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
refer the request of the Parks and Recreation Department for funds for repair work at
Clearbrook Park to the finance committee for study and recommendation.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
R ECREATION TRACT - GREEN ACRES - 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 request for disposition of the recreation tract in Section 5 of Green Acres until
the next regular meeting on February;.27, 1974,
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
ALCOHOL SAFETY ACTION PROGRAM - APPROVED
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan,
BE IT RESOLVED, ThatitXeRB6azdEbf Supervisors of the County of Frederick does herein
approve the planning phase of the Alcohol Safety Action Program for Frederick County.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING ADDITIONAL INTERCHANGE ROUTE 37 - APPROVED
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 that the Virginia
Department of Highways give priority consideration to the establishment of an interchange
at the intersection of the proposed Route 37 and existing Route 628 in order that greater
access and service be provided for the citizens of the Frederick County - Winchester area.
311
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING REINSTATEMENT OF BUDGET FUNDS FOR WATER
PROJECTS - APPROVED
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard F. Madigan,
BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of:iSupervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, that
the Virginia General Assembly is hereby requested to reinstateithe budget funds cut from
' the Virginia State Health Department budget for priority water projects in Virginia
especially as they relate to the following projects in Frederick County, Virginia::
Senseny Road - Sunnyside Areas - $1,609,125
Stephenson Area - 281,800
Gore - 119,700
Total - $2,010
' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That a copy of this resolution be files with the Delegates
and Senator representing Frederick County in the Virginia General Assembly.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
STATEMENT ON 1974 -76 APPROPRIATIONS ACT PRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN
Mr. Sandy presented the following statement dealing with the 1974 -76 Appropriations
Act.
4- STATEMENT ON 1974 -76 APPROPRIATIONS ACT, VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY
It seems apparent, even to the casual observer, that the State
Legislature is considering placing additional burdens on localities.
Instedd of raising state taxes, our State Legislators are apparently
taking the easier route andcshigting certain cost burdens to the
localities and the property tax.
I believe that the General Assembly should exercise its respon-
sibilities and increase state taxes if necessary, rather than shifting
' additional tax burden to the localities' already overburdened property
tax base. I would urge our local representatives to the State Senates;.
and House of Delegates to seriously weigh the impact on localities of
the 1974 -76 Appropriations Act.as proposed, and give. their most careful
consideration to implementing the funding as recommended by the State
Board of Education for educational purposes and to the
former method of funding in both the education and welfare categories
in orderto help reserve the financial stability of local government.
' CONTRACT FOR SURETY BONDS - 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 contract for surety bonds and does herein authorize the Chairman of
the Board and the County Administrator to execute these contracts for developers at
such time as final plats are approved after review for legal content by the Commonwealth
Attorney in order to expedite the issuance of surety bonds by bonding companies to
insure construction of improvements in subdivisions platted in Frederick County.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan, seconded by J. Robert Russell and passed
unanimously, the Board retired into executive session to discuss the acquisition of
land for the Parks and Recreation Department.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan, seconded by J. Robert Russell and passed
Recently received information from the State Capitol indicates that
this year certain financial responsibility is being shifted from the
state to the localities. Although -the localities recognize the necessity
for bearing certain financial responsibilities it appears somewhat
contradictory to the principle of "Sharing the taxcburden" when costs
which have previously been borne by the state are suddenly proposed to
be laid on the shoulders of local government.
The 1974 -76 Appropriations Act being considered for adoption by bhe
1974 Session of the Virginia General Assembly proposes several key
changes in regard toothe cost burden for education and welfare.
In Past years the Stateiand local shares of the cost of education"
have been determined in part by considering the local sales tax revenue.
The proposal for 1974 -J6 provides that the locaility will receive credit
for only -half of the local sales tax in the formula for computing state
aid rather than the full amount. This will result in a higher local
'
share in the cost of education and will markedly reduce the state re-
imbursement to localities for educational purposes.
The State Board of Education recommended to the General Assembly
that an incentive fund be created for the purpose of i mplementing
standards of quality education and also that a $10.00 per pupil re-
imbursement t6 - localities be included to assist localities in helping
to offset the cost for capital outlays and debt service. Both of these
recommendations have been eliminated.
A cost responsibility in welfare funding, formerly borne by the
State has also been shifted to localities. The total supplemental cost
for old age assistance, aid to the blind, and aid to.the permanently
and totally disabled, formerly paid by the state, is proposed for local
funding.
It seems apparent, even to the casual observer, that the State
Legislature is considering placing additional burdens on localities.
Instedd of raising state taxes, our State Legislators are apparently
taking the easier route andcshigting certain cost burdens to the
localities and the property tax.
I believe that the General Assembly should exercise its respon-
sibilities and increase state taxes if necessary, rather than shifting
' additional tax burden to the localities' already overburdened property
tax base. I would urge our local representatives to the State Senates;.
and House of Delegates to seriously weigh the impact on localities of
the 1974 -76 Appropriations Act.as proposed, and give. their most careful
consideration to implementing the funding as recommended by the State
Board of Education for educational purposes and to the
former method of funding in both the education and welfare categories
in orderto help reserve the financial stability of local government.
' CONTRACT FOR SURETY BONDS - 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 contract for surety bonds and does herein authorize the Chairman of
the Board and the County Administrator to execute these contracts for developers at
such time as final plats are approved after review for legal content by the Commonwealth
Attorney in order to expedite the issuance of surety bonds by bonding companies to
insure construction of improvements in subdivisions platted in Frederick County.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan, seconded by J. Robert Russell and passed
unanimously, the Board retired into executive session to discuss the acquisition of
land for the Parks and Recreation Department.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan, seconded by J. Robert Russell and passed
312
unanimously the Board withdrew from executive session.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Dennis T. Cole and passed
unanimously the Board reconvened into regulaf session.
OPTIONS TO PURCHASE LAND - APPROVED
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
options to purchase be executed in an amount not exceeding $1,000.00 for a one year period
for several tracts of land north of Route 50 and east of Route 600 near Hayfied in Gaines -
boro Magisterial District; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That funds in reserve for use in Gainesboro Magisterial
District in the amount of $1,000.00 are hereby appropriated for the above stated purpose;
and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,iThat the Chairman' and the County Administrator are authorized
to execute the necessary legal documents, after review by the Commonwealth Attorney, to
obtain these options.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
RECOMMENDATION FOR FINANCE COMMITTEE TO STUDY SEWER PROJECTS
APPROVED
Mr. Madigan introduced Charles Boyd who requested that the Board recommend the
Finance Committee to make an economic impact study on sewer projects in Frederick County.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors does herein recommend that the Finance
Committee make an economic impact study on five sewer projects in Frederick County, said
projects Red Bud Run; Abrams Creek; Kernstown; Stephens Run; and the regional
facility.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
UPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO
NOW ADJOURN.
& -
Se retary Bd.of Supervisors
Ch rman Bd. of upe sors
At the Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia,
held on the 27th day of February, 1974, 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 .thariman called the meeting to order.
REZONING APPLICATION - JOSEPH EDWARD CHESHIRE
. APPROVED - FIRST AND SECOND READING
Mr. Renalds stated that Mr. Cheshire plans to construct a business for the sale
of pre-
cut homes on the property.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, Thatithe Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does
herein
approve the following rezoning application on first and second reading:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1,1973,
TO REZONE 13.70 ACRES MORE OR LESS, OF JOSEPH EDWARD CHESHIRE, ET UX,
LOCATED ABOUT THREE AND ONE -HALF (3 1/2) MILES EAST OF WINCHESTER ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF ROUTE 50 EAST, IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT; FROM
RESIDENTIAL, LIMITED (R -2) TO BUSINESS, GENERAL (B -2).
The above resolution was passed unanimously:
REZONING APPLICATION - RAY OSWELL SHENK
APPROVED - FIRST AND SECOND READING
Mr. Renalds stated that Mr. Shenk plans to construct an office building complex on
the property.
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 following rezoning application on first and second reading:
k 313
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973,
TO REZONE 9.72 ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF RAY OSWELL SHENK, LOCATED AT
919 NORTH LOUDOUNSSTREET EXTENDED, JUST NORTH OF THE CITY OF WIN -
CHESTER;�-iVIRGINIA;_IN STONEWALL•MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT; 'FROM REST
=, DENTSAL LIMITED (R- 1),,TO- BUSINESS, GENERAL (B -2).
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
REZONING APPLICATION - (ROBERT MARTIN
' APPROVED - FIRST AND SECOND READING
Mr. Renalds stated that this property was the land rezoned by emergency legislation
for Robert Martin in Sunnyside.
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, on first and second reading the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED
NOVEMBER 1, 1973, PURSUANT TO SECTION 15.1 -493 OF THE CODE OF
VIRGINIA, (1950) AS AMENDED.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
REZONING APPLICATION - LOUIS H. FOLTZ
APPROVED - FIRST AND SECOND READING
Mr. Renalds state that Mr. Foltz plans to construct a recycling center on the southern
part of the property and the northern section would be utilized for business /industrial
uses.
Mr. Cole stated that there had been a lot of discussion on this rezoning application
and while he felt a recycling center.would be beneficial to the County, he was not sure
this was the right location for it. He stated that he had received numerous calls from
people objecting to this rezoning application.
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
approve, on first and second reading, the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973,
TO REZONE 9.0 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OF LOUIS H. FOLTZ, LOCATED ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE 50 EAST, BESIDE TOWN AND COUNTRY DEPART-
MENT STORE, IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT; FROM BUSINESS,
LIMITED (B -1) TO INDUSTRIAL, GENERAL (M -2).
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
REZONING APPLICATION - LOUIS H. FOLTZ AND FRANCIS P. LAGES
FIRST AND SECOND READING - APPROVED
Mr. Renalds stated that this piece of property adjoins the property in the afore-
mentioned rezoning application and constitutes the northern section planned for busi-
ness /industrial uses.
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
approve_, on first and second reading, the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER
1, 1973, TO REZONE 9.0 ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF LOUIS H. FOLTZ
AND FRANCIS P. LAGES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE 50
EAST, BESIDE TOWN AND COUNTRY DEPARTMENT STORE, IN SHAWNEE.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT; FROM BUSINESS, LIMITED (B -1) TO
' INDUSTRIAL GENERAL (M -2).
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
RECREATION TRACT - GREEN ACRES, SECTION 5
- TO BE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION
Mr. Renalds stated that the recreation tract in Section 5 of Green Acres was not
suitable for recreation. He stated that it is located at the end of a cul4de -sac and
' drops off rather steeply. . . ,
Mr. Cole stated that.since the property-does belong to the County,•he would suggest
that it be sold at public auction,to the highest bidder.
Mr. Ambrogi stated that the Board would have to petition the Court to sell the
property.
Upon motion made by Dennis T: Cole and seconded by J.- Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, That.the Board of Supervisors does herein direct that a petition be
sought through the Court for.sale.of the recreational tract of land in Section 5 of Green
Acres, belonging to Frederick County at public auction to the highest bidder; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the proceeds from the sale of said property be retained
in the recreational fund for Shawnee District.
314
The above resolution was passedunanimously.
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
authorize the Chairman of the Board to execute the necessary documents to have the pro-
perty conveyed to the County.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE - REQUEST FOR TAX EXEMPTION
TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT
Mr. Daniel Perry, attorney for the Izaak Walton League, appeared before the Board and
presented the request of the Izaak Walton League for exemption of real estate taxes. He
stated that they had been in touch with Al Smith's office in Richmond and had been advised
to seek a resolution from the Board approving this tax exemption. He stated that.the
organization has approximately 200 dues paying members and after the expenses of operating
and maintaining the park, the taxes on the property present a real burden on the organi-
zation. He further stated that the Izaak Walton League provides many beneficial assets
to the community and they d-id not feel the loss of their taxes, which are approximately
$300 per year would due any great harm to'Frederick County.
There was discussion as to whether or not an acreage limit should be enforced should
tax exemptions be granted and Mr. Sandy stated that he felt this would have to be done
inasmuch as an organization could acquire additional acreage as the organization continues
to grow.
Mr. Russell stated that he would be in favor of an acreage limit also.
Mr. Madigan stated that he felt the organizations requesting tax exempt status should
consider that the tax dollars paid to the County benefit all the people, including the
organizations. -
Mr. Perry stated that though they could not dispute this fact, there was a possibility
that the organizations could be taxed out of business inasmuch as they are a:.nonprofit
group.
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
direct that the request of the Izaak Walton League for tax exemption be taken under
advisement for study and recommendation by this Board.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
DATE SET FOR STUDENT GOVERNMENT DAY
Miss Stephanie Hahn appeared before the Board, representing the student body at James
Wood High School in the establishment of Student Government Day.
The Board of Supervisors set the dates for Student Government Day for Frederick
County for April 10 and 11, 1974.
DR. WRIGHT - REQUEST FOR FUNDS
FOR SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAM - APPROVED
Dr. Wright appeared before the Board and stated that the County was listed, along with
other counties, for a $2 million school bond issue with the Virginia Public School Author-
ity which will be sold either in late March or early April. He then presented a request
to authorize the School Board to inform the Virginia Public School Authority that Frederick
County wishes to remain on the list for the bond issue. He. further stated that the funds
would be used for the construction of the Bass- Hoover School and would contribute toward
the renovation of James Wood.
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
authorize the Frederick County School Board to negotiate with the Virginia Public School
Authority for the issuance of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) in school bonds and to use
the funds thereof to help defray the cost of the proposed building program; said building
program to be the construction of the Bass- Hoover Elementary School ($2,200,000) and the
renovation and addition to the James Wood High School ($1,600,000).
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
HOURS OF OPERATION - LOCAL SERVICE STATIONS - DISCUSSED
Mr. James Robertson appeared before the Board, representing the local service station
operators and stated that the Attorney General's Office has asked the local dealers to stag.-
ger their hours of operation so that the public could be served more efficiently. He
stated that the Attorney General had suggested that this be done on a voluntary basis and
if this method is not successful, the Board of Supervisors could request the Attorney
General's Office to require the dealers to adhere to this procedure.
315
The Board advised Mr. Robertson to proceed with the request of the Attorney General
to work out the staggered hours of operation with the local dealers on a voluntary basis
and if this method is not successful, the Board would request the dealers to participate
in this plan of operation.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell and passed
unanimously the Board withdrew from executive session.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell and passed
unanimously the Board reconvened into regular session.
Mr. Sandy gave a brief resume of the discussion held in Executive Session.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING APPROVAL /DISAPPROVAL FROM
STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD ON WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS
DONATION OF ADDITIONAL RIGHT -OF -WAY
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
EARL,T. LANTZ, ET UX - ACCEPTED
Mr. Renalds presented a letter concerning a tract of land on Route 608 in Back Creek
'
Magisterial District, wherein the owners of the property, Mr. and Mrs. Earl T. Lantz, ad-
Creek and Opequon Creek projects in Frederick County, Virginia, have been submitted to the
vised of their desire to convey an additional 5 foot right -of -way to the County to provide
for the future widening of the road.
WHEREAS, Frederick County has waited for more than fourteen months for an answer on
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
accept from Edith M. and Earl T.Lantz the conveyance of an additional five (5) foot right -
'
of -way from their property located on Route 608 in Back Creek Magisterial District, said
additional right -of -way to be used for the future widening of the road.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
provide water and sewer- to a $2.1 million elementary school now under construction, said
BILLS APPROVED - SANITATION AUTHORITY LOAN ADVANCE - POSTAGE
MACHINE REFILL AND FUNDS FOR OPTION TO PURCHASE LAND
Mr. Renalds presented a request from the Director of the Sanitation Authority, Mr.
school to be placed in use in September, 1974, without which Frederick County will have a
Krueger, wherein it was requested that loan funds be advanced under budget item 1OH -90B in
the amount of $12,954.88 for construction to date on the Red Bud Run Project.
Mr. Boyd presented a bill for $1,500 for refill of the postage machine and a bill
critical shortage of classrooms, space resulting in extremely overcrowded conditions; and,
in the amount of $500 to be paid to Hogue Creek Estates for the option to purchase pro-
perty in Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Upon motion made Eby Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Board of Supervisors does request
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does herein
approve the following bills:
1. Sanitation Authority - Loan Advance - $12,954.88 for construction to date
Red Bud Run, Abrams Creek, and Opequon Creek projects at a very early date; and,
on the Red Bud Run. Project.
'
2. City of Winchester, Postmaster - $1,500 - Refill of Postage Machine.
3. Hogue Creek Estates - $500 - Funds to execute option to purchase property in
County Sanitation Authority, and staffs of said organizations coordinate with the State
Gainesboro Magisterial District.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
Dennis T. Cole, J. Robert Russell and Donald R. Hodgson all voting "Aye" and Richard F.
Water Control Board to obtain the information pertaining to these three projects; as well as
Madigan voting "Nay ".
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J— Russell and passed unanimousl
the Board retired into executive session.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell and passed
unanimously the Board withdrew from executive session.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell and passed
unanimously the Board reconvened into regular session.
Mr. Sandy gave a brief resume of the discussion held in Executive Session.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING APPROVAL /DISAPPROVAL FROM
STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD ON WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
'
WHEREAS, Preliminary proposals for sewage treatment plants for the Red Bud Run, Abrams
Creek and Opequon Creek projects in Frederick County, Virginia, have been submitted to the
State Water Control Board and public hearings have been held on the three projects; and,
WHEREAS, Frederick County has waited for more than fourteen months for an answer on
these systems; and,
WHEREAS, The necessity exists for these systems to alleviate serious health problems
in Frederick County and to provide for orderly growth; and the critical necessity exists to
provide water and sewer- to a $2.1 million elementary school now under construction, said
school to be placed in use in September, 1974, without which Frederick County will have a
critical shortage of classrooms, space resulting in extremely overcrowded conditions; and,
WHEREAS, An early answer on these three projects is critical to arranging financing;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Board of Supervisors does request
the Virginia State Water Control Board to provide an answer on approval /disapproval of the
Red Bud Run, Abrams Creek, and Opequon Creek projects at a very early date; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, the Frederi
County Sanitation Authority, and staffs of said organizations coordinate with the State
Water Control Board to obtain the information pertaining to these three projects; as well as
a time schedule for implementing the proposed regional sewage treatment plant on the Opequon
316
Creek to be constructed by the Frederick- Winchester Service Authority inasmuch as these
projects are of serious concern to this area and affect the health, safety and welfare of
the citzens of Frederick County, Virginia.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
RESIGNATION - JAMES L. BOWMAN - SANITATION AUTHORITY - ACCEPTED
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
accept the resignation of James L. Bowman from the Frederick County Sanitation Authority.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Mr. Sandy directed that a letter of appreciation be-sent to Mr. Bowman for his service
on the Sanitation Authority. He further stated that he would appoint a new member to the
Authority to fill the vacancy created by Mr. Bowman's resignation within ninety days and
until this appointment is made he will attend the meetings of the Sanitation Authority in
an advisory capacity.
UPON MOTION DULY MADE - AND SECONDED, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW
ADJOURN.
At a Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia,
held on the 13th day of March, 1974, 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 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 meeting of this Board held on the 23rd day of January, 1974
as submitted.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
REQUEST FOR ROAD ABANDONMENT
ROUTE 751
Mr. Renalds presented a letter from Mr. Joseph Massie requesting abandonment of Route
751 in Gainesboro Magisterial District by Lake Holiday Estates.
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
direct the County Administrator to advertise the proposed abandonment of Route 751 in
Gainesboro Magisterial District from Route 703 eastward, a distance of 0.3 mile.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
Mr. Sandy announced that the Annual Road Hearing would be held on Wednesday, March
27, 1974, in the Court House.
I
317
SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAM - APPROVED
Dr. Wright appeared before the Board and requested approval of the Board of Supervisors
to move ahead with the proposed high school construction plans and the renovation of James
Wood. He presented a brief resume on the planned renovation, stating that this would
accomodate approximately 1,300 students, and the proposed construction of a new 1200 pupil
' senior high school. He explained the procedure necessary to finance the school construction.
There was discussion concerning what use would be made of the schools in the county
that would be phased out when the building program is complete and Dr. Wright stated that
the schools would be used for quite some time even when the new ones are complete. Dr.
Mr. Russell stated that he felt there was no question concerning the need for shcools
in the County but we must control the growth of the County and provide the schools as
economically as possible.
Mr. Madigan moved to authorize the school board to proceed with their present building
program as discussed with the Board and to begin some type of program for a new senior high
school.
Mr..Cole stated that he did not feel he could vote to approve a $14 million dollar
building program right now in that he would have to study this proposal quite thoroughly
before voting on it.
Mr. Sandy stated that Mr. Madigan's motion would authorize a $7,746,000 building pro-
gram for the elementary schools and the renovation of James Wood and would request the
' school board to bring preliminary plans to the Board of Supervisors on the projected
$7,112,000 new senior high school.
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
authorize the Frederick County School Board to proceed with its present building program
of $7,726,646 as previously discussed with this Board and does request the school board to
proceed with the preliminary work on the projected $7,112,000 senior high school, said
report to be presented to this Board for approval or disapproval.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
Richard F. Madigan, J. Robert Russell, and Donald R. Hodgson voting "Aye" and Dennis T. Cole
abstaining.
APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
' 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 payroll for the month of February, 1974 in the amount of $46,609.76 and does
order the same paid by Warrants #988 through #1075.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
S. ROGER KOONTZ - SANITATION AUTHORITY
REQUESTS PRESENTED TO BOARD
Mr. S. Roger Koontz, Acting Chairman of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority
appeared before the Board and stated that the Sanitation Authority had several questions
which they would like to present to the Board as follows:
1. A request to the Board of Supervisors to furnish some written indication as to the
direction the Sanitation Authority should take on the Kernstown project.
2. A request for some indication as to the advisability of proceeding with a feasibili
study in the Route 50 East area.
Wright stated
that the total cost of
the proposed
building program was estimated to be
'
approximately
$14 million dollars.
Mr. Russell stated that he felt there was no question concerning the need for shcools
in the County but we must control the growth of the County and provide the schools as
economically as possible.
Mr. Madigan moved to authorize the school board to proceed with their present building
program as discussed with the Board and to begin some type of program for a new senior high
school.
Mr..Cole stated that he did not feel he could vote to approve a $14 million dollar
building program right now in that he would have to study this proposal quite thoroughly
before voting on it.
Mr. Sandy stated that Mr. Madigan's motion would authorize a $7,746,000 building pro-
gram for the elementary schools and the renovation of James Wood and would request the
' school board to bring preliminary plans to the Board of Supervisors on the projected
$7,112,000 new senior high school.
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
authorize the Frederick County School Board to proceed with its present building program
of $7,726,646 as previously discussed with this Board and does request the school board to
proceed with the preliminary work on the projected $7,112,000 senior high school, said
report to be presented to this Board for approval or disapproval.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
Richard F. Madigan, J. Robert Russell, and Donald R. Hodgson voting "Aye" and Dennis T. Cole
abstaining.
APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
' 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 payroll for the month of February, 1974 in the amount of $46,609.76 and does
order the same paid by Warrants #988 through #1075.
The above resolution was passed unanimously.
S. ROGER KOONTZ - SANITATION AUTHORITY
REQUESTS PRESENTED TO BOARD
Mr. S. Roger Koontz, Acting Chairman of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority
appeared before the Board and stated that the Sanitation Authority had several questions
which they would like to present to the Board as follows:
1. A request to the Board of Supervisors to furnish some written indication as to the
direction the Sanitation Authority should take on the Kernstown project.
2. A request for some indication as to the advisability of proceeding with a feasibili
study in the Route 50 East area.
31.3
3. A request for the Board's reaction on the proposed fees adopted by the Sanitation
Authority; $800 for developers of-new subdivisions; $750 for existing homes; and $2,150
for vacant lots.
Mr. Madigan stated that on June 14, 1972, in Minute Book 11 on Page 22 the Board
directed the Sanitation Authority to move ahead with the Kernstown Project. He asked I
why this had not been done.
Mr. Koontz stated that there had been a tie -up with the feasibility study and a lot
of public(--cntroversy had arisen over this project.
Mr. Russell stated that he appreciated Mr. Koontz coming before the Board and thanked
him for appearing. I
Mr. Cole stated that he would need time to think about the request presented by the
Sanitation Authority before making any decisions on them. He thanked Mr. Koontz for
coming before the Board and stated that he felt the change in the rates was more real-
istic than the previous ones.
Mr. Sandy stated that he felt the rates should be higher and there followed a
lengthy discussion on the proposed rates. Mr. Sandy stated that he felt the services
should be provided but not subsidized by the County. Mr. Koontz stated that he would be
glad to present these views to the Sanitation Authority at their next meeting.
Mr. Madigan stated that the people in the Sunnyside area had asked for water and
sewer five years ago and this was the reason the Sanitation Authority had been formed.
He stated that he did not feel that the Sanitation Authority had worked closely with the
Board in the past nor was it working closely with the Board at the present time. ,
Mr. Koontz stated that it was not the intention of the Sanitation Authority to work
independently from the Board and that the Sunnyside project had not been feasible.
Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Koontz if the Sanitation Authority would be willing to go back
and amend its charter to tie it in directly to,the Board of Supervisors and Mr.Koontz stat-
ed that he felt this was a legal question and he did not know whether this could be done.
Mr. Sandy stated that he felt Mr. Koontz should not be criticized for what had hap-
pened in the past and that he had come to the Board to ask for direction.
Mr. Madigan asked how water and sewer would be provided for the Apple Pie Ridge
School and Mr. Koontz stated that water and sewer would be available to the school and
there were several alternatives to the problem until the system is completed.
Mr. Madigan asked if the Sanitation Authority thought it was prudent to guarantee
the school board that water and sewer would be provided to the school when the lines had ,
not been approved by the State Water Control Board.
Mr. Cole stated that the State Water Control Board had no control over water and
sewer lines laid over private land.
Mr. Koontz stated that they were trying to meet a schedule and they were not in
violation of any law in laying these lines. He stated that they had no reason to believe '
that the State Water Control Board would not approve the lines inasmuch as they had been
built to specification in every respect.
Mr. Madigan stated that he did not have the right to approve a loan to any agency
that did not have proper approval from all governmental agencies. He stated that the
tax base of this County could have been rebuilt if the Sanitation Authority had pro-
vided these services. He further stated that he did not have faith in the Sanitation
Authority and he felt that by their inactivity they have shown either nonfeasance, mis-
feasance, or malfeasance because their inactivity in this County will make the tax rate
319
go up on everyone in the County.
Mr. Cole stated that he wanted it understood that each member of this Board speaks for
himself and he offered his apologies to Mr. Koontz.
Mr. Koontz stated that he and the Authority had faith in the Board of Supervisors even
if Mr. Madigan had no faith in the Authority and he knew the two Boards, working together
' could make the County a better place to live. He thanked the Board for their time and
stated that he looked forward to some direction from the Board.
Mr. James Diehl, the'representative from Shawnee District on the Sanitation Authority,
appeared before the Board and stated that the Authority had done everything possible to
' provide water and sewer to the County. He stated that Mr. Koontz had come to the Board
to ask for direction in order that these services could be provided. He explained the
various problems the Authority had encountered and stated that he did not appreciate the
treatment Mr. Koontz had received from Mr. Madigan and that the Sanitation Authority was
interested only in getting the job done in this County. He stated that the Sanitation
Authority had asked for the help of the Board in order to correct any mistakes made in
the past.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Rezoninq Application - Joseph Edward Cheshire - Tabled:
Mr. Cheshire appeared before the Board in supportof his rezoning application stating
that the property would be used for the sale of modular and precut homes.
There followed discussion as to whether or not these homes would be mobile homes,
Mr. Cheshire stated that the homes would not be stored on the property but four
' models would be set up for display and the property would be properly landscaped.
There was no opposition to this rezoning application.
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
table for thirty days the following ordinance in order that the people in said area might
be made aware of this proposed business:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED
NOVEMBER 1, 1973, TO REZONE 13.70 ACRES, MORE OR LESS
OF JOSEPH EDWARD CHESHIRE, ET UX, LOCATED ABOUT THREE
AND ONE -HALF (3 1/2) MILES EAST OF WINCHESTER ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF ROUTE 50 EAST, IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT; FROM RESIDENTIAL, LIMITED (R -2) TO BUSINESS,
GENERAL (B -2)
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye;
J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F.
I Madigan, Aye.
Rezoning Application - Ray Oswell Shenk - Approved
Mr. Joseph Massie appeared before the Board representing Mr. Shenk and explained the
location of the property. He stated that the property would be used for a one story office
building.
There was no opposition to this rezoning.
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 ordinance:
L. -
320
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE
ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973, TO REZONE 0.72
ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OF RAY OSWELL SHENK,
LOCATED AT 919 NORTH LOUDOUN STREET EXTENDED,
JUST NORTH OF THE CITY OF WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA,
IN STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT; FROM RESIDENTIAL,
LIMITED (R -1) TO BUSINESS, GENERAL (B -2).
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard
F. Madigan, Aye.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973, PURSUANT TO SECTION 15.1 -493 OF THE
CODE OF VIRGINIA, (1950) AS AMENDED - (Robert Martin Property)-
Mr. Berg presented the request for rezoning of the property of Robert Martin in
Sunnyside.
Mr. Cole stated that he felt this matter should be tabled until a plat is presented
setting forth the property to be rezoned. He further stated that the property owners
be notified when their property is proposed to be rezoned.
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 table the following ordinance until such time as a plat is submitted showing
the property sought to be rezoned:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973, PURSUANT TO SECTION
15.1 -493 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA (1950) AS AMENDED.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard
F. Madigan, Aye.
Rezoning Application - Louis H. Foltz - Denied
Ms. Lee Snyder Lovett appeared before the Board representing the opposition to the
rezoning request of Louis H. Foltz. Mrs. Lovett stated that there were several discrep-
ancies on the application insofar as the location of the property is concerned.
Mr. Sandy stated that the Board was aware of the location of the property.
Mr. Ben Butler appeared before the Board representing Mr. Foltz and enumerated the
operations being conducted in the area. He stated that the use being asked for was
conducive to the area. A slide program was then presented to the Board showing the location
of the property and the uses now in the area.
Mr. Butler presented a brief resume of the proposed business to be located on the
property. He presented an opinion of the State Court of Appeals dealing with spot' : zoning
relative to a case in Boutetourt County wherein 8 acres of land had been rezoned for a
quarrying operation around a supposed agricultural - residential area. He stated that the
Court found that this was not spot zoning and stated that the rezoning of Mr. Foltz' was
in essence the same type request.
Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Butler if Mr. Lages had a plan for his property in the area and
Mr. Butler stated he did not represent Mr. Lages.
Mr. Madigan asked if Mr. Butler had knowledge of a proposed condominium in the area
and Mr. Butler stated that he did not.
Ms. Lovett appeared before the Board and stated that a great deal of thought, work and
planning had gone into the preparation and adoption of the county zoning ordinance and she
felt the'BOard should adhere to the zoning set forth in the ordinance. She stated that
the property was zoned B -2 when Mr. Foltz purchased it in 1971 and that the businesses he
has established there do not conform to this zoning category. She cited legal cases wherein
321
businesses were ordered removed when they had been built in an improper zone. She stated
that Mr. Foltz' uses of the property were not in conformance with the Frederick County
zoning Ordinance. She further stated that the uses in the area now and those proposed by
Mr. Foltz are not compatible with the residential zoning in the area. Ms. Lovett stated
that a petition with 182 signatures had been presented to the Planning Commission in
opposition to this rezoning application.
Mr. Louis Costello appeared before the Board representing Shenandoah Valley National
Bank and stated that the bank was also opposed to this rezoning application.
Mr. Butler appeared before the Board in rebuttal to the opposition and stated that
good zoning practices would dictate that this property should be rezoned industrial be-
hind the commercial uses already in the area.
Ms. Lovett than appeared before the Board in rebuttal and stated that this rezoning
would not be beneficial to the area nor to the people in the area who have their resid-
ences there. She urged the Board to adhere to the zoning ordinance with respect to the
zoning of this property stating that if this rezoning request was granted the Board would
have no control over the operation Mr. Foltz might establish there.
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 deny the following rezoning application:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED
NOVEMBER 1, 1973, TO REZONE 9.0 ACRES, MORE OR LESS,
OF LOUIS H. FOLTZ, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE
50 EAST, BESIDE TOWN AND COUNTRY DEPARTMENT STORE, IN
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT; FROM BUSINESS LIMITED
(B -1) TO INDUSTRIAL, GENERAL (M -2).
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye;
J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan,
Aye.
Rezoning Application Louis H. Foltz and Francis P. Lages - Denied
Mr. Ben Butler appeared before the Board representing Louis H. Foltz in his appli-
cation to rezone 9.0 acres of land in Shawnee Magisterial District from B -1 to M -2. Mr.
Butler stated that Mr. Foltz planned to establish a recycling center on the property.
He explained the operation to be conducted stating that it would not be a landfill oper-
ation. He introduced Mr. Joseph Post of the Hiehl Company who explained the operation
with the aid of a slide program. He presented data supporting the proposed operation.
Mr. Butler then presented several pictures depicting what the building housing the
operation would look like and a slide program was presented showing the proposed location
of the business and the actual operation planned.
Mr. Butler stated that the position of the applicant was that this property should be
rezoned in that it was not spot zoning, there were natural buffer zones between the pro-
perty and the residences in the area, and that Mr. Lages was not in opposition to this
rezoning. He stated that the operation would be conducted under a conditional use permit
thereby giving the Board control over the operation. He further stated that economics
dictate that an operation such as this must be located where the waste is produced and not
in the country in the woods. He stated that this would definitely not be a landfill oper-
ation.
Ms. Lovett appeared before the Board and stated that Mr. Foltz owned only 3 acres of
the property sought to be rezoned and Mr. Lages owned the other 6 acres. She stated that
Mr. Lages had stated publicly that he had no idea that Mr. Foltz planned to locate a re-
322
cycling center on the property.
She further stated that she had a letter from the Small Business Administration stating
that Mr. Foltz' application for a loan to construct the business had been denied and she
had been advised by Commercial and Savings Bank that the request for loan had been with-
drawn.
She presented a letter from a recycling plant in Great Falls, Montana pointing out
the shortcomings of that particular operation.
She stated that the residents were very concerned about the effect this plant would
have on their lives and that if the financing did become a reality, the property would
still be rezoned M -2 and any use permitted in that category could be located there. Ms.
Lovett stated that Mr. Foltz could purchase property near the landfill for this operation
which would be much more feasible for all concerned.
Mr. Louis Costello appeared before the Board representing Shenandoah Valley National
Bank and stated that the bank was also in opposition to this rezoning application.
Mr. Butler appeared before the Board in rebuttal and stated that Mr. Lages was aware
of what the land would be used for and that the Small Business Administration Loan had
been withdrawn and would be reactivated if and when the land was rezoned. He presented a
petition signed by residents on Route 50 and Route 522 in support of this operation.
Ms. Lovett appeared before the Board in rebuttal and stated that the information pre-
sented on the S.B.A. loan by the applicant was not true and that it had in fact been denied.
She stated that it was clear, according to the number of people present, that the resi-
dents in the area are indeed in opposition to this rezoning. She urged the Board to con-
sider carefully the planning of Frederick County and the requests of the citizens. She
stated that the land could be used more economically in other ways such as a motel near
the airport.
Mr. Butler stated that his client had stated that if the recycling center did not be-
come a reality he would withdraw the rezoning of the property to the M -2 category.
Mr. Madigan stated that he felt a recycling operation was a very necessary thing for
the community but this property was the wrong location for such a 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, Virginia,
does herein deny the following rezoning application
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED
NOVEMBER 1, 1973, TO REZONE 9.0 ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF
LOUIS H. FOLTZ AND FRANCIS P. LAGES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF ROUTE 50 EAST, BESIDE TOWN AND COUNTRY DEPARTMENT
STORE, IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT; FROM BUSINESS, LIMITED
(B -1) TO INDUSTRIAL, GENERAL (M -2).
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard
F. Madigan, Aye.
The Board recessed for five minutes
SUBDIVISIONS
Mr. Berg stated that the Zea and Cabaniss Subdivisions as set forth on the Agenda
had been withdrawn inasmuch as the necessary signatures had not been obtained.
1
"1
Wakeland Manor Subdivision - Section E -1 - Approve
323
Mr. Berg presented the plat of Wakeland Manor Subdivision, Section E and stated that
all requirements had been met with the exception of posting bond for required improvements.
There was discussion as to the number of lots to be approved. Mr. Sandy stated that the
number of lots: approved should be kept at a point wherin the bond would be accessible.
' 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, contingent upon final delineation by the developer and final approval by the
Subdivision Administrator, twenty five lots of the plat of Wakeland Manor, Section E, said
lots to be designated Section E -1, and does herein stipulate that the developer's surveyor
' . delineate by heavy lines the section of the plat containing said 25 lots for final review
and approval by the Subdivision Administrator.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye;
J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan,
Aye.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
Dick Giles - Conditional Use Permit -
Mr. Berg stated that Mr. Giles plans to convert an existing garage into an antique
shop. He stated that the zoning of the property is A -2 and the surrounding area is
zoned A -2. Mr. Berg stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of this
conditional use permit with the stipulation that it be kept under roof.
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 the request for conditional use permit of Dick Giles to construct an
antique shop on his property on Senseny Road opposite Burning Knolls Subdivision in
Shawnee Magisterial District with the stipulation that said operation be kept under roof.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye;
J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan,
Aye.
Dr. Jerry Grimes - Conditional Use Permit - Approved:
Mr. Berg stated that Dr. Grimes plans to construct a veterinary hospital and described
the location of the property. He stated that the zoning of the land was B -2 and the
- Planning Commission recommended approval of this permit.
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 a conditional use permit for Dr. Jerry Grimes to construct a' veterinary
hospital on Route 522 South in Shawnee Magisterial District.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye;
J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye ; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F.
' Madigan, Aye.
Leslie A. Mogle - Conditional Use Permit - Approved
"t-
Mr. Berg stated that Mr. Mogle plans to build a bicycle shop and sales and repair
business and that the property is located off Route 647 and is adjacent to Interstate
81 in opequon Magisterial District.
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 a conditional use permit for Leslie A. Mogel to construct a bicycle
shop and sales and repair business on his property located off Route 647, adjacent to
324
Interstate 81 in Opequon Magisterial District.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote; Raymond G. Sandy,
Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F.
Madigan, Aye.
Unisil Corporation - Conditional Use Permit - Approved
Mr. Berg stated that Unisil Corporation plans to construct an office building on
their property in Back Creek Magisterial District.
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 a conditional use permit for Unisil Corporation to construct an
office building on their property located in Back Creek Magisterial District.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard
F. Madigan, Aye.
DOG WARDEN - REPORT AND CLAIMS
Mr. Harold Whitacre, Dog Warden, appeared before the Board and presented his
monthly report and the following claims.
Claim for livestock kill - M. B. Ritenour - 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' the claim for livestock kill of M. B. Ritenour of Opequon Magist-
erial District for one ewe in the amount of $15.00.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard
F. Madigan, Aye.
Claim for livestock kill - Frederick Burleson - Approved:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia,
does herein approve the claim for livestock kill of Frederick Burleson of Stonewall Mag-
isterial District for 4 laying hens at $1.50 each or a total of $6.00.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard
F. Madigan, Aye.
Claim for livestock kill - M. G. Semples - Approved:
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 claim for livestock kill of M. G. Semples of Stonewall Magisterial District
for one lamb in the amount of $20.00.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard
F. Madigan, Aye.
TAX REFUNDS - RAY J. DOLLY AND LINDA LOU ALLEN - 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, Virginia,
does herein approve the following tax refunds:
1. Ray J. Dolly - Erroneous Purchase of Mobile Home
Sticker - $15.00
325
2. Linda Lou Allen - Taxes erroneously paid - $5.18
The above'resolution was passed by'the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard
F. Madigan, Aye.
1
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS' REPORTS - ACCEPTED
After review the reports of the Constitutional Officers were accepted by the Board.
DEPARTMENT HEADS' REPORTS - ACCEPTED
After review the reports of the Department -Heads were °accep'ted - by'the Board.
ORDINANCES - FIRST & SECOND READING - APPROVED
Rezoninq Application - Meuche and Odence - First and Second Read
oved:
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, on first and second reading the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED
NOVEMBER 1, 1973, TO REZONE 20.66 ACRES, MORE OR
LESS, OF HOWARD O. MEUCHE AND GATES B. ODENCE, LOCATED
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ROUTE 50 WEST, AND SITUATED EAST OF
ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WINCHESTER AND WARDENSVILLE RAILROAD,
IN "GAINESBORO MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT; FROM AGRICULTURAL, LIMITED
(A -1) TO INDUSTRIAL, GENERAL (M -2).
The above resolution was•passed by.the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard
F. Madigan, Aye.
Trus -Joist - Conditional Use Permit - Approved:
Mr. Berg stated that Trus -Joist plans to add a storage shed to their existing
building on Route 11 South in Back Creek Magisterial District. He stated that the land
is zoned properly.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia,
does herein approve a conditional use permit for Trus -Joist to construct a storage shed,
said shed to be an addition to their present facility on Route 11 South in Back Creek
.x
Magisterial District.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard
F. Madigan, Aye.
Floyd Ritter - Conditional Use Permit - Approved
Mr. Berg stated that Mr. Ritter plans to expand his mo'b1le home court in Shawnee
Magisterial District on Route 522 North and Route 646.
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, Virginia,
does herein approve the conditional use permit of Floyd Ritter to expand his existing
mobile home parkin Shawnee Magisterial District on Route 522 North and Route 646.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard
F. Madigan, Aye.
Rezoning Application - Frederick County Fruit Growers Association,.Inc.
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, Virginia,
does herein approve on first and second reading, the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED
NOVEMBER 1, 1973, TO REZONE 27.84 ACRES,' OR ""
LESS, OF FREDERICK COUNTY FRUIT GROWERS' ASSOCIATION,
INC., LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 522 NORTH
ADJOINING THE NORTH CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA, IN GAINESBORO MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT; FROM BUSINESS, GENERAL (B -2) AND RESIDENTIAL,
GENERAL(R -3) TO AGRICULTURAL, LIMITED (A -1).
.x
326
ki
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; Richard F. Madigan, Aye; and J.
Robert Russell, Abstaining.
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 on first and second reading, the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED
NOVEMBER 1, 1973, TO ESTABLISH SECTION:
2 -1 -22 F. Housing for agricultural Workers.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; Richard F. Madigan, Aye_; and J. Robert
Russell, Abstaining.
Ordinance to Amend Water and Sewer Ordinance
First and Second Reading Approved
r
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Richard Madigan,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia,
does herein approve on first and second reading the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE TO REGULATE THE CONSTRUCTION AND EXPANSION
OF CENTRAL WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS WITHIN THE COUNTY
OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA" ADOPTED MAY 10, 1972.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard
F. Madigan, Aye.
RESOLUTION - MILLER OWENS
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 following resolution:
On behalf of the citizens of Frederick County and the Board of Supervisors we would
like to express our sympathy to Mrs. Miller Owens for the recent loss of her husband,
Deputy Miller Owens. Not only is it a personal loss by his family but it is the County's
loss in the terms of citizens' protection and-being a community friend.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard
F. Madigan, Aye.
RELEASE FROM COLLECTION LANDFILL BILLS - APPROVED
Mr. Renalds presented a memorandum from Mr. Don Krueger, County Engineer, requesting
the release of the Treasurer from the collection of two landfill bills.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia does
hereby release the Treasurer from the collection of tDe following landfill accounts:
Account Number Name Amount
26180 H & L Contractors $1.20
42600 Roger Mudd E20"
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That these names be placed on a nonpayment list and that
a new account shall not be started for either of the above until such time as .the above
accounts are rectified.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F.
Madigan, Aye.
NOTIFICATION OF APPROVAL - FREDERICK - WINCHESTER
SERVICE AUTHORITY
Mr. Renalds stated that notification had been received that the creation of the
Frederick- Winchester Service Authority and the Articles of Incorporation of said
Authority have been approved by the State Corporation Commission.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
Mr. Sandy presented the bills for the month of February.
Mr. Madigan moved to set aside the bill from the Frederick County:Sanitation
Authority in the amount of $24,241.21, this bill to be acted upon separately.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Madigan stated that he felt that this bill was very similar to the bill for
I J�
approximately $13,000 approved by the Board at the last meeting upon which he voted "Nay ".
327
L
He stated that he felt this bill should not be approved because the Sanitation Authority
Y
did not have final approval on the project. He further stated that no individual or
corporation could put in limes without first having approval of the State Water Control
Board or approval of the Board of Supervisors and it is a known fact that the Sanitation
Authority does not have final approval from the State Water Control Board. Mr. Madigan
stated that there was an ordinance on the books of Frederick County and since the San-
itation Authority is a separate entity and not a part of the Frederick County Government
per se, said ordinance being the ordinance to regulate the expansion and construction of
water and sewer systems in Frederick County and deals with making application to the
Board of Supervisors for the approval of this Board of such lines and to his knowledge
there was no written application as required by the ordinance, made to the Board of
Supervisors and therefore he felt bills should not be presented for approval for the
Sanitation Authority for unapproved projects by either the State Water Control Board or
not in compliance with the ordinance. He further stated that this was why he asked that
this bill be set aside and therefore he was left no choice but to vote no on all the bills
presented for payment. Mr. Madigan stated that other individuals and corporations in
the county must obey the laws and he felt the Sanitation Authority must be made to do
so also. He further stated that he felt if the Board of Supervisors approved this bill
they would be giving tacit approval to the project.
Mr. Sandy asked what the magnitude of the certificates of deposit of the Sanitation
Authority was and Mr. Krueger stated about $180,000. Mr. Sandy asked what this money
would be used for and Mr. Krueger stated that it would be used for the Stephens Run
Project.
J
Mr. Hodgson stated that the Board had knowledge of this project and had authorized
a loan to the Sanitation Authority.
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 approve the bills for the month of February, 1974, in the amount of
$88,483.52 and does order the same to be paid by Warrants #1077 through #1257.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy,
Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson,.-Aye; and Richard
F. Madigan, Aye.
UPON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, IT WAS ORDERED THAT THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW ADJOURN.
At a Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia,
held on the 27th day of March, 1974, in the Frederick County Courthouse, 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, Virginia,
does herein approve the minutes of the Regular Meetings of this Board held on January 9,
1974, February 13, 1974 and February 27, 1974.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye
J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan
Aye.
328
APPROPRIATION TRANSFERS - 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 the following appropriation transfers within the 1973 -74 Budget:
ADDroDriation Transfer From Appropriation Transfer To
01 -OOLA -399
1,000.00
10- u1OJ -215C
18,000.00
01 -001G -326
6,000.00
10 -010J -290
4,000.00
05- 005A -120B
1,000.00
18 -18F1 -102
833.25
07 -007A -208
1,000.00
18- 18F1 -109A
600.00
10- 01OB -113B
1,260.00
18,18F1 -109B
449.50
10 -01OD -113
4,750.00
18,18F1 -217
450.00
10 -01OD -206
100.00
18 -18F4 -130
458.25
10- 01OD -213B
225.00
18 -18F5 -123
552.00
10 -OIOD -218
50.00
18- 18F5 -207A
1,000.00
10 -01OD -300
25.00
18 -18F5 -312
657.00
10 -OIOD -312
7200TOO
Total:
$27,000.00
10 -OIOD -325
: 300:00
10 -01OD -399
50.00•
10 -010E -140
1,000.00
10 -01OF -100
1,000.00
10 -OIOL -100
750.00
10 -01OL -109
300.00
10 -01OL -200
400:00
10 -01OL -218
25.00
10 -01OL -319
25.00
11 =011A -326
5,000.00
13 -013A -112 -
2,000.00
18,018G -221
200.00
19 -018D -606
340.00
Total: '
$27,000.00
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert
Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye.
$500 DONATION - FREDERICK - WINCHESTER
SERVICE AUTHORITY - APPROVED
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Superviso of the County of Frederick, Virginia does herein approve
a supplemental appropriation in the amount of five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), said amount to be donated to
the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority as a grant during the fiscal year 1973 -1974. .
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert
Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan Aye.
COMPENSATION OF APPRAISER - APPROVED
Mr. Sandy presented a letter from Mr. F. C. Forburg, of the Department of Taxation addressed to Mr.
Renalds, in which he recommended William Jones for employment as an assistant to the Board of Assessors for
the 1974 general reassessment of real estate.
Mr. Forburg 8ecommended that Mr. Jones he given a salary of'$800.00 a month, effective March 1, 1974
and be reimbursed $400.00 a month for expenses.
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
employment of Mr. William Jones as an assistant to the Board of Assessors during the 1974 general re-
assessment of real estate in Frederick County, at a salary of $800.00 per month, effective March 1, 1974
and reimbursement for his expenses at the rate of $400.00 per month.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert Russell,
Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye.
RESOLUTIONS - SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAM - APPROVED
Resolution Retaining Bond Counsel Approved:
Dr. Wright appeared before the Board and asked for the approval of two resolutions dealing with the
school building program and the issuance of $2,000,000 in bonds.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County desires to retain the firm of Hunton, William,
F
iu
Gay & Gibson, Richmond, Virginia, as its bond counsel in connection with the issuance and sale of approximately
329
$2,000,000 School Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has received a disclosure by Hunton, Williams, Gay & Gibson pur-
suant to Virginia Code Section 2.1 - 349 (a) (2) and (b) (5), being part of the Virginia Conflict of Interests
Act, of certain members and associates of such firm, and spouses of members or associates, who serve
governmental agencies other than the County;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FREDERICK COUNTY,. VIRGINIA:
1. Hunton, Williams, Gay & Gibson, Richmond, Virginia, shall be retained as bond counsel in connection
with the issuance and sale of approximately $2,000,000 School Bonds.
2. The agreement to retain Hunton, Williams, Gay & Gibson as bond counsel is a contract for legal
services which, in the judgment of the Board of Supervisors, in the public interest should not be acquired
through competitive bidding.
3. This resolution shall be filed as a matter of public record with the minutes of this meeting.
VThe above resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Dennis T. Cole, Aye; J. Robert
Russell, Aye; Richard F. Madigan, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; Raymond C. Sandy, Aye.
- APPROVED:
Upon motion (made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell,
AUTHORIZING THE
AND SALE 0F'$2,0 SCHOOL BONDS, SERIES
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA:
1. It is hereby determined to be necessary and expedient for Frederick County to finance certain
capital projects for school purposes by contracting a debt in the amount of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000),
7
issuing its school bonds therefore and selling the same to the Virginia Public School Authority, a state
agency prescribed by the General Assembly pursuant to Article VII, Section 10 (b) of the Constitution of
Virginia.
2. It is hereby determined to be in the best interests of Frederick County to accept the offer of
the Virginia Public School Authority to purchase the bonds at a yield basis not to exceed .108 greater
than the Authority must pay on the bonds which it will sell to provide the necessary funds to purchase
the County's bonds; provided that the offer of the Virginia Public School Authority shall not be finally
accepted and the bonds shall not be awarded until the Board of Supervisors shall have approved the rate
or rates of interest, as finally determined, which the bonds are to bear.
3. The bonds shall be dated December 15, 1973 shall be designated "School Bonds, Series of 1974 ",
and shall mature in numerical order in installments of $1000,000 on December 15 in each of the years 1975 to k�14
1994, inclusive, without option of prior redemption.
4. At the request of the Virginia Public School Authority the bonds shall be issued initially as
fully registered bonds without coupons, with one bond being issued for each maturity, numbered R 1 to R 20,
inclusive. Principal and interest on the bonds shall be payable at the principal office of United Virginia
Bank, Richmond, Virginia. The bonds shall be signed by the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, shall
be countersigned by its Clerk and its seal shall be affixed thereto or a facsimile printed thereon.
5. The fully registered bonds shall be in substantially the following Form:
(FORM OF REGISTERED BOND)
No. R
S
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FREDERICK COUNTY
School Bond, Series of 1974
330
Frederick County, Virginia, for value received, hereby acknowledges itself indebted and promises to
pay to the order of
VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY
ril
Upon presentation and surrender hereof the sum of
THOUSAND DOLLARS (S ) on December 15, 19 and to maturity at the
rate of per -cent ( %) per year, payable semiannpally on June 15 and December 15. Both
principal of and interest on this bond are payable in lawful money of the United States of America at the
principal office of United Virginia Bank, Richmond, Virginia.
This bond is one of an issue of $2,000,000 School Bond's, Series of 1974, of like date and tenor,
except as to number and maturity, and is issued pursuant to Article VIII, Section 10 (b) of the Constitution
of Virginia and the statutes thereof, including the Public Finance Act, as amended to provide funds for
capital projects for school purposes.
This bond may be exchanged without cost at the principal office of United Virginia Bank, Richmond,
Virginia, for an equal aggregate principal amount of coupon bonds without privilege of registration, of the
denomination of $5,000 each, of the same maturity, bearing interest at the same rate and having attached
thereto coupons representing all unpaid interest due or to become due thereon.
The full faith and credit of Frederick County are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of
principal of and interest on this bond.
All acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of
Y,
Virginia to happen, exist or be performed prededent to and in the issurance of this bond have happened,
exist and have been performed, and the issue of bonds of which this bond is one, together with all other
indebtedness of Frederick County, is within every debt and other limit prescribed by the Constitution and
statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, has caused this bond to be
signed by its Chairman, to be countersigned by its Clerk, Its seal to be affixed hereto or a facsimile
printed thereon, and this bond to be dated as of December 15, 1973.
(SEAL)
Clerk, Board of Supervisors of Chairman, Board of Supervisors of
Frederick County, Virginia Frederick County, Virginia
5. Fully registered bonds without coupons may be exchanged at the expense of the County at the
principal office of United Virginia Bank, Richmond, Virginia, for an equal aggregate principal amount of
coupon bonds without privilege of registration, of the denomination of $5,000 each, appropriately numbered,
of the same maturities, bearing interest at the same rate or rates and having attached thereto coupons
representing all unpaid interest due or to become due thereon. Upon request of the Virginia Public School
Authority, the County shall execute and deliver as soon as practicable coupon bonds in exchange for fully
registered bonds. All Fully registered bonds surrendered in any such exchange shall be cancelled.
6. Principal and interest on the coupon bonds shall be payable at the principal office of United
Virginia Bank, Richmond, Virginia, or Farmers & Merchants National Bank, Winchester, Virginia, at the
option of the holder. The Bonds shall be signed by the manual or facsimile signature of the Chairman of
the Board of Supervisors, shall be countersigned by the Clerk and its seal shall be affixed thereto or a
facsimile printed thereon. The coupons attached to the bonds shall be authenticated by the facsimile
signatures of the Chairman and Clerk.
7. The coupon bonds and the coupons attached therto shall be in substantially the following form:
(FORM OF COUPON BOND)
No.
$ 5,000
331
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OF VIRGINIA
FREDERICK COUNTY
School Bond, Series of 1974
Frederick County, Virginia, for value received, hereby acknowledges itself indebted and promises to
pay to bearer upon presentation and surrender hereof the sum of
FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000)
on December 15, 19 , and to pay interest thereon from the date hereof to maturity at the rate of
per -cent ( 8) per year, payable semiannually on June 15 and December 15 upon presentation and surrender
of the attached coupons as they become due. Both principal of and interest on this bond are payable in
lawful money of the United States of America at the principal office of United Virginia Bank, Richmond,
Virginia, or Farmers & Merchants National Bank, Winchester, Virginia, at the option of the holder.
except as to number and maturity, and is issued pursuant to Article VII, Section 10 (b) of the Constitution
of Virginia and the statutes thereof, including the Public Finance Act, as amended, to provide funds for
capital projects for school purposes.
ihdebtedness of Frederick County, is within eveiy debt and other limit prescribed by the Constitution and
statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
principal of and interest on this bond.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, has caused this bond
Virginia to happen, exist or be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this bond have happened,
exist and have been performed, and the issue of bonds of which this bond is one, together with all other
to be signed by the manual or facsimile signature of its Chairman, to be countersigned by its Clerk, its
seal to be affixed hereto or printed hereon, the attached interest coupons to be authenticated by the fac-
simile signatures of its Chairman and Clerk, and this bond to be dated as of December 15, 1973.
COUNTERSIGNED:
(SEAL)
Clerk, Board of Supervisors of Frederick Chairman, Board of Supervisors of Frederick
County, Virginia County, Virginia
(FORM OF COUPON)
No.
Ll
r
L
Chairman, Board of Supervisors of Frederick
County, Virginia
8. This full faith and credit of Frederick County are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of
principal of and interest on the bonds.
9. After the bonds have been awarded, the Chairman and Clerk of the- :Board Supervisors are hereby
authorized and directed to take all proper steps to have the bonds prepared and executed in accordance with
their terms and to deliver the bonds to the Treasurer of Virginia on behalf of the Virginia Public School
Authority upon payment therefor.
This bond is one of an issue of $2,000,000 School Bonds, Series of 1974, of like date and tenor,
The full faith and credit of Frederick County are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of
All acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of
June
On December 15, 19 Frederick County, Virginia, will pay to bearer
Dollars ($ ) in lawful money of the United States of America at the principal office of
United Virginia Bank, Richmond, Virginia, or Farmers & Merchants National Bank, Winchester, Virginia, at the
option of the holder, being the semiannual interest then due on its School Bond, Series of 1974, dated
December 15, 19 and numbered
Clerk, Board of Supervisors of Frederick
County, Virginia
u
332
10. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors is hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy
of this resolution to be presented to the County School Board of Frederick County and filed with its Clerk.
The bonds hereby authorized shall not be issued by the Board of Supervisors until the County School Board shall)
have adopted an appropriate resolution consenting to the issuance of the bonds.
11. Such officers of Frederick County as may be requested are hereby authorized and directed to execute)
appropriate certificates setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the bonds issued
pursuant hereto in order to show that such expected use and investment will not violate the provisions of S 103
(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and regulations >: issued pursuant thereto, applicable to
"arbitrage bonds ". Such certificates shall be in such form as may be requested by bond counsel for the County.
12. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors is hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy
of this resolution to be filed forthwith with the Circuit Court of Frederick County and within ten days there-
after to cause to be published once in a newspaper having general circulation in the County a notice setting
forth (1) in brief and general terms the purpose for which the bonds are to be issued and (2) the amount of
such bonds.
13. This resolution shall take effect immediately.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Dennis T. Cole, Aye; J. Robert Russell,
Aye; Richard F. Madigan, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Raymond C. Sandy, Aye.
Rezoning Application - Robert Martin - 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 ordinance on third and final reading:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973 PURSUANT TO SECTION
15.1 - 493 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA, (1950) AS AMENDED.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert
L
Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye.
SUBDIVISIONS
Zea - Subdivision - Approved
Mr. Renalds presented the request forcthe above subdivision and stated all approvals had been made and
it could be approved as a variance without the recreational impact fee.
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 approve
the Zea Subdivision in Opequon Magisterial District, consisting of two (2) lots on the west side of Route 115.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert
Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye.
Cabaniss - Subdivision - Approved
Mr. Renalds stated this Subdivision consisted of twelve (12) lots and that the recreational impact fee
had been paid, and all other requirements had been met.
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
the Cabaniss Subdivision in Back Creek Magisterial District, consisting of twelve (12) lots at the intersection
of Route 608 and Route 619.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded 'vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert Russell
Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye.
Ordinance to Vacate a
of Maple Street in the
W. and June E
Aikens
Mr. Dick Raburn, Attorney for Linden DeHaven, appeared before the Board in support of the petition for
333
abandonment of Maple Street in Aikens's Subdivision.
Mr. MacMillan appeared before the Board representing residents in the area in opposition to the vacation
of Maple Street, stating that if this street was abandoned it would leave only one street to serve the residents
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
following ordinance, on first and second reading:
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF MAPLE STREET IN THE_HARRY W. AND JUNE E. AIKENS SUBDIVISION
AT CLEARBROOK, IN STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert Russell
Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye.
Resolution to Abandon Route 835 and Railroad Crossing in Stonewall Ma
District fr om Route 11 Westward - Approved
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 abandon
altogether as a public and railroad crossing the following in accordance with Section 33.1 - 151 of the Code
of Virginia, (1950) as amended:
Route 835 and railroad crossing in Stonewall Magisterial District from Route 11 Westward, a distance of
0.16 mile, to the easternmost right -of -way line of Interstate Route I -81.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye, J. Robert Russell
Aye; Dennis T. Cole; Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye.
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS BUDGETS TO BE SUBMITTED TO STATE COMPENSATION BOARD
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 recommend to the
Constitutional Officers of Frederick County that each officer submit his or her proposed budget as adjusted
by the Board to the State Compensation Board for their consideration; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the County Administrator is hereby directed to draft a letter to accompany
the proposed constitutional officers' budgets so indicating the Board's recommendation and support.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert Rus
Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye.
RESOLUTION RESTRICTING BOARD MEMBERS ACTION
ON COMMISSION AND AUTHORITIES
Mr. Cole presented a resolution restricting the action of members of the Board who are serving on
commissions or. authorities other than the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Ambrogi if this resolution was legal.
Mr. Ambrogi stated that the code does not state clearly one way or the other whether this can be done.
' He further stated that in his opinion it would be left up to the descretion of the Board.
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 no supervisor
shall have a vote, nor be able to make a motion, nor second a motion, nor assist in the preparation of a
I resolution, or a motion on any commission or authority on which he or she is a member, with the exception of
the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission.
The above resolution was passed by-the following recorded vote: Dennis T. Cole, Aye; J. Robert Russell,
Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; Raymond C. Sandy, Nay; and Richard F. Madigan, Nay.
A
ANNUAL ROAD HEARING
Mr. R.C. King and Mr. John Childs of the Highway Department appeared before the Board to receive
petitions and requestes for road imporvements. The following requests were presented.
n
334
Road Hearing Requests
Back Creek District
NEW ADDITION REQUESTS:
Lincoln Estates - Route 50 South
677
Route 671 - Route
672
682
TRAFFIC
REQUESTED
ROUTE
FROM - TO
TYPE IMPROVEMENT REQUESTED
LENGTH
COUNT
BY
End Hard Surface
Rt. 761
D.T.
Cole
1.40
29
629
Near Fromans Run
Spot Improvement
0.10
57
R.F. Madigan
629
Route 608 - 1.0 mile East
Reconstruct & Pave
1.00
57
R.F. Madigan
704
Route 683 West_ Va. Line
Reconstruct & Pave
3.30
61 -46
Wilbur
Johnson (by
letter)
707
Route 733 West Va. Line
Reconstruct & Pave
0.50
30
R.F. Madigan
NEW ADDITION REQUESTS:
Lincoln Estates - Route 50 South
677
Route 671 - Route
672
682
Route 671 - Route
608
688
Route 50 - Route
522
664
At Intersection Rt. 729
666
End Hard Surface
Rt. 761
Bainesboro District
Reconstruct
Widen
Continue Reconstruct & Pave
STONEWALL DISTRICT
Daylight Inters.
Improve Hill & Curve north of the
hard surfaced section and widen
entire road
Robert Fr
Petition
1.30 104,40 05 J.R. Russel
1.60
32
J.R.
Russell
3.30
44
E.W.
Adams
and
2
0.10
96 -352
D.T.
Cole
1.40
29
J.L.
Berg
and
2
832 Route 522 - 0.45 Mile North Surface Treatment 0.45 86 D.T. Cole
Petition
Bituminous Surface Treatment of Service Road of Route 37 requested by James T. Wilson. (This cost would be
borne by Route 37 and would not come from the Frederick County Secondary Allocation).
NEW ADDITION REQUESTS:
Carpers Drive at Sunnyside Virgil Mil
From Route 11 to 0.20 mile east
From Route 661 to 0.45 mile west at Gallilee Church
OPEQUON DISTRICT
636 East of Route 641 improve Hill
1012 End hard surface to end maint.
Resolution Requesting S
77 - AnnnnvrA
Reconstruct and Pave
SHAWNEE DISTRICT
NONE
Traffic Light at Intersection of
Petition
Mrs. Carl Williams
Petition
D.T. Cole
0.50 40 M. Laiwood &
R.C. Sandy
(letter)
0.54 59 R.C. Sandy
twnee Drive and U.S. Route
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 request the Virginii
Department of Highways to conduct a traffic study at the intersection of Shawnee Drive and U.S. Route 11 in
Frederick County to determine the feasibility of placing a traffic light at said location.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert Russel:
Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye.
MEETING ADJOURNED
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson and passed unanimously the meeting
was adjourned until 12:15 P.M. on April 10, 1974, at which time the Board would reconvene in order to receive
the interest rate from the Virginia Public School Authority for the purchase of $2,000,000 School Bonds.
I
335
At an adjourned Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, held at
12:15 P. M. on the 10th day of April, 1974, in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room, 9 Court Square,
Winchester, Virginia.
PRESENT: Raymond T. Sandy, Chairman, J. Robert Russell, Vice Chairman; Dennis T. Cole; Donald R.
Hodgson; and Richard F. Madigan.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Interest Rate for School Bonds - Accepted
Mr. Renalds received a call at 12:56 P. M. from Virginia Public School Authority stating that the
best bid ieceived by the Virginia Public School Authority for the purchase of $16,540,011 of its bonds called
for a net interest cost of 5.56496 and that the Authority has offered to purchase at a price of par and
accrued interest the $2,100,000 School Bonds, Series of 1974, of Frederick County at an interest rate of
5.656 per year, such interest to be payable on each June 15 and December 15.
Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole add seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick does herein accept the
interest rate of 5.656 for the purchase of $2,000,000 School Bonds, as proposed by the Virginia Public
School Authority.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded votes: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert
Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye.
Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, that the $2,000,000 School
Bonds, Series of 1974, of Frederick County, the form and details of which have heretofore been prescribed
by resolution adopted by this Board oh March 27 , 1974, be and the same are hereby sold to the Virginia Public
School Authority and shall bear interest at the rate of 5.656 per year.
The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert
Russell, Ayer Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye.
School Board Budget Discussed
The Board discussed the School Board Budget with Dr. Wright and members of the school board.
UPON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLU IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD DO NOW ADJOURN.
Secr ry Bd. of Supervisors
L J