Loading...
August 14, 2002 Regular Meeting 172 A Worksession/Regular Meeting ofthe Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on August 14, 2002, at 5 :00 p, M " in the Board of Supervisors ' Meeting Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, PRESENT Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Vice Chairman W, Harrington Smith, Jr.; Margaret B, Douglas, Sidney A. Reyes; Gina A. Forrester; and Lynda J, Tyler, ABSENT Supervisor Robert M, Sager was absent due to being out of town, CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called theworksession to order, at which time he turned it over to Planning Director Eric Lawrence for discussion ofthe Route 50 East, Land Use Plan, Director Lawrence advised that staff has received a request from Evan Wyatt, of Greenway Engineering, to consider modifications to the Route 50 East Land Use Plan, The Route 50 East Land Use Plan was originally adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1994, and has been incorporated into the annual Comprehensive Policy Plan update. He further advised that Mr, Wyatt suggests that the current Plan may not reflect various road systems and land use planning issues that have occurred since 1994, Mr, Wyatt suggests the modifications to the Land Use Plan would ensure that future land use proposals and road improvement proposals are consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan, Director Lawrence advised that in 1993, the County embarked on an effort to develop land use plans for the County's commercial and business corridors, With assistance gained at public meetings held in the summer of 1993, three business corridors were identified: Route 7 from the interchange with Interstate 81, east to Woods Mill Road; Route 50, from the 81 interchange, east to the eastern edge of the Westview Business Center; and Route 11 South, from the Route 37 interchange, south to Stephens City, In 1994 the Report on Policies for Business Corridors within Frederick County was produced, The intent of each corridor study was to evaluate the existing conditions within the delineated study areas in order to develop land use plans that would result in business corridors that are efficient, functional, and attractive. This report included analysis for the three business corridors, The recommendations from this report were ultimately incorporated into the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Wyatt of Greenway Engineering advised this has been before the Comprehensive Plans Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 .1 .7.3 Committee and this worksession was their suggestion. He further advised that the Dick and Custer Families are heirs to this property, at which time he referred to the plan showing the Land Use Area. He further advised there are approximately three hundred additional acres that can be used for commercial use. He further advised that the School Board has been asked to look at this site, approximately thirty acres, as a possible location for an additional middle school. He feels that everyone is aware of where the airport is located in this area and they realize the airport is an important source of this community for economic development, and they do not want anything in this proposal to hurt their ability to expand. They are interested in doing a development that works cohesively with the future needs of the airport. They have had several discussions with airport representatives and have been willing to listen and share their opinions with the engineers. They felt it would be helpful for the airport representatives to assist in helping to write the deed restrictions that would govern this use. He addressed the future plans of the airport and their intentions to develop the north side of the airport with a taxi way that would be about four hundred feet from the runway and to have corporate size hanger space. He referred to a possible redesign in certain areas that would be helpful, not only to the airport, but also to the proj ect that is being proposed. He feels the first order of business at this point is whether the Comprehensive Plan revision is appropriate, as they do not want to bring a rezoning before the Planning Commission or Board that is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. He referred to the maps on display behind Supervisor Tyler and the 300-acre pod ofthe Route 50 corridor plan be developed as a mixed use development. The other major plan would call for an east/west road that would come from Prince Frederick Drive through the property into the JIC Industrial Park and into this road. He further stated that before the question and answer session starts he would like to request that Superintendent Dr. William Dean be allowed to address the Board. Dr. Dean advised that locating a piece of property for the schools, at this time, is very important as they need to begin site design work as soon as possible. He advised the program capacity in the three middle schools is 2,495 students. The enrollment at the end of the school year was 2,726 students, this is 231 students over their capacity in the three middle schools. At this time there are eleven portable classrooms at these three middle schools. Dr. Dean feels at the end of the 2004-2005 school year they will be 360 students over their capacity. He further explained that "time" is now an issue as a decision needs to be made as there are some critical dates. The latest Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 .174 possible date for a decision on the property, either by purchase or proffer, is January of2003. This is also the latest date for bid documents going out to contractors. The latest date for awarding construction bids is February 2003, and the latest date to begin construction if this school is going to be opened in 2004, is March 2003. He further highlighted certain points why the School Board was endorsing this property. He advised that the School Board's architect, Mr. Pappas, as well as the civil engineer, visited this site and felt it was very compatible to their needs, and Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering offered any thirty-acre site that they felt would meet their needs. He advised the thirty acre site they felt would support an 850 Middle School of 160,000 square feet, to include outside athletic needs and parking along with satellite bus parking. The location will reduce the need to transport students through or around Winchester. The proffer will save the cost of land to the taxpayer somewhere in the range of$800,000 to a million dollars in addition to the interest that will be saved on this money. Attorney Mark Flynn, representing the Airport Authority, appeared before the Board at this time. He advised he would be working with the airport consultant John Longmaker and together they would be showing them some visuals that would help explain why the Airport Authority is opposed to this project and the change to the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the Department of Aviation advised that if the proposal to change the County Comprehensive Plan is approved, and subsequent rezoning follows, the property would be changed to mixed use which would include residential, commercial and public use areas. He further advised that the Aviation Department has stated prior to a final decision being made by the locality, they strongly suggest a closer evaluation be given to the potential safety impacts and to the development constraints, which would be placed on the airport as a result. The financial impact of the proposed land use change on the previous investments made by the federal, state and local governments should also be considered. He further stated that the federal, state and local governments have invested a significant amount of public funds in the Winchester Regional Airport, resulting in one of the finest general aviation airports in the country. The Commonwealth has invested in excess of $4.4 million since 1987, and in doing so, expects the localities to protect the environs of the airport from encroachment of non- compatible land-uses. The Department strongly encourages the Airport Authority to consider the financial investments that have been made and consider the potential safety hazards that could develop as a result oflocating approximately 275 residential homes and a school adjacent to, or in Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of08/l4/02 175 the immediate vicinity of, an existing, increasingly used, corporate jet airport. Joseph B. Delia, Airport Engineer, with the Federal Aviation Administration, advised in correspondence, as well as before the Board, some of the same concerns expressed by Director Charles Macfarlane with the State Department of Aviation. He advised the airport is currently home for 123 based aircraft and is expected to have an annual growth rate in the number of aircraft of 1. 7 % annually. He further advised that the department strongly encourages the Airport Authority to carefully evaluate with respect to the Authority's obligations under the assurances. FAA has serious concerns regarding the potential negative impacts of this development on airport operations. It would be a shame to minimize the foresight and planning that the Authority has exhibited over the years, which has led to the development of Winchester Regional Airport as a strategic economic asset for Northern Virginia. Attorney Flynn advised that the one reason for amending Comprehensive Plans, he feels is basically to let owners use their properties as they wish, and he understands that. He referred to what Dr. Dean had said earlier when he listed his many reasons for this being the ideal site for the construction of a new middle school. These are their reasons for requesting this change and he will advise of reasons that this request should not be allowed as follows: 1. Safety - It will be shown that heavy airplanes will be flying low over the school and the other properties when things aren't going well for the pilot, which could have the potential of being very dangerous. 2. Noise Issue - Attorney Flynn advised what this problem would be for the Board, Authority Members, and School Board Members. The phone calls will come when planes have to land in bad conditions. Noise easements and insulations does not work. 3. Major Economic Development Asset - The County is a member ofthe airport authority and the largest land regulator in this area Attorney Flynn went into further detail of the three reasons, listed above, for not allowing this request. He referred to correspondence received from the FAA and the Department of Aviation. The total investment in the airport authority is approaching $18 million. Needless to say further development ofthe airport will require the financial participation ofthe FAA and the State Aviation Department. He further advised that the two letters sent to the Board from these two agencies are some ofthe strongest that he has seen as far as threatening further funding for airport projects ifthis project goes forward. He does not take them as threats, he takes them as information that is being provided in order for everyone to be knowledgeable of their regulations and requirements. He Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 1.76 further advised, for any future for the airport, the only area to grow for major economic development, machine or engine for this area, is on the north side. Approval of any change to the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate this mix use of residential would endanger this. He further advised there is a very human approach to this request also. Flying airplanes has risk to it. Some day, God forbid a larger aircraft would hit either the school during the day or a couple of homes at night, this Board will be the ones to look in the mirror and say, "was I responsible for that?" He feels the Comprehensive Plan has a number of provisions within it that addresses all the reasons why this amendment should not be allowed. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering, advised that he was a little disappointed, and that is because he has made a vow to himself to move Frederick County forward and work as hard as he can to make things as cooperative and plan things the proper way. He further advised that they went into this project with every effort possible to try and plan a unit, a master plan that worked together. There have been four meetings with the Airport Authority advising what was discussed during these meetings and what their firm has done in order to make this work. He further advised that no one wanted the airport to loose funding. He is asking for black and white that say these are the rules, and they will design by them, he needs the rules. Bill Rosenberry, Shawnee District and Planning Commission Member, appeared before the Board to inquire as to the date that certain information has been made available. Mr. Wyatt advised that he thought it was July 8. Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District and Planning Commission Member, appeared before the Board ans she questioned the distance for the safety boundary, she thought it was fifty. Attorney Flynn replied that is correct it is bounded by Route 50 on the north side. Mr. Wyatt stated that there are a few things that have been stated that concern him, and that is that there should be no development on this property. Mrs. Gochenour advised that she was not comfortable with putting 800 children and a large number of residents in a situation that could be very dangerous due to the location. Mr. Wyatt advised this location was selected after conferring with the School Board and other individuals as this being the best location for the new school. Attorney Flynn advised that the Airport Authority is not saying no development on the property as they have assisted in trying to get economic development around thc airport. There is Minnte Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 177 a differenee between industrial eommercial uses and a school and residential. The Authority feels trading off a warehouse is one thing; however, trading off a school is quite another. Chairman DeHaven asked about the future expansion to the north, shown in the purple, asked if the overlay completely lies within the property that the Airport Authority currently has? Attorney Flynn replied that it did not. He believes the majority of it does, but the part which he referred to, was on the golf course property. Planning Commissioner Light asked that the presenter show the current property first and then the future expansion property. Airport Director Manuel advised the location of the property, by way of a map, at this time. Marie Straub, Red Bud District and Planning Commissioner, asked Director Manuel ifthere were any future plans showing the expansion ofthis airport to be larger, to include larger planes such as United Airlines, etc.? Director Manuel advised the Authority is not actively pursuing commercial air service. The key pieces are in place as they have been worked on since 1987 in order for the airport to be brought up to minimum standards. If an air carrier wanted to locate in Winchester they could. Bill Rosenberry advised that on July 8 the Comprehensive Plans subcommittee met on this subjeet. He referred to a letter stating that on July 11 the Airport Authority voted unanimously to oppose any modification of the plan. He further advised that his copy of the letter is dated July 30. He asked if a delay was asked for at the July 8th meeting? Director Manuel advised that the Authority was not aware of that meeting. She further advised they saw the story in the paper the following day, and was quite surprised. She further advised that the Authority had met with Mr. Wyatt a number of times to talk about what if that property was developed, and the different scenarios that would be used. Planner Roger Thomas asked the Authority if the plan shown on the color photograph represents the Airport's twenty-five year strategic development plan? Director Manuel replied that it did not, as the Authority does not have a master plan at this point showing development on the north side of the runway. Planner Thomas asked when this plan would be available? Director Manuel advised this projeet was put in next years six year plan and has been presented to the necessary officials for their review and requested funding in order to proceed with Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 178 this proj ect. Planner Thomas addressed the area shown and referred to as the "apron" and what would happen ifthis area was not available to the Authority. He further referred to other questions he felt should be answered before a decision is made on this request. He feels this decision should be rendered on facts and not emotions. Attorney Flynn advised they would be happy to supply the statistics that Planner Thomas referred to. Director Manuel advised that she felt the Authority was looking at a year, to a year and a half, for the master plan to be completed. Linda Custer Russell, representing the Custer Family, appeared before the Board advising that her father, Dr. Monford Custer, owned Carpers Valley Golf Club until his passing in 1989. She further advised that the time has come to upgrade the golf club in order to remain competitive with this cost figure being around $1 million. Her family cannot make that investment and does not feel it would be practical for others to do so. Her family feels it is now time to dissolve Carpers Valley, and the plan presented by Greenway Engineering makes the most sense and opportunity for the community. Mark Smith advised this is a worksession, and they wanted to work through issues. He asked the state and federal representatives if there is a real potential that the Airport Authority will loose funding if this proposed development proceeds. What is allowed in the area from the hangers back, as this is the first time he has seen this. What are the easements that are needed? Joe Delea, FAA Project Engineer for Winchester Regional Airport, appeared before the Board advising that he has worked with this airport for the last twelve years. He advised the Airport is in compliance with the grant assurances. He further advised that the change being proposed is a concern of his office, and they do look at it as a potential risk. He further advised FAA would seriously consider this when investing more money on the airport. Funding is a scarce resource and there is a potential problem for the weight that would be given to Winchester in the future ifthere are compatible land use problems. Chairman Shickle addressed the review process with Mr. Delea, and whom it rests with. Mark Smith advised that he feels there is an opportunity here, if we all try to work together. Cliff Barnett, Chief Airport Planner for the Virginia Department of Aviation, appeared before Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 179 the Board advising there is not much more he can add to what Mr. Delea has said. He advised that the Winchester Airport is viewed as "a diamond" in the state's system, because it was developed correctly. He encouraged the Board to work their Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Shickle asked Mr. Barnett if he has to review a plan in addition to it being reviewed by Mr. Delea? Mr. Barnett replied yes, he advised that as ofthis date the Virginia Department of Aviation had invested over $ 4.4 million in this airport. Supervisor Smith asked why are we so anxious to put the school at this location? Is it because the County will save money since the land is being donated, or is there something else here that he is missing? Mark Smith advised that he has worked with the School Board and basically kind of knows of some oftheir needs and there target areas for schools. This location happened to be in one of the target areas, and when this property became available, he felt it would be a good site for a school, and he made a phone call. Chairman Shickle asked Mark Smith ifhe were starting today would this be the information he would be presenting. Mark Smith replied he probably would be as he is confused to where is his limit. He does not understand why it is bad to have residential, but it is okay to have commercial. He feels there is some modification that can happen. Supervisor Forrester directed her question either to Attorney Flynn or Director Manuel. She referred to the second page of Director Manuel's letter and the section that addresses 5190.6A Airport Compliance Restriction Appendix 5. Asked how restrictive this order was and exactly what it meant. Mr. Delea advised that this order goes into specific detail on the grant assurances. He advised that certainly schools are not always an incompatible use. It depends on a number of factors. Supervisor Forrester asked Mr. Delea ifhe was saying that this would not be a compatible use the way this has been presented to the Board. Mr. Delea advised more research would be required. It is in such a proximity and in conjunction with the current Comprehensive Plan that the Authority has represented to the FAA is Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 180 the land compatible use around the airport. They take that as compliance with that compatible land use standard. Supervisor Tyler asked if the residences already in place had any affect on FAA's decision. Mr. Delea advised that all the residences along Bufflick Road have been an item that they have been trying to acquire, and is an extremely high priority with his office in their efforts to obtaining acquisitions of these residences. Supervisor Tyler asked if there was anyway to have compromise for this from aviation experts or the schools or the land owner. Everyone needs an answer. Can this be worked out in short fashion or are we floundering again? Mr. Delea advised that is a decision the community would have to make. He feels this is a tough sell, not only for the airport, but also the individuals living in this area. Mark Smith asked how much further does the school need to be away from the runway? Mr. Delea advised the Comprehensive Plan has addressed this. John Light, Planning Commissioner, asked Mr. Delea ifhe were all of the people that have an interest in this project, and he was part owner of this property, and yet you had to design this project, you are absolutely firm in saying there is no place on this property that a school, or residential area, that can be made to work, to implement a plan for this situation? Mr. Delea replied that in his opinion, for those uses, for a public school and for private residences, it is extremely difficult to situate that type of development in that proximity to the airport without having some type of disruption either to the Airport, the County, or to the folks that reside there. Commissioner Light stated that on the south side there is already this type of development occurring, why is the north side any different? Mr. Delea advised that the only residences that he was aware of is along Bufflick Road, and they have made a sincere effort over the years to try and remedy that situation. Attorney Flynn advised the only development he was aware of that the Airport Authority participated in was Preston Place and they did object to that being built at the time. Commissioner Light advised of the flight path for the Air National Guard that flies over Stonewall Elementary School. He finds it hard to believe that individuals cannot sit down and work together on a plan and make something useable that works for everyone on this project. It appears Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08114/02 181 to him that it started and then it stopped. Mr. Delea advised that they were willing to work with anyone. His opinion was asked for and he rendered just that. Director Manuel advised Commissioner Light that the Authority had worked recently with a new motel built off Route 522 South, Sleep In Hotel, and in working with the developer and the builder, certain safe guards were in place in order to insure the continued operation ofthe Airport. Supervisor Reyes advised that he felt there were very compelling arguments on both sides and wondered if perhaps the two sides could get back together for a worksession. Mr. Delea advised they were available at the Authority's request. Director Manuel advised that it is up to Frederick County and the Airport Authority to defend, protect and enhance the Airport. She further advised that FAA provides 90% ofthe Funding, the State 8% or 80%, if it is just a state and local project. It is up to Frederick County and the Airport Authority to decide what takes place at the airport. Supervisor Reyes advised the Board would make the decision, but they would like to see something brought to the table that they could live with. Commissioner Straub advised of her different experiences and knowledge of different plane incidcnts with crashes and there were lives lost. Ifwe do okay this and something happens, we will always wonder, she is just afraid of it. Commissioner Thomas stated that due to him being located in the Corps of Engineer Building for the past nine years, with planes landing and taking offfrom the Airport, he doesn't feel noise will be an issue, may be with some houses, but not the school. He hopes we can move off the emotional issue and work on facts and statistics. Gene Fisher, Member-at-Large on Planning Commissionreferred to facts onresidential areas that have impacted airports. He would like to have more facts from other communities with other factors entered in. Commissioner Rosenberry stated that statistical data is good, but has to be weighed as one of the number of tools. David Koller, Chairman ofthe Winchester-Frederick Economic Development Commission appeared before the Board advising that he has previously stated that he views the Airport as a very strategic asset to this community. He further advised that he realizes property owners have their Minute Book Nnmber 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 182 rights also, and he realizes these types of decisions are long term. He knows this is a tough decision. Chairman Shickle asked Board members their thoughts on sending this matter to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. Supervisor Forrester after hearing from the FAA would not support this at this time. Supervisor Reyes advised that he kind of agrees with the request, but children and safety come first. Supervisor Smith would discourage school from being located at this site. Supervisor Tyler advised ifthere is absolutely no way this can be worked out then she would agree with the other Board members. Supervisor Douglas asked if there was any of the property in question that would work. Mark Smith advised that the entire property is involved with all the issues. Chairman DeHaven advised that he always had a problem with schools being this close to an airport. Commissioner Straub advised that she could not imagine anyone living in this proximity of an airport. The consensus of the Board was this would not be forwarded to the Planning Commission for a change in the Comprehensive Plan. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER - 7:15 P.M. Chairman Shickle called the meeting to order. INVOCATION The invocation was delivered by Reverend Anthony Wadsworth of the Round Hill United Methodist Church. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADOPTION OF AGENDA Administrator Riley advised he had no additions or deletions to the agenda. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the agenda was adopted, as presented, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 1-83 Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye CONSENT AGENDA Administrator Riley suggested the following tabs for approval under Consent Agenda: I. Resolution of Support to Locate the National Park Visitors Center in the Middletown, Virginia Area - Tab F; 2. Review of Northwestern Community Services' 2003 Performance Contract - Tab H; 3. Public Safety Communications Committee Report - Tab N; 4. Code & Ordinance Committee Report- Tab 0; 5. Landfill Oversite Committee Report- Tab P. Supervisor Tyler asked that Tab F not be included as part of the Consent Agenda. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the consent agenda was approved, as amended, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye CITIZEN COMMENT Blaine Dunn, Red Bud District, advised Board members of a problem he is experiencing with developers and the noises they are making during construction in his development. He feels the start of a construction day needs to be set at a certain time and that 6 A.M. is too early. He would like to talk to the developers and ask for some consideration of what residents have to deal with while adjoining houses are being constructed. He would like to see the county noise ordinance address these concerns. Kevin Kennedy, Gainesboro District, thanked five Board members who voted against Chairman Shickle's proposal to "muzzle" the citizenry. He thanked Supervisor Tyler for her statement urging all Board members to delay approval of the 6,000 acre SWSA Plan until more information, especially until water availability, is gathered. Asked Board members ifthey had seen the results of the second opinion study which the Sanitation Authority has done, regarding the availability of water in the county? Should these results be made available? Asked about Sanitation Authority selling water to other localities in order that they might fill up their swimming pools? Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14102 184 Pam Kennedy, Gainesboro District, asked what is the message this Board is sending to the young people of this county? She could not understand why the Board would ever think of doing away with the "Citizen Comment"portion of the agenda. This is a time for the citizens to let their representatives and the county know oftheir concerns. Feels very strongly that this should remain a part of the Board's agenda. Doug Thomas, Back Creek District, totally disagrees with what Pam and Kevin Kennedy just said. He referred to the three Board members who are aspousing a "No Growth Policy," this could lead to disaster for this County. He understands a member of this certain camp is saying what industrial growth actually costs, and this is not true. Industry in this County comprises about 1 % of the tax paying units, but they pay 24% of our taxes. Everyone needs to understand there is a tax increase coming down the pipe line now that will "knock your socks off." We are getting ready to open a new high school, we have borrowed from the Reserve Fund and it only makes sense to re- borrow more from the fund if you have industry getting ready to absorb a big portion of the taxes, so that is not reasonable. Your anti business attitude has made a very poisoned atmosphere for Frederick County and now we have virtually no industry or business looking to settle in the County. We do not have a Hood or GE that could be a major taxpayer and help out the industry. So guess who gets to pay, and guess who is going to have to absorb the rather large tax increase which is now inevitable. You have champions spending the money to buy Civil War Battlefields, if you had the money, I would be all for that, but feels only the major ones should be bought, should not be trying to buy them all. He is a builder, not a developer. These kinds of spending will cause us trouble. He would ask the Board to look at ways of saving money rather than bring serious financial difficulties to the County. Jim Giraytys, Back Creek District, addressed the negative side of development. He addressed the ozone and what his beliefs are in this area. He feels the drought magnifies this problem. He feels a lot ofthis area's pollution is home grown. He addressed the report that has been due from the Sanitation Authority and wonders what is really in this report. He thanked the Board for taking time at their last meeting to hear what Save the Water had to say about the County water supply. MINUTES Upon motion made by Supervisor Reyes, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the minutes of the Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 185 Regular Meeting of May 22,2002, were approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye COUNTY OFFICIALS COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS STEVE B. WHITE APPOINTED TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM STONEWALL DISTRICT Upon motion made by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, Steve White was appointed to the Parks and Recreation Commission from Stonewall District to fill the unexpired term of Robert Roper who passed away. This term will begin on August 14,2002 and expire on May 14, 2006. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye BILL WILSON APPOINTED TO THE SHA WNEELAND SANITARY DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Smith, Bill Wilson was appointed to the ShawneeLand Sanitary District Advisory Board, said term to expire on June 30, 2004. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye ROBERT N. CARPENTER. FREDERICK COUNTY REPRESENT A TIVE ON THE FREDERICK-WINCHESTER SERVICE AUTHORITY IS REAPPOINTED Upon motion made by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Douglas, Robert N. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 186 Carpenter was reappointed to the Frederick-Winchester Service Authority for a three year term. This term will begin on August 31, 2002, and expire on August 31, 2005. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye HAROLD "HAL" LEHMAN APPOINTED TO HISTORIC RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD FROM BACK CREEK DISTRICT Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Smith, Harold "Hal" Lehman was appointed to the Historic Resources Advisory Board from Back Creek District. This is a four year term. The term will begin on September 14, 2002 and expire on September 14, 2006. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye MARY ANN POSEY APPOINTED TO SHENANDOAH AREA AGENCY ON AGING Upon motion made by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, Mary Ann Posey was appointed to Shenandoah Area agency on Aging. This is a four year term. The term will begin on September 30, 2002, and expire on September 30, 2006. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye REOUEST TO ESTABLISH A DATE FOR FIRST BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING IN SEPTEMBER - FIRST MEETING IS CANCELED Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Douglas, the first Board meeting is hereby canceled. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 187 The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Nay PROCLAMATION (#001-02) RE: NATIONAL CIVIC PARTICIPATION WEEK- APPROVED Administrator Riley presented this proclamation. WHEREAS, on December 10, 2001, Congress passed a resolution designating the week of September 15-21 as National Civil Participation Week; and, WHEREAS, the week is designed to celebrate civic participation throughout the United States, honor the courageous spirit of the American People, and pay tribute to those we lost on September 11; and, WHEREAS, the Fr~derick County Board of Supervisors supports these efforts and wishes to encourage civic participation and a spirit ofvolunteerism among the citizens of Frederick County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors does hereby declare September 11 th through the 17th as Civic Participation Week in Frederick County and urges all citizens to pledge their commitment to civic participation through voting, communicating ideas with elected officials, volunteering and contributing to worthy causes and organizations. ADOPTED this 14th day of August 2002. Upon motion made by Supervisor Reyes, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the above proclamation was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye RESOLUTION(#004-02) OF SUPPORT TO LOCATE THE NATIONAL PARK VISITORS CENTER IN THE MIDDLETOWN. VIRGINIA AREA - APPROVED WHEREAS, Senators John Wamer and George Allen, as well as Congressmen Frank Wolf and Bob Goodlatte, have introduced legislation to establish the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historic Park Act; and WHEREAS, the U. S. Department ofInterior, National Park Service proposes to establish a National Park Visitors Center in the area; and WHEREAS, the ideal location would be near the actual site ofthe Cedar Creek Battlefield and the Belle Grove Plantation; and WHEREAS, the Town of Middletown, Virginia desires to have the Visitors Center locate Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 188 in this area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia is in agreement with this request; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution of support be adopted. ADOPTED, this 14th day of August 2002. Upon motion made by Supervisor Forrester, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the above resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye RESOLUTION (#005-02) FROM THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RE: REVENUE SHARINGIRURAL ADDITION - REGENCY HEIGHTS AND REGENCY LAKES SUBDIVISIONS - APPROVED Administrator Riley presented the following resolution. WHEREAS, the streets described below were established prior to July 1, 1990 and currently serves at least three families per mile; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has deemed this county's current subdivision control ordinance meets all necessary requirements to qualify this county to recommend additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-72.1, Code of Virginia; and WHEREAS, after examining the ownership of all property abutting these streets, this board finds that speculative interest does not exist. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this board requests the streets listed on the attached Form SR-5A be added to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-72.1(C), Code of Virginia. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of- way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to improve said streets to the prescribed minimum standards, funding said improvements pursuant to Section 33.1-72.1(C), Code of Virginia; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that a certified copy ofthis resolution and county revenue sharing check in the amount of$60,000.00, representing 50% ofthe department's cost estimate of $120,000.00 to improve the streets, be forwarded to the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the above resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 189 W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye NORTHWESTERN COMMUNITY SERVICES' 2003 PERFORMANCE CONTRACT - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA REOUEST FROM REGIONAL JAIL SUPERINTENDENT RE: ADDENDUM TO THE CLARKE-FAUOUlER-FREDERICK-WINCHESTER (CFFW) REGIONAL JAIL AGREEMENT - APPROVED Superintendent Hildebrand presented this request to the Board advising this request is to delete Paragraph 9 of the previous agreement dated July 1, 1998 and is as follows: NOW, THEREFORE, Clarke, Frederick, Winchester, and Fauquier do hereby amend the Regional Jail Agreement dated July 1, 1998, to delete paragraph 9 thereof (entitled "REJECTIONfRETURN OF FAUQUIER PRISONERS"). In all other respects, the Regional Jail agreement dated July 1, 1998 shall remain in full force and effect. Superintendent Hildebrand further advised that the superintendent does have the authority to return prisoners to Fauquier County. Supervisor Reyes inquired about proper funding. Superintendent Hildebrand advised this is based on a funding formula; however, ability to fund is not the issue. Administrator Riley explained that Fauquier paid $2.2 million when they bought in and advised of what was stated in the Memorandum of Understanding. Superintendent Hildebrand advised that he felt Frederick County benefitted from having prisoners from Fauquier County. Supervisor Smith stated that he felt they have paid their dues and he considers them a full partner. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Douglas, the request of Superintendent Hildebrand for approval of the addendum to the Regional Jail Agreement as stated above was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Nay Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 190 REOUEST FROM SHERIFF WILLIAMSON FOR SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING OF APPROVED POSITIONS BY THE COMPENSATION BOARD - APPROVED Administrator Riley presented this request. Sheriff Williamson appeared before the Board and advised that the State Compensation Board approved four new positions for 2002-2003 fiscal budget. These positions have been designated as deputy positions. When the county budget was submitted for 2002-03 he was unaware the Compensation Board would be allotting new positions; therefore, he did not appropriate funds for additional positions. He further advised the total funds needed to cover the salary for these positions are $110,216.00. The State will provide $93,316.00 and the County will need to supplement the salaries in the amount of $4,425.00 each for a total of $16,900.00. He further advised this funding would be used for 5 school resource officers and 1 for DARE. Upon motion made by Supervisor Reyes, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye REOUEST FROM ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO CARRY FORWARD FUNDS FOR ONGOING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT OF OLD COUNTY COURTHOUSE - APPROVED Assistant Tierney advised these funds were part of the funding approved for fiscal year 200 l- 2002 and the fact this project is still on going, a carry forward offunds is needed at this time in the amount of $43,874.63. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Douglas, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye REQUEST TO AMEND ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY TO ADD ONE MEMBER FROM THE RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED - TO BE SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 191 Administrator Riley advised that a draft amendment and resolution for the By-Laws and Articles ofIncorporation for the Frederick County Sanitation Authority have been provided in the Board's agenda. If it is the desire of the Board of Supervisors to add a seventh member to the Sanitation Authority, it will be necessary to set a public hearing date to amend the Articles of Incorporation. Upon motion made by Supervisor Forrester, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the request to amend the Articles ofIncorporation ofthe Frederick County Sanitation Authority to add one member from the Red Bud Magisterial District, public hearing to be scheduled, was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye REQUEST TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE ALLOWING THE - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO APPOINT ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO CERTAIN COUNTY COMMITTEES - APPROVED -TO BE SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING Administrator Riley presented this request to the Board advising that information was provided in the Board's agenda advising of enabling legislation for committee appointments. He further explained it would be necessary to set a public hearing date ifit is the desire of the Board to change same. Upon motion made by Supervisor Forrester, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, a public hearing is to be scheduled for the Board to consider amending the County Code in order for additional members to be appointed to certain county committecs. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Nay Sidncy A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye COUNTY TREASURER ADDRESSED THE BOARD RE: UPDATE ON COUNTY INTEREST EARNINGS Treasurer C. William Orndoff, Jr., appeared before the Board to advise them of interest Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 192 earnings on County funds. He advised that no County monies have been lost to investments, and there is a sound investment policy in effect. Frederick County is not invested in the Stock Market. He further advised that in 2002, $77.4 million was in cash, with $18.8 million in the Bank of New York and $5.85 million in Evergreen. He did advise that, based on current offerings by financial institutions, he does anticipate a continuing decline in the rates that are currently being offered. He did explain that any unexpected expenditures by the governing body out side ofthe budget process could forfeit possible earnings and have a negative impact on investment strategies. He advised the Board if anyone had any further questions or was interested in meeting with him concerning the budget policies he would be happy to do so. Chairman Shickle advised Treasurer Orndoffthat he did not hear him mention the Public's Securities Deposit Act, is it still around? Treasurer Orndoff advised that it is and the State Code has been recodified and it is in 2.3, and this is the guideline for all Virginia Public Funds, whether it is for localities or the State Treasurer. Chairman Shickle asked Treasurer Orndoffwhat he receives via this, when he deposits and approves investments that are covered by this act. What is afforded him under the law? Treasurer Orndoff explained that all lending institutions, that participate in public funds have to set aside a certain portion of those public monies. They have to guarantee payment back to a locality should a member bank or an institution that is taking investment monies to pay back to a locality. Chairman Shickle, so you are protected against failing institutions. Treasurer Orndoff replied that is correct. Chairman Shickle stated your only safeguard needs to be in evaluation of instruments in which you invest in, and by the nature of those investments, that is the lowest possible risk? Treasurer Orndoff replied that was correct. Chairman Shickle stated that to him this translates as a very slim chance that Frederick County could lose any cash value on any investments. COMMITTEE REPORTS PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 193 The Frederick County Public Safety Committee met Monday July 15, 2002 at 8:00 a.m. Committee members present were: County Administrator John Riley, Sheriff Robert Williamson, Frederick County Fire & Rescue Director Gary DuBrueler, Walt Cunningham, Bob Sager, Margaret Douglas, Brenda Vance, Ann Lloyd, and James Hockman. Also in attendance were Ginger Whitacre, Operations Supervisor Frederick County Public Safety Communications, and Denny Linaburg, Fire Marshall, Frederick County. The following items were discussed: *** Items Not Requiring Action ** 1. Fire Prevention Code UDdate Would like to take responsibility from the Director ofthe Planning Department and place it with the Fire Marshal's Office. They would like to take an annual look at questionable properties instead of on a complaint basis. Mr. Linaburg would like to change the County Code placing the Fire Marshal's office in charge of the Fire Prevention Code. Mr. Riley stated that this will be referred to the Code Ordinance Committee. 2. Connectinl: Frederick County/Winchester Communications Center Connecting Frederick Co with Winchester will benefit both parties in the event of operation disasters in either Center. This can be implemented with the only cost being the installation of phone circuits and the labor involved in console programming. A monthly fee will be incurred. Mr. Riley wanted to make sure the City contributes equally to the finances and that there is no liability for the County. Iffunds are not in the budget Mr. Riley suggested that we submit a request to the Finance Committee. Was brought before Joint Finance Committee and was approved. 3. Wireless Network Between Fire Stations. PSCC. Sheriff. Fire/Rescue The purpose of connecting the Fire Stations, PSCC, Sheriff Office and Fire & Rescue will allow for better reporting and reduced time for reporting. Fire & Rescue has funds left over from last year's budget that would cover all costs. Mr. Riley stated for Mr. DuBrueler to present this before the August Finance Committee meeting. 4. Communications Svstem & Tower UDl!rade Report Channel 2 is up and operating on the tower site at North Mountain. Steve Cuccio still needs to add Fire and Rescue's equipment at the site. Updating and installing 2 antennas, Route 7 will be next, at that time we will be adding Channell. 5. Fire & Rescue Department Overview for New Committee Meeting Date: The next meeting of the Public Safety Committee will be called on an as needed basis. CODE AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Code & Ordinance Committee met on Wednesday, August 7, 2002, at 4:00 P.M., in the First Floor Conference Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. Present were chairman ofthe committee Supervisor Sidney A. Reyes, Supervisor Robert M. Sager, Michael L. Bryan and Stephen G. Butler. Also present were County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr., Sheriff Robert T. Williamson and County Attorney Lawrence R. Ambrogi. The committee submits the following. No action is required. 1. Discussion with Citizen Mr. Dunn About Noise Ordinance Amendments Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 194 Mr. Dunn appeared before the committee to discuss possible amendments to the Frederick County Code with reference to the noise ordinance. Mr. Dunn explained that he has experienced since 1999 constant noise from construction activity in a developing subdivision adjacent to his neighborhood. As indicated in his attachments, there is virtually no relief from the noise associated with the construction activity. Members ofthe committee were empathetic with Mr. Dunn's plight, but emphasized that the amendments he proposed were unenforceable and could not be uniformly applied on a consistent basis, (i.e., one cannot single out a specific industry and penalize that industry for what is reasonable and customary in the performance of the service rendered.). The committee further explained that when drafting the ordinance, such activities like construction and agribusiness pursuits were exempted due to the fact noise emissions were a natural byproduct ofthe activity performed. The committee unanimously voted not to endorse Mr. Dunn's proposal. The committee did offer their assistance if Mr. Dunn discovered other local government noise ordinance that addressed issues discussed before this committee. LANDFILL OVERSITE COMMITTEE - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The landfill oversight committee met on Thursday, July 25, 2002, at 8:00 a.m. All committee members were present except Lynda Tyler. The following issue was discussed: 1. Salarv Survev This meeting was convened as a work session to review and discuss the salary survey that was presented during our July 2, 2002, committee meeting. At that meeting, it was requested that job descriptions from other jurisdictions and Frederick County be provided for the committee's review and comparison. The staff was also instructed to provide the actual salaries of the landfill employees. After a brief review of the salary survey it was decided by the committee that it would be more appropriate for the personnel committee to perform a detailed review of the salary survey. The committee commended stafffor their efforts to date and forwarded the salary survey information to the personnel committee with their endorsement. (Attachment 1) 2. Electronics Recyclinl: Event Staff reported that the second regional electronics recycling event held in June at the James Wood Middle School resulted in the collection of 14.2 tons of electronics waste. A memorandum summarizing this event is attached. (Attachment 2) 3. Wei~hinl: Tires The landfill manager recommended that tires received from tire companies or haulers be invoiced by weight rather than by number. The landfill currently charges $.80 per car tire and $2.00 per truck tire. These charges would still be applied to private citizens. However, tire dealers and haulers will be charged $80 per ton for the entire load regardless of the number of tires or related sizes. Basically, it takes approximately 100 car tires to equal one (1) ton, thus the $80 per ton fee. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE The Public Works Committee met on Tuesday, July 30, 2002, at 8:00 a.m. All members were present except Jim Vickers. The following items were discussed: ***Items Requiring Action*** 1. Carrv Forward Request- Enl!ineerinl! Budl!et - ADD roved The Director of Public Works requested a carry forward amount of $173,500 to fund the Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14102 195 drainage improvement project associated with the existing Orchardale, Gordondale, and Carrollton subdivisions. The attached memorandum (Attachment IA) dated July 18, 2002 from Mr. Joe Wilder provides the justification and specific line item reference related to this request. Basically, this project has been in the planning and development stages for at least five years. Staff has only recently been able to obtain the final easements required to complete the project. A motion was made by Harrington Smith and seconded by George Ludwig to approve the requested carry forward. The motion was unanimously endorsed by the committee. Upon motion made by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 2. Road Imnrovements- Brimstone Lane - Ann roved The Director of Public Works requested a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $20,000 to perform emergency repairs to the Sulpher Spring stream crossing associated with Brimstone Lane. This crossing controls access to the Sheriffs impound lot. The repairs will include the installation of two large (81 "x59") CMP culverts to replace the existing deteriorated and partially collapsed culverts. Also, grouted rip-rap will be placed to stabilize the eroded embankments. This work needs to be performed prior to regrading the road leading to the impound lot. A motion was made by Jim Wilson and seconded by George Ludwig to approve the request to fund the emergency repairs. The motion was unanimously endorsed by the committee. Upon motion made by Supervisor Ty ler, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye ***Items Not Requiring Action*** 1. Presentation bv Blaine Dunn The committee listened to complaints from Mr. Blaine Dunn regarding blowing litter and dust from the development ofthe Sovereign Village subdivision. These complaints are highlighted in the attached correspondence (Attachment #1) dated July 4, 2002 which was previously sent to each board member. After listening to Mr. Dunn's comments, the Director of Public Works referred him to Mr. Joe Wilder for dust complaints and Ms. Gloria Puffinburger for issues related to blowing litter. In both cases, it was emphasized that Frederick County has appropriate ordinances to address each of these issues. 2. Carry Forward Requests from Fiscal Year 2001/2002 to Fiscal Year 200212003 Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 196 The Director of Public Works presented carry forward requests highlighted in a memorandum (Attachment #2) dated July 25, 2002. These requests will be presented to the Finance Committee for their review and action. The Public Works Committee unanimously endorsed the proposed carry forward requests. 3. Summarv of Landfill Salary Survey The results of a recent salary survey for landfill employees was presented to the committee for their review and action. This survey (Attachment #3) had previously been reviewed and endorsed by the landfill oversight committee. The landfill committee unanimously endorsed the survey with a stipulation that individual salary increases be evaluated and established prior to submission to the board of supervisors. The salary survey will be forwarded to the personnel committee prior to submission to the board. 4. Results of Electronics Recvc1inl: Event Ms. Gloria Puffinburger, solid waste manager, presented results of the second electronics recycling event. These results are highlighted in her memorandum (Attachment #4) dated July 22, 2002. It was noted that our local electronics recycling events have been much more successful than similar events held in Fairfax and Prince William counties. 5. Protocol for Handlin!!: Drainal:e Complaints Based on previous committee requests, the staff developed recommended protocol for alleviating drainage complaints. The attached memorandum (Attachment #5) dated July 7,2002 from Mr. Joe Wilder describes procedures for addressing existing problems and preventing future problems. After discussing this issue at length, the committee recommended obtaining comments from the development community. The results of these discussions will be presented to the committee at their next meeting. 6. ReQuest for Additional Environmental Inspector Position The Director of Public Works presented a request for an additional environmental inspector position to address the marked increase in residential development. The justification is presented in the attached memorandum (Attachment #6) dated July 26,2002. The committee unanimously endorsed the request and recommended forwarding the request to the finance committee for their review and action. They also requested that Mr. Wilder provide a more detailed presentation of the residential development at the next meeting. 7. Geothermal Heat Pumn Discussion In response to a request from a committee member. The Director of Public Works provided information regarding the current permitting practices associated with groundwater source heat pumps. Currently, only the Health Department is involved in reviewing and approving wells used as groundwater sources for the open loop heat pumps. Basically, the water used in the process is discharged to an open ditch or channel or, in rare instances, into an injection well. Currently, Frederick County does not monitor or control this type of water use. 8. New Tire Tinnin!!: Fee The landfill oversight committee unanimously approved a new billing procedure for dealing with waste tires delivered to the landfill by commercial dealers or haulers. The current procedure charges $.80 per passenger tire and $2.00 per truck tire. The new procedure will be based on a flat fee of$80.00 per ton regardless of tire size or whether tires are still on the rim. Citizens will still be charged at the per tire rate. 9. Miscellaneous Reports Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 ;... ~ - "'~ ~---'- 197 I) Tonnage Report (see Attachment 7) 2) Recycling Report (see Attachment 8) 3) Animal Shelter Dog Report (see Attachment 9) 4) Animal Shelter Cat report (see Attachment 10) FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT The Finance Committee met in the First Floor Conference Room at 107 North Kent Street on July 17, 2002, at 8:00 A.M. The committee approved agenda items 4 and 5 under consent agenda. Ronald Hottle was absent. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the items under consent agenda were approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 1. The Shenandoah Valley Discovery Museum would like to discuss the Discovery Museum's expansion project. See the attached memo, p.l. This presentation was postponed pending recommendation from the Joint Finance Committee. 2. The School Director of Finance requests a FY03 General Fund supplemental appropriation and School Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of$78.335.00 for 5 bus drivers. Additional local funds are required. See attached memo, p.2. The committee recommends approval and that this requests be deducted from the School FY02 requested carry forward funds. - Approved Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Douglas, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 3. The Finance Director requests a FY03 General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $1 0.330.92. These funds represent proffers received by the County for Fire and Rescue capital. See the attached memo, p.3-4. The committee recommends approval. - Approved Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 198 Gina A. Forrester - Aye 4. The Sheriff requests a FY02 General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $2.000.00. This amount represents a donation from the Winchester Host Lions Club, Inc. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, p.5. The committee recommends approval. - Approved Under Consent Agenda 5. The Department of Social Services requests a FY02 General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $29.603.00. These funds represent additional state funds. No additional local funds are required. See attached memo, p.6-7. The committee recommends approval. - Approved Under Consent Agenda 6. The Planning Director requests a carry forward for grant commitments for the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation and Kernstown Battlefield Association in the amount of $8,800.00. Of this amount, $6,240.00 will be reimbursed to the county, leaving $2,560.00 in local cost. See attached memo, p.8. The committec recommends approval. - Approved Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Douglas, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 7. The Civil War Preservation Trust requests that the $250,000.00 FY02 appropriation for battlefield preservation be carried forward to FY03. See attached memo, p.9-1O. The committee recommends approval if this was the intent of the Board of Supervisors. - Approved Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 8. The Kemstown Battlefield Association and the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation are requesting the use of $140,000.00 of the appropriated county funds for the preservation of battlefields to secure $280.000.00 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farmland Protection Program. See attached memo, p.11-14. The committee recommends approval pending the receipt of the matching grant funds. - Approved Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Douglas, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 19:9 Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 9. The Frederick County Career Firefighters Association requests the county to payroll deduct its members for the purpose of union dues. It was requested that this item be considered by the Finance Committee. The Finance Director has expressed to the Association the opposition of this payroll deduction. See attached memos, p.15-17. The committee denied this request and suggested that Kelly Whitacre seek direction from the Finance Directorregarding routing procedures with the bank that would both eliminate a need for a deduction and present a solution to his request. 10. The Department of Fire and Rescue requests a FY03 General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $1.000.00. This request represents grant monies received by the county from the State of Virginia Department of Fire Programs and is requested to be placed in line item 3202-5604-000-003 Greenwood Fire Company. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, p.18. The committee recommends approval. - Approved Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 11. The CFFW Regional Jail, at the request of the Finance Committee, has completed a "Growth Analysis". See the attached memos, p.19-39. The committee recommends that paragraph 9 with regard to rejection/return of Fauquier prisoners in the Regional Jail Agreement dated July!, !998 remain the same in the proposed agreement coming forth to the Board of Supervisors. - Approved Earlier On Agenda 12. The Treasurer will address the committee on the status of county investments. The Treasurer will address the Board of Supervisors under County Officials at the scheduled August Board of Supervisors meeting. - Earlier Agenda Item . PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING - OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT REOUEST OF CONCERN HOTLINE. INC. - KING OF THE WINGS FESTIVAL. PURSUANT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 86. FESTIVALS: SECTION 86-3 C. PERMIT REOUIRED: APPLICATION ISSUANCE OR DENIAL: FOR AN OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT. FESTIVAL TO BE HELD ON SATURDAY. AUGUST 31. 2002. FROM 11:00 A.M. TO 7:00 P.M.. ON PROPERTY OWNED BY ADAMS-NELSON COMPANIES. AIRPORT ROAD. WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA- APPROVED Administrator Riley presented this request to the Board. Stephen Peddler with Adams-Nelson Realty, appeared before the Board to advise ofthe exact location of this event. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the request of Concern Hotline, Inc.- King of the Wings Festival, for an Outdoor Festival Permit was approved, Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 200 as presented, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye PUBLIC HEARING- OUTDOORFESTIV AL PERMITREOUEST OF ROCKY TOP RIDING CLUB. INC. - DELMAS COWGILL MEMORIAL RIDE. PURSUANT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 86, FESTIVALS: SECTION 86-3 C. PERMIT REOUIRED: APPLICATION: ISSUANCE OR DENIAL: FOR AN OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT. FESTIVAL TO BE HELD ON SATURDAY. AUGUST 17. 2002. FROM 1:00 P.M. TO 1:00 A.M., ON PROPERTY OWNED BY ROSE MCDONALD. ROCKY TOP RIDING CLUB. INC..1085 COLLINSVILLE ROAD. CROSS JUNCTION. VIRGINIA - APPROVED Administrator Riley presented this request to the Board. Ms. McDonald was present on behalf of this request. Upon motion made by Supervisor Reyes, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the request of Rocky Top Riding Club, Inc., for an Outdoor Festival Permit was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT REOUEST OF THE WINCHESTER-FREDERICK COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - HOB NOB IN THE VALLEY. PURSUANT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 86. FESTIVALS: SECTION 86-3 C. PERMIT REOUIRED: APPLICATION: ISSUANCE OR DENIAL: FOR AN OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT. FESTIVAL TO BE HELD ON FRIDAY. SEPTEMBER 13. 2002. FROM 5:00 P.M. TO 8:00 P.M. ON PROPERTY OWNED BY RIDGE AND GLENNIE WHITE. WILLLOW GROVE FARM. 740 MERRIMAN'S LANE. WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA - APPROVED Administrator Riley presented this request to the Board. Chamber President Charles Weiss appeared before the Board on behalf of this request. Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the request ofthe Winchester-Frederick County Chamber of Commerce for an Outdoor Festival Permit was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Minnte Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 201 Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 155. TAXATION. TO ESTABLISH TWO NEW ARTICLES ENTITLED PROCESSING FEE ON CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT COSTS FOR COURTHOUSE SECURITY. THE PURPOSE OF THESE AMENDMENTS ARE TO ASSESS A FEE ON PERSONS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO JAIL BY EITHER ONE OF THE COURTS OF FREDERICK COUNTY TO DEFRAY THE COSTS OF PROCESSING INCARCERATED PERSONS AND TO PROVIDE FOR COURTHOUSE SECURITY PERSONNEL. THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RECENTLY ENACTED LEGISLATION BY THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE CODE OF VIRGINIA ALLOWING THE LOCALITY TO ENACT SAME-APPROVED Administrator Riley presented this request to the Board. Supervisor Reyes questioned the ability to collect this money. Jim Giraytys, Back Creek District, appeared before the Board and questioned the cost involved in collecting this money. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Douglas, the following ordinance amendments were approved by the following recorded vote: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 155, TAXATION, TO ESTABLISH TWO NEW ARTICLES ENTITLED PROCESSING FEE ON CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT COSTS FOR COURTHOUSE SECURITY. THE PURPOSE OF THESE AMENDMENTS IS TO ASSESS A FEE ON PERSONS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO JAIL BY EITHER ONE OF THE COURTS OF FREDERICK COUNTY TO DEFRAY THE COSTS OF PROCESSING INCARCERATED PERSONS AND TO PROVIDE FOR COURTHOUSE SECURITY PERSONNEL. THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RECENTLY ENACTED LEGISLATION BY THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE CODE OF VIRGINIA ALLOWING THE LOCALITY TO ENACT SAME. WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors has learned that the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-1613.1 was recently enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia, and that the same body also recently amended Section 53.1-120 of the same code; and, WHEREAS, the text of those new statutes allows the county, by ordinance, to impose additional costs of court on persons convicted of traffic and criminal offenses, and to assess a separate additional fee, also as costs of court, on persons so convicted who are also sentenced to jail; and, WHEREAS, the funds flowing from said assessments are to be appropriated to and used by the county sheriff to defray the costs of processing incarcerated persons and to provide for courthouse security personnel, both said objectives being in the best interests of all of the citizens of the County of Frederick. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, that two new Articles ofthe Frederick County Code, Chapter 155, Taxation, are hereby enacted to read as follows: Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 202 PROCESSING FEE ON CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS Pursuant to Section 15.2-1613.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, there is hereby imposed a processing fee of twenty -five dollars ($25.00) on any individual admitted by either one of the district courts of the County of Frederick or the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick to any county, city, or regional jail following conviction of any offense. The fee shall be ordered by the court as a part of the individuals' costs of court and it shall be collected by the clerk, deposited into the account of the county treasurer, and shall be used by the sheriff of Frederick County to defray the costs of processing arrested persons into any of the said jails. ASSESSMENT OF COURT COSTS FOR COURTHOUSE SECURITY Pursuant to Section 53.1-120 (D) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, there is hereby assessed a fee of five dollars ($5.00) as part of the costs in each criminal or traffic case which is tried in either one of the district courts of the County of Frederick or in the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick and which results in conviction of any statute or ordinance. This said fee shall be collected by the clerk of the circuit court in which the case is heard, remitted to the Treasurer of Frederick County, and held by the treasurer subject to appropriation by the board of supervisors to the sheriff of Frederick County for the funding of courthouse security personnel. The provisions of this article shall expire July 1, 2004 unless otherwise extended by the Virginia General Assembly. The effective date of this ordinance shall be August 14, 2002. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Nay Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING #02-02 OF SHERWOOD BRYANT. SUBMITTED BY PAINTER-LEWIS. P.L.C.. TO REZONE 7.8691 ACRES FROM RA(RURAL AREAS) TO B2 (BUSINESS GENERAL) DISTRICT. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED 200 FEET EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF GORE ROAD (RT. 751) AND NORTHWESTERN PIKE (RT. 50). ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF NORTHWESTERN PIKE. AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 28-A-63C IN THE BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - POSTPONED FOR FURTHER REVIEW BY THE APPLICANT Planner II Abbe Kennedy presented this request to the Board advising ofthe history ofthis request, and at the Planning Commission meeting on July 1, 2002 had six members vote no request with five voting yes, one abstention, and one absent, on this request. She further advised that the Commissioners discussed setbacks and buffering for the site, and possibly limiting the area used for display of vehicles, if a used-car lot was established. It was pointed out that the site had only 86' of road frontage, which will need to accommodate an access road, thereby limiting the number of Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 203 vehicles that could be displayed in front. Supervisor Forrester asked ifthe applicant would proffer out the filling station. She did not notice in the revised comments where this had been addressed. Supervisor Douglas asked if the applicant would be willing to take this out? Mr. Anderson, area resident, advised the Board that is not in favor of gas being sold nor the repair of vehicles. Charles Brill, area resident, advised the Board that he feels restrictions are needed. He would like to see the rural area be kept the same, if possible. John Lewis, of Painter-Lewis, appeared before the Board, on behalf of the petitioner, advising that this is a speculative request. He feels the best use for this parcel and land is commercial. He feels the automobile sales are the issue here as it was with the Planning Commission. He feels gasoline sales would serve this area well. Supervisor Douglas advised that she had been contacted by the Post Office and they have advised that "No Parking" would be permitted on this property. Supervisor Forrester addressed the sewer situation and asked what commercial business could go on this site knowing this situation. Supervisor Reyes asked if B-2 would be permitted? Attorney Ambrogi replied yes. John Lewis advised the Board that "half a loaf if better than no loaf at all," and they would take out the gas station ifthey need to. Following additional discussion by the Board it was decided this should be postponed for further review and study by the applicant. Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, rezoning request #02-02 of Sherwood Bryant was postponed. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 204 PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE: CHAPTER 165. ZONING. ARTICLE XX. PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF NON-CONFORMING USES. STRUCTURES. AND SIGNS: SECTIONS 165-148. 165-149. 165-150. 165-151. 165- 152. 165-153: AND ARTICLE XXII. DEFINITIONS: SECTION 165-156 - APPROVED Planner II Jeremy Camp presented this request to the Board advising these draft amendments concern modifications to the nonconforming use requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance as discussed with the Board on May 22, 2002 Chairman Shickle asked if this is tightening and not loosening the ordinance? Planner Camp replied that was correct. There was no public comment. Upon motion made by Supervisor Reyes, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the following ordinance amendments were approved: WHEREAS, An ordinance to amend Chapters 165, Zoning, Code of Frederick Countv, Article XX, Nonconforming Uses, Sections 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, and 153; and Article XXII, Definitions, Section 165-156, was considered by the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) during the regularly scheduled meetings; and WHEREAS, The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) recommended approval ofthis amendment on March 28, 2002; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on July 1, 2002; and, WHEREAS, The Frederick County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance amendment on August 14,2002; and, WHEREAS, The Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the adoption of this ordinance to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and convenience; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Section l65-148, 149, 150, 151, 152, and 153, Article XX, Nonconforming Uses; and Section 165-156, Article XXII, Definitions, ofthe Frederick County Zoni ng Ordinance are amended as described on the attachment. This ordinance shall be in effect on the day of adoption. ARTICLE XX Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Signs ~ 165-148. Continuation of preexisting uses, structures, and signs. Any use which does not conform to the requirements ofthis chapter at the effective adoption date of this chapter may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful. Structures and land may continue to be used as they were at the effective adoption date so long as they remain otherwise lawful. Any use, struct\,lre, or sign which subsequently becomes nonconforming as a result of amendments to this chapter may continue as it was at the time of the adoption ofthe amendment, as long as it remains otherwise lawful. Such nonconforming uses,$truqtUtes,;lifd~ign$ shall conform Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08114/02 205 to all laws in effect at the time when the use, structure, and signs was established. A. If any change of ownership, possession or lease of any legally nonconforming use, structure, or sign occurs, the use, structure, or sign may continue according to the requirements ofthis article. B. When the boundaries of a district are changed, any u""" of laud or structures,or signs which become nonconforming as a result of such change shall be subject to the provisions of this article. ~ 165-149. Discontinuance. A. If any legally nonconforming use or legally non9onf0nt11ngsign is discontinued for a period exceeding one year after the enactment of this chapter, it shall be deemed to be abandoned, and any use 6f$igri thereafter shall conform to the requirements of this chapter. B. Seasonal legallY nonconforming uses that have been in continuous operation for a period of two years or more prior to the adoption of this chapter may be continued. ~ 165-150. Reestablishing a discontinued legllIly nonconforming use. Any use that was legally nonconforming under the provisions of this article and that was discontinued due to abandonment may be reestablished by obtaining a conditional use permit. Such conditional use permit shall be granted only for a use that is of equal or lesser nonconformity than the original use in relation to intensity, type of use, dimensional requirements or other requirements. Such requests to reestablish an abandoned use shall be considered following the procedures for conditional use permits in this chapter. ~ 165-151. Expansion and modifications. A. In no casc shall auy noncOnfOr1l1ing, laudf,J1, j ul1ky,11 d, [,a"l, J~"po5a16~te u, autu,uuL~k ,i!,<<h" Y a' d bc c'l.pandeJ. N uu"onro, m~u", "~,,,us shall not bc illcr cased in size or in nttllmCl. Legally nonconforming uses, structures; and signs listed below may not expand. These uses and structures may be modified ifthe result decreases the degree of nonconformity. 1. landfills 2. ,iunkyards 3. trash heaps 4. automobile graveyards 5. SIgnS B. All otI,,,, uuueonfurmin,g tl5e5 may be expanded up to 50'%, U1"a"u,,,d ill t"BUS of thc tu[al floor <1l"a uftl,e origillalllorKoufVBu~ue; "t,uctures or total site alea ofnonstltlettlIal ttSeS:' Legally nonconforming uses listed below may expand Of modify one time if the expansion or modification does not increase the degree of nonconformity and does not expand beyond 3,500 square feet or 50%, whichever is less. Measurements shall be based on gross floor area for structures and total land area for uses. 1. parking lots 2. driveways 3. loading areas 4. outdoor storage and processing areas 5. outdoor display areas C. A 1l0,lCOufuBu~ue; ,,[, UdUl e or use may ~(, "ApauJ"J u, ,uuJa';cd ouly ~f "ud, "Apau,,~uu or modifi(,at~ou w~lluu[ ,,,Stllt in an increase in the degree of nonconformity. Thc expanded 01 modified tlses shall "on[o1111 to all '''....u~'''Ill"..t.; oEO.;" "l.apt..J utl,,,, ll,,,,, tho"" fu, wl,~"L ti,e tl5e or stru.:.tu<" wa" uuu"unfVuu~ue; a[ ti,,, t~wc onile adoption oftlIis dwpt", u, ~ts atnendments. All nonconforming tl5eS and structures shall "OUf\HIll tv all requi,"w"'I!" ufO.;" "Lapte, 00,(" H,,,,, tl,u"" fu, which were ,\ou(,oufUUU~Ub at H,,, t~w" Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 08/14/02 . 206 ufthe orij!.inal adoptiuu uf t1,~" ehal1t",. All legally nonconforming uses and structures not sJ)ecified in ~ 165-151 A or ~ 165-151B may expand or modify one time if the expansion or modification does not increase the degree of nonconformity, and does not result in an overall expansion of, ,000 square feet or 50%. Measurements shall be based on gross floor area f1 es and total land area for uses. Legally nonconforming residential st expand beyond 2,000 square feet or 50% ifthe expansion or modificatio e degree of nonconformity. The Zoning Administrator may allow the ly nonconforming structures and the construction of new structures w' ack of the existing legally nonconforming structure provided that all other of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance are met. D. Whenever a nonconforming use is changed to another use, it shall only be changed to a use that is of equal or less nonconformity in terms of the type or intensity of the use. E. A legally nonconforming StI tldw" or LIS" uf a str Ctetu,,, u, pi Glnises use or structure that is located within the floodplain districts may be expanded one time, provided that they meet the conditions set forth in this article as well as Article XV, S 165-116, of this chapter. [Added 8-12-1992] ~ 165-152. Legally nonconforming lots of record. Any lot of record at the time of the adoption ofthis chapter, which is less in area or frontage than the requirements ofthis chapter, may be used for uses allowed by this chapter when yard and setback requirements are met. The current setbacks for the particular Zoning District in question are to be applied for all lots, unless the most recent legally approved and lat ofthe property clearly depicts all appropriate terminology and numeric information for fferent setbacks. ~ 165-153. Restoration or replacement. A"y 1.0neonfoInling tlse or st1tl(,tnre that is d..."huy"d 1y tre, willd"tuUH, "Apl06ion, act of public enemy, accident Ol fu, ""y otl,er reaSOH wl,at.;oever rhay ~" "v"t~Hucd only so 101lg as the Ow,lers oft!." plUP'" ty Lie with the Zoning Administrator, l'Vithin six months oftl,,, d""t1Uct~O{l 0, damage, a Hotiee of intention to "UHt~HU" tl,,, 'lolleonfu'U1~He; u"". 1,1 .;uch cases, the ,,,,,,tula[;v,, UI "UH"t1Ud~UH "l,all COil...."""" w ~t1'~H one yea1 of the date that such notice is received. If the notice is not received 01 if restOlation do"" Hut ~"e;~H withi11 UH" y""', tl,,, u"" "l,all be deellled tu ~" aLa<ld011ed u:!Jdel t!." P' u v ;,,~ou.; of this a1 tide. If a legally nonconforming use or structure is destroWdor damaged in any manner it may be repaired or restored, provided any such repair or restoration is c (12) months from the date the legally nonconforming use or structure was troyed or damaged. The Planning Commission may approve a waiver to allow an extension up to eighteen(18) months from the date the legally nonconforming use or structure was destroyed or damaged if'requested by the owner. All legally nonconforming signs that are destroyed or damaged in any manner may be repaired or restored only if all work is completed within six (6) months from the date the legally nonconforming sign was destroyed or damaged. ~ 165-156. Definitions. NONcONFORMll-fG USE - Au"" w ad~v~ty wl,~d, wa.; lawful p,ior to the adoptioll, revision vr aliKud,lle,it ofthis chapter bot I'V hieh fails, by reason of StIch adoption, rev ision or amendment, to does lIot eonfolm to the pIe""'Ht '''':lU~'''U1''Hb uft1,~" ,,1"'pkL LEGALLY NONCONFORMING USE - A use or activity that was lawful prior to the adoption, revision or amendment of the zoning ordinance but that fails by reason of such adoption, revision, or amendment to conform to the present requirements ofthe zoning district. LEGALLY NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE - A structure, size, dimensions, or location of which was lawful prior to the adoption, revision, or amendment to ing ordinance but that fails by reason of such adoption, revision, or amendment to conform to the present requirements of the zoning district. LEGALLY NONCONFORMING SIGN - Any sign lawfully existing on the effective date of an ordinance, or amendment thereto, that renders such sign nonconforming because it does not conform 207 to all the standards and regulations of the adopted or amended ordinance. SEASONAL USE - Any use which ceases operation for at least 3 months in a year. DISPLAY AREA - A specific area used for the purpose of displaying products and services offered by a business or organization located on the same property or a contiguous property which is appropriately zoned and with an approved site plan. OUTDOOR STORAGE AND PROCESSING - The keeping or processing of goods, junk, material, merchandise or vehicles outside of an enclosed building and in the same place fur '11011.0 tIl<lll 24 hotrrs. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Absent Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Ayc BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Chairman Shickle advised Administrator Riley that due to the lack of time, under the worksession, that perhaps he should try and reschedule what was not discussed. Supervisor Forrester advised that she noticed in the application submitted by Sherwood- Bryant there was a comment made about the zoning ordinance not requiring any sort of buffer or screen to be installed between land used for commercial purposes and land used for agriculture. It further states that any kind of changes having commercial uses could impact the adjoining agricultural activities. She is wondering if something can be done about this. Planner Camp replied that the DRS subcommittee is currently evaluating setbacks with regard to agricultural properties and the RP zoning district. Commercial property can also be included in this. UPON MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR SMITH, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR REYES, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. (TIME: 9:27 P.M.) , J~1bd~ Clerk, Board of Supervisors ... ~ 2- IJ Q. c....-9... ~ ~ Richard C. Shickle Chairman, Board of Supervisors Minutes Prepared By: A.~I>~ --;:- ~ ~ Carol T. BaylIss Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors