Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 08, 2006 Regular Meeting 152 A Regular Meeting ofthe Frederick County Board of Supervisors was hcld on Wednesday, November 8, 2006, at 7: 15 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Vice-Chaimlan Bill M. Ewing; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.; Gary W. Dove; Gene E. Fisher; Philip A. Lcmicux; and Barbara E. Van Osten. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the meeting to order. INVOCATION Daniel Hessc, Harvesters of Hope, delivered the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice-Chairman Ewing led the Pledge of Allegiance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA - APPROVED County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr. advised that he had no additions to the agenda. Upon a motion by Vice-Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Van Ostcn, the Board approved the agenda as presented. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Ayc Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye CONSENT AGENDA Administrator Riley offered the following item for the Board's consideration under the consent agenda: Personnel Committee Report - Tab D; - Public Works Committee Report - Tab E; - Transportation Committee Report - Tab F; - Subdivision Request #13-06 of Wins tone, L.C. - Tab 0; - Road Resolution for Sovereign Village, Section III - Tab R Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11108/06 153 Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Dove, the Board approved the consent agenda as presented. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shicklc Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye CITIZEN COMMENTS There were no citizen comments. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS There were no Board of Supervisors' comments. MINUTES-APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the minutes from the September 27, 2006 meeting were approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Upon a motion by Vice-Chairnlan Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Dove, the minutes from the October 11, 2006 meeting were approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shiekle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye COUNTY OFFICIALS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH A WARD FOR NOVEMBER. 2006- (RESOLUTION #022-06) - APPROVED Chairman Shickle recognized Tommy J. Gardner, Sr., a Correctional Officer at the Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center as the Employee ofthe Month for November 2006. Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/08/06 154 Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved the following resolution: RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE THE FREDERICK COUNTY EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH Tommy J. Gardner, Sr. WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors recognizes that the County's employees are a most important resource; and WHEREAS, on September 9,1992, the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution which established the Employee of the Month award and candidates for this award may be nominated by any County employee; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors selects one employee from those nominated, based on the merits of outstanding performance and productivity, positive job attitude and other noteworthy contributions to their department and the County; and WHEREAS, Tommy 1. Gardner, Sr., who serves as a Correctional Officer with the Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center was nominated for Employee of the Month; and WHEREAS, Tommy J. Gardner is deserving of this special recognition for maintaining control of an inmate and preventing this inmate from further injury; as a result of Officer Gardner's diligence and immediate action, a life was saved; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors this 8th day of November, 2006, that Tommy 1. Gardner, Sr., is hereby recognized as the Frederick County Employee of the Month for November, 2006; and BE IT FURTHERRESOL VED, that the Board of Supervisors extends gratitude to Tommy 1. Gardner, Sr. for his outstanding perfonnance and dedicated service and wishes him continued success in future endeavors; and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that Tommy J. Gardner, Sr. is hereby entitled to all ofthe rights and privileges associated with this award. The above resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS REAPPOINTMENT OF LEONARD KRAEMER AS COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE ON THE HANDLEY REGIONAL LIBRARY - APPROVED Upon a motion by Vice-Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Van Osten, the Board reappointed Leonard Kraemer as a county representative on the Handley Regional Library Board. This is a four year appointment, said term to expire November 30, 2010. Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/08/06 155 The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye COMMITTEE REPORTS PERSONNEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The HR Committee met on Wednesday, November 1,2006 at 9:00 a.m. with the following present: Charles DeHaven, Barbara Van Osten, Phil Farley, Verne Collins, Paula Nofsinger, John R. Riley, Jr., Kris Tierney, and Ellen Murphy, COR. The following items have been approved as follows: 1. The Commissioner ofthe Revenue Requested a General Fund Appropriation in the Amount of $8,889 for the Reorllanization and Promotions of Current Personal Property Employees. The request from the Commissioner ofthe Revenue to reorganize and promote seven current employees in the Personal Property Division has been approved and returned to the Finance Committee for funding approval. See attached memo, pages 1-12. 2. The Superintendent of the NRADC Requests Approval for an Emnlovee of the Month Award for November. Nomination from Fred Hildebrand, Superintendent of the Regional Jail, for Employee ofthe Month has been approved. See attached memo, pages 13-14. No other business was discussed. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Public Works Committee met on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 at 8:00 a.m. All members were present except Jim Wilson. The following items were discussed. ***Items Not Requiring Action*** 1. Undate on New Animal Shelter The new animal shelter is currently three (3) months behind schedule. Occupancy is anticipated on or before November 30, 2006. A dedication has been tentatively planned for December 6,2006. The new shelter will not be open to the public until some time in January, 2007. 2. Undate on New Citizens' Convenience Site at the Landfill The new landfill convenience site construction will be completed on or before November 10, 2006. We anticipate that the new compactors and associated open-top dumpsters will be delivered and operational before November 22,2006. The new site will be open to the public on December 4, 2006. Mr. Riley requested that a site dedication be scheduled to highlight the completion ofthe new facility. 3. Closure of Greenwood Convenience Site Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meetiug of 11/08106 156 Concurrent with the opening of the new landfill convenience site, we plan to initiate the closure of the Greenwood convenience site. This site is being closed at the request of the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company. We plan to provide signage and distribute pamphlets, at least 60 days in advance ofthe closure to notify site users. This notice will allow the public to make other arrangements for refuse disposal such as private haulers or use of the new landfill convenience site. 4. New Litter Proe:ram The Director of Public Works highlighted a new litter collection program that was initiated in May, 2006. Four (4) months after its inception, the county's litter crew, consisting of labor provided through the regional jail's Community Inmate Workforce, has collected ten (10) tons of litter from along the county's roads. Although inmates focus their efforts on roads leading to the landfill, they have also picked up debris along Route 37, and Valley, Martinsburg, Front Royal, Millwood, and Berryville pikes, Fort Collier Industrial Park and several secondary roads. One of the department's convenience site workers supervises the crew. The Virginia Department of Transportation collects filled bags. We intend to continue the program subject to the availability of inmate labor. 5. Stormwater Improvement Project - Sunnyside The Director of Public Works presented proposals from Marsh and Legge Surveying ($2,850) and Patton Harris Rust and Associates, p.c. ($26,890) to provide surveying and engineering services, respectively, related to a drainage improvement project in the Sunnyside area. This study and design has been initiated to resolve a flooding problem on the south side of 522 between Sting Ray Motors and the Autumn Wind Apartments. This flooding has been a long-standing problem exacerbated by the upstream development in the Sunnyside area. Basically, the study and design will determine the cost of intercepting storm flows within the median strip upstream of Sting Ray Motors and diverting those flows via a closed piping system to the existing box culverts which cross from the southern side of Route 522 to the Shockey property on the north side. No additional flow will be created on the Shockey property which has been designated as a stormwater management basin. The stormwater study and design will include a cost estimate which will be submitted to the public works committee for their review before submittal to the Board of Supervisors. The cost of drainage study will be approximately $30,000 (see attachments 1 and lA). The committee unanimously endorsed the study and recommended that it be submitted to the Finance Committee for their review and approval. 6. Illellal Dumpinl: - Landfill Policv The Landfill Manager, Steve Frye, presented our current policy related to bringing refuse from outside the landfill service area into the landfill. Our current policy allows the landfill staff to ban the hauler permanently. After discussing this issue at length, the committee recommended that the offender be given one (1) warning before rescinding dumping privileges pernlanently. 7. Update on ShawneeLand Proiect Mr. George Ludwig presented a brief update on the water wheel house project and the new mailbox facility. Basically, the Advisory Committee has assumed the responsibility for designing and building a new water wheel house. The old building was recently demolished by the Shawneeland staff. The new mailbox facility will be designed by Design Concepts, Inc. and Patton Harris Rust and Associates, P.C. Initial site work will be performed by the Shawneeland staff. 8. Miscellaneous Renorts: Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/08/06 157 a. Tonnage Report: Landfill (Attachment 2) b. Recycling Report (Attachment 3) c. Animal Shelter Dog Report (Attachment 4) d. Animal Shelter Cat Report (Attachment 5) TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Transportation Committee met on Monday, October 23,2006 at 8:30 a.ill. Members Present Chuck DeHaven (voting) Phil Lemieux (voting) James Racey (voting) Eric Lowman (voting) Darwin Braden (voting) George Kriz (voting) Lewis Boyer (voting) Members Absent Donald Breeden (liaison) ***Jtems Requiring Action*** None at this time. ***Items Not Requiring Action*** 1. Review of Proffers at Woodside Commercial Center Staff presented the following information regarding the proffer package of the Woodside Commercial Center: While proffer review and comment would not typically be an item under the purvicw ofthe Transportation Committee, this item has been brought forth due to its attempt to address a transportation issue in a way that has previously not been done in Frederick County. Specifically, it is the per vehicle trip proffer detailed in item F, where incremental funds have been proffered rather than the roadway being constructed. These funds are targeted toward issues facing all future rezonings along that corridor. Most critical among those issues are intersections along and the widening of the Route 11 north corridor and the realignment of Route 672 (Brucetown Road). Clearly, this proffer alone would not resolve any of those issues, but would attempt to pay an incremental share. While statT is generally supportive of a cooperative effort to address the needs for the transportation issues in this area, there are the following concerns: 1. Without additional analysis of the comprehensive planned uses and impacts along this corridor, it is difficult to assign what would be the proper 'per trip' dollar amount to expectant rezonings. In addition, without determining that amount relative to the improvement needs that further development of the corridor requires, there is the risk of setting a level that is insufficient for the needs, thus leaving the County with an insufficient road system upon build out. The proffer, as written, would allow the businesses to be built regardless of whether full funding for the needed improvements to accommodate the additional traffic generated by that business had been received. 2. The use of site plan as the trigger for the payment ofthe proffered amount; the issue here is that if you were to tie this particular proffer to the site plan, the County would have Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/08/06 158 little assurance of when those funds would become available. In a situation where the County would be relying on a group of proffers from different developers to address a particular issue, waiting until site plan to collect the protTer has the potential to cause delay in the needed improvement indefinitely. 3. The proposed concept fails to guarantee actual road improvements/construction, which is necessary to accommodate traffic generated by the rezoning. It is County policy that rezoning applications guarantec needed improvements in order to secure rezoning approval. Based upon the issues detailed above, it is the opinion of staff that this issue should be dealt with as a discussion of the possibilities ofthis approach and whether it is something the County should consider pursuing. The applicant was present and stated that he would prefer that a recommendation came from the Committee. The Committee discussed the issue at length and the primary concern was that they wanted more information on what the county is facing at build out of the property and whether the dollar amount proposed by the applicant, if applied to future rczonings along the corridor, would be sufficient to mitigatc the transportation impacts of that development. MOTION: Mr. Lemieux, seconded by Mr. Racey To table the request to allow the applicant time to gather more information for the Committee to consider at their next meeting. Motion passed unanimously. 2. County Bus Service Staff presented the following information to the committee: At the September 25, 2006 meeting of this Committee, staff requested and received a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to give staff authorization to draft a letter to the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit (VDRPT), declining the transit expansion grant that had been awarded for the Clearbrook area of the County. Following that meeting, on October 4,2006, the Chairman of the Transportation Committee and staff attended a meeting that included Winchester Transit officials and representatives from the VDRPT. At that meeting, the VDRPT officials stated that those funds formerly awarded for an expansion route to the Clearbrook area would be made available to the County for continued use on the existing bus service. This would be contingent upon modifications being made to that existing service to try and improve upon the current success level of the service. This allowance for these funds is a direct contradiction of previous guidance provided to staff, and thus calls for a reconsideration of whether to decline the funds. Staff is now secking a new recommendation for the Board of Supervisors that would either reiterate the desire to decline the funds or allow them to be used for the existing service as explained above. The Committee considered this information and had some concerns. Their primary concern was what accepting the grant would obligate the County to in the long term. Staff clarified that this is a one time grant and once it runs out, the future cost of the routes becomes a Frederick County responsibility. Committee members also asked whether this grant could be in lieu of the $80,000 budgeted by the County for the service. Staff replied that this would not be the case per guidance from Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit officials. MOTION: Mr. Lemicux, seconded by Mr. Racey Table the Item to allow staff and the Chairman time to meet with the new city officials in charge of Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/08/06 159 Transit to gain a better understanding of what changes need to be made to the service to use the grant and what the long term costs are to Frederick County. Motion passed with one dissent 3. MetroDolitan Plannin~ Organization (MPO) Activity Update Statfupdated the committee with the following information: There are a number of initiatives underway at the MPO about which the Committee should know. 1. Bicvcle & Pedestrian Mobilitv Plan As work on this plan continues, the date for the first public meeting has been set for November 13,2006 from 4-7 p.m. The meeting will be held at the conference room of Our Health located at 329 N. Cameron St. Committee members are welcome to attend and staff will also be present and update the committee after the meeting. 2. Local Assistance Proiects At the September 25, 2006 Committee meeting, staff updated the Committee on two projects that the MPO would be undertaking with the assistance of consultants. The first of those two projccts (I-81/Route 37 /Route II/Shady Elm) has been accepted by VDOT to be performed by their on-call consultant at no charge to the MPO. The consultant will be working directly with local staff members and officials who are appointed to the steering committee to oversee these projects. For the County, those individuals include Board of Supervisors members and Transportation Committee Chairman Chuck DeHaven and County Transportation Planner John Bishop. 4. Article Distribution There were no articles this month. 5. Other Business A. At the September 13,2006 Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board expressed a desire to have the Transportation Committee review the rating system for the hard surfacing of rural roadways in the County. Staff had anticipated bringing this item at this meeting; however, other work items such as the Eastern Road Plan update have slowed the data eompilation and analysis required to properly address this issue. Staff continues to work on this item and it will be brought to the Committee in the near future. B. Dr. McAllister, a private citizen spoke to the Committee regarding the proposed Route 37 corridor in the vicinity of Pine Road and the sewer line extension in the same area. Dr. McAllister would like the County to consider planning the corridors together to reduce the impact to local citizens and the amount of right-of-way needed to accomplish both projects. The Committee discussed the issue and felt it had merit by may not be possible due to vastly differing time lines for the two projects, the amount of additional engineering that would need to be done to bring them together, and the potential delays that such reengineering could cause. C. The Committee considered their meeting dates for November and December. The datc for the November meeting was kept at its normally scheduled date of November 27, but the December 25 meeting was rescheduled to December 18. PUBLIC HEARINGS Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11108/06 160 PUBLIC HEARING - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 155. TAXATION: ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS: SECTION 155-3. TAX RETURNS: FAILURE TO FILE. THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD INCREASE THE FILING DEADLINE FOR TAX RETURNS FROM 30 DAYS TO 60 DAYS-APPROVED Administrator Riley advised that this amendment would increase the filing deadline for tax returns from 30 days to 60 days. The Code and Ordinance Committee recommended approval of this proposed amendment. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Van Osten, seconded by Supervisor Lemieux, the Board approved the following amendment to the Frederick County Code: BE IT ORDAINED, that Chapter 155, Taxation, Article I, General Provisions; Section 155- 3, Tax Returns; Failure to File, be amended to read as follows: ~155-3. Tax returns; failure to file. A. The annual return of taxable tangible personal property and mobile homes for the county shall be filed with the Commissioner of Revenue for the county on or before the 15th day of February of each year, except as stated in Subsections D and E; provided, further, that the annual return of taxable personal property for any motor vehicle, trailer, airplane or boat acquired after January I shall be filed with the Commissioner of Revenue on or before the 15th day of February of each year or within 36 60 days from the date of acquisition or situs in the county, whichever occurs later. B. The annual return of taxable machinery and tools, furniture and fixtures employed in a business or trade for the county shall be filed with the Commissioner of Revenue for the county on or before the 15th day of March of each year; provided, further, that the annual return of taxable machinery and tools, furniture and fixtures acquired after January I shall be filed with the Commissioner of Revenue on or before thc 15th day of March of each year or within 3B 60 days from the date of acquisition or situs in the county, whichever occurs later. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye PUBLIC HEARING - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 155. TAXATION: ARTICLE III. SENIOR CITIZENS AND DISABLED PERSONS EXEMPTION: SECTION 155-18 OUALIFICATIONS FOR EXEMPTION. PARAGRAPH (F). THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD INCREASE THE PROPERTY TAX RELIEF FOR THE ELDERLY OUALlFYING ASSET LIMIT FROM $100.000 TO $150.000 - APPROVED Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/08106 161 Administrator Riley advised that the Board, at its July 26, 2006 meeting, approved a request from the Commissioner ofthe Revenue to increase the Property Tax Relieffor the elderly qualifying asset limit from $100,000 to $150,000. This proposed amendment is before the Board for public hearing. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Vice-Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Dove, the Board approved the following amendment to the Frederick County Code: BE IT ORDAINED, that Chapter 155, Taxation, Article Ill, Senior Citizens and Disabled Persons Exemption; Section 155-18, Qualifications for Exemption, Paragraph (F), be amended to read as follows: ~155-18. Qualifications for exemption. F. The net combined financial worth of such claimant owner or owners and of their relatives living in such dwelling as of December 31 of the year immediately preceding the taxable year for which the exemption is claimed does not exceed $100,000 $150,000. "Net combined financial worth" shall include the value of all assets, including equitable interests, exclusive of the fair market value of the dwelling for which exemption is claimed and of the land not exceeding one acre upon which it is situated. Furniture, fixtures and appliances in such exempt residence shall also be excluded from the net worth calculation, provided that they are normal and reasonable to the use and maintenance of the property as the residence of the qualifying owner or owners. Net worth is computed by subtracting liabilities from assets The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye PUBLIC HEARING - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 158. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC: ARTICLE III. COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES: SECTION 158-10. TREASURER'S RESPONSIBILITIES: LICENSE PERIOD OF V ALInITY: PRORATION: AND SECTION 158-14. PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN AND DISPLAY LICENSE AND FOR DISPLAY OF EXPIRED LICENSE. PARAGRAPH A AND B. THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD ALLOW THE COUNTY TREASURER TO ISSUE A PERMANENT COUNTY LICENSE PLATE. STICKER. ORDECAL (THE ANNUAL LICENSE TAX. FEE OR CHARGE FOR EACH LICENSE YEAR WOULD STILL BE COLLECTED.). AND TO AMEND THE FAILURE TO OBTAIN AND DISPLAY COUNTY LICENSE FROM 30 DAYS TO 60 DAYS. - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised this proposed amendment would allow the Treasurer to issue Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/08/06 162 a permanent county license plate, sticker, or decal. An annual license tax, fee, or charge for each license year would still be collected, but there would be a cost savings to the county by implementing this system. There is also proposed an amendment to increase the grace period from 30 to 60 days from the date of purchase or acquisition of any motor vehicle, within which the owner or operator shall pay the license tax, fee or charge and obtain and display the required license on such motor vehicle. Chairman Shickle asked Treasurer C. William Orndoff, Jr. to provide an explanation of this program. Treasurer Orndoff advised that he was proposing a permanent decal, which would be assigned to a vehicle in lieu of issuing a new sticker each year. The fee would still be collected at the time of the tax billing. There would be a cost savings in postage and the purchase and production of new decals. There would be a $1.00 transfer charge to transfer the sticker to another vehicle, should the owner sell the original vehicle. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved the following amendment to the Frederick County Code: BE IT ORDAINED, that Chapter 158, Vehicles and Traffic; Article III, County Vehicle Licenses; Section 158-10, Treasurer's Responsibilities; License Period of Validity; Proration; and Section 158-14, Penalty for Failure to Obtain and Display License and For Display of Expired License, Paragraphs A and B, be amended to read as follows: ~158-10. Treasurer's Responsibilities; License Period of Validity; Proration A. The Treasurer shall issue a County license, plate, sticker or decal for each motor vehicle upon which such license tax, fee or charge has been paid, subject to the provisions of gI58-12; provided, however, the Treasurer may issue a County license, plate, sticker, or decal prior to payment and bill the license tax, fee or charge on the next personal property tax bill. If such license tax, fee or charge is not paid by the due date for such personal property tax, such license shall thereafter be invalid and display of such license on a motor vehicle shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $250. All license taxes, fees or charges collected by the Treasurer under this article shall be deposited by the Treasurer in the same manner as prescribed for other County funds, and all revenue derived from County license tax, fee or charge shall be applied to general County purposes. COUllty licenses shall bc .alid flU/II tl,c 15th day vfPeblt1aly in thc yCa! ;Mucd to tl,c follOwing 15th day ofF"blua,y, at wl,;d, t;me such Hcc1l5c shall ""'File. Tl,,, TH;a~Ulcr shall bcgin i;,;,uallcC oft!." liclOll~c on thc filst day of Janua,y of cach yea.. Any pcrson lcquilCd tv pUlchasc a Count) liccnsc may pu,,,I,d5c t1,,, MlllC at llis or hn lCqUCSt Pliv, tv JallUa. y 1 of tlllO lieensc yca" F'O, idcJ that thc T'''aSUlel is in posSCS;,iOll vft!.c COUllty ECIOllSC fOl issuance: of the license: yCa! lcql1Gstcd. The license year for County licenses shall he from the 15th day of Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Rel:ular Meeting of 11/08/06 163 Fehruary of each year to the 14th day of Fehruary of the next year, at which time such license shall expire. The county license plate, sticker or decal as issued hy the Treasurer shall he permanent in nature and shall he valid from license year to license year, provided that the licensee remains the owner and that the license tax, fee or charge for each license year is paid hy the due date and all personal property taxes owed hy the licensee are paid hy the due date. If the license tax,fee or charge is not paidfor any license year or the licensee owes delinquent personal property taxes, then the County license plate, sticker or decal is expired and invalid. The County license tax, fee or charge for a license year shall be prorated as follows: Vehicle license tax, fee or chargc shall be $10 for all motor vehicles not required to be licensed prior to November 1 of the license year, except for motorcycles, which license tax, fee or charge shall be $5. ~158-14. Penalty for failure to obtain and display license and for display of expired license. A. It shall be unlawful for the owner or operator of any motor vchicle required to be licensed in the County under this article to fail to obtain and display the required County license or to display upon such motor vehicle any County license after its expiration date; provided, however, that a gracc period of3f:i 60 days is granted from the date of purchase or acquisition of any motor vehicle, within which the owner or operator shall pay the license tax, fee or charge and obtain and display the required license on such motor vehicle. A violation hereof shall constitute a misdemeanor, punishablc by a fine not to exceed $250. A violation hereof may not be discharged by payment of a fine except upon presentation of satisfactory evidence that the requi red 1 icense has been obtained. Fines shall be the maximum allowed by law, as determined by the courts. B. There shall be imposed a penalty of$5 for each motor vehiclc required to be licensed if such license was not purchased by February 15 of each tax license year or within 3f:i 60 days from the date of purchase or acquisition of any motor vehicle, of which the total tax, fee or charge, including such penalty, shall in no event be greater than the amount of license tax, fee or charge by the Commonwealth. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #07-06 OF JAE CHA FOR A COUNTRY GENERAL STORE. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2960 MILLWOOD PIKE (ROUTE 50), AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 77-A-13 IN THE SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED Planner I Bernard Suchicital appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised this was a request for a conditional use permit for a country general store located in the Shawnee District. The property is zoned RA (Rural Areas) District. The applicant proposes to construct an 8,000 square foot building on 4.4 acres. The site will have one entrance. There will be no outdoor display of goods after business hours. Planner I Suchicital informed the Board of an existing failing Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/08106 164 health system on the property; however, the applicant will install a pump and haul system. He went on to say that if this application is approved the existing conditional use permit for this property would be null and void. He concluded by saying the Planning Commission recommended approval of this conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. An engineered site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by Frederick County, and site improved accordingly, prior to operating store activities on site. 3. One (1) monument sign shall be allowed on the property; sign shall be limited to fifty (50) square feet in area. The sign shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height. 4. No on-site vehicle fuel sales allowed. 5. There shall be no on-site food preparations. 6. Store hours of operation shall be between 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 7. No outdoor display of goods. 8. There shall be no more than one (I) vehicular entrance for the site. 9. Pump & haul agreement shall be maintained with a qualified company implementing an alarm notification system. 10. Any expansion or change of use will require a new Conditional Use Permit. 11. Approval of CUP #07-06 will null and void the existing CUP #10-03. Chairman Shickle asked ifthere was room for a difference of opinion about what constitutes a country general store. Planning Director Eric Lawrence advised that stafflooked at existing stores when evaluating this proposal. Supervisor DeHaven asked ifthere was a need to reinforce Health Department requirements with the inclusion of condition #5. Planner I Suchicital responded that the Planning Commission felt it should be addressed. Supervisor Fisher asked about the intent ofthis condition and wondered if it meant no on-site food preparation period. Planner I Suchicital responded that the Planning Commission felt the food preparation could grow larger than just serving coffee and doughnuts. Chairman Shickle stated that he would hate to see the Board go with this condition ifthere is a debate over food preparation. Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/08106 165 Supervisor Van Osten asked when the County grants a pump and haul permit. Planner I Suehicital responded that it was a last resort option. Supervisor Van Osten stated that she could not support the application because the applicant was building an 8,000 square foot building with a pump and haul system. She went on to say that the Planning Commission diseussed the appropriate use of a conditional use permit and the size of the proposed business. She did not believe this was an appropriate use for a conditional use permit. Supervisor Fisher stated that he too was concerned about the size ofthe structure and the pump and haul system, but he thought the storm water retention would improve the septic system emergency overflow. Young Kim, engineer, appeared before the Board on behalf ofthe applicant. He stated that the site was currently an eyesore, but the applicant was proposing a better alternative. The applicant arrived at the 8,000 square foot building through discussions at the Planning Commission and with staff. He advised that this building had been scaled down from its original 14,000 square foot size. With regard to the proposed pump and haul, this site does not have the soils necessary to accommodate a standard or alternative system. The proposed alarm system for the pump and haul system will utilize cellular technology to contact the owner. The storm water management pond has been constructed to catch the overt1ow. The alarm will activate at 80% of the system's capacity, whieh equates to 600 gallons of capacity remaining or 171 t1ushes. Mr. Kim stated that parking lot run-off would be addressed at the site plan stage. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. Michael Andrew Dorn, representing the adjacent property owner Izaak Walton League, appeared before the Board regarding this application. He stated that he did not believe a pump and haul was adequate for the site; however, the storm water pond was good if it would hold 100% of the systems capacity. He asked ifthere was a bond to cover possible pollution down stream should the septic system and storm water pond fail. There being no further comments, Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Chairman Shickle stated that he was troubled by condition #5 and felt a condition should be added to address pump and haul accidents. Administrator Riley advised that the Department of Environmental Quality enforces Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11108/06 166 pollution regulations. With regard to condition #5, Supervisor Van Osten stated that the original facility was going to be larger and based on discussions with the applicant, the Planning Commission moved toward that condition. Supervisor Dove stated that he did not have a problem with the condition, if the applicant was willing to accept it. Director Lawrence advised that the condition was placed as a reminder to the applicant that they cannot do on site food preparation. Supervisor Fisher asked about monitoring ofthe pump and haul system. Administrator Riley stated that monitoring was a routine part of a pump and haul system. Supervisor Lemieux stated that he would like to see condition #5 stay. He went on to say that he was not opposed to adding to the pump and haul condition. He had concerns with the proposed pump and haul system, but believed it would work on the site. Vice-Chairman Ewing stated that he could go along with condition #5 as well as addition verbiage to condition #9 regarding the pump and haul permit. Supervisor Fisher stated that there were issues with this application and he had concerns based on the County's land use plan. Supervisor Fisher then moved to approved Conditional Use Permit #07 -06 with the following addition to condition #9 "A pump and haul permit and agreement shall be maintained ....". The motion was seconded by Supervisor Lemieux. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Nay PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING #13-06 OF SENSENY VILLAGE. SUBMITTED BY GREENWAY ENGINEERING. FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVISING THE GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN (GDP) AND PROFFERS APPLICABLE TO THE ROAD DESIGN. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROSSUM LANE (ROUTE 736) AND TWINBROOK CIRCLE (ROUTE 867). AND IS IDENTIFIED BY PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS 65-A-49BAND 65- A-55 IN THE RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11108106 167 Planncr II Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She advised this was a request to revise the generalized development plan and proffers. The proposed use will be 285 residential units on 73.79 acres. The applicant has proposed a revision to proffer C 3 regarding improvements to Rossum Lane because the dedicated right-of-way width is 37 feet instead of 50 feet. The revised proffer will state "The applicants hereby proffer to design and construct improvements to Rossum Lane (Route 736), to meet VDOT minimum geometric and pavcment design standards sufficient to allow for two-way travel, curb/guttcr, street lights, storm sewer, and a sidewalk located on the west side ofRossum Lane and within existing Rossum Lane right-of-way." The generalized development plan has been revised with a modified road layout, revised location of the centrally located townhouses, and additional open space between the Senseny Village and Glenmont Village. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application. Planner II Perkins advised the master development plan to be presented later this evening matched the revised proffers and generalized development plan. Supervisor Lemieux asked if the road layout on the generalized development plan was correct. Planner II Perkins responded that the road layout was correct. Evan Wyatt, Greenway Engineering, appeared before the Board on behalf ofthe applicant. He reviewed the generalized development plan and stated the project has gained open space for the residents of Glenmont Village. He went on to say that the applicant has met with the Glenmont Home Owncrs' Association regarding this proposal. He stated that the changes to the generalized plan were significant enough to require proffer and generalized development plan approval. Vice-Chairman Ewing asked if there was an provision in the proffers to plant evergreens between Senseny Village and Glenmont Village, if necessary. Mr. Wyatt responded that he did not believe it would be necessary due to the amount of wooded area between the two developments. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. Dick Crane, Red Bud District resident and Vice President of Glenmont Village Homeowner's Association, appeared before the Board to speak in favor of this application. He stated there were some loose ends that needed to be tied up, including the need for an elementary Minnte Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11108106 168 school, as this project will exacerbate this situation. He went on to say that Senseny Road needs to be realigned and a bike trail should be constructed. There being no further public comments, Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Lemieux, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved Rezoning #13-06. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Nay Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye PUBLIC HEARING - EASTERN ROAD PLAN. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN TO AL TER THE EASTERN ROAD PLAN - (RESOLUTION #023-06) - APPROVED Transportation Planner John Bishop appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised this draft update to the Eastern Road Plan was triggered by the County's participation in the Metropolitan Planning Organization. If adopted it will become an update to the 2003 Comprehensive Plan. He explained this plan was a little different from the version presented in January. He cited the following changes: Realignment of Route 37 at the Stonewall Industrial Park. Realignment of Route 37 in the Stephenson area. Staff is working with VDOT on Channing Drive and Greenwood Road. Staff is working with VDOT on the relocation of Exit 307 at Stephens City. Transportation Planner Bishop stated this plan was approved by the Transportation Committee, Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee, and the Planning Commission. He explained that the connector road to Warrior Drive and Route 277 would be noted, but it is not a timely addition due to the lack of an acti ve land use plan in the area. He concluded by saying that staff and the Transportation Committee would take an active role in keeping the plan updated. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. Tim Stafford, Red Bud District resident and owner of Valley Mill Farm, spoke in favor of the Eastern Road Plan and particularly the realignment of Valley Mill Road. He stated that he had Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/08/06 169 his property appraised and the valuc was $100,000 per acre for the real ignment of V alley Mill Road. He believed three to five acres were needed. He stated that he was willing to donate the necessary right-of-way to the County ifthere would be assurances that construction would be proffered as part of the Adams rezoning and the current alignment be abandoned. There being no further public comments, Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Van Osten, the Board approvcd the revisions to the Eastern Road Plan: WHEREAS, an amendment to The Frederick County 2003 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 7, Transportation, to modify the Eastern Road Plan was considered. This amendment was reviewed by the Transportation Committee, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS), and the Planning Commission during their regularly scheduled meetings; and WHEREAS, the Transportation Committee recommended approval of this amendment on August 28, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) recommended approval of this amendment on September 11,2006; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment on November 1,2006; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment on November 8, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the adoption of this Comprehensive Policy Plan amendmcnt to bc in thc bcst interest ofthe public health, safety, welfare, and in good planning practice. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that the Frederick County 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan, Chapter 7, Transportation, is amended to modify the Eastern Road Plan. This 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment is shown on the attached map. This amendment shall be in effect on the day of adoption. Passed this 8th day of November 2006 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye OTHER PLANNING ITEMS REZONING #12-05 FOR VILLAGES AT ARTRIP, SUBMITTED BY DEWBERRY, TO REZONE 169.924 ACRES FROM RA (RURAL AREAS) DISTRICT TO R4 (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY) DISTRICT FOR THE PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OF 793 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND RETAIL, Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 1l/08/06 170 RESTAURANT, OFFICE, AND PUBLIC USES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ONE MILE WEST OF INTERSTATE 81, THREE OUARTERS MILE NORTH OF TASKER ROAD (ROUTE 649), 150 FEET NORTH OF FAIR LAWN COURT (ROUTE 1176). AND WEST OF CANTER ESTATES SECTION V, FALABELLA DRIVE, AND IS IDENTIFIED BY PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (PIN) 75-A-99A, IN THE SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. (VOTE POSTPONED FROM OCTOBER 11, 2006 MEETING.) - APPROVED Planning Director Eric Lawrence appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised that the Board held the public hearing on this rezoning application at its October 11, 2006 mceting, but deferred action due to outstanding issues. Director Lawrcnce briefly reviewed this application for 793 residential units and 128,000 square feet of commercial space on 169 acres. The applicant will construct the four lane Warrior Drive through the property, as well as the two lane Parkins Mill road. The applicant has revised the proffers to limit access to Canter Estates by providing a barricade. The guarantee of the construction of Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill would allow the County to develop the school site without traffic going through Canter Estates. Director Lawrence stated the most recent proffer statement is dated October 25, 2006 and addrcsses the Board's concerns. He concluded by saying the Planning Commission recommended approval of the three modifications and the rezoning application. Supervisor DeHaven asked Director Lawrence if staff was convinced Warrior Drive would be built and the connection made to Wakeland Manor. Director Lawrence responded yes because road construction is tied to the issuance of building permits; therefore, all of Warrior Drive will be built by the time half ofthe residential units are developed. Vice-Chairman Ewing asked ifthe School Board was convinced the proposed school site was buildable. Director Lawrence responded that he has not heard other wise. Michael Coughlin, attorney, appeared before the Board representing thc applicant. He believed the proffers addressed the Board's concerns and he concurred with staffthat the application was ready for a vote. Supervisor Fisher stated that the onus was on the County regarding when the Canter Estates connection should be made. Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Lemieux, the Board approved Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/08/06 1 71 rezoning #12-05 and the following modifications: I. Per section 165-72. B. (2) - modifications to the housing types permitted 2. Per section 165-71 - more than 40 percent of thc total residential land area may be used for multifamily housing products. 3. Per section 165-62. D. - increase in the overall gross density of the project from 4 units per acre to 4.7 units per acre. Supervisor DeHaven stated that he thought this application had come a long way and he supported this concept. He was concerned because there was no way of knowing when this will turn into 8,000 vehicle trip through an existing subdivision; therefore, he could not support the application. Vice-Chairman Ewing echoed Supervisor DeHaven's concerns. He stated that he too had problems with the transportation and the use of Lakeside as a construction entrance. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Nay Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Nay Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #12-06 OF SENSENY VILLAGE - APPROVED Planner II Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She advised the applicant was requesting a waiver of Section 144-24 C (2) b of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the townhouse portion to contain units more than 500 feet from a state road. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the waiver and the master development plan. Planner II Perkins stated that the Board actions being requested this evening were approval ofthe waiver and the granting of administrative authority to staff to approve this mastcr development plan. Upon a motion by Supervisor Lemieux, seconded by Supervisor Dove, the Board approved the waiver of section 144-24 C (2) b of the Subdivision Ordinance. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Nay Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/08106 172 Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Upon a motion by Supervisor Lemieux, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board granted staff authority to administratively approve master development plan #12-06. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Nay Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye SUBDIVISION REOUEST #13-06 OF WINSTONE, L.C. - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA This was a request to subdivide a 21 acre parcel into a 4.40 acre parcel and a 17 acre parcel. The property is zoned B2 (Business General) District and located in the Stonewall District. LAND USE POLICY TEXT CHANGE - URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA/SEWER AND WATER SERVICE ARE (UDAlSWSA) - (RESOLUTION #024-06) - APPROVED Director Lawrence advised this was a clarification from the Board's September 13,2006 public hearing regarding differentiating between the rural areas and the urban areas. He stated the Board adopted Urban Development Area and Sewer and Water Service Area boundary adjustments, but deferred action on the text language. With regard to clarifying Rural Areas zoning classification versus Rural Areas land use, Director Lawrence advised that staff would add the letter "Z" to denote zoning district (i.e. RAZ). Director Lawrence then discussed the proposed land use policy language. First, the proposed language regarding the Urban Development Area, Sewer and Water Service Area, and Rural Areas would read as follows: "The primary land use concepts in this plan is are the Rural Areas and the Urban Areas. The Urban Areas comprised of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). These land use concepts seek to clearly divide whid, ill cffGGt di~ idGs the County into rural and urban areas of land use. The Rural Areas ofthe county can be defined as all areas outside ofthe Urban Development Area and Sewer and Water Service Area. The Urban Development Area and Sewcr and Water Service Area are envisioned to be more urban in character. It is expected that the land uses within the UDA and SWSA will be on public water and scwer. The Urban Deve10pmcnt Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. Commercial, industrial. and institutional land uses are also encouraged within the Urban Development Area. The Sewer and Water Service Area is consistent with the Urban Development Area in manv locations. Howevcr, the Sewer and Water Scrvice Area mav extend beyond the Urban Development Area to Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/08/06 173 promote commercial. industrial. and institutional land uses in areas where residential land uses are not desirable. The relationship between the three primary land use concepts in this plan is further illustrated in the following graphic. Echo Village is an existing residential neighborhood at the intersection of Valley Pike (Route 11) and Route 37. It is zoned RP (Residential Performance). and the residences are served by public water and sewer. This area is not included in the UDA, but the existing lots will continue to have access to public water and sewer. The existing residential land uses and residentially zoned lots would be able to continue pursuant to current County Ordinances. The wider area is planned and zoned for commercial and industrial uses. so expansion of the residential development would not be supported. Anv future request to change the land use should be consistent with current commercial and industrial land use designations. Dceause it is developed in a liuge lot 5ubUlban pattelll, tllG Appk P;v R;Jgv ,uva La;:, G""ll ilicluded ill the Ulhan DGvdopnKnt ALGa. IIOWGVG1, thGLG ;6110 plallto 5Gl VV tllat alva W;tll puLl;" sGwGlagc Airport Support Area Conflicts between airports and residential development can be significant in growing communities. Residents of areas in the vicinity of the airport tend to oppose airport activities and the expansion of such activities bccausc of conccrn for noise and fly-overs. Thereforc, thc Winchester Regional Airport Authority has deyeloped an airport support area for inclusion in the plan. The airport support area for inclusion in the plan. The airport support area is an area in which further residential rezonings will bv L111;tvJ be prohibited in order to protect fly-over areas and noise sensitive areas. It was also established to insure the feasibility of continued airport use and future airport expansion. Dusiness and indastrial uses should be the plimary uses in the ail port support aLGa. If new LG5idGlltial aleas die allOwed in thG aiLpoLt suproLt alea, aviatioll eaSGlllents 01 VtlU-'l mGlhods shOuld bG uSGd to pl0tGGt thG vpClatioll5 at tho: aiL pOLL" Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Van Osten, the Board adopted the text language. WHEREAS, an amendment to the Frederick County 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan, Chapter 6, Land Use, to modify land use policy text to reflect the recently adopted UDA and SWSA boundary modifications was considered. This amendment was reviewed by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS), and the Planning Commission during theirregularly scheduled meetings; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) recommended approval of this amendment on May 8, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment on June 21, 2006 and a public meeting on August 16,2006; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment on September 13,2006; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds adoption of this Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment to be in the best interest of public health, safety, welfare, and in good planning practice. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that the Frederick County 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan, Chapter 6, Land Use, is amended to modify the land use policy text to reflect the recently adopted UDA and SWSA boundary Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11108/06 174 modifications. Passed this 8th day of November 2006 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye DISCUSSION OF SETBACKS IN THE RURAL AREAS ZONING DISTRICT Zoning Administrator Mark Cheran appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee reviewed and discussed proposed changes to Section 165-55 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance regarding building setbacks in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. The proposed changes would clear up any confusion to adjoining land uses and avoid conflict with active agriculture uses and would apply to family division lots. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal and felt it was the best option to protect both the agricultural and rural areas, and still provide developers with the f1exibility to develop lots. The proposed changes are as follows: 165-55. Setback requirements The following set back requirements shall apply to all parcels within the RA Rural Areas Zoning District. A. Traditional five-acre lots and family division lots. Setbacks from tradition tlve-acre lots and family division lots shall be as set out below. (1) Front setbacks. The front setback for any principal or accessory use or structure located on a traditional five-acre lot shall be 60 feet from the property line or right- of-way of the street, road or ingress/egress easement. (2) Side or rear setbacks. The minimum side or rear setback for any principal use or structure shall be determined by the primary use of the adjoining parcel as follows: Adjoining Land Use Setback (Side and Rear) ( feet) Rcsidential/ vacant Ag';vultmal Olcha,J 50 100 200 Residential 5 acres or less 50 Agricultural/ Residential more than 5 acres 100 Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/08/06 175 Orchard 200 Agricultural and Forestal District 200 C. Existihg dwellings. The side and leal setbacks fvi al'Y lul """"led aloulld all "A;~l;llg dwdlihg 01 "llY family divi"i01llol "hall be 50 feet from all lot lines. Zoning Administrator Cheran concluded by saying the proposed amendments were being presented to the Board as a discussion item. Supervisor Van Osten asked about the impact on rural preservation subdivisions. Zoning Administrator Cheran responded that it would still apply as it does today. Chairman Shickle asked if this amendment was approved would staff no longer look for "chickens, cows, and wood chips" to determine if agriculture uses qualify for the residential set back. Director Lawrence responded yes, if the lot is 5 acres, the set back would be 100 feet. Supervisor DeHaven stated that he supported the 200 foot for agricultural and forestal districts and he thinks this amendment gets us where we want to be; however, he thinks a waiver should be offered for special circumstances that are hard to define. He went on to say that he would like staff to wordsmith and circulate suggestions to get a final review. Administrator Riley agreed with the waiver provision. Chairman Shickle stated that he hoped the Board would be encouraged to move quickly on this item. Supervisor Van Osten asked for clarification of the word smithing. Supervisor DeHaven stated that staff should strike agricultural/residential and change to include any lot greater than five acres. Supervisor Fisher asked if the waiver provision would apply to the residential lots. Supervisor DeHaven responded that he was only referring to the 100' setback for greater than five acres. The Board would make a judgment call on lot/parcel size instead of the use. He went on to say that the waiver should apply to all three options, parcels greater than five acres, agricultural, and forestal. Director Lawrence stated that staff would "tweak" the language and provide illustrations to the Board. The Board would be given a week to comment on the changes and then it will go to public hearing. He went on to say that the waiver would be applied to existing lots of record, but Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/08/06 176 not new lots. Supervisor DeHaven stated that he felt the waiver should be a public process. Director Lawrence stated if the Board was comfortable with the waiver concept then staff could craft the language. Supervisor Fisher stated that he would like to see a notification required for all waivers. The Board consensus was to move forward. ROAD RESOLUTION (#026-06) FOR SOVEREIGN VILLAGE, SECTION III - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Additions Form am-4.3, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on June 9, 1993, for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described in the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 33.1- 229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of- way, as described, and any neccssary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that a certified copy ofthis resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation BOARD LIAISON REPORTS There were no Board liaison reports. CITIZENS COMMENTS There were no citizen comments. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Chairman Shickle, on behalf of the Board, expressed best wishes to Commonwealth's Attorney Lawrence Ambrogi who was not at the meeting. He stated that all were praying for him and wished him the best in his rccovcry. Supervisor Van Osten stated that she had received some citizen inquiries regarding the proposed electric transmission line. Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/08/06 177 Chairman Shickle asked staff to provide information regarding the upcoming public input meeting in the Board's Friday mailing. Supervisor Fisher stated that he was tired of the clutter of temporary signs along the roadways. Administrator Riley advised that staff would contact VDOT and have them removed. Chairman Shickle asked ifthere was an easy way to investigate the placement ofthese signs. Administrator Riley stated there was an ordinance regarding off-site signs, but if they are in the right-of-way the County asks VDOT to remove them. Chairman Shickle asked staff to research and provide feedback to the Board regarding enforcement of this area. Supervisor DeHaven stated that he would like to see the responsibility for clean up fall to those who put up the signs, but if it involves taking the party to court then it is a waste of staff's time. Supervisor Dove stated that VDOT announced the closure ofthe Cross Junction facility. A hearing will be held on November 14th at the Winchester facility. Supervisor Van Osten asked staff to correct a grammatical error in the second paragraph of the land use language adopted carlier in the meeting. ADJOURN UPON A MOTION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN EWING, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR DOVE, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. (9:27 P.M.) ~ ~-.J Richard C. Shickle Chairman, Board of Supervisors Minutes Prepared By: ~ cC. 0. -tf" J~ s Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/08/06