Loading...
September 13, 2006 Regular Meeting 073 A Regular Meeting ofthe Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Wednesday, September 13, 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-Chairman Bill M. Ewing; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.; Gary W. Dove; Gene E. Fisher; Philip A. Lemieux; and Barbara E. Van Osten. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the meeting to order. INVOCATION Reverend Phillip Roby, Amazing Grace Fellowship Church, delivered the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice-Chairman Ewing led the Pledge of Allegiance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA - APPROVED AS AMENDED County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr. advised that he had one addition to the agenda. He added Subdivision Request #10-06, WIN, LLC as item #4 under Other Planning Items. Upon a motion by Supervisor Van Osten, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved the agenda as amended. 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 CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED Administrator Riley offered the following items for consideration under the consent agenda: Memorandum Re: Cancellation of Board Meetings During 2006 Holiday Season - TabC; Resolutions Re: Request for Installation of "Watch for Children" Signs: Third Battle Subdivision and Battleview Subdivision - Tab D; Memorandum Re: Request for Road Name Change - Tab F; Parks and Recreation Commission Report - Tab G; Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 074 Subdivision Request #11-06 of Ronald and Velma Sirnkovitch - Tab 0; Road Resolutions: Windstone Subdivision and Whitham Estates - Tab Q; Subdivision Request #10-06, WIN, LLC 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. 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 CITIZEN COMMENTS There were no citizen comments. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS There were no Board comments. MINUTES-APPROVED Upon a motion by Vice-Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Dove, the Board approved the minutes from the August 23, 2006 Regular Meeting 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 Supervisor Van Osten, seconded by Supervisor Dove, the Board approved the minutes from the August 29, 2006 worksession with the Public Safety and Public Works Committees regarding the Public Safety Building 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 V ice-Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Dove, the Board approved Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 075 the minutes from the August 29, 2006 worksession with the Planning Commission regarding the UDA Study by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, JT. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye COUNTY OFFICIALS COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS APPOINTMENT OF MARY MITCHELL TURNER TO SERVE AS BACK CREEK DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE ON THE HISTORIC RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Van Osten, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board appointed Mary Mitchell Turner to serve as Back Creek District Representative on the Historic Resources Advisory Board. This is a four year appointment, said term to expire September 14, 2010. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, JT. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye MEMORANDUM RE: CANCELLATION OF BOARD MEETINGS DURING 2006 HOLIDAY SEASON - APPROVED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA The Board canceled the November 22,2006 and December 27,2006 meetings due to the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. This item was approved under the consent agenda. RESOLUTIONS RE: REOUEST FOR INSTALLATION OF "WATCH FOR CHILDREN SIGNS" - APPROVED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA THIRD BATTLE SUBDIVISION - (RESOLUTION #007-06) WHEREAS, the 1997 Session of the Virginia Assembly amended the Code of Virginia adding Section 33.1-210.2 relating to the installation and maintenance of "signs alerting motorists that childrcn may be at play nearby;" and WHEREAS, this act provides for the adoption of a resolution by the governing body of any county requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation to install and maintain this type of Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 076 sign; and WHEREAS the source of funding for the installation of this sign shall come out of the secondary system co~struction allocation to the affected county. The costs of maintaining such sign shall be paid out of the secondary system maintenance allocation to the affected county; and WHEREAS, Longstreet Avenue (Route 1324), and Confederate Drive (Route 1326), are located in a residential area and are within the secondary road system and are a viable candidate for "Watch for Children" signs; and BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors does hereby request that the Department of Transportation install "Watch for Children" signs specifically at Route 1324 (Longstreet Avenue), from Route 1325 to Route 1326 - 0.11 miles and Route 1326 (Confederate Drive) from Route 1325 to 0.11 miles northwest of Route 1325 - 0.11 miles. The signs should be placed in accordance with the provisions of Section 33.1-210.2 of the Code o/Virginia. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy ofthis resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. ADOPTED, this 13th day of September, 2006. This item was approved under consent agenda. BATTLEVIEW SUBDIVISION - (RESOLUTION #008-06) WHEREAS, the 1997 Session of the Virginia Assembly amended the Code of Virginia adding Section 33.1-210.2 relating to the installation and maintenance of "signs alerting motorists that children may be at play nearby;" and WHEREAS, this act provides for the adoption of a resolution by the governing body of any county requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation to install and maintain this type of sign; and WHEREAS, the source of funding for the installation of this sign shall come out of the secondary system construction allocation to the affected county. The costs of maintaining such sign shall be paid out of the secondary system maintenance allocation to the affected county; and WHEREAS, Johnston Drive (Route 1327), Muse Drive (Route 1347); McNeil Place (Route 1348), and Forrest Drive (Route 1349) are located in a residential area and are within the secondary road system and are a viable candidate for "Watch for Children" signs; and BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors does hereby request that the Department of Transportation install "Watch for Children" signs specifically at Route 1327 (Johnston Drive) from Route 1200 to Route 1347 - 0.12 miles; Route 1347 (Muse Drive) from Route 1200 to 0.24 miles north of Route 1200 - 0.24 miles; Route 1348 (McNeil Place) from Route 1347 to 0.03 mile southwest of Route 1347 - 0.03 miles; and Route 1349 (Forrest Drive) from Route 1200 to Route 1347 - 0.120 miles. The signs should be placed in accordance with the provisions of Section 33.1-210.2 of the Code of Virginia. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy ofthis resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. ADOPTED, this 13th day of September, 2006. This item was approved under the consent agenda. REOUEST FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE FOR REFUND - APPROVED Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 O/,/, The Commissioner ofthe Revenue requested a refund for D. L. Peterson Trust in the amount of $2,682.33. Upon a motion by Vice-Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved the refund request 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 MEMORANDUM RE: REOUEST FOR ROAD NAME CHANGE - APPROVED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA The Director of GIS received a request from Lake Holiday County Club and Lake Holiday, LLC for a road name change from Masters Drive to West Masters Drive. Staff recommended approval of this request. This item was approved under the consent agenda. COMMITTEE REPORTS PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT -APPROVED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA The Parks and Recreation Commission met on August 22, 2006. Members present were: Robert Hartman, P. W. Hillyard, III, Larry Sullivan, Cheryl Swartz, Martin Cybulski, Ronald Madagan, Charles Sandy, Jr., and Philip Lemieux. Items Requirinl!: Board Action: 1. None. Submitted for Board Information Only: 1. Policy Revisions - Mr. Sandy moved to approve the Department's Facility Rental Policy as written, second by Mr. Hartman, carried unanimously (7-0). 2. Parks and Recreation Regulations - Mr. Sandy moved to prohibit pets within 50 feet of athletic complexes and playgrounds, second by Mr. Cybulski, carried unanimously (7-0). 3. Parks and Recreation Regulations - Mr. Hartman moved to prohibit digging or excavating on park property unless written permission is granted by the Parks and Recreation Director of his designee, second by Mr. Sandy, carried unanimously (7-0). 4. Parks and Recreation Regulations - Mr. Hartman moved to accept the regulation that Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department reserves the right to inspect coolers and containers when deemed necessary, second by Mr. Sandy, carried unanimously (7-0). Standin2: Committee Reports: Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 078 1. Buildings and Grounds Committee - The Committee recommends the ~pproval ofthe Parks and Recreation Capital Improvements Program list for FY 2006-2007 as submItted, seconded by Mr. Sandy, carried unanimously (7-0). TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT - POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 27. 2006 MEETING The Transportation Committee met on Monday, August 28, 2006 at 8:30 a.m. Members Present Chuck DeHaven (voting) Phil Lemieux (voting) Eric Lowman (voting) Darwin Braden (voting) James Racey (voting) George Kriz (liaison) Lewis Boyer (liaison) Members Absent Donald Breeden (liaison) ***Items Requiring Action*** 1. Route 37 Alternatives in the Vicinity of the Stonewall Industrial Park Staff briefed the Committee on the VDOT comments that had been received for the four submitted alternatives. The Committee discussed a number of issues, including engineering, surrounding land uses, and potential costs of the varying alignments. The VDOT comment stated that all of the alternatives would be similar in cost from a construction perspective and all but one of the alternatives were engineered within design standards, although alternative C-NW appears to be the VDOT preference from a purely engineering standpoint with C- NWC having the second most favorable VDOT review based upon staff interpretation. Please find attached to this meeting report, maps ofthe alternatives that were considered and a copy of the VDOT comments. MOTION: Mr. Phil Lemieux, seconded by Mr. James Racey To recommend alternative C-NWC as the preferred alternative due to its appearance to have Icss impact on surrounding land uses. Further that C- NW be recommended as the second choice of the committce. Motion passed unanimously. Supervisor DeHaven requested that this item be postponed until the September 27,2006 meeting so corrected maps could be provided. ***Items Not Requiring Action*** 1. Update on the Frederick County Capital Improvement Plan Per the State Code, Frederick County may include transportation projects upon which there is a significant change we will be expending local revenue or cash proffers within the next five years. The decision has been made to begin inclusion oftransportation projects with this update of the CIP. The CIP is updated on an annual basis. Below, please find the recommended list of transportation projects to add to the CIP this year. Route 37: Continued Planning and Engineering work Route 37/Route II/Shady Elm: Planning and Engineering for Interchange Solution Warrior Drive: Extension to Route 277 Channing Drive: Extension to Route 50 Route II North of Winchester: Widening to WV State Line Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 079 Brucetown Road/Hopewell Road: Alignment and Intersection Improvements Senseny Road: Widening East Tevis Street Extension: Connection to Roadway within Russell 150 Development and 1-81 Crossover Inverlee Way: Connection from Route 50 to Senseny Road Fox Drive: Right Turn Lane at Intersection of Fox Drive and Route 522 Blossom Drive: Install Turn Lane Staffbriefed the Committee on the transportation projects targeted for inclusion into the CIP above. The Committee discussed the purpose of adding the projects to the CIP and staff clarified that adding these types of projects that are currently receiving significant resources in terms of planning efforts, revenue sharing funds, proffered improvements, or some combination is just another way of keeping focus on these projects and advancing them. The Committee requested that more detail be added to the individual projects in terms of what the projected funding source would be and the scope ofthe projects. MOTION: Mr. Darwin S. Braden, seconded by Mr. James Racey To adopt the recommended list with the suggested modifications. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Update on the Eastern Road Plan Staff presented the update of the Eastern Road plan to the Committee. The committee discussed the possibility of accessing the MPO Transportation Model to test the improvements. Staff informed the Committee that as of the end of the Long Range Plan effort, the model that was developed was turned over to and is being maintained by VDOT Modeling Section in Richmond. The County does not have access to the model and staff will be working with VDOT to see that the Eastern Road Plan gets tested in the model and that a structure for keeping the model updated is developed. MOTION: Mr. Darwin S. Braden, seconded by Mr. Eric Lowman Adopt the Eastern Road Plan as presented. Motion pass cd unanimously. The plan will now bc presented to the CPPS before being forwarded to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. 3. Transportation Enhancement Grant Applications Staff updated the Committee on the effort to apply for Enhancement Grant Funds for bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the Community. At this time, staff is targeting the addition of a bicycle and pedestrian path between Senseny Road Elementary and its surrounding neighborhoods. MOTION: Mr. James Racey, seconded by Mr. Darwin S. Braden To endorse the application for enhancement grant funds to make bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the vicinity of Senseny Road Elementary School. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Updating Revenue Sharing proiects in Secondary Road Improvement Plan Staff updated the Committee on the need to add an additional project to the Incidental Construction table in the Secondary Road Improvement Plan and the addition of Senseny Road to Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13106 080 the Major Road Improvements table in the Secondary Road Improvem~nt.Plan as a P?tential revenue sharing project. The addition of Senseny Road gives the County a slgmficant project to apply for funds in the upcoming revenue sharing application window. MOTION: Mr. Darwin S. Braden, seconded by Mr. James Racey To accept the updates to the Secondary Road Improvement Plan. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Willow Run Internal Road System As part of the potential Willow Run rezoning, the applicant is seeking a number of exceptions to VDOT's Design Standards. Staff from Greenway Engineering was present to brief the Committee on the areas where they are seeking exceptions and why those exceptions are sought. The Committee discussed the fact that this type of development was what the UDA study was examining and promoting. This item was focused on the internal street system only and did not cover the potential interchange associated with this proposed development. MOTION: Mr. Skip Braden, seconded by Mr. James Racey To endorse the concept of the neo-traditional street design set forth in the Willow Run application. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Article Review Staff regularly monitors news outlets for transportation articles that might be of interest to the committee and includes them in this portion of the agenda. 7. Follow-uo Discussion of Transoortation Impact Fees MeetiUl!: on Aueust 22. 2006 This item was added as an opportunity to further discuss the Impact Fee Meeting held on August 22, 2006. There was little discussion, although members ofthe Commission did state that they found the meeting very informative. 8. Traffic Calmin!! in the Oakdale Crossin!! Nei!!hborhood Staff informed the Committee that they had been contacted by members of the Oakdale Crossing neighborhood regarding the large amount of speeding and cut-through traffic between Senseny Road and Route 50 in the neighborhood. There is a traffic calming program operated by VDOT whereby, at the request of the county Board of Supervisors, VDOT will study the area and work with the neighborhood and the County to craft a plan addressing the issue. The Committee discussed the impacts of entering into this program, including potential impacts on staff time, costs, and how to decide what petitions are recommended to the Board and what petitions are not. Staff was requested to create guidelines for addressing these petitions and return the item at the September meeting. 9. Other No other business was discussed. DEVELOPMENT IMP ACT MODEL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE REPORT _ APPROVED The Development Impact Model - Oversight Committee (DIM-OC) met on Friday, August 18,2006 at 12:00 p.m. Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meetiug of 09/13/06 081 Members Present Josh Phelps 1. P. Carr Gary Lofton Stuart Wolk Stephen Petler Members Absent Gary Dove Roger Thomas Paige Manuel (This was the second meeting of the DIM-OC. The first meeting, held July 24,2006, was used as an introduction of the new DIM-OC membership and the review responsibilities tasked to them. ) ***Item Requiring Action*** 1. The DIM-OC reviewed the critical inputs for the Annual Update of the Development Impact Model. The inputs are essential in order to maintain an updated DIM. It is also important to note that the DIM is a planning tool which projects anticipated capital facility costs associated with land development and rezoning proposals. The DIM-OC recommends approval of the critical inputs, and for their incorporation into model. Upon approval of the DIM-OC's recommendation, staff will use the updated model in the consideration offuture rezoning petitions. The critical input spreadsheet (Attachment #1) and resulting projected capital facilities costs (Attachment #2) are attached for your information. Planning Director Eric Lawrence advised the Board that the Development Impact Model Oversight Committee recommended that the Board adopt the critical inputs and authorize staff to use the new impact model. Director Lawrence reviewed the changes in the impacts per dwelling unit from the old model to the new model: Single Family Town home Apartment Old Model $23,290 $17,731 $9,064 New Model $22,098 $15,530 $8,739 Chairman Shickle asked why there was a decrease. Director Lawrence responded that the student generation ratios decreased. He went on to say that the original student generation numbers in the initial model were based on estimates, but staff had worked with the school board to come up with more concrete numbers. Chairman Shickle asked if this committee would remain intact to deal with some issues the board members might have with the model. Director Lawrence responded that the committee worked at the pleasure of the Board. Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor Lemieux, the Board approved the updated model and its use. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Bill M. Ewing Aye Aye Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 082 Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye ***Item Not Requiring Action*** 1. The Top of Virginia Building Association (TVBA) representatives on the DIM-OC expressed interest in learning more about the functionality and operation of the model. In particular, whether the model considers significant capital project expenditures as bonded projects or "pay-as- you-go", and how the variations might impact the County and development community. Staff notes that presently the model presumes that all capital projects are funded by "pay-as- you-go", as recommended by TischlerBise, the ereator ofthe model. Per TischlerBise, by showing "pay-as-you-go" funding for all growth-related capital improvements, the true costs of capital improvements are depicted. Additionally, when the DIM is utilized to projeet capital facility impacts associated with new development, and when a rezoning applicant offers a cash contribution to offset the projected impacts, said cash payment is paid towards a projeet's costs. In fairness to a development proposal, ifthe County elects to utilize a bond to fund the remaining cost balance for the project, less the proffered contributions, then it may not be appropriate to expect a development proposal to address the debt service costs. Other communities, including Prince William County, offer a debt service credit when an applicant makes a monetary contribution to offset capital costs. The DIM functions similarly. The DIM-OC intends to hold another meeting to discuss this issue raised by the TVBA in regard to the bonding or "pay-as-you-go" component of the model, unless the Board of Supervisors directs otherwise. Please contact staff should you have questions. PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED SCHOOL BOND FINANCING BY THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK. VIRGINIA. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA (THE "COUNTY") WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 15.2-2606 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA. 1950. AS AMENDED. ON THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS (THE "BONDS") OF THE COUNTY IN THE ESTIMATED MAXIMUM OBLIGATION AMOUNT OF $6.000.000 TO FINANCE CERTAIN CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL PURPOSES. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT THIS MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 13. 2006 (RESOLUTION #009-06) - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised this was a request from Frederiek County Public Schools to the Board of Supervisors to authorize the application for $6 million from Virginia Public School Authority for costs associated with the continued construction of the replacement Gainesboro Elementary School. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 083 Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved a Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Not to Exceed $6,000,000 General Obligation School Bonds of the County of Frederick, Virginia to be Sold to the Virginia Public School Authority and Providing for the Form and Details Thereof. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County of Frederick, Virginia (the "County") has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow in an amount not to exceed $6,000,000 and to issue its general obligation school bonds to finance certain capital projects for school purposes. WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on September 13, 2006 on the issuance ofthe bonds (as defined below) in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.2-2606, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code"). WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has requested, by resolution, the Board to authorize the issuance of the Bonds and has consented to the issuance of the Bonds. WHEREAS, the objective of the Virginia Public School Authority (the "VPSA") is to pay the County a purchase price for the Bonds which, in VPSA's judgment, reflects the Bonds' market value (the "VPSA Purchase Price Objective"), taking into consideration such factors as the amortization schedule the County has requested for the Bonds, the amortization schedules requested by other localities, the purchase price to be received by VPSA for its bonds and other market conditions relating to the sale ofVPSA's bonds. WHEREAS, such factors may result in requiring the County to accept a discount, given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, under which circumstance the proceeds from the sale of the Bonds received by the County will be less than the amount set forth in paragraph I below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA: 1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and to issue and sell general obligation school bonds ofthe County in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $6,000,000 (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing certain capital projects for school purposes. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of the Bonds in the form and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution. 2. Sale of the Bonds. It is determined to be in the best interest ofthe County to accept the offer of VPSA to purchase from the County, and to sell to the VPSA, the Bonds at a price determined by the VPSA and accepted by the Chairman of the Board or the County Administrator and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution. The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of them, and such officer or officers ofthe County as either ofthem may designate, are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the Bond Sale Agreement with the VPSA providing for the sale of the Bonds to the VPSA in substantially the form on file with the County Administrator, which form is hereby approved ("Bond Sale Agreement"). 3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be issuable in fully registered form in denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples thereof; shall be dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds; shall be designated "General Obligation School Bonds, Series 2006B" (or such other designation as the County Administrator may approve) shall bear interest from the date of delivery thereof payable semi-annually on each January 15 and July 15 (each an "Interest Payment Date"), beginning July 15,2007, at the rates established in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Resolution; and shall mature on July 15 in the years (each a "Principal Payment Date") and in the amounts established in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Resolution. The Interest Payment Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 084 Dates and the Principal Payment Dates are subject to change at the request ofVPSA. 4. Principal Installments and Interest Rates. The County Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to accept the interest rates on the Bonds established by the VPSA, provided that each interest rate shall be no more than ten one-hundredths of one percent (0. lO%) over the interest rate to be paid by the VPSA for the corresponding principal payment date of the bonds to be issued by the VPSA (the "VPSA Bonds"), a portion of the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Bonds, and provided further, that the true interest cost of the Bonds does not exceed six percent (6%) per annum. The County Administrator is further authorized and directed to accept the aggregate principal amount ofthe Bonds and the amounts of principal ofthe Bonds coming due on each Principal Payment Date ("Principal Installments") established by the VPSA, including any changes in the Interest Payment Dates, the Principal Payment Dates and the Principal Installments which may be requested by VPSA provided that such aggregate principal amount shall not exceed the maximum amount set forth in paragraph one and the final maturity ofthe Bonds shall not be later than 21 years from their date. The execution and delivery of the Bonds as described in paragraph 8 hereof shall conclusively evidence such Interest Payment Dates, Principal Payment Dates, interest rates, principal amount and Principal Installments as having been so accepted as authorized by this Resolution. 5. Form of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be initially in the form of a single, temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6. Pavment: Paying Agent and Bond Registrar. The following provisions shall apply to the Bonds: (a) For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds, all payments of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be made in immediately available funds to the VPSA at or before I I :00 a.m. on the applicable Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if such date is not a business day for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before 11 :00 a.m. on the business day next preceding such Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption; (b) All overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by law, interest shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds; and (c) SunTmst Bank, Richmond, Virginia, is designated as Bond Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds. 7. Prepayment or Redemntion. The Principal Installments ofthe Bonds held by the VPSA coming due on or before July 15,2016, and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15,2016 are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due after July l5, 2016 and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature after July IS, 2016 are subject to prepayment or redemption at the option ofthe County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2016 upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of Principal Installments to be prepaid or the principal amount ofthe Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below plus accmed interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption: Dates Prices July 15,2016 to July 14,2017, inclusive..................... . . . . . . July 15,2017 to July 14,2018, inclusive..................... ............ July IS, 2018 and thereafter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101% 100.5 100; Provided, however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above without first obtaining the written consent of the registered Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 085 owner of the Bon~s. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond RegIstrar to the regIstered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for prepayment or redemption. The County Administrator is authorized to approve such other redemption provisions, including changes to the redemption dates set forth above, as may be requested by the VPSA. 8. Execution of the Bonds. The Chairman or Vice Chairman and the Clerk or any Deputy Clerk of the Board are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal of the County thereto. The manner of such execution may be by facsimile, provided that if both signatures are by facsimile, the Bonds shall not be valid until authenticated by the manual signature of the Paying Agent. 9. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. For the prompt payment of the principal of, and the premium, ifany, and the interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due, the full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any of the Bonds shall be outstanding there shall be levied and collected in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of the principal of, and the premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as such principal, premium, if any, and interest shall become due, which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose. 10. Use of Proceeds Certificate; Non-Arbitrage Certificate. The Chairman ofthe Board and the County Administrator, or either ofthem and such officer or officers ofthe County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Non-Arbitrage Certificate, if required by bond counsel, and a Use of Proceeds Certificate setting forth the expected use and investment ofthe proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable regulations relating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that (i) the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in such Use of Proceeds Certificate and the County shall comply with the covenants and representations contained therein and (ii) the County shall comply with the provisions of the Code so that interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds will remain excludable from gross income for Federal income tax purposes. 11. State Non-Arbitrage Program; Proceeds Agreement. The Board hereby determines that it is in the best interests ofthe County to authorize and direct the County Treasurer to participate in the State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with the Bonds. The County Administrator and the Chairman ofthe Board, or either ofthem and such officer or officers ofthe County as either of them may designate, are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit and investment of proceeds of the Bonds by and among the County, the other participants in the sale of the VPSA Bonds, the VPSA, the investment manager, and the depository substantially in the form on file with the County Administrator, which form is hereby approved. 12. Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator, or either of them, and such officer or officers of the County as either of them may designate are hereby authorized and directed (i) to execute a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, as set forth in Appendix F to the Bond Sale Agreement, setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the County and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule l5c2-l2 and (ii) to make all filings required by Section 3 of the Bond Sale Agreement should the County be determined by the VPSA to be a MOP (as defined in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement). 13. Filing of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy ofthis Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court of the County. 14. Further Actions. The County Administrator, the Chairman ofthe Board, and such other Minutc Book Number 32 Board of Supcrvisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 086 officers, employees and agents ofthe County as either of them may designate are hereby authori.zed to take such action as the County Administrator or the Chairman of the Board may consIder necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and any such action previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed. IS. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting ofthe Board of Supervisors held on September 13,2006, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. I hereby further certify that such meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting and that, during the consideration of the foregoing resolution, a quorum was present. The front page of this Resolution accurately records (i) the members of the Board of Supervisors present at the meeting, (ii) the members who were absent from the meeting, and (iii) the vote of each member, including any abstentions. WITNESS MY HAND and the seal ofthe Board of Supervisors ofthe County of Frederick, Virginia, this 13th day of September, 2006. 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 - AMENDMENT TO THE 2006-2007 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET- PURSUANT TO SECTION 15.2-2507 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA. 1950. AS AMENDED. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 BUDGET TO REFLECT: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION FUND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $2.000.000. THIS AMOUNT IS NEEDED FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 12TH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. (RESOLUTION #010-06) - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised this was a request from Frederick County Public Schools for a supplemental appropriation in the amount of$2 million to allow for land acquisition, architectural design, engineering, and site testing to be conducted up to the point of bid documents for the 12th elementary school. Vice-Chairman Ewing stated the he was under the impression the monies would be used for pre-engineering instead of engineering. Patricia Taylor, Superintendent of Schools, responded that pre-engineering was included in the request because it would be needed in order to test a proposed site to make sure the land is right for a school location. She went on to say that the cost of the land is stilI in question. Vice-Chairman Ewing asked if the School Board was requesting the entire $2 million. Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 087 Superintendent Taylor responded that they were requesting the full $2 million. She went on to say that removal of the architectural design "would limit us." Supervisor Fisher suggested changing architectural design to schematic design, since the School Board wanted to insure the building would fit the site. Superintendent Taylor agreed that schematic design would be appropriate. Vice-Chairman Ewing agreed with the proposal for schematic design instead of architectural design. 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 Vice-Chairman Ewing, the Board approved the FY 2007 School Construction Fund supplemental appropriation. WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, meeting in regular session and public hearing held on September 13,2006, took the following action: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors that the FY 2006- 2007 Budget be Amended to Reflect: School Construction Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the Amount of $2.000.000. This Amount is Needed for Costs Associated with the Construction ofthe 12th Elementary School. ADOPTED, this 13th day of September 2006. 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 Upon a motion by Vice-Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved the following reimbursement resolution (#011-06): The County of Frederick, Virginia (the "County") has determined that it may be necessary or desirable to advance money to pay the costs of certain capital improvements for public school purposes, specifically for the 12th elementary school (the "Project"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board of Supervisors adopts this declaration of official intent under Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2. Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 088 2. The Board of Supervisors reasonably expects to reimburse advances made or to be made by the County to pay the costs of the Project from the proceeds of one or more financings. The maximum amount of financing expected to be issued for the Project is $2,000,000. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on September 13,2006 by the following roll call 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 - AMENDMENT TO THE 2006-2007 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET- PURSUANT TO SECTION 15.2-2507 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA. 1950. AS AMENDED. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 BUDGET TO REFLECT - (RESOLUTION #012-06); GENERAL FUND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $775.742.83: A REGIONAL JAIL FUND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $18.836.78: A LANDFILL FUND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $2.062.979.51: A CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $13.785.627.90: AND AN AIRPORT AUTHORITY CAPITAL FUND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $100.740.40. THESE AMOUNTS REPRESENT OUTSTANDING PURCHASE ORDERS AT JUNE 30. 2006. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $2.207.060. THIS AMOUNT IS NEEDED FOR CONTINUED CONSTRUCTION OF THE ANIMAL SHELTER. - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised that these budget amendments represent outstanding purchase orders as of June 30, 2006, as well as funds needed to complete the new animal shelter. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion Vice-Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Budget Amendment. WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, meeting in regular session and public hearing held on September 13, 2006, took the following action: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors that the FY 2006- 2007 Budget be Amended to Reflect: General Fund SUPJ'lemental Appropriation in the Amount of $775.742.83: a Regional Jail Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 089 Fund Supplementa] Appropriation in the Amount of $]8.836.78: a Landfill Fund Supplemental ApJ'ropriation in the Amount of $2.062.979.51: a Capital Proiects Fund Sup~lemental Appropriation in the Amount of $13.785.627.90 and an Airport Authority CaPItal Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the Amount of$100.740AO. These Amounts Represent Outstanding Purchase Orders at June 30, 2006. Capital Proiects Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the Amount of $2.207.060. This Amount is Needed for Continued Construction of the Animal Shelter. ADOPTED, this 13th day of September, 2006. 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 - UPDATE OF THE 2007-2008 FREDERICK COUNTY SECONDARY (RESOLUTION #016-06). PRIMARY (RESOLUTION #017-06), AND INTERSTATE (RESOLUTION #018-06) ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLANS. THE SECONDARY, PRIMARY, AND INTERSTATE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLANS ESTABLISH PRIORITIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SECONDARY, PRIMARY, AND INTERSTATE ROAD NETWORKS WITHIN FREDERICK COUNTY - APPROVED Transportation Planner John Bishop appeared before the Board regarding this item. He reviewed the Interstate and Primary Road Improvement plans and stated there were few changes. With regard to the Secondary Road Improvement plan or Hard Surface program a number of projects had been added including Ebenezer Church Road, Woodside Road, Chestnut Grove Road, Indian Hollow Road, and Ridings Mill Road. Supervisor Van Osten asked Transportation Planner Bishop to review the ranking criteria for the Secondary Road Improvement Plan. Transportation Planner Bishop reviewed the criteria, which includes: average daily trips, number of occupied structures along the road, physical road conditions, drainage, accidents, and school bus traffic, to name a few. Vice-Chairman Ewing stated that he would like to see the Board come up with a way to pave these roads. He went on to say that he would also like more emphasis placed on longevity (i.e. the length of time a road has been on the list). Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/1 3/06 090 Supervisor Van Osten asked ifthere was a way to show how long a project had been on the unscheduled list. Transportation Planner Bishop responded that information could be provided. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. Alec Gunter, Stonewall District, asked what additional easements would be required for the expansion ofInterstate 81 north and Route 37. He also wanted to know ifthe study on Route 37 had been initiated or if it would be an additional 60 months before it would be concluded. There being no further public comments, Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Transportation Planner Bishop advised that the corridor for Route 37 would be 350 feet, but he was not able to answer questions concerning right-of-way needed for the ramps. He went on to say that he believed all of the right-of-way is in place for Interstate 81. With regard to the sixty month study period, he advised that ifVDOT undertakes the study of the Route 37 corridor then it would be sixty months from the time the study is initiated until the land is acquired. RESOLUTION (#016-06) 2007-2008 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the Frederick County Transportation Committee and the Frederick County planning staff reviewed the proposed 2007-2008 Secondary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Transportation Committee recommended approval ofthis plan on July 24, 2006; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of this plan at their meeting on August 16,2006; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors had previously agreed to assist in the preparation ofthis plan in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation . s policies and procedures and participated in a public hearing on the proposed plan, after being duly advertised so that all citizens of the County had the opportunity to participate in said hearing and to make comments and recommendations concerning the proposed plan and priority list; and, WHEREAS, a representative ofthe Virginia Department of Transportation appeared before the Board during the public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors support the priorities of the secondary road improvement projects for programming by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: The 2007-2008 Secondary Road Improvement Plan appears to be in the best interest of the citizens of Frederick County and the Secondary Road System in Frederick County; and therefore, Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 091 the Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the 2007-2008 Secondary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County, Virginia as presented at the public hearing held on September 13,2006. RESOLUTION (#017-06) 2007-2008 PRIMARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the Frederick County Transportation Committee and the Frederick County planning staff reviewed the proposed 2007-2008 Primary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Transportation Committee recommended approval of this plan on July 24, 2006; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval ofthis plan at their meeting on August 16,2006; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors had previously agreed to assist in the preparation of this plan in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation 's policies and procedures and participated in a public hearing on the proposed plan, after being duly advertised so that all citizens of the County had the opportunity to participate in said hearing and to make comments and recommendations concerning the proposed plan and priority list; and, WHEREAS, a representative ofthe Virginia Department of Transportation appeared before the Board during the public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors support the priorities of the primary road improvement projects for programming by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: The 2007-2008 Primary Road Improvement Plan appears to be in the best interest of the citizens of Frederick County and the Primary Road System in Frederick County; and therefore, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the 2007-2008 Primary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County, Virginia as presented at the public hearing held on September 13, 2006. RESOLUTION (#018-06) 2007-2008 INTERSTATE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the Frederick County Transportation Committee and the Frederick County planning staffreviewed the proposed 2007-2008 Interstate Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Transportation Committee recommended approval of this plan on July 24, 2006; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval ofthis plan at their meeting on August 16,2006; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors had previously agreed to assist in the preparation ofthis plan in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation's policies and procedures and participated in a public hearing on the proposed plan, after being duly advertised so that all citizens of the County had the opportunity to participate in said hearing and to make comments and recommendations concerning the proposed plan and priority list; and, Minute Book Nnmber 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 Deputy Planning Director Mike Ruddy appeared before the Board regarding this item. He 092 WHEREAS, a representative ofthe Virginia Department of Transportation appeared before the Board during the public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors support the priorities of the interstate road improvement projects for programming by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: The 2007-2008 Interstate Road Improvement Plan appears to be in the best interest of the citizens of Frederick County and the Interstate Road System in Frederick County; and therefore, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the 2007-2008 Interstate Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County, Virginia as presented at the public hearing held on September 13, 2006. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Van Osten, the Board adopted the 2007-2008 Secondary, Primary, and Interstate Road Improvement Plans. 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 - CONSIDERATION OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA (UDA) AND SEWER AND WATER SERVICE AREA (SWSA). THE UDA AND SWSA BOUNDARIES ARE COMPONENTS OF THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN. AN EVALUATION OF THE UDA AND SWSA BOUNDARIES HAS IDENTIFIED EIGHT GENERAL AREAS WHERE DIFFERENCES WITH BOUNDARIES OCCUR OR WHERE INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED. THE MODIFICA nONS TO MORE APPROPRIA TEL Y REFLECT THE COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN WOULD RESULT IN A REDUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY 6.626 ACRES TO THE UDA AND A REDUCTION OF APPROXIMATEL Y 1.495 ACRES TO THE SWSA. - (RESOLUTION #013-06) - APPROVED advised this study was conducted to ensure that the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) follow consistent boundaries. He went on to say that land use policy language was also included in this proposal. Deputy Director Ruddy stated the UDA and SWSA boundary exercise was a component of the on-going UDA Study. He went on to say that prior to moving forward with the "more creative and proactive land use policy efforts" ofthe UDA Study, it was determined that as an initial step, the UDA and SWSA boundaries should appropriately reflect Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meetiug of 09/13106 093 the current land use designations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. In addition, the UDA and SWSA boundaries should follow logical and consistent boundaries or features and relate to each other. Deputy Director Ruddy advised that upon completion of this exercise, the foundation would be in place from which to frame the recommendations of the on-going UDA Study. He continued by saying the modifications of the UDA and SWSA boundaries would result in an approximate reduction of 5,818 acres in the UDA and a reduction of approximately 1,428 acres in the SWSA. Deputy Director Ruddy advised that the Planning Commission did not recommend changes to areas/parcels that were under consideration for rezoning or a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He then reviewed each of the areas proposed for modification as well as the Planning Commission's recommendation for each. Area #1 North of Route 37 including the area known as Apple Pie Ridge, Spring Valley, and the Stonewall Industrial Park. Boundaries to reflect existing land use designations. Extension o[SWSA to include existing public facilities connected to water and sewer. This would result in a 2,619.7 acre reduction in the UDA and a 447 acre net reduction in the SWSA. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the modification. Area #2 Northeastern section ofUDA, including part ofthe land that is adjacent to the Stephenson Village project. Consistent boundaries that follow property line. Retention ofSWSA to include B2 portion of Monastery Property. This would result in a 79.7 acre reduction in the UDA and a 58.5 acre reduction in the SWSA. The Planning Commission recommended that no modifications be made to Area #2 at this time. Area #3 Eastern section of UDA including a proffered State conservation easement area and part of land adjacent to and north of Route 7. Route 7 consistent northern boundary. This would result in a 85.3 acre reduction in the UDA and a 101.2 acre reduction in the SWSA. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the modifications. Area #4 South east section of Senseny Road, east of Greenwood Road, and north of Sulphur Springs Road. Boundary consistency. Property lines. This would result in a 24.76 acre net reduction in the UDA. The SWSA boundary would remain the same. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that no modifications be made to Area #4 at this time. Area #5 Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 094. East of Route 522, South of Route 50, and north of Justes Drive. Winchester Regional Airport, Carpers Valley Area. Also includes area north of Route 50 and South of Sulphur Springs Road. Extension ofSWSA to include existing public facilities connected to water and sewer. This would result in a 1,766.3 acre reduction in the UDA and a 42.67 acre net addition to the SWSA. The Planning Commission recommended that no modifications be made to Area #5 at this time. Area #6 Stephens City area. Removing County policy lines from within Town of Stephens City. Joint Land Use Plan provides guidance for the Town's future annexation and provision of sewer and water. Interstate 81 consistent western boundary ofUDAlSWSA. This would result in a 69 acre reduction in the UDA and a 864.8 acre reduction in the SWSA. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval ofthe modifications to Area #6. Area #7 Kernstown Area. Route 11 South and Shady Elm Drive. Land use designation conformance. Interstate 81 consistent western boundary to the UDA. Policy language recognition of Echo Village residential area to be noted within the plan. This would result in aI, 104.75 acre reduction in the UDA. The SWSA boundary would remain the same. The Planning Commission recommended that no modifications be made to Area #7 at this time. Area #8 Route 50 West at the Route 37 interchange. Land use designation conformance. This would result in a 47.7 acre reduction in the UDA. The SWSA boundary would remain the same. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the modifications to Area #8. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. Area # 1 Alec Gunter, Stonewall District, asked why Fair Lane was being taken out ofthe UDA since it is all residential. He stated he was concerned because he owns property on Interstate 81 and Route 37. Area #2 There were no citizen comments. Area #3 John Bradfield, Stonewall District, advised that he owned property in the proposed path of Route 37 and he believed the proposed boundary modifications complicated what he and his family wanted to do with it. He concluded by stating his opposition to the proposed modifications. Area #4 There were no citizen comments. Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 095 Arca #5 Barry Carpenter, Sympoetica, appeared before the Board on behalf of Turner Enterprises and Red Hawk Estates. He discussed how his firm's proposal for development in this area was in keeping with the county's proposed new development concept of neighborhood centers. Stephen PetIer, attorney, appeared before the Board on behalf of Turner Enterprises. He advised this proposed modification would remove about 50 acres. He went on to say that Mr. Turner has begun circulating a development proposal for comments. He reminded the Board that in order to get an application to the County the landowner/developer must involve lawyers, engineers, and planners before submitting an application. Mark Smith, Greenway Engineering, appeared before the Board representing the Darryl and Chris Russell Land Trust. He advised that sewer and water Jines were existing in the area proposed for removal from the SWSA. He went on to say that the owners are working on a 5 to 10 year land development process for their property and there was also a potential contract sale for a church site in this area. Area #6 There were no citizen comments. Area #7 Evan Wyatt, Greenway Engineering, appeared before the Board on behalf of Blackburn Limited Partnership. He advised the that Blackburns had previously submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request and that this proposal to remove the property from the UDA was of concern to the owners. He believed this area was more in keeping with the R4 zoning. He went on to say that the Blackbums were working with Frederick County Schools on a proposed bus garage site. He asked the Board to follow the Planning Commission's recommendation. Area #8 There were no citizen comments. There being no further citizen comments, Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. AN AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY 2003 COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN CHAPTER 6, LAND USE (RESOLUTION #013-06) WHEREAS, An amendment to the Frederick County 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan, Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 096 Chapter 6, Land Usc, to modify the boundaries of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) to more appropriately reflect the current land use designations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and provide consistency with policy boundaries, resulting in an approximate reduction of 5,576 acres in the UDA and an approximate reduction of 1,514 acres in the SWSA, was considered. Also considered was an accompanying land use policy text modification. This amendment was reviewed by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS), and the Planning Commission during their regularly 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 the adoption of this Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment to be in the best interest of the 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 boundaries of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) to more appropriately reflect the current land use designations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, resulting in an approximate reduction of 5,576 acres in the UDA and an approximate reduction of 1,514 acres in the SWSA (maps attached), as follows: UDA and SWSA Boundary Modification Analysis Current UDA area is 22,822.481 acres (28,717.481 U 5,895 acres adjusted for Winchester) Amount Reduced is 5,576.32 acres UDA area post-reduction is 17,246.17 acres Current SWSA area is 27,000 acres (32,895 U 5,895 acres adjusted for Winchester) Amount Reduced is 1,514.75 acres SWSA area post-reduction is 25,485.83 acres Area # I Supervisor DeHaven advised the he owned property within the area proposed for modification. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Van Osten, the Board approved the modifications to Area #1. 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 Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 097 Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Area #2 Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Dove the Board approved the modifications to Area #2. 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 Area #3 Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Van Osten, the Board approved the modifications to Area #3. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Nay 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 Area #4 Upon a motion by Supervisor Lemieux, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved the modifications to Area #4. 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 Area #5 Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Lemieux, the Board approved the modifications to Area #2, with the exception of the properties located to the north of Route 50 East. Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 098 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 Area #6 Upon a motion by Supervisor Van Osten, seconded by Supervisor Ewing, the Board approved the modifications to Area #6. 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 Area #7 Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved the modifications to Area #7. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jf. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Nay Area #8 Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor Van Osten, the Board approved the modifications to Area #8. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jf. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 099 Deputy Director Ruddy advised that there was Land Use Policy language the should be acted upon as well. Chairman Shickle advised that the use of Rural Areas (RA) in both the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance caused confusion as one referred to the land use and the other to the zoning. He asked staff to review the policy to clarifY the meaning of the two so as to alleviate confusion. Deputy Director Ruddy suggested removing the letters RA from the policy language andjust refer to the area as Rural Areas. Director Lawrence suggested that staff could add Rural Areas "land use" as a means of clarifying the policy versus the zoning. Chairman Shickle advised that this clarification should be done prior to the policy language being adopted. Upon a motion by Supervisor Van Osten, seconded by Supervisor Lemieux, the Board postponed the land use policy language until its November 8, 2006 meeting. 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 OTHER PLANNING ITEMS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #08-06 OF RUSSELL 150 - APPROVED Planner II Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She advised this was a master development plan for a mixed use development on 150 acres (96.28 acres of B2 General Business and 54 acres ofRP Residential). The site will be accessed via the Airport Road extension and Warrior Drive. The residential component will contain 297 townhouse units, but no maximum square footage has been established for the commercial component. The applicant has agreed to provide a double row of evergreen trees to buffer these uses from an adjacent property. Planner II Perkins went on to say this master development plan is consistent with the zoning ordinance requirements and the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval to Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 100 the Board. She concluded by saying the applicant is requesting the Board grant staff administrative authority to approve this plan. Evan Wyatt, Greenway Engineering, appeared before the Board on behalf ofthe application. He advised that he was present to answer any questions the Board might have. Supervisor Fisher commended Greenway on the use of acoustical insulation in the residential struchlres in order to reduce the noise from the airport. , Supervisor Van Osten asked what type of policy was in place to ensure the tree plantings survived. Planner II Perkins responded that the landscaping is bonded and staff reviews all plantings before the bond is released to ensure they are viable. Director Lawrence added that the landscaping bond is held for a period of one year after the plants are installed. Supervisor Van Osten asked if staff and the Board could look at the curb and gutter requirements for developments. Director Lawrence advised that it had not been a priority, but staff could do that, ifthe Board desired. Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Van Osten, the Board granted staff administrative authority to approve Master Development Plan #08-06, Russell 150, LC. 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 SUBDIVISION REOUEST #11-06 OF RONALD AND VELMA SIMKOVITCH- APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA This was a request from Ronald and Velma Simkovitch to subdivide 8.45 acres into two parcels consisting of 1.3041 acres and 7.15 acres. The property is zoned B-2 (Business General) and B-3 (Industrial Transition) respectively and is located in the Stonewall Magisterial District. This item was approved under the consent agenda. ROAD RESOLUTIONS: WINDS TONE SUBDIVISION (RESOLUTION #014-06); Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 101 WHITHAM ESTATES (RESOLUTION #015-06) - 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 storm water 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 street described in the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuantto 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 necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy ofthis resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. This item was approved under the consent agenda. SUBDIVISION REQUEST #10-06. WIN. LLC - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA This was a request to subdivide a 30.05 acre parcel into a 6.3124 acre parcel and a 23.74 acre parcel, both zoned B-2 (Business General). The property is located in the Stonewall Magisterial District. This item was approved under consent agenda. BOARD LIAISON REPORTS There were no Board liaison reports. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mark Smith, Greenway Engineering, stated that he would like the Board to consider incorporating LEEDs requirements into the zoning ordinance. These would include the use of porous pavers. He urged the Board to look at the ordinance and be ready to make these changes to accommodate federal projects. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Supervisor Van Osten asked what the appropriate route would be to begin looking at these Issues. Miuute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06 102 Director Lawrence responded that Planning and Public Works could work together to address this items, as they were storm water management issues. Chairman Shickle recalled the Board working on something similar in the past and he asked staff about the history. Administrator Riley advised that staff would put together a history and send it out to the board members. Chairman Shickle stated that he had no desire to go down the same road as a few years ago. Supervisor DeHaven stated that bits and pieces ofthese issues come up frequently; however, he had concerns about rewriting the ordinance to address these ever changing concepts. The Board consensus was to find out what had been done previously before starting anew. ADJOURN UPON A MOTION MADE BY VICE-CHAIRMAN EWING, SECONDED BY SUPERVISORDEHA VEN, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. (9:00 P.M.) , ". L..Q"J( ~ 0 0 . , -.",,- Richard C. Shickle Chairman, Board of Supervisors Minutes Prepared By: ~ f ~,'a-R.7 Jay . T bs Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/13/06