Loading...
November 13, 2002 Regular Meeting 328 A Regular Meeting ofthe Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on November 13, 2002, 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 W. Harrington Smith, Jr.; Robert M. Sager; Margaret B. Douglas; Sidney A. Reyes; Gina A. Forrester; and Lynda J. Tyler. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shick1e called the meeting to order. INVOCATION The invocation was delivered by Reverend Gene Hawkins ofthe Nations Christian Center. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADOPTION OF AGENDA Administrator Riley advised that he had nothing to add. Chairman Shickle advised that he would like to make an announcement following the consent agenda. Supervisor Tyler advised that she would also like to make a statement. She further advised that Under Tab D the word Fiscal needs to be replaced with the word Comprehensive. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Sager, the agenda was adopted, as amended, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shick1e - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye CONSENT AGENDA Administrator Riley suggested Tab F - Parks and Recreation Commission Report, for approval under Consent Agenda. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, Tab F, was approved under consent agenda. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 329 W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye CITIZEN COMMENT Chairman Shickle advised the Star Tannery Dumpster Site will not be closed, as had been announced earlier by the County. He did advise, however, that plans are still in place to close the Mt. Williams site. Ifthere is anyone present wanting to address the Mt. Williams proposed closure now would be the time to do it. Joshua Fau-?, Opequon District, appeared before the Board as a resident of Frederick County and also that of a teacher in the City of Winchester. He addressed the current budget situation, not only within the State of Virginia, but also in Frederick County. He referred to the old statement of "if you think education is expensive, think ofthe cost of ignorance." He is asking for full funding for the County schools, every cent they ask for, and if that means raising his real estate taxes, then do so. Greg Wolfe, Back Creek District, addressed the trash dumpsters at Mt. Williams and the fact they have been located on his father's property for about fifteen years. He has a petition bearing over a hundred signatures ofthose using the dump site and has requested that it not be closed. He referred to a recent article stating that the site was not being used on a daily basis and in his opinion this is totally wrong. He advised his father is paid $1200 a year for the use ofthis site. He asked the Board to reconsider their thoughts on wanting to close this site. Sam Lehman, Back Creek District, is a user of the site at Mt. Williams and this site does serve a large number of county citizens. It is one of the basic services that the county needs. He addressed the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) advising that Frederick County has 72% of the population ofthe area, 98% ofthe land, and 88% of road mileage. In Winchester the vehicles on a secondary road are about five times as many vehicles per day. He feels Winchester has greater wants than the County will be able to accommodate. He further advised on information from County school staffthere are 11,029 pupils from 7522 households, which are 1.5 pupils per household. He feels there is something wrong with our proffers, because when we count pupils from new subdivisions we only get .62. In his opinion we need to re-calculate. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 330 Bob Mitchell, local attorney, advised he was present on behalf of his client's, Mr. and Mrs. Ferraro, and is Tab N on the agenda for this Board meeting. He is not sure whether he should speak now or later. Chairman Shickle advised later. Mary Catherine Lynch, attorney from Aldie, Virginiarcpresenting a land owner in Frederick County. This also has to do with Tab N on the agenda for tonight's Board meeting. She addressed the concern ofthe adjoining land owners, should this waiver be approved by the Board. She urged the Board to "stick by" the current reasons for a 50ft. easement. John Good, Stonewall District, representing Shockey Companies, stating that Supervisor Tyler has given them quite a challenge. They appreciate the opportunity and they accept the challenge. They understand it will be very difficult to accomplish all the objectives she has set forth, but they are all very positive for Frederick County and they are going to make every effort to get it done. In this regard they find education to be a very important part of the process. They have set up a series of toUrs of a comparable planned residential community in Western Prince William County, and they would like to invite the entire Board to see at their leisure. The first tour is scheduled for November 14, and again on November 20, 22, 23 and 25. They will be leaving Winchester at 10:00 a.m. and returning at approximately 2:00 p.m. He urged the Board to take one of these tours and if this schedule does not suit, let them know and they will make every effort to arrange another time. They would like for the Board to meet the designer of this community who has also been employed by Shockey. He further advised of meetings being scheduled at Jordon Springs in their conference room for the citizens ofthe area. Catherine Whitesell, Back Creek District, advised of her attendance at a recent meeting of EDC held at Lord Fairfax Community College. She felt the seminar was very beneficial and provided very good information to all in attendance. She felt vital information was provided that will assist Frederick County in the future in many areas. Charles Spade, Back Creek District, asked the Board not to close the dumpsters at Mt. Williams and Star Tannery as they are very much needed in this area. He feels if they are closed what would be dumped at the site will then bc dumped over the banks and along the roadsides. He asked that the sites not be closed. Sharon Boyd, Gainesboro District, addressed the policies, procedures and standards as set Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 ,331 by the present Board of Supervisors. She advised at the last meeting she raised a question. She wanted to make it perfectly clear to each and every Board member present, at no time did she make any accusations or innuendos about any Board member, but she raised a question. She asked a question about the appropriateness of the policies and procedures of a situation, which is a matter of public record. On February 19, 2002, an article in the Winchester Star advising of Interest Statements filed by Frederick County Officials. In reviewing the article it appeared that a member of the County Sanitation Authority and a current Board member had some sort of business interest together. At this Board meeting, the Board will be voting on an amendment to the Sanitation Authority's Articles ofIncorporation. She feels it is apparent if this Board member were to vote tonight they will be voting on the composition ofthe Sanitation Authority, which apparently (at this time Chairman Shickle advised Ms. Boyd it would be helpful if she would just go ahead and say names.) Ms. Boyd advised that was not the intent or the purpose of her question, and why she is bringing this to the Board. Someone they obviously or apparently have a business interest with. She feels this is a legitimate question, and she is not making accusations or innuendos. A lot of us have business associates. It does not mean any impropriety is going on. She is asking if this is an appropriate situation? At this time she presented each Board member with a copy ofthe newspaper article that she had referred to. Kevin Kennedy, Gainesboro District, welcomed Supervisor Smith back advising that he felt the Board could have used his help during the last few sessions with several of the votes. He has some questions for Supervisor Tyler about the Re- -? property. He has questions about the current water table and the fact the Sanitation Authority is still only providing 25% of needs from their own wells. Addressed some of the same concerns Ms. Whitesell had earlier about future growth in Frederick County. Doug Dolan, Red Bud District, addressed those that appear at every Board meeting under "Citizen Comment" making accusations and innuendoes. He feels these same citizens need to say what and whom they are referring to and move on. He feels "Citizen Comments" take up as much, ifnot more, than the time the Board has to conduct the business ofthe County. Water crisis, he is tired of hearing about that, if you want water crisis go to Orange and Amherst Counties, they ran out of water in June. Charlottesville and Albermarle County, they too have run out of water. He was in Charlottesville last week at a meeting and there was no water in the sinks at the Omni Hotel. Don't Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 332 makethis an issue when you don't have all the facts. He advised Supervisor Tyler that he was sorry, you see how the "dogs" turn as she has felt some of the sting of what he considered to be some progressive thinking, and he applauds her efforts. He is sorry to see that some narrow minded, mean spirited people have to give her grief about her decision. Jim Giraytys, Back Creek District, we have rain and that is good; however, we are still not out of the woods. He is pleased with what he heard at the first meeting of the Regional Water Resources Policy Committee. They advised that not all facts are in hand, and they want these facts before plumbing. He referred to a resolution that will be presented later by Supervisor Douglas, which he thinks is good, but feels the objective does not go quite far enough. Pam Kennedy, Gainesboro District, she advised that many of the individuals within the meeting room are of the Superman's generation. Today we seem to search in vain for a Superman or woman to lead us from the problems of the metropolis to some greener pastures. She asked what do we trust? The real leader serves truth, not people. We have come full circle, back to the leader who is human and hence fallible, who should be serving truth and therefore serving his people. If that connection is made, faith is restored, trust is maintained. MINUTES Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 4, 2002, were approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye COUNTY OFFICIALS SUPERVISOR TYLER ASKED IF ANYONE WAS INTERESTED IN SERVING ON THE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD TO PLEASE LET HER KNOW LEONARD KRAEMER APPOINTED TO HANDLEY LIBRARY BOARD FROM OPEOUON DISTRICT Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, Leonard Kraemer was appointed to the Handley Regional Library Board from Opequon District. This is a four year term. This term will begin on November 30, 2002, and expire on November 30, 2006. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meetinl( of 11/13/02 333 Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye RESOLUTION (#015-02) ENDORSING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) (POSTPONED FROM OCTOBER 23.2002 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING.) - APPROVED Administrator Riley presented this request to the Board advising the resolution was before the Board on October 9th, and 23rd and is back again for this meeting. He believes the issue at hand the representation on this Board. The City of Winchester has passed a resolution indicating there will be three voting members each from the City and the County, two made up of governing body members, and one being the manager for the respective jurisdictions and an appointment from the Town of Stephens City. He further advised that Supervisor Forrester is offering a resolution that would appoint three voting members from the City, and the County would appoint four elected officials as voting members representing the County study area, and the Town of Stephens City would appoint one voting member. He feels this is the central issue with reference to this resolution. Supervisor Sager asked ifthere is an anticipated City response to the Board's possible change in vote? Administrator Riley responded he did not believe the City would support that version. Assistant Tierney advised that he had spoken with the City Manager and he advised that he felt safe to say that the City would accept three members each without a designation as to whom those members would be, whether they were elected officials or what have you. They would not support unequal representation. Supervisor Tyler asked about the City's thoughts on Stephens City. Assistant Tierney advised that Stephens City did not come into the conversation. His assumption, and that is all it is, is that they were not opposed to Stephens City having a representative. Chairman Shickle advised appointing two members of the governing body and the County Administrator, City Manager and Town of Stephens City shall appoint a member, for a total of seven. This is what was approved by the City of Winchester, and the Town of Stephens City. Supervisor Tyler asked about making it three county representatives, would that not change Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 334 the resolution before us at this time? Administrator Riley replied that it would, and it would need to go back to the City for an amendment. Supervisor Sager stated that if Supervisor Tyler wished to make that motion, he would second it. Supervisor Forrester moved to approve the amended version of this resolution. She feels with Frederick County already having 60,000 residents, this MPO is supposed to be evaluating the urbanized area and what the twenty year horizon is going to look like. Obviously, in twenty years Frederick County is going to see the majority of growth. The City of Winchester is land locked and she would think the majority of construction is going to take place for new roads in the County. It seems equitable that we start out representing the number of citizens that we have as we have two and half citizens to everyone in the City of Winchester, and she does not want to start out this Authority relinquishing that ability to plan the roads in her community. Her district is totally encompassed by this MPO study area. She feels the people need to have a representative at the table. She not only thinks they need to have more representation on this, as has been the practice in other communities throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia, when in fact they often revisit as the census figures warrant increasing that number. She also believes that it is important that the representatives come from within the study area. She feels the four districts that are going to be affected by this MPO should be represented on the MPO Board. She feels it should be Red Bud, Shawnee, Opequon and Stonewall that is represented on this Board by their respective Board members. Chairman Shickle asked for a point of clarification from Supervisor Sager. Administrator Riley would not qualify as an elected official. Supervisor Forrester replied that was correct. Ifthey are going to limit us, the City, she feels it is more important to have the elected officials that represent the districts. She would want Administrator Riley to be involved in attendance, she just feels when it comes to the voting, that it should be those people put into office by the people of Frederick County. Chairman Shickle stated to Supervisor Forrester, as she has written, she has not prescribed who the three members from the City would be, but she did prescribe that the four from Frederick County would be elected officials. Supervisor Forrester advised that she did not think it was wise to dictate to the City how they Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 335 choose. Supervisor Sager advised that he really thinks Administrator Riley is an integral part of orchestrating anything dealing with MPO. He does not see how the Board could exclude him. Supervisor Smith advised that he would oppose anything cutting Administrator Riley out of the loop. The City Manager Ed Daley will be representing the City, and he feels Administrator Riley should be representing the County. Administrator Riley advised that this needs to be put together, the By-Laws set, and move on, as time is of the essence. Supervisor Reyes stated that based on Supervisor Forrester's rationale with regard to representation from the four districts, and again to reiterate that no one is cutting Administrator Riley out of the loop, he will be there for his advice as he is on everything the Board does. He scconded Supervisor Forrester's motion to amend the resolution. Supervisor Forrester stated that she wanted to clarify Supervisor Smith's concern about having Administrator Riley involved and present in this. She is trying to keep the number more acceptable/equal to the City and yet not have one of the four impacted districts not have a representative on the MPO. She feels that is what the problem is here. Supervisor Smith advised that he did not feel the County stands a "snowball" when we send this back to the City. He feels we are beating a "dead horse." Supervisor Forrester advised Administrator Riley that her understanding is that we have to be in agreement by May 1,2003. Adm inistrator Riley advised that was correct, and ifthis is not done, there will be no Federal Funding for road construction. Supervisor Forrester advised we will come to some resolution, but she feels there needs to be more dialogue. It is very common of the localities that they have proportional representation. She feels Frederick County is kind of setting themselves up for a disadvantage, for once this is established, this starts out with equal representation, and the only way these numbers will be increased or revisited is if that MPO Board chooses to do so. The authority to change the make-up is no longer with this Board. She feels the County is already kind of at a disadvantage with the "water issue," she prefers not to have half of the decision makers determining all ofthe future road construction in her district handed over. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 336 Supervisor Forrester asked Supervisor Smith ifhe could amend the amended resolution in order that he be comfortable with it? Supervisor Smith advised that he feels the Board is sitting here knowing that when this resolution is sent back to the City they are not going to "eat it," and where do we go from there? Supervisor Douglas advised that she agrees with Supervisor Smith in that Administrator Riley should be a voting member and this is just being bounced back and forth, and why should we send a resolution to the City when we know they are not going to accept it. Supervisor Tyler advised that she realizes this is becoming drawn out and she appreciates the fact that a worksession was conducted with VDOT officials. She questioned whether it would be possible to sit down with City Council and discuss this in an open manner. Supervisor Forrester stated that since Stephens City is represented by the Opequon District Supervisor, she feels this is kind of a duplicate representation. This Supervisor will be looking out for representation as well. That would allow more room on the MPO for Administrator Riley. Supervisor Smith asked if there was a reason the Town of Middletown was not included? Administrator Riley advised they are outside of the study area. Supervisor Sager asked ifthe Federal Guidelines ofthe MPO spelled out the representation of the MPO Board? Assistant Tierney advised no, they did not, that is left up to the localities to "hammer out"what they want as far as representation. The above motion as offered by Supervisor Forrester was denied by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Nay Robert M. Sager - Nay Margaret B. Douglas - Nay Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye Supervisor Douglas moved to approve the following resolution as approved by City Council. Supervisor Sager seconded the motion. WHEREAS, pursuant to the 2000 decennial census, the Frederick County and Winchester City region has been designated as an urban area; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia is required to designate the area as a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); and Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 337 WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors and the Winchester City Common Council support the establishment of a Frederick County MPO to evaluate regional transportation needs and address any requirements under the Clean Air Act; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Winchester City Common Council, in regular session on October 8, 2002, and the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, on November 13,2002, do hereby endorse the establishment of the Frederick/Winchester MPO; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Winchester and Frederick County shall each appoint two members of the governing body and the County Administrator or City Manager, and the Town of Stephens City shall appoint a member to the MPO; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Winchester and Frederick County agree to equally split the local share ofMPO expenses; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission is hereby designated as staff for the MPO. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Nay Lynda J. Tyler - Nay Gina A. Forrester - Nay REOUEST TO UPDATE THE COMPREHENSIVE IMP ACT MODEL - APPROVED Supervisor Tyler advised that during the Shockey industrial discussions there was a panel that was put together that had started to work on the Comprehensive Impact Model for the County. She feels the time is now to continue that work. We need to do complete modeling in order to understand residential development, the industrial and commercial development, and move forward. She further advised that she would like to do this, and there are some citizens that had been mentioned during this process. She would like the Board to take some action tonight stating they are going to resume the work on the Comprehensive Impact Model. Administrator Riley advised via a memo under Tab D of the agenda that staffs position on this issue is that a citizen's panel should not be the vehicle to develop such a model. He knows from a staff perspective that the County is not qualified to generate such a document in house. The current proffer model was developed by a professional consultant and he would suggest that an RFP be authorized to hire a consultant to develop a comprehensive impact model. Chairman Shickle advised that he had requested EDC Director Barker to be present at tonight's meeting to bring the Board up to date on what EDC is doing with this issue. Director Barker appeared before the Board advising that EDC would welcome the Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11113/02 338 opportunity to lead the County through this process using practitioners, the community and Frederick County Government. Supervisor Tyler advised that she feels it is time for Frederick County to move forward and get a whole and complete comprehensive model that the County can understand the price that we pay for the benefits of every kind of development. Counties all over this Commonwealth do this, and their models are way more sophisticated than what Frederick County uses, and she feels it is time now for Frederick County to move forward. We need to get on the ball with this. Supervisor Forrester asked what ifthe names that were originally brought forward could get together and come up with the requirements that they would like to see included in the RFP, and they could review the professional consultants that would perhaps be applying to do the work. Let them set the criteria that Frederick County wants to havc defined in this project. Chairman Shickle asked Supervisor Forrester ifshe would be willing to let EDC do the "leg work" with that group? Supervisor Tyler advised she recently attended a V ACo meeting and spoke with the firm that has done the County's past model, and this is what they suggested. She moved to get a worksession put together with the necessary individuals and move forward. Chairman Shickle asked if she would like to see EDC and Director Barker take a lead in this or someone else? Supervisor Tyler advised that she did not have a problem with Director Barker and EDC getting all the players to the table. As part of her motion she did request that the recommendations be brought back to this Board. Supervisor Smith seconded this motion. Supervisor Forrester advised that she wanted to be sure that we are not limiting which consultant group we are deciding to go forward with by having one specific consultant come to give the presentation. Director Barker addressed this and advised that it is not intended to limit this to just one consultant. Chairman Shickle stated that his thoughts were that the Board would see something before going out with the RFP. Director Barker replied that is correct. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 '339 Supervisor Sager suggested that perhaps a realtor should be considered for this list, and anyone who provides these types of services. Chairman Shickle asked Supervisor Tyler if she would serve on this committee. Supervisor Tyler advised she would. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Ir. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda I. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye RESOLUTION (#23-02) FROM SUPERVISOR DOUGLAS REOUESTING FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY TO NOT BEGIN PRODUCTION WELLS UNTIL THE STUDIES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED - APPROVED Supervisor Douglas read the following resolution and moved for approval: WHEREAS, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) has underway a three and one- half year study of groundwater in parts of Frederick County; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority has entered a contract to explore for water and drill test wells on three parcels in Back Creek Magisterial District and one parcel in Gainesboro Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority has further retained the services of additional outside consultants to assist in determining the long term availability of water resource and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors respectfully requests that the Frederick County Sanitation Authority not put any of the aforementioned production wells into service until the USGF has issued a favorable report on the use of ground water, said report being complete April 2004. RESOLVED, this 13th day of November 2002. Supervisor Sager seconded the motion. Supervisor Reyes offered an amendment to the motion. He suggested the fourth paragraph be amended as follows: Request that the Frederick County Sanitation Authority not explore and drill any test wells in Frederick County until examination and consideration of the recommendations ofthe Regional Water Resources Policy Committee be received and reviewed by the Board and with said recommendations be completed by September 30, 2004. Supervisor Tyler seconded the motion to amend. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11113/02 340 Supervisor Sager questioned if this meant the Regional Committee would be usurping the right of the Sanitation Authority to do further exploratory wells? Supervisor Reyes advised no. He did not understand it that way. This does not usurp their power, but gives the Board some more leeway. Supervisor Sager asked how much water, after a test well is done, is pumped out ofthe well before it is capped? He advised this question was presented to him this afternoon, otherwise he would have called before the meeting. Darwin Braden representative on the Sanitation Authority from Gainesboro District, appeared before the Board and advised the way the question is phrased, the answer is no. Nevertheless, that is why they test to determine how much they can pump. He feels there is some terminology here that is confusing. Production wells are one that you drill and produce from, and this is done daily. All that is being talked about now are exploration wells. This is when a well is drilled and tested to see how much this well might be capable of producing and then it will be capped. The standard time for a test well is normally ninety six hours. Supervisor Forrester advised that she is very happy to see this resolution come forward, as submitted by Supervisor Douglas. She feels this will offer protection to the citizens on the three parcels ofland in Back Creek and the one parcel in Gainesboro. She agrees with the amendment that Supervisor Reyes is submitting, in that this will offer protection to everyone. Administrator Riley advised that he felt the intent of Supervisor Douglas' resolution is not to prohibit the Sanitation Authority from exploring to determine where resources may be, but don't put anything into production. Continue to explore, to research, continue to find, but don't withdraw. Supervisor Forrester advised that as a public water user and one who sees changes in fees, all this testing costs money, and each time they do testing, eventually the users will see it come out in user fees for those that are on public water. She would like to see the expenses minimized until the results are in from the Regional Water Resources Committee. Supervisor Douglas advised that she was told that ifher resolution did not have any "teeth" in it, she shouldn't even present the resolution. She has been talking with the Sanitation Authority and her constituents, and on this amendment, she is going to be damned if she votes for it, and damned if she votes against it. The vote on the amendment as offered by Supervisor Reyes is as follows: Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 341 Richard C. Shickle - Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Nay Margaret B. Douglas - Abstained Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye The vote on the amended resolution is as follows: Richard C. Shickle - Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Nay Margaret B. Douglas - Abstained Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye COMMITTEE REPORTS PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Parks and Recreation Commission met on October 15,2002. Members present were: Robert Hartman, John Powell, Clarence Haymaker, Steven White, Cheryl Swartz, Joyce Goff, Lynda Tyler. Submitted for Board Information Only: New Business: 1. Carrv Forward Request - Mr. Powell moved to submit a request to the Finance Committee in the amount of$111 ,500 to complete the bicycle trail at Sherando Park, second by Mr. Hartman, carried unanimously (6-0). 2. Communication Plan Request - Mr. White moved to submit a request to the Finance Committee to replace land lines at eight Basicrec sites with cell phones and to purchase additional cell phones as requested, second by Mr. Hartman, carried unanimously (6-0). 3. Policv Revision - Mr. Powell moved to adopt the revision to the Telephone/Wireless Phone Use Policy, second by Mr. Hartman, carried unanimously (6-0). PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT Supervisor Tyler presented this report. The Public Works Committee met on Tuesday, October 29,2002, at 8:00 a.m. All members were present except W. Harrington Smith, Jr. The following items were discussed: ***Items Requiring Action*** 1. Disposition of the Star Tannerv and Mount Williams Citizens' Convenience Sites- Approved as Amended The Director of Public Works presented a survey that had been done at the Star Tannery convenience site to determine the amount and origin of usage. A summary of this survey is highlighted in the attached memorandum dated October 28, 2002. In addition, photographs ofthe Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 342 site were taken on various days during the survey period to illustrate the magnitude of the illegal dumping that is occurring at both sites. Based on this information and previous discussions, a motion was made by Jim Wilson and seconded by Jim Vickers to close both sites. The motion was unanimously endorsed by the committee. (Attachment #1) Supervisor Tyler advised since the Public Works Committee Meeting additional information has been received concerning the Star Tannery site; therefore, this site will remain open with the implementation of certain improvements as she outlined and are on file in the Public Works Office. She further advised that she would like to see some further study done of the Mt. Williams site, similar to what was done at the Star Tannery site. Supervisor Tyler moved to approve the recommendation as offered by Director Strawsnyder, with the associated improvements and to transfer the necessary funding from operating contingencies to fund the project in the amount of$25,000. She would like further evaluation ofthe Mt. Williams site. Supervisor Douglas seconded the motion. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 2. Proposed Inspection Fee Increases - Approved as Amended Building Official John Trenary presented a proposal to increase inspection fees as outlined in the attached documentation. After discussing the proposed fee increases, a motion was made by Jim Vickers and seconded by George Ludwig to approve the fee increases as proposed with the modification that the fee for one and two-family dwellings, townhouses and apartments would be increased to $0.10 rather than $0.12 as proposed. The motion was unanimously approved. (Attachment #2) Building Official Trenary appeared before the Board and advised that 12 cents a square foot had been requested for both residential and commercial. He further advised it has been three years since the last fee increase. He basically explained why he had requested this increase. Supervisor Tyler moved to approve the 12 cents as originally proposed by staff. Supervisor Forrester seconded this motion. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Minnte Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 343 Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye ***Items Not Requiring Action*** 1. Stormwater Issues Mr. Joe Wilder, staff engineer, presented a potential unfunded mandate related to stormwater management in Frederick County. The contents of his presentation are included in the enclosed memorandum dated October 25, 2002. Further discussions will be scheduled with representatives from the Department of Environmental Quality and Department of Conservation and Recreation to determine the final impact on Frederick County. If Frederick County is required to obtain a stormwater discharge permit, it will result in a significant cost impact. (Attachment #3) 2. ShawneeLand Issues The committee reviewed correspondence from the chairperson ofthe ShawneeLand Advisory Committee requesting a change to the policy of the ShawneeLand Sanitary District Manager's attendance at the ShawneeLand committee meetings. The correspondence also expressed a need for a part-time secretary to take minutes at the committee meetings. The current attendance policy requires the committee to notify the manager in writing at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting date and specify the issues that need to be addressed. The advisory chairperson has requested that the manager attend all scheduled monthly meetings. During the discussion of this issue, Mr. Ludwig highlighted the fact that the above policy was implemented because of the poor attendance of committee members and the continual lack of a quorum over the last two (2) years. Consequently, he made a motion seconded by Jim Vickers to maintain the same policy and notify the committee in writing of this decision. This motion was unanimously approved by the committee. Mr. Ludwig further recommended that the advisory committee be given the opportunity to establish requirements for the part-time secretarial position and review applicants. Frederick County will prepare a job description with the assistance ofthe advisory committee and advertise the job. The resulting applications will be given to the advisory committee for their review and selection. (Attachment #4) 3. New Hours ofOueration for Citizens' Convenience Sites The Director of Public Works presented the committee with a copy of a flyer to be distributed at the convenience sites. This flyer highlights the new hours of operation effective December 1, 2002. (Attachment #5) 4. Miscellaneous Reuorts a) Tonnage Report (see Attachment 6) b) Recycling Report (see Attachment 7) c) Animal Shelter Dog Report (see Attachment 8) d) Animal Shelter Cat's report (see Attachment 9) CHAIRMAN SHICKLE ADDRESSES STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT Chairman Shickle advised at some point he would like to make comments on the stormwater issues, and the issue as to whether we will or will not be designated something. He would hope regardless of how we are designated that the County does have a plan that gets the County in Minute Book Number 28 Board of Snpervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 344 compliance, whether we are designated or not. He does not exactly know where that should be and obviously if we are not designated, we have more time. We need to head in that direction, and I know we have started. He feels this is a serious issue. Administrator Riley advised that staff would be supplying the Board with more background information, and advise as to where the Board is on this issue. CODE AND ORDINANCE REPORT Supervisor Reyes presented this report to the Board. The Code & Ordinance Committee met on Monday, November 4,2002, at 4:00 P.M., in the First Floor Conference Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. Present were chairman ofthe committee Supervisor Sidney A. Reyes, Supervisor Robert M. Sager, and Michael L. Bryan. Also present were Treasurer C. William Orndoff, Jr., Economic Development Director Patrick Barker, County Attorney Lawrence R. Ambrogi and County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr. Committee member Stephen G. Butler was absent. The committee submits the following: ***Items Requiring Action*** 1. Request by the Treasurer of Frederick County to Amend the Frederick County Code. Chapter 158. Vehicles and Traffic. Article III. County Vehicle Licenses - Approved to Advertise For Public Hearinl: Request by the Treasurer to amend the Frederick County Code to add language to allow for filing of notification oflicensure after 30 days of moving to the county. Currently, the language speaks only to date of purchase on an acquisition. The committee recommends advertising for public hearing. Supervisor Reyes moved to approve this request for public hearing. Supervisor Sager seconded the motion. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 2. Request by the Treasurer of Frederick County to Amend the Frederick County Code. Chanter 158. Vehicles and Traffic. Article III. Countv Vehicle Licenses. to Chan~e the Way in Which Decals are Billed and Mailed - Ann roved to Advertise for Public Hearint! Request by the Treasurer to allow for the mailing of vehicle decals by the Treasurer upon proof that all taxes have been paid. The vehicle license/decal will be billed on the June 5 tax bill. This measure will save on postage and hopefully prevent long lines that occur at the last minute filing deadlines. The committee recommends advertising for public hearing. Upon motion made by Supervisor Reyes, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the above request Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 345 was approved, for public hearing, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye ***Non Action Items*** 1. Discussion of Pharmacv/Biomedical Technolot!v Zone Executive Director of Economic Development Commission Patrick Barker is requesting adoption of the PharmacyIBiomedical Technology Zone. Creation of the zone would better the county's position to support Governor Warner's Biotechnology Initiative and to enable the county to better compete for Pharmacy/Biomedical Technology targeted companies. The committee was advised that this concept involves an overlay designation by the Board of Supervisors and that the enabling legislation would be a Frederick County Code tax amendment. The committee will continue to work on the concept and when complete, will forward a recommendation to the board. PUBLIC HEARINGS: PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION (#022-02) TO AMEND THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY TO FIX THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS TO FIVE (5) AND TO PERMIT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO FIX THE COMPENSATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE AUTHORITY - APPROVED Administrator Riley presented this request to the Board advising that it has been advertised and spells out the required information. There was no public comment. Supervisor Sager asked about the compcnsation of the members. Administrator Riley advised that the amount would be $180 per quarter. Supervisor Sager moved to approve the resolution as presented. Supervisor Douglas seconded the motion. Supervisor Forrester advised that she would like to state again, that this make-up of only having five representatives does not allow representation for those persons that are on public water and sewer. The make-up of this organization at this time is of individuals on wells. She feels the users paying the fees should also be represented on this committee. She would offer an amendment to go with number 7. Chairman Shickle advised that an amendment would be out of order as this was advertised and a publicized public hearing held, and we need to vote on it. Supervisor Forrester advised that she thought we could amend anything. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 346 Chairman Shickle advised no, that is not the case, you would have to go back to advertisement, and you would have to defeat this motion. This is the advertised resolution. Seven was defeated at our last public hearing. The above motion was to approve the following resolution: RESOLVED, that the Articles ofIncorporation ofthe Frederick County Sanitation Authority adopted April 10, 1967 (Certificate of Incorporation issued by State Corporation Commission August 1, 1967) and subsequently amended by Certificates of Amendment issued by the State Corporation Commission March 9, 1971, October 24, 1985, April 8, 1988 and April 3, 2001, be further amended by Articles of Amendment in the following form: ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT OF FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY 1. The name of the Authority is "Frederick County Sanitation Authority." 2. The amendment adopted is to strike Paragraph (b) of the Articles of Incorporation and insert in lieu thereof the following: (b) The name of the incorporating political subdivision is FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA. There shall be five (5) members ofthe Authority. The names and addresses of the members, each of whom maintains a residence in Frederick County, Virginia, and the expiration ofthe term of office of each, is as follows: NAME ADDRESS EXPIRATION OF TERM OF OFFICE John Stevens 324 Round Hill Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 April 15, 2003 James T. Anderson P. O. Box 368 Winchester, Virginia 22604 April 15, 2004 Richard A. Ruckman 1787 Cedar Hill Road Clearbrook, Virginia 22624 April 15,2004 Darwin S. Braden 528 Northwood Circle Cross Junction, Virginia 22625 April 15, 2005 Robert P. Mowery 1160 Salem Church Road Stephens City, Virginia 22655 April 15, 2006 The successor of each member shall be appointed by the Board of County Supervisors for a term of four (4) years and until a successor shall be duly appointed and quality, except that any person appointed to fill a vacancy shall serve only for the unexpired term. Any member of the Authority shall be eligible for reappointment. Members of the Authority shall receive such compensation as shall be fixed from time to time by resolution of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, and shall be reimbursed for any actual expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of their duties. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11l13J02 347 3. The Articles of Amendment were approved by a Resolution ofthe Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, adopted on , 2002, following a public hearing held , 2002. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors has caused these Articles to be executed this day of ,2002. FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA By Richard C. Shickle Chairman, Board of Supervisors (SEAL) Attest: John R. Riley, Jr. Clerk, Board of Supervisors The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Nay Lynda J. Tyler - Nay Gina A. Forrester - Nay PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING #11-02 OF DANFORD RIDGE. SUBMITTED BY GREENWAY ENGINEERING. TO REVISE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROFFER STATEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. REZONING #019-98. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF FRONT ROYAL PIKE (ROUTE 522) ACROSS FROM PARKINS MILL ROAD (ROUTE 644) AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS 76-A-22 AND 76-A-23 IN THE SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT- APPROVED Planning Director Lawrence presented this request to the Board advising what was taking place with the revised proffers currently before the Board, and this will effect the transportation network. He further advised that staff and Planning Commission has recommended approval. Supervisor Sager stated that he felt the change was very good. Evan Wyatt of Greenway Engineering appeared before the Board and further explained that the main reason they are before the Board this evening is because when the original proffer was Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 348 approved, a generalized development plan was proffered with it; therefore, without this revision as Director Lawrence explained, they are bound by the previous general development plan. There was no public comment. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, Rezoning #11-02 of Danford Ridge was approved, as presented, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #11-02 OF SHENANDOAH GAS COMPANY FOR A 120' FOOT MONOPOLE COMMERCIAL TELECOMMUNICA TIONS FACILITY. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 350 HILLANDALE LANE AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 63-2A IN THE SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED Assistant Planning Director Chris Mohn presented this request to the Board advising that staff and Planning Commission recommended approval with all seven conditions as listed, and are on file in the Planning Department. Lynn Koerner, Project Specialist, with Site Solutions, appeared before the Board on behalf ofthe applicant. He advised that he felt Condition #seven is really referenced under Condition #two. Washington Gas would prefer at this time not to lock the County or themselves into a specific height, vertical space, or any ground space for associated equipment, but would agree, however, to negotiate any fees and any vacant vertical space at the time Emergency Services comes forward and requires such space. This way no one is being locked in. Supervisor Forrester asked what the County policy has been in the past for Emergency Services? Administrator Riley advised that the County just recently negotiated with carriers for space on the towers at a reduced fee. They are willing to negotiate with us as an Emergency Services Provider. The fee for service is normally less. Assistant Administrator Tierney advised what the County has experienced in the past concerning space on the towers for Emergency Services. There was no public comment. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Reyes CUP #11-02 was Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 ,349 approved, as presented, with the seven conditions. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jf. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - UPDATE OF THE 2003-2004 THROUGH 2008-2009 FREDERICK COUNTY SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND THE CONSTRUCTION PRIORITY LIST FOR 2003-2004 (RESOLUTION #024-02) - APPROVED Senior Planner Abbe Kennedy presented this Plan to the Board advising that this plan has been through the necessary steps and is ready for the Board's consideration, and in turn, final resolution. Once this has received approval it will be forwarded to the VDOT Edinburg Residency for funding allocations. Jerry Copp, Resident Engineer with VDOT, appeared before the Board to answer any questions the Board might have. He advised the Board that his message to them with this Plan is that he has obligated all of his proposed funding for the next six years. There was no public comment. Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the following resolution was approved: WHEREAS, the Transportation Committee and Frederick County planning staff reviewed the proposed 2003-2004 Secondary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County; and, WHEREAS, the Transportation Committee recommended unanimous approval ofthis plan on October 1, 2002; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended unanimous approval of this plan at their regular meeting on October 16,2002; 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 policies and procedures and participated in a public hearing on the proposed plan, as well as the Construction Priority List on November 13, 2002, after 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, Mr. Jerry Copp, Residency Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation, appeared before the Board and recommended approval of the Six -Year Plan for Secondary Roads (for 2003-2004 through 2008-2009) and the Construction Priority List for 2003-2004 for Frederick County. WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors considered and approved this plan Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 350 on November 13, 2002; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: The 2003-2004 Secondary Road Improvement Plan appears to be in the best interest of the Secondary Roads System in Frederick County and ofthe citizens residing on the Secondary Roads System; said Six-Year Plan and Construction Priority List are hereby approved as presented at the public hearing, as amended. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, JI. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye OTHER PLANNING ITEMS WAIVER REOUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CHANNING DRIVE - DENIED Planning Director Lawrence advised that Attorney Ty Lawson is requesting, on behalf ofthc applicant, to remove two barricades in the Channing Drive Project. He initially submitted a revised master plan to the Planning Department, but under legal advice, the Department could not accept it as the document did not have all of the appropriate signatures. Therefore, he is requesting the Board's approval on the barriers directly. Director Lawrence explained further, by way of maps, exactly where these barriers are located. He further advised that Attorney Lawson represents the individuals that are interested in purchasing a certain piece of the property. One of the conditions that was placed on this master plan approval affects the barricades at two different locations, Canyon Road, and Morning Glory Drive. The approved master plan of the County states that these two locations would not have road connections until Channing Drive was constructed along with Blossom Boulevard. These two roads would provide them primary access and the two connections would be secondary. He further advised that there is an additional note on this connection saying that the Board of Supervisor's has the authority to open it, when the roads are right, and that is why Attorney Lawson is before the Board tonight, to ask that this be allowed. He further advised that from a planning staffperspective, they do not feel anything has changed with the Master Plan since it was adopted in 2000. At this time Director Lawrence handed out additional information on proffers as well as maps. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 351 Supervisor Tyler advised that it is her understanding that staff cannot grant this, but the Board can; however, previous Boards' recommendation was that this not be done. However, there is something there that is causing this action. She asked Attorney Ambrogi his opinion on the matter. Attorney Ambrogi explained that he and his staffhave discussed this at length with Director Lawrence as to what is triggering this now. He is not sure if it is due to new parties becoming involved. The Board identified a concern when the Master Development Plan was approved, concerning traffic cutting through existing neighborhoods without a primary access, and thus the barricades were put in place. Supervisor Tyler advised if she understands what is being requested and the Board would approve it, the traffic would be cutting through this area, and the residents there do not know this. Attorney Ambrogi further explained that they cannot get into their section to start construction as they do not have access to it. Assistant Tierney advised that he felt the intent at the time was fairly clear in that you have a fairly substantial development in term of scale. The concern was the Futral and Shepperd property developed prior to Channing Drive that whatever did develop, and the only way it had to get out was through an existing subdivision. The intent, he believes ofthe Board, when they put that stipulation on the master plan, was to prevent just that from happening. Supervisor Tyler asked if another way to do this was to go back for a revision ofthe master plan? Director Lawrence replied that was correct. Supervisor Tyler asked what is the benefit of that. Director Lawrence advised if you went through the master plan revision, two things, staff would notify the property owners that the Master Plan was up for consideration, and as Attorney Ambrogi advised, the property owners involved in this project with Channing Drive Master Plan would have to be party to the application. Supervisor Forrester advised that she feels the original applicant, as well as the owners ofthat parcel, Dr. Futural and Dr. Sheppard, were aware ofthe conditions when they signed and agreed to the property statement. She does not see that there is any reason to remove the barricades. She does not feel the conditions have changed and the citizens in those neighborhoods, one being hers, will Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 352 be impacted as this will be used for access to Senseny Road. Attorney Lawson appeared before the Board and explained he was representing Toll Brothers, Inc. He advised that he had a petition from eight residents of Senseny Glen and Apple Ridge that are in favor oftheir request. He further advised, in going back over this plan it calls for the allowance of 474 houses to be built and no more. At that point and time Channing Drive must be constructed. The lateral road that goes into the Futral and Sheppard property would also have to be built. He advised they do not want to change the proffers, nor do they want to change the Master Development Plan. They want to live up to all the amenities that were part of the appeal of this development that was approved by the Board. They want to build a developer road, Channing Drive. On sheet four of the Master Development Plat they want to get the barricades off the roads. He represents a company that has a contract to purchase property from Drs. Futral and Sheppard. Dr. Futral appeared before the Board and explained in order for their property to support Channing Drive, they have to have a developer who is willing to come in and under take the project; however, ifthey do not have access to the property they will not be able to get a developer. He feels the Toll Brothers have gone the extra mile in order to live up to the plan the County has approved. Ifthey are not allowed to access their property then they will not be able to use it for what it is zoned for. Supervisor Forrester stated that she recalls when this rezoning came about, and the reason for the barricades were originally identified, was because it was anticipated the properties would be developing from Senseny Road back. She disagrees with the statement made by Attorney Lawson in that this is not an amendment to the Master Development Plan if approved by the Board. She further advised that it concerns her that there has been no public notification that this is back before the Board to be considered. Chairman Shickle asked Attorney Ambrogi if the Board wanted to vote on this tonight, as a change, it would be a legal action. Attorney Ambrogi replied that was correct; however, the Board is not obligated to take any action. Attorney Lawson advised that the original developers, with the exception ofDrs. Futral and Sheppard, do not exist anymore as they have passed the property onto successive developers. The homeowners that now own lots clearly have an interest in this property. He feels this is a loop hole Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 353 and ironically they are before the Board to ask them to close this loop hole and to cause Channing Drive to be built. Supervisor Forrester stated that Attorney Lawson advised they would be willing to put up a third ofthe money for construction. That does not insure that Channing Drive will actually be built any sooner. It would probably just result in our reaching number 474 homes faster. She feels the problem here stems with the partnership that was originally an agreement on how they were going to build this out has changed. She would rather put that back on those partners to work something out amongst themselves then to bring it to us as a Board issue to amend something that a previous Board has approved. Chairman Shickle advised that he is not sure Supervisor Forrester is correct in that it would be faster, aren't the permits per year limited? Attorney Lawson replied they are. He feels Channing Drive would be done four to five years earlier, if they would be allowed to proceed as they are requesting. Supervisor Smith moved for approval of the waiver request, Supervisor Douglas seconded the motion. Supervisor Forrester advised that she wanted to restate that the citizens in the neighborhood that are going to be impacted, have not received any type of public notification that this is back before the Board tonight and she feels minimally that they should be notified. She referred to what was agreed upon originally as to how this development was to be done. The above motion was denied by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Nay Lynda J. Tyler - Nay Gina A. Forrester - Nay SUBDIVISION WAIVER REQUEST OF MICHAEL AND LINDA FERRARO - REFERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Zoning Administrator Patrick Davenport presented this request advising that the Ferraro's are requesting a wai ver of a subdivision ordinance requirement which requires that a minimum width for a private shared drive way shall be fifty (50) feet in width. He advised at the Planning Commission meeting on October 16,2002, seven citizens who owned property over which the right- Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 354 of-way crosses came forward to speak. Six property owners were in opposition to granting the waiver because they were not in favor of giving up some of their property to provide access to a land-locked parcel, they were concerned that Mr. Ferraro may attempt to create a residential development on the property, and they believed that Mr. Ferraro knew the situation with the right-of- way when he purchased his property. He further advised that Mr. Ferraro's attorney has prepared a declaration of restrictions for his property, limiting future subdivision to one-time and only two lots. He further advised the Planning Commission could not support the waiver request with so many of the adjoining property owners being opposed and because of the uncertainty about the actual width of the right-of-way that traversed the various properties; the vote to deny this request was unanImous. Attorney Robert T. Mitchell appeared before the Board on behalf of the applicants. He advised the reason for the request is unfortunate, as they are seeking to separate, and they want to divide the property so each party gets a parcel. He advised of what his applicants were willing to do if this request is approved. He further advised they are prepared to put a restriction on each of their lots, that not more than one family residence be placed on each lot, so long as that lot is using the present right-of-way. He further advised a document will be recorded, as part ofthe subdivision plat, to make sure this is on record for everyone to see, which will be permanent. Supervisor Douglas asked Attorney Mitchell, with him receiving the information too late to provide to the Planning Commission, why didn't he ask them to just postpone until the Planning Commission's next meeting? Attorney Mitchell stated that is a good point, and in hind sight it would have been a better thing to do. They were working under a tight time schedule and the public hearing had been advertised. Supervisor Forrester asked if the Board could return this to the Planning Commission in order that they might review the information that Attorney Mitchell has referred to. Administrator Riley advised that is an option. Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Sager, this request is being sent back to the Planning Commission to review the information they were presented at the last minute before being asked to vote on this request. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 3'.55 Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, II. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda I. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye DISCUSSION OF RUSSELL FARM SWSA/UDA EXPANSION Planning Director Lawrence advised the Board that staff has received a request from Greenway Engineering to consider a SWSA expansion on some property at 522 south. Director Lawrence explained to the Board where the location is by way of a map posted behind them. The property in question, of the 277 acres, 149 acres is currently located within the sewer and water service area. The request is to extend the sewer and water service area to incorporate the rest ofthe 277 acre farm. He further advised that the County School Board has approached the property owner about locating a middle school at this location, approximately thirty acres. The applicant felt in order to accommodate the school site, sewer and water expansion would be necessary, and to accommodate a collector road to provide access to the school site. Also being requested is less than ten acres, about six acre UDA expansion. Currently the UDA runs down the western property line. They would like to build a collector road over to the school site. The existing mobile home park would have to relocate, approximately fifteen units, to get a road in there. Supervisor Reyes referred to information provided in the Board's packets with reference to comments offered from CPPS as well as comments made at the Planning Commission meeting of November 6, 2002. Director Lawrence advised that the approach they received through the request was to incorporate the entire property in the sewer and water service area that would accommodate a school site and whatever future growth the property owners feel they want to propose to the County. The Planning Commission said, step back, don't consider the school site, do you want to expand the sewer and water service area for development that might be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He further explained that staff is looking for direction. Supervisor Forrester asked for clarification. Is the Board being asked tonight if we want to consider this site for public water and sewer for the middle school knowing that the area around it is designated for industrial use? If we are interested in having a school built in the middle of land designated for industrial use, then we have two options, with the first being to expand the SWSA or Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11113102 356 the seeond option is we could only dedicate just water and sewer to that one piece of land. Director Lawrence advised that ultimately what they would be looking for is ifthe Board's intention is to expand the sewer and water service area, staff would go through the public hearing process. Ifit is to be looked at solely for a school he would recommend that they step back from it until the County decides whether it is a school site, and if so, at that time it would be brought back up to get a policy to extend sewer and water strictly for the school use. Supervisor Forrester stated that she agrees with Director Lawrence and with the second option that he outlined. The consensus of the Board was that this would come back to the Board at the appropriate time for action. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED REVISION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEE SCHEDULE Director Lawrence presented this information to the Board advising that staffhas completed a comprehensive analysis of the County's current development review fees, the results of which indicate the need to increase fees to more appropriately compensate the County for the time and resources allotted to review development proposals. The adoption of a revised development fee schedule is recommended to resolve this issue. He further advised that the proposed revised development fee schedule has been prepared by staff and is being presented to the Board for their review. He further advised that Top of Virginia has been contacted and they would like additional time to look at it. Director Lawrence walked the Board through the schedule and advised the Board ofthe changes that were being suggested. He did advise there is not a significant change in the fees and that we are consistent with the City of Winchester's new figures. He did explain that there is a significant change in the RA Zoning District. Zoning Certification will now have a fee as they have not in the past. He further advised that other jurisdictions do charge for this service. Chairman Shickle advised that he thinks it is time to make the fees we charge related to the service we provide. He would like to hear from the people that are more familiar with this than he is. Chairman Shickle did state that he felt the Cottage Occupation being raised from the current $75 to $500 will be ajolt for some ofthe citizens that he has seen come before the Board for this permit. He would want to make sure they knew this was coming before it happened. He also addressed the area of down zoning and what would be required for that. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02 357 Supervisor Sager advised that he had received quite a few phone calls on this from realtors and developers stating they would like to participate in the review, and be able to make their comments. Supervisor Reyes inquired as to what the previous fee was on the telecommunications tower as this is showing the new fee would be $1,OOO? Director Lawrence advised it was $75. He further advised anytime there is a public hearing item their department has to pay for the advertisement, adjoining notices etc. and this increase is done in order to try and cover the cost involved with a public hearing. Supervisor Tyler advised that she to had some concern with the increase in Cottage Occupation also. Supervisor Forrester advised that she had one call on the increase with Cottage Occupation and she advised that she was .not clear on everything that is included under this. Chairman Shickle advised that the flip side of this is if$500 is too much to charge, but it is what it is costing the County, then maybe what the County is doing is too much. Chairman Shickle advised that he would like to see the Planning Department do mailings along with Public Hearings to get citizen input on these revised charges. Supervisor Forrester stated she would like to thank staff for all their work on this, and the fact this has not been amended since 1993, she feels it is time. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS There were no additional comments. UPON MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR SAGER, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR SMITH, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. (TIME: 11:19 P.M.) Q~-~ c~ ~.c.~, Richard C. Shickle Chairman, Board of Supervisors Minutes Prepared By: Au..,} ~--r: ~ 111" ...) Carol T. Bayliss .. Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/02