Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 09 2009 Regular Meeting235 A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Wednesday, December 9, 2009, at 6:00 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Vice - Chairman Bill M. Ewing; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.; Gary W. Dove; Gene E. Fisher; Philip A. Lemieux; and Gary A. Lofton. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the meeting to order. BOARD RETIRED INTO CLOSED SESSION Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board convened in Closed Session with the Frederick County School Board pursuant to Va. Code Section 2.2 -3711 A (29) for discussion of a PPEA proposal for a school transportation facility. 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 Gary A. Lofton Aye BOARD RECONVENED INTO REGULAR SESSION Upon a motion by Supervisor Ewing, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board came out of closed session and reconvened in open session. 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 Gary A. Lofton Aye Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board certified that to the best of each board member's knowledge the Board discussed only those matters identified in the motion by which the closed session was convened and that such matters involved only the discussion of a PPEA proposal for a school transportation facility, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 22-3711 A (29). The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 236 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 Gary A. Lofton Aye INVOCATION Reverend Bobby Alger, Crossroads Community Church, delivered the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice - Chairman Ewing led the Pledge of Allegiance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA - APPROVED County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr. advised there were no additions or changes to the agenda. Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved the 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 Gary A. Lofton Aye CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED Administrator Riley offered the following items for the Board's consideration under the consent agenda: - Parks and Recreation Commission Report — Tab G; - Subdivision Waiver Request #05 -09 of Winchester Metals, Inc. — Tab N; and - Road Resolution — Whites Mill Subdivision — Tab P. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Vice - Chairman Ewing, the Board approved the consent agenda 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 Gary A. Lofton Aye CITIZEN COMMENTS Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 237 Paul Anderson, Back Creek District, addressed the Board regarding the proposed Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance. He advised the Frederick County Farm Bureau supported the program and believed it was a good tool for supporting farmland. He concluded by saying he would like to see the Board go further and look at a purchase of development rights program. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS There were no Board of Supervisors' comments. MINUTES — POSTPONED The minutes from the November 18, 2009 Board of Supervisors' meeting was postponed until the next regular meeting so staff could research and clarify page 34 of the minutes pertaining to the request to extend water service outside of the sewer and water service area. COUNTY OFFICIALS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARD FOR DECEMBER, 2009 — (RESOLUTION #041 -09) - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved Katiria Rodriguez as Frederick County Employee of the Month for December 2009. WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors recognizes that the County's employees are a most important resource; and, WHEREAS, on September 9, 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution which established the Employee of the Month award and candidates for this award may be nominated by any County employee; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors selects one employee from those nominated, based on the merits of outstanding performance and productivity, positive job attitude and other noteworthy contributions to their department and to the County; and, WHEREAS, Katiria Rodriguez who serves as a Correctional Officer III with the Northwestern Regional Jail was nominated for Employee of the Month; and, WHEREAS, During a period of reduced staffing and increased Jail commitments, Officer Rodriguez's willingness to step forward and perform a number of functions over and above her assigned duty as a Transportation Officer is highly commendable. Over the past several months, Officer Rodriguez has volunteered to assist Booking staff, she has taken it upon herself to complete and record about 75% of all DNA testing that is done at the Detention Center, and also spent countless hours translating for other members of the staff due to being one of only two Hispanic linguists. Her commitment to her fellow officers, to the Detention Center, and to the County of Frederick community warrants her this recognition. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors this 9 th day of December, 2009, that Katiria Rodriguez is hereby recognized as the Frederick County Employee of the Month for December 2009; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors extends gratitude to Katiria Rodriguez for her outstanding performance and dedicated service and wishes her continued success in future endeavors; and, Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 238 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Katiria Rodriguez is hereby entitled to all of the rights and privileges associated with this award. 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 Gary A. Lofton Aye COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS REAPPOINTMENT OF GENE E. FISHER AS FREDERICK COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE TO THE FREDERICK- WINCHESTER SERVICE AUTHORITY - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Vice - Chairman Ewing, the Board re- appointed Gene E. Fisher as a Frederick County representative to the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority. This is a three year appointment, said term to expire January 10, 2013. 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 Gary A. Lofton Aye REAPPOINTMENT OF GARY R. OATES AS STONEWALL DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Dove, the Board reappointed Gary R. Oates as Stonewall District representative to the Frederick County Planning Commission. This is a four year appointment, said term to expire January 11, 2014. 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 Gary A. Lofton Aye REQUEST FROM THE SHERIFF FOR AN APPROPRIATION RE: GRANT AWARD FOR THE NORTHWEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL GANG TASK FORCE - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised that Frederick County serves as the fiscal agent for the Northwest Virginia Regional Drug Task Force. Over the past several years, the NVR Drug and Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 239 Gang Task Forces have received significant funding through Congressional Grants. In September 2009 the Gang Task Force was awarded a Congressional Earmark Grant in the amount of $750,000.00. He went on to say this grant requires no matching funds and is a 100% reimbursable grant. Frederick County will need to appropriate the $750,000 in the Sheriff's Office current budget by creating and designating line items specific to the breakdown of the funds. Supervisor Dove asked how long they would continue to receive this grant. Administrator Riley responded that he did not know, but hoped for a long time. Sheriff Williamson responded the Task Force was in line for a $1 million grant next year, but he did not know what funding might be received beyond that point. He went on to say that 90% of the Gang Task Force funding comes from the grant. Supervisor Dove asked what we would do if we stop receiving this funding. Sheriff Williamson responded that has always been a battle the Task Force has fought. He stated that Frederick County has it built into its budget, so we are fortunate; however, some smaller localities could not continue to participate without this funding. Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board approved the grant and appropriated the funds to the Sheriff's Department budget. 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 Gary A. Lofton Aye REQUEST FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE FOR REFUND - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised this was a request from the Commissioner of the Revenue to authorize the Treasurer to refund Toyota Motor Credit Corp. the amount of $2,571.57 for prorated vehicles for 2009 and exoneration of some registration fees. The vehicles were sold or moved out of the locality by this vehicle finance company. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved the above request. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 240 Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye ADOPTION OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS VISION STATEMENT AND CORE VALUES - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised that in the fall of 2008, the Board began the process of crafting a vision statement and core values for Frederick County. This process began with the Board reviewing the appropriateness of the County's Comprehensive Plan. The next step was for board members to individually prioritize issues facing Frederick County. Not surprisingly, the top priority was fiscal management followed closely by growth control. The remaining five topics by order of importance were: - Relationships with the School Board; - Economic Development; - Consolidation; - Public Safety; and - Comprehensive Plan update. All of the above topics are of vital importance to the County and are directly linked to the Board's top priority - fiscal management. He went on to say that based upon the information received from board members; the following core values were crafted: - A government that is accountable and dedicated to providing responsible stewardship for county funds and to insure the citizens receive the best services possible for the funds expended. - A government concerned with long range planning that protects our rural heritage and directs its future growth through planned infrastructure. - A government concerned with expanding commercial and industrial tax base in order to insure a viable and thriving economy. - A government that looks to the future and implements plans to insure that the quality of life for future generations is preserved. - A government that emphasizes a quality education through a cooperative effort with the school board. - A government that recognizes the importance of maintaining a highly trained public safety program to provide efficient services and protection to county citizens. - A government that promotes the spirit of cooperation with its regional local government partners and, in particular, the City of Winchester. - A government unit based on honesty, trust, integrity, and respect that understands the importance of clear communication and a willingness to listen. He then presented the following vision statement for the Board's adoption: Insuring the quality of life of all Frederick County citizens by preserving the past and Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 241 planning for the future through sound fiscal management. He concluded by saying staff is seeking the Board's adoption of the proposed vision statement and core values. Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board adopted the proposed vision statement and core values. 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 Gary A. Lofton Aye COMMITTEE REPORTS PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT — APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Parks and Recreation Commission met on November 17, 2009. Members present were: Charles Sandy, Jr., P.W. Hillyard, III, Gary Longerbeam, Marty Cybulski, Ronald Madagan, and Patrick Anderson. Items Requiring Board of Supervisors Action None. Submitted for Board Information Only 1. Cosponsored Group Requests — Mr. Anderson moved that the Commission accept applications for cosponsorship from Frederick County American Little League Association, Frederick County National Little League Association, Blue Ridge Youth Soccer Association, American Legion, Mavericks, Winchester Athletic Association, second by Mr. Longerbeam, carried unanimously (6 -0). TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT - APPROVED The Transportation Committee met on November 23, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. Members Present Chuck DeHaven (voting) Phil Lemieux (voting) James Racey (voting) Dave Burleson (voting) Gary Oates (liaison PC) Lewis Boyer (liaison Stephens City) Members Absent Mark Davis (liaison Middletown) George Kriz (liaison PC) ** *Items Requiring Action * ** 1. Dairy Corner Place Discontinuance On August 12, 2009, the Board of Supervisors approved rezoning #03 -09 of Walgreens- Dairy Corner Place. Included in the proffers (attached) is a proffer to close the existing access of Dairy Corner Place to Valley Mill Road (proffer 1.7). In order to perform this discontinuance, Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 242 the applicant needs cooperation from the County in a form of a petition to VDOT to discontinue use of the roadway (VDOT guidelines attached). Motion by Mr. Lemieux and seconded by Mr. Burleson: The Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the Board petition VDOT to discontinue this portion of Dairy Corner Place. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Lemieux, the Board authorized staff to forward a petition to VDOT to discontinue a portion of Dairy Corner Place. 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 Gary A. Lofton Aye ** *Items Not Requiring Action * ** 1. Double Church Road Truck Restriction At the September meeting of the Transportation Committee, staff reported that a meeting had taken place with Warren County and VDOT. At that meeting, Warren County staff indicated that they would be happy to work with Frederick County should support be needed for the truck restriction. Following that report, the Committee discussed a number of issues for staff to investigate. Should the signs warning trucks away from Double Church Road be given some time to work so that the County can judge their effectiveness before moving forward with a full truck restriction. Note: Staff received communication from VDOT on 11/13/2009 that the signs had been installed on 11/12/2009. 2. Did Warren County staff discuss this issue with any member of the Warren County Board of Supervisors? 3. Do typical consumer global positioning system products or resources such as www.mapquest.com account for truck restrictions in their guidance, or are they enabled to do so? Staff reported that Warren County Board Members had not been specifically contacted regarding this issue since Frederick County had yet to take any formal action. The Warren County Administrator continues to feel that support on a truck restriction (if needed) would not be an issue. In addition, staff reported that standard consumer GPS devices do not account for truck restrictions, but that there are a number of products on the market that are targeted to the trucking industry which do take these into account. Free websites such as www.mapquest.com do not account for truck restrictions. The consensus of the Committee was to monitor the situation for 6 -12 months to see if the signs that have been installed are working to deter truck traffic. In addition, Supervisor DeHaven will be discussing the issue further with Supervisor Ewing. 2. 2010/2011 Capital Improvement Plan Staff notified the Committee that the time has come to move forward with the update to the Capital Improvement Plan. No new items were recommended for addition. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 243 Motion by Mr. Racey and seconded by Mr. Lemieux: The Committee voted to carry forward the transportation section of the 2010/2011 Capital Improvement Plan as shown in the 2009/2010 document. 3. Article Review 4. Other A. Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering was present and notified the Committee of items to which additional attention is needed. 1. Route 522 relocation to the east of existing 522 2. Valley Mill Road Realignment Staff noted that the Valley Mill road realignment discussion was very timely as they had recently received a Board of Supervisors directive to review the Eastern Road Plan in that area. B. Staff noted that recent news reports regarding VDOT cutbacks may have been unintentionally misleading regarding the loss of revenue sharing funds. All of Frederick County's projects approved for revenue sharing continue to be safe and viable projects. The cutbacks did impact the Sulphur Springs Road improvements; however, due to recent re- scoping efforts in response to County land use actions (Governor's Hill Rezoning), this remains a viable project. C. Staff advised the Committee that discussions have been taking place regarding the Millbank House along Route 7 near the future Haggerty Development. Staff noted that while the house itself is not impacted by Route 37 or Haggerty Boulevard, the former farm land on the north side of Route 7 is impacted by Route 37. PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING #04 -09 OF THE WAMPLER PROPERTY, SUBMITTED BY PATTON HARRIS RUST & ASSOCIATES, TO REZONE 2.16 ACRES FROM RA (RURAL AREAS) DISTRICT TO B2 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT, WITH PROFFERS, FOR COMMERCIAL USE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST AND ADJACENT TO MARTINSBURG PIKE (ROUTE 11), APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 11 AND STEPHENSON ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 1,900 FEET NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 11 AND OLD CHARLESTOWN ROAD, IN THE STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, AND IS IDENTIFIED BY PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 4413-1 -121). (POSTPONED FROM OCTOBER 14, 2009 BOARD MEETING). - DENIED Deputy Director of Planning Michael Ruddy appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised this was an application to rezone 2.16 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers, for commercial use. The property is covered by the Northeast Land Use Plan and the proposal is consistent with the commercially zoned land uses in the area. He went on to say the application provides a monetary contribution to offset transportation impacts. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Deputy Director Ruddy noted the applicant submitted a modified proffer statement dated November 24, 2009, which proffered out gas stations and limited trip generation. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 244 Supervisor Lofton stated the application offers three inter - parcel connections and asked if adjoining properties to the south would be prohibited from having a commercial entrance. Deputy Director Ruddy responded yes. He went on to say that access on all of the properties will be an issue. Supervisor Lofton stated it might be better to move the entrance further to the south in order to give the adjoining properties opportunities. Patrick Sowers, Patton Harris Rust and Associates, appeared before the Board regarding the application. He advised, since receiving Planning Commission approval, the applicant has removed gas stations. The applicant also established a trip gap at 2,000 vehicle trips per day. He went on to say the property is currently vacant with the exception of 1 existing residence. He noted the proposed entrance would be located across from the Wampler Mobile Home Park entrance. The applicant has proffered a right -of -way dedication of 15 feet. Mr. Sowers noted there was also a 25 foot buffer on the Route 11 corridor. The application provided three inter- parcel connectors to manage connectivity to the adjacent properties. The applicant has also proffered to retain any trees within 10 feet of the existing property line. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. Ronald Simkovitch, Stonewall District, appeared before the Board regarding this application. He advised he was an adjacent property owner and had lived there since 1982. He went on to say he had purchased another part of his property in 1992 and he had it down zoned from M1 to residential. He said he could not imagine accessing this site. The proposed rezoning would hurt his property value and he did not want to see the property rezoned. There being no further comments, Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Supervisor DeHaven moved to approve Rezoning #04 -09. The motion died for lack of a second. Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Dove, the Board denied Rezoning #04 -09. Supervisor Lofton stated the applicant had tried to mitigate impacts, but he was not sure this piece was in the right place in the puzzle. He went on to say this area is developmentally sensitive and the proposed entrance would drive the development of the other parcels. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Nay Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 245 Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Nay Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Nay Gary A. Lofton Aye PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — CHAPTER 161 SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, WATER AND SEWERS — REVISIONS AND UPDATES TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE RELATING TO SEWAGE SYSTEMS AND WASTEWATER DISCHARGE. THIS REVISION CONTAINS NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS, LICENSE REQUIREMENTS, REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMANENT PUMP AND HAULS, REPLACEMENT OR REPAIR OF ONSITE SYSTEMS, MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS, AND REVISIONS TO THE VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES. — POSTPONED FOR 30 DAYS Senior Planner Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She advised this was a revision to Chapter 161 (Sewage Disposal Systems, Water and Sewers) to address the recommendations contained in the Rural Areas Report, as well as to update various portion of this chapter. The proposed changes include: • Complete revision of Article I (Septic Tanks) o Broken up into two articles; new purpose section and definitions section created and placed in Article I. o Revised section regarding when a permit is required by the Health Department. o Requirements of onsite sewage systems — prohibits the use of conditional approvals, discharging systems, and requires a 100% reserve drainfield area. • License Requirements — new section would require anyone installing or repairing systems or hauling sewage to obtain an Installation License or Septic Haulers Permit from Frederick County. • Permanent pump and haul systems — new section that states the Board of Supervisors may issue pump and haul permits based on specific criteria and requires that these systems be inspected. • Replacement or repair of onsite systems — requires property owners within 300 feet of a public or private sewer system to connect to that system when their system ceases to operate in a sanitary manner or requires major alterations. • Maintenance requirements for alternative onsite sewage systems — new section that requires maintenance for alternative systems. New requirement for agreements to be executed between the property owner and the Health Department. This section outlines inspection requirements, requirements that the inspection reports be provided to the Health Department, modification procedures and a noncompliance statement. • Revisions to the Violations and Penalties section (Article III) o New Article IV entitled Enforcement, Violations and Penalties. o Institutes civil penalties for violations of the maintenance requirements for alternative systems. She concluded by saying the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments. Supervisor DeHaven asked when a person would be required to connect to a private system. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 246 Senior Planner Perkins responded that if a connection to a private system was not available then the Board could waive that requirement. Supervisor DeHaven suggested changing the language in Section 161 - 201.07 to read "if a private system is available ". He then asked how we would deal with existing vacant structures which have pump and haul permits. Senior Planner Perkins responded the owners would have to re -apply for a pump and haul permit. Planning Director Eric Lawrence clarified that if they have a permit it would be grandfathered, but they would have to comply with these new regulations; however, if a new permit was needed then they would have to go through the new process. Supervisor Dove cited page 6 of the proposed ordinance and asked if the criteria list was needed or would there be other things to be considered besides what was listed. Supervisor Fisher stated the list was good to have, but maybe it should include a caveat regarding a Board of Supervisors exception to pick up those items that might not be listed. Chairman Shickle suggested changing the wording to read "if criteria such as the following exists ". He also suggested that maybe staff could keep a list of criteria, but it would not have to be part of the ordinance. Director Lawrence stated that it was important to have this criteria written into the ordinance. Vice - Chairman Ewing stated that he sort of agreed with Supervisor Dove's comments. Supervisor DeHaven stated that he believed this was a straight forward check list. Supervisor Dove asked if the license requirements on page 5 were new requirements. Senior Planner Perkins responded these were the Health Department's requirements and the County was replicating them in the ordinance. Supervisor Dove responded that this ordinance was huge because of all of the excess verbiage. He cited 161- 201.05 (E) as an example. Chairman Shickle stated there seemed to be more validity to areas where we are permitting the systems versus inspecting, etc. Senior Planner Perkins responded that staff had worked with the Health Department and they wanted to see some replication in the ordinance. Supervisor Dove responded that he could not support it. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 247 Supervisor Fisher asked whether the County or Health Department would "have the most teeth" with regard to enforcement. Senior Planner Perkins responded this ordinance was stronger than the existing and previous ordinance regarding the civil penalties imposed and the inspection requirements. Supervisor Fisher cited the example of a tanker that leaked onto the road and asked who would be in charge of enforcement. Senior Planner Perkins responded the Health Department. Chairman Shickle cited section 161- 401.02, which lists only the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority. He noted the Frederick County Sanitation Authority was not listed and asked if this was an oversight or if the provision was supposed to be that way. Director Lawrence responded that was the current language in the County Code, but the Sanitation Authority could be added now. Vice - Chairman Ewing asked if the Health Department had an established fee schedule for this. Senior Planner Perkins responded that items 1 through 3 on the fee schedule were county fees and item 4 was a Health Department fee. She went on to say the Board would need to adopt the fee schedule also. There being no more questions, Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. Richard Williams, owner of 20 lots in ShawneeLand, addressed the Board regarding this item. He advised the 100% reserve requirement would not work for existing ShawneeLand lots. He stated that some of the lots have 50% reserve areas and they have had no issues. He noted that Fairfax County grandfathered all lots before 2003. He concluded by saying he had several thousand dollars in engineering costs based on a 50% reserve requirement. Mike McIntire, Gainesboro District, addressed the Board regarding this proposal. He stated he was a spec home builder in ShawneeLand and in 23 years of working with the 50% reserve requirement, he has never had a drainfield fail. He noted the 100% reserve requirement knocks out any building in ShawneeLand and Mountain Falls. He concluded by saying the 100% reserve requirement would knock him out of his livelihood. Darren Steinbolt, owner of several lots in Mountain Falls Park, addressed the Board regarding this item. He said his company has contributed $1 million to the local economy over the last four years. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 248 Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Supervisor Dove asked if properties with soil work submitted to the Health Department would be vested. Chairman Shickle asked if by adopting the ordinance the Board would be making these lots unbuildable. Senior Planner Perkins responded that she would have to defer to the Health Department, but some lots would definitely have to be combined. Supervisor Dove stated that he did not believe the intent was to cut out buildable lots, but to look at future lots. Vice - Chairman Ewing stated he felt the same way that the intent was not to impact existing subdivisions. He stated that under this proposal most of ShawneeLand and Mountain Falls would require someone to buy two lots in order to build. He liked the 100% reserve area for future developments. Supervisor Lemieux stated he thought the reserve should be 100% and if the lot had not been perked yet then the owner would have to provide the 100% reserve area. Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Vice - Chairman Ewing, the Board amended the proposed ordinance to allow existing recorded lots to be grandfathered from the 100% reserve requirement. 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 Nay Gary A. Lofton Aye Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board amended the proposed ordinance to remove the following duplicate language and made the following changes: - Page 5, Section 161- 201.04 removed provision B (2); - Page 6, Section 161 - 201.05 (A) add "if criteria such as the following are met: "; and - Page 7, remove Section 161- 201.08. Supervisor DeHaven stated that he thought there was a real customer service issue here and it would be much clearer if all of the requirements were laid out in one place. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 249 Vice - Chairman Ewing stated that if the Health Department changed their regulations then the Board would have to change its ordinance. Supervisor Lofton stated that he believed the duplicity causes confusion. He went on to say that staff could have the state regulations on hand to assist customers. Supervisor Lemieux agreed with Supervisor DeHaven's thoughts. Supervisor DeHaven stated he was not opposed to some minor changes. Supervisor Lemieux stated he was not against any of the proposed changes or word smithing. 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 Gary A. Lofton Aye Vice - Chairman Ewing asked that staff highlight any duplicate language in the ordinance. The Board directed the County Attorney to review the proposed changes to see if the ordinance must go back through the public hearing process. Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board postponed action on this item for 30 days. 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 Gary A. Lofton Aye PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — CONDITIONAL REZONING — REVISIONS TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE (4165- 102.06) TO REVISE THE REZONING PROCEDURES, ADD A REQUIREMENT FOR THE LEGAL FORM OF PROFFERS AND A REQUIREMENT THAT APPROVED PROFFERS BE RECORDED, AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE ENFORCEMENT STANDARDS. - APPROVED Senior Planner Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She advised that staff prepared a revision to the Zoning Ordinance that contains requirements for the legal form of proffer statements and a requirement that approved proffers be recorded with the Frederick County Clerk of the Circuit Court. The proposed amendment also contains provisions for modifying proffers and revised enforcement standards. She concluded by saying the Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 250 Planning Commission recommended approval. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved the ordinance amending the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article I — General Provisions, Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits Part 102 — Amendments 165- 102.06 — Conditional Rezoning. WHEREAS, an ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits, Part 102 — Amendments, 165 - 102.06 — Conditional Rezoning was considered by the Planning Commission and the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) during their regularly scheduled meetings; and WHEREAS, the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) recommended approval of this amendment on March 19, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on November 4, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on December 9, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the adoption of this ordinance to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in good zoning practice; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits, Part 102 — Amendments, 165 - 102.06 — Conditional Rezoning is revised. This amendment is described on the attachment. ARTICLE I, Part 102 — AMENDMENTS § 165 - 102.06. Conditional rezoning. The applicant for a rezoning may proffer in writing before the public hearing by the Board of Supervisors conditions to be placed on the approval of the rezoning. A. Procedures. Proffers shall be presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the advertised public hearing for the rezoning. The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation on the acceptance of the proffers and the rezoning to the Board of Supervisors following the procedures described for amendments to this chapter. Final - Proffers shall be received in writing, signed by the owner and applicant, at least five (5) days prior to the advertised hearing of the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors may amend proffers once the public hearing has begun, or thereafter, if the amended proffers do not affect the conditions of use or density in such a way as to make the use or density of the property more intense than originally proposed. Once proffered and accepted as part of an amendment to the zonina ordinance, the conditions shall continue in effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning on the property covered by the conditions. However, the conditions shall continue if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised zoning ordinance. B. Proffer Standards. The conditions proffered shall meet the following standards. (1) The rezoning itself must give rise to the need for the conditions. (2) Such conditions shall have a reasonable relation to the rezoning. (3) All conditions shall be in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 251 C. Types of proffers. The types of conditions proffered shall include but need not be limited to the following: (1) Limitation on the use of the land. (2) Limitations on the type of housing provided. (3) Limitations of the size or locations of buildings or structures. (4) Limitations on the density or intensity of the use. (5) Conditions on the appearance or maintenance of structures or uses. (6) Conditions preventing smoke, odors, fumes, dust, noise, traffic congestion or flooding. (7) Conditions or limitations on the location and nature of entrances and driveways. (8) Conditions concerning the number, location and design of parking and loading spaces. (9) Landscaping provisions. (10) Provisions concerning outdoor storage and processing. (11) Building height limitations. (12) Provisions for stormwater management and environmental protection. (13) Preservation and protection provisions for trees, woodland, streams or other natural features. (14) On -site or off -site sewer or water improvements. (15) On -site or off -site drainage improvements. (16) On -site or off -site road, entrance or driveway improvements. (17) A particular master development plan or plan features or site layout features. (18) Preservation of historic structures and sites located on the land to be rezoned. (19) Buffer, screening and separation features. (20) Requirements concerning the phasing or timing of development. (21) The dedication of land for planned roads or for facilities identified in the Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan. (22) The construction of planned roads or necessary road improvements. (23) The construction of facilities identified in the Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan. (24) Cash contributions for road improvements or for planned facilities identified in the Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan. (25) Other conditions used to lessen or mitigate the impacts identified in the impact analysis. D. Legal form of proffer statement. (1) All proffers shall be in writing and shall be in a form suitable for recordation in the land records of Frederick County. (2) The proffer statement shall define the owners of the subject property and shall be signed by all parties involved. E. Recordation of Proffers. if the Frederick County Board of Supervisors approves proffered conditions as part of a rezoning, the Zoning Administrator or County Attorney shall, within ten (10) days of the Board's actions, present the written proffer to the Frederick County Clerk of the Circuit Court for recordation. F.S. Amendment of conditions. Once accepted and adopted by the Board of Supervisors, such conditions may only be changed through the procedures required for ordinance amendments as described by this section. G. €.— Enforcement of conditions. The Zoning Administrator shall keep records of all conditions attached to rezonings, which shall be readily accessible to the public. The Zoning Map shall show by appropriate symbol the existence of conditions accepted for rezonings. In addition, the Zoning Administrator shall maintain a conditional zoning index which shall provide for ready access to the conditions created. F to meet al e ndgtieAs shall c ^s+.+„+^ r e to a^^, the i ssuaRee ^f b ^ ^,;+s The Zoning Administrator shall enforce the conditions attached to the rezoning using the following means: (1) The Zoning Administrator shall be vested with all necessary authority on behalf of the Board of Supervisors to enforce conditions that are attached to a rezoning which have been proffered by an applicant for rezoning and accepted by the Board of Supervisors ( 2 ) The eFdeF O R WF i t i Rg of the remedy ef any neReemplianee with such eenditie The Zoning Administrator may, in exercise of his discretion, issue a violation notice and correction order that orders the remedy of any noncompliance with any such conditions, or bring legal action to ensure compliance including injunction abatement or other appropriate action or proceeding includina the institution of criminal process Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 252 or any combination of the above deemed necessary to obtain compliance. T T„ ncs (3) The requiring of a guaranty, satisfactory to the Board of Supervisors, in an amount sufficient for the construction of any improvements required by the conditions or a contract for the construction of such improvements. The applicant's guaranty shall be reduced or released by the Zoning Administrator upon the completion, in whole or in part, of such improvements. (4) Failure to meet or comply with any such conditions shall be sufficient cause to d the approval of site plans subdivision design plans or the issuance of build permits occupancy permits or other permits or licenses as may be appropriate. This ordinance shall be in effect on the day of adoption. Passed this 9 th day of December, 2009 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 Gary A. Lofton Aye PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — CHAPTER 165, ZONING, ARTICLE IV, PART 401 — RA (RURAL AREAS) DISTRICT; ARTICLE II, PART 204 — ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES; ARTICLE I, PART 101 — DEFINITIONS AND WORD USAGE; AND CHAPTER 144, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE II, DEFINITIONS; AND ARTICLE V, DESIGN STANDARDS. THE AMENDMENT INCLUDES: REVISIONS TO PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN THE RA DISTRICT; REVISIONS TO LOT TYPES AND DEPTH / -WIDTH REQUIREMENTS; REVISIONS TO THE RURAL PRESERVATION SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS; AND INCLUSION OF NEW DEFINITIONS AND PER FORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN USES. - APPROVED Senior Planner Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She advised the proposed amendments would implement the recommendations contained within the Rural Areas Report. This proposal would implement enhancements to the existing Rural Preservation Lot Subdivision requirements. The enhancements include: - Maintain a minimum lot size of two acres. - Increase the preservation lot (cluster set -aside lot) from 40 percent of the parent tract to a minimum 60 percent of the parent tract. - Clarify that the Preservation Tract counts towards the overall density. She went on to say the proposed draft amendment include the following: - Rural preservation tract to be counted toward the permitted residential density of the parent tract. - Increase the rural preservation tract requirement from forty percent to sixty percent. - Reduced lot width for rural preservation lots and exemption for rural preservation lots from the maximum depth requirements. - Elimination of the agricultural lots from the RA District. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 253 - Permitted RA uses — addition of animal husbandry and farm wineries, removal of cottage occupation signs. - Conditional RA uses — addition of Off - premise farm markets; Petting farms; Bed and Breakfasts; Country clubs (with or without banquet facilities); Welding Businesses; and Cottage occupation signs. - Additional standards for farm wineries and welding businesses. - Revisions to the minimum width for rural preservation lots — reduced lot frontage requirement to enhance the rural preservation lot option and minimize road construction. - Revisions to the cul -de -sac length requirements in the Subdivision Ordinance. - New definitions that correspond to the new permitted/conditional uses. She noted the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments with the following suggestions: 1) the preservation tract should be reduced from 60% to 50% and 2) the preservation tract should continue to be a "bonus" lot to encourage use of rural preservation subdivisions. Supervisor Dove referred to page 5, item C under Section 165- 401.06 and asked why agricultural lots were removed from the ordinance and if this was discussed by the Rural Areas Subcommittee. Chairman Shickle responded yes that recommendation came from the committee. Supervisor Dove referred to Section 165- 401.08 A (1) a, and asked if 50 feet was correct. Senior Planner Perkins responded yes. Supervisor Lofton asked if Section 165- 401.03 C under Conditional Uses applied to businesses only and not to individual farmers. Senior Planner Perkins responded that was correct. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. Greg Hewitt, Stonewall District, stated he would like to see the bonus lot put back in. He felt the increase from 40% to 60% for the preservation lot was "pretty steep ", but he could live with 50 %. He concluded by asking the Board to amend those two areas of the ordinance. Paul Anderson, Back Creek District and Frederick County Farm Bureau, stated he was concerned about conditional uses and wanted to make sure that anything permitted on a farm did not need a conditional use permit. He noted the Farm Bureau had no problem with the 60% set aside. He concluded by saying there was no way, under this proposal, that anyone could do 19 houses on 100 acres with roads, etc. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 25 Patrick Sowers, Patton Harris Rust and Associates, stated he had no issues with the proposed modification, but he was concerned about the implementation. He noted that under the current proposal sketch plans are not vested unless the preservation lot has been platted. He stated his client's project has received approval for road design and is awaiting Health Department approval. He concluded by asking the Board to consider providing a 90 day grace period for projects with approved sketch plans. Ron Mislowsky, Patton Harris Rust and Associates, noted during the last General Assembly session, vesting for plats was increased from five to ten years. He stated the Board should recognize what the state did and the current impact of the economy on development by grandfathering approved sketch plans. Mike McIntire, Gainesboro District, stated that in western Frederick County it was almost impossible to create two acre tracts due to the topography of the area. He felt the preservation lot should be kept at 40 %. There being no further public comments, Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. He then suggested the Board approach consideration of this item in three pieces: 1. The amendment. 2. Changes to Chapters 144 and 165. 3. Implementation. Supervisor Lofton asked why there were restrictions on welding repair. Senior Planner Perkins stated this started as a request for inclusion in the ordinance and staff felt it was good to include it in this area. She noted that hours of operation were added to cover all welding businesses versus dealing with them on a case by case basis. Planning Director Eric Lawrence noted the applicant /requestor provided staff with that condition. Chairman Shickle asked if a farmer who manufactures feed needs to get a conditional use permit to sell it. Senior Planner Perkins responded no. He then asked if a farmer who grows and packs his/her own produce would need a conditional use permit. Senior Planner Perkins responded no. He then asked about a farm market. Senior Planner Perkins responded if the market was on the property then it would be by- Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 255 right, but if it was an off -site market then they would need a conditional use permit. Chairman Shickle asked about a sawmill or planing mill for a farm required a conditional use permit. Senior Planner Perkins responded no. He then asked about nursery stock. Senior Planner Perkins responded no. Supervisor Lofton asked if a farmer could seek feed from another farm if they needed produce to sell. Senior Planner Perkins responded a farmer could supplement his produce inventory as long as the primary products come for the main farm. Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board approved the ordinance amending the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV — Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401 — RA Rural Areas District, 165 - 401.01 — Purpose and Intent, 165- 401.02 — Permitted Uses, 165- 401.03 — Conditional Uses, 165- 401.04 — Permitted Residential Density; Exception, 165- 401.06 — Permitted Lot Sizes, 165- 401.08 — Minimum Width; Maximum Depth, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article II — Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers, and Regulations for Specific Uses; Part 204 — Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, 165- 204.22 — Farm Wineries, 165- 204.23 — Welding Repair (SIC 7692), Chapter 165, Zoning, Article I — General Provisions, Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 — General Provisions, 165- 101.02 — Definitions and Word Usage; Chapter 144, Subdivisions of Land, Article II — Definitions, 144.2 — Definitions and Word Usage; Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article V — Design Standards, 144.17 - Streets, 144.31 — Rural Subdivisions. Supervisor DeHaven stated preservation lot change used to give a building right, but the Committee recommended elimination of that right. He suggested that it be reconsidered by the Board because he viewed it as an incentive. He then moved to amend the original motion to include the preservation lot as a building lot. The motion dies due to a lack of a second. WHEREAS, An ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning, and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, as outlined above, was considered by the Planning Commission and the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) during their regularly scheduled meetings; and WHEREAS, The Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) recommended approval of this amendment on August 27, 2009; and Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 256 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on, December 2, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on December 9, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the adoption of this ordinance to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in good zoning practice; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401 — RA Rural Areas District, 165- 401.01 — Purpose and Intent; 165- 401.02 Permitted Uses; 165- 401.03 — Conditional Uses; 165- 401.04 — Permitted Residential Density; Exception; 165 - 401.06 Permitted Lot Sizes; and 165 - 401.08 — Minimum Width; Maximum Depth; and Chapter 165, Zoning, Article II Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers, and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204 — Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, 165- 204.22 Farm Wineries; and 165- 204.23 — Welding Repair (SIC 7692); and Chapter 165, Zoning, Article I General Provisions, Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 — General Provisions, 165- 101.02 — Definitions and Word Usage; and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article II — Definitions, 144 -2 — Definitions and Work Usage; and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article V Design Standards, 144.17 Streets; and 144.31 Rural Subdivisions are revised. These amendments are amended as described on the attachment. Chapter 165, ZONING ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Part 401— RA Rural Areas District § 165 - 401.01. Purpose and intent. A. The purpose of the rural area regulations is to preserve large, open parcels of land, tree cover, scenic views, sensitive environmental areas and prime agricultural and locally significant soils. The regulations provide for a variation in lot size, at a density not to exceed one unit per five acres. The varying lot size is permitted in order to facilitate designs that blend in with the existing landscape and preserve some larger tracts of undeveloped land in order to maintain the rural character of the County, as well as provide a choice to home buyers. B. The regulations are intended to reduce environmental impacts, such as soil erosion, by requiring development which is sensitive to the existing features of the natural terrain and by reducing the amount of clearing needed for roads. Diversity and originality in lot layout are encouraged in order to achieve the best possible relationship between the development and the land. Individual lots and streets should be designed to minimize alteration of the natural site features, relate positively to surrounding properties and protect the views from surrounding areas. It is intended that by allowing flexibility in the subdivision design, while at the same time requiring that environmental concerns be addressed, a more attractive, environmentally sound and economically viable development will result. § 165 - 401.02. Permitted uses. Structures and land shall be used for one of the following uses: A. Agriculture, farming, dairies, animal husbandry, and forestry. B. Orchards, horticulture and the production of nursery stock and products. C. Single- family dwellings. D. Mobile homes. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 1 257 E. Schools (without residential component). F. Public parks and playgrounds. G. Churches. H. Home occupations (as defined). I. Natural conservation areas. J. Winchester Airport. K. Group homes L. Fire stations, companies and rescue squads. M. Frederick County sanitary landfill. N. Commercial and institutional cemeteries with or without funeral homes or cemetery office complexes. O. Post offices. P. Radio and television towers and their accessory buildings Q. Public utility generating, booster or relay stations, transformer substations, transmission lines and towers, pipes, meters and other facilities, railroad facilities and sewer and water facilities and lines owned by public utilities, railroad companies or public agencies. R. Required off - street parking. S. Oil and natural gas exploration, provided that the following requirements are met: (1) All requirements of the Code of Virginia, as amended, and all applicable federal, state and local regulations shall be met. (2) A site plan shall be reviewed and approved meeting all requirements of the Frederick County Code. (3) Approval of the site plan and use shall be for 90 days, with subsequent renewals being approved by the Planning Commission. (4) In order to begin extraction of the resources, a rezoning to the EM Extractive Manufacturing Zoning District will be required. T. Museums, parks or historic sites used for educational or historic preservation purposes. U. Business signs. V. Signs allowed in § 165- 201.06B. W. Cottage eeeupatien sigf}s. W. Accessory uses. X. Poultry farms and hatcheries and egg production. Y. Fish hatcheries and fish production. Z. Hog farming. It shall be unlawful for any person to have or maintain or to permit to be erected, in the County, any hog pen that is located closer than 200 feet to a residence or an adjoining property that is used for human habitation. AA. Local government services office. BB. Residential subdivision identification signs. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 258 CC. Farm Wineries § 165 - 401.03. Conditional uses. The following uses of structures and land shall be allowed only if a conditional use permit has been granted for the use: A. r Bed and Breakfasts. B. �,aed)2 Country clubs with or without banquet facilities. C. ' )3 Manufacture or sale of feed and other farm supplies and equipment. D. Fruit packing plants. E. Manufa -er sale ef feed and etheF faFFA supplies and eqW - Off - premise farm markets. F. Off - premises wayside stands. G. Country general stores. H. Service stations. I. Antique shops. J. Restaurants. K. Kennels. L. Pettina farms. M. Television or radio stations. Ali- N. Motels. {-.0. Auction houses. 9: P. Campgrounds, tourist camps, recreation areas and resorts. Q Commercial outdoor recreation, athletic or park facilities. 4: R. Nationally chartered fraternal lodges or civic clubs, social centers and their related facilities. S. Sawmills and planing mills, Type B. & T. Ambulance services. T-U. Retailing or wholesaling of nursery stock and related products. U V. Landscape contracting businesses. V-. W. Public garages without body repair, provided that the following conditions are met: (1) All repair work shall take place entirely within an enclosed structure. (2) All exterior storage of parts and equipment shall be screened from the view of surrounding properties by an opaque fence or screen at least five six feet in height. This fence or screen shall be adequately maintained. WL. X. Public garages with body repair, provided that the following conditions are met: (1) All repair work shall take place entirely within an enclosed structure. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 259 (2) All exterior storage of parts and equipment shall be screened from the view of surrounding properties by an opaque fence or screen at least five six feet in height. This fence or screen shall be adequately maintained. Y. Sand, shale and clay mining, provided that the following conditions are met: (1) All mining shall be above the mean, existing grade level of a parcel of land. (2) All mining operations shall meet all applicable requirements of state and federal agencies. (3) Such mining operations shall meet the landscaping and screening requirements, supplementary regulations, height, area and bulk regulations and site plan requirements contained in the EM Extractive Manufacturing District regulations. Z. Cottage occupations (as defined). AA. Cottage occupation signs. BB. Veterinary office, clinic or hospital, including livestock services. AA- CC. Day -care facilities 99-. DD. Humanitarian aid organizational office. 6E. EE. Schools (with residential component). 84)-. FF. Fruit and vegetable stands (SIC 5431). €€r GG. Blacksmith shops (SIC 7699). fi;� HH. Farriers (SIC 7699). 66.11. Horseshoeing (SIC 7699). H*JJ. Taxidermists (SIC 7699). KK. Welding Repair (SIC 7692). § 165 - 401.04. Permitted residential density; exception. A. The maximum density permitted on any parcel or group of parcels shall not exceed the equivalent of one unit per five acres as determined by the size of the parent tract as it existed on . December 11, 1991. B. Exception to permitted density. On lots containing between seven and ten -acres which were lots of record prior to December 11, 1991, lots of two or more acres may be created despite the density limit of one unit per five acres, provided that they meet the requirements of § 165- 401.06B of this chapter. . § 165 - 401.06. Permitted lot sizes. The following types of lots shall be permitted: A. Traditional five acre lots. On any parcel, lots of five acres in size or greater shall be permitted. B. Family division lots. On any parcel which contained seven acres or more prior to the adoption of th ar`t December 11, 1991, lots as small as two acres may be created, provided that the following conditions are met: (1) Lots are conveyed to members of the immediate family of the owner of record of the parent tract. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 (2) Only one such lot shall be permitted per immediate family member. (3) One parcel of at least five acres in size shall remain intact following the division. (4) The creation of all such lots shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Frederick County Subdivision Chapter and § 15.2 -2244 of the Code of Virginia. puFlaoses, as defined by this ehapteF, pFey*-ded that the PaFeels eFeated qualify feF land U- t. C. Rural preservation lots. (1) Within the RA Rural Areas District, lots as small as two acres shall be permitted on tracts over 20 acres in size, subject to the following: (a.) y Sixty percent or more of the parent tract shall remain intact as a contiguous parcel (Rural Preservation Tract). (b.) This acreage must be designated prior to the division of the fourth lot. (c.) No future division of this designated Rural Preservation Tract shall be permitted. (2) Exception to the Rural Preservation Tract. In cases where excessive topography or other natural features of a site create a situation where a higher quality subdivision design, resulting in less physical and /or visual disruption could be achieved by allowing two residual parcels to be created, the Planning Commission may permit the 49 to be made up of two parcels. § 165 - 401.08. Minimum width; maximum depth. A. Minimum width. tuFnaFeund ef a eul de sac, whieh shall have a Fninifflu-M %vid-th at setbaek of 100 feet. The fer all ether lets shall he 250 feet at the freet setback line 1) Minimum width for rural preservation lots: a) Lots fronting on roads proposed for dedication: 50 feet at the front setback line. b) Lots fronting on the turnaround of a cul -de -sac for roads proposed for dedication: 50 feet at the front setback line. c) Lots fronting on existing state roads: 250 feet at the front setback line. 2) Minimum width for all other lots: 250 feet at the front setback line. B. Maximum depth. The max depth of any lot shall RA-t P-mr--p-p-d- 49 1 61F t its width At thP fre.,t ;„tha I'.,e 1) Within subdivisions utilizing rural preservation lots, the sixty- percent parcel (Rural Preservation Tract) shall be exempt from the maximum depth requirement. 2) Depth /Width Ratio at the front setback line: 5:1 maximum. Article II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES Part 204 — Additional Regulations for Specific Uses § 165 - 204.22. Farm Wineries. Farm Wineries in the RA (Rural Areas) District, shall meet the following requirements: A. The following shall be considered by -right accessory uses at farm wineries: (1) The production and harvesting of fruit and other agricultural products; (2) The manufacturing of wine; Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 261 (3) The storage and sale of wine produced by the winery, including retail sales, direct sales and shipment, as well as wholesaling; (4) The provision for on -site winery tours; (5) The incidental retail of wine - related items; and (6) Wine tasting. B. Special events shall be permitted only on farm wineries of ten acres or larger. Special events for the Purposes of this section shall include but are not limited to meetings, conferences, dinners, and wedding receptions. Any event at which more than 150 people are anticipated will require a festival permit. A site plan in accordance with the requirements of Article Vlll shall be submitted to and approved by Frederick County. § 165- 204.23. Welding Repair (SIC 7692). A. Welding repair operations in the RA (Rural Areas) District, shall meet the following requirements: (1) Hours of operation shall not exceed 7:00am- 7:00pm, Monday- Saturday. (2) Total building area shall not exceed 7,500 square feet. (3) All outdoor storage or repair areas shall be screened by a six foot board -on -board fence, evergreen screen or berm. (4) The Planning Commission may require buffer and screening elements and /or distance when deemed necessary to protect existing adiacent uses. B. A site plan in accordance with the requirements of Article Vlll shall be submitted to and approved by Frederick County. ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Part 101— General Provisions § 165 - 101.02. Definitions and word usage. BED AND BREAKFAST— An owner or operator- occupied single- family detached dwelling unit which contains no more than one (1) kitchen and ten (10) or fewer quest rooms which are occupied for sleeping Purposes by quests, other than temporary personal quests of a family in a dwelling unit, for compensation with or without meals. A Bed and Breakfast may include banquet /event facilities for private parties as an accessory use. COUNTRY CLUB — A land area and buildings containing recreational facilities, club house and usual accessory uses, primarily open to members and their quests for a membership fee or daily fee; may include but are not limited to swimming pools, tennis courts, golf courses, stables and riding facilities. FARMER'S MARKET — Retail of fresh fruit and vegetables, and other food and related items, horticultural products and livestock at a facility with space occupied by one or several different tenants on a short term or daily basis; may be indoor or outdoor, this term does not include wayside stands, roadside stands or wayside markets. FARM WINERY —An establishment (i) located on a farm in the Commonwealth with a producing vineyard orchard, or similar growing area and with facilities for fermenting and bottling wine on the premises where the owner or lessee manufactures wine that contains not more than 18 percent alcohol by volume or (ii) located in the Commonwealth with a producing vineyard, orchard, or similar growing area or agreements for purchasing grapes or other fruits from agricultural growers within the Commonwealth, and with facilities for fermenting and bottling wine on the premises where the owner or lessee manufactures wine that contains not more than 18 percent alcohol by volume. A minimum of 51 percent of the fresh fruits or agricultural products used at the winery for the production of wine shall be grown or produced on the farm and no more than 25 percent of the fruits, fruit iuices or other agricultural products may be grown outside of the Commonwealth. Accessory uses shall include wine tasting rooms, accessory food sales related to wine tasting, and the sale of wines produced on site. Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land ARTICLE II Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 262 Definitions § 144 -2. Definitions and word usage. SUBDIVISION, MAJOR RURAL — Any subdivision resulting in the cumulative total of four or more traditional five acre lots, family division lots, or rural preservation lots from a single parcel in the RA Rural Area District. SUBDIVISION, MINOR RURAL — Any subdivision resulting in the cumulative total of three or fewer traditional five acre lots, family division lots, a ieWKWFal ' or rural preservation lots from a single parcel in the RA Rural Area District. Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land ARTICLE V Design Standards § 144.17. Streets. G. Culs -de -sac. (1) Culs -de -sac, permanently designed as such, shall not exceed 1,000 feet in length unless required by the Virginia Department of Transportation standards for connectivity. The Planning Commission may waive this requirement in cases where extreme topography or other factors make it impractical. In no case shall the street -serve more than 25 lots. The turnaround provided shall have a right -of -way radius of not less than 50 feet and a paved radius of not less than 45 feet. Loop streets are preferred to culs -de -sac, where possible. (2) Any street dead -ended for access to an adjoining property or because of approved stage development, which is over 200 feet in length, shall be provided with a temporary, all - weather, fifty -foot turnaround. The plan shall note that the land outside of the normal street right -of -way shall revert to the adjoining landowners whenever the street is continued. Temporary cul -de -sac used to accommodate approved phasing or to provide access to adjoining properties shall not be restricted in length to the one - thousand -foot requirement for culs -de -sac. The length of temporary culs -de -sac shall not exceed the length specified by the phasing plan on an approved master development plan. § 144.31. Rural subdivisions. The requirements of this section shall apply to all subdivisions of land zoned RA (Rural Areas) under Article IV of Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code. B. Major rural subdivisions. (1) Any subdivision which results in a cumulative total of more than three lots being divided from a single parent parcel within the RA (Rural Areas) Zone shall be considered a major rural subdivision. Lots described in § 165- 401.06B, Family division lots ^�5- of Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code, shall not count toward this three -lot limit. Prior to review and approval of final plats for such divisions, a preliminary sketch plan must be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. (2) Access. All roads serving lots within a major rural subdivision shall be built to the TertiaFy— Subdivision Street Acceptance Standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation and dedicated to Frederick County for eventual acceptance into the state secondary road system. C. Minor rural subdivisions. (1) The division of the following types of lots are permitted under the regulations for minor rural subdivision: (a) Lots described by § 165- 401.06B, Family division lots and § !65 ^n, 06c of Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 263 This ordinance shall be in effect on the day of adoption. Passed this 9th day of December, 2009 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 Gary A. Lofton Aye The Board then discussed the implementation of the ordinance. Supervisor Fisher asked how many plans have been approved or accepted. Director Lawrence responded that 20 sketch plans have been approved over the last 10 years, but none of them have been platted. He noted that only one project has contacted his department but they did not meet the deadline. He concluded by saying he was not aware of others putting together plans. Senior Planner Perkins advised that sketch plans are only reviewed for compliance and do not contain any detailed information regarding the subdivision. Supervisor Dove asked if it was the Board's intent not to allow those projects going through the process not to be grandfathered. Chairman Shickle stated he would like to know the downside of not grandfathering proj ects. Director Lawrence advised the County has only accepted fees to review sketch plans since 1992. He went on to say it was made clear during the subcommittee discussions that a sketch plan did not vest a project. Administrator Riley suggested implementing an effective date of March 9, 2010, which would accommodate the applicant who was currently in the process. A discussion followed regarding whether or not an applicant needed to record the preservation lot and /or plat the entire subdivision. Director Lawrence stated that at a minimum he felt an applicant needed to record the preservation lot. Administrator Riley advised if the Board chose that path then the applicant would not have to deal with bonding issues, etc. that go with recording an entire subdivision. Supervisor Dove stated that was not the intent of the Board based on the committee meetings. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 264 Chairman Shickle stated he was not interested in applications which had not paid a fee, but he wanted to ensure those applicants who had expended money were addressed. Supervisor Fisher suggested grandfathering only those applicants who had paid a fee. Director Lawrence advised that for the last year and a half applicants have been told they must record the preservation lot in order to be vested. He went on to say recording the preservation parcel showed the applicant was paying attention to the process and was making a commitment to their plan. Supervisor DeHaven stated the County has 10 plus years of vested rights policy, which it has applied. Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board approved immediate implementation of this policy and that properties which have completed the sketch plan review process be grandfathered. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Bill M. Ewing Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Gary W. Dove Gene E. Fisher Philip A. Lemieux Gary A. Lofton Aye Aye Nay Aye Aye Aye Aye Supervisor DeHaven asked that a letter from Arcadia Building Company, which had been placed at the Boards' seats be made part of the record. "To Whom It May Concern: I offer the following comments on the proposed amendment before you this evening and respectfully request these comments are made part of the record. The following comments are made on the behalf of Pepper Lane Monterey Road, LLC and Pepper Lane Land Acquisition, LL C, who is the owner of the CRS Property (PIN 86 -A -156, 86 -A -171, 86 -A -178, 86- A -178A, 87- A -1, and 86- A -IA). 1.) 165 - 401.04.E — Permitted residential density exception. Removal of the preservation lot as a "bonus " lot will discourage the use of rural preservation subdivisions. We ask that you consider leaving the text as currently drafted in the existing ordinance to encourage the use of cluster subdivisions. 2.) 165 - 401.06 C- Rural preservation lots — The change from the existing forty percent requirement to the proposed sixty percent will not allow properties to achieve the density of one unit per five acres which will discourage the use of the rural preservation subdivision option. While we appreciate and commend the desire to require additional preservation areas, we ask you consider changing the requirement to fifty percent of the parent tract. If the sixty percent preservation area is desired please consider smaller minimum lot sizes. This would preserve the greatest amount of acreage to maintain the rural character of the County and provide the greatest amount of acreage to maintain the rural character of the County and provide the greatest amount of incentive for subdividers to use the rural preservation subdivision option. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 265 You consideration of the above comments is appreciated. Sincerely, ARCADIA BUILDING COMPANY /s/ Carla E. Coffey Carla E. Coffey Director of Planning & Engineering" OTHER PLANNING ITEMS REVISED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — DOG TRAINING FACILITIES, OPERATED INDOORS IN THE M1 DISTRICT - DENIED Senior Planner Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She advised the Board held a public hearing on this ordinance amendment at their November 18, 2009 meeting, but could not support the proposed amendment for Commercial Recreation Operated Indoor in the M1 District, as it was written. She went on to say staff has revised the amendments to show only Dog Training Facilities, Operated Indoors as a permitted use in the M1 Zoning District. She stated the revised ordinance contains standards that address, patron parking, and safety, along with regulations when this use is developed in a master - planned industrial parks. She also noted the previously included definition has been removed. Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Dove, the Board denied the ordinance amending the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI — Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 606 — M1 Light Industrial District, 165- 606.02 — Allowable Uses; Chapter 165, Zoning, Article II — Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204 — Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, 165- 204.24 — Dog Training Facilities, Operated Indoors. Supervisor Fisher stated this use was not appropriate in the M1 District. He went on to say there were business people who had made significant investments in current zoning districts where this use is permitted. 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 Gary A. Lofton Aye SUBDIVISION WAIVER REQUEST #05 -09 OF WINCHESTER METALS, INC. — APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 266 This was a request to subdivide 15.828 acres into two parcels of 5.7599 acres and 10.0677 acres for manufacturing use. Both parcels are zoned Ml (Light Industrial). The property is located on the southwest side of Ebert Road (Route 837), approximately 0.1 mile northwest of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Ebert Road. This item was approved under the consent agenda. DISCUSSION OF TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) ORDINANCE — (RESOLUTION #042 -09) - NO ACTION TAKEN Senior Planner Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She advised this was a draft Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance, which was a recommendation contained within the Rural Areas Report and Recommendations. The ordinance will consist of three parts that will regulate the program: - Sending Properties — parcels located in the Rural Areas Zoning District, outside of the Urban Development Area and Sewer and Water Service Area, twenty acres in size or greater, and subdividable in accordance with Chapter 144 — Subdivision of Land. - Receiving Properties — parcels located within the Urban Development Area (designated for residential land uses) or a designated and defined Rural Community Center, that the parcels be of the correct zoning district (RA, RP, R4), served by public water and public sewer, served by state roads, not impact historical resources, and be outside of the Airport Support Area. - Certification Process — the certification process would involve the applicant providing the County with outlined information (such as application, title report, plats). The County would then provide the applicant with a certification letter outlining how many density rights the property may transfer. Senior Planner Perkins concluded by saying staff was only seeking comments from the Board. Supervisor DeHaven asked why the new Traditional Neighborhood Design District is not a receiving district. Senior Planner Perkins responded that the district has not been developed yet. Supervisor DeHaven again asked why it was not included. Senior Planner Perkins responded that district already had an increased density of its Supervisor DeHaven asked how the County would deal with roll back taxes, because he had not heard that discussed up to this point. Director Lawrence advised staff has had brief conversations with the Commissioner of the Revenue, but they would investigate further and report back. Supervisor Fisher stated he was interested in finding out if land use applied to the sending parcel permanently since it could not be developed. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 267 Chairman Shickle asked if a land owner sold some of their development rights would the parcel then have to be subdivided. Senior Planner Perkins responded no. She went on to say paperwork would be filed to determine the number of development rights left. Chairman Shickle said staff did a lot of hard work on this item. He went on to say he was anxious to see how many changes get proposed. ROAD RESOLUTION — (RESOLUTION #043 -09) - WHITES MILL SUBDIVISION — APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Form AM -4.3, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats described in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on June 9, 1993, for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition; and WHEREAS, this Board assumes total responsibility for all cost and expense incurred to correct faulty workmanship or materials identified by VDOT and associated with the construction of one or more of the roads and/or related drainage facilities described on the attached AM -4.3 for a period of one calendar year after the date of the legal acceptance of the referenced roads into the secondary system of state highways. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described in the attached Form AM -4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 33.1 -229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of- way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. This item was approved under the consent agenda. BOARD LIAISON REPORTS There were no Board liaison reports. CITIZEN COMMENTS Sortis Pappas, Gainesboro District, addressed the Board regarding the PATH power line. He noted that today the SCC staff recommended denial of the PATH application. He advised that Mr. Williams was the only County representative at the SCC hearing held in Lovettsville, VA. He asked why no supervisors spoke at the Lovettsville hearing. He concluded by saying the community lacks the Supervisors' leadership. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 •WE i BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Supervisor Lemieux advised this was his last meeting and he thanked the citizens of the Red Bud District for their confidence in electing him, Mr. Riley and his staff for answering his questions, and the other six board members who helped guide him through some difficult times. He thanked his family for putting up with many late nights. He concluded by saying it was an honor to serve the county. Administrator Riley asked Supervisor Lemieux to join him at the podium and presented him with a painting as a memento of his service on the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor DeHaven asked the Board to include the following letter from L. Linwood DeHaven, Star Fort resident, in the record: December 9, 2009 TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors Subject: STAR FORT I would like to begin by saying `amen' to D.S. Braden's letter to Delegate Sherwood and it's publication in December 7, 2009 issue of the Winchester Star. I readily admit that ignorance of the law is no excuse; however it makes me wonder how many homeowners of Star Fort Sub - division are in the dark as I am and felt they would be TAXED for up -keep and maintenance of STAR FORT. Incidentally my deed shows me as being situate in Gainesboro District, however my voting privileges are in Stonewall District. What is wrong with that picture ? ?? Did someone in Frederick Co. make an error ? ? ?? My deed makes reference to a `deed of dedication' (it was not attached to my deed) and 1 did not bother to look up and was unaware of what it contained until receiving the packet from Frederick County, Va. in early July 2008. Prior to this I had been verbally advised that a home - owners association existed that we would be expected to pay DUES for BENEFIT of the Star Fort Sub - division property owners, however I was never contacted by anyone attempting to collect these dues in the 9 plus years I have lived in Star Fort Sub - division until receipt of a letter dated June 26, 2008 from Mr. John R. Riley, Jr., Frederick County Administrator indicating a declaratory judgment action was being filed asking the Court to authorize Frederick County to take over annual collection of assessments ('faxes) mandated by a 1994 Master Development Plan for the Star Fort Sub- division. Does Frederick County administer the operation of the other Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation owned properties ? ?? Does Frederick County taxes support in any manner other battlefield foundations and if so are only those adjoining property owners taxed ? ? ?? Is it not reasonable to expect that the SVBF could collect this tax more economically than the County ? ?? In a recent editorial in the Winchester Star, Mr. Riley was quoted as saying `the assessments (TAXES) collected will be used solely for the reclamation and interpretive work the SVBF wants to do at Star Fort'!!! Does this mean that Frederick County will not be collecting any administrative fee for collection of these TAXES ? ? ?? I personally have seen no efforts of reclamation to the Fort (a woven wire fence around the fort does not appear to me as maintenance or reclamation since we as property owners in this sub- division are not allowed this type of fence)!!! The area is now posted as PRIVATE PROPERTY & we as property owners are expected to pay TAXES to something that we do not own ? ? ?? If it is indeed a public entity why are only the property owners of Star Fort Sub - division expected to pay TAXES rather than all Frederick County property owners ? ? ?? The FORT is posted with NO Trespassing signs ? ? ?? It appears the Star Fort Sub - division property owners are being TAXED for either private property or public property to which we do NOT have access!!!. At the very least it is an unfair TAX bordering on an illegal TAX and as I request of Mr. Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. at the meeting of November 17` 2009 to take this back to the Board of Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09 269 Supervisors and earnestly urge the Board to have the Star Fort portion of our tax bill removed. I was told `we don't do things this way'. At a recent meeting Chairman Shickle responded to a citizen's comments that her questions would be answered since they were in written form. I trust that I will have the courtesy of a reply. In a phone conversation this date with Mr. Jay Tibbs he advised this would be recorded and included in the minutes of your meeting. L. Linwood DeHaven Star Fort Sub - division resident" Supervisor Fisher wished the citizens of Frederick County a Merry Christmas. Vice - Chairman Ewing echoed Supervisor Fisher's wishes. Supervisor Dove thanked Supervisor Lemieux for his hard work and stated it was enjoyable working with him. Supervisor Lofton advised the selection committee made the right choice four years ago when they were selecting a candidate for the Red Bud District. He stated Supervisor Lemieux had done an excellent job. Chairman Shickle stated the Red Bud District had been served well. ADJOURN UPON A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR DOVE, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR FISHER, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. (10:00 P.M.) Richard C. Shickle Chairman, Board of Supervisors R. Riley, Jr. Jerk, Board of Supervisors Minutes Prepared By: Jay R. Tibbs Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 12/09/09