Loading...
April 28 2010 Regular Meeting415 A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Wednesday, April 28, 2010, at 7:15 P.M., Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Vice - Chairman Bill M. Ewing; Christopher E. Collins; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.; Gary W. Dove; Gene E. Fisher; and Gary A. Lofton. CALL TO ORDER Chairman's Shickle called the meeting to order. INVOCATION Reverend Phil Roby, Amazing Grace Fellowship 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 he had no additions or changes to the agenda. Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved the agenda by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED Administrator Riley offered the following item for the Board's consideration under the consent agenda, Road Resolution — Babb's Creek Estates — Tab N. Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved the consent agenda by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye CITIZEN COMMENTS Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 416 Robert Carpenter, Gainesboro District, addressed for Board regarding the variance request to be considered later in the meeting. He advised this variance was being requested to create a lot for use as a water tower storage site. He noted he was approached a number of months ago about using his property. He went on to say the site was wooded and the proper elevation. He advised that he had been working with the developer and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority to select appropriate colors and screening in order to make the tank blend into the area. He noted that most of the issues raised by the Planning Commission will be dealt with at the site plan stage. He concluded by asking the Board to consider this favorable request. Harriett Larsen, Gainesboro District, read the following statement regarding the proposed water tank on Skyview Lane: "1 think I can understand how Greenway Engineering came to pick this spot. They probably looked up and saw this secluded forest up at a certain elevation and a quiet lane leading up to it and thought that this would be an out of the way place to hide the water tank, where it wouldn't be visible to the Lutheran Home and the Silver Lake development it is meant to serve, and they wouldn't have to build a road, they could just use this little one and pave over it. They probably thought that the small homeowners wouldn't object and, if they did object, they wouldn't protest or their voices could be drowned out. I appreciate that the county is happy to have the development of the Lutheran Home and Silver Lake as it will probably bring a lot of taxes, etc., to the county. Greenway Engineering has stated that putting the tank in this proposed spot is for the good of the Round Hill Community. However, it is definitely not good for the existing community but only for a future one. I think the Board of Supervisors has an important responsibility to protect the small property owner as well. There are simply too many violations of statutes in this proposal, only some of which are addressed by a request for a variance. For instance, the height of the water tank is greater than that allowed by law (the ordinance says the height of the structure cannot exceed 35 feet and this would be 42 feet high). Skyview Lane is a privately owned lane. It is a one lane LANE, not a road, and is less than the 50 foot road required by the ordinance. The Carpenters have no prescriptive easement for access to the road. The two sides of the proposed tank property should have setbacks of 100 feet instead of 20 or 25 and so would be much closer to the two sides of our property than is required by ordinance. The tank would sit on. 763 acres versus the 5 acres required by ordinance. One reason that there are so many variance requests, which don't even address all the deviations from ordinance, is that the tank just doesn't belong and doesn't fit in a rural area. It is being squeezed in, to the detriment of the neighbors. The development does not have to have it on their property to decrease their property values — they want it on ours. There seems to be a trend lately for government to take away the rights of the individual and 1 respectfully ask the Board of Supervisors to honor the opposition by the Campbells, the Drivers, the Haines, Cris Dawson, the Robares, and us the Larsens and ask Greenway Engineering to find another spot, preferably on the other side of the road. " Laura Campbell, Gainesboro District, read the following letter to the Board: "Dear Mr. Shickle and Members of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors: We are the owners of 479 Poorhouse Road, Winchester, VA, which is the property located just below the proposed water tank on Round Hill. We oppose the granting of the requested variances and the establishment of this subdivision which is to be considered at your meeting on April 28, 2010. Our property consists of 2 acres of rural property and contains a three bedroom home. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 417 The 1 million gallon water tank will be clearly visible from our house and back yard with or without a screen of trees. We will be able to view all 41 feet of it. We have been approached by the Mr. Wilkins, to grant access to the property through our property via a private road, including restrictions placed on what we can do with a portion of our property, and grant placement of a water pipe on our property. This was done just prior to the Planning Commission meeting, and little information and no discussions or offers having been made other than a verbal request for us to grant the easements. Part of our property is at bottom of Skyview Lane and we the homeowner with the right to grant an easement to the roads entrance. This is a private gravel road, maintained privately, lined with trees along one side. In the plans given to us by Mr. Wilkins, Mr. Robert Carpenter is stating that he has a proscriptive easement through my property. That is not the case or the preliminary opinion of my Title Insurance Company. He has a driveway that is on Poorhouse Road on his own property adjacent to his home, to access his land. He does not want the pipe or road to the water tank on this property because it is closer to his own home. As proposed, he will not be able to see the water tank from his property. No consideration, negotiations or discussions have been had with us or the adjoining property owners. We are being asked to give up property rights and land that we maintain and pay taxes on, in return for lower property values and an eyesore. We have two acres of land, Mr. Carpenter has over 150, Wilkins own over 300, yet they still want part of ours. This water tank is part of the development of the Silver Lake commercial area and should be housed within that radius. You have already approved plans for a new access road connecting this new development to Poorhouse Road that will be effect the volume of traffic in front of our house. Fourteen years ago we bought the house knowing what the laws and restrictions were. We thought that was good and everyone else knew what they were also. Now we find that they are arbitrary and can be changed at any time regardless of existing homeowners. This is contrary to the purpose of the rules and land areas they are meant to protect. The proposed restrictions to our property will not allow us to try to minimize the damage that this road and other development plans will have on our property and quality of life. We will not be able to put up a fence, a bush, a tree, anything over 18 inches high to block noise or traffic to try to preserve the privacy and quiet we currently enjoy. This is not only bad for us, but all adjoining property owners. Property owners that have been living there a long time, paying taxes, and voting. This project will continue to lower our property values along with other "improvements " that are planned. There are other options available for this tank, but the developers do not want to limit the potential development of their existing property. They are not concerned with the existing homeowners and what this will do to property values, resale problems and restrictions for others to use their land. In the last Planning Commission meeting, the representation for Silver Lake stated that if we didn't agree to their plan, they would make it happen without our consent. I am a believer that everyone should be able to use our land freely, without restrictions, and not be harmed by the development plans of Silver Lake. This proposed site was selected by Silver Lake based upon the fact that it is at or above 1025 feet above sea level and existing road was there. Greenway has determined that this height is necessary for this size water tank to operate as a gravity fed system. There are basically two alternatives to provide a gravity fed system, a ground tank at sufficient height of 1025 feet or a raised tank. This original approved plan of located an above ground water tank on the Silver Lake property. This is a change to the original plan that was approved that would place the water tank in a commercial zoned area instead of a residential one. They are seeking waivers to rules and ordinances that are meant to protect the area and land owners. Other variances on the setback distance, height restrictions for structures, lot size and right of way that are less than the Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 • requirement should not be granted to accommodate financial gain when an alternate site was identified and located in a commercial area. This project for the placement of the water tank does not even appear to meet the guidelines set forth by the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals for consideration for changes. The character of land will most definitely be changed in a negative way and the tank will destroy the historical significance of the area and the rural residential qualities that already exist. We do not believe the developers have considered or tried to find other alternatives that would be compliant on the property they own already zoned commercial. There are numerous other places they can put a ground tank or a raised tank that would not even require a variance. The only reason they seem to want this location is for saving costs to construct the water tank and not adversely affecting the property value of the Silver Lake property so they have more room for development. This also appears to be a much larger tank than required for the approved initial portion of the Silver Lake project which the Board of Supervisors originally approved. Other options would also avoid forcing us to grant access, destruction of existing landscaping, increase traffic and changing existing zoning and land use rules just to accommodate one developer's wishes. We would like the board to vote no on this matter. At a minimum, 1 would like to suggest that the Board table this application until such time as the developers and affected property owners are able to sit down and rationally discuss what makes sense for the community. This application is being pushed through by the proposers without any consideration or input of those affected. There has been no negotiations with surrounding land owners, details of the project provided and declared impact on the land. If this application is tabled, it is possible that some agreement can be reached among all of the directly affected parties. If you have additional questions, need information or would like to come to our home to view the area, please do not hesitate to contact us at 540- 722 -6555 or by email Caithness 7(a,comcast,net Sincerely Laura Burley Campbell Wayne T. Campbell" Dick Larsen, Gainesboro District, read the following letter: "Dear Mr. Shickle and Members of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors: We are the owners of 227 Skyview Lane, Winchester, which is the adjoining property located just above the proposed water tank on Round Hill. We oppose the granting of the requested variances and the establishment of this subdivision which is to be considered at your meeting of April 28, 2010. Our property consists of 23+ acres of forest and rural property and contains a three bedroom log home built in 1926 by the Baker family of Winchester. We are also the only users of Skyview Lane (our driveway) which is either on property owned by us or used by us under a long standing, written easement granting egress rights to both Diana and Phil Haines and us. Here is a picture of a section of Skyview Lane below our gate (gate is located on the right side of photo approximately next to the power pole) and the proposed site of the water tank (left side). As you can see, it is currently a lovely rural area. This proposed site was selected by Greenway Engineering on behalf of Mr. Carpenter (in reality Mr. Wilkins who will be purchasing the property from Mr. Carpenter) based upon the fact that it is at or above 1025 feet above sea level. Greenway has determined that this height is necessary for this size water tank to operate as gravity fed system. There are basically two alternatives to provide a gravity fed system, a ground tank at sufficient height or a raised tank. Although not favored by the Sanitation Authority, a third option is a ground tank at almost any level which can be built if there is a booster station with a generator backup system also installed to provide the necessary pressure. There are other places on Round Hill, if it has to be there, that could serve this purpose without being an eyesore to so many residents. 1 confirmed with the project engineer at Greenway that Mr. Carpenter was only property owner approached to see if he would sell a portion of his land for this purpose. Unfortunately, Mr. Carpenter does not own enough land at the requisite 1025 feet above sea level that would also be in compliance with the Frederic Country zoning ordinances for subdivision. This is not a new ordinance. Rather than Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 419 staying with their originally approved plan of locating an above ground water tank on the Silver Lake property or looking for other alternatives such as contacting other property owners that would be able to locate the water tank on their property without a zoning variance, Greenway and Mr. Wilkins (through Mr. Carpenter) are taking the position that it would save them more time and money by asking for a variance, rather than go to another plan. Unfortunately, their cost savings comes at the expense of significantly decreasing the value of our and our neighbor's properties while spoiling a rural area that the very ordinances from which they are seeking waivers are meant to protect. The base of Round Hill and Round Hill itself is a very historic area. If you follow the Apple Trail audio tour through Frederick County the moderator indicates as you approach Round Hill while on Poorhouse Road that 2500 to 3000 Hessian soldiers captured during the revolutionary war at the battles of Trenton, Saratoga and Yorktown were interned in camps at the base of Round Hill. The exact location of where those structures were located is presently unknown other than on the eastern or north eastern side or base of Round Hill. A study published by the Winchester - Frederick County Historical Society confirms these facts. Also, during the Civil War, there was a large, permanent camp on the eastern side and top of Round Hill. We have permitted the Virginia Department of Historical Resources to come on our property to perform studies and map the area of the permanent camp. They informed us that the site is the best preserved Civil war encampment in the country. Numerous civil war relics have been located by Virginia state archeologists and freely given by us to the state museum in Richmond from the property. The area on the eastern side of Round Hill contains many remains of artillery and other guns pits used during the Second Battle of Winchester. The eastern side also was the home of Winchester Potteries (a. k. a. Round Hill Pottery). We have always been strong supporters of historic preservation and conservation efforts. In addition to being supporters, my wife and I have been very active at every opportunity to preserve those things that enrich our experiences with the past. By way of example, we own a registered historic home in Alexandria where we incur additional expense to maintain and preserve its historic charm and structural components. My wife and I have been awarded the Outstanding Citizen Award by the governor appointed Virginia Council on Indians for our work in preserving the Mattaponi reservation in White Post, Va. and similarly recognized by the American Indian Alliance for our work in preserving the Church (built in 1644) and graveyard of the Wampanoag tribe. We are members of a number of Historical Societies. The historical and cultural aspects of our property in Frederick County, in addition to the outstanding rural views, is what caused us to purchase the property in the first place. We relied upon the fact that the area was designated a "Rural Area" with minimum 5 acre lots. It is most disturbing to us to imagine this beautiful and historic rural setting being bulldozed to accommodate a water tank that had previously been approved by the Board of Supervisors to be located in a commercially zoned district where it belongs. At the very least, we would ask the county to require a historic study performed on the proposed site and, if appropriate after concluding the study, have the construction supervised by an archeologist from the county, state or federal government. We also believe that this application for variances contains inaccuracies that I indicated at the Planning Commission hearing on April 7. It still contains those inaccuracies. As a way of background, the Frederick County ordinance related to zoning provides special rules and requirement for Rural Area Districts. Section 165 -401. provides: 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. First, there needs to be 100 foot setback from our property (which has more than 6 acres (see section 165- 401.07(a)(2)) rather than 60 feet as indicated in the application. If this tank were 100 from our property line, we would not see much of it (it would be 100 feet down a steep incline.) Our property adjoins two of the four sides of this proposed subdivision. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 420 Second, It is my understanding that Robert Carpenter does not have an express easement for access to the driveway up to our property (I checked the deeds). According to the legal opinion addressed to the Wilkins from their attorney, Mr. Butler, the Carpenters are claiming to have a prescriptive easement to Skyview Lane. (Only the first part of this opinion letter was provided to the Campbells by Mr. Wilkins who, in turn, provided the letter to me with Mr. Wilkins knowledge.) With respect to a prescriptive easement, the Virginia State Bar Association website provides the following: `A prescriptive easement ... arises from continuous use, and must meet ... heavy standards before a court will order its existence. The use must be adverse, under claim of right, exclusive, continuous, uninterrupted, and with the knowledge and acquiescence of the fee owner of the servient estate, all over a period of 20 years (in Virginia) or 10 years (in West Virginia).' While we will need to wait to see what the court decides on this matter, it is my opinion that whether the Carpenter's have the prescription right is not only very unclear, but very unlikely. Third, §165- 401.09 of the zoning ordinance provides specified height restrictions in a Rural Area. It states: `No structure shall exceed 35 feet in height.' This application is being sought to build a water tower which will be approximately 42 feet high (side walls will be approximately 36 feet with a dome top of approximately an additional 6 feet in height.) There is no mention of this variance request. My assumption is that their strategy is to get the Board of Supervisors to agree to the water tank at this location and ask for the remaining required variances later once the Board is committed to this plan. This strategy, if correct, is similar to what is currently happening with the previous Silver Lake approval — they got the overall approval of the rezoning and development plan and then are asking to change the previously approved location of the water tank to a new location that would not hurt the value of the Silver Lake property, i. e. Round Hill. Normal zoning rules should apply to everyone. The location of this water tank was originally approved to be on the Silver Lake property where it properly belongs. Water tanks are traditionally located in commercial areas, along highways or on the property that receives the benefit of having the water tank. At the Planning Commission on April 7, hearing 1 suggested that consideration be given to locating the tank on the Silver Lake property, behind the Wal- Mart, or on the south end of Round Hill where the shale digging has occurred (it is right next to Route 50 and the only property that would look at it would be the pizza place.) There are numerous other possible locations. From what the Greenway engineer told me, they did not ask one other person who owned property that would meet the needs but rather decided to ask the board of supervisors for a variance to: • Build this water tank in a rural area on property that is less than 20% of the required lot size, • Have setback variances that are significantly less than the ordinance requires. • Use a private road over private property where there is a serious question whether the builders and later the Sanitation Authority will have the right to access the property • Use a private road that is less than 10 feet wide (20 foot easement) where the County ordinance requires a 50 foot wide right of way • Although not mentioned in the variance request, build a structure greater than the maximum permitted height of 35 feet. At the Planning Commission hearing, the Greenway engineer said this was the only place they could put a tank. That is not true — he could put it anywhere on the Silver Lake property or negotiate with other parties that can locate the tank on their property without the significant number of variances required. The Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals provides in their application for variance the following: `With regard to variances, the BZA has the following powers and duties as outlined in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, as amended. To authorize variances from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance that will not be contrary to public interest, Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 421 when a literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship, provided that the spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed and substantial justice done, as follows: When a property owner can show that his property was acquired in good faith and where by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, size or shape of a specific piece of property at the time of the effective date of this chapter, or where by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary situation or condition of such piece of property, or of the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto, the strict application of the terms of this chapter would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or where the Board is satisfied upon evidence heard by it, that the granting of such variance would alleviate a clearly demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation, as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience sought by the applicant, provided that all variances shall be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of this chapter. No variance shall be authorized by the Board unless it finds: • that the strict application of this chapter would produce undue hardship • that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity • that the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property • that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance' These guidelines should also be considered by the Board of Supervisors in granting zoning variances. The current ordinance and rules have been long standing — meeting the statutory requirements should be enforced unless there exist extremely unusual circumstances. The applicants have not tried to consider or find other alternatives that would be compliant. They have not approached one other landowner. There are numerous other places they can put a ground tank or a raised tank that would not even require a variance. The Board of Supervisors has already approved a subdivision plan for Silver Lake that includes the location of a raised water tank. Other than saving costs to construct the water tank and not adversely affecting the property value of the Silver Lake property (while severely decreasing the value of our property and that of our neighbors), there has been no change in circumstances from what the Board of Supervisors originally approved. The Carpenters can satisfy current rules — there are places that a tank or tower can be placed on their property without a variance. If saving developers money becomes the criteria for issuing variances, I would submit that everyone in the future would naturally want to be exempt from the rules to save costs. When the Board of Supervisors originally agreed to the Silver Lake subdivision and the rezoning of that property, certain obligations were required from Mr. Wilkins, one of which was the construction of a water tank for the Sanitation Authority. As we stated before, that approved plan, which was fully debated at public meetings, designated the location of the water tank on the Silver Lake property. If the tank is to be located somewhere else, it should have been part of that overall consideration and the location not changed at a later time. The County and the State of Virginia have not changed the zoning rules since the Board of Supervisors approved the original plan and Mr. Wilkins accepted the conditions imposed under those rules, and we do not think it appropriate to significantly bend them now to benefit him financially at our cost. I ask you as members of the Board of Supervisors, citizens and property owners to put yourselves in our shoes. We would like the board to vote no on this matter. At a minimum, I would like to suggest that the Board table this application until such time as the developers and affected property owners are able to sit down and rationally discuss what makes sense for the community. All of the adjoining property owners were notified 1 week (2 weeks in one case) before the Planning Commission hearing. Long before that time, when I asked the Greenway Engineering people why they were on our property doing surveying, I was told that they were doing something like `line of sight' surveying for the Lutheran Home. My wife asked on another occasion and they were equally not forthcoming. No effort has been made to discuss this with those most affected. This application is being railroaded through by the proposers without any consideration or input of those affected. If this application is tabled, it is possible that some agreement can be reached among all of the directly affected parties. To date, there has been no chance for input from those most affected. If no agreement can be reached, at least there will be an honest airing of the issues and concerns. Common decency as neighbors and fellow citizens should require at least this discussion. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 422 We would be pleased to discuss this further with you and plan to speak at the meeting on April 28 1(Dick Larsen) can be reached at 703- 628 -0159 or dick larsenga gmail. com Sincerely, Richard Larsen Harriett Larsen " Charlotte Driver, Gainesboro District, read the following letter: "My name is Charlotte Driver and I am here to oppose the acceptance of these variances on behalf of my husband Brad Driver and myself My husband and I have lived on 445 Poorhouse Road for 44 years and have enjoyed and loved the tranquility and beauty of this rural setting at the base of Round Hill. Much, if not all, of the country lane Greenway Engineering proposes to use to put in this enormous water tank is on our property. I cannot imagine construction vehicles such as bulldozers and cement mixers using this small, ten foot wide lane without doing major damage to the road and without disturbing us for a very long time and on a daily basis, plus dynamite will probably be used In addition, after months of work on the road, we would look out on a huge tank (surrounded by 6 foot Leland cypresses) which would be an eyesore to us where before we had beautiful forest to look at. This lane is a dirt and gravel lane and blends into the countryside. Our vegetable garden is not thirty feet from the lane. It is said in the proposed variance request that the Carpenters have a prescriptive easement to the lane. I don't think they do at all. It is my understanding that for a prescriptive easement you must use the lane regularly over a period of 20 years and 1 can state honestly that I have never seen them use this lane and why would they when they have their own access? As abutters, Brad and I strongly object to the passing of these variances. We do not want them to use our road to put in a water tank and we do not want them to put in a water tank at all so close to us. It is basically for the benefit of the Lutheran Home, so why don't they put it on the Lutheran Home property or where it was originally planned. Thank you. Charlotte and Bradley Driver 445 Poorhouse Road Winchester, Virginia " BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS There were no Board of Supervisors' comments. MINUTES - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Vice - Chairman Ewing, the minutes from the April 14, 2010 Regular Meeting were approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 423 COUNTY OFFICIALS ADOPTION OF FISCAL YEAR 2010 -2011 BUDGET — (RESOLUTION #085-10) — APPROVED Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board adopted the Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 Budget and appropriated the funds: WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing and budget synopsis has been published and a public hearing held on April 14, 2010, in accordance with Title 15.2, Chapter 25, Section 15.2- 2506, of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended. THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, that the budget for the 2010 -2011 Fiscal Year as advertised in The Winchester Star on April 6, 2010, be hereby approved in the amount of $308,761,480. WHEREAS, this budget resolution exceeds the advertised budget in 1) the General Fund due to Animal Shelter donations being budgeted versus being funded from Animal Shelter reserves; and 2) the Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center Fund due to changes in state revenues and budgeting accumulated interest. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County of Frederick budget for the 2010 -2011 fiscal year be adopted as follows: General Operating Fund 125,611,341 Regional Jail Fund 16,832,410 Landfill Fund 7,366,729 Division of Court Services Fund 1,279,083 Shawneeland Sanitary District Fund 848,097 Airport Operating Fund 3,159,728 School Operating Fund 123,705,198 School Debt Service Fund 14,806,621 School Capital Project Fund 1,693,595 School Food Service Fund 5,955,697 School Textbook Fund 2,952,741 NREP Operating Fund 4,489,140 NREP Textbook Fund 45,000 School Trust Funds 16,100 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that appropriations are hereby authorized for the central stores fund, special welfare fund, comprehensive services fund, county health insurance fund, school health insurance fund, consolidated services fund, volunteer service /incentive fund, employee benefits fund, maintenance insurance fund, sales tax fund, commonwealth sales tax fund, unemployment compensation fund, DARE Program, and Forfeited Assets Program equal to the total cash balance on hand at July 1, 2010, plus the total amount of receipts for the fiscal year 2010 -2011. The Fire Company Capital appropriation will include the current year appropriation plus any unused funds at the end of the fiscal year 2010. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 424 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that funding for all outstanding encumbrances at June 30, 2010, are re- appropriated to the 2010 -2011 fiscal year to the same department and account for which they are encumbered in the 2009 -2010 fiscal year. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the construction fund projects will be appropriated as a carryforward in the amount that equals the approved original project cost, less expenditures and encumbrances through June 30, 2010. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION IN HONOR OF MILLBROOK HIGH SCHOOL PIONEERS GIRLS' BASKETBALL TEAM The Board recognized Coach Debby Sanders and the members of the Millbrook High School Pioneers Girls' Basketball Team for an undefeated season, with a record of 22 -0, and winning the 2010 Group AA Division 3 State Championship. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS REAPPOINTMENT OF MARTIN CYBULSKI AS RED BUD REPRESENTATIVE TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Collins, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board reappointed Martin J. Cybulski as Red Bud District representative to the Parks and Recreation Commission. This is a four year appointment, said term to expire April 28, 2014. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye REQUEST FROM 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 issue a refund to Universal Field Services, Inc. in the amount of $8,970.65 for an adjustment to its business license filed and paid for 2010 just prior to the business closing in the County.. He noted the County Attorney has reviewed this request and the refund appears to be justified. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 425 Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved the refund request by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT FOR WORLD COLOR (USA), LLC AND RESOLUTION FOR APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS — (RESOLUTION #'S 071 -10 AND 072 -10) - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised under the terms of this performance agreement, World Color would invest $35.2 million to expand in Frederick County. As the recipient of two new printing presses that will increase production capability, the Frederick County operation will retain 150 existing jobs and create 30 new positions. Virginia successfully competed with Pennsylvania and Tennessee for the projects. The Board is being asked to approve the performance agreement and appropriate the necessary funding to complete the company's proposed expansion. Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved the resolution approving Local Economic Development Incentive Grant Performance Agreement for World Color (USA), LLC and the resolution Appropriating Funds to Assist the Expansion of the Manufacturing Operation of World Color (USA), LLC. RESOLUTION ( #071 -10) APPROVING LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE GRANT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT FOR WORLD COLOR (USA), LLC WHEREAS, World Color (USA), LLC, has made known its intent to expand a manufacturing operation by making new taxable real estate and machinery and tools investments and creating new jobs; and WHEREAS, the company meets the policy guidelines of the Frederick County Economic Development Incentives Fund as established by the Winchester- Frederick County Economic Development Commission in 1995. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does hereby approve the Local Economic Development Incentive Grant Performance Agreement between the County of Frederick, Virginia, World Color (USA), LLC, and the Industrial Development Authority of Frederick County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does authorize the Chairman to execute the Performance Agreement on its behalf. ADOPTED this 28` day of April, 2010. RESOLUTION ( #072 -10) APPROPRIATING FUNDS TO ASSIST THE EXPANSION OF Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 426 THE MANUFACTURING OPERATION OF WORLD COLOR (USA), LLC WHEREAS, World Color (USA), LLC, has made known its intent to expand a manufacturing operation by making new taxable real estate and machinery and tools investments and creating new jobs; and WHEREAS, the company meets the policy guidelines of the Frederick County Economic Development Incentives Fund as established by the Winchester- Frederick County Economic Development Commission in 1995. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does hereby approve and appropriate the payment of $300,000.00 to the Industrial Development Authority of Frederick County, Virginia, from the Frederick County's Unreserved Fund Balance to assist the expansion of a manufacturing operation for World Color (USA), LLC, in Frederick County, Virginia; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that appropriation of said funds are subject to an executed Performance Agreement outlining the required performance criteria. ADOPTED this 28" day of April, 2010. The above resolutions were approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye COMMITTEE REPORTS FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT - APPROVED The Finance Committee met in the First Floor Conference Room at 107 North Kent Street on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 at 8:00 a.m. A Board of Supervisors' budget work session with the Finance Committee immediately followed. Member Richard Shickle was absent. Items 1 and 3 were approved under consent agenda. Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved the consent agenda by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Christopher E. Collins Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Gary W. Dove Bill M. Ewing Gene E. Fisher Gary A. Lofton Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye FINANCE COMMITTEE 1. The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $369 This amount represents proceeds from a DARE fundraiser. No local funds required. See attached memo, p. 1. — Approved Under Consent Agenda. 2. The NRADC Superintendent requests a NRADC Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50,000 These funds are needed for anticipated medical costs through the end of FY 10. The Regional Jail Authority has approved this request. See attached memo, p. 2. The committee recommends approval. — Approved. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 427 Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved the above request by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye 3. The NRADC Superintendent requests an NRADC Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $3,702.15 This amount represents an insurance reimbursement for snow damage to equipment. No local funds required. See attached memo, p. 3. — Approved Under Consent Agenda. 4. The Fire & Rescue Chief requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $2,759.02 This amount represents funds received from the Newton B. Shingleton Trust for disbursement to fire companies in Frederick County. No local funds required. See attached p. 4 -8. The committee recommends approval. — Approved. Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board approved the above request by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Christopher E. Collins Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Gary W. Dove Bill M. Ewing Gene E. Fisher Gary A. Lofton Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye BUDGET WORKSESSION See attached copy of the April 14, 2010 presentation, p. 9 -11. ** * Information Only * ** 12 -16. 1. The Finance Director provides March 31, 2010 financial statements. See attached, p. 2. The Finance Director provides the Fund 10 Transfer report. See attached, p. 17 -20. 3. The Finance Director provides the March 2010 Unreserved Fund Balance report. See attached, p. 21. TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT (POSTPONED FROM APRIL 14, 2010 BOARD MEETING.) - APPROVED The Transportation Committee met on March 22, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. Members Present Chuck DeHaven (voting) Gary Lofton (voting) Dave Burleson (voting) James Racey (voting) George Kriz (liaison PC) Gary Oates (liaison PC) Members Absent Mark Davis (liaison Middletown) Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 428 Lewis Boyer (liaison Stephens City) ** *Items Requiring Action * ** 1. Update of Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Plans This is a public hearing item that is scheduled for the April 28, 2010 Board meeting. 2. Economic Development Access Funding — (Resolution #073 -10) - Approved The owners of the Graystone Industrial Park have asked for County support in obtaining Economic Development Access Funding ked staff tolclarlf the construction the funds Snowden funds need tob B into the park. The Committee asked and where Y the project will go. Staff noted that VDOT prefers funds to be spent within two years and that the road segment to be addressed would be from Route 11 to the first planned intersection in the development. On a motion by Mr. Lofton and seconded by Mr. Racey, the Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the Board adopt a resolution of support to apply for Economic Development Access Funds for the Graystone Industrial Park. (Resolution Attached) Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board approved the resolution of support for Economic Development Access Funds by Graystone Industrial Park. WHEREAS, Graystone Corporation of Virginia has acquired property for the purpose of economic development use located off of Route 11 in the County of Frederick, Virginia, for the purpose of economic development within Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park; and WHEREAS, this property is expected to be the site of new private capital investment in land, building, and manufacturing equipment which will provide substantial employment; and WHEREAS, the subject property has no access to a public street or highway and will require the construction of a new roadway to connect with Route 11; and WHEREAS, the County of Frederick hereby guarantees that the necessary environmental analysis, mitigation, fee simple right -of -way and utility relocations or adjustments, if necessary, for this project will be provided at no cost to the Economic Development, Airport and Rail Access Fund; and WHEREAS, the County of Frederick acknowledges that no land disturbance activities may occur within the limits of the proposed access project prior to appropriate notification from the Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the County of Frederick hereby guarantees that all ineligible project costs and all costs not justified by eligible capital outlay will be provided from sources other than those administered by the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby requests that the Commonwealth Transportation Board provide Economic Development Access Program funding to provide an adequate road to this property; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby agrees to provide a surety bond, acceptable to and payable to the Virginia Department of Transportation, in the full amount of the Commonwealth Transportation Board's allocation less eligible private capital outlay credit determined by VDOT; this surety shall be exercised by the Department of Transportation in the event that sufficient qualifying capital investment does not Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 429 occur on Route 11 within five years of the Commonwealth Transportation Board's allocation of funds pursuant to this request; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby agrees that the new roadway so constructed will be added to and become a part of the Frederick County secondary system of state highways. ADOPTED this 28th day of April, 2010. This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye 3. Route 7 and Route 277 Potential Safety Program Projects - Approved Attached please find the table of potential projects and their associated graphics which were presented as potential projects for which to apply for safety program funding. The Committee recommended the following via consensus: Make application for the following: Route 277 at the I -81 NB Ramps Route 277 at White Oak and Hudson Hollow Road Route 7 at I -81 NB Ramps/Valley Mill Road Route 7 at Regency Lakes Drive (Combine Long and Intermediate term projects) Route 7 at Blossom Drive and Millbrook Drive Route 7 at Greenwood Road (after reviewing cost estimates for accuracy) Route 7 at Morgan Mill Road Review with Supervisor Ewing on the following: Route 277 at Aylor Road (Long and Intermediate term projects) Route 277 at Stickley Drive Coordinate with the Town of Stephens City on the following?: Route 277 at Mulberry Street Coordinate with the City of Winchester on the following: Route 7 at I -81 SB Ramps Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Vice - Chairman Ewing, the Board recommended the above projects by the following recorded vote: 4. Route 50 and Route 614 (Back Mountain Road) Potential Signalization Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye 4. Route 50 and Route 614 (Back Mountain Road) Potential Signalization Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 430 VDOT recently completed a signal warrants study (attached) on the intersection in question and noted that it does have warrants. VDOT was seeking concurrence from the County before seeking funding for the project. Staff noted that the Committee has been very concerned with the proliferation of signal lights on major roadways in the County, but that since Back Mountain Road is one of the most significant rural highways in Frederick County, that it seemed appropriate to review the situation. Due to the significant amount of existing and potential residential development on and along Back Mountain Road, the Committee was concerned about the safety. However, it was noted that the safety portion of the signal warrants was not met. Committee member Burleson, who lives in the area, noted that it seemed somewhat borderline as to whether a signal was actually needed. He noted that many issues out there are due to drivers aggressively entering Route 50 without waiting for proper spacing. It was also noted that some of the issue may be due to site distance. Additionally, it was noted that an acceleration lane might be appropriate in this area to allow people turning eastbound from Back Mountain Road onto Route 50 an opportunity to accelerate and merge rather than turning directly into a lane of traffic. The Committee came to a consensus that an incremental approach should be used rather than placing a signal at this time. ** *Items Not Requiring Action * ** 5. Other PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED SALE OF AN EASEMENT TO DOGWOOD VILLAGE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC. FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES, SAID EASEMENT CONSTITUTING 2,762 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS, AND BEING LOCATED ON A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL NUMBER 75- A -117A, SAID ENTIRE PARCEL (INCLUDING PORTIONS THAT WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE EASEMENT), BEING BOUND BY THE SOUTH BY FAIRFAX PIKE, EXTENDING ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE WEST BOUNDARY OF THE DOGWOOD VILLAGE SUBDIVISION (ALSO KNOWN AS THE DOGWOOD LANDING SUBDIVISION) AND ALSO CONSTITUTING FURTHER AREAS GENERALLY LOCATED TO THE NORTHWEST OF THE DOGWOOD VILLAGE SUBDIVISION (ALSO KNOWN AS THE DOGWOOD LANDING SUBDIVISION), IN THE OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended the Board conduct a public hearing and approve the conveyance of an easement on approximately 2,762 square feet to the Dogwood Village Homeowner's Association. This request was approved by the Department of Conservation and Recreation and the requestor will compensate the County $207.15, which is 25% of the appraised value. He went on to say the Board previously inquired as to why this size area was needed for a 15" pipe. The Dogwood Village Homeowners' Associations' engineer for the project determined the topography of the road required two 15" pipes laid at the end of the shaded area of the map provided to direct the water to the existing pipe which will direct storm water run -off to the designated area. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 431 Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Dove, the Board approved the sale of the easement. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING - 2010 -2015 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT UPDATE. THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS TO CONSIDER THE RENEWAL OF THE SOUTH FREDERICK, DOUBLE CHURCH, AND RED BUD DISTRICTS AND THE CREATION OF THE ALBIN APPLE PIE RIDGE AND SOUTH TIMBER RIDGE DISTRICTS. THE RENEWAL AND CREATION OF THESE DISTRICTS WILL ESTABLISH A TOTAL OF 10 585.012 ACRES WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT PROGRAM FOR THE ENSUING FIVE YEAR PERIOD. PROPERTIES THAT ARE INCORPORATED INTO AN AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT ARE GUARANTEED CERTAIN PROTECTIONS AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 15 -2 -4300 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA. — ( RESOLUTION WS 074 -10, 075 -10, 076 -10, 077 -10, 078-10 AND 079 -10, APPROVED Zoning and Subdivision Administrator Mark Cheran appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised the Board would consider the creation of the Albin, Apple Pie Ridge, and South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal Districts along with an update to the 2010 -2015 Double Church, Red Bud, and South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on these districts and recommended approval. Zoning Administrator Cheran reviewed each of the districts: Proposed Albin Agricultural and Forestal District — located in the Gainesboro Magisterial District, across North Frederick Pike (Route 522) to the north, Route 37 to the east, and Poorhouse Road (Route 664) to the west. The proposed district contains 1,017.84 acres +/- within 14 parcels. Proposed Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District — located in the Stonewall and Gainesboro Magisterial Districts, across Payne Road (Route 663) to the north, Welltown Road (Route 661) to the east, Apple Pie Ridge Road (Route 739) to the west, and Glendobbin Road (Route 673) to the south. The proposed district contains 889.052 acres +/- within 34 parcels. - Proposed South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District — located in the Back Creek Magisterial District bordered by Hollow Road (Route 707) to the north, and Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 432 Muse Road (Route 610) and Golden Orchard Road (Route 708) to the east. The proposed district contains 626.53 acres +/- within 14 parcels. - Update of the 2010 -2015 Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District — located in the Opequon Magisterial District. The district currently contains 1,023.73 acres + / -. One parcel is to be removed, which will leave the district with a total of 949.20 acres + / -. - Update of the 2010 -2015 Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District — located in the Stonewall Magisterial District. The district contains 849.28 acres + / -. Two parcels will be removed, which will leave the district with a total of 1,079.69 acres + / -. - Update of the 2010 -2015 South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District — located in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Five parcels will be added and three parcels will be removed, which will leave the district with a total of 6,182.53 acres + / -. Supervisor Dove asked what the Board would have to do to take acreage out of the Albin District since there is a planned road in that area. Zoning Administrator Cheran responded the Comprehensive Plan calls for that road. The property owner can request their property be removed or, at the five year mark, the Board can approve the road. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved the establishment of the Albin, Apple Pie Ridge, and South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal Districts and the updates to the 2010 -2015 Double Church, Red Bud, and South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal Districts. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ALBIN AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT RESOLUTION #074 -10 WHEREAS, a proposal to create the Albin Agricultural & Forestal District to consist of 1,017.84 acres, was considered. The properties are located across North Frederick Pike (Route 522) to the north, Route 37 to the east, and Poorhouse Road (Route 664) to the west, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 41 -A -170, 42 -A -61, 42 -A -62, 42 -A -180, 42 -A- 190, 42 -A -191, 42 -A -192, 42 -A -193, 52 -A -48, 52 -A -49, 53 -A -1, 53 -A -2, 53 -A -3, 53 -A -69 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. This application was reviewed by the Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC), and the Planning Commission during their regularly scheduled meetings; and WHEREAS, The Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) recommended approval of this proposal on March 18, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval on this proposal to establish the Albin Agricultural & Forestal District on April 7, 2010; and Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 433 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this proposal to establish the Albin Agricultural & Forestal District on April 28, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the establishment of this Albin Agricultural & Forestal District contributes to the conservation and preservation of agricultural and forestal land in Frederick County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby establishes the Albin Agricultural & Forestal District to consist of 1,017.84 acres in the Gainesboro Magisterial District, with an expiration and renewal date of May 1 2015. This Agricultural & Forestal District is as described on the attached map. This ordinance shall be in effect on the day of adoption. Passed this 28th day of April, 2010 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye ESTABLISHMENT OF THE APPLE PIE RIDGE AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT RESOLUTION #075 -10 WHEREAS, a proposal to create the Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural & Forestal District to consist of 889.052 acres, was considered. The properties are located across Payne Road (Route 663) to the north, Welltown Road (Route 661) to the east, Apple Ridge Road (Route 739) to the west, and Glendobbin Road (Route 673) to the south, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 31 -A -170, 31 -A -171, 31 -A -180, 42 -A -356, 42 -A -357, 43 -A -4, 43 -A -11, 43 -A -12, 43 -A -13, 43 -A -14, 43 -A -69, 43 -A -70, 43- A -1OA, 43 -A -A1, 43 -1 -A2, 43 -1 -B1, 43 -11- 4-1, 43- 11 -4 -2, 43- 11 -4 -3, 43- 11 -4 -4, 43- 11 -4 -5, 43- 11 -4 -6, 43- 12 -3 -7, 43- 12 -3 -8, 43- 12 -3 -9, 43- 12 -3 -10, 43- 12 -3 -11, 43- 12 -3 -12, 43- 12 -3 -13, 43- 12 -3 -14, 43- 12 -3 -15, 43- 12 -3 -16, 43 -12 -3- 17, 43- 12 -3 -18 in the Stonewall and Gainesboro Magisterial Districts. This application was reviewed by the Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC), and the Planning Commission during their regularly scheduled meetings; and WHEREAS, The Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) recommended approval of this proposal on March 18, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval on this proposal to establish the Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural & Forestal District on April 7, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this proposal to establish the Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural & Forestal District on April 28, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the establishment of this Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural & Forestal District contributes to the conservation and preservation of agricultural and forestal land in Frederick County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 434 The Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby establishes the Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural & Forestal District to consist of 889.052 acres in the Stonewall and Gainesboro Magisterial Districts, with an expiration and renewal date of May 1 2015. This Agricultural & Forestal District is as described on the attached map. This ordinance shall be in effect on the day of adoption. Passed this 28th day of April, 2010 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Christopher E. Collins Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Gary W. Dove Bill M. Ewing Gene E. Fisher Gary A. Lofton Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SOUTH TIMBER RIDGE AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT RESOLUTION #076 -10 WHEREAS, a proposal to create the South Timber Ridge Agricultural & Forestal District to consist of 626.53 acres, was considered. The properties are bordered by Hollow Road (Route 707) to the north, and Muse Road (Route 610) and Golden Orchard Road (Route 708) to the east, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 26 -A -42, 26 -A -43, 26- A -43A, 26- A-45, 26 -A -46, 26 -A -61, 26- A -61A, 26 -A -62, 26 -A -63, 26 -A -64, 26 -A -65, 37 -A -1, 37 -A -1A, 37 -A -74 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. This application was reviewed by the Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC), and the Planning Commission during their regularly scheduled meetings; and WHEREAS, The Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) recommended approval of this proposal on March 18, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval on this proposal to establish the South Timber Ridge Agricultural & Forestal District on April 7, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this proposal to establish the South Timber Ridge Agricultural & Forestal District on April 28, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the establishment of this South Timber Ridge Agricultural & Forestal District contributes to the conservation and preservation of agricultural and forestal land in Frederick County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby establishes the South Timber Ridge Agricultural & Forestal District to consist of 626.53 acres in the Back Creek Magisterial District, with an expiration and renewal date of May 1 2015. This Agricultural & Forestal District is as described on the attached map. This ordinance shall be in effect on the day of adoption. Passed this 28th day of April, 2010 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 435 Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye RENEWAL OF THE DOUBLE CHURCH AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT RESOLUTION #077 -10 WHEREAS, renewal of the Double Church Agricultural & Forestal District was considered. The removal of one parcel, identified by Property Identification Number 86 -A -32, decreased the District from 1,023.73 acres to 949.20 acres. This District is located in the Opequon Magisterial District. This application was reviewed by the Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC), and the Planning Commission during their regularly scheduled meetings; and WHEREAS, The Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) recommended approval of this renewal on March 18, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the renewal of the Double Church Agricultural & Forestal District on April 7, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this renewal of the Double Church Agricultural & Forestal District on April 28, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the renewal of this Double Church Agricultural & Forestal District contributes to the conservation and preservation of agricultural and forestal land in Frederick County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby renews the Double Church Agricultural & Forestal District to consist of 949.20 acres in the Opequon Magisterial District, with an expiration and renewal date of May 1 2015. This Agricultural & Forestal District is as described on the attached map. This ordinance shall be in effect on the day of adoption. Passed this 28th day of April, 2010 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Christopher E. Collins Charles S. DeHaven, Jr Gary W. Dove Bill M. Ewing Gene E. Fisher Gary A. Lofton Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye RENEWAL OF THE RED BUD AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT RESOLUTION #078 -10 WHEREAS, renewal of the Red Bud Agricultural & Forestal District was considered. The addition of two parcels, Property Identification Numbers 55 -A -3 and 55 -A -4, and the removal of two parcels, Property Identification Numbers 44 -A -28F and 44- A -28H, result in a total of 1,079.69 acres in this District. This District is located in the Stonewall Magisterial District. This application was reviewed by the Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC), and the Planning Commission during their regularly scheduled meetings; and Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 436 WHEREAS, The Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) recommended approval of this renewal on March 18, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the renewal of the Red Bud Agricultural & Forestal District on April 7, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this renewal of the Red Bud Agricultural & Forestal District on April 28, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the renewal of this Red Bud Agricultural & Forestal District contributes to the conservation and preservation of agricultural and forestal land in Frederick County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: described on the attached map. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby renews the Red Bud Agricultural & Forestal District to consist of 1,079.69 acres in the Stonewall Magisterial District, with an expiration and renewal date of May l'`, 2015. This Agricultural & Forestal District is as This ordinance shall be in effect on the day of adoption. Passed this 28th day of April, 2010 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Christopher E. Collins Charles S. DeHaven, Jr Gary W. Dove Bill M. Ewing Gene E. Fisher Gary A. Lofton Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye RENEWAL OF THE SOUTH FREDERICK AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT RESOLUTION #079 -10 WHEREAS, renewal of the South Frederick Agricultural & Forestal District was considered. The addition of five parcels, Property Identification Numbers 62- 12 -5 -53, 72 -A -24, 73 -A -31, 73 -A -73 and 84 -A -50, and the removal of three parcels, Property Identification Numbers 84 -A -29, 73 -A -3 and 73- 12 -13, result in a total of 6,182.53 acres in this District. This District is located in the Back Creek Magisterial District. This application was reviewed by the Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC), and the Planning Commission during their regularly scheduled meetings; and WHEREAS, The Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) recommended approval of this renewal on March 18, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the renewal of the South Frederick Agricultural & Forestal District on April 7, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this renewal of the South Frederick Agricultural & Forestal District on April 28, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the renewal of this South Frederick Agricultural & Forestal District contributes to the conservation and preservation of agricultural and forestal land in Frederick County; Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 437 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby renews the South Frederick Agricultural & Forestal District to consist of 6,182.53 acres in the Back Creek Magisterial District, with an expiration and renewal date of May 1 2015. This Agricultural & Forestal District is as described on the attached map. This ordinance shall be in effect on the day of adoption. Passed this 28th day of April, 2010 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — CHAPTER 165 ZONING ARTICLE III TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) PROGRAM — PART 301 ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSE, 165- 301.01 PURPOSE, 165-301.02 APPLICABILITY, 165 - 301.03 RIGHT TO TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS; GENERAL PROVISIONS; PART 302 SENDING AND RECEIVING PROPERTIES, 165 - 302.01 SENDING PROPERTIES, 165-302.02 RECEIVING PROPERTIES, 165- 302.03 CALCULATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, 165- 302.04 TDR SENDING PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS 165- 302.05 SENDING SITE CERTIFICATION, 165- 302.06 INSTRUMENTS OF TRANSFER; PART 303 TRANSFER PROCESS AND DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES 165- 303.01 TRANSFER PROCESS, 165- 303.02 DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCEDURES; AND ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, PART 101 GENERAL PROVISIONS, 165- 101.02 DEFINITIONS AND WORD USAGE. REVISIONS TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE TO INCLUDE A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) PROGRAM. — APPROVED Planning Director Eric Lawrence appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised the Board previously approved the Rural Areas Report and Recommendations as a policy component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. One of the recommendations contained within the report was to establish a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program. The Study stated that the sending properties should be designated in an effort to discourage development and take into account environmental constraints. Receiving properties were to be located in areas where residential development was desired (Urban Development Area, Urban Centers, Rural Community Centers). He went on to say the proposed TDR ordinance consists of three parts that will regulate the program, including sending site requirements, receiving site requirements, and the transfer /development process. Definitions that correspond to the TDR Ordinance have also been included. Director Lawrence then reviewed the criteria and processes: - Sending Properties — Parcels located in the Rural Areas Zoning District, outside of the UDA and the SWSA, twenty acres in size or greater, and subdividable in accordance with Chapter 144 — Subdivision of Land. The ordinance contains a section on Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 438 calculations to determine the number of rights a sending property may transfer. There are also proposed density bonuses for specific sending areas. - Receiving Properties — Parcels located within the Urban Development Area (designated for residential land uses) or 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, be served by state roads, not impact historical resources and be outside the Airport Support Area. - Certification Process — The 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. - Transfer Process — Once a sending property has been certified, it may transfer its density rights to a receiving property or a receiving person. The receiving property must also be certified. Receiving properties must complete the Master Development Plan and Subdivision Design Plan process and meet all development regulations set forth by the RP (Residential Performance) District. Development rights shall be considered transferred when the extinguishment document for the sending property has been received. Director Lawrence concluded by saying staff was seeking two actions from the Board. First was adoption of the TDR program followed by the adoption of the proposed fee schedule. Chairman Shickle said staff did a great job on this ordinance. He noted one change on page 8, §165-302.06. Instruments of Transfer (A) (5) the word "transferee" be added to this section. Director Lawrence then reviewed the proposed fee schedule: TDR Application Review Fee $300.00 Transfer of Development Rights Letter of Intent $100.00 Transfer of Development Rights Certificate $200.00 Transfer of Development Rights Certificate — Ownership Transfer $ 50.00 Receiving Property or Transferee Approval $200.00 Recordation of Sending Property Deed Covenant $100.00 Recordation of Extinguishment Document $100.00 Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. Jason Wisecarver, Back Creek District, appeared before the Board on behalf of the Farm Bureau to express the bureau's support for this proposed ordinance. Patrick Felling, Red Bud District, appeared before the Board on behalf of the Potomac Conservancy and commended the Board for being pioneers in enacting a Transfer of Development Rights program. There being no further public comments, Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved the resolution establishing and ordinance to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165 Zoning, Article III Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program — Part 301 Establishment Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 439 and Purpose, 165- 301.01 Purpose, 165- 301.02 Applicability, 165- 301.03 Right to Transfer Development Rights; General Provisions; Part 302 Sending and Receiving Properties, 165- 302.01 Sending Properties, 165- 302.02 Receiving Properties, 165- 302.03 Calculation of Development Rights, 165- 302.04 TDR Sending Property Development Limitations, 165- 302.05 Sending Site Certification, 165- 302.06 Instruments of Transfer; Part 303 Transfer Process and Development Procedures, 165- 303.01 Transfer Process, 165- 303.02 Development Approval Procedures; and Article I General Provisions, Amendments and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 General Provisions, 165- 101.02 Definitions and Word Usage, as amended with the change on page 8, § 165- 302.06. Instruments of Transfer (A) (5) and adopted the fee schedule. WHEREAS, establishment of an ordinance to Chapter 165 Zoning, 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 Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance on April 7, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on April 28, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds that the adoption of this ordinance to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in good zoning practice; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 Zoning, Article III Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program — Part 301 Establishment and Purpose, 165- 301.01 Purpose, 165 - 301.02 Applicability, 165- 301.03 Right to Transfer Development Rights; General Provisions; Part 302 Sending and Receiving Properties, 165- 302.01 Sending Properties, 165- 302.02 Receiving Properties, 165 - 302.03 Calculation of Development Rights, 165- 302.04 TDR Sending Property Development Limitations, 165- 302.05 Sending Site Certification, 165- 302.06 Instruments of Transfer; Part 303 Transfer Process and Development Procedures, 165- 303.01 Transfer Process, 165- 303.02 Development Approval Procedures; and Article I General Provisions, Amendments and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 General Provisions, 165- 101.02 Definitions and Word Usage is revised. ARTICLE III Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program Part 301 — Establishment and Purpose. §165- 301.01. Purpose. Pursuant to the authority granted by §§ 15.2- 2316.1 and 2316.2 of the Code of Virginia, there is established a transfer of development rights (TDR) program, the purpose of which is to transfer residential density from eligible sending areas to eligible receiving areas and/or transferee through a voluntary process for permanently conserving agricultural and forestry uses of lands and preserving rural open spaces, and natural and scenic resources. The TDR program is intended to supplement land use regulations, resource protection efforts and open space acquisition programs and encourage increased residential density where it can best be accommodated with the least impacts on the natural environment and public services by: A. Providing an effective and predictable incentive process for property owners of rural and agricultural land to preserve lands with a public benefit; and Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 440 B. Implementing the Comprehensive Policy Plan by directing residential land uses to the Urban Development Area (UDA); and C. Providing an efficient and streamlined administrative review system to ensure that transfers of development rights to receiving areas are processed in a timely way and balanced with other county goals and policies, and are adjusted to the specific conditions of each receiving area. §165- 301.02. Applicability. The procedures and regulations in Article III of Chapter 165 shall apply to the transfer of development rights from land qualifying as sending properties to land qualifying as receiving properties and/or to a transferee. Land utilizing transferred development rights may be subdivided at an increased density above the base density specified by Table 1 and Table 2 in §165-302.03 in applicable receiving areas. All development utilizing transferred development rights shall conform to the guidelines contained in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. §165- 301.03. Right to Transfer Development Rights; General Provisions. A. A development right shall be transferred only by means of documents, including a covenant to which Frederick County is party and any appropriate releases, in a recordable form approved by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee. The covenant shall limit the future construction of dwellings on a sending property to the total number of development rights established by the zoning of the property minus all development rights previously transferred in accordance with this chapter, any development rights previously extinguished or limited as a result of a recorded covenant against the property, the number of development rights to be transferred by the proposed transaction, and the number of existing single - family detached dwellings on the sending property. If a sending property contains no dwelling units, a development right equal to that for one single - family dwelling must be maintained for the property, except that, for properties larger than one hundred (100) acres, one development right equal to that for one single - family dwelling must be maintained for each multiple of one hundred (100) acres, or fraction thereof, contained within the sending property. B. Each transferor shall have the right to sever all or a portion of the rights to develop from the parcel in a sending district and to sell, trade, or barter all or a portion of those rights to a transferee consistent with the purposes of §165-301.01 so long as the conditions of §165- 301.03A are met. C. Any transfer of development rights pursuant to this Chapter authorizes only an increase in maximum density and shall not alter or waive the development standards of the receiving district, nor shall it allow a use otherwise prohibited in a receiving district. D. Transfer of development rights shall not be available for the following: 1) Portions of lots owned by or subject to easements (including, but not limited to, easements of roads, railroads, electrical transmission lines, gas or petroleum pipelines) in favor of governmental agencies, utilities and nonprofit corporations. 2) Land restricted from development by covenant, easement or deed restriction. E. Any transfer of development rights shall be recorded among the land records of Frederick County, Virginia. F. Value of transferable development rights. The monetary value of transferred development rights is completely determined between the seller and buyer. Part 302 — Sending and Receiving Properties §165- 302.01. Sending Properties. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 441 A. For the purposes of this chapter, a sending property must be an entire tax parcel or lot qualified under §165 - 302.0113 of this section. Sending areas may only be located within the rural areas outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), and zoned RA (Rural Areas), as described in the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the RA Zoning District of this Chapter. A sending property shall be maintained in a condition that is consistent with the criteria in this section under which the sending was qualified. B. Qualification of a sending property shall demonstrate that the site contains a public benefit such that the preservation of that benefit by transferring residential development rights to another site is in the public interest, according to all of the following criteria: 1) Designated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan as Rural Area; 2) Designated on the Zoning Maps of Frederick County as being zoned RA (Rural Areas) and be located outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA); 3) Designated on the Sending Areas Map; 4) Comprised of at least twenty (20) acres in size; and 5) Qualified for subdivision in accordance with Chapter 144 of the Frederick County Code including, but not limited to, meeting all state road and access requirements. C. If a sending property has any outstanding code violations and /or unpaid taxes, the owner shall resolve these violations, including any required abatement, restoration, or payment of penalties or taxes, before the property may be qualified as a sending property in the transfer of development rights program. §165- 302.02. Receiving Properties. A. Except as provided in subsections B and C of this section, in order to be eligible as a receiving property, a property must be: 1) Located in one of the following zoning districts: a. RP (Residential Performance) District; b. R4 (Residential Planned Community) District; or c. RA (Rural Areas) District; and 2) Designated on the Receiving Areas Map; 3) Served by public water and public sewer; 4) Served by state maintained roads or have the ability to utilize private roads in the RP District as permitted by Chapter 165 or Chapter 144. 5) Located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) or a designated and defined Rural Community Center as identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan; and 6) Identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan for residential land uses. B. A property is not eligible as a receiving property if the transfer of development rights to the property would adversely impact regionally or locally significant historical resources or naturally sensitive areas as specified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. C. A property is not eligible as a receiving property if the property is located within the airport support area as identified by the Comprehensive Policy Plan. D. If a receiving property has any outstanding code violations and/or unpaid taxes, the owner shall resolve these violations, including any required abatement, restoration, or payment of penalties or taxes, before the property may be qualified as a receiving property in the transfer of development rights program. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 442 E. A receiving property may accept development rights from one or more sending properties, up to a maximum density specified in Table I and Table 2 in § 165- 302.03. §165- 302.03. Calculation of development rights. A. The number of residential development rights that a sending property is eligible to send to a receiving property and/or transferee shall be determined by applying the sending property base density established in subsection C of this section to the area of the sending property after deducting all the following: 1. Development rights previously transferred in accordance with this chapter; 2. Development rights previously extinguished or limited as a result of a recorded conservation easement or similar covenant against the property; 3. The number of existing single - family dwellings on the sending property; 4. The amount of any submerged land (i.e., lakes, ponds, streams), floodplains, and steep slopes as determined by Frederick County GIS Data. 5. The amount of any land contained within easements (including, but not limited to, easements of roads, railroads, electrical transmission lines, gas or petroleum pipelines) in favor of governmental agencies, utilities and nonprofit corporations. B. If a sending property contains no dwelling units, a development right equal to that for one single - family dwelling must be maintained for the property. Properties with over 100 acres shall be required to retain the number of development rights required in accordance with Section 165- 301.03A. C. For the purposes of calculating the amount of development rights a sending property can transfer, the square footage or acreage of land contained within a sending property shall be determined by a valid recorded plat or survey, submitted by the applicant property owner and that has been prepared and stamped by a land surveyor licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia. D. For the purposes of the transfer of development rights program only, sending sites zoned RA (Rural Areas) shall have a base density of one dwelling unit per five acres for transfer purposes. E. Any fractions of development rights that results from the calculations in subsection A of this section shall not be included in the final determination of total development rights available for transfer. F. Development rights from one sending property may be allocated to more than one receiving property and /or transferee and one receiving property and /or transferee may accept development rights from more than one sending property. G. The determination of the number of residential development rights a sending property has available for transfer to a receiving property and /or transferee shall be documented in a TDR LETTER OF INTENT to issue a TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE issued by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee, pursuant to the provisions of this Part 302.05 of Chapter 165, and shall be considered a final determination, not subject to revision. Such a determination shall be valid only for purposes of the transfer of development rights program and for no other purpose. Any changes to the proposed sending property shall void any issued letters of intent. H. A sending property transferee may extinguish TDR density rights, sever and hold TDR density rights, sever and sell TDR density rights, or apply TDR rights to a receiving property in a receiving district in order to obtain approval for development at a density greater than would otherwise be allowed on the land in the receiving district, up to the maximum density or intensity outlined in the table below: Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 443 Table 1 Maximum Density Allowed in Zoning Districts through Transfer of Development Rights TDR Program Zoning District Property Maximum Maximum Densitv in size Illensity in Dvvelling Units per Acre vvith TDR In Acres Dwelling Units Transfers per Acre RA RA 1 Unit Per 5 Acres Maximum Density allowed in the (Rural Areas) Receiving RP District within the UDA per § 165- 402.05 Property 1 Unit Per Acre in Designated Rural Community Centers served by Community Septic Systems RP <10 10 15 (Residential 10 -100 5.5 8 Performance) >100 4 6 R4 (Residential Planned >100 4 6 Communtiv) I. TDR density rights may be converted to bonus density rights by an increase in the residential density on the receiving property, based on the conversion factors in the table below: Table 2 Maximum Density Allowed in Zoning Districts through Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program 1. Allowable bonus density remains subject to the maximum density provisions outlined in Table 1 of §165- 302.03H. 2. If properties located in Sending Area #1 (designated Agricultural and Forestal District) that have transferred bonus density rights are subsequently withdrawn from the designated sending area (the designated Agricultural and Forestal District), the total number of density rights transferred, including bonus density rights, shall be counted against any future subdivision ability of the property. §165- 302.04. TDR Sending Property Development Limitations. A. Following the transfer of residential development rights, a sending property that has retained part of their development rights may subsequently accommodate remaining residential dwelling units on the sending property consistent with the requirements of the RA (Rural Areas) District and all requirements of the Frederick County Code. A sending property that has retained part of its development rights may also transfer the remainder of the eligible rights through the transfer of development rights program. B. On sending properties with environmental features as outlined in § 165- 302.03A, the development rights shall be severed from the areas outside of the specified environmental features. If development rights are retained on the sending property, future subdivision of the parcel cannot occur on the areas where development rights have already been severed. C. The limitations in this section shall be included in a deed covenant applicable to the sending property. §165- 302.05. Sending Property Certification. A. The Director of Planning and Development or his designee shall be responsible for determining that a proposed sending property meets the qualifications of §165-302.01. The Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 444 Director of Planning and Development or his designee shall render a determination or denial under this subsection within sixty (60) days of the date of submittal of a completed sending property determination application. If the determination is that a property meets the qualifications of §165- 302.01, the Director of Planning and Development or his designee shall issue the determination in the form of a LETTER OF INTENT to issue a TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE. A LETTER OF INTENT issued under this subsection shall be valid until the development rights are severed and extinguished through the transfer process, or unless applicable zoning changes are approved that would affect the sending property, or unless the property is developed. B. Determinations of sending property qualifications under subsection A of this section are appealable to the Board of Supervisors by filing a notice of appeal with the Director of Planning and Development or his designee within thirty (30) days of the date of the determination. C. The Director of Planning and Development shall be responsible for maintaining permanent records of action taken pursuant to the transfer of development rights program under this Article III of Chapter 165, including records of letters of intent issued, certificates issued, deed restrictions and covenants known to be recorded, and development rights retired, otherwise extinguished, or transferred to specific properties and/or transferees. D. Responsibility for preparing a completed application for a determination that a proposed sending property meets the qualifications of §165-302.01 rests exclusively with the applicant/property owner. An application for a transfer of development rights to issue a transfer of development rights LETTER OF INTENT shall contain: 1) A certificate of title for the sending property prepared by an attorney admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia; 2) Five copies of a valid recorded plat or survey, of the proposed sending parcel and a legal description of the sending property prepared by a land surveyor licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia; 3) A plan showing the existing and proposed dwelling units and any areas already subject to a conservation easement or other similar encumbrance; 4) A completed density calculation worksheet for estimating the number of available development rights; 5) The application fee as set forth in the Development Review Fees adopted by the Board of Supervisors; and 6) Such additional information required by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee as necessary to determine the number of development rights that qualify for transfer. E. A transfer of development rights LETTER OF INTENT issued by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee shall state the following information: 1) The name of the transferor; 2) The name of the transferee , if then known; 3) A legal description of the sending property on which the calculation of development rights is based; 4) A statement of the size, in acres, of the sending property on which the calculation of development rights is based; 5) A statement of the number of development rights, stated in terms of number of dwelling units, eligible for transfer; 6) If only a portion of the total development rights are being transferred from the sending property, a statement of the number of remaining development rights, stated in terms of number of dwelling units, remaining on the sending property; 7) The date of issuance; 8) The signature of the Director of Planning and Development or his designee; and 9) A serial number assigned by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee. F. No transfer of development rights under this ordinance shall be recognized by Frederick County as valid unless the instrument of transfer contains the transfer of development rights certificate issued under this section. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 445 §165- 302.06. Instruments of Transfer. A. An instrument of transfer of development rights shall be reviewed and approved as to the form and legal sufficiency by the County Attorney and, upon such approval, the County Attorney shall notify the transferor or his or her agent, who shall record the instrument with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and shall provide a copy to the Commissioner of the Revenue. An instrument of transfer of development rights shall conform to the requirements of this section and shall contain the following: 1) The names of the transferor and the transferee; 2) A legal description and plat of the sending property prepared by a land surveyor licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia; 3) The transfer of development rights certificate described in §165- 302.03F; 4) A covenant indicating the number of development rights remaining on the sending property and stating that the sending property may not be subdivided to or developed to a greater density than permitted by the remaining development rights; 5) A covenant that the transferor grants and assigns to the transferee and the transferee's heirs, assigns, and successors a specific number of development rights from the sending property to a receiving property and /or a transferee; 6) A covenant by which the transferor acknowledges that he has no further use or right of use with respect to the development rights being transferred; and 7) A covenant that all provisions of the instrument of transfer of development rights shall run with and bind the sending property and may be enforced by Frederick County. B. An instrument of transfer of development rights shall be recorded prior to release of development permits, including building permits, for the receiving property. Part 303 — Transfer Process and Development Procedures. §165- 303.01. Transfer Process. Development rights shall be transferred using the following process: A. Following approval of the sending property determination application and issuance of the LETTER OF INTENT as described in §165-302.05, the Director of Planning and Development or his designee shall issue the TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE, agreeing to a transfer of development rights in exchange for the proposed sending property deed covenant to which Frederick County is a party. If a sending property with a TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE changes ownership, the certificate may be transferred to the new owner if requested in writing to the Department of Planning and Development by the person(s) that owned the property when the certificate was issued, provided that the documents evidencing the transfer of ownership are also provided to the Department of Planning and Development. B. In applying for receiving property or receiving person approval, the applicant shall provide the Department of Planning and Development with one of the following: 1) A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE issued in the name of the applicant; 2) A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE issued in the name of another person or persons and a signed option to purchase those TDR sending property development rights; or 3) A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE issued in the name of the applicant or another person(s) and a copy of a signed option to purchase those TDR sending property development rights. C. The receiving property applicant and /or transferee shall deliver the documentation outlined in § 165 - 303.0113 for the number of TDR development rights being severed or transferred and the TDR extinguishment document to the County. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 446 D. Development rights from a sending property shall be considered transferred to a receiving property and/or a transferee and extinguished when the extinguishment document for the sending property has been recorded. §165- 303.02. Development Approval Procedures. A. A request to utilize transferred development rights on an eligible receiving property must be in the form of a Master Development Plan and a Subdivision Design Plan submitted to the Department of Planning and Development in accordance with the Zoning and Subdivision regulations contained in Chapters 165 and 144 of the County Code. B. All subdivisions for receiving properties zoned RA (Rural Areas) utilizing development rights shall be subject to the same requirements as property zoned RP (Residential Performance) and shall not qualify for the standards specified in §144-31 of the Frederick County Code. C. A final recorded plat for a subdivision using transferred development rights shall contain a statement setting forth the development proposed, the zoning classification of the property, the number of development rights used, and a notation of the recordation of the conveyance required by §165-302.06. ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Part 101— General Provisions 165 - 101.02 Definitions & word usage. As used in this ordinance, the following words and terms have the meanings specified herein: DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - the permitted density of development that is allowed on a sending property under any zoning ordinance of the County on a date of transfer of such rights. RECEIVING AREA — One or more areas identified in this Chapter and designated by the comprehensive plan as an area authorized to receive development rights transferred from a sending area. RECEIVING PROPERTY - A lot or parcel of land within a receiving area and within which development rights are increased pursuant to a transfer of development rights affixed to the property. SENDING AREA - One or more areas identified in this Chapter and designated by the comprehensive plan as an area from which development rights are authorized to be severed and transferred to a receiving area. SENDING PROPERTY - A lot or parcel of land in a sending area that is the subject of a transfer of development rights, where the owner of the parcel is conveying development rights of the parcel, and on which those rights so conveyed are extinguished and may not be used, by reason of the transfer of development rights. EXTINGUISHMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - The process by which development rights from a sending property are severed from the sending property to a receiving property or transferee, pursuant to the transfer of development rights program under Chapter 165 of the County Code. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - The procedure prescribed by this ordinance whereby the owner of a parcel in a sending area may convey development rights to the owner of a parcel in a receiving area or to another person or entity, whereby the development rights so conveyed are severed or extinguished on the sending property and may be exercised on the receiving parcel in addition to the development rights already existing regarding that parcel or may be held by the receiving person or entity. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 447 TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - All or that portion of development rights that are transferred or are transferable. TRANSFEREE — A person or legal entity that owns property in a receiving area or who receives and holds development rights from a sending property. TRANSFEROR — The person or legal entity, including a person or legal entity that owns property in a sending area, who conveys development rights. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS LETTER OF INTENT — A letter issued by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee determining the number of residential development rights a sending property has available for transfer to a receiving property or transferee. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) CERTIFICATE- A letter issued by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee agreeing to sever a specified number of residential development rights from a sending property in exchange for a restrictive deed covenant to which Frederick County is a party to on the sending property that restricts further development. This amendment shall be in effect on the day of adoption. This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Chairman Shickle expressed his appreciation for everyone who played a role in this effort. PUBLIC HEARING - UPDATE OF THE 2010 -2011 THROUGH 2015 -2016 FREDERICK COUNTY PROPOSED SECONDARY SIX YEAR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND THE SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION BUDGET FOR 2010. THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 33.1 -70.01 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA, WILL CONDUCT A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SECONDARY SIX -YEAR PLAN FOR FISCAL YEARS 2010 -2011 THROUGH 2015 -2016 FOR FREDERICK COUNTY, AND ON THE SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010. ALL PROJECTS IN THE SECONDARY SIX -YEAR PLAN THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL FUNDS WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP), WHICH DOCUMENTS HOW VIRGINIA WILL OBLIGATE FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS. — APPROVED 2010 -2011 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND CONSTRUCTION BUDGET. Deputy Planning Director — Transportation John Bishop appeared before the Board regarding this item. He reviewed the Interstate Road Improvement Plan. He noted there were no changes due to a lack of funding. He then reviewed the Primary Road Improvement Plan and noted there were no changes due to a lack of funding. With regard to the Secondary Road Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 448 Improvement Plan, Deputy Director Bishop noted there was one significant funded project — Sulphur Springs Road; however, the project had been somewhat scaled back from what was originally proposed. Under the Hardsurface Road Improvement Project, Deputy Director Bishop advised there were two projects proposed under this plan: Ridings Mill Road and Woodside Road. Finally, he reviewed the Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects and noted this was the longest list of projects. Chairman Shickle noted the public hearing notice did not mention the Interstate and Primary plans; therefore, he suggested they be held over so they can be advertised for public hearing at a future meeting. Supervisor Lofton asked if the funding was allocated per county or per district. Jerry Copp, VDOT Resident Engineer, responded the Interstate and Primary funding was allocated to VDOT while the Secondary Road funding was allocated to the county. He went on to note there was no public hearing requirement for the Interstate and Primary Road Plans; however, Frederick County goes beyond what is required by holding public hearings on these plans and he commended the Board for that. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board adopted the Secondary Road Improvement Plan and construction budget for 2010/11 — 2015/16. Resolution #082 -10 Re: 2010 -2011 Secondary Road Improvement Plan WHEREAS, Sections 33.1 -23 and 33.1 -23.4 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, provides the opportunity for each county to work with the Virginia Department of Transportation in developing a Six -Year Road Plan; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Transportation Committee recommended approval of this plan on March 22, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of this plan at their meeting on April 7, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors had previously agreed to assist in the preparation of this plan in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation's policies and procedures and participated in a public hearing on the proposed Plan, after being duly advertised so that all citizens of the County had the opportunity to participate in said hearing and to make comments and recommendations concerning the proposed Plan and Priority List; and WHEREAS, a representative of the Virginia Department of Transportation appeared before the Board during the public hearing and recommended approval of the 2010 -2011 Secondary Road Improvement Plan and the Construction Priority List; and Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 449 WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors support the priorities of the secondary road improvement projects for programming by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: The 2010 -2011 Secondary Road Improvement Plan appears to be in the best interest of the citizens of Frederick County and the Secondary Road System in Frederick County; and therefore, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the 2010 -2011 Secondary Road Improvement Plan and Construction Priority List for Frederick County, Virginia as presented at the public hearing held on April 28, 2010. This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye OTHER PLANNING ITEMS DISCUSSION: ROCK HARBOR AMENDMENTS TO THE ROUND HILL LAND USE PLAN (POSTPONED FROM FEBRUARY 24, 2010 BOARD MEETING) — (RESOLUTION #083 -10) - SENT FORWARD FOR PUBLIC HEARING Deputy Planning Director Michael Ruddy appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised this was a request to include 260 acres of Rock Harbor Golf Course in the Sewer and Water Service Area to facilitate the construction/development of a conference facility and extended stay residential and commercial uses. The proposed land use plan includes guiding principles for development and addresses community facilities. He noted the Board had provided input regarding: - Specificity with balancing the land use; - Expanding the sewer and water service area (SWSA); - Expanding the land use endorsement. He concluded by noting there were limitations on the existing and proposed infrastructure. Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Dove, the Board approved the resolution directing the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing. WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC) Executive Committee on September 14, 2009, discussed and endorsed a Draft Amendment to the Round Hill Land Use Plan known as the Rock Harbor Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission on October 21, 2009 discussed and endorsed the Draft Amendment to the Round Hill Land Use Plan known as the Rock Harbor Amendment; and Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 450 WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors discussed and endorsed the Draft Amendment to the Round Hill Land Use Plan known as the Rock Harbor Amendment on November 18, 2009 and again on April 28, 2010, and finds that it is in the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good planning practice, to direct the Frederick County Planning Commission hold a public hearing regarding the Amendment to the Round Hill Land Use Plan known as the Rock Harbor Amendment; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REQUESTED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that the Frederick County Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing to consider adopting an Amendment to the Round Hill Land Use Plan known as the Rock Harbor Amendment as a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, and forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Passed this 28' day of April, 2010. Supervisor DeHaven stated he supported the land use and would like to see it move forward; however, he could not support the SWSA expansion. Vice - Chairman Ewing echoed Supervisor DeHaven's remarks. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Nay Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Nay Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE VARIANCE REQUEST OF ROBERT AND LYNDA CARPENTER (ROUND HILL GROUND WATER STORAGE TANK). - APPROVED Zoning and Subdivision Administrator Mark Cheran appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised this was a request for exceptions to Section 144 -24(B) Lot Requirements and 144 -31 (C) (3) Rural Subdivisions of the Code of Frederick County, Chapter 144 Subdivision of Land, to allow the creation of a parcel of land intended to accommodate the development of the Round Hill Ground Water Storage Tank. The proposed new parcel would require the following variances to the requirements of Chapter 144: - Allowance of a 0.763 +/- acre minimum lot size for a parcel in the RA Rural Areas District, which otherwise be a minimum of five acres. - Allowance of reduced setbacks in the RA to establish a 20 foot BRL along the western property line, which would otherwise be a 60 foot BRL. - Allowance of reduced setbacks in the RA to establish a 25 foot BRL along the southern property line, which would otherwise be a 60 foot BRL. - Allowance of reduced setbacks in the RA to establish a 40 foot BRL along the northern property line (owned by Robert Carpenter), which would otherwise be a 100 foot BRL. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 451 - Allowance of a new minor rural subdivision parcel to be accessed via a 20 foot, rather than 50 foot, minimum right -of -way as required. This parcel will have direct access to a state road (Poorhouse Road Rt. 654) via Skyview Lane. Zoning Administrator Cheran went on to say the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request with following additional conditions — restrict the use to public utility use only and provide landscaping to shield the tank from the view of adjacent properties. Supervisor Dove asked who requested only 0.763 acres of land. Zoning Administrator Cheran responded the request came from the applicant through the Sanitation Authority. Evan Wyatt, Greenway Engineering, advised the Sanitation Authority was only interested in holding property to sufficiently site the tank. He went on to say the Authority determined a 1 million gallon tank was sufficient to serve the Round Hill Community and the Silver Lake development. He stated the issue of capacity was the same regardless of whether the storage tank was a ground or elevated tank. He also noted the 1,025 elevation was the key to the site. He concluded by saying if the tank is not permitted in this proposed location then a 120 foot tall elevated tank would be needed. Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved the variances with the added restriction of public utility use only. Supervisor Fisher stated the Board had spent three to four years discussing the RA (Rural Areas) proposal and he could not support this request. He went on to say he did not understand how this could be approved. He concluded by saying good luck to the person who has to trim the two rows of Leland Cypress that will be planted in the 20 foot setback. Vice - Chairman Ewing stated he had problems with this proposal as well and did not think he could support it. Supervisor Lofton asked about the size of the elevated tank that might be used if this proposal is not approved. Uwe Weindel, Engineer- Director of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, advised the elevated tank would be two times the size of the tank located at the Sanitation Authority office on Tasker Road and would be 120 feet tall. Director Weindel went on to say the Authority wanted to make sure if a structure was put on this site that it would be large enough to serve the Lutheran Home and provide fire protection. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 452 Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Nay Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Nay Gene E. Fisher Nay Gary A. Lofton Aye ROAD RESOLUTION ( #084 -10) — BABB'S CREEK ESTATES — APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Form AM -4.3, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on June 9, 1993, for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described in the attached Form AM -4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 33.1 -339, 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 There were no citizen comments. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS There were no Board of Supervisors comments. ADJOURN UPON A MOTION BY VICE - CHAIRMAN EWING, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR DOVE, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. (9:05 P.M.) ti Richard C. Shickle J6". Jr. Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10 453 Chairman, Board of Supervisors Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minutes Prepared By: c `IY4 Jay It. T06bs Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minute Book Number 35 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/28/10