Loading...
April 27 2011 Regular Meeting Minutes281 A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Wednesday, April 27, 2011, at 7:15 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Vice - Chairman Bill M. Ewing; Christopher E. Collins; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.; Gary W. Dove; Gene E. Fisher; and Gary A. Lofton. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the meeting to order. INVOCATION Supervisor Dove 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 DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved agenda by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED Administrator Riley offered the following items for the Board's consideration under the consent agenda: - Lake Holiday Dam Working Group — Tab D. Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Dove, the Board approved the consent agenda by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W.. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye CITIZEN COMMENTS Minute Book Number 36 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/27/11 282 There were no citizen comments. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS There were no Board of Supervisors' comments. MINUTES - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board approved the minutes from the April 13, 2011 meeting. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye COUNTY OFFICIALS COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS APPOINTMENT OF JOHN D. CLINE TO THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE — APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board appointed John D. Cline to the Agricultural District Advisory Committee. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye REAPPOINTMENT OF PAMELA K. KEELER TO THE LORD FAIRFAX EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES COUNCIL - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board reappointed Pamela K. Keeler as Volunteer Representative to the Lord Fairfax Emergency Medical Services Council. This is a three year appointment, said term will expire June 30, 2014. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Minute Book Number 36 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/27/11 283 REAPPOINTMENT OF JAMES L STEPHENS AS OPEQUON DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD - APPROVED Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board reappointed James L. Stephens as Opequon District representative to the Social Services Board. This is a four year appointment, said term will expire June 30, 2015. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye RESOLUTION ( #049 -11) AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE VIRGINIA RESOURCES AUTHORITY BOND FINANCING FOR THE LAKE HOLIDAY SPILL - APPROVED Assistant County Administrator Kris Tierney appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised that bids for both the Lake Holiday Dam spillway project and the associated temporary access road came in well within the projected budget. The final action needed to move the project forward is for the Bond Financing Agreement to be executed between the Lake Holiday Country Club (LHCC) Board of Directors, the Lake Holiday Sanitary District, governed by the Board of Supervisors, and the Virginia Resources Authority. He went on to say Lake Holiday Country Club is obligated to maintain the dam and spillway and adequate insurance coverage while the Sanitary District is obligated to make required payments on the debt service which is to be funded through the collection of a sanitary district tax. He advised the financing agreement has been shared with the county treasurer and the directors of finance and public works. In addition, bond counsel and the County Attorney have also reviewed the agreement. The Lake Holiday Country Club Board of Directors has also approved the agreement. Assistant Administrator Tierney noted a change needed to be made on page 3 to read "not more than $10,000,000" instead of "not less than..." Supervisor Lofton asked about the delinquency rate. Assistant Administrator Tierney responded that delinquencies were projected at 5% for buildable lots and 38% for membership lots. He went on to say a rate stabilization fund has been established to off -set a short fall in collections. Supervisor Lofton asked if the delinquency rates were higher than expected, could those owners who pay the fee see an increase in what they pay to offset those who do not pay. Minute Book Number 36 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/27/11 284 Assistant Administrator Tierney responded that is a possibility. Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board approved the Resolution of the Governing Body of the Lake Holiday Sanitary District Authorizing and Approving the Issuance and Sale of a Taxable Dam Improvement Bond in the Maximum Principal Amount of $10,000,000, and Setting Forth the Form, Details, and Provisions for the Payment Thereof and the financing agreement. RECITALS WHEREAS, the Lake Holiday Country Club, Inc. ( "LHCC "), is the property owners association for the Lake Holiday Country Club Subdivision ( "Subdivision ") located in the County of Frederick, Virginia (the "County "); and WHEREAS, the Lake Holiday Dam (formerly known as the Summit Dam) (the "Dam ") was completed in 1971 to create a 240 -acre lake ( "Lake Holiday ") within the Subdivision; and WHEREAS, LHCC is the owner of the Dam, which it operates under a Conditional Certificate from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Dam Safety as a result of the failure of the Dam's spillway to meet applicable standards; and WHEREAS, Lake Holiday is primarily a recreational facility, but also serves as a drainage facility for the Subdivision and supplies water to two dry hydrants (the "Dry Hydrants ") which are owned by LHCC and are actively maintained and used for pumping water out of Lake Holiday to fight fires in the Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Lake Holiday Sanitary District (the "Sanitary District ") was created by Order of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia entered on October 29, 2009 (the "Order "); and WHEREAS, the area encompassed by the Sanitary District is specifically described in the Order, but in general encompasses the Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County serves as the governing body of the Sanitary District (the "Governing Body ") pursuant to Chapter 2 of Title 21 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Sanitary Districts Act "); and WHEREAS, the Governing Body and LHCC have entered into an agreement dated June 9, 2010 (the "Project Agreement "), under which, among other things, (i) the Governing Body and LHCC committed to work together in securing financing for the reconstruction of the Dam spillway in order to bring the Dam into compliance with applicable standards (the "Project "), (ii) LHCC agreed as the owner of the Dam and Lake Holiday to be responsible for the maintenance, preservation and operation of the Dam and Lake Holiday and all other common areas and properties within the Sanitary District, (iii) the Governing Body agreed upon the satisfaction of certain conditions to request a referendum of eligible voters within the Sanitary District regarding the issuance of bonds to cover the estimated costs of the Project, and (iv) it was anticipated that the Governing Body would fix and prescribe an annual tax or charge upon all property in the Sanitary District subject to local taxation and apply the monies derived therefrom to retire the debt incurred for the Project and to fully cover the costs associated with the revenue collection and administration of the Sanitary District incurred by the County; and WHEREAS, a majority of the voters in the Sanitary District voting in a special election held on November 2, 2010, approved the issuance of the Sanitary District's bonds in the maximum amount of $10,000,000 to finance the Project; and WHEREAS, Sections 21 -118 and 21 -118.4 of the Sanitary Districts Act grant certain powers and duties to the Governing Body for use in the administration of the Sanitary District, including without limitation the powers to (i) construct, reconstruct, improve, maintain and Minute Book Number 36 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/27/11 285 operate water supply, drainage and fire - fighting equipment and systems for the use and benefit of the public in the Sanitary District, (ii) construct and maintain recreational facilities, (iii) fix, prescribe, make and change rates of charge for the use of such systems or facilities and to provide for the collection of such charges, (iv) levy and collect an annual tax upon all the property in the Sanitary District subject to local taxation to pay, either in whole or in part, the expenses and charges incident to constructing, maintaining and operating water supply and fire- fighting systems and (v) contract with any person, firm or corporation to construct, reconstruct, improve and /or maintain such systems or facilities; and WHEREAS, Sections 21- 137.1, 21 -137.2 and 21 -138 of the Sanitary Districts Act require the Governing Body, if necessary for the payment of the principal of and interest on the above - described bonds of the Sanitary District and to increase any sinking fund established for such bonds, to levy an annual tax upon all of the property in the Sanitary District subject to local taxation to pay such principal and interest; and WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing upon notice as required in Section 15.2 -1427 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, on March 23, 2011, the Governing Body adopted an ordinance to establish the taxes and charges for the 2011 assessment year within the Sanitary District; and WHEREAS, the Governing Body has determined to cause the Sanitary District to issue the bonds approved at the November 2, 2010, referendum in the form of a single bond (as more particularly defined below, the "Local Bond "), in the maximum principal amount of $10,000,000, and to apply the net proceeds thereof to finance the costs of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Resources Authority ( "VRA ") has indicated its willingness to purchase the Local Bond from a portion of the proceeds of its 2011 A VRA Bonds and to provide such proceeds to the Sanitary District to pay the costs of the Project and to pay certain financing and issuance costs associated with the Local Bond in an amount not less more than $10,000,000 (the "Proceeds Requested "), in accordance with the terms of a Local Bond Sale and Financing Agreement to be dated as of a date to be specified by VRA, among VRA, the Sanitary District and LHCC (the "Financing Agreement "); and' WHEREAS, VRA has advised the Sanitary District that the sale date of the VRA Bonds is tentatively scheduled for May 18, 2011, but may occur, subject to market conditions, at any time between May 1, 2011 and June 1, 2011 (the "VRA Sale Date "), and that VRA's objective is to pay the Sanitary District an amount which, in VRA's judgment, reflects the market value of the payments under the Local Bond (the "Purchase Price Objective "), taking into consideration such factors as the purchase price received by VRA for the 2011A VRA Bonds, the underwriters' discount and other financing and issuance costs of the 2011 A VRA Bonds, and other market conditions relating to the sale of the 2011 A VRA Bonds; and WHEREAS, such factors may result in the Sanitary District receiving a purchase price of other than the par amount of the Local Bond; and WHEREAS, the foregoing arrangements will be reflected in the Financing Agreement, the form of which has been presented to this meeting and filed with the Sanitary District's records; and WHEREAS, capitalized terms used herein and not defined have the same meanings given them in the Financing Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Governing Body of the Lake Holiday Sanitary District that: 1. Authorization of Local Bond and Use of Proceeds The Governing Body hereby finds and determines that it is advisable and in the best interest of the Sanitary District to contract a debt and to issue the Local Bond in the maximum principal amount of $10,000,000, and to award and sell the Local Bond to VRA, all pursuant to the Sanitary Districts Act and other terms of this Resolution and the Financing Agreement. Such issuance, award and sale of the Bond are hereby authorized and approved. The proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bond shall be used, together with other available funds, if any, to pay the costs of the Project and the financing and issuance costs associated with the Local Bond. Minute Book Number 36 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/27/11 i� 2. Details of Local Bond The Local Bond shall be issued as a single, registered bond, shall be designated "Lake Holiday Sanitary District Taxable Dam Improvement Bond, Series 2011" (the "Local Bond "), shall be numbered R -1, and shall be dated on or within 30 days prior to the closing date of the 2011 A VRA Bonds. The final pricing terms of the Local Bond will be determined by VRA, subject to VRA's Purchase Price Objective and market conditions described in the Recitals hereof, provided, however, that (i) the Local Bond shall have a maximum aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $10,000,000, (ii) the Local Bond shall have a "true" interest cost not to exceed seven and one -half percent (7.5 %) per annum (exclusive of Supplemental Interest as provided in the Financing Agreement) (the "Maximum Authorized Interest Rate "), (iii) the Local Bond shall be sold to VRA at a price that is substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested, and (iv) the Local Bond shall mature not later than December 31, 2032. Subject to the preceding terms, the Governing Body further authorizes VRA to determine the aggregate total of principal and interest payments on the Local Bond and establish an amortization schedule for the Local Bond including the dates and amounts and the optional and extraordinary prepayment provisions, if any, of the Local Bond, all in accordance with the provisions hereof. If the limitation on the maximum aggregate principal amount of the Local Bond set forth in this Section 2 restricts VRA's ability to generate the Proceeds Requested, taking into account such factors as the purchase price to be received by VRA for the 201 IA VRA Bonds, the underwriters' discount and the other financing and issuance costs of the 2011 A VRA Bonds and other market conditions relating to the sale of the 2011A VRA Bonds, the Chairman of the Governing Body, the County Administrator and the Assistant County Administrator, any of whom may act (collectively, the "Authorized Representative "), may accept a purchase price for the Local Bond at an amount less than the Proceeds Requested. 3. Local Bond as Term Bond; Sinking Fund Based on the advice of bond counsel to the Sanitary District regarding the meaning of terms customarily used in the municipal bond market, the Governing Body hereby finds for purposes of Sections 21 -137.1 and 21 -137.2 of the Sanitary Districts Act that (i) the Local Bond is a "term bond" and (ii) the Revenue Account, the Bond Account, the Debt Service Reserve Account and the Rate Stabilization Account to be established under the Financing Agreement are "sinking funds ". The Financing Agreement provides that the Revenue Account will be used for the accumulation and periodic distribution of the Revenues collected by the County on the Sanitary District's behalf. The Bond Account will be used to make the payments of principal of and interest on the Local Bond. The Financing Agreement requires the maintenance of the Debt Service Reserve Account at a prescribed level to provide additional security for the Local Bond. There is no required balance to be maintained in the Rate Stabilization Account. The Rate Stabilization Account is where the Sanitary District will accumulate and account for the excess Revenues required to be collected by the Sanitary District under the Financing Agreement. 4. Pledge to Exercise Power to Tax As required under the Sanitary Districts Act, the Governing Body shall, if necessary for the timely payment of the Local Bond or to increase the Debt Service Reserve Account to the level required under the Financing Agreement, levy an annual tax upon all property in the Sanitary District subject to local taxation sufficient to make the payments on the Local Bond and make any required deposits into the Debt Service Reserve Account pursuant to the Financing Agreement. The term "interest" as used in the Local Bond, the Financing Agreement and this Resolution, shall include Supplemental Interest, when and if payable. 5. Other Charges Subject to the terms and limitations set forth in the Financing Agreement, the Sanitary District agrees to pay all amounts required by Section 6.1 of the Financing Agreement, including amounts necessary to maintain or replenish the VRA Reserve and the "late charges," as provided in such section. 6. Form of Bond The Local Bond shall be in substantially the form attached as an exhibit to the Financing Agreement, with such variations, insertions or deletions as may be approved by the Authorized Representative. There may be endorsed on the Local Bond such legend or text as may be necessary or appropriate to conform to any applicable rules and regulations of any governmental authority or any usage or requirement of law with respect thereto. Minute Book Number 36 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/27/11 287 7. Evidence of Approval The Authorized Representative's approval of all of the details and provisions of the Local Bond and the Financing Agreement that he or she has been authorized and /or directed to approve under this Resolution shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery of the Local Bond on the Sanitary District's behalf. 8. Redemption of Local Bond The Local Bond shall be subject to defeasance, refunding and /or redemption, as provided in the Local Bond and the Financing Agreement. 9. Execution and Delivery of Local Bond The Local Bond shall be signed by the Chairman of the Governing Body and countersigned by the Clerk of the Governing Body under the seal of the Governing Body. As provided in Section 21 -131 of the Sanitary Districts Act, the Local Bond shall then be delivered to the County Treasurer, who in turn shall deliver the Local Bond to VRA under the terms and conditions of the Financing Agreement. 10. Registration, Transfer and Exchange The Governing Body appoints the County Treasurer as the Sanitary District's registrar and transfer agent to keep books for the registration and transfer of the Local Bond and to make such registrations and transfers on such books under such reasonable regulations as the Sanitary District may prescribe. Upon surrender for transfer or exchange of the Local Bond at the office of the County Treasurer, the Governing Body shall cause the execution and delivery in the name of the transferee or registered owner, as applicable, of a new Local Bond for a principal amount equal to the Local Bond surrendered and of the same date and tenor as the Local Bond surrendered, subject in each case to such reasonable regulations as the Governing Body may prescribe. If surrendered for transfer, exchange, redemption or payment, the Local Bond shall be accompanied by a written instrument or instruments of transfer or authorization for exchange, in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the County Treasurer, duly executed by the registered owner or by his or her duly authorized attorney -in -fact or legal representative. A new Local Bond delivered upon any transfer or exchange shall be a valid general obligation of the Sanitary District, evidencing the same debt as the Local Bond surrendered and shall be entitled to all of the security and benefits of this Resolution to the same extent as the Local Bond surrendered. 11. Charges for Exchange or Transfer No charge shall be made for any exchange or transfer of the Local Bond, but the County Treasurer may require payment by the holder of the Local Bond of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or any other governmental charge that may be imposed in relation thereto. 12. Mutilated, Lost, or Destroyed Local Bond If the Local Bond has been mutilated, lost, or destroyed, the Governing Body and the County Treasurer will follow the procedures set forth in Section 21 -130.1 of the Sanitary Districts Act. 13. Approval of Financing Agreement The Financing Agreement is approved in substantially the form presented to this meeting, with such changes, insertions or omissions as may be approved by the Authorized Representative, whose approval shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery of the Financing Agreement on the Sanitary District's behalf. The Authorized Representative is authorized to execute and deliver the Financing Agreement and such other documents and certificates as such officer may consider necessary in connection therewith. 14. Disclosure Documents The Sanitary District authorizes and consents to the inclusion of information with respect to the Sanitary District to be contained in VRA's Preliminary Official Statement and VRA's Official Statement in final form, both to be prepared in connection with the sale of each series of the 2011A VRA Bonds, a portion of the proceeds of which VRA will use to purchase the Local Bond. If appropriate, such disclosure documents shall be distributed in such manner and at such times as VRA shall determine. The Authorized Representative is authorized and directed to take whatever actions are necessary or appropriate to aid VRA in ensuring compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2 -12. 15. Further Actions; Authorized Representative The Authorized Representative and such officers and agents of the Sanitary District and the County and the County Treasurer as may be designated by the Authorized Representative are authorized and directed to take such Minute Book Number 36 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/27/11 ii further action as they deem necessary regarding the issuance and sale of the Local Bond and the execution, delivery and performance of the Financing Agreement, including, without limitation, the execution and delivery of closing documents and certificates. All such actions previously taken by such officers and agents are ratified and confirmed. 16. Effective Date This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The above motion and resolution were approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye COMMITTEE REPORTS LAKE HOLIDAY DAM WORKING GROUP — APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The LHSD Dam Working Committee met in the Public Works Department Conference Room located on the 2 nd Floor of the 107 North Kent Street complex, on Tuesday, April 12, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. All members were present. No Items Require Board Action 1) Discussion of LHSD Tax Rate and Collections — (Attachment #1) The Committee utilized a model developed by the County's Financial Advisors to review and discuss different scenarios for delinquencies, collections and the resulting impacts on SD tax rates were these delinquencies too occur. The Committee acknowledged that should delinquencies run higher than projected tax rates on buildable lots would need to be increased accordingly to make -up for the short fall. 2) Financing Agreement — (Sent as separate PDF file) An initial draft of a three party financing agreement between VRA, the Lake Holiday Sanitary District and Lake Holiday Country Club was discussed. The agreement had just been received and had not yet been reviewed by the County or LHCC's legal counsel. The goal of the Committee is to have the financing agreement reviewed by all parties and in a format that we are prepared to seek authorization from the Board of Supervisors at your April 27, 2011 meeting to execute the financing. 3) General Update - Access Road — Bids are due in Monday, April 18, 2011. - Spillway bids are due April 19, 2011. - The LHSD information sheet for inclusion with the LHSD bills. A sample tax bill was shared with the Committee. - County website — Should the project move forward, general information on the spillway project will be made available for LH residents on the County website. FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT The Finance Committee met in the First Floor Conference Room at 107 North Kent Street on Wednesday, April 20, 2011 at 8:00 a.m. Member Richard Shickle was absent. Items 3, 4, and 5 were approved on consent agenda. Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board Minute Book Number 36 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/27/11 • approved the consent agenda by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye 1. The Handley Regional Library Director requests the use of proffer funds and a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of 83,000 in order to construct an occasional use parking lot at Bowman Library. See attached information, p. 1 -6. The committee recommends approval. — Approved. 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 Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye 2. The NRADC Superintendent requests a DCS Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $1,500 for the repair of (2) ASAP vehicles. See attached memo, p. 7. This item has been postponed awaiting further information on replacement vehicle costs. 3. The Fire & Rescue Chief requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $7,968.90 This amount represents an insurance reimbursement for a damaged vehicle. No local funds required. See attached memo, p. 8 -9. — Approved Under Consent Agenda. 4. The Solid Waste Manager requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $6,630.50 This amount represents grant proceeds from VDMME for environmental outreach. No local funds required. See attached memo, p. 10. — Approved Under Consent Agenda. 5. The Solid Waste Manager requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $2,570 This amount represents proceeds from the sale of rain barrels. No local funds required. See attached memo, p. 11. — Approved Under Consent Agenda. 6. The Transportation Director requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $4 million This amount represents construction cost for Snowden Bridge Blvd. $1.3 million will be reimbursed by VDOT Economic Development Access Grants and the remainder reimbursed by Graystone Corporation of Virginia. It is also requested that the County Administrator be authorized to enter into the project management agreement. See attached information, p. 12 -14. 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 Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Minute Book Number 36 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/27/11 290 Gary A. Lofton Aye 7. The Zoning Administrator requests a General Fund and a Development Projects Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $9,186.55 This amount represents the county funds needed to complete Whitacre Farms subdivision which was abandoned by the original developer. The performance bond was budgeted in July 2010. See attached memo, p. 15 -16. This item was postponed awaiting further research with the County Attorney. 8. The Public Works Deputy Director requests a General Fund supplemental gpprolriation in not to exceed $200,000 This amount represents funds to complete the Southside Access Road on behalf of the Lake Holiday Sanitary District. LHSD will submit the funds to the County prior to the award of any contract. See attached memo, p. 17 -18. 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 Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye ** *Information Only * ** 1. The Finance Director provides a Fund 10 Transfer report for FYI 1. See attached, p. 19 -24. 2. The Finance Director provides the Unreserved Fund Balance report. See attached, p. 25. 3. The Finance Director provides March Financial Statements. See attached, p. 26 -37. PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING - 2030 COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN — TH IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE 2030 FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE PLAN COMPREHENSIVELY ADDRESSES THE FUTURE OF FREDERICK COUNTY FOR ITS CITIZENS. THE PLAN IS GUIDED BY THE VISION STATEMENT AND CORE VALUES CRAFTED AND ADOPTED BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. THE PLAN IS SUPPORTED BY TWO APPENDICES: APPENDIX I, WHICH INCLUDES EACH OF THE COUNTY'S AREA PLANS, AND APPENDIX II, WHICH PROVIDES BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND STUDIES IN SUPPORT OF THE PLAN. THE PLAN IN ITS ENTIRETY MAY BE VIEWED AT WWW.FREDERICKCOUNTYVA.GOV — VOTE POSTEDPONED FOR 60 DAYS. Deputy Director of Planning Michael Ruddy appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised tonight was a public hearing on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for Frederick County. He noted a number of stakeholders worked on this plan for the past year. The plan is based on the vision statement adopted by the Board of Supervisors. He went on to say the plan has a new simpler format, which was crafted in Frederick County. Deputy Director Ruddy then Minute Book Number 36 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/27/11 291 gave a brief overview of the plan. He went on to say a huge part of the plan was the public process and this plan "speaks Frederick County ". He reviewed the various methods utilized to promote awareness of the plan to include the county's website, public meetings, and televised meetings on Cable Channel 16. He concluded by saying the Planning Commission held its public hearing in April and recommended approval of this plan. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. Fred Hudson, Opequon District, spoke against the proposed plan. He stated there was a lot of stuff in the plan. He showed a map compiled from documents at the United Nation's Geneva Headquarters in 1994, which was shown to the United States Senate as they prepared to vote on the Global Bio- Diversity Treaty. He urged the Board not to say yes tonight, but to do more investigation because there were higher forces at work here in Frederick County. He concluded by saying "Given the above facts and many more facts concerning Agenda 21, ICLEI, Sustainability, Biodiversity, TDRs, The Renaissance Group, United Nations, Extreme environmentalism, Maurice Strong, Globalism, and the current administration in Washington D. C. I sincerely request the Board of Supervisors to delay the approval of the Comprehensive Plan set before them tonight for at least six months and investigate where this plan would take us long term and what it would cost us to get there. " Dody Stottlemyer, Opequon District, read the following statement: "My name is Dody Stottlemyer and 1 live at 218 Surrey Club Dr. in Stephens City. I would like to express some concerns regarding the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Update 2030. The Plan, as I understand it, wishes to incorporate several visions for the future that are part of the `New Urbanism ' that is spreading all over the Country. First, there are my reservations of the TDR's, the trading of the rights from the rural (sending areas) to the Urban Development areas (receiving areas). My concerns tonight center on the UDA's, which are variously described throughout the Plan as being high density housing, mixed use areas, urban villages, and walkable communities, none of which sound offensive at all. High Density housing, which I'll call `stack and Pack', is touted as the future, with Communities that have wonderful amenities that are all within a five minute walk or bike ride to anywhere you want or need to go. The ultimate goal is to reduce the energy consumption of Frederick County residents via less fuel use so we can become a more `sustainable community' and therefore better stewards of the earth. My concerns focus on the future of the UDA's and the residents contained in them. The green infrastructure' needed for these communities must be in place before they are constructed. Where in this economy do the dollars come from to put into place these services from the County to the citizens? These communities are limited in size, what happens when the UDA's become heavily populated? When the population increases, will the regulations on everyday life increase? Will the funding for the infrastructure come from the residents that are already in the designated UDA's, the developers, or the potential residents? The Plan really doesn't specify. Does this mean higher taxes on the landlords in these high density housing units, if so that usually Minute Book Number 36 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/27/11 2921 translates into higher rent. As the population saturates the UDA, by necessity, regulations increase and liberties decrease. The list of things to be regulated would be endless. A small start down that road already exists in the form of homeowner associations. Many policies enacted in our American History were culminations of the best intentions at the time they were put into place and I'm afraid that this Comprehensive Plan will wind up going down the same slippery slope as Social Security and other well -meant proposals. The best intentions of the Planning Commission, the working groups, and even the Board of Supervisors here and now in 2011, could so easily be perverted in 2030, when those who put this Plan into place are no longer steering the path of Frederick County. I fully appreciate the long hours and the hard work that has obviously been put into this document. 1 would like to ask the board to postpone their decision on the adoption of this Plan until a more thorough study of the relationship between the different aspects of the Plan can be made. I would certainly volunteer to be "invited" to take part in this fact finding mission, If the Board chooses to postpone adoption of this Plan. Thank you for your time and attention." Kathleen Bassford, a property owner in the Back Creek District, appeared before the Board and read the following statement: "My name is Kathleen Bassford. I own property in the North Mountain Rural Community Center. I am a Doctoral student at Shenandoah University in education policy. 1 am also a business woman, looking to expand my warehouse business to Warren or Frederick counties. I reviewed the 2030 Comprehensive Plan looking for a cost /benefit analysis, especially for the TDRs and PDRs. I see that TDR senders and county government benefit, but what is the benefit for smaller landowners, like me, or for current suburban homeowners or current apartment renters or for future businesses? I found no enumerated costs for funding this plan. Costs might include growth of county government for the Cap and Trade of TDRs, a shrinking tax base in sending areas, new urban facilities, a heat island around Winchester, increased taxes, and reduced rural tax base. As TDRs are traded for capped urban development permits, the tax base in my area will diminish. Will my taxes increase, as the value of my property decreases, if surrounded by less valuable TDR properties? Will real estate taxes increase on suburban homes or rental property, thus increasing apartment rents? Will the sales tax increase to pay for new facilities and increased government expenses? Will TDR purchase requirements discourage business development? What if new residents don't want to move into UDAs? According to Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Public aversion to density often makes developing compact housing a difficult process.' The plan says new residents are DC commuters; however, the plan also says new residents will walk to work in the UDA. Which is accurate? UDA Home Owner Associations will control developed and protected areas. What if potential buyers refuse to purchase in HOA areas? You couldn't pay me to live under an HOA again. The 2% rural residential development rate is very low in comparison to a radical TDR Cap and Trade solution to socially engineer the county. The costs of water and sewer in urban areas far exceed the use of septic and well in rural lots. Excluding apple farming, Frederick is 26` out of 35 counties in corn farming in 2008. What extensive farming economy is this plan trying to protect? Trends show that microfarming is the future of commercial farming. I think a detailed cost /benefit analysis of the plan is critical. Therefore, I volunteer to assist with this analysis. Because the plan doesn't need approval until 2012, 1 request that you postpone your vote tonight until this cost /benefit analysis can be performed. Minute Book Number 36 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/27/11 293 Thank you for your attention. " Jack Lillis, Back Creek District, stated he had two concerns with the proposed plan, cost and timing. He noted in the plan that a great deal of infrastructure is to be provided and he wanted to know how it is going to be provided. He asked where the CIP (Capital Improvements Plan) was in the 2030 plan. He also wanted to know where the detailed 20 year Capital Improvements Plan was that would implement the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. He cited the costs of the various projects contained in the Capital Improvements Plan. He concluded by asking the Board to please think about what the country is facing today. Les Johns, Stonewall District, thanked the Board for their hard work and dedication. He stated that he purchased his property based on the previous Comprehensive Plan. A road has been in the plan for over 20 years and the county did not get the road done, as there was no funding allocated for Route 37. He stated this plan was a plan of what was not going to happen. He concluded by asking the Board why they were showing a road that they were not going to get. Diane Kerns, Gainesboro District, stated she had worked with the citizen group on the rural areas and agri- business parts of the plan. She was impressed with how the Planning staff made this a citizen friendly effort. The document drew from the Board's vision statement. The plan looked at cost containment and resource preservation and the stakeholders came up with the best compromise they could. Paul Anderson, Back Creek District, stated he operated a family farm and he would like to keep it in the family. He worked on the agri- business portion of the plan. He stated that everyone who produces a product and sells it is in agri- business. He spoke in favor of the Transfer of Development Rights program, which would allow him to sell the development rights, but keep his land. He went on to say that what the committee worked on and what was recommended was what the committee developed. He stated the Farm Bureau producing members support the Transfer of Development Rights program. He concluded by saying he supports what the Board is doing and what has been done. Danny Lanning, Opequon District, read the following statement: "I would like to express my appreciation to you for providing me this opportunity to address you. I also recognize the hard work that the planning commission, staff and citizens has applied to this plan. I have some legitimate questions about the results of adopting this plan that I believe needs some Minute Book Number 36 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/27/11 294 farther review. The concept of T.D.R. 's strips the inheritable rights of the property and blocks any future development of said property irregardless what that development is of great concern. Since the concept runs with the property, there can be no change and the land becomes almost completely stagnant which could also stagnant the economy. This will open up potential court actions against the county under constitutional issues. The receiving property proffers are waived which creates more tax burden on existing tax payers. As any one knows the more urban an area becomes the need for public services increase dramatically. The 75% to 25% residential to commercial development concept has proven to be effective however if the tax burden is discouraging to businesses, they will choose not to establish their business in our county which initiates a domino effect on our economy. In the early 60's Reston's designer was fired when it was determined that the sustainable development concept with nature pathways were isolated enough to create an environment for robberies, assault, rapes and camouflage for burglaries. The demand for service increased to the point of riots. The banking of T.D.R. 's has a potential for future court actions as the developers' dissatisfaction on their receiving development locations are probable. This also will create a suspicious atmosphere offavoritism to certain T.D.R. holders by the county staff. Zoning has been an effective tool for decades in order to assist in holding development in check if properly executed. A special zoning assessment can be applied to property that is used for agricultural uses with tax only at specific lower rate, not at the rate if it is sold for development. This would be an incentive for the property to be used for agricultural and not force the owner to sell because of high taxes. This would prevent stripping the property of future value and possibly contribute to a future stale economy. I know you should have my presentation to the planning commission as part of the package you received from them so I will not repeat any of those potential problems I presented to them. I respectfully request that action on this comprehensive plan be postponed until ample attention has been given to analyze these questions and determine if this plan is justified and in the best interest of the present and future citizens of Frederick County. " Mark Berg, Back Creek District, expressed concern about the Transfer of Development Rights program. He noted the county would have to maintain permanent records on the transactions. He stated the side effects of the TDR ordinance could be: - Government entities could buy the development rights; The buyer could extinguish the rights without using them, which could have a negative fiscal impact to county revenues. - The development rights could be severed from the property and held by the current landowner. He asked what the monetary value of those development rights would be because the county's taxes are based on the value of those development rights. If the TDR right is extinguished it could cause a significant loss of tax revenue. Jack Lillis, Back Creek District, continued his prior remarks. He noted the real cost of the needed infrastructure is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. He asked if we could afford the 2030 plan at this time. He went on to say he saw no compelling reason why the 2030 plan Minute Book Number 36 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/27/11 295 should be adopted now. He concluded by saying he would recommend the plan be shelved until we get a handle on state and federal finances. Fred Hudson, Opequon District, continued his prior remarks: " ICLIE was founded in 1990 as the `International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives'. The Council was established when more than 200 local governments from 43 countries convened at their inaugural conference, the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future, at the United Nations in New York. In 2003 ICLEI changed its name to `ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability', no doubt to place more emphasis on the `local' and to diminish concerns about its `international' influence and its political and financial ties to the United Nations. In 1992 Earth Summit, Known officially as the United Nations Conference on Environmental and Development ( UNCED), the eco- confab in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, was unprecedented in size and scope, bringing together some 35, 000 government officials, diplomats, NGO activists, and journalists. Rio became the launch pad for a number of huge initiatives that have been gradually gaining force and wreaking havoc on the planet in the intervening decades. The five main documents to come out of the UNCED process are: - The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development - The Statement of Forest Principles - The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity - Agenda 21 The Climate Change and Biological Diversity conventions were posited as `hard law' treaties that impose binding obligations upon the ratifying parties; the other three are referenced to as `soft law' documents, instruments that commit the parties to a path of pursuing later `hard law' commitments. President George H. W. Bush signed the Climate Change Convention in 1992 and the U. S. Senate ratified it the same year. In 1995 Bill Clinton signed the United Nations Global Biodiversity Treaty. He sent it to congress to be ratified. Congress got a hold of the map shown in this package just before they were to vote on it and refused to ratify the treaty. Bill Clinton then issued an executive order forming an organization with explicit instructions to implement Agenda 21 across our nation. (See also ICLEI partners — `Clinton Climate Initiative) SUSTAINABILITY Much has been written in academic terms about the meaning of sustainable development and the need to integrate ecological and economic principles into personal and public decision - making.... However, there is no agreed definition of the concept and perhaps there is no need for one... Thus, sustainable development is an `emerging concept' in two ways, first, because it is relatively new and evolves as we learn to grasp its wide implications for all aspects of our lives, and, second, because its meanings emerge and evolve according to local contexts. In other words, `sustainable development' is a despot's dream- come -true: an emerging all - purpose, open -ended `enabling act' granting global central planner's carte blanche to claim it means whatever they want it to mean. " Rod Bulley, Stonewall District, stated MRS take away personal property rights. Agenda 21 is a U.N. initiative that could not get through the federal level and has been put through to the counties. He asked the Board to postpone action tonight. There being no further comments, Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board Minute Book Number 36 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/27/11 296 postponed action for 60 days to consider the comments received tonight. Supervisor Collins thought there was a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about what we have done. He went on to say if people were willing to listen and learn we might be able to learn from one another. Chairman Shickle stated that we received comments and we need to think about how we might use them. He stated we could have the interested parties contact individual supervisors, do something more formal, have volunteers, etc. Supervisor DeHaven stated he supported the motion. He suggested holding a series of inclusive community meetings, which would be devoted to the issues raised and try to make the best use of that time. Supervisor Dove agreed with Supervisor DeHaven. He thought having a couple of meetings within the 60 day period was a good idea. Supervisor Fisher stated he had no problem with the motion. He went on to say we had a lot of people speak tonight, but we had a lot more work on the plan. Vice - Chairman Ewing thought Supervisor DeHaven's suggestion was a good idea and the meetings would be constructive. Administrator Riley advised that staff could work with the chairman to set up two meeting to address the topics and issues raised. Supervisor Collins stated that he believed the Planning Commission should be involved. Supervisor Lofton echoed the Board's sentiments. He went on to say the plan has been well vetted and he sensed a lack of understanding on some points. There being no further discussion, the above motion was approved by the following recorded vote; Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye PUBLIC HEARING - THE VIRG INIA 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 ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR FISCAL YEARS 2012 THROUGH 2017 IN FREDERICK COUNTY AND ON THE SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION BUDGET FOR FREDERICK Minute Book Number 36 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/27/11 297 COUNTY AND ON THE SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012. COPIES OF THE PROPOSED PLAN AND BUDGET MAY BE REVIEWED AT THE EDINBURG OFFICE OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATOIN, LOCATED AT 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE, EDINBURG, VIRGINIA OR AT THE FREDERICK COUNTY OFFICES LOCATED AT 107 NORTH KENT STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA. ALL PROJECTS IN THE SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT 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. PERSONS REQUIRING SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE IN THIS HEARING SHOULD CONTACT THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AT 1 -800- 367 -7623. — (RESOLUTION #051 -11) - APPROVED Deputy Director of Planning — Transportation John Bishop appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised this was a public hearing that has been advertised as a joint hearing of VDOT and the Board of Supervisors. He noted the key change was item number 2, Red Bud Road re- alignment. This realignment has received partial funding. With regard to the Rural Hard Surfacing Projects, there has been no need to reprioritize due to a lack of funding for new projects. The Transportation Committee reviewed this at their March 28, 2011 meeting and the consensus was to recommend the program for approval. The Planning Commission reviewed the program and recommended approval. Supervisor Dove asked if the rankings had changed. Deputy Director Bishop responded yes. Supervisor Fisher asked if Route 644 East Parkins Mill Road would continue into Clarke County or would it stop at the Opequon. Chairman Shickle noted the symbols were backwards on #2 and #7 on the major road plan. He also noted that #13 Old Baltimore Road was not shown on the map of the hard surface /unscheduled road. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. Les Johns, Stonewall District, thought Woods Mill Road, Route 660, should be on the list. He would like to see it as 421. There being no further comments, Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board approved the six year road plan with the map amendments as proposed. WHEREAS, Sections 33.1 -23 and 33.1 -23.4 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, provide the opportunity for each county to work with the Virginia Department of Transportation in developing a Secondary Six year Road Plan; and WHEREAS, this Board had previously agreed to assist in the preparation of this Plan, in Minute Book Number 36 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/27/11 accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation policies and procedures, and participated in a public hearing on the proposed Plan (2011 through 2017) as well as the Construction Priority List (2011) on April 27, 2011, after duly advertised so that all citizens of the County had the opportunity to participate in said hearing and to make comments and recommendations concerning the proposed Plan and Priority List; and WHEREAS, the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation appeared before the Board and recommended approval of the Six Year Plan for Secondary Roads (2011 through 2017) and the Construction Priority List (2011) for Frederick County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that since said Plan appears to be in the best interests of the Secondary Road System in Frederick County and of the citizens residing on the Secondary System, said Secondary Six Year Plan (2011 through 2017) and Construction Priority List (2011) are hereby approved as presented at the public hearing. This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — CHAPTER 165 ZONING ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, PART 401 RA RURAL AREAS DISTRICT, §165- 401.07 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS; AND CHAPTER 144 _ SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE VI PLAN REQUIREMENTS, §144-35 PRELIMINARY SKETCHES — MINOR REVISIONS TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY ORDINANCE FOR THE RURAL AREAS REQUIREMENTS, CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS MADE IN 2009. — APPROVED Senior Planner Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She advised these were minor revisions necessary to Chapter 165- Zoning and Chapter 144 - Subdivision of Land to correct ordinance sections that should have been changed when the rural areas changes were adopted in December 2009. The first proposed change is to § 165- 401.07 Setback requirements, which clarifies that setback requirements apply to all lots in the RA Zoning District (conforming or non - conforming in lot size). The second proposed change is to eliminate a reference to 40% preservation tracts in the Subdivision Ordinance, The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments. Supervisor DeHaven asked staff to look at the setback requirements. He was concerned the setback requirements for existing parcels would change under this proposal. Senior Planner Perkins responded the setbacks would not change. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no citizen comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Minute Book Number 36 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/27/11 NM Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved an ordinance amending the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401 RA Rural Areas District, 165- 401.07 Setback Requirements and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article VI Plan Requirements, 144 -35 Preliminary Sketches. WHEREAS, an ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, to correct sections that should have been changed when the rural areas changes were adopted in December of 2009, 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 6, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on April 27, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds that the adoption of these ordinances 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 IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, PART 401 RA RURAL AREAS DISTRICT165- 401.07 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND CHAPTER 144, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE VI PLAN REQUIREMENTS, 144 -35 PRELIMINARY SKETCHES are amended to reflect minor revisions necessary to correct these two ordinance sections as intended and adopted in December 2009. ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTAL DISTRICTS Part 401 — RA Rural Areas District 5 165- 401.07 Setback requirements The following setback requirements shall apply to all parcels within the RA Rural Areas Zoning District. A. Traditional five aer-e lots and family divisien lots. Setbaeks ffem tFaditional five aere 1 d family diyisio lots setbacks for all lots other than rural preservation lots shall be as set out below. Chapter 144 - Subdivison of Land ARTICLE VI Plan Requirements § 144.34. Certification required. All subdivision design plans and final plats shall be prepared by a registered engineer or certified surveyor duly licensed by the State of Virginia, who shall practice within the limits of his license. § 144.35. Preliminary sketches. Minute Book Number 36 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/27/11 300 The following items shall be shown on the preliminary sketch unless waived by the Subdivision Administrator: H. Location of common open space or 40 60 % of parcel to remain intact and all environmental features, including prime agricultural or locally significant soils as defined by Chapter 165, Zoning. This amendment shall be in effect on the day of adoption. Passed this 27 day of April, 2011 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye OTHER PLANNING ITEMS DISCUSSION — PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS FOR PROFFERS — (RESOLUTION # 052 -11) - SENT FORWARD FOR PUBLIC HEARING Senior Planner Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She advised the Code of Virginia contains enabling legislation that allows the Board of Supervisors to waive the public hearing requirement for proffer revisions when the proposed revision does not affect conditions of use or density. She concluded by saying the Planning Commission recommended this item be sent forward for public hearing. Supervisor Fisher asked what if the housing type changed. Senior Planner Perkins responded that would be treated as a change of use. She went on to say the Board would have the ability to choose whether or not to grant the public hearing waiver. Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board approved the resolution directing the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing regarding Chapter 165, Zoning, Article I — General Provisions, Part 102 — Amendments. WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Department has been directed to prepare modifications to Chapter 165, Zoning to enable a new State Code provision in regards to proffer revisions. WHEREAS, the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) recommended approval of this amendment on January 27, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission discussed the draft ordinance on April 6, 2011 and recommended that a public hearing be held; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds that in the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice, directs the Frederick County Planning Commission hold a public hearing regarding an amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning to enable a new State Code provision in regards to proffer revisions. Minute Book Number 36 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/27/11 301 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 revisions to Chapter 165, Zoning to enable a new State Code provision in regards to proffer revisions. Passed this 27` day of April, 2011 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye BOARD LIAISON REPORTS There were no Board liaison reports. CITIZEN COMMENTS Dody Stottlemyer, Opequon District, stated that she thought the Board had misunderstood the public being involved because not many people know about the Comprehensive Plan. She took exception to some of the Board's comments. She went on to say if we had an exchange of ideas that might be more productive, as we have input to give you that you might not have seen. She concluded by saying people were invited to become part of the various working groups. Jody Hewitt, Gainesboro District, appeared before the Board regarding the upcoming trash contract. She reviewed the formation of Ridge Runner Container and its recent growth. The company currently serves a three county region and would like to become a nationally recognized business. She concluded by saying they would like to get the trash contract for Frederick County Public Schools. Ross Hewitt, Gainesboro District, appeared before the Board regarding the upcoming county trash contract. He stated the numbers are due tomorrow for the bid. He went on to say that he was trying to be proactive. He met with staff in September 2010 and was told the bids would be out the first of the year. When the bid was finally advertised he had only 10 business days to work on it because it was on the street for only 14 days. He stated the hard part was getting bonding in place by tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. He advised that it would be impossible for his company to maintain all sites, so we chose to bid strictly on the Frederick County Public Schools' portion. He stated the service would be invoiced separately and there would be no communication with the County and the hauler. He concluded by saying he would like the Minute Book Number 36 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/27/11 30 School Board to have a representative on the review committee. Fred Hudson, Opequon District, stated he was not a conspiracy theorist, but the County did join ICLEI for one year and during that period, the County got software. He went on to say Agenda 21 is a soft law, but after it gets in it becomes a hard law. He concluded by saying this program is just like Chesterfield and Albemarle counties. Jack Lillis, Back Creek District, stated if what is proposed is implemented in 2030 then we would have a city surrounding a city. He went on to say that he hopes when the groups get together it is in an informal fashion. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Supervisor Fisher stated we did not join that group. It was his understanding that a staff member, in pure dedication to his job, tried to get a program to analyze the energy efficiency of our buildings. We got the software package and were put on a list. We are no longer part of that group and he wanted no part of that group. Administrator Riley stated the County spent $1,200.00 and saved over $170,000.00 in energy costs. Supervisor DeHaven stated he believed the meetings with the citizens regarding the Comprehensive Plan should be informal. He wanted to have an honest exchange of information. He went on to say the Comprehensive Plan and the Capital Improvements Plan are required by the State Code and we've attempted to update them each year. Chairman Shickle stated we need to try to get over the hot button issues if we are to have a dialogue. ADJOURN UPON A MOTION BY VICE- CHAIRMAN EWING, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR COLLINS, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. (9:10 P.M.) Minute Book Number 36 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/27/11 303 Richard C. Shickle o Ri ey, Jr. Chairman, Board of Supervisors erk, Board of Supervisors Minutes Prepared By: E `7 s Jay E. Ti *s Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minute Book Number 36 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/27/11