March 13, 2002 Regular Meeting
653
A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors (Board) was held on
March 13, 2002, at 7:15 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administration
Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia.
PRESENT
Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Vice Chairman W. Harrington Smith, Jr.; Robert M. Sager;
Margaret B. Douglas; Sidney A. Reyes; Gina A. Forrester; and Lynda J. Tyler.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Shickle called the meeting to order.
INVOCATION
The invocation was delivered by Pastor Gene Hawkins with the Nations Christian Center.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr., requested amending the agenda to include the
following items:
1. Presentation from Frederick County School Superintendent Dr. William C. Dean Re:
James Wood Middle School Renovations, and
2. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Revenue Sharing Addition to Revenue
Sharing Program Application and Resolution for Regency Heights Subdivision and
Airport Road (Tab L).
Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., the agenda
was adopted as amended, by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Aye
CONSENT AGENDA
County Administrator Riley suggested the following items for approval under consent
agenda:
I. Parks and Recreation Commission Report - Tab M, and
2. Landfill Oversite Advisory Committee - Tab N.
Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Sidney A. Reyes, the consent
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
654
agenda, as noted above, was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Aye
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Kevin Kennedy, Gainesboro District, thanked the Board members for their work and opening
up of issues to citizens and the public as he felt this has not always been true. He also urged the
Board to vote in favorable consideration for funds pertaining to the grants to purchase battlefield
properties. In addition, he expressed concern regarding the emergency situation pertaining to water
and felt a moratorium should be placed on any further residential construction that has not already
been started.
Pam Kennedy, Gainesboro District, expressed her views on the definition of public trust by
elected officials and hired employees. They serve the needs ofthe public, are open in deliberations,
conceal nothing, do not operate for their own gain, and they make sure their master is the public.
In Frederick County, until several months ago, there was cause for concern that some of the duly
elected officials were serving special interest and not the public interest. The electorate spoke and
showed its dissatisfaction with the situation. She questioned if the paid servants (the paid
employees) are acting in a manner that guarantees satisfaction of the public's trust. She also
questioned whether or not the questions being asked by the elected officials are being answered
fully and completely, is there a clean paper trail for all actions and decisions that can be easily
accessed by the public, and ifthe hired officials are always acting in the best interest ofthe general
public or is some special public being served.
Donald W. Luttrell, Opequon District, addressed the Route 37 Extension and fclt the
Kernstown to Route 7 portion should have been done immediately following the completion of the
current section of Route 37. It would have saved fuel, traveling time, and the use ofI-81. It is very
dangerous especially at the Lee Jackson ramp. He also expressed concern in using tax payers money
to extend water to the Perry Engineering property and did not want to spend another $3 million plus
as was done with the Coca Cola business at the tax payers expense. In addition, he asked the Board
not to make road improvements under a revenue sharing program for the airport and regency
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
655
subdivision that includes tax payers money. The obligation of the developer is to develop all road
infrastructures at their own expense at which time they will be taken over by the state.
Walt Cunningham, Shawnee District, echoed the remarks of former speaker Mr. Luttrell.
He advised the Board that the road networks in the southern and eastern part ofthe county are way
behind time. Anything done now will be done too late and felt that Route 37 needed to be extended
to take care ofthe vast development and heavy traffic in the Stephens City and Senseny Road area.
The Greenwood Road proj ect is beautiful but is a connector road that leads into a secondary road that
jams everything up. Help is needed and he felt the best economical solution is Route 37 where
federal funds will help.
Brad Baruffi, representing the Northern Autobon Society, expressed concern regarding the
erosion and sediment control issues in the county and the lack of enforcement. He referred to a
previous meeting where county staff made a slide presentation showing a select enforcement ofthese
rules and regulations. He felt there were obviously two different views and versions of the
enforcement of erosion and sediment control issues in the county. He didn't claim to be an expert
on this topic, however, he took time and money and attended the basic erosion and sediment control
course given by the Department of Conservation and Recreation in Virginia on December 11 and
12 of 2001. At that time, in asking several questions because he had been told that single family
homes are not covered under erosion and sediment controls in the county as they are exempt,
Mr. Ken Harper with the Department of Conservation and Recreation, Erosion and Sediment Control
Division, advised him that the law was amended and changed in the State of Virginia in 1993. If
resources are an issue with enforcement, access is available through the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water
Conservation District. They do plan review and erosion sediment control and site inspections. In
speaking with Mr. Mike Barry with the district, he stated that historically Frederick County does not
use their services. To ascertain the county's enforcement or lack thereof, he encouraged and invited
the Board, the community, the press, and anyone else interested to meet him on Saturday, March 16,
2:00 p.m., at the parking lot next to Rite Aid off of Amherst Street to show sites he had singled out.
Katherine Whitesell, Back Creek District, addressed the Board regarding the preservation of
historic battlefield sites and advised that progress was being made in a positive manner. She urged
the Board to approve the plan that will bring in $1.25 million annually with the county investing
$250,000 for the next three years. She expressed concern about the road projects that were being
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
65
presented to the Board at this meeting and especially the Route 37 project that will go through the
middle of the Stephenson Depot Battlefield. She felt the county should look at other alternatives but
unfortunately they too go through historic sites such as Hackwood, the Frederick County park, and
the Frederick County fair grounds. She wasn't sure why Route 37 was being rushed, she urged the
Board to read the Environmental Impact Statement, parts are missing and not included that the
different agencies said should be included, and asked that the county move forward on positive
matters without rushing ahead on other matters. She asked that the no build option, because of the
expansion of Route I-81, be considered as addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Sam Lehman, Back Creek District, addressed concern with the extension of Route 37 and
that its completion would bring more traffic congestion to the eastern and southern part ofthe county
because it would open the area up for more development. He also referred to Mr. Baruffi's
comments made earlier and advised the Board that he had been to a half a dozen field trips down
White's Pond as well as the railroad tracks. He recalled the county's slide presentation that
supposingly showed enforcement of the sedimentation and control in the past five years but advised
the Board that a couple of years ago that Stephen's White swimming area of White's Pond was
filled in with sediment and also the strcams and in some areas as much as a couple offeet deep. This
was caused when the land west of Merriman's 's Lane was graded and sewer pipes and etc. were
constructed. In walking up and down the railroad tracks during the housing development time frame
several years ago, he recalled not seeing any use of sedimentation controls.
David Darcy, Stonewall District, referred to the worksession with the sanitation authority and
felt the water supply in Frederick County was a failure. He referred to numbers he received for the
years 2000 and 2001. Increase in water usage in five years is 50 percent, going from 2.3 to 3.6. In
five years he felt the county would have another 50 percent increase to 5.4 million gallons of water
a day. He stated that the county has a failed system in Stephens City and that at the last sanitation
authority meeting it was stated that they are getting 700,000 gallons of water a day. They are
averaging 3.5 million gallons in sales and asked where the difference is. He felt the city is making
it up and that the county was making good on the backs of Winchester's good faith to the county.
He foresees the county burning out the Clearbook quarries. A quote was made at the last meeting
that it would take years for the Stephens City quarries to recover. He advised the Board that the
study states that 2.2 million gallons of water a day arc obtained out of the Stephens City quarries and
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
657
that 700,000 was actually being obtained, and makes any past study highly suspect. He was
concerned about droughts and urged the Board to look at streamflow studies from the 60's. With the
continued growth and the Route 37 issue, he felt the county should have their own adequate water
supply reserves and not depend on the city.
Charles Orndoff, Stonewall District, expressed concern with the comment made that the
county was pushing the Route 37 project but has been missing(?-not sure what was stated here) the
14 years he was in office. He felt the project should not be delayed because the county had already
invested tax money revenue.
Sharon Boyd, Gainesboro District, referred to the Environmental Impact Statement and it was
her opinion that the only option to choose was the no-build option. When the various options were
considered, the expansion ofI-81 into eight lanes was not considered and the Board needed to look
at that as a real possibility. With the extension of Route 37, she is concerned with emission levels
and the cost to build for approximately $200 million. She felt the extension provided a connection
of one industrial park to another, one commercial segment into another commercial segment, and
that is why the road was created. Taken out of consideration were the lives and cost of displaced
families and the environment. She felt improving the current road systems was the solution and not
the extension of Route 37.
Becky Morrison, Gainesboro District, expressed concern that county money has already been
invested in the Route 37 project and didn't understand how Mr. Ambrogi could make a statement
that there is not enough time for a public hearing. She does not see the necessity for Route 37 but
sees 1-81 improvements being an option.
MINUTES OF JOINT BUDGET WORKSESSION ON FEBRUARY 13. 2002. OF
THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND THE FREDERICK
COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD-APPROVED
Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by Gina A. Forrester, these minutes were
approved, as presented, by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Aye
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING ON FEBRUARY 13. 2002 - APPROVED AS
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
658
AMENDED
Supervisor Douglas advised the Board that on page 19, the last action item on that page
(request to include 381.34 acres into the Double Church Road Agricultural and Forrestal District)
the Board's motion on this request was omitted and needed to be included on page 20.
Upon motion made by Margaret B. Douglas, seconded by Sidney A. Reyes, these minutes
were approved, as amended above, by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, JI. - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Aye
COUNTY OFFICIALS
ROBERT W. WELLS' NAME SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
AS THE MEMBER-AT-LARGE - APPROVED
Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., Robert
Wells' name was submitted for consideration by the Circuit Court for appointment to the Board of
Zoning Appeals. This is a five-year appointment.
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Nay
GEORGE R. VAUGHT REAPPOINTED TO TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
AS THE TOWN OF STEPHENS CITY REPRESENTATIVE - APPROVED
Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by Gina A. Forrester, George Vaught was
reappointed to the Transportation Committee as the Town of Stephens City representative. This is
a one year appointment. This term will begin on April 28, 2002, and expire April 28, 2003.
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, JI. - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
659
Gina A. Forrester - Aye
REOUEST FROM GIS MANAGER MARCUS LEMASTERS TO APPROVE
PRICING SCHEDULE FOR DIGITAL ORTHOPHOTOS INFORMATION -
APPROVED
County Administrator Riley presented this request for a pricing structure for Digital
Orthophotos information that will be available on May 1, 2002. The digital ortho photographs
project will be complete on April 18, 2002, and as the date draws near, the GIS Division receives
more and more request for availability, distribution, and pricing for these photographs. Research
was conducted of the pricing structures in other jurisdictions within the State of Virginia. A mid-
range pricing structure was developed that the GIS manager felt was fair and reasonable.
GIS Manager Lemasters appeared before the Board to answer various questions. He advised
the Board that a disclaimer would be added to any information purchased by the public to disallow
the resale of the information.
Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by Sidney A. Reyes, the following pricing
guide was approved, along with a disclaimer that would be included with the information:
$20 - Set up per CD, for all GIS digital data.
.50 - per tile/photo for Digital Ortho Photos (compressed at 10: 1, 20: 1, 30: 1, or 50: 1 (20: 1
compression is most common.
$350.00 - A complete set of Digital Ortho Photos - 20:1 compression on six CDs.
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Aye
PRESENTATION FROM FREDERICK COUNTY SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT
DR. WILLIAM Co DEAN RE: JAMES WOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL RENOVATIONS
Dr. Dean appeared before the Board to summarize the various renovations that are planned
for the James Wood Middle School.
Mr. Phil Pappas, architect for the Frederick County School Board, appeared before the Board
and presented a detailed overview of the renovations that will be taking place at the school.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION (#034-02) AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
660
OF NOT TO EXCEED $11.380.000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS OF
THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK. VIRGINIA. TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA
PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY - APPROVED AS AMENDED
County Administrator Riley presented this request. Capital projects included in this amount
are the completion of Millbrook High School, the renovation of James Wood Middle School, and
the addition of a fourth middle school.
Dr. Dean appeared before the Board and advised that funds had been approved to purchase
property for a middle school and elementary school. Funds have been received and are in an interest
bearing account. The question is now where to build the middle school since the Board denied the
rezoning of the proposed Perry property. A location needed to be determined no later than six
months in order not to delay the opening ofthe much needed middle school by the 2004 school year.
Since no location had been determined to date, he advised the Board that approximately $2.6 million
could be removed from this issuance.
It was the consensus of the Board that the middle school was needed but the Perry property
was not feasible in cost or location for the new middle school and asked that other options be looked
into. They felt children needed to live close to the schools they were attending.
There was no public comment.
There was confusion and misunderstanding about the amount to reduce the bond proceeds
ifthe middle school was not built on the Perry property. Dr. Dean and County Administrator Riley
advised that the funds to purchase the property have already been received. The amount of this
resolution would be reduced by $2.65 million and represents architectural and site development fees.
Two bond sales are issued during the year, one in the fall and one in the spring. In the fall, the Board
will have another opportunity to authorize issuance of general obligation school bonds once a site
has been determined for the new school.
Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by Sidney A. Reyes, the following
resolution was approved as amended to reduce the bond to $8,730,000:
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA
At a regular meeting ofthe Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, held
on March 13, 2002, the following persons were present or absent as shown:
PRESENT: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman; W. Harrington Smith, Jr., Vice-Chairman;
Robert M. Sager; Lynda 1. Tyler; Sidney A. Reyes; Margaret B. Douglas and Gina A. Forrester.
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
661
ABSENT: No one was absent.
Upon motion by Robert M. Sager, seconded by Sidney A. Reyes, the following resolution
was adopted, by a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors, by the following roll call
vote, as recorded in the minutes ofthe meeting:
MEMBER
VOTE
Richard C. Shickle
W. Harrington Smith, Jr.
Robert M. Sager
Lynda J. Tyler
Sidney A. Reyes
Margaret B. Douglas
Gina A. Forrester
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $8,730,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK,
VIRGINIA TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY AND
PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") ofthe County of Frederick, Virginia
(the "County") has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow up to $8,730,000 and to
issue its general obligation school bonds to finance certain capital projects for school purposes.
WHEREAS, the County has held a public hearing, after due publication of notice, in
accordance with Section 15.2-2606, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code") on
March 13, 2002 on the issuance of school bonds in an amount not to exceed $8,730,000.
WHEREAS, the School Board of the County of Frederick, Virginia ("School Board") has
requested by resolution the Board to authorize the issuance ofthe Bonds (as defined below) and has
consented to the issuance of the Bonds.
WHEREAS, the objective of the Virginia Public School Authority (the "VPSA) is to pay
the County a purchase price for the Bonds which, in VPSA's judgment, reflects the Bonds' market
value (the "VPSA Purchase Price Objective"), taking into consideration such factors as the
amortization schedule the County has requested for the Bonds, the amortization schedules requested
by other localities, the purchase price to be received by VPSA for its bonds and other market
conditions relating to the sale ofVPSA's bonds.
WHEREAS, such factors may result in requiring the County to accept a discount, given the
VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, under which circumstance the proceeds from
the sale of the Bonds received by the County would be less than the amount set forth in paragraph
1 below.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA:
1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby determines that it is
advisable to contract a debt and to issue and sell general obligation school bonds of the County in
the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $8,730,000 (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing
certain capital projects for school purposes. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of
the Bonds in the form and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution.
2. Sale of the Bonds. It is determined to be in the best interest ofthe County to accept the
offer of VPSA to purchase from the County, and to sell to the VPSA, the Bonds at a price
determined by the VPSA and accepted by the Chairman of the Board or the County Administrator
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
662
and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution. The County Administrator and the
Chairman ofthe Board, or either of them, and such officer or officers ofthe County as either ofthem
may designate, are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the Bond Sale Agreement with the
VPSA providing for the sale of the Bonds to the VPSA in substantially the form on file with the
County Administrator, which form is hereby approved ("Bond Sale Agreement").
3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be issuable in fully registered form in
denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples thereof; shall be dated the date of issuance and
delivery ofthe Bonds; shall be designated "General Obligation School Bonds, Series 2002A"; shall
bear interest from the date of delivery thereof payable semi-annually on each Ianuary 15 and Iuly
15 (each an "Interest Payment Date"), beginning I anuary 15, 2003, at the rates established in
accordance with paragraph 4 of this Resolution; and shall mature on Iuly 15 in the years (each a
"Principal Payment Date") and in the amounts established in accordance with paragraph 4 of this
Resolution. The Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Payment Dates are subject to change at
the request ofVPSA.
4. Principal Installments and Interest Rates. The County Administrator is hereby authorized
and directed to accept the interest rates on the Bonds established by the VPSA, provided that each
interest rate shall be no more than ten one-hundredths of one percent (0.10%) over the interest rate
to be paid by the VPSA for the corresponding principal payment date of the bonds to be issued by
the VPSA (the "VPSA Bonds"), a portion of the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the
Bonds, and provided further, that the true interest cost of the Bonds does not exceed seven percent
(7%) per annum. The County Administrator is further authorized and directed to accept the
aggregate principal amount ofthe Bonds and the amounts of principal ofthe Bonds coming due on
each Principal Payment Date ("Principal Installments") established by the VPSA, including any
changes in the Interest Payment Dates, the Principal Payment Dates and the Principal Installments
which may be requested by VPSA provided that such aggregate principal amount shall not exceed
the maximum amount set forth in paragraph one and the final maturity ofthe Bonds shall not be later
than 21 years from their date. The execution and delivery of the Bonds as described in paragraph
8 hereof shall conclusively evidence such Interest Payment Dates, Principal Payment Dates, interest
rates, principal amount and Principal Installments as having been so accepted as authorized by this
Resolution.
5. Form of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be initially in the form of one or more temporary
typewritten bonds substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A.
6. Payment: Paying Agent and Bond Registrar. The following provisions shall apply to the
Bonds:
(a) For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds, all payments of
principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be made in immediately available
funds to the VPSA at or before 11 :00 a.m. on the applicable Interest Payment Date, Principal
Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if such date is not a business day for
Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before 11 :00 a.m. on the business
day next preceding such Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment
or redemption;
(b) All overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by law, interest shall
bear interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds; and
(c) SunTrust Bank, Richmond, Virginia is designated as Bond Registrar and Paying
Agent for the Bonds.
7. Prepayment or Redemotion. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the VPSA
coming due on or before Iuly 15,2012, and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the
VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before Iuly 15, 2012 are not subject to prepayment or
redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the
VPSA coming due after Iuly 15, 2012 and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the
VPSA may be exchanged that mature after Iuly 15,2012 are subject to prepayment or redemption
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
663
at the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after
July 15,2012 upon payment ofthe prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of
Principal Installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth
below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption:
Dates
Prices
July 15,2012 to July 14, 2013, inclusive
July 15,2013 to July 14,2014, inclusive
July 15, 2014 and thereafter
101%
100.5
100
Provided. however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their
stated maturities as described above without first obtaining the written consent of the registered
owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond
Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty
(60) days before the date fixed for prepayment or redemption. The County Administrator is
authorized to approve such other redemption provisions, including changes to the redemption dates
set forth above, as may be requested by the VPSA.
8. Execution of the Bonds. The Chairman or Vice Chairman and the Clerk or any Deputy
Clerk ofthe Board are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal
of the County thereto. The manner of such execution maybe by facsimile, provided that if both
signatures are by facsimile, the Bonds shall not be valid until authenticated by the manual signature
of the Paying Agent.
9. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. For the prompt payment of the principal of, and the
premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due, the full faith and credit
of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any of the Bonds shall be
outstanding there shall be levied and collected in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax upon
all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient in amount to provide for the
payment ofthe principal of, and the premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as such principal,
premium, if any, and interest shall become due, which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or
amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other
funds ofthe County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose.
10. Use of Proceeds Certificate; Non-Arbitrage Certificate. The Chairman of the Board and
the County Administrator, or either ofthem and such officer or officers ofthe County as either may
designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Non-Arbitrage Certificate, if requested by
bond counsel, and a Use of Proceeds Certificate setting forth the expected use and investment of the
proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show
compliance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and
applicable regulations relating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds and on
the VPSA Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that (i) the proceeds from the
issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in such Use of Proceeds
Certificate and the County shall comply with the covenants and representations contained therein
and (ii) the County shall comply with the provisions ofthe Code, except as provided above, so that
interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds will remain excludable from gross income for Federal
income tax purposes.
11. State Non-Arbitrage Program: Proceeds Agreement. The Board hereby determines that
it is in the best interests ofthe County to authorize and direct the County Treasurer to participate in
the State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with the Bonds. The County Administrator and the
Chairman ofthe Board, or either ofthem, and such officer or officers ofthe County as either ofthem
may designate, are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with
respect to the deposit and investment of proceeds ofthe Bonds by and among the County, the other
participants in the sale of the VPSA Bonds, the VPSA, the investment manager, and the depository
substantially in the form on file with the County Administrator, which form is hereby approved.
12. Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The Chairman of the Board and the County
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
66
Administrator, or either of them, and such officer or officers ofthe County as either of them may
designate are hereby authorized and directed (i) to execute a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, as
set forth in Appendix F to the Bond Sale Agreement, setting forth the reports and notices to be filed
by the County and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with
the provisions ofthe Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 and (ii) to make all filings
required by Section 3 of the Bond Sale Agreement should the County be determined by the VPSA
to be a MOP (as defined in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement).
13. Filing of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are hereby
authorized and directed to cause a certified copy ofthis Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court
of the County.
14. Further Actions. The County Administrator, the Chairman ofthe Board, and such other
officers, employees and agents ofthe County as either ofthem may designate are hereby authorized
to take such action as the County Administrator or the Chairman of the Board may consider
necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and any such action
previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed.
15. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia,
hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting
of the Board of Supervisors held on March 13,2002, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable
to the matters referred to in such extract. I hereby further certify that such meeting was a regularly
scheduled meeting and that, during the consideration of the foregoing resolution, a quorum was
present. The front page of this Resolution accurately records (i) the members of the Board of
Supervisors present at the meeting, (ii) the members who were absent from the meeting, and (iii) the
vote of each member, including any abstentions.
WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia, this 13th day of March, 2002.
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Aye
PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION (#035-02) AMENDING THE 2001-2002 FISCAL
YEAR BUDGET TO REFLECT: A GENERAL FUND SUPPLEMENTAL
APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $3.000.000 FOR THE EXTENSION OF
WARRIOR DRIVE. THIS AMOUNT REPRESENTS THE TOTAL
APPROPRIATION AND RECOGNIZES FUNDING FROM A VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (VDOT) 50/50 REVENUE SHARING
PROGRAM. A PORTION OF THE LOCAL MATCH WILL BE REIMBURSED TO
THE LOCALITY - APPROVED
County Administrator Riley presented this request. He advised that this was not included
in the regular budget because the county is looking at doing a budget amendment now in order to
keep it out of next year's fiscal budget due to all the budget cuts and to allow the project to move
forward when the bid is awarded.
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
665
Bill Gardner, Opequon District, expressed his concern about the traffic in Stephens City. He
supported this project in that it would help alleviate the traffic problems on Ivory, Buchanan, and
on into Fredericktowne. These roads were the "substitute" Warrior Drive extension at this timc and
as growth continues this extension will be needed.
Donald Luttrell, Opequon District, questioned the total cost for this extension. His
understanding was a total of $6 million with $3 million being matched by the state. County
Administrator Riley advised that was incorrect and the total project cost is $3 million but hoped it
would be lower than this when it goes out to bid. Half of this proj ect, $1.5 million, would come
from the Virginia Department of Transportation, $1.5 million would come from the county with a
share of this amount coming from developers. $500,000 from Bowman and Glaize, $50,000 from
Molden, and $77,000 from McAllister. Mr. Luttrell advised the Board that he had no problem with
tax county revenues being used for Warrior Drive from 277 through the park land, however, the
section that goes through huge development and through the north end should be have been born by
the developer. He does not want to see the county's local tax revenue going to the developer.
Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by Margaret B. Douglas, the following
resolution was approved:
RESOLUTION
FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 BUDGET AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, meeting in regular session and
public hearing held on March 13,2002, took the following action:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors thatthe FY 2001-
2002 Budget be amended to reflect:
A General Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the amount of$3,000,000 for the extension
of Warrior Drive. This amount represents the total appropriation and recognizes funding
from a Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) 50/50 Sharing Program. A portion
of the local match will be reimbursed to the locality.
Adopted this 13th day of March, 2002.
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Aye
PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS
Miuute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
66
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #04-02 OF ROSE M. LAUCK
FOR A COTTAGE OCCUPATION TO OPERATE A PIANO SCHOOL. THIS
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 303 TANAGER DRIVE AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 75E-3-2-154 IN THE SHAWNEE
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED
Planner Rebecca Ragsdale presented this request advising that the Frederick County Planning
Commission (Planning Commission) had recommended approval with the following conditions as
recommended by staff:
1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times.
2. No business sign shall be permitted.
3. Any change of use or expansion of this use will require a new Conditional Use Permit.
Supervisor Sager questioned the reason for this CUP since this is the first one that has been
required for a piano school and did not agree with this requirement.
Planner Ragsdale and Planning and Development Director Evan A. Wyatt advised the Board
that there is a fine line whether or not a CUP is needed to operate this school and the Board needed
to make a decision as to whether or not one should be issued. Home based businesses fall under two
categories with one being home occupation and the second being a cottage occupation and it was not
clear to staff whether or not this qualified as a home occupation and felt it was appropriate to bring
this request before the Board to make that decision. A business license was obtained and in doing
so planning staff was asked to review the business to make sure everything was in compliance with
the county's code. This operation was questionable because of the number of pupils and the
intensity of the operation. To avoid nuisances by neighbors and to make sure this operation was
within the county's code, staff felt this should be presented to the Board for consideration.
Jim Garitez, Back Creek District, advised the Board that approving this CUP would open a
"Pandora's Box." He has a small business, is licensed, but a CUP is not required but indicated he
has about two clients that he sees within a two week time frame. He asked if everyone was going
to be required to obtain a CUP if this one was approved.
Katherine Whitesell, Back Creek District, disagreed with the piano school needing a CUP.
Discussions followed regarding the reasons for this CUP and for the Board to give direction
to help classify whether or not this size school or what number would require a CUP. Future
request of this intensity would require a CUP if approved. Supervisor Tyler felt the CUP was
appropriate because of the number of people using this school (25).
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
667
Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Lynda J. Tyler, Conditional
Use Permit #04-02 as recommended by the Planning Commission was approved by the following
recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Ir. - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Nay
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Aye
PUBLIC HEARING - REVISION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #18-01 FOR
THE CROSS JUNCTION TOWER. SUBMITTED BY SHARED TOWERS. INC..
FORA HEIGHT INCREASE FROM THE APPROVED 195-FOOT LATTICE-TYPE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY TO 260 FEET. THIS PROPERTY IS
LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF COLLINSVILLE ROAD AND CROSS
JUNCTION ROAD. APPROXIMATELY 290 FEET FROM NORTHWESTERN PIKE
(RT. 522N) AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
18-A-38 IN THE GAINESBORO MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED
Planning and Development Deputy Director Eric A. Lawrence presented this request to the
Board advising that the Planning Commission recommended approval of this request to include the
requested setback waivers, and the following conditions:
1. All Zoning Ordinance requirements and review agency comments shall be addressed and
complied with at all times.
2. The tower shall be available for co-locating personal wireless services providers.
3. A minor site plan shall be approved by the county.
4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within twelve (12)
months of abandonment of operation.
5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (12) months of the
approval of this CUP, then the CUP will be deemed invalid.
The revisions to this CUP were requested because the applicant determined that an increase
in tower height to 260 feet would better accommodate the needs of the community and personal
wireless service providers, thereby, creating a need to increase the tower's height by 65 feet from
the originally CUP approved by the Board at their meeting on January 23, 2002. To do this, a
request for reduction of the setbacks was also needed because the proposed 260-foot height would
increase the structural setback distances. The proposed detailed setbacks are explained in more
detail in the application submitted to the Board for approval.
There was no public comment.
Upon motion made by Sidney A. Reyes, seconded by Lynda J. Tyler, this revised
Conditional Use Permit #18-01 was approved as recommended by the Planning Commission and
was approved by the following recorded vote:
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
668
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Aye
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #05-02 FOR THE HUNTING
RIDGE TOWER. SUBMITTED BY SHARED TOWERS. INC.. FOR A 195-FOOT-
HIGH LA TTICE- TYPE TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY. THIS PROPERTY
IS LOCATED AT 329 HUNTING RIDGE ROAD AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 30-A-98C AND A PORTION OF 30-A-
98D IN THE GAINESBORO MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED
Deputy Director Lawrence presented this request to the Board advising that the Planning
Commission recommended approval with a waiver of the setbacks to the internal parcel boundary
line and with the following conditions:
1. All Zoning Ordinance requirements and review agency comments shall be addressed and
complied with at all times.
2. The tower shall be available for collocating personal wireless service providers.
3. A minor site plan shall be approved by the county.
4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within twelve months of
abandonment of operation.
5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (12) months ofthe
approval of this Conditional Use Permit, then the CUP will be deemed invalid.
6. Issuance of CUP #05-02 shall make the CUP (CUP #19-01) previously issued for an
adjoining property (same property owner) invalid.
There was no public comment.
Upon motion made by Sidney A. Reyes, seconded by Gina A. Forrester, the above request
for CUP #05-02, was approved as recommended by the Planning Commission by the following
recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Aye
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE FREDERICK
COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 165. ZONING ORDINANCE. SECTION 165-28.
LOADING AREAS. AND SECTIONI65-145. DEFINITIONS - APPROVED
Planner Jeremy F. Camp presented this request to the Board advising that the Planning
Commission unanimously approved this code amendment. The amendments provide flexibility to
smaller industrial and commercial users with minimal loading space activity and clarifies several
ambiguities within the existing test.
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
669
There was no public comment.
Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Gina A. Forrester, the
following code amendment was approved:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 165-28, LOADING AREAS
WHEREAS, An ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning, Code of Frederick Countv,
Loading Areas, was considered by the Planning Commission and the Development Review and
Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) during a joint worksession on Dccember 15, 1999; and
WHEREAS, The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS)
recommended approval of this amendment on September 27,2001; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption
on February 20, 2002; and,
WHEREAS, The Frederick County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this
ordinance amendment on March 13, 2002; and,
WHEREAS, The Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the adoption of this
ordinance to be in the best interest ofthe public health, safety, welfare, and convenience;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors
that Section 165-145 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance is amended as described on the
attachment.
165-28. Loading areas.
Spaces for the loading and unloading oftrucks and vans shall be provided in association with
business and industrial uses as follows:
A. Loading spaces required.
(1) The number ofloading spaces required shall be as follows:
Type of Use
Loading Spaces Required
Food stores, restaurants and taverns
I for first 10,000 square feet of
floor area plus I for each
additional 30,000 square feet
Retail and personal services
I for first 10,000 square feet of
floor area plus I for each
additional 30,000 square feet
Hotels and motels, lodges, clubs, fraternal
organizations and indoor recreation
I for each 20,000 square feet
of floor area
Office buildings
1 for structures between
30,000 and 100,000 square
feet; 1 for each additional
100,000 square feet
Manufacturing, wholesale, trucking,
construction and industrial uses
1 for each 40,000 square feet
of floor area
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
67
Schools, hospitals and nursing homes
1 for each structure with more
than 100,000 square feet of
floor area
(2) Interpretation.
(a) When a use is not specifically listed above, the Zoning Administrator shall determine
which of the above categories to use to determine the spaces requircd, based on
similarities between the characteristics of the uses. When a use is not specifically
listed above,. the Zoning Administrator may also use information provided by the
application or other sources of information to determine the number of spaces
required.
(b) In cases where mixed uses share the same loading area, the loading spaces required
shall equal the sum of the spaces required for the various uses. In some cases,
different uses will be contained in a single structure or site plan, and in those cases,
the spaces required shall equal the sum of the spaces for each use.
D. Loading space dimensions. DCldllequiu;;J IUClJ~11g space shall be tw..lv.. (12) f'd wide
Cl11J fudy-fhe (45) f....t luug. Dadl IMding space shall have a vertical d"<UCl11.... of
fOurteen (14) feet.
C. O'v"tlUd;0115 and 5t1tletmes. Loading spae'5 shall be designed to permit load~ub ClUJ
unloading ~ithotlt requiring themov~ug uf <UIY p.l1k,J WUtUI Vdl~d... Ut~lity poles, ligl,t
"t<UIJ<uJ6, trash evntCl~IM" ClUJ ,,;ul;lar strtletmes shall not be permitted ~ithin loading
spaces.
D. Access. In no case shall a load~11b "1-'.1..", 've approved Ivhidll"'iu;I.." tl1<,t a v..L~,k 'ilt.:,r
or bad. d~I....Hy flUlII loadirig spaces onto ptl:blie roads. All loading spae.:,s shall be
prOvided access to a publi" road tlsing an entrance ~hi"h w.."t., Cllll"''iu~lI~Uleuts ofthe
[Ieder;"k Cotlnty CuJ.. <UIJ HI" V~lg;ri~aD"pCllt11l..ut uCT. ClU"I-'Vl tat;u11. A'':''M 6hall b.:,
I-'lU v ~d,-d tu luaJ;ug 6(1.1"':'5 via d1i v e~ ay s and aisles meeting the r eq uiremcnts for parking
lots as contained in this ehal-'kl.
B. Design Standards.
(1) Dimensions. Each required loadinf! space shall be twelve (12) feet lvide and fortv-
.five (45) feet long. Each loading space shall have a vertical clearance offourteen
(14) feet.
(2) Obstructions and structures. Loadinf! spaces shall be desi:,zned to permit loadinf!
and unIoadinf! without requirillf! the movinf! of anv parked motor vehicle. Utilitv
poles. lif!ht standards. trash containers and similar structures shall not be permitted
within loading spaces.
(3) Access. In 110 case shall a loadinf! space be approved which requires that a vehicle
enter or back directly from loadinf! spaces onto public roads. Allloadinf! spaces
shall be provided access to a public road usinf! an entrance which meets all
requirements of the Frederick County Code and the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
(4) Surface Materials and Curb and Gutter. Loadinf! areas shall meet the surface
material and curb and gutter requirements/or one ofthefollowing categories:
(a) Loadi,,}! areas separated from parkin}! lots. Loadinf! areas that are
separated {i'om parkinf! lots shall be paved with concrete, bituminous
concrete, or similar materials. Curb and .e:utter shall not be required when
loading areas are separated from parking lots.
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
671
(b) Loudin}! areas that are part of parkin}! lots. Loadinf! areas that are part of
parkinf! lots shall be paved with concrete, bituminous concrete, or similar
materials. Curb and )!lItter shall be required for allloadinf! areas that are
part of parking lots when curb and gutter is required jar the parking lot.
(c) Loadin}! areas with two (2) or less loadin}! spaces proposed. Loadinf! areas
servin,e: uses identified in Section 165-28(A) mal,' have af!ravel surface i('two
(2) or less 10adil1f! spaces are JJroposed, and if the loadinz area is separate
ji-OI11 the parkin,e: lot. Curb and f!utter shall be required for loadin.e. areas
with t\VO (2) or less loadillf! sJwces when the loadinf! area is part of the
parking lot. and when curb and gutter is requiredfor the parking lot.
(d) Storm water man a}!emen t plan alld erosion cOlltrol plan requirements. The
Zonil1f! Administrator may require curb and f!utter (wd different surface
materials for loadinf! areas when necessar)i to implement a storrmvater
management plan or an erosion control plan.
165-156. Definitions.
Loading Area - Atl of[-"t1....t "1-'".... vI .11':'.1 ful thc Iv"J~l1J<. V1 uuluadiH~ of cOll111"","..~,,1 V1 ~l1Ju"t1~,,1
.e11~d",,,. An off-street area cOlltaining louding spaces ami maneuvering areas, as well as their
associated driveways.
Loadill}! Spuce - An off-street space used for loading or unloading by commercial, industrial,
public, or semi-public vehicles.
Maneuverin}! Area - A traveled war br which commerciul, industrial, public, or semi-public
vehicles enter and depart loading spaces.
This ordinance shall be in effect on the day of adoption.
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Ir. - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Aye
OTHER PLANNING ITEMS
RESOLUTION (#037-02) TO APPROVE THE 2002 PRIMARY ROAD
IMPROVEMENT PLAN - DENIED
Director Wyatt presented this to the Board advising that the Planning Commission
recommended approval of this plan agreeing to incorporate the western segment of Route 37 into
the description for the highest priority on the plan.
Supervisor Sager moved, with Supervisor Douglas seconding the motion, to approve the
following 2002 Primary Road Improvement Plan Resolution:
RESOLUTION
2002 PRIMARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
672
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission reviewed the proposed 2002
Primary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County on March 6, 2002; and,
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval
ofthis plan at their regular meeting on March 6, 2002; and,
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors considered this plan during their
regular meeting on March 13, 2002; and,
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors support the priorities oftheprimary
road improvement projects for programing 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 Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the 2002 Primary Road
Improvement Plan for Frederick County, Virginia.
The above motion was denied by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Nay
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Nay
Lynda J. Tyler - Nay
Gina A. Forrester - Nay
Discussions followed on the direction the Board needed to take given the fact that a plan was
not approved to submit to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). There was confusion
as to whether or not last year's plan would be submitted or should the plan go back to committee for
better understanding. Staff needed to better understand the Board's direction given the time frame
that the Board was faced with on what needed to be done before the pre-allocation hearing.
Supervisor Forrester questioned the process needed in order to remove everything pertaining
to the Route 37 project from the county's primary road improvement plan as outlined in the current
plan, and submitted to the CTB in past plans. She felt that with the widening ofI-81 being more
immanent that it changed the need for a by-pass. The impact statement indicated that the no build
option was preferable ifI-81 is widened. Due to the lack of time for a public hearing, it was her
understanding that action would need to be taken on this at this time.
County Administrator Riley explained that the Route 37 project is in the interstate and
primary plan for VDOT and the CTB. If it is the desire of the Board to convey that this project is
no longer to be considered by the CTB as a viable project, he suggested that input be received before
doing so. He advised the Board that the Commonwealth's investment is in excess of$2 million.
Minute Book Nnmber 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
673
Through advancement offunds, legislation, approved by the General Assembly, advanced funds to
this proj ect but have been reimbursed by VDOT so the expense for the county has been through time
and effort through the various planning departments from Watkins to Tierney to Wyatt. Other
investments in time include the Winchester Area Transportation Plan, working with VDOT's
consultant on the modeling process for how all ofthe transportation networks are put together, and
the widening ofI-81, and the improvement of Route 37 all ties into the 20 year modeling process
on the road network plan.
Upon motion made by Gina A. Forrester, seconded by Sidney A. Reyes, Route 37 Project
is to be removed from the CTB's list of road improvement projects for Frederick County and a
message sent in a formal written statement that the Board does not want the CTB to fall back on last
year's plan that the Route 37 project is not to be completed.
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Nay
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Nay
Margaret B. Douglas - Nay
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Aye
Chairman Shickle was opposed to the removal of the Route 37 project because 1-81 should
not be used for local traffic and if an alternative was not provided for transportation it would cause
a very serious safety issue and people would be killed. He does not believe the 1-81 improvements
are being designed for local traffic but for through traffic and that local traffic use on 1-81 needed
to be discontinued.
Supervisor Douglas was opposed to removal of Route 37 as she felt it was really needed.
SEWER AND WATER SERVICE AREA EXPANSION - TO BE ADVERTISED FOR
PUBLIC HEARING
Deputy Director Lawrence presented this request to the Board. Chuck Maddox, with G.W.
Clifford & Associates, submitted this request for the expansion ofthe Sewer and Water Service Area
(SWSA) to incorporate a 57.87-acre parcel in the Shawnee Magisterial District. A small portion of
the property is currently in the SWSA. The request was initiated because ofthe school site but the
committee and Planning Commission looked at this request as a land use perspective and not as a
school site. The site is presently vacant but the Frederick County School Board was seeking to
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
674
acquire the tract for use as a future middle school site. As noted in discussions that took place earlier
regarding the school bond financing, the Board did not agree with this location for a middle school
site. He asked for the Board's direction whether or not the request should be scheduled for public
hearing or if any other issues needed to be addressed.
Discussions followed as to whether or not this request was valid because there was no tenant
for the property. Deputy Director Lawrence advised the Board that this request was appropriate in
that clarification was needed to determine what the property could be used for since part of the
property is in the SWSA and part of it is not.
Ron Mislowsky with G.W. Clifford and Associates appeared before the Board on behalf of
Mr. Maddox. He advised the Board that this request came up as a result of the school board looking
at this property and at that time it was discovered that the zoned B2 property was not in the SWSA
and felt it was an oversight because there is no reason commercial zoned land should not be in the
SWSA. There is a mismatch between the zoning and land use map and the SWSA map and needed
to be corrected.
Following discussion, it was the consensus ofthe Board to proceed with the required public
hearing in order to take action on this request, but several Board members conveyed they were not
in favor of approving this expansion.
APPLICATION AND RESOLUTION (#036-02) TO APPLY FOR THE VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM
FOR REGENCY HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION. AIRPORT ROAD. AND 50 WEST
CORRIDOR - APPROVED AS AMENDED G 11:5\ I
Director Wyatt presented this request. He advised the Board that an amendment was
presented by Winchester Regional Airport Director Renny Manual revising the original figures
submitted to the Board. A memorandum was also presented by County Administrator Riley to the
Board requesting the Route 50 East corridor be added to this resolution as there is no crossover in
place to serve eastbound traffic exiting and entering the Ravens subdivision. Traffic now requires
U turns to be executed at the Carper's Valley crossover and Sulphur Springs Road crossover creating
potential traffic hazards. In addition to County Administrator Riley's request, three options were
presented for the Board for consideration:
(1) The first option was to adopt a resolution requesting funding as Priority numberl the
Regency Heights subdivision streets and as Priority number2 the Airport Road relocation;
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
6-(5
2. The second option was to adopt a resolution for funding for the Regency Heights
subdivision streets only; and
3. The third option was not to endorse a Revenue Sharing Program proposal for the ensuing
fiscal year.
Winchester Regional Airport Director Serena Manual advised the Board that she attended
a conference in Charlottesville the previous week and worked with the Virginia Department Aviation
and Federal Aviation Administration in revamping the Airport Road project. The original estimate
submitted was for a budget estimate of $2.3 - $2.5 million with three road alternates included in
materials. Since then, the Board along with the Virginia Department of Transportation and the
Airport Authority, the FAA, and the Department of Aviation have all agreed upon the selected route.
This route is the least expensive to build of all three which reduced the estimated cost to $1.5
million and reduces the county and city share to $60,000 over a multi-year period and the difference
being made up of aviation funds hopefully through revenue sharing program through the VDOT and
the Virginia Department of Aviation. The design money for the project was originally in the $2.3 -
$2.5 million and is now under state grant at this time and is already in progress which reduces the
overall amount. The $60,000 figure is shared by the county and city with the current joint funding
formula and is part of the annual budget process for capital improvements. $2.1 million was
appropriated in past budgets and the Board directed the airport authority find another source to offset
the local cost which at that time was approximately $410,000.
County Administrator Riley explained to the Board his request to include the crossover on
Route 50 East. The crossover will eventually be a cross-county connector that should connect Route
50 with Senseny Road at some point in the future. The developer is prepared to construct the
crossover on Route 50 and when the traffic warrants they are also prepared to install signalization.
He further explained that since the school property further east is no longer an option, it could be
revisited looking at property that is directly associated with the crossover which would tie schools
to the proximity ofthe subdivisions. With the schools participating, a decent intersection could be
created at this location with the use of Revenue Sharing money and the long term VDOT primary
improvement programs that are available. This was an opportunity to look at now, if the school
board is successful in purchasing property in this area, to align the crossover with access to school
property, and to signalize the interchange with developer money which could be a good partnership
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
676
that the Board may want to pursue. No estimated cost were available at this time but he felt this
should be included in this plan.
Supervisor Smith moved, with Supervisor Forrester seconding the motion, to approve
the Revenue Sharing Program application and Resolution with the Airport Road improvements as
priority number I with the reduction oflocal funding to $60,000, Regency Heights as improvement
priority number 2, and the Route 50 East Corridor (study only), as improvement priority number 3.
VDOT Resident Engineer Jerry Copp appeared before the Board to clarify some confusion
among the Board regarding Supervisor Smith's motion. This program allows localities to apply for
a maximum of$500,000 a year. If counties apply for more than what VDOT has available in funds
($15,000,000), the money is prorated accordingly. This action provides forthe opportunity to obtain
the full $500,000 if approved. If a county does not use all their approved funding, these funds can
ben be given to another locality. Regency Lakes would be a stand alone project of $60,000. The
other two projects would take multiple year funding and suggested those proj ects be assigned a lower
priority with the understanding that if any funds are cut, the Board would have the opportunity to
make a second year's application. Once a line item is established and it's approved by the CTB, the
Board has some discretion in moving the dollars. He suggested providing a token amount for the
Route 50 crossover in order to establish a line item. In the future, if a school was built in this area,
a request could be made to VDOT to change the line item amounts should the priorities be changed
by the Board.
Supervisor Smith was concerned about the Airport Road being the number 2 project.
Director Manuel advised Supervisor Smith that this was the first step in applying for VDOT revenue
sharing funds. Federal dollars in the amount of $450,000 will be received, however, it requires a
grant submission by October 2003. It is a one time funding source for general aviation airports
through the authorization act and will not be available again. She also advised that she was not sure
the Department of Aviation funds would be received this year as they are applied for in June and
will go through a hearing process in August. She expressed the importance of meeting this time
table with VDOT but did not believe listing this project as priority number 2 would be any problem.
After further discussion and clarification, Supervisors Smith and Forrester withdrew their
motion.
Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Robert M. Sager, to approve
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
6T7
a Revenue Sharing Program application for Regency Heights subdivision as presented as priority
number I, Airport Road at the amended funding level and as priority number 2, and the Route 50
Crossover as priority number 3 to include a dollar figure as suggested by Resident Engineer Copp.
Staff was instructed to prepare a the resolution including these amendments.
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Aye
COMMITTEE REPORTS
PARKS AND RECREATIONS COMMISSION REPORT - MEETING OF
FEBRUARY 19. 2002 - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA
The Parks and Recreation Commission met on February 19,2002. Members present were:
Charles Sandy, Robert Hartman, John Powell, Joyce Goff, Clarence Haymaker, Victoria Keelon, and
Lynda Tyler.
Submitted for Board Information Onlv:
1. Concession Operation/Pav Phones - Mrs. Goff moved to keep pay phones at the athletic
complexes and to add an additional phone line (blocking long distance calls) at each pool facility for
public convenience, second by Mr. Powell, carried unanimously (6-0).
2. Sanitation Authority Easement ReQuest - Mr. Hartman moved to endorse the Sanitation
Authority's 20 ft. utility easement request located at Sherando Park adj acent to Warrior Drive in the
green space between the roadway and the proposed landscaped berm, second by Mrs. Goff, carried
unanimously (6-0).
3. Fee Waiver ReQuest (American Little Lea1!Ue) - Referred to the Commission's Finance
Committee (Fees & Charges) for review.
4. Committee Appointments - The Chairman armounced Committee appointments for 2002
as follows: Finance - John Powell, Chairman, Robert Roper, Jim Doran; Capital
Improvements/Buildings & Grounds - Clarence Haymaker, Chairman, Victoria Keelon, Matthew
Hott; Public Relations - Robert Hartman - Chairman, Cheryl Swartz, Karen Vacchio; Executive -
Charles Sandy, Joyce Goff, Jim Doran; Appeals Committee - Robert Hartman, Chairman, Cheryl
Swartz, John Powell, Clarence Haymaker (Alternate).
5. American Little Lea~ue Request for Storaee Buildinl! at Clearbrook Park - Referred
to the Commission's Capital Improvements/Buildings and Grounds Committee for review.
6. Grant Application ReQuest for PlaVl!round EQuipment at Sherando Park - Mr.
Powell moved that the staff apply for a 50%/50% matching grant from the Virginia Outdoors Fund
for the purpose of installing playground equipment at Sherando Park. Funding in the amount of
$35,000 would come from the Parks and Recreation Proffer account, second by Mr. Hartman, carried
unanimously (6-0).
LANDFILL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE - MEETING OF FEBRUARY 28. 2002 -
APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
6-(8
The landfill oversight committee met on Thursday, February 28, 2002, at 8:00 a.m. All
committee members were present except Jim Wilson. The following issues were discussed:
1. Update on Construction/Demolition Debris Landfill Amendment and Expansion
An amendment to use a 60 mil synthetic liner in lieu of 12 inches of clay is in the final stages
of review and approval by the Department of Environmental Quality (D.E.Q.). A public hearing was
held by D.E.Q. on February 12,2002, to receive comments on the proposed amendment. No citizens
attended the meeting.
We anticipate final approval on or before April 1, 2002. In the interim, we are proceeding
with completing the construction ofthe new cell using the synthetic liner. The design has basically
been approved by D.E.Q. Therefore, Perry Engineering Company, Inc. is moving forward under
their current contract to complete the project by May 1, 2002.
2. Electronics RecycIin~ Update
The attached memorandum prepared by Gloria Puffinburger, recycling coordinator,
highlights the success of our pilot electronics recycling program and indicates the schedule for the
next event. The next event is plarmed for June 1,2002, using the same contractor, Subtractions LLC.
In anticipation ofthis second event, we have requested federal funds in the amount of$2,900
to help defer some of the local costs. For the most part, the citizens and businesses that participate
in the even will pay for the recycling service in accordance with the unit rates highlighted in the
memorandum. (See Attachment 1)
3. Impact ofBlowinl: Litter on Landfill Operations Costs
Blowing litter in the form of plastic bags and paper has become an ever increasing problem
at the landfill. We have attempted to address the problem using part-time labor and detainee labor
from Camp 7. The latter source oflabor has become very unreliable. However, the amount oflitter
.. .
IS mcreasmg.
The landfill staffhas installed movable fencing and large nets with some success. However,
recent windy days and an ever increasing dry refuse has overwhelmed these efforts. Picking up litter
by hand has become a futile effort at best. Therefore, the landfill staffhas explored other alternative
means.
Mr. Steve Frye, landfill manager, recommended to the committee that a combination of
permanent fencing (20 feet high) and a large mobile vacuum be employed to combat the litter
problem. The tall fencing would cost approximately $20 per foot. Mr. Frye indicated that we would
need approximately 4,000 feet of fencing to properly enclose the working cells. The vacuum
equipment would be mounted on an all-terrain vehicle and would cost approximately $25,000.
A motion was made by Gary Lofton and seconded by Mike Noel to approve the installation
of the proposed fencing and purchase of the vacuum equipment. There are sufficient funds in the
current budget to finance these purchases. The landfill staff will prepare the appropriate Requests
for Proposals and present the advertisement results to the committee for final approval.
4. Potential Cell Tower Site at the Landfill
The landfill staff has been contacted by the Thinc Wireless Company about the possibility
oflocating a cellular tower on landfill property. Their representative indicated that they would need
unrestricted access to a 100 foot by 100 foot area. They further indicated that they would require
a 30 year lease with a rate starting at $800 per month with increases of three (3) percent per year
after five (5) years. After discussing this issue, the committee suggested that staff contact other
cellular companies to compare lease rates. This information will be returned to the committce for
their review prior to proceeding with any type of agreement or lease.
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
679
5. Discuss Alternative Sites for a New Citizens' Convenience Area
The Director of Public Works presented a brief history associated with locating a new
citizens' convenience area at the landfill. The first site evaluated was located just east ofthe main
landfill entrance off of Sulphur Spring Road. This particular site met our primary requirement of
total separation of truck and citizen vehicular traffic. This site which was designated as site number
one also appeared to require the least amount of overall earthwork, thus being the most economical.
A public meeting was held with the surrounding property owners on January 19, 2002, at the landfill
to discuss the proposed convenience area. A subsequent public meeting was held during the
Frederick County Public Works committee meeting on January 29,2002. As a result of the latter
meeting and public opposition, the Director of Public Works was directed by the public works
committee to evaluate an alternative site located on top of a wooded ridge within the landfill
property.
A preliminary site plan and cost estimate was developed for the alternative site number two.
Based on the cost estimate, it was determined that the alternative site would cost approximately
$500,000 more in site development than site number one. In addition, alternative site number two
would not achieve our primary goal of separating citizen traffic from the trash trucks. Consequently,
the oversight committee recommended that site number one be reevaluated with an emphasis on
addressing as many of the adjacent landowners' concerns as possible.
The Director of Works indicated that it may be possible to realign Sulphur Spring Road in
front of and adjacent to the site to promote a safer roadway. This realignment would have to be
coordinated with the Virginia Department of Transportation. The landfill account would fund these
improvements.
In addition to the road realignment and possible widening, the Director of Public Works
indicated that the site could be elevated to alleviate concerns related to flooding. The site has
already been designed to provide finished grades above the 100-year storm event. In conjunction
with elevating the site, the design could incorporate oil separators to filter site runoff. This action
would address another of the citizens' concerns.
Screening has been incorporated in the design of site number one. The proposed screening
includes berms and a double row of evergreens. Mr. Dave Ash suggested that we approach the two
homeowners which would be visually affected by the site development and offer to plant evergreen
screening on their property. Staff will attempt to incorporate all of the above suggestions in a
preliminary site design and return it to the respective committees for their review.
6. A closed session was convened in accordance with the Code ofVireinia ~2.2-3711
Subsection A, (7), Le~al Issues.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS
Supervisor Sager addressed concern with requiring the CUP for Ms. Lauck and her piano
school. He is aware of many people who are retired and tutor and who teach band instruments and
he is afraid that maI?-Y calls are going to be received because someone is reported having as many
as five people a day in their home. He also advised the Board that he would support his fellow Board
members' decisions on the Route 37 issue but there is a problem due to the $3 million that was
approved at this meeting for Warrior Drive. Warrior Drive, ifbuilt at all, will go to Tasker Road.
The traffic count, at its build out, is estimated at 30,000 to 40,000 vehicles a day. These vehicles,
when this road is built, will stop at Lakeside, Wakeland Manor, go through the Camp Mosby Station,
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02
68
and go out eastward through an industrial park. He suggested that the Board reexamine building out
Warrior Drive and look at expanding Aylor Road based on this information. He wasn't quite clear
on what direction the Board needed to proceed with this and would rely on staff, County
Administrator Riley, and the Board to determine what needed to be done. Ground is ready to be
broken for Warrior Drive which was suppose to connect to Route 37 to expedite traffic.
County Administrator Riley advised the Board that the Winchester City Common Council
has invited the Board to attend a presentation by Stars Solution in City Council Chamber at 5:30
p.m. on Tuesday.
Supervisor Reyes commended Mrs. Lauck for filing her CUP as he felt it was the right thing
to do.
Chairman Shickle advised the Board that the Governor issued a proclamation on the drought
conditions within the State of Virginia. He asked, with the support ofthe Board, if staff could devise
a data base on the well conditions in Frederick County. His understanding from well drillers he has
spoken with that the business is very lucrative at this time. Information was also received that many
Clarke County wells had gone dry. He wasn't sure who should obtain this information as the service
authority and sanitation authority would only have information for those that are connected to the
system or adjacent to their services. County Administrator Riley advised the Board that staffwould
do their best to gather the requested information from well drillers in order to determine what type
of activity they are experiencing and where. The consensus of the Board was to proceed with this
data base.
UPON MOTION MADE BY ROBERT M. SAGER, SECONDED BY W.
HARRINGTON SMITH, JR., THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME
BEFORE THIS BOARD, THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED (TIME 10:00 P.M.).
,
~~Q~Q L~SL~ , ,
Richard C. Shickle
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
~rK~/-
,0 R. Riley, Jr. (
lerk, Board of Supervisors
Minutes Prepared By:
~d"'~
Cath . Tanner
Administrative Assistant
Minute Book Number 27
Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/13/02