Loading...
March 13 2013 Regular Meeting Minutes��2 A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Wednesday, March 13, 2013 at 6:00 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Raom, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. ' � . _ �► Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Christopher E. Collins; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.; Bill M. Ewing; Gene E. Fisher; Robert A. Hess; and Gary A. Lofton. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the meeting to order. BOARD RETIRED INTO CLOSED SESSION Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Frederick County $oard of Supervisors convened in closed session pursuant to Virginia Code Section 2.2- 3711 A (3) and (7), for discussion andlor consideration of the acquisition of real property fora � public purpose, and of the disposition of publicly held real estate, where discussion in an open � meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body; and for consultation with legal counsel and /or briefings by staff pertaining to the litigation matter Bober v. County of Frederick, Virginia, currently pending in the United States District � Court for the Western District of Virginia, where consultation or briefing in an open meeting would adversely affect the negotiating or litigating posture of the County. 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 Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye BOARD RECONVENED INTO REGULAR SESSION Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board came out of closed session and reconvened in open session. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Minute Book 1�'umber 38 Board aT Supervisors Regular Meeting oT D3113113 273 Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board certified to best of each board member's knowledge the Board discussed only matters involving the acquisition/disposition of real property and legal rraatters specifically, discussion and/or consideration of the acquisition of real property for a public purpose, and of the disposition of publicly held real estate, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body; and for consultation with legal counsel and/or briefings by staff pertaining to the litigation matter Bober v. County of Frederick, Virginia, currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, where consultation or briefing in an open meeting would adversely affect the negotiating or litigating posture of the County, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 2.2. -3711 A (3) and (7). 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 Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board of Supervisors approved settlement of the case of Bober v. County of Frederick, currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, and authorized the County Attorney and. retained counsel to prepare appropriate settlement documents, consistent with the payment of $115,460.73 to the plaintiffs and their counsel, plus applicable taxes, and authorized the County Administrator to execute such documents. 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 Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Upon a motion by Vice- Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board of Supervisors appropriated the surn of $135,062.23, to pay sums due according to the agreement to settle the case of Bober v. County of Frederick, currently pending in the .United States District Court far the Western District of Virginia, to pay corresponding sums to those Sheriff's Deputies who previously entered into releases of claims under the gap pay statute, and to pay all applicable taxes on such payments, The above motion was approved by the fallowing recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Minute Book Number 38 Board or Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/131].3 274 Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye INVOCATION Supervisor Fisher delivered the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Supervisor Ewing led the Pledge of Allegiance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised there were no changes to the agenda. Upon a motion by Supervisor Hess, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board approved the agenda as presented. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye CITIZEN COMMENTS Jay Marts, Gainesboro District, read the following statement: "Chairman Shickle, Members of the Board, Administrator Riley: I was able to attend most of the Budget Work Session held on February 27, 2013. The minutes of � which you approved tonight. Administrator Riley presented a well documented proposal of the revenues &expenditures anticipated for the FY 2014. Two items that caught my attention were the anticipated increases in Health Insurance Costs &the Merit Pay Salary Increases for the County employees. The budget scenarios presented to address these items, both included increases to the Budget. I would like to remind you that these same two items, increased Health insurance costs &the lack of salary increases are affecting the taxpayers in Frederick County. With the large surplus last year &another anticipated surplus, I would hope that you could assist the taxpayers & alleviate same of this burden. I would remind you of the numerous citizen petitions provided, asking you to return our property taxes back to the $.545 rate where it was before these large surplus funds came into the County coffers. All of us continue to struggle in this economy & we need a balanced approach. Attempt to help our County employees, but do not forget the taxpayer. Thank you far allowing me to address the board. " BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS There were no Board of Supervisors' comments. MINUTES - APPROVED Minute Book Number 3$ Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/13/13 275 Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board approved the minutes from the February 27, 2013 Revenue Recovery {Fee for Service) Work Session, 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, 7r. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Upon a motion by Supervisor Hess, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved the minutes from the February 27, 2013 Budget Work Session. 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 Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board approved the minutes from the February 27, 2013 Regular Meeting. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bi11 M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, J'r. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye COUNTY OFFICIALS COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS APPOINTMENT OF LINDA MARTENSON AS MEMBER -AT -LARGE TO THE SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board appointed Linda Martenson as Member�At -Large to the Social Services Board. This is a four year appointment. Term expires March 13, 2017. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard G Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S: DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Minute Book ]Number 38 Board of supervisors Regular Meeting of 031f3/13 276 Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye REAPPOINTMENT OF BRIAN MADAGAN AS OPEQUON DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION - APPROVED Upan a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board reappointed Brian Madagan as Opequon District representative to the Planning Commission. This is a four year appointment. Term expires Apri17, 2017. 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 Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye REAPPOINTMENT OF LAWRENCE R. AMBROGI AS SHAWNEE DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board reappointed Lawrence R. Ambrogi as Shawnee District representative to the Planning Commission. This is a four year appointment. Term expires April 28, 2017. 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 Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye REAPPOINTMENT OF ELIZABETH . B. FRAVEL AS OPEQUON DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD - s vpunv�n Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board reappointed Elizabeth B. Fravel as Opequon District representative � to the Historic District Resources Advisory Board. This is a four year appointment. Term expires Apri126, 2017. 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 Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye COMMITTEE REPORTS JOINT FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT - APPROVED Minute Book Number 38 .Board of supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/13/13 277 The Joint Finance Committee met an Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 8:00 A.M., in the First Floor Conference Room, County Adminisiration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. Present were Chairman Richard Shickle and Bill M. Ewing, Frederick County representatives; and John Willingham, and Milt McInturff, City of Winchester representatives. Others present: Jahn R. Riley, Jr„ County Administrator; Jay E. Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator; Dale Iman, City Manager; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney, Anthony Williams, City Attorney; Mary Blowe, Finance Director, City of Winchester; Cheryl Shiffler, Finance Director, Frederick County; Douglas Hewett, Assistant City Manager; and Matt Armstrong, The Winchester Star. Mr. Shickle called the meeting to order. ** *For Board Action * ** Memorandums Of Understanding For Joint Praiects - Annroved The committee reviewed the draft Memorandums of Understanding regarding the Joint Judicial Center, Economic Development Commission, and the Convention and Visitors' Bureau {a.k.a. Tourism Board). It was noted the annual .contribution amount contained in the Convention and Visitors' Bureau should be $100,500 per locality. Mr. Iman noted the Memorandum of Understanding for the Economic Development Commission needed to provide for the recognition of the Winchester EDA and the EDA Director. A revised Memorandum of Understanding will be brought back to the Joint Finance Committee for consideration. In addition, the committee reviewed a Memorandum of Understanding terminating the joint funding relationship as it relates to the funding allocation for the Old Frederick County Courthouse Civil War Museum, George Washington's Headquarters, Stonewall Jackson's Headquarters, and Abrams Delight. Under the termination MOU, each locality shall serve as the fiscal agent for the respective museums} for which it owns the real property, which reflects the current practice. Upon, a motion by Mr. Willingham, seconded by Mr. Ewing, the committee recommended approval of the Memorandums of Understanding for the Joint Judicial Center, the Convention and Visitors' Bureau, with the noted amendment, and Museums. (See attached.) Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved the memorandums of understanding for the Joint Judicial Center and the Winehester- Frederick County Convention and Visitors' Bureau (aka Tourism Board). MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FREDERICK COUNTY AND CITY OF WINCHESTER JOINT AGREEMENT RE: JUDICIAL CENTER I. PURPOSE The County of Frederick and the City of Winchester are entering into this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU} to determine the funding allocation for the Winchester - Frederick County Joint Judicial Center. This MOU shall supersede all existing agreements effective July 1, 2012. II. FUNDING Funding contributions shall be on a 50 % -50% basis between Frederick County and the City of Winchester, subject to annual appropriation. Funding requests for the ensuing fiscal year shall be submitted to each jurisdiction no later than December 1St of each year. Mi►�ute Book Number 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of ©3113113 27� Notification of proposed appropriation shall be given to each jurisdiction no later than May 15� of each year. III. FISCAL AGENT The City of Winchester shall serve as the fiscal agent for the undertakings) covered by this MOU. L�i�Y�:���_I The term of this MOU shall be July 1 through June 30 of each fiscal year. Unless otherwise terminated as herein provided, this agreement shall automatically renew and continue in full force and effect from year to year unless terminated by either party in such manner and at such time as hereinafter provided for terminations. V. TERMINATION This MOU may be terminated by either party only upon written notice to the other party by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, at least 90 days prior to the expiration of the initial term or any renewal term; otherwise this MOU shall renew and continue as provided. Upon termination of this MOU, the parties shall mutually agree as to the disposition. of the personal pxoperty of the operation and of any jointly owned real property of the operation. IX. EVIDENCE OF AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE In accordance with the provisions of the attached Resolutions (incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein} duly adopted by the parties to this Memorandum of Understanding, the undersigned individuals are hereby authorized and directed to execute this Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the respective governing bodies, and do hereby acknowledge and agree to abide its terms. ' Given under my hand this day of 2013 on behalf of the City of Winchester, Virginia. Dale Iman, City Manager for the City of Winchester, VA Given under my hand this day of 2013 on behalf of the County of Frederick, VA John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator for the County of Frederick, VA MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FREDERICK COUNTY AND CITY OF WINCHESTER JOINT AGREEMENT RE: WINCHESTER- FREDERICK COUNTY CONVENTION AND VISITORS' BUREAU I. PURPOSE The County of Frederick and the City of Winchester are entering into this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to determine the funding allocation for the Winchester - Frederick County Convention and Visitors' Bureau. This MOU shall supersede all existing agreements effective July 1, 2012. II. FUNDING Mi►�ute Book Number 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of U3/13113 - - -� - - -i 279f Each jurisdiction shall contribute $100,500.00 each to fund the operations of the Convention and Visitors' Bureau. Contributions shall be on a 50 % -50 %basis between Frederick County and the City of Winchester, subject to annual appropriation, based on the smaller appropriation of each locality. Funding requests for the ensuing fiscal year shall be submitted to each jurisdiction no later than December 15� of each year. Notification of proposed appropriation shall be given to each jurisdiction no later than May 15� of each year. III. FISCAL AGENT The City of Winchester shall serve as the fiscal agent for the undertakings) covered by this MOU. IV. REPRESENTATION Representation on the Winchester - Frederick County Convention and Visitors' Bureau shall be apportioned as stated in the Bureau's by -laws. Members shall be appointed jointly by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors and the Winchester City Council. V. TERM The term of this MOU shall be July 1 through June 30 of each fiscal year. Unless otherwise terminated as herein provided, this agreement shall automatically renew and continue in full farce and effect from year to year unless terminated by either party in such manner and at such time as hereinafter provided far terminations. VI. TERMINATION This MOU may be terminated by either parry only upon written notice to the other party by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, at least 90 days prior to the expiration of the initial term or any renewal term; otherwise this MOU shall renew and continue as provided. Upon termination of this MOU, the parties shall mutually agree as to the disposition of the personal property of the operation and of any jointly owned real property of the operation. VII. EVIDENCE OF AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE In accordance with the provisions of the attached Resolutions (incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein) duly adopted by the parties to this Memorandum of Understanding, the undersigned individuals are hereby authorized and directed to execute this Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the respective governing bodies, and da hereby acknowledge and agree to abide its terms. Given under my hand this day of 20I3on behalf of the City of Winchester, Virginia. Dale loran, City Manager for the City of Winchester, VA Given under my hand this day of 2013 on behalf of the County of Frederick, VA John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator for the County of Frederick, VA The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Minute Book Number 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/13/13 �� Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M, Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board approved the termination memorandum of understanding regarding Museums. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FREDERICK COUNTY AND CITY OF WINCHESTER JOINT AGREEMENT RE: MUSEUMS L PURPOSE The County of Frederick and the City of Winchester are entering into this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU} to terminate the Memarandurn of Understanding between the County of Frederick (the "County ") and the City of Winchester (the "City "} approved by the City on December 13, 1994 and by the County on December 14, 1994 as it relates to the funding allocation for the Old Frederick County Courthouse Civil War Museum, George Washington's Headquarters, Stonewall Jackson's Headquarters, and Abrams Delight. This MOU shall supersede all existing agreements effective July 1, 2011. II. FUNDING Commencing July i, 2011, funding for the museums shall no longer be an a shared funding basis. Each of the museums shall be subject to such funding as is made available by the entity that owns the respective museum's real property, III. FISCAL AGENT Each locality shall serve as the fiscal agent for the respective museums} far which it owns the real property. IX. EVIDENCE OF AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE In accordance with the provisions of the- attached Resolutions (incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein} duly adopted by the parties to this Memorandum of Understanding, the undersigned individuals are hereby authorized and directed to execute this Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the respective governing bodies, and do hereby acknowledge and agree to abide its terms. Given under my hand this day of Winchester, Virginia: Dale lman, City Manager for the City of Winchester, VA 2013 on behalf of the City of � Given under my hand this day of , 2013 on behalf of the County of Frederick, VA John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator for the County of Frederick, VA The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Minute Book dumber 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 63/13/13 2 8 �1 Richard C. Shickle Bill M. Ewing Christopher E. Collins Charles S. DeHaven, Jr Robert A. Hess Gene E. Fisher Gary A. Lofton Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye ** *Far Information Only * ** Courthouse RenovationslRF'P Update /Space Needs Winchester City Manager Dale Iman provided a brief overview of the January 2, 2013 meeting with Judge Wetsel regarding the project and the actions taken to date to get staff input regarding space needs, etc. He advised a draft RFP would be provided to Mr. Riley for his review next week. If both localities were in agreement with the RFP then funding would be solicited. General District And Juvenile &Domestic Relations Courts Em to ee Subsid Re uest The committee received a request from the clerks of the Winchester/Frederick County General District Courts and Juvenile Domestic Relations Court for salary supplements for their staff. The clerks noted there were positions within the departments that were behind the city and county employee wish regard to salary. They noted both courts were understaffed. The General District Court has a total of 11 full -time employees and the Juvenile District Relations Court has S full -time employees. The joint request totaled $45,b00 or $22,800 per locality. The committee discussed this request at length. There were numerous issues: - What is the fiscal impact to the localities? - The City currently does not currently subsidize the salaries of court employees. - Which locality would administer this subsidy, if it were to be approved? - Would the employees become county or city emplo }Tees? The committee had compassion far the employees, but needed additional information. Upon a motion by Mr. Ewing, seconded by Mr. Willingham, the committee denied the request and asked that it be resubmitted next year for reconsideration.. (See attached.) Library Funding For FY 2014 City Manager Iman stated the library director advised him that the City fully funded the library in the current fiscal year, but Frederick County and Clarke County did not and the City was not notified. He asked what the county's intent was for the upcoming fiscal year regarding library funding. County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr, responded that the county level funded based on the Board of Supervisors' policy aver the past few years of na operating increase. He noted this year the library requested $850,000, which is more than they were funded in FY 2013. Finance Director Cheryl Sniffler stated Frederick County would know in March the amount of funding for the library. City Manager Iman asked that the information be communicated when that decision is made. Outside Agency FundinE Discussions The committee discussed how each locality addresses funding requests from outside agencies. .Administrator Riley advised that Frederick County provides funding through the General Fund. He went onto say the county has not funded any new agencies. City Manager Iman advised that Winchester was reviewing its process for funding outside agencies. One avenue included the possible use of Community Development Block Minute Book Number 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/13/13 2s21 Grant funding to sexve as seed money for a few years, after which time, the funding would be reduced and the agencies should be self sustaining. (See attached.} There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING - TWELVE MONTH OUTDOOR FESTIVAL- PERMIT REQUEST OF GROVE'S WINCHESTER HARLEY- DAVIDSON. PURSUANT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 86 FESTIVALS• SECTION 86 -3, PERMIT REQUIRED; APPLICATION; ISSUANCE OR .DENIAL; FEE; PARAGRAPH D, TWELVE MONTH PERMITS. ALL EVENTS TO BE HELD ON THE GROUNDS OF WINCHESTER HARLEY- DAVIDSON, 140 INDEPENDENCE DRIVE, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA. PROPERTY, OWNED BY JOBALIE, LLC. - APPROVED ^ Administrator Riley advised this was a request fora 12 month permit for Grove's Winchester Harley- Davidson. All events will be held on the grounds of Winchester Harley- Davidson, 140 Independence Drive, Winchester, Virginia. Property owned by Jobalie, LLC. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved the twelve month permit for Grove's Winchester Harley- Davidson. Supervisor Fisher advised the events were well run and well done. 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 Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye PUBLIC HEARING - OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT REOUEST OF CINDY FAHNESTOCK SCHAFER AND WAYNE SCHAFER — "HOGGING .UP BBQ FESTIVAL ". PURSUANT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 86 FESTIVALS• SECTION 86 -3 PERMIT RE UIRED• APPLICATION• ISSUANCE OR DENIAL: FEE FOR AN OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT. FESTIVAL TO BE HELD FRIDAY THRU SUNDAY, JUNE 28 -30, 2013, FROM 4:00 P.M. TO 11:00 P.M. ON FRIDAY JUNE 28. 10:00 A.M. TO 11:00 P.M. ON SATURDAY, JUNE 29; AND 10:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. ON SUNDAY, JUNE 30, 2013 ON THE GROUNDS OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS, i67 FAIR GROUND ROAD (ROUTE 11 NORTH), CLEARBROOK, VIRGINIA. PROPERTY OWNED BY FREDERICK COUNTY FAIR. - APPROVED Minute Book Number 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/13/13 �� Administrator Riley advised this was an outdoor festival permit request for the Hogging Up BBQ Festival. The event will be held Friday through Sunday, June 28th -30th, 2013 on the grounds of the Frederick County Fairgrounds property owned by the Frederick County Fair. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board approved the outdoor festival permit request contingent upon the applicant meeting the state, federal, and local requirements, which are still pending. The above motion was approved by the fallowing recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher � Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye PUBLIC HEARING -THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DECLARATION AS SURPLUS AND DISPOSAL OF ITS INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 317 S. CAMERON STREET WINCHESTER VIRGINIA IDENTIFIED AS CITY OF WINCHESTER PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 193- 1 -K -14. THE PURPOSE OF THE HEARING IS TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DECLARATION OF PROPERTY AS SURPLUS AND APPROVAL OF THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF WINCHESTER PER THE TERMS OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 13, 2013. -- SOLUTION #045 -13) - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised this was a public hearing on the declaration as surplus and approval of the sales agreement far the property located afi 317 S. Cameron Street in the City of Winchester. He went on to say the County would be conveying its one -half interest in the property to the Economic Development Authority of the City of Winchester. The sale price is $218.087.00. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Collins, seconded by Vice - Chairman Ewing, the Board approved the resolution approving declaration as surplus property and conveyance of 317 S. Cameron Street, Winchester, VA, to the Economic Development Authority of the City of Winchester, Virginia. Minute Book Number 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/13/13 2S4 WHEREAS, the County of Frederick, Virginia, and the Economic Development Authority of the City of Winchester, Virginia, are joint owners of real property with improvements located at 3I7 S. Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia, identified as City of Winchester property identification number 193- a -K -14; and WHEREAS, said property was formerly occupied by the Frederick County Division of Court Services and the Winchester/Frederick County Detoxification Center; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Division of Court Services has relocated its off ces and the WinchesterCFrederick County Detoxification Center is no longer in operation, said property is currently vacant; and WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of the City of Winchester, Virginia, has approached Frederick County about acquiring the County's interest in said real property and has submitted a contract to purchase sanne; and WHEREAS, there have been no other offers to purchase said real property presented; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing on the declaration as surplus and conveyance of 317 S. Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia, to the Economic Development Authority of the City of Winchester, Virginia, at their March 13, 2013 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia hereby declares the real property and improvements located at 317 S. Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia, identified as City of Winchester Property Identification Number 193- 1 -K -14 to be sulplus property; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, approve the sale of the property to the Economic Development Authority of the City of Winchester, Virginia, per the terms of a Purchase Agreement dated February 13, 2013; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator is hereby authorized to take all necessary actions to execute the�conveyance of Frederick County's interest in the property to the Winchester Economic Redevelopment Authority. ADOPTED this 13a` day of March, 2013. 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 Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye PUBLIC HEARING -THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE EXCHANGE OF THE INTEREST OF THE SHAWNEELAND SANITARY DISTRICT IN REAL PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS TAX PARCEL NUMBERS 49B03 -124 -6 49B03 -124 -7 49B03 -124 -8 49B03L24- 9, AND 49B03- 124 -10 (ALL LOCATED IN THE SHAWNEELAND SUBDIVISIO WITH CHW PARTNERSHIP A VIRGINIA PARTNERSHIP FOR REAL PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS TAX PARCEL NUMBER 49B03 -123- 265 49B03- 123 -266 49B03- 123 -282 49B03- 123 -283 AND 49B03- 123 -284 ALL LOCATED IN THE SHAWNEELAND SUBDIVISION). THE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IS TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED EXCHANGE OF THE INDICATED REAL PROPERTY. - APPROVED County Attorney Rod Williams advised this was an exchange of lots, five lots for five lots. The lots owned by CHW are located in an inaccessible portion of the Shawneeland Sanitary Minute Book Number 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/13/13 285 District. The proposed exchange of lots would keep the sanitary district from having to build a road. He concluded ay saying staff would ensure the real estate taxes are paid prior to closing. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shiekle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved the exchange of the interest of the Shawneeland Sanitary District in real property identified as tax parcel nurr�bers 49B03- 124 -6, 49B03- 124 -7, 49B03- 124 -8, 49B03124 -9, and 49B03- 124 -10 {all located in the Shawneeland Subdivision} with CHW Partnership, a Virginia Partnership, for real property identified as tax parcel numbex 49B03- 123 -265, 49B03 -123 -266, 49B03 -123 -282, 49B03- 123 -283, AND 49B03- 123 -284 (all located in the Shawneeland Subdivision). 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 Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye PUBLIC HEARING -THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO SOLICIT PUBLIC INPUT ON THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CDBG PROPOSAL TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE LAUREL CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT. RESIDENTS OF THE PROJECT AREA ARE ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND. THE LAUREL CENTER PROPOSAL WILL INCLUDE A REQUEST FOR FUNDING TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE 2 FOR RELOCATION TO A NEW FACILITY. THE DRAFT CDBG PROPOSAL WILL BE PRESENTED FOR COMMENT ALONG WITH INFORMATION ON PROJECTED BENEFICIARIES INCLUDING THE NUMBER OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME RESIDENTS TO BENEFIT FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND PLANS TO MINIMIZE DISPLACEMENT IF IT SHOULD OCCUR CITIZENS WILL ALSO BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON FREDERICK COUNTY'S PAST USE OF CDBG FUNDS. A FACT SHEET ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND THE DRAFT PROPOSAL IS AVAILABLE AT THE NORTHERN SHENANDOAH VALLEY REGIONAL COMMISSION 400 E KENDRICK LANE FRONT ROYAL VIRGINIA 22630. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT MARTHA SHICKLE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 540 636 -8800 OR INFO NSVREGION.ORG. — APPROVED SUBMITTING THE CDBG APPLICATION Administrator Riley- advised this was a public hearing to solicit public input on a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) proposal to be submitted on behalf of the Laurel Center relocation project. He went on to say after the public hearing, the Board should apprave Minute Book Number 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/13/13 ii submitting the request. Administrator Riley then read the following information regarding the project: The Laurel Centex (TLC) is an IRS 501(c)(3} approved non -proft organization providing comprehensive services to victims of domestic and/or sexual violence, and their children. TLC is in the process of constructing a new emergency domestic and sexual violence shelter and outreach center that meets a wide variety of needs to physically endangered women and children, many of whom are homeless. This activity contributes to TLC's mission of empowering victims of domestic and sexual violence by providing emergency housing, advocacy, job training, support services, and education. TLC serves residents of Frederick County, the City of Winchester, and Clarke County. Frederick County local government is submitting, on behalf of TLC, a grant application to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development for $700,000 in federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG} funding to support construction of the new facility. Below are some key facts about the project. • Demand for domestic violence and sexual assault victim services has increased significantly. • Construction of a new facility is needed given the overwhelming demand for TLC services. Last year, over 200 endangered women and children were turned away due to lack of space. • Anew facility is needed because the current facility is old and in dilapidated condition, and cannot keep up with current demand for TLC programs and services. • The new TLC facility site is located within slow- to moderate - income (LMI} area, and will serve all persons in need of dornesticlsexual violence support services. • The facility will provide expanding living quarters, kitchen, and living space as well as office space for operation of TLC support programs and services. • It will contain approximately 20,000 square feet, including eight bedrooms with 7,000 total square feet of living space (with the option of an additional 7,000 square feet of living space for mare bedrooms, based on future demand }. • -The new facility doubles- TLC's current emergency shelter capacity. TLC expects to shelter over 400 persons annually. The new facility contains sufficient space. for TLC's 18 programs, providing assistance to over 2,000 persons annually. • TLC is the only place in the area where women can go for these services. There is no other place that offers such services in the service area. • This is a request for funding provided to Virginia by the federal CDBG program, not local tax dollars. It will not impact the taxes of Frederick County residents. • The County sees This project as a very cost effective solution to a major, community problem- helping victims of domestic and sexual violence. • The project has raised .private funding directly from the community more than $2 million dollars of the $4,3 million project cast. • Several key community leaders support this project, as well as Congressional leaders such as Congressman Frank Wolf. Chairman Shickle advised that he would abstain from consideration of this matter due to a possible conflict of interest. He then turned the gavel aver to Vice - Chairman Ewing. Vice - Chairman Ewing convened the public hearing. Minute Book Number 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03!13113 287 Matthew Karen, Frederick County resident and President of the Laurel Center Board, spoke in support of this application. He advised The Laurel Center supports the counties of Clarke and Frederick and the City of Winchester. He noted domestic violence has spiked with the downturn of the economy and the Center has had to turn away a number of victims. He went on to say they have begun construction, but need more funding. He concluded by saying the collection of over $2 million in private donations shows there is support for this program. Cindy Heathcoat, foxensic nurse examiner at Winchester Medical Center, spoke in support of this application. She advised that she sees the victims of these crimes and the work being done by the Laurel Center is extremely important in the community. She went on to say no one deserves this money more. She noted the help is free and confidential. She concluded by saying Winchester Medical Center, Valley Health Systems, and Mr. Mark Merrill are passionate about and grateful for this group, Dr. Jack Potter, Director of the Emergency Room, spoke in support of Miss Heathcoat's comments. He went on to say we see the successes of The Laurel Center. He concluded by saying the center is a tremendous asset to the community and he urged the Board to support this application, Evan Clark, resident of Winchester, spoke in support of this application. He noted that he provides counseling services to the perpetrators of domestic violence and 85% of the clients come from Frederick County. He concluded by saying he strongly supported the Community Development Block Grant application. Sheriff Robert Williamson offered his support for The Laurel Center and this application. Martha Shiekle, Executive Director of the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission, asked those in attendance who supported this application to please stand as a show of support. Approximately 25 people stood in support of the application. There being no further public comments, Vice - Chairman Ewing closed the public hearing, Upon a rnotaon by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board approved the submission of the Community Development Block Grant, application for The Laurel Center. Minute Book Number 38 Board of Supervisors Regt�Iar Meeting of Q3113/13 The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Abstain Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S, DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E, Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #01 -13 FOR JUDITH TINGLE FOR A REVISION TO THE RE UIREMENTS UNDER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #09 -10 ENABLING AN IN -HOME FAMILY DAY CARE FACILITY. THIS REQUEST IS FOR THE. PURPOSE OF INCREASING THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN BEING CARED FOR AT ANY GIVEN TIME. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 284 TYLER DRIVE_ s AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH PROPRRTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 32A -2 -18 IN THE STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. - APPROVED Zoning Inspector Dana Johnston appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised this was a request for a revision to existing conditional use permit #09 -10 for an in -home family day care facility. The revision would increase the number of children being cared for from eight to 12. The property is located at 284 Tyier Drive, Hiatt's Run subdivision in the Stonewall Magisterial District. He noted the Department of Social Services granted approval for the increased capacity from eight to i2 children. He went an to say the Health Department has no objections and staff has received no complaints. The Planziing Commission unanimously recommended approval of this application at their February 20, 2013 meeting with the following, conditions: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. Hours of operation shall be permitted from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m:, Monday through Friday. 3. The applicant shall satisfy the licensing requirements of the Virginia Department of Social Services and the County of Frederick. 4. No business sign associated with this Conditional Use Permit {CUP) shall be erected on the property. 5. Other than those children residing an the property, there shall be no more than twelve {12) children being cared for at any given time. 6. Other than those persons residing on the property, there shall be no mare than one (1) employee working at the day care at any time. 7. Any expansion or change of use will require a new Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Minute Book Number 3$ Board�of Supervisors Regular Meeting of Q3113/13 �� Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded ey Vice - Chairman Ewing, the Board approved Conditional Use Permit #O l -13. 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 Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — CHAPTER 165 ZONING ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS PART 4Q1 RA RURAL AREAS DISTRICT — REMOVAL OF WAVER OPPORTUNITY IN THE RA DISTRCCT WHICH .ALLOWS THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REDUCE SETBACKS FOR EXISTING LOTS. - APPROVED Senior Planner Candice Perkins advised this was an ordinance amendment to remove the waiver opportunity in the RA {Rural Areas) Zoning District. She noted the waiver request should be removed because these requests should be handled by the Board of Zoning Appeals. She concluded by saying the Planning Commission recommended approval. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Hess, 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. WHEREAS, an ordinance to amend Chapter 165 Zoning, to remove the waiver opportunity contained in the RA Zoning District that allows the Board of Supervisors to reduce the setbacks for an existing let record, was considered. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance on February 20, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance on March 13, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds that the adoption of this ordinance to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and. in good zoning practice; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 Zoning, is amended to remove the waiver opportunity contained in the RA Zoning District that allows the Board of Supervisors to reduce the setbacks for an existing lot of record. This amendment shall be in effect on the day aE adoption. Minute Book Number 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/13/13 290 ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Part 401 - RA Rural Areas District 8165- 401.07 Setback requirements. The following setback requirements shall apply to all parcels within the RA Rural Areas Zoning District. A. Setbacks for all lots other than rural preservation lots shall be as set out below. (1) Front setbacks. The front setback for any principal or accessary use or structure located on a traditional five -acre lot shall be 60 feet from the property line or right -of- way of the street, road or ingresslegress easement. (2} Side or read setbacks. The minimum side or rear setback for any principal use or structure shall be determined by the primary use of the adjoining parcel as follows: Ad'oinin Parcel Size Setback (Side and Rear (Feet) 6 acres or less 50 More than 6 acres 100 Orchard 200 Agricultural and Forestal District 200 8165- 40L078B Remains Unchanged Passed this 13�` day of March 2013 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shicklc Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT -- CHAPTER 165 ZONING ARTICLE VII DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND APPROVALS, PART__ 801 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS• ARTICLE I GENERAL- PROVISIONS AMENDMENTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, PART 101 GENERAL PROVISIONS; ARTICLE II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, LOADING AND ACCESS; ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESTDENTIAL DISTRICTS, PART 402 RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT; ARTICLE V PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTSx.PART 501 R4 RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT, PART 502 RS Minute Book Number 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of o3 /13113 29� RESIDENTIAL RECREATTONAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT, PART 504 MS MEDICAL SUPPORT DISTRICT — REVISIONS TO UPDATE THE MDP SUBMTSSTON .AND PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS. THIS REVISION ALSO MODIFIES A NUMBER OF MDP REFERENCES THROUGHOUT CHAPTER 16S TO CONFORM WITH SECTION 841 REVISION. - APPROVED Senior Planner Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She advised this was an ordinance amendment to update the master development plan requirements. She noted that master development plans must demonstrate compliance with the County Code and are not scheduled for review at a public meeting until they meet all of the requirements and have addressed all review agency comments. Master Development Plans are only presented as information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, no action is required. In order to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with current practice, staff prepared a revision to Part 801 of the Zoning Ordinance to update the Master Development Plan requirements, revise how the plans are processed, and reorganize the text .for clarity. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this proposed amendment. Supervisor Fisher asked about the reasons for requiring the pre - application conference because the developer usually approaches the county to request a conference. He stated the proposed amendment would allow staff to now request a conference. Chairman Shickle stated he appreciated staff s attention to this matter. He noted the Board wants to see what the ordinance adaptations are and there is an effort made to let the Board know what happens. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. Mark Berg, Back Creek District, spoke in opposition to this proposed change. He noted this proposal would centralize power in the Local bureaucracy. He went on to say Master Development Plans should not be here as an information item. He wanted to know who chose not to comply with the current ordinance. He was concerned because the Planning Director and County Administrator would be the ones to approve these plans. He expressed further concern because it was up to those two staff members to determine when a pre application conference is required. He questioned the lack of clarity in the topography requirements. He urged the Board not to approve this ordinance. Jay Marts, Gainesboro District, stated this particular ordinance was a bit of an overreach and lie urged the Board not to go forward with its approval. Minute Book Number 3$ Board of Supervisors Reguiar Meeting of 03/13/13 2921 Doily Stottlemyer, Shawnee District, expressed concern about the contents of this ordinance. She felt it put more work on the Planning Commission and the developer. She noted there was not roam for an applicant appeal process or a time frame for an application to be approved. She questioned why the Board would adopt a fee schedule, but would not approve the plan. She went on to say once this revision is approved it will be impossible to rescind. She concluded by saying this ordinance denies residents due process and this is a duty of the Board. There being no fiuther public comments, Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved the ordinance amending the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165 Zoning, Article VIII Development Plans and Approvals, Part 801 Master Development Plans, 165 - 801.01 Intent, 165- 801.02 When Required, 165 - 801.03 Waivers, 165- 801.04 Review, 165- 801.05 Pre - application Conference, 165- 801.06 Preliminary Master Development Plan, � 165 - 801.07 Final Master Development Plan, 165 - 801.08 Changes to Approved Plans, 165- 801.09 Preliminary Master Development Plan Submission, 165- $01.10 Contents of Freliminary Master Development Plans, 165 - 801.11 Final Master Development Plans, 165 - 801.12 Master Development Plan Review Fees; Article I General Provisions, Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 General Provisions, 165- 101.02 Definitions &Word Usage, Part 202 off Street Parking, Loading and Access, 165- 202.04 Streets; Inter- Parcel Connectors; Part 402. RP Residential Performance District, 16- 402.01 Intent; Article V Planned Development Districts, Part 501 R4 Residential Planned Community District, 165 - 501.01 Intent; Part 502 R5 Residential Recreational Community District, 165 - 502.02 Master Development Plan, 165- 502.05 Design Requirements; Part SO4 MS Medical Support District, 165- 504.03 District Area, Floor -to -Area Ratios, and Residential Gross Densities. WHEREAS, an ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning to update the Master Development Plan submission and processing requirements, was considered. This revision naadifies a number of Master Development Plan references throughout Chapter 165 to conform with the Section 801 revision,.as shown in the heading of this Resolution. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance on Febluary.20, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance on March 13, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors Finds that the adoption of this ordinance to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in good, zoning practice; and Minute Boak Number 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/13/13 293 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 Zoning is amended to update the Master Development Plan subrnission and processing requirements throughout Chapter 165 to conform with the Section SO1 revision, as shown in the heading of this Resolution. This amendment shall be in effect on the day of adoption. ARTICLE VIII DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND APPROVALS Part 801 -- Master Development Plans § 165- 801.01 Intent. The purpose of the master development plan (MDP) is to promote orderly and planned subdivision and development of property within Frederick County. It is the purpose of the MDP to ensure that such development occurs in a manner that suits the characteristics of the land, is harmonious with adjoining property and is in the best interest of the general public. The MDP shall be used to illustrate the characteristics of the properly proposed far subdivision and/or development and of surrounding properties and ensure that the requirements of the „C�unty Code have been satisfied. § 1.65- 801.02 When required. A. A preliminary Master Development Plan {MDP) °ra � ��� "`''TEA shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Development, and shall be resented to the Plannin Commission and the Board o Supervisors as an informational item. fe�PlarEnin�,. 'e�n}issi�an- and�eard- e�e�i�e�' Ultimatel the MDP must receive administrative a roval rom the Director o Plannin and DeyeloT�ment and the Count Administrator prior to any subdivision or development of property in any of the following zoning districts: RP Residential Performance District R4 Residential Planned Community District RS Residential Recreational Community District MH1 Mobile Home Community District HE High Education District MS Medical Support District B 1 Neighborhood Business District B2 Business General District B3 Industrial Transition District OM Ofiice- Manufacturing Park District M 1 Industrial Light District M2 Industrial Genera] District EM Extractive Manufacturing District B. The MDP shall "� include the sub'ect ro er ro osed or subdivision or develo went as well as all contiguous land under single or common ownership in the above zoning districts. C. A � MDP may be submitted with an application for a rezoning but shall not be considered binding until approval of a final MDP. � 165 - 80]..03 Waivers. A. RP, R4, R5, M� and MH1 Districts. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the requirements of a MDP in the RP (Residential Performance District), the R4 (Residential Planned Community District), the R5 (Residential Recreational Community District), Medisal- �rpperl Minute Book Number 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/13/13 294 District and the MH -1 (Mobile Home Community District), if the proposed property for subdivision or development: {1} Contains 10 or less sin le- anvil detached rural traditional sin le- amii detached traditional or single- family detached urLan "- ^�'� *��n ^' a ° * ^ ^'� °�' °� ^ ^'° � ,,,:',� 'welling units all other permitted housing types shall require a MDPl; (2) Is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development or subdivision; (3) Is planned to be developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties and land uses; and (4) Does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of its zoning district and the intent of this article. B. Ml, EM and M2 Districts. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the requirement of a MDP in the M 1 (Light Industrial), the EM (Extractive Manufacturing }, Zoning or the M2 (Industrial General) Zoning Districts if the proposed subdivision or development: (1) Includes no new streets, roads or rights -of- -way, does not further extend any existing or dedicated street, road ar rights -of- -way and does not significantly change the layout_ of any existing or dedicated street, road or rights -of- -way; {2} Does not propose any stormwater management system designed to serve more than one lot and does not necessitate significant changes to existing stormwater management systems designed to serve more than one lot; (3) Is not an integral portion of a property proposed ar planned for future development or subdivision; (4) Is planned to be developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties and land uses; and (5) That such development does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of this chapter. C. B 1, B2, B3, MS and HE Districts. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the requirement of a master development plan in the B 1 (Neighborhood Business }, B2 (Business General }, B3 (Industrial Transition }, MS edical Su ort or HE (Higher Education} Zoning Districts if the proposed subdivision or development: (1 } Contains less than -five acres in the B 1 District and less than 10 acres in the B2, B3, MS or HE District; (2) Includes no new streets, roads or rights -of- -way, does not further extend any existing or dedicated street and does not significantly change the layout of any existing or dedicated street; (3) Does not propose any stormwater management system designed to serve more than one lot and does not necessitate significant changes to existing stormwater management systems designed to serve more than one ]nt; (4} Is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development or subdivision; (5) Is planned to be developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties and land uses; and (6) That such development does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of this chapter. § 165 - 801.04 #e�ie� Preapplication conference. Prior to submission of a � master development plan for review a�reval, the Department o Planning and Development staff may require, or an applicant may request a iau� preapplicatiott conference ..,: E�- si-a�: The purpose .of the preapplication�iew conference is to review and discuss the nature of the proposal in relation to the requirements of the County Code and to discuss the preparation of a master development plan. A. If required, at the preapplication conference the applicant shall provide n land use plan describing the following: Minute Book iVumber 38 Board or Supervisors Regular Meeting of Q3113113 295 LI�The general location_of the site. 2 The eneral location o ro osed roads. (3) The _general location and types of proposed uses, en_ yiranmental features on the site, housing es o_r open space., (4) The_ uses on adjoining properties. } � a > > '�`�� � -IGS -801.5 Contents o master develo ment laps. A. The ollowin items shall be re wired or MDP's in all Zonin Districts. All required items shall be shown clearly on the plan. AlI � MDP's shall be prepared in accordance with the following specifications: (1) The scale shall be one inch equals 100 feet or larger {the ratio of feet to inches shall be no more than one hundred feet to one inch) or at a scale acceptable to the Director. The scale shall be sufficient so that all features are discernible. (2) No sheet shall exceed 42 inches in size unless approved by the Director of Planning and Development. If the MDP is prepared on more than one sheet, match lines shall clearly indicate where the sheets join. (3) All MDP's shall include a North arrow, a scale and a legend describing all symbols. (4) A boundary survey of the entire property related to true meridian and certified by a certified Virginia surveyor, architect or engineer, with all dimensions in feet and decimals of feet, is required for all MDP'S. (5) The total area of the property shall be specified on the MDP. (6) The topography shall be shown at contour intervals acceptable to the Director. (7} The title of the proposed project; the date, month, year the plan was prepared or revised; the name of the applicants }, owner(s) and contract owner(s); and the names of the individuals or firms preparing the plan shall be clearly specified. (8) A schedule of phases, with the approximate location of phase boundaries and the order in which the phases are to be developed, shall be provided. {9} The use of all adjoining properties shall be clearly designated on the MDP. Minute Book Number 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03113/l3 •� {10} All existing, er approved or planned public roads, streets or rights -of- -way on the project or within 2,000 feet of the boundaries of the project. (ll) Any approved proffers associated with property. (l2) The location and treatment proposed for all historical structures and sites recognized as significant by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors or as identified on the Virginia Historical Landmarks Commission Survey for Frederick County. (I3) A history of all land divisions that have occurred in relation to the tract since the adoption of this requirement. (I4) The approximate location of sewer and water mains with statements concerning the connection with and availability of existing facilities. (I S) The ownership and use of all adjoining parcels including parcels across road right of warms. (I6) Description of any changes made since approval of an_y prior MDP's. (I7) An approval block and signature lines far the Director of Planning and Development. B. Contents of a � master development plan in the RP (Residential Performance) District, the R4 {Residential Planned Community) District, the RS {Residential Recreational Community) District and the MH -1 {Mobile Home Community) District. The ^�� MDP shall contain a conceptual plan, showing the location and functional relationship between all proposed housing types and land uses, including the following information: {1) Aland use plan, showing the location, arrangement and approximate boundaries of all proposed land uses. {2) The approximate acreage in common open space, in each use and housing type and in roads, streets or rights -of- -way for each phase and the total development. {3) The location and approximate boundaries of proposed housing types conceptually shown in accord with residential performance dimensional requirements. (4) The proposed number of dwelling units of each type in each phase and in the total development. (5) The location and approximate boundaries of existing environmental features, including floodplains, lakes and ponds, wetlands, natural stormwater retention areas, steep slopes and woodlands. ` (6) The location of environmental protection land to be included in common open space. (7) The approximate acreage of each type of environmental protection land, the amount and percentage of each type that is to be disturbed and the amount and percentage of each type to be placed in common open space. (8) The amount, approximate boundaries and location of common open space, with the percentage of the total acreage of the site to be placed in common open space. {9} The location and general configuration of recreational facilities, with a general statement of the types of recreational facilities to be provided. (10} The location and extent of proposed buffers, with statements, profiles, cross sections or examples clearly specifying the screening to be provided. (11) The proposed location, arrangement, and right -of- -way widths of roads and streets, including roads and streets providing access to adjoining parcels, shall be in accordance with § 165- 202.04. (12} The location and arrangement of street entrances, driveways and parking areas. I3 A conceptual plan for stormwater management with the location of stormwater facilities designed to serve more than one lot. Minute Book Number 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of X3/13113 297 Calculations describing all proposed bonus factors with the location of and specifications for bonus improvements, when proposed. �� C. Contents of a � master development plan in the M1 {Light Industrial) District, the M2 (Industrial General) District, the EM (Extractive Manufacturing} District, the HE (Higher Education} District, the B 1 (Neighborhood Business) District, the B2 {Business General) District, the B3 (Industrial Transition) District, the OM (office- Manufacturing Park) District and -the MS (Medical Support) District. The pal- i�tninary MDP shall contain a conceptual plan, showing the location and functional relationship between streets and land uses, including the following: (1) A conceptual plan, showing the location and arrangement of proposed uses. (2) The location and a roximate boundaries o existing environmental features, including flaadplains, lakes and ponds, wetlands, natural stormwater detention areas, steep slopes and woodlands, as defined, and the approximate acreage of each_,type of environmental feature, including the amount and percenta�ee of each type that is to be disturbed and the amount and ercenta e o each a to be laced in o en or landsca ed areas (3) The proposed location and arrangement of all n + ~ + ~�nU proposed and existin,�utility systems. (,�} Tti° °e.a '�� µtic,. c f e .tr�..yy� + +1, ,� i + �.,. ° � +•� ,i.l • + + The location v ravYvL� ll/ 411y µyy yl ViJl LLV 11Y It and arran ement o existin and ro osed ublic or rivate roads existin or ro osed entrances, and driveways from existin;: and proposed public or private streets. (5} A conceptual plan for stormwater management and description and the location of all stormwater facilities designed to serve more than one parcel. (7) All-- pr�apose�3- tau- ffr; ring�n�sc�eerfi�g— req�= ired��#is— e��te�The location and extent o ro osed bu ers re aired b this Cha ter with statements ro tles cross sections or exam les clearly speciyin� the screening to be provided § 165 - 801.06 Master development plan submission. Applicants shall submit 4� the number of copies of the preliminary MDP to the Department of Planning and Developments eci ted b the De artment o Plannin and Develo meet MDP a lication, together with completed application materials required by the Department of Planning and Development. €anal anr- tir- nxr� -1 •,�F +h., ..,- °1;,,�;,- , °.... ARTIA 1, li 1, r, I-.., rl,° t�.,.,.., -1 .-.� C.,..,.,...:n,..... "YY•.. ......,. ..... Y, ,,.....,.. .� .,ia�i oll , A. Applicants shall provide approval comments on the proposed development from various review agencies ar departments as required by the Department of Planning and Development. The submission shall be complete and the application shall commence throu h the ublic meetin process when the plans, application materials and review agency approval comments have been received by the Director of Planning and Development, t�.>7 °� ° ~ °� °� °«� ,.�„r ° ~ ° „ °° '� °� '---�� '-�1�, > > • B. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA} shall be prepared and submitted to the Department of Planning and Development with all MDP applications in accordance with the adopted Traffic Impact Analysis Standards. E Minute Baok Number 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/13/13 �� D: C When the submission is complete, the Director of Planning and Development shall submit the plans, application materials and review a�ency approval comments to the Planning Commission €er � as an informational item. D. Following the informational presentation of the MDP to ° °poi the Planning Commission, copies of the plan, application materials and agency comments shall be submitted to the Board of Supervisors fer —its as an in ormational item. ^�- ' °rn "��r `r''�� '����-a �'��" °{ "'� °� ° ° +'�° p� , " aauaa�va va uvaay auv Nauia. E. The preliminary MDP submitted to the Board of Supervisors for review shall not be substantially changed from plans reviewed by the Planning Commission. Changes may be made that were discussed er�e�i -red by the Planning Commission. Other substantial changes to the plan shall require that the Planning Commission review the plan as a new � MDP. F. Site plans or final subdivision plats may be submitted concurrently with preliminary master development plans for review according to the procedures set forth in this chapter and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, of the County Cade. Master Development Plan Approval Process § 165- SU1.07 Final master development plan. A. The real MDP shall con orm to all re uirements o the Coun Code. A:B Applicants shall submit X -4�- -a minimum a ave copies of the final MDP to the Department of Planning and Development. Final approval of the final MDP shall be given by the Director of Planning and Development and the Coun Administrator. Minute Book iVu3nnber 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting ofd3113113 .� � „� ■. ,,.. D. Following the informational presentation of the MDP to ° °poi the Planning Commission, copies of the plan, application materials and agency comments shall be submitted to the Board of Supervisors fer —its as an in ormational item. ^�- ' °rn "��r `r''�� '����-a �'��" °{ "'� °� ° ° +'�° p� , " aauaa�va va uvaay auv Nauia. E. The preliminary MDP submitted to the Board of Supervisors for review shall not be substantially changed from plans reviewed by the Planning Commission. Changes may be made that were discussed er�e�i -red by the Planning Commission. Other substantial changes to the plan shall require that the Planning Commission review the plan as a new � MDP. F. Site plans or final subdivision plats may be submitted concurrently with preliminary master development plans for review according to the procedures set forth in this chapter and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, of the County Cade. Master Development Plan Approval Process § 165- SU1.07 Final master development plan. A. The real MDP shall con orm to all re uirements o the Coun Code. A:B Applicants shall submit X -4�- -a minimum a ave copies of the final MDP to the Department of Planning and Development. Final approval of the final MDP shall be given by the Director of Planning and Development and the Coun Administrator. Minute Book iVu3nnber 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting ofd3113113 „� ■. ,,.. D. Following the informational presentation of the MDP to ° °poi the Planning Commission, copies of the plan, application materials and agency comments shall be submitted to the Board of Supervisors fer —its as an in ormational item. ^�- ' °rn "��r `r''�� '����-a �'��" °{ "'� °� ° ° +'�° p� , " aauaa�va va uvaay auv Nauia. E. The preliminary MDP submitted to the Board of Supervisors for review shall not be substantially changed from plans reviewed by the Planning Commission. Changes may be made that were discussed er�e�i -red by the Planning Commission. Other substantial changes to the plan shall require that the Planning Commission review the plan as a new � MDP. F. Site plans or final subdivision plats may be submitted concurrently with preliminary master development plans for review according to the procedures set forth in this chapter and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, of the County Cade. Master Development Plan Approval Process § 165- SU1.07 Final master development plan. A. The real MDP shall con orm to all re uirements o the Coun Code. A:B Applicants shall submit X -4�- -a minimum a ave copies of the final MDP to the Department of Planning and Development. Final approval of the final MDP shall be given by the Director of Planning and Development and the Coun Administrator. Minute Book iVu3nnber 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting ofd3113113 299 B: C: The Director shall approve the final MDP if all requirements of the County, Code and all review agencies have been met, and if a preliminary MDP was t�resented to � the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors and— i €�l�ed— ge5�r�^""r'�oe,,., m �ra �' D. A MDP shall not be considered anal until it is sr ned 6 the Director o Plannin and Develo ment and the County Administrator: § 165 -801A8 Changes to approved Master Develo,�merzt Plans. Changes to an approved MDP shall occur only after review � by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors using the procedures required far the approval of a new plan. The Director of Planning and Development may approve minor changes without following the full procedures, if such approval does not violate the intent of this chapter and section. Such minor changes shall not include increases in the density or intensity of development, changes to entrance ar street layout, changes to stormwater layout or other major design changes. § 165 - 801. -13 9 Master development plan review fees. The Board of Supervisors may adopt a schedule of fees to be paid by the applicant to the County for the costs associated with the review of the MDP. *§ 165 -841.1 t7 Relocated to 165 -801. S Minute Saok Number 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/13/13 300 itevilewv C4nlarsnpe with Slsft s Appliaaiian CO rlAplk w7h Pktnn Caxnertissian 5ubmixtlpn of P iriinary MOP, RpRlicaiiprs and Ga snts to Stat! F+evleW by CanxViting EAQ ifs4 of 9�asipn Casnr�litaa i#eviswc PralEminary Ml?R Sudmiasian to PC and PC .Approval,. Approval with Ghanpcs ar Cleniil �61t1ffk15tl8n to Bp aid of SVRatwiiYiri APRFaWaf � Rpproval +,vith ona; Final lV1Di' Ap{sro�ed Finsi MDP by Statf by Stat #� Finsi Subdivision � Fj 8ubdlvisian or Sits Pisn Slta Pian to PC a PC Chapter 165 -Table of Contents i?w nla d ARTICLE VIII DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND APPROVALS Part 801 — Master Development Plans 165- 801.01 Intent. 165 - 801.02 When required. 165 - 801.03 Waivers. 165 - 801.04 " °-:� °•_� ° �� r °ri ° °. Preapplication conference. 165 -801 A5 1D� ° °� „' °��4:,... ° °�� �' °µ °n Contents of master development plans. 165 -801 A6 Preliminary Master development plan submission. 165 - 801.07 Final master development plan. 165 - 801.08 Changes to approved master development plans. 165- 801.09 .Master development plan review fees. i Gc oni i n rte,,,, + °„ +„ „�,,,. °i;,,,:,,.,,.�, .�,.,� + °,- �Ic.,ol�,..,.,,,.,+ �i,,,,� llV Y V1Vi1111V114 tl A4iJ..]. t tiG 4n1 1''1 Tif., � +.�« .J...,. °l.�„- .w, °,�,+ ,�.1 .,,-, r ,. � °o � T1VV.], ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Part 101. — General Provisions § 165 - 101.02 Definitions &word usage. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN - A general plan of development appre�ed reviewed by the Board of Supervisors for new developments in certain zoning districts before subdivision or site plan approval, according to the requirements of this chapter. Article II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES Part 202 —Off- Street Parking, Loading and Access Minute Book Number 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/13/13 30� § 165- 202A�1 Streets; Inter - parcel connectors. All residential subdivisions of more than 10 loss in the RP, R -4, R -5, and MS {with residential uses) Zoning Districts shall have streets connecting to adjoining parcels. If adjoining parcels are developed or have had a subdivision plat approved, the connecting street shall coordinate with the existing or. platted streets in the adjoining parcel If an adjoining parcel is undeveloped, the location of the connecting street shall be as shown on the Master Development Plan (MDI?} � reviewed by the Board of Supervisors. This requirement for inter - parcel connector streets may be waived by the Board of Supervisors if the Board finds: i} that a connector street to an adjoining parcel is not likely to be needed; ii} that the connector street would be required to be placed in a location which is impractical for location of a street; iii) that an adjoining undeveloped parcel is not likely to be developed in a manner to make a connector street necessary or appropriate; or iv) other good cause shown by the applicant not contrary to good planning policy. All inter - parcel connectors, public or private, shall be built to the Virginia Department of Transportation engineering standards. ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Part 402 — RP Residential Perfarmance District § 165 - 402.01 Intent. B. Within this Part 402, a number of general performance requirements are identified. When a housing development has satisfied these requirements, this Part 402 is intended to provide a large degree of flexibility in development and housing design. This design process is accomplished through a master development plan which is designed in cooperation with the County staff and Planning Commission and � reviewed by the Board of Supervisors. The layout, phasing, density and intensity of a development is determined through the adoption of the master plan by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. C. It is the intent of this Part 402 to allow a mixture of housing types on the land within an approved master development plan. Within this Part 402, the permitted multifamily development percentages and densities are identified. Multifamily housing types are allowed only when they adjoin similar uses or are properly separated from different uses. The � master development plan shall specify the amount and percentages of all proposed housing types. ARTICLE V PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS Part 501 — R4 Residential Planned Community District § 165 - 501.01 Intent. The intention of the Residential Planned Community District is to provide for a mixture of housing types and uses within a carefully planned setting. A11 land to be contained within the Residential Planned Community District shall be included within an approved master development plan. The layout, phasing, density and intensity of development is determined through the _ rnal approval aierr of the master development plan by the County .Special care is taken in the approval of the master development plan to ensure that the uses on the land are arranged to provide for compatibility of uses, to provide environmental protection and to avoid adverse impacts on surrounding properties and facilities. The district is intended to create new neighborhoods wish an appropriate balance between residential, employment and service uses. Innovative design is encouraged. Special care is taken in the approval of R4 developments to ensure that necessary facilities, roads and improvements are available or provided to support the R4 development. Planned community developments shall only be approved in conformance with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Part 502 — RS Residential Recreational Commnnity District § 165 - 502.02 Master development plan. All land to be contained within the Residential Recreational Community District shall be included within an approved master development plan. The layout, phasing, density and intensity of development is determined through the teal annroval � of the master development plan by the County t-lte r C ' Special care is taken in the approval of the master Minute Book Number 3$ Board of ,Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/13/13 302 development plan to ensure that the uses on the land are arranged to provide for compatibility of uses, to provide environmental protection and to avoid adverse impacts on surrounding properties and facilities. Innovative design is encouraged. Special care is taken in the approval of R5 developments to ensure that necessary facilities, roads and improvements are available or provided to support the RS development. Residential recreational community developments shall only be approved in conformance with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. - § 1G5- 502.05 Design requirements. M. Alternative access. A combined system of pedestrian and/or bicycle access, in the form of paved sidewalks, interiar walkways or bike paths, shall be provided to allow walking or bicycling between every use, structure or recreational facility. Such access shall be connected with existing travelways adjacent to the residential recreational community development. In age- restricted communities, at the time of master development plan � review, the Board of Supervisors may allow local streets without sidewalks to be used and incorporated into the system of pedestrian and bicycle access. The type and nature of trails to be used shall be identifed, detailed and approved on the master development plan. Part 504 -- MS Medical Support District § 1G5- 504,03 District area, floor -to -area ratios, and residential gross densities. C. The Board of Supervisors may provide for the administrative approval of a parcel subdivision which fronts on private street systems during the master development plan �1 review process. Passed this 13a' day of March 2013. Supervisor Collins stated the Board would be removing levels of bureaucracy by approving this ardinance. Supervisor Lofton agreed with Supervisor Collins. He went on to say the Board could be putting a developer in double jeopardy if the Board followed the existing ordinance, as written. Chairman Shickle questioned the timing of this amendment. Planning Director Eric Lawrence advised the Board could not deny a Master Development Plan, but board members still wanted to see how the plan. complied with the ordinances. He went on to say the Board previously authorized staff to administratively approve master development plans. This proposal gets rid of the double jeopardy concern. He concluded by saying the master development plan illustrates hnw the ordinances apply to the property. There being no furthex discussion, the ordinance amendment was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Pisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye OTHER PLANNING ITEMS REZONING APPLICATION #O1 -13 -- WOODSIDE COMMERCIAL CENTER — REVISE TRANSPORTATION PROFFERS - APPROVED Minute Book Number 38 Board of supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/13/13 I �Q� I Deputy Planning Director Michael Ruddy appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised this was a request to revise proffers associated wish Rezoning # 15 -06. The revision relates to the "Transportation" section of the proffers. The property is located on the east side of Route 11, north of Hopewell Road, also known as Exit 321 of lnterstate 81, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Deputy Director Ruddy stated this proposal would modify proffer 1. E with the inclusion of a comparable monetary contribution in the amount of $75,000 for road improvements. The monetary contribution in the amount of $75,400 for road improvements is to be paid prior to the first occupancy permit. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Gary Oates, GreyWolf, appeared before the Board an behalf of the application. He advised it had been seven years since the rezoning was approved. He noted the original proffer is an unknown. He went on to say it would be simpler if he could make the proffer in monetary farm. He concluded by saying the County is in a better position because the money could be used for matching funds. Vice - Chairman Ewing expressed concern about the timing change. Supervisor DeHaven stated the transportation proffer is to iry to mitigate the impacts of development. Until the property comes on line there is no impact. He concluded by saying this seemed equitable to him, Supervisor Lofton asked about the preferred timing of transportation. Deputy Director Ruddy responded Deputy Planning Director- Transportation John Bishop has been working to find a solution for that interchange and having the money would be most benef cial. Supervisor Lofton asked what prompted the request to change from services to money. Mr'. Oates responded that he thought about rezoning the property to B3, but there are two other rezonings in that area looking at some type of design. He said it would benefit him because he could sell the property and the County could use the money for matching funds. begins. Supervisor DeHaven stated the change delivers the proffer to mitigate when the impact Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board approved Rezoning #�01 -13 . The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Nay Minute Book Number 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/13/13 �o� Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Tr. Aye Rohert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye RE VEST TO SCHEDULE A WORK SESSION FOR BUSINESS_ DEVELOPMENT ADVANCEMENT STUDY BDAS — NO ACTION TAKEN Planning Director Eric Lawrence appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised staff was requesting a work session with the Board to discuss further revisions to and to review examples of the Business Development Advancement Study (BDAS). Supervisor Fisher stated he would prefer to see the revisions before holding a work session. Chairman Shickle wanted to see if there were enough changes before deciding on the need for the work session. Vice - Chairman Ewing stated he would be in favor of a work session, if one was needed. The Board consensus was to review the revisions and then determine whether or not a work session was needed. BOARD LIAISON REPORTS There were no board liaison reports. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mark Berg, Back Creek District, stated it was upsetting that the Board of Supervisors did not carefully read the just adopted ordinance change. The approval of master development plans now falls to only two people. This change will adversely affect the business community. He went on to say that by this action, the Board continues to hinder businesses. He concluded by saying, "shame on this board." Gary Oates, Stonewall District, stated, as a surveyor and engineer, the fewer steps one has to go through the better. He appreciated the ordinance change adopted this evening. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Supervisor DeHaven stated he did not understand the concerns surrounding the ordinance amendment especially when it is in the community's benefit. He concluded by saying once a master development plan meets the ordinance requirements it is approved. Supervisor Fisher stated that he wanted to clarify one point regarding The Laurel Center grant application. With xegard to the grant from the State of Virginia, chose are tax dollars. He went on to say the proposed project was worthwhile and there were needs to be addressed, but he Miqute Boak Number 38 $oard of ,Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03!13113 '305 wanted to clarify that grants are tax dollars. With regard to the master development plan ordinance, he noted this practice has been here for years and it has often caused confusion. He advised the rezoning is all the Board can approve. He concluded by saying the Board has never had the authority to approve master development plans. Chairman Shickle stated that personally he believed Dr. Berg was inaccurate and no amount of raising one's voice or pounding a desk would make inaccurate information accurate. ADJOURN UPON A MOTION BY VICE - CHAIRMAN EWING, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR FISHER, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. ($:3Q P.M.) {,_� 4 k G...., i„! J .. ._.�� _,..�_... C G� Richard C. Shickle Jo . )ail r. Chairman, Board of Supervisors Cl�lc, Boa d of Supervisors Minutes Prepared By: �, `�� Jay L. �ibbs Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minute Book Number 38 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/13/13