Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 13 2013 Regular Meeting Minutes114 A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Wednesday, Noverriber 13, 2013 at 7:00 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.; Christopher E. Collins; Gene E. Fisher; Robert A. Hess; Gary A. Lofton; and Robert W. Wells. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the meeting to order. INVOCATION Supervisor Hess delivered the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice- Chairman DeHaven led the Pledge of Allegiance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA - APPROVED County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr. advised he had no changes to the agenda. Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board approved the agenda by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. Wells Aye CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED Administrator Riley offered the following items for the Boaxd's consideration under the consent agenda: - Parks and Recreation Commission Report —Tab E; - Public Works Committee Report —Tab G; - Joint Finance Committee Report —Tab H; and - Road Resolutions —Tab R. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Wells, the Board approved the consent agenda by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Charles S. DeHaven, 7r. Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Minute Book ]Yumber 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 11� Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. Wells Aye CITIZEN COMMENTS Mark Regan, Stanewall District, congratulated board members on their re- election. He spoke regarding the proposed height waiver request of Carmeuse. He stated that he resides across from Stonewall Elementary School and noted that several students attending the school suffer-from asthma. He distributed a handout from Carmeuse regarding safety of the limestone. He asked the Board to deny this request. He asked that Carmeuse be given one year to install an ambient monitor to monitor the air quality. He concluded by call for a denial of this request. Don Butler, Stonewall District, read the following statement; "MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MR. RILEY, AND FREDERICK COUNTY STAFF, MY NAME IS DON BUTLER, I RESIDE AT 120 BUCCANEER COURT, STEPHENSON, VA 22655 IN THE SNOWDEN BRIDGE SUBDIVISION. I APPEAR HERE THIS EVENING TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED WAIVER FOR CARMEUSE TD INCREASE THE HEIGHT LIMIT FROM 45' TO 200'TO ERECT A STRUCTURE AT ITS PLANT IN THE STONEWALL DISTRICT. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS AND ASK A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WAIVER. THE WINCHESTER STAR RAN AN ARTICLE ON NOVEMBER 7, 2013 STATING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED 9 -0 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WAIVER. THE STAR SAID THAT THERE WAS NO PUBLIC COMMENT, THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THE NEXT WEEK. HOW CAN THERE BE PUBLIC COMMENT WHEN MOST OF THE STONEWALL RESIDENTS DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE CARMEUSE REQUEST? A WAIVER DOES NOT REQUIRE PUBLIC NOTICE. THE ONLY WAY TD K'VOW WOULD BE TO CHECK THE AGENDA OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AFTER FIVE YEAR OF RECESSION, CHECKING THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA IS NOT THE HOT BUTTON IT WAS TEN YEARS AGO. I DON'T THINK THE STONEWALL RESIDENTS HAVE HAD MUCH OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT. I THINK A WAIVER TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT FROM 45' TO 200' IS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT AND SHOULD HAVE HAD MORE PUBLIC NOTICE. I OFFER MYAPOLOGY TO CARMEUSE IF THEY DID HAVE A PUBLIC MEETING WITH AREA RESIDENTS TO DISCUSS THE 200' HEIGHT WAIVER WHICH I MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE OF. IT IS MY HOPE THAT TONIGHT' S REVIEW IS INFORMATIONAL WITH A VOTE COMING IN THE FUTURE. THIS WOULD GIVE STONEWALL CTIZENS TIME FOR COMMENT. MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE STRUCTURE ITSELF BOIL5 DOWN TO TWO QUESTIONS. HOW WILL IT BE LIGHTED, AND HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL TRAIN TRAFFIC WILL RESULT WITH THE INCREASED PRODUCTION. WILL THE LIGHTS BE INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL? OTHER THAN THE REQUIRED LIGHTS FOR AIR TRAFFIC WILL THE LIGHTS BE ON 24/7/365? TRAINS,I USE THE RUMBLING AND THE WHISTLE OF THE 5:15 AM TRAIN AS MY ALARM CL OCK.. I MIGHT NOT WANT TO HEAR IT AT 2 AM IN THE MORNING. HAS CARMEUSE DONE A STUDY ON HOW MANY MORE TRIPS A DAY THE TRAIN MAY MAKE, DR HOW MANY MORE ADDITIONAL CARS? MYLAST QUESTION. WHAT DOESA WAIVER REALLYMEAN? IFAPPROVED, IS IT TIME SENSITIVE TO BE BUILT BY A CERTAIN DATE? WOULD IT ALLOW CARMEUSE TO Minute Book Number 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 1X113!13 f.�® BUILD A SECOND 200' STRUCTURE IN THE FUTURE AS A 1VIATTER RIGHT? DDES THE WAIVER RUN WITH THE LAND..IF CARMEUSE SELLS ITS BUSINESS, WOULD THE WAIVER TRANSFER TO THE NEW OWNER? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BEFORE YDU T. EVENING. " BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS There were no Board of Supervisors' con�znents. MINUTES - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board approved the minutes from the October 9, 2013 regular meeting by the following retarded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. Wells Aye COUNTY OFFICIALS INTRODUCTION OF NEW HANDLEY RE[�IONAL LIBRARY DIRECTOR Mr. Jahn Huddy, Director of Handley Regional Library, appeared before the Board to introduce himself. INTRODUCTION OF NEW SHENANDOAH AREA AGENCY ON AGING DIRECTOR Ms. Cathy Galvin, Director for Shenandoah Area Agency on Aging, appeared before the Board to introduce herself and provide an update on some of the services SAAA provides to the community. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS APPOINTMENT OF MILAN R. MAJAROV AND DALE T. MAZA TO THE GRIEVANCE PANEL - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board appointed Milan R. Majarov and Dale T. Maza to the Grievance Panel. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. Wells Aye Minute Book l�umbcr 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11113/I3 117 APPOINTMENT OF RANDY CARTER AS STONEWALL DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION - APPROVED Upon a motion by Vice�Chairman DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board appointed Randy Carter to fill the unexpired term of Ron Hodgson as Stonewall District representative to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Term expires June 23, 2014. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Laflan Aye Robert W, Wells Aye REAPPOINTMENT OF CHUCK DEHAVEN AND ROBERT A. HESS TO THE NORTHERN SHENANDOAH VALLEY REGIONAL COMMISSION - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Collins; the Board reappointed Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. and Robert A. Hess to the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. Wells Aye REAPPOINTMENT OF GARY R. GATES AS STONEWALL. DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION - APPROVED Upon a motion by Vice�Chairman DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board reappointed Gary R. Oates as Stonewall District representative to the Planniog Commission. This is a four year appointment. Term expires January 11, 2018. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. Wells Aye REAPPOINTMENT OF JAMES W. GOLLADAY JR. AS FREDERICK COUNTY BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE TO THE WIN -FRED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - APPROVED Minute Book lumber 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 111I31T3 X18 Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board reappointed lames W. Golladay, Jr., as Frederick County Business Representative to the Wine -Fred Economic Development Commission. This is a three year appointment. Term expires January 31, 2017. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. Wells Aye RE UEST FROM COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE FOR REFUNDS - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised this was a request from the Commissioner of the Revenue for a General Fund supplemental appropriation and to authorize the Treasurer to refund BMW Financial Services NA, LLC the amount of $4,484 -.10 for vehicles sold or moved out of state far 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. The refund includes personal property taxes and registration fees due fio proration. Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved the above request by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. Wells Aye Administrator Riley advised this was a request from the Commissioner of the Revenue for a General Fund supplemental appropriation and to authorize the Treasurer to refund GE Capital Auto Lease the amount of $3,293.22 for vehicles sold or moved out of state for 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. The refund includes personal property taxes and registration fees due to proration. Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved the above request by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Minute .Book. Number 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11 /13173 119 Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. Wells Aye COMMITTEE REPORTS BUSINESS FRIENDLY COMMITTEE REPORT — AUTHORIZED CREATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND FORWARDED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WORK SESSION At the July 10, 2013 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the Board voted to accept the report from the Frederick County Business Climate Assessment Citizens' Committee. At the August i 4, 2013 meeting, the Board forwarded the phase I recommendations to the respective committees /departments for evaluation. The phase I recommendations were: 1. Public Information Officer 2. Signage Along Major Routes Entering Frederick County 3. Establishment of an Economic Development Authority 4. Review and Evaluation of the Master Development Plan Process 5. Sirnplif cation of the Landscape Ordinance 6. Reduction in Proffer Requirements This memo transmits the committees' respective recommendations on the following: Public Information Officer The Human Resources Committee considered this item at its October 4, 2013 meeting. After some discussion, the Committee recommended approval of the creation of the position of Public Information Officer. The creation of This position would make it eligible for funding consideration during the upcoming budget cycle. (See Attached.) Establishment of an Economic Develo meat Authori The Winchester - Frederick County Economic Development Commission established a workgroup consisting of county residents and/or individuals who have a business within Frederick County. The Committee recommended the existing lndustrial Development Authority be converted to an Economic Development Authority. The attached memo outlines the additional steps needed to facilitate this conversion. {See Attached.) It is important to note that no action by the General Assembly ar change in State Code language is required to change the name of the Industrial Development Authority to the Economic Development Authority. However, a State Cade change would be required if the Board desired to put a member of the board of supervisors on the Economic Development Authority. Reduction in Proffer Requirements The Development Impact Model Oversight Committee conducted a reevaluation of the current Development Impact Model, taking into account current economic conditions. The Committee discussed the possibility of offering credits for proffered transportation improvements above those typically expected to address transportation impacts. Ultimately, the Committee recommended approval of a policy rriodification to enable credit for transportation. (See Attached.) It was further noted in the report that the Committee would continue to re- evaluate the model to see if further modifcations would be appropriate. Those additional areas of study include: - Tax contributions that may result from new residential development. - Tax contributions that may result from new commercial development associated with a residential development proposal. Staff recommends the Board hold a work session in the future to discuss and review the committees' proposed recommendations. Minute Book Number 39 Board of ,Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 X20 Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board authorized staff to move forward with the creation of an Economic Development Authority by July 1, 2014 and seek authorization from the General Assembly to choose the format. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. Wells Aye PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT — APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Parks and Recreation Commission met on October 8, 2013. Members present were: Marty Cybulski, Kevin Anderson, Greg Brondos, 7r., and Ronald Madagan. Members absent were: Patrick Anderson, Christopher Collins, Gary Longerbeam, Charles Sandy, rr., and vacant appointment from Stonewall District. Items Requiring Board of Supervisors Action: None Submitted for Board Information Onl 1. Building, and Grounds Little's Free Library —The Buildings and Grounds Committee recommended not installing "Little's Free Library" along the Bike/Pedestrian Trail at Sherando Park due to vehicular access and the proposed location, potential vandalism, and not being able to control the content of the books that are dropped off. 2. Building and Grounds FY 2015 Capital „Irr�proyements Program —The Buildings and Grounds Committee recommended the approval of the Capital Improvements Plan for FY 2015 as submitted, second by Mr. Brondos, motion carried unanimously (4 -0). The Parks and Recreation FY15 Capital Improvements Program recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Department for review by the Planning Commission. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE REPORT - APPROVED The HR Committee met in the First Floor Conference Raam at 107 North Kent Street on Friday, October 4, 2013 at $:00 a.m.' Committee members present were: Supervisor Robert Hess, Supervisor Robert Wells, Supervisor Chris Collins, and Citizen Member Dorrie Greene. Committee members absent were: Citizen Member Barbara Vance and Citizen Member Beth Lewin. Also present were: Assistant County Administrator Kris Tierney, County Attorney Rod Williams, NRADC Superintendent .Iim Whitley, and DSS representative Delsie Butts. ** *Items Requiring Action * ** 1. Approval of nevv Human Resource Policies. � Approved The Committee recommends adoption of the two new HR policies outlined below and included in the Board of Supervisors' packet. Information Technology Usage This newly created policy combines two current IT policies: 1. Acceptable Use Guidelines for Internet Services {1998) Minute Book Number 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 12� 2. Security -�- Acceptable Use Policy (2404) The proposed policy updates and combines all of the County's technology resources and outlines to our employees expectations of: monitoring, retention, use, and privacy. The Technology Committee recommends approval of the new policy. Upon a motion by Supervisor Hess, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board approved the Information Technology Usage Policy. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Christopher E, Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. Wells Aye Work for Hire This newly created policy addresses ownership rights of copyrightable material. Upon a motion by Supervisor Hess, seconded by Supervisor Wells, the Board approved the Work for Hire Policy. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. Wells Aye 2. Creation of the Public Ynformation Officer Position #o Facilitate Funding Consideration During the Fiscal Year 2014 -2015 Budget Cycle. The Committee recommends approval to create the position of Public Ynformation Off cer. Should the Board adopt to create it, the position can then be subject to funding consideration during the upcoming budget cycle. Supervisor Hess moved to approve the creation of the Fublic Information Officer position with funding subject to consideration in next year's budget. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Collins. Supervisor Lofton stated he could not support this motion until after the work session so the board could talk about existing positions filling those duties. Supervisor Fisher stated he had the same questions as Supervisor Lofton. Supervisor Collins stated there was a need for the position. Supervisor Hess withdrew his motion and Supervisor Collins withdrew his second. Minute Boak Number 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 122 Supervisor Lofton moved to postpone action on this request until after the board's work session. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Fisher. Administrator Riley noted the creation of this position would be part of the Board's work session pertaining to recommendations from the Business Friendly Committee and he was not seeking action this evening, Supervisor Lofton withdrew his motion. Supervisor Fisher withdrew his second. The Board took no action on this item. ** *Items Not Requiring Action * ** 1. None PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT -- APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Public Works Committee met on Tuesday, October 29, 2013 at 8:00 a.m. All members were present. The fallowing items were discussed: ** *Items Not Requiring Actianx ** 1. Results of Needs Assessment Study The director of public works provided the committee members with draft copies of the needs assessment study performed by OWPR far the county school administration and county government adrninistratian. The committee members will have an opportunity to review this information in preparation for the next scheduled meeting. (Attachment I) 2. Alternative Site Location for the New Round Hill Fire and Rescue Station and Associated Social Hall The committee reviewed and unanimously endorsed an alternative site location for the new Round Hill Fire and Rescue Station and Associated Social Hall, The developer of Silver Lake Development is currently revising the proffers of the original development to reflect this new site located off of National Lutheran Boulevard on Corporate Place. These revisions will be submitted to the board at their December 2013 meeting. (Attachment 2) 3. Stormwater Ordinance Update Deputy Director of Public Works, Mr. Joe Wilder, provided the committee with a brief status update on the proposed Stormwater ordinance. Basically, a draft Stormwater ordinance has been developed and will be Submitted to the committee for their review during a meeting to be scheduled for December 3, 2013. It was suggested that a draft copy of this ordinance should also be submitted to each board member well in advance of their December 11, 2013 meeting to allow sufficient time for review. The goal of this time table is to meet a draft submission requirement to the Department of Environmental Quality on ar before December l5, 2013. It is anticipated that the final approval by the board, including a public hearing, will be in February 2014. The actual ordinance will take effect on July 1, 2014. 4. Impacts of Affordable Health Care Act on the Status of Part -time Employees The director of public works indicated that the human resources (H.R.) department is currently in the process of evaluating the impact of the Affordable Health Care Act on the status of part -time employees. Based on preliminary information provided by H.R,, it is anticipated that this act could affect pars -time employees that average 30 hours or more per week. The actual impact may vary depending nn the age of the employee. Ta date, public works has 26 part -time employees which average 30 hours or more per week. A majority of these employees Minute Book Namber 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13113 IG� work as attendants at our citizens' convenience sites. We will await further direction from H.R. before making any changes to the part -time work schedules. 5. Supplemental Appropriation Request from Building Inspections Mr. Jahn Trenary, building official, presented a request for a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $15,000 to fund apart -time receptionist for the remainder of the current fiscal year. This appropriation will be derived from the additional revenue generated by permit fees. The request was unanimously endorsed by the committee and will be forwarded to the finance committee for their consideration. (Attachment 3) 6. Summary of Fiscal Year 2U12/2013 Recycling/Litter Programs The attached memora>�dum from Gloria Puffinburger, solid waste manager, presents a brief summary of the past fiscal year's recyclingllitter programs. In addition, this memorandum highlights the usage at our refuse convenience sites located throughout Frederick County. (Attachment 4} 7, Miscellaneous Reports a. Tonnage Report (Attachment 5) b. Recycling Report {Attachment 6) c. Animal Shelter Dog Report (Attachment 7) d. Animal Shelter Cat Report (Attachment 8) JOINT FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT — APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Joint Finance Committee met on Thursday, August 7, 2013 at $:00 A.M., in the First Floor Conference Roam, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. Present were Chairman Richard Shickle and Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Frederick County representatives; and John Willingham, and Milt McTnturff, City of Winchester representatives. Others present: John 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; Doug Hewett, Assistant City Manager; Patrick Barker, Executive Director of the Winchester - Frederick County Economic Development Commission; Josh Phelps, Chairman of the Winchester - Frederick County Economic Development Commission; John Huddy, Director of Handley Regional Library; and Vic Bradshaw, The Wanchester Star. Mr. Shickle called the meeting to order. ** *For Information Only * ** UPDATE /STATUS OF OUTSIDE AGENCY FUNDING The committee reviewed each locality's funding of outside agency requests. Mr. Riley advised this was being presented for information only. He advised the last time this was discussed the County was awaiting the outside agency presentations. He went on to say no changes were made to the funding requests for the current fiscal, but those presentations set the stage for next year's budget discussions. Mr. lman stated the City would like to have that information as it becomes available during the budget process. Mr. Willingham gave a brief overview of the City's process for considering outside agency requests. He noted Council considered the services provided and the benefit to the Minute Book Dumber 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 X24 citizens. Once that information was obtained Council developed a funding memorandum of understanding for that agency, UPDATEISTATUS OF EDC MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Mr. Riley briefly reviewed the history of the proposed updated memorandum of understanding for the Economic Development Commission. He noted this item was discussed at the committee's last meeting. At that meeting, the City had discussed concerns regarding the first draft of the MOU and presented a revised MOU, which outlined a number of issues or performance measures they felt should be addressed. Mr. Riley then deferred to the county and city attorneys for fixrther discussion. Ciiy Attorney Anthony Williams advised that he and the county attorney exchanged letters and had a phone call yesterday..He went nn to say the county attorney would look at both versions of the MOU (i.e. county and city }, attempt to combine the two in some fashion, and send it to him for review. The drafts would be presented to each of'the governing bodies. He explained the overall concept would be to create a formalized agreement that: - Recognizes the EDC as a joint operation between the City and County; - Contains some performance standards; and - Removes the need for EDC to go through the outside agency process. Mx. Williams noted both governing bodies would need to adopt an ordinance establishing the EDC. Chairman. Shickle expressed his disappointment at being back to "square one ", with creation documents to go back to both governing bodies. Mr. Riley asked Mr, Willingham if the parties wanted the EDC to continue to function as it currently exists. He went on to ask if this was the time to discuss if particular joint functions were up to date with how each locality dealt with issues. Chairman Shickle stated it seemed unreasonable to ask the EDC to function through November without funding. He went on to say if the funding did not materialize then it would fall to the County to make up the difference. Mr. Willingham responded that City Council would fund the budget commitment this year. He went on to say they were committed to doing that. He concluded by saying they could discuss the MOU as a standalone issue. Mr. Riley asked if this was a relationship that needs to continue. Mr. Willingham responded that he would bring it up with City Council at their next meeting. He went on to say he would be interested in hearing the County's thoughts as well. Mr. Iman advised that Mr. Barker and Mr. Deskins, Director of the Winchester EDA, had met on two or three occasions and agreed on the performance standards listed in the City's draft MOU. Mr. Barker responded that he had provided a much larger list of performance measures, but the City EDA Director only picked about 30% of the itelxls submitted. He went on to say if there was that much duplication of services then maybe the structure and relationship needed to be re- evaluated. Administrator Riley stated that for this fiscal year it is business as usual; however, bath bodies would have agendas to finalize for the next fiscal year. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Joint Finance Committee will be Thursday, February 13, 2014 at 8:00 a.rn. There being lla further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 a.m. Minute Book Number 39 Board of supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 �2� FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT - APPROVED The Finance Committee met in the First Floor Conference Room at 107 North Kent Street on Wednesday, October 16, 2013 at 8:00 a.rn. All members were present. Ttem was 1 was approved under consent agenda. Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board approved the consent agenda by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. Wells Aye 1. The Sheriff requests a General Fund su lemental a ro riation in the amount of $33 865w This amount represents a DMV Highway Safety Grant. See attached memo, p. 4 -5. — Approved Under Consent Agenda. 2. The Finance Director requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $1,526,665 and a School Capital Projects fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $800,882.79. These amounts represent one time funding for capital purchases from the FY2013 year surplus. See attached inforlx�ation, p. 6 -8. The committee recommends approval. -- Approved. Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board approved the above request by the fallowing recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Nay Robert W. Wells Aye 3. The School Finance Director requests a General Fund and a School Operating Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $97,011.71. This amount represents designated funds received in FY2013. See attached memo, p. 8. The committee recommends approval. - Approved. Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved the above request by the fallowing recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. We11s Aye 4. The Commissioner of the Revenue requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $1_L377.50. This amount represents proceeds from the Sheriff sale to be used for vehicle repair and maintenance. No local funds required. See attached memo, p. 9. The committee recommends approval. — Approved. Minute Book Number 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 1�� Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board approved the above request by the fallowing recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Robert A. Hess -Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. Wells Aye 5. The Assistant County Administrator requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $17,765. This amount represents proceeds .from the Sheriff sale to be used for building repair and maintenance. No local funds required. See attached memo, p. 10 -11. The committee recommends approval. — Approved. Upon a motion by Vice- Chairman DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board approved the above request by the following recorded vote; Richard C. Shickle Charles S. DeHaven, Jr Christopher E. Collins Gene E. Fisher Robert A. Hess Gary A. Lofton Robert W. Wells Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye * * *Tnforination Only * ** 1. The Finance Director provides a Fund 10 Transfer Report far FY2014. See attached, p. 12. 2. The Finance Director provides Fy2014 financial statements for the period ending September 30; 2013. See attached, p. 13 -23. 3. The Finance Dixector provides the FY2014 Fund Balance Report for the period ending September 30, 2013. See attached, p. 24. 4. The Youth Development Center sends a note of thanks far the County's continued support. See attached, p. 25. 5. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) has awarded the County the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award far the FY2014 Budget document. This is the 28t1' consecutive year the Frederick County has received this achievement. See attached, p. 26 -27. Approved Motion of Congratulations. Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board congratulated the finance director and her staff for a job well done approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. Wells Aye Minuke Book dumber 39 Board of supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 The above motion was �2� TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT - APPROVED The Transportation Committee met on October 28, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. Members Present Members Absent Chuck DeHaven (voting) Mark Davis (liaison Middletown) James Racey (voting) Gene Fisher (voting) Lewis Boyer {liaison Stephens City} Christopher Collins (voting) Gary Oates {liaison PC} ** *Items Requiring Action * ** 1. Revenue Sharing Application {Resolution #021 -13) - Approved Attached please find the draft application and map for Snowden Bridge Blvd from Route I 1 North traveling eastward to a bridge over the CSX rail line and stopping just west of Mulburn Road. Previously, this project has awards of $1.3 million in economic development access funds toward completion of this project. However, as we have continued to promote this project changes in planning for the CSX rail line have led to a requirement of a significantly larger bridge and associated increase in cost. In partnership with the developers of the Graystone Development, it was determined that the project could be better supported through the revenue sharing program. It should be noted that if this application is successful, the economic development access funding previously allocated towards this project would be released, since they .cannot be used to match revenue sharing funds. Motion by Mr. Racey and seconded by Mr. DeHaven to recommend support. Motion passed unanimously. Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved the resolution of support for the Revenue Sharing Program for FY 201 S. WHEREAS, the County of Frederick desires to submit an application for an allocation of funds of up to $4,033,350 thraugh the Virginia Department of Transportation Fiscal Year 2015 Revenue Sharing Program; and WHEREAS, $4,033,350 of these funds are requested to fund Snowden Bridge Boulevard — Phase l; and . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, the Frederick County Baard of Supervisors supports this application for an allocation of up to $4,033,350 through the Virginia Department of Transportation "Revenue Sharing Program ".. ADOPTED, this 13'� day of November, 2013. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. Wells Aye 2. Capital Improvement Plan Staff presented the Capital Improvement Plan recommendations from last year's update to the committee along with recommended changes. Based on VDOT feedback, some additional Minute Book Number 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13 /13 12� modif cations were made and endorsed by the committee. Attached please find last year's adopted priorities and the updated recommendations from the committee. 3. Road Construction Priorities The Staff and committee members inquired whether a comprehensive update to road construction priorities within the County should be undertaken. Staff suggested that the CIP transportation priorities list does a good job of highlighting this for the County. The Committee accepted the Staff's recommendation. 4. Other PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 165 ZONING, ARTICLE VI -- BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, PART 601 DIMENSIONAL AND INTENSITY RE UIREMENTS 165 -601AZ DIMENSIONAL AND INTENSITY REQUIREMENTS, PART 608 EM EXTRACTIVE MANUFACTURING_ DISTRICT 165 - 648.06 HEIGHT LIMITATIONS. ARTICLE TII SUPPLEMENTARY USE _REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC � USES PART 201 SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, §165- 204.28 HEIGHT WAIVERS IN THE EM (EXTRACTIVE MANUFACTURING Ml IGHT INDUSTRIAL AND M2 USTRIAL GENERAL) DISTRICT. THESE_ ARE REVISIONS TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN THE EM, M1, AND M2 ZONING DISTRICTS WITH A BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WAIVER AND ADDITION OF SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS. — APPROVED AS AMENDED. Senior Planner Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She advised this was an ordinance amendment to increase the height allowance in the EM {Extractive Manufacturing), M1 (Light Industrial }, and M2 (Industrial General} Zoning Districts. The proposed amendments would allow the Board of Supervisors to grant a waiver to the height restrictions in those districts. The waiver provision would allow the Board to consider the appropriateness of a requested height increase while providing the applicant with an irrevocable approval. She went on to say supplementary. use regulations had been prepared to address architectural renderings, additional screening, and other necessary conditions. She concluded by saying the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. Kristen Laise, Executive Director of Belle Grove Plantation, spoke against the proposed amendment. She noted Belle Grove's property was adjacent to a Carmeuse facility in Middletown and they were concerned about this waiver. -She noted the proposed ordinance amendment does not provide for public notice or public comment. She asked the Board to include such provisions before passing this amendment. She then presented the following letter from the National Trust for Historic Preservation: "November 13, 2013 Minute Boo�C Number 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 129 The Honorable Richard C. Shickle Chairman, Frederick County Board of Supervisors 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22401 Dear Chairman Shickle: I am writing on behalf of the National Trust for Historic Preservation to express our opposition to the proposed amendment to Chapter 165 Zoning of the Frederick County Code, which is being considered during tonight's meeting of the Board of Supervisors. As we understand it, the proposed amendment would allow the Board of Supervisors to waive the existing maximum height limitation of 45 feet in certain areas of Frederick County in order to permit construction of taller industrial structures, such as a 200 foot -tall lime .kiln currently proposed by Carmeuse Lime &Stone. The proposed amendment, as drafted, would permit the County to issue a waiver for any tall industrial structure unless it would "negatively impact adjacent uses. " The National Trust is the owner of historic Belle Grove Plantation (c. 1794), a cultural heritage tourism destination in Frederick County and a National Historic Landmark. With Belle Grove, Inc., the National Trust is a Key Partner of Cedar Creek &Belle Grove National Historic Park, which includes over 3, 700 historic acres. Carmeuse Lime &Stone owns, operates, and intends to expand a quarry immediately adjacent to Belle Grove Plantation and the National Historical Park. If one were proposed the National Trust would not support the construction of a tall industrial structure near Belle Grove Plantation or the National Historical Park. Nor do we support the proposed amendment to Chapter 165. If the Board of Supervisors does decide to amend Chapter 165 to allow waivers of the 45 foot height limitation in the Extractive Mining, Light Industrial, and Industrial General zoning districts, we encourage the Board to consider the following recommendations: 1. Chapter 165 should require waiver applicants to provide actual notice of their application to all property owners and to the stewards of all public property which may be impacted by structures exceeding the 45 foot height limitation. 2. Chapter 165 should require waiver applicants to submit for review and public comment an environmental impacts analysis, including architectural renderings and viewshed studies, to allow the Board of Supervisors —and the interested public to assess the potential visual atmospheric, and audible impacts of proposed tall industrial structures. 3. Chapter 165 should require that the Board of Supervisors consider all potential direct, indirect, and cumulative adverse impacts which may be caused by proposed tall industrial structures. 4. If a waiver is granted, chapter 1 d5 should require the waiver applicant to avoid minimize, andlor mitigate any and all adverse impacts to property caused by the structures exceeding 45 feet. 5. Finally, Chapter 165 should protect the existing uses and reasonably foreseeable future uses of adjacent property. Importantly, Chapter 165 also should protect other property owners' right of quiet enjoyment against interference by the owner /operator of industrial structures exceeding the 45 foot height limitation. Scenic vistas are an integral part of the natural beauty and historic character of the Shenandoah Valley. Residents live here and visitors travel here from across the globe to enjoy the Valley's incomparable natural, scenic, ,and historic assets. Tourism is an economic generator and job creator in Winchester and Frederick County. In fact; visitors to Virginia contributed over $21 billion to the Virginia economy in 2012, a 4 percent increase over 2011. The National Trust urges the Board of Supervisors to carefully consider its options before amending the Frederick County Code to facilitate construction of tall industrial structures, especially those which would Minute Book Number 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 130 permanently undermine private and public efforts to conserve the natural beauty and historic character of Frederick County. Thank you for considering the views of the National Trust for I�istoric Preservation. Sincerely, /s /David J. Brown David J. Brawn " Mark Regan, Stonewall District, asked the Board to deny this ordinance amendment, There being no fiu�ther public comments, Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Supervisor Hess asked what would be required to add a public hearing or public notice requirement to the ordinance. County Attorney Rod Williams responded the Board could add those requirements tonight and it would not require a new hearing on the proposed ordinance. Chairman Shickle asked how best to hold the public hearing (e.g. Board level or Board and Planning Commission). County Attorney Williams responded that it would be advisable to hold the hearing at bath the Planning Commission and Board level. Supervisor Fishex stated he would support Supervisor Hess's request because without a public notice provision he could not support the proposed amendment. County Attorney Williams advised the public notice provision could be addressed as item #S in §165204.28. The question came up regarding the effect of this ordinance change on the waiver request that was scheduled to be considered later in the meeting and whether or not the public notice requirements would apply to that request. County Attorney Williams responded the waiver request would be subject whatever ordinance the Board approved. If the approval contained a public hearing requirement Then it would have to go through the public hearing process. Upon a motion by Supervisor Hess, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved the ordinance amending Frederick County Cade, Chapter 165 Zoning, Article VI — Business and Industrial Zoning District; Part 608 -- EM Extractive Manufacturing District; Part 601 — Dimensional and Intensity Requirements; Article II Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers, and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 201 — Supplementary Use Regulations; §165- 201.03 — Height Limitations Exceptions; Part 204 — Additional Regulations for Specific Uses; Minute Book Number 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 �31� §165- 204.28 - Height Waivers in the EM (Extractive Manufacturing }, M1 {Light Industrial), and M2 (Industrial General) District, with the waivers to be subject to a public hearing. WHEREAS, an ordinance Eo amend .Chapter 165 Zoning, io allow the Board of Supervisors to waive the maximum height in the EM, M1, and M2 Zoning Districts; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance at their regularly scheduled meeting on November 6, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance at their regularly scheduled meeting on November 13, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds that the adoption of this ordinance to be in the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 Zoning, Article VI -- Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 608 - EM Extractive Manufacturing District, Part 601 - Dimensional and Intensity Requirements; Article II Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers, and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 201 - Supplementary Use Regulations, §165 - 201.03 - Height Limitations Exceptions, Part 204 - Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, §165- 204.28 - Height Waivers in the EM (Extractive Manufacturing }, M1 (Light Industrial} M2 (Industrial General) District are amended to allow the Board of Supervisors to waive the maximum height in the EM, M1, and M2 Zoning Districts. ARTICLE VI BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Part 608 -- EM Extractive Manufacturing District � 165- 608.Oi Intent. The intent of the Extractive Manufacturing District is io provide for mining and related industries, all of which rely on the extraction of natural resources. Provisions and performance standards are provided to pxotect surrounding uses from adverse impacts. It is also the intent of this article to avoid the encxoachment of incompatible uses on the borders of the EM District. *All other sections remain unchanged § 165 - 508.06 Height limitations. �x�s- tr- �tcture- jhall��ee�- 4��cet�r- 1�����. —The maximum structure hei:�ht shall, be_45 feet. The Board a Su ervisors ma waive the 45 oot hei ht limitation ravided that it will not ne ativel im act ad'acent uses. In order to consider the waiver the a licant must submit all in ormation and adhere to re uirements s eci zed b 165 - 204.28. In no case shall an structure exceed 200 feet in height. ARTICLE VI BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Part 601- Dimensional and Intensity Requirements § 165 - 601.02 Dimensional and intensity requirements The following table describes the dimensional and intensity requirements for the business and industrial districts: Minute Book Number 39 Board of supervisors Regular Meeting pf 11/13/13 132 Article II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARHING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES �' 165-- 204.28. Height Waivers in the EM (Extractive Manufacturing). Ml (Light I_n_dustrial) and M2 (Industrial General) District: Waiver requests for height increases in the EM, MI and M2 Zoning Districts, shall adhere to the following requirements: 1. A_rc_hitectural renderings of the proposed structure shall be submitted for re_ view by the Planning Comm_ fission and the Board of Supervisors; 2. The Board o Su ervisors ma re uire bu er and screenin elements and/or additional distance when deemed necessar to rotect existin ad'acent uses• 3. The Board o Su ervisors ma re uire additional conditions as deemed necessa 4. This waiver shall not be ermitted to increase the hei ht a an si na ere Mated b 165- 201.06. 5. The Plannin C ©mrrzission c�nd the Board o 'S�c ervisors shall. laord a ublic Itearin� for ata� l�eigh_t_rvaij1er request. Article II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES Part 201 — Supplementary Use Regulations § 1G5- 201.03 Height limitations; exceptions. B. Exceptions to height requirements. (4) Automated storage facilities in the OM, M1 and M2 Zoning Districts and automated manufacturin��acilities in the MI and M2 Zoning Districts shall be exempt from the maximum height requirement. Eecle� Such exemptions shall he approved by the I~rederick County Fire Marshal. In no case Minute Book Number 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 District Requirement B1 B2 B3 OM M1 M2 Front yard setback on primary or arterial highways (feet) 50 50 SO SO 75 75 Front yard setback on collector or minor streets (feet) 35 35 35 3S 75 75 Side yard setbacks (feet) - - 15 15 25 25 Rear yard setbacks (feet) - - 15 15 25 25 Floor area to lot area ratio (FAR) 0.3 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 Minimum landscaped area (percentage of lot area) 35 15 25 15 25 15 Maximum height (feet) 35 35 35 60 60 * 60 '�In the MI and M2 Districts th_e Board of Supervisors may waive the b0 foot height limitation provided that it will not neeati_vely impact adjacent uses., In order to consider the waiver, the applicant must submit all information and adhere to requirements specified by 6 I65- 204.28 In no case shall an structure exceed I50 eet in hei ht. Article II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARHING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES �' 165-- 204.28. Height Waivers in the EM (Extractive Manufacturing). Ml (Light I_n_dustrial) and M2 (Industrial General) District: Waiver requests for height increases in the EM, MI and M2 Zoning Districts, shall adhere to the following requirements: 1. A_rc_hitectural renderings of the proposed structure shall be submitted for re_ view by the Planning Comm_ fission and the Board of Supervisors; 2. The Board o Su ervisors ma re uire bu er and screenin elements and/or additional distance when deemed necessar to rotect existin ad'acent uses• 3. The Board o Su ervisors ma re uire additional conditions as deemed necessa 4. This waiver shall not be ermitted to increase the hei ht a an si na ere Mated b 165- 201.06. 5. The Plannin C ©mrrzission c�nd the Board o 'S�c ervisors shall. laord a ublic Itearin� for ata� l�eigh_t_rvaij1er request. Article II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES Part 201 — Supplementary Use Regulations § 1G5- 201.03 Height limitations; exceptions. B. Exceptions to height requirements. (4) Automated storage facilities in the OM, M1 and M2 Zoning Districts and automated manufacturin��acilities in the MI and M2 Zoning Districts shall be exempt from the maximum height requirement. Eecle� Such exemptions shall he approved by the I~rederick County Fire Marshal. In no case Minute Book Number 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 1�3 shall the height of these facilities exceed 100 feet in height r��tiess wrtivecd b the I.�o�rrri a Supervisors i�a accarrl�rnce_with_�_�GS- GOLl12. This amendment shall be in effect on the day of adoption. Passed this 13th day of November, 2013 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. Wells Aye PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 165 ZONING, ARTICLE III TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) PROGRAM, PART 302 SENDING AND RECEIVING PROPERTIES 165- 342.01 SENDING PROPERTIES 165- 302.03 CALCULATION OF DEVELOPMENT RUGHTS. REVISIONS TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TO UPDATE THE TDR DENSITY RIGHTS TABLE INCLUDE A PROVISION FOR CONTIGUOUS LOTS AND ADDITION OF A TDR DENSITY CONVERSION RATE FOR RECEIVING PROPERTIES. — APPROVED. Vice - Chairman DeHaven abstained fram this item due io a conflict of interest. Senior Planner Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She advised this was a proposed amendment to the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR} Ordinance. She noted: - Revision # 1 pertained to the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Density Table to be consistent with changes made to the RP Ordinance. - Revision #2 pertained to Contiguous Sending Properties by allowing fox the use of contiguous properties. - Revision #3 pertained to the Density Rights Conversion Rate. She concluded by saying the Planning Commission recommended approval of these amendments and staff was seeking Board action on this item. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. Bruce Carpenter, Gainesboro District and Director of the Frederick County Farm Bureau, advised the Farm Bureau unanimously endorsed the proposed ordinance amendments. The members felt it would add value and would allow the landowners to take advantage of their land. He went on to say if the program does not provide a good value Then it would not be used. Paul Anderson, President of the Frederick County Farm Bureau, spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance amendments. He stated it was getting harder and harder to sell land due to the County's ordinances. He thought this was a great program and has a lot of merit. He urged the Board to approve the amendments. Minute Book 1�'umber 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 134 There being no further comments, Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Supervisor Collins moved to approve the ordinance amending the Frederick County Code Chapter 165 Zoning, Article III -- Transfer of Development Rights (TDR} Program, Part 301 — Establishment and Purpose, §165 - 301.02 Applicability; Part 302 — Sending and Receiving Properties, §165- 302.01 Sending Properties, §165 - 302.02 Receiving Properties, §165- 302.03 Calculation of Development Rights. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Lofton. WHEREAS, an ordinance to amend Chapter 165 Zoning with regard to the Transfer of Development Rights {TDR) Ordinance as follows: (1) updates to the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR} Density Table; {2} an addition that allows the use of contiguous parcels for TDR transfers; and (3) inclusion of a density right conversion that would apply to density rights being applied to receiving properties; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance at Their regularly scheduled meeting on October 16, 2013 and November 6, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance at their regularly scheduled meeting on November 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, Article III — Transfer of Development Rights (TDR} Program, Part 301 — Establishment and Purpose, §165- 301.02 Applicability; Part 302 — Sending and Receiving Properties, §165 - 302.01 Sending Properties, §165 - 302.02 Receiving Properties, §165- 302.03 Calculation of Development Rights are amended as follows: (1) updates to the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Density Table; {2} an addition that allows the use of contiguous parcels far TDR transfers; and (3) inclusion of a density right conversion that would apply to density rights being applied to receiving properties. ARTICLE III Transfer of Development Rights (TDR} Program Part 30I -- Establishment and Purpose. §165- 301A1. Purpose. Pursuant to the authority granted by § 15.2 - 2316.1 and 2316.2 of the Code of Virginia, there is established a transfer of development rights (TDR} program, the purpose of which is to transfer residential density from eligible sending areas to eligible receiving areas and/or transferee through a voluntary process for pexrnanently conserving agricultural and forestry uses of lands and preserving rural open spaces, and natural and scenic resources. The TDR program is intended to supplement land use regulations, resource protection efforts and open space acquisition programs and encourage increased residential density where it can best be accarnmodated with the least impacts on the natural environment and public services by: A. Providing an effective and predictable incentive process fox property owners of rural and agricultural land to preserve lands with a public benefit; and B. Implementing the Comprehensive Policy Plan by directing residential land uses to the Urban Development Area (UDA }; and Minate Sook Number 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of l 1113113 �7 C. Providing an efficient and streamlined administrative review system to ensure that transfers of development rights to receiving areas are processed in a timely way and balanced with other county goals and policies, and are adjusted to the specific conditions of each receiving area. §165- 301.02. Applicability. The procedures and regulations in Article III of Chapter 165 shall apply to the transfer of development rights from land qualifying as sending properties to land qualifying as receiving properties and/or to a transferee. Land utilizing transferred development rights may be subdivided at an increased density above the base density specified by Tables 1 -3 ' °��' �' °'�'° '' in § 165- 302.03 in applicable receiving areas. All development utilizing transferred development rights shall conform to the guidelines contained in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. §165- 301.03. Right to Transfer Development Rights; General Provisions. A. A development right shall be transferred only by means of documents, including a covenant to which Frederick County is party and any appropriate releases, in a recordable form approved by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee. The covenant shall limit the future construction of dwellings on a sending property to the total number of development rights established by the zoning of the property minus all development rights previously transferred in accordance with this chapter, any development rights, previously extinguished or limited as a result of a recorded covenant against the property, the number of development rights to be transferred by the proposed transaction, and the number of existing single - family detached dwellings on the sending property. If a sending property contains no dwelling units, a development right equal to that for one single - family dwelling must be maintained for the property, except that, for properties larger than ono hundred (100} acres, one development right equal to that for one single - family dwelling must be maintained for each multiple of one hundred {100) acres, or fraction thereof, contained within the sending property. B. Each transferor shall have the right to sever all or a portion of the rights to develop from the parcel in a sending district and to sell, trade, or barter all or a portion of those rights to a transferee consistent with the purposes of § 165- 301.01 so long as the conditions of § 165- 301.03A are met. C. Any transfer of development rights pursuant to this Chapter authorizes only an increase in maximum density and shall not alter or waive the development standards of the receiving district, nor shall it allow a use otherwise prohibited in a receiving district. D. Transfer of development rights shall not be available for the following: 1) Portions of lots owned by or subject to easements (including, but not limited to, easements of roads, railroads, electrical transmission lines, gas or petroleum pipelines} in favor of governmental agencies, utilities and nanprof t corporations. 2) Land restricted from development by covenant, easement or deed restriction. E. Any transfer of development rights shall be recorded among the land records of Frederick County, Virginia. F. Value of transferable development rights. The monetary value of transferred development rights is completely determined between the seller and buyer. Part 302 — Sending and Receiving Properties §165 - 302.01. Sending Properties. Minute Book Dumber 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 X36 A. For the purposes of this chapter, a sending property must be an entire tax parcel or lot qualified under §165- 302.01B of this section. Sending areas may only be located within the ruxal areas outside of the Urban Development Area {UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), and zoned RA (Rural Areas }, as described in the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the RA Zoning District of this Chapter. A sending property shall be maintained in a condition that is consistent with the criteria in this section under which the sending was qualified. B. Qualification of a sending property shall demonstrate that the site contains a public benefit such that the preservation of that benefit by transferring residential development rights to another site is in the public interest, according to all of the following criteria: 1) Designated in the Coiprehensive Policy Plan as Rural Area; 2) Designated on the Zoning Maps of Frederick County as being zoned RA (Rural Areas) and be located outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA }; 3) Designated on the Sending Areas Map; 4) Comprised of at least twenty (20} acres in size; and 5} Qualified for subdivision in accordance with Chapter 144 of the Frederick County Code including, but not limited to, meeting all state road and access requirements. For TDR pu�oses, if the sending property consists of more than one parcel of land, at least one lot must meet all the subdivision requirements of Chapter 144; this lot shall be deemed the rima lot. Additional arcels that do not meet the subdivision re uirements but are contiguous to the primary lot,may be added to the sending property, if tliey are all under common ownershi . For ur oses o this section Cots divided b a street are considered Conti uous i the lots would share a common lot line i the street was removed. C, If a sending property has any outstanding code violations and /ar unpaid taxes, the owner shall resolve these violations, including any required abatement, restoration, or payment of penalties or taxes, before the property may be qualified as a sending property in the transfer of development rights program. X165- 302.02. Receiving Properties. A. Except as provided in subsections B and C of this section, in order to be eligible as a receiving property, a property must be: 1) Located in one of the following zoning districts: a. RP (Residential Performance) District; b. R4 (Residential Planned Community) District; or c. RA (Rural Areas) District; and 2} Designated on the Receiving Areas Map; 3} Served by public water and public sewer; 4} Served by state - maintained roads or have the ability to utilize private roads in the RP District as permitted by Chapter 165 or Chapter 144. 5) Located within the Urban Development Area {UDA} or a designated and defined Rural Community Center as identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan; and Miuute Soak Number 39 Board of supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 �� 6} Identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan for residential land uses. B. A property is not eligible as a receiving property if the transfer of development rights to the property would adversely impact regionally or locally significant historical resources or naturally sensitive areas as specified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. C. A property is not eligible as a receiving property if the property is located within the airport support area as identified by the Comprehensive Policy Plan. D. If a receiving property has any outstanding code violations and/or unpaid taxes, the owner shall resolve these violations, including any required abatement, restoration, or payment of penalties or taxes, before the property maybe qualified as a receiving property in the transfer of development rights program. E. A receiving property may accept development rights from one or more sending properties, up to a maximum density specified in Tables .1 -3 ' �ra '',�'�'° '' in §165- 302.03. §1GS- 302.03. Calculation of development rights. The number of residential development rights that a sending property is eligible to send to a receiving property and /or transferee shall be determined by applying the sending property base density established in subsection C of this section to the area of the sending property after deducting all the following: 1. Development rights previously transferred in accordance with this chapter; 2. Development rights previously extinguished or limited as a result of a recorded conservation easement or similar covenant against the property; 3. The number of existing single - family dwellings on the sending property; 4. The amount of any submerged land {i.e., lakes, ponds, streams), flaodplains, and steep slopes as determined by Frederick County GIS Data. 5. The amount of any land contained within easements (including, but not limited to, easements of roads, railroads, electrical transmission lines, gas or petroleum pipelines) in favor of governmental agencies, utilities and nonprofit corporations. B. If a sending property contains no dwelling units, a development right equal to that for one single - family dwelling must be maintained for the property. Properties with over 100 acres shall be required to retain the number of development rights required in accordance with Section 165- 301.03A. C. For the purposes of calculating the amount of development rights a sending property can transfer, the square footage or acreage of land contained within a sending property shall be determined by a valid recorded plat or survey, submitted by the applicant property owner and that has been prepared and stamped by a land surveyor licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia. D. For the purposes of the transfer of development rights program only, sending sites zoned RA (Rural Areas) shall have a base density of one dwelling unit per five acres for transfer purposes. E. Any fractions of development rights that results from the calculations in subsection A of this section shall not be included in the final determination of total development rights available for transfer. F. Development rights from one sending property may be allocated to more than one receiving property and/or transferee and one receiving property and/or transferee may accept development rights from more than one sending property. Minute Book Number 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 13� G. The determination of the number of residential development rights a sending property has available for transfer to a receiving property and/or transferee shall be documented in a TDR LETTER OF INTENT to issue a TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE issued by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee, pursuant to the provisions'of this Part 302.05 of Chapter 165, and shall be considered a final determination, not subject to revision. Such a determination shall be valid only for purposes of the transfer of development rights program and for no other purpose. Any changes to the proposed sending property shall void any issued letters of intent. H. A sending property transferee may extinguish TDR density rights, sever and hold TDR density rights, sever and sell TDR density rights, or apply TDR rights to a receiving property in a receiving district in order to obtain approval for development at a density greater than would otherwise be allowed on the land in the receiving district, up to the maximum density or intensity outlined in the table below: Table 1 Maximum Density Allorwed in Zoning Districts through Transfer of De�velogment Rights (TDR) Program RA {Rural Areas) RA {Rural Areas} *For Desi Hated Rural Communi _ Centers RP {Residential Performance) *Density by parcel size for all other housin es and develo menu with mixed housing types) See .$ I6s- 402.OS for maximum percenta.�e ofmultifamily housing RA Receiving 1 Unit Per 5 Property Acres RA Receiving Property 9 -� 99 > -I Og 0 -1 D ro.I -2s 2s.1 �s0 sa l �- RP Residential Per ormance Multi anvil Residential Buildin s & NIA A e Restricted Multi anvil Garden Apartments � i �c nrn nc Density for suali�ed RA Receiving Properties in� the UDA shall he consistent with the allowable RPDensity Utilizing TDR's /see below) 1 Unit Per 5 1 Unit Per Acre in Designated Acres Rural Community Centers served by Community Septic Systems �B �-- IO 6 _6 6 20 Io ro I5 ro IO IO ,Z4 1s rs R4 {Residential Planned Community) >100 4 6— IO I. TDR density rights may be converted to bonus density rights by an increase in the residential density on the receiving property, based nn the conversion factors in the table below: Minute Book Number 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/73/13 13.4 Table 2 Maximum Density Allowed in Zoning Districts through Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program 1. Allowable sending area bonus density remains subject to the maximum density provisions outlined in Table 1 of §165- 302.03H. 2. If properties located in Sending Area #1 {designated Agricultural and Forestal District) that have transferred -bonus density rights are subsequently withdrawn from the designated sending area {the designated Agricultural and Forestal District), the total number of density rights transferred, including bonus density rights, shall be counted against any future subdivision ability of the property. 3. When _TDR density rights are applied to a receiving property, the density right to housin a conversion rate shall be outlined in the table below. Such densi conversions shall be demonstrated on the Master Develo went Plan or the receivin ro er . Table 3 TDR Denssty Right Conversion Rate Single Family I TDR Density � Right . =l Dwelling Unit Single_Family Attached 1 TDR Densi Ri ht =1.5 Dwellin Units ( *all fractions must he rounded down Multifamily 1 TDR Densiiy Right =1.75 Dwelling Units *all racoons must be rounded down §165- 302.04. TDR Sending Property Development Limitations. A. Following the transfer of residential development rights, a sending property that has retained part of their development rights may subsequently accommodate remaining residential dwelling units on the sending property consistent with the requirements of the RA (Rural Areas} District and all requirements of the Frederick County Code. A sending property that has retained part of its development rights may also transfer the remainder of the eligible rights through the transfer of development rights program. S. On sending properties with environmental features as outlined in § 1b5- 302.03A, the development rights shall be severed from the areas outside of the specified environmental features. If development rights are retained on the sending property, future subdivision of the parcel cannot occur on the areas where development rights have already been severed. C. The limitations in this section shall be included in a deed covenant applicable to the sending property. §165- 302.05. Sending Property Certification. Minute Boak Number 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 X40 A. The Director of Planning and Development or his designee shall be responsible for determining that a proposed sending property meets the qualifications of § 165 - 302.01. The Director of Planning and Development or his designee shall render a determination or denial under this subsection within sixty {60) days of the date of submittal of a completed sending property determination application. If the determination is that a property meets the qualifications of §165 - 302.01, the Director of Planning and Development or his designee shall issue the determination in the form of a LETTER OF INTENT to issue a TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE. A LETTER OF INTENT issued under this subsection shall be valid until the development rights are severed and extinguished through the transfer process, or unless applicable zoning changes are approved that would affect the sending property, or unless the property is developed. g. Determinations of sending property qualifications under subsection A of this section are appealable to the Board of Supervisors by filing a notice of appeal with the Director of Planning and Development or his designee within thirty (30) days of the date of the determination. C. The Director of Planning and Development shall be responsible for maintaining permanent records of action taken pursuant to the transfer of development rights program under this Article III of Chapter 165, including records of letters of intent issued, certifcates issued, deed restrictions and covenants known to be recorded, and development rights retired, otherwise extinguished, or transferred to specific properties and/or transferees. Q. Responsibility for preparing a completed application for a determination that a proposed sending property -meets the qualifications of § 165- 302.01 rests exclusively with the applicantlproperty owner. An application far a .transfer of development rights to issue a transfer of development rights LETTER OF INTENT shall contain: 1 } A certificate of title for the sending property prepared by an attorney admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia; 2) Five copies of a.valid recorded plat or survey, of the proposed sending parcel and a legal description of the sending property prepared by a land surveyor licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia; 3) A plan showing the existing and proposed dwelling units and any areas already subject to a conservation easement or other similar encumbrance; 4) A completed density calculation worksheet for estimating the number of available development rights; 5) The application fee as set forth in the Development Review Fees adopted by the Board of Supervisors; and 6} Such additional information required by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee as necessary to determine the number of development rights that qualify for transfer. E". A transfer of development rights LETTER OF INTENT issued by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee shall state the following information: 1 } The name of the transferor; 2} The name of the transferee , if then known; 3} A legal description of the sending property on which the calculation of development rights is based; 4} A statement of the size, in acres, of the sending property on which the calculation of development rights is based; � 5) A statement of the number of development rights, stated in terms of number of dwelling units, eligible for transfer; Minute Book Number 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 14i 6) If only a portion of the total development rights are being transferred from. the sending .property, a statement of the number of remaining development rights, stated in terms of number of dwelling units, remaining on the sending property; 7} The date of issuance; 8) The signature of the Director of Planning and Development or his designee; and 9) A serlaI number assigned by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee. F. No transfer of development rights under this ordinance shall be recognized by Frederick County as valid unless the instrument of transfer contains the transfer of development rights certificate issued under this section. §165- 302.06. Instruments of Transfer. A. An instrument of transfer of development rights shall be reviewed and approved as to the form and legal sufficiency by the County Attorney and, upon such approval, the County Attorney shall notify the transferor or his or her agent, who shall record the instrument with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and shall provide a copy to the Commissioner of the Revenue. An instrument of Transfer of development rights shall conform to the requirements of this section and shall contain the following: 1) The names of the transferor and the transferee; 2) A legal description and plat of the sending property prepared by a land surveyor licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia; 3) The transfer of development rights certificate described in § 165- 302.03F; 4) A covenant indicating the number of development rights remaining on the sending property and stating that the sending property may not be subdivided to or developed to a greater density than permitted by the remaining development rights; 5) A covenant that the transferor grants and assigns to the transferee and the transferee's heirs, assigns, and successors a specific number of development rights from the sending property to a receiving property and/or a transferee; 6} A covenant by which the transferor acknowledges that he has no further use or right of use with respect to the development rights being transferred; and 7} A covenant That all provisions of the instrument of Transfer of development rights shall run with and bind the sending property and may be enforced by Frederick County. B. An instrument of transfer of development rights shall be recorded prior to release of development permits, including building permits, for the receiving property. Part 303 — Transfer Process and Development Procedures. §1G5- 303.01. Transfer Process. Development rights shall be transferred using the following process: A. Following approval of the sending property determination application and issuance of the LETTER OF INTENT as described in § 165 - 302.05, the Director of Planning and Development or his designee shall issue the TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE, agreeing to a transfer of development rights in exchange for the proposed sending property deed covenant to which Frederick County is a party. If a sending property with a TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE changes ownership, the certif Cate may be transferred to the new owner if requested in writing to the Department of Planning and Development by the person {s) that owned the property when the certificate was issued, provided that the documents evidencing the transfer of ownership are also provided to the Department of Planning and Development. Minute Book Number 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 �F C B. In applying for receiving property or receiving person approval, the applicant shall provide the Department of Planning and Development with one of the following: 1) A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE issued in the name of the applicant; 2) A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE issued in the name of another person or persons and a signed option to purchase those TDR sending property development rights; or 3) A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE issued in the name of the applicant or another persons} and a copy of a signed option to purchase those TDR sending property development rights. C. The receiving property applicant andlor transferee shall deliver the documentation outlined in § 165- 303.O1B for the number of TDR development rights being severed or transferred and the TDR extinguishment document to the County. D, Development rights from a sending property shall be considered transferred to a receiving property and /ox a transferee and extinguished when the extinguishment document for the sending property has been recorded. §165- 343.42. Development Approval Procedures. A. A request to utilize transferred development rights on an eligible receiving pxoperty must be in the form of a Master Development Plan and a Subdivision Design Plan submitted to the Department of Planning and Development in accordance with the Zoning and Subdivision regulations contained in Chapters 165 and 144 of the County Code. B. All subdivisions for receiving properties zoned RA (Rural Areas) utilizing development rights shall be subject to the same requirements as property zoned RP (Residential Performance) and shall not qualify for the standards specified in § 144 -31 of the Frederick County Code. C. A final recorded plat for a subdivision using transfelxed development rights shall contain a statement setting forth the development proposed, the zoning classifcation of the property, the number of development rights used, and a notation of the recordation of the conveyance required by § 165- 302.06. This amendment shall be in effect on the day of adoption. Supervisor Hess noted in 2009 the Board adopted its core values and that item number 2 "a government concerned with long range planning that protects our rural heritage and directs its future growth through planned infrastructure " is supported by this ordinance. Chairman Shickle stated, after a lot of thought, he could not support this because we are changing the use in the receiving areas without a public hearing. Supervisor Hess asked Chairman Shickle if his concerns would still exist without the proposed amendment. Chairman Shickle responded yes. He went on to ask if ii would be passible to interject a public hearing process into this procedure. Planning Director Eric Lawrence advised that by law this has to be an administrative process and the Board could not deny a request based on a public hearing. Minute Book 2�umber 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 X43 There being no further discussion, the ordinance amendments were approved by the fallowing recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Nay Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Abstain Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E, Fisher Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. Wells Aye OTHER PLANNING ITEMS REZONING APPLICATION #05 -13 — GOVERNOR'S HILL — REQUEST TO REVISE PROFFERS RE: TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS AND ENVIRONMENT SECTIONS. - APPROVED Deputy Planning Director - Transportation rohn Bishop appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised this was a request to revise the proffers associated with Rezoning #10 -08, as it relates to the transportation improvements. Deputy Director Bishop advised there were two minor revisions for consideration. The first was the removal of the navigation easement for the airport. The second was an updated reference to the armory access road. The more substantive change was the phased completion of Coverstone Drive. Originally the completion date was to be November 2015; however, the time table has been increased to a completion date of November 2025. This change was in recognition of current market conditions and would allow the applicant to avoid a proffer default. Supervisor Fisher noted the applicant stated they would provide noise treatment for the residential uses. He went on to say he would check back in the future to see what was done beyond best practices. Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board approved Rezoning #OS -13 Proffer Revision of Governor's Hill. WHEREAS, Rezoning #OS -13 Proffer Revision of Governor's Hill, submitted by Pennoni Associates, Inc., to revise the proffers associated with Rezoning #10 -08 relating to the "Transportation Enhancements" and "Environment" sections of the proffers was considered. The proffer revision, originally dated September 2, 2008; with a final revision dated September 26, 2013, removes items that have already been dealt with or are proposed to be dealt with by others and changes the date of performance provision for road improvements from 2015 to 2025. Development triggers for road improvements remain in place, so if economic conditions improve and the developrnent is able to move forward sooner, the road ilxlprovements will also move forward. The deadline far installation of a left turn lane and median crossover to access Raven Pointe remains in place unchanged. The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 East }, and across from Sulphur Springs Road (Route 655 }, and The Ravens Subdivision, in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Numbers 64 -A -83, 64- A -$3A, 64 -A -86, 64 -A -84, 64- A�85, 64 -A -86, and 64 -A -87. Minute $ook Number 39 $card of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 X44 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on this rezoning an October 16, 2013 and forwarded a recommendation of approval; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public meeting on this rezoning November 13, 2013, and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code Zoning is amended to revise the proffers associated with Rezoning #10 -08 relating to the "Transportation Enhancements" and "Environment" sections of the proffers. The proffer revision, originally dated September 2, 2008,with a final revision dated September 26, 2013, removes items that have already been dealt with or are proposed to be dealt with by others and change the date of performance provision for road improvements from 2015 to 2025. Development Triggers for road improvements remain in place, so if economic conditions improve and the development is able to move forward sooner, the road improvements will also move forward. The deadline for installation of a left turn lane and median crossover to access Raven Pointe remains in place unchanged. This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed This 13`x' day of November by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. Wells Aye EM XTRACTIVE MANUFACTURING DISTRICT HEIGHT WAIVER RE VEST — CARMEUSE — POSTPONED UNTIL DECEMBER 11 2013 MEETING. Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board postponed this item until the December 11, 2013 public hearing. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. Wells .Aye COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT (CPPA1 RESOLUTION #022 -13 TO STUDY THE MCCANN- SLAUGHTER PROPERTY - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved the resolution directing staff to undertake a land use study to evaluate the future land use of the McCann - Slaughter properties and surrounding area, near the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Old Charlestown Road {Route 761 }. Minute Book Number 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11113!13 �� WHEREAS, the McCann- Siaughter parcels are identified by Property Identification Numbers 44 -A -40 and 44 -A -25B in the Stonewall Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the McCann - Slaughter parcels contain approximately 1b0 acres, near the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and Old Charlestown Road, on both sides of McCann Road and adjacent to the CSX Railroad; and WHEREAS, the properties are collectively .designated in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for various types of land uses, including Developmentally Sensitive Areas and Industrial. Future Route 37 traverse parcel 44 -A -25B and the properties are located with the Sewer and Water Service Area {SWSA); and WHEREAS, the request for consideration of this land use study for the McCann - Slaughter properties was sponsored and presented to the Board of Supervisors by the Stonewall Magisterial District Supervisor on Oetober 9, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors supported the Stonewall Magisterial District Supervisor's request to place a Resolution on the next available Board of Supervisors' agenda. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the Board of Supervisors directs the Planning Commission to study and return to the Board of Supervisors a Comprehensive Plan study, specifically pertaining to the fixture land use of the McCann - Slaughter parcels, identified by Property Identification Numbers 44 -A -40 and 44 -A -25B, and surrounding area. Passed this 13`1i day of November, 2013 by the following xecorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton _ Aye Robert W. Wells Aye MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #d3 -X3 FOR THE TOWNES AT TASKER — INFORMATION ONLY. Senior Planner Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She advised this was a master development plan to develop 10.2541 acres of land zoned RA {Rural Areas} District with a total of 49 single family attached .(townhouse) units. The property is located in the Urban Develaprrlent Area and Sewer and Water Service Area. It will be accessed via one entrance on Tasker Road. She went on to say this was a transfer of development rights receiving property and, at full build out, could include SO residential units. She concluded by saying this was being presented to the Board for information only. Dave Holliday, applicant, stated a rezoning of this property might have been quicker than using the transfer of development rights program. He thanked Senior Planner Perkins for her assistance throughout this process. He noted that as a result of the transfer of development rights program 350 acres of agricultural and forestal property were saved. He concluded by saying that he agreed with Chairman Shickle that some type of public notice might be appropriate. Minute Book Number 39 Board of supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 ��s p.xn. REQUEST TO SCHEDULE WORK SESSION The Board scheduled a work session or Friday, December 6, 2013 beginning at 12:00 ROAD RESOLUTIONS - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA a. KENDALL MILLS SUBDIVISION PHASE 2 RESOLUTION #023 -13 WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Form AM -4.3 fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on June 9, 1993, for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described in the attached Form AM -4.3 to the secondary system of the state highways, pursuant to 33.1 -229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees clear and unrestricted right -of- way, as described, and any necessary Basemen #s for cuts, fills and drainage; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. This item was approved under consent agenda. b. RUTHERFORD CROSSING -- MILTON RAY DRIVE — RESOLUTION #024 - WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Form AM -4.3 fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the C1erk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Txansportation has advised this Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on June 9, 1993, for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described in the attached Form AM -4.3 to the secondary system of the state highways, pursuant to 33.1 -229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Re uiremenis; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees clear and unrestricted right -of- way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation, This item was approved under consent agenda. Minute Book Number 39 Board of Supervisors lieguiar Meeting of ll113/13 147 c. SOUTHERN HILLS STICKLEY DRIVE EXTENSION _ RESOLUTION #025 -13 WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has provided This Board with a sketch and a VDOT AM -4.3 form dated 06/12/13 depicting the additions, discontinuances, and abandonments required in the Secondary System of State Highways as a result of Project Southern Hills Stickley Drive Extension which sketch is hereby incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the portions of old road identified to be discontinued are deemed to na longer serve public convenience warranting maintenance at public expense; and WHEREAS, the new road serves the same citizens as those portions of old road identified to be abandoned and those segments no longer serve a public need; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Commissioner to abandon from the Secondary System of State Highways those portions of old road identified by the sketch to be abandoned, pursuant to Section 33.1 -155, Code of Virginia; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add to the Secondary System of State Highways, those portions of road identified by the sketch to be added, pursuant to Section 33.1 -229, Code of Virginia; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board concurs with the discontinuance as part of the Secondary System of State Highways, those portions of road identified by the sketch to be discontinued, pursuant to Section 33.1 -150, Code of Virginia; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees clear and unrestricted right -of- way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. This item was approved under consent agenda. BOARD LIAISON REPORTS There were no Board liaison reports. CITIZEN COMMENTS Dody Stottlemyer, Shawnee District, congratulated those board members who got re- elected. She stated there was a dissenting voice regarding the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. She stated that long -term this seemed to be a cap and trade program far land. She went on to say she lived above the Townes at Tasker and she could give the Board an update on how it was working. She stated there was a lot of things to still be worked out and perhaps that needed to start at the State level. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Supervisor Fisher advised the Board chat the draft stormwater management program would be coming to them at their December 11, 2013 meeting. He stated this was just a draft and not the final document, but they should receive a copy before that meeting. Minute Book Number 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13 C3 UPON A MOTION BY VICE - CHAIRMAN DEHAVEN, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR FISHER, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE -THIS BOARD, THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. (8:50 P.M.} Cam. �� -Q Richard C. Shickle Chairman, Board of Supervisors Jo n�. Rey, Jr. C k, Board of Supervisors Minutes Prepared By: �_ `� ` Jay . Tubs Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minute Book Number 39 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 11/13/13