The URL can be used to link to this page

April_23_2014_Agenda_PacketCO w AGENDA REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 2014 7:00 P.M. BOARD ROOM, COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 107 NORTH KENT STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA Call To Order Invocation Pledge of Allegiance Adoption of Agenda Pursuant to established procedures, the Board should adopt the Agenda for the meeting. Consent Agenda (Tentative Agenda Items for Consent are Tabs: D, E and F) Citizen Comments (Agenda Items Only, That Are Not Subject to Public Hearing.) Board of Supervisors Comments Minutes (See Attached) 1. Regular Meeting, April 9, 2014. County Officials 'lull 1. Employee of the Month Award. (See Attached) ------------------------------ - - - - -- B 2. Committee Appointments. (See Attached) -- -C 3. Memorandum Re: Request to Set Schedule for Board Meetings During Summer Months and for November and December, 2014. (See Attached) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- D AGENDA REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 2014 PAGE 2 Committee Reports 1. Parks and Recreation Commission. (See Attached) ------------------------ - - - - -- E 2. Human Resources Committee. (See Attached) ------------------------------ - - - - -- F 3. Business Friendly Committee. (See Attached) -------------------------------- - - - - -- G Public Hearing Outdoor Festival Permit Request of Mr. Alaya White and Mr. Omar Teagle — P.M. Day Glow Willow Grove Festival. Pursuant to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 86, Festivals; Section 86 -3, Permit Required; Application; Issuance or Denial; Fee, for an Outdoor Festival Permit. Festival to be Held on Saturday, May 3, 2014, from 7:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M.; on the Grounds of Willow Grove, 750 Merrimans Lane, Winchester, Virginia. Property Owned by Alaya White. (WITHDRAWN) 2. Outdoor Festival Permit Request of Mr. DeMarchi Spears — College Spring Formal Dance /Christendom College. Pursuant to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 86, Festivals; Section 86 -3, Permit Required; Application; Issuance or Denial; Fee, for an Outdoor Festival Permit. Festival to be Held on Saturday, May 3, 2014, from 8:00 P.M. to 1:30 A.M.; on the Grounds of Trumpet Vine Farm, 266 Vaucluse Road, Stephens City, Virginia. Property Owned by DeMarchi Spears. (See Attached) --------------------------------- - - - - -- H Planning Commission Business Public Hearing Conditional Use Permit #02 -14 for Jessica M. Neff for a Kennel. This Property is Located at 461 Laurel Grove Road, and is Identified with Property Identification Number 73 -9 -3 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. (See Attached) ------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- 2. Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code — Chapter 165 Zoning, Article VII — Overlay Districts, Part 702 FP Floodplain Districts. Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to Bring Part 702 — Floodplain Districts Into Compliance with the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's (DCR) Virginia Model Floodplain Management Ordinance. (See Attached) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- J AGENDA REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 2014 PAGE 3 Other Planning Items 1. Discussion of Master Development Plan Requirements — Business Friendly Recommendations. (See Attached) ---------------------------------- - - - - -- K Board Liaison Reports (If Any) Citizen Comments Board of Supervisors Comments Adjourn FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' MINUTES REGULAR MEETING April 9, 2014 A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Wednesday, April 9, 2014 at 7:00 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA, 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 Collins delivered the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice - Chairman DeHaven led the Pledge of Allegiance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA — APPROVED AS AMENDED County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr. advised he had one addition for the agenda. He added an explanation of the fiscal impact of Medicaid expansion as item number 6 under County Officials. Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board approved the amended 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 Board's consideration under the consent agenda: - Memorandum Re: Closing of County Offices for Annual Apple Blossom Festival — Tab D; - Transportation Committee Report — Tab G; and - Departmental Fiscal Year 2014 -2015 Annual Work Programs — Tab H. Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, 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 CITIZEN COMMENTS There were no citizen comments. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS There were no Board of Supervisors comments. MINUTES - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board approved the minutes from the March 26, 2014 regular meeting 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 COUNTY OFFICIALS 2 ADOPTION OF FISCAL YEAR 2014 -2015 BUDGET - APPROVED Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board adopted the FY 2014 -2015 budget. WHEREAS a notice of public hearing and budget synopsis has been published and a public hearing held on March 26, 2014, in accordance with Title 15.2, Chapter 25, Section 15.2- 2506, of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, that the budget for the 2014 -2015 Fiscal Year as advertised in The Winchester Star on March 17, 2014, be hereby approved in the amount of $351,630,800. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Frederick budget for the 2014 -2015 fiscal year be adopted as follows: General Operating Fund Regional Jail Fund Landfill Fund Division of Court Services Fund Shawneeland Sanitary District Fund Airport Operating Fund Community Development Authority Fund Lake Holiday Sanitary District Fund EMS Revenue Recovery Fund. School Operating Fund School Debt Service Fund 142,387,562 19,387,370 7,116,205 579,572 1,099,747 2,228,994 525,256 800,570 2,028,000 140,504,479 15,754,651 3 School Capital Projects Fund 2,166,316 School Nutrition Services Fund 6,200,295 School Textbook Fund 2,573,133 NREP Operating Fund 5,093,650 NREP Textbook Fund 35,000 Consolidated Services /Maintenance Fund 3,100,000 School Trust Funds 50,000 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein adopt the tax rates for the 2014 assessment year as follows: Property Taxes — Rates per $100 of assessed value 58 '/z cents Applied to real estate, including mobile homes $4.86 Applied to personal property $2.25 Applied to personal property on one vehicle to volunteer firefighters that are approved and registered with the Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department 1 cent Applied to airplanes Zero tax Applied to antique vehicles $2.00 On declining values to be applied to machinery and tools. The declining values are 60% for year one, 50% for year two, 40% for year three, and 30% for year four and all subsequent years. $2.00 On apportioned percentage of book values to be applied to Contract Classified Vehicles and equipment Business and Professional Occupational License Rates M Contractors 16 cents per $100 of gross receipts Retail 20 cents per $100 of gross receipts Financial, Real Estate, and Professional 58 cents per $100 of gross receipts Services Repair, personal and business services 36 cents per $100 of gross receipts and all other businesses and occupations not specifically listed or exempted in the County Code Wholesale 5 cents per $100 of purchases The tax rates for other businesses and occupations specifically listed in the County Code are also unchanged. Other General Taxes Meals tax 4% of gross receipts Transient Occupancy tax 2% of gross receipts Vehicle License Taxes $25 per vehicle and $10 per motorcycle Shawneeland SanitM District Taxes $180 Unimproved Lots $530 Improved Lots 5 Sanitary Landfill Fees $45 Per ton for commercial /industrial $42 Per ton for construction demolition debris $12 Per ton for municipal waste $32 Per ton for municipal sludge $12 Per ton for Miscellaneous Rubble Debris Shawneeland SanitM District Taxes $180 Unimproved Lots $530 Improved Lots 5 Lake Holiday Sanitary District Taxes $678 Buildable Lots $264 Unbuildable Lots Star Fort Subdivision Taxes/Fees $60 Per Lot Street Liyht Fees Oakdale Crossing and Fredericktowne $60 annually Green Acres $25 annually BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that appropriations are hereby authorized for the central stores fund, special welfare fund, comprehensive services fund, county health insurance fund, school health insurance fund, length of service fund, special grant awards fund, employee benefits fund, maintenance insurance fund, development project fund, sales tax fund, commonwealth sales tax fund, unemployment compensation fund, DARE Program, Forfeited Assets Program, and Four - For -Life and Fire Programs equal to the total cash balance on hand at July 1, 2014, plus the total amount of receipts for the fiscal year 2014 -2015. The Fire Company Capital appropriation will include the current year appropriation plus any unused funds at the end of the fiscal year 2014. BE IT FUR'T'HER RESOLVED that funding for all outstanding encumbrances at June 30, 2014, are re- appropriated to the 2014 -2015 fiscal year to the same department and account for which they are encumbered in the 2013 -2014 fiscal year. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the construction fund projects will be appropriated as a carryforward in the amount that equals the approved original project cost, less expenditures and encumbrances through June 30, 2014. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: 2 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 COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS APPOINTMENT OF HOLLY BUCK AS PARENT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COMMUNITY POLICY AND MANAGEMENT TEAM (CPMT) - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board appointed Mrs. Holly Buck as parent representative to the Community Policy and Management Team. This is a two year appointment. Term expires June 30, 2016. 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 ROBERT P. MOWERY AS COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY - APPROVED Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board reappointed Robert P. Mowery as county representative to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. This is a four year appointment. Term expires April 15, 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 7 Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. Wells Aye MEMORANDUM RE: CLOSING OF COUNTY OFFICES FOR ANNUAL APPLE BLOSSOM FESTIVAL — APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Board approved closing the county offices on Friday, May 2, 2014 for the 87' Shenandoah Apple Blossom Festival. REQUEST FROM COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE FOR REFUND — APPROVED Administrator Riley advised that Kraft Foods filed an appeal in the nature of amended machinery and tools tax returns for tax years 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, wherein Kraft was seeking certain tax refunds from the County. Machinery and tools, for taxation purposes are self - reported by each taxpayer and, in this particular case, Kraft concluded that it had not correctly reported its machinery and tools. Thus, Kraft filed its amended returns in December 2011, which was within the applicable limitations period for the tax years at issue. Thereafter, Kraft and the Commissioner of the Revenue had extended correspondence on the matter, including appeals to the Virginia Department of Taxation pursuant to VA Code §58.1- 3983.1. The Commissioner confirmed that all issues were resolved as to the tax returns in question, with a refund in the amount of $358,860.78 due to Kraft. The Commissioner, in consultation with the County Attorney, has concluded that this outcome represents a fair interpretation of the facts and law applicable to this matter. Kraft has confirmed to the Commissioner that it will not seek further appeal as to its machinery and tools tax returns for 2008 through 2013. The County Attorney has reviewed this request and noted his consent to the proposed action. The Board will need to act on the refund request and approve a supplemental appropriation for the refund amount. Upon a motion by Vice - Chairman DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board approved the refund request and supplemental appropriation. 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 REQUEST FROM SOCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR TO SCHEDULE WORK SESSION - APPROVED The Board scheduled a work session for Tuesday, April 29, 2014 at noon in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room. MEMORANDUM RE: FISCAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED MEDICAID EXPANSION — FORWARDED INFORMATION TO LOCAL DELEGATION Administrator Riley advised that the chairman had asked staff to attempt to determine the impact of the proposed expansion of Medicaid. Staff attempted to seek out those parties that could be most affected, those being Valley Health System and the Department of Social Services. In speaking with representatives from those two entities, the proposed expansion remains a mixed bag. Both entities acknowledge the proposed Medicaid expansion would provide coverage for a group of people who are in real need of health insurance coverage and it would bring additional federal dollars into the community, which would be spent at the local hospital, doctors' offices, and pharmacies. This is where the agreement between the two entities end and the mixed bag of good and bad begin. Per the Department of Social Services, expansion of Medicaid would likely result in a 9 dramatic increase in the number of people eligible for coverage and an increase in applications. To accommodate an additional case load of this magnitude, the Department of Social Services would need additional staffing. If the Medicaid expansion is approved, would the federal government provide additional funding needed to hire the additional staff to handle this new caseload? The Department of Social Services has seen a 186% increase in caseloads over the past ten years. Currently, the department has 8.5 FTEs with an average caseload of 937 cases per employee. This number is exclusive of the 800 additional FAMIS cases soon to be passed down to the department from the state. The state did provide approximately $34,000 to the department for taking on these 800 additional cases; however, those funds do not begin to cover a full -time Aide position, to include salary and fringes, let alone a full -time Benefits Worker. In addition to the Department's staffing issues, additional space would be required to accommodate the new Medicaid caseload. Thus, the proposed Medicaid expansion poses financial, staffing, and space needs issues for the Department. While staff is supportive of the proposed expansion, in theory, the reality is the Department of Social Services could not realistically manage the influx of work associated with this program. As for our local health provider, Valley Health System, they are strongly supportive of this expansion. Valley Health estimates they could receive $8 to $10 million annual from the expansion of Medicaid, which they identify as critical funding for their operations. To date, Valley Health has reduced jobs, direct financial support to area not for profits, and will likely pursue no further expansions of operations, Valley Health sees Medicaid expansion as providing: expanded coverage, a healthier Virginia, increased revenue for the Commonwealth, which could free up money for other purposes (e.g. roads, k -12, public safety, etc.), and a strengthened health care delivery system. 10 Currently, the Department of Social Services averages 851.2 cases per caseworker, of which there are 8.5, with an average intake of new monthly applications of 561.84, which is currently handled by seven workers. Under the proposed Medicaid expansion, the average number of ongoing cases would increase to 1,204.14 per caseworker and new monthly applications would increase to 978.51. Undercurrent conditions, the department projects a need of 15.2 additional positions; however, if Medicaid is expanded that number increases to 32.6 new positions needed to meet the new case load. Medicaid expansion would require an additional $1,911,455 to fund needed positions, of that amount, the local funding needed would be $1,338,018. In addition to the effects of Medicaid expansion on our local Department of Social Services and Valley Health System, we recently received information from The Commonwealth Institute regarding the effects of Medicaid expansion on local jails. According to their March 2014 report, the State Compensation Board estimates localities could save $6 million per year by using the federal funds to cover the hospital costs of local jail inmates. Jail inmates are not currently eligible for Medicaid. Presently localities are required to provide all necessary care for inmates to include hospitalization, which can exceed thousands of dollars each year. The report states Medicaid expansion could be used to cover these inpatient hospital costs for inmates thereby saving the localities money. He concluded by saying this was a brief overview of the impacts and hoped the Board found it useful. Chairman Shickle stated he would like to forward this information to our local delegation. The Board's consensus was to forward the memo. 11 COMMITTEE REPORTS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE — APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Transportation. Committee met on March 24, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. Members Present Chuck DeHaven (voting) James Racey (voting) Gene Fisher (voting) Christopher Collins (voting) Lewis Boyer (liaison Stephens City) Gary Oates (liaison PC) Members Absent Mark Davis (liaison Middletown) ** *Items Requiring Action * ** NONE ** *Items Not Requiring Action * ** 1. Route 277 Improvement Project Update VDOT staff updated the committee that the scope of the Route 277 project is being reduced. Previously, the project was to extend to Warrior Drive, Due to high right of way costs the project will now only extend to Double Church Road. The realignment of Aylor Road is still part of the project. 2. WinFred MPO Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) The committee reviewed the draft UPWP (attached) which was introduced by Ms. Martha Shickle. No questions were forthcoming and the Chairman requested that Committee members direct questions or guidance to staff. 3. Private Streets in the R5 Zoning District Mr. Thomas Lawson presented an updated draft ordinance to the Committee in an attempt to address earlier concerns. It was noted the DRRC is also taking the matter into consideration. The committee noted remaining concerns over which VDOT standards are being referenced. It was noted the "VDOT Standards" span several manuals and are regularly updated. The committee also noted a lack of confidence over the long term guarantee that the County would not be asked to help stabilize a failing homeowners association. The committee has asked that the item return to the agenda along with a report of what took place at the DRRC meeting. 4. Other 12 ANNUAL REPORTS DEPARTMENTAL FISCAL YEAR 2014 -2015 ANNUAL WORK PROGRAMS (FOR INFORMATION ONLY) — APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA Department annual work programs were received for information only. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED SCHOOL BOND FINANCINGS BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (THE "BOARD ") OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA (THE "COUNTY ") WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 15.2 -2606 OF THE CODE OF V1'RGINL4 OF 1950 AS AMENDED ON THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS (THE "BONDS ") OF THE COUNTY IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $4,700,000 TO FINANCE CERTAIN CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL PURPOSES, CONSISTING PRIMARILY OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF A REPLACEMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL AND ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HIGH SCHOOL. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT ITS MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2014. ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE INVITED TO ATTEND AND PRESENT ORAL OR WRITTEN COMMENTS. - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised this was a public hearing on the issuance of General Obligation School Bonds in an amount not to exceed $4,700,000. The proceeds from the spring sale will satisfy projected cash needs until the next bond sale in the fall. The funds will be the replacement middle schools project ($3.1 million) and for architectural and engineering services for the fourth: high school ($1.6 million). Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board 13 approved the resolution authorizing the issuance of not to exceed $4,700,000 General Obligation School Bond of the County of Frederick, Virginia, to be sold to the Virginia Public School Authority and providing for the form and details thereof. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board ") of the County of Frederick, Virginia (the "County "), has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow an amount not to exceed $4,700,000 and to issue its general obligation school bond (as more specifically defined below, the "Local School Bond ") for the purpose of certain capital projects for public school purposes, consisting primarily of the construction and equipping of a replacement middle school and architectural and engineering costs associated with the construction of a new high school (collectively, the "Project "); WHEREAS, the County held a public hearing, duly noticed, on April 9, 2014, on the issuance of the Local School Bond in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.2 -2606, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code "); WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has, by resolution, requested the Board to authorize the issuance of the Local School Bond and consented to the issuance of the Local School Bond; WHEREAS, Virginia Public School Authority ( "VPSA ") has offered to purchase the Local School Bond along with the local school bonds of certain other localities with a portion of the proceeds of certain bonds to be issued by VPSA in the spring of 2014 (the "VPSA Bonds "); WHEREAS, the Bond Sale Agreement (as defined below) shall indicate that $4,700,000 is the amount of proceeds requested (the "Proceeds Requested ") from VPSA in connection with the sale of the Local School Bond; WHEREAS, VPSA's objective is to pay the County a purchase price for the Local School Bond which, in VPSA's judgment, reflects the Local School Bond's market value (the "VPSA Purchase Price Objective "), taking into consideration of such factors as the amortization schedule the County has requested for the Local School Bond relative to the amortization schedules requested by other localities, the purchase price to be received by VPSA from the sale of the VPSA Bonds and other market conditions relating to the sale of the VPSA Bonds; and WHEREAS, such factors may result in the Local School Bond having a purchase price other than par and consequently (i) the County may have to issue the Local School Bond in a principal amount that is greater than or less than the Proceeds Requested in order to receive an amount of proceeds that is substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested, or (ii) if the maximum authorized principal amount of the Local School Bond set forth in section 1 below does not exceed the Proceeds Requested by at least the amount of any discount, the purchase price to be paid to the County, given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, will be less than the Proceeds Requested. 14 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA: 1. Authorization of Local School Bond and Use of Proceeds The Board hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and issue and sell its general obligation school bond in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $4,700,000 (the "Local School Bond ") for the purpose of financing the Project. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of the Local School Bond in the form and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution. 2. Sale of the Local School Bond The sale of the Local School Bond, within the parameters set forth in paragraph 4 of this Resolution, to VPSA is authorized. Given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, the County acknowledges that the limitation on the maximum principal amount on the Local School Bond set forth in paragraph 1 of this Resolution restricts VPSA's ability to generate the Proceeds Requested, however, the Local School Bond may be sold for a purchase price not lower than 95% of the Proceeds Requested. The Chairman of the Board, the County Administrator, or either of them (each a "Delegate ") and such other officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to enter into an agreement with VPSA providing for the sale of the Local School Bond to VPSA (the "Bond Sale Agreement "). The Bond Sale Agreement shall be in substantially the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is hereby approved. 3. Details of the Local School Bond The Local School Bond shall be dated 15 days prior to the date of its issuance and delivery or such other date designated by VPSA; shall be designated "General Obligation School Bond, Series 2014 "; shall bear interest from its dated date payable semi - annually on each January 15 and July 15 beginning January 15, 2015 (each an "Interest Payment Date "), at the rates established in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Resolution; and shall mature on July 15 in the years (each a "Principal Payment Date ") and in the amounts acceptable to a Delegate (the "Principal Installments "), subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 of this Resolution. 4. Interest Rates and Principal Installments Each Delegate is hereby authorized and directed to accept the interest rates on the Local School Bond established by VPSA, provided that each interest rate shall be five one - hundredths of one percent (0.05 %) over the interest rate to be paid by VPSA for the corresponding principal payment date of the VPSA Bonds, a portion of the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Local School Bond, and provided farther that the true interest cost of the Local School Bond does not exceed five and fifty one- hundredths percent (5.50 %) per annum. The Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments are subject to change at the request of VPSA. Each Delegate is hereby authorized and directed to accept changes in the Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments at the request of VPSA based on the final term to maturity of the VPSA Bonds, requirements imposed on VPSA by the nationally - recognized rating agencies and the final principal amount of the Local School Bond; provided, however, that the principal amount of the Local School Bond shall not exceed the amount authorized by this Resolution and the final maturity date of the Local School Bond shall not be later than 21 years from the date of issuance. The execution and delivery of the Local School Bond as described in paragraph 8 hereof shall conclusively evidence the approval and acceptance of all of the details of the Local School Bond by the Delegate as authorized by this Resolution. 15 5. Form of the Local School Bond The Local School Bond shall be initially in the form of a single, temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6. Payment; Paying A14ent and Bond Registrar The following provisions shall apply to the Local School Bond: (a) For as long as VPSA is the registered owner of the Local School Bond, all payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Local School Bond shall be made in immediately available funds to VPSA at, or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if such date is not a business day for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next succeeding such Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption. (b) All overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by law, interest shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Local School Bond. (c) U.S. Bank National Association, Richmond, Virginia, is designated as Bond Registrar and Paying Agent for the Local School Bond. 7. Prepayment or Redemption The Principal Installments of the Local School Bond held by VPSA coming due on or before July 15, 2024, and the definitive bond for which the Local School Bond held by VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2024, are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Principal Installments of the Local School Bond held by VPSA coming due on or after July 15, 2025, and the definitive bond(s) for which the Local School Bond held by VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or after July 15, 2025, are subject to prepayment or redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2024, upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of Principal Installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Local School Bond to be redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption: Dates Prices July 15, 2024 through July 14, 2025 101% July 15, 2025 through July 14, 2026 100'/2 July 15, 2026 and thereafter 100 Provided however that the Local School Bond shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above without first obtaining the written consent of VPSA or other registered owner of the Local School Bond. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to VPSA or other registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for prepayment or redemption. 16 8. Execution of the Local School Bond The Chairman or Vice Chairman and the Cleric or any Deputy Clerk of the Board are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Local School Bond and to affix the seal of the County thereto. 9. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit For the prompt payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and the interest on the Local School Bond as the same shall become due, the full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any portion of the Local School Bond shall be outstanding there shall be levied and collected in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and the interest on the Local School Bond as such principal, premium, if any, and interest shall become due, which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose. 10. Use of Proceeds Certificate and Tax Compliance Agreement The Chairman of the Board, the County Administrator and such other officer or officers of the County or the School Board as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver on behalf of the County a Use of Proceeds Certificate and Tax Compliance Agreement (the "Tax Compliance Agreement ") setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Local School Bond and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code "), and applicable regulations relating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the VPSA Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that (i) the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Local School Bond will be invested and expended as set forth in such Tax Compliance Agreement and that the County shall comply with the other covenants and representations contained therein and (ii) the County shall comply with the provisions of the Code so that interest on the VPSA Bonds will remain excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes. 11. State Non - Arbitrage Program, Proceeds Agreement The Board hereby determines that it is in the best interests of the County to authorize and direct the County Treasurer to participate in the State Non - Arbitrage Program in connection with the Local School Bond. The Chairman of the Board, the County Administrator and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit and investment of proceeds of the Local School Bond by and among the County, the other participants in the sale of the VPSA Bonds, VPSA, the investment manager and the depository, substantially in the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is hereby approved. 12. Continuing Disclosure Agreement The Chairman of the Board, the County Administrator and such other officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, as set forth in Appendix F to the Bond Sale Agreement, setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the County and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15e2 -12, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and directed to make all filings required by Section 3 of the Bond Sale Agreement 17 should the County be determined by VPSA to be a MOP (as defined in the Bond Sale Agreement). 13. Refunding The Board hereby acknowledges that VPSA may issue refunding bonds to refund any bonds previously issued by VPSA, including the VPSA Bonds issued to purchase the Local School Bond, and that the purpose of such refunding bonds would be to enable VPSA to pass on annual debt service savings to the local issuers, including the County. Each of the Delegates is authorized to execute and deliver to VPSA such allonge to the Local School Bond, revised debt service schedule, IRS Form 8038 -G or such other documents reasonably deemed necessary by VPSA and VPSA's bond counsel to be necessary to reflect and facilitate the refunding of the Local School Bond and the allocation of the annual debt service savings to the County by VPSA. The Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is authorized to affix the County's seal on any such documents and attest or countersign the same. 14. Filing of Resolution The appropriate officers or agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court of the County. 15. Election to Proceed under Public Finance Act In accordance with Section 15.2 -2601 of the Virginia Code, the Board elects to issue the Local School Bond pursuant to the provisions of the Public Finance Act of 1991, Chapter 26 of Title 15.2 of the Virginia Code. 16. Further Actions The members of the Board and all officers, employees and agents of the County are hereby authorized to take such action as they or any one of them may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Local School Bond and otherwise in furtherance of this Resolution and any such action previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed. 17. Effective Date This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on April 9, 2014, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. I hereby further certify that such meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting and that, during the consideration of the foregoing resolution, a quorum was present. The front page of this Resolution accurately records (i) the members of the Board of Supervisors present at the meeting, (ii) the members who were absent from the meeting, and (iii) the vote of each member, including any abstentions. WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, this 9th day of April, 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 18 Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. Wells Aye PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC FACILITIES AND THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -- THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL DISCUSS A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PUBLIC FACILITIES AS A COMPONENT OF THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS AMENDMENT IS A FOLLOW UP TO, AND IN SUPPORT OF. THE DISCUSSION OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) AND THE PROPOSED COUNTY ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES TO BE LOCATED GENERALY IN THE COUNTY'S URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA DA OR SEWER AND WATER SERVICE AREA SWSA . THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT CONTINUES TO PROMOTE FREDERICK COUNTY GOVERNMENT AND ITS EFFORT TO PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE EFFECTIVE AND HIGH QUALITY GOVERNMENT SERVICES TO ITS CITIZENS, BUSINESS OWNERS, AND COMMUNITY PARTNERS. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD BE INSERTED INTO THE PLAN WITHIN CHAPTER VI PUBLIC FACILITIES — CREATING COMMUNITY. - APPROVED Director of Planning and Development Eric Lawrence appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised this was a proposed amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to enable new government facilities to be located in the county. He noted if the County were to build new government service facilities in the county we need to make sure we are in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Board discussed this item at their February meeting and raised some concerns with the proposed language. Staff has since addressed those concerns and the proposed amendment was sent forward for public hearing. He concluded by saying the Planning Commission recommended approval. Director Lawrence did point out some areas of the proposed amendment that were in need of editing, as there were extra ands in the text that needed to be removed Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. 19 There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Wells, the Board approved the resolution to adopt an amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter VI, Public Facilities — Frederick County Government Services with the edits to the text as noted. WHEREAS, The 2030 Comprehensive Plan, The Plan, was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on July 14, 2011; and WHEREAS, this amendment, adding the section Frederick County Government Services including a policy to improve services to citizens through the efficient and effective provision of community facilities, is a follow up to and in support of the discussion of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and proposed joint County Administration Facilities to be located generally in the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) or Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA); and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this proposed amendment on March 5, 2014 and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this proposed amendment on April 9, 20141; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds that the adoption of this amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter Vl, Public Facilities — Frederick County Government Services, to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare and future of Frederick County, and in good planning practice; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that THE AMENDMENT TO THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER VI, PUBLIC FACILITIES — FREDERICK COUNTY GOVERNMENT SERVICES is adopted. This amendment continues to promote Frederick County government and its effort to provide accessible, effective, and high quality government services to its citizens, business owners, and community partners. Passed this 9"' day of April, 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 20 Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W. Wells Aye OTHER PLANNING ITEMS REQUEST FOR PUMP AND HAUL PERMIT — WILLIAM DAVIS, 1154 GREEN SPRINGS ROAD, WINCHESTER - APPROVED Senior Planner Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She advised this was a request for a pump and haul permit for an existing residence located at 1154 Green Springs Road in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. The approximately one acre property contains a four room, two bedroom 862 square foot structure constructed pre -1960. She noted currently there was not a sewage handling facility on the property. She went on to say the Health Department has determined the property is not suitable for a drainfield and the property owner was unable to obtain an easement on neighboring property to allow a drainfield. She concluded by saying the applicant appears to have addressed the requirement of the County Code to allow him to utilize a pump and haul system. Supervisor Hess noted the current owner had made a number of improvements to the property since taking ownership. Upon a motion by Supervisor Hess, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board approved the pump and haul permit for William Davis, 1154 Green Springs Road. 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 DISCUSSION OF UDA CENTERS AND THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 21 SENT FORWARD FOR PUBLIC HEARING Director of Planning and Development Eric Lawrence appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised this was a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan regarding UDA (Urban Development Areas) Centers. He stated staff had tried to address questions and concerns that had been previously raised. The Planning Commission thought it was appropriate to move this proposal forward for public hearing. Director Lawrence stated the UDA Centers were part of the County's growth management strategy and this was a policy to guide what UDA Centers should look like. He went on to say the County wanted to continue providing opportunities to keep residents, particularly young residents, in the community. He concluded by saying this policy, which was consistent with ghat the Board had seen before, is encouraged by the development community and the Planning Commission felt the concerns had been addressed. Supervisor Fisher asked how this policy would affect density in these areas versus other parts of the Urban Development Area. Director Lawrence responded the density would be covered by the rezoning, should it receive Board approval. He noted the UDA Centers also have a commercial side, so it would not be all residential development. He concluded by saying the Board would ultimately make the decision. Supervisor Lofton asked if the Frederick County Sanitation Authority had looked at the long range potential for this type of development and could they accommodate this population. Director Lawrence responded by saying the Authority's engineer /director was part of the committee so they were aware of this concept. He noted the Authority would need to provide water and sewer service regardless of this type of development. 22 Supervisor Hess stated no one was being forced to do this, but we are providing this as an option, if the market wants it. Director Lawrence responded correct. Vice - Chairman DeHaven stated this was an interesting study. He noted that it was being applied to limited areas, so that made him feel some better. He concluded by saying this was an opportunity to appeal to the younger generation. Chairman Shickle stated he did not see the words that gave him comfort that developers would not be forced to do this. Director Lawrence stated if a property did not want to do this type of development they would not be forced to do it. Chairman Shickle stated he would rather a property qualify for a UDA Center versus having the locations predetermined. Director Lawrence stated the Comprehensive Plan gives guidance, but there are opportunities to tweak it. He went on to say it was important to have a policy, but that policy can be tweaked in response to the economy. Supervisor Fisher stated he had struggled with this proposal for over a year. He thought there were societal issues with this type of development. He concluded by saying he could not support this going anywhere yet. Supervisor Lofton stated he liked to see things thrown out for discussion to hear from the citizens. Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board approved sending this proposed amendment forward for public hearing. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote; 23 Richard C. Shickle Nay Charles S, DeHaven, Jr. Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Gene E. Fisher Nay Robert A. Hess Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert W, Wells Aye BOARD LIAISON REPORTS Supervisor Lofton stated he would like to address a number of the comments and issues raised by residents of Shawneel and at the last meeting. He noted that he had spoken with a number of people regarding the paving of roads and wanted to point out that Frederick County does not own the roads and the roads are not subject to VDOT standards because they are private streets. He went on to say that he still intends to have a public meeting in Shawneeland to answer questions about the budget, etc. CITIZEN COMMENTS Dody Stottlemyer, Shawnee District, stated the proposed Medicaid expansion is difficult to see how it would affect localities, even though the Federal government is promising to pick up 100% of the increase. The localities will be left holding the bag. As for the public buildings amendment, she stated she keeps hearing there is no intent at all to build a new county office building, but we keep seeing various amendments that would allow a new office building, which we do not need, to be built in the county. Speaking at public hearings or to the Board, I have pretty thick skin so if you want to belittle me or make fun of me, that is okay, but some people are not like that. She concluded by saying respect was a two -way street. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Chairman. Shickle stated he had not belittled any comments from the public and there had been no time that he had heard the board belittle anyone. 24 ADJOURN 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. (8:18 P.M.) 25 Employee of the Month Resolution fog: r ah ebb0 A. Hami lton-:'',.. D wNEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors recognizes than the - f County's employees are a most important resource; and, WHEREAS, on September 9, 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution which established the Employee of the Month award and candidates for the award may be nominated by any County employee; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors selects one employee from those nominated, based on the merits of outstanding performance and productivity, positive job attitude and other noteworthy contributions to their department and to the County; and, WHEREAS, Debborah A. Hamilton who serves the Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center was nominated for Employee of the Month; and, WHEREAS, Debborah A. Hamilton, an Officer that can effectively work any post assignment in a productive and exceptional manner is being awarded Employee of the Month for April. Officer Hamilton displays great teamwork and loyalty to the facility when and wherever she is needed. Her selfless performance during challenging times not only aides in the team's ability to operate in a smooth, safe and secure manner, but also attests to her professionalism and personal integrity; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors this 23rd day of April, 2014, that Debborah A. Hamilton is hereby recognized as the Frederick County'Employee of the Month for April 2014; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors extends gratitude to Debborah A. Hamilton for her outstanding performance and dedicated service and wishes her continued success in future endeavors; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Debborah A. Hamilton is hereby entitled to all of the rights and privileges associated with his award. County of Frederick, VA Board of Supervisors Richard C. Shickle, Chairman pdicatir MEMORANDUM TO: Paula Nofsinger, HR Director FROM: James F. Whitley, Superintendent - NRADC DATE: January 29, 2014 SUBJ: Employee of the Month Nominations I am submitting the following nominations of NRADC personnel to be considered for Frederick County Employee of the Month. Deborah Hamilton, CO 11— Ms. Hamilton is an Officer that can effectively work any post assignment in a productive and exceptional manner. Recently, Officer Hamilton's duty -team experienced higher than normal absences due to personnel calling off due to flu symptoms; additionally multiple inmates were simultaneously hospitalized, each needing to be supervised. These factors created shortages on the team. Officer Hamilton displays great teamwork and loyalty to the facility by stepping up and filling in wherever she was needed. Her selfless performance during this challenging time not only aided in the team's ability to operate in a smooth and safe /secure manner, but also attests to her professionalism and personal integrity. COUNTY of FREDERICK I TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administr o DATE: April 17, 2014 RE: Committee Appointments John R. Riley, Jr. County administrator 5401665 -5666 Fax 540/667 -0370 E -mail: jriley @co.frederick.va.us Listed below are the vacancies /appointments due through May, 2014. As a reminder, in order for everyone to have ample time to review applications, and so they can be included in the agenda, please remember to submit applications prior to Friday agenda preparation. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. VACANCIES /OTHER Sanitation Authority Richard A. Ruckman — County Representative 481 Stoneymeade Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Home: (540)667 -2697 Term Expires: 04/15/16 Four year appointment (Staff has been advised that Mr. Ruckman has resigned. The Sanitation Authority is composed of five members as stated in their Articles of Incorporation.) AA- ricultural District Advisory Committee Mr. Walter Baker, Mr. James Douglas and Mr. Jack Jenkins have resigned. Mr. Cordell Watt has expressed an interest in serving. (See Attached Memo from Zoning Administrator.) The Agricultural District Advisory Committee meets as needed and members serve an indefinite term. Current members were re- affirmed at the Board Meeting of February 24, 2010. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 Memorandum — Board of Supervisors April 17, 2014 Page 2 FEBRUARY 2014 Historic Resources Advisory Board Claus Bader — Red Bud District Representative 102 Whipp Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Home: (540)722 -6578 Term Expires: 02/22/14 Four year term APRIL 2014 Parks and Recreation Commission Martin J. Cybulski — Red Bud District Representative 134 Likens Way Winchester, VA 22602 Home: (540)667 -6035 Term Expires: 04128/14 Four year term MAY 2014 Historic Resources Advisory Board Clint Jones — Shawnee District Representative 3108 Middle Road Winchester, VA 22602 Home: (540)667 -6350 Term Expires: 05/22/14 Four year term J RR/tjp Attachment U:1TJPlcommitteea ppoi ntme ntsl MmosLetrslBoardCommitt eeAppts(042314BdMtg). docx COUNTY Of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665 -5651 MEMORANDUM TO: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator CC: Eric Lawrence, Director of Planning & Development FROM: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator X4- 'C-RE: ADAC Membership BATE: April 14, 2014 Fax: 540/ 665 -6395 co a G Three of the Agricultural District Advisory Committee members have contacted the Planning Department to resign their position. Mr. Walter G. Baker — Gainesboro District Term 03/12/1980 — Present Mr. James M. Douglas — Back Creek District Term 03/12/1980 — Present Mr. Jack K. Jenkins, Jr., - Shawnee District Term 03/12/1 980 — Present The Agricultural District Advisory Committee meets every five years and the next meeting will be in 2015. The Committee members are: Mr. Carl C. Ay, (Stonewall District) Mr. Dudley H. Rinker, (Back Creek District) Mr. John Stelzl, (Opequon District) Mr, John D. Cline, (Stonewall District) Mr. John R. Marker, (Back Creek District Alternate) Mr. Cordell Watt's has expressed interest in becoming a Board member. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions at (540) 665 -5651. MRC /pd 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK TO: Board of Supervisors FROM. John R. Riley, Jr., County Admini trator DATE: April 16, 2014 John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 540/665 -5666 Fax 540/667 -0370 E -mail: jri1ey@co.frederick.va.us RE: Set Schedule for Board Meetings During Summer Months and for November and December, 2014 As in the past, the Board of Supervisors has canceled meetings during the Summer months due to vacation schedules. Cancelation of the meetings of June 11 th , July 23 August 27 September 24 and October 22" is requested. It is also requested at this time to cancel meetings for November and December due to the holidays. Those cancelation dates are November 26 and December 20 Board action at the April 23, 2014 meeting will give staff and the Office of Planning and Development time for scheduling, advertising and notification purposes. Should you have any questions, please give me a call. Thank you. J R R /tj p U:I TJPI miscmemosl CountyAdministratorl BdOfSupSummerMtgSchedule &Holidays(2014).docx 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK tu ` t� Parks and Recreation Department 540- 665 -5678 �� oun"1 FAX: 540-665-9687 s Ad o- ,�� www.fcprd.net 'z. Bq e -mail: fcprdCfcva.us 1AIRM To: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator From: Jason L. Robertson, Director, Parks & Recreation Dept,; Subject: Parks and Recreation Commission Action Date: April 16, 2014 The Parks and Recreation Commission met on April 8, 2014. Members present were: Greg Brondos, Jr., Randy Carter, Gary Longerbeam, Ronald Madagan and Charles Sandy, Jr.. Members absent were: Kevin Anderson, Patrick Anderson, Christopher Collins and Marty Cybulski Items Re uirin Board of Su ervisors Action: None Submitted for Board Information Only I . Building and Grounds Committee — Proffer Recommendation — The Buildings and Grounds Committee recommended the use of $15,000 from the Parks and Recreation proffer account for engineering services to develop access to the undeveloped area of Sherando Park along Warrior Drive, second by Mr. Carter, carried unanimously (5 -0). This recommendation will be forwarded to the Finance Committee prior to requiring Board of Supervisor action. cc: Charles R. Sandy, Jr., Chairman Christopher Collins, Board Liaison Cheryl Shiffler, Finance Director 107 North Dent Street Winchester, VA 22601 County of Frederick unlue: nnnal aluwuullumn1u. uununuuuruu lnurnunnnuwn.wnnnnlnnm11. Iunuuuuu.lnumU.M.. anrtnuuuwwrum1nw1.... .l...11 uuwruuowr uunnnll.unnnrunrnmw.uuuuu. Paula A. Nofsinger Director of Human Resources (540) 665-5668 Fax: (540) 665 -5669 pnofsinger@fcva.us TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Paula Nofsinger, Director of Human Resources DATE: April 15, 2014 SUBJECT: Human Resources Committee Report I... lIk".111111111Hfll1Yllul..l h 1. ll .l.lI.......Il.1..Y1llllrlu..11. W Y.1111 III II" IUlu11uW11111ll11111 4 1 11 1 111 11 1.111111.1141H 11111111H I$II0 II 111.11u1.I...... u. luulllllw. 11111Wllullll. llul .lu1111lI/III.IIIIIIIk11111u1u1 Llllllul .l4.1.11111!lIi11111 P11111 The HR Committee met in the First Floor Conference Room at 107 North Kent Street on Friday, April 4, 2014, at 8:00am. Committee members present were: Supervisor Robert Hess, Supervisor Chris Collins, Citizen Member Dorrie Greene, and Citizen Member Beth Lewin. Supervisor Robert Wells was absent. Also present were: Assistant County Administrator Kris Tierney, IT Director Walter Banks, and DSS Representative Delsie Butts. * ** Items Requiring Action * ** 1. Approval of the Employee of the Mouth Award. The Committee recommends approval of Correctional Officer Deborah Hamilton as the Employee of the Month for April 2014. ** *Items Not Requiring Action * ** 1. Presentation by the Director of Information Technology, Walter Banks. At the request of the Committee, Mr. Banks presented an overview of the objectives and responsibilities of the IT Department. The presentation also provided the Committee an understanding of his department's role, authority, projects, and topics of importance within his department. Presentation Attached. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Due to the Apple Blossom Holiday, the next HR Committee meeting is scheduled for Friday, May 9, 2014. Respectfully Submitted, Human Resources Committee Robert Hess, Chairman By: Robert Wells Chris Collins Dorrie Greene Beth Lewin 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601 Employee of the Month Resolution for: Debborah A. Hamilton. WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors recognizes that the County's employees are a most important resource; .and, WHEREAS,' on September 9, . 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution which established the Employee of the Month award and candidates for the award may be nominated by any County employee; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors selects one employee from those nominated, based on the merits of outstanding performance and productivity, positive job attitude and other noteworthy contributions to their department and to the County; and, WHEREAS, Debborah A. Hamilton who serves the Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center was nominated for Employee of the Month; and, WHEREAS, Debborah A. Hamilton, an Officer that can effectively work any post assignment in a productive and exceptional manner is being awarded Employee of. the Month for April. Officer Hamilton displays great teamwork and loyalty to the facility when and wherever she is needed. Her selfless performance during challenging times not only aides in the team's ability to operate in a smooth, safe and secure manner, but also attests to her professionalism and personal integrity; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors this 23rd day of April, 2014, that Debborah A. Hamilton is hereby recognized as the Frederick County'Employee of the Month for April 2014; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors extends gratitude to Debborah A. Hamilton for her outstanding performance and dedicated service and wishes her continued success in future endeavors; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Debborah A. Hamilton is hereby entitled to all of the rights and privileges associated with his award. County of Frederick, VA Board of Supervisors Dedication of Su pe Chairman, Board rvisors MEMORANDUM TO: Paula Nofsinger, HR Director FROM: James F. Whitley, Superintendent - NRADC DATE: January 29, 2014 SUBJ: Employee of the Month Nominations I am submitting the following nominations of NRADC personnel to be considered for Frederick County Employee of the Month. Deborah Hamilton, CO 11— Ms. Hamilton is an Officer that can effectively work any post assignment in a productive and exceptional mariner. Recently, Officer Hamilton's duty -team experienced higher than normal absences due to personnel calling off due to flu symptoms; additionally multiple inmates were simultaneously hospitalized, each needing to be supervised. These factors created shortages on the team. Officer Hamilton displays great teamwork and loyalty to the facility by stepping up and filling in wherever she was needed. Her selfless performance during this challenging time not only aided in the team's ability to operate in a smooth and safe /secure manner, but also attests to her professionalism and personal integrity. MR �9MMj t Bripfing April 4124'4 2rmjilign i %:vnn9jujgv j "The Vision of Frederick County, Virginia, Information' Technologies is to provide a secure and fully operational county -wide electronic information system - that supports every county employee or citizen that needs and uses county digital data; that improves organization operations and efficiency; that exceeds the high accuracy and standards required by today's State and Federal guidelines; that stays current with state and national trends in electronic technology and data management; that encourages participating users to excel in seeking out new standardized technologies; and to build expertise and teamwork to improve data storage and distribution required in decision making within the County of Frederick." unties and resnnnsieintie • Consists of three areas: — Management Information Systems — Maintains t AS400 environment. — Graphic Information Systems- mapping, addressing and geographic information development and distribution. — Network Operations- connectivity, helpdesk and client services. X11 Ll VA i Lei I ar"iWIL N Recent Projects: 2011 Internet upgrade. 2012 Vmware Virtualization project. 2012 Sustainability project. 2012 Broadband awareness project. 2013 VolP phone project. 2014 Computer Refresh Plan and Implementation. 2014 Exchange 2010 deployment. work.... I ----- - - - - -- +- — — — — — — — — — — I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I [ vacant I I I € Bus. Analyst I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I — — — --- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — j Public Safety Group Director Managers Technical members Administrative Assistant : laa III l @i►INLYL611W1 Hell l ISO ►iI[• Technical people are very different! Educational backgrounds vary the normal 2 -4 year degree paths. Extensive area specific training and certifications: • Microsoft, A +, Net+., Cisco • ESR1 • AS400 • ITIL, CISSP, CGC10 2eping UF • We encourage job related training. Through A workshops, advanced skills refresh courses, organization groups and online demonstrations. r A Over the recent years Frederick county's IT department has dealt with: • Down economy I • Threats of "intellectual raids" by other localities • Lack of internal advancement • "No factor" Y ITs. Moving forward Change our legacy ways. e Recognize our need to grow to address the clients need for services. • Add critical positions: Trainer and Network Administrator. • Realize true TCO and ROI — prepare to address those difficult decisions. lowing information about opportunity share department. COUNTY of FREDERICK M'EMOR.ANDU:M John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 5401665 -5666 Fax 5401667 -0370 E -mail: jriley@co.frederick.va.us TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator SUBJECT: Business Friendly Committee Report - Update DATE: April 15, 2014 Staff is providing the Board of Supervisors with an update on the status of the recommendations derived from the Business Friendly Committee. Some of these recommendations remain a work in progress, while others are ready for Board action. REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS The Board referred the re- evaluation of the current Master Development Plan process to the Planning Commission and the Development Review and Regulations Committee. The DRRC reviewed the requirements and did not believe the MDP requirement should be eliminated. It was felt this was an important process for both the applicant and the public. The DRRC recommended that the MDP ordinance be modified to allow for a waiver of the MDP requirement if an applicant chooses to process a detailed site plan in lieu of the MDP. The Planning Commission considered this item at their April 2, 2014 meeting and concurred with the DRRC's recommendation. This will be an agenda item for the Board's April 23, 2014 meeting. Planning staff is seeking direction from the Board regarding whether to send this proposed amendment forward for public hearing. Establishment of an Economic Development Authority At the January 8, 2014 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the Board approved an ordinance changing the name of the Industrial Development Authority of the County of 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601 Frederick, Virginia to the Economic Development Authority of the County of Frederick, Virginia. In addition, the Board sought special legislation to all the Board to appoint a member of the Board of Supervisors as a voting member of the EDA. This legislation has been approved by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor. This new legislation will be effective July 1, 2014. The Board voted on the proposed make up of the newly named EDA board which would consist of three members each from the existing Economic Development Commission and Economic Development Authority and one member of the Board of Supervisors. Since that time, the EDA members have held discussions and unanimously agreed the Board of Supervisors needed the flexibility to consider all available and interested talent within Frederick County when appointing the new members to the Economic Development Authority and should not be restricted to three members from each of the current Economic Development Commission and Economic Development Authority. Based on the EDA members' position, the Board should give serious consideration to opening up the pool for EDA membership. As you might recall, the Board reappointed Mrs. Beverley B. Shoemaker to the EDA until July 1, 2014. The Executive Director of the Economic Development Commission will attend the next EDA meeting to brief the Authority on the upcoming transition to include staffing, working group functionality, and funding after July 1, 2014. Reduction in Proffer Requirements The Development Impact Model Oversight Committee conducted a re- evaluation 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. The Development Impact Mode Oversight Committee recommended approval of a policy modification to enable credit for transportation. The Board affirmed the change to the Development Impact Model to allow transportation credits for rezonings. The Development Impact Model Oversight Committee continued to re- evaluate the model to see if further modifications 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. In addition, the Committee reviewed the model to see if there were any components that prohibited growth. The Committee recommended no further changes to the Development Impact Model. (A copy of the DIMOC's report is attached.) SIMPLIFICATION OF THE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE The Board .referred the re- evaluation of the current Buffers and Landscaping Ordinance to the Planning Commission and the Development Review and Regulations Committee. The DRRC reviewed the suggested changes from the Business Friendly Committee. The DRRC recognized that the buffer and landscaping sections were recently reviewed and felt the existing ordinance was appropriate. The DRRC recommended that the parking lot landscaping requirements be incorporated into the main landscaping session. The Planning Commission considered this item at their April 2, 2014 meeting. After some discussion and hearing comments from members of the public, the Commission referred this item back to the DRRC for further review and consideration. SIGNAGE ALONG MAJOR ROUTES ENTERING FREDERICK COUNTY The Board referred this recommendation to the Transportation Committee and the Economic Development Commission for review of signage placement and messaging, respectively. The EDC shared their preliminary recommendations with the Economic Development Authority since the EDA will ultimately fund this initiative. The RDA discussed this item at their February 20, 2014 and March 20, 2014 meetings. A signage subcommittee was established to select a design and craft the messaging. The subcommittee continues to work with the EDC Executive Director and the Executive Director of the Winchester- Frederick County Convention and Visitors' Bureau regarding messaging and branding. At the EDA's March 20, 2014 meeting, the EDA referred this item to the Transportation Committee for input regarding placement and how best to work with VDOT on this initiative. Once the EDA has finalized their recommendation it will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for endorsement. Should you have any questions regarding any of these items, please do not hesitate to contact me. JRR /jet Attachments COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665 -5651 Fax: 540/ 665 -6395 Eric R. Lawrence, AICP Director MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Development Impact Model — Oversight Committee Report from Meeting on March 31, 2014 Regarding Business Friendly Initiatives DATE: April 14, 2014 The Development Impact Model — Oversight Committee (DIM -OC) met on Monday, March 31, 2014 at 8:30 AM. Members Present Robert Hess Dr. John Lamanna Gary Lofton H. Paige Manual Stephen Pettler Kris Tierney Members Absent J.P. Carr Brian Madigan Roger Thomas Patrick Barker, Eric Lawrence, and Wayne Lee were present. * ** Informational Purposes Only * ** The DIM -OC has completed its review of the Development Impact Model (DIM) and determined that changes to the model and its application to the rezoning process does not warrant additional changes. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Page 2 DIM -OC Report April 14, 2013 Background On August 14, 2013, the Board of Supervisors directed the Development Impact Model - Oversight Committee (DIM -OC) to review, evaluate, and forward a recommendation regarding reducing rezoning proffer expectations. The referred directive stated: " Reduction in Proffer Requirements" The Land Use and Development Subcommittee recommended a reduction in proffer requirements for future rezoning applications, as well as amendments to existing proffers in order to create viable projects that will deliver needed transportation improvements and other benefits. The economics of the current proffer model or development impact model do not allow for construction. The Committee examined the model and determined there were numerous capital items contemplated and incorporated into the model, but those projects were not being built in the current year. It is anticipated none of these government capital projects will be built at any time in the near future, if at all. Further, the Development Impact Model does not fully account for business, personal property tax, or other revenue that is of significant benefit to Frederick County, in addition to property taxes. A re- evaluation of the Development Impact Model taking into account current economic conditions would be appropriate. This recommendation should be referred to the Development Impact Model Oversight Committee for evaluation and recommendation to the Board." A supplemental directive issued by the Board of Supervisors on December 6, 2013 stated: "..review the model to see if there are any components that prohibit growth." The DIM -OC began their review and discussion of the Development Impact Model in October 2013, by recognizing that the critical inputs of the DIM are reviewed each spring as part of the annual update of the DIM. Local tax rates, capital facility costs, and student enrollments are some of the inputs identified as critical inputs that are updated annually. The inputs are essential in order to maintain an updated DIM. The DIM -OC reviewed the residential building permit trends to ascertain economic health of local new residential construction. It was found that new residential construction (new residential building permits issued) was up by 30% in 2013, over the previous year; certainly a positive sign for our local economy. Page 3 DIM -OC Report April 14, 2013 It was noted that the DIM is a direct fiscal impact model, a planning tool which projects anticipated operational and capital facility costs associated with land use planning. The DIM is also commonly referred to as the model utilized to project the capital facility impacts resulting from new residential development, which results in cash proffer contributions. It was noted that the output figures utilized as part of the rezoning application evaluation do not include revenue credits or debt service costs; the projection solely considers impacts on capital facilities. In considering whether cash proffers amount to a significant value to the county, it was noted that since 1995, the county received cash proffer payments in excess of $9.4 million. More significant is that in FY2013, the county received $1,185,263 in cash proffer payments. The DIM -OC had an opportunity to meet with Carson Bise of TischlerBise, Inc., creator of the County's DIM. Mr. Bise discussed the purpose and design of the DIM, and responded to questions raised by the DIM -OC. Mr. Bise also reviewed the county's DIM and reported that the DIM continues to function as designed, with its formulas and links all working correctly. The DIM is in good shape. The DIM -OC found the DIM's output as used for the rezoning application evaluation indicated that a single family detached dwelling placed an impact of $19,600 on the County's capital facilities; rezoning applicants typically mitigate this impact through a proffered cash contribution. This contribution is at the lower range of a number of studied jurisdictions' impact mitigation expectations, with the higher end of the range approaching $50,000. It is foreseeable that the rezoning impact mitigation expectation could be reduced to reflect a policy decision regarding what percentage of projected impacts should be addressed, or to reflect a credit for the contributions that result from new development. The DIM -OC studied potential contributions in the form of: • Tax contributions that may result from new residential development • This concept would enable the DIM to calculate tax revenue that results from residential development, and reflect that revenue as a credit against the projected impacts on capital facilities. • DIM -OC did not support this potential policy revision. • Tax contributions that may result from new commercial development associated with a residential development proposal o This concept would enable the DIM to calculate tax revenue that would be generated from a proffered phased commercial component Page 4 DIM -OC Report April 14, 2013 of the rezoning application, and reflect that revenue as a credit against the projected impacts on capital facilities. o DIM -OC did not support this potential policy revision. • Value of proffered capital improvements (such as transportation) that may be considered as an offset from the DIM's capital impact projections. • Staff did learn that in some jurisdictions, the value of proffered transportation improvements, above and beyond what is generally expected /required by ordinance with a new development, and may be utilized as a credit against the projected capital facility impacts. • DIM -OC did support this policy revision, and previously forwarded a recommendation that the Board of Supervisors consider amending policy to implement. The Board of Supervisors did accept this policy amendment in January 2014. In running the DIM, the DIM -OC found that a single family detached residence in Frederick County places a demand on county services (operation and capital) of approximately $133,511 over a 20 year period. The DIM projects tax revenue contributions of $73,924 during the same period. This leaves a shortfall of nearly $60,000. After recognizing the shortfall in revenues to expenses, the DIM -OC felt it was not appropriate to offer a revenue credit when considering rezoning applications. The DIM -OC concluded that the DIM is not perfect, is very complex, and is reasonable in its projections. Residential demands for county services exceed its contributions. No change to the DIM or how it is implemented is recommended. The DIM -OC will continue to use the annual review in May /June to confirm that the input variables are appropriate. This practice has been in effect since 2005 and offers reassurance that the DIM continues to be a valid, current fiscal model. It was noted that the use of the DIM to project the annual proffer expectation is appropriate. It was also noted that this expectation results from the Board and rezoning applicant working together to demonstrate how the development proposal is mitigating the capital impacts on the county, and is often addressed through proffered improvements or cash contributions. This development review process offers flexibility so that developers may demonstrate the merits of a proposal. More importantly, current residents should not be expected to bear the costs associated with new growth through increased real estate taxes; development needs to pay its way. APPLICATION FOR OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PER COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA (Please Print Clearly) — . 1 T9 3031 V CN 0 AP PUCAN'TINFORMATIO V I Name of Applicant: A ��ee ' j- Telephone Number(s): E home B`bffice 0 cell d6 y t o 7y, 1:1 home ❑ office wceii Address: Sy Contact Email: ote M 04 i S va ( CTW%— FESTIVAL EVENT ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION Festival Event Name of Festival: G acv V", e Cost of Admission to Festival: A A Business License Obtained: Et Yes 1:1 N o Dal start Time bid', Time Maximum N o. ait6d No. of Tickets Offered 6'(:Attendees ",. or Sale Per Day �,71 Day Location Add ress V, "CLU, pd, sle 6 L C. zl' Owner of Property Name(s): r"(1 Address: SJ- ( Applicant may be required to provide a statement or other documentation indicating consent by the owner(s) for use of the property and relay y d parking for the festival.) Promoter Naril Address: ( For festivals other than not-for-profit, promoter may need to check with the Frederick County Commissioner of Revenue to determine compliance with County business license requirements; in addition, promoters who have repeat or ongoing business In Virginia may be required to register with the VA State Corporation Commission for legal authority to conduct,business in Virginia.) Finand4l Backer Name(s): Address: Pi` rfdrrine .1. r;:1 Name of Person(s) or Group(s): c,. yJ ( Applicant may need to update information as performers are booked for festival event.) F>f ST VAL EVENT LOGIS'TfCSINFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION F \ ch a copy of the printed ticket or badge of admission to the festival, containing the date(s) and time(s) of such foe festival (may be marked as "sample"). ❑ copy attached OR E7 copy to be provided as soon as available 2. Provide a plan for adequate sanitation facilities as well as garbage, trash, and sewage disposal for persons at the festival. This plan must meet the requirements of all state and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and must be approved b the VA Department of Health (L Vairfax Health Distric . L . 3. Provide a plan for providing food, water, and lodging for the persons at the festival. This plan must meet the requirements of all state and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and must be approved by the VA Department of Health (Ladd Fairfax Health District). p a Ica --- eta SCA 0e�-J-2A ✓� 4. Provide a plan for adequate medical facilities for persons at the festival. This plan must meet the requirements of all state and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and must be appr�ovved by the County Fire Chief or Fire Marshal and the local mpany. al fire and rescue c film fr S g, ej- L3A S. Provide a plan for adequate fire protection. This plan must meet the requirements of all state and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and must be approved by the County Fire Chief or Fire Marshal and the local fire and re scue company, �-, k ave &W, i 2,e to 1 zk / 1 a 3 6. Provide a plan for adequate parking facilities and traffic control. in and around the festival area. (A diagram may be submitted.) / / (' ) IIt�S c-dew� 0 Gz l7�'l� C— [a fia3vy�� iJ ' V.s�l! � arat L- v ° � F U 7. State whether any outdoor lights or lighting will be utilized: ❑ YES eNO If yes, provide a plan or submit a diagram showing the location of such lights and the proximity relative to the property boundaries and neighboring properties. In addition, show the location of shielding devices or other equipment to be used to prevent unreasonable glow beyond the property on which the festival is located. S. State whether alcoholic beverages will be served: AES ❑ NO If yes, provide details on how it will be controlled. (NOTE: Evidence of any applicable VA ABC permit must also be provided and posted at the festival as required. Appiicant may need to confirm with the VA ABC that a license is not required from that agency in order for festival attendees to bring their own alcoholic beverages to any event that is open to the general public upon payment ofthe applicable admission fee.) FESTI V `. AL'PROVISIONS Applicant makes the following statements: A. Music shall not be rendered nor entertainment provided for more than eight (8) hours in any twenty -four (24) hour period, such twenty -four (24) hour period to be measured from the beginning of the first performance at the festival. B. Music shall not be played, either by mechanical device or live performance, in such a manner that the sound emanating therefrom exceeds 73 decibels at the property on which the festival is located. C. No person under the age of eighteen (18) years of age shall be admitted to any festival unless accompanied by a parent or guardian, the parent or guardian to remain with such person at all times. (NOTE: It may be necessary to post signs to this effect.) D. The Board, its lawful agents, and /or duly constituted law enforcement officers shall have permission to go upon the property where the festival is being held at any time for the purpose of determining compliance with the provisions of the County ordinance. CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned Applicant, hereby certify that all information, statements, and documents provided in connection with this Application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. In addition, Applicant agrees that the festival event and its attendees shall comply with the provisions of the Frederick County ordinance pertaining to festivals as well as the festival provisions contained herein. Signature Wf Applicant U S Printed Name of Applicant Date: THE BOARD SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO REVOKE ANY PERMIT ISSUED UNDER THIS ORDINANCE UPON NON - COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS. f/JA13C VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OP ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL 2901 }lermitage Road - PO Box 27491 • Richmond VA 23261 -7491 LfrmseNumber: ABC BANQUET LICENSE 434174 License 7:ype. Banquet Special Event (Per Day) Kangnet Event Dares: 0510312014 Haugnet Haute A, Event Address BOWERS C CAITLIN CHRISTENDOM EDUCATIONAL CORPORATION TRUMPET VINE FARM 266 VAUCLUSE ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VA 22555 Frederick County - Territory 4 34 Staunton - Region 3 (540) 332-7800 Stare I By larder ofAlcahotic Beverage Cntntrof Boarrr Secretary Instructions for Operating under a Banquet License The privileges of this license are hereby granted by the Virginia Alcoholic; Beverage Control Hoard to the Licensee named above to operate in at tenors ofthe license herein designated and the applicable statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia and regulations of the Hoard. L Do not sell or give away any alcoholic beverage to any person who you know or have reason to believe is intoxicated and do not allow any a to he consumed by such a person in attendance at your banquet. Do not allow any person who you know or have reas;Dn to believe is intaxic your licensed area. Any person who has drunk enough alcoholic beverages to affect his manner, disposition, speech. muscular movements,, or behavior, as to be apparent to observation shall be deemed to be intoxicated. 2. Do not sell or give awky any alcohol is beverage to any person who you know or have reason to believe is less than 21 years of age and do nr alcoholic beverage to be consumed by such a person in attendance at your banquet. 3. Do not allow any form of illegal gambling to take place during your banquet- 4. Do not possess any illegal gambling apparatus, machine or device upon your licensed premises. 5_ Do not be intoxicated or under the influence of a self - administered drug during your banquet. h. Do not sell or give away any alcoholic beverages an your licensed area during restricted hours. 7_ Affixed Beverages under a Mixed Beverage Special Event License must be purchased rront a state ABC Store. 8, Do not purchase alcoholic beverages from licensed wholesalers except on the day of the banquet. For those functions bead on Saturday or St may be made on Friday. Payment must be made in cash or a valid check drawn upon a bank account in the name o €the licensee or in the na; Sponsoring the banquet. F.ach invoice must be signed by the purchasing licensee or his duly authorized agent. 9. Licensed wholesaler may supply. at it reasonable wholesale price. paper or plastic cups upon which advertising matter regarding beer or wir 10. Alcoholic beverages to be given away may he purchased from retail establishments. 11. Flo not sell, give away or allow the consumption or alcoholic beverage in any portion or your licensed area that has not been approved by the (NOTE: Violation ufthis instruction could result in arrest for Drinking in Public.) Alcoltulic beverages must be confined to the building, roc for which the license is issued. 12. Do not allow any pawn who is less than 18 years of arse to self. serve or dispense beer. BOWERS C CAITLIN CHRISTENDOM EDUCATIONA CORPORATION 134 CHRISTENDOM DRIVE FRONT ROYAL VA 22630 The license privilege is strictly Ior on premises sale and/or consumption ol'alcoholic beverages at the address orevent. of 1 3/19/2014 2:00 PM CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE °AT 11 /` zfz 6/20 3 la THIS CERTIFICATE 1S ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER 1 -203- 642 -0500 r Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, Inc. CON TACT Robert Gyle AIC No Et 203- 642 -0500 = �C,No): 203 -642 -050 40 Richards Avenue E -MAIL robert Ie @a oom ADDRESS: gY 7g• INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIL# Norwalk, CT 06654 INSURERA: HARTFORD FIRE IN CC 19682 Robert Gyle INSURED Christendom Educational Corporation INSURER B X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY 7--7 OCCUR CLAIMS -MADE DBA: Cristendom College INSURER C: INSURER D: $ 50 134 Christendom Drive INSURER E7 PERSONAL & ADV INJU RY Front Royal, VA 22630 INSURER F COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: 37087255 RFVISIC]N NIIMRPR• THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADDL SUBR POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF MMIODIYYYY POLICY EXP MMIDDIYYYY I LIMITS A GENERAL LIABILITY X 31UUNABSO46 07/01/1 07101/14 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY 7--7 OCCUR CLAIMS -MADE DAMAGEI RENTED PREMISES Ea occurrence $ 50 MED EXP (Any one person) $ 5,000 PERSONAL & ADV INJU RY $ 1,000,000 GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 3,000,000 GEN 'L AGGREGATE LI MIT APPLIES PER: PRODUCTS - COMPIOPAGG $3,000,000 X POLICY JFCT LOC $ AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT Ea accident BODILY INJURY {Per person) $ ANY AUTO ALL OWNED SCHEDULED AUTOS AUTOS BODILY INJURY Per accideri { ) $ NON -OWNED HIRED AUTOS AUTOS PROPERTY DAMAGE Per accident S A UMBRELLALIAB X OCCUR X 31HHUTD4843 07/01/1- 07 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 10,000,000 EXCESS LIAR CLAIMS -MADE AGGREGATE $ 10, 000, 000 DED X J RETENTION S 10, 000 $ WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY YIN ANY PROPRIETORJPARTNERfEXECUTIVE OFFICERIM EMBER EXCLUDED? NIA WC STATU- 0TH - TO Y E E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ {Mandatory in NH) I f yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L. DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT $ DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS 1 LOCATIONS I VEHICLES (Attach ACORD 191, Additional Remarks Schedule, if more space is required) CERTIFICATE ISSUED AS RESPECT8 BARN DANCE MAY 3- 4,2014 AT CERTIFICATE HOLDER'S PREMISES. (TRUMPET VINE FARM 266 VAUCLUSE ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VA 22665 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. I AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE USA � ACORD 25 (2010105) robgyle 37087255 sJ 1988 -2010 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD FR 3520280 Insured Copy 4 Coverage G - Unscheduled Farm Personal Property $100 deductible applies Limit Of Liability Premium Unscheduled Equipment With Open Perils Item 1 EQUIPMENT WITH OPEN PERILS $5,000 $36.00 Farm Machinery (FO -360) $ Included Total Unscheduled Equipment With Open Perils Premium: $36.00 TOTAL COVERAGE G PREMIUM $36.00 Other Additional Coverages Additional Insured - Persons or Organizations (GL -70) Mod 23 Name and Address: Trumpet Vine Farm LLC ,-266 Vaucluse Ln , Stephens City Scheduled Equipment With Open Perils , Va 22655 Item 2 JD 300 BACKHOE SIN 30OB168735T $10,000 $46.00 Farm Machinery (FO -360) Equipment $ Included Item 3 MASSEY FERGUSON T30 TRACTOR, SER T07006QD124 $4,000 $19.00 Farm Machinery (FO -360) , Va 22655 $ Included Item 4 JOHN DEERE 4030 TRACTOR WILOADER $15,000 $70.00 Farm Machinery (FO -360) Equipment $ Included Total Scheduled Equipment With Open Perils Premium: $116.00 $135.00 TOTAL COVERAGE F (OUT OF A BUILDING) PREMIUM: Business: Special Events - NOC $135.00 Coverage G - Unscheduled Farm Personal Property $100 deductible applies Limit Of Liability Premium Unscheduled Equipment With Open Perils Item 1 EQUIPMENT WITH OPEN PERILS $5,000 $36.00 Farm Machinery (FO -360) $ Included Total Unscheduled Equipment With Open Perils Premium: $36.00 TOTAL COVERAGE G PREMIUM $36.00 Other Additional Coverages Additional Insured - Persons or Organizations (GL -70) $ Included Name and Address: Trumpet Vine Farm LLC ,-266 Vaucluse Ln , Stephens City , Va 22655 Location Of Premises: 266 Vaucluse Ln Stephens City Va 22655 Interest: Runs the Farm Operations, Special Events & Owns some Farm Equipment Additional Insureds (FO -41) $ Included Name and Address: Trumpet Vine Farm LLC , 266 Vaucluse Ln , Stephens City , Va 22655 Location Of Premises: 266 Vaucluse Ln Stephens City Va 22655 Interest: Runs the Farm Operations, Special Events & Owns some Farm Equipment Incidental Business Operations - Excluding Products /Completed Works (FBGL90) $116.00 Name of Insured(s): DEMARCHI SPEARS And LAURA SPEARS Business: Special Events - NOC Number Admissions Annually 1000 TOTAL ADDITIONAL COVERAGES PREMIUM $116.00 TOTAL POLICY PREMIUM: $ 2,202.00 Forms and Endorsements Form Number/ Farm Name Edition Date FO -6 1.0 Farm Coverage GL -2 2.0 Personal Liability Coverage (Farm) Continued Next Page Process Date: 02/22/2014 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #02 -14 JESSICA M. NEFF Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors w Prepared: April 11, 2014 Staff Contact: Mark Cheran, Zoning Administrator This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 04/02/14 Recommended Approval Board of Supervisors: 04/23/14 Pending EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request for a Kennel - Dog Boarding. The request complies with applicable policies and ordinances. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the CUP, with the following eight (8) conditions: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. No more than twenty -eight (28) dogs shall be permitted on the property at any given time. 3. This CUP is solely to enable the boarding of dogs on this property. 4. No employees other than those residing on the property shall be allowed_ 5. All dogs shall be controlled so as not to create a nuisance to any adjoining properties by roaming free or barking. 6. All dogs must be confined indoors by 9:00 p.m. and not let outdoors prior to 8:00 a.m. 7. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements and shall not exceed four (4) square feet in size and five (5) feet in height. 8. Any expansion or modification of this use will require the approval of a new CUP. Following the requisite public hearing, it would be appropriate for an action concerning this application by the Board of Supervisors. Page 2 CUP 902 -14 Jessica M. Neff April 11, 2014 LOCATION The property is located at 461 Laurel Grove Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER 73 -9 -3 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Areas) East: RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential Land Use: Vacant Land Use: Vacant Land Use: VPI Agricultural Research and Extension Center PROPOSED USE Kennel - Dog Boarding. REVIEW EVALUATIONS Virginia Department of Transportation: The application for a Conditional Use Permit for this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 629, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Present entrance is adequate for proposed improvements. Should business ever expand in the future, entrance may need to be upgraded. Frederick County Fire and Rescue: Plans approved. Frederick County Fire Marshall: Plans approved as long as there is at least one working smoke detector and 1 -51b 2A /10BC fire extinguisher within 75 feet of the areas being occupied by the dogs. Frederick County Inspections: The building shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, The International Existing Building Code 2009 and section 304 - B, Business Use Group of the International Building Code /2009. Other Code that applies is ICC /ANSI A117.1 -03 Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities and 2009 International Energy Code. If new kennel construction exceeds 200 square feet, a building permit would be required. Page 3 CUP 902 -14 Jessica M. Neff April 11, 2014 Frederick - Winchester Health Department: The Health Department has no objection to the request as stated. This does not grant approval for additional employees. Applicant may not dispose of canine waste via the septic tank drainfield on site. Winchester Regional Airport: We have reviewed the referenced conditional use permit request proposal. While the site does lie within the airspace operations of the Winchester Regional Airport, it is outside of the close in part 77 surfaces and should not impact airport operations. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: No comments. City of Winchester: No comments. Planning and Zoning: Kennels are a permitted use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) [Code of Frederick County §165 - 401.03.x]_ This proposed use will take place on a 7 +/- acre parcel; surrounded by properties that are zoned RA. The 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County_ (Comprehensive Plan) identifies this area of the County to remain rural in nature and is not part of any land use study. The Zoning Ordinance defines a Kennel: "As a place prepared to house, board, breed, handle or otherwise keep or care for dogs for sale or in return for compensation." The Zoning Ordinance requires that kennels be subject to additional performance standards in order to mitigate negative impacts to adjoining residential properties to include, all dogs to be confined within a secure structure and a Category C Buffer. There will be no employees with this proposed kennel per the Frederick County Health Department. The properties immediately adjacent to this proposed CUP are currently zoned RA Zoning District, with the nearest residential dwelling being approximately 600 feet from this proposed dog kennel_ Therefore, the intent of the Category C Buffer can be met, as 400 feet is required for a no screen Category C Buffer. The applicant will be constructing a 20 x 30 square foot enclosed kennel with a fenced area for the dogs, at the rear of the property. The applicant has indicated that no more than twenty —eight (28) dogs will be on the property at any given time. All dogs must be confined indoors with the exception of when they are walked or exercised, and will not to be let outdoors prior to 8:00 a.m. Dogs must be confined indoors by 9:00 p.m. In reviewing this application, the following conditions are considered appropriate reflective of the applicant's request, review agency comments, and /or in an effort to mitigate any potential impacts as noted_ All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. Page 4 CUP 902 -14 Jessica M. Neff April 11, 2014 No more than twenty -eight (28) dogs on the property at any given time. (The applicant has requested the number of dogs with this kennel) This CUP is solely to enable the boarding of dogs on this property. (The applicant does not want to breed dogs) No employees other than those residing on the property shall be allowed. (This condition is per the Frederick County Health Department) All dogs shall be controlled so as not to create a nuisance to any adjoining properties by roaming free or barking. All dogs must be confined indoors by 9:00 p.m. and not be let outdoors prior to 8:00 a.m. (This condition is to help mitigate any impacts to adjoining properties) Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements and shall not exceed four (4) square feet in size and five (5) feet in height. Any expansion or modification of this use will require an approval of a new CUP STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 04/02/14 PLANNING COMNHSSION MEETING The request complies with applicable policies and ordinances. The Planning staff recommends approval of the CUP, with the following eight (8) conditions: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. No more than twenty -eight (28) dogs shall be permitted on the property at any given time. 3. This CUP is solely to enable the boarding of dogs on this property. 4. No employees other than those residing on the property shall be allowed_ 5. All dogs shall be controlled so as not to create a nuisance to any adjoining properties by roaming free or barking. 6. All dogs must be confined indoors by 9:00 p.m. and are not to be let outdoors prior to 8:00 a.m. 7. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements and Page 5 CUP 902 -14 Jessica M. Neff April 11, 2014 shall not exceed four (4) square feet in size and five (5) feet in height. 8. Any expansion or modification of this use will require the approval of a new CUP. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 4/02/14 MEETING The applicant said there will be no dog breeding, solely boarding; the dogs will be inside at all times, except when walked or exercised; and the kennel building will be a free - standing garage constructed with wider than normal walls to provide noise insulation and the walls and attic will be insulated for better heating and air conditioning. Two neighboring residents spoke in opposition to the proposed kennel. Both residents were concerned about the devaluation of their property; they were concerned about noise from barking dogs disrupting the quiet of their neighborhood; they were concerned about odors and how dog waste would be disposed; and they were concerned about water runoff. They did not believe their residential neighborhood was a practical location for the operation of this business. Commission members were concerned about noise from dog barking. They advised the applicant there were a number of different construction techniques for sound abatement in a building. Those construction techniques involved a benefit/cost ratio standpoint that needed to be considered by the applicant. They also pointed out that when dogs are outside, they will bark and there was no way to muzzle them. They encouraged the applicant to be mindful about the conditions of the permit and the possibility the permit could be revoked, if the operation becomes a public nuisance. Other Commissioners pointed out this location is a somewhat remote agricultural area buffered by cornfields and large stands of trees. They mentioned the adjoining State agricultural research center where there is spraying taking place, noise from tractors, and the various types of farm animals being raised in this area. The applicant stated that the kennel building will be constructed with wider walls to provide for better noise insulation. By a unanimous vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions as recommended by the staff, as follows: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. No more than twenty -eight (28) dogs shall be permitted on the property at any given time. 3. This conditional use permit (CUP) is solely to enable the boarding of dogs on this property. Page 6 CUP 902 -14 Jessica M. Neff April 11, 2014 4. No employees other than those residing on the property shall be allowed. 5. All dogs shall be controlled so as not to create a nuisance to any adjoining properties by roaming free or barking. 6. All dogs must be confined indoors by 9:00 p.m. and not let outdoors prior to 8:00 a.m. 7. Any proposed business sign shall conform to cottage occupation sign requirements and shall not exceed four square -feet in size and five feet in height. 8. Any expansion or modification of this use will require approval of a new conditional use permit. (Note: Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting.) Two citizens spoke in opposition to this use at the April 2, 2014, Planning Commission Meeting. One of the concerns was the devaluation of properties located near kennels. Staff contacted the Commissioner of Revenue Office with the concern of devaluation of properties located near kennels. The Commissioners Office had no issues of devaluation of properties near kennels or with approved Conditional Use Permits in general. The noise and control of the dogs is addressed by Condition 95 of the Conditional Use Permit. Furthermore, the kennel building will be a free- standing garage constructed with wider than normal walls to provide noise insulation and the walls and attic will be insulated for better heating and air conditioning. The applicant has contacted a company for the disposal of dog waste. Correspondence submitted during Public Hearing from Sheila Pinner April 2, 2014 Thank you for the opportunity to address the Planning Commission- My name is Sheila Pinner and I am here tonight with my husband Jack Pinner. We are residents of Laurel Grove Rd. We are very close (across the street and within sight) of the proposed indoor boarding kennel. We are also here tonight to express our concerns and opposition to the proposed kennel. Since receiving Ms. Neff s letter of March 10, 2014 regarding her proposed indoor boarding kennel, I have been researching the effects the proposed kennel would have on us as property owners. I have been focused on a debate going on in neighboring Clarke County involving the proposed approval of a dog kennel. In an article written in the Winchester Star, former supervisor and realtor A. R. Dunning "Pete" Dunning read a letter from the county Commissioner of Revenue, Donna M. Peake, who said homeowners there would lose 15 to 20 percent of the value of their homes if the kennel is built next to their properties. I do understand that this involves a different property. I immediately began contacting local realtors and county offices for information. I would note in addition there are thousands of sites on the internet from every state which address devaluing of property by having a kennel near your property. I was speechless when I read over and over again that a kennel could have a negative effect of anywhere from 15 to 50 percent on property values. The realtors I surveyed did support the point of view that my property would be devalued. No one can guarantee that my property value will not be affected. Two questions which I would like to have an answer to: Will the property owner's conditional permit transfer if the property is sold? I have been told VA (Frederick County) would require a new permit. Is this correct? Could a new property owner expand the business on a renewal of the same permit? I understand from realtors I asked that VA (Frederick and surrounding counties) does not have a nuisance disclosure requirement if you sell your property. Is this correct? My understanding is that VA has a disclosure form which states on it that you do not have to disclose a neighboring nuisance if you sell your home. But, word of mouth would travel. Realtors know what is located in a community. Most buyers would speak to neighbors to find out about the area. One realtor made the comment "who could sell a home next door to a kennel? Common sense tells me most folks would look elsewhere ". My other concerns are obvious: Noise (you can easily hear more than one dog as far as Yz mile — what about 28 dogs? Traffic — Rt. 629 has been close to completely paved in the last few years — this has added more traffic traveling all hours of the day and night (neighbors have had mail and paper boxes constantly destroyed due to traffic increase). This will only increase with an operating business on the road. What hours would the kennel have for drop off and pick up? It is proposed as a 24 hour operation. 28 dogs and 28 owners in 28 vehicles that could travel on our residentially zoned road in one morning and a new group of 28 owners in 28 vehicles with 28 dogs dropped off that afternoon would be 56 additional vehicles on the road in a day, extreme but possible. What arrangements have been made for parking? Would this face the front of the property? What about the odor of taking care of this number of animals? Are there proposals for adequate disposal of waste? Will there be a septic system? Will there be runoff? What are the county requirements if any? Will the entire facility be fenced or just the walking and exercise areas? What is required? Has there been a noise impact study? I have read much on the proper authorities coming out to investigate a barking dog and measuring the noise levels? What recourse is open to property owners once the permit is issued? Is this just the first phase of a proposed kennel? What are the restrictions as far as expansion? Are their required site visits from county or state? Who regulates the conditions of the permit? What kind of precedent would this set for other proposed money making businesses in a rural, residential area? Fourteen (14) kennels for 28 dogs. Is this just the start? My husband and I feel that this is not a local need. There are other kennels in the area offering the same service. No amount of convenience is worth the detrimental effect to surrounding homes. Ms. Neff states in her letter that this is a dream of hers to work with and help animals. My husband and I have had a dream since we built on family property over 42 years ago. Most of our neighbors have been on Laurel Grove as long as we have or longer. We dreamed of having a wonderful retirement and being able to enjoy the serenity and the beauty of nature surrounding our home. I do not believe looking out from any front facing window in my home to a dog boarding kennel would add to this serene environment. Sheila Pinner 408 Laurel Grove Rd. Winchester, VA 22602 (540) 869 -4476 M x i f F C t 73A3 9 r- ' e r k Mao a Mao .x ME 1 �C O Applications Q Parcels Building Footprints 131 (Business, Neighborhood District) B2 (Business, General Distrist) B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) f EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) HE (Higher Education District) M1 (Industrial, Light District) M2 (Industrial, General District) MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) MS (Medical Support District) OM (Office - Manufacturing Park) - R4 (Residential Planned Community District) R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) RA (Rural Area District) RP (Residential Performance District) �OQ i V ryR1 <N Note: Frederick County Dept of CUP # 02-14 Planning & Development Jessica Neff Suite e 202 N Kent St S e uit PINS: Winchester, VA 22601 73 -9 -3 540- 665 -5651 Map Created: March 11, 2014 Staff: macheran 0 105 210 420 Feet Od maa �URFl1GR0 � , VF� t on on= „ 62s j _ p CUP0214' f t 30a MOB r� r ' MOB c` aflfl MOO - fA�fl 1 96 4Z MOB APPLE COUNTRY ESTATES Subdivision fAQflfl� fA(Jfl MOB POPLAR RIDGE Subdivision ' : E O Applications Q Parcels Building Footprints 131 (Business, Neighborhood District) B2 (Business, General Distrist) B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) f EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) HE (Higher Education District) M1 (Industrial, Light District) M2 (Industrial, General District) MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) 4W MS (Medical Support District) OM (Office - Manufacturing Park) - R4 (Residential Planned Community District) R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) RA (Rural Area District) RP (Residential Performance District) i r Note: Frederick County Dept of CUP # 02 - 14 Planning & Development Suite 202 N Kent St Jessica Neff e Suit PINS: Winchester, VA 22601 73 -9 -3 540- 665 -5651 Map Created: March 11, 2014 Staff: macheran 0 315 630 1,260 Feet LE a W LE MAR 7 2014 FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVEI OPRAmhrr Submittal Deadline 1 I'i P/C Meeting N BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (check one): Property Owner _� Other NAME: UCSSI C0 K New ADDRESS: I fiti' d CaLye �(J fl no.en-'i - er 01 j v TELEPHONE: 4D 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: J es s - l cn Imn l The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) Ri cLc- C - k, 4. The property has a road frontage of d LQ feet and a depth of �UT n)0t feet and consists of - 1 , Uk4c� acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by , � �Ssys Cc, � as evidenced by deed from hb kell * 4yocref \1I I i t ,- (previous owner) recorded in deed book no. on page l' , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. Property Identification Number (P.I.N.) 3 - cl - Magisterial District P—�("� \`1t Current Zoning 0(11 A 7. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North Z 4 4 East South West � �i 'RA The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing): 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property. where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of tbi- annticatinn: 444 Laurel Grove Road Mailing Address Name and Property Identification Number Winchester, VA 22602 678 Laurel Grove Road Dogwood Knoll LC Winchester, VA 22602 73 -A -9 11 Name Tl . 1 5� qs Wvic 0(cye- RCS . Property # 7 "�/� �3 V v + lrlch S}"�3 " COX KSS LC 73 -A -12 Name Prope # Nam Prope # Na me Prop erty # Name Property # 448 Laurel Grove Road Winchester, VA 22602 eeta & Ray (1jp Y $ lay 3 —4— S q Q(� ZY� i f, rov e Mailing Address P.O. Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 Uy �6 �` s n 12. Additional comments if an I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address Owners' Telephone No. �` ( '�U62 TO BE COMPLETED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: A 1 { � r N 4;� 4hT PROPOSED BUILDING AREA Fenced Yard a y USE PC r r + CONI)I PUB RIN ' Y• � '.^' - ICK CUUNTl' pµL�SCl[il� LYI'.1'I�'H'{ MF.Y7 - + � • � • ^r �y �` _ .. •, ' .' ;r 4•• y ar 2 + 5'T0 -66S' -5651 �1e. +, _ 4 ! RESOLUTION Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: April 2, 2014 - Recommended Approval BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: April 23, 2014 ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED RESOLUTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #02 -14 JESSICA M. NEFF WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit #02 -14 of Jessica M. Neff, submitted by Jessica M. Neff, for a Kennel — Dog Boarding was considered. The property is located at 461 Laurel Grove Road. The property is further identified with Property Identification Number 73 -9 -3 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. The conditional use is permissible as a kennel; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the conditional use permit on April 2, 2014, and recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this Conditional Use Permit during their regular meeting on April 23, 2014; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this conditional use permit 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 zoning map to reflect that Conditional Use Permit Application 902 -14 — Jessica M. Neff for a Kennel — Dog Boarding is permitted on the parcel identified by Property Identification Number (PIN) 73 -9 -3 with the following conditions: PDRes #08 -14 1 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. No more than twenty -eight (28) dogs shall be permitted on the property at any given time. 3. This Conditional Use Permit is solely to enable the boarding of dogs on this property. 4. No employees other than those residing on the property shall be allowed. 5. All dogs shall be controlled so as not to create a nuisance to any adjoining properties by roaming free or barking. 6. All dogs must be confined indoors by 9:00 p.m. and not let outdoors prior to 8:00 a.m. 7. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements and shall not exceed four (4) square feet in size and five (5) feet in height. 8. Any expansion or modification of this use will require the approval of a new Conditional Use Permit. Passed this 23rd day of April, 2014 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Gary A. Lofton Robert Hess Gene E. Fisher Robert W. Wells Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Christopher E. Collins A COPY ATTEST John R. Riley Frederick County Administrator PDRes #08 -14 2 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665 -5651 Fax: 540/ 665 -6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors FROM: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing— Floodplain Districts DATE: April 15, 2014 Staff has prepared revisions to Part 702 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Floodplain Districts. This is the portion of the zoning ordinance that lays out the various floodplain districts and the uses and disturbance permitted within the various districts. The current floodplain ordinance was revised in 2009 as directed by the Department of Conservation and Recreation's (DCR). DCR has since modified the floodplain ordinance and therefore revisions are necessary to Frederick County's floodplain overlay district to meet the minimum regulatory standards required in a fully compliant floodplain ordinance. As a participating community in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), Frederick County is responsible for making sure that its floodplain management regulations meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the NFIP and the Commonwealth of Virginia. If Frederick County's floodplain ordinance does not meet the minimum requirements, the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) cannot offer flood insurance. In Virginia, the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) is the manager of the floodplain program and designated coordinating agency of the National Flood Insurance Program. DCR has reviewed the current floodplain ordinance and identified a number of areas that need to be updated. The primary revisions to the Floodplain Districts are as follows: • New text regarding designation and duties of the Floodplain Administrator • New Sections for Jurisdictional Boundary Changes and Submitting Technical Data • Relocation and revisions to the "Description of Special Flood Hazard Districts" sections • Revised "Factors to be considered in granting variances" • Revised "Elevation and Construction Standards" • New and revised definitions 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Re: Floodplain Districts Page 2 April 15, 2014 This item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their meeting on January 23, 2014. The DRRC endorsed the changes and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. The Planning Commission discussed this item on March 5, 2014; the Commission had no change and sent the item forward to the Board of Supervisors for Discussion. The Board of Supervisors discussed this item at their March 12, 2014 meeting; the Board had no changes and forwarded the item to the Planning Commission for public hearing. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed floodplain district revisions at their meeting on April 2, 2014. One citizen spoke with a concern that the revised provisions had been copied almost verbatim from the model ordinance provided by the State. A member of the Commission responded that it was decided to simply make the minimum amount of revisions and not to add to or embellish the floodplain ordinance. The staff replied the State model is a very large document and applies to a variety of localities in Virginia with different issues. Staff noted that modifications were made to reflect Frederick County's individual jurisdiction's name and circumstances. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the revisions to Part 702 of the Floodplain Districts as presented. (Note: Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting.) The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes (with additions shown in bold underlined italics and deletions in strikethrough). This proposed amendment is being presented to the Board of Supervisors as a public hearing item. A decision by the Board of Supervisors on this proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is sought. Please contact me if you have any questions. Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics and deletions are shown with a strikethrough. 2. Correspondence from DCR 3. Resolution CEP /pd DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT ARTICLE VII OVERLAY DISTRICTS Part 702 - FP Floodplain Districts §165-702.01. - Statutory Authorization and Purpose. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the authority granted to localities by Va. Code §15.2 -2280. The purpose of these provisions are to prevent the loss of life and property, the creation of health and safety hazards, the disruption of commerce and governmental services, the extraordinary and unnecessary expenditure of public funds for flood protection and relief, and the impairment of the tax base by: A. Regulating uses, activities, and development which, alone or in combination with other existing or future uses, activities, and development, will cause unacceptable increases in flood heights, velocities, and frequencies; B. Restricting or prohibiting certain uses, activities, and development from locating within districts subject to flooding; C. Requiring all those uses, activities, and developments that do occur in flood -prone districts to be protected and /or flood - proofed against flooding and flood damage; and, D. Protecting individuals from buying land and structures which are unsuited for intended purposes because of flood hazards. § 165 - 702.02. Applicability. These provisions shall apply to all 'and-5 vkhir t h e ; i o f P 1p i e . ,- eHRty an d idemtifie d as b ;^ t h e 19Q yea. fl b t h e P e d e.ra l � ^�„�� ^�^ " � ; ^;� +�� +,^R. Privately and publicly owned lands within the jurisdiction of Frederick County and identified as areas of special flood hazard according to the flood insurance rate map (FIRM) that is provided to Frederick County by FEMA. § 165 - 702.03. Compliance and Liability. A. No land shall hereafter be developed and no structure shall be located, relocated, constructed, reconstructed, enlarged, or structurally altered except in full compliance with the terms and provisions of this chapter and any other applicable regulations which apply to uses within the jurisdiction of this chapter. B. The degree of flood protection sought by the provisions of this chapter is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on acceptable engineering methods of study. Larger floods may occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by man -made or natural causes, such as ice jams and bridge openings restricted by debris. This chapter does not imply that districts outside the floodplain district, or that land uses permitted within such district, will be 1 DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT free from flooding or flood damages. C. Records of actions associated with administering this chapter shall be kept on file and maintained by the Frederick County Zoning Administrator. D. This chapter shall not create liability on the part of Frederick County or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this chapter or any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder. § 165 - 702.04. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions. This chapter supersedes any ordinance currently in effect in flood -prone districts. However, any underlying ordinance shall remain in full force and effect to the extent that its provisions are more restrictive than this chapter. § 165 - 702.05. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this chapter shall be declared invalid for any reason whatever, such decision shall not affect the remaining portions of this chapter. The remaining portions shall remain in full force and effect; and for this purpose, the provisions of this chapter are hereby declared to be severable. § 165 - 702.06. Administration. A. Designation of the Floodplain Administrator. The Zoning Administrator is hereby appointed to administer and implement these regulations and is referred to herein as the Floodplain Administrator. The Floodplain Administrator may: (1) Do the work themselves. In the absence of a designated Floodplain Administrator, the duties are conducted by the Frederick Countv Plannina Director. (2) Delegate duties and responsibilities set forth in these regulations to qualified technical personnel, plan examiners, inspectors, and other employees. 3) Enter into a written aareement or written contract with another localitv or private sector entity to administer specific provisions of these regulations. Administration of any part of these regulations by another entity shall not relieve the County of its responsibilities pursuant to the participation requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program as set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations at 44 C.F.R. Section 59.22. B. Duties and Responsibilities of the Floodplain Administrator. The duties and responsibilities of the Floodplain Administrator shall include but are not limited to: (1) Review applications for permits to determine whether proposed activities will be located in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). I DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT (2) Interpret floodplain boundaries and provide available base flood elevation and flood hazard information. (3) Review applications to determine whether proposed activities will be reasonably safe from flooding and require new construction and substantial improvements to meet the requirements of these regulations. (4) Review applications to determine whether all necessary permits have been obtained from the Federal, State or local agencies from which prior or concurrent approval is required, in particular, permits from state agencies for any construction, reconstruction, repair, or alteration of a dam, reservoir, or waterway obstruction (including bridges, culverts, structures), any alteration of a watercourse, or any change of the course, current, or cross section of a stream or body of water, including any change to the 100 -year frequency floodplain of free - flowing non -tidal waters of the State. (5) Verify that applicants proposing an alteration of a watercourse have notified adjacent communities, the Department of Conservation and Recreation (Division of Dam Safety and Floodplain Management), and other appropriate agencies (VADEQ, US Army Corps of Engineers) and have submitted copies of such notifications to FEMA. (6) Advise applicants for new construction or substantial improvement of structures that are located within an area of the Coastal Barrier Resources System established by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act that Federal flood insurance is not available on such structures; areas subject to this limitation are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps as Coastal Barrier Resource System Areas (CBRS) or Otherwise Protected Areas (OPA). (7) Approve applications and issue permits to develop in flood hazard areas if the provisions of these regulations have been met, or disapprove applications if the provisions of these regulations have not been met. (8) Inspect or cause to be inspected, buildings, structures, and other development for which permits have been issued to determine compliance with these regulations or to determine if non - compliance has occurred or violations have been committed. (9) Review Elevation Certificates and require incomplete or deficient certificates to be corrected. (10) Submit to FEMA, or require applicants to submit to FEMA, data and information necessary to maintain FIRMS, including hydrologic and hydraulic engineering analyses prepared by or for Frederick County, within six months after such data and information becomes available if the analyses indicate changes in base flood elevations. (11) Maintain and permanently keep records that are necessary for the administration of these regulations, including: (a) Flood Insurance Studies, Flood Insurance Rate Maps (including historic studies and maps and current effective studies and maps) and Letters of Map Change; and DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT (b) Documentation supporting issuance and denial of permits, Elevation Certificates, documentation of the elevation (in relation to the datum on the FIRM) to which structures have been floodproofed, other required design certifications, variances, and records of enforcement actions taken to correct violations of these regulations. (12) Enforce the provisions of these regulations, investigate violations, issue notices of violations or stop work orders, and require permit holders to take corrective action. (13) Advise the Board of Zoning Appeals regarding the intent of these regulations and, for each application for a variance, prepare a staff report and recommendation. (14) Administer the requirements related to proposed work on existing buildings: (a) Make determinations as to whether buildings and structures that are located in special flood hazard areas and that are damaged by any cause have been substantially damaged. (b) Make reasonable efforts to notify owners of substantially damaged structures of the need to obtain a permit to repair, rehabilitate, or reconstruct, and prohibit the non- compliant repair of substantially damaged buildings except for temporary emergency protective measures necessary to secure a property or stabilize a building or structure to prevent additional damage. (15) Undertake, as determined appropriate by the Floodplain Administrator due to the circumstances, other actions which may include but are not limited to: issuing press releases, public service announcements, and other public information materials related to permit requests and repair of damaged structures; coordinating with other Federal, State, and local agencies to assist with substantial damage determinations; providing owners of damaged structures information related to the proper repair of damaged structures in special flood hazard areas; and assisting property owners with documentation necessary to file claims for Increased Cost of Compliance coverage under NFIP flood insurance policies. (16) Notify the Federal Emergency Management Agency when the boundaries of Frederick County have been modified and: (a) Provide a map that clearly delineates the new corporate boundaries or the new area for which the authority to regulate pursuant to these regulations has either been assumed or relinquished through annexation; and (b) If the FIRM for any annexed area includes special flood hazard areas that have flood zones that have regulatory requirements that are not set forth in these regulations, prepare amendments to these regulations to adopt the FIRM and appropriate requirements, and submit the amendments to the governing body for adoption; such adoption shall take place at the same time as or prior to the date of annexation and a copy of the amended regulations shall be provided to Department of Conservation and Recreation (Division of Dam Safety and Floodplain Management) and FEMA. (17) Upon the request of FEMA, complete and submit a report concerning participation in the NFIP which may request information regarding the number of buildings in the SFHA, DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT number of permits issued for development in the SFHA, and number of variances issued for development in the SFHA. (18) It is the duty of the Floodplain Administrator to take into account flood, mudslide and flood - related erosion hazards, to the extent that they are known, in all official actions relating to land management and use throughout the entire jurisdictional area of the County, whether or not those hazards have been specifically delineated geographically (e.g. via mapping or surveying). C. Use and Interpretation of FIRMS. The Floodplain Administrator shall make interpretations, where needed, as to the exact location of special flood hazard areas, floodplain boundaries, and floodway boundaries. The following shall apply to the use and interpretation of FIRMS and data: (1) Where field surveyed topography indicates that adjacent ground elevations: (a) Are below the base flood elevation, even in areas not delineated as a special flood hazard area on the FIRM, the area shall be considered as special flood hazard area and subject to the requirements of these regulations; (b) Are above the base flood elevation, the area shall be regulated as special flood hazard area, if so indicated on the FIRM, unless the applicant obtains a Letter of Map Change that removes the area from the SFHA. (2) In FEMA- identified special flood hazard areas where base flood elevation and floodway data have not been identified and in areas where FEMA has not identified SFHAs, any other flood hazard data available from a Federal, State, or other source shall be reviewed and reasonably used. (3) Base flood elevations and designated floodway boundaries on FIRMS and in Flood Insurance Studies shall take precedence over base flood elevations and floodway boundaries by any other sources if such sources show reduced floodway widths and /or lower base flood elevations. (4) Other sources of data shall be reasonably used if such sources show increased base flood elevations and /or larger floodway areas than are shown on FIRMS and in Flood Insurance Studies. (5) If a Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map and /or a Preliminary Flood Insurance Study has been provided by FEMA: (a) Upon the issuance of a Letter of Final Determination by FEMA, the preliminary flood hazard data shall be used and shall replace the flood hazard data previously provided from FEMA for the purposes of administering these regulations. (b) Prior to the issuance of a Letter of Final Determination by FEMA, the use of Preliminary flood hazard data shall be deemed the best available data pursuant to § 165 - 702.06 and used where no base flood elevations and /or floodway areas are provided on the effective FIRM. DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT (3) Prior to issuance of a Letter of Final Determination by FEMA, the use of preliminary flood hazard data is permitted where the preliminary base flood elevations or floodway areas exceed the base flood elevations and /or designated floodway widths in existing flood hazard data provided by FEMA. Such preliminary data may be subject to change and /or appeal to FEMA. § 165- 702.07. Jurisdictional Boundary Changes. In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44, Part 59, Subpart B, Section 59.22 (a) (9) (v), all NFIP participating communities must notify the Federal Insurance Administration Emergency Management Agency and optionally the State Coordinating Office Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation - Division of Dam Safety and Floodplain Management in writing whenever the boundaries of the County have been modified by annexation or the County has otherwise assumed or no longer has authority to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations for a particular area. In order that all Flood Insurance Rate Maps accurately represent the County's boundaries, a copy of a map of the County suitable for reproduction, clearly delineating the new corporate limits or new area for which the County has assumed or relinquished floodplain management regulatory authority must be included with the notification. § 165 - 702.08. Submitting Technical Data. The County's base flood elevations may increase or decrease resulting from physical changes affecting flooding conditions. As soon as practicable, but not later than six months after the date such information becomes available, the County shall notify the Federal Emergency Management Agency of the changes by submitting technical or scientific data. Such a submission is necessary so that upon confirmation of those physical changes affecting flooding conditions, risk premium rates and flood plain management requirements will be based upon current data. § 165 - 702,9609. Description of Special Flood Hazard Districts. A. Basis of districts. The various flood hazard fleedplaiR districts shall include @Feas su e +^ b • teFs o f the ^ ^ ti„^d • . fl the Special Flood Hazard Areas. The basis for the delineation of these districts shall be the Flood insurance Study an d the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for Frederick County prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, '^S ee "dF:niRistFatieR dated September 2, 2009, as amended. The boundaries of the Special Flood Hazard Areas are established as shown on the FIRM which is declared to be a part of this article and which shall be kept on file at the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. (1) The Floodway District is in an AE Zone delineated for purposes of this article using the criteria that certain areas within the floodplain must be capable of carrying the waters of the one percent annual chance flood —A ed (199) yeaTfle d without increasing the water surface elevation of that flood more than one (1) foot at any point. The areas included in this District are specifically defined in Table 2 of the above- DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT referenced Flood Insurance Study and shown on the accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps. (i)The following provisions shall apply within the Floodway District of an AE zone: a. Within any floodway area, no encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, or other development shall be permitted unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analysis performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels within the County during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses shall be undertaken only by professional engineers or others of demonstrated qualifications, who shall certify that the technical methods used correctly reflect currently- accepted technical concepts. Studies, analyses, computations, etc., shall be submitted in sufficient detail to allow a thorough review by the Floodplain Administrator. Development activities which increase the water surface elevation of the base flood may be allowed, provided that the applicant first applies — with Frederick County's endorsement — for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR), and receives the approval of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 165 - 702.09 is satisfied. all new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of 4 165- 702.13 through 165- 702.17. b. The placement of manufactured homes (mobile homes) is prohibited, except in an existing manufactured home (mobile home) park or subdivision. A replacement manufactured home may be placed on a lot in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision provided the anchoring, elevation, and encroachment standards are met. (2) The AE, or AH Zones on the FIRM accompanying the FIS shall be those areas for which DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT one - percent annual chance flood elevations have been provided and the floodway has not been delineated. The following provisions shall apply within an AE or AH zone: Until a regulatory floodway is designated, no new construction, substantial improvements, or other development (including fill) shall be permitted within the areas of special flood hazard, designated as Zones Al -30 and AE or AH on the FIRM, unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point within Frederick County. Development activities in Zones Al -30 and AE or AH, on the Frederick County FIRM which increase the water surface elevation of the base flood by more than one foot may be allowed, provided that the applicant first applies — with Frederick County's endorsement — for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision, and receives the approval of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. (3) The A Zone on the FIRM accompanying the FIS shall be those areas for which no detailed flood profiles or elevations are provided, but the one percent annual chance floodplain boundary has been approximated. For these areas, the following provisions shall apply: The Approximated Floodplain District shall be that floodplain area for which no detailed flood profiles or elevations are provided, but where a one hundred (100) - year floodplain boundary has been approximated. Such areas are shown as Zone A on the maps accompanying the FIS. For these areas, the base flood elevations and floodway information from federal, state, and other acceptable sources shall be used, when available. Where the specific one percent annual chance flood elevation cannot be determined for this area using other sources of data, such as the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Floodplain Information Reports, U. S. Geological Survey Flood -Prone Quadrangles, etc., then the applicant for the proposed use, development and /or activity shall determine this base flood elevation. For development proposed in the approximate floodplain the applicant must use technical methods that correctly reflect currently accepted non - detailed technical concepts, such as point on boundary, high water marks, or detailed methodologies hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. Studies, analyses, computations, etc., shall be submitted in sufficient detail to allow a thorough review by the Floodplain Administrator. The Floodplain Administrator reserves the right to require a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for any development. When such base flood elevation data is utilized, the lowest floor shall be elevated to or above the base flood level no lower than one (1) foot above the base flood elevation. During the permitting process, the Floodplain Administrator shall obtain: DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT 1) The elevation of the lowest floor (including the basement) of all new and substantially improved structures; and, 2) if the structure has been flood - proofed in accordance with the requirements of this article, the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which the structure has been flood - proofed. Base flood elevation data shall be obtained from other sources or developed using detailed methodologies comparable to those contained in a FIS for subdivision proposals and other proposed development proposals (including manufactured home parks and subdivisions) that exceed fifty lots or five acres, whichever is the lesser. (4) The AO Zone on the FIRM accompanying the FIS shall be those areas of shallow flooding identified as AO on the FIRM. For these areas, the following provisions shall apply: a. All new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to or above the flood depth specified on the FIRM, above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet on the FIRM. If no flood depth number is specified, the lowest floor, including basement, shall be elevated no less than two feet above the highest adjacent grade. b. All new construction and substantial improvements of non - residential structures shall: 1) Have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to or above the flood depth specified on the FIRM, above the highest adiacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet on the FIRM. If no flood depth number is specified, the lowest floor, including basement, shall be elevated at least two feet above the highest adjacent grade, or, 2) Together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be completely flood - proofed to the specified flood level so that any space below that level is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy. c. Adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes shall be provided to guide floodwaters around and away from proposed structures. Overlay concept. (1) The Floodplain Districts described above shall be overlays to the existing underlying districts as shown on the Official Zoning Ordinance Maps, and as such, the provisions for the floodplain districts shall serve as a supplement to the underlying district provisions. 0 DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT (2) Where there happens to be any conflict between the provisions or requirements of any of the Floodplain Districts and those of any underlying district, those pertaining to the floodplain districts shall apply. (3) In the event that any provision concerning a floodplain district is declared inapplicable as a result of any legislative or administrative actions or judicial discretion, the basic underlying district provisions shall remain applicable. § 165 - 702.$ 10. Flood Insurance Rate Map. The boundaries of the Special Flood Hazard Area and Floodplain Districts are established as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, which are by reference made a part of this chapter and which shall be kept on file at the Frederick County offices. § 165 - 702.89-11. District boundary changes. The delineation of any of the floodplain districts may be revised by Frederick County where natural or man -made changes have occurred and /or more detailed studies conducted or undertaken by the United States Army Corps of Engineers or other qualified agency or individual documenting the necessity for such change. However, prior to any such change, approval must be obtained from the Federal �,�w,;r;� +.- , +,,,.. Emergency Management Agency. § 165 - 702.89-12. Interpretation of District Boundaries. Initial interpretations of the boundaries of the Floodplain Districts shall be made by the Zoning Administrator. Should a dispute arise concerning the boundaries of any of the Districts, the Board of Zoning Appeals shall make the necessary determination. The person questioning or contesting the location of the District boundary shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case to the Board and to submit his own technical evidence if he so desires. § 165 - 702.13. Permit and Application Requirements. A. Permit Requirement. All development and /or construction activities occurring within any floodplain district shall be undertaken only upon the issuance of a permit. Such development and /or construction activities shall be undertaken only in strict compliance with the provisions of this chapter and with all other applicable codes and regulations, as amended, such as the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (VA USBC), the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. Prior to the issuance of any such permit, the Zoning Administrator shall require all applications to include compliance with all applicable state and federal laws. Under no circumstances shall any use, activity, development and /or construction activities adversely affect the capacity of the channels or floodways of any watercourse, drainage ditch, or any other drainage facility or system. 1. In circumstances where a permit is not required, all development and /or construction activities occurring within any floodplain district shall be undertaken only upon approval by the Zoning Administrator. 10 DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT - Ell I __ I - I �__ 111111 - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- -- - -- - - - -- - - ._ C. B. Site Plans and Permit Applications. All applications for development within any floodplain district and all building permits issued for the floodplain shall incorporate the following information: 1. The elevation of the Base Flood at the site. 2. The elevation of the lowest floor (including basement). 3. For structures to be flood - proofed (non - residential only), the elevation to which the structure will be flood - proofed. 4. The elevation of the one - hundred -year flood. 5. Topographic information showing existing and proposed ground elevations. § 165-702,14-14. General Standards fQF a Special Won-d- W ^'^"d AFeac 'R all speeia' f - 4 ha -zard areas The following provisions shall apply to all permits A. New construction and substantial improvements shall be according to the VA USBC, and anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure. B. Manufactured homes shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not limited to, use of over - the -top or frame ties to ground anchors. This standard shall be in addition to and consistent with applicable state requirements for resisting wind forces. C. New construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. D. New construction or substantial improvements shall be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage. E. Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, air conditioning equipment and other service facilities, including duct work, shall be designed and /or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. 11 DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT F. New and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the system. G. New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters. H. On -site waste disposal systems shall be located and constructed to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. In addition to provisions A — H above, in all special flood hazard areas, the additional provisions shall apply: 1. Any alteration, repair, reconstruction or improvements to a building that is not in compliance with the provisions of this chapter, shall be undertaken only if said non - conformity is not furthered, extended, or replaced subject to the substantial improvement provision in 165 - 702.19C. K. J. Prior to any proposed alteration or relocation of any channels or of any watercourse, stream, etc., within this jurisdiction, a permit shall be obtained from the U. S. Corps of Engineers, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission. Furthermore, notification of the proposal shall be given by the applicant to all affected adjacent jurisdictions, the Department of Conservation and Recreation (Division of Dam Safety and Floodplain Management) and the Federal A i - strat i eR Emergency Management Agency. L. The flood carrying capacity within an altered or relocated portion of any watercourse shall be maintained. § 165- 702.4Z-15. Elevation and Construction Standards. In all special flood hazard areas where base flood elevations have been provided in the Flood Insurance Study or generated by a certified professional according to §165 -702 06, the following provisions shall apply: A. Residential Construction New construction or substantial improvement of any residential structure (including manufactured homes) shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated no lower than one (1) foot above the base flood elevation. B. Non - Residential Construction 12 DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT New construction or substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial, or non - residential building (or manufactured home) shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to no lower than one (1) foot above the base flood elevation. Buildings located in all A, and AE zones may be flood - proofed in lieu of being elevated provided that all areas of the building components below the elevation corresponding to the BFE plus one foot are water tight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water, and use structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effect of buoyancy. A registered professional engineer or architect shall certify that the standards of this subsection are satisfied. C E.,eva *ed Q,.i' Space Below the Lowest Floor „! ateFy fr „+„e+;,,., „',,.,- , +;,,., ,; hi;''. In zones A, AE, AH, AO, and Al -A30, fully enclosed areas, of new construction or substantially improved structures, which are below the regulatory flood protection elevation shall: 1. Not be designed or used for human habitation, but shall only be used for parking of vehicles, building access, or limited storage of maintenance equipment used in connection with the premises. Access to the enclosed area shall be the minimum necessary to allow for parking of vehicles (garage door) or limited storage of maintenance equipment (standard exterior door), or entry to the living area (stairway or elevator). 2. Be constructed entirely of flood resistant materials below the regulatory flood protection elevation; 3. Include, IR ZeRes ", C), @Rd AE, measures to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. To meet this requirement, the openings must either be certified by a professional engineer or architect or meet the following minimum design criteria: a. Provide a minimum of two openings on different sides of each enclosed area subject to flooding. b. The total net area of all openings must be at least one (1) square inch for each square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding. c. If a building has more than one enclosed area, each area must have openings to allow floodwaters to automatically enter and exit. d. The bottom of all required openings shall be no higher than one (1) foot above the adjacent grade. e. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other opening coverings or devices, provided they permit the automatic flow of floodwaters in both directions. 13 DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT f. Foundation enclosures made of flexible skirting are not considered enclosures for regulatory purposes, and, therefore, do not require openings. Masonry or wood underpinning, regardless of structural status, is considered an enclosure and requires openings as outlined above. D. Standards for Manufactured Homes and Recreational Vehicles 1. All manufactured homes placed, or substantially improved, on individual lots or parcels, in expansions to existing manufactured home parks or subdivisions, in a new manufactured home park or subdivision or in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on which a manufactured home has incurred substantial damage as the result of a flood, must meet all the requirements for new construction, including the elevation and anchoring requirements in § 165- 702.14A through B, and § 165- 702.15A. 2. All manufactured homes placed or substantially improved in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision in which a manufactured home has not incurred substantial damage as the result of a flood shall elevated so that either a. The lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated no lower than one (1) foot above the base flood elevation; or b. The manufactured home chassis is supported by reinforced piers or other foundation elements of at least equivalent strength that are no less than 36 inches in height above grade c. And be securely anchored to the adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement. 3. All recreational vehicles placed on sites must either: a. be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days; b. be fully licensed and ready for highway use (a recreational vehicle is ready for highway use if it is on its wheels or jacking system, is attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices and has no permanently attached additions); or, c. Meet all the requirements for manufactured homes in § 165- 702.12D. 14 DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT AeeesseFy FesideRt such— cars�raaFd @@Feas, g@FdeRs, p easrRd per"v lea diR 15 DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT .. .. - - - -• - -- -• - -- - - - - - -• -- - - - - - -- - -- -- -- - - - - -- - -• - -- - - -- - - - - - -- -- - -- -- - - In. - - -- § 165 - 702.16 . Standards for Subdivision Proposals. A. All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage; All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage; C. All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood hazards. D. In A Zones. Base flood elevation data shall be obtained from other sources or developed usin detailed methodologies, hydraulic and hydrologic analysis, comparable to those contained in a Flood Insurance Study for subdivision proposals and other proposed development proposals (including manufactured home parks and subdivisions) that exceed fifty lots or five acres, whichever is the lesser. § 165 - 702.17. Design criteria for utilities and facilities. 16 DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT A. New sanitary sewer facilities and private package sewage treatment plants (including all pumping stations and collector systems) are prohibited in the Special Flood Hazard Areas and Floodplain Districts. Replacement sanitary sewer facilities and private package sewer treatment plants (including all pumping stations and collector systems) shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems and discharges from the systems into the floodwaters. In addition, they should be located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage and impairment. C. All new or replacement water facilities shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems and be located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damages. D. All storm drainage facilities shall be designed to convey the flow of surface waters without damage to persons or property. The systems shall ensure drainage away from building and on- site waste disposal sites. The Board of Supervisors may require a primarily underground system to accommodate frequent floods and a secondary surface system to accommodate larger, less frequent floods. Drainage plans shall be consistent with local and regional drainage plans. The facilities shall be designed to prevent the discharge of excess runoff onto adjacent properties. All utilities, such as gaslines, electrical and telephone systems, being placed in flood -prone areas should be elevated (where possible) and constructed to minimize the change of impairment during a flooding occurrence. § 165 - 702.18. Factors to be considered in granting variances. A. Variances shall be issued only upon (i) a showina of aood and sufficient cause. (ii) after the Board of Zoning Appeals has determined that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (iii) after the Board of Zoning Appeals has determined that the granting of such variance will not result in (a) unacceptable or prohibited increases in flood heights, (b) additional threats to public safety, (c) extraordinary public expense; and will not (d) create nuisances, (e) cause fraud or victimization of the public, or (f) conflict with local laws or ordinances. B. While the arantina of variances aenerallv is limited to a lot size less than one -half acre deviations from that limitation may occur. However, as the lot size increases beyond one -half acre, the technical justification required for issuing a variance increases. Variances may be issued by the Board of Zoning Appeals for new construction and substantial improvements to be erected on a lot of one -half acre or less in size contiauous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the base flood level, in conformance with the provisions of this section. C. Variances may be issued for new construction and substantial improvements and for other development necessary for the conduct of a functionally dependent use provided that the criteria of this section are met, and the structure or other development is protected by 17 DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT methods that minimize flood damages during the base flood and create no additional threats to public safety. D. In passing upon applications for variances, the Board of Zoning Appeals shall satisfy all relevant factors and procedures specified in other sections of this chapter and consider the following additional factors: (1) The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments. No variance shall be granted for any proposed use, development or activity within any Floodway District that will cause any increase in the one- hundred- year flood elevation. (2) The danger that materials may be swept on to other lands or downstream to the injury of others. (3) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination and unsanitary conditions. (4) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owners. (5) The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the County. (6) The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location. (7) The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use. (8) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development anticipated in the foreseeable future. (9) The relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan and floodplain management program for the area. (10) The safety of access by ordinary and emergency vehicles to the property in time of flood. (11) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the floodwaters expected at the site. (12) The repair or rehabilitation of historic structures upon a determination that the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the structure's continued designation as an historic structure and the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character and design of the structure. (13) Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of this article. E. The Board of Zoning Appeals may refer any application and accompanying documentation pertaining to any request for a variance to the County Engineer for technical assistance in evaluating the proposed project in relation to flood heights and velocities, and the adequacy of the plans for flood protection and other related matters. F. Variances shall be issued only after the Board of Zoning Appeals has determined that the granting of such will not result in unacceptable or prohibited increases in flood heights, additional threats to public safety or extraordinary public expense; and will not create nuisances, cause fraud or victimization of the public or conflict with local laws or ordinances. G. Variances shall be issued only after the Board of Zoning Appeals has determined that the variance will be the minimum required to provide relief. M . DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT H. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall notify the applicant for a variance, in writing, that the issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the one - hundred -year flood elevation increases the risks to life and property and will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance. A record shall be maintained of the above notification as well as all variance actions, including justification for the issuance of the variances. Any variances which are issued shall be noted in the annual or biennial report submitted to the Federal Insurance Administrator. § 165 - 702.19. Existing Structures in Floodplain Areas. A structure or use of a structure or premises which lawfully existed before the enactment of these provisions, but which is not in conformity with these provisions, may be continued subject to the following conditions: A. Existing structures in the Floodway Area shall not be expanded or enlarged unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practices that the proposed expansion would not result in any increase in the base flood elevation. B. Any modification, alteration, repair, reconstruction, or improvement of any kind to a structure and /or use located in any flood plain areas to an extent or amount of less than fifty (50) percent of its market value shall conform to the VA USBC. C. The modification, alteration, repair, reconstruction, or improvement of any kind to a structure and /or use, regardless of its location in a floodplain area to an extent or amount of fifty (50) percent or more of its market value shall be undertaken only in full compliance with this chapter and shall require the entire structure to conform to the VA USBC. § 165 - 702.20. Penalties for Violations. A. Any person who fails to comply with any of the requirements or provisions of this article or directions of the Zoning Administrator or any authorized employee of Frederick County shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to the penalties outlined in §165- 101.08 of this Chapter. The VA USBC addresses building code violations and the associated penalties in Section 104 and Section 115. B. In addition to the above penalties, all other actions are hereby reserved, including an action in equity for the proper enforcement of this article. The imposition of a fine or penalty for any violation of, or noncompliance with, this article shall not excuse the violation or noncompliance or permit it to continue; and all such persons shall be required to correct or remedy such violations or noncompliances within a reasonable time. Any structure constructed, reconstructed, enlarged, altered or relocated in noncompliance with this article may be declared by Frederick County to be a public nuisance and abated as such. Flood insurance may be withheld from structures constructed in violation of this article. 19 DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Part 101— General Provisions §165- 101.02. Definitions and word usage. BASE FLOOD - The flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) — Th F E,..,,,Fgeney Management n,., ney designated „ h- - - . R. Fed y eap pf .• oatpr ^'^,. -#9AR The water surface elevations of the base flood, that is, the flood level that has a one percent or greater chance of occurrence in any given year. The water surface elevation of the base flood in relation to the datum specified on the County's Flood Insurance Rate Map. For the purposes of this ordinance, the base flood is the 1% annual chance flood. BASEMENT - Any area of the building having its floor sub -grade (below ground level) on all sides BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS - A Board whose members are appointed by the Circuit Court for the express purpose of considering and acting on variances and zoning appeals. DEVELOPMENT - Any man -made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials. ELEVATED BUILDING - A non - basement building built to have the lowest floor elevated above the ground level by means of fill, solid foundation perimeter walls, pilings, or columns (posts and piers). ENCROACHMENT - With respect to a floodplain an encroachment shall be the advance or infringement of uses, plant growth, fill, excavation, buildings, permanent structures or development into a floodplain, which may impede or alter the flow capacity of a floodplain. EXISTING CONSTRUCTION - structures for which the "start of construction" commenced before the effective date of the FIRM or before January 1, 1975 for FIRMS effective before that date. "Existing construction" may also be referred to as "existing structures." EXISTING MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION - A manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed before the effective date of the floodplain management regulations adopted by the County. EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION - The preparation of additional sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufacturing homes are to be affixed (including the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads). 20 DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT FLOOD OR FLOODING 1. A general or temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from: a. the overflow of inland or tidal waters; or, b. the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source. c. mudflows which are proximately caused by flooding as defined in paragraph (10) of this definition and are akin to a river of liquid and flowing mud on the surfaces of normally dry land areas, as when earth is carried by a current of water and deposited along the path of the current. 2. The collapse or subsistence of land along the shore of a lake or other body of water as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels or suddenly caused by an unusually high water level in a natural body of water, accompanied by a severe storm, or by an unanticipated force of nature such as flash flood or an abnormal tidal surge, or by some similarly unusual and unforeseeable event which results in flooding as defined in paragraph 1 (a) of this definition. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM) —An official map of the County on which the Flood plain Administrator has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the County. FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY (FIS) — An examination, evaluation and determination of flood hazards and, if appropriate, corresponding water surface elevations, or an examination, evaluation and determination of mudflow and /or flood - related erosion hazards. FLOODPLAIN OR FLOOD -PRONE AREA - Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source. FLOODPROOFING — Any combination of structural and non - structural additions, changes, or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their contents. FLOODWAY - The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. FREEBOARD - A factor of safety usually expressed in feet above a flood level for purposes of floodplain management. "Freeboard" tends to compensate for the many unknown factors that could contribute to flood heights greater than the height calculated for a selected size flood and floodway conditions, such as wave action, bridge openings, and the hydrological effect of urbanization in the watershed. HIGHEST ADJACENT GRADE — The highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction next to the proposed walls of a structure. 21 DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT HISTORIC STRUCTURE - Any structure that is: 1. listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register; 2. certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district; 3. individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic preservation programs which have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior; or, 4. individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with historic preservation programs that have been certified either: a. by an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior; or, b. directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states without approved programs. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Engineering Analysis — Analyses performed by a licensed professional engineer, in accordance with standard engineering practices that are accepted by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and FEMA, used to determine the base flood, other frequency floods, flood elevations, floodwoy information and boundaries, and flood profiles. LETTERS OF MAP CHANGE (LOMC) - A Letter of Map Change is an official FEMA determination, by letter, that amends or revises an effective Flood Insurance Rate Map or Flood Insurance Study. Letters of Map Change include- • LETTER OF MAP AMENDMENT (LOMA): An amendment based on technical data showing that a property was incorrectly included in a designated special flood hazard area. A LOMA amends the current effective Flood Insurance Rate Map and establishes that a Land as defined by meets and bounds or structure is not located in a special flood hazard area. LETTER OF MAP REVISION (LOMR): A revision based on technical data that may show changes to flood zones, flood elevations, floodplain and floodway delineations, and planimetric features. A Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR -F), is a determination that a structure or parcel of land has been elevated by fill above the base flood elevation and is, therefore, no longer exposed to flooding associated with the base flood. In order to qualify for this determination, the fill must have been permitted and placed in accordance with the County's floodplain management regulations. • CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION (CLOMR): A formal review and comment as to whether a proposed flood protection project or other project complies with the minimum NFIP requirements for such projects with respect to delineation of special flood hazard areas. A CLOMR does not revise the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map or Flood Insurance Study. 22 DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT LOWEST FLOOR - The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood - resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a basement area is not considered a building's lowest floor; provided, that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non - elevation design requirements of Federal Code 44CFR §60.3. MOBILE OR MANUFACTURED HOME — A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which in travel mode is eight body feet or more in width or 40 body feet or more in length, or when erected on site, is 320 or more square feet and which is built in a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities. MOBILE OR MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION - A parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land or a subdivision divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale. NEW CONSTRUCTION - For the purposes of determining insurance rates, structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of an initial Flood Insurance Rate Map on or after December 31, 1974, whichever is later, and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. For floodplain management purposes, new construction means structures for which start of construction commenced on or after the effective date of a floodplain management regulation adopted by the County and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. NEW MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION - A manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed on or after the effective date of floodplain management regulations adopted by the County. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE - A vehicle which is: A. Built on a single chassis; B. Four hundred square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection; C. Designed to be self - propelled or permanently towable by a light -duty truck; and D. Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational camping, travel or seasonal use. Repetitive Loss Structure — A building covered by a contract for flood insurance that has incurred flood - related damages on two occasions during a 10 -year period ending on the date of the event for which a second claim is made, in which the cost of repairing the flood damage, on the average, equaled or exceeded 25 percent of the market value of the building at the time of each flood event. Shallow flooding area — A special flood hazard area with base flood depths from one to three feet where a clearly defined channel does not exist, where the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate, and where velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow. SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA - The land in the floodplain subject to a one (1%) percent or greater chance of being flooded in any given year as determined in § 165- 702.10. 23 DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT START OF CONSTRUCTION - The date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, placement, substantial improvement or other improvement was within 180 days of the permit date. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement, the actual start of the construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building. STRUCTURE — For floodplain management purposes, a walled and roofed building, including a gas or liquid storage tank, that is principally above ground, as well as a manufactured home. Structure, for insurance rating purposes, means a walled and roofed building, other than a gas or liquid storage tank, that is principally above ground and affixed to a permanent site, as well as a manufactured home on a permanent foundation. For the latter purpose, the term includes a building while in the course of construction, alteration or repair, but does not include building materials or supplies intended for use in such construction, alteration or repair, unless such materials or supplies are within an enclosed building on the premises. SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE - Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before - damaged condition would equal or exceed 50% of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT - Any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure before the start of construction of the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred substantial damage regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either @Ry pFejeet f ;.,. pFev el# of a S+.,,,. +,,.^ *A- CEA-Free# e)(IstiRg yeelatie.pss ef state A-F le-r--ial health, saRitaFy eF safety e9de speeifleatieRs 400hir--h have h-eeR 1. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or 2. Any alteration of a historic structure, provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure's continued designation as a historic structure. 3. Historic structures undergoing repair or rehabilitation that would constitute a substantial improvement as defined above, must comply with all ordinance requirements that do not preclude the structure's continued designation as a historic structure. Documentation that a specific ordinance requirement will cause removal of the structure from the National Register of Historic Places or the State Inventory of Historic places must be obtained from the Secretary of the Interior or the State Historic Preservation Officer. Any exemption from ordinance requirements will be the minimum 24 DRAFT CHANGES TO THE FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT necessary to preserve the historic character and design of the structure. VIOLATION - For floodplain management purposes, violation includes the failure of a structure or other development to be fully compliant with the County's flood plain management regulations. A structure or other development without the elevation certificate, other certifications, or other evidence of compliance required in this ordinance is presumed to be in violation until such time as that documentation is provided. WATERCOURSE - A lake, river, creek, stream, wash, channel or other topographic feature on or over which waters flow at least periodically. Watercourse includes specifically designated areas in which substantial flood damage may occur. 25 Douglas W. 1Domeneeh ' r Uaw id ,1 haluas +n SecretaD of Natural Resources Director WNW DEPAR MENT OF CONS'ERy':1T ON AND RECREATION 600 East Mahn Street Richmond. Virginia 23219 18411) 786 -1712 September 4, 2013 Mark Cheran Frederick County Zoning Administrator Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Cheran: Thank you for taking the time to meet with staff from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) on July 22, 2013. The meeting was held for the purpose of conducting a National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Assistance Visit (CAV) to help the County identify the steps necessary for maintaining compliance with NFIP requirements. Compliance is essential for remaining in good standing in the NFIP. DCR reviewed the Frederick County floodplain regulations (Chapter 165. Zoning, Article VII, Overlay Districts, Part 702, FP Floodplain Districts) as well as information provided by the County during the CAV meeting. Based on the FEMA- approved Floodplain Ordinance Checklist (FPO Checklist) we find that the County's current floodplain ordinance is generally consistent with the Virginia Model Floodplain Management Ordinance (Model Ordinance) with a few exceptions. For your convenience, I have enclosed the completed FPO checklist. A copy of the Model Ordinance was provided to you at the CAV meeting. DCR recommends that the County review and address the following: Reference to the Flood Insurance Administrator (FIA) throughout Part 702 (165- 702.02, 165- 702.06, 165 - 702,08, 165- 702.10.B, 165 - 702.11.x) should be replaced with reference to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA.) Include a statement about Statutory Authority, or if such statement is present elsewhere in the zoning code, consider providing a cross reference to it. See Section 1.1 of the Model Ordinance. Consider formally designating a Floodplain Administrator (FPA) and specifying the FPA's responsibilities. If the Zoning Administrator is effectively fulfilling the role of FPA, consider stating so. See Section 2.1 of the Model Ordinance. State Parks • Stornrwater lklanagenrent • Outdoor Recreation Planning Natural lleritrage ► Dram Safetl' and Floodplain ? hmagemew • Land Conservation Ltr. to M. Cheran September 4, 2013 Page 2 + Include language about the FPA's responsibilities, including permit review to assure that sites are reasonably safe from flooding. See Section 2.2(C) of the Model Ordinance. • Under 44CFR65.3, the NFIP community is required to submit to FEMA new technical data resulting from physical changes that may affect flooding conditions within six months of the data availability. Please add this provision.. See Section 2.7 of the Model Ordinance. ■ 155- 702.06.A (1) refers to the "above- referenced" Flood Insurance Study (FIS), but the FIS is not mentioned prier to this reference. Only the FIRM is mentioned. Please include a mention of the FIS, including effective date, as amended. Please revise the regulations to address the above comments and provide a final draft of the revisions within 90 days of this letter to DCR. After the revised ordinance is adopted, please send a copy of the signed and bated ordinance to DCR, and we will forward it to FEMA with a favorable recommendation. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Nabil Ghalayini, P.E., CFM, D. WRE Floodplain Program Specialist RESOLUTION Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: April 2, 2014 Recommended Approval BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: April 23, 2014 ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 165 ZONING PART 702 FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICTS ARTICLE VII - OVERLAY DISTRICTS ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS PART 101 GENERAL PROVISIONS § 165- 101.02 DEFINITIONS & WORD USAGE WHEREAS, the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development was directed by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) to prepare changes to Chapter 165 Zoning pertaining to the Floodplain Districts, to meet the minimum regulatory standards required in a fully compliant floodplain ordinance. WHEREAS, The Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) recommended this item be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this proposed amendment on April 2, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this proposed amendment on April 23, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds that in the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice, and: PDRes #05 -14 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that CHAPTER 165 ZONING, PART 702 FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICTS, ARTICLE VII — OVERLAY DISTRICTS; ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS; PART 101 GENERAL PROVISIONS § 165- 101.02 DEFINITIONS & WORD USAGE be amended to meet the minimum regulatory standards required in a fully compliant floodplain ordinance. Passed this 23rd day of April, 2014 by the following recorded vote: This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Gary A. Lofton Robert A. Hess Gene E. Fisher Robert W. Wells Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Christopher E. Collins A COPY ATTEST John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator PDRes 405 -14 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665 -5651 Fax: 540/ 665 -6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors FROM: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Discussion on Master Development Plan Requirements — Business Friendly Recommendations DATE: April 15, 2014 In October of 2012, the Board of Supervisors formed the Frederick County Business Climate Assessment Committee (also called the Business Friendly Committee) to evaluate the current processes and procedures being utilized by the County. The purpose of the effort was to search for ways that the County could better meet the needs of new and existing businesses in the community. The Committee's final report was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in July of 2013. One recommendation contained in the report was to eliminate the MDP requirement contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The Land Use and Development Subcommittee of the Business Friendly Committee "recommended the elimination of the Master Development Plan process. They felt this process was already incorporated in other existing ordinances and results in a duplicative process." The DRRC reviewed the MDP requirements at their October 2013 and January 2014 meetings. The DRRC disagreed the MDP requirement should be eliminated. The Committee felt this was an important process for both the applicant and the public. The Committee did recommend that the MDP ordinance be modified to allow for a waiver of the MDP requirement if an applicant chooses to process a detailed site plan in lieu of a MDP. The Planning Commission discussed the MDP requirements at their meeting on April 2, 2014. A Commissioner, who was a member of the DRRC, was against removing the MDP requirement because he believed it protected the applicant from future changes that may occur and guarantees where roads, entrances, and buffers, etc. will be located on the site. The Commission noted the proposed revisions provide the applicant with the option to decide if they want to request a waiver of the MDP or not. The Commission believed it was a good compromise. The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by the DRRC (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added). This item is presented for discussion. Please contact staff should you have questions. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Business Friendly Recommendations April 15, 2014 Page 2 The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by the DRRC and the Planning Commission (with additions shown in bold underlined italics). This item is presented for discussion. Staff is seeking direction from the Board of Supervisors on this Zoning Ordinance text amendment; attached is a resolution directing the item to public hearing should the Board of Supervisors deem it appropriate. Attachments: 1. Proposed Revisions (deletions shown in strikethrough and additions show in bold underlined italics). 2. Business Friendly Initiatives. 3. Resolution CEP /pd Draft Master Development Revisions ARTICLE VIII DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND APPROVALS Part 801— Master Development Plans § 165 - 801.01 Intent. The purpose of the master development plan (MDP) is to promote orderly and planned subdivision and development of property within Frederick County. It is the purpose of the MDP to ensure that such development occurs in a manner that suits the characteristics of the land, is harmonious with adjoining property and is in the best interest of the general public. The MDP shall be used to illustrate the characteristics of the property proposed for subdivision and /or development and of surrounding properties and ensure that the requirements of the County Code have been satisfied. § 165 - 801.02 When required. A. A preliminary Master Development Plan (MDP) shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Development, and shall be presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors as an informational item. Ultimately, the MDP must receive administrative approval from the Director of Planning and Development and the County Administrator prior to any subdivision or development of property in any of the following zoning districts: RP Residential Performance District R4 Residential Planned Community District R5 Residential Recreational Community District MH1 Mobile Home Community District HE High Education District MS Medical Support District B1 Neighborhood Business District B2 Business General District B3 Industrial Transition District OM Office- Manufacturing Park District M1 Industrial Light District M2 Industrial General District EM Extractive Manufacturing District Draft Master Development Revisions B. The MDP shall include the subject property proposed for subdivision or development as well as all contiguous land under single or common ownership in the above zoning districts. C. A MDP may be submitted with an application for a rezoning but shall not be considered binding until approval of a final MDP. § 165 - 801.03 Waivers. A. RP, R4, R5, and MH1 Districts. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the requirements of a MDP in the RP (Residential Performance District), the R4 (Residential Planned Community District), the R5 (Residential Recreational Community District), and the MH -1 (Mobile Home Community District), if the proposed property for subdivision or development: (1) Contains 10 or less single - family detached rural traditional, single - family detached traditional or single - family detached urban dwelling units (all other permitted housing types shall require a MDP); (2) Is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development or subdivision; (3) Is planned to be developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties and land uses; and (4) Does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of its zoning district and the intent of this article. (5) A MDP may also be waived if the applicant chooses to process a site plan in lieu of a MDP. The site plan must contain all information generally required on a MDP and a site plan. Once the site plan is in an administratively approvable form the plan will be presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors per § 165 - 801.06. B. M1, EM and M2 Districts. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the requirement of a MDP in the M1 (Light Industrial), the EM (Extractive Manufacturing), or the M2 (Industrial General) Zoning Districts if the proposed subdivision or development: (1) Includes no new streets, roads or rights -of -way, does not further extend any existing or dedicated street, road or rights -of -way and does not significantly change the layout of any existing or dedicated street, road or rights -of -way; (2) Does not propose any stormwater management system designed to serve more than one lot and does not necessitate significant changes to existing stormwater management systems designed to serve more than one lot; (3) Is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development or subdivision; 2 Draft Master Development Revisions (4) Is planned to be developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties and land uses; and (5) That such development does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of this chapter. (6) A MDP may also be waived if the applicant chooses to process a site plan in lieu of a MDP. The site plan must contain all information generally required on a MDP and a site plan. Once the site plan is in an administratively approvable form the plan will be presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors per § 165 - 801.06. C. B1, B2, B3, MS and HE Districts. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the requirement of a master development plan in the 131 (Neighborhood Business), B2 (Business General), B3 (Industrial Transition), MS (Medical Support) or HE (Higher Education) Zoning Districts if the proposed subdivision or development: (1) Contains less than five acres in the 131 District and less than 10 acres in the B2, B3, MS or HE District; (2) Includes no new streets, roads or rights -of -way, does not further extend any existing or dedicated street and does not significantly change the layout of any existing or dedicated street; (3) Does not propose any stormwater management system designed to serve more than one lot and does not necessitate significant changes to existing stormwater management systems designed to serve more than one lot; (4) Is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development or subdivision; (5) Is planned to be developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties and land uses; and (6) That such development does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of this chapter. (7) A MDP may also be waived if the applicant chooses to process a site plan in lieu of a MDP. The site plan must contain all information generally required on a MDP and a site plan. Once the site plan is in an administratively approvable form the plan will be presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors per § 165- 801.06. § 165 - 801.04 Preapplication- conference. Prior to submission of a master development plan for review, the Department of Planning and Development staff may require, or an applicant may request a preapplication- conference. The purpose of the p reap plication- conference is to review and discuss the nature of the proposal in relation to the requirements of the County Code and to discuss the preparation of a master development plan. A. If required, at the preapplication- conference the applicant shall provide a land use plan describing the following: 3 Draft Master Development Revisions (1) The general location of the site. (2) The general location of proposed roads. (3) The general location and types of proposed uses, environmental features on the site, housing types or open space. (4) The uses on adjoining properties. § 165 -801.5 Contents of- master development plans. A. The following items shall be required for MDP's in all Zoning Districts. All required items shall be shown clearly on the plan. All MDP's shall be prepared in accordance with the following specifications: (1) The scale shall be one inch equals 100 feet or larger (the ratio of feet to inches shall be no more than one hundred feet to one inch) or at a scale acceptable to the Director. The scale shall be sufficient so that all features are discernible. (2) No sheet shall exceed 42 inches in size unless approved by the Director of Planning and Development. If the MDP is prepared on more than one sheet, match lines shall clearly indicate where the sheets join. (3) All MDP's shall include a North arrow, a scale and a legend describing all symbols. (4) A boundary survey of the entire property related to true meridian and certified by a certified Virginia surveyor, architect or engineer, with all dimensions in feet and decimals of feet, is required for all MDP'S. (5) The total area of the property shall be specified on the MDP. (6) The topography shall be shown at contour intervals acceptable to the Director. (7) The title of the proposed project; the date, month, year the plan was prepared or revised; the name of the applicant(s), owner(s) and contract owner(s); and the names of the individuals or firms preparing the plan shall be clearly specified. (8) A schedule of phases, with the approximate location of phase boundaries and the order in which the phases are to be developed, shall be provided. (9) The use of all adjoining properties shall be clearly designated on the MDP. (10) All existing, approved or planned public roads, streets or rights -of -way on the project or within 2,000 feet of the boundaries of the project. (11) Any approved proffers associated with property. M Draft Master Development Revisions (12) The location and treatment proposed for all historical structures and sites recognized as significant by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors or as identified on the Virginia Historical Landmarks Commission Survey for Frederick County. (13) A history of all land divisions that have occurred in relation to the tract since the adoption of this requirement. (14) The approximate location of sewer and water mains with statements concerning the connection with and availability of existing facilities. (15) The ownership and use of all adjoining parcels, including parcels across road right of ways. (16) Description of any changes made since approval of any prior MDP's. (17) An approval block and signature lines for the Director of Planning and Development. B. Contents of a master development plan in the RP (Residential Performance) District, the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District, the R5 (Residential Recreational Community) District and the MH -1 (Mobile Home Community) District. The MDP shall contain a conceptual plan, showing the location and functional relationship between all proposed housing types and land uses, including the following information: (1) A land use plan, showing the location, arrangement and approximate boundaries of all proposed land uses. (2) The approximate acreage in common open space, in each use and housing type and in roads, streets or rights -of -way for each phase and the total development. (3) The location and approximate boundaries of proposed housing types conceptually shown in accord with residential performance dimensional requirements. (4) The proposed number of dwelling units of each type in each phase and in the total development. (5) The location and approximate boundaries of existing environmental features, including floodplains, lakes and ponds, wetlands, natural stormwater retention areas, steep slopes and woodlands. (6) The location of environmental protection land to be included in common open space. (7) The approximate acreage of each type of environmental protection land, the amount and percentage of each type that is to be disturbed and the amount and percentage of each type to be placed in common open space. (8) The amount, approximate boundaries and location of common open space, with the percentage of the total acreage of the site to be placed in common open space. (9) The location and general configuration of recreational facilities, with a general statement of the types of recreational facilities to be provided. I• Draft Master Development Revisions (10) The location and extent of proposed buffers, with statements, profiles, cross sections or examples clearly specifying the screening to be provided. (11) The proposed location, arrangement, and right -of -way widths of roads and streets, including roads and streets providing access to adjoining parcels, shall be in accordance with § 165- 202.04. (12) The location and arrangement of street entrances, driveways and parking areas. (13) A conceptual plan for stormwater management with the location of stormwater facilities designed to serve more than one lot. (14) Calculations describing all proposed bonus factors with the location of and specifications for bonus improvements, when proposed. C. Contents of a master development plan in the M1 (Light Industrial) District, the M2 (Industrial General) District, the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District, the HE (Higher Education) District, the B1 (Neighborhood Business) District, the B2 (Business General) District, the B3 (Industrial Transition) District, the OM (Office- Manufacturing Park) District and the MS (Medical Support) District. The MDP shall contain a conceptual plan, showing the location and functional relationship between streets and land uses, including the following: (1) A conceptual plan, showing the location and arrangement of proposed uses. (2) The location and approximate boundaries of existing environmental features, including floodplains, lakes and ponds, wetlands, natural stormwater detention areas, steep slopes and woodlands, as defined, and the approximate acreage of each type of environmental feature, including the amount and percentage of each type that is to be disturbed and the amount and percentage of each type to be placed in open or landscaped areas. (3) The proposed location and arrangement of all proposed and existing utility systems. (4) The location and arrangement of existing and proposed public or private roads, existing or proposed entrances, and driveways from existing and proposed public or private streets. (5) A conceptual plan for stormwater management and description and the location of all stormwater facilities designed to serve more than one parcel. (6) The location and extent of proposed buffers required by this Chapter, with statements, profiles, cross sections or examples clearly specifying the screening to be provided. § 165 - 801.06 Master development plan submission. Applicants shall submit the number of copies of the preliminary MDP to the Department of Planning and Development specified by the Department of Planning and Development MDP application, together with completed application materials required by the Department of Planning and Development. 11 Draft Master Development Revisions A. Applicants shall provide approval comments on the proposed development from various review agencies or departments as required by the Department of Planning and Development. The submission shall be complete and the application shall commence through the public meeting process when the plans, application materials and review agency approval comments have been received by the Director of Planning and Development. B. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be prepared and submitted to the Department of Planning and Development with all MDP applications in accordance with the adopted Traffic Impact Analysis Standards. C. When the submission is complete, the Director of Planning and Development shall submit the plans, application materials and review agency approval comments to the Planning Commission as an informational item. D. Following the informational presentation of the MDP to the Planning Commission, copies of the plan, application materials and agency comments shall be submitted to the Board of Supervisors as an informational item. E. The preliminary MDP submitted to the Board of Supervisors for review shall not be substantially changed from plans reviewed by the Planning Commission. Changes may be made that were discussed by the Planning Commission. Other substantial changes to the plan shall require that the Planning Commission review the plan as a new MDP. F. Site plans or final subdivision plats may be submitted concurrently with preliminary master development plans for review according to the procedures set forth in this chapter and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, of the County Code. Master Development Plan Approval Process Draft Master Development Revisions § 165 - 801.07 Final master development plan. A. The final MDP shall conform to all requirements of the County Code. B. Applicants shall submit a minimum of five copies of the final MDP to the Department of Planning and Development. Final approval of the final MDP shall be given by the Director of Planning and Development and the County Administrator. C. The Director shall approve the final MDP if all requirements of the County Code and all review agencies have been met, and if a preliminary MDP was presented to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors D. A MDP shall not be considered final until it is signed by the Director of Planning and Development and the County Administrator. § 165 - 801.08 Changes to approved Master Development Plans. Changes to an approved MDP shall occur only after review by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors using the procedures required for the approval of a new plan. The Director of Planning and Development may approve minor changes without following the full procedures, if such approval does not violate the intent of this chapter and section. Such minor changes shall not include increases in the density or intensity of development, changes to entrance or street layout, changes to stormwater layout or other major design changes. § 165 -801.9 Master development plan review fees. The Board of Supervisors may adopt a schedule of fees to be paid by the applicant to the County for the costs associated with the review of the MDP. E? COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 5401665 -5666 Fax 5401667 -0370 E -mail: jriley@co.frederick.va.us TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: John R Riley, Jr.,.County Administra r t SUBJECT: Business Friendly Committee Report DATE: July 26, 2013 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. During the Board's discussions, it was the consensus for the Chairman and County Administrator to meet and review the recommendations presented and determine which committees or boards would evaluate and provide guidance regarding possible implementation. To that end, provided below is a list of the phase I recommendations and the respective committee(s) assignment(s). Public Information Officer The dominant theme coming from the various subcommittees was public outreach and promotion of Frederick County. One of the recommendations pertaining to this theme was the need to create a public information officer position. This recommendation should be forwarded to the Human Resources Committee for further evaluation with a recommendation to be forwarded to the Board at a future meeting. Signage Along Major Routes Entering Frederick County One recommendation regarding promoting Frederick County as a business destination was to install signage along Interstate 81 and major routes entering Frederick County (i.e. Routes 7, 11, 50, and 522) stating "Frederick County is Open for Business ". The committee felt this initiative 1 107 North Kent Street ® Winchester, Virginia 22601 would show Frederick County as a positive business partner and could help provide the county with a marketing advantage. This recommendation should be forwarded to the Transportation Committee and the Economic Development Commission for review of signage placement and messaging, respectively. Establishment of. an Economic Development Authority The creation of an economic development authority or EDA was identified as an important catalyst to fostering a more competitive business environment . for Frederick County. While the powers and authorities of an industrial development authority, which currently exists in Frederick County and. an economic development. authority are the same, the change from an IDA to an EDA would provide the Board of Supervisors with an opportunity to 're- establish the economic development vision for the county and would also provide the flexibility to pursue a variety of business attraction and retention'option5 and strategies for implementing a diversified economic development strategy. This recommendation should first be referred to the Winchester- Frederick County:Economic Development Commission. This would give the'Commission an opportunity considerthe EDA's role in Frederick County's business attraction and retention efforts and its relationship to the current Economic Development Commission. Review And Evaluation of the Matter Development Plan ProcesS The. and Use :and Development Subcommittee recommended the elimination.of the Master Development Plan process.. They felt this process was already incorporated in other existing ordinances and results in a duplicative process. A re- evaluation:of the current Master Development Plan process would be appropriate. This recommendation should be referred to the Planning Commission for initial evaluation by the Development Review and Regulations Committee and the entire Planning Commission. Simplification of the Landscape Ordinance The Land Use and Development Subcommittee recommended a complete'review and re- evaluation of the Frederick County Buffers and Landscaping Ordinance to pro ' vide a .well defined purpose to' allow for flexibility 'in project site landscaping, tree preservation, and effective development buffers A re- evaluation of the current Buffers and Landscaping Ordinance would be appropriate. This recommendation should be referred to the Planning Commission for initial evaluation by the Development Review and Regulations Committee and the entire Planning Commission Reduction in Proffer Reauirements Action: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: APRIL 23, 2014 LJ APPROVED LJ DENIED RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CHAPTER 165, ZONING ARTICLE VIII — DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND APPROVALS PART 801 — MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS §165- 801.03 WAIVERS WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors formed the Frederick County Business Climate Assessment Committee to evaluate the current processes and procedures being utilized by the County. The Committee's final report was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in July, 2013. One recommendation contained in the report was to eliminate the Master Development Plan (MDP) requirement contained in the Zoning Ordinance. WHEREAS, The Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) reviewed the MDP requirements at their October, 2013 and January, 2014 meetings and disagreed that the MDP should be eliminated. The DRRC did recommend that the MDP ordinance be modified to allow for a MDP waiver if an applicant chooses to process a detailed site plan in lieu of a MDP and forwarded that recommendation to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed changes at their regularly scheduled meeting on April 2, 2014 and agreed with the inclusion of the additional MDP waiver opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors discussed the proposed changes at their regularly scheduled meeting on April 23, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds that in the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice, directs the Frederick PDRes #07 -14 County Planning Commission hold a public hearing regarding an amendment to Chapter 165 to include a MDP waiver option that allows an applicant to process a detailed site plan in lieu of a MDP. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REQUESTED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that the Frederick County Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing regarding an amendment to Chapter 165 to provide the applicant with the option to decide if they want to request a waiver of the MDP or not. Passed this 23rd day of April, 2014 by the following recorded vote: This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Gary A. Lofton Robert A. Hess Gene E. Fisher Robert W. Wells Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Christopher E. Collins A COPY ATTEST John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator PDRes #07 -14