Loading...
April 12 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes324 A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Wednesday, April 12, 2017, 7:00 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, PRESENT Chairman Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Blaine P. Dunn, Bill M, Ewing, Gene E. Fisher, Gary A. Lofton, Judith McCann -Slaughter, and Robert W. Wells. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order. INVOCATION Reverend Bobby Alger, Crossroads Community Church, delivered the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chairman Fisher led the Pledge of Allegiance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA - APPROVED County Administrator Brenda Garton stated there were no changes to the agenda. Upon a motion made by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Slaughter, the Board approved the agenda by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Blaine P. Dunn Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Judith McCann -Slaughter Aye Robert W. Wells Aye CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED Upon a motion made by Vice Chairman Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Dunn, the Board approved the following item under the consent agenda: Minutes - Tab A; The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Blaine P. Dunn Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Judith McCann -Slaughter Aye Robert W. Wells Aye CITIZEN COMMENTS Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 325 Donald Jennings, Red Bud District and Chairman of the Conservative Caucus of Frederick County, a non- partisan county voters association, addressed the Board and stated they opposed any funding for the School Board's capital proposal request to the extent that it provides any funding for construction of any new school for the next year. He stated this is a big decision with huge future impacts and there is nothing so urgent that would require hasty action at this time. He further stated there are other options available to provide for the possible need for additional classroom space which seems to be debatable based upon facts and data presented by other citizens and groups and recent statements before the Board of Supervisors. He went on to say the other options need to be thoroughly investigated and examined before the best solution can be established which balances school desires with the best interest of hard working taxpayers and voters. He further stated these options may provide possible savings which in turn can be partly used for pay increases for teachers who deserve it or for the county to allocate more funding to the Sheriff's Department and emergency services that can be put to good use. He stated the conservative caucus is ready to collaborate -with all stakeholders involved over the course of the coming year to arrive at better solutions than are currently proposed by the school, thereby not requiring more debt and higher taxes. Mark Stepongzi, Gainesboro District, addressed the Board with reference to the School Board's capital request and thanked those that recently spoke in opposition to building a new school. He stated he wanted to address recent comments made to those that were in favor of raising taxes. He stated anyone can pay extra monies on their tax bill at any time without government increasing taxes for all and wondered how many of those that are paying extra on their taxes and how many of those that are in favor of raising taxes would soon ask for wage increases to offset those higher taxes. He stated it is not the role of the Board of Supervisors to cover for an incompetent School Board on the backs of the taxpayers and encouraged the Board to not burden the people of Frederick County with unnecessary expenditures. Dody Stottlemyer, Shawnee District, addressed the Board and referenced the recent architectural award given to the Frederick County Middle School. She stated that schools are being built with all the latest design trends instead of being practical. They should be designed in a manner that is cost efficient and should be structures that fulfill the purpose of educating students. She wondered how much it cost taxpayers for an architectural firm to win an award Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 326 and that awards do not improve the quality of education. She went on to say she wondered how much money has already been pocketed by the architectural firm that is designing the fourth high school and asked that any more funding for a school be denied at this time. Jay Marts, Gainesboro District, addressed the Board with reference to the budget and schools and stated the School Board budget is slightly under 204 million dollars, an increase of 13 million dollars over last year, a 6.3% increase. He stated that with the school's projected student population increase, the overall spending cost now equates to fifteen thousand dollars per student which is now higher than Loudoun County with a 2017 projected cost of thirteen thousand dollars per student. He stated in addition, the school's budget includes fifteen new positions and a proposed 2.5% pay increase. He further stated that taxpayers have been asking the School Board for lower cost alternatives to new school construction for at least two years yet they have taken no action to provide any. He went on to say taxpayers want to see renovations and additions to existing facilities and boundary adjustments and asked that steps be taken to avoid another multi -million dollar school facility abandoned and sitting vacant. Joe Crane, Gainesboro District, addressed the Board with reference to the budget and schools. He stated we live in perilous times, the debt is increasing, taxes are being raised and growth has outpaced the infrastructure. He stated this is not a time to make subjective, emotional, financial decisions. He stated each line item should be looked at objectively and responsibly. He further stated the School Board's desire for two new schools is subjective and based solely on emotion. He went on to say the numbers show minimal growth in the school system with hundreds of vacant desks. He stated raising taxes and increasing debt is fiscally and morally wrong. He asked the Board to not subject the constituents to over a hundred million dollars in debt. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS There were no Board of Supervisors comments. MINUTES - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 8, 2017 were approved under the consent agenda. COUNTY OFFICIALS COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 327 RICHARD A. RUCKMAN REAPPOINTED TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF BUILDING APPEALS Upon a motion made by Vice Chairman Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, Richard A. Ruckman was reappointed to the Frederick County Board of Building Appeals for a five year term, said term to expire April 8, 2022. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Blaine P. Dunn Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Judith McCann -Slaughter Aye Robert W. Wells Aye ADOPTION OF FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018 BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018 APPROPRIATIONS AND SETTING OF 2018 TAX RATES — (RESOLUTION #064-17) - APPROVED County Administrator Garton read the following budget resolution: FY 2017-2018 BUDGET RESOLUTION WHEREAS a notice of public hearing and budget synopsis has been published and a public hearing held on March 22, 2017, 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 2017-2018 Fiscal Year as advertised in The Winchester Star on March 13, 2017, be hereby approved in the amount of $418,605,833. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Frederick budget for the 2017-2018 fiscal year be adopted and the funds appropriated as follows: General Operating Fund $179,608,916 Regional Jail Fund 22,363,837 Landfill Fund 9,732,241 Division of Court Services Fund 651,446 Shawneeland Sanitary District Fund 957,660 -Airport Operating Fund 1,555,958 Lake Holiday Sanitary District Fund 779,998 EMS Revenue Recovery Fund 1,593,084 Economic Development Authority Fund 606,820 School Operating Fund 159,879,495 School Debt Service Fund 16,396,229 School Capital Projects Fund 3,738,287 School Nutrition Services Fund 7,552,580 School Textbook Fund 3,937,383 NREP Operating Fund 5,511,899 NREP Textbook Fund 65,000 Consolidated Services/Maintenance Fund 3,600,000 School Private Plupose Funds 75,000 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein adopt the tax rates for the 2017 assessment year as follows: Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 328 Property Taxes — Rates per $100 of assessed value $0.60 Applied to real estate, including mobile homes $4.86 Applied to personal property including business equipment $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 $0.01 Applied to airplanes Zero tax Applied to antique vehicles and mopeds $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 Contractors $0.16 per $100 of gross receipts Retail $0.20 per $100 of gross receipts Financial, Real Estate, and Professional $0.58 per $100 of gross receipts Services Repair, personal and business services $0.36 per $100 of gross receipts and all other businesses and occupations not specifically listed or exempted in the County Code Wholesale $0.05 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 2.5% of gross receipts Vehicle License Taxes $25 per vehicle and $10 per motorcycle Sanitary Landfill Fees $47 Per ton for commercial/industrial $42 Per ton for construction demolition debris $18 Per ton for municipal waste $36 Per ton for municipal sludge $12 Per ton for Miscellaneous Rubble Debris Shawneeland Sanitary District Taxes $190 Unimproved Lots $560 Improved Lots Lake Holiday Sanitary District Taxes Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 329 $678 Buildable Lots $264 Unbuildable Lots Lots owned by Lake Holiday Country Club, Inc. $0 Buildable Lots and Unbuildable Lots Star Fort Subdivision Taxes/Fees $60 Per Lot Street Light Fees Oakdale Crossing and Fredericktowme $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, Forfeited Assets Program, and Four -For -Life, Fire Programs and Economic Incentive funds equal to the total cash balance on hand at July 1, 2017, plus the total amount of receipts for the fiscal year 2017-2018. The Fire Company Capital appropriation will include the current year appropriation plus any unused funds at the end of the fiscal year 2017. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that funding for all outstanding encumbrances at June 30, 2017, are re -appropriated to the 2017-2018 fiscal year to the same department and account for which they are encumbered in the 2016-2017 fiscal year. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the construction fund projects are appropriated as a carryforward in the amount that equals the approved original project cost, less expenditures and encumbrances through June 30, 2017. Supervisor Ewing stated that citizens and Board of Supervisors members have different desires and suggestions as to what should and should not be included; however he believed the proposed budget best meets the needs of Frederick County. He stated not everyone likes tax increases but there are times when it is necessary in order to be fiscally responsible for all necessary programs and services of the county, those major programs being schools and public safety, He stated that even with the proposed tax increase, Frederick County will continue to have one of the lowest tax rates in the area. He stated he is not an advocate of trying to keep up with what other localities in the state are doing. He believed the Board should address the needs of Frederick County and only Frederick County; otherwise the Board of Supervisors would not be fiscally responsible to its taxpayers. He further stated he wanted to point out the operating budget has been balanced without the proposed tax increase in its operating fund and has also reduced the use of the rainy day fund by twenty five percent. Supervisor Ewing stated the budget sets aside the proposed tax increase for future capital projects that are facing the county, not operations, school facilities being the major need. He stated he believed the proposed 2017- 2018 budget is a fair and responsible budget and made a motion to approve the budget as presented. Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 330 Vice Chairman Fisher seconded the motion to approve. Supervisor Lofton made a motion to amend the resolution to set real estate property taxes to $0.56 per $100 as opposed to $0.60 per $100. Supervisor Dunn seconded the motion. Supervisor Lofton stated a lot of time has been spent by the Board and staff on the budget and referenced Supervisor Ewing's comments that the budget can almost be met without the tax increase and the extra revenue generated going to a Capital Fund. He stated that he has talked with many taxpayers who have stated their taxes have increased by double digits and that someone told him their tax assessment had gone up over twenty percent. He stated that he felt with the tax reassessment and the associated tax increases in those assessments beyond the eight percent they are predicting with the $.60 tax rate, there should be some relief to the taxpayer at least for one year to help them absorb the extra cost that might be coming with the increased real estate assessment. He stated that with the $.56 rate, they would cover all the capital needs that Supervisor Ewing pointed out; but would however reduce the amount that is put into the Capital Reserve Fund to approximately $630,000 and that is his rationale as to the $.56 rate in this reassessment year. The above amended motion to amend to a $0.56 real estate tax rate as opposed to a $.60 rate was denied by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr, Nay Blaine P. Dunn Aye Bill M. Ewing Nay Gene E. Fisher Nay Gary A. Lofton Aye Judith McCann -Slaughter Nay Robert W. Wells Nay Supervisor Dunn stated that in trying to find a balance between the needs of the School Board, the needs of the County and the taxpayer, and those taxpayers on a fixed income, he made a motion to the amend to approve the real property tax rate at $0.58 as opposed to the $0.60 rate. The motion died for lack of a second. Upon original motion made by Supervisor Ewing, seconded by Vice Chairman Fisher, the Board adopted the Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Budget, Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Appropriations, and set the 2018 tax rates as advertised and presented. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 331 Charles S. DeHaven, Jr, Aye Blaine P. Dunn Nay Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Nay Judith McCann -Slaughter Aye Robert W. Wells Aye REQUEST FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE FOR REFUND - APPROVED County Administrator Garton reviewed the following request from the Commissioner of the Revenue to authorize the Treasurer to refund: Joseph H. Racey, Sr. the amount of $4,491.64 for duplicate tower taxation for 2014, 2015, and 2016. This refund resulted from correction of the assessment of a telecommunications tower on certain real property. The State Corporation Commission is responsible for making such assessments and one of its assessors last month certified that the SCC had already included the tower in its assessments against the public service company that owns the tower itself; therefore, the county cannot include the value of the tower in the value of the real property and the refund is due. Upon a motion made by Supervisor Slaughter, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the above refund request and supplemental appropriation were approved by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Blaine P. Dunn Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Judith McCann -Slaughter Aye Robert W. Wells Aye RESPONSE TO SCHOOL BOARD CAPITAL RE UEST Vice Chairman Fisher stated that the Board of Supervisors Chairman, on March 1, 2017, communicated to the School Board that the Board of Supervisors was unwilling to fund the construction of the fourth high school or the renovations and addition to Armel Elementary School as presented and requested at that time. The Board of Supervisors and the School Board have continued to work together in an attempt to find a way to help address needs and move the school system forward. Upon a motion made by Vice Chairman Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Wells, the Board of Supervisors states its willingness to consider a future appropriation of up to $9.2 million dollars to create 400 additional permanent class room seats at the high school level. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick,' Virginia Blaine P. Dunn Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Judith McCann -Slaughter Aye Robert W. Wells Aye Vice Chairman Fisher made a motion that the Board of Supervisors states its willingness to consider a future appropriation of up to $27.0 million dollars to construct the twelfth elementary school with the following restrictions: 1. It will be a complete facility, including all state standard elementary school programs. 2. There will be no unresolved VDOT comments or issues. 3. The Board of Supervisors will not be asked to appropriate any additional capital funding for this facility for a minimum of fifteen years. Supervisor Lofton seconded the motion. Supervisor Ewing stated he was opposed to this motion only because he felt the high school should be funded first and then see where things are going and delay this funding request for a year or so until the Board has a better understanding for the need for it. Supervisor Slaughter recommended a friendly amendment to Vice Chairman Fisher's motion that if the capacity of the school is reduced to accommodate the appropriation, that there be a stipulation that the cafeteria and hallways and other facilities that could possibly need expansion in the future be part of the consideration. Vice Chairman Fisher accepted the friendly amendment. Supervisor Lofton concurred. Supervisor Dunn asked if the capacity level was defined. Vice Chairman Fisher stated he was uncertain of the capacity; he did not know that figure at this time and did not want to give incorrect information. Supervisor Slaughter stated the capacity of 650 was stated with the original request. Vice Chairman Fisher stated the capacity should not be reduced, it should remain the same and it is the extra architectural design elements that should be reduced. Supervisor Durm referenced those companies and residents coming into the community from the FBI, Navy Federal Credit, and Amazon, and that Stonewall Elementary School is overcapacity and that Middletown Elementary School is under capacity, and he had concerns about children having to ride the school bus for an hour. He stated that with the build out of Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04112117 County of Frederick, Virginia 333 Snowdenbridge Subdivision and the fifteen year restriction, he felt they would need expansion within three to four years. Supervisor Dunn made a motion to amend the motion to reduce the $27.0 million dollars to $25.5 million dollars with the 650 capacity remaining. Supervisor Slaughter seconded the motion. The above motion was denied by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Nay Blaine P. Dunn Aye Bill M. Ewing Nay Gene E. Fisher Nay Gary A. Lofton Nay Judith McCann -Slaughter Aye Robert W. Wells Nay The original motion made by Vice Chairman Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, with Supervisor Slaughter's friendly amendment that the Board of Supervisors states its willingness to consider a future appropriation of up to $27.0 million dollars to construct.the twelfth elementary school with the following restrictions: 1. It will be a complete facility, including all state standard elementary school programs. 2. There will be no unresolved VDOT comments or issues. 3. The Board of Supervisors will not be asked to appropriate any additional capital funding for this facility for a minimum of fifteen years. 4. If capacity is reduced, all support areas will be designed and constructed to support the original capacity. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Blaine P. Dunn Nay Bill M. Ewing Nay Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Judith McCann -Slaughter Aye Robert W. Wells Aye PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING - TWELVE MONTH OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT REQUEST OF TRUMPET VINE FARM (DEMARCHI SPEARS). PURSUANT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 86, FESTIVALS; SECTION 86-3, PERMIT REQUIRED; APPLICATION; ISSUANCE OR DENIAL• FEE - PARAGRAPH D, TWELVE MONTH PERMITS. ALL EVENTS TO BE HELD ON THE GROUNDS OF TRUMPET VINE FARM, 266 VAUCLUSE ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA. PROPERTY OWNED BY DEMARCHI SPEARS -APPROVED Demarchi Spears, applicant, appeared before the Board regarding his request for a Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 334. twelve month outdoor festival permit. Chairman DeHaven convened the public hearing. There being no comments, Chairman DeHaven closed the public hearing. Upon a motion made by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Dunn, the Board approved the twelve month outdoor festival permit request of Trumpet Vine Farm. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Blaine P. Dunn Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Judith McCann -Slaughter Aye Robert W. Wells Aye PUBLIC HEARING - OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT REQUEST OF WILLIAM AIKENS TOP OF VIRGINIA BUILDING ASSOCIATION — BB BLAST. 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 20 2017 FROM 11:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M.; ON THE GROUNDS OF STONEWALL DISTRICT RURITAN CLEARBROOK VIRGINIA, PROPERTY OWNED BY STONEWALL DISTRICT RURITAN CLUB. - APPROVED William Aikens, applicant on behalf of Top of Virginia Building Association, appeared before the Board regarding this request for an outdoor festival permit and stated that it is a fund raising event to benefit The Laurel Center. Chairman DeHaven convened the public hearing. There being no comments, Chairman DeHaven closed the public hearing. Upon a motion made by Supervisor Slaughter, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board approved the outdoor festival permit request of the Top of Virginia Building Association. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Blaine P. Dunn Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E: Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Judith McCann -Slaughter Aye Robert W. Wells Aye PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #01-17 FOR BOWMAN LIBRARY (SHENANDOAH MOBILE LLC) WIRELESS Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04112/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 335 COMMERCIAL TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY, SUBMITTED TO CONSTRUCT A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CONSISTING OF A 195 FOOT TELECOMMUNICATION MONOPOLE TOWER WITH SUPPORTING EQUIPMENT IN A FENCED COMPOUND. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE BOWMAN LIBRARY 871 TASKER ROAD AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 75B-A-1 IN THE SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. - POSTPONED FOR 30 DAYS WITH PUBLIC HEARING TO BE CONTINUED Zoning Administrator Mark Cheran appeared before the Board and presented this conditional use permit request. Zoning Administrator Cheran stated the 2035 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County (Comprehensive Plan) provides guidance when considering any land use action. He stated the proposed application is for a monopole -type commercial telecommunication facility and is located on a 16+/- acre property that is zoned RP (Residential Performance) District and the property is located within the UDA and SWSA as identified within the Comprehensive Plan, and is located within the Southern Frederick Area Plan. He stated these plans identify this area to remain residential in character. He further stated the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for commercial telecommunication facilities in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District with an approved conditional use permit (CUP) and that the properties immediately adjacent to this proposed conditional use permit (CUP) are currently zoned RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District. He went on to say the zoning ordinance requires that all proposed telecommunication facilities be subject to additional performance standards in order to promote orderly economic development and mitigate the negative impacts to adjoining properties, residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas and properties of significant historic value. Furthermore, the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires an applicant to provide confirmation that an attempt was made to co -locate on an existing telecommunication facility, and possible co -location structures. He stated the applicant has provided an inventory of existing telecommunication facilities, and no other telecommunication facility or possible co -location opportunity structures exist in this area. He further stated that should this facility be approved this commercial telecommunication facility will be positioned to provide the existing and future land uses in this area of the county with telecommunication needs. Zoning Administrator Cheran stated the applicant has modified this request for a conditional use permit to enable the construction of a 165-foot monopole - type commercial telecommunications. facility. Ed Donohue, local counsel for Shentel, appeared before the Board and stated he did not Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 336' want to reiterate what Mr. Cheran had already gone over, but wanted to address certain parameters as to how Shentel got to where they are now. Mr. Donohue named several individuals in attendance to address this conditional use permit request to explain various aspects of the request. Christopher Sahr, engineer representing the Frederick County area for Shentel, appeared before the Board and stated that part of his job is to keep in touch with the store managers in the Frederick County area. He stated that one of the most frequent areas discussed is the Stephens City area, specifically the Tasker Road area. He stated there are currently 2,192 customers in this area. He further stated this is an extremely high density area and they have learned that customers are not happy with service. The service is not reliable, not enough service and data speeds and there are gaps in coverage. He stated customers want service throughout their entire residence. He stated they are attempting to provide service at the level customers want. Supervisor Lofton asked if they had looked at the location of the water tower near I-81 in this area. Mr. Sahr replied yes, it was looked at but only covers maybe 30% of the targeted area and does not at all provide the service their customers are looking for. Supervisor Lofton asked about the radius or coverage of the proposed cell tower. Mr. Sahr stated that depends on the trees, vegetation, and terrain. He stated the area across from Bowman Library is heavy forest and the signals do not go through that forest, that is why there is no or poor coverage there. He stated someone may get coverage on their cell while they are outside, but not inside. Ed Donohue, appeared before the Board and stated they held a community meeting at the Bowman Library in January and they appeared before the Planning Commission in March. The design changes are reflected as a result of what they heard at those meetings. He stated they reduced the height from 195' to 165', changed to a flush mount design and changed the paint scheme. He further stated that should this conditional use permit be approved, any subsequent carriers would have to agree to the flush mounting and the paint scheme. He stated they have received correspondence of intent for co -location from Verizon. He went on to say that at the meetings held, a lot was heard about property valuation. He stated a report was issued in 2016 Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 337 from the American Bar Association that gives a statement that is supported by several citations that there is no credible evidence to support assertions that towers and monopoles negatively impact property values, and it went on to cite six or seven studies. Mr. Donohue showed various slides depicting how the tower would appear from various locations and distances. He referenced the 1996 Telecommunications Act and the Prohibition of Services. He stated there were eleven other sites that were evaluated and were ruled out for various reasons. Lynn Koerner, Site Acquisition and Project Development Contractor for Shentel, appeared before the Board and explained there were no available alternatives. He conveyed to the Board the various possible sites that were looked at and evaluated, and discussions held, and the reasons they would not work or did not work out. He stated this is the process they had gone through to get where they are at this point. Supervisor Dunn asked about other carriers in the area, if they could use the same pole to accomplish what they are trying to achieve. Mr. Koerner referred to the maps and pointed out the various surrounding sites in this area that Shentel is already on and stated they cannot reach the middle; that is the problem. He stated that Verizon is searching that same area and is interested in using Shentel's tower. Ms. Jessie Wilmer, representing Shentel, Edinburg, Virginia office, appeared before the Board and read a letter from their Winchester Sprint store manager Kari Jones with reference to customer complaints about dead zones, dropped calls, and slow data speeds that prevent customers from being able to download information, especially for those that use services for work from home offices or students doing homework. The letter went on to say that reliable cell service is no longer a nice item to have, it is now a necessity. Mr. Donohue again appeared before the Board and stated there is FCC law to be considered. He stated they are aware of their RF emissions and health concerns and they addressed those concerns at the community meetings held as best they could. Supervisor Ewing asked about the base of the pole and how far away it was from the Bowman Library. He asked if the pole were to fall, would it hit the building. Mr. Donohue replied it was 70 feet away or farther and was listed as part of the application to staff. Vice Chairman Fisher asked about the diameter at the base of the 195 foot and 165 foot Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 333, towers_ Dan Meenan, Vice President of Wireless Development with Shentel, stated the diameter of the base is site specific and depends upon the soil. He stated that with this particular site, the diameter at the base is no more than 4-5 feet. He stated it is a stealth tower, a much sleeker design, and much smaller than the older cell towers. Chairman DeHaven stated that before the Board moves to the public hearing portion, he wanted to inform citizens that the Board is prohibited from considering the effects of radio frequency omissions from cell towers. Chairman DeHaven convened the public hearing. Dr. James Silvester, Shawnee District, addressed the Board and stated that Shentel will remind them that due to the Telecommunications law enacted in 1996, they cannot deny their request based on health or environmental issues. He stated the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals gives municipalities protections to dismiss cell tower requests based upon the stakes and how the tower blends with its surroundings. He stated the Federal government separates an important issue out of the environmental moratorium and that is the effect of cell towers on 350 migratory bird species. He stated both the US Federal Communication Commission and the US Fish and Wildlife Service that he spoke with have laid down study standards required to be incorporated into the environmental studies that are to be conducted with all cell tower applications. He stated this proposed cell tower application falls under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Endangered Species Act and should conform to the regulations with public notice and debate. He stated the lake at the Bowman Library site is a self-supporting eco system housing 7 species of fish, turtles exceeding 18 inches in diameter and an assortment of snakes and eels. He further stated it is a landing pool for many species of migratory birds, storks, swans, etc. He stated the proposed cell tower lies directly in the path of migration. He stated that they could expect thousands of migratory water fowl strikes and deaths and stated this is inhumane and unacceptable in the normal course of human habitat respect. He went on to say that Shentel refused his demand to review the environmental study but acknowledged that one exists. He stated he believed they failed to consider the migratory issue. Dr. Silvester stated they will oppose Shentel on a Federal level if necessary. He further stated that in Shentel's report it states that the majority of their customers are in Shenandoah County with small customer service base in other localities, including Frederick County, Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 339 Michael Roma, Shawnee District, addressed the Board and stated he has lived in the Lakeside area for about 29 years, before the Bowman Library existed and that he enjoys the habitat of the lake. He stated a community should not have to pay the price for an industry or business not being able to fix their problem. He stated he was a former customer of Shentel, switched to Verizon due to the issues and now no longer has a problem. He asked the Board to not support this request. Treasa Vogel, Shawnee District, addressed the Board and asked them to deny this conditional use permit. She stated she has been a long-time volunteer dedicated to the preservation of the Lakeside Lake and the preservation of natural resources in the Commonwealth of Virginia. She stated the lake is a thriving ecosystem that is valued by its residents. She further stated that although there is legislation that prohibits environmental and human health issues from being considered, the 1996 Telecommunications Act is legislation that obstructs justice. She stated it puts the whims and greed of corporations before the best interest of the environment and the people. She stated the local government should be able to base a decision for their community on what is right for the community instead of having corporations intimidate those who are in the positions of power to further their need to fill their pockets. She asked the Board to look at the research and listen to their people and just say no. Ruth Jimenez, resident of Stephens City, addressed the Board and stated that she understood everything that has been said but felt the research explained by the FCC has not been clear. She stated that new studies show cell towers affects health. She stated that studies show that people develop headaches, cancer, pre mature births, high blood pressure and sleep issues. She stated this will affect the health of the community, the homes, and the lake. She asked the Board to think about the people in the community, the children, and children of the future and to please not build this tower. Dana Harman, Shawnee District, addressed the Board and stated that she lives in the area and the tower is not necessary. She stated her family has eight computers in their home and they telework daily. She stated she uses Verizon due to the Wi-Fi coverage. She stated she is deaf and uses Facetime as a way of communication and probably uses more data than most due to this. She further stated she has no problem with Verizon and they are an option to use. She stated she does not want the tower to be built and the only reason for the request is due to Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 340 competition. Tim Davis, Shawnee District, addressed the Board and stated that in the first slide shown, that is his house and lawn. He stated he has lived in Lakeside for twenty seven years and the reason he bought that house was due to the lake. He and his family enjoy the view, looking at the lake and the field and would have to look at that tower daily. He further stated it has been mentioned that cell towers do not affect property values, but felt the tower would affect property values, and if someone were looking to purchase a home, would they want to purchase a home with the view of a tower or purchase a mile or so away where there is no tower in the view. He stated for him it is the aesthetics and it would affect the value of his property and opposed the tower being built. Dody Stottlemyer, Shawnee District, addressed the Board and stated there seemed to be many questions regarding the proposed building of this tower at this location. She referenced the environmental impact study and asked where it is. She went on to say in reviewing the agenda packet, it appears the airport director wants the tower lighted even if it is not required by the FAA, a feature she felt the community would not like. She further stated she felt the Sanitation Authority water tower would be a better location. She asked the Board to heed the Planning Commission's recommendation and deny this request. Jonathan Silvester, Shawnee District, addressed the Board and stated the tower is not needed. He stated Shentel offered testimonials as to why the tower is needed but only presented one letter and that was from someone who works for them. He stated if they have real customer testimonials, then where are they. He stated the proposed tower is ugly, others know it is ugly, and the Wakeland Manor Homeowners Association knows it is ugly and that is why they denied it. He referenced case law and stated there is a civil doctrine in Virginia called Attractive Nuisance and that it is the same doctrine that makes it necessary to fence a pool in the back yard. He went on to say that if a child is attracted to that pool and falls in and drowns, you are liable for that child's death. He stated that Shentel is proposing to put a cell tower next to a children's library and play area. This proposed tower is an invitation for legal action; He further stated he grew up in that area and knows that children play at the lake. He stated he could envision children playing at that tower and someone daring another to climb the tower and then fall and become gravely injured. He went on to say he felt it was not a question as to whether there Minute Book Plumber 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 341 would be legal action, but when. He further stated he has been both a Shentel and Verizon customer and has never had a problem with service. He asked the Board to please deny this request. Maya White Sparks, Shawnee District, addressed the Board and stated she lives at the Lakeside Village. For the past ten years she has been a member of the group for the past ten years that helps to clean up the lake and she opposes the proposed cell tower. She stated there is a neighborhood social network and only one person stated they wanted better service and that person felt the Bowman Library was the wrong location. She questioned Shentel's goal and wondered if it was not really just co -location and felt they were just attempting to make money by renting it. She went on to say the tower would be an unwelcome eyesore, especially when people read the studies of the dangers of living near a cell tower. She further stated it was more appropriate to place this cell tower in an area that is already zoned commercial or industrial and that it did not belong in a residential area adjacent to a library and wetlands. She stated although it has been disputed that there is a link between property values and cell towers, there is a significant link between the value of a property and its proximity to green spaces. She stated green spaces increase the value of a property and felt that no matter how they dress up a cell tower, it would change the character of the green space. She stated she had been a part of the comprehensive plan development and felt there is a good balance between residential, commercial and industrial and that green spaces are an important valuable part of it, and to violate this gem would denigrate the vision the Board has supported over the years. Mike Stottlemyer, Shawnee District, addressed the Board and stated that he is a member of the Lakeside Homeowners Association and over the years they have discussed insurance around the lake and the common grounds being mowed, and from what he has seen in the documentation presented, the School Board originally owned that land and that the Lakeside Homeowners Association donated the land to the county to build the library. He felt that if this tower fell, it could go into the lake area which is part of the ownership of the homeowners association. He stated it did not make sense placing this proposed tower in the valley among homes and trees and asked the Board to deny this request. Leo Smith, Shawnee District, stated that he grew up in the Shenandoah Valley and that it is a beautiful view and he did not see how this brown tower could be placed where Shentel is Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 342 proposing. He made the suggestion that the tower be placed on the west side of I-81, that there is plenty of commercial area there that it could be placed. Kenneth Frey, Shawnee District, addressed the Board and stated that if the cell tower was placed in their neighborhood, their property values were going to go down. He questioned the radiation and that children that go to the library would be subjected to radiation as well as the staff of the library, who would be subjected all the time. He stated that radiation would get into the lake and questioned what would happen to thebirds, fish, turtles, etc. He further questioned if anyone knew where the water goes to from the lake and that it goes across Route 522, to the Opequon at Parkins Mill and continues to Stephenson and Brucetown. He stated he believed he recently read in the paper the county was considering pumping water out of the Opequon and putting it back into the water supply and to wait for when the EPA gets hold of that. Renee Lowery, Shawnee District, addressed the Board and stated she is a resident of the Lakeview Townhouses and does not want the tower. She stated she does not hear good things about it health wise. She further stated she has AT&T service and has no problem, others have Verizon and have no problem, and if the only reason for the tower is for people to switch service, then not put up the tower. Dr. Silvester, Shawnee District, again addressed the Board and stated he wanted to rebut Shentel's comments about property values. He stated there is a study out by the National Institute for Science Law and Public Policy that states that 94% of homeowners and renters surveyed say they are less interested and would pay less for property located near a cell tower. He stated he has delivered a petition with 266 signatures opposing the cell tower. He stated he is on the board of Izaak Walton and has asked them to support their endeavor to oppose the cell tower efforts and has delivered a resolution to the Board of Supervisors from Izaak Walton League opposing the tower. He stated he wanted to remind the Board of Supervisors that thirty years ago, Harrington Smith, Ken Frey, himself, and many other citizens of Lakeside, stood before the Board of Supervisors to defend this property against commercial encroachment. He stated the result was the Bowman Library and Supervisor Harrington Smith who won the election by one of the largest margins in county history. He stated he felt the Board needed to ask themselves some questions; would they like to wake up every morning and look at an obnoxious pole; does a cell tower affect surrounding housing values; and has Shentel exuded Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 1343 good corporate citizenship within the county. He stated placing an aesthetically ugly and distasteful, for profit, cell tower on public land for full view of residential areas and next to cultural assets such as the library and migratory bird sanctuary destroys the original intent for this tract of land. He implored the Board to vote down the Shentel request. There being no further public comments, Chairman DeHaven closed the public hearing. Ed Donohue, attorney representing Shentel, again addressed the Board and referenced a NEPA Report that addresses migratory birds as well as historic preservation and that this is site specific. He stated that, based on information from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, habitats necessary to support federally listed and threatened and endangered species do not occur at or in the vicinity of the subject property; therefore the proposed project will not affect any listed, threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the property and stated that the report goes on, the report is lengthy. He state the report is part of the FCC proceedings. He further stated he wanted to address the need and that Mr. Sahr tried to explain the customer experience and complaints from customers and others and why this is important to Shentel. He stated he wanted to provide a bigger picture and that in excess of over 51 % of the US population no longer has a land line so the number of people relying on wireless coverage to do all the things we do with wireless devices, that data demand, is increasing and putting a tremendous demand on the networks. He stated these are the things they are trying to address and it is difficult to articulate, but they tried by way of maps, to show the gaps in coverage and that is what they are trying to address. He stated this is a large tract of land and their proposal would be on a small portion of that. He stated the waiver request is an attempt so that they did not affect the sewer line that goes to the library. He stated the waiver request is really between county property and county property. He further stated they have tried to do everything that they could to make themselves available for questions and thanked the Board for their time. Supervisor Dunn asked if the studies that were mentioned at recent meetings, he believed Bethesda was mentioned as well as some other areas, including rural or high density areas. Mr. Donohue explained that is a different demographic area and not really comparing apples to apples, those areas were more of a suburban area. He stated the studies he referred to were based on property values of what people spent based on square footage of property with a view of a cell tower, and property without. Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 344 Vice Chairman Fisher stated he wanted to clarify two points; one with reference to the lighting issues on the proposed tower. He stated the correspondence from Airport Director Renny Manual was for the original proposed 195' tower and now that Shentel has proposed for the tower to be at 165', they did not feel it was in the best interests of the community and did not feel there would be any interference with air traffic; therefore lighting was no longer an issue. He stated the other point he wanted to clarify is the use of the Sanitation Authority's water tower. He stated he serves as the Board of Supervisors liaison on the Sanitation Authority and has been advised the Sanitation Authority is having all private antennas removed from the tower, for whatever issues, but public safety antennas will remain, but they will no longer allow private antennas. Vice Chairman Fisher stated that with comments he had heard at the meeting, and the fact that the proposal has changed from the time it was heard at the Planning Commission, the information received and the change in the proposed tower from 195' to 165', he would be agreeable to postpone any action in order to give the applicant time to attempt to work something out with the citizens of the community. Mr. Donohue stated the applicant was agreeable to that and believed thirty days would be sufficient. Upon a motion made by Vice Chairman Fisher and seconded by Supervisor Lofton, action on conditional use permit #01-17 for Shenandoah Mobile, LLC was postponed for thirty days with the public hearing to remain open. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Blaine P. Dunn Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Judith McCann -Slaughter Aye Robert W. Wells Aye PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #10-16 FOR WILLIAM CONLEY SUBMITTED FOR A COTTAGE OCCUPATION - FURNITURE REPAIR SHOP. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 5738 NORTH FREDERICK PIKE ROUTE 522 NORTM AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 19-A-25D IN THE GAINESBORO MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. - (RESOLUTION 4065-17) - APPROVED Zoning Administrator Mark Cheran appeared before the Board and presented this conditional use permit request. He stated the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows cottage occupations in the Rural Areas (RA) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 345 Use Permit (CUP). He stated this proposed cottage occupation will be for a furniture repair business located within an attached garage 21'x 25' in area. He further stated the applicant intends to have two (2) customers per week to the property and the only employees with this CUP shall be those residing on the property. He stated the hours of operation per the applicant shall be Monday -Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He went on to say that staff has not added a condition limiting the number of customers. Mr. Cheran fiu-ther stated the subject property is not in an area where a land use study has been adopted by the County. He stated the proposed cottage occupation is consistent with the goals of the 2035 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; specifically, land use goals for the rural areas of the County identify the importance of maintaining a rural character in areas outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA), He stated based on the limited scale of the applicant's proposed cottage occupation, it appears it would not have negative impacts on adjoining properties or detract from the rural character of the area. He further stated that if approved, the applicant may have one cottage occupation sign no greater than four (4) square feet in size. Mr. Cheran stated the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. Mr. Cheran stated Mr. Conley was present on behalf of his application. Chairman DeHaven convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman DeHaven closed the public hearing. Supervisor Ewing asked if there had been any complaints from neighbors. Staff and Mr. Conley both replied no. Upon a motion made by Supervisor Ewing and seconded by Supervisor Fisher, conditional use permit 910-16 of William Conley was approved. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #10-16 WILLIAM CONLEY (Cottage Occupation, Furniture Repair) WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit 910-16 William Conley — Cottage Occupation, Furniture Repair, submitted by William Conley, was considered. The Property is located at 5738 North Frederick Pike, Winchester, Virginia and is further identified with Property Identification Number 19-A-25D, in the Gainesboro Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit on March 1, 2017, and recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this Minute Book Plumber 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia Conditional Use Permit during their regular meeting on April 12, 2017; 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 #10-16 for a Cottage Occupation for Furniture Repair on the parcel identified by Property Identification Number 19-A-251) with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. No retail sales shall be permitted. 3. Hours of operation Monday — Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 4. No employees other than those residing on the property. 5. One (1) Cottage Occupation sign. 6. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new conditional use permit. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Blaine P. Dunn Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Judith McCann -Slaughter Aye Robert W. Wells Aye PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #02-17 FOR SALVATORE CARRANO, FOR A ROOMING HOUSE (AIRBNB) THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 132 SEABREEZE LANE AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 541-7-1-90 IN THE RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. - (RESOLUTION #066-17) - DENIED Planner Tyler Klein appeared before the Board and presented this conditional use permit. request. He stated this application for a conditional use permit (CUP) is in response to a zoning violation complaint of a rooming house (AirBnB rental) that was received by staff. He stated obtaining a CUP for this use is an available option to resolve the issue. He further stated a rooming house is a permitted use in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District with an approved CUP and stated the zoning ordinance defines boarding or rooming houses as a dwelling or part thereof where, for compensation, lodging and/or meals are provided to boarders. He stated the zoning ordinance does not specify a restriction on the number of nights guests may stay. He went on to say the property is located within the Windstone Subdivision, and is an end unit. He stated the property is surrounded by like dwellings (townhomes) and Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 347 open (common) space. He further stated this proposed use will take place within a three (3) bedroom, 2.5 bath townhome with one (1) room being rented at any given time. He stated the applicant has two (2) dedicated parking spaces for his unit, and has a dedicated rental room and kitchenette in the walk -out basement reserved for the AirBnB guests. He stated additional shared visitor parking spaces are also available in the immediate vicinity of the unit. He stated the county's Building Inspections Department issued a separate Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for this new bedroom and a letter of support from the Windstone Homeowners Association (HOA) has also been provided. He went on to say the applicant is also subject to "Hosting Standards" from AirBnB in serving as a "host," and currently has a five star rating from AirBnB. He stated there will be no outside employees or signage associated with this CUP. He further stated the clientele of this use will make a reservation and remit payment via the internet (AirBnB). Mr. Klein further stated the 2035 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County (Comprehensive Plan) identifies this area of the county as part of the Senseny Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan and is to remain residential in nature and is not part of any land use study. He stated staff further recommends the Board of Supervisors consider an additional condition noting that at such time the owner sells the property at 132 Seabreeze Lane, the conditional use permit is no longer valid for the address. He stated the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. Vice Chairman Fisher asked how did staff enforce AirBnB, what are the rules for AirBnBs, is there a limit as to how long someone can stay. Mr. Klein stated the county does not set the rules for AirBnBs, that Mr. Carrano is registered with AirBnB so he would Iet him explain and that the county's zoning ordinance does not address limitations on how long someone can stay at boarding or rooming houses. Vice Chairman Fisher asked how staff would enforce rules or regulations. Mr. Klein replied it would be on a complaint basis. He stated that if there were any complaints, staff would investigate as to any violations. Vice Chairman Fisher asked that other than a conditional use permit, there is no other way this can be addressed; there is no limit on how long someone can stay. Mr. Klein replied that is correct. Salvatore Carrano addressed the Board on behalf of his application. He stated he is a good citizen, a Federal employee and a service connected disabled veteran. He stated he has a Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia C 4.9 out of 5 star rating on the AirBnB site and is the only resident and occupant of the property. He stated that he has two parking spaces, one for himself and the other for an AirBnB guest. He further stated he has not had any complaints on AirBnB or from his neighbors. He stated he has backing from several neighbors as well as the homeowner's association board. He explained the requirements of AirBnB and explained reviews cannot be removed from their site. He also explained his own requirements for an AirBnB guest. He further stated he has done everything to make his request a legal AirBnB. Supervisor Dunn stated it was his understanding that he has been operating for the past year or so and asked about the maximum number of people he had, Mr. Carrano replied two. Supervisor Dunn asked if there had ever been more than one AirBnB car at one time. Mr. Carrano replied no, with any guest he has had, there has only been one vehicle. He further stated that it is his requirement, and he is working with the homeowners association to amend the by-laws, that no one can stay over thirty days. He further stated that it is currently in the by-laws that no one can use visitor parking longer than seven days. Vice Chairman Fisher asked staff if he was in violation of the deed covenants in any way. Mr. Klein replied no. Supervisor Dunn stated that it was his understanding that the President of the Homeowners Association did not object to this request. Mr. Carrano replied that is correct. Chairman DeHaven convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman DeHaven closed the public hearing. Supervisor Dunn stated that he had spoken with staff and Planning Commission members and stated they struggled with this request as it is in a residential area and did that change the complexity and tone of the area. He stated this is a unique situation in that he has adequate parking, the homeowners association does not object, the neighborhood is 75% rental, 25% owner. This is an end unit and is isolated in relationship to the community. He stated his concern was if it set a precedent for other applicants in Frederick County for the future. He asked County Attorney Williams to the best of his knowledge, since this is a unique situation, would it affect the decision elsewhere with a different set of circumstances, Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 349 County Attorney Williams stated this particular request is unique and in any land use decision, each property in essence is unique. He stated with this particular circumstance with what has been outlined, there is a solid basis to say it is unique by that definition, therefore it did not set a true precedent. He stated each land use situation is different. Supervisor Dunn moved to approve conditional use permit #02-17 of Salvatore Carrano. Supervisor Slaughter stated she would second the motion subject to the condition, recommended by the Planning Commission, that the conditional use permit would be tied to the owner and not the property. Supervisor Dunn asked what if the applicant moved but did not sell the property. Mr. Klein replied that the additional condition was discussed after the Planning Commission meeting and was discussed with the applicant, He stated that it was agreed that if he ceases to remain in the property, or moves out of the property, the conditional use permit would be revoked. He stated they could provide a revised resolution with the amended conditions if that is how the Board chooses to proceed. Supervisor Dunn amended his motion to approve with the condition that if Mr. Carrano ceases to reside in the property, the conditional use permit would be terminated. Supervisor Slaughter seconded the motion, Supervisor Lofton stated he had concerns because of this being a rental area. He stated Mr. Carrano has everything prepared in order and has been professional. He stated the fact this is rental area and what precedent that might set for landlords that do not live there and felt this could snowball for the county with unexpected consequences in a big way and felt it would be impossible to police. Supervisor Duren stated he struggled as well but the reason he recommend approval was due to the unique situation as he had previously outlined and if it were a situation where there was a couple living in the house and someone came home from college, you would not know the difference, and the fact that the homeowners association did not object. Supervisor Ewing stated he echoed Supervisor Lofton's comments and felt the Board would be opening the door to fixture problems. He stated Mr. Carrano has done a good job but he has trouble accepting this. Vice Chairman Fisher stated he had received one phone call from someone in that area in opposition. He stated he was not concerned about the precedent but something just did not sit Minute Book Number 42 Board of supervisors Regular Meeting or04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 350 right with him and would not be able to support this request. There being no further discussion, the motion to approve Conditional Use Permit 402-17 failed by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Nay Blaine P. Dunn Aye Bill M. Ewing Nay Gene E. Fisher Nay Gary A. Lofton Nay Judith McCann -Slaughter Aye Robert W. Wells Nay PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING 901-17 FOR DMJ HOLDING L.L.C. SUBMITTED BY PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L_.C., TO REVISE PROFFERS ASSOCIATED WITH REZONING 905-09. THIS REVISION SEEKS TO REMOVE A PROFFER WHICH .CURRENTLY PROHIBITS FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS WITH DRIVE THROUGH SERVICE WINDOWS. THE PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 50 AND ROUTE 781 (CUSTER AVENUE). THE PROPERTIES ARE IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS 64A-4-16A, 64A-4-16, 64A-4-17, 64A-4-18, 64A-4-19 AND 64A-4-20, IN THE SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. - (RESOLUTION #067-171 - APPROVED Assistant Planning Director Candice Perkins appeared before the Board and presented this rezoning request. She stated this is an application to amend the proffers from Rezoning #05- 09 for 2.85 acres of land. She further stated this proffer amendment seeks to remove a proffer which currently prohibits fast food restaurants with drive- thru service windows. She stated if approved, the site would permit the construction of fast food restaurants with drive-thru service windows if all other requirements and conditions are met. She stated the properties are located within the UDA and SWSA and are designated as an area of commercial land use by the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. She stated the site is located in the area covered by the Senseny Eastern Frederick Urban Area Study. She went on to say the land use plan identifies, more specifically, a commercial designation with a transition back into the surrounding residential land uses. She further stated staff would note that the approved proffer currently limits any future use(s) to those that will not generate in excess of 200 vehicle trips per hour during any hour. She stated this proffer remains unchanged from the 2009 approval. She went on to say it should be noted that a fast food restaurant with a drive thru could max out the hourly trip cap which would leave the remainder of the property undevelopable. She stated the Planning Commission did not identify any concerns with the request and recommended approval of the application at their March 15, 2017 meeting. Supervisor Dunn asked if initially this rezoning did not allow fast food. Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 351 Ms. Perkins stated it allowed for fast food, just not drive-thru, and this application request only adds the drive-thru element. Supervisor Dunn asked if adjacent neighbors and property owners were aware of what is coming and asked if there had been any complaints or objections. Ms. Perkins replied adjacent property owners were notified as this is a public hearing and no complaints or objections had been received. John Lewis, with Painter Lewis, addressed the Board and stated he was present to represent the project. He stated that in 2009 they came before the Board and this property was rezoned for B2. He stated they proffered out fast food drive-thru and nothing else. He stated the reason they had done that is because they had met with the homeowners association and that was a concern of theirs, and that may be a concern of theirs now as well; however they did not hear from them. He further stated that in the last seven years, the only interest that has been in developing this is for fast food with a drive-thru and there has been no other interest. He stated it is B2, it is in the Comprehensive Plan as B2, everyone thinks it should be B2, and he stated the only way to develop this property as B2 is to perhaps allow fast food with a drive-thru. He stated the zoning ordinance tries to make B2 compatible with RP. He stated there are distance buffers, screening requirements, noise control, and lighting control. He stated this particular site will allow itself to all of the separation buffers quite well. He stated the fast food will be much lower than the houses behind the property and felt the buffer and landscaping requirements of the zoning ordinance are going to go a long way in mitigating any negative impacts. Supervisor Lofton referred to the generalized development plans and proffers listed, the median which keeps people from making a left hand turn off Custer Avenue into this property; he asked if that is not going to be proffered out, is it still going to be a condition. Mr. Lewis stated that one of the problems is transportation access and that is one of the main reasons they are limiting it to 200 peak out trips because the TIA they did showed the site would function under that threshold, and one of the requirements is to put the median on Custer Avenue, that would prevent traffic from backing up on to Route 50, so yes, it remains. Josh Phelps, co-owner of the property, appeared before the Board and stated this property was held in corporation that they own called Winchester Metals LLC. He stated they set up the LLC as an estate planning, tax planning and real estate holding company, and their initial role was to get this property into the LLC, rezoned and hoped to sell. He stated they Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 352 wanted to get out of the real estate business. He stated the LLC also owns the property where their corporation sits which is in need of expansion and hoped if they could get someone interested in buying this property, they could use the funds from the sale of the property to reinvest in their business. Supervisor Dunn asked what their initial thought was when they purchased this property. Mr. Phelps stated they initially hoped to get it rezoned and sold. He stated it has been listed for one and a half years and the only interest is fast food with a drive-thru. He stated they have lost potential buyers as the property does not have that. Supervisor Dunn asked Mr. Phelps if he had had any objections from neighbors. Mr. Phelps replied he had not. Supervisor Wells asked if when he purchased this property, did they proffer it out or was it already proffered out when they purchased it. Mr. Phelps stated when they purchased the property it was zoned RP and they went through the rezoning process and proffered it out at that time, for whatever reason, probably due to advice of engineers. Chairman DeHaven convened the public hearing. Jan Carter, resident of Shawnee District, addressed the Board and stated she was in favor of this request. She stated she has lived on Route 50 for many years, knows the property and has no problems and did not see any reason why this could not be approved. There were no further comments. Chairman DeHaven closed the public hearing. Upon a motion made by Vice Chairman Fisher and seconded by Supervisor Lofton, rezoning application request #01-17 of DMJ Holding, LLC was approved. WHEREAS, REZONING #01-17 DMJ Holding, L.L.C., submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., to remove a proffer which currently prohibits fast food restaurants with drive through service windows, with a final revision date of December 16, 2016 was considered. If approved, the site would permit the construction of fast food restaurants with drive through service windows if all other requirements are met. All other proffers remain the same. The properties are located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Route 50 and Route 781 (Custer Avenue), in the Shawnee District and is identified by Property Identification Nos. 64A-4-16A, 64A04-16, 64A-4-17, 64A- 4-18, 64A-4-19 and 64A-4-20; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on March 15, 2017 and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on April 12, 2017; and Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 353 WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan,. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to amend the proffers from Rezoning #05-09 to permit the construction of fast food restaurants with drive through service windows if all other requirements are met, with a final revision date of December 16, 2016. All other proffers remain the same. The conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the Applicant and the Property Owner is attached. This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Blaine P. Dunn Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Judith McCann -Slaughter Aye Robert W. Wells Aye OTHER PLANNING ITEMS DISCUSSION - MEDICAL OFFICES IN THE RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE) AND RA (RURAL AREAS) DISTRICTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE. — NO ACTION TAKEN Tyler Klein, Planner, appeared before the Board and presented this proposed ordinance amendment. He stated this is a proposed amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, to add Medical Offices as a conditional use in the RP (Residential Performance) and RA (Rural Areas) Zoning Districts. He stated currently, this use is permitted by right in the B1 (Neighborhood Business) and the B2 (General Business) Zoning Districts. He further stated staff has drafted an amendment to add Medical Offices as a conditional use in the RP and RA Districts. He stated staff has also drafted supplemental use regulations that would correspond to the use — additional requirements could be added during the Conditional Use Permit process if necessary. He went on to say the DRRC discussed this proposed amendment at their January 26, 2017 meeting. He stated the amendment was originally initiated by a citizen seeking to allow the use in the RP Zoning District. He went on to say the DRRC agreed with the proposed change, and further recommended it also be allowed in the RA Zoning District through a conditional use, Supervisor Lofton asked what the property is zoned where Valley Health is building their surgical clinic, west of Route 37, Mr. Klein replied B2 and that would allow for any medical offices west of that. Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 354. Supervisor Dunn asked if this were approved, could someone set up a medical office with patients in a business like fashion open until sometime in the evening. Mr. Klein replied that is correct, that could be allowed under the conditional use permit process; hours of operation could be assigned upon specifics and input from the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Dunn asked if in the B2 site, this would be a normal operation. Mr. Klein replied that is correct. Supervisor Dunn asked if this could be placed in a residential site, would it fit under normal circumstances. Mr. Klein replied that it would be site specific. He stated they would need to look at adjacent land uses, traffic, those types of considerations. Supervisor Dunn asked if they approve this, would they be setting a precedent, He stated he was looking at the traffic that would occur; that traffic is usually different in a residential area than a business area; that is what he is trying to address. Mr. Klein replied that would be addressed by the conditional use permit process; that would be evaluated by the planner, transportation planner, and Virginia Department of Transportation as to whether the traffic is appropriate given the geographic area. Deputy County Administrator Kris Tierney advised that the distinction between allowing a use by right, versus allowing it by a conditional use permit, if it is by -right, it is in the B2, it is given that it is allowed and all they have to do is meet site plan and other zoning and VDOT requirements. He stated that with a conditional use permit, it would have to go through the public hearing process and it is up to the Board of Supervisors' discretion to decide whether the conditions are appropriate to allow that use so there would be a lot more control and it is not a given that you are allowed to do it. This just allows you to go through the process to see if the Board is willing to allow it. Chairman DeHaven stated that is the strength of the conditional use process; it does not set a precedent, it is a case by case basis. He stated he is familiar with this request, there is no neighborhood interference and felt it is appropriate for this site and if it were not, they just would not approve it. Vice Chairman Fisher stated that he struggled with this request. He stated that sometimes conditional use permits get sticky, that if a person makes a significant investment and then if a Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, 'Virginia 355 complaint is received, then that person has to give up that investment. He stated they have had people come before them a long time ago for a conditional use permit and they were told no, they needed to get a rezoning; that protects the interest. He stated he is not ready to send to public hearing and would like more time to go over this. Supervisor Wells stated he agreed with Mr. Fisher and he too was not ready to send to public hearing. He stated that conditional use permits were not his favorite thing. He stated they work under some conditions, not in others and felt it places a burden on the Board of Supervisors every month to have to listen to several conditional use permit requests and be the bad guy or the good guy. He stated they have zoning to take care of that and to let zoning take care of that. Supervisor Lofton stated he differed with his colleagues, that he would prefer to send it to public hearing and he felt it would bring to light other questions and information they maybe had not thought of. Chairman DeHaven stated they would do that but he is hearing that some have questions and would like some more information before they send to public hearing and how did the Board wish to proceed. Vice Chairman Fisher stated he would like to meet with staff either collectively or individually. time. Chairman DeHaven stated they would get back with staff and no action was taken at this DISCUSSION - PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN THE RA (RURAL AREAS) DISTRICT. — (RESOLUTION #068-17) - FORWARDED TO PUBLIC HEARING Tyler Klein, Planner, appeared before the Board and presented this proposed ordinance amendment. He stated this proposed amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, is to allow additional by -right and conditional uses in the RA (Rural Areas) District. He stated this effort seeks to expand and clarify the opportunities available for small businesses and agritourism in the Rural Areas. He further stated that in doing so, this effort is supportive of the goals and strategies expressed in the 2035 Comprehensive Plan for the county's rural areas and for agribusiness development. He stated in addition, it is responsive to requests and inquiries by stakeholders from the rural areas. He stated staff has drafted an amendment to the RA Zoning District to include additional permitted uses, including agritourism, commercial stables/equestrian facilities, cut -your -own tree farms and on -premises wayside stands accessory Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12117 County of Frederick, Virginia 356 to a bona fide farm; and conditional uses including farm stays, special event facilities, commercial archery ranges, ice cream parlors, bakeries and craft/gift shops. He further stated staff has also drafted supplementary use regulations that would apply to special event centers as well as new definitions. He went on to say that the DRRC discussed this proposed amendment at their January 26, 2017 and February 23, 2017 meetings. He stated staff discussed the proposed changes with stakeholders including local property owners/agritourism providers, the Tourism Board and the Virginia Tech Cooperative Extension. He stated the DRRC agreed with the proposed changes. Supervisor Dunn asked if this changed the flavor of the RA. He asked what this allows that is not allowed to today. Mr. Klein replied this codifies many uses that are already allowed under farming in the RA district. He stated that in other cases such as the special event facilities that they are proposed to be included with a conditional use permit. This would allow for special event facilities in the RA district that have a long term investment to obtain a conditional use permit rather than come before the Board annually for a permit and gave Trumpet Vine Farm as an example. He stated this gives the Board the opportunity to review on a case by case basis. Supervisor Lofton asked Mr. Klein to describe a bona fide operating farm. Mr. Klein replied a farm where the primary use is actually producing something; not just an open space with a barn on it that is being used for weddings. Supervisor Lofton asked if someone had twenty acres that they are just using to produce hay, is that a bona fide farm. Mr. Klein replied that if it is occurring on the same property then it is a bona fide farm, but if it is separate open space, then it is not a farm as he is not actually partaking in an agricultural activity. Upon motion made by Supervisor Wells, and seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the proposed ordinance amendment for additional permitted and conditional uses in the RA (Rural Areas) District was forwarded to public hearing. RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CHAPTER 165, ZONING ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of04/12117 County of Frederick, Virginia 357 PART 101— GENERAL PROVISIONS §165-101.02. DEFINITIONS AND WORD USAGE ARTICLE I1 SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES PART 204 — ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES §165-204.15 COMMERCIAL SHOOTING AND ARCHERY RANGES, OUTDOOR. ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS PART 401— RA RURAL AREAS DISTRICT §165-401.01 PURPOSE AND INTENT. §165-401.02 PERMITTED USES. §165-401.03 CONDITIONAL USES WHEREAS, an ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning to allow additional by -right and conditional uses in the RA (Rural Areas) District was considered; and WHEREAS, The Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) discussed the proposed amendment at their January 26, 2017 and their February 23, 2017 meetings. The DRRC agreed with the changes to the proposed amendment and sent it forward to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed changes at their regularly scheduled meeting on March 15, 2017 and agreed with the proposed changes; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors discussed the proposed changes at their regularly scheduled meeting on April 12, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds that in the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice, directs the Frederick County Planning Commission hold a public hearing regarding an amendment to Chapter 165; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REQUESTED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that the Frederick County Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing to allow additional by -right and conditional uses in the RA (Rural Areas) District. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Blaine P. Dunn Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Judith McCann -Slaughter Aye Robert W. Wells Aye DISCUSSION - FRONT SETBACKS FOR ACCESSORY USES ON PRIVATE RIGHT-OF-WAYS IN THE RA (RURAL AREAS) DISTRICT. - (RESOLUTION #069-17) - FORWARED TO PUBLIC HEARING Tyler Klein, Planner, appeared before the Board and presented this proposed ordinance amendment. He stated this is a proposed amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, to reduce the required front setback off of private right-of-ways in the RA (Rural Areas) District for accessory structures. He stated currently the setback off of a right-of-way in the RA District is 60 feet for both public and private roadways. He stated staff has drafted a revision to the zoning Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 353 ordinance to reduce the required front setback for accessory uses and structures where adjacent to private right-of-ways from 60-feet to 45-feet which is consistent with the front setback for rural preservation lots. He further stated this item was proposed by a DRRC committee member and the DRRC agreed with the proposed change. Supervisor Slaughter asked what the rationale for the change was. Mr. Klein replied there was concern that on private rights -of -way for rural preservation lots, you could be as close as 45', but for accessory structures, the setback had to be 60'. He stated that if someone had a house that was at 45' and they wanted to build a detached garage, it would have to be 60' off the line. This would provide consistency with what the ordinance already allows for accessory uses. Upon motion made by Supervisor Lofton, and seconded by Vice Chairman Fisher, the proposed ordinance amendment for front setbacks for accessory uses on private right-of-ways in the RA (Rural Areas) District was forwarded to public hearing. RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CHAPTER 165, ZONING ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS PART 401— RA RURAL AREAS DISTRICT §165-401.07. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS WHEREAS, an ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning to reduce the required front setback off of a private right-of-way in the RA (Rural Areas) District for accessory structures from 60 feet to 45 feet was considered; and WHEREAS, this item was proposed by a Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) member at the January 26, 2017 meeting and the proposed amendment was discussed at the February 23, 2017 DRRC meeting. The DRRC agreed with the proposed change and sent the item forward for review by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed changes at their regularly scheduled meeting on March 15, 2017 and agreed with the proposed changes; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors discussed the proposed changes at their regularly scheduled meeting on April 12, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds that in the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice, directs the Frederick County Planning Commission hold a public hearing regarding an amendment to Chapter 165; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REQUESTED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that the Frederick County Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing to reduce the required front setback off of a private right-of-way in the RA (Rural Areas) District for accessory structures from 60 feet to 45 feet. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 359 Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Blaine P. Dunn Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Judith McCann -Slaughter Aye Robert W. Wells Aye BOARD LIAISON REPORTS There were no Board liaison reports. CITIZEN COMMENTS Dr. David Sovine, Superintendent of Frederick County Schools, addressed the Board and thanked them for funding the middle school project. He stated they did receive national recognition for this project for collaborative learning spaces, as well as many energy efficiency features. He further stated the energy efficient features are currently providing a cost savings and will provide a cost savings throughout the life cycle of this facility. He went on to say the construction cost per square foot was lower than the national average. He stated that the cost per pupil is below the state average as well as the regional average. Brandi Hammond, Shawnee District, addressed the Board and thanked them for adding the School Board request to add CIP funding to the agenda. She stated this is a start and they have a long way to go. She stated that with reference to the elementary school, she asked that they remove the stipulation of the fifteen years; that that was not the full funding requested and felt that with growth, the school would need to be added on to. She stated they do not know what the future holds and felt that would need to be addressed. She further stated there was very little mention of Armel additions and renovation and she was interested in hearing back on that as there are lots of needs there. She stated she would like to see the School Board capital requests from December remain an agenda item until the School Board has received responses on all three requests. Chairman DeHaven stated that with all due respect, the Board answered her questions at this meeting; the 4th high school, no not at this time; as proposed and requested, Armel renovation and addition, the same answer. There were no further comments. Chairman DeHaven closed the Citizen Comments portion of the meeting. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS There were no Board of Supervisors comments. Minute Book Number 42 Board of supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia 363 ADJOURN UPON MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIRMAN FISHER, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR EWING, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED. (10:06 P.M.) 0,-X,j )� !:� Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Chairman, Board of Supervisors vZL i Brenda G. Garton Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minutes Prepared By: Teresa J. PriCe ) Administrative Assistant County Administrator's Office Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/12/17 County of Frederick, Virginia