The URL can be used to link to this page

June 13 2018 Board_Agenda_PacketAGENDA CLOSED SESSION AND REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2018 5:30 P.M. AND 7:00 P.M. BOARD ROOM, COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 107 NORTH KENT STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 5:30P.M. Closed Session The Board of Supervisors will convene in closed session pursuant to Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A)(1) for the annual evaluation of the county attorneyand the county administrator. 7:00 P.M.Regular Meeting Call to Order Invocation Pledge of Allegiance Adoption of Agenda Consent AgendaAttachment 1.Minutes-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Budget Work Session of May 22, 2018 Regular Meeting of May 23, 2018 Work Session and Called Closed Session of June 5, 2018 2.Committee Reports a.Landfill Oversight Committee ---------------------------------------------------------------- B b.Public Works Committee---------------------------------------------------------------------- C c.Transportation Committee--------------------------------------------------------------------- D 3.Resolution Honoring Employee of the Month Lisa M. Lambert ---------------------------- E 4.Resolutions of Appreciation for retirees () ------------- F to be presented at a later date 5.Resolution adding Frogale Court to Secondary Road System ---------------------------- G CLOSED SESSION AND REGULAR MEETING AGENDA PAGE 2 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Wednesday, June 13, 2018 Citizen Comments – Agenda Items that are not the subject of a Public Hearing Board of Supervisors Comments County Officials 1.Presentation of Resolution HonoringMillbrook HS Girls Basketball Team 2.Presentation of Resolution Honoring Employee of the Month Lisa Lambert 3.Committee Appointments--------------------------------------------------------------------------- H a.Board of Building Appeals One unexpired 5-year term ending 11/10/2018, Applications pending b.Historic ResourcesAdvisory Board Member-At-Large Representative 4-year term ending 6/23/18 c.Winchester Regional Airport Authority 4-year term of Gene Fisher ends 6/30/18 (Eligible for reappointment) 4-year term of Robert Bearer ends 6/30/18 (Eligible for reappointment) d.Winchester-Frederick County Tourism Board (Appointed jointly with City of Winchester) 3-year term of Priya Patel ends 6/30/18 (Reappointment recommendedby the Tourism Board) 3-year term of Kristen Laise ends 6/30/18 (Reappointment recommendedby the Tourism Board) 3-year term (New appointment of Lani Peterson recommended by the Tourism Board) 3-year term (New appointment of Shannon Moeck recommended by the Tourism Board) e.Conservation Easement Authority 3-year term of Elaine Cain,Co. Representative, ends 8/24/18 (Eligible for reappointment) 3-year term of Robert Solenberger, Co. Representative ends 8/24/18 (Eligible for reappointment) 3-year term of Charles Triplett, Planning Comm. Representative ends 8/24/18 (Eligible for reappointment) 4.Requests from the Commissioner of the Revenue for Refunds------------------------ I a.Ally Financial/Vault -$7,038.39 b.G E Capital Auto Lease -$12,124.71 5.Resolution Authorizing Extension of Performance Agreement Deadline - Kingspan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ J CLOSED SESSION AND REGULAR MEETING AGENDA PAGE 3 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Wednesday, June 13, 2018 Committee Business -None Public Hearings (Non-Planning Issues) 1.Outdoor Festival Permit Request of Robert Bauserman –Fab Jam Festival-----------K 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 Saturday, June 23, 2018, from 7:00 A.M.to 11:00 P.M., (Rain Date to be Held on Sunday, June 24, 2018, from 7:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M.), on the Grounds of the Frederick County Fairgrounds, 250 Fair Ground Road, (Route 11 North), Clearbrook, Virginia, Stonewall Magisterial District.Property Owned by Frederick County Fair. 2.Request by Mountain Falls Park Residents for Designation of Sanitary District ------L The Board of Supervisors, having Received a Petition Requesting the Creation of a Sanitary District Encompassing the Subdivision Known as Mountain Falls Park, also Known as Wilde Acres, will Conduct a Public Hearing on the Question of the Proposed Sanitary District, which Hearing shall Embrace a Finding of Fact of Whether Creation of the Proposed District or Enlargement of the Existing District is Necessary, Practical, Fiscally Responsible, and Supported by at Least 50 Percent of Persons who Own Real Property in the Proposed District. Planning Commission Business Public Hearings 1.Rezoning #05-17 for O-N Minerals (Chemstone)--------------------------------------------M d/b/a Carmeuse Lime & Stone, CONTINUED from March 14, April 25, and May 23, 2018 Submitted by Lawson and Silek, PLC., to Amend the Proffers for this Property; Rezoning 394.2 Acres from the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with Proffer to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with Revised Proffers. The Properties are Situated Generally West of the Town of Middletown.Specifically, the Middle Marsh Property is Located East of Belle View Lane (Route 758), and West and Adjacent to Hites Road (Route 625) and is Further Traversed by Chapel Road (Route 627).The Northern Reserve is Bounded to the South by Cedar Creek and is West and Adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624).The Properties are Identified with Property Identification Numbers 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. CLOSED SESSION AND REGULAR MEETING AGENDA PAGE 4 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2.Draft Update of the 2018-2019 Frederick County Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans and Joint Public Hearing with the Virginia Department of Transportation---------------------------------------------N The Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans Establish Priorities for Improvements to the Primary and Interstate Road Networks within Frederick County.Comments from the Transportation Committee will be Forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.Ultimately, the Priorities Adopted by the Board of Supervisors will be Forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for consideration. The Board of Supervisors and VDOT will receive Public Comment on the Proposed Six Year Plan for Secondary Roads for Fiscal Years 2019 Through 2024 in Frederick County and on the Secondary System Construction Budget for Fiscal Year 2019. 3.Ordinance Amendment to Frederick County Code Chapter 165 Zoning, Article II Supplementary Use Regulations; Parking; Buffers; and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 203 -Buffers and Landscaping; Section 165-203.02(C)Buffer and Screening Requirements.---------------------------O Revision to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to Modify Requirements for Residential Separation Buffers in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District. Board Liaison Reports Citizen Comments Board of Supervisors Comments Adjourn MINUTES Frederick County Board of Supervisors BudgetWork Session Tuesday,May 22, 2018 4:00p.m. Board Room, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA ATTENDEES Board of Supervisors: Chairman Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.; ViceChairman Gary A. Lofton; Blaine P. Dunn;J. Douglas McCarthy; Judith McCann-Slaughter;and Shannon G. Trout were present.Robert W. Wells wasabsent. Staff present:Kris C. Tierney, County Administrator; Jay E. Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator;Cheryl B. Shiffler, Finance Director; Sharon Kibler, Assistant Finance Director;Jennifer Place, Budget Analyst; Rod Williams, County Attorney; C. William Orndoff,Jr.,Treasurer; Mike Ruddy, Director of Planning and Development; Candice Perkins, Assistant Director of Planning and Development; and Scott Varner, Director of Information Technology. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting toorder at 4:00p.m.Mr. Tierney provided an overview of the agenda items. DISCUSSION-Aylor Middle School Replacement Mr. Tierney reviewedthe proposed resolution regarding funding for a replacement Aylor Middle School. The Board discussed the possibility of having the School Board respond with a resolution offering concurrence on the topic. There was general discussion of the need for the new school building to be expandable. Mr. Williams provided a revised resolution expressing the desire of the Board of Supervisors to consider a request for an appropriation of $45.5 million. By consensus, the Board agreed to have the revised resolution added to the Board meeting agenda for May 23, 2018. DISCUSSION -Master Development Plans to BOS for Information Mr. Tierney highlighted the past practices regarding Master Development Plans (MDP) being brought to the Board for information. He explained that no action is necessary unless there 1 FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Minutes:Budget Work Session May 22, 2018 is a waiver request submitted with the master development plan. There was discussion of the value of MDPs being on the agenda for information and citizen awareness. The Board discussed the need for formal review of MDPsand by consensus agreed they wish to study the issue before making any change to policy or the zoning ordinance. DISCUSSION -Medicaid Expansion –Need for June 12 Work Session Mr. Tierney notedthere had been no action on the state budget or the expansion of Medicaid. He noted a conflict with the June 12 work session, and by consensus, the Board agreed to cancel the meeting. OTHER The Board and staff discussed obtaining more information on proposed school square footage estimates and what was spent on the Brambleton Middle School near Leesburg, VA. Vice Chairman Lofton saidhe wished to begin a conversation about categorical funding for the school system. Supervisor Dunn inquired about the process for setting the salaries of constitutional officers. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05p.m. 2 FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Minutes:Budget Work Session May 22, 2018 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 2018 7:00 P.M. BOARD ROOM, COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 107 NORTH KENT STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA ATTENDEES Board of Supervisors: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman; Gary A. Lofton, Vice Chairman; Blaine P. Dunn; J. Douglas McCarthy; Judith McCann-Slaughter; and Shannon G. Trout were present.Robert W. Wellswas absent. Staff present: Kris C. Tierney, County Administrator; Jay E. Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; Michael T. Ruddy, Director of Planning and Development; Candice Perkins, Assistant Director of Planning; Karen Vacchio, Public Information Officer; Ellen Murphy, Commissioner of the Revenue; and Ann W. Phillips, Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. INVOCATION Vice Chairman Lofton delivered the invocation. PLEDGE OFALLEGIANCE Supervisor Slaughter led thePledgeof Allegiance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA - APPROVED Upon motion of Supervisor Dunn, seconded by Vice Chairman Lofton, the agenda was adopted with one addition on a voice vote. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA – APPROVED Upon motion of Vice Chairman Lofton,seconded by Supervisor Slaughter, the consent agenda was adopted on a voice vote. -Minutes:Budget Work Session of May 8, 2018 - CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL -Minutes: Regular Meeting of May 9, 2018 - CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL -Finance Committee Report (Appendix 1) - CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL + + ++ + + + + + ++ + CITIZEN COMMENTS Amber Wallin, Opequon District, said she appreciated the Board moving forward with a replacement Aylor Middle School building, but has concerns about the proposed square footage of the building. She said it appears that the opinions of the School Board are being dismissed 1 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes * May 23,2018 and said the Board should plan ahead for future predicted growth and build the largerschool building. Sophia Guntang and Jessica Shostek, Back Creek District, said they are students at Aylor and are concerned about the proposed 140,000 square foot building. They said that Byrd and James Wood Middles Schools are overcrowdedmeaning more students will be redistricted adding to Aylor’s attendance.They said the new building will be the smallest in the County, and with new families moving into the County they are concerned the building will quickly become overcrowded. Chris Fordney, Red Bud District, said he is a member of the County Parks and Recreation Commission. He said he is infavor of the proposed senior housing project at St. Paul’s on the Hill Church on Senseny Road but has some concerns. He said he hopedthe proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan was not being sought to avoid the discussion of proffers required by a rezoning process. Mr. Fordney said his other concern is access to the proposed multifamily housing saying that the developer should be obligated to create a walking trail accessing nearby development to the east and added that there should be a crosswalk on Senseny Road to allow access to development on the south side of Senseny Road. Tara Shostek, Back Creek District, spoke about the proposed resolution regarding funding for a replacement Aylor School. She said she is concerned about the legality of forcing provisions on the School Board. She said the Board of Supervisors does not have control over school construction, and encouragedthe Board change the language of the resolution in order that it not be a mandate. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS -None COUNTY OFFICIALS: PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION HONORING THE LIFE OF TOM BAKER Chairman DeHaven and Vice Chairman Lofton read theResolution Honoring the Life of Tom Baker, adopted on February 14, 2018, and presented a framed copy of the Resolution to the family of Mr. Baker. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS LAURA L.LOVING RE-APPOINTED AS STONEWALL DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE EXTENSIONLEADERSHIP COUNCIL -APPROVED Supervisor Slaughter moved to reappoint Laura L. Loving to the Extension Leadership Council as the Stonewall District Representativefor a four-year term ending June 30, 2022. Supervisor McCarthy seconded the motion which carried unanimously on a voice vote. REQUESTS FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE FOR REFUNDS- APPROVED Mr. Tierney explained there were fourrequests for refunds that have been reviewed by the County Attorney.Supervisor Slaughter moved for approval of and the corresponding 2 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes * May 23,2018 supplemental appropriationsfor the refund requestsbyRyder Truck Rental LT for $3,382.63; Wheels LT for $3,905.02; Undisclosed Taxpayer-Disabled Veteran’s Relief for $6,670.46;and D L Peterson Trust for $20,286.20. Supervisor McCarthy secondedthe motion which carried on a roll call vote as follows: Blaine P. DunnAyeShannon G. TroutAye Gary A. LoftonAyeRobert W. WellsAbsent J. Douglas McCarthyAyeCharles S. DeHaven, Jr.Aye JudithMcCann-SlaughterAye RESOLUTION REGARDING FUNDING FOR A REPLACEMENT AYLOR MIDDLE SCHOOL –APPROVED Supervisor Trout stated she wants to disclose for the record, relative to this item and pursuant to the State and Local GovernmentConflict of Interests Act, thatshe is employed by Frederick County Public Schools as a teacher and therefore is a member of agroup who is or may be affected by the item, and that she is able to participate in the transaction fairly, objectively, and in the public interest. Supervisor Slaughter moved for approval of the Resolution Regarding Funding for a Replacement Aylor Middle School. Vice ChairmanLofton seconded the motion which carried as follows: Blaine P. DunnAyeShannon G. TroutAye Gary A. LoftonAyeRobert W. WellsAbsent J. Douglas McCarthyAyeCharles S. DeHaven, Jr.Aye JudithMcCann-SlaughterAye REGARDING FUNDING FOR A REPLACEMENT AYLOR MIDDLE SCHOOL WHEREAS, the County School Board of Frederick County has requested a supplemental appropriation to the FY2018 Construction Fund in the amount of $ for and the construction of a new Aylor Middle School; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board states its willingness to consider the request for an appropriation of up to $45,500,000 for the acquis new Aylor Middle School, provided that: 1.The facility does not exceed 140,000 square feet in floor area; 2.The facility will have capacity for 900 students; 3.The facility will be expandable; 4.The facility will not be subject to any unresolved VDOT comments vehicular ingress and egress to the facility shall be safe and ate; and 5.The School Board will designate the existing Aylor Middle School conveyance back to the County, promptly upon the opening of the + + + + + + + + + + + + 3 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes * May 23,2018 COMMITTEE BUSINESS Finance Committee SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDED BY THEFINANCE COMMITTEE -APPROVED Supervisor Slaughter moved for approval of the Sheriff’s requests for a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $18,253.92 representing (3) auto claim insurance reimbursements; a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $4,809.84 representing reimbursements for extraditions; a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $100 representing a donation to the Honor Guard; and theParks & Recreation Director’s request for a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $900 representing a donation specified for the purchase of pet waste convenience stations at Sherando Park. Supervisor Trout seconded the motion whichcarried on a roll call vote as follows: Blaine P. DunnAyeShannon G. TroutAye Gary A. LoftonAyeRobert W. WellsAbsent J. Douglas McCarthyAyeCharles S. DeHaven, Jr.Aye JudithMcCann-SlaughterAye Supervisor Slaughter moved for approval of theTreasurer’srequest for a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $52,000representing funds needed for DMV stops for the remainder of the fiscal year. Vice Chairman Lofton seconded the motion which carried on a roll call vote as follows: Blaine P. DunnAyeShannon G. TroutAye Gary A. LoftonAyeRobert W. WellsAbsent J. Douglas McCarthyAyeCharles S. DeHaven, Jr.Aye JudithMcCann-SlaughterAye Supervisor Slaughter moved for approval of a request from the Department of Social Services for a General Fund budget reduction in the amount of $220,000 with $58,875 of that amount representing local funds, and the reduction representing yearend adjustments to bring the County budget in line with the State budget. Vice Chairman Lofton seconded the motion which carried on a roll call vote as follows: Blaine P. DunnAyeShannon G. TroutAye Gary A. LoftonAyeRobert W. WellsAbsent J. Douglas McCarthyAyeCharles S. DeHaven, Jr.Aye JudithMcCann-SlaughterAye Supervisor Slaughter moved for approval of a request from the Department of Social Services for a General Fund budget transfer in the amount of $48,231representing a transfer out of health/dental to be used for additional expenses. Supervisor Dunn seconded the motion which carried on a roll call vote as follows: Blaine P. DunnAyeShannon G. TroutAye Gary A. LoftonAyeRobert W. WellsAbsent J. Douglas McCarthyAyeCharles S. DeHaven, Jr.Aye JudithMcCann-SlaughterAye 4 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes * May 23,2018 PUBLIC HEARINGS(Non-Planning Issues) -None PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS Public Hearings REZONING #05-17 FOR O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) d/b/a Carmeuse Lime & Stone, CONTINUED UNTIL JUNE 13, 2018 Submitted by Lawson and Silek, PLC., to Amend the Proffers for this Property; Rezoning 394.2 Acres from the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with Proffersto the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with Revised Proffers. The Properties are Situated Generally West of the Town of Middletown.Specifically, the Middle MarshProperty is Located East of Belle View Lane (Route 758), and West and Adjacent toHites Road (Route 625) and is Further Traversed by Chapel Road (Route 627).The Northern Reserve is Bounded to the South by Cedar Creek and is West and Adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624).The Properties are Identified with Property Identification Numbers 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Candice Perkins, Assistant Director of Planning, provided an overview of the requested proffer amendment saying it proposes to remove the previously proffered Overall Plan, Phasing I, II, III andIV Plans and six of the twelve viewshed plans. She reviewed the revised proffer proposals including the intent to utilize an amendedGeneralized Development Plan and nine viewshed plans, revision to the timing ofthe installation of the berms, revision of the heights of the berms, removal ofthe landscaping exhibitfor the berms,and removal of the water supply and reclamation proffers. Ms. Perkinssaid staff received revisedproffers dated May 15, 2018, that include text which preserves existing vegetationbetween Berm D and the Westernview Subdivision, addresses stockpiling of material, use of areasoutside of Berm D, hours of operation, well monitoring and blasting notifications. She said further revised proffers were received earlier in the day which had been placed at the seats of the Board members. George McKotch, Area Operations Manager of applicant Carmeuse Lime & Stone, thankedthe Board and especiallySupervisors Lofton and Dunn for meeting with their neighbors to discuss the proposal. He said when the process began, Carmeuse truly thought that the proposal was better and less impactful option than the original proffer. He said the Board had a choice of leaving the proffers as they were in the 2008 rezoning or voting to accept the new proffers delivered earlier in the day. He said the new proffers address the concerns of the neighbors. He noted that the water and the access are not open to debate. Michael Wilmoth of Carmeuse indicated the new proposed berm locations and their heights on an aerial map. He provided a summaryof the most recent revisionsto the proffersas follows: Berm D has been divided into four sections with varying heights and will be placed will be behind the tree line. Bern C will be constructed similarly to Berm D. Activities in the fieldwill be limited to periodic maintenance,monitoring, and exploration. Neighbors will have given 48hours’ notice ofa change in the hours of operation. Monitoring wells will be installed. Notification of blasting will be given to those within 1,500’ range by phone, email or 5 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes * May 23,2018 text message. A Seismographwill be placed by an engineer. Lighting will be turned off after workinghours. Tree line and fence line will be maintained according to best practices. Berm D will be built to 30 feet. Plantings will be random to appear natural andwill be of the types consistent with those in the Frederick County area. Hours of operation will be 6am-10pm, unless otherwise necessary because of customer demand. Supervisor Slaughter inquired about the possibility of the hours of operations changing because of customer demand. Mr. McKotch said if there is a clear path to his request, he would remove the customer demand portion of the statement. Vice Chairman Lofton asked for clarification on the work days, and Mr. McKotch responded that the normal hours will be 6am - 10pm Monday through Friday, excluding major holidays. In response to Supervisor Slaughter’s question, Mr. McKotch said the lighting would go hand in hand with the operating hours. Chairman DeHaven opened the public hearing. Richard Guy, Back Creek District, said he owns 65 acresnext to Carmeuse on the southeast side. He asked that the berm be 30 feet high and built 10 years before work begins to allow time for the trees to become established. He asked why the 10-year requirement is being removed now if it was originally promised in the rezoning. Robin Young, Back Creek District, thanked the Board for the four-week extension saying the time waswell used. She said the current revised proffers are an improvement but noted a possible conflict in the proffer language between sections 2.2 and 12.2 regarding the tree line. She requested that comment be sought from VDOT as she had requested at the previous public hearing. Kristen Laise, Executive Director of Belle Grove, thanked theBoardfor its efforts and said she is pleased to see the revised proffers. She said in order to protect the historic resource of Belle Grove, the pre-blast surveys need to be written into the proffers. She suggested that a seismographbe located on the Belle Grove property. Kevin Barrington, Back Creek District, said there is nothing that makes sense about the rezoning. He said he is disheartened that Carmeuse gets to place the seismograph as part of the proffer. He said he will be requesting a noise ordinance to protect the nearby residents from the noise. Kian Banks, Back Creek District, said he appreciates the Board allowing the time for the residents to negotiate with Carmeuse, saying that a lot of headway toward an agreement has been gained. He said with the late arrival of the revised proffers he would like to see a delay to allow all involved time to read the updated proffer language. Ed Streun, Back Creek District, thanked the Board for the time allowed to discuss the issue with Carmeuse. He said improvements have been made in the proffers and requested that the Board allow another two weeks to refine the revised language. 6 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes * May 23,2018 Robin Young, Back Creek District, said that VDOT needs to be involved because of language in the proffer referring to lighting and overhead conveyors over Chapel Road. She noted Carmeuse’s website mentions the fact that in Belgium, their equipment is insulated to reduce noise, and suggested that insulation be used here.She concluded saying she likes the revision to the hours of operation and suggested that four seismographs be placed by Carmeuse for monitoring. ChairmanDeHaven closed the public hearing. George McKotch said the berm in question will be 30 feet, and the tree line referred to remains as in the original proffer. He said there will be a seismograph next door to Belle Grove, and there will be three in the area. He said that he will agree to the 6am –10pm hours of operation. He requested that the Board vote tonight and not delay the matter. Vice Chairman Lofton said he does not think there can be any more revision to improve the proffers. He moved for approval of the rezoning with the amended proffers. Supervisor Dunn seconded the motion. SupervisorTrout said she was uncomfortablevoting on the proffers with the members not havingseen them untilarrivingat the meeting. She offered an amendment to the motion to delay the vote until the next meeting. SupervisorSlaughterseconded the motion to amend the previous motion. Vice Chairman Lofton said the revisions were laid out by both the staff and Mr. McKotch and there was no reason for delay. Supervisor Slaughter said she is grateful for the work done on the issue, but she is hesitant to vote on something she has just received without having had the opportunity to read and digest the proffers. She inquired about comments from VDOT. Ms. Perkins said that VDOT comments were not requested because there are no impacts different fromthe original rezoning. Vice Chairman Lofton said that he checked with VDOT and Chapel Road cannot be used by Carmeuse for commercial hauling. Supervisor Dunn said the Applicant has been very reasonable. He said he likesthe revised proffers but has concerns about what has been eliminated from the proffers. Vice ChairmanLofton said he received a listof 11 items and highlighted how the revised proffers have now addressed nearly all of the requests by the neighbors. He said he wants to protect the residents while allowing the Applicant to function as a business. Supervisor McCarthy said out of fairness and due process, he is opposed to voting on the matter before he and the public have had a chance to review the revised proffers. Supervisor Slaughter asked how the proffer amendment addressesthe issue of blasting at Belle Grove. Vice Chairman Lofton noted that any neighbor may request notification of blasting via the preferred method. Supervisor Dunn said he is struggling with certain sections of the original proffer being deleted from the updated version. The motion to continue the public hearing and delay voting on the matter until June 13, 2018,carried as follows: Blaine P. DunnAyeShannon G. TroutAye Gary A. LoftonNoRobert W. WellsAbsent 7 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes * May 23,2018 J. Douglas McCarthyAyeCharles S. DeHaven, Jr.Aye JudithMcCann-SlaughterAye + + + + + + + + + + + + Other Planning Business ST. PAUL’S ON THE HILL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT –DIRECTED PLANNINGCOMMISSIONTO HOLDPUBLIC HEARING To determine whether to send the matter to public hearing before the Frederick County Planning Commission for consideration of an amendment to the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Plan and amendment of the land use designation for PIN 54-A-128from institutional land use to urban center land use with a recommendation to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Perkins provided background information on the topicsaying the subject property contains 4.971 acres,has an address of 1527 Senseny Road and isidentified with Property Identification Number 54-A-128.She said the property is located within theSewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the Urban Development Area (UDA)and is designated in the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan of the 2035Comprehensive Plan for institutional land use with environmental resources. Ms. Perkins said the Applicant is requesting to change the future land use from Institutional to Urban Center, and it should be noted that the subject property is currently zoned RP (Residential Performance) District with the current by-right density for this Property if developed with townhouses or garden apartments at 10 units per acre. She said the Owner is seeking to change the land use designationto Urban Center as this designation would allow for up to 20 units per acre by-right and noted that if the land use designation is changed from Institutional to Urban Center, it woulddouble the by-right density allowed for this property without a rezoning.She added that low-income age restricted housing would not be guaranteed if this plan amendment isapproved. Ms. Perkins noted there are some development constraints on the property. Supervisor McCarthy asked about whether the amendment would requirethe property to be age restricted. Ms. Perkins said the amendment would not require the development to be age restricted. Vice Chairman Lofton said with rezoning to a by right use there will be no proffers. Ms. Perkins said that the applicant would have to adhere to agency commentssuch as those from VDOT and the Parks and Recreation Commission. Supervisor Slaughter asked if there were a way to preserve the mission of the church without upscalingto the Urban Center designation. Ms.Perkins saidthe only way to ensure the age restrictionis with a rezoningsince the restrictioncould not be accomplishedwith a comprehensiveplanamendment. Evan Wyatt of Greenway Engineering,representing the Applicant,briefly describedthe request. He introducedthe Vice President of Wesley Housing, Paul Brown, saying Wesley Housing is the planned funding provider for the project. The Board and staff discussed the options of rezoning or amending the comprehensive plan, the possibility of proffers, the need for setback variance, and the demand forservices resulting from new development. 8 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes * May 23,2018 Supervisor Dunn moved for approval of the following resolution directing the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing. Supervisor McCarthy seconded the motion which carried as follows: Blaine P. DunnAyeShannon G. TroutAye Gary A. LoftonAyeRobert W. WellsAbsent J. Douglas McCarthyAyeCharles S. DeHaven, Jr.Aye JudithMcCann-SlaughterAye RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO ADOPT AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN APPENDIX I AREA PLANS SENSENY/EASTERN FREDERICK URBAN AREA PLAN WHEREAS, the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, was adopted by the Board of Supervis on January 25, 2017 and this proposed amendment to the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urb result in a land use designation change for (PIN) 54-A-128 from institutional land use to urban center land use; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission discussed this amendment on May sent the amendment to the Board of Supervisors for discussion; a WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors discussed this propose 2018; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REQUESTED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that the Frederick County Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Plan to amend the land usefor PIN 54-A-128 from institutional land use to urban center land use and forward a re This amendment would change the land use designation from Instit. + + + + + + + + + + + + BOARD LIAISON REPORTS Vice Chairman Lofton noted the proposed Medicaid expansion, if approved, will increase expenses. Supervisor Trout said that Frederick Water recently approved an increase in water and sewer base rates, adopted the FY 2019 budget, and executed an agreement that will facilitate the construction of the Stephenson interceptor. CITIZEN COMMENTS -None BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Supervisor Dunn said, regarding the Aylor Middle School replacement project, that he recently visited Brambleton Middle School in Loudoun County to try to learn more and that the Board is trying to find options that are beneficial to everyone. Vice Chairman Lofton noted the upcoming Memorial Day holiday and asked all to remember those fallen in service toour country. Supervisor Trout said that while she voted in favor of the Aylor resolution, she does not think it is appropriate for the Board to attempt to dictate school designwhich is the job of the School Board,also an elected body. She said she is appreciative of the Board’s moving forward with the resolution and hopes that compromise can be made soon allowing the School Board to meet the bond cycle deadline in the fall. SupervisorMcCarthy said the speakers earlier in the evening insinuatedthat the Board 9 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes * May 23,2018 was not listening to the experts on the School Board regarding square footage needs. He said that the SchoolBoardhadindicatedthat a 140,000 square foot building wouldserve 900 students. He said the BrambletonMiddle School in Loudoun County serves 1400 students at 121 square feet per student. He said the current proposal for the Aylor building replacement will serve 900 students at 155 square feet per student. ADJOURN On motion of Vice Chairman Lofton, seconded by SupervisorTrout,the meeting was adjourned at 9:02p.m. 10 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes * May 23,2018 COUNTY of FREDERICK Finance Department Cheryl B. Shiffler Director 540/665-5610 Fax: 540/667-0370 E-mail: cshiffle@fcva.us TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Finance Committee DATE: May 16, 2018 SUBJECT: Finance Committee Report and Recommendations A Finance Committee meeting was held in the First Floor Conference Room at 107 North Kent Street Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 8:00 a.m. All members were present. () Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 were approved on consent agenda. 1.() The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $18,253.92. This amount represents (3) auto claim insurance reimbursements. No local funds required. See attached memos, p. 3 8. 2.() The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $4,809.84. This amount represents reimbursements for extraditions. No locad memos, p. 9 11. 3.() The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $100. This amount represents a donation to the Honor Guard. No local funds required. See attached memo, p. 12 13. 4.() The Parks & Recreation Director requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $900. This amount represents a donation specified for the purchase of convenience stations at Sherando Park. No local funds required. 14. 5.The Treasurer requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $52,000. This amount represents funds needed for DMV stops for the remain local funds required as revenue collected has exceeded budgeted p.15. The committee recommends approval. 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Finance Committee Report and Recommendations May 16, 2018 Page 2 6.The Department of Social Services requests a General Fund budget reduction in the amount of $220,000. Of that amount, $58,875 represents local funds. The reduction represents yearend adjustments to bring the County budget in line with the State bu p.16 19. The committee recommends approval. 7.The Department of Social Services requests a General Fund budget transfer in the amount of $48,231. This amount represents a transfer out of health/dental to be used for ad expenses. No additional local funds required. See attached inf 16 19. The committee recommends approval. INFORMATION ONLY 1.The Finance Director provides a Fund 10 Transfer Report for April 2018. See attached, p. 20 21. 2.The Finance Director provides financial statements ending April 30, 2018. See attached, p.22 32. 3.The Finance Director provides an FY 2018 Fund Balance Report endi8. See attached, p. 33. Respectfully submitted, FINANCE COMMITTEE Judith McCann-Slaughter, Chairman Charles DeHaven Gary Lofton Angela Rudolph Jeffrey Boppe By ___________________________ Cheryl B. Shiffler, Finance Director MINUTES Frederick County Board of Supervisors BudgetWork Session Tuesday,June 5, 2018 4:00p.m. Board Room, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA ATTENDEES Board of Supervisors: Chairman Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.; ViceChairman Gary A. Lofton; Blaine P. Dunn;J. Douglas McCarthy; Judith McCann-Slaughter;and Shannon G. Trout were present.Robert W. Wells wasabsent. Staff present:Kris C. Tierney, County Administrator; Jay E. Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator;Cheryl B. Shiffler, Finance Director; Jennifer Place, Budget Analyst; Rod Williams, County Attorney; Tamara Green, Director of Social Services; Amy Swift, Assistant Director of Social Services; Mike Ruddy, Director of Planning and Development; Mark Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator; Scott Varner, Director of Information Technology; Ellen Murphy, Commissioner of the Revenue; Patrick Barker, Executive Director of the Economic DevelopmentAuthority; and Ann W. Phillips, Deputy Clerk to the Board. Other: Robert T.Mitchell of the law firm of Hall, Monahan, Engle, Mahan & Mitchell CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting toorder at 4:00p.m. UPDATE –Medicaid Expansion Mr. Tierney said that little information is currently available, but he has learned that the state will provide some funding annually in the rangeof $238,000. He noted that the projected costsare more than $400,000. He said staff is reviewing the need for additional personnel, but that the timing of staff growth is still uncertain. The Board and staff discussed the requirement for the County to participate and fund the expansion, the timing for hiring additional staff, and the funds set aside to assistwith the expansion. CLOSED SESSION At 4:08 p.m., Vice Chairman Lofton moved that the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County enter a closed session for the following matters: •Pursuant to Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A)(7), for consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members pertaining to actual or probable litigation, the petitions of Rockwood 72, LLC and 750 Remington, LLC, in regard toApril 17, 2018 Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals, both petitions currently pending in the Frederick County Circuit Court, where such consultation or briefing in open meeting would adversely affect the negotiating or litigating posture of the public body. 1 FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Minutes:Work Session June 5, 2018 •Pursuant to Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A)(39),forthe discussion or consideration of proprietary information, voluntarily provided to the County by a private business pursuant to a promise of confidentiality for purposes of economic development in the County, and concerning the performance of that business relative to an economic development performance agreement with the County. •Pursuant to Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A)(3), for the discussion or consideration of the disposition of publicly held real property, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body. •Pursuant to Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A)(3), for the discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for a public purpose, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body. Supervisor Dunn Seconded the motions which carried on a voice vote. Supervisor McCarthy recused himselffrom the first item in the closed session motion and did not enter the session. At 4:39 p.m., Supervisor McCarthy and County Attorney Rod Williams joined the closed session. At 5:18 p.m., the Board members being assembled within the designated meeting place in the presence of members of the public and the media desiring to attend, the meeting was reconvened on motion of Vice Chairman Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Dunn. Vice Chairman Lofton moved that the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County certify that, to the best of each member’s knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or consideredby the Board. Supervisor Dunn seconded the motion which carried as follows on a roll call vote: Blaine P. DunnAyeShannon G. TroutAye Gary A. LoftonAyeRobert W. WellsAbsent J. Douglas McCarthyAyeCharles S. DeHaven, Jr.Aye JudithMcCann-SlaughterAye ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20p.m.on motion by Vice Chairman Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Slaughter. 2 FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Minutes:Work Session June 5, 2018 MEMORANDUM TO: Landfill Oversight Committee Membersand Board of Supervisors FROM: Joe C. Wilder, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Landfill Oversight Committee Report for Meeting ofMay 24, 2018 DATE: May 31, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________________ The Landfill OversightCommittee met on Thursday,May 24, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. All committee members were presentexcept Stan Crockett, Eden Freeman, David Ash, Robert Wells and Perry Eisenach.The following items were discussed: ***ItemsNot Requiring Action*** 1.Discussion on sludge issues at the Landfill: During the summer of 2016, the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Facility (OWTF) changed their treatment system and started producing a different type of sludge. For many years, sludge has been transported to the Regional Landfill from many treatment plants in the region. We have been able to place the sludges in the Landfill waste and have nothad any problems with stability of the waste mass or being able to obtain a satisfactory compaction of the waste. However, since the change in the makeup of the sludge in 2016, the sludge from OWTF has had a higher moisture content and it is made up of less solids. Staff at the Landfill has had a very difficult time placing the sludge in the trash due to its poor suitability and higher moisture content. While trying to incorporate the sludge into the waste, the equipment sinks and gets stuck. Since 2016, we have been digging large trenches in the existing trash and burying the sludge. This is causing long term stability problems in the Landfill and our Landfill engineering consultants, SCS Engineers, has told us to cease this operation. County staff, Frederick Winchester ServiceAuthority (FWSA) staff and City of Winchester staff have met several times over the last few months trying to find a viable, cost effective solution. Don Riggleman, Waste Supply and WastewaterTreatment 107 North Kent Street, Second Floor, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Landfill Oversight CommitteeReport Page 2 May 31, 2018 Division Manager attended the meeting and presented the many different things they have tried to help make the sludge more suitable to be placed in the Landfill. They have not been able to significantly make any changes to the sludge that will allow it to be placed with minimal impact. He informed the committee that they have submitted a biosolids application to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). There long- termsolutions would be to divert all the sludge to land application and store the material when they can’tland apply the sludge. They informed us that this permit could take at least 3-6 months. In the meantime, they are requesting we try to help them by storing the sludge until it can be land applied. It may not be possible to provide that long-term storage. Our main short-term goal is to mix the sludge with an additive to help the sludge dry out, provide structural stability and be placed like a soil. The Landfill and OWTF would cost share with the additive and equipment to perform an on-site mixing process. There are a lot of logistics related to this and we are continuing to work through the details. 2.Discussion of Leachate issues at the Landfill: Over the past two weeks, the Landfill area has received eight (8) inches of rain. During this time, we encountered some extreme run-off from the different areas of the Landfill with some bypass pumping in the Permit 40 Landfill area. Over the past few years, we have attempted to make some additional improvements in the Permit 40 area with limited success. We are currently looking at constructing a large ballast holding pond to provide liquid storage during the spring season. The ponds capacity could be 3-4 million gallons in size.We are currently pumping leachate to the OWTF at a rate of approximately 100,000 gallons per day to get some volume in our ponds. 3.Discussion of specific waste fees: We discussed some updates on special waste fees at the Landfill. We have made some minor adjustments to tires and electronic recycling fees. I have attached the updated 2018 tipping fees at the Landfill which have been approved and adopted by the Board of Supervisors. (Attachment 1) 4.Discussion of upcoming Projects: We will begin excavation of Phase 3, Cell A area of the permit 529 MSW Landfill later this year. We want to remove approximately 500,000 cubic yards of soil androck in preparation of a future Landfill cell. 5.Discussion to add additional Landfill gas collection: We are going to add additional Landfill gas collections capacity in our active Landfill area to boost our gas production at the energy plant. We will be doing engine 107 North Kent Street, Second Floor, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Landfill Oversight CommitteeReport Page 3 May 31, 2018 replacements at the energy plant in the late summer since the engines have over 60,000 work hours each. 6.Discussion of future cost sharing with Clarke County: Currently, Clarke County is starting construction on a new citizen convenience center located east of Berryville. Once this facility goes on-line later this year, we may need to adjust our current cost share program with Clarke County at several sites. Wewill relook at those rates later this year. JCW/kco cc:Committee Members Kris Tierney, CountyAdministrator Jay Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator Ron Kimble, Landfill Manager Andrew Clark, Environmental Manager Gloria Puffinburger, Solid Waste Manager file 107 North Kent Street, Second Floor, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 2018 Tipping Fees ** EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2018** Current MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONPRICE/TON Tipping Fees COMMERCIAL Abbv. BRUSH$50 BC$ 47.00 (FACTORY & COMMERCIAL) MSW$50 F or C$ 47.00 TIRES$100 $ 80.00 CONSTRUCTION$45 CD$ 42.00 S - SLUDGE$38 S$ 32.00 Municipal - WATER TREATMENT SLUDGE$38 WTS$ 32.00 Municipal - OPEQUON PLANT SLUDGE$38 OPS$ 32.00 Municipal - BERRYVILLE SLUDGE$38 BVS$ 32.00 CONCRETE/RUBBLE$15 RBL$ 12.00 LIVESTOCK$50 $ 47.00 RESIDENTIAL OVER 1000 LBSUNDER 1000 LBS IS AT NO CHARGE HOUSEHOLD$20 $ 18.00 CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS$20 $ 18.00 BRUSH$20 $ 18.00 CONCRETE/RUBBLE$15 $ 12.00 THIS INCLUDES FREDERICK, CLARKE COUNTIES AND CITY OF WINCHESTER TIRES PASSENGER TIRES$1.00 CT$ 0.80 PASSENGER ON RIM$2.00 CTR$ 1.80 TRUCK TIRE$3.00 TT TRUCK ON RIM$4.00 TTR TRACTOR TIRES$6.00 TRT TRACTOR TIRES on RIM$7.00 TRTR EQUIPMENT/OVERSIZED TIRES$100/TON $ 7.00 OVER 10 MUST PAY BY WEIGHT$100/TON $ 80.00 ELECTRONICS RECYCLING 2nd Saturday 7:00a.m. - 1:00p.m. 4th Wednesday 12:00p.m. - 4:00p.m.* No Wednesday events Nov. & Dec. due to the holidays* TV'S$21.00 (commercial) $15.00 (residential)tv-$12 WOOD CONSOLE TV$30.00 (commercial) $20.00 (residential)Mon-$8.00 MONITORS$14.00 (commercial) $ 10.00 (residential) UPS (battery back-up)$ 7.50 (commercial) $ 5.00 (residential)Comm tv-$18 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTERESIDENTS ONLY Comm Mon-$8 1st and 3rd Wednesday 12:00p.m. - 6:00p.m. **November - March (3rd Wednesday ONLY) paints, chemicals, strippers, antifreeze, gas, etc. MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Joe C. Wilder, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Public Works Committee Report for Meeting ofMay 29, 2018 DATE: June 6, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________________ The Public Works Committee met on Tuesday, May 29, 2018, at 8:00 a.m. All members were presentexcept Robert Wells and Whit Wagner. The following items were discussed: ***Items Not Requiring Action*** 1.Update on the new Stephenson Convenience Site: Staff gave a brief update on the construction of the new center. Due to recent heavy rainfall, the work has been delayed. We have talked with Carmeuse and they are allowing us to keep operating our Clearbrook site until we canmove over. We hope to open the new site in late June. 2.Update on disposition of the old Frederick County Middle School: Recently, the county received bids for the sale of the old Frederick County Middle School located at 441 Linden Drive. We received abid from Valley Health, but it was conditioned. They indicated they would pay $50,000.00 more than the highest bid not to exceed $4 million. We did not receive any other bids. The County Administrator has reached out to Valley Health to seek clarification and if they are going to submit a bid price. A question was asked if it would benefit the possible sale of the property if the building was demolished. Due to the need for major renovations, if the building was removed from the property, it could make the property more marketable. Staff has been able to contact a large demolition company in the region to receive a reasonable budget estimate to abate and remove the asbestos in the building and then demolish the building. The company provided an estimate of $900,000. If this option was chosen,a formal bid process would have to be performed and get an actual bid result. The final option was to reach out to a local real estate company and place the building and property on the market for sale. Staffwill seek further clarification from the Board of Supervisors on possible avenues to sell the property. 3.Discussion/Update on the Landfill Oversight Committee Meeting held on Thursday, May 24, 2018: 107 North Kent Street, Second Floor, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Public Works CommitteeReport Page 2 June 6, 2018 The committee discussed the different issues at the Frederick County Regional Landfill. We have attached the committee report from the May 24, 2018meeting which describes in detail what matters we are dealing with out there and our plans of actions. The committee recommended that the report be forwarded tothe Board of Supervisors for their information. (Attachment 1) 4.Discussion regarding an ordinance for lifetime dog tags: The County Attorney and Treasurer made a presentation to the committee about a process that would allow for a lifetime dog license. After some discussion, the committee recommended that the draft ordinance be sent to the Code and Ordinance committee for further review. Supervisor Lofton recommended approval of the motion and committee member Gene Fisher seconded the motion. The committee unanimously approved the motion. (Attachment 2) 5.Discussion on a draft ordinance regarding payment of taxes to obtain building permits: The County Attorney and the Treasurer made a presentation to the committee about requiring that payment of taxes to Frederick County be paid prior to issuance of building permits or land disturbance/stormwater permits. There was discussion about the process of determining how staff would verify the payment of taxes. The Treasurer’s office has the information available to staff on the AS400 so once a permit is created if taxes are owed a message will appear informing them the applicant owes Frederick County taxes. Staff would direct the applicants to the Treasurer’s office for payment. After some additional discussion, the committee recommended that the draft ordinance be sent to the Code and Ordinance committee for further review. Committee member Gene Fisher recommended approval of the motion and committee member Ed Strawsnyder seconded the motion. The committee unanimously approved the motion. (Attachment 3) 6.Update on the Frederick County Esther Boyd Animal Shelter Training Facility Design: Staff gave a brief update on the progress of the project design. Its anticipated that a final design will be completed byJuly 2018. The design package will be brought back to the committee at that time for endorsement and to move forward with the bid process. 7.Miscellaneous Reports: a) Tonnage Report (Attachment 4) b) Recycling Report (Attachment 5) c) Animal Shelter Dog Report (Attachment 6) d) Animal Shelter Cat Report (Attachment 7) 107 North Kent Street, Second Floor, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Public Works CommitteeReport Page 3 June 6, 2018 Respectfully submitted, Public Works Committee J. Douglas McCarthy, Chairman Gary A. Lofton Robert W. Wells Whitney “Whit” L. Wagner Gene E. Fisher Harvey E. “Ed” Strawsnyder, Jr. By ____________________ Joe C. Wilder Public Works Director JCW/kco Attachments:as stated cc:Kris Tierney, County Administrator Jay Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator Ron Kimble, Landfill Manager Gloria Puffinburger, Solid Waste Manager Rod Williams, County Attorney Bill Orndoff, Treasurer Wayne Corbett, Deputy Treasurer Mike Stewart, Senior Project Manager file 107 North Kent Street, Second Floor, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Assistant Director - Transportation RE: Transportation Committee Report for Meeting of May 21, 2018 DATE: June 5, 2018 The Transportation Committee met on Monday, May 21, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. Members Present Members Absent Gary Lofton Chairman (voting) Mark Davis (liaison Middletown) Judith McCann-Slaughter (voting) James Racey (voting) Gary Oates (liaison PC/voting) Barry Schnoor (voting) Lewis Boyer (liaison Stephens City) ***Items Not Requiring Board Action*** 1.Perry Road Speed Study: Chairman Lofton was contacted by residents that reside on Perry Road regarding the 55-mph speed limit. The residents note that it is too fast for the conditions of the roadway and are asking that the County request VDOT to perform a speed evaluation. The most recent VDOT traffic count on Perry Road is 460 daily trips. Staff recommends that VDOT Engineering assess the situation and provide recommendations. Upon consensus of the Committee they chose to forward a recommendation to the VDOT Staunton District Traffic Engineering for an evaluation. 2. Old Charlestown Road Bridge: Mr. Lloyd Ingram gave a brief update of the Old Charlestown Road Bridge replacement and discussed the proposed flood gates to be installed for safety issues. Once more information is available, it will be presented to the Committee. 3.Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Plan Updates (attached): Staff gave an overview of the Interstate and Primary Road Plans that are updated each year. Also, discussed was the Secondary Road Plan. VDOT could still make some refinements to the Secondary Road Plan. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Interstate Plan Updates are as follows: 1.Change letter priorities to number priorities to be consistent with the Primary Plan. 2.Update of priorities to place Exit 313 at Number 1 and Exit 317 at Number 2. 3.Update language for Exit 307 to acknowledge the need to improve the existing facility ahead of the long-term goal of relocation. Primary Plan Updates are as follows: 1.Move Route 11 ahead of Route 277 on the priority list. 2.Route 277 to be broken into segments of logical termini in recognition of the fact that future applications for this roadway would likely need to be for smaller segments. 3.The addition of Route 522 intersection with Costello Drive in recognition and support of the SmartScale application on that facility. 4.County Project Updates: Tevis Street Extension/Airport Road/I-81 Bridge: Authorization has been received from VDOT to proceed to 100% design on the roundabout and surface streets. The submission is expected to be complete by the end of May. Also, the maintenance of the traffic plans is expected to be submitted by the end of May. The draft right-of-way plats are being developed and final borings for a couple of spot locations and storm water ponds are being taken. Memorandum of Agreement for historical concerns is undergoing. Renaissance Drive: Test borings are complete, and the geotechnical report is on schedule. Upon its completion 30% design for the bridge and roadway will begin. Communication is ongoing with the impacted utilities and the preliminary engineering agreement has been signed and forwarded to CSX. State Environmental Review Process is also underway. Coverstone Drive: No activity currently. Jubal Early Drive Extension and Interchange with Route 37: No activity currently. 5.Upcoming Agenda Items: June Potential cancellation TBD Route 11 South Stars Study-MPO Oakdale Crossing Traffic Calming Study 6.Other Business: The VDOT Public Hearing about potential projects will be from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on June 12, 2018 at Strasburg High School, 250 Ram Drive, Strasburg, Virginia. JAB/ks Employee of the Month Resolution Awarded to: Lisa M. Lambert 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 approveda resolution which established the Employee of the Month award and candidates for theaward may be nominated by any County employee; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisorsupon recommendation by the Human Resources Committeeselects one employee from those nominated; and, WHEREAS,Lisa M. Lambertwho servesas an HR Specialistwasnominated for Employee of the Month; and, HR Specialist,Lisa Lamberthas done a phenomenal job finalizing the WHEREAS, implementation of the ATS portion of NEOGOV. After Lisa was tasked with learning and implementing the NEOGOV Applicant Tracking System, she went to work learning the system and all the variables associated with it. Not only did she learn how to use the software, she learned it in a way that she could train others on how to effectively use the system. Lisa reached out directly to the hiring managers to gain their buy-in for posting their positions in the NEOGOV platform and within about ninemonths, Lisa took HR from the configuration stage to being fully implemented. This was a HUGE step forward. Moving the County to the NEOGOV platform has opened up the applicant pool for hiring managers and provided overwhelming success for each position posted. It has also reduced the manual transactions associated with a paper system; making the hiring process more efficient. Lisa was also personally recognized by the NEOGOV Implementation Consultant for her hard work in implementing NEOGOV;and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors day ofJune2018, thatLisa M. Lambertis hereby recognized as the Frederick this 13 th County Employee of the Month forJune2018; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors extends gratitude toLisa M. Lambertfor heroutstanding performance and dedicated service and wishes her continued success in future endeavors; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Lisa M. Lambertis hereby entitled to all of the rights and privileges associated with heraward. County of Frederick, VA Board of Supervisors ___________________________________ Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman FREDERICK COUNTY RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION KIM DEHAVEN WHEREAS, Kim DeHaven served Frederick County, Virginia, for more than 36 years as an employee in the Parks and Recreation Department; and WHEREAS, Kim DeHaven began her career as a full time Clerk Typist I in 1978 and throughout her tenure received promotions to Clerk Typist II,Clerk typist III, and Administrative Assistant; and WHEREAS, Kim DeHaven was known for her positive attitude, cooperative spirit, job knowledge, and commitment to the department and the County, learning all aspects of the Parks and Recreation systems and providing training to other staff members; and WHEREAS, in April of 1994, Kim was selected as Employee of the Month in recognition of her role in developing and implementing the computerized maintenance management system(PMPRO) which greatly increased productivity in the department NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors extends its sincerest thanks to Kim DeHaven for her dedication and professionalism and wishes herall of the best in her future endeavors. BEIT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution be spread across the minutes of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors for all citizens to re accomplishments of this public servant. ADOPTED this 13 day of June 2018. th _____________________________ _____________________________ Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Gary A. Lofton ChairmanBack Creek District Supervisor _____________________________ _____________________________ J. Douglas McCarthy Blaine P.Dunn Gainesboro District Supervisor Red Bud District Supervisor _____________________________ _____________________________ Robert W. Wells Judith McCann-Slaughter Opequon District Supervisor Stonewall District Supervisor _____________________________ _____________________________ Shannon G. Trout KrisC. Tierney Shawnee District Supervisor Clerk FREDERICK COUNTY RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION MATTHEW HOTT WHEREAS, Matthew Hott served Frederick County, Virginia, for more than 32 years as an employee in the Parks and Recreation Department; and WHEREAS, Matthew Hott began his career as a full time Assistant Superintendent for Parks and Recreation and during his tenure received promotion to Superintendent of Parks and Recreation; and WHEREAS, during his tenure, Matthew was instrumental in overseeing the evolution of our park system and ensuring the parks were maintained in an above a with diligence in park maintenance enabling our park system to manage unprecedented growth in attendance and usage, in particular at our two district parks, Sherando and Clearbrook; and WHEREAS, Matthew Hott oversaw all projects in the parks including but not limited to t construction of shelters and maintenance facilities, the additio paths and trails such as the walking/bike trail at Sherando Park WHEREAS, Matthew Hott served as a catalyst for sound park management methods, worked well with the public and his staff alike, promoted staff develop many staff members, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors extends its sincerest thanks to Matthew Hott for his dedication and professionalism and wishes him all of the best in his future endeavors. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution be spread across the minutes of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors for all citizens to reflec this public servant. ADOPTED this 13 day of June 2018. th _____________________________ _____________________________ Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Gary A. Lofton Chairman Back Creek District Supervisor _____________________________ _____________________________ J. Douglas McCarthy Blaine P. Dunn Gainesboro District Supervisor Red Bud District Supervisor _____________________________ _____________________________ Robert W. Wells Judith McCann-Slaughter Opequon District Supervisor Stonewall District Supervisor _____________________________ _____________________________ Shannon G. Trout Kris C. Tierney Shawnee District Supervisor Clerk COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 Memorandum To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors From: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator Date: June 7, 2018 RE: Annadale Allied Industrial Park The following additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory provision or provisions cited, are hereby requested; the right of way for which, including additional easements for cuts, fills and drainage, as required, is hereby guaranteed: Frogale Court, State Route 766 0.23 miles Staff is available to answer any questions. MRC/dlw 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 RESOLUTION BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, in regular meeting on the 13th day of June, adopted the following: WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Form AM-4.3, fully incorporated h Court of Frederick County; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on June 9, 1993, for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described in the attached Form AM-4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 33.2-705, Code of Virginia, and the Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of- way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Gary A. Lofton J. Douglas McCarthy Robert W. Wells Blaine P. Dunn Shannon G. Trout Judith McCann-Slaughter A COPY ATTEST _____________________________ Kris C. Tierney Frederick County Administrator PDRes. #24-18 In the County of Frederick By resolution of the governing body adopted June 13, 2018 The following VDOT Form AM-4.3 is hereby attached and incorporated as part of the governing body's resolution for changes in the secondary system of state highways. A Copy Testee Signed (County Official): ____________________________________________ Report of Changes in the Secondary System of State Highways Project/Subdivision Annandale Allied Industrial Park Type Change to the Secondary System of State Highways: Addition The following additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory provision or provisions cited, are hereby requested; the right of way for which, including additional easements for cuts, fills and drainage, as required, is hereby guaranteed: Reason for Change: New subdivision street Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute:§33.2-705 Street Name and/or Route Number Frogale Court, State Route Number 766 Old Route Number: 0 From: Route 651, Shady Elm Road To: 0.23 mile southeast to cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.23 miles. Recordation Reference: 080000626 Page 0156 Right of Way width (feet) = 60' VDOT Form AM-4.3 (4/20/2007) Maintenance Division Date of Resolution: June 13, 2018 Page 1 of 1 DATE: June 7, 2018 TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors FROM: Patrick Barker, CEcD Executive Director CC:Kris Tierney County Administrator RE: Performance AgreementExtension: Kingspan Attached for the Board of Supervisors action please find a resolution extending the Performance Date of Kingspan Insulation LLCs Performance Agreement dated December 31, 2016. As you might recall, the Board of Supervisors previously discussed this matter and a revised Performance Date of December 31, 2018. Section 1 of the Performance Agreement permits such an extension to December 31, 2018. Frederick County possesses the sole and absolute authority to extend the Performance Date. The commissioning of Kingspan Insulation LLCs new production lin than expected. By the end of the year, the company states all neessary investment will be complete to comply with the New Capital Investment Target in the They have already achieved the New Jobs Target. Staff is seeking Board action on the attached resolution. RESOLUTION Frederick County Board of Supervisors EXTENDING PERFORMANCE DATEFOR KINGSPAN INSULATION LLC ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, KINGSPAN INSULATION LLC has made known its intent to expand its operation in Frederick County, Virginia by making new taxable machinery and equipment and real property improvements and retain and create jobs; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia and KINGSPAN INSULATION LLC executed a Performance Agreement on June 22, 2016 to assist in expanding the operation for KINGSPAN INSULATION LLC in Frederick County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia, possesses the sole and absolute authority to extend the Performance Date in the executed Performance Agreement with KINGSPAN INSULATION LLC; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia does authorize extension of the Performance Date of the executed Performance Agreement with KINGSPAN INSULATION LLC to December 31, 2018. Upon motion duly made by _________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the votes hereafter recorded, ADOPTED, this 13thday of June 2018 Charles S. Dehaven, Jr. ____Shannon Trout____ Judith McCann-Slaughter____Gary Lofton____ J. Douglas McCarthy____Robert Wells____ Blaine Dunn____ A COPY TESTE: ___________________________ Kris Tierney Clerk, Board of Supervisors COUNTY of FREDERICK Office of the County Administrator M E M O R A N D U M To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors From: Ann W. Phillips, Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Date: June 7, 2018 Re: Request for Mountain Falls Park Sanitary District ==================================================================== Following is the timeline of events set in motion by the receipt in this office of petitions signed by residents of Mountain Falls Park subdivision. On April 3, we received a petition stating I am interested in Mountain Falls Park becoming a Sanitary District. I certify I am a registered voter and reside in Mountain Falls Park Subdivision. Rick Miller, Voter Registrar, verified that the petition contained the signatures of 63 qualified registered voters and therefore it was certified as a valid petition. On April 16, Kris wrote you a memo outlining possible courses of action following a public hearing on the issue. On April 25, the Board set a public hearing on the matter for the June 13 meeting. On May 23, twenty-five signed statements were received in this office with the notation that more would be forthcoming. (SEE ATTACHED SAMPLE) As of June 7, five (5) emails in support of a sanitary district designation and two (2) in opposition have been received. PDF files of the materials received have been sent electronically for your review. The original hard copies will be available at the Board meeting. On June 13, the Board will conduct a public hearing on the request for creation of a sanitary district. Winchester, Virginia 22601 107 North Kent Street REZONING APPLICATION #05-17 O-N MINERALS/dba CARMEUSE LIME & STONE Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: June 1, 2018 Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 11/15/17 Public Hearing Held; Postponed for 90 Days Planning Commission: 02/21/18 Public Hearing Held; Recommended Denial Board of Supervisors: 03/14/18 Public Hearing Held; Postponed for 30 Days Board of Supervisors: 04/25/18 Public Hearing Held; Postponed to May 23, 2018 Board of Supervisors: 05/23/18 Public Hearing Held; Postponed to June 13, 2018 Board of Supervisors: 06/13/18 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 394.2+/- acres from the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with revised proffers. The Middletown site was originally rezoned to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with Rezoning #03-06 for O-N Minerals (Chemstone) which was approved in 2008. LOCATION: The properties are located west of the Town of Middletown. Specifically, the Middle Marsh Property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758), and west and adjacent to Hites Road (Route 625) and is further traversed by Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & CONCLUSION FOR THE 06/13/18 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: The Planning Commission at their February 21, 2018 meeting unanimously recommended denial of this application. The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing for this item on March 14, 2018 and postponed the application until the April 25, 2018 meeting. The application was then postponed to the rd May 23 Board of Supervisors meeting to provide the Applicant additional time to work on the application and was then postponed to the June 13, 2018 to allow additional time to review revised proffers. With this rezoning, the Applicant is proposing the following changes: Proffer Introduction : Remove the previously proffered Overall Plan, Phasing I, II, III and IV Plans and six of o the twelve viewshed plans. The revised proffer proposes to utilize an amended Generalized Development Plan and o nine viewshed plans. Berm installation timing: Berms A and Berm B (original Phase I) were to be installed within 10 years of the o approval of the proffer (2018). Berms C and Berm D (original Phase II) were to be installed no later than 10 years o prior to the commencement of mining north of Chapel Road. Rezoning # 05-17 CARMEUSE LIME & STONE June 1, 2018 Page 2 The proffer amendment removes the requirement that the berms be installed 10 o years prior to mining north of Chapel Road. The proposed amendment states that the berms would be installed after permitting and two years prior to the extraction of material for processing. Berm Landscaping: The amendment removes original Exhibit 3 which pertained to the description of the o plants to be installed on the berms. The approved proffer statement requires the berm d coniferous plantings placed in a random manner approval by the Zoning Administrator and the state forester. d mix recommended by the o National Park Service that is currently in use at the adjacent Cedar Creek and Bell This proffer reduces the timing to include two years prior to extraction of materials, o which reduces the established timeline that would provide additional established landscaping protection for adjacent properties. Berm Heights: Berms were proffered with a maximum height of 30 feet and a minimum height of 10 o feet as depicted on the twelve original viewshed plans. The proposed proffer includes nine proposed viewshed plats and proposes text that states, o all install Proffer 2.2BermDSection 1 - Berm Section 1 is the section south of the Westernview o Subdivision. The viewshed from the quarry to the adjacent Subdivision was originally pro. Proffer 2.2Berm D - Section 2 o Proffer 2.2Berm D - Section 3 with the approved proffers. The northern section of proffer. Proffer 2.2Berm D - ection 4 S o with the approved proffers. Proffer 2.2 Stockpile No spoil pile shall exceed the height of the highest berm north of Chapel Road. Proffer 2.2 Area outside of Berm D Section 1 There shall be no extraction of material for processing outside the berms. The field between Berm D Section 1 and Westernview shall not be used for parking or storage of mining equipment, and any vehicles and/or equipment shall be staged in this area only while they are engaged maintenance, monitoring and/or exploration activities. Rezoning # 05-17 CARMEUSE LIME & STONE June 1, 2018 Page 3 Quarry Hours Proffer 2.4 This proposed addition includes normal hours of operation for the portion of the property north of Chapel Road which will be 6 a.m.-10 p.m. Monday-Friday and no major holidays. Rights to Water Supply Original Proffer 5. This proffer is proposed to be eliminated. Proffer 4 Groundwater (Original proffer 5): provisions set forth above, the Owner agrees to install at least one monitoring well within six Proffer 6 Blasting Control (Original Proffer 7): has rec Property rezoned herein, the Owner shall establish and maintain a notification methodology that provides notice to the requesting property owner of any and all blasting that will occur north of Chapel Road as part of the extraction of material for processing or site development. Such methods may include but not be limited to, telephone calls, text messages or emails. Proffer 8 (Original proffer 9.1): Addition to shall be installed at a strategic location north of Chapel Road. Such location shall be chosen in coordination with and at the direction of a licensed engineer well versed in this function Reclamation (Original Proffer 10): This proffer is proposed to be eliminated. Proffer 10 (Original Proffer 12): Proffer 12.4 Environment (Original Proffer 14): Addition to this proffer that agrees that the existing fence line/tree line along Section 1 of Berm D will remain and be maintained using best management and farm practices. Following the required public hearing, a decision regarding this rezoning application by the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The Applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Board of Supervisors. Rezoning # 05-17 CARMEUSE LIME & STONE June 1, 2018 Page 4 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 application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by Staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 11/15/17 Public Hearing Held; Postponed for 90 Days Planning Commission: 02/21/18 Public Hearing Held; Recommended Denial Board of Supervisors: 03/14/18 Public Hearing Held; Postponed for 30 Days Board of Supervisors: 04/25/18 Public Hearing Postponed to May 23, 2018 Board of Supervisors: 05/23/18 Public Hearing Held; Postponed to June 13, 2018 Board of Supervisors: 06/13/18 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 394.2+/- acres from the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with revised proffers. The Middletown site was originally rezoned to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with Rezoning #03-06 for O-N Minerals (Chemstone) which was approved in 2008. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 (portions of) PROPERTY ZONING : EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District PRESENT USE: Quarry and Undeveloped ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential South: EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Use: Shenandoah County East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural PROPOSED USES: Quarry Rezoning # 05-17 CARMEUSE LIME & STONE June 1, 2018 Page 5 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Planning & Zoning: 1)Site History: The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Middletown Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re-mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. The subject properties were rezoned to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with the approval of Rezoning #03-06 on May 28, 2008 (see attached original proffers). 2)Comprehensive Plan: The 2035 Comprehensive Plan is the guide for the future growth of Frederick County. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan is an official public document that serves as the Community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of Community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. The Area Plans, Appendix I of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, are the primary implementation tool and will be instrumental to the future planning efforts of the County. Land Use The subject properties are located within the Rural Areas of Frederick County and are outside of the limits of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Rural Areas land use designation is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as all areas outside of the designated Urban Development Area. The primary land uses in the Rural Areas are agriculture and forests. The primary growth pattern consisting of widely scattered, large lot residential development. Transportation and Access The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan does not cover this portion of the County. Per the 2006 rezoning, site access continues to be via the existing quarry entrance on McCune Road (Route 757) See proffer 2.1 3)Historic: The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) reviewed the original 2006 rezoning application on December 20, 2005. This rezoning does not increase the historic impacts from the original rezoning application. Staff would note that the Applicant has completed the 8-acre Rezoning # 05-17 CARMEUSE LIME & STONE June 1, 2018 Page 6 land dedication to the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation as stated in proffer 3.1, as well as, the Phase I Archeological Survey per proffer 3.2. 4)Proffer Statement Dated June 13, 2005; revised January 31, 2018; revised February 14, 2018; March 2, 2018; revised May 15, 2018; revised June 1, 2018: Proposed revisions from the approved proffer statement (please see attached redline copy of the proffer statement): Proffer Introduction : Remove the previously proffered Overall Plan, Phasing I, II, III and IV Plans and six of o the twelve viewshed plans. The revised proffer proposes to utilize an amended Generalized Development Plan and o nine viewshed plans. Berm installation timing: Berms A and Berm B (original Phase I) were to be installed within 10 years of the o approval of the proffer (2018). Berms C and Berm D (original Phase II) were to be installed no later than 10 years o prior to the commencement of mining north of Chapel Road. The proffer amendment removes the requirement that the berms be installed 10 o years prior to mining north of Chapel Road. The proposed amendment states that the berms would be installed after permitting and two years prior to the extraction of material for processing. Berm Landscaping: The amendment removes original Exhibit 3 which pertained to the description of the o plants to be installed on the berms. The approved proffer statement requires the berm approval by the Zoning Administrator and the state forester. o National Park Service that is currently in use at the adjacent Cedar Creek and Bell This proffer reduces the timing to include two years prior to extraction of materials, o which reduces the established timeline that would provide additional established landscaping protection for adjacent properties. Berm Heights: Berms were proffered with a maximum height of 30 feet and a minimum height of 10 o feet as depicted on the twelve original viewshed plans. The proposed proffer includes nine proposed viewshed plats and proposes text that states, o ither be maintained or Rezoning # 05-17 CARMEUSE LIME & STONE June 1, 2018 Page 7 Proffer 2.2BermDSection 1 - Berm Section 1 is the section south of the Westernview o Subdivision. The viewshed from the quarry to the adjacent Subdivision was originally Proffer 2.2Berm D - Section 2 o Proffer 2.2Berm D - Section 3 with the approved proffers. The northern section of Proffer 2.2Berm D - ection 4 S o with the approved proffers. Proffer 2.2 Stockpile No spoil pile shall exceed the height of the highest berm north of Chapel Road. Proffer 2.2 Area outside of Berm D Section 1 There shall be no extraction of material for processing outside the berms. The field between Berm D Section 1 and Westernview shall not be used for parking or storage of mining equipment, and any vehicles and/or equipment shall be staged in this area only while they are engaged maintenance, monitoring and/or exploration activities. Quarry Hours Proffer 2.4 This proposed addition includes normal hours of operation for the portion of the property north of Chapel Road which will be 6 a.m.-10 p.m. Monday-Friday and no major holidays. Rights to Water Supply Original Proffer 5. This proffer is proposed to be eliminated. Proffer 4 Groundwater (Original proffer 5): provisions set forth above, the Owner agrees to install at least one monitoring well within six Proffer 6 Blasting Control (Original Proffer 7): Property rezoned herein, the Owner shall establish and maintain a notification methodology that provides notice to the requesting property owner of any and all blasting that will occur north of Chapel Road as part of the extraction of material for processing or site development. Such methods may include but not be limited to, telephone calls, text messages or emails. Proffer 8 (Original proffer 9.1): shall be installed at a strategic location north of Chapel Road. Such location shall be chosen in coordina Reclamation (Original Proffer 10): This proffer is proposed to be eliminated. Proffer 10 (Original Proffer 12): king Rezoning # 05-17 CARMEUSE LIME & STONE June 1, 2018 Page 8 Proffer 12.4 Environment (Original Proffer 14): Addition to this proffer that agrees that the existing fence line/tree line along Section 1 of Berm D will remain and be maintained using best management and farm practices. All other proffers remain generally consistent with the 2006 approved rezoning and proffer statement. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION FROM THE 11/15/17 MEETING: Staff reported this is a request to amend the proffers associated with Rezoning #03-06 which was approved in 2008. Staff continued, at that time 394.2+/-acres was rezoned from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. Staff noted the Applicant is seeking to revise the proffers pertaining to: Viewshed Plans, berm heights, installation timing, landscaping exhibit removal, and cemetery access. A location map of the property was presented. Staff reported the amendment seeks to remove the previously proffered Overall Plan, Phasing I, II, III and IV Plans, and the twelve (12) Viewshed Plans which were all components of the General Development Plan (GDP). This amendment seeks to eliminate these components and only utilize one (1) GDP. Staff presented the GDP which is generally consistent with the outline of the previously approved GDP in regard to the Berm locations on the properties. Staff reviewed the proffer revisions: Viewshed Plans, Berm Heights, and Berm Installation Timing: The viewshed plans from the approved rezoning depicted the proposed berm heights that would provide screening and protection for surrounding properties. Berm timing Berms A and B were to be installed within 10 years of rezoning approval (installation by 2018). Berms C and D were to be installed no later than 10 years before the commencement of mining north of Chapel Road. This amendment removes all minimum/maximum heights and timing is now prior to the commencement of any extraction of materials. Cemetery Access: Amendment seeks to eliminate the Marsh Brook Lane access and provide a new right- of-way that would provide access to the cemetery via Chapel Road. (the approved rezoning stated that the Applicant would improve the Marsh Brook Lane access within 12 months of completion of the cemetery restoration) The proposed amendment does not contain a timeline for the installation of this accessway and does not contain a backup if agency approval cannot be obtained for the new access point on Chapel Road. Rezoning # 05-17 CARMEUSE LIME & STONE June 1, 2018 Page 9 Staff noted it appears this proposed proffer amendment will have a great impact on the surrounding residential properties and the Applicant has not provided justification that the berm revisions and the changes requested would mitigate the impacts on the surrounding properties. A Commissioner inquired about the rights to water supply in paragraph 4.1 of the proffers. Staff explained that a proffer amendment was received from Mr. Ty Lawson prior to the meeting. Staff and the County Attorney were not able to review these prior to this meeting and cannot comment on them at this time. A Commissioner asked how long the Applicant has been working with Staff on these revisions. Staff noted in June 2017 comments were provided to the Applicant. A Commissioner inquired, in the original proffers there were commitments as far as pre-blast surveys of the properties surrounding the quarry; who was responsible in making sure the Applicant performed those commitments that were agreed to in the original rezoning; is the County involved in that, specifically the surveys concerning property conditions, water well conditions, and seismic monitoring. Staff that those proffers are not being fulfilled or there is a complaint, that proffer compliance would be investigated and determined if the proffers are being met or not. A Commissioner asked if Staff had received comments from residents that the proffers were not implemented as originally agreed to. Staff commented no, not at this time. A Commissioner commented that if the proposed amendment were approved, that the height of the berms would be up to the Applicant. Staff stated that is correct, under the proposed amendment the berm height would be at the Applicants discretion and they eliminated the landscaping detail. The Commissioner commented the current approval offers more to work with; the new proposal has no specificity. A Commissioner commented for clarity and should ignore what was submitted just a few hours ago and focus on what is in the agenda. A Commissioner asked how close the berms on the north end are from the residential strip of community housing there. Staff deferred this question to the Applicant as to if they have an exact distance planned for the old and new proffers. Mr. Thomas (Ty) Moore Lawson, P.C. with Lawson & Silek, P.L.C representing the Applicant came forward. Mr. Lawson reported this proffer amendment is to specifically address the berms; on the north end of the property. In response to a Commissioner, Mr. Lawson noted when this exercise was started it was written in a way to just focus on things they wanted to change, as things developed it was pointed out with this rezoning being relatively old that a lot has been completed, therefore what has been accomplished should be considered. Mr. Lawson continued, 36+ acres has been conveyed to the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Article 4 references two old agreements that existed with the Sanitation Authority in 2005; those agreements were terminated, and a new agreement was put in place. Mr. Lawson reviewed the proffer update that was sent to Staff just prior to this meeting: 8-acre historical reserve grew to 36-acres; Phase I archeological study; Two (2) cemeteries were restored; ground water labeled as completed but under way; pre-blast surveys are ongoing (have contacted 105 families); noise requirements are the same; well monitoring is ongoing; phasing of berms A and B are complete. Regarding the berms Mr. Lawson explained the intent now is to have irregular berms in height and different vegetation. Mr. Lawson provided photos of existing berms and of new proposed berms placing berms behind vegetation. Mr. Lawson addressed the question of timing for the berms; the existing proffers states the berms be installed ten (10) years prior to mining activities, this has been removed and replaced with commencement and behind the tree lines so there is less disturbance. Mr. Rezoning # 05-17 CARMEUSE LIME & STONE June 1, 2018 Page 10 Lawson provided photos of the viewshed and the GDP. A Commissioner inquired why the berms are being located behind the vegetation. Mr. Lawson commented the Applicant has a better idea where most of the stone is underground therefore the point is to be able to install the berms 100 ft. off the property line in turn making the impacts less severe. The Commissioner commented, to simplify; relocating the berms now depends on where the high-quality mineral is to be mined. Mr. Lawson stated that is partially correct; the other part is a fresh set of eyes reviewed this and determined relocation would be better for neighbors. The Commissioner noted relocating the berms have no bearing on the height of the berms. Mr. Lawson explained there was not a requirement to make the berms 30 ft., but somehow became part of the public process; this is not something the company wanted, and the intent is to vary the berm sizes. A Commissioner requested clarification that the 85 property owners within the property boundary have been contacted regarding pre-blast surveys. Mr. Lawson noted the Applicant contacted all property owners, also offered pre- advantage of this and others have not. The Commissioner asked if someone comes forth years down the road with problems on their property or structure, how would Chemstone defend this. Mr. Lawson explained the property owners should take advantage of these offers in advance therefore having something to go by. Mr. Lawson noted the existing proffers do not change obligations to one another. Complaints and questions are addressed by the company at all times. The Commissioner asked how often seismic waves are monitored for the 85 properties. Mr. Lawson stated the monitoring is ongoing. Mr. Mark Basel, Site Production Manager at the Middletown, Virginia operation came forward and reported the operation at Chemstone monitors every blast. They have permanent seismic graphs at three (3) different residences toward the southern end of the property. Mr. Basel noted currently there are no monitors at the northern end where there is no mining yet; they do place mobile units if necessary. A Commissioner inquired has there been any reported impacts/damages from blasting. Mr. Basel commented to his knowledge they have not been out of compliance; they do get calls if the blast is felt stronger than normal. He reiterated, they do monitor all blasts. There were nine (9) citizens that spoke in opposition of this rezoning. The concerns shared were similar: delay action on this item, no contact from the Applicant regarding well and pre-blast surveys, berms would not provide enough protection and language in the proffers very ambiguous. Mr. Lawson responded to comments: the drawings/maps are scaled, it is approximately 100 feet from the property line under the existing proffers, the Applicant has copies of notifications/letters that were sent to property owners for pre-blast surveys and well monitoring. A Commissioner reminded everyone this item is not about the current land use which was previously approved; it pertains to the proffers being amended. He commented, he is agreeable to a delay on this and noted community engagement is extremely important. A Commissioner commented, this item must be acted on in a timely manner and cannot be moved to Spring 2018; he agrees to a postponement. The Commissioner continued, he urges the citizens to take advantage of the offer made by Carmeuse for pre-blast surveys and well monitoring so there can be a base starting point down the road. He concluded, the language is very ambiguous and vague, the Applicant needs to put back in the drawings and examples and put things in writing so that it is very clear. Rezoning # 05-17 CARMEUSE LIME & STONE June 1, 2018 Page 11 A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously passed to recommend postponement for 90 days. (Note: Commissioners Unger and Cline were absent from the meeting) PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION FROM THE 02/21/18 MEETING: Staff reported this is a request to amend the proffers associated with Rezoning #03-06 which was approved in 2008. Ms. Perkins continued, this request was postponed for 90 days at the Planning proposal with neighbors. Staff explained the Applicant is seeking to revise the proffers pertaining to: Viewshed Plan, berm heights, installation timing, Landscaping exhibit removal and Cemetery access. Staff compared the proffers that have been approved to the amended proffers, dated February 14, 2018: proffered viewshed plans. The revision includes 3 viewshed plats that only show proposed berm details north of Chapel Road. Berm Heights Berm D (north of Chapel Road); berm adjacent to the Westernview Subdivision Berm Heights Berms C & D; removes the berm detail south of Chapel Road and the Northern berm is still shown Berm Timing Berms C & D were proffered to be installed no later than 10 years prior to the commencement of mining north of Chapel Road. The revision proposes Berms C & D to be installed after the permitting process of the properties for mining and before any extraction of material for processing. Proffer 2.2 for the complete elimination of all berms and only fencing provided. Cemetery Access: Seeks to relocate the Marsh Brook Lane access to Chapel Road. The approved proffer st access and that the Applicant would provide continued maintenance. The proposed proffer states that the owner would relocate the ROW; this proffer is ambiguous as to whether the Applicant will be building a ROW for access or just relocating the ROW. It was noted this also removes the timeline (12 months from cemetery restoration) therefore this is no trigger for the completion of this relocation. Site Access Clarification: Staff not questions regarding site access directly via Chapel Road; Proffer 2.1 prohibits access to Chapel Rezoning # 05-17 CARMEUSE LIME & STONE June 1, 2018 Page 12 Road for quarry operations. The proffered GDP indicates a proposed tunnel under Chapel Road. Staff concluded it appears this proposed proffer amendment will have a great impact on the surrounding residential properties and the Applicant has not provided justification that the berm revisions and the changes requested would mitigate the impacts on the surrounding properties. Mr. Michael Wilmoth from Carmeuse presented a brief overview of what has transpired since the November meeting: held two community meetings; had face to face meetings with residents; handled numerous phone calls. He provided a presentation of the revised proffers and various mapping. A Commission Member inquired if the open field on the combined comparison will be mined in the future. Mr. Wilmoth stated not at this time. A Commission Member suggested possibly zoning this piece back to RA. Mr. Ty Lawson, representing the Applicant noted there is no intent at this time. A Commission Member suggested, if the berms are behind the tree line, why not include map or and could be include in proffer 2.2. The Commissioner noted the wording in proffer 2.2 can be easily misinterpreted. A Commission Member suggested the wording be changed to offer protection to residents in the future. Mr. George McKotch of Carmeuse came forward and provided information pertaining to the berms and future mining. A Commission Member reminded everyone that is what is presented in the agenda is what is to be voted on this evening. The Public Hearing was opened and six (6) residents came forward and shared their opposition to this rezoning citing concerns such as: requests not fully addressed by Carmeuse; community meetings did not involve everyone, truck traffic on roads, all berms to be 30 feet and residents losing property value. A Commission Member commented the items presented tonight are not acceptable, he sees no reason to reduce the height of the berms and the residents are not satisfied with any of the changes. Mr. Lawson noted the mission was to meet with neighbors; the berm height was the majority of the discussion and they received conflicting requests from neighbors. Mr. Lawson concluded this item needs to move forward and there is no time for a delay request. A motion was made to deny this request, seconded, and unanimously recommended for denial. (Commissioner Mohn was absent from the meeting) BOARD OF SUPERVIORS SUMMARY AND ACTION FROM THE 03/14/18 MEETING: Staff provided an overview of the application and the revisions requested by the Applicant. Thomas Moore Lawson, representing Carmeuse, introduced Michael Wilmoth of Carmeuse who provided an overview of the request. Mr. Wilmoth said the company met with the neighbors of the property in question and the consensus was that moving the berm and changing the berm timeline were good things. He discussed a list of 11 items that were requested by the neighbors saying Carmeuse has been able to agree to eight of them. Mr. Lawson proceed to provide additional information and an overview of their request. Dr. Clarence R. Geier then discussed the Phase I Archeological Survey which was conducted on the property. Rezoning # 05-17 CARMEUSE LIME & STONE June 1, 2018 Page 13 Thirteen citizens spoke during the public hearing. Mr. Lawson responded to the public hearing comments and there have been seven amendments to the proffers and highlighted the proposed changes. The item was postponed to the April 25, 2018 meeting with a continued public hearing. BOARD OF SUPERVIORS SUMMARY AND ACTION FROM THE 04/25/18 MEETING: The item was postponed to the May 23, 2018 meeting with a continued public hearing. BOARD OF SUPERVIORS SUMMARY AND ACTION FROM THE 05/23/18 MEETING: Staff provided an overview of the application and the revisions requested by the Applicant. The Applicant provided a presentation and provided an overview of the revised proffers presented to the Board at the meeting. The Board of Supervisors requested clarification on the hours of operation; the Applicant agreed to modify the hours of operation to remove the allowance for changes due to demand. Six citizens spoke during the public hearing. The item was postponed to the June 13, 2018 meeting with a continued public hearing to allow additional time to review the revised proffers present to the Board of Supervisors at their May 23, 2018 meeting. Following the required public hearing, a decision regarding this rezoning application by the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The Applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Board of Supervisors. ORDINANCE Action: PLANNING COMMISSION:November 15, 2017 Public Hearing Held; Postponedfor 90 days February 21, 2018Recommended Denial BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: March 14, 2018 Postponed to April 25, 2018 April 25, 2018Postponed to May 23, 2018 May 23, 2018 Postponed to June 13, 2018 June 13, 2018 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING #05-17O-N MINERALS/dba CARMEUSE LIME & STONE , WHEREAS REZONING#05-17, submittedO-N Minerals (Chemstone) Companytorezone 394.2± acres from the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with revised proffers. The Middletown site was originally rezoned to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with Rezoning #03-06 for O-N Minerals (Chemstone) which was approved in 2008. The Applicant is seeking to revise the proffers pertaining to viewshed plans, berms, landscaping and cemetery access with a final revision date of June 1, 2018was considered. The subject properties are located west of the Town of Middletown. Specifically, the Middle Marsh Property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758), and west and adjacent to Hites Road (Route625) and is further traversed by Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624).The properties are located in the Back CreekMagisterial District and are identified by Property Identification Nos. 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 (portions of); and , WHEREAS the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on November 15, 2017 and postponed the application for 90 daysand; the Planning Commission then held apublic meetingon this rezoning on February 21, 2018 and recommended denial;and , WHEREAS the Board of Supervisorsheld a public hearing on this rezoningonMarch 14, 2018 and postponed the applicationto the April 25, 2018meeting with a continued public hearing;and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors on April 25, 2018 postponed the application to the May 23, 2018 meeting with a continued public hearing; and PDRes #08-18 - 2- WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisorsheld a public hearing on this rezoningonMay 23, 2018 and postponed the application to the June 13, 2018 meeting with a continued public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on June 13, 2018; and , WHEREAS the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors,that Chapter 165 of the Frederick CountyCode, Zoning, is amended torezone two (2)parcels of land, 394.2± acres from the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with revised proffers with a final revision date of June 1, 2018.The conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the Applicant and the Property Owner areattached. This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 13thday of June2018by the following recorded vote: CharlesS. DeHaven, Jr., ChairmanGary A. Lofton J. Douglas McCarthyRobert W. Wells Shannon G. TroutJudith McCann-Slaughter Blaine P. Dunn A COPY ATTEST _________________________________ Kris C. Tierney Frederick County Administrator PDRes #08-18 ST 627 REZ # 05 - 17 O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Co. PINs: ST ST 627 83 - A - 109, 90 - A - 23 759 ST 625 Rezoning from EM to EM Zoning Map ST 622 ST REZ #05-17 633 83 A 109 ST 627 ST 625 REZ #05-17 83 A 109 83 A 109 ST 627 ST ST 625 T-627 ST REZ #05-17 ST 757 842 Middletown 90 A 23 ST 624 ST 625 SHENANDOAH ST ST COUNTY 624 627 VIRGINIA ST 624 § ¨¦ 81 § ¨¦ 01 81 ST 11 ST 842 727 Applications Sewer and Water Service Area Parcels B1 (Neighborhood Business District) B2 (General Business District) B3 (Industrial Transition District) EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) § ¨¦ WARREN 81 HE (Higher Education District) COUNTY M1 (Light Industrial District) REZ # 05 - 17 Note: M2 (Industrial General District) Frederick County Dept of O-N Minerals MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) Planning & Development I MS (Medical Support District) (Chemstone) Co. 107 N Kent St Suite 202 OM (Office - Manufacturing Park) PINs: Winchester, VA 22601 R4 (Residential Planned Community District) 83 - A - 109, 90 - A - 23 540 - 665 - 5651 Rezoning from EM to EM R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) Map Created: October 18, 2017 Zoning Map RA (Rural Areas District) Staff: cperkins RP (Residential Performance District) 01,6003,2006,400Feet ST 627 REZ # 05 - 17 O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Co. PINs: ST ST 627 83 - A - 109, 90 - A - 23 759 ST 625 Rezoning from EM to EM Location Map ST 622 ST REZ #05-17 633 83 A 109 ST 627 ST 625 REZ #05-17 83 A 109 83 A 109 ST 627 ST ST 625 T-627 ST REZ #05-17 ST 757 842 Middletown 90 A 23 ST 624 ST 625 SHENANDOAH ST ST COUNTY 624 627 VIRGINIA ST 624 § ¨¦ 81 § ¨¦ 01 81 ST 11 ST 842 727 § ¨¦ WARREN 81 COUNTY REZ # 05 - 17 Note: Frederick County Dept of O-N Minerals Planning & Development I (Chemstone) Co. 107 N Kent St Suite 202 PINs: Winchester, VA 22601 83 - A - 109, 90 - A - 23 540 - 665 - 5651 Rezoning from EM to EM Applications Map Created: October 18, 2017 Location Map Sewer and Water Service Area Staff: cperkins Parcels 01,6003,2006,400Feet ST ST REZ # 05 - 17 638 622 O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Co. PINs:ST 627 ST 83 - A - 109, 90 - A - 23 ST 625 759 Rezoning from EM to EM Long Range Land Use Map ST 622 REZ #05-17 ST 633 83 A 109 ST 627 ST 625 REZ #05-17 83 A 109 83 A 109 ST 627 Applications ST ST Sewer and Water Service Area 625 T-627 ST ST REZ #05-17 Parcels 842 757 ST 90 A 23 Middletown Long Range Land Use 624 Residential SHENANDOAH ST 625 COUNTY Neighborhood Village ST VIRGINIA 624 ST Urban Center 627 Mobile Home Community ST 624 § ¨¦ Business 81 § ¨¦ 01 Highway Commercial 81 ST 11 Mixed-Use ST 842 727 Mixed Use Commercial/Office Mixed Use Industrial/Office Industrial Warehouse Heavy Industrial Extractive Mining Commercial Rec Rural Community Center Fire & Rescue Sensitive Natural Areas Institutional WARREN Planned Unit Development COUNTY VIRGINIA Park Recreation School Employment § ¨¦ 81 Airport Support Area B2 / B3 REZ # 05 - 17 Note: Residential, 4 u/a Frederick County Dept of O-N Minerals High-Density Residential, 6 u/a Planning & Development I High-Density Residential, 12-16 u/a (Chemstone) Co. 107 N Kent St Suite 202 Rural Area PINs: Winchester, VA 22601 Interstate Buffer 83 - A - 109, 90 - A - 23 540 - 665 - 5651 Rezoning from EM to EM Landfill Support Area Map Created: October 18, 2017 Long Range Land Use Map Natural Resources & Recreation Staff: cperkins Environmental & Recreational Resources 02,0004,0008,000Feet June 1, 2018 Candice Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director Planning and Development County of Frederick nd 107 North Kent Street, 2 Floor Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Middletown VIA E-MAIL Dear Candice: Enclosed please find a revised Amended Proffer Statement in clean and redline format for the Carmeuse Middletown matter. For your convenience I have itemized below the revisions to this latest Amended Proffer Statement. Section 2.2: We have removed the language “and provide for a preservation of the existing vegetation/tree/fence line of at least 60 feet in width” from the end of the new sentence beginning “Section 1 shall be installed to a height of 20 feet.” As you will recall, Ms. Robin Young in her comments to the Board advised that she believed that the language in Section 2.2 conflicts with the proffer language in Section 12.2. In order to avoid any appearance of conflict we have removed the language that she discussed and have retained the language in Section 12.2. Also in Section 2.2: The following sentences have been struck: “Further, ten trees shall be planted for every 100 square feet on the outside of the berms. Trees shall be planted at a minimum of 2” caliper.” We have removed these sentences because as we understand it, that language is simply a recitation of the planning that is required per existing Frederick County Ordinances. We also recall comments at the public hearing, perhaps coming from Supervisor Lofton, advising that given that these are already ordinance requirements they are not needed in the Proffer. Candice Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director June 1, 2018 Page 2 Section 2.4: The final two sentences of new Section 2.4 have been struck. Carmeuse has agreed to remove this qualifying language as the result of Staff’s clarifying statements at the public hearing confirming Carmeuse shall be able to access its properties via public roads to install proffer requirements and conduct mining activities. We understand that access to State roads is only obtained after obtaining all appropriate permits for same from the Virginia Department of Transportation; therefore, this is not a County issue. Carmeuse like any other property owner will obtain proper permitting before accessing any public road upon which Carmeuse’s property fronts in order to be able to perform extractive mining activities including, but not limited to, performing extractive mining activities north of Chapel Road. Unless we hear from the County to the contrary, we will assume that our understanding is correct and that there are no other restrictions. Finally, there has been no revisions to old Sections 4 and 10, which relate to a terminated and superseded agreement with Frederick County Sanitation Authority. As a reminder, when we first endeavored to create an Amended Proffer Statement in November 2017, the advice that Carmeuse was given was to redline the existing Proffer Statement (as was approved in 2008) to reflect all those items that have now been accomplished or which have been affected by intervening events. The purpose of this was to let the County know that in fact many of the items to be accomplished had in fact been completed but also to bring the County up to date so that there would be a comprehensive understanding on which proffers still affected the property. As the County certainly knows, there was an agreement subsequent to 2008 wherein, at FCSA’s request the prior agreements with FCSA were terminated and replaced by a new agreement which related primarily to confirmation of an agreement for the Anderson Water Treatment Plant and surrounding property. As a result of that subsequent agreement, there is no existing contract or agreement between Carmeuse and FCSA regarding other Carmeuse properties including, but not limited to, Middletown. In order to fully apprise the County of developments and/or any changes in the status of the property subsequent to 2008, we thought it only appropriate to properly and accurately reflect the same in the Amended Proffer Statement. We recognize that given that more than eight years have passed, there may be individuals that are not familiar with all that has transpired during that time. We trust that this narrative brings everyone up to date. AMENDED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ# 03-06 Rural Areas (RA) to Extractive Manufacturing (EM) PROPERTY: 394.2Acres +/-; Portions of Tax Map Parcels 83-A-109 (“parcel 109”) and 90-A-23 (“parcel 23”) (the “Properties”) RECORD OWNER: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company (“Owner”) APPLICANT: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company (“Applicant”) PROJECT NAME: Chemstone - Middletown ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: June 13, 2005 REVISION DATE(S): February 24, 2017,June 5, 2017, September 25, 2017, November 15, 2017, January 31, 2018, February 14, 2018, March 2, 2018, June 1, 2018 The undersigned ApplicantOwnerhereby proffers that the use and development of the portions of the above-referenced parcels, which are requested to be rezoned, the portions requested to be rezoned being shown on the attached and incorporated plat identified as “Exhibit 1”, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers on the Properties that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above- referenced EM conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the ApplicantOwner, these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Properties with “final rezoning” defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors’ (the “Board”) decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board’s decision is contested, and the Applicant Owner elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Properties adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. Any proffered conditions that would prevent the Applicant Owner from conforming with to State and/or Federal regulations shall be considered null and void. The term “ApplicantOwner” as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the “Generalized Development Plan,” shall refer to the plan entitled “Generalized Development Plan, O-N Minerals (Chemstone)” dated May, 2008 and revised February 14, 2018, and which includes that document entitled Generalized Development Plan Attachment bearing the same date, February 14, 2018 (the “Amended GDP”).“Exhibit 1”.TheApplicant Owner attaches and incorporates the Amended GDP and 93 viewshed plats titled Viewshed 1, Viewshed 2 and Viewshed 3. The aforementioned viewshed plats are and shall be incorporated by reference herein as “Exhibit 2.”., which includes a plan titled “Generalized Development Plan”; a plan titled “Overall Plan”; four plans titled “Phase I Plan”, “Phase II Plan”, “Phase III Plan”, and “Phase IV Plan”; and twelve viewshed plats titled “Viewshed 1A, Viewshed 1B, Viewshed 2, Viewshed 3, Viewshed 4A, Viewshed 4B, Viewshed 5A, North Viewshed 1, North Viewshed 2 and North Viewshed 3. Viewshed 5B, Viewshed 6, Viewshed 7, and Viewshed 8”. The aforementioned documents viewshed plats are and shall be incorporated by reference herein as “Exhibit 2”. The Applicant Owner proffers that its development of the Properties will be in substantial conformity with the Amended GDP. The Generalized Development Plan included in the Proffer Statement approved on May 28, 2008 (“GDP”) is hereby replaced as it relates to the installation and location of berms and viewsheds. All other aspects of the GDP remain the same and in full force and effect. 1. Land Use 1.1 The Properties shall be developed with extractive manufacturing land uses pursuant to the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining (“DMM”) of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (“VDMME”), and shall therefore conform to the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations for Mineral Mining of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 1.2 The Applicant Owner hereby proffers not to engage in the following uses on the Properties: Oil and natural gas extraction; Asphalt and concrete mixing plants; Brick, block and precast concrete products; Cement and lime kilns; and Coal and natural gas-fired power plants or facilities which sell power to the local utility or power grid* *This is not to be interpreted as a restriction against using power plants on the Properties as necessary to support extractive mining activities. 2. Site Development 2.1 Properties’ access via public secondary roads shall be limited to the existing quarry entrance on McCune Road (Route 757). Access by vehicles needed for periodic maintenance of the Properties shall not be limited. [ONGOING] 2.2A combination of landscaping, Eearthen berms and or and fencing shall be either maintained or installed as depicted and described on the Amended GDP around theProperties in the areas depicted on the Amended GDP. Owner shall install 2 berms in the areas where berms are depicted on said Amended GDP. The berms for Berm D shall have a maximum height of 30 feet and a minimum height of 10 feet. As depicted on the GDP AttachmentAmended GDP, the berms for Berm D shall be installed at specified heights. The Amended GDP Attachment designates the berms for Berm D in four numbered sections. Section 1 shall be installed to a height of 20 feetand provide for a preservation of the existing vegetation/tree/fence lineof at least 60 feet in width. Section 2 shall be installed to a height of 30 feet and not encroach on the cemetery and/or stream. Section 3 shall be installed to a height of 10 feet. Section 4 shall be installed to a minimum height of 20 feet. No spoil pile shall exceed the height of the highest berm north of Chapel Road. Berm C which is located on the Property south of Chapel Road and north of Nieswander Road shall be installed after permitting of the above- described Property for mining and at least two years (24 calendar months) prior to the extraction of material for processing. active quarry pits in the location show on the GDP. The berms shall have a maximum height of 30 feet and a minimum height of 10 feet. The berms (Berm A and Berm B) depicted on the Phase 1 Plan of the GDP shall be installed within 10 years of the approval of the rezoning. The berms (Berm C and Berm D) depicted on the Phase II Plan of the GDP shall be installed no later than 10 years prior to the commencement of mining north of Chapel Road. The berms shall be landscaped to minimize impacts to the viewshed of the surrounding community and shall be installed after at the commencement of permitting of the Properties for mining butand before any extraction of material for processing, and at least two years (24 calendar months) prior to the extraction of material for processing and in the locations depicted on the Amended GDP.The Such landscaping shall have consist of a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings placed in a random manner to be consistent with existing vegetation patterns. Plantings will include a seed mix recommended by the National Park Service that is currently in use at the adjacent Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. Owner shall adhere to the screening requirements of the Frederick County Code. Further, ten trees shall be planted for every 100 square feet on the outside of the berms. Trees shall be planted at a minimum of 2” caliper. In addition to requirements of the Frederick County Code, Owner will take all appropriate measures to ensure survival of plantings. The description of the plants to be installed on the berms are more specifically described in the attached and incorporated “Exhibit 3.” The landscaping shall be subject to reasonable approval of the Zoning Administrator of Frederick County and upon consultation with the State Forester. With respect to Berm A, located on Tax Parcel 90-A-2, not owned by the ApplicantOwner, the berm will be constructed by the Applicant Owner as the tenant under a 100-year lease of Parcel 90-A-2, with authority under the lease to construct Berm A. There shall be no extraction of material for processing outside the berms. The field between Berm D Section 1 and Westernview shall not be used for parking or storage of mining equipment, and any vehicles and/or equipment shall be staged in this area only while they are engaged in maintenance, monitoring and/or exploration activities. 2.3 The existing overburden stock pile on the southeast corner of the current Middletown plant site shall be reduced in height to the greater of 30 feet or the 3 height of the adjacent tree line (lying to the east) within 5 years of the approval of the rezoning. [COMPLETED] 2.4 Normal hours of operation for the portion of the Property north of Chapel Road shall be 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. No operations shall take place on any major holiday. The Owner may alter these hours as needed as the result of instances such as and including, but not limited to, natural disasters, force majeure, unforeseen circumstances, acts of God, excessive customer demand, and production to meet demand. The Owner shall notify all affected residents within the 1500’ property line, 48 hours prior to major shifts in hours of operation. 3. Historic Resources 3.1 The Applicant Owner shall create an 8 acre historic reserve as shown on the GDP, within which archeological resources and other historic activities have been identified. Further, the Applicant Owner shall place restrictions on the reserve land for how the reserve will be used by the Properties’ owner and future owners. A copy of said restrictions are attached and incorporated as “Exhibit 324”. Said reserve land shall be dedicated to the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, Inc. within 60 days of final rezoning. [NOTE: the aforementioned 8 acre historic reserve property is not to be included in the property to be rezoned.] [COMPLETED] 3.2 The Applicant Owner shall complete a Phase I Archaeological Survey of parcels 23 and 109. The Phase I Archaeological Survey of parcel 23 shall be completed within 12 months of the approval of the rezoning. For the remaining tracts of land, the Applicant Owner shall complete a Phase I Archaeological Survey of particular tract of land before any mining activities commence on that property. TheApplicant Owner may commence mining activities on a particular portion of the Properties before the completion of the Phase I survey for all of the Properties, but under any and all circumstances, no mining operations shall commence on any portion of the Properties until after the Phase I Archeological Survey has been completed on said portion of the Properties. Said survey shall locate, identify, and comprehensively record all historic sites, buildings, structures, and objects on the parcels. Such survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines for a Phase 1 Survey as defined in the Virginia Department of Historic Resources “GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY IN VIRGINIA - Chapter 7: Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Virginia,” 1999 (Rev. Jan. 2003). [COMPLETED] 3.3 Two cemeteries have been identified on the Properties. The first cemetery is located adjacent to Chapel Road and is in an area that is not designated for mining and is also outside of the berming area. That cemetery is currently undergoing a historical restoration. After the historical restoration, the Applicant Owner will follow the recommendations of the Owner’sApplicant’s historian. [COMPLETED] 4 The second cemetery is located in the area where berming is slated to be installed. TheApplicant Owner proffers the berming will be located in such a way as to not encroach on the cemetery. This cemetery is also currently undergoing a historical restoration. After the historical restoration, the Applicant Owner will follow the recommendations of the Applicant’s Owner’s historian. In addition, the cemetery is accessed through a right-of-way which is of record providing access to the cemetery from Route 625. The Applicant Owner proffers to improve said right- of-way so that it can be used for access by the descendants of those in the cemetery within 12 months of completion of the cemetery restoration. Once said right-of-way has been improved, the Applicant Owner will provide continued maintenance and have use of same. 4. Rights to Water Supply 4.1 The Applicant shall guarantee the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (“FCSA”) rights to the water resources available on the Properties in accordance with the existing agreements between the Applicant and FCSA. 45. Ground Water – [COMPLETEDONGOING] 45.1 The Applicant Owner shall install a minimum of three monitoring wells to effectively establish and monitor the groundwater level in order to avoid detrimental impacts to surrounding properties. Said wells shall be installed prior to any land disturbance of the portion of the Properties identified as parcel 109 by the GDP, and shall be located within 500 feet of the Properties’ boundaries. A minimum of one monitoring well shall be installed within 500 feet of the parcel 109 Properties’ boundary. The exact location of the monitoring wells is depicted on the Overall Plan of the GDP. In addition to the provisions set forth above, the Owner agrees to install at least one monitoring well within six (6) months of the approval of this Amended Proffer Statement. 45.2 Subject to and consistent with the provisions of paragraph 9.2, the Applicant Ownershall remediate any adverse impacts to wells located on surrounding properties caused by mining operations on the Properties. Costs associated with any required remediation shall be borne by the ApplicantOwner. Furthermore, the Applicant Owner agrees to participate in a pre-blast survey and well monitoring survey, as further described herein. The intent of the aforementioned surveys is to provide a mechanism to remediate any adverse impacts to wells and/or structures, which are caused by the mining operations on the Properties. 56. Dust Control – [ONGOING] 56.1 Dust from drills, muck piles, material handling, screens, crushers, conveyors, feeders, hoppers, stockpiles, load-outs, and traffic areas shall be controlled by wet 5 suppression or equivalent, and controlled by and consistent with the terms of the Department of Environmental Quality (“VDEQ”) general air permit. The Applicant Owner shall remediate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by dust associated with the mining operations on the Properties. 67. Blasting Control – [ONGOING] 67.1 All blasting associated with mining operations on the Properties shall be limited by the mining permit approved by the DMM of the VDMME. Peak Particle Velocities (PPV) associated with blasting on the Properties shall not exceed the levels stipulated by said permit. In addition, the Applicant Owner agrees to have an approved blasting plan in place at all times. An example of the current blasting plan is attached. Further, in addition, the Applicant Owner agrees that there will be no block holing or adobe blasting conducted on the Properties. Any damage to surrounding properties caused by blasting on the Properties shall be remediated at theApplicant’s Owner’s expense. Provided Owner has received a written request from a property owner within fifteen hundred feet (1,500’) of the Property rezoned herein, the Owner shall establish and maintain a notification methodology that provides notice to the requesting property owner of any and all blasting that will occur north of Chapel Road as part of the extraction of material for processing or site development. Such methods may include but not be limited to, telephone calls, text messages or emails. 78. Traffic – [ONGOING] 78.1 The Applicant’s Owner’s current number of truck loads leaving the site on a daily basis is approximately 63, and the Applicant Owner has had higher numbers of recorded truck loads leaving the plant to a total of 114 truck loads per day. The ApplicantOwner, in its proffer, is agreeing to restrict truck traffic to the Properties to 86 truck loads per day averaged over the prior 30 days, but intends to also have an ability to increase the number of truck loads in the event of an emergency or circumstances, which could be caused by issues driven by the Applicant’s Owner’scustomers, suppliers, and/or carriers. Examples of such shall include, but are not limited to, an interruption of rail service to the site and/or any sites that are serviced by rail from the Applicant’s Owner’s Properties and/or any other interruption of the ability to deliver materials at the Applicant’s Owner’s site or any other sites which are owned, controlled, or by business relationship connected with the Applicant’s Owner’s site. To that end, and in any circumstance, the Applicant Owner agrees to restrict truck traffic to the Properties to a maximum of 200 truck loads per day averaged over the prior 30 days through the scale house hauling mined materials on and/or off the proposed quarry site from the existing quarry entrance. The maximum number of truck loads will be regulated by the Applicant Owner and its successors and/or assigns. A record of the actual number of truck loads per day shall be kept current (and maintained for one year) by the Applicant Owner at its scale house office. Said record shall be made available in a 6 form which confirms the number of trips and the form will be produced to Frederick County officials upon demand with reasonable notice. The Applicant Ownerproffers there will be no truck loads from the Properties on Sundays and the hours of truck loading on Saturdays will be no later than 7:00 p.m. The Applicant Owner further proffers it will instruct all truckers as to the proper route of travel from the Properties to Route 11, which shall exclude both Belle Grove and Chapel Roads. 89. Pre-Blast Surveys – [ONGOING] 89.1 The Applicant Owner will offer voluntary pre-blast surveys of properties that are within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109. The aforementioned surveys will be conducted by an independent engineering firm, which will investigate and document the pre-blast conditions of the participants’ residences and/or outbuildings. The Applicant Owner and its successors and assigns will contact all citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109, and monitor the tax roles for Frederick County on an annual basis in order to contact any citizens who have recently purchased the aforementioned property. This contact will be made by the Applicant Owner and its successor and assigns to invite citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109 to participate in the pre-blast surveys. Contact will be made by registered return- receipt letters, mailed annually from the time of the rezoning. All citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109 can, and are encouraged to, participate in the survey by contacting the Applicant Ownerand scheduling a mutually agreeable time for the independent engineering firm to visit the party’s residence to document and survey the pre-blast condition of the party’s residences/outbuildings following the procedures set forth in the attached and incorporated “Exhibit 435”. If the property owner agrees to participate, the Applicant’s Owner’s and/or its an independent engineering firm shall visit and inspect the party’s residences/outbuildings to monitor the condition . of the same A record of those pre-blast conditions will be kept by the independent engineering firm with copies retained by the Applicant Owner and the participating property owner. In the event of a change in condition, which is alleged by the participating property owner as a result of mining operations, the engineering firm will then conduct a follow-up visit and investigation and use the pre-blast information as a control and basis for subsequent analysis. Said analysis shall be used to determine the cause of any negative change in condition. If it is determined there is a change in condition in the residences/outbuildings, which has been caused by the Applicant’s Owner’s mining activities on the Properties, then the Applicant Owner agrees to remediate and/or repair said negative change in condition to restore it to its status prior to blasting operations. In addition, the Applicant Owner agrees to establish seismic monitoring of the proposed quarry site to monitor all blasting activities and keep records of said seismic monitoring as required by the VDMME. A stationary seismograph reader shall be installed at a strategic location north of Chapel Road. Such location shall be chosen in 7 coordination with and at the direction of a licensed engineer well versed in this function. 89.2 The Applicant Owner will offervoluntary well monitoring surveys of properties that are within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109. The aforementioned surveys will be conducted by an independent well drilling firm or hydrogeologist, which will investigate and document the pre-mining conditions of the participants’ wells. The Applicant Owner and its successors and assigns will contact all citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109, and monitor the tax roles for Frederick County on an annual basis in order to contact any citizens who have recently purchased the aforementioned property. This contact will be made by Applicant the Owner and its successor and assigns to invite citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109 to participate in the well monitoring surveys. Contact will be made by sending annually registered return-receipt letters. All citizens who have property located within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109 can and are encouraged to participate in the survey by scheduling a mutually agreeable time for the independent well drilling firm to visit the party’s residence to document and survey the pre-blast condition of the party’s well following the procedures set forth in the attached and incorporated “Exhibit546A and 546B”. A record of these pre-mining conditions will be kept by the independent well drilling firm, with copies retained by the Applicant Ownerand the participating property owner. In the event a change of condition is alleged by the property owner as a result of mining operations, the Applicant Ownerwill provide an interim replacement water supply as necessary to supply the property owner with water. The well drilling firm will then conduct a follow- up visit and investigation and use pre-blast information as a control and basis for subsequent analysis. If it is determined that the status of the neighboring property owner’s well has deteriorated from the condition it was in at the time of the pre- blast survey, then the Applicant Owner agrees to restore the well to its condition existing at the time of the pre-blast survey and/or provide the adjoining property owner a replacement well of the same condition (or better) of that which existed at that time of the pre-blast survey. 89.3 In addition to the above, the Applicant Owner agrees to maintain in force an insurance policy or other sufficient security for the period of time covering the active mining operations on the Properties and to maintain in effect for a period of one year from the date of cessation of said mining operations, and to cover the costs of any remediation and/or repair, which is required pursuant to the terms of sections 9.1 and 9.2 above. Said policy or surety shall be in the amount of no less than One Million and 00/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence. Frederick County may review from time to time the amount of the policy or surety to evaluate whether the minimum amount of $1,000,000.00 is sufficient to protect the cost of any remediation and/or repair, which is required pursuant to the terms of sections 9.1 and 9.2. In the event Frederick County believes that the amount of the policy or surety needs to be increased for the reasons set forth above, then the Applicant Owner and Frederick County shall reach an agreement as to the proper 8 amount of policy or surety. The approval of said increase shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or denied by either party. The Applicant Ownershall annually provide to the County a Certificate of Insurance from the insurance carrier. 10. Reclamation 10.1 It is intended that pursuant to the terms of the agreement reached with the FCSA that at the time of cessation of mining activities, the Properties’ quarry pits shall be used by the FCSA as water reservoirs. The control of the water levels in the quarry pits shall be handed over to the FCSA. It is intended that the quarry pits at that time will contain quantities of water monitored and directed by the FCSA, and which will be conducive to the general betterment of natural habitat. 911. Noise Abatement – [ONGOING] 911.1 Operations on the Properties will not exceed the VDMME Engineering’s decibel guidelines. The Applicant Owner will make all reasonable efforts to locate mining machinery in the quarry pit or behind berms. 102. Lighting – [ONGOING] 102.1 There shall be no affixed lighting structures above-ground on the berms other than as may be required for or provided by regulations that affect the plant operations, including but not limited to, Mine Safety Health Administration (“MSHA”), VDMME, and any other governmental or regulatory body that oversees mining operations. Lighting used for devices or machines that convey materials or for pit crushing facilities and other mining activities is permitted. Conveying and pit crushing facilities shall also be interpreted as including such other devices or activities that perform similar or related functions that may come into use and/or existence at some time in the future while the extractive mining use is still in effect on the Properties. In addition to the above, all lighting will be installed in such a manner that there will be no spillover beyond any property line of the Applicant Owner onto adjacent properties not owned by the ApplicantOwner. All lighting shall be turned off after working hours. 113. Air Permit – [ONGOING] 113.1 The Applicant Owner shall maintain its existing general air permit controlling emissions in accordance with the VDEQ standards and also see that the existing general air permit covers all activities conducted on the rezoned Properties. 124. Environment – [ONGOING] 124.1 In addition to compliance with the VPDES water discharge permit already in place, the Applicant Owner agrees to work with a recognized environmental entity of the Applicant’s Owner’s choosing during its operations to ensure that the 9 water emissions from water flowing from the quarry operations on the Properties is of a quality consistent with the water quality in Cedar Creek so as to maintain an environment conducive to natural habitats. No additional water discharge points will be added. 124.2 The Applicant Owner agrees that all areas currently in trees on property owned by the OwnerApplicant, which is outside of the rezoned Propertiesand identified on the GDP as “Middletown Woods”, shall be maintained using best management practices. The Owner also agrees that the existing fence line/tree line along Section 1 of Berm D will remain and be maintained using best management and farm practices. 124.3 The Applicant Owner proffers to keep its mining operations at least 200 feet from the edge of Cedar Creek. 135. Phasing 135.1 The Applicant Owner agrees that mining activities on the Properties shall occur with the following phasing and as set forth on the Phasing Plans of the GDP: After the rezoning is approved, the Applicant Owner will start creating berms on the newly rezoned Properties and the Applicant Owner shall start quarrying in the area identified as parcel 23. Mining in parcel 23 shall occur from the time period commencing with the approval of the rezoning for a period of time which is estimated to be twenty years. [COMPLETED IN PART – The berm referenced is installed and mining is continuing but not yet completed.] For the newly zoned area, which is north of the existing EM zoned property, and south of Chapel Road, mining activities will commence no earlier than ten years from the date that the rezoning referenced herein is approved. For the newly zoned area, which lies north of Chapel Road, mining will commence no earlier than twenty years from the date that the rezoning referenced herein is approved. Respectfully submitted, O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY By:___________________________________Ian Karkaria Its: ___________________________________Area Operations ManagerDirector of Operations, Eastern Region 10 ______________________________________ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ___________, 20172018, by ______________________________________________.Ian Karkaria, Area Operations ManagerDirector of Operations, Eastern Region of O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company. ____________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: ______________________ Registration number: 11 AMENDED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ# Rural Areas (RA) to Extractive Manufacturing (EM) PROPERTY: 394.2Acres +/-; Portions of Tax Map Parcels 83-A-109 (“parcel 109”) and 90-A-23 (“parcel 23”) (the “Properties”) RECORD OWNER: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company (“Owner”) APPLICANT: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company PROJECT NAME: Chemstone - Middletown ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: June 13, 2005 REVISION DATE(S): February 24, 2017, June 5, 2017, September 25, 2017, November 15, 2017, January 31, 2018, February 14, 2018, March 2, 2018, June 1, 2018 The undersigned Ownerhereby proffers that the use and development of the portions of the above-referenced parcels, which are requested to be rezoned, the portions requested to be rezoned being shown on the attached and incorporated plat identified as “Exhibit 1”, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers on the Properties that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above-referenced EM conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Owner, these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Properties with “final rezoning” defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors’ (the “Board”) decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board’s decision is contested, and the Owner elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Properties adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. Any proffered conditions that would prevent the Owner from conforming to State and/or Federal regulations shall be considered null and void. The term “Owner” as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the “Generalized Development Plan,” shall refer to the plan entitled “Generalized Development Plan, O-N Minerals (Chemstone)” dated May, 2008 and revised February 14, 2018, and which includes that document entitled Generalized Development Plan Attachment bearing the same date, February 14, 2018 (the “Amended GDP”). “Exhibit 1”. The Owner attaches and incorporates the Amended GDP and 9 viewshed plats titled “Viewshed 1A, Viewshed 1B, Viewshed 2, Viewshed 3, Viewshed 4A, Viewshed 5A, North Viewshed 1, North Viewshed 2 and North Viewshed 3. The aforementioned viewshed plats are and shall be incorporated by reference herein as “Exhibit 2”. The Owner proffers that its development of the Properties will be in substantial conformity with the Amended GDP. The Generalized Development Plan included in the Proffer Statement approved on May 28, 2008 (“GDP”) is hereby replaced as it relates to the installation and location of berms and viewsheds. All other aspects of the GDP remain the same and in full force and effect. 1. Land Use 1.1 The Properties shall be developed with extractive manufacturing land uses pursuant to the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining (“DMM”) of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (“VDMME”), and shall therefore conform to the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations for Mineral Mining of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 1.2 The Owner hereby proffers not to engage in the following uses on the Properties: Oil and natural gas extraction; Asphalt and concrete mixing plants; Brick, block and precast concrete products; Cement and lime kilns; and Coal and natural gas-fired power plants or facilities which sell power to the local utility or power grid* *This is not to be interpreted as a restriction against using power plants on the Properties as necessary to support extractive mining activities. 2. Site Development 2.1 Properties’ access via public secondary roads shall be limited to the existing quarry entrance on McCune Road (Route 757). Access by vehicles needed for periodic maintenance of the Properties shall not be limited. [ONGOING] 2.2 A combination of landscaping, earthen berms and fencing shall be either maintained or installed as depicted and described on the Amended GDP around the Properties in the areas depicted on the Amended GDP. Owner shall install berms in the areas where berms are depicted on said Amended GDP. The berms for Berm D shall have a maximum height of 30 feet and a minimum height of 10 feet. As depicted on the Amended GDP, the berms for Berm D shall be installed at specified heights. The Amended GDP designates the berms for Berm D in four numbered sections. Section 1 shall be installed to a height of 20 feet. Section 2 shall be installed to a height of 30 feet and not encroach on the cemetery and/or stream. Section 3 shall be installed to a height of 10 feet. Section 4 shall be 2 installed to a minimum height of 20 feet. No spoil pile shall exceed the height of the highest berm north of Chapel Road. Berm C which is located on the Property south of Chapel Road and north of Nieswander Road shall be installed after permitting of the above-described Property for mining and at least two years (24 calendar months) prior to the extraction of material for processing. The berms shall be landscaped to minimize impacts to the viewshed of the surrounding community and shall be installed after permitting of the Properties for mining and before any extraction of material for processing, and at least two years (24 calendar months) prior to the extraction of material for processing and in the locations depicted on the Amended GDP. The landscaping shall have a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings placed in a random manner to be consistent with existing vegetation patterns. Plantings will include a seed mix recommended by the National Park Service that is currently in use at the adjacent Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. Owner shall adhere to the screening requirements of the Frederick County Code. In addition to requirements of the Frederick County Code, Owner will take all appropriate measures to ensure survival of plantings. The landscaping shall be subject to reasonable approval of the Zoning Administrator of Frederick County and upon consultation with the State Forester. With respect to Berm A, located on Tax Parcel 90-A-2, not owned by the Owner, the berm will be constructed by the Owner as the tenant under a 100-year lease of Parcel 90-A-2, with authority under the lease to construct Berm A. There shall be no extraction of material for processing outside the berms. The field between Berm D Section 1 and Westernview shall not be used for parking or storage of mining equipment, and any vehicles and/or equipment shall be staged in this area only while they are engaged in maintenance, monitoring and/or exploration activities. 2.3 The existing overburden stock pile on the southeast corner of the current Middletown plant site shall be reduced in height to the greater of 30 feet or the height of the adjacent tree line (lying to the east) within 5 years of the approval of the rezoning. [COMPLETED] 2.4 Normal hours of operation for the portion of the Property north of Chapel Road shall be 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. No operations shall take place on any major holiday. 3. Historic Resources 3.1 The Owner shall create an 8 acre historic reserve as shown on the GDP, within which archeological resources and other historic activities have been identified. Further, the Owner shall place restrictions on the reserve land for how the reserve will be used by the Properties’ owner and future owners. A copy of said restrictions are attached and incorporated as “Exhibit 3”. Said reserve land shall be dedicated to the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, Inc. within 60 days of final rezoning. [NOTE: the aforementioned 8 acre historic reserve property is not to be included in the property to be rezoned.] [COMPLETED] 3 3.2 The Owner shall complete a Phase I Archaeological Survey of parcels 23 and 109. The Phase I Archaeological Survey of parcel 23 shall be completed within 12 months of the approval of the rezoning. For the remaining tracts of land, the Owner shall complete a Phase I Archaeological Survey of particular tract of land before any mining activities commence on that property. The Owner may commence mining activities on a particular portion of the Properties before the completion of the Phase I survey for all of the Properties, but under any and all circumstances, no mining operations shall commence on any portion of the Properties until after the Phase I Archeological Survey has been completed on said portion of the Properties. Said survey shall locate, identify, and comprehensively record all historic sites, buildings, structures, and objects on the parcels. Such survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines for a Phase 1 Survey as defined in the Virginia Department of Historic Resources “GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY IN VIRGINIA - Chapter 7: Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Virginia,” 1999 (Rev. Jan. 2003). [COMPLETED] 3.3 Two cemeteries have been identified on the Properties. The first cemetery is located adjacent to Chapel Road and is in an area that is not designated for mining and is also outside of the berming area. That cemetery is currently undergoing a historical restoration. After the historical restoration, the Owner will follow the recommendations of the Owner’s historian. [COMPLETED] The second cemetery is located in the area where berming is slated to be installed. The Owner proffers the berming will be located in such a way as to not encroach on the cemetery. This cemetery is also currently undergoing a historical restoration. After the historical restoration, the Owner will follow the recommendations of the Owner’s historian. In addition, the cemetery is accessed through a right-of-way which is of record providing access to the cemetery from Route 625. The Owner proffers to improve said right-of-way so that it can be used for access by the descendants of those in the cemetery within 12 months of completion of the cemetery restoration. Once said right-of-way has been improved, the Owner will provide continued maintenance and have use of same. 4. Ground Water – [ONGOING] 4.1 The Owner shall install a minimum of three monitoring wells to effectively establish and monitor the groundwater level in order to avoid detrimental impacts to surrounding properties. Said wells shall be installed prior to any land disturbance of the portion of the Properties identified as parcel 109 by the GDP, and shall be located within 500 feet of the Properties’ boundaries. A minimum of one monitoring well shall be installed within 500 feet of the parcel 109 Properties’ boundary. The exact location of the monitoring wells is depicted on the Overall Plan of the GDP. In addition to the provisions set forth above, the Owner agrees to install at least one monitoring well within six (6) months of the approval of this Amended Proffer Statement. 4 4.2 Subject to and consistent with the provisions of paragraph 9.2, the Owner shall remediate any adverse impacts to wells located on surrounding properties caused by mining operations on the Properties. Costs associated with any required remediation shall be borne by the Owner. Furthermore, the Owner agrees to participate in a pre-blast survey and well monitoring survey, as further described herein. The intent of the aforementioned surveys is to provide a mechanism to remediate any adverse impacts to wells and/or structures, which are caused by the mining operations on the Properties. 5. Dust Control – [ONGOING] 5.1 Dust from drills, muck piles, material handling, screens, crushers, conveyors, feeders, hoppers, stockpiles, load-outs, and traffic areas shall be controlled by wet suppression or equivalent, and controlled by and consistent with the terms of the Department of Environmental Quality (“VDEQ”) general air permit. The Owner shall remediate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by dust associated with the mining operations on the Properties. 6. Blasting Control – [ONGOING] 6.1 All blasting associated with mining operations on the Properties shall be limited by the mining permit approved by the DMM of the VDMME. Peak Particle Velocities (PPV) associated with blasting on the Properties shall not exceed the levels stipulated by said permit. In addition, the Owner agrees to have an approved blasting plan in place at all times. An example of the current blasting plan is attached. Further, in addition, the Owner agrees that there will be no block holing or adobe blasting conducted on the Properties. Any damage to surrounding properties caused by blasting on the Properties shall be remediated at the Owner’s expense. Provided Owner has received a written request from a property owner within fifteen hundred feet (1,500’) of the Property rezoned herein, the Owner shall establish and maintain a notification methodology that provides notice to the requesting property owner of any and all blasting that will occur north of Chapel Road as part of the extraction of material for processing or site development. Such methods may include but not be limited to, telephone calls, text messages or emails. 7. Traffic – [ONGOING] 7.1 The Owner’s current number of truck loads leaving the site on a daily basis is approximately 63, and the Owner has had higher numbers of recorded truck loads leaving the plant to a total of 114 truck loads per day. The Owner, in its proffer, is agreeing to restrict truck traffic to the Properties to 86 truck loads per day averaged over the prior 30 days, but intends to also have an ability to increase the number of truck loads in the event of an emergency or circumstances, which 5 could be caused by issues driven by the Owner’s customers, suppliers, and/or carriers. Examples of such shall include, but are not limited to, an interruption of rail service to the site and/or any sites that are serviced by rail from the Owner’s Properties and/or any other interruption of the ability to deliver materials at the Owner’s site or any other sites which are owned, controlled, or by business relationship connected with the Owner’s site. To that end, and in any circumstance, the Owner agrees to restrict truck traffic to the Properties to a maximum of 200 truck loads per day averaged over the prior 30 days through the scale house hauling mined materials on and/or off the proposed quarry site from the existing quarry entrance. The maximum number of truck loads will be regulated by the Owner and its successors and/or assigns. A record of the actual number of truck loads per day shall be kept current (and maintained for one year) by the Owner at its scale house office. Said record shall be made available in a form which confirms the number of trips and the form will be produced to Frederick County officials upon demand with reasonable notice. The Owner proffers there will be no truck loads from the Properties on Sundays and the hours of truck loading on Saturdays will be no later than 7:00 p.m. The Owner further proffers it will instruct all truckers as to the proper route of travel from the Properties to Route 11, which shall exclude both Belle Grove and Chapel Roads. 8. Pre-Blast Surveys – [ONGOING] 8.1 The Owner will offer voluntary pre-blast surveys of properties that are within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109. The aforementioned surveys will be conducted by an independent engineering firm, which will investigate and document the pre-blast conditions of the participants’ residences and/or outbuildings. The Owner and its successors and assigns will contact all citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109, and monitor the tax roles for Frederick County on an annual basis in order to contact any citizens who have recently purchased the aforementioned property. This contact will be made by the Owner and its successor and assigns to invite citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109 to participate in the pre-blast surveys. Contact will be made by registered return-receipt letters, mailed annually from the time of the rezoning. All citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109 can, and are encouraged to, participate in the survey by contacting the Owner and scheduling a mutually agreeable time for the independent engineering firm to visit the party’s residence to document and survey the pre- blast condition of the party’s residences/outbuildings following the procedures set forth in the attached and incorporated “Exhibit 4”. If the property owner agrees to participate, an independent engineering firm shall visit and inspect the party’s . residences/outbuildings to monitor the condition of the same A record of those pre-blast conditions will be kept by the independent engineering firm with copies retained by the Owner and the participating property owner. In the event of a change in condition, which is alleged by the participating property owner as a result of mining operations, the engineering firm will then conduct a follow-up visit and investigation and use the pre-blast information as a control and basis for 6 subsequent analysis. Said analysis shall be used to determine the cause of any negative change in condition. If it is determined there is a change in condition in the residences/outbuildings, which has been caused by the Owner’s mining activities on the Properties, then the Owner agrees to remediate and/or repair said negative change in condition to restore it to its status prior to blasting operations. In addition, the Owner agrees to establish seismic monitoring of the proposed quarry site to monitor all blasting activities and keep records of said seismic monitoring as required by the VDMME. A stationary seismograph reader shall be installed at a strategic location north of Chapel Road. Such location shall be chosen in coordination with and at the direction of a licensed engineer well versed in this function. 8.2 The Owner will offervoluntary well monitoring surveys of properties that are within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109. The aforementioned surveys will be conducted by an independent well drilling firm or hydrogeologist, which will investigate and document the pre-mining conditions of the participants’ wells. The Owner and its successors and assigns will contact all citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109, and monitor the tax roles for Frederick County on an annual basis in order to contact any citizens who have recently purchased the aforementioned property. This contact will be made by the Owner and its successor and assigns to invite citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109 to participate in the well monitoring surveys. Contact will be made by sending annually registered return-receipt letters. All citizens who have property located within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109 can and are encouraged to participate in the survey by scheduling a mutually agreeable time for the independent well drilling firm to visit the party’s residence to document and survey the pre-blast condition of the party’s well following the procedures set forth in the attached and incorporated “Exhibit 5A and 5B”. A record of these pre-mining conditions will be kept by the independent well drilling firm, with copies retained by the Owner and the participating property owner. In the event a change of condition is alleged by the property owner as a result of mining operations, the Owner will provide an interim replacement water supply as necessary to supply the property owner with water. The well drilling firm will then conduct a follow-up visit and investigation and use pre-blast information as a control and basis for subsequent analysis. If it is determined that the status of the neighboring property owner’s well has deteriorated from the condition it was in at the time of the pre-blast survey, then the Owner agrees to restore the well to its condition existing at the time of the pre-blast survey and/or provide the adjoining property owner a replacement well of the same condition (or better) of that which existed at that time of the pre-blast survey. 8.3 In addition to the above, the Owner agrees to maintain in force an insurance policy or other sufficient security for the period of time covering the active mining operations on the Properties and to maintain in effect for a period of one year from the date of cessation of said mining operations, and to cover the costs of any remediation and/or repair, which is required pursuant to the terms of sections 7 9.1 and 9.2 above. Said policy or surety shall be in the amount of no less than One Million and 00/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence. Frederick County may review from time to time the amount of the policy or surety to evaluate whether the minimum amount of $1,000,000.00 is sufficient to protect the cost of any remediation and/or repair, which is required pursuant to the terms of sections 9.1 and 9.2. In the event Frederick County believes that the amount of the policy or surety needs to be increased for the reasons set forth above, then the Owner and Frederick County shall reach an agreement as to the proper amount of policy or surety. The approval of said increase shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or denied by either party. The Owner shall annually provide to the County a Certificate of Insurance from the insurance carrier. 9. Noise Abatement – [ONGOING] 9.1 Operations on the Properties will not exceed the VDMME Engineering’s decibel guidelines. The Owner will make all reasonable efforts to locate mining machinery in the quarry pit or behind berms. 10. Lighting – [ONGOING] 10.1 There shall be no affixed lighting structures above-ground on the berms other than as may be required for or provided by regulations that affect the plant operations, including but not limited to, Mine Safety Health Administration (“MSHA”), VDMME, and any other governmental or regulatory body that oversees mining operations. Lighting used for devices or machines that convey materials or for pit crushing facilities and other mining activities is permitted. Conveying and pit crushing facilities shall also be interpreted as including such other devices or activities that perform similar or related functions that may come into use and/or existence at some time in the future while the extractive mining use is still in effect on the Properties. In addition to the above, all lighting will be installed in such a manner that there will be no spillover beyond any property line of the Owner onto adjacent properties not owned by the Owner. All lighting shall be turned off after working hours. 11. Air Permit – [ONGOING] 11.1 The Owner shall maintain its existing general air permit controlling emissions in accordance with the VDEQ standards and also see that the existing general air permit covers all activities conducted on the rezoned Properties. 12. Environment – [ONGOING] 12.1 In addition to compliance with the VPDES water discharge permit already in place, the Owner agrees to work with a recognized environmental entity of the Owner’s choosing during its operations to ensure that the water emissions from water flowing from the quarry operations on the Properties is of a quality 8 consistent with the water quality in Cedar Creek so as to maintain an environment conducive to natural habitats. No additional water discharge points will be added. 12.2 The Owner agrees that all areas currently in trees on property owned by the Owner, which is outside of the rezoned Propertiesand identified on the GDP as “Middletown Woods”, shall be maintained using best management practices. The Owner also agrees that the existing fence line/tree line along Section 1 of Berm D will remain and be maintained using best management and farm practices. 12.3 The Owner proffers to keep its mining operations at least 200 feet from the edge of Cedar Creek. 13. Phasing 13.1 The Owner agrees that mining activities on the Properties shall occur with the following phasing: After the rezoning is approved, the Owner will start creating berms on the newly rezoned Properties and the Owner shall start quarrying in the area identified as parcel 23. Mining in parcel 23 shall occur from the time period commencing with the approval of the rezoning for a period of time which is estimated to be twenty years. [COMPLETED IN PART – The berm referenced is installed and mining is continuing but not yet completed.] For the newly zoned area, which is north of the existing EM zoned property, and south of Chapel Road, mining activities will commence no earlier than ten years from the date that the rezoning referenced herein is approved. For the newly zoned area, which lies north of Chapel Road, mining will commence no earlier than twenty years from the date that the rezoning referenced herein is approved. [signature on following page] 9 ORDINANCE Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: November 15, 2017 Public Hearing Held; Postponed for 90 days February 21, 2018 Recommended Denial BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: March 14, 2018 Postponed to April 25, 2018 April 25, 2018 Postponed to May 23, 2018 May 23, 2018 Postponed to June 13, 2018 June 13, 2018 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING #05-17 O-N MINERALS/dba CARMEUSE LIME & STONE , WHEREAS REZONING #05-17, submitted O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company to rezone 394.2± acres from the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with revised proffers. The Middletown site was originally rezoned to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with Rezoning #03-06 for O-N Minerals (Chemstone) which was approved in 2008. The Applicant is seeking to revise the proffers pertaining to viewshed plans, berms, landscaping and cemetery access with a final revision date of June 1, 2018 was considered. The subject properties are located west of the Town of Middletown. Specifically, the Middle Marsh Property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758), and west and adjacent to Hites Road (Route 625) and is further traversed by Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). The properties are located in the Back Creek Magisterial District and are identified by Property Identification Nos. 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 (portions of); and , WHEREAS the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on November 15, 2017 and postponed the application for 90 days and; the Planning Commission then held a public meeting on this rezoning on February 21, 2018 and recommended denial; and , WHEREAS the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on March 14, 2018 and postponed the application to the April 25, 2018 meeting with a continued public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors on April 25, 2018 postponed the application to the May 23, 2018 meeting with a continued public hearing; and PDRes #08-18 - 2- WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on May 23, 2018 and postponed the application to the June 13, 2018 meeting with a continued public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on June 13, 2018; and , WHEREAS the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive 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 rezone two (2) parcels of land, 394.2± acres from the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with revised proffers with a final revision date of June 1, 2018. The conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the Applicant and the Property Owner are attached. This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 13th day of June 2018 by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Gary A. Lofton J. Douglas McCarthy Robert W. Wells Shannon G. Trout Judith McCann-Slaughter Blaine P. Dunn A COPY ATTEST _________________________________ Kris C. Tierney Frederick County Administrator PDRes #08-18 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 February 22, 2018 Mr. Thomas Moore Lawson Lawson and Silek, PLC P.O. Box 2740 Winchester, Virginia 22604 RE: Rezoning for O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Property Identification Numbers (PINs): 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 Dear Mr. Lawson: Staff has reviewed the proffer statement dated February 14, 2018. comments are listed below for your consideration. 1.Generalized Development Plan. The proffers make reference to one GDP, there were The inclusion of the GDP that shows the berm construction (Sections 1-4) should be utilized. 2.Exhibit 2 Viewshed Plats. This proffer does not reference the viewshed plats as Exhibit 2. Reference should be made in the proffer statement to the exhibit number. Staff also recommends removing the existing proffered berm details from the viewshed plats and only depicting the 2018 proposed changes. 3.Site Development Proffer 2. Proffe berms to be eliminated in lieu of fencing. Proffer 2.2 should provide details for the berm south of Chapel Road. Proffer 2.2 should reference that the revisions (Sections 1-4) only pertain to Berm D. Proffer 2.2 reduces the berm adjacent to the Westernview development This revision could have potentially negative impacts on these residences. Page 2 Mr. Thomas Moore Lawson RE: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company February 22, 2018 Proffer 2.2 berm Section 2 states that the berm could be reduced due to cemetery or stream encroachment this berm could potentially be encroach on the cemetery and the stream to ensure that a definitive berm height is provided. The proffer removes the requirement that the berms be installed 10 years prior to mining north of Chapel Road. The proposed amendment states that the berms would be installed after permitting and one year prior to the extraction of material for processing. It appears that this proffer amendment would allow for a large amount of earthwork and excavating prior to any berms being installed. This could be worded to clarify that the berm would be installed prior to any earthwork/mining operations commencing on the property. Also, approved 10-year provision would have provided timing for the plantings to become established. One year does not appear to provide adequate timing for the berm landscaping to become established. A detail for the proposed planting revision should be provided. 4.Proffer 3 Historic Resources. The approved proffer states that the owner would improve the cemetery ROW once the cemetery restoration is complete. The proposed revision states that the owner would relocate the ROW within 12 months of VDOT approval. This proffer does not commit to building an actual access road for the cemetery, only the relocation of the ROW which could potentially only relocate the easement but not actually build the access. This revision also contains no timing for applying for the Chapel Road entrance. Potentially this access could not be built if the owner never applies for a VDOT entrance. Please note that this rezoning is scheduled for the Board of Supervisors March 14, 2018 meeting. If you propose to submit amended proffers based on the above comments and the submit any proposed revisions by March 1, 2018 for inclusion in the Board of Supervisors agenda. Please feel free to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA Assistant Director CEP/pd COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Assistant Director - Transportation RE: Update of the Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Plans DATE: June 7, 2018 This is a public hearing item to consider the update of the 2018 2019 Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Improvement Plans. Summary of Changes: Updates to the priorities which are being recommended are for the reasons of consistency ications. Interstate Plan Updates are as follows: 1.Change letter priorities to number priorities to be consistent with Primary Plan. 2.Update of priorities to place Exit 313 at Number 1 and Exit 317 at Number 2. 3.Update language for Exit 307 to acknowledge the need to improve the existing facility ahead of the long-term goal of relocation. Primary Plan Updates are as follows: 1.Move Route 11 ahead of Route 277 on the priority list due to the fact that the section of highest need on Route 277 is funded and moving toward construction and the growing needs on Route 11 which have resulted in SmartScale applications. 2.Route 277 broken up into segments of logical termini in recognition of the fact that future applications for this roadway would likely need to be for smaller segments. 3.Addition of Route 522 intersection with Costello Drive in recognition and support of the SmartScale application on that facility. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 The Transportation Committee reviewed this item on May 21, 2018 and has recommended approval to the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval at their June 6, 2018 meeting. Staff is seeking action from the Board of Supervisors on the plans and their associated resolutions of adoption. JAB/pd Attachments 2018-2019 INTERSTATE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Frederick County Transportation Committee: 5/21/2018 Frederick County Planning Commission: 6/06/2018 Frederick County Board of Supervisors: 6/13/2018 I-81 Improvements : Provide additional travel lanes on the main line, evaluate collector-distributor lanes adjacent to the main line, modifications to existing interchange areas, and develop new interchange areas and bridge crossings of the main line as recommended by the WinFred MPO Long Range Plan. In addition, as the State continues to work toward an ultimate plan for the I-81 widening, the County of Frederick continues to support the study of Eastern Route 37 as a potential corridor on new location as an alternative for that effort. Moreover, the County of Frederick supports exploration of the potential for rail transportation as a component of the Interstate 81 Corridor improvements. 1.Exit 313 - Bridge re-decking, safety improvements, and capacity expansion. 2.Exit 317 Realign northbound exit ramp and increase merge areas at the other ramps. Redbud Road realignment to accommodate ramp realignment. 3.Exit 310 - Phase 2 of the FHWA approved interchange modifications. 4.Exit 307 Safety and capacity improvements to the existing facility while continuing to promote the future relocation further south to the South Frederick Parkway. 5.Widen I-81 from Fairfax Pike to Route 37 North. This should include the relocation of the Route 277 Interchange: From: Route 277, Exit 307 To: Route 37 North, Exit 310 6. Widen Remainder of I-81 in Frederick County: From: West Virginia line To: Warren County line 7. Spot Improvements on I-81 in Frederick County. Provide spot improvements at various interchanges to increase capacity and/or enhance safety for the motoring public. £ ¤ 522 § ¨¦ 81 £ ¤ 11 £ ¤ £ ¤ 522 £ ¤ £ ¤ 11 £ ¤ 50 £ ¤ 7 Winchester £ ¤ 50 £ ¤ 11 £ ¤ 37 2018 - 2019 £ ¤ Interstate Road 50 £ ¤ 522 Improvement Plan £ ¤Priority 1 11 Exit 313 Bridge Redecking, Safety !( Stephens Improvements, and Capacity Expansion City Priority 2 Exit 317 Realign Northbound Exit !( Ramp and Increase Merge Areas at Other Ramps. Redbud Rd Realignment to Accomodate Ramp Realignment Priority 3 !( Exit 310 Phase II of the Interchange Upgrade Priority 4 Exit 307 Safety and Capacity § £¨¦ ¤!( 11 81 Improvements to Existing Location and Promote Future Realignment £ ¤ Priority 5 Widen I-81 from Middletown Exit 307 to Exit 310 Priority 6 Widen Remainder of I-81 § ¨¦ 66 01.252.55Miles ORDINANCE 2018-2019 INTERSTATE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the Frederick County Transportation Committee recommended approval of this plan on May 21, 2018; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of this plan at their meeting on June 6, 2018; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors had previously agreed to assist in the preparation of this plan in accordance with the Virginia Department of Plan, after being duly advertised so that all citizens of the County had the opportunity to participate in said hearing and to make comments and recommendations concerning the proposed Plan and Priority List; and, WHEREAS, a representative of the Virginia Department of Transportation appeared before the Board during the public hearing and recommended approval of the 2018 2019 Interstate Road Improvement Plan and the Construction Priority List; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors support the priorities of the interstate road improvement projects for programming by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: The 2018-2019 Interstate Road Improvement Plan appears to be in the best interest of the citizens of Frederick County and the Interstate Road System in Frederick County; and therefore, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the 2018-2019 Interstate Road PDRes. #20-18 -2- Improvement Plan and Construction Priority List for Frederick County, Virginia as presented at the public hearing held on June 13, 2018. This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Gary A. Lofton J. Douglas McCarthy Robert W. Wells Shannon G. Trout Judith McCann-Slaughter Blaine P. Dunn A COPY ATTEST _________________________________ Kris C. Tierney Frederick County Administrator PDRes. #20-18 2018-2019 PRIMARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Frederick County Transportation Committee: 5/21/2018 Frederick County Planning Commission: 6/06/2018 Frederick County Board of Supervisors: 6/13/2018 1)Route 37 Bypass A.Route 37 - Phase 1 Initiate final engineering and design, acquire right-of-way, and establish a construction phase schedule for the southern segment of the Route 37 Eastern Bypass from Interstate I-81 to Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South). B.Route 37 - Phase 2 Initiate final engineering and design, acquire right-of-way, and establish a construction phase schedule for the preferred alternative between existing Route 37 around Stonewall Industrial Park and Route 7. C.Route 37 - Phase 3 Initiate final engineering and design, acquire right-of-way, and establish a construction phase schedule for the preferred alternative between Route 7 and Route 522. 2)Route 11 (North and South of Winchester) A) Establish an Urban Divided Six Lane System: From: Northern limits of the City of Winchester To: Intersection of Cedar Hill Road B)Establish an Urban Divided Four Lane System: From: Southern limits of the City of Winchester To: 0.4 miles south of intersection of Route 37 South, Exit 310 C) Establish an Urban Divided Four Lane System: From: Intersection of Cedar Hill Road To: West Virginia line 3)Route 277 (East of Stephens City) Upgrade of the overall corridor to a 4-lane divided system with improved access management and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. A)Establish an Urban Divided Four Lane System: From: I-81 To: Double Church Road B)Establish an Urban Divided Four Lane System: From: Double Church Road To: Warrior Drive C)Establish an Urban Divided Four Lane System: From: Warrior Drive To: White Oak Road D)Establish an Urban Divided Four Lane System: From: White Oak Road To: Route 277 4)Route 7 Establish a 6 Lane Cross Section: From: Exit 315 Interchange To: Future Route 37 Interchange 5)Route 50 East and West A)Establish a 6 Lane Cross Section: From: The Interchange at Exit 313 To: The Future Route 37 Interchange B) Establish a 6 Lane Cross Section: From: The Interchange with Route 37 To: Poorhouse Road 6)South Frederick County Parkway: From: Relocated Exit 307 To: Intersection with Route 277 approximately 1 mile west of the intersection of Route 277 and Route 522 This is a planned new roadway with limited access points serving a mixture of predominantly commercial and industrial development. There is a need to study this project in conjunction with the Exit 307 relocation and planning for Route 277 improvements noted in item 3. Phasing of this project is not yet clearly defined; however general phasing would be from West to East with the clear first phase being from relocated Exit 307 to Warrior Drive. 7)Route 522 and Costello Drive Add additional left turn lane capacity on Route 522 southbound for turns onto Costello Drive. 8)Commuter Park and Ride Lots Establish a new park and ride facility along the Berryville Pike (Route 7) corridor. Work with the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission to determine appropriate locations for park and ride faciliti Development Area. For Park and Ride locations in Frederick County the primary goal should be that they are situated in such a manner that they reduce traffic in Frederick County in addition to adjacent localities. § ¨¦ 81 2C £ ¤ 522 § ¨¦ 81 2A 1B 1B 2018 - 2019 2A Primary Road £ ¤ 50 Improvement 5B £ 4 ¤ £ ¤ Plan 7 522 £ ¤ 11 £ ¤ Rt 37 Bypass Phases 37 Winchester Priority 1A Priority 1B £ ¤ 50 Priority 1C Rt 11 North & South 5A Priority 2A Priority 2B Priority 2C § ¨¦ £ 81 ¤ 1C 522 Rt 277 East of Stephens City £ ¤ 37 Priority 3A 2B Priority 3B Priority 3C £ ¤ 50 Priority 3D § ¨¦ 81 Rt 7 1A Priority 4 Rt 50 Priority 5A £ ¤ Priority 5B 11 South Frederick County Parkway Stephens City Priority 6 Rt 522 & Costello Dr ! ( 3A 3B 3C Priority 7 £ ¤ 11 3D Commuter - Park & Ride Lots ! ( 6 Priority 8 00.512Miles ORDINANCE 2018-2019 PRIMARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the Frederick County Transportation Committee recommended approval of this plan on May 21, 2018; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of this plan at their meeting on June 6, 2018; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors had previously agreed to assist in the preparation of this plan in accordance with the Virginia Department of cies and procedures and participated in a public hearing on the proposed Plan, after being duly advertised so that all citizens of the County had the opportunity to participate in said hearing and to make comments and recommendations concerning the proposed Plan and Priority List; and, WHEREAS, a representative of the Virginia Department of Transportation appeared before the Board during the public hearing and recommended approval of the 2018 2019 Primary Road Improvement Plan and the Construction Priority List; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors support the priorities of the primary road improvement projects for programming by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: The 2018-2019 Primary Road Improvement Plan appears to be in the best interest of the citizens of Frederick County and the Primary Road System in Frederick County; and therefore, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the 2018-2019 PDRes. #21-18 -2- Primary Road Improvement Plan and Construction Priority List for Frederick County, Virginia as presented at the public hearing held on June 13, 2018. This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Gary A. Lofton J. Douglas McCarthy Robert W. Wells Shannon G. Trout Judith McCann-Slaughter Blaine P. Dunn A COPY ATTEST _____________________________ Kris C. Tierney Frederick County Administrator PDRes. #21-18 2018/19-2023/24 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Frederick County Transportation Committee: 5/21/2018 Frederick County Planning Commission: 6/06/2018 Frederick County Board of Supervisors: 6/13/2018 MAJOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT 2018/2019 through Major road improvement projects command the reconstruction of hardsurfaced roads to enhance public safety. Improvements required for road width, road alignment, road strength, and road gradient are considered major road improvements projects. $6,071,860 Sulphur Springs .30 Mi East 655Route 50 5800 1.1 miles SH $8,205,445 2018 Allocated SSYP Road Rt. 656 Smart-Scale Int. .47 Mi Snowden 661Red Bud Road South 2000 0.5 miles ST $2,000,000 2022 Bridge Route 11 Blvd. $1,701,000 R/S Revenue 0.35 miles Funds 11 Valley Pike Route 11 .35 Mi East 3200 ST UN/SH Sharing $13,543,656 Roundabout R/S Revenue Winchester 0.44 miles (Includes East Tevis Street N/A SH 2018 Funds City Limit Sharing Roundabout) $5,786,290 East Tevis Street R/S 0.35 miles Revenue Northern Y Route 522 I-81 N/A SH 2018 Funds Sharing R/S $8,431,762 Roundabout Revenue Route 522 N/A 0.43 Miles SH Funds Airport Road Ext 2018 Sharing .24 Mi West Int. Shady Elm R/S & TPOF 788Renaissance N/A BC .18 miles Route 11 Road$4,734,995 UN/SH Funds 210 Ft. N. Funded 280 Ft. S. 1012 Town Run Lane N/A .1 Miles BC $150,000 UN/SH $150,000 Stickley Stickley Thru Plan Drive Drive Existing in the R/S Jubal Early Drive Ext. N/A 1.02 Miles GA $18,660,500.00 UN/SH City Route 37 Funds £ ¤ 11 § ¨¦ 81 £ ¤ 522 2 £ ¤ 7 Winchester £ ¤ 37 5 1 4 7 £ ¤ 50 £ ¤ 11 3 6 § ¨¦ 81 1. Sulphur Springs Rd Stephens City 2. Redbud Rd Realignment 3. Route 11 £ ¤ 4. East Tevis Street 522 5. East Tevis Street 6. Renaissance Dr Phase II 7. Airport Rd Extension 8 8. Town Run Ln Frederick County Major Road Improvement Projects 2018/2019 thru 2023/2024 µ 00.512Miles NON-HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT 2018/2019 through Non-Hardsurface road improvement projects provide impervious resurfacing and reconstruction of non-hardsurfaced secondary roads. Non-Hardsurface improvement projects are prioritized by an objective rating system, which considers average daily traffic volumes; occupied structures; physical road conditions including geometrics, drainage, and accident reports; school bus routing; and the time that project requests have been on the Secondary Road Improvement Plan. 1.2 Mi NE CTB Unpaved 1 2018 692 Pack Horse Road Route 671 210 1.4 miles GA $315,000 of Rt. 600 Roads Funding 1.25 Mi CTB Unpaved 2 W Laurel Grove Road Route 622 200 1.25 miles BC $292,500 629 2019 Roads of Funding Rt. 622 1.25 Mi 2.5 Mi W CTB Unpaved W 3 629 Laurel Grove Road 200 1.25 miles BC $292,500 2019 Roads of of Funding Rt. 622 Rt. 622 Rt. 610 CTB Unpaved WV state 707 Hollow Road 190 1.8 miles $405,000 4 GA 2020 line Muse Roads Road Funding 5 1.27 MI S of District Grant 2.27 MI S North Sleepy Creek 50 0.9 miles GA $225,000 734 2020 of RT 522 RT 522 Unpaved Road Road 6 District Grant Route Babbs Mountain Road 130 0.9 miles GA $202,500 730 Route 654 2020 677 Unpaved Road District Grant 7 Route Old Baltimore Road 90 1.23 miles GA $270,000 677 Route 676 2021 Unpaved Road 672 District Grant 8 Middle Fork Road 50 .9 miles GA 695 WV Line $238,500 2022 522 Unpaved Road District Grant 9 Timberlakes Lane 280 0.25 miles ST 2023 811 $66,250 *671 671 Unpaved Road District Grant 10 Clarke East Parkins Mill Road 200 0.81 miles SH 2024 644 $214,650 50 Unpaved Road Co. Line District Grant 11 Fletcher Road 170 1.3 miles GA 2024 733 707 $346,500 50 Unpaved Road «bh9t t©;-· ©; ¦-;7 ·w; -w;7Ò;7 z· ,;7 Ò¦ 5h ©;Ý;Ò; ¦©;-·zu /wm; · ·w; ¦© ¦©;-· ,;zm 7;ä;7 © ©;Ý;7 E© ·w; -w;7Ò;7 z·u Frederick County Non-Hardsurfaced Road 1. Pack Horse Rd Improvement Projects 2. Laurel Grove Rd 8 2018/2019 thru 2023/2024 3. Laurel Grove Rd 5 4. Hollow Rd 1 5. North Sleepy Creek Rd 6. Babbs Mountain Rd 7. Old Baltimore Rd £ ¤ 127 8. Middle Fork Rd 9. Timberlakes Ln 10. East Parkins Mill Rd £ ¤ 522 11. Fletcher Rd 9 11 £ ¤ 6 50 7 § ¨¦ 4 £ ¤81 50 £ ¤ £ ¤ 259 11 £ ¤ 522 £ ¤ 50 £ ¤ 7 Winchester £ ¤ 37 3 £ ¤ £ ¤ 522 § ¨¦50 81 10 2 £ ¤ 55 Stephens City £ ¤ 277 £ ¤ µ 11 £ ¤ 522 Middletown § ¨¦ 66 0248Miles UNSCHEDULED NON-HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2018/2019 through 2023/2024 1 Fishel Rd 612 600 600 60 1.6 BC 66.56 2 Canterburg Rd 636 640 641 140 1.5 OP 63.17 3 Clark Rd 638 625 759 70 0.8 BC 62.94 4 Heishman Rd 607 600 600 70 0.78 BC 62.37 5 Glaize Orchard Rd 682 608 654 240 1.54 GA 61.22 6 South Timber Ridge 696 522 694 220 1.3 GA 58.58 7 Cougill Rd 634 635 11 120 0.25 BC 58.00 8 Ruebuck Road 670 669 End of maintenance 160 0.35 ST 55.00 9 Grace Church Road 668 667 671 210 1.35 ST 53.20 10Huttle Rd 636 709 735 110 1.1 OP 53.05 11Gardners Rd 700 127 701 110 1.0 GA 51.50 12Light Rd 685 600 681 80 1.3 BC 51.46 13McDonald Rd 616 608 .44 N. of 608 60 0.45 BC 51.33 14Cattail Rd 731 608 654 60 1.7 GA 51.24 15Hunting Ridge Rd 608 682 681 90 2.44 GA 51.01 16Mount Olive Road 615 50 Hammack Lane 110 0.37 BC 49.00 17Shockeysville Road 671 690 .90 miles west of 690 120 0.9 GA 46.67 18Mount Olive Road 615 Hammack Lane 600 110 0.4 BC 38 Note: Project ratings are updated only when funding is available to promote projects to the scheduled list. Frederick County Unscheduled Non-Hardsurfaced Road 1. Fishel Rd Improvement Projects 2. Canterburg Rd 2018/2019 thru 2023/2024 3. Clark Rd 4. Heishman Ln 5. Glaize Orchard Rd 6. South Timber Ridge Rd !( 7. Cougill Rd 6 8. Ruebuck Rd !( 17 9. Grace Church Rd 10. Huttle Rd £ ¤ 127 11. Gardners Rd QR 11 12. Light Rd !( !( 12 15 13. McDonald Rd !( £ ¤5 522 GAINESBORO 14. Cattail Rd !( 15. Hunting Ridge Rd 14 !( 16. Mount Olive Rd 8 £ ¤ 50 17. Shockeysville Rd !( 9 § ¨¦ 18. Mount Olive Rd 81 STONEWALL £ ¤ 259 £ ¤ £ ¤ 11 522 !( !( 16 18 £ ¤ 50 £ ¤ 7 Winchester !( £ ¤ 37 13 REDBUD !( 1 BACK CREEK £ ¤ 50 § ¨¦ 81 !( SHAWNEE 4 £ ¤ 522 Stephens £ ¤ 55 City !( £ 3 ¤ 277 µ £ ¤ 11 OPEQUON !( 7 !( 2 Middletown !( 10 £ ¤ 522 § ¨¦ 66 0248Miles ORDINANCE 2018-2019 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, Section 33.2-331 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, provides the opportunity for each county to work with the Virginia Department of Transportation in developing a Six-Year Road Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Transportation Committee recommended approval of this plan on May 21, 2018; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of this plan at their meeting on June 6, 2018; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors had previously agreed to assist in the preparation of this plan in accordance with the Virginia Department of ing on the proposed Plan, after being duly advertised so that all citizens of the County had the opportunity to participate in said hearing and to make comments and recommendations concerning the proposed Plan and Priority List; and, WHEREAS, a representative of the Virginia Department of Transportation appeared before the Board during the public hearing and recommended approval of the 2018 2019 Secondary Road Improvement Plan and the Construction Priority List; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors support the priorities of the secondary road improvement projects for programming by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: The 2018-2019 Secondary Road Improvement Plan appears to be in the best interest of the citizens of Frederick County and the Secondary Road System in Frederick County; and therefore, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the 2018-2019 Secondary PDRes. #22-18 -2- Road Improvement Plan and Construction Priority List for Frederick County, Virginia as presented at the public hearing held on June 13, 2018. This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Gary A. Lofton J. Douglas McCarthy Robert W. Wells Shannon G. Trout Judith McCann-Slaughter Blaine P. Dunn A COPY ATTEST _________________________________ Kris C. Tierney Frederick County Administrator PDRes. #22-18 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors FROM: M. Tyler Klein, AICP, Planner SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment Residential Separation Buffer Waiver Public Hearing DATE: June 7, 2018 This is a proposed amendment to Chapter 165 Zoning Ordinance to modify the requirement for residential separation buffers in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District for certain housing types. Residential Separation Buffers are required to adequately buffer different housing types from dissimilar housing types within adjacent separate developments. On December 13, 2017 the Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to modify the required residential separation buffers between townhome units and single-family detached (SFD) units; and townhome units and single-family small lot (attached and detached) units. This approved text amendment changed the required buffer category from a Category B Type Buffer to a Category A Type Buffer. The intent of this modification at the time of approval was to provide flexibility for smaller infill-type lots (generally 5-acres or less) in the RP Zoning District Development Area (UDA), ensuring the desired housing types and density were sited where they are planned for as part of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. The table below provides a simple example of the difference between a Category B and a Category A note: a full screen requires a landscape screen (tree & shrub plantings) and a 6 foot (FT) tall fence, wall, mound or berm). Category A Type Buffer*Category B Type Buffer* Inactive Distance Required (FT) Active Distance Required (FT) Total Distance Required 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 At their May 9, 2018 meeting, the Board of Supervisors expressed concern with the unintended consequences of reducing the required buffer requirements for certain residential developments from a Category B Type Buffer to a Category A Type Buffer as it pertained to a by-right development presented to the Board as part of an information Master Development Plan (MDP) agenda item. The Board of Supervisors specifically expressed concern the with the ability to increase intensity of development (including the number and massing of units) and the potential capital impacts to County services. Planning and Development Staff was directed by the Board of Supervisors to initiate a public hearing process to reverse the prior amendment approved in December 2017. The reversal of this amendment approval, and resulting new amendment, would reinstate the requirement for a Category B Type Buffer between townhome units and single-family detached units; and between townhome units and single-family small lot (attached and detached) units. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this proposed text amendment on June 6, 2018. At the public hearing, Staff presented the chronology of events relating to the original text amendment, its implementation, and the Board of Supervisors discussion th on May 9. Planning Commissioner Thomas expressed concern with changing the buffer Specifically, he noted the concern raised by the Board regarding increasing the amount of homes that could potentially be sited on a lot and the desire of the County to ensure development was focused within the areas where growth was planned (i.e. the Urban Development Area). Staff clarified the density of a RP zoned site, or 10 dwelling units per acre, was not affected by the change in the buffer requirements. However, staff stated in changing the required buffer distances it may allow for the use of areas previously encumbered by buffers and therefore the reduced buffer could allow for a developer to achieve more units. due to the buffers, but the overall density allowed in the RP Zoning District. Staff restated the issue for consideration at the public hearing that night was specific residential separation buffers, but they would communicate those comments regarding density to the Board for future consideration. Four (4) members of the public representing the building and development community spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment to change the buffer requirement. Each speaker stressed that at the time of the original text amendment there was support from the development community to allow for flexibility, direct growth to planned areas as well as for use on lots where size and configuration was limited. They noted this would made financial investments on two (2) projects currently under review by the County and the design was based on previously approved buffer requirements and where the new text amendment would have a negative impact on his project. Another speaker emphasized the deliberate process to originally study and amend the buffer requirements in 2017 and the less thoughtful and haphazard process to revoke the text amendment which did not provide for enough discussion of potential issues with the development community. The speaker concluded by stating that developers may look to other localities to develop residential projects if the Board choses to change the ordinance back and forth so unpredictably. Commissioner Oates commented that the reduction of the buffer requirement, in at least one instance, had a negative effect on a neighboring property owner who now would have to look at townhomes only 25-feet from their property line. He expressed his original concern with changing the buffers in 2017. Chairman Kenney noted that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors may not always get it right with text amendments, but the Planning Commission was tasked with considering only the reinstatement of the Category B Type Buffer requirement for certain housing type and that a ing District was a discussion for later, if directed by the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission voted 6-3 (Absent: Mohn, Molden, Manuel, and Unger) to send the item forward to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation to approve the revocation of the 2017 text amendment and reinstating the Category B Type Buffer requirement for certain housing types. The attached document shows the existing ordinance (as amended on December 13, 2017) with the proposed change as directed by the Board of Supervisors (with bold italic This proposed amendment is being presented to the Board highlight for text added). of Supervisors as a public hearing item. A decision by the Board of Supervisors on this proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is sought. Attachment: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics. MTK/pd Article II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS; PARKING; BUFFERS; AND REGULATIONS Part 203. Buffers and Landscaping § 165-203.02. Buffer and screening requirements. It is the intent of the regulations of this section to encourage adjacent existing uses and to protect proposed uses within the s buffered from other types in order to ensure a desirable living environment. Additionally, appropriate distances must be maintained between commercial, industrial and C. Residential separation buffers. Residential separation buffer adequately buffer different housing types from dissimilar housing types within adja separate developments. The requirements for residential separati (1) When placed adjacent to one another, developments with diffe shall provide the following residential separation buffers: Minimum Residential Separation Buffer Area Required Proposed Use/Development Adjoining Existing Use/Development 1 2 3 4 5 1.Single-family detached - - A B B 2.Single-family zero lot line or small lot - - A B B 3.Townhouse A B A B - B B 4.Garden apartment or multifamily C C B - A buildings 5.Age-restricted multifamily C C C - - Buffer Area Width and Plant Requirements Type Inactive (Minimum) Active (Maximum) Total Screen (feet) (feet) (feet) Type A 15 10 25 Full Screen A 30 20 50 Landscape Screen A 75 25 100 No Screen B 30 20 50 Full Screen B 45 30 75 Landscape Screen B 75 25 100 No Screen C 75 25 100 Full Screen C 100 50 150 Landscape Screen C 150 50 200 No Screen ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: June 6, 2018 Recommended Approval BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: June 13, 2018 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 165 ZONING ARTICLE II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS; PARKING; BUFFERS; AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES PART 203 BUFFERS AND LANDSCAPING §165-203.02. BUFFER AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS WHEREAS, an ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning to reinstate the requirement for a Category B Type Buffer for certain housing types, residential separation buffers in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District was considered; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance on June 6, 2018; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance on June 13, 2018; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds that the adoption of this ordinance to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in good zoning practice; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Chapter 165 Zoning, is amended to modify ARTICLE II Supervisors that SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS; PARKING; BUFFERS; AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES, PART 203 BUFFERS AND LANDSCAPING, §165-203.02. BUFFER AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS PDRes #19-18 -2- to amend Chapter 165, Zoning to reinstate the requirement for a Category B Type Buffer for residential separation buffers between single-family detached (SFD) units and townhome units, and single-family small lot (attached and detached) units and townhome units in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District. Passed this 13th day of June 2018 by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Gary A. Lofton J. Douglas McCarthy Judith McCann-Slaughter Shannon G. Trout Blaine P. Dunn Robert W. Wells A COPY ATTEST ______________________________ Kris C. Tierney Frederick County Administrator PDRes #19-18