The URL can be used to link to this page

May 22 2019 Board_Agenda_PacketAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2019 7:00 P.M. - REGULAR MEETING BOARD ROOM, COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 107 NORTH KENT STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 1.7:00 P.M. - Regular Meeting Call to Order 2.Invocation 3.Pledge of Allegiance 4.Adoption of Agenda 5.Citizen Comments – Agenda Items that are not the subject of a Public Hearing 6.Consent AgendaAttachment Roll call vote required. 6.A Minutes 1.Joint Work Session with Parks & Recreation Commission of May 8, 2019 ----- A 2.Regular Meeting of May 8, 2019 ---------------------------------------------------------- B 6.B Committee Reports 1.Code & Ordinance Committee Reportof5/9/19--------------------------------------- C 2.Finance Committee Report of 5/15/19--------------------------------------------------- D 3.Parks & Recreation Commission Report of 5/14/19 ---------------------------------- E 6.C Resolution Adding Conns Road East to Secondary Road System----------------- F MEETING AGENDA PAGE 2 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Wednesday, May 22, 2019 Consent Agenda , continued 6. 6.D Request for Refunds---------------------------------------------------------------------------- G 1.Handy Mart, LLC- $3,089.89 2.Kevin Campbell Trucking Inc. ---$10,860.84 3.Undisclosed Taxpayer- Disabled Veteran's Relief- $4,545.39 4.Undisclosed Taxpayer- Disabled Veteran's Relief- $6,790.67 7.Board of Supervisors Comments 8.County Officials 8.ACommittee Appointments------------------------------------------------------------------- H 1.Handley Regional Library Board Unexpired 4-year term ending 11/30/19, Applications received. Awaiting recommendation of the Library Board. 2.Historic Resources Advisory Board Stonewall District Representative – 4-year term of Robert Meadows ends 6/10/19 (Eligible for reappointmentand willing to serve another term) 3.Shawneeland Sanitary District Advisory Committee 2-year term of Lynn Schmitt ends 7/13/19 (Eligible for reappointment) 9.Committee Business 9.ACode & Ordinance Committee(See Attachment _C_) 1.Amendments to Chapter 118 (Noise) of the County Code, to adopt a “plainly audible” standard with respect to certain prohibited noise. The Committee recommends forwarding the item to public hearing with a recommendation of approval. 2.Amendment to Section 48-3 (Dogs running at large unlawful) of Article I (Dog Licensing; Rabies Control) of Chapter 48 (Animals and Fowl) of theCounty Code, to conform with changes to Virginia Code The Committee recommends §3.2-6538,effective July 1, 2019. forwarding the item to public hearing with a recommendation of approval. MEETING AGENDA PAGE 3 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Wednesday, May 22, 2019__________________________________________________________ 9.Committee Business, continued 9.B Finance Committee(See Attachment _D_) ()= Approved on Committee consent agenda. 1.The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $30,450 forPhase II of the eSummons project. This amount represents eSummons funds collected throughthe courts and earmarked for the implementation of an electronic summons system. No localfunds are required. The Committee recommends approval. 2.() The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $3,693.07.This amount represents an insurance claim for a damaged vehicle. No local funds required. Approval recommended on the Committee consent agenda. 3.The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $24,750. Thisamount represents recovered costs for traffic control for overtime. No local funds required. TheCommittee recommends approval. 4.() The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $862.31. Thisamount represents restitution for damaged cruisers. No local funds required. Approval recommended on the Committee consent agenda. 5.() The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $100. Thisamount represents a DARE donation. No local funds required. Approval recommended on the Committee consent agenda. 6.() The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $11,853.47.This amount represents reimbursements from the Secret Service. No local funds required. Approval recommended on the Committee consent agenda. 7.() The Sheriff request a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $3,550. Thisamount represents proceeds from the sale of a retired cruiser. No local funds required. Approval recommended on the 8.The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $270,870. Thisamount represents funds to purchase (9) nine 2019 vehicles at a cost savings of approximately$3,000 per vehicle. Funds were budgeted in FY 2020 and will be returned. Local funds arerequired. The committee recommends approval of the supplemental appropriation from theCapital Reserve in FY 2019 to be returned from the FY 2020 funds budgeted for Sheriff vehicles. 9.The NRADC Superintendent requests a Court Services budget transfer in the amount of $7,000out of a personnel line item to operations to meet projected operational shortfalls. The Committee recommends approval. 10.The Airport Director requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of$245,737. This amount represents the County’s share of legal fees in the amount of $326,345incurred in prior years (identified in the Airport CAFR as “Cash overdraft”). Local funds arerequired. The Committee recommends approval. 11.The Parks & Recreation Director requests a change order in excess of 10% for the SherandoPark Recreation Access Project. The Committee recommends approval. 12.The VJCCCA Director requests a General Fund budget transfer in the amount of $6,400 out of a personnel line item to operations to provide client servicesand training.The Committeerecommends approval. MEETING AGENDA PAGE 4 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Wednesday, May 22, 2019__________________________________________________________ 9.Committee Business , continued 9.C The VJCCCA Director requests an FY19 GeneralFund supplemental ----------- I appropriation for up to $50,000representing one-time supplemental funding from the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for the purchase of equipment and supplies as Shenandoah Valley Achievement Center is launched. Funding will be on a reimbursement basis for actual expenses. No local funds are required. The VJCCCA Director requeststhat the Board to authorize the County Administrator to sign the MOA Plan Addendum. 10.Public Hearings (Non Planning Issues) 10.A The Board of Supervisors will Conduct a Public Hearing, Pursuant --------- J to Virginia Code Section 15.2-1800, Regarding the Conveyance, by a Deedfor Two Hundred Years, of the County’s Interest in Real PropertyLocated at 20 North Loudoun Street, in the City of Winchester, Virginia, Identified asCity Tax Parcel Number 193-1-N-4, to the Shenandoah ValleyBattlefieldsFoundation. 11.Planning Commission Business - Public Hearings 11.A Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment (CPPA) #02-19 Brucetown ------- K RoadArea Amendment – Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) Expansionand Land Use Designation Associated with Comprehensive PlanAmendment #02-18 for the Carter Tract. This is a Request to Amend the Northeast Land Use Plan of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. This Amendment Request Proposes to Add 109 Acres into the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and Remove 109 Acres from the SWSA.This Amendment Also Seeks to Designate the 109 Acres for Industrial Uses. 11.B Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment (CPPA) #01-19 Blackburn ------- L Property Workforce Housing – Urban Development Area (UDA) Expansion and Land Use Designation Change Associated with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment #01-19 for Blackburn Property Request. This is a Request to Amend the Kernstown Area Plan of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan.This is a Request to Add 71.849 Ares tothe UDA.This Amendment Also Seeks to Designate the 71 Acres for Workforce Housing. MEETING AGENDA PAGE 5 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Wednesday, May 22, 2019____________________________________________________________ 11. Planning Commission Business -Public Hearings , continued 11.CDraft Update of the 2019-2020 Frederick County Primary and ------------------M InterstateRoad Improvement Plans The Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans Establish Priorities for Improvements to thePrimary and Interstate Road Networks within Frederick County.Comments from the TransportationCommittee will be Forwarded to the PlanningCommission and Board of Supervisors.Ultimately, thePriorities Adopted by the Board of Supervisors will be Forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for consideration. The Virginia Department of Transportation and the Board of Supervisors Forthe County of Frederick, Virginia, in Accordance with Section 33.2-331of theCode of Virginia, will Conduct a Joint Public Hearing.The Purpose of thisPublic Hearing is to Receive Public Comment on the Proposed Six Year Plan for Secondary Roads for Fiscal Years 2020 Through 2025 inFrederick Countyand on the Secondary System Construction Budget forFiscal Year 2020. Copies of the Proposed Plan and Budget May be Reviewed at the Edinburg Office of the Virginia Department of Transportation, Located at 14031 Old Valley Pike, Edinburg, Virginia or at the FrederickCounty Offices Located at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia.All Projects in theSecondary Road Improvement Plan that are Eligible for Federal Funds will be Included in the StatewideTransportation Improvement Program (STIP), which Documents How Virginia will Obligate FederalTransportation Funds.Persons Requiring Special Assistance to Attend and Participate in thisHearing Should Contact the Virginia Department of Transportation at 1-800-367-7623. 12. Board Liaison Reports 13. Citizen Comments 14. Board of Supervisors Comments 15. Adjourn MINUTES FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS-PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION JOINTWORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 8,2019 5:00P.M. BOARD ROOM, COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 107NORTH KENT STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA ATTENDEES Board of Supervisors:Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman; Gary A. Lofton, Vice Chairman; Blaine P. Dunn; J. Douglas McCarthy; Shannon G. Trout; Judy McCann-Slaughter and Robert W. Wellswere present. Parks & Recreation Commission:Ronald Madagan; Natalie Gerometta; Gary Longerbeam; Christopher Fordney; and Charles R. Sandy, Jr. Staff Present:Kris C. Tierney, County Administrator; Jay E. Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator; Jason Robertson, Director ofParks & Recreation; Jon Turkel, Assistant Director of Parks & Recreation; Stacey Herbaugh, Parks & Recreation-Operations Superintendent; Chris Konyer, Parks & Recreation-Recreation Superintendent; Cory Smith, Parks & Recreation-Parks Superintendent; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; Scott Varner, Director of Information Technology; Mike Ruddy, Director of Planning & Development; and Ann W. Phillips, Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Others:Justin Kerns, Director of the Winchester-Frederick County Convention & Visitors Bureau CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 5:00p.m. ADOPTION OF AGENDA On motion ofSupervisor Dunn, seconded by Supervisor McCarthy, the agenda was adopted as presented. PRESENTATION BY WINCHESTER-FREDERICK COUNTY CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU Justin Kerns, Executive Director of the Winchester-Frederick County Convention and Visitors Bureau, gave a PowerPoint presentation explaining the Bureau’s draft Three-Year StrategicDestination Plan Schematic: FY2020–FY2022and FY2020–FY2022 Strategic Destination Plan Rationale and New Directions.He noted these draft documents are being presented to the County Board of Supervisors and the Winchester City Council to gain input, and following the input process, any changes will be made and then re-submitted to each body for final approval. The Board and Mr. Kerns discussed the strategic plan. Mr. Kerns advised that the Board will be asked to adopt a resolution endorsing the Plan once the final draft is complete. Frederick County Board of Supervisors-Parks & Recreation Commission Joint Work Session Minutes * May 8, 2019 1 PRESENTATION: PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN Jon Turkel, Assistant Director of Parks & Recreation, and Jason Robertson, Director of Parks & Recreation, gave a PowerPoint presentationdiscussing the Parks and Recreation Commission’s adoptedParks and Recreation Master Plan. The Board and the Commission discussed the Master Plan and funding options with some Commission members expressing their desire for a greaterfinancial commitment from the Board of Supervisors as the County’s populationcontinues to increase. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 6:18p.m. Frederick County Board of Supervisors-Parks & Recreation Commission Joint Work Session Minutes * May 8, 2019 2 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, MAY 8,2019 7:00P.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; Shannon G. TroutandRobert W. Wells were present. Staff present: Kris C. Tierney, County Administrator; Jay E. Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney;Mike Ruddy, Director of Planning and Development;John Bishop, Assistant Director of Planning-Transportation; Mark Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Tyler Klein, Planner; Scott Varner, Director of Information Technologies; Denny Linaburg, Fire and Rescue Chief;andAnn 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 Supervisor Wellsdeliveredtheinvocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chairman Lofton led the Pledge ofAllegiance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA -APPROVED Upon motion of Supervisor Dunn,seconded bySupervisor Slaughter,theagenda was adoptedon a voice vote. CITIZENS COMMENTS Therewere no speakers. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA –APPROVED Upon motion of Supervisor Slaughter, seconded by SupervisorDunn,the consent agenda was adoptedonavoice vote. -Minutes: Joint Meeting with Economic Development Authority of April 24, 2019 - CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL -Minutes: Regular Meeting of April 24, 2019 - CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL -Transportation Committee Report of 4/22/19- , Appendix 1 CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes * May 8, 2019 1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS-None COUNTY OFFICIALS: PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION IN MEMORIAM OF MARGARET BRUMBACK DOUGLAS Chairman DeHaven and Vice Chairman Lofton presented to the family of Margaret Brumback Douglas a framed copy of the Resolution in Memoriam passed at the December 12, 2018, meeting of the Board of Supervisors. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS HANDLEY REGIONAL LIBRARY BOARD APPOINTMENT DELAYED UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING –APPROVED Supervisor Trout moved to delay making anappointment to the Handley Regional Library Board until the next meeting in order to receive further input from theLibrary Board on the candidates. Supervisor McCarthy seconded the motion which carried on a voice vote. NADINE POTTINGA APPOINTED TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PEOPLE, INC.- APPROVED Upon motion of Supervisor Slaughter, seconded bySupervisor McCarthy, Nadine Pottinga was appointed to serve as the Frederick County Representative to the Board of Directors of People, Inc., on a voice vote. SCOTT STRAUB REAPPOINTED AS RED BUD DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCESADVISORY BOARD –APPROVED Upon motion of Supervisor Dunn, seconded by Supervisor Wells,Scott Straub was reappointedas Red Bud District Representative to the Historic Resources Advisory Board for a four- year term ending July 8, 2023.The motion carried on a voice vote. KEVIN KENNEY REAPPOINTED TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF BUILDING APPEALS -APPROVED Upon motion of Supervisor Slaughter, seconded by Supervisor Wells,Kevin Kenney was reappointed to the Frederick County Board of Building Appeals for a five-year termending June 26, 2024.The motion carried on a voice vote. JEFF BOPPE REAPPOINTED TO THE LORD FAIRFAX COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD – APPROVED Uponmotion of Vice Chairman Lofton, seconded by Supervisor McCarthy, Jeff Boppe was reappointed to the Lord FairfaxCommunity College Board for a four-year term ending June 30, 2023. The motion carried on a voice vote. Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes * May 8, 2019 2 GAIL RUSH REAPPOINTED AS OPEQUON DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICESBOARD –APPROVED Uponmotion of Supervisor Wells, seconded by Vice Chairman Lofton, Gail Rush was reappointed as Opequon District representative to the Frederick County Social ServicesBoard for a four-year term ending June 30, 2023.The motion carried on a voice vote. COMMITTEE BUSINESS: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Assistant Director of Planning-Transportation, John Bishop,explained the current process for SmartScale fundingincluding the allocation of VDOT District grants and statewide high priority funds. He noted that contrary to information received from VDOT staff, the inclusion of outside funds does not appear to improve a project’s SmartScale score. He concluded saying the SmartScale program is not working as the legislators intended and listed equity, transparency, and flexibility as key issues needing to be addressed. Mr. Bishop provided a draft resolution requesting that the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the state legislature review the SmartScale legislation and its implementation. Chairman DeHaven asked that the draft resolution be reviewed by the County’s Commonwealth Transportation Board representative and VDOT liaisons prior to it being considered by the Boardof Supervisors. Supervisor McCarthy requested that the issue be brought to the attention of the Virginia Association of Counties and be placed on their agenda at their upcoming meeting. Vice Chairman Lofton noted that Delegate LeRockis willing to assist with this issue in the legislature. He proposed inviting the Governor to attend the County’s Transportation Forum in the fall to allow discussion of funding issues. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ORDINANCE -SALARIES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (FY 2019-2020)- APPROVED Pursuant to Section 15.2-1414.3 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as Amended, the Board of Supervisors Will Hold a Public Hearing to Fix the Annual Salaries of the Board of Supervisors as Follows: Chairman, $10,800; Vice Chairman, $10,200; and Each Other Member of the Board of Supervisors at $9,000. Chairman DeHaven opened the public hearing. There were no speakers. Chairman DeHaven closed the public hearing. SupervisorSlaughtermoved for adoption of the proposed ordinance setting the Board’s salaries as proposed. Supervisor McCarthy seconded the motion. Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes * May 8, 2019 3 Supervisor Dunn said the Board has not had a pay increase since 2001, and he plans to raise the issue during the next budget cycle. The motion to adopt the ordinance fixing the Annual Salaries of the Board of Supervisors passed on a roll call vote as follows: Blaine P. DunnAyeShannon G. TroutAye Gary A. LoftonAyeRobert W. WellsAye J. Douglas McCarthyAyeCharles S. DeHaven, Jr.Aye Judith McCann-SlaughterAye ORDINANCE SALARIES OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FISCAL YEAR 2019-2020 BE IT ORDAINED, the annual salary for each member of the Frederick County Board Supervisors, for fiscal year beginning July 1, 2019, shall be as follows: Chairman, $10,800; Vice Chairman, $10,200; and each other member of the Board of Supervi Upon motion made by Supervisor Slaughter and seconded by Supervi was passed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, at a regular meeting and public hearing held on May 8, 2019. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + PROPOSEDAMENDMENTTOTHEFREDERICK COUNTYCODE, CHAPTER 90 FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION, ARTICLEI GENERAL STANDARDS, TO CONFORM WITH THE MOST RECENT PRACTICES AND CHANGES TO THE VIRGINIA FIRE PREVENTION CODE.-APPROVED TheProposed Revisions Update the County’s Adoption of the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code (VSFPC), to Add, Delete, and Update Definitions as Appropriate, Update Requirements Relating to Fire Hydrants, and Make Provision for Fire Personnel-Accessible Key Boxes for Certain Structures. Chairman DeHaven opened the public hearing. There were no speakers. Chairman DeHaven closed the public hearing. Supervisor McCarthy moved for adoption of the proposed ordinance to conform with the most recent practices and changes to the Virginia Fire Prevention Code.Supervisor Dunn seconded the motion which carried on a roll call voteas follows: Blaine P. DunnAyeShannon G. TroutAye Gary A. LoftonAyeRobert W. WellsAye J. Douglas McCarthyAyeCharles S. DeHaven, Jr.Aye Judith McCann-SlaughterAye ORDINANCE May 8 , 2019 The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia hereby or (General Standards) of Chapter 90 (Fire Prevention and Protectio County, Virginia be, and the same hereby is, amended as follows shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in bold underline): ARTICLE I GENERAL STANDARDS § 90-1 Purpose; adoption of Statewide Fire Protection Code. A.The purpose of this chapter is to consolidate into one document requirements for the prevention or the minimizing of the loss of lives and property t may result from fire in Frederick County. Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes * May 8, 2019 4 B.The Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code (VSFPC), as set fort-94 et seq. of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), and as may be subsequently amended, shall be enforced in the County. Except as specifically modified by th provisions and requirements of the Statewide Fire Prevention Cod mutatis mutandis, and made part of this chapter as if fully set forth and shall be known as the Frederick County Fire Prevention Code (FCFPC). No person within the County shall violate or fail, neglect or refuse to comply with any prov County Fire Prevention Code and in no event shall the penalty imposed for the violation of any provision or requirement adopted herein exceed the penalt similar offense under such § 27-94 et seq. of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), and as may be subsequently amended. § 90-2 Administration, enforcement, and appointment of Fire Marshal; interpretation; applicability; appeals. A.There is hereby established in and for the County the position o shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of this chapter and, in addition, such official shall have the powers outlined in Section 27-98.1 of the Code of Virginia., and the The Board of Supervisors authorizes the appointment of such Fire Marshal as designated by the DepartmentSystemChief of the Frederick County Department of Fire and Rescue. The investigation into the origin and and explosion occurring within the limits for which he/she is ap and prosecution of all offenses involving hazardous materials, f bombings, attempts or threats to commit such offenses, false ala offenses, possession and manufacture of explosive devices, subst and environmental crimes shall be the responsibility of the Fire, and/or his/her a designated representative, the Assistant Fire Marshal, and legal counsel. B.The requirements in this chapter shall be administered and enfor County Fire Marshal or his a designated representative as referred to as the Authority Having Jurisdiction. C.Subject to the provisions of Subsection E, the Fire Marshal or his a designated representative shall interpret this section, where necessary, an be binding and final. D.This chapter shall apply to all matters affecting or relating to premises as set forth in Sections 101 and 102 of the VSFPC (FCFPC), except that this chapter shall not apply within the boundaries of any incorporateunty that has a duly appointed Fire Code Official. E.Appeals concerning the administration, enforcement, interpretati of this chapter by the Fire Marshal or his/her a designated representative shall first lie to the County Board of Building Code Appeals created under § 52-8 of this Code and then to the State Building Code Technical Review Board. Appeals hereu Board of Building Code Appeals shall be subject to the payment o apply to appeals of matters involving the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Appeals from the application of the VSFPC by the State Fire Mars directly to the State Building Code Technical Review Board as pr-108 et seq. of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), and as may be subsequently amended. § 90-3 Definitions and word usage. A.Definitions of words defined in this article are intended for us this article. Definitions set forth in any document referenced b are intended for use only with that document only. Words not specifically def other referenced documents shall be interpreted as being the ord as set forth in the most recent edition of Webster's Third New Iernational Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged. B.As used in this article, the following terms shall have the mean Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes * May 8, 2019 5 APPROVED Acceptable to the Frederick County Fire Marshal or his a designated representative. ASSISTANT FIRE MARSHAL A sworn law enforcement officer to serve as the Fire Marshal's d representative. AUTOMATIC FIRE-EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM Any system which is designed and installed to detect a fire and discharge an extinguishing agent without human activation or direction. CURB CUT Reduced curb height to facilitate vehicle passage over or across cut can be an abrupt reduction or may be a tapering reduction fo the curb on each side of the means of access. DWELLING A single unit providing complete and independent living faciliti more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleepin cooking and sanitation. EXISTING CONDITION Any situation, circumstance or physical makeup of any structure, premises or process which was ongoing or in effect prior to the original ado article. FIRE CODE OFFICIAL The same as "Fire Marshal" and any of his/her designated represe FIRE DEPARTMENT The Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department, the local volunteer fire company that is the first due company in an area, and any fire c actually responds to a call for service at a particular location FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION (FDC) A connection, through which the fire department can pump supplemental water into a sprinkler system, standpipe, or other system, furnishing water for fire extinguishment to supplement existing water supplies. FIRE DOOR A tested, listed or approved door and door assembly constructed for the purpose of preventing the spread of fire through openings in partitions or other horizontal or vertical construction. FIRE HYDRANT A valved connection on a piped water supply system, having one or more outlets and which is used to supply hose and Fire Department pum water. FIRE LANE The road or other passageway developed to allow the passage of f FIRE MARSHAL A The sworn law enforcement official responsible for investigating the causes of fires and explosions, enforcing fire-prevention laws set forth in the VSFPC, life-safety inspections, the review of fire-protection system plans, and fire education to the public having the responsibilities set out in Section 90-2(A) of this Code. FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM Any fire alarm device or system or fire-extinguishing device or system or their combination which is designed and installed for detecting, contr extinguishing a fire or otherwise alerting occupants or the Fire Department, o both, that a fire has occurred. Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes * May 8, 2019 6 Approved devices, equipment, and/or systems used to detect a fire, activate an alarm, extinguish or control a fire, and/or control or manage smoke and products of a fire, and/or any combination thereof. GRADE The reference plane representing the average elevation of the fi level adjoining the building at all exterior walls. KEY BOX A secure device with a lock operable only by a fire department master key, and containing building entry keys and other keys that may be required for access in an emergency. MEANS OF ACCESS The method or arrangement by which entry or approach is made to area by Fire Department apparatus and personnel. PRIVATE DRIVE The same as a "private street." PRIVATEDWELLING The same as a "dwelling." PRIVATE ROAD The same as a "private street." PRIVATE STREET Any accessway normally intended for vehicular use in the movemen points within a building site area or between a building site and a street. RISER The vertical supply pipes in a sprinkler system. ROADWAY Any street, private street or fire lane. SPRINKLER SYSTEM For fire protection purposes, an integrated system of underground and overhead piping designed in accordance with fire protection engineering standards. The installation includes at least one automatic water supply that supplies one or more systems. The portion of the sprinkler system above ground is a network of specially sized or hydraulically designed piping installed in a building, structure, or area, generally overhead, and to which sprinklers are attached in a systematic pattern. Each system has a control valve located in the system riser or its supply piping. Each sprinkler system includes a device for actuating an alarm when the system is in operation. The system is usually activated by heat from a fire and discharges water over the fire area. STANDPIPE A pipe and attendant hose valves and hose (if provided) used for water to various parts of a building for fire-fighting purposes. STORY That portion of a building included between the upper surface of the upper surface of the floor or roof next above. STREET A public thoroughfare (street, avenue or boulevard) which has been dedicated for vehicular use by the public and can be used for access by Fi vehicles. STRUCTURE Any building, monument or other object that is constructed with its foundation or normal resting place. Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes * May 8, 2019 7 SUPERVISED AUTOMATIC FIRE-EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM Any automatic fire-extinguishing system which is constantly monitored so as to determine its operating condition at all times. § 90-4 General requirements. The following requirements shall apply to all construction or land development activities in areas of the County to which this article applies: A.Means of access for Fire Department apparatus. (1)The means of access for Fire Department apparatus and personnel fire lanes, private streets, streets, parking lot lanes or a combination thereof. (2)Parking in any means of access shall not be permitted within 15 hydrant, sprinkler or standpipe any fire department connection, or in any other manner which will obstruct or interfere with the Fire Departments use of the hydrant or connection. (3)"No parking Parking Fire Lane" signs or another designation approved by the Fire MarshalsOfficeandindicating that parking is prohibited shall be provided at all normal and emergency access points to structures and within 15 feet of each fire hydrant, sprinkler or standpipe or any fire department connection. B.Fire lanes. (1)The Fire Marshal or his/her a designated representative, in concert with the local volunteer fire company, may designate both public and private fire lanes as required for the efficient and effective use of fire apparatus. Said fire in a manner prescribed by the Fire Marshal or his/her a designated representative. Parking in a designated fire lane shall be controlled by Chapter 158, Vehicles and Traffic, of the Frederick County Code. (2)Fire lanes shall be at least 20 feet in width, with the road edg structure at least 10 feet from the structure, be constructed of-weather surface adequately designed to support any fire apparatus likely such fire lane or be of subsurface construction designed to supp as the above surfaces and be covered with no more than three inc, or both, and be designed with radii of sufficient length to allo any fire apparatus likely to be operated on such fire lane. (3)Fire lanes connecting to public streets, roadways or private str with curb cuts extending at least two feet beyond each edge of the fire lane. (4)Chains or other barriers may be provided at the entrance to fire streets, provided that they are installed according to the requi Authority Having Jurisdiction. C.Parking lot lanes. Parking lot lanes shall have a minimum of 15 feet between rows of parked vehicles for vehicular access and movemen D.Location of structures shall comply with regulations set forth in the Frederick County Fire Prevention Code (FCFPC). (1)At least three perimeter walls of all industrial, commercial, pu residential structures with three or more dwelling units per str 200 feet of a street, fire lane, or private street. (2)Structures exceeding 30 feet in height shall not be set back more than 50 feet from a street, fire lane or private street. (3)When any combination of private fire-protection facilities, including but not limited to fire-resistive roofs, fire separation walls, space separation and automatic fire- extinguishing systems, is provided, and approved by the Fire Mar Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes * May 8, 2019 8 designated representative as an acceptable alternative, Subsecti apply. (4)The Fire Marshal or his/her designated representative may, in cot with the local volunteer fire company, require at least two means of access for commercial and industrial structures. Those accessways shall mee of Subsection B(3). (5)Landscaping or other obstructions shall not be placed around structures or hydrants in a manner so as to impair or impede accessibility for fire-fighting and rescue operations. E.Water supply. (1)Water supply systems shall be designed so as to be capable of su 1,000 gallons per minute at with a minimum of 20 pounds per square inch (psi) residual. Water supplies shall be made available and operational before combustibles are on site during construction. (2)In areas developed with single-family detached or duplex dwelling units, there shall be a fire hydrant within 400 feet of all units. In areas develop dwelling units per structure, there shall be a hydrant within 30In areas developed with six or more dwelling units per structure, t two hydrants within 300 feet of all units. In areas developed wi commercial development(s), there shall be a hydrant within 300 f of any structure. Where one hydrant is dedicated to the operation of a standpipe system, there shall be at least one other hydrant meeting the di set forth above. The hydrant dedicated to the operation of the s shall not be farther than 50 feet from the standpipe. Distance measurements u this section shall be along center-line roadway surfaces or along surfaces meeting the requirements of a fire lane (designated or undesignated) whe in all cases access to each hydrant shall be directly from a roadway and/or fire lan (a)Distance measurements in this subsection shall be along center-line roadway surfaces or along surfaces meeting the requirements of a fire lane (designated or undesignated) where appropriate, but in all cases access to each hydrant shall be directly from a roadway and/or fire lane. (b)Commercial buildings that have a FDC shall have one hydrant dedicated to the operation of the FDC, which shall not be farther than 50 feet from the FDC and there shall be at least one other hydrant meeting the distance requirements set forth in this subsection. (3)Fire hydrants shall be marked in accordance with the Frederick C Authority policy. Fire hydrant tops and caps shall indicate the available gallons per minute (GPM) in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 291. (4)Fire hydrants located in parking areas shall be protected by bar prevent physical damage from vehicles. In parking areas where curbing is not present vehicle impact protection shall be required as per FCFPC. (5)Fire hydrants shall be located within three feet of the curbline or private streets when installed along such accessways. (6)Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with the standards of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (which trades/operates as Frederick Water). (7)Threads on fire hydrant outlets shall conform to Frederick Count Authority (which trades/operates as Frederick Water) policy. (8)Fire hydrants shall be supplied by not less than a six-inch diameter main. Each six- inch line shall supply no more than one hydrant. F.All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems, pumps, tanks, water levels and temperatures, critical air pressures and water-flow switches on all Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes * May 8, 2019 9 sprinkler systems shall be electronically supervised by listed fire alarm control unit. Exceptions: (1)Automatic sprinkler systems protecting one- and two-family dwellings. (2)Limited area systems serving fewer than 20 sprinklers. (3)Automatic sprinkler systems installed in accordance with NFPA 13R where a common supply main is used to supply both domestic water and the automatic sprinkler system, and a separate shutoff valve for the automatic sprinkler system is not provided. (4)Jockey pump control valves that are sealed or locked in the open position. (5)Control valves to commercial kitchen hoods, paint spray booths or dip tanks that are sealed or locked in the open position. (6)Valves controlling the fuel supply to fire pump engines that are sealed or locked in the open position. (7)Trimvalvestopressureswitchesindry,preactionanddelugesprinklersystemsthat are sealed or locked in the open position. F.G. Fire protection during construction. Trash, debris and other com be removed from the construction site as often as necessary to m construction site. G.H. Plans. Complete as-built building floor plans, site plans and plans of fire-suppression systems shall be submitted to the Chief Building Official and Fi respective designated representatives, prior to issuance of the occupancy. The fire code official shall have the authority to require construction documents and calculations for all fire protection systems and to require permits be issued for the installation, rehabilitation or modification of any fire protection system. Construction documents for fire protection systems shall be submitted for review and approval prior to system installation. I.Key Boxes. Where access to or within a structure or an area is restricted because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for life-saving or fire-fighting purposes, the fire code official is authorized to require a key box to be installed in an approved location. The key box shall be of an approved type listed in accordance with UL 1037, and shall contain keys or other devices to gain necessary access as required by the fire code official. § 90-5 Violations and penalties. Any person, firm or corporation who shall violate any of the pro upon conviction, be punishable by a maximum fine of $2,500 or by than 12 months, or both such fine and imprisonment. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + PROPOSEDAMENDMENTTOTHEFREDERICK COUNTYCODE, CHAPTER 158 VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, ARTICLEII STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING, SECTION 158-4 GENERAL RESTRICTIONS, TO ADD PROVISION REGARDING VIOLATION OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON COUNTY-OWNED/OPERATED PROPERTY. -APPROVED TheProposed AmendmentWouldRestrict Parking on County-Owned or County-Controlled Property to Parking that is Consistent with any Posted Signs on the Property.The New Subsection Would Further Impose a Fine for a Violation of Such Parking Restrictions . Chairman DeHaven opened the public hearing. There were no speakers. Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes * May 8, 2019 10 Chairman DeHaven closed the public hearing. Supervisor McCarthy moved for adoption of the proposed amendment to add provisions regarding violation of parking restrictions on County-owned property. Supervisor Dunnseconded the motion which carried as follows on a roll call vote: Blaine P. DunnAyeShannon G. TroutAye Gary A. LoftonAyeRobert W. WellsAye J. Douglas McCarthyAyeCharles S. DeHaven, Jr.Aye Judith McCann-SlaughterAye ORDINANCE May 8, 2019 The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia hereby or 158-4 (General Restrictions) of Article II (Stopping, Standing and P (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Code of Frederick County, Virginiae same hereby is, amended by enacting amended Section 158-4 (General Restrictions) of Article II (Stopping, Standing and Parking) of Chapter 158 (Vehicles and Traffic) of t as follows (deletions shown in strikethrough and additions shown in bold underline): CHAPTER 158 VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC Article II Stopping, Standing and Parking §158-4 General restrictions A. Double-parking. It shall be unlawful for any person to park any vehicle on any street or highway alongside another vehicle parked at the curb or at the e being the purpose of this subsection to prevent double-parking. The penalty for any violation of this restriction shall be a fine in the amount of $40. B. Perpendicular or diagonal parking. It shall be unlawful for any any street or highway in any manner other than parallel to the street or highway, except in a marked parking space. The penalty for any violation of this rest amount of $40. C. Parking vehicle against traffic. It shall be unlawful for any person to traffic on any street or highway. The penalty for any violation in the amount of $40. D. Parking vehicle without a current state license or a current sta unlawful for any person to park any vehicle on any street or hig displaying a current state license or a current state inspection sticker. The penalty for any violation of this restriction shall be a fine in the amount of $ E. Parking so as to stop or obstruct traffic. It shall be unlawful for any person to park any vehicle in such a manner as to stop or obstruct traffic on any s any violation of this restriction shall be a fine in the amount F. Parking vehicle within 20 feet of a corner or intersection. It s to park any vehicle within 20 feet of a corner or intersection o penalty for any violation of this restriction shall be a fine in the amount of $40. G. Parking so as to block driveway. It shall be unlawful for any pe such a manner as to prevent vehicular access to any driveway or entrance to any prope penalty for any violation of this restriction shall be a fine in H. Parking vehicle on sidewalk or walking trail. It shall be unlawful for any person vehicle on any sidewalk that is open to public use or on any wal use. The penalty for any violation of this restriction shall be unt of $40. Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes * May 8, 2019 11 I. Parking vehicle within 15 feet of a fire hydrant. It shall be un any vehicle within 15 feet of a fire hydrant. The penalty for viion of this restriction shall be a fine in the amount of $40. J. Parking vehicle in fire lane. It shall be unlawful for any perso lane where indicated by adequate painting, markers, or signs. The penalty for restriction shall be a fine in the amount of $40. K. Parking vehicle without proper permit in space reserved for persons with disabilities. It shall be unlawful for any person to park any vehicle in any parking sp disabilities and which parking space is so indicated by adequate unless such vehicle displays a proper permit to do so. It shall also be unlawf park any vehicle, regardless of whether the vehicle displays a p space reserved for persons with disabilities, in any area adjace parking space reserved for persons with disabilities, which area is reserved for access disabilities. The penalty for violation of this restriction shal L. Parking vehicle contrary to the directions of an official highwa any person to park any vehicle in a manner contrary to the direc sign. The penalty for violation of this restriction shall be a fine in the amount M. The terms "street" or "highway," as used herein, shall have the "highway" as set forth in § 46.2-100 of the Code of Virginia. N. In any prosecution charging a violation of this section, proof t complaint, summons, parking ticket, citation, or warrant was parked in violation of this sec together with proof that the defendant was at the time the regis required by Chapter 6 of Title 46.2 (§ 46.2-600 et seq.) of the Code of Virginia, shall constitute prima facie evidence that the registered owner of the vehicle wa violation. O. Parking at County-owned or County-controlled properties. It shall be unlawful for a person to park any vehicle on property owned or controlled by the County of Frederick in a manner that is contrary to any sign posted at or on the property. The penalty for a violation of this restriction shall be a fine in the amount of $40. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #03-19 FOR CONNIE ANN MOSS, EXPANSION OF EXISTING DOG KENNEL-APPROVED For the Expansion of an Existing Dog Kennel.The Existing Dog Kennel Approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on September 28, 2016, Allows for the Boarding of Up to 10 Dogs.The Proposed Expansion Would Allow Boarding of an Additional 15Dogs for a Total of Up to 25Dogs.The Property is Located at 4527 Valley Pike, Stephens City, Virginia and is Identified with Property Identification Number 75-A-28 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Mr. Klein provided background information on the requestsaying it is for expansion of an existing dog kennel to allow for the boarding of up to 25 dogs. The Applicant, Connie Ann Moss, said she has been operatingunder her current conditional use permit for three years and is planning for the futurewith the proposed expansion. Supervisor McCarthy expressed his desire to prohibit additionalbuilding on the site without the Applicant returning to the Board for a new conditional use permit. Supervisor Dunn asked the Applicant if she could foresee going above 25 dogs, and the Applicant replied that she would not do so because of the nature of her operation. Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes * May 8, 2019 12 Chairman DeHaven opened the public hearing. There were no speakers. Chairman DeHaven closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Lofton moved for approval of Conditional Use Permit #03-19. Supervisor Trout seconded the motion. Supervisor McCarthy moved to amend the motion to add a condition prohibiting additional building on the property.Supervisor Dunn seconded the motion, and the Board discussed the prohibition of building. The motion to amend failed on a roll call vote as follows: Blaine P. DunnAyeShannon G. TroutNo Gary A. LoftonNoRobert W. WellsNo J. Douglas McCarthyAyeCharles S. DeHaven, Jr.No Judith McCann-SlaughterNo Vice Chairman Lofton’s original motion for approval of Conditional Use Permit #03-19 passed on a roll call vote as follows: Blaine P. DunnAyeShannon G. TroutAye Gary A. LoftonAyeRobert W. WellsAye J. Douglas McCarthyAyeCharles S. DeHaven, Jr.Aye Judith McCann-SlaughterAye + + + + + + + + + + + + + + BOARD LIAISON REPORTS-None CITIZEN COMMENTS-None BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Supervisor McCarthy thanked all the volunteers who made the recent Apple Blossom Festival a success for the community. Vice Chairman Lofton noted the earlier presentation of the resolution in memoriam to the family of Margaret Brumback Douglas saying that Mrs. Douglas had been very helpful as he began his tenure on the Board. He lauded Mrs. Douglas’ farming and 4-H endeavors. ADJOURN On motion of Vice Chairman Lofton, seconded by Supervisor McCarthy,the meeting was adjourned at 7:59p.m. Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes * May 8, 2019 13 CODE & ORDINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT to the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Thursday, May 9, 2019 4:00 p.m. 107 NORTH KENT STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA ATTENDEES: Committee Members Present: Shannon Trout, Chair; Blaine P. Dunn; J. Douglas McCarthy; Stephen Butler, and James Drown Committee Members Absent: Derek Aston Staff present: Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; Jay E. Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator; Sheriff Lenny Millholland. ITEMS FOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: Amendment Frederick County Code, Chapter 118 (Noise), to adopt a 1. The Board of Supervisors requested the Code and Ordinance Commit noise ordinance. It was noted the current noise ordinance, as w Tanner vs. City of Virginia Beach. The proposed suggested that the proposed ordinance also include a decibel Upon a motion by Mr. McCarthy, seconded by Mr. Butler, the Code and Ordinance Committee forwarded the proposed ordinance amendment to the Board of Super rch. The above motion was unanimously approved. Amendment to Frederick County Code, Chapter 48 (Animals and Fowl), 2. Article I (Dog Licensing, Rabies Control), Section 48-3 (Dogs running at large), to add changes to conform to Virginia Code §3.2-6538, effective July 1, 2019. This proposed amendment would bring the County Code into conformance with changes to state law that will become effective July 1, 2019. Upon a motion by Mr. McCarthy, seconded by Mr. Butler, the Code and Ordinance Committee forwarded the proposed ordinance amendment to the Board of Supervisors for public hearing with a recommendation of approval. The motion was approved by a 4-1 vote with Mr. Drown voting no. ITEMS FOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INFORMATION: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Deputy County Administrator cc: Code & Ordinance Committee PRESENT: All the Justices BRADLEY S. TANNER, ET AL. v. Record No. 080998 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN April 17, 2009 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH A. Joseph Canada, Jr., Judge In this appeal, we consider whether the circuit court erred in rejecting a constitutional challenge to a municipal noise control ordinance. Bradley S. Tanner and Eric A. Williams (collectively, the owners) own and operate BAE Ventures, Inc., t/a The Peppermint Beach Club (the club), a licensed restaurant and entertainment venue located in the 1800 block of Atlantic Avenue in the City of Virginia Beach (City). The club is located in a part of the City commonly referred to as the “oceanfront,” which includes restaurants, bars, hotels, and outdoor entertainment venues. The club, which is on the ground floor of the Howard Johnson Hotel, hosts disc jockeys and occasional “live” entertainment groups that play various types of music including “hip-hop,” “punk rock,” “emo,” and “indie” music. The owners repeatedly have been warned by City police officers about music sound levels, and have received citations for violations of Virginia Beach City Code § 23-47 (the ordinance). The ordinance states: It shall be unlawful for any person to create, or allow to be created any unreasonably loud, disturbing and unnecessary noise in the city or any noise of such character, intensity and duration as to be detrimental to the life or health of persons of reasonable sensitivity or to disturb or annoy the quiet, comfort or repose of reasonable persons. The following acts, among others, are declared to be loud, disturbing and unnecessary noise in violation of this section, but such enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive: (1) The playing of any television set, radio, tape player, phonograph or any musical instrument in such a manner or with such volume as to annoy or disturb the quiet, comfort or repose of reasonable persons. (2) The keeping of any animal which, by causing frequent or long-continued noise, shall disturb the quiet, comfort or repose of the neighborhood to such an extent as to constitute a nuisance. (3) The creation of any excessive noise on any street adjacent to any school, institution of learning or court, while the same is in session, or adjacent to any building used as a place of public worship, while being so used or adjacent to any hospital, which unreasonably interferes with the workings of such school, institution or court or the services being conducted in such place of public worship or which disturbs or unduly annoys patients in such hospital. (4) The shouting and crying of peddlers, hawkers and vendors which disturbs the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. (5) The use of any drum, loudspeaker or other instrument or device for the purpose of attracting attention, by creation of noise, to any performance, show or sale or display of merchandise. 2 Virginia Beach City Code § 23-47. Any violation of the ordinance constitutes a class 4 misdemeanor.Id. In June 2007, the owners filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the ordinance is unconstitutional on its face because it is vague, and that it is unconstitutional as applied to the club. The owners alleged that the ordinance is vague because it fails to provide citizens with “fair notice” regarding what conduct is unlawful, and because the ordinance language invites selective prosecution by granting law enforcement officials the “unfettered individual discretion” to make enforcement decisions. The owners separately alleged that City police officers have applied and enforced the ordinance against the owners “in a subjective and selective manner.” In response to the owners’ complaint, the City filed a demurrer, which the circuit court sustained in part based on its previous determination that the ordinance was constitutional on its face. Relying on that prior decision, the circuit court held, among other things, that the ordinance is not vague, and dismissed the owners’ facial constitutional challenge with prejudice. The case proceeded to trial on the issue of the City’s application of the ordinance to the sound levels generated by the club’s music. Certain City police officers testified that the City used two enforcement standards in evaluating noise 3 emanating from oceanfront business establishments. The first standard used was the “reasonable person” standard provided for by the ordinance. The second standard employed was an “across the street” assessment established by Police Captain Anthony F. Zucaro. Addressing the “reasonable person” standard, Captain Zucaro testified that police officers determine whether noise is “unreasonably loud, disturbing and unnecessary” by employing the officers’ “[b]ackground, experience, knowledge of the dynamics of the moment, listening, [and] witnessing.” Officers Albert L. Mills, Christopher D. D’Orio, and Steven J. Kennedy testified that officers usually exercise their discretion whether to issue a citation for violation of the ordinance. These officers generally conceded that “reasonableness” is a standard that depends on an individual officer’s assessment and on environmental factors such as the weather, the volume of ambient noise, and the time of day. In 2007, Zucaro issued a letter that was distributed to oceanfront business owners in an effort to achieve voluntary compliance with the ordinance. The letter informed the business owners that police officers would take enforcement action if “[t]he intensity of the noise emanating from an establishment is at such a level it can be definitively linked to that particular 4 establishment from across the street or a distance equal to that measurement despite the presence of other ambient noise levels.” Several police officers testified regarding incidents in which noise emanating from the club resulted in the issuance of citations to the owners. Relying on this and other evidence, the circuit court determined that the evidence “unequivocally establishe[d] that the enforcement of the noise ordinance is selective and uneven.” However, the circuit court held that because the owners failed to prove that this selective enforcement was motivated by a discriminatory purpose, the club’s constitutional challenge to the City’s application of the ordinance failed. The owners appealed from the circuit court’s judgment. On appeal, the owners first argue that the circuit court erred in rejecting their facial constitutional challenge to the ordinance. They contend that the ordinance is vague and, thus, is unconstitutional on its face because business owners must engage in guesswork to determine whether certain sound levels violate the ordinance. The owners further assert that several terms in the ordinance, including the terms “unnecessary,” “loud,” “disturbing,” “character,” and “intensity,” are purely subjective and do not establish clear standards that permit uniform enforcement. 5 In response, the City argues that the ordinance clearly articulates an objective, “reasonable person” standard that is well established and is sufficiently definite to permit persons to conform their conduct to the law. The City concedes that the terms of the ordinance are not quantitatively precise, but argues that such a level of precision is not required to survive a vagueness challenge. The City contends that only a flexible standard such as the one prescribed by the ordinance can fairly define criminal conduct related to the “wide swath of settings and circumstances” involved when assessing noise levels. The City further argues that the term “unnecessary” does not render the ordinance vague because the ordinance requires that noise be unreasonably loud, disturbing, and unnecessary before a criminal citation can issue. The City contends that instead of rendering the ordinance vague, the term “unnecessary” narrows the category of noise that constitutes a criminal violation and provides added protection to potential offenders. However, the City further maintains that if this Court disagrees, it should sever any offending language rather than invalidate the entire ordinance. We disagree with the City’s arguments. Our review of the ordinance begins with the principle that that duly enacted laws are presumed to be constitutional. Marshall v. Northern Virginia Transp. Auth., 275 Va. 419, 427, 6 657 S.E.2d 71, 75 (2008); In re Phillips, 265 Va. 81, 85, 574 S.E.2d 270, 272 (2003); Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Quillian, 264 Va. 656, 665, 571 S.E.2d 122, 126 (2002); Finn v. Virginia Retirement System, 259 Va. 144, 153, 524 S.E.2d 125, 130 (2000). We are required to resolve any reasonable doubt concerning the constitutionality of a law in favor of its validity.In re Phillips, 256 Va. at 85-86, 574 S.E.2d at 272; Finn, 259 Va. at 153, 524 S.E.2d at 130; Walton v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 422, 427, 497 S.E.2d 869, 872 (1998). Thus, if a statute or ordinance can be construed reasonably in a manner that will render its terms definite and sufficient, such an interpretation is required.SeeINS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 299-300 (2001); United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 618 (1954); Pedersen v. City of Richmond, 219 Va. 1061, 1065, 254 S.E.2d 95, 98 (1979). In this context, we consider the constitutional principles applicable to a vagueness challenge involving a penal statute or ordinance. The constitutional prohibition against vagueness derives from the requirement of fair notice embodied in the Due Process Clause.SeeUnited States v. Williams, 553 U.S. ___, ___, 128 S.Ct. 1830, 1845 (2008); City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 56 (1999); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972). The doctrine requires that a statute or ordinance be sufficiently precise and definite to give fair warning to an actor that contemplated conduct is criminal.See 7 Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983); Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108. Thus, the language of a law is unconstitutionally vague if persons of “common intelligence must necessarily guess at [the] meaning [of the language] and differ as to its application.”Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926); accordCoates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 614 (1971); Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611, 616 (1968). The constitutional prohibition against vagueness also protects citizens from the arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of laws. A vague law invites such disparate treatment by impermissibly delegating policy considerations “to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.”Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108-09; see Kolender, 461 U.S. at 357-61. Because legislative bodies are “[c]ondemned to the use of words,” courts cannot require “mathematical certainty” in the drafting of legislation.Grayned, 408 U.S. at 110. For this reason, an ordinance that lacks meticulous specificity nevertheless may survive a vagueness challenge if the ordinance as a whole makes clear what is prohibited.Seeid.;Esteban v. Central Missouri State College, 415 F.2d 1077, 1088 (8th Cir. 1969). 8 A different concern arises, however, when a vague statute implicates citizens’ rights under the First Amendment. In such circumstances, vague language in a statute or ordinance may cause citizens to avoid constitutionally permissible conduct based on a fear that they may be violating an unclear law. Thus, a vague statute may inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected activities.Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108-09. In applying these principles, we first acknowledge that the regulation of noise by a locality creates special problems regarding the drafting and enforcement of legislation.See Nichols v. City of Gulfport, 589 So. 2d 1280, 1283 (Miss. 1991); People v. New York Trap Rock Corp., 442 N.E.2d 1222, 1226 (N.Y. 1982). These problems arise from the nature of sound, which invites the use of broadly stated definitions and prohibitions. Nichols, 589 So. 2d at 1283; Trap Rock, 442 N.E.2d at 1226. The ordinance before us prohibits any “unreasonably loud, disturbing and unnecessary noise,” noise of “such character, intensity and duration as to be detrimental to the life or health of persons of reasonable sensitivity,” or noise that “disturb[s] or annoy[s] the quiet, comfort or repose of reasonable persons.” The ordinance also describes various acts that constitute per se violations. 9 We conclude that these provisions fail to give “fair notice” to citizens as required by the Due Process Clause, because the provisions do not contain ascertainable standards. SeeThelen v. State, 526 S.E.2d 60, 62 (Ga. 2000); Nichols, 589 So. 2d at 1284. Instead, the reach of these general descriptive terms depends in each case on the subjective tolerances, perceptions, and sensibilities of the listener. Noise that one person may consider “loud, disturbing and unnecessary” may not disturb the sensibilities of another listener. As employed in this context, such adjectives are inherently vague because they require persons of average intelligence to guess at the meaning of those words.See Thelen, 526 S.E.2d at 62; Lutz v. City of Indianapolis, 820 N.E.2d 766, 769 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005); Nichols, 589 So. 2d at 1283. The references in the ordinance to “reasonable persons,” and to persons of “reasonable sensitivity,” do not provide a degree of definiteness sufficient to save the ordinance from the present vagueness challenge. Such terms, considered in their context, delegate to a police officer the subjective determination whether persons whom the police officer considers to be of reasonable sensitivity would find the noise detrimental to their life or health. Likewise, these terms leave to a police officer the determination whether persons the police 10 officer considers to be reasonable would be disturbed or annoyed in their comfort or repose by the particular noise at issue. Determinations of this nature invite arbitrary enforcement. Police officers likely will have differing perceptions regarding what levels of sound exceed the described tolerance levels and sensitivities of reasonable persons. Because these determinations required by the ordinance can only be made by police officers on a subjective basis, we hold that the language of the ordinance is impermissibly vague.SeeGrayned, 408 U.S. at 108-09; U.S. Labor Party v. Pomerleau, 557 F.2d 410, 412 (4th Cir. 1977); Thelen, 526 S.E.2d at 62. The imposition of criminal penalties for the violation of an ordinance cannot rest on the use of subjective standards, nor may an ordinance consign a person to penal consequences without first providing sufficiently definite notice of prohibited activities.See Thelen, 526 S.E.2d at 62; Nichols, 589 So. 2d at 1284. We find no merit in the City’s argument that its use of the term “reasonable persons” nevertheless rescues the ordinance from the present vagueness challenge because the criminal law employs a “reasonable person” standard in various other types of determinations. Such comparisons are inapposite. Here, the City attempts to satisfy the notice requirement of the Due Process Clause by using a standard that does not notify or warn citizens in clear and definite terms what noise levels are 11 prohibited. In contrast, the use of a “reasonable person” standard elsewhere in the criminal law does not attempt to provide notice to citizens regarding the reach of a criminal statute or ordinance, but sets a standard for a court to use in determining police compliance with certain constitutional and other legal requirements.See,e.g.,Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, ___, 127 S.Ct. 2400, 2405-06 (2007) (“seizure” within meaning of Fourth Amendment occurs when reasonable person would not feel free to leave); Buhrman v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 501, 505, 659 S.E.2d 325, 327 (2008) (probable cause exists when facts and circumstances of which police officer has “reasonably trustworthy information . . . warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed”) (quoting Taylor v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 816, 820, 284 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1981)). In concluding that the ordinance is vague, we do not directly address the list of per se violations contained in the ordinance. Each of these per se violations is defined as constituting “loud, disturbing and unnecessary noise” and, thus, cannot be evaluated separately from those vague terms. Finally, we hold that we are unable to sever from the ordinance the unconstitutional language that we have identified and give its remaining language a definite and permissible construction. Instead, the vague language adjudged 12 unconstitutional in this opinion affects the content of the entire ordinance. For these reasons, we will reverse the circuit court’s judgment and will enter final judgment for the owners declaring that the entire ordinance is unconstitutional because it is vague. Reversed and final judgment. In view of our holding that the ordinance is vague, we do not reach the owners’ remaining contentions alleging that the ordinance is overbroad and has been enforced selectively by City police. 13 AG Op. CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, 2011 Va. AG 39 (11-065) CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. CONSTITUTION OF VIRGINIA. Ordinance requiring Impounding of animals running at large is constitutional. Ordinance prohibiting discharge of a firearm on roadways or near buildings is constitutional. Ordinance restricting animal noise is constitutional. The Honorable Christopher K. Peace Member, House of Delegates June 22, 2011 ISSUE PRESENTED You inquire whether three ordinances of Hanover County are constitutional under the constitutions of Virginia and of the United States. The first ordinance prohibits the owner of agricultural animals to run at large in the county. The second ordinance prohibits the discharge of weapons in or along roads or within one hundred yards of a building. The third ordinance is a noise control ordinance that prohibits certain animal noises at certain times. RESPONSE It is my opinion that none of the ordinances suffers from constitutional infirmity. APPLICABLE LAW AND DISCUSSION Before addressing the specific ordinances, I note the settled principle of law that "all statutes and ordinances are presumed to be constitutional, and that if there is any doubt such doubt should be resolved in favor of their constitutionality."1 The first ordinance about which you inquire, Hanover County Code § 4-8 provides as follows: It shall be unlawful for the owner of any agricultural animal to allow such agricultural animal, except for poultry, to run at large in the county. It shall be the duty of the animal control officer or other officer who finds any agricultural animal, except for poultry, running at large in violation of this section, to take the agricultural animal, except for poultry, into custody and impound same. This ordinance regulates private property. Property rights certainly benefit from constitutional protection and constitute a cornerstone of our prosperity as a Nation. Property rights, however, are not absolute. A locality, when authorized by the legislature, can enact ordinances designed to regulate property to protect the health and safety of its citizens. Where, as here, a policy or regulation does not infringe upon a suspect class, such as race, or a fundamental right, such as freedom of speech, the standard of review is highly deferential toward the locality.2 The courts must [Page 40] defer to legislative judgments "if there is any reasonably conceivable set of facts that could provide a rational basis for the" measure under review.3 Virginia has long allowed localities to enact laws requiring animals to be kept inside a fence.4 Animals that are left to wander can damage or destroy property and crops belonging to others, threaten other animals or human life, and can pose a danger to traffic on the County's roads. In 1872, the Supreme Court of Indiana bemoaned the fact that [t]here are many persons . . . that seem to act upon the theory that their cows, and in many instances their hogs, may rightfully roam at large, and obtain a scanty subsistence upon the highways and neighboring unenclosed lands, thereby making it necessary for every one to guard his premises with much vigilance and expense, from the depredations of these marauding and vagrant animals that are thus permitted to wander in quest of food.[5] Plainly, the County has a rational basis for enacting this ordinance and, therefore, it is constitutional. I further note that there is no plausible constitutional objection to impounding animals in these circumstances, both for the safety of others and for the protection of the animals themselves. The second ordinance you ask about, Hanover County Code § 24-4, provides as follows: If any person discharges or shoots any firearm or other weapon in or along any public road or street or within one hundred Page 1 of 4 Printed from CaseFinder, Geronimo Development Corporation 04/11/2019 (100) yards thereof or within one hundred (100) yards of any building occupied or used as a dwelling or place where the public gathers, not his own dwelling or residence, except in the lawful defense of his own person or property or that of a member of his family, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. The right to bear arms is protected by the Constitutions of Virginia6 and of the United States.7 The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the Second Amendment of the United States protects an individual right to bear arms8 and, further that this right operates as a restriction on the States as well as the federal government.9 The protections afforded by the Virginia Constitution in this area are co-extensive with those of the Second Amendment.10 The law is not settled at this time with respect to how strictly courts will evaluate restrictions on the use of firearms. We know that the right to bear arms is "not unlimited, just as the First Amendment's right of free speech was not."11 Although the right is broader than merely protection of the home, at its core the Second Amendment protects "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."12 [Page 41] Here in the Fourth Circuit, federal courts will apply a two part test to evaluate the validity of restrictions on bearing or using firearms. The first question is "whether the challenged law imposes a burden on conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment's guarantee."13 This is a "historical inquiry," which "seeks to determine whether the conduct at issue was understood to be within the scope of the right at the time of ratification. If it was not, then the challenged law is valid."14 If the law at issue burdens conduct that was within the scope of the Second Amendment as historically understood, then the court will apply "an appropriate form of means ends scrutiny."15 "[U]nless the conduct at issue is not protected by the Second Amendment, the Government bears the burden of justifying the constitutional validity of the law."16 In conducting this review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has noted that [t]he Second Amendment is no more susceptible to a one-size-fits-all standard of review than any other constitutional right. Gun-control regulations impose varying degrees of burden on Second Amendment rights, and individual assertions of the right will come in many forms. A severe burden on the core Second Amendment right of armed self-defense should require strong justification. But less severe burdens on the right, laws that merely regulate rather than restrict, and laws that do not implicate the central self-defense concern of the Second Amendment, may be more easily justified.[17] In light of these principles, I conclude that the ordinance does not violate the constitutional right to bear arms.18 First, it specifically exempts from its scope actions taken in defense of self, others or property. Therefore, it does not implicate one of the core concerns of the right to bear arms. Second, it does not preclude anyone from carrying a firearm. Instead, it simply prohibits certain uses of a firearm. Moreover, the ordinance serves a proper purpose, to protect the public safety, by prohibiting firearm discharges on roads or near occupied buildings. In addition, this ordinance does not violate any property rights. Under a highly deferential "rational basis" review, courts easily would sustain this ordinance against a challenge that it infringed on property rights. The final ordinance about which you inquire is a component of a noise control ordinance, Hanover County Code § 16-8(8). It provides in relevant part that The following acts are declared to be noise disturbances in violation of this chapter, provided that this list shall not be deemed to be an exclusive enumeration of those acts which any constitute noise disturbances and that an act not listed below may nevertheless constitute a violation of section 16-7. (8) Allowing an animal to create howling, barking, whining, meowing, squawking or other such noises which are plainly audible across a property [Page 42] boundary or through partitions common to two (2) residences within a building and that take place continuously or repeatedly (k) during a period of at least fifteen (15) minutes in duration between 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. or (ii) during a period of at least 10 minutes in duration between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., provided, however, that animal noises on property subject to a special exception for a commercial kennel or conditional use permit for a public animal shelter shall be governed exclusively by the conditions of the special exception or conditional use permit. Noise control ordinances have been invalidated when they are unconstitutionally vague, or when they unduly restrict protected constitutional rights like freedom of speech.19 The ordinance above does not suffer from either defect. It states in precise terms what is forbidden. Therefore, persons "of common intelligence" are not required to "necessarily guess at [the] meaning [of the language] and differ as to its application."20 In addition, animal noises are not constitutionally protected speech, so there is no free speech issue with this subpart of the ordinance. Finally, I again note that under the "rational basis" test detailed above, courts would sustain this ordinance against any challenge that it unconstitutionally interferes with property rights. For good or for ill, courts in recent decades have been highly deferential toward legislatures and governing bodies in reviewing ordinances and statutes that to some degree or another restrict the use of property. I am duty bound to provide advice based on the law as it presently exists. Page 2 of 4 Printed from CaseFinder, Geronimo Development Corporation 04/11/2019 CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is my opinion that none of the ordinances about which you inquire suffers from constitutional infirmity. FOOTNOTES 1 Town of Ashland v. Bd. of Spvsrs., 202 Va. 409, 416, 117 S.E.2d 679, 684 (1961). 2 Advanced Towing Co. v. Fairfax Cnty. Bd. of Spvsrs., 280 Va. 187, 191, 694 S.E.2d 621, 623 (2010). 3 Id. at 192, 694 S.E.2d at 624. 4 Under current law, localities expressly are authorized to enact ordinances governing "the running at large and the keeping of animals." VA. CODE ANN. § 3.2-6544 (2008). See also Poindexter v. May, 98 Va. 143, 145, 34 S.E. 971, 972 (1900) (tracing the history of such regulations to the common law of England). 5 Indianapolis, Cincinnati & Lafayette R.R. Co. v. Harter, 38 Ind. 557, 559 (1872). 6 [T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed[.]" VA. CONST. art. I, § 13. 7 "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." U.S. CONST. amend. II. The Second Amendment applies to the States as well as to the United States government. McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026 (2010) (quotations and citations omitted). 8 District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 606 (2008). McDonald, 561 U.S. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026 (quotations and citations omitted). 9 McDonald, 561 U.S. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026 (quotations and citations omitted). 10 DiGiacinto v. Rector & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 281 Va. 127, 133-34, 704 S.E.2d 365, 368-69 (2010). 11 Heller, 554 U.S. at 595. [Page 43] 12 Id. at 635. In addition to self-defense, an armed citizenry serves as a check upon tyranny. See JOSEPH STORY, A FAMILIAR EXPOSITION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES § 450, p. 246 (1840) ("One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."). An armed citizenry also will serve as a deterrent to foreign invasion — a less likely prospect in modern times, but one that has occurred repeatedly throughout our history. As the Continental Congress noted, "Men trained to Arms from their Infancy, and animated by the Love of Liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy Conquest." Journals of the Continental Congress, Petition to the King (July 8, 1775), available at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/contcong_07-08-75.asp.* * [Editor's Note: The website address(es) which appear in this case are set out as hyperlinks for your own convenience. Due to the passage of time, however, the hyperlink may no longer work and/or the content of the website may not accurately reflect the content which existed at the time this case was decided.] 13 United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673, 680 (4th Cir. 2010). 14 Id. 15 Id. 16 Id. 17 Id. at 682 (quoting United States v. Skoien, 587 F.3d 803, 813-14 (7th Cir. 2009), vacated, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc)). 18 I note parenthetically that VA. CODE ANN. § 15.2-915(A) (Supp. 2010) does not apply to this ordinance. That statute prohibits a locality from adopting ordinances governing the "purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage or transporting of firearms. . . ." The County ordinance prohibits, in limited fashion, the discharge of a firearm, but it does not prohibit the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying or transporting of a firearm. 19 Tanner v. City of Virginia Beach, 277 Va. 432, 674 S.E.2d 848 (2009) (invalidating a noise control ordinance as unconstitutionally vague); U.S. Labor Party v. Pomerleau, 557 F.2d 410 (4th Cir. 1977) (invalidating a noise-ordinance as unconstitutional because of its impact on free speech). Page 3 of 4 Printed from CaseFinder, Geronimo Development Corporation 04/11/2019 20 Tanner, 277 Va. at 439, 674 S.E.2d at 852 (quoting Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926)). Page 4 of 4 Printed from CaseFinder, Geronimo Development Corporation 04/11/2019 30 Any by ordinance , except dogs used for hunting, it Any such locality, or , an ordinance adopted pursuant to Such ordinance shall provide that the owner or custodian of any dog found running at large in a pack shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount established by the locality not to exceed $100 per dog so found. For the purpose of such ordinance, a dog shall be deemed to be running at large in a pack if it is running at large in the company of one or more other dogs that are also running at large. Any civil penalty collected pursuant to such ordinance shall be deposited by the treasurer of the locality pursuant to the provisions of 3.2-6534 §. f FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT to the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Wednesday, May 15, 2019 8:00 a.m. 107 NORTH KENT STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA A Finance Committee meeting was held in the First Floor Conferen Room at 107 North Kent Street on Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 8:00 a.m. ATTENDEES: Committee Members Present: Judith McCann-Slaughter, Chairman; Charles DeHaven; Gary Lofton; Jeffrey Boppe; and Angela Rudolph-Wiseman. Committee Members Absent: Ellen Murphy, Commissioner of the Revenue; and William Orndoff, Treasurer (non-voting liaisons). Staff present: Sharon Kibler, Assistant Finance Director; Kris Tierney, County Administrator; Jay Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator; Rod Williams, County Attorney; Lenny Millholland, Sheriff; Andrea Cosans, Court Services Director; Jason Robertson, Parks & Peter Roussos, VJCCCA Director; and Nick Sabo, Airport Executive Direc ITEMS REQUIRING ACTION BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: () Items 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were approved under consent agenda. 1.The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $30,450 for Phase II of the eSummons project. This amount represents eSummo funds collected through the courts and earmarked for the implementation of an electronic funds are required. See attached information, p. 3 9. The committee recommends approval. 2.() The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $3,693.07. This amount represents an insurance claim for a damaged vehic required. See attached memo, p. 10 11. 3.The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $24,750. This amount represents recovered costs for traffic control for o required. See attached information, including a policy as appro Committee, p. 12 25. The committee recommends approval. 4.() The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $862.31 This amount represents restitution for damaged cruisers. No loc attached memo, p. 26. 5.() The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $100. This amount represents a DARE donation. No local funds required p. 27 28. 6.() The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $11,853.47. This amount represents reimbursements from the Secret Service. No loca required. See attached memo, p. 29 30. 7.() The Sheriff request a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $3,550. This amount represents proceeds from the sale of a retired cruiser. No local funds required. See attached memo, p. 31. 1 8.The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $270,87 This amount represents funds to purchase (9) nine 2019 vehicles approximately $3,000 per vehicle. Funds were budgeted in FY 2020 and w funds are required. See attached memo, p. 32. The committee recommends approval of the supplemental appropriation from the Capital Reserve in FY 2019 to be returned from the FY 2020 funds budgeted for Sheriff vehicles. 9.The NRADC Superintendent requests a Court Services budget transfer in the amount of $7,000 out of a personnel line item to operations to meet projected ope attached memo, p. 33 35. The committee recommends approval. 10.The Airport Director requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $245,737. This amount represents the Countys share of legal fees in th incurred in prior years (identified in the Airport CAFR as Cash required. See attached information, p. 36 37. The committee recommends approval. 11.The Parks & Recreation Director requests a change order in the as in excess of 10%, for the Sherando Park Recreation Access Project. required. See the attached memo, p. 38. The committee recommends approval. 12.The VJCCCA Director requests a General Fund budget transfer in the amount of $6,400 out of a personnel line item to operations to provide client services and p. 39. The committee recommends approval. INFORMATION ONLY 1.The Finance Director provides a Fund 10 Transfer Report for April 2019. See attached, p. 40 41. 2.The Finance Director provides financial statements ending April 9. See attached, p. 42 52. 3.The Finance Director provides an FY 2019 Fund Balance Report end attached, p. 53. Respectfully submitted, FINANCE COMMITTEE Judith McCann-Slaughter, Chairman Charles DeHaven Gary Lofton Jeffrey Boppe Angela Rudolph-Wiseman By ___________________________ Sharon Kibler, Assistant Finance Director 2 3 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY Notes to Financial Statements As of June 30, 2018 and June 30, 2017 (Continued) NOTE 2 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES: (CONTINUED) Q.Other Postemployment Benefits (OPEB) Group Life Insurance The Virginia Retirement System (VRS) Group Life Insurance (GLI) Program provides coverage to state employees, teachers, and employees of participating political subdivisions. The GLI Program was established pursuant to §51.1-500 et seq. of the Code of Virginia, as amended, and which provides the authority under which benefit terms are established or may be amended. The GLI Program is a defined benefit plan that provides a basic group life insurance benefit for employees of participating employers. For purposes of measuring the net GLI Program OPEB liability, deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to the GLI OPEB, and GLI OPEB expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the VRS GLI Program OPEB and the additions to/deductions from the VRS GLI OPEB’s net fiduciary position have been determined on the same basis as they were reported by VRS. In addition, benefit payments are recognized when due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value. NOTE 3 - DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS: Deposits: The Authority’s fiscal agent, the County of Frederick, Virginia, provides certain accounting and cash management functions for the Authority. As a part of this arrangement, the Authority participates in the County’s common cash pool for its operating and capital cash requirements. At June 30, 2018 and 2017, the Authority’s cash held by the County totaled overdrafts of ($244,864) and ($62,585), respectively. Investments: Statutes authorize the Authority to invest in obligations of the United States or agencies thereof, obligations of the Commonwealth of Virginia or political subdivisions thereof, obligations of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), the Asian Development Bank, the African Development Bank, “prime quality” commercial paper and certain corporate notes, banker’s acceptances, repurchase agreements and the state Treasurer’s Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP). At June 30, 2018 and 2017, the Authority had no investments. Cash overdraft: The capital cash overdraft of $326,345 will be funded by future contributions from the participating local governments. There are no state, federal, or other funds to cover this deficit. NOTE 4 - DUE FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTS: Receivables due from other governmental units at year end are as follows: 20182017 Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Aviation 50123,041 $$ Federal Aviation Administration- 200,931 City of Winchester- 4,124 Total$501 $228,096 37 15 38 Peter Roussos COURT SERVICES DIRECTOR TH 26DISTRICT COURT SERVICE UNIT 26 Rouss Ave., Suite 100 Andrew K. Block, Jr. Winchester, VA 22601 (540)722-7960 Director Fax: (540)667-4818 #/--/.7%!,4( ®¥ 6)2').)! SERVING: WinchesterCity Department of Juvenile Justice Harrisonburg City ClarkeCounty Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court Service Unit FrederickCounty PageCounty RockinghamCounty ShenandoahCounty WarrenCounty May 14, 2019 Ms. Cheryl Shiffler, Finance Director 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia RE: Transfer of Funds Dear Cheryl, Please be advised that due to vacancies in one of our VJCCCA funded positions with Frederick County, we would like to move $6,400.00 from Early Intervention Officer (Line Item 033030-1001-000-001) to Supervision Plan Services (Line Item 033030-3002-000-004) to be utilized for services for our clients and training. No local funds will be needed as this money is solely from the VJCCCA grant. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Respectfully, Peter Roussos, Director th District Court Service Unit 26 3303-1001-001 5/15/19 balance $6,400 39 Page 1 BUDGET TRANSFERS APRIL 2019 DATEDEPARTMENT/GENERAL FUNDREASON FOR TRANSFERFROMTOACCTCODEAMOUNT 4/2/2019TRANSFERS/CONTINGENCYUNSPENT PC REFRESH93015890000000 5,474.22 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY12205401000004 (5,474.22) 4/5/2019COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS/COURTHOUSEHEATING SERVICES AT MILLWOOD FIRE STATION43045101000021 (1,200.00) COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS/COURTHOUSE43045102000021 1,200.00 4/5/2019BOARD OF SUPERVISORSTO COVER DEFICIT IN MAINTENANCE SERVICE CONTRACTS11013002000000 (539.00) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS11013005000000 539.00 4/8/2019COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS/COURTHOUSEGARAGE REPAIR AT MILLWOOD FIRE STATION43043005000021 (1,043.40) COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS/COURTHOUSE43043004000021 1,043.40 4/8/2019ANIMAL SHELTERGENERAL FUND REIMBURSEMENTS43053002000002 (1,000.00) ANIMAL SHELTER 43055413000000 1,000.00 4/9/2019COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS/COURTHOUSEDEFICIT IN GAS LINE ITEM FOR ROUND HILL FIRE STATION 43045101000007 (3,000.00) COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS/COURTHOUSE43045102000007 3,000.00 4/9/2019MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMSTO COVER EXCESS EXPENSES12225413000000 (50.00) MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS 12225401000000 50.00 4/9/2019INFORMATION TECHNOLOGYTO COVER QUEST INVOICE FOR RAPID RECOVERY12205413000003 (1,659.60) INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 12203005000000 1,659.60 4/10/2019REFUSE COLLECTIONFUND PRINTING EXPENSES FOR FORUM42033004000001 (500.00) REFUSE COLLECTION42033006000000 500.00 4/16/2019OTHERTO COVER DEFICIT IN OTHER OPERATING12243010000000 (400.00) OTHER 12245415000000 400.00 4/17/2019SHERIFFTO COVER MARCH EXPENSES & DTF QUARTER PAYOUT31025410000000 (2,200.00) SHERIFF31025413000000 2,200.00 4/17/2019SHERIFFTO COVER MARCH EXPENSES & DTF QUARTER PAYOUT31025409000002 (5,400.00) SHERIFF31025408000000 5,400.00 4/17/2019ANIMAL SHELTERTO SUPPLEMENT LINE ITEM FOR THE REMAINDER OF FY1943053002000000 (2,500.00) ANIMAL SHELTER43055102000000 2,500.00 4/18/2019CLEARBROOK PARKADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL71095413000000 (2,000.00) CLEARBROOK PARK71099001000000 2,000.00 4/18/2019SHERANOD PARKTO COVER INCREASE IN UTILITY RATES71105101000000 (500.00) SHERANOD PARK71105103000000 500.00 4/18/2019SHERANDO PARKTO COVER INCREASE IN UTILITY RATES71105101000000 (1,120.00) SHERANDO PARK 71105102000000 1,120.00 4/18/2019PARKS AND RECREATION ADMINISTRATIONTO COVER RESOURCE BOOK PURCHASE71015413000000 (77.23) PARKS AND RECREATION ADMINISTRATION71015411000000 77.23 4/18/2019CLEARBROOK PARKTO COVER SHIPPING COSTS71095413000001 (10.00) CLEARBROOK PARK71098001000000 10.00 4/23/2019COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS/COURTHOUSEFREDERICK COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL PHONE BILL(ELEVATOR)43043010000007 (220.00) COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS/COURTHOUSE43045204000010 220.00 4/23/2019ELECTORAL BOARD AND OFFICIALSPAY DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS13015506000000 (11.43) REGISTRAR13025506000000 11.43 4/23/2019COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS/COURTHOUSEPLUMBING ISSUES ROUND HILL FIRE STATION43045101000007 (3,500.00) COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS/COURTHOUSE43043004000008 3,500.00 4/23/2019COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS/COURTHOUSEREPLACE FAN MOTORS PUBLIC SERVICE BUILDING RTU 3 & LIEBERT UNIT43043004000005 (3,500.00) COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS/COURTHOUSE43043004000006 3,500.00 4/23/2019PARKS AND ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATIONTO COVER DEPARTMENT NRPA MEMBERSHIP DUES71015413000000 (1,100.00) PARKS AND ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION71015801000000 1,100.00 4/23/2019PARKS AND ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATIONTO COVER PARKING VOUCHERS71015413000000 (200.00) PARKS AND ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION71045413000000 200.00 4/23/2019INSPECTIONSTO PURCHASE ADDITIONAL CODE BOOKS34014003000002 (600.00) INSPECTIONS 34015411000000 600.00 4/24/2019JUVENILE COURT PROBATIONBOARD ACTION 4/24/19 CLIENT SERVICES33033002000004 23,000.00 JUVENILE COURT PROBATION33031001000001 (10,000.00) JUVENILE COURT PROBATION 33031001000002 (5,000.00) JUVENILE COURT PROBATION 33031003000000 (8,000.00) 4/24/2019SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATIONBOARD ACTION 4/24/19 OPERATING EXPENSES53163002000000 24,000.00 SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION53163010000000 5,000.00 SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION53165405000000 1,500.00 SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION53165506000000 5,000.00 SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION53169002000000 (35,500.00) VICTIM WITNESS PROGRAM22022005000000 (17,039.00) VICTIM WITNESS PROGRAM22021003000000 8,000.00 VICTIM WITNESS PROGRAM22025506000000 780.00 VICTIM WITNESS PROGRAM22025401000000 5,339.00 VICTIM WITNESS PROGRAM22025413000000 2,800.00 VICTIM WITNESS PROGRAM22025204000000 120.00 4/24/2019SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATIONBOARD ACTION 4/24/19 OVERTIME EXPENSES53161001000000 (16,000.00) SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION53161005000000 16,000.00 4/25/2019COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS/COURTHOUSEHEATING BILL DEFICIT FOR CAB AND COURTHOUSE43045101000000 (3,100.00) COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS/COURTHOUSE43045102000000 3,100.00 4/25/2019RECREATION CENTERS AND PLAYGROUNDSTO COVER ADDITIONAL MEDICAL SUPPLIES NEEDED71045412000000 (2,000.00) RECREATION CENTERS AND PLAYGROUNDS71045404000000 2,000.00 4/25/2019MAINENANCE ADMINISTRATION2019 4X4 FORD F150 EXTENDED CAB TRUCK MAINTENANCE43015506000000 (1.85) MAINENANCE ADMINISTRATION43018005000000 1.85 4/29/2019FIRE AND RESCUEBUDGET RECLASS OVERTIME TO FLSA PAY35051007000000 460,000.00 FIRE AND RESCUE35051005000000 (460,000.00) 4/29/2019INFORMATION TECHNOLOGYRENEWAL FOR INTUNE LICENSES12205401000000 (4,000.00) INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY12203005000000 4,000.00 4/29/2019COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS/COURTHOUSEREPLACE HUMIDIFIER IN EOC ROOM AT PSB43043004000005 (2,500.00) 40 Page 2 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS/COURTHOUSE43043004000006 2,500.00 5/2/2019COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS/COURTHOUSEJANITORIAL SUPPLIES COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING43043010000005 (2,400.00) COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS/COURTHOUSE43045405000000 2,400.00 5/2/2019ELECTORAL BOARD OFFICIALSPAY TRAVEL MILEAGE FOR GENERAL REGISTRAR13015506000000 (20.00) REGISTRAR13025506000000 20.00 5/2/2019REFUSE COLLECTIONPURCHASE BOOKS FOR VRA CONFERENCE SESSION42035408000002 (400.00) REFUSE COLLECTION42035411000000 400.00 5/2/2019COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEYTO FUND ADVERTISING22015401000000 (150.00) COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY22013007000000 150.00 5/2/2019COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEYTO FUND TRAVEL22013002000000 (1,500.00) COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY22015506000000 1,500.00 5/2/2019COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS/COURTHOUSEWATER/SEWER BILL AT PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING43043010000005 (1,615.74) COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS/COURTHOUSE 43045103000005 1,615.74 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS/COURTHOUSE43045407000005 (183.25) COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS/COURTHOUSE 43045103000005 183.25 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 REPORT to the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Wednesday May 22, 2019 7:00 p.m. 107 NORTH KENT STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA To: Jay Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator for Human Services From: Jason L. Robertson, Director, Parks & Recreation Dept. Date: May 14, 2019 Subject: Parks and Recreation Commission Action The Parks and Recreation Commission met on May 14, 2019. Members present were: Guss Morrison, Christopher Fordney, Gary Longerbeam, Amy Strosnider, Charles Natalie Gerometta, Ronald Madagan, and Robert Wells (Board of Supervisors Non-Voting Liaison). Members absent: Randy Carter ITEMS REQUIRING ACTION BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: None ITEMS SUBMITTED FOR INFORMATION ONLY 1.The Commission approved revision of the Youth Program Suspension Policy (100.25)- attached with highlight changes. 2. The Commission approved the staff seek public input on the const- mile trail behind the Bowman Library. Cc: Charles R. Sandy, Chairman Robert Wells, Board of Supervisors Non-Voting Liaison 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: May 14, 2019 RE: Glaize Estates Conns East Road 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: Conns East Road, State Route Number 768 0.18 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 22nd day of May, adopted the following: WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Form AM-4.3, fully incorporated he 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. #07-19 In the County of Frederick By resolution of the governing body adopted May 22, 2019 The following VDOT Form AM-4.3 is hereby attached and incorporated as part of the governing 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 Glaize Estates 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 Conns East Road, State Route Number 768 Old Route Number: 0 From: Route 608, Wardensville Grade To: 0.18 mile east of Route 608, Wardensville Grade, a distance of: 0.18 miles. Recordation Reference: Inst. #070000227 Right of Way width (feet) = 50' VDOT Form AM-4.3 (4/20/2007) Maintenance Division Date of Resolution: Page 1 of 1 Peter Roussos COURT SERVICES DIRECTOR TH 26DISTRICT COURT SERVICE UNIT 26 Rouss Ave., Suite 100 Valerie Boykin Winchester, VA 22601 (540)722-7960 Director Fax: (540)667-4818 #/--/.7%!,4( ®¥ 6)2').)! SERVING: WinchesterCity Department of Juvenile Justice Harrisonburg City Clarke County Twenty-SixthJudicial District Court Service Unit Frederick County Page County Rockingham County Shenandoah County Warren County To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors th From: Peter Roussos,Directorof 26District Court Service Unit, Department of Juvenile Justice Date: May 16, 2019 Subject:Timbrook Achievement Center (TAC)–Also known as The ShenandoahValley Achievement Center First, we would like to thank members of the Boardfor adding this item to an already busy agenda. The delay in submitting this request was caused by funds becoming available to the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice in the latter part of this fiscal cycle. The Timbrook Achievement Center (TAC) is a cooperativeeffort of Frederick County and City of th Winchester agencies as well as the Department of Juvenile Justice through the 26District Court Service Unit. It will be important to provide you with some background information of this project. From 2011 through 2016, Winchester Public Schools and the Winchester Police Department collaborated through a grantto open and operate a facility known as “The Timbrook Center”. The Timbrook Center was primarily staffed by law enforcement and served as an afterschool program for City of Winchester youth only. The vision of the program was for court-involved youth for truancy or delinquency to develop good working relationships with law enforcement and to improve their academic status as many were likelyto not graduate from high school. During the time of the Timbrook Center, 66 youth participated in the program with 36 of the students obtaininghigh school diplomas and/or GED’s with four still in progress at that time. Of the 66 students, 28 were on active probation with various initiating offenses and all 28 participating youth had a moderate or high risk to re-offend according to their YASI assessment. Given this information, it is clear these delinquent and truant youth benefited from the Timbrook program. The TAC will be located at the Youth Development Center (YDC) on 3 Battaile Dr, Winchester, VA 22601and it will serve youth from both Frederick County and the City of Winchester. The program will begin operations in August 2019 and has thecapacity to serve 20 youth at any given time. Through a combination of educational, recreational and behavioral program components, the Achievement Center will work collaboratively and positively with youth and their families to move them out of “risk” and towards building life skills that can be applied into their adulthood. Programs available at the Achievement Center are designed to help youth achieve the following outcomes: Better educational performance and attendance. Enhance connections with parents and other natural support systems. Decreased involvement in juvenile justice system. Improved adaptive skill functioning. Increased interpersonal and social skills. Increased employability and interest in job seeking. The targeted population will be youth between the ages of 14 to 18 to provide support and services for the youth and their family members. The plan is to begin with Court involved youth who are experiencing truancy or delinquency and need additional supports or youth who can be diverted from the juvenile justice system. During the first year, the program goal is to serve approximately 60 youth in total through referrals from the Courts, intake diversion, school systems and other sources. Through the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA), the Department of Juvenile Justice will provide up to $50,000, in one-time supplemental VJCCCA funding to Fiscal Agent, Frederick County, for the purchase of equipment and supplies to support programs and services on the locality’s FY2019/FY2020 VJCCCA Plan. The funding will be provided on a reimbursement basis for actual expenses. A proposed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the County of Frederick and the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice has been submitted. In summary, The Timbrook Achievement Center will provide services to approximately 60 at risk and court involved youth. These are youth from Frederick County and the City of Winchester. Several public agencies from both jurisdictions are involved in this worthwhile project. These include Frederick County Public Schools, City of Winchester Public Schools, Frederick County and Winchester Sheriff’s office, Northwestern Community Services Board, The Youth Development Center and the Department of Juvenile Justice.This request is for a one timeVJCCCA FY19 supplemental appropriationof $50,000 to be fiscally managedby Frederick County. Frederick County is not providing any local funds and all expenses funded by Frederick County are 100% reimbursable. There does not exist a stipulation for funding for subsequent years of the program. It is respectfully requested that Board approve this request and that it authorizes the County Administrator to sign the MOA between DJJ and Frederick County. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. 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 Date: May 17, 2019 Re: Conveyance of Interest in Real Property at 20 North Loudoun Street ================================================================ At the May 22 meeting, the Board of Supervisors will conduct a public hearing, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-1800, regarding the conveyance, by a deed for two hundred years, of the Countys interest in real property located at 20 North Loudoun Street, in the City of Winchester, Virginia, identified as City Tax Parcel Number 193-1-N-4, to the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation. You may recall that the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundatio for a number of years on the premises of the former Frederick Co Loudoun Street. The Foundation has recently expressed intereste property, and the County has negotiated a deed of transfer for a years, or so long as the conditions contained in the deed are met, whichever period is shorter. The conveyance is contingent upon the Property being used for pre history and the operation of a museum, such as the Shenandoah Va is presently operational on the site, and upon the Grantee or its assigns maintaining the the historic courtroomwithin the structure on the site as it exists at the time of con Should the Grantee or itsassigns cease to use the property for the above purpose or fail to maintain the layout of thehistoric courtroom, the property and all improvements thereon sh revert back to the ownershipof Frederick County (the Grantor).Also, it is noted that the structure in place on the Property isdesignated asa historic structure and that the conveyance of the Property is contingent on the structure being maintained his historic structure designation. Lastly, the Property contains a historic statue in its curtilage. The Grantee may not remove or alter said statue. Should the Grantee fail to abide by this condition, the Property shall revert to the Grantor. Following the public hearing, staff is seeking a Board decision re deed of conveyance. 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors FROM: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director RE: Public Hearing: Brucetown Road Area Amendment (CPPA #02-18 Carter) DATE: May 10, 2019 This is a draft amendment to the Northeast Land Use Plan of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. This request is presented to the Board of Supervisors for public hearing. Staff is seeking a decision from Board of Supervisors on this requested amendment. Proposal & Background At the Board of Supervisors September 12, 2018 meeting, the Board directed Staff to undertake a Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) expansion and land use designation associated with Comprehensive Plan Amendment #02-18. This amendment proposes to add 109-acres into the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and remove 109-acres from the SWSA. This amendment also seeks to designate the 109-acres for industrial land uses. The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC) discussed this amendment at their October and November 2018 meetings. The CPPC endorsed draft text and map for the Brucetown Area Amendment at their November 2018 meeting. This amendment was discussed by the Planning Commission on December 5, 2018. At that meeting the Planning Commission expressed concern with the amendment and sent the proposal back to the CPPC for further review. Specifically, the Planning Commission requested more detail on the transportation components of the amendment and further review of the SWSA limits proposed. The CPPC discussed the amendment at their February 2019 meeting. The Committee reviewed revised text for the proposal that sought to address the concerns of the Planning Commission; a revised map was also presented. The Committee agreed with the changes with amendments to the SWSA boundary and environmental text. The amended SWSA boundary keeps the SWSA south of Slate Run and proposes a buffer along the western property line to protect the rural community center. The CPPC sent the revised text and map forward to the Planning Commission for review. The CPPC further discussed the importance of providing the identified transportation improvements to support future development in this area. This included a discussion of what CPPC felt that since the Brucetown Road Area Amendment May 10, 2019 Page 2 language. The Planning Commission discussed this request at their March 6, 2019 meeting. The Commission agreed with the proposed amendment and sent the item forward to the Board of Supervisors with vs document and felt that since this is a policy document that guides future land use that the use of One Commission member did express concern with the amendment and did not support the amendment going forward. The Board of Supervisors discussed this item at their April 10, 2019 meeting. The Board sent this item forward for public hearing. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for this item at their May 1, 2019 meeting. Eight spoke during the public hearing. A representative from Clorox spoke about the public meetings they held and felt they had addressed expressed concerns and that they have a commitment to work with the community. Seven citizens spoke in opposition to the amendment, citing traffic concerns, buffers, Brucetown Road widening, effects on schools, and not conforming to the Comprehensive Plan. Following the public hearing, the Commission members discussed the benefit of increasing the industrial base of the County, accessibility of the site via rail and adding useable area to the SWSA and removing areas from the quarry. Following their discussion, the Planning Commission ultimately recommended denial of the amendment (seven in favor of denial, five not in favor of denial, one abstain). Conclusion Please find attached draft text for the Brucetown Road Area Amendment, a proposed land use map and comments from Frederick Water. This request is presented to the Board of Supervisors for public hearing. Staff is seeking a decision from Board of Supervisors on this requested amendment. Please contact Staff should you have any questions. CEP/pd Attachments DRAFT NFLUP ORTHEAST REDERICK AND SE LAN NELUP Brucetown Road Area A MENDMENT Proposed language: The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC), at their 2018 meetings and their February 2019 meeting discussed the requested Carter Tract Amendment (CPPA #02-18). This CPPA request removes comparable acres of land from the SWSA from the existing zoned extractive manufacturing area to al109 acres of land. In determining the scope of the request, the CPPC looke in determining if an area could best support a sewer and water service area expansion and an industrial land use designation. The SWSA boundary adjustment enables industrial land uses which could utilize public water and sewer, improve the transportation infrastructure in support of increased vehicular traffic and provide economic opportunities. The scope of the review considered the following: Review of the broader area to identify areas most appropriate fo and industrial land use designation. Distance to the existing SWSA boundary. Proximity to the existing extractive manufacturing operation. Access to and from the Brucetown Road area including the overall transportation network including key intersections on Martinsburg Pike. Revisions to the SWSA, including the removal of land from the existing SWSA to allow for the addition of comparable acreage into the SWSA. Avoiding conflict with the residential uses of the Brucetown Rural Commun. The SWSA should remain south of Slate Run with a buffer along the Rural Community Center. This enables the land use north of Slate Run to remain agricu future industrial uses from the residential uses in the Brucetown Rural Community Center. The study which resulted from the discussion of CPPA #02-18 ultimately recommended that the following amendment be incorporated into the Northeast Land The area southeast of Exit 321, Interstate 81, Hopewell Road, and south of Brucetow is comprised mainly of extractive manufacturing, rural residentiricultural land uses. The area is also located adjacent to the identified Brucetown Ru following items resulted from this study and should be addressed with any future development proposals in this area: An industrial land use designation was identified as most appropriate for a SWSA boundary adjustment. A detailed traffic study will be necessary for any future industrial development all identified transportation needs should be provided by the proposed development. Traffic improvements should include but may not be limited to: Improvements to Brucetown Road to current VDOT standards including sufficient pavement structur and right-of-way width to support the industrial traffic; improvements to Hop Road and Martinsburg Pike and the relocation of Brucetown Road n intersection with Hopewell Road. Access to the acreage which is now included in the SWSA should be via the existing quarry entrance onto Brucetown Road; no direct access to Brucetown Road should be considered. Recognize that water and sewer capacity is limited in this area and therefore an industrial uses should recognize the capacity constraints and construct the infrastructure necessary to serve the industrial uses water and Encourage the use of rail to minimize the increase in truck traffic on the Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) corridor and along and Hopewell and Brucetown Roads. Protect the overall environmental quality of the community. Avo which would require major emitter air quality permit from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Minimize disturbance and crossing of drainage swales. An enhanc should be provided adjacent to Slate Run to improve the buffer a environmental practices. Provide buffering between industrial uses and the Rural CommunitCenter which should meet or exceed existing zoning ordinance buffer and screening re to adequately protect the residential uses in the Brucetown Rura Maximize distance buffers in combination with landscape buffers dequate screening. Building height limitations should also be implemented to protect the viewshed of the residential uses in the Brucetown Rural Communit To avoid conflict with the residential uses in the Brucetown Rur the SWSA expansion should remain south of Slate Run and provide for a buffer along the Rural Community Center. This enables the land north of Slate Run to remain agricultural and buffer future industrial uses from the residentRural Community Center. Proposed Draft SWSA Adjustment White Property § ¨¦ 81 § ¨¦ Clear Brook & Brucetown 81 Rural Community Center § ¨¦ 81 ADD ~ 109 acres REMOVE ~ 109 acres Current SWSA Parcels Clear Brook/Brucetown Rural Community Center White Property Draft SWSA Draft SWSA Add Remove Long Range Land Use I Environmental Resources & Buffers Map Produced by Frederick County Planning and Development Dept. 00.1750.350.7Miles February 19, 2019 RESOLUTION ______________________________ Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: May 1, 2019 Recommended Denial BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: May 22, 2019 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CPPA #02-18, BRUCETOWN ROAD AREA AMENDMENT APPENDIX I AREA PLANS, NORTHEAST LAND USE PLAN WHEREAS, The, 2035 Comprehensive Plan, The Plan, was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 25, 2017; and WHEREAS, this amendment to the Northeast Land Use Plan of Appendix I would result in a land use designation change to (PIN) 34-A-24D to industrial use and expand the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) to include 109 acres of parcel in the SWSA and remove 109 acres from the existing SWSA, and WHEREAS, this amendment also includes supporting text to be added to the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix I - Area Plans, Northeast Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this proposed amendment on May 1, 2019 and recommended denial; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this proposed amendment on May 22, 2019; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds that the adoption of this amendment to the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare and future of Frederick County, and in good planning practice; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that the amendment to the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, is adopted. This amendment results in a land use change to industrial use and expands the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) to include 109 acres of parcel in the SWSA and remove 109 acres from the existing SWSA and includes supporting text to be added to the Northeast Land Use Plan. PDRes #04-19 Passed this 22nd day of May 2019 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 #04-19 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors FROM: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director RE: Public Hearing: Blackburn Property Workforce Housing (CPPA #01-19) DATE: May 10, 2019 This is a draft amendment to the Kernstown Area Plan of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. This request is presented to the Board of Supervisors for public hearing. Staff is seeking a decision from Board of Supervisors on this requested amendment. Proposal & Background At the Board of Supervisors December 12, 2018 meeting, the Board directed Staff to undertake an Urban Development Area (UDA) expansion and land use designation change associated with the Blackburn Property Workforce Housing proposal. The amendment requested by the Applicant proposes to add 71.849-acres to the UDA. This amendment also seeks to designate the 71-acres for workforce housing. The Kernstown Area Plan currently designates the property for industrial land use. The Applicant is requesting the UDA expansion and land use designation change to allow for the development of workforce housing that is intended to provide affordable housing opportunities for residents of the community located within reasonable proximity of workplaces in the community. The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC) discussed this amendment at their February 2019 meeting. The CPPC recognized that workforce housing was needed in the County but expressed concern with the area this was proposed for. The CPPC further stated that there are areas currently designated for residential development where this use could potentially locate. The subject site is currently designated for industrial development and the CPPC expressed concern over losing potential industrial land for residential uses. The CPPC stated that industrial was the best use for this site and recommended denial of this comprehensive plan amendment. The Planning Commission discussed this item at their March 6, 2019 meeting. The Commission agreed with the concerns expressed by the CPPC and did not support the loss of planned industrial land for the construction of residential units. The Planning Commission sent this item forward to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for denial. The Board of Supervisors discussed Blackburn Workforce Housing May 10, 2019 Page 2 this item at their April 10, 2019 meeting. The Board sent this item forward for public hearing. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for this item at their May 1, 2019 meeting. During the public hearing, six citizens spoke. Two citizens spoke in favor of the amendment, stating the benefits it would bring to the community. Four citizens spoke in opposition of the amendment, citing traffic concerns, whether the location was appropriate for this use and the loss of industrial land. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission stated that they did not support the loss of planned industrial land and recommended denial of the amendment. Conclusion Please find attached the current Kernstown Area map designation for the subject property, draft Kernstown Area Plan text amendments, proposed Kernstown Area land use map amendment, CPPA application #01-19 and comments from Frederick Water. This request is presented to the Board of Supervisors for public hearing. Staff is seeking a decision from Board of Supervisors on this requested amendment. CEP/pd Attachments JONES RD CPPA # 01 - 19: Blackburn Farms, LLC 3161 MIDDLE RD 3175 MIDDLE RD PIN: 63 - A - 80I 2877 Revise Kernstown Area Plan 3210 MIDDLE RD MIDDLE RD 3155 Long Range Land Use Map MIDDLE RD 3217 MIDDLE RD 640 APPLE VALLEY RD 207 JORDAN DR 3322 652 MIDDLE RD APPLE 208 VALLEY RD JORDAN DR 3075 3323 632MIDDLE RD MIDDLE RD 3346 APPLE 3352 MIDDLE RD VALLEY RD MIDDLE RD 170 610 JORDAN DR 3362 APPLE MIDDLE RD 136 VALLEY RD 592 JORDAN DR APPLE 116 106VALLEY RD 572 JORDAN DR STUART DR APPLE 582 VALLEY RD APPLE 104 544 VALLEY RD STUART DR 3426 APPLE 105 MIDDLE RD VALLEY RD STUART DR 536 APPLE VALLEY RD 101 STUART DR 520 492 CPPA #01-19 APPLE 3466 APPLE VALLEY RD MIDDLE RD VALLEY RD ¬ « 37 482 63 A 80I APPLE VALLEY RD 472 APPLE VALLEY RD 452 APPLE VALLEY RD Application 208 3475 Urban Development Area BUTTERSCOTCH CT MIDDLE RD 336 Sewer and Water Service Area APPLE Parcels VALLEY RD Eastern Road Plan 318 331 APPLE Major Arterial APPLE VALLEY RD VALLEY RD Improved Major Arterial Minor Arterial ¬ « 37 Improved Minor Arterial 321 APPLE 351 Major Collector VALLEY RD APPLE 165 ¬ « 37 VALLEY RD MARSHALL LN Improved Major Collector Minor Collector ¬ « Improved Minor Collector 37 170 SHADY Ramp ELM RD 3735 Roundabout 260 MIDDLE RD SHADY Trails ELM RD Long Range Land Use 190 DAWSON DR Residential µ Industrial Sensitive Natural Areas Institutional Frederick County Planning & Development 107 N Kent St Winchester, VA 22601 540 - 665 - 5651 03507001,400Feet Map Created: January 15, 2019 JONES RD CPPA # 01 - 19: Blackburn Farms, LLC 3161 MIDDLE RD 3175 MIDDLE RD PIN: 63 - A - 80I 2877 Revise Kernstown Area Plan 3210 MIDDLE RD MIDDLE RD 3155 Zoning Map MIDDLE RD 3217 MIDDLE RD 640 APPLE VALLEY RD 207 JORDAN DR 3322 652 MIDDLE RD APPLE 208 VALLEY RD JORDAN DR 3075 3323 632MIDDLE RD MIDDLE RD 3346 APPLE 3352 MIDDLE RD VALLEY RD MIDDLE RD 170 610 JORDAN DR 3362 APPLE MIDDLE RD 136 VALLEY RD 592 JORDAN DR APPLE 116 106VALLEY RD 572 JORDAN DR STUART DR APPLE 582 VALLEY RD APPLE 104 544 VALLEY RD STUART DR 3426 APPLE 105 MIDDLE RD VALLEY RD STUART DR 536 APPLE VALLEY RD 101 STUART DR 520 492 CPPA #01-19 APPLE 3466 APPLE VALLEY RD MIDDLE RD VALLEY RD ¬ « 37 482 63 A 80I APPLE VALLEY RD 472 APPLE VALLEY RD 452 APPLE VALLEY RD 208 3475 BUTTERSCOTCH CT MIDDLE RD 336 Application APPLE Urban Development Area VALLEY RD Sewer and Water Service Area 318 331 APPLE Parcels APPLE VALLEY RD Eastern Road Plan VALLEY RD Major Arterial ¬ « Improved Major Arterial 37 321 Minor Arterial APPLE 351 VALLEY RD APPLE 165 Improved Minor Arterial¬ « 37 VALLEY RD MARSHALL LN Major Collector Improved Major Collector ¬ « 37 170 Minor Collector SHADY ELM RD Improved Minor Collector 3735 260 MIDDLE RD Ramp SHADY ELM RD Roundabout 190 DAWSON DR Trails µ Zoning M1 (Light Industrial District) RP (Residential Performance District) Frederick County Planning & Development 107 N Kent St Winchester, VA 22601 540 - 665 - 5651 03507001,400Feet Map Created: January 15, 2019 AI-AP PPENDIX REA LANS KAP ERNSTOWN REA LAN BS OARD OF UPERVISORS AJ26,2017 PPROVED ON ANUARY PC LANNING OMMISSION RAJ4,2017 ECOMMENDED PPROVAL ANUARY A: MENDED Kernstown Area Plan 75 AI-AP PPENDIX REA LANS KAP ERNSTOWN REA LAN The Kernstown Area Plan study area is generally located along Route 11, south of the City of Winchester and north of the Town of Stephens City I-81. The Kernstown Area Plan builds on the Route 11 South Corridor Plan, and the balance of the Southern Frederick Plan which was adopted in 1998, by incorporating the western portion of this plan into the Kernstown Area Plan. A series of maps have been prepared which identify Future Land U Transportation, and Natural, Historical, and Community Facilities within the study area. Within this plan, the Shady Elm Road area continues its economic development emphasis, the Route 11 corridor seeks to capitalize on Interstat opportunities, the industrial land uses north of Route 37 and ea are reinforced, and the Bartonsville and Kernstown historical and cultural areas have been identified. The Kernstown Area Plan in the vicinity of Route 37 and Intersta directly into the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan with the Crosspointe Development. Interstate 81 improvements at the 310 Interchange, Phase 1 of which is scheduled to commence in 2015, in this location further supports this area plan. Route 11, Valley Pike, links the Kernstown Area Plan with the City of Winchester to the north and the Town of Stephens City to the south. The Kernstown Area Plan promotes a new area s of new land use focus; the Kernstown Neighborhood Village in the Creekside area, along the Route 11 and the Apple Valley Workforce Housing area, located along the southwest side of Apple Valley Road near its intersection with Middle Road. This The Kernstown Neighborhood Village area should promote an attractive street presence along the frontage of Rout reaffirm Kernstown as a distinct community, blending the old wit building on the successful developments that have occurred in this area of the County. The Apple Valley Workforce Housing Area is intended to provide affordable quality residential housing that is located w This land use is intended to accommodate households that average 60% of the media household income. The Apple Valley Workforce Housing Area should promote quality housing design that is complementary to existing residential uses in the Kernstown Area Plan and is limited in height to minimize visual impacts to the Kernstown Battlefield viewshed alng Apple Valley Road. Kernstown Area Plan 76 AI-AP PPENDIX REA LANS Land Use The goal of this area plan is to integrate the commercial and industrial (C/I) opportunities, and the areas of mixed use, and affordable workforce housing with future transportation plans and to recognize the historical and natural resources abundant in this area plan. Shady Elm Economic Development Area The Shady Elm Economic Development Area is designed to be a significant area of industrial and commercial opportunity that is fully supportive of the County Economic Development Authorit targeted goals and strategies. The intent of the industrial employment centers. In specific areas a mix of flexible uses, w in prominent locations is encouraged. Such areas are supported by substantial areas of industrial and commercial opportunity, and provide for well designed with high quality architecture and site design. I such areas to promote a strong positive community image. Kernstown Interstate Commercial @ 310 Located at a highly visible location on a prominent interstate i area of land use both north and south of Route 37 along Route 11, is designed specifically to accommodate and promote highway commercial land uses and commercial uses that continue to promote this area as a regional center. Particular effort must be made to ensure that access management supporting transportation network is a key priority as the funct interstate and primary road network is of paramount importance. Acces the areas of interstate commercial land uses shall be carefully Access Management is a priority along the Route 11 corridor. The building and site layout and design of the projects shall be of a high quality. In addition, an enhanced buffer and landscaping area shall be pr adjacent to the Interstate 81 right-of-way, its ramps, and along the main arterial road, Route 11, the Valley Pike. A significant corridor appearance buffer is proposed along Route 11 similar to that established for Route landscaping, and bike path. The recently developed Kernstown Co Kernstown Area Plan 77 AI-AP PPENDIX REA LANS provides an excellent example of an enhanced buffer and landscaping area along Route 11 that also includes a multi-purpose trail that serves the area. Kernstown Industrial Area The existing industrial land uses north of Route 37 and both east and west of Route 11 are reinforced with this area plan. Industries includin Hood, are well established and should continue to be supported in this Additional industrial and commercial opportunity that is fully supportive of the County Economic Development Authorit targeted goals and strategies should be promoted. The intent of the industrial designation is to further enhance t like commercial and industrial areas and to provide focus to the Kernstown Creekside Neighborhood Village Kernstown Creekside Neighborhood Village serves as a focal point Kernstown Area and as a gateway feature for this important Count In addition, the Kernstown Creekside Area serves as a gateway into the City of Winchester, and on a broader scale, a gateway feature for this p Frederick County as citizens and visitors approach this portion the south. This neighborhood village should promote a strong positive community image. Residential land uses would be permitted only accessory component of the neighborhood village commercial land This area should have a strong street presence with particular attentbeing paid to the form of the buildings adjacent to Route 11. It is the intent of this plan to reaffirm Kernstown as a distinct community, blending the old wit building on the successful developments that have occurred in th County. Defined Rural Areas The Kernstown Area Plan has sought to further define the boundary between the Rural and Urban Areas of the Community. As noted, the above areas of proposed land use combine to frame the western urban areas. In addition, the rural areas to the west of Shady Elm Road south of the industrial areas and west of Route 37 area in this location. The plan provides enhanced recognition of the rural residential land uses, Hedgebrook Farm, and the agricultural are Middle Road. This recognition and the location and boundaries of the proposed Kernstown Area Plan 78 AI-AP PPENDIX REA LANS urban areas. The continuation of agricultural uses west of Route 37 and Shady Elm Road will encourage the continuation of agribusiness activity and pro the integrity of the properties voluntarily placed in the South Agricultural and Forestal District. Kernstown Battlefield and Bartonsville Sensitive Natural Areas () A historic district designation or use of conservation easements is recommended for the portion of the Grim Farm, site of the Kernst Battlefield owned by the Kernstown Battlefield Association (KBA) in the County. This designation is intended to recognize the preservation of the core area of the Kernstown Battlefield. County regulations the formation of a historic district must be accomplished throug of the land owner. The County continues to support the Kernstown Battlefield Associations efforts in preserving and promoting this tremendous County resource. A similar designation should be pursued, in conjunction with pro in the Bartonsville area.In addition to its historical significance, much of the Bartonsville area is also within the 100 year floodplain and wou otherwise limited in terms of development potential. In Bartonsville, the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, or restoration of historic strucres should be encouraged. Future development applications that have historic r the property should incorporate the resources on the site into d Any future development should be sensitive to those resources pr site. There are several historic sites and markers in the Kernstown Area Plan sites and markers should be buffered from adjacent development a preserved in their original condition whenever possible during a or land use planning. The Springdale Flour Mill is located in the center of Bartonsvil ideal for use as a key element for the Bartonsville Rural Histor be appropriate for the use on the property to develop as somethi encourage the protection of the structure and provide a use which encourages adaptive reuse users to utilize the property. Bartonsville South Perhaps the most outstanding feature of the land from Bartonsvil south to the Stephens City limits is the relatively pristine state of the sou the corridor. At time of writing, it remains relatively undeveloped. The majority Kernstown Area Plan 79 AI-AP PPENDIX REA LANS of this segment of the study area is currently either used for ais vacant. Only two, small-scale commercial enterprises are situated in this portion of the corridor. The bigger of the two is a commercial r use known as Appleland. General commercial land uses are envisioned in this area in the future. As noted, the Route 11 South corridor, in the area in and around is shown as the site of a future preservation effort. One of the significant elements of this plan is the buffering of This southern section of the corridor from Stephens City, north to Bartonsville is intended to be set apart from the existing commercial develop northern third of the corridor. The intent is that, through a c setbacks, vegetative screening, planting of shade trees along the edge of the right-of-way, and the provision of bike way and pedestrian access, the co would have a parkway-like appearance. A planted median strip is also envisioned when this section of Route 11 South becomes four lane locating within this section of the corridor would be expected to have no direct access to Route 11 South, but rather would access a proposed eas-west connector road which in turn would intersect Route 11 South. Valley Pike Trail For the Kernstown Area Plan, it is recommended that a new multi-purpose path be constructed along the length of Valley Pike through the study area connecting areas of land use, in particular those resources identified as , and providing connections with the City of Winchester and the Town of Stephens City. This pathway should be consistent with that of the path that exists in several locations along the road today. Examples of this such a recreational resource would provide an excellent example for other opportunities in the County. In general, the goals for land use in the Kernstown Area Plan ar Promote orderly development within areas impacted by new infrastructure. Provide a balance of industrial, commercial, residential, and ag areas. Promote mixed-use development in-lieu of large areas of residential. Concentrate industrial and commercial uses near and around inter arterial, and major collector interchanges and intersections. Encourage the preservation of prime agricultural areas and the continuation of Agricultural and Forestal Districts. Recommendations from the 2010 Win-Fred MPO Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility Plan should be adopted by the Board of Supervisors and pedestria Kernstown Area Plan 80 AI-AP PPENDIX REA LANS shown in the plan should be constructed. This plan should also b reference for accommodation recommendations and guidelines. Ensure connectivity with existing or proposed bicycle or pedestr transportation accommodations wherever possible. In particular, or existing in the Town of Stephens City or in the City of Winch Pedestrian facilities should be constructed that connect neighborh commercial areas, employment areas and public facilities to prom and walkability. Trails should be planned and constructed that connect the Kernst proposed Valley Pike Trail, and Bartonsville (see the Valley Pike Trail exam described in the land use section). Linear parks should be constructed along creeks where permissibl topography. Residential Development The only area of urban Residential development has been identified is located within the Urban Development Area in the location identified as Creekside Neighborhood Village and the location identified as the Apple Valley Workforce Housing Area. New residential uses should complement the existing residential uses and should be generally of a higher residential density. Areas within the Kernstown Creekside Neighborhood Village and should include a neighborhood commercial component as described in the Creekside Neighborhood Village Land Use. It will be very important to mix residential development in this area with the right balance of c In this area, In the Kernstown Creekside Neighborhood Village slightly higher residential densities that may fall within the 6-12 units per acre range are envisioned (this is generally attached houses and may also include multifamily and a mix of other housing types). In the Apple Valley Workforce Housing Area, residential densities are envisioned to be no more than 4 units per acre and should include single family detached housing units. This land use is intended to accommodate households that average 60% of the median household income of the County. These densities are necessary to accommodate the anticipated gro County within the urban areas and are consistent with establishe within the study area and the densities needed to support the future residential land uses envisioned in the Plan. Kernstown Area Plan 81 AI-AP PPENDIX REA LANS The residential land uses west of Shady Elm Road and Rout 37 within the study area are envisioned to remain rural area residential in character. Shady Elm Road south and Route 37 may generally be considered as the boundary between the urban areas and rural areas within the western part of this study area. This provides a transition area to the Opequon Creek and to the well- established rural character of the Middle Road and Springdale Road area. Business Development The Plan identifies a prime area for industrial land uses, the Shady Elm Economic Development Area, to capitalize on future industrial and commercial employment opportunities. Existing areas of industrial development are recognized with additional development promoted. Regional commercial development opportunities are reinforced in the Kernstown Inters commercial area. In addition, an area is identified for neighborhood village commercial use, including retail, to accommodate existing residential communities and to build upon the successful Creekside commercial project. The improvements to the Exit 310 Interchange on interstate 81 at Route 37 furthers the significant commercial opportunities that the Plan seeks to take advantage of by identifying the Kernstown Interstate Commercial @ 310 area of land use. Future improvements identified for this area are envisioned to continue to enhance this areas major role for commercial and ind development. Transportation improvements within the study area boundaries. These plans call for improvements to existing road alignments and interchanges, the r existing roadways, and the construction of new road systems and Transportation improvements to the interstate, arterial, and collector road systems will contribute to improved levels of service throughout and will shape the land use patterns in the short and long term. In support of the new areas of land use, a transportation networ proposed which relates to the location and context of the areas of la promotes multi-modal transportation choices and walkability, furthers the efforts of the Win-Fred MPO, and reaffirms the planning done as part of the Route 11 South Plan and the original Southern Frederick Plan. In this study there is a direct nexus between transportation and land use. The improvements to Interstate 81 at Exit 310, will provide an improved Kernstown Area Plan 82 AI-AP PPENDIX REA LANS opportunities to create a transportation network which supports the future growth of the community in the right locations. This area is al influenced by the ongoing and future improvements to Route 11 South, Shady Elm Road, and the future extension of Renaissance Drive to complete a key east-west connection south of Route 37. South of Bartonsville, in the area north of the Town of Stephens City, the road network provides fo connections into the Town and to the west to connect with the pl alignment of the Tasker Road flyover of Interstate 81. Access Management is a significant consideration of this study a transportation planning in Frederick County. This concept is s providing for key connections to the south. The use of frontage roads, minor collector roads, and inter-parcel connections to bring traffic to access points is promoted. The context of the collector road network is proposed to be diff focus being placed on a thoroughfare design that is accessible to all users and a more walkable environment. Particular attention should be paid to street network within the Kernstown Creekside Neighborhood Village Area to ensure that is highly walkable. The change in context in this specific location is to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses and community goals surrounding land use, site design, and building design are featu help create context and promote the improvement of this area as a focal point and as a place with more distinct character. Attention should be provided to the context of the street in the Neighborhood Village Commercial ensure that these prominent locations are safe and accessible to transportation. Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations should be fully integrated to achieve a transportation network that is open to all users. Appropriately designed intersection accommodations should includ refuge islands and pedestrian actualized signals. In general, the road south of Apple Valley Road will provide for a more functional street open to all users. North of Apple Valley Road, Route 11 will have a more urban scale with a character that builds upon the archite established in the existing Creekside area. Special attention should be paid to ensure the transportation considerations of the Town of Stephens City to the south and the City of Winchester to the north are fully coordinated. In addition, transportation improvements in the Kernstown Battlefield area and the Bartonsville area should include taking a proactive approach in creating safe interconnected routes to the battlefield park from the adja creating additional access points. Traffic calming across the e Kernstown Creekside Neighborhood Village is warranted with special attenti placed on providing a safe and efficient access to this mixed us community. Kernstown Area Plan 83 AI-AP PPENDIX REA LANS Consistent application of Comprehensive Plan goals to achieve an level of service on area roads and overall transportation network, level of service C or better, should be promoted. Further, efforts shoul ensure that additional degradation of the transportation beyond level of service shall be avoided. Consideration of future development applications within the study area should only occur when an acc of service has been achieved and key elements and connections id this plan have been provided. Further in depth study should occur in the future regarding the preferred alignment of the road connections in the area immediately south to the Bartonsville area. Consideration should be given to ensur road network functions adequately and is sensitive to the many chat exist in that general area. Community Facilities The need for public spaces within the study area needs to be acknowledged. Opportunities for small public spaces within the Kernstown Creek Neighborhood Village should be pursued. The public facility element of the Kernstown Area plan should directly correlate to the Public Facilities chapter of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. The public facilities element should also expand upon the existing 2035 Comprehensive Plan and ensure that opportunities for needed public facilities, currently identified, are not missed. The development community should work with FCPS, Fire & Rescue, and Parks and Recreation to determine facility needs. With regards to Public Utilities, Frederick Water and the County should continue to ensure the availability of adequate water resources in conjunction with the future land uses identified in Area Plans and future development capacities of water and sewer treatment facilities and projected future land uses, and provide opportunities for expansion of wat and sewage treatment facilities. Kernstown Area Plan 84 Winchester 63-A-80I Kernstown Area Land Use Plan Draft Long Range Land Use and UDA ¬ « 37 63 A 80I 63-A-80I Current UDA Draft UDA Sewer and Water Service Area Parcels Draft Long Range Land Use Residential Industrial Sensitive Natural Areas Institutional Environmental & Recreational Resources Proposed Workforce Housing I Map Produced by Frederick County Planning and Development Dept. January 30, 2019 00.050.10.2Miles BLACKBURN PROPERTY WORKFORCE HOUSING 2019 COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT January 9, 2019 TM #63-A-80I Back Creek Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia Prepared For: Blackburn Farm, LLC Contact Person: Evan Wyatt, Director of Land Planning Greenway Engineering, Inc. 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT 2019 INITIATION REQUEST FORM Owner(s) Information: Name: Blackburn Farm, LLC c/o Barbara B. Lewis, Manager Project Name: Blackburn Property Workforce Housing Comprehensive Plan Amendment Mailing Address: 458 Devon Drive Warrenton, VA 20186 Telephone Number: (540) 347-0668 Authorized Agent Information: Name: Greenway Engineering, Inc. Attn. Evan Wyatt, Director of Land Planning Project Name: Blackburn Property Workforce Housing Comprehensive Plan Amendment Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Telephone Number: (540) 662-4185 Legal Interest in the Property Affected or Reason for the Reques Legal Interest: Blackburn Limited Partnership (Deed Book 812 Page 70) Note: Blackburn Farm, LLC established with Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) on January 21, 2014 to convert Blackburn Limited Partnership to a limited liability company. SCC Certificate of Fact dated May 14, 2015 included as information in Instrument No. 150004355 which is included in this application. Reason for Request: The purpose of the Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment request is to revise the Kernstown Area Plan future land use designation of the subject parcel from Shady Elm Economic Development Area to Shady Elm Workforce Housing Area. This land use designation will allow the development of workforce housing that provides affordable quality housing opportunities for residents of the community located within reasonable proximity of workplaces in the community. The Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment includes the expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) Boundary to encompass the Shady Elm Workforce Housing Area. Project #0036E/CPPA Amendment 1 January 9, 2019 SECTION 1 FOR A MAP AMENDMENT Proposed Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment Information: PIN(s): 63-A-80I Magisterial District: Back Creek District Parcel Size (approximate acres): The subject parcel (Tax Map Parcel 63-A-80I) is 71.849 acres in total size as depicted on the Boundary Line Adjustment Between the Lands of Graystone Corporation of Virginia and Blackburn Farm, LLC prepared by Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C. dated May 13, 2015 and recorded as Instrument No. 150004355. Plat of area proposed for CPPA amendment, including metes and bounds description: Please refer to the Plat entitled Boundary Line Adjustment Between the Lands of Graystone Corporation of Virginia and Blackburn Farm, LLC prepared by Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C. dated May 13, 2015 and recorded as Instrument No. 150004355. Existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Classification(s): Industrial Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Classification(s): Residential Workforce Housing Existing Zoning and Land Use of the Subject Parcel: The subject parcel is split-zoned M1, Light Industrial District and RA, Rural Areas District and is undeveloped. What Use/Zoning will be requested if Amendment is approved? The subject parcel with be developed as a residential workforce housing project proving affordable quality residential housing opportunities for citizens, which is located within reasonable proximity . The workforce housing project as envisioned will provide single- family detached residences that are single story structures and are served by a complete system of private streets. A Rezoning Application will be submitted for the subject parcel for RP, Residential Performance District zoning to allow for the development of a residential workforce housing project. Describe, using Text and Maps as Necessary, the Existing Zoning, Designations, and/or Approved Uses and Densities Along with Othe of Properties that are Within 1/2-Mile from the Parcel(s) Perimeter if the Parcel is Less than 100 acres in Size: Project #0036E/CPPA Amendment 2 January 9, 2019 Please refer to the attached Zoning Map Exhibit that identifies the various zoning designations for properties within a ½-mile radius of the subject parcel. The following information describes existing and future land use characteristics within this radius boundary: Properties on the north side of Middle Road (Route 628) to the north of the subject parcel are zoned RA, Rural Areas District. Properties on the east side of Apple Valley Road (Route 652) to the east of the subject parcel are zoned RA, Rural Areas District and RP, Residential Performance District. Properties to the south of the subject parcel are zoned I1, Light Industrial. Route 37 West adjoins the subject parcel along the western property boundary. The remaining portion of the Blackburn Farm, LLC property is located on the other side of Route 37 West and is zoned RA, Rural Areas District. Please refer to the attached Long Range Land Use Exhibit that identifies the various future land use designations identified in the Kernstown Area Plan for properties within a ½-mile radius of the subject parcel. The following information describes existing and future land use characteristics within this radius boundary: Properties on the north side of Middle Road (Route 628) to the north of the subject parcel are located outside of the Kernstown Area Plan Boundary. Properties on the east side of Apple Valley Road (Route 652) to the east of the subject parcel are identified as Residential, Institutional and Rural Areas Land Uses. Properties to the south of the subject parcel are identified as Industrial Land Use. Route 37 West adjoins the subject parcel along the western property boundary. Properties on the other side of Route 37 West are identified as Rural Areas. Please refer to the attached Existing Land Use Aerial Exhibit that identifies the various land uses within a ½-mile radius of the subject parcel. The following information describes existing land uses within this radius boundary: Properties on the north side of Middle Road (Route 628) to the north of the subject parcel are developed as Residential and as a Christmas Tree Farm. Properties on the east side of Apple Valley Road (Route 652) to the east of the subject parcel are developed as Residential, Single-Family Small Lot Residential, a Church, and Battlefield Preservation Land. Properties to the south of the subject parcel are developed as Industrial Land Use. Project #0036E/CPPA Amendment 3 January 9, 2019 Route 37 West adjoins the subject parcel along the western property boundary. Properties on the other side of Route 37 West are developed as Residential Land Use and are undeveloped Agricultural Land Use. The Name, Mailing Address, and Parcel Number of Parcel(s), with Adjacent Property Owners Affidavit: Please refer to the attached Adjoining Property Owner Map Exhibit and Adjoining Property Owner Table Exhibit that provides the location and applicable contact information for all properties within subject parcel. SECTION 2 FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT The inclusion of the Shady Elm Workforce Housing Area as a new land use designation within the Kernstown Area Plan could potentially warrant a Text Amendment for consideration by the County. The following information has been provided specific to the Shady Elm Workforce Housing Area to identify potential text amendments that may be appropriate: Note: Strike-thru text to be eliminated and Red Font text to be incorporated Kernstown Area Plan Section (Page 76) The Kernstown Area Plan promotes a new area new areas of new land use focus; the Kernstown Neighborhood Village in the Creekside area, along the west side of Route 11, and the Shady Elm Workforce Housing Area, along the southwest side of Route 652 near the intersection with Route 628. This area The Kernstown Neighborhood Village should promote an attractive street presence along the frontage of Route 11 and reaffirm Kernstown as a distinct community, blending the old with the new, and building on the successful developments that have occurred in this area of the County. The Shady Elm Workforce Housing Area is intended to provide affordable quality residential housing that is located within Shady Elm Workforce Housing Area should promote quality housing design that is complementary to existing residential uses in the Kernstown Area Plan, and is limited in height to minimize visual impacts to the Kernstown Battlefield viewshed along Route 652. Shady Elm Economic Development and Workforce Housing Area (Page 77) The Shady Elm Economic Development and Workforce Housing Area is designed to be a significant area of industrial, and commercial and workforce housing opportunity that is fully intent of the industrial and workforce housing commercial and industrial areas, and centers, and to provide affordable quality housing for the required to support identified employment areas. In specific areas a mix of flexible uses, with Project #0036E/CPPA Amendment 4 January 9, 2019 office uses in prominent locations and workforce housing in appropriate locations is encouraged. Such areas are supported by substantial areas of industrial and commercial opportunity, and provide for areas that are well designed with high quality architecture and site design. It is the intent of such areas to promote a strong positive community image. Residential Development (Page 81) The only area Areas of urban residential development is are located within the Urban Development Area in the location identified as the Kernstown Creekside Neighborhood Village, and in the location identified as the Shady Elm Workforce Housing Area. New residential uses should complement the existing residential uses, and should be generally of a higher density. and should include Additionally, a neighborhood commercial component should be included as described in the Kernstown Creekside Neighborhood Village Land Use. It will be very important to mix residential development in this area the Kernstown Creekside Neighborhood Village with the right balance of commercial uses. In this area the Kernstown Creekside Neighborhood Village, slightly higher residential densities that may fall within the 6-12 units per acre range are envisioned (this is generally attached houses and may also include multifamily and a mix of other housing types). In the Shady Elm Workforce Housing Area, residential densities are envisioned to fall within the 4-6 units per acre range (this is generally detached and attached houses but does not include multifamily). These densities are necessary to accommodate the anticipated growth of the County within the urban areas and are consistent with established patterns within the study area and the densities needed to support the future residential land uses envisioned in the Plan. The residential land uses west of Shady Elm Road Route 37 West within the study area are envisioned to remain rural area residential in character. Shady Elm Road south Route 37 West may generally be considered as the boundary between the urban areas and rural areas within the western part of this study area. This provides a transition area to the Opequon Creek and to the well-established rural character of the Middle Road and Springdale Road area. SECTION 3 FOR ALL AMENDMENTS - TO BE COMPLETED 7/9/18 Justification of Proposed Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment (P Necessary). Describe why the Change to the Comprehensive PolicyBeing Proposed: The Blackburn Property Workforce Housing Comprehensive Plan Amendment is proposed to allow for the development of workforce housing that provides affordable quality housing opportunities for residents of the community. Workforce housing has been identified as a need in the community by the Economic Development Authority and the regional Affordable Housing Coalition in support of economic development land uses by providing housing opportunities for workers that are needed to meet the labor demands for local industrial, commercial, and public sector land uses. The 71.849-acre subject parcel is located within reasonable proximity of industrial, commercial, and public sector workplaces in the community; as well as within close Project #0036E/CPPA Amendment 5 January 9, 2019 proximity to major transportation routes. Therefore, the location of the subject property would be appropriate for a workforce housing development. The U.S. Census Bureau identifies Frederick County has having a median household income of $68,929 and having a median housing unit value of $231,400. Workforce housing provides an affordable housing option for qualifying families that average 60% of the local median household income. This in turn provides an opportunity for workers to reside in the community in which they work and not have to commute from other areas that offer more affordable housing. The Blackburn Property Workforce Housing Comprehensive Plan Amendment will incorporate the subject parcel into the Urban Development Area and provide the subject property with a Workforce Housing Area land use designation. These policy revisions will allow for the property owner to work with the County to create appropriate ordinance standards and conditionally rezone the subject property to develop a workforce housing project. The workforce housing project as envisioned will provide 200 single-family detached residences that are single story structures and are served by a complete system of private streets. These factors support and justify the Blackburn Property Workforce Housing Comprehensive Plan Amendment. How would the Resultant Changes Impact or Benefit Frederick Coun example, Transportation, Economic Development and Public Facilit The Blackburn Property Workforce Housing Comprehensive Plan Amendment is proposed to provide affordable quality residential housing opportunities for residents of the community. The 71.849-acre subject parcel and major transportation routes. The impacts and benefits to Frederick County are identified specific to the proposed 200 single family unit project that would be developed subsequent to Board of Supervisor approvals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment, the RP District Housing Zoning Ordinance Amendment, and the Proffered Rezoning Amendment. Transportation The following tables provide projected traffic impacts comparisons of the traffic generation rates specific to the proposed 200 single family unit workforce housing project and 938,800 SF of light industrial development (0.3 FAR) consistent with the current future land use designation in the Kernstown Land Use Plan. The values used from this comparison were obtained from the Institute th of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9 Edition, which is the source currently utilized by VDOT and Frederick County for transportation impact analysis. Project #0036E/CPPA Amendment 6 January 9, 2019 Work Force Housing Weekday Traffic Volume Projected Impacts Land Use ITE ADT Rate AM Peak Hour PM Peak Rate Hour Rate Single-Family Detached 210 9.52 0.77 1.0 Projected Trip Rates: 200 SFD 1,904 ADT 154 AM Peak 200 PM Hour Trips Peak Hour Trips Light Industrial Weekday Traffic Volume Projected Impacts Land Use ITE ADT Rate AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Rate General Light Industrial 110 6.97/1,000 SF 1.01/1,000 SF 1.08/1,000 SF Projected Trip Rates: 6,543 ADT 948 AM Peak 1,013 PM Peak Hour Trips Hour Trips 938,800 SF (0.3 FAR) The above tables demonstrate a reduced impact to transportation for average daily traffic volumes and for AM/PM Peak Hour volumes comparing the proposed 200 single family unit workforce housing project to the 938,800 SF of light industrial development. The 71.849-acre subject parcel has approximately 3,000 feet of frontage along Apple Valley Road (Route 652). The Eastern Frederick County Road Plan identifies Apple Valley Road as an Improved Minor Collector Road between Shady Elm Road (Route 651) and Middle Road (Route 628). The -of-way from the centerline of Apple Valley Road along the entire property frontage to accommodate future right-of-way needs as evident by Instrument No. 150004355. Project #0036E/CPPA Amendment 7 January 9, 2019 Economic Development The proposed 200 single family unit workforce housing project is not an economic development project that provides revenue to Frederick County other that real estate and personal property taxes that would be assessed specific to each household. However, the workforce housing project does compliment economic development land use by providing housing opportunities within the community for workers that are needed to meet the labor demands for local industrial, commercial, and public sector land uses. The need for workforce housing projects in the community has been identified by the Economic Development Authority and the regional Affordable Housing Coalition. Water and Sewer Capacities The proposed 200 single family unit workforce housing project is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and will be located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) subsequent to Board of Supervisor approval of Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment. Greenway Engineering has analyzed the water and sewer capacity requirements for the 200 single family unit workforce housing project and has determined that an average daily demand of 60,000 GPD will be required for water and sewer service. The subject property has direct access to a 10- inch water line located along the property frontage and is within close proximity to a gravity sewer system that directs effluent to the 15-inch Hogue Run sewer interceptor to the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility. Frederick Water is the public water and sewer service provider for the subject property and the proposed project is anticipated to not negatively impactpublic water and sewer facilities or capacities. Public Schools The proposed 200 single family unit workforce housing project will generate school age children that will create an impact to Frederick County Public Schools. The Frederick County Public Schools students/household calculation indicates that there will be an average of 0.39 school age children per household. The following table identifies the school age children impacts specific to the proposed 200 single family unit workforce housing project. Public School Projections School Name Students/Household Projected Students Number Orchard View Elementary School 0.19 Students/Household 38 Students James Wood Middle School 0.09 Students/Household 18 Students Sherando High School 0.11 Students/Household 22 Students Totals: 0.39 Students/Household 78 Total Students Project #0036E/CPPA Amendment 8 January 9, 2019 The proposed 200 single family unit workforce housing project will require approval of a Rezoning by the Board of Supervisors. Therefore, impacts to Public School Services will be determined Proffer Statement as a conditional of rezoning approval. Fire and Rescue The proposed 200 single family unit workforce housing project will create an impact to Fire and Rescue Services provided by the County. The Stephens City Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company is the first responder, which is located approximately 4.5 miles from to the subject property. The proposed 200 single family unit workforce housing project is projected to house 524 persons based on a 2.62 persons/household calculation derived from the 2017/2018 Frederick County Budget Document. Impacts to Emergency Services will be determined during the rezoning process and g approval. Parks and Recreation The proposed 200 single family unit workforce housing project will create an impact to Frederick County Parks and Recreation Services provided by the County. Impacts to Parks and Recreation Services will be determined Proffer Statement as a conditional of rezoning approval. Project #0036E/CPPA Amendment 9 January 9, 2019 SCALE: 1 Inch = 1,000 Feet PROJECT ID: 0036EDATE: 2018-06-27 AERIAL OVERVIEW DESIGNED BY: MEW FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT AERIAL OVERVIEW BLACKBURN PROPERTY COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT BLACKBURN PROPERTY :ELACS teeF 000,1 = hcnI 1 TEEF 002 NIHTIW E6300 :DI TCEJORP72-60-8102 :ETAD WEM :YB DENGISED SEITREPORP GNIDNUORRUS AINIGRIV ,YTNUOC KCIREDERF TCIRTSID LAIRETSIGAM KEERC KCAB TNEMDNEMA NALP YCILOP EVISNEHERPMOC TEEF 002 NIHTIW SEITREPORP TNEMDNEMA NALP YCILOP EVISNEHERPMOC YTREPORP NRUBKCALB YTREPORP NRUBKCALB :ELACS teeF 000,1 = hcnI 1 TIBIHXE ESU DNAL E6300 :DI TCEJORP72-60-8102 :ETAD WEM :YB DENGISED GNISUOH ECROFKROW DESOPORP AINIGRIV ,YTNUOC KCIREDERF TCIRTSID LAIRETSIGAM KEERC KCAB TNEMDNEMA NALP YCILOP EVISNEHERPMOC TIBIHXE GNISUOH ECROFKROW DESOPORP TNEMDNEMA NALP YCILOP EVISNEHERPMOC YTREPORP NRUBKCALB YTREPORP NRUBKCALB :ELACS teeF 000,1 = hcnI 1 E6300 :DI TCEJORP72-60-8102 :ETAD TIBIHXE ESU DNAL EGNAR GNOL WEM :YB DENGISED AINIGRIV ,YTNUOC KCIREDERF TCIRTSID LAIRETSIGAM KEERC KCAB TNEMDNEMA NALP YCILOP EVISNEHERPMOC TIBIHXE ESU DNAL EGNAR GNOL YTREPORP NRUBKCALB TNEMDNEMA NALP YCILOP EVISNEHERPMOC YTREPORP NRUBKCALB :ELACS teeF 000,1 = hcnI 1 E6300 :DI TCEJORP72-60-8102 :ETAD TIBIHXE GNINOZ WEM :YB DENGISED AINIGRIV ,YTNUOC KCIREDERF TCIRTSID LAIRETSIGAM KEERC KCAB TNEMDNEMA NALP YCILOP EVISNEHERPMOC TIBIHXE GNINOZ YTREPORP NRUBKCALB TNEMDNEMA NALP YCILOP EVISNEHERPMOC YTREPORP NRUBKCALB SCALE: 1 Inch = 1,000 Feet PROJECT ID: 0036EDATE: 2018-06-27 EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNED BY: MEW FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT EXISTING LAND USE BLACKBURN PROPERTY COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT BLACKBURN PROPERTY :ELACS teeF 000,1 = hcnI 1 E6300 :DI TCEJORP72-60-8102 :ETAD TIBIHXE REWES DNA RETAW WEM :YB DENGISED AINIGRIV ,YTNUOC KCIREDERF TCIRTSID LAIRETSIGAM KEERC KCAB TNEMDNEMA NALP YCILOP EVISNEHERPMOC TIBIHXE REWES DNA RETAW YTREPORP NRUBKCALB TNEMDNEMA NALP YCILOP EVISNEHERPMOC YTREPORP NRUBKCALB evA yellaV RESOLUTION ______________________________ Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: May 1, 2019 Recommended Denial BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: May 22, 2019 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CPPA #01-19, BLACKBURN PROPERTY, WORKFORCE HOUSING APPENDIX I AREA PLANS KERNSTOWN AREA PLAN WHEREAS, The, 2035 Comprehensive Plan, The Plan, was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 25, 2017; and WHEREAS, this amendment to the Kernstown Area Plan of Appendix I would result in a land use designation change to (PIN) 63-A-80I to workforce housing and expand the Urban Development Area (UDA) to include 71.849-acres; and WHEREAS, this amendment also includes supporting text to be added to the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix I - Area Plans, Kernstown Area Plan; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this proposed amendment on May 1, 2019 and recommended denial; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this proposed amendment on May 22, 2019; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds that the adoption of this amendment to the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare and future of Frederick County, and in good planning practice; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that the amendment to the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, is adopted. This amendment results in a land use change to work force housing and expands the Urban Development Area (UDA) to include 71.849-acres to the UDA and includes supporting text to be added to the Kernstown Area Plan. PDRes #05-19 Passed this 22nd day of May 2019 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 #05-19 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:May 14, 2019 This is a public hearing item to consider the update of the 20192020Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Improvement Plans. Summary of Changes: Updates to the priorities which are being recommended are for the reasons of consistency between the plans and for continuity and support of the Bopplications. Interstate Plan Updates are as follows: 1.Separate Widening and Interchange priorities to remove potential conflicts. 2.Update segment priorities. 3.Add emphasis on safety patrols and increase variable message signs. Primary Plan Updates are as follows: 1.Create a 4 th Route 37 priority segment. New segment 1D was formerly included with 1B. 2.Add note that all Primary roadway upgrades on non-limited access roadways should include access management and safety upgrades. Secondary Plan 1.Update Major road improvements list to reflect current activities. 2.Add Fishel Road and Canterburg Road to the scheduled list for hard surfacing. 3.Add Knob Road to the unscheduled list for hard surfacing. The Transportation Committee reviewed this item on April 22, 2019and has recommended approval. The Planning Commission reviewed this item on May 1, 2019 and has also recommendedapproval. Staff is seekingan action on the plans. Attachments JAB/pd 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 2019-2020 INTERSTATE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Frederick County Transportation Committee: 4/22/2019 Frederick County Planning Commission: 5/1/2019 Frederick County Board of Supervisors: 5/22/2019 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. Interchange Priorities 1.Exit 313 - Bridge reconstruction, 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.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. Interstate Widening Priorities 1.Widen I-81 from Route 50/17 Exit 313 to Route 11 Exit 317 2.Widen I-81 from Route 277 Exit 307 to Route 50/17 Exit 313. This should include the relocation of Exit 307. 3.Widen I-81 in Frederick County from Route 11 Exit 317 to the West Virginia State line 4.Widen I-81 in Frederick County from Route 277 Exit 307 to the Warren County Line in the South Intelligent Transportation Systems and Incident Management 1.Increase of VDOT safety patrols. 2. Implement more variable message signs along the I-81 corridor and approaches. £ ¤ 522 § ¨¦ 81 £ ¤ 50 £ ¤ 11 £ ¤ 522 £ ¤ 11 £ ¤ 50 ¬ « 7 Winchester ¬ « 37 2019 - 2020 Interstate Road £ ¤ 11 Improvement Plan § ¨¦ Interchange Improvement 81 Priorities Priority 1 £ ¤ Exit 313 Bridge Reconstruction, £ !( ¤ 50 522 Safety Improvements, and Capacity Expansion Priority 2 Exit 317 Realign Northbound Exit !( Ramp and Increase Merge Areas £ ¤ 11 at Other Ramps. Redbud Rd Realignment to Accomodate Stephens Ramp Realignment City Priority 3 !( Exit 310 Phase II of the § ¨¦ Interchange Upgrade 81 Priority 4 ¬ « 277 Exit 307 Safety and Capacity !( Improvements to Existing Location £ ¤ and Promote Future Realignment 522 Widening Priorities Priority 1 Widen I-81 from £ ¤ Exit 313 to Exit 317 11 Priority 2 Widen I-81 from Exit 307 to Exit 313 Middletown Priority 3 Widen Remainder of I-81 North £ ¤ 522 Priority 4 Widen Remainder of I-81 South § ¨¦ 81 01.252.55Miles RESOLUTION 2019-2020 INTERSTATE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the Frederick County Transportation Committee recommended approval of this plan on April 22, 2019; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of this plan at their meeting on May 1, 2019; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors had previously agreed to assist in the preparation of this plan in accordance with the Vir 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 2019 2020 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 RESOLVED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: The 2019-2020 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 2019-2020 Interstate Road Improvement Plan and Construction Priority List for Frederick County, Virginia as presented at the public hearing held on May 22, 2019. 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. #08-19 2019-2020 PRIMARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Frederick County Transportation Committee: 4/22/2019 Frederick County Planning Commission: 5/1/2019 Frederick County Board of Supervisors: 5/22/2019 All upgrades to primary system roadways that are not limited access should include implementation of access management principles to improve safety and efficiency wherever possible. 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 11 North 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. D.Route 37 Phase 4 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 to Route 11 North. 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: Renaissance Drive 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 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 £ ¤ 11 £ ¤ 522 2A 1D ¬ « 37 ¬ « 2019 - 2020 1B 37 2A £ ¤ 11 Primary Road £ ¤ 522 Improvement 5B £ ¤ 50 Plan 4 ¬ « ¬ « 7 7 Winchester Route 37 Bypass Phases Priority 1A § ¨¦ 81 Priority 1B Priority 1C Priority 1D Route 11 North & South 5A Priority 2A ¬ « 37 Priority 2B Priority 2C 1C Route 277 East of Stephens City £ ¤ 11 £ ¤ Priority 3A 50 2B Priority 3B Priority 3C Priority 3D Route 7 1A Priority 4 Route 50 Priority 5A Priority 5B Stephens City South Frederick County Parkway Priority 6 £ ¤ 522 Route 522 & Costello Dr ! ( 3A 3B 3C Priority 7 ¬ « 277 £3D ¤ Commuter - Park & Ride Lots 11 ! ( 6 Priority 8 00.512Miles RESOLUTION 2019-2020 PRIMARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the Frederick County Transportation Committee recommended approval of this plan on April 22, 2019; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of this plan at their meeting on May 1, 2019; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors had previously agreed to assist in the preparation of this plan in accordance with the Virgi 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 2019 2020 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 RESOLVED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: The 2019-2020 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 2019-2020 Primary Road Improvement Plan and Construction Priority List for Frederick County, Virginia as presented at the public hearing held on May 22, 2019. 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. #09-19 2018/19-2023/24 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Frederick County Transportation Committee: 4/22/2019 Frederick County Planning Commission: 5/1/2019 Frederick County Board of Supervisors: 5/22/2019 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. $5,798,052 Sulphur Springs .30 Mi East Allocated SSYP 655Route 50 5800 1.1 miles SH $8,205,445 2018 Road Rt. 656 Smart-Scale Int. .47 Mi Snowden South 661Red Bud Road 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 BC UN/SH Sharing $13,543,656 Roundabout R/S Winchester 0.44 miles Revenue (Includes Funds East Tevis Street N/A SH 2018 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 $8,431,762 R/S wÒ7,Ò· 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 £ ¤ 11 2 ¬ « 37 £ ¤ 522 £ ¤ 50 ¬ « 7 ¬ « 7 ¬ « Winchester 37 5 1 4 § ¨¦ 81 6 £ ¤ 50 £ ¤ 11 3 7 1. Sulphur Springs Rd Stephens City 2. Redbud Rd Realignment 3. Route 11 £ ¤ 4. East Tevis Street 522 5. East Tevis Street § ¨¦ 81 6. Airport Rd Extension ¬ « 7. Renaissance Dr Phase II 8 277 8. Town Run Ln Frederick County Major Road Improvement Projects 2019/2020 thru 2024/2025 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. 1.25 Mi CTB Unpaved W 1 Laurel Grove Route 622 200 1.25 milesBC $376,000 629 2019 Roads Funding of Road Rt. 622 1.25 Mi 2.5 Mi W CTB Unpaved W 2 629 Laurel Grove Road 200 1.25 milesBC $376,000 2019 of Roads Funding of Rt. 622 Rt. 622 Rt. 610 CTB Unpaved 3 Hollow Road WV state 1.8 GA 2020 Muse Roads Funding 707 line 190 miles $495,000 Road 1.27 MI 2.27 MI 4 District Grant North Sleepy Creek 50 0.9 miles GA $305,000 734 S of S of 2020 Unpaved Road RT 522 Road RT 522 District Grant 5 Route Babbs Mountain Road 130 0.9 miles GA $275,000 730 2020 Route 677 654 Unpaved Road District Grant 6 Route Old Baltimore Road 90 1.23 miles GA $366,000 677 Route 676 2021 Unpaved Road 672 District Grant 7 Middle Fork Road 50 .9 miles GA $238,500 2022 695 WV Line 522 Unpaved Road District Grant 8 Timberlakes Lane 280 0.25 miles ST $66,250 2022 811 *671 671 Unpaved Road District Grant 9 Clarke East Parkins Mill Road 200 0.81 miles SH $214,000 2023 644 50 Unpaved Road Co. Line District Grant 10 Fletcher Road 170 1.3 miles GA $346,518 2023 733 707 50 Unpaved Road 11 District Grant Fishel Road 60 1.6 miles BC $408,000 2024 612 600 600 Unpaved Road 12 District Grant Canterburg Road 140 1.5 mile OP $390,000 2024 636 641 640 Unpaved Road «bh9t t©;-· ©; ¦-;7 ·w; -w;7Ò;7 z· ,;7 Ò¦ 5h · ¦©;-· ,;zm 7;ä;7 © ©;Ý;7 E© ·w; -w;7Ò;7 z·u Frederick County 1. Laurel Grove Rd Non-Hardsurfaced Road 2. Laurel Grove Rd Improvement Projects 3. Hollow Rd 7 2019/2020 thru 2024/2025 4. North Sleepy Creek Rd 4 5. Babbs Mountain Rd 6. Old Baltimore Rd 7. Middle Fork Rd 8. Timberlakes Ln ¬ « 127 9. East Parkins Mill Rd 10. Fletcher Rd 11. Fishel Rd £ ¤ 12. Canterburg Rd 522 8 10 £ ¤ 5 50 § ¨¦ 81 6 3 £ ¤ ¬ « 11 259 £ ¤ 50 ¬ « 7 Winchester ¬ « 37 11 2 £ ¤ £ ¤ 11 £ 50 ¤ 522 9 1 ¬ « 55 Stephens City ¬ « 277 µ £ ¤ 12 11 Middletown § ¨¦ 81 £ ¤ § ¨¦ 522 66 0248Miles UNSCHEDULED NON-HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2018/2019 through 2023/2024 /© w7 uu 1 BC I;zw w7 uu 2 BC Dzé; h©-w©7 w7 u 3 GA {Ò·w z,;© wz7m; w7 u 4 GA /Òmz w7 u u 5 BC /··z w7 u 6 GA IÒ·zm wz7m; w7 u u 7 GA IÒ··; w7 u u 8 OP wÒ;,Ò- w7 ;7 E z·;-; u u 9 ST [zmw· w7 u 10 BC a-57 w7 u bu E u u 11 BC D©-; /wÒ©-w w7 u 12 ST aÒ· hzÝ; w7 I- [; u u 13 BC D©7;© w7 u 14 GA {w-;äÝz; w7 u z; Þ;· E u u 15 GA Y, w7wÒ·; u u 16BC aÒ· hzÝ; w7 I- [; u u 17 BC Note: Project ratings are updated only when funding is available to promote projects to the scheduled list. Frederick County Unscheduled Non-Hardsurfaced Road Improvement Projects 1. Clark Rd 2019/2020 thru 2024/2025 2. Heishman Ln 3. Glaize Orchard Rd 4. South Timber Ridge Rd 5. Cougill Rd 4 6. Cattail Rd 7. Hunting Ridge Rd 15 8. Huttle Rd 9. Ruebuck Rd ¬ « 127 10. Light Rd 14 11. McDonald Rd 10 7 12. Grace Church Rd 3 GAINESBORO 13. Mount Olive Rd £ ¤ 14. Gardners Rd 522 § ¨¦ 81 15. Shockeysville Rd 9 6 £ ¤ 50£ ¤ 16. Knob Rd 16 11 17. Mount Olive Rd 12 STONEWALL ¬ « 259 13 17 £ ¤ 50 ¬ « 7 Winchester ¬ « 11 37 REDBUD BACK CREEK £ ¤ § ¨¦ £ ¤ 50 81 11 £ ¤ 2 522 SHAWNEE Stephens ¬ « 55 City 1 ¬ « 277 µ § ¨¦ 81 OPEQUON £ ¤ 11 5 8 Middletown £ ¤ § ¨¦ 522 66 0248Miles RESOLUTION 2019-2020 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 April 22, 2019; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of this plan at their meeting on May 1, 2019; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors had previously agreed to assist in the preparation of this plan in accordance with the Virgi 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 2019 2020 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 RESOLVED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: The 2019-2020 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 2019-2020 Secondary Road Improvement Plan and Construction Priority List for Frederick County, Virginia as presented at the public hearing held on May 22, 2019. 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. #10-19