Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 13, 1997 Regular Meeting II I 349 A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Wednesday, August 13, 1997, at 7:15 p.m., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT: Chairman James L. Longerbeam; Vice Chairman Richard C. Shickle; W. Harrington Smith, Jr.; Charles W. Orndoff, Sr.; Robert M. Sager; and Margaret B. Douglas. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order. INVOCATION The invocation was delivered by Reverend Robert Hughes of Unitarian Universalist Church of the Shenandoah Valley. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Riley requested that Tab G be pulled as it was incorrectly advertised. 2. Addition of School Board VRS Resolution. 3. Request from Public Works Department for approval of custodial position recently vacated. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Robert M. Sager, the agenda was adopted as amended by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Riley suggested the following tabs for approval under the consent agenda: 1. Schedule Public Hearing Date for Planning Commission Items - Tab C; 2. Resolution to Increase Speed Limit on Route 37 - Tab D; 3. County Emergency Communications Commission Reports - Tab 0; 4. Public Works Committee Report - Tab P. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Margaret B. Douglas, the consent agenda was approved as presented above by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye 350 Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Bruce Armstrong, Back Creek District, once again addressed the Board concerning Route 629 and his request to the Board to have this road improved as part of the six year secondary road improvement plan. He advised that ninety percent of the necessary right-of-way agreements have been signed. He explained that he understands the public hearing has not been scheduled for the Proposed Secondary Road Improvement Plan Rating System; however, based on the length of time since this request was made, he along with the many residents of Route 629, is anxious to see some show that improvements are to take place in the very foreseeable future. Barbara Burrows, resident of Route 633, explained that she does not understand why so much time has passed since she signed for the right-of-way and yet there is no compensation, why so long? She does not feel she should have to wait twelve years in order to receive her compensation. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING - JULY 9. 1997 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS PERSONNEL COMMITTEE AND DIRECTOR. DAVE ZIEGLER ASKED TO INTERVIEW INTERESTED CITIZENS FOR APPOINTMENT TO CHAPTER 10 BOARD BY BOARD CHAIRMAN Chairman Longerbeam suggested that those individuals having shown interest in serving on the Chapter 10 Board be scheduled to meet with the Personnel Committee, along with Director Dave Ziegler, in order that one candidate might be selected to serve on this Board due to the resignation of member Deborah Overstreet. This is to be coordinated by the County Administrator's Office. PUBLIC HEARING DATE SCHEDULED FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The planning department requested September 10, 1997, as the public hearing date for the following two items: 1. Rezoning #003-97 for Westridge Subdivision, Section III, by Glaize Development, Inc.; and 2. Conditional Use Permit #011-97 of Robert R. Sheehan. 351 RESOLUTION (#005-97) REOUESTING THAT THE SPEED LIMIT ON ROUTE 37 BE INCREASED TO 65 MILES PER HOUR - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA WHEREAS, the 1996 General Assembly passed Senate Joint Resolution NO.7 which directed a special task force to conduct a study of highway speed limits and report all findings to the 1997 General Assembly; and WHEREAS, the results of this study recommended that the General Assembly could raise speed limits on highways which did not adversely impact safety to the traveling public; and WHEREAS, Route 37 was engineered and constructed as a limited access highway required to meet a 70 mile per hour design speed condition; and WHEREAS, an increase in the speed limit on Route 37 to a 65 mile per hour condition has received the support of Commonwealth Transportation Board Representative H. A. Chunk Neale, and Virginia Department of Transportation Resident Engineer Jerry A. Copp. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors request that the General Assembly establish a 65 mile per hour speed condition for Route 37. RESOLUTION (#006-97) - REOUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR HANDLEY LmRARY AND FEASmILITY STUDY FOR SATELLITE OFFICES FOR TREASURER. SHERIFF AND COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE TO BE LOCATED AT LAKESIDE - APPROVED AS AMENDED Mr. Riley presented this request and resolution to the Board. Mr. Orndoff asked if the current plan, which is at a cost of $4 million, includes the satellite offices for the Sheriff, Treasurer, and Commissioner of the Revenue? Mr. Riley replied no, and explained that the numbers presented are only estimates at this time. He asked the board members if they were comfortable with authorizing the RFP to secure architectural services as he feels that is the prudent move at this time. Mr. Longerbeam stated that he felt it would be prudent to let the architect give the Board an idea of what could be built at this site and what would be compatible. This information would also include the cost of the project. Mr. Orndoff repeated his earlier question, if the Board is saying this would mean additional cost. Mr. Longerbeam replied that was correct. Mr. Sager asked if the satellite office would then be partially designed, in concept, at that time? Mr. Longerbeam replied he thought so, as the Board would more than likely want the same architect to do both projects. I .1, 352 Mr. Sager moved at this time for approval of the resolution for approval of the architectural fee. Mr. Smith seconded this motion. Mr. Shickle advised that he was not opposed to the satellite offices for the Treasurer; however given the wording of this resolution (to design them) seems premature to him at this time. Mr. Longerbeam asked Mr. Riley if the wording could be modified to read design a branch and library and take a look at the feasibility of a satellite office for the Treasurer, Commissioner of the Revenue and Sheriff. Mr. Longerbeam advised that once the interview process is scheduled then, at that time, the question as to how much work can be done for how much money can be supplied by the architect. Mr. Shickle suggested that perhaps another alternative would be for the architect to split these services in order that the Board could pick and choose. Mr. Longerbeam advised the Board that the architect presently working with the Handley Library Board has suggested that these be two separate buildings; however, he has said it could be done together. Mr. Sager amended his motion to request architectural design for the library and feasibility study for the satellite offices. The above amended motion was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye BE IT RESOLVED, by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Request for Proposals for architectural services to design a branch library and conduct a feasibility study for satellite offices for the Treasurer, Commissioner of the Revenue and the Sheriff on the Lakeside property is hereby authorized. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Public Works Committee will review said proposals, interview candidates and recommend the successful candidate to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors for appropriation of funds and award of contract. PASSED, this 13th day of August, 1997. RESOLUTION OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD REGARDING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS TO REFINANCE THE VRS OBLIGATION - ENDORSED BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS II I 353 The County of Frederick, Virginia (the "County") is obligated to make certain annual payments (the "VRS Obligation") to or on behalf of the Frederick County School Division to pay to the Virginia Retirement System (the "VRS) the Frederick County School Division's early retirement program costs as set forth in the Memorandum dated May 15, 1992 from the Director of the VRS to Division Superintendents and Financial Officers of Public School Boards. The Frederick County School Board (the "School Board") has determined that it would be advisable for the Board of Supervisors of the County (the "Board of Supervisors") to authorize the issuance of general obligation refunding bonds (the "Bonds") of the County refinance the VRS Obligation and to bring a proceeding to establish the validity of the Bonds pursuant to Article 6 of the Virginia Public Finance Act (the "Act"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD: 1. The School Board concurs with the authorization by the Board of Supervisors of the issuance of the Bonds to refinance the VRS Obligation and hereby requests the Board of Supervisors to bring a proceeding to establish the validity of the Bonds pursuant to the Act. The Division Superintendent and such officers and agents of the School board as he may designate are authorized and directed to take such actions as may be necessary in connection with the issuance of the Bonds and the validation proceeding. 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The undersigned Clerk of the Frederick County School Board certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true, complete and correct copy ofa Resolution adopted at a meeting of the Frederick County School Board held on August 18, 1997. Clerk, Frederick County School Board Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Richard C. Shickle, the above resolution was endorsed by the Board of Supervisors by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye REOUEST TO FILL VACANT CUSTODIAL POSITION BY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR-APPROVED Due to a recent resignation within the custodial staff, Public Works Director Ed Strawsnyder is requesting permission to advertise for this position. No additional funding will be required. Upon motion made by Richard C. Shickle, seconded by Margaret B. Douglas, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye .J .1 354 Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARING - OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT - REOUEST OF THE WINCHESTER-FREDERICK COUNTY JAYCEES. PURSUANT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 86. FESTIVALS: SECTION 86-3 C. PERMIT REOUIRED: APPLICATION: ISSUANCE OR DENIAL: FOR AN OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT ON SATURDAY. AUGUST 16.1997. WESTVIEW BUSINESS PARK (ROUTE 50 EASn - APPROVED Sissy Shull, president, of the local JAYCEES was present on behalf of this request. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., the outdoor festival permit request of the Wmchester-Frederick County JAYCEES was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARING: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #009-97 OF JAMES K. POWELL FOR OFFICE SPACE. WORK SHOP AND INVENTORY FOR A PLUMBING BUSINESS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 119 LAUREL HILL DRIVE AND IS IDENTll'lED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 84- A-82 IN THE OPEOUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - THIS REOUEST WAS PULLED DUE TO THE ADDRESS BEING ADVERTISED INCORRECTLY PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPLICATION #002-97 OF EASTGATE COMMERCE CENTER BY WRlGHTS RUN LoP. TO REZONE LAND CURRENTLY ZONED RA (RURAL AREAS). B2 (BUSINESS GENERAL). B3 (INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION). AND Ml (INDUSTRIAL LIGHn WITHIN THE EASTGA TE COMMERCE CENTER. TO CREATE 51.96 ACRES OF B2 (BUSINESS GENERAL) ZONED LAND: 21.10 ACRES OF B3 (INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION) ZONED LAND: AND 51.83 ACRES OF Ml (INDUSTRIAL LIGHn ZONED LAND. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECfION OF ROUTE 522 SOUTH (FRONT ROYAL PIKE) AND ROUTE 642 (TASKER ROAD). AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 76-A-53 IN THE SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED Mr. Steve Gyurisin, ofG. W. Clifford Associates, appeared before the Board on behalf of this request. He advised the Board that he felt all comprehensive policies have been met and that his office has worked very closely with VDOT on this project. There was no public input. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Robert M. Sager, rezoning 'I II II I 355 application #002-97 of East gate Commerce Center was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE XVI. IA (INTERSTATE AREA) OVERLAY DISTRICT OF CHAPTER 165. ZONING. OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE INTENDED TO IMPROVE THE CLARITY OF EXISTING REOUIREMENTS THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE REVISION OF THIS ARTICLE - APPROVED Mr. Evan Wyatt, deputy planning director, presented this request to the Board. There was no public input. Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., the following ordinance amendment was approved: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 165, ZONING WHEREAS, An ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code, Article XVI, IA (Interstate Area) Overlay District, Section 165-116, Intent, Section 165-118, Establishment of Districts, Section 165-119, QualifYing Criteria, and Section 165-120, District Regulations, was referred to the Planning Commission on August 6, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on August 6, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on August 13, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the adoption of this ordinance to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in good zoning practice; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, Article XVI, IA (Interstate Area) Overlay District, Section 165-116, Intent, Section 165-118, Establishment of Districts, Section 165-119, QualifYing Criteria, and Section 165-120, District Regulations, is amended as described on the following attachment: This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. ARTICLE XVI IA (Interstate Area) Overlay District ~165-116. Intent. The IA (Interstate Area) Overlay District is intended to provide commercial businesses within an identified area the ability to utilize business signs that are in excess of the limits specified in ~ 165- 30 of this chapter. This flexibility is provided to inform the traveling public of business service opportunities at specific interstate interchange areas. The standards within this Article are designed to allow for additional visibility for commercial businesses while minimizing negative impacts to view 356 sheds, the traveling public, and residential properties that are adjacent to or within the proximity of the overlay district. Established boundaries are based on reasonable sight distances and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and are intended to designate each interstate interchange area and provide guidance for considering the addition of subsequent properties. ~ 165-117. District Boundaries. Properties that are included within the Interstate Area Overlay District shall be delineated on the Official Zoning Map for Frederick County. This map shall be maintained and updated by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. ~165-118. Establishment of districts. A. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors may apply the Interstate Area Overlay District to properties within the proximity of interstate interchange areas upon concluding that: (1) The property is in conformance with the idealized interchange development pattern recommendation of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. (2) The placement of a sign meeting the requirements of this section will not have an adverse impact on adjoining properties whose primary use is residential. (3) The property has met the requirements of Article II of this chapter, as well as the requirements of~15.1-491(g) of the Code of Virginia 1950, as amended. B. The Interstate Area Overlay District shall be in addition to and shall overlay all other zoning districts where it is applied so that any parcel of land within the Interstate Area Overlay District shall also be within one (1) or more zoning districts as specified within this chapter. The effect shall be the creation of regulations and requirements of both the underlying zoning district(s) and the Interstate Area Overlay District. ~165-119. Qualifying criteria. A. On property that is delineated on the Official Zoning Map as being part of the Interstate Area Overlay District, the following uses shall be authorized to erect a commercial business sign that complies with the requirements of ~ 165-120 of this Article. Such commercial business signs complying with the requirements of ~ 165-120 of this Article shall hereinafter be referred to as interstate overlay signs. Qualifying Uses Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) General merchandise and apparel stores 53 and 56 Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations 55 Eating and drinking establishments 58 Hotel and lodging establishments 70 B. QualifYing uses specified under ~165-119A that are authorized on property through the issuance ofa conditional use permit in the RA (Rural Areas) District may be entitled to erect an interstate overlay sign that is of a greater height and size than is permitted in the underlying zoning district, provided that the property has met the requirements of Article III of this chapter, the business sign complies with the requirements of 9165-120 of this Article and the Ii 'I I. I I 357 qualifying use is located on property that is delineated on the Official Zoning Map as being part of the Interstate Area Overlay District. ~165-120. District regulations. A. Permitted signs. (1) Interstate overlay signs. (2) Signs permitted in the underlying zoning district(s). B. Prohibited signs. (1) Off-premises business signs. (2) Signs prohibited in the underlying zoning district(s). C. Number of freestanding commercial business signs. (1) On any parcel within the Interstate Area Overlay District, one (1) interstate overlay sign that complies with the requirements set forth in this Article may be erected. D. Setback requirements. (1) All portions of an interstate overlay sign shall be set back a minimum often (10) feet from any lot line or property boundary line, and shall meet all other applicable setback requirements. (2) When any interstate overlay sign exceeds the height requirement of the underlying zoning district(s) and is located on property that adjoins or is across a right-of-way from property that is in the RP (Residential Performance) District, the HE (Higher Education) District, or any property which has a residence as its primary use, the setback shall be the normal setback plus one (1) foot for every foot over the maximum height of the underlying zoning district(s). (3) The Planning Commission may waive any portion of the setback described in ~ 165- 120D(2) ifit can be demonstrated the setback requirement cannot be met due to the irregular size or shape ofthe parcel. E. Spacing requirements. The spacing requirements between an interstate overlay sign and signs in the underlying zoning district(s) shall comply with the requirements in ~165-30F of this Chapter, and shall meet all other applicable spacing requirements. F. Maximum size. (1) No interstate overlay sign shall exceed a total of three hundred (300) square feet in area. (2) When more than one qualifying use is located on a single parcel within the Interstate Area Overlay District, a single support structure may be erected which contains one or more signs, the total combined square footage of which shall not exceed five hundred (500) square feet in area. G. Illumination. (1) Neither the direct nor reflected light from any illuminated interstate overlay sign shall 358 create an increase in the ambient foot candle at the property line, create glare into or upon other structures, or create glare onto a public thoroughfare so as to create a traffic hazard for operators of motor vehicles. H. Maintenance and permits. (I) All signs that are erected in the Interstate Area Overlay District shall meet the maintenance and permit requirements as specified in ~165-3OI and ~165-30J ofthis Chapter. (2) Ifrequired, appropriate easements shalJ be secured by any property owner that desires to erect an interstate overlay sign prior to the issuance of a sign permit in order to ensure that required maintenance can be performed. I. Permitted heights. (I) All interstate overlay signs shall be located a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet in height above the base of the sign support structure. (2) The maximum height for interstate overlay signs shall be determined by the nearest interstate exit number and shall be based on an elevation above mean sea level as set out below: Exit Number Maximum Business Sign Height (feet above mean sea level) 302 (Middletown & Rt. II South) 307 (Stephens City & Rt. 277) 310 (Kernstown & Rt. 37) 313 (Rt. 50/17 & Rt. 522) 315 (Rt. 7 & Berryville Ave.) 317 (Rt. 11 North & Rt. 37) 321 (Clearbrook & Rt. 11 North) 323 (Whitehall & Rt. II North) 760 800 805 805 750 815 700 710 The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE X. BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. SECTION 165-82B. B-2. BUSINESS GENERAL DISTRICT OF CHAPTER 165. ZONING. OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WILL ALLOW ADULT RETAIL USES WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - APPROVED Mr. Eric Lawrence, planner II, presented this request to the Board noting that staff and planning commission recommended approval. Mr. Smith asked ifMr. Ambrogi's office had reviewed this amendment? Mr. Ambrogi replied that he has seen the papers and that his staff has reviewed same. I: 'I Ii I I 359 Mr. Smith stated that he agreed with some of the planning commission members wherein they feel there is not "enough teeth" in this amendment; however, we want to be cautious and not go too far due to the fourteenth amendment ofthe Constitution of the United States. Mr. Sager asked for clarification on the county moving from no control to two controls. One being the zoning, and two, the conditional use permit, his understanding is that the Board would have more control by approving this amendment than we would have by not approving it. Mr. Lawrence replied that was correct. Mr. Smith inquired about the floor space that was being suggested. Mr. Lawrence responded that in checking with other jurisdictions this is the figure they have used and staff felt it better to be consistent. Mr. Shickle asked Mr. Lawrence to identifY other jurisdictions that use conditional use permits to control adult retail. Mr. Lawrence replied Hanover County in Virginia and he thought the others were the states of California and Massachusetts. Mr. Shickle stated that doesn't give him much comfort as far as an acceptable practice for controlling adult retail. He asked if there has been an assessment of how many non-conforming uses there will be if this is approved? Mr. Lawrence replied no as staff has not done that type of research. Mr. Shickle explained that he has some problems with this. He would like to know, especially within the State of Virginia, that conditional use permits are effectively used to control adult retail, and further he would like to get an official statement from the Commonwealth's Attorney concerning this request. He further inquired as to how many non-conforming uses the county will be creating. Mr. Tierney, planning director, explained that anyone in operation at this time would not be affected by this. This amendment would affect anyone that elects to open an establishment once this ordinance is approved. If anyone would have a business operating today they would be grandfathered. Mr. Shickle asked what happens if the business would be sold? Mr. Tierney replied that it would be the same as any other non-conforming use in the county. This would only apply to those businesses that are new. 360 Mr. Shickle asked Mr. Tierney if it is the acceptable method then why are there not more examples? Mr. Tierney replied that a list could have been supplied had staffknown that was something the Board would want to see. Mr. Sager asked for clarification of what are the guidelines for conditional use permits at this time and also who would be policing this conditional use permit? Mr. Lawrence replied that this permit would be handled as any other permit, and at such time a complaint is received then staff would investigate. Mr. Sager stated that he did not feel the type of citizens that visit this type of business would register a complaint. He is not sure the county has the control they need. Mr. Longerbeam inquired as to whether the county presently has a conditional use permit in a B2 zone? Mr. Lawrence replied this would be the first. Mr. Longerbeam stated that he feels the county needs an ordinance like this on the books, but he would prefer having one that satisfies our county needs a little better; therefore, he would be in agreement to tabling this until the next meeting. Mr. Sager stated he would make the motion. Mr. Smith advised that he did not feel this matter could be delayed. If the county is wrong then "sue and be damned" as he feels a stop gap measure is needed quickly, and he feels this ordinance is it. Mr. Sager stated that he agrees we need to move on, but he feels that Frederick County should know what other jurisdictions have done. Mr. Longerbeam asked if this could not be approved tonight with the understanding that staff would bring back any recommended amendments to the next board meeting and the Board would take any necessary action at that time. Mr. Sager asked what would happen if someone wanted to operate such a business within the county prior to the adoption of this change in the code, what would happen? Mr. Lawrence replied, as of this date, without the approval of this amendment, they would be allowed to operate the business. II .1361 Mr. Shickle asked ifit would have to be B2? Mr. Lawrence replied that it would depend on exactly what they were talking about, it could be B-2 as that is one of the uses. Mr. Shickle asked what the other choices were? Mr. Lawrence replied that he would have to research the other choices. Mr. Longerbeam advised that it could be a CUP. Mr. Tierney explained that at this time there is nothing in the zoning ordinance that distinguishes an adult retail establishment from any other type of retail establishment, all that is required is a building permit and appropriate zoning. Mr. Sager stated that based on what has been addressed he feels that the Board should adopt some type of control and proceed from there. Mr. Longerbeam asked Mr. Ambrogi ifhe was comfortable with the legal sufficiency of this document? Mr. Ambrogi replied that a conditional use permit is one way to deal with this type of situation; however, there are other ways that we came across when this was being researched but this is one way to do it, and obviously gives the Board the opportunity to exercise it's legislative function, and put conditions where they feel are appropriate, but keep in mind the first amendment problems that sometimes surface in these cases. The following citizens appeared before the Board to address this request: Mary Anderson, resident of the local community, feels the Board needs to act on this amendment tonight. Her home is adjacent to the business that is being discussed. There is an elementary school that is not 2500 feet from this site. She is not against small business, but she is totally against this type of business. She has lived in the county for twenty-seven years. Connie Grim, is not totally against this type of business as she feels it depends on where it is located, but it definitely should not be close to schools. Douglas Kern, Shawnee District, citizens are concerned as they do not want this type of business in their neighborhood. Francis Reid, area resident of community, is strongly opposed to this type of business in the community and asked the Board to take the necessary steps to prevent a business of this nature from 362 locating in their community. Mr. Sager asked ifin fact there has been work going on without the necessary permit? Mr. Lawrence replied that to his knowledge nothing has been going on outside of the building and the Inspections Department would know about any interior work. Mr. Sager asked if anyone had applied for a permit to run an adult business within the county? Mr. Lawrence replied not as of this date. Mr. Smith stated that there are no specifics mentioned within the amendment as to any specific location or what it is. The Board is here on a conditional use permit that would cover the entire county, and he wants this to be made very clear. This will deal with the entire county on adult retail, and he wants this completely understood. Mr. Smith moved, and Mr. Sager seconded the motion, to approve the amendment dealing with adult retail uses with a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Shickle asked staff for clarification to be sure that his understanding is correct. Floor space is under 25%, this size sign, this much square footage, as spelled out in the amendment that they have no way, if this is not approved, to close down this type of business? Mr. Tierney replied not under the current zoning ordinance. Mr. Longerbeam asked Mr. ShicIde ifhe was referring to existing business? Mr. Shickle replied no - new business. If the applicant comes in and meets the criteria, but fits the role of being objectable as has been expressed. Mr. Riley - The purpose of a conditional use permit, is a legislative function, so the Board would have the latitude to vote for or against the request. Mr. Shickle asked what would be the basis for the denial? Mr. Riley replied that it could be a number of issues. The following ordinance amendment was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. ShicIde - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 165, ZONING 363 WHEREAS, an ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning, Article X, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Section 165-82B, B-2, Business General District, of the Frederick County Code, to allow adult retail uses with a Conditional Use Permit, was referred to the Planning Commission on August 6, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on August 6, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on August 13, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the adoption of this ordinance to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in good zoning practice; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165, Zoning, Article X, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Section 165-82B, B-2, Business General District, of the Frederick County Code, to allow adult retail uses with a Conditional Use Permit, is amended as described on the following attachment: This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Article X Business and Industrial Zoning Districts ~165-82 District use regulations. B. B2 (Business General) District. The intent of this district is to provide large areas for a variety of business, office and service uses. General business areas are located on arterial highways at major intersections and at interchange areas. Businesses allowed involve frequent and direct access by the general public but not heavy truck traffic on a constant basis other than that required for delivery of retail goods. General business areas should have good direct access to major thoroughfares and should be properly separated from residential areas. Adequate frontage and depth should be provided, and access should be properly controlled to promote safety and orderly development. Nuisance factors are to be avoided. Allowed Uses Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Conditional Uses Uses permitted with a conditional use permit shall be as follows: Adult Retail uses meeting the minimum requirements of this chapter, any conditions imposed by the Board of Supervisors, and with the following minimum conditions: (1) (2) (3) Such uses shall be located at least 2,500 feet from the property line of an existing adult retail uses, schools, churches, parks, day care facilities, and residential uses and districts. Such uses shall not be permitted in shopping centers and/or multi-tenant buildings. All merchandise display areas shall be limited to enclosed structures, and shall not be visible from the outside. 364 (4) Business signs shall not exceed a maximum of 25 square feet. No wall mounted signs or window displays shall be permitted. (5) Hours of operation shall be limited to between 9:00 AM and 11 :00 PM. Definition: ADULT RETAIL - A retail establishment for which 25 percent or more of its stock in trade, as determined by floor area, is in videos, magazines, books, publications, tapes, films, or other periodicals and paraphernalia which are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on depicting or describing specified sexual conduct or specified anatomical areas. End of Public Hearing Items. ADDENDUM TO EXCEPTION FROM SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE - KENNETH AND MARY LEBO (TABLED FROM BOARD MEETING OF JULY 9.1997)- APPROVED Mr. Andy Evans, zoning administrator, presented this tabled request to the Board advising that he felt all prior questions have been answered to everyones' satisfaction. Upon motion made by Richard C. Shickle, seconded by Robert M. Sager, the request of Kenneth and Mary Lebo concerning the subdivision ordinance was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #005-97 OF EASTGA TE COMMERCE CENTER - APPROVED Mr. Mike Ruddy, planner I, presented this request to the Board. Mr. Orndoff inquired about where the traffic would go as it appeared to him it would have to go through the industrial park. Mr. Ruddy replied that was correct. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Robert M. Sager, master development plan #005-97 of East gate Commerce Center was approved as presented by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye I! I I .1365 DRAFT ROUTE 37 WEST LAND USE PLAN - APPROVED Mr. Lawrence presented this draft plan to the Board explaining that the comments expressed from the joint worksession with the planning commission conducted in July were this was taken back to the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee at which time it was reevaluated, and the draft was being presented to the Board at this meeting. He did explain that one of the significant areas addressed was the water and sewer service area expansion. This would expand around the business area that is proposed for Route 37 near the DeGrange Property as well as the hospital. This would not include the area along Route 522 North. Mr. Shickle asked Mr. Lawrence what was the significance of designating the 522 corridor as proposed business and office use? Mr. Lawrence explained that would go into the county's comprehensive plan, as a long range plan. Ten or twenty years down the road this would give the citizens ideas as to what is acceptable to the county. Mr. Sager asked if the majority of the land is RA? Mr. Lawrence replied that is correct. Mr. Orndoff asked about the 50 acres that has been rezoned, and if this has been reserved for the hospital? Mr. Lawrence replied that they did not envision this being used by the hospital, but rather by the services that would cater to the medical center. The Board directed Mr. Lawrence to proceed with a date for the public hearing on this plan. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN RATING SYSTEM - SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 24 BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Mr. Wyatt presented the latest drawings and plan to the Board for their review and comment. He explained that the primary concerns received by staff regarding the initial application of the system is that it appears to favor roads that are of significant length, roads with similar characteristics are not being compared appropriately. Mr. Sager commended Mr. Wyatt for all his hard work on this project; however, he explained that he could not tell his constituents that at one time their road project was listed as number 4 and now this same project would be moved back to number 21 if this plan is implemented as it currently !.366 stands. Mr. Sager further asked Mr. Wyatt what the conditions are for freezing a road to keep it from moving down or being restructured on the list? Mr. Wyatt replied that would be up to the Board depending on how they elect to do business. It would be the Board's prerogative. Mrs. Douglas inquired of Mr. Wyatt as to how many roads, as they are currently ranked, have had work done on them, ie, right-of-ways, etc? Mr. Wyatt replied Route 701 is currently out to bid and under construction, also Route 695, 692, and 693 have also had the necessary right-of-way's obtained. Me. Copp responded; however, he did not come to the microphone therefore his response could not be heard. Mrs. Douglas stated that it would go down through Klines Mill Road? Mr. Wyatt replied that is correct. Me. Smith asked the cost figure for Routes 695,692,625 and 633, and also what was the scheduled completion date? Mr. Copp responded that 695 would be advertised in 1998-99, 692 - 1999-2000, 625 somewhere around 2000-2001 and 633 somewhere between 2002 and 2003. Mr. Longerbeam asked Mr. Copp if additional right-of-way's would have to be acquired for Route 629, when would he visualize the actual paving being done. Mr. Longerbeam asked if the previous four were eliminated, when would Route 629 be started? Mr. Copp replied that would depend on the Board as VDOT does not have the right-of-way completed on any section of Route 629. A significant amount of right- of-ways still have to be signed. The road is over five miles long. Given everything that has to be done it would be sometime next year before any portion could be advertised. Mr. Longerbeam asked about cost, a mile of paving is ---? Mr. Copp replied typically somewhere around $500,000. VDOT is estimating that Route 629 will cost somewhere around $3 million dollars and six years to be financed. Mr. Sager inquired as to what happens to the other four priorities, once they have been abandoned? , ~. I! 'I 1367 Mr. Copp replied that the right-of-way has been recorded which means it belongs to VDOT, nothing will happen as far as any rebuilding efforts until the Board of Supervisors decide that they want the routes back on the list. Mr. Copp explained at this time the advance on right-of-ways by VDOT is five to six years. Mr. Orndoff commented on the fact that all the other projects could be held up while VDOT is waiting to acquire all the necessary right-of-ways for Route 629. Mr. Copp replied that is correct, for without the necessary right-of-way, nothing can be done. Mr. Longerbeam asked the Board if they were ready to take this to public hearing? The board members indicated they were; therefore, the public hearing is scheduled for September 24, 1997 at 7:15 P.M. COMMITTEE REPORTS: COUNTY EMERGENCY COMMUNICA nONS COMMISSION - MEETING OF JULY 7.1997 - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Frederick County Emergency Communications Commission met on Friday, July 7, 1997 at 5:00 p.m. Present were Board Member Robert Sager, Committee Members Frank Spurr and Sheriff Bob Williamson. Also present were Fire and Rescue Director Thomas W. Owens, Public Safety Communications Director John Webb, and members of the media. The following items were discussed and submitted for the boards information only: 1. Public Safety Communications Bud2et Mr. John Webb has met with Finance Director Cheryl Shimer and received direction on how to set up the budget for the Communications Center. John has a rough operating budget for the department. Director Shimer is going to obtain and report back to Mr. Webb the total dollars that are in the E-911 surcharge fund. Operating monies should be appropriated very soon. 2. Computer Aided Dispatch John is awaiting a copy of the D.C.J.S. Grant Award Criteria. Chief Miller has assured John that there is no problem with the grant. The 25% down payment has been sent and the equipment should follow shortly. Once equipment is on site the process ofloading the database files will begin. There was a brief discussion on the CAD System configuration and the records management package. 3. Enhanced 911 The draft memorandum from the commission to the county administrator has been completed. There was a change and one addition to this memorandum. This document was changed and an original printed this date for Mr. Sager's signature. This commission is asking for the county administrators authorization to enter a negotiation for a lease contract (see Attachment). 4. Communications Center Construction There is now a tentative functional layout of the area intended for use. Will pursue getting an RFP as quickly as possible. There was brief discussion on the separate HV AC being planned. 368 5. Workload Analysis Mr. Frank Spurr is still waiting for data input. Fire and rescue data will be based on fall and winter figures and averaged with the spring information gained during workload analysis. This information hopefully will indicate peak activity hours. The data reflects the peaks and valleys in work load are very much seasonal. A base line has been established and now call volume and variables will be plugged into this information. The numbers have not been set yet. There was brief discussion on issues that will affect staffing levels. 6. Radio System U02rade Mr. Frank Spurr is continuing to look at the radio system upgrade. Fire and rescue has signed off on this and the sheriffs department will be addressing this in the week to come. 7. U odate of City's Communication Center Renovation An updated status report has not yet been received. The city is still awaiting delivery of equipment. Construction is substantially complete now and working toward the final contracts to be awarded. 8. July 18th Meetin2 Date The next regularly scheduled meeting of this commission falls on Friday, July 18th. The commission will be rescheduling this meeting to Friday, July 25th, 1997 at 5:00 p.m. COUNTY EMERGENCY COMMUNICA nONS COMMISSION - MEETING OF JULY 25.1997 - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Frederick County Emergency Communications Commission met on Friday, July 25, 1997 at 5:05 p.m. Present were Committee Members Frank Spurr, Jr., H. Perry Silva, and Bob Williamson. Also present were Fire and Rescue Director Tom Owens and Public Safety Communications Director John Webb. The following items were discussed and submitted for the boards information only: 1. By-Laws Committee The committee met with a member of the Board and there will be some minor changes to the By-Laws and this document will be resubmitted to the Board of Supervisors for their approval in the near future. 2. Public Safety Communication Bud2et/Ornanization All members of the commission received a copy of the revised budget (Attachment A) that went before the Finance Committee on Wednesday, July 23, 1997. The total capital figure shown of $910,715 matches what the county says is in the E-911 surcharge fund at this time. An organization chart was also submitted along with the budget (Attachment B). There was a lengthy discussion on the revised budget figures (Attachment A). Some of the more important issues being: Mr. Frank Spurr would like to know how the numbers were developed. He is not comfortable with the fact that there is no documentation to back these figures. Mr. Spurr would like to see a more detailed document outlining the proposed budget figures and how they were obtained. Another concern was that the budget submitted (Attachment A) was not discussed and approved by the Emergency Communications Commission as a whole before going to the Finance Committee. This issue could not be avoided due to the fact that the Emergency Communications Commission meeting was delayed and caused the Communication Centers budget to be submitted to the Finance Committee before being discussed at the commission level. Mr. Webb was advised by the County Administrator to develop and submit a proposed budget knowing that these figures are II 11369 not definite figures. It is almost certain that some of these figures will need to be adjusted at some point in the future between accounts. It was suggested that John Webb put together a cover letter/narrative to go along with the proposed budget which will be submitted to the board on August 13, 1997. The narrative should include a brief statement which explains the basis for the funding requested in each category. The narrative should also include a statement that the commission considers this a preliminary budget document created for the purpose of establishing the agency's line items within the county's finance system. It should also be communicated to the board that the commission will more than likely need to adjust the funding in a number of these accounts as we get closer to the details of each system component. A motion was made by Frank Spurr that the director offire and rescue work with the director of public safety communications in developing an explanation sheet for the budget, to include key items, and provide a brief explanation of how the figures were developed and indicate that this is a budget simply for the purpose of creating the line items for the Public Safety Communications Department and may literally bear no relationship to final costs. This motion carries a recommendation for approval of the budget contingent on a telephone polling of the members after reviewing the proposed letter/explanation sheet. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perry Silva. This motion was unanimously approved. 3. CAD Status The process of moving the fiber optic link to the sheriffs office will be completed by July 26, there was a delay due to the weather. The server will be in next week, July 28 - August 1. John Webb and Joey Henry have been looking at the grid filing, etc. 4. Architectural and Enl!:ineerinl!: RFP Status All commission members received a copy of the RFP for the architectural/engineering services for the centers renovations (Attachment C). This was published on Wednesday, July 23, 1997 and the bid period will close on August 7, 1997. The public works director informed us that it would then take 45 days to produce a good set of drawings. 5. E-911/Nel!:otiation Status The status of the E-911 primarily deals with MSAG (Master Street Address Guide). This is in fairly good shape. Bell Atlantic will accept it in an ASCII file and John is working on this. There was a general discussion on who should conduct the negotiation with Bell Atlantic. It was felt that the director of public safety communications has a feel for what the figures should be and should be the person to conduct the negotiations. Mr. Webb will be getting with Mr. Riley on this issue and report back to the Commission. 6. Workload Analysis Mr. Spurr needs to get together with Sheriff Williamson, Tom Owens, and John Webb at this point. Mr. Webb has had the opportunity to meet with Firefighter Karl Steudl, who coordinated the fire and rescue workload analysis. Mr. Spurr would like to get together very soon and discuss the data and begin crunching numbers. The data that will be obtained will allow for the center to be operated in a much more economical manner. 7. Radio System UOl!:rade Mr. Spurr needs to sit down with Mr. Webb and go over what has been discussed with fire and rescue and the sheriffs department and obtain Mr. Webbs input. After this is complete, it will be necessary to develop a schematic design of the radio systems with explanations of the system function. 370 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Public Works committee met on Tuesday, July 29, 1997, at 7:30 a.m. Present were Board Members Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., and W. Harrington Smith, Jr.; committee members Jim Vickers and Tom Offutt; County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr.; Landfill Manager Steve Frye; and Director of Public Works Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. The following items were discussed and submitted for the boards information only: 1. Carry Forwards from FY 96/97 Bud2et The director of public works requested two items be carried forward from FY 96-97 to the FY 97-98 budget. These items are highlighted in the attached memorandum dated July 28, 1997 (see Attachment #1). This memorandum included carry forwards of $55,000 from the refuse collection budget and $650,000 from the landfill budget. The latter is needed to fund the ongoing CDD landfill project. The $55,000 is requested to develop a new citizen convenience area at Round Hill. The requests were unanimously approved by the committee with a recommendation to forward the requests to the Finance Committee for their review and approval. 2. Cost Estimate for Desil!:n of the Office So ace for the Deoartment of Historic Resources A proposal in the amount of$4,472 was received from Howard Shockey and Sons to design the office space for the Department of Historic Resources (see Attachment #2). After discussing this issue, the committee directed the director of public works to contact Howard Shockey and Sons and insure that the design cost was within the range of$3 to$4 per square foot as originally submitted and approved by the board of supervisors. Following the meeting, the above cost estimate was compared to the design cost submitted for the commonwealth attorneys office space and their respective areas. The commonwealth attorneys office space will occupy an area of approximately 4860 square feet. Shockeys had previously submitted a proposal of $14,246 for the design. This equates to $2.93 per square foot which was less than their previous cost estimate. The Historic Resources Department will occupy an area of approximately 1,140 square feet. When factored with the cost estimate, this equates to $3.92 per square foot. Shockeys indicated that the difference in unit costs per square foot was the direct result of an economy of scale. However, the average unit cost equates to $3.12 per square foot which is well within their original estimate of $3 to $4 per square foot. Consequently, we directed Shockeys to proceed with the design for this project. The funding was previously approved in the board meeting held on July 9, 1997 assuming that the combined design/construction cost did not exceed $40 per square foot. 3. Additional Landfill Personnel The director of public works presented a request for two (2) additional landfill personnel in anticipation of the construction of the new CDD landfill. This request for an Operator III and a spotter was submitted as a supplemental request during the FY 97-98 budget process. The request was withdrawn until such time that there was an actual need for the additional personnel. We anticipate commencing construction of the CDD landfill in September with a completion date on or before December 31 1997 . We would need at least 30 days to train the new personnel in their respective jobs. Based on the current time projections and meeting schedules, it would be mid October before we would actually be able to hire the new personnel. This schedule would allow sufficient time to train the new personnel. The Operator III would command an initial salary in the range of $17,767 to $20,565 371 depending on experience. The spotter position which would be responsible for random waste inspecting and traffic control would have an initial salary range of$16,104 to $18,665. Funding for these positions can be derived from the reserve for contingency line item. A motion was made by Harrington Smith and seconded by Tom Offutt to approve the new positions. The motion was unanimously approved by the committee. The request will be forwarded to the Finance and Personnel committees for their review and approval. 4. Buildinl!: Safety for Personnel A letter was received from the sheriffs office outlining recommendations to improve building safety for county personnel. A copy ofthis letter is attached (see Attachment #3). Basically, two issues were presented to the committee. The first issue involved the installation of a panic alarm at the receptionists location in the main lobby. The director of public works was tasked with the responsibility of obtaining a cost estimate for this work. The second issue involved the installation of a key pad or card access at the rear door of the four (4) story office complex. After discussing this issue at length, the committee concluded that this recommendation was not realistic at this time because the front lobby of this building is totally unsecured during normal working hours. 5. Miscellaneous Renorts a Tonnage Report: Landfill (see Attachment #4); b. Animal Shelter Cat Report (see Attachment #5); and c. Animal Shelter Dog Report (see Attachment #6). PERSONNEL COMMITTEE REPORT The Personnel Committee met on Tuesday, July 29, 1997, at 8:30 a.m. in the first floor conference room in the County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. Present at the meeting were Board Member Margaret B. Douglas, chairman; Committee Members Robert S. Gordanier and Michael Foster; County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr.; and Personnel Director Ann K. Kelican. Committee members W. Harrington Smith, Jr. and Toni Wallace were absent. The following items were discussed and presented for the boards action: 1. Reconsideration of LEOS Prol!:ram - Ann roved The committee reviewed the attached information regarding the LEOS program and recommends that the board of supervisors pursue legislation to have the funding formula for this program based upon the salaries of the employees who will be eligible for this benefit and not the entire county payroll. The committee further recommends that the board of supervisors include funding for this program in the FY 98-99 budget should the requested legislation be unsuccessful (see Attachment A). Upon motion made by Margaret B. Douglas, seconded by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye ,I 372 Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 2. Reauest to Establish a Safety Sensitive Position List - Aooroved The committee reviewed the county's Schematic List of Classes and recommends that the following positions be considered Safety Sensitive Positions. These will be the positions the county administrator will have authority to fill and will not require action by the Personnel Committee and the board of supervisors: A. Deputy Sheriff (Deputy I thru Major); B. Correctional Officers (Correctional Officer I thru Major); C. Dispatchers; and D. Firefighters. All other positions will be processed through the Personnel Committee to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Upon motion made by Margaret B. Douglas, seconded by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 3. Recommendation to Fill Vacant Positions - Aooroved The committee reviewed the attached requests to fill vacant positions recommends approval of same: (A) Fire and Rescue Department (B) Public Works Department (C) Division of Court Services and (D) Parks and Recreation Department (see Attachment B). Upon motion made by Margaret B. Douglas, seconded by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 4. Recommendation to ADD rove Policv Revisions - Aooroved The committee reviewed the attached request from the personnel director for policy revisions to Sections 5.7, 5.8, and 7.2 of the Personnel Policies and recommends approval of same (see Attachment C). Upon motion made by Margaret B. Douglas, seconded by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye I' ii 11373 I Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 5. Reauest for New Part-Time Line Items in FY 1997-1998 Budl!et - Aooroved The committee reviewed the attached information, forwarded by the Finance Committee, to establish new part-time line items in the FY 1997-1998 budget for the Economic Development Commission, Public Works, and the Victim Witness Program and recommends approval of same (see Attachment D). Upon motion made by Margaret B. Douglas, seconded by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye FINANCE COMMITTEE The Finance Committee met in the First Floor Conference Room at 107 North Kent Street on Wednesday, July 23, 1997 at 8:00 a.m. Committee members Anita L. Shull and Nicholas 1. N erangis were absent. The following items were discussed: 1. The Finance Director Reviewed the Monthlv Financial Reoorts for Months Endinl! Aoril30. 1997 and Mav 31. 1997 See attached memo, p. 1-4. 2. Lord Fairfax Community Collel!e Reauests a General Fund Suoolemental Aoorooriation in the Amount of $4.108 - Aooroved as Presented This amount represents the difference in Lord Fairfax's FY 98 donation request and what was actually approved and appropriated. Additional local funds are necessary. A representative from Lord Fairfax Community College will be present for discussion. See attached memo, p. 5-15. The committee had no recommendation. This request will appear in next months agenda for consideration. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Richard C. Shickle, the above request was approved as presented by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 3. The Director of Information Services Requests a General Fund Suoolemental 374 Appropriation in the Amount of $3.850 - Approved This amount represents a carry-forward and is needed to purchase batteries for the UPS battery backup system. See attached memo, p. 16. The committee recommends approval. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Richard C. Shickle the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 4. The Clerk of the Circuit Court Reauests a General Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the Amount of $6.013.07 - Approved This amount represents a carry-forward made up of unspent grant money that needs to be appropriated. See attached memo, p.17. The committee recommends approval. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Richard C. Shickle the above request was approved by the following record vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 5. The Public Works Director Reauests General Fund Bud~et Transfers in the Amount of $34.200 - Approved This amount is needed to cover additional compactor workers at the Clearbrook, Albin, and Double Tollgate citizen convenience sites. No additiona1local funds are needed. See attached memo, p. 18-21. The committee recommends approval of the budget transfer and forwards the additional position request to the Personnel Committee for their consideration. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Richard C. Shickle, the above request was approved by the following record vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 6. The Planninl! Director Reauests a General Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the Amount of $999.61 - Approved This amount is needed to purchase a Hewlett Packard LaserJet 5P. This LaserJet printer will replace an Okidata printer that was returned because of unsatisfactory performance. A refund in the amount of$I,410.05 was received for the returned Okidata printer. No additiona1local funds are Ii I needed. See attached memo, p. 22. The committee recommends approval. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Richard C. Shickle, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 7. The Sheriff Reouests a General Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the Amount of $13.725 - Approved This amount represents an insurance reimbursement for a vehicle that was totaled on May 4, 1997. This money was received in June, therefore, a cany-forward of $13,725 is needed. It is requested that this reimbursement be appropriated to line item 3102-7008-000-000 Capital Leases. See attached memo, p. 23. The Finance Committee recommended appropriating the amount equal to one year ofleasing on a like vehicle that was totaled. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Richard C. Shickle, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 8. The Sheriff Reouests a General Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the Amount of $2.184.27 - Approved This amount represents this departments share in a recent forfeiture and is requested to be placed in line item 3102-5413-000-007 Forfeited Property - Surplus. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, p. 24. The committee recommends approval. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Richard C. Shickle, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 9. The Sheriff Reouests a General Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the Amount of $23.000 - Approved We have received notification that the Victim Witness Assistance Grant Program has been approved. Funds in the amount of$58,685 will be received by the county. There is no local match associated with this grant. The budget needs to be amended by $23,000 to reflect this grant. The majority of the amendment will be in Part Time/Overtime and ADP Equipment. No additional local II 1375 376 funds are needed. See attached memo, p. 25-27. The committee recommends approval. The personnel items in this request have been forwarded to the Personnel Committee. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Robert M. Sager, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 10. The County Administrator Requests a County Office BuildiDl! Fund Reappropriation of Funds in the Amount of $29.544 - Approved This amount is needed to continue payments to Shockeys for the County Office Building. No additionalloca1 funds are needed. See attached memo, p. 28. The committee recommends approval. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Robert M. Sager, the above request was approved by the foIlowing recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 11. The Airport Executive Director Requests an Airport Capital Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the Amount of $590.000 for Land Acquisition. Air Service Development. and to Seal/Coat Main Apron - Tabled This amount nets total additional local funds needed in the amount of $108,000. See attached memo, p. 29-36. This item has been tabled until the Airport Executive Director can be present for discussion. 12. The School Board Requests That an A2encv Fund Be Established for the Dowell J. Howard Board of Trustees - Approved It is also requested that a budget resolution for this agency fund be made by the Board of Supervisors. See attached memo, p. 37-38. The committee recommends approval of establishing the fund only. It was requested that all appropriations from this fund will be made on an as needed basis. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Richard C. Shickle, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye i 11377 13. The Director of Public Safety Communications Requests a General Fund Suoolemental Aoorooriation in the Amount of $1.233.186 to Establish the Deoartment of Public Safety - Aooroved These funds are derived from 911 tariff fees. The director was at the meeting to answer questions. See attached memo, p. 39-40. The committee recommends approval and requested more detail for information only. Sheriff, Bob Williamson, and Director, John Webb were present at the Board meeting to advise the Board this was voted on by the Communications Commission as required. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Robert M. Sager, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 14. Northwestern Community Services Requests a General Fund Suoolemental Aoorooriation in the Amount of $16.317 - Denied This amount represents the difference between Northwestern Community Services FY 98 donation request and what was actually approved and appropriated. Additional local funds are necessary. See attached memo, p. 41-53. The committee does not recommend approval. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Richard C. Shickle, the above request was denied by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sf. - Aye 15. The Shenandoah Valley Discoyerv Museum Requests Fundin2 oyer a Three Year Period in the Amount of $75.000 - No Action Required This funding would be broken down into $35,000 for the first year, $25,000 for the second year, and $15,000 for the third year. This would require a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $35.000 for the first year of funding. Additional local funds are necessary. See attached memo, p. 54-63. The committee recommended that this request be included in the FY 1998- 1999 budget process. 16. The Fire Marsha" Requests a General Fund Suoolemental Aoorooriation in the Amount of $5.424 - Aooroved This amount represents proffers received and is requested to be distributed to the proper fire companies. The committee recommends approval. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Richard C. Shickle, the above 378 motion was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 17. Parks and Recreation Staff Discussed the School Athletic Field Use and Grounds Maintenance Reoort - No Action This report was mailed out to the committee on June 19, 1997. Parks and recreation staff summarized four maintenance options for the committee. See attached summary, p. 64. The committee requested more detail on Option III. 18. David Rose with Wheat First Butcher Sini!er Discussed the Prooosed Refundini! for the School VRS Oblii!ation - Action Taken Earlier In Meetini! On Resolution Attached is information for your review, p. 65-84. The committee requested that the Board of Supervisors endorse the resolution after verification of figures by the treasurer and approval by the school board. 19. Attached Are the Prooosed Financial Guidelines Preoared bv Wheat First Butcher Sini!er - No Action Necessary These guidelines will be discussed at the meeting. See attached, p. 85-95. It was requested that staff review the Guidelines and a final copy be brought before the Finance Committee for consideration. 20. The Economic Develooment Director Reouests a General Fund Budi!et Transfer in the Amount of $12.000 - Approved This amount is needed to establish a part-time line item and is to come from 8102-3002-000- 000 Professional Services. See attached memo, p. 96. The committee recommends approval of the budget transfer and forwards the part-time position request to the Personnel Committee for their consideration. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Richard C. Shickle, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 21. A Motion Was Made and Seconded That the Treasurer and the Commissioner of the Revenue Be Made V otini! Members of the Finance Committee - To Denv This was later followed up by a letter from G. Michael Cundiff stating that he voted too hastily and now has a difference of opinion. See attached letter, p. 97. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Robert M. Sager the above request was denied by the following recorded vote: JT ,! Ii i I' II Ii 379 I James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Nay Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye The following item was discussed and submitted for the board's information only: Attached is a letter of appreciation from The Metropolitan Washington Ear, Inc. for Frederick County's continued support. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Mr. Sager stated that he would like to commend John Webb, director of the communications center; Bob Williamson, sheriff and Tom Owens, director of emergency services for all their efforts on behalf of the County Communications Center. He feels this will be a state ofthe art center once it is completed. BOARD RETIRED INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Robert M. Sager, the board retired into executive session in accordance with Virginia Code, 1950, as amended, Section 2.1-344, Subsection A (5) and (7) to discuss an industrial prospect and legal issues. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye BOARD WITHDREW FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., the board withdrew from executive session. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shiclde - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye BOARD RECONVENED INTO REGULAR SESSION Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., the board 380 reconvened into regular session stating nothing other than what was noted as reason for going into execution session was discussed. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye UPON MOTION MADE BY ROBERT M SAGER, SECONDED BY CHARLES W. ORNDOFF, SR., AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. ,~ \ ':' ...---- ".' .1:0 n R. Riley, Jr. /' clerk, Board of Supervisors