Loading...
May 10, 1995 Regular Meeting 287 A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of supervi- sors was held on May 10, 1995, at 7:15 P.M., in the Board of supervisor's Meeting Room, Frederick County Courthouse, Loudoun street Mall, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT: Richard G. DiCk, Chairman; W. Harrington Smith, Jr., Vice-Chairman; Robert M. Sager; Jimmie K. Ellington; and Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. ABSENT: James L. Longerbeam due to the fact he was out of town. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order. INVOCATION The invocation was delivered by Board Member Robert M. Sager in absence of the minister. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Upon motion made by Jimmie K. Ellington, seconded by Robert M. Sager, the agenda was adopted as presented by the following recorded vote: Richard G. DiCk - Aye W. Harrington smith, Jr. - Aye James L. Longerbeam - Absent Robert M. Sager - Aye Jimmie K. Ellington - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Riley suggested the following tabs be approved under the consent agenda: 1. All-America Community Volunteer Recognition Week Proclamation - Tab B; 2. Scheduling of Board Meetings for the Summer - Tab C. Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by W. Harrington smith, Jr., the above consent agenda was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye James L. Longerbeam - Absent Robert M. Sager - Aye Jimmie K. Ellington - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye C~TIZ~ COMMENTS 288 No one appeared before the Board at this time. HISTORIC PLAQUE PRESENTED TO EDWIN AND SHIRLEY COFFIN FOR ADELPHI MILLS Mr. Charles Orndoff presented a historic plaque to Edwin and Shirley Coffin for their historic residence - Adelphi Mills. Mr. and Mrs. Coffin were present to accept their plaque. ALL-AMERICA COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION WEEK APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA WHEREAS, volunteers throughout the community devote their time, energy, and ideas to civic and charitable organizations; and WHEREAS, volunteers are so vitally important in today's society; helping others less fortunate and aiding organiza- tions, aSking nothing in return; and WHEREAS, without these special people, civic, and charitable organizations would not exist; and WHEREAS, people with special needs would not be helped, and we would not be recognized today as an All-America Community; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors does hereby designate the week of June 5 through June 11, 1995 as All-America Community Volunteer Recognition Week. PROCLAIMED this 10th day of May, 1995. BOARD SETS SCHEDULE FOR SUMMER BOARD MEETINGS - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The second board meetings normally scheduled for the months of June, July, August and September will be cancelled for vacations. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS There were no committee appointments. Public Hearing: IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.1-29.1 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA. 1950. AS AMENDED. THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD FROM GAINESBORO MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. THIS APPOINTMENT WILL COVER THE SIX MONTH TIME FRAME BETWEEN JULY 1 AND DECEMBER 31. 1995 Mr. Joe Headley appeared before the Board noting that he had served for eight years on the school board and feels it is time for someone else to take his place, however due to the fact that school board members will now be elected, 289 he has agreed to continue to serve until his successor is elected in November, 1995. PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS Public Hearinq: Ordinance Amendments: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 165. ZONING: TO CREATE A NEW ARTICLE WHICH WILL BE ENTI- TLED. IA INTERSTATE AREA OVERLAY ZONE. THE PROPOSED ARTICLE WILL ALLOW IDENTIFIED PROPERTIES AT THE EIGHT INTERSTATE 81 INTERCHANGE AREAS TO ERECT FREE STANDING COMMERCIAL BUSINESS SIGNS THAT ARE OF A GREATER HEIGHT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE - APPROVED Mr. Evan Wyatt, planner I, presented this information to the Board noting that an informal discussion was held with the Board on April 26, 1995, at which time discussion focused on the maximum elevation above mean sea level and maximum square footage for signs in the above referenced district. At that time several Board members stated that they did not have signif- icant concerns with signs being taller or greater in square footage than what staff proposed, if it was for the economic good of Frederick County. At that time a recommendation to increase the maximum height above mean sea level at each inter- change by an additional ten feet was made, as well as a recom- mendation to increase the maximum square footage for individual signs and shared-pole signs by 100 square feet. He further explained that the Planning commission emphasized at their meeting on May 3, the fact that if an ordinance was to be adopted, maximum limits needed to be created for height and square footage. The majority of the Planning Commission felt that the 200 square feet was the maximum limit for this type of sign, and that 400 square feet should be the maximum size for slgns that share a common support pole. The Planning Commission also felt that the advertised heights above mean sea level were appropriate based on the topography and existing land uses at each interchange. Mr. Thomas Schultz Jr., local attorney, appeared before the Board and in great detail explained why he was in favor of this ordinance on behalf of his client Holtzman Industries. 290 Mr. Torn Rockwood, local attorney, appeared before the Board on behalf of his clients, Kathy and Nick Nerangis of McDonalds opposing this ordinance amendment as they do not feel it is necessary. There was no further citizen input. Mr. Dick stated that he was some what familiar with EDC and he knows for a fact Cracker Barrel would not have located here had they not been able to erect the type of sign that is currently off of Interstate 81 letting the public know where they are located. He feels this is very important to the economics of any area. Mr. Sager stated that he too felt the larger signs are a big help to EDC. Mr. Jim Emmart of Emmart oil stated that he was present to basically hear what was being proposed and how his company could be affected by the proposed ordinance amend- ment. Upon motion made by W. Harrington smith, Jr., seconded by Robert M. Sager, 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, to create a new Article, IA Interstate Area Overlay District, was referred to the Plan- ning Commission on April 19, 1995, and May 3, 1995; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on May 3, 1995; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on May 10, 1995; 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, is amended to create a new Article as described on the following attachment: 291 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 speci- fied in Section 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 addi- tional visibility for commercial businesses, while minimizing negative impacts to 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 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 proposed use of the property is consistent with the specified uses within this Article. 3. The proposed business sign will not have an adverse impact on adjoining properties whose primary use is residential. 4. The property has met the requirements of Article II of this Chapter, as well as the requirements of Title 15.1, Section 491(g) of the Code of Virqinia. 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 or more zoning dis- trict as specified within this Chapter. The effect shall be the creation of new zoning districts consisting of the regulations and requirements of both the underlying zoning district(s) and the Interstate Area Overlay District. 165-119. Qualifying criteria A. The following uses shall be authorized to erect a commer- cial business sign that is of a greater height and size than is permitted in the underlying zoning district, provided that the business sign complies with the requirements of Section 165-120 of this Article, and that the use is located on property that is delineated on the Official zoning Map as being part of the Interstate Area Overlay District: 292 USE SIC Code General Merchandise & Apparel stores 53 & 56 Automotive Dealers & Gasoline Service stations 55 Eating & Drinking Establishments 58 Hotel & Lodging Establishments 70 B. The uses specified under section 165-119A that are authorized on property through the issuance of a conditional use permit in the RA, Rural Areas District may be entitled to erect a commercial business sign that is of a greater height and size than is permitted in the underlying zoning district, provided that the property has met the require- ments of Article III of this Chapter, the business sign complies with the requirements of section 165-120 of this Article, and the use is located on property that is delineat- ed on the Official Zoning Map as being part of the Interstate Area Overlay District. 165-120. District Regulations A. Permitted Signs. 1. Freestanding commercial business signs. 2. Signs permitted in the underlying zoning dis- trict(s) . B. Prohibited Signs 1. Off-premise business signs. 2. Signs prohibited in the underlying zoning dis- tricts(s) . C. Number of Freestanding Commercial Business Signs. 1. Any permitted primary use in the Interstate Area Overlay District may erect one business sign that complies with the requirements set forth in this Article. 2. When two or more primary uses are located on the same parcel, each use may erect one business sign that complies with the requirements set forth in this Article. D. Setback Requirements 1. business from any The message portion of all freestanding commercial signs shall be setback a minimum of ten (10) feet lot line or property boundary line. 2. When any freestanding commercial business sign which exceeds the height requirement of the underlying zoning district(s) is located on property that adjoins or is across a right-of-way from property that is in the RP Residential Performance District, or the HE Higher Education District, 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. When any freestanding commercial business sign which exceeds the height requirement of the underlying zoning district(s) is located on property that adjoins or is across a right-of-way from property whose primary use is residential, the setback shall be the normal setback plus 293 one (1) foot for every foot over the maximum height of the underlying zoning district(s). 4. The Planning Commission may waive a portion of the setback described in section 16S-120D(2) or section 165-120D(3) - if the developer can not meet the setback requirement due to the size or shape of the parcel. E. Spacing Requirements The spacing requirements for any sign in the Interstate Area Overlay District or the underlying zoning district(s) shall comply with the requirements in section 16S-30(F) of this Chapter. F. Size Requirements 1. The message portion of any freestanding commercial business sign that meets the requirements of this Article shall not exceed a total of three hundred (300) square feet in area, and shall not be located less than twenty-five (25) feet in height from the base of the sign support pole. 2. More than one freestanding commercial business sign shall be allowed to share a common support pole, provided that the business signs comply with the requirements of section 165-119 and section 16S-120 of this Article, and that the uses are located on properties that are delineated on the Official Zoning Map as being part of the Interstate Area Overlay Dis- trict. The message portion of freestanding commercial business signs that meet this requirement shall not exceed a total of five hundred (SOO) square feet in area, and shall not be located less than twenty-five (25) feet in height from the base of the sign support pole. G. Illumination 1. Neither the direct nor reflected light from any illuminated business sign shall create glare into or upon any building or property other than the building or property to which the business sign is permitted to be located. 2. Neither the direct nor reflected light from any illuminated business sign shall create a traffic hazard to operators of motor vehicles on public thoroughfares. H. Maintenance and Permits 1. All signs that are erected in the Interstate Area overlay District shall meet the maintenance and permit require- ments as specified in section 16S-30(I) and section 165-30(J) of this Chapter. 2. Appropriate easements shall be secured by any property owner that desires to erect a business sign in conformance with the requirements of this Article prior to the issuance of a sign permit to insure that required maintenance does not have an adverse impact on adjoining properties. I. Permitted Heights for Freestanding Commercial Business Signs. INTERSTATE 81 OVERLAY DISTRICT SIGN ELEVATIONS Exit Number Maximum Business sign Height 302 307 310 760 feet above mean sea level 800 feet above mean sea level 805 feet above mean sea level 294 313 805 feet above mean sea level 315 750 feet above mean sea level 317 815 feet above mean sea level 321 700 feet above mean sea level 323 710 feet above mean sea level This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. The above ordinance amendment was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye James L. Longerbeam - Absent Robert M. Sager - Aye Jimmie K. Ellington - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 165. ZONING: ARTICLE IV. SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS: SECTION 165-30. SIGNS. TO REVISE THE MINIMUM SPACING. HEIGHT. SIZE. MAINTENANCE. AND PER- MITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR SIGNS AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER 165 - DENIED Mr. Wyatt presented the following ordinance amendment to the Board for their consideration: The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) and the Planning Commission have discussed the proposed sign ordinance amendments as recommended by the Chamber of Commerce Corridor Appearance Task Force (CATF). As you know, the CATF created a report that provides recommendations to assist with the long term appearance of roadway corridors leading into the community. Staff believes that the proposed amendments need to reflect the community as a whole to ensure consistency in our commercial and industrial areas, and to mitigate problems when less significant or future commercial and industrial corridors are developed throughout the county. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments on May 3, 1995. The Planning Commission did not express any concerns with the proposed amendments and felt that this was consistent with the desires of the business community. The Planning Commission voted 8-1 to approve the proposed amendments with Mr. Richard Shickle in opposition. The proposed amendments to the are included with this memorandum. Board of supervisors consider these resolution. current sign regulations Staff asks that the amendments for final AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 165, ZONING WHEREAS, An ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-30, Signs, was referred to the Planning Commission on November 16, 1994, and May 3, 1995; and 295 WHEREAS, the Planning commission held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on May 3, 1995; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on May 10, 1995; 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 IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-30, Signs, is amended as described on the following attach- ment: Section 165-30 Signs F. Minimum Spacing For Freestanding Business Signs The minimum distance between freestanding business signs shall be one hundred (100) feet. The Zoning Administrator may allow two (2) signs to be separated by less than one hundred (100) feet to permit the signs to share a similar location. In such cases, the two (2) signs shall be separated from other signs by a distance totaling one hundred (100) feet plus the distance by which the separation of the signs was reduced. G. Height Freestanding business signs shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height in any zoning district, except as permitted in the IA Overlay District. All other signs shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height. Freestanding business entrance signs shall not exceed four (4) feet in height. H. Size (1) No freestanding business sign shall exceed seventy-five (75) square feet in area, except as permitted in the IA Overlay District. No freestanding business sign shall exceed fifty (50) square feet in the Bl Neighborhood Business District. (2) No cottage occupation sign shall exceed four (4) square feet in area. (3) The permitted size of a business sign that is attached to the side of a building in any zoning district shall be a dimen- sion that does not exceed one (1) square foot per one (1) linear foot of horizontal building frontage and does not exceed a total of two hundred (200) square feet. (4) No freestanding business entrance sign or directional sign shall exceed four (4) square feet in area. I. Design All freestanding business signs should conform to the overall design concept of the building in which the sign represents. Business signs that are mounted on a building should conform to the architecture of that building. J. Maintenance and Removal (1) All signs shall maintain a neat and orderly appearance. Signs that are damaged, structurally unsound, or poorly main- tained shall be repaired within thirty (30) days after receiving written notification from the Zoning Administrator. Any sign that is not adequately repaired within thirty (30) days shall be 296 removed by the property owner. (2) Off-premise business or directional signs that adver- tise a business which ceases to exist shall be removed by the property owner within thirty (30) days after receiving written notification from the Zoning Administrator. (3) sign removal shall include the message portion of the sign and any supporting structural component. K. Sign Permits (1) A sign permit shall be obtained from the Frederick County Building Official prior to the construction, recon- struction, alteration, or repair of any sign. (2) Commemorative plaques and historical markers shall be exempt from obtaining sign permits. Mr. Ellington inquired about the section that deals with maintenance and removing, and how this relates to the Western Sizzling Sign on Route 522 and the fact this busi- ness has not been in operation for quite some time, yet the sign remains. Mr. Sager asked if perhaps this needed additional work before the Board votes on it. Mr. Jim Emmart explained to the Board if the county elects to cut back on the size it would hurt his business. Mr. Thomas Schultz Jr., local attorney, appeared before the Board noting that he has some serious problems with the way this ordinance amendment has been drafted. Mr. Sager moved and Mr. Orndoff, Sr., seconded to have this ordinance amendment tabled for further study. The above motion was denied by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Nay w. Harrington smith, Jr. - Nay James L. Longerbeam - Absent Robert M. Sager - Aye Jimmie K. Ellington - Nay Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye Mr. smith moved and Mr. Ellington seconded to deny this ordinance amendment and leave it as it is currently written. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye James L. Longerbeam - Absent 297 Robert M. Sager - Aye Jimmie K. Ellington - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye REVISED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF REGENCY LAKES - TABLED Mr. Wyatt presented this revised plan to the Board. Mr. Smith addressed the area of buffering as well as screening. Mr. Dick asked how many units will this area accommodate. Mr. Wyatt replied approximately 500. Mr. Smith addressed the new plan in relation to the county comprehensive plan, and the fact that this plan dates back nine years and he questioned why the old master development plan was not closed out. Mr. Sager referred to a situation that was brought up that occurred in the eighties, and the Planning Commission said no, what is the difference in that situation and this. Mr. Watkins replied that you are talking apples and orang- es. Mr. Orndoff stated that it is his understanding that this has had formal approval some years ago and there is nothing this Board can do about it. Mr. Chuck Maddox, G.W. Clifford Associates, appeared before the Board to explain how this development has changed owners and in his opinion he feels the new developer, Oakwood Developers, is doing a good job in this area. However, in light of some things that have been brought out at this meeting ie., staff comments on collector road which he does not agree with this, he would request that this be tabled. Upon motion made by Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., seconded by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., the Revised Master Development Plan of Regency Lakes is hereby tabled. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye James L. Longerbeam - Absent Robert M. Sager - Aye Jimmie K. Ellington - Aye 298 Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT The Public Works Committee met on Tuesday, May 2, 1995, at 7:30 a.m. Present were board members Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. and W. Harrington smith, Jr., as well as board chairman Richard G. Dick, committee members Dudley Rinker and Jim wilson; 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: *** Items Reauirinq Action *** Bids for Landfill Maintenance Facilitv - Approved Bids for the landfill maintenance facility were received on Thursday, April 27, 1995. A summary of the bids is attached. The low bid was $266,224 from Ricketts Construc- tion company, Inc. The budget estimate was $220,000. A motion was made by Jim Wilson and seconded by Dudley Rinker to accept the low bid and award a contract to Ricketts Construction Company, Inc. for the construction of the landfill maintenance facility. This motion was unan- imously approved by the committee members in attendance. Upon motion made by Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., seconded by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., the above request for a land- fill maintenance facility was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Aye W. Harrington smith, Jr. - Aye James L. Longerbeam - Absent Robert M. Sager - Aye Jimmie K. Ellington - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye New Leachate Treatment Facility - Approved A revised bid was submitted by Perry Engineering Company, Inc. for review and approval. Their original bid was $715,723. This bid was renegotiated by the Director of Public Works with the resulting deletions and/or scope of work modifications outlined in the attached letter from Perry Engineering Company, Inc. The revised bid is $682,000. The committee had previously approved the bid in the April 1995 meeting contingent upon negotiating the price below the appropriated amount. The committee unanimously recommended that the revised bid be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their approval and subsequent award. Upon motion made by Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., seconded by W. Harrington smith, Jr., the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye 299 James L. Longerbeam - Absent Robert M. Sager - Aye Jimmie K. Ellington - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye Illeqal Dumpinq at Compactor/Container Sites Based on previous discussions at the April Public Works meeting, the PUblic Works Director prepared and presented a plan to reduce the illegal dumping at the compactor and container sites throughout Frederick County. This plan included fencing five (5) compactor sites, increasing surveillance by law en- forcement personnel and closing the Middle Road container site. After discussing these various options, it was decided to expand the fencing program to include the Clearbrook site. Including this additional site, the Public Works Director is proposing a budget of $36,000 to fence six (6) compactor sites. The Sheriff's office is currently assisting the Public Works Department by staking out several of the compactor sites to deter illegal dumping. We are recommending that this prac- tice continue even after the sites are fenced. The closing of the Middle Road container site would also incorporate the development of a compactor site just west of Stephens City or at a site near the existing container site, if a site can be obtained. The Director of Public Works initially recommended that the site be closed within 90 days. Dudley Rinker indicated that he had spoken with the V.P.I. Extension Service about locating a site on the existing fruit lab proper- ty. He asked that we defer a decision regarding the removal of the container site on Middle Road for a period of 30 days to allow sufficient time to receive a reply from V.P.I. The committee concurred with this approach. A motion was made by Jim Wilson and seconded by Dudley Rinker to approve the fencing of six (6) compactor sites includ- ing Clearbrook, Double Toll Gate, the Scales, Albin, Round Hill and Back Creek. This motion was unanimously approved by the committee members present. Mr. Orndoff moved and Mr. Smith seconded for approval of the above request. Mr. Joe Lizer, Gainesboro District, resident of Indian Hollow Road, appeared before the Board stating that he feels the sites need to be fenced and he is further requesting that trees be planted at the Albin site. Mr. Riley suggested that each site be looked at individual- ly as some sites may need more than others. Mr. Dick asked if anyone has any idea what the price tag would be for this work. Mr. Sager stated that he feels people will dump their trash regardless, even with fences, and he does not feel this is the solution. 300 Mr. Dick stated that he somewhat agrees with Mr. Sager even though he feels the site at Greenwood has been successful, for the most part. Mr. Ellington stated that he too feels fencing is not the answer, and suggested that heavy fines be assessed on those doing the illegal dumping. Mr. Orndoff stated that he has had some complaints about the gates being locked earlier, especially this time of the year. The above motion was approved with the Public Works Department looking into the costs involved in having trees or a similar type of screening planted at the necessary sites by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye James L. Longerbeam - Absent Robert M. Sager - Aye Jimmie K. Ellington - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye *** Items Not Requirinq Action*** Drainaqe Improvements on Lot 99A Apple Ridqe and Lot 12 Sensenv Glen Charles Orndoff has been contacted by the homeowner on lot 12 concerning drainage problems related to his lot and lot 99A. This problem was previously discussed and tabled because of lack of involvement from the developer of Senseny Glen and the builder of the house on lot 99A. After discuss- ing the issue, the Director of Public Works was tasked with the responsibility of recontacting the developer concerning their assistance in resolving the drainage problem that exists between the two (2) lots in question. The results of this discussion will be reported to the committee members as soon as possible. Street Siqn Update To date, the Department of Public Works replaced via contract 150 signs that were either destroyed or stolen. We are in the process of developing another list of 100 signs. New County Office Buildinq Mr. Dick inquired about the reasons for eliminating one of the respondents from the Phase II shortlist. Several of the selection committee members explained that the shortlist was developed by assigning points based on criteria develop- ed prior to reviewing the Phase I submittals. This procedure ensured that the selection was accomplished fairly without bias. Some of the criteria used as a basis for selection included qualifications, prior experience as a design/build team, financial stability and technical presen- tation. 301 Miscellaneous Reports a. Animal Shelter Report (see Attachment 1); b. Recycling Report (see Attachment 2); and c. Tonnage Report (see Attachment 3). BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Mr. Dick announced for those who were not already aware of the fact that Mr. Riley had been crowned King of Do Dah Day, and that he hoped each board member had received a copy of the letter received from a county citizen wherein they praised Barbara Whitlock of the Personnel Department for her kind assistance to them. UPON MOTION MADE BY ROBERT M. SAGER, SECONDED BY W. HARRINGTON SMITH, JR., THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. __~._llJ- ,>-_.--"-"""'^~=- -, .