HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet -- April 26, 2005
"-
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TUESDAY. APRIL 26.2005
7:15 P.M.
BOARD ROOM, COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
107 NORTH KENT STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
Call To Order
Invocation
Pledge of Alleaiance
AdoDtion of Aaenda:
'-
Pursuant to established procedures. the Board should adopt the Agenda for
the meeting.
Consent Aaenda:
(Tentative Agenda Items for Consent are Tabs: F and G)
Citizen Comments (Agenda Items Only, That Are Not Subject to Public Hearing.)
Board of SUDervisors Comments
Minutes: (See Attached) - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A
1. Regular Meeting, April 13, 2005.
County Officials:
1. Recognition of 4-H Students. (See Attached) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
2. Committee Appointments. (See Attached) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C
,~
AGENDA
"- REGULAR MEETING
FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TUESDAY, APRIL 26,2005
PAGE 2
3. Request from the Commissioner of the Revenue for Refunds.
(See Attached) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - D
4. Request from Parks and Recreation Department Re:-Resolution for
Grant Application for a 50/50 Matching Grant for a Spray Ground at
Sherando Park. (See Attached) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E
5. Resolution of Support Re: Shenandoah Valley Regional Water Resources
Policy Committee Policy Level Strategic Plan Project.
(See Attached) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F
Committee Reports:
1. Parks and Recreation Commission. (See Attached) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - G
'-
2. Code and Ordinance Committee. (See Attached) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - H
3. Finance Committee. (See Attached) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Public Hearings:
1. Outdoor Festival Permit Request of Judy A. Beaty - The Spirit Lives On/-
Stili the One Musical Festival at Winchester Speedway. Pursuant to the
Frederick County Code, Chapter 86, Festivals; Section 86-3 C, Permit
Required; Application; Issuance or Denial; for an Outdoor Festival
Permit. Festival to be Held on Sunday, July 17, 2005, from 10:00 A.M. to
7:00 P.M.; on the Grounds of the Winchester Speedway, 950 Airport
Road, Winchester, Virginia. Property Owned by Judy A. Beaty of
Centreville, Virginia, Owner and President of Winchester Speedway.
(See Attached) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J
2. Solicit Public Comment on the Declaration of Surplus Property. The
Property to Be Considered is Located in the ShawneeLand Sanitary
District. The Property Consists of 376 Lots. All Lots are Approximately
One-Half Acre (plus or minus) in Size and are not Located in One Specific
Area of the Subdivision. A Map Disclosing the Locations of the Lots in
Question will be Available at the Frederick County Public Works
Department for Review Prior to the Date of Advertised Public Hearing.
\....
\....
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2005
PAGE 3
3. Voluntary Settlement Agreement Between the Town of Stephens City
and the County of Frederick to Solicit Public Comment on the Proposed
Voluntary Settlement Agreement Which Includes Phased Areas to be
Annexed. The Settlement Agreement, Authorized by Section 15.2-3400
of the Code of Virginia. Provides (i) for the Annexation of Certain
Territory of the County to the Town, (ii) for the Development of the
Annexation Areas in Accordance with a Jointly Approved Land Use Plan,
(iii) for the Grant of Immunity to the County from Annexation for a
Period of 15 years, and (iv) for the Transfer of Certain Cash Proffers
Received by the Town to the County. (See Attached) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - K
Plannina Commission Business:
Public Hearinas:
\......
1. Conditional Use Permit #02-05 of Horizon. Holdings, LLC for a Landscape
Business. This Property is Located at 3636 Front Royal Pike (Route 522)
and is Identified with Property Identification Number 87 -A-88 in the
Shawnee Magisterial District. {See Attached) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L
2. Rezoning #03-05 for North Stephenson, Inc., Submitted by Greenway
Engineering, to Rezone 79.13 Acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1
(Light Industrial) District. These Properties Front on the East side of
Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) Just North of the Interstate 81
Exit 317 Northbound Off-Ramp, and Immediately Northeast of Redbud
Road (Route 661), and are identified by Property Identification Numbers
(PINs) 43-A-150; 43-A-151; 43-A-151A; 43-A-152; 43C-3-2; 43C-3-3;
43C-3-4; 43C-3-4A; 43C-3-5; and 43C-3-7 A, in the Stonewall Magisterial
District. (See Attached) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M
3. 2005 - 2010 Agricultural and Forestal District Update. This Public Hearing
is to Consider the Renewal of the South Frederick District, and the Double
Church Road District. The Renewal of These Districts Will Establish a
Total of 6,216 Acres within the Agricultural and Forestal District Program
for the Ensuing Five Year Period. Properties that are Incorporated into
an Agricultural and Forestal District are Guaranteed Certain Protections
as Specified in Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia.
(See Attached) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N
',-
AGENDA
"-- REGULAR MEETING
FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TUESDA Y, APRIL 26, 2005
PAGE 4
4. An Ordinance to Amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165; Zoning;
Article VI, RP Residential Performance District; Section 63C, Open
Space Requirements. This Proposed Amendment Would Enable a
Reduction in the Required Open Space When Enhanced Recreation
Improvements are Provided. (See Attached) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
Other Plannina Items:
1. Master Development Plan #06-05 of Meadows Edge (formerly the Racey
Tract). (See Attached) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P
2. Memorandum and Resolution Re: Extension of Water and Sewer
Outside of Policy Boundaries - Scothorn and Young Properties.
(See Attached) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q
3. Buffer Distance Waiver Request - Old Massey Store. (See Attached) R
',,---
4. Discussion of Rezoning and Master Development Plan Processes.
(See Attached) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S
Board Liaison ReDorts (If Any)
1. Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Status Report.
(See Attached) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T
Citizen Comments
Board of Supervisors Comments
Adiourn
"---
[Fwd: Recognition for some 4-H'ers]
Subject: [Fwd: Recognition for some 4-H'ers]
From: "John R. Riley" <jriley@co.frederick.va.us>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:52:10 -0500
To: jtibbs@co.frederick.va.us
Subject: Recognition for some 4-H'ers
From: Cynthia Rowles <crowles@vt.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:48:44 -0500
To: jriley@co.frederick.va.us
CC: Nenskoske@nrahq.org
Good afternoon Mr. Riley,
I spoke with you at the last County Meeting about some possible recognition from
the Board of Supervisors for four 4-H'ers who have recently received national
recognition in their project area of shooting education. After talking with their
leader, John Venskoske, if we could set something up for April 26th meeting that
would be great.
I am enclosing some information. If you need anything else, ,just let me know.
Sarah Plummer set national records in the following events: Sporter Air Rifle
Position 1 Ometer - Women 20 shots Prone, Women 20 Shots Kneeling, & Women
20 Shots Standing for a total of 3 national records. Each national record is
personally signed by Mr. Edward Land, Secretary of the NRA.
Shawn Holley was the overall best male shooter in Smallbore 3-Position rifle (50ft)
and International Air Rifle (standing) in VA and will represent the state at the 2005
National Jr. Olympic Men's Rifle Championships. While in Colorado Springs,
Shawn will compete in several competitions and attend several training classes from
current/former Olympic shooters.
Zach Corder & Ian Pitts will attend the Pistol Championships in air pistol in
Colorado Springs. Zach earned the trip by scoring above a certain cutoff point for
the nation. Ian earned the trip because of earning the top male air pistol shooter in
VA. Both will participate in several competitions and attend several training classes
while in Colorado Springs.
Thank you for your help in recognize these youth.
10f2
3/22/2005 2:56 PM
[Fwd: Recognition for some 4-H'ers]
Cynthia
Cynthia K. Rowles
4-H Extension Agent
Frederick County Extension
107 N. Kent St.
Winchester, VA 22601
(540) 665-5699
crow1es@vt.edu
20f2
3/22/20052:56 PM
COUNTY of FREDERICK
John R. Riley, Jr.
County Administrator
MEMORANDUM
I
540/665-5666
Fax 540/667-0370
E-mail:
jriley@co.frederick.va.us
TO:
Board of Supervisors )1~ ~
John R. Riloy, k, County Admini'+
April 21, 2005
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Committee Appointments
Listed below are the vacancies/appointments due through June, 2005. As a reminder, in
order for everyone to have ample time to review applications, and so they can be included in the
agenda, please remember to submit applications prior to Friday agenda preparation. Your assistance
is greatly appreciated.
VACANCIES/OTHER
Historic Resources Advisorv Board
Brett Boyd - Member-At-Large
108 Carolyn Drive
Cross Junction, VA 22625
Term Expires: 05/10106
Four year appointment.
(Mr. Brett Boyd has resignedfrom the Historic Resources Advisory Board.) (See Attached
Resignation)
Rebecca B. Stillwell - Stonewall District Representative
423 High Banks Road
Stephenson, VA 22656
Term Expires: 04/12/07
F our year appointment.
(Ms. Stillwell has resigned from the Historic Resources Advisory Board.) (See Attached
Resignation)
Page 1 of 4
107 North Kent Street . Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Memorandum - Board of Supervisors
April 21, 2005
Page 2
Seth Thatcher - Serves as a Member-At-Large Representative (Seat Should be Opequon
District)
122 Wilkins Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
Term Expires: 04/12/05
Four year appointment.
(Mr. Thatcher has resigned. He was appointed in September, 2003 to fill the vacant seat of
Mr. James Fretz, of Opequon District, who passed away. The position was advertised twice for
Opequon District, but no applications were received. Due to the fact that a representative could not
be found from Opequon District, Mr. Thatcher was appointed as a Member-At-Large.) (See
Attached Resignation) (See Attached Application of Ms. Elizabeth Fravel, Opequon District.)
Extension Leadership Council
Diana L. Heishman - Shawnee District Representative
3029 Front Royal Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
Term Expires: 01/14106
Four year appointment.
(Diana Heishman has resigned from the Extension Leadership Council.) (See Attached
Resignation)
MAY 2005
Northwestern Health Systems A~encv - Lord Fairfax Health Council
James H. Painter - Frederick County Representative
3591 Apple Pie Ridge Road
Winchester, VA 22603
Home: (540)722-9765
Term Expires: OS/22/05
Three year appointment.
(Frederick County has one representative on the council. Mr. Painter has served on the
council since May, 1996. Staff is waiting to hear from the Health Systems Agency Director
Margaret King as to the status of this appointment.)
Page 2 of 4
Memorandum - Board of Supervisors
April 21, 2005
Page 3
JUNE 2005
Lord Fairfax Emerl!:encv Medical Services Council (LFEMS)
Janet Carbaugh, R.N. - Frederick County Representative
115 West Street
Stephens City, VA 22655
Home: (540)869-2848
Term Expires: 06/30/05
Three year appointment.
(Frederick County has three representatives on the EMS Council. Members serve a three
year term in accordance with EMS Council By-Laws. In the past, appointments/reappointments
have been forwarded to the Fire and Rescue Association for review and recommendation.)
Plannin~ Commission
Roger L. Thomas - Opequon District Representative
127 Halifax Avenue
Stephens City, VA 22655
Home: (540)869-4904
Term Expires: 06/14/05
Four year appointment.
Social Services Board
Pamela F. Kennedy - Gainesboro District Representative
108 Pine Hill Drive
Winchester, VA 22603
Home: (540)877-1968
Term Expires: 06/30/05
Four year appointment.
Page 3 of 4
Memorandum - Board of Supervisors
April 21,2005
Page 4
Winchester Rel!:ional Airport Authority
1. Patrick Russell - Frederick County Representative
1612 Welltown Road
Clearbrook, VA 22624
Home: (540)662-1000
Term Expires: 06/30/05
Four year appointment.
(Frederick County has four seats on the Airport Authority as is in accordance with the Joint
Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding. Members serve afour year term.)
JULY 2005
No appointments due.
JRR/tjp
Attachments
C:\TJPlcommitteeappnmntsIMemnsIBnardCommitteeApptsMtr.wpd Page 4 of 4
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM I
/;s~,?:.>,
/ ,~'- c:,'\
I ~!'-'.. \
('~,""',,_-,,' ::\1'
1...'. M.4F~ L -
\ {"~. F:e[j(~ii:.i "",; . ./
\r-- Ad.....i "., ....:.__..,~ ~ :..> '", , !
\ ~ j,HnL':)lk.,JI .: ..;,,!L.~ i
\ "', Ry ---:;.(->
\i.,'.~. .. ~ .."';;/
'-~' r:' .~ ,...-,.-' /
" ,,, ~ F r',':,,:' .' /'
-.........~.,
TO:
John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator
cc:
Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director
f
Candice E. Perkins, Planner II [:4:.4
FROM:
RE:
HRAB Membership
DATE:
March 15,2005
'-"--
-
One of the Historic Resource Advisory Board members has contacted the Planning Department to
resign their position. I have included a copy of the e-mail I received from him.
Mr. Brett Boyd - Member at Large
Term 05/1 0/2002 - 05/1 0/2006
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions at (540) 665-5651.
CEPlbhd
Attachment
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 . Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
1
j
,
1 of 1
.
.
Subject: Fw: HRAB
From: "Brett Boyd" <brettboyd@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 200512:01:05 -0500
To: <cperkins@co.:frederick.va.us>
-- Original Message --
From: Brett Boyd
To: c.oerkins@co.frederick.va.us
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 11 :52 AM
Subject: HRAB
Candice,
In accordance with our conversation, this email is to confirm my desire to step down from
my appointment with the HRAB. My decision was influenced by my limited time schedule, as well as
my disappointment with the Frederick County Board of Supervisors not embracing the HRAB
recommendations.
I wish you all the members of the HRAB the very best.
Sincerely,
Brett Boyd
3/15/2005 3 :34 n
WINE - STILLWELL
ORPORATION
- =-."^"
720 N. LOUDOUN STREET, P.O. BOX 2035, WINCHESTER, VIl,GINLt co' G & DEVELOPMENT
Ie
. . - ::t
" I:'; rf" IE L. ,1 l '~\Y\
.\ "'" \I.!J u; -' U'l
,U1! fEB2 2 mO\ . '
OFFICE 54CkS62-4441
FAX 540-722-3643
Dear Lynda:
~.... --~
..',.! /.' 7.. <.
;t}~~;~<'; '"' ~ ~ .::,::~~\
/.~:.c ~. r." ..'-.....,'.\
//,""\'-\) ~.
,[< C('\.\;,;,v;'..\
/ ~. Q.\..V'<v '"_ .'
i :2 \" ?-\:JS~ :>
','. .,.,0 ..,,,\:\"
': Ii ~'\'. '" \V ~\""
\ c'. ~t;.\,~. \5
'\".. \,g,. . ~'I>"
. ":? 'r-1;,~\'0\S . /
~.;;.. ~'\G"
"::';:''''''^. ,;c~
".jl t q l~, f' .~~ .'~ "'J
'~
February 18, 2005
Ms. Lynda Tyler
438 Devi!'s Backbone Overlook
Stephenson, VA 22656
Due to the following issues I am resigning my position on HRAB:
1. Frustration with lack of attendance which has left HRAB with no quorum to initiate
by-laws or election of a Chairman and a Vice Chairman.
2. Our recommendations go unheeded. This may be due to a breakdown in
comnnmication or deliberateness of Developers choosing to do their own thing.
Frederick County desperately needs a strong committee to preserve it's historic resources.
Perhaps a complete reorganization is needed for HRAB to be heard and to be effective.
Sincerely,
q~fVP. ~
Rebecca B. Stillwell
cc: Ms. Candice E. Perkins, Planner n
Frederick County Department of Planning and Development
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202
Wmchester, Vrrginia 22601-5000
ROOFING - GUITER WORK - SHEET METAL FABRICATION
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM I
TO:
John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator
cc:
Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director
Candice E. Perkins, Planner II Clvf
FROM:
RE:
HRAB Membership
DATE:
April 21, 2005
~x,,..,,...
--flii';iDJlic~r,~!1$<~.-
m~ -_
-
~'~'mfflI'}_'1If.I&~
One of the Historic Resource Advisory Board members term has expired, and he has also contacted
the Planning Department to resign his position. I have included a copy of the fax I received from
him.
Mr. Seth Thatcher - Member at Large
Term 05/l 0/2002 - 04/l2/2005
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions at (540) 665-565] .
CEP/bhd
Attachment
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 . Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
rR. -13' 05 IVIED) 09,24
SCHEDULING/ENGRING.
TEL:5405428811
P.OOIIOOI
April 13, 2005
Candice E. Perkins
Planner
County ofFreclerick
Dept. of Planning and Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Candice,
I am announcing my resignation from the Historic Resources Advisory Board effective
April]3,2oo5. I have taken a new job which precludes me from being able to participate
at all in this important worle. 1 have not been able to attend many meetings, but the times
that I have attended I have found enjoyable and informative.
Sincerely,
'-
Seth Thatcber
122 Wilkins Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
FFlOH :CQl.NTy OF FREDERIC!<
1-540-667-0370
200S.04-12
14'19 1129 P.01/01
INFORMATIONAL DATA SHEET
FOR
FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
. --:)
/JiLl-- Gw,/I/'L . (-IPC:OU(').,j DisrrictSupervisor, would
like to nominate you to scrvt on the 1-I/~/t'RIt:... ,2,;:{" c-.."ze:e <. f'hJ//d ,,'r'Z- <.J r~ ,',qrzrJ
As a bricfpcrsonal introduction to the other Board members. please flU out the infonnation ~uested
below for their review prior to filling the appointment. (please Priat Clearly. Thaak You.)
Name: Er z. f.1 ~ e.. +413.. F;'-c1,. LIe../ Home Pboae: .fib 9 - if 3 7.f"
Office PbODe: f?b 9 - tf t.f 'j cj.-
8'(09' - 4'-199
Emul: fr&l.v'e I Q c:.d."-.f ph ,'0...-., <L +
Employer: Fbv<:>ru,1\ +er(DvJne,-)
Civic/Community Activities: rnefY\~e,' fVI ladle-low,., {~'n:_ "/ R~c.......~ A,,~y, I". v!
\
tv\ "'......... ~ 0<.... T;:e e.. e,.">,\ " , '> ; " IO.AJ'" cf S +t:" 0 kli.,':, ( : t '-(' L" fe.. h."",,? {1'\".-I\ ~ e(-
W i .",-~e:l1-e.- r re..J-e.,-,,,-,Z C,,-,!,J"\ +y H " j)~" <..<,-1 Soc.. e;-I~
Will Vo.. Be Able To Attead T",is Committee's Regularly Scheduled M~ng On:
3....d Tv..~s.ja.'1 ()f~ f"v1<T1'/f"I.1 Yes: vI'" No:
J
Address: P. u. (30 x. (ct 0 S.2 II rl1...,.~ 5.+.-
s- -ter:h.€r\" L, t-yVQ. .A,z("j':,-
Social SecurityNo,: ,;(:3 1-9fv.-;;J Og'O
Occupation: F)e r;!'" t
Fax:
Do You Forewe ADy Possible Coamcts Or!~terest Whic:b Mi:ht Arise By Your Serving On
T.~..bls' OlDmittee? Y.. es: No; v~. ExpIaiD:
. . J
~PI~ __~
Adclitioaal (.formation Or Comments Y 00 Would Uke To Provide (If Y08 need more space.
please use the reverse side or include additional sheets):
~"'--,v.J +,'\/<2... ....Oi><i'.'-!'eS, Wti-h.""
I> ~ T (' I <!-; . ..J..i."I "" " e.. + ~ c . .'\
.- I'c:..:..~ I., , ..s fu r,' c c.! t'e..S' u.-.- ,-(. LS ,
c~ --1'. .f)
Applic:aDt'S Siguatllre:c - rJ . ~. ~/ Date:
Nomiastiag Supervisor's Commeats:
+-/~- - of;-
(Ol~)
c..\TJN"on<<.. . ",,"" . u......
REC'O MAR 2 1 2005
Diana L. Heishman
3029 Front Royal Pike
Winchester, Virginia 22602
Virginia Cooperative Extension
Frederick County Office
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, Va. 22601
g1~
~>-
$ _~?;:\ 1-.';'",,:; <.;_ _ '
~;:. ~ ":,'-
,q, ";;
( f" \\t.\;C~\..~
\;2, ..,,~ _ '2.0r:P,
-> WI!"" ':,(l\\~'\j
;;;. ~e'0~'" , r,ffi\ce
:'1 ~\e, t\l~""SJ\ 5 '_'"
\'<""~ ,.",<S.\f:,IS . ''"'
",c- tw 'to'! ' /
~/ -<'-'
.....r,a lJ
WL6SlSg'\7S
Attn: Cynthia Marston
Dear Ms. Marston.
I received your letter concerning the next meeting of the Leadership Council. I will
be unable to attend due to a long standing commitment for the first and second
Thursday of every month.
I feel that due to the fact that I can not attend your meetings because of other
commitments I should resign from the council to allow someone who can attend
the meeting be appointed.
I have enjoyed being on the council.
Please accept my resignation effective immediately.
My best to you and the council.
Sincerely,
~~~
Diana L. Heishman
Frederick County, Virginia
Ellen E. Murphy
Commissioner of the Revenue
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, V A 22601
email: emurphy@co.frederick.va.us
Telephone (540) 665-5681 Fax (540) 667.6487
i'':": ~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
LAWRENCE AMBROGI, COUNTY ATT
ELLEN MURPHY, COMMISSIONER
RE:
MILL WOOD, LLC tla RED ROOF INN
DATE
APRIL 11,2005 '
Please ask the Board of Supervisors to allow the Treasurer to refund or roll credits as needed for
Millwood LLC T/a Red RoofInn, This abatement of tax is due the sale of the business to
Mahaveer Inc and adjusts the 2005 business license taxes to the correct amount for the prior
owner. The new owner has been properly licensed and paid for the remaining of the 2005 year,
The Treasurer needs permission to refund $4,236.91.
All information has been verified for this exoneration by staff and is found to be correct.
Exoneration for authorization is: $4,236.91.
Additional backup is in the Commissioner of the Revenue office.
Thank you for taking care of this matter.
v/-/ ~-r ~.f~ a/~...;;;:'
~.
L-~~' /
f-- //- () \)
....
o
~
c
~
o
0....
Co) Co)
.s~
.9'*
~'E
.... E
dlO\. do
~ 0 ...,
~ Co) ()
Co),S
.t:J::>-
lii.t:J
~"e
Eg
~':S
8~
g~
Olii
.::>
~S
~ ~ ~
~o '"
ex:~ 0
Q)C
.sO
_"e
o C
.... ro
Ol ....
C Ol
0::>-
.- ro
~o.
,- )<.
S ro
S-
oOl
0-5
Ol.l?
.s::>-
1>8
~Ol
.... C
to 0
~.:
....s
0.0
!,,$
_0
~O
E~
SO
-6'0
c....
tO~
.... ::>
%~
Ol dl
E~
Ol~
~6
";;i
Ol
)<.
to
-
-
o
-c.
%
$.
ro
.t:J
ro
Ol
.s
.l?
~
C
'c
"~
Ol
0.
II>
~
;..
.t:J
~
"U
's
II>
"e
dl
C
OJ
b
~
dl
.t:J
lii
::>
S
\
~
ex:
dl
,S
'0
\
"iji
II>
'E
S
o
S
uJ
::l
m
~
a:
~
I-
~
o
~
z
g
III
(/)
.ct==.
z~
G~
~(,)
~>-
". ltl
~
-m
~~
.ct(/)
uJ(/)
i~
o~
~
~~
810
uJ
'&
8
u..
o
~
::>
Cl
\
o
~
~
\t)
o
0')
E
'-
o
u.
.(
~
\
~
\n
--
f
o
$
III
iii
uJ.z
~o:
~-;
.... p.
o '"
I:::.-~
c ~ .'
.g~ss
III r- '" '"
~.coo
o~~-o
E~~&
0l"t:,'O'O
~-%~
~ ~ ';) ':)
o .-'- '6'
c:~~""
a>
c
.;)
c
o
~
~
r-
..0
~...
III ~ .'
'r ._ III
~ .g ~
{!l/lc..
-jp.
N
~NGi
~N~~!
%%~~~
~~~~5
-~
s"
o e
1-"
...a.
"'0
~e
c."
~~
1-1-
r
\.11
0-
J
<:0
~
:r
.
~
::.0
VI
\
rf\
\r-
\
~
~';'
"
;~
e ..
o ...
10"
E~
o
o
.....
\()
,...
.. ,.
... ..
~~
III
....
"
iO
c.'"
"e
:1S ~
"'jjj
~i
~c.
~
5
:e
o
I-
1.\
'0
~
\~1
~ ~
\~\ ci'Q
:s .0
% ~
"~ ~ -% :::
:;>'rco to
'"'
~
1ii
.;)
s
o
c
t
..
..
11,
:
~
3
'p
i
<'
"
.S
u.
-0
%
'"
8
~
\
~
'"
.s
-0
I;;
'6
-..
'\
..
eo
~
~
~
~
N)
~
~
" rJ
J.,
J
o
...
II
::l
jjj
:>
G, ;: ~
...$ ~
't. "" ..n
~ .... "::>-
(' .,... c;r-
,n _ '
Os. ~ ~
r'- e: ~
~\.. to- ~
~ . ~
..
e
..
E
..
..
"
..
..
<(
r ~
~-' ~
e III
.. ..
E '0.
4 od.
~ 1
...
..
..
...
~
o
()
jjj
e
]>
o
,
/.
Y
~
v
~
i
.-,
,
'J
~'\".
@?~.
@
~ )~
@
%
g~
",,,
~,..
...'&
'5
.....
n.'"
"'~
C>~
~~
'-
'l' '.'..
A ;".l
\ '
,- ..
,
l'~
\. :
;:(
'-'
\)
~
~
~
~
~
.."
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Parks and Recreation Department
James M. Doran, Director
540-665-5678
FAX: 540-665-9687
www.co.frederick.va.us
e-mail: fcprd@co.frederick.va.us
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator !~
James M. Doran, Director, Parks and Recreation Department
Resolution for Grant Application
April 20, 2005
On March 24, 2004, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution authorizing
the Parks and Recreation Department to apply for a 50/50 matching grant for a Spray Ground at
Sherando Park. The grant application was submitted, however, the grant was not approved.
At the January 18.2005 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, the Commission moved that
the staff reapply for a 50/50 matching grant to the Department of Conservation and Recreation to
construct a spray ground at Sherando Park.
The estimated cost of the project is $250,000 with the 50% match ($125,000) coming from the
proffer account for Parks and Recreation. As of Friday, April 15, 2005, the County has $147,000
in the Parks and Recreation proffer account.
The grant program is funded by the Land and Water Conservation Fund and based upon the
direction of the Federal Budget at this time, this may be the last year this grant program is
available.
Attach - resolution
JMD/sm
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
At the last meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, held in the Board of
Supervisors Meeting Room, 107 N. Kent St., Winchester, Virginia, on April 26, 2005,
the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), provides funds to
assist political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia in acquiring and developing open
space and park lands; and
WHEREAS, there are urgent needs within the County of Frederick to develop park land;
and
WHEREAS, this area is deemed of high acquisition and development priority by said
Frederick County Parks and Recreation and shall be referred to as the Spray Ground
Development Project.
WHEREAS, in order to attain funding assistance from DCR, it is necessary that the
Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department guarantee that a proportionate share of the
cost thereof is available; and
WHEREAS, the proportionate project share of $125,000 is funded by the Frederick
County Parks and Recreation Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE Frederick County Parks and
Recreation Department, James M. Doran, Director, is hereby authorized to cause such
information or materials as may be necessary to be provided to the Department of Conservation
and Recreation (DCR) and to enter into such agreements as may be necessary to permit the
formulation, approval and funding ofthe Spray Ground Development Project.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Frederick County Parks and Recreation
Department gives its assurance that the funds needed as the proportionate share of the cost of the
approved program will be provided, up to $125,000.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Parks and Recreation
Department gives its assurance that the General Provisions of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund Act (L&WCF) and the Virginia Outdoors Fund Fiscal Procedures will be complied with in
the administration of this project.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Parks and Recreation
Department will operate and maintain the public recreation facility in good condition and will
provide permanent project acknowledgment signs ofthe participating funding agencies and that
this signage will clearly state that the said facility is a "public" recreational facility.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Parks and Recreation
Department shall dedicate the metes and bounds of the Spray Ground properties, in
perpetuity, for public outdoors recreational purposes in accordance with the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (L&WCF) act.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Parks and Recreation
Department gives its assurance that all other applicable federal and state regulations governing
such expenditure of funds will be complied with in the administration, development, and
subsequent operation of this Spray Ground Development Project.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Department of Conservation and
Recreation is respectfully requested to assist in approval and funding of the Spray Ground
Development Project in order to enhance the standard of public recreational enjoyment for all our
citizenry.
Voting by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on the motion was as follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
ATTESTED BY AND NOTARIZED:
John R. Riley, Jr.
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
County of Frederick, Virginia
Resolution No.: 052-05
COUNTY of FREDERICK
John R. Riley, Jr.
County Administrator
540/665-5666
Fax 540/667-0370
E-mail:
jriley@co.frederick.va.us
iBlliltiltllllli0\:
~
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Board of Supervisors 0. ~
John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator-r-
Resolution of Support - Shenandoah Valley Regional Water Resources Policy
Committee Policy Level Strategic Plan Project
DATE:
April 20, 2005
Attached please find the above reference resolution, which states that the County will:
I. Participate in the Regional Water Resources Policy Committee.
2. Appoint an elected official representative and/or an alternate elected official and
appointee.
3. Appoint, assign, or encourage staff and related agency personnel to participate on
technical committees related to coordination efforts.
4. Participate in matching the $25,000 Agua grant for the Committee's work in FY 2004-
2005 with a base local contribution of $7,511.
Staffhas contacted Wellington Jones, Director of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, to get
some insight from FCSA regarding their willingness to participate in this program Mr. Jones advised
that FCSA would pay the County's $7,511 assessment.
There was some thought that the resolution be rewritten to specifY FCSA as the participating entity
rather than Frederick County; however, Mr. Jones advised that this committee is made up of elected
officials; therefore, it would be best for the resolution to identifY Frederick County as the participating
jurisdiction. Mr. Jones and other members of the Sanitation Authority will attend the policy committee
meetings and will be involved in the discussions, etc.
With regard to the appointment of a county representative and/or an alternate, Supervisor Fisher
currently serves as liaison to FCSA and attends these policy committee meetings; therefore, it would be
] 07 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
appropriate for him to continue serving in this capacity, ifit is the desire of both the Board and
Supervisor Fisher. Mr. Jones did suggest that the Board appoint a member of the Sanitation Authority
to serve as an alternate county representative to this committee.
This item has been placed on the April 26, 2005 meeting agenda for Board consideration, at which time
adoption of the resolution would be appropriate.
Should you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
JRR/jet
C:\Documents and Settin~\JET\MyDocuments\Riley Correspondence\Memos\Board ofSupervisors\BOS Memo re SVRWRPC Policy Level Strategic Plan.wpd
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE
SHENANDOAH VALLEY
REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES POLICY COMMITTEE
POLICY LEVEL STRATEGIC PLAN PROJECT
WHEREAS, the water resources of the Shenandoah Valley, both surface water and ground water,
are primary to its character and essential for the long term economic viability of the Shenandoah
Valley Counties of Augusta, Berkeley, Clarke, Frederick, Jefferson, Page, Rockingham,
Shenandoah, Warren, and the cities and towns therein, and the Independent Cities of
Harrisonburg, Staunton, Waynesboro and Winchester, and
WHEREAS, the 1999 drought brought together localities of the Northern Shenandoah Valley
Regional Commission to consider long term water supply issues, and
WHEREAS, establishment of the Regional Water Resources Policy Committee by the Northern
Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission, September 19, 2002 led to invitations for upstream and
downstream jurisdictions to join in the process to seek a plan for ground and surface water
resources for the many watersheds of the Shenandoah Valley, and
WHEREAS, the region matches that of the Great Valley Water Resources Science Forum, a new
U.S. Geological Survey bi-state cooperative group which has scoped out a ten year water science
plan to learn more about the hydro-geologic characteristics of the Shenandoah Valley, and
WHEREAS, the Regional Water Resources Policy Committee received a grant from the Agua
Fund, Inc., to conduct the Shenandoah Valley Watersheds Policy Integration Assessment, and
WHEREAS, the Assessment was designed to have three major outcomes: (1) an integrated water
resources goal structure; (2) a water resources programs database aligned based on the goal
structure; and (3) a Shenandoah Valley Water Resources Strategic Plan development process that
the Committee could pursue, and
WHEREAS, the Assessment has been completed, recommending that the Committee engage in
the development of an action oriented policy-level Shenandoah Valley Water Resources Strategic
Plan to determine cost-effective and workable action plans to address key issues identified during
the assessment process as the first step in a continuous strategic planning process; and
WHEREAS, She'1l1I1doah Valley Pure Water Forum is taking the lead to further develop the water
resources database to serve as a regional information sharing and network building tool, and
WHEREAS, water planning responsibilities continue to be heaped on local governments, thus
competing for scarce local resources, the proposed Shenandoah Valley Water Resources
Strategic Plan approach intends to:
(1) be the vehicle to help localities cost-effectively meet their individual requirements for
completing state and federal planning processes, including, but not limited to the
Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement watershed planning goal and state water supply
planning requirements;
(2) leverage work already being performed by and for local governments, stakeholder
groups, the private sector, regional commissions, the Shenandoah Valley Pure Water
Forum, and State and Federal agencies;
(3) continue networking regionally in order to provide each community with more skills
and manpower than they would have if they planned alone; and
1
(4) ensure planning is based on current information and an increasing base of scientific
knowledge about water resources in the Shenandoah Valley by the long term utilization
of USGS and other research resources.
WHEREAS, state and federal regulations encourage regional efforts and most funders,
including government agencies are focusing their financial support on regional actions, and
WHEREAS, a regional group will have more political influence and regional solutions will be
less likely to be modified or over-ruled by a state agency, and
WHEREAS, through the "Shenandoah Valley Watersheds Policy Integration Assessment," the
Committee has generated the following benefits for localities:
(1) a locally developed set of integrated water resource goals applicable to localities
and throughout the Shenandoah Valley;
(2) a central database that lists most of the groups working on water issues, the
kinds of projects they are working on, where they are doing their work;
(3) an understanding of the data that is available today and a central database that
lists the kinds of data being collected as well as who is collecting it,
(4) a listing of the major regulatory issues facing local jurisdictions with regard to
water;
(5) feedback from important stakeholders about "keys to success" for projects like
this;
(6) an action oriented policy-level Water Resources Strategic Plan approach which
will progress as a locally based, regionally networked Plan to ensure
Shenandoah Valley water resources will not be overcommitted to the detriment
of current and future generations;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Frederick County will,: (1) participate in the
Regional Water Resources Policy Committee, a joint exercise of powers for strategic planning by
the Central Shenandoah Planning District Commission and the Northern Shenandoah Valley
Regional Commission, with participation by the West Virginia Counties of Berkeley and
Jefferson, to development of the Assessment recommended policy-level Shenandoah Valley Water
Resources Strategic Plan; (2) will appoint an elected official representative and/or an alternate
elected official or appointee; (3) will appoint, assign or encourage, as appropriate, local
government staff and related agency personnel to participate on technical committees related to
inter-county as well as intra-county coordination; and (4) will participate in matching the $25,000
Agua grant for the Committee's work in FY 2004-05 with a base local contribution of $7,511
computed from a per capita rate of .120373 cents for the 2002 population of 62,400 for the
$65,000 local share requirement of the $90,000 project budget, as adjusted for population, but not
to exceed twenty cents per capita.
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the County commends the representatives, stakeholders,
organizations and agencies who contributed to the success of the Assessment process.
Adopted this _ day of _,2005.
2
Attest:
Attached for information:
Signed:
Funding at .120373 per capita for $25,000
Agua Fund Grant
Shenandoah Valley Watersheds Population
South to North 01-Jul- Funding
02
Region Est. .120373
per cap
Augusta Co. VA06 66,300 $7,981
Staunton City VA06 23,500 $2,829
Waynesboro City VA06 19,600 $2,359
Rockingham Co. VA06 69.200 $8,330
Harrisonburg City VA06 42,200 $5,080
- Central Shenandoah PDC - Subtotal VA06 220,800 $26,578
Page Co. VA07 23,300 $2,805
Shenandoah Co. VA07 36,800 $4,430
Warren Co. VA07 32,500 $3,912
Frederick Co. VA07 62,400 $7,511
Winchester City VA07 24,600 $2,961
Clarke Co. VA07 13,300 $1,601
- Northern Shenandoah Valley RC - Subtotal VA07 193000 $23,232
Virginia localities 413,800 $49,810
Jefferson Co. WV09 44,926 $5,408
Berkeley Co. WV09 81 ,262 $9,782
- Eastern Panhandle Regional P&DC - WV09 126,188 $15,190
Subtotal
Total Population 539,988 $65,000
Note: Virginia Independent City populations are not included in County totals.
6.7.9 PlanResolution-5.doc
3
COUNTY of FREDERICK
MEMORANDUM
Parks and Recreation Department
James M. Doran, Director
540-665-5678
FAX: 540-665-9687
www.co.frederick.va.us
e-mail: fcprd@co.frederick.va.us
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator !j~
James M. Doran, Director, Parks & Recreation Dept. )'/!/J-/
Action Taken by Parks and Recreation Commission
April 20, 2005
The Parks and Recreation Commission met on April 19, 2005. Members present
were: Steven White, Charles Sandy, Robert Hartman, P. W. Hillyard, III,
Victoria Keelon, Ronald Madagan, Larry Sullivan, Cheryl swartz, Lynda Tyler
Items Requirinq Board of Supervisors Action:
1 . None
Submitted for Board Information Only:
l. Bike Trail Plan - Mr. Sandy moved that the Commission support the draft
plan for a Multi-Use Trail Network within the Urban Development Area of
Frederick County, second by Mr. Hillyard, carried unan~ously (8-0).
2. Budget Update - Mr. Hartman moved to recommend that $140,000 be
transferred from the County reserve fund into the Parks and Recreation capital
budget to i.nstall new sewer lines at Clearbrook Park, to connect to the
Sanitation Authority's system, second by Mr. Sandy, carried unanimously (8-0).
Note: The $140,000 does not include the connection fee assessed by the
Sanitation Authority. Staff is currently negotiating the connection fee with
the Sanitation Authority.
3. Sherando Park Playground Recommendation - Mr. Hartman reported the
Building and Grounds Committee recommends the Commission accept the proposal
submitted by Site Concepts for installation of playground equipment at
Sherando Park. Recommendation unanimously accepted (8-0).
4. Winter Tube Slide Update - Mr. Hartman reported the Buildings and Grounds
Committee recommends the staff prepare and solicit proposals for a winter tube
slide at Sherando Park. Recommendation approved 7-1; Sandy opposed.
Copy: Steven White, Chairman
Lynda J. Tyler, Board Liaison
Cheryl B. Shiffler, Finance Director
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
COUNTY of FREDERICK
John R. Riley, Jr.
County Administrator
I... .MEM (l R.kNDtrM ........1
540/665-5666
Fax 540/667-0370
E-mail:
jriley@coJrederick.va.us
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator
DATE: Aprill2,2005
RE: Code and Ordinance Committee Report
.......................................
. . . . .............................................................................,...,',.,..........,.....~.........~~....~'...,'.........'.......................~
The Code & Ordinance Committee met on Monday, Aprilll, 2005 at 3:00 P.M., in the First
Floor Conference Room, County Administration Building, 1 07 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia.
Present were chairman ofthe connnittee Supervisor Gary W Dove, Supervisor Bill M. Ewing, Stephen
G. Butler, and Michael L. Bryan. Also present were Deputy Director of Public Works Joe Wilder, Bio-
Solids Monitor Laura Shifflett, County Attorney Lawrence R. Ambrogi and County Administrator John
R. Riley, Jr.
The committee submits the following:
***ltems Requiring Board Action***
1. Pronosed Amendments to Chapter 50 Biosolids. Frederick County Code:
The Committee discussed the proposed amendments to Chapter 50 Biosolids, Frederick County
Code. The proposed amendments would bring our ordinance into conformance with changes made to
the State regulations. The Committee unanimously recommended approval of the proposed
amendments to the Biosolids Ordinance and forwarded this item to the Board of Supervisors for public
hearing and with a recommendation for approval.
***Information Only***
1. ProDosed Amendments to Chapter 79. Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance of the
Frederick County Code -
107 North Kent Street . Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Memorandum - Board of Supervisors
April 12, 2005
Page 2
The Committee discussed the proposed amendments to the Erosion and Sediment Control
Ordinance focusing in particular on a provision that would affect the amount ofliability the
owner/developer would bear for road maintenance, relative to erosion and sediment control measures,
for roads in new subdivisions, which have not been accepted into the VDOT secondary road system
The Committee expressed concern about imposing vicarious liability on a developer and how this
proposal would be enforced. After further discussion, Committee unanimously recommended approval
of the proposed amendments, subject to final review of subsection 17 - Vehicular Sediment Tracking,
with the Chairman to report back his findings back to the Committee.
Respectfully Submitted,
Code and Ordinance Committee
Gary W Dove, Chairman
Bill M. Ewing
Stephen G. Butler
Michael L. Bryan
JRR/jet
Attachments
cc: Code and Ordinance Committee
C. William Orndoff, ]r, Treasurerr
c: \Docwumls and Settm~\JET'ilvfy Documents\Code & Ordinance\Reports\CodeOrd 041105 amended. 'Apd
BIOSOLIDS ORDIANCE
50-1. Purpose and Intent:
This ordinance is intended to ensure laws and regulations governing the land application
of Biosolids ( class B) are properly implemented and enforced, and to secure and
promote the health, safety and welfare of the County's citizens; to deter the creation of a
public nuisance and to prevent pollution of the waters and soils of the County related to
the land application of Biosolids. In carrying out this ordinance, the County will test and
monitor the land application of Biosolids to agricultural land within the boundaries as
authorized by the- Virginia Administrative Code Sections 12 VAC 5-585-660 through
VAC 5-585-750, and in accordance with the Biosolids Fee Guidance Manual. This (
-Cudt: uf Vi. ~;"'ia S~~t;uu.. 12.5 585 f)f)9 tltl'6llgk ll.e S8S {tOg aad appliQable
reg'U'lllft8BlJ. This ordinance is intended to address the land application of Biosolids in the
County and to implement the authority granted to local governments by VA Code
sections 62.1-44.19:3 and sections 32.1-164.5-ete, et seq.,
(to provide for the testing, monitoring and enforcement of land applications of Biosolids
within the political boundaries of the County and to insure compliance with applicable
laws and regulations.) This ereliBllBee Chapter is not intended to regulate the land
application of animal waste, water treatment plant sludge, the disposal of sludge at the
sanitary landfill, or exceptional quality Biosolids (class A) marketed or distributed for use
according to 11 VAC 5-585 . Virginia Administrative Code 12 VAC 5-585-520.
50-2. DefmitioDs:
Applicator - any person who applies Biosolids pursuant to appropriate Virginia
Department afhealth permits.
Biosolids ( class B) - a sewage sludge that has received an established treatment for
required pathogen control and is treated or managed to reduce vector attraction to a
satisfactory level and contains acceptable levels of pollutants, such that it is acceptable
for use for land application, marketing or distribution in accordance with the Virginia
Biosolids Use Regulations. (BUR.) 12 'V AC 5-585-16 Oduh~1 15, 1997. 12 VAC 5-585-
560, Table 8-A.
CIDil5 A BioSGlid.. m.....des A Class I trtated sludge lrith Ilppreved eaBfto81 ae i'eetaF
,db adiuu aud """~l'tahl~ It:;~d~ uf l'uHu{;uu.. (TlIblt: 8-A, BUR)
Class B Bio!l",lids mun..& A slQd6~ thAt I~(.c.i.e~ Class 101 IT tIC.atmeBt far fteleflllate
I'MhageB eaBtt'al aBel is treated 8.. BlaBageel ta pr8perly redllee veNa.. IltftttleftaD
aBd aeee):Jtahle hn eI af pallatllBts (Tllhle SA,BUR).
Exceptional Quality Biosolids (class A) - biosolids that have received an established
level of treatment for pathogen control and vector attraction reduction and contains
known levels of pollutants, such that they may be marketed or distributed for public
accordance with the Biosolids Use RegulationsI2.5-585-520.
Sewage Sludge - any solid, semi solid, or liquid residues, which contain materials,
removed from municipal or domestic wastewater during treatment including primary and
secondary residues.
Incorporation - the disking or tilling ofBiosolids into the soil.
Laud Al'}iK~..ti()n of Bi086lid!l the spreadill:g, plaeillg an:d application 6f hi680lids
at mAil Aged 1I:!;I 61lomk ) AtLS ill: acco) dance 'ft ith An establishcd pIogrllm for
APl'l)"",.l;uu. uf oul. ;IJ;'ulA 4)... lAud u.,~d fu. ;Sea ;,,-ult~l e:
Land Application - the distribution of either treated wastewater of acceptable quality,
referred to as effluent, or supernatant from biosolids facilities or stabilized sewage
sludge of acceptable quality, referred to as biosolids, upon, or insertion into, the land
with a uniform application rate for the purpose of utilization, assimilation or pollutant
removal. Bulk disposal of stabilized sludge in a confined area, such as in landfills, is not
land application. Sites approved for land application of biosolids or supernatant in
. accordance with this chapter are not to be considered to be treatment works.
Virginia Nutrient Management Plan - a plan prepared by a person who is certified by
the Department of Conservation and Recreation as a nutrient planner and otherwise
meeting the requirements set forth by the state law and regulation.
Owner - a person or entity that holds legal title, equitable title, a leasehold interest or the
right of possession or control over land.
Temporary storage facility - any facility designed to store Biosolids for a short period of
period of time and shall include, but not be limited to, above ground and underground
storage.
Permittee - a person, firm corporation, political subdivision or other entity holding a
permit for the land application or distribution of biosolids, issued by the Virginia
Department of health.
:r~. nail IIuldlE;;1 IUlfWDU~ AU ;ud; l' ;duAI UI fillll thAt huld~ iI I'E;I Ulil i~:sut.id by lhe~
Vi.. 6;"";. Bcp... tUlCllt of HeAlth (VDII) f6r the applkltti8B 6f Bi6s61ids ill: Frederick
Cuuuty.
PeFIBit me.BS IlB IlllthBN.ftaB f;PIlntf.d b) tile allth6Jit, ()f th", CbUlUluu..~th uf
Virginia to apply land Biosolids.
Permit - either an authorization granted by the commissioner to construct, or operate,
facilities ands specific sites utilized for biosolids management, including land
application, marketing and distribution of biosolids. A Virginia Pollution Abatement
permit issued by the Department of Envirmental Quality, to a land applier is an optional
permit for these activities authority of the Commonwealth of Virginia to apply land
Biosolids.
50-3. Biosolids Monitor:
There is hereby established the position of Biosolids Monitor, who shall be an employee
or agent of the County, either full-time or part~time, charged with the responsibility of
ensuring that the land application of Biosolids is conducted in accordance with this
ordinance and applicable Federal and State laws and regulations. The Biosolids monitor
shall review permit modifications related to the application .ofbiosolids; maintain an
accurate filing system depicting the location of all pennitted biosolids application
sites in the County; perform field inspections during the application ofbiosolids and
initiate field and laboratory testing of sites
'fh.. Bi6....Kdlo ...OItit6I shalllun e the M1th6rit, to 01 du tile AbatemeItt 6f any'
,i6lati68 Bf ~t.te 11m 6r regulati6ft. The ahatcdl<.ut Ok du shaH idc.dtif,. the .u.H. ity
c:ollst;tating the ,i6Iati6n. specify the e6de previsiBa 81' l'e~.ti8B vialated hy the
actiVity and order cesslltlun ilud \;uo. "",Guu uf th(, "' i()lllti~.
The biosolids monitor shall have the authority to order the abatement of any violation
under Virginia Administrative Code Section 32.1-164.5,32.1-164.6 Or 62.1-44.19:3 or
any regulation promulgated under those sections.
The Biosolids monitor may request that the Virginia Department of Health (VDH)
suspend or revoke the Permit Holder's application to apply Biosolids on a specific site in
the County or in the entire County.
50-4. Complaint Response
A. The Biosolids Monitor shall notify The Virginia Department of Health, the
Applicator or Permittee and the owner of all complaints concerning the land Application
of biosolids.
B. The Biosolids Monitor shall notify the Permittee of any failure to follow the
requirements of the Permit resulting in the improper application of Biosolids or in the
spillage of Biosolids onto public street on right-of-ways or on property outside the area
authorized by the permit.
C. The Permittee shall respond to undertake appropriate corrective action for improper
applied Biosolids, or to clan up Biosolids spilled onto public streets, roadways or other
unpermitted areas, immediately upon receiving such notification.
D. In the event that the Permittee does not respond to notification of spillage or
improper application and the County conducts the cleanup of Biosolids, the Permittee
shall compensate the County for the actual costs of such cleanup.
E. The Permittee is responsible for ensuring that tracking of Biosolids from land
application sites onto public roads is in minimized and that Biosolids that are dragged out
from land application sites are promptly removed from public roads and highways.
50-5. Reimbursements:
The Biosolids Monitor shall submit requests for reimbursement on behalf of the County
for costs and expenses of testing and monitoring land applications and related expenses as
are allowable by applicable state law, regulations, manuals, guide and procedures, under
Virginia Administrative Code 12 VAC 5-585-50 and 12 V AC 5-585-690.
Monitoring and Sampling:
A. By agreeing to accept Biosolids for land application, the Owner of the property on
which land application takes place agrees to allow the Biosolids Monitor access to the
land application site for the purpose of monitoring land application activities. It is the
responsibility of the permit Holder to ensure the property Owners advised of this
requirement. The Biosolids Monitor shall make diligent efforts to make contact with the
property Owner prior to entering the property.
B. The Permit Holder and the Owner shall allow the Biosolids Monitor to take samples
at the application site before, during and after the application. Any test samples shall be
analyzed at a lab authorized to conduct such analysis and the County Health Department
may review these test results to determine compliance with applicable laws and
regulations. At the request of the Applicator, the Biosolids Monitor will provide the
Applicator with a split sample.
C. At the request of the Biosolids Monitor, the Applicator or Permittee shall provide the
most recent analysis results for Biosolids that are land applied at any site in the county.
50-6. Notification
The permit applicant for the land application of Biosolids in Frederick County's rural
agricultural Districts shall notify in writing the Biosolids Monitor of such application
which notice shall include:
a. The name, address and telephone number of the Permit Holder, including the name of a
representative knowledgeable of the permit,
b. The Tax Map numbers of the parcels where land application will occur.
c. The names of the Owners of the property where land application will occur.
d. The estimated dated range on which land application will occur and the duration of the
planned activity .
e. A copy of the current state permit and other state and federal permits authorizing the
land application
f. A copy of a Nutrient Management Plan as required by state law and regulations.
g. Information on proposed haul routes and alternative haul routes on a County Map.
h. The Biosolids Monitor shall review the documentation provided with the notice and
shall notify the applicant in writing of any deficiencies in the submittal within ten
business days of receipt. The applicant will have ten business days to correct and amend
the deficiencies unless otherwise permitted by the county in writing.
i. The Biosolids Monitor, with the aid of the applicator, will notify adjacent property
owners of application at the time a modification is issued. Signs will be posted in the area
at least 48 hours before Biosolids applications occur. A Biosolids phone line, listing areas
expecting application will be available to citizens.
50-7. General Requirements for Land Application of Biosolids:
A. It shall be unlawful to dispose dump, spread, or place or permit the disposal, dumping,
spreading or placement of biosolids on land in the county without a permit from the
Virginia Health Department and in accordance with all applicable state, local and federal
laws and regulations.
B. No owner of land shall permit such dumping, disposal, spreading or placement of
Biosolids on any land in the County under such person's ownership, possession or control,
without such permit.
C. Biosolids otherwise permitted for land application under this article may only be
applied to agricultural, forestry Silva culture and land reclamation areas.
D. This section shall not apply to the placement of Biosolids in a sanitary landfill
permitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia for such purposes and constructed and
operated in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local requirements.
50-8. Violations and Penalties:
Whoever violates any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a Class I
Misdemeanor as defined by the Code of Virginia. as amended. Each day during which
any violation is committed or exists shall constitute a separate offense.
50-9. When effective; current land applications deemed complaint.
This ordinance is effective immediately. any land application that is in progress on the
date this ordinance is adopted, and any land application that was scheduled before the
effective date of this ordinance, shall be deemed in compliance with this ordinance
provided that application is completed within thirty days after the effective date of this
ordinance.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
ROBERT B. STROUBE, M.D., M.P.H.
STATE HEALTH COMMISSIONER
Department of Health
POBOX 2448
RICHMOND, VA 23218
TTY 7-1-1 OR
1-800-828-1120
November 15,2004
/"'J
~
Ivir. Jo1m R. kiiey, Jr.
County Administrator
Frederick County
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Review of Biosolids Ordinance
Dear Mr. Riley:
Thank you for providing a copy of the Frederick County ordinance to the
Virginia Department of Healt4 (VDH) for review. This ordinance, entitled, "Land
Application ofBiosolids," was reportedly adopted by the Board of Supervisors on
November 10, 2004. It consists of nine Sections. It provides that the Frederick County
Biosolids Monitor is charged with the responsibility to verify that biosolids are applied
in conformance with applicable laws. It authorizes the County's Biosolids Monitor to
monitor land application permits and perform field inspections during the application of
biosolids and initiate field and laboratory testing of application sites. The County's
Biosolids Monitor is granted the authority to order abatement of any violation of state
law or regulation and to request that VDH suspend or revoke a site specific pennit
concerning land application ofbiosolids.
Section 62.1-44.l9:3(C) of the Code states: Any county, city or town may adopt
an ordinance that provides for the testing and monitoring of the land application of
sewage sludge within its political boundaries to ensure compliance with applicable law
and regulations. Only those counties, cities and towns that adopt a local ordinance
consistent with the Code may apply to VDH for reimbursement of reasonable testing
and monitoring costs incurred to "ensure compliance with applicable laws and
regulations" (g 62. 1-44. 19:3(C); see also Biosolids Use Regulations, 12 V AC 5-585-50,
-660(B)(2), -690 and -700). Section 62.1-44.19:3(D) of the Code authorizes VDH to
collect fees from land applicators that apply biosolids in counties, cities and towns that
adopt such an ordinance.
I'I'DH=~
I' J Of HEAlJH
PrOleC1inr 1'00 <Jnd Your EnWmnmMI
www.vdh.state.va.us
Mr. 101m R. Riley, lr.
November 15, 2004
Page 2
The Frederick County ordinance appears to comply with 9 62.1-44.19:3
for local monitoring and testing ofland applied biosolids to verify compliance
with the Biosolids Use Regulations. However, there are provisions of this
ordinance which, while they do not affect compliance with 9 62.1-44.19:3, may
not be consistent with the Biosolids Use Regulations or should be revised to
improve clarity. These provisions include the following:
1)
"Purpose and Intent"
[The section cites the "Code of Virginia Sections 12.5-585-660 through 12.5-585-690"
as authority. The reference is to the fee regulations in the Administrative Code. We
recommend changing the sentence to read, ". .I!S authorized by Virginia Administrative
Code Sections? C 5-585-660 throu 12 V AC -585-750 and in accordance with
the Biosolids Fee Guidance Manual." The next sentence ends with "etc." It s ou be
changed to end with "et seq." instead. The last sentence in the section ends with a
reference to the Admiillstrative Code and should also be changed to read". . . for use
according to Virginia Administrative Code Section 12 V AC 5-585-520."]
2)
"Definitions"
[The definitions ofBiosolids and Exceptional Quality Biosolids should reference the
Administrative Code instead of the Code of Virginia. The de[mitions of Class A and
Class B biosolids should refer the reader to Table 3 and section 12 V AC 5-585-560 of
the BUR in addition to Table 8-A. Add "in accordance with state regulations" to the
end of the definition of Exceptional Quality Biosolids, e.g., ". . . such that they can be
marketed or distributed for public use in accordance with state regulations (see 12 V AC
5-585-520)." The definition of Land Application of Biosolids limits land application to
"land used for agriculture." The Biosolids Use Regulations ("BUR") allow biosolids to
be used on all sites used for agriculture, forestlann (silviculture), and reclarnation of
disturbed land. See 12 V AC 5-585-510.]
3)
"Biosolids Monitor"
[The second paragraph ofthis section says that the biosolids monitor "shall have the
authority to order the abatement of any violation efthe. state ]&\y er re.gtlllttiens.". This
statement is too broad. The authority granted to the locality under Code Section
32.1-164.7 is limited to "any violation of 99 32.1-164.5, 32.1-164.6 or 9 62.1-44.19:3 or
any regulation promulgated under those sections."]
4)
"Complaint Response"
[Each of the subparts (A. through E.) refers to the "permittee" - permittee is not a
defined term and in each case should be revised to read .(!ermlt hold.:9'] ,:-,,':/'
" Ii',
r"
....'\.
:""\.;',
\
/'
-.:.. -.,
;.,
.~<
-"
,
".., \'''- I'" ,~\ {,
" "\"
1 . r' " ,),!;
~': \ ."' \ \
'i,'-' .
;('
'.- "i' > :,\
t'- \-
, "
Mr. John R. Riley, Jr.
November 15, 2004
Page 3
5)
"Reimbursements"
[This section states that the Biosolids Monitor shall submit requests for reimbursement
for costs and expenses of testing and monitoring. The draft ordinance does not include
any provisions for sampling, monitoring, and/or testing. We recommend adding the
following section:
Monitoring and Sampling
A. By agreeing to accept Biosolids for land application, the Owner of the property on
which land application takes place agrees to allow the Biosolids Monitor access to the
land application site for the purpose of monitoring land application activities. It is the
responsibility of the Permit Holder to ensure that the property Owner is advised of this
requirement. The Biosolids Monitor shall make diligent efforts to make contact with
the property Owner prior to entering the property.
B. The Permit Holder and Owner shall allow the Biosolids Monitor to take samples at
the application site before, during and after the application. Any test samples shall be
analyzed at a lab authorized to conduct such analysis and the County Health
Department may review these test results to determine compliance with applicable laws
and regulations. At the request of the Applicator, the Biosolids Monitor will provide
the Applicator with a split sample.
C. At the request of the Biosolids Monitor, the Applicator or Permit Holder shall
provide the most recent analysis results for Biosolids that are land applied at any site in
the county.
The section contains two typographical errors - change "expenses" to "activities" and
make "guide" plural, i.e., " . . . and related activities as are allowable by applicable state
laws, regulations, manuals, guides and procedures. "]
6)
"Notification"
[No time period is specified for the applicator to notify the Biosolids Monitor when land
application will take place. Proposed amendments to section 12 V AC 5-585-460 of the
Regulations will require notification at least 15 days prior to commencing land
application at a permitted site. In addition, Subpart i. imposes a requirement on
applicators that is not currently in the Regulati'ons. Until the amendments to the
Regulations that address signage are promulgated, the IOcality does not have the
authority to require an applicator to post signs. Once the amendments are published in
the Virginia Register and become effective, the will appli~rs have to post signs at
least 48 hours before land application begins. s-cte proposed revision to 12 V AC 5-585-
480.]
Mr. John R. Riley, Jr.
November 15, 2004
Page 4
7)
"General Requirements for Land Application ofBiosolids"
[Revise to say the "Virginia Department of Health" instead of the "Virginia Health
Department"]
Frederick County has been included in the list oflocalities that have
adopted ordinances that appear to comply with Ii 62.1-44.19:3. Please inform
VDH promptly of any changes to this ordinance so that we may assess whether
they affect VDH approval for reimbursement purposes. VDH approval of this
ordinance for purposes of processing biosolids fee payments is not an approval of
the entire ordinance and we express no opinion on the validity or constitutionality
oftbe ordinance as a whole.
We will begin requiring fees from land application contractors who
conduct land application activities in the County beginning on the first day of
November 2004. Reimbursement oflocalmonitoring costs is confined to
activities related to ensuring compliance with the Biosolids Use Regulations.
Please continue to familiarize yourself with the provisions in the Biosolids Use
Regulations and the Guidance Manual that describe the procedures for securing
reimbursement of testing and monitoring costs.
We look forward to working with you to ensure that land application
activities are conducted in compliance with the law. Tfyou have any questions,
please contact me at (804)-864-7463.
~incerely,
....0/1.1'......... /
:.' Y/tVdWv-L/t
c. M. Sawye/, PE, Director
Division of Wastewater Engineering
c: Robert W. Hicks
Synagro Mid Atlantic, Inc.
Recyc Systems, Inc.
Milton F. Wright Trucking, Inc.
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Public Works
540/665-5643
FAX: 540/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
/i;;:'~!::.? ?~;-?:;"
I k/ - ,.l:\\Ii=\)
/,ty ..JL'\;"-
..
':)
TO:
John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator
Joe C. Wilder, Deputy Director, Department of Public Works...f);J
: iC: \!J,B, 200~,
\ .,"'.....'. r r ",~\r'" C0,,11\) -'-./
r~('Jr\ -'~... r-1IG8 ~.:J
\i~~~,. f\drn\i''l\51\"&lor-
\" ~-.~ B~ ___ -- ~}":/
{~':~():::'31~~i~~/ .
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance
DATE:
February 28, 2005
During their regularly scheduled meeting on February 22,2005, the public works committee
reviewed the proposed revisions to the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. One revision in
particular generated some discussion. The revision will affect the amount ofliability the
owner/developer will bear for road maintenance as it applies to erosion and sediment control
measures. However, the proposed revision will apply only to roads in new subdivisions which have
not been accepted into the Virginia Department of Transportation's Secondary Road system.
The public works committee unanimously recommended that the proposed revisions to the
ordinance be reviewed by the code and ordinance committee to ensure there are no conflicts related
to legal issues. Therefore, I am requesting the proposed revisions to the Erosion and Sediment
Control ordinance be placed on a future agenda of the code and ordinance committee for their
review and/or comments. A copy of the draft ordinance is attached.
JCW /rls
Attachment: as stated
cc: file
107 North Kent Street · Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
[IDOO&~u
S 79-1
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
S 79-2
[HISTORY: Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick 6-12-2002,
effective 7-1-2002.1 Amendments noted where applicable.]
GENERAL REFERENCES
Building construction -- See Ch. 52.
Subdivision ofland -- See Ch. 144,
Zoning -- See Ch. 165.
~ 79-1. Purpose, title and authority.
A. This chapter shall be known as the "Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance of Frederick
County, Virginia," The Frederick County Board of Supervisors desires to prevent the
degradation of properties, stream channels, waters and other natural resources of
Frederick County by establishing requirements for the control of soil erosion, sediment
deposition and nonagricultural runoff and establish procedures whereby these
requirements shall be administered and enforced,
B. This chapter is authorized by Title 10.1, Chapter 5, Article 4 of the Code of Virginia (S
10.1-560 et seq,), known as the "Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law."
C This chapter is amended to include administering the erosion ami sediment control
program for the Town of Stephens City, Virginia by Resolution of the Stephens City
Town Council.
S 79-2, Definitions.
As used in the ordinance, unless the context requires a different meaning, the following terms
shall have the meanings indicated:
AGR&EMENT IN LIEU OF A PLAN -- A contract betweenJ)1e plan-approving authority and
the owner that specifies conservation measures that must be
implemented in the construction of a single-family residence; this contract may be executed in lieu
of a formal erosion and sediment control plan.
APPLICANT -- Any person submitting an erosion and sediment control plan for approval or
requesting the issuance of a permit, when required, authorizing
land-disturbing activities to commence,
BOARD -- The Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board.
I Editor's Nole: Thi~ ordin.U1ce also repealed fonner ell. 79, Erosion and Sediment Control, adopfed 7-8-1992.
8,20,2002
S 79-1
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
S 79-2
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -- The Frederick County, Virginia, Board of Supervisors.
CERTIFIED INSPECTOR -- An employee or agent of a program authority who:
A. Holds a certificate of competence from the Board in the area of project inspection; or
B. Is enrolled in the Board's training program for project inspection and successfully
completes such program within one year after enrollment.
CERTIFIED PLAN REVIEWER -- An employee or agent ofa program authority who:
A. Holds a certificate of competence from the Board in the area of plan review;
B. Is enrolled in the Board's training program for plan review and successfully completes
such program within one year after enrollment; or
C. Is licensed as a professional engineer, architect, certified landscape architect or land
surveyor pursuant to Article I (954.1-400 et seq.) of Chapter 4 of the Code of Virginia.
CERTIFIED PROGRAM MANAGER -- An employee or agent ofa program authority who:
A. Holds a certificate of competence from the Board in the area of program administration;
or
B. Is enrolled in the Board's training program for program administration and successfully
completes such program within one year after enrollment.
CLEARING -- Any activity which removes the vegetative ground cover, including, but not
limited to, root mat removal or topsoil removal.
"'<>
COUNTY -- The County ofFredefrCk, Virginia.
DEPARTMENT -- The Virginia Depaliment of Conservation and Recreation.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS -- The Frederick County, Virginia, Department of Public
Works.
DEVELOPMENT -- A tract ofIand developed or to be developed as a single unit under single
ownership or unified control which is to be used for any business or industrial purpose or is to
contain three or more residential dwelling units.
DIRECTOR -- The Director of the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
8-20-2002
S 79-1
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
S 79-2
DISTRICT or SOIL AND WATER CONSER V A TION DISTRICT -. Refers to the Lord Fairfax
Soil and Water Conservation District.
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN or PLAN .. A document containing material
for the conservation of soil and water resources of a unit or group of units of land. It may include
appropriate maps, an appropriate soil and water plan inventory, and management information with
needed interpretations and a record of decisions contributing to conservation treatment. The plan
shall contain all major conservation decisions to assure that the entire unit or units ofland will be
so treated to achieve the conservation objectives. The plan shall be sealed by a professional
engineer, land sun'eyor or landscape architect as deemed applicable by the State of VirginilL
EROSION IMP ACT AREA -- An area ofIand not associated with current land-disturbing activity
but subject to persistent soil erosion resulting in the delivery of sediment onto neighboring
properties or into state waters. This definition shall not apply to any lot or parcel ofland of
10,000 square feet or less used for residential purposes.
EXCAVATING -- Any digging, scooping or other methods of removing or altering the placement
of earth materials.
FILLING -- Any depositing or stockpiling of earth materials.
GRADING -- Any excavating or filling of earth material or any combination thereof, including the
land in its excavated or filled conditions.
LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT -- A permit issued by the Department of Public Works for the
clearing, filling, excavating, grading, transporting of land or for any combination thereof or for
any purpose set forth herein.
LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY n Any land change which may result in soil erosion from
water or wind and the movement of sediments into state waters or onto lands in the
commonwealtlf,'including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, excavatmg, transporting and
filling of land, except that the term shall not include:
A. Minor land-disturbing activities such as home gardens and individual home landscaping,
repairs and maintenance work;
B. Individual service connections;
C. Installation, maintenance, or repair of any underground public utility lines when such
activity occurs on an existing hard-surfaced road, street or sidewalk, provided such
land-disturbing activity is confined to the area of the road, street or sidewalk which is
hard-surfaced;
8-20-2002
9 79-1
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
9 79-2
D. Septic tank lines or drainage fields unless included in an overall plan for land-disturbing
activity relating to construction of the building to be served by the septic tank system;
E. Surface or deep mining;
F. Exploration or drilling for oil and gas, including the well site, roads, feeder lines, and
off-site disposal areas;
G. Tilling, planting, or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural, or forest crops, or livestock
feedlot operations; including engineering operations and agricultural engineering
operations as follows: construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, desilting
basins, dikes, ponds not required to comply with the Dam Safety Act, Article 2 (9
10.1-604 et seq.), Chapter 6 of the Code of Virginia, ditches, strip cropping, lister
furrowing, contour cultivating, contour furrowing, land drainage, and land irrigation.
However, this exception shall not apply to harvesting offorest crops unless the area on
which harvesting occurs is reforested artificially or naturally in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter I I (9 10.1-1100 et seq.) of this title or is converted to bona fide
agricultural or improved pasture use as described in Subsection B of 9 10. 1-1163 of the
Code of Virginia;
H. Repair or rebuilding of the tracks, rights-of-way, bridges, communication facilities and
other related structures and facilities of a railroad company;
1. Disturbed land areas ofIess than 10,000 square feet in size;
J. Installation offence and sign posts or telephone and electric poles and other kinds of posts
or poles;
K.
Shore erosion control projects on tidal waters when the projects are approved by local
wetlands boards, the Marine Resources Commission or the United States Army Corps of _.
--. ~ ~
Engineers; and
--
L. Emergency work to protect life, limb or property, and emergency repairs; provided that if
the land-disturbing activity would have required an approved erosion and sediment control
plan. If the activity were not an emergency, then the land area disturbed shall be shaped
and stabilized in accordance with the requirements of the plan-approving authority.
LOCAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM or LOCAL CONTROL
PROGRAM -- An outline of the various methods employed by the Department of Public Works
to regulate land-disturbing activities and thereby minimize erosion and sedimentation in
compliance with the state program and may include such items as local ordinances, policies and
guidelines, technical materials, inspection, enforcement, and evaluation.
8-20-2002
~ 79-1
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
S 79-2
NOTICE TO COMPLY -- A written notice sent to the responsible land disturber or appropriate
agent specifying the corrective erosion and sediment control measures needed on a
land-disturbing project to comply with the approved plan. .
OWNER --The owner or owners of the freehold of the premises or lesser estate therein, a
mortgagee or vendee in possession, assignee of rents, receiver, executor, trustee, lessee or other
person, firm or corporation in control of a property.
PERMITTEE -- The person to whom the permit authorizing land-disturbing activities is issued or
the person who certifies that the approved erosion and sediment control plan will be followed.
PERSON -- Any individual, partnership, firm, association, joint venture, public or private
corporation, trust, estate, commission, board, public or private institution, utility, cooperative,
county, city, town or other political subdivision of the commonwealth, any interstate body, or any
other legal entity.
PLAN-APPROVING AUTHORITY -- The Department of Public Works is responsible for
. determining the adequacy of a plan submitted for land-disturbing activities on a unit or units of
land and for approving plans.
PROGRAM AUTHORITY -- Frederick County, Virginia, which has adopted a soil erosion and
sediment control program approved by the Board.
RESPONSIBLE LAND DISTURBER -- An individual from the project or development team,
who will be in charge of and responsible for carrying out a land-disturbing activity covered by an
approved plan or agreement in lieu ofa plan, who:
A. Holds a responsible land disturber certificate of competence;
B. Holds a_cur~nt certificate of competence from the Board in theJlre~ of combined
administration, program administration, inspection, or plan review;
C. Holds a current contractor certificate of competence for erosion and sediment control; or
D. Is licensed in Virginia as a professional engineer, architect, certified landscape architect or
land surveyor pursuant to Title 54.1, Article 1, Chapter 4 of the Code of Virginia (~
54.1-400 et seq.).
SINGLE-F AMIL Y RESIDENCE -- A structure designed to be occupied by one household as
defined by the county's Zoning OrdinanceI However, for purposes of this regulation, "mobile
1 Editor's Note: See CH. 165, Zoning.
8-20-2002
9 79-1
FREDERlCK COUNTY CODE
9 79-2
homes" shall be defined as one-family dwellings.
STATE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAMS or STATE PROGRAMS--
The program administered by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board pursuant to the
Code of Virginia, including regulations designed to minimize erosion and sedimentation.
STATE WATERS -- All waters on the surface and under the ground wholly or partially within or
bordering the Commonwealth or within its jurisdictions.
STOP-WORK ORDER -- A written notice sent to the responsible land disturber or appropriate
agent that stops all land-disturbing activity on the project for a specified time period.
TRANSPORTING -- Any moving of earth materials from one place to another place other than
such movement incidental to grading, when such movement results in destroying the vegetative
ground cover either by tracking or the buildup of earth materials to the extent that erosion and
sedimentation will result from the soil or earth materials over which such transporting occurs.
S 79-3. Local erosion and sediment contml program.
A. Except as modified below, pursuant to S 10.1-562 of the Code of Virginia, the County
hereby adopts the regulations, references, guidelines, standards and specifications
promulgated by the Board for the effective control of soil erosion and sediment deposition
to prevent the unreasonable degradation of properties, stream channels, waters and other
natural resources. Said regulations, references, guidelines, standards and specifications for
erosion and sediment control are included in, but not limited to, the Virginia Erosion and
Sediment Control Regulations and the latest edition of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment
Control Handbook, as amended. The following subsections are hereby changed of V AC
50- 30-40 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations:
_. Go.
(1)
Subsection 6.b. The following language is hereby changed: Surface run-off from
disturbed areas that is comprised o'fflow from drainage areas greater than or equal
to three acres shall be controlled by a sediment basin. The minimum storage
capacity of a sediment basin shall be 134 cubic yards per acre of drainage area. The
outfall system shall, at a minimum, maintain the structural integrity of the basin
during a one-hundred-year-stonn of twenty- four-hour duration. Runoff
coefficients used in runoff calculations shall correspond to a bare earth condition
or those expected to exist while the sediment basin is utilized.
-.
(2) The provision found in Subsection 19b(1) is deleted.
(3) Subsection 14. Regulation of Watercourse Crossing. All applicablefederal,
state and local regulations pertaining to working in or crossing live
8-20-2002
S 79-1
FREDERlCK COUNTY CODE
S 79-2
watercourses shall be met. Prior to obtaining a land disturbance permit, copies
of all applicable environmental permits including, but not limited to, wetland
disturbance, stream crossing, stormwater discharge permits shall be submitted
with the application.
(4) Subsection 17. Vehicular Sediment Tracking. In addition to the minimum
standard, thefollowing language shall be atlded: In residential subdivisions,
the owner/developer of the applicable subdivision shall be held responsible for
achieving this minimum standard until the street is taken into the Virginia
Department of Transportation's Secondary Road System for maintenance. At
the time of the plan submission, a detailed plan or narrative shall be submitted
for review and approval by Frederick County to ensure transport of sediment
onto the applicahle roads does not occur during all phases of construction,
including, but not limited to, construction of all infrastructure, utilities and
building construction.
B. In order to assure proper stormwater drainage and site stabilization, the following policies
are hereby adopted concerning residential subdivisions. [Added 12-10-2003]2
(I) Prior to release of building permits, the following infrastructure shall be completed
and stabilized within the subdivision, subsection or phase as shown on the
approved plan:
(a) Stormwater conveyance systems, including but not limited to culverts, road
surface, curb and gutter, stormwater structures, drainage swales and
ditches, channel linings and all cleared areas shall be stabilized, etc.
(b) Submittal of a cel1ified as-built plan of the subdivision, subsection or phase,
which includes but is not limited to stormwater conveyance systems, curb
and gutter, drainage swales and ditches, stormwater/sediment ponds,
... ..... ~
graded areas, etc. A letter from the engineer-of-record shall be included
with the as-built plan which states that the subdivision has been constructed
in accordance with the approved plan.
(c) A proposed overall lot grading plan is required by Frederick County prior
to the release of building permit(s) for RP subdivisions. This plan shall
meet the intent of the original site plan submitted by the developer. It is
required that the developer provide the builder/owner a copy of the original
engineered site grading plan for the particular subdivision.
\<g
---
2 Editor's Note: This ordimmce also rel1ulllh~red fanner Subsections B, C. 0, E and F.
8-20-2002
979-1
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
9 79-2
(d) It will be necessary to submit a certified as-built plan for all lots on which
proposed lot grading plans were required. This certified as-built plan shall
indicate the following: properly annotated boundary lines; setback lines;
proposed house footprint; offsets to house; existing grading; spot shots as
necessary to show positive drainage; proposed driveway; proposed floor
elevation to include basement, first floor and garage; and erosion and
sediment controls, if required. The as-built plan shall be accompanied by a
document prepared by a professional engineer or a certified land surveyor
certifying that the as-built conditions meet the intent of the approved site
grading plan. The proposed lot grading plan and the as-built survey shall be
submitted to the Public Works Department prior to release of the final
certificate of occupancy.
C. Before adopting or revising regulations, the County shall give due notice and conduct a
public hearing on the proposed or revised regulations, except that a public hearing shall
not be required when the County is amending its program to conform to revisions in the
state program. However, a public hearing shall be held if the County proposes or revises
regulations that are more stringent than the state program.
D. Pursuant to 9 10.1-561.1 of the Code of Virginia, an erosion control plan shall not be
approved until it is reviewed by a certified plan reviewer. Inspections ofland-disturbing
activities shall be conducted by a certified inspector. The erosion control program of the
County shall contain a certified program administrator, a certified plan reviewer, and a
certified inspector, who may be the same person.
E. The County hereby designates the Department of Public Works as the plan-approving
authority.
F.
The program and regulations provided for in this chapter shall be made available for public
inspection at the office of the Department.9fP~blic Works.
G
<=.
S 79-4. Submission and approval of plans; contents of plans.
A. Except as provided herein, no person may engage in any land-disturbing activity until he
has submitted to the Department of Public Works an erosion and sediment control plan for
the land-disturbing activity and such plan has been approved by the Department of Public
Works. Where land-disturbing activities involve lands under the jurisdiction of more than
one local control program, an erosion and sediment control plan, at the option of the
applicant, may be submitted to the Board for review and approval rather than to each
jurisdiction concerned. Where the land-disturbing activity results from the construction of
a single-family residence, an agreement in lieu of a plan may be substituted for an erosion
and sediment control plan if executed by the Department of Public Works. Frederick
8.20.2002
S 79-1
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
S 79-2
County may issue an Agreement in Lieu ofa Plan (residential land-disturbing permit) for a
single family residence prior to the owner applying for a building permit. However, the
applicable land-disturbing activity shall include, but not be limited to, clearing and grading
of the site for the future residence, installation of driveway, installation of drainfield, well,
etc.
B. The standards contained within the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations,
this code and the latest edition of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook
are to be used by the applicant when making a submittal under the provisions of this
chapter and in the preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan. The Department of
Public Works, in considering the adequacy of a submitted plan, shall be guided by the
same standards, regulations and guidelines. When the standards vary between the
publications, the state regulations shall take precedence except where the County has
adopted more stringent regulations.
C. The Department of Public Works shall, within 45 days, approve any such plan, ifit is
determined that the plan meets the requirements of the local control program, and if the
person responsible for carrying out the plan certifies that he or she will properly perform
the erosion and sediment control measures included in the plan and will conform to the
provisions of this chapter. In addition, as a prerequisite to approval of the plan, the person
responsible for carrying out the plan shall provide the name of a responsible land disturber,
who will be in charge of and responsible for carrying out the land-disturbing activity, in
accordance with the approved plan. The review time for single-family agreement in lieu of
plans shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Building Code requirements, which is less
than 45 days. '
D. The plan shall be acted upon within 45 days from receipt thereof by either approving said
plan in writing or by disapproving said plan in writing and giving specific reasons for its
disapprovaL When the plan is determined to be inadequate, the Department of Public
Works shall spe0fy ~ch modifications, terms and conditions that will peLmi~pproval of
the plan. If no action IS taken within 45 days, the plan shall be deemed approved and the
person authorized to proceed with the proposed activity.
E. Change of approved plans; required plans.
(1) An approved plan may be changed by the Department of Public Works when:
(a) The inspection reveals that the plan is inadequate to satisfy applicable
regulations; or
(b) The person responsible for carrying out the plan finds that because of
changed circumstances or for other reasons the approved plan cannot be
8-20-2002
979-1
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
9 79-2
effectively carried out, and proposed amendments to the plan, consistent
with the requirements of this chapter, are agreed to by the Department of
Public Works and the person responsible for carrying out the plans.
(2) In order to prevent further erosion, the County may require approval of a plan for
any land identified in the local program as an erosion impact area.
(3) When land-disturbing activity will be required of a contractor performing
construction work pursuant to a construction contract, the preparation,
submission, and approval of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be the
responsibility of the owner.
(4) Electric, natural gas and telephone utility companies, interstate and intrastate
natural gas pipeline companies and railroad companies shall file general erosion
and sediment control specifications annually with the Board for review and written
comments. The specifications shall apply to:
(a) Construction, installation or maintenance of electric, natural gas and
telephone utility lines, and pipelines; and
(b) Construction of the tracks, rights-of-way, bridges, communication facilities
and other related structures and facilities of the railroad company.
(5) Individual approval of separate projects within Subsection (1)(a) and (b) of this
subsection is not necessary when Board-approved specifications are followed;
however, projects included in Subsection (1 )(a) and (b) must comply with Board
approved specifications. Projects not included in Subsection (l)(a) and (b) of this
subsection shall comply with the requirements of the County's erosion and
sediment control program.
..,
(6)
-. ~
State agency projects are exempt from the provisions of this chapter except as
provided for in S 10.1-564 of the Code of Virginia.
S 79-5. Permits; fees; security for performance.
A. Agencies authorized under any other law to issue grading, building, or other permits for
activities involving land-disturbing activities may not issue any such permit unless the
applicant submits with his application an approved erosion and sediment control plan and
certification that the plan will be followed.
B. No person may engage in any land-disturbing activity until he or she has acquired a land
disturbance permit, unless the proposed land-disturbing activity is specifically exempt from
8-20-2002
S 79-1
FREDERlCK COUNTY CODE
S 79-2
the provisions of this chapter, and has paid the fees and posted the required performance
bond, cash escrow or letter of credit.
C. An administrative fee shall be paid to the Department of Public Works at the time of
submission of the land disturbance permit. The land disturbance permit fee is separate
from all other fees paid to other departments in the County. The following fee is hereby
adopted and shall be applied to land disturbance permits:
1) Commercial/Industrial Site Development Projects: Base fee of $500 plus $100
per disturbed acre or fraction thereof.
2) Construction of Infrastructure for Subdivision (Rural/Residential),
Townhouses, Apartments and condominiums: Base fee of $600 plus $100 per
acre of disturbed area 0.( fraction thereof
3) Single Fami~v Residence (Agreement in Lieu of a Plan): $100 per lotlbuilding unit.
4) Townhouse, Apartment and Condominiums: $20 per unit
5) Reinspection Fee Shall be Applied after Stop Work Orders have been Issued: $50 per
unit in addition to paying the land disturbance permit reissuancefee (this latter
amount is the original land disturbance permit fee amount).
D. No land disturbance permit shall be issued until the applicant submits with his application
an approved erosion and sediment control plan and certification that the plan will be
followed.
E. Security for performance.
1) All applicants for permits shall provide to the Department of Public Works a
performance.bo~ cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit accepta~ to the
program administrator in order to ensure that measures could be taken by the
Department of Public Works at the applicant's expense should the applicant fail,
after proper notice, and within the time specified, to initiate or maintain
appropriate conservation measures required of him as a result of his
land-disturbing activity.
2) The amount of the security for performance shall not exceed the total of the
estimated cost to initiate and maintain appropriate conservation action based on
unit price for new public or private sector construction in the locality and a
reasonable allowance for estimated administrative costs and inflation, which shall
8-20-2002
9 79-1
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
9 79-2
not exceed 25% of the cost of the conservation action. Should it be necessary for
the Department of Public Works to take such conservation action, the Department
of Public Works shall collect from the applicant any costs in excess of the amount
of the surety held. (See Appendix 1, page 11 for estimated amounts).
3) (3)Within 60 days of adequate stabilization, as determined by the Department of
Public Works in any project or section of a project, such bond, cash escrow or
letter of credit, or the unexpended or unobligated portion thereof, shall be either
refunded to the applicant or terminated, based upon the percentage of stabilization
accomplished in the project or project section. Applicant requests for
termination or reduction of bond, cash escrow or letter of credit shall be made
in writing to the Department of Public Works.
4) Section 79-5E shall not apply to the construction of single-family residences.
F. These requirements are in addition to all other provisions relating to the issuance of
permits and are not intended to otherwise affect the requirements for such permits.
~ 79-6. Monitoring, reports and inspections,
A. The Department of Public Works shall require the person responsible for carrying out the
plan to monitor the land-disturbing activity. The person responsible for carrying out the
plan will maintain records of these inspections and maintenance, to ensure compliance
with the approved plan and to determine whether the measures required in the plan are
effective in controlling erosion and sedimentation.
B. Inspection; notice to comply.
(1)
The Department ofpublic Works shall periodically inspect the land-disturbing
activity in accordance with Section 4V ACS.o.-3Q;.60 of the Virginia Erosion and
Sediment Control Regulations to ensure compliance with the approved plan and to
determine whether the measures required in the plan are effective in controlling
erosion and sedimentation. The owner, permittee, or person responsible for
carrying out the plan, shall be given notice of the inspection. The inspection
frequency shall comply with Frederick County's approved alternate inspection
schedule. (See Appendix I, pages 12/).
""'"
(2)
Notice to comply.
3 Editor's Note: Appendix 1 is on fil~ illlhe County OBiet's.
8.20-2002
979-1
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
9 79-2
(a) If the Department of Public Works determines that there is a failure to
comply with the plan, notice shall be served upon the permittee or person
responsible for carrying out the plan by registered or certified mail to the
address specified in the permit application or in the plan certification, or by
delivery at the site of the land-disturbing activities to the agent or employee
supervising such activities or shall be posted on the premises and
documented in the records oftlte Department of Public Works.
(b) The notice to comply shall specify the corrective measures required to
comply with the approved plan and shall specify the time frame within such
measures shall be completed. Upon failure to comply with the notice within
the specified time, the land disturbance permit may be revoked, and the
permittee or person responsible for carrying out the plan shall be deemed to
be in violation of this chapter and shall be subject to the penalties provided
by this chapter. If the land disturbance permit has been revoked, the
permittee shall reapply for the land disturbance pennit and pay all
applicable fees including reinspectionfees prior to recommencing the
project.
A. Action in case of violation.
(1) Upon determination of a violation of this chapter, the Department of Public Works
shall, in conjunction with or subsequent to a notice to comply as specified in this
chapter, issue an order requiring that all or part of the land-disturbing activities
permitted on the site be stopped until the specified corrective measures have been
addressed.
(a) {{two (2) or more Notice to Comply letters have been issuedfor
violations on the same project, the county, at its discretion, may issue an
immediatg. Stf1/! Work Order ~{anyfurther I'iolations are noted 4uri!!;.g
subsequent site inspections.
(2) Ifland-disturbing activities have commenced without an approved plan, the Department of
Public Works shall, in conjunction with or subsequent to a notice to comply as specified in
this chapter, issue an order requiring that all or part of the land-disturbing activity be
stopped until an approved plan and a land disturbance permit have been obtained.
Immediate stabilization may be required until the plan is approved and a land disturbance
permit issued.
(3) Where the alleged noncompliance is causing or is in imminent danger of causing harmful
erosion ofIands or sediment deposition in waters within the watersheds of the
commonwealth, or where the land-disturbing activities have commenced without an
8-20-2002
~ 79-1
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
~ 79-2
approved plan or any required permits, a stop-work order shall be issued without regard
to whether the permittee has been issued a notice to comply as specified in this chapter.
Otherwise, such an order may be issued only after the permittee has failed to comply with
such a notice to comply.
(4) If the alleged violator has not obtained an approved plan or a land disturbance permit
within seven days from the date of the stop-work order, the Department of Public Works
may issue an order to the owner requiring that all construction and other work on the site,
other than corrective measures, be stopped until an approved plan and a land disturbance
permit have been obtained, The stop-work order shall be served upon the owner by
registered or certified mail to the address specified in the land disturbance permit or the
land records of Frederick County and/or shall be posted at the site of tlte violations and
documented in the records of the Department of Public Works.
(5) The stop-work order shall be served in the same manner as a notice to comply, and shall
remain in effect for a period of thirty days from the date of service pending application by
the enforcing authority or permit holder for appropriate reliefto the Circuit Court ofthe
County.
(6) The owner may appeal the issuance of a stop-work order to the Circuit Court of the
County.
(7) Any person violating or failing, neglecting or refusing to obey an order issued by the
Department of Public Works may be compelled in a proceeding instituted in the Circuit
Court of the County to obey same and to comply therewith by injunction, mandamus or
other appropriate remedy. Upon completion and approval of corrective action or obtaining
an approved plan or any required permits, the order shall immediately be lifted.
(8) Nothing in this section shall prevent the Department of Public Works from taking any
other action authorized by this chapter.
~ ""'" ""'"
~ 79-7. Penalties, injunctions, and other legal actions.
A. Violators of this chapter shall be guilty of a Class I misdemeanor.
B. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall, upon a finding of the District
Court of the County, be assessed a civil penalty. The civil penalty for anyone violation
shall be $100, except that the civil penalty for commencement ofland-disturbing activities
without an approved plan shall be $1,000. Each day during which the violation is found to
have existed shall constitute a separate offense. In no event shall a series of specified
violations arising from the same operative set offacts result in civil penalties which exceed
a total of $3,000, except that a series of violations arising from the commencement of
land-disturbing activities without an approved plan for any site shall not result in civil
8-20-2002
S 79-1
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
S 79-2
penalties which exceed a total of $10,000.
C. The Department of Public Works, or the owner or property which has sustained damage,
or which is in imminent danger of being damaged, may apply to the Circuit Court of the
County to enjoin a violation or a threatened violation of this chapter, without the necessity
of showing that an adequate remedy at law does not exist. However, an owner of property
shall not apply for injunctive relief unless:
(1) He has notified in writing the person who has violated the local program, and the
program authority, that a violation of the local program has caused, or creates a
probability of causing, damage to his property; and
(2) Neither the person who has violated the local program nor the program authority
has taken corrective action within 15 days to eliminate the conditions which have
caused, or create the probability of causing, damage to his property.
D. In addition to any criminal penalties provided under this chapter, any person who violates
any provision of this chapter may be liable to the County in a civil action for damages.
E. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this section, any person violating
or failing, neglecting, or refusing to obey any injunction, mandamus or other remedy
obtained pursuant to this section shall be subject, in the discretion of the court, to a civil
penalty not to exceed $2,000 for each violation. A civil action for such violation or failure
may be brought by the Department of Public Works. Any civil penalties assessed by a
court shall be paid into the Treasurer of the County, except that where the violator is the
locality itself, or its agent, the court shalJ direct the penalty to be paid into the state
treasury.
""""
F. With the consent of any person who has violated or failed, neglected or refused to obey
any regulation or condition of a permit or any provision of this chapter, the Department of
Public Works may provide for the p';yment of civil charges for violations in specific sums, -.
not to exceed the limit specified in Subsection E of this section. Such civil charges shall be
instead of any appropriate civil penalty which could be imposed under Subsection E.
. ""'"
G. The County Attorney shall, upon request of the Department of Public Works, take legal
action to enforce the provisions of this chapter.
H. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter shall be prima facie evidence in any legal or
equitable proceeding for damages caused by erosion, siltation or sedimentation that all
requirements oflaw have been met, and the complaining party must show negligence in
order to recover any damages.
8-20-2002
9 79-1
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
9 79-2
~ 79-8. Appeals and judicial review.
A. 'Any applicant under the provision of this chapter who is aggrieved by any action ofthe
Department of Public Works or its agent in disapproving plans submitted pursuant to this
chapter shall have the right to apply for and receive a review of such action by the County
Board of Supervisors, provided an appeal is filed within 30 days from the date of the
action. Any applicant who seeks an appeal hearing before the County Board of
Supervisors shall be heard at the next regularly scheduled meeting, provided that they and
other involved parties have at least 30 days' prior notice. In reviewing the agent's actions,
the County Board of Supervisors shall consider evidence and opinions presented by the
aggrieved applicant and agent. After considering the evidence and opinions, the County
Board of Supervisors may affirm, reverse or modify the action. The County Board of
Supervisors' decision shall be final, subject only to review by the Circuit Court of the
County.
B. Final decisions of the Department of Public Works under this chapter shall be subject to
review by the Circuit Court of the County, provided an appeal is filed within 30 days from
the date of any written decision adversely affecting the rights, duties, or privileges of the
person engaging in or proposing to engage in land disturbing activities.
& 79-9. (Reserved)
S 79-10. (Reserved)
S 79-11. (Reserved)
979-12. (Reserved)
9 79-13. (Reserved)
S 79-14. (Reserved)
<ao.
-. "'"
S 79-15. (Reserved)
9 79-16. (Reserved)
9 79-17. (Reserved)
S 79-18. (Reserved)
9 79-19. (Reserved)
8.20-2002
9 79-1
9 79-20. (Reserved)
9 79-20. (Reserved)
9 79~2 L (Reserved)
9 79-22. (Reserved)
S 79-23. (Reserved)
S 79-24. (Reserved)
S 79-25. (Reserved)
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
-. --
_. ~
8-20-2002
9 79-2
-. -.
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Finance Department
Cheryl B. Shiffler
Director
540/665-5610
Fax: 540/667-0370
E-mail: cshiffle@coJrederick.va.us
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Cheryl B. Shiffler, Finance Director
DATE: April 20, 2005
SUBJECT: Finance Committee Report and Recommendations
The Finance Committee met in the First Floor Conference Room at 107 North Kent Street on
Wednesday, Apri120, 2005 at 8:00 a.m. Items 3, 4,5,6, 7 and 8 were approved under consent
agenda.
1. The Sheriff requests approval for three additional cellular phones for the Drug Task
Force. See attached memo, p. 1. The committee recommends approval.
2. The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of
$24.015.06. This amount represents the department's proceeds from a Sheriffs sale of
department vehicles. It is requested that this amount be appropriated into Repair and
Maintenance - Vehicle. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, p. 2.
The committee recommends approval.
3. The Sheriffrequests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of
$2.400.75. This amount represents donations to the department, donations to DARE and
reimbursement for DARE t-shirts. It is requested that this amount be appropriated to
Drug Program and Police Supplies. No additional local funds are needed. See attached
memo, p. 3-7. The committee recommends approval.
4. The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of
$3.598.67. This amount represents the department's share in a recent forfeiture case. It is
requested that this amount be appropriated to Forfeited Property. No additional local
funds are needed. See attached memo, p. 8. The committee recommends approval.
5. The Department of Juvenile Justice requests a General Fund supplemental a,p,propriation
in the amount of $4.896. This amount represents unspent grant funds that need to be
returned to the state. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, p. 9-12.
The committee recommends approval.
107 North Kent Street . Winchester, Virginia 22601
Finance Committee Report and Recommendations
April 20, 2005
Page 2
6. The Department of Juvenile Justice requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation
in the amount of $6.177. The amount represents state grant funds. No additional local
funds are needed. See attached memo, p. 13. The committee recommends approval.
7. The Director of Economic Development requests a General Fund supplemental
appropriation in the amount of$37.837.52. This amount represents an extension of the
contract for the NetTech Center for the remaining three months ofthe current fiscal year.
Federal funds are reimbursed to the county for this expenditure. No additional local
funds are needed. See attached memo, p. 14-15. The committee recommends approval.
8. The Regional Jail Administrator requests a Jail Fund supplemental appropriation in the
amount of $6.791. This amount represents an overpayment of grant funds received that
need to be returned to the state. No additional local funds are needed. See attached
memo, p. 16-17. The committee recommends approval.
9. The Regional Jail Administrator requests approval of an additional pa~er for the Home
Electronic Monitoring officer. See attached memo, p. 18. The committee recommends
approval.
10. Attached is information requested at last month's meeting regarding firefighter overtime.
See attached information, p. 19-50. The committee requested that the county look at
those employees with the highest overtime to identify patterns and locations. The
committee also requested that the County Administrator work with the Fire and Rescue
Association for a report at next month's meeting regarding overtime.
11. Discussion is requested on school categorical funding. The committee recommends the
school transfers amounts be set at $20,000 per individual transfer and an aggregate
$50,000 limit.
12. The Finance Committee discussed the intent on reviewing the school year-end surplus
with consideration given to fund agreed upon capital items up to $500,000. Committee
members Forrester opposed this intent.
13. Lord Fairfax Community College requested a General Fund supplemental appropriation
in the amount of$417.000. This amount is needed for site development assistance for the
new Workforce Development Center. Additional local funds are necessary. See attached
memo, p. 51-55. This item will be considered next fiscal year after the county knows the
FY 2005 year-end status.
Finance Committee Report and Recommendations
April 20, 2005
Page 3
** FOR INFORMATION ONLY **
1. Attached is a letter from the County Administrator and a response by Richard Bell ofthe
Industrial Park Association. Mr. Bell will be present at the meeting to discuss his
concerns. See attached letters, p. 56-57. This item was not discussed since Mr. Bell was
not in attendance.
2. Attached is information requested during the budget process regarding the Virginia
Cooperative Extension. See attached memo, p. 58-61.
3. The Finance Director provided a report on fund balance. See attached, p. 62.
Respectfully submitted,
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Bill M. Ewing
Richard C. Shickle
Gina A. Forrester
Gary Lofton
Richie Wilkins
Ronald Hottle
By t~b~,
Cheryl B. Shiffler
Finance Director
1)~R\CK
~~~
COUNTY
ROBERTT. WILLIAMSON
Sheriff
SHERIFF'S
OFFl
C~
MAJOR R.C. ECKMAN
Chief Deputy
5 NORTH KENT STREET
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601
April 4, 2005
540/662-6168
FAX 540/722-4001
Cheryl Shiffler, Director of Finance
Finance Committee
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
RE: Purchase of Additional Cell Phones
Dear Ms. Shiffler and Committee Members:
I am requesting approval to purchase three (3) additional cell phones to be used by the
Drug Task Force. The personnel assigned to the drug task force currently use SunCom
however, there is an existing grant that will cover the costs of this Nextel phone service.
The direct connect feature which Nextel offers with cellular service is invaluable in
surveillance situations. Therefore, we are requesting three additional Nextel cellular
phones at a cost of $50.00 per month per phone. The Sheriffs Office will handle all
costs associated with this purchase within our current budget.
Thank you for your consideration for this request.
~~JJ~
Sheriff Robert T. Williamson
RTW/asn
-1-
~..
-...,
ROBERT T. WILLIAMSON
Sheriff
MAJOR R.C. ECKMAN
Chief Deputy
5 NORTH KENT STREET
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601
540/662-6168
FAX 540/722.4001
TO
Cheryl Shiffler, Director, Finance Department
Finance Conunittee
Sheriff R. T. Williamson J
FROM
SUBJECT
Proceeds from Sheriffs Sale
DATE
April 6, 2005
Enclosed please find a check in the amount of$24,015.06. This amount represents the
department's proceeds from our Sheriffs Sale of department vehicles and abandoned
impounded vehicles.
3-0ID ~OI50d,O-OOOI
We would like this money appropriated into revenue line-:1Hfl-15Clz-OM1, Sale of
Salvage and Surplus-Sheriff and transferred into expenditure line 3102-3004-02, Repair
and Maintenance of Vehicles.
We have sent over two transfers in the amount of $5,000.00 each to cover the expenses
incurred in this fiscal budget for the repair and maintenance of our department vehicles
however, we will still have a negative balance in this line item once the transfers are
made. We have checked our budget to find any "excess" funding in our expenditure
lines that we could transfer into 3004-02 but with three more months left of operating
expenses, we do not see the possibility of transferring an amount sufficient to cover costs
for vehicle repairs.
Therefore we respectfully request this amount $24,015.06 be transferred into expenditure
line 3102-3004-02 to cover the costs of repairs/maintenance to vehicles in our current
budget.
Thank you for your consideration in this request.
!ir
RTW/asn
FREDESUCK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
LEVY/SHERIFF'S SALE
5 NORTH KENT STREET
WINCHESTER, VA 22601
1134
Date t/ It., / 05
68-251/514
OS
Pay to the /' 'tt f j./ _..J - . . J. 01.
Order of Ltn<...r1 (;) IY~ I $ ~'I-. D/5-
.!~ ,,} . oy'
i. -""" ~ 'f6b,,, o.nd,;~ D"". ~,
. BANK~ ...
CLARKE COUNTY
4OW. PICCADILLY st., WINCHESTeR, VA 22G01
---. ._~-_._-~
-d-.-
L
~~lCK
y~~\)
COUNTY
SHERIFF'S
OPpr-
.J.C./J
ROBERT T. WILLIAMSON
Sheriff
MAJOR R.C. ECKMAN
Chief Deputy
5 NORTH KENT STREET
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601
5401662-6168
FAX 5401722-4001
TO
Finance Department
Sheriff R. T. Williamson mW
\~"'t".. #v'" /
Cc -'. . ..' :".\.c
C[OO~J'O
FROM
SUBJECT
Donations and Reimbursement
DATE
April 6, 2005
Attached please find checks from the American Legion Post #21, Middletown
Elementary School and Winchester Moose #1283 totaling $878.25. This amount
represents donations to the DARE program and reimbursement to the DARE program for
DARE t-shirts.
3-010 -0 1~(ND-OOI5
We are requesting this amount, $878.25 be appropriated into revenue line item 3102-
-189~-15 and then transferred into expenditure line item 3102-5413-01.
Thank you.
'1OStL . !S<-~
~" ..........................M........................i....d.... d...I......e............t.......o........w. .. n Elemen~liry~~~ool
. 190 M Lane
"Mid VA 22645'
.''PH. 540'869-4615
7/89
5897
5897
DATE
AMOUNT
********378 DOLLARS AND 25 CENTS
PAY
TO THE
ORDER
OF:
********378.25
FREDERICK CO. D.A.R
5 NORTH KENT STREET
WINCHESTER, VA 22601
PRINCIPAL
PROGRAM
CO.SIGNER
ffi
-
r.."
WINCHESTER MOOSE FAMILY CENTER #1283
LOYAL ORDER OF MOOSE, INC,
SPECIAL ACCOUNT
P.O. BOX 332 WINCHESTER, VA 22604
BANK OF CLARKE COUNTY
VIRGINIA
1734
1734
68.251/514
i
.J'l
5
1
'"
************ Two Hundred Fifty & 00/100 Dollars
DATE
AMOUNT
~
,
~
G
a
.
'"
03/19105
*******250.00
PAY
TO THE
ORDER
OF
FREDERICK CNTY SHERIFF
Q~~~~
I'n
D.A.R.E. PROGRAM
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY
WINCH~STER, VIRGINIA
4'268
CONRAD HOOVER POST# 21
AMERICAN LEGION
P.O. BOX 2868
WINCHESTER, VA 22604-2068
(540)662-9501 F.I.N.# 54-0470285
6B-426/514
47004
2/28/2005
PAY TO THE
ORDER OF D. A. R. E.
$ **250.00
ofIundredFi and 00/100********************************************** *************************
DOLLARS
D.A.R.p.
C/O Jer\"y park
5 N. Kent Street
Winchester, Va. 22601
CHARITABLE GAMING ACCOUNT
MEMO Dqnation
:m~:_-J1~--_---"!
~-;ifi~Y~E~_WD~f.i:~~M~~~~~~~~~1l~?~Jg~~0R~~~~~',~~~~~
-4--
D~R1CK
~~~
COUNTY
ROBERTT. WILLIAMSON
Sheriff
SHERIFF'S
OF'F'l
c~
MAJOR R.C. ECKMAN
Chief Deputy
5 NORTH KENT STREET
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601
~a~23<"<$
"OJ J;" ~6'
..!? T ~
~/;' ~
~ MAR 200';; ~
v-:. v W
<e' FREDERICK ("'" .r '-', 0
~....., ~'J,~'" ~ j r Co
r', r,lNANCE [;i,-,. .....'J
""c" BY /
<'~LO ----- ",1-'"
:t68l9S'Il
Donation ""d R,imb==on" to DARE (;'3)
March 16,2005 lOOT 3-D ID-D ~ ~qqo- 00\5
540/662-6168
FAX 540/722-4001
TO
Finance Department
SheriffR. T. Williamson~
FROM
SUBJECT
DATE
Enclosed please find checks totaling $1,497.50 made payable to the DARE Program. A
breakdown of checks received:
BPO Elks Lodge 867
Moose Lodge - Stephens City No. 2483
Orchard View Elem. PTO
Stonewall Ruritan Club
Indian Hollow Elem. PTO
$100.00
$250.00
$333.00
$396.00
$418.50
donation
donation
re-imbursement (t-shirts)
re- imbursement (t -shirts)
re-imbursement (t-shirts)
We are requesting this amount be appropriated into 3102-5413-01 DARE Program.
Thank you.
RTW/as!1,__,
W 5,t' W T i I JI C II /I A n ~ cd d II cum c n I.
BPO ELKS LODGE 867
CHARITY ACCOUNT
PO BOX 25
WINCHESTER, VA 22604-0025
$tc bock
o I dc' n j r s.re
1077
01/69
DATE ::r 0.. r. U 0...\"',-\ ri..5) 'd-005
B8-426/514
47001
, "
. .
PAY .('(') ~+' D,A.R..E3'.lho.r<!-iT""lI$ \00,00
6~6~~OF Fr~hri( k COV;-..,*l1 Shl<'TT"T <; (\ Ice - ~ -1
CO DOLLARS fD
OVlQ HUl'ldr~d o."c\ "jOo
==-
---
.......
, 0
, .
BMf
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
-5'-
s
~ .
i .
. :;
"
Ii '
, ,
o
FOR Ocno..-t-iCh
_~.c~~-,_JJ_Q,.M.~,----
M'
.___,_0.__'_..----
""~~ ~..?-"--_ _ ~ -..;l'.,,_-=---:;;;-;.:;:;;;==-'=;':::.~";"=--- --,;.~::;:-::::- -Jo-' _ .-,- - -----------C'~.t:..._ ---"""---
~I
I~
STEPHENS CITY LODGE NO. 2483
LOYAL ORDER OF THE MOOSE
BINGO RAFFLE FUND
P.O. BOX 1057 <..- 68-251/514
STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 c;) ~-I '7-0 ~., 05
/nJ1 tJ !ATE :J
,{ Y _ /-I, >(. ( ~ I $ c9SZ) /t'->-
j/A1duo/v 1/~o- ,f)~Ia~, y /"j/Vv;;Icrv DOLLARS fD :::.~:::.
ADMINISTRATOR
BANK if' ) /J TREASURE') ~~~RNOR
CLARKE COUNTY ~ --7-~
FOR ~ --"'--C"
2199
PAY
TO THE
ORDER OF
M'
,-;;!! '0\1:'"- "~=-"''''''~'':Z''-':'''''[='='',",..!n~:r::::.:..'''''. "=' 2"r.~"",=",:~,>,\",=c"u~~;~1
ORCHARD VIEW ELEMENTARY P.T.O.
4275 MIDDLE ROAD
WINCHESTER, VA 22602
1973
Date '/3/ oS- 6a-42:i5J~
~'L..o
Pay to the ~r' ,{J" ,,. ~ t- jJ i. (\ ,() rf:.
Or~erof ruxJ!A..l C-AL L-~,~VCf i-J(U.L' rrDr ~ 333. cro
".AI!. II,. . Ji. .f) -/'''" ^ f:1P '.f'1 /, f,~' ~ ),";:: ,
&/-f'l....U .Ii , ~ 't-f-ILLt-J tf4v '-"-"- " - 1'- _":LJollars fD ~1:' ,
BB&f
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY
WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA
For /)d...t-P . f -~t';JS
e~c%~,M'
GVARD/A"*SAFHY KiN
STONEWALL DISTRICT RURITAN CLUB, INC.
P.O, BOX 245
CLEAR BROOK, VA 22624
2540
Dat~ Ck1 ( ) 0 (; ~ 6B-251/5~:
Pay to the "7 n Ii (J ..-1-- D ^ IJ fY
Order of:::J f1.1/~ V) r1. '~.. n q( t utlP.l>I1 c.-I-$] ~ t -
lhn j~ '-fJ ~d./t ~ 11'/~h\ ~ 0 '"N Dollars fD ='"":'
~~6GNTY I
40 w. P'ICCADILLV ST.. WINCHESTER, VA 22601
For \') Af.\ t;T S' JL,J.",
,
-~.d~
WI'
ClC'/Ia~""Ame'ICR"
-~~ ,~-'! .......""-:::<:::"...-~_ ""-"""""'_ --.. --- "'_-~ ,~=="""_-"'-'- r _=--- ---;/
GUARDI.Il.NG/lSAFET\' BLUE DEB
-0>-
INDIAN HOLLOW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PTO 1169
1548 N. HAYFIELD RD, '1 .-' II ' i
WINCHESTER, VA 22603 Date 17 . IS 'U Z-{ 68-532/514
04
~id:~~eaJ\J!do)\J;'Je,eiJUJ(ci~ n I~.et:. f/d,M/\1!0 I $ 4/'?:S7J
-4u.t 111//{iM.J o1d.oo!\l....fl/W ""Wli)!; _____ 12Q!Jars ID~_
m~':RATHON Q
~ BANK ~UIoI1i!lUl_""fW.
, 447 North Frederick Pike, Winchester, Vlrglnle 22603
Fm- 1<jJ",'h C~<Lk*f~ ' ~~t,
:o-e~JCK.
t'~~
COUNTY
ROBERT T. WILLIAMSON
Sheriff
SHERIFF'~S
OFFICe
MAJOR R.C. ECKMAN
Chief Deputy
5 NORTH KENT STREET
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601
540/662-6168
FAX 540/722-4001
TO
: Finance Department
: Sheriff R. T. Williamson ~
FROM
SUBJECT
: Donation to Department
~ 3-OIo-01Is'NO-oro0
Attached please find a check in the amount of $25.00 from James and Linda Keffer. This
check represents a donation to the department.
DATE
: March 16,2005
We are requesting this amount be posted to 3102-5409-00, police supplies.
Thank you.
RTW/asn
JAMES E. KEFFER
LINDA W: KEFFER
PHONE 540-888-4575
110 SYCAMORE Pl.
CROSS JUNCTION, VA 22625
;;a~~~ r:J to J, u; L (~ r:-:/ /~ ul1- q...x-
'/J ILA--? f1u:v. ~,JY~ 01 ~.f
~~ WACHOVIA
Wachovia Bank, N.A. .rf)
~ . .~~:-:W;.~~
~ LT-/J
.
7534
~~~,(\~
68-541514
BRANCH 06064
I $ d.7 .5": (/0
~ 0.
. ~ Dollars l.!.J
(
S&~~"1Y
f"l~f.'
0.,.11'00
~..
..
-'}-
:o~~.1CK.
t'~~
COUNTY
ROBERTT. WILLIAMSON
Sheriff
SHERIFF~S
OFPl
Ce
MAJOR R.C. ECKMAN
Chief Deputy
5 NORTH KENT STREET
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601
540/662-6168
FAX 540/722-4001
MEMORANDUM
TO
Cheryl Shiffler, Finance Department
Sheriff R. T. Williamson ~
FROM
SUBJECT
Check from U.S. Marshal
DATE
March 8, 2005
(102"0 3-ol0-D33010 ~o~o
Enclosed please find a check in the amount of$3,598.67 from the Department of Justice,
U.S. Marshal. This amount represents our department's share in a recent forfeiture case.
Attached to the check is the accompanying correspondence we received with the check.
We are requesting this amount be appropriated into our budget line 5413-007, Forfeited
Property.
Thank you.
'~.., .......~f..!.......;.........:...:...... Q...~'~1~~~1
WUU1.l Rt11UJJ ~e
ii"'~"" ebruary 25, 2005
';y.> i
I
,8181_00062256:
JUSTlCE ,
US' (lI~RSHALI
:cLhKSBUI~G" WV'
***$3,598and67/100***
Check No.
FREDERICK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
5 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
:UN[JEO
PURPOSE 04_DEA-441179
Roderick D. Jones
COURT SERVICES DIRECTOR
Jerrauld C. Jones
Director
COMMONWEALTH 0/ VIRGINIA
DISTRICT OFFICE
5 North Kent Street
2nd FI., Judicial Center
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Department of Juvenile Justice
Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court Service Unit
(540) 667-5770
Fax (540) 667-4818
SERVING:
The Cities of:
Harrisonburg
Winchester
March 11, 2005
The Counties of:
Fredrick
Ciarke
Warren
Shenandoah
Page
Rockingham
Ms. Cheryl Shiffler
Finance Director
Frederick County
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Ms. Shiffler:
This correspondence is in reference to the attached letter from the Virginia Department of
Juvenile Justice concerning the return of unspent VJCCCA Funds for FY04. Our records
are in agreement with DJJ's in that we had $4,896.00 of unspent funds that need to be
returned.
Therefore, I am requesting that $4,896.00 be appropriated from our FY04 budget and be
returned to the Department of Juvenile Justice per the guidelines in the attached letter. If
you need any information or if I can assist you in any way, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
-9-
-...,-'~--~---
",t%1 8 9 10;1"),'>.
h __, /.--.,
&')<, ~ '/,.
IV 414 ~ v.J\
i"Y ." .s:.~
F VOS ~
lll-NJ Cil
,e:::> A_ ~,
1[" -w. -..,/
\'2 ,2;;7
~~~-~~f
',/ <0>/
'c?o;J \")",
1C~,5"bJClll,'"
~.r;. v 6.(... ~_"::!___
cc: Heather Stotler
<l)
700 Centre, 41hFlOi
71h and Franklin Street._
Post Office Box I] ] 0
Richmond, Virginia 23218-1110
(804) 371-0700
Fax: (804) 371.0773
Voicel1DD: (804) 371-0772
Jerrauld C. Jones
DIRECTOR
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Department of Juvenile Justice
January 7, 2005
Mr. Roderick Jones, Director
26th District Court Services Unit
Judicial Center
5 North Kent Street
Winchester, Vrrginia 22601
Dear Mr. Jones:
The VJCCCA FY04 end of the year expenditure report has been reviewed. According to the
report, the localities in the Frederick combined plan expended $174,485 of its funds available to
provide services to youth and families. The breakdown offunds expended is as follows:
Required Maintenance of Effort
State Funds Expended
$ 0
174.485
Total Expenditures
$174,485
A total of$179,381 in state funds was provided to the localities. Because the state funds were
not totally expended, we request that the balance of $4,896 be returned to the state as soon as
possible. Your third quarter funds for FYOS cannot be released until the payment has been
received. The return check should be made out to Treasurer, State of Virginia, and mail it to:
Department of Juvenile Justice
clo Sharon Williamson
P. O. Box 1110
Richmond, Virginia 23218-1110
Attached, you will find a Fiscal Adjustment Form (FAF) and a Certification Form. The FAF
must be completed because you expended more funds than budgeted in several of the programs.
The Certification Form is to attest that all funds were spent as recorded in the Department of
Juvenile Justice's Community Programs Reporting System. Please return both forms to:
-10-
Donielle Langhorne
Department of Juvenile Justice
State and Local Partnerships Unit
P. O. Box 1110
Richmond, Virginia 23218-1110
Thank you for your attention to this request.
Sincerely,
~----:2~. ;,
Scott Reiner
Acting Manager, DJJ State and Local Partnerships Unit
cc: David Ash, Clarke County Administrator
Ed Daley, Winchester City Manager
John Riley, Frederick County Administrator
- 1\-
~.~??~
(ji,7j.;;.~ _r.2!>:.:,~.,:..:>
~1.f j.f~'" .,~).
~ ....... .-;:,\
.oJ ",ner-.. '/. \
f;~ K \=- ;~, '- <:~~ \
I~~i !~f.'8<
\';-"" f:'
'\; Adm~~s~;iiC8
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA C'j1ir,,:.
~. '100 (loot Floor
7rh and Franklin Streets
P.O. Box 1110
Richmond, Va 23218-1110
(804) 371-0700
Fax: (804) 371-0773
Voice/TDD (804) 371-0772
as/
r~
91
Jerrauld C. Jones
Director
Department of Juvenile Justice
March 17, 2005
Mr. Roderick Jones, Director
26th District Court Services Unit
Judicial Center
5 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Mr. Jones:
On January 7, 2005, you received notice of the need to return unexpended Virginia Juvenile
Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) funds from fiscal year 2004 in accordance with the
Appropriation Act (2004 Acts of Assembly, Chapter 4, Item 440 E.) which states:
E. Notwithstanding the provisions of 916.1-309.7 B of the Code of Virginia, or any other
provision of law, any funds unexpended by the localities at the close of each fiscal year
shall be returned to the state treasury.
According to our records, the annual expenditure report completed in your locality indicates the
unexpended balance on June 30, 2004 was $4,896.00. These funds have not yet been received by
the Department of Juvenile Justice.
Please send a check made payable to the "Treasurer of Virginia" to:
Sharon Williamson
Accounting Department
Department of Juvenile Justice
P.O. Box 1110
Richmond, VA 23218-1110
No additional VJCCCA funds can be released until the unexpended funds have been received by
DJ]. I appreciate your prompt consideration of this matter so that we may release remaining FY
2005 VJCCCA funds to your locality.
Sincerely, ~
~
Acting Manager, VJCCCA
cc: Mr. David Ash, Clarke County Administrator
Mr. Ed Daley, Winchester City Manager
Mr. John Riley, Frederick County Administrator
-18- -
Roderick D. Jones
COURT SERVICES DIRECTOR
DISTRICT OFFICE
5 North Kent Street
2nd A., Judicial Center
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Jerrauld C. Jones
Director
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Department of Juvenile Justice
Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court Service Unit
April 14, 2005
(540) 667-5770
Fax (540) 667-4818
SERVING:
The Cities of:
Harrisonburg
Winchester
Ms. Cheryl Shiffler, Finance Director
Frederick County
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Ms. Shiffler:
The Counties of:
Fredrick
Clarke
Warren
Shenandoah
Page
Rockingham
Thank you for your help in working with me and my budget. As I indicated our
conversation, our VJCCCA Grant amount is $179,381.00 for FY05. (Please see the
attached documentation.) Therefore I am requesting our budget be increased by $6, I 77 to
reflect the entire award of$179,381.00. This amount can be placed in line item 3002-004
Supervision Plan Services.
I would also like to request that $647.00 found in line item 2006-000 (Group Insurance-
grant) be moved to line 3002-004-Supervision Plan Services.
Thank you for your assistance.
-I~-
~~
~~ WINCHESTERIFREDERICKCOUNTY
~~ Economic Development Commission
April 7, 2005
TO:
Cheryl Shiffler
Finance Director
FROM:
Patrick Barker f!;;
Supplemental Appropriation Request for NetTech Center, Inc.
Supplemental Lease Agreement No. 17, to Lease GS-03B-70041
Frederick County Account No. 10-8102-3002-002
RE:
Based on an October 2004 approval of the FY04-05 Federal budget and extension of the
contract between GSA and Winchester-Frederick County Economic Development Commission,
we are requesting a supplemental appropriation to continue the requirements for the NetTech
Center, Inc. contingent upon terms identified in SLA #17 to Lease Agreement GS-03B-70041
(attached). We would like to add $37,837.52 to the current appropriation amount in order
to cover the rental rate for the remaining three months of the current fiscal year.
This will allow EDC to receive and expend Federal monies in support of the NetTech Center.
No local monies are required.
As per the terms of the contract, the Government will reimburse EDC for these costs at a
monthly rate of $16,882.71.
We hope this request can be added to the April 20th Finance Committee agenda. Please
advise our office if you anticipate a delay. Thank you for your consideration.
45 E. Boscawen Street _ Winchester, VA 22601
phone: 540-665-0973 - fax 540-722-0604 - e-mail info@wininva.com
web: http://www.wininva.com
~Jy..-
(
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
PUBUC BUILDINGS SERVICE
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
0''''
SUPPLEMENTAL LEASE AGREEMENT
No. 17
10 ~ () I... O'f
ADDRESS OF PREMISES
TO LCASE NO.
08-03B-70041
NetTech Center of Winchester
2281 Valley Avenue
winchester, VA 22601
TffiS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this date by and between Winchester-Frederick County Economic
Development Commission
Whose address is
45 E. Boscawen Street
Winchester, Va. 22601
Hereinafter called the Lessor, and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, hereinafter called the Government:
WHEREAS, tbe parties hereto desire to amend tbe above Lease.
NOW THEREFORE, these parties for the considerations hereinafter mentioned covenant and agree that tbe said
Lease is amended, effective October 1, 2004, as follows:
Paragraph B, Part II of the lease is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following inserted in lieu thereof: "To have
and to hold, for the term commencing on October 1,2004 and continuing through September 30, 2005 inclusive.
No rental shall accrue after the effective date of the termination."
The total annual rental rate shall be $202,592.52 Payable at $16,882.71 per month.
All other terms and conditions of tbe lease sball remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF tbe arties subscribed tbeir names as of the above date.
Lessor: Winchester-Frederick County Economic Development Commission
,y ~ ~h-L
~ (Signature)
~ y:: e c<-n <-e- ']) 1'( Cc.A"'Cr"
(Tnle)
45 E. Boscawen Street
Winchester. Va. 22601
(Address)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
BY
~~
' (~gn.w
byn Major
Contracllna Officer
(OfficlalT1tlo)
.SA DC 68-1176
GSA FORM 276 JUL 67
-\5-
CFFW
CLARKE · FAUQUIER. FREDERICK. WINCHESTER
REGIONAL ADULT DETENTION CENTER
Fred D. Hildebrand
Superintendent
Main Facility
Work Release Facility
- 141 Fort Collier Road . Winchester. VA 22603
- 143 Fort Collier Road . Winchester, VA 22603
(540) 665-6374
FAX: (540) 665-1615
Records r AX: (540) 665-5691
Work Release FAX (540) 678-1339
Bruce R. Conover
Assistant Superintendent
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Cheryl Shiffler, Frederick County Finance
Fred D. Hildebrand, Superintendent ~
FROM:
DATE:
March 24, 2005
SUBJECT:
Finance Committee Request for Appropriation
Request approval to return funds to DCJS as reimbursement for an overpayment in the
amount of $6,791.00 which was received on 8/31/04. The funds were posted to the
CFFW Regional Jail's revenue code #3-011-24040-0001 which must be transferred to
expenditure code 11-3301-5413-01 Other Operating Supplies - Grant Refund in order to
complete the process.
Thank you for considering this request.
Grantrefund3-0S/jw
- llo-
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Leonard G. Cooke
Director
Department afCriminal Justice Services
March 9, 2005
805 East Broad Street, Tenth Floor
Richmond. Virginia 23219
(804) 786-4000
FAX (804) 371-8981
TOO (804) 386-8732
Ms. Cheryl B. Shiffler
Finance Director
Frederick County
107 North Kent Street
W inch ester, VA 2260]
Accounts Receivable
RE: Grant No: 04-B8592AD03
Dear Ms. Shiffler:
The Depmiment of Criminal Justice Services' (DCJS) records indicate that the above grant ended
June 30,2004. Our records also indicate that $6,791.00 in federal funds disbursed to you by DCJS were not
expended. Please return these unexpended funds to DCJS, Attention: Finance Section, via a check made
payable to "Treasurer of Virginia".
Your prompt assistance with this matter is required. Disbursements for the current grant year may be
withheld pending resolution of prior year financial obligations.
If you should require further information concerning this request, please contact Mr. Charles Baber at
(804) 786-6534.
Very truly yours,
~jP~~, \ 1/Lh!
, --C1
Reeva G. Tilley
Financial Manager
cc: Mr. Fred D. Hildebrand, Superintendent
Carol-Lee Raimo, DCJS Monitor
Ms. Judy Lloyd, DCJS
Mr. Charles Baber, DCIS
Criminal Justi<:e Service Board . Committee on Trairing . JUI/9n1le Justice end Delinquency Prellention A<Msory Committee
Advisory Committee to Court Appoirted SpeciaJ AdI'OCale and Children's Justice Ad Programs
Priwte Security Services Advisory Board . Criminal Justice Infonnalion Systems Committee
-\'1-
CFFW
CLARKE. FAUQUIER. FREDERICK. WINCHESTER
REGIONAL ADULT DETENTION CENTER
Fred D. Hildebrand
Superintendent
Main Facility
Work Release Facility
- 141 FOl1 Collier Road. Winchester. VA 22603
- 143 Fort Collier Road. Winchester. VA 22603
(540) 665-6374
FAX: (540) 665-1615
Records FAX: (540) 665-5691
Work Release FAX: (540) 678-1339
Bruce R. Conover
Assistant Superintendent
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Cheryl Shiffler, Frederick County Finance ,,1\ )
Fred D. Hildebrand, Superintendent~ ~
'}.$456]89
/ '\ .. "o~
r;- T ~
c ~
r>:l (,,)
(~ APR "
N 2005 <>.
co .....
,N FREDERICK COUNTY tn
\~ FINANCE DEPT ot
\~, BY . \:;
\.S'. -- ~
c 1>? ~ro""
Request approval to add one pager to the Jail program. This pager will be use
Home Electronic Monitoring officer to receive notification from the vendor when a
participant violates confinement conditions. When this occurs immediate action is
required, the pager will allow the officer notice at the instant.
FROM:
DATE:
April 5, 2005
SUBJECT:
Finance Committee Request for Approval- Pager
The cost associated with this addition will be provided by the Telephone line item and
will not incur any additional appropriation. The pagers are secured through a state
contract vendor.
Thank you for considering this request.
Pager4-05/jw
-IR-
LCJPY
.
COUNTY OF FREDERICK
HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
540-665-5668
TO:
ALL CAREER FIREFIGHTERS
FROM:
HR DEPARTMENT
DATE:
MARCH 17, 2005
SUBJECT:
OVERTIME POLL
The Frederick County Finance Committee has asked that we poll career firefighters
regarding overtime. Please answer the questions below (with any comments) and return to
the HR Department by March 25, 2005.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
~
--------------------------------
ARE YOU FINANCIALLY DEPENDENT ON THE OVERTIME? (circkmu} YES NO
COMMENTS:
DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO WORK THE OVERTIME?(ciTckoM,l YES NO
COMMENTS:
NAME:
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
2005
Llo
C:lMyFiIcs\deplreqIFFpoI1.3-18-2005.wpd
- ,~-
COUNTY OF FREDERICK
HR DEPARTMENT
540-665-5668
IMEMORANDUMI
TO:
JOHN R. RILEY, JR.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
DATE:
MARCH 29, 2005
FROM:
L YNSEY L. ORNDORFF
HR TECHNICIAN I
SUBJECT: FIREFIGHTER POLL RESULTS
Provided below are results for the overtime firefighter poll we recently sent to all
career firefighters eligible to receive overtime. Fifty six polls were mailed on
March 21, 2005 and thirty of them were returned by March 25, 2005.
Question 1 ARE YOU FINANCIALLY DEPENDENT ON THE OVERTIME?
19 YES
10NO
1 NI A (doesn't get to work It since he is on Day Shift at Gore)
Question 2 DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO WORK THE OVERTIME?
29 YES
ONO
1 N/A
We did provide a comment section for those that wanted to share their thoughts
on the questions. Should you wish to review these or have any questions
regarding the above information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
L10
cc: Cheryl B. Shiffler
Finance Director
C:\MyFlles\deptreq\ffpollresulls.jrr.wpd
-dD -
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
prvrp# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME PAY
-=45 ANDERSON, JOHN MICHAEL 3505 2002/08/16 .50 8.87
Total For Emp: ANDERSON, JOHN MICHAEL
TOTAL .50 8.87
3838 ANDERSON, MICHAEL W. 3505 2003/08/29 6.50 100.23
3505 2003/09/30 5.00 77 .10
3505 2003/10/30 8.00 123.36
3505 2003/11/26 15.50 239.01
3505 2003/12/30 25.00 385.50
3505 2004/01/16 25.00 385.50
3505 2004/10/29 5.50 141. 24
3505 2005/01/14 16.00 308.16
3505 2005/02/16 29.50 569.24
Total For Emp: ANDERSON, MICHAEL W.
TOTAL 136.00 2,329.34
~597 AUER, PATRICK M. 3505 2002/07/16 4.50 59.63
3505 2002/08/16 15.50 211. 42
3505 2002/08/30 3.50 47.74
3505 2002/09/30 24.00 341. 00
3505 2002/10/30 4.00 56.16
3505 2002/11/27 8.50 119.34
3505 2002/12/30 19.00 266.76
Total For Emp: AUER, PATRICK M.
TOTAL 79.00 1,102.05
533 AUER, PATRICK M. 3505 2003/01/30 25.50 358.02
3505 2003/02/14 3.50 49.14
3505 2003/03/14 2.50 35.10
3505 2003/04/16 14.00 210.60
3505 2003/08/15 2.00 28.78
3505 2003/08/29 .50 7.20
3505 2003/10/30 1.50 21.59
3505 2003/11/26 10.00 143.90
3505 2003/12/30 17.00 244.63
3505 2004/01/16 5.50 79.15
3505 2004/03/16 2.00 28.78
3505 2004/05/14 5.50 79.15
3505 2004/06/16 24.50 442.56
3505 2004/07/16 2.00 28.78
3505 2004/08/16 1. 00 14.75
3505 2004/09/30 1.50 22.13
3505 2004/10/29 3.50 51.63
3505 2004/11/30 .50 7.49
3505 2004/12/30 5.00 74.85
Total For Emp: AUER, PATRICK M.
TOTAL 127 . 50 1,928.23
BAUSERMAN, JOHN J 3505 2003/07/16 26.00 641.92
Page: 1
-d, \~
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
EMP# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME P.A
1491 BAUSERMAN, JOHN J 3505 2003/08/15 22.00 538.38
3505 2003/08/29 11.00 219.34
3505 2003/09/30 35.00 827.51
3505 2003/10/30 24.50 613 .16
3505 2003/11/26 11. 00 219.34
3505 2003/12/30 13 .50 284.15
3505 2004/01/16 30.00 677.96
3505 2004/02/13 72 .00 1,934.18
3505 2004/03/16 39.00 1,046.85
3505 2004/04/16 55.00 1,525.41
3505 2004/05/14 31. 00 807.57
3505 2004/06/16 72.00 2,033.88
3505 2004/07/16 9.00 179.46
3505 2004/08/16 85.00 2,381.26
3505 2004/08/30 70.00 2,023.56
3505 2004/09/30 64.00 1,839.60
3505 2004/10/29 33.00 889.14
3505 2004/11/30 12.00 245.28
3505 2004/12/30 52.00 1,471.68
3505 2005/01/14 47.00 1,318.38
3505 2005/02/16 25.00 549.36
3505 2005/03/16 28.00 746.36
Total For Emp: BAUSERMAN, JOHN J
TOTAL 867.00 23,013.73
l625 BAUSERMAN, JOHN J. 3505 2002/07/16 13.50 238.01 -
3505 2002/08/16 36.50 826.51
3505 2002/08/30 62.00 1,643.68
3505 2002/09/30 35.00 878.50
3505 2002/10/30 44.00 1,133.56
3505 2002/11/27 53.00 1,388.62
3505 2002/12/30 31.00 765.14
3505 2003/01/30 51. 00 1,331. 94
3505 2003/02/14 17.50 393.89
3505 2003/03/14 17.50 393.89
3505 2003/04/16 16.00 350.12
3505 2003/05/16 34.00 875.36
3505 2003/06/16 26.00 544.62
Total For Emp: BAUSERMAN, JOHN J.
TOTAL 437.00 10,763.84
476 BOWERS, LAURIE A 3505 2003/03/14 16.00 257.76
3505 2003/10/16 7.00 115.64
Total For Emp: BOWERS, LAURIE A
TOTAL 23.00 373.40
~53 BOWMASTER, WILLIAM R. SR 3505 2002/07/16 16.00 357.92
3505 2002/08/16 35.00 984.86
3505 2002/09/30 23.00 676.36
3505 2002/10/30 27.00 818.76
Page: 2
- d.. 0-- -
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
"')# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME PAY
1453 BOWMASTER, WILLIAM R. SR 3505 2002/11/27 20.00 569.56
3505 2002/12/30 16.00 427.16
3505 2003/01/30 40.00 1,281.56
3505 2003/02/14 16.00 427.16
3505 2003/03/14 28.00 854.36
3505 2003/04/16 42.00 1,352.76
3505 2003/05/16 40.00 1,281.56
3505 2003/06/16 31.00 842.46
3505 2003/07/16 5.00 118.65
3505 2003/08/15 13.00 328.45
3505 2003/08/29 8.00 194.64
3505 2003/09/30 8.00 194.64
3505 2003/10/30 41. 00 1,350.46
3505 2003/11/26 19.00 462.27
3505 2003/12/30 10.00 243.30
3505 2004/01/16 5.00 132.60
Total For Emp: BOWMASTER, WILLIAM R. SR
TOTAL 443.00 12,899.49
3775 BOYD, JOHN W. 3505 2003/02/14 3.00 40.92
3505 2003/03/14 10.00 136.40
3505 2003/05/16 1.50 20.46
3505 2003/06/16 1.00 13 .64
3505 2003/07/16 7.50 102.30
3505 2003/08/15 10.00 139.90
3505 2003/08/29 1.00 13.99
3505 2003/10/30 12.00 167.88
3505 2003/11/14 12.00 167.88
Total For Emp: BOYD, JOHN W.
TOTAL 58.00 803.37
2765 BOYD, JOSEPH N. 3505 2002/07/16 14.00 243.88
3505 2002/08/16 36.00 771.92
3505 2002/08/30 3.50 62.83
3505 2002/09/30 6.50 116.68
3505 2002/10/30 40.00 969.44
3505 2002/11/27 61. 00 1,445.17
3505 2002/12/30 48.00 1,095.08
3505 2003/01/30 29.00 599.66
3505 2003/02/14 56.00 1,254.72
3505 2003/03/14 26.00 516.62
3505 2003/04/16 24.50 567.40
3505 2003/05/16 20.00 442.84
3505 2003/06/16 16.00 332.12
3505 2003/08/15 12.00 226.92
3505 2003/08/29 3.00 56.73
3505 2003/09/30 14.00 264.74
3505 2003/10/30 1.00 18.91
3505 2003/12/30 10.00 189.10
3505 2004/01/16 34.00 756.46
3505 2004/02/13 10.00 189.10
Page: 3
-~3-
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
EMP# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME Pl
2765 BOYD, JOSEPH N. 3505 2004/03/16 13.00 255.29
3505 2004/04/16 38.00 964.54
3505 2004/06/16 14.00 283.66
3505 2004/07/16 6.50 122.92
3505 2004/08/16 10.00 193.80
3505 2004/08/30 63.00 1,715.13
3505 2004/09/30 25.50 625.01
3505 2004/10/29 51. 00 1,321. 79
3505 2004/11/30 16.00 363.24
3505 2004/12/30 68.50 1,952.42
3505 2005/01/14 21. 00 521.73
3505 2005/02/16 14.50 296.67
Total For Emp: BOYD, JOSEPH N.
TOTAL 805.50 18,736.52
3024 BURNS, JASON E. 3505 2002/07/16 40.00 944.60
3505 2002/08/16 26.00 504.56
3505 2002/08/30 57.00 1,432.59
3505 2002/09/30 54.50 1,365.02
3505 2002/10/30 58.00 1,459.62
3505 2002/11/27 90.00 2,234.48
3505 2002/12/30 38.00 828.92
3505 2003/01/30 26.00 504.56
3505 2003/02/14 53.00 1,144.27
3505 2003/03/14 29.00 585.6~
3505 2003/04/16 37.00 954.98 -
3505 2003/05/16 47.50 1,258.85
3505 2003/06/16 20.00 463.00
3505 2003/07/16 2.00 38.58
3505 2003/08/15 10.00 197.70
3505 2003/08/29 26.00 652.48
3505 2003/09/30 14.00 276.78
3505 2003/10/30 2.00 39.54
3505 2003/11/26 28.00 711. 80
3505 2003/12/30 24.00 593.16
3505 2004/02/13 49.00 1,235.76
3505 2004/03/16 31. 00 800.78
3505 2004/04/16 52.00 1,423.64
3505 2004/05/14 48.50 1,319.83
3505 2004/06/16 65.00 1,809.22
3505 2004/07/16 6.00 118.62
3505 2004/08/16 88.00 2,453.00
3505 2004/08/30 109.00 3,193.01
3505 2004/09/30 41. 00 1,125.13
3505 2004/10/29 96.50 2,711.49
3505 2004/11/30 45.00 1,246.77
3505 2004/12/30 124.00 3,598.46
3505 2005/01/14 62.00 1,763.74
3505 2005/02/16 11.00 222.97
Total For Emp: BURNS, JASON E.
TOTAL 1,510.00 39,213.56
Page: 4
-dtf-
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
r '<:># NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME PAY
4"'189 CALDWELL, JUSTIN M. 3505 2004/11/30 1. 00 14.34
3505 2004/12/30 1.50 21. 51
3505 2005/01/14 21. 50 340.58
3505 2005/02/16 15.00 215.10
3505 2005/03/16 1.00 14.34
Total For Emp: CALDWELL, JUSTIN M.
TOTAL 40.00 605.87
3542 CARPENTER, RUSSELL L. 3505 2002/08/16 2.00 27.28
3505 2002/09/30 1. 00 13.64
3505 2002/10/30 1.50 20.46
3505 2002/12/30 1.00 14.03
3505 2003/01/30 3.00 42.09
3505 2003/03/14 1. 00 14.03
3505 2003/04/16 3.00 42.09
3505 2003/05/16 2.00 28.06
3505 2003/06/16 2.50 35.08
3505 2003/08/15 2.00 28.78
3505 2003/08/29 4.50 64.76
3505 2003/09/30 .50 7.20
3505 2003/10/30 13.50 205.07
3505 2003/11/26 .50 7.20
3505 2003/12/30 25.00 359.75
3505 2004/01/16 6.00 94.92
3505 2004/02/13 13.50 213.57
3505 2004/03/16 11.50 181. 93
3505 2004/04/16 26.50 533.93
3505 2004/06/16 25.50 462.74
3505 2004/07/16 .50 7.91
3505 2004/08/16 1.00 16.22
3505 2004/08/30 1. 00 16.22
3505 2004/10/29 10.50 170.31
3505 2004/11/30 36.00 798.72
3505 2004/12/30 1.00 17.18
3505 2005/01/14 35.50 682.91
3505 2005/02/16 32.00 635.66
3505 2005/03/16 45.00 1/056.24
Total For Emp: CARPENTER, RUSSELL L.
TOTAL 308.50 5/797.98
.457 CATHER, TYREE S. 3505 2002/07/16 20.00 446.68
3505 2002/08/16 45.00 1/074.63
3505 2002/08/30 30.00 741. 78
3505 2002/09/30 40.00 1/058.00
3505 2002/10/30 64.00 1/763.36
3505 2002/11/27 35.00 911.05
3505 2002/12/30 39.50 1/043.31
3505 2003/01/30 70.00 1/939.70
3505 2003/02/14 20.00 470.20
3505 2003/03/14 28.00 705.32
3505 2003/04/16 16.00 352.64
Page: 5
- 'd,5 -
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT /FINQDEF
EMP# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME PJ!
1457 CATHER, TYREE S. 3505 2003/05/16 1B.00 411. 42
3505 2003/06/16 1B.00 411.42
3505 2003/07/16 1.00 19.59
3505 2003/08/15 13 .00 261. 04
3505 2003/08/29 38.00 1,024.08
3505 2003/10/30 10.00 200.80
3505 2003/11/26 10.00 200.80
3505 2003/12/30 32.00 742.96
3505 2004/01/16 52.00 1,563.84
3505 2004/02/13 40.00 1,042.56
3505 2004/03/16 38.00 999.12
3505 2004/04/16 27.00 749.34
3505 2004/05/14 26.00 716.76
3505 2004/06/16 36.00 1,042.56
3505 2004/07/16 27.00 749.34
3505 2004/08/16 52.00 1,602.72
3505 2004/08/30 16.00 400.68
3505 2004/09/30 28.00 801.36
3505 2004/10/29 28.00 801. 36
3505 2004/11/30 52.00 1,602.72
3505 2004/12/30 48.00 1,469.16
3505 2005/01/14 43.00 1,302.21
3505 2005/02/16 18.00 462.89
3505 2005/03/16 49.00 1,524.15
Total For Emp; CATHER, TYREE S.
TOTAL 1,127.50 30,609.55
:146 CATLETT, RICKY ALLEN 3505 2002/08/16 36.00 804.10
3505 2002/08/30 27.50 659.18
3505 2002/09/30 50.00 1,329.82
3505 2002/10/30 28.00 693.80
3505 2002/11/27 82.50 2,173.00
3505 2002/12/30 63.00 1,609.25
3505 2003/01/30 26.00 539.58
3505 2003/02/14 53.00 1,223.75
3505 2003/03/14 34.50 785.32
3505 2003/04/16 17.00 375.79
3505 2003/05/16 22.00 520.34
3505 2003/06/16 16.00 346.88
3505 2003/07/16 4.00 77 .08
3505 2003/08/15 12.00 237.00
3505 2003/08/29 20.00 474.04
3505 2003/09/30 4.00 79.00
3505 2003/10/30 2.00 39.50
3505 2003/11/26 13.00 266.63
3505 2003/12/30 46.00 1,145.62
3505 2004/01/16 14.00 299.18
3505 2004/02/13 32.00 790.74
3505 2004/03/16 16.00 384.6B
3505 2004/04/16 10.00 213.70
3505 2004/05/14 19.00 480.86
3505 2004/06/16 14.00 320.56
Page: 6
-&Jo-
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
--'i?# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME PAY
:rr46 CATLETT, RICKY ALLEN 3505 2004/07/16 2.00 42.74
3505 2004/08/16 30.00 744.60
3505 2004/08/30 50.00 1,511.10
3505 2004/09/30 16.00 394.20
3505 2004/10/29 31. 00 777.45
3505 2004/11/30 20.00 525.60
3505 2004/12/30 85.00 2,496.60
3505 2005/01/14 50.00 1,511.10
3505 2005/02/16 10.00 223,00
3505 2005/03/16 3.00 66.90
Total For Emp: CATLETT, RICKY ALLEN
TOTAL 958.50 24,162.69
1832 CATLETT, WILLIAM D. 3505 2002/07/16 10.50 171.36
3505 2002/09/30 24.00 526.20
3505 2002/10/30 1. 00 17.54
3505 2002/12/30 14.00 245.56
3505 2003/01/30 2.00 35.08
3505 2003/03/14 1. 50 27.14
3505 2003/06/16 1..00 18.09
3505 2003/07/16 16.00 325.64
3505 2003/08/29 6.00 111.30
3505 2003/10/30 28.00 667.88
3505 2003/11/26 19.00 417.41
3505 2003/12/30 23.00 500.53
3505 2004/01/16 7.00 134.75
3505 2004/02/13 29.00 558.25
3505 2004/03/16 20.00 462.04
3505 2004/04/16 29.00 721.96
3505 20.04/07/16 26.00 539.02
3505 2004/08/16 64.00 1,775.96
3505 2004/08/30 16.00 355.16
3505 2004/09/30 52.00 1,420.76
3505 2004/10/29 16.00 355.16
3505 2004/11/30 60.00 1,558.86
3505 2004/12/30 80.00 2,052.16
3505 2005/01/14 60.00 1,558.86
3505 2005/02/16 10.00 200.90
3505 2005/03/16 29.00 753.46
Total For Emp: CATLETT, WILLIAM D.
TOTAL 644.00 15,511. 03
237 COMBS, JUDY L. 3505 2003/10/16 16.50 427.19
Total For Emp: COMBS, JUDY L.
TOTAL 16.50 427.19
709 DEHAVEN, STEVEN A. 3505 2002/10/30 2.00 27.28
3505 2002/11/27 13 .00 177.32
3505 2002/12/30 27.00 470.58
3505 2003/01/30 20.00 327.36
Page: 7
- ;1.1 -
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
EMP# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME PA
3709 DEHAVEN, STEVEN A. 3505 2003/02/14 22.00 300.08
3505 2003/03/14 5.50 75.02
3505 2003/04/16 2.00 27.28
3505 2003/05/16 6.00 81.84
3505 2003/06/16 34.00 613 .80
3505 2003/07/16 4.50 61. 3 8
3505 2003/08/15 11.50 160.89
3505 2003/08/29 4.00 55.96
3505 2003/09/30 26.50 507.34
3505 2003/10/30 14.50 236.74
3505 2003/11/26 5.50 80.80
3505 2003/12/30 15.00 220.35
3505 2004/01/16 32.00 617.08
3505 2004/02/13 23.50 345.22
Total For Emp: DEHAVEN, STEVEN A.
TOTAL 268.50 4,386.32
H70 DETRICK, KURT R. 3505 2004/10/29 4.00 57.36
3505 2004/11/30 4.50 64.53
3505 2004/12/30 5.50 78.87
3505 2005/01/14 14.00 200.76
3505 2005/02/16 10.00 143.40
3505 2005/03/16 1.00 14.34
Total For Emp: DETRICK, KURT R.
TOTAL 39.00 559.26 -
l201 ERICKSON, SHANE T. 3505 2004/11/30 .50 7.17
3505 2004/12/30 2.50 35.85
3505 2005/01/14 11. 50 164.91
3505 2005/02/16 27.00 423.03
3505 2005/03/16 16.00 258.12
Total For Emp: ERICKSON, SHANE T.
TOTAL 57.50 889.08
202 FAUBER, JEREMY S. 3505 2004/11/30 .50 7.17
3505 2004/12/30 2.50 35.85
3505 2005/01/14 14.00 215.10
3505 2005/02/16 28.50 455.30
3505 2005/03/16 16.00 258.12
Total For Emp: FAUBER, JEREMY S.
TOTAL 61. 50 971.54
944 FULLER, AMIE 3505 2003/10/30 6.50 90.94
3505 2003/11/26 1.50 20.99
3505 2003/12/30 9.50 132.91
3505 2004/01/16 10.50 146.90
3505 2004/02/13 12.50 174.88
3505 2004/03/16 14.50 202.86
3505 2004/04/16 26.50 472.24
Page: 8
- d-~ -
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
'1?# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME PAY
3944 FULLER, AMIE 3505 2004/05/14 60.00 1,175.40
3505 2004/06/16 3.50 48.97
3505 2004/07/16 41. 50 787.09
3505 2004/08/16 57.50 1,150.79
3505 2004/08/30 69.00 1,398.15
3505 2004/09/30 35.00 666.81
3505 2004/10/29 63.50 1,279.85
3505 2004/11/30 66.50 1,344.38
3505 2004/12/30 84.50 1,624.01
3505 2005/01/14 95.00 1,921.56
3505 2005/02/16 26.00 401. 52
3505 2005/03/16 28.00 516.24
Total For Emp: FULLER, AMIE
TOTAL 711. 50 13,556.49
1590 GRUBBS, PRESTON D. 3505 2002/07/16 16.00 360.36
3505 2002/08/16 16.00 382.16
3505 2002/08/30 26.00 700.66
3505 2002/09/30 26.00 594.46
3505 2002/10/30 48.00 1,401.36
3505 2002/11/27 38.00 1,082.86
3505 2002/12/30 66.00 1,719.78
3505 2003/01/30 32.00 785.56
3505 2003/02/14 70.00 1,995.86
3505 2003/03/14 16.00 382.16
3505 2003/04/16 41. 00 1,178.41
3505 2003/05/16 19.00 477.71
3505 2003/06/16 16.00 382.16
3505 2003/07/16 14.00 297.22
3505 2003/08/15 4.00 87.04
3505 2003/08/29 8.00 174.08
3505 2003/11/26 8.00 174.08
Total For Emp: GRUBBS, PRESTON D.
TOTAL 464.00 12,175.92
l1l8 HENSELL, JASON W. 3505 2004/08/30 1.50 21.51
3505 2004/09/30 3.50 50.19
3505 2004/10/29 4.50 64.53
3505 2004/11/30 .50 7.17
3505 2004/12/30 1.50 21.51
3505 2005/01/14 13 .50 204.35
Total For Emp: HENSELL, JASON W.
TOTAL 25.00 369.26
138 HOLLIDAY, SAMANTIIA J 3505 2004/10/29 7.00 100.38
3505 2004/11/30 15.00 236.61
3505 2005/01/14 4.00 57.36
3505 2005/02/16 3.00 43.02
3505 2005/03/16 2.00 28.68
Page: 9
-~q-
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
EMP# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME Pl
Total For Emp: HOLLIDAY, SAMANTHA J
TOTAL 31.00 466.05
3562 HOUNSHELL, ADAM S. 3505 2002/08/16 3.00 40.92
3505 2002/08/30 4.50 61.38
3505 2002/09/30 9.00 122.76
3505 2002/10/30 4.50 61. 38
3505 2002/11/27 3.50 47.74
3505 2002/12/30 10.50 143.22
3505 2003/01/30 1. 00 14.03
3505 2003/02/14 3.00 42.09
3505 2003/03/14 1.50 21. OS
3505 2003/04/16 .50 7.02
3505 2003/05/16 4.00 56.12
3505 2003/07/16 2.50 37.65
3505 2003/08/15 13 .00 194.13
3505 2003/08/29 9.00 129.42
3505 2003/09/30 6.50 93.47
3505 2003/10/30 2.50 35.95
3505 2003/11/26 14.00 215.70
3505 2003/12/30 9.00 129 . 51
3505 2004/01/16 6.00 94.92
3505 2004/02/13 32.00 585.34
3505 2004/03/16 5.00 79.10
3505 2004/04/16 38.00 806.82
3505 2004/05/14 3.00 47.4'
3505 2004/06/16 5.00 79.10 -
3505 2004/07/16 2.00 31.64
3505 2004/09/30 9.50 154.00
3505 2004/10/29 14.00 243.16
3505 2004/11/30 6.50 106.54
3505 2004/12/30 20.00 338.60
3505 2005/01/14 12.00 206.04
3505 2005/02/16 13.00 223.34
3505 2005/03/16 16.00 309.08
Total For Emp: HOUNSHELL, ADAM S.
TOTAL 283.50 4,758.68
3520 HOUNSHELL, ANDREW S. 3505 2002/08/16 2.00 27.28
3505 2002/09/30 7.00 98.28
3505 2002/10/30 1.50 21. 06
3505 2002/12/30 .50 7.02
3505 2003/01/30 4.00 56.16
3505 2003/02/14 10.00 140.40
3505 2003/03/14 2.00 28.08
3505 2003/04/16 3.00 42.12
3505 2003/05/16 2.00 30.12
3505 2003/06/16 1.00 15.06
3505 2003/08/15 12.00 185.28
3505 2003/08/29 14.00 231.58
3505 2003/09/30 12.00 202.44
3505 2003/10/30 4.00 67.48
Page: 10
- ~O-
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
""~P# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME PAY
5520 HOUNSHELL, ANDREW S. 3505 2003/11/26 30.00 573.62
3505 2003/12/30 25.00 421. 75
3505 2004/01/16 24.00 404.88
3505 2004/02/13 10.00 168.70
3505 2004/04/16 29.00 632.71
3505 2004/05/14 36.00 809.88
3505 2004/06/16 54.00 1,181.06
3505 2004/07/16 14.00 253.06
3505 2004/08/16 28.00 622.52
3505 2004/08/30 26.50 583.61
3505 2004/09/30 40.50 946.77
3505 2004/10/29 31.50 723.53
3505 2004/11/30 25.50 565.67
3505 2004/12/30 78.00 1,946.94
3505 2005/01/14 18.50 381.50
3505 2005/02/16 41. 50 898.93
3505 2005/03/16 45.00 1,078.71
Total For Emp: HOUNSHELL, ANDREW S.
TOTAL 632.00 13,346.20
4165 HUDSON, MATTHEW R. 3505 2004/10/29 5.00 71.70
3505 2004/11/30 1.00 14.34
3505 2004/12/30 2.50 35.85
3505 2005/01/14 13 .50 204.35
3505 2005/02/16 29.00 466.05
Total For Emp: HUDSON, MATTHEW R.
TOTAL 51. 00 792.29
2296 JENKINS, KEITH ALLEN 3505 2002/08/16 33.00 748.44
3505 2002/08/30 16.00 349.92
3505 2002/09/30 70.00 1,924.56
3505 2002/10/30 47.00 1,253.88
3505 2002/11/27 40.00 1,049.76
3505 2002/12/30 72.00 1,885.68
3505 2003/01/30 34.00 777.60
3505 2003/02/14 68.00 1,671.84
3505 2003/03/14 31.50 704.70
3505 2003/04/16 16.00 349.92
3505 2003/05/16 18.00 408.24
3505 2003/06/16 40.00 1,049.76
3505 2003/08/15 16.00 318.72
3505 2003/08/29 35.00 926.51
3505 2003/12/30 10.00 IB5.30
3505 2004/01/16 14.00 295.12
3505 2004/02/13 17.50 426.87
3505 2004/03/16 10.50 221. 34
3505 2004/04/16 44.50 1,280.61
3505 2004/05/14 21.00 537.54
3505 2004/06/16 38.50 1,090.89
3505 2004/07/16 44.00 1,264.80
3505 2004/11/16 49.50 1,572.36
Page: 11
-"3 f -
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
EMP# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME PA
2296 JENKINS, KEITH ALLEN 3505 2004/12/16 53.00 1,718.26
3505 2005/01/14 56.00 1,815.52
3505 2005/02/16 30.00 986.10
3505 2005/03/16 26.00 854.62
Total For Emp: JENKINS, KEITH ALLEN
TOTAL 951. 00 25,668.86
2264 KEPLINGER, GARY A. 3505 2002/07/16 2.00 36.56
3505 2002/08/16 19.00 357.77
3505 2002/08/30 55.00 1,440.71
3505 2002/09/30 18.00 406.14
3505 2002/10/30 43.00 1,131.39
3505 2002/11/27 37.00 957.33
3505 2002/12/30 89.00 2,233.77
3505 2003/01/30 26.00 541. 52
3505 2003/02/14 60.00 1,527.86
3505 2003/03/14 16.00 348.12
3505 2003/04/16 16.00 348.12
3505 2003/05/16 20.00 464.16
3505 2003/06/16 16.00 348.12
3505 2003/07/16 10.00 193.40
3505 2003/08/15 2.00 39.66
3505 2003/08/29 4.00 79.32
3505 2003/09/30 4.00 79.32
3505 2003/10/30 4.00 79.32
3505 2003/12/30 20.00 426.36 -
3505 2004/01/16 8.00 158.64
3505 2004/02/13 20.00 396 . 60
3505 2004/03/16 40.00 1,070.96
3505 2004/04/16 17.00 386.71
3505 2004/05/14 45.00 1,219.71
3505 2004/06/16 25.50 639.59
3505 2004/07/16 50.00 1,269.26
3505 2004/08/16 22.00 548.64
3505 2004/08/30 16.00 372 .44
3505 2004/09/30 16.00 372.24
3505 2004/10/29 16.00 372.24
3505 2004/11/30 38.00 951.28
3505 2004/12/30 92.50 2,538.47
3505 2005/01/14 75.00 2,099.02
3505 2005/02/16 2.50 51. 70
Total For Emp: KEPLINGER, GARY A.
TOTAL 944.50 23,486.45
- 04 KERN, DAVID J. 3505 2003/04/16 2.00 27.28
3505 2003/05/16 2.00 27.28
3505 2003/06/16 1. 00 13.64
3505 2003/07/16 2.00 27.28
3505 2003/08/15 3.00 41. 97
3505 2003/10/30 12.00 167.88
3505 2003/11/26 13.00 181.87
Page: 12
- 30..-
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
,# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME PAY
'-
3804 KERN, DAVID J. 3505 2003/12/30 16.00 223.84
3505 2004/01/16 10.50 146.90
3505 2004/02/13 32.00 447.68
3505 2004/03/16 12.00 167.88
3505 2004/04/16 12.50 178.38
3505 2004/05/14 3.00 41. 97
3505 2004/06/16 11. 00 153.89
3505 2004/07/16 12.00 167.88
3505 2004/08/16 10.00 143.40
3505 2004/08/30 3.00 43.02
3505 2004/09/30 5.50 78.87
3505 2004/10/29 18.50 265.29
3505 2004/11/30 12.00 172.08
3505 2004/12/30 12.00 172.08
3505 2005/01/14 28.00 480.39
3505 2005/02/16 23.00 336.99
Total For Emp: KERN, DAVID J.
TOTAL 256.00 3,707.74
3879 LAUCK, JEREMY L. 3505 2003/08/29 2.50 34.98
3505 2003/10/30 1.50 20.99
3505 2003/11/26 10.00 139.90
3505 2003/12/30 18.00 251.82
3505 2004/01/16 5.50 76.95
3505 2004/02/13 10.00 139.90
3505 2004/03/16 12.00 167.88
3505 2004/04/16 35.00 650.65
3505 2004/05/14 26.00 461.74
3505 2004/06/16 1. 00 13 .99
3505 2004/07/16 3.00 41. 97
3505 2004/08/16 1. 00 14.55
3505 2004/08/30 12.00 174.60
3505 2004/09/30 12.50 185.52
3505 2004/10/29 16.00 261.92
3505 2004/11/30 25.50 475.11
3505 2004/12/30 .50 7.28
3505 2005/01/14 32.50 652.90
3505 2005/02/16 16.00 244.32
3505 2005/03/16 1. 00 15.27
Total For Emp: LAUCK, JEREMY L.
TOTAL 241. 50 4,032.24
.746 LIGHT, RONALD W. 3505 2002/07/16 9.50 174.52
3505 2002/08/16 24.00 567.60
3505 2002/08/30 31. 00 766.26
3505 2002/09/30 27.50 588.67
3505 2002/10/30 90.00 2,510.34
3505 2002/11/27 68.00 1,868.16
3505 2002/12/30 44.00 1,128.68
3505 2003/01/30 27.00 574.07
3505 2003/02/14 62.50 1,610.32
Page: 13
- 33-
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
EMP# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME PA
1746 LIGHT, RONALD W. 3505 2003/03/14 25.50 627.59
3505 2003/04/16 19.50 452.45
3505 2003/05/16 17.50 394.07
3505 2003/06/16 19.50 452.45
3505 2003/07/16 11. 00 214.06
3505 2003/08/15 12.00 239.40
3505 2003/08/29 3.00 59.85
3505 2003/09/30 4.00 79.80
3505 2003/10/30 3.00 59.85
3505 2003/11/26 4.00 79.80
3505 2004/02/13 21. 50 466.98
3505 2004/03/16 49.00 1,466.10
3505 2004/04/16 26.00 716.76
3505 2004/05/14 55.50 1,677.87
3505 2004/06/16 22.00 586.44
3505 2004/07/16 18.00 390.96
3505 2004/08/16 48.50 1,485.86
3505 2004/08/30 18.50 484.16
3505 2004/09/30 16.00 400.68
3505 2004/10/29 19.00 500.85
3505 2004/11/30 54.00 1,558.20
3505 2004/12/30 46.00 1,291.08
3505 2005/01/14 83.50 2,543.21
3505 2005/02/16 26.50 651.48
3505 2005/03/16 71.00 2,277.33
Total For Emp: LIGHT, RONALD W.
TOTAL 1,077.50 28,945.90
~855 LUTTRELL, ROBERT EARL 3505 2002/07/16 2.00 33.24
3505 2002/08/16 59.00 1,381.23
3505 2002/08/30 40.50 978.93
3505 2002/09/30 26.00 500.64
3505 2002/10/30 64.50 1,622.61
3505 2002/11/27 45.00 1,099.62
3505 2002/12/30 76.00 1,768.32
3505 2003/01/30 70.50 1,745.30
3505 2003/02/14 61. 00 1,482.81
3505 2003/03/14 18.00 386.82
3505 2003/04/16 18.00 386.82
3505 2003/05/16 32.50 787.46
3505 2003/06/16 16.00 331.56
3505 2003/07/16 10.00 184.20
3505 2003/08/15 2.00 37.76
3505 2003/08/29 12.00 226.56
3505 2003/09/30 18.00 396.48
3505 2003/10/30 11.50 217.12
3505 2003/11/26 17.50 382.32
3505 2003/12/30 57.00 1,453.76
3505 2004/01/16 22.00 509.76
3505 2004/02/13 78.00 1,906.88
3505 2004/03/16 73.50 1,96B.24
3505 2004/04/16 38.00 962. aa
Page: 14
-3,\,-
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
'# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME PAY
2855 LUTI'RELL, ROBERT EARL 3505 2004/05/14 58.50 1,543.44
3505 2004/06/16 26.50 637.20
3505 2004/07/16 42.00 981.76
3505 2004/08/16 54.00 1,451.46
3505 2004/08/30 75.50 2,075.61
3505 2004/09/30 36.50 943.44
3505 2004/10/29 46.00 1,219.22
3505 2004/11/30 114.00 3,096.46
3505 2004/12/30 75.00 1,895.26
3505 2005/01/14 108.00 2,965.64
3505 2005/02/16 65.50 1,713.59
3505 2005/03/16 29.00 736.50
Total For Emp: LUTI'RELL, ROBERT EARL
TOTAL 1,599.00 40,010.90
4240 MACHER, GLENN F. 3505 2005/03/16 1.00 14.34
Total For Emp: MACHER, GLENN F.
TOTAL 1.00 14.34
3774 MCKINLEY, ROBERT W. 3505 2003/02/14 11.50 156.86
3505 2003/03/14 5.00 68.20
3505 2003/04/16 3.50 47.74
3505 2003/05/16 1. 00 13 .64
3505 2003/06/16 2.00 27.28
3505 2003/07/16 1. 00 13 .64
3505 2003/08/15 11. 50 160.89
3505 2003/08/29 2.00 27.98
3505 2003/09/30 1. 00 13.99
3505 2003/10/30 2.00 27.98
3505 2003/11/26 3.50 48.97
3505 2003/12/30 3.50 48.97
3505 2004/01/16 5.00 69.95
3505 2004/02/13 16.50 230.84
3505 2004/04/16 3.00 41. 97
3505 2004/05/14 1.00 13.99
3505 2004/06/16 2.50 34.98
3505 2004/07/16 3.50 48.97
3505 2004/08/16 1.00 14.34
3505 2004/08/30 2.00 28.68
3505 2004/09/30 1. 00 14.34
3505 2004/10/29 7.00 100.38
3505 2004/11/30 .50 7.17
3505 2005/01/14 4.00 57.36
3505 2005/02/16 2.00 28.68
3505 2005/03/16 2.00 28.68
Total For Emp: MCKINLEY, ROBERT W.
TOTAL 98.50 1,376.47
MILLER, GAIL L 3505 2002/07/16 5.00 66.20
3505 2002/08/16 18.00 286.44
Page: 15
-'35'-
~---~_._~._-_..__....~-~---.-_._._-
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
EMP# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TlME PI
3504 MILLER, GAIL L 3505 2002/08/30 13.00 189.14
3505 2002/09/30 4.50 63.05
3505 2002/10/30 29.00 525.46
3505 2002/11/27 2.00 30.06
3505 2002/12/30 7.00 105.21
3505 2003/01/30 12.50 191. 64
3505 2003/02/14 .50 7.52
3505 2003/04/16 22.00 405.86
3505 2003/05/16 2.00 30.06
3505 2003/06/16 2.00 30.06
3505 2003/07/16 10.50 157.82
3505 2003/08/29 1. 00 15.41
3505 2003/09/30 .50 7.71
3505 2003/10/30 1. 00 15.41
3505 2003/11/26 1. 00 16.84
3505 2003/12/30 3.50 58.94
3505 2004/01/16 1.50 25.26
3505 2004/02/13 12.00 202.08
3505 2004/03/16 1.00 16.84
3505 2004/04/16 29.00 631. 50
3505 2004/05/14 5.00 84.20
Total For Emp: MILLER, GAIL L
TOTAL 183.50 3,162.71
3532 MILLER, JODI L. 3505 2002/08/16 14.50 197.7'2
3505 2002/08/30 24.00 409.20_
3505 2002/09/30 10.50 143.22
3505 2002/10/30 .50 7.03
3505 2002/11/27 58.00 1,146.08
3505 2002/12/30 29.50 576.81
3505 2003/01/30 19.00 339.30
3505 2003/02/14 52.00 1,085.76
3505 2003/03/14 16.00 271.44
3505 2003/04/16 12.00 180.96
3505 2003/05/16 16.00 271.44
3505 2003/06/16 16.00 271. 44
3505 2003/07/16 1.50 22.62
3505 2003/08/29 17.00 301.42
3505 2003/09/30 15.50 239.63
3505 2003/10/30 45.00 950.79
3505 2003/11/26 5.00 84.45
3505 2003/12/30 26.00 472 .94
3505 2004/01/16 2.00 33.78
3505 2004/02/13 15.50 261. 80
3505 2004/03/16 26.00 557.44
3505 2004/04/16 41.00 937.54
3505 2004/05/14 16.00 304.04
3505 2004/06/16 24.00 506.76
3505 2004/07/16 6.50 109.79
3505 2004/08/30 40.00 934.88
3505 2004/09/30 28.00 623.24
3505 2004/10/29 30.50 610.21
Page: 16
- 30-
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
")# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TlME PAY
3532 MILLER, JODI L. 3505 2004/11/30 36.00 842.88
3505 2004/12/30 65.00 1,475.04
3505 2005/01/14 32.50 706.79
3505 2005/02/16 10.50 184.38
Total For Emp: MILLER, JODI L.
TOTAL 751. 50 15,060.88
2580 MORGAN, RUSSELL H. III 3505 2002/08/16 16.00 328.16
3505 2002/08/30 49.00 1,230.71
3505 2002/09/30 26.00 510.46
3505 2002/10/30 64.00 1,640.96
3505 2002/11/27 16.00 337.32
3505 2002/12/30 64.00 1,461. 72
3505 2003/01/30 40.00 955.50
3505 2003/02/14 58.00 1,482.00
3505 2003/03/14 18.00 409.50
3505 2003/04/16 25.00 614.25
3505 2003/05/16 28.50 716.63
3505 2003/06/16 16.00 351. 00
3505 2003/07/16 26.00 546.00
3505 2003/08/15 2.00 40.18
3505 2003/08/29 16.00 359.80
3505 2003/09/30 27.00 689.73
3505 2003/10/30 4.00 79.96
3505 2003/11/26 7.00 139.93
3505 2003/12/30 21. 00 459.79
3505 2004/01/16 12.00 239.88
3505 2004/02/13 43.00 969.57
3505 2004/03/16 76.00 2,159.24
3505 2004/04/16 45.00 1,229.55
3505 2004/05/14 19.00 449.81
3505 2004/06/16 16.00 359.84
3505 2004/07/16 28.00 619.72
3505 2004/08/30 17.00 399.58
3505 2004/09/30 20.00 491. 80
3505 2004/10/29 28.00 747.80
3505 2004/11/30 103.00 2,980.90
3505 2004/12/30 92.00 2,534.24
3505 2005/01/14 38.00 955.50
3505 2005/02/16 16.00 373.88
3505 2005/03/16 40.00 1,121.72
Total For Emp: MORGAN, RUSSELL H. III
TOTAL 1,116.50 27,986.63
3550 MYERS, DICK W. 3505 2002/07/16 2.00 26.50
3505 2002/08/16 24.00 409.20
3505 2002/08/30 2.50 34.10
3505 2002/09/30 15.00 225.06
3505 2002/10/30 4.00 54.56
3505 2002/11/27 49.00 920.70
3505 2002/12/30 57.50 944.57
Page: 17
---:3l-
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
EMP# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME P~
3550 MYERS, DICK W. 3505 2003/01/30 28.00 505.44
3505 2003/02/14 15.50 242.19
3505 2003/03/14 7.00 98.28
3505 2003/04/16 16.50 263.25
3505 2003/05/16 2.50 38.50
3505 2003/06/16 26.00 431.20
3505 2003/07/16 4.00 61. 60
3505 2003/08/15 3.00 47.37
3505 2003/08/29 6.00 94.74
3505 2003/09/30 48.00 963.32
3505 2003/10/30 20.00 379.00
3505 2003/11/26 4.00 63.16
3505 2003/12/30 55.00 1,317.33
3505 2004/01/16 22.00 378.84
3505 2004/02/13 24.00 430.50
3505 2004/03/16 20.00 413.28
3505 2004/04/16 38.00 878.22
3505 2004/05/14 12.00 206.64
3505 2004/06/16 22.00 464.94
3505 2004/07/16 14.00 241. 08
3505 2004/08/16 62.00 1,535.80
3505 2004/08/30 26.00 582.52
3505 2004/09/30 16.00 317.72
3505 2004/10/29 58.50 1,354.82
3505 2004/11/30 16.00 317.72
3505 2004/12/30 13 .00 238.2e
3505 2005/01/14 12.00 211.80
3505 2005/02/16 17.00 344.20
3505 2005/03/16 20..00 389.28
Total For Emp: MYERS, DICK W.
TOTAL 782.00 15,425.71
!997 NEAL, JEFFREY SCOTT 3505 2002/07/16 12.00 213.36
3505 2002/08/16 31. 00 650.36
3505 2002/08/30 16.00 329.76
3505 2002/09/30 59.00 1,511.40
3505 2002/10/30 42.00 966.30
3505 2002/11/27 60.00 1,447.28
3505 2002/12/30 36.00 787.76
3505 2003/01/30 26.00 548.80
3505 2003/02/14 45.00 1,009.40
3505 2003/03/14 29.00 637.00
3505 2003/04/16 16.00 352.80
3505 2003/05/16 32.00 823.20
3505 2003/06/16 16.00 352.80
3505 2003/08/15 8.00 160.72
3505 2003/08/29 2.00 40.18
3505 2003/09/30 4.00 80.36
3505 2003/10/30 2.00 40.18
3505 2003/11/26 4.00 80.36
3505 2003/12/30 52.00 1,245.68
3505 2004/01/16 19.00 381. 71
Page: 18
- 0'6 -
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
~# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME PAY
2997 NEAL, JEFFREY SCOTT 3505 2004/02/13 25.00 532.40
3505 2004/03/16 16.00 361. 64
3505 2004/04/16 26.00 663.04
3505 2004/05/14 16.00 361. 64
3505 2004/06/16 48.00 1,225.62
3505 2004/07/16 6.00 120.54
3505 2004/08/16 16.00 370.64
3505 2004/08/30 28.00 741.32
3505 2004/09/30 50.00 1,420.90
3505 2004/10/29 26.00 679.54
3505 2004/11/30 52.00 1,482.68
3505 2004/12/30 88.00 2,594.72
3505 2005/01/14 16.00 375.84
3505 2005/02/16 26.00 584.64
Total For Emp: NEAL, JEFFREY SCOTT
TOTAL 950.00 23,174.57
3824 NOLL, JASON 3505 2003/06/16 1.50 20.46
3505 2003/07/16 1.00 13.64
3505 2003/08/15 2.50 34.98
3505 2003/08/29 3.50 48.97
3505 2003/09/30 1.50 20.99
3505 2003/10/30 26.00 461. 74
3505 2003/12/30 12.50 174.88
3505 2004/01/16 16.50 230.84
3505 2004/02/13 40.00 685.60
3505 2004/03/16 43.00 748.57
3505 2004/04/16 67.00 1,322.33
3505 2004/05/14 63.00 1,238.37
Total For Emp: NOLL, JASON
TOTAL 278.00 5,001.37
:103 NUAR, LUKE F. 3505 2004/08/30 1.00 14.34
3505 2004/09/30 2.00 28.68
3505 2004/10/29 18.50 311.90
3505 2004/11/30 7.00 100.38
3505 2004/12/30 2.00 28.68
3505 2005/01/14 16.00 229.44
3505 2005/02/16 13.50 193.59
3505 2005/03/16 6.50 93.21
Total For Emp: NUAR, LUKE F.
TOTAL 66.50 1,000.22
200 ORNDORFF, JOHN B. 3505 2004/11/30 1.50 21.51
3505 2004/12/30 3.50 50.19
3505 2005/01/14 10.50 150.57
3505 2005/02/16 10.00 143.40
Total For Emp: ORNDORFF, JOHN B.
TOTAL 25.50 365.67
Page: 19
-3~~
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
EMP# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME PA
1179 PEARSON, GARY J. 3505 2002/08/16 38.00 1,251.54
3505 2002/08/30 34.00 1,104.30
3505 2002/09/30 44.00 1,472.40
3505 2002/10/30 22.00 662.58
3505 2002/11/27 64.00 2,085.90
3505 2002/12/30 36.00 1,055.22
3505 2003/01/30 38.00 1,128.84
3505 2003/02/14 47.00 1,337.43
3505 2003/03/14 26.00 687.12
3505 2003/04/16 29.00 920.25
3505 2003/05/16 29.00 920.25
3505 2003/06/16 19.00 552.15
3505 2003/07/16 19.00 552.15
3505 2003/08/15 7.00 176.05
3505 2003/09/30 17.00 427.55
3505 2003/10/30 6.00 150.90
3505 2003/11/26 4.00 100.60
3505 2003/12/30 10.00 251. 50
3505 2004/01/16 9.00 246.87
Total For Emp: PEARSON, GARY J.
TOTAL .498.00 15,083.60
4104 PETERS, AMY L. 3505 2004/08/30 1.50 21. 51
3505 2004/09/30 24.00 430.20
3505 2004/10/29 25.50 376.43
3505 2004/11/30 11. 50 164.91 -
3505 2004/12/30 18.00 258.12
3505 2005/01/14 11.50 164.91
3505 2005/02/16 10.00 143.40
Total For Emp: PETERS, AMY L.
TOTAL 102.00 1,559.48
~823 PIFER, WILLIAM EARL III 3505 2003/06/16 2.50 34.10
3505 2003/07/16 3.00 40.92
3505 2003/08/15 6.00 83.94
3505 2003/08/29 17.00 272 .83
3505 2003/09/30 10.00 139.90
3505 2003/10/30 3.00 41. 97
3505 2003/11/26 4.50 62.96
3505 2003/12/30 30.00 475.70
3505 2004/01/16 12.00 167.88
3505 2004/02/13 28.00 433.72
3505 2004/03/16 47.00 902.53
3505 2004/04/16 61. 00 1,196.39
3505 2004/05/14 16.00 251.84
3505 2004/06/16 43.00 818.57
3505 2004/07/16 16.00 270.56
3505 2004/08/16 75.00 1,564.38
3505 2004/08/30 63.00 1,364.04
3505 2004/10/29 51. 50 1,021. 06
3505 2004/11/30 41. 50 866.96
Page: 20
-\\,O -
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
'# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TlME PAY
3823 PIFER, WILLIAM EARL III 3505 2004/12/30 76.00 1,548.95
3505 2005/01/14 39.00 770.61
3505 2005/02/16 15.00 231.15
Total For Emp: PIFER, WILLIAM EARL III
TOTAL 660.00 12,560.96
3522 POPE, JASON W. 3505 2002/07/16 12.00 159.00
3505 2002/08/16 1.00 13 .64
3505 2002/08/30 3.50 47.74
3505 2002/10/30 4.00 56.16
3505 2002/12/30 1. 00 14.04
3505 2003/02/14 .50 7.02
3505 2003/03/14 2.50 35.10
3505 2003/04/16 1.50 21. 06
3505 2003/05/16 3.50 49.14
3505 2003/06/16 1.00 14.04
3505 2003/07/16 2.50 35.10
3505 2003/08/15 3.50 50.40
3505 2003/08/29 10.00 144.00
3505 2003/09/30 1. 00 14.40
3505 2003/10/30 13.00 194.40
3505 2003/11/26 10.00 144.00
3505 2003/12/30 52.00 964.80
3505 2004/01/16 23.00 364.09
3505 2004/02/13 22.00 348.26
3505 2004/03/16 48.00 965.76
3505 2004/04/16 17.00 308.71
3505 2004/05/14 31. 00 641. 21
3505 2004/06/16 47.00 942.01
3505 2004/07/16 19.00 356.21
3505 2004/08/16 26.00 535.66
3505 2004/08/30 26.50 547.84
3505 2004/10/29 49.50 1,107.89
3505 2004/11/30 42.00 938.94
3505 2004/12/30 32.00 691. 84
3505 2005/01/14 21. 00 420.03
3505 2005/02/16 29.00 617.71
3505 2005/03/16 25.00 518.87
Total For Emp: POPE, JASON W.
TOTAL 580.50 11,269.07
756 REDMAN, MICHELLE L. 3505 2003/03/14 15.50 283.65
3505 2003/05/16 6.00 109.80
3505 2003/10/16 16.50 329.67
3505 2004/10/15 5.50 114.35
Total For Emp: REDMAN, MICHELLE L.
TOTAL 43.50 837.4 7
SCHEULEN, DAVID R. 3505 2004/10/29 2.50 35.85
3505 2004/11/30 3.50 50.19
Page: 21
- Y f-::-
i
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
EMP# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE a-TIME HOURS O-TIME PA
4176 SCHEULEN, DAVID R. 3505 2004/12/30 4.50 64.53
3505 2005/01/14 18.50 301.14
3505 2005/02/16 11. 00 157.74
Total For Emp: SCHEULEN, DAVID R.
TOTAL 40.00 609.45
3586 SCOTT, KENNETH R. JR. 3505 2002/07/16 17.00 258.40
3505 2002/08/16 21.50 293.26
3505 2002/08/30 4.00 54.56
3505 2002/09/30 32.00 504.68
3505 2002/10/30 4.00 56.16
3505 2002/11/27 11.50 161.46
3505 2002/12/30 12.50 175.50
3505 2003/01/30 2.00 28.08
3505 2003/02/14 20.50 287.82
3505 2003/03/14 6.50 91.26
3505 2003/04/16 6.50 91. 26
3505 2003/05/16 11.50 161.46
3505 2003/06/16 4.50 63.18
3505 2003/07/16 25.50 382.59
3505 2003/08/15 27.50 435.33
3505 2003/08/29 .50 7.20
3505 2003/09/30 3.00 43.17
3505 2003/10/30 .50 7.20
3505 2003/11/26 12.00 172 .61.
3505 2003/12/30 10.00 158.20-
3505 2004/01/16 4.00 63.28
3505 2004/02/13 20.00 316.40
3505 2004/03/16 11.00 174.02
3505 2004/04/16 30.50 628.85
3505 2004/05/14 9.50 150.29
3505 2004/06/16 12.00 189.84
3505 2004/07/16 12.50 197.75
3505 2004/08/16 11.00 178.42
3505 2004/08/30 3.50 56.74
3505 2004/09/30 3.50 56.77
3505 2004/10/29 14.00 227.08
3505 2004/11/30 17.00 282.88
3505 2004/12/30 5.50 94.49
3505 2005/02/16 11.50 197.57
Total For Emp: SCOTT, KENNETH R. JR.
TOTAL 398.50 6,247.83
1516 SEALOCK, ROBERT W. 3505 2002/07/16 .50 6.63
3505 2002/08/30 1.00 13 .64
3505 2002/09/30 8.50 115.94
3505 2002/10/30 3.00 40.92
3505 2002/12/30 6.00 81. 84
3505 2003/01/30 3.50 47.74
3505 2003/02/14 12.00 163.68
3505 2003/04/16 1. 00 14.03
Page: 22
-Yd--~
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
)# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE a-TIME HOURS a-TIME PAY
3516 SEALOCK, ROBERT W. 3505 2003/06/16 1.50 21. 05
3505 2003/08/15 3.00 43.14
3505 2003/08/29 13 .00 203.59
3505 2003/09/30 14.00 211.12
3505 2003/10/30 16.50 282.80
3505 2003/11/26 1.00 15.08
3505 2003/12/30 19.00 339.30
3505 2004/01/16 31. 50 546.65
3505 2004/02/13 16.00 241.28
3505 2004/03/16 15.50 284.97
3505 2004/05/14 41. 00 916.86
3505 2004/06/16 19.00 371. 70
3505 2004/07/16 27.50 582.33
3505 2004/08/16 10.00 169.30
3505 2004/08/30 48.00 1,117.56
3505 2004/09/30 39.00 888.96
3505 2004/10/29 30.00 575.66
3505 2004/12/30 65.00 1,422.31
3505 2005/01/14 21. 00 389.41
3505 2005/03/16 10.00 172 .40
Total For Emp: SEALOCK, ROBERT W.
TOTAL 477.00 9,279.89
:'l~55 SHOWERS, STEPHEN MARK 3505 2002/07/16 1.50 21. 93
3505 2002/08/16 1.50 22.59
3505 2002/09/30 16.50 263.09
3505 2002/10/30 95.00 2,055.69
3505 2002/11/27 56.00 1,316.08
3505 2002/12/30 64.00 1,316.00
3505 2003/01/30 29.50 560.97
3505 2003/02/14 76.00 1,737.88
3505 2003/03/14 20.00 404.92
3505 2003/04/16 16.00 303.68
3505 2003/05/16 28.00 607.40
3505 2003/06/16 17.00 328.99
3505 2003/07/16 23.00 396.45
3505 2003/08/29 1. 00 17.29
3505 2003/10/30 4.00 69.16
3505 2003/11/26 16.00 311. 24
3505 2003/12/30 41. 00 829.99
3505 2004/02/13 34.00 605.16
3505 2004/03/16 47.00 1,115.38
3505 2004/04/16 26.00 570.64
3505 2004/05/14 40.00 933.80
3505 2004/06/16 28.00 622.52
3505 2004/07/16 16.00 276.64
3505 2004/08/16 49.00 1,196.10
3505 2004/08/30 16.00 407.16
3505 2004/09/30 16.00 318.96
3505 2004/10/29 27.00 622.38
3505 2004/11/30 10.00 180.40
3505 2004/12/30 84.00 2,071.56
Page: 23
-43 -
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
EMP# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME PA
3355 SHOWERS, STEPHEN MARK 3505 2005/01/14 50.00 1,205.26
3505 2005/02/16 38.00 866.26
3505 2005/03/16 69.50 1,850.34
Total For Emp: SHOWERS, STEPHEN MARK
TOTAL 1,056.50 23,405.91
2271 SIGLER, WILLIAM M. IV 3505 2002/07/16 3.50 47.71
3505 2002/08/16 1.00 14.06
3505 2002/08/30 2.00 28.92
3505 2002/09/30 4.00 57.84
3505 2002/10/30 2.50 36.15
3505 2002/11/27 13 .00 187.98
3505 2002/12/30 1.00 14.46
3505 2003/01/30 2.00 28.92
3505 2003/02/14 20.00 289.20
3505 2003/04/16 24.00 475.80
3505 2003/05/16 36.00 761.28
3505 2003/06/16 15.00 237.90
3505 2003/07/16 4.50 71.37
3505 2003/08/29 2.00 33.92
3505 2003/09/30 5.50 93.28
3505 2003/10/30 17.00 330.72
3505 2003/11/26 4.00 67.84
3505 2003/12/30 11. 00 186.56
3505 2004/01/16 14.00 254.4C
3505 2004/02/13 12.00 203.52-
3505 2004/03/16 40.00 892.08
3505 2004/04/16 36.50 805.35
3505 2004/05/14 61. 00 1,412.46
3505 2004/06/16 25.00 520.38
3505 2004/07/16 14.00 231. 28
3505 2004/08/30 16.00 324.92
3505 2004/09/30 28.00 649.88
3505 2004/10/29 28.00 649.88
3505 2004/11/30 63.00 1,507.38
3505 2004/12/30 70.00 1,606.64
3505 2005/01/14 60.00 1,426.14
3505 2005/02/16 27.00 532.50
3505 2005/03/16 65.00 1,651.84
Total For Emp: SIGLER, WILLIAM M. IV
TOTAL 727.50 15,632.56
171 SMITH, JOSEPH W. 3505 2004/10/29 8.50 121.89
3505 2004/11/30 .50 7.17
3505 2004/12/30 1.50 21. 51
3505 2005/01/14 6.50 93.21
Total For Emp: SMITH, JOSEPH W.
TOTAL 17.00 243.78
'MITH, ROBERT M. 3505 2004/11/30 1.50 21.51
Page: 24
-Yl\-
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
'# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME PAY
4192 SMITH, ROBERT M. 3505 2005/01/14 14.50 225.86
3505 2005/02/16 29.50 476.81
3505 2005/03/16 20.00 344.16
Total For Emp: SMITH, ROBERT M.
TOTAL 65.50 1,068.34
1596 SMITH, STEPHEN R. 3505 2002/07/16 36.00 826.46
3505 2002/08/16 40.00 1,102.68
3505 2002/08/30 45.00 1,255.83
3505 2002/09/30 26.00 673.86
3505 2002/10/30 44.00 1,225.20
3505 2002/11/27 64.50 1,853.12
3505 2002/12/30 45.50 1,271.15
3505 2003/01/30 42.00 1,163.94
3505 2003/02/14 16.00 367.56
3505 2003/03/14 16.00 367.56
3505 2003/04/16 17.00 398.19
3505 2003/05/16 16.00 367.56
3505 2003/06/16 21. 00 520.71
3505 2003/08/15 18.00 376.74
3505 2003/08/29 2.00 41. 86
3505 2003/09/30 4.00 83.72
3505 2003/10/30 5.50 115.12
3505 2003/11/26 12.00 251.16
3505 2003/12/30 42.00 983.76
3505 2004/01/16 41. 00 1,059.43
3505 2004/02/13 24.50 568.47
3505 2004/03/16 60.00 1, 743 .72
3505 2004/04/16 50.00 1,523.02
3505 2004/05/14 18.00 463.50
3505 2004/06/16 36.00 949.08
3505 2004/07/16 43.00 1,291.25
3505 2004/08/16 21. 00 576.81
3505 2004/08/30 50.00 1,560.78
3505 2004/09/30 62.00 1,967.94
3505 2004/10/29 16.00 407.16
3505 2004/11/30 16.00 407.16
3505 2004/12/30 41. 00 1,255.41
3505 2005/01/14 52.50 1,645.61
3505 2005/02/16 35.50 969.22
3505 2005/03/16 2.00 45.88
Total For Emp: SMITH, STEPHEN R.
TOTAL 1,081.00 29,680.62
L607 STEUDL, KARL H. 3505 2002/08/16 18.50 437.88
3505 2002/09/16 3.50 108.99
3505 2002/10/16 10.00 321. 60
3505 2002/12/16 7.00 225.12
3505 2003/01/16 2.00 64.32
3505 2003/02/14 8.00 257.28
3505 2003/03/14 15.00 467.10
Page: 25
-Y5-
Run Date: 03(17(05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
EMP# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME PA
1607 STEUDL, KARL H. 3505 2003/04/16 3.00 96.48
3505 2003/05/16 8.00 257.28
3505 2003/06/16 13.00 418.08
3505 2003/07/16 11. 00 353.76
3505 2003/08(15 38.50 1,269.35
3505 2003/09/16 4.00 131.88
3505 2003/10/16 19.00 626.43
3505 2003(11(14 7.00 230.79
3505 2003/12/16 8.50 280.25
3505 2004/01/16 13.00 458.12
Total For Emp: STEUDL, KARL H.
TOTAL 189.00 6,004.71
3773 SWIFT, PERRY W. 3505 2003/03/14 57.00 776.85
3505 2003/04(16 3.50 65.00
3505 2003/05/16 4.00 74.28
3505 2003/06/16 12.50 204.22
3505 2003/07(16 6.00 129.00
3505 2004/10/29 8.50 121. 89
3505 2004/11/30 1. 00 14.34
3505 2004(12/30 1.50 21.51
3505 2005/01/14 7.00 100.38
3505 2005/02(16 11. 00 157.74
3505 2005/03/16 3.00 43.02
Total For Emp: SWIFT, PERRY W.
TOTAL 115.00 1,708.23
3878 UNGER, JEFFREY S 3505 2003/10(30 2.00 27.98
3505 2003/12/30 32.00 447.68
3505 2004/01/16 35.50 591.15
3505 2004/02/13 20.00 279.80
3505 2004/03/16 35.00 580.65
3505 2004/04/16 1.00 13.99
3505 2004/05/14 2.00 27.98
3505 2004/07/16 2.00 27.98
3505 2004/08/16 1. 00 14.55
3505 2004/08/30 1.50 21. 83
3505 2004/09/30 36.00 698.52
3505 2004/10/29 19.00 327.41
3505 2004/11/30 37.50 731. 27
3505 2004/12/30 39.00 654.81
3505 2005/01/14 9.00 130.95
3505 2005/02/16 27.00 423.03
. Total For Emp: UNGER, JEFFREY S
TOTAL 299.50 4,999.58
54 WAGNER, TEAGUE L. 3505 2004/10/29 19.00 272.46
3505 2004/11/30 5.00 71. 70
3505 2004/12/30 1.50 21. 51
3505 2005/01/14 13.50 204.35
Page: 26
- L-\~-
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
"'# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME PAY
4164 WAGNER, TEAGUE L. 3505 2005/02/16 26.00 401. 52
3505 2005/03/l6 25.00 451. 71
Total For Emp: WAGNER, TEAGUE L.
TOTAL 90.00 1,423.25
1454 WELSH, TIMOTHY L. 3505 2002/07/l6 12.00 393.84
3505 2002/08/16 l5.50 46l.92
3505 2002/09/l6 5.00 169.00
3505 2002/10/l6 8.50 287.30
3505 2002/11/15 8.00 270.40
3505 2002/12/16 5.50 185.90
3505 2003/01/16 7.00 236.60
3505 2003/02/14 8.00 270.40
3505 2003/03/14 57.50 1,712.47
3505 2003/04/16 3.50 118.30
3505 2003/05/16 11. 50 388.70
3505 2003/06/16 4.50 152.10
3505 2003/07/l6 3.50 121.98
3505 2003/08/15 37.00 1,321.64
3505 2003/09/16 14.00 500.08
3505 2003/10/16 30.50 1,089.46
3505 2003/11/14 10.00 357.20
3505 2003/12/16 8.50 303.62
Total For Emp: WELSH, TIMOTHY L.
TOTAL 250.00 8,340.91
n36 WEST, CHRISTINE M. 3505 2002/11/27 1.50 20.46
3505 2002/12/30 1.50 20.46
3505 2003/04/16 .50 6.82
3505 2003/05/16 1.00 13.64
3505 2003/06/16 1.50 20.46
3505 2003/07/16 2.00 27.28
3505 2003/08/15 2.50 34.98
3505 2003/09/30 1.00 13 .99
3505 2003/10/30 13.50 199.37
3505 2003/12/30 24.00 433.56
3505 2004/01/l6 .50 7.00
3505 2004/03/16 2.00 .30.76
3505 2004/04/16 46.00 968.94
3505 2004/05/l4 26.50 519.08
3505 2004/06/16 36.00 738.24
3505 2004/07/16 39.00 807.45
3505 2004/08/16 34.50 642.69
3505 2004/08/30 40.00 851.72
3505 2004/09/30 27.50 555.97
3505 2004/10/29 32.00 671.16
3505 2004/11/30 50.50 1,034.71
3505 2004/12/30 71.50 1,636.16
3505 2005/01/14 25.00 506.09
3505 2005/02/16 38.00 802.78
3505 2005/03/16 40.00 942.44
Page: 27
-Yl-
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
EMP# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME PI
Total For Emp: WEST, CHRISTINE M.
TOTAL 558.00 11,506.21
1748 WHITACRE, KELLY RUSSELL 3505 2002/07/16 10.00 189.40
3505 2002/08/16 26.00 546.30
3505 2002/08/30 40.00 1,053.68
3505 2002/09/30 16.00 351.20
3505 2002/10/30 28.00 702.44
3505 2002/11/27 17.00 390.95
3505 2002/12/30 28.00 721.72
3505 2003/01/30 40.00 1,082.56
3505 2003/02/14 16.50 375.92
3505 2003/03/14 28.50 736.76
3505 2003/04/16 21.50 526.27
3505 2003/05/16 16.00 360.88
3505 2003/06/16 18.50 436.06
3505 2003/08/15 11. 00 226.05
3505 2003/08/29 17.50 416.11
3505 2003/09/30 4.00 82.20
3505 2003/10/30 11.50 236.33
3505 2003/11/26 14.00 287.70
3505 2003/12/30 29.00 595.95
3505 2004/01/16 19.00 419.33
3505 2004/02/13 13 .50 297.95
3505 2004/03/16 34.00 882.86
3505 2004/04/16 22.00 595.9-
3505 2004/05/14 17.00 430.39-
3505 2004/06/16 30.50 766.98
3505 2004/07/16 4.00 88.28
3505 2004/08/16 16.00 407.16
3505 2004/08/30 41. 00 1,255.41
3505 2004/09/30 16.50 424.13
3505 2004/10/29 22.50 627.71
3505 2004/11/30 55.00 1,730.43
3505 2004/12/30 16.00 407.16
3505 2005/02/16 1.50 51. 62
Total For Emp: WHITACRE, KELLY RUSSELL
TOTAL 701.50 17,703.83
2277 WHITACRE, KEVIN L. 3505 2002/07/16 11. 00 164.67
3505 2002/08/16 10.00 154.20
3505 2002/08/30 49.00 1,071. 90
3505 2002/09/30 46.50 1,012.35
3505 2002/10/30 65.00 1,453.02
3505 2002/11/27 50.00 1,095.72
3505 2002/12/30 16.00 285.84
3505 2003/01/30 72 .00 1,619.76
3505 2003/02/14 16.00 285.84
3505 2003/03/14 17.50 321.57
3505 2003/04/16 16.00 285.84
3505 2003/05/16 31.50 655.05
3505 2003/06/16 26.00 444.64
Page: 28
-'-\~-
Run Date: 03/17/05 Budget Year Overtime Report
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
")# NAME DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS O-TIME PAY
'-
2277 WHITACRE, KEVIN L. 3505 2003/07/16 1.00 15.88
3505 2003/08/15 12.00 195.36
3505 2003/08/29 14.00 244.20
3505 2003/09/30 6.00 101. 88
3505 2003/10/30 5.00 84.90
3505 2003/12/30 42.00 901.46
3505 2004/01/16 23.00 498.68
3505 2004/02/13 33.50 752.82
3505 2004/03/16 36.00 824.74
3505 2004/04/16 13.00 258.93
3505 2004/05/14 78.50 2,143.37
3505 2004/06/16 36.00 824.74
3505 2004/07/16 19.00 431. 55
3505 2004/08/16 26.00 648.78
3505 2004/08/30 16.00 358.92
3505 2004/09/30 50.50 1,391.71
3505 2004/10/29 64.50 1,810.73
3505 2004/11/30 22.00 538.70
3505 2004/12/30 56.00 1,556.32
3505 2005/01/14 29.00 748.21
3505 2005/02/16 32.50 753.17
3505 2005/03/16 52.50 1,451.57
Total For Emp: WHITACRE, KEVIN L.
TOTAL 1,094.50 25,387.02
" 8 WHITE, JACOB C. 3505 2004/10/29 6.00 86.04
3505 2004/11/30 1.50 21. 51
3505 2004/12/30 3.50 50.19
3505 2005/01/14 13.50 204.35
3505 2005/02/16 26.00 401. 52
3505 2005/03/16 4.00 57.36
Total For Emp: WHITE, JACOB C.
TOTAL 54.50 820.97
3842 WHITE, MICHAEL J 3505 2003/07/16 3.00 40.92
3505 . 2003/08/15 1.00 13.99
3505 2003/09/30 1.00 13.99
3505 2003/11/26 5.00 69.95
3505 2003/12/30 2.00 27.98
3505 2004/01/16 5.00 69.95
3505 2004/04/16 1.50 20.99
3505 2004/05/14 19.50 325.31
3505 2004/07/16 1.00 13 .99
3505 2004/08/16 1.50 21. 51
3505 2004/08/30 .50 7.17
3505 2004/09/30 3.00 43.02
3505 2004/10/29 22.50 397.94
3505 2004/12/30 14.50 225.86
3505 2005/01/14 15.00 215.10
3505 2005/02/16 26.00 401. 52
3505 2005/03/16 20.00 286.80
Page: 29
- 119 -
Run Date: 03/17/05
Query: BYOTRPT/FINQDEF
DEPT # CHECK DATE O-TIME HOURS
EMP# NAME
Budget Year Overtime Report
O-TlME Pl.
Total For Emp: WHITE, MICHAEL J
TOTAL 142.00
4188 WRIGHT, JOHN K.
3505
3505
3505
3505
2,195.99
2004/11/30
2004/12/30
2005/01/14
2005/02/16
2.00
1.50
7.50
26.00
28.68
21. 51
107.55
401. 52
Total For Emp: WRIGHT, JOHN K.
TOTAL 37.00
4105 YOUNKER, MARSHALL N. II
3505
3505
3505
3505
3505
3505
3505
3505
559.26
2004/08/30
2004/09/30
2004/10/29
2004/11/30
2004/12/30
2005/01/14
2005/02/16
2005/03/16
.50
2.00
14.00
5.00
6.50
18.50
38.50
9.00
7.17
28.68
215.10
71.70
93.21
311.90
670.40
129.06
Total For Emp: YOUNKER, MARSHALL N. II
TOTAL 94.00 1,527'.22
Total For Dept: FIRE AND RESCUE
TOTAL 28,900.50 668,634.60
FINAL TOTALS
* * * END 0 F R E P 0 R T * * *
TOTAL 28,900.50
668,634.60
Page: 30
-50-
'~IDRD
g.~
"'f{"';'"
..... '\::".
FAIRFAX
COMMUNITY COLLEGE
YOUR FUTURE. OUR FOCUS.
Community Development Center Serving Frederick County
Facility Overview and Purpose
. 30,000 gross square foot building
. Provide additional training space for area residents and businesses
. Seven multi-use classrooms
. Six rooms configured from conference space
. Conference space for 1000 participants
. Offices for four different college departments
. Design began in March - 2005
. Scheduled to be completed in 2006
Benefits to Frederick County
. Providing resources necessary to respond to the training needs of business
and industry
. Provide classrooms for all residents to participate in lifelong learning
. Provide conference facility with breakout rooms
Programs and Activities
. Workforce Services and Continuing Education programs
Career training including apprenticeships in HV AC, plumbing, electricity,
opticians, landscaping, etc. Certifications in Human Resources, Leadership,
Customer Service, Manufacturing, Supervision and Warehousing
Computer training including the Microsoft Office suite and advanced
certifications
Personal Development including art, financial planning, languages, sports,
driver education, driver improvement and motorcycle training
Security training
- 51-
. EMT Training
. Command Spanish Training
. Community meetings for Frederick County
. Disaster Recovery location for Frederick County
. Partnership with Frederick County Schools (Tech prep and Career
Pathways)
. Teacher training for Work Keys to assist graduation rate of Frederick
County Schools
. Dual Enrollment programs with Frederick County Schools
. Special Events for Frederick County
. Job Fairs
Departments to be Housed
. Workforce Services and Continuing Education
Served over 300 companies last year in open enrollment - 34 % were from
Frederick County (American Background, Deleo Rhemy, Fisher Diagnostic,
American Woodmark, etc)
60% of companies requiring customized training were from Frederick
County
Revenue and participation have increased 34 % over the last two years
. Lord Fairfax Small Business Development Center (SBDC)
Created and retained 202 jobs for our region - 42% in Frederick County (9
months data current year)
. Northern Shenandoah Valley Workforce Center
Served 109 Youth and 191 unemployed or underemployed adults
. Office of College Advancement
Support all areas of the college and community
-5'd--
CD
()
c
CO
-c
c
Q)
I
I ·
<(
co
L-
CD
>
o
M\nera\ \f'J\J
fauQu\er
\..ancaster ?P-
\..ouoon
Morgan C\'l:Y \f'J\J
freor\c\<. WlO
r\aro~ \f'J\J
je~erson \f'J\J
Ra~~ananoc\<.
fa\r~'I-
ROC\<.\ngna{(\
t-\o Res~onse
r\a{(\~sn\re \f'J\J
?age
ser\<.e\e~ \f'J\J
C\W 0' 'J'J\ncneste{
'J'J arr en
snenanooan
o
-5:5-
co
CD
~
4-
.....
$
~
~~
CD C
o CD
c-o
co.--
-o(/)
c~
~
4
'-
.--
co
U-
.0
o
-,
\
l
-i
u
~
~
'0$
~{3
(5.S
~
~
'"
~
\
c
'"
c
2
C/)
. .
_ .... 0) "'0
c2"'O EO)
Q) _ ~."geUlQ) tI:l~
<.) ro c~~~(/) (/) 0)
,... U- ....c. \.\I ~ ro s::.
.... . ,,\I "t"""" $. <.) 0) ro 0) 0
5S #- Q; .a -g,.. _.s 0 cP 0 .s Q)
c<o~u-Q).o~$.co-g"'O"'O
0) "t"""" 0 ~ "'0 .9 ,+-.- c ro 0) 0)
~._ 0).0 (Q 0).... 0"'0 ro c ~
(Q "t"""" (/) 0 _ (/) 0) Q) "'0 ~ .- ....
ro~~:; ~ ~~~% ~.c(f) E8
C)(/)....OOOlL."-"s::.~ 0)
I- tI:l (,) o..J C c/5 ({) ~.. .......
-it s.S '" -it ._-it
g,
~
__5"~-
N
CD
~
~
<II
o
o
c:
UJ
CD L..
CI .l!l
CD c
CD
o (,)
(,) -
~U) ;
"i: ~ E
::Ie-Co
E CD 0
ED::Qi
o~~
0=0
~~~
't: 0 .-
._ ..J c
CIS ::I
II.. E
"0 E
L.. 0
.3 (,)
~:u
'c 1:
~ CD
EO
E e
o CD
o E
C-
o
"ii
>
CD
C
Iii
ate
I-
Me
o CD
lil E
me
"-,lj
r--NO(,,)NCOLD~
I'-CD'<I"...-LDCD(")CD
(")NONCDN'<I"(,,)
NN",-<i""r-:-<i(")
t-O-c-NNt'-I""-i-
f.hN'-=:tYTY7T"""~-r-
EI7 EI7 EFT EI7
?f..c?'#c?"#.
I'-OCDCDCD
LDCON
(")
~;al
CO......COMN"f"'""OID
r--I'-CD CD CD cor--co
NI'-LD CO co co
c:
.2 ~
-0 <
'5 :::>
<II I-
~ ~
....
>-~
- c
>-c'"
- '" 0
COU
"'U
8L...~
Q).Q
<l> 'S CD
-'" 0--0
Co :J Q)
-ro...
Uu..u..
>-
c >-
5"E
U '"
-'" 0
uU
>-O.c:
-cro
c: c 0
::l ~
o.c-g
Uroro
Q) 0. C
O)Q.Q)
roro.c:
a.t:r:(J)
>-2:-
cO
::l ...
o II>
UTi)
C II>
Q).c:
... u
... c:
ro._
3:3:
o
o
o
'<I"
co
N.
...-
EI7
::R
o
o
o
LD
LD
co
'<t
C
II>
E
o
...
c
UJ
(ij
<5
I- _ 5 S-
John Riley
Frederick County Administrator
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
/..~~~~~-. ;~
/:-'" .....~.~
/ q ??>;...\\,
/ ;",\" ~.
(i-v '
I~ ~l
~t~ ~:'n":"'-'r..-.:W
t.S1... ,--,\; ..... ," /
<f",. o,-J ~~- , v/
.c'l.. . .1,0-:/
'~~~
March 24, 2005
Re: 2005-2006 Budget
Dear John:
Thank you for the response to my letter dated February 16th, 2005, regarding the budget
process. I apologize for any misunderstanding, or implied lack of support by the county
for the Departments of Planning and Development, Inspections, Public Works as well as
Economic Development Commission. The intent of our letter was to encourage the
decision making body to sustain and increase the level of support for those departments
and organizations. As residents of the area the members of the Industrial Parks
Association know very well the pressures associated with demand for services and
potential increase for taxes. With this understanding we felt it necessary to voice our
support during the budget debate. We are sorry if our support was interpreted in any
negative manner.
I will accept your invitation to come before the Finance Committee and applaud the
budget support that is being presented, and I hope you do not hold our position in our
letter as negative towards the Administration of Frederick County.
Richard Bell
President
Industrial Parks Association
Cc: Patrick Barker, Winchester-Frederick Economic Development Commission
Eric Lawrence, Director of Planning & Development
Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., Director of Public Works
_ReS _GEF _UT
RB/tab
_BMB _OWD _BEV _GAF
AssistCoAdmin. .
DATE;
ORIGINAL: FILE
- sro-
COUNTY of FREDERICK
John R. Riley, Jr.
County Administrator
March 22,2005
540/665-5666
Fax 540/667-0370
E-mail:
jriley@co.frederick.va.us
Richard Bell, President
Industrial Parks Association
Adams Companies
303 S. Loudoun Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Mr Bell:
I am in receipt of your February 16, 2005 letter expressing your concern regarding the budget process
for Frederick County's departments. I am very disappointed with your comments relative a perceived
lack of proper support for the departments of Planning & Development, Inspections, and Public
Works, as well as the Economic Development Commission. I am therefore extending an invitation to
you to attend the next regular meeting of the Frederick County Finance Committee, which will take
place on Wednesday, April 20th at 8:00 a.m in the First Floor Conference Room ofthe Frederick
County Administration Building. At that time, I would encourage you to express your concerns to the
entire Finance Committee, particularly in light of the fact that we fully funded all of the depmimental
budgets that you cite as areas of concern.
I sincerely hope that you will accept my invitation to appear before the Finance Committee in order that
we can have a productive dialogue regarding these issues.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 540-665-6382.
John R. Riley, Jr.
County Administrator
JRRIjet
cc: Patrick Barker, Director, Winchester-Frederick Economic Development Commission
Eric Lawrence, Director of Planning & Development
Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., Director of Public Works
C~
107 North Kent Street on Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
- 5,-
V' .
, Tech
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
AND STATE UNIVERSITY
Virginia Cooperative Extension
'.Knowledge f"1 tlie (o1l111lt1nWca[t/i
VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY
North West District Office
Virginia Cooperative Extension
1316 East Main Street
Luray, Virginia 22835
Phone: (540) 743-2009 Fax: (540) 743-2014
E-mail: bsbutter@vt.edu
March 24, 2005
/.~12B;~
/ .(r~1 ,($ ,C'-- - .,,,\ '<'1;
I. '"r . "
/ 0. ~'{;~ .? \
Ini ~\
i (V . ...', ',,)\
If:\.f .. I
:~ .~'I
I ,~-: ':71 I
\ f", <".1,'
\"t;;,. ,.,-P ..:0 /
\~'.t;> 'l-i'i_.l\)______ /
. , J~
'<~~ ~E~,=,:> - ~:/
Mr. John Riley, Jr., County Administrator
Frederick County
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Mr. Riley,
Per our conversation following your last board meeting, I am enclosing
some information which you requested. If you feel it would be advantageous for
Cindy Marston or me to come and meet with your board to present this, please
be in touch.
As you are no doubt aware, Virginia Cooperative Extension sustained
massive budget cuts from the state during the last few years. To avoid layoffs of
existing staff, we allowed experienced agents who had adequate years of service
to accept an alternative severance option (ASO); or in other words, to take early
retirement. Agents in Planning District 7 who took advantage of this opportunity
included Doris Trant, Gary Deoms, Karen Culpeper, Lester Ritenour, and Lance
Kauf. In addition, Corey Childs requested a transfer to another location.
While in some parts of the state, we approached localities and asked them
to pool their funds to hire restricted agents with 100% local funds, we never
exercised this option for Planning District 7. We did hold some of these positions
vacant for a period of time until funds were available to refill positions using both
state and local dollars.
Virginia Cooperative Extension has been steadily rebuilding agent ranks
as funds have become available. The following chart illustrates the staffing
changes for positions that Frederick pays some portion of. These changes
nearly refill anticipated agent positions, with the exception of the vacant FCS
position in Page. We are pleased with the caliber staff serving Frederick County,
and if you have not had a chance to meet the new agents, we would welcome a
chance to have them visit with you.
www.ext.vt.edu
Extension is a joint program of Virginia Tech, Virginia State University, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and state and local governments.
Virginia Cooperative Extension programs and employment are open to all, regardless of race, color, religion, sex,
age, veteran status. national origin, disability, or political affiliation. An equal opportunity/affirmative action employer.
-5e,- 490,045
Ga DeOms
Lester Ritneour
Doris Trant
Karen Cui e er
Lance Kauf
Core Childs
Frederick
Frederick
Frederick
Pa e
Clarke
Warren
8/10/03
9/25/02
12/25/04
3/10/04
8/10/03
10/25/04
*Note-Julie Shelhamer's transfer from Page to Frederick left the FCS position in Page vacant.
The following chart illustrates agents serving Frederick County,
percentage of salary Frederick County pays for, and the home county location.
Please note that the majority of these positions are funded with 2/3 state dollars,
with the remaining 1/3 coming from local dollars. The percentages listed on the
chart represent the percentage salary and benefits that Frederick County
contributes. All agents, except for 4-H, serve the counties in PD7. Because of
this area approach to programming, we are able to offer a wider array of
expertise to the citizens.
Shenandoah
Frederick
4-H
FCS/Nutrition
Frederick
Frederick
FCS/Finance
FCS/Human Develo ment
Shenandoah
Pa e
-59-
Bill Whittle
Jacob Ste ner
Rachel
Hensle
Bobb Clark
Cynthia
Marston
C nthia Rowles
Julie
Shelhamer
Karen Poff
Vacant
7%
20%
33%
11%
11%
11%
I am attaching a handout illustrating that for every $1 invested by local
government, VA Tech invests $24. Through this partnership between county and
state, we support the Cooperative Extension program. I hope this description is
helpful to answer questions you and your board have. I would be glad to meet
with you to discuss this information or to answer additional questions.
Sincerely yours.
~ko J, &/-khf7J.jJ
Beverly S. Butterfield
District Director
C: Cindy Marston, Unit Coordinator
Dr. Judith Jones, Special Consultant to Dean and Director
Dr. Pat Sobrero, Director VCE
Dr. Sharron Quisenberry, Dean, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
-6D -
Virginia Tech
Cooperative Extension. Northwest District
Local Government Return on Investment
FY 2005
Estimate
local Government Share
Salaries
Fringes @ 27.9%
Direct Return on Investment
Direct Agent Salary Cost borne by VT
Specialist and Administrative Salaries borne by VT
Fringe borne by vr
Subtotal salary & fringe
Operating Allocation by vr
Northwest District
Administrative Operating
Director's Reserve
ANR Programs
Community Initiatives
FCS/FNH Programs
In-Service
Ag & Extension Education
Marketing
VC Extension Leadership Council
4H Operating
4H Publications
4H Centers
Distribution Center
Field Cell Phones
Total Effort on behalf of NW District
$628,840
175,446
$804,286
943,260
16,245,620
5,371,525
$22,560,405
216,000
76,667
71,053
5,833
4,167
4,167
30,000
4,167
4,167
2,500
25,000
8,333
12,000
31,667
10,000
$505,719.67
$23,870,411
Every $1 invested by locality translates into almost $24 worth of direct effort by VT
Note: This does not include university administration, overhead, IT, space
related effort on campus, research expenditures, the support of Virginia
State, or the effort put forth by administration in working with the General
Assembly and other funding agents.
-6/ -
County of Frederick
Report on Fund Balance
31-Mar-05
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year, July 1. 2004
18,932,263
Prior Year Fundina and CarrYforward Amounts
Animal Shelter design & stormwater (Gordondale) carryforwards
Blue Ridge Appraisal prior year supplemental appropriation
Commonwealth Attorney moving costs carryforward
County Office Bldg. Phone system carryforward
EDC Fiscal Impact Modeling carryforward
EDC insurance carryforward
EDC supplies carryforward
Fire & Rescue Grant and Sara Title carryforward
Juvenile Justice funds carryforward
PPEA funds rec'd in prior year - need appropriation to reimburse
Refuse Collection / Litter Control carryforwards
School Operating Fund carryforward
Sherando Park Bike/Ped. Grant carryforward
Sheriffs Department forfeited assets carryforward
Warrior Drive Carryforward
LFCC Science Bldg
-221,000
11,000
-10,782
-96,279
-42,378
-2,021
-2,100
-261,759
-1,199
-100,000
-11,339
-70,395
-31,015
-1,468
-70,000
-397 250
-1,307,985
Other Fundina / Adiustments
Discovery Museum
Reserve funds for Animal Shelter - (Inheritance)
Adjust Fire Company Captial Funds
Supplemental Appropriation - Iverlee Way
To adjust Fire Company Proferred Reserves
Audit Adjustment-To return unspent funds to general fund
Journal entries to correct prior entries
Clerks office budget adjustment
Revenue increase - Development review fees
Sheriffs Dept. Vehicles
Courthouse Renovations
I nspector's positions
-25,000
-5,000
-83,944
-62,500
6,293
1,347,570
81
26,094
183,410
-365,688
-120,000
-22 575
878,741
Fund Balance, March 31, 2005
18,503,019
Budaeted Exoenditures over Revenue:
Original FY 05 Funding from Reserves
Budget Amendments (includes encumbrances)
Budgeted Expenditures over Revenues
5,054,387
2,323 535
7,377,922
- b 0-,.-
APPLICATION FOR OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT
~.;;;~ :.i~t':~~f~~'-,
~ 1:?~' {A' ' ' '-.- /~:;;;~>""
/ (i)-' ~'\,\
(47' Rt-C[\\r0~~\
j r~ ~ \
I;:." r('C \ I
.- . '~I? t.~,..I.. ~, '
\".,"" ~', \If',y'\r-''J ,!
\ ~I;(:'DS.:~,~:.,~~~\~L n~\ce ~-.j /
""""i,\:),-,'.J-lU ;.:; /
1'..:;:\\\1\,1> ,_ ::\, /
, D~_~-' '}'?~/
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA
(Note: You may attach extra sheets if you need to do so.)
NAME OF EVENT: lhe 0plnt Ll ve~ 01'1/ Still -.thr- One:. Ht..\.Siw.I_Fes.+ @.
Wlnwe.. s.+ev Speed wo_y
DATE & TIME (HOURS) OF EVENT: SI.l()do~1 ,\u.l'-l, Il) 200'5
10 AM I pM
TO: The Board of Supervisors, Frederick County, Virginia.
I (We), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application for special entertainment
permit, and in support of this application, the following information is submitted:
1. Such application for special entertainment permit shall have attached to it a copy of the ticket
or badge of admission to the festival, containing the date or dates and time or times of such
festival, together with a statement by the applicant of the total number oftickets to be offered
for sale and the best reasonable estimate by the applicant of the number of persons expected
to be in attendance.
n. __~~~~.., _-hcke.t ("~'~.. d (O--tL.:tchedJ.
3000 ::n cke~" he '<7)TtI~.
Arf("C\x.. ~Soo reople... +n Inrlllde s+n-ff)
SeC-L\..(\-h~ I \Xl-(~lnA- n.ttenden-ts) C.f)nc~SS\{")nc..\v~)
C\E"lll'l-<-i> L(,~w) e: (.
2. A statement that music shall not be rendered nor entertainment provided for more than eight
hours in any twenty-four hour period, such twenty-four hour period to be measured from the
beginning of the first performance at the festival.
t-~u. s'\C Lt.,; \ I be r I rAI.l '" rl -fY"''Y\ (\O"J"l -~ <.0 pm.
1\\\ mu,,'<:.. wi" be f'~~fc'v'VV\ed olJ..1"dooxS
lAiI4-h MW\\mC.lJ (\Ol~e h",,/oo.A r("O(k'-....-h1.
Outdoor Festival Permit Application
Page 2
3. A statement that no person under the age of eighteen years of age shall be admitted to any
festival unless accompanied by a parent or guardian, the parent or guardian to remain with
such person at all times.
A \ \ fe..~sO(\S. LA-nde,1"" -+hc.>_ Q<jr- ot=.
0..\\ -t,'(Y\e.'\ be n{{n:'Y\ron1e.r\
I .
o Y n. Cj V-..O-,d ~ CL(\ .
IS lt21 II
b, j 0.
0,+
ro ve.n-+
4. A statement of the name and address of the promoters of the festival, the financial backing
of the festival, and the names of all persons or groups who will perform at such festival.
5 E vJ EJ\CC1\JcAlnj
-T \,Lo., A. (?) e.L\. *'-1
ISQDI Lc:e f-\w'-{
Cenhe.>l,\\e. 'VA 20\21
I
v..)', II ('X""(Y'/,de +(,.e ~ \"0.<10 0..1 bC1( b'n':)
5. A statement of the location of the proposed festival, the name address of the owner of the
property on which such festival is to be held, and the nature and interest of the applicant
therein.
u\l(\che.s+e. Sr,eedCLhlj
q'S() 0,(" rc('-t Rd \A)/Vlr.he~-k(', vA
,')u.c\u A.. 6e-o...-11..-
I I
p'(e~\c\e(\t /olJ:x,e( (').(' lA\\V\Cru<:.-kt S~;eedw~
LD()("rll",/o..m( of ("/\ltS-I'Co.. \ !=eS"i
6. A plan for adequate sanitation facilities and garbage, trash and sewage disposal for persons
at the festival. This plan shall meet the requirements of all state and local statutes,
ordinances and regulations, and shall be approved by the county health officer.
Wo.s. -t-e ~ cu"\c~~ e rt\ en t co t\ +a.l ~e(" S (AI "e a.d \..{ 0 V'\ s:, +e .
AdeCltw,+e bll hl/"oo"'" -9a.c;h--he.s. I"Alveo...d~ Ol\Si+e.
\)
7. A plan for providing food, water and lodging for the persons at the festival. This plan shall
meet the requirements of all state and local statutes, ordinances and regulations, and shall be
approved by the county health officer.
c.Ol\C.eSS\DI\ s-tu.\'\ds p,<"o-.Jde \H'V\\t-ed l'YLen\..l on s,+e..
Outdoor Festival Permit Application
Page 3
l.ut'l\ [..JCl+er on s,,+e' b.o..f:lkd (Jlnfev- QVcl,ld-ble.
f' r L ) . d
(~, 0. 'c ee.") 0. '"\ Co nee :="s \0 n S+n.n S.
No on s\ -\-e. \ Del ~in.~ Q \/0.; \ {-.A. 6 ie...
8, A plan for adequate medical facilities for persons at the festival, approved by the county
health officer.
lI'1efe ~~'II\ b~ ~ 1~~\1l\(~+~d _~veo,"
fu ~ !:L- cI \C 0,-' ...(: ~{ I _ _ _ €._ :..5:~ :E:f:e d
W\+~ Cl.. l<~ nr ~mT 0..+ 0..\\ +irne"-..
9. A plan for adequate parking facilities and traffic control in and around the festival area,
l~.de..a..u~-t-e ~I s#~~ fO (bDrL~,^, DJa.c f'
I=\-dd iLh' "Ct.1 0 L ( n-I-Yo I it nd ~i:s
-I-D he r{",,\J'l.d e.d .
10, A plan for adequate fire protection. This plan shall meet the requirements of all state and
local statutes, ordinances and regulations, and shall be approved by the county forest warden.
IAJi \ \ hCnle G"'"e.en IDood ~,e... ~f1CLV' tvV\~Y\-l
nV\ ~d-t" .d. {\d C"..\..ne.(l.!.lfl -t-e -h("C', ex-n V\~JA\S, he("<"
OV\ s,\ -\-e . l)
11. A statement specifying whether any outdoor lights or lighting is to be utilized, and if so, a
plan showing the location of such lights and shielding devices or other equipment to prevent
unreasonable glow beyond the property on which the festival is located.
~~~~dit~~\ (.~~A1+ii.ti~\ h~\,\u~;ie .
Outdoor Festival Permit Application
Pal!;e4
12. A statement that no music shall be played, either by mechanical device or live performance,
in such a manner that the sound emanating therefrom shall be unreasonable audible beyond
the property on which the festival is located.
A\\ ('(\1..ISI(. r\o..\.!E"d 1,1..)\\\ v)C'~ O(I..+doo(s,
{vA cII'Po..~\\("i l"Ln('eo..soncdQle YlOIC.e.-
he.u,o<1d eyO 9""'('-t, \.
13. A statement specifying if alcoholic beverages will or will not be served, and if so, details on
how it will be controlled. Evidence of any applicable ABC permit must also be attached
hereto and posted at the festival as required.
No a\cOhD\\~ ~Je"e.vo..3e..s w'/Il be
r e { M \ -\-"'~ c'i. (w'\ 'So \ -\- E' '
14. No permit shall be issued under this ordinance unless the applicant shall furnish to the Board
written permission for the Board, its lawful agents, or duly constituted law enforcement
officers to go upon the property at any time for the purpose of determining compliance with
the provisions of this ordinance. The Board shall have the right to revoke any permit issued
under this ordinance upon noncompliance with any of its provisions and conditions.
~v.n~~
cJucI, 6eA~
Name 1.. / f '
/S'/o7 00 [>>-J(jll WJ!f
a/J~JI./&.., LJ,. d-<;l I.,J../
J\ddress .
70:';- t,3 J -DS1)S" - '/ c..,3 t..f 7 c ~oo c;,
Office No. Home No.:
(06/14/02)
C:\TJP\fonns\OutdoorFestivalPennitMtr. wpd
03/22/2005 15:57
7038551012
PIP PRINTING
PAGE 02
3000
The S.-mt Uvea Oft/still the One Musical Feat
at Winchester SltHdw-ay
Featuring ANDY GRIGGS
Suaday, ".ly 1'1, :liDOS 1Z (noon) to 6 pm
Gate. Open at U am
General Admission. .D.OO ADMIT ONE
Vnder the ... ~ 18 -lIIust be __panied by an .dult
PRICE INCWDES 'fAX . NO EXCRAH~ES OR REF'UNDS
The Spirit Uves OufStiU the One Musical Fest
at Winchener Speedway
Featorl... ANDY GRIGGS
SUllday, July 17, aoos sz (noon) to 6 .....
Gans Open at U am
General Adndadon . SZZ.OO ADMIT ONE
Un.der die ... of .18 . mU&1: bellCOOllqlaDled by an adult
PRICE INCLUDES TAX . NO EXCHANGES Oll REFUNDS
The Spirit Uves OIl/StiU tbe One Musical Fest
at Wiacheater Speedway
Fea'hlrins ANDY GRIGGS
Sun.day, July J.'1, aoos 1:& (noon) to 6 .....
Gate. OIlCD at 11 am
Gmffal A.cbnlsaloD . ':IS.OO ADMIT ONE
Vnder 1:he ... ~ f8 - must be aeCOMpaaied by an adult
PIUCE INCUJDES 'fAX . NO EXCHAN~ES OR REFUNDS
The Spirit Lhres On/Still tbe One Musical Fest
at Winchester Speedway
Featuriftg ANDY GRIGGS
S1IIlIlay. July 17, Z005 1:& (_) to 6 pDt
Gate. Open at 1J: am
General A.dnIYdon . $Z:&.oo . ADMIT ONE
Under I:he ... ~ 18 . must be __panled by an adult:
PRlCE INCl.UDES TAX. . NO acUAN~ES OR REFt1NDS
3000
3000
3000
0:>/22/2005
15:57
70385oHJ12 PIP PRINTING
wal'l...lIl!oll1"a-r4lllit"e;I:UJWAY
.:::::r c::~ ~~: ~=G . <:;:f...~.../~....
OM SATVBDAY NtGHTS. ~
f
Thll ticket onb' vaUd cia.. and u... mown On fron~
T1tb ~.. . _.... u..-.e ..... _.... taKen up .....tor .dlllllado.. ~
(--.l'ehmlIIntl Ch. ~ce). 'the hc>lderof tills deket __ aU
...~1It7I<w Ita I-., ~_... 'l:hek _It wta..ot "'" repIaee4.
{'I1te .................t nlI_ the rlpt ... deelpau. wheft the hold... 01 dill
dcket .ball IN< lonatMl.} TIle _.... ..t I&llOt r...._I1~le lor the '.....
cIeftl'aedo..... theft of the h.ld..... ~.laGl..dbIg fthle..... while In or_
die __.._-..__-
The b.... IlpWtI1I that .... tran__... detoea'~ aeeo....t. pkUsrc, or
I'ePl'OdtIcdOil 01 the ._.Ita __ or alulnctara wiD.... mada wI'l:ho1Jt_
....... _""tbm peftId_1II oI..........-t. AD rlPu ....arved wt'l:h ~ to
the &bow.lta_ca ..... elulno:tara.
t-'AGt.
I::I.:J
WlNCllE8TER. SPEEIlWAT
BE SURE TO COME SEll; US AGAIN
FOR THE BEST DDlT TRACK.RAClNC
OM SATURDAY NtGHTS.
n.l$ tloket only __Ud date and time.own on fren~
1'hlatle_fa a ""'.....Ie D_"" _ ...._.. uP auI' .........11.. reIuMd
(_ NhuldInC the .__IuuIeplrtCll). The holder 01 tId. ddrd __ aU
~uPoIDe,tor he _, ~.... t2IeIt IUld ItwU1llOt "*..............
('I1te -..-..t ~ die I'l8ht tot detlpat>e ....heft die hold... 01 dds
dek.et .baD ... ...~) The.......-* 1& _ rupone:l.le lor the ......
IIftCn1edon ... tIIeft of the bl...... ... "(Kl'tJ.llICbull,. yehlck.. -lIUe In 01'_
tile ~'....- ,...,
The holder ~ thn no _......._. cIeIcrIttd-. --nt, picture, or
reprodued08 ... th.. aII_.lu _ta or c>J1aaoa_ will ........... .........ut Uno
___ ~_............... of ....._.~ All "'pta rnerved with........ to
th........., ltaaont_ aM~.
WlHCHESTEIlSPEEOWAT
BE SURE TO COME SEE US ACAIM
FOil THE BEST DaT TRACK. RACING
ON S4TtJR.DAY"NIGHTS.
/'1'>./,..
'/,6"
tI
"li!r
Thb ticket only vaUd date and tbQ. mown on fron~
ThIe _fa. ~le D_..... _IN......... up -.. .............. ~
0..... nfuIuII-a: the _....-.n-l. The hol.... of dIl. tidul1;_aU
~I~ Ita leu, d_r. ..ctI_ Or theft IUId It wm"ot.... RPla<;aoL
(The ___._- rII!IIel'ft. die l'iIht 1;e lktI......tawheft the hokler 01 dab
tiaIlet metl.... ---l TIul_.....-e.. not ............u,Je lor tII..l....
delJtl'uodon or theh: of the holder'. IIl'Op11l'tY. lneS~ ...ehlcl.., -hlle In 01'_
the.._.__t'*-"'-.
The bl.....llllJrONI'I' tINIt no _.....n..n, deac:rlpU-. _un., .1_, Of!
...............011 "" the shew. StlI -""tenu... charIo_ wSD "_da without u..
....... __ P""'lIs.so. ~ ~ AD rlPu ....."'" 'With ......... to
the ......IU _tenu and e......-..
WlNCRESTEIl SPEEOWAY
BE SURE 1'0 COME SEE US MAIN
FOR. TIlE BEST DIRT TI\AC:K RACING
OM SATtJlU)AT NIGHTs.
Thll tloket only __Hd date and ~ mOWll on'ront.
ThIs t1c>ket Is . _"h u-....... _... Ia_D up ...dOl' _...... ret....d
(....._dlnC_~). n.. hel"- ..dabtie....t_aU
....--"'Ismtor its ..... d-.r_....r theft amllt wta"ot .... .............
(T1Ia .....__ _rYes the rlpt to ....!pate _us tile hc>lder of thla
dc10et .baIl... ...ted.) TIle .......-* fa Dot .-..-nsl"" lor The SOlI"
deatl'tIetIOii .... theft of 'l:he holder's ps:..... V, tneludlnll ~ele., wItU.. In Of! on
the ~-.I'aten'l". ......::1 llII"-.H..
'the holder .__ that _ _1Dlbd_. cleleripde... .CClO....., 11I-. ....
ftII&'04uetlllD 01 the mew. lta __u OJ' charactter_ will loa..... 'Without th.
.......... wrttb!II pennbMen ot __. AD ripts ~..nth ntprCI-.
_ _.Ita __u ...... ehlU'llChn.
~:....'-.
."
c_....'.
"""..',
~ ,
j:~\
CRANWELL
& MOORE
Attorneys at law
"'C-";:r1 ,;:,:,'!
<:~,:;:~SJ-- -:<c;;i
. '-v~-..;-" 1'.:'>/
T elepho~ :05-tu.:,3+f-1 000
Facsimile: 540-344-7073
Toll Free: 877-632-FELA
(3352)
Street Address:
III Virginia Avenue, West
Vinton, Virginia 24179
P,O. Box 11804
Roanoke. Virginia 24022-1804
www.cranwellmoorelaw.com
March 29, 2005
John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator
County of Frederick, Virginia
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Re: Town of Stephens City/Frederick County
Voluntary Settlement of Annexation
Dear John:
Please find enclosed the Notice of Public Hearing along with the Ordinance
to be adopted approving the Voluntary Settlement with the Town of Stephens City. You
will need to transmit the enclosed to the editor of the local newspaper to be published on
April 11th, 18th, and 25th, to satisfy the statutory requirements to publish once a week for two
successive weeks.
I am in the process of reviewing the Voluntary Settlement and will get with
Carter Glass on any revisions that need to be made. I will transmit you a final copy for
attachment to the Ordinance once it has been executed.
v-J
C. Richard Cranwell
CRC/bm
Enclosure
AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT A VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
ESTABLISHING THE RIGHTS OF THE TOWN OF STEPHENS CITY AND FREDERICK
COUNTY AS SET FORTH UNDER TE TERMS OF SUCH AGREEMENT, PURSUANTTO
SECTION 15.2-3400 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA, AND AUTHORIZING THE
FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO TAKE THE NECESSARY ACTION TO
HAVE SUCH AGREEMENT APPROVED BY A SPECIAL THREE-JUDGE COURT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 15.2-3400 OF THE VIRGINIA CODE.
WHEREAS, in April and March, 2004, respectively, the Town of Stephens City
("Town") and the County of Frederick ("County") approved a Voluntary Settlement
Agreement which constituted a voluntary settlement authorized by Section 15.2-3400 of
the Code of Virginia, and
WHEREAS, in September 2004, the Town and the County presented the Voluntary
SettlementAgreementto the Commission on Local Government (the "Commission"), which
conducted a hearing as required by law and which issued its findings and
recommendations in a Report dated January 2005; and
WHEREAS. Section 15.2-3400 of the Code of Virginia. requires the Town and the
County subsequent to the Commission's review, to approve the original or a modified
Voluntary Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement") by an ordinance passed by a
recorded vote of a majority of the members of each governing body after a duly advertised
public hearing on the Settlement Agreement, and thereafter to petition the Circuit Court of
Frederick County for an order affirming the Settlement Agreement and establishing the
rights of the localities under the terms of the Settlement Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Town and the County now propose to enter into a modified
Settlement Agreement which provides (i) for the annexation of certain territory of the
County to the Town, (ii) for the development of the annexation areas in accordance with
a jointly approved land use plan, (iii) for the grant of immunity to the County from
annexation for a period of 15 years, and (iv) for the transfer of certain cash proffers
received by the Town to the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA, THAT:
1) The Board, by this Ordinance, approves and adopts the Settlement
Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and hereby authorizes and
directs its Chair to execute the Settlement Agreement on behalf of the County.
2) The Board hereby authorizes the County Administrator, and its special legal
counsel, to take all action necessary pursuantto Section 15.2-3400 of the Code of Virginia,
to obtain a Court order affirming and validating the Settlement Agreement and establishing
the rights of each locality as set forth under the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
3) This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect on the date of its adoption.
This Ordinance was adopted on Motion made by Supervisor
and seconded by Supervisor by a vote ofthe majority of the Supervisors
elected to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors.
Approved this day of April, 2005.
Chair
ATTEST:
County Clerk
2
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DatelTime:
Location:
April 26, 2005 at 7:15 P.M.
Frederick County Administration Building
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia
NOTICE is hereby given, pursuant to Section 15.2-3400(4) of the Code of Virginia
that on April 26, 2005, at 7:15 P.M., at the Frederick County Administration Building in the
Board of Supervisors Meeting Room, located at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester,
Virginia, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick will hold a public hearing on
a Voluntary Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement") between the Town of
Stephens City and the County of Frederick, and the Board of Supervisors thereafter will
consider for passage an ordinance to approve and adopt the Settlement Agreement.
The Settlement Agreement, authorized by Section 15.2-3400 of the Code of
Virginia, provides (i) for the annexation of certain territory of the County to the Town, (ii) for
the development of the annexation areas in accordance with a jointly approved land use
plan, (iii) for the grant of immunity to the County from annexation for a period of 15 years,
and (iv) for the transfer of certain cash proffers received by the Town to the County.
The Town and the County presented a Voluntary Settlement Agreement to the
Commission on Local Government, which conducted a hearing as required by law and
which issued its findings and recommendations in a report dated January 2005.
The major provisions of the Settlement Agreement include the following:
1) Phase I Annexation. The boundaries of the Town shall be modified on the
first day of the second calendar month after entry of a final order approving the Settlement
Agreement by annexing to the Town certain territory described as the Phase I Annexation
Areas, which consist of three separate tracts which are depicted on a survey plat attached
to the Settlement Agreement. Area A lies generally to the north of the existing Town
boundaries and to the west of Interstate 81 and contains approximately 255 acres. Area
B lies generally southwest ofthe existing Town boundaries and contains approximately 100
acres. Area C lies between the existing boundaries of the Town and the western right-of-
way of Interstate 81 and contains approximately 5 acres.
2) Town Service Within Phase I Annexation Area. On the effective date of the
Phase I Annexation, the Town shall extend its municipal services on the same basis and
at the same level as services now are provided to areas within the Town's current
corporate limits. Within two years following the effective date of the Phase I Annexation,
the Town shall initiate construction of a sewage collection system to serve the Massie
Street subdivision. The Town also shall initiate construction of sewer facilities to serve the
West Fairfax Street area within 7 years following the effective date of the Phase I
Annexation provided certain financial grants are obtained.
3) Deannexation. The boundaries of the Town also shall be modified by the
deannexation of a parcel of approximately 17.7 acres lying in the northwest part of the
Town, south of State Route 648. The deannexation shall take effect on the first date of the
second calendar month after entry of the final court order.
4) Phase" Annexation. The Town may annex by ordinance, after the effective
date of the Settlement Agreement, additional territory lying generally to the south of the
existing Town limits and to the west of Interstate 81, as shown on the survey plat attached
to the Settlement Agreement. Such territory contains approximately 350 acres. At its
option, the Town may annex (i) those tax parcels which are developed at the time it
2
proposed annexation, (ii) those tax parcels for which the County has issued a building
permit for construction, and (iii) those tax parcels whose owners have requested
annexation. When 60% of the total acres in the Phase II Annexation Area have developed,
the Town may annex all remaining parcels of property within the Phase II Annexation Area.
The Settlement Agreement also prescribes the steps the Town must follow prior to
adopting an ordinance annexing any such parcel, including an advertised public hearing.
5) Town Service Within Phase II Annexation Area. On the effective date of any
Phase II Annexation, the Town shall extend its municipal services on the same basis and
at the same level as services now are provided to areas within the Town's current
corporate limits.
6) Waiver of Annexation Riahts. For a period of 15 years following the effective
date of the Phase I Annexation, the Town will waive its right to seek annexation of any
County territory except the Phase II Annexation Area. In the event property owners or
voters initiate an annexation action, the Town will not support any such proceeding and,
if requested by the County, will oppose such proceedings.
7) Development in Accordance with Joint and Use Plan . The Settlement
Agreement includes a future land use plan and map (the "Joint Land Use Plan"), which
depicts the types of land uses that the Town and County have agreed are the most
appropriate for the Phase I and Phase II Annexation Areas. The Town shall adopt interim
zoning classifications for properties annexed into the Town as specified in the Settlement
Agreement and thereafter shall rezone properties only to districts that "substantially
conform" to the Joint Land Use Plan. The Town shall follow the Joint Land Use Plan until
3
60% of the total acres in the Phase I and Phase II Annexation Areas have developed. At
that time, all land use decisions will be within the Town's sole authority.
8) Protection of Aaricultural Properties. Following the effective date of the
Phase I Annexation, the Town shall adopt a program of use value assessment for
properties devoted to agricultural, horticultural, forest, and open space uses. The Town
also shall amend its zoning ordinance to establish an agricultural zoning district that is
substantially similar to the County's agricultural district. Any actions by the Town rezoning
properties in the Phase I or Phase II Annexation Areas to the agricultural district must
substantially conform to the Joint Land Use Plan.
9) Cash Proffers. The Town will pay to the County certain cash proffers paid
by landowners in connection with a rezoning. Where proffers are made in connection with
a rezoning in the Phase I or Phase II Annexation Areas, the Town will transfer to the
County all payments in the following categories: (a) 100% of proffers specifically
designated by the applicant for school, fire, or rescue facilities, and (b) 40% of all proffers
designated for any other capital fac.ilities. However, the Town will not be required to pay
to the County any portion of a cash proffer designated for a project that will be the sole
obligation of the Town to construct or develop. Likewise, the Town will pay the County the
entire amount of any cash proffer designated for a project that will be the sole obligation
of the County to construct or develop.
10) Court Approval. The Town and the County shall promptly take steps required
by Virginia law to obtain approval of the Settlement Agreement by a special court
constituted for that purpose. If the Settlement Agreement is not affirmed without
4
modification, the Settlement Agreement shall immediately terminate unless the Town and
the County expressly agree to the recommended modifications.
11) Miscellaneous Provisions. The Settlement Agreement also contains
provisions relating to the process by which the Settlement Agreement may be amended
or supplemented in the future, the binding effect of the Settlement Agreement on future
governing bodies of the Town and the County and any successor to the Town or the
County, and the enforcement of the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement.
The foregoing description is only a summary of the Settlement Agreement and
reference should be made to the full text of the Settlement Agreement for the details of all
terms and conditions. A copy of the Settlement Agreement is on file and available for
inspection by the public in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County,
located at the Frederick-Winchester Judicial Center, 5 North Kent Street in the City of
Winchester, Virginia, or at the County Administration Offices, located at 107 North Kent
Street, in the City of Winchester, Virginia.
JOHN R. RILEY, JR.
FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #02-05
HORIZON HOLDINGS, LLC
Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors
Prepared: April 15, 2005
Staff Contact: Patrick R. Sowers, Planning Technician
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this
request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter.
Planning Commission:
Board of Supervisors:
Reviewed
04/06/05
04/26/05
Action
Recommended Approval
Pending
LOCATION: This subject property is located at 3636 Front Royal Pike (Route 522)
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 87-A-88
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT' USE:
Zoned: (RA) Rural Areas
Land Use: Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE:
Zoned: (RA) Rural Areas
Land Use: Agriculture
PROPOSED USE: Landscape Contracting Business
REVIEW EV ALUA TIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The application for a conditional use permit for this property
appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 522, the VDOT facility which would
provide access to the property. Prior to operation of the business, a commercial entrance must be
constructed to our standards to allow for safe egress and ingress of the property. Any work
performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit issued for a period of
six months. The pennit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond
coverage.
CUP #02-05, Horizon Holdings, LLC
April 15, 2005
Page 2
Fire Marsbal: Access to all buildings on the site shall be maintained to allow emergency vehicle
access. Plan approval recommended.
Inspections Department: Existing buildings being utilized shall comply with The Virginia
Uniform Statewide Building Code and section, 304, use group B (Business), of the International
Building Code/2000. Other Code that applies is IBC/ANSI A117.1-98 Accessible and Usable
Buildings and Facilities. Renovation of the existing structure shall require an asbestos inspection
according to the USBC section 112.1.4 if constructed prior to January 1, 1985. Please submit a floor
plan of the areas being utilized at the time of change of use building permit application. A new
certificate of occupancy shall be issued prior to operation. HC van accessible parking spaces and
unloading shall be provided.
Winchester-Frederick County Health Department: This office has no objection to conditional
use so long as no more than six employees work for proposed landscaping business. Also, no public
use of restroom facilities to be allowed.
Planning and Zoning: This proposed Conditional Use Permit is for a landscape contracting
business. This proposed use will take place on a two acre tract of land located in the RA (Rural
Areas) Zoning District. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for landscape contracting in
the RA Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
The proposed use shall have no more than six (6) employees at anyone time with all work done off
site. The site will not contain any more than four (4) business vehicles and (2) trailers stored on the
premises. This proposed use will take place in the rear of the applicant's property. No sales of
nursery stock will take place on site. Four (4) storage bays will be used to store top soil, mulch,
sand, and stone. The applicant has proposed a six (6) foot opaque fence to screen all portions of the
property associated with the landscape contracting business including all parking and outdoor
storage. This six (6) foot opaque fence shall be utilized as part of this Conditional Use Permit. This
landscaping business will not be open to the public, minimizing the need for a site plan.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 04/06/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would recommend the following
conditions:
I. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. No members of the general public will be allowed on site.
CUP #02-05, Horizon Holdings, LLC
April 15, 2005
Page 3
3. No more than six (6) employees, four (4) business vehicles, and two (2) trailers shall be
allowed on site as part of this conditional use permit.
4. Screening consisting of a six (6) foot opaque fence shall screen all materials and vehicles
from adjacent properties.
5. No sale of nursery stock will be allowed on site.
6. Piles of dead grass clippings, brush, and/or tree trimmings shall be stored within a four-
sided opaque fenced area or disposed off site.
7. Any expansion or change of use, including any increase in the number of employees or
equipment, will require a new conditional use permit and an engineered site plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 04/06/05 MEETING: The applicant
intended for this location to be a minimum facility to support his operations in Frederick County. He said there
wiJI be no retail work or retail sales and the site wiJI not be open to the public. It was noted that the applicant is
in the process of purchasing the property, the sale pending approval of the conditional use permit (CUP). Both
ofthe co-owners ofthe property were present to support the operation of a landscape business at this location;
one of the co-owners reported that the existing septic system was modified for this use.
The adjoining property owner had concerns about drainage and run-off onto his property. He explained that
the rear portion ofthe applicant's property drains into his pond and this is the area where he keeps his horses
and cattle. He had concerns about the applicant's leach field being within five feet of his property line. He
also reported damage to drainage pipes that occurred while the applicant conducted grading work. He believed
a site plan should be required for this use, indicating unloading and turn-around areas for delivery vehicles.
An additional condition was recommended by the staff indicating that one sign would be permitted on the site,
not to exceed four square-feet in area.
By a majority vote, the Commission recommended approval of the CUP with all eight conditions
recommended by the staff as follows:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. No members of the general public will be allowed on site.
3. No more than six employees, four business vehicles, and two trailers shall be allowed on site as part of
this conditional use permit.
4. Screening consisting of a six foot opaque fence shall screen all materials and vehicles from adjacent
properties.
CUP #02-05, Horizon Holdings, LLC
April 15, 2005
Page 4
5. No sale of nursery stock will be allowed on site.
6. Piles of dead grass clippings, brush, and/or tree trimmings shall be stored within a four-sided opaque
fenced area or disposed off site.
7. Any expansion or change of use, including any increase in the number of employees or equipment,
will require a new conditional use permit and an engineered site plan.
8. Only one sign shall be permitted on site; the sign shall not exceed four square feet in area, per Section
I 65-30(H)2 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance.
"---.....
o
o
---- 0_
1/
co
CO
......
,(ll~>
"'~.
y
<C.
r-
CO
L.O .-
o
1<..)
~ Gi
~~ g 3:
'#(/)
0..0>
C
::>:.0
<..)"0 g
:r. C'l
c
o
N
.-
lo.-
o 0
:r.
z.oo
. ;:.
1i
"
~ ~ ~ 1
H ~ 1
2 .., ! t ~
~lB"~
Ollll
.
t~
o _~ $ iii
e 8,i~-i~ !
i :l.o~~,,'ll~'
'i <<nh~(
:! 0 t t
t: L i
.:{ 3 "., lD
DJ~il
o
u~ ~~ /
---
o
o
o
00
00
<3::
r--
LOOO
0-
o
-.J
-.J
"-I
o
::t:I::
a...
::)
o
o
o
1O
Qi
C1l
U.
(/)
0>
c:
"'0
o
I
c
o
N
";::
o
I
o
1O
C'l
o
z+~
~ ~
.
.
~ ~ ti
1;I.t:: .8
-'l :; ~ (,) .t
~.~ii
~ I & II:: Ul
o J"~
.
~ .5
e .. In .g> i
~ .g]~~~ .=:
. ~c3~~O ~
i <<<<~~<(
II Ii ~
.2- ~ ~ di ~
DJ~ .
Submittal Deadline
PIC Meeting
BOS Meeting
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
1. Applicant (The applicant if the
owner ~other)
NAME: ~V''''/l(;/A
ADDRESS: ;? O. 4' t:T)C
~(~/""'r..r {. t. C-
O
S-?'/ A?JI_, <.A'-/ $L {"
,/,,1'
Ct7/Y L
TELEPHONE: .s-YC/-.3 Jfr~ g-9' ?9
2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property:
/?
-
V r:' -/"y
/
/...:::-~-~ ~,.-
tJ~f
r:. t' C
.>VO'" JJ[?>-~R:9
703 - 9' Lr- Y5'J /
3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of
your road or street)
J~Jc, /;;"0"/ /('~yoC nde
/
If / S-CJ EC/,/ /') (., r (7'-<'1
v: .., (' L'r" $';;"-
t/~ 2-2Ctl3
/f'r ..rt.. L.s'
/~c,.......,.. _r"y ~ /G (?
, / <7
I ,~ I
4. The property has a road frontage of J/:? .t,{ feet and a depth of 3/.>, C/ feet and
consists of ;. f.>t9 acres. (Please be exact)
5. The property is owned by Jq~.... I? ..I.
from /J~-,,~t.,',< /?","'I /Jr,(;-r1J. ;'/'",;rc r
(previous owner)
in deed book no. 2..9,}'- on page L/ ll? , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court, County of Frederick.
6.
Tax (Parcel) Identification No. (P.I.N.)
Magisterial District (J p tP 9 " '" YI
Current Zoning A ,.If
f>7 - & - ~,f"
~':/
2tdJR'
USE ZONING
if dc.u { Fc.t.;C- /ttrl&./e v{'lcy~,.1 11-?..r / {' u tTu....c, (
.sCUtA" e,{ O"Il':/~ ..5'"......< Ct'j' o'.~i/c..
Sc....t..., C:U Qfo/'~ Ifr:-r-.,/.......,.r.Av( ('(0'/<: (b(/~,/
1;---, / W..../eu,.Cpuj ~j.
/ .. t7
The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing)
i \ ' h'
IG-Ni'yy., ~.n'S <t}. J"";,.N-..,"'"
7.
Adjoining Property:
North
East
South
West
8.
It ~s proposed that the following buildings will be constructed:
1/1"7-
11h' 117 ~"< tv.A.r n, u ..s'e
!'y.<;./rr{) Pu... ~ZYf &t/d-:7 ~ c--...,/~ C.
10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent
to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested
use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by
mail of this application:
9.
t {c.r/rt
t' Qu..!' 7
NAME /VIti'" fit: //~{;!/( e'6Jc/~1
'/
PROPERTY ID# <;--7'-:;'- /J
NAME Mv,.,r.>/ ;::;(1--( ~...lf'g./1
PROPERTY ID# f 7- 3 - 4
NAME /1/1 {I Jj T/r //-? c" ( ~;'(;S/),.,
/
PROPERTY ID# Z. 7 - ;1 -.')-
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
ADDRESS I;')" t'a$~Lt--;t,~ ~/
V......c-c. aT~'v :~ 2 z.. (~ ~
ADDRESS / s-s- ~ i 171- ,/.t,-.{ r Gr
v,.J'/c--t -{"IT<' 1// Z 2 c.tl' L
(' .7 /
ADDRESS 15-5- oJlTr /.J'-~~~ q-
Vi....., t. ..,s,I'f./ (/..,r Ez t Q L
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
Mar 30 05 08:09a
HORIZON CONTRACT
5-40 338 8988
p.e
CUP # 07- -O~
/-10 n' 2-0 f\-- l-k LJ ~ ~ ( L 1.-L
-z,
~ "'P'
c:e.. \S'I.....
~ "':~
~
CORNER ~ ~
POST ~ '6
(, 1"'",,,,,,, 11 o::s.:
'"'"'-. '~ ~-
-..." ..., ~
'.
Pui 87-3-8
1I~1IE W. GIBSat. .It 6: PEAIl. E. ~
, INSTR. #0000I1426
<- 6 I ;t,". J:"r...,c,-?
$g~1.ER ~ N 5,.40'58- w
=i~ -f\ I It'] T J,~~J ~ ~J -~
~:8 l";)S1'<J'i'l' ,,;..,(. $()
-'" ~ ~ ~~(..""
'"
~i-f!l v ~ - PIN 87-A-8
~ '" '--- ~
-;... " 1.8569 ACRES
~ ," il:l ~
~~...
'::o.:s
.... ~
~.
-..........
....~;?
- ~'CMF
':l~
~
~I.jb
OJ
I<)
i
~
l5
::.
;"":
'. .
r:
,
I LIP
tJf"O'''' SlcrJ
,
/1-/'1..
l
....
"..
"
'1 v BLOC!<
"" ~ GAAA~
t ":) ~ " '\" "...1 I
'" ... '1-" I I
I Y Qo~ ~,.s... \-II I
.l...~ \~.~"II
C\<:S ~ l~ l-i :
/ "'-........~I-
L :
,.,
I ,
I ~ ~ \ 3ii
A" rv t,ll~ I ,
...._~' "-~ 'J I I 1-v
,-~ I / ~
"ce <. I I" .
:5,'..9<>, : i
s ~ _ , /
......... IJ'~ ' I N.E' CORNER OF
S L'> ___ i~-'C:' LARGE STONE POST:
'<.:T/ ~ I / ~/>
'<". U / " ,6"6""'-
.S " (ro~
. ..-?Ou - ./..J.. '-4() ,
k4.l;: s:~......... eM. .......o$'-,,:>s'
1'T>/.4a. <'..?
LEGEND Ze- I1?t ...... F~ :--.........
CMF - CONCRETE: MONUMENT FOUND l:?;>;:y R~l1/r -'?......______
- I - - FENCE .LINE "#' 0 >-"'1/ _
0+- H'OOO U71L1TY POLE <.. ,.o/,fj -
- OVERHEAD I.!...T7UTY LIN~ C .........
FL 000 NO TE:
ZONE: C
COMMUNITY NO.: 510063
PANEL: 0200 B '
DA~: 07-17-78
~-
--.-
I
\oJ
..zg~
~~-
1.~8
ro~~
~~~
G
ill!
i
-.-----
NO TES:
1. NO TlTLE R[PORT FURNISHED,
2. PROPERTY IDENnnCA nON NO. 87-A-88
J. EASE:MENTS OTHER THAN SHOWN MA Y EXIST.
4. THE BOUNDARY INFORMA 710N SHOWN ON THIS PLA T IS BASED ON AN AC71.IAL fiELD RUN SURVCY
MADE ON AUGUST 23, 2004.
GRAPHIC SCALE
eo
.. -
eo
I
1 Inch .. 60 ft.
o
..
30
I
120
I
BOUNDAR Y AND
HOUSE LOCA nON SURVEY
OF THE LAND OF
!-IrJWARn R MYF'Rc; ANn
i
CORNER
POS T.
N 51'40'58" W 311.29'
PIN 87-3-8
ll<>>lnE W. GIBSai. oR. '" PEARl. E. GIBSON
lNSlR. 1JOOO11~26
\.oJ
CD~~
,),0loi8
~1Ii~
~I~
..
~
~
=-
:::J'
~
12 '
:--~
1:)"':
~ "4-
c::i .....
~
PIN 87-A-88
1.8569 ACRES
91.2'
, i
.....
I() \.oJ
It) ~~
~ ~4d1
l..J I iii
. 10
..... f!~
~
~ l!l
~ ..
~
~ ~
=-
CONe. 0
BLOCK
GAAA~
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
>-: :
gj~1 I
~_I I
2i)
I
I I
...... I I -
~ "",--,,~ I I ~
______ ~.9<" !!
______ JI',:t;>'1 f f ME CORNER OF
S L"> ~ i'rff"'tc, LARGE STONE POST.
.~ / I I ...r/;>
'<', U / I .6'6"......
,S .0 I / (rO~'A
. ',Q I I '"'()
V:;'/c s""':: ______ CU ......S?;>S'
1?4& <02
LEGEND ~c 11?; '" F'~ ~
CMF - CONCRETE MONUMENT FOUND v;,y R~"Y;- Rr~
-;;~-wot:t~i~:~OLE 7r Of:.t{ A ---
+ - OVERHEAD '<..T/LlTY LINE :t:t-~ ------
FLOOD NOTE:
ZONE: C
COMMUNITY NO.: 510063
PANEL: 0200 B .
DATE: 07-17-78
=
----------- .
__ ""l
----------- ,-
~ CMF
~ ,
V) ~
I)i
I/)
TWO STORY
CONCRETE BLOCK
DWELLING /3636
-~
GRAPHIC SCALE
NO res: 60 0 30 80 120
,. NO T/TLE REPORT FURNISHED. ~ _.. I I I
2. PROPERTY IDENT/FlCA T/ON NO. 87-A-88 1 Inch - 60 ft.
3. EASEMENTS OTHER THAN SHOWN MA Y EXIST.
4. THE BOUNDARY INFORMA nON SHOWN ON THIS PLA T IS BASED ON AN ACTUAL FIELD RUN SURVEY
MADE ON AUGUST 23, 2004.
BOUNDARY AND
HOUSE LOCA TlON SURVEY
OF THE LAND OF
HOWARD R. MYERS AND
VI
"
::;
(j
('!I
-0
r:- ;i
mCJI"i
fYl
-0~
J~~
~ '" ~ I
l~ oJ r:
rr" '"
~g/~j tlo
V <;!) ..
~
S;J\j
f~ ~
I
!
I
,
"
(C2.7-(A)-4)
~
)'/
102
(C2.7-(I<)-5)
_ _ C:
,~
1'':: ,d
\D'H~CI ?
-6 ,,V ~ ,(;
..I_,:s.::;;;'~
....;: \.!) ~ ~. ~
;:__:;-,7-
~ '_:'~ /r ,,""
,_ ... -..J;iI ~
."~,0 7 ~
'f' ~ fY1
R - J '':>y
t 670
~
12, Additional comments, ifany:
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body
of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the
sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at
least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after
the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit
authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or
Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be
conducted.
/'-'
Signature of ABplicant
Signature of Owner
\"6~q V'"
")Lj 0 -
C( 'ILl - act,\?q
\2, .-\t,- WI \~'"
~ Co
Sqo' '
093 - d'd.' -;:} -Soh! c::~
Owners' Mailing Address
Owners' Telephone No.
TO BE COMPLETED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
Special Limited Power of Attorney
County of Frederick, Virginia
Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us
Department ofPlaoning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia,
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202, Winchester, Virginia 22601
Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395
Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We)
(Name) ~()h---. Y. G.o.::c \
K ,\eo- WI ~(\
SLlO- C('1L\- dC\~q R:\c..
(Phone) ~\O- 3'd-:\ . ;:}g.\ 'd "}"chn
(Address) \'g~L\ \JQ\\~ Aut.. WI.y.'\'Ie~-\u- VA d~vO\
the owner( s) of all those tracts or parcels ofland ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by
Instrument No. () Lft/O I? lJ / on Page
, and is described as
Parcel: Lot: Block: Section:
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
(Name) If: :Y-er;ov ?/~/C lu."-
/
Subdivision:
(Phone) .:fJ9Q- JJY-,?-9,f-9
(Address)r?O /JOX' .J"?Y IPc'UVlM/ #/L/ t/~ ?C//c;r L
To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and
authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described
Property, including:
o Rezoning (including proffers)
.~ Conditional Use Permits
o Master Development Plan (preliminary and Final)
o Subdivision
o Site Plan
My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to
previously approved proffered conditions except as follows:
This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or
modified. ti .. '/
In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this 5 - day 07~.u</t~i-'- 200.:j-,
Sr)~ j / 'i0.. '-1.. l~L~
State of Vifgin ia, ci1:y/~ of ?C/- ~ c- n .."' ~. "'- , To-wit:
I, /-/ d,,_ . ~ A'- ~ , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction
aforesaid, certifY that the person(s who signed to the foregoing instrument personally app- ared before me
and has ackno,,:ledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this g~ day of '<< /.-~''''f'00 .j--:
~& . ~ My Commission Expires: / h / ~ c:::
/ /
REZONING APPLICATION #03-05
NORTH STEPHENSON, INC.
Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors
Prepared: April 21, 2005
Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this
application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues
concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report.
Planning Commission:
Board of Supervisors:
Reviewed
04/06/05
04/26/05
Action
Recommended Approval
Pending
PROPOSAL: To rezone 79.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District and RP (Residential
Performance) District to Ml (Light Industrial) District with proffers.
LOCATION: The properties front on the east side of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) just north of
the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound off-ramp, and immediately east of Redbud Road (Route 661).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall
PROPERTY In NUMBER(S): 43-A-150; 43-A-151; 43-A-151 A; 43-A-152; 43C-3-2; 43C-3-3; 43C-
3-4; 43C-3-4A; 43C-3-5; and 43C-307A
PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District and RP (Residential Performance) District.
PRESENT USE: Trucking, Residential and Agricultural
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North:
South:
East:
West:
RA (Rural Areas)
RA (Rural Areas)
RA (Rural Areas)
RP (Residential Performance)
B2 (Business General)
Use:
Use:
Use:
Use:
Use:
Residential and Vacant
Residential and Agricultural
Agricultural
Residential
Rutherford's Farm Park (Ind. & Comm.)
PROPOSED USES: Trucking and Light Industrial. (A maximum of800,000 square feet of floor area
has been proffered).
Rezoning #03-05 - North Stephenson, Inc.
April 21, 2005
Page 2
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Vindnia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property
appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 11. This route is the VDOT roadway which
has been considered as the access to this property. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers
offered in the North Stephenson rezoning application dated November 9, 2004 addresses transportation
concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of
construction plan detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic fiow data from the LT.E Trip
Generation ManuaL Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-
way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements
and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use
permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage.
Fire Marshal: Fire lanes and municipal water supplies shall meet the requirements of Frederick
County Code 90-4. Plan approval recommended.
Clearbrook Volunteer Fire Dept.: Mr. Omps has always supported Clearbrook Fire & Rescue. Any
contribution would be appreciated. No other comments. Refer to Frederick County Fire Marshall
comments.
Public Works Department: The proposed rezoning application has adequately addressed our previ~w
comments. We reserve the right to perform a more detailed review of the master development
submittal.
Frederick-Winchester Service Authority: No comments.
Sanitation Authority: No comment.
Winchester Reeional Airport: The proposed rezoning request has been reviewed and it appears that
it will not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport.
Attornev for Frederick County: Please see attached letter dated November 23, 2004, signed by
Robert T. Mitchell, Jr., Esquire.
Planning: & Zoning:
1) Site Historv
The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester, V A Quadrangle) identifies
the majority of the subject property as being zoned A-2 (Agriculture General). The County's
agricultural zoning districts were combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon
adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The
corresponding zoning map resulted in the re-mapping of this portion ofthe subject property and
all other A-I and A-2 rezoned land to the RA District. The remainder of the property was
Rezoning #03-05 - North Stephenson, Inc.
April 21, 2005
Page 3
identified as being zoned R-3. The R-3 (Residential-General) District zoning classification was
modified to RP (Residential Performance) District on February I4, I990, during the
comprehensive amendment to the county's Zoning Ordinance. This portion of the subject
property that fronts on Martinsburg Pike has remained RP (Residential Performance) District
since that time.
2) Comprehensive Policv Plan
The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as
the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public
facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to
protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a
composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County.
[Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1]
Land Use
The parcels comprising this rezoning application are located within the County's Urban
Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Urban
Development Area and Sewer and Water Service Area define the general area in which more
intensive forms of residential, commercial, and industrial development will occur. In addition,
The North Stephenson, Inc. property is also located within the area encompassed by the
Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan.
The Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan envisions a mix of commercial and industrial uses on
the property. The plan depicts an evident split of future land uses on the subject property with
commercial areas identified in the vicinity ofthe Interstate 8I interchange and industrial areas
identified within the eastern area of the property adjacent to the railroad, located to take
advantage of the rail access. The North Stephenson, Inc. application proposes a rezoning of
entirely industrial land use which would enhance the ability to provide for a greater area of
industrial opportunity in conjunction with the rail access. A goal of the Northeast Frederick
Land Use Plan is to provide master planned areas adjacent to the rail to take advantage ofthis
feature.
In 2003, the applicants approached the County to seek a commercial rezoning for 6.10 acres of
this property that fronts on Redbud Road. The application, RZ07-03, was removed from
consideration by the applicant based upon feedback provided during the review process. The
applicants have since moved forward with this new and more comprehensive application that
seeks to address the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan and the feedback provided during the
earlier rezoning exercise.
The Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan provides additional guidance for development
opportunities through the following policies. A sensitive approach to the existing land uses
along Martinsburg Pike, Route 11, is promoted with the identification of DSA's
(Developmentally Sensitive Areas). This would include those existing RP (Residential
Rezoning #03-05 - North Stephenson, Inc.
April 21, 2005
Page 4
Performance) parcels that contain residential uses directly adjacent to the subject property. The
DSA's seek to ensure the existing residential clusters are protected from the impacts of new
development through the provision of adequate buffers and screening. It should be noted that
this application includes five of the seven residentially used properties located along this section
of Martinsburg Pike. The remaining two residential performance properties would be offered
protection through the County's existing buffer and screening regulations.
Greater setbacks and buffers and screening along Martinsburg Pike to enhance the appearance
of the Route 11 corridor are important elements of the Plan. This enhanced corridor appearance
and function goal is further promoted with the discouragement of individual lot access along
Route 11. The opportunity presents itself for the application to commit to providing such
corridor design standards along the Martinsburg Pike corridor, advancing a key initiative of past
and potentially future County planning efforts. It should be noted that the recently approved
Rutherford Fann LLC, rezoning application, RZ06-04, directly across Route 11, proffered to
establish a 15 foot landscape buffer along Route 11, extending the length of the site, that would
include ground cover, trees, and an earthen berm. That application also proffered to limit the
maximum height for all freestanding business and monument signs in the Ml zoning district to
12 feet. The North Stephenson Inc. application does not offer a comprehensive enhancement
package similar that proffered in the Rutherford's Farm project. A similar approach may be
desirable with this application to address this element of the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan.
The North Stephenson Inc. application does provide a prohibition on commercial entrances
along the western property line adjoining Redbud Road, but not along Route 11. This
commitment along Route 11 is extremely desirable. A similar commitment minimizing the
number of entrances along Route 11 may also be desirable to further the access management
goals of the Plan.
Transportation
The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and
collector road connections in the eastern portion of the County by identifYing needed
connections and locations. Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways
necessary to implement planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan
should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the
development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to
implement the intentions of the plan (Comprehensive Plan 7-6).
The Eastern Road Plan identifies an improved major collector road relocated in the vicinity of
this property. This improvement is the relocation of Redbud Road which will be necessary due
to future improvements to Interstate 81 and the interchange with Route 11. Accommodations for
this realignment have been made by the applicant and are described in greater detail later in this
report. The Comprehensive Plan also identifies Route 11 as a bicycle route.
Rezoning #03-05 - North Stephenson, Inc.
April 21 , 2005
Page 5
In addition to the Eastern Road Plan, the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan also identifies key
road improvement needs that directly relate to the North Stephenson, Inc. rezoning application.
This includes improvements to Martinsburg Pike, Route 11, to a four lane facility, and the
construction of a new major collector road from Route 11 at its intersection with the
Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park through the Stephenson's Village project to Old Charles
Town Road.
The Stephenson Village rezoning application, RZ06-03, addresses the construction of this major
collector road. The proffer states that the applicant shall dedicate an 80 foot right-of-way and
construct the major collector road from Old Charles Town Road through Stephenson Village,
and the property currently owned by McCann and amps to U.S. Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike).
The proffer further commits to the phased construction of the road with an ultimate four-lane
boulevard section with a landscaped median and landscaping along and/or adjacent to each side
of the major collector road, and the provision of bicycle lanes within the right-of-way.
The coordination of the relationship and commitments between the Stephenson Village project
and the North Stephenson, Inc. rezoning should be clarified to a greater extent than is presently
offered. The North Stephenson, Inc. application proffers the right of way and design for a
typical section that appears to not be entirely consistent with the proffer for the Stephenson
Village project. The County would like to ensure that the major collector road section is
consistent throughout the length of the project and that the responsibilities ofthe various parties
as to the construction of the road project are clear and coordinated. Further, that the necessary
right-of-way is obtained to facilitate the ultimate section of the major collector road as endorsed
in the Stephenson Village project. It would be beneficial to define the approach at this time as
opposed to at the time individual site development proposals and individual TIA's for the uses
within the North Stephenson Inc. site are submitted.
3) Site Suitability/Environment
The North Stephenson, Inc. property is bordered by Martinsburg Pike, Route 11, to the west,
Redbud Road, Route 661, to the west and south, and the C.S.x. Railroad to the east. A
manmade wetland area is identified in the southwestern portion of the property as are two areas
of mature deciduous trees in the northwestern portion of the property. The site contains no steep
slopes or other identified environmental features. The potential for karst features, sinkholes,
does exist on the subject property due to the underlying geology of the property. The application
addresses this potential concern by committing to addressing the karst features during the master
development plan and site plan processes including additional geotechnical analysis of
identified karst features.
Rezoning #03-05 - North Stephenson, Inc.
April 21, 2005
Page 6
4) Potential Impacts
Potential Impact Summary.
In evaluating the North Stephenson Inc. rezoning application it should be recognized that the
applicant has proffered limitations regarding the maximum square footage of the structural
development permitted on the property. A maximum of 800,000 square feet oftotal floor area
has been proffered and evaluated. The applicant has not proffered a commitment to limit the
permitted uses on the subject property. All uses within the Ml (Light Industrial) District would
be permitted.
A. Transportation
Traffic Impact Analysis,
The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for this application projects that the development of
800,000 square feet oflight industrial use would generate 5,874 vehicle trips per day. Potential
traffic impacts may vary depending on the specific uses that could develop on the North
Stephenson Inc. site. The report was developed with primary access to the project to being via
..the new major collector road which intersects with Route 11 at the Rutherford Farm Industrial
Park. The TIA assumed that the land uses associated with Stephenson Village would enter and
exit the property via the new major collector road at this intersection and that Route 11 will be a
four lane divided facility from the northbound ramps at Interstate 81 through the intersection at
the new collector road. It is important to understand that the TIA assumes that the transportation
improvements proffered as part of the Stephenson Village and Rutherford's Farm development
are completed. A second transportation improvement was modeled in the TIA, the realigned
Redbud Road. It is important to ensure that the various improvements identified with each
development are guaranteed and implemented in a coordinated and timely manner.
The Comprehensive Plan seeks to ensure that a level of service (LOS) C or better is achieved
with the approval of proposed industrial, commercial, and planned unit developments. The TIA
for this project demonstrates that the signalized intersection of Route 11 and the new major
collector road will function at a level of service (LOS) D assuming the full build out of 800,000
square feet of industrial land use on the 79.13 acre site. Again, this also assumes that all of the
identified transportation improvements of other development projects are in place. However, the
TIA further demonstrates that the background traffic volumes create a level of service D at the
same intersection with the same improvements in place. The application states that the 5,874
trips projected from the industrial site do not reduce the level of service at the intersection. Staff
would concur that the level of service classification would not decrease from a level of service
(LOS) D, but would also point out that the additional trips may lower the level of service within
the D range.
Rezoning #03-05 - North Stephenson, Inc.
April 21, 2005
Page 7
Redbud Road relocation.
The Eastern Road Plan identifies an improved major collector road in the vicinity of this
property, the relocation of Redbud Road in conjunction with the Interstate 81 widening project,
which the applicant has accommodated using the following approach. The applicant has
proffered to dedicate a fifty foot right of way through the property that will allow access to
Martinsburg Pike at the signalized intersection associated with the new major collector road. A
general location for this road alignment has been identified in the Eastern Road Plan. The
applicant's proffer provides that this right of way dedication would connect to the future
intersection identified in the exhibit included with this application. It is anticipated that the road
providing access to the industrial uses internal to the project may be used for the purpose of the
realignment of Redbud Road. It should be confirmed that a fifty foot right of way would be
sufficient to accommodate the relocation of the Redbud Road collector road.
The approach proffered by the applicant provides flexibility in the future alignment of this road
connection which in turn affords flexibility in the site selection and development for future
industrial users. This would be particularly desirable to the property owner as it would enhance
the economic development potential of the property and would enable the future users to take
advantage of the rail access. At the same time the ability for the County and State to make the
future realignment of Redbud Road is preserved. Future costs associated with the relocation
would likely be born by the Interstate 81 widening project and VDOT.
An alternative approach to addressing the realignment ofthe collector road would be for this
application to design and construct the improvement through the limits of their property with
the first phase of industrial development of the property. The County should determine the
approach that is most appropriate in this particular case.
New Major Collector Road.
The location of the new major collector road, which connects Old Charles Town Road to
Martinsburg Pike was identified during the rezoning ofthe Stephenson Village and Rutherford's
Farm projects. In addition, the typical section of the road, a four lane boulevard design, was
established and memorialized through the rezoning proffer associated with the Stephenson
Village project. As previously noted the proffer further commits to the phased construction of
the road with a landscaped median and landscaping along and/or adjacent to each side of the
major collector road, and the provision of bicycle lanes within the right-of-way.
It would be appropriate to clarify the desired ultimate section at this time. The North
Stephenson, Inc. application proffers the right of way and design for a typical section that
appears to not be entirely consistent with the stated proffer accepted for the Stephenson Village
project. In addition, Proffer e) appears to indicate that the applicant will not provide for the
construction ofthe major collector road through the limits of their property as identified in the
Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan. Rather, it proffers the construction of portions to be
Rezoning #03-05 - North Stephenson, Inc.
April 21, 2005
Page 8
determined based on future TIA' s for the individual industrial users. Proffer c) provides for the
dedication of the right of way for the ultimate design of the major collector road though the
property but does not ensure the construction of the collector road through the property.
As with any rezoning application, it would be appropriate and expected for the applicant to
provide for the construction of the collector road through the limits of their property. In
recognition of the Stephenson Village proffers and the Rutherford's Farm proffered
improvements, flexibility should be offered to the North Stephenson Inc. rezoning application to
enable other projects to participate in the construction of the ultimate section of the major
collector road. However, the County should ensure that at a minimum the major collector road
in some form will be constructed through the limits of this property with the North Stephenson
Inc. rezoning application. The applicant has the ability to clarify their commitment and the
commitment of other projects within the proffer statement and to ensure that the collector road
is provided through the limits of their property at the outset of the project. The coordination of
the relationship and commitments between the Stephenson Village project and the North
Stephenson, Inc. rezoning should be clarified to a greater extent than is presently offered. Also
recognizing the progress being made with the Master Development Plan for Stephenson Village,
it would appear as though discussion and commitments between the two developers are being
made that may satisfy the concerns of the County. To the extent that these commitments could
be memorialized in the proffer statement, the expressed concerns of the County may be
lessened.
General Transportation.
The applicant has proffered to construct, or cause to be constructed, dual southbound left turn
lanes on Martinsburg Pike at the major collector road intersection at the same time the
Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park improvements are to be constructed. Such an approach is
desirable however it should be guaranteed that the stated improvements would be constructed
prior to, or in conjunction with, the first phase of development on the North Stephenson Inc.
project as primary access to the North Stephenson Inc. project is via the new major collector
road.
The applicant has also proffered to construct, or cause for the construction of a northbound right
turn lane along Martinsburg Pike from Redbud Road to the new major collector road. Again,
rather than determining the need for the dedication and improvement on an individual site
development basis, it would be desirable to the County to have this application dedicate the
right of way for the identified improvement at one time. In addition, it would be desirable to
provide for the construction of the improvement prior to, or in conjunction with, the first phase
of development on the North Stephenson Inc. site. Consideration should be given to minimizing
additional entrances along Route 11 as noted previously in the report.
Rezoning #03-05 - North Stephenson, Inc.
April 21, 2005
Page 9
B. Sewer and Water
The North Stephenson Inc. rezoning proposal is estimated to require approximately 79,130
gallons per day of water usage and approximately 39,565 gallons per day of wastewater at total
build out of the project. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority will serve the property and
the wastewater flow from the site will go to the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant.
C. Historic Resources
Located on the North Stephenson Inc. property was the historic structure known as Seven Oaks.
The Rural Landmarks Survey of Pre de rick County identified the historic structure (#34-1067).
The subject property is also located in the vicinity ofthe 3rd Winchester Core Battlefield Area.
In conjunction with the current and original rezoning request for this property, the applicant
forwarded the application to the HRAB for their review.
The HRAB had previously suggested that the Seven Oaks structure would be inventoried and
catalogued should the structure ultimately be taken by the Interstate 81 improvements. The
property owner recently razed the structure. However, prior to doing so, they allowed the
structure to be photographed, inventoried, and cataloged both internally and externally by an
architectural historian. It would be appropriate for the report of the architectural historian to be
provided to the County for incorporation into the historical records.
The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered this new proposal at its December
21, 2004 meeting. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural
Landmarks Survey and the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the
Shenandoah Valley. Some members of the HRAB expressed concerns that the development of
the property would impact preserved Civil War battlefield land and the Stine property located
further along Redbud Road. The HRAB suggested that intensive screening utilizing native trees
should be provided to hide this property from the Stine property and the adjacent battlefield
areas to mitigate the impact on this resource. Further, the HRAB suggested the installation of a
highway marker and directional sign to show the way through the industrial park to the historic
arealbattlefield site due to the potential relocation of Redbud Road. The Proffer Statement
provides no consideration for the recommendations of the HRAB provided on December 21,
2004. However, the applicant has proffered a prohibition on the placement of freestanding and
building mounted business signs facing the eastern property line to mitigate the viewshed
impacts from the 3rd Winchester Core Battlefield Area.
D. Community Facilities
The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is a tool that is used to identifY the capital costs
associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected
costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff's Office and for
the Administration Building are calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration.
Rezoning #03-05 - North Stephenson, Inc.
April 21, 2005
Page 10
The Fiscal Impact Model output for this project indicates a net positive fiscal impact at the build
out of the project. However, in recognition of the impacts that may be realized by the
community to the Fire and Rescue services, the applicant has proffered a contribution in the
amount of $0.01 per square foot of structural development on the property. Based upon the
proffered maximum structural development of 800,000 square feet, this contribution may
generate up to $8,000.00 for Fire and Rescue Services to assist in the mitigation impacts to this
community service. The amount and timing of this contribution is dependant upon future site
development activity.
5) Proffer Statement - October 13,2004 (Revised January 3, 2005)
A) General Development Plan.
The applicant has not provided a Generalized Development Plan for the North Stephenson Inc.
rezoning application. However, the applicant has provided a proffered exhibit that identifies
potential road improvements associated with the new major collector road and proffers the
dedication of the right of way identified in the exhibit. The right of way is ofa varying width to
enable the future construction of the identified transportation improvements.
B) Transportation.
The applicant's transportation proffers have been identified and disc1.lssed in the body of the
report.
C) Industrial Uses.
The applicant has provided limitations regardingthe maximum square footage of the structural
development permitted on the property. A maximum of 800,000 square feet of total floor area
has been proffered. The applicant has not proffered a commitment to limit the permitted uses on
the subject property. All uses within the Ml (Light Industrial) District would be permitted.
D) Environmental Protection.
The applicant has proffered to provide for the delineation of karst features and the performance
of geotechnical analysis for each site plan in which structural development or other site
improvements are located within 50 feet of identified karst features.
E) Viewshed Mitigation
The applicant has proffered to prohibit the placement of freestanding and building mounted
business signs facing the eastern property line of parcel 43-A-152 to mitigate viewshed impacts
from the 3rd Winchester Core Battlefield Area.
F) Monetary Contribution.
The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution of $0.01 per square foot of structural
development on the 79.13 acre site, which may generate up to $8,000.00, to mitigate the impacts
to the local fire and rescue company.
Rezoning #03-05 - North Stephenson, Inc.
April 21, 2005
Page II
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 04/06/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The North Stephenson Inc. rezoning application is generally consistent with the goals ofthe Frederick
County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements ofthe rezoning application have
been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address specific components
of the Comprehensive Plan, in particular the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan. In addition, the
Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been
fully addressed by the applicant. "Particular attention should be paid to the following:
to ensuring that the Planning Commission is comfortable with the applicants approach to
the future relocation of the Redbud Road collector road.
to ensuring that the commitments as to the design, right of way dedication, and
construction of the new major collector road are fully addressed and clarified in the application.
to the opportunity that is presented to address corridor appearance elements along
Martinsburg Pike.
Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning
Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 04/06/05 MEETING: Planning
Commission members understood the developer's need for flexibility, in particular with regards to the
relocation of Redbud Road; however, they believed the rezoning application and proffers did not
provide sufficient detail to address the transportation issues to their satisfaction. They expressed
concern about how the County and VDOT would coordinate the inter-related transportation networks
involving three separate developers on three different projects in this area. It was suggested that a
generalized site plan or a land use plan showing the combined road plans for the three projects could
possibly facilitate completion of the conceptual road network. In addition, it was believed the right-of-
way width of the spine road should be greater than 50' in order to provide expansion for future growth
on Redbud, beyond the railroad tracks heading east. Concern was also raised for providing future
growth capacity at the Rt. lllRedbud Road intersection, for traffic moving towards the Rt. 37
interchange.
Despite these transportation issues, the majority of members agreed this was a good project at the
appropriate location and the proposed use was needed in the County. They also recognized that the
transportation improvements will be dictated by the uses that come on line. It was noted that all three
developers have assured the County through their proffers that if their use triggers the transportation
need, they will address that need.
Rezoning #03-05 - North Stephenson, Inc.
April 21, 2005
Page 12
Representatives ofVDOT were available to answer questions from the Commission. One person carne
forward under citizen comments: the managing partner for Stephenson Associates said they were in
support of the rezoning and hoped the Commission would view it favorably.
By a majority vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning with the proffers
as submitted by the applicant.
YES (REC. APPROVAL WI PROFFERS): Straub, Unger, Morris, Light, DeHaven, Thomas, Ours,
Kriz, Triplett, Manuel, Wilmot
NO: Gochenour
(Note: Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.)
Additional Staff Comment (4/20/05):
The applicant has provided an upJated exhibit relating to the major collector road from Route II to the
CSX Railroad crossing. The exhibit was revised to provide for sidewalks and street trees along both
sides of the major collector road.
PAGE 02/03
FRED CO PLANNTNG DEP
5405551;395
11/14/2004 15:02
------------~-----------7------------I-----------l--------
I . '
I I I
I I
! I
i i
I I
I I
I .
I !
,
!
i
j
i
i
1
~~I
o c: ~
0;;; 0
ii '"
z
~~~~~
iiiii
~
is
'"
!I
1ii
z'
'[;j
on 0
"','"
~,
l1;l
...
cecoo
r&liH"i'fIiIlCr.l~
I
~ I-I
i 0: 8
i
-J!l)
Jl= ~
n~
o ~
t-
ON
~:l
oo~oo
,......;::...:iJ
, 0""
N 0
." ~
...
,",CD
...~
~~
~S
"'g
o 0
~!w
'i
<.l
'"
..
c:
...
~~
.B ~ I
-0
B oS !
~ol
~il
0:'
I
1
,
i
I
! c CD
I ~ flit - gj
!oi8~;:; .. 'ilii
"'l,"!I~-g]~.s: Ii! ~
0... g""-n;,,]1'l! U_
!!l".211"'~ 1O,s C
~~';i,!!a!~ 8~
-0 -",.tll ="'1?
lsi';i ~ ~i..
:l.s~~1il'" ~~[
,!,!~~~~~ Ulg.5!
5c:"il1li~ 'i~81
'" :a:::::5"':;:"g .. ""
.,; "'........e: w
e.s.!!!"'5.l!1 ;g~~
=",.C:ullt .,e:"'
-g'-"5~S fl~il
ii!li8~ g- ;j R~
~~j~.5~ ~.2~
:5il....:!!~ &...,02
.s...,a.Sli.=: ...!!eh
I' -~.. e:s!" 5i ".~i;
6c~~t: i-as
'~=~I.l!ltl :B'"o
t!! ~"" &! '" OJ t!!'li
'" 0. ., .a .C ..:. I!! '" -
14 Q c o.=:s.........
'" E .. ,;;;." 'B 13"
~,gjif!~.!!~~
~~.g ~~.~~'a,!)
W~ ~ ~ I;!.c: il ~ ~
..li'4i'B-l!1tI..5..,.;
aJ c..2: CD .. Q)
~.Eit!!t!!!:!.e~i'~
1~5f!j!!...;t!!~
i l'ilti!"''5o'5~ e.ll~
i 'a_ eiC"i:6':*.2~ E
j ~:U!zzz u8_,g
Iii!
~g
mID
..
:;;;
~:;;;~li!8
... ..,
lii i
... ~
."
ij
...,
l!!
IV
!4
ill
'[
~
o
...
0000
'4"9*"'
"=
i
J
.S
'" ~
II> '"
'"
.."
U'>
...
'"
..
~
'"
'"
.."
'"
Of>
o
"C
.!l
'i
loll
. ,
~i
!il
~I
~ I
[I
.c:'
H I
t!! I
~I
~!
Illl
~!
.,1
~l
..
lei
.. 0:
~I~
..\
"g....
-fillll
"; , :::
~!::
~I';
-10
-e I 5
o I 0:
""ill
,. . -
C I W
.g.~
IV '
ill
'5
~
rl:
'ti
:s
In
is
:ii
1
f:l
..
~
CD
!2
cl
....
8
01
c:
...
.3
u
J!!
"
c
..
:E
'6
1il
J!!
e
~
..
'"
'"
'"
g
c
'"
!
=
~
'"!
~
:;;;
~ i8
.... .,
c:i c>>
l;l ~
~
'"
III
o
l;;
D>
~
o
o
S
.!il
::;
oJ!
~.@
~ 2
~~
i~
a~
~~
~i
"0
EOI
0.'6
~'8
-l!l'c
.1:8-
'j~
lIS
'g!
m;g
.. ~
~.8
1~
~e
-"
g-:i
.....
-s:i
ii
00
.ll
OJ
0:;
"':-<l:!
~"!u
-5?Z
c _-UJ
o.illffi
.- - u.
eJ.~lIJ
walE
~,;.ll.
uc1.!t:
__Ul
;-;-0
"'l"'lUJ
r-rz
~~i
00:5
~~a.
I !Ii i
g ....!~
u::e B
~ i l'i!
Oo:u..
~
C
o
..
C
{n; s"
.!I~1
~~"'-
'l5-'"
zil.l
CD
~
'"'
,.:
a
$
on
~
cD
~
...
.noooooooo
~1iIi"5oIf""4wtWW~
ex>
l1;l
...
:;!....t--
e~~
~~:!!
--'UJ
~~
_:::I
::~
wu;
Z ,
"0..
18<:
wO
--'tij
Z
!":N
,
1
r
i
I
,
I
i
i<-'
iG
19
10
t8
I:J:
!lu
1:<
"'......;
,,;
..
i !
I.. '" ~ ~
5"6 ~ ~:1
mC l;l If)~i
i'l ~ ~ .. ~ ~21 d
.. Q'1'lO:I!!!Co1il
II! i~ ~ -g.c 0 !.1il
'g fii.!YUJ m~~.I~
"E'O"'~='C:'l!5!11
!.!:5!~~~,g.s:5
U:w::i:rD-D.,U/<(O
<!
o
'a
'5
Xl
Cl
i
'e'
c..
W II
... III III
g~~~~
:;;ZWI-W
S~~!BO:
IL O..JolI
I- <(w
:;'o..3w~
o<:::Jo:~
if)
W
l-
e
:;:;
e1
o
;;:;
--------------------------------------------------
~_~._..m.____~__
11/14/2664 1&:02
5405551'.3'35
11\' ,
..."
1L ~ ~ ~~~~~
1- i i iiii~
\ll.~,li$$~~
~ \ !
<D
Cl
l\~
~
iilta
50:-
i
III ~ ~
D..lS
lr-~
...
~,
",!!
Oi~
D..u..
i I"
I-
H!
'''''$1
l-u
~I~.~~~~lil
I .... ID
. ~ ~
... II>
~~
~oi
......
...~
31
~~ia~
N ....
:;, ~
~i
llim
\i;:t
.,;
...
~~$2
$
o '" It>
... ~ ~
~ ~
i
~. i ~
5:! i?i N
... "" ~
~1.5-;:
Q. "'~
E a;
=-1'!~
~'"'!.~
u:e 8
i~~\_
-~'! =
if..
0:""
5
i~~-
l!u:i'
tn'U~
ii~
~$$~~~i~i ~.
! I
- I
I ~I
... fit.!ll a .- ..
~ n 0 ~ "li"
.... Ul UJ i ~ '50
a ::J ~ - mta $
~~~!i !~\l!s~i'
~Q~\ao/l ~~tl/ii:!""'i
(:::lO,zUJ "~~.c:~,gli~ll;
::a ... ~ w !l!i l!! co os"" - ..,. '" t: ..
o~:'r;>:;u.. r;:m:!~ct.tm~o
o
...
FRED CO PLANNING DEP
QN~
g~i
...:": I
I
\
I
I
i
i~\
.81
BSl'
l~\
Cl:\
;
I
I
i
;
i
i
\
I
I
i
I
\
.o\
~\
~l
z\
~I
Gl I
\1 \
~!
e'1
"'I
~l
Jt;:j
'Iii \
i \
~:
~\
~\
~ \
0\
. I ~
,,;;'
0' I .
-;. I ~
"' .
!l I ~
l\ 1
.c:1 !l
5 \ i
~ I cf)
.. , ....
~ \ ~
_ , 6
$ I ..
i \ ..
" 1 6
.8 i "ii
1; ~
~\~ "0
-12 1
l\~ ~
~ \' ~ ~
-5Sg
.5 '\ a ~
~ . & i
1\\ 1
~\ (;
'5 i .g
~ . 0.
" I 'Ii
~ \ ..
0... i" ~
w'\a -.<
t-1.... a\
010 ~
zlz Il.
PAGE 03/03
I
,
i
I
i
1
\
\
I
1
i
!
I
I
1
I
i
I
I
1
I
I
I
\
\
I
i
i
1
\
1
I
1
I
I
\
I
i
I
I
\
I
,
i
.
..
~
'a~
i"O
i~
..-a;
,s'g
~e
6~
Us
~,g
.5!
is
.l3'lS
~"8
.$ 'Ii
:sa.
~..
j"g
.gi
Ii
.. '"
:sB
;0';;
~=
8!
.~..
~"5
~~
a3
g~
00
-------~-------------------~~---------------------
<b
'"
~
....
to
..
,
i
I
I
\
\ ~ ~ -~
\;;iilllSlI\ ~.2!
"!"!il~ilj~ ~i
0'" \~\\~1Ji~ lU
"7il"~- "'!'
\j;~~~~ ~ii
,~sOil!! ~~E
\!~l~).e !;!t
<.> "l\1t~6~5'El1~!
.; ... I e Zl. ~ i 13 ,- .i
i~Si~o:::8 _Oc
g> \'3.!!!i~.g.s -l~
<( l~g'il8~~ -Iliie
o l.li!....'i!....t ~o.'ii
~ l..~!"".!: .l\l.2~
.. loli.ll"''''\ 8.....2
i \~~iiml ~lt
l'bIl1\~t~ril!~ 1:~
;;p~ ,1Al:5Jl!.~~l\Il1e
]!~ ItE~.~~l>llil!~;
~~~ \ ~~~~l~i~~~
liJofl.~?~!!-8.",~.!l\1l
~~... \ ~~'~lil-5~ii!
=b,....b-~ \~lte~I!!~!.ll
C!l,=_i.il.ilj;l.e"'illl:!
ff!lli-!,;;!.2.2'i-_o.
?:c:iili1"j~='O't5'6~~1~
~o:Sl1S.lDe~~6:.g.2'Ue
~~l\.\~z~zzz~8J!!,g
;;iI-I"
""~~
00......
liiiiiai
~...J!!:l
(/l4:!!l(
(,)
!!<!S
u..~
liiu..
z,
~~
elu
...J~
l~N
I
I
!
I
1
;
l~
\:l
.0
I'"
\~
\~
~..r~ ui
11/28/213134 17:43
5413660;1=,395
FRED CO PLAN~'TNG DEP
PAGE 132/134
HALl... MONAHAN, ENGLE. MAHAN & MITCHEI-L
A PAR'nlEFt:lHIP OF" pnClF'ES~ CORPQlU.TIOK&
ATToAI4EYS AT I.AW
WILBUR C. HAI.I. (1892-1972)
THOMAS V. MQNAH^,,1 (1924'ISQ91
SAMUEl. D. ENClLE
O. Le:L.AND MAHAN
ROBEFtT T. MITCHEI.L.. JR.
JAMES A. KL.ENKAA
STEVEN F. ,JA.CK50N
DENNIS ..J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR.
I ... 7 EAST HAR.a:r STP~~
l,.I!:.E!lIIURGI, VIROI",,,,
TE1.ePHONE 7D-,,.777-I0l:50
'0 EA9'f aOSCAWI:H STREeT'
WINl;.H9TER, vlftOllrilA
TELEPH!>NE SIllllO-Cl:",;t.-3eoo
If'IU( S4o-~~.04:!104
EO-,,^,,- 'owyall@hol.....lIlln._
I"LEA!lI!: nEPC( TO:
November 23, 2004
P. O. eOX 84S
WINCHJ;;STEA. \l\RG1NIA 2.2604-0848
Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, AICP,
Deputy Director
Frederick County Department of
Planning and Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
HAND DELIVERED
Re: North Stephenson, Inc. (Stephenson Village) Proposed Proffer
Statement
Dear Mike:
I have reviewed the above-referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. It is my
opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is in a fonn to meet the requirements
of tbe Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the
following:
1. I would suggest, for uniformity and easy reference purposes, that the
document be titled "Proposed Proffer Statement" and the details of the
zoning, owners, property, etc., be summarized at the beginning (see
the Haggerty Property Proposed Proffer Statement for the fonn).
2. Proffers J (b), (c), Cd), (e), and (g) should each state specifically when
the prof erred improvement will be done; for example, 1 (b) may
provide that the improvements will be made within thirty (30) days of
written request by VDOT.
3. Proffers 1 (f) and (g) provide that certain things will be done "by
parties other than the property owners." First of all, who are the
"property owners"? If it is the Applicant, it should say "the
11/28/213134 17:43 54e66~6395
FRED CO PLAN~ITNG DEP
PAGE 133/134
HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE. MAHAN &. MITCHELL
Mr. Michael T. Ruddy
Frederick County Department of
Planning and Development
Page 2
Applicant" rather than "the property owners." Also, if these things are
not to be done by the Applicant, is it ~lear or should it state who will
do these things?
4. In Proffer 3, the words "and approval" should be added after the word
"review" in the last sentence.
5. Proffer 5 should state specifically for what purpose the monetary
contribution is to be made, as the County has to account for the
expenditure of all proffered monetary contributions.
6. The signa.twr~(s) should be for the titled owner of the property. If
North Stephenson, Inc. is the titled owner, the signature block should
be:
North Stephenson, Inc.
By:
President
I have not reviewed the substance ofthe proffers as to whether the proffers
are suitable and appropriate for the property, as it is my understanding that that
review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission.
Ifthere are any questions concerning the foregoing, please contact me.
RTM/glh
11/28/2004 17:43
5405555395
PAGE 134/04
E.~A""PL.~
~
REZONING:
PROPERTY:
RECORD OWNER:
APPUCANT:
PROJECT NAME:
ORIGINAL DA1E
OF PROFFERS:
REVISION DATA:
FRED CO PLANl'I"(NG DEP
1t.'~R.OJG.1> -~
e... M'TeHc..L
PROPOSED PROFPER STATEMENT
RZ#
RunlAteas (RA) to Residential Perl'ormmce (RP)
111.56 acres + 1-;
Tax Ma.p PaIcels 5S-A-212 & 212A (the <<Property")
The Canyon, LC
The Cll11yon, LC
Haggerty Property
Septembex 10, 2004
N/A
The headings of pl:offers set forth below have been ated for conven.i.euce or
reference only 2nd sh not control OJ; affect the meaning or be an intetpteta.tion of
any provision of roffets. The improvements proffered herein s e provided at the
time of d.eV'cl ent of that portion of the Ptopexty adjacent to including the
r othe.t p1:offered requirem.ent, unle5s othawise specified he The teml
as referenced heJ:ein shill include within its meaning ill futu.l:e 0 IS and
s in inte.test When used in these proffers, the "Genetalized Development
sh er to the plan entitled. "Generalized DeV'elopment Plan, Haggerty Pxoperty" da
tembct 1, 2004 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following:
Page 1 ofg
~.. .---------
.0"
~
~
0-
g-
O)
0)
'(g~
c
ct)O
0<1>
~~
~-a
cx::JB
c.f)
€
~
'3
o.
...
a
<r
-
d.
~
~
d.
~,
,co
'"
-
'3 ~
\.0 U.
<C
$
C"
o
~,1'1.
"'z'W"''''
~
i
~
\,,\
. < <
~~\\\
6\1'0
\i
'& w ~ % \ ..
\ ~~iH ~
it ~~~~lt~(
" < t
\\\\i
OJ\'I
---
1.0
C>
0..
0..
en
<1>
<1>
en
---
~
C>
=1=1:
N
W
0:::
c
o
en
c
<1>
..c
0..
<1>
-+-'
en
..c
t
o
Z
~
~
a
~.~u={i~
- = ~ ~
nit ~
c.. i! B &: '"
o !llta
.
~ g
! .. ~ ,~i
:::I i~~~i ~
~ ~H~i~~?
"
o
o
o
o
o
LO
Q)
Q)
u..
o
LO
N
o
z.~
..
! .
:: i "
Greenway Engineering
October 13, 2004
Revised January 3,2005
North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning
PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT
REZONING:
RZ#
Rural Areas District (RA) to Light Industrial District (M1) with
Proffers
PROPERTY:
79.13 acres +/-;
Tax Parcels #43-((A))-150, 43-((A))-151, 43-((A))-151A,
43-((A))-152, 43C-((3))-2, 43C-((3))-3, 43C-((3))-4,
43C-((3))-4A, 43C-((3))-5, 43C-((3))-7 A
RECORD OWNER: North Stephenson, Inc,
APPLICANT: North Stephenson, Inc, (here-in after "the applicants")
PROJECT NAME: North Stephenson, Inc, - Light Industrial Rezoning
ORIGINAL DATE
OF PROFFERS: October 13, 2004
REVISION DATE: January 3, 2005
Preliminary Matters
Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and
the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional
zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of
Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # 03 - os-
for the rezoning of the 79.13-acres tract from the Rural Areas (RA) District, to Light
Industrial (M1) District, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity
with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and
conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be
approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code
and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers
shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be
binding upon the applicants and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns.
The subject property is more particularly described as the land owned by North
Stephenson, Inc. being all of Tax Map Parcels 43-((A))-150, 43-((A))-151, 43-((A))-
151A, 43-((A))-152, 43C-((3))-2, 43C-((3))-3, 43C-((3))-4, 43C-((3))-4A, 43C-((3))-5,
and 43C-((3))-7A, as evidence by recorded property deeds in the Frederick County Clerk
of Court Office included with this rezoning proposal.
File #3485/EA W
Greenway Engineering
October 13, 2004
Revised January 3, 2005
North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning
PROJECT PROFFER STATEMENT
1.) Transportation
a) The applicants hereby proffer to construct, or cause for the construction of
dual southbound left turn lanes on Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11
North) at the major collector road intersection with Renzi Drive at the
Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. The southbound dual left turn lanes
will be constructed at the same time that the Rutherford's Farm Industrial
Park improvements to Martinsburg Pike are constructed.
b) The applicants hereby proffer to construct, or cause for the construction of
a right turn lane within the Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) right-
of-way at a location and distance acceptable to VDOT between the
intersection of Redbud Road (Route 661) and the major collector road
intersection serving as the primary entrance to the 79.13-acre project site.
A traffic study will be prepared and submitted to VDOT as a component
of the site development plan for each proposed land use on the 79.13-acre
site to allow VDOT to determine when the proffered improvement is
warranted.
c) The applicants hereby proffer to provide for the dedication of right-of-way
and for the allowance of temporary construction easements needed for the
ultimate design of the major collector road from the CSX railroad to
Martinsburg Pike. The dedicated right-of-way shall provide for the
improvements identified from station 10+00 to station 24+00 on the
Stephenson Village Major Collector Road Plan and CSX Crossing
prepared by Greenway Engineering and dated October 2004, which is
included as an exhibit with this proffer statement. The applicants further
proffer to provide for the dedication of right-of-way acceptable to VDOT
for the purpose of providing a right turn lane from the major collector road
onto the internal street connection located at station 17+00 on the subject
exhibit.
d) The applicants hereby proffer to enter into a signalization agreement with
VDOT for the provision of a traffic signal at the major collector road
intersection with Martinsburg Pike, which will align with Renzi Drive at
the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. The signalization agreement shall
provide for the pro-rata share of the traffic signal based on the projected
traffic volumes identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) compared
to the projected traffic volumes identified in the TIA for the Rutherford's
Farm Industrial Park and the TIA for the Stephenson Village Residential
Planned Community.
File #3485/EA W
2
Greenway Engineering
October 13, 2004
Revised January 3, 2005
North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning
e) The applicants hereby proffer to prepare and submit a traffic study to
VDOT as a component of the site development plan for each proposed
land use on the 79.13-acre site to a determine the portion of the major
collector road that will be required to be constructed based on the impacts
associated with each future land use.
f) The applicants hereby proffer to dedicate right-of-way to VDOT along
Redbud Road for future improvements to the Interstate 81 Exit 317
interchange area. This right-of-way shall be dedicated to VDOT within
180 days of final engineering plan approval. The preparation of right-of-
way dedication plats and legal documents associated with this dedication
shall be prepared by parties other than the applicants.
g) The applicants hereby proffer to dedicate a 50-foot right-of-way and
provide temporary construction easements to VDOT for the purpose of
realigning Redbud Road (Route 661) from the current intersection at
Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route II North) to connect to the major collector
road on the subject site. The purpose of the 50-foot right-of-way
dedication and temporary construction easements is to provide VDOT and
Frederick County with an appropriate alternative to relocate Redbud Road.
The dedicated 50-foot right-of-way will connect to the intersection that is
identified at station 17+00 on the Stephenson Village Major Collector
Road Plan and CSX Crossing prepared by Greenway Engineering and
dated October 2004, which is included as an exhibit with this proffer
statement. The location of the 50-foot right-of-way to connect to this
intersection will be agreed upon by VDOT and the property owners to
allow for a minimum 25 mph geometric design criteria and will be made
available at such a time that VDOT deems necessary. The preparation of
right-of-way dedication plats and legal documents associated with this
dedication shall be prepared by parties other than the applicants. The
construction of the realigned portion of Redbud Road shall occur by
parties other than the applicants.
h) The applicants hereby proffer to prohibit commercial entrances along the
western property line on tax parcel 43-((A))-152 adjoining the Redbud
Road (Route 661) right-of-way. This proffer is intended to prohibit
commercial entrance locations on the current alignment of Redbud Road
and is not intended to prohibit commercial entrances internally to the
subject site should Redbud Road be realigned through the subject site
resulting from the widening of Interstate 81.
File #3485/EA W
3
Greenway Engineering October 13, 2004
Revised January 3, 2005
North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning
2.) Structural Development
The applicants hereby proffer to limit the structural development on the 79 .13-acre to
a maximum of 800,000 square-feet of total floor area.
3.) Environmental Protection
The applicants hereby proffer to provide for the delineation of karst features located
on the 79.13-acre site as a condition of master development plan approval. The
applicants further proffer to conduct geotechnical analysis for each site plan in which
structural development or other site improvements are located within 50 feet of
identified karst features. The geotechnical analysis reports and methods for treatment
of impacts shall be provided to the Frederick County Engineer for review and
approval as a condition of site development plan approval.
4.) Viewshed Mitigation
The applicants hereby proffer to prohibit the placement of freestanding and building
mounted illuminated and non-illuminated business signs facing the eastern property
line of tax map parcel 43-((A))-152 to mitigate viewshed impacts from the 3rd
Winchester Core Battlefield Area.
5.) Fire and Rescue Monetary Contribution
The applicants hereby proffer to provide a monetary contribution of $0.01 per square
foot of structural development on the 79.13-acre site occurring subsequent to
rezoning approval. This monetary contribution shall be provided to Frederick County
at the time of building permit issuance for structural development, which may
generate a maximum monetary contribution of $8,000.00 based on the proffered
maximum square footage of structural development. The applicants monetary
contribution will be directed to the Clearbrook Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company,
which will provide first due response to the subject site.
File #3485/EA W
4
Greenway Engineering
October 13, 2004
Revised January 3, 2005
North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning
6.) Signatures
The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors,
administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the
event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the
conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other
requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code.
Respectfully Submitted:
North Stephenson, Inc.
By: ~ ~.~
Keven Omps
~ {I [-<)-5
Date
BY~cDr ~
J Omp' ~
~
/;, - d..0--6[
Date
Commonwealth of Virginia,
City/County of
r-!La-"ClQ!L\(_~
To Wit:
z..s~ F",- \" ru....IL,
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this b. day of Mo~
200C;by ~ t::> \...-." 0
My Commission Expires ::rv- \'-'1 ~ \ d-()u/
\ /
File #3485/EA W
5
wo=,'lu~_u:;Jll.lr'JUUl
ezss-aZ',t,-O"; X'I~
~17"-Z99-0Y9 iluoqdWlilJ,
a(lgzz 'Q~~!J.I^ 'J."\MIll.~
ilU'li"'J RlH AptllA lIill
9NltllIlINI9NlI A'IIANlIlItlO
~
ii!
2
~
w'"
1l~&Q~
~"'2~~
m&~~i:\
oow~w
~::n~U:I
Qlt.~~~
UJUJ w..J 0
g\i1 '" 0'"
~:;,~u~
~oQll!O
lL",~~ll!
ill~;;!I:8
5.lohaA.lnS
su;a;aU1Bu:!
VA 'A.LNOO::J )I::JI1I30Jl:U
.L::>lll.LSIO 1VI1l3.LSI~VV\ 11'1 Jt.JNO.LS ~
9N1SSOHO XSO - NV1c:I avOI:l 1:I0l03T1OO l:Iot...., I ~
~~ NOSNaHcBJ,8 g '-
~
~ c ~
. ,
. ,
~ "
.
ll.'It4_.J
e . -
~ ~ i t
~~~~~
00.;.$1. t\qC~J. "i.LS
~ ~ - r=='ljI'""'
I \' i
I I~\ I
I III!" Ii
I It[
!~. I III
~f5i~: gl I
~iti; II ~Ol ~
~"IjlD \?I
~hO ~I I"~
~ ~I I~'
ll~h
1-- ~I
I 11:111
I ~I
I I 13111
: I I ~I
! I Iii
i I 1,,1 I
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
€I
C!
~.. €I Q
ilu & ,g
o ,0 ~ ;~ -
~ ii' w
" ..J
~i!ll <(
€I U
'"
€I
'"
€I
,g
.~i!!l I
Uif
ljj11,
1\ ,----
~f
II I
. \ ~ I
~I \(3! I ~~;~ -T(:
(3\ I ~Iiii I i-
i I ~~~ll / I
1(3~ I" I i
\(31\.- ~0 L_
· 1m
_1):< IT .......,
\l!l'~ 12 I ~ I ... \
Inl~ 1":;_1 \ \
IGA' ~~ _2.-....~
-"I ~- \
I Is,l '-
~) 1/ ~----'r- ,-
(@oJ I (' )(' --',
I. III r~l'l
~ I> I ~ I I I
~ I ~ I I ,..1
;; I ~ Ic--b:r_r'
/"I--CJ
I
I
~
'"
WO:)'fu;M_U~"__
iC:!i6-a21. -0'9 Xl"
~elt-a99-0t~ auoqdlllllJ.
UoAh.lns
lUal;lu!1tq
VA '}'.LNl10;) )!;)I<l303<1J
o
.L;)Ill.LSIO 1VI1l3.LSI:JVl'I 11V N.3NO.LS ~
ElNlSSOYO XSO - NV1d OVOI:! I:!OJ.Olrll00 I:IOI'VW i :
aE>VTH^ NOStEIfd3J.S g '-
~
~ ~ ~
. c
:>.: I')
.
o .
~ ~ g t
~~~~~
E
Q~
II
\ I
6 I
~I -I
<:11'
~~
&~
II 1
~I
II
.. I .
II \ .
~II
1III
I~I I
I il I
I~II
I~
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
I III
Jill
III
........
it09~ 'lI'I,U!J.ltA '.I;!lsa'-':nIUl
111.1" 11111 ""pau. 1~1
I.t6J.P~
ONll:I:I:lNION:I lYMN:I:ll:IO
---
,
\
\
\
~
'.l.\
t- \\
~~l'! ~\
l~ft ~\
j; \
~L
-
--
=====~--=-----==--=----==--~=--
I
I
A
\
!~Ii~ i
~ if ~I
" l: ~I
~i~B :\
o
~
.
Q
Z
i~
.
I~
.-LL- __~~~___
I .T~'o~ - -; ,~'=
II ;
~I !
I . 1 .
@! I~ ~
~I~
IJ 13
r~
~I
I II
01
I 11
I II
3
..
~
. t .t
~
N
N
~
N
d,
.
:3 ~
2
r
i:
~
>~g
,,~;[
--=
--
----
~
iih
~ ~~
~ l~
j;j!B
€I
~
€I ~
-Il -Il
w
--'
<t
€I ~
€I
'"
€I
-Il
AMENDMENT
Action:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
April 6, 2005 - Recommended Approval
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
April 26, 2005
o APPROVED
o DENIED
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
REZONING #03-05 FOR NORTH STEPHENSON, INe.
WHEREAS, Rezoning #03-05 for North Stephenson, Inc., was submitted by Greenway Engineering to
rezone 79.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to Ml (Light Industrial) District. These properties front
on the east side of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North), just north of the Interstate 81 Exit 3 I 7 northbound
off-ramp, immediately northeast of Redbud Road (Route 661), in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and
are identified by Property Identification Numbers (PINs) 43-A-150, 43-A-151, 43-A-151A, 43-A-152, 43C-
3-2, 43C-3-3, 43C-3-4, 43C-3-4A, 43C-3-5 and 43C-3-7 A.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on April 6, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on April 26, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval ofthis rezoning to be in
the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive
Policy Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that
Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to
change 79.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to Ml (Light Industrial) District, as described by the
application and plat submitted, subject to the attached conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the
applicant and the property owner.
PDRes. #] 7-05
This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption.
Passed this 26th day of April, 2005 by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle, Chairman
Barbara E. Van Osten
Gina A. Forrester
Gary Dove
Lynda J. Tyler
Bill M. Ewing
Gene E. Fisher
A COpy ATTEST
John R. Riley, Jr.
Frederick County Administrator
PDRes. #17-05
Greenway Engineering
October 13,2004
North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning
NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. REZONING
INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County
by the proffered rezoning often contiguous parcels comprising a 79.l3-acre tract, owned
by North Stephenson, Inc. The subject properties front on the east side of Martinsburg
Pike (U.S. Route 11 North), approximately 200 feet north of the Interstate 81 Exit 317
northbound off-ramp, and immediately east of Redbud Road (Route 661). The current
zoning of the parcels comprising the 79. 13-acre tract is RA, Rural Areas District and RP,
Residential Performance District. North Stephenson Inc. proposes to rezone these parcels
to establish 79.l3-acres ofMl, Light Industrial District. See attached North Stephenson,
Inc. Location and Zoning Map Exhibit.
Basic information
Location:
East of Martinsburg Pike (Route II), north of
Interstate-81 Exit 317 and east of Redbud Road
(Route 661)
Magisterial District:
Stonewall
Property ID Numbers:
43-A-150, 43-A-151, 43-A-151A, 43-A-152,
43C-3-2, 43C-3-3, 43C-3-4, 43C-3-4A,
43C-3-5, 43C-3-7 A
Current Zoning:
RA, Rural Areas District
RP, Residential Performance District
Current Use:
Agricultural, trucking, office and residential uses
Industrial
Proposed Use:
Proposed Zoning:
Total rezoning area:
MI, Light Industrial District
79.13-acre tract
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The parcels comprising the subject site are located within the study area boundary of the
Northeast Land Use Plan. The policies guiding future land use development within the
Northeast Land Use Plan are identified in Chapter 6 (Land Use) of the Comprehensive
Policy Plan on pages 6-34 through 6-38.5. The recommendations of the Northeast Land
Use Plan suggest that commercial and industrial land use should occur around the
2
Greenway Engineering
October 13, 2004
North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning
Interstate 81 Exit 317 interchange area, with an emphasis on industrial land use adjacent
to the railroads within the study area. The subject site has approximately 2,600 linear
feet (\I, mile) of frontage along the CSX railroad and can accommodate rail spur and rail
siding locations. The 79.13-acre site is located within the Urban Development Area and
the Sewer and Water Service Area; therefore, expansion beyond the existing property
boundaries is not required by this application.
A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE
Access
The subject site, tax parcels 43-((A))-150, 43-((A))-15l, 43-((A))-151A, 43-((A))-152,
43C-((3))-2, 43C-((3))-3, 43C-((3))-4, 43C-((3))-4A, 43C-((3))-5, and 43C-((3))-7A, are
situated in the southeast quadrant of the Interstate 81 Exit 3l7/Martinsburg Pike (U.S.
Route 11) interchange area. The 79. 13-acre site has frontage along Martinsburg Pike and
along Redbud Road (Route 661).
The Northeast Land Use Plan identifies a new major collector road, which connects Old
Charles Town Road (Route 761) to Martinsburg Pike. The location of the new major
collector road intersection with Martinsburg Pike was established during the rezoning and
master development plan process associated with the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park.
Therefore, the new major collector road is planned to traverse the subject site along the
northern boundary of tax parcel 43-((A))-150 and is planned to run near the subject
property's eastern boundary and intersect Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11).
The Interstate 81 widening project is anticipated to relocate the northbound off-ramp to
align with Martinsburg Pike at the current location of the Redbud Road intersection with
Martinsburg Pike. This road improvement project will ultimately result in the need for
Frederick County to determine an acceptable route to relocate traffic flow from Redbud
Road to Martinsburg Pike. The applicants' proffer statement has made provisions for the
dedication of a 50-foot right-of-way through the subject property that will allow for
future displaced traffic to access Martinsburg Pike at the signalized intersection
associated with the new major collector road. Furthermore, the applicants' proffer
statement prohibits commercial entrances along Redbud Road.
Flood Plains
The subject site is located on the FEMA NFIP map #510063-0105 -B. The entire site is
located as "Zone C", area outside the 100-year flood plain.
3
Greenway Engineering
October 13, 2004
North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning
Wetlands
The National Wetlands Inventory Map identifies one wetland area in the southwestern
portion of the 79.13-acre parcel, which is a man-made impoundment. The treatment of
this wetland area will be determined during the master development plan process for the
future industrial site.
Steep Slopes
There are no steep slopes on the subject site.
Mature Woodlands
Two areas of mature deciduous trees exist on the 79.13-acre site, which are located in the
northwestern portion of the subject site. It is anticipated that these areas will be impacted
by the future development of industrial sites, parking areas and by the future relocation of
Redbud Road. In April 2003, the Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance to eliminate
a maximum disturbance percentage for woodland areas on commercial and industrial
properties and to require higher planting standards for parking lot areas. Site plans for
the 79.13 -acre property will comply with these standards.
Soil Tvpes
The Soil Survey of Fredrick County, published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service
was consulted to determine soil types contained in this tract. The subject site is located
on map sheet number 24 & 30, and contains the following soil types:
5B-Carbo Silt Loam: 2-7% slope
5C-Carbo Silt Loam: 7-15% slope
6C-Carbo Oaklet Silt Loam, very rock 2-15% slope
32B-Oaklet Silt Loam: 2-7% slope
The 5B-Carbo Silt Loam and 32B-Oaklet Silt Loam soils are identified on page 123 as
prime farmland soils. All soil types possess moderate to high shrink-swell potential.
Karst Features
The geology associated with the subject site has the potential for the presence of karst
features. The delineation of karst features throughout the project site is proffered to
occur during the master development plan process. Furthermore, the proffer statement
provides for geotechnical analysis during the site development plan process for any
4
Greenway Engineering
October 13, 2004
North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning
development that will occur within close proximity of identified karst features to
determine appropriate treatment methods to ensure that structural development,
stormwater management facilities and stormwater discharge does not negatively impact
these features.
B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
Adioining property zoning: and present use:
North: Zoned Rural Areas (RA)
Use: Residential and Unimproved
South: Zoned Rural Areas (RA)
East: Zoned Rural Areas (RA)
West: Zoned Residential Performance (RP)
Zoned Business General District (B2)
Use: Residential and Agricultural
Use: Agricultural
Use: Residential
Use: Rutherford's Farm Indust. Park
C. TRANSPORTATION
The 79.13-acre site has approximately 1,300 feet of frontage along Martinsburg Pike
(U.S. Route II North), which is classified as a major arterial road; approximately 2,400
feet of frontage along Redbud Road (Route 661 ), which is classified as a local street; and
will have approximately 1,300 feet of frontage along the new major collector road that is
identified to follow the northern boundary of the industrial site.
A traffic impact analysis (TIA) has been prepared for the 79.13-acre site by Patton Harris
Rust, which is dated September 22, 2004 and included as a component of the Impact
Analysis Statement. The TIA assumes the total build out of 800,000 square feet of
industrial land use by year 2015. The TIA provides for a Level of Service (LOS)
analysis, AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes and Average Daily Trip volumes for
existing, background and build out conditions. It should be noted that the background
traffic data accounts for the buildout of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park and the
Stephenson Village Residential Planned Community, as well as a 5% increase in regional
traffic generation on Martinsburg Pike compounded annually throughout the 2015 project
buildout year.
The applicants' proffer statement has been designed to prohibit access to Redbud Road,
as this intersection with Martinsburg Pike fails during peak hour traffic volumes.
Therefore, the applicants' propose to provide access to the 79.13-acre industrial site at the
planned signalized intersection with Martinsburg Pike and the Rutherford's Farm
Industrial Park major collector road entrance. The TIA assumes both the projected traffic
impacts from major developments in the immediate area of this project, as well as an
5
Greenway Engineering
October 13,2004
North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning
average annual increase in traffic on Martinsburg Pike to account for regional traffic
impacts. Furthermore, the TIA assumes the improvements that have been proffered for
the Martinsburg Pike corridor from these future developments.
The TIA demonstrates that the background traffic volumes create a Level of Service "D"
at the signalized intersection of Martinsburg Pike and the new major collector road, and
further demonstrates that this intersection functions at the same Level of Service "D"
assuming the total build out of 800,000 square feet of industrial land use on the 79.13-
acre site. Therefore, the addition of the 5,874 vehicle trips projected from the industrial
site does not reduce the Level of Service at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and the
new major collector road from the Level of Service that is projected to occur solely from
background traffic volumes.
The applicants' proffer statement provides for on-site and off-site improvements to the
surrounding transportation system, including dual left turn lanes on the southbound
Martinsburg Pike approach to the project site, a continuous right turn lane within the
Martinsburg Pike right-of-way from the intersection of Redbud Road to the signalized
intersection into the project site, the execution of a signalization agreement with VDOT
for traffic signalization at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and the major collector
road aligning with Renzi Drive at the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, the dedication of
right-of-way for the ultimate design of the major collector road from the signalized
intersection at Martinsburg Pike to the CSX railroad, the provision of right-of-way
dedication along Redbud Road for the proposed Interstate 81 widening, and the
dedication of a 50-foot right-of-way through the subject site for the relocation of Redbud
Road that is anticipated to be severed from its current intersection at Martinsburg Pike as
a result of the Interstate 81 widening project. These proffered on-site and of-site
improvements will maintain the LOS projected from background traffic impacts and
therefore, will mitigate the transportation impacts associated with 79.13-acre industrial
development.
D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT
The 79.13-acre subject site is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA)
boundary. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) developed the Route 11
North Sewer and Water Service Area plan to serve the northeast portion of the County,
which was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2002.
An 8" sewer force main directing flow to the Redbud Run Pump Station serves a portion
of the northeast area of the County. This 8" sewer force main is constructed within the
Redbud Road (Rt. 661) right-of-way, which adjoins the subject site. Sewage effluent
from the industrial site will be directed through a series of force mains and gravity lines
to the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. This treatment facility has a hydraulic
capacity of 8.4 MGD, which has flows allocated to the FCSA and the City of Winchester
Public Utilities. The on-site sewer infrastructure required to convey effluent to the
6
Greenway Engineering
October 13,2004
North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning
treatment facility will be developed by the applicants to standards acceptable to the
FCSA for future operation and maintenance.
The impact ofrezoning the 79.13-acres can be based on comparable discharge patterns of
500 gallons-per-day (GPD) per acre for industrial land use. The figures below represent
the impact that the total build out of the proffered square footage of structural area has on
the sewage conveyance and water supply systems.
Q = 500 GPD per acre
Q = 500 GPD x 79.13 acres
Q = 39,565 GPD projected at total build out
The proposed rezoning is projected to increase flows to the Opequon Water Reclamation
Facility by 39,565 GPD at total build out. The design capacity of the Opequon Water
Reclamation Facility is currently 8.4 MGD, of which 6.4 MPD is utilized. The projected
increase of 39,565 GPD at total build out represents a 1.9% increase in the current
available capacity of the treatment facility; therefore, adequate capacity and infrastructure
is available for this industrial development.
E. W ATER SUPPLY
The 79.l3-acre subject site is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA)
boundary. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) developed the Route 11
North Sewer and Water Service Area plan to serve the northeast portion of the County,
which was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2002.
A 10" water line is located along the eastern side of Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11),
which traverses the 79.l3-acre site. Furthermore, a 20" water transmission line is
currently in place on the west side of Martinsburg Pike, which is planned to follow the
major collector road serving the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park and this industrial
development. The on-site water infrastructure required to convey potable water to the
proposed industrial uses will be developed by the applicants to standards acceptable to
the FCSA for future operation and maintenance.
The impact of rezoning the 79.l3-acres can be based on comparable water usage of 1,000
gallons-per-day (GPD) per acre for industrial land use. The figures below represent the
impact that the total build out of the proffered square footage of structural area has on the
water supply system.
Q = 1,000 GPD per acre
Q = 1,000 GPD x 79.13 acres
Q = 79,130 GPD projected at total build out
The projected water usage for the proposed rezoning is 79,130 GPD at total build out.
This projection represents approximately 3.9% of the North Water Treatment Plant
7
Greenway Engineering
October 13, 2004
North Stephenson, Inc, Rezoning
current capacity of 2 MOD. The North Water Treatment Plan is designed to increase
treatment capacity to approximately 4 MOD. Therefore, the existing source and
infrastructure is adequate to accommodate the capacity needs of the proposed 79.13-acre
industrial site at total build out.
F. DRAINAGE
The 79.13-acre parcel is gently sloping and drains from the north and west towards the
southeastern portion of the project site. On-site storm water management facilities will
be designed to adequately accommodate the post-development conditions. The
applicants have proffered to prepare a geotechnical analysis for the purpose of identifying
any suspect karst depressions and to ensure that proposed developed areas do not
adversely impact water quality through storm water management design. Storm water
management will be designed in accordance with all applicable state and local storm
water management requirements and erosion and sedimentation control.
G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual
business consumption of landfill volume of 5.4 cubic yards per 1,000 sq ft. of structural
floor area (Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4th edition). The following figures
show the increase in' average annual volume based on the 800,000 square feet of
industrial square footage that is projected to develop over a 10-year period:
A V = 5.4 Cu. Yd. per 1,000 sq. ft.
A V = 5.4 Cu. Yd. x 800 (1,000 sq. ft.)
A V = 4,320 Cu. Yd. at build-out/yr or 3,024 tons/yr at build-out
A V = 3,024 tons/yr divided by 100yr build-out = 302.4 ton annual increase
The Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill has a current remaining
capacity of 13,100,000 cubic yards of air space. The projected annual solid waste
generation from the subject site is anticipated to be 302 tons per year, which represents a
0.15% increase in the solid waste received by the Municipal Solid Waste area of the
Regional Landfill, which currently averages 200,000 tons per year. This projected annual
increase in solid waste generation is manageable and can be accommodated by the
Regional Landfill.
H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES
The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey identifies the Seven Oaks residential
structure (#34-1067) as potentially significant, although this structure was not deemed
8
Greenway Engineering
October 13, 2004
North Stephens~n, Inc. Rezoning
eligible for the state or national register of historic places. The applicants' utilized Seven
Oaks as a residential rental property over the years and recently razed the structure under
an approved demolition permit issued by Frederick County. Prior to obtaining this
demolition permit, the applicants' determined that the Seven Oaks structure did not lend
itself as an adaptive reuse structure for commercial or industrial use. Furthermore, the
applicants' were advised that the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation (SVBF) did
not desire to pursue acquisition of the Seven Oaks residence for use as a tourist center.
However, prior to razing the residence, the applicants' allowed the structure to be
photographed, inventoried and cataloged both externally and internally by an
architectural historian.
The southeastern corner of the subject site is located across Redbud Road (Route 661)
from the former Stine parcel, which was acquired by the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield
Foundation. A portion of the 3rd Winchester Core Battlefield Area is located
approximately 900 feet southeast of the southeastern corner of the proposed industrial
site. The CSX Railroad crosses Redbud Road at the divide of the subject site and the
SVBF parcel. The potential for rail-spur and rail siding is very good beginning at this
location and proceeding north along the CSX Railroad for approximately 1,200 linear
feet. Therefore, it is anticipated that industrial structural development will be located at
least 1,000 linear feet from the 3rd Winchester Core Battlefield Area due to the location of
rail-spur and rail-siding. The applicants' have proffered to prohibit illuminated and non-
illuminated business signs along the 1,400+ feet comprising the eastern property line of
tax parcel 43-((A))-152. The distance between future industrial structures and the 3rd
Winchester Core Battlefield Area, coupled with the elimination of business signs along
the eastern boundary of tax parcel 43-((A))-152 will assist in the mitigation of impacts to
the viewshed associated with the 3rd Winchester Core Battlefield Area.
I. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES
The Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model has been prepared for the
proposed rezoning of the 79.13-acre site based on a proffered maximum square footage
of 800,000 square feet of industrial land use. The results of the Capital Facilities Fiscal
Impact Model identify that the build-out of this square footage will generate
$6,034,694.00 in revenues for capital facilities needs in the community. The Capital
Facilities Fiscal Impact Model identifies an impact to fire and rescue services, which has
been further mitigated by the applicants' proffered monetary contribution of $0.01 per
square foot of structural development on the subject site. This monetary proffer would
result in an additional $8,000.00 for fire and rescue services if the proffered maximum
square footage is developed on the subject site. No additional impacts to community
facilities are anticipated by this rezoning application.
9
OVERVIEW
Report Summary
This study considers the traffic impacts associated with the build-out of the
proposed North Stephenson Tract, to be located northeast of the Route 11 & Interstate 81
intersection, in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project will include a total of
800,000 square feet of light industrial development. Full build-out is to occur over single
transportation phase by the year 2015.
Methodology
The traffic impacts accompanying the North Stephenson Tract were obtained
through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document:
· Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of
impact,
· Calculation of trip generation for the proposed North Stephenson Tract,
· Distribution and assignment of the North Stephenson Tract-generated trips onto the
completed roadway network,
· Analysis of capacity and level of service with the newest version of the highway
capacity software, HCS-2000, for existing and future co~ditions.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (pHR+A) conducted manual traffic counts at
the following intersections: 1) Route 11 & SB 1-81 on-ramp/off-ramp; 2) Route 11 & NB 1-
81 off-ramp; and 3) Route 11 & NB 1-81 on-ramp/Redbud Road. Figure 1 shows the
existing ADT (Average Daily Traffic) and AMlPM peak hour traffic volumes at key
locations within the study area. Figure 2 shows the respective existing lane geometry and
AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS-2000 level of service
worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report.
PH&A
A Traffic Impact Analysis of North Stephenson Tract
September 22, 2004
Page 1
!
No Scale
----------------
I
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
'.,.<;
~~%-
'q\~
~\
..,
SITE "~,
I
.
.... .,#'
--.-.-'"
DB
AM "Peak Bour ("pM "Peak Bour)
Existing Traffic Volumes
A Traffic 1Inpact Analysis of North Stephenson Tract
September 22, 2004
Page 2
Prr&^
~
No Scale
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'"",
<8\%
'q~,'?t
~\
".
'h
~
.
.......... ,#'
.......-...
..PI/h..
~"';~e
llthem-.........
Ol"<tg ~~...
.ul"Jo .....
"e",.>..
-rlf)-.'" ...
.. "
~ ""'''' SITE
....
....
",
"'..
!
~
o
ell
'"
Unsignalized
Intersection
AM Peak Hour (pM Peak Hour)
bDenotes Free-Flow Movement
* Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement
Figure 2
Existing Lane Geometry and Level of Service
p~
A Traffic Impact Analysis of North Stephenson Tract
Septernber 22, 2004
Page 3
2015 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
The existing traffic volumes were increased using an historic growth rate of 5% per
year through Year 2010 and 3% per year through Year 2015. Additionally, PHR+A utilized
the report titled: A Traffic Imoact Analvsis of Stephenson Village, by PHR+A, dated February
7, 2003, to incorporate all trips relating to "other developments" located within the vicinity of
the proposed North Stephenson Tract site. Figure 3 shows the 2015 background ADT and
AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area. Figure 4 shows
the respective 2015 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service.
Using the ih Edition ofITE's Trip Generation Reoort, PHR+A has included Table A in
the Appendix to summarize the 2015 "other developments" trip generation. Table B
summarizes the Stephenson Village trip generation results as well as the internal and pass-
by trip reductions. All ReS-2000 level of service worksheets included in the Appendix
section of this report. The following are a list of planned improvements and factors that
impact the 2015 build-out analysis.
1) Residential and retail land uses of Stephenson Village property will enter and
exit the property via a signalized site-driveway (Spine Road) located along
Route 11, opposite Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park.
2) Route 11 will be a four-lane divided facility from the northbound ramps at 1-81
through the intersection at Spine Road.
TRIP GENERATION
PHR+A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site based upon a
total development size of 800,000 square feet of light industrial development. Using the
ih Edition of ITE's Trio Generation Report, Table 1 was prepared to summarize the trip
generation results for the proposed North Stephenson Tract.
Table 1: Proposed North Stephenson Tract
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT
110 Light Industrial 800,000 SF 752 103 855 118 863 98\ 5,874
Total 752 103 855 118 863 981 5,874
PH&A
A Traffic Impact Analysis of North Stephenson Tract
September 22, 2004
Page 4
~
No Scale
ImI
AM Peak Hour (pM Peak Hour)
Figure 3
2015 Background Traffic Volumes
PH&A
A Traffic Impact Analysis of North Stephenson Tract
September 22, 2004
Page 5
~
No Scale
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
,
~
~.,~
'\i.."
~.,
..,
'h
a~
I
!
It:
o
~
CJl
Unsignallzed
Intersettion
AM Peak Hour (pM Peak Hour)
'::=Denotes Free-Flow Movement
* Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement
Figure 4
2015 Background Lane Geometry and Level of Service
PHR:A
A Traffic Impact Analysis of North Stephenson Tract
Septernber22,2004
Page 6
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road network
surrounding the proposed site. Figure 5 represents the 2015 trip distribution percentages
into and out of the North Stephenson Tract. Figure 6 shows the respective development-
generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments along the study area roadway
network.
2015 BUILD-OUT CONDITIONS
The North Stephenson Tract assigned trips (Figure 6) were added to the 2015
background traffic (Figure 3) to obtain 2015 build-out conditions. Figure 7 shows 2015
build-out ADT and AMlPM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study
area. Figure 8 shows the respective 2015 build-out lane geometry and AMlPM peak hour
levels of service. All HCS-2000 level of service worksheets are included in the Appendix
section of this report.
CONCLUSION
The traffic impacts associated with the North Stephenson Tract are acceptable and
manageable. The Spine Road/Route 11 intersection will maintain acceptable levels of
service "D" or better during 2015 build-out conditions.
PH&i\
A Traffic hnpact Analysis of North Stephenson Tract
SepteInber22,2004
Page 7
~
No Scale
~
~
~
o
~
'"
J
"g
:g
...
<<:
661
Figure 5
Trip Distribution Percentages
PH&A
A Traffic Impact Analysis of North Stephenson Tract
September 22, 2004
Page 8
~
No Scale
I!iD
AM Peak Hour (pM Peak Hour)
Figure 6
Development-Generated Trip Assignments
PHRtA
A Traffic Impact Analysis of North Stephenson Tract
September 22, 2004
Page 9
~
No Scale
ImI
AM Peak Hour (pM Peak Hour)
Figure 7
2015 Build-out Traffic Volumes
PH&A
A Traffic Impact Analysis of North Stephenson Tract
September 22, 2004
Page 10
~
No Scale
!
1:6
o
ell
tIl
Unsignalized
Intersection
AM Peak Hour (pM Peak Hour)
~Denotes Free-Flow Movement
* Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement
Figure 8
2015 Build-out Lane Geometry and Level of Service
PH&A
A Traffic Impact Analysis of North Stephenson Tract
September 22, 2004
Page 11
REZONING APPLICATION FORM
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
The following information shall be provided by the applicant:
All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the
Office ofthe Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent
Street, Winchester.
1. Applicant:
Name: Greenway Engineering
Telephone: 662-4185
Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester. VA 22602
2. Property Owner (if different from above)
Name: North Stephenson. Inc.
Telephone: 667-4919
Address: 1800 Martinsburg Pike Winchester. VA 22603
3. Contact person if other than above
Name: Evan Wyatt
Telephone: 662-4185
4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this
application.
Location map
Plat
Deed to Property
Verification of taxes paid
x
X
X
X
Agency Comments
Fees
Impact Analysis Statement
Proffer Statement
X
X
X
X
c~
i~
J I~,!
L_ ___________j
tF;E:i:;E~',:CI< COUUTY
PLp,~'.!i-,::i'i"-; & DE\.:i:Lcrf0ENT
-;
j
5. The Code of Virg:inia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in
relation to rezoning applications.
Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned:
North Stephenson, Inc.: Keven Omps & John Omps
6. A) Current Use of the Property: Truckinl!:: Residential & Al!:ricultural
B) Proposed Use of the Property: Truckinl!: & Lil!:ht Industrial
7. Adjoining Property:
PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING
43-((A))-99 Unimproved B2, B3 & Ml Districts
43-((A))-100 Residential B2 District
43-((A))-147 Unimproved RP District
43-((A))-149 Residential RP District
43-((A))-153 Residential RA District
43-((A))-154 Utility Substation RA District
43-((A))-158 Unimproved RA District
43C-((3))-6 Residential - RP District
43C-((3))-9 Residential RP District
43C-((5))-15 Residential RA District
43-((5))-16 Residential RA District
43C-((5))-17 Residential RA District
44-((A))-26 Unimproved RA District
8. Location: The property is located at (give exact located based on nearest road
and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route number):
The subiect properties front on the east side of Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North),
iust north of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound off-ramp. and immediately east of
Redbud Road (Route 661) in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Information to be Submitted for Canital Facilities Imnact Model
In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for
the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use.
Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario
for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package.
9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 43-((A))-150: 43-
((A))-151: 43-((A))-151A; 43-((A))-152; 43C-((3))-2; 43C-((3))-3; 43C-((3))-4; 43C-
((3))-4A; 43C-((3))-5; 43C-((3))-7 A
Districts
Magisterial:
Fire Service:
Rescue Service:
Stonewall
Clearbrook
Clearbrook
High School:
Middle School:
Elementary School:
James Wood
James Wood
Stonewall
10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category
being requested.
Acres Current Zonin!!; Zonin!!; Requested
79.13 :l: RP & RA District Ml District
79.13 :l: Total Acrea!!;e to be rezoned
11. The following information should be provided according to the type of
rezoning proposed:
Number of Units Proposed
Single Family homes:
Non-Residential Lots:
Townhome:
Mobile Home:
Multi-Family
Hotel Rooms:
Square Footage of Proposed Uses
Office:
Retail:
Restaurant:
Service Station:
Manufacturing:
Warehouse:
Other
800.000 Sq.ft. maximum
structural area for light
industrial and trucking
12. Signature:
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the
Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change
the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County
officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes.
I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be
placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission
public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to
be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing.
I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and
accurate to the bet of my (our) knowledge.
Applicant(s):
f,'i O-.~
Date:
z./zs /0'5
Owner (s):
~.^~~
~~
,-
Date:
~. d e-O~
Date:
?:./ \ L 05
Special Limited Power of Attorney
County of Frederick, Virginia
Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester,
Virginia 22601
Phone 540-665-5651
Facsimile 540-665-6395
Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We)
(Name) North Stephenson. Inc.. Keven amps & John amps (Phone) (540) 667-4919
(Address) 1800 Martinsburg Pike Winchester. VA 22603
the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property') conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by
Instrument No. Refer to Attached Property List on Page ~ and is described as
Parcel: Refer to Attached Property List Lot:
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
Block:
Section:
Subdivision:
(Name) Greenwav Engineering
(Phone) (540) 662-4185
(Address) 151 Windv Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602
To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and
authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above lIlscribed
Property, including:
[2J Rezoning (Including proffers)
o Conditional Use Permits
o Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final)
o Subdivision
o Site Plan
My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to
previously approved proffered conditions except as follows:
This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until itis otherwise rescinded or
modified.
have heret~:et~ ~o:r) hand and seal this \~... day o~ 200~
e~\C..~
State of Virginia, City/County of_, TO-WIt:
~NOtary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s)
or o' gins ent. and ~ho. I \ar9 known t~ me: personally appeflr-efr-be~r-ei11e-~d.- r---- -- -c;---
ame me m the JunsdlctlOn aforesaId thIS \!<.. day ofrw.~ 200 $f: . o:i I 0
'l i; _ ~_ .~::-- :::J_ .~L __._ ::J
I'l My Commission Expires: .3"u.\~'"Q'..1 dDDl
'-i \ I J
: il I. 'J
11 !!, J
I~ c'
I
S ignature( s)
',~< 'JUU',l
_ PLA>J.~::,jC;1 i1, Dt'~~El_GPiViEj\JT
North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning - Adjoining Property
Parcel JD Number Use Zoninf?
43-((A))-99 Undeveloped B2, B3, Ml
43-((A))-lOO Residential B2
43-((A))-147 Undeveloped RP
43-((A))-149 Residential RP
43-((A))-153 Residential RA
43-((A))-154 Public RA
43-((A))-158 Undeveloped RA
43C-((3))-6 Residential RP
43C-((3))-9 Residential RP
43C-((5))-15 Residential RA
43C-((5))-16 Residential RA
43-((5))-17 Residential RA
44-((A))-26 Undeveloped RA
File #3485/EA W
o
/ 1 OOO--~ 0
''''''''-.. I '
"
~
----..-
North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning - Location Map
1.". 43-A-1,2
l.~. 4;.-A-'5'
..,
~~ ~:-<
./ " ;::
.. ,. . .
",,,,
.. I 4-
W" ':' I
1+ :II U;t;,
" ~ - ;:
T.M. 43-A-151
T.M. 43-.40- 150
0
~~:~n;:~b1~~Q~~e
-" ~
;;;
z
9
'"
:o~
"'z
n'"
~g
~~
~o
"',.
g~
-z
z~
"'0
'"
;;Jl'
'"' "'~
~6
Cl ",z
Cl n",
~ I
~ 8~
CZ
r- ~Ui
'" ,,~
Cl v;l(\
00
~ ~~
~~
;::~
I 'Z'~
llJ '"'1!1
0 ,.,
Cl
I
~ 5 ~ M ~
0
~ ~ ~
z "
0 ~
" 0 0
- g ~ -. ~
~ ~ g
. ~
.
, o.
~
'"
~~
0'"
-I>-.~
",.
"''''
,'"
"
~~~~~~~rrrrrr~rrrrrrrrr
~~~~~~;~~~~~o~~~~~~~~-~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'" '" ~
~
~~,,~ '"
'" ~'9~
,~+
$;
837.0318'
S 52',05" E
~
"
~
"
.
'"
"
I
'"
I
~
~
520,2792'
S 52'51'37" E
...
...
REZONING PLAT EXHIBIT
COMPOSITE PUT OF THE LAND OF
NORTH STEPHENSON
-$-~~I1~n~
,.....,id ... "rl 1Jlnehli!!rter, Yil'llnla Z2e02
!:n.ineera Tel.phone 540-662-4185
SUI"IIl!!)'Or.!l rAX S40-7Ze-B5Z8
STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665.5651
FAX: 540/665.6395
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director{~
Public Hearing - Renewal of the 2005-2010 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
April 21, 2005
Frederick County currently has three Agricultural and Forestal Districts: the South Frederick
(166 parcels totaling 11,451 acres); the Double Church Road (37 parcels totaling 1,524 acres);
and the Refuge Church Road (15 parcels totaling 468 acres). Established in 1980, the South
Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District has been renewed four times, most recently in May
2000. Both the Double Church Road and Refuge Church Road Districts were established in 1995
and renewed in 2000. As the districts are established and adopted for a five-year time frame, the
districts must be reconsidered and renewed by May 2005. The Board of Supervisors has
scheduled a public hearing to consider the 2005 renewal of the districts on April 26, 2005.
The Code of Virginia, SI5.2-4300, enables local governments to establish Agricultural and
Forestal Districts to conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands for the production of food
and other agricultural products and to provide natural and ecological resources. The Code of
Virginia requires the local governing body to establish an Agricultural District Advisory
Committee (ADAC) for the purpose of reviewing proposals that establish or renew districts to
ensure conformity with the provisions of SI5.2-4300. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors
approves, approves with modifications, or denies the proposal to establish or renew a district.
In working with Extension Services, staff has circulated Agricultural and Forestal District
renewal forms to the property owners presently participating in the County's three districts. In
addition, these forms were made available to property owners who were interested in joining a
district, even though they may not have previously been included. These forms are important
aspects of the Agricultural and Forestal District Program: the program is voluntary.
The Code of Virginia states that the properties within a district must meet various qualifications,
two of which involve the size of the core area of a district (200 contiguous acres) and a distance
factor (all properties must be within one mile of the district's core area). Based on these
qualifiers, it has been determined that the Refuge Church Road District no longer qualifies as an
Agricultural and Forestal District. Both the South Frederick and the Double Church Road
Agricultural and Forestal Districts do qualify for renewal. The district renewals include: 122
parcels totaling 6,053Y2 acres in the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District; and 25
parcels totaling 924Yz acres in the Double Church Road Agricultural and Forestal District.
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 . Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Page 2
Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Re: 2005-2010 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
April 21, 2005
Since the County's Agricultural and Forestal Districts were initially established in 1980, the
number of properties participating in the district has either increased or remained constant.
However, this year we have seen a dramatic decrease in the number of properties that have either
renewed their participation or new properties seeking inclusion into the districts. The dramatic
decrease in participation may be associated with the current Rural Areas (RA) Land Use Study;
this study has not been completed. It is anticipated that this ongoing study could account for
some of the low participation in the renewel process. Since the current districts are slated to
achieve their five-year maturity and will expire if not renewed by May, the County is moving
forward with this process. However, once the RA Study is completed, the County will offer
property owners another opportunity to participate in the Agricultural and Forestal District
Program, as a late addition.
The Agricultural District Advisory Committee considered these district renewals during their
March 29, 2005, meeting and has forwarded a recommendation for approval. The Planning
Commission considered this renewal on April 20, 2005, and following a public hearing, has
forwarded a recommendation of approval.
Following a public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Board of Supervisors to act on
this renewal request.
Attached is the pertinent information detailing the proposed membership in the renewal districts.
ERL/rsa
Attachments
2005-2010 South Frederick Agricultural & Forestal District
Map Number Owner Information Acreage District
52 A 300 DTS, LC 305.43 South Frederick
60 A 73B FAWCETT, ROBERT L 18.87 South Frederick
60 A 75 TRIPLE S ASSOCIATES 39.03 South Frederick
61 A 7 SNAPP, R ROLAND & ELIZABETH A 109.51 South Frederick
61 A 8 SNAPP, R ROLAND 5.00 South Frederick
61 A 8A SNAPP, R ROLAND 5.00 South Frederick
61 A 9 SNAPP, R ROLAND 97.00 South Frederick
61 A 21 BHS, LC 34.00 South Frederick
61 A 22 WRIGHT, VERNON C & EULA H 89.48 South Frederick
61 A 23 BHS, LC 154.75 South Frederick
61 A 23A BHS, LC 1.00 South Frederick
61 A 24 BHS, LC 20.16 South Frederick
61 A 25 BHS, LC 5.50 South Frederick
61 A 26 BHS, LC 4.50 South Frederick
61 A 27 BHS, LC 4.00 South Frederick
61 A 29 BHS, LC 1.25 South Frederick
61 A 30 WOODBINE FARMS, INC. 44.00 South Frederick
61 A 31 NELSON, LINDA K 52.32 South Frederick
61 A 34 WOODBINE FARMS, INC. 14.00 South Frederick
61 A 37 WOODBINE FARMS, INC. 11.60 South Frederick
61 A 40 SNAPP, R ROLAND & ELIZABETH A 28.00 South Frederick
61 A 41 SNAPP, R ROLAND 42.00 South Frederick
61 A 43 SNAPP, R. WAYNE ET ALS 7.50 South Frederick
61 A 43A SNAPP, R. WAYNE ETALS 37.50 South Frederick
61 A 43B SNAPP, R. WAYNE ET ALS 10.00 South Frederick
61 A 43E MELBY, ROBERT J & CAROLJ 1.00 South Frederick
61 A 44 SNAPP, R ROLAND 2.00 South Frederick
61 A 45 FAWCETT, THOMAS L 35.99 South Frederick
61 A 96 M & M LP, LLP 170.95 South Frederick
61 A 106 M & M LP, LLP 42.00 South Frederick
61 A 107 M & M LP, LLP 19.00 South Frederick
61 A 116 M & M LP, LLP 44.76 South Frederick
61 A 117 M & M LP, LLP 29.00 South Frederick
61 A 118 M & M LP, LLP 77.50 South Frederick
61 A 119 M & M LP, LLP 16.00 South Frederick
61 A 120 M & M LP, LLP 9.92 South Frederick
61 A 126 M & M LP, LLP 11.00 South Frederick
61 A 127 M & M LP, LLP 166.62 South Frederick
61 A 128 WOODBINE FARMS, INC. 137.50 South Frederick
61 A 129 WOODBINE FARMS, INC. 48.00 South Frederick
61 A 130 WOODBINE FARMS, INC. 30.00 South Frederick
61 A 131 WOODBINE FARMS, INC. 7.75 South Frederick
62 A 21 DAVIDSON, BRUCE R JR & KELLlE JEAN 9.15 South Frederick
Map Number Owner Information Acreage District
62 A 21A HUMPHREYS, JAMES C & SUESAN E 5.00 South Frederick
62 A 22 GROUNDWATER, ROBERT B & MARY SUE 10.54 South Frederick
62 A 27 COPENHAVER, EDWARD C, DECEASED 1.00 South Frederick
62 A 28 COPENHAVER, EDWARD C, DECEASED 76.37 South Frederick
62 A 57A MELCO, INC 46.48 South Frederick
62E 1 2 VICKERS, JAMES T. 6.14 South Frederick
62E 1 5 VICKERS, JAMES T. 5.11 South Frederick
62E 1 3 14 GOSA, JAMES J. & PATRICIA R. 5.41 South Frederick
62E 15 23 ENGELAGE, JAMES ROLAND & MARCIA E 5.00 South Frederick
62E 16 25 NERANGIS, NICHOLAS J & KATHLEEN B 5.01 South Frederick
62E 16 26 NERANGIS, NICHOLAS J & KATHLEEN B 10.00 South Frederick
62E 16 27 NERANGIS, NICHOLAS J & KATHLEEN B 5.10 South Frederick
72 A 29L STOUT, JEFFREY T 15.85 South Frederick
72 A 45 DOGWOOD KNOLL, LC 5.25 South Frederick
72 A 53 MCDONALD, ALBERT A & SYLVIA 197.00 South Frederick
72 A 58 BAUGHMAN, VASILlKI K 168.50 South Frederick
72 A 59 BAUGHMAN, VASIUKI K 20.00 South Frederick
72 A 82 MEAGHER, CONSTANCE M 12.00 South Frederick
72 A 83 MEAGHER, CONSTANCE M 0.50 South Frederick
73 A 3 V PI & STATE UNIVERSITY 119.78 South Frederick
73 A 4 DOGWOOD KNOLL, LLC 50.00 South Frederick
73 A 10 BHS, LC 190.80 South Frederick
73 A 10A FRUIT HILL ORCHARD, INC. 5.00 south Frederick
73 A 13 SNAPP, ALFRED L. & SON, INC. 84.69 South Frederick
73 A 16 KSS, LC 134.21 South Frederick
73 A 17 KSS, LC 160.00 South Frederick
73 A 18 BAUSERMAN, CHARLES C 135.93 South Frederick
73 A 20 BAUSERMAN, CHARLES C 234.43 South Frederick
73 A 21 WOODBINE FARMS, INCORPORATED 271.00 South Frederick
73 A 27 RIDINGS, L VERNON RESIDUAL TRUST 4.00 South Frederick
73 A 29 RIDINGS, RUBY 46.57 South Frederick
73 A 30 RINKER, DUDLEY H. 4.83 South Frederick
73 A 30A NOFFKE, KENTON L & KATHY C 1.71 South Frederick
73 A 30B ANDERSON, SHIRLEY K 5.95 South Frederick
73 A 30E RINKER, DUDLEY H. 1.01 South Frederick
73 A 30H SWACK, JOSEPH J. & PHYLLIS S. 6.15 South Frederick
73 A 30H SWACK, JOSEPH J. & PHYLLIS S. 6.15 South Frederick
73 A 301 RINKER, DUDLEY H. 6.43 South Frederick
73 A 31 WOODBINE FARMS, INC. 83.62 South Frederick
73 A 34 HAMIL TON, CHARLES A. 4.80 South Frederick
73 A 38 ORNDORFF, MARK A & ROXANNA M 3.57 South Frederick
73 A 39 CARBAUGH, DAVID HENRY 11.90 South Frederick
73 A 63 BHS, LC 240.17 South Frederick
73 A 64A DILLENDER, HOLLY B & SAMUEL C JR 2.32 South Frederick
73 A 66 WOODBINE FARMS, INC. 280.01 South Frederick
73 A 67 WOODBINE FARMS, INC. 23.00 South Frederick
73 A 90B ANDERSON, DANIEL W & SANDRA K 7.92 South Frederick
73 A 94 RIDINGS, L VERNON RESIDUAL TRUST 12.35 South Frederick
Map Number Owner Information Acreage District
73 A 100 ANDERSON, PAUL G JR & MARY EDNA 100.00 South Frederick
73 A 101 BAUSERMAN, STANLEY L 69.00 South Frederick
73 A 103 HUEY, JAMES a. JR. & JO ELLEN 24.40 South Frederick
73 A 104 WINCHESTER WAREHOUSING, INC 103.85 South Frederick
73 12 11 MURPHY, CHARLES R & VICKY 0 2.86 South Frederick
73 12 13 SIMPSON, MILDRED S 4.91 South Frederick
73 12 15 KIM SUE CORP & H B 10.74 South Frederick
73 12 16 SIMPSON, JOHN I 59.88 South Frederick
73 12 23 HLAVINKA, DAVID D & PATRICIA E 2.98 South Frederick
VANLANDINGHAM, A RENEAU JR &
73 12 26 PAMELA 2.29 South Frederick
74 A 12 BARLEY, GLENN & MARY K. 9.00 South Frederick
74 A 14 HUMPHRIES, CHERYL W 2.00 South Frederick
74 A 15 WHITNEY, PHILIP B 3.00 South Frederick
74 A 15A HUMPHRIES, CHERYL W. 1.23 South Frederick
74 A 15B WHITNEY, PHILIP B 32.77 South Frederick
74 A 18 WINCHESTER WAREHOUSING, INC 1 09.14 South Frederick
74 A 18A WINCHESTER WAREHOUSING, INC 80.00 South Frederick
74 A 18B WINCHESTER WAREHOUSING, INC 58.39 South Frederick
83 A 87 REZIN, JEFFREY L & SHARON K 20.57 South Frederick
83 A 100 HUFFMAN, WINSTON D & ELIZABETH G 14.66 South Frederick
84 A 2 MEAGHER, CONSTANCE M 66.50 South Frederick
84 A 6 MEAGHER, CONSTANCE M 60.00 South Frederick
84 A 29 WOODBINE FARMS, INCORPORATED 106.46 South Frederick
84 A 40 SNAPP, ALFRED L & SON, INC. 69.30 South Frederick
84 A 40A SNAPP, ALFRED L. JR. & BETTY V. 46.00 South Frederick
84 A 41 REDMILES, DONALD R & STELLA M 6.00 South Frederick
84 A 42A RAMEY, WADE A & ANGELA I 6.00 South Frederick
84 A 44 RIDINGS, L VERNON RESIDUAL TRUST 51.95 South Frederick
84 A 50 WOODBINE FARMS, INCORPORATED 197.00 South Frederick
2005-2010 Double Church Agricultural & Forestal District
Map Number Owner Information Acreage District
85 A 1 NATIONAL FRUIT ORCHARDS, INC 122.29 Double Church
85 A 25 CLEM, FRED E. & ELOISE L 0.50 Double Church
85 A 33 JUDD, JESSIE F 0.37 Double Church
85 A 125 RITENOUR FARM L.P. 125.00 Double Church
85 A 130 RITENOUR FARM L.P. 55.00 Double Church
85 A 131 RITENOUR FARM L.P. 178.67 Double Church
85 A 131A STELZL, BETTY R 24.74 Double Church
85 A 132 RITENOUR, SANDRA R 3.67 Double Church
85 A 139 SCOTHORN, GARY L & STEPHEN P 103.60 Double Church
86 A 27 RITENOUR, ARTHUR B. JR. 10.50 Double Church
86 A 32 MADAGAN, STUART M TRUSTEE 74.53 Double Church
86 A 35 FAIRVIEW-SPRINGHILL FARMS 105.39 Double Church
86 A 70 WYMER, KENNETH E. 28.98 Double Church
86 A 72B WYMER, KENNETH E.& 10.21 Double Church
86 A 230A GORE, JEFFERY M & JOSEPH F 0.97 Double Church
86 A 230B GORE, JEFFREY M 21.03 Double Church
86 A 231 GORE, FRED B ET ALS 2.50 Double Church
86 A 241 COPP, KARL R. 10.59 Double Church
86 A 242 IRELAND, WILLIAM H. 3.00 Double Church
86 A 245 BOOTH, JOHN H. & VIRGINIA G. 0.50 Double Church
86 A 264 RITENOUR, ARTHUR B. JR. 0.50 Double Church
86 A 264A RITENOUR, ARTHUR B. JR. 0.53 Double Church
86B 5 1 1 DALE, DENNIS M. & MARTHA S. 1.00 Double Church
93 A 23 CONNER, RAYMOND E. 32.00 Double Church
~
,J
~
'r-
, ~~~~f91!J.--.:lflil ~f': Lit ~ ~~Q:
~?Jlg~~O,Fre~r~~~Co.~pnjy~ \ ~
",,0~gn~~~urat &iF:ore~I!!!~nc~s.v';r?; V ~
/~ ~~v ~ '
~ ~~ 7~"
~~ ...<, ~.J~~ ~ '.&.
,~ ~ /ii:;;;;..iE:<::il;'
"-fY'S ~""< '/:'~,,' ~, " "'>-.
,/, A ~~ ^ ft~C!'
)..' Y'" " ~~ JJ-;. ~ ". V /-
I~~ ~ 'N~l ~ ~~~
..:;f'>lo '1-^~. f . ',/,;." jJi ~ L
[..?" X>' '\ ( x.... U ~ .\ \
I~b' ~~ ~, ~~ J 1\
I~~ ~^ ' .~ ~ .~~ ~D
~'N" .../,
^ 0, ~~~" - ~~~ v- ~
/; <Jflll1/,'~ J y' '/, ~ (
1QIY[ ~. g;;",~~ -~ A'11~'" ~ ~
I_,~t.,~ (.r J) fl~. y JIY ~ '~~
U~\ .4: tc I ~il ~lS' ~_
/) ~ (~ .Q, ~~, ~
~..; ~ (J;' st' <) r:....~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ^ /1 t> "-' ~-T :>>-. ~ /
~ "~~ ,JI &.rl", ~,7 ? ~
~ ~ ~ S>< ~- ~ ;> -,./r-L. ?1Jr
~~~' 1/ ~'1<7 (..,. o/-)r:.. ~
,~ C>~ / A 7J- -.6 ~ 1/ '-a/J.6Yl ~
'-6 ("~ X r ~~ '~ '"" J ~ ~ ..,; ~}1
t~~"N ~ ~~0~ '\ ~y~""~
~ 'i " Vi <i A~~~1b ~~ ~~ r^
> ~ - ..../" ()' 1'--.... '>- ~
~ . ~& <> dih~ ~ r-i
~~~~~'o~(!rr
N ~([Q~~-~~
: \... "'W .&. E _ South Frederick District
W "~.2..5 1 1.5 2 2.5 _ Doub~ Ch,"" DI,lrict
S - - .Miles
I"
1,.1
~
~~
~F M.~ y~ L:.L 1 1/ ~ ~ .., )d ),~~
~~9.'PP~I,!,s~~.o.! ~~~ to~~I;,~Jiii~., <<
~gncul~{al &'F.orestral Dlstru~~~ ~
A ~ ~.
""IY.. ~~
.'<( ~~
k ) ~~-7~
~~'><'l ~ ~) ~
I~ ~~..., ~ ~'
i .l~ ^~
Iii' .....::---.... ~
).,. ~~IJ'f!::--. ~ ~!:i'" flJ ~ . ,
\\~ ~ 1'7'~~ . ()j, ~
~ ~~~^/t1 ~ < ~ ,~
tlf T- "\/){/)..
~ ~ K/~)}'~
~~~
.-1/ ~ ;:.
~V:~
~ (~
v
v
~, .
~") ~i!:
~
~
"-
~~ w
M"
o ~
~ I(~~ l~.
M~~ ~
'~ ~~
.~ ~ ~~
Y..l~ ~
~ ':ll: ::} ~'~ y L:JT \!7' ",- '<<:
x .- ,,~ W./
~ lr~ / ~
~ ~ (
~ V.ro...
'-~Ir _~,~ ~T~
h IP~ A'i '\ 'f'\
rl~~ 0-\
~ :J
/:S ~b --'
:::t"., ......
,~':-1. ~
;(,~~. 7f~,:.:(!g -.(,j, ,
r-:-~ F1!~'^- .J;A, I )
~ ~.:--r"J ~ ~
" ,~..Jr1'o;l.iO 1),1; YlZ.~~
~~~ .i ~ ~ Pff
K!~ ~ .'~~
I /A'JL ' 1/ ~v1~
ff'.<J I' h--<;<;..J ~ t'N~1 ..,; ~j (
p .~~ J~' ~~~j~~
~.{! ;"j~t9 ~m ~..~' V'
~ b;:~W;: al'.
~~ ~ <> ~~~.~
, ~~~~~/.~ ~~~ 1- ~~ .
y 'WI ~v ~
~y :([Q ~\/ _2005-2010A&FDistricts
_ Double Church
_ Refuge Church
_ South Frederick
\(
'!J1j
~
I
.
"
.
.~<;~
~~ ~-~
f.~~ f[
~ '\I" '/"t
N
'W+E
S
--
1 1,5 2 2.5
,Miles
00.26,5
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
From: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director6~
Subject: Public Hearing: Amendment to Section 165-63C Regarding Open Space Requirements in the RP
(Residential Performance) District
Date: April 12, 2005
Staff has been approached by Greenway Engineering to consider clarifications or reductions in the required open
space in larger residential mixed-use projects. After discussions with Greeenway to better understand their
concern, an ordinance proposal was drafted that achieved their goals while providing additional recreational
amenities to the future residents of the project.
This proposal has been reviewed and discussed by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
At the Board's January 26, 2005 meeting, the Board directed staff to schedule this proposed amendment for
consideration during the public hearing process.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item at their meeting of April 6, 2005. A concern was
raised about the potential for this amendment to increase management and operational costs for the homeowners
associations that will be responsible for maintaining the amenities provided in open spaces. However, the
Commission supported the amendment because of the flexibility it would provide the development community in
designing open space areas. There were no public comments. The Planning Commission unanimously
recommended approval of the adoption of the proposed amendment. (Commissioner Watt was absent from the
meeting.)
This item has been scheduled as a public hearing item for the Board. The proposed ordinance is attached.
Ordinance Amendment History
The Frederick County Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at its meeting on September
23,2004, discussed revisions to the Open Space requirements within the RP (Residential Performance) District.
The forwarded amendment would provide an opportunity for the property owner/land design team to reduce the
required open space by 50 percent, if significant recreational amenities are provided for a development project.
The gross density requirements required by Section 165-62 and 62.1 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance
will not change as a result of this proposed ordinance amendment.
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 . Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Page 2
Frederick Co. Board of Supervisors
Re: Ordinance Amendment - Open Space Requirements
Apri112, 2005
The Planning Commission discussed this amendment at its meeting of October 6, 2004 and was in favor of the
amendment as presented. This proposed ordinance amendment was presented to the Board of Supervisors as a
discussion item on October 12,2004. After extensive discussions, the Board directed that a work session be
arranged to continue this review and discussion of the proposed amendment.
During a Board of Supervisors work session on December 8, 2004, the proposed open space concept
received favorable support, although a nwnber of issues warranted further research and discussion.
The Board reviewed the proposed ordinance on January 26, 2005; directed staff to advertise for public
hearing.
Recent Ordinance Amendment Revisions
In response to the concerns raised during the Board of Supervisors discussions, the draft ordinance has been
revised. The revisions include:
The addition of a required Board of Supervisors action to implement the reduced open space. As drafted,
the Planning Commission would review and forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors
regarding the open space waiver request. This open space reduction would be shown on the master
development plan;
Establishment of open space quality criteria to be considered with the waiver request;
Establish a maximwn reduction of the required open space. For single family detached units (excluding
single family small lots), the maximwn reduction would be 50 percent. For all other residential housing
types, the maximwn reduction would be 25 percent; and,
Increase the recreational unit multiplier from three units to four recreational units per each 30 dwelling
units.
The current value of a recreational unit is $25,000, as determined by the Department of Parks and Recreation.
This figure is revisited annually to reflect inflation.
Attached is the: (1) proposed ordinance [dated January 13, 2005]; (2) existing ordinance language [Section
165-63]; and (3) scenarios of application of the proposed ordinance amendment.
Staff will be available to respond to your questions.
ERL/rsa
Attachments
Revised January 13, 2005
OPEN SPACE TEXT AMENDMENT
-Proposal-
.
JL
165-63 Open Space Requirements
165-63D
The minimum required open space percentages provided in Section 165-63A of this Chapter may be
reduced for residential developments which provide for active recreational areas and amenities, upon
the granting of an open space waiver issued by the Board of Supervisors. In no case shall the
required open space (per Section 165-63A) be reduced more than 50 percent for single family
detached housing types (excluding single family small lot), and no more than 25 percent for all other
residential housing types and mixtures. Active recreational areas and amenities shall be incorporated
within the development's common open space, and be for the use of and maintained by the subject
development's Property Owner's Association. The active recreational area and amenity value shall
be equivalent to the value of four recreational units for each 30 dwelling units. The active
recreational area and amenity value and design shall be approved by the Subdivision Administrator
in conjunction with the Director of Parks and Recreation. These open space active recreational areas
and amenities shall be in addition to the recreational facilities identified in Section 165-64. The gross
density requirements as required in Section 165-62 & 62.1 shall not be exceeded through the
reduction of common open space.
Requests for an open space reduction waiver would be considered by the Board of Supervisors
during the master development plan process. Acceptance of the reduced open space request will be
based on the quality of the open space and the recreational amenities provided.
144-2 & 165-156 Definitions
COMMON OPEN SPACE - Land that is used for recreational purposes, environmental resource
protection, buffer areas, stormwater management areas and passive areas that are dedicated to the
residents of a development for use and maintenance, and is protected to ensure that it remains in such uses, unless utilized under the provisions of Section 165-63A of this Chapter.
S 165-62
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
S 165-63
S 165-62. Gross density. [Amended 5-11-1994]
A gross density shall be established for each proposed development.
including all land contained within a single master development plan, according
to the cha-racteristics of the land, the capacity of public facilities and roads and
the nature of surrounding uses. Because of these characteristics, some
developments may not be allowed to employ the maximum density allowed by
these regulations. The following density requirements shall apply to all parcels
as they exist at the time of the adoption of this section:
A. Subsequent divisions of land shall not increase the allowed density on
parcels of land.
B. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an
approved master development plan exceed 10 dwellings per acre.
C. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an
approved master development plan which contains more than 10
acres and less than 100 acres exceed 5.5 dwellings per acre.
D. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an
approved master development plan which contains more than 100
acres exceed four dwellings per acre.
S 165-62.1. Multifamily housing. [Added 5-11-1994]
A. Developments that are less than 25 acres in size may include more
than 50% multifamily housing types.
B. Developments that are more than 25 acres and less than 50 acres in
size shall be permitted to contain up to 50% multifamily housing
types.
C. Developments that are over 50 acres in size shall be permitted to
contain up to 40% multifamily housing types.
C UR.R.E.r-1\ l:)~:O"JANC.E.
-. S 165-63. Open space requirements.
A. [Amended 6-8-1994] A minimum percentage of the gross area of any
proposed development shall be designated as common open space.
This open space shall be for purposes of environmental protection and
for the common use of residents of the development. Such open
space shall be dedicated to a property owners association or to
16582
12-15-2004
S 165-63
ZONING
S 165-63
Frederick County. Open space shall be dedicated to Frederick County
only with the approval of the Board of Supervisors. The Planning
Commission may allow public libraries and public schools to be located
within areas designated as common open space, provided that the
proposed facilities are indicated on the original master development
plan for the residential development. During the review of the master
development plan, the Planning Commission shall ensure that the
location of a proposed public library or public school is appropriate and
that adequate buffers, screening and access are provided to prevent
negative impacts to adjoining residential uses. Public libraries and
public schools shall be dedicated to Frederick County. Developments
which contain any of the following housing types shall provide open
space as specified below:
Type of
Development
Developments containing only
single-family detached
traditional or traditional
rural housing
Minimum Required
Open Space
(percent)
o
(Cont'd on page 16583)
16582.1
12-15-2004
3165-63
ZONING
3 165-63
Type of
Development
Developments containing only
single-family detached urban
housing
Developments in which no less
than 60% of the dwellings are
single-family detached
traditional housing mixed with
any other housing types
Developments containing only
single-family detached cluster
or a mixture of single-family
detached cluster and urban
housing
Single-family small lot housing
[Added 10-27-1999]
All other developments
Minimum Required
Open Space
(percent)
15%
15%
25%
30%
30%
B. No more than 50% of the required open space shall be within the
following environmental areas: lakes and ponds, wetlands or steep
slopes. The Administrator, upon recommendation by the Planning
Commission, may allow a larger amount of steep slopes to be utilized
where the developer can demonstrate a viable plan to make these
areas useful.
C. In developments containing only single-family detached urban housing
or single-family detached urban housing mixed with single-family
detached traditional housing, the required open space may be waived.
The open space requirement shall only be waived when the required
open space is less than one acre. Such waivers shall be granted by the
Administrator, upon recommendation by the Planning Commission.
Such waiver shall not include open space provided to meet
environmental requirements.
~ Abb
~ I ~S" - " ~ D
16583
12-15-99
Scenarios
January 27,2005
ADDlication of ProDosed ODen SDace Amendment
A property owner has the ability to determine if he/she desires to develop the subject property with
the required minimum amount of open space or under the provisions of the proposed text
amendment. The following scenarios describe how the current requirements and proposed text
amendment would be applied if this option was selected by the property owner.
Scenario 1
100 Acre Site - All SiUl!le Familv Dwellines - 12.000 SQ.ft. Lots
Current Requirement: The property owner could develop 85 acres (which includes roads) and place
15 acres in common open space (which includes environmental areas, buffer areas and stormwater
management areas). Generally speaking, the property would yield 2.3 units per acre (or 195
residential lots) unless there were topographic constraints that further reduced density yield. There
would not be an active recreational areas and amenities requirement.
;.. Overall gross density 1.95 units/acres
Proposed Requirement: The property owner could reduce the 15 acres of common open space by 5 Q._
percent, to 7 Yz acres. This acreage could then be developed into residential lots (which includes
roads), which provides for additional density yield and requires the property owner to provide for
active recreational areas and amenities. Assuming that the property owner reduced the open space to
7 Yz acres, the property owner could develop 92 Yz acres (which includes roads). Assuming the
same 2.3 unit-per-acre yield, the property would yield 212 residential lots. This would then require
the following value to be provided for active recreational areas and amenities:
. 212 10ts/30 = 7.1
. 7.1 x 4 = 28.4 recreational units
. 28.4 x $25,000.00 (one recreational unit value) = $ 710,000.00
. Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $ 710,000.00
In this scenario, the property owner would yield 17 additional residential lots and would need to
provide for a $ 710,000.00 value of Active Recreational Area and Amenity within all of, or a portion
of, the 7 1/2 acres of common open space. Approximately $3,500 per residential unit.
;.. Overall gross density 2.13 units/acres
Scenario 2
200 Acre Site - Mixed Residential Use
Current Requirement: The property owner could develop 140 acres (which includes roads and
parking lot areas) and place 60 acres in common open space (which includes environmental areas,
buffer areas, recreational areas and stormwater management areas). A reasonable mixed residential
project could incorporate the following residential mix:
60 acres Single Family Dwellings = 138 units
20 acres Townhomes = 110 units
20 acres Duplex = 88 units
30 acres Apartmems= 220 units
Total Units = 556
;.. Overall gross density 2.78 units/acres
This proposal would require the property owner to provide 1 recreational unit for every 30 dwelling
units that are on lot sizes of5,000 square feet or less (existing Section 165-64 Recreation Facilities) ;
therefore, this would include the townhome, duplex and apartment units (418 total units). This
would then require the following value to be provided for active recreational areas and amenities:
. 4181ots/30 = 13.9 recreational units
-. 13.9 recreational units x $25,000 (one recreational unit vallle)= $347,500.00
. Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $347,500.00
Proposed Requirement: The property owner could reduce the 60 acres of common open space and
develop this acreage into residential lots (which includes roads and parking lot areas), which
provides for additional density yield and requires the property owner to provide for a greater value of
active recreational areas and amenities. Assuming that the property owner reduced the open space to
45 acres, the property owner could develop 155 acres (which includes roads and parking lot areas).
This additional acreage could then be incorporated into the residential land bays identified above to
create the following residential mix:
70 acres Single Family Dwellings == 161 units
30 acres Townhomes = 164 units
25 acres Duplex == 110 units
30 acres Apartments = 220 units
Total Units = 655
;.. Overall gross density 3.3 units/acres
This proposal would require the property owner to provide the value of 4 recreational units for every
30 dwellings for the entire project regardless oflot size. This would then require the following value
to be provided for active recreational areas and amenities:
. 655 lots/30 == 21.8
. 21.8 x 4 = 87.2 recreational units
. 87.2 recreational units x $25,000 (one recreational unit value) = $2,180,000.00
. Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value == $2,180,000.00
In addition, the development would continue to be required to provide the Recreation Facilities per
existing Section 165-64.
Townhomes = 164 units
Duplex == 110 units
Apartments == 220 units
Total Units == 494 lots less than 5,000 square feet
. 49410ts/30 == 16.5 recreational units
. 16.5 recreational units x $25,000 (one recreational unit value) == $412,500.00
. Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value == $412,500.00
In this scenario, the property owner would yield 99 additional mixed residential units and would
need to provide for a $2,592,500.00 value of Active Recreational Area and Amenity within all of, or
a portion of, the 45 acres of common open space. This increases the cost of the recreational
amenities by $2,245,000.00 over the current requirement. Approximately $4,000 per residential
unit.
Scenario 3
50 Acre Site - Mixed Residential Use
Current Requirement: The property owner could develop 35 acres (which includes roads and
parking lot areas) and place 15 acres in common open space (which includes environmental areas,
buffer areas, recreational areas and stormwater management areas). A reasonable mixed residential
mixed yield could incorporate the following residential mix:
25 acres Single Family Dwellings = 58 units
10 acres Townhomes = 55 units
Total Units = 113
This proposal would require the property owner to provide 1 recreational unit for every 30 dwellings
units that are on lot sizes of 5,000 square feet or less (existing Section 165-64 Recreation Facilities);
therefore, this would include the townhouses. This would then require the following value to be
provided for active recreational areas and amenities:
. 55 10ts/30 = 1.8 recreational units
. 1.8 recreational units x $25,000 (one recreational unit value) = $45,000.00
. Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $45,000.00
)> Overall gross density 2.26 units/acres
Proposed Requirement: The property owner could reduce the 15 acres of common open space by 25
percent and develop this acreage into residential lots (which includes roads and parking lot areas),
which provides for additional density yield and requires the property owner to provide for a greater
value of active recreational areas and amenities. Assuming that the property owner reduced the open
space to 11 Yt acres, the property owner could develop 38 % acres (which includes roads and
parking lot areas). This additional acreage could then be incorporated into the residential land bays
identified above to create the following residential mix:
26.6 acres Single Family Dwellings = 68 units
12.18 acres Townhomes = 67 units
Total Units = 135
)> Overall gross density 2.74 units/acres
This proposal would require the property owner to provide the value of 4 recreational units for every
30 dwellings for the entire project regardless oflot size. This would then require the following value
to be provided for active recreational areas and amenities:
. 135 lots/30 = 4.5
. 4.5 x 4 = 18 recreational units
. 18 recreational units x $25,000 (one recreational unit value) = $450,000.00
. Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $450,000.00
In addition, the development would continue to be required to provide the Recreation Facilities per
existing Section 165-64.
Townhomes = 67 units
Total Units = 67 67 lots less than 5,000 square feet
. 67 lots/30 = 2.2 recreational units
. 2.2 recreational units x $25,000 (one recreational unit value) = $55,000.00
. Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $55,000.00
In this scenario, the property owner would yield 22 additional mixed residential units and would
need to provide for a $505,000.00 value of Active Recreational Area and Amenity within all of, or a
portion of, the 11 ~ acres of common open space. This increases the cost of the recreational
amenities by $460,000.00 over the current requirement, yet provides the developer 22 additional
lots. Approximately $3, 700 per residential unit.
Scenario 4
50 Acre Site - Single Familv Small Lots
Current Requirement: The property owner could develop 35 acres (which includes roads and
parking lot areas) and place 15 acres in common open space (which includes environmental areas,
buffer areas, recreational areas and stormwater management areas). A reasonable residential mixed
yield could incorporate the following residential mix:
25 acres Single Family Dwellings = 58 units
10 acres Townhomes = 55 units
Total Units = 113
This proposal would require the property owner to provide 1 recreational unit for every 30 dwellings
units that are on lot sizes of5,000 square feet or less (existing Section 165-64 Recreation Facilities);
therefore, this would include the townhouses. This would then require the following value to be
provided for active recreational areas and amenities:
. 55 lots/30 = 1.8 recreational units
. 1.8 recreational units x $25,000 (one recreational unit value) = $45,000.00
. Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $45,000.00
~ Overall gross density 2.26 units/acres
Proposed Requirement: The property owner could reduce the 15 acres of common open space by 25
percent and develop this acreage into residential lots (which includes roads and parking lot areas),
which provides for additional density yield and requires the property owner to provide for a greater
value of active recreational areas and amenities. Assuming that the property owner reduced the open
space to 11 If.I acres, the property owner could develop 38 % acres (which includes roads and
parking lot areas). This additional acreage could then be incorporated into the residential land bays
identified above to create the following residential mix:
26.6 acres Single Family Dwellings = 68 units
12.18 acres Townhomes = 67 units
Total Units = 135
);> Overall gross density 2.74 units/acres
This proposal would require the property owner to provide the value of 4 recreational units for every
30 dwellings for the entire project regardless oflot size. This would then require the following value
to be provided for active recreational areas and amenities:
. 135 lots/30 = 4.5
. 4.5 x 4 = 18 recreational units
. 18 recreational units x $25,000 (one recreational unit value) = $450,000.00
. Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $450,000.00
In addition, the development would continue to be required to provide the Recreation Facilities per
existing Section 165-64.
Townhomes = 67 units
Total Units = 67 67 lots less than 5,000 square feet
. 67 lots/30 = 2.2 recreational units
. 2.2 recreational units x $25,000 (one recreational unit value) = $55,000.00
. Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $55,000.00
In this scenario, the property owner would yield 22 additional mixed residential units and would
need to provide for a $505,000.00 value of Active Recreational Area and Amenity within all of, or a
portion of, the 11 ~ acres of common open space. This increases the cost of the recreational
amenities by $460,000.00 over the current requirement, yet provides the developer 22 additional
lots. Approximately $3,700 per residential unit.
AMENDMENT
Action:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
April 6, 2005 - Recommended Approval
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
April 261 2005
o APPROVED
o DEN lED
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
CHAPTER 165, ZONING
WHEREAS, An ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI, RP Residential
Performance District, Section 165-63, Open Space Requirements, establishing an open space
reduction waiver in thoRP (Residential Performance) Zoning DistricL This amendment w<<J;s,:,':,
considered by the Planning Commission and the Development Review and Regulations
Subcommittee (DRRS) during their regularly scheduled meetings; and
WHEREAS, The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS)
recommended approval of this amendment on September 23,2004; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on
April 6, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on
April 26, 2005; 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 VI, RP Residential Performance District, Section 165-63, Open
Space Requirements, is amended to add Section 165-63D to include an open space reduction waiver
in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District, as well as an open space definition to Section
165-156. This amendment is amended as described on the attachmenL
PDRes, #18-05
This ordinance shall be in effect on the day of adoption.
Passed this 26th day of April 2005 by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle, Chairman
Barbara E. Van Osten
Lynda J. Tyler
Gary W. Dove
Gina A. Forrester
Bill M. Ewing
Gene E. Fisher
A COPY ATTEST
John R. Riley, Jr.
Xrederic~ c:?~!Y., A-.dministrator
PDRes. # 18.05
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #06-05
MEADOWS EDGE (Formerly the Racy Tract)
Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors
Prepared: April 19, 2005
Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins - Planner II
l ~
m
-
~W!UJJn
fU.:"U U
l..,;~
~=
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application.
It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter.
Planning Commission:
Board of Supervisors:
Reviewed
04/06/05
04/26/05
Action
Recommended Approval
Pending
LOCATION: This property is located east of Interstate 81, 0.5 miles south of Fairfax Pike
(Route 277), east of Town Run Lane (Route 1012), adjacent to the existing Woodside Estates
and Ridgefield Subdivisions.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon .
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 85-A-140 -
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned:
RP( Residential Performance)
Use: Unimproved
ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES:
North: Zoning: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential (Single Family)
South: Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Agricultural
Residential (Single Family)
East: Zoning: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential (Single Family)
West: Zoning: RA (Rural Areas)
RP (Residential Performance)
Use: Public Facilities (Lagoons)
Residential (Townhouses)
PROPOSED USE: 228 Single Family Detached Cluster Dwelling Units
MDP #06-05, Meadows Edge
April 19, 2005
Page 2
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virl!:inia Devartment of Transvortation: The preliminary master development plan for this
property appears to have a measurable impact on Route 1012, Town Run Lane, the VDOT
facility which would provide access to the property. We have the following comments:
Sheet 1: The Urban Roads Section references Hawthorne Drive, but yet I cannot find a road
named this on the remaining sheets. It appears your typical sections are not the appropriate
width according to the Subdivision Street Design Standards. Please find attached Table 1 which
provides the appropriate widths according to the projected traffic volumes. Sheet 2: Please
show the future collector road that will be south of your development and provide how the future
intersection will be designed as to where it ties into Ewing Drive. Please bring the Ewing Drive
intersection with Town Run Lane in at a 90 degree intersection. Before making any final
comments, this office will require a complete set of site plans, drainage calculations and traffic
flow data from the LT.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves
the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic
signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Prior to construction on the
State's right-of-way, the developer will need to apply to this office for issuance of appropriate
permits to cover said work.
Frederick County Fire Marshal: Cul-de-sacs must be a minimum of 90 feet with no on-stre~t.
parking. Fire hydrants shall be identified on the subdivision plans to reflect Frederick County
Code 90-4. Within 400 feet of all units in a single family residential subdivision, fire hydrants
shall be set within three feet of the curb. Please try to avoid locating fire hydrants at the end of . >
cul-de-sacs and/or provide a fire hydrant at the intersections to the cul-de-sacs. Plan approval
recommended.
Frederick County Public Works: See letter dated February 15,2005
Frederick County Sanitation Authority: ] st review - approved as noted.
Frederick County Insvections Deuartment: No comment required at this time. Shall
comment at the subdivision review.
Frederick-Winchester Service Authority: No comments.
Geoe:rauhic Information Systems (GIS): The following road names to the Meadows Edge
Final MDP have been approved: Garden Gate Drive, Waterfall Way, Dollie Mae Lane, Ewing
Lane, Eleven Moons Place, Falling Mountain Place, Littlewing Way, Nightbird Way, Driftwood
Drive (extension), Branch Court (extension), Dragonfly Way, Marys Wind Court.
Frederick County - Winchester Health Deuartment: Development must be served by public
water and sewer.
MDP #06-05, Meadows Edge
Aprit 19,2005
Page 3
Winchester Ree:ional Airport: The Master Plan has been reviewed and it appears that it should
not impede operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. The proposed site does lie within the
airport's air space; however, it falls outside of the airport's Part 77 close in surfaces.
Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation: The monetary proffer for Parks and
Recreation appears to be appropriate to offset the impact the residents of this development will
have on the services provided by this department. The 26.5 acres offered the county would
appear to provide an outstanding area for the development of a community park to serve this
urban development area. Plan appears to meet open space requirements. Bicycle trail to be
provided should be a minimum of 10' in width and meet VDOT standards.
Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the
proposed 228 single family houses in 3 phases will yield 39 high school students, 32 middle
school students, and 89 elementary school students for a total of 160 new students upon buildout.
Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area
having student enrollments exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact
of this project and others of similar nature in this area, like Southern Hills project, coupled with
the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area and other projects in this area
will necessitate a future construction site for the purpose of a new school facility to
accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future
school needs should be considered during the approval process.
Town of Stephens City: The Town has agreed to provide an access easement across its old
lagoon site for the Meadows Edge development and find that the developer has adequately
addressed concerns about traffic generated from the new subdivision..
Planninl! & Zoninl!::
A) Master De\'elopment Plan Requirement
A master development plan is required prior to development of this property. Before a
master development plan can be approved, it must be reviewed by the Planning
Commission, Board of Supervisors and all relevant review agencies. Approval may only
be granted if the master development plan conforms to all requirements of the Frederick
County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The purpose of the master development
plan is to promote orderly and planned development of property within Frederick County
that suits the characteristics of the land, is harmonious with adjoining property and is in
the best interest of the general public.
B) Location
This property is located east ofInterstate 81, 0.5 miles south of Fairfax Pike (Route 277),
east of Town Run Lane (Route 1012). The Woodside Estates and the Ridgefield
subdivisions are located adjacent to this property.
MDP #06-05, Meadows Edge
April 19, 2005
Page 4
C) Site History
The original Frederick County zOlllng map (US.G.S. Stephens City Quadrangle)
identifies the subject property as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The A-I
(Agricultural Limited) and A-2 Districts were subsequently combined to form the RA
(Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in
the re-mapping of the subject property and all other A-I and A-2 zoned land to the RA
District. Also of historical importance, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors
denied a request to incorporate approximately 26 acres of the subject property into the
UDA (Urban Development Area) on February 12, 2003. On July 7, 2004 the 105.65 acre
portion of the approximately 132 site was rezoned from the RA (Rural Areas) District to
the RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers.
D) Intended Use
228 Single Family Detached Cluster Dwelling Units (minimum 8,000 square feet
individual lot area with an average of 10,000 square feet)
E) Site Suitability & Proiect Scope
Comprehensive Policy Plan:
The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that
serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development,
preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary
goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick
County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical
development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1J
Land Use Compatibility:
The Urban Development Area (UDA) is the principal land use tool of the Frederick
County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The general purpose of the UDA is to define the
areas in the county where more intensive forms of residential development will occur. It
does this by dividing the County into rural and urban areas. The UDA was originally
created with the intent that it would be adequate enough to accommodate long term
growth needs in areas of the County where public services are most available.
(Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-1, 6-2) The 105 acre portion of the property contained in
this Master Development Plan is not part of a small area land use plan, but is entirely within
the UDA.
Environment:
The majority of the acreage of the property is located on a gently sloping open field
without any major environmental features that would limit development. A minimal
amount of wetlands exist on the property 2.44 acres). The disturbance of wetlands is
only permitted in accordance with the requirements of the Unites States Army Corps of
Engineers or other qualified state or federal agency. [Frederick County Zoning
MDP #06-05, Meadows Edge
April 19, 2005
Page 5
Ordinance, S 165-31.B.(3]. The old Stephens City sewage treatment lagoon is proposed
to be removed with the development of the Meadows Edge Subdivision. The removal of
this lagoon is necessary to accommodate the major collector road proposed to access the
property. The Commonwealth of Virginia has approved a plan to remove this lagoon
which includes the removal of water by pumping, removal of residual solids and
incorporating them into soils adjacent to the site, and reclaiming land by filling and
property compacting so the site will have structural integrity for future building
construction.
Soils: The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates
that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Weikert-Berks-Blairton soil
association, which is the predominant association on land located east of Interstate 81. It
is noted that the Weikert-Berks-Blairton soil association presents some limitations to site
development due to a seasonal high water table, depth to bedrock, and slope. The
management of such characteristics must be demonstrated through the site engineering
process associated with subsequent development applications for the proposed project. A
couple of small pockets of Carbo and Clearbrook soils also exist on the property. The
Meadow's Edge Subdivision is located within the Martinsburg Shale geographic region.
Transportation:
The Impact Analysis Statement from the Racey Tract rezoning projects a total generation
of 2,213 trips per day for the development. Based on the 2000 Virginia Department of
Transportation Daily Traffic Volumes, Jurisdiction Report 34, Fairfax Pike (Route 277)
currently has an estimated 1] ,000 average annual daily trips. This projected traffic
generation represents an increase of 20% from this 2000 estimate.
According to the traffic impact analysis, the level of service for intersections along the
Fairfax Pike Corridor currently range from "A" to "F". The poorest conditions are
located at the Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and Stickley Drive (Route I 085) intersection,
which currently ranges from level of service "E" to "F". Poor conditions (lower than
"C") also exist at the northbound signal of the Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and Interstate 81
Northbound Ramp; at the southbound signal of the Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and
Interstate 81 Southbound Ramp; and at the northbound and southbound signal of the
Fairfax Pike (Route277) and Town Run Lane (Route 1012) intersection. However, both
of the Northbound and Southbound 1-81 intersections are currently functioning at an
overall level of service "C" or above.
The TIA concludes that the improvements proposed with the Meadow's Edge
development (Racey Tract) will actually improve the level of service at key intersections
by decreasing the overall system delays by as much as 94%, while only increasing overall
traffic demand by approximately 3%, based on 2007 projections.
MDP #06-05, Meadows Edge
April 19, 2005
Page 6
Proffer Statement
The following list is a summary ofthe proffered conditions associated with Rezoning
#03-04 (The Racy Tract) rezoning application:
. Assurance that there will be no more than 228 single-family dwelling units and
that these dwelling units shall be designed as single-family detached cluster
housing types (minimum 8,000 square foot lots, average 10,000 square foot lots).
. Construction of a road from Town Run Lane through the Town of Stephens City
parcel to the subject properties western boundary. This road shall consist of two
lanes, but graded for a possible four lane undivided collector road. The
construction of these two travel lanes will be constructed prior to any connections
being made to Driftwood Drive and Branch Court from the Meadows Edge
development.
. Right-of-way shall be dedicated along the southern boundary of the subject parcel
for a possible collector road if requested by Frederick County or VDOT.
. The 26.5 acres located outside of the UDA shall be available to Frederick County
for any use deemed necessary by the Board of Supervisors.
. The extension of Stickley Drive shall be constructed prior to the issuance of any
building permits. Town Run Lane along the Town of Stephens City parcel shall
be paved with bituminous concrete and guardrails shall be installed.
. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the planned improvements at the
intersection of Fairfax Pike and Stickley Drive shall be constructed. This includes
additional lanes and a new traffic light. If these improvements are constructed
prior to the development of the Racey Tract, a $200,000ca:?hcontribution shall be
made by the applicant to be used for other road improvements to Fairfax Pike.
. The westbound right turu lane at the Fairfax Pike and Town Run Lane
intersection shall be re-striped to provide a shared thru right lane.
. Prior to the connection with Branch Court and Driftwood Drive, the applicant
shall upgrade tbe intersection of Fairfax Pike and Double Church Road. These
improvements shall consist of a modified traffic light and additional lanes.
. No construction traffic shall access Branch Court or Driftwood Drive.
. Upgrades to Branch Court, Driftwood Drive, and Trunk Drive shall be made if
determined appropriate by VDOT after a core sample study of the roads is
completed.
. Traffic calming measures shall be constructed at the connection points at
Driftwood Drive and Branch Court. $40,000 in additional funds for other traffic
calming measures shall be made available for a period of three years.
. A community pool, bathhouse, tennis court, and sports court shall be bonded and
constructed by the applicant prior to the 150th building permit. Neighboring
communities shall have the opportunity to use these facilities. The applicant will
provide a bond in an amount adequate to construct the tennis court and sports
court to provide assurance that if the project does not exceed the 149th building
pertuit, the funds to construct these two sports courts will be available.
MDP #06-05, Meadows Edge
April 19, 2005
Page 7
· A 1.3 acre central green space with an additional 50' wide pedestrian linkage area
shall be provided.
· A minimum of a 40' wide open space area shall be provided around the perimeter
of the proposed development which adjoins the Woodside, Ridgefield, and
Stephens Ridge communities. In addition, a wooded area shall be protected
adjacent to the Stephens Ridge community. No structures shall be permitted
within these open space area.
· A 200' no build buffer with an 800' long landscape buffer shall be provided along
the southern property line. As with the other open space/buffer areas, no
structures are permitted.
· A five foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed along the east side of Town Run
Lane on the Town of Stephens City property.
· A ten foot wide hard surfaced bike trail shall be provided from Town Run Lane
along the proposed access road to connect with the sidewalks within the proposed
development.
· A statement shall be provided on future covenants and the General Development
Plan which notifies future residents that agricultural uses exist to the south and
that wastewater treatment facilities existed or exist to the southwest of the site.
· Phasing for the development shall limit the number of houses for the first two
years to 75 and 78 in the final year of development.
· The more restrictive reql.lireI11en.ts of.,frederick County, the Yirginia Erosion and
Sediment Control HandtOoK,'and the Virginia Stormwater Management
Hap.dbook shall be implemen!ed. No wet ponds shall be used on the site.
.. The. abandoned sanitation Iagoon1 6wn.edby tl1eT()wn of Stephens City, shall be
dosed in accordance to the'a:pprcived closure plan (see Appendix BI for
additional procedures).
ST AFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 04/06/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
This master development plan (MDP) application is for 228 single-family detached cluster
houses (minimum 8,000 square feet lots average 10,000) in the RP (Residential Performance)
Zoning District. This Master Development Plan appears to be consistent with the requirements
of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. The master development
plan is also in accordance with the proffers of the rezoning and has addressed all staff's
concerns. All of the issues brought forth by the Planning Commission should be appropriately
addressed prior to a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 04/06/05 MEETING:
Commission members were concerned about whether or not the access issues had been resolved with the
Young and Scothorn families, who were adjoining property owners. The applicant replied that they had
met on several occasions with the Youngs and Scothorns and they are pursuing a satisfactory resolution
for both parties; however, the issues have not yet been completely resolved. The applicant was
encouraged to resolve the access issue before the Board of Supervisors' review. Commission members
also inquired if provisions had been made to accommodate a possible east-west road corridor through the
MDP #06-05, Meadows Edge
April 19, 2005
Page 8
property and the applicant pointed out that right-of-way provisions have been made through the southern
portion of the property, to be served by an appropriate entrance. In addition, Commissioners asked about
phasing and when connections to the adjoining subdivisions would be made; they were concerned about
cut-through construction traffic after the connections were made. The applicant assured the Commission
that connections to Woodside I and Woodside II will not take place until the completion of the
intersection improvements at Double Church Road and Fairfax Pike, which is due to take place at the end
of Phase II. The applicant noted that their proffers prohibit construction vehicles using the entrances of
adjoining subdivisions; the residents of adjoining subdivisions had been made aware that if cut-through
construction traffic occurs, they are to call either him or the County offices.
Mrs. Jane Young, representing both the Youngs and the Scothorns, was available to speak about the
access issue. The Youngs and Scothoms were requesting both a private, farm-use road, for farm
machinery and equipment, and a state-maintained egress/ingress off of the cul-de-sac. They believed both
accesses were necessary. In addition, one section of the farm use road showed a 10-10.5% elevation and
they were concerned there may be difficulty traversing that area during winter.
Also, a resident of Woodside Estates II was concerned about drainage issues and flooding on her
property. The applicant was aware of the problems and planned to redirect the drainage during grading
work, so that it will flow back into their own storm sewer system.
The Planning Commission believed the MDP met the requirements of the zoning ordinance and was also
in accordance with the proffers submitted at rezoning. Members were pleased with the detail provided
with the plan and believed the applicant had satisfactorily addressed the impacts of the development. The
Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the MDP.
(Note: Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.. "
~ /
'it /
\PI
""oJ!)'
~~
1~
,h<.!>
'f'-i.
....-.......... I ex::.
I ""y) ~
'\. \1.,
---
o
~
~
,
4.
1.0 ,
o I..C) 0
, ....,.. 0
......... 0.1
c.!)---",~
o (1)
~ 0">
O-~
~(/)
~
16
(1)
~
,
\
a
~
1
\ i
. .
0
~ ~
t
~ .
. ,
..
.. <
i
--
o
.q-
~
<(
LC),
OLC) 0
I 00 g.
"'-
o (1)
#0)
0.-"'0
OW
2(/)
~
-g
Q)
2
Cii
ell
U-
o
g
o
ILl
N
o
z.~
~ ~
~
L ~ ~
~ 1 3 ~
din
6 !...
.
. .
i ~
~ ~ I.
! .~~.i~ ~
~ HH1:~~)
~ ~<~~&~ \
i .
o ~ q .
Mtii
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Public Works
540/665-5643
FAX: 540/678-0682
February 15, 2005
Ilr~ !E ~ !E u
liW'<1
IUU: MAR 1 4
I L___.___u..__
F;::~lDL~n!C( CO!.);\!TY
L~,__..E1:!.~ :'~~",!_J.:.L~':_.~:"_:;:~:_\T :..~~r:.~t- = !\j-r
"ii-r?~:-;:;--!
litl I? 'c-, \
\:.1 L:::l 1']11
_._--~ I if.1
I.. ,.,
~ ' . ~
! ii:
~ ! ~j /1,.
- iLJ,
I I
,
_-1
Mr. Christopher J. Lupia, P.E.
Christopher consultants
45940 Horseshoe Drive, Suite 102
.;: -I' h \1' ., -">0166
..,ter mo' lrgmla _
RE: Meadows Edge (Formerly Racey Tract) Master Development Plan
Frederick County, Virginia
Dear Mr. Lupia:
We have completed our review of the proposed master development plan for the
Meadows Edge subdivision and offer the following comments:
I) Sheet I of6, Note 5: The actual flood plain limits should bebased on site specific
detailed calculations rather than general Federal Emergency Management Agency
studies.
2) Sheet] of 6, Note 6: This note indicates that the wetlands information is based on
Frederick County digital information. However, based on our site inspection, it
appears that a detailed wetlands delineation was performed in the field. This fact
should be reflected in the notes.
3) Sheet I of6, Urban Road Section: This section is referenced to a typical cross
section for Hawthorne Drive. This road name dOl::s not appear to bl:: germanl:: io
this project. Also, the reference to the rural road section does not appear to be
applicable to this project.
4) Sheet 3 of 6: Refer to the existing pond owned by the sanitation authority and
designated as stormwater management. This facility is actually used as a sewage
overflow holding pond and should be so designated. Prospective home buyers
should be informed of this use prior to purchase.
5) Sheet 3 of6, Legend The legend symbol indicated for wetlands is not legible on
the actual master development plan. It is suggested that a new legend symbol be
adopted and applied to wetlands similar to the symbol used for disturbed wetlands.
107 North Kent Street. Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Meadows Edge Master Development Plan Comments
Page 2
February 15, 2005
6) Sheet 6 of6, Note #27: This brief synopsis is an excellent portrayal of the
proposed requirements for controlling stormwater discharge to or through off-site
subdivisions. These requirements shall be carefully implemented in designing
on site stormwater management facilities as well as off-site conveyance channels
and/or piping, In some cases, it may be necessary to design on site facilities to
control the I GO-year storm or greater because of off-site limiting features. Also,
additional stormwater facilities beyond those reflected on the master development
plan may be required to prevent off~site drainage problems.
I can be reached at 540-722-8214 if you should have any questions regarding the above
comments,
Sincerely,
* ~.~
HaN~ ...w,nyd", lL, P .E.
Dir:c~~;Jtblic Works
HES/rls
cc: Planning and Development
file
A :\meadowscd gelnd pc om. wpd
Frederick County, Vir2inia
Master Development Plan Application Package
APPLICATION
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Department of Planning and Development Use Only.
3)-1/0:1
Application # a,-oS'
Date application received
Complete. Date of acceptance.
Incomplete. Date of return.
1. Project Title:
Meadows Edge
2. Owner's Name:
Centex Homes, A Nevada General Partnership
(Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest)
3. Applicant:
Address:
Phone Number:
Centex Homes, A Nevada General Partnership
c/o Bryan Condie
3684 Centerview Drive, Suite 100, Chantilly, VA 20151
703-934-2600
4. Design Company:
Address:
Phone Number:
Contact Name:
christopher consultants, ltd.
45940 Horseshoe Drive, Suite 100
Sterling, VA 20166
703-444-3707
Brian Nolan
Page 11
Iro).r-.. ~ (G _~ ~ .Wl,....... !::~-\I
IIrd ~
1~ Ui MAR 1 4 2'YC
L_____
F?~c)ERiCK CC(?\TY
L_,-E.!J':J~i_::'ciJ.t!l3 6'. D ~~l L C P l0 E NT
Frederick County, Vir2inia
Master Development Plan Application Package
APPLICATION cont'd
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
s.
Location of Property:
Stephens City, east of Interstate 81, 0.5 miles south ofRt. 277
(Fairfax Pike), east ofRt. 1012 (Town Run La.), south on Rt. 1065
(Ridgefield Ave.) to Ewings Lane.
6.
7.
Total Acreage: 132.1
Property Information:
a) Property Identification Number (PIN):
b) Current Zoning:
C) Present Use:
d) Proposed Uses:
85 A 140
RPIRA
Vacant
Single-Family Detached
e) Adjoining Property Information:
North
South
East
West
Property Identification Numbers
See attached sheet
Property Uses
Magisterial District:
Opequon
8. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan?
Original ~ Amended
I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick
County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development
plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material will be
complete prior to the submission of my master development plan application.
Signature:
Date:
~1'~
(I '0";- .
Page 12
Adjoining Property Owners
Name and Property Identification Number Use
Smith, David & Linda W.
Pro e # 86 E 1 18 Residential
Stevenson, James E. & Tammy R.
Pro ert # 86 E 1 19 Residential
Schultz, Scott & Rebecca
Pro e # 86 E 1 20 Residential
Hudson, Freddie E & Carole F.
Pro ert # 86 E 1 21 Residential
Baker, Christopher W. & Carole
Pro ert # 86 E 1 22 Residential
Weber, Steven A. & Tracy B.
Pro ert # 86 E 1 23 Residential
Laporete, Timothy J. & Karen S.
Pro e # 86 E 1 24 Residential
Dobersztyn, David M. & Dawn M.
Pro e # 86 E 1 25 Residential
Dreyer, Mark R. & Susan L.
Pro e # 86 E 1 26 Residential
Ford, Albert D. & Mary D.
Pro ert # 86 E 1 27 Residential
Dean, Timothy A. Sr., & Christi R.
Pro ert # 86 E 1 28 Residential
Kidd, James C. & Ingrid K.
Pro e # 86 E 2 2 13 Residential
Malik, Jared & Naeema
Propert # 86 E 2 2 14 Residential
Ragaller, Timothy A. & Diane M.
Pro ert # 86 E 2 2 15 Residential
Schneider, Paul C. & Jennifer G.
Pro ert # 86 E 2 2 16 Residential
Cooley, Bryan K. & Sharon L.
Pro e # 86 E 2 2 17 Residential
Corbit, Steven & Kathryn
Pro ert # 86 E 2 2 18 Residential
Marks, Alfred H. Jr. & Julia G.
Pro ert # 86 E 2 2 19 Residential
Duke, Patricia Kelly
Pro e # 86 E 2 2 20 Residential
Skeith, Joe David & Sheila K.
Pro ert # 86 E 2 2 21 Residential
Mitchell, Jent P. III & F. Anne B.
Pro ert # 86 E 2 2 22
Smiy, Kenneth P.
Pro e # 86 E 2 2 23
Patton, Dale E. & Diane A.
Pro e # 86 E 2 2 24
Philibin, Gary L. & Stacey D.
Pro e # 86 E 2 2 25
Smith, Paul A. & Jackson, Mildred Jan
Pro e # 86 E 2 2 26
Rodgers, Ronald E. & Ellan S.
Pro e # 86 E 2 2 27
Berlowitz, Morris & Helene
Pro ert # 86 E 2 2 28
Shickle, Lester G. & Jeanette C.
Pro ert # 86 E 2 2 29
Sybert, Ronald E. & Nancy M.
Pro ert # 86 E 2 2 30
Disque, Dale W. & Dayle P.
Pro ert # 86 E 2 2 31
Burch, Patricia A.
Pro e # 86 E 2 2 32
Mohan, Robert & Mary Beth
Pro e # 86 E 2 2 33
Dirnagl, Alfred & Christine
Pro ert # 86 E 2 2 34
MacGregor, Gregory T. & Pamela D.
Pro ert # 86 E 2 2 35
Phillips, William R. II
Pro ert # 85 B 1 17
Dursey, Walter H. Jr.
Pro e # 85 B 1 18
Sharon M. LaRoche Living Trust
Pro e # 85 B 1 19
Campbell, Kurt A. & Jammie M.
Pro e # 85 B 1 20
Swain, Rachel C.
Pro ert # 85 B 1 21
Dixon, Anthony C.
Pro ert # 85 B 1 22
Rose, Thomas B. II
Pro e # 85 C 2 79
Deiter, Cynde Anne Jones
Pro ert # 85 C 2 80
Pumphrey, Round W.
Pro ert # 85 C 2 82
Soule, Chap R.
Pro ert # 85 C 2 83
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Lafollete, Kenneth M.
Pro ert # 85 C 2 84
Linaburg, Mikkia
Pro e # 85 C 1 2 92
Bennett, Brady L. & Christine L.
Pro ert # 85 C 1 2 93
Murphy, John D. & Shirley M.
Pro ert # 85 C 1 2 94
Brown, Mae M.
Pro ert # 85 C 1 2 95
Payne, Robert A.
Pro ert # 85 C 1 2 96
Artz, Harold A. Jr. & Bridget A.
Pro e # 85 C 1 2 97
Shirley, David E.
Pro ert # 85 C 1 2 98
Fiorvanti, Richard L. II
Pro ert # 85 C 1 2 99
Livingood, Clara C.
Pro ert # 85 C 1 2 1 00
Sandretzky, Ronald W. & Tammy M.w.
Pro e # 85 C 1 2 101
Gary L. & Stephen P. Scothorn
Pro ert # 85 A 139
Frederick - Winchester
Pro e # 85 A 141
Gary L. & Linda O. Scothorn
Pro ert # 85 A 139A
James R. & Jane S. Young
Pro ert # a85 A 139B
Town of Stephens City
Prope # 85 A 142
Ours, Rick
Pro ert # 86 A 25
Painter, Herbert M.
Pro ert # 86 A 21A
Stephens Ridge Home Owners Assoc.
Pro e # 85C 2 91A & 85C 2 69A
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
A ricultural
Local Government
Residential
Residential
Local Government
A ricultural
A ricultural
Mar 11 05 10:25a
eel loudoun
103 444-5230
p.2
Special Limited Power of Attorney
County of Frederick, Virginia
Planning Office, County of Frederick. Virgilia, lOT North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601
Phone 540-665-5651
Facsimile 540-665-6395
Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We)
(Name) Q;NTEx f.lcM.E.i:;., Pc JVGV....t:>/~ f,F.J.'~RAL ?"'R:7J.1IZR.:1>#d' (Phone) 7Dl-to7Q-/fiJ.'d
(Address) 3(.,BI.{ C6-j./Te~v,~ (J/Z. ..s.." 1e... ICO CHA.<Ji-, It.. VA .,:lo/SI
the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels ofland r'Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by
lnstrument No. 5 8 to
on Page 5' ;) Cl
,and is described as TIl.y. mAl' 5.S;:-
Parcel: -1:s..-- Lot: 1'16 Block: _ Section: _ Subdivision:
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
(Name) c....~r/~jQohe.r Cc",.s.u jTt:>....'T::. L-7V (Phone) 701- If<('-I- 3707
I
(Addres>) 'i.s-9t./O !-/o/?S.c::.Hov De.. ..5<.;. i (: 100 STlFtIZ'''-rp(, 1/ A- ZOI(", (.;
To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority
r (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above descnOed Property, including:
G Rezoning (Including proffers)
G Conditional Use Permits
G Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final)
G Subdivision
G Site Plan
My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously
approved proffered conditit>ns except as follows:
This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified.
In witness thereof, I (we) l)ave hereto set my (our) hand and seal this _ day of .2GO_,
Signature(s)-r- /L--.J /.,.- DIV'Slc},t P/('(:'5; PlZI.//'
&b p~ e_
State of Virginia, City/County of r O~lly . To-wit:
l,
,
I
-'
PAGE 2/2 'IlCVD AT 3/11/2005 10:18:21 AM [Eastern Standard Time]' SVIl.:NVGS03/1' DNIS:9093, CSID:703 444 5230' DURATION (mm-ss):01-18
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
MEMORANDUM 540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
TO:
Board of Supervisors
Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director {r
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Extension of Water and Sewer Outside of Policy Boundaries
Scothorn and Young Properties
DATE:
April 20, 2005
Supervisor Ewing has been approached to sponsor a request which would consider
enabling two existing residences to have rights to the County's public water and sewer.
Both residences are presently outside of both the Urban Development Area (UDA) and
the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA); therefore, current County policy would
prohibit the residences from utilizing the public systems.
These two residences are located immediately adjacent to the Racey Tract (a.k.a.
Meadows Edge Subdivision), a recently approved rezoning and a pending master
development plan. Access to the residenccsis via the new development.
During the rezoning process for the adjacent Racey tract, these two residents voiced
concern that their existing private health systems are older and connection to the public
system would alleviate future environmental impacts associated with a failing system.
Via the adoption of the attached resolution, staff would present the request to the
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS), and process this
Comprehensive Policy Plan ("Policy") exception.
Please contact staff should you have any questions regarding this resolution. Thank you.
Attachment
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 . Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
RESOLUTION
Action: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: April 26, 2005
D APPROVED D DENIED
DIRECTING STAFF TO UNDERTAKE A STUDY CONSIDERING THE
EXTENSION OF SEWER AND WATER SERVICE OUTSIDE OF THE UDA
AND SWSA TO SERVE TWO EXISTING RESIDENCES
(YOUNG AND SCOTHORN)
WHEREAS, Two existing residences, on lots sized approximately 1 Y2 and 2
acres, are seeking the use of public sewer and water for their existing residences. The
properties are located on the south side of Fairfax Pike (Route 277), west of Double
Church Road (Route 641), immediately adjacent to the Racey Tract (a.k.a. Meadows
Edge subdivision), and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 85-A-139A and
85-A-139B, in the Opequon Magisterial District; and,
WHEREAS, The request for consideration of this extension of sewer and water
service would only serve the two existing residences, two residences whose access is
through the new Meadows Edge subdivision (a.k.a. Racey Tract); and,
WHEREAS, This extension of service outside of the SWSA and UDA request
was sponsored and presented to the Board of Supervisors by the Opequon Magisterial
District Supervisor on April 26, 2005; and, .
NOW, THEREli'ORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the Board of Supervisors directs
the Planning Commission to study and return to the Board of Supervisors a
recommendation regarding the extension of water and sewer service outside of the SWSA
and the UDA for the two subject properties.
Passed this 26th day of April 2005 by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle, Chainnan
Barbara E. Van Osten
Lynda J. Tyler
Gary W. Dove
Gina A. Forrester
Bill M. Ewing
Gene E. Fisher
A COPY ATTEST
John R. Riley, Jr.
Frederick County Administrator
PURes. #16-05
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665.5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator #~__
FROM:
RE:
Buffer Distance Waiver Request - Old Massey Store
DATE:
April 21, 2005
The property is located in the northwestern quadrant at the intersection of North Frederick Pike
(Route 522 N) and Burnt Church Road (Route 678), and is identified by Property Identification
Number 42-A-81 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
On behalf of David Hicks, owner of the Old Massey Store, Greenway Engineering is requesting a
buffer distance waiver of Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, Supplementary Use
Regulations, Section 165-3 7D( 1 )( a), Buffer and Screening Requirements, to allow for reduction of
the distance requirements of the zoning district buffer requirements. This proposed waiver will not
alter the office setback lines or change the proffer:ed illustrative. This proposed waiver is only from
the buffer distance requirement of the zoning ordinance. . A copy of the letter from Greenway
Engineering is attached, explaining the request.
The Planning Commission at its April 20, 2005 meeting recommended approval.
MRC/bhd
Attachments
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 . Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
'"
"'C>
-'
<r:c6'
I-
",0
....
-
...--
ex:>
.-1
<5
~
c6'
coW
t--;::::.
Ir
<(W
"-
~~
"-
(/)
is
>=
/JJ
'"
~
<(
:I:
(/)
",""
coO::
(/)
<(-I
>-
",0::
....0::
<<
C>
rr.
w
w
C>
~
<(
l!)Q)'
OUC'I
C-:::r
Nsg-
o.~ Q)
::t:l::OO
>'-.....
<(&CI)
::>:;,~
>CCm
U)
CO
~
"'0
o
o
o
~
ri
-,
"-
1iS~
:e
<<::!5
~~
W
~
-'
"-
(/)
z:
",0
coO::
""
",,:I:
(/)
"'w
....-'
>-
o
D
o
It')
a;
CD
LL
It')
N
o
z..,
~
ri
-,
Q
",'"
"w
::!;
<<"'i
c6'
"'0::
....w
So
o
-'
u.
C
0::
[2
So
<<
5
;t~
'"
<<~
~IT1
z:
0::
~
~
0::
m
~
;;
~
-i ~ "6 ..
! g i i
,s.. u!
~ ~ ~ .t ~
If ~ 8 ~ $
Dill@]
w
W
l-
(/)
::>
0::
...1-
...c>
W
<(!!2
::>
NO
....-'
::;E
<<
:::;
-'
::>
Q
Ij
I .. ~ ? i
.. .go.i ~:: C
::. ~ a III c1 i
~ <<~<j~<?
.. i /
~Jjl.
OJ~~..!
III
S~~jll
I>'S~
l't~I>'/';,.
I>' ;:;Q/IvS'O<i
'.is'
42 " 71B
UNDERWOOD, DELLEA E
.---..
...-
co
<( 0
0
......
1.0 (1)
0 (,) N
c """
CO ---...-
N -+-'
o y) ~ 0 iil
::t:l:O U'l Ql
.9 U-
s.....
>(1) (/) '"
<(:::: >- C'\I
S~ (1)
U)
U) 0
CO
~
"'C
0
z.~
~
;;
~
a
~
~ ~ 1
:. ~ (,) .:
1 :!. ! .
nd ~
o illto
. .
~ ~
.. g' ;
it g i 1i
i r,,) ~ ~ () ~
i <<<<]~<(
i
GREENWAY ENGINEERING
~J U
".___.w,..~...". ,_.""
if
151 Windy Hill lane
Winchester. Virginia 22602
MAR , 8 2005
\
.-.J
Founded in 1971
March 17,2005
Frederick County Planning Department
Attn: Mark Cheran, Zoning Administrator
1 07 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
RE: Buffer Distance Waiver Request - Old Massev Store Site Plan
Dear Mark:
The purpose of this letter is to request Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor
consideration of a buffer distance waiver for tax map parcel 42-((A))-81, owned by David A.
Hicks. As you know, the Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning Application #06-04 for the
development of an office building on this parcel with associated proffers. In order to implement
this plan, it will be necessary to obtain a buffer distance waiver as permitted in Section 165-
37D(1)(a) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance.
Approval of the buffer distance waiver ",in allow for elements of the parking lot to be located
within 10 feet of the adjoining James P. Flowers, Jr., parcels. This waiver will not alter the office
building setback and will require alLele1pentsof a fulllandsc!lpedbuffer, including a six-foot
wooden fence to be developed betweeiiilie Hicks and Flowers properties. Attached with the site
plan is the applicable adjoining property owner consent information, which is a requirement for
filing for this waiver.
Mr. Hicks would like this waiver request to be scheduled concurrently for the April 20, 2005
Planning Commission and the April 27, 2005 Board of Supervisors meetings if possible. Mr.
Hicks is aware that consideration by the Board of Supervisors on April 27th is conditioned upon a
recommendation being forwarded by the Planning Commission at their April 20'" meeting.
Please advise me if you have any questions regarding this request, or if you need any additional
information. Thank you for your assistance regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
b,~
Evan Wyatt, AICP
Greenway Engineering
Cc: David Hicks
Jim Flowers
File #3865/EA W
Engineers Surveyors
Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722.9528
V\lWV\l.greenwayeng. co m
OWNER CONSENT TO ADJOINING PROPERTY BUFFER DISTANCE WAIVER
This document, made and dated March 17,2005, is for the purpose of providing consent
and support to the request of David A. Hicks to obtain a buffer distance waiver as
provided for in Section 165-37D(1)(a) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on tax
map parcel 42-((A))-81, which is zoned B-2, Business General District. Consent to the
buffer distance waiver shall apply to adjoining tax map parcels 42-((A))-79 and 42-((A))-
80, which are zoned RA, Rural Areas District and owned by James P. Flowers, Jr., as
evidence by deeds recorded in Frederick County, Virginia as Instrument Numbers
030018252 and 040017072. Consent to the buffer distance waiver is based on the
following:
);> The David Hicks office building will remain at least 50 feet from the adjoining
property lines oftax map parcels 42-((A))-79 and 42-((A))-80.
);> The required six-foot high fence and landscaping will be located on David Hicks
property identified as tax map parcel 42-((A))-81, with the fence situated on the
property line and the landscaping located on the opposite side of the fence from of
tax map parcels 42-((A))-79 and 42-((A))-80.
);> David Hicks will incur all costs associated with these improvements and all costs
associated with legal recordation of this document.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
Commonwealth of Virginia,
City/County of ~ Q dJLAJ.~j() (' j) .
To Wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this j 8 ~ay of ~ ~
.--.- rr;... - .
20~ by --:J 14-n ~~ \.J" I-lawL/2..~ -r;2..
My Commission Expire~
~~'LC9.~~
...b Notary Public
a.., J .::s I ~)' e::LHJ S
I
Greenway Engineering
January 27, 2004
Revised July 8, 2004
Old Massey Store Rezoning
OLD MASSEY STORE REZONING
Tax Parcel 42-((A))-81
Gainesboro Magisterial District
Preliminary Matters
Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and
the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional
zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of
Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # 0<]-01
for the rezoning of 0.85 acres from the RA, Rural Areas District to establish 0.85 acres of
B2, Business General Distric.t, development of the subject property shall be done in
conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such
terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such
be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said
Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these
proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall
be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns.
The subject property, more particularly described as the lands owned by David A. Hicks
and Linda W. Hicks being all of Tax Map Parcel 42-((A))-8l, and further described by
Deed Instrument 030024908 recorded in the Frederick County Clerk of the Court Office
on October 29, 2003.
The applicant hereby proffers the following:
A.) Land Use Restrictions
The applicants hereby proffer to limit the land uses for the 0.85-acre parcel to the
following:
Land Use
SIC
General Business Offices
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Offices
Legal Services
Engineering, Architectural and Surveying Services
Accounting, Auditing and Bookkeeping Services
Management and Public Relations Services
81
871
872
874
File #3865/EA W
Greenway Engineering
January 27, 2004
Revised July 8, 2004
Old Massey Store Rezoning
B.) Site Access
The applicants hereby proffer to prohibit any connection to North Frederick Pike (Route
522 North) and to limit access on Burnt Church Road (Route 678) to one commercial
entrance.
c.) Structural Development
1. The applicants hereby proffer to limit the development on the 0.85-acre parcel to
a maximum of 8,000 square feet of structural area.
2. The applicants hereby proffer to limit the structural height to thirty-five (35) feet
from the first floor to the apex of the roof.
3. The applicants hereby proffer to utilize similar construction materials on all
building walls including brick, vinyl or dryvit, and that the roof will be standing
seam metal or dimensional single construction.
4. The applicants hereby proffer to develop the structure in substantial conformance
with the perspective rendering entitled "Hick's Construction", prepared by Design
Concepts and dated June 1, 2004.
D.) Business Signs
The applicants hereby proffer. to limit the number of freestanding business signs to one
sign on the 0.85-acre parcel. The freestanding business signs is proffered to be of
monument style construction and will not exceed twelve (12) feet in height.
E.) Outdoor Storage
The applicants hereby proffer to prohibit outdoor storage on the 0.85-acre parcel.
F.) Monetary Contribution for Fire and Rescue Services
The applicants hereby proffer to provide a cash payment of$l,OOO.OO to mitigate impacts
to Fire and Rescue Services. The applicants will provide the cash payment to Treasurer
of Frederick County, Virginia at the time of building permit issuance for the 0.85-acre
parcel.
G.) Signatures
The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors,
administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the
event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the
conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other
requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code.
File #3865/EA W
2
Greenway Engineering
January 27, 2004
Revised July 8, 2004
Old Massey Store Rezoning
Respectfully Submitted:
r ~
By: 00 . ':) a, '
David A. Hicks
~&W~ {;
7 /J. ~J6 If
J Dte
~ /1/,F.
By: O~o-7~
Linda W. Hicks
1/:2 ~t'4
I ate
Commonwealth of Virginia,
~~" ~ .
Ci,~frvedfv1c...L.- To Wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this~day of
.July
202tby ])1Vid A tlicts I Li cd:L vJ.l1ids 0:::1: fO. Ihvid. A. i-IUs
>/ Y11sJ241 C>
Notary Public
My Commission Expires Fe IoYl.tH:} 2Q, UY.;P,
File #3865/EA W
3
\
~~
()
g
.~
~~
~e..~
4--''7
r:"i-
~~
00
(,\0
u"<1
.....
rj)'il3
~1
<:)1'"
. .....
~
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
MEMORANDUM 540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director r
SUBJECT: Discussion- Rezoning and Master Development Plan Processes
DATE: April 20, 2005
At the Board of Supervisors' meeting on April 13,2005, there was discussion regarding
the possibility of combining the rezoning and master development plan review and
approvals, when an application includes significant features within the proffer statement.
Staff has reviewed the County's Ordinances and policies, and will be prepared to briefly
address how the Board might consolidate their review and actions on these development
reviews.
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 . Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Board of Supervisors
540/665-5666
540/667-0370 fax
Richard C. Shickle - Chairman
Gary W. Dove - Vice Chairman
Gainesboro District
Gene E. Fisher
Shawnee District
MEMORANDUM
Lynda J. Tyler
Stonewall District
Bill M. Ewing
Opequon District
Barbara E. Van Osten
Back Creek District
Gina A. Forrester
Red Bud District
TO:
Frederick County Board of Supervisors
FROM:
Richard Shickle, Chairman, Board of Supervisors
SUBJECT:
Win-Fred MPO Liaison Report
DATE:
April 21, 2005
The Winchester-Frederick County Metropolitan Planning Organization (Win-Fred MPO) continues to
develop a 2030 long-range transportation plan for the Winchester-Frederick County area.
This 2030 Vision Plan, currently in a draft version, is a work in progress. The draft Vision Plan continues
to be modified to identify the most appropriate long-range transportation network for the Winchester-
Frederick County area. Ultimately, a 2030 Vision Plan will be adopted in September 2005 and
forwarded to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) by their established October 1, 2005
deadline. It is foreseeable that the final Vision Plan will be presented to the Board of Supervisors for their
adoption in August or September 2005 prior to the Win-Fred MPO's consideration. At such time, a
resolution from the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate.
Concerns have been voiced regarding how the local governoring bodies of Frederick County, the City of
Winchester, and the Town of Stephens City might more actively participate in the development of this
Vision Plan. Working through the MPO's staff, efforts will be implemented to incorporate each locality's
concerns and suggestions. It is envisioned that the Board would be provided an opportunity to offer
comments, and possibly consider resolutions, applicable to the significant milestones in the development
of the 2030 Vision Plan.
The Win-Fred MPO met on Wednesday, April 20, 2005, and considered the following items:
I. Approved the FY2006 Unified Planning Work Program which leads the Win-Fred MPO's
transportation planning efforts in the next fiscal year. The Win-Fred MPO staff will utilize the
approved work program to seek the necessary funding grants. Copy Attached.
2. Considered the comments offered during a Citizen Information Meeting held April 14, 2005.
107 North Kent Street . Winchester, Virginia 22601
Page 2
Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Re: Win-Fred MPO Liaison Report
April 21, 2005
3. Modified the draft 2030 Vision Plan to reflect the following changes:
a. Inclusion of an interchange on Route 37 at Jubal Early Drive extended;
b. Inclusion of improvements associated with a Jubal Early Drivel Millwood Avenue
flyover. These improvements would be adjacent to 1-81 Exit 313;
c. Removal of a segment of Route 37, from Route 7 northwest to 1-81; Inclusion of an
improved six-lane Route 7 roadway; and,
d. Inclusion of the existing WMC interchange on Route 37. The Win-Fred MPO did not
include an expanded or complete interchange, but supports maintaining the existing
configuration which limits access to the East side of Route 37.
As noted above, this draft Vision Plan is a work in progress with ultimate adoption targeted for
September 2005.
4. Considered the drafted Top 5 Regional Priorities. The projects on the draft Vision Plan were
prioritized by the members of the MFO Policy Committee and the MPO Technical Advisory
Committee. The priorities were not adopted. Prioritizations are attached.
5. Considered the Constrained Long-Range Plan (CLRP). The CLRP, once adopted, will be the list of
projects for which funding is sought. The CLRP would also be forwarded to VDOT for consideration
during the state's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). The recommended CLRP is
attached. The CLRP was not adopted.
Thank you.
RS/ERL/rsa
Attachments
UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM (UPWP)
FOR THE
WINCHESTER - FREDERICK COUNTY ("WIN-FRED")
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO)
FY 2006
(July 1, 2005 - June 30, 2006)
Adopted
April 20, 2005
Preparation Statement
Approved as final by the Win-Fred Metropolitan Planning Organization, April -,2005.
Prepared on behalf of the Win-Fred Metropolitan Planning Organization by the
Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission staff through a cooperative process
involving the City of Winchester, County of Fredrick, Town of Stephens City, Virginia
Department of Transportation, Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration.
The preparation of this program was financially aided through grants from the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Virginia Department of
Transportation and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation.
Win-Fred MPO
FY 2005-2006 UPWP
NS)!:RC
NORTHERN SHENANDOAH VAlLEY
REGION.\lCOMMISSION
Resolution
Win-Fred MPO
FY 2005-2006 UPWP
11
NS)l:RC
NOllTIJfJU\I SHENANDOAH VALLEY
I1JiG.IONAL COMMISSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FY 2006 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM
WORK TASKS AND BUDGET/FUNDING INFORMATION
Page No.
Preparation Statement...................................................................................................................... i
Resolution......................................................................................................................... .............. ii
Table of Contents ........ ............ ...... .,. ......................... ..... ................................................ ........... ..... iii
List of Figures ....... ....... ............ ........ ... ....................... ...................... ....... ... ........................... ......... iv
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................1
WORK TASK l: Program Management & Administration...........................................................5
WORK TASK 2: Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) .....................................................7
WORK TASK 3: 2030 Regional Transportation Plan Development .............................................8
WORK TASK 4: Transportation District Feasibility Study...........................................................9
WORK TASK 5: Air Quality Planning ........................................................................................10
Win-Fred MPO
FY 2005-2006 UPWP
111
NS~RC
NOJmfEllN SHENANDOAHVALLEY
REGIONAl COMMISSION
LIST OF FIGURES
Page No.
Figure 1: Map of Winchester-Frederick County Urbanized Area and MPO Study Area 2
Figure 2: Win-Fred MPO - NSVRC Costs and Sources of Revenue ...................... 11
Figure 3: VDOT Attachment - Funding Input. .. ... . .. . .. ... ... ... . .. ... ... . . . ... ... . .. .. . .. . 12
Win-Fred MPO
FY 2005-2006 UPWP
IV
NS)lRC
NORTHERN SHENANDOAH VAlln'
REGIONAl COMMISSION
INTRODUCTION
The Unified Planning Work Program (upWP) for transportation planning identifies all activities
to be undertaken in the Win-Fred Metropolitan Planning Organization study area for Fiscal Year
2006 (July 1, 2005 - June 30, 2006). The UPWP provides a mechanism for the coordination of
transportation planning activities in the region, and is required as a basis and condition for all
federal funding assistance for transportation planning by the joint metropolitan planning
regulations of the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) and the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA).
The work tasks within this UPWP are reflective of issues and concerns originating from
transportation agencies at the federal, state and local levels. The descriptions of the tasks to be
accomplished and the budgets for these tasks are based on a best estimate of what can be
accomplished within the confines of available federal, state and local resources.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 created a number of planning
requirements. In October 1993, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal
Transit Administration (FT A) issued final regulations regarding metropolitan planning.
The Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-2l), which became law in June 1998,
reaffirms the structure of the metropolitan planning process. Most of the modifications to the
process are aimed at streamlining and strengthening the provisions included in lSTEA. The Win-
Fred Metropolitan Planning Organization has developed this work program to address the [mal
metropolitan planning regulations and the new requirements in TEA-21.
Metropolitan Planning Area
The Win-Fred MPO study area consists of the City of Winchester, the Town of Stephens City,
the Urbanized Area of Frederick County, and the area of Frederick County projected to be
urbanized by the year 2020. See Figure 1 for an illustration of the region.
Based on the 2000 Census, the Win-Fred MPO Urbanized Area population was 53,559 and it
encompasses a land area of approximately 33.14 sq. miles.
Air Quality Consideration
In 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) made an amendment to the Clear Air Act's
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The amendment replaced the I-hour ozone
standard with a more stringent 8-hour standard. Over the past several years the ozone levels taken
at an air quality monitor in the Winchester-Frederick County area have exceeded the new 8-hour
standard.
In response to this issue, the City of Winchester and Frederick County have entered into an Early
Action Compact with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to prepare and implement an
Ozone Early Action Plan. The Early Action Plan will serve as the Northern Shenandoah Valley's
official air quality improvement plan, with quantified emission-reduction measures. The Early
Win-Fred MPO
FY 2005-2006 UPWP
1
NS)!:RC
NOJITHatN SHENANDOAHVAWiY
REGIONAL COMMISSION
FIGURE 1
Win-Fred MFO
Adoption date: 4/16/2003
Win-red MPO
OV81viaw
N
A
Legend
NRo.dway
D Wir>-Fred MPO
D Town/City/CD unty Bou cd. ry
Source: US Census Bureau.
Win-Fred MPO
FY 2005-2006 UPWP
2
NSYRC
NOR1llElUll SHENANDOAHVALLEY
REGIONAL COMMISSION
Action Plan will include all necessary elements of a comprehensive air quality plan, but will be
tailored to local needs and driven by local decisions.
The Winchester-Frederick County Economic Development Commission is currently serving as
the lead organization for the implementation ofthe Early Action Plan. An Air Quality
Improvement Task Force has also been created consisting of various government agencies,
business, and environmental organizations to develop, coordinate, and implement the mitigation
strategies contained in the Early Action Plan.
Responsibilities for Transportation Planning
The Win-Fred Metropolitan Planning Organization is the organization responsible for conducting
the continuing, comprehensive, and coordinated (3-C) planning process for the Winchester-
Frederick County Urbanized Area in accordance with requirements of Section 134 (Title 23
U.S.C.) of the Federal Highway Act of 1962, and Section 5303 of the Federal Transit Act. The
Win-Fred MPO is the official Metropolitan Planning Organization for the urbanized area,
designated by the Governor of Virginia, under Section 134 of the Federal Aid Highway Act, and
the joint metropolitan planning regulations of FHW A and FT A.
The policy making body of the Win-Fred MPO is the Policy Committee that consists of 8 voting
members. These include 3 representatives from the City of Winchester, 3 representatives from
Frederick County, 1 representative from the Town of Stephens City, and I representative from
VDOT. Other agencies with non-voting membership on the Win-Fred MPO Policy Committee
include the Virginia Department ofRaital!.g.:p~blic.TrfU1Spol"tation, Federal Highway
Administration and Federal Transit Admiriistration.
The Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission (NSVRC) staffs the Win-Fred MPO.
The staff, in conjunction with the MPO's member agencies, collect, analyze and evaluate
demographic, land use, and transportation data to gain a better understanding of the
transportation system requirements of the area. Special studies, research, and other work tasks
requested by the MPO are the staffs responsibility as well. Consultant assistance will be sought
when required by the staff to complete work tasks. For example, VHB, Inc. is currently serving
as a consultant to assist the Win-Fred MPO in preparing its Long-Range Transportation Plan.
Staff also prepares materials for use at the Policy and Technical Committee meetings as well as
any existing sub-committee meetings.
NSVRC staff will participate in all Win-Fred MPO meetings and provide required staff support
and administration of the transportation planning program. In addition, staff members will
represent the MPO at other meetings with federal, state, and local organizations.
Win-Fred MPO
FY 2005-2006 UPWP
3
NS)(RC
NOIllllEKN SHENANDOAHVAl.l.!Y
REGIONAl COMMISSION
Total Proposed Funding by Federal Source for FY 2005
The primary funding source for transportation planning activities included in this work program
are the FHW A Section 112 (PL), FTA Section 5303, and FHW A State Planning and Research
(SPR). The proposed funding amounts (including state and local matching funds) for the Win-
Fred MPO work program to be utilized by the NSVRC staff are shown in Figure 2.
Win-Fred MPO
FY 2005-2006 UPWP
4
NS)[RC
NOKIllfKN SHENANDOAH VJ\l..LEY
REGIONr\L COM.I4JSSION
WORK TASK 1: Program Management & Administration
Obiective and Description: This task includes ongoing activities that ensure proper management
and operation of a continuing, comprehensive, and coordinated (3-C) planning process as
described in the Memorandum of Understanding. The primary objectives of this task are as
follows:
Public Involvement Process (PIP): The encouragement of meaningful participation oflocal
citizens in metropolitan transportation planning is one of the most important goals of the "3C"
process and the Public Involvement Process. The Final Rule on Metropolitan Planning issued by
U.S. DOT in October 1993 reemphasizes this goal by requiring that each MPO maintain:
"... a proactive public involvement process that provides complete information, timely public
notice, full public access to key decisions, and supports early and continuing involvement of the
public in developing plans, TIPs..."
Under this task, the Win-Fred MPO will continue to maintain a Public Involvement Process and
monitor its effectiveness. The Public Involvement Process outlines the public outreach
procedures to be followed by the MPO in developing and amending the Region's UPWP, Long-
range Transportation Plan, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and other major studies.
The PIP plan will also address Title VI and ADA issues as well.
The Citizens Advisory Committee meets on a periodic basis to review and provide feedback to 0 _HO_
the Win-Fred MPO Technical and Policy Committees. The Citizens Advisory Committee will
also conduct outreach activities such as public meetings;and forums, neighborhood and
association meetings, and other means to seek inputotner from other agencies, organizations, and
individuals interested in the transportation planning process, plans being prepared, or other
transportation concerns. The MPO staff supports the work of the Citizens Advisory Committee.
The concept of Environmental Justice has raised questions regarding equity and the inclusion of
all individuals in the decision making process. The PIP will include procedures developed by the
Win-Fred MPO to address environmental justice. Efforts will be made to better identify
organizations and individuals not normally included in the transportation planning process on a
continuing basis.
This task will provide a continuing public involvement process that increases participation by
community members in transportation plans, with a particular focus on improving participation
by groups not previously involved in the transportation planning process.
UPWP Preparation and Management: Implement the FY 2006 UPWP throughout the fiscal year
and provide all required administrative functions including all accounting functions, personnel
administration, office management, financial reporting, and contract administration.
To meet the requirements of23 CFR Part 420 and 23 CFR Part 450, the Win-Fred MPO, in
cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Virginia Department of Rail
and Public Transportation, is responsible for the development of a Unified Planning Work
Win-Fred MPO
FY 2005-2006 UPWP
5
NS~RC
NORTHERN SHENANDOAH VAllEY
JtEGIONAL COMMlSSrQN
Program (upWP). The UPWP describes all regional transportation planning activities anticipated
in the Win-Fred MPO study area for the following fiscal year that will utilize federal funding,
including Title I Section 134 metropolitan planning funds, and Title III Section 8 metropolitan
planning funds. The UPWP also identifies state and local matching dollars for these federal
planning programs.
This task provides for management of the FY 2006 UPWP including the following activities:
. Maintain all required financial records and conduct annual independent audit
. Hire and train staff
. Maintain required files and records ofMPO activities (i.e. minutes, meeting notices, etc.)
. Preparation of quarterly progress reports and invoices
. Preparation of required legal notices and advertisements
. Preparation of resolutions adopted by MPO
. Preparation of required grant applications and execution of contracts
If during FY 2006, an amendment to the UPWP is deemed necessary, due to changes in planning
priorities and/or the inclusion of new planning projects, staff will identify and detail such
amendments for consideration by the MPO.
This task also provides for the development of the upcoming UPWP for FY 2006. The document
will incorporate suggestions from federal funding agencies, state transportation agencies, transit
operating agencies, local governments participating in Win-Fred MPO, and the public through
the MPO's public involvement process.
General Administration: Support the activities of the Win-Fred MPO through the preparation of
reports, presentations, agendas, minutes and mailings for all Policy Board and Technical
Committee meetings, as well as attendance at those meetings
. Meeting arrangements for committees: Policy Committee - 3 rd Wednesday of Month,
Technical Committee - 4th Tuesday of Month, Citizens Advisory Committee - 2nd
Tuesday of Month
. Preparation and transmittal of meeting packages
. Transcribe and publish minutes
. Prepare meeting agenda items
. Staff attendance at meetings
Provide on-going training and development of staff and Board/Committee members
. Attend training seminars and conferences
. Coordination meetings with state and federal agencies
. Circulate training opportunities to committee members
Products: MPO staff support, detailed records documenting activities of the MPO including
minutes for all committee meetings, preparation and submission of required progress reports and
invoices to all federal and state agencies, detailed financial records, and a well-trained and
informed MPO staff, Policy Committee and Technical Committee members.
Estimated Budget:
$75,261 - NSVRC Staff
Win-Fred MPO
FY 2005-2006 UPWP
6
NS)tRC
NORTHERN SHINANDOAH VAllEY
REGIONAl. CQMM!SSJON
WORK TASK 2: Transportation Improvement Program
Obiective and Description: As required by federal planning regulations, the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) for the Win-Fred MPO is a three-year program of highway, transit,
bicycle, pedestrian, safety, and transportation enhancement projects receiving federal funds. State
and locally funded projects are also included in the TIP for coordination purposes.
The TIP is updated each year and must be approved by the MPO Policy Committee and the
governor of Virginia. The TIP is required as a condition for all federal funding assistance for
transportation improvements within the Win-Fred MPO study area.
The general public and all other interested parties will be given an opportunity to review and
comment on the proposed TIP as described under the Win-Fred MPO's adopted Public
Involvement Plan. To facilitate public review, the TIP will be accessible electronically through
the Internet and at public libraries, government offices, and upon request.
This task provides for the development and maintenance of a regional Transportation
Improvement Program for FY 2006-2008, as well as advanced preparation for FY 2007-2009.
This task will require active support of all Win-Fred MPO committees and coordination with
member agencies.
Some of the major activities that will be undertaken as part of this task include preparation of the
Win-Fred MPO Self-Certification Statement and activities to assure that the Statement is being
followed, and the preparation of an annual listing ofprojects for which federal funds have been
obligated in the previous year.
A tentative schedule for the development ofthe FY 2006-2008 TIP is as follows:
· March-April 2005 - Based on CTB approval of FY 2006 Six-Year Program,
development of DRAFT FY 2006-2008 TIP for public review.
· May-June 2005 - Refine DRAFT FY 2006-2008 TIP based on public comment and CTB
approval of final FY 2006 Six- Year Program.
· August 2005 - Final approval of FY 2006-2008 TIP by Win-Fred MPO Policy Board, and
submittal to VDOT
· September 2005 - Win-Fred MPO FY 2006-2008 TIP included in VDOT submittal ofFY
2006 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to FHW A/FT A for review.
· October 2005 - Federal approval of FY 2006 STIP
Products: Processing of requested amendments to the adopted FY 2005-2007 TIP; complete
development of the FY 2006-2008 TIP; Annual Listing of Projects for FY 2005; and preliminary
preparation ofFY 2007-2009 TIP.
Estimated Budget: $15,875 - NSVRC Staff
Win-Fred MPO
FY 2005-2006 UPWP
7
NS)(RC
N'OmmtN SKENANDOAHVAllEY
REGIONAl COMMISSION
WORK TASK 3: 2030 Regional Transportation Plan Development
Obiective and Description: Federal law requires the Win-Fred MPO to prepare and adopt a Long
Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) every five years, and that the Plan must have at least a 20-
year horizon at the time of adoption. The Win-Fred MPO must develop and approve its first
LRTP by October 1,2005. During FY 2004-2005, a significant portion of this process was
completed which involved the preparation of data inputs for a transportation model and the
development of the actual transportation model to be used to prepare projected traffic and future
conditions. During FY 2005-2006, the tasks to complete the remaining part of the long-range
transportation plan process are as follows:
}> Approve 2030 Vision Plan
}> Develop Financially Constrained 2030 Transportation Plan
}> Public Involvement
}> Develop GIS Project and Interactive Website
}> Final 2030 Transportation Plan Document
In addition to the above tasks, work to coordinate ITS planning activities within the MPO study
area and coordinate rural transportation planning activities adjacent to the MPO study area will
also be completed. Staff will also assist VDOT with freight planning activities as part of the
VTRANS 2025 planning effort statewide.
Products:
2030 Vision Plan
Financially constrained 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan
Detailed documentation on public involvement
Plan information on website
Final 2030 Transportation Plan Document
Estimated Budget:
$81,432 - NSVRC Staff
Win-Fred MPO
FY 2005-2006 UPWP
8
NSYRC
NOIITHERN SHENANOOAHVAllE\'
REGIONAl COMM!SS!ON
WORK TASK 4: Transportation District Feasibility Study
Obiective and Description: This task is carried over from the FY 2004-2005 UPWP. The Win-
Fred MPO Policy Committee authorized a study committee to analyze the feasibility of creating a
transportation district or similar organization to facilitate the expansion of mass transportation
services outside of the City of Winchester. The committee will be comprised of the following
representatives:
. 1 each from the City of Winchester, Frederick County and the Town of Stephens City
(covering Town of Middletown as well)
. 1 representative from Clarke County
. 1 representative from the Virginia Department of Rail & Public Transportation
. The City of Winchester Transit Marketing Director
. The Program Manager from the Northern Shenandoah Valley Public Mobility Program
The MPO staffwill support the work of the committee in conducting the feasibility study.
Results of the study will be presented to the Policy Committee for review and action. MPO staff
will also be available to provide support to Winchester Transit in the implementation of pilot bus.
routes into Frederick County. These routes will be determined by agreement between the City of
Winchester and Frederick County.
Products: Draft feasibility study. Record of committee meetings held.
Estimated Budget: $14,949 - NSVRC Staff (Includes $12,633 in FY 2005 carryover funds)
Win-Fred MPO
FY 2005-2006 UPWP
9
NS)[RC
NomJERN SHENANDOAHV.wEY
~IONAl.COMMISSTON
WORK TASK 5: Air Quality Planning
Obiective and Description: The City of Winchester and Frederick County have entered into an
Early Action Compact with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to prepare and implement
an Ozone Early Action Plan. The Early Action Plan will serve as the Northern Shenandoah
Valley's official air quality improvement plan, with quantified emission-reduction measures.
Currently, the Winchester-Frederick County Economic Development Commission is serving as
the lead organization for the implementation of the Early Action Plan. An Air Quality
Improvement Task Force has also been created consisting of various government agencies,
business, and environmental organizations to develop, coordinate, and implement the mitigation
strategies contained in the Early Action Plan. The Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional
Commission is also working on regional air quality issues through the Shenair Program which
will incorporate scientific research and data collection activities to support air quality planning.
This work task will provide support by the MPO staff to these air quality planning efforts. This
will permit the MPO to participate in the activities of the Air Quality Improvement Task Force
and the Shenair Program. In addition, the MPO will need to work closely with the Valley
Commuter Assistance Program, the regional ridesharing agency, to coordinate projects to
improve air quality in the MPO study area. This work task will also support activities of the
MPO staff to coordinate with the adjacent West Virginia Eastern Panhandle MPO in their air
quality improvement planning activities as well.
Products: Detailed air quality data and research to support air quality planning efforts. Record of
meetings held. Recommended transportation projects to supportrtdesharingand improve air
quality.
Estimated Budget:
$20,867 - NSVRC Staff
Win-Fred MPO
FY 2005-2006 VPWP
10
NS:I:RC
NQRTIfERN SHENANDOAH VAllEY
REGIONAL COMM1SSlON
>-
=
rJ:irJ:i
~~
~~
-E--~
U,...;O
~~rJ:i
rJ:i~..:l
oz~<
~ _~u
~ r..q.~ 0
N~~ ..:l
~~~~~
~~rJ:i<<
.- ~O ~ ~
~Z~~~
,...;~ZE--
~lf"l~<
=>E--
=~rJ:i
N~~
~~~
rJ:i~
O~
~~
O~
~
~
-;'5
Co) ~
3::E
v..c::
..... Co)
o:l ~
U5::E
r<'l
o
r<'l
~~
i:I-< .9
.....
Co)
V
00
-;'5
Co) ~
3::E
v'5
S~
tI.l::E
N
-
<_r-..
~d;f
;>00
:::c: ';j 00
i:I-<g'-"
00
~
o
E-
'"
<li
:=
==
<li
t
~
"'Cl
<li
'"
Q
c..
e
t:l..
r<'l r<'l
N r<'l
r<'l \D
vi ('.r
~ .......
-
~
r-..
;f
o
-
'-"
r<'l V
~ \D
r-- ~
V)
~
r-..
;f
o
-
'-"
r<'l V
~ \D
r--,~
V)
~
r-..
;f
o
00
'-"
r<'l ~
vO
r<'l r--
vi r--'
v
~
r-..
;f
o
-
'-"
~o
r<'l0
oo,r<'l
r<'l
.......
~
r-..
;f
o
.......
'-"
00
vO
00 r<'l
r<'l
-
~
V \D
- ~
r-- r<)
ON'
.......
.......
~
'"
"0
bOS
.5 i:I-<
""0 ...
t: Q.l
;:I ..
i:I-< 0
~ ~
v.;u
00
~~
::E:::E
\DV)
00
00
N N
>->-
i:I-<i:I-<
...:l
<
E-
O
E-
<il'5~
Co) ..... 0
o o:l 0
....:l::E:=
Q.l '5 ~
td ....... 0......
.....0:$0
tI.l::E:=
r<'l
o
<~~
,,--dO
"00
i:I-< ';j ~
Co)
V
00
_..c::r-..
eaB~
g o:l 0
....:l:::Ec
v'5~
~ ....... 0
.....0:$0
tI.l:::E:::.
N
.......
<~ ....... Co'
t: 0....
00
:::c: '.g ~
i:I-< v
00
'"
<li
'"'
:=
....
....
"'Cl
==
<li
c..
~
~
"'Cl
<li
'"
Q
c..
Q
'"'
t:l..
"S
o
~
~
1a t:
:::E .9
eb~
o ...
... to
~ ,-
I .5
....... 8
~""O
00<
<"0
t-< 1a
.......
\D
('t
V)
r--
~
00
V)
N,
N
~
00
V)
N
N'
~
N
\D
o
00'
.......
~
00
\D
N,
V)
~
00
\D
N,
V)
~
\D
V
.......
N
V
~
V)
r--
00
V)
.......
~
\D
r--
v
~
\D
r--
v
~
.......
.......
00
r<'l
~
.......
.......
.......
.......
~
.......
.......
.......
.......
v;
o
~
00,
00
v;
~
[::
I
N
~
00
<
t-<
'"
1a
~
'03
t:
o
'50
Q.l ....
~ t:
o 0
8 ~
N..9
I ~
r<) 0
~Ci
00 t:
< o:l
E-<'ii:
N
r<'l
v,
.......
00
~
r<'l
.......
N
N'
~
r<'l
.......
N
N'
~
o
.......
r--
r--'
-
~
~
N
~,
V)
~
o
r<'l
0;,
V)
~
r--
r<'l
v
r--'
v
~
~
v
~
v'
.......
*
~
r--
N
.......
.......
*
~
r--
N
-
,
.......
*
~
"<t
o
o
~'
*
~
.......
r--
r<'l
*
~
-
r--
M
*
~
~
v
~
N'
*
~
;>..
""0
.....
00
....
Co)
,-
...
....
'"
i:S
....
.~
...
t-<
v
~
00
~
r--
\D
00
o
N
~
\D
N
\D
v;
\D
N
\D
v;
00
o
0,
V)
v;
o
\D
v,
.......
v;
o
\D
v,
.......
v;
r--
00
\D,
.......
.......
v;
bO
t:
.@
o:l
'ii:
....
....
.-
.......
o:l
;:I
C1
...
:.;::
I
V)
~
00
~
v
00
M
00'
o
N
*
v;
o
o
r--
vi
*
v;
o
o
r--
vi
*
v;
V)
~
"1-
r<)
V)
*
v;
~
r<'l
.......
v'
.......
*
v;
O.
v
.......
v'
.......
*
v;
o
.......
.......
r<)
.......
.......
*
v;
00
...:l
<
E-
O
E-
lur
C2: h~
~~~
Izlll
'"
""0
3
i:I-<
...
o
..
~
o:l
U
V)
o
o
N
>-
i:I-<
'"
o
-g
.......
Co)
t:
-
*
~
~
~\Q
~~
",~
..'"
~~
.:.'"
~~
FIGURE 3
Win-Fred MPO
FY 2005-2006 UPWP
12
0
0 %
~
.... e
~ ~
0) '0
e
u.\ e
0 0
\!') 'en
-
t- ~
-
"t"" 0
~ .~
0) l/)
0 ~ -0
(t. ~
€ 0
.s ....
~ ~ 0
~ ~ 0 0
z \!')
cD 0- - :S
"t"" ~ t-
ei ("') ~ "t"" t- .~
0- 'c iX. tt.
iii 1_
'0 I 2 2 ~ ~ t.-
~ ~ . .s 0 0
e ~ -0 &. 2 ....
(,) 0 e . t.- t.- ~
~ 'Z' .' € - ~ 2 ~ I-
e - .0) &. '~
ro ' . 0 ~ 0 ~ (/) (/) e
0 0 0 'en ..... 0) 0) 0
.... 0 e ~ "& 0 ~ ~ ~ ~
(j) "t"" e rt. :S I~ ~
q- "t"" ~ .....
..... e '~ Q) ~ e e .....
<0 cD 0 ..... Cf) > ~ .- "t"" ~
Q) I Q) e $
~ ~ - uJ en ~-o ? ~ ~ Q) cD ~
.9 E .- '0 I
Q) ~ Q) .s - -
~ 0 > 0) e u.. Q) 0 e 0
.~ (t. ~ .c ~ 1--0 2 ~ 0) b ~ ~ 0 0
e ~
.s ~ 0 -0 ~~ e J( ~ ~ ~ q-
"t"" 0 t.- e lJ) 'g ..... ~ 0 0 +
cD lJ) 0 ~ l/) lJ) i~
I "t"" .- ~ ~uJ 0) -0 E e
- cD "t"" t.- o e lJ) e 0 - "t"" "t"" ~
t.- O).....
..... I cD ~ ..... ro l/) - 0 ~ cD cD ~ "t""
0) - I ~ ,Z Cf) cD
- $ - 0 -0 Z I I
E - - ..... I
> E ~ (5 ,~ <0 ..... e ~ -
0 0 - e E E
0 ~ .s ro ~ ro .s
e ..... 0 ~ o~ @) e ~ 0 0 .S
- ....
0 ~ - '~ t- o ~ ..... ..... lJ)
~ 'c I- - - ~ Q)
e "en M 'en .... g g
e 0 (a~ 2 "t"" ~ 2 ~
0 e 'c 0 ex:. cD e e
"~ ~ $"t"" ~ I ~ uJ e 'C 'c
Q) 2 '.+::' '0 0 - - '0
0 :g ~ ro _cD (t. E ~ -0 Q) Q) 0
0 Q) $ &. 0 o..!- uJ .0 Q) -0 -0 e 0
~ (j) 0 e - 0 :z: ~ lJ) .~ 'j 0
(j) 0 e ..... 0 t.- '0
o Q) - -, ~ ~
Q) t- t) t.- ~ g ~ ~ t- o
..... ~ 0 :.;:::;> t- I
t- en ~ b ~ Q) 0 ("') uJ 0 ("') ~ e
0 ..... ~ - Q) 'c -.:- t.- ~ 0
("') lJ) 2 iii ("') lJ) %,.g Q) 2 ~ N 0- 2 2 II) :e
.~ 0) ~ e ..... e -0 ~ .0 ,= "t"" ~ ~ e -0
..... ~ 'x &. 0 &. &. 0 ~
& &. 0 0 0'- ~ ~ ..... cD
0 uJ 0 015 -, 0- I 0
I- .J -
N q- "t"" "t"" (".l (".l "t"" N "t"" N "t"" "t"" "t"" -.:- "t"" "t""
(/)
~
0
>
--------/.- .'
t/J
0)
.-
...
.-
'-
o
.-
'-
0..
-;
C-
O
.-
0)
&
0-
o
~
'-
o
""'"
t/J
C-
O
.-
~
"'0
C-
O)
e.
E-
O
u
&
0)
~
'e
E-
O
(,)
~
.-
-
o
0..
..,
0..
0
0 ~
~ cD
..... C '<-"
ro ro ("')
(l) '0 cX5
c
uJ C I"-
"t""
0 0 ("')
1.0 .(;) C
-
I"- ~ Q)
-.:- (3 (l)
2 c ~
,-
l/) ~ (l) 1.-- Q)
-0 0 ~ .D
~ ex:. -€ (/)
0 .s € Q)
..... 0 c
.:t 0 ~ ~ 16 ~
ro 0 Z .J
0- 1.0 l"- E 0
:S N ("') ill
~ '~ ~ N 2 0
.c 0 1.0 ~ Q)
iii \--: \!') ~
- '0 2 Q) &: .-' .c
::J ..... I"- 0> ~ ~
-0 0 "t"" C ~ C ..J
(,) C ~ 2 0 0 ro ..... (/)
ex:. 0 -"t""
.!. C - \'2 ~ {3.- -
- 'as ~ " ro \'" -0
0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ..... "t"" -0
'en 0 ~ I"- - 2 cD I"-"
"" ~ ~ ~ ~ ex:. 0 -0 I ("') ro
c - -
~ I~ -0 (l) (t. .~ c 2 -0
C .... ..... c
.8 ~ 0 c Q) ..... I"- 0 ~ ~
,Q '<-" (t. ro (l) ("')
Cf) cD "t"" :6 ~-o (/) &: 1.0 l"-
e I cD 2 ~
(l) Q) - .8 :6 (/) Q) "t"" '<-"
> 0 C I ~-o ~ ("') ("')
:S - c c
.c 0 0 -.:- C '~ I- C 0 ~ 0 ~ ~
0 -0 q- cD (l) ~~ ..... ~
(l) I ~
..... c + 0> - (l) -.:- l/) :S c c
0 ~ cD .....
.c ~ \~ c E I (l) ~uJ '~ Q) c ~ ~
0 ~ 0 - c ..... ~ $:. $:.
..... Q) Q) ,
~ ..... "t"" ~ ..... ro ..... c $:. 0 0
~ ..... .D >-
$ co - Q) - ,_ Cf) 0 g 0 ..... .....
l"- I ..... ~ I"- > <0 ..... ..... 2 2
- Q) 0 o .'!l :z:. ~
:e ("') ("') c c
.s .s c .s o~ ..... ~ - -
2 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 0 I"- uJ 'x "t"" '<-"
~ ~ .(;) 'c I- ~ cD cD
c &. 0 0 ~ .... ~ u.I I I
C Q) C tO~ - -
.2 ~ c (t. ex:. ~ ~ $-.:- .D .s c .9 .9
~ '0 '0 - '0 &. ~ -
0 0 _cD -, ~ 0 ~ $
0 0 0..1.
0 c c c c (j) - ....- c c c
Q3 0 - 0 0 0 0 c ..... 0 Q) 0 Q) Q)
..... ts 0 ts 13 13 Q) ,g o Q) c E 13 E E
..... ,- > 0
r- ::J c ::J ~ ~ ..... (j)o Q) ~ (l) Q)
0 ~ 0 .... ..... .... Cf) 'c o.~ '(j) b ..... b b
("') '.+::' iii iii iii lJ) Q) Q) c iii
..... c :0 c c c '~ C -0 E-o Q) Q c ~ q
'x 0 ~ 0 0 0 5 ~ o ,- )( E 0 E E
u.I 0 0 0 0 I- 015 u.I - 0 - -
tJ) r- 1.0 1.0 ("') q- N N N N N "t"" -.:- -.:- -.:-
~
0
t/J
0)
',tj
.-
'-
o
.-
...
0..
-
~
c-
o
.-
0)
&
0-
o
lo-
...
o .....
""'"
t/J
c-
.2 0-
~
"'0
c-
O)
e
E
o
u
?t
0)
0)
~
.-
e
e
o
(,)
~
lo-
>
Draft Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP)
Management Team Recommendations
Interstate Funds - $36,956.600
Recommendation: All segments ofI-81 that are in the Draft Vision Plan should be included in the
CLRP for preliminary engineering (PE) only.
Reasoning:
Interstate funds can only be spent on Interstate projects and the amount available
to the region is insufficient to complete virtually any meaningful segment of the
1-81 improvements that are in the Draft Vision Plan. It is more conducive to the
corridor improvements as a whole to continue to keep them alive as a package
by including them in our CLRP for PE.
PrimarY Funds - $4.095.400
Recommendation: Allocate $214,000 to complete right of way acquisition for the Rt. 277
widening.
Allocate remaining balance of $3,881,400 to PE for the Rt. 37 corridor roadway
(excluding interchanges) segments.
Reasoning:
The Rt. 277 widening is in the VDOT 6 year program with nearly full funding
for design and right of way, this $214,000 completes that phase of the project.
The reasoning behind the Rt. 37 corridor PE is the same as the 1-81 projects
above. Due to percentages needed to be able to justify PE, the interchanges
themselves had to be left out of this portion with the focus being on preservation
of the overall corridor. It is also vital to have PE completed so that the future
right-of-way is better identified and be protected.
SecondarY Funds - $10.839,557
Recommendation: $5,777,484 to Project 59 - Warrior Dr widening to 4 lanes from Rt 277 to
Opequon Creek
$5,062,073 to Project 48 - Sulphur Springs Rd US Route 17\50 to Greenwood
Rd Widening and New roadway
Reasoning:
The Warrior Dr. widening to 4 lanes is essential to accommodate the anticipated
growth / future traffic generation. While the entire length of Warrior Drive,
from Route 277 to Route 522, will ultimately be a 4-lane roadway, it is
anticipated that the segments of Warrior Dr north of the Opequon Creek would
be constructed by the development community. Therefore, the segment of
Warrior Dr south of the Opeqoun Creek would be a logical public project.
Proj ect 48 offers an additional transportation network 'relief valve' for the
development located along the Senseny Road corridor. This long plarmed for
project would realign and relocate sections of Greenwood Rd to an intersection
with Route 50.
Urban Funds - $6.711,587
Recommendation: $3,100,000 to the completion of Weems Lane as shown in the VDOT 6 year
program.
$3,611,587 to projects 51 and 51a - to be dedicated to PE, Design and Right of
Way for the Hope Drive Extension and the PapermiJI Rd Relocation
Reasoning:
Weems Lane is the only project other than Meadow Branch A venue listed in the
current 6-yr program that is not scheduled to be completed by 20 II, The current
6-yr program identifies about $3.4M available for Weems Lane by the year
2011, so it makes sense to show completion of this project as a top priority. The
remaining Urban funds are shown to go toward any incomplete aspects of the
Hope Dr and PaperMill Rd projects if they are not otherwise completed with
local public or private funds before 2011.
Other
$500,000 in Grant funds from FT A to be used for the construction of the new
Winchester Transit Station
L
'--'
L
Final Vision Plan
Legend -L -[1 -j t::
II Project Number" Ii:>- fr ~ L _ ~
i!P Infrastructure Removed r I~}.;..~ ~; g;t1Y'
. Interchange Improvement 1 C y -::.--j j
. Intersect,on Improvement ~ ~ . -t!. ...; >-'~J~_ I ~ -J.
=:::::::adlmprov~enffi~WA' -j~ ~~ 6r; ~ \
= Committed PrOjects Iio..- .."') ~',tr~ \J j .2".00' f-)., ~
c:::J MPO Boundary I .. T I~ 6' ""'Ii -l.7' ~~Y;~ ~.~ 7-- ~~. \J ~ J
:; W~ ~. J \.,! "'. /I-t> l... l.Y~1 ~
/ ~ ( II J - . ~ ".", ~ ,L,:::
F!f. efic : ,.::::j ~~ ~!},. I )
I!!..H..... J. J I ~ ~::\'-. 0.. '
~ ~~'~~r ~7) (/Ix r:;,~lo.-;, I \ 1 ~
Ii r ?\~~~.. 37'5 9~~ ~ :t&~(" LY'-h /
i "I fi, j~ /dX: II ( ~94 .....:i ~'" -t._\-- ;; rv-!
;.,. i ~ IJ,~ '/ '~ (, II .. If); :J
.~ Y", .1 '0). . ~ '" .... 1-~/ar(cel.J-
./ ~ . 23 ~ '22:: J .....Rd .. ~ I
~ (' ...., .. ~ ~A ..,.~,., :'l<!' ""..,~~91,...."" ". 1,; ~ " -
U . Chest' \ r~ 'Y{;m:;;~ '
,z ~~ ~'-~.. ~,.,~~ D~ - -
r'" ~, ~s; 1"rF.~1 ~)/ '., ~ '- ~ . 17J:'1 ,."..
, OJ ~ ), ;;:'''.y'' .! ;y,/, ". '" ------! <..
" C'd_~tj"d ~6...I~ ~~:" 91 ~1, 1 '1J,t'0- ~ 0--1 0
-) 1 '7X-37 . '9 i r t "~2 ) ~
<.,.. "" ~ O!.~I .Y. PJJr7 [ ~
\r I v' ~,' · ~1-t ^~ I JV' / V
~ '. · ~ ~ ~}/~ ~~'J 'j~' lY'. ~r4.~\ ~ ~ ~.; ~
36 Ii. f/"'l. ~~/
-, ..., 6 ~.f! V r ' ~rt::, 7\(( ,,46,
r J:.,oJJfJ: ~ 65 ~ \ J} ;; dJi h - r.t.:;;;
~ ,p4~'(:JS,'~.,;- "<P'\<"'''''Ad J 2 r/~IJJ. f/'IQ.L ~
-.. -'>~~ ~ fU/ ~".; J 1~50)~2 Z -,; ~o(l~( 'm ~'" ty.
~= ~ L.-3=l, ",.... If ;2 0). -"I)~~j U 7',
Stephe r:i~(' , !lc\ ~ Ill.. -, / 5 Ii.;' "-" L~' "! vi Sf..... P; 2 9
1-' Ii 'Jl./ ;lS;;I ilL" r' ;,
~" .r{ l~ , 7 ~ ;!Ij~ ~q._~-<<~)~
"- ;7; ~;~~7'/~/-:"4 \l "~JI ~~ ~' r icl
-,.... ~~~l~ ~ '. ~ OJ 11:.~:- "]2" J"~ .::~.,
4,. tJ L... ced8f cree\!. IIIIIIJL.. 49 ')/; 7 \
"/ ~ . ~ 'I - ~ ~ -ff 7i-ft 'P ' /, , ~ ..
t n,o tJ ~ ~ 1-)~~v!~~~~:;1~~V
~ r ~~'J .fi ~~~Z~l-;'~/- }~
~(~. "(~lJ~~~~7'f7:? ~ ~ \
. Descnpllons of proJects. as ident,fled by project 1\' Y7 ../ '-... ~6-- ~I ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ "'(
numbers above, are shown In an attached table \... V , ~ ~ ~ II ~ ""'Il .:
, ( r- ~ ~I
N
W{PE 0
Win-Fred MPO 2030
Transportation Plan
IAIVQnu.u' HIUf en BrustJin. Inc.
IW' T,...".,.....lMlII~.l~.......
2 Miles
s
Win-Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan
Vision Plan Project Descriptions - Existing Roads
Road Project MPO Aclopted
Name 'D' Roadway Section Vision Plan Improvement Draft Vision Plan
,-8,
1 MP 305-307 Widenl-B1
51anlls
2 MP3D7-310 Widenl.S1 5 lanes
3 MP310.313 Wid'nj-a1
4+4 lanu
4 Battaile Drive Interchange on 1-81 with CD Roads conn"cting with Widen 1.81 to 4 lanes on Mainlne (2lanas per direction) with 2 lanes In
Edts 310 and 313 each direction on separate collector-distributor (C-D) roads. North of
EJtit. 313, transitions bacK to f>.\aMl cross section ,
, MP313-318 Widen 1-61
61an85
. MP 318-Zl21 Widenl-B1
6 lanes
7 MP321-3.23 Widenl-B1
6 lanes
. Inlerchann. tflJ MP 307 'Route 217\ Relocate Ex/slinn tnterchanne to the soulh ,
. Inlerchanoe all MP 310 (Route 3751642) Construct Full Cloverleaf Interchanoe .....ith CoO foads ,
,. Interchange@MP313 Improve to Directionallnterchanlle ./
11 lnterCMl\O.e t'& MP 315 ImDtOve Inlerchano8 ,
12 Interchange@ MP 317 Improve Interchange and add one-lane C-D roads 06tween Exit 317 and
neW Extt31B ,
13 Interchange@MP31B Construct Full Cloverleaf Interchange with CoD roads ,
US Route 11
'4 AMle Valley Road (Route 652) to Tevis Street Widen to 5-lane cross section ,
15 ~artinsbUrg Pike Junction with Route 37 (mOdification of exlsllng New interchange between Existing Route 37, ('lew Route 37, and
unctIon) MarlinsburQ Pike ./
,. Martinsburc Pike - Route 37 Junction to I-B1 Widento6-lanecrosssection ,
17 1-61 to West VirQinia Une Widen to 4-18ne cross section ,
Route 1715D
,. C. ers Vallev Road to Sulohur Sorinns Road Widen to 6-lane cross section ,
19 Sui hur Sorinas Road to Relocated Route 522 Widen to ~lane cross section ./
2. Reloellted Route 522 to 1-81 Widen to 6-1.loI\e ertlss sfoClion ,
21 1-81 10 Apple Blossom Drive Jubal ~arly bridge over relocated Millwood AvenuelFrontage Road with
ramp to ea Route 17/50. Realign Apple Blossom Drive 10 intersect with
universi1vDriveattrafficsinnal ,
Route 5D
22 Amherst Street bfltween Keatino Drive & Route 37 Widen 10 ~lane cross section ,
23 Route 50 Setween RI 37 and Poor House Road Wldent06-lanecrosssection ,
Route 37
24 lnterchanlJ8wlth US Route 11{South ofCiM Remove Interehanoe ./
" Interchange with Route 651 rShadv Elm Roal'f\ New Diamond Interchafloe ,
.. Inlerchamle with Cedar Creek Grade SlanallIed Both Ramos ./
27 Conslrucl new diamond interchange with realignment of Merrimans
Lane _ north side T into Jubal Early Drive. soulh side connect into
Interchamle with Jubal Earlv Drive inlerchanae ./
2. lnterct\anQ8 with US Route 50 Impruve Interc:\1anne ,
2S Inlerchal\l'le with US Route 522 Imorovelnterchilnoe ./
... Allow Medica! center 10 complete access improvements to western
Interchange at Winchester MedIcal Center Dorlionoftheircamnus ,
Route2n
3. 1-81 to Route 641 Widen 10 S-Iane cross section ./
31 Route 64110 White Oak Road {Route 636\ Widen to 5-lane cross .sectIon ./
32 While Oak Road to US Route 522/US Route 340 Widen to4-lane cross,seclion ./
Cedar Creek Glilde (Route 622\
" Widen 10 4 lanes - Route 621 to Winchesler CL Widen to 4-18ne cross seetion ./
Route 522
34 lrrters6CtiQ.n with Tasl<.e.r Road Ins\aU1raff\csiDTIa\ ,
" Intersection with Macedonia Church Road Install traffic slQnal ,
" Relocate 10 soulh onnosite new school entranceNictorv Blvd Extension
Intersection with Panermill Road ,
31 Airport Road 10 US Route 17/50 Relocate US Route 52210 the east. Existing US Route 522 to be closed
al northern end to serve local1rafflc onlv. ./
3B Wvek straellD 0.2 miles north of Wincnester CL Widen 10 4-lane cross section ./
Route 641IDou!)le Church Road)
" Frederick Co Line to Route 277 Upgrade exis11ng two-lane road ,
Route 642 'Tasker ROild'
4. US Route 522 10 Lakeside Drive Widen to 4 lane cross section ,
41 lakeside Drive to FCSA Terminus Widen 10 4-lane cross section ,
Win-Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan
Vision Plan Project Descriptions - Existing Roads
Road Project MPO Adopted
Nama 10. Roadway Section Vision Plan Improvement Draft Vision Plan
Route 651 fShadv Elm Road\
4' ADDie Vallev Road (Route 652) 10 Proposed Route 651 Extension Widen to 4 lane CfOSS section ,
Route 652 lADDie Vallev Roadl
43 US Route 11 to Middle Road Widen to 4-lane cross section ,
Featherbed Ln
44 5 Loudoun 51 to Pleasant Valley Rei Widento4-lane cross section ,,-
Battall. Drive
45 New Pleasant Vallev Road Extension 10 Shawnee Drive Widen to 4-lan8 cross section ,
Shawnee Drive
46 Battaita Drive to US Route 11 Widen to 4-lane cross section ,
Greenwood Road tRoute 656)
47 Sensenv Road to Valley MUI Road Uoorade existing 2-lan8 cross section ,
Sulphur Sorinas Road 'Route 6551
48 US Route 17f50 10 Greenwood Road Uoorade existlnn 2-lane cross section ,
Weems Lane
4. Roosevelt Blvd 10 us Route" 1 Widen 10 5-lane cross section ,,-
Papermm Road
5. I-B1 to Shawnee Drive Remove bridne overl.B1, ,
Hone Drive Extension
" Valor Drive to Paoermill Road (3 Janes) Construct 3-18ne cross section as Dart of PaDermill Road relocation ,
Paoennill Road Relocation
51 Hope Drive 10 Pleasant Vallev Road (5 lanes) Construct 5-lane cross seelion as part of Papermill RoaCl relocation ,
Tevis Street Realignment
51 Bradford Clio Relocated Papermill Road/Hope Drive Extension Construcl 2-lane cross seclion as part of PapermJII Road relocation
(2Ian8s)
White Oak Road
62 US Route 522 10 Tasker Road Widen to 4-lane cross section ,
Old Charles Town Road
" US Route 11 to New stephenson Village Boulevard Widenl03-lanecrossseelion ,
54 New Steohensons Villaae Boulevard to Jordan Spnngs Road Imorove eXistina 2~lane road ,
Jordan Sannas Road
" Old Charles Town Road 10 Woods Mill Road Jmnroveexistlnn2.lane road ,
Woods Mill ROle!
56 Jordan Sonnas Road to Route 7 Jmorove existlna 2~lane road ,,-
Channina Drive
57 Sensenv Road to Vallev Mill Road Widen to 4.lane cross section ,,-
Inverlee Way
" Route 17/50 10 Senun Road Widen to 4-lane cross section ,,-
WarriarDrive
5. Roule 277 to OpeQuon Creek Inorth of Roule 642) Widento4-lanecrossseellon ,,-
Route 7
"A Clarke Coun;v line to 1-81 Widen to 6-lane cross section ,
Win-Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan
Vision Plan Project Descriptions - New Roads
Road Proj.ct MPO Adopted
Nam. 10. RoadwavS.otlon Vi5icIn Plan ImprO'vemlli'nt Draft Vision Plan
RlIllte37 Freewav
60 l-at G c.rossno\l\\fl ~c US Route 522 Construet4-lanelimitedaeeendividedhichwav .-
11 US Routl 522 10 Routes 17/50 Construcl4-lane limited acces&divldetlnillhwav .;
" Rou!~s17/50IoRo\l\e7 COlIStrucl4-JilInelimijedaceeudlVidedhiohwav .;
U RaJII 71.1 01 Blf'P :l1i ....v~ .. - . 'ir~ 1.l'AitD~ 1.' 1n ~.~8g lliilA a)
.
.. I~' ilt MP 318 to Route 37 (we.\! of indl.lstrlal parK} Construel4-laneJimitedaCGe&÷dnighwilIY .-
.. Route37@WarnorDrive Construc1dlamond interchange .;
.. Rout.37@:Rcute522 Con&truet diamond m1erchange .;
67 Route 37@ Route 17/50 Construct dIamond interchange .;
.. Route 37 @ Sen~ny Road Construct diamond intllfchange .;
.. Route37@Route7 Conlitructdiamondinterchilng, .;
Warrior Drive
70 o ""uon Creek to Battaile Drive East ExtMded Conslruct4-laneerOS5$1Gtion .;
71 Battaile Dnve East Extended to E TlIvl& Street Con\ttllO;;t4-.(afl~clcM;seclicfl .;
A1rnort Road E:rtanslon
72 US Route 522 to Warrior Drive Conlltruct2-lanecro&&stlction .;
East Tevis strut E:rtension
73 Leaae Slvdto US Route 522. Conslruct4-1anecroustlclion .;
R.locatioll of ParMIrmlll Road
74 Wes!ofUSRoule522 Reahlln2-lane road .;
PI.asantValla" Extension
.. Cedafmndelc Battaile Drwe Con&truc' "'-Iene crou liilGtion .
uba. E&f\... Dl'Wa Ertanlllon
7t Existino Jubal Earj~to Route 37 Co!\Struct4-laneoroSB sectlofl .;
Route 11-RolM 651 Connector
n US Roule 11 to Route 65' ~):leJ'lsion Clln,truct2.iane Gros&Sectillr'l .
Battaile DrIve Extension
7. Shawnee Drive tll Warrior Drive Consjruct4-lar'le crou section .;
Brooka Rgad E:rtanslon
" US Route 11 to Route 522 ConstruI;14-ianeemssaeetion .;
Routa642 CTaakarRoadl fnanslon
80 Existino Route 642 10 US Route 11 Con!.trllc\4-\aneclotosserrtion .;
" US Route 11 to Route 651 Extension Cllflstrur:rt4.laneGrou5eetilln .;
Rollte 644 Exten.ion
82 US Route 522 to Lakeside Drive Con&trUGt2-lanecro&5SeCtiofl .;
A lor Road /Routa &471 RuUenmellt
83 ReloGateinlerseGtionwilll Route 277 to the eist Construot2-ianearossseclion .;
ShadY Elm Road IRouta .511 E:rtllllslon
.. Exilio\inn ROllte 8S, to US Route 11 COllstrucl4-lanecrossUIGtI0/l .;
.. US Route 1110 I-B1 Relocated 1~81 MP 3071nterchillllle Conslrucl4-lane Gross sectiOn .
at )~'toWarriorDriveatRoule277 Construct4-lane crossseclion .;
87 Interchanoe COflnllction 10 US Route 11 via EastlWesl Connector Road UnsianaliZed intersection aceess Onto Route 651 EJdenslon .-
Ea.ItIWu! Connector Road (south O'f Fairfu Straet
.. US Route" to Route 651 Ext1!:T\lion Construct 2-lane cross section to conneGt US Route 1110 inlerchange with
Route 651 Extension .;
Maadow Branch AvenuI
at EJdensiont()US Route 50 Construct4-laneorosssllction .;
VI~orv Road
90 Air"ort Road tll US Route 522 near school and reali"ned Pa ermill RtI Conslruct4-laneeronsectllln .;
Lleal Boullvard
91 Corn letion Pats\' Clifle BJvtl to Frontil~e Road Construct3.llIfle cross section .;
Route 11!Rgllte 151 Ccnuctor (SOuth of Route 37)
82 US Rout. 11 to Route 641 Conslruet2-lane eroSS&ectlon .;
StephansollS Village Boulavard
Win-Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan
Vision Plan Project Descriptions - New Roads
Road Project MPO Adopted
Nam. 10' RoadwavSaction VleJon Plan Imp/'C)vement CrolftVisionPlan
.. 010 Charles Town Road to US Roule " COfllltmct4_lafle crasll section .;
Willow Run Oriva
at Jubal Early Drive to Cedar Creek GrillIe Contitf1JG!:4-lafltlcro&S&eclion ,
Routa 7-SenslIny Road Connector
at Route 7 to SensenyRoad Construct4-lafle crossseetion .;
StonawaU Industrial Pari< Connector
., lenolr Drive io Rouie 37 COflstruclone-lane, one-wavSB roadway .;
'--'
l..,
l..,
. Final Vision Plan Peak Hour Roadway Conditions
)'). "-.1, / '-.. f I ~ --L -'11l"'- ,-=- t:::
Legend II ~ tr~ l ~ ~~
- Local Streets-NoI Congested ~ 'II~ ~ I ~~ J; ;:6}8
- Vision Plan Projects - Not Congested ~ \ \ '1-} r l ) J -JI
- New Congestion i -s.- ~ ~"-.tt~ (~'f I J "-
- No-8uildCongestion Eliminated y ~ ~ N~
~I .v? J ,(/ ~1r- / - -r:L. ~'" 'f-
F!~d"r;Ck I I ---J J ...A. 7/4. ~ j , N '
/( ~.""o, J ~ ~ ~.....,~ t::- y
F ~ . "./ 'Jrf' .~"-~ ~~'" ~~.
f,~. r; ,<f'.~'~~ r{i{ r ..C?f/ ~ I '-~
~ .. -<-(I lt~ / .,- p..A. ~
,{ ,,-y; R., j' 0, -~.'" I"":\... ~ W;,:",.,lOO. 'IV' l-
I h" " ~1l~ ID~."\
N -.;!jt!tIlIRtt Li' ~ '~, ~
.?j" I .:J,~~,,~rt.I\~'?:/I~'; ~r I ;;!1:'j'C ~
\ " ~V~~ 'I' ~ I d
Ce<I"c'"'~" .....", MIP i' . ~~ I ~
~0 t.., ry~;~~~4<' l~' ~ I r h
. (" < i'.J) ~ ")~'U ~ J y..L.!"
~J ~ ~F ~" yW.J ~ 1 =:x J ( 'D
wr -~'i};:, :-'j;~ ~~~ ~ ... II/V ,~ A
,k:~ 0i.... "~V / "-{\ r/ /;:fj 11~;;;;:J' ,
1 rF/1H--' ,.,,, ~ /1 /J(~~~)1~~((~16\
,fJ ~.-;; ",~.\tm ""R' '/ r-: UJI ". r--' ~ h
<II '" ~ ,( 1 ~ t '( '-'~\, ~ ~.. !"{ I I.d I r- ~
,..."" Y'k", I I-:V l "'1 , ""
~ j i ' ~c fJ.-r: k ,j rlnchestl tri- t---
7 ~ ~ '<:t. ,p.~ ~ /r>'~l!:J _~ 8., ~41~
-I . ~l~ ' "~;;"~'J:-;-;
~ (~>>. / ~.J t- 1 L~ \1 I-
,'/"," j.j7~~">,+:.~~ I h- r- . ,~
~. d 1. .:.
.....' 'r, . Ih- ~G~. - ~ \ JJ
~'l/t ~~~ ]~: ~
> J~) r( ~ ~~" ~
~~ ) ~V '" ~~"\K~ I?,' J
W{PE 0
S
Win-Fred MPO 2030
Transportation Plan
~IVQII4S5e Htuf en Bru.sd;n. Inc.
IW'IT~."'~.~"""
2 Miles