CEA 02-26-09 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK
i Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Conservation Easement Authority
FROM: Amber Powers, CEA Secretary 4 0
RE: February 26, 2009 meeting
DATE: February 19, 2009
The Frederick County Conservation Easement Authority will be meeting on Thursday, February 26,
2009, at 8:00 a.m. in the Board of Supervisor's Executive Session Meeting Room in the County
Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The Conservation Easement
Authority will discuss the following agenda items:
AGENDA
1. January 15, 2009 minutes
2. Rural Areas Study Update
3. Transfer of Development Rights Discussion
4. Other
Please contact the Planning Department (665-5651) if you are unable to attend this meeting.
ALP/bad
Attachment: January 15, 2009 Minutes
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
--DRAFT--
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
F 1�llERICK COUNTY CONSERVATION EASEMENT AUTHORITY
Held in the Executive Session Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North
Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on January 15, 2009 at 8:00 a.m.
PRESENT: Diane Kearns, Chairman; Ritchie Wilkins, Vice -Chairman; Jim Lawrence, Treasurer;
Cordell Watt, Planning Commission Liaison; Gene Fisher, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Todd
Lodge
ABSENT: Robert Solenberger, John Marker, and John Gavitt
STAFF PRESENT: Amber Powers
PUBLIC MEETING:
1. Minutes and Agenda
The minutes of the October 23, 2008 and December 4, 2008 meetings were approved as
presented. The agenda was approved.
2. Snapp Easement application.
Ms. Kearns suggested that the group discuss the Snapp Easement first. The easement is now all
on the USDA's desk, and there were some minor changes made between the County Attorney
and Kelly Watkinson, but nothing big. Kelly is on maternity leave, and does not expect there to
be anything in need of finishing until things come back from the USDA. They are also waiting
on the USDA before finishing the MOU agreement, so everything is in a holding pattern until
then.
Ms. Kearns did mention that Kelly had spoken with her about establishing an Advisory
Coiiiii ttee for the Potomac Conservancy to help the group determine what the needs were in the
County as well as in Shenandoah County. Wayne and Sam Snapp, as well as Ms. Kearns, will be
on the Committee. This is also on hold until Kelly returns from maternity leave.
3. Local Easement Activity.
Marjorie Copenhaver and her neighbors, the Zartmans, finalized their historic easement at the
end of 2008. They are interested in having an informational event and opening their homes up to
the public in order to celebrate. Ms. Kearns suggested expanding this to include other
conservation organizations, and maybe having another roast dinner. She pointed out that would
count towards the DHR's requirement that the homes be opened to the public at least once a
year, but that she would need to discuss things further with Ms. Copenhaver first. She is also
hoping to pick a date for this relatively soon.
1
The group expressed the support of this idea, and mentioned that this would add to the group's
mornentum. Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Lodge both felt that there should be another news article and
that they should capitalize on the group's momentum. Ms. Kearns pointed out that there were
other easements in the process as well, although they are not yet finished.
Mr. Fisher requested that Ms. Kearns put a small piece together that, without specifics, points out
that there was a lot of activity in the last few months, so as to keep the Board and PC aware. Mr.
Fisher also mentioned that there are a lot of properties that are not included on any maps.
Mr. Fisher had another question before moving onto the PDR applications, regarding his concern
about the TDR program. He wanted to make sure that if development rights are transferred, the
sending property does actually get protected in case the County alters its density policy and later
on allows these sending properties to have some development opportunities.
Mr. Wilkins pointed out that Clarke County actually requires its preservation tract parcels to be
put into easement, and the County, too, may be able to do something like that. Mr. Lawrence
also pointed out that the State may require it once the legislation is re -written.
Mr. Lawrence event on to say that there was enough discussion to warrant a workshop regarding
TDR programs. He is involved in arranging these for decision makers and Iandowners in order
to get feedback from the public to send to the state legislatures via the Regional Commission.
Ms. Kearns pointed out that the CEA might be able to sign on to this effort in terms of offering
general support, if not funding, for the workshops. Mr. Fisher reminded the group that there
were going to be some unique challenges regarding TDRs and Frederick County because the
UDA was designed to capture costs and the County needs to figure out how to make it work
without forcing developers to pay twice or have the County fall short.
Ms. Kearns asked if there was a motion to support the workshops. Mr. Lawrence made the
motion, Mr. Watt seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Kearns asked Ms. Powers to update the group on the state funding that was awarded
recently. Ms. Powers had spoken with Mr. Schmidt from the State and had determined that since
the arnount available state-wide was low, and because the deadline for applying made it difficult
to arrange for Finance Committee and Board of Supervisors approval of any new allocation of
funds, she had decided not to apply. Ms. Powers also pointed out that she had thought it unwise
to ask the County for any additional allocations given the CEA's challenge to spend the
matching funds already awarded, and the County's current situation financially.
4. Chamberlin and 'Wright Applications for PDR Consideration.
Ms. Kearns pointed out that the Chamberlin's were primarily interested in a donated easement.
She pointed out on the map where the property was located, and that it adjoined the Conservation
Club, which also may be a candidate for an easement in the future.
2
Ms. Kearns explained that the Wrights were focused on the PDR program and that they are in the
midst of applying for FRPP money, but they are not yet working with any other easement
organization.
Ms. Kearns then stated that the first order of business was to go through the scoring of the
applications; but that then they must discuss how actively the CEA will be able to pursue these.
She suggested that the group steer them towards a group that has some experience and that the
CEA would again take a secondary role. Mr. Lawrence suggested sending a letter advising both
applicants to contact the land trust for their assistance. Mr. Wilkins suggested actually
introducing them at a meeting.
Mr. Lawrence asked about the timeline for scoring them; the group decided to do it at the
meeting.
Ms. Powers went through the Chamberlin application, listing the points given for each feature:
• 2.65 points for public road frontage.
• 2 points for frontage along the Big Blue Trail ruining along Rt. 689.
• 1.15 points for frontage along lssac Creek; Ms Powers noted that she thought there
ought to be more points for stream frontage and that this may say something about
their scoring. The group discussed the need to amend this.
• 3 points for being in Land Use.
Mr. Wilkins asked if there was anything for the acreage of the properties.
None of the members were sure, but recalled discussing it. Ms. Kearns added that there was also
nothing for rare species. Ms. Powers pointed out that she had overlooked the development rights
points, (Section 68.7.A(2)). With that added to the applications, the Chamberlin application
receives another 9.5 points and so do the Wrights.
Mr. Fisher pointed out that he thought there should be more points given for water frontage
regardless of whether it's impaired or not.
Ms. Kearns asked about the Wright application's score and Ms. Powers went through the
application, listing the points given for each feature:
• 2 points for road frontage along Cedar Creek Grade.
4 2 points for being identified as being a Virginia Century Farm.
3 points for being within the impaired Cedar Creek watershed.
1 point for having a conservation plan (in development) for restoring/protecting
riparian areas.
• 4.95 points for having 98 acres identified as prime farmland.
• 3 points for being in Land Use.
• 1 point for having an agricultural Best Management Plan under development.
Including the missed density points for both properties, the Chamberlin Application had a total of 18.3
points and the Wright application received 26.45 points (not counting any possible increases that may
come with future FRPP funding).
3
Ms. Kearns pointed out that she would hopefully discuss things further with Ms. Wright's son, once he
was available. She then pointed out that she would speak with Ms. Powers and they would confirm the
scores and then make a plan for contacting each applicant and pointing them in the right direction.
The group confirmed their regular meeting date in February, and the meeting was adjourned at 8:40am.
Diane Kearns, Chairman
Amber Powers, Secretary
2