Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-89 Wheatlands (Revised) (2 of 2) - Opequon - Backfile46 0 0 STAFF NOTES • • _ -4,, 5 4,4 "-. -- - 11 L COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRCjINIA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 WEST BROAD STREET BOX 11104 RICHMOND, VA 23230 1-800-252-7717 (V/TDD) (804) 367-1000 (V/TDD) April 17, 1991 Mr. Robert N. Watkins Planning Director Department of Planning and Development County of Frederick 9 Court Square Winchester, VA. 22601 RE: PRELIMINARY MASTER SITE PLAN LAKE FREDERICK, FREDERICK COUNTY (WHEATLANDS) Dear Mr. Watkins: On April 10, 1991, we received the subject revised Preliminary Master Development Plan (MDP) including the Notes dated April 3, 1991. As such, we did not have the adequate opportunity to study the proposed revisions in detail. We are, however, encouraged by the Developer's desire and interest in mitigating the adverse impact of the proposed development on Lake Frederick. A quick review of the latest revised plan indicated that several important issues raised in our previous comments need further resolution: 1. Water Quality and Aquatic Life in the Lake: A. The MDP should clearly specify the design criteria and performance standards for the extended detention ponds from Page 30 of Dr. Grizzard's report. Dr. Grizzard referred to several different standards of practice. We suggest that Fairfax County's Standards as related to BMP Water Quality Standards be utilized. D r JM�R 19 �91 1 Equal Opportunity Employment, Programs and Facilities Mr. Robert N. Watkins Page 2 April 17, 1991 B. The MDP does not distinguish between, the wet ponds and the extended detention ponds. This distinction is important to review the effectiveness of the proposed storm water management system. C. The MDP shows a storm water detention time of "24 to 40 hours." We strongly suggest a 40 hour detention of the two-year flood as suggested on Page 32 of Dr. Grizzard's report. Dr. Grizzard's conclusion that only moderate increases in nutrient loading would occur was based on this performance standard. D. Our study of the MDP indicates that approximately sixty-five percent (65%) of the land area actually drains to the proposed retention ponds. Based on our engineering review, we suggest that the MDP indicate that seventy-five percent (75%) coverage will be provided (delete words "reasonably practicable" from Page 3, Item 9(b) of the notes). E. The MDP Notes do not clarify compliance with "typical wooded lot detail' as requested previously. We suggest that the MDP state that no more than thirty percent (30%) of any lot area will be disturbed. F. The proposed lift stations for sanitary sewer lines should be designed to provide "maximum protection in the event of mechanical or electrical failures" (delete word "reasonable" from Page 2, Item 5(1)). G. The MDP calculations show that the 17 acres of future commercial land are counted towards the thirty-five percent (35%) open space requirement. Since open space is critical to the water quality issue, we suggest that the County review the open space calculations for strict compliance with the County's ordinance. H. The MDP states that "no building or other physical encroachment shall be permitted" in the 50 feet of additional 'buffer zone proposed by the Developer. In order for this buffer zone to be an effective filtering area for the surface runoffs, we suggest that tree cutting, clearing of undergrowth, and disturbance of existing vegetation be prohibited in this area, except for the disturbances that may be necessary to construct and maintain the BMP ponds. Also, the Notes should specify that the proposed conservation easement will be granted to the DGIF immediately following the recordation of the subdivision plat. 40 Mr. Robert N. Watkins Page 3 April 17, 1991 2. Flooding Easements: The MDP does not show the boundary of the land area that may be flooded due to high waters in the lake. These areas should be designated for no development, as requested previously. 3. Public Access To Lake: The MDP states that "up to five public access areas" will be provided. We suggest that the notes should clarify. that "minimum of three and a maximum -of five" such public access areas will be provided. 4. Vehicular and Utility Crossings: We suggest that the MDP note that the construction or use of the DGIF's property for such purposes shall be subject to necessary review and prior approval by the DGIF and by others, as required. 5. Impact on Dam: We are still waiting to receive the Developer's report on the impact of the proposed development on our Dam, as previously requested. 6. Enforcement of Proposed Mitigation Measures: The MDP proposes an escrow account for the maintenance of the storm water management structures. As previously stated, this issue ' is critical for protecting the future water quality of the Lake. We suggest that the County, in coordination with the DGIF, establish maintenance standards for these structures using the state's Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines, Fairfax County's Guidelines, and other sources that may be available. Based upon these Standards, the cost of maintaining the structures can be derived. At this time, we do not think that $100.00 per lot, as proposed in the MDP, would be sufficient for the needed maintenance purposes. In summary, the legal and financial responsibility for the maintenance of these structures needs to be clearly established and noted on the MDP. • Mr. Robert N. Watkins Page 4 April 17, 1991 Finally, we remain available to work with the County, the Developer and others to protect a valuable public resource. It is absolutely critical that our concerns contained in my previous communication of March 20, 1991, along with the comments above, be addressed satisfactorily prior to the approval of the MDP for the proposed development. Thank you for giving: us the opportunity to comment. ' Sincerely, Dinesh V. Tiwari, CLP Chief Lands and . Engineering Division DVT:ly cc: James Madden, Izaak Walton League, Winchester Chapter Billy Tisinger, .Esq., Harrison and Johnston John .H. Foote, Esq., Hazel & Thomas Art Buehler, Director, VA Division of Planning & Recreation Resources Robert Connelly, Erosion Control Specialist, Department of Conservation & Recreation -Staunton Bud Bristow, Director-DGIF Larry Hart, Assistant Director-DGIF David Whitehurst, Chief -Fish Division Jack Raybourne, Chief -Planning & Environmental Division as 0 G (y6' vs. 22,E r� wo •-� � -b 1`�1� s 1�. o- i, 315, ,J � :5). ;:�, V ACT —c�c �uY� ri5 � cerr�� t COUNTY of FREDERICK IDepartment of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 WHEATLANDS �� /%l9 9 Issues to be Addressed on Master Development Plan p / Sewage Treatment Plant: - Needs to be clear that the plant is being designed strictly for the use of the development with sufficient capacity only for the development. - Needs to be clear that approval is only on the condition that the Board of Supervisors resolves to have the plant accepted by the Service Authority and that it is accepted. - Approval needs to be on the condition that there acceptable guarantees or agreements are made with the Service Authority concerning future exapansions of the plant to meet the needs of the development. - Downstream impacts on water quality should be addressed in detail. �..-►.�►.P,�,r< �,�.., .D�S F o,., ��-�l "�{ y ,-e Pic--� Traffic Impacts: - Approval should be conditioned on there being one or two state maintained entrances on Route 522. - Detailed information is needed concerning impacts to Rt. 636. - Guarantees should be provided concerning improvements of Route 636 and the intersection with Rt. 277 as the development � proceeds-1 f 1 ' `)A- � �+w" Game and Inland Fisheries: �1 All land owned by Game and Inland Fisheries should be clearly shown on the plan as being seperate from the development. - Detailed information should be provided on impacts of the development on water quality within the lake. - Flood easements should be provided. 9 Court Square - - P.O. Rox 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 - Approval should be on the condition that Game and Inland Fisheries review soil erosion and sedimentation plans and storm water management plans. It should also be on condition y_Man,,'` that they play a specific role in monitoring implementation of the plans. Public Access to the Lake: - Additional access points to the lake should be considered. Future Development Area: - More detailed information should be provided on the use of future development areas. Phasing Plan: A, Phasing should be drawn in 50 to 100 unit increments. Plan �r should state one phase per year. Number of Units: �.._ - The maximum number of dwelling units by type to be provided J should be clearly specified. Fire and Rescue: ( � - A site with specific acreage should be provided and noted for fire and rescue station. Community Center: - A statement should be provided limiting use of the community center to appropriate/allowed uses. • Planning Dept. Corresp. x >c COUNTY of FREDERICK i Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/678-0682 September 12, 1991 Mr. Dinesh V. Tiwari Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 West Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23230 RE: Wheatlands, Final Master Development Plan Dear Dinesh: Enclosed please find a copy of the Final Master Development Plan for the Wheadands project. This is in response to your department's request for an opportunity to review the plan prior to County approval. The plan appears to contain all notes which were requested by DGIF. With the exception of linking improvements to Route 636 to a specific number of units rather than a phase of the development, as is currently proposed, all items required by the County have been provided. Could you please let me know as soon as possible if DGIF feels there are any items yet to be addressed. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, �-- Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Planning Director cc: Thomas Price, G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. John H. Foote, Hazel & Thomas, P.C. THE COURTHOUSE COMMONS 9 N. Loudoun Street - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 L SEPT. 55 , ) 44 I FINAL NOTES TO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLATS----- - - -" WHEATLANDS The undersigned owners of the property which is the subject of this Master Development Plan (MDP) submission ("the developer"), provide the following notations to demonstrate compliance with the lawful requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and for the further description of certain aspects of the development of the property. These notes shall be included on the face of the approved plan documents, and submission of final MDPs for the development of the subject property shall be in substantial conformity with the approved preliminary plan, and these notes. 1. Mixture of housing types. .................. ';sThe developer shall construct the mix of housing types shown on the legend set forth on the MDP, in the locations generally shown on the plan. 2. Transportation improvements. (a) All internal roads and connections to existing state roads as shown on the MDP, shall be constructed to state standards for inclusion in the State System of Highways. (b) The developer shall provide a single entrance onto Route 340/522, as generally shown on the MDP; provided, however, that if approval can be obtained from the appropriate County and State authorities for a second entrance onto Route 340/522 between the foregoing entrance and Double Tollgate, the developer may provide that second entrance upon approval of a revision to this MDP. (c) The developer shall construct an entrance to the property on Route 277, as generally shown on the MDP. (d) The developer shall prime and double seal that portion of State Route 636 from the point it adjoins the subject property, and connects with the internal loop road serving the subject property, to the present paved section thereof. This shall be done during Phase 8 of the development hereof, or at such earlier time as the developer may determine is necessary to access other Phases of the project. 3. Trails system. The developer shall construct or cause to be constructed a trail system within the project to permit pedestrian access from within the development to, among other places, the Lake, to private recreation areas, to the community center, to commercial areas, and to the school site located within the project. Such trail system shall be located as generally shown on the MDP. 4. Street lights. Street lights will be provided within the development. 5. Provision of sewer and water service. (a) The subject property shall be serviced by public sewer and water systems. (b) The developer shall cause to be constructed a wastewater treatment plant in the general location shown on the MDP, according to plans approved by the Virginia State Water Control Board. Upon completion and acceptance thereof, such facility shall be conveyed to the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority, for operation by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, in accordance with an agreement for the purpose. (c) Any lift stations which may be constructed to service the development shall be of a class approved by the Sanitation Authority as sufficient to provide maximum protection in the event of mechanical or electrical failure. (d) Public water shall be provided by means of an existing public water line. 6. Fire and rescue service. Upon the written demand of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, made at any time within twelve years from the date of platting of the first phase of the MDP, the developer shall dedicate to any appropriate public or private entity denominated by the Board, a site for the construction of a fire and/or rescue station. Any such dedication shall be expressly contingent upon the commencement of construction of a fire and/or rescue station within the aforesaid period, and title shall revert to the grantors in the event such construction has not commenced in accordance with the terms of the grant. 7. Open space reserved. The developer shall retain not less than the required open space set forth in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, in the locations identified for mandated open space on the MDP. K r 0 8. Potential development of reserved areas. (a) The developer expressly reserves those areas shown on the plan as Commercial/Industrial Development Areas, to be used as they may be hereafter the subject of an MDP for the purpose, or as they may be properly rezoned by Frederick County to permit commercial or industrial uses. (b) These Areas have been used to calculate the open space required in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and no future use shall be made of them which is inconsistent with those requirements. These Areas are reserved for future commercial and industrial development as may be permitted, and shall not be reserved for recreational, parkland, or other public uses. 9. Preservation of water quality in Lake Frederick. (a) No water will be taken from the Lake for the purposes of operating or maintaining the wastewater treatment facility servicing the property. (b) The development shall incorporate the use of Best Management Practices, in the locations generally identified on the MDP, in accordance with and to implement the recommendations contained in "An Assessment of Potential Development Impacts on the Water Quality of Wheatlands Lake," October 1990, prepared by Thomas J. Grizzard, Ph.D., P.E. The BMPs constructed for the project shall be designed so as to achieve coverage of 75 % of the area of the property which drains into Wheatlands Lake. To the maximum extent that it may be possible to do upon final engineering, this percentage of coverage shall be exceeded. All BMPs shall be either of the wet or dry pond type, as may be determined appropriate upon final engineering of any subwatershed within the property, and each shall be constructed in accordance with the manual entitled "Controlling. Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Designing Urban BMPs," published by Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments, current as of the date of final design. All such facilities shall be designed for a minimum stormwater detention period of forty hours, with a design classified as "High" with regard to the overall removal capacity, as shown in Figure 2.4 of the aforesaid Manual. (c) Responsibility for the continuing maintenance of the BMPs to be incorporated into the project shall be assigned to the developer, provided that the developer may assign this responsibility to an appropriate homeowner's association, or to such other appropriate entity as,may be determined by Frederick County and the developer, or as may be provided in Section 16, hereof with respect to the transfer of such responsibilities. Maintenance required hereunder shall include routine and non- 3 routine maintenance as recommended in the aforesaid Manual, as necessary to achieve the intended purposes of the BMPs. (d) Water quality tests in Lake Frederick to determine BMP effectiveness shall be conducted at least annually according to a schedule agreed to by the Developer and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Such testing shall be at the developer's expense, until such time as a homeowners' association shall have been created, when the responsibility for funding such testing shall be transferred to the said association. The results of such testing shall be provided forthwith to Frederick County, to DGIF, to the developer, and to the homeowners's association created in accordance with these Notes. (e) In order to enhance the natural buffering of existing vegetation surrounding the Lake, an additional buffer zone of 50 feet beyond the legal boundaries thereof shall be established, and no building, tree cutting, clearing of undergrowth, construction of trails, disturbance of existing vegetation, or other physical encroachment shall be permitted in that zone except as may be necessary to construct and maintain the BMPs provided for herein, and except as may be necessary to obtain direct access to the additional public fishing areas provided for herein. The said additional buffer shall be in the form of an easement for conservation and water quality preservation purposes. Such easement shall be granted to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries within 60 days of the recordation of a final subdivision plat for any section of the development. (f) Any use of property which may be owned by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries shall be subject to the express prior written consent of the Department first obtained. 10. Public access to Lake Frederick. The Developer will provide not less than three nor more than five public access areas conforming to recommendations of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, in its report to Robert W. Watkins dated March 20, 1991. Right-of-way for such access, and parking areas, shall be provided to the Department, but the Developer shall not be responsible for any costs associated with the construction thereof. No boat landing, fishing pier, or boat dock shall be constructed on any of these sites without the prior written consent of the Department, and 4 • 0 with the written concurrence of the developer. Such areas shall be suitably signed to indicate their location and public nature. The Developer agrees that to the extent such sites have been physically located at the time of design of the roads from which access thereto will be provided, it shall design ad..rzstrtct ::::::::.::::;;.. .....::........... . curb cuts necessary for standard commercial entrances to .such access points, to with access thereto and `>` a3�i:."'.be constructed at the expense of others. 11. Provision of adequate monumentation. The Developer shall provide permanent monumentation at approximately 1000 foot intervals around the perimeter of the Lake, for purposes of surveying and mapping the same, and to assist in the correct location of all boundary lines. 12. School site dedication. Within 60 days of the subdivision platting of the first phase of the MDP, the developer shall dedicate to the Frederick County School Board a school site in the location identified on the MDP. Such dedication shall be expressly subject to a reverter clause to the general effect that unless construction of a school on the said site is commenced within twelve years from the date of such platting, the site shall reconvey to the grantors. 13. Community centers. The developer agrees to dedicate to a Homeowner's Association land for a community center serving the subject property, in the location shown on the MDP. This site shall be dedicated prior to initiation of development in the phase of the development within which the site is located. 14. Phasing. (a) Development of the subject property shall be in accordance with a plan of phasing as shown on the MDP. The developer need not develop the property in the sequentially numbered order shown on the MDP. (b) Not more than 15% of the approved number of dwelling units, attached, detached, or multi -family, may be constructed in any one year period after the date of final approval of the MDP. This number shall be cumulative from year to year, provided, however, that no more than 30% of the permitted units may be constructed in any one year period. (c) The first phase of the wastewater treatment facility providing for approximately .25 million gallons per day of treatment capacity shall be constructed during Phase 1 of the 5 development of the property. The second phase thereof shall be constructed in accordance with approved plans at such time as the State Water Control Board directs, and said capacity is required. Such facility shall be operated in conformance with all applicable state regulations. (d) The public water lines required to service the development shall be constructed on an as -needed basis. (e) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 277 shall be constructed during Phase 1 of the development of the subject property, and shall, until the entrance is constructed on Route 340/522, be the primary entrance to the site. 15. Homeowners' Association. (a) The developer shall cause to be created one or more homeowners' associations within the project to perform the functions common to such associations, including, but not limited to, center. (i) Construction and operation of a community (ii) Maintenance of common areas. (iii) Maintenance of Best Management Practices Facilities, subject to the provisions of §16 hereof. (iv) Maintenance of trails. (v) Maintenance of street lights. (vi) Maintenance of the recreation areas. (b) Any such homeowners' associations shall also be authorized, inter alia, to review and approve lot building plans to insure that the location of individual homes on specific building lots causes minimum disturbance of those sites. In order to maintain the maximum undisturbed area and the woodland nature of the project, any such association shall forbid the cutting or removal of any trees greater than 6 inches in diameter, except as may be necessary to the actual construction of a home, a driveway thereto, and for the installation of infrastructure connections, and for the purpose of a suitable yard area surrounding the home site. On those lots physically adjoining Wheatlands Lake, not more than 30% of the area thereof may be disturbed in accordance with this section. 16. Establishment of account for maintenance of BMP facilities. 2 (a) The developer or its assignee, as provided above, shall establish an escrow or other separate account to receive and disburse funds to insure the perpetual maintenance of all Best Management Practices facilities which may be constructed in accordance with this Plan. Notwithstanding any sums which may be contributed to such account by the homeowners' association, the developer shall deposit into the said account a sum equal to the estimated per lot share of five years' maintenance expenses for ................................ ................................. the BMPs to be constructed, based on reasonable maintenance expenses of 5% of the total estimated costs of construction thereof, as such construction cost estimate ......................... sa;!be approved by the Frederick County Engineer. Such contribution shall be made for each lot which may be subject to an approved Final Master Development Plan, payable upon recordation of a final subdivision plat therefor. (b) The sums segregated in accordance with the foregoing, and any interest accrued thereon, shall be used by the developer or his assignee, or by the appropriate officials Frederick County, or the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, for the purpose of perpetually maintaining such BMP facilities in a safe and efficient manner, and to achieve the intended purposes of the BMPs as referenced above. No other use of the escrowed funds shall be permitted. (c) Inasmuch as there are means under existing Virginia law for the creation of limited purpose governmental entities with the authority to raise revenues directly from and limited to the parties benefitted by public improvements, and to construct, operate, and maintain those improvements in perpetuity, then in the event that the appropriate public authorities of Frederick County or the Commonwealth of Virginia shall duly create a watershed improvement district, a sanitary district, or another appropriate public entity for the purpose of funding, operation, and maintenance of the Best Management Practices facilities to be constructed to service this project, all responsibility and obligation for funding, construction, operation, and maintenance thereof shall be transferred from any homeowners' association created hereunder, to the said public entity immediately upon the request of that entity, at no cost thereto. JHFc:mdpnotes 7 i COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 • FAX 703/678-068-1 July 18, 1991 G. W. Clifford & Associates Attn: Charles Maddox P.O. Box 2104 Winchester,_ Va. 22601 Dear Chuck: This letter is to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of July 10, 1991. The revised preliminary master development plan, #006-89, for Wheatlands was approved for 1288 single-family houses, 175 townhouse units, village centers, a school site and future development. This property is located 3.5 + east of Stephens City and one mile ± southwest of Double Tollgate in the Opequon District and is identified as parcels 102 and 103 on tax ma.p 87. •s Please submit the final master development plan for administrative approval with the revisions that were indicated at the July 10th Board meeting in a letter dated July 10, 1991 from the law offices of Hazel and Thomas to Kenneth Y. Stiles. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding the final approval requirements. Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney Deputy Director KCT/slk cc: Fred L. Glaize, III, and Jasbo, Inc. THE COURTHOUSE COMMONS 9 N. Loudoun Street - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/678-0682 MEMORANDUM To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director Re: Wheatlands: Response to DGIF Comments Date: April 4, 1991 Comments on the proposed Wheatlands development have been received from the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and a copy of the comments are attached. The comments were forwarded to the applicants and they have responded by revising the MDP. Staff comments and those of other review agencies have not been addressed in this revision, all revisions appear to pertain solely to the DGIF review. SUMMARY OF DGIF COMMENTS The comments and recommendations made by the DGIF are summarized below. Where appropriate, the applicant's response is indicated in italics. 1. The retention ponds shown on the plan are not specified in terms of their design. DGIF points out that the ponds should be of the type described in the water quality report by Dr. Grizzard which was submitted with the application. 2. Grading of the site should be done in such a way that 75 % of the drainage is channelled through the retention ponds. The applicants have included a diagram depicting the type of retention pond as well as a statement that "as much as it is reasonably practical to do so.... (obtain)... coverage of 75 % ". 3. Covenants should require compliance with the "typical lot" detail shown on the MDP. 4. Lift stations should be, of a type design providing the maximum protection from mechanical and electrical failures. The applicants have provided a statement to this effect on the MDP. 9 N. Loudoun Street - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 M 0 is Page 2 Wheatlands: Response to DGIF Comments April 4, 1991 5. DGIF requests that they be permitted to review and have input into the erosion and sedimentation control plan. 6. Verification of the open space calculations. 7. Request for a conservation easement on the 50' buffer or that cutting, clearing or other disturbance of vegetation be prohibited. A statement has been included to the effect that the buffer shall be in the form of an easement for conservation and water quality preservation. 8. Continue to urge that a flood easement be granted or at a minimum that the areas prone to flooding be on record and be set aside from development. 9. Provide five access areas for bank fishing along with parking. Access areas will be provided. 10. Dry water hydrants be used rather than providing emergency vehicle access points to the lake. 11. Provide a report on the impact of the increased stormwater runoff on the dam. 12. Provide monuments at 1000' intervals along the property line. The plan states that such easements will be provided. 13. Suggest that the County establish legally binding and enforceable requirements for maintenance of the stormwater management system. The applicant has included language that the would require the developer to provide $100.00 per lot for the purpose of maintaining the ponds. 0 E Page 3 Wheatlands: Response to DGIF Comments April 4, 1991 STAFF COMMENTS It is the staff's opinion that the applicant has made a good faith effort to respond to the DGIF comments; however, there are still a significant number of details that need to be worked out. There are also unresolved problems with reviews from other agencies. Of the as yet unresolved DGIF comments, the most significant appear to be the maintenance of the stormwater retention ponds and the impact of the increased runoff on the dam. It would be desirable not only to have a guaranteed fund, (it is at this point uncertain whether $100 per lot would be sufficient) for the maintenance, but to also have some assurance that the maintenance would be scheduled at appropriate intervals. The staff would also concur that some analysis should be made to insure that no structural problems will develop with the dam as a result of increased runoff into the lake. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Numerous agreements between various parties such as the applicant, the County, the Sanitation Authority and the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries need to be negotiated. The staff feels that agreements can be reached and therefore recommends approval of the PMDP with the condition that all review agency comments, including those of the DGIF and the planning staff be satisfactorily addressed and that where appropriate, these agreements be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney prior to approval of the FMDP. u-4-- COUNTY of FREDERICK I Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 anuary 22, 1991 Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Attn: Mr. Dinesh V. Tiwari 4010 West Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23230 RE: Wheatlands Development Proposal at Lake Frederick Dear Mr. Tiwari, I am writing in follow up to our conversation of Friday, January 18, 1991 regarding the proposed Wheatlands development. As you know Frederick County has received a partial application for a revised development project on the land surrounding Lake Frederick (see application form enclosed). At this time it is anticipated that the application will be completed in time for a public hearing to be scheduled for the February 20, 1991 meeting of the Planning Commission. As we discussed on Friday, Frederick County is interested in keeping your department abreast of activities taking place with regard to the development. In return the County would appreciate any comments that your Department might have concerning the proposal. If these comments could be received prior to distribution of agenda materials on February 8th it would assist us in preparing our staff summary and recommendation on the application. The County would also like to request that a representative of your department be on hand at the public hearing to address any questions which may arise relating to DGIF concerns over aspects of the development. Please let me know if this is possible. As I have stated the public hearing is tentatively scheduled for February 20th. I will be certain to notify you when a date is finalized. If you have any questions or require any additional information concerning the application please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your assistance. Since el 'Kris C: idrney �! Deputy Director 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 s COUNTY of FREDERIC Department of Planning and Developme 703 / 665-56 FAX 703/667-03 November 27, 1990 John H. Foote 3110 Fairview Park Drive Suite 1400 Falls Church Virginia, 22042 RE: Wheatlands PMDP; Issues to be addressed Dear John: In an effort to insure that all parties involved are aware of areas of concern to Frederick County regarding the Wheatlands Preliminary Master Development Plan, I have formulated the following list. The list includes issues that have been brought to light thus far. As the review process continues it is entirely possible that additional items will surface; however, I have attempted to be as comprehensive as is possible, given the information available at this time. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED 1) Some comment from the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Preferably one stating their satisfaction with the proposed efforts to limit impacts on water quality. 2) To date we have not received comment sheets from any of the required review agencies. These comments will need to be submitted prior to holding a design review meeting and/or placing the plan on the Planning Commission agenda. 3 ) Additional information on the use of areas shown as "future development" will need to be provided. Potential additional dwellings should be specified. 4) A written agreement with the Service Authority regarding their acceptance of the proposed treatment plant and a schedule for its future expansion(s) will need to be provided. 5) A plan showing the location of environmental features, portions to be disturbed, and a tabulation of the percent disturbed. 6) Information on the location and content of recreational areas needs to be provided. It would be appropriate for the developer to provide all planned recreational improvements including the community center. 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 7) Information on a pedestrian walkway system to serve the development must be provided. 8) The type and extent of buffers and screening to be provided between multifamily and single-family areas needs to be indicated. 9) Information indicating that the receiving channel is of sufficient size to handle the discharge from the proposed treatment plant should be provided. CONCERNS OR CORRECTIONS 1) The proposed improvements to Route 636 need to .be tied to a specific phase of the development. 2) The actual development of sections of the project will need to be consistent with the phasing indicated on the PMDP or the plan will need to be revised. 3) The current road layout includes numerous cul-de-sacs, some of which are excessive in length. While the final approval road layout will be primarily the responsibilityof VDOTf the County would prefer to see fewer cul-de-sacs, and a limit to their length. Where possible, circles may be preferable to cul-de-sacs. 4) The staff supports Mr. Thomas' view that Wheatlands should be designed as a complete neighborhood, with services, shopping, recreation, schools and employment, connected by a pedestrian access system. I hope this information will be of use to you and your clients in refining your development proposal. If you have of the items listed above questions on any Please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney Deputy Director cc. Tom Price R COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 November 19, 1990 Mr. Philip L. Chabot, Jr. Suite 300 1575 I Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 RE: Request for Information Wheatlands Development Proposal Dear Mr. Chabot: In response to your letter of November 12, 1990, I have enclosed copies of all documents from our Wheatlands Master Development Plan (MDP) file. These documents are those which accompanied or refer to the revised MDP submission received by our office on November 13, 1990. If you require additional information regarding the Wheatlands development proposal, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney Deputy Planning Director KCT/rsa Enclosures appllcat.1on form copy of plo n wafer M 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 0 LAW OFFICES PHILIP CHABOT CHARTERED SUITE 300 1575 I STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 TELEPHONE 202-289-8409 FAx 202-289-8450 November 12, 1990 Clerk Frederick County Planning Commission Frederick County P. O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Wheatlands Project, Lake Frederick Freedom of Information Act Request Dear Sir or Madam: Pursuant to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, Va.Code Ann. secs. 21-340, et. sea., I hereby request a copy of the preliminary site plan referred to in the accompanying article, together with all documents of whatsoever nature or description that refer or relate to the site plan. This request is made on behalf of the Commonwealth Coalition; a non-profit, public interest group. Accordingly, I further request that any fee for providing these records be waived. In the event that this request for a waiver of fees is denied, I hereby offer to pay all fees which may be assessed in connection with this request. Your attenticn to this matter is deeply appreciated. Si y, Philip Chabot, r. Encl. cc: Virginia Chapter, Sierra Club COUNTY of FREDERICk Department of Planning and Developmew 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-037( LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director TO: Donahue ATTN: Paul Bernard DATE: November 16, 1990 GENTLEMEN: We are sending you the attached: A report on the potential development impacts on water quality in Wheatlands Lake. THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: for your use as requested X for review and comment COMMENTS: We are looking for general comments on the adequacy of the report and the validity of its findings; any potential areas which are not adequately addressed. Please call me if you have questions. signed: n)1(0)q0 eac, 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703 / 667-0370 DECEMBER, 1989 WHEATLANDS Issues to be Addressed on Master Development Plan Sewage Treatment Plant: - Needs to be clear that the plant is being designed strictly for the use of the development with sufficient capacity only for the development. - Needs to be clear that approval is only on the condition that the Board of Supervisors resolves to have the plant accepted by the Service Authority and that it is accepted. - Approval needs to be on the condition that there acceptable guarantees or agreements are made with the Service Authority concerning future exapansions of the plant to meet the needs of the development. - Downstream impacts on water quality should be addressed in detail. Traffic Impacts: - Approval should be conditioned on there being one or two state maintained entrances on Route 522. - Detailed information is needed concerning impacts to Rt. 636. - Guarantees should be provided concerning improvements of Route 636 and the intersection with Rt. 277 as the development proceeds. Game and Inland Fisheries: - All land owned by Game and Inland Fisheries should be clearly shown on the plan as being seperate from the development. - Detailed information should be provided on impacts of the development on water quality within the lake. - Flood easements should be provided. 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - . 22601 - Approval should be on the condition that Game and Inland Fisheries review soil erosion and sedimentation plans and storm water management plans. It should also be on condition that they play a specific role in monitoring implementation of the plans. Public Access to the Lake: - Additional access points to the lake should be considered. Future Development Area: - More detailed information should be provided on the use of future development areas. Phasing Plan: - Phasing should be drawn in 50 to 100 unit increments. Plan should state one phase per year. Number of Units: - The maximum number of dwelling units by type to be provided should be clearly specified. Fire and Rescue: - A site with specific acreage should be provided and noted for fire and rescue station. Community Center: - A statement should be provided limiting use of the community center to appropriate/allowed uses. 0 E • • • G. W. CLIFFORD CORRESPONDENCE SEP - 5 FINAL NOTES TO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEATLANDS The undersigned owners of the property which is the subject of this Master Development Plan (MDP) submission ("the developer"), provide the following notations to demonstrate compliance with the lawful requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and for the further description of certain aspects of the development of the property. These notes shall be included on the face of the approved plan documents, and submission of final MDPs for the development of the subject property shall be in substantial conformity with the approved preliminary plan, and these notes. 1. Mixture of housing types. 'The developer shall construct the mix of housing types shown on..the legend set forth on the MDP, in the locations generally shown on the plan. 2. Transportation improvements. (a) All internal roads and connections to existing state roads as shown on the MDP, shall be constructed to state standards for inclusion in the State System of Highways. (b) The developer sha] Route 340/522, as generally shows that if approval can be obtained State authorities for a seconc between the foregoing entrance an may provide that second entrance this MDP. 1 provide a single entrance onto on the MDP; provided, however, from the appropriate County and entrance onto Route 340/522 1 Double Tollgate, the developer upon approval of a revision to (c) The developer shall construct an entrance to the property on Route 277, as generally shown on the MDP. (d) The developer shall prime and double seal that portion of State Route 636 from the point it adjoins the subject property, and connects with the internal loop road serving the subject property, to the present paved section thereof. This shall be done during Phase 8 of the development hereof, or at such earlier time as the developer may determine is necessary to access other Phases of the project. • 0 3. Trails system. The developer shall construct or cause to be constructed a trail system within the project to permit pedestrian access from within the development to, among other places, the Lake, to private recreation areas, to the community center, to commercial areas, and to the school site located within the project. Such trail system shall be located as generally shown on the MDP., 4. Street lights. Street lights will be provided within the development. 5. Provision of sewer and water service. (a) The subject property shall be serviced by public sewer and water systems. . (b) The developer shall cause to be constructed a wastewater treatment plant in the'general location shown on the MDP, according to plans approved by the Virginia State Water Control Board. Upon completion and acceptance thereof, such facility shall be conveyed to the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority, for operation by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, in accordance with an -agreement for the purpose. (c) Any lift stations which may be constructed to service the development shall be of a class approved by the Sanitation Authority as sufficient to provide maximum protection in the event of mechanical or electrical failure. (d) Public water shall be provided by means of an existing public water line. 6. Fire and rescue service. Upon the written demand of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, made at any time within twelve years from the date of platting of the first phase of the MDP, the developer shall dedicate to any appropriate public or private entity denominated by the Board, a site for the construction of a fire and/or rescue station. Any such dedication shall be expressly contingent upon the commencement of construction of a fire and/or rescue station within the aforesaid period, and title shall revert to the grantors in the event such construction has not commenced in accordance with the terms of the grant. 7. Open space reserved. The developer shall retain not less than the required open space set forth in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, in the locations identified for mandated open space on the MDP. 2 • 8. Potential development of reserved areas. (a) The developer expressly reserves those areas shown on the plan as Commercial/Industrial Development Areas, to be used as they may be hereafter the subject of an MDP for the purpose, or as they may be properly rezoned by Frederick County to permit commercial or industrial uses. (b) These Areas have been used to calculate the open space required in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and no future use shall be made of them which is inconsistent with those requirements. These Areas are reserved for future commercial and industrial development as may be permitted, and shall not be reserved for recreational, parkland, or other public uses. 9. Preservation of water quality in Lake Frederick. (a) No water will be taken from the Lake for the purposes of operating or maintaining the wastewater treatment facility servicing the property. (b) The development shall incorporate the use of Best Management Practices, in the locations generally identified on the MDP, in accordance with and to implement the recommendations contained in "An Assessment of Potential Development Impacts on the Water Quality of Wheatlands Lake," October 1990, prepared by Thomas J. Grizzard, Ph.D., P.E. The BMPs constructed for the project shall be designed so as to achieve coverage of 75% of the area of the property which drains into Wheatlands Lake. To the maximum extent that it may be possible to do upon final engineering, this percentage of coverage shall be exceeded. All BMPs shall be either of the wet or dry pond type, as may be determined appropriate upon final engineering of any subwatershed within the property, and each shall be constructed in accordance with the manual entitled "Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Designing Urban BMPs," published by Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments, current as of the date of final design. All such facilities shall be designed for a minimum stormwater detention period of forty hours, with a design classified as "High" with regard to the overall removal capacity, as shown in Figure 2.4 of the aforesaid Manual. (c) Responsibility for the continuing maintenance of the BMPs to be incorporated into the project shall be assigned to the developer, provided that the developer may assign this responsibility to an appropriate homeowner's association, or to such other appropriate entity as may be determined by Frederick County and the developer, or as may be provided in Section 16, hereof with respect to the transfer of such responsibilities. Maintenance required hereunder shall include routine and non- 3 routine maintenance as recommended in the aforesaid Manual, as necessary to achieve the intended purposes of the BMPs. (d) Water quality tests in Lake Frederick to determine BMP effectiveness shall be conducted at least annually according to a schedule agreed to by the Developer and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Such testing shall be at the developer's expense, until such time as a homeowners' association shall have been created, when the responsibility for funding such testing shall be transferred to the said association. The results of such testing shall be provided forthwith to Frederick County, to DGIF, to the developer, and to the homeowners's association created in accordance with these Notes. (e) In order to enhance the natural buffering of existing vegetation surrounding the Lake, an additional buffer zone of 50 feet beyond the legal boundaries thereof shall be established, and no building, tree cutting, clearing of undergrowth, construction of trails, disturbance of existing vegetation, or other physical encroachment shall be permitted in that zone except as may be necessary to construct and maintain the BMPs provided for herein, and except as may be necessary to obtain direct access to the additional public fishing areas provided for herein. The said additional buffer shall be in the form of an easement for conservation and water quality preservation purposes. Such easement shall be granted to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries within 60 days of the recordation of a final subdivision plat for any section of the development. (f) Any use of property which may be owned by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries shall be subject to the express prior written consent of the Department first obtained. 10. Public access to Lake Frederick. The Developer will provide not less than three nor more than five public access areas conforming to recommendations of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, in its report to Robert W. Watkins dated March 20, 1991. Right-of-way for such access, and parking areas, shall be provided to the Department, but the Developer shall not be responsible for any costs associated with the construction thereof. No boat landing, fishing pier, or boat dock shall be constructed on any of these sites without the prior written consent of the Department, and 4 with the written concurrence of the developer. Such areas shall be suitably signed to indicate their location and public nature. The Developer agrees that to the extent such sites have been physically located at the time of design of the roads from which access thereto will be provided, it shall design t�'i''bd'ri �^t ...................:::::::::::::. curb cuts necessary for standard commercial entrances `to"��"sucn access points, with access thereto be constructed at the expense of others. 11. Provision of adequate monumentation. The Developer shall provide permanent monumentation at approximately 1000 foot intervals around the perimeter of the Lake, for purposes of surveying and mapping the same, and to assist in the correct location of all boundary lines. 12. School site dedication. Within 60 days of the subdivision platting of the first phase of the MDP, the developer shall dedicate to the Frederick County School Board a school site in the location identified on the MDP. Such dedication shall be expressly subject to a reverter clause to the general effect that unless construction of a school on the said site is commenced within twelve years from the date of such platting, the site shall reconvey to the grantors. 13. Community centers. The developer agrees to dedicate to a Homeowner's Association land for a community center serving the subject property, in the location shown on the MDP. This site shall be dedicated prior to initiation of development in the phase of the development within which the site is located. 14. Phasing. (a) Development of the subject property shall be in accordance with a plan of phasing as shown on the MDP. The developer need not develop the property in the sequentially numbered order shown on the MDP. (b) Not more than 15% of the approved number of dwelling units, attached, detached, or multi -family, may be constructed in any one year period after the date of final approval of the MDP. This number shall be cumulative from year to year, provided, however, that no more than 30% of the permitted units may be constructed in any one year period. (c) The first phase of the wastewater treatment facility providing for approximately .25 million gallons per day of treatment capacity shall be constructed during Phase 1 of the 5 • SFP - 5 1991 development of the property. The second phase thereof shall be constructed in accordance with approved plans at such time as the State Water Control Board directs, and said capacity is required. Such facility shall be operated in conformance with all applicable state regulations. (d) The public water lines required to service the development shall be constructed on an as -needed basis. (e) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 277 shall be constructed during Phase 1 of the development of the subject property, and shall, until the entrance is constructed on Route 340/522, be the primary entrance to the site. 15. Homeowners' Association. (a) The developer shall cause to be created one or more homeowners' associations within the project to perform the functions common to such associations, including, but not limited to, center. (i) Construction and operation of a community (ii) Maintenance of common areas. (iii) Maintenance of Best Management Practices Facilities, subject to the provisions of §16 hereof. (iv) Maintenance of trails. (v) Maintenance of street lights. (vi) Maintenance of the recreation areas. (b) Any such homeowners' associations shall also be authorized, inter alia, to review and approve lot building plans to insure that the location of individual homes on specific building lots causes minimum disturbance of those sites. In order to maintain the maximum undisturbed area and the woodland nature of the project, any such association shall forbid the cutting or removal of any trees greater than 6 inches in diameter, except as may be necessary to the actual construction of a home, a driveway thereto, and for the installation of infrastructure connections, and for the purpose of a suitable yard area surrounding the home site. On those lots physically adjoining Wheatlands Lake, not more than 30% of the area thereof may be disturbed in accordance with this section. 16. Establishment of account for maintenance of BMP facilities. 0 0 0 (a) The developer or its assignee, as provided above, shall establish an escrow or other separate account to receive and disburse funds to insure the perpetual maintenance of all Best Management Practices facilities which may be constructed in accordance with this Plan. Notwithstanding any sums which may be contributed to such account by the homeowners' association, the developer shall deposit into the said account a sum equal to the estimated per lot share of five years' maintenance expenses for the BMPs to be constructed, based on reasonable e maintenance expenses of 5% of the total estimated ............ osts o-f construction thereof, as such construction cost estimate may ?<be approved by the Frederick County Engineer. Such coritr bution shall be made for each lot which may be subject to an approved Final Master Development Plan, payable upon recordation of a final subdivision plat therefor. (b) The sums segregated in accordance with the foregoing, and any interest accrued thereon, shall be used by the developer or his assignee, or by the appropriate officials Frederick County, or the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, for the purpose of perpetually maintaining such BMP facilities in a safe and efficient manner, and to achieve the intended purposes of the BMPs as referenced above. No other use of the escrowed funds shall be permitted. (c) Inasmuch as there are means under existing Virginia law for the creation of limited purpose governmental entities with the authority to raise revenues directly from and limited to the parties benefitted by public improvements, and to construct, operate, and maintain those improvements in perpetuity, then in the event that the appropriate public authorities of Frederick County or the Commonwealth of Virginia shall duly create a watershed improvement district, a sanitary district, or another appropriate public entity for the purpose of funding, operation, and maintenance of the Best Management Practices facilities to be constructed to service this project, all responsibility and obligation for funding, construction, operation, and maintenance thereof shall be transferred from any homeowners' association created hereunder, to the said public entity immediately upon the request of that entity, at no cost thereto. JHFc:mdpnotes 7 • 0 51991 G. W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 200 North Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 Fax: 703-665-0493 'JUN 2 41991 June 24,1991 Mr. Kris Tierney Frederick County Planning & Development 9 N. Loudoun Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Wheatlands Dear Kris, The PMDP of the Wheatlands Project has been revised per Department of Game & Inland Fisheries letter dated June 20, 1991. We are asking that the PMDP be heard at the July 10 Board of Supervisors meeting and have attached 17 sets of plans accordingly. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, �%tJ9w Lo Thomas W. Price TWP/clh cc: John Foote Jim Bowman Fred Glaize B. J. Tisinger Jim Petry Tom Grizzard John Callow June 21, 1991 P �,. J1N A 1991 ? 12 : Sspm OP JxF ►I Or NOT 9"TII"MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEATLANDS The undersigned owners of the property which is the subject of this Master Development Plan (MDP) submission ("the developer"), provide the following notations to demonstrate compliance with the lawful requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and for the further description of certain aspects of the development of the property. These notes shall be included on the face of the approved plan documents, and submission of final MDPs for the development of the subject property shall be in substantial conformity with the approved preliminary plan, and these notes. 1. Mixture of housing types. The developer shall construct the mix of housing types shown on the legend set forth on the MDP, in the locations generally shown on the plan. 2. Transportation improvements. (a) All internal roads and connections to existing state roads as shown on the MDP, shall be constructed to state standards for inclusion in the State System of Highways. (b) The developer shall provide a single entrance onto Route 340/522, as generally shown on the MDP; provided, however, that if approval can be obtained from the appropriate county and State authorities for a second entrance onto Route 340/522 gatee the between the foregoing provide that second upon approvrance and Double al of a revision to er pr may to this MDP. (c) The developer shall construct an entrance to the property on Route 277, as generally shown on the MDP. (d) The developer 36 fromhthe poi t it ad all prime and joins the subject ouble seal that portion of state Route property, and connects with the internale loop road ection serving e f ingTthe subject property, to the present paved or at shall der time a during Phase 8 of the the development hereof, such earlier developer may determine is necessary to access other Phases of the project. 3. Trail* sySt4m. ed The developer shall construct or erit peto be destrian accasstfrom trail system within the project to pm 0 0 within the development to, among other places, the Lake, to private recreation areas, to the community center, to commercial areas, and to the school site Located within the project. Such trail system shall be Located as generally shown on the MDP. 4. street lights. Street lights will be provided within the development. 5. Provision of sewer and water service, (a) The subject property shall be serviced by public sewer and water systems. (b) The developer shall cause to be constructed a wastewater treatment plant in the general location shown on the MDP, according to plans approved by the Virginia State Water Control Board. upon completion and acceptance thereof, such facility shall be conveyed to the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority, for operation by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, in avc5ordance with an agreement for the purpose. (c) Any lift stations which may be constructed to service the development shall be of a class approved by the Sanitation Authority as sufficient to provide maximum protection in the. event of mechanical or electrical failure. (d) Public water shall be provided by means of an existing public water line, 6. Fire and rescue service. Upon the written demand of the Frederick County Board of gupervisorsr made at any time within twelve years from the date of platting of the first phase Of the MDP, the developer shall dedicate to any appropriate public or private entity denominated by the Board, a site for the construction of a fire and/or rescue station. Any such dedication shall be expressly contingent upon the commencement of construction of a fire and/or rescue station within then the aforesaid ev event ouch dr and title con construction has shall not revert t he grantors commenced in �. accordance with the terms of the grant. 7, open space reserved. The developer shall retain not less than the required open spaoe set forth in the fraderiolt County Zoning tions identified for mandated open pace on the aMDP. in the �.oca► 8. potential develaYmeat Of reserved areas. (a) A developer expressly reserfs those areas shown on the plan as Commercial/Industrial Development Areas, to be used as they may be hereafter the subject of an MDP for the purpose, or as they may be properly rezoned by Frederick County to permit commercial or industrial uses. (b) These Areas have been used to calculate the open space required in accordance with the Frederick County zoning Ordinance, and no future use shall be made of them which is inconsistent with those requirements. These Areas are reserved for future oommeroial and industrial development as may be permitted, and shall not be reserved for recreational, parkland, or other publio uses. 9, Preservation of water quality in Lake Frederick. (a) No water will be taken from the Lake for the purposes of operating or maintaining the wastewater treatment facility servicing the property. (b) The development shall incorporate the use of Best Management Practices, in the locations generally identified on the MDP, in accordance with and to implement the recommendations contained in "An Assessment of Potential Development Impacts on the Water Quality of Wheatlands Lake," October 1990, prepared by Thomas J. Grizzard, Ph.D., P.E. The BMPs constructed for the project shall be designed so as to achieve coverage of 75% of the area of the property which drains intot a do upon final d Lake. To the maximum extent that it may be possible engineering, this percentage of coverage shall be exceeded. All BMPs shall be either of the wet or dry pond type, as may be determined appropriate upon final engineering of any subwatershed within the property, and each shall be constructed in accordance with the manual entitled "Controlling Urban ublished Runoff: by AWa radial Manual for Designing Urban BMPs,'� current as of the date of Metrhington opolitan Council of Governments, 1 be desi ned for a design All such facilities shall final g detention eriod of forty hours, :X ; > um stormwater "" ^` :YNhh:;•:l-1: a O5(!, h :^1,4•hh Fi minim ti °sa<!.Y t,Pe MIisSY:�i>w.Y4'S:J:Cf[Ti.1G:•ni°n•„y»:;rv:•.?..::-w,v.... . .......... ... (c) Responsibility for the continuing maintenance o o intthe project shall be assigned to o be incornYcrated f:.xz• >,- the ::R....,.... �:<<;�x..a..�stx:3..�r,•.�'i,n...�i'�"� •�Y �� � .:,..• n e a� hp oprier aPrate entity as May and the developer, or as may with 3 owher's assQu-L be determined be provided in by Frederick section 16, Insibilities• der quality tests rolt-leasMR. ;g;shall be conducteaanrivaley accord ng �.the o !Msiuse agreed to by Fisheries. oPSuch testing shallbe Department of Game and Inland at the developer's expense, until such time as a homeowners' association shall have been created, when the responsibility for funding such testing shall be transferred to the said association. The results of such testing othe developer, lbeProndto forthwith to Frederick County, to DG►IF, the homeowners's association created in accordance with these Notes. (a) In order to enhance the natural buffering of existing vegetation surrounding the Lake, an additional buffer zone of 50 feet beyond the legal boundaries thereof shall be earing of established, and no building, tree cutting, undergrowth, construction of trails, disturbance of existing vegetation, or other physical encroachment shall be permitted in that zone except as may be necessaryand except as may be necessary ato the SPZPS Provided for herein, a public fishing areas obtain direot access to the additional p in the provided for herein. The said additional buffer u and atershall bequality form of an easement for errant shall be ranted to the such easement <y oseS y. DN M'' NQ7J preservation pure prose �E,;,� development. Ca4ltrui. fr..-___ w (f) Any use of property which may be owned by the shall be Virginia inia Department of Game and Inland F sheriethe sD pat ent u fi ect to the express prior written con obtained. 10. public eaceas to L&ke Frederick. re The Developer wareas conformingg ill provide not to than re o�endationso of than five public access in its report Virginia Department of Game and 20tInl1991. Right -of -Way for such rch provided to the Department, to Robert W. Watkins dated Mshall be p sib1Q for any costs access, and parking areas, but the Developer shall not be responsible boat landing► the t dock shall be constructed on any of these associated with boa construction thereof. the Department, and fishing pier, o itten such areas Shall sites without the oncurrencprior wr e of the ndevelopon•and public nature. with the written be suitably signed to indicate theiextent such r locate roads have which velo )per agrees that to thedesi n of thesites have been The is P located at the time of it shall design curb cut physically provided, access thereto will d necessay for standard tomto Ds coentrances trusted at the expense such eOf points, with access thereto to b others. 4 11 0 1.1. provision of adequate monumentation. The peveloper shall provide permanent monumentation at approximately 1.000 Foot intervals around the perimeter of the Lake, for purposes of surveying and mapping the same, and to assist in the correct location of all boundary lines. 12. school site dsdioatiOn. Within 60 days of the subdivision platting of the first phase of the MDP, the developer shall dedicate to the Prederick County school Board a school site in the location identified on the MDP. such dedication shall be expressly subject to a revarter clause to the general effect that unless construction of a school on the said site is commenced ewsh�ll twelve years try from t�he the date of such platting, grantors. 13. Community centers. The developer agrees to dedicate to a Homeownerfs Association land for a community canter serving the subject property, in the location shown on the xDP. This site shall be dedicated prior initiation of its is development located,in the phase of the development within whichthe 14. Phasing. (a) Development of the subject property shall be in accordance with a plan of phasing as shown on the MDP, The developer need not develop the property in the sequentially numbered order shown on the MDP. (b) Not more than 15% of the approved number of be dwelling units► attached, detached, or multi -family, constructed in any one year period after the data of final This number shall be cumulative from year approval of the MDP to year, provided, however, that no more than � the cted in any one y period. permitted units may be constru (c) The first phase of the wastQwa►tex treatment rovida�ng for appz©�imately .25 million gallons Per day facility p achy sshall be hall be constructed during Phase 1 of the of treatment cap arty. The second phase thereof development of the property. constructed in accordance with approvede as the plans at such timacis rewired. State 'Water control Board directs, and said capacity operated in conformance with all Such facility shall be applicable state regulations. (d) The public water lines required to service the development shall be constructed on an as -nee basis 5 • (e) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 277 shall be constructed during Phase I of the development of the subject property, and shall, until the entrance is constructed on Route 340/522, be the primary entrance to the site. 15. Homeowners' Assooiation. (a) The developer shall cause to be created one or he ect to more bons common to such associations,tions within tinc including, but not limited erform the functions co to, (i) Construction and operation of a community center. (ii) Maintenance of common areas. (iii) thavisi ns of gl6hereof* t toarnt Practices Facilities, subject to P (iv) Maintenance of trails. (v) Maintenance of street lights. (vi) Maintenance of the recreation areas. (b) Any such homeowners' associations shall also lane authorized,iLla to review and approve lot building plans omes to insure that the lodisturbance n of aofhthose oBites. In building lots causes minimum and order to maintain the maximum undisturbed isturbeationa hall hfo bid woodland than 6 inches in nature of the project, any such cutting or removal of any trees gteate actual construction diameter, except as may be necessary thereto, and for the installation of a driveway of a home, and for the purpose of a suitable infrastructure connections, on those the area thereof and area e$than 30� of lots physically y ea surrounding the home si Wheatlands Lake, not more Adjoining may be disturbed in accordance with this section. o of EMP 15• Hstablisbm&Dt of aocouat for maintsnana faciliti+s • all a The developer .,:, ::�,.: :� ( ) ri s r "ev and at ent er etual maintenance of all Best establish an escrow or of er sepaX be constructed in disburse fundec to insure the p P sums which may be Management Practices facilNotwgthohtanding any the accordance with this Plan. ccount by the homeowners' association, e4 contributed to such into the said account -`� developer shall deposit 6 < :w:,,;-:.,,.; � ��: � 1:• •s>: , :;,. � ..::���,�..::,;.., ; : � :. ;.,�•.z�.: n.ot... wh c ay a su a m t Plan, payable upon Developmen ar► aPP therefor. recordation of a final subdivision plat (b) The sums segregated in accordance with the interest accrued thereon,: shall be used ^by � and any A.., Dior by foregoing, :.tie " rederic the app p .... ro riate officials ''rederick County, y. County Sanitation Authority, er etually ma for the purpose of p maintaining g efficient m a n n e ties in a safe and +f': "•'Mh'`!.wy Yh.....�My .,Y+: 'Fdf% is such1".. tacili:,.�>;�{,x::ti��`;:x (c) Inasmuch as there are means purpose under existing Virginia law for the creation to raise limited nest directly from and entities with the authority ublic improvements, and to limited to the parties benefitted by p in construct, operate, and maintain those improvement public appropriate perpetuity, then in the Couneventy or the Comamonweal h of virginia authorities of Frederick County improvement district, a sanitary shall duly create a watershed im ublid entity for the purpose of district, or another appropriate p Management funding, operation, and maintenance of the Besthis t Mango sett Practices facilities to be constructforto funding, service construction, and obligation all responsibility public operation, and maintenance thereof shall be ttoon the sa from a p entity, at no cast homeowners` associauion theareque t f that Y, entity immediately p thereto. Fred L. Gla ze, lII ,7ASBQ, Inc. STATE OF VIRGINIA to -wit: COUNTY OF ned Notary Public, in and for the state aof I, the undersig ire on the Glaize, county aforesaid, whose commission er that Fred L. r 19�, do hereby certify 1—Tj whoa e name s signed to the foregoing, appeared before me 7 and personally acknowledged the same in my jurisdiction aforesaid. GIVEN under my hand and seal this day of 1990. Notary Pub1 c STATE OF VIRGINIA to -wit: COUNTY OF ' Public, in and for the state ya = i, the undersigned Notary _ county aforesaid, whose commission certif s thattJameg . Bowman 19 , do hereby y signed to the of JASBO, Inc., whose name iacknowledged the as aar8d before me and personally forego ng, aPP same in my jurisdiction aforesaid. GIVEN under my hand and seal this day of 1990. Notary Public June 21, 1991 12:58pm JHF32:mdpn0tes 8 de*cA from Plan -jam 4 G. W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 200 North Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 Fax: 703-665-0493 April 4, 1991 Mr. Kris Tierney Frederick County Planning and Development P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Wheatlands PMDP Dear Kris, The attached 17 sets of Wheatlands Preliminary Master Development Plan has been revised per the Division of Game and Inland Fisheries and Frederick County Sanitation Authority comments. For your convenience, I have also attached a copy of the highlighted notes, outlining what changes have been made. We believe we have addressed all concerns at this point, and ask that this project proceed to the April 17th Planning Commission meeting for recommendations. If I can answer any questions please call at anytime. TWP/kf cc: John Foote Bill Tisinger Fred Glaize Jim Bowman Jim Petry Sincerely, Thomas W. Price G.W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. D � `4 19:ILI NOTES TO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEATLANDS April 3, 1991 4:06pm JHF 't- Whe ..:ndersigned owners of the property which is the subject of this Master Development Plan (MDP) submission ("the developer"), provide the following notations to demonstrate compliance with the lawful requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and for the further description of certain aspects of the development of the property. These notes shall be included on the face of the approved plan documents, and submission of final MDPs for the development of the subject property shall be in substantial conformity with the approved preliminary plan, and these notes. 1. Mixture of housing types. The developer shall construct the mix of housing types shown on the legend set forth on the MDP, in the locations generally shown on the plan. 2. Transportation improvements. (a) All internal roads and connections to existing state roads as shown on the MDP, shall be constructed to state standards for inclusion in the State System of Highways. (b) The developer shall provide a single entrance onto Route 340/522, as generally shown on the MDP; provided, however, that if approval can be obtained from the appropriate County and State authorities for a second entrance onto Route 340/522 between the foregoing entrance and Double Tollgate, the developer may provide that second entrance upon approval of a revision to this MDP. (c) The developer shall construct an entrance to the property on Route 277, as generally shown on the MDP- (d) The developer shall prime and double seal that portion of State Route 636 from the point it adjoins the subject property, and connects with the internal loop road serving the subject property, to the present paved section thereof. This shall be done during Phase 8 of the development hereof, or at such earlier time as the developer may determine is necessary to access other Phases of the project. 3. Trails system. The developer shall construct or cause to be constructed a trail system within the project to permit pedestrian access from within the development to, among other places, the Lake, to private recreation areas, to the community center, to commercial areas, and to the school site located within the project. 4. Street lights. Street lights will be provided within the development. 5. Provision of sewer and water service. (a) The subject property shall be serviced by public sewer and water systems. (b) The developer shall cause to be constructed a wastewater treatment plant in the general location shown on the MDP, according to plans approved by the Virginia State _Water Control Board. Upon completion and acceptance thereof, such facility shall be conveyed to the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority, for operation by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, in accordance with an agreement for the purpose. (c) .. Any . lift . stations. which. may . be..ccarLst.ructeA . to service. Ihe..development . shall. .be. of. a..class . approved..by.__the Sanitation .Authority .as ..&ufi.ci.ent to. provide. maximum. reasonable protection.in.the.Qvent.of.mechanical.or.electrical.failure.. (d) Public water shall be provided by means of an existing public water line. 6. Fire and rescue service. Upon the written demand of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, made at any time within twelve years fromthe date of platting of the first phase of the MDP, the developer shall dedicate to any appropriate public or private entity denominated by the Board, a site for the construction of a fire and/or rescue station. Any such dedication shall be expressly contingent upon the commencement of construction of a fire and/or rescue station within the aforesaid period, and title shall revert. -to the grantors in the event such construction has not commenced in accordance with the terms of the grant. 7. Open space reserved. The developer shall retain not less than the required open space set forth in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, in the locations identified for mandated open space on the MDP. 8. Potential development of reserved areas. K (a) The developer expressly reserves those areas shown on the plan as Commercial/Industrial Development Areas, to be used as they may be hereafter the subject of an MDP for the purpose, or as they may be properly rezoned by Frederick County to permit commercial or industrial uses. (b) These Areas have been used to calculate the open space required in accordance -with L� P _Fr ��ick Countv�oning .1 ' F' and no future use shall be mac% of them which is—' inconsistent with those requirements. These Areas are reserved for future commercial and industrial development as may be permitted, and shall not be reserved for recreational, parkland, or other public uses. 9. Preservation of water quality in Lake Frederick. (a) No water will be taken from the Lake for the purposes of operating or maintaining the wastewater treatment facility servicing the property. (b) The development shall incorporate the use of Best Management Practices, in the locations generally identified on the MDP, in accordance with and to implement the recommendations contained in "An Assessment of Potential Development Impacts on the Water Quality of Wheatlands Lake," October 1990, prepared by Thomas J . Grizzard, Ph.D., P.E. The BMPs constructed for the `t project shall be designed so as to achieve the highest practicable coverage of non -point run-off, and as much as it is reasonably practicable to do so, to achieve coverage of 75% thereof. To the maximum extent that it may be possible to do upon final engineering, this percentage of coverage shall be exceeded. (c) Responsibility for the continuing maintenance of the BMPs to be incorporated into the project shall be assigned to an appropriate homeowner's association,..or..to..such..other appropriate.entity.as.may.be.determined.by.Frederick.County.and the.developer,.and.subject.to.the.provisions.of.516,.hereof. (d) In order to enhance the natural buffering of existing vegetation surrounding the Lake, an additional buffer zone of 50 feet beyond the legal boundaries thereof shall be \j established, and no building or other physical encroachment shall be permitted in that zone. The said additional buffer shall be in the form of an easement for conservation and water quality preservation purposes. 3 10... Public.access.to.Lake.Frederick. The. .Developer. .will ..praviAaup to five public.. access. .areas } conform ing.to .recommendations .at .the. Virginia. Department. of. Game and. Inland. Fisheries,. in. its. xP4). ort .to .Robert .W _ Watkins. dated March.20, .1991. No boat landing, fishing pier, or boat dock shall be constructed on any of these sites without the prior written consent of the Department. 11... Provision. of. adequate.monumentation. The. Developer- . shall. -provide. permanent . monumentation.. at approximately. 1DDD..fjaat .intervals . around. the. .per aueter..of . the Lake, . for. .purposes .of . surveying. and mapping. the. same.,. and . to assist.in.the.correct.location.of.all.boundary.lines. 12. School site dedication. Within 60 days of the subdivision platting of the first phase of the MDP, the developer shall dedicate to the Frederick County School Board a school site in the location identified on the MDP. Such dedication shall be expressly subject to a reverter clause to the general effect that unless construction of a school on the said site is commenced within twelve years from the date of such platting, the site shall reconvey to the grantors. 13. Community centers. The developer agrees to dedicate to a Homeowner's Association land for a community center serving the subject property, in the location shown on the MDP. This site shall be dedicated prior to initiation of development in the phase of the development within which the site is located. 14. Phasing. (a) Development of the subject property shall be in accordance with a plan of phasing as shown on the MDP. The developer need not develop the property in the sequentially numbered order shown on the MDP. (b) Not more than 15% of the approved number of dwelling units, attached, detached, or multi -family, may be constructed in any one year period after the date of final approval of the MDP. This number shall be cumulative from year 4 0 • to year, provided, however, that no more than 30% of the permitted units may be constructed in any one year period. (c) The first phase of the wastewater treatment facility providing for approximately .25 million gallons per day of treatment capacity shall be constructed during Phase 1 of the development of the property. The second phase thereof shall be constructed in accordance with approved plans at such time as the State Water Control Board directs, and said capacity is required. Such facility shall be operated in conformance with all applicable state regulations. (d) The public water lines required to service the development shall be constructed on an as -needed basis. (e) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 277 shall be constructed during Phase 1 of the development of the subject property, and shall, until the entrance is constructed on Route 340/522, be the primary entrance to the site. 15. Homeowners' Association. (a) The developer shall cause to be created one or more homeowners' associations within the project to perform the functions common to such associations, including, but not limited to, center. (i) Construction and operation of a community (ii) Maintenance of common areas. (iii) Maintenance of Best Management Practices Facilities,.subject.to.the.provisions.of.§16,.hereof. (iv) Maintenance of trails. (v) Maintenance of street lights. (vi) Maintenance of the recreation areas. (b) Any such homeowners' associations shall also be authorized, inter alia, to review and approve lot building plans to insure that the location of individual homes on specific building lots causes minimum disturbance of those sites. In order to maintain the maximum undisturbed area, and the woodland nature of the project, any such association shall be granted the authority to forbid the cutting or removal of any trees greater than 6 inches in diameter, except as may be necessary to the actual construction of a home, a driveway thereto, and for the 5 installation of infrastructure connections, and for the purpose of a suitable yard area surrounding the home site. 16 ... Establishment.of .escrow .accaunt .fox. maintenance. of. BMP facilities. The. Developer. .shall. establish. an escrow. account. with . an agent.suitable .to .Erederi.ck .County.,..ox. such other. account. as.may be. .approved. .hy.. the.. County,. . to..receive ..axLd.. disburse.. funds sufficieut..to . insure. .the ..perpetuaL . maintenance. .of . all. .Best Management..Rracticas . facilities. which . may. .be. Eranstrwcter_L . in accordance .with .this Plan... This. account .may,..hut is. not. required to, . include. payment . of . some. or- . all. of. any . fees . which. may . be collected.by a Homeowners:. Assoc iation.created dzi accordance.with these. dlat.es.. for. the . purposes. .for . which. .such. Assocdati oji . is created... Notwithstanding. any. stuns. which may .be contributed. by the.Homeowners'. Association,. the. Developer.shall .depos.it into. the said. account. the. stun .a£ $100.00 per lot, for. peach .Lot .which may. be subject. to. an approved. Final. Master. .DPvP_J opment .Elan, . payable upon . recordation. ro.f..a . final. subdivision. plat. .thexefan.... These sums, . and. any. interest. accrued. .thex._"i,..may. be. used. An . their discretion.by. any. Homeowners: s.Association, .or .hy. the. appropriate officials..Erederick . County.,..the..Frederick . County. .Sanitation Authority, ..or. the ..Virginia ..D;e..partment . af.. Game.. and.. Inland Fisheries, .as .may .be .s.per_Lf.Led by. officials. of. Frederick. County, for.the.purpose.of.perpetually.maintaining.such.facilities.in.a safe.and.efficient.manner.. Fred L. Glaize, III JASBO, Inc. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF to -wit: I, the undersigned Notary Public, in and for the state and county aforesaid, whose commission expires on the day of 19_, do hereby certify that Fred L. Glaize, III, whose name is signed to the foregoing, appeared before me and personally acknowledged the same in my jurisdiction aforesaid. 1990. GIVEN under my hand and seal this day of 0 Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF , to -wit: I, the undersigned Notary Public, in and for the state and county aforesaid, whose commission expires on the day of , 19_, do hereby certify that James L. Bowman as of JASBO, Inc., whose name is signed to the foregoing, appeared before me and personally acknowledged the same in my jurisdiction aforesaid. GIVEN under my hand and seal this day of , 1990. JHF33:mdpnotes.002 Notary Public 7 1•IO'i1 12 190 16 : 9 SENT BY H&T 703 641 4340 NOTES TO MASTER DEVV8LOPMENT PLAN WHEATLANDS The under'signed owners of the property which is the subject of this Master Development Plan (MDP) submission ("the developer"), provide the following notations to demonstrate compliance with the lawful requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and for the further description of certain aspects of the development of the property. These notes shall be included on the face of the approved plan documents, and submission of final MDPS for the development of the subject property shall be in substantial Conformity with the approved preliminary plan, and these notes. 1.. Mixture of housing types, The developer shall construct the mix of housing types. shoran on the legend set forth on the MDP, in the locations generally shown on the plan. 2. Transportation. improvements. (a) All internal roads and connections to existing state roads as shown on the MDP, shall be constructed to state standards for inclusion in the State System of Highways, according to plans approved by Frederick County and the Virginia Department of Transportation (V'DOT) . (b) The developer shall provide a single entrance onto Route 340/522, as generally shown on the MDP; provided, however, that if approval can be obtained from the appropriate authorities for a second entrance onto Route 340/522 between the foregoing entrance and Double Tollgate, the developer may provide that second entrance upon approval: of a revision to this MDP. (0) The developer shall construct an entrance to the property on Route 277,.as generally shown on the MDP. (d) The developer shall prime and double seal that portion of State Route 636 from the point it adjoins the subject property, and connects with the internal Loop road serving the subject property, to the present paved section thereof. This shall be done during the appropriate phase of the development hereof. 3. * Street lights. Street lights will be provided within the development. r, NOV 12 ' 90 16: 40 SENT BY H&I - 703 641 4340 � F . 3. 4. Provision of sewer and water service. (a) The subject property shall be serviced by public sewer and water systems. (b) The dov(eIoper shall cause to be constructed a wastewater treatment plant in the general location shown on the MDP, according to plans approved by the Virginia state Water Control Board.. Upon completion and acceptance thereof, such facility shall be conveyed to the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority, for operation by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, in accordance with an agreement between the three parties for the purpose. (c) Public water shall be provided by means of an existing public water line. �. Fire and rescue service. Upon the written demand of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, made at any time within twelve years from the date of platting of the first -phase of the MDP, the developer shall dedicate to any appropriate public or private entity denominated by the Board, a site for the construction of a fire and/or rescue station. Any such dedication shall be expressly contingent upoxi the commencement of construction of a fire and/or rescue station within the aforesaid period, and title shall revert to the grantors in the event such construction has not commenced in. accordance With the terms of the grant. 6. . Open space reserved. (a) The developer shall retain not less than the required open space set forth in the Frederick County Zoning ordinance, in the locations identified for mandated open space'.on the MDP. (b) The developer expressly reserves those areas shown on the plan as,Future Development Areas, to be used as they may be hereafter the subject of an MDP, or as they' may be properly zoned by Frederick County, These Areas have been used to calculate the open space required in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and no future use shall be made of them which is inconsistent with those 'requirements. These Areas are reserved for future development as may be permitted,.and shall not be reserved for recreational or other - public uses. 2 J NU',? 12 ' 90 16: 40 SEV1T B -( �� 00 641 4340 P.4 7. Preservation of waster quality in Labe Frederick, (a) No water will be taken from the hake for the purposes of operating or maintaining the wastewater treatment facility servicing the property. (b) The development shall incorporate the use of Hest Management Practices, in the locations generally identified on the MDP, in accordance with and to implement the recommendations contained in "An assessment of Potential Development impacts on. the Water Quality of Wheatlands Lake," October 1990, prepared by Thomas J. Grizzard, Ph.D., P.E. Such HMPs shall achieve the highest practicable coverage of non -point run-off, but shall in no event exceed the reasonably practicable,level of 75% thereof. (c) Responsibility for the continuing maintenance of the HMPs to be incorporated into the project shall be assigned to an, appropriate homeowner'.s association, with the power to levy assessments sufficient for that, and other lawful purposes, which may be assigned thereto. (d) In order to enhance the natural buffering of eXisting vegetation surrounding the Lake, a buffer zone of So feet beyond the legal boundaries thereof shall be established, and no building or other physical encroachment shall be permitted in that zone. The restrictions contained herein shall be incorporated in restrictive covenants applicable to the deeds to the properties which adjoin the Lake boundary. 8. school site dedication. within 60 days of the subdivision platting of` the first phase of the MDP, the developer shall dedicate to the Frederick County School Board a school site in the location identified on the MDP. Such dedication shall be expressly subject to a reverter clause to the general effect that unless construction of a -school on the said -site is commenced within twelve years from the date of such platting, the site shall reconvey to the grantors. 9. Community centers. The developer -agrees to dedicate to a Homeowner's. Association land for a Community center serving the subject property, in the location shown on the MDP: This site shall be - dedicated prior to initiation of development in the phase of the development within which the site is located. 10. Phasing. (a) Development of the subject property shall be in accordance with a plan of phasing as shown on the MDlP. The. 3 HOV '12 '90 IG:41 5EHT E`r' HE.:s '41 4_340 P.5 developer need not develop the property in the sequentially numbered order shown on the MDP. (b) Not more than 15- of the approved number of dwelling units,. attached, detached, or multi -family, may be Oonstructed in any one year period after the date of final approval of the MDP. This number shall be cumulative from period to period. (c) The first phase of the wastewater treatment facility providing for approximately .25 million gallons per day of treatment opacity shall be constructed during Phase 1 of the development of the property. The second phase thereof shall be constructed in accordance with approved plans at such time as the State water Control Board directs, and said capacity is required. Such facility shall be operated, in conformance with all applicable state regulations. (d) The public water lines required to service the development shall be constructed on an as -needed basis. (e) The entrance to the subject. property from State Route 277 shall be constructed during Phase 1 of the, development of the subject property, and shall, until the entrance is constructed on Route.340/522, be the primary entrance to the site. November 12, 1990 5:22pm JHP3 2 : mdpnotes Fred L. Glaize, ITT JASBO, Inc. ELI NOTES TO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEATLANDS The undersigned owners of the property which is the subject of this Master Development Plan (MDP) submission ("the developer"), provide the following notations to demonstrate compliance with the lawful requirements of the Frederick County Zoning. Ordinance, and for the further description of certain aspects of the development of the property. These notes shall be included on the face of the approved plan documents, and submission of final MDPs for the development of the subject property shall be in substantial conformity with the approved preliminary plan, and these notes. 1. Mixture of housing types. The developer shall construct the mix of housing types shown on the legend set forth on the MDP, in the locations generally shown on the plan. 2. Transportation improvements. (a) All internal roads and connections to existing state roads as shown on the MDP, shall be constructed to state standards for inclusion in the State System of Highways, according to plans approved by Frederick County and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). (b) The developer shall provide a single entrance onto Route 340/522, as generally shown on the MDP; provided, however, that if approval can be obtained from the appropriate authorities for a second entrance onto Route 340/522.between the foregoing entrance and Double Tollgate, the developer may provide that second entrance upon approval of.a revision to this MDP. (c) The developer shall construct an entrance to the property on Route 277, as generally shown on the MDP. (d) The developer shall prime and double seal that portion of State Route 636 from the point it adjoins the subject property, and connects with the internal loop road serving the subject property, to the present paved section thereof. This shall be done during the appropriate phase of the development hereof. 3. Street lights. Street lights will be provided within the development. 4. Provision of sewer and water service. (a) The subject property shall be serviced by public sewer and water systems. (b) The developer shall cause to be constructed a wastewater treatment plant in the general location shown on the MDP, according to plans approved by the Virginia State Water Control Board. Upon completion and acceptance thereof, such facility shall be conveyed to the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority, for operation by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, in accordance with an agreement between the three parties for the purpose. (c) Public water shall be provided by means of an existing public water line. 5. Fire and rescue service. Upon the written demand of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, made at any time within twelve years from the date of platting of the first phase of the MDP, the developer shall dedicate to any appropriate public or private entity denominated by the Board, a site for the construction of a fire and/or rescue station. Any such dedication shall be expressly contingent upon the commencement of construction of a fire and/or rescue station within the aforesaid period, and title shall revert to the grantors in the event such construction has not commenced in accordance with the terms of the grant. 6. open space reserved. (a) The developer shall retain not less than the required open space set forth in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, in the locations identified for mandated open space on the MDP. (b) The developer expressly reserves those areas shown on the plan as Future Development Areas, to be used as they may be hereafter the subject of an MDP, or as they may be properly zoned by Frederick County. These Areas have been used to calculate the open space required in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and no future use shall be made of them which is inconsistent with those requirements. These Areas are reserved for future development as may be permitted, and shall not be reserved for recreational or other public uses. OA 7. Preservation of water quality in Lake Frederick. (a) No water will be taken from the Lake for the purposes of operating or maintaining the wastewater treatment facility servicing the property. (b) The development shall incorporate the use of Best Management Practices, in the locations generally identified on the MDP, in accordance with and to implement the recommendations contained in "An Assessment of Potential Development Impacts on the Water Quality of Wheatlands Lake," October 1990, prepared by Thomas J. Grizzard, Ph.D., P.E. Such BMPs shall achieve the highest practicable coverage of non -point run-off, but shall in no event exceed the reasonably practicable level of 75% thereof. (c) Responsibility for the continuing maintenance of the BMPs to be incorporated into the project shall be assigned to an appropriate homeowner's association, with the power to levy assessments sufficient. for that, and other lawful purposes, which may be assigned thereto. (d) In order to enhance the natural buffering of existing vegetation surrounding the Lake, a buffer zone of 50 feet beyond the legal boundaries thereof shall be established, and no building or other physical encroachment shall be permitted in that zone. The restrictions contained herein shall be incorporated in restrictive covenants applicable to the deeds to the properties which adjoin the Lake boundary. 8. School site dedication. Within 60 days of the subdivision platting of the first phase of the MDP, the developer shall dedicate to the Frederick County School Board a school site in the location identified on the MDP. Such dedication shall be expressly subject to a reverter clause to the general effect that unless construction of a school on the said site is commenced within twelve years from the date of such platting, the site shall reconvey to the grantors. 9. Community centers. The developer agrees to dedicate to a Homeowner's Association land for a community center serving the subject property, in the location shown on the MDP. This site shall be dedicated prior to initiation of development in the phase of the development within which the site is located. 10. Phasing. (a) Development of the subject property shall be in accordance with a plan of phasing as shown on the MDP. The developer need not develop the property in the sequentially numbered order shown on the MDP. (b) Not more than 15% of the approved number of dwelling units, attached, detached, or multi -family, may be constructed in any one year period after the date of final approval of the MDP. This number shall be cumulative from period. to period. (c) The first phase of the wastewater treatment facility providing for approximately .25 million gallons per day of treatment capacity shall be constructed during Phase 1 of the development of the property. The second phase thereof shall be constructed in accordance with approved plans at such time as the State Water Control Board directs, and said capacity is required. Such facility shall be operated in conformance with all applicable state regulations. (d) The public water lines required to service the development shall be constructed on an as -needed basis. (e) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 277 shall be constructed during Phase 1 of the development of the subject property, and shall, until the entrance is constructed on Route 340/522, be the primary entrance to the site. Fred L. Glaize, III JASBO, Inc. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF , to -wit: I, the undersigned Notary Public, in and for the state and county aforesaid, whose commission expires on the day of 19_, do hereby certify that Fred L. Glaize, III, whose name is signed to the foregoing, appeared before me and personally acknowledged the same in my jurisdiction aforesaid. 1990. GIVEN under my hand and seal this day of Notary Public 4 r STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF , to -wit: I, the undersigned Notary Public, in and for the state and county aforesaid, whose commission expires on the day of , 19_, do hereby certify that James L. Bowman - as of JASBO, Inc., whose name is signed to the foregoing, appeared before me and personally acknowledged the same in my jurisdiction aforesaid. GIVEN under my hand and seal this day of 1990. November 12, 1990 5:47pm JHF32:mdpnotes Notary Public 5 6 G.W.CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 200 N.CAMERON ST. PO BOX 2104 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 7 0 3 - 6 6 7 - 2 1 3 9 TO: Frederick County Planning DepartmE • LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL PRESENT DATE JOB NO. 2/5/91 ATTENTION Mr. Kris Tierney RE: Whaatlanric Pmnp WE ARE SENDING YOU I" I ATTACHED F-] UNDER SEPARATE VIA X❑ HAND DELIVERED ❑ CHANGE ORDER SAMPLES SHOP DRAWINGS IX-1 PRINTS ❑ PLANS COPY OF LETTER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SPECIFICATIONS ❑ OTHER COPIES] DATE DESCRIPTION 15 1 lRevised PMDP per VDOT comments & meeting last Thursday, Jan. 31, 1991. ARE TRANSMITTED F1 APPROVED/SUBMITTED X❑ FOR APPROVAL APPROVED/AS NOTED FOR YOUR USE RETURN/CORRECTIONS AS REQUESTED FOR REVIEW or COMMENT El FOR BIDS DUE ------------ 19 REMARKS RESUBMIT___ FOR APPROVAL SUBMITFOR DISTRIBUTION RETURNED_ CORRECTED PRINTS El LOAN PRINT/RETURN RETURN/WITH SIGNATURES COPY TO: Fred Glaize, Jim Bowman, John Foote, SIGNED Thomas W. Price Jim Petry REV. 2.0 a,. 0 G.W.CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC 200 N.CAMERON ST. PO BOX 2104 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 7 0 3 - 6 6 7 - 2 1 3 9 TO (Hand Delivered) • LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL PRESENT DATE JOB NO. 2/7/91 ATTENTION Mr. Kris Tierney RE: VVhPatlanric PMIIP WE ARE SENDING YOU n ATTACHED F-] UNDER SEPARATE VIA THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ❑ HAND DELIVERED CHANGE ORDER SAMPLES SPECIFICATIONS SHOP DRAWINGS ❑ PRINTS PLANS ❑ OTHER COPY OF LETTER L_J COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION 15 7/89 Sheet 1 of 2 Revised per County comments 2/6/91 ilu ,S n I A of G4I C s ❑ ARE TRANSMITTED APPROVED/SUBMITTED ❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED/AS NOTED F FOR YOUR USE RETURN/CORRECTIONS AS REQUESTED FOR REVIEW or COMMENT FOR BIDS DUE ------------ 19___ REMARKS ❑ RESUBMIT___ FOR APPROVAL ❑ SUBMIT___ FOR DISTRIBUTION ❑ RETURNED_ CORRECTED PRINTS El LOAN PRINT/RETURN RETURN/WITH SIGNATURES COPY TO: File SIGNED Thomas W. Price REV. 2.0 HAZEL & THOMAS CORRESPONDENCE • ALtXANDR IA OFFICE $10 KING STREET, SUITE 200 P.O, SOX Silo• ALEXANORIA, VIROINIA 923t3 (703) 836-8400 FAIRFAX OFFICE 3110 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE, SUITE 1400 P.O, sox 12001 FALLS CHURCH, VIROINIA 22041 t703) 041.4100 LtESSURO OFFICE SUITE 300 44004 RIVtR510E PARKWAY L9t61IUA0, VIRGINIA 220711 (703) 711-6000 or (to LAW OFFICES Had&Mom • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MANASSAS OPIPIG[ THE OLD PIEDMONT LUILDINO THIAO FLOOR 9324 WELT STREET MANASSAS, VIRGINIA 22110 (703) 330-7400 METRO (703) 003-7474 FAX (703) 330-7430 October 29, 1991 Mr. Chuck Maddox G.W. Clifford & Associates 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Wheatlands Final Plan Dear Chuck: RICHMOND OFFICE 411 CAST FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 000 P.0• SOX 3-K RICHMOND. VIROIMIA 13100 (004) 344-2400 WINCHESTER OFFICE 107 NORTM KENT STREET, FOURTH FLOOR 0.01 Sox 8740 WINCHESTER, VIROINIA 12001 (703) 49S-0090 MARYLAND OFFICE SUITE 1100 1 80 CAST SALTIMORE STREET ■ALTIMORE, MARYLANO 21202 (301) 703-3sOO WASHINOTON OFFICE SUITE 400 1001 ►ENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. WASHINOTON. O, C. ZOOOdI (202) 669-7000 I have spoken with Kris Tierney regarding any revisions that might be necessary to the Wheatlands Development Plan as a consequence of Dinesh's latter of October 15th. • Pursuant to my agreement with Kris, it is necessary to change thQ plan of development to reflect the appropriate designation of the 5-0 foot strip around the lake. If the Final Plan doss not in fact identify the first 50 foot strip as owned in fee simple by DGIF, then that change needs to be made. Kris does not require us to change anything on the Master Development plan with regard to percentage of coverage. We have committed to 75% coverage, and that must be achieved. No change to the Plan is required. Kria does not expect that we will make any amendment to the Final Notes to define the term reforestation. There will have to be some agreement reached with the County with respect to any Final Plan submissions, but that can be addressed then. Billy Joe and I want you to give thought to the question of what the appropriate elevation ought to be with respect to the flooding easements. We are agreed that we shall in fact amend the Final Notes to reflect that elevation in the provisions of S 9a, but we do not think that the 628.5 foot limit is correct. • Mr. Chuck Maddo k,/ October 29, 1991 Page 2 • C� LAW OFFICES • A PROFESMONAL CORPORATION 5o far as I am aware, no other changes need to be made, and Xris will take whatever steps art necessary to finally approve the PMDP. JHF:jw cc: Billy Joe Tisinger Jim Bowman Fred Glare • sincerely yours, HAZEL THOMA9, P.C. �Jeh H. Foote ALEXANDRIA OFFICE 510 KING STREET, SUITE 200 P.O. BOX 820 ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22313 (703) 836-8400 FAIRFAX OFFICE 3110 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE, SUITE 1400 P.O. BOX 12001 FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22042 (703) 641-4200 LAW OFFICES Hazel&Thomas A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MANASSAS OFFICE THE OLD PIEDMONT BUILDING THIRD FLOOR 9324 WEST STREET MANASSAS, VIRGINIA 22110 (703) 330-7400 METRO (703) 803-7474 LEESBURG OFFICE SUITE 300 FAX (703) 330 7430 44084 RIVERSIDE PARKWAY LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 22075 (703) 729-8500 July 10, 1991 Kenneth Y. Stiles, Chairman Board of Supervisors of Frederick County Virginia Winchester, Virginia Dear Mr. Chairman: RICHMOND OFFICE 411 EAST FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 600 P. O. BOX 3-K RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23206 (804) 344-3400 WINCHESTER OFFICE 107 NORTH KENT STREET, FOURTH FLOOR P.O. BOX 2740 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (703) 665-0050 MARYLAND OFFICE SUITE 2100 120 EAST BALTIMORE STREET BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21202 (301) 783-3500 WASHINGTON OFFICE SUITE 400 2001 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 (202) 659-7000 At your meeting on July 10, 1991, the Board will consider approval of the Preliminary Master Development Plan for the Wheatlands project with which the Board is well familiar. The owners of the Wheatlands property have been engaged in extensive discussions with numerous review agencies and private individuals with respect to the development of the site. The Master Development Plan before you reflects virtually complete agreement as to all matters which have raised during review, although many of the matters agreed to are not required by any law or ordinance. The owners believe, however, that they haveproduced a plan for a first rate development which will long serve the interests of Frederick County. Several small matters do not appear on the Plan as it is before you, but the owners wish to make the Board aware of certain other changes that they are willing to make to the Plan. As you may have read in the local papers, the owners have, following discussions with representatives of the Commonwealth Coalition, agreed to move a proposed townhouses section from its present location near the proposed community center, and to place them elsewhere on the site in a suitable location. The owners will agree both to the reforestation of that area (which has been denuded of vegetation for many years), and to place it in a conservation easement. This will provide a buffer between the fishing area, and the community center, and a visual buffer around the entire Lake. 1\ E C� E ci_ LAW OFFICES Kenneth Y. Stiles, Chairman July 10, 1991 Page 2 Hazel&Thomas A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Further, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has requested three additional changes be made to the notes. First, it has requested,that the Notes be amended to reflect that flooding easements will be provided. The owners have frequently stated that they will do so, and we repeat that commitment. They are willing to provide the easements as expeditiously as possible after the approval of the Master Development Plan. They do not, however, wish the approval of the Plan to be contingent upon the actual provision of those easements, since their final preparation can be accomplished most efficiently as further engineering is finalized. Second, the owners are willing to put in curb cuts for public Lake access as they design and develop the internal road network. They do not intend to construct any access roads., or parking areas, but it is our understanding that DGIF does not ask that. Finally, DGIF asks a small change to Note 16(a) with respect to maintenance of BMPs. The change is acceptable to the owners. We would respectfully request that the Board approve this application as it is before you, and -that final approval be conditioned upon these changes being reflected in any Final Plans which may be submitted. We thank the County for its patient consideration of this proposal. JHF:jw cc: Mr. Mr. Mr. Fred Glaize Jim Bowman Chuck Maddox Sincerely yours, HAZEL THO S, P.C. Jo H. Foote \ ti vvv-wvw,.rV \\ vWYY l PARKING AREA STATE of VIRG PROPERTY ACCESS ROAD — OPEN SPACE EASEMENT 70' RIW PROP. COMMUNITY CENTER SITE PLAN OF A PORTION BLDG. RESTRICTION LINE OF I WHEATLANDS REVISED LAYOUT TO SECTION 20 FREDERICK CO., VA SCALE: 1" = 300' JULY 9. 1991 • 0 718 PROJ. SCHEDULE PROJECT SCHEDULE SYMBOL HOUSING TYPE NO. UNRS PHASE ACREAGE DENSITY 1 COMMERCIAL CENTER 0 3 10 0.00 2 SCHOOL SITE 0 LN010m 15 0.00 3 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 0 FUTURE 13 0.00 4 TOVY OUSES 95 1 36 2.64 5 SF DETACHED -CLUSTER 20 1 8 2.60 6 SF DETACHED -CLUSTER 30 1 15 2.00 7 SFDETACHED-CLUSTER 225 2 71 1.78 8 3F DETACH ED-TRAI)rrioN-Ai 26 1 18.5 1.41 9 3F DETACHED-TRADTTIONAI 43 2 32 1.34 10 SF DETACH ED-TRADTIONAI 46 1 3 35 1.31 11 SFDETACHED-CLUSTER 55 3 34 1.62 12 SF DETACHED -CLUSTER 47 3 24 1.96 13 3FDETACHED-TRADI'TIONA 86 9 73 1.18 14 3FDETACHED-TRADITIONA 18 4 9.5 1.89 15 3F DETACHED-TRADITIONAI 12 4 6 2.00 16 3F DETACH ED-TRA DITIONAI9 4 5 1.80 17 3F DETACHED-TRAWTIONA 13 5 18 0.72 18 SF DETACHED -CLUSTER 125 4 1 63 1.98 19 SF DETACHED -CLUSTER 73 5 37 1.97 20 TOE 4HOUSFS 80 5 32 2.50 21 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 0 FUTURE 10 0.00 22 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 0 FUIURE 9 0.00 23 COMMERCIAL CENTER 0 6 7 0.00 24 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 0 FUTURE 7 0.00 25 FUTTJREDEVELOPMENT 0 FUTURE 10 0.00 26 F DETACHED -TRADITION A 51 6 40 1.28 27 3F DETACHED-TRADITIONA 48 6 38 1.26 28 SF DETACHED -CLUSTER 17 6 7 2.43 29 SFDETACHED-CLUSTER 41 6 19 2.16 30 SFDETACHED-CLUSTER 54 6 26 2.08 31 SFDETACHED-CLUSTER 78 7 38 2.05 32 F DErACHED-TRADrrioNAi 68 7 49 1.39 33 5F DETACHED-TRADITIONAI 8 7 6 1.33 34 5F DETACHED-TRADITIONA 21 8 18 1 1.17 35 SF DETACHED -CLUSTER 30 7 13 2.31 36 SF DETACHED -CLUSTER 68 8 29 2.34 37 SFDETACHED-CLUSTER 76 8 32 2.38 38 FIRE &RESCUE SITE 0 UN1<N0M 3 0.00 WWTP 0 1 10 0.00 TOTALS 1463 926 PHASING SCHEDULE NO. UNITS trOTAL ACRES O. S. ACRES V. OPEN SPACI R/W AC. PV'MT AC. SF LOTS TOWNHOUSE PHASE 1 171 77.5 -TO 27.13 35% 11.39 4.95 76 95 PHASE2 168 3 36.05 35% 9.08 4.22 168 PHASE3 148 103 36.05 35% 13.55 6.77 148 PHASE 164 83.5 29.23 35% 15.99 7.70 164 PHASE5 166 87 32.19 37% 6.22 3.09 80 PHASE6 211 137 47.95 35% 23.89 12.47 211 PHASE7 184 106 37.10 35% 14.05 6.79 184 PHASE6 165 79 27.65 35% 10.07 4.75 165 PHASE 86 73 25.55 35% 10.07 2.60 86 RJTURE 0 49 17.15 35% SCHOOL SITE 0 15 0.00 0% FIRE& RESCUE SITE 0 3 0.00 0% WWrP SITE 0 10 0.00 0% Total 1463 926 316.04 35% 114.31 53.34 1202 175 NOTE: R/WACREAGE & PAVEMENTACREAG IS INCLUDED IN OPEN SPACE ACREAGE TOTAL SITE OPEN SPACE - 35% TOTAL OPEN SPACE LESS RAN - 23% TOTAL OPEN SPACE LESS PAVEMENT- 291, OPEN SPACE NOTE 314 Acres Does not Include School, Fire & Rescue & WWTP Site 314 Acres Does not include School, Fire & Rescue & WWTP Site NO. UNITS ACREAGE DENSITY SFTRADITIONAL 449 348 1.29 SF CLUSTER 839 416 2.02 TL7t�RJ ICIJSES 175 68 2.57 TOTALS 1463 832 1.76 Page 1 *` P01 * * TRANSACTION REPORT * * ~-' JUL-10-91 WED 11:23 * * * * DATE START hDER RX TIME PAF3ES NOTE * * JUL-10 11:21 7033307430 2'30" 3 OK * * * � ����� U .!| / || [ / / SENT BY:HAZEL&1HUMA5 tManassffi 7-10-91 ;11:14AM ; 703 743�- Ito IONS rag". w" A" Ait11AM®AIA, V.AOIMIAlaals %fear aa4►e400 ►lIArAA or/let aIto /A+il' vw rAAK SAW& eutfe 14M P. o. sex I t004 F"6@ CMVIICM, v10e1110A 960011 4100) 041jaeo LamouAo 01prlot aVITt aeo 4444 nmRaIOt "AR1l1111a btt[olume. V111o1M1A 11"N "41 u+see JUL 101991 io w Got Kodm`ham A'tartasiom" COallem"011 MAN"11 f OFFICG TIIR OLO al[OMOMT BUILDING THIRD PLOpA 0324 WCST 3TR9117 MAMAS$", VI001M1A la110 (703) 330.7400 MaTRO 4703) 403-7474 PAX (703) 330.7430 Tu=py NuMaBa 703 _GG 1-0 3'70 oma Nnam �Z�iis+s�1L NUMBER pF pAOES (MCiLUDINO COVER PAOEk 17036670370;# 1 0"10000 Gfvm 411 UP ►AAMRYM 4M99►. aVi" Oft •. 41. o01t " a1C:MOMe, VIAla1M1A as*" m ma) a44-$Mw � 1114111"T{A Orriet l01 MOAT: 11CUT *TRttT, royaTM meet Do o. aGli Asia/ IwIffem"Tok v►ngiftIA 14004 17N) Mi40a! MAWIL"a OlFries sulTt a10a in "fiv "LTIMOAt oT:itv o"TIMQat. MAATMMO 0 M 48041 1 ea•sa00 w4mu feM smas OVITt 400 aObl rL11M8nvANlr►AVRMVt, M.M. OA#MIMal 1 9.0. some 4062) •str4?00 SHOULD ANY PAOES BE MISSINO. PLEASS CALL OUR TBLBCOPY OPERATOR AT (a0� 641.4M TAe Wormatioa conWoW In this baalmk mmap h infonmatloa lateadod oaly tar the at of CM IadtvWual of eotity named above, say map be attorney/dkat pdvdeSW and Consdefidd It tba few of thk memp b sot the late &A mdpkat, you are hereby oodW that air dimmieadm dbUlbutioa Ot CopytaS of " oommunkatioa b attictlp pfohiblte& If you have teo*w tbk ammunkatioa In em, plan Immediately noft us by tekphone and m1wa the odslaal meaaa=e to us at tho above addreu via the U.3. Postal 8erAm Thank yotL,.HUW A Thomas. NO ANSWER w.�. LINE BUSY __ SENT 3Y:HAZEL&TH0MA5 Manassas , "-10-91 ,11,14AM 70304K'- 170366703704 2 The Commonwealth Coalition P.O. Box 866 Berryville, Virginia 22611 -------------------------------------------- ------------.--------- NEWS RELEASE y�—/►----tea,-------.---- --- --------------------------------- (For release 2 p.m. Tuesday, July 9, 1991) The Commonwealth coalition is today ending its opposition to the proposed Wheatlands Development because of a major new concession offered by the developers, Fred Glaize and James Bowman. The developers have agreed to cancel plans for building so townhouses on the point of land immediately to the east of the public fishing area and dock at Lake Frederick. Instead, the approximately ten -acre tract will be reforested, left undeveloped, and protected by a permanent conservation easement. The result will be a natural buffer between the public fishing area and the proposed Wheatlands community center and the relocated townhouses. Claudia Bean, coordinator of the Coalition's Wheatlands Task Force, said that the protection of the point, alonq with the measures worked out with the Virginia Department of Game and inland Fisheries during the past year, means that "Lake Frederick has been protected to the highest degree possible under existing conditions." she congratulated the developers for "going the extra mile" in search of a compromise acceptable to everyone despite the fact that they had been granted the zoning necessary for high -density development of the site. "We take immense satisfaction from reviewing the progress of this development -- as a result of the continuing review processes of several agencies and boards -- from an initial 2,200 units to the present 1463; from little or no protection of the lake, to the present 100-foot buffer, rigorous runoff -control measures and tree -removal restrictions; from severely limited public access, to the current plan for several additional access areasi and most especially, from a high -density plan that would have crowded the lake and intruded everywhere on the ability of people to enjoy fishing or boating, to one that gives more appropriate consideration to maintaining the fishery and the recreational potential of the lake." Thomas A. Lewis, convent if the Commonwealth Coalition, announced the dip`,andinc Uf the Wheatlands Task Force and the cessation of all Rliti legal activity regarding the "Political action to preserve our common wealth: pure water, clean air, ,fertile earth and a sustainable quality of life, " SENT BY:HAZEL&TFJMA� tyianassas*7-10-91 :11:15AM ?C330430-- 17036670370,# 3 development. He recalled that when .•,� task force was created in January of 199o, the lake was 'padlocked, under siege and had few friends.' There are many people to thank for the intervening progress, he said, from the people who bought raffle tickets on a bass boat to help support Coalition efforts, to Washington attorney Philip Chabot who handled the complex Coalition filing with the Interior Department, to Pennsylvania Congressman peter Kostmayer, chairman of the House Interior subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, who has been a persistent champion of the Commonwealt . Coalition position on Wheatlands. "Not the least, however," he added, "we owe thanks to the responsive and responsible manner with which Fred Glaize, Jim Bowman and their people have approached this matte- in its final stages. They have made a sincere and I think successful effort to understand our concerns and meet them to the degree consistent With accepted planning practices and economics. They have recognized and acted on the reality of a common and crucial goal --- the sustainability of Lake Frederick as a recreational fishing lake. They deserve our appreciation, and they have it.,, ALEXANDRIA OFFICE 510 KING STREET, SUITE 200 P.O. BOX 820 ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22313 (703) 836-8400 FAIRFAX OFFICE 3110 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE, SUITE 1400 P.O. BOX 12001 FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22042 (703) 641-4200 LEESBURG OFFICE SUITE 300 44084 RIVERSIDE PARKWAY LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 22075 (703) 729-8500 LAW OFFICES Hazel&Thomas A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MANASSAS OFFICE THE OLD PIEDMONT BUILDING THIRD FLOOR 9324 WEST STREET MANASSAS, VIRGINIA 2 21 10 (703) 330-7400 METRO (703) 803-7474 FAX (703) 330-7430 MAY 2 2 W1 RICNMONO Dormer 411 EAST FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE COO P.O. BOX 3-K RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23206 (804) 344-3400 WINCHESTER OFFICE 107 NORTH KENT STREET, FOURTH FLOOR P.O. BOX 2740 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (703) 665-0050 MARYLAND OFFICE SUITE 2100 120 EAST BALTIMORE STREET BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21202 (301) 783-3500 May 21, 1991 WASHINGTON OFFICE SUITE 400 2001 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. Mr. Dinesh V. Tiwari, CLP WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (202) 659-7000 4010 West Broad Street Post Office Box 11104 Richmond, Virginia 23230 RE: Wheatlands Lake DGIF Comments Letter of April 17, 1991 Dear Dinesh: We have now had ample opportunity to review the comments contained in your letter to Robert Watkins dated April 17, 1991, and have carefully considered the substance of the lengthy meeting with you and representatives of Frederick County on May 15th. I believe that it is useful to set these discussions into context and to re-emphasize that we do not believe that any provision of County ordinance, or any state or federal law, compels the owners of this property to go further than they have presently proposed, or even to go as far as they have already agreed. They have long since complied with the legal requirements which may be imposed on them, and nothing in their proposal violates any law, local, state or federal. Notwithstanding this, as you surely know from our several discussions, they have consistently indicated their concern for the long-term health of Lake Frederick. To that end, we ask you consider the following. I have taken each of your comment verbatim, and have added the landowners' response. 111. Water 4uality and Aquatic Life in the Lake: A. The MDP should clearly specify the design criteria and performance standards for the extended detention ponds from Page 30 of Dr. Grizzard's report. Dr. Grizzard referred to several different standards of practice. We suggest that Fairfax County's Standards as related to BMP Water Quality Standards be utilized. • LAW OFFICES Hazd&Thwus Dinesh Tiwari A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION May 21, 1991 Page 2 B. The MDP does not distinguish between the wet ponds and the extended detention ponds. This distinction is important to review the effectiveness of the proposed storm water management system. C. The MDP shows a storm water detention time of 1124 to 40 hours." We strongly suggest a 40 hour detention of the two-year flood as suggested on Page 32 of Dr. Grizzard's report. Dr. Grizzard's conclusion that only moderate increases in nutrient loading would occur was based on this performance standard. D. Our study of the MDP indicates that approximately sixty- five percent (65%) of the land area actually drains to the proposed retention ponds. Based on our engineering review, we suggest that the MDP indicate that seventy- five percent (75%) coverage will be provided (delete words "reasonably practicable" from Page 3, Item 9 (b) of the notes)." We are of the view that several of these comments are valuable additions. First, we believe that it is unnecessary to adopt the Fairfax County Public Facilities Manual provisions with respect to design of wet ponds. So far as we are aware, these design regulations have not been adopted by any other Virginia jurisdiction, and in any event relate only to wet pond design theory. Dr. Grizzard is of the opinion that the purposes of water quality preservation at the Lake can be amply satisfied by adhering to the provisions of the Council of Governments (COG) Handbook for Urban Best Management Practices. You now have a copy of this for review, and we believe that upon study you will concur that it is a state-of- the-art manual with a proven history of successful implementation. Second, we do not believe that it is essential, or even wise, at this stage of the development process to determine whether a wet or a dry pond is appropriate for the necessary level of nutrient removal, on a watershed by watershed basis. There are twenty two detention ponds proposed for the site, and it is impossible to say with certainty what will be optimally required at the time of final design. Needless to say, Mr. Maddox and Dr. Grizzard will do what is necessary to achieve the appropriate level of nutrient removal, and it has been agreed among the County, the landowners, and the Department, that DGIF will be a commenting agency with respect to final plans for each section of the project. Third, we agree with your suggestion that ponds be designed generally for a forty hour retention period, and the note will be Dinesh Tiwari May 21, 1991 Page 3 LAW OFFICES HaZd&Thornas A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION amended to reflect this. As Dr. Grizzard has explained, we do not believe that it is appropriate to commit to the two- versus the one-year storm at this stage of the development process, however. Dr. Grizzard said, I believe, that nutrient removal is generally better accomplished when the facility is designed for the smaller storm event. This can be addressed at final design. Fourth, we concur with your suggestion that the note on BMPs be modified with respect to the area of BMP coverage. According to Mr. Maddox, the site has been designed to capture the runoff from 75% of the area which drains into the Lake. We were originally confused by your calculation that coverage extended only to 65% of the area, and it appears that you included portions of the site not in the drainage basin. The 75% figure as to actual Lake drainage is attainable. Moreover, we would remind you once again that the 100 foot undisturbed buffer surrounding the Lake is itself a BMP, and is the standard buffer surrounding land features designated as Resource Protection Areas under the Chesapeake Bay Act and its regulations. That statute is not applicable to Frederick County, and yet the County will obtain the benefits from the buffer that the Commonwealth believes a primary means of protecting the Bay itself. We would note that with these commitments, Wheatlands Lake will be very likely the most thoroughly protected Lake in the Commonwealth with respect to non -point source pollutants, and may be one of the most protected public lakes in America. With this in mind, the relevant Note to the MDP has been tentatively revised to read as follows: (b) The development shall incorporate the use of Best Management Practices, in the locations generally identified on the MDP, in accordance with and to implement the recommendations contained in "An Assessment of Potential Development Impacts on the Water Quality of Wheatlands Lake," October 1990, prepared by Thomas J. Grizzard, Ph.D., P.E. The BMPs constructed for the project shall be designed so as te—seh-revz--the highest Hraetimeab l e e e a ra e e efr6�t'� v 'zzr��z-uir=v , to achieve coverage of 75% thereof I t To the maximum exrenL Lnaz nay ' ' '16e" possible to do upon f inal engineering, this percentage .....of._... _ coverage shall be exceeded e�Zh Dinesh Tiwari May 21, 1991 Page 4 (c) Responsibility for maintenance of the BMPs into the project shall LAW OFFICES Hazy&Thomas A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION the continuing to be incorporated be assigned to an "E. The MDP Notes do not clarify compliance with "typical wooded lot detail" as requested previously. We suggest that the MDP state that no more than thirty percent (30%) of any lot area will be disturbed." We do not agree that it is reasonable or necessary to limit clearing of any particular lot to 30%. Section 15(b) of the Notes presently commits that future lot building plans must receive Homeowners' Association approval and already significantly restricts the area of the lot that can be cleared. The other water quality preservation methods employed on this project offer ample protection to the Lake. In any event, such a level of restriction would make the most sense were it provided on those lots actually adjoining the Lake. Thus, the Note has been • • LAW OFFICES Hazd&11"Tias Dinesh Tiwari A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION May 21, 1991 Page 5 slightly revised to indicate that on those lots, the Homeowners' Association will adhere to a 30% standard. The Note would thus read as follows: (b) Any such homeowners' associations shall also be authorized, inter alia, to review and approve lot building plans to insure that the location of individual homes on specific building lots causes minimum disturbance of those sites. In order to maintain the maximum undisturbed area and the woodland nature of the project, any such association shall be granted the autherity te forbid the cutting or removal of any trees greater than 6 inches in diameter, except as may be necessary to the actual construction of a home, a driveway thereto, and for the installation of infrastructure connections, and for the purpose of a suitable yard. area E surrounding the home site. €:'. Ei� "F. The proposed lift stations for sanitary sewer lines should be designed to provide "maximum protection in the event of mechanical or electrical failures" (delete word "reasonable" from Page 21 Item 5(1))." This has been done, and the relevant Note now reads: (c) Any lift stations which may be constructed to service the development shall be of a class approved by the Sanitation Authority as sufficient to provide maximum reasenab=e—protection in the event of mechanical or electrical failure. "G. The MDP calculations commercial land are percent (35%) open s is critical to the w a This has been discussed with County staff, and it is satisfied that the 35% open space requirement has been achieved, with and without the future development areas, as Mr. Maddox reported the evening of the 17th. • Dinesh Tiwari May 21, 1991 Page 6 LAW OFFICES Haz&-Ibomas A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION "H. The MDP states that "no building or other physical encroachment shall be permitted" in the 50 feet of additional buffer zone proposed by the Developer. In order for this buffer zone to be an effective filtering area for the surface runoffs, we suggest that tree cutting, clearing of undergrowth, and disturbance of existing vegetation be prohibited in this area, except for the disturbances that may be necessary to construct and maintain the BMP ponds. Also, the Notes should specify that the proposed conservation easement will be granted to the DGIF immediately following the recordation of the subdivision plat." This Note has been changed as you suggest to read as follows: (e) In order to enhance the natural buffering of existing vegetation surrounding the Lake, an additional buffer zone of 50 feet beyond the legal boundaries thereof shall be established and no buildin ' <r` g.... ::.....:.... Bar g of tl % ............ Q. or other physical encroachment shall e ie form water sa of 112. Flooding Easements: an ,actitional DU easement for ter snail ne conservation n nurnoses. The MDP does not show the boundary of the land area that may be flooded due to high waters in the lake. These areas should be designated for no development, as requested previously." We have stated on several occasions that the flooding easements will be provided. Mr. Maddox has already done the basic work necessary to describe those easements for purposes of conveyance, and we shall prepare a draft deed when the Department reviews the description of those easements and concurs in them. 113. Public Access To Lake: ►�J • LAW OFFICES Hazy&Thomas Dinesh Tiwari A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION May 21, 1991 Page 7 The MDP states that "up to five public access areas" will be provided. We suggest that the notes should clarify that "minimum of three and a maximum of five" such public access areas will be provided." We concur with this request. It is our view that three areas can be provided, but that there may not be locations for five. We can discuss the precise location of, and the requirements for, each, in future meetings. The Note has been revised to read as follows: ::.. ::.:::::::.:.,::........ landing, fishing pier, or boat dock shall be rnnStructed on anv of these sites without the 114. Vehicular and Utility Crossings: We suggest that the MDP note that the construction or use of the DGIF's property for such purposes shall be subject to necessary review and prior approval by the DGIF and by others, as required." We have no trouble including such a Note, even though DGIF approval would be necessary no matter what we said. • • Dinesh Tiwari May 21, 1991 Page 8 115. Impact on Dam• LAW OFFICES Hazy&Thomas A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION We are still waiting to receive the Developer's report on the impact of the proposed development on our Dam, as previously requested." The HEC I Analysis is complete, and has been provided the Department. It demonstrates that the dam is secure in the event of development, whether reclassified to a Class I structure, or not. 116. Enforcement of Proposed Mitigation Measures: The MDP proposes an escrow account for the maintenance of the storm water management structures. As previously stated, this issue is critical for protecting the future water quality of the Lake. We suggest that the County, in coordination with the DGIF, establish maintenance standards for these structures using the state's Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines, Fairfax County's Guidelines, and other sources that may be available. Based upon these Standards, the cost or maintaining the structures can be derived. At this time, we do not think that $100.00 per lot, as proposed in the MDP, would be sufficient for the needed maintenance purposes. In summary, the legal and financial responsibility for the maintenance of these structures needs to be clearly established and noted on the MDP." The Developer does not believe that it need go further than it has presently committed to go with respect to this issue. We note, of course, that the developer agrees that continued maintenance of the BMPs is critical to their effective function and to this end it has initiated discussions with a professional property management company for advice on the content of HOA documentation, and the development of appropriate preliminary budgets. Homeowners' Associations are perhaps imperfect devices for insuring continued maintenance of these facilities. But until there are governmental mechanisms in place (something over which we have no control) they remain the "private government" which is capable of performing such functions. They are used with success (as well as failure) in many places, including, for example, Fairfax County, where the County generally maintains dry ponds, but the HOA ordinarily maintains wet ponds. If the HOA is structurally sound from its creation, and if it is assured from • • LAW OFFICES Hazel&Thomas Dinesh Tiwari A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION May 21, 1991 Page 9 the outset that the lot owner assessments are sufficient to its purposes, it will succeed. There are governmental mechanisms which can address these issues. To the extent that the County is concerned that the Homeowners' Association cannot or will not generate the funds necessary to its several purposes, the sanitary district is a viable alternative. We have suggested this to Frederick County officials, and hope that they will consider it. The district does much the same thing as an HOA, but it provides the security and continuity of the government in addition. It can most assuredly raise funds and expend them for the purposes which are at issue here, and, perhaps most importantly, control of the district's affairs is retained by the Board of Supervisors and not surrendered to another political entity, or a group not accountable to all the people. It is my view that the sanitary district is itself an imperfect device for all needs, and governing bodies can be as averse to raising the necessary funds as a private entity, but because the district's business must be conducted in the open, subject to the rule of public law, it is a viable and useful means of obtaining socially -desirable ends. The County might also consider the use of a Watershed Improvement District, under the provisions of §10.1-614 et seq. of the Virginia Code. Such districts are empowered to raise funds necessary for the operation of improvements such as these BMPs, and to manage their operation. Moreover, they raise the funds directly from the people in the district who benefit from the improvements that are financed, and not from the general revenues. As we have mentioned, we know that DGIF has a major interest in the long-term success of the BMPs, as do the owners. We would, therefore, be amenable to discussions with you tending toward an agreement with your Department for such maintenance, with suitable funding to be derived from the sources indicated in the Note. We recognize that you cannot commit to such a course, but we understand that you are open to further talk about it. We also note that the escrow amount of $100 per lot is not meant to be the primary source for the maintenance costs, but rather a backup funding source. The primary source for the funds would be the regular lot owner assessments. Because these assessments will not be made until ownership occurs, and because significant maintenance activity will not be needed for some time after the construction of the BMP facility for the area serviced, the escrow account should amply supplement the necessary monies which will ultimately be derived from the lot assessments. We have proposed the escrow account in this form, because it seemed a reasonable approach to the question of back up funding sources. It may well be, however, that a more appropriate • LAW OFFICES Dinesh Tiwari A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION May 21, 1991 Page 10 approach is simply to provide in the Notes that the HOA will budget sufficient funds to the purpose in the first instance, and escrow suitable amounts over time. The HOA Note has been revised with the above thoughts in mind, to read as follows: 16. Establishment of eserew account for maintenance of BMP facilities. a) The devel an es ccount er sueh other a-eeeunt—as—may be appreved -b-Tz to receive and disburse funds sufficient to insure the perpetual maintenance of all Best Management Practices facilities which may be constructed in accordance with this Plan. This aeeeunt imay, but isnetrequired- -te , ine• eme—erall of any fees whr '' may be eelaeted--- by a— homeowners' a} * ereated i t—aeee=danee with these Netes fer erected. Notwithstanding any sums which may be contributed to........ ugh:.:. a��pun�:. ; by the homeowners' association; the developer shall deposit into the said account the sum of $100.00 per lot, for each lot which may be subject to an approved Final Master Development Plan, payable upon recordation of a final subdivision plat therefor. 0 • Dinesh Tiwari May 21, 1991 Page 11 LAW OFFICES Hw-d&Thomas A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Please review these proposed revisions to the Notes, and the other comments offered, and let us know your response to them. We look forward to further discussions with the Department, not only as we move to final Board consideration of this Plan, but into the future as well. Sincerely yours, cc: Kenneth Stiles James Golladay Robert Watkins James Bowman Fred Glaize Billy Joe Tisinger Charles Maddox Dr. Thomas Grizzard JHF57:wheat.991 P.C. • ALEXANDRIA OFFICE 510 KING STREET, SUITE 200 P.O. BOX 820 ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22313 (703) 836-8400 FAIRFAX OFFICE 3110 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE, SUITE 1400 P.O. BOX 12001 FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22042 (703) 641-4200 LEESBURG OFFICE SUITE 300 44084 RIVERSIDE PARKWAY LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 22075 (703) 729-8500 LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MANASSAS OFFICE THE OLD PIEDMONT BUILDING THIRD FLOOR 9324 WEST STREET MANASSAS, VIRGINIA 2 21 10 (703) 330-7400 METRO (703) 803-7474 FAX (703) 330-7430 May 3, 1991 The Hon. Manuel Lujan, Jr. Secretary of the Interior Washington, D.C. 20240 MAY - 6 ►y91 "� i. I RICHMOND OFFIC[ I T FRANKLIN STREET, SU O RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23206 WINCHESTER OFFICE 107 NORTH KENT STREET, FOURTH FLOOR P.O. BOX 2740 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (703) 665-0050 MARYLAND OFFICE SUITE 2100 120 EAST BALTIMORE STREET BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21202 (301) 783-3500 WASHINGTON OFFICE SUITE 400 2001 PEN NSYLVAN IA AVENUE, N.W. WASH INGTON, D. C. 20006 (202) 659-7000 RE: Wheatlands Lake (L&WCF Project 51-00289) Representative Kostmayer's Letter of April 18, 1991 Dear Mr. Secretary: As you may recall, this firm represents Fred Glaize and Jasbo, Inc., the owners and developers of a project known as Wheatlands, in Frederick County, Virginia. This project has come under scrutiny by the Department of the Interior in recent months, and most recently we have been provided with a copy of an April 18th letter to you from Representative Peter Kostmayer, posing an additional series of questions deriving from your response to his March 29, 1990, inquiries. Because my clients are potentially, though not necessarily, affected by any federal study of the use of Land and Water Conservation Act grant funds by the Virginia Departments of Conservation and Recreation and Game and Inland Fisheries, they have asked me to write you once again to express both their concern that accurate information be made available, and to repeat their willingness to assist in any inquiry that may be made. The primary focus of Rep. Kostmayer's letter to you is with respect to the application for, and use of, L&WCA monies by agencies of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Because our clients had virtually no association with that process, they have little information to shed light on question asked pertaining to the grant application or administration. Representative Kostmayer's letter once again suggests, however, that the grant was obtained by the Commonwealth on the basis of promises made by unspecified parties at an unspecified time, that development around the Lake would be limited to no more • LAW OFFICES Hazd&V mas The Hon. Manuel Lujan A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION May 3, 1991 Page 2 than three hundred homes. In our letter to you of April 16, 1990, we expressed our clients' position that neither they, nor anyone representing them, have ever made any such commitment. We refer you to that letter for a sampling of the basis for this position. There is simply no evidence of which our clients are aware to support any contention that the Department of the Interior or the Commonwealth of Virginia were ever misled, intentionally or otherwise, into applying for, or making, a grant of federal funds for the construction of a new dam, and access roads, at the Lake. Indeed, if I correctly read the Department's June 19, 1990, letter to Rep. Kostmayer, it has already examined that question, and has concluded that there was no impropriety in the application for, or the approval of, the grant. Continued insistence to the contrary should, in the future, be accompanied by credible evidence as to the basis for a claim otherwise. There are, of course, a number of issues relevant to the proper development of land surrounding Wheatlands Lake, all of which have been addressed in greater or lesser detail by the proper review agencies. Only some development issues, admittedly of major importance, implicate federal concerns. With respect to those issues,, however, our clients believe that the steps that they have taken to prepare a preliminary master development plan for the Wheatlands project, in conjunction with the authorities in Frederick County, and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, will insure ample protection for the Lake as development occurs in the future. Indeed, they think that the actions which will now be accomplished upon the development of Wheatlands may well serve as a model for the compatible use of public and private lands supported by L&WCA funds. It is probable that few, if any, public lakes in this country have received so much advance analysis before development occurs, or that public officials and private landowners are in such a favorable position to insure the long-term preservation of water quality in the Lake, and its value as a public recreation area. Indeed, and for the reasons stated at length in our April 1990 letter,, our clients believe that the development of Wheatlands and the Lake are wholly compatible. As a review of the development plan indicates, few, if any, of the homes to be constructed around the perimeter of the Lake will even be visible from it.' Even were it otherwise, and even were homes visible i I_am enclosing the most current version of the Preliminary Master Development Plan for your information. You should be aware, however, that there will be still further changes to the Plan as a consequence of the comments received from the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, and Frederick County, at the Planning Commission hearing on April 17, 1991. LAW OFFICES Hazel&Thomas The Hon. Manuel Lujan A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION May 3, 1991 Page 3 throughout the area, the Lake would remain a valuable public facility, open and available to the people, and would not constitute an amenity solely for the benefit of the project. They certainly do not believe that the development of private property surrounding the Lake will by itself effect a conversion under federal law.. As currently recommended for approval by the County Planning Commission, there is now an additional fifty foot undisturbed buffer/conservation around the Lake, in addition to the fifty feet of property owned outright by the Commonwealth, providing not less than one hundred feet of untouchable buffer for the Lake. The owners have also agreed to include not fewer than three and not more than five additional public access points around the Lake, at the request of the DGIF, significantly enhancing its availability to the public (availability which cannot be obtained in any other way). Moreover, because of lot clearing restrictions at each building site, remarkably little of the existing vegetation will be disturbed. This is in all addition to a commitment to the design and construction of an extensive series of Best Management Practices dry and wet ponds sufficient to effect a level of pollutant removal which our water quality expert has concluded will be more than adequate to insure the long-term health of the Lake.3 We repeat our willingness to co-operate with the Department and the National Park Service in any further inquiry or investigation into matters as to which our clients may have 2 As you probably know, the Preliminary Master Development Plan was recommended for approval, with modifications, by the Frederick County Planning Commission on April 17, 1991. No hearing date has yet been set by the Board of Supervisors, which must still act. This Plan is currently undergoing revision consistent with the action of the Planning Commission. At a meeting hosted by Rep. Kostmayer's staff on April 5, 1991, I was given a' sketch plan for the development of the Wheatlands project with some three hundred homes which its proponents in the Commonwealth Coalition assured me would provide an economic return to our clients equivalent to their own current plans. I subsequently wrote to the Coalition's able counsel asking for the economic analysis which underlay the Coalition's assertion, and without which no proper study of the proposal can possibly have been, or can be, made. Unfortunately, as I write this, no such study has yet been provided me. Although our clients are of the view that they are within their rights in proceeding as they are, and are prepared to maintain that position and to proceed along the lines they have initiated, they have indicated a willingness to review any studies of alternatives which are given to them. LAW OFFICES H2od&Thomas The Hon. Manuel Lujan A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION May 3, 1991 Page 4 knowledge. We appreciate the attention that the DOI, the NPS, and you personally, have given to these issues. Sincerely yours, ZE & H S, P.C. Jo n H. Foote cc: All w/o attachments The Hon. Peter Kostmayer The Hon. D. French Slaughter The Hon. John W. Warner The Hon. Charles S. Robb The Hon. Kenneth Y. Stiles James Bowman Fred Glaize Billy Joe Tisinger, Esq. Philip Chabot, Esq. Robert Watkins JHF32:wheat.990 CJ 0 r- ALEXANDRIA OFFICE 510 KING STREET, SUITE 200 P.O. BOX 820 ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22313 (703) 836-8400 FAIRFAX OFFICE 3110 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE, SUITE 1400 P.O. BOX 12001 FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22042 (703) 641-4200 LEESBURG OFFICE SUITE 300 44084 RIVERSIDE PARKWAY LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 22075 (703) 729-8500 LAW OFFICES Hazel&Thomas A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MANASSAS OFFICE THE OLD PIEDMONT BUILDING THIRD FLOOR 9324 WEST STREET MANASSAS, VIRGINIA 22110 (703) 330-7400 METRO (703) 803-7474 FAX (703) 330-7430 April 30, 1991 Robert W. Watkins Planning Director Frederick County, Virginia 9 Court Square P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Bob: I`. RICHMOND OFFICE 411 �:45r'FRATTRCTFI'ST{7EET;"SUITE"600 P. O. BOX 3-K RICH MOND, VIRGINIA 23206 (804) 344-3400 WINCHESTER OFFICE 107 NORTH KENT STREET, FOURTH FLOOR P.O. BOX 2740 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (703) 665-0050 MARYLAND OFFICE SUITE 2100 120 EAST BALTIMORE STREET BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21202 (301) 783-3500 WASHINGTON OFFICE SUITE 400 2001 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 (202) 659-7000 Before the Planning Commission the other day I made the representation that I didn't believe the General Assembly would ever create another town in the Commonwealth. As I think you know, the whole thrust of the Grayson Commission's work has been to do away with not only small towns, but even with small cities. I happened to be reading one of my local newspapers the other day, however, and saw a little "extra in the news" to the effect that the Town of Clinchco, Virginia, was created, at the last session, though it lacks a mayor, a council, or so far as I can tell, any people! This came as a complete surprise to me, and so I am attaching a copy of the Town Charter for this distinguished jurisdiction, to keep my reputation for accuracy alive in Frederick County. Despite this, I continue to believe that towns are of limited utility, particularly since they force the creation of an entirely new political subdivision within the body politic of a county, with the attendant frictions and difficulties that can create. A superior form of organization for the purposes that we discussed the other evening is the sanitary district. I am attaching relevant provisions of the State Code with respect to such districts for your late night reading pleasure. You will see from the statutes that sanitary districts are hardly limited to the provision of sanitary sewer and water, services; they are, on the contrary, multi -purpose political entities under the governance of the Board of Supervisors. If the County is interested in a device superior to others for the provision of services to previously unserviced areas, then the sanitary district can be a useful Robert W. Watkins April 29, 1991 Page 2 LAW OFFICES HazeOThomas A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION device. My experience is that they should not involve themselves in sewer and water issues, but rather that those should be reposed in the Authorities where you folks have them. Other services, however, can be readily provided. I have mentioned that the (Prince William) Dale City Sanitary District's only service is the successful operation of a recreation center. I hope this information is useful to you. interested me to discover a completely new town. Sincerely yours, HAZEL/&)THOMAS, P.C. H. Foote JHF:jw cc: James W. Golladay, Jr. Roger L. Thomas Douglas C. Rinker Beverly Sherwood Carl M. McDonald Manuel C. DeHaven S. Blaine Wilson John R. Marker Marjorie H. Copenhaver George L. Romine It certainly 1754 ACTS OF ASSEMBLY [VA., I claims shall be instituted against the regional government unless the claimant Ma8 Ao complied with all procedural pr*mquisites to such actions or claims as are contained In i Conatitutton and § 8.01-222 of the Code of Vtrginiv. • t § 21.8. SevveraWity.—Should any pan of this chart*r be declared unconstttutiomW by court of competont jurisdiction. such shell have no effect on the constdutial� validity of any other part of this charter. 1 § 21.7, Assets and Mabilities,—All assets and liabilities of the City of Roanoke gW i County of Roanoke existing as of July 1. 1993, shall continue to be a~ts and liab4Wift the Roanoke 14*tropoTitan Gvwrnrnent from and after the effective date of this &W" except as provided exp u*y herein. § 21.8. Incorporation of new cities or towns. annexation immunity. --A. EyJ*ctAv }� 1, 1M. no unincorporated area within the limits of the ragronal government eho. , incorporated as a separatt town or city whether by judicial proceedings or otherw**. -1 regional government shall enjoy total immunity from city -initiated annexation, � B. Phe regional government ahzW have no power of annexation pursuant to Chapar (§15.1-1032 et seq.) of TWO 15.1 of the Code of Virginia. 2. That Chapter 617, as amended, of the Acts of Assembly of 1986 13 repealed gg, midnight, June 30, 1993. fl 3. That Chapter 216. as severally amended. of the Acts of Assembly of 1052 is repeated of midnight, June 30. 1993. 1 X 4. That the effective date of this act for the limited purposes of § 3.5 shall be Jamary 1991. for the limited purposes of § 3.11 shall be January 1, 1992, for the limited purpsM § 14.3 shall be July 1, 1992. and for all other purposes shall be July 1, 1993, providod 11 prior thereto, the consolidation of the County of Roanoke and the City of Roanoke into t Roanoke Metropolitan Government is approved by a majority of the voters voting tbemm each Jurisdiction In a referendum which shall be conducted pursuant to the terms of t consolidation agreement referenced in § 1.2. CHAPTER !Zd Arr Act to incorporate the community of Clinchco in Dickenson County as a town grant the town a charter. is. s Approved Apra 19, 1990 Be It enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: -� 1. That the community of Cllnchco in Dickenson County is Incorporated as a town del granted a charter as follows: INCORPORATION AND CNIARTAR FOR THE TOWN OF CLINCHCO Chapter 1. lnmrporation and Boundaries § I.l. Incorporation. --The General Ataembly incorporvtes the community kno"W Clinchco, in Dicken,wn County. Virginia, as a town and a body politic and corpo within the boundaries provided for in § 1.2, as rush boundaries are now, or may how be WOW and a 14ftshld by IAw. As such, the lown shall have perpetual su"miam t sue and be susd, plead and be impleaded, contract and be contracted with, and mW A a corporate seal which it may altor, rwnew ar amend at itr plow ww by proper o d4fow 4 !251 ACTS OF ASSEMBLY 1737 ¢ 1-1 Boundaries. —The territory embraced within the boundaries shown on that plat recorded in Plat Book 1, page M4 in the Clerk's Office of the Clerk fop, the it Court fbr the County of Dickenson shall be the territory of the Town of Clinehco. Chapter A Powers ?.l. Powers of town. —The Town of Clinchco shall have all po"rs that may be ewl*rr+ed upon or delegated to towns under the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including, but not limited to, those powers set forth in §§ 14t1.&37 through 15.1-907 of the Code of Virginia, as now exist and as hereafter amended, led all other powers which are now or may hersaJ7ter be conArred upon or delegated to mwms under the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia are hereby owenwd upon the Town of Clinchco. Virginia. Chapter J. Mayor and Council J.1. Election, qualification and term of office. --A. The Town of Clineheo shall be / vgmed by a town council composed of a mayor and six other members, all of ►vfitom be ghtallfied voters of the town. rm".p. There shall be an election of a mayor and six other members of council in hlgy and every two years thereafter at the regular May municipal election date. At such &Vetians a mayor and six additional councilmen shall be elected to serve until their 006ess"ora are duly elected and qualified. fffi C. The mayor shall preside at meetings of the council and shall be rwcognized as head gf the town government for ceremonial purposes and by the Governor for the purposes of ^Wary law. He shalt have the same powers and duties as other members of the couheil MNt a vote, but no veto powers. 9.2. We* mayor. —At its first moetoW in July of every even numborod year the it shall select from its membership one member to serve as a vice mayor. The vice Shall proside over meetings of council in the absence of the mayor. J.9 Qval0cations of members. --Any person qualified to vote in the town shall be e for the office of councilman or mayor. 3.4. Powors of council. —The council along with the mayor shall make such rules as Adcesiary fior the orderly conduct of their busithess not inconsistent with the laws of Commonwealth of Virginia, and shall have the power in their discretion to appoint a manager, a town attorney, a town clerk, a treasurer and a jergeant (who shall have powvrt and duties provided in § 15.1-1. a of the Code of thrginW The persona so *hall have such duties and shall verve for such terms and at su(.* compensation 4►re council maY determine. One person may be appointed to more than one office. 15. Vacancies. —Vacancies on the council and in the office of mayor and vice mayor be filled for the unexpired term by a mafortty Note of the members of council. Chapter 4 MiAee174neous 4.1. Eminent domain., -The poi+wr of eminent domain a$ sat forth in 7ytle 15.1 and 25 of the Code of Virginia arw hereby conlarrvd upon the Tuwn of Cllnchco, including wer to issue certificates pursuant to $§ .73.1-119 through 33.1-1,12 of 6he Code of i 4.2• FUval year. —rho fiscal year of the town shall begirt on July 1 of each year and .on June 30 of the fallowing year. f 4.3. Legtslativoe procedure, —Except in dealing with parliamentary Procedure the d 844M act only by ordinance or rtaNution. and ►with the exception of ordinances appropriations, or authorizing the contracting of indebtedness, ahall be canflned to General subject. t the first election for town council members shall be held on August 7, 1990; the Court of the County of Dickinson shall enter en order no later than May 3. 1990, shall designate a polling place for said town election and specify whether it shall be with paper ballots or with toe use of the County's voting equipment. The mayor council members so elected shall qualify and assume office no later than September for terms to expire on June 30. 1992. 1'738 0 ACTS OF t#EMBI.Y 3. Thnt except for the notice to each registered voter in the town of Ills Me* and the IOCatlon of the town polling place, the quallfiCattOn for eleenon, sqd jjW a mayor and other members of council. the town shall provide no munidp $I Incur no liabilities until the persons so elected shall quality and assume offk& A. That an emergency exists and this act is in force from its passage. CHAPTER 926 An Act to amend the Code of VrrBinlo by adding in Title 9 a chapter a fonsisting of s+ctions numbwned 94Y7 through 9,901, 0101ing to the e+eol4M the Lo�l Anti Drug In4st llrnd Authority. AA i 4• •"I w� Approved April 18, 1990 � Be it enacted by the General Assembly of VlWgia: I. That the Code of Vl rgala is amended by adding in Title 9 a chapter no consisting of sections numbered 9.297 through "01, as follows, CHAPTEJ? .tv. L4DCAL AN7'JLDRUG TRUST FUND AUTJYdRrpy,, ` 449§ -7, Local Antt ►:. -j7ruB Trust Jrund Authority. —Tits Local AntFl�tt •�, Authority is created, with the dutiv.1 and pore set forth in th' rorpornte and its a political subdivision is chapter, asap of the Cornmonw�lth. Tht eaatrdb Authority of the duties and p ut he fty O of an esseRt n pouws confrrPed by this chapter shag by de+rrtW j ' 8o v#rnmental � 9-,298. Bo�urd of Directors.—A11 function of the Corrtlnonwealth. . 'A other pOK vim• rights, and duties corRJirrr7vd by ZhAft provisions of law upon the .Authority shall be exercised by a b�'! ' members to be appointed by the Governor a8 Committer jar Courts of by and one /ohs 5 atv shalt be a rRentl� �� orry shall De a rrrember of the Nouee Jan the Senate Committee jvr CoUr" i 1 0l the Senate JrYrrancs Comm'""' oneshall be aiorrs committed crud one shag I�, ' a member of the mart! Asst oval law�d /AV ha ob ei� � ( rRbly appointed at largr; and jYv1r shall be prA" appointed at Jorge. Alembers of the Board of irectors shall servo terms of f b&r jo except that the original term§ of two of such members shall expire on Jane .AQ I f� 1993, and 199e, ry ctivr&, as designated by the Governor All such appoin nat t eonfi'rmed by the JYouspese of Dolegatea and the Senate of t'Yrginia. Any } � � vacancy on the Boated shall de made appoiaH� Jar the unexP#vd torn of the member Who . r�esigrtation, or remot�l er,eoted the PaCaney. Ad members of the Board of Dal . be resBoard of of the Gommonwertlth. )Wlrmbers may be appointed to auccesstw too ! Board of Dir+Pctors. Members of the Board shall rweeive no cohipensal,On t ect a chatirred nor reiMbursement for expenaos of any nature. The Board shall elfor lio mi be the chief executive offl er of the Authority. _ Meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held at the call of the eha ememb#". Six Members of the Board of Directors sha ll con§titate a lmnsactloR of the business of the Authority. An act of the majority of the Board of Dlneetors present at arty regular or special meeting at which a shall be an act of the Board of Dfwtors. No vacancy on the Board of impair the right of a majority of o quorum of the members of the Board of • exwrciw ON the rights and perform all the duties of the Authority. No Offi'cwr or e•nplo.).w of the CommoRWmWth shall forffrit his office or r&aeom of acceptance of membership On the Board of Direct" or by pro § 21-117.1 CODE OF VIRGINIA § 21-118 § 21-117.1. Abolishing sanitary districts. — Any sanitary district here- tofore or hereafter created in any county under the provisions of the preceding sections of this article, may be abolished by an order entered by the circuit court of such county, or the judge thereof in vacation, upon the petition of the governing body of the county and of no less than 50 qualified voters residing within the boundaries of the district desired to be abolished, or if the district contains less than 100 qualified voters upon petition of the governing body of the county and 50 per centum of the qualified voters residing within the boundaries of such district. �. Upon filing of the petition, the court shall fix a day for a hearing on the 1. question of abolishing the sanitary district which hearing shall embrace a consideration of whether the property in the sanitary district will or will not be benefited by the abolition thereof and the court shall be fully informed as to the obligations and functions of the sanitary district. Notice of such hearing shall be given by publication once a week for three consecutive weeks in some newspaper of general circulation within the county to be designated by the court or the judge thereof in vacation. At least ten days shall intervene between the completion of the publication and the date set for hearing, and such publication shall be considered complete on the twenty-first day after the first publication and no such district shall be abolished until the notice has i been given and the hearing had. Any interested parties may appear and be heard on any matters pertaining i, to the subject of the hearing. Upon the hearing, such order shall be made and entered as to the court or judge may seem equitable and proper, concerning the abolition of the district p and as to the funds on hand to the credit of the district. Provided, however, that no such order shall be made abolishing the sanitary district unless any bonds of the sanitary district which have theretofore been issued have been redeemed and the purposes for which the sanitary district was created have been completed, or, unless all obligations and functions of the sanitary district have been taken over by the county as a whole, or, unless the purposes for which the sanitary district was created are impractical or impossible of accomplishment and no obligations have been incurred by said sanitary district. (1954, c. 135.) § 21-118. Powers and duties of governing body. — After the entry of such order creating a sanitary district in such county, the governin body thereof shall have the following powers and duties, subject to the conditions and limitations hereinafter prescribed: (1) To construct, maintain and operate water supply, sewerage, garbage removal and disposal, heat, light, fire -fighting equipment and power and gas systems and sidewalks for the use and benefit of the public in such sanitary districts. (2) To acquire by gift, condemnation, purchase, lease, or otherwise, and to maintain and operate any such water supply, sewerage, garbage removal and disposal, heat, light, fire -fighting equipment and power and gas systems and sidewalks in such district and to acquire by gift, condemnation, purchase, lease, or otherwise, rights, title, interest, or easements therefor in and to real estate in such district; and to sell, lease as lessor, transfer or dispose of any part of any such property, real, personal or mixed, so acquired in such manner and upon such terms as the governing body of the district may determine to be in the best interests of the district; provided a public hearing is first held with respect to such disposition at which inhabitants of the district shall have an opportunity to be heard. At least ten days' notice of the time and place of such hearing and a brief description of the property to be disposed shall be 516 § 21-118 § 21-118 DRAINAGE, SOIL CONSERVATION, ETC. § 21-118 iitary district here. published in a newspaper of general circulation in the district. Such public ons of the preceding hearing may be adjourned from time to time. or municipality to tered by the circuit (3) To contract with any person, firm, corporation n the petition of the construct, establish, maintain and operate any such water supply, sewerage, Pied voters residing garbage removal and disposal, heat, light, fire fighting equipment and power ed, or if the district and gas systems and sidewalks in such district. e governing body of (4) To require owners or tenants of any property in the district to connect -esiding within the with any such system or systems, and to contract with the owners or tenants for such connections. The owners or tenants shall have the right of appeal to )r a hearing on the the circuit court or the judge thereof in vacation within ten days from action rig shall embrace a by the governing body. rict will or will not (5) To fix and prescribe or change the rates of charge for the use of any such fully informed as to system or systems after a public hearing upon notice as provided in § 21-118.4 lice of such hearing (d), and to provide for the collection of such charges. In fixing such rates the g sanitary district may seek the advice of the State Corporation Commission. stive weeks in some . (g) To levy and collect an annual tax upon all the property in such sanitary designated by the district subject to local taxation to pay, either in whole or in part, the expenses iys shall intervene and charges incident to constructing, maintaining and operating water ;et for hearing, and supply, sewerage, garbage removal and disposal, heat, light, fire -fighting .y-first day after the , uipment and power and gas systems and sidewalks for the use and benefit intil the notice has the public in such sanitary district. (7) To employ and fix the compensation of any technical, clerical or other matters pertaining force and help which from time to time, in their judgment, may be deemed d as to the court or necessary for the construction, operation or maintenance of any such system lition of the district or systems and sidewalks. (8) To negotiate and contract with any person, firm, corporation or Provided, however, municipality with regard to the connections of any such system or systems district unless any with any other system or systems now in operation or hereafter established, n issued have been and with regard to any other matter necessary and proper for the construction t was created have or operation and maintenance of any such system within the sanitary district. ,he sanitary district (9) The governing body shall have the same power and authority for the ,ss the purposes for abatement of nuisances in such sanitary district as is vested by law in it or impossible of councils of cities and towns for the abatement of nuisances therein, and it 1 by said sanitary shall be the duty of the governing body to exercise such power when any such nuisance shall be shown to exist. ghts, title, interest or easements in (10) Proceedings for the acquisition of ri After the entry of and to real estate, by such sanitary districts in all cases in which they now he governin body have or may hereafter be given the right of eminent domain, may be ct to the conditions instituted and conducted in the name of such sanitary district and the procedure shall be in the manner and under the restrictions prescribed by sewerage, garbage Title 25, Chapter 2 (§ 25-47 et seq.), Code of Virginia, as amended, orb other and power and gas general statutes of this Commonwealth relative to condfor enathe o u flan lands, is in such sanitary or, (a) in the case of lands proposed to be co of constructing water or sewer lines, either by such method or in the manner r otherwise, and to provided for the condemnation of land by the Commonwealth Transportation rbage removal and Commissioner in §§ 33.1-119 through 33.1 129, or, (b) in the case of lands id gas systems and proposed to be condemned for the purpose of constructing water and sewage nnation, purchase treatment plants and facilities and improvements reasonably necessary to the refor in and to rest construction and operation thereof, in the manner provided for the condemna- r or dispose of any tion of land by the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner in red in such manner § 33.1 98. gay determine to be (11) To appoint, employ and compensate out of the funds of the district as ig is first held with many persons as special policemen as may be deemed necessary to maintain trict shall have an order and enforce the criminal and police laws of the Commonwealth and of e and place of such the county within such district. Such special policemen shall have, within disposed shall be such district and within one-half mile thereof, all of the powers vested in 517 § 21-118 CODE OF VIRGWIA § 21-118 policemen appointed under the provisions of Article 2 (§ 15.1-137 et seq.) of Chappter 3 of Title 15.1. (1930, p. 1002; 1934, p. 494; 1936, p. 463; 1938, p. 19; Michie Code 1942, § 1560a; 1952, c. 113; 1956, c. 588; 1960, c. 36; 1962, c. 497; 1976, cc. 585, 684; 1977, cc. 276, 516; 1981, c. 564.) The powers of sanitary districts are re- stricted to those specifically granted, rather than unlimited except for those specifi- cally prohibited. Marsh v. Gainesville - Haymarket San. Dist., 214 Va. 83, 197 S.E.2d 329 (1973). As creatures of statute, sanitary districts function within the ambit of powers conferred by the legislature. Marsh v. Gainesville - Haymarket San. Dist., 214 Va. 83, 197 S.E.2d 329 (1973). From time to time, powers have been broadened. — From time to time the powers vested in the boards of supervisors that consti- tute the governing bodies of sanitary districts have been broadened by statutory amendment. The governing bodies are now authorized to engage in extensive activities in addition to those relating to the furnishing of water and sewer service. Marsh v. Gainesville - Haymarket San. Dist., 214 Va. 83, 197 S.E.2d 329 (1973). A sanitary district is a limited purpose corporation. Marsh V. Gainesville - Haymarket San. Dist., 214 Va. 83, 197 S.E.2d 329 (1973). But within its jurisdiction its governing body has authority to exercise any and all powers vested therein by statute to effectuate the purposes for which the district exists. Marsh v. Gainesville -Haymarket San. Dist., 214 Va. 83, 197 S.E.2d 329 (1973). A municipality, as part of a sanitary district, need not utilize all the services available. Marsh v. Gainesville -Haymarket San. Dist., 214 Va. 83, 197 S.E.2d 329 (1973). But it must enter the district uncondi- tionally. Marsh v. Gainesville -Haymarket San. Dist., 214 Va. 83, 197 S.E.2d 329 (1973). It cannot receive limited services by conditional entry. — In the absence of an affirmative expression of legislative intent, there is no implied authority for a town to receive the benefit of limited services by condi- tional entry into a sanitary district. Marsh v. Gainesville -Haymarket San. Dist., 214 Va. 83, 197 S.E.2d 329 (1973). The broad contractual powers expressly granted to sanitary districts and to municipali- ties tend to negate rather than to affirm the authority to impose terms and conditions on the entry by a town into a sanitary district. Marsh v. Gainesville -Haymarket San. Dist., 214 Va. 83, 197 S.E.2d 329 (1973). Power to fix or change a sewer connec- tion fee rests exclusively in the county board of supervisors. This is true whether the board of supervisors acts in its capacity as the board of supervisors under § 15.1-320 (7), or in its capacity as the governing body of a sanitary district under subdivision (5) of this section and § 21-118.4 (e). County of York v. King's Villa, Inc., 226 Va. 447, 309 S.E.2d 332 (1983). Connection fee may be set indefinitely by county board of supervisors. — Setting rates and fees for sewer or water services is a nondelegable legislative function. Thus, the only way the connection fee can be locked in place indefinitely is for the county board of supervisors to authorize such expressly. It can do this by adopting a resolution to that effect, by ratifying the portion of the contract related to the connection fee, or by other express means. County of York v. King's Villa, Inc., 226 Va. 447, 309 S.E.2d 332 (1983). County administrator cannot be autho- rized to freeze sewer or water fees. — Neither the county board of supervisors nor the governing body of the sanitary district can authorize the county administrator to freeze rates and fees indefinitely even if they want to. County of York v. King's Villa, Inc., 226 Va. 447, 309 S.E.2d 332 (1983). The discretion of the board of supervi- sors in raising rates under this section is not subject to judicial interference. Abbott v. Board of Supvrs., 200 Va. 820, 108 S.E.2d 243 (1959). See note to § 21-113. When sanitary district was annexed to city it ceased to exist as a sanitary district and the city by the process of annexation did not become clothed with the powers previously inherent in the sanitary district. City of Roa- noke v. Fisher, 193 Va. 651, 70 S.E.2d 274 (1952), decided under the former annexation statute, repealed §§ 15-125 to 15-152.1. Service charges under annexation order. — Under the terms of an annexation order users of a sewer system in the annexed terri- tory were liable for the same service charges as other users of the system, although such charges had been increased since the entry of the order and the order was not to be inter- preted as freezing the charges at the figure in effect at the time the order was entered. Shirley -Duke Apts., Section One, Inc. v. Board of Supers., 199 Va. 49, 97 S.E.2d 657 (1957). Applied, as to subsection (8), in Farquhar v. Board of Supvrs., 196 Va. 54, 82 S.E.2d 577 (1954). 518 I§ 21-118.4 CODE OF VIRGINIA § 21-118.4 § 21-118.4. Certain additional powers of governing body. — Notwith- standing any other provisions of law, when an order has been entered creating a sanitary district in such county, the board of supervisors or other governing body hereinafter referred to as "board of supervisors," shall have the following ' powers and duties, in addition to such powers and duties created by any law, subject to the conditions and limitations hereinafter prescribed: (a) To construct, reconstruct, maintain, alter, improve, add to and operate motor vehicle parking lots, water supply, drainage, sewerage, garbage disposal, heat, light, power, gas, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, streets and street name signs and fire -fighting systems, for the use and benefit of the public in such sanitary district and as to such motor vehicle parking lots systems to make such charges for the use of such facilities as may be prescribed by said board or body; (al) To acquire, construct, maintain and operate, or to contract for such acquisition, construction, maintenance and operation, within such sanitary district, such community buildings, community centers, other recreational facilities and advisory community planning councils as the board may deem expedient or advisable, and to make such charges for the use of such facilities as may be prescribed by the board; (b) To acquire by gift, condemnation, purchase, lease or otherwise, and to maintain and operate any such motor vehicle parking lots, water supply, drainage, sewerage, garbage disposal, heat, light, power, gas, sidewalks, " curbs, gutters, streets and street name signs and fire -fighting systems in such district; (c) To contract with any person, firm, corporation, municipality, county, authority or the federal government or any agency thereof to acquire, construct, reconstruct, maintain, alter, improve, add to and operate any such motor vehicle parking lots, water supply, drainage, sewerage, garbage removal and disposal, heat, light, power, gas, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, streets and street name signs and fire -fighting systems in such district, and to accept the funds of, or to reimburse from any available source, such person, firm, corporation, municipality, county, authority or the federal government or any agency thereof for either the whole or any part of the costs, expenses and charges incident to the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, mainte- nance, alteration, improvement, addition to and operation of any such system or systems; (d) To require owners or tenants of any property in the district to connect with any such system or systems, and to contract with the owners or tenants for such connections. In order to require owners or tenants of any property in the district to connect with any such system or systems, the board of supervisors shall have power and authority to adopt ordinances so requiring {' owners or tenants to connect with such systems, and to use the same, and the board of supervisors shall have power to provide for a punishment in the ordinance of not exceeding a fifty -dollar fine for each failure and refusal to so connect with such systems, or to use the same. Before adopting any such ordinance the board of supervisors shall give public notice of the intention to propose the same for passage by posting handbill notices of such proposal in three or more public places in the sanitary district at least ten days prior to the time the ordinance shall be proposed for passage. The ordinance shall not become effective after its passage until ten days' like notice has been given by posting copies of such ordinance in three or more public places in the district. The board of supervisors, in lieu of giving notice in such manner, may cause notice to be published in the manner provided in § 15.1-504 for imposing or increasing any tax or levy. Violations of such ordinances shall be tried before the county court of the county as is provided for trial of misdemeanors, and with like right of appeal; II 520 § 21-118.4 § 21-118.4 DRAINAGE, SOIL CONSERVATION, ETC. § 21-118.4 ning body. — Notwith- (e) To fix and prescribe or change the rates of charge for the use of any such as been entered creating system or systems, the rate of charge for connection to any such system or shag or other governing systems, a late charge not to exceed ten percent of the amount due or ten shall have the following dollars, whichever is the greater, and interest on outstanding bills at the rate ties created by any law, provided for in § 58.1-3918, after a public hearing upon notice as provided in .r prescribed: subdivision (d) and to provide for the collection of such charges. In fixing such -ove, add to and operate rates the sanitary district may seek the advice of the State Corporation Commission. The Commission may charge the district a reasonable fee for any tge, sewerage, garbage advice given pursuant to this section. And to enable the board to enforce the Itters, streets and street i benefit of the public in collection of charges for the use of any such system against the made p�rson or parking lots systems to persons, firm or corporation using the sam, b e charges when garnishment ay be prescribed by said use of any such system shall be collectibleY attachment or otherwise without recourse to court procedure, except so far as the selected procedure may require the same. And the board sh Ceihave ff power or to contract for such se of collection such off n, within such sanitary p designate as its agent for the purpose ters, other recreational person or persons as it may determine, and the officer or officers, person or e the board may deem persons shall be vested with the same power and authority as a sheriff or as constable may have in like procedure. If any rates, fees or charges for the use of and for the services furnished by the use of such facilities ise or otherwise, and to any system acquired or constructed by the sanitary district under the ing lots, water supply, provisions of this chapter shall not be paid within thirty days after the same power, gas, sidewalks, shall become due and payable, and the person who incurred the debt is the Fighting systems in such occupant of such premises, the board may at the expiration of such thirty -day period disconnect the premises from the water and/or sewer system, or i, municipality, county, otherwise suspend services and the board may proceed to recover the amount icy thereof to acquire, of any such delinquent rates, fees or charges, with interest, in a civil action. to and operate any such If any rates, fees or charges for the use and services of any water or sewer ge, sewers to garbage system acquired or constructed by the sanitary district under the provisions of ge, se curbs gutters, this chapter shall not be paid within thirty days after the same becomes due ' and payable, the occupant -debtor of such premises shall cease to dispose of s in such district, and to ble source, such person, sewage or industrial wastes originating from or on such premises by discharge thereof directly or indirectly into the sewer system until such rates, fees or the federal government rt of the costs, expenses charges with interest, shall be paid. If such occupant -debtor does not cease reconstruction, ste - such disposal at the expiration of such thirty -day period, the political system ition of any such system subdivision or district or other public corporation, board, or body supplying water to or selling water for use on such premises may, within five days after a the district to connect the receipt of notice of such delinquency, cease to supply water to or to sell h the owners or tenants water to such occupant -debtor. If such political subdivision or district or cants of any property in public corporation, board or body shall not, at the expiration of such five-day systems, the board of period, cease supplying water to or selling water for use by such occupant - debtor, so requiring debtor, then the governing body within whose geographical boundaries such o use the same, and the sanitary district lies may shut off the supply of water to such person. r a punishment in the The water supply to or for any occupant -debtor shall not be shut off or stopped under the provisions of this section, if the State Health Commis - failure and refusal to so re adopting any such sioner, upon application of the local board of health or health officer of the ore wherein s oof the intention to county, city or town such water is supplied or such real estate is ices of such proposal in located, shall have found and shall certify to the authorities charged with the prior to responsibility of ceasing to supply or sell such water, or to shut off the suppl least ten days The ordinance shall not of such water, that ceasing to supply the health of hershn water sulwill county, c iotice has been given by endanger the health of such person or ty is places in the district. or town. ich manner, may cause Any unpaid charge shall become a lien superior to the interest of any 5.1-504 for imposinor owner, lessee or tenant, and next in succession to county taxes, on the real ces shall be tried before property on which the use of any such system was made and for which the 1 of misdemeanors, and charge was imposed; however, such lien shall not bind or affect a subsequent bona fide purchaser of such real estate for valuable consideration without 521 § 21-118.4 CODE OF VIRGMA § 21-118.4 actual notice of such lien, except and until from the time that the amount of i such charge is entered in the Judgment Lien Docket kept in the office where deeds may be recorded in the political subdivision wherein the real estate or a c part thereof is located. It shall be the duty of the clerk in whose office deeds may be recorded to keep and preserve and hold available for public inspection such Judgment Lien Docket and to cause entries to be made and indexed therein from time to time upon certification by the board for which he shall be entitled to a fee of fifty cents per entry to be paid by the board and added to the amount of the lien. No such lien shall be placed by the board unless the board or its billing and collection agent (i) shall have advised the owner of such real estate at the time of initiating service to a lessee or tenant of such real estate that a lien will be placed on such real estate if the lessee or tenant fails to pay any fees, rents or other charges when due for services rendered to such lessee or tenant; (ii) shall have mailed to the owner of such real estate a duplicate copy of the final bill rendered to such lessee or tenant at the time of rendering the final bill to such lessee or tenant; and (iii) shall employ the same collection efforts and practices to collect amounts due the board from a lessee or a tenant as are employed with respect to collection of such amounts due from customers who are owners of the real estate for which service is provided. Such lien on any real estate may be discharged by the payment to the board of the total amount of such lien, and interest accrued thereon to the date of such payment, and the entry fee of two dollars, and it shall be the duty of the board to deliver a certificate thereof to the person paying the same, and upon presentation thereof and the payment of the further fee of one dollar by such person, the clerk having the record of such lien shall mark the entry of such lien satisfied. Jurisdiction to enforce any such lien shall be in equity and the court may decree the real estate subject to the lien, or any part thereof, to be sold and the proceeds applied to the payment of such lien and the interest which may accrue to the date of such payment. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prejudice the right of the board to recover the amount of such lien, or of the charge, and the interest which may accrue, by action at law or otherwise, which relief shall be cumulative and not alternative; (f) To employ and fix the compensation of any technical, clerical, or other force and help which from time to time, in their judgment, may be deemed necessary for the construction, operation or maintenance of any such system or systems; (g) To negotiate and contract with any person, firm, corporation, county, authority or municipality with regard to the connection of any system or systems with any other system or systems now in operation or hereafter to be established, and with regard to any other matter necessary and proper for the construction or operation and maintenance of any such system within the sanitary district; (h) To contract for the extension of any such system into territory outside of the district, and for the use thereof, upon such terms and conditions as the board may from time to time determine upon; (i) With respect to the maintenance and operation of said motor vehicle parking lots system, the board is authorized to purchase, install, maintain and operate, and to fix and charge parking meter fees for the use of, such i, parking lot or lots; (j) Insofar as is permitted by Article VIER, Section 5 and Article VIII, ! Section 7 of the Constitution of Virginia, to construct or contract to construct within such sanitary district, at the request of the school board and subject to 522 § 21-118.4 § 21-118.4 DRAINAGE, SOIL CONSERVATION, ETC. § 21-118.4 the time that the amount of all provisions of law applicable to the construction of school buildings, and .ket kept in the office where wherein the real estate or a additions thereto; (k) To borrow not earlier than January 1 of any year, or the first day of the clerk in whose office deeds fiscal year of the district, for the purpose of meeting casual deficits in the debt in anticipation of the collection of the ailable for public inspection revenue of the district or creating a not to exceed one-half of the amount es to be made and indexed board for which he shall be revenue of the district, a sum of money reasonably anticipated to be produced by the revenues of the district, 1 by the board and added to including taxes levied pursuant to § 21-119, for the year in which the loan is negotiated; provided, there shall be excluded from the amount reasonably the board or its billing and anticipated to be produced by the revenue of the district any anticipated tax the district which have not actually been levied and assessed such real estate at the time eal estate that a lien will be revenues of against property within the district. Notwithstanding any provisions of law to the contrary, any sanitary district ails to pay any fees, rents or is to borrow in advance of grants and reimbursements due the such lessee or tenant; (ii) a duplicate copy of the final empowered district from the federal and state governments for the purpose of meeting appropriations for the then current fiscal year. "Grants" and "reimburse - )f rendering the final bill to as used herein shall mean grants which the district has been formally same collection efforts and a lessee or a tenant as are ments" advised in writing it will receive, and reimbursements on moneys which the are obligated to pay the district on account of Lts due from customers who is federal or state governments expenditures made in anticipation of receiving such payment from the federal full the or provided. )y the payment to the board rued thereon the date or state government. The district may borrow the amount of grant reimbursement that the federal or state government is obligated to pay at the be sixty days of the time of d it shall be the dutyof the time the loan is issued. The loan shall repaid within the grant or reimbursement is received, but in any event, the loan shall be paying the same, and upon I repaid within one year from the date of its issue. er fee of one dollar by such Such temporary loans shall be evidenced by notes or bonds, negotiable or all mark the entry of such nonnegotiable as the board of supervisors may determine; shall bear interest at a rate as provided in § 2.1-326.1; and shall be repaid not later than either equity and the court may q y t thereof, to be the December 15 of the year in which they are borrowed or fifteen days before the fiscal the district. No extension of any such loan shall be sold and e d the interest which may last day of the year of valid. No additional loan under this subsection shall be made until all temporary loans of preceding years shall have been paid. No election shall be prejudice the right of the required for the issuance of any bond pursuant to the provisions of this any bonds issued e charge, and the interest ise, subsection. Except as this subsection otherwise provides, be issued in accordance with the provisions of which relief shall be pursuant to this subsection may 21-136. echnical, clerical, or other §§ 21-130 through (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter to the contrary, judgment, may be deemed where the use of any water or sewer systems described in this section is is the owner of the premises and where mance of any such system contracted for by an occupant who not such occupant's premises are separately metered for service, the owner of any be liable for the of delinquent rates or firm, corporation, county, nection of any system or such premises shall only payment charges applicable to t hree delinquent billing periods but not to exceed a to _)eration or hereafter to be ¢_ period of ninety days for such delinquency. No board shall refuse service of the owner not occupied by an occupant who is delinquent in cessary and proper for the such system within the other premises the payment of such rates or charges on account of such delinquency provided that such owner has paid in full any delinquent charges for which he would be m into territory outside of responsible for paying. No board shall refuse to service or unreasonably delay of service to premises where such occupant who is delinquent ms and conditions as the reinstatement has vacated the premises and a new party has applied for service provided ion of said motor vehicle such owner has paid in full such delinquent charges as he would be responsible for paying. (1962, c. 571; 1964, c. 517; 1970, c. 674; 1975, cc. 251, rchase, install, maintain fees for the use of, such 490; 1976, c. 684; 1977, c. 516; 1981, cc. 554, 563, 564; 1982, c. 447; 1983, c. 422.) Lion 5 and Article VIII, :t or contract to construct ,hool board and subject to 523 P. 01 TRANSACTION REPORT APR-23-91 TUE 16:59 DATE START SENDER RX TIME PAGES NOTE HPR-23 16:53 7033307430 5'22" 7 OK 4, La D a AMR 2 3 Joel �THOMAS Manassas*4-23-91 4;49PM 7030,430- 17036670370;# 1 ALC"N61116A OFFICE 610 KIN* STREET, SUITE 200 P.O. SOx a30 ALtx"0141A, VIRGINIA 33313 003) 63"400 FAIRFa+x OFFICE 3110 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE, SUITE 1400 P. 0. Sax 13001 PALLS CMURCM, ViR*INIA 33041 003) 141-4800 LtEaSume OFFICE SUITE 300 444044 RIVERSIDE PARKWAY LitA&VRO, VIRGINIA 3a07a (703) 73"900 DATE: Y1 Ilia; LAW OFFICES R=6n i1m A 01100rtaa10NAL Cap"pATION MANAS*As OFFICE THE OLD PIEDMONT SUILOINO THIRD FLOOR 0324 WEST STREET MANAZSA5, VIROINIA 22110 (703) S30.7400 METRO (703) 403.7474 FAX (1,03) 730-7430 TIMF. / 7: oo 4 V's . *ICNwONs OFFICE 411 EAST FRANKLIN aTREET, SUITE "0 P. 0. SOx 3•9 QICMMONO, VIR*I/IU1 33ace 4004► 344-34M WINCHESTER OFFICE $OF NORTH KENT STOW, rQURTM FLOOR P.O. SOX a74O WINCHEaTER. ViRO1NIA 20401 (f03) 411115-0060 MARYLANO OFFICE SUiTt S1*0 130 EAST SALTIMORE STRERT SALTIMORE, MAfi/LAND 114011 (301) TOS-3600 WASMiNSTON arrive SUITE 4" 8001 PENNETLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON. O.C. !COOS (too) see-7000 TI, ucopv NVMBBR 710---037o OFFICE NUmBu amNTmAnER r 11769 ,co l FROK JyL PjEte1 PHONE NUMBER; —" ✓ Z�o 7� W ,_ FLAOYL• -- NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING MESSAGE. �i4f u V PA04 S-C . SHOULD ANY PAGES BE MISSING, PLEASE CALL, OUR TELECOPY OPERATOR AT QW) 641459& no Informstion contained In this facsimile message is information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named abcwe, any may be attorneynent privileged And Col " ` <tial. If the reader of this message Is not the intended redpient, you are hereby notified ti ny dissem h4, distribution or copyinj of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have receivc. 1'4)1nm% In - -qor, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original mtssap to to above ads U.S. PoStal Service. Thanit you..Hawl A Thomas. NO ANSWER LINE BUSY )'(:HAZEL&TH0MA5 Manassas04-23-91 ; 4:50PM 70330430-1 17036570370;# 2 '4'f4Aa4 �iA�` 'iiip4iaA°Y"�iZ?�°nn�AN 1, )0outt of 3atproentADCO / w $�il�i4���f7►MtJiMf{>t (M7�.►� 1NAR1, VC R� {;K VA��Yf{ MaATAVA �y♦ItiJ 01", yJ� At•�llt•/ M V ■Av�lh Y+RM W/7\J MJMrr AL•\�\I\Ai.M Committee on A;AIR.[/QV�'V�OANONlM, Whom. M 1� Jfl1 A4.\'.A tW11 ♦ .rtl s A 71{ J AF I 1 A Lli A1�DNtl. IA•+r,,,ra,wOA� �ntet°Isr end �n�cutar °Sl�ttdir� 1lvl♦�• / 1•I 4AM�AI wOh M ►Y9AY A"�* IJ�H e� i �j �j rr�� }� 1�""�M�°'"3�0 JAUCfijjY ` VDf C1► i�iR�61nQtOri! ;K 20515-0230 4J 4'}wum-t.r14Wtt411 j A[. /I,NaYN`6�V/AMA 4Jlm1yj lCtVtil1 ,t!N�NNIYL�AMA 1i14 VAkxM% RI,Y �i1 NR �e �iv�A 1;111R RY ..� ... ...e.A eiA 5u OOq�.Y 7QIIy / Ot yA i�11 QIA M+I* 0 1r� p�A,M _IkWA•�il fie OK MUMMUMItL I11/OA,A�AICA AA°lRl.tML♦�=• //fIC*aiN>•��i�e��7sM /\ r 1l1.1'f1ACpf�UhTll. t11W.K/M 11Af, iyli:f Of IYIIR'O+awu� YlISA/AJ. A..RM .~44 -1.. April 19, 1991 The Honorable Memel Lu j axe, Jr. Secretary Cepe tm*ht of th4 Interior Washington, D,C, 20240 Dear Secretary Lu j a,nt On dun• 19, 1990 you responded to my letter of March 29 s» which t exprehried CQnCern and sat forth sixtioon epovifio questions r+gardinq the band end Water Coneorvation Aot grant for Lek* Frederick (alto known as Wheatlttindat Lake) in Frederick County, Virginia, While T appre0iats the effort undertaken by you to respond to my earlier inquiry, it 4ppeare that you may have mused my over- riding concern. Y fear that the oommonwualt?% 4f Virginia or the Department of the xntarior may nave bee11 intentionally misled into spending public funds on a project that may primarily serve *a on amenity to a private housing development. V8e of t 4ks Frederick as a pubiia recraa.tional. resouro• may Well be inaidentsl to its value Within aria planned development. It torus, new and disturbing issues are r4140 regarding the mx wditur• of LWCF funds. xn addition to this ooneorn, x find that a number of my original Iu4stions regarding this project ere still unresolved. Questions through 4 ire my previous letter inquired tbotit the ststvo of the Commonwealth Coalition petition dated Februar l'Jthe actions taken by the Department with regard to the De,dt9ionn40�' and the actiot%a donstdarod by the D*Paetmant with regard to the .ubjeot ratt%A� of the Petition, With regexd to the statue of the Petition, 1 vndaratand from both Your latter to me eAd the Department's June 27, 1990 letter to the Corwonwoolth CnMiition's attorney, Philip Chebpt, that yoLi det#rminad that no violstion of the Act or roqulations had "evrred. However, the propoeeQ peen of development raised the 0asiWLity that a conversion might occur in the future, Ynyti letter end the May 4, 1000 `aaokground Paper' which aocompanied it -6ENT BY:HAZEL&THOMAS Manassas 4-23-91 ; 4:50PM 7030430-4 17035670370;# 3 state that the Natiorsai Park earvios has been anergliy aware of the issues raised in the Petition since July, 1909, and had been monitorifig the. situation in cooperation With the Virginia Department of Conearvstion and Retrestion. You also state that th• preliminary site plan was not available for roview until November, 19094 The "Wheatlandi Chronology" which Accompanist your letter does indeed indicatd that the bepartmant did become aware thst a Controvotby was brewing on or &bout ,3uly 10, 1989 as 0 roeult of 114nitial oontacts from a local news reporter and a staff momber of tho fredarick County Planning Commission," The Chronology also appears to indlCats, however, that the Caportment either had or Wag aware of tho oxi,9t6nCe of a preliminary site plan On July 11, 1580. Indeed, what the Department rootiveed on Nove.nber 9, t989 was a copy Of the Virginia DGpartrnont of Gamed and Inland Fieherise' C4rtman s *n the preliminary aite Olen, corrments which Could onLyf have been prepared It the sits plan had beers Available Come time prior t0 NovBmber, 1969. Moreover,, apart from collecting the growir►q Volume of ingijiribs, Comments, ar"d news artiole8, the Chronology does not demonstrate that trio Department und*rtook any independent action tv investig&te the, eituat,lOn Or protect affirmatively the public Interest, These materials prompt me to mako thsaa additional inquiries: a) Progiaeiy when did trig bepar'tm$nt receive a dopy of the ptoliminary site plan? b) What, if anything, did the Department do to obtain a COPY of the pralLmina,ry Otte peen prior to November 9, 1969? 0) big the Department provide eny assistance or guidance to State ofU0141a in the preparation of thoir ocmmsnts on the preliminary mite plan7 d} At the Answer to (c) is affirmative, what assistance or guidance was PtOvidadj it they enawer is nagativo, why was eSaistance or guidance not provided? a) Why has the Department itself not commonted on the sit* p1.aa77 C) What, if anything, did tho Department do to JAV$St3girte the controversy prior to its racoipt of the Commonwealth Coalition aetition? Q ) what cheer oocn%MunioeetJong, if any, ocourred between the bapartment and Virginia Qtficiala prior to r000ipt of the Petition? Please s*nd my office copies of all relevant porrosporyclenCe, votes, or Other memoranda refitoting auoh oommunic4tione, 2 SENT bt:HAZEL&THOMAS ManassaA-23-91 ; 4:51PM ; 70330430-+ 17036670370;# 4 My quQations numbered a and 6 saksd whether, at the time of the 'grant, the Departm®nt was aware of the potential for devalQ meant of tho surrounding property end pf the donor's apparent oommitment tO restrict dQval,apmQnt tv three hundred homaa. YOur reaponso that "it would have been expected that the surrou6dinq londa would some day undergo land use changa" and that the dapartiRCAt did not rely upon thr donor's commitment to restrict da�val,pn+ant is, frankly, unregOtSlve. My questioner therefore, remains h? Did WT 4 Dapaxtment hr2vw at the time it sp :coved the grant that the donor intended to dov*iop V e surrounding t�cWty and that 6 COmmitment had been mad* to =Onwealth Offibials to r®Qtriot such development to three hundred homes? Myy question number 7 was whether the Department was dwsre that Virgirlip officials had axpressod oonoern regarding the property and the, procedures by whioh it wed donated. I accept your smowor that the bepartment had ro ewaren,.Ias of theas matters at the time of the pran.t. howovax, l rand it b4 rd to reconcile your answer that your r*viOw UnOovsred no Nimpropristila" .in light Of Petition Exhibit No. 7, In this Exhibit, the Virginia, Department of denOrsl Servioss Questioned how the Virginia Game and inland vishexios Comrniasion could take title to the property in Deoambesr, loci, Without approval of the C,overnor which was not obtained untti march, 1952, That letter, You will ebaarva, goer on to note that the sarlier tret,ster of title "might muddle the aondition of eocaptanca," that condition timing a $500,000 limit oh the Coat of restoration work "Et}he obvious roscon for which wds to ovoid the state) having * 'white alophant.11 i) A more detailed Qxplanation, aettxng forth the spsoifio aonsldata#ions you took into account in shaking your determination in this regard would be helpful. Please Mddrean in your response: (1) the extent, it any, to which the ])apartment examined the $tote's vomplianca with Its own Laws and regulation$ both before the grant was approved and at any timo thsroofterf (2) the potential impact of a state's railura to com iy with its own laws and ragula,tiono in obtaining tid e to MO wniCn is the aubjoot of a LWCF grant upon both the vali►Jity of the conveyance of tittle and the status of tkia fQd-oroj Junde expended or, property unlawfully eogoired) 3 �1:, 3Y:HAZEL&THOMAS Manassas*4-23-91 : 4:52PM 7030430-4 17036670370,# 5 (a} the policy Of the Department with regard to the rantin of LWC9 funds in aonnectlon with a property 4 whit% title is held by a grantee eubjeat to a Condition? and ( 4 ) the atatut of the LWCi funds 6xpand4d oil pxopecty to which title is held by • grantee eubjsot to 0 condition when th4t Condition is violated. My guaetsons numbered a and 9 or* addreseed obove, My question nuMber 10 concerned the lack of a WO visit to verify CGmpiiance. As I understand it, the reviewed documentary evident` submitted by the State and scheduled a site visit for April, 2992, j) Hds the Department 4onjucted a site visit at sny time since July, 19S91 k) Ooos trig nopartmont still intond to Oonduot a RRita visit in April, 19922 my question number 11 asked whether th0 Department was aware, prior to rabruavy 13, 1990, that th0 lake was not open to the public untie after the COMMOnWi!31th C,OAlitioll announCad P%4ns to *i1• its petition. Again, your response that the laka is n v open to the Public is not responsive. 1 oak sgainc 1) Exactly when did the Department first learn that the lake was not opan tv the public in the period prior to January, 1989? (1) Why did it take so long for the lake to be opened to the public? (2) 7f 'the &newer is that the 18ke W8S taino stocked with fiths ( a ) when and by whose (.601Sion wap the lake closed tot ttii0 purpose? (W W89 the Department &war• of thi.e decialon? (�) whor*, its writing, i8 it required that the lake be aioaed to Olt Cte eatj.anal use for this puxyo$o4 (d) why aooie the teke not MOVQ boon apon for non - fishing recreatlonal ves? (8 ) why d1 d Virginias toes ify to the Department that the lake was opoi� to th-; public, when it planned to close the lake to the pu-)llc immEdiataly cr shortly thereasftor? 4 SENT BY:HAZEL&THOMAS Manassas 04-23-91 ; 4:53PM 70330430-� 17036670370;# m) Zxsctlyy wMon did the Department fire". 1;.-a-n that the signs i.ndic4ting the lake wee a public facility oji:e not in Place? n) Has the Department Co.zoixtbd at y 1r.�. ecti �etian to determine who was rot onsi7ala for placing the chain gets &CTUOa thQ access road? If yea, v,.,ha o �4*z a the results Of that Investiggetinn? If no, why has aur-h ar: investigation not been oanduoted? l R&* the Drpbrbment conducted cry ii-ivactigation to determin0 who was responaibie far r4mov t rig the oign(e ) IM0104ting tO the publ10 that tha lake was s public facility? If yes, whwt ware '-hie results of that Invc*tigation? if oo, why has eu^ i t:r% i„.•.-est:igativn not been concluctQd? ,p) It, AS you poly, the immediate cor�stl-.,ctsorj of paja$♦ lx toai,littea by Virginia was not part ' of the grant agr®&marls, whet is the meaning of thc- tarr:l "Co.nmjtmunt,, ao it appears in trio August 17, 1964 Lester from Ms, Chfist+.na McCoy (PoStition Zxhibit :2�? what to the iiv tIQence or the sentence in rvhic.h this tor,m sppc, 4es? q : nas the Department Qbtain,�,d from tr:o s-,ate ,iny timratatle or o'tner "ocmmitm4nt,1 Btetsng whibn phase it :-,onstrv(.,tior Will be aomletd? It not, Why not? My numbllred 12 and 13 asked actiose thq Department intenu+rd to take to provioe and maimtSin p,abiic ac:04.411 to the lake, avoid a Convergion to Dtivate use, and cth;irwiee guarantee ootr.pliance with the terms Ot till grant, Aga;,-1, 1 e:1 afraid that your conclusion that no v.ielatiun has ye o(,^urrad does not Ontirely, res;OnO 't4 those queatior,s. r, "CON th• Department plan to take " aff.xm3tjv$ aCtion to atieura future Complia;,CQ gild svoic a Oor,vorsion) or, dvea the Department intentl Merely tO Fit t)40k end wait to Ste whethor the grant it vsclat9d or a ro..verzion occurs? s) w114t RUSLU'2211Y will the Dopaxtm,nt do i the event that the grant is violated and a Convers!,�n xc:irq? Finally' MY Qu*stone AkAberld 14 throu n 16 ask._ d for e de$drip-ion oP the procedures in pjace to amplianoe with the ter:)$ of LWCF gtOnts, a randition of tr:a E�uthority which you h®ve to *OmPe , compliance, and advice c.11 wheI-hrr e9ditio:►al s -atutc ry authgri.ty would assist in aaauxirig tr-,at jou had adtquate authority to enforce complianGv. I fail to see wf.4ra you_ letter provides any response to thaw questions. 5 ;AZEL&THOMAS Manassas 1 4-23-91 4:53PM ; 70330430-+ 17035670370;# 7 J � 'f Y have oont,inued to oicssly monitor the proposed residential d6wiopmgi� t et the Lake Fredericks. Niy staff has hosted two meetinot between ell parties interested in this pextiCUla: ieouo and i am aware of other such tr.e?tiz%ge between the principals, Althovgh = am Still Oorc4rned about the imp4ot the Wh®atlande subdlvssion plan may have on the public recreation project fended by LwCF !undo, i am enoaureged by recent aevitopments. X recent letter from the Virginia Department of tanks ttid Inland Flaheries to the Frederick County planning 4nd Dovelopm#ot Department Jn6lcates that the Virginia ogenay may now be wiili:ig to pley a more active rele in ensuring that the development around Lake Frederick ddoG not Joopsraire the public recreatiou. opportunities at this site. of paeticular odncern ie the potential deprsdatson, of water quality at the site end poar1b1lit Of A convaraion bf the recreational aspects of the Lwcp project it thie otovrel i would urge the Department to worK actively with the COMMonweait` to ensure that the remainder of the proposed work (Pheeee =s) planned for the LWCF project at rake Frederick (Project Fc, 51- Q0269) is Completed as coon as peegible, xt is my understanding that the additional feeilities planned for the site include a parkin; area, boat ramp, fishing pier and improved acceao rda4. To further the oo.mplstion of this work; V What, if dny, action do you intond to take if Pheea IL construction to not Completed in a roaaonable t+ifne7 u) what do you consider to be a "rezoonable titri4?" T thank you in •dveno• tot your spoedy response to theca further inquirios, S1 Qe-ely► Teter H. Kostmayer Chairman suocommitta* on Energy *nd the Environment 2 � -*xr***************0*********************db*********************** * � ~~ P.01 * ~ TRANSACTION REPORT * * APR-12-91 FRl 10:19 * * * * DATE START SENDER RX TIME PAGES NOTE * * * * APR-12 10:17 7033307430 19429N 2 OK * * * ************** � SENT BY;HA4EL&THOMAS Mande ; 4-12-91 ; 9:14AM A 307430-4 17036670370;# 1 Y ALSRANOAUI OI►ICS S10 RING 011mt swift a00 /.6. box Sao A6LUXG1111A, vIROINIA 81712 1YO31 03"400 /AIRIAR *rFIOa S110 ►AIRVICW ►AIIK ORIVa. SUIvt 1400 I.O. WX 11001 FALLS CHURCH. VIRGINIA 22042 (703) 641`4200 LasaaYAb a►►ies SUIT& sOO 44004 IIIVSRSIOC ►AARWAT LaCSSURG. VIRGINIA 120" (703) fr1"*W DA'M W. I"OR/H:ab A IRO/Sab10M/Il CORIOMTION MANASS" OF/ICE THt OL0'ItOMONT BUILDING THIRD FLOOR 0344 WEST STAItET MANAaSAO, VIRGINIA as 110 (703) 330.7400 METRO (103) 403-7474 IAX (703) 330-7430 a J 7UAD _ TBL.ECOPY NUMB EN MMATM i FROM. Bit a 3ZL6 olFlc8 NiJ1rlBBR L AIeRNONb O►ItOt 411 PAT IIN,MKUN VINC[T. OYITa eon P. a. sax b-ll AICHMOII'b, VIROINIA 63006 1404111 3".&Mm wIRC"getan O/►ICA 107 NOAtH UNT $TRRMT. IOUATK /LOOA I.O. 900. M 740 WINr.KaSTCR, VIRGINIA •Ma01 170$) 006.0060 MAMANO O►IICR SY/Ta 2100 I20 SAOT MIALTIMO11a STRSCT bALTIMORC, MAR 6ANO • I SOa 1301) 71130-3900 WAOHIMOTOM O►►ICS b WITS 4" Moot ►a)1NS'ILVANIA AVCNya. N.W. WASHINGTON, O.C. 20006 (MOM) age -FOOD PHONE NUMBER: FLOM .—.-..—.-.----.�----- NUMBER Of pAGES (INCLUDINO COVER PAGft --� -- - MESSAGE _ SHOULD ,fly PAGES BE MISSINO. PLEASE CAL-i. OUR TBL.BCOPY OPERATOR AT (703) 641.4591L TIC lntormttioo contained to " Ihaimlle messy p b Information intended 0* 1& the ttsa of the individual or entity named above, any may be attomcy4eut privilesed and confidential. It the reader of Ills mesaa#e Is not the Intended re+dplent. you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. U you have received this Communication, in error, plow WmedlUdy notli� us by telephone and return the ori&al memp to us at the above address via the U.B. Postal S crvice. TMank you...Haael A MwmaL NO ANSWBR - L.1NE BUSY - SENT BY:HAZEL&THOMAS Manasol ; 4-12-91 : 9:14AM 70307430-4 PETER-fl, KOSTMAYER STM DiSTAIC7. PCNNSflvANIA Conareoo of the Vniteb &tateg *ouze of Reprezentattba Unbington, 39C 20515 Mr. Thomas A Lewi:' The Commonwealth Coalition Post Office Box 866 Berryville, Virginia 22611 Dear Mr. Lewis: l" M 17036670370;# 2 April 8, 1991 My staff gave rye a thorough briefing on the meeting my office hosted last Friday on the proposed Wheatiands Development at Lake Frederick. I am concerned that the answer given to one of your questions may have given you an incorrect impression of where I stand on this issue. In my capacity as chairman of the InteT-ior Subcommittee on Energy and tho Environment, I have maintained an interest in both oversight and legislative matters related to administration of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I want to assure you of my continuing concern about the implementation of the Wheatlands subdivision plan and the impact that this development will have on public recreation at Lake Frederick. As this issue has unfolded over the last six months, some uncertainties with Secretary Lujan's June 19, 1990 response to my earlier questions regarding the use of LWCF funds in this project have surfaced. I will be contacting Secretary Lujan for further clarification of these points. I will continue my vigorous oversight over this and other issues related to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and look forward to working with you to achieve a fair and responsible resolution of this issue. Sincerely, Deter H. Kostmayer Member of Congress cc: all other attendees THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE OF RECYCLED FIBERS • • ALEXANDRIA OFFICE 510 KING STREET, SUITE 200 P.O. BOX 820 ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22313 (703) 836-8400 FAIRFAX OFFICE 3110 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE, SUITE 1400 P.O. BOX 12001 FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22042 (703) 641-4200 LEESBURG OFFICE SUITE 300 44084 RIVERSIDE PARKWAY LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 22075 (703) 729-8500 LAW OFFICES Hazel&Thomas A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MANASSAS OFFICE THE OLD PIEDMONT BUILDING THIRD FLOOR 9324 WEST STREET MANASSAS, VIRGINIA 22110 (703) 330-7400 METRO (703) 803-7474 FAX (703) 330-7430 April 3, 1991 Dinesh V. Tiwari, CLIP Chief, Lands & Engineering Division Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries 4010 W. Broad Street P.O. Box 11104 Richmond, Virginia 23230 RICHMOND OFFICE 411 EAST FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 600 P. O. BOX 3-K RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23206 (804) 344-3400 WINCHESTER OFFICE 107 NORTH KENT STREET, FOURTH FLOOR P.O. BOX 2740 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (703) 665-0050 MARYLAND OFFICE SUITE 2100 120 EAST BALTIMORE STREET BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21202 (301) 783-3500 WASHINGTON OFFICE SUITE 400 2001 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 (202) 6S9-7000 Re: DGIF Review of the Preliminary Master Development Plan Wheatlands, Frederick County, Virginia Dear Dinesh: I have reviewed a copy of your comments on the MDP for Wheatlands. I got them a bit late, because I was unfortunately not among those who were copied, but Mr. Tisinger kindly provided me your materials as quickly as he could. I found your comments thoughtful, and useful, and you can rest assured that the landowners will take them into close consideration in .,faking revisions to the Plan. I would note that some of what you discuss consists of matters which will be thoroughly addressed at the filing of final development plans, and that none of the modifications proposed are required under the Frederick County Subdivision or Zoning Ordinances, but we believe that it is worthwhile to attempt to accommodate the Department's concerns and we shall attempt to do so. The landowners must emphasize, however, that any modifications which they may authorize are not a concession that such changes, or others not yet requested of them, may be compelled. I believe, however, that they long ago established their willingness to work with public officials to make this a first-class development which does not harm the environment. n LAW OFFICES Hazd& nomas Dinesh V . Tiwari A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION April 3, 1991 Page 2 I am sure we shall speak again ont this project, and I look forward to seeing you. Sincerely yours, EL , & ;f HOMAS , P . C . John1 H. Foote JHF:jw cc: James Bowman Fred Glaize Chuck Maddox Bill Tisinger Robert Watkins Kenneth Stiles WASHINGTON OFFICE SUITE 400 2001 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 659-7000 LEESBURG OFFICE 116-G EDWARDS FERRY ROAD, N.E. P. 0. BOX 87 LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 22075 (703) 777-6777 ALEXANDRIA OFFICE 510 KING STREET, SUITE 200 P. 0. BOX 820 ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22313 (703) 836-8400 LAW OFFICES Hazel&Thomas A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION FAIRFAX OFFICE 3110 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE, SUITE 1400 P.O. BOX 12001 FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22042 (703) 641-4200 FAX (703) 641-4340 November 12, 1990 Robert W. Watkins Planning Director Frederick County P. O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Bob: RICHMOND OFFICE 411 EAST FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 600 P. 0. BOX 3-K RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23206 (804) 344-3400 MARYLAND OFFICE SUITE 2100 120 EAST BALTIMORE STREET BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21202 (301) 783-3500 WINCHESTER OFFICE 107 NORTH KENT STREET, FOURTH FLOOR P.O. BOX 2740 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (703) 665-0050 Attached you will find a revision to the Preliminary Master Development Plan for the Wheatlands Project. You will note that there are a number of changes which have been made to the Plan to reflect concerns that we have understood to exist with respect to the project. The fundamental thrust of it remains as it has been, however, and we request that this revision be subjected only to those reviews customary upon such a resubmission. We respectfully request that consideration of this MDP be scheduled for the December 19, 1990, Planning Commission hearing, so that we may finally move this forward. Our delay has been occasioned by the preparation of a detailed water quality analysis and report by Dr. Thomas Grizzard, which is now in hand and which demonstrates that the use of BMPs will assure adequate protection for the Lake. Needless to say, you can call me or Mr. Maddox if you have any questions. Sincerely ours, HA EL & OC ,P.C. oh H. Foote cc: James Bowman Fred Glaize Chuck Maddox JHF25:wheat.111 MISC. CORRESPONDENCE • • giberA. clifford & associates, it& 200 North Cameron Street • P.O. Box 2104 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 • Fax: 703-665-0493 December 5, 1991 Mr. Kris Tierney Frederick County Planning Department 9 N. Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Wheatlands FMDP Dear Kris, Please find attached seven copies of the Wheatlands FMDP for signatures of approval. 1 ask that you sign five of these copies for our office and the owners. Per Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, I have revised the 50' easement to 50' fee simple around the lake. The 75% coverage we have committed to, we will do so at each phase as required. We need not define the term reforest, per D.G.I.F., for we believe this is above and beyond what is required by the County for a MDP. We have agreed in note 9 (g), to provide D.G.I.F. with flood easements, therefore the elevation has to be worked out with D.G.I.F., but not prior to FMDP approval. If you have any questions or comments, please call. Sincerely, Tom Price TWP/cls � ,L )`�Hf W SUBJECT:- Local and Areawide Planning Requirements TO: Applicants For NPDES and No Discharge Certificates Article 2, §62.1-44.15:3 of the State Water Control Law states: "No application for a certificate to discharge sewage, industrial wastes and other wastes into or adjacent to state waters shall be considered complete unless the applicant has provided the Executive Director with notification from the governing body of the county, city or town in which the discharge is to take place that the location and operation of the discharging facility is consistent with -all ordinance-s adopted pursuant to Chapter 11 (§15.1-427 et seq.) of Title 15.1 of the Code." (These are local zoning ordinances)-. In accordance with this section, new applications for No Discharge Certificates or NPDES permits will not be considered complete until the information below is submitted to the SWCB Regional Office. /-------___-J hnr (County, City, or Town - -- Administrator Manager) To: P.O. ,Ox lip l 1-tlin , I am in the process of completing a SWCB application form for a certificate. In accordance with Chapter: 11 (§15.1-427 et seq.) of Title 15.1 of the Code, I request that you sign one of the two statements below certifying my application is consistent with your local ordinances. Please return this form to: (Applicant's address) Return to: ahgrle5 E. //gddbx �t'• PE PO- 6ox z/� I hereby certi �(Uhel�ric%s� J ZZ(p / J (1) that.the proposed location, and operation of the facility is consistent with all ordinances adopted pursuant to Chapter 11 (§15.1-427 et seq.) of Title 15.1 of the Code or (2) that n local ordinances are in effect pursuant to 1 -427 et seq.) of Title 15.1 of the Code. Frec�crick �� ,�mi/7 i���a�a r Signature rT"itle �hn�.�ile ,fir �nuary /g , /q�� Prin Name Date G'W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 20 South Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 Mr. John Riley Frederick County Administration P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 December 14,1987 Re; NPDES Permit - Wheatlands Dam Dear John, This just arrived today from the State Water Control Board. This form is the one they are requesting your response on. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely yours, Charles . Maddox, Jr., P.E. Vice President Enclosure CEM,Jr/psp • The lzaak Walton League of America DEFENDERS OF SOIL, AIR, WOODS, WATERS, AND WILDLIFE WINCHESTER CHAPTER • P.O. BOX 2954 • WINCHESTER, VA 22601 June 24, 1991 Mr. Larry Simmons, P.E. State Water Control Board Valley Regional Office 116 N. Main St. P.O. Box 268 Bridgewater, Va. 22812 RE: PERMIT NO. 0080080 FREDERICK CO. VA., WHEATLANDS Dear Mr. Simmons: ---I < < ` ,SUN 2 6 I" Q' The Izaak Walton League has been involved with Lake Frederick for several years. A major part of this involvement concerns the preservation of the water quality of the lake and Crooked Run, which drains from the lake. Recent discussions with a downstream landowner have renewed our concerns. Our information indicates that thirty months have passed since the permit for the sewage treatment plant for Wheatlands was issued on Dec. 14, 1988. To date , this project has only received preliminary planning commission approval, and any signs of groundbreaking are yet months away. According to Section 2.01.04 of the 1977 Sewerage Regulations, permits shall become null and void if construction is not initiated within two years of issuance of the permit. Therefore the Winchester Chapter of the Izaak Walton League requests the appropriate voiding action be enforced according to Virginia State requirements. it is our interpretation of the regulation that the permit is already null and void since it was not extended prior to the expiration period. If consideration is being given to extending the permit for good cause, we express our opinion that inaction on the part of the developer due to economic conditions is not sufficient good cause. A major part of the last two years has been spent trying to profit from the sale of the entire project to another developer. This has resulted in several public hearings at which well documented concerns and opposition have been expressed by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and by the general public. We feel there are sufficient concerns. about the negative impact from the discharge of the proposed sewage plant that a reevaluation is in order and that new public hearings be held prior to any extension or issuance of a new permit. Sincerely, John K. Owings, Secretary Winchester Chapter Izaak Walton League of America CF: Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries ``,AFrederick County Department of Planning 17 "RIL 1991 MEMORANDUM FOR: FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: ROGER THOMAS SUBJECT: Wheatlands, Master Development Plan Let me state, that I clearly understand that this is not a rezoning, but an action on a preliminary master plan. I certainly understand that the rezoning action was accomplished 15-years ago, and is not a discussable issue. However, since the Wheatlands development will at its completion, be a town larger than Stephens City, potentially the largest town in Frederick County, I feel it deserves particular attention. Unfortunately, it is neither being incorporated, planned, or even considered as a town, sanitary district, or other form of municipality. The location of the Wheatlands project is ideal for the development of a new town. The farming value of the land is minimal, and transportation systems\networks are in place, with minor improvements, that could serve ,the town. Let me also emphasize, that I'm not anti -growth, in fact as an engineer I lean toward the pro -growth side. As long as that development is accomplished an organized, professional well engineered manner. This requires good planning, engineering, construction and operational maintenance considerations. The initial step -- planning is what I want to address. The objective of planning, of which a master development plan is a part, is to develop the most efficient, durable, pleasant, environmentally sound, and most profitable use ,of land or areas. Planning does not and can not stop at the boundary of a specific site proposed for this type of large intense/dense development. 0 • --2-- Operational systems and infrastructure support must be evaluated and, if needed, additional capacities added or planned. A KEY QUESTION THAT ARISES AT THIS POINT IS WHO PAYS FOR THE ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE OR OPERATIONAL SUPPORT THAT WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY ? As a taxpayer in Frederick county, my answer certainly is the developer. The person or persons whom stand to make huge profits in the deal. Lets talk about infrastructure support and operational systems -- what am I talking about ? Operational systems: (mostly service type --pay as you go) -- Potable water -- Sewage collection and disposal -- Garbage collection\landfill Don't really see much of a problem here -- except potentially the ecosystem interference\disruption from creating a new treated effluent stream leading from the treatment plant. The effect this nutrient rich, new stream will have on the areas\farms down stream from the plant has not been studied sufficiently. Who is going to explain to the farmer, with this stream of treated effluent\sewage running across his farm, that his cows\farm animals drinking water is safe ? Mr. Stiles, would you want your milk cows drinking from a stream of treated sewage ? And yes, I know farm ponds are not the cleanest, I grew up on a farm. However, this new stream will be essentially, treated effluent\sewage. Theoretically treated effluent is potentially cleaner than river water, psychologically could you accept it ? What if the plant breaks down? During a heavy rain what if it overflows, that's normally a dry stream bed, so there's no normal stream flow to dilute the raw sewage. --3-- Infrastructure Support: Here's where I am concerned. Fire and Rescue Services: Will we need additional paid firemen? Who buys the equipment and builds the station? Volunteer support for fire fighting in the area is already strained, and donations have been hurt by the economic conditions. The developers should be required to build the fire\rescue station and provide the necessary equipment for start-up operations, in addition to the land. Schools: Will the current facilities support an additional 900 students in the various grade levels? Of course not. Will the construction of new schools be required - how many - what kind ? Who will provide these projections to the School Board for them to start planning, and who will pay for these services ? The developers should contribute through the construction of a new school, not just the donation of land for a new school site. Through the offer of land to construct a new school they already recognize that additional schools will have to built as a result of their development. Recreational Services: The development is close to Sharando Park. However, to accommodate an additional 4000 people, the park will need some expansion, certainly, a covered swimming pool for use year- round, or maybe some more $250,000 baseball or soccer fields. Transportation Services: The developer, should provide all necessary signalization for all intersections on route 277, resulting from the development for a ME period up to 2 - years after total build -out through an escrow fund. The developer should also, re -build the structural pavement section for the entire length of 636 from the development to 277, and pave with a bituminous concrete surface to state standards. Sheriffs Department: How many additional police will typically be required? At what cost to the county taxpayer? Land Proffer: The land proffers for Schools and the fire station should be extended for a min of 20 years. After the proffer duration the land should revert to the Homeowners Association. Homeowners Association (HOA): Based on the proposed By - Laws for the Homeowners Association you have saddled them with significant responsibilities. Which if not executed will fall to whom to perform ? The expectation that a HOA can or will maintain BMP facilities is unrealistic. If the Lake becomes polluted who is responsible for the cleanup - one instance could easily bankrupt the HOA. Start- up costs alone, for the HOA to mow the grass in the BMP facilities, will deplete the first year interest from the developers contribution, just to purchase the equipment. Water Quality Testing: Recommend the developer be required to perform water quality testing annually, and for a period of up -to a minimum of 5-years after complete build -out. --5-- Testing should include, as a minimum: --turbidity tests --bacteriological quality --physical qualities --chemical characteristics/nitrates etc --algae levels Any deterioation of water quality would then be the responsibility of the developer to correct, at his cost. Stormwater Retention Ponds\Basins: These are, BMP facilities that it is unrealistic to assume that a HOA can and will maintain until a problem exists. SUMMARY: The issue comes down to, should the County approve a preliminary Master Development Plan that has been working for over a year and still has unanswered questions and unresolved issues? Has the developer really made a good faith effort to answer the questions\concerns ? The developer has ignored, or felt not required to answer questions dealing with issues, other than concentrating on selling the density and arguments concerning the water quality of Lake Frederick. The developer has ignored planning for infrastructure support needed outside the project boundaries. Planning for this support has been insufficient and inadequate. All county residents/taxpayers will be touched by this development, not just those who live there. This will increase the county population by approximately 10%. Taxes will be increased to pay for the county support and services, and the strain on already burdened county services. 9 0 The timing for this dense development is not right,- Frederick County cannot support the municipal services required for this new town. I personally feel, this development has the potential to be among the nicest developments in the county, especially with the attractive lake and vista's. However, I strongly feel, the total cost associated with the development should be borne by the developers, NOT THE RESIDENTS OF FREDERICK COUNTY. Frederick County residents should not be forced to subsidize the profits of developers through higher property taxes to pay for increased county support services. Again, I feel the planning has not addressed all issues, neither is the county in the position to support/provide services for this large dense development. THANK YOU FOR TIME. r �7/ SUBJECT: Wheatlands, Master Development Plan Let me state clearly that I'm not anti -growth, in fact as an engineer I lean toward the pro -growth side. As long as that development is in an organized, professional well engineered manner. This requires good planning, engineering, construction and maintenance operations. The initial step- planning is what I want to address. The objective of planning, of which a master development plan is a part, is to develop the most efficient, durable, plesant, environmentally sound, and most profitable use of land or areas. Planning does not and can not stop at the boundry of a specif is site proposed for intense/dense development. Operational systems and infrastructure support must be evaluated and, if needed, additional capacities added or planned. A KEY QUESTION THAT ARISES AT THIS POINT IS WHO PAYS FOR THIS ADDITIOAL INFRASTRUCTURE OR OPERATIONAL SUPPORT ? As a taxpayer. in Frederick county, my answer certainly is the developer. The person or persons whom stand to make huge profits in the deal. Lets talk about infrastructure support and operational systems - what am I talking about. Operational systems: (mostly commercial pay as you go) Potable water Sewage collection and disposal Garbage collection\landfill Don't really see much of a problem here- except potentially the ecosystem interference/distruption from creating a treated effluent stream leading from the treatment plant- an engineering problem that only requires money to solve? Again who's money. Question -- when the plant is turned over to the sanitation authority who pays the initial start up costs? Will the rates for this individual system be developed for only this area or will all county users pay the same rate? Another potential subsidy required from all other sanitary system users. Infrastructure Support: Here's where I am concerned and have alot of unanswered questions. Fire protection - Will we need additional paid firemen? Who buys the equipment and builds the station? Volunteer support for fire fighting in the area is already strained. Ambulance \Rescue services - More paid rescue\ambulance personnel. Schools - Will the current facilities support an additional 900 students in the various grade levels. Will the construction of new schools be required - how many - what kind? Special education needs- the county will have a obligation to provide for special needs of students, what is a projection of these needs. Who will provide this information to the School board for them to start planning and who will pay for these services? Recreational Services- Close to Sharando Park - To accomodate an additional 4000 people may need some expansion - certainly a covered swimming pool for use year-round, or maybe some more $250,000 baseball fields. Transportation services - The developer should provide all necessary signalization for intersections on 277 resulting from the development up until 5 years after total build -out thru an escrow fund. The developer should rebuild the structual pavenent section for the entire length of 636 from the development to 277, and pave with a bituminous concrete to state standards. Sheriffs Department - How many additional police will typically be required? At what cost to the county taxpayer? County services - Projection for additional personnel\staff- county support\administrative Land Proffer: The' land proffers for Schools and the fire station should be extended for a min of 20 years. After the proffer duration the land should revert to the HOA. Homeowners Association: Based on the proposed By -Laws for the Homeowners association you have saddled them with significant responsibilities - which if not executed will fall to whom to perform? The expectation that a HOA will or can maintain BMP facilities is unrealistic. If the Lake becomes polluted whom is responsible for the cleanup - one instance could easily bankrupt the HOA. Recommend the developer be required toperform water quality tests anually for a period upto a minimum of 5-years after complete build -out. Testing must include as a minimum: turbidity bacteriological quality physical qualities chemical characteristics/nitrates etc algae levels Any deteration of water quality would then be the --3-- responsibility of the developer to correct, at his cost. Stormwater Retention Basins: BMP facility that it is unreleastic to assume that a HOA can'and will maintain until it is too,late. I have said enough-- in summary: The issue comes down to --does the Planning Commission recommend to the Board approval of Master development plan that has been working for over a year and still has unanswered questions and unresolved issues? My position is no. The developer has ignored or felt,unrequired to answer questions dealing with issues, other than concentrating on selling the density and discussions of the water quality in Lake Frederick. Two areas where they knew they could succeed. The developer has ignored planning for infrastructure support needed outside the project boundries. Planning for this support has been insufficient and inadequate. All county residents/taxpayers will be touched by this development. This will increase the county population by approx 10%. Taxes will be increased to pay for the support and services and the strain on already burdened county services. The timing for this dense development is not right, Frederick County cannot support the municipal services required for this new small town. I personnally feel this development has the potential to be among the nicest development in the county, with the attractive lake and vista's.. However,I strongly feel the total cost associated with the development should be borne by the developers, NOT THE RESIDENTS OF FREDERICK COUNTY. Frederick County residents should not be'forced to subsidize the profits of developers thru higher property taxes to pay for increased support services. Again I feel the planning has not addressed all issues, nor is the county in the position to support/provide services for this large dense development. I THEREFORE RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL OF THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN------ FOR WHEATLANDS. 0 White Post, Virginia April 12, 1991 Frederick County Planning Commission: We are farmers who live across the road from the Wheatlands Project. Our property fronts on the east side of Route 522 with about 3/4 mile directly across from Wheatlands. There is a ridge which runs along the east side of the Bowman-Glaize property and we are concerned about the runoff which will drain into our cattle pond and onto the land where the cattle graze. The concerns which the Game and Wildlife Commission expressed about the danger to fish and wildlife also applies to our cattle. Catch basins are necesssary along the west side of Route 522 to mitigate this water pollution. Thank you for letting us bring this to your attention. We know you will include this in your planning. It will enable us to continue farming Jhere. 6telg�i��l / Della M. Bates PETER H. KOSTMAYER BTH DISTRICT, PENNSYLVANIA �Congreo of the Mt�i O *WO jbou!�e of ReprWntatibO UWbington, MSC 20515 April 8, 1991 Mr. Thomas A Lewis The Commonwealth Coalition Post Office Box 866 Berrvville, Virginia 22611 Dear Mr. Lewis: My staff gave me a thorough briefing on the meeting my office hosted last Friday on the proposed Wheatlands Development at Lake Frederick. I am concerned that the answer given to one of your questions may have given you an incorrect impression of where I stand on this issue. In my capacity as chairman of the Interior Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, I have maintained an interest in both oversight and legislative matters related to administration of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I want to assure you of my continuing concern about the implementation of the Wheatlands subdivision plan and the impact that this development will have on public recreation at Lake Frederick. As this issue has unfolded over the last six months, some uncertainties with Secretary Lujan's June 19, 1990 response to my earlier questions regarding the use of LWCF funds in this project have surfaced. I will be contacting Secretary Lujan for further clarification of these points. I will continue my vigorous oversight over this and other issues related to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and look forward to working with you to achieve a fair and responsible reso!Ution of this issue. Sincerely, Peter H. Kostmayer Member of Congress cc: all other attendees THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE OF RECYCLED FIBERS r f 10� . .�� sad ��'�' ✓� i l Frederick Co. Department of Planning and Development 9 Court Square Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Wheatlands Preliminary Master Plan Gentlemen: March 13, 1991 I am representing the local chapter of the Izaak Walton League by providing comments on the plan as submitted to the Planning Commission meeting on 20 Feb, 1991. Chairman Golliday requested I submit these comments in writing. 1. Add public parking areas at several accessible points around the lake. This would be for the majority of fishermen who do not own boats. A seven mile shoreline with only one public access is unacceptable. We recommend six areas for approximately 30 cars each (10,000 SF + or -). A cleared walkway from the lot to the 50 ft. state property should be provided. This would not be used for movement of boats, but for bank fishing access only. Mr. Foote, representing the developer, stated they may be agreeable to this. Final location of the access points would be selected after a closer review of the topography. 2. Note 9.(d) calls for the additional 50 ft. buffer zone to have no building or physical encroachment. We request the wording to be included in deed restrictions to state that in addition to no building, that no clearing, mowing, cutting of tree limbs, dumping of grass cuttings, or any disturbance to the natural vegetation be allowed. We feel this is absolutely necessary if the land is to be a "natural buffer" as stated. 3. Deed restrictions should state the homeowners shall not be permitted to use the 50' state owned property for storage, docks, overnight tying of boats, or transporting boats from their property. We feel very strongly about property owners being required to follow the same rules as the general public for access to the lake. The state shall have the right to fence their property if necessary. 4. Acreage Calculations: Calls tract B as the lake and the 50 ft. easement. This 50 ft. is not an easement, it is VA State property. Delete references to easements when referring to state owned land. DWE ; i� tJ' 16 I 0 • RE: Wheatlands Preliminary Master Plan 5. Note 13(d) refers to maintaining the woodland nature of the project, yet it says clearing will be allowed for a "suitable" yard. This has no meaning. The typical wooded lot detail shows a cleared area which represents 30% of the total lot. If there is to be any control over clearing, it must be in deed restrictions specified as 4000 SF + or - or 30% whichever is smaller. The intent of this note is good, but by using words such as "granting authority" to a homeowner's association to enforce all the rules can mean there is a good chance they may not care to enforce "any" of them. 6. Open Space: Is it permissible to include right of ways and pavement areas to calculate the 35% minimum required? If this is allowed, we do not agree with the ordinance as written. Note 8 states that areas reserved for commercial and industrial use are included in the open area calculations. We feel this is contradictory and should not be allowed. What amount of clearing and land use are allowed in the open space designation? We would prefer that this area remain "undisturbed" to the maximum extent. We are concerned about the difference between open space and undisturbed. 7. School Site: Does the 15 acres allotted meet the minimum acreage required for any state school? The use within 12 years is too restrictive. This should be lengthened. 8. Erosion Control: Due to the steep slopes around the lake, erosion control for individual lots and for road, water, and sewer construction are of major concern. There is little mention of controlling this problem. Maintenance and enforcement of current state and county standards have not been adequate in the past. How can we be assured that erosion control will be enforced throughout the construction period? Is full time inspection and quality control at the developer's expense a possibility? Can the county set and increase fines for violations? 9. We understand there was a problem with obtaining a right-of-way to construct a turning land from southbound Route 522 to the state's access road. We feel any portion of the required right-of-way that belongs to the developer should be granted to the Highway Department as a safety feature. 10. The developer stated the lots on the "lake side" of the main ring road would be approximately 1 acre in size. This should be stated on the plan. The only lot size reference shown is 2.7 units per acre, or a typical 12,000 SF lot. � -L Gk 2 RE: Wheatlands Preliminary Master Plan 11. Trails: We are concerned about the possible over development of the trail system, since it will access the lake. A limited amount of trails to the lake are appropriate, such as at the suggested public parking areas, but a continuous perimeter trail or individual trails from each lot to the lake is not acceptable. This again defeats the object of preserving a woodland nature. 12. Throughout the notes, it states the developer will "cause" things to be constructed, created, etc. This is meaningless. It gives the impression they want many requirements to be provided by someone other than the developer, and most likely someone else's expense. We feel a concerned developer would state in factual terms what he is or is not going to provide if this is to be a quality project. 13. Homeowner's Associations: Entirely too many requirements of this project are to be performed by an association. These groups become complacent, are always severely underfinanced, lack strong leadership, and offer little in legal recourse when the inevitable problems arise. This is just another way for the developer to relieve himself of responsibilities. The maintenance of the BMP facilities and the approval of tree cutting are two areas we feel are totally unacceptable if left to the homeowners. It should be possible for the developer to maintain a permanent office and staff to see the maintenance requirements of the development gets full time attention. Funding should be possible through landowner fees once sufficient phases are complete. The developer should fund this staff until it becomes self sustaining. 14. The water quality study has been sent to our National Headquarters for review by specialists in this topic. I requested a reply by April 1st and will forward any response as soon as received. 15. Attached is a copy of comments submitted to the Sanitation Authority regarding the Sewage Plant. Your consideration of our serious concerns is appreciated. We hope they will be used in creating an acceptable development. Encl ?�!lMadden Winchester Chapter, IWLA 328 Miller Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-3923 CF: Virginia Department of Game r, r I• -��17 f� and Inland Fisheries j j L� l� t5 �/ L; i ATTN: Dinesh V. Tiwari IIIr_�._ 3 ''. ! 4' :::� "One of the most hideous facts of the future is that only those communities with the most rigorous planning, design, and development controls are going to be worth being in .. . everything else is going to be a wasteland." (Jacquelin T. Robertson, Dean of the School of Architecture, UVA, Daily Press, January 11, 1987). rr • March 10, 1991 Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority 9 Court Square Winchester, VA 22601 attn: Wellington Jones RE: Wheatlands Master Plan and notes dated 2/05/91 and 2/06/91 Dear Mr. Jones: I am representing the local Izaak Walton League Chapter in providing comments regarding the referenced master plan submittal. At the Feb. 20, 1991 Planning Commission meeting, chairman Golliday asked that I provide these comments in writing. The following are our concerns about the project as they relate to the sewage system. I am currently waiting for input from our national office, which I will forward if pertinent. 1. Apparently a permit has been issued by the State Water Control Board for a .250 MGD treatment plant. Are there any assurances that this plant can be upgraded to handle the projected .500 MGD load? 2. Doesn't a discharge of .500 MGD mean a water demand of .500 MGD? If you add .500 MGD supply to the 1.5 MGD currently used by Frederick Co., this totals the 2.000 MGD allowed to be purchased from the city of Winchester. This doesn't appear to leave any surplus for other future county users. 3. Mr. Larry Simmons of the SWCB stated they have been considering a "minimum instream flow" policy, but it had not been formulated as of July 1989. According to files from the SWCB, it appears Crooked Run flows averaged .151 MGD in only moderate drought conditions. Deducting a calculated evaporation rate from the lake of .125 MGD, leaves only 26,000 GPD flow in the stream. What are your comments about discharging 500,000 GPD of effluent into a stream carrying only 26,000 GPD? Also has the SWCB adopted a minimum flow policy since 1989? 4. Is it a routine matter for the Sanitation Authority to take over operation and maintainance of private sewage systems? How many privately constructed plants do you currently operate? Does the developer or the Sanitation Authority pay for the planned doubling of the plant? 2 f1 1991 9 : � 5. There are 8 major lift stations and untold numbers of individual sewage pumps shown on the drawings. Apparently the topography of the site is such that a forced sewer system is the only possible way the developers can devise to serve a large portion of the site. Our concern is who will pay for, own, and maintain the lift stations, the forced main, and the individual pumps? Will this be a burden if placed on the Sanitation Authority? What electrical backups are to be provided for the pumps during power failures? 6. The developer has included the entire sewage treatment plant area in his calculations for required open space. We do not feel this is acceptable. Our organization would appreciate your attention to what we feel are the important concerns listed above before entering into a legal agreement. It appears the water of Crooked Run and the Shenandoah River, along with the quality of life for the adjacent downstream landowners will deteriorate should this project proceed as planned. Sincerely Jim Madden Winchester Chapter Izaak Walton League. 328 Miller Street Winchester, VA 22601 CF: Frederick Co. Planning Commission Encl. r, Richard N. Burton Executive Director Post office Box 11143 Richmond, Virginia 23230-1143 (804)367-0056 4 o �A COMMONWEALTH of qIIAItGoRP S i40 ( - PeiM ,4-s *-'T1601 STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD 2111 Hamilton Street July 7, 1989 Please reply to: Valley Regional Office 116 North Main Street P. O. Box 268 water Mr. Jim Madden, (703) 828-25958-2595 President Brldgerginla22812 Winchester Chapter The Izaak Walton League of P.O. Box 2954 Winchester, Virginia 22601 America Re: Frederick County - Wheatlands, VA 0080080 Dear Mr. Madden: This is in response to your request received on July 7, 1989. The majority of your information request can be accomplished by the enclosed Statement of Basis. Since discharges are regulated by effluent quality and quantity, the number of connections is not a matter of concern in the permit. Further, there are no drawdown requirements on / the impoundment. A policy regarding "minimum instream flow" has - been under consideration by the State Water Control Board for a number of years but has not been formulated. F- AAIf RaTICI-I LJC no Maintenance requirements for treatment plants are not finalized until the treatment facility is essentially built. Obviously, the maintenance requirements are dependent upon the equipment supplied and the manufacturer's recommendations. Currently, the firm of Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates has submitted final desi n plans and specs he--p-r-of-er-t to hg Virginia Depart rent of Health and t is office. The Department will make recommendations reg` arding approval to the Water Control Board. Their detailed review is in progress. An Operations and Maintenance Manual specific to the Wheatlands project will be required at a later date. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, " l Larry M. Simmons, P.E. Environmental Engineer Senior oc Enclosure cc: VDH, Lexington VRO File 11�2i/�� HAS A perv'.tr eeeyi isSL,PQ � 14 oec, 8E-' u'HEN AaVPr�iS[� � �f I r * P.01 * * TRANSACTION REPORT * � * FEB-19-91 TUE 10:59 * � � DATE START SENDER RX TlME P NOTE * � FEB '56 7@37222160 3'05'' 3 UK * * 02 1'? 91 10:50 1 $ 7037222160 rLAIZ• BROTHER 01 302 North Cameron Street Post Office Box 2598 Winchester, Virginia Tolophone M-662-3451 FAX: 703-722-2160 FAX COVER SHEET I i NCI: �_......... PAGES FOLLOW: r� VP r O '19;'91 1 0 : 5 -0 T 7037222160 GLRI2BROTHER 02 Only citizens can stop Wheatlands By v_ meter v; r:1 ar If a newrp1w: to put over 1,400 Douses around the public fishing lake atWlteatlands is to be stopped, the. citizeils of Frederick County will have to do it. That's the opinion of Supervi- sor A.R. "Pete" Dunning, Jr., who heads the Clarke County Planning Commission. The Frederick Planners have scheduled a public hearing next Wednesday at 7:30 p,m.in the county courthouse on a new dc- velopmcnt plan, submitted by owners James L. Bowman and Fred L. Glaize, III. In 1989, Iocai environmental action groups and the Clarke Planners wereoutraged by it plain frorn Interf gate. Inc., to E +.jrchase the property and put up houses. The proposed subdivision round 132 acre lake that the :1te acccpt�A from Lowman and ":lire as a public, f-ishing and recreational area in 1982. Betty J. Diener, Secretary of Commerce and Resources under Governor Charles Robb, recommended the gift be accepted, although the dam needed extensive repair. The donation included 60acres of land, but this was only enough to pro- vide a 50 foot buffer strip around the edge of the lake. Glaizebo had zoning for eight ht units per acre on the land. In a memo to Robb, Diener said she had been assured by the developer and by Frederick County's Pl. - ning Administrator that only 200 to 330 houses were planned around the lake, on five acre lots. With that assurance, Diener said she would recommend accepting the donation, adding that Frcdcrick County's state delegate, Alson Smith, Jr., was very interested in the project. However, when InterGite's (See DENT ,P on Pease A-6.) i. or water line State doesn't need county permission By Val Van Meter r o"Ufv sts9 Writer Under the Dillon Rule, tiro Virginia Department of correc- tions doesn't have to seek any tlpproval from Clarke County for It t1CW 8-incil wllcr line for the White Post Correctional Camp. That was the opinion this week of E✓ lward Povrc{t;3r. Asslst;tnt Director for Planning any Engi- neering for the DCC, Greenway Supervisor A.R. "Pete" Dunning, Jr., who represents the area where the L OC's Camp 7 is located, called fora public hearing on plans to tun the water line from Freder- ick County, across Clarke County land to ►lycprison camp, Frederick County has Hiready let a contract for the work, whidi Dunning; %aid is incompatible with Clarke County's Comprehensive Plan. Powell said the state his its own authorities for approving projects and does not have to go t() local auft,,,: itics, such as Clarke's Planning Commission or Build- ing inspector. Undcr the Dillon Rule, Pow- ell said, the localities are. consid- cred to be created by, and subser- vient to, the state. "The state grants power to the localities. It doesn't flow in re- verse," he Said. Powell said the DOC's agrce- rnent with Frederick County calls for the Sanitation Authority to c.limin .ill permits, and acquire right (sec WATER on doge A-2.) z� 0 G Id R or- ri. 02/15/91 10:5• S-037222160 GLAIZO BRuTHER 03 Tot (; LA ie 0%)RIER, BrarryV111@, Va. Ab rhurSdL . February14,199i D(` veIop___ ,- j+,inued from Page A.I.) pli-in was submitted, Aiwjnoy Cicrlcral Iv1ary 'sue Terry banded ;town an opinion that the m.qur- t+1,'c: v a; not bindings on Frederick ,,, thr dcvcloper since !}n(tift, waC t'ecorllt;d on [lie deed n ;t„ p"'Operty Th^ Fe(jeral govemrnent was l nwThcWhcailandsTask ,>i the Conun,onwcalth 1,[;1Vn, which charged that ')osal to use the ­�i lip the 14 "O ,.i:j c;1i4 'o 010 suh&VrSi0[1 COI] - a COnVCrSit+i1 0; public: ic:i, for 0,: VVI!ii: ,,�,3oed frnlnI'frge A-1.) i, i vl;; project. n; i seemed to con[radicr what ;!,rt?lilxt Authority EngitlCr- :: t Wellingtonjoni:, said last but, he said Tuesday this ot;iG1IliilttlCS. said that 1 i :c', County v:,ouldbring the �� at,:r line to the border between tiiC. tv,o jurisdictions alld install a nl�tc.r. The line from Camp" to t:ic ,ncier would be the resp011si- t�ii+iy tit the DOC, llowcver, Joncs explained Tuc sd ay that FYW,et ick County had obtained the casement and had it recorded, in the slate's flame. it also will, construct the line, but will tum it over to the DOC which will oj),,t,lte and maintain it. "That's like Perry Fngincer- ins~: saying it will install a line, but It won't owll it." ►ones said there were iwo !c lsonc why Fredetick County c;t!ld not oven the line. First, It is a "service lateral," and "WC- don't want a water iruo C'larkc County." l,.r+ said the law allows 1 r 0 i( k. to build it line into but not to provide water service there. !ones said ;ne contract with Thc. Inferior Depanment refused to rind anything wrong; with the way either it or the state had handled the federally funded prnj- ect, Interior warded flit Game and lrlJcutd Fisheries dcparlment that use of the access road would be a violation. Clarke County also scotched at a request it provide access, in- �%isting that 1,800 homes would generate at least 1,500 commuters a day, and ruin tic; rural character t) I ill , Dou bie'1'oll g ate area, whi ch is part of one of Clarke's two As;rictijlural Districts. Last May, lmerGitc backed out of its deal Ole DOC calls for Frederick tog provide 500 gallons per minute, Which was considered the tnint- inum necessary for prisoner use and for fire protection at the facil- ity. Jones said, in Frederick County, the Authority Calls for 1,00o gallons per minute for fine protection. And, he said, Frederick does not authorize anyone to resell water, with the exception of some; trailer parks, because of the way, they are set up. Discussing the possibility that the water line to Camp 7 might e[lcourage the state to enlarge the with Bowman and Cilaiz.c. Glaizebo's nCw plan swerves around the goventlental road- blocks by putting access roads to the. suhdivision into Frederick find Warren Counties. A total of 1,46:3 houses are planned, including 175 townhouses and development is prc(licteLl in nitic phases, ovcr nine vears, with 95 townhouses and 75 single family !tomes in the first phase. But the tower number of homes doesn't make the plan am more palatable to Dtuuting. "This is 8oing to put a i reme; i does amount of pressure on our roads," said Durining, but even more important, he said, it will pressure on Frederick Lour.:. taxpayers. "It's going to cost their payers $3,000 to $4A)0 per hiru;c per year," lic said. Clarke Couu ,, een has bdoing cost swdie, determine the relationship tween housing units and the c, of providing services to lhctn and this is the figure being used to predict development ends in Ctaike. If 1,800 houses weree built at Wheatlands, Dunning said Fredor• ickCounty'staxpayers would have to come up with an extra $7 mil- lion dollars to pay for schools and other servicos for those people. In addition, he predicted, (tic public fishing lake would sullel' the fate of a similar facility in Frcdcricksburg. With only a 50 foot buffer, Dunning said fertiliz- facility, Jones said we cnacm 1$slse ers and pesticides used on home: would not be water, but Sewage The state enlarged its around the lake would end up in it, lake endp in i treatment. treatment plant at the camp 01"3 Vsl cc,i,zth d:c , givc;;round ill,", W111cirront. years ago and plans were drawn up last year to increase the nuMNr "It will kill Lhai I Ai :, ui,i � oupl, of inmates, and the security sys OCyears. There's no doubt in m mind terns there, protest from the owners a A proof The Lord Fairfax Soil anti Or enway Court, a National and State Historic Landmark thatabw the prison camp, halted that plan- ning last spring. "The, DOC has the authority to provide necessary services for the operation of its camp,„ Jorlcs said, Walcr Conservation Board has expressed similar conceals ;+tx)ut soil erosion and runolf into III, -- lake, However, the Bo;ird, which does F,rosion and Sc(in elation Control plans for many caper counties in the region, joes tlol workfor171)C cri(A, which It;rrcllrs its owls E ,L S control. Dunning said lie 1^f it il):• priijcc ht, .10 1 : -. — t+, - 1i) 1.11i11� L.IofK%: L. -t,UI I 1 for is thi+t the citizens of cderiuk County will stand up and say, 'enough is enough! • • r1m 4 _ . �� C�•�.^.���z.-�=���� .mil ,�'rcc,� �-��c� J� �Z Mr. & Mrs. Robert S French 4842 K!!I Deer Road Stephens City, VA 24655 — - -- c 0 August 9, 1990 FRED L. GLAIZE III P. O. BOX 2598 WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601 The Honorable D. French Slaughter, Jr. Member of Congress Congress of the United States 1404 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Slaughter: Mr. Bowman and I have received your letter of July 23, 1990, with regard to the Wheatlands Lake. As you know, neither Mr. Bowman nor I were invited to the July 17, 1990 meeting that you mentioned and are therefore at something of a disadvantage as to the constructive suggestions that may have been made regarding the environmental protection issues that were discussed. We, however, are always open to any construction suggestions made by anyone that will be beneficial to the development that will take place on land that we own, and which surrounds Lake Frederick. To that end we intend to work closely with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Frederick County Planning Commission, and the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to assure a quality residential development consistent with the existing zoning of our land. A Revised Master Development Plan will be resubmitted in the near future, and will undergo the normal review processes at which time any person or groups may appear to offer comments. In view of your request that we consult directly with the Commonwealth Coalition, however, and since we intend to submit the Revised Master Development Plan in the near future we would welcome any constructive comment, or criticism, from the Commonwealth Coalition that may add to the regular planning processes. We would, however, ask that such comments first be submitted in writing in order that we might evaluate them. After evaluation and review of any comment our representatives will be available for any discussion concerning the Revised Master Development Plan that is submitted. Comments can be directed to me and you may be assured that the same will receive our immediate attention. Respectfully, Vred L. Glaize, III FLG,III/am cc: Game & Inland Fisheries - Larry Hart Frederick County Board of Supervisors Frederick County Planning Commission The Commonwealth Coalition `r is NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RECREATION GRANTS DIVISION TO: ADDRESS: FROM: DATE: �.,",I r4. ■�now�i PAW vc;rm x l 7„f P.Q. BOX 37127 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20013-7127 25' e YE Land kI C nMfradon Fund 1965 - 1990 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET l C' C�D nl 1 � 6-LkEp. � � nJ_ Ed e�A NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED: (INCLUDES CVOVER SHEET) IF THERE IS A PROBLEM CALL (202) 343 - 3700 ONE HUNDUO F1MT CUAM$ • • VORRIS 14, UOAL.t„ A M' QUA. CHAIRMAN STANLEY SCOVkiE lot 1,+r11m "IPORMA DOx IOW", A"ZrA sT r R .,�.., 1NOWiA ARO.L LAP%CT. MAtt►CHUR-18 RP..Ar J. 1..DOMM tot CAL ",A *Ck WAftJNEt MONTANA COMMITTEE ON I NT E R I 0 R AND COLWSEDAECTA AHD CflLNtSEi Itk J. 4.--OW', PthmYLVANIA LARXF C"O. IDAJMO 00( f LL NtS Ylgl?IIA :( f. MIkNlSOTA OfNNV ZMMM,V.)-" EK LrTA ALES V. ri.WSEk. UTAl+ �, N D i N S U LA R AFFAIRS _ ASSOCIATE STAFF plREG j0l1 WALIO, AAOKTANA &AN AA F. VUCANOVICN, ii ve AND COLIKSEL `Deu;co vRaI� FUNDS �,K �Esa,.AJt1zONA U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIM LEE 1ACELVAW GE.YDENSON. CONMECTICUT -.. rt-MlYLVAbIA ELTON GALl.FGLr. CA:4CANu WASHINGTON, DC 20516 GENERAL COU145EL N AOaT1iAYM ,AAO X. UPL&Lk+. C-41.40AN44 STAN PAWS. VIM-011A RDSEKT F. 6MF!k OREGOM PiCHARO AGNEW X:0"ADSON. r ew LAMCO Plot ,U"n oAwEN 6e0110u JW LIGOTFOOT. ,OWA CF:AIG T,40MAS. WrOLAV#G CKIEF WWORrTy COUNS16 :A J. VILCLOSKV, 6ND1A/iA JOkN J bL:hCAN, Ja_ T.RkESJ_i AE S. FUSTM ru"T6 ,RICO CAL tgk Li( Cw ". ZJTAJ/IA FS �t4GF CL.ANC[, NOA11,4 CARO_IkA .NE CWEkS. ;1TALA � k LP.hrti. GEQwGu , NICPWW1 - TE r—PeELL CCAMaADO �f <R A. OJA21O. OREGOk FX FALi OP"Y-;.EGA. AUFMCAk SAMOA :ES A. Ycg)4 MO, Y. WA:ih.N„TON March 29, 1990 The Honorable Manuel Lujan, Jr. Secretary Department of the Interior Washington; D.C. 20240 Dear Secretary Lujan: A matter hat G6t11e to my attention as Chairman of the Subcommittee on General oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, which I believe requires immediate consideration and action by your office. I refer to Wheatlands Lake in Frederick County, Virginia.. The dam retaining the waters of the lake was renovated with funds from a Land and Water Conservation Fund grant resulting from an agreement entered into between Virginia and the National Park Service on August 10, 1984. The prof ®ot for Which the grant was approved was intended to create a public park and public fishing lake. A citizen's organization (the Commonwealth Coalition) has recently filed a petition with your office seeking to prevent a conversion of the property to private use. The facts set forth in the petition seem to raise significant questions regarding the propriety of this grant and the adequacy of the D-epartment's administration and oversight of the Land & Water Conservation Act in general. The petition argxies that the public nature of the project site is threatened by a plan by the individuals who donated the lake to build a residential development on the lands surrounding the lake. The documents accompanying the Commonwealth Coalition's petition apparently reveal that Virginia officials agreed to accept the donation of the lake and seek LWCF funding for renovation of the dam after being assured by the donors, Jamee Bowman and Fred Glaize3, Virginia State Delegate Alson Smith, Jr., and Frederick County Planner John Horne that development of the property surrounding the Lake would be limited to a maximum of 300 homes. However, a site plan has recently been submitted to the Frederick County Planning Department which envisions the Construction of 1,800 homes on the Bowman-Glaize property surrounding the lake. In addition, Bowman and Glaize✓ have entered into a contract with the Intergate Company of • • f ft 2 Herndon, virginie, to sell the lands surrounding the Lake. The sale is apparently contingent upon the approval of the site plan. The proposed site plan evidences an intent to privatize the lake for the benefit of the proposed development. The site plan uses the lake and surrounding buffer of parkland in calculating the open space component of the development. Further, reference is made in tha site plan proposal to the State's interest in the fifty -foot buffer as an "easement." Construction of the development which totally surrounds the lake would effectively discourage and inhibit public use and enjoyment. Furthermore, the plan to develop the lands surrounding the lake includes an intention to draw upon the lake's waters to support the operation o£ the development's wastewater treatment system. This may have an adverse effect upon the recreational use of the lake. The eiti=en group petitioners argue that this use would also constitute a conversion of the project to a private use. As I am sure you are aware, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act requires that sites improved with grant funds cannot be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses without your consent. A conversion may be approved only when consistent with an existing statewide outdoor recreation plan and equivalent substitute property is available. To my knowledge, no application for a conversion has been made in this instance, and it is Clear that such an application would not be appropriate if submitted. Yet a de facto conversion appears imminent unless your office takes prompt action to prevent it. Of considerable concern is the apparent failure of the Commonwealth to comply with the terms of the grant and the apparent failure of the Department to either detect this lack of compliance or take appropriate action to remedy the situation. Virginia's development plan for the project site included an access road, public boat launch, fishing pier, parking area, concession and rest room facility, and other limited amenities for public use. The creation of these recreation facilities was refarred to a$ "Phase II" development. Approval of the grant was made specifically contingent upon assurances that "Phase II" development would be undertaken by Virginia as soon as possible. In fact, Phase 11 development has never occurred. Indeed, the lake was actually Closed to the public until early this year. Despite the failure of Virginia to complete development of recreational facilities at the project site, a close-out report submitted to your office on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia under the name of Mr. Arthur Buehler, dated September 18, 1987, stated that work had been completed in accord with the project agreement. Ht-r� ; Z' ­:1Ll lU: 4-4 3 of further concern is the Department's apparent lack of sensitivity to the procedural irregularities evident eain-even ate: casual reading of the available =sccrd. x rater sp 2) th• identity of the individuals who ware involved in persuading Virginia to accept the donation of the property and their relationship to the state administration; 2) the reCor'iv6yanGe of the property from Glazbo, Inc. to Bowman and Maize on December 24, 1981.; 3) the timing 1of then aubsequent conveyance to Virginia on December 31, ; and 4) the subsequent questions raised by Virginia officials regarding the sequenda Of events which preceded the Governor'S acceptance of the donation.' When Coup7.ed with the subsequent failure of Virginia to construct the promised improvements and its delay in opening the property to the public, these facts certainly contributes to the appearance of impropriety: a condition which can only serve to undermine public trust and confidence in the inte,ri.ty of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. By Way of review, a number of facts cause this matter to be appropriate for your inquiry at the present time. First, Virginia and the National Park Service apparently relied on Bowman and Glsize's assurances that the site would be developed with no more than 300 homes. Secondly, the commercial and scenic value of the privately held properties have been significantly enhanced by .the dam renovation funded by the LwCF grant. Furtb.gr, the project is entirely surrounded by privately owned land. If developed to the extent proposed in the site plan submittal, it would deter futures public use by creating a physical encroachment On the project and intimidating citizens who are reluctant to enter a private development in orde ton of o enjoy the recreational banefits of the project. the 3proposed development would, for all pr*Ctical purposes, oonVert the lake to the private benefit of the development's future inhabitants, to the exoluaion of they general public. Further, the lake itself would be used to help operate the wastewater traatment plant serving the private- development. NO conversion has been approved nor has approval for such a conversion been sought. Approval of conversion would be inconsistent with the State s outdoor recreation plan, and no alternative property exists to substitute for the project site. In its administration of the property. the Commonwealth of Virg^Lnia apparently failed to comply with terms and conditions of he grant. Virginia has failed'to commence Phase II development the a timely fashion; has violated the Act's requirement that in no exceed 5d percent of the Coat Of payments to the grantee plan -ring, acquisition, oz development of the project; and has failed to adequately provide the public with access to the lands. Notwithstanding 'these apparent violations of the grant, the Department appears not to have been aware of the aituati-on until the publication of a series of investigativG reports in local HPF' 0 :_� , ti0 10 : 44 4 newspapers and to my knowledge has since taken no action to require the Commonwealth to take corrective action. In v3.ew of the, above, I hereby request answers to the following questions: 1). What is the current status Of t�O� petition filed with your office on February 3, 2). What, if any, actions have been taken by the Department with regard to the petition? 3). What, if any, actions, have been considered by the Depart:aant with regard to the subject matter of the petition? 4). What, if any, actions, have been consi.dored by the Department with regard to the subject matter of the petition? 5). At the time the grant was made, was the Department aware of the potential for development of the surrounding property? 6). At the time the grant was Made, was the Department aware of the donor's commitment to restrict development? 7), At the time of the grant, was the Department aware Of Virginia officials' concerns regarding the property and/or,the procedure by which it was donated to them? 8). When and how did the Department first become aware of the donors' development plans? 9). What, if any, action was taken by the Department after becoming aware of the development plans? 10). Why was a Site visit not conducted to verify the assertions made in the Close-out form submitted by Virginia on September 18, 1987? 11). WaS the Department awa're, prior to February 13, 1990, that the lake was not open to the public? 12). what, if any, action does your office intend totake the require the Commonwealth of Virginia to comply with terms of the Act and of the Grant? 13). What other action does your office intend to take to provide and maintain public access to the lake and to avoid its conversion to a private us®? 14). What procedures are in place to oversee a grantee's compliance with the. terms of a grant? 15). What, if any, authority does the Secretary have to compel compliance with the terms of a LWCF grant? 16). What additional legislative authority would assist the Secretary in administering the Act and assuring compliance with grants issued thereunder? I thank you in advance for your speedy response to these inquiries. Sincerel , Peter H Kostmayer Chairman Subcommittee on General Oversight and Investigations //)� x) KI 1--ld, Apr-,/--,' ), VC /�? 14 S /-, &&'[ ,,� � r �77' ,x /C� Y00 f C-1 �j 0 . /r-6, --,e r�� mrtDAY, JANUARY 27, 1990 c WEATIIER/OOITUARMs Ell �TChctu"hm ntrrn �f' • 1VIETRO • 41 The Virginia Public Lake That Wasn't y Frederick County's `Best -Kept Secret' Stirs a Controversy: k ;b..� tract surrounding it to Intergate, a Loudoun By Alison Howard e qy • 1 •s W..nmItmPo. s+,epn- County company that plans to build at least t] 1,800 houses there. For the opposition, that is r 1 This is the story of a fishing lake 75 miles where the story begins. e from Washington, donated to the state in 1981 Critics, represented by the same Common- s by two Frederick County, Va., developers, im- wealth Coalition that took on the now -closed e proved with $700,000 in state and federal funds, Avtex fiber plant on the Shenandoah River, con-' stocked with bass and bluegill—but fitted out tend that the public lake could not help but be-, a with a No Trespassing sign. come the private preserve of the new commu- ' It is also the story of two Winchester report- nity's roughly 7,000 residents. ers who tried to get someone in Richmond or Coalition members find it relevant that the e , Washington to object to the fact that a public state finally accepted the lake in 1984—and t lake was closed to the public. sought a grant from the U.S. Department of the Today, the 132-acre lake that has been called Interior to repair its leaky dam —after the orig- "the best -kept secret in Frederick County" is due inal developers gave assurances, according to to open to anyone who wants to fish from its internal state memos, that they would build no banks or bring a car -top boat, and construction is more than 300 houses around it. ,@ to begin this spring on boat ramps, restrooms The state Attorney General's Office said in an eP and a pier. opinion last summer that those assurances were lyouO MY—TK ,�•a,oM.o r And that, it would seem, is where the story informal and not enforceable. Reporters Ned Burke, below, and Peter Krouse, ought to have a happy ending. Billy J. Tisinger, a Winchester lawyer repre- who first Investigated the donated lake, are shown But the same developers who gave away the senting the two original developers, said this by a state sign marking it off limits to the public. lake last year sold the 1,000-acre Wheatlands Bee L"E, M Col. I THE WASHIHGTON POST SARRDAT, hmfly 27, 1990 9S i i Va. Lake Stirs Up Controversy Between Developers and Critics LAKF From BI week that his clients 'never made such an agreement." Smith said he helped persuade the then -new administration of Gov. Charles S. Robb to accept the lake, which had been donated as Gov. John N. Dalton was leaving office. But Smith said he made no assur- ances about limiting development, the memos notwithstanding. '1 couldn't assure anybody of that," Smith said yesterday. 'I'm sure I said that if there isn't (public] water and sewer [at the site], then you don't have to worry about more than 300 houses. But they had to know that after water went in (last yearl, that would have to change.' The memos, written by Cabinet - level state officials, came to light through the efforts of Ned Burks and Peter Krouse, Winchester Star reporters who unearthed enough government documents about Wheatlands and produced enough stories to Fill a small lake. A handful of detractors com- plained to the paper that the report- ers went too zealously after the two prominent local developers, Fred L. Glaize III and James L. Bowman, and Del. Alson H. Smith Jr. (D- Winchester), who helped broker their donation of the lake to the state, according to the memos. But the Star's managing editor, Ron Morris, said he heard from many more people who thanked the paper, published by Thomas T. Byrd of Virginia's Byrd family, for the reporters work. "It was a story about ... public money and public property that needed to be writ- ten Morris said. Now, based on Burks's and Krouse's reporting and its own le- gal research, the Commonwzalth Coalition has announced that it will petition the U.S. Department cf the Interior to review how the state ob- tained and spent the $500,000 fed- eral grant for the dam renovation. If a review does not yield timely or satisfying results, coalitioh law- yer Philip Chabot Jr. said, the group will consider seeking an injunction in federal court to prevent the pub- ic lake from being converted, in practice if not in name, to private use. Chabot said the grant's rules pro- hibit such a conversion unles, the public gets another, comparable lake nearby. Intergate officials did not return The Post's telephone calls for com- ment. Firle Whitney, a National Park Service official who oversees the lake grant for Interior, said he learned about Intergate's plans last fall from Krouse at the Star. Interior, Whitney said, has 'very distinct concerns about the pro- ject's impact on the lake ("suppose everybody fertilizes their grass on the same day and the next day it rains)-) and the people who will use it ("the recreational experience does not indude looking up a hill and seeing 27 houses in a row"). Whitney said he is still waiting for the state to assess the likely ef- fects of 1,800 houses. Depending on the repot, he confirmed, Inte- rior could declare that they would turn the fake into "a private pond, and the state would have to replace it in kind-' In an internal 1978 memo ob- tained by the Star, however, a state Game and Inland Fisheries Depart- ment official, urging caution in ac- cepting the lake, said, -The only real reason to consider this project is that it is in our high -priority area [for a public lakej, and we have not _Crooked Rua a Shenandoah tributary that Is often dry, would lake run-off from sewage treslmesa plant below the lake. This 182-acre Frederick County lake, enriched with $700,000 in state and federal funds, will open to the public today,. been able to find a suitable alter- nate site.' That official, Jack M. Hoffman, said last week that a 50-foot perim- eter around the lake, included in the donation, gives his department enough real estate to operate it publicly, even with 1,800 houses. He said its opening was delayed not by the development debate but by complicated dam repairs and dry weather that slowed the filling of the lake. "It was certainly a gentleman's agreement' that there would be no more than 300 houses, he said, "but we have no binding document to that effect. Now it's up to the local governing bodies to decide what they want.' Frederick County officials say their druthers are moot because In- tergate's proposal complies with the property's zoning, changed in 1975 from agricultural to residen- tial. The county's attempt in 1980 to change the toning back was abandoned after Glaize and Bow- man threatened to sue. But Deputy Planning Director Kris Tierney said Intergate had temporarily withdrawn its prelim- inary site plan to address some con- cerns raised by the county Planning Commission, among them whether Intergate will provide more public roads to the lake. The only public access planned now is one state-owned road —still a rutted dirt path —off U.S. 340. The commission is also con- cerned that the development's sew- age treatment plant below the dam will not be big enough, an issue that alarms the Commonwealth Coali- tion as much as —or more than — who will use the lake. The plant will discharge into Crooked Run, a "wet - weather' Shenandoah tributary that often sits stagnant or dry, area res- idents say. State Water Control Board offi- cials said that means treated sew- age will have to meet water -quality standards, at considerable expense, as it leaves the plant, not after it is diluted. Those standards would be tightened in very dry weather, they said, unless water is released from the lake to flush Crooked Run. None of this comforts residents of neighboring Clarke County, just downstream and perpetually anx- ious about their fragile groundwa- ter supply. But Clarke officials, who also fear traffic from 1,800 houses, were turned down when they asked for an outside review of the ruling that any assurances about 300 houses were unenforceable. The ruling was made last June by a deputy to state Attorney General Mary Sue Terry. Clarke Supervisor A.R. (Pete) Dunning Jr. said he wanted another arbiter because Alson Smith, the delegate who state officials said relayed Glaize and Bowman's assurances, was Terry's finance chairman during her suc. cessful reelection campaign last year. Last fall, almost three years after he began covering the story, Burks moved to Montana to write a novel after sir years at the Winchester paper as a reporter and editor. Krouse, a five-year Star employee, is still covering the story. "1 always felt there was some- thing wrong about it," Burks said last week. "At the point I left, I was a little frustrated" by official disig- clination to investigate more lho�- oughly. "But 1 did feel we'd alerted the public to something.' And now that the coalition has picked up the ball, he added, "who knowsr Coalition convener Thomas A. Lewis, the new editor of Civil Wkr Magazine, said the group came late to the Wheatlands fight because "it looked like a done deal .... Now," Lewis said. "it may not be possible for the state of Virginia and the In- terior Department to dust their hands." CLAUDIA BEAN My name is Claudia Bean. I am speaking tonight as both the coordinator of the Wheatlands Task Force and as president of the Citizens for a Quality Community of Frederick County and the City of Winchester. I will be brief. The members of both organizations are still very much concerned that the currently proposed density of this development will constitute a conversion of Lake Frederick from public use to private use. The Department of the Interior in their response to the petition of the Wheatlands Task Force recommended, "...careful planning and coordination involving the .Frederick County Planning Commission, the private developer and the grantee agency." The National Park Service in their review of the project and in their responses to the petitions stated, "...residential development around the lake will propose substantialpotential for future conversions." The National Park Service went on to urge that the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries work actively with the County Planning Commission and the residential developer on a plan that will eliminate negative future impacts. Please note that the petition and response were related to the master development plan submitted by Intergate. The master development plan before you tonight has not been reviewed by the Department of the Interior and they may find that this master development plan as presented would constitute a conversion. The Department of the Interior has not yet ruled on the issue of density. It is our recommendation that this master development plan be denied or tabled. If after the cooperative effort of the Game and Inland Fisheries, Planning Commission and the developer the density still remains at or near current levels, the Wheatlands Task Force will take under consideration the submission of a second petition to the Department of the Interior. The Task Force will also consider taking to court to review the entire process and to seek redress for the litany of errors and apparent deceptions that have occurred during the life of this project. KS: Mrs. Bean, if you would... in last night's paper you said that you have won support from a committee of congress in the Department of Interior for your position that the proposal would constitute a conversion. CB: Correct. KS: Can you show us that support? You're saying that the committee in congress and the Department of the Interior are supporting your position. Do you have that in writing? CB: I don't have it with me, I have it at home. As I said, the Department of Interior has not ruled on the matter of density. KS: But you say in your article in the paper last night that they are supporting your position that thiswould constitute a conversion. CB: Senator Peter Costmyer, as I said I don't have the letter with me, who is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Insular and Internal Affairs who oversees ... not Insular and Internal Affairs... anyway, the committee that oversees the Department of Interior, his office is very concerned that, this density might constitute a conversion. KS: But you didn't say it was concerned, you said that he is supporting your position. What I am asking is that if his committee is supporting your position, I think that ought to be submitted to this commission., CB: I'll go home and ... can I submit it after the meeting? As I said, I don't have it with me. I'll submit what I have. KS: And you have correspondence from the Interior Department supporting your position? CB: I have a copy of that with me. I have a copy of their response, including their response, the National Park Service response, that I have with me. KS: But that does not support your position. CB: They did not specifically ... the National Park Service did address density and what they said was that at. the time the grant was given they did not see that as an issue. But they strictly spoke of it as at the time that the grant was issued, the Department of Interior did not address the issue of density specifically at all. KS: So you're saying they did not support your position then? CB: They did not deny that our position had... (end of tape side) ... do not have Representative Costmyer's letter with me this evening. KS: But you have nothing with you demonstrating the support that you claim- they give your position, that this would in fact constitute a conversion? CB: Not with me, no. I would have to look at Costmyer's letter to read it specifically. Its all in very nice bureaucratese, you can read it any way you want to. KS: But then, what you're telling us then is that it may or may not support your position? r CB: Representative CostmyerIs committee is very, very concerned about this ... very concerned. KS: But that's different from supporting your position. That's not the same thing as supporting your position. Is it? CB: I don't know. I think its a matter of semantics. KS: Alright, that's all. ROGER THOMAS I'm not real sure in all these discussions, what are we against? Are we against'the development around the lake, are we against just development period? When we had Twin Lakes come in we had just as many people in the room, nothing to do with the lake, it's hard to discern what our concern is. With good engineering practices, good construction, it will be achievable to build that development without having any degradation on the quality of water in that lake. I think it's ludicrous to put that responsibility on a homeowners association. I have very low opinions of homeowners associations because of past experience, but that's my personal opinion. I certainly hear Mr. Cook's comments on what we're supposed to do and what we're allowed to do. I guess I'm going to be capricious and arbitrary in stating that I think this will be a nice development, has the potential to be a very nice development, but being a taxpayer in Frederick County, I!m 100% against and will vote against anything that. comes before this Commission that's going to increase my tax bill and I think this will increase our tax bill. With the new schools, new services are going to have to be provided. I don't see any reason why we should be subsidizing a developer's profits. I don't understand some of the arguments...I should have asked Mrs. Bean that question earlier. The property around the lake is private property now. It will be private property in the future. How can building a house on it constitute a conversion from a public lake to a private lake? It's still going to be private property in either sense. I don't understand that part of it, but I guess my concern goes back to one point...I don't want to increase our taxes and I don't see any reason or I don't see anything in the developer's proposal that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that our taxes are not going to have to be increased to pay for schools, to pay for police protection, to pay for fire services when we have to hire a permanent fire protection force down there. I just have great concerns about that. I share Mrs. Sherwood's concern that we don't have enough information tonight to really even act on it. BRAD ROSS My name is Brad Ross. When I came down here this evening, I was hoping for a level of -sensitivity which I really haven't seen at all. What I have seen is really an incestuous sort of a deal between the people here and the people there and the developers and the people on this group here. What this seems to boil down to me is which do you feel is more important --maintaining the quality of life in this county or assisting the developers with their profits and it just seems obvious.to me that you've put the profitability of the developers ahead of the welfare and quality of life of this community. I think that's a real shame. Thank you very much.