The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-93 Lake Holiday Est. Section 1B Gainesboro District - Backfile (2)FOR MORE INFO. ON SECTION 2B, SEE ARCHIVE BOX FOR THE SUMMIT (LAKE HOLIDAY) Date * STAFF SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST * This application is not complete if the following are not included: SUBNIISSION PACKAGE Comments sheets from the following agencies along with any marked copies of the plan; VDOT Sanitation Authority i/ Inspections Dept. '/ Fire Marshal One copy of the subdivision application 15 copies of the plan on a single sheet O�eproducible copy of the plan (if required) A 35mm. slide of the plan Application received TRACKING City of Winchester Health Department Parks & Recreation Road Naming Coordinator County Engineer Fee Paid (amount $ � 7/C low Subdivision heard by Planning Commission. Action takenc�;2� /.a 8 4 3 Subdivision heard by Board of Supervisors. Action taken Final plat submitted with review agency signatures and; deed of dedication Plat signed by Planning Director Plat signed by Subdivision Administrator bond estimate $ House numbering assigned Info added to annual report disk: RECEIPT L2�: 30 AMOUNT DUE sZ:77ro.aD AMOUNT PAID r $ Z- Ito . a BALANCE DUE PAID BY ❑ CASH CHEC433 ' D OTHER ANNNO AND DEVELOPMENT P.O. BOX 601, 9 i,v-., . WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 RECEIVED FRCVI—'_ � ADDRESS _f_.,,, ....-.I%'gyp"" THE SUM OR"" FOR —� DAY -TIMERS RE -ORDER No. 3221 — Pnnted in USA It J COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 703/665-5666 FAX: 703 / 667-0370 April 5, 1994 Mr. Lawrence R. Ambrogi Frederick County Commonwealth Attorney 5 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Larry: Please find enclosed a portion of the subdivision ordinance dealing with guaranties required prior to final administrative approval of subdivision plats. I would like your opinion as to whether we can require bonding for the streets, water, sewer, etc., (infrastructure) for the Lake Holiday Estates, Section 13, that Mr. Don Bayliss is subdividing. Keep in mind that the water and sewer service will be provided by the Lake Holiday Utility Company and the streets will be private streets owned by Lake Holiday. The Planning and Development Department is of the opinion that the necessary guaranties should be provided to protect the citizens who buy lots, and to cover the liability the County may have for having approved the subdivision. Your earliest reply is requested since we need to provide the information to Mr. Bayliss' attorney. John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator JRR/slk enclosure cc: Robert W. Watkins, Planning Director 9 Court Square Winchester, VA 22601 P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22604 ( § 144-39 ML_ SUBDIVISION OF LAND § 144-40 (9) The tion of existing buildings and drainfields. alon any designs nvironmental or historical features on e. (10) The location, and design details of share /ovate driveways and/or private All plats with sh private driveways and/or private roads Id contain t Ilowing language: The proposed private drive d is not built according to street specifications of and maintained by, the Virginia Department of Transpor or Fre k County. The improve- ment and maintena said drivewa d shall be the sole responsibility of t. ners of lots which are 'ded with access via the driv /road. Said driveway/ro will not be considered clusion into the state secondary sy until they meet th pplicable construction standards of t irginia Dep ent of Transportation. The cost of bringi id d ' ay/road to acceptable standards shall not be borne b inia Department of Transportation nor by Frederick County. ` ARTICLE VI y Improvements and Guaranties] § 144-40. General requirements. All improvements shown on the subdivision design plan and the final subdivision plats shall be provided by the applicant. In order to obtain approval of the final subdivision plats. all improvements must be constructed or sufficient guaranties must be provided so that the improvements will be constructed within an appropriate length of time. Such guaranties are required to assure the timely completion. competent construction and maintenance of all physical improvements (streets, curbs. gutters. sidewalks, aboveground facilities. underground utilities and facilities, recreational facilities. drainage systems or other improvements) located within an approved subdivision. The applicant is required to post a bond or other acceptable surety before the final subdivision plats and deeds of dedication are finalized by the Subdivision Administrator. All performance guaranties shall be in a format and amount that is acceptable to the Subdivision Administrator. 14445 § 144-41 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 144-42 i § 144-41. Forms of guaranties. Guaranties for required improvements shall be in one (1) of the following forms: A. A certification to the governing body that the construction costs have been paid to the person constructing such facilities. B. A certified check or cash escrow in the amount of the estimated costs of construction. C. A corporate or property bond, with surety satisfactory to the Subdivision Administrator, in an amount sufficient for and conditioned upon the construction of such facilities. D. A contract for the construction of such facilities and the contractor's bond, with surety satisfactory to the Subdivision Administrator. sufficient for and conditioned upon the construction of such facilities. E. An irrevocable letter of credit from a bank or savings and loan association on certain designated funds satisfactory to the Subdivision Administrator. § 144-42. Amounts of guaranties. The applicant shall provide guaranties at an amount that is acceptable to the Subdivision Administrator. The applicant shall provide the Subdivision Administrator with sufficient proof that the performance bond will cover all costs associated with the construction and maintenance of all improvements. Sufficient proof of cost may be in the form of a signed statement from a registered engineer, copies of all bids associated with construction costs or some other means acceptable to the Subdivision Administrator. At a minimum, the amount of the bond shall cover the cost of construction and maintenance of all improvements in the subdivision. The Subdivision Administrator may require the amount of the bond to be greater than the projected cost of the subdivision improvements to cover the costs associated with price inflation and potential damage to improvements. § 144-43 SUBDIVISION OF LAND § 144-44 § 144. Period of guaranties. Any bond, escrow. irrevocable letter of credit or other performance guaranty required by the county shall be good for a minimum period of one (1) year. The guaranty must be submitted in a format specified by the Subdivision Administrator. Guaranties will be required to have automatic renewal provisions placed on them. The provisions will stipulate that the instrument containing an expiration date will be automatically extended for an additional six (6) months from the present or future expiration date. unless sixty (60) days prior to such date the bank or financial institution issuing the instrument notifies the county, in writing, by certified mail, that it elects not to renew the instrument for such additional period. If the applicant_ fails to maintain the performance guaranty as required. the Subdivision Administrator shall undertake necessary actions to enforce the guaranties. At the time of renewal, the Subdivision Administrator may require the applicant to provide sufficient proof to ensure that the performance guaranty will cover all costs associated with improvements. § 144-44. Reduction of guaranties. The Subdivision Administrator shall make provisions for the partial and final release of any bond, escrow, irrevocable letter of credit or other performance guaranty required by the county. The applicant shall submit a written request to the Subdivision Administrator for any partial or final release of any performance guaranty. which will be acted on within ten (10) working days of its receipt. The Subdivision Administrator may conduct an inspection of any improvements prior to the partial or final release of the performance guaranty. Periodic release of any portion of a performance guaranty may not occur before the completion of at least thirty percent (30%) of the bonded improvements or after the completion of more than eighty percent (80%) of said facilities. The Subdivision Administrator shall not be required to execute more than three (3) partial releases in any twelve-month period. The complete release of the performance guaranty shall occur upon the receipt of the final engineered construction documents and final completion and acceptance of the public facilities for operation and maintenance by the state agency, local government agency or other public authority. 14447 § 144-45 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 144-45 § 144-45. Maintenance bonds. In the event that Frederick County has accepted the dedication -of a road for public use and such road. due to factors other than its quality of construction. is not acceptable into the secondary system of state highways, then the subdivider or developer shall be required to furnish the county with a maintenance and indemnifying bond, with surety satisfactory to the Subdivision Administrator, in an amount sufficient for and conditioned upon the maintenance of such road until such time as it is accepted into the secondary system of state highways. In lieu of such bond, the Subdivision Administrator may accept a bank or savings and loan association's irrevocable letter of credit satisfactory to the Subdivision Administrator or accept payment of a negotiated sum of money sufficient for and conditioned upon the maintenance of such road until such time as it is accepted into the secondary system of state highways. "Maintenance of such road" shall be deemed to mean maintenance of the streets, curbs. gutters, drainage facilities, utilities, street signs or other street improvements, including the correction of defects or damages and the removal of snow, water or debris so as to keep such road reasonably open for public usage. 14448 �.. so i COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Frederick County Sheriff's Department Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department C & P Telephone Company Shenandoah Gas Company Potomac Edison Company Cross Junction Post Office Adelphia Communications Head Dispatcher, Public Safety Building Winchester Volunteer Rescue Squad FROM: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Marcus D. Lemaster, Mapping and Graphics Manager SUBJECT: New Subdivision Street Names and Numbering DATE: August 10, 1994 Please add the following new subdivision, street names and structure numbering to your system: New Subdivision: Lake Shore Estates, Lake Holiday (Summit) New Street Name: Lake Shore Drive If you have any questions on this new information, please contact our office, 665-5651. 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 RANDALL R. HAMILTON, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 113 SOUTH KENT STREET WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601 (703) 667-1212 (703) 667-1383 RANDALL R. HAMILTON ASSOCIATES October 15, 1993 CHRISTIAN J. GRIFFIN JOHN E. GLOVER Mr. Robert W. Watkins, Planning Director Frederick County 9 North Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Watkins: �E'T. IF (PiPiIS+I� ti +Nlni ?EvELOPMF4�lT 1~, In connection with the recent denial of his application for subdivision approval in Lake Holiday Estates, Donald L. Bayliss requested me to research certain matters and report to you my findings. I have set forth those findings below together with certain conclusions I have made based upon those findings. FINDINGS That on March 13, 1967, The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, adopted a Zoning Ordinance. Board of Supervisor's Minutes Book 10, At Page 196. That on May 11, 1970, the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, granted a request to rezone 1,585 acres of Lake Holiday Estates from A-1 to R-2 as designated under the March 13, 1967 zoning ordinance. Board of Supervisor's Minutes Book 11, at Page 27. That on September 17, 1970, the Deed of Dedication dated September 7, 1970 for Section 1 of Lake Holiday Estates, together with plats numbered one through eleven, was recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 368, at Page 463. That on May 10, 1971, the Deed of Dedication dated March 3, 1971 for 277 lots in Section 2 of Lake Holiday Estates was recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 376, at Page 190. That no revised or new zoning ordinance was adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County until October 24, 1973 to become effective November 1, 1973 at which time the R-5 district came into existence. Board of Supervisor's Minutes Book 12, at Page 126. That at the time Lake Holiday Estates was conceived in 1970 its existence was envisioned and recognized by Frederick County as a development within definite and certain geographical boundaries and that it was to be developed in a manner and style consistent and in conformity with previously approved plans and expectations. That there has been consistent adherence to such expectations as evidenced by previously approved subdivisions of land within Lake Holiday Estates by the Frederick County Planning Commission. CONCLUSIONS That the imposition of new standards and criteria of development in an area which was developed in reliance upon and under previously established criteria would disturb and be incongruous with the overall aesthetic plan, nature and appeal of the development. That in promoting consistent and stable land development requirements it does not in this instance serve the best interests of Frederick County to impose upon a previously conceived and subsequently developed area standards which, over time, have evolved to such an extent that the effect of their application would be noticeably out of character and inconsistent with the original concept of the surrounding area which has been, and continues to be, appreciated, recognized and endorsed as acceptable. In light of the foregoing information, and the previous actions of the planning commission approving other additions to Lake Holiday Estates, the imposition of present day standards of development to a subdivision in this clearly defined geographical area that was conceived and planned in compliance with previously established requirements unduly and unnecessarily deprives the prospect of economical benefit to Frederick County and that the strict application of such present day requirements are inconsistent, arbitrary, capricious and • without beneficial basis particular instance. or justification in this Moreover, I have been given to understand that in the mid 1970s the Circuit Court of Frederick County as the end result of considerable litigation recognized the value and intended use of the majority of Section 1-B of Lake Holiday Estates. Reapplication to the Court for relief as to intended use and consideration of issues concerning grandfathered and vested rights ought to be unnecessary. It is the sincere desire of the Applicant not to engage in actions which necessarily constrain the Applicant to include claims for injunctive relief and damages. Mr. Bayliss respectfully requests that staff review the foregoing and reconsider its previous recommenda- tion. With kind regards, RRH/srw cc: Mr. Donald L. Bayliss Sincerely, Randall R. Hamilton PHONE , 10. id 1 C L'IMCUP"fulit 455 Back wnt-ill Winchester, VA 22602 (703) 9774.4-43-o- (do0) 234-8837 o FAX (703),9�7-W4 _6rM d71WC*&_ file- a_xo4_(T 7V 11),je der", 4,ol 4'/'-rff _crL lxj a. ifilder C R Va(,ti spf I/ING IN "91VATELY OWNED PROPERTIES. j — 34 MOVa 10 7 RAMDALL R HAr, h4 PC RANGALL R �'A wII.TaN ASS crrya GMHISTIAN J. GRIFFIN JOHN E GLOVER RANDALL R. HAMILTON, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 113 SOUTtI KBN♦ 6TRC%T W(NCNESTCR. VIAL MIA 22601 47031 667•1212 4703) 667.13e3 TELEFAX TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET .DATE: 5/9/94 TIME: 10:40 NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW: 1 MESSAGE T0: Robert W. Watkins 678-0682 Jay Cook 667.3454 Donald Bayliss 662--5794 FAX NUMBER BEING DIALED: MESSAGE FROM: Randall R. Hamilton FAX NCTMBER (705) 667-3356 COMMENTS: Being faxed is direction from Mr. Bayliss to Jetfersion National Bank to remove his name from the Escrow Account. I have a check in the amount of $40,100.00 to deposit at Jefferson National Bank per the Escrow Agreement faxed to you last Wednesday. May I have some response on whether we may proceed under the Modification of Es( -.row Agreement and Escrow Agreement? as ri r/r ', — '90 4 M (3 t 4 10 i R t4 D A L L RA I' ` T O N P C; F To: Jefferson National Bank rO WHOM IT MAX CONCERN: Please remove my name from the signature card on Account No. 21110-4361-06 as I no longer wish to have any authority to withdraw funds from such account. DONATED L . BA` L x S Subscribed and acknowledged before me this Sth day of May, 1994. NOTARY PUSUC My Commission Expires; 3 0 14 6 �� :� . �c3h g�c. p��peM`�i. �, 0 �,_ � ,:1 �.... y., � • 3KisV'.+kkK*�ik****k**kk************i*k*****�***k*'k'k**k7k*kk*�****************************%k*** P.01 TRANSACTION REPORT MAY- 9-94 MON 9:35 RX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE 9:3« 0673356 1'03" RECEIVE Ok. RHAMILTON ATES fsAN J GRIFFIN r GLOVER I k 01 R " D A L— L— FQ! . H " . L. 1 1`4 R C p RANDALL R. HAMILTON, P.C. ATTCGKNIZYS Al LAW FAX 10114BER 1 13 SOUTH KLKY S114ECT WJ'NCHF.STCRV)Rr.1141A 22601 (703) 667-3356 A703) 067.1212 (1703) 1567.134013 TELEFAX TRANSMITTAL COVLR SHEET NUMBER Of PAGES TO FOLLOW: MESSAGE TO: Robert W. Watkins Jay Cook 678-0682 FAX NUMBER BEING DIALED: 667-3454 MESSAGE FROM; Randall R. Hamilton COMMENTS: Please review this Modification and Escrow --AgreemeAt for the comg1etion of the road. Mr. Bayliss -, will deposit the $401-100.00 tomorrow. 12 w�*s R •.r�.mT:.ae*.+emseme �qNp"-. � Via, '1"i,' MAY— 4— S14 W E D it 02 R A N D A L L R_ "A L T 0 11 P C �I an 1 r1O12IUCAT. M QF ESCROW AGREEMENT , THIS MODIFICATION OF ESCROW AGREEMENT made and dated this I day of May, 1994, by and between DONALD L. BAYLISS, party I of the first part, and JOHN LEWIS, Engineer, party of the secund , part. WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into an Escrow Agreement dated April 28, 1994, for the purpose of having funds available to satisfy the obligations of certain contracts the party of the first part entered into with Judy Excavating & Landscaping; and, WHEREAS, one of such contracts dated April 26, 1994, was for certain road construction in Lakeshore Acres, Section 1-B, The Summit in the amount of $14,150.00; and, WHEREAS, the total sum of $79,161.00 was placed on deposit at Jefferson National Bank in Winchester, Virginia, pursuant to i said Escrow Agreement in an attempt to comply with certain ordinances of Frederick County, Virginia; and, WHEREAS, it has become necessary to modify said Escrow Agreement in order to more fully comply with said ordinances as follows in this Modification. NOW, THEREFORE, THIS MODIFICATION OF ESCROW AGRETMENT, WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the premises, and l the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, and further to induce the local governmental approval of Section I-B of the Summit, the parties do hereby agree as follows: rl " 'r-- 4- D 4 W E D 1 6 C 0 2 R A N D A L L R. " A Pt I L T 0 1-4 P C P. 0 u 1. That Frederick County, Virginia is the third party beneficiary of this Modification and the Escrow Agreement it modifies. 2. That the party of the first part shall have no access to the aforesaid funds on deposit at Jefferson National Bank in Account No. 21110-'4361-06, shall do whatever is necessary to revoke his right thereto and shall give such evidence of the game to Frederick County officials as they may require. 3. That the party of the second part shall disburse funds from said Account as construction of said roads progresses only upon the direction of the Frederick County Engineer or such other official as it may designate. 4. That the party of the Fecund part shall hold and treat such funds in a fiduciary capacity as the same are intended to inure to the benefit of Frederick County to assure completion of the said roads in accordance with the aforesaid contract and the party of the first part to meet his obligation for payment under such Contract. WITNESS, a following signatures and seals this the dad, .month and yeaz first above written. AUNALD L. BAYLISS �. ( SE#k ) JOHN LEWIS Mra'-I' -- 4- 7-4 W E D 1 � 03 RANDAL L R . HA : L TON PC P . 0 j _A A(2'RUt n i j TH1S ESCROW AGREEMENT made and dated this day of May, 1994, by and between DONALD L. BAYLISS, party of the first part, and JOHN LEWIS, Engineer, party of the second part. WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into an Escrow Agreement dated April 28, 1994, for the purpose of having funds available to satisfy the obligations of certain contracts the party of the 1 first part entered into with Judy Excavating & Landscaping; and, WHEREAS, one of such contracts dated April 26, 1994, was for certain road construction in Lakcshore Acres, Section 1-B, The Summit in the amount of $14,150.00; and, WHEREAS, said the party of the first part has received a price from Stuart M. Perry, Inc. to complete such road t construction in accordance with plans and specifications 1 previously approved by Frederick County; and, WHEREAS, the parties hereto are desirous of establishing this Escrow Agreement to inure to the benefit of Frederick � County to assure completion of the aforesaid roads. 1 NOW, THEREFORE, THIS ESCROW AGREEMENT, WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the premises, and the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, and further to Induce the local governmental approval of Section 1-B of the Summit, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. That Frederick County, Virginia is the third party j'777; o ",9,9 MAY __ 4 -'914 W ED 1 E• _ 03 RANDALL R - HAm. i L TON PC r5, beneficiary of this Escrow Agreement. 2. That on or before the date of the execution of this Agreement the party of the first part shall deposit in an interest bearing account at Jefferson National Bank, Winchester, Virginia the sum of $40,100.00. 3. That the party of the second part shall be the only i signatory to the aforesaid account. 4. That the party of the second part'shall disburse funds from said Account as construction of said roads progresses in accordance with the attached copy of "Typical Road Section" j marked "EXHIBIT All as approved by Frederick County only upon the ; direction of the Frederick County Engineer or such other official as it may designate. i 5. That the party of the second part shall hold and treat E such funds in a fiduciary capacity as the same are intended to inure to the benefit of Frederick County to assure completion of i the said roads in accordance with "EXiiIBir All and the party of I the first part to meet his obligation fc payment for such work as it is completed. WITNESS, the following signa �s and seals this the day, month and year first above written. —.----(SEAL) DONALD L. BAYLISS JOHN LEWIS 91 Rhp pr "14 c Flo,, h�hp - ... f r �...... u . auau.wwu�. i,di. •: t ) V Ar - NOi`,: Grp- -mg & Sabgrade work to be dam b.v OOMM inc tided in the below case e 4 t� l • �1Q - d' r i - I.$` sm--2A r SM-2 6' 21A tOWAC M UJUMAlk ar x rs IL z cc v dc � 3 a iYPJC,AL ROAD SEG33CXri i 7; i H W H 0 I D r z J14 MAY— 4— 9 4 WED 1 6 a 1 R A N D A L. L R H AL T 0 N PC P. 0 1 RANDALL R. HAMILTON, p.C. ATTORNEY; AT LAW FAX NirMBER 1 13 SOUTH KENT STREET WINCH90TER, VIRGINIA 22001 (703) 667-3356 (7031 067-1212 (703) 667.1363 RANDALL R. HAMILTON ASSOCIATES, TELEFAX TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET CHRI$TIAN J. GRIFFIN JOHN E. GLOVER DATE: - -- - 5 4/94 TIC: NU"ZR OF PAGES TO FOLLOW: 5 MISSAGR TO: Robert W. Watkins Jay Cook b78-0682 FAX OMBBR BRING DIALED: 667-3454 MRSSAGE FROM; Randall R. Hamilton COMWNTS: Please review thias Modification and Escrow A Keement for the con letion of the road. Mr. Bayliss___ will de osit the 40,100.00 tomorrow. �16411 1 L 340- CP c. i994 LO c 0 MAY- 4- 9 4 W E D 16 32 R A N D A L L R_ H A L. T O N P C �t P _ 4 2 �1 M00TEICATION OF ESCROW AGRCEMFi+7T THIS MODIFICATION OF ESCROW AGREEMENT made and dated this day of May, 1994, by and between DONALD L. BAYLISS, party of the first part, and JOHN LEWIS, Engineer, party of the second part. WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into an Escrow Agreement dated April 28, 19940 for the purpose of having funds available to satisfy the obligations of certain contracts the party of the first part entered into with Judy Excavating & Landscaping; and, WHEREAS, one of such contracts dated April 26, 1994, was for certain road construction in Lakeshore Acres, Section 1-B, The Summit in the amount of $14,150.00; and, WHEREAS, the total sum of $79,161.00 was placed on deposit at Jefferson National Bank in Winchester, Virginia, pursuant to said Escrow Agreement in an attempt to comply with certain ordinances of Frederick county, Virginia; and, WHEREAS, it has become necessary to modify said Escrow Agreement in order to more fully comply with said ordinances as follows in this Modification. NOW, THEREFORE, THIS MODIFICATION OF ESCROW AGREEMENT, WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the premises, and the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, and further to induce the local governmental approval of Section 1-B lof the Summit, the parties do hereby agree as follows: MA`r- 4-94 WED 1 6 32 RANDALL R _ HA! LToN PC r. 11 P _ 0 1. That Frederick County, Virginia is the third party beneficiary of this Modification and the Escrow Agreement it modifies. 2. That the party of the first part shall have no access to the aforesaid funds on deposit at Jefferson National Hank in Account No. 21110-4361-06, shall do whatever is necessary to revoke his right thereto and shall give such evidence of the game to Frederick County officials as they may require. 3. That the party of the second part shall disburse funds from said Account as construction.of said roads progresses only upon the direction of the Frederick County Engineer or such other official as it may designate. 4. That the party of the second part shall hold and treat such funds in a fiduciary capacitor as the same are intended to inure to the benefit of Frederick'County to assure completion of the said roads in accordance with the aforesaid Contract and the party of the first part to meet his obligation for payment under such Contract. WITNESS, the following signatures and seals this the day, month and year first above written. (SEAL) DONALD L. BAY'LISS JOHN LEWIS MAY - 4�- 94 WED 16 33 RANDALL R HA LT0N PC P . 0 ESQ-0W A GR E •Nrl" THIS ESCROW AGREEMENT made and dated this day of May, 1994, by and between DONALD L. BAYLISS, party of the first part, and JOHN'LEWIS, Engineer, party of the second part. WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into an Escrow Agreement dated April 28, 1994, for the purpose of having funds available to satisfy the obligations of certain contracts the party of the first part entered into with Judy Excavating & Landscaping; and, WHEREAS, one of such contracts dated April 26, 1994, was for certain road construction in Lakeshore Acres, Section 1-B, The Summit in the amount of $14,150.00; and, WHEREAS, said the party of the first part has received a price from Stuart M. Perry, Inc. to complete such road construction in accordance with plans and specifications previously approved by Frederick County; and, WHEREAS, the parties hereto are desirous of establishing this Escrow Agreement to inure to the benefit of Frederick County to assure completion of the aforesaid roads. NOW, THEREFORE, THIS ESCROW AGREEMENT, WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the premises, and the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, and further to induce the local governmental approval of Section I-B of the Summit, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. That Frederick County, Virginia is the third party MAY- 4 SI W E D 16 13 F2ANDALL F2 HAI LTQN PC P _ 05� beneficiary of this Escrow Agreement. 2. That on or before the date of the execution of this Agreement the party of the first part shall deposit in an interest bearing account at Jefferson National Sank, Winchester, Virginia the sum of $40,100.00. 3. That the party of the second part shall be the only signatory to the aforesaid account. 4. That the party of the second part shall disburse funds from said Account as construction of said roads, progresses in accordance with the attached copy of "Typical Road Section" marked "EXHIBIT A" as approved by Frederick County only upon the direction of the Frederick County Engineer or such other official as it may designate. 5. That the party of the second part shall hold and treat such funds in a fiduciary capacity as the same are intended to inure to the benefit of Frederick County to assure completion of the said roads in accordance with "EXHIBIT All and the party of the first part to meet his obligation for payment for such work as it is completed. WITNESS, the following signatures and seals this the day, month and year first above written. (SEAL) DONALD L. BAYLISS (SEAL) JOHN LEWIS R A N 13 A L_ L_ R L-TON PC P MAY- 4-94 WED 16-34 FROM I.POA.HW4 DEYELOPMEN1 PHOI,e HO, Maly, 0:3 1994 03.,39pil 1;,0 EXHIBIT "A" a Sdid MIR OUIAVWO FROM LAK4SHOR4 DEVELOPMENT PHONE NO. : +877 9718 May. 03 1994 04:33PM P01 MAY— 3--94 'rug i 3 : 32 /y1'ri1`` ram- d-x 13 Fxapivsaz;1 Z-�-171?( STUART M. PERRY, INC, CRUSHRO STONE -ASP14ALT PAVING J"q 117 Limestone Lane Winohester, VA 22602 (703)6624431 AOMOiA1 IrM PErTp Lakeshore Develo ment 5/3194 AODAEf 455 Back Mountain Rd. eMCxtE Winchester, Va, 22602 Atten: Don Ba iss .W9tftAAlE DI,GiOArlon Base and Surface Trbatment 309NLMfEA "�"...•' Roctdwa 1600' - 20' wide in The Summit, Private Boa rrara • ovaron+eA rx,M+trA W6 rwrWy wpnAl 1{ sdAdllk►1/ led MSim'laa, iugea to rr Z7jkr aar4j,... o.(,7 w can aea' rams: This is to *dviss that we will lay 8" of 21A Base stone, and apply Prime and Seal , on R6Rdway ( 2U x 1500' Lin. ft. ) Approximatly 3335 aq, yrds. For an Estimated Cost of >x 26,000.00 NOTE: Gradeing fi subgrade work to b ne by others, not included in the above cost. (f r Thanking you, �Hapner Kirby L, Jr. ..� L 1 ! C �_ - Read Reverse Side P,- �lrapase hereby to fUrnish rTtmteriai and I or - compute in accordance with above sp®citications. for the sum of: % doilaes ( ) Daniel K. Hepner Note: Thle proposal may be wtthdrawn y us if Authorized nvt aooepted within _days. Signature ', jAtt2ptrb: The above prioes, speclflestionb end conditions are svisfactory and ere hareby*ceo- Signature ad. You Are atrthorized to do the work as 6peNfod. Payment wilt be made or. otAlined abovo. We: Signature 1 co COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 VIA FAX: 703-662-5794 May 3, 1994 Mr. Donald L. Bayliss 455 Back Mountain Road Winchester, VA 22602 Dear Mr. Bayliss: This is in response to your fax on this date concerning Section 1B of the Summit. We have reviewed and approved the road design submitted by your engineer. The contract that was presented to us by your attorney did not include all the necessary items to insure that the roads would be built as specified by your engineer. We ask you, as we do every developer, to provide us with the contract cost for total completion of the road construction. Then we will require a financial guarantee that will cover this entire cost of road completion. The escrow account that was set up at Jefferson National Bank was not satisfactory since it could be accessed by you or your employee (your engineer). In the case of all guarantees for subdivisions accepted. by Frederick County, the County must have complete control over the release of such guarantees. Our attorney reviewed the proposed guarantee and determined that the guarantee was not appropriate since the County would not control the release of funds. Frederick County can release portions of guarantees as portions of the road are completed. This will require inspection by the County Engineer to insure that the construction conforms with the plans approved. The roads do not have to be completed before lots may be recorded and sold. They do not have to be completed before building permits are issued. However, Certificates of Occupancy cannot be issued for houses until the roads meet the minimum subdivision ordinance standards requiring a compacted CBR base and a prime -and -single -seal surface. Having streets in this condition prior to issuing CO's is necessary to allow unrestricted access by public safety vehicles. 9 North LOLOOLln Stl'ect P.O. Bov 001 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 Page 2 Mr. Donald L. Bayliss The Summit --Section 1B May 3, 1994 We will proceed to sign the plats, allowing them to be recorded, when we receive a total estimated contract cost for the construction of the roads which conforms with the plans approved and when we receive guarantees that meet our normal requirements. This is nothing more than is required from every developer that does business in Frederick County. I will be available to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, !;'�ta/'k76k Robert W. Watkins Planning Director RWW/rsa cc: Jimmie K. Ellington, Gainesboro Supervisor John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator FROM : L.AK4SHOR4 UEQE- ,.OPMEN? May 3, 1994 Mr. Donald L. Bayliss 435 Bach Mountain Road Winchester, VA 22602 Dear Mr. Bayliss: PHONE NO. G 71E 03 1, 4 04: � 1PM P 0 1 Depwm cnt of Pliuming an(i Development '703 / 6(,c - eF S 11 Fax 7031676 06,10 '01 This is in response to your fax on this date concerning Section 18 of the Summit. We have reviewed and approved the road design submitted by your engineer. The contract that was presented to us by your attorney did not include all the necessary items to insure that the roads would be built as specified by your engineer. We ask you, as we do every developer, to provide us with the contract cost for total completion of the road construction. Then we will require a financial guarantee that will cover this entire cost of road completion. The escrow account that was set up at Jefferson National Bank was not satisfactory since it could be accessed by you or your employee (your engineer). In the case of all guarantees for subdivisions accepted by Frederick County, the County must have complete Control over the release of such guarantees. Our attorney reviewed the proposed guarantee and determined that the guarantee was not appropriate since the County would not Control the release of Nods. Frederick County can release portions of guarantees as portions of the road are completed. This will require inspection by the County Fogineer to insure that the construction conforms with the plans approved. The ruuds do not have to be completed before lots may be recorded and sold. They do not have to be completed before building permits are issued. However, Certificates of Occup;wcy cannot be issued for houses until the roads meet the minimum subdivision ordinance: standards requiring a compacted CBR base and a prime -and -single -seat surface }Laving streets in this condition prior to issuing CO's is necessary to allow unrestricted access by public safety vehicles. wdniun SlIze-L P.O Box 601 VA 22601 Wincheyler, VA 226N - TIJE 14:44FREDICK CO Page 2 Mr. Donald L. Bayliss The Summit -Section 113 May 3, 1994 a _ .. _ .. - ... ..-rp �+w- _ . - � w •:Y. rr,:.4i,i�M1.:�e'M wiM.r.w.r e - We will proceed to sign th .slats, allowing them to be recorder, ehen we receive a total estimated contract cost for the construction of the roads which conforms with the plans approved and when we receive guai'antees that meet our .00tmal requirements. This is nothing more than is required from every developer that does business in Frederick County. I will be available to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, her( W. Watkins Yining Director RWW/rsa cc: Jimmie K. Ellington, Gainesboro Supervisor John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator tea- Tty C- r y� ("H'Y �-94 TUk 13 :7.1 IV-' �"'Y f/ c� �irn}�Sxa�l STUART M. PERRY, INC. CRUSHED STONF -ASPHALT PAVING 117 Limestone Lane Winchester. VA 220302 / (703) 02-3431 l2aKli1ij (lack Mountaln Rd. �o Atten! Dor, Barg,.._.. Roadwey 1600' - 20' wide m The �1 1 .. - — --�....y.... Wd' s%, $k6ho 04-042AVA& Og ee1i I'we. NR(W 15 60 term ON CJ*4kVi. 06 - 14t, M WAI MJA- This Is to edv 5e that we will lay 0" of 21A Ease store and apply Pr me lire) Sepl p« RoadWblY ( 20' x 15,00 L.n it i s.rMnx -,lady 1335 st yrCg. F I✓;_' : LHM4SHO - DEOELOPMENT PHONE HO. : +877 q716 1`° a. 03 MAY- 3--+34 Tuf= ! S : 32 /91,1/¢'(' _Cr 7-r. STUART M. PERRY, INC. j CFtUSHF'b STONE • ASPHALT PAVING 1 117 Limestone Lane Winvhoster. VA 22602 i (703) 662-9431 bA nkeshore Aevela�srnent — _ �_ 455 Back Mwntain Rd. Altar' Don Ssyliss Base and Surface Troarnarrt , 1 W1 • 20' wide in The Summit, ( Private e - es!:-uc:wc to an PoMN aM 04141KAf. as sM rµt'- W bon eidee 61 tolval. This is to adv!so that we will lay 8" of 21A base stone: and apply Prime Rnl3dway ( 20' x 1500' Lin R ) Approximatiy 3335 aq yrds an Estimated cost of 6 26,000 00 513194 aradeing & Subgrede work to bar,@ ne by others not included in the above cost (fIV 6" C64"41"I' Thanking you, { Kirby L Hepner Jr, P Y ec6-Tax— . P Al , Car 7V >/ I C,,f-e_ -—fflaad Reverse_ Side) s rn �. jrnisn M21terial and labor - Complete in accordance with above spocifications V t' for try. Daniel K Note This piaposal may be Mthdrown y us if tharizod nvt aeoept+ad within 32 JAteaptgb. The ebava pnoas, spee1111cation6 and oonditions are slibufaotory and are hereby laccspt- signatu'te_� __ ed Yvu are authorized to do the work as ipoNflod. N �°' -got Playmont will bo made 99 m6ned above cMv A*j - of Ztj Signature NJ a�l�Ft'�L4N �O F_j,- f J� E''E'JELlJPMEhT PHI-24F No. Devel_ - :_ _ opment kes /1'0 1 ul 4 55 Back Mountain) I ester, VA 22602 (703) 2*-881., _AX (703) t==8 -7 ?Y mAy 1994 Rr-CF -0 _� — -IV F r\.) DEM'. OF pLANNING Z3 .-MD 0 6,0 7—, 70-0 PIC z '�010 100, 'eT- 4�'r TAX, 1> 4�1 7`7 e,; 61 A /D' '04 7alo t ly e C. .77—f AV tX t100(j (b4jU?VC7y Opt/ '�o #xj X)Mjq4_4 _T S ;> 'Builders 9 Contractors 9 Zake ,,tnt "Propeifies RiverfrontPropertips, Vacation () SPECIALIZING IN THE SALE OF PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTIFS. Virginia, West Viryinia, A4,qrv1Arv4 'North Carolina & Flormia �`L�Lh .fir.• �1�. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 May 2, 1994 Randall R. Hamilton, P.C. Attorney at Law 113 South Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Hamilton; This is in response to your April 28, 1994 letter, same subject. The information submitted with your letter concerning the guarantee for construction of the streets for Section I-B has two major deficiencies. First, the escrow account established with Jefferson National Bank (vice Bank of Romney as stated in your letter) offers no protection to Frederick County. Our Commonwealth Attorney's office reviewed your letter and agree that the established escrow account can be accessed by Mr. Bayliss or Mr. Lewis and gives Frederick County no protection as required. The procedure must include Frederick County as the authority to release the escrowed monies so that the account can only be used for the intended purpose. Second, the contract for construction of the roadways (streets) includes only a crusher run stone surface on the streets. The streets must be constructed in accordance with the "Typical Road Section" as depicted on page 5 of 5 of the submitted subdivision plan. The contract for road construction does not meet the specifications as required by the submitted plan. Further, the inspection for final approval of the road construction must be done by the Frederick County Engineer. On May 2, 1994, I met with the County Engineer and discussed the cost of the road construction in accordance with the approved plan. We made a rough estimate of the cost to be approximately $55,000.00. The established escrow account, if properly arranged, would meet 1) Nunh hx dorm B(nt( P.O. I�o\ 001 Winchczlcr. VA 22N)I WIndic"Ier. `A 22004 Page 2 Randall R. Hamilton, P.C. Re: Section 1-B, Lake Holiday Estates May 2, 1994 the cost of the road construction but only $14,150.00 of the $79,161.00 is designated for the road construction. We will need a better cost estimate of the road construction from you that will meet the submitted design and then need a guarantee to cover that amount arranged as outlined above. I will be available to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, W. W e Miller Zonin Administrator WWM/rsa cc: Mr. John Lewis Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., County Engineer RANDALL R. HAMILTON, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 113 SOUTH KENT STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (703) 667-1212 RANDALL R. HAMILTON FACSIMILE (703) 667-3356 ASSOCIATES April 28, 1994 CHRISTIAN J. GRIFFIN JOHN E. GLOVER Mr. W. Wayne Miller Zoning Administrator Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 9 North Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 HAND DELIVERED Re: Section 1-B - Lake Holiday Estates Dear Mr. Miller: In connection with the above -referenced matter I have enclosed herewith the following: 1. Contract dated April 26, 1994 with Judy Excavating & Landscaping to complete roads. 2. Contract dated April 26, 1994 with Judy Excavating & Landscaping (for other work). 3. Accepted proposal from Lewis & Associates for inspection of acceptability of road construction. 4. Escrow Agreement dated April 28, 1994 designating John Lewis, in his capacity as an Engineer, as having the sole authority to decide when the roads have been completed in accordance with specifications and to authorize disbursements. 5. Copy of a deposit slip reflecting that the sum of the foregoing contracts, $79,161.00, is on deposit at The Bank of Romney. After your review of the foregoing, I would appreciate your signing off for subdivision approval and notifying me of the same. With kind regards, Sincerely, Randall R. Hamilton RRH/srw enclosures as stated cc: Mr. Donald L. Bayliss l Judy Excavating & Landscaping 835 Huttle Road Middletown, Virginia 22645 (703) 869-2310 Fax (703) 869A2W 2268 CONTRACT THIS CONTRACT MADE AND DATED THIS DAY OF � 1994, BY AND BETWEEN DONALD L. BAYLISS T/A LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT, AND JUDY EXCAVATING AND LANDSCAPING, A VIRGINIA PARTNERSHIP. WITNESSETH: THAT FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF $ s(f ,�, TO BE PAID AS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO CONSTRUCT A CERTAIN ROADWAY KNOWN AS LAKESHORE DRIVE LOCATED IN LAKESHORE ACRES SECTIO 1-B SUMMIT I(;? CEO I/ ^� VIRGINIA. SAID ROADWAY SHALL BE�ACCORL)ANCE WITH '-OTC/ P AND SPECIFICATIONS PREPARED BY MR. JOHN LEWIS OF LEWIS AND ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA, AND THE CUT AND FILL SHEET AS PROVIDED BY MR. JOE RITCHIE OF RITCHIE SURVEYS. ROADWAY: ROADWAY SHALL BE'COMPUTED AND PAID AS FOLLOWS: A. REMOVAL OF ALL STUMPS AND DEBRIS TO THE SKI SLOPE AREA AS PREVIOUSLY SHOWN - $2500.00 B. REMOVAL AND STACKING OF TOPSOIL, EXCAVATING AND GRADING, PLACING OF CULVERT, AND PLACING OF SILT SCREEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS SPECIFICATIONS OF LEWIS AND ASSOCIATES. NO TOPSOILING OR SEEDING INCLUDED - $4500.00 C. SPREADING OF TWO/FOUR INCHES OF GRAVEL ON SAID ROADWAY AFTER THE WATER/SEWER LINES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AND BACKFILLED. CRUSHER RUN STONE TO BE USED - $7150.00 COMPACTION: COMPACTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LEWIS AND ASSOCIATES' PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS WITH INSPECTIONS PAID FOR BY DEVELOPER. INSPECTIONS: INSPECTIONS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY AND TO THE SATISFACTION OF MR. JOHN LEWIS OF LEWIS AND ASSOCIATES. ALL INSPECTIONS TO BE PAID BY DEVELOPER. NO PERMITS OR FEES ARE INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE PRICES AND WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL COST TO DEVELOPER IF REQUIRED. ALL ROCK EXCAVATION IS EXTRA (BLASTING). EXCESS MATERIAL TO BE STOCKPILED ON SITE. ESCROW: ALL MONIES SHALL BE PAID (CASH) INTO AN ESCROW FUND AND RELEASED TO CONTRACTOR PROPORTIONATELY AS DESCRIBED UNDER ROADWAY PARAGRAPH ABOVE. THE PROVISIONS HEREIN MAY BE MODIFIED IN ORDER TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FREDERICK COUNTY ORDINANCES WHICH MAY BE AN ADDITIONAL COST TO DEVELOPER COMMENCING: WORK TO COMMENCE ON OR BEFORE T�DAY OF /4 , 1994. STEPS A AND B OF THIS CONTRACT TO BE COMPLETED NO LATER THKN 1994. STEP C TO COMMENA AS SOON AS WATER, SEWER, ELECTRIC, PHONE LINES ARE COMPLETED TO THE SATISFACTION OF INSPECTOR, MR. JOHN LEWIS OF LEWIS AND ASSOCIATES. ADDITIONAL FILL: IN THE EVENT ADDITIONAL FILL IS NEEDED TO COMPLY WITH PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THEN ROADWAY SHALL BE LOWERED UNIFORMLY IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SAID FILL. ANY SUBSEQUENT REQUIRED GRADING CHANGES TO MAKE DIRT BALANCE COULD RESULT IN EXTRA EQUIPMENT AND LABOR TIME TO DEVELOPER. WITNESS OUR HANDS AND SEALS, THIS 1, � DAY OF /2/ , 1994. LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT 0 1/ - - r • A : A �; �1 • • �I' JUDY EXCAVATING AND LANDSCAPING STATE OF VIRGINIA, (J CITY/COUNTY OF to U(- , TO WIT: I, - R (i /3 P Q L , /3 EA/ SC , A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE AND AFORESAID JURISDICTION, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT DONALD L, BAYLISS, A DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT, WHOSE NAME IS SIGNED TO THE FOREGOING CONTRACT BEARING DATE ON THE DAY OF , 1994, HAS PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME AND ACKNOWLEDGED THE SAME BEFORE ME IN MY STATE AND AFORESAID JURISDICTION. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND THISDAY OF ,1994. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES '3 PM ml N MOW NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF VIRGINIA, CITY/COUNTY OF L d (/( S /) - , TO WIT: WIT : I ► a /3 6,9 / L FAIS dN , A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE AND AFORESAID JURISDICTION, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT JAMES W. JUDY, JR, A DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF JUDY EXCAVATING AND LANDSCAPING, WHOSE NAME IS SIGNED TO THE FOREGOING CONTRACT BEARING DATE ON THE - C, DAY OF r4! it �� Y 1994, HAS PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME AND ACKNOWLEDGED THE SAME BEFXE ME IN MY STATE AND AFORESAID JURISDICTION. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND THIS_DAY OF L9,r , 1994. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 3/ /'A /9� U s NOTARY PUBLIC J 'y Excavating & Landsc - ing 835 Huttle Road Middletown, Virginia 22645 (703) 869-2310 Fax (703) 869-4286 2268 1 CONTRACT V4 THIS CONTRACT MADE AND DATED THIS_DAY OF�, 1994, BY AND BETWEZN DONALD L. BAYLISS T/A LAKESHORE DEVELOP , AND JUDY EXCAVATING AND LANDSCAPING, A VIRGINIA PARTNERSHIP. J WITNESSETH: THAT FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF $ 4 l l'r/v , TO BE PAID AS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH. ONLY MATERIAL TO BE PROVIDED BY DEVELOPER. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO INSTALL WET WELL, FORCE MAIN, STORM SEWER, WATER, SANITARY, SILT FENCE AND CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AT LAKE HOLIDAY ESTATES, THE SUMMIT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA. ALL WORK SHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS PREPARED BY MR. JOHN LEWIS OF LEWIS AND ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA, AND COMPUTED AND PAID AS FOLLOWS: A. WET WELL $3000.00 B. FORCE MAIN 10575.00 C. SILT FENCE AND CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 500.00 _ J/ D. STORM SEWER 736.00 6 E. WATER 10300.00. F. SANITARY 39900.00 j NO PERMITS OR FEES ARE INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE PRICES AND WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL COST TO DEVELOPER IF REQUIRED. ALL ROCK EXCAVATION IS EXTRA (BLASTING). EXCESS MATERIAL TO BE STOCKPILED ON SITE. ESCROW: ALL MONIES SHALL BE PAID (CASH) INTO AN ESCROW FUND AND RELEASED TO CONTRACTOR PROPORTIONATELY AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. THE PROVISIONS HEREIN MAY BE MODIFIED IN ORDER TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FREDERICK COUNTY --- ORDINANCES WHICH MAY BE AN ADDITIONAL COST TO DEVELOPER. COMMENCING: WORK TO COMMENCE ON OR BEFORE DAY OF r 1994. WITNESS OUR HANDS AND SEALS, THIS DAY OF i , 1994. LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT 1XNALD L. BAYL SS, Ott EVEiOPER JUDY EXCAVA G AND I SOAPING W. , JR., CONTRACTOR z STATE OF VIRGINIA, CITY/COUNTY OF LV �p `, TO WIT: C a M r A/ S p , A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE AND AFORESAID JURISDICTION, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT DONALD L. BAYLISS, A DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT, WHOSE NAME IS SIGNED TO THE FOREGOING CONTRACT BEARING DATE ON THE _DAY OF-/�Q,V , 1994, HAS PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE SAME TBEFORE ME IN MY STATE AND AFORESAID JURISDICTION. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND THISILDAY OF ftQk u L , 1994. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ' rl ti 4—t Q i A NOTAAi YPUBLid STATE OF VIRGINIA, CITY/COUNTY OF (Vj 1 S ft , TO WIT: I, �0 8 R.I c- . 3 EA/ TON , A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE AND AFORESAID JURISDICTION, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT JAMES W..JUDY, JR, A DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF JUDY EXCAVATING AND LANDSCAPING, WHOSE NAME IS SIGNED TO THE FOREGOING CONTRACT BEARING DATE ON THE't4 DAY OF rV PL-1, 19941 HAS PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE SAME BEFORE ME IN !dY STATE AND AFORESAID JURISDICTION. - GIVEN UNDER MY HAND THIS I4 DAY OF 1�'r R�l. 1994. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOTARI PUBLIC LEWIS & ASSOCIATES LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS 24 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 7 APRIL 1994 Mr. Donald Bayliss 455 Back Mountain Road Winchester, VA 22603 Dear Don: Tel.: (703)-722-9377 FAX: (703)-662-1861 LEWIS & ASSOCIATES is pleased to present the following proposal to provide construction inspection services to you (CLIENT) for the infrastructure components to be installed for the Section 1 B subdivision. Inspections will occur as necessary to assure construction in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. LEWIS & ASSOCIATES shall have the right to gain access to the construction site at all times for the purpose of monitoring and inspecting construction. The Scope of Services outlined below will be provided contingent upon the CLIENT requiring the contractor(s) to notify LEWIS & ASSOCIATES of specific times during construction as outlined below. In addition, the CLIENT is hereby charged with the responsibility of employing reliable contractors with sufficient skills and experience to perform all work in an acceptable manner relative to the sewer, water and road components. LEWIS & ASSOCIATES shall have the right to make adjustments in the type of materials and methods of construction required, should field inspection reveal unforeseen and/or unfavorable conditions or workmanship not in compliance with construction plans and specifications. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. ROAD CONSTRUCTION LEWIS & ASSOCIATES will perform inspections at the following points during road construction. A. installation of storm sewer prior to backfill placement B. final compaction of subgrade C. final compaction of subbase i Page - 1 r. Don Bayliss ' April 7, 1994 2. SANITARY SEWERAGE LEWIS & ASSOCIATES will perform inspections at the following points during sanitary sewerage construction. A. installation of gravity sewer main and manholes prior to backfill and during leak testing B. installation of force main prior to backfilling and during leak testing C. installation of lift station wet well prior to backfilling and during leak testing 3. WATER MAIN LEWIS & ASSOCIATES will perform inspections at the following points during waterline construction. A. installation of waterline prior to backfilling and during leak testing B. during disinfection proceedures(the contractor shall furnish the CLIENT with a copy of the bacteriological analyses) 4. DOCUMENTATION LEWIS & ASSOCIATES will provide the CLIENT with records of all inspections. FEES The fee for the work described under the Scope of Services will be hourly at the rate of $50.00 per hour: FEE .... .................................... $50.00/hr Travel to and from the construction site will be charged to the CLIENT at the rate of $0.30 per mile. FEE ............ ............................ $0.30/mi The above fee does not include fees or charges due governmental agencies for the review and approval of plans or plats. LEWIS & ASSOCIATES will notify the CLIENT of any fee requirement so that the documents may be submitted in a timely manner. Any additional work requested by the CLIENT which is not included in the Scope of Services above will be billed at the rates listed on ATTACHMENT A or an addendum to this agreement will be written. Invoices for the services will be rendered monthly based on the estimated or actual percent completion of the specified work. Payment will be due upon receipt of the invoice. The fees contained herein are valid for a period of 30 days from the date of this proposal. Upon notification by the CLIENT, LEWIS & ASSOCIATES will immediately stop work on any phase or item or work which the CLIENT wished to suspend. Page - 2 r. Don Bayliss Apri17, 1994 If this proposal is acceptable, please sign in the space provided below and return the signed original to me. A copy of the proposal is included for your use. TV,.E., URS; J . Le.L.A. K Acknowl ed and accepted this By: For:�""'�' I�G day of , 1994. Page - 3 ESCROW AC I;RHEMENT This agreement made and dated this Day of,Q��i (( 1994 by between Donald L. Bayliss (party one ) and James W. Judy, Jr. ( party two ) and John Lewis, Engineer of Lewis and associates. ( Party three ) WITNESSETH: Party One and party Two have executed two certin contracts Dated April 26,1994 providing for, among other things, an Escrow arrangement providing for certin disbursements in fulfillment of said Contracts. Party one and party three have executed a contract providing for certain inspections in order to fufill contracts executed by party One and party Two described above. Now therefore certain monies in the amount of Seventy nine thousand one hundred sixty one dollars ($79,161.00), Which is the grand total of those Two certain Contracts described above are now n epo i the Jefferson National Bank, Winchester Va. Account Number �� -�0 titled Bayliss and Lewis, Escrow Account. Said Bank Account is to require the signature of both Party One and Party Three. However Party Three has the sole right to order a disbursment under and in accordance with the terms and provisions of contracts executed by party One and party Two and party One will comply by affixing his signature to said check disbursement. Said contracts by party one and party two are hereby attached and made a part of this agreement. Now therefore all three parties affix their seal to his agreement. IV Donald L. Baylis ( Party One ) James W. Judy, Jr. ( Party Two ) Joh,A Lewis/, Engineer ( Party Three ) page two STATE OF VIRGINIA, CITY / COUNTY OF FREDERICK, TO WIT: I, Robert E. Benson, A notary public in and for the state and aforesaid jurisdiction, do hereby certify that Donald L. Bayliss, a duly authorized officer of Lakeshore Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing escrow agreement dated_ lgRi'l- _ _ 1994 has personally appeared before me and 1 abknowledged the Same before me in my State and aforesaid jurisdiction. Given under my hand this -27 day of 6PR I L_ 1994. My commission expires notary public STATE OF VIRGINIA, CITY / COUNTY OF FREDERICK, TO WIT: I, A notary public in and for the state and aforesaid ,jurisdiction, do hereby certify that James W. Judy, Jr. whose name is signed to the foregoing escrow agreement dated 1994 has personally appeared before me in my State and aforesaid ,jurisdiction. Given under my hand this day of 1994. My commision expires notary public STATE OF VIRGINA, CITY / COUNT OF TO WIT: I, _ A notary public in and for the state and aforesaid .i risdiction, do hereby certify that John ewis whoes name is signed to the foregoing escrow agreement dated L A 1994 has personally appeared before me in my state and a oressaid ,3urisdicion. Given under my hand this day of _� 1994. My commision expires .3I 41r NOTAQy ,L) 3t1C. m rnf. ' i 01 N!Io° i v Qo $ a Qo lit �Q"�,� wd� m salp- C" a a s z 19. _ 94 iSN � 3 c � N i oIF €� i • ��KA�i °I v y a m�7_E_ �i pSOKi G eDN SOpin: N6 �1 gE°O�c3 W-p. i 10 m7CO1 'CL I g(N(pp amnf.g m�Qa� N. ?�pl 01 N oo act el a ggg° gE_2.1 yyyym EL 7 T ! F.WC Omm `�. .Z . I 0 , 0 : 0 0 0 AL DIP SIT TICK�E_T CURRENcvI NAMEaV.r�Kt� I I A`.� CASH COIN 11 C C.l. DATE._ - DEPOSITS MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL If ,� HFRL F(7h DASH KECtIV TH III AF()l'll:l ll) ®Jefferson ®National Bank Winchester, Virginia 22601 -- _ -- I 68-524 21 510 TOTAL FROM OTHER SIDE -- -I TOTAL USE OTHER SIDE FOR ADDITIONAL LISTINCI �SY SY[ SH ADEPOnI I NET SIT _ BE SURE EACH ITEM E PROPERLY ENDORSEC I (// 't17'/�L(`�'''�� • NEW ACCOUNT DEPOSIT 1:0SLOOS24SI:2LLLO43GL'in 0GL3L I HECKS AND (IIOLR IFLMS ARE RECEIVED FOR I)LI—IF SUBJECT TO I1H PROVISIONS OF IHI 1'NH ORM CC)MVH RCIAI. (_OOF OR AN\ APPI 11 ABLI (COI I I I ION AGREEMENT DONALD L. BAYLISS 11-93 284 455 BACK MOUNTAIN RD. PH. 703-67;-2#41 66-2 -571?l WINCHESTER, VA 22601 69-192/522 7Y /(vl L - --- "'�`r' t.;\ I. s - BANCIUB f THE BANK OF ! ROMROMNEV. WEST VIRGIN IA 2675757 � 0 I:05220192SI: LSo- t.77021" 28�. 'VIX00walth OCR tea . COUNTY OF FREDERICK - ilti dt LAWRENCE R. AMBROGI Commonwealth Attorney q r. CHARLES W. STANSFIELD� Administrative Assistant 'r tyr<. nVrra OFFICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY FREDERICK-WINCHESTER JUDICIAL CENTER 5 NORTH KENT STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (703) 665-6383 FAX (703) 667-3454 April 14, 1994 Mr. Wayne Miller Frederick County Planning Department 9 North Loudoun Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Bond requirement for subdivision streets Dear Wayne: JAY D. COOK, III Assistant Commonwealth Attorney GLENN R. WILLIAMSON Assistant Commonwealth Attorney Pursuant to your request we opine that it is permissible for the County to require bonding for the construction of private streets in a subdivision prior to approval of a subdivision application. The Authority is Virginia Code Section 15.1-466 (14) (D). This section says in part: a subdivision ordinance may require that a bond be posted for the construction of private streets; the procedure to be used is as set out in Section 15.1-466 (A) (5). Sincere , Lawr nc R. Ambrogi County Attorney LRA:cac ,�vynmkt Fi tea COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Ron Lilley, Planner II 144ti SUBJ: The Summit/Bayliss Subdivision Application — Open Space Requirements DATE: November 17, 1993 This is a follow up to the Subdivision Application of Donald L. Bayliss for 28 lots on 10.7 acres at The Summit, which you considered at your October 6 meeting. That application, which was submitted in July 1993, included a request for exemption from the normal R-5 open space requirement, and the County Planning staff forwarded the application to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for denial due to potential problems with water availability and uncertainties about open space issues. The Planning Commission voted unanimously (with Carper abstaining) to recommend denial of the application to the Board of Supervisors until an acceptable master plan is presented and the water system is proven to have adequate capacity. The application went to the Board of Supervisors on October 27th with a recommendation from the staff for tabling to allow time for the staff to complete research on the history of The Summit, the existing open space, the degree of vesting involved, and the water situation there. The Board voted to table the application until their December 8 meeting, at which time they must act on the application. The staff has done considerable research and organization of the files on The Summit, along with a technical review of the applicant's request for exception from the normal open space requirements. The research and associated recommendations are detailed in the attached report. The water situation is being addressed separately through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Office of Water Programs. Staff requests that the Planning Commission discuss the attached report and provide a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the report's recommendations. 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 THE SUMIVIIT Report on Open Space Research November 15, 1993 BACKGROUND This report has been prepared at the request of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in response to a subdivision application for Section 1B of The Summit at Lake Holiday to create 28 lots on 10.7 acres. The application includes a request for exemption from the normal R-5 open space requirements. This report addresses the history of The Summit, the existing open space, the amount of open space allowed to be within certain environmental areas, and the degree of vesting involved with master plan and open space requirements. The staff has done considerable research and organization of the files on The Summit, along with a technical review of the applicant's request for exception from the normal open space requirements. The basic findings are summarized below, followed by a summary of options for open space requirements and a recommendation from the staff on how to proceed. 1 11 The first section of The Summit was approved in 1970. The zoning in effect at that time was R-2 (Residential General), which did not require a master plan or open space. The Summit property was rezoned to R-5 effective November 1, 1973, which required developments to be done in accordance with a master plan and to include 35 l dedicated open space. There was a small portion of the property that was inadvertently not rezoned to R-5, but that was cleared up in June, 1974, so the R-5 zoning has applied to all 1936.4 acres of The Summit property since then. Before November 1973, the subdivision of Sections 1, 2, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 6B, and 8A were approved, for a total of 1,890 lots on 764 acres. It is not clear whether any master plan was a basis for the subdivision approvals. Though no master plan was required, there are various plans in the files, all of which are similar but have some substantial differences from each other. The plans are undated, but staff was told by David Lee Ingram, whose firm prepared the plans, that the working "Master Plan" prepared by James C. Wilkins & Associates was done in the very early 1970's. This plan was certainly available when sections 6B and 8A were approved in July, 1973. Along with the lake and golf course, it indicates several green areas throughout the development, including one at the eastern end of the lake where the current subdivision is contemplated. It also indicates a ski area of approximately 35 acres and large areas noted as "future development. " Another plan, apparently produced earlier, indicates a future equestrian area, and does not indicate any use for the area at the eastern end of the lake. Still another plan, which is less formal and was apparently produced after 1973, indicates a marina and future development at the eastern end of the lake. After November 1973, it appears to have been understood that the then -current zoning requirements would apply to new sections. In the June 1974 rezoning application that clarified that all 1936.4 acres would be zoned R-5, the applicant's Economic Impact Study stated: All of these lands will simply be a continuation of the present concept of Lake Holiday Estates, Inc. and will not materially change the ideas that have been put forth and accepted to this time. They will continue to comply with all of the zoning requirements designated by R-S with regard to densities, open spaces, land uses, and physical configurations. Also, a June 1974 letter from the County Administrator to the attorneys for The Summit advises that plats, plans, and other information related to future platted sections of The Summit be submitted as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. - A careful review of the applicant's figures for numbers of lots and acreage in in open space, unplatted areas, etc. has shown that some corrections to those figures are necessary. A marked up copy of the applicant's figures is provided as Appendix A. To summarize the corrected figures, the total acreage of The Summit property is 1936.4 acres (just over 3 square miles). Not including the proposed subdivision, there are presently 2,667 lots platted on 1,044.1 acres, excluding 42.8 acres of open space "green areas" dispersed throughout the platted sections. This accounts for about 54 % of the entire Summit property. The lake, golf course, beaches, and miscellaneous green areas account for about 27 % of the entire development (or just under 34% of the presently developed area). The unplatted areas shown as belonging to Independent Mortgage Trust, now in the name of IFS Corp., account for about 14 % of the entire property. The remaining 5 % is in the dam area, commercial area, and miscellaneous unplatted areas. The deeds for the golf course are quite involved, but as best as staff can determine there are no deed covenants which restrict the use of the golf course or other "green areas" to open space. Therefore, if such areas are to be counted towards any open space requirement, it should be made clear that they would remain as open space. The unplatted areas belonging to IFS Corp. should not be counted as open space since they are not dedicated as open space, as the ordinance requires. OPTIONS FOR OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS 1. Since a case can be made that this development was expected to provide large portions of open space from its very beginning (at least approximating the 35 % requirement that came into effect with the R-5 district), and the lot purchasers presumably expected as much, it could be argued that 35 % of the entire development should be dedicated as open space. That would translate to about 678 acres of open space when everything else was fully developed. If the lake, golf course, two beaches, and miscellaneous green areas are all counted towards the open space requirement, they would provide about 530 acres of open space, which leaves a shortage of approximately 148 acres. The unplatted IFS property, along with the dam area and a few smaller areas account for about 362 acres, so it is possible that 148 acres could be provided out of those areas. The current standards for open space do not allow more than 50 % of the required open space to be within lakes and ponds, wetlands, or steep slopes, but the Planning Commission may allow a larger amount of steep slopes to count towards the open space requirement when the developer can demonstrate a viable plan to make such areas useful. It cannot be determined from the application how much of the existing open space is in the lake, wetlands, or steep slopes, but it is entirely possible that such portions account for over 50 % of the open space. To apply this option, a Master Plan for the entire development would need to be submitted, designating the areas to count towards the 35 % requirement. There would need to be dedication of the existing open spaces and of future open spaces. Such a plan may show that the area proposed for Section 1B would not need to provide any open space. There may need to be a waiver for the amount of existing open space within the environmental areas in excess of 50 % 2. A different case could be made that, since 764 acres were platted prior to November 1973, when R-5 requirements came into effect, the open space requirement should only be imposed on the remaining 1172 acres that had not yet been platted. That would translate to about 410 acres of open space. Again, if the lake, golf course, beaches, etc. are counted towards the requirement, they would provide more than enough open space for the remainder of the development. One significant implication of this approach is that all of the remaining unplatted portions, and perhaps even some of the existing green areas that are not officially dedicated, could be fully developed without providing any more open space within the new parts. Again, assurances about the golf course, lake, etc. remaining as such would be needed and a determination would need to be made about whether the existing open space located within the environmental areas would all be counted toward the required total. 3. A third approach would be a compromise between the previous two approaches. The existing "green areas," along with the lake, beaches, etc., could be dedicated as open space the 35 % open space requirement could be applied to the unplatted areas. As noted above, the County was told in June 1974 that the lands within The Summit would comply with the R-5 zoning requirements with regard to open spaces, among other things. Since the unplatted IFS property, along with the dam area and a few smaller areas total about 362 acres, roughly 127 acres of this would need to remain as dedicated open space if the remainder was platted for development. This would result in about 21 acres less open space than the first option would. This could achieved either by requiring a master plan that indicates 35 % of the undeveloped area as open space or by requiring each individual future development to include 35 % open space. RECONEM ENDATION Staff believes the best overall land use and open space scheme would result from a Master Plan for the entire development, regardless of which level of open space is required. Staff suggests asking the applicant if he would be willing to coordinate with the owners of the remaining undeveloped land at The Summit to produce such a plan. In terms of the level of open space required, staff recommends adopting the third option described above as the policy towards any new development at The Summit. This would include securing assurances that the lake, golf course, beaches, and miscellaneous green areas that are not dedicated as open space would in fact remain as they are. It is further recommended that the requirement that no more than 50 % of the open space be within environmental areas only be applied to future development, including the proposed subdivision. This would allow the status quo to be considered sufficient in terms of inclusion of steep slopes, etc. in open space for the areas platted to date. This seems reasonable in terms of current property owners' expectations about open space. If a master plan for the entire development can be provided, it is possible that the applicant's land may not be required to include open space. If an overall master plan cannot be provided, a master plan for the applicant's property, with 35 % open space would be required. SUMMARY The history of The Summit and the open space commitments there is very complex, making it difficult to apply standards for new development there that are both equitable and easy to understand. It is clear that a significant portion of The Summit was platted prior to the R-5 regulations becoming effective, but it also appears to have been understood from the very inception of the development that something close to what R-5 now requires would be provided there. The existing open space does not meet current requirements in terms of acreage or in terms of dedication as open space and very well may not meet current requirements in terms of having no more than 50% of the open space within certain environmental areas. The question of whether the entire development is vested under the pre-1973 standards in terms of master plan requirements and open space requirements, while not answered conclusively, has been substantially answered. Staff believes there is a strong case that current master plan and open space requirements should apply at least to any new development, especially since such representations were made at the time of rezoning. The County needs to secure what is currently informally counted as open space. This would require specific designation and assurances about the existing open space, including the lake, golf course, beaches, and miscellaneous green areas. It would be preferrable to have a master plan for the entire development before any new subdivisions are approved, but if that is not provided then the current subdivision proposal would need to provide a master plan with 35 % open space. In either case, staff recommends that 35 % of the remaining unplatted area be planned as open space which meets current standards and that the existing open space, once secured, be considered sufficient for the existing platted areas. Attachment B summarizes in chart form the three options described for open space requirements. 5001rnif F1 14z-° MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Ron Lilley, Planner II COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 SUBJ: The Summit/Bayliss Subdivision Application — Open Space Requirements DATE: December 2, 1993 This is a follow up to the Subdivision Application of Donald L. Bayliss for 28 lots on 10.7 acres at The Summit, which you tabled at your October 27 meeting. The application included a request for exemption from the normal R-5 open space requirement and was tabled until December 8th to allow time for the staff to complete research on the history of The Summit, the existing open space, the degree of vesting involved, and the water situation there. The Board must act on the application by December 27th. The staff has done considerable research on The Summit, along with a technical review of the applicant's request for exception from the normal open space requirements. The research and associated recommendations are detailed in the attached report. The water situation is being addressed separately through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Office of Water Programs. The bottom line recommendation of the report is: - require 35 % open space for the remaining unplatted areas of The Summit (including the Bayliss property), and - require that either the Bayliss property have a master plan with 35 % open space or that a master plan for the entire development be done, which would secure the areas currently considered as open space and would provide the 35 % of the unplatted areas as open space. The Planning Commission (with Carper abstaining) unanimously endorsed the recommendation in the report at their December 1st meeting, although concerns were raised about whether the golf course, as a for -profit operation which is not freely available to all residents, should count towards the open space requirement. The Planning Commission also noted concerns about 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 BOS Memo Summit/Bayliss Page 2 acting on proposals for any property for which the taxes are not paid up. Lastly, the Planning Commission recommended that the Board imposing a moratorium on any more subdivisions at The Summit (after disposition of the Bayliss application) until a Master Plan for the entire development is completed and approved. Staff has discussed the report's recommendations with representatives of IFS Corp. (Charles McCandlish) and Lake Holiday Estates, Inc. (Carl Simms) and they have indicated a willingness to cooperate in providing assurances about the existing open areas, in setting aside 35 % of the unplatted area as open space and in developing a master plan for The Summit. Staff recommends denial of the current application until an adequate master plan and open space scheme are devised, as required by the R-5 section of the Zoning Ordinance. THE SUNIlVIIT Report on Open Space Research November 15, 1993 BACKGROUND This report has been prepared at the request of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in response to a subdivision application for Section 1B of The Summit at Lake Holiday to create 28 lots on 10.7 acres. The application includes a request for exemption from the normal R-5 open space requirements. This report addresses the history of The Summit, the existing open space, the amount of open space allowed to be within certain environmental areas, and the degree of vesting involved with master plan and open space requirements. The staff has done considerable research and organization of the files on The Summit, along with a technical review of the applicant's request for exception from the normal open space requirements. The basic findings are summarized below, followed by a summary of options for open space requirements and a recommendation from the staff on how to proceed. FINDINGS The first section of The Summit was approved in 1970. The zoning in effect at that time was R-2 (Residential General), which did not require a master plan or open space. The Summit property was rezoned to R-5 effective November 1, 1973, which required developments to be done in accordance with a master plan and to include 35 % dedicated open space. There was a small portion of the property that was inadvertently not rezoned to R-5, but that was cleared up in June, 1974, so the R-5 zoning has applied to all 1936.4 acres of The Summit property since then. Before November 1973, the subdivision of Sections 1, 2, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 6B, and 8A were approved, for a total of 1,890 lots on 764 acres. It is not clear whether any master plan was a basis for the subdivision approvals. Though no master plan was required, there are various plans in the files, all of which are similar but have some substantial differences from each other. The plans are undated, but staff was told by David Lee Ingram, whose firm prepared the plans, that the working "Master Plan" prepared by James C. Wilkins & Associates was done in the very early 1970's. This plan was certainly available when sections 6B and 8A were approved in July, 1973. Along with the lake and golf course, it indicates several green areas throughout the development, including one at the eastern end of the lake where the current subdivision is contemplated. It also indicates a ski area of approximately 35 acres and large areas noted as "future development." Another plan, apparently produced earlier, indicates a future equestrian area, and does not indicate any use for the area at the eastern end of the lake. Still another plan, which is less formal and was apparently produced after 1973, indicates a marina and future development at the eastern end of the lake. After November 1973, it appears to have been understood that the then -current zoning requirements would apply to new sections. In the June 1974 rezoning application which clarified that all 1936.4 acres would be zoned R-5, the applicant's Economic Impact Study stated: All of these lands will simply be a continuation of the present concept of Lake Holiday Estates, Inc. and will not materially change the ideas that have been put forth and accepted to this time. They will continue to comply with all of the zoning requirements designated by R 5 with regard to densities, _ open &zaees. land uses, and physical configurations. Also, a June 1974 letter from the County Administrator to the attorneys for The Summit advises that plats, plans, and other information related to future platted sections of The Summit be submitted as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. A careful review of the applicant's figures for numbers of lots and acreage in open space, unplatted areas, etc. has shown that some corrections to those figures are necessary. A marked up copy of the applicant's figures is provided as Appendix A. To summarize the corrected figures, the total acreage of The Summit property is 1936.4 acres (just over 3 square miles). Not including the proposed subdivision, there are presently 2,667 lots platted on 1,044.1 acres, excluding 42.8 acres of open space "green areas" dispersed throughout the platted sections. This accounts for about 54% of the entire Summit property. The lake, golf course, beaches, and miscellaneous green areas account for about 27 % of the entire development (or just under 34% of the presently developed area). The unplatted areas shown as belonging to Independent Mortgage Trust, now in the name of IFS Corp., account for about 14% of the entire property. The remaining 5 % is in the dam area, commercial area, and miscellaneous unplatted areas. The deeds for the golf course are quite involved, but as best as staff can determine there are no deed covenants which restrict the use of the golf course or other "green areas" to open space. Therefore, if such areas are to be counted - towards any open space requirement, it should be made clear that they would remain as open space. The unplatted areas belonging to IFS Corp. should not be counted as open space since they are not dedicated as open space, as the ordinance requires. OPTIONS FOR OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS The staff feels that there are basically three possible approaches that could be used to deal with the open space questions. These are; 1. 35% of the entire development could be dedicated as open space. Since this development was originally presented as containing large portions of open space (at least approximating the 35% requirement that came into effect with the R-5 district), and the lot purchasers presumably expected as much, it could be argued that 35 % of the entire development should be dedicated as open space. That would translate to about 678 acres of open space when everything else was fully developed. If the lake, golf course, two beaches, and miscellaneous green areas are all counted towards the open space requirement, they would provide about 530 acres of open space, which leaves a shortage of approximately 148 acres. The unplatted IFS property, along with the dam area and a few smaller areas account for about 362 acres, so it is possible that 148 acres could be provided out of those areas. The current standards for open space do not allow more than 50 % of the required open space to be within lakes and ponds, wetlands, or steep slopes, but the Planning Commission may allow a larger amount of steep slopes to count towards the open space requirement when the developer can demonstrate a viable plan to make such areas useful. It cannot be determined from the application how much of the existing open space is in the lake, wetlands, or steep slopes, but it is entirely possible that such portions account for over 50 % of the open space. To apply this option, a Master Plan for the entire development would need to be submitted, designating the areas to count towards the 35% requirement. There would need to be dedication of the existing open spaces and of future open spaces. Such a plan may show that the area proposed for Section 1B (the area of the Bayliss proposal) would not need to provide any open space. It also appears that there would need to be a waiver of the amount of open space permitted to be within environmental areas. 2. The 35% open space requirement could only be applied to that area that was unplatted at the time of the R-5 rezoning. A case could be made that, since 764 acres were platted prior to November 1973, when R-5 requirements came into effect, the open space requirement should only be imposed on the remaining 1172 acres that had not yet been platted. That would translate to about 410 acres of open space. Again, if the lake, golf course, beaches, etc. are counted towards the requirement, they would provide more than enough open space for the remainder of the development. One significant implication of this approach is that all of the remaining unplatted portions, and perhaps even some of the existing green areas that are not officially dedicated, could be fully developed without providing any more open space within the new parts. Again, assurances about the golf course, lake, etc. remaining as such would be needed and a determination would need to be made about whether the existing open space located within the environmental areas would all be counted toward the required total. 3. The areas currently indicated as open space could be considered adequate for the existing lots, and any additional subdivision could provide 35% openspace. This approach is the one recommended by the staff and would be a compromise between the previous two approaches. The existing "green areas. " along with the golf course, lake beaches etc should be dedicated as open space and the 35 % open _nDace requirement should be applied to the remaining unplatted areas. Lake Holiday Estates, Inc. submitted a report to the County containing recommended language for the R-5 Ordinance at the time it was created and was a willing participant in the rezoning of The Summit from R-2 to R-5. As noted above, the County was told by the representatives of Lake Holiday Estates, Inc. in June 1974 that the lands within The Summit would comply with the R-5 zoning requirements with regard to open spaces, among other things. This would seem to void any arguement that The Summit is vested from complying with relevent R-5 requirements. Since the unplatted ITS property, along with the dam area and a few smaller areas total about 362 acres, roughly 127 acres of this would need to set aside as dedicated open space if the remainder was platted for development. This would result in about 21 acres less open space than option number one, above. This could achieved either by requiring a master plan that indicates 35 % of the undeveloped area as open space or by requiring each individual future development to include 35 % open space. Attachment B summarizes in chart form the three options described for open space requirements. RECONEMFNDATION Staff believes the best overall land use and open space scheme for The Summit would result from a Master Plan for the entire development, regardless of which amount of open space is required. Staff suggests that if the applicant is willing and able to coordinate with the owners of the remaining undeveloped land at The Summit, such a plan would benefit all parties concerned. It would be preferable to have a master plan for the entire development before any new subdivisions are approved, but if that is not, or cannot, be provided then the current mWivision prroposal would still need to be preceded by a master plan indicating 35 % open space as required by R-5 zoning. In terms of the level of open space required overall, staff recommends adopting the policy described in number three above for any new development at The Summit. This would include securing specific dedications and/or assurances that the lake, golf course, beaches, and miscellaneous green areas that are now informally referred to as open space would in fact remain as they are. It is further recommended that the requirement that no more than 50 % of the open space be within environmental areas only be applied to future development, including the proposed subdivision. This would mean that the status quo would be considered sufficient in terms of inclusion of steep slopes, etc. in open space for the areas already platted. This seems reasonable in terms of expectations expressed by current property owners' about open space. SUMMARY The history of The Summit and the open space commitments that have been made there is very complex, making it difficult to apply standards for new development that are both equitable and easy to understand. It is clear that a significant portion of The Summit was platted prior to the R-5 regulations becoming effective, but it also clear that from the very inception of the development it was represented that something close to what R-5 now requires would be provided, and that Lake Holiday Estates, Inc. participated in the creation of the R-5 regulations and in their application to The Summit. The existing open area at The Summit does not meet current open space requirements in terms of the amount provided or in terms of it being dedicated as open space. It also appears that the open area does not meet current requirements in terms of having no more than 50 % of the open space within certain environmental areas. As to whether the entire development is vested under the pre-1973 standards in terms of master plan requirements and open space requirements, staff position is that it is not. Staff believes that current master plan and 35 % open space requirements should apply at the very least to any new development, especially since such representations were made at the time of rezoning and no master plan has yet been submitted. enclosure 3 LAKE HOLIDAY ESTATES DEVELOPMENT DATA LOT GROSS DEDICATED NO. NO. WEL LATTED SECTION NOS. ACREAGE OPEN SPACE LOTS LOTS ACREAGE 1 1 - 150 Z-3-73 2 0 140-- 2 0 98A 161 1A 1248 - 1259 ,6- 0 12 0 441 2)t 152 - 296 1 -A- .Y 145 0 298 - 432 111•0 1.6 135 0 3A it 433 - 559 Aa-4$ O lV 0 to 2 i26 4A Yr 1 - 238 9& 2- 238 0 95.6 l 4 B 1 - i 6 >1-113 0 16 0 5A -)t 1 - 244 .9Z 12.7 0 244 0 5B 1205 - 1247 14�144 0 43 0 5C 1 175 - 1204 .S- 9 ¢ 0 30 0 6A 1 - 253 g7 0 25'--25 0 6B * 1 - 99 2T38 5 Xr 5 99 0 7 1 133 - 1 174 -Y17 2 11-1,2 42 0 8 A 1 - 352 IJH- a-8- 352 ,8' 0 3 7 8 - 492413 20715 11.0 1 �- nb 0 353 - 25 9 986 - 1 132 X110- 10�.6 -8'S ¢ 147 0 10 493 - 607 5z- 0 115 0 11 614 - 712 y6 s4.3 0 12 719 - 98503 �6.5 267 0 0 0 �8-TOTAI.s : i, oB(o 9 4.2.6 2, /ot,7 0 Nero t,044.I '711� %rTiot4s PLATED $Efoga ►t/73 (764.2 ACge5) 1,690 LOTS) page 1 of 2 WWTP [tau enclosure 3 LAKE 240 `crt GOLF COURSE' SKI AREA (WUNIEy AS ?Ag:r of =FS ot4nP ATMV AREA DAM AREA .34' 33, 8 COMMERCIAL 9.6 BEACH 1 BEACH 2 .5'56 • IFS Co" 246-1r— uNYLATTE M I Sc. - 6,w-rzN ARaAS 14.2 �6- - VNPLATTED AR W-7 38.3 TOTALS 40et-r -84-2'-' 46-57 2 454—.3 i o4* l GROSS ACREAGE: 44ee �g36.4- / OP E N SPACE: 8a9-13" 530.5 PERCENT OPEN SPACE: 44-lift 27.47. LOT TO AREA RATIO: 4-3-35 1-3-77 AF E �4P IX page 2 of 2 ALPENDIx =.5 The Summit at Lake Holiday Open Space Requirements Present Development Option 1 (35% Overall) Option 2 Option 3 (35% Since 1973) (Present Amt. + 35% of Future) Platted Acreage Open Space Unplatted/Fut. Dev. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA ROBERT B STROUBE, M O. COMMISSIONER n Mp. Lauwana Bohner P.O. Box 305 Cross Junction, VA 22625 Dear Ms. Bohner: Department of Health Office of Water Programs 17 November 1993 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING FIELD OFFICE 129 SOUTH RANDOLPH STREET LEXINGTON, VIRGINIA 2w50.2928 PHONE: (707)487.7138 FAX(709)a89.8892 SUBJECT: Frederick County Water - Summit This is in reference to your recent inquiry concerning water pumpage at the Summit. The Summit water system presently consists of seven (7) wells, two (2) treatment facilities, and a 150,000- gallon storage tank. The wells vary in depth from 223 feet to 810 feet, and have well yields of from 22 to 100 gallons per minute. Reported water pumpage for the past six (6) months is as follows: Total Pumpage Avg. Daily Pumpage GaUMo Gal/Day October, 1993 5,498,000 177,355 September, 1993 5,078,000 169,267 August, 1993 5,442,000 175,548 July, 1993 7,011,000 226,161 June, 1993 6,074,000 202,467 May, 1993 5,618,000 181,226 Hopefully, the above provided the information requested. If not, do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, n < 1 Harold T. Eberly District Engineer HTE/bt cc Lake Holiday Estates Utility Company - Attn: C. H. Simms VDH - Richmond Central lk I J2 �,4,7L V SEP 1993 �CNI.MON-WEALTH of -VIRCjINIA RICHARD N. BURTON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (804) 527-5000 DIRECTOR NOTICE OF INTENDED REGULATORY ACTION TDD (804) s2�-4261 AMENDMENTS TO GROUND WATER WITHDRAWAL REGULATION ISSUED: SEPTEMBER 20, 1993 Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Agency's Public Participation Guidelines that the State Water Control Board (Board) intends to amend VR 680-13-07, Ground Water Withdrawal Regulation. Basis and Statutory Authority: Section 62.1-256.1. of the Ground Water Management Act of 1992 requires that the Board issue ground water withdrawal permits in accordance with adopted regulations. Section 62.1-256.8. of the Act authorizes the Board to adopt regulations necessary to administer and enforce the Act. Section 62.1-260. E. of the Act requires that all persons withdrawing ground water in excess of 300,000 gallons per month for agricultural or livestock watering purposes in the Eastern Virginia or Eastern Shore Ground Water Management Areas apply for and obtain a ground water withdrawal permit. Section 62.1-258 of the Act requires that any person who proposes a new withdrawal of ground water in excess of 300,000 gallons per month in any ground water management area for agricultural or livestock watering purposes obtain a ground water withdrawal permit. Need: The Ground Water Management Act of 1992 requires that persons who withdraw more than 300,000 gallons per month for agricultural or livestock watering purposes obtain a ground water withdrawal permit. The Act further requires that the Board issue ground water withdrawal permits in accordance with adopted ground water withdrawal regulations. The current Ground Water Withdrawal Regulations must be amended to incorporate application requirements and permit issuance criteria for agricultural ground water withdrawal permits. Substance and Purpose: This proposed regulatory amendment will establish regulatory guidelines for agricultural ground water withdrawals as required by the Ground Water Management Act of 1992. Agricultural ground water withdrawals were previously exempted from regulation in the Ground Water Act of 1973. The purpose of this proposed amendment is to establish regulatory controls on agricultural users of more than 300,000 gallons of ground water per month in order to protect the public welfare, safety and health from the negative impacts of over utilization of the ground water resource. Application requirements, permit issuance criteria, and withdrawal monitoring requirements for agricultural ground water withdrawals will be included in the existing regulation. Estimated Impacts: Amendments to the Ground Water Withdrawal Regulation will impact twenty-three known agricultural ground water users who have voluntarily reported their ground water withdrawals (OVER) Water Division, P.O. Box 11143, Richmond, Virginia 13230-1143 in the past. An unknown additional number of existing agricultural gwund water users in the Eastern Virginia and Eastern Shore Ground Water Management Areas will also be impacted. It is anticipated that a maximum of sixteen hours will be required to gather necessary information and complete an application for an existing agricultural ground water user. There may be additional costs' associated with an agricultural ground water withdrawal permit for withdrawal monitoring and reporting. The range of these costs will be dependent on regulatory requirements. The costs associated with an application for a new agricultural ground water withdrawal will be determined by the information requirements to support such an application that are included in the proposed amendment to the regulation. Alternatives: The Ground Water Management Act of 1992 requires that agricultural ground water withdrawals in excess of 300,000 gallons per day within ground water management areas be permitted. The Act further, requires that the Board issue all permits in accordance with adopted regulations. No alternative, other than amending the Ground Water Withdrawal Regulation, is considered appropriate. Comments: The Board seeks written comments from interested persons on the intended regulatory action and on the costs and benefits of the stated alternative or other alternatives. Written comments should be directed to Mrs. Doneva A. Dalton at the address listed below and must be received by 4:00 p.m. on November 5, 1993. In addition, the board will hold two public meetings to receive views and comments on amendments to the Ground Water Withdrawal Regulation to include agricultural withdrawals. The meetings will be held on October 25, 1993, 7:30 p.m. at the Eastern Shore Community College, Lecture Hair, 29300 Lankford Highway, Melfa, VA 23410 and October 26. 1993, 2:00 p.m. at the James City County Board of Supervisors Room, Building C, 101 C Mounts Bay Road, Williamsburg, VA 23185. A question and,, answer session on the proposed action will be held one half hour prior to the beginning -of both of these meetings. Accessibility to Persons with Disabilities: The meetings are being held at public facilities believed to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Any person with questions on the accessibility of the facilities should contact Mrs. Doneva A. Dalton at the address listed below or by telephone at (804) 527- 5162 or TDD (804) 527-4261. Persons needing interpreter services for the deaf must notify Mrs. Dalton no later than October 13, 1993. Advisory Committee/Group: An advisory group was convened during the late spring of 1993 to provide input to the Agency regarding the content of the proposed amendment to the regulation. The advisory group is composed of representatives from state and federal agencies with knowledge of agricultural water use, the academic community, agricultural interest groups, independent agricultural producers, and regional ground water protection groups. The advisory group is currently finalizing their position on topics to be included in the proposed regulatory amendment. Intent to Hold an Informational Proceeding or Public Hearing: The Board intends to hold at least one informational proceeding (informal hearing) on this proposed amendment after it is published in ;he Register of Regulations. This informational proceeding will be convened by a member of the Board. The Board does not intend to hold a formal evidential hearing on this proposed amendment after it is pubiished in the Register of Regulations. Additional Information: For additional information or to review copies of material, contact Mr. Terry D. Wagner, Office of Spill Response and Remediation, Department of Environmental Quality, P. 0. Box 11143, Richmond, Virginia 23230, (804) 527-5203. I COM1 WEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY VR 660-13-07 GROUND WATER WITHDRAWAL REGULATIONS INDEY section Page PART I GENERAL A'. 1-') 1.1. Definitions. 1 1.2. Purpose. 3 1.3. Authority for regulations. 3 1.4. Prohibitions and requirements for permits. 3 1.5. Exclusions. 3 1.6. Effect of a permit. 4 PART II DECLARATION OF GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT AREAS 2.1. Criteria for consideration of a ground water 4 management area. 2.2. Declaration of ground water management areas. 4 PART III PERMIT APPLICATION AND ISSUANCE 3.1. Application for a permit. 5 3.2. Water conservation and management plans. 10 3.3. Criteria for issuance of permits. 11 3.4. Public water supplies. 15 3.5. Conditions applicable to all permits. 15 3.6. Establishing applicable standards, limitations 16 or other permit conditions. 3.7. Signatory requirements. 19 3.8. Draft permit. 20 PART IV SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION AND ISSUANCE 4.1. Application for a special exception. 20 4.2. Water conservation and management plans. 21 4.3. Criteria for the issuance of special exceptions. 21 4.4. Public water supplies. 21 4.5. Conditions applicable to all special exceptions. 21 4.6. Establishing applicable standards, limitations 21 or other special exception conditions. 4.7. Signatory requirements. 22 4.8. Draft special exception. 22 PART V PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 5.1. Public notice of permit or special exception 22 action and public comment period. 5.2. Public access to information. 23 5.3.' Public comments and hearing. 23 5.4. Public notice of nearing. 24 PART VI PERMIT AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION AMENDMENT, REVOCATION AND DENIAL 6.1. Rules for amendment and revocation. 25 6.2. Causes for revocation. 25 6.3. Causes for amendment. 25 6.4. Transferability of permits and special 26 exceptions. 6.5. Minor amendment. 26 6.6. Denial of a permit or special exception. 27 PART VII ENFORCEMENT 7.1. Enforcement 27 PART VIII MISCELLANEOUS 8.1. Delegation of authority. 27 8.2. Control of naturally flowing wells. 27 8.3. Statewide information requirements. 28 8.4. Statewide right to inspection and entry. 28 a ti /r DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PAGE 1 OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND WATEF ITHDRAWAL REGULATIONS PART I GENERAL § 1.1. Definitions. Unless a different meaning is required by the context, the following terms, as used in this regulation, shall have the following meanings. "Act" means the Ground Water Management Act of 1992, Chapter 25 (S 62.1-254. et seq.) of Title 62.1 of the Code of Virginia. "Adverse Impact" means reductions in ground water levels or changes in ground water quality that limit the ability of any existing ground water user lawfully withdrawing or authorized to withdraw ground water at the time of permit or special exception issuance to continue to withdraw the quantity and quality of ground water required by the existing use. Existing users include all those persons that have been granted a ground water withdrawal permit subject to this regulation and all other persons who are excluded from permit requirements by S 1.5 of this regulation. "Applicant" means a person filing an application to initiate or enlarge a ground water withdrawal in a ground water management area. "Area of impact" means the areal extent of each aquifer where more than one foot of drawdown is predicted to occur due to a proposed withdrawal. "Beneficial use" includes, but is not limited to domestic (including public water supply), agricultural, commercial, and industrial uses. "Board" means the State Water Control Board. "Consumptive use" means the withdrawal of ground water, without. recycle of said waters to their source of origin. "Department" means the Department of Environmental.Quality. "Draft permit" means a prepared document indicating the board's tentative decision relative to a permit action. "Director" means the director of the Department of Environmental Quality. "Geophysical investigation" means any hydrogeologic evaluation to define the hydrogeologic framework of an area or determine. the hydrogeologic properties of any aquifer or confininq unit to the extent that withdrawals associated with such investigations do not result in unmitigated adverse impacts to existing ground water users. Geophysical investigations include, but are not limited to, pump tests and aquifer tests. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMT 'AL QUALITY PAGE 2.OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND WA_--R WITHDRAWAL REGULATIONS "Ground Water" means any water, except capillary moisture, beneath the land surface in the zone of saturation or beneath the bed of any stream, lake, reservoir or other body of surface water wholly or partially within the boundaries of this Commonwealth, whatever the subsurface geologic structure in which such water stands, flows, percolates or otherwise occurs. "Historic prepumping water levels" means ground water levels in aquifers prior to the initiation of any ground water withdrawals. For the purpose of this regulation, in the Eastern Virginia and Eastern Shore Ground Water Management Areas, historic prepumping water levels are defined as water levels present in aquifers prior to 1890. "Human consumptive use" means the- withdrawal of ground water for private residential domestic use and that portion of ground water withdrawals in a public water supply system that support residential domestic uses and domestic uses at commercial and industrial establishments. "Mitigate" means to take actions necessary to assure that all existing ground water users at the time of issuance of a permit or special exception who experience adverse impacts continue to have access to the amount and quality of ground water needed for existing uses. "Permit" means a Ground Water Withdrawal Permit issued by the board permitting the withdrawal of a specified quantity of ground water under specified conditions in a ground water management area. "Permittee" means a person who currently has an effective. Ground Water Withdrawal Permit issued by the board. "Person" means any and all persons, including individuals, firms,, partnerships, associations, public or private institutions, municipalities or political subdivisions, governmental agencies, or private or public corporations organized under the laws of this Commonwealth or any other state or country. "Public hearing" means a fact finding proceeding held to afford interested persons an opportunity to submit factual data, views and comments to the board pursuant to the board's Procedural Rule No. 1. "Salt water Intrusion" means the encroachment of saline waters in any aquifer that create adverse impacts to existing ground water users or is counter to the public interest. "Special Exception" means a document issued by the board for withdrawal of ground water in unusual situations where requiring the user to obtain a ground water withdrawal permit would be contrary to the purpose of the Ground Water Management Act of 1992. Special exceptions allow the withdrawal of a specified quantity of ground water under specified conditions in a ground water management area. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAT QUALITY Pa^.E 3 OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND WATE) ITHDRAWAL REGULATIONS "Surface and Ground Water Conjunctive Use System" means an integrated water supply system wherein surface water is the primary source and ground water is a supplemental source that is used to augment the surface water source when the surface water source is not able to produce the amount of water necessary to support the annual water demands of the system. S 1.2. Purpose. The Ground Water Management Act of 1992 recognizes and declares that the right to reasonable control of all ground water resources within the Commonwealth belongs to the public and that in order to conserve, protect and beneficially utilize the ground water resource and to ensure the public welfare, safety and health, provisions for management and control of ground water resources are essential. This regulation delineates the procedures and requirements to be followed when establishing Ground Water Management Areas and the issuance of Ground Water Withdrawal Permits by the board pursuant to the Ground Water Management Act of 1992. S 1.3. Authority for regulations. The authority for this regulation is the Ground Water Management Act of 1992, Chapter 25 (S 62.1-254 et seq.) of Title 62.1 of.the Code of Virginia, in particular S 62.1-256.8. S 1.4. Prohibitions and requirements for ground water vithdravals. A. No person shall withdraw, attempt to withdraw, or allow the withdrawal of ground water within a ground water management area, except as authorized pursuant to a ground water withdrawal permit, or as excluded in S 1.5 of this regulation. B. No permit or special exception shall be issued for more groundwater than can be applied to the proposed beneficial use. $ I.S. Exclusions. The following do not require a ground water withdrawal permit: 1. Withdrawals of less than 300,000 gallons per month. 2. Withdrawals associated with temporary construction dewatering that do not exceed twenty four months in duration. 3. Withdrawals associated with a state -approved ground water remediation that do not exceed sixty months in duration. 4. Withdrawals for use by a ground water source heat pump where the discharge is reinjected into the aquifer from which it was withdrawn. 5. Withdrawals from ponds recharged by ground water without mechanical assistance. 6. Withdrawals for the purpose of conducting geophysical investigations, including pump tests. 7. Withdrawals coincident with exploration for and extraction of .coal or activities associated with coal mining regulated by the r DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONME, L QUALITY • 'AGE 4 OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND WATzA WITHDRAWAL REGULATIONS Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy. 8. Withdrawals coincident with the exploration for or production of oil, gas or other minerals other than coal, unless such withdrawal adversely impacts aquifer quantity or quality or other ground water users within a ground water management area. 9. Withdrawals in any area not declared to be a ground water management area. 10. Withdrawal of ground water authorized pursuant to a special exception issued by the board. 11. Withdrawal of ground water discharged from free flowing springs where the natural flow of the spring has not been increased by any method. g 1.6. Effect of a permit. A. Compliance with a ground water withdrawal permit constitutes compliance with the permit requirements of the Ground Water Management Act of 1992. B. The issuance of a permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights or any infringement of federal, state or local law or regulation. PART II DECLARATION OF GROUND WATER KANAa8M8NT AREAS S 2.1. Criteria for consideration of a ground water management area. The board upon its own motion, or in its discretion, upon receipt of a petition by any county, city or town within the area in question, may initiate a ground water management area proceeding, whenever in its judgement there is reason to believe that any one of the four following conditions exist: 1. Ground water levels in the area are declining or are expected to decline excessively. 2. The wells of two or more ground water users within the area are interfering or may be reasonably expected to interfere substantially with one another. 3. The available ground water supply has been or may be overdrawn. 4. The ground water in the area has been or may become polluted. S 2.2. Declaration of ground water management areas. A. If the board finds that any of the conditions listed in $ 2.1 exist, and further determines that the public welfare, safety and health require that regulatory efforts be initiated, the board shall declare the area in question a ground water management area, by regulation. �;O;. B. Such regulations shall be promulgated in accordance with the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTA7 DUALITY P7-E 5 OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND WATER .THDRAWAL REGULATIONS Agency's Public Participation Guidelines (VR 680-41-01:1) and the Administrative Process Act (§ 9-6.14:1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia). C. The regulation shall define the boundaries of the ground water management area, and identify the aquifers to be included in the ground water management area. Any number of aquifers that either wholly or partially overlie one another may be included within the same ground water management area. D. After adoption the board shall mail a copy of the regulation to the mayor or chairman of the governing body of each county, city or town within which any part of the ground water management area lies. PART III PERMIT APPLICATION AND ISSUANCE ` S 3.1. Application for a permit. A. Persons withdrawing ground water or who have rights to - - withdraw ground water prior to July 1, 1992, in the Eastern Virginia or Eastern Shore Ground Water Management Areas and not excluded from requirements of this regulation by S 1.5 shall apply for a permit. 1. Any person who was issued a certificate of ground water right or a permit to withdraw ground water prior to July 1, 1991, and who was withdrawing ground water pursuant to said permit or certificate on July 1, 1992, shall file an application on or before December 31, 1992, to continue said withdrawal. The applicant shall demonstrate the claimed prior withdrawals through withdrawal reports required by the existing certificate or permit or by reports required by Water Withdrawal Reporting Regulations (VR-680-15-01). 2. Any person who was issued a certificate of ground water right or a permit to withdraw ground water prior to July 1, 1991, and who had not initiated the withdrawal prior to July 1, 1992, may initiate a withdrawal on or after July 1, 1992, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the certificate or permit and shall file an application for a ground water withdrawal permit on or before December 31, 1995, to continue said withdrawal. The applicant shall demonstrate the claimed prior withdrawals through withdrawal reports required by the existing certificate or permit or by reports required by Water Withdrawal Reporting Regulations (VR-680-15-01). 3. Any person who was issued a permit to withdraw ground water on or after July 1, 1991, and prior to July 1, 1992, shall not be required to apply for a ground water withdrawal permit until the expiration'of the permit to withdraw ground water or ten years from. the date of issuance of the permit to withdraw ground water, whichever occurs first. Such persons shall reapply for a ground water withdrawal permit as described in S 3.1 D of this regulation. 4. (Reserved) 5. Any political subdivision, or authority serving a political subdivision, holding a certificate of ground water right or a permit to withdraw ground water issued prior to July 11 1992, for the operation of a public water supply well for the purpose of providing supplemental water during drought conditions, shall file an DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMF SAL QUALITY PAGE 6 OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND W�, R WITHDRAWAL REGULATIONS application on or before December 31, 1992. Any political subdivision, or authority serving a political subdivision shall submit, as part of the application, a water conservation and management plan as described in S 3.2 B of this regulation. 6. Any person who is required to apply in S 3.1 A 1, S 3.1 A 2, or § 3.1 A 5 and who uses the certificated or permitted withdrawal to operate a public water supply system shall provide a copy of the waterworks operation permit, or equivalent, with the required application for a ground water withdrawal permit. 7. Any person described in S 3.1 A 1, S 3.1 A 2, S 3.1 A 3, or § 3.1 A 5 who files a complete application by the date required may continue to withdraw ground water pursuant to the existing certificate or permit until such time as the board takes action on the outstanding application for a ground water withdrawal permit. 8. Any person described in S 3.1 A 1, S 3.1 A 2, S 3.1 A 3, or S 3.1 A 5.who files an incomplete application by the date required may continue to withdraw ground water as described in S 3.1 A 7 provided that all information required to complete the application is provided to the board within sixty days of the board's notice to the applicant of deficiencies. Should such persons not provide the board the required information within sixty days, they shall cease withdrawals until they provide any additional information to the board and the board concurs that the application is complete. 9. A complete application for those persons described in S 3.1 A 1, S 3.1 A 2, S 3.1 A 3, or S 3.1 A 5 shall contain: a. A ground water withdrawal permit application completed in its entirety. Application forms shall be submitted in a format specified by the board. Such application forms are available from the Department of Environmental Quality. b. Well construction documentation for all wells associated with the application. c. Locations of all wells associated with the application shown on United States Geological Survey 7 1/2 minute topographic maps or copies of such maps. d. Withdrawal reports required by the existing certificate or permit, or reports required by Water Withdrawal Reporting Regulations (VR-680-15-01) to support any claimed prior withdrawal. e. A copy of the Virginia Department of Health waterworks operation permit, or equivalent, where applicable. f. Persons described in S 3.1 A 5 shall .submit a water conservation and management plan as described in S 3.2. g. The application shall have an original signature as described in 5 3.7 of this regulation. 10. Any person described in S 3.1 A 4 who files an application ,by the date required may continue their existing withdrawal until such time as the board takes action on the outstanding application for a ground water withdrawal permit. 11. Any person described in S 3.1 A 1, 5 3.1 A 2, 5 3.1 A 3, S 3.1 A 4, or S 3.1 A 5 who fails to file an application by the date required creates the presumption that all claims to ground water withdrawal based on historic use have been abandoned. Should any such person wish to rebut the presumption that claims to ground water withdrawal based on historic use have been abandoned, they may do so by filing an application with a letter of explanation to the board within sixty days of the original required date or within sixty days of the effective date of this regulation, whichever is later. Any ,DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTA1. QUALITY PAGE 7 OF_28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND WATER :THDRAWAL REGULATIONS such person failing to rebut the presumption that claims to ground water withdrawal based on historic use have been abandoned who wishes to withdraw ground water, shall apply for a new withdrawal as described in S 3.1 C. IV B. Persons withdrawing ground water when a ground water management area is declared or expanded after July 1, 1992, and not excluded from requirements of this regulation by S 1.5 shall apply for a permit. 1. Any person withdrawing ground water in an area that is declared to be a ground water management area after July 1, 1992, shall file an application for a ground water withdrawal permit within six months of the effective date of the regulation creating or expanding the ground water management area. The applicant shall demonstrate the claimed prior withdrawals through withdrawal reports required by Water Withdrawal Reporting Regulations (VR-680-15-01). 2. Any person withdrawing ground water who uses the withdrawal to operate a public water supply system shall provide a copy of the waterworks operation permit, or equivalent, with the required application for a ground water withdrawal permit. 3. Any person who is required to apply for a ground water withdrawal permit and files a complete application within six months after the effective date of the regulation creating or expanding a ground water management area may continue their withdrawal until such time as the board takes action on the outstanding application for a ground water withdrawal permit. 4. Any person who is required to apply for a ground water withdrawal permit and files an incomplete application within six months after the effective date of the regulation creating or expanding a ground water management area may continue to withdraw ground water as described in S 3.1 B 3 provided that all information required to complete the application is provided to the board within sixty days of the board's notice to the applicant of deficiencies. Should such persons not provide the board the required information within sixty days, they shall cease withdrawals until they provide any additional information to the board and the board concurs that the application is complete. 5. A complete application for those persona described in S 3.1 B 1 shall contain: a. A ground water withdrawal permit application completed in its entirety. Application forms shall be submitted in a format specified by the board. Such application forms are available from the Department of Environmental Quality. b. Well construction documentation for all wells associated with the application. c. Locations of all wells associated with the application shown on United States Geological Survey 7 1/2 minute topographic maps or copies of such maps. d. Withdrawal reports required by Water Withdrawal Reporting Regulations (VR-680-15-01) to support any claimed prior withdrawal. e. A copy of the Virginia Department of Health waterworks operation permit, where applicable. f. The application shall have an original signature as described in S 3.7 of this regulation. 6. Any person who fails to file an application within six months after the effective date creating or expanding a ground water DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMAL QUALITY PAGE 8 OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND W R WITHDRAWAL REGULATIONS management area creates the presumption that all claims to ground water withdrawal based on historic use have been abandoned. Should any such person wish to rebut the presumption that claims to ground water withdrawal based on historic use have been abandoned, they may do so by filing an application with a letter of explanation to the board within eight months after the date creating or expanding the ground water management area. Any such person failing to rebut the presumption that claims to ground water withdrawal based on historic use have been abandoned who wishes to withdraw ground water, shall apply for a new withdrawal as described in $ 3.1 C. C. Persons wishing to initiate a new withdrawal or expand an existing withdrawal in any ground water management area and not excluded from requirements of this regulation by S 1.5 shall apply for a permit. ` 1. A ground water withdrawal permit application shall be completed and submitted to the board and a ground water withdrawal permit issued by the board prior to the initiation of any withdrawal not specifically excluded in S 1.5 of this regulation. 2. A complete ground water withdrawal permit application for a new withdrawal, at a minimum, shall contain the following: a. A ground water withdrawal permit application completed in its entirety with all maps, attachments, and addenda that may be required. b. The application shall include notification from the local governing body of the county, city or town in which the. withdrawal is to occur that the location and operation of the withdrawing facility is in compliance with all ordinances adopted pursuant to Chapter 11 (S 15.1-427 et seq.) of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia. If the governing body of any county, city or town fails to respond within forty-five days following receipt of a written request by certified mail, return receipt requested, by an applicant for certification that the location and operation of the proposed facility is consistent with all ordinances adopted pursuant to Chapter 11 (S 15.1-427 et seq.) of Title 15.1, the location and operation of the proposed facility shall be deemed to comply with the provisions of such ordinances for the purposes of this regulation. c. The application shall have an original signature as described in S 3.7 of this regulation. d. The application shall include locations of all wells associated with the application shown on United States Geological Survey 7 1/2 minute topographic maps or copies of such maps and a detailed location map of each existing and proposed well. The detailed location map shall be of sufficient detail such that all wells may be easily located for site inspection. e. A completed well construction report for all existing wells associated with the application. Well construction report forms will be in a format specified by the board and are available from the Department of Environmental Quality. f. A well construction report of the proposed construction for all proposed wells included in the application shall be provided and shall.be clearly marked to distinguish then from well construction reports of existing wells. well construction report forms will be in a format specified by the board and are available from the Department of Environmental Quality. Following construction of any proposed wells, well construction reports providing evidence of the actual construction of the well shall be'provided to the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAI ^UALITY PA"r 9 OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND WATER THDRAWAL REGULATIONS board. Final approval for construction is the authority of the Virginia Department of Health (see S 3.5 A of this regulation). g. An evaluation of the lowest quality water needed for the intended beneficial use. ,. h. An evaluation of sources of water supply, other than ground water, including sources of reclaimed water. i. A water conservation and management plan as described in § 3.2 of this regulation. j. An evaluation to determine the areas of any aquifers that will experience at least one foot of water level declines due to the proposed withdrawal and a listing of all ground water withdrawal permittees within those areas. 3. In addition to requirements contained in S 3.1 C 2, the board may require any or all of the following information prior to considering an application complete. a. A plan to mitigate potential adverse impacts due to the proposed withdrawal on existing ground water users. b. The .installation of monitoring wells and the collection and analysis of drill cuttings, continuous cores, geophysical logs, water quality samples or other hydrogeologic information necessary to characterize the aquifer system present at the proposed withdrawal site. c. The completion of pump tests or aquifer tests to determine aquifer characteristics at the proposed withdrawal site. d. Ground water flow and/or solute transport modeling to determine the area and extent of predicted impacts due to the proposed withdrawal. e. An evaluation of the potential for the proposed withdrawal to cause salt water intrusion into any portions of any aquifers or the movement of waters of lower quality to areas where such movement would result in adverse impacts on existing ground water users or the ground water resource. f. Other information that the board believes is necessary to evaluate the application. D. Duty to reapply. 1. Any permittee with an effective permit shall submit a new permit application at least 270. days before the expiration date of an effective permit unless permission for a later date has been granted by the board. 2. Permittees who have effective permits shall submit a new application 270 days prior to any proposed modification to their activity which will: a. Result in an increase of withdrawals above permitted limits. b. Violate or lead to the violation of the terms and conditions of the permit. 3•. The applicant shall provide all information described in § 3.1 C 1 and S 3.1 C 2 and may be required to provide any information described in S 3.1 C 3 for any reapplication. E. Where the board considers an application incomplete under the requirements of S 3.1 of this regulation, the board may require the submission of additional information after an application has been filed, and may suspend processing of any application until such time as the applicant has supplied missing or deficient information and the board considers the application complete. Further, where -the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMrNTAL QUALITY PAGE 10 OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND i ER WITHDRAWAL REGULATION: applicant becomes aware that he omitted one or more relevant facts from a permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or in any report to the board, he shall immediately submit such facts or the correct information. F. When an application does not accurately describe an existing or proposed ground water withdrawal system, the board may require the applicant to amend the existing application, submit a new application, or submit new applications before the application will be processed. G. All persons required by this regulation to apply for ground water withdrawal permits shall submit application forms in a format specified by the board. Such application forms are available from the Department of Environmental Quality. H. No ground water withdrawal permit application shall be considered complete until a permit fee is submitted as required by the Permit Fee Regulations (VR-680-01-01). S 3.2. Water conservation and management plans. A. Any application to initiate a new withdrawal or expand an existing withdrawal in'any ground water management area.or the reapplication at the end of a permit cycle for all permits shall require a water conservation and management plan before the application or reapplication is considered complete. B. A water conservation and management plan shall include: 1. Requirements for the use of water saving plumbing and processes including, where appropriate, the use of water saving fixtures in new and renovated plumbing as provided in the Uniform Statewide Building Code. 2. A water loss reduction program. 3. A water use education program. 4. An.evaluation of potential water reuse options. 5. Requirements for mandatory water use reductions during water shortage emergencies declared by the local governing body or director, including, where appropriate, ordinances prohibiting the waste of water generally and requirements providing for mandatory water use restrictions, with penalties, during -water shortage emergencies. C. The board shall review all water conservation and management plans and assure.that such plans contain all elements required in S 3.2 B. The board shall approve all plans that: 1. Contain requirements that water saving fixtures be used in all new and renovated plumbing as provided in the Uniform Statewide Building Code. 2. Contain requirements for making technological, procedural, or programmatic improvements to the applicant's facilities and processes to decrease water consumption. These requirements shall assure that the most efficient use is made of ' ground water. 3. Contain requirements for an audit of the total amount of ground water used in the applicant's distribution system and, DEPARTMENT OF,ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PAGE 11 OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND WATER 7THDRAWAL REGULATIONS operational processes during the first two years of the permit cycle. Subsequent implementation of a leak detection and repair program will be required within one year of the completion of the audit, when such a program is technologically feasible. 4. Contain requirements for the education of water users and employees controlling water consuming processes to assure that water conservation principles are well known by the users of the - resource. 5. Contain an evaluation of potential water reuse options and assurances that water will be reused in all instances where reuse is feasible. 6. Contain requirements for mandatory water use restrictions during water shortage emergencies that prohibit all non -essential uses such as lawn watering, car washing, and similar non -essential residential, industrial and commercial uses for the duration of the water shortage emergency. 7. Contain penalties for failure to comply with mandatory water use restrictions. S 3.3. criteria for issuance of permits. A. The board shall not issue any permit for more ground water than will be applied to the proposed beneficial use. B. The board shall issue ground water withdrawal permits to persons withdrawing ground water or who have rights to withdraw ground water prior to July 1, 1992, in the Eastern Virginia or Eastern Shore Ground Water Management Areas and not excluded from requirements of this regulation by S 1.5 based on the following criteria: 1. The board shall issue a ground water withdrawal permit for persons meeting the criteria of S 3.1 A 1 for the total amount of ground water withdrawn in any consecutive twelve-month period between July 1, 1987, and June 30, 1992. 2. The board shall issue a ground water withdrawal permit for persons meeting the criteria of S 3.1 A 2 for the total amount•of ground water withdrawn and applied to a beneficial use in any consecutive twelve-month period between July 1, 1992, and June 30, 1995. 3. (Reserved) 4. The board shall issue a ground water withdrawal permit for persons meeting the criteria of S 3.1 A 5 for the amount of ground water withdrawal needed to annually meet human consumption needs as proven in the water conservation and management plan approved by the board. The board shall include conditions in such permits that require the implementation of mandatory use restrictions before such withdrawals can be exercised. 5. When requested by persons described in S 3.1 A 1, S 3.1 A 2 and S 3.1 A 4 the board shall issue ground water withdrawal permits that include withdrawal amounts in excess of those which an applicant can support based on historic usage. These additional amounts shall be based on water savings achieved through water conservation measures. The applicant shall demonstrate withdrawals• prior to implementation of water conservation measures, type of water conservation measure implemented, and withdrawals after implementation of water conservation measures. The applicant shall DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PAGE 12 OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND W41 'R WITHDRAWAL REGULATIONS provide evidence of withdrawal amounts through metered withdrawals and estimated amounts shall not be accepted to claim additional withdrawal amounts due to water conservation. Decreases in withdrawal amounts due to production declines, climatic conditions, population declines, or similar events shall not be used as a basis to claim additional withdrawal amounts based on water conservation. C. The board shall issue ground water withdrawal permits to persons withdrawing ground water when a ground water management area is declared or expanded after July 1, 1992, and not excluded from requirements of this regulation by S 1.5 based on the following criteria: 1. The board shall issue a ground water withdrawal permit to non-agricultural users for the total amount of ground water withdrawn in any consecutive twelve-month period during the five years preceding the effective date of the regulation creating or expanding the ground water management area. 2. (Reserved) 3. When requested by the applicant the board shall issue' ground water withdrawal permits that include withdrawal amounts in excess of those which an applicant can support based on historic usage. These additional amounts shall be based on water savings achieved through water conservation measures. The applicant shall demonstrate withdrawals prior to implementation of water conservation measures, type of water conservation measure implemented, and withdrawals after implementation of water conservation measures. The applicant shall provide evidence of withdrawal amounts through metered withdrawals and estimated amounts shall not be accepted to claim additional withdrawal amounts due to water conservation. Decreases in withdrawal amounts due to production declines, climatic conditions, population declines, or similar events shall not be used as a basis to claim additional withdrawal amounts based on water conservation. D. The board shall issue ground water withdrawal permits to persons wishing to initiate a new withdrawal or expand an existing withdrawal in any ground water management area who have submitted' complete applications and are not excluded from requirements of this regulation by S 1.5 based on the following criteria: 1. The applicant shall provide all information required in S 3.1 C 2 prior to the board's determination that an'application is complete. The board may require the applicant to provide any information contained in S 3.1 C 3 prior to considering an application complete based on the anticipated impact of the proposed withdrawal on existing ground water users or the ground water resource. 2. When the applicant demonstrates to the board's satisfaction that the maximum safe supply of ground water will be preserved and protected for all other beneficial uses and that the applicant's proposed withdrawal will have no significant unmitigated impact on existing ground water users or the ground water resource. In order to assure that the applicant's proposed withdrawal complies with the above stated requirements, the applicant's demonstration shall include, but not be limited to compliance with the following criteria: a. The applicant demonstrates that no other sources of water supply, including reclaimed water, are viable. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAT QUALITY PD^.E 13 OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND WATEF ITHDRAWAL REGULATIONS b. The applicant demonstrates that the ground water withdrawal will originate from the aquifer that contains the lowest quality water that will support the proposed beneficial use. c. The applicant demonstrates that the area of impact of the proposed withdrawal will remain on property owned by the applicant or that there are no existing ground water withdrawers within the area of impact of the proposed withdrawal. In cases where the area of impact does not remain on the property owned by the applicant or existing ground water withdrawers will be included in the area of impact, the applicant shall provide and implement a plan to mitigate all adverse impacts on existing ground water users. Approvable mitigation plans shall, at a minimum, contain the following features and implementation of the mitigation plan shall be included as enforceable permit conditions: (1) The rebuttable presumption that water level declines that cause adverse impacts to existing wells within the area of impact are due to the proposed withdrawal. (2) A commitment by the applicant to mitigate undisputed adverse impacts due to the proposed withdrawal in a timely fashion. (3) A speedy, non-exclusive, low-cost process to fairly resolve disputed claims for mitigation between the applicant and any claimant. (4) The requirement that the claimant provide documentation that he is the owner of the well; documentation that the well was constructed and operated prior to the initiation,of the applicant's withdrawal; the depth of the well, the pump, and screens and any other construction information that the claimant possesses; the location of the well with enough specificity that it can be located in the field; the historic yield of the well, if available; historic water levels for the well, if available; and the reasons the claimant believes that the applicants withdrawals have caused an adverse impact on the well. d. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed withdrawal in combination with all existing lawful withdrawals will not lower water levels, in any confined aquifer that the withdrawal impacts, below a point that represents 80% of the distance between the his prepumping water levels in the aquifer and the top -of the aquifer. Compliance with the 80% drawdown criterion will be determined at the points that are halfway between the proposed withdrawal site and the predicted one foot drawdown contour based on the predicted stabilized effects of the proposed withdrawal. e. No pumps or water intake devices are placed below the top of the uppermost confined aquifer that a well utilizes as a ground water source or below the bottom of an unconfined aquifer that a well utilizes as a ground water source. f. The applicant demonstrates that the amount of ground water withdrawal requested is the smallest amount of withdrawal necessary to support the proposed beneficial use and that the amount is representative of the amount necessary to support similar beneficial uses when adequate conservation measures are employed. g. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed ground water withdrawal will not result in salt water intrusion or the r movement of waters of lower quality to areas where such movement would result in adverse impacts on existing ground water users or the ground water resource. This provision shall not exclude the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENIAL QUALITY - PAGE 14 OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND WF I WITHDRAWAL REGULATIONS withdrawal of brackish water so long as the proposed withdrawal will not result in unmitigated adverse impacts. h. The applicant provides a water conservation and management plan as described in S 3.2 of this regulation and - implements the plan as an enforceable condition of the ground water withdrawal permit. i. The applicant provides certification by the local governing body that the location and operation of the withdrawing facility is in compliance with all ordinances adopted pursuant to Chapter 11 (S 15.1-427 et seq.) of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia. 3. The board may also take the following factors into consideration when evaluating a ground water withdrawal permit application or special conditions associated with a ground water withdrawal permit: a. The nature of the use of the proposed withdrawal. b. The proposed use of innovative approaches such as aquifer storage and recovery systems, surface and ground water conjunctive use systems, multiple well systems that blend withdrawals from aquifers that contain different quality ground water in order to produce potable water, and desalinization of brackish ground water. c. Climatic cycles. d. Economic cycles. e. The unique requirements of nuclear power stations. f. Population and water demand projections during the term of the proposed permit. g. The status of land use and other necessary approvals. h. Other factors that the board deems appropriate. E. When proposed uses of ground water are in conflict or available supplies of ground water are not sufficient to support all those who desire to use them, the board shall prioritize the evaluation of applications in the following manner: 1. Applications for human consumptive use shall be given the highest priority. 2. Should there be conflicts between applications for human consumptive uses, applications will be evaluated in order based on the date that said applications were considered complete. 3. Applications for all uses, other than human consumption, will be evaluated following the evaluation of proposed human consumptive uses in order based on the date that said applications were considered complete. F. Criteria for reissuance of permits. 1. The board shall consider all criteria for reissuance of a ground water withdrawal permit that are considered for issuance as described in -this section of this regulation. -Existing permitted withdrawal amounts shall not be the sole basis for determination of the appropriate withdrawal amounts when a permit is reissued. 2. The board shall reissue a permit to any public water supply user for a annual amount no less than the amount equal to that portion of the permitted withdrawal that was used by said system to - support human consumptive uses during twelve consecutive months of the previous term of the permit. ' DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY rAGE 15 or ld VR-680-13-07 GROUND WATEP WITHDRAWAL REGULATIONS S 3.4. Public water supplies. t The board shall evaluate all applications for ground water withdrawals for public water supplies as described in S 3.3. The board shall make a preliminary decision on the application and prepare a draft ground water withdrawal permit and forward the draft permit to the Virginia Department of Health. The board shall not issue a final ground water withdrawal permit until such time as the Virginia Department of Health issues a waterworks operation permit, or equivalent. The board shall establish withdrawal limits for such permits as described in S 3.6 A 3 and S 3.6 A 4. Under the Virginia Department of Health's Waterworks Regulation any proposed use of reclaimed, reused, or recycled water contained in a ground water withdrawal application to support a public water supply is required to be approved by the Virginia Department of Health. § 3.5. conditions applicable to all permits. A. Duty to comply. The permittee shall comply with all conditions of the permit. Nothing in these regulations shall be construed to relieve the Ground Water Withdrawal Permit holder of the duty to comply with all applicable Federal and State statutes and regulations. At a minimum, a person must obtain a well construction permit or a well site approval letter from the Virginia Department of Health prior to the construction of any well. Any permit non-compliance is a violation of the Act and law, and is grounds for enforcement action, permit termination, revocation, amendment, or denial of a permit renewal application. B. Duty to cease or confine activity. It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the activity for which a permit has been granted in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of the permit. C. Duty to mitigate. The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to: 1. Avoid all adverse impacts to lawful ground water users which could result from the withdrawal, and 2. Where impacts cannot be avoided, provide mitigation of the adverse impact as described in S 3.3 D 2 c of.this regulation. D. Inspection and entry. Upon presentation of credentials., any duly authorized agent of the board or department may, at reasonable times and under reasonable circumstances: 1. Enter upon any permittee's property, public or private, and have access to, inspect and copy any records that must be kept.as part of the permit conditions. 2. Inspect any facilities, operations or practices (including monitoring and control equipment) regulated or required under the permit. 3. Sample or monitor any substance, parameter or activity for the purpose of assuring compliance with the conditions of the permit or as otherwise authorized by law. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PAGE 16 OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND WA' . WITHDRAWAL REGULATIONS E. Duty to provide information. The permittee shall furnish to the board, within a reasonable time, any information which the board may request to determine whether cause exists for amending or revoking the permit, or to determine compliance with the permit. The permittee shall also furnish to the board, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by the permittee. F. Monitoring and records requirements. 1. Monitoring shall be conducted according to approved analytical methods as specified in the permit. 2. Samples and measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring shall be representative of the monitored activity. 3. The permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance records and all original strip chart or electronic recordings, for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports required by the permit, and records of all data used to complete the application for the permit, for a period of at least three years from the date of the expiration of a granted permit. This period may be extended by request of the board at any time. 4. Records of monitoring information shall include: a. The date, exact place and time of sampling or measurements. b. The name of the individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements. c. The date the analyses were performed. d. The name of the individual(s) who performed the analyses. e. The analytical techniques or methods supporting the information such as observations, readings, calculations and bench data used. f. The results of such analyses. G. Permit action. 19 A permit may be amended or revoked as set forth in Part VI of this regulation. 2. If a permittee files a request for permit amendment or revocation, or files a notification of planned changes, or anticipated noncompliance, the permit terms and conditions shall remain effective until the request is acted upon by the board. This provision shall not be used to extend the expiration date of the effective permit. 3. Permits may be amended or revoked upon the request of the permittee, or upon board initiative, to reflect the requirements of any changes in the statutes or regulations. S 3.6. Establishing applicable standards, limitations or other permit conditions. A. In addition to the conditions established in S 3.2, S 3.3, 53.4 and 53.5 of this regulation, each permit shall include conditions with the following requirements: 1. A permit shall contain the total depth of each permitted well in feet. 2. A permit shall contain designation of the aquifer(s) to be utilized. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAT QUALITY PA"-E 17 OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND WATER ITHDRAWAL REGULATIONS 3. A permit shall contain conditions limiting the withdrawal amount of a single well or a group of wells that comprise a withdrawal system to a quantity specified by the board. A permit shall contain a maximum annual withdrawal limit. 4. A ground water withdrawal permit for a public water supply shall contain a condition allowing daily withdrawals at a level consistent with the requirements and conditions contained in the waterworks operation permit, or equivalent, issued by the Virginia Department of Health. This requirement shall not limit the authority of the board to reduce or eliminate ground water withdrawals by public water suppliers if necessary to protect human health or the environment. 5. The permittee shall not place a pump or water intake device lower than the top of the uppermost confined aquifer that a well utilizes as a ground water source or lower, than the bottom of an unconfined aquifer that a weil utilizes as a ground water source. 6. All permits shall specify monitoring requirements as conditions of the permit. a. Permitted users shall install in -line totalizing flow meters to read gallons, cubic feet or cubic meters on each permitted well prior to beginning the permitted use. Such meters shall produce volume determinations within plus or minus 10% of actual flows. A defective meter or other device must be repaired or replaced within•. 30 days: A defective meter is not grounds for not reporting. withdrawals. During any period when a meter is defective generally accepted engineering methods shall be used to -estimate withdrawals and the period during which the meter was defective must be clearly identified in ground water withdrawal reports. An alternative method for determining flow may be approved by the board on a case -by -case basis. b. Permits shall contain requirements concerning the proper use, maintenance and installation, when appropriate, of monitoring equipment or methods when required as a condition of the permit. c. Permits shall contain required monitoring including type, intervals, and frequency sufficient to yield data which are representative of the monitored activity and including, when appropriate, continuous monitoring and sampling. d. Each permitted well shall be equipped in a manner such that water levels can be measured during pumping and nonpumping periods without dismantling any equipment. Any opening for tape measurement of water levels shall have an inside diameter of 0.5.inches and be sealed by a removable plug or cap. The permittee shall provide a tap for taking raw water samples from each permitted well. 7. All permits shall include requirements to report the amount of water withdrawn from each permitted well and well system on forms provided by the board with a frequency dependent on the nature and effect,of the withdrawal, but in no case less than once per year. 8. Ground water withdrawal permits issued under this regulation shall have an effective and expiration date which will determine the life of the permit. Ground water withdrawal permits shall be effective for a fixed term not to exceed ten years. Permit durations of less than the maximum period of time may be recommended in areas where hydrologic conditions are changing or are not adequately known. The term of any permit shall not be extended by amendment beyond the maximum duration. Extension of permits for the same activity beyond the maximum duration specified in the original permit DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PAGE 18 OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND W1 R WITHDRAWAL REGULATIONS will require reapplication and issuance of a new permit. 9. Each permit shall have a condition allowing the reopening of the permit for the purpose of amending the conditions of the permit to meet new regulatory standards duly adopted by the board. Cause for reopening permits include but is not limited to a determination that the circumstances on which the previous permit was based have materially and substantially changed, or special studies conducted by the board or the permittee show material and substantial change, since the time the permit was issued and thereby constitute cause for permit amendment or revocation. 10. Each well that is included in a ground water withdrawal permit shall have affixed to the well casing, in a prominent place, a permanent well identification plate that records the Department of Environmental Quality well identification number, the ground water withdrawal permit number, the total depth of the well and the screened intervals in the well, at a minimum. Such well identification plates shall be in a format specified by the board and are available from the Department of Environmental Quality. B. In addition to the conditions established in S 3.2, S 3.3, S 3.4, S 3.5, and S 3.6 A of this regulation, each permit may include conditions with the following requirements where applicable: 1. A withdrawal limit may be placed on all or some of the wells which constitute a withdrawal system. 2. A permit may contain quarterly, monthly, or daily withdrawal limits or withdrawal limits based on any other frequency as determined by the board. 3. A permit may contain conditions requiring water quality and water levels monitoring at specified intervals in any wells deemed appropriate by the board. 4. A permit may contain conditions specifying water quality action levels in pumping and observation/monitoring wells to protect against or mitigate water quality degradation. The board may require permitted users to initiate control measures which include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Pumping arrangements to reduce ground water withdrawal in areas of concentrated 'pumping. b. Location of wells to eliminate or reduce ground water withdrawals near saltwater -freshwater interfaces. c. Requirement of selective withdrawal from other available aquifers than those presently used. d. Selective curtailment, reduction or cessation of ground water withdrawals to protect the public welfare, safety or health or to protect the resource. e. Conjunctive use of freshwater and saltwater aquifers, or waters of less desirable quality where water quality of a specific character is not essential. f. Construction and use of observation or monitoring wells, drilled into aquifers between areas of ground water withdrawal (or proposed areas of ground water withdrawal) and sources of lower quality water including saltwater. g. Prohibiting the hydraulic connection of aquifers that contain different quality waters that could result in deterioration of water quality in an aquifer. h. Such other necessary control or abatement techniques as are technically feasible. 5. A permit may contain conditions limiting water level DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAI "JALITY PP 19 OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND WATER rHDRAWAL REGULATIONS declines in pumping wells and observation wells. 6. All permits may include requirements to report water quality and water level information on forms provided by the board with a frequency dependent on the nature and effect of the withdrawal, but in no case less than once per year. C. In addition to conditions described in S 3.5, S 3.6 A, and S 3.6 B the board may issue any permit with any terms, conditions and limitations necessary to protect the public welfare, safety and health. S 3.7. signatory requirements. Any application, report, or certification shall be signed as follows: 1. Application. a. For a corporation: by a responsible corporate official. For purposes of this section, a responsible corporate official means (i) a president, secretary, treasurer, or vice president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy or decision -making functions for the corporation, or (ii) the manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities employing more than 250 persons or having gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25,000,000 (in second-quarter 1980 dollars), if authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in -accordance with corporate procedures. b. For a municipality, state, federal or other public agency by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. (A principal executive officer of a federal, municipal, or state agency includes the chief executive officer of the agency or head executive officer having responsibility for the overall operation of a principal geographic unit of the agency). c. For a partnership or sole proprietorship, by a general partner or proprietor, respectively. d. Any application for a permit under this regulation must bear the signatures of the responsible party and any agent acting on the responsible party's behalf. 2. Reports. All reports required by permits and other information requested by the board shall be signed by:' - a. one of the persons described in subdivision 1 a, b or c of this section; or b. A duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if: (1) The authorization is made in writing to the board by a person described in subdivision 1 a, b, or c of this section; and (2) The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated withdrawal facility or activity, such as the position of glant manager, superintendent, or position of equivalent responsibility. A duly authorized representative may thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position.° (3) If an authorization is no longer accurate because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a new authorization must be submitted to the board prior to or together with any separate information., or' J DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMT 'AL QUALITY PAGE 20 OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND WA-.:R WITHDRAWAL REGULATIONS applications to be signed by an authorized representative. 3. Certification of application and reports. Any person signing a document under subdivision 1 or 2 of this section shall make the following certification: I certify that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. S 3.8. Draft permit. A. Upon receipt of a complete application, the board shall make a tentative decision to issue or deny the application. If a tentative decision is to issue the permit then a draft permit shall be prepared in advance of public notice. The following tentative determinations shall be incorporated into a draft permit: 1. Conditions, withdrawal limitations, standards and other requirements applicable to the permit. 2. Monitoring and reporting requirements. 3. Requirements for mitigation of adverse impacts. 4. Requirements for a water conservation and management plan. B. If the tentative decision is to deny the application, the board shall do so in accordance with S 6.6 of this regulation. PART IV SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION AND ISSUANCE S 4.1. Application for a special exception. A. Any person who wishes to initiate a ground water withdrawal in any ground water management area and is not exempted from the provisions of this regulation.by S 1.5 may apply for a special exception in unusual cases where requiring the proposed user to obtain a ground water withdrawal permit would be contrary to the purpose of the Ground Water Management Act of 19.92. B. A special exception application shall be completed and' submitted to the board and a special exception issued by the board prior to the initiation of any withdrawal not specifically excluded in S 1.5 of this regulation. Special exception application forms shall be in a format specified by the board and are available from the Department of Environmental Quality. C. Due to the unique nature of applications for special exceptions the board shall determine the completeness of an application on a case - by -case basis. The board may require any information required in S 3.1 C 2 or S 3.1 C 3 prior to considering an application for a special exception complete. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTA- QUALITY P" 'T 21 OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND WATER ITHDRAWAL REGULATIONS D. Where the board considers an application incomplete, the board may require the submission of additional information after an application has been filed, and may suspend processing of any application until such time as the applicant has supplied missing or deficient information and the board considers the application complete. Further, where the applicant becomes aware that he omitted one or more relevant facts from a special exception application, or submitted incorrect information in a special exception application or in any report to the board, he shall immediately submit such facts or the correct information. S 4.2. Water conservation and management plans. A. The board may require water conservation and management plans or specific elements of water conservation and management plans as described in S 3.2 B prior to considering an application for a special exception complete. B. In instances where a water conservation and management plan is required, the board may include the implementation of such plans as an enforceable condition of the applicable special exception. S 4.3. criteria for the issuance of special exceptions.. A. The board shall issue special exceptions only in unusual situations where the applicant demonstrates to the board's satisfaction that requiring the applicant to obtain a ground water withdrawal permit would be contrary to the intended purposes of the Ground Water Management Act of 1992. B. The board may require compliance.with any criteria described in S 3.3 of this regulation. S 4.4. public water supplies. The board shall not issue special exceptions for the normal operations of public water supplies. S 4.5. conditions applicable to all special exceptions. The holder of any special exception shall be responsible for compliance with all conditions contained in the special exception and shall be subject to the same requirements of permittees as described in $ 3.5 of this regulation. S 4.6. Establishing applicable standards, limitations or other special exception conditions. The board may issue special exceptions which include any �t requirement for permits as described in S 3.6 of this regulation. Special exceptions shall not be'renewed, except in the case of special exceptions that have been issued to allow ground water withdrawals 9 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PAGE 22 OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND W. R WITHDRAWAL REGULATIONS associated with state -approved ground water remediation activities. In the case of reissuance of a special exception for a state -approved ground water remediation activity, the board may require the holder of the special exception to submit any information required in S 3.1 C 2 or S 3.1 C 3 and may require compliance with any criteria describied in § 3.3 of this regulation. In the case where any other activity that is being supported by the specially excepted withdrawal will require that the withdrawal extend beyond the term of the existing special exception, the ground water user shall apply for a permit to withdraw ground water. S 4.7. signatory requirements. The signatory requirements for any application, report or certification shall be the same as those described in S 3.7 of this regulation. g 4.8. Draft special ezception. A. Upon receipt of a complete application, the board shall make a tentative decision to issue or deny the application. If a tentative. decision is to issue the special exception then a draft special. exception shall be prepared in advance of public notice. The following tentative determinations shall be incorporated into a draft special exception: 1. Conditions, withdrawal limitations, standards and other requirements applicable to the special exception. 2. Monitoring and reporting requirements. 3. Requirements for mitigation of adverse impacts. B. If the tentative decision is to deny the application, the board shall return the application to the applicant. The applicant may then apply for a ground water withdrawal permit for the proposed withdrawal in accordance with Part III of this regulation. PART V PUBLIC INVOLVEXENT S 5.1. Public notice of permit or special ezception action and public comment period. A. Every draft permit and special exception shall be given public notice in a form prescribed by the board and paid for by the owner, by publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the withdrawal. B. Notice of each draft permit and special exception will be mailed by the board to each local governing body within the ground water management area within which the proposed withdrawal will occur on or before the date of public notice. C. The board shall allow a period of at lea4st 30 days following the date of the public notice for interested persons to submit written DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTF ZUALITY F ? 23 OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND WATER "ITHDRAWAL REGULATIONS comments on the tentative decision and to request an informal hearing. D. The contents of the public notice of a draft permit or draft special exception action shall include: h 1. Name and address of the applicant. If the location of the proposed withdrawal differs from the address of the applicant the notice shall also state the location in sufficient detail such that the specific location may be easily identified. 2. Brief description of the beneficial use that the ground water withdrawal will support. 3. The name and depth below ground surface of the aquifer that will support the proposed withdrawal. 4. The amount of ground water withdrawal requested expressed as an average gallonage per day. 5. A statement of the tentative determination to issue or deny a permit or special exception. 6. A brief description of the final determination procedure. 7. The address and phone number of a specific person at the department's office from whom further information may be obtained. 8. A brief description on how to submit comments and request a public hearing. E. Public notice shall not be required for submission or approval of plans and specifications or conceptual engineering reports not required to be submitted as part of the application. F. When a permit or special exception is denied the board will do so in accordance with S 6.6 of this regulation. S 5.2. Public access to information. All information pertaining to permit and special exception application and processing shall be available to the public. S 5.3. Public comments and public hearinq. A.•All written comments submitted during the 30-day comment period described in S 5.1 C shall be retained by the board and considered during the board's final decision on the permit or special exception. B. The director shall consider all written comments and requests for an informal hearing received during the comment period, and shall make a determination on the necessity of an informal hearing in accordance with S 1.12 of Procedural Rule -No. 1 (VR 680-31-01). All proceedings, informal hearings and decisions therefrom will be in accordance with Procedural Rule No. 1. C. Should the director, in accordance with Procedural Rule No. 1, determine to dispense with the informal hearinq, he may grant the permit or special exception, or, at his discretion, transmit the application or request, together with all written comments thereon and relevant staff documents and staff recommendations, if any; to the board for its decision. D. Any owner aggrieved by any action of the board taken without a DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRON*--N.TAL QUALITY • PAGE 24 OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND 'ER WITHDRAWAL REGULATION_ formal hearing may request in writing a formal hearing pursuant to Procedural Rule No. 1. S 5.4. Public notice of bearing. A. Public notice of any informal hearing held pursuant to S 5.3 shall be circulated as follows: 1. Notice shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed withdrawal. 2. Notice of the informal hearing shall be sent to all persons and government agencies which received a copy of the public notice of the draft permit or special exception and to those persons requesting an informal hearing or having commented in response to the public notice. B. Notice shall be effected pursuant to subdivisions A.1 and A.2 above, upon mailing, at least 30 days in advance of the informal hearing. C. The content of the public notice of any informal hearing held pursuant to S 5.3 shall include at least the following: 1. Name and address of each person whose application will be considered at the informal hearing, the amount of ground water withdrawal requested expressed as an average gallonage per day, and a brief description of the beneficial use -that will be supported by the proposed ground water withdrawal. 2. The precise location of the proposed withdrawal and the aquifers that will support the withdrawal. The location should be described, where possible, with reference to route numbers, road intersections, map coordinates or similar information. 3. A brief reference to the public notice issued for the permit or special exception application and draft permit or special exception, including identification number and date of issuance unless the public notice includes the informal hearing notice. 4. Information regarding the time and location for the informal hearing. 5. The purpose of the informal hearing. 6. A concise statement of the relevant issues raised by the persons requesting the informal hearing. 7. Contact person and the address of.the Department of Environmental Quality office at which interested persons may obtain further information or request a copy of the draft permit or special exception. 8. A brief reference to the rules and procedures to be followed at the informal hearing. D. Public notice of any formal hearing held pursuant to S 5.3 D shall be in accordance with Procedural Rule No.l. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTA QUALITY VR-680-13-07 GROUNDWATER wITHDRAWAL REGULATIONS P : 25 OF 28 Part vI PERMIT AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION AMENDXZMT, REVOCATION AND DENIAL S 6.1. Rules for amendment and revocation. Permits and special exceptions shall be amended or revoked only as authorized by this part of this regulation as follows: 1. A permit or special exception may be amended in whole or in part, or revoked. 2. Permit or special exception amendments shall not be used to extend the term of a permit or special exception. 3. Amendment or revocation may be initiated by the board, on the request of the permittee, or other person at the board's discretion, under applicable laws or the provisions of this regulation. S 6.2. Causes for revocation. A. After public notice and opportunity for a formal hearing pursuant to S 1.20 of Procedural Rule No. 1 a permit or special exception can be revoked for cause. Causes for revocation are As follows: 1. Noncompliance with any condition of the permit or special exception; 2. Failure to fully disclose all relevant facts or misrepresentation of a material fact in applying for a permit or special exception, or in any other report or document required by the Act, this regulation or permit or special exception conditions; 3. The violation of any regulation or order of the board, or any order of a court, pertaining to ground water withdrawal; 4. A determination that the withdrawal authorized by the permit or special exception endangers human health or the environment and can not be regulated to acceptable levels by permit or special exception amendment; 5. A material change in the basis on which the permit or special exception was issued that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction, application of special.conditions or elimination of any ground water withdrawal controlled by the permit or special exception. B. After public notice and opportunity for a formal hearing pursuant to S 1.20 of Procedural Rule No. 1 a permit or special exception can be revoked when any of the developments described in S 6.3 occur and the holder of the permit or special exception agrees to or requests the revocation. S 6.3. Causes for amendment. A. A permit or special exception may, at the board's discretion, be amended for any cause as described in S 6.2 of this regulation. B. A permit or special exception may be amended when any of the following developments occur: 1. When new information becomes available about the ground DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY VR-680-13-07 GROUND WI R WITHDRAWAL REGULATIONS PAGE 26 OF 28 water withdrawal covered by the permit or special exception, or the impact of the withdrawal, which was not available at permit or special exception issuance and would have justified the application of different conditions at the time of issuance. 2. When ground water withdrawal reports submitted by the permittee indicate that the permittee is using less than 60% of the permitted withdrawal amount for a five-year period. 3. When a change is made in the regulations on which the permit or special exception was based. 4. when changes occur which are subject to "reopener clauses" in the permit or special exception. 5 6.4. Transferability of permits and special exceptions. A. Transfer by amendment. Except as provided for under automatic transfer, in subsection B of this section, a permit or special exception shall be transferred only if the permit has been amended to reflect the transfer. B. Automatic transfer. Any permit or special exception shall be automatically transferred to a new owner if: 1. The current owner notifies the board 30 days in advance of the proposed transfer of ownership; 2. The notice to the board includes a written agreement between the existing and proposed new owner containing a specific date of transfer of permit or special exception responsibility, coverage and liability between them; and 3. The board does not within the 30-day time period notify the existing owner and the proposed owner of its intent to amend the permit or special exception. S 6.5. Minor amendment. A. Upon request of the holder of a permit or special exception, or upon board initiative with the consent of the holder of a permit or special exception, minor amendments may be made in the permit or special exception without following the public involvement procedures. B. For ground water withdrawal permits and special exceptions, minor amendments may only: 1. Correct typographical errors. 2. Require reporting at a greater frequency than required in the permit or special exception. 3. Add additional or more restrictive monitoring requirements than required in the permit or special exception. 4. Replacing an existing well so long as the replacement well is screened in the same aquifers and is in the same location as the existing well. 5. Combine the withdrawals governed by multiple permits into one permit when the systems that were governed by the multiple permits are physically connected, as long as the interconnection will not result in additional ground water withdrawal and the area of impact will not increase. 6. Change an interim compliance date in a schedule of compliance DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTA ;UALITY P 27 OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND WATER WITHDRAWAL REGULATIONS to no more than 120 days from the original compliance date and provided it will not interfere with the final compliance date. 7. Allow for a change in ownership or operational control when the board determines that no other change in the permit or special exception is necessary, provided that a written agreement containing a specific date for transfer of permit or special exception responsibility, coverage and liability from the current to the new owner has been submitted to the board. S 6.6. Denial of a permit or special exception. A. The applicant shall be notified by letter of the department's decision to recommend to the board denial -of the permit or special exception requested. B. The department shall provide sufficient information to the applicant regarding the rationale for denial, such that the applicant may at his option, modify the application in order to achieve a favorable recommendation; withdraw his application; or proceed with the processing on the original application. C. Should the applicant withdraw his application, no permit or special -exception will be issued. D. Should the applicant elect to proceed''with the original project, the staff shall make its recommendation of denial to the director for determination of the need for public notice as provided for in Part V of this regulation. PART VII ENlORCEKENT S 7.1. Enforcesent. The board may enforce the provisions of this regulation utilizing all applicable procedures"under the Ground Water Management Act of 1992 or any other section of the Code of Virginia that may be applicable. PART VIII KIBCELLANZOUS S 8.1. Delegation of authority. The director, or his designee, may perform any act of the board provided under this regulation, except as limited by S 62.1-256.9 of the Code of Virginia. S 8.2. Control of naturally flowing wells. �` The owner of any well that naturally flows, in any portion of the Commonwealth, shall either: 1. Permanently abandon the well in accordance with the Virginia DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONM QUALITY PAGE 28 OF 28 VR-680-13-07 GROUND WA R WITHDRAWAL REGULATIONS Department of Health's Private Well Construction Regulations; or 2. Equip the well with valves that will completely stop the flow of ground water when it is not being applied to a beneficial use. g 8.3. statewide information requirements. The board may require any person withdrawing ground water for any purpose anywhere in the Commonwealth, whether or not declared to be a ground water management area, to furnish to the board such information that may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the Ground Water Management Act of 1992. Ground water withdrawals that occur in conjunction with activities related to the exploration and production of oil, gas, coal, or other minerals regulated by the Department of Mines Minerals and Energy are exempt from any information reporting requirements. 8.4. statewide right to inspection and entry. Upon presentation of credentials the board or department, or any duly authorized agent, shall have the power to enter, at reasonable times and under reasonable circumstances, any establishment or upon any property, public or private, located anywhere in the Commonwealth for the purposes of obtaining information, conducting surveys or . inspections, or inspecting wells and springs to ensure compliance with any permits, standards, policies, rules, regulations, rulings and special orders which the board or department may adopt, issue or establish to carry out the provisions of the Ground Water Management Act of 1992 and this regulation. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 December 9, 1993 Lewis and Associates Attn: John Lewis 24 East Piccadilly St. Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Lewis: This letter is to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of December 8, 1993. Subdivision application ##005-93 for section 1B of The Summit was approved for 28 lots. Final administrative approval for this action is contingent upon the applicant's delinquent taxes being paid in full. This property is located one mile southeast of Redland Road (Route 701) adjacent to Lakeview Drive, in the Gainesboro District, and is identified as PIN 18-A-28A. If you have any questions regarding the approval of this subdivision, please feel free to call this office. Sincerel , W. Wayr-nMller Subdivision Administrator WWM/slk cc: Donald L. Bayliss 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 PC REVIEW: 10/06/93 BOS REVIEW 10/27/93 BOS REVIEW 12/08/93 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION #005-93 LAKE HOLIDAY ESTATES - SECTION 1B 28 LOTS LOCATION: One mile southeast of Redland Road (Route 701) at The Summit, adjacent to Lakeview Drive MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 18-A-28A PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned R5 (Residential Recreational Community) land use - vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned R5 (Residential Recreational Community) land use - vacant and road right-of-way PROPOSED USE: 28 lots, single family detached REVIEW EVALUATION: Fire Marshal: The hydrant location shown does not meet requirements of Frederick Co. Chapter 10. Lots 13-18 are greater that 400' from hydrant. If existing hydrants on Lakeview Drive satisfy this requirement show same on site plan submittal. When building begins on Lot 24, developer must ensure that placement of driveway and/or parking area will not compromise access to fire hydrant. Street grade must not exceed 10% at any point. Inspections Dept.: Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 309, Use Group R, (Residential), of the BOCA National Building Code/1990. County Engineer: See attached letter to John Lewis, Lewis and Associates, dated May 3, 1993. Planning & Zoning: There is no approved master plan for this development. The internal streets are private streets and, to the best of our knowledge, none of the open space was ever dedicated for the sole use of the property owners. Page -2- Summit Subd. Staff concurs with the comments of the County Engineer. The state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has approved the proposed subdivision for both the water and sewer. The sewer is approved based on the history of metered use of the system versus the design capacity. We were advised that the system has been running at about 50% of the design capacity over the last 4 months. This is as reported by the owner/operator of the system. This system has exceeded its design capacity on more than one occasion over the last year and a half. Approval by DEQ for the addition to the water system is based on known available capacity versus the number of hookups or houses being served. When 80% of the available capacity of the system is exceeded for three consecutive months, plans must be presented to DEQ for upgrade or expansion of the system. DEQ approved this proposed subdivision requirement for expansion based on the fact that the application states that there are 325 homes hooked to the system. A review of County records clearly shows that there are 477 houses in this development. DEQ uses a figure of 400 gallons per day (GPD) for each residence and the system has the capability to provide 217,000 GPD. 325 houses would use 130,000 GPD and using the 400 GPD per household, that would be about 60% of the available capacity being used. If the total number of houses hooked to the system is 477, the use would be 190,800 GPD or 87.6% of the available capacity. It appears to staff that the use of this system is already well past the point where additional capacity should have been identified and plans submitted for upgrade. This information was provided to DEQ, Water Programs, and they advised that they would investigate the matter. The open space in this development is a major issue and staff believes it should be resolved. The applicant has submitted an accounting for the current open space, as determined by his engineer/designer, asking for relief from the requirements of 165 - 77 E. of the zoning ordinance which requires 35% open space and no more than 50% of the space is allowed in environmental areas or steep slopes. We believe this accounting is flawed for several reasons with the major one being that it does not identify open space that meets the definition of the zoning ordinance. The ordinance identifies common open space as "land used for recreation, agriculture,resource protection or buffers and is freely accessible to the residents of the development and is protected to ensure that it remains in such uses". For example part of the total accounting is some 286 acres that belongs to the IFS Corporation. This land is not accessible to the residents and may in fact be proposed for subdivision just as this application is doing because it is Page -3- Summit Subd. not dedicated open space. We have been questioned as to whether the golf course is open space and we say not because residents of the development do not have free access to this area. There is no protection for the existing open space to insure that it remains open space. Although the requirement for open space at the inception of this development is unknown, we believe a position that is reasonable and in the best interest of all concerned should be established and written so that future requests can be dealt with in a professional manner. Moreover, this tract of land proposed for subdivision may very well be required to be maintained as part of the open space. A case could probably be made that the answer to putting this development into the proper perspective would be to require a master plan be brought forward. Also, a strong case could probably be made that the application before you at this time should be master planned either individually or as a portion of the entire development. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OCTOBER 6, 1993, PC MEETING: Due to the potential problems with water availability and the uncertainties surrounding the open space issues, staff recommends denial of this request. SUMMARY OF OCTOBER 6, 1993 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission discussion centered around the water and open space issue. The motion for this application stated that denial is recommended until a master plan is presented for the Summit and until the water system is proven to have adequate capacity. The intent of the master plan requirement is to address the open space issue. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS OF OCTOBER 6, 1993: Planning Commission unanimously recommends denial. (R. Carper abstained) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION OF OCTOBER 27 1993: Tabled until December 8, 1993 in order to allow time for further research. EVALUATION OF SUMMIT OPEN SPACE The staff has taken the position that the Summit Golf Course, having been taken over by a group of private investors and being no more accessible to residents of the Summit than to the general public, does not meet the County's definition of open space, and therefore should not be counted in the following calculations. Current R-5 regulations require 35% open space of which no more than 50% can be in steep slopes, lakes, ponds or wetlands. Based on information provided by the applicant and the plan labeled THE SUMMIT Preliminary Master Plan, the total acreage for the Summit is 1,986. Deducting the 220 acre golf course this total becomes 1,766. Information provided by the applicant also indicates a total of 2,657 lots, it is uncertain whether this total includes lots subdivided within the last year. The applicant indicates that there is 679.3 acres which is unplatted/open space, amounting to 38% of the 1,766 acres. The staff position is that unplatted acreage does not qualify as open space since there is no assurance that this acreage will remain open. An example of this would be the 17 acres which the applicant labels as "commercial" and includes in the total unplatted acreage. In actuality a portion of this 17 acres was subdivided in 1992 into twelve lots. The total open space which the applicant labels as "dedicated" is 322 acres or 18%. Of this 322 acres, 240 is made up by the Summit lake leaving only 82 acres of actual land, a large percentage of which is made up of steep slopes. The staffs position is that, based on the information provided, the Summit falls far short of the open space requirements of the current R-5 regulations and the open space that is provided far exceeds the 50% permitted in steep slopes lakes, ponds or wetlands. The staff also has some concerns regarding the accuracy of the information provided. The acreage indicated as dedicated open space is not clearly shown on the plan, nor is documentation provided which indicates that the acreage is in fact dedicated as open space. Given the above information the question then arises, if the Summit does not meet current open space requirements should additional unplatted acreage be permitted to be subdivided? If so, what is the minimum open space that must be maintained, and what assurances are there that it will remain as open space? Date: i2 Applicant/Agent: Address: N5 APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST SUBDIVISION FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA Application # 005-93 Fee Paid �Pz/ ,4d Phone: -I22• !311 Owners name: 'I>epS4S Address: —_ 455 Z2" "00161-US44 *-0 �.I►ac. .�r� OVA zz Phone: '��, - &J:z-Z1�� _ Please list names of all owners, principals and /or majority stockholders: Contact Person: -JCg"Q Low% S Phone: 2D3-'LZ2"G%"1-7 Name of Subdivision: (.4" "VLp [ M*Tome% Number of Lots Z8_ Total Acreage kO,'1 Property Location: mn) PeAoe 14z 'TlAq cvu 1My'.'rr . GQ.ps'S W6 , 0&3 (3 1Mt ug exjW eb'r V F RoyTi3 ?v I (Give State Rt.#, name, stance and direction from inters Magisterial District CnO.IQCD%p ac, Property Identification Number (PIN)) 0 a• Property zoning and present use: Adjoining property zoning and use: aQ t2v6x�' Has a Master Development Plan been submitted for this project? Yes No�_ If yes, has the final MDP been approved by the Board of Supervisors? Yes No What was the MDP title? Does the plat contain any changes from the approved MDP? Yes No If yes, specify what changes: Minimum Lot Size (smallest lot) FoaV SF Number and types of housing units in this development: Number 2,e) Types SPtsa(nL& r#cwt,-f 7;?en4C4ep 0 ot C - �w Pa. May 3, 1993 COUNTY of FREDERICK Harvey L Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works 9 North Loudoun St., 2nd Floor 703/665-5643 m �y Lr . AND DEYEWPMENG John Lewis Lewis andAssociates 45 East Boscawen Street, Suite 100 Winchester, Virginia 22601-4725 RE: Subdivision Plan for Lake Holliday Estates, Section 2B Dear John: We have completed our review of the proposed subdivision plan for Section 2B in Lake Holliday Estates and .offer the following comments: Design Calculations for Water and Sewer The design calculations for the proposed water and sewer system appear adequate. However, we will not grant our approval without written approval from the State Health Department. Before granting approval, we must receive confirmation from the Health Department that the existing central water and sewer systems will accommodate the proposed 28 lot subdivision without taxing the existing dwellings. The existing water system is dependent on deep wells which have incurred reduced capacity with time resulting in a very unreliable system. The Health Department will be responsible for determining the short and, long term adequacy of both systems. a) Provide drainage easements between lots 15 and 16, and 4 and 5. Specify a utility easement between lots 10 and 11. b) Because of the steep terrain associated with thJ4 subdivision, detailed site plans will be required for the following lots: 3 through 18. This requirement should be noted on the design plans. These detailed site plans shall include, but not be limited to, proposed site grading, building location plan, design floor elevations, driveway locations, and drainage pipe sizes and locations. Fax: 703/678-0682 - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22604 Kr. John LeVis Page TWO May 3, 1993 . Stability analyses may be required in areas where single family dwellings are positioned on steep slopes. c) Construction note number nine (9) refers to controlled fills. We concur with these recommendations and will require copies of all compaction reports to verify that the roads placed on controlled fills are constructed in accordance with the plans. Sheol S of 5 a) We concur with the proposed road section and will expect verification that the road construction complies with this design. b) Indicate minimum cover requirements for culverts crossing under roadways. General Provide a sediment and erosion control plan for the proposed subdivision development. This plan should be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. Please contact me if you should have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, Harvey Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works M: rls cc: file ' . ' i NTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINI � ^~ FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Control No. 031993251 Date Received 031993 Date Reviewed 032993 Applicant Name Lewis & Assoc. Address Winchester ell VA 22601 Project Name AND DEVELONW90, Phone No,703-722-937'7 ' . ` Type of Application Subdivision Current Zoning R5 &*t Due Fire Co. 16 1st Due Rescue Co. 16 ' Election District Gainesboro RECOMMENDATIONS Automatic Sprinkler System Residential Sprinkler System X Automatic Fire Alarm System X Other Emergency Vehicle Access; Adequate x Inadequate Not Identified Fire Lanes Required; Yes No X ' Comments: ` ` Rmadwvay/Aisleway Widths; ' Adequate X Inadequate Not Identified Special Hazards Noted; Yes No X Comments: ` Hydrant Locations; Adequate Inadequate X Not Identified Siamese Connection Location; Approved Not Approved Not Identified X Additional Comments: 1) The hydrant location shown does not meet requirements of Frederick County Chapter 10. Lots 13-18 are greater than 400' from hydrant. If existing hydrants on Lakeview Drive satisfy this requirement show same on site plan submittal. 2> When building begins on Lot #24, developer must ensure that placement of driveway and/or parking area will not compromise access to fire hydrant. 3> Street grade must not exceed 10% at any point. Review Time 1 hr Douglas A. IK(ira ofe Fire Marshal �� APPROVED "�"�m�n��mA~FREDERICK COUNTY I REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION COMMENTS :, Frederick County Inspections Department Attn: Building official P.O. Bo$ 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5650 The Frederick County Inspections Department is located at 9"-Morth Loudoun St., 2nd Floor of the Hammon Building in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review. Applicant's name, address and phone number: S Ats-,cct aTaS 14s tom. -�6o rga L«o Name of development and/or description of the request: L4k. ty&& c k%k c3's Location: cim&-I&MT3020 �aQ�c.k La l3� Inspection Department Comments: Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 309, Use Group R (residential) of the BOLA National Building Code/1990. Code Administrator Signature & Date: (NOTICE TO INSPECTIONS DEPT.*PLEAS URN THIS FORM TO AP IC .) NOTICE TO APPLICANT V It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. Need Fema 100 yr. flood plan elevation and site plan showing base floor, elevations on lots 4 to 18 and an engineer's design ofi,1nundations due to elevations. Need specifications on pump information, including h.p. and G.P.M. . 4 Ysaaade3 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY - WATER DIVISION P. O. Box 11143 Richmond, VA 23230 SUBJECT: PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SEWAGE COLLECTION FACILITIES TO: Director FROM: Director, Office of Water Resources Management DATE: June 16, 1993 Project Name: The Summit, Section 1B�aet9� Project Owner: Mr. Donald L. Bayliss Project Scope: Installation of gravity sewer line, force main and pump station with a design average flow of MGD (see attached VDH letter). Receiving Plant Performance: The Lake Holiday Estates Utility Company WWTP (VA0027642) had unpermitted discharges (overflows) from its collection system during the month of March and failed to report these in a timely manner. This matter resulted from improper O&M. Previous Agency Action: The facility was issued an NOV for the above violation, and was referred to the Office of Enforcement because the facility had been under a Consent Order to address pump station problems. This Order was cancelled when the required actions were corrected. These viola- tions are attributed to improper O&M,, similar to what the original CSO was to correct. VA Department of Health Action: By letter dated May 21, 1993 the VA Department of'Health conditionally approved the plans and specifications as noted in their letter report. Staff Comments: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends that the Director: A. Approve the plans and specifications with the following conditions: .. 4- i The Summit Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: (Continued) 1. That either a portable electric generator or portable pump be provided so that Class II reliability requirements can -be met for the wastewater pumping facility. 2. That an 0&M Manual for the pump station be submitted to the VDH and DEQ for review and approval prior to placing this project into operation. B. Designate the proposed pumping facility as Reliability Class II. Approved: ��-- Director Date:`- 7 Bob Watkins Planning Department 9 Court Square Winchester, Virginia Dear Bob, 22601 ;. N Being without water is an experience of in time, "to hauling your own." So far has helped me rethink wnat I've always "plenty of water whenever you turn The learn to conserve and use less...thank to flush the toilet. October 25, 1993 traveling backward 21 days of tnis taken for granted, tap on." You s.iso God for rain water Mr. Coffman's well, red'ug to 3001, dried up again the week of October 18, lyy3. He is getting a permit to have it re -dug again. This presents toe expense twice in addition to the orginal digging ... cost $5.5u per foot. Researcn from books from library proved very interesting. Plap, page 2 of "Running Dry" shows areas of severe drought tnroughout the U. S. A. Ail of Virginia is located in one of the major drou got areas. For past 15 years tnis area is getting wider. Toe second map shows major aquifer locations in toe U. S. A. The ones in this area are small. I've watched toe physoiogical affects on my husband and my- seli tnis past dry summer. When well dried up; garden dry- ing up and being non -productive; yard turning brown and flowers drying up; depression, not wanting tv di anything, and a xind of hopelessness. (Particularly in my nusband, he's in a wheel cnair and more confined.) We obtained our well permit October 1, 1993, Took it to a locai well driller. He has sues a backlog to be done; called again this morning, he hopes to get here 10-26-93. Map of Frederick County shows general location of wells at the Summit. If they are the center of the funnel to draw from all toe water in the area... extended colored lines show areas to be affected either now or in the future outside the Summit. Frederick County has the opportunity to "face" or "be ahead" of this problem by setting up a water management system for toe whole euunty. This problem want solve itse-Lf nor will -L go away. Having foresight, toe county could begin a program or distribute pamplets on normal use of water vs conservative use of waver to educate the public as shown on page 3 of "Running Dry." Sincerely, Lauwana/Linden Bohrer A �� 0 s Q' r RUnning Dry FKW TO CXXYSEIM WATER INDOORS AND OIlT KoyAddNison ,mow, oouglasselliek 46 STEIN AND DAY/Publishers/New York J Ol db = AREAS OF SEVERE DROUGHT drawn by Linda Stone r = MAJOR AQUIFERS AREAS OF GROUND -WATER DEPLETION WHERE WE GET NN ATER The water we take for granted falls as rain from the sky, but over 90 percent of this from heaven evaporates or runs off to the oceans. Most of our water comes from aquifers throughout the United States. These were formed ages ago -the great Ogallala aquifer, for example, stretches from west Texas to northern Nebraska. It is_ perhaps the largest underground reserve of fresh water anywhere — approximately 2 billion acre-feet under sand and gravel deposited by rivers of the Pliocene and early Pleistocene epochs. The aqu fern, unfortunately, are not fast -running streams. Water moves sluggishly underground and hardly purifies itself. The Ogal- lala has some forty years of useful life left, but in many localities the "bottom" will be reached sooner because water tables in some areas are falling from 6 to 36 inches per year.`Other large aquifers (and smaller ones too) that lace the United States are running dry, and these water resources account for one-half of all the drinking water we have. In simple terms, because of population increase and mam- moth industrial usage we use up water faster than it can accumulate. It is folly to assume that, without adequate water, the United States will remain the world's agricultural giant. Nebraska water planner Michael Jess says, "as early as the year 2000, part of Nebraska will have a water shortage so severe that farming may be totally out of the question" —an alarming statement indeed! Our food -producing lands depend mainly on irrigation, but irrigation costs money because high -cost electricity is needed to run pumps. As Pumps run harder to reach water receding further underground, so. the cost of water will skyrocket. Source: U.S. Water Resources Council, N.O.A.AJUSDA t �J Psychological Effects CONSERVATION VS. LAISSEz FAIRS: A PROVOCATIVE COMPARISON We know what drought can do to the economy of a country, but what about drought and its psychological effects on people? Cer- Take a look at the following average personal water -use chart, tainly it has an effect. A very simple example is to look at a garden showing how much water can be saved by judicious conservatipn. parched brown from lack of water; the viewer's immediate response is "How terrible!" But there is an even deeper response. In the Average Daily Water -Use Chart subconscious, the parched, desolate appearance of a dying land- scape etches a permanent image. This picture influences our emo- Normal Use tional behavior in one way or another. We are, after all, products of per Person Conservation dry the environment, and if the environment is d and dead, it is often Activity (gallons) Use (gallons) ' manifested in feeliinas of q=ss=j and malaise. Showering Water running: 25 Wet down, turn off Take another example -,a very familiar one: When fall comes shower; soap up, and trees drop leaves, when nature puts everything to sleep under a turn on shower and blanket of snow, we feel more melancholy, more nostalgic than at any other time of the year. Indeed, more people die during the late Brushing teeth Tap running: 10 Wet brush, turn off fall than at any other time of year. The snowy landscape, however water; brush, bare and desolate it may be, is still pretty and acceptable because we rinse briefly: know that, as surely as the snow melts, the weather will warm and new life will start. The advantage of the seasonal cycle is well Tub bathing Full tub: 36 Fill to minimal water established in plants and man. level: 8 to 10 But in drought it's hard to imagine that any landscape might be pretty. Without sufficient rain we know that the landscape will fail to Shaving Tap running: 20 Fill basin: I ` awake. When it dies, our hopes suffer. This overall pattern repeated too many times can affect all human emotions negatively. We --- - Dishwashing —Tap running: 30 Wet dishes, suds up, Cannot dismiss drought as simply a lack of rainZt�so means lack of by hand rinse in filled _new li fe, new hope. dishpan or sink: 5 And i the drought is prolonged or severe we cannot help but react with fright. Eventually the harrowing thought must penetrate: Dishwashing— Full cycle: 30 Short cycle: 7 What t one day we turn on the tap and there is no water? Or the by machine water is not safe to drink? What then? We fear this possibility because we realize also that without water there will be no food. We Washing hands Tap running: 2 Fill basin: I can't help but develop a feeling of anxiety. The stress and strain of not knowing becomes unbearable, an if someone says that the city Flushing toilet Depending on tank With displacement or county or government will always see to it that we have water, we size: 5 to 7 containers: 4 to 6 know that that's so. Invariably in the past there have been disastrous shortages in our natural resources, problems that a en- Washing clothes Full cycle, top Short cycle, minimal _ ties simply could not solve because they did not act in time_ water level: 60 level: 27 f' Water hl'1��lflll(� '(lll(1 P,111ll ' C (/. f olll 1 �IOv p/ h� lO1lS 1"r&1,11G1rs&/ -��S011l'CC� Fred Powled8t"I'UAink Fal-l-ar Simms Giro v.0 NEW YORK Tnt jjk:<OLEY LIBRARY 3K 3 Groundwater depletion is a -xvorld problem as well as a California, Long Island, and Arizona problem. __ Taken together, the world's water dilemmas, when added to a growth in population that is more pronounced in the less developed countries, all add up to a crisis of considerable pro- portions. Even though there will still be 3Cx3,820,250,oX)0,- (xx),cxx),000 gallons of water on Earth, it will still be unevenly distributed, and some of it will arrive too quickly and some will arrive too slowh . This has always been the case, but never before has Earth functioned so close to its carrying capacity. The Global 2(NN) Report of iy8o, the one requested by Jimmy Carter to assess the world's environment through the end of the century, found that _'"There will apparently be adequate Water available on the earth to satisfy aggregate projected eater withdrawals in the year 2000; the same find- ing holds for each of the continents. Nevertheless, because of the regional and temporal nature of the water resource. water shortages even before socx) will probably be more frequent and more severe than those experienced today." Further, said the report: Fresh water, once an abundant resource in most parts of the world, will be �,mco a ncreasin by scarce in rnminu decades for two reasons. First, there will be greater net consumption ... so that the total supply will decline. Second, pollution and the impacts of hydraulic works will effectively limit the uses of fresh water —and therefore, in effect, the supply. 01 RANDALL R. HAMILTON, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 113 SOUTH KENT STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (703) 667-1212 (703) 667.1383 RANDALL R. HAMILTON ASSOCIATES October 15, 1993 CHRISTIAN J. GRIFFIN JOHN E. GLOVER Mr. Robert W. Watkins, Planning Director Frederick County 9 North Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Watkins: 3 CT 1993 ~� 14D )EVELOPM In connection with the recent denial of his application for subdivision approval in Lake Holiday Estates, Donald L. Bayliss requested me to research certain matters and report to you my findings. I have set forth those findings below together with certain conclusions I have made based upon those findings. FINDINGS That on March 13, 1967, The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, adopted a Zoning Ordinance. Board of Supervisor's Minutes Book 10, At Page 196. That on May 11, 1970, the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, granted a request to rezone 1,585 acres of Lake Holiday Estates from A-1 to R-2 as designated under the March 13, 1967 zoning ordinance. Board of Supervisor's Minutes Book 11, at Page 27. That on September 17, 1970, the Deed of Dedication dated September 7, 1970 for Section 1 of Lake Holiday Estates, together with plats numbered one through eleven, was recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 368, at Page 463. That on May 10, 1971, the Deed of Dedication dated March 3, 1971 for 277 lots in Section 2 of Lake Holiday Estates was recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 376, at Page 190. That no revised or new zoning ordinance was adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County until October 24, 1973 to become effective November 1, 1973 at which time the R-5 district came into existence. Board of Supervisor's Minutes Book 12, at Page 126. That at the time Lake Holiday Estates was conceived in 1970 its existence was envisioned and recognized by Frederick County as a development within definite and certain geographical boundaries and that it was to be developed in a manner and style consistent and in conformity with previously approved plans and expectations. That there has been consistent adherence to such expectations as evidenced by previously approved subdivisions of land within Lake Holiday Estates by the Frederick County Planning Commission. CONCLUSIONS That the imposition of new standards and criteria of development in an area which was developed in reliance upon and under previously established criteria would disturb and be incongruous with the overall aesthetic plan, nature and appeal of the development. That in promoting consistent and stable land development requirements it does not in this instance serve the best interests of Frederick County to impose upon a previously conceived and subsequently developed area standards which, over time, have evolved to such an extent that the effect of their application would be noticeably out of character and inconsistent with the original concept of the surrounding area which has been, and continues to be, appreciated, recognized and endorsed as acceptable. In light of the foregoing information, and the previous actions of the planning commission approving other additions to Lake Holiday Estates, the imposition of present day standards of development to a subdivision in this clearly defined geographical area that was conceived and planned in compliance with previously established requirements unduly and unnecessarily deprives the prospect of economical benefit to Frederick County and that the strict application of such present day requirements are inconsistent, arbitrary, capricious and without beneficial basis particular instance. or justification in this Moreover, I have been given to understand that in the mid 1970s the Circuit Court of Frederick County as the end result of considerable litigation recognized the value and intended use of the majority of Section 1-B of Lake Holiday Estates. Reapplication to the Court for relief as to intended use and consideration of issues concerning grandfathered and vested rights ought to be unnecessary. It is the sincere desire of the Applicant not to engage in actions which necessarily constrain the Applicant to include claims for injunctive relief and damages. Mr. Bayliss respectfully requests that staff review the foregoing and reconsider its previous recommenda- tion. With kind regards, RRH/srw cc: Mr. Donald L. Bayliss Sincerely, & Ali-6 AM-1-1001 I Randall R. Hamilton f. t October 2, 1993 Bo b Watkins Planning Department 9 Court Square Wincnester, Va. 226U1 Dear Bob, Our home was buil� in 1976-1977 on 495 Red Oak Road (old 522N now Rt. 771) 1.1 mile north oc Cross Junction in Frederick County, Virginia. At that time Sniriey's Weil Drilling dug our weli with an excellant water supply. During January of 1993, we lost use of our water, needless to say, this was upsetting and quit an adjustment to maze. The old saying, "You don,t miss the water 'till the well runs dry," is more than true. R & R Pum Specialist pulled our well pump and what a discovery they made. Previously our well of 140' contained 1U6- of water, now only z6' remained. Tne water nad dropped 8u' as shown on toe pipe that was puled. They added 2b' of pipe, leaving 1' off bottom. Tn September of 1993, our water flow stopped again. yt present time tnere is some cloudy :eater. Just enough zc wash dishes by hand in a dish pan --no more water, scut pump off and wait for more to accumulate or tlusn toe toilet and same procedure. We are gettins drinxing water from a neighbor and buying bottled water. There had always been enough water for ail normal household. - use. Tn past years, during dry tines, I had watered 2-3 hours at a time, a productive garden and large yard witn lots of flowers. None of that tnis past summer, the garden, dried up and some flowers were lost --not enough water for us and them. We nave obtained a well permit to get the present well dug deeper for a clear constant flow of water. The driier wili get to us in a week zc 10 days. the ay.;-prcxlnlate cost for additional feet to be dug will be several thousand dollars. As a homeowner and Tax Payer of Frederick County, this is certainly not an item that we had in budget. We are told by the Kerns Brothers of R & R Pump Specialist that the last two deep wells witn extra horse power pumps (dug and installed last fall in the Summit) will pull under- ground water from 3 to 5 miles around the Summit area. We are located about one half mile from the entrance to the Summit. Curs is not an isolated case. Sooner or later this will affect ail homeowners and businesses in ab_extensive area of nortnern Frederick County and even into an area of West Virginia, west of the Summit. Upon asking people, living closer to the Summit titian we do, about their well and water supply, I found six (b) homeowners who had recently dug their well deeper (at great expense to them, not a budget item for them either); with one (1) homeowner who dug a completely new well (at even greater expense to him). Even with new or deeper dug wells, it is no guarantee our wells want go dry again when the Summit has both large pumps fully operational..or..as more building is done at the Summit, demand for water being greater, more wells dug with large pumps.. existing wells of homeowners outside the Summit will go dry again. When people sell property, homes are built, wells dug, no one is telling this problem of water, they find this out the hard way. Sa.ae for the buyer of existing homes with a well, buyer finds this problem out later, at much additlnai expense to tbau Questions: Can building be slowed down or stopped in develop- ments like the Summit? Can compensation to homeowners for redigging or digging wells be required of these developers? Are there local and/or state regulations to help in cases like Lois? If so, are they enforced? If not, can some be put in place to help or protect homeowners now and in toe future? There are over 400 homes in the Summit with more being built every year. Can a water treatment plant be built there using water from bake Holiday, thereby relinguishi.ng some of the ground water to homeowners outside the Summit? Sincerely, y/! La.uwana & linden Bohrer GEORGE G. SNARR CHARLES S. McCANDLISH THOMAS H.ROCHWOOD HTMBERLI GROVE BALL SNARR, MCCANDLISH & ROCKwom ATTORNEYS AT LAW 42 SOUTH CAMERON STREET WINCBESTER, VIRGE41A 22601-4726 TELEPHONE (708) 667-9727 PAR (708) 722-2488 September 30, 1993 Mr. Wayne Miller Frederick County Planning Department RE: Subdivision application 005-93 IFS/Bayliss Our file number: 645-89 Dear Wayne, MAILING ADDRESS: P. O. BOX 8177 WINCHESTER, VA 22604-2877 In looking at the Planning Commission's agenda for October 6, I see comments regarding Don Bayliss's proposed subdivision. You will recall that I represent IFS Corporation which owned parcels to the north and south of Don Bayliss's parcel. The IFS parcels are part of the land Don seeks to subdivide. I write to confirm that IFS has now completed sale of the parcels to Don Bayliss. IFS therefore has no further interest in the subdivision process. I did note a comment in the evaluation of the subdivision request which I write now to correct. The comment indicates that part of the open space at Lake Holiday Estates belongs to Independence Land Trust. Actually, Independence sold everything it owns at Lake Holiday to IFS Corporation, by deed dated January 25, 1991, recorded in Deed Book 755, Page 1460, and by deed of correction dated July 24, 1991, recorded in Deed Book 763, Page 474. I bring this to your attention to get us all onto the same page. With best regards, Sincerely, S s-. 00C�s�� Charles S. McCandlish CSMcC/kab CC: Mr. Robert Keiser The Honorable William Orndoff, Frederick County Treasurer LEWIS & ASSOCIATES Land Development Consultants Suite 100 • 45 East Boscawen Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Telephone (703) 722-9377 July 9, 1993 COUNTY OF FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 9 Court Square Winchester, VA 22601 Attn: Mr. Wayne Miller Zoning Administrator RE: LAKE HOLIDAY ESTATES SECTION 1B SUBDIVISION DESIGN PLAN Dear Wayne: Along with this letter you will find the following submission documents for the review of the Lake Holiday Estates Section 1B subdivision: 1 fee check in the amount of $2710.00 2 1 copy subdivision application 3 1 copy agency review comments 4 25 copies Subdivision Design Plan 5 25 copies variance request from 165-77 E if you have any questions, please call me. John C. wis, P.E., C.L.A. enclosures LEWIS & ASSOCIATES Land Development Consultants Suite 100 • 45 East Boscowen Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Telephone (703) 722-9377 July 9, 1993 COUNTY OF FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 9 Court Square Winchester, VA 22601 Attn: Mr. Wayne Miller Zoning Administrator RE: LAKE HOLIDAY ESTATES SECTION 1B REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM 165-77 E Dear Wayne: To my knowledge no Master Development Plan has been approved by the county for The Summit under current zoning regulations. It is my understanding that the proposed subdivision -Section 16-is required to meet the design standards for R5 zoning. These standards include open space requirements as described in Section 165-77. The purpose of this letter is to request a variance from Section 165-77 E which requires that "No more than fifty percent of the required open space shall be within the following environmental areas: lakes and ponds, wetlands or steep slopes". The required open space is 35% of the gross acreage. The gross acreage at The Summit is approximately 1986..acres and 35% would be 695.1 acres. By using the latest "Pre I imi nary, Master Plan" by David L. Ingram & Associates, Mt. Crawford, VA, (see enclosure 1) I have estimated the total open space to be 899.3 acres. Lake Holiday contains approximately 240 acres which leaves 659.3 acres of remaining open space. By using U.S.G.S topographic maps, I estimate that the remaining open space in steep slopes (>15% slope) is approximately 395 acres (60%). The combined area of the lake and the steep slope areas is approximately 635 acres. Under Section 165-77 E, the allowable environmental area would be 449.65 acres. page 1 of 2 July 9, 1993 The Summit was developed without the benefit of a Master Development Plan as now required by the Frederick County Code. While recreation and "green" areas now exist in quantities sufficient to meet present area requirements under R5 zoning, usage of steep slope areas was not addressed. The developer of Section 1B has no control over existing open space areas and therefor cannot demonstrat a viable plan for the use of the environmental areas contained therein. However, I believe that this variance constitutes a reasonable deviation from the provisions. Complete land development data estimates are shown on the enclosures. I have included development data estimates based on the exclusion of the golf course also in the event that the county determines that the golf course does not qualify as dedicated open space. If you have any questions, please call me. J n C. Lpwis, P.E., C.L.A. enclosure 1: Preliminary Master Plan of The Summit enclosure 2: Independent Mortgage Trust holdings data enclosure 3: Development data with golf course as open space enclosure 4: Development data without golf course page 2 of 2 enclosure 2 LAKE HOLIDAY ESTATES DEVELOPMENT DATA INDEPENDENT MORTGAGE TRUST a part thereof: ►. Parcel A, containing approximately 1 acre. . Parcel B, containing approximately 3 acres. JV U L 1993 RECEIVED DEM Of PIANN'KQ AND DEVELOPMENT+ , Two parcels designated collectively as Parcel C. containing, in ggr+egate., approximately 6 acres. 0. Parcel D, containing approximately 38 acres. This conveyance Is made subject to a reservation of 1.9 acres as open space -by the late iecorded with the Deed of Dedication to Section 5C recorded n Deed Book 440 at Page 866. 1. Parcel E, containing approximately 5 acres. 2. Parcel F, containing approximately 5 acres. 3. Parcel G, containing approximately 0.4 acre adjoining Lot 974 n Section 12, conveyed without representation as to whether this arcel exists as a building 'lot or as reserved open space. 4. Three (3) parcels designated collectively as Parcel H, ontaining, in aggregate, approximately 190 acres. 5. Two .(2) parcels designated collectively as Parcel I, ontaining, in aggregate, approximately 23 acres. 6. Two parcels containing designated collectively as Parcel J,, ontaining, in aggregate, approximately 9 acres. 7. Parcel K, containing approximately 9 acres. Z04LA &c. page 1 of 1 enclosure 3 12 11 _ w LAKE HOLIDAY ESTATES DEVELOPMENT DATA ND��k��oiYt ti LOT GROSS DEDICATED NO. NO. WEL LATTED SECTION NOS. ACREAGE OPEN SPACE LOTS LOTS ACREAGE 1 1 - 150 73 0 150 2 0 1A 1248 - 1259 6 0 12 0 2 152 - 296 110 2 145 0 298 - 432 135 0 3A 433 - 559 48 0 127 0 4A 1 - 238 95 2 238 0 4B 1 - 16 11 0 16 0 5A 1 - 244 92 0 244 0 5B 1205 - 1247 14 0 43 0 5C 1175 - 1204 . 9 0 30 0 6A 1 - 253 96 0 253 0 6B 1 - 99 38 1 99 0 7 1133 - 1174 17 1 42 0 8A 1 378 - 352 - 492 206 18 352 115 9 0 9 986 - 1132 60 8 147 0 10 493 - 607 53 0 115 0 11 614 - 712 46 4 99 0 12 719 - 985 102 1 267 0 1B 1 28 10.7 28 0 page 1 of 2 14 enclosure 3 JUL WWTP tn �E OF �prdNgNi� AND DEVELOPAE"' LAKE 240 GOLF COURSE 220 SKI AREA 30 DAM AREA 34 COMMERCIAL 17 BEACH 1 10 BEACH 2 5 IND. LAND TRUST 286.5 MISC. 9.8 TOTALS 1086.7 542 2657 2 357.3 GROSS ACREAGE: UNPLATTED/OPEN SPACE: PERCENT OPEN SPACE: LOT TO AREA RATIO: 1986 899.3 45.28% 1.338 page 2 of 2 enclosure 4�� f� YJ1��199 r�uv� IiE Pi. 0 FLANNING \� AND �ELWMUA LAKE HOLIDAY ESTATES DEVELOPMENT DATA SECTION LOT NOS. GROSS ACREAGE DEDICATED OPEN SPACE NO. LOTS NO. WELL UNPLATTED LOTS ACREAGE 1 1 - 150 73 0 150 2 0 1 A 1248 - 1259 6 0 12 0 2 152 298 - 296 - 432 110 2 145 135 0 0 3A 433 - 559 48 0 127 0 4A 1 - 238 95 2 238 0 4B 1 - 16 11 0 16 0 5A 1 - 244 92 0 244 0 5B 1205 - 1247 14 0 43 0 56 1175 - 1204 9 0 30 0 6A 1 - 253 96 0 253 0 6B 1 - 99 38 1 99 0 7 1133 - 1174 17 1 42 0 8A 1 - 352 206 18 352 9 378 - 492 115 0 0 9 986 - 1132 60 8 147 0 10 493 - 607 53 0 115 0 11 614 - 712 46 4 99 0 12 719 - 985 102 1 267 0 1B 1 28 10.7 28 page 1 of 2 WWTP LAKE enclosure 4 240 SK I AREA 30 —..�— DAM AREA 34 COMMERCIAL 17 BEACH 1 10 BEACH 2 5 IND. LAND TRUST 286.5 MISC. 9.8 TOTALS 1086.7 322 2657 2 357.3 GROSS ACREAGE: 1766 UNPLATTED/OPEN SPACE: 679.3 PERCENT OPEN SPACE: 38.47% LOT TO AREA RATIO: 1.505-- page 2 of 2 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY JUN 2 1 1993��2131� Mr. Donald L. Bayliss to J00993 `u 455 Black Mountain Road R C;L�'D Winchester, Virginia 22603 oE�of pMD 1)EVEVW*EK RE: The Summit, Section 1B Dear Mr. Bayliss: The Director has taken the following action relative to the above -referenced project: A. Conditionally approved the plans and specifications. B. Designated the proposed pumping facility as Reliability Class II. This action is in accordance with a memorandum from the Director, Office of Water Resources Management to the Director dated June 16, 1993, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. The conditions of approval are: (1) that either a portable electric generator or portable pump be provided so that Class II reliability requirements can be met for the wastewater pumping facility; and (2) that an 0&M Manual for the pump station be submitted to the VDH and DEQ for review and approval prior to placing this project into.operation. This document constitutes your Certificate to Construct as required by Section 2.04.04 of the VA Sewerage Regulations. Also enclosed is a letter report from the VA Department of Health conditionally approving this project. As the owner of these facilities you willbe required to comply with the following sections of the VA Sewerage Regulations: Section 2.05 (State Required Upon Completion of Construction) and Section 2..06 (Issuance of the Certificate to Operate). Enclosed is an example of the type of statement which should be submitted in accordance with Section 2.05. Board approval does not relieve the owner of the responsibility of operating the facility in a consistent manner to meet the facility performance requirements or the responsibility for the 1 Mr. Donald L. Bayliss Page 2 correction of design and/or operation deficiencies. Nor does this approval relieve the owner from meeting all other laws and regulations as may be applicable. If you have any questions, please contact the Office of Water Resources Management, P. 0. Box 11143, Richmond, Virginia 23230, (804/257-5001). Sincerely, �J Larry G. Lawson, P. E. Director Office of Water Resources Management Enclosures cc: Mr. John Lewis, Lewis and Associates Mr. _John Trenary, Frederick County Building Official SWCB Construction Grants and VRO VDH - Office of Water Programs and Lexington % "- + ua JUL?993 -cravED C zA+ , OEtlEWPMMT . - 4r 1 v COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA RODERT a STROUSE. M.D. COMMISSIOIIER Mr. Donald L. Bayliss 455 Black Mountain Road Winchester, VA 22603 Dear Mr. Bayliss: Department of Health Office of Water Programs May 21, 1993 SUBJECT: Frederick Water - The Summit ENV610NME1NITAL ENOWEERWG FIELD OFFICE 1211 SOUTH RMOOLPH STAEET LEXWGTON. VIRGINIA 264W11 Y0 PHONE: (703)M-71 26 FAX (7WP63•292 The water portion of plans and specifications, as prepared by Lewis and Associates, Winchester, Virginia, for the water and sewerage facilities to serve Section 1B of The Summit, located in Frederick County, has been reviewed by this Department. The plans include Sheets 1 of 5 through 5 of 5 titled "Lake Holiday Estates, Section 1B, Frederick County, VA", and dated March, 1993. The specifications titled "Water and Sewerage System Report and Specifications, Section 1B, Lake Holiday Estates, Frederick County, VA" are dated March, 1993. In accordance with Part I, Article 3, Section 1.23 (VR 355-18-003.17) of the Commonwealth of Virginia Vaterworks Regulations, this letter is to advise that, subsequent to our review, the water portion of the above described plans and specifications is technically adequate and approved by this Division. One copy of the plans and specifications, with State Health Department stickers indicating approval, is enclosed. Any local permits must be obtained from the appropriate officials before construction begins. In accordance with Part I, Article 3, Section 1.24 (VR 355-18-003.18), Issuance of the Construction Permit,.Waterworks Construction Permit No. 202593 with an effective date of May 21, 1993 is enclosed. This permit is your authorization from the State Health Commissioner to construct these water line extensions in accordance with the above described approved plans and specifications. Any deviations from approved plans and specifications affecting capacity, hydraulic conditions, or the quality of the water to be delivered must be approved by this Division before any such changes are made. Revised plans and specifications shall be submitted to this Field Office in time to permit the review and approval before any construction work is begun that will be affected by such changes. Upon completion of this water line extension, the owner shall submit to this - Field Office two copies of a statement signed by a registered professional engineer stating that the construction work has been completed in accordance with approved plans and specifications. Upon receipt of this statement, and the satisfactory bacteriological analyses required following disinfection, the water line extension may be placed into service. Mr. Donald Bayliss 2 May 21, 1993 SUBJECT: Frederick County Water - The Sumgait If we can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bowling K. Hughes, Assistant District Engineer, at 703/463-7136. Sincerely, Ronald E. Conner, P.E. Engineering Field Director BKH/bt cc Lewis and Associates - Attn: J. Lewis Lake Holiday Estates Utility Company - Attn: C. Simms Frederick County Health Department County of Frederick - Attn: J. Riley, County Administrator County of Frederick - Attn: J. Trenary, Building Official VDH - Richmond Central J®1� s t'e,_ m�Gti . s� ROBERT B STROUSE, M.D. COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Department of Health Office of Water Programs May 21, 1993 Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 11143 Richmond, VA 23230 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING FIELD OFFICE 129 SOUTH RANDOLPH STREET LEXINGTON VIRGINIA 2u50 2328 PHONE (703)663-7136 FAX (703)463 3892 SUBJECT: Frederick County Sewerage - The Summit Attention: Mr. Larry G. Lawson, Director Office of Water Resources Management Gentlemen: The sewerage portion of plans and specifications for the installation of water and sewerage facilities to serve Section 1B of The Summit, located in Frederick County, as prepared by Lewis and Associates, Land Development Consultants, have been reviewed by this Department. The plans include Sheets 1 of 5 through 5 of 5 titled "Lake Holiday Estates, Section 1B, Frederick County, VArr and are dated March, 1993. The specifications titled "Water and Sewerage System, Report and Specifications, Section 1B, Lake Holiday Estates, Frederick County, VA" are dated March, 1993. This project has been designed for an average flow of 11,200 gpd or an equivalent population of 112 persons with a peak flow of 28,000 gpd based on a peak factor of 2.5. The project consists of the installation of 2175 linear feet of eight (8)-inch diameter gravity sewer.line, 1430 linear feet of two (2)-inch diameter sewage force main, and a duplex sewage pumping station capable of pumping 25 gpm against a TDH of 79 feet. A twelve (12) month summary of operation for the Lake Holiday Estates wastewater treatment works has been reviewed. Our review has indicated the treatment facility will not be overloaded by these additional•connections. A letter from the owner of the treatment works and sewage collection system receiving flow from this project has been received indicating the acceptance of the proposed flow. The proposed wastewater pumping facility has been designated Reliability Class II. The proposed facility will meet the requirements of this reliability class by the use of either a portable sewage pump or portable electric generator. The review of these plans and specifications has been confined to technical requirements and design criteria as stipulated in the Commonwealth of Virginia Beverage Regulations. Department of Environmental Quality Page 2 May 21, 1993 SUBJECT: Frederick County Sewerage - The Summit In accordance with the Virginia Water Control Law, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, Title 62.1, Chapter 3.1, Article 4, Section 62.1-44.19, Paragraph 3, this letter report is to advise that the sewerage portion of the previously mentioned plans and specifications is technically adequate and recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1.. That either a portable electric generator or portable pump be provided so that Class II reliability requirements can be met for the wastewater pumping facility. 2. That an operation and maintenance manual for the wastewater pumping facility be submitted to this Department and the Department of Environmental Quality for review and approval prior to placing this project into operation. Issuance of a construction permit or any further action or decision is a matter for your office. This office is forwarding, along with a copy of this letter, one (1) copy of the previously described plans and specifications with State Health Department stickers to the Department of Environmental Quality's Valley Regional Office and to Mr. Donald L. Bayliss. Notification of Board action should be transmitted to Mr. Donald L. Bayliss, 455 Black Mountain Road, Winchester, VA 22603; to Mr. John Lewis, Lewis and Associates, 45 East Boscawen Street, Suite 100, Winchester, VA 22601-4725; Mr. John Trenary, Frederick County Building Official, P.O. Box 601, Winchester, VA 22601; and to this Office. Enclosed are copies of the engineer's letter of transmittal dated March 18, 1993 and the Lake Holiday Estates Utility Company's March 30, 1993 letter indicating their acceptance of the sewage flow from this project for your information. By direction of the State Health Commissioner. Sincerely, i W i� E. onner, P.E. Engineering Field Director, ti BKH/bt y, AIAY c, cc.Department of Environmental Quality - Bridgewater Mr. Donald Bayliss m rr Lake Holiday Estates Utility Company - Attn: C. Simms cl Lewis and Associates - Attn: J. Lewis �`9'•, ` ` Frederick County Building Official - Attn: J. Trenary Frederick County Health Department ` VDH - Richmond Central L E HOI CAI( ST�-TES UT14,.' ;A Y P.O. Box 103 Cross Junction, Virginiri 22625 703-888-3226 March 30, 1993 Department of Health Office of Water Programs 129 South Randolph Street Lexington, Virginia 24450 Attention: Harold T. Lberly Per our telephone conversation, Lake Holiday Estates Utility Company, Inc. will provide water and sewer services to Section 2B (Don Bayliss Lots) in Lake Holiday Estates, Gainesboro District, Frederick County, Virginia. It is understood that Don Bayliss will install all approved lines and pumps required in this section for said services. Carl H. S mms; President -'4� i LAKE HOLIDAY ESTATES UTILITY COMPANY IS A PUBLIC SERVICE UTILITY COMPANY APPROVED BY THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AND HAS BEEN ISSUED CERTIFICATES NO. W-191 AND NO. S-63 AUTHORIZING IT TO FURNISH WATER AND SEWER SERVICE WITHIN ITS ALLOTED TERRITORY. ' s SUBDIVISION DESIGN PLAN CHECKLIST t t The subdivision design plan shall be drawn at a scale that is acceptable to the Subdivision Administrator. The subdivision design plan shall include a sheet depicting the full subdivision submitted. The subdivision design plan shall include the following information: ✓ title "Subdivision Design Plan for " with a notation of all previous names of the subdivision.' ✓ original property identification number. page number and total pages on each page. ✓ name of the owner and/or subdivider vicinity map [scale of one to two thousand (1:2000)] showing all roads, properties and subdivisions within one thousand (1000) feet of the subdivision. written and graphic scale. ✓ day, month and year plan prepared and revised. North arrow. ✓ name of the Magisterial District where located. ✓ zoning of all land to be subdivided. boundary survey of all lots, parcels and rights -of -way showing bearings to the nearest minute and distances to the nearest one-hundreth (1/100) of a foot. ✓ topography shown at a contour interval acceptable to the Subdivision Administrator but in no case greater than five (5) feet. ✓ names of owners, zoning and use of all adjoining properties and deed book and page number references for each adjoining parcel. proposed use of each lot, with the number of lots in each use category. _� area of each lot and parcel, the total area of the subdivision and the total area in lots. we] location and area of each parcel of common open space and the total area of common open space. ✓ location, names, right-of-way widths and classifications of existing and planned roads, streets and shared private driveways adjacent to and on the property. existing or proposed utilities, sewer and water lines, manholes, fire hydrants and easements. existing and proposed drainage ways, drainage facilities, culverts and drainage easements with dimensions and design details. stormwater management plan with calculations describing how stormwater management requirements are being met, including the location and design details of proposed facilities. proposed grading plan including spot elevations and flow arrows. cross sections, profiles and design details of all proposed streets, roads, culverts, storm sewers, sanitary sewers and water mains. ✓ locations, dimensions and cross sections of existing and proposed sidewalks and walkways. location of environmental features including floodplain, steep slopes, wetlands, sinkholes, woodlands and natural_ stormwater detention areas. names of all streams and bodies of water, including all one-hundred-year'flood limits as mapped by FEMA. location of all land to be dedicated or reserved for public use. ✓ location of required setback lines on each lot. l� location of proposed recreational areas and facilities. location of proposed buffers and screening with design details, locations and types of plants and screening. proposed landscaping with location and types of plants. certification by an engineer, surveyor or other qualified professional of the accuracy of the plat. W1 ✓ signature of the owner or principals certifying Qwnership of the property. AP, statement listing all requirements and conditions placed on the land included in the subdivision resulting from approval of conditional zoning or a conditional use permit. ✓ signature line for the Subdivision Administrator. 12 455 Back 'lount,air7 Roan b)inc:hester,VA 22603 (70 3) 377-'2141 August 27, 1993 Mr. Wayne Miller Frederick County Planning and Developing Winchester, Va. 22601 Dear Mr. Miller, Melanie A. Gruff from my office, is hereby given my power of attorney in order to sign off on any and all matters as they may relate to an E & S application and permit. I simply was not apprized of the need for this permit by my engineer. I do not wish to violate any county rules and regulations as they relate to me and my development/s. Your cooperation and assistance in this matter is sincerely appreciated. For your information, we are not changing the topography. We are only removing trees and stumps in the designated right of way. Very Truly Yours 6 Dokn� ayliss SNARR, WCANDLI5H & ROCKWOOD ATTORNEYS AT LAW 42 SOUTH CAMERON STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGE91A 22601-4726 GEORGE G.SNARR CHARLES S. McCANDLISH T ROMAS H. ROCKWOOD KBIBERLI GROVE BALL TELEPHONE (708) 667-9727 FAX (708) 722-2438 August 25, 1993 Mr. Wayne Miller Frederick County Planning BY HAND RE: Don Bayliss Subdivision Our file number: 645-89 Dear Wayne, h1&UMG ADDRESS: P. 0. BOX 8177 WINCHESTTrR, VA 22604-2877 Per our telephone conversation, IFS and Don Bayliss have reached an agreement. Don now has a valid and binding contract to purchase the IFS property to the north and to the south of Don's peninsula on Lake Holliday. IFS therefore does not object to Don's proposed subdivision of his property and the property to the south of it. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Ve truly yours, s S. McCandlish CSMcC/kab cj�-Ti6lJ �ccEr�-ac.t i� ap �z a Its SNARR, MCCANDLISH & ROCKWOOD JUL 199, : ' x � ATTORNEYS AT LAMP,.r 42 SOUTH CAMERON STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601-4726 GEORGE G. SNARR CHARLES S. MCCANDLISH TELEPHONE (708) 667-9737 THOMAS H. ROCKWOOD FAX (708) 738-2488 P O. BOX 8177 WINCHESTER, VA 22604-8877 KIMBERLI GROVE BALL July 29, 1993 Mr. Wayne Miller, Administrator Frederick County Zoning Department 9 North Loudoun Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Proposed subdivision by Don Bayliss of Lake Holiday property Dear Mr. Miller: I am writing for Charles McCandlish who is out of town at this time on behalf of this firm's client, IFS Corporation. Because there are contractual problems yet to be resolved between IFS and Mr. Bayliss, IFS objects to the subdivision of the property at this time. If you would like to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, V' Kimberli Grove Ball KGB:sml cc: Mr. Robert Keiser Mr. Don Bayliss George Glass, Esquire Randall Hamilton, Esquire Mr. Carl Simms ► P E RANDALL R. HAMILTON ASSOCIATES CHRISTIAN J. GRIFFIN JOHN E. GLOVER RANDALL R. HAMILTON, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 113 SOUTH KENT STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (703) 667.1212 (70p) 667-1383 July 20, 1993 Mr. W. Wayne Miller Zoning Administrator Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 9 North Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 HAND DELIVERED Dear Mr. Miller: Mr. Donald L. Bayliss has provided me with a copy of a Contract of Purchase dated June 10, 1993 by and between IFS Corporation and Mr. Bayliss. The subject of the purchase is, among other things, Estate Lot #2 containing approximately 2.9 acres at The Summit as shown on the enclosed plat. Apparently, some question has arisen as to whether the aforesaid Contract of Purchase is a legally binding Contract. I have examined the Contract and it is my professional opinion that it is, indeed, a legally binding and enforceable Contract. With kind regards, Sincerely, Randall R. Hamilton RRH/arr enclosure as stated cc: Mr. Donald L. Bayliss 41 Nz Note. The property /the alon Y Aollows elevatio,7 W. Note Aceos were olelerlmheal by Ai W contour Park Or 6M64-7 AW Ail Xlea JZ Acres A Li 'JI 11", 14 h �Jl N.0 000� fv . #.�l V W'. 46 yy f -sr,'k lox,, r A ,A ,*,. 17 44. 0 b4/ �0�ry�OZ aP Av :Area, --,opmw. -.4rea 4h-ove'9-32 4o171o41,- a. Acres 715' p" V 1,� Y ;rL•-A 'iT. x-, 041 414 7�4014q 4o-"'4 -�! !, r "I (,I k I t yj 4, Eseote r a�d.�i'° � i'�o r,��ty `�.�' � aM rat. �` THE T; w Count` V 'e, YVO !j A.PEA A. Scale X971? Revised lezZ Fj CAT Twi J¢ 'r s hx 4 . , ;, 1 ; ke.,15eal E, Sl� ,!r,5y certify that the plat Shown-herewls f a a,true and torrecir-representati n, Pa" 0-010 1 C, Al� 0 grout�. Lrder v StIdervision. Ctua IT de on the* �y Iv Given under my hand this by of IfW7 "T""JAMES C. ITLKINS — -3 (A) 793 AQA a/ 4. 7- �0,0471 -P1,97' I dO UBD #005-y Est. Sec. 1B Gainesboro District FOR MORE INFO. ON SECTION 2B, SEE ARCHIVE BOX FOR THE SUMMIT (LAKE HOLIDAY)