Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Wheatlands Subdivision - Backfile (2)
gilbert w. clifford & associe._.;_. inc: Post Office Box 5425 FREDERICKSBURG, VIRGINIA 22401 (703) 752-5011 TO Mr. Ron Berg, Planner Frederick Coun DATE 16 June 1975 JOB NO. 7423-8 ATTENTION RE: Bowman-Glaize Tract (Wheatlands) Rezoning Upper Crooked Run Wastewater Treatment Plant GENTLEMEN: WE ARE SENDING YOU IN Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order 9 Reperts COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION "Feasibility Stud - SanitarV Seweracfe Facilities Ste hens Run - Crooked Run" 1Undated* "Summary Report on Interim Sewage Treatment Works - Upper Crooked Run Area" Correspondence THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ® For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FOR BIDS DUE ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Returned for corrections REMARKS * Report submitted to State re ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US tory agencies on 2.3 Jan '73 COPY TO SIGNED: P_ R �„thPrlanft; P.E. F., 2aT_�rNW149,,,,. k1am.�_1. .M ,. If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. 4 �1 C NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL FORM APPRC'VED OMB No. 158— 0100 FOR AGENCY USE SECTION L APPLICANT AND FACILITY DESCRIPTION Unless otherwise specified on this form all Items are to be completed. If an Item Is not applicable Indicate 'NA,' ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR SELECTED ITEMS APPEAR IN SEPARATE INSTRUCTION BOOKLET AS INDICATED. REFER TO BOOKLET BEFORE FILLING OUT THESE ITEMS. Please Print or Type t. Legal Name of Applicant ft �;l)Y'jj Fred Glaize & Jim Bowman (see Instructions) 2. Mailing Address of Applicant (see Instructions) • Number & Street City State Zip Code 3. Applicant's Authorized Agent (see Instructions) Name and Title Printed Name of Person Signing P-0, Box 2598 Winchester Virginia 22601 Fred L. Glaize Title 1D2f.� YR MO DAY Signature of Applicant or Authorized Agent Date Application Signed 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and wilfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. EPA Form 7550_22 (7-73) 1-1 This section contains 4 pages. A-23 ORIGINAL FOR AGENCY USE S. Facility (see Instructions) Give the name, ownership, and physi. cal location of the plant or other operating facility where discharge(s) presently occur($) or will occur. Name'_?; Crooked Run STP Ownership (Public, Private or Both Public and Private). }gip? ❑ PUB] PRV ❑ Bpp Check block If a Federal facility �.#.i4'Qi" ❑ F E O :r. and give GSA Inventory Control Number Location: ¢ Number &Street 4:5'd #>: ,.$ miles South of Rt. 340 522 intersection on Rt. 277 F>:1i City County sa'0l4t Frederick County State Virginia pbb 6. Discharge to Another Municipal Facility (see Instructions) a. Indicate if part of your discharge %<1,0.5a,; ❑Yes ONo Is Into a municipal waste trans- port system under another re- sponsible organization. If yes, complete the rest of this Item and continue with Item 7. If no, go directly to Item 7. - b. Responsible Organization Receiving Discharge N/A Name Number & Street JJiii; 1_75t7 i� .66�tf g City State Zip Code YYJGf " C. FaUlity Which Receives Discharge 1b6p NSA Give the name of the facility (waste treatment plant) which re- ceives and Is ultimately respon sible for treatment of the discharge from your facility. d. Average Daily Flow to Facility IttCh :: mgd (mgd) Give your average claliy flow Into the receiving facility. 7. Facility Discharges, Number and Discharge Volume (see Instructions) Specify the number of discharges described In this application and the volume of water discharged or lost to each of the categories below. Estimate average volume per day in million gallons per day. Do not in- clude Intermittent or noncontinuous overflows, bypasses or seasonal dis- charges from lagoons, holding ponds, etc. EPA Form 7750_22 (7-73) 1-2 A-24 ORIGINAL FORNAPPROVED } Obf13 No. 158—R0100 FOR AGENCY USE I Number of Total Volume Discharged, Discharge Points Million Gallons Per Day I ] To: Surface Water 10741 .25 347al2 xa Surface Impoundment with 001 ) no Effluent 107b1` Underground Percolation 107cj i `{ I ? Well (Injection) 107d1.',"lpT -- - t j 1 Other 107a1 1 a; Total Item 7 107fJi; ;0�;(x 2 5 j If 'other' Is specified, describe 107gj 1� If any of the discharges from this ! facility are Intermittent, such as from 1! overflow or bypass points, or are seasonal or periodic from lagoons, holding ponds, etc., Complete Item 8. >+;;y:;: 8. Intermittent Discharges -: a. Facility bypass points N/A Indicate the number of bypass 1109a Points for the facility that are i discharge Points.(see Instructions) ( i b. Facility Overflow Points N/A Indicate the number of Overflow 10i3f'1 i points t0 a surface water for the / facility (see instructions). w''y F: c. Seasonal or Periodic Discharge N/A I Points Indicate the number of Points where seasonal discharges occur from holding ponds, a71 lagoons, etc. 9. Collection System Type P _j }., s-S ti )` Indicate the type and length in A 028. , it Y'•: ' a 'i y! miles) of the Collection system used .! y st i by this facility. (see Instructions) !k T t. u. Separate Storm Separate Sanitary SAN Combined Sanitary and Storm ❑ CSS Both Separate Sanitary and Combined Sewer Systems ❑ BSC Both Separate Storm and Combined Sewer Systems 108b ❑ SSC Length miles 10. Municipalities or Areas Served (see Instructions) Actual Population Name Served 1103 110b 110a 110b 110A 110b 110a 111011 1102 1106 Total Population Served it0c EPA Form 7550_22 (7-73) I-3 A-25 ORIGIN M �11 ADDENDUM t,ul'PLEMENTARY INFORMATION 1. t.lassification Classify the discharge as one of the following by checking the appropriate bloc •a. Existing discharge. b. Proposed discharge. c. Proposed expansion of an existing discharge. 2. Location Attach to the back of this application a location map(s) which may be traced fr or a reproduction of a U.S. Geoloqical Survey topographic quadrangle(s) or othe appropriately scaled contour map(s). The location map(s) shall show the follow a. Treatment Plant. b. Discharge point. c. Receiving waters. d. Boundaries.of the property on- which the treatment plant .is - located, or to be located. e. Distance from the treatment plant to the nearest: (Indicate "not applicable" for any distance greater than 2000 feet) YM D efo,ptsupply.N/A Ve v01 Vie "or o r.1sq jr, water p'IY T :pr N/A A.. iv. . Recreational area. N/A f. Distance from the discharge point to the nearest: (Indicate "not applicable" for any distance greater than-15miles) i'. Downstream community. N/A ii. Upstream and downstream water intake points. uDown- N/A Down- N/A iii. Shellfishing waters. NSA iv. Wetlands area. N/A V. Downstream impoundment.. N/A vi. Downstream recreational area. N/A Also, provide the following information by filling in the blanks as indicated. a. Total acreage of the property on which the treatment plant is located loos acres. b. Minimum elevation of the treatment plant site 650 ft. c. Flood elevations at the treatment plant site: i. '25 year flood ft. ii. 100 year flood ft. A-39 0 RIGINj "DDENDUM - SUPPLEMENTARY INFOR 4. Anticipated Phasing Schedule for Plant Capacity - Proposed Discharges If this application is for a proposed or expanded discharge(s), complete the phasing schedule below beginning with the year in which construction completion is anticipated and progressing in increments of 5 years for 30 years thereafter. Proposed Design Capacity: .250 MGD Anticipated Date of Construction Completion: , month year Years After Completion Projected Flow (MGD) 0 .1 5 .2 10 .3 15 .4 20 .5 25 .5 30 .5 5. Compliance with Local and Areawide Planning Requirements - Proposed Discharges If this application is for a proposed or expanded discharge(s), provide as attachments to this application evidence of conformance with applicable zoning and planning requirements as follows: a. Approval by the local political subdivision. Provide copies of use permit(s) or other appropriate approval document(s). b. Approval of t a 1 04rd ' Marin Re�ou Commission if i S ut'a+ wat 1's an �..� approval of n ,�a o , eso r at Commission is required.? c. Statement of conformance by the appropriate Planning District Commission certifying that the discharge con- forms to the areawide water quality management plan. d. If the project is to receive federal funding, provide evidence that the A-95 review procedures have been initiated. 6. Interim Facilities Are the wastewater treatment facilities interim in nature? (designed for a useful life of less than 5 years) / / Yes /7/ No If so, provide the estimated date to be discontinued _ monthe r and tte vane and 1 ocati on of the i ntended repl acenent fact 11 ty. name A-41 location ORIGINAL ADDENDUM - SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 3. Discharge Description If this application is for a proposed discharge, provide a brief description of the wastewater treatment scheme. Coarse Screening, Extended Aeration ( Oxidation Ditch) , Clarification Polymer Addition, Filtration, Chlorination, Dechlorination, Aerobic Digestion, to Sand Drying Beds If this application is for an existing discharge, provide a brief description of the wastewater treatment scheme and complete items a. through g., below. a. Have plans and specifications for the wastewater treatment facilities received previous approval of the State Water Control Board and the State Department of Health? / % Yes L/ No b. Design capacity of wastewater treatment facilities .25 MGD *c. Highest daily average discharge flow for any month within -- the previous-12 month period. N/A MGD d. Is infiltration/inflow considered to be significant problem? / % Yes /R7 No *e. Highest monthly average effluent BOD5 concentration for any month within the previous 12 month period. N/A mg/l *f: Highest monthly average effluent Suspended Solids concen- traiion for any,month.within the previous 12 month period. N/A mg/l g. Is the effluent routinely monitored? / % Yes / % No N/A If so, indicate the equency of sampling, method of sampling (composite or grab) M.. .-s analysed. A ' a e ..All4 - , ..rj �tV• p' 1.P � N! * For c., e., and f. above, provide an estimate if plant performance data is unavailable. A-50 nQir_inioi so N FORM APPROVED Oh1B No. 158—R0100 STANDARD FORM A —MUNICIPAL FOR AGENCY USE SECTION If. BASIC DISCHARGE DESCRIPTION Complete this section for each present or proposed discharge Indicated In Section I, Items 7 and 8, that Is to surface waters. This Includes discharges to other munldpal sewerage systems in which the waste water does not go through a treatment works prior to being discharged to surface waters. Discharges to wells must be described where there are also discharges to surface waters from this facility. Separate - descriptions of each discharge are required even if several discharges originate in the same facility. All values for an existing discharge should be representative of the twelve previous months of operation. If this Is a proposed discharge, values should reflect best engineering estimates. ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR SELECTED ITEMS APPEAR IN SEPARATE INSTRUCTION BOOKLET AS INDICATED. REFZR TO BOOKLET BEFORE FILLING OUT THESE ITEMS. 1. Discharge Serial No. and Name 001 a. Discharge Serial No. I Iola (see Instructions) —. b. Discharge Name 201b Crooked Run Outfall Give name of discharge, If any (see Instructions) c. Previous Discharge Serial No zalc N/A If a previous NPDES permit application was made for this dis- charge (item 4, Section 1) provide previous discharge serial number. 2. Discharge Operating Dates a. Discharge to Begin Date 202i _90 If the discharge has never YR MO occurred but Is planned for some ...xxxrtrtrtf s�1'v'�,L.ry` am i. future date, give the date the `. �$ discharge will begin. , ";; + 7 "� ; SP C.i r b. Discharge to End Date If the cils- ` charge is scheduled to be discon- tinued within the next 5 years, give the date (within best estimate) the discharge will end. Give rea- son for discontinuing this discharge in Item 17. I 3. Discharge Location Name the political boundaries within which the point of discharge is located: State County (if applicable) City or Town 4. Discharge Point Description (see Instructions) Discharge is Into (check one) Stream (Includes ditches, arroyos, and other watercourses) Estuary Lake Ocean Well (injection) Other If 'other' Is checked, specify type S. Discharge Point —Lat/Long. State the precise Ioratlon of the point of discharge to the nearest second. (see Ihst'ructions) Latitude Longitude EPA Form 7550_22 (7_73) IV A 202b _ VR MG L;.siTTTiii tid yty E� h. is 7N zosa Z03b 203a 20ta l"b 20aa 20Sb Virginia Frederick ST R ❑ EST ❑ LKE ❑ OCE ❑ WEL ❑ OTH 39 DEG. 1 MIN. 22 SEC 78 DEG. 09 MIN. Z t, SEC II-1 A-27 Agency Use toad 202, 203f This section contains 8 pages...- i 0 C. Overflow Duration Give the average overflow duration In hours. Wet weather Dry weather d. Overflow -Volume Give the average volume per overflow Incident In thousand gallons. Wet weather Dry weather Proceed to Item 11 10. Seasonat/Perlodlc Discharges a. Seasonal/Perlodlc Discharge Frequency If discharge Is Inter- mlttent from a holding pond, lagoon. etc., give the actual or approximate number of times this discharge occurs per year. b. Seasonal/Periodic Discharge Volume Give the average volume per discharge occurrence In thousand gallons. C. Seasonal/Periodic Discharge Duration Give the average dura- tion of each discharge occurrence In days. r d. Seasonal/Periodic Discharge Occurrence —Months Check the months during the year when the discharge normally occurs. 11. Discharge Treatment a. Discharge Treatment Description Describe waste abatement prac- tices used on this discharge with a brief narrative. (See Instruc- tions) t SJi P't . •f t:. lt;: ja FORM APPROVED OMB No. 158—R0100 DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER 001 hours N/A Hours thousand gallons per Incident N/A thousand gallons per Incident times per year N/A thousand gallons per discharge occurrence days N/A ❑JAN []FEB []MAR []APR []MAY ❑JUN ❑JUL ❑ AUG ❑SEP N/A ❑ OCT ❑ NOV ❑ DEC Coarse Screening, followed by extended Aeration (oxidation ditch) , Clarification by two peripheral feed clarifiers, High rate filtration, chlorination, dechlorination by'S02, Post Aeration, EPA Form 7550-22 (7_73) II-3 A-29 ORIGINAL DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER FOR AGENCY USE 001 b. Discharge Treatment Codes S ASE/APO N KF FSR P/PG LA D/LA B XN Using the codes listed In Table I " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' of the Instruction Booklet, describe the waste abatement processes applied to this dis- charge In the order In which they occur, If possible. Separate all codes with commas except where slashes are used to deslgnate parallel operations. bS^ %.. If this discharge Is from a municipal waste treatment plant (not an overflow or bypass), complete Items 12 and 13 fix. ,•'<E,+ 12. Plant Design and Operation Manualsi Check which of the following are currently available a. Engineering Design Report<x ' `,1SM b. Operation and Maintenance z: Manual sy 13. Plant Design Data (see Instructions)....'' a. Plant Design Flow (mgd:) ��„A:x� ; �:;� . 2 5mgd b.Plant Design BOD Removal (%) ���;�; 95% F . 90 c Plant Design N Removal % ` d. Plant Design P Removal (%)„# % . : W. - e. Plant Design SS Removal (%)s�1+tea;,: 94 % f. Plant Began Operation (year) �':i��<:! g. Plant List Major Revision (year) '��;�j:�� N A i w ,1 �o s EPA Form 7550_22 (7-73) III A-30 ORIGINAL gilbert w. clifford & associates Oxidation Ditch (2) Clarifier (2) RAW WASTEWATER ary Screen RETURN SLUDGE Abb- SECONDARY EFFLUENT SLUDGE Polymer Shallow Media ��--BACKWASH Filter Units (4) WA5 I E Plant Site SLUDGE Pumping Station X ( Duplex) SUPERNATANT Aerated Sludge Holding tank (2) Auxiliary R Pumping Station (Duplex) DIGESTED SLUDGE FILTRATE Main Pumping Station I Sludge Drying Beds DEWATERED SLUDGE (Transported to Landfill) ILTERED :FFLUENT I —CHLORINE Disinfection/ Dechlorination Contact Tank --..S02 Flow Measurement Iand Effluent Aeration TREATED EFFLUENT CROOKED RUN WA STEWA TER TREATMENT FA CI L I T Y PROPOSED PROCESS SCHEMATIC a«� NTS CROOKED RUN NOVEMBER, 1987 ri m CROOKED RUN WWTP I lr 7111 720 It S-bitstion B . I . 700 650 0 Jl� 6 90 LAI State P on Carrip cp FloN. fS40�_ 22 C�qZN 64V J,/ A4 2 x 4j A - POINT 0 PROPOSED WASTE TREATMEN T PLANT' At 606'— FROM STEPHENS CITY QUADRANGLE U.S.G.S. 7.5 MIN. TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP t-k 4, °1 DATE �.. 2, 1975 Application for Rezoning_... FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully) make application and petition the Governing Body to amend the Zoning Ordinance and to change the Zoning Map of Opeauon District, Frederick County, Virginia as hereinafter requested, and in support of this application, the following facts are shown: 1. The property sought to be rezoned is located at Double Tollgate south of S.R. 6nwm �77 itmel and _ west of U.S. 340-522 N�Ux)fAR,,&tmekand known as tick1z*ft=dxer Wheatlands . It has a frontage of 5828,92 (US 340)feet and a depth of 8388.46 (in NW feet. 920.57 SR 277) direction 2. The property sought to be rezoned is owned by: J.L. Bowman and F.L. Glaize, III as evidenced by deed from Helen C. & Charles C. Rust; Francis C. & Robert M. Jett; 382 231. & H.K. Benham III recorded in Book85 —3Page302 Registry of County of Frederick 421 6o6 3. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned FROM TO *� A - 2 R-5 4. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear,and the property in front of (across street from)the propertyscught to be rezoned: NAME STREET ADDRESS (a) J. David & Dirma V. Headly White Post, Virginia 22663 (b) William Drew Hutchins 1661 Potomac Place, Winchester, Va. (c) Clarence H. & Elizabeth Campbell 819 S. Wakefield St., Arlington, Va. (d) Mason B. Larwood Rt. 1, Stephens City, Va. 204 (e) Roy S. & Margaret I Madigan Stephens City, Va. 22655 (f) Walter F. & Daisy M. Lewis Rt. 1, Box 160, Stephens City, Va. fig) John Max & Lillian Joann G. Leight Rt. 2, Box 118, Stephens City, Va. (h) Robert L. & Janie S. Sandy Rt. 1, White Post, Va. 22663 (i) Milton K. & Beatrice I. Apperson Rt. 1, Box 93, White Post, Va. 22663 (Use reverse side if necessary`and look up the names in the office of in the Courthouse, if they are not known.) 5. It is proposed that the property will be put to the following use: Residential Recreational Community w% surface treated roads. 6• It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: Those necessary for recreational facilities ( by present owners ) and single family residences ( by potential lot owners ). 7. It is proposed that the following setbacks and offstreet parking provisions will be made: Setbacks and offstreet parking provisions will be made as stipulated by the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. 8. Attached is a copy of a Vicinity Map. TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Signa of Applicant Address of Applicant This petition for rezoning property within the jurisdiction of the of was received on , a public hearing was held on S— 7--2S�, and the Planning Commission wishes to make the following recommendations to the Governing Body. ��������}PPf;dVL Ss cT �� ;D&W i F That they provide information to the Planning Commission a flow rocess_chart projecting the development stages of population impact ax revenues and cost -of services, sectional developmentL_plans on ewer and water; roads and other amenities within the subdivision. P NNING COhASSION By Secretary ACTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS On OGT6�/Z aa%S the Governing Body took the following action on the attached petition for rezoning: /?�/�2Q1/E j�-� �y X24 V) lam/�`�`�, Application for Rezoning Property of J.L. Bowman and F.L. Glaize, III Wheatlands ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS (continued) John W. & Delphia & Carolyn Elizabeth Cornwell Emma Beryl Walker Isaac Gardner & Bertie Clark Gladys E. & Clark W. Cornwell Fred Cooke ..-Reginald Von M. & Florence N. Graff Norman N. & Constance W. Tolkan Mary Margaret Grady Elmer L. DeHaven Rosalie B. Chamblin Charles E. & Virginia D. Lawhorne Philip K. & Dorothy W. Reynolds Frank E. Pyner:o,& Norman Long Arthur S. & Evelyn B. Knowles Delano N. & Shirley A. Harlow Virginia Department of Highways State Prison Camp #7 Virgil H. & Della M. Bates Rt. 1, White Post, Va. 22663 White Post, Va. 22663 Rt. 1, Box 89, White Post, Va. 22663 Rt. 1, Box 88, White Post, Va. 22663 Rt. 1, White Post, Va. 22663 Rt. 1, Box 92, White Post, Va. 22663 2237 Q St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008 Rt. 1, White Post, Va. 22663 Rt. 1, Box 114, Winchester, Va., 22601 White Post, Va. 22663 Rt. 1, Box 67, White Post, Va. 22663 Rt. 1, Box 69, White Post, Va. 22663 White Post, Va. 22663 Box 380, Front Royal, Va. 22630 Box 82A, White Post, Va. 22663 Commerce Street, Winchester, Va. 22601 White Post, Va. 22663 Rt. 1, Box 83, White Post, Va. 22663 ECONOMIC IMPACT STb jY 1. Number of acres for Rezoning. 1144.2917 i 1144.297, Frederick Co.; 52.425, Clark Co. ) 2. Number of feet of highway frontage. '749.49 ( 920.57, Frederick Co.; 5828.92, Clark Co. ) 3. Number of Single-family homes. a. Average lot size not less than 10,000 ft2 as required by zoning b. Average number of bedrooms 2 4. Number of TOwn'houses. o a. !'iverao-e lot size b. Average number o-" bedrooms 5. Number of Apartments. o a. Average square feet b. Average number of bedrooms 6. Total density, units per acre. 2 7. Square feet of Commercial. 0 a. Estimated nurrbc:r of employees 8. Square feet of Industrial. 0 a. Estimated gallons of sewage per day b. Estimated number of er!r lcyees 9. Number of i arkin , Spaces to be provided. # required for services mentioned below. 10. 1-4hat services e:ill you provide Tenatively central water and sewer, recreatiol al lake, surface treated roads (private), active and passive recreational faciliti( 11. What County service will be required to serve this area? None. E- /80. 00 ' NI vV 00!/BG TnGG G�Tc 57 yt, r� ,-�G A T O.-1=- ✓ANTES G . B01-✓/Y�A�C/ �-" \,,0ic,(,4 lghA) '*, 1r---1 COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 703/665-5666 FAX: 703/667-0370 June 6, 1989 Jerry G. Fouse, Assistant Chief Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Lands and Engineering Division P. 0. Box 11104 Richmond, VA 23230 Dear Mr. Fouse: Thank you for talking with me on June 5, 1989 with reference.to the Wheatlands/Intergate public_.fishing.lake_. pro'ect_bein.. construct-ed b the Commmonwealth. - It is my position that the County will hold all approval actions on this project until the Commonwealth researches this issue and provides the County with its official position on same. It would be appreciated if you could provide me with the Commonwealth's background material provided to the local newspaper .on this subject. Please advise me i.f.additional information.is required by the Commonwealth. With kindest. regards, I am Sinc ly, John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator JRR/tjp cc: Wheatlands File 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 you r, G o C TW® �i� � �' EG S 4 r'C' G •� �/� FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT 4 wheatlands community frede'rick county, Virginia i ia ROSSER H. PAYNE & ASSOCIATES/PLANNING CO NBULTANTS 11 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Pam PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY 1 FISCAL PLAN ANALYSIS 6 County Expenditure Program 7 Expenditures: Residentially Induced 12 County Revenue Program 17 County Population Projections lg Revenues: Residentially Induced 20 Existing Fiscal Impacts 22 LCONOMIC ANALYSIS 26 Development Projections 27 Housing Absorption 30 General Market Values 32 Market Values/Wheatlands 34 Revenues/''lheatlands 38 Population Estimates 40 Expenditures Induced 42 Res i dent-icil Unit Revr..nues 46 F l S(;AI. I MPAL:T ANAI_Y`> S 41 APPENDIX 51 W/|[XTL8MUl RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY: ������--�����������`����� FR[D[VlCK_[(UN|`Yz V_U!�|NU\ LIST OF TABLES Table Number Title Page | Projected Expenditures 8 2 County Expenditures 9 3 ExpendiLurcs: Support Summary lO Al 8|l0CaLi0// of County [x|`cnditVres l4 InJuccd 1.)v |'crxmxcIt: Roci'|oniiul 5 Residentially lnduced County � 76 Expenditures 6 Source Revenue Summary 17 7 Projected Revenues lU O Population Projections (g g Basis for Revenue Projection 2l of Wheutlonds Residential Community 10 Residential Households Expenditure/ 22 Revenue Relationship ll Permanent Residential Households: 24 Market Value Break -Even Point 12 Proposed Marketable Lot Development 26 Schedule 13 Estimated Housing Construction 29 Schedule 14 Average Lot Sales/Unit Construction 31 LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table Number Title 15 Estimated'Lot/Unit Market Values. '16 Projected Developmetit and Housing Market Valuations 17 Total Projected Real Estate and Development Market Valuations 18 Total Projected Real Estate Tax Revenues 19 Population Generation Projections 20 Public School Population Projections 21 Projected Development Population Characteristics 22 Fr•eder ick Country Expenditures (Residentially Induced) Wheatlands' Recreational/ Retirement Homes 23 Projected Public Expenditures Induced by Development 24 Annual County Tax Revenues/Household 25 Annual Residential Unit Revenue/ Expenditures 26 Fiscal Impact of Development 27 Virginia Recreational Developments Comparative Statistics Page 33 36 37 39 40 40 41 43 45 46 49 50 52 Wheatlands Recreational Community: Frederick County, V i rc n * * a Purpose and Scope of Study The effort presented in the following report was initiated by Messrs. Lowman and G,1aize after discussions with County officials regarding the proposed recreational, residential community of Whea tl ands located in Frederick County, Virginia. Four basic problems were posed for which answers were to be formulated by this firm. These questions are as follows: I. The County desires a Fiscal Impact Statement estimating the effect of the proposed project on its most current fiscal plan and budget (197546). Can a reasonable determination be made? The, -ipp) �r�,u�l. ,owrlor,-) de, , ires a mca�:>urelllf, rt: and comp;rrison bu tween other V i rg i ni O devc� 1 oilmen is of: a similar nature with the proposed Wheatlands project, Is Wheatlands an economically viable project? 3. The rtvcr��1l si.wly eoa1 �•�oul� be to e: LJ;:iat:e the difference in fi c.rl iwpactjL)enefits of permanent residences vs. seasonal, retiree,,lent and/or recreational type residences. What dif- ferences exist? 4. In detailing this stuudy, an attempt 4,iouId be riade to ascertain a "break even" roint ,,rarkel, vali.ae for any permanent residence rxist.in�l or to be constructed this year in Frederick County. This "break even" analysis would be relative to public costs for that permanent unit and would be used for comparative Purpuses in Mwing the Whc0Llnnds project. What is the � /cCummnnJcd pcnwnn}L redden Li0| "brc^k even" Val uaLion? The answer to question 2 can be reasonably positive since it ' compares the actual objectives of the applicant with the actual history of similar selected developments in Virginia using two local projects and three located elsewhere in the state' The answers to questions l, 3, and 4 are reasonable conclusions, in our opinion, based on this firm's understanding of the assumptions involved. Therefore, they must remain open to question, modification, und Lhr rcsu|iv o[ ch'mycv in construction costs, budget structure, wx| Lax revenues or expenditures which change 0mmolly` in k.,/|l/ pu|`lit, and private sectors and as inFluenced |`y the dhvnying local and national ` cCon0Ry. � As on example. the first question assumes that an answer can be provided as to the effect of the Wheatlands project, (scheduled to begin inl979, if approved, then completed over a ten year plus period), on the currently xpprovo'| 1975-76 Mi. | Pion u[ the County. The answer K icm/ou'. i/` 'y 'he l,^'.i due io Uu Fact there is no County Capital improvements Plan to which could be referenced u long range public fiscal plan. Question 3 is the attempt to rationalize the objectives desired, as compared with current facts. These, Of COUr38, can rapidly change each year. A completely accurate answer would be dependent Upon the market structure and the ratio of permanent to recreational homes which Muu|ly occur over definite phasing periods. Question4 can be explicitly stated only in an answer which uses 1975-76 as a baseline year for comparing thc actual total budget with \_ ' 3 the es t i ma Le'd portion of- r (::s i derrti a I ly induced public costs. Thi s answer can establish a correct unit value to budget ratio for this year only, for permanent homes. It has a major value in this study since it offers a basis for estimating the current difference between "break even" permanent home figures and vacation homes estimates as an analytical exercise conducted entirely within the framework of the County fiscal plan document. As an example, the so called "deficit" for existing County resi- dential units is not a true fiscal deficit to the County when all the remaining non -budgetary items of the residential community economy are equated. Budget analysis simply indicates that residentially induced costs (in 1975) exceed residentially provided revenues by the amount, planned for in the current budget document. The necessary t of l rrrs t;o cr~c';tce a hea i t;hy, bat and budget are properly derived from non-- r•cs i d(41ti a l Zrnd other publi c: cor por,rt ion and (Joverniuon t:�rl .`iour(;es , uch funds. lhis is quiLe nori[i l -in local fiscal planning and Frederick County is certainly in line with all other jurisdictions in the State that perform sound fiscal planning. The answer to this question, as we see it, should be based upon the levels of the revenue value structure discussed herein which deli it the range; of dollars required numerically the per unit resi denti of ly induced costs �,r 'r'r�vcliu�_", sf,r��in in .;he currE�rrt 1975-7C fiscal plan. 4ae have found no reason to conclude that the County will experience any financial difficulty so long as it proceeds to make_ reasonable economic plans for the future, monitoring this and other similar local developments. Chu ndo!/Liun of the County comprehensive plan, 0 formal capital io/provcments program, and the effective utilization Of the various ordinances and the annual fiscal plan are effective public tools to assure the avoidance of adverse impacts. It is noted that Frederick County has certain ordinances and the 1975-76 fiscal plan at this time. Perhaps the remaining public analysis elements Will be available by the time the Wheatlands project is initiated in 1979' In the meantime, private sector plans and actions must proceed. To achieve the objectives stated previously, the report is 0rgun- Qed as follows: I. Analysis of the 1975-76 County fiscal plan and hudgci. rr,iU,nLi~l y ix`|unCd oosLJ/revenucs as a ~ |`./ri W the 6u'|ycL document from both local and other sources, |T/ Baseline csLixmCe of budgetary cost/revenue differences for a current home of permanent nature. IV. Estimates of budgetAry cost/revenue differences for o l00% vacation or retirement recreational home. Experience tables for this and other areas. V. Estimates and assumptions of budget cost/revenue differences for u combined rcoreational/pem/anHnt home community using current budqet practiced t projected over the desired Len year build out schedule. Vl. Outline of assumptions |m5de and conclusions reached. Finally, the report is presented to answer the questions posed as accurately as possible recognizing the absence of truly comparable factors in some instances. It should not be interpreted as either MAP MF feWhIM Py Audy, car a markh analysis, ThosO i tems is "vestig0tiOn OF this kind. I V 1;hr. I ega 1 requirements Novurninq the nale of humus to a i khor vdr"LiOn Or Pe rowne" L his resident; and the difficulties of At'l r �Ij the current budget w i Lh a 1979.89 developnen(/sales program this firm can only guarantee the reasonableness of the report and not 15U final :,CCU day Of the results of the Wheatiand s program. - if Properly attended to by both the private and pub'lic sectors during the lot sale/lot development period, the resulting community -will be Of substunti al Anefit to Frederick County, both financially and . `V i roc 7� ................. ................ 6 FISCAL PLAN ANALYSIS In undertaking an investigation of the benefit/expenditure relationships for any type of,recreational'or residential planned community, the initial analysis must delve into the fiscal program of the County in which the development is to be located. As of the date of this study, Frederick County has prepared a carefully detailed budget program known as the 1975-1976 Fiscal Plan. It is this plan that serves as the foundation for this report projecting the impact of the Wheatlands Recreational Community upon the local economy. Before the question, of "How much in County expenditures will the Wheatlands community require?" can be answered, one should turn his attention to the expenditure -revenue relationships for existing housing today in Frederick County. Thus, this section will examine the Fiscal Plan in order to structure equations between residentially -induced public expenditures and residentially -generated local support revenues. It is -important to note that federal and state taxation is not an issue in this study, only local fiscal impact related to the County itself. The subsections of the following chapter describe: 1. Fiscal expenditures within the County for the various local governmental functions. 2. The expenditures which can be attributed to permanent residential units. & The rcven= generatud by the County's real estate tax, personal property tax.., rind fee structuru. 7. 4. The distribution of revenues as developed within the residential sector of the County. 5. The relationships between the existing residential revenues and expenditures as experienced in the 1975-1976 Fiscal Plan. COUNTY EXPENDITURE PROGRAM, ` S75 — IS76 In order to estimate the total operating and capital program expenditures incurred by any form of land use (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) and to allocate these expenditures between new house - golds and building enterprises, it is necessary to begin with a summary of the County's fiscal spending program. The 1975.1976 Fiscal Plan details the projected expenditures for the County -wide operating and capital program for this fiscal year. Of this total programumd $14,195,000, 67.4% will be allocated to the public education systerrr (which includes the school building program), Education far outweighs any other expenditure category in the current budget. The next largest areas of expenditure are the water and sewer program and the County general building program, each accounting for 7.9% of the expenditure plan. The table on the next page outlines these public outlay categories for this baseline year to which the subject analysis will be related: FREDERICK COUNTY FISCAL PLAN: 1975-1976 PROJECTED EXPENDITURES BUDGET ITEM AMOUNT PERCENT OF TOTAL Education $7,032,073 49.50/ School Building Program 2,533,741 17.85% General Government 844,082 6.23% Criminal Justice/ 580,236 4.09% Police Protection Parks and Recreation 163,203 Solid Waste Control 166,440 1.17% Public Assistance 492,013 3.47Z Water and Sewer 1 116,500 7.91/ Jail Construction 92,140 County Buildiny Program 1,120,572 7.92'i; TOTALS $14,195,000 100/, Source: 1975-1976 Fiscal Plan, Frederick County. The following numerical analysis further synthesized the basis for the outlay program. This study of the "local support function" examines each individual category of proposed expenditure by local Lax funds, by fees or fines, and by non -County based contributions. ANALY ' I:' OF l_UC/11_ SUf'I'0111 26 COUNTY L-XP[_NDI TURi - 1975-1976 BUDGET FUNCTION TOTAL PROPOSED EXPENDITURE COUNTY TAX FUNDS COUNTY FEE RELATED FUND NON -COUNTY FUND General Government $ 884,082 $ 691,400 $ 96,700 $ 95,982 Criminal Justice/ Police, Pro Cr�ct i on 5D0 <36 2���0 ,!��?-4 481,750 250,962 Solid Waste, Control 166,440 56,440 110,000 --- I Water and Sewer 1,126,500 376,500 750,000 --- Parks and Recreation 163,203 124,703 38,500 --- Education 7,032,073 2,572,633 7,100 4,452,340 Public Assistance 492,013 74,529 --- 417,484 School Building (>rogr�am 2,112,092 6t,1,E�/12 96,000 1,334,450 Coun Ly L.0 i 1 di ri�1 'rogr'ai 1 ,1211 ,57 --- 1,124,572 School Building Program -Revenue Sharing 421,649 - -- --- 421,649 Jail Construction 92,140 92,140 EXPENDITURE SUl"IMARY: $14,195,000 S4.95C1-511 �1 la7 non cQ nn7 AOn SC'UrCc_': 19Y5-1976 F1SCa1 Plan, Frederick County. 10 The significance of thole figures is that they indicate degree of "outside" state (.ind federal input: to the local expenditure program. In addition, it is readily apparent where the predominance of this input -is directed. While general government is funded almost exclusively by local taxes and fees, state and local assistance to the education system comprises over sixty percent ($7.0 million) of the total expen- ditures in that category. In summary, projected local funds and fees provide 42.95% of the operating and capital outlay program for the County. When viewed in terms of gross local support, the following relationships will be evidenced; FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA EXPENDITURES: SUPPORT SUMMARY TOTAL ---____-- -- _-- PROPOSED LOCAL FEE NON -COUNTY EXPENDITURES FUNDS REVFNUES FUNDS 11>14,195,000 $4,950,511 $1 ,147,050 $8,097,439 PER CAPITA ALLOCATION $ 518.67 h 180.89 $ 41.91 $ 295.87 PER I HOUSEHOLD ALLOCATION $ 1,737.55 $ 605.97 $ 140.40 $ 991.17 DISTRIBUTION RATIO 34.90/0/ 8.1% 57.0% On a combined basis, in -County collected taxes and fee revenue funded expenditures would provide a gross per capita liability for the current budget year equal to $222.80 per resident if they were entirely distributed among the residential sector. Based on the 1970 census household apportionment ratio of 3.35 persons/unit, the household liability is projected to be $746.37 on this basis. However, in an expenditure -revenue analysis, it is noted that not all income items can be considered as being totally residentially induced. Similarly, expenditure allocations provide for a myriad of outlay parameters which do not directly impact or contribute to the residential per capita health, safety, and general welfare. In this section of the study, County expenditures for public services will be allocated among households and commercial -industrial Mur•pr•ises. L,:ater, in this report, expundi vures will be allocated for the type of units in the planned Wheatlands development on the basis of specific demand for public services as generated by a recreational community. Public services can be grouped into two categories: (1) those utilized primarily by households; and (2) those utilized by both house- holds and business enterprises. While it can be argued that business benefits in the long run from all public services or that costs allocated to commercial and industrial enterprises are shifted forward to the resident -consumer, these viewpoints have to be couched by an analysis which focuses on the local fiscal impact induced by residential and business enterprises alike. In order to estimate total operating expen- ditures incurred by any form of private sector development and to allocate these expenditures between new households and business enterprises, i t is rle( c',:;;:rry to he( ill wi tir a summ0r,y of rrl; operatinq expendi Lures ill the Counl:y. The Loki County oper-sting expenditures will he allocated between existing County households and business and industrial enterprises using their respective share of the residential -work force population base as a proxy for, measuring public service allocations. For the purposes of this study, the principal benefactors of the public outlay program are divided into three categories: (1) permanent residential (2) commercial, and (3) industrial. Other resource bene- factors, such as non -County trade traffic, rental persons, vacationers and in -commuters, can be considered to obtain a "free ride" in light of the outstanding proportion of the service/capital demands generated by the three principal groupings. Recent in-depth studies, performed on a nation-wide basis, have indicated that the break down in public expenditures related to the residential sector range from 180-W?,. Non-residential (industrial and con111(�rcial ) induced expend i tures , consume the remainder; 10-20%. l'o more closely evalui11le Ulis expenditure ratio, as it applies to Frederick County, it is necessary to consider the impact of the in -County work force in industrial and commercial trade areas. expenditures: residentially induced In '1971 a study by this Tayloe-Murphy Institute indicated a 1972 pol,u l •1 I, i r,rr of ") "NK) i'° w (:h('t (.;uurr Ly . Tlrc ex i s L i ng civilian work f o rcc a t Lhat: Lillie w;as 805'5, eclui va l cant to 31 .2/ of the total resident population. Sl.a.tewide averages show that this ratio ranges from 1/4 13 to 1/3 of the subject population. It is noted that this figure is inclusive of resident workers and in -commuters. At: that time, the best estimate of the in -County work force would have been between 5700 and 5900. Historically, the employment sector in Frederick County has been primarily dependent upon persons whose place of residence as well as place of employment was in the County. In -commuters to the County have amounted to only twenty percent of the total civilian work force. Thus, the in -commuter employment sector developed an additional 5% in Population relative to the total in -County population. The trends in the total County work force (County resident/ ci vi 1 i pan worker; and in -commuters) evidence a range of 20% to 25% in We proportion of "work oriented" persons to total resident population. For the purposes of this fiscal impact analysis, this firmassumesthat tine proportion of County fiscal expenditures will coincide with this same ratio. In other words, the portion of the County fiscal program allocated to residential expenditures is presumed to be the equivalent of 75% to 80% of the total County expenditures. Similarly, the non- residential (commercial, industrial, etc.) expenditures consume 20% to 25Y of the total. In the following table, a conservative figure of 0'% is applied; thus, weighing the fiscal inducements toward the resi- dential sector which permanently resides in the County. ALLOCATION OF COUNTY EXPENDITURES INDUCED BY PERM,!11dENT RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLDS (PROJECTEDi975_ 1976) Ratio: Permanent Residential Induced Expenditures/Total County Expenditures Total Effective Population: Employment/Residential Total Residential (Permanent) Population )1:i , '••'.,ra L J , r and xpetIui tore Lase i I , Revenue Source) 34,200 I / y 36 (<5 $4,950,511 Permanent Residential Induced Expenditure $.3,960,406 Effective Per Capita Residential Expenditure $ 144.71 Locally (Tax) Funded ----------------------------------------------- Effective Per Household Residential Expenditure, Locally (Tax) Funded $ 484.78 Total County Fee Lased Expenditures (Non -Revenue Source) $1,147,050 Pe' rmaneri L Res i denti a i Induced Expenditures (80%) $ 917,640 15 Effective Per Capita Residential Expenditures, $ 33.52 Fee fused Effective Per Household Residential Expenditures, $ 112.32 Fee Based Total Effective Per Capita Expenditures, Residentially $ 178.23 Induced Total Effective Per Household Expenditures, Residentially $ 597.00 Induced Source: Office of Planning, Frederick County 1975-1976 Fiscal Plan, Frede�J ck County The next chart breaks down the induced residential expenditures per capita and per household to show net amounts allocated to specific budget functions. More specifically, these allocations (based on the 80% residential inducement ratio) are those developed solely through the local taxation structure. For the objectives of this study, it -is appropriate to omit fee based and license based expenditures since these items are considered to be "cost-effective" and since they are designed in most jurisdictions to fully cover the cost of the service provided. In summary, public education expenses capture the principal amount of the annual $484.78 residential household local outlay. Approximately 16 52 , of the total is consumed by the operdting cost: of education, while the school constructi.ontprogram currently represents 13.7% of the average per household induced expenditure. Thus, education presents itself as a $318.67 household related municipal expenditure, comprising 65.7% of the entire Frederick County budgetary expenditures which must be developed by local tax revenue related sources. The remaining budgetary -functions absorb 34.3%, or $166.28 per, residential unit of tax generated funds on an annualized basis. The provision of general government represents approximately 41'% of this residue, or fourteen percent of the total local fund -expenditures. 5N ANALYSIS OF LOCAL SUPPORT: RESIDENTIALLY INDUCED COUNTY EXPENDITURES (PERMANENT HOUSEHOLDS LOCAL TOTAL ~� AVERAGED AVERAGE BUDGET TAX RESIDENThALLY PER PER — T FUNCTION !` FUNDS INDUCED (80%) HOUSEHOLD CAP.TTA General Government $ 691,400 _ $ 553,120 T $ 67.71 $ 20.21 Criminal Justice/ Police Protection 280,524 224,420 27.47 8.20 Solid Waste Control 56,440 45,152 5.53 1.65 Water and Sewer 376,500 301,200 36.87 11.01 Parks and Recreation 124,703 99,762 12.21 3.65 Education 2,572,633 2,058,106 251.92 75.27 Public Assistance 74,529 59,622 7.30 2.18 School Building Program 681,642 545,314 66.75 19.93 Jail Construction 92,140 73,712 9.02 2.69 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY: $4,950,511 $3,960,408 $484.78 $144.71 COUNTY REVEPJUE PROGRAM, 1975 —1976 The 1975-1976 Fiscal Plan projects revenues to the County totaling $14,195,000. Of this amount, 30.79% or $4,,371,461 is to be contributed by local revenues: State and Federal sources will introduce a forty percent share, equivalent to $5,675,852. Non -revenue sources (local transfer payments) will comprise 29.22% or $4,147,687 of the total anticipated revenues. FREDERICK COUNTY so SOURCE REVENUE: SUMMARYr�1975-1976 II LOCAL REVENUE $4,371,461 STATE AND FEDERAL $5,675,852 NON -REVENUE BASED $4,147,687 REVENUE TOTALS: $14,195,000 Source: Fiscal Plan, Frederick County, 1975-19 76 The following table provides greater detail of the anticipated revenue to be generated during the 1975-1976 period: FREDERICK COUNTY 7■ �FTQ'LI PI Atli 1975-1976 PROJECTED REVENUES FISCAL. SOURCE AMOUNT PERCENT OF TOTAL Real Estate Tax $ 1,778,667 12.53% Personal Property ,. Tax $ 802,601 5.62% Public Services $ 234,016 Fax 1.65/ Other Local Revenue Sources $ 7,556,177 10.96% Federal Funds $ 699,405 4.93% Commonwealth Funds $ 4,976,447 35.06% Non -Revenue $ 4,147,687 29.22% TOTALS: $14,195,000 100% Source: 1975-1976 Fiscal Plan, Frederick County l 19 county population projections Population statistics provided by the County's Office of Planning provide the base for the residential revenue analysis of the permanent residential population to 27,368 by the end of this year. Related projections indicate that the public school segment of the Population will comprise 28% of the total or 7,663 persons in school age status. When apporl.ioned on a "per capita" Oasis, each of the 27,368 projected 1976 County residents can be considered to generate an effective revenue of $134.40. On a household basis, the effective 4 contribution is equal to $450.25 per unit, when applied to the projected 8,169 active revenue generating households. BE FREDERICK COUNTY POPULATION PROJECTIONS 1975-1976 Total Resident Population 2.7,368 Persons Total Household Units 8,169 Households Total Public School Population I 7,663 Students Source: Office of Planning, Frederick County 20`' revenues: residentially induced It is noted that within the local revenue structure real estate taxes represent the largest source of County revenue. The monies generated from this source are devised from all categories of land use (commercial, industrial, residential, institutional, etc.) and total $1,778,667. The next larger fiscal input category is termed "other local revenue sources". This source is comprised of special Lax revenues, I i cens( fees, fines, and public surcharges, this amount totaling $1,556,177. The following table is representative of a selected group of -items from within the County's local revenue sources that can be considered "per capita" oriented. In other words, this group includes real and property tax receipts, fees and licenses and utility taxes, interest on county bank deposits, rentals and surplus sales. One will note that these "per capita" revenues represent a sum of $3,678,328 or 84.9% of all the income allocated from local revenues. 21 FREDERICK COUNTY REVENUES, 1975-1976: s° BASIS FOR REVENUE PROJECTION OF WHEATLANDS TESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY PER PER FUND AMOUNT CAPITA HOUSEHOLD GENERAL FUND REVENUE Real Property $1,778,667 $ 64.99 $217.72 Personal Property 802,601 29.33 98.25 Local Sales Tax L------------------------------------------------------------------- 520,000 19.00 63.65 LOCAL TAX FUND SUBTOTALS: $3,101,268 $113.32 $379.62 ----------------------------------------------------------------- UTILITY TAXES Telephone 39,000 1.43 4.77 Electric 190,000 6.94 23.26 Gas ---------------------------------------------------------------- 46,200 1.69 5.66 UTILiTY TAX SUBTOTALS: - ---------------------------------------------------------------- $ 275,200 $ 10.06 $ 33.69 FEE BASED REVENUE Motor Vehicle Licenses 182,000 6.65 22.28 Assorted Fees and Licenses 68,660 2.51 8.40 Taxes: Deeds, Recordation and Wills 51,200 1.87 6.27 -------------------------------------------------------- FEE BASED SUBTOTALS: ------------------------------------------------------------------- $ 301,860 $ 11.03 $ 36.95 GENERAL FUND SUMMARY: RESIDCNTIAL ORIENTED $3,678,328 $134.41 $450.26 Source: 1975-1976 Fiscal Plan, Frederick County. 22 FREDERICK COUNTY . EXISTING FISCAL IMPACTS The analysis to this point has isolated the numerically -separate, but fiscally -related balance between locally based revenues and resi- dentially -induced expenditures. The revenue chapter of this report concluded that the total average annual revenues generated by a resi- dential unit in Frederick County was $450.25 per household, $379.82 of which is attributed to local tax inducements. From the expenditure chapter it was concluded that the total effective County -funded expen- diture for the average residential unit was $597.00 per household, $450.25 of which is allocated to tax funded budget categories. FREDERICK COUNTY ® ■ RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLDS EXPENDITURE/REVENUE RELATIONSHIP 1975-1976 COST/BENEFIT TAX BASIS TOW IMPACT IMPACT (TAX + FEE) Residential Unit Fiscal Supply $379.62/unit $450.25/unit Residential Unit Fiscal Demand $484.78/unit $597.00/unit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Residential Unit Fiscal Deficit ($105.16/unit) ($146.75/unit) Both levels of analysis indicate that; the current residential revenue base in Frederick County is not producing sufficient funds to 23 Y offset the cost of government to the resident population. Thus, based on their findings from the '1975-1976 Fiscal Plan, it can be deduced that the existing residential housing cross section in the County does not entirely pay for itself on a strict financial accounting basis. Naturally, this type of financial analysis. is only one parameter in the total economic, social, aesthetic, and human resource benefit - expenditure relationships organic to any given residential household. The current economic deficit of residential units in the County can be strictly termed a budgetary one in that it does not reflect many other dollar and cents items that serve to enhance the true economic value of the unit and the community. However, the "deficit" figure is most beneficial in terms of its relationship to the fiscal impact analysis of the proposed Wheatlands Recreational Community. Since Wheatlands will gerierate a mixture of residential units (over a multi -year phasing program), the following financial projections for this special type of community will be developed along the same analytical lines as the projections which indicated a current per- manent household cost -benefit "deficit". This report does not imply that the per unit deficit is one which the County should "live with" simply because it is what the current actual situation reflects. The point, in fact, is that the budget does balance and sectors of the economy other than residential commun- ities enhance the existing fiscal base. The deficit fiscal imbalance, however, is of paramount importance for the purposes of this study in that it serves as a point of departure for the Wheatlands fiscal impact analysis. Furthermore, this figure represents an economic (comparative) f 24 standard upon which the County can intelligently evaluate the benefits of a recreational residential community which does not demand all of the governmental services that permanent residential communities require. The following table develops an exemplary "break-even" market value for a permanent residential home in Frederick County. The basic assumption is that any new housing unit will have to be capable of generating $478.78 in local tax oriented revenues to achieve a unitary expenditure/benefit ratio. FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ��■ PERMANENT_ RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLDS: MARKET VALUE_ BREAK-EVEN POINT Expenditures Per Household Revenues Required Per Household 4 $ 484.7II. $484.78 Real Property Tax/Revenues Generated 47% - 50% ------------------------------------------------------- "Break-Even" Unit Market Value (Housing + Real Estate) $49,500 - $53,700 The preceding studies have highlighted two principal fiscal factors criticill to the economic, impact of the typical permanent residential construction activity: (1) In order to achieve a budgetary fiscal "break-even" point, based on current dollar values and County fiscal programs, the average per unit market value for housing in the development will have to be in the $50,000 bracket, and (2) An overall budgetary deficit will evolve over• the years in the area of capital expenditures (public schools, sewers, water, fire protection, recreation and parks, etc.) to serve residential areas unless other compatible funding mechanisms,can be structured. In conclusion, this firm's review of the County's Fiscal Plan indicates that permanent single-family housing in the County is sup- ported in part by other revenue sources (non-residential and/or non - local). Further, for new permanent residences of this type to be established as economically viable products (from a strict cost accounting standpoint), the average unit/lot market values will have to be much higher than what is the norm today in Frederick County. In the following sections, it will be pointed out that recreational oriented communities can provide positive fiscal returns to the juris- diction if major capital improvement outlays and extended public p_ ratires_ costs are not re.iired to serve the development. 26 THE WHEATLANDS - ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The research up to this point has been done on a general basis, that is, analysis has focused on the current revenue/expenditure relationships of Frederick County's existing residential population. This final chapter looks in greater detail at the proposed Wheatlands development in order to determine whether the recreational community will be a fiscal burden or whether it will enhance the local economy. Wheatlands , as designed by the engineering consulting firm of l'r•ico rind Associ,aes, antic:ipaLes LhaL finished lot sales may begin by the year 1979. The proposed market program indicates an eleven M year market absorption period for the planned 1900 recreational - oriented lots. The table below presents the lot development program as projected by Trico: 12. WHEATLANDS RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA PROPOSED MARKETABLE LOT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE, 1979-1989 YEAR , PHASE ! MARKETABLE FINISHED LOTS ACCUMULATIVE LOTS 1979 1 50 50 1980 2 100 150 1981 3 150 300 1982 4 200 500 1983 5 200 700 1984 6 200 900 1985 7 200 1100 1986 8 200 1300 19(H7 9 200 1500 1988 10 200 1700 1989 1i 200 1900 27 --1 development projections The owners of the planned Wheatlands development indicate they will be structuring a plan similar in scope to many other recreational/second home communities in the state. Each year, beginning in 1979, a development phase will be added to the community: Lots will be platted; public facilities and finished lots will be developed; recreational amenities will be added and formal marketing of the property will take place. Comparative studies indicate that this approach is sound and typical of similar developments. Trico and Associates have projected, in their development plan, the construction of two swimming pools, eight tennis courts, a marina and a boat storage site, a finished beach area and club, tot lots throughout the recreational neighborhoods, a large club house, and athletic fields. The total market v;iii,A nf +hoco n. site recreational improvements upon their completion will be over f seven hundred thousand dollars. These improvements will be pro- vided at the developer's expense as community demand appears._ Thus, these amenities will be provided as the community matures, with a sound phased program of developer sponsored construction and financial support, providing a fiscal recreational plus for the area. Cased on comparative findings appended to this report, the following table describes an estimate of the phasing program for individually built single family housing within Wheatlands. One 2 will note that. no .units are planned during the -initial marketing phase. This allows for a realistic twelve to eighteen month "start up" period for housing construction. It is noted that the oldest recreational community checked by this firm, Shawnee Land, began its lot sales program in 1956. Developed units have averaged 19.5 per year, while over 94% of the lots have been sold over the 19 year period to date. (Reference Appendix) 4 ' rr 29, WHEATLANDS RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY: *1;3 ■ FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ESTIMATED HOUSING CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE: 1979-1989 i Year 1 Phase Housing Units Completed Annually (a) Accumulative Unit Completed Annually Estimated Range Estimated Range j1979 1 (b) (b) 19 3 0 2 5- 10 5- 10 19111 3 10 - ?0 15 - 30 I M? 4 20 - 30 35 - 60 1983 1 5 20 - 40 55 - 100 i1984 6 20 - 40 75 - 140 1985 7 20 - 40 95 - 180 1986 8 20 - 40 115 - 220 1987 9 20 - 40 135 _ 260 1988 10 20 - 40 155 - 300 1989 ii 11 20 - 40 -175 - 340 Annually Thereafter: 20 - 40 1900 (50-Yr. Buildout) (a) Unit development schedule based on average annual rate of residential construction activity equal to 1.0% - 2.0% of total planned recreational community lots (equivalent to approximately 5% - 15% of annual lot sales). (b) Unit development phasing will not be evidenced until 12 to 18 months after initial lot sales begin. 30 housing absorption The "Estimated Housing Construction Schedule" is significant in that it shows an annual development rate between 20 and 40 residential units. If Wheatlands follows the trends of similar recreational -oriented communities, it is unlikely that a higher construction rate will be experienced. Thus, if the preceding projections hold true over the years, in 1989 Wheatlands will have sold all of the 1900 planned lots but will reflect a modest growth in actual housing units. The projections for housing growth are based on a weighted rela- tionship between rate of lot sales and total recreational lots available. In general, one can assume that between 5%-15% of the total annual4lot sales will result in housing located thereon within two years of the sales date. As applied to Wheatlands, this means that in order to realize 175-340 developed units by '1989, between one and two percent of the lots will have to be built upon. The chart on the following page relates the average buildout statistics to the projected lot market program for the eleven year phasing period. These figures are presented on an an and accumulative basis. 31" WHEATLANDS RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY: 0140 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA AVERAGE LOT SALES/UNIT CONSTRUCTION; BASIS FOR REAL ESTATE ASSESSMENTS 1979-1989 YEAR PHASE AVERAGE ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY MARKETABLE ACCUMULATIVE HOUSING ACCUMULATIVE LOTSa LOTS STARTS HOUSING 1979 1 50 50 0 0 1980 2 100 150 7 7 1981 3 150 300 15 22, 1982 4 200 500 25 47 1983 5 200 700 30 77 1984 6 200 900 30 107 1985 7 200 1100 30 137 1986 8 200 1300 30 167 1987 9 200 1500 30 197 1988 10 200 1700 30 227 1989 11 200 1900 30 257 a Indicates section platted and prepared for finished lot sales during the given phase and year. 32 0.1 general market values The developers of Wheatlands anticipated that finished lots will market in the $5,000-$22,000 range, based on current dollar values. Applying an average lot value of $12,000, Wheatlands appears to be striving to achieve the same market range as other successful recrea- tional communities in the State. A review of the Trico/Development Plan indicates that a large percentage of the lots will have prime recreational, exposure (lake front, near marina, etc.), thus reinforcing the feeling that Wheatlands will have a similar on -site market attrac- tiveness. The following table summarizes the estimated lot and housing values which have been selected as compatihle for use in this fiscal impact study. Again, it should be stated that these market valuations reflect the current trends in sales and development prices in today's Virginia second home communities. In each category a broad range in prices is evidenced. However, this firm has chosen to utilize the "average value approach" for the purpose of consolidating the data into a usable format. 33- 15 WHEATLANDS RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY: ESTIMATED LOT/UNIT MARKET -VALUES DESCRIPTION RANGE AVERAGE Finished Lots $5,000 - $22,000/Lot $12,000/Lots Unplatted, Raw Land $500 - $2,000/Acre $1,000/Acreb Residential Units $9 ,000 - $75,000/Uni tc $30 ,000/Uni td a Based on current dollar values as applied to existing Virginia4 recreational community unit/lot market valuations. bEstimated assessed market valuation for residue undeveloped, but zoned, acreage in the Wheatlands, assuming residue property to be developed in later phases (Commissioner of the Revenue). cProjected construction values, based on unit size range: 900- 2500 square feet and unit developed cost range $10.00 - $30.00 per square foot. dEstimated average unit valuation basis: 1500 square feet @ $20.00 per square foot. market. values/ wheatlands The summary charts on the following pages depict the market valuations projected for the Wheatlands community. With the objective in mind of determining the total County real estate revenues which will be generated by Wheatlands, it is important to relate the specific lot and unit phasing plans to a market value structure. The "Projected Development and Housing Market Valuation" chart shows a three-way split in the market analysis: Individual lots, residue acreage in the development, and housing construction --each requiring individual treatment for eventual assessment purposes. One will note that, in the aggregate, developed lots command the greatest portion of the total community value after the initial development years. By 1989, lot values alone will represent over 73% of the gross market value of the Wheatlands community. This is due, primarily, to the fact that typical recreational developments experience a very moderate unit, buildout rate. If Wheatlands was planned as a per- manent home development, this would not be the case; housing values would be commensurate in their rate of increase with finished lot sales. As a specialty development, however, Wheatlands will develop increased values "in the land" as a result of undertaking plans to create a recreational habitat. Upon the platting of each phase in tfie rc:l'c:rc�nr;;c ca lot market schedule, the County will begin assessing Lhese lots based on the approximate $'12,000/lot market value. Residue (remaining unplatted) acreage will most probably be valued at $1000/acre, � � 35;' •• based on its zoned (b.ut underutilized) land use within the boundary of the community. Housing, naturally, will be valued on an individual unit basis, but experience indicates that an average unit/construction value equal to at least $30,000 per house can be anticipated. In addition, as the developer provides the aforementioned $700,000 worth' of capital recreational amenities, these items will be subject to assessment in a similar fashion as the remainder of the capital improve- ments within the development. In order to introduce a conservative element to the subject analysis, only land values and housing valuations will be included in the fiscal impact study. 40 WHEATLANDS RECREATIONAL' COMMUNITY: PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING MARKET VALUATIONS, 1979-1989 PHASING SCHEDULE YEAR - ACCUMULATIVE DEVELOPED LOTS ACCUMULATIVE LOT MARKET VALUATION RESIDUE COMMUNITY ACREAGE RESIDUE MARKET VALUATION ACCUMULATIVE HOUSING ACTIVITY ACCUMULATIVE HOUSING VALUATION 1979 50 $600,000 1100 $1 100 000 0 0 1980 150 $1 ,800,000 1050 $1 ,050,000 7 $210,000 1981 300 $3,600,000 980 $980,000 22 $660,000 1982 500 $6,000,000 910 $910,000 47 $1,410,000 1983 700 $8,400,000 840 $840,000 77 $2,310,000 1984 900 $10,800,000 770 $770,000 107 $3,210,000 1985 1100 $13,200,000 700 $700,000 137 $4,110,000 i 1986 1300 $15,600,000 630 $630,000 167 $5,010,000 j1987 1500 $18,000,000 560 $560,000 197 $5,910,000 1988 1700 $20,400,000 490 $490,000 227 $6,810,000 1989 1900 $22,800,000 420a $420,000 257 $7,710,000 aRepresents residual community acreage which will not be further utilized for lot development. r 9 37. WHEATLANDS RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY: 1 7m TOTAL PROJECTED REAL ESTATE AND DEVELOPMENT MARKET VALUATIONS YEAR PHASE TOTAL PROJECTED COMMUNITY MARKET VALUATIONa 1979 1 $1 ,700,000 1980 , 2 . $3,060,000 1921 3 $5,240,000 1982 4 $8,320,000 1983 5 $11,550,000 1984 6 $14,780,000 1985 7 $18,010,000 1986 8 $21,240,000 1987 9 $24,470,000 1988 10 $27,700,000 1989 I 11 $30,930,000 abased on current dollar values. 10 .. 38 revenues i wheatlands To determine the annual real estate tax revenues that will be generated by the Wheatlands community, the current valuation of $2.30/$100 has been applied. This assessed valuation is based on the existing .20 assessment ratio. The table on the following page projects these annual real estate revenues through 1989 whereupon it is assumed that all lots within Wheatlands will be platted and developed for sale, i.e. subject to finished lot assessment. Thus, by 1989 th'e community will develop over one hundred forty thousand dollars in revenues to Frederick County. Thereafter, these revenues will increase proportionately4with the number of new housing starts in the development. Based on the projected construction schedule of 30 units/year, an additional annual real estate tax increment equal to $4140 will be realized. 39+'' I 8 WHEATLANDS RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY: FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA TOTAL PROJECTED REAL ESTATE TAX REVENUES 1979-1989 PHASING SCHEDULE YEAR PHASE ANNUAL ASSESSMENJ VALUATION ANNUAL REAL ESTATE REVENUES GENERATED b 1979 1 $340,000 $7,820 1980 2 $612,000 $14,076 1981 3 $1,048,000 $24,104 1982 4 $1,664,000 $38,272 1983 5 $2,310,000 $53,130 1984 6 $2,956,000 $67,988 1985 7 $3,602,000 $82,846 1986 8 $4,248,000 $97,704 1987 9 $4,894,000 $112,562 1988 10 $5,540,000 $127,420 1989 11 $6,186,000 $142,278 aBased on current: real estate assessment/market value ratio equal to 0.20. bBased on current real estate assessment rate equal to $2.30/$100 valuation. 40 population estimates 1 Wheatlands should experience a population growth and demographic profile similar to that in other recreational communities with similar locational parameters. The table below represents the population/ household comparisons which will be statistically applied to the Wheatlands community phasing schedule: *19 0 nn nl II AT T/ Kl nrAIf nAT Tn nI nnn I Tnnlr _ WHEATLANDS RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY PERSONS PER D.U. PRIMARY RESIDENTS 3.35a khi IRI.MLNT COUPL.CS 2.00 SA-'COND HOML- FAMILIES I 3.60 a1970 Bureau of the Census, Frederick County Q. The Frederick County Office of Planning has suggested the following ratios for permanent household, school children projections. These will be applied to a subsequent chart to estimate the population characteristics for Wheatlands. FRLDEf:ICK COUNTY: 2 ® ■ PUBLIC SCHOOL POPULATION PROJECTIONS TYPE OF CHILDREN TYPE OF CHILDREN HOUSING PER UNIT HOUSING PER UNIT Single Family 1.05 Single Mobile Home .90 Multi- Family .43 Mobile Home in Park .75 41 2 1 , WHEATLANDS RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY: PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT POPULATION'CHARACTERISTICS 1979-1989 PHASING SCHEDULEa r M ACCUMULATIVE ANNUAL POPULATION STATISTICS SLCUNF-_-�lflElIIIEMEN �'12.IMARY PRIMAR`% -'OTTL HOME HOME HOME HOME COMMUNITY YEAR PHASE RESIDENTS RESIDENTS RESIDENTS SCHOOL CHILDRENb RESIDENTS 1979 1 0 0 0 " 1980 2 9 4 10 3 1981 3 25 14 24 8 1982 4 58 32 54 17 19133 5 94 52 iiI 27 I'a 3 J 0 130 77. 1 t 2 38 1985 7 164 91 •153 48 1986 8 200 111 186 58 1987 9 236 131 220 69 1988 10 272 151 253 79 1989 11 308 171 287 90 23 63 144 -233 :324 408 497 587 676 766 aProjected population distribution desired on equal housing absorption split between second horse (one-third), retirement home (one-third), and primary home (one-third) development activity. This distribution is not based on market analyses of Frederick County. bAssuming all construction activity for permanent homes is single family detached units, each developing 1.05 school children per unit. ;► 42 .►-L, ■ r-% wheatlands ' : expenditures induced Unlike permanent home communities, second home developments, such as the one being proposed by Messrs. Glaize and Bowman, do not demand the same degree of governmental services. Wheatlands' residents will not require the level of public expenditures as found in primary home subdivisions throughout Frederick County. In the initial chapter of this report analysis showed that permanent homes in the County induced $4.84.78 in tax (general fund) based local expenditures. SiiA larly, it was found that revenues produced by these households failed to offse+L this induced expenditure, thus resulting in a bud- 4 yet,r•y deficit; (as pe r the 1975-1976 Fiscal Phan). The fo-1l ow i ny chart examines in clF to i l the budgetary functions that can be considered to be induced by recreational and retirement households. These induced expenditures are presented in a similar format as those for permanent residential units, thus can be used together for comparative purposes. The significant omission in the second home, public expenditure category is in the area of public education and school construction. Since retirement and vacation residents will be located in the community only during school recess per --- iods, it is assumed that these non -County, second home families 1- 9 �rill add no children to the local public school system. Those families whose permanent residence is in Frederick County but who plan to own a second home in Wheatlands will be assumed to induce school -oriented expenditures from their permanent home, local tax base. Naturally, out -of -County residents will provide -for the education of their children 43 thruu(Jh their primary resident location tax structure. It is noted that recreational/retirement oriented homes induce approximately 30 of the expenditures attributed to a normal primary home, or $144.88 per unit. FREDERICK COUNTY EXPENDITURES RESIDENTIALLY INDUCED) 2 2 e WHEATLANDS' RECREATIONAL/RETIREMENT HOMES BUDGET FUNCTION AVERAGE PER AVERAGE PER (LOCAL TAX RELATED) HOUSEHOLD CAPITA General Governiiienta $67.71 $20.21 Criminal Justice/ Police Protection $27.47 $ 8.20 Solid Waste Control $ 5.53 $:1.65 Public Assistance $ 7.30 $ 2.18 Wa b_'r and sowerb $36.87 $11 .01 Recreation/Retirement Relatedc $144.88 $43.25 Expenditure Totals: Permanent Home Induced $484 78 $144.71 Expenditure Totals: Ratio: Expenditures, Second 29.9% 29.9% Home/Permanent Home `'General (;ovt. included as a fully i educed expenditure item. In reality, second homes (recreational and retirement) do not demand the full level of goverrimental services attributed to permanent residences. bWater and Sewer: This general fund item represents a loan by the County to the Water and Sewer Authority, said loan to be paid in full by user -service charges. cExclusive of such "permanent home" oriented general fund expenditures for parks and recreation, education, school building program, and jail construction. 44 The preceding analysis, to be beneficial, must be extended to the projected development of the Wheatlands Recreational Community. In order to be statistically compatible with the current fiscal plan, it is assumed that permanent homes in the Wheatlands will induce the same $484.78 per household as determined earlier in this study. The critical factor in determining the fiscal requirements of the community is a function of the proportionate share of permanent, retirement and vacation homes in the planned development. The developers of Wheatlands feel that the "market thrust" will have to be oriented towards a full recreational/retirement habitat to produce an economically viable product. However, experience throughout the state and nation shows that it isimpractical to assume 100% pure recreational absorption. This 4 firm recommends that the absorption characteristics reflect an equal distribution among the three described household categories. The analysis on the following page shows the projected annual public expenditures for Wheatlands based on the 33% periiianent residential population allocation described herein. WHEATLANDS RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY: PROJECTED PUBLIC EXPENDITURES INDUCED B'r' EDE'.'E'—OPf•1E"aT 1979-1939 PHASING SCHEDULE ANNUAL LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURESMOUSEHOLD SECOND RETIREIMENT PERMANENT TOTAL ANNUAL AVERAGE COST; YEAR PHASE HOME HOME HOME G=�;ER^L FUND �WHLEATLANDS INDUCED INDUCED INDUCEC Et;PE�;DITURES P.ESIDEidT 1979 1 0 0 0 0 0 1983 2 $389.25 $173.00 $1,447.10 %.909.35 S87.36 1981 3 $1,081.25 S605.50 $3 473.04 55,159.79 $81.90 1982 4 $2,508.50 $1,384.00 $7,814.34 S11,710.84 $81.33 1983 5 S4,065.50 S2,249.00 512,589.77 Q 8,904.27 $81.13 1984 6 $5,622.50 $3,114.00 $17,654.62 S26,391.12 $81.45 1985 7 $7,093.00 S3,935.75 $22,140.63 533,169.38 $81.30 1986 8 $8,650.00 $4,800.75 $26,916.06 540,366.81 $81.22 1987 9 $10,207.00 $5,665.75 $31,836.20 S47,708.95 $81.28 1988 10 $11,764.00 $6,530.75 $.36,611.63 S54,906.38 $81.22 1989 11 $13,321.00 $7,395.75 $41,531.77 S62,248.52 $81.26 s A 46 residential unit revenues : WHEATLANDS RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY: 2 ■ ANNUAL COUNTY TAX REVENUES/1IOUSFHULD PERMANENT HOME RESIDENCE SECOND HOME RESIDENCE RETIREMENT HOME RESIDENCE Real Estatea $193.20 $193.20 $193.20 Personal Propertyb,c $111.00 $ 0.00 $111.00 Sales Taxd $ 70.00 $ 20.00 $ 40.00 Revenues Generated Per Household Type .1 :.i/il .2(7 '; r' ! 3. rll $3� 11 .,aValuation based on average lot value: $12,000, and average unit value: $30,000. bSecond home residents pay no personal property tax in locality unless permanent place of residence is the same. cPermanent and retirement personal property valuation based on $3000/unit valuation @ current $3.70 per $100 assessment schedule. dPermanent residences assumed to generate sales tax, returnable to locality @ 1%, equal to $70.00 annually. Second homes contribute an average of $20.00 returnable to the locality, while retir^i,ient homes generate approximately $40.00 annually. 47 THE WHEATLAN®S FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Analysis to this point has shown the various parameters contributing to the revenues and public expenditures related to the planned Wheatland Community. The following charts highlight these relationships for the entire community as well as individual units. Summarily, it is apparent that tyre Wheatlands development program will produce an economically viable community for the County of Frederick. Beginning with the initial construction phases, the County will realize a healthy fiscal surplus (revenues) exceeding community induced expen- ditures which should continue for the life of the described project. Upon the rezoning of the property and the platting of the first section -in 1979 , the County will b., receiving real Ps tate taxes from the property in the amount of $7,820, with no real County outlay. The following year (as initial housing construction commences) the fiscal surplus will rise to approximately $12,900. Thereafter, this surplus will increase at a rate of ten thousand dollars annually until the end of the formal community development period. It should be emphasized that at no point in the planned marketing timetable will the County experience less than a fiscal surplus for the recreational community. By the midway point (1984) in the community marketing program, Wheatlands will be producing a fiscal excess over County expenditures equal to approximately $54,000. The community in that year will have a gross market valuation of over fifteen million dollars. Real estate 48 values (exclusive of any building improvements) is projected to represent over three-quarters of the community valuation. By the year 1989, final market phase, the community valuation of $32 million will be providing the County with a fiscal surplus of over $110,000. The land value/ improvement in 1989 will be over 3:1, with -land values representing 72.5% of the total value of the Wheatlands. The moderate annual development pace (20-40 units) projected through- out the maturity of the development will further serve to enhance the positive revenue/expenditure ratio. The chart on the following page indicates that the average fiscal surplus for a Wheatlands residence is $52.32 annually. The final chart in this study highlights the "bottom line" findings M 4 of this firm based on the development characteristics and guidelines described herein. Again, it is noted that the study assumes a 1/3 ratio of single family permanent homes, providing a strong basis for the con- d. Recall alsoth�:rt Ow -current annual budget structure of the County will be chanclr�d and Lh;it tide current now assessment base and tax rate was assumed to continue through 1989. Thus, the revenues achieved in the "front end" years at Wheatlands will more than cover the development program costs attributable to the County, in our judgment. Z 5 . WHEATLANDS; RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT: ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL. UNIT REVENUE/EXPENDITURES PERMANENT SECOND RETIREMENT AVERAGE HOME HOME HOME WHEATLANDS RESIDENCE RESIDENCE RESIDENCE RESIDENCE Revenues Generatedl $374.20 $2.13.20 $344.20 $310.53 LxpendiLures a184.78 $ 144.8t, 144.88 $258.181nduceJ Fiscal + Surplus - $110.58 + $68.32 + $200.00 + $52.35 - Deficit2 1This analysis is related only to the "lot and unit" impact of a given residence within the Wheatlands. Additional revenues generated by residue acreage and unbuilt-upon lots is not included in the "Revenues Generated". lkeference: Tables 22 and 24 of this report. 26M WHEATLANDS REC E-,TIONAL COMMUNITY: FISCAL iFi=r,CT 0r DEVELOPMENT PHASING SCHEDULE YEAR, PHASE L 'STATE ( REVENUES 1 GE,;=RATED PERSONAL PROPERTY/ SALES TAX GENERATED TOTAL REVENUES , GENERATED TOTAL EXPENDITURES INDUCED E FISCAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT.' I 1979 1 7,820 0 5 7,820 I 0 S 7,820.00 II a 1980 2 14,076 S 821 14,897 $ 2,009.35 12,887.65 1981 3 24,104 2,581 26,685 5,159.79 21,525.21 19(2 4 38,272 l 5,515 i 43,787 11,710.84 � 32,076.16 1983 5 ! 53,130 9,034 t 62,164 18,904.27 43,259.73 � 1984 6 i 67,988 1.2,554 80,542 26,391.12 54,150.88 1985 7 82,846 16,074 98,920 33,169.38 65,750.52 1986 8 97,704 19,595 117,299 40,366.81 76,932.19 i 1987 9 112,562 23,114 135,676 47,708.95 87,967.05 1988 10 127,420 26,634 154,054 54,906.38 99,147.62 j 1989 11 142,278 30,154 172,432 62-;248.52 110,183.48 a Permanent,retirement and second homes contribute to the personal property in the average annual amount of $117.33 per household. This average computed on the basis of no personal property tax generated.by second homes. However, all three home categories contribute to the sales tax revenues. h, 51 wheatlands : APPENDIX 1. 27■ APPENDIX. VIRGINIA RECREATIONQ DEVELOPMENTS COMPARATIVE STATISTICS RECREATIONAL PROJECT TOTAL ACRES TOTAL LOTS APPROX. STARTING DATE LOTS SOLD TO DATE i LOTS BUILT UPON % LOTS SOLD PERMANENT HOMES LOTS SOLD PROJECT SCHEDULE Frederick Co. i The Summit --- 2,635 1971 1,678 631 32 2% 13 0.8% 1971-1978 Frederick Co. Shawnee Land 9,000 3,SO4 1956 ( 3,610 ; 94% 371 10.3% 132 3.7'% None a � Orange County - I Lake of the --- 4,283 1968 4,283 100`z 500 11.7% 74 1.7 1968-1978 Woods (1970) Caroline Co. 2,050 ' Lake Caroline --- 2,050 1967 (1973) 100! i 90 , 4.4% 20 1 & 1967-1977 Rockingham Co. Massanutten 5,000 5,000 1971 1,450 , 29 `'�' 108 7.4� Not Known --- 1971-1981 (Del Webb) Nelson County 0 Wintergreen 13,000 5,000 1974 542 10% 392. 72.0% (Currently 0% 1974-1987 10 months sales) 53 NOTES TO APPENDIX • The single family lot sizes'in all in area. Some projects have condompniumst'somegdofnot.rom l/3 to 1 acre • The vacant lot sales have ranged between 2,500.00 and 25,000.00 over the years. The average is around $13,000 per lot for all projects taken together. • Most of the unit sales that have occurred in the last five years have ranged between $20,000 and $70,000 with the average being approxi- mately $45,000.00 for all projects taken together. The comparative information in the preceding recreational sub- division development table was obtained from the applicants relative to The Summit and Shawnee Land. Data for the other projects was obtained through personal contacts by this firm with representatives of the devel- opments cited, as well as officials of the jurisdictions involved. {-' /O/Zz/7_!� C) C, C ) Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R_ Hodgson, I BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- i ginia, does herein approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of this Board held on i September 24, 1975. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, ;Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard �F. Madigan, Aye. ;APPROVAL OF BILLS Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson, I BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- inia, does herein approve pprove the payment of the following bills: 1. Randolph M. Underwood — Painting Courthouse Check Number 11808 - Amount $7,875.00 1 2. Treasurer of Virginia - Purchase of Dump Truck for Parks and Recreation Department - Check Number 11807 - Amount $1,100.00 The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. (RESOLUTION REQUESTING ADDITION OF A PORTION OFF ROUTE 655 (LANDFILL ROAD) TO SECONDARY 1ROAD SYSTEM - APPROVED i Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation is Thereby requested to add a section of road from Route 655 to the Frederick -Winchester Sanitary Landfill, a distance of 0.5 miles, to the Secondary System of Frederick County pursuant to Section 33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended; and, I BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this Board does guarantee the Commonwealth of Vir- ginia an unrestricted right-of-way of sixty (60) feet with necessary easements for I cuts, fills and drainage; recorded in Deed Book 436, Page 112 dated June 27, 1974, Deed Book 436, Page 116 dated June 6, 1974, Deed Book 436, Page 120 dated May 23, 1974, and Deed Book 436, Page 124 dated June 18, 1974. i� The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard:! F. Madigan, Aye. i I� AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1 1973 TO REZONE 1144.297 ACRES OF J. L. BOWMAN AND F. L. GLAIZE, III IN OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL( DISTRICT FROM AGRICULTURAL, GENERAL (A-2) TO RESIDENTIAL RECREATIONAL COMMrrNrmv rR-sr . Mr. Billy Jo Tisinger appeared before the Board representing Mr. J. L. Bowman an Mr. F. L. Glaize, III in .their rezoning application. He stated that the Board had re ceived copies of a memorandum of position prepared by the petitioners. Mr. Tisinger requested the Board to correct the fifth line in said statement to read "development" area rather than "drainage" area. Mr. Tisinger stated that the questions raised at the last public hearing had been before the Planning Commission and this was the third appearance before the Board and i that the petitioners had attempted to answer these questions as best they could in their statement of .position. He emphasized that the proposed development is at this time a concept and should it be approved, the Board of Supervisors would have the con- tinuing policing authority of the development to see that the developers carry out the project as they have promised to do. Mr. Tisinger stated that they had tried in good faith to present the plans for this development and answer all questions. He request- ed a vote of approval on this rezoning request. Mr. Cole asked what assurances the Board had that this would be a recreational subdivision as opposed to a residential subdivision. Mr. Rosser Payne answered that they could not guarantee that 33% of this subdivi- sion would be recreational, 33% would be residential and 33% would be retirement as set forth in their projections but that these figures were based on studies made of Mother recreational developments very similar to the proposed one in similar areas. He further stated that the intent of the developers is to construct a recreational subdi- i ! vision and that in the recreational subdivisions studied, the number of permanent homes ;was far less than 33% including the two located in Frederick County. Mr. Payne ex- 'plained the process of reassessment of the property including three reassessments with - !in a 10 year period. He then explained the taxing of the residential lots in the sub- i division should it be approved. q Mr. Cole stated that he felt the location of the property would make it conducive to a permanent subdivision and he did not feel it could be compared with The Summit i land Shawneeland. He then asked if an environmental impact study had been made on this jdevelopment. Mr. Tisinger stated that an environmental impact study had not been made inasmuch las the ordinance does not require it. 1! Mr. Sandy asked if there was any breakdown as to how many acres would be platted'' lin the first section submitted for approval and Mr. Tisinger answered that the subdi I vision would be developed in sections but the number of acres in each section had not,: (yet been developed. He stated that when the master plan is presented for approval the deed of dedication would be presented including the restrictions. Mr. Sandy stated that if the subdivision is developed in sections the Board would have some control over the method of development. Mr. Mason Larwood stated that considering the alternatives, this project seems to be the most feasible approach but he felt there must be continuing monitoring by the County in order to insure that the intent of the R-5 zoning district is adhered to. ` Mr. E. E. Bayliss stated that he was in favor of this project and that he felt it was very well located and would be most successful. Mrs. Ann Nuri stated that she felt the property would lose its beauty if it is i�. �i developed in 1/2 acre lots. She stated that there is ample property to develop the I project into 5 acre lots thereby preserving the natural beauty of the area, tors. Nuri stated that she felt the developers should request rezoning and develop perhaps sever-w I:, al hundred acres initially to see if the project is successful. Mrs. Nuri stated that she was opposed to rezoning of this magnitude. it Mr. Joseph Athey stated that he felt the Board should consider the fact that our,,; natural beauty is disappearing through development in Frederick County. it Mrs. Margaret Starliper asked if the impact of this development would require an- other school and Mr. Sandy answered that it could and this was why the Board was so j li concerned about the type of homes constructed inthe development. Mr. Madigan stated that he had conducted an impact study on this proposed develop- ment and when it•is totally sold out there will be 49.35 children. He stated that the lake and other recreational amenities and the security force provided by the subdivi- sion would create less impact on County services of this type. He further stated that he could see less impact on our welfare program inasmuch as the people moving into : this development would not be in the low income category, and that he felt the develop- C N ment would produce a high revenue for the County. Mr. Madigan stated that he did not see how the Board could prove that it would not be a recreational subdivision. He then presented his projections of revenue for ii 57 the County from this proposed development through the years 1979-1989. He stated that it was important to rebuild the County tax base and that the best income producing properties the County has are the two recreational subdivisions now located here. He pointed out that the residents in these recreational subdivisions pay six times the amount other County residents pay for the services they receive from the County. Mr. Madigan further stated that if the County did not have these two recreational subdivisions, we would be paying 20 cents more per hundred on our taxes and the income in this County could not stand a big tax increase. Mr. Cole stated that he did not feel the Board knew enough about the proposed de- I velopment to make a decision at this time. He further stated that he had talked with.: several people in his district and that some saw it as a recreational subdivision but; the majority saw it as a residential subdivision and the impact of an additional 9000. people in this County over the next few years would be quite significant. Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve, on third and final reading, the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973, TO REZONE 1144.297 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OF J. L. BOWMAN AND F. L. GLAIZE, III, FRONTING 920.57 FEET ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE 277 (BEGINNING APPROXIMATELY 1.45 MILES EAST OF INTERSECTION WITH ROUTE 636) AND BOUNDED BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY-CLARKE COUNTY LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 6000 FEET, MORE OR LESS, (BEGINNING APPROXIMATELY .53 MILES SOUTH OF ROUTE 277); IN OPEQUON MAG- ISTERIAL DISTRICT; FROM AGRICULTURAL, GENERAL (A-2) TO RESIDENTIAL RECREATION- AL COM14UNITY (R-5) . 4 The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Nye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; Richard F. Madigan, Aye; and Dennis T. Cole, Nay. LMENDMENT TO SOLENBERGER HARDWARE SITE PLAN - APPROVED Mr. Cole stated that he had reviewed the amendment to the Solenberger Hardware j lite Plan as presented at the last meeting and was in favor of said amendment. it Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell, ii BE IT RESLLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- inia, does herein approve the amendment to the Solenberger Hardware Site Plan, locat d on Route 7, to amend the driveway entrance to said property from 50 feet to 35 feet i .s recommended by the Virginia Department of Highways, i The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, .ye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard.'. i Madigan, Aye. MENDMENT TO SITE PLAN - DENNY'S FURNITURE - APPROVED i Mr. Berg presented an amendment to the Site Plan for Denny's Furniture stating I .hat the applicant was requesting the relocation of the building on the property. Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- inia, does herein approve the amendment to the Site Plan for Denny's Furniture locat-. !d on Route 7 for the relocation of the building on the property in accordance with .he site plan presented this date. ij ginia, does herein approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of this Board held on September 24, 1975. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. APPROVAL OF BILLS Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein approve the payment of the following bills: 1. Randolph M. Underwood - Painting Courthouse Check Number 11808 - Amount $7,875.00 2. Treasurer of Virginia - Purchase of Dump Truck for Parks and Recreation Department - Check i Number 11807 - Amount $1,100.00 The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis Ts Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard, F. Madigan, Aye. ij RESOLUTION REQUESTING ADDITION OF A PORTION OFF ROUTE 655 (LANDFILL ROAD) TO SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM - APPROVED ii Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation is hereby requested to add a section of road from Route 655 to the Frederick -Winchester Sanitary Landfill, a distance of 0.5 miles, to the Secondary System of Frederick County pursuant to Section 33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this Board does guarantee the Commonwealth of Vir- ginia an unrestricted right-of-way of sixty (60) feet with necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; recorded in Deed Book 436, Page 112 dated June 27, 1974, Deed Book 436, Page 116 dated June 6, 1974, Deed Book 436, Page 120 dated May 23, 1974, and Deed Book 436, Page 124 dated June 18, 1974. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard i F. Madigan, Aye. i i �i AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973,' TO REZONE 1144.297 ACRES OF J. L. BOWMAN AND F. L. GLAIZE, III IN OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM AGRICULTURAL, GENERAL (A-2) TO RESIDENTIAL RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY (R-5)- APPROVED !i i Mr. Billy Jo Tisinger appeared before the Board representing Mr. J. L. Bowman and Mr. F. L. Glaize, III in their rezoning application. He stated that the Board had re-,� it ceived copies of a memorandum of position prepared by the petitioners. Mr. Tisinger requested the Board to correct the fifth line in said statement to read "development" I area rather than "drainage" area. it Mr. Tisinger stated that the questions raised at the last public hearing had been before the Planning Commission and this was the third appearance before the Board and :i that the petitioners had attempted to answer these questions as best they could in .21 their statement of position. He emphasized that the proposed development is at this time a concept and should it be approved, the Board of Supervisors would have the con tinuing policing authority of the development to see that the developers carry out the ,project as they have promised to do. Mr. Tisinger stated that they had tried in good j :faith to present the plans for this development and answer all questions. He request ed a vote of approval on this rezoning request. i J i Mr. Rosser Payne answered that they could not guarantee that 330 of this subdivi- sion would be recreational, 33% would be residential and 33% would be retirement as set forth in their projections but that these figures were based on studies made of other recreational developments very similar to the proposed one in similar areas. He lfurther stated that the intent of the developers is to construct a recreational subdi- ;vision and that in the recreational subdivisions studied, the number of permanent homes was far less than 33% including the two located in Frederick County. Mr. Payne ex- 1plained the process of reassessment of the property including three reassessments with- in a 10 year period. He then explained the taxing of the residential lots in the sub- division should it be approved. Mr. Cole stated that he felt the location of the property would make it conducive to a permanent subdivision and he did not feel it could be compared with The Summit and Shawneeland. He then asked if an environmental impact study had been made on this development. Mr. Tisinger stated that an environmental impact study had not been made inasmuch as the ordinance does not require it. ti Mr. Sandy asked if there was any breakdown as to how many acres would be platted; in the first section submitted for approval and Mr. Tisinger answered that the subdi- ;j vision would be developed in sections but the number of acres in each section had not yet been developed. He stated that when the master plan is presented for approval the Ideed of dedication would be presented including the restrictions. It Mr. Sandy stated that if the subdivision is developed in sections the Board would have some control over the method of development. Mr. Mason Larwood stated that considering the alternatives, this project seems to be the most feasible approach but he felt there must be continuing monitoring by the it County in order to insure that the intent of the R-5 zoning district is adhered to. Mr. E. E. Bayliss stated that he was in favor of this project and that he felt it I iwas very well located and would be most successful. it Mrs. Ann Nuri stated that she felt the property would lose its beauty if it is developed in 1/2 acre lots. She stated that there is ample property to develop the i project into 5 acre lots thereby preserving the natural beauty of the area. Mrs. Nuri i ,stated that she felt the developers should request rezoning and develop perhaps sever- al hundred acres initially to see if the project is successful. Mrs. Nuri stated that she was opposed to rezoning of this magnitude. is Mr. Joseph Athey stated that he felt the Board should consider the fact that our;: I' natural beauty is disappearing through development in Frederick County. !� Mrs. Margaret Starliper asked if the impact of this development would require anl, 'I other school and Mr. Sandy answered that it could and this was why the Board was so concerned about the type of homes constructed inthe development. it Mr. Madigan stated that he had conducted an impact study on this proposed develop- ment and when it is totally sold out there will be 49.35 children. He stated that the lake and other recreational amenities and the security force provided by the subdivi sion would create less impact on County services of this type. He further stated that he could see less impact on our welfare program inasmuch as the people moving into this development would not be in the low income category, and that he felt the develop- ment would produce a high revenue for the County. Ic R Mr. Madigan stated that he did not see how the Board could prove that it would not be a recreational subdivision. He then presented his projections of revenue for C A C') (` I A properties the County has are the two recreational subdivisions now located here. He pointed out that the residents in these recreational subdivisions pay six times the amount other County residents pay for the services they receive from the County. Mr. Madigan further stated that if the County did not have these two recreational subdivisions, we would be paying 20 cents more per hundred on our taxes and the income in this County could not stand a big tax increase. a Mr. Cole stated that he did not feel the Board knew enough about the proposed de- velopment to make a decision at this time. He further stated that he had talked with; several people in his district and that some saw it as a recreational subdivision but, the majority saw it as a residential subdivision and the impact of an additional 9000': people in this County over the next few years would be quite significant. Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, does herein approve, on third and final reading, the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973, TO REZONE 1144.297 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OF J. L. BOWMAN AND F. L. GLAIZE, III, FRONTING 920.57 FEET ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE 277 (BEGINNING APPROXIMATELY 1.45 MILES EAST OF INTERSECTION WITH ROUTE 636) AND BOUNDED BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY-CLARKE COUNTY LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 6000 FEET, MORE OR LESS, (BEGINNING APPROXIMATELY .53 MILES SOUTH OF ROUTE 277); IN OPEQUON MAG- ISTERIAL DISTRICT; FROM AGRICULTURAL, GENERAL (A-2) TO RESIDENTIAL RECREATION- AL COMMUNITY (R-5). The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandi !Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; Richard F. Madigan, Aye; and Dennis T. Cole, Nay. !AMENDMENT TO SOLENBERGER HARDWARE SITE PLAN - APPROVED Mr. Cole stated that he had reviewed the amendment to the Solenberger Hardware Site Plan as presented at the last meeting and was in favor of said amendment. Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESLOVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein approve the amendment to the Solenberger Hardware Site Plan, locat- ed on Route 7, to amend the driveway entrance to said property from 50 feet to 35 feet as recommended by the Virginia Department of Highways. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. I AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN - DENNY'S FURNITURE - APPROVED I Mr. Berg presented an amendment to the Site Plan for Denny's Furniture stating i that the applicant was requesting the relocation of the building on the property. i Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson, u BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein approve the amendment to the Site Plan for Denny's Furniture locat I ed on Route 7 for the relocation of the building on the property in accordance with the site plan presented this date. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; Richard F. Madigan, Aye; and Dennis T. Cole, Abstaining. STONEBROOK FARMS SUBDIVISION - SECTIONS 4 AND 5 - APPROVED Mr. Berg presented the plat of Stonebrook Farms Subdivision, Section 4 and 5 and stated that these sections contain 14 lots and all approvals have been received. He I) Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed unanimously, the Board recessed for :dinner at 5:05 P.M. i BOARD RECONVENES The Board reconvened into Regular Session at 7:00 P.M. The Chairman called the meeting to order. APPROVAL OF BILLS Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ia, does herein approve the bills for the month of August in the amount of $76,596.80 does order the same paid by Warrants #11334 through #11495. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard Madigan, Aye. i� APPROVAL OF PAYROLL Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- � l �ginia, does herein approve the payroll for the month of August in the amount of i il j$67,266.16 and does order the same paid by Warrants #11165 through #11272. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, �I IAye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard ;F. Madigan, Aye. •, 'I 'MOBILE HOME PERMITS - KECKLEY, TRIPLETT, DARLING, TURNER - APPROVED I j Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, I BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein approve the following mobile home permits: 1. Winfred Keckley - Back Creek District 2. William Triplett - Back Creek District 3. Jean Darling - Gainesboro District 4. Betty F. Turner,-.Gainesboro District The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. �I I� AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973, i TO REZONE 1144.297 ACRES OF J. L. BOWMAN AND F. L. GLAIZE, III IN OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL:; DISTRICT FROM AGRICULTURAL, GENERAL (A-2) TO RESIDENTIAL RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY - TABLED Mr. Bill Tisinger appeared before the Board with the petitioners in support of their application for rezoning. He described the plan for the proposed developmentfl � and stated that it is intended to be a recreational community as opposed to a perman- ent home community, Mr. Tisinger described the features to be included in the subdiv-: ;i ision includinga lake a dam, village centers, swimming � g g pools, tennis courts, base- ball fields, picnic areas, and open spaces. He stated that the development would have a private security system and nothing therein would be dedicated for public use. Mr. Tisinger stated that the impact figures for this development had not been com- pleted in time for the meeting and therefore he requested that action on this rezoning request be delayed until the next regular meeting of the Board in order that these fig- ures might be available for inspection by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Ambrogi if it would be proper 'to hold the public hearing at this time and delay action until the next regular meeting and Mr. Ambrogi stated that C C C I 0'z I 'lit would be proper to follow this procedure. Mr. Cole stated that he did see how the Board could hold a public hearing on this i I1,matter when all the facts are not being presented at this time. Mr. Mason Larwood appeared before the Board in opposition to this rezoning request �i 'and stated that he felt Mr. Cole's points were well taken. He then asked what assurances Ithe Board would have relative to the safety of the dam and who would inspect it to see that it remains in a safe condition. He asked if the erosion control ordinance had ;i !!been complied with and if the County had made an inspection of the site for said com- { 1pliance. �i Mr. Larwood stated that he felt the developers might be in conflict with a federal !regulation in their construction of the lake and asked that this be investigated. He'I!: i .urged the Board to delay action on this matter until the impact study is presented and �Jthe public has time to digest this information. � Mr. -Ralph Myers appeared before the Board and urged the Board to delay action on I jthis request until all the information is presented and considered by the Board and the (public. He stated that this property is good agricultural land and he felt it should j ;be kept in that use. Mr. Myers asked what assurances or control the Board would have j Tito see that the development remains a recreational one as opposed to a permanent home iidevelo ment. He stated that he would � i p question the acceptability of this land for sep-. ltic systems and wells inasmuch as his property adjoins the proposed development and he s been unable to get a permit for such a system. Mr. Leonard Ellis appeared before the Board representing the Executive Board of :he Frederick County Taxpayers Association and presented the following statement: STATEMENT OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION FOR RELEASE SEPTEMBER 10, 1975 The Executive Board of the Frederick County Taxpayers Associa- tion is compelled to intervene in decisions being made by the County Board of Supervisors under a cloud of potential impropriety. There are currently pending, at various stages of planning, sev- eral proposals for development in Frederick County. An inventory of all of the decisions which this Board could make, which will be binding upon future County Supervisors, includes a var- iety of projects related to growth and representing millions of dol- lars in costs to the county taxpayers. Among them are: *Committing the county to construction of a new high school while enlarging an existing one. *Rezoning 1144 acres of agricultural land for the Wheat - lands recreational community. *Plans to develop the newly -acquired Stephens City Park. *Designating orchard/agricultural lands west of Route 37 for future development. *Plans for a regional sewage treatment plant. *Approval or disapproval of a long-awaited comprehen- sive Land Use Plan. The current!Board of Supervisors is in the unique posture of -being investigated by the state police and a special grand jury. In the result- ant environment of distrust and suspicion, our county government should exercise a higher degree of care to avoid even the appearance of impro- priety in its present decision -making activities. The ongoing investigations of past and present Board transactions should serve as a strong indication to Supervisors and other county offic- ials that their conduct will be carefully scrutinized and openly question- ed by county taxpayers. Virtually every day we learn of additional "potent- ial misconduct" by county officials --- from HUD, from the Virginia State Police, from the County Auditor, and others. Under such a cloud of suspi- cion, it is difficult to understand why the Board does not defer its major planning and zoning decisions until a newly -elected Board assumes office in less than four months, and until a comprehensive Land Use Plan is in oper- ation. To continue its haphazard decision -making process will only further detract from the integrity of our county government which is already called into question; and will further hamstring the next county administration in executing a realistic Land Use Plan. As a "lame duck" body, this Board should merely finish its administrative housekeeping in the next few months and send these major proposals back to the drawing board. i 1 The Frederick County Taxpayers Association will not stand by and watch county officials, who are virtually unaccountable to their constituents, destroy the agricultural character of our community and bankrupt the county treasury to help private developers finance haphazard growth in our county. ;..I Mr. Tisinger stated that he would investigate the various questions presented by - .. ::the opposition. Mr. Sandy asked Mr. Tisinger if he had researched the bonding on the proposed de- ;,velopment and Mr. Tisinger answered that he had looked into the matter but would not ,be so presumptuous as to offer the Board advice on this matter. Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Ambrogi if there was an unresolved legal question about the [!bonding of such a subdivision or had this matter been en resolved. li fi Mr. Ambrogi stated that he thought it had been resolved when the Board amended 'i ,their ordinance to read that a cash or surety bond was mandatory. Mr. Madigan asked if a bond would be required in a subdivision where the amenities i !are not to be dedicated to public use. I Mr. Ambrogi stated that he would have to refer to the Attorney General' � y s opinion': 'the Board had requested a year or so ago. He stated that the Board had asked him for,; {i an opinion and he had given one and then they requested him to write to the Attorney i General to get an opinion on this matter. Mr. Ambrogi stated that he had written a three or four page letter, and he would have to get the letter to provide any addition- al information on this matter. !� ii Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Renalds if he had the letter to which Mr. Ambrogi referred,, and Mr. Renalds stated that he did. j i Mr. Madigan asked if a bond was required when the amenities would not be dedicated for public use. �i Mr. Ambrogi read the following section from the Frederick County Division of Land Ordinance: 4-13. BOND: Before any subdivision plat will be finally approved and be- fore acceptance of dedication for public use of any right-of-way located within any subdivision which has constructed therein, or proposed to be constructed therein, any street, curb, gutter, sidewalk, drainage or sew- erage system or other improvement, financed or to be financed in whole or in part by private funds,the owner or developer must (1) - certify to the governing body that construction costs have been paid to the person con- structing such facilities, or (2) - furnish to the governing body a certi- fied check in the amount of the e timated costs of construction or a bond, with surety satisfactory to the governing body, in an amount sufficient for and conditioned upon the construction of such facilities. Mr. Madigan stated that if he understood the above section correctly, it applied to any amenities that would be dedicated to public use. He then asked Mr. Tisinger i any of the facilities in the proposed development would be dedicated for public use and Mr. Tisinger stated they would not. Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Ambrogi if it was correct that no bond would be required in- asmuch as none of the amenities would be dedicated for public use. I� Mr. Cole stated that he felt according to the section of the ordinance previously. read (4-13) a bond would be required. Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Ambrogi if a bond would be required if the developers put in their own water and sewer plant and Mr. Ambrogi stated that the County has been re- quiring a bond to insure that the amenities are completed by the developer. Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Ambrogi where the Board gets the authority to require such a bond and Mr. Ambrogi stated from state statutes and the local ordinance. Mr. Madigan stated that in the case of Lake Holiday the Board bonded the develop- ment and not the utility company. C� r Mr. Ambrogi stated that the bond was required to insure that the developer of Lake Holiday would complete the facilities. Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Renalds who accompanied him on the trip to Richmond to dis C' 11 A C� 1 ;:cuss the bonding question with the State Corporation Commission and the Attorney ;General as requested by the Board on January 9, 1973. Mr. Renalds stated that Al :Smith, Chuck Duvall, Ron Berg, Bob Fletcher, and Larry Ambrogi accompanied him on this ,trip. Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Ambrogi what advice they had been given at this meeting and Mr. Ambrogi stated that the matter had been discussed several hours and the State Corp- oration had subsequently written them a letter relative to this discussion. Mr. Renalds then read the letter from the State Corporation Commission. i Mr. Madigan asked if the State Corporation Commission checks the finances and de- sign for a utility company and then it falters, what happens to the utility company then; does it become the County's responsibility to complete the project, put the lines in, finish the plans; whose responsibility is it to see that these utilities are fin-; ished. Mr. Ambrogi stated that he felt the developer would be responsible because he would be bonded to the County. Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Ambrogi if the Governor had the authority to take over any Q public utility to see that the services are performed and Mr. Ambrogi stated that he %j felt that under certain circumstances and conditions there are probably provisions for; i this action; that the governor has certain executive powers in emergency situations. ;i Mr. Ambrogi stated that he felt this would apply to the larger public utilities such i as VEPCO, PEPCO, etc. and not the smaller public utilities. i� Mr. Madigan stated that the Board would have to resolve this question inasmuch as: they are now facing a big project. He then requested Mr. Ambrogi to read Section 56-509 of the Code. Mr. Ambrogi stated that he felt the matter had been resolved when the ordinance was amended. He then read Section 56-509 of the Code as follows: §56-509. Declaration of policy. -- The continuous, uninterrupted and proper functioning and operation of public utilities engaged in the business of fur- nishing water, light, heat, gas, electric power, transportation or communica- tion, or any one or more of them, to the people of Virginia are hereby de- clared to be essential to their welfare, health and safety. It is contrary to the public policy of the State to permit any substantial impairment or suspension of the operation of any such utility and it is the duty of the government of the State to exercise all available means and every power at its command to prevent the same so as to protect its citizens from any dan- gers, perils, calamities or catastrophes which would result therefrom. It is therefore further declared that such utilities are clothed with a vital public interest and to protect the same it is necessary that impairment or suspension of the operation of any such utility for any reason be prevented to the extent and by the means hereinafter provided. Mr. Madigan then asked Mr. Ambrogi to read Section 56-510 of the Code. Mr. Ambrogi read said Section as set forth below: §56-510. Duty of Governor when there is threat of curtailment, interruption, etc., of operation -- Whenever in the judgment of the Governor there is an imminent threat of substantial curtailment, interruption or suspension in the operation of any public utility hereinabove mentioned he shall promptly make an investigation to determine whether, in his opinion, an actual cur- tailment, interruption or suspension of operation will constitute a serious menace or threat to the public health, safety or welfare, and if he con- cludes that it will, he shall forthwith issue an executive proclamation so declaring and stating that at the time of such curtailment, interruption or suspension of operation he will take immediate possession of the utility, its plant and equipment, or so much thereof as may be necessary, for the use of and operation by the Commonwealth. Where the Governor finds it ad- visable for effectuation of the purposes hereof he may by proclamation ad- vance or defer such taking of possession. Mr. Madigan stated that he felt according to Section 56-510 when any public util ity has a curtailment of operation by its present owners, it becomes the responsibility of the governor to take charge and not the County Board of Supervisors. Mr. Ambrogi stated that the County has the duty to insure that the developer pro- vides the services. He further stated that the County is not bonding the utility com- pany, but the developer to insure that the amenities are completed. l Mr. Madigan stated that suppose the County has a $900,000 bond,be it a perform - I ;.i ance bond issued by a surety company or a corporate bond issued for performance, and j by the time the developer falters the cost has risen to one and a half million dollars; i. if the County did not have a bond then the governor could take possession. Mr. Ambrogi stated that is one of the problems discussed by the Board previously. i Mr. Cole stated that he had received a copy of a letter from the Attorney Gener j al's Office recently asking what problems Frederick County was having with recreation - :al subdivisions and what the opinion of the governing body was in regard to writing stricter regulations on said subdivisions. He stated that he felt the state was try- jling to tell us something. �i Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Renalds if he had sent the Board a memorandum relative to ;!the contents of the letter received on January 23rd from the State Corporation Com- !mission and Mr. Renalds stated that to the best of his recollection, he felt the Board i ;had received this letter. He further stated that the letter had been discussed at !length both in executive and regular sessions and that he did not remember whether he ;had passed it out at a Board meeting or sent it through the mails. i Mr. Cole stated that he had a copy of the letter. i j Mr. Sandy stated that he did not get a copy of the letter and he asked the re- ! !maining Board members if they had received a copy of the said letter. They stated they had not. !i r t Mr. Sandy stated that he felt there was a breakdown in communications and he felt the Board have should access to all these materials when making such important deci- I i Visions. He further stated that he felt this was matter of a serious nature. a Mr. Madigan read sections of the letter from the Attorney General stating that complaints had been received on recreational subdivisions in this area. He requested:: that Mr. Renalds write and get answers as to what the complaints were specifically and who made them and that copies of this information be sent to the Board Members. Mr. Sandy stated that it also disturbed him that the letter from the Attorney tj General had been received by the County Administrator on August 19th and was not for-, warded to the Board until September 9th. Mr. Renalds stated that this letter had been addressed to him personally and he i j had sent it to the Board in order to get their input before a reply was prepared. Mr. Renalds stated that if Mr. Sandy were going to make statements or insinuations he would .prefer that they be very clear. He further stated that he had not in the I! � past, nor would he in the future, knowingly withhold any information from the Board. Mr. Madigan asked if it would be possible to write to the Attorney General and get a cut and dried opinion on what we can bond in a subdivision, roads, streets, etc; whether we can bond the developer to keep his promises with a public utility with which he'is an affiliate. Mr. Ambrogi stated that we must distinguish what type subdivision we are talking about. Mr. Madigan stated that from the Code sections previously read, he could see no point in meddling in the authority that is given to the governor by the State Legisla- ture as far as bonding a public utility. Mr. Madigan then asked Mr. Ambrogi if he had reviewed all the bonds issued by The Summit? Mr. Ambrogi answered that he had read them. Mr. Madigan stated that he felt it was time to sit down and draft the right ques= tions for each type of subdivision and each type of facility and get the right answers from the Attorney General and get them in the minute books. Mr. Madigan then asked that copies of the letters previously discussed be sent to the Board members and Mr. Ambrogi agreed to this request. j 1 t F C� Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- I i ginia, does herein table the rezoning request of J. L. Bowman and F. L. Glaize, III, to rezone 1144.297 acres in Opequon Magisterial District from Agricultural, General (A-2) to Residential Recreational Subdivision (R-5) until the next regular meeting of' this Board on September 24, 1975. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard .' F. Madigan, Aye. i i i AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973,1 TO REZONE 12.692 ACRES OF S. L. SHACKLEFORD ESTATE IN OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM RESIDENTIAL, LIMITED (R-2) TO BUSINESS, GENERAL (B-2) - TABLED Mr. Herbert Shackleford appeared before the Board in support of his rezoning application and stated that he felt his request for rezoning to B-2 was in order inas- much as the property adjoining his land is presently zoned B-2. He further stated ii that the entrance to the property is only 60 feet from the right-of-way of I-81. �I Mrs. Barbara Ratcliffe appeared before the Board and asked what type business Mr:'. i Shackleford plans to locate on the property. She stated that the residents in the I i area were under the impression that he still plans to locate a farm implement business on the property. She stated that she represented 90% of the residents in Lakeside i Estates and.that they are not opposed to B-2 zoning but the nature of the business to be located there. She presented petitions in opposition to this rezoning containing signatures of the residents in the Lakeside Estates Subdivision. ! !I y Mr. Shackleford stated that under the ordinance the business proposed for the pro- perty would be permitted in the B-2 zone., i� Mr. Cole asked Mr. Berg if Farm Machinery Sales and Service is permitted in the B-2 zone as it is now written in the ordinance and Mr. Berg stated that it is not set IIforth as such in this section and that there is an amendment now pending which will clarify this section. I) Mr. Joseph Stossel appeared before the Board and stated that he was opposed to II this rezoning inasmuch as it was not clear what Mr. Shackleford plans to locate on the i� property. He stated that he was also concerned about the expansion of business in the i.i area and the possible devaluation of property should the rezoning be approved. j i Mr. Stossel stated that he did not feel the property would be suitable for a farm; i machinery sales and service business and that the entrance to the property is not 60 :! feet from I-81 as stated by Mr. Shackleford but is 1/4 mile from said right-of-way. Mr. Stossel pointed out that there is a school in the area and he felt commercial i businesses in this area could create a safety hazard. He stated that he would not ob- ject to some sort of small store or similar business in this area but was opposed to :i heavy commercial use there. Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell, �i BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- i ginia, does herein table the rezoning request of S. L. Shackleford Estate to rezone j eZ #7 9 M and it would serve as the basis for zoning and subdivision activities. He stated that n order to support zoning you must have a comprehensive land use plan. Mr. Berg ad- i 'vised that the plan would be reviewed and updated every five years. i I; Mr. Cole stated that he had attended two meetings at Stonewall School and changes ,recommended by those citizens attending the meetings had never been made. He stated 'that he was not in favor of the 400 foot frontage requirement on major highways set forth in the plan inasmuch as he felt this would drive the small man out of business. Mr. Williams stated that this requirement is designed to control the random strip j,zoning on major roads leading through the County and to serve as a deterrent to strip I !zoning along these highways. He added that it is also designed to encourage cluster ! !'development and.to preserve the senic beauty along the highways leading into the area.' i Mr. Cole stated that he had not heard any one speak in favor of this requirement ij land he felt the plan was not what the people want but what the Chairman of the Plann- Ang Commission wants. Mr. Cole further stated that he did not agree with the provision that anyone de - !siring to develop, for example, a 20 acre parcel of ground into five 4 acre tracts would be required to have central water and sewer. Mr. Garland Cather appeared before the Board and requested that the Round Hill Community Center be included in the Land Use Plan. Mr. Thomas Glass appeared before the Board and stated that he too was concerned about the requirement for central water and sewer on any tract of land less than five acres. He urged the Board to consider this requirement very carefully inasmuch as 1 I there are very nice areas in the County that can not be watered and sewered in the i foreseeable future. Mr. Sandy thanked the members of the Planning Commission for meeting with the Board and stated that the Public Hearing would be held on the proposed Land Use Plan on October lst at 7:30 P.M. !i RECONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED ;OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM AGRICULTURAL, GENERAL �(A-2)uTO RESIDENTIAL RECREA- TIONAL COMMUNITY (R-5) TABLED Mr. Bill Tisinger appeared before the Board representing Mr. Bowman and Mr. Glaize and stated that he had been advised that the Board members had received copies of the d impact study prepared by Mr. Rosser Payne on the proposed Wheatlands Subdivision. He then presented Mr. Rosser Payne who described briefly the outline used in the prepara-' i tion of the impact report. Mr. Cole asked why water and sewer service was not mentioned in the impact study;; ij and Mr. Payne answered that the water and sewer system would be designed, constructedi and maintained by the developers and there would be no public cost whatsoever. !! i J Mr. Cole asked what assurances the developers could give that their projections Ii that 33% of the homes would be retirement homes, 33% would be second homes and 33% i would be premanent homes would be followed. Mr. Payne stated that he could give the Board no assurances; that this must be done by the developers. He stated that the projections in the report had been develop- ed through comparison of the proposed development with similar developments in the 0 state of Virginia. Mr. Cole stated that he did not feel many people could afford second homes with the economy as it is now. Mr. Payne stated that he could only compare this development with what had hap- pened with similar developments in the State of Virginia during the past 15 or 20 years. Mr. Cole asked if any of the subdivisions referred to by Mr. Payne were located C C C C i C, Cj as close to major highways as this one would be and Mr. Payne stated that he could i �jthink of three that were. i Mr. Sandy asked what factors would make this development successful when sales at i I,the present time in recreational developments are down. jMr. Payne stated that the factors would include the location and $700,000 worth 'of amenities; the useability and accessibility to those amenities. He stated that the ;developers would have good and bad years. He stated that the lot sales would proceed +far more rapidly than would the actual construction. i Ms. Ann Nuri appeared before the Board and asked who wanted this recreational sub- idivision besides Mr. Bowman and Mr. Glaize. She stated that the developers had stated (that they will provide water and sewer for this development and asked where do they i lipropose to get the water and sewer and have they made any studies and can they give. Many costs for these facilities. 1, A gentleman asked how this recreational subdivision would differ from a standard Ii Vesidential subdivision. Mr. Payne stated that the major difference would be the de- I!sign and orientation of the community and type of structure to be placed in the sub- division would be of a second home nature. He pointed out that the sale of the lots would be directed to a recreational market and the prime thrust would be the sale of ; lthe lots. He stated that this would not be a preplanned subdivision in which the !builder builds the homes and then markets them. j I i Mr. Thomas Glass appeared before the Board representing Trico Associates and stat led that he had done research on the water system•for this development. He advised that II (there are two ways to serve the property; one is to pipe the water from the existing (mains in the area if this can be worked out with the Sanitation Authority and the other I Imethod would be a system of wells on the property. He stated that the Health Depart-; ment had advised that wells on property in this area would produce approximately 30 toi I60 gallons of water per minute. He stated that based on the low figure of 30 gallons per minute it would take approximately 18 wells spread throughout the development to iprovide the water system. Mr. Glass introduced Mr. John Beach, his partner, who stated that the sewer sys- tem could also be done in two ways; one would be.through an arrangement with the Fred- lerick County Sanitation Authority and the other would be through a private sewage treat- ment plant. A gentleman asked if the development is approved will it have to comply with thell master plan for zoning of the County. Mr. Berg stated that the Land Use Plan presented tonight is not a zoning plan and'. that the development does meet the major recommendation of the Land Use Plan. i Mr. Ralph Ogle asked if the developers would be required to provide a central water and sewer system and Mr. Sandy stated that he felt this would have to be a re- quisite with a development this large. ij Mr. Larwood asked what effect a water and sewer system as described would have on j (the water table in the area surrounding this development. i Mr. Beach stated that having the lake located in the area there would be more in- filtration of water into the area than would be taken out by the wells. Mr. Larwood asked if the dam was safe, who is responsible for inspection of the dam, if the developers would be required to comply with the recently adopted Erosion Control Ordinance and had the developers obtained a permit from the Corps of Engineers. Mr. F. L. Glaize appeared before the Board and stated that Gilbert W. Clifford i:Iland Associates and Soil Consultants had designed the dam and it is inspected daily. i Mr. Tisinger stated that he had reviewed some of the statutes and feels that a ,permit is necessary if the stream is navigable. He stated that there is a law which . ;gives the government the right to inspect and inventory the dam. Mr. Larwood presented a letter from the Corps of Engineers which he stated re - ;quires the developers to have a permit for a dam of this type. Mr. Ambrogi stated that he felt Mr. Tisinger was correct in assuming that this requirement applies to navigable water and the question is whether the lake will be navigable. There followed lengthy discussion as to whether the lake or the stream feeding ;the lake would be termed "navigable". Mr. Athey asked if there had been any consideration given as to how Warren and 6 ' !_Clarke Counties feel about this development inasmuch as there will be a sewage treat- i;ment plant located so close to ,the county lines. Mr. Sandy stated that he felt the ,Board would hear from Clarke and Warren Counties before any decision is made. A gentleman asked what guarantee the Board would have that the County would not +have to bear the cost of cleaning and maintaining the lake and Mr. Tisinger advised (that there would be an owners association who would be responsible for the control of 1the lake and the other amenities within the subdivision. Mr. Cather stated that over the 4th of July residents in Shawneeland did not have Many : water. He stated that he felt the Board should be sure that there will be adequate r �Iwater i l facilities in developments of this type. Mr. Athey asked if the owners association could petition the County to become a I ; 1itown p and what effect would this have on the County tax base. �I Mr. Sandy replied that it could become a township within the county such as ;;Stephens City and Middletown but it would not affect the tax structure as the County iicollects taxes from townships within the County. Mr. Sam Lehman asked if the two twenty acre sites set aside for townhouses had been considered in the impact study and Mr. Payne advised that they had. Ms. Nuri stated that she had moved to this area because of the beauty of the land'. She stated that she had seen similar areas developed with residential subdivisions and she urged the Board to consider the rural nature of this area and the desirability of the area as a place to live. She stated that there are very few areas like this left!: I in the country. She stated that she felt this subdivision would benefit just the de- velopers and not the people of the County. Ms. Nuri stated that there was no need for another subdivision in the County inasmuch as there is an abundance of housing now available here. She stated that she felt the Board should not approve this development 'ra-- until there is a need for additional housing. 0 i fir• Sandy asked Ms. Nuri where she resides and where she moved from. She answer-: 'L"4 that she moved from Maryland and now resides in the Gainesboro area. N a^adi4an asked Ms. Nuri where she had moved from and she replied Maryland. t '?adigan asked Ms. Nuri if she wanted to deny others who might wish to come to r-n'"It7 the same privilege she had enjoyed when she moved here and she stated to build more developments was when there was an apparent need` - �4Riayi y, development wi]1 make feasible the 186 unit trailer park and how much other Land in this area has already been re- + Ins ,1n.s„tnt:m..nt. in stating that this property was rl;lss 4# +fts1 `I I ^ I that this was correct. I,ri.vate system, was discussed and Mr:: ���� ol 4r, ntiW°"1" "lld Mr. Glaize would be assigned by ". I MU the State Water Control Board. 1: Mr. Athey asked if the Board approves this development won't they also have to .;approve the trailer park for Mr. Yost which they previously denied and Mr. Sandy re - .'plied that he felt this was a consideration the Board would have to make. Mr. Cole stated that there are only 98 days until the end of this year and 99 days 'until the new Board takes office; anything this size should be tabled until the new Board takes office inasmuch as they will be the ones who will have to provide the ser- vices for this development such as schools, police protection, trash collection, etc. ::He stated that this rezoning takes in 1144.297 acres and had the design of a potential Q !'population of 9,100 people. He added that the new Board would be the ones who would '!have to appropriate the taxes for these services and lot sales won't begin until the j ;year 1979. He asked why the rush to get this development approved tonight. ii Mr. Madigan stated that based on the two recreational subdivisions in the County it the present time he had prepared a report on the taxes paid by these subdivisions, ind that said taxes amount to $231,466.80 per year. He stated that the County service's =hat.these subdivisions receive amount to $38,002.01 therefore showing a profit to the ounty of $193,464.79. He pointed out that without these two subdivisions it would ij =ake 20.22 cents in a tax increase to make up the difference. He stated that resident's Ln these subdivisions pay up to six times the taxes for the services they receive. He then presented projections of tax revenue which would be received from the pro- >osed development stating that in 1979 the taxes would be $15,016 over and above ex- penditures incurred by the County. He stated that the revenue would increase yearly 'i and in 1989 the taxes would be $87,002.30. He stated that he had not included ameni- ties to be included in the subdivision which would generate another $16,000 in revenue. i Mr. Madigan stated that since the County had lost a lot of its economic base in the re; cent annexation and we don't seem to be able to get shopping centers, it seemed to him that the next best thing in order to curtail tax increases was recreational develop- ments. He further stated that not included in his report was the money flow generated in our economy, the creation of jobs in the building industry, etc. Mr. Madigan stated that he felt the lake already constructed by the developers s a great conservation measure. Mr. Cole stated that the meeting wherein Mr. Van Dyke was requesting additional e home spaces, Mr. Madigan had given a report on cost projections and in that r he stated that this would cost the County money. Mr. Madigan stated that this was correct and trailers cost the County $199 a fl Mr. Cole stated that when Mr. Yost came before the Board requesting approval of a mobile home park Mr. Madigan's projections were that the park would break even and make M 'mmoney. I Mr. Madigan stated that he had worked the same thing out for Mr. Yost as he had ! for Mr. Van Dyke and the reason he had voted for Mr. Yost's mobile home park was be- jlcause he felt it was a good thing, if controlled. He stated that he felt it would help Ilraise the standard of living for some of the people who had to live in a mobile home. Mr. Russell stated that the Board had received a great deal of information and in- put and he felt they needed more time to digest it in order to make a realistic de- r !cision on this matter. I� Mr. Sandy stated that he agreed with Mr. Russell and felt that the Board needed !additional time to review the information prior to making a decision on this matter i added that it is a large development and needs careful consideration. lHe = ` II Mr. Cole moved to table this matter until March of 1976 so that the new Board II 26 :might take action on this matter inasmuch as they will be the ones who will have to appropriate the money and set the tax rate to provide for this development. He added :that he felt they should have some say in this matter. Mr. Cole's motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Cole then moved to table the matter until February of 1976 for the same rea- sons stated in the above motion. Mr. Cole then withdrew his second motion. j Mr. Russell stated that he felt this Board had been elected until the last day of ;this year and these major decisions should be acted upon. He stated that he felt the ;present Board could act on this matter and he would not want to carry something of this i ;'magnitude over for action by a new Board. i, i� u Upon motion made by J. Robert Russell and seconded by Richard F. Madigan, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, Cdoes herein table the rezoning application of J. L. Bowman and F_ T._ (aia;_ TTT i irezone 1144.297 acres in Opequon Magisterial District from Agricultural, General (A-2) I, to Residential Recreational Community (R-5) until the Regular Meeting of this Board on October 22, 1975. iI The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, 1 I'Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; Richard F. Maidgan, Aye; and i lDennis T. Cole, Nay. I dill ! TRANSCRIPT i FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REGULAR MEETING I AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION OF PERFORMANCE BONDING i ;MR. SANDY: At the last meeting Mr. Johnston, we started talking about bonding of i recreational subdivisions and since you were in here on several occa- sions discussing this particular issue with the Board, and you have done right much research into the area we asked you to come in tonight and try to help us to phrase questions to the Attorney General's Office that would give us the answers that we are looking for. It seems like we come up with amenities in a subdivision and then try to distinguish whether they are for public use or not for public use. And this is what we would like to resolve tonight so we could get the proper answer. We have one large recreational subdivision before us here tonight which will require considerable bonding, for the water and sewer systems and!! etc. and we want to be sure that we are right with the state and with i our own ordinances and whoever else we should be complying with. I think that basically, could you give us a little bit of history into I what has taken place as far as discussing bond before this Board before? I think it was discussed basically with The Summit. Could you give us a brief review from your notes there please? MR. JOHNSTON: My memory is that beginning early in 74 the Board had before it the question of the then ordinance dealing with the bonding of subdividers for amenities in the subdivision and at the request of the Board, the Commonwealth's Attorney was in correspondence with the Attorney Gener- al's office on several subjects, the results of which certain advice was given. A letter came back from the Attorney General's office in answer to certain questions that were posed to it. It was at that time I believe that we first came into the matter on behalf of The Summit. i A C L 1✓Y.!!�]Gi`..`+td.FKY�fCf3i�PS'�L':i.71ti2°..�'i741�S7WYni.Vs1M+`'dY9lL'e�i.'..tYSMRVaRi9Y�6'J1�IIi:f.MOr ��tr lwrtlY-a:l'F.:: -:+. --t-, .:�^:y✓3'••L.s :1e±n t :•J�-<'a` DEFENDERS OF SOIL, AIR, WOODS, WATERS, AND WILDLIFE WINCHESTER CHAPTER • P.O. BOX 2954 • WINCHESTER, VA 22601 June 9, 1989 Mr. James A. Remington Director Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 West Broad Street Box 11104 Richmond, Virginia 23230 Dear Mr. Remington: I am writing to you as president of the Winchester Chapter of the Izaak Walton League, on behalf of our nearly 700 members. On May 25, 1988 you wrote to me thanking our members for the great amount of volunteer time they have spent constructing underwater f ish attractors at Wheatlands Lake. We are only too happy to help you and commission members when it comes to wildlife and conservation. Now we would like your help on this same -project. The northern Shenandoah Valley has for decades tolerated the abuses of the Shenandoah River by the American Viscose and Avtex,• and the resultant loss in fishing quality. Just as progress is being made regarding Avtex, the PCB warnings are issued on the Shenandoah. This coupled with the continuing loss of access to streams for trout stocking have succeeded in devastating the quality of sport fishing in this part of the state. We have anticipated the opening of the Wheatlands Lake as a partial solution to the problem of finding a peaceful, clean, accessible area in which to enjoy the great sport of fishing. I am sure that you, as a fisherman, understand that most of the enjoyment of fishing is the escape from the urban setting and just "getting away from it all". This leads to the object to our request. We strongly urge you to use all the legal powers of your office to prevent the overdevelopment of the land surrounding this lake. The media is stating the number of houses anywhere from 130 to 2000. This could mean as many as 8000 people living around it. Please do not retreat from any verbal or written agreements your department made with the developers regarding this maximum number of houses. -2- Remember, there is a limit to the carrying capacity of the land with regards to people and wildlife. We will be anxiously following the events as they develop. We just hope that our efforts and concern for all sportsmen are not wasted for the financial benefit of a handful of developers. They surely cannot argue they need the money. Sincerely, James H. Madden President, Winchester Chapter Izaak Walton League CF: Lewis Costello Alson H. Smith, Jr. Harrington Smith Robert Watkins, Fred. Co. Planning Comm. tom: 4 0 E - V .V 1' .0 1 2 IM9, i i �".�• .. 8 _ it4Li7c.Y.�, ... ,,. .t^ �t3cr�a��,:ti;�ra���x.:��,.�as:r�nres�:���a .tr7PpO� The Izaak WaltoLeague? ti of Americ pia DEFENDERS OF SOIL, AIR, WOODS, WATERS, AND WILDLI WINCHESTER CHAPTER 0 P.O.:. June 9, 1989 Mr. James A. Remington Director Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 West Broad Street Box 11104 Richmond, Virginia 23230 Dear Mr. Remington: I am writing to you as president of the Winchester Chapter of the Izaak Walton League, on behalf of our nearly 700 members. On May 25, 1988 you wrote to me thanking our members for the great amount of volunteer time they have spent constructing underwater fish attractors at Wheatlands Lake. We are only too happy to help you and commission members when it comes to wildlife and conservation. Now we would like your help on this same project. The northern Shenandoah Valley has for decades tolerated the abuses of the Shenandoah River by the American Viscose and Avtex, and the resultant loss in fishing quality. Just as progress is being made regarding Avtex, the PCB warnings are issued on the Shenandoah. This coupled with the continuing loss of access to streams for trout stocking have succeeded in devastating the quality of sport fishing in this part of the state. We have anticipated the opening of the Wheatlands Lake as a partial solution to the problem of finding a peaceful, clean, accessible area in which to enjoy the great sport of fishing. I am sure that you, as a fisherman, understand that most of the enjoyment of fishing is the escape from the urban setting and just "getting away from it all". This leads to the object to our request. We strongly urge you to use all the legal powers of your office to prevent the overdevelopment of the land surrounding this lake. The media is stating the number of houses anywhere from 180 to 2000. This could mean as many as 8000 people living around it. Please do not retreat from any verbal or written agreements your department made with the developers regarding this maximum number of houses. -2- Remember, there is a limit to the carrying capacity of the land with regards to people and wildlife. We will be anxiously following the events as they develop. We just hope that our efforts and concern for all sportsmen are not wasted for the financial benefit of a handful of developers. They surely cannot argue they need the money. Sincerely, James H. Madden President, Winchester Chapter Izaak Walton League CF: Lewis Costello Alson H. Smith, Jr. Harrington Smith Robert Watkins, Fred. Co. Planning Comm. OFFICERS G. Ruben Lee Chairman Joy B. Shull Vi;:e Chairman Walt?- M. Duncan Secretary Betsy W. Blauvelt rreasurer COMMISSIONERS Julg CLARKE COUNTY James Clark, iTT R. "Pete" Dunning, Jr. *G. Robert Lee PAGE COUNTY Rober, , . ood Ronald W. Good *Eldon L. Yates S,HENANGJAH COUNTY *Mrcn 0. Uellinger C. A. 'M;ke' Hunt Deanis M. Morris �nrh Nairfax Planning �istria Tommitimon "Serving local governments of the northern Shenandoah [alley." 103 East Sixth Street Front Royal, Virginia 22630-3499 Telephone (703) 635-4!46 June 7, 1989 Mr. John Riley, County Administrator County of Frederick P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 91 01 FREDERU ^i;'Uili , Adminis rdom Offlca rid A—' c Re: A-95/CIRP Reviews for Wheatlands Fishing La Dear John: As requested, here are copies of the Commission's minutes concerning reviews of this project. The first reference in the minutes is the Executive Committee meeting of September 26, 1979 at which the item was tabled, Enclosure (1). At the October 11, 1979 full Commission meeting the motion on the project was to deny the proposal, Enclosure (2). Since 1979 the A-95 Review process was changed to the Commonwealth Intergovernmental Review Process(CIRP). Our search through the review log for the period 1979 through the present shows no other review request on this project until 1988. WARREN COUNTY Based on the notes of Rob Kinsley, his conversation with RBSaePiNllrtigF. eBob Watkins on October 14, 1988 found that the lake was FRONT ROYAL consistent with County plans and, further, that any *Waiter ncan improvements made by the State would have to meet local Thomas H. Gibson regulations. A copy of the information we received and Robert J. Traister Rob's notes are Enclosure (3). Based on this information LUR.a *Lovell B. Baugn the Executive Committee recommended approval at its meeting nan William P. Menefee of October 20, 1988, Enclosure ( 4) . MIDOLETOWN *Andrew s Although Frederick County has not been a member since July, STEPHENS CITY 1983, the Commission has provided agendas to you of all iuo-Y-97�,uTT meetings with copies of minutes on actions. In the case of *EXECUTIVE COMMITTE'c the EPA application for the Tire Fire Cleanup you made a presentation and the Commission took action consistent with STAFF the County's policies. If I can be of further assistance, Thomas J. Christoffel, AICP please call. Executive Director Robert E. Kinsley, Jr. Sincerely Associate Director Ronald A. Limey Associate Planner Garland E. Miller, Jr. Planning Technician T h oma s J. C h r i s t o f f e l Marie G. Weaver Executive Director mi Adnistrative Assistant Enclosures Maria -1. goltnn Sec,etar. cc: G. Robert Lee, Chairman 1/2/1 LN Enclosure (1) #--'xrh ."'airfax Planning Biotrid Tommthwilatt 103 East Sixth Street Front Royal, Virginia 22630 Telephone 703-635-4146 R. Edward Duncan Executive Director September 26, 1979 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES The Executive Committee met at 7:50 p.m. on Wednesday, September 26, 1979, with the following members present: Mr. John D. Hardesty Mr. Richard S. Catron Mr. R. Edward Duncan, Ex Officio Absent: Mr. J. 0. Renalds, III Mr. Wendell Seldon Mr. Staige Miller Mr. Duncan suggested that Items 1 and 2 of the Agenda be dispensed with and that the meeting proceed directly to the A-95's. 3. A-95 Reviews - Mr. Catron A. Frederick Count (Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation is applicant) - Wheatlands Fishing Lake - Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service - Federal $520,234; State $529,234; Total $1,040,468. Motion to table - Mr. Seldon Seconded by - Mr. Hardesty Motion unanimously carried. B. Commonwealth of Virginia (Department of Personnel and Training) Statewide program for FY 1980 Federal $391,000; State $391,000; Total $782,000. Motion to approve - Mr. Miller Seconded by - Mr. Seldon Unanimously approved. Clarke County Page County Warren County Town of Luray Frederick County Shenandoah County Town of Front Royal City of Winchester Commission Meeting P'' Lutes Enclosure (2) October 11, 1979 Page Six 3. A-95 Reviews - Mr. Catron A. Frederick County - Wheatlands Fishing Lake Mr. Duncan read a letter received by the Commission from Mr. J. 0. Renalds, III, County Administrator of Frederick County, in which it was stated that this project was in direct violation with the Code of Frederick County, Virginia. It was moved that the proposal be denied and that the language contained in the letter of the Frederick County Administrator be included in the report of denial. Motion to deny - Mr. Koontz Seconded by - Dr. Fish Unanimously denied. B. Northwestern Virginia Health Systems Agency, Inc.- Renewal of designation as areawide Health Systems Agency. Mr. Baughan commented that he had recently attended meetings of both the Subcommittee and the full Board. He said they were reviewing a number of projects. Mr. Baughan expressed the opinion that he had found the staff work to be very poor and that in certain areas decisions were being made in which there was a weak foundation. He did state that in medical problems, the people seemed to know what they were doing and talking about. His suggestion was that other members of the Commission should attend one or more of the meetings of this Agency. Motion to disapprove - Mr. Baughan Seconded by - Mr. Gibson Unanimously disapproved. C. Commonwealth of Virginia - Gas Pipeline Safety Motion to approve - Mr. Hardesty Seconded by - Mr. Cutlip Unanimouxly approved. D. Commonwealth of Virginia - Commission for the Visually Handicapped Motion to approve - Mr. Cutlip Seconded by - Mr. Lee Unanimously approved. E. Interstate (Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Association, Inc.) It was the consensus of the Commissioners that this proposal would lead to high-priced administrators and that it was not in conform- ance with local plans, policies and objectives. Motion to disapprove - fair. Koontz Seconded by - Mr. Hardesty Unanimously disapproved. Enc' Sure (3) FEDERAL ASSISTANCE I2. CANTS JI APPLI- TYPE CATION OF ® NOTICE OF INTENT (OPTIONAL) IDENTI- SUBMISSION ❑ FIER (Mark ap- PREAPPLICATION pmpnate ® APPLICATION boil Leave Blank a. NUMBER 3. STATE a. NUMBER APPU- C"nON IOENTJ- VA880831005403012069 FIER b. DATE NOTE TO BE b. DATE Year moMtk day ASSIGNED ASSIGNED 19 BY STATE Year Month day 19 88/08/31 4. LEGAL APPLICANT/RECIPIENT 7. Cme"LV Tcn I l lrp—A a min T\VMor-M 1Cen) a. Applicant Nam. VA Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries 16. b. Organization unit Fish Division c. Street/P.O. Box P. O. Box 11104 PRO. L NUMBER 1 1 15 1 - 16 0 5 j d. City Richmond e. County I. State Virginia g. ZIP Code. 23230 (Fran CFDA) MULTIPLE Ej h. Contact Person !.Name Jerry G. Fouse b. TITLE Federal Aid in Sport d Telephone .Vo.I (804) 367-1000 7. TITLE OF APPLICANT'S PROJECT (Use section IV of ties forth to provide a summary description of Ufa S. TYPE OF APPLICANT/RECIPIENT o // i a t.J Frederick County Lake / ' /J I1 F.4 T L ui• I �= / ; , , • L :) —srr o—ev.oM Mean.. Dorn Atom 'go C—aeeem" 4-� F W W The VA. Game Dept. proposes to develop a boat ramp, Dry —mom l-rdan Tile E K-0er/Speilj,: a courtesy pier, fishing pier, concession/restroan building `-Enwr aMmprow krwr utilities, parking and an access road for public access to Lake. _ a 9. AREA OF PROJECT IMPACT (Names o%cities, cornde& stata etc) 10. ESTIMATED NUMBER 11. TYPE OF ASSISTANCE Frederick Count y OF PERSONS BENEFITING 50,000 GROW E p�rw~breal H 12. PROPOSED FUNDING 13. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF: 14. TYPE OF APPLICATION A--w.rr cJ1..or E—Nynwwnr Ia. FEDERAL 1 $225 000 o0 b. APPLICANT .00 c. STATE 75,000 .0o d. LOCAL .00 .00 e. OTHER a. APPLICANT b. PROJECT 3rd 7th 15. PROJECT START 16. PROJECT DATE Year month dac DURATION 1988/11 /30 60 A40n is 18. DATE DUE TO Year month day it Totaf ! S 300, 000 .001 FEDERAL AGENCY ► 19 88/1 0/30 19. FEDERAL AGENCY TO RECEIVE REQUEST U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1 a. ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT (IF APPROPRIATE) b. ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT (IF 14 Mu_ of Fkuiaral accictanro W. T. Hesselton c.ADDRESS One Gateway Center Newton Corner, MA 22. To the best of my knowkKIp and t' THE data in this preapplicabon/applit APPLICANT are true and coned. the documer T CERTIFIES been duly auttwized by 00 Sow THAT► body of the applicant and the ap; u� will comply with the attaehed asam Y it the assistance is approved. 23. a. TYPED NAME AND TITLE CERTIFYING James A. Rlemingi REPRE- SENTATIVE Director 24. APPLICA- Year month day TION RECEIVED 19 27. ACTION TAKEN 28. < ❑ a. AWARDED O b. REJECTED L FEDERAL LL v O c. RETURNED FOR AMENDMENT b. APPLICANT ❑ d. RETURNED FOR E.O. 12372 SUBMISSION c. STATE u c BY APPLICANT TO G. LOCAL ix STATE O e. DEFERRED e. OTHER ❑ f. WITHDRAWN I. TOTAL 02158 o-Lorwn.rar Suer eN+apiew kmr 17. TYPE OF CHANrA (for 14r or 140 •�rarreere Doeae Farr (Sp 6). Dea.. owumn N/A E—Pwraeaeaen firer 4aao P-m br v ETTI 20. EXISTING FEDERAL GRANT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 21. REMARKS ADDED "i..�: /;•.="�� 1• '..T. _(fit �� .l'"'" `i� i r r ti NSN 7540-01-0084162 oOcvv>t rG CIl1T1l1N Enclosure (4) C. Transportation Committee - Mr. Christoffel Minutes from the meetings will be mailed to all Commissioners as recommended by Mr. Duncan. D. Solid Waste Planning Committee - Mr. Kinsley 3. Reviews VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF GAME & INLAND FISHERIES - Frederick County Lake (Wheatlands Fishing Lake) - Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration - Federal $225,000; State $75,000; Total $300,000. (VA880831-05403012069) A motion was made by Mr. Duncan to endorse with approval. Motion carried. NEIGHBORHOOD ASSISTANCE ACT APLICATIONS: Virginia Neighborhood Assistance Program - State $192,900 (Tax Credits); Total $192,900 (all tax credits for 50% of donations to applicant organizations. Organization Warren County Council on Domestic Violence Leary Educational Foundation (Timber Ridge School) Grafton School Kids Are Our Concern, Inc. Location Tax Credits Warren Co. $ 5,000 Frederick Co. $ 50,000 Clarke Co. Winchester $110,000 $ 27,900 A motion was made by Mr. Duncan to endorse with approval. Motion carried. 4. New Business A. Historic Preservation Regional Office Chairman Lee reported that the Division of Historic Landmarks has requested proposals for creation of a model for a regional office. One will be approved for the State. The Winchester -Frederick County Historical Society is considering making application for such an office to serve this Planning District as well as the other regions to the east and south. Mr. Lee said that initially the Historical Society had requested the endorsement of the Commission for their application, but that since they've not decided to submit this agenda item is for information purposes only. Meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m. Walter Duncan Secretary 1//0/wp octexecmin Mr. Christoffel reported that there is a shortage of experienced planners for the Positions available in the Valley. Mr. Christoffel proposed that a Job Fair be held at the Community College tentatively scheduled for November 19, 1988 would help counties coordinate their recruitments for planners. Clarke County, Woodstock. and Front Royal are each seeking a planner and Frederick. County is seeking two. Because the availability of planners is small the fair would assist all of the counties. 2. Employee benefits. Under our current BC/BS program, there are two classifications - Standard and Healthy. The premium rate for a person under age 29 as a Healthy Virginian is $73.76 per month. The standard rate is $118.80 or 61% higher for this and all other age groups. Mr. Christoffel recommended that for all new employees, effective this date, the Commission policy be to pay the premium at the Healthy Virginian rate. After a brief discussion it was recommended that Mr. Christoffel research the Proposal further. 3. Computer hardware and software. a. An upgrade of our Xenix operating system is available at a cost of $100. Our computer consultant has recommended we purchase this directly from Radio Shack. A motion was made by Mr. Duncan to authorize the purchase of an upgrade to the Xenix operating system. Motion carried. b. Mr.Christoffel reported that our existing printers are not compatible with the system required for the print-out of our phone system message records. We have used the standard printer recommended by the equipment manufacturer and it will work: to have us document and project code all long distance calls. Recommendation: Authorize purchase of Okidata model 182 or comparable printer as well as sale of DMP400 printer and ribbon ink.er to offset the purchase cost. A motion was made by Mr. Dellinger to approve the purchase of a Okidata printer model 100 and sale the DMP400 printer and ribbon ink.er. Motion carried. C. Approval of Treasurer's Report for September. A motion was made by Mr. Duncan to approve the Treasurer's Report for September as presented. Motion carried. 2. Unfinished business and Committ_ee_Reeor-ts were presented from the Program Report, Attachment A. A. TRIP - Commuter Services - Mrs. Weaver B. Economic Development Network: -- Mr. Christoffel Attachment A LLc�RD FA I RF'AX PL_ANN I NG n I STR I CT CC?MM I SS I Ohtl Executive Committee Minutes October 20, 1988 Conference Room - Commission Office Mr. Lee called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. with the following members present: Mr. March Dellinger, Mr. Walter Duncan, Mr. Andrew Mills, Mr. Eldon Yates. Members absent: Mrs. Betsy Blauvelt, Mr. Lowell Baughan, Mrs. Joy Shull. Staff present: Thomas Christoffel, Rob Kinsley, Marie Weaver Others present: Stefanie Gilbert, Northern Virginia Daily 1. Administration A. Approval of Executive Committee Minutes of September 15, 1988. A motion was made by Mr. Duncan to approve the Executive Minutes of September 15, 1988 as presented. Motion carried. Program Report 1. Mr. Christoffel reported that the Commission has received two new projects, a Motoroil Recycling Study from Page County as well as Water Control Board Approval of the 'On -Site Wastewater Treatment Management District' study beginning April, 1988. The addition of these two items put a squeeze on staff resources, since local technical assistance projects have increased over projections. Mr. Christoffel presented the Committee with three options: a. Hiring one or more contractors at $6 to $10 per hour. b. Hiring a college graduate planning technician at an annual salary of $11,000 to $15,000. C. Hiring an associate planner in a salary range of $159000 to $18,000. Recommendation : Transfer $12,000 from Program Reserve to line 425 Contract services for option a. Establish a three member personnel committee for the Executive Director to work with for recruiting. A motion was made by Mr. Dellinger to transfer $12,000 from Program Reserve to line 425 Contract services for option a. Motion Carried. A motion was made by Mr. Duncan to establish a three member personnel committee for the Executive Director to work: with for recruiting and to appoint Chairman Lee to chair such committee. Chairman Lee appointed Mr. Duncan and Mr. Baughan to serve on the three member personnel committee. COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 703/665-5666 FAX: 703/667-0370 June 6, 1989 Jerry G. Fouse, Assistant Chief Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Lands and Engineering Division P. 0. Box 11104 Richmond, VA 23230 Dear Mr. Fouse: Thank you for talking with me on June 5, 1989 with reference to the Wheatlands/Intergate public fishing lake. project 'being "ri constructed b the`'` . ComitiohWealth-.. Y It is my position that the County will hold all approval actions on this project until the Commonwealth researches this issue and provides the County with its official position on same. It would be appreciated if you could provide me with the Commonwealth's background material provided to the local newspaper on this subject.. Please.. advise .me. if _addit.ion.al._ information ..is. required by the Commonwealth. With kindest.regards, I am JRR/tjp cc: Wheatlands File 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 Sinc ly, John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator Winchester, Virginia - 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 703/665-5666 FAX: 703/667-0370 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Board of Supervisors Planning Commission c , FROM: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator` DATE: June 6, 1989 RE: Wheatlands Project Attached for your information are a series of docu- ments on the Wheatlands development project: 1. Board and Planning Commission minutes of the rezoning from Agriculture to Recreational Subdivision. 2. J. 0. Renalds and Dorothea Stephen's opinion on the donation of the lake property to the Commonwealth. 3. John Horne's opinion as to the donation of the lake to the Commonwealth and various responses from the Commonwealth. 4. John Riley's letter to the Commonwealth advising the County's current position. It should be noted that at no time did anyone from the County staff advise anyone from the Commonwealth in writing of any density requirements of this development and its impact on the lake. I have been advised that there are several internal memoranda circulated by staff members for the Commonwealth that indicate a density of 200 to 300 lots. I have requested those documents. The advisability of transfer of this property by Mr. Horne and the legal requirements to meet the intent of the zoning ordinance appear to be correct to the writer. As long as the owner understood that the open space require- ment would have to be recalculated for the entire project and shown on the final master plan, the lake could be deleted from the plan. If the lake were to remain a part of the Wheatlands Project, then obviously it could not be transferred to the Commonwealth. 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 A Memorandum - Board of Supervisors Planning Commission June 6, 1989 Page 2 In conclusion, it would appear that this is a matter that clearly needs to be resolved at State level and that no action should be taken at the local level on any future plans until the issue has been resolved. Please call me if you have any questions. JRR/tjp cc: Lawrence R. Ambrogi Bob Watkins COUNTY of FREDERICK Departments of Planning and Building 703/665-5650 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Director SUBJECT: Sewage Treatment Plant at Wheatlands DATE: December 11, 1987 G. W. Clifford and Associates, representing Fred Glaize and James Bowman, have applied for a discharge permit from the Virginia State Water Control Board for a private sewage treatment plant at Wheatlands. The plant will be a 250,000 gallon per day facility on Crooked Run. The applicant has asked the County to review the application in terms of its acceptability under the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the State Water Control Board has requested that the County certify that the request meets all requirements of the Virginia Code concerning planning, zoning, and land development. The Comprehensive Plan does not mention or suggest development at this location. However, the Wheatlands land is zoned R-5, Residential Recreational Community District. It is the opinion of the staff that private sewer systems are allowed under the R-5 regulations. In fact, Section 8-11, Utilities, states that the R-5 applicant must submit plans for central sewer systems to the county. It is the opinion of the staff that no action by the Planning Commission is needed at this time because the land has been approved for R-5 development. It is the opinion of the staff that a site plan will have to be approved for the facility. It is also the opinion of the staff that master plans will need to be reviewed and approved in relation to the R-5 regulations. It was the concensus of the Planning Commission that all requirements had been met and no action was taken. If you have any questions prior to our December 16 meeting, please do not hesitate to call me. RWW/rsa Attachments 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK Departments of Planning and Building 703/665-5650 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Director SUBJECT:•_.Sewage Treatment Plant at Wheatlands DATE: December 11, 1987 G. W. Clifford'and Associates, representing Fred Glaize and James Bowman, have applied for a discharge permit from the Virginia State Water Control Board for a private sewage treatment plant at Wheatlands. The plant will be a 250,000 gallon per day facility on Crooked Run. The applicant has asked the County to review the application in terms of its acceptability under the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan does not mention or suggest development at this location. However, the Wheatlands land is zoned R-5, Residential Recreational Community District. It is the opinion of the staff that private sewer systems are allowed under the R-5 regulations. In fact, Section 8-11, Utilities, states that the R-5 applicant must submit plans for central sewer systems to the county. It is the opinion of the staff that no action by the Planning Commission is needed at this time because the land has been approved for R-5 development. It is the opinion of the staff that a site plan will have to be approved for the facility. It is also the opinion of the staff that master plans will need to be reviewed and approved in relation to the R-5 regulations. If you have any questions prior to our December 16 meeting, please do not hesitate to call me. RWW/rsa Attachments 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 0 G W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 20 South Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 November 19,1987 Mr. Wellington H. Jones, P.E. Engineer Director P. O. Box 618 Frederick County Sanitation Authority Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Wheatlands Project Frederick County, Virginia Dear Wendy, Attached please find various correspondence and a draft NPDES permit for a .25 mgd facility at Wheatlands. A schematic of the process initially proposed is shown in the permit application. The owners are intending to proceed with the development of this project, and are, in fact, filing this NPDES permit along with a request of Frederick County for acceptance of this proposal. We would appreciate any comments that you or the Authority may have on this treatment of discharge proposal at this time. If we can be of any assistance in your review, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely yours, Charles E. Maddox, Jr. - P.E. Vice President CEM,Jr/swm cc: Mr. Jim Bowman Mr. Fred Glaize Mr. John Riley G W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 20 South Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 November 19,1987 Mr. Larry Simmons Virginia State Water Control Board Valley Regional Office Box 268 -116 North Main Street Bridgewater, VA 22812 RE: Wheatlands Project Frederick County, Virginia Dear Larry, Please find attached a draft NPDES permit for a .25 mgd wastewater treatment facility located on Crooked Run in Southeast Frederick County, Virginia. This wastewater treatment facility is the identical facility which was discussed in the early 1970's in Frederick County planning. The facility is intended to be privately developed and financed in the development of a 1,000 acre site known as the Wheatlands Earth Dam Project. We are submitting this proposal through Frederick County for their concurrence in the land use issue in accordance with your requirements for processing an NPDES permit. When this information is obtained, we will forward the completed application along with the needed attachments. This draft issue is intended to keep you informed as to what is actually being planned. If you have any questions, comments, or in any way can offer guidance to us in the preparation of this permit; we would appreciate your call. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely yours, 0, P �Vawe ' Charles e C es E. Maddox, Jr. - P.E. Vice President Enclosure CEM,Jr/psp cc: Mr. Jim Bowman Mr. Fred Glaize Mr. John Riley, County Administrator �g7 G W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 20 South Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 November 19,1987 Mr. John Riley, County Administrator P. O. Box 601 Frederick County Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Wheatlands Project Southeast Frederick County Dear John, Attached you will find a draft NPDES permit which has been prepared for filing to the Virginia State Water Control Board. This permit is intended to provide the SWCB with all necessary information adequate to determine the stream standards necessary for effluent discharge to Crooked Run in southeast Frederick County. When stream standards have been determined and an effluent determination made, then appropriate design sequences can begin towards to ultimate installation of a .25 mgd facility to service the Wheatlands project. As an initial step in the determination of a stream standard, the SWCB requires that the administrator of Frederick County advise the SWCB if any land use issues are involved. Specifically, they would like to see a statement .from the County on zoning and planning before they prepare a study as to the requirements of the State of Virginia on wastewater treatment. The site in question is presently zoned for small -lot residential development on central water and sewer. In the absence of other possible service, the owners do intend to proceed with the development of a wastewater treatment facility. We would request that you review this project and advise as to acceptability of this approach in light of County zoning and the comprehensive plan. We would appreciate your letter being addressed directly to Mr. Larry Simmons of the Virginia State Water Control Board, whose address appears on the attached letter transmittal. If we can be of any service, or provide any additional information in your review, we would look forward to your call. Sincerely yours, (' P I,—Xado'cz 0. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. - Vice President CEM,Jr/swm cc: Mr. Fred Glaize Mr. Jim Bowman Mr. Larry Simmons, P.E. Mr. Wellington H. Jones, P.E. January 7, 1983 Mr. Jerry G. Fouse Land Coordinator Commission of Game P.O. Box 1104 Richmond, Virginia Dear Mr. Fouse: and Inland Fisheries 23230-1104 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development John T.P. Horne - Planning Director Stephen M. Gyurisin - Deputy Director 703/662-4532 Enclosed you will find a copy of a letter sent to Mr. Larry Hart of your office in December of 1981 concerning the proposed development of the Wheatlands Lake area as a fishing lake. In lieu of restating the position of this county concerning your development, I would like to refer you to this previous letter. If you have any questions concerning that letter, please don't hesitate to contact me. The only item I would like to reiterate for the possible benefit of the State Water Control Board is that the zoning around the proposed Wheatlands Lake is on Residential Recreational Community and the downstream zoning is currently Agricultural. .The letter from Mr. Constantine is somewhat vague as to the information that the State Water Control Board would like to have.and therefore, I will only offer to provide any further information that the Water Control Board may want upon a somewhat more specific request. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please don't hesi- tate to contact me. Sincerely, ohn T. P. Horne Director JTPH/rsa 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 t i F ez#mEn# of 1Ianning antr pefielaymen# DIRECTOR P. O. Box 601 9 COURT SQUARE JOHN T. P. HORNS WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 December 3, 1981 Mr. Larry Hart, Chief Lands and Engineerings Division Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries P.O. Box 1104 Richmond, Virginia 23230-1104 Dear Mr. Hart: This letter is in response to the telephone call I received from yourself on November 25, 1981, concerning the Wheatlands Property in Frederick County. At that time, I indicated that I believed there could be a problem with the�Frederick County Zoning Ordinance in relation to your plans to obtain the lake on the Wheatlands Property for a State controlled recreational facility. The land surrounding this lake is zoned for a Residential Recreational Community under the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and under the provisions of that ordinance, it would be used as part of the open space to be available to the residents of the property for their use. Since our telephone conversation, I have reviewed the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in detail and determined that there would be in fact no conflict with the Zoning Ordinance or any Ordinances of Frederick County if the State of Virginia were to obtain this lake for a recreational facility. This detemination of no conflict is based on two assumptions: 1. The remaining acreage in the Wheatland Property, after the transfer of the lake and any adjoining property to the State, would be at least five hundred acres. 2. Since the transfer of the lake to ownership of the State would remove it from the Wheatland's Property, it could not be used for the required 35% open space in the residential recreational community. Therefore, the development of the remaining property would have to leave a minimum of 35% in open space. These two assumptions or requirements are not directly related to the concerns of your office, but should be considered by the owners of the property. We are working with those owners to make sure they understand these provisions before any transfer of the lake takes place. 703/662-4532 Hart Letter Page Two I'm very happy to be able to state that there would not be any road blocks to your acquisition and development of the lake for recreational facilities from the County's point of view. We welcome this development and think the plans that you have could be of great benefit to the residents of Frederick County. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, YnT.�P. Horne 11 iirector JTPH:dll cc: Mr. James Bowman Mr. Fred Glaize, III Mr. James M. White, County Administrator POLICY S'1.'ATEM1--;NT ON ACCESS FACILITIES TO RECREATIONAL AREAS AND HIS`UORICAL SITES The State Highway and Transportation Commission and the Commission of Outdoor Recreation adopt this policy to.govern the use of recreational access funds pursuant to Section 33.1-223 as amended of the Code of Virginia. It is the.intent of the Commissions that the concept of access be applicable to facilities for motor vehicles and bicycles whether in separate physical facilities or combined in a -single facility. In the event independent bikes%ay access is deemed appropriate and justified, the access will be established on a separate right of way independent of motor vehicle traffic and specifically designed to provide for bicycle access to the recreational area or historical site as a connecting link between an existing bikeway or otherwise recognized bicycle route. The following items are incorporated in this policy: 1. The use of recreational access funds shall be limited to the purpose of providing proper access to publicly developed recreational areas or historical sites where the full provisions of Section 33.1-223 have been complied with. 2. Recreational access funds shall not be used for the acquisition of right of way, as it is the intent that these funds are to be used only for the actual construction and engineering of a road or bikeway facility adequate to serve traffic generated by the public recreational area or historical site. 3. The decision to construct or improve an access facility to a recreational area or historical site will be based upon the following parameters: A. The cost of construction in relation to the volume and nature of traffic to be generated as a result of the attraction. B. Identification of sufficient demand to support the construction of the access facilities. C. In the consideration of independent bikeways as described herein, one of these features should be applicable: (a) The bikeway should serve a connecting route of established bicycle usage in the recreational area or historical site. (b) The recreational area or historical site is located within an area of substantial bicycle traffic generation. For. each project, the identi.fi_ed need or demand for tine access fac_i_liL:i_es will be analyzed and mutually agreed upon between the Commissions. D. Type of protective zoning in effect. 4. Recreational access funds will not be considered for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, or improvement of recreational access roads or bikeways until such time as adequate assurance has been given that the recreational facility is already in operation or will be developed and operational at the approximate time of the completion of the road or bikeway. 5. Motor vehicle access and/or bikeway access may be considered as either combined facilities or separate entities. Therefore, realistic funding limitations must be set that will assure a reasonable and meaningful distribution of projects. Not more than $200,000 of recreational access funds may be allocated for use in any one county, including the towns located therein, or any city in any fiscal year unless these funds are supplemented by funds from other than highway sources, in which case additional recreational access funds may be made available to match the amount contributed, dollor for dollar, but not to exceed a grand total of $300,000 of recreational funds. Correspondingly, when bikeway access is a separate entity and is not a joint facility with a vehicular access project, not more than $50,000 of recreational access funds for bikeway access may be so allocated, and which may also be supplemented on a dollar -for -dollar contribution from other than highway sources but not to exceed a grant total of $75,000 of recreational access funds for the bikeway.access. In instances where bikeway access and vehicular access are combined, the $200,000 limitation with dollar -for - dollar matching shall apply, and the costs attributable to the bikeway access shall be limited to $50,000 and the dollar -for -dollar matching not to exceed a grand total of $75,000 from recreational access funds for such purpose. 6. The Highway and Transportation Commission and the CO11U11iSSiOn of Outdoor Recreation will consult and should work closely with the Historic Landmarks Commission in designating historical sites eligible for the use of recreational access funds, and they may rely on the recommendations of that Commission in making decisions as to the allocation of these funds. 7. Prior to the formal request for the use of recreational access futicls to provide access to public recreational. areas or h=LStorical sites, the location of the access road or bikeway shall be submitted for the approval of the engineers of the Department of Highways and Transportation and to the Commission of Outdoor Recreation staff. In making recommendations, personnel of the Department of Highways and Transportation and the Commission of Outdoor Recreation shall take into consideration the cost of the access road or bikeway as it relates to the location, and as it relates to the possibility of future extensions of access to serve other public recreational areas or historical sites, as well as the future development of the area traversed. 8. The use of recreational access funds shall be limited to the construction or reconstruction of motor vehicle' access roads or bikeway access to publicly owned recreational areas or historical sites or to officially designated major development units within such areas or sites. The beginning and termination of the recreational access facility shall be at logical locations. Termination of the access shall be the park or historical site entrance or may be within. If within, the main focal point of interest shall be construed as the termination at which "adequate access" is judged to be provided for the facility. This may be an administration building, information center, auditorium, stadium, parking lot, picnic area, camping area, etc., depending upon the character of the recreational area. Generally, it would be interpreted as the first point at or within the recreational area or historical site that visitors would leave their automobiles or bikes and commence to utilize some feature of the facility. 9. It is the intent of the Commissions that recreational access funds not be anticipated from year to year. Approved by the Highway and Transportation Commission at its January 15, 1976 Meeting. Approved by the Commission of Outdoor Recreation at its November 14, 1975 Meeting. 612 ACTS OF ASSEMBLY [VA., 1975 = t tem of service ratings, and to govern minimum _s�o :� •��;: ;:: g g v�r f =:• ,,, =>b, work, at dance regulations, leaves of absence foyemployees, and the order and mean r in which layoffs shall Vie. The Governor sha i; fr_>an ime to irrrC�investigate the operation ►1 w;,a •. i:,fit « and effect of this chapter arules made pursuant thereto enera s.embly, a biennial report and he shall make, t regarding the_pef ion of the -•chapter an h special reports as he may c st6er desirable. CHAPTER 362 An Act to amend and reenact § 33.1-223 of the Code of Virginia, relating to access to public recreational areas and historical sites. [H 1272] •' 2 Tj= -` `rat=,. �:F�-�.. -_--- Approved March 19 PP 1975 , Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: ®'j" - 1. That § 33.1-223 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted �"' as follows: V'0 § 33.1-223. Fund for access roads and bikeways to public . recreational areas and historical sites; construction, maintenance, -:y ? etc., of such roads. —(a) The General Assembly finds and declares that there is an increasing demand by the public for more public "- recreational areas throughout the Commonwealth, therefore, creating a need for more access to such areas. There are also many �.= = sites of historical significance to which access is needed. The General Assembly hereby declares it to be in the public interest that access roads and bikeways to public recreational areas and historical sites be provided by using highway funds obtained from a unclaimed refundable marine motor fuel tax collections. This section is enacted in furtherance of these purposes. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, (and in order to - - = provide equal matching of funds hereinafter appropriated from the general fund), the State Highway and Transportation Commission shall, _ from funds allocated to the primary system, secondary system, or urban system of State highways, set aside the sum of one million five hundred thousand dollars initially. This fund shall be expended by the Commission for the construction reconstruction maintenance or improvement of access roads and bikeways within counties, cities and towns. At the close of each succeeding fiscal year the Commission shall replenish this fund to the extent it deems necessary to carry out the purpose intended, provided the balance in the fund the replenishment does plus not exceed the aforesaid one million five hundred thousand dollars. - r-: (c) Upon the setting aside of such funds as herein provided, the State Highway and Transportation Commissioner shall construct, reconstruct, maintain or improve access roads and bikeways to public recreational areas and historical sites upon the following conditions: (1) When the Commission of Outdoor Recreation has :. k' designated a public recreational area as such or an historic area as such and recommends to the State Highway and Transportation Commission that an access road or bikeway be provided or maintained CHS. 362, 363] ACTS OF ASSEMBLY 613 to such area; and (2) When the State Highway and Transportation* Commission pursuant to such recommendation from the Commission of Outdoor Recreation declares by resolution that such access road or bikeway be provided or maintained; and (3) When the governing body of the county, city or town in which such access road or bikeway is to be provided or maintained passes a resolution requesting such road; and (4) When the governing body of the county, city, or town in which such access road or bikeway is to be provided or maintained adopts an ordinance pursuant to Article 8 (§ 15.1-486 et seq.), Chapter 11, Title 15.1. No access road or bikeway shall be constructed, reconstructed, maintained or improved on privately owned property. (d) Any access road constructed, reconstructed, maintained or improved pursuant to the provisions of this section shall become part of the primary system of State highways, the secondary system of State highways or the road system of the locality in which it is located in the manner provided by law and shall be designated as a scenic highway or byway as provided for in Article 5 (§ 33.1-62 et seq.), Chapter 1, Title 33.1, and shall thereafter be constructed, reconstructed, maintained and unproved as other roads in such systems. Any bikeway path constructed, reconstructed, maintained or improved pursuant to the provisions of this section which is not situated within the right-of-way limits of an access road which has become, or which is to become, part of the primary system of State highways, the secondary system of State highways, or the road system of the locality, shall, upon completion, become part of and be regulated and maintained by the authority or agency maintaining the public recreational area or historical site. It shall be the responsibility of the authority, agency, or locality requesting that a bicycle path be provided to a public recreational or historical site to provide the right-of-way needed for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, or improvement of the said bicycle path, if said bikeway is to be situated outside the right-of-way limits of an access road. The State Highway and Transportation Commission and the Commission of Outdoor Recreation are hereby authorized to make regulations to carry out the provisions of this section. CHAPTER 363 An amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Chapter 4 of Title 55 a -new article num 3.1, consisting of sections numbered 55-79.01 through 5&19.06, creating the Resi& ' Ground Rent Act [H 1319] Approve arch 19, 1975 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: 1. That the Code ofVirginia is amended b�,-adding in Chapter 4 of Title 55 anew �cle numbered 3.1, consisting df ections numbered 55-79.01 through 55-79.06, as follows: Article 3.1. Residential Ground Rent Act § 55 79.0L Definitions. As used in this article: A "R5 dentiil b7ound rent" means a rent or charge paid for the use of land, whether r 5 -� DIRECTOR JOHN T. P. HORNE ,Mr- ebexieh ,B rynz#ment of lEanning anbr Pe6dopmenf P. O. Box 601 9 COURT SQUARE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 December 3, 1981 Mr. Larry Hart, Chief Lands and Engineerings Division Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries P.O. Box 1104 Richmond, Virginia 23230-1104 Dear Mr. Hart: This letter is in response to the telephone call I received from yourself on November 25, 1981, concerning the Wheatlands Property in Frederick County. At that time, I indicated that I believed there could be a problem with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance in relation to your plans to obtain the lake on the Wheatlands Property for a State controlled recreational facility. The land surrounding this lake is zoned for a Residential Recreational Community under the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and under the provisions of that ordinance, it would be used as part of the open space to be available to the residents of the property for their use. Since our telephone conversation, I have reviewed the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in detail and determined that there would be in fact no conflict with the Zoning Ordinance or any Ordinances of Frederick County if the State of Virginia were to obtain this lake for a recreational facility. This detemination of no conflict is based on two assumptions: 1. The remaining acreage in the Wheatland Property, after the transfer of the lake and any adjoining property to the State, would be at least five hundred acres. 2. Since the transfer of the lake to ownership of the State would remove it from the Wheatland's Property, it could not be used for the required 35% open space in the residential recreational community. Therefore, the development of the remaining property would have to leave a minimum of 35% in open space. These two assumptions or requirements are not directly related to the concerns of your office, but should be considered by the owners of the property. We are working with those owners to make sure they understand these provisions before any transfer of the lake takes place. 703/662-4532 Hart Letter Page Two I'm very happy to be able to state that there would not be any road blocks to your acquisition and development of the lake for recreational facilities from the County's point of view. We welcome this development and think the plans that you have could be of great benefit to the residents of Frederick County. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, FnT. P.Horne 11 Director JTPH:dll cc: Mr. James Bowman Mr. Fred Glaize, III Mr. James M. White, County Administrator JOryartment of jjlannins -tub '336doylizrzi# P. O. Box 601 JOHN RILEY 9 COURT SQUARE PLANNING DIRECTOR WINCHESTER, V?RGINIA. 22601 December 19, 1979 Mr. J. R. Nicely Certified Land Surveyor 109 South Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Nicely: This letter is being written in reference to the request for the separation of one lot from the land of James L. Bowman and Fred L. Glaize, III (Wheatlands). I have researched our files on the Wheatlands Development and have determined that the Board of Supervisors has never approved a master plan for Wheatlands. I am enclosing the entire R-5 section of the zoning ordinance which specifically describes the requirements for R-5 subdivisions and the requirements that must be met before land can be subdivided. If I can provide any further information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, BohnqRRiley Director JRR:bjs Enclosure CC: Mr. Stan Pangle, Interim County Administrator FRANK F. EVEREST, JR.. CHAIRMAN BOX 188, SPRINGFIELD 22150 WALTER J. LEVERIDGE, VICE-CHAIRMAN P.O. BOX 5511, VIRGINIA BEACH 23455 h J.D. BOWIE BOX 1078, BRISTOL 24201 W. FRANK CHAPMAN, JR. P.O. BOX 350,120 BLVD., SALEM 24153 ALLAN A. HOFFMAN. M.D. -- 1040 MAIN ST., DANVILLE 24541 JAMES R. KNIGHT, JR., D.D.S. BOX 438. WARSAW 22572 O ,r,� O yRR E n LPtr-v1r 1r ©A° � Tii>fn ,/y 1T� q1f \\\Y/ IILI 111kY�(`��rl lllll�\`]I Ill A/0�'/JiilAn\\Y/1�IL 1\VI \\V'�1V'/ � Lp\L :ILI JI1F-IJIL COMMONWEALTH 1. LEE POTTER j,�r 3120 N. WAKEFIELD ST., ARLINGTON 22207 GP.OREOX431,WINCHESTE GE L. SHEPPARD, JR.,z M.D. COMMISSION OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES RICHARD T. SPAIN BOX 11104 BOX 47A, WAVERLY 23890 FRANK T. SUTTON. III Richmond, 23230-1104 200 SO. THIRD ST.. RICHMOND 23219 December 16, 1981 1' Mr. James M. White Frederick County Administrator PO Box 601 Winchester, VA. 22601 Dear Mr. White: V' FR£t)EF ,,( COS jiy C J A.dra nistratOrs 0,, o =� gyi 7� 1 t� R.H. CROSS, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 4010 WEST BROAD STREET BOX 11104 RICHMOND, 23230 Enclosed are copies of the cost estimates, policy statement, Code of Virginia and draft board resolution concerning the State Recreational Access Road Program. The program requires that the City Councils and County Boards pass resolutions requesting this funding from the Commission of Outdoor Recrea- tion and Highway Department. We are therefore requesting a resolution from your Board of Supervisors requesting this funding for the proposed Frederick County (Wheatlands) Public Fishing Lake. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, J� y G, Fouse Lad Coordinator JGF/ac Enclosures cc: W. A. Bushman Resident Engineer OLD C. KING, COMMISSIONER ENE M. BANE, GRUNDY, BRISTOL DISTRICT �ti a., ACE G. FRALIN, ROANOKE. SALEM DISTRICT .IAM E. ANDERSON, DANVILLE. LYNCHBURG DISTRICT JAM F. MOHR, RICHMOND, RICHMOND DISTRICT IAM T. ROOS, VORKTOWN, SUFFOLK DISTRICT °d�b"��'4hA Tf'✓u' IAM T. ROBINSON, WEST POINT, FREDERICKSBURG DISTRICT IAM B. WRENCH, SPRINGFIELD, CULPEPER DISTRICT :LMER ROBINSON, JR., WINCHESTER,STAUNTOA'D/S7R/C7' COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Y HASSELL, III, CHESAPEAKE, AT LARGE -URBAN LES S. HOOPER. JR., CREWE, A T LARGE -RURAL DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 Mr. Lloyd Byrd Construction Engineer Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries Box 11104 Richmond, VA 23230 Dear Mr. Byrd: LEO E. BUSSER, III DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHIEF ENGINEER J. T. WARREN DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION J. M. WRAY, JR. DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS H. R. PERKINSON, JR. DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT W. L. BRITTLE, JR. DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING OSCAR K. MABRY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO Edinburg, VA 22824 984-4133 Dec. 4, 1981 Referring to your letter, dated November 16, 1981, requesting a cost estimate for Wheatlands Lake Recreational access road in Frederick County. Location: From Rt. 522 to 0.46 Mi. W. Rt. 522 Grade, drain, stabilize with 20'x8" aggregate base, prime, and double seal. Grading Clearing Seeding & Mulching. Drainage Pipes CBR-30 Base Stone *#68 Stone *#78 Stone *#8 Stone Lump Sum $40,000 Is it 4,400 if 3,000 if 700 2500 tons @ $6.00 15,000 100 tons @ $32.50 3,250 105 tons @ $32.50 3,410 60 tons @ $32.50 1,950 *(Price per ton of surface treatment stone includes asphalt, equipment, and labor) $71,710 - total + 7,171 - plus 10% $78,881 - grand total This estimate is based on existing location of old road which is showing approximately 30T rock and does not include any parking area. This estimate does not include any adjustment of utilities. If I can be of further assistance please telephone or write me. PBR/dke cc � Mr. P. B. Racey Mr. R. C. King Sincerely, W. H. Bushman Resident Engineer TRANSPORTATION - AMERICA'S LIFELINES iCurb 34airf R. Edward Duncan Executive Director MEMORANDUM �I Manning :43-tiffirt 103 East Sixth Street Front Royal, Virginia 22630 Telephone 703-635-4146 September 28, 1979 To: Mr. J. 0. Renalds, III, County Administrator From: R. Edward Duncan, Executive Director Subject: Wheatlands Fishing Lake Project At its meeting of September 26, 1979, the Executive Committee of the Lord Fairfax Planning Commission again tabled action on the pro- posed Wheatlands Fishing Lake Project which was submitted for A-95 Re- view by the Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation. This action was taken inasmuch as there has been no recommendation concerning this pro- ject from Frederick County. The Committee expressed the concern that, due to the length of time which has elapsed since its initial submission, any comments the County Commission may wish to make concerning this project may not be in- corporated in the consideration of this project by the Heritage Conserva- tion and Recreation Service. R. E. D. sL Clarke County Page County Warren County Town of Luray Frederick County Shenandoah County Town of Front Royal City of Winchester r � a .�X$L%erirh Countu � varb of qupertrtsars October 11, 1979 Mr. R. Edward Duncan Executive Director Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission 103.East Sixth Street Front Royal, Virginia 22630 Dear Mr. Duncan: P. O. Box 6601 9 COURT SQUTARE 1€9 INCHr=STER. VIRGINIA 22601 In regard to Frederick County's position on Lheatlands, this letter is submitted. . In accordance with Section 21-85, Subparagraph (a) of the Frederick County .Code, the proposed Wheatlands Lake can only be conveyed to a non-profit corporate owner or association of the individual owners in the development. As a result, the County's position is that the Wheatlands project as proposed by the -Com- mission of. Game and Inland Fisheries, cannot be built and open aced as proposed because it would.be in direct violation with the Code of the County of Frederick, Virginia. For this reason the County Board of Supervisors can only be opposed to the furtherance of this project. Should you require further information, please contact me_ Sincerely yours, J. 0. Renalds, III JOR:akk cc - Planning and Development Director - Public Works Director - Board of Supervisors 703 - 667-2355 Arrberick Tlounty Peparimen# of 111ttnning aub R6elaymeut H. RONALD BERG PLANNING DIR$CTOR P. O. Box 601 DOROTHEA L. STEFEN 9 COURT SOUAR-S ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WINCHESTER.VIRGINIA 2260t July 17, 1979 "Mr. Jerry Fouse Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries. 4010 West Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23230 Dear Mr. Fouse: We need to be sure you received our letter dated July 3, 1979, concerning the effect of Section 21-85 of the Zoning Ordinance of Frederick County on your proposed purchase of the lake at Wheatlands. The code seems to make it clear that you cannot legally purchase the lake because it states that such open space common area. can be conveyed only to an association of the individual owners in, the development. Please confirm your understanding of this. Yours very truly, � � f Dorothea L. Stefen, Zoning Administrator DLS:bjs CC: J. O. Renalds,- III, County Administrator 7031352-4532 -Are.b.ezixk County Department of 1hanning anb 33drelapment PLANNING DIRECTOR DOROTHEA L. STEFEN ZONING ADMINISTRATOR July 3, 1979 Mr. Jerry Pause Virginia Commission of Game & Inland Fisheries 4010 West Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 22320 Dear Mr. Pause: P., O. BOX 601 9 COURT SOUARE WINCHESTER. VIRG:NMA 22601 In belated response to your query regarding your proposed purchase of the lake at Wheatlands, we have attached a copy of the applicable Zoning regulations for R-5, Residential Recreational Community District_ Your attention is directed to Sec. 21-85. Open Space (a), the last sentence of which makes it quite clear that the lake can only be conveyed to a non-profit corporate owner or association of the individual owners in the development. Sincerely, Dorothea L. Stefen, Zoning Administrator DLS:bjs CC: Mr. J. O. Renalds, County Administrator 703/652-4532 ,.§ 21-86 Frederick County Code § 21-88 maintain said common open space in a reasonable condition, the county may continue to maintain said common space during the next succeeding year and be subject to a similar hearing and determination in each year thereafter_ The decision of the county in any such case shall constitute a final administrative decision subject to appeal for judicial review. (c) The cost of such maintenance by the county shall be assessed rat- ably against the properties within the residential recreational community and shall become a tax lien on said properties. The county, at the time of entering - upon said common open space for the purpose of maintenance, shall file a notice of such lien in the office of the county clerk upon the properties affected by such lien within the planned unit development. Sec. 21 86.:'` Streets and°roads Y- (a) Streets and roads within the developed area shall effectively serge all subdivided residential lots and all other facilities therein and shall , if d Y , cated f='R4plic:use and accepted by the Virginia Departmentof Highways , meet the requirements of the county. - (b) Private streets -,and roads; which shall also effectively serve aU _ subdivided residential lots and other facilities in the area are permitted_ When private streets and roads are used the county shall not be bound in any way to provide public services to the recreational community p p _ __ ty.andysucn streets as are --1 indicated on the recorded plats shall recite 'the � fact they are not dedicatia,& f genera]:public us�, and such private roads and streets shall not be requiremto -; meet state or county requirements. _ (c) All dedicated public streets shown on the final plan shall meet all requirements of the Virginia Department of Highways Standards _ Before ap- _ proval of any -final plan, the resident engineer shall so certify. Sec. 21-87. Cul-de-sacs. _. J Generally, minor terminal streets (cul-de-sacs) are designed to have one end permanently closed. Each cul-de-sac must be terminated by an adequate turn -around. - Sec . 21-88 . Off-street parking The off-street parking requirements as stipulated in a� title II shall apply except there shall be no requirements for off-street._oarking for single family residential use. 228 § 21-84 Zoning 9 21-85 C) See. 21-84. Special regulations. (a) No more than eight townhouses shall, be included in any townhouse grouping. (b) The facades of dwelling units in a townhouse development. shall be varied by changing front yards by not less than two feet and variation in Mate- rials or design, so that no more than four abutting units -will have the -same front, yard depth or the same or essentially the samearchitectural treabnentof facades' and roof lines. 1__�C _X penn space.;, (a) Open space roads. shall be maintained by and be the -sole jmspon--, sibility of the developer/owner of the recreation development until -sucla time as the developer/owner conveya or sells such common area to a noax-_j�rtyfitcor- porate owner or association whose members shall be all of the individima-, ers conveyed .21-5jei�,� in the development. ?:Said-lan 'sh611' )nrS_P =L non profit corporaTe_OWner or t" -oftli6i U 107me OP qc1a ion xmenVV! (b) In the event that the organization established to own wrtrdf7 common open space, or any successor organization, shall. at any tiFue r es- tablishment of"the residential recreational community fail in: Yintah3ing7_thecom_- mon open space in reasonable order and condition in accordance witlx,the,plan,.:;_ the county may serve written notice upon such. organization or upoii�tb�4:-.resi dents and owners of the planned unit development setting forth thte,-m-a�nerdn-, which the organization has failed to maintain. the common open- space- bxx-eason- able condition, and said notice shall - include::a"demand that sumn----deudiencles. or maintenance be.:.cured within thirty days: thereof. If the defici s!". seV :in the: modifications thereof are. not., forth in the original notice or cur is said thirty days, or any extension thereof, the county- in. order- to pres70ijrve the taxable values of the properties within the residential -recreational and to prevent the common open space from.-.becomincr a ntnsandewm'ay- public V enter upon said common open space --and maintain-ther-same for- a perioV bfc-one year. Said entry and maintenance -shall not vest in the publid any _r1khf_-_--b3x_--use_ ., the common open space except when the same, is voluntarily dedicated i4 the-Z�Z. county by the residents and. owners. - Before -''--the ex'*pir�atibn-of.-sai-d- :the county shall, upon its initiative or upon the re-que s-t-ofthe organizatidhere o-7__ fore responsible for the maintenance of the common space, call. a publi&-hearing' upon notice to such organization. --:or the residents and owners of the plAhxieduni development to be held by the board., at which-hearinsuch organimit! brlthd residents and owners of the residential recreational community shall__'sh6i�'cause why such maintenance by the county shall not, at the election of the, county.. continue for a succeeding year. If the county shall determine -that su6liciro, tion is ready and able to maintain said common open space in reasonablia condi- tion, the county shall cease to maintain said common open space at the end of said year. If the county shall determine such organization is not ready and able to 227 I JA.%IF.S K. KNIGII'I' JR.. It, U.S., CIIAIUKIAN .., - l; ? �� ,• I�/h BOX 436. WARSAW 22572 JAIMU. HOW IF:, VICE C11.\ilt M:1N VICE BOX I07 B, 11N ISTO 1. 242111 ' ���' FRANK F. EVER FIST, JR., OUX 196, SPItiNGF'IK LU 22150 r. � '-•/ ' ^'� +�i ,jhl�` • DOLVII HAYS 144l N. COUHTHOUSE RD.. ARLINGTON 22201 ALLAN A. IIUFF\IAN, M.D. .1040 MAIN Sr.. DAN VILLF: 24541 W.N1-ER ID R J. A' ���{{{ ///---I���--������►►► lll►►► j �(�\ COMMONWEALTH V1I{y Cj1N1A CO r\ /I' MONWEALTH 1'.1- 511.t1UGF: 5511. GIriA BF::\CII 23455 o} d�/� llVl JOHN P. R.\ND(1I.PH ily 304NOTTINGIIAM DR., COLONIAL IIVAGIITS 231134 RIC❑ARD 5.RI IINIONDS RT. 5, RICHMUN N 23231 COMMISSION OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES KALPII L. WEAVER BUX 1083, WAYNESBORO22`J6U BOX 11104 WILLIAM I1. WEST Richmond, 23230 UPPFRVILLE 22176 February 20, 1979 Mr. Needham S. Cheeley, III Director Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation 9 Court Square Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Ned: JAMES F. M,ANTEER. JR.. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 4010 WEST BROAD STREET BOX 11104 RICHMOND. 23230 After our recent discussions, I am taking the liberty to send you a copy of a page from the Grants Manual which discusses land exchanges. Sincerely, J. G. Fouse Land Coordinator Lands and Engineering Division JGF/sk Enclosure cc: Mr. J. W. Engle, Jr. U.S. .3��i�l.a� :1LEU i T 0:.1 i 1:11 ?li a1.:1{JSL � ,,. . • ,•�� ` '" and creation-sa:71:0y cins,7f ,. !.log: cs-in-Aid Ser r:s Part 670 Allowable Costs :hat�t'r i Basis for AssiS ance 670.1.SK(3�(Cor.t govermment use only on a purchase basis. The support ceiling will b. based on the price paid b1 the participant for the proparty.or the fair market value, whichever is. less. In some instances the selling agency i,1ay be permit- ted achoice between various Stare ).aws which would set the ich law selling price at different levels depending upon wh is chosen by the agency. For examp?e,'various laws may be in force which would allow the agency to transfer the real property to another public agency for fair market value, for reim1Durzement of unpaid taxes, as a donation or for other consideration. Fund assistance will be'limited to the rtini.�u7 a,�ount for which the property could be transferred legally. (4) The requirement of appraisal, history of conveyances, and. evidence. of title are the same as normal purchases .(see 645.1.4C) (5) 'if the selling .agency is'Federal, fair market value is paid (670.1.9M) . y. _Costs of Real Property Acquired through exchanges. Land owned . Find adniniste:ed by the participant .may .e-xch nged (traded for more valuable land administered by another public agency or for land owned by a private party.) The support ceiling will be based on the amount of cash, if any, that must- paid: by the participant in addition. to the land conveyed away' subject to appraisal requirements. Both parcels must be adequately appraised. If the other party is a public agency, items (1) (5) under : .8K apply. : Example: The participant exchanges a property appraised at $10,000 for a privately owned property appraised at .. $12,000, and pays the difference of $2.,000 cash. The amount to be reimbursed is 50% of $2.000. M. Real Pronert Acaui 'red by Donation. The value of real property donated to the participant by private organizations or individ- uals will be eligible for matching as defined in'670.1.43, as 07/25/78 (Pro&. Dir. No. 27) Replaces Prog. Dir. No. 16, 8/19/75 Yrebuick Cauntu 4 cyartnunt of Tlarh-5 Z11t4 ZEtrE�tioit Needham S. Cheely, III 9 COURT SauARK :rnaeeCT0R WINCHEIITER. V:PGMIA 22601 l M E M O R A N D U M TO: J. O. Renalds FROM: Needham S. Cheely, III SUBJECT: Department of Game & Inland Fisheries Wheatlands Project DATE: February 14, 1979 The purpose of this memo is to make you aware of the following facts disclosed to me during a phone conversation with Mr. Jerry Fouse of the State Commission on Game & Inland Fisheries. These facts are: 1. This project is at this point still under investigation. 2. Information formulated will be used on February 23rd at which time it was indicated some type of decision will be made as to the immediate status of this project. 3. The State Commission on Game & Inland Fisheries is interested in purchasing approximately 150 acres along with the dam, spillway, etc. 4. They are primarly interested in only the Dam, spillway, and 100' buffer area surrounding lake for on bank fishing. 5. It is their intension to build a boat ramp, parking lot, concession stand, and restrooms. 6. It is my understanding that the State Commission on Game & Inland Fisheries would like to lease all the facilities to Frederick County with the exception of part of the parking lot, the boat ramp, and the 100' buffer for fishing surrounding the dams and lake facility. 7. This lease would be in the neighborhood of 20 years or longer... • 0 Page 2 - Department of Game & Inland Fisheries Wheatlands Project { 8. They have said that through this lease we would maintain immediate area (grass cutting, trash pickup, etc.) and also have all rights to any concessions, boat rentals, bait shop, food and drinks on the property for the duration of the lease. 9. It has been further pointed out that the County might want to utilize their_ facilities even further by purchasing and trading existing County property to allow County Recreation facilities inhance and be inhanced by their facility. 10. They (S.G.& L. F.) propose we can trade off a portion of the undeveloped park property located on north side of 277 that was purchased in cooperation with C.O.R. in order to have surrounding property. 11. In all probability this project will be funded in cooperation with C.O.R. Hopefully this information will be of some help to you in dealing with the above matter, if any action should become necessary. NSC/kcd cc: Ron Berg Stan Pangle David Dickson M Needham S. Cheely, III Director Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department (AJIA6� A Grant A i d s D.4''" went Oa�2Courxt �Fke ! V1 *�� s :A` a ey Charlotte:? Etter 2 -,4 71'v, '41` oft thefh 'cla'ssification approx- mg lake in Frederick Coun imately. two years ago, A federal grant £or over -ty. despite stiff opposition from $520,000 has been aWgrded `'<,.:Mitchell also confirmed . some county residents. to the"Virginia Commission -?,�'the'fact ` that part . of the The Commission of Game of Game and inland. Fish-;_'.yvalue of.the_130-acre lake, '-and Inland Fisheries plans eries by -the State:_Commis•._. Siam .and;surr,ounding:60 to.install some more up-to- sion on Outdoor,Aecreahon .acres 4 ;'land 'is -being 'do- date emergency, spillways for development of a.:130 nets¢_,Oj�3he .developers of around the dam, replacing acre. fishing lake in the ,;h�a>�,100"acre• Wheatlands the present spillways. W heatlands area o Fre proecf'Fred Glaize III and ;The., project has received derick County. +` -James I,, Bowmm�.- both preliminary and final John.Mitchell, public m , ',The Wheatlands tract lies,; approval from the COR, .formation officer"for •the`,'South.'of Double Toil .Gate Mitchell said, speaking in COR, confirmed Tuesday 'a;just-off:.[3.S..522,` between the absence of Director that a grant for $520,234. in. -Winch"Aster-and Front Robert Blackmore, who was .federal land and water ''gon- ',_-:Royal,', and, is; due east of out of town. servation funds from the ' Stephens City:;` Mitchell said the lake is Virginia Outdoors Fugd..bas'..":' The ,tract was rezoned by planned as a "regional fish - been awarded to the':_ ::•ahe county Board of Super- ing facility." misston'otGame andlQ rtaiisora to -an R-5, recrea-, Glaize said Tuesday night Fisl) j� s for, acqulsition; 144oaal 'subdivision, that he does notsee the state project as having any subs- tantial effect on the timeta- ble for the development of the Wheatlands recrea- tional subdivision as a whole, adding that the development has never really had a strong, definite timetable. Asked about the state's announcement of funding approval, Glaize said that "hopefully everything will work. out" for the state's ac- quisition' of the, lake, for which it has been' awarded the funds. to :match the ' developers' donation.;; County Pa.r`ka.`:.#nd .'�,Recrea(ion DirectoraNed '"-Cheeley said he doesn't foresee any conflict or prob- ',lems between the proposed 'tishlag lakw-*nd Itbe a developzneaA oaf '+: 4•2 `jin ' /� P"`recreationAl:i#lEe"-now' %in* `dsrway S. t4e CQttpty It .�XE�TBXtC�2 �IIlizttll P2,xartratat of 1hanning anb e'bel.apracnf H. RONALD BERG 9 COURT SQUARE PLANNING DIRECTOR- WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601 December 2, 1975 Mr. Jacques A. Kressmann ALEXANDER POTTER ASSOCIATES One World Trade Center - Suite 2637 New York, New York 10048 Dear Jack: The enclosed information should give you a pretty good feeling for the Wheatlands Community development. Please be sure to let me know if I may be of further assistance. Sincerely, f F, H. Ronald Berg Planning Director County of Frederick, Virginia CCl ENC: No. 173 Application for Rezoning, dated June 12, 1975. CC2 Economic Impact Study (1144.297 acres). CC3 Memorandum to Board of Supervisors from J. O. Renalds, III, dated September 30, 1975. re Wheatlands Impact Stmt. CC4 Fiscal Impact Statement of Wheatlands Community, prepared by Rosser H. Payne & Associates. 703 - 652-4541 HRB:fmd CC: J. O. Renalds, III; County Administrator C M E M O R A N D U M TO: Boar of Supervisors FROM: J. O. en C;d III Count Admnistrator DATE: September 30, 1975 SUBJECT: Wheatlands Impact Statement oe H. Ronald Berg, Secretary Planning Commission Although certain discrepancies exist in the Impact Statement with regard to the analysis of the 1975-1976 County Budget, they are due to certain changes made by the Board after.the Fiscal Plan was printed and after the Budget Hearing and the overall impact analysis is affected very little. However, the use of one fiscal year's budget to'perform an analysis must be kept in mind as to the accuracy of projections since most County major expenditures are spread over several years and certain large expenditures may or may not appear in any one year's fiscal plan. Also, projections in this case must be made without a currently approved capital facilities plan so this limitation must be kept in mind. The fiscal impact statement for Wheatlands is based upon three (3) assumptions that are not supported by the facts presented. The statement is made (Page 40 of the report) and I quote, "Wheatlands should experience a population growth and demographic profile similar to that in other recreational communities with similar locational parameters_." Why should that be the case --what is the supporting evidence? Wheatlands will have central water and sewer and it will be close to Front Royal, Kernstown-and Winchester. Further, the lot prices will not be significantly higher than standard subdivisions that do not offer the amenities projected ($7500 compared with $10,000) A second assumption is that the population characteristics of Wheatlands will be 1/3 second homes, 1/3 retirement homes,. and 1/3 permanent homes. This breakdown is at best a rough guess and diffi- cult to document. By using this particular breakdown, the study is heavily slanted away .from, "'permanent home' oriented _general fund expenditures for parks and recreation, education, school building program and jail construction;" therefore. putting the project in the best possible light. Even if the facts presented prove to be correct, how can it be said that a retirement population will not require public services. Florida communities have certainly not found this to be the case. f Memorandum Re: Wheatlands Impact Statement September 30, 1975 Page 2. It must be borne in mind as well that recreational lot sales have tended to drop off from the experience of recent years. This trend may continue and if so the number of second homes in Wheat - lands may decrease proportionately from the assumed 1/3 of the total. Thus, a greater number of permanent homes may be built at an increased cost to the County for services, especially schools. On Page 47 the statement is made and I quote, "the County will be receiving real estate taxes from the property in the amount of $7820 with no real County outlay." Is -that actually the case? Who will bear the cost of water and sewer mains to serve this area? More importantly, what will be the cost of service to adjacent development that will be able to make use of these same mains? To elaborate further on this point, the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority is studying the.area east and south of Stephens City, including the town, for sewerage service using EPA grant funds. Should the determination be made by the Authority, the - State Water Control Board, or others, that a regional plant on Crooked Run near the junction of Stephens Run as called.for in the already adopted Metropolitan --Regional Water Quality Manage- ment Plan, is the best alternative for sewerage service for the area of Stephens City and parts of the County east, then a large area is opened up to development. Not only will "Wheatlands" be in an area that can be served but also the Van Dyke Trailer Park (currently in litigation) and other large tracts of.land. We must bear in mind the case of the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County versus Williams where the Court held that sewer service must be granted where it is planned and installed and that lack of capacity in a sewage treatment plant was not a defense.to stop development. There could be significant costs to the County for the future which are not even foreseen by the Impact Study on "Wheatlands" currently before you. For years subdivision developers claimed that development built the tax base and brought income to the County. That did not prove true. Is.the evidence conclusive enough to claim that this is not the case again? JOR:HRB:akk �X�Y�EZiL�► f�,D1iYt�n P.oarbr II �t �zS3i I2r5 J. O. RENALDS 11l 1 II 'nt/'� COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR M E M 0 R A �. l/ : 1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 1975 9 COURT SQUARE WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEMS FOR WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1.0, 1.975 IN LIGHT OF CERTAIN FACTS AND FIGURES WITH REGARD TO TV-0 I EIS WHICH WILL BE APPEARING ON THE BOARD AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 10, 9/5, I FEEL THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION -OUTLINED BELOW IMPORTANT TO BE CON- SIDERED BY .THE BOARD PRIOR TO MAKING ANY DECISION ON THESE TWO MATTERS A. LATHER REZONING (1) THE STATUS OF CERTAIN INFORMATION ON THIS REZONING tS)AS FOLLOWS: AINFORMATION ON THE QUARRY AND THEIR FUTURE INTENTIONS WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE QUARRY S ATTORNEY MR. BENJAMIN BUTLER (B) HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT REPORTS DRAINAGE IN THE AREA WILL.BE:OF.VERY LITTLE CONSEQUENCE (C) HEALTH DEPARTMENT REPORTS THAT THE SOILL CONDITIONS ARE FROM GOOD TO FAIR BUT NOT ALL. -LOTS (APPROXIMATELY FOUR) WILL PERCOLATE (2) THERE IS ADDITIONAL LAND IN THE VICINITY OF THIS REQUESTED REZONING THAT COULD BE SUBDIVIDED INTO LOTS AT A LATER TIME; THE QUESTION ARISES AS TO HOW MANY SEPTIC TANKS CAN ULTIMATELY BE PUT IN IN THIS AREA BEFORE THEY BEGIN TO MALFUNCTION (3) THIS SUBDIVISION IS VERY SIMILAR, AS FAR AS CIRCUM- STANCES G0, TO THE MANUEL SUBDIVISION WHICH WAS DENIED AND WHICH IS CURRENTLY IN hITIGATION. BOTH THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND THE ANUEL SUBDIVISION BACK UP TO ORCHARD LAND AND THEY BOTH ARE ROAD FRONTAGE SUBDIVISIONS. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE BOARD MAKE CONSISTENT THEIR ACTIONS ON SIMILAR PROJECTS. 703 - 667-2365 MEMORANDUM AGENDA ITEMS PAGE 2 SEPTEMBER 4, 1975 (4) AS YOU WILL REMEMBER, IN THE -PAST THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF PUBLIC -EMOTION -EXPRESSED WITH REGARD TO THE STEPHENS CITY QUARRY, IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO .STOP AND THINK WHAT EFFECTS MOULD BE GENERATED BY PUTTING HOUSES NEAR A QUARRY. B. B WMAN AND GLAIZE REZONING - O CONSIDERATION NEEDS TO BE GIVEN TO THE IMPACT OF EXTENDING A WATER LINE DOWN ROUTE 277 TO SERVE THIS PARTICULAR SITE. A CENMY L WAT�R SYSTEM USING WATER SUPPLIED BY THE OF 'IINCHESTER IS ALMOST THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE FOR THIS SITE DUE TO THE FACT THAT INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE.INDICATES THAT WELLS IN 'THE AREA TO SERVE SUCH A LARGE DEVELOPMENT ARE OUT OF THE QUESTION'; 0 I THINK WE NEED TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT WHICH WILL SERVICE NOT ONLY THE AREA PROPOSED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT BUT THE ENTIRE AREA WHICH.IS CONSIDERABLY.LARGER THAN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE REZONED R-5. (2) AGAIN, A PROBLEM OF CONSISTENT ACTION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS NEEDS TO BE KEPT IN MIND. TWO MOBILE HOME RARKS., WHICH ARE CONSIDERABLY SMALLER THAN THE PROPOSED REZONING, HAVE BEEN DENIED. 1 ONE OF THESE, THE ROCKY YOST PROPOSAL:, I.S WITHIN THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AS S�jOWN ON THE PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN, WHILE -THE SECOND, THE VAN DYKE PROJECT,. IS NOT. ONE OF THE MAJOR CONSIDER- ATIONS IN DENYING BOTH.OF THESE MOBILE HOME PARKS WAS THE IMPACT UPON THE COUNTY. THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED R-5 REZONING MAY BE CONSIDERABLY GREATER. (3) ALTHOUGH THE DEVELOPER HAS PRELIMINARILY INDICATED -THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL BE A SECOND HOME SUBDIVISION, THERE.IS NOT MUCH DOUBT THAT DEVELOPMENT -IN THIS AREA WILL BE LARGELY FIRST HOME DEVELOPMENT SINCE THE MARKET FOR SECOND HOMES APPEARS TO BE DECLINING. ..THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED ABOVE IS STRICTLY FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION) ONLY AND DOES NOT REFLECT A DEFINITE RECOMMENDATION ON MY PART AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THESE MATTERS. cQ 0&_.__ENALDS_,_ _I,__CQUNTY N I_STRATOF -------------------------------------- --------------- ?- /0 -77 S-- - I on ;� -- - - ,i ��, i � criticism` . WHEATLANDS FISCAL RMIPACT STUDY (not environmental) 0 the effect of the proposed project on the county budget over a 10 year + period "is tenuous to say the least" (page 2) O the county's gain or loss would be "dependent upon the market -structure and the ratio of permanent to recreational homes which actually occur." (p 2) "...objectives desired, as compared with current facts ... can rapidly change each year. " C) "Budget analysis simply indicates that residentially induced costs (in 1975) exceed residentially provided revenues" for -Frederick County 0 "This report does not imply that the per unit deficit is one which the County should 'live with' simply because it is what the current actual situation reflects" (p 23) ANNUAL AVERAGE COUNTY TAB present (5% seasonal) 1 real estate $ 217. 72 personal property 111 local sales 70 utility 33.69 fee revenue 36.95 $ 469. 36 REVENUES / HOUSEHOLD (from p 21 & 46) projected for ��Iheatlands only permanent household 2nd home retirement household $193. 20 $193. 20 $193. 20 111 0 111 70 20 40 33.69 9. 63 -- vehicle 19. 26 36.95 14.67no 36.95 licenses R $ 444. 84 $ 237. 50 $ 400. 41 0 the county tax revenue from the $700, 000 recreational amenities (if and when complete) would be only $1771 /year ($ 700, 000 x 20 % x 2.3 % tax rate x 55 % land use tax exemption) In order for county revenue to more than cover costs at Wheatlands during even the 'frontend years' (p 46), we are asked to believe @ that the national average (20 0, or $1 million/year) of our county government expenditures now go for industry and commerce (p 13) 02 that Bowman and Glaize will spend $ 700, 000 on recreational amenities in 10 -years (p 27) 03 that major county capital improvement outlays and extended public operating costs are not required to serve the development (p 25) ® that people who spend $12, 000 average for a lot there will average $ 30, 000 more for their house if they build (p 24) Q5 that 1/3 will be weekend 2nd homes, 1/3 retired peoples homes, and only 1/3 will ever be primary homes with school children (p2 & 24) ® that only. 257 house will have been built on the 1900 lots sold by 1987 (p 30 & 34) and 0 that the 20 acres of townhouses previously listed will never be built (their obvious cost deficit to Frederick County was not included in this study) . How many people will pay $42, 000 for a 2nd home in Frederick County? What about the county's cost deficits when more than 257 houses have been built, and more than 86 homes there are primary? Would anyone buy a townhouse for a 2nd home? How much will the county have to spend for the water line Bowman and Glaize have ------------------- -- allready asked for? Why wasn't this cost mentioned in.the study? What about sewers? �lofi eliminate R-5 zoning classification and let's all follow the same rules. I N OCT 20 1975 BY -_9d � VV Dear Mr. Renalds: The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc. P. 0. Box 327 Stephens City, Virginia 22655 October 20, 1975 In regards to our telephone conversation of October 8, 1975: I am enclosing a copy of the letter which I gave to Raymond Sandy on September24th, and which did not get read into the minutes of the Board of Supervisors meeting on September 24, 1975. As you may remember from our conversation you said that you would have copies of this letter made so that each Board member would have a copy for the meeting on October 22, 1975 when this project will once again come before the Board. Thank you for your time and help in this matter. Sincerely, /Laura F. Pifer Secretary D V�� The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc. V P. 0. Box 327 OCT 20 1975 Stephens City, Virginia 22655 BY, September 24, 1975 To the Frederick County Board of Supervisors: Dear Sirs: The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc. at its regular monthly meeting on September 15, 1975, voted unanimously to go record reccommending to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that at their next meeting on September 24, 1975, that they take no action on approving the Bovrman-Glaize "Wheatlands" Project until the Planning Commission has made a complete study of the project. Once the study is finished, it is further recco_mmeded that the facts be made known to the public before the Board of Supervisors votes in any way on the Project, even if it means delaying a decision or even holding a public hearing. Thus, the County residents as well as the County Government will be well aware of the impact that such a proposed project will have on the County in terms of taxes, schools, police and fire protection as well as the environmental impact, Sincerely, % Laura F. Pifer (Mrs. Robert L. Pifer, Jr.) Secretary 14 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Boar of Supervisors -05�1 FROM: J. O. e na'1ds,- I I I Count Administrator DATE: September 30, 1975 SUBJECT: Wheatlands Impact Statement H. Ronald Berg,Secretary Planning Commission Although certain discrepancies exist in the Impact Statement with regard to the analysis of the 1975-1976 County Budget, they are due to certain changes made by the Board after the Fiscal.Plan was printed and after the Budget Hearing and the overall impact analysis is affected very little. However, the use of one fiscal year's budget to perform an analysis must be kept in mind as to the accuracy of projections since most County major expenditures are spread over several years and certain large expenditures may or may not appear in any one year's fiscal plan. Also, projections in this case must be made without a currently approved capital facilities plan so this limitation must be kept in mind. The fiscal impact statement for Wheatlands is based upon three (3) assumptions that are not supported by the facts presented. The statement is made (Page 40 of the report) and I quote, "Wheatlands should experience a population growth and demographic profile similar to that in other recreational communities with similar locational parameters." Why should that be the case --what is the supporting evidence? Wheatlands will have central water and sewer and it will be close to Front Royal, Kernstown-and Winchester. Further, the lot prices will not be significantly higher than standard subdivisions that do not offer the amenities projected ($7500 compared with $10,000) A second assumption is that the population characteristics of Wheatlands will be 1/3 second homes, 1/3 retirement homes, and 1/3 permanent homes. This breakdown is at best a rough guess and diffi- cult to document. By using this particular breakdown, the study is heavily slanted away from, "'permanent home' oriented general fund expenditures for parks and recreation, education, school building program and jail construction;" therefore putting the project in the best possible light. Even if the facts presented prove to be correct, how can it be said that a retirement population will not require public services. Florida communities have certainly not found this to be the case. Memorandum Re: Wheatlands Impact Statement September 30, 1975 Page 2. It must be borne in mind as well that recreational lot sales have tended to drop off from the experience of recent years. This trend may continue and if so the number of second homes in Wheat - lands may decrease proportionately from the assumed 1/3 of the total. Thus, a greater number of permanent homes may be built at an increased cost to the County for services, especially schools. On Page 47 the statement is made and I quote, "the County will be receiving real estate taxes from the property in the amount of $7820 with no real County outlay." Is that actually the case? Who will bear the cost of water and sewer mains to serve this area? More importantly, what will be the cost of service to adjacent development that will be able to make use of these same mains? To elaborate further on this point, the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority is studying the area east and south of Stephens City, including the town, for sewerage service using EPA grant funds. Should the determination be made by the Authority, the - State Water Control Board, or others, that a regional plant on Crooked Run near the junction of Stephens Run as called for in the already adopted Metropolitan Regional Water Quality Manage- ment Plan, is the best alternative for sewerage service for the area of Stephens City and parts of.the County east, then a large area is opened up to development. Not only will "Wheatlands" be in an area that can be served but also the Van Dyke Trailer Park (currently in litigation) and other large tractsofland. We must bear in mind the case of the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County versus Williams where the Court held that sewer service must be granted where it is planned and installed and that lack of capacity in a sewage treatment plant was not a defense to stop development. There could be significant costs to the County for the future which are not even foreseen by the Impact Study on "Wheatlands" currently before you. For years subdivision developers claimed that development built the tax base and brought income to the County. That did not prove -true. Is the evidence conclusive enough to claim that this is_not the case again? JOR:HRB:akk j ON OF � j p DOUGLAS 3. ;LGATE, COMMISSIONER O � 1 C/\ L I�. LEONARD R. ALL. 3R15T0 L. BRI.STOL DiSTRlCT i HQAACE G. FRALIN. ROANOKE..CILEV DISTRICT y'' TL THO.MAS R. GLASS, LYNCHBURG, LY'S'CIIBCRG DISTRICT �;y R MORRI:: M. CRO'.vE. RICHh10ND. RlLY.t10LD DISTRICT WILLIAM T. ROOS. YORKTOWN,dL'FFOLK DISTRICT DOUGLAS G. JANNEY, FR EDERICKSeURG, fREDERlCK.SBLRG DISTRICT RALPH A.?E?TON, FALLS CHURCH. CPLPEP£R DISTRICT - RO=_=aT S. LANDES. STAUNTON,SLAL TO.. DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION T. RAY HASSELL, III, CHESAPEAKE, AT LARGE-URBAX 1� CHA-L_. S. HOOPER, JR.. CREWE, AT LARGE RURAL ' Edinburg, Virginia 22824 August 13, 1975 wr AANPn JOr:'/ E. HAR WOOD DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHIEF ENGINEER W. S. G. BRI TTON DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION H. GORDON BLUNDON DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT J. M. WRAY. JR- DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS J. P. ROYER. JR. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING P. B. COLDIRON, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO AUG 14.1975 'Mr. J. 0. Renalds, County Administrator Frederick County 1 Winchester, Virginia 22601 BY t Dear Sir: - We have received a letter from Mr. Robert B. McKee dated June 5, 1975, concerning the impact on highways of a land development on Routes 340 and 522 in Frederick County. This letter dealt with a planned housing development with a potential of 2500 residencies. As I understand it, the Planning Commission had asked Mr. McKee's employer, G. W. Clifford and Associates, Inc., to contact the Department of Highways and Transportation with regard to the impact their development would have.on the highway system. I forwarded . Mr. McKee's correspondence to Richmond and our Traffic & Safety Engineers in Richmond have several questions with regard to this subdivision. We have called G. W. Clifford and Associates, Inc.,, several times but have received no reply from them either in .writing or by telephone. I do not see any way that we can assist- EMIsion. unty Planning Commission if the G. W. Clifford and Associates, will not respond to our inquiries. Perhaps thePlanning would like to get in touch with this firm regarding this matter. Very truly yours, r v John W. Chiles, Jr. Resident Engineer JWC j r/mf Cy: Mr. J. P. Mills, Jr. Mr. L. H. Dawson, Jr. Mr. P. F. Cecchini A HIGHWAY IS AS SAFE AS THE USER MAKES IT . 'i / L 1 h �� A� �1: 1 :3lJfit=1'.i1 CS=' `�:1:i tiY^.!:''� i�[•iGii'lY.-_"E.%�1^!G September 17, 1973 LEXINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE 128 SOUTH RANOOLPH 5,TItLET r'09T 01;FlcH DOX !lt!S LEXINGTON. VIFtGINIA 244t10 I'HoHE: 4G3-71 56 SUBJECT: FT_'c DERICK COUNTY Sewerage: Frederick County Sanita- tion Authority - Upper . Crooked Run Area NIr. Earl I'.. Sutherland, Vice President Gilbert II. Clifford and Associates, Inc. p. O. Do:: 5425 Fredericl�sburq, Virginia 22401 Dear Mr. Sutherland: 75he retort entitled "Summary Report on the Interim Sewage Treat- L,ri cl- County f.anitation=__lltltority, Frederick Co'tilty Vlrgin'a, Crooked 11,un Area" prapared by `,letlr L. r:Cl llc s begin revicn ed- by -t.1lis -:r Partment. T acc':'canc:e with the State Plater Control Law, Title C2.1, Cllan- tY_ 3.1',t_t:icle '�, C>cCi on 62.1-114.19, �_,1racr_apll 2., a no�.ifica.ion , letter _1_6 , 1973 v.7,a written i:C� the ::) Ca -Le Water ��ec t,f.:.ti_lq the treatmel�-� requirements fo the pro,ose'd 1is- charge. _,>> ?.etter cf F ° temper 5 , 1973, the : 'Cate t::, i -i �•011i:L O i._ 1__ iT 'L,C -l'-Cl �l.h:�'-t tl-�.'.-: effluent fl-nm the proposed. facilities 1 ,�• cnncc: �trat_! on o'_ 12 ; �. . nr L rEi`OY L_ •� - l ..:-� - '. i. �_ - ^. �. i. t C . t_. -I. 17 C::: ll i .l i t 1. 1-. 1 1 o .L Tt- is urr. ��; t.c>:a t.hZi. i_1le flocc-tll_:1l. inn un-L tS b so J rhili� h l-`.il�t',?=liln f )i" Che IRuli..l--111,2 -t t11t-C'rr r1tCl C C tho rate L',..:L Foot. t�- earl R. Sutherland 2 September 17, 1973 C 3. The surge tank between the secondary clarifier and flash mix. tank should be equipped with aera- tion in order to maintain solids in suspension. 4. The abi.lit1T to add chlorine to the influent o the Ab'a'P portion of the treatment plant and to the filter influent should be provided. 5. The dimensions listed for the final clarifier for the K4T portion of the treatment plant would appear to result in a high surface loading rate and there- fore a very inefficient clarifier. since this proposed plant is very similar in design to that proposed for the Kernstown system, it is suggested that you incorporate our in the de- comments resulting from our review of the Kernsfown plant sign of this facility. v7e are looking forward to receiving final plans and specifications for th is project. If you have any questions or if>>e can be of any further service, please do not hesitate -to upon us. Very truly yours, Norman_ Phillips, Jr., Director Bureau of Sanitary Engineer411g 11 f 9 t . C C� � �O/I1171(Illl/'('il��%1 Of� I'/i 171111t7 � y't+ f p ,01 rth V ncv1Y to: `'Jt{l'Y I{1' 101111 �tttlt'P \y/ �S 13ri {�(+ :Itrr, r it inia 22812 BOARD MEN: ARS (70 !3210595 RCG:).r; I'Jr., P.E., Director '(�, t:(i r1i1C 11 Phillips, . 1`i Bureau of Sanita•r r Engineering State Department of iieal th Madison ibuildinc Richmond, ;la. 23219 RE: Preliminary Proposal, Frederick County Sanitation Authority -Interim Plant, Upper Croo�;eJ Run area, reference your letter of Marcie 16, 1973. Gentleman: uccorda!ic�e t'l-i tie Title G2 .1, Chapter 3.1 , Article 4, Section 62.1 - 44.19. Ir! - the Standard Paragraph Stale L';ata;, Control Lat:: , t�e are advising �� ou of s i_ 1, 2 of ( ar�agra the ,..4.,�e!,t cor;tra�,^rung such star r� it `li en (. ) Irccessary to p oi' c.:::l �, a.:aJ treatment , ^c,.:irc. r •t:�:t.:i The p; apnscd disc is rqn is listed in Section ld of the Standards for the Shenandoah River Basin and is ciassi f ied I`/ B. Crooked Run iS t.ributary to the SherarlC!"' 0.: 4.0 f;GrE Daily Aver,agn 0. 0. 5.0 HG/L in s;, p!os. l.,r -'. r. ,J,�,,„`+ for it.- etc- i'it)iic C;', at e ..ion, i(1 •. 1l:ioil of(;i.lii.'; %,IIa i.i., 0 7( thO staff .,�,li,--., s that P fFlt e P�rsud ilt;ort file l)r':i�raccd fiot,•1 of , ..._;0 ,:_:,. .-.,. .- !� ! t to e:.ill cncvn < lilt 12 NAIL _�U`.�ll'.110i,r so i id ; in order i1 �I.I'I'.l ( n till'' �..... . un l i v , ;li hnroval of those plans ��ill be dependant ujo�,ssuccessful completion folloti��ing co , , advertising C and 1�1111 contain the only::` 1. That Plant is to be an interim plant the see;�a_ge treatment p . That the Frederick County --'Sanitation Authority provide adequate of 0,1364 MGO 2. � guarantees o insure continual puc,p i nq of a minimum frcn the M, J. Grove Line Quarries. 3. That the discharge be post aerated to oxygen saturation or stream equivalent_ will be held in this office until we hear from you. This propcsal Sincerely, H. D. Phillips Technician Q MDP : W C g bert w. ciiff®rd & associates, inc. : INCORPORATED 1972 ROUTE 17 AT BEREA P.O. BOX 5425 FREDERICK SBURG. VIRGINIA 22401 703/752-5011 BOARD OF DIRECTORS GILBERT W. CLIFFORD. P.E. THOMAS J. O' TOOLS. P.E. EARL R. SUTHERLAND. P.E. January 23, 1973 Oa4UNWFALTH OF VIRGINIA State Water Control Board Post Office Box 1469 Front Royal, Virginia 22630 Re: FREDERICK COUrr' UPPER CROOKED RUN AREA ATTN: Mr. Brad Chewning Gentlemen: Enclosed is a copy of a preliminary application for sewage disposal facilities to serve the Upper Crooked Run area.in the Opequcn Magisterial District in Frederick County. Copies of this application are being sent concurrently to the State Health Dcpartment in tie hope that review of this proposal will be expedited. Notification of action taken on this proposal should be sent to Mr. Don Krueger, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, 13 Court Square, P. O. Box 618, Winchester, Virginia 22601, and to this office. Any questions you may have, should be directed to the.writer. Very truly yours, GILBERT W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, LAIC. Earl R. Sutherland, P. E. Vice President ERS :CAC Enclosure cc: Mr. Hon Krueger; Frederick County Sanitation Authority t 316 SOUTH CAMERON STREET • WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601 • 703/667-2139 e, �.i�� gillbert w. cllifford & associates, inc. INCORPORATED 1 9 7 2 - ROUTE 17 AT BEREA P.O. BOX 5425 FREDERICKSBURG. VIRGINIA 22401 703/752-5011 BOARD OF DIRECTORS GILBERT W. CLIFFORD. P.E. THOMAS J. O'TOOLE. P.E. EARL R. SUTHERLAND. P.E. January 23, 1973 VIRGINIA STATE, DEPAi TN= OF HEALTH Post Office Box 915 Lexington, Virginia 24450 .. . «•�• Jib •+ ATIN: Mr. Eric H. Bartsch Gentlemen: Enclosed are two copies of a preliminary application for sewage disposal facilities to serve the Upper Crooked Run area in the Opequon Magisterial District in Frederick County. Copies of this application are being sent concurrently to the State Water Control Board in the hope that review of this proposal will be expedited. Notification of action Laken on this proposal should be sent to Mr. Don Krueger, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, 13 Court Square, P. O. Box 618, Winchester, Virginia 22601, and. to this office. Any questions you may have should be directed to the writer. Very truly yours, GILBERT W. CLIFI-'ORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. c. Earl R. Sutherland, P. E. Vice President US:CAC Enclosure cc: Mr. Don Krueger; Frederick County Sanitation Authority ✓ C . I- nyGlleFJ41 c uxttc f/�n1 �l 316 SOUTH CAMERON STREET • WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601 • 703/667-2139 "1009 RECYCLED PAPER" J.e .1ALs0N..111. A[",OiV STelA II ill Council on the Environment May 19, 1982 Mr, Larry G. Hart Chiof, Lands and Engineering Division Conl[nission of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 West Broad Street fiic-t►mond, Virginia 23230 Dear Mr. Hart: 903 NINTH STREET OFFICE BUILDING RICi :':OND 23219 804-736-4500 q 2 r2 The Council on the Environment has completed its review of ,Vour- environmental assessment for the Wheatlands Lake project Frederick County. The following agencies participated in this review: Commission of Outdoor Recreation Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Department of Conservation and Economic Development Department of Highways and Transportation State Water Control Board Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission Virginia Research Center for Archaeology Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission The Council on the Environment has no objection to the acquisition of ..and and development of facilities at Wheatlands Lake, provided that suctl development is undertaken pursuant to stipulations made in your response to State Water Control Board concerns and that it follows review of an archaeological survey report by the Virginia Research Center for Archaeology (see attachments). Your response to the Water Board was found to be satisfactory. The well water system and sanitary septic system mentioned on pace_; 3 of the assessment may encounter difficulties stemming from tht= high shale content of the soil underlying the site. This means that wells drilled into the shale may be so acidic as to preclude tho use of copper or galvanized pipe. Drain fields may not be a satisfactory disposal method for the same reason. Lar-y G. Hart May 19, 1982 . Page Two The lake will help meet significant neds for water -based recrea- tion in the northwestern part.of the state. However, the incentive that the project provides for additional land development will, according to the Frederick County planning director, be tempered by the need for County approval for residential development through a master plan process. As I indicated to you on March 12, an archaeological survey will be needed prior to any construction work. Results of the survey should be sent to the Virginia Research Center for Archaeology for review. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Sincerely, k� .Charles H. Ellis III Environmental Impact Coordinator CHE:gcj Enclosures cc: The Honorable Betty J. Diener, Secretary of Commerce and Resources Mr. Brian D. Harrison, State Water Control Board Mr. Bruce J. Larson, Virginia Research Center for Archaeology M.r. John R. Davy, Jr., Commission of Outdoor Recreation R. Edward Duncan, Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission Mr. J. Stuart Barret, Division of Engineering and Buildings FRANK F. EVEREST, JR.. CHAIRMAN - - BOX 188, SPRINGFIELD 22150 WALTER J. LEVERIDGE. VICE-CHAIRMAN - P.O. BOX 5511, VIRGINIA BEACH 23455 J.D. BOWIE BOX 1078, BRISTOL 24201 q a W.FRANK CHAPMAN,JR. P.O. BOX 350,120 BLVD.. SALEM 24153 ALL.AN A. HOFFMAN. M.D. 1040 MAIN ST., DANVILLE 24541 JAMES R. KNIGHT, JR., D.D.S. BOX 438, WARSAW 22572 OMMO yRR TEALp�,r�1{ � ® f R 9 l'% 1{r 4 A 1\\VI \1`YA1\Y/ j 1 lll~lli \\U'/ 1111 (`(�T7 JILI 11\VI 11AI COMMONWEAL I. LEE POTTER 3120 N. WAKEFIELD ST., ARLINGTON 22207 GEORGE L. SHEPPARD, JR.. P.O EDX431,WINCHESTER2 sot COMMISSION OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES RICHARD T. SPAIN Box 11104 BOX 47A, WAVERLY 23890 FRANK T. SUTTON, III 200 SO. THIRD ST., RICHMOND 23219 Richmond, 23230-1104 January 4, 1982 Mr. John Horne Frederick County Department of Planning 9 Court Square Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Horne: R.H. CROSS, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 4010 WEST BROAD STREET BOX 11104 RICHMOND, 23230 Enclosed is a copy of the plat you requested. The area which.you are interested in is described as Tract "C11.. if there are any questions, please feel free to contact me. JGF/ac Enclosures Sincerely, , Jerr . Fouse Land Coordinator PHONE 703-635-4146 TDrb Nairfax Manning lgistrirt C�nmmissinn R. EDWARD DUNCAN 103 EAST SIXTH STREET EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA 22630 -4- way Department approved the subdivision, `Recommended Approval Ot Mr. Berg showed the exact location of the proposed subdiv- ision to the Members, Mr. Berg read the following telegram to the Members from Mr. David Zeiger: "Per your letter of June 24, I am pleased to report the following; Topographic characteristics of this property both from an engineering and sanitation standpoint preclude any alternative design. Care ful and thorough engineering studies conclude that the submitted design is the only proper way to pro- vide adequate drainfields for the lots in question. And the Health Department has concurred that this design satisfies their requirements. Cordially and Sincerely, IS/ David L. Zeiger" Mr, Berg stated that the lots meet all zoning and frontage regulations. Mr. Gordon asked how many lots had been approved up to date. Mr. Zeiger stated that there have been 15 lots approved. Upon motion made by Richard Madigan, seconded by Langdon Gordon and approved unanimously, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does hereby recommend approval, PUBLIC HEARINGS AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPT- ED NOVEMBER 1, 1973 TO REZONE 1144,297 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OF J, L. BOWMAN AND F. L, GLAIZE, III, FRONTING 920.57 FEET ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE 277 (BEGINNING APPROXIMATELY 1.45 MILES EAST OF INTERSECTION WITH ROUTE 636) AND BOUNDED BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY-CLARKE COUNTY LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 6000 FEET, MORE OR LESS, (BEGINNING APPROXIMATELY ,53 MILES SOUTH OF ROUTE 277); IN OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT; FROM AGRICULTURAL, GENERAL (A-2) TO RESIDENTIAL RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY (R-5), Recommended Approval Mr, Madigan stated that there will probably be some legal questions that will need to be answered by the Planning Commis- /� -5- sion's attorney, therefore the following motion was made: Upon motion made by Richard Madigan, seconded by Elmer Venskoske and approved unanimously, including the Chairman, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does hereby send for our attorney and have him present during this meeting. Mr. Berg stated that the office was notified this morning that the Commission's attorney would not be present. Upon motion made by Richard Madigan, seconded by James Goll- aday and unanimously approved, including the Chairman, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does hereby move that the Commission in- form the Board of Supervisors of our request for a county attorney and ask them to make provisions to furnish us with an attorney at all of our meetings, especially our Public Hearings. Mr. Berg read the application of James L. Bowman and Fred L. Glaize, III to the Members, Mr, Billy J. Tisinger appeared before the Commission repre- senting Mr. J. L. Bowman and Mr. M. L, Glaize,Ill in their re- quest for rezoning from Agricultural, General (A-2) to Residential Recreational Community (R-5). Mr. Tisinger stated that a Master Plan for the development ----;` ev�c. has been drawn. The frontage is approximately 900 feet on Route�� 277 between Stephens City and Double Tollgate and approximately 6000 feet on Route 522 in Clarke County. He also stated that there are 1196 acres with approximately 1144 acres in Frederick County and approximately 50-60 acres in Clarke County.. He further stated that this appears to be the first application to the new Zoning Ordinance with someone attempting to rezone from Agricul- tural to R-5 (Residential-Recreational._._.C.ommunity). Mr. Tisinger��� added thaattia requirement of this Section is that a master plan be s -------------- presented to the Commission for a recommendation; then sent on to - �3 C) - 6 - the Board of Supervisors for approval or disapproval, Mr, Tis- inger stated that, if approved, that developers will appear be- fore the Planning Commission with preliminary plans to show how the Master Plan can be implemented, He said that the Master Plan is thensent to the Board of Supervisors for final approval. Mr. Tisinger stated that a dam is presently being construct- ed that will provide approximately 135 acres of lake, He further stated that, as required, 35% of the entire area will be set a - AL for recreational or open space, Mr, Tisinger stated that some 350 acres, if approved, would _&tv be set aside for recreational or open -land areas. Ick �s-Z. Mr. Tisinger stated that it is contemplated --that the area will be served by a central water and sewer system to be located on the property. He said that something may be worked out with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority if the development it- self and the neighboring area would justify the extension of water and sewer lines. Mr. Tisinger stated that the developers do not anticipate this becoming a permanent home residence area; but rather, that it be attractive -for those who want a second home. Mr. Tisinger further stated that forty (40) acres will be set aside initially for townhouses and multi -family dewllings (2 areas of 20 acres each). He said the developers will change their plans should these townhouses not be attractive or compat- ible. He further stated that there are two six (6)-acre village centers planned, He added that the developers intend to preserve the environment within their application, Mr, Tisinger stated that the dam is approximately 70% com- plete and the developers hope it will be finished in 1 to 1-1/2 years. He added that there will be about 7-1/2 miles of shore / ' -7- frontage on the lake, Richard Madigan asked of the possibility of condominiums. Mr. Tisinger replied that this possibility has not yet been discussed, Mr, Madigan asked for a description of the village centers, Mr. Tisinger replied that they will contain supporting -type services; such as shops and small grocery stores, Mr. Madigan asked the number of individual lots planned, Mr, Tisinger replied that there will be approximately 1500 to 1800 lots including the townhouses, N The Chairman asked about the "area impact" anticipated with this project and the amount of time before completion, Mr, Fred Glaize, III stated that it would be many years be- fore total completion, He also stated that it is too large an area to submit final plans at this time for the entire tract --it will be developed in portions, Mr. Richard Madigan asked for a Master Plan in relation to impact, He also asked for a Master Plan in relation to antici- pated County services required and anticipated County profit po- `� ten 1 (taxes less services equalling profit potential) per year, d� Mr, Richard Madigan asked about the restrictive covenants. Mr. Tisinger stated that the only way to provide proper pro- tection for the people in the subdivision is to put restrictive covenants in the deed. James Bowman stated that the plan to put in a sewage system to serve the entire area would include approximately 2000 acres (everything south of Route 277). He further stated they intend tr�f to ask the Sanitation Authority to build a sewage plant after guaranteed feasibility is p.r.oven. He added that the proven feas- ibility would have to include adjoining landowners, Mr. Bowman i -8- also said that the same procedure would be used for water lines that would be laid down Route_2-7-7, The Chairman asked if these facilities were to be public or private. Mr. Bowman stated that these facilities were anticipated to be public, ------------------ Richard Madigan stated that he would like to have a Flow Process Chart as soon as possible to use as a tentative schedule of development plans, Mr. Tisinger stated that he would be glad to supply this information of the "concept", (These are not either prelimin- ary or final plans.) etc. Langdon Gordon asked the number of lots planned per block, Mr. Tisinger replied that the answer will be incorporated in the Flow Process Chart, OPPOSITION Virgil Bates stated his opinion that there should be an amendment to the application for rezoning of approximately 6000 feet of frontage in Clarke County. Mr. Bates asked if the sewage leakage from Sandy's Trailer Park would contaminate the proposed lake and what would happen to Sandy's lagoon. Roy Williams (Health Department) stated that he was not aware of the contamination problem, Mr. Bates asked what would happen to the dam if this appli- cation is disapproved or sewage plant is not approved, He stated that Mr, Brad Chewning of State Water Control Board (as of 1:15 PM today) had stated that there are no State standards for dam struc- turaI specifications and no governing body with the authority of -9- approval, Charles H. Shockley asked about water pollution resulting, James Giles (sp) stated that the dam has stopped the flow of water to the stream that is his water source. James Bowman stated that there is no water anywhere --the stream is dried up, Mason Larwood asked what effect the projects would have on Route 636 and adjacent roads, James Bowman stated that there would be two (2) entrances: Route 277 entrance and Route 522 entrance, He added that Route 636 is a temporary construction entrance, Virgil Bates stated that "concepts" are extremely dangerous in his opinion without everything being detailed for decision makers. He added that the market is declining from second home projects, Mr. Bates questioned the theory that security need not be provided from outside the complex, He stated that the Sheriff's Department of Clarke County spends 2/3 of its time in Greenway (sp) District which lies along the Warren County border where Shenandoah Farms, Shenandoah Shores, Shenandoah River of Lake River Estates are located. He said that these communities have a great problem with vandalism and burglary, He further stated that it was his feeling that the surrounding landowners experienced increased vulnerability to these crimes without the private security force of the complex for protection, He said that Shenandoah Farms no longer has its own security force because of the expense. He asked if there would be a "binding" for 100 years, for example. He also said that a never-ending entity (or comparable) providing for security may be necessary as well as an explanation of how to A I finance the security force, -10- He also said that the exceptions would be bankruptcy and sqecific arrangements with the property owners within the subdivision, Bill Tisinger stated that the land could be developed in five (5)-acre tracts and not have to go through this problem. Richard Madigan stated that they can develop the land in / large tracts without asking for approval and feels that it is best to achieve the best possible method of development, Upon motion made by Richard Madigan, seconded by James W.- Golladay, and unanimously approved, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does hereby recommend to the Board of Supervisors the approval of the master plan for Wheatland Re- creational Subdivision R-5 with these stipulations: That they provide information to the Planning Commission a flow process chart projecting the development stages of pop- ulation impactf tax revenues and cost of services, sectional ?development, plans on sewer and water, roads and other amenities within the subdivision. SHACKELFORD REZONING AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPT- ED NOVEMBER 1, 1973 TO REZONE 12.692 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OF S. L, SHACKELFORD ESTATE, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 642, APPROX- IMATELY SIX -TENTHS (6/10) MILES SOUTH OF KERNSTOWN INTERCHANGE 79; IN BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT; FROM RESIDENTIAL, LIMITED (R-2) TO BUSINESS, GENERAL (B-2). Recommended Denial H. Ronald Berg stated that he had been on the site and that no sign was posted, Mr. Richard Madigan stated that he would not participate in any way with this application for rezoning. The Chairman asked if a sign was posted on the property. Herbert Shackelford appeared before the Commission stating that it was posted on Wednesday, July 16th, He further stated that the application was made on Friday, July llth; check was ��� (c ge wording as re 'red) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY RES. NO. Regular Meeting 198 RE: RECREATIONAL AREA ACCESS ROADS FUNDS - Frederick County Public Fishing Lake and Recreation Area. ^ WHEREAS, the Frederick County Public Fishing Lake and Recreation Area is owned and is to be developed by the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries of Virginia as a recreational facility serving the residents of- County and adjoining counties; and WHEREAS, the facility is in need of adequate access: and WHEREAS, the procedure governing the allocation of recreational access funds are set forth in Section 33-136.3, Code of Virginia, 1966, as amended, requires joint action by the Commission of Outdoor Recreation and the Highway Commission: and WHEREAS, a statement of policy agreed upon between the said Commissions approves the use of such funds for the construction of access roads to publicly -owned recreational areas or historical sites: and WHEREAS, it appears to the Board that all requirements of the law have been met to permit the Commission of Outdoor Recreation to designate the Frederick County Fishing Lake as a recreational facility and further permit the Virginia Highway Commission to provide funds for access to this public recreation area in accordance with Section 33-136.3, Code of Virginia, 1966, as amended: NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of County hereby request the Commission of Outdoor Recreation to designate the Frederick County Fishing, Lake as a public recreational area; and to recommend to the State High- way Commission that recreational access funds be allocated for an access road to serve said Public Fishing Lake and Recreation Area; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Virginia Highway Commission is hereby requested to allocate the necessary recreational access funds to provide a suitable access road as hereinbefore described. A Certified Copy THE COMMISSIONERS postponed setting a date for a public hearing on the proposed Land Use Plan after receiving a petition signed by owners of land west of Rt. 37 opposing the planners' desire to classify the land as agricultural. Seventh District Rep. J. . Kenneth Robinson and Winchester Mayor Stewart Bell were among the signers of the petition. The commission voted to hold another work session on Aug. 20 at 2 p.m. to con- sider the petitioners' request. Prior to holding any public hearings, the Planners unanimously approved a resolution calling on the board of super- visors to insure that a county attorney is present at all future meetings of the commission. The resolution came after the planners learned that they would not have services of counsel yesterday. COMMISSION chairman Keith Williams said that "we haven't seen an attorney since the first meeting in -January." Madigan asked, "What are we paying these men for?" County Planner Ronald Berg told the planners that he had not learned until Yesterday morning that they would not have legal counsel present. County Attorney Lawrence Ambrogi is in Virginia Beach attending the Com- monwealth Attorney's Seminar. He left word yesterday through the county ad- ministrator's . office that his assistant, Clinton Ritter, should be reminded that he must attend the commission meeting. Ritter received that message yesterddy and later informed Berg he would not be at the meeting. County Administrator J.O. Renalds said today that both Ritter and Whitacre were in court yesterday. IN OTHER action, the commissioners denied a request from S.L. Shackleford to rezone approximately 12 acres of land on the east side of Rt. 642 south of Kernstown from residential limited to general business. Only commissioner James Golladay voted for the rezoning, A request to rezone 3.5.3 acres of land on Rt.11 north near the intersection of Rt. 761 from general agricultural to general business was sent to the supervisors with a recommendation for approval. The planners also recommended the approval of the rezoning. Wheatlands SUBDIVISION