PC_09-05-90_Meeting_Minutes• MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester,
Virginia on September 5, 1990.
PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman;
Beverly Sherwood, Vice - Chairman; Carl M. McDonald, Gainesboro District;
S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Manual C. DeHaven, Stonewall District;
Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Citizen at Large; George L. Romine, Citizen at
Large; and Roger L. Thomas, Citizen at Large.
Absent: John Marker, Back Creek District; Douglas Rinker, Citizen at
Large; Kenneth Y. Stiles, Board Liaison
Winchester City Liaison: Joseph Kalbach
Planning Staff present were: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary; Kris C.
Tierney; W. Wayne Miller; and Evan Wyatt.
CALL TO ORDERIMINUTES
Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The first order
of business was the consideration of the minutes of July 18, 1990. Upon motion made
by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Wilson, the minutes of July 18, 1990 were
unanimously approved as presented. The next order of business was the consideration
of the minutes of August 1, 1990. Upon motion made by Mr. McDonald and seconded
by Mr. DeHaven, the minutes of August 1, 1990 were unanimously approved as
presented.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
information.
Chairman Golladay accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's
COMMITTEE REPORTS
• Ordinance Subcommittee - 8120/90 Mtg.
3174
• 2
Mr. McDonald reported that the Subcommittee discussed buffers along
roads and worked on the subdivision ordinance.
SANITATION AUTHORITY - 8/20/90
Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the Stephens City quarry drilling is in
progress and should be completed by mid - September. The Sanitation Authority Director
has been given permission to advertise for bids on the Stonewall water storage tank.
The Sanitation Director has not yet received approval from the City on the water line
to Camp 7. 7 /10ths acre is being purchased from the school board in the Stephens City
area for a one - million gallon water storage tank.
HISTORICAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
Mr. Roger Thomas reported that a presentation was given by Shiho Builders
on the historical aspects on the site of the proposed Twin Lakes rezoning. Mr. Thomas
said that the HRAB Subcommittee felt there were no negative impacts. The other action
taken was to formulate tentative propositions to present to the Planning Commission and
Board on reserving an historical area in the county.
SITE PLANS
Site Plan #048 -90 of Oakcrest Builders, Inc. for an office building at the intersection
of Route 644 and Route 50 in the Shawnee District.
Action - Approved
Chairman Golladay turned the chair over to Vice Chairman Sherwood due
to a possible conflict of interest.
Mr. Wyatt noted that the applicant has proposed more parking spaces than
required by the ordinance. It was noted that the applicant planned to surface only the
parking spaces required by the ordinance, but would not surface over that amount. The
unpaved spaces would be located at the rear of the building and used for employee
parking.
Mr. Scott Marsh, project engineer with G. W. Clifford & Associates,
presented the site plan to the Commission.
• Vice Chairman Sherwood asked if a residence was located on this property.
Mr. Marsh said that the rezoning line split the residence and it was proffered that the
3175
• 3
house would be maintained as a residential use only.
The Commissioners felt that the unpaved parking to the rear of the
structure was acceptable.
Upon motion made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously approve Site Plan #048 -90 of Oakcrest Builders, Inc. for an office building
to be located at the intersection of State Route 644 and US Route 50, on the west side
of US 50 and the south side of State Route 644 in the Shawnee District.
REVIEW OF FOREST LAKE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
Mr. Wyatt presented a request from Austin Brockenbrough & Associates
for approval of the expansion of the sewage treatment plant at Forest Lake Estates to
increase the capacity of the existing 40,000 gallon per day system to a 150,000 gallon
per day system. This increase would allow for a total of 500 mobile home spaces with
the ultimate build -out for this park being 491 spaces.
Mr. Randy Dardon, engineer with Austin Brockenbrough & Associates, said
that the existing mobile home park contains about 114 sites. In order to submit a
request for a Virginia Pollution Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Permit, it is
required that the local governing body issue a statement that the use and location of the
treatment plant is in accordance with local zoning laws.
Mr. Watkins said that the issue here is whether this sewage treatment plant
was in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the staff felt that it was not.
However, a court order was in effect which superceded the staffs concern. Basically, it
stated that the Board of Supervisors did not have the authority to prevent the
establishment of a central water and sewer system, so long as it was constructed in
compliance with and approved by the Sate Water Control Board, because the Sanitation
Authority had previously approved the sewage treatment plant and a conditional use
permit for the construction of the mobile home park had also been approved by the
Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Watkins said that the other issue of concern is whether the treatment
plant should be dedicated to a public authority as specified in the May 1990
Comprehensive Plan of Frederick County.
The Commission stipulated that the expansion of the sewage treatment plant
should only serve the Forest Lake Estates mobile home park and not surrounding
subdivisions.
Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. McDonald,
3176
• 4
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
determine that the request for expansion of the Forest Lake Sewage Treatment Plant is
in conformance with Frederick County Policy and the Frederick County Comprehensive
Plan and will strictly serve the 491 lots at the Forest Lake Estates Mobile Home Park.
The vote was as follows:
YES (TO APPROVE): Romine, Wilson, Sherwood, McDonald, Copenhaver, Golladay,
NO: Thomas, DeHaven,
Rezoning Application #004 -90 of 'Irvin Lakes /Loggia Development, to rezone 5.1± acres
from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) and 391.35± acres from RA (Rural
Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for detached single - family dwellings, townhouses,
a school site and commercial uses located in the Shawnee District.
Action - Denied
Mr. Watkins noted that the applicant on this rezoning application changed
from Loggia Development Company to the Towers Company. Mr. Watkins said that
the owners, who are members of the Towers Company, have remained unchanged and
therefore, he felt that the application was still valid.
Mr. Watkins presented revised comments from the Greenwood Volunteer
Fire Company and the Parks and Recreation Department. He also read the latest
proffer statement submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Watkins also read comments from C. Robert Solenberger, Chairman
of the Service Authority, who stated that the Authority is, in concept, agreeable to the
location of a road right -of -way across the regional plant site as long as the road has
minimal effect on long term expansion, will not have impacts on continued operations
of the facilities and is conditioned upon satisfactory negotiation for the value of the
right -of -way conveyed.
Mr. Watkins next read a letter from Douglas Rinker, Citizen at Large
member of the Planning Commission, who was unable to attend this meeting. Upon
motion made by Mr. McDonald and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the letter was made a
part of the record. (letter at end of minutes)
Mr. Watkins said that the staffs most outstanding concern was the impacts
on county facilities. He felt that developments should not be approved in urban
development areas when they will have obvious undue impacts. Staff felt that the
• applicant had not adequately dealt with the impacts and that those impacts remain.
3177
0 5
Mr. Charlie Whitley, with Loggia Developments, and Mr. John Schulman
of Tower Companies, were present to represent the rezoning application.
Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., project engineer with G. W. Clifford and
Associates, presented the plan to the Commission. Mr. Maddox pointed out that the
applicant had addressed the transportation issue as requested by the Planning
Commission, with the Route 7 /Senseny Road link. He also noted the applicant's proffer
of a wastewater pumping station and interceptor system to serve the 1,200 acre urban
development area, which would be dedicated to the Service Authority, and the extension
of water service to Route 7.
The Commissioners were concerned about the traffic situation on Senseny
Road. The developers had stated that before the 181st lot is transferred, that the Route
7 /Senseny Road link would be under contract to be built. Some members of the
Commission felt that the connection needed to be made prior to development because
of the terrible traffic condition of Senseny Road at the present time.
Chairman Golladay called for public comment and the following persons
came forward to speak in favor of the rezoning:
Mr. Walt Cunningham, Public Safety Officer for Greenwood Fire Company,
was in favor of the rezoning because the proffers would enable the fire company to
purchase new equipment and the Senseny Road /Rt. 7 link and water service to Route
7 would benefit the fire company with its fire and rescue services.
The following people spoke in opposition to the rezoning:
Ms. Claudia Bean, speaking for the Citizens for a Quality Community, was
opposed to this rezoning because of the traffic impacts on Senseny road and she also
felt that Frederick County could not support this development at this time. Ms. Bean
felt that if the project were approved, that development should commence near Route
7 and not Senseny Road.
Ms. Leslie Hubard, resident of Bedford Village, felt that Frederick County
did not have enough jobs to support people who would move into this development. She
felt that most of the people living here would commute to the Washington, D.C. area
for employment.
Mr. John Doherty, resident of Rolling Hills subdivision and member of the
Citizens for a Quality Community, felt that the Senseny Road area could not handle
additional development. He was concerned about traffic congestion and speeding along
Senseny Road. He also felt that the bulk of the traffic on Senseny Road was headed
east towards Washington, D.C.
The Commission again discussed the traffic congestion on Senseny Road.
is Some of the Commissioners felt that the Route 7 /Senseny Road connection was an
excellent opportunity to alleviate traffic problems on Senseny Road, especially since the
3178
6
® entire length of the connector would be taken care of with this single developer. Other
Commissioners agreed, but felt that the road needed to be in place before any
construction took place. Other Commissioners were concerned that the developer had
not adequately addressed impacts on public facilities, especially education and recreation.
Mr. Wilson moved to approve the rezoning with proffers. This motion was
seconded by Mr. Romine, but was defeated by the following vote:
YES (TO APPROVES Romine, Wilson, DeHaven
NO: McDonald, Copenhaver, Sherwood, Thomas, Golladay
Rezoning Application #008 -90 of the Wiseman /Shiho tract to rezone 52.7418 acres from
RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) and 20.0000 acres from RA (Rural Areas)
to B3 (Industrial Transition) in the Opequon /Shawnee Districts.
Action - Tabled until October 3, 1990
Staff presented a letter from the applicant requesting that the rezoning be
tabled until October 3, 1990.
Upon motion made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously agree to table Rezoning Application #008 -90 of the Wilson /Shiho tract until
the October 3, 1990 Planning Commission meeting.
Conditional Use Permit #014 -90 of Apple Tree Market (R. Jack & Donna D. Black) for
a seasonal retail market to be located one mile west of Route 37, on Route 50 West,
in the Gainesboro District.
Action - Approved
Mr. R. Jack Black and Mrs. Donna D. Black were present to answer
questions from the Commission.
Upon motion made by Mr. McDonald and seconded by Mrs. Copenhaver,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #014 -90 of R. Jack and
Donna D. Black T/A Apple Tree Market for a seasonal retail market in the Gainesboro
District with the following conditions:
3179
• 1. This is a one year permit to be reviewed and renewed annually by the staff, the
Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors. Renewal would be subject
to continued compliance with Virginia Department of Transportation entrance
requirements and Health Department water quality standards.
2. An occupancy permit for the Use Group "M" Mercantile, Section 308.0 of the 1987
BOCA National Building Code must be maintained for the structure.
Conditional Use Permit #015 -90 of Kenneth D. and Theresa Kovach T/A K. T. Design
and Prototype for the operation of a drafting/ofrrce /workshop to make small tools and
prototypes.
Action - Approved
Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth D. Kovach were present to answer questions from
the Commission.
Because of the nature of the machinery involved and the associated
electrical demand, the staff was concerned about potential adverse impacts on
surrounding residential properties. Staff was also concerned that the garage floor may
not be structurally adequate to support the machinery.
In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Kovach supplied the
following information: Ferrous and non - ferrous metals would be used; waste materials
would be minimal and would be disposed of at the Frederick County landfill; no
chemicals would be used in daily operations; the total amp reach and horsepower rating
of the metal working machinery would be less than that of the woodworking machinery
currently located in Mr. Kovach's home; a study conducted by Kieth Williams concluded
that there should not be any structural or electrical problems with the Kovach's home
for this type operation.
Mrs. Evan Shoemaker, resident of Fredericktowne, said that her property
faces Mr. Kovach's property. She felt this operation was not suitable for a residential
neighborhood.
Ms. Mary Leave, resident of Fredericktowne, also felt that this type of
business was not suitable for a residential neighborhood.
The Commission felt that as long as the operation was occurring inside the
residence with no outside evidence of the activities taking place, as long as the operation
was not noisy or offensive to adjoining property owners, and as long as the structural
and electrical aspects of the structure met code requirements, Mr. Kovach's business
would be acceptable as a home occupation.
Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Wilson,
3180
•
0
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #015 -90 of Kenneth D. and
Theresa Kovach T/A K. T. Design and Prototype for a cottage occupation for
drafting /office /workshop to make small tools and prototypes with the following
conditions:
1. An occupancy permit for the Use Group "F" Factory (Section 305.0 of the 1987
BOCA National Building Code) be maintained for the applicable portions of this
structure. An engineer's assurances concerning the structural adequacy of the floor
and acceptability of the expected level of electrical and electromagnetic
interference would be a condition for issuing a Certificate of Occupancy.
2. That the machine work area be maintained in compliance with the Virginia State
Fire Prevention Code at all times and be subject to inspection during normal
working hours.
3. No exterior storage of materials, no exterior display (signs), no outside employees
associated with this use.
4. Hours of machinery operation shall not be earlier than 9:00 am or later than 9:00
pm.
5. This permit will be subject to annual review and renewal by the staff, the Planning
Commission, and the Board of Supervisors.
6. If the use, occupancy or ownership of the dwelling changes, this permit shall
expire.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR LOTS IN THE RURAL
AREAS ZONING DISTRICT
Action - Approved
Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously recommend approval of the ordinance to amend Chapter 21 of the
Frederick County Code, Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, Rural Areas District, Section 4-
4, Dimensional Requirements, as follows:
4 -4 -4 LOT WIDTH
is Any lot containing less than five (5) acres shall have a minimum width of
one hundred and fifty (150) feet at the front setback line and in no case
3181
9
• shall the maximum length of the new lot exceed three (3) times the width
of the lot measured at the front setback line. Lots of five (5) acres or
more in area shall meet the following requirements:
4 -4 -4.1 Lots of five (5) acres or more in area shall have a minimum width of two
hundred and twenty (220) feet at the front setback line.
4 -4 -4.2 On lots of five (5) acres or more in area, the maximum length of the lot
shall not exceed four (4) times the width of the lot measured at the front
setback line.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEE SCHEDULE TO
PROVIDE A REDUCED FEE FOR SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISIONS WHICH DO
NOT REQUIRE ENGINEERING REVIEW.
Action - Approved
Upon motion made by Mr. McDonald and seconded by Mrs. Sherwood,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously recommend approval of the ordinance amending the Frederick County
Development Review Fee Schedule to provide a reduced fee for site plans and
subdivisions which do not need engineering review as follows:
The Zoning Administrator may decide that certain site plans, with no change of use,
no significant increase in impervious surface, no new entrance to a public road, or no
significant intensification of the use, do not need to be reviewed by the County Engineer.
In such cases, the development review fee for the site plan shall be as follows:
11
The Subdivision Administrator may decide that certain subdivisions, with no new roads
proposed or required, no need for additional stormwater management measures and no
more than five lots, do not need to be reviewed by the County Engineer. In such cases,
the development review fee shall be as follows:
$250 plus $35 per lot
n
3182
10
• AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ORDINANCE
Action - Approved
Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously recommend approval of the amendments to the Frederick County Code,
Chapter 8, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance, in response to changes to the
Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Law as follows:
•
3183
10A
• AMENDMENT
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
APPROVALS:
PLANNING COMMISSION Appnaved September 5, 1990
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
CHAPTER 8, EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, An ordinance to amend Chapter 8, Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Ordinance, of the Frederick County Code in
response to changes to the Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Law, was referred to the Planning Commission on September
5, 1990; and,
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
ordinance amendment on September 5, 1990; and,
WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this
ordinance amendment on September 12th 1990; and,
WHEREAS, The Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds thi's
ordinance amendment to be in the best interest of the public
health, safety, welfare, convenience and in good zoning practice;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board
of Supervisors that Chapter 8, Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Ordinance, of the Frederick County Code is amended in response to
• changes to the Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Law, as
follows:
3184
108
CHAPTER S
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
ARTICLE I
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
1 -1 PURPOSE OF CHAPTER
8 -1 -1
The purpose of this chapter is to provide for the control of erosion and
sedimentation both during and following development, and to establish
procedures for the administration and enforcement of such controls.
1 -2 APPLICATION OF CHAPTER
Except as provided for in Section 1 -4, no person may engage in any land
disturbing activity until such person has submitted to the county an erosion
and sediment control plan which has been reviewed and approved by the
County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Officer, and has obtained a land
disturbance permit for such activity.
1 -3 NON - CONTROLLED ACTIVITIES
In no instance shall the provisions of this chapter be construed to apply to
the following:
1 -3 -1 Such minor land disturbing activities as home gardens and individual home
landscaping, repairs and maintenance work;
1 -3 -2 Individual service connections;
1 -3 -3 Installation, maintenance, or repair of any underground public utility lines
when such activity occurs on an existing hard surfaced road, street or
sidewalk provided the land disturbing activity is confined to the area of the
road, street or sidewalk which is hard surfaced;
1 -3 -4 Septic tank lines or drainage fields unless included in an overall plan for
land disturhing activity relating to construction of the building to be served
by the septic tank system.
1 -3 -5 Surface or deep mining;
3185
10C
• 8 -1 -2
1 -3 -6 Exploration or drilling for oil and gas including the well site, roads, feeder
lines and off site disposal areas;
1 -3 -7 Repair or rebuilding of the tracks, right -of -ways, bridges, communication
facilities and other related structures and facilities of a railroad company;
1 -3 -8 -_ .- ..- Preparation for... single- family. residences _ separately built, unless in
conjunction with multiple construction in subdivision development;
1 -3 -9 Disturbed areas for commercial or noncommercial uses of less than ten
thousand square feet in size;
1 -3 -10 Installation of fence and sign posts or telephone and electric poles and
other kinds of posts or poles;
1 -3 -11 Emergency work to protect life, limb or property and emergency repairs;
provided that, if the land disturbing would have required an approved
erosion and sediment control plan or if the activity were not an emergency,
then the land area disturbed shalt be shaped and stabilized in accordance
with the requirement of the local plan approved authority;
1 -3 -12 Tilling, planting, or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural, or forest crops
or livestock feedlot operations, agricultural engineering operations including
but not limited to the construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams,
desilting basins, dikes, ponds, not required to comply with the Dam Safety
Act, Chapter 8.1 (Sec. 62.1 -115.1 et seq.), ditches, strip cropping, lister
furrowing, contour cultivation, contour furrowing, land drainage and land
irrigation.
1 -4 REGULATED LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES
1 -4 -1 Except as provided in paragraphs 1 -5 -2 and 1 -5 -3, no person shalt engage
in any disturbing activity after the adoption of this chapter until he has
submitted to the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Officer an erosion and
sediment plan for such land disturbing activity and until that plan has been
reviewed and approved by the Officer.
1 -4 -2 Any state agency that undertakes a project involving a land disturbing
activity will file specifications or a conservation plan with the Virginia Soil
and Water Conservation Board for a review.
1 -4 -3 Any person whose land disturbing activities involve lands which extend into
the jurisdiction of another local erosion and sediment control program is
not required to submit a local plan, provided such person has a plan
approved by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board.
3186
10D
• 8 -1 -3
14-4 Whenever a land disturbing activity is proposed to be conducted by a
contractor performing construction work pursuant to a construction contract,
the preparation, submission and approval of the required erosion and
sediment control plan shall be the responsibility of the owner of the land.
1 -4 -5 In -order to prevent further erosion the plan approving authority may require
approval of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for any land
identified as an erosion impact area.
1 -5 PLAN SUBMISSION
1 -5 -1 Five copies of the erosion and sediment_ control plan shall be submitted to
the plan approving authority.
1 -6 MONITORING, REPORTS AND INSPECTIONS
1 -6 -1 LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES WHERE A PERMIT IS ISSUED -
With respect to erosion and sediment control where a land disturbance
permit is issued, either the permit - issuing authority or plan approving
authority shall periodically inspect the land disturbing activity and the plan
approving authority may require reports from the person responsible for
carrying out the plan to ensure compliance with the approved plan and to
determine whether the measures required in the plan are effective in
controlling erosion and sediment resulting from the land disturbing activities.
The owner, occupier or operator shall be given an opportunity to
accompany the inspectors.
1 -7 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN
1 -7 -1 The erosion and sedimentation control plan shall follow the format detailed
in the current edition of the "Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook."
1 -7 -2 Approved standards and specifications for control techniques to he utilized
in preparing this plan are set forth in State Minimum Criteria, Standards
and Specifications of the . current edition of the "Virginia Erosion and
Sediment Control Handbook."
1 -7 -3 The above requiretnents are included in the county erosion and .sediment
0 control program.
3187
HE
•
8 -1 -4
1 -8 APPROVAL OF PLANS
The plan- approving authority will act on all plans submitted within forty -
five days from receipt thereof by either approving said plan in writing or
by disapproving said plan in writing and giving the specific reasons for its
disapproval. When a plan submitted for approval under this section is
found upon review by the plan approving authority to be inadequate, the
authority shall specify such modifications, terms and conditions as will
permit approval of the plan and communicate these requirements to the
applicant as herein required. If no action is taken by the plan- approving
authority within the time specified above, the _plan shall be deemed
approved and the person authorized to proceed with the proposed activity.
is
1 -9 BONDING OF PERFORMANCE
1 -9 -1 Prior to the issuance of any land disturbance permit, the plan approving
authority may require from any applicant a reasonable performance bond,
cash escrow, letter of credit, any combination thereof or such other legal
arrangement as is acceptable to the authority, to insure that emergency
measures could be taken by the county at the applicants expense should
he fail within the time specified to initiate appropriate conservation action
which may be required of him as a result of this land disturbing activity.
In addition, the applicant will be held responsible for any costs incurred by
the county for corrective measures taken to correct problems resulting from
said project which exceed the amount held for such purposes.
1 -9 -1.1 Within sixty (60) days of site stabilization, verified by final field inspection,
any bond, cash escrow, letter of credit or other legal arrangement or the
unexpended or unobligated portion thereof, shall be refunded to the
applicant or terminated, as the case may be.
1 -9 -2 Any applicant aggrieved by a decision of the permit- issuing authority with
respect to the terms or requirements of such a performance bond or surety,
if required, may cause that decision to be reviewed by the Board of
Supervisors provided a notice of appeal is filed with the permit - issuing
authority within ten days after such decision. The appeal shall be
considered by the Board of Supervisors at its next regular meeting which
occurs no less that five days after receipt of the notice of appeal by the
permit - issuing authority.
IM
10F
E
1 -10 ISSUANCE OF LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT AND FEES
5 -1 -5
1 -10 -1 Except as provided in Section 1 -4, no person shall engage in any land
disturbing activity as defined in Section 1 -3 within the county until he has
acquired a land disturbing permit.
1 -10 -2 Issuance of a land disturbance permit is conditioned on an approved erosion
and sediment control plan and certification that the plan will be followed
which shall be presented at the time of application for such a permit. In
addition, the requirements of Section 1 -10, concerning a performance bond,
cash escrow, letter of credit, any combination thereof or such other legal
arrangement as is acceptable under the provisions of Section 1 -10, shall be
met and the fees herein levied for land disturbing activities shall be paid.
1 -10 -3 A schedule for plan review and inspection fees may be adopted by the
Board of Supervisors.
1 -11 AMENDMENTS TO PLANS
An approved erosion and sedimentation plan may be amended by the plan -
approving authority if:
1) on -site inspection indicates that the approved control measures are not
effective in meeting the standards set forth in the State Minimum Criteria,
Standards and Specifications of the current edition of the "Virginia Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Handbook."
2) due to changed circumstances or for other reasons the approved plan
cannot be effectively carried out, and proposed amendments to the plan,
consistent with the requirements of this chapter, are agreed to by the plan
approving authority and the person responsible for carrying out the plan.
1 -12 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL: JUDICIAL REVIEW
Decisions of the administrator under this chapter shall not he the final
decision of the county, but shall he subject to review by the Board of
Supervisors. The decision of the Board of Supervisors shall be the final
decision of the county.
1 -12 -1 Final decisions of the Board of Supervisors under this chapter shall be
subject to review by the circuit court of the county, provided an appeal is
filed within thirty days from the date of the final written decision.
IOG
•
1 -13 PENALTIES INJUNCTIONS AND OTHER LEGAL ACTIONS
3 -1 -6
1 -13 -1 In accordance with Section 1 -.1 -569, of the Code of Virginia, as amended,
a violation under this chapter shall be deemed a misdemeanor and upon
conviction shall be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or
thirty days imprisonment for each violation or both.
1- 13 -1.1 Any person who violates any provision of this chapter may be liable to the
county in a civil action for damages up to $2,000 for each violation.
1- 13 -1.2 Any person who violates any provision of this chapter may choose to pay
an administrative fine not to exceed $2,000 for each violation instead of
facing possible civil charges which may be imposed at the discretion of the
court if charges are filed by the plan approving authority.
1- 13 -1.3 If, as a result of a complaint or routine inspection, control measures at the
site of a land disturbing activity for which a permit has been issued; are
found not to be in compliance with the approved plan, or are determined
to be otherwise inadequate, the plan approving authority shall issue a notice
to comply. Such notice shall be sent by registered or certified mail to the
address specified. in the permit application or delivered to the site of the
land disturbance. The notice shall state the measures necessary to comply,
and specify the time permitted to complete the required measures. If the
specified measures are not completed within the allotted time, a stop work
order may be issued, the land disturbance permit revoked and or a criminal
complaint filed.
1- 13 -1.4 Where an alleged noncompliance with this ordinance or an approved
erosion and sedimentation control plan is causing, or is in imminent danger
of causing harmful erosion, a stop work order may be issued for a period
of seven (7) days whether or not a notice to comply has been issued to the
alleged violator as specified in section 1- 14 -1.2 above. Such an order shall
be issued in the same manner as a notice to comply.
1 -13 -2 The County may apply to the court of record in the jurisdiction wherein the
land lies, or to the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond should the lands
lie in more than one jurisdiction, for injunctive relief to enjoin a violation
or a threatened violation under this chapter without the necessity of showing
that there does not exist an adequate remedy at law.
1 -13 -3 The Commonwealth's Attornev shall, upon request of the county, take legal
0 action to enforce the provisions of this chapter.
3190
10I
• 8 -1 -8
1 -14 -9 GRADING - Any excavating or filling of earth materials or any
combination thereof, including the land in its excavated or filled condition.
1 -14 -10 LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY - Any land change which may result in
soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediments into waters
or onto lands including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, excavating,
transporting and filling of land.
1 -14 -11 LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT - A permit issued by the county for
clearing, filling excavating, grading or transporting or any combination
thereof.
1 -14 -12 OWNER - The owner or owners of the freehold of the premises or lesser
estate therein, a mortgagee or vendee in possession, assignee of rents,
receiver, executor, trustee lessee or other person, firm or corporation in
control of the property.
1 -14 -13 PERMITTEE - The person to whom the permit authorizing land disturbing
activities is issued or the person whom certifies that the approved erosion
and sediment control plan will be followed.
1 -14 -14 PLAN APPROVING AUTHORITY - The County Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Officer or any other member of the County staff
designated such authority by Board of Supervisors.
1 -14 -15 PERMIT ISSUING AUTHORITY - The angency designated by the Board
of Supervisors to issue Land Disturbance Permits.
1 -14 -16 PERSON - Any individual, partnership, firm, association, joint venture,
public or private corporation, trust, estate, commission, board, public or
private institution, utility, cooperative, town or other political subdivision
of the Commonwealth, any interstate body, or any other legal entity.
1 -14 -17 SUBDIVISION - For the purpose of this ordinance shall mean the division
of a parcel of land into two or more lots or parcels of less than five acres
each, or any division involving a new street.
1 -14 -18 TRANSPORTING - Any moving of earth materials from one place to
another, other than such movement incidental to grading, when such
movement results in destroying the vegetative ground cover, either by
tracking or the buildup of earth materials to the extent that erosion and
sedimentation will result from the soil or earth materials over which such
transporting occurs.
3191
10+1
0 s -1 -7
1 -13 -4 Compliance with the provisions of this chapter shall be prima facie evidence
in any legal or equitable proceedings for damages caused by erosion,
siltation or sedimentation that all requirements of law have been met and
the complaining party must show negligence in order to recover any
damages.
1 -14 DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of this chapter, certain terms and words used herein shall
be interpreted as follows:
1 -14 -1 ADMINISTRATOR - The official designated by the board to serve as its
agent to administer this chapter.
1 -14 -2 APPLICANT - Any person submitting an erosion and sediment control plan
for approval or requesting the issuance of a permit authorizing land
disturbing activities to commence.
1 -14 -3 CLEARING - Any activity which removes the vegetative ground cover
including, but not limited to, root mat removal or topsoil removal.
1 -14 -4 DISTRICT OR SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT - A
governmental subdivision of the state organized in accordance with the
provisions of the Soil Conservation District Law, Title 21, Chapter 1, Code
of Virginia, as amended.
1 -14 -5 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN OR PLANS - A
document containing material for the conservation of soil and water
resources of a unit or a group of units of land. It may include appropriate
maps and appropriate soil and. water plan inventory and management
information with needed interpretations and a record of decisions
contributing to conservation treatment. The "plan' shall contain all major
conservation decisions to assure that the entire unit or units of land will be
so treated to achieve the conservation objectives.
1 -14 -6 EROSION IMPACT AREA - An area of land not associated with the
current land_ disturbing activity but subject to persistent soil erosion resulting
in the delivery of sediment onto neighboring properties or into state waters,
not including any lot or parcel of land of one acre or less used for
residential purposes.
1 -14 -7 EXCAVATING - Any digging, scooping or other methods of removing earth
• materials.
1 -14 -3 FILLING - Any depositing or stockpiling of earth materials.
3192
10J
P
THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE IN EFFECT UPON ITS PASSAGE.
PASSED THIS 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1990.
A COPY TESTE
JOHN R. RILEY, .
FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
•
3193
11
0 TIME LIMIT ON RECEIVING PROFFERS FOR REZONINGS
Chairman Golladay requested that the staff present a policy statement
specifying a time limit for applicants submitting proffers for rezonings. The Commission
and staff decided to discuss the matter a the next Planning Commission worksession.
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned
at 10:00 p.m. by unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert W. Watkins, Secretary
zl dt4� W�' -, i
Ja es W. Golladay, Jr., liairman
E
3194
12
0
September 4, 1990
Dear Fellow Planning Commissioners:
I am unable to attend this Planning Commission Meeting
as a result of a sales training meeting in Fargo, North
Dakota. Hopefully, in my absence, this letter will serve
as my opinion regarding rezoning application # 004 -90 of
the Loggia Corporation.
While I grant that this particular property is within
the bounds of the Urban Development Area, it should be
noted:
1. Reasonable expectation to rezone is only when the
governing body has rationale to rezone. We do
riot have the infrastructure to justify this
rezoning application. The local elementary school
is already transferring students from this area
because of overcrowding.
2. While this property may eventually be rezoned, we
are the controlling interest as to when we as
planners think the best timing should be.
3. If we justify rezonings based upon offers of
roads then we have missed out on the reasons
behind rezoning land for the good of the public.
Is this rezoning in the time frame to help meet
our comprehensive plan goals?
4. While some would say it is only ''a matter of
time until we rezone this" we are the accelerator
and /or brake mechanism for the process . . .
•
At this time, we as a Planning Commission have little
justification for rezoning this property in an area without
the schools and related residential services necessary for
the standard of living we expect in Frederick County.
If present, I would without reservation, vote against
this rezoning application at this particular time.
Sincerely,
1 ug Rinker
3195