PC_02-24-81_Meeting_Minutes_WorksessionFREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
WORKSESSION MEETING
The Planning Commission Worksession was held on February 24,
1981.
PRESENT: All members were present.
The Planning Commission Chairman called the meeting to order.
The first item of business was to discuss the status of the
Six -Year Road Improvement Plan.
Members of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
present; Mr. W. H. Bushman, Resident Engineer; and Mr. R. C. King with
the local office of the Highway Department.
Mr. Riley informed the Commission that the Virginia Department of
Highways and Tranportation is required by the Code of Virginia,
Section 33.1 -70.01 to hold a public hearing with the Board of
Supervisors to review the proposed bugdet for the coming year and to
review priorities established in the Six -Year Road Improvement Plan
adopted in 1980. The procedure for public hearing will be to review
the proposed budget for the coming fiscal year and to determine if
that budget is in line with the priorities that were established in
the 1980 plan. The review process should be completed by the first of
April.
The Chairman next asked Mr. Bushman to comment on the status of
projects as listed in the Six -Year Road Improvement Plan. Mr. Bushman
reviewed the projects and are listed as follows:
Rt. 696 Timberidge Road
Rt. 622 Cedar Creek Grade
Rt. 681 Bridge Replacement
Rt. 642 Bridge over the Opequon Creek
Rt. 654 Middle Road
Rt. 628 Middle Road
1269
-2-
He indicated that all projects were on target. Route 659 which was in
the high priority in previous years, is under construction and should
be completed by this spring.
Mr. Bushman also submitted the SR6 documents which describe
various projects that are not included in the Six -Year Road
Improvement Plan, but are funded from alternative sources. Included
within this SR6 document was the Stine Industrial Park, the entrance
to G.E:., and the road to surface the park in Stephens City. In
summary the Planning Commission was informed by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation that the majority of
projects with high priorities were on target and proceeding with the
policy as outlined in the Six -Year Road Improvement Plan.
The Planning Commission was advised that allocations provided to
localities was decreasing rapidly. The decrease in allocations would
severly restrict the elimination of priority items in a timely manner.
Approximate fund available for Frederick County in the coming PY81 -82
year, would be around $600,000.00. Past funding levels indicate area
allocations to be approximately $1 million dollars. Last years
allocation was approximately $127,000.00. In looking at the over all
picture, the County will be operating at a discrepancy of $200,000.00
based on funding from the FY80 -81 year. Both the Virginia Deparment
of Highways and Transportation and the Planning Commission expressed a
concern about the availibility of funding for Frederick County's
Six -Year Road Improvement Plan, in that this is a major source of road
improvement form, not only for Frederick County, but all rural
Counties throughout the state. If the Highway Department indicated
that if these trends continue, there will be severe
1270
-3-
shortages in allocations available to rural Counties to improve their
secondary road systems.
Mr. Riley next raised the issue of Rt. 694, which is in the
Northwestern portion of the County. The description of construction
is to improve and hardsurface .3 of a mile from Route 522 North to Rt.
699. The project was dropped inadvertenly and not carried forward.
Mr. Riley noted that the past policy of the Planning Commission was to
carry projects forward that had been included in the Six -Year Road
Improvement Plan, but that had not started construction.
The Planning Commission felt that the issue should be addressed
by the Board and if the Board felt that it was appropriate, it could
be re- included in the Six -Year Road Improvement Plan for improvement
at some future date. As far as a high priority item, the Planning
Commission felt that the possibility exists that eventhough this road
might be re- included in the plan, that the likelihood of addressing
the issue, was somewhat unfeasible. The reasoning or the
justification for this reasoning, is evidence by the fact that
declining allocations for secondary road impovement projects in the
County for high priority items may not be accomplished and low
priority items such as Rt. 694, eventhough included in the Six -Year
Plan, may never be completed because of the lack of funding.
Upon conclusion of it's meeting with the Highway Department,
Vice - Chairman Brumback motioned to endorse the priorities set in the
81 -82 segment of the Six -Year Road Improvement Plan and to allow for
the continuation of priority projects, that were recommended in the
80 -81 adoption of the Frederick County Six -Year Road Improvement
Plan.
1271
Mr. Brumback also proposed a motion that the Board consider the
re- including of Rt. 694 in the Six -Year Road Improvement Plan based
upon the technical merits of this particular application and weighing
it against the priority items already set in the plan. The motion
further stated that the Planning Commission express concern about
future allocation for funding in the secondary road program and that
the Planning Commission be on record as noting that in the future
allocations be present to fund the priority items, and that the State
look in to alternative means of funding to provide adequate
allocations to Frederick County and other rural localities. This was
seconded by Mr. Golladay.
The Chairman next requested that the Commission discuss the
situation that now exists regarding the disposal of waste water
treatment plant sludge in Frederick County. The Chairman referenced
various articles which had been in the local newspapers regarding this
item.
Mr. Golladay indicated that he had received comment from a number
of citizens regarding this matter and wanted to know the status of any
and all proposals regarding the disposal of sludge in Frederick Co.
Mr. Riley advised the Commission that whatever procedure was
sought to dispose of sludge, must be permitted through the State Water
Control Board and once the permit had been received, the State Water
Control Board would publish in a newspaper of local circulation that
the permit was on file. If public inquiry was received from the State
Water Control Board, the state would hold a public hearing in the
Winchester area to receive public comment.
1272
-5-
Mr. Stiles requested that the staff prepare and report regarding
the status of the current situation and to address what action the
Planning Commission and Board could take at the local level to address
the disposal of waste water treatment sludge in the County. This
request recieved unanimous endorsement from the full Planning
Commission.
Mr. Riley next reviewed the proposed Ordinance Amendments that
were schedule for advertising. Mr. Riley explained Section 21 -11F
concerning the requirement of a $75.00 fee for Conditional Use
Permits. Section 21- 5(a)(2) is requesting a amendment to the
Ordinance to require the landowner and /or applicant to sign the
request for rezoning. Section 18 -2(3) subdivide requires that the
Health Department and Administrator indicate review and approval on
large lot plats. Mr. Golladay felt that rewording to emphasize that
the plat should include a signature and not a box to signify approval
of the health official. There was concern with the staff and would be
changed to clearly state that a signature would be required. Section
18 -2(3) subdivide by the addition of prohibits, the subdivision of
land within an agricultural- forestal district. The final Ordinance
amendment was to allow fraternal orders or civic club facilities in
agricultural zones. The Planning Commission felt that this needed
further study and did not request that it be advertised until further
discussion could be placed regarding this proposal.
There being no further business to come before the Planning
Commission, Mr. Golladay motioned and Mr. DeHaven seconded that the
Planning Commission be adjourned. Adjournment took place at 9:00
p.m.
1273
Respectfully Submitted,
J6hn R. Ri ey,'Secre ary
C. La don Gordon, Chairman
1274