MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL FOR THE TOWN OF STRASBURG, HELD ON MAY 9, 2006, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL.
Mayor Crisman opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and the invocation was given by Vice Mayor Nicholson.
ROLL Called with the following members present: Mayor Tim Crisman, Vice Mayor Taralyn Nicholson, and Council Members Henry Himelright, Steve Nicholson, Carl Rinker, Tim Taylor, Edith Wallace, and Richard Wilson. Absent: Council Member Wesley Larrick (due to work obligations).
Minutes of the April 11, 2006 Regular Town Council meeting were approved as presented.
Mayor Crisman welcomed all in attendance and said all petitions and communications had been directed toward the appropriate committees.
Visitors/Guests:
Janet Heishman, 373 Green Acre Drive, Strasburg, VA, Quarry Re-opening: Ms. Heishman said she was at the meeting to give the Town Council information about the possible re-opening of the Strasburg Junction quarry by Global Stone/Chemstone. “They plan to re-open the 108 acre site from which they will mine 700,000 tons of limestone per year and carry it out on 60 railcars per week to Manassas.” Property owners have been told blasting will take place two to three times per week and she has been told by others that to mine 700,000 tons, they would need to blast four to six times per week. “When they are done there will be a 575’ pit left and that will be in about 20 years.” She said she has some personal interests and concerns since she lives next door and she understands the Town can’t help those who do not live within the Town limits, but she believes this re-opening will have an impact on the Town. She said people have told her they are concerned if the tracks are in good enough condition to handle the 60 railcars that will be passing through Town each week. Also, if the Middletown quarries are re-opened, the cars from there will, too, be passing through Strasburg. She is concerned about the possibility of a train accident. She said there will also be traffic problems especially with the recent annexation of property at the corner of Junction Road and Green Acre Drive. The main entrance to the quarry will be off of Ash Street and the traffic from the quarry and the traffic from the new development will cause a “big mess.” She presented a map that showed landmarks in the area and said Sandy Hook Elementary School was missing from the map and “that is probably less than ˝ a mile from where the quarry is and I thought that was kind of sneaky of them to do. The way the air blows and the wind blows, our children are down there playing in those fields and that is something I think we need to be concerned about.” Another thing that has been brought to her attention is that the “super fund site” at the Strasburg Junction was stabilized; “if they go in there and start messing around, and moving that dirt around, are they going to bring up some stuff that might ought not to be brought up?” We will keep the Council informed as we receive more information.
Dora Buck, Hometown Strasburg, Inc.: Ms. Buck said a preliminary business plan has been drafted by John Adamson. The Hometown logo has been chosen and is in its final stages of proofing. Summer events are being scheduled and the group is also discussing the possibility of organizing the Oktoberfest this year. They are trying to recruit a grant writer to pursue applying for their first grant which is due at the end of October. She reminded all that the group meets the first Thursday of the month at 7 p.m. at the Town Hall.
Citizen Comments:
Non-Action Items:
Donna Long, 603 Bowman Mill Road, Strasburg, VA: Ms. Long said she was here in support of what Ms. Heishman had said concerning the quarry re-opening. She said moved here from Texas because “I fell in love with this area.” On April 12, a Public Hearing was held here at Town Hall during which O & N Minerals, parent company of Chemstone, presented to the Department of Mines and Minerals and Energy their application to re-open the quarry off of Green Acre Drive. While Chemstone may have presented an application that met all requirements set forth by the State and federal government, it fails to address some important issues; some that concern a few of us and some that concern all of us. All of us should be concerned about the safety of the area. No mention was made of enclosing the area with fencing to prevent curious children out of that area. Though they mention seismic activity, they do not have a comment for whether or not land slides that naturally occur on Route 11 would increase and who would be responsible for cleaning them up. And though they did mention truck traffic was not going to go up and down Green Acre Drive, they barely mentioned that it would move on Junction Road and on the railroad through Strasburg. O & N Minerals did not address the effects on the surrounding people, animals, and land; of course, why would they when they failed to show the elementary school on their site plan. They did not mention that it would put a growing business, out of business or cause persons with asthma to have to move away from the only area that they have ever known. They did not mention the fact that the wildlife that roam that entire area is probably going to head into Town or onto Route 11 or onto I81 because they aren’t going to hang around while all that booming is going on. Nor did they mention that they would destroy the history. I personally feel very, very strongly about it. People who have lived here all their lives take the history of this area for granted. When you have not been subjected to it, not been around it, you come and you stand here in awe --- this is where it all started; this is where people fought for their rights. There are entrenchments back there on that area; I’ve walked Janet’s (Heishman) property; I’ve walked over on the Ebmeier’s property and 25’ from their fence lines are entrenchments. Janet allows people to metal detect up there and they constantly find Civil War bullets. That is all going to be gone and there is no way to bring it back once it is gone. We need your help; we need your support to stop it the same as Middletown is supporting that live close over there; we need the same kind of support from you all. Thank you.”
Spencer Stinson, General Manager, O & N Minerals, Oranda Road, Strasburg, VA: Mr. Stinson said he was the primary presenter at the public hearing that was mentioned by Ms. Heishman and Ms. Long. He said he is not somebody from a corporate office, but lives in Winchester and works at the Oranda Road facility and feels like he is a member of this community. “A lot of things are being said about me and my company that are just flat not true and I felt it was important that since you are being given information, that maybe you get information from somebody who actually knows the facts. I realize the citizens have concerns here, legitimate concerns, and I don’t mean to minimize those whatsoever; those should be addressed.” Mr. Stinson then gave his explanation of some items said by previous speakers. “In terms of blasts per week: we go by our professional blasting company that does this work and that’s where this estimate came from; it’s not plucked out of the sky; it’s not made-up; it’s based on what our blasting experts tell us. As far as rail traffic, this is arranged with Norfolk-Southern Railroad. This is part of their main line through this area; they are required to maintain it to standards; we assume that they do --- we are not the railroad. They have many federal requirements to meet; if they say that rail can take one, 60 car unit per week, I suspect that they know what they are talking about. In terms of what was shown on the map, there have been many allegations about what’s on it and what’s not on it. The map was what was prepared for DMM (Department of Mines and Minerals) according to their requirements. What was shown on it was what they require, period. That’s what it was prepared for; it was not prepared as an informational map or to indicate what is in the broader area; it is specific to the requirements on that mining application and that is why it is what it is. As far as things buried on site, it was a predecessor company and my understanding was that the site was fully treated and nothing was buried on the site; any material that was there from prior operations was hauled off to disposal sites. We process high quality limestone that is used in animal feed; it’s used in environmental uses; it’s used it all sorts of things --- it can’t have contaminants in it; it just can’t have it or the customers won’t buy it. In terms of landslides on Route 11, DMM monitors that sort of thing and if we did anything that jeopardized roadways, they would stop us immediately. We would stop immediately! I can assure you that we will work with VDOT in those regards and we will talk to them about what’s causing any current landslides that might be on that property and anything that we can do to prevent that. Again, on traffic on the Norfolk-Southern and on Ash Street, we also went to VDOT to discuss where was appropriate for the traffic – it was obvious to us that Green Acre Drive was not and we told them that - and we proposed Ash Street and they said yes, that Powhatan Road was developed for commercial traffic by VDOT and that it is totally appropriate to take the traffic load that we expect it to have. In terms of wildlife, everybody needs to be aware that site is an industrial zoned site; has been since the inception of zoning in this County and for anybody to think that it’s not going to be used for industrial purposes, they’re kidding themselves. It’s the best interest for the County and for us and for citizens. Thank you.”
Action Items:
Cedar Valley
Kim Bishop, 728 Crystal Lane, Strasburg, VA: “I just wanted to make a quick comment regarding approval of the plan for Cedar Valley. I would like to ask the Council to consider the same things I asked the Planning Commission to consider when making your decision. First, you asked the Planning Commission to look into the most recent plan…I think that’s number 5 and give you a definite recommendation for approval or denial. Well, they did that at their last meeting and very unanimously denied it, for valid reasons. Second, I ask that you take the plan and see if it meets the standards set by our Town’s ordinances and comprehensive plan. At the time of the Planning Commission meeting it did not meet the standards set forth. If there have been amendments made to the plan since the Commission looked at it and denied it, I very strongly suggest, after your discussion, that you deny approval unless you are 100% satisfied that it meets all regulations and that someone has a tangible copy of it, so we won’t have the same fiasco later that we have now. Third, you are the citizen’s last line of defense against bad development. This land will be developed and built on…I think everyone would like to see something other than the barren waste land that is Cedar Valley now, but if somehow, something like the original plan, with town homes neatly clustered around open areas and a more neighborhood atmosphere could be developed, I think you’d have at least a little contentment. I’m not trying to look backward, but if the original drawing were good enough to begin with, why aren’t they good enough now. I don’t think developers as a whole, are bad or evil; I think they’re just trying to make as much money as possible. There is plenty of money to be made by doing it responsibly and yes, esthetically. It’s time to send developers a message: if you want to come develop in Strasburg, please do, but we’re going to hold you accountable to our ordinances, plans, and yes, our citizens. Thank you.”
Stanley Smith, 232 Crawford Street, Strasburg, VA: “#1, Do we need it? I say no, we don’t need it. #2, What benefit are we going to derive from it. I don’t think anybody has come up with a plan or scheme to tell us what benefit we, the citizens of Strasburg, are going to benefit. True, the developers are going to come in --- they’ve already shown they are going to spend a lot of money; they keep saying that they are developing this at their risk. Well, they’re not taking any risks; they have their foot in the door and #1, any money we spend on this, we are going to get it back. The risk is here in Strasburg because if we turn it down, the first thing that they are going to do is threaten to sue us. Well, this is fine and dandy, I say let them sue; we’ll fight; I’ll go to court against it and I’ll be glad to go. Right now we do not need it.” He continued by saying at the last Town meeting it was decided to go with plan #5 and now he reads in the paper that they have gone back to plan #1 --- “which plan are we going to go with; which plan are we going to vote on? I say if we are going to go with 5, let’s stick with what we said at the meeting and do it. And, if they don’t meet the ordinances, say goodbye to them; let them take us to court and sue; that’s their prerogative. Anybody can go to court and sue, but it’s a question of winning the suit; I think we can win if we fight it. Thank you.”
Ron Mislowsky, PHR&A, representing the applicant: Mr. Mislowsky said the plan that was included in the Council packet was the same plan that the Planning Commission reviewed last; no changes or revisions have been made to that document. The basic layout shown on this plan was the basic layout shown on the master plan proffered and approved in May, 2005. He said he thinks it is noteworthy to mention that “this land was all zoned residential back before the rezoning and this rezoning basically created a commercial component on that piece of property that would not have existed there previously. We think the rezoning action will overall be a benefit to the Town.” He continued by saying he feels they have worked in “good faith” over the last months to work with both the Council and Planning Commission to “craft a master plan that satisfies the plan that was approved with the rezoning and also that meets the ordinance requirements. We’ve made a number of changes to the master plan over time based on the comments we’ve received from you and the Planning Commission and we look forward to your approval tonight. I’d just like to say that a lot of comments from the Planning Commission had to do with details and dimensions about lot sizes and actual open space calculations and I want you all to remember that this is a master plan and that the minimum lot sizes are provided on the master plan, the same that they were provided during the rezoning and that during the site plan and preliminary subdivision plat process the actual lot sizes and actual open space dedication will be determined because it’s at that time that we know the size of the houses that are going to go on the lots.” He concluded by saying he would be available for questions during deliberations.
Ben Butler, attorney for Cedar Valley, LLC: Mr. Butler said the last time he spoke to Council it concerned the vested rights they felt they had due to the submission and approval of the proffers in May, 2005 and how this is a contract. In response to a previous comment about a lawsuit, he said, “Never, in the times that I’ve been down here threatened a lawsuit nor has the representative from Patton, Harris, and Rust. That is not what our object is; our object is to try to work with you and honor the contract that we made back in May, 2005 and we’d appreciate having the approval tonight. Thank you.”
Al Davis, 180 Tyler Circle, Strasburg, VA: “Tonight you are being asked by a developer to approve a master plan that violates the laws of the Town. The zoning ordinance language is clear and straight forward --- all lots shall abut public streets; there’s no gray area here. The Planning Commission made this clear in their unanimous recommendation for your disapproval. There has been some concern expressed that a rejection of the plan may lead to some kind of a lawsuit; look at it the other way --- if the Council knowingly approves a plan that violates a Town ordinance, would that action survive a court challenge? Furthermore, how could the project go forward anyway? Zoning permits, according to Section 5-6 of the ordinance, are null and void if issued for a project that fails to comply with a zoning ordinance. So what to do. I hope you’ll do this: announce that this plan is dead on arrival and will remain so until a master plan is submitted to the Council, via the Planning Commission, that complies in every way with the provisions of the Town’s zoning ordinances. Thank you.”
Non-Action Item:
John J. Williams, 280 Crystal Place, Strasburg, VA: Mr. Williams began by saying he appreciated the opportunity to speak before the Council. “I’ve come here to provide you with some information and also to ask for whatever support and backing that the Town Council may give me. In actuality, I may be the minor’s canary for everything that most of these people have been discussing. I purchased a house from Dan Ryan Builders in 2004, February. I moved into it in February, 2005. By April, 2005, the house began to show significant damage and deterioration. As of right now, I am begging the County Inspector not to condemn my house; that is how bad things have gotten. Literally, the engineer pad that my house is built on is sliding down the hill they built it on. I am, of course, in discussions and legal actions with Dan Ryan Builders right now to solve my problem, but I did want to make sure that the Council knew what was going on; that I had some type of public forum to share this in and to ask that you make sure this does not happen to anyone else. My sister and I purchased this house; I’ve been coming out to Strasburg for nearly 20 years to visit all of you fine folks, to shop at your shops, and enjoy the beautiful hills that carpet this beautiful land out here. When I finally had the opportunity to purchase a house, my sister and I purchased this house with the intention of bringing my elderly mother here to stay in the final years of her life so you can understand my disappointment; my need now for some solution to this problem. I just wanted to make you aware and ask that somehow if you can, join your voices with mine and do not let this happen to any of these other fine people. Thank you so much.”
Mayor Crisman asked Town Manager Fauber to be sure Council has all correspondence pertaining to this issue from the County.
William Pollard Racey, 191 Holliday Street, Strasburg, VA: “I just have a couple items I just want to cover. First of all, I want to take this opportunity to thank the outgoing members of the Council for their services over the years. I know that you have taken some heat from the local rag newspapers, from citizens, and from the blow-ins, but as I say, I want to thank you and wish you the best.
I have a little problem I really don’t understand. A while back there was a road to be proposed from Madison Heights through Crystal Hills and joining Route 11. Now, the people/residents of Crystal Hills put up an opposition against that road siting children – using the children as their defense on the proposal for that road. Now, last month at the Town Council meeting, there were two females who stood right here at this podium and gave their residence as Crystal Hills and they took the opportunity to take some cheap shots at the developer and said it’s a shame that he’s using these children as pawns to get his development. Can you tell me --- is this hypocritical or isn’t it? That is my question. Now you can send it to me in a letter or you can stop me on the street. If you’re going to say one thing, stick with it; if you’re going to use it, stick with it. But, once again, I want to thank you members that are outgoing and wish you the best.”
Kenneth Williams, 273 Royal Avenue, Strasburg, VA: “I just want to speak in general on a few things. Here a few months ago when Mr. Helsley was here we had a conversation about the river, the North Fork of the Shenandoah. I told him then it was being abused and eventually it was going to be destroyed and it’s true. If you go down the river now there’s no fish in the river; you can’t swim in the river; you can’t ice skate on the river; you can’t boat on the river; and the water’s not fit to drink – I do not drink any of the water out of the river; I go out here to Cold Springs and get my water and the wife boils it all the time. It’s a crying shame. This is the most precious resource this Valley has and what are we doing? All of us, everybody who lives in this Valley is destroying it, a little bit at a time. Go up in Pennsylvania and look at some of those rivers up there that are just nothing but mud holes; they’re not fit for nothing due to greed from the human beings in this country and that’s all it amounts to. They don’t care what they destroy, or how they do it as long as they get that almighty buck in their hand. I’ll tell you something, out here on this island, this bugs me about this island – if they develop this 166 to 180 homes out there – sure they say they are going to put the ballparks out there for the children and I’m all for the ballparks for the children and I don’t believe in denying them anything; I know what my boys went through when they were little, playing ball. Timmy (Council Member Taylor) knows, Richard (Council Member Wilson) knows, we played where we could, when we could. We brought the equipment home and the parents took care of it. But, that was then and this is now. They put those 166 to 180 homes down there on that place, where is the runoff going to from that development? Same way out here at Cedar Valley, they’ve got a big holding pond out there, but where’s that water eventually going to? It’s going into the Town Run; where does the Town Run go to? The Shenandoah River. Out here at Oxbow, the Island, where is that going to? It’s going into Cedar Creek. Where’s Cedar Creek go to? Into the Shenandoah River. These people just keep on and keep on; don’t let this happen. We’ve got, the County just paid a lot of money for property down here at the Keister farm for a park. Why can’t the ballparks and other things go in down there? Maurertown up here has a park with baseball fields and everything up there; why can’t they use those? We took our boys sometimes to Berryville to be able to play ball. Thank you.”
Cathy Pilfrey, 186 Maynard Lane, Strasburg, VA: “My comment is more in the form of a question or a request for an update. I recall when I first moved here and started coming to Town Council meetings the subject of a new water treatment plant was first and foremost on a lot of people’s minds. At that time, I recall us being informed that, at that time, we were at about 85% capacity. What I’d like to know is what capacity we’re at now because when we were speaking back then, we were supposed to have a new water treatment plant in place by 2006; now, from what I’ve read in the paper, it’s more like 2008. We’ve had a lot of development, a lot of new people move into Town since that date and I’m just curious to know what our current capacity is; how close are we to full capacity and to just remind everybody to consider that when you’re approving new developments.”
Mayor Crisman asked Director of Public Utilities Tewalt to give an update on this when he gave his report.
Carroll Estep, 581 E. Queen Street, Strasburg, VA: “I only have one little item to mention about the Island --- I see no way the Council can make any rational, informed decision without talking to Mr. Pete Campbell who owned the Island for 30 years. Graphs and charts and all that don’t take the place of practical experience and being in the trenches. The charts and all will show you where the water might be, but he can take you there and point to where it was. He told me himself he had corn ready to pick and the river flooded and backed up and stood at ear height for a week. If Council needs to know about the flooding, you need to have him come and have a map and have him show you where the water stopped. He was the man that was there and he has practical experience and I feel that is the best way to make an informed decision. Thank you.”
Town Officer’s Reports:
Town Attorney Arthur: No report at this time.
Town Manager Fauber: Announced that because of a Democratic Primary Election to be held in the Council Chambers on June 13, the date of the June Council meeting will need to be changed. He suggested moving it to Wednesday, June 14. The general consensus was to move it to this date.
He reported a Public Hearing will need to be held in regards to the FY2006-07 Budget. He added that included in the final agenda packet was some correspondence received from the County on the possible agreement concerning the Transient Occupancy Tax and he does not think Staff and Council are prepared to discuss and vote on this tonight. Another Public Hearing may have to be scheduled for this.
Director of Finance Mullins: Reported Staff has been working on the budget and are waiting the tax rate to be set so as to begin working on taxes. The audit firm has also been at the Town Hall beginning preliminary audit procedures.
Director of Public Utilities Tewalt: Mr. Tewalt said, in answer to Ms. Pilfrey’s questions and comments, that when a new water treatment plant was first proposed, the Town was at about 85% capacity, but since that time the departments have found some “creative” ways to conserve water. A non-potable water system is being installed now that will re-use much water. Leaks are repaired quickly by the Public Water Department which also saves water. Meters have been installed where needed so as to have a better account of water use. Currently, it is down to about 70% capacity due to these conservation efforts. The water treatment plant should now be on-line in late 2008.
Director of Public Works Rhodes: Mr. Rhodes said Clean-up Week is currently underway which has put some of the other projects on hold. The Department installed some new street signs at the corner of King and Holliday Streets and he would like citizens to take a look at them and let him know thoughts on them. Mayor Crisman thinks the signs are pretty nifty and thanked the Town Crew for their work with Clean-up Week.
Chief of Police Robinson: The Police Department will be on the streets promoting public safety to see that all children are buckled correctly and make sure bike helmets are being used. Tickets will not be issued, but people will be stopped and officers will talk to them. He added the Police Report would be given by Council Member Himelright.
Town Planner Amos:
“The Cedar Valley Site Plan was received by the Town in January, 2006, and when that site plan went to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission felt that it wasn’t in keeping with the master development plan that they approved in January, 2005. The master plan they felt they had approved is the one in your packet, November 2004, and this is the more detailed plan; the one that was actually proffered was a generalized development plan which is noted as October, 2004, which was originally received with the application and proffer package. The Council reviewed this application in February, March, April, and May, 2005, and each time they reviewed this application, different requests came up dealing with mainly the proffers and some dealing with the master development plan. The generalized master development plan that you received in your final packet was just that – a generalized development plan with not as much detail as the November plan that was recommended by the Planning Commission. That plan is what the engineers worked off of for their site plan which then was received in January of this year. The Planning Commission felt that with the changes that were made between the one that they recommended and the one that the Town Council approved, that they should have been able to re-review it and make additional recommendations. In our Code it does state that the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Council for a master development plan. Since February of this year, the Planning Commission has been working, as well as the Council, with the engineer and developer to come up with a master development plan that fits the code and is agreeable to the Planning Commission. As you know, the Planning Commission at their meeting recommended denial of the master development plan dated March, ’06, and its been revised twice. The revision was actually the one that the Planning Commission last saw – it has not been revised since the last Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission, upon denial, gave several reasons for denial and if you’d like I can read over those, but they are in your Staff Report, but I believe the Planning Commission would like them to be stated. I am going to read them directly from your Staff Report and that is how they were received from the Planning Commission:
The Town requires public streets and prohibits private streets. The plan calls for a private street in front of the townhouses. These private streets now connect on both ends and will be used as through streets; particularly the connection to the Dunmore property to the North is a connector between developments and will be used as such and therefore should not be a private street. If this Master Plan is approved, the Town Council will need to state specifically that it is granting a variance to this ordinance and must give reasons why this project is different than other developments so this will not become the standard for the Town. We must be able to differentiate this project from all other developments which will follow and surely request private streets. (The applicant is using this area as a private access or driveway to the property, which are allowed. Section 3-4 requires that every building shall be on a lot adjacent to a public street.)
“Large Lot Single Family” homes have been changed to “Single Family Cluster” homes without any attendant adjustment to the open space provided. The “cluster” style is permitted to allow for homes to be grouped closer together to provide additional open space and not to just allow smaller building lots as in this case. (Planner Amos added that when the Ordinance Committee worked on the Planned Development they came up with different, creative uses and part of our reason for having cluster uses was for additional open space. That is not stated in the ordinance so at this point it is not required unless volunteered by the developer which is the purpose of the cluster homes).
The general concept of townhouses in a long straight unbroken row is contrary to the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and generally to good planning practices. (Goal III, Strategy C: Encourage comprehensive planned development of tracts of land adjacent to roadways so as to limit “strip” residential development.)
The overall open space percentage has been met, but no more than 50% can be in lakes, ponds, steep slopes. It does not appear that this plan provides the required “usable” open space. There are insufficient dimensions on the plans to make this computation. (Planner Amos added this is something the Planning Commission will probably review further when they get to the site plan process, but it is something that is required in the master development plan showing the open spaces).
Doesn't provide with the through streets and cluster type townhouse layout as was presented and approved by the Planning Commission with the first master plan. (Planner Amos said it was actually the second plan and dated November, 2004).
Lot lines extend to the center of the private parking lot (private street or driveway access easement). The developer will have no responsibility for maintenance whatsoever once the units are sold (Planner Amos said this property would be taken over more than likely by a homeowners association and the Town would not have responsibility for the area).
There should be no more total units in the generalized master plan of development than the Planning Commission first approved. (The plan showed approximately 225 units, the proffer statement approved by the Council included 256 units).”
Planner Amos continued by saying, “There are a couple of issues. One main issue is private streets versus public streets versus driveways and access easements. If this becomes a public street, which lots are required to front on a public street, the parking cannot back out onto a public street – it would have to be in a parking court similar to what’s in Hupps Ridge. If you approve this, or don’t approve it, Staff and the Planning Commission need from the Council direct comments and opinions on how you feel they should go about handling public streets/private streets/driveway access into these properties as well as the backing into the roadways. The Ordinance Committee has worked hard the past two months and we’re continuing to set up meetings to work on these ordinances, but with some conflicts in the ordinances we need your direct guidance. If you are not prepared to give that this evening, we would like to hear from you shortly because the Planning Commission, if a master plan is approved, will be reviewing a site plan at the Thursday meeting and these issues will be coming up. Again, it was a denial from the Planning Commission and I will take any questions and I believe Town Attorney Arthur and Town Manager Fauber will also be here to answer questions.”
Council Member Himelright asked “if the master plan is approved that we have before us again, items that you just mentioned, if they go to the site plan and are not rectified to everyone’s okay, does that stop the project? … I have a lot of opinion about why this happened, but I’m not going to go into that. To me the master plan is an overall view of the project; the site plan is where the details are really finalized; am I wrong? Planner Amos answered, “No, you’re not wrong. The Town Code in the Planned Development does specifically say what is in a master plan.” Council Member Himelright asked if these problems could be worked out in the site development plan. Planner Amos said several of them will be worked out in the site development plan, “but in order for us to work those out, for those few specific items I talked about, we need Council opinion on how they would like to see the ordinance interpreted
Council Member Nicholson questioned Mr. Mislowsky about the statement that it was all residential and then it was rezoned, but it was residential by right, how many houses could have actually been built. Planner Amos said the property was previously zoned approximately 31 acres of commercial and 50 acres of R-2, residential. She believes you could have gotten approximately 180-200 single family homes on the site and you would have the 31 acres of commercial along Route 11. The Planned Development, which Council approved and is a mixed use development, there is 14 acres of commercial and different housing types. Currently there is 67 acres for residential.
Council Member Rinker said, “I would like to say something at this point in time. Unless I’m wrong, somebody is wrong here. All the engineering projects that I’ve worked on in my lifetime, the master development plan sets the pace for the race. If you have a master development plan and you lay it out there, that says what you’re going to do and what you’re not going to do; that says where you’re going to put your units, how wide your streets are going to be, and basically it lays out whether they are going to be in a straight line, in a curvilinear line, or what have you, so Nora (Planner Amos) when you say that it can be deviated from, I take issue with that; not that I’m arguing with you, but yes, you can make some minor changes, but once that master development is set in place that is the road map for the way the race is going to go. As far as I’m concerned, this road map out here right now isn’t anywhere close to where the race needs to go or the way this project needs to look. I’m sorry, but we have asked these people and we have asked them and asked them and asked them, to please take the streets out of those units. What have we got? We’ve got a master development plan out here, #5, and I’ve never even seen #2; everybody keeps talking about #2, the magical quote/unquote – where’s #2? Well, I’ll be darned if I’ve ever seen #2; I’d sure like for the real #2 to stand up and I’d like to look at it because I would really like to see how much the deviation from #2 to #5 is. Planner Amos stated, “Mr. Rinker, #2 is in your packet and it is dated November.” Mr. Rinker said, “I’ve never seen it” and Planner Amos said, “its got the lots counted out on it. It may not be noted #2 and that may be why.” Mr. Rinker continued saying, “let’s say it’s here; that is still not withstanding of the fact that the streets are not where they need to be; there was a big long laundry list that you read out here that the Planning Commission worked extremely hard to get where they’ve got on this thing. I’ve talked to the developers; I called the developers two weeks ago and I talked to them; I talked to the owner of that development and he said to me quote/unquote, ‘Carl, we’re going to do anything we can do to make this a viable, happy, compatible development for the Town of Strasburg. Rest assured we don’t want an argument with you; we don’t want a lawsuit with you; and we’re going to change this thing, modify it, and do whatever we need to do to get where we need to get.’ Well, if that’s the case, why is this plan back here tonight like it was the last time. Who’s telling tales out of school here? Is the developer? I don’t think so because I’ve talked to him. Are the engineers talking to the developer? If I know, it doesn’t sound like it because if they were they would change it; they would take the streets out of it and show the streets; they’d make parking bays and we’d get on down the road and get this thing approved and start finishing this thing up. I don’t know who is not really talking to whom, but I’ll tell you one thing folks, as far as I’m concerned here tonight, this thing will not get my vote to go forward. Thank you.”
Council Member Taylor said, “Before I make a formal motion, I would like to make a few brief comments. I first want to thank everyone for their hard work and patience when dealing with this issue. Although it has been very frustrating at times, everyone involved has spent a lot of time and effort in doing what they felt is right. Over the past few months we have heard interpretations of our Town Code given by Town Staff, Planning Commission, and the engineers involved in this process. We have had different master plans appearing throughout this time dating from October, 2004 until this April. All of the parties involved believing their interpretation of the code to be correct and in some situations, understanding how another party’s different opinion may also be correct. We have found it necessary to look through our code to make some amendments, but the more time we have spent on doing this, the more I find the possibility of totally eliminating the element of interpretation very difficult, if not impossible. Tonight, this Council must give its interpretation or opinion of our zoning and subdivision ordinances and comprehensive plan when it comes to this Master Plan. So, what I am going to recommend may seem right to some and wrong to others, but it reflects my opinion based on how I read and interpret our Town Code, Comprehensive Plan, input from a lot of different people and what I feel is best for this community. From information given in our Council packet, along with input from our Town Staff, we have a choice of four Master Plans we can recommend for approval or disapproval with or without conditions. Another option would be to request another one be done, but I don not think anyone wants to see that. I think people need to be aware that some of the concerns mentioned from the Planning Commission will be addressed in the site plan review process. So, looking at the four plans shown in our packet, the plan that I feel is best for our community is the second one shown which is dated November, 2004. The date is not legible, so I am calling this plan #1104. The major reasons I chose this plan are:
As I mentioned, I am under the assumption that other issues can be addressed during the site plan review process. So, at this time:
I move approval of Cedar Valley Master Plan #1104, Plan #2, with the following conditions:
1. The building lots have to face a public street as stated in Section 3.4 of our zoning ordinances.
2. Parking areas shall not be designed or located as to require or encourage cars to back into a public street in order to leave a lot, which is in reference to Section 3-10.3(c) or our zoning ordinances.
3. A connector road to the Dunmore property must be added.
Second by Council Member Nicholson.
Discussion:
Council Member Rinker commented, “That’s all good and well to put a motion like that into effect, but I still don’t think we’re there; I still don’t think we’ve addressed all the Planning Commission’s concerns and hard work that they’ve done in regards to this. We’ve left out five or six things that they were really concerned about; you went down the laundry list. All of this can’t be addressed at site plan time; its got to be addressed right now, up front, at master development plan. I really believe that until we get those points worked out, I’m thoroughly still not sold on this thing and I still will not support it like it is. I do think that these units do not need to be in a row; they need to be curvilinear, like we talked about. I do think they need to front on public streets; I don’t think they need to back out onto a public ways; I do think there are going to have to be parking bays. I think there needs to be more green space and I could go on with numerous other things that I feel affect this thing. So, quite frankly, we heard Mr. Kepler; we heard Mr. Smith; we’ve heard all the Commissioners stand up here or sit up here at Planning Commission meetings and express their concerns concerning this thing. Their concerns are exactly my concerns and at this time, I still cannot support it like it is because I don’t think we go far enough in depth to pin this thing down.”
Council Member Taylor responded by saying, “I have talked to Commissioner Smith and the Town Staff and I feel the issues that you are referring to can be dealt with at the site plan process.”
Planner Amos added that in plan #2, the townhouses are not in a line, but more of a triangular cluster. On this master plan, it does show that they have the private driveway which is why the condition was added to make it a public street and not backing onto the public streets. “This is also the plan that the Planning Commission thought that they had recommended and the one that they saw. This is one that I believe was probably passed out a meeting and we (Town Staff) did not receive it into the official record which is why now everything is now passed out directly to the record. I feel that the Planning Commission has already made a recommendation for this November, 2004 plan and it does address most of their comments. At their last meeting they were told only to review plan #5 and I think they would have reviewed other plans if that would have been the direction from the Council, but the Council had directed them to specifically review plan #5, which is March, 2006 – revised twice.”
Vice Mayor Nicholson said, “This has been an incredible, emotional issue, I think, for everyone. I would first like to thank citizens, the Commission, the Council, the Staff, everyone who has had anything to do with any interpretation, suggestions, and I think this development plan will tell what our Town is going to look like for developments in the future. I really appreciate everyone’s time and efforts – whether we were right or wrong, when we go out that door we are all friends. Our community has definitely changed from this plan. Again, I would just like to say thanks.”
Council Member Rinker said. “I have one last question. Are you saying the Planning Commission has or has not recommended plan #2, master development plan #2, to this Council for approval. Planner Amos answered, “In January, 2005, the Planning Commission voted on this plan which they saw, but what was in the proffer was a generalized development plan, similar, but not exactly, because the road changed from Food Lion to Crystal Hill in lining up the roads, is what was in the proffers --- the legal proffer statements. Proffers are a legal contract and that is what was in the legal contract. The Planning Commission did recommend and had the intent for this to be the master development plan - #2, in November.” Council Member Rinker then said, “But, you’re saying there were changes in it, but they’ve never actually recommended this one, just like we see; is that a fair statement?” Planner Amos answered, “No sir, I don’t believe so. The Planning Commission thought that this was what they were recommending and this is what their intent was to recommend and there was a vote to recommend this plan back in January, 2005.” Vice Mayor Nicholson asked if this recommendation was there a list, like the current list, of their recommendations upon approval. While Planner Amos was looking at the minutes for this information, Council Member Rinker asked that since the Planning Commission had been asked to look specifically at plan #5, would that negate being able to approve plan #2. Town Attorney Arthur said the Planning Commission had recommended denial of #5 and he feels that each item the Council has asked the Planning Commission to give an opinion on would stand on its own. Also, whatever comes from the Planning Commission is a recommendation only and he feels each plan should be looked on its own. Planner Amos said plan #2, 11/04, was approved unanimously with no comments by the Planning Commission and was approved on January 25, 2005. Council Member Rinker then said, “This plan did show public streets in front of all these units – no private street.” Planner Amos responded the types of streets would be reviewed in the site plan process, but the plan doesn’t appear to have parking courts, but this would be worked out through the Planning Commission and that this is the reason the conditions have been added to the motion so that they meet the Town’s ordinances.
On a roll call vote, the motion passed with the following results:
Council Member Himelright yes
Council Member Nicholson yes
Vice Mayor Nicholson yes
Council Member Rinker no
Council Member Taylor yes
Council Member Wallace yes
Council Member Wilson yes
On a final note, Planner Amos stated opinion is still needed from Council on how to interpret the ordinance and how to go about dealing with townhouses being on public streets and backing out onto public streets and how Council wants to proceed with that. She added the Ordinance Committee can review the comments and make necessary changes to the ordinance.
Standing Committee Reports:
Public Safety: Council Member Himelright reported the Strasburg Police Department answered 650 calls during the month of April, 2006, resulting in 45 adult arrests and 4 juvenile arrests. Mr. Himelright said he would also like the curfew time for juveniles to be printed in the newsletter to help make people aware of this law.
Personnel Committee: Did not meet.
Public Utilities: Council Member Nicholson said the committee met on April 24. Discussed at the meeting was the water and sewer issue with the Church of the Valley; no decision has been made on this at this time. The committee talked about the new plants and Mr. Tewalt told them Staff had visited Appomattox to see a plant using sodium-hypochlorite and it is felt this is the way to go. This may be more work for the operators, but it is not as big of a safety issue especially with the high school being located nearby. Currently they are waiting on the pump for the non-potable water system and then after a few tie-ins this project should be ready to go.
Recreational Advisory Committee: Vice Mayor Nicholson said Strasburg Little League has requested the Town fund fencing to be added to two baseball fields at the Town Park.
Vice Mayor Nicholson moved to have the Town pay for the fencing to go around the fields at a cost of $14,900. Second by Council Member Wallace
Discussion:
Council Member Rinker asked Town Manager Fauber if this amount of money could be “found” in the budget; Town Manager Fauber feels this amount could be met.
Council Member Himelright asked how many fields this would fence and where the fields are located at the park. Vice Mayor Nicholson said it would bring two fields up to Little League standards so games can be played on them (currently they are limited to using them as practice fields) and these are the fields located behind the Miller subdivision.
Director of Public Utilities Tewalt asked about the extent of the fencing --- how far would it extend toward the water treatment plant? Town Manager Fauber said one field would go toward the subdivision and the other toward the Town Park; the fence would not go further than the line of trees currently at the location.
The motion passed unanimously.
Vice Mayor Nicholson said another archaeological survey will be conducted before the walking trail can go to bid and this survey should start tomorrow.
Finance Committee: Council Member Rinker said, “We had a meeting and quite honestly, the Finance Committee could not come to a final conclusion, we were split down the middle, about what our tax rate for our real estate evaluation needs to be in the forthcoming budget year.” He read portions of a letter written by Mr. Lonnie Goad (entire letter included in the Public Hearing minutes for May 4, 2006) and he referred citizens to a comparison sheet prepared by Director of Finance that helps explain the outcomes using various tax rates and how the tax rate is set; he also read aloud some of the scenarios of the various tax rates. He added that if the same tax rate was kept along with the re-assessment, the total amount collected would be $1,085,351. He said he was in favor of “taking a look to see what we could do as far as lowering the tax rate per $100 and what it would do to us.” He said a tax rate of .17 per $100 of assessed value would balance the budget this year. Mr. Rinker continued by saying he asked Town Manager Fauber and Director of Finance Mullins to take a hard look at the budget and see if the rate could be lowered any more and still balance the budget. He was told the budget could be balanced with a rate of .16 per $100 by making cuts in some areas and using the proposed lodging tax. He thinks .16 is “realistically is about as low as we can possibly go in this township without substantially affecting our well-being. And, that is to say, if we’re losing money as a township, we’ve got to come up with that money someplace. And, if we’re losing it, we are going to have to come up with another avenue, and it isn’t cigarette tax and it isn’t tobacco tax, it is going to be something like an increase in water rates and possibly sewer rates or increase in tap fees for both water and sewer and/or a combination of that or a rise somewhere in the tax system to derive the income.” He said everybody understands if you have so much coming in, you can’t afford to have more going out than is coming in. He added his appraisal went up 52% from when he built his house two years ago and he feels this is ridiculous and he said the County is talking about reassessing every two years now. “Having said all that, the Town is trying its best to keep our per $100 tax rate down to where (a) you can afford to live here; (b) we can afford to operate as a Town; and (c) we have a quality of life here that everybody enjoys. So having said that, I’m going to open up the floor to a motion because, if it is alright with you Mayor, I’m not sure what tax rate who sitting along this table wants to suggest so I’m not necessarily going to put it into a motion; I’m going to lay it out here for my fellow Council people and let’s see where it goes. Because the committee was split right down the middle, I don’t feel that I can make a valid recommendation of .16 or .13 or whatever because we had no recommendation.”
Council Member Nicholson said he heard Council Member Rinker mention water and sewer rates and when he read the budget, he thought he read where the rates would be going up because of the plants. Council Member Rinker said that is correct and it needs to be in there because “we need to generate some income from water and sewer in order to fulfill our debt service for the water plants that are upcoming. If we waited until the last minute, and that new plant comes on line, we might be faced with a 50-60% increase in water and sewer rates.” He asked Town Manager Fauber if that statement was correct and Mr. Fauber said it was correct, but that we need to be careful tonight because there will be a forum for public comment on the proposed budget and this discussion is only on the tax rate.
Council Member Wilson said he had attended the Finance Committee meeting and he was the one “stuck on .17” because he thought that was what was needed to balance the budget. “This Town is just like a business and it can’t operate in the red; we’re not like the federal government – we can’t print more money if we need some, unfortunately. What I’m saying is, every business has to have a reserve somewhere that they can fall into, not necessarily a large reserve, but they always have to have some money back somewhere to lean on and that’s why I was stuck on .17. Now, if the general feeling is that .16 will balance the budget, I’m for .16; it’s in my pocket, too, along with everybody up here. If you want a motion to set the tax rate at .16, I’ll make the motion right now. Second by Council Member Taylor to the motion to set the tax rate at .16 per $100 assessed value.
Discussion:
Mayor Crisman said, “In talking to a lot of people in Town, I think there’s a, and I want to clear up a misconception. When we talk about 36% increased taxes, that is total Town taxes--- that’s not you individual taxes; that’s total Town taxes. When you take a look at the form that you either have in your hand or someone near you has, when you take a look at land in particular, the land values went up, but you have to remember, and you’ve reminded us so many times of annexations, rezonings, all those things raise those taxes and one of the benefits, one of the only benefits to this Town, is that when you do those annexations and rezonings and things, you are broadening the tax base. So, not all of the 36% is coming from your pockets, folks. It’s coming from the actions that we took over a period of time. When the re-assessments came, yes it was to some people 50%, I urge you and I don’t know whether it is going to make you feel good or bad – Mr. Rinker is going to feel much differently than I do because my tax assessment didn’t go up but about 25%. If you think about how much reducing from .22 to .17, it’s about 25%. Folks, my taxes are going to be $1 less per month if we go down to .17. Look at your individual situation; the tax assessment was not equal to everyone. I feel a little guilty because the property value of my home went up significantly, but my taxes went down. But, the way that I can justify that, hopefully, is the tax rate is even for everyone in this Town and it’s reduced for everyone in the Town from .22 to .17 or .16. The assessment changed, but the tax rate is even across the board and I would encourage you to remember that some of the actions that you take, even though they may be painful for you personally or for the Town, do have a good consequence to them and it is a broader tax base and that accounts for some of that, what you see at the top of the paper is a 72% increase and I could justify that by saying take a look at the difference in the land values between 2005 and 2006 --- you can’t have that kind; that’s not assessment there; it is way too much to just be assessment there so I would encourage you to think of it that way.”
The motion passed on a roll call vote with the following results:
Council Member Himelright Yes
Council Member Nicholson Yes
Vice Mayor Nicholson No
Council Member Rinker Yes
Council Member Taylor Yes
Council Member Wallace No
Council Member Wilson Yes
Ordinance Committee: Council Member Taylor reported the Ordinance Committee met on April 12th and 20th at 7:00 p.m., in the Town Hall. He reported the committee is continuing working on amendments to our zoning ordinances. A list of amendments we are currently considering are in the Council packets and copies are available in back of the room, if anyone is interested in seeing them. I feel this is the best way to share what we are doing instead of me just reading them out loud. I will also post this list on the Town website at the end of this week. If anyone has any questions or comments from items on the list, feel free to contact Town Planner Amos or me. After we have gone through our major list of concerns, we will have our Town Attorney go over them before we bring them to Council and take any action.
I do want to mention we have been looking at the options of Low Impact Development Strategies as part of our zoning requirements. With concerns of pollution in our Shenandoah River, we are looking at how these strategies can be beneficial. We will be sharing more information on this topic in the near future.
Building and Grounds Committee: Did not meet.
Streets Committee: Did not meet
Special Committee Reports:
Shenandoah Telephone Advisory: Did not meet.
Strasburg Heritage Society: Council Member Taylor reported the Board met on Wednesday, April 26 at 7:15 in the Town Hall. If anyone has not paid their membership dues, please do so ASAP; the cost is $20. Strasburg Heritage Society has been approved by VDOT for the Adopt A Highway program. The route assigned is from Battlefield Rd. to just past the Old Mill Restaurant. Historic Building Plaques are still available. Please see any Board member for more information.
The next membership meeting is June 11 from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. at Vesper Hall. The guest speaker is Daniel Bly who will speak on German settler’s influence on Valley culture.
Chamber of Commerce: Vice Mayor Nicholson said the Chamber Board had met that morning. Mayfest will be the third weekend of the month, May 19-21 and the theme is “Get Your Kicks in 2006.” The Mayfest Beauty Pageant will be on May 13 at 2 and 7 p.m. The Follies will be on May 19, followed by a street dance with the band “Souled Out.” The parade will be on May 20 and the Grand Marshal will be Mark Moseley. There will be many arts and crafts booths, much food, and a duck race on Sunday.
Also, a Memorial Day parade is planned for May 29, beginning at 10 a.m., followed by a ceremony at the Riverview Cemetery led by the American Legion. The Route 11 Yard Crawl will be held on August 12; Oktoberfest will be October 21; and the Christmas Celebration will be December 2.
Hometown Strasburg, Inc.: Mayor Crisman said Ms. Buck had covered this in her report earlier.
Unfinished or Old Business: Council Member Nicholson asked where are we with the Island Farm. Mayor Crisman said it is still with the Planning Commission and Mr. Nicholson said he thought the end of the month would be 90 days and a decision would have to be made. Mayor Crisman said this has been checked and the Town is within the requirements.
Council Member Rinker said he had spoken to Mr. P. Jay Neal, the attorney for Mrs. Hartman, who said he would be sending some correspondence on the Hartman matter. Mr. Neal said the Council “could avoid that correspondence if we moved one manhole over there; that would make her happy; just one manhole about 8-10’ so I’m wondering if at this time if the illustrious Mr. Arthur could get a hold of him and maybe you talk to Kevin (Town Attorney Fauber) and see if in fact, I have no reason to doubt that’s not a true statement, and he asked if someone would get in touch with him. I think we could settle this gentlemanly/ladylike if we move that one manhole. The question is, is it cheaper to move a manhole or defend a lawsuit.” Town Attorney Arthur said he would contact Mr. Neal.
New Business:
Council Member Rinker said he went to the home of John Williams, along with several other Council Members (Mr. Le Vine), to see the problems he is having with his residence. Mr. Williams is having a problem having this alleviated and Mr. Rinker asked Town Attorney Arthur if it would be a smart thing for the Council to “go on record and we wrote the County a letter of concern. There are three or four other houses up there that are sitting on the same fill as Mr. Williams’ house is sitting on. One of them has already displayed the potential for cracking and sliding down that hill. To me, I think it would do some good if we went on record supporting Mr. Williams. I understand there’s about 25’ to 27’ of fill there that the neighbors saw put in that was not compacted nor properly installed. I wonder if it would do some good if this Town goes on record to try to help Mr. Williams.”
Town Manager Fauber met with Mr. Williams along with Mr. Geary Showman, County Building Inspector, and saw first hand the problems and he does have some problems. Two other residents were at the meeting and their homes are showing some evidence of damage. Mr. Williams and Dan Ryan Builders have both hired outside engineering firms to do an evaluation of the house, the foundation, and the site work. All parties have extensive reports and copies were given to Mr. Showman. A lot of the problems are building inspection issues and he’s not sure at what level the Town needs to get involved at this point. He senses there will be some action taken by Mr. Williams and Mr. Fauber is just not sure what role the Town should play.
Town Attorney Arthur said the presence of Town Manager Fauber at the meeting shows the concern of the Town.
Council Member Rinker is concerned that one of the houses may collapse and kill or injure someone or a house might slide down the hill into someone else’s house. He just wants to make sure the Town has placed enough pressure to bear to get something accomplished here. He is in favor of putting into effect a motion that Council authorizes the Town Manager to be our vigilant person, to bird dog this thing, and report back to us on a regular basis so that we can get this thing settled as soon as possible for Mr. Williams. Council Member Taylor said he thought Mayor Crisman had already asked Mr. Fauber to do that earlier in the meeting. Motion died from lack of second. Town Attorney said the office will be on top of this and will stay in contact with Mr. Showman. Council Member Rinker said he was not questioning that, but was just thinking of it from a “legal, liability and also an obligation to that man as a citizen up there that we not let this thing die.” He does not want this to “simmer” along, but to stay on the “front burner” and he does not like that this type of construction is taking place within the Town limits.
Mayor Crisman said he is not sure there is anything can be done regarding the issue with Chemstone as it is not within the Town. Town Manager Fauber said his understanding is, they (O&N Minerals) have filed an application with the Department of Mines and Minerals. I further understand that even if they get approval from that department, they have to go to the County to get a Special Use Permit and I’m sure the Town would be notified of that Public Hearing and can make comments at that time.” He does not believe they have filed with the County at this point.
Mayor Crisman welcomed a group of Boy Scouts to the meeting.
Unfinished Business:
Committee Meeting Dates as Follows:
COMMITTEE DATE TIME
Public Safety Committee TBA
Personnel Committee TBA
Utilities Committee TBA
Recreation Committee TBA
Finance Committee
Public Hearing on Budget for FY06/07 Wednesday, May 31 7:30 p.m.
Ordinance Committee Tuesday, May 16, 2006 7:00 p.m.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006 7:00 p.m.
Tuesday, June 6, 2006 7:00 p.m.
Streets Committee TBA
Buildings and Grounds Committee TBA
Being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:24 p.m.