This spring, in support of the Governor’s Executive Orders and in compliance with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Virginia Department of Health (VDH), the Warren County Parks and Recreation Department closed recreational facilities and canceled activity programs. Recently, the Governor announced that the implementation of Phase Two of Forward Virginia will begin on June 5, 2020, through Executive Order Number 65.
Warren County Parks and Recreation Facilities and Programs Phase Two Reopening Plan:
- Available for rent Thursday, June 11, 2020
- Capacity is 50 people or 50% of normal capacity per shelter, whichever is fewer.
- Social distancing guidelines are in effect. For additional details on making a shelter reservation, please call the RES Youth Center at (540) 635-7750.
Playgrounds, Skatepark, Trails, Tennis Courts, Disc Golf, and Open Spaces – OPEN
- No more than 50 people at once
- Social distancing guidelines in effect.
Baseball, Softball, and Soccer Fields
- OPEN Monday, June 8, 2020
- No more than 50 people per field.
- Rentals for practices only.
- Fields will not be lined until Phase Three or later.
Front Royal Golf Club – OPEN
- Golfing, cart rentals, pro shop, and boat ramp access are available.
- Clubhouse facility is closed to the public
- Banquet room reservations are unavailable.
Claude A. Stokes, Jr. Community Swimming Pool
- CLOSED AT THIS TIME (Opening Date To Be Determined)
- The pool will be opening soon with limitations in accordance with Executive Order Number 65.
Warren County Splash Pad – CLOSED Not opening during Phase Two.
Public Restrooms – CLOSED (Opening Date To Be Determined)
Outdoor Basketball Courts – CLOSED (Opening Date To Be Determined)
Warren County Parks and Recreation Community Center, RES Youth Center, and indoor recreation facilities – CLOSED (Opening Date To Be Determined)
Events and organized activities, including sports leagues – Cancelled at this time
The Warren County Parks and Recreation Department offices remain open (but closed to the public) to field your related questions via phone at (540) 635-7750 or (540) 635-1021 or via
email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
This is a rapidly changing situation, and the most current information is available on the following websites: www.cdc.gov/coronavirus or www.vdh.virginia.gov/coronavirus/. Please consult www.vdh.virginia.gov/coronavirus for the latest number of COVID-19 cases in Virginia.
Additionally, you can find local information on the Warren County COVID-19 website: https://www.warrencountyva.net/coronavirus-latest-information, the County of Warren, VA Facebook page, or the Town of Front Royal COVID-19 website: https://www.frontroyalva.com/645/Covid-19-Local-Response.
Town planners move short-term rental draft ordinance toward public hearing
At 6 p.m., Wednesday, December 1, the Front Royal Planning Commission met at work session in the Town Hall second floor meeting room to discuss formulating a text amendment to zoning codes to facilitate legally prescribed short-term tourist rentals. To this point, as a sub-municipality of the county such applications within a vacuum of town codes, have been directed by county codes. The town council recently requested the planning commission to explore creation of a town ordinance to oversee the application for short-term tourist rentals within the town limits.
Planning Director Lauren Kopishke presented a 10-page report, including a draft “Addition to (Code) 175-3” with a 14-point check list of requirements for submission of a Special Use Permit (SUP) application and draft “Short Term Rental Property Management Plan” that would be required of all applicants. Also included in the agenda packet distributed to the commission were Warren County’s checklist for such permitting applications and relevant state codes, including taxing processes. It might be noted that the Code of Virginia Chapter 35, Article 3.1 on Merchants Capital and Short-Term Rental Properties regarding taxation repeatedly refers to short-term rentals as a “business” endeavor, not a residential operation.
After four sentences defining the topic, the Code 175-3 draft checklist’s opening line – “Short-term tourist rentals shall be permitted in all Zoning Districts by Special Use Permit and shall meet the following requirements:” drew a lengthy discussion begun by Commissioner Darryl Merchant.
That discussion centered on the question of whether within the confines of the town limits, short-term tourist rentals should be allowed in residential districts, particularly R-1 Districts. Merchant was skeptical of a business operation being allowed in the often closer proximity of R-1 residential areas.
Another sticking point was raised by Commission Chairman Douglas Jones. That was whether a proposed Town Code should override Home Owner Association (HOA) rules regarding the conduct of short-term tourist rentals. A consensus was fairly quickly raised to eliminate any wording suggestion that the town government was in the business of overruling written HOA standards for short-term tourist rental operations.
The R-1 Residential District discussion centering on the advisability of introducing a “commercial element” into town residential neighborhoods took more time to resolve. Merchant noted the planning director’s reference to investors in some areas moving to buy multiple properties specifically for use in short-term rental businesses. Merchant worried that such commercial investing strategies would threaten to alter the character of neighborhoods from residentially based to commercial, as well as shrink the housing market for families seeking to put roots down in the community.
“I’m not saying short-term tourist rentals will tear the fabric of the town apart, but it’s a start,” Merchant said of his concern about business enterprises, rather than individual homeowners seeking additional revenue, controlling the coming of short-term tourist rentals to the town. However, a majority consensus was reached that with care the town governments overseeing and defining of short-term tourist rental processes could offer the necessary control to avoid the kind of commercialization Merchant feared.
“I don’t think we have a choice,” Commission Vice-Chair Connie Marshner said of allowing short-term tourist rentals in residential, including R-1, neighborhoods. The counter concern to Merchant’s was that to forbid them in residential areas would likely shrink the town’s short-term tourist rental marketplace too significantly to allow it to exist in any meaningful way. Marshner said that perhaps the commercial investor aspect could be utilized to direct a reclaiming of blighted properties in town – “It might be a plus,” she offered of that potential outcome.
“I think it’s something we should try,” Josh Ingram observed of allowing them in all zoning districts.
“We’d be foolish not to,” Marshner added.
“Let’s take it to public hearing and see what the people think,” Merchant said, leading Ingram to concur.
Following the commission consensus, Planning Director Kopishke said she would make the few suggested changes to her draft and then move the matter toward a planning commission public hearing.
In the commission’s only other business Wednesday evening during the planning director’s update, Kopishke told the commission that 200 responses to the Comprehensive Plan Citizen Survey had been received. Noting a target of 3,000 responses by the end of the year, ways to increase the pace of public input were pondered. Of the replies received, Kopishke said a recurring theme was retaining Front Royal’s “small town charm”. – “It seems very anti-growth,” the planning director noted of the replies thus far received.
County and Town officials try to get on the same page for joint tourism marketing effort
On Monday, November 29, a joint Front Royal Town Council and Warren County Board of Supervisors work session on “Tourism” marketing indicated some confusion and several communication breakdowns about exactly what path the two municipalities have taken toward a new cooperative strategy to draw tourism dollars their way. High on that list of confusion appeared to be dueling January and July MOAs (Memorandum Of Agreement) the County and Town appear to be working with, or without. County Administrator Ed Daley noted the county apparatus was working with a January MOA. Town Manager Steven Hicks pointed out that the Town had submitted an updated, counter MOA in July that may have been lost in the cracks of the Warren County Government Center.
However, Daley did note that the County’s last two months of lodging and restaurant business during the Fall leaf season have set revenue records. That might indicate that the tourism promotional path, even in an unfinished and partial holding pattern one, is having a positive effect. Or maybe it’s just a consequence of stir-crazy Northern Virginia/D.C. Metro residents “running to the hills” to take advantage of the statewide easing of COVID-19 Coronavirus public gathering restrictions. After all, while new marketing strategies are being developed, for decades it hasn’t been a secret that the river, mountains, national and state parks, and hiking trails are here 50 to 70 miles west of the D.C. Metro area.
North River County Supervisor Delores Oates took the lead in moderating the work session but noted that Front Royal Vice-Mayor Lori Cockrell had requested it in the wake of conversations between the two on the status of the joint tourism marketing initiative.
In addition to Cockrell, present on the Town side were council members Letasha Thompson, Gary Gillespie, Amber Morris, Joseph McFadden and Scott Lloyd, Town Manager Steven Hicks and Finance Director B.J. Wilson.
Joining Oates from the County side were board Chair Cheryl Cullers, incoming Fork and Happy Creek Supervisors Vicky Cook and Jerome “Jay” Butler, Deputy County Administrator Taryn Logan, Deputy Purchasing Agent Alisa Scott and Daley. Also present were Joint Tourism Committee members Kerry Barnhart and Scott Turnmeyer.
An accompanying Power Point reviewed the four options on a path forward that had been considered, with the fourth in that list – “Fully Contracted Out with Committee Leadership” – having been the one settled on. That structure begins with Town and County oversight of the existing appointed Joint Tourism Committee. A decision was also made after the Town disassembled its in-house Tourism and Community Development Departments under the leadership of former interim town manager Matt Tederick, to hire a marketing company, JLL (Jones, Lang, LaSalle Inc.), with expertise in tourism promotion, to an 18-month contract.
Contacted the following day, Oates said the result of the approximately three-hour work session is that that in-progress fourth option will be continued with the conversion of the Joint Tourism Committee into a 501-3c non-profit entity that will eventually take over the Town-County marketing function once the contract with JLL expires – possibly in June of next year if by mutual agreement. Oates explained that the 501-3c was necessary to legally access certain state “Tourism” funding sources. However, Daley pointed out that other related revenue sources didn’t require the non-profit organizational status, being available under categories like “Recreation” and “Trails” apart from “Tourism”.
At the outset of the 6 p.m. meeting the difference between “Big-T” and “Little-t” tourism was defined. Big-T was cited, not only as our natural resources that draw tourists, but also large promotional events like the Festival of the Leaves designed to draw a large tourist crowd from outside the community that will spend money while here on tourism-related activities and hopefully overnight accommodations and meals. Little-t was defined as smaller, community-building events more directed to local residents. The latter was cited as important in creating a higher quality of life for the local population that can contribute to tourism marketing of the community.
Also discussed at the outset of the meeting was how the Town and County will manage future growth – “Do we want sprawl from Northern Virginia?” Oates asked of visitors who might be attracted by a perceived higher quality of life to relocate. How tourism and “bedroom community” sprawl might interact was a sidebar to the main focus of increasing tourism as a major revenue source for both the town and county governmental structures.
Councilman Scott Lloyd argued long and hard against the creation of an independent “EDA-like” entity at the center of future tourism promotion, fearing future financial scandals from another quasi-governmental organization. – “Why did we create our own EDA?” he asked rhetorically at one point.
However, several others asserted the Town and County would retain control of the seemingly legally necessary 501-3c or DMO (Destination Management Organization) through authorizing funding and having membership representation and appointment authority. In addition to local business representatives Barnhart and Turnmeyer, current Joint Tourism Committee members present included Council members Thompson and Gillespie, and herself, Oates pointed out.
Whether Monday’s sometimes circular and disjointed work session discussion will lead to a clearing up of the somewhat muddy waters of the Town-County tourism marketing effort remains to be seen. But at least the discussion and various explanations of legal aspects of tourism-related grant access was a start toward a clearing of those waters – jointly.
Town Council doesn’t look this opioid-negotiated gift horse in the mouth
With no public hearings scheduled for its meeting of Monday, November 22, the Front Royal Town Council faced a 10-item Consent Agenda and three “Business Items” that expanded to five with the addition of one item – Purchase of Rebuilt Transformers, Energy Services Department – and the removal of one Consent Agenda matter to “Business” discussion. The latter was a no-brainer vote on participation in Virginia’s share of a national Opioid Settlement Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) about that agreement. Councilman Gary Gillespie, who has been involved in anti-opioid efforts locally, asked to pull the item to allow some comment on his excitement at news of the Opioid Settlement Agreement and the potential impact of the Town of Front Royal’s share of the state portion of that settlement.
The resolution essentially states that you as a municipality will abide by the rules established within the Virginia State Governmental apparatus to distribute Virginia’s share of the proceeds negotiated or ruled liable against corporate entities found to have profited off the promotion and manufacture of, and distribution of super-strong opioid drugs that have led to so much addiction and overdose deaths nationwide.
The staff agenda summary states that “settlement proposals have been negotiated that will cause the entities of McKesson, Cardinal Health, AmerisourceBergen, and Janssen” – and the Resolution adds “their related corporate entities” – “to pay up to $26 billion nationwide to settle claims against them”. And while the MOU is still being formulated in the Office of Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring in conjunction with establishment of a Virginia Opioid Abatement Authority to oversee distribution of the Virginia Opioid Abatement Fund revenue that comes the state’s way, both the Settlement Agreement and MOU must be signed by municipalities by January 2, 2022, to qualify for participation.
An online search about the settlement led to a description of McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen as “the three largest pharmaceutical distributors” and noted that involved drug manufacturer Janssen’s parent company was Johnson & Johnson.
Also under “Business Items” council referred consideration of short-term tourist rental code “text amendments” to the planning commission for review and recommendation; and approved a Valley Health request for a 5-year-extension of a stormwater easement at its old Warren Memorial Hospital/Lynn Care location. Last week Valley Health announced the pending sale of the old WMH/Lynn Care site to Hill Valley Health Care, a company that a Valley Health Press Release described as specializing in “skilled nursing, rehabilitation and long-term care” which “owns and operates facilities throughout Virginia” including in Luray, Warrenton and Winchester.
Staff COVID bonuses approved
Approved without discussion as part of the Consent Agenda was a Fiscal Year-2022 Budget Amendment of $476,617 and Interfund Budget transfer of $216,635 that will enable a one-time employee bonus of $3,096 of which the employee will net about $2,000 after taxes and deductions. The bonuses are for work through the COVID-19 Coronavirus pandemic, which council spent considerable time debating the necessity or legality of private, public, and health care sector COVID-19 vaccination mandates. In the end council rejected approval of a code forbidding private and health care sector vaccine mandates, but did not issue a mandate for its own employees.
In fact, prior to the Consent Agenda vote Mayor Holloway reiterated a point (at 23:40 mark of video) that he would not sign an order rescinding the non-vaccination status of Town employees were a federal mandate for public employees to be approved and handed down to municipalities. Having made his point, the mayor then acknowledged the pandemic bonus’s inclusion in the evening’s Consent Agenda.
Following Mayor Holloway’s comments, Councilwoman Letasha Thompson noted that insurance coverage cost for employees who are not vaccinated against COVID-19 is higher than for vaccinated employees. She suggested council and staff start looking at ways to put money aside to cover those additional costs across the board, rather than offer individual lower rates to vaccinated employees. Then on Thompson’s motion, seconded by Vice-Mayor Cockrell, the nine-item Consent Agenda passed on a 6-0 roll-call vote.
Also on the Consent Agenda was an FY-22 Budget Amendment of $2,090 to allow acceptance of grant funds from the Virginia Department of Forestry for the placement of Playground Shade Trees at Gertrude E. Miller Community Park; another budget amendment of $2,690 to allow acceptance of a $2,690 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services; a waiver to allow Boy Scout Troop 52 to sell Christmas Trees without payment of a License Tax; approval of another one-year extension on submission of a development plan by HEPTAD; and several matters regarding contracts and proposals related to mandated work on the Town’s wastewater treatment and Sanitary Sewer I&I Abatement work, the former involving a WWTP Centrifuge Conversion Engineering Report at a cost of $33,000; the latter involving a CHA consultant-recommended subcontract with Hydrostructures at a cost of $130,000.
At the meeting’s outset council was slated to recognize the achievement, service and contributions of three people, two staff, one retiring and one back from graduating the Southern Police Institute, and one apparently retiring member of the Board of Architectural Review (BAR). However, only one was present leading to suggested deferred recognitions for retiring Public Works Street Division Sign Tech “Billy” D. Sears and BAR member Andrea White, the latter whose deferred recognition may have occurred with approval of the nine-item Consent Agenda that included a Resolution acknowledging White’s term of service on the board tasked with preserving an architectural standard for the town’s Historic Downtown Business District – that recognition apparently still coming in her absence.
That left the recognition floor to Front Royal Police Captain Crystal Cline after her presentation to council by FRPD Chief Kahle Magalis. Cline described the benefits of her recent months at the Southern Police Institute in preparing officers for myriad issues facing law enforcement on a variety of fronts including intersecting administrative functions, officer retention and liability, procedural issues on street patrol, among others. Welcome back, Captain Cline; and good work Mr. Sears and Ms. White.
Town re-releases planners investigative report with verified ‘final’ version
The public review of a Front Royal Planning Commission investigative report prepared by Town Attorney Doug Napier on the approval process of a non-conforming sub-division request submitted by Mayor Chris Holloway’s construction company got an update Monday, November 22. That update addressed confusion expressed at the town planning commission meeting on November 17, just over two hours after the report’s release through the town administrative office.
As reported by Royal Examiner reporter Stephen Sill, the confusion revolved around which of several drafts of the report had been authorized for release that day, as well as whether the planners had the final draft before them that evening for approval. The planners eventually deferred action on the report till its December meeting to assure the final version was being voted on.
The November 17 report released at the authorization of the town council according to Town Manager Steven Hicks was dated October 7, 2021. But that version did contain what appeared to be two red color-coded wording corrections and several code passages highlighted in yellow, the latter would appear for emphasis as opposed to being corrections. At the planning commission meeting of November 17, the town attorney cited a final version dated October 21.
The report released Monday through Town Manager Steven Hicks Office is dated October 7, but with an “updated October 21, 2021” added in parenthesis and a handwritten notation at the top of the front page “FINAL” signed “Douglas W. Napier”. The color-coded corrections and highlights are gone, but the two grammatical corrections on the front page and page 5 are incorporated into the text without the color highlights, as is explained in the accompanying press release.
The 20-page report is accompanied by another one-page press release from new Town Public Information Office Director Joanne Williams of Williams Media LLC based in Richmond. The first three paragraphs focus on the above-referenced confusion over which version of the report had been released, concluding with this reference to Town Attorney Napier’s subsequent communication to council:
“As a result of much confusion on what appears to be various versions of the report circulated, the Town Attorney issued an email to Town Council members on November 19 stating, “I located the October 21 report. The changes are two, extremely minor, one is putting a space between two paragraphs, the other was cleaning up the language in the first report wherein it stated “CORRECTION” so that the corrected language is now simply an integral part of the report. I have marked one copy of the October 21 report to show the changes from the October 7 report and have also sent a clean copy of the October 21 report. The changes are so minor and technical that they were hardly worth making …” Napier observed.
And it does appear the one substantive grammatical change, color-coded in the original release on page 5 simply moves the word “not” from one location in a sentence to another, not changing the substance of that sentence: “CORRECTION: Another meeting on March 30, 2021, with Mr. Wilson was held to discuss what was needed for Mr. Holloway to build a private street on this property he was purchasing from the Town and re-subdividing. Mr. Wilson did not (removed) advise Mr. Holloway or the Town Manager that a “special use permit” was NOT (added) needed.”
And the press release restates the November 17 assertion that while fast-tracking of the application by the town manager, occasionally under the watchful eye of the subdivision applicant Mayor Holloway, was engaged in leading some staff to feel pressured to sign off on immediate approval without checking zoning codes, no wrongdoing occurred.
And as noted in our original introduction to the November 17 release, the town attorney did point out of the staff “fast-tracking” of the application: “It should be clearly and unambiguously stated that there is no current Town Code provision that states this it is impermissible for the Town Manager to do this, or for a Mayor or Town Councilman to have the Town Manager do this for them.”
However, could the fast-tracking and mayoral or council/applicant presence during some of that fast-tracking lead to staff oversights on code regulations under the real or implied pressure they felt they were under, particularly when some were in interim management positions due to staffing cutbacks? Maybe the promised administrative review of “outdated policies and procedures to ensure consistency” promised in the final sentence of both the report-accompanying press releases will address that issue.
Here are the links to the corrected documents and press release.
World sailing venture and Public School use of CARES grant funding dominate supervisors’ public hearings discussion
On Thursday, November 18, the Warren County Board of Supervisors played a double header, leading off with a Special Meeting quickly adjourned into a closed Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. for discussion of investment in a North River District property inside the Front Royal town limits. No action or announcement followed that closed session and the Special Meeting was adjourned at 7:01 p.m.
Down a man, retiring Happy Creek Supervisor Tony Carter absent, the board then convened its second regular meeting of the month to face a 10-public hearing agenda. But not before leadoff batter, County Administrator Ed Daley, suggested the board amend the agenda to remove its last item. That item was another closed session, this one to discuss an “Unannounced Expansion of Existing Business or Industry” located in the North River District outside the town limits. Daley suggested revisiting that topic at the board’s December 14 meeting and the board agreed to the change without dissent.
No one answered a call for Public Comment on matters not on the meeting agenda and it was quickly on to board and staff reports. During member reports, North River Supervisor Delores Oates emotionally thanked the community for its outpouring of sympathy at the recent unexpected death of her 43-year-old brother.
Board Chairman Cheryl Cullers then commended Vice-Chairman Archie Fox for his representation of the board in her absence at a state conference two days earlier during Governor Northam’s visit for the Nature’s Touch North Corridor business expansion announcement.
Board, administrative, and departmental reports out of the way, a nine-item Consent Agenda, including payment of two more counterproductive according to wildlife experts and county animal control staff, Coyote Bounties of $50 was passed as presented. With nothing else on the agenda except the 10 public hearings, that 4-0 vote at 7:15 p.m. took the board into a 15-minute recess since public hearings are legally announced to begin at 7:30 p.m.
Fortunately, if you were a clock watcher, seven of the public hearings drew no speakers for or against proposals. The other three drew comments from applicants on their requests, and one of those drew one speaker against the application of Gordon Lee Birkhimer for a short-term tourist rental Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on his Massanutten Farms Subdivision home property off a private road. That speaker was closest neighbor Pamela Rhodes, who told the board she didn’t move to the secluded area over two decades ago to find “strange people” traveling in and out on a regular basis.
Sail Away income
Deputy Planning Director Matt Wendling noted that two letters in support and two letters against, apparently including Rhodes’, had been received about the proposed use. Wendling further explained that Birkhimer wanted to utilize his single-family home for short-term tourist rentals while away on a sailing trip around the world he anticipated lasting for two years. Wendling’s written summary of the proposal noted that “The applicant may continue the use after his oceanic global expedition if he doesn’t get swallowed by a whale or gets stranded in Tahiti.”
As to neighbor concerns about disturbances, Wendling said that despite often-expressed neighbor concerns during the public hearing process, the county has “never had” a complaint call once approved short-term rentals have been launched. Board discussion noted that Conditional Use Permits were just that, “conditional” upon adherence to the conditions attached to the permitting, which include protection of neighbors’ interests.
After questioning Birkhimer on a management plan in his absence and safeguards to prevent neighbor concerns about disturbances, including running-loose dogs, trespassing, noise, etcetera, the board approved the request by a 4-0 vote on a motion by Fox, seconded by Oates.
Public School staff grilled
The only speakers at a public hearing on approving County distribution of just over $4 million in federal Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security or CARES Act ($4,012,255) and state grant ($49,985) funding to Warren County Public Schools to help cover expenses during the COVID-19 pandemic were Assistant Superintendent for Administration George “Buck” Smith and Finance Director Rob Ballentine. They explained they were standing in for Superintendent Dr. Chris Ballenger, who was out of town at a schools conference.
However, this ended up being the lengthiest public hearing as Shenandoah District Supervisor Walt Mabe grilled Smith and Ballentine for about 25 minutes of the half-hour public hearing. Mabe sought additional detail on specific uses of the money and specific duties of staff positions augmented by the grant funding. Mabe appeared concerned that in a future budget cycle the county government might be asked to continue at least portions of the supplemental funding. Smith explained that for the most part, the grant money was being used “to help us get from where we are to where we need to be” in providing quality education under the trying circumstance of the past two years and continue capital improvement projects.
And while there was a four-category general breakdown in the written presentation of the request in the board packets: Instruction, $2,907,875; Operations and Maintenance, $9,721; Facilities, $1,042,644; and Technology, $102,000; accompanied by a 16-category “Detail” of those categories that included Elementary Teacher and Supplements ($163,600); Teacher Uppport (sic) of Quarantined Students ($29,190); Social Emotional Materials ($13,799); and Technology Hot Spots ($102,000), among others, some of those categorizations appeared to raise more questions than answers for Mabe.
It was numbers like $1,042,644 for LFK and BRTC Architect Fees; $566,216 for Student Support Assistants; and $515,994 for Additional Assistants that Mabe sought more specificity on. Smith said he would have to defer to the absent Superintendent Ballenger on some of those questions, particularly staffing ones. While saying he wasn’t “throwing stones” at the public school officials, Mabe said he worried that money was being “thrown” at what he said weren’t “money problems” but rather “people problems”.
However, when Mabe made a motion to delay approval of the grant funding until more detail could be provided, the chair’s call for a second was met by silence. North River Supervisor Oates then wondered if the board wouldn’t risk losing the grant money if it ultimately decided not to appropriate it as planned, to the county’s public school system.
“I personally think that tabling it is not in the best interest of the children we’re trying to educate,” Oates continued, noting, “The funds are there, the government has appropriated them, whether I agree with that or not. And at this point I think it would be prudent to just go ahead and appropriate the funds.”
That would not preclude asking Superintendent Ballenger to return in December with some of that additional detail Mabe was seeking, Oates pointed out. Mabe’s motion having died without a second, Oates made a new motion to approve the CARES and state grant funding to the public school system. Seconded by Vice-Chairman Fox, the motion then passed by a 4-0 vote, with Mabe, after a few seconds of thought, voting with the majority.
In other business the board first approved a Zoning Text Amendment presented by Planning Director Joe Petty adding gunsmithing services as a use by Conditional Use Permit in Residential-1 zoning districts. It is already a use allowed in Agricultural District. However, as staff noted in the agenda packet “currently there is no definition or supplemental regulations for such use”. The proposed amendment adds a definition and list of conditions for gunsmithing services into the county code.
That text amendment approval was followed by approval of Lorne Cooper’s CUP request for such gunsmithing services in a Residential-1 District. Cooper also responded to In response to a question from Vice-Chairman Fox, Petty said that a walk-up shooting range aspect would not be allowed in a Residential District, but with certain conditions met on adequate-sized properties, it could be in Agricultural Districts.
Also approved by the board after public hearings on Thursday were two ordinances related to one-time $3,000 bonuses to Sheriff’s Office deputies, including the sheriff, for both state Compensation Board-covered employees and non-Comp Board-covered employees. The bonuses for part-time employees will be $1500. While the state will cover the Comp Board employee bonuses, it was explained that the estimated $92,055 cost of the non-Comp Board employee bonuses will be covered by the County’s allocation of funding from the American Recovery Act Plan of 2021.
After some explanation by Assistant County Attorney Caitlin Jordan and subsequent discussion of variables, the board passed an ordinance amendment regarding the collection of a transient occupancy tax on rooms rented out for less than 30 days. The emergence of short-term tourist rentals out of homes led to an ordinance language change deleting “motel” for “accommodation” to assure all rental units used in this way are included. It was estimated that the County will realize about $18,000 in new revenue from the change.
Other matters approved included Terra Site Constructors LLC’s CUP request for a Contractor’s Storage Yard at 6986 Winchester Road in North River District; Michael and Leslie Hofbauer’s CUP request for a short-term tourist rental at 223 Chapel View Drive in the Shenandoah District; and Michael Blevins CUP request for a short-term tourist rental at 267 Trillium Trail Road in the Shenandoah District.
And with the Blevins CUP approval after public hearing number 10 and no response to the chair’s call for any new business, the board adjourned at 9 p.m.
Town Planning Commission wrestles with Holloway Subdivision Approval/Denial fallout after Town Manager releases report
Wednesday’s regular Front Royal Planning Commission was supposed to include a discussion of a completed report requested by the Planning Commission at its September 15 meeting, prior to its public release. Instead, the commissioners puzzled over several dated versions of the report crafted by Town Attorney Douglas W. Napier. The request was for the “Planning Director, or designee, to investigate and determine the facts surrounding the circumvention of the subdivision ordinance regarding Minor Subdivision application FRSUB2852-2021”, submitted by Mayor Holloway’s construction company. Earlier Royal Examiner reporting has revealed that the town attorney was asked to complete the report rather than the planning director, who works for the Town Manager.
In an unusual turn of events, just hours before the Planning Commission meeting, the Town released an earlier version of the report, accompanied by a statement from Town’s Public Information Officer (who knew we had one?) Joanne Williams. In this statement, the Town was oddly ambivalent about the report it was releasing, characterizing it as concluding “there was no wrongdoing by the Town Manager, Administration, staff, or Holloway Construction. While it appeared that more time could have been taken to review requests, the findings indicated that the mayor’s company was not given priority over other projects.”
The text of the report included with the Town press release is somewhat at variance with the language of the press release itself, since it gives a specific example of “at least Implicit pressure” for the interim planning director to sign the re-subdivision plat as soon as it was presented to him. The report goes on to say that “As a result, correct Town Code Procedures were not followed …”
The report attached to the press release further states:
“In the facts set out here, it became clear that there was a desire and pressure for much faster than usual land-use decision approval. This is understandable that a builder would want this.
However, when dealing with complex land use issues, this, in turn, cause significant mistakes being made by Town staff, in the form of approval of a re-subdivision plat and issuance of zoning permits that should not have happened when it did, before it should have, and without the required issuance of a special exception, had those mistakes not been caught after the mistakes were made (grammar in context). Had those mistakes not been caught, the title to those lots would have been bad because the private street accessing the subdivision lots would not have been legal. To Town staff, this rush to approval was seemingly done to please the applicant, even in the absence of any overt pressure having been exerted by the applicant.”
The commissioners were at pains to point out that Planning Director Lauren Kopishke, who took her position after the events at issue had occurred, was really the hero of the piece and prevented a lot of future heartache for the Applicant and the Town. Several commissioners shared their hope that she would get credit for her vigilance.
The Commission eventually agreed to defer action on the report until it is received in its final verified form; can be discussed at a work session, and targeted for approval at the regular December meeting. Commissioner Merchant commended the Planning Staff and Town Attorney Napier for their good work on the report. This reporter wonders whether the final report will be an exact copy of that released by the town. Time will tell.
In other business, the Commission was presented with the FY 2022-2027 Draft Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The plan covers capital improvements to the town infrastructure and is not so much part of the budget preparation process, but it can help prioritize large expenditures in harmony with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. Not all items end up in any one year’s budget. The commissioners asked several questions about the commission’s role in developing the CIP. Planning Director Kopishke responded that the commission’s review role helps make sure that items identified in the CIP are also in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, which is currently under development. The commission voted to table further review and discussion of the draft CIP until its December work session and regular meeting.
The commission also took a first look at a circulating draft of a new ordinance governing short-term tourist rentals in town. The County developed an ordinance and has been approving short-term tourist rentals in the county, so Planning Director Kopishke used the County’s ordinance as a starting point for such a Town ordinance proposal. The Town currently has no such mechanism, so technically facilities like AirB&B and VRBO in the town limits are not operating legally by a Town code, Director Kopishke pointed out. The commission will take up the draft ordinance at its December meeting, and meanwhile, the planning staff will review surrounding communities’ regulatory mechanisms for this phenomenon.