017-02
RESOLUTION
BY THE
FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Action:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
October 23, 2002
!il APPROVED 0 DENIED
WHEREAS, it appears to this Board that Secondary Route 694 (Morgan Frederick Lane)
located north of Reynold Road (Route 694/600) approximately 1.5 miles east of North Frederick Pike
(Route 522), a distance of 0.4 miles in length, serves no public necessity and is no longer necessary as a part
of the Secondary System of State Highways; and,
WHEREAS, a public notice was posted as prescribed under section 33.1-151, Code of Virginia,
announcing the intent to abandon altogether the section of road described above from the Secondary
System of State Highways; and,
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this road
abandonment during their regular meeting on October 23, 2002; and after considering all evidence of the
section of Secondary Route 694 is no longer necessary as a part of the Secondary System of State
Highways.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Board abandons the above-described
section of road and removes it from the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-
151, Code of Virginia.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to
the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. ShickIe, Chairman Aye Sidney A. Reyes Ayes
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Absent Margaret B. Douglas Aye
Lynda J. Tyler ~ Robert M. Sager ...AJp..
Gina A. Forrester Aye
A COPY ATTEST
~-li -
Jo . Riley, Jr.
Frederick County Administrator
PDRes. #26-02
BOS Resolution No.: 017-02
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department or Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
:iZ.~~~:I:i.~.z~~~~~':-' '.'~"""''''' '.
TO:
Frederick County Board of Supervisors
FROM:
Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II
DATE:
October 17, 2002
RE:
...... ........ .............. '.' ~e9~~.st.~? ~..~.~?Ii.~..~~.~.~..~b~n~?n~e~t. ~.~~?~&~?~~,~~~r,ic~...~~..~~. ~~?~~~?~~)
.;.....:.:.:.:.. .....::......^.:.:-.:;...:~.......:.:.:...:.:.:~.:~~..:.~~~:~::::::::.:.::: : . :.: :~:..:.:..:.~. ;.;.;:: ~~ :.;.:: ',; '.~:.~' '.:.:.:..,:::.:.:.:~ : :.:.:.~::<~:;.:;;.:.:;::.::.;.
:...:::;.:,:~~~~~..,~,~~,':'<:"';'~;~W", ,WN,'--" ,,:~ :",:,;,~:~,,: .. ~ ~-::. :;',,;,.y: :':':~:":::~::::':':':'::{:':':"~" ..:.........:.:...................-:-:~ ......................:
.~v.......... .~'. .'.
The Crosen family has requested that Morgan Frederick Lane (Route 694) be abandoned from the Virginia
Secondary Road System. Pursuant to Article 11, Section 33.1 - 150. Abandonment of road. landing. or
crossing. the Board of Supervisors may abandon any road, or section of a road, provided that the road IS
deemed no longer necessary for public use or necessary for the uses of the secondary road system.
Morgan Frederick Lane is a 30-foot prescriptive right-of-way, which was added to the Virginia Secondary
Road System under the Byrd Act of 1932. Originally, Morgan Frederick Lane extended to Middle Fork Road
(Route 695); however, the north em portion was abandoned in 1940. Presently, Morgan Frederick Lane is.4
miles in length. It is within the Gainesboro Magisterial District, and is located north of Reynolds Road (Route
694/600), approximately 1.5 miles east of North Frederick Pike (Route 522).
Morgan Frederick Lane is unpaved and is presently only being used to access the Crosen family property,
which consists of three parcels of land. All other surrounding properties have different means of access.
Attached with this memorandum are three pictures of the road from beginning to end. Exhibit A shows the
road at its intersection with Reynolds Road. Exhibit B is a typical image ofthe road, taken about.2 miles from
the intersection with Reynolds Road. Exhibit C is a picture of the end of the road, where it branches off to a
driveway on the right and an old road/path to the left.
Staff has contacted the Frederick County Sheriffs Office, the Frederick County Fire Marshal. the
Commonwealth Attorney, the Frederick County Department of Public Works, and the Frederick County
Department of GIS regarding the requested road abandonment. All agencies believed that the abandonment
would not have an impact on their operations. Furthermore, Mr. Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Commonwealth
Attomey, indicated that the procedure for abandonment is appropriate in this case. In particular, all adjOining
property owners have been notified.
If the Board is satisfied that no public necessity exists for the continuance of Morgan Frederick Lane as a
public road, it may approve the Crosen family's request to abandon the road. Alternately, the Board may
dismiss the request for abandonment. In the former case, a "notice of intent" to abandon Morgan Frederick
Lane would be sent to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Resident Engineer for evaluation.
The Secondary Road Division (SRD) of VDOT would then notify the County of their deCision.
JFC/clh
Attachments
u I( 'OMM ITTE.EsrrRANSPOR T !\TION\Pn"a:I~\A RAN OONMENT\CROS EN\!!C JSMe'lllu wpd
^.__".".....,_~m_~-.-
c::
o
.....
..,
C)
III
CO
I-<
III
..,
c::
H
,....
o
o
'"
......
~
a-.
'"
III
..,
;l
o
~
......
't:l
<0
o
~
"'
't:l
......
o
c::
;>,
III
~
""
<1\
~
......
<1\
U
.,.l
po
;>--
i:-'
\
III
~
,.J
{,
.,.l
'""
III
""
III
'""
I><
~
Oil
'""
~
'-'
.,.l
-e.
~
~
III
c::
III
,..:I
..:
(J
....
!-<
III
'1:l
III
!-<
~
c::
OS
00
!-<
o
~
'-'
....
.a
....
..c:
>:
w
271 Spring Valley Drive
Winchester, VA 22603
July 22,2002
Mr. Jeremy Camp
Frederick Co. Planning Depl.
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, V A 22601
Re: Abandonment of Morgan Frederick Lane (Rl. 694)
Dear Jeremy:
Enclosed is a copy of a section of County Tax Map #07-A-4 on which I have indicated
the property owned by my father and the property owned by my wife and me. As you
can see, all of the road that is to be abandoned passes through our properties.
Also enclosed is a recent letter from Keith Walker, Transportation Right-of-Way Agent
for VDOT. As indicated in Mr. Walker's letter, an abandonment of Morgan Frederick
Lane does not necessitate any transfer of land ownership since VDOT does not own the
land; they merely have a prescriptive easement.
VYhile there has not been a survey of the subject road, it is clearly identified on the
"General Highway Map" of Frederick County. As shown on this map, the length of
Morgan Frederick Lane is OAO mile.
I hope you will find this additional information adequate to proceed with our requested
abandonment of this roadway.
Sincerely,
~'- ;to C~~
Roger L. Crosen
Office: 662-7329 KEL;I:::I" r
Home: 667-5206
JUL 2 ~ ZOO?
/'
Y'(' e ler /" c)(
D.'-t
r
rY\- I .
fa
be... q ~,;(V\ JoVl ~ l
I'lO'f"-r0. 0 -F 1't... f
- ShovJ", IV\, Ye.f(ow
LJ a. ..r q b &( 1'\ JD '" ~ J- i.......
11LfD' .5
I
.T h. e-
\" 0 ct. J..
-
r
r
C
,-
r
(
c
c
~
,
1\1
=-
.,,:~~c~.~{~ .~~~ ~~.t,
.'\; .,,1'. \\
"J ',e.~ . '"
'/" I,i 10."
\~ ,.,>: Ii'
~,~ '~..~~~.~:: '_.'.~~'
r. :l'./:~"'~\!.I'
'l.:f:"~A':'~r:+;-
-"'1~;".;:;':'
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Philip A. Shucal
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
EDINBURG RESIDENCY
14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE
EDINBURG. VA 22824
July 18, 2002
JERRY A. COPP
RESIDENT ENGINEER
TEL (540) 984-5600
FAX (540) 984-5607
Mr. Roger L. Crosen
271 Spring Valley Drive
Winchester, VA 22603
Ref: Route 694
From: Route 600
To: 4/10 Mi. NW Rt. 600 (Dead End)
Frederick County
Dear Mr. Crosen:
In response to your letter dated July 15, 2002, this is to advise that there have
never been any surveys of this roadway to our knowledge. This road was added
to the Secondary System under the Byrd Act of 1932 as prescriptive 30' right-of-
way. We do not own the underlying fee of this roadway.
Per your request, I am herewith enclosing a copy from our Frederick County
map, which shows the location and the length of the existing prescriptive right-
of-way.
Should you have any questions or if I can assist you in any other way, please do
not hesitate to contact me at (540) 984-5628.
, Sincerely,
$dfL iJ. zJ~
Keith D. Walker
Transportation Right-of-Way Agent
KDW Ibr
Enclosure
VirginiaDOTorg
v-
"
"
~0 /
<0 0'~1
...~
-,
,-<{
"V
)-.
"".
/~
'q"O,
/ v'"
} v....
I
\
('
Ov
...
.~
\
I
L: ~,
, ",I
I '"
f~
~
c:r
I
I
#/
1m,,> I
rRi
823 Reynolds Road
Cross Junction, VA 22625
April 15, 2002
Mr. Keith Walker
Va. Dept. of Transportation
14031 Old Valley Pike '
Edinburg, V A 22824
Dear Mr. Walker:
Now that my son Roger and his wife Carol have purchased the Brooks
property, I would like for the Virginia Department of Transportation to
abandon Morgan Frederick Lane from your system.. The only landowners
who used that road to gain access to their property were Charles and
Pauline Brooks. Even though they used the road, they could have gained
access to their property by way of about a half mile of road frontage on
Route 600.
While this road passes through my property and I use it occasionally, I
prefer it would become a private road. I ask you to initiate the necessary
action to remove this road from the public highway system and allow any
right-of-way to ~evert to the property owners.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
)(~ e.,,~
Kansas Crosen
271 Spring Valley Drive
Winchester, V A 22603
April 4, 2002
Mr. Steve Melnikoff
Va. Dept. of Transportation
14031 Old Valley Pike
Edinburg, VA 22824
Dear Steve:
As I discussed by telephone with you earlier this week, we hereby ask the Virginia
Department of Transportation to abandon Morgan Frederick Lane from your system.. The
only landowners who used that road were Charles and Pauline Brooks and their land (Ta..x
Map #07-A-4) was conveyed to us on March 22,2002 (copy of deed enclosed).
The above referenced land has almost a half mile of frontage on Route 600 so it is not
necessary to use Morgan Frederick Lane to gain access to the property. Now that we
own the Brooks property, we want privacy and do not want Morgan Frederick Lane to be
a state road.
We ask you to initiate the necessary action to remove this road from the public highway
system and allow any right-of-way to revert to the property own~rs which would be my
father, Kansas Crosen, and ourselves.
Thanks for your assistance.
Sincerely,
~~/~
Roger L. Crosen
awl tJ~u
Carol O. Crosen
~
._~. '.
Ii
~ /
; "1---_
~ 'f c"
"'!, 'i ,,~.'
t~1:~
~
~
..."
'"
..
"
...~
...~
..
e~
~
~~
...
...
?Jb
'Z~~i~
o -. s. 0.. i;:".
~1O (ll ~ 0
::r ~ O'l cr ::l
9..~~~~
...... <0 0. "0
00.. 0..
C(ll ::l
$':1. 3
i 0'l9- ~
Or- ....
:- 9113 ?J
~,""..' ~~
~ ~
~
.
+