September 28, 2004 Work Session
145
A Work Session of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Tuesday,
September 28, 2004, at 12:00 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County
Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Vice-Chairman Barbara E. Van Osten; Gary W. Dove; Bill
M. Ewing; Gene E. Fisher; Gina A. Forrester; and Lynda J. Tyler.
OTHERS PRESENT
Planning Commission Chairman Charles S. Dehaven, Jr.; and Planning Commissioners
Robert A. Morris; John Light; Pat Gochenour; Marie F. Straub; George J. Kriz; William C.
Rosenberry; Roger Thomas; Greg Unger; and Cordell Watt; Comprehensive Plans & Policies
Subcommittee Members: Diane Kearns; Todd Shenk; June Wilmot; Jim Golloday; Marjorie
Copenhaver; and Sue Ann Teal.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Shickle called the work session to order.
JOINT WORK SESSION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION RE: RURAL AREAS
STUDY
Senior Planner Susan Eddy began by providing a brief overview of the process to date and
the issues and questions that arose from the August 31, 2004 work session. She then reviewed the
three proposed land development options:
1) Rezoning Option - Board would review and approve the rezoning application. Off-
site road improvements would be required and proffers could be sought under this
proposal.
2) By-Right Option - All subdivisions would be administratively approved; therefore,
the Board would not be involved and it would not be a public process. The County
could not require off-site road improvements or seek proffers to mitigate the impact
of the development.
3) Ten Acre Option - All subdivisions would be approved administratively. The
County could not require off-site road improvements or seek proffers to mitigate the
impact of the development. Conservation design would be mandatory for major
subdivisions with 60% ofthe land to be a conservation set aside.
Senior Planner Eddy briefly reviewed the Green Infrastructure, which was the framework
for looking at the rural areas. She advised that this area of the study consumed a lot ofthc group's
discussion, but no consensus was reached.
Minute Book Number 30
Board of Supervisors Worksession with Planning Commission
ou Rural Areas Study - 09/28/04
146
She then reviewed the remaining steps in the process, which included possibly taking this
study to the public in late October or early November. Staff would then consider the comments
received, in late November and early December, with a recommendation coming forward after the
first of the year.
Supervisor Dove asked ifthe fees charged for an application under the by-right option could
be set high enough to offset the loss in rezoning fees.
Director Lawrence responded that staff was currently looking at all of the review fees and
comparing them to comparable jurisdictions. He stated that a different fee could be charged for
subdivisions in the urban development area versus a subdivision in the rural areas.
Supervisor Tyler stated that she had three concerns about these proposals:
Capturing the cost of the fiscal impact of30% growth in the rural areas.
Transportation and visual impacts of development.
Environmental protection aspects.
The group discussed several of the proposals in this study including a density reduction
credit for preserving primary resources.
Commissioner Watt informed the Board that, as a farmer, all ofthe options proposed were
troublesome, but he understood the County's point. He was not sure that the proposals encouraged
farming and felt that they would make it more difficult for young couples to buy lots in Frederick
County.
John Goode, a landowner in the rural areas, addressed the group. He stated that this was
an opportunity for Frederick County to be an example for other communities in Virginia. He did
not think that the landowners who would be most impacted by this proposal have participated in the
process. He went on to say that he did not want to see Frederick County spend proffer money on
litigation. He believed the County should get the large landowners together and let them speak. He
concluded by saying that he did not think this proposal was at a point where it could be taken
forward to the public.
After further discussion, Chairman Shickle polled the Board regarding their desire to exclude
the density credit for the preservation of primary resources.
Supervisor Dove
No
Minute Book Number 30
Board of Supervisors Worksession with Planning Commission
on Rural Areas Stndy - 09/28/04
147
Supervisor Tyler No
Vice-Chairman Van Osten Yes
Supervisor Forrester Yes
Supervisor Ewing Yes
Supervisor Fisher Yes
Chairman Shickle Yes
The majority of the Board voted to exclude the density credit for preservation of primary resources.
Chairman Shickle then asked the Board to rank the three options presented from most
interested in pursuing to least interested in pursuing. He reminded the Board that the three options
were:
1) Rezoning Option.
2) By-Right Option.
3) Ten Acre Option.
Chairman Shickle then polled the Board.
Supervisor Dove
Supervisor Tyler
Vice-Chairman Van Osten
Supervisor Forrester
Supervisor Ewing
Supervisor Fisher
Chairman Shickle
2,3, 1
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
2,1,3
2,1,3
2,3,1
The majority ofthe Board preferred option 2.
Chairman Shickle then polled the Board regarding their interest keeping the option 2 unit
density at 1 per 25 acres or reducing it to 1 to 10 acres.
Supervisor Dove
Supervisor Tyler
Vice-Chairman Van Osten
Supervisor Forrester
Supervisor Ewing
Supervisor Fisher
Chairman Shickle
1 per 10 acres
1 per 10 acres
1 per 25 acres
1 per 25 acres
1 per 10 acres
1 per 25 acres
1 per 10 acres
The majority of the Board preferred 1 unit per 10 acres.
There being no further discussion, the work session was adjourned at 2:20 P.M.
\
"'
\2-~'-L_-Q. c-~~_.L.~
Richard C. Shickle
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Minute Book Number 30
Board of Supervisors Worksession with Planning Commission
on Rural Areas Study - 09/28/04
148
Minutes Prepared By: cJr:tL1 L ,~,' v..l A
~bs
Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Minute Book Number 30
Board of Supervisors Worksession with Planning Commission
on Rural Areas Study - 09/28/04