013-06AMENDMENT
Action:
PLANNING COMMISSION: August 16, 2006 - Recommended Approval of Modified Version
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: September ] 3, 2006 J APPROVED ^ DENIED
AN AMENDMENT TO
THE FREDERICK COUNTY 2003 COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN
CHAPTER 6, LAND USE
WHEREAS, An amendment to the Frederick County 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan, Chapter 6,
Land Use, to modify the boundaries of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and
Water Service Area (SWSA) to more appropriately reflect the current land use designations of the
Comprehensive Policy Plan and provide consistency with policy boundaries, resulting in an
approximate reduction of 5,576 acres in the UDA and an approximate reduction of I ,514 acres in the
SWSA, was considered. Also considered was an accompanying land use policy text modification.
This amendment was reviewed by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS),
and the Planning Commission during their regularly scheduled meetings; and,
WHEREAS, The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) recommended
approval of this amendment on May 8, 2006; and,
WHEREAS; the Plamling Commission held a public hearing on this Comprehensive Policy Plan
amendment on June 21, 2006 and a public meeting on August 16, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this Comprehensive Policy Plan
amendment on September 13, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the adoption of this Comprehensive
Policy Plan. amendment to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in good
planning practice;
Page 2 of 7
Amendment to Comprehensive Policy Plan, Chapter 7
UDA &SWSA Boundary Modifications
September 13, 2006
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that the
Frederick County 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan, Chapter 6, Land Use, is amended to modify the
boundaries of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA)
to more appropriately reflect the current land use designations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan,
resulting in an approximate reduction of 5,576 acres in the UDA and an approximate reduction of
1.,514 acres in the SWSA (maps attached), as follows:
UDA and SWSA Boundary Modification Analvsis
Current UDA area is 22,822.481 acres
(28,717.481 - 5,895 acres adjusted for Winchester)
Amount Reduced is 5,576.32 acres
UDA area post-reduction is 17,246.17 acres
Current SWSA area is 27,000 acres
(32,895 - 5,895 acres adjusted for Winchester)
Amount Reduced is ],514.75 acres
SWSA area post-reduction is 25,485.83 acres
The following results are from the identified areas where the UDA and SWSA are being
recommended for adjustment. Please refer to the attached maps which are labeled to correspond with
each area.
Area #1
North of Route 37 including the area known as Apple Pie Ridge, Spring Valley, and the Stonewall
Industrial Park. Boundaries to reflect existing land use designations. Extension of SWSA to include
existing public facilities connected to water and sewer. UDA and SWSA boundaries respect the
approval of the Russell Glendobbin Rezoning #17-05.
UDA:
2619 acres reduction
SWSA:
583 acres reduction
136 acres addition
447 acre net reduction
_ Area #1 passed this 13th day of September 2006 by the following recorded vote:
Page 3 of 7
Amendment to Comprehensive Policy Plan, Chapter 7
UDA &SWSA Boundary Modifications
September 13, 2006
Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye
Gary W. Dove Aye
Gene E. Fisher Aye
Philip A. Lemieux Aye
Barbara E. Van Osten Aye
Bill M. Ewing Aye
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye
Area #2
Northeastern section of UDA, including part of the land that is adjacent to the Stephenso~.i Village
project. Consistent boundaries that follow property lines and respect land use designations. Retention
of SWSA to include B2 portion of Monastery Property.
UDA:
79.7 acre reduction
SWSA:
58.5 acre reduction
Area #2 passed this 13th day of September 2006 by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye
Gary W. Dove Aye
Barbara E. Van Osten Aye
Bill M. Ewing Aye
Gene E. Fisher Aye
Philip A. Lemieux Aye
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye
Area #3
Eastern section of UDA including a proffered State conservation area and part of land adjacent to
and north of Route 7; Route 7 consistent northern boundary.
UDA:
85.3 acre reduction
Page 4 of 7
Amendment to Comprehensive Policy Plan, Chapter 7
UDA &SWSA Boundary Modifications
September 13, 2006
SWSA:
101.2 acre reduction
Area #3 passed this 13th day of September 2006 by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Nay
Gary W. Dove Aye
Barbara E. Van Osten
Bill M. Ewing
Aye
Aye
Gene E. Fisher Aye
Philip A. Lemieux Aye
Charles S. DeHaven. Jr.
Area #4
Southeast section south of Senseny Road, east of Greenwood Road, and north of Sulphur Springs
Road. Boundary consistency. Property lines.
UDA:
47.66 acre reduction.
22.9 acre addition
24.76 acre net reduction
SWSA:
Same
Area #4 passed. this 13th day of September 2006 by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye
Gary W. Dove Aye
Barbara E. Van Osten Aye
Bill M. Ewing Aye
Gene E. Fisher Aye
Philip A. Lemieux Aye
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye
Area #5
East of Route 522, South of Route 50, and north of Justes Drive. Winchester Regional Airport,
Careers Valley Area. Reduction in UDA consistent with land use designations. Extension of S WSA
to include existing public facilities connected to water and sewer.
Page 5 of 7
Amendment to Comprehensive Policy Plan, Chapter 7
UDA &SWSA Boundary Modifications
September 13, 2006
UDA:
1,523.6 acre reduction
SWSA:
0.83 acre reduction
43.5 acre addition
42.67 acre net addition
Area #5 passed this 13th day of September 2006 by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye Barbara E. Van Osten
Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing
Gene E. Fisher Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.
Philip A. Lemieux Aye
.Aye
Aye
Aye
Area #6
Stephens City area. Removing County policy lines from within Town of Stephens City. Joint Land.
Use Plan provides guidance for the Town's future annexation and provision of sewer and water.
Interstate 8l consistent western boundary of UDA/SWSA.
UDA:
69 acre reduction
SWSA:
864.8 acre reduction
Area #6 passed this 13th day of September 2006 by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Ave
Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye
Gene E. Fisher Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye
Philip A. Lemieux Ave
Page 6 of 7
Amendment to Comprehensive Policy Plan, Chapter 7
UDA &SWSA Boundary Modifications
September 13, 2006
Area #7
Kernstown Area. Route 11 South and Shady Elm Drive. Land use designation conformance.
Interstate 81 consistent western boundary to the UDA. Policy language recognition of Echo Village
residential area to be noted within the plan
UDA:
1104.75 acre reduction
SWSA:
Same
Area #7 passed this 13th day of September 2006 by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Nay
Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye
Gene E. Fisher Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye
Philip A. Lemieux Aye
Area #8
Route 50 West at the Route 37 interchange. Land use designation conformance.
UDA:
47.7 acre reduction
SWSA:
Same
Area #S passed this 13th day of September 2006 by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye
Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye
Gene E. Fisher Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye
Philip A. Lemieux Aye
Page 7 of 7
Amendment to Comprehensive Policy Plan, Chapter 7
UDA & SWSA Boundary Modifications
September 13, 2006
A COPY ATTEST
R
! ~~
John iley, r.
Frederick County Administrator
This ordinance shall be in effect on the day of adoption.
BOS Res. 48013-06
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP ~_
Deputy Director
RE: UDA Study - UDA/SWSA Boundary Modification Exercise and Land Use Policy
Public Hearing.
DATE: August 30, 2006
The Frederick County Board of Supervisors, at their meeting on June 14, 2006, provided direction to
move forward with the public hearing process for the UDA aild SWSA Boundary modification
exercise and Land Use policy text amendments. Consequently, the Planning Commission reviewed
the UDA/S W SA Boundary Modification Exercise and Land Use Policy Update on several occasions.
Ultimately, the Planning Commission has provided a recommendation to the Board on both the
UDA/SWSA boundary modifications and the Land Use Policy update.
On June 21, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the item and, based upon the
input and discussion, tabled the item. Subsequently, at their July 5, 2006 meeting, the Commission
determined that it would be appropriate to bring back the item at the next available Planning
Commission meeting, so a recommendation could be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. The
recommendation was provided by the Planning Commission at their August 16, 2006 meeting.
The Planning Commission's recommendation included approval of modifying the UDA and SWSA
boundaries in four of the eight areas that were studied. The Commission recommended that no
modifications be made at this time to the remaining four areas. In general, the Commission expressed
their opinion that at this time, no modifications should be made in those areas where some form of
application; rezoning or CPPA amendment, was under review or consideration.
As the Board is aware, the UDA and S WSA boundary exercise is a component ofthe on-going UDA
Study. Prior to moving forward with the more creative and proactive land use policy efforts of the
UDA Study, it was determined that as an initial step, the UDA and SWSA boundaries should
appropriately reflect the current land use designations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. In addition,
the UDA and SWSA boundaries should follow logical and consistent boundaries or features and
relate to each other. Upon completing this exercise, the foundation will be in place from which to
frame the recommendations of the UDA Study.
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Board of Supervisors -UDA Study
August 30, 2006
Page 2
In general, the following graphic represents the three major components of the County's land use
policy and how they relate to each other:
UDA and SWSA i
Expected land uses based on policy:
•RP uses on public water and sewer
•C & I uses on public water and sewe
• Institutional uses on public
water and sewer
Enhancements to the Land Use policy language of the Comprehensive Policy Plan are included in
this package of information which more accurately reflect and describe current County policy and
historical application of the policy. The UDA/SWSA Boundary modification exercise seeks to
ensure consistency with the above Land Use Policy of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. In addition,
the revisions to the Land Use Policy Language affirm the understanding of the County's UDA and
SWSA policy.
The modifications of the UDA and SW SA boundaries to more appropriately reflect the current land
use designations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan will result in an approximate reduction of 5,818
acres in the UDA and a reduction of approximately 1,428 acres in the SWSA. The proposed UDA
would be 17,003 acres in size and the proposed SWSA would be 25,571 acres in size. A more
detailed view of the specific areas of modification is described and illustrated in the following
breakdown and attached mapping.
Staff will be available to discuss the proposed modifications to the boundaries and policy in greater
detail at the September 13, 2006 Board Public Hearing. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Board of Supervisors -UDA Study
August 30, 2006
Page 3
UDA and SWSA Boundary Modification Analysis
Proposed adjustment reflects the approval by the Board of Supervisors of the Russell-
Glendobbin Rezoning Application.
Current UDA area is 22,822.481 acres
(28,717.481 - 5,895 acres adjusted for Winchester)
Amount Reduced is 5,818.98 acres
UDA area post-reduction is 17,003.5 acres
Current SWSA area is 27,000 acres
(32,895 - 5,895 acres adjusted for Winchester)
Amount Reduced is 1,428.83acres
SWSA area post-reduction is 25,571.17 acres
The following results are from the identified areas where the UDA and SWSA are being
recommended for adjustment. Please refer to the attached maps which are labeled to correspond
with each area.
Area # 1
North of Route 37 including the area known as Apple Pie Ridge, Spring Valley, and the
Stonewall Industrial Park. Boundaries to reflect existing land use designations. Extension of
SWSA to include existing public facilities connected to water and sewer.
UDA:
2,619.7 acre reduction
SWSA:
583 acre reduction
136 acre addition
447 acre net reduction
Area #2
Northeastern section of UDA, including part of the land that is adjacent to the Stephenson
Village project. Consistent boundaries that follow property line. Retention of SWSA to include
B2 portion of Monastery Property.
UDA:
79.7 acre reduction
SWSA:
58.5 acre reduction
Board of Supervisors -UDA Study
August 30, 2006
Page 4
Area #3
Eastern section of UDA including a proffered State conservation area and part of land adjacent to
and north of Route 7. Route 7 consistent northern boundary.
UDA:
85.3 acre reduction
SWSA:
101.2 acre reduction
Area #4
South East section south of Senseny Road, east of Greenwood Road, and north of Sulpher Spring
Road. Boundary consistency. Property lines.
UDA:
47.66 acre reduction
22.9 acre addition
24.76 acre net reduction
SWSA:
Same
Area #5
East of Route 522, South of Route 50, and north of Justes Drive. Winchester Regional Airport,
Careers Valley Area. Also includes area north of Route 50 and South of Sulpher Springs Road.
Extension of SWSA to include existing public facilities connected to water and sewer.
UDA:
1,766.3 acre reduction
SWSA:
0.83 acre reduction
43.5 acre addition
42.67 acre net addition
Board of Supervisors -UDA Study
August 30, 2006
Page 5
Area #6
Stephens City area. Removing County policy lines from within Town of Stephens City. Joint
Land Use Plan provides guidance for the Town's future annexation and provision of sewer and
water. Interstate 81 consistent western boundary of UDA/SWSA.
UDA:
69 acre reduction
SWSA:
864.8 acre reduction
Area #7
Kernstown Area. Route 11 South and Shady Elm Drive. Land use designation conformance.
Interstate 81 consistent western boundary to the UDA. Policy language recognition of Echo
Village residential area to be noted within the plan
- UDA:
1104.75 acre reduction
SWSA:
Same
Area #8
Route SO West at the Route 37 interchange. Land use designation conformance.
UDA:
47.7 acre reduction
SWSA:
Same
Land Use - omnrehensive Pnliry Plan UDA and SWSA Land Polic~Update
This plan contains general land use concepts for the future development of Frederick County. It
describes the general development patterns that are presently taking place and those that are
anticipated or planned. As planning efforts continue, more specific concepts will be developed for
interchange areas, rural community centers, and other areas. Such plans will combine planning for
land use with planning for roads and facilities.
The primary land use concepts in this plan i~ are the Rural Areas (RAl the Urban Development Area
(UDA), and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA These land use concepts seek to clearly
define .. ~.:°'~ ~- °~'~ °~ a' 'a the County into rural and urban areas.
The Rural Areas of the county can be defined as all areas outside of the Urban Development Area
and Sewer and Water Service Area. The Urban Development Area and Sewer and Water Service
Area are envisioned to be more urban in character It is expected that the land uses within the UDA
and SWSA will be on public water and sewer The Urban Development Area defines the general area
in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. Commercial. industrial, and
institutional land uses are also encouraged within the Urban Development Area The Sewer and
Water Service Area is consistent with the Urban Development Area in many locations However the
Sewer and Water Service Area may extend beyond the Urban Development Area to promote
commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses in areas where residential land uses are not
desirable.
The relationship between the three rimary land use concepts in this plan is further illustrated in the
following_graphlC.
UDA and SWSA
Expected land uses based on policy:.
•RP uses on public water and sewer
'C & I Lses on public water and. sewe
• Institutional uses on public.:
" :water and sewer
Ladd Use -Comprehensive Policy Plan UDA and SWSA Land Use
Echo Village is an existing residential neighborhood at the intersection of Valley Pike Route 11
and Route 37 It is zoned RP (Residential Performance) and the residences are served by public
water and sewer. This area is not included in the UDA but the existm lots will continue to have
access to ublic water and sewer. The existin residential land uses and residential) zoned lots
would. be able to continue ursuant to current Coun Ordinances. The wider area is fanned and
zoned for commercial and industrial uses so ex ansion of the residential develo ment would not
be su orted. An future re uest to chan e the land use should be consistent with current
commercial and industrial land use designations,
Land Use -Comprehensive Policy Plan UDA and SWSA Land U Policy Update
This plan contains general land use concepts for the future development of Frederick County. It
describes the general development patterns that are presently taking place and those that are
anticipated or planned. As planning efforts continue, more specific concepts will be developed for
interchange areas, rural community centers, and other areas. Such plans will combine planning for
land use with planning for roads and facilities.
The primary land use concepts in this plan are the Rural Areas (RA), the Urban Development Area
(UDA), and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). These land use concepts seek to clearly
define the County into rural and urban areas.
The Rural Areas of the county can be defined as all areas outside of the Urban Development Area
and Sewer and Water Service Area. The Urban Development Area and Sewer and Water Service
Area are envisioned to be more urban in character. It is expected that the land uses within the UDA
and SWSA will be on public water and sewer.
The Urban Development Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of residential
development will occur. Commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses are also encouraged
within the Urban Development Area. The Sewer and Water Service Area is consistent with the
Urban Development Area in many locations. However, the Sewer and Water Service Area may
extend beyond the Urban Development Area to promote commercial, industrial, and institutional
land uses in areas where residential land uses are not desirable.
The relationship between the three primary land use concepts in this plan is fiu-ther illustrated in the
following graphic.
(Insert Graphic)
Echo Village is an existing residential neighborhood at the intersection of Valley Pike (Route 11)
and Route 37. It is zoned RP (Residential Performance), and the residences are served by public
water and sewer. This area is not included in the UDA, but the existing lots will continue to have
access to public water and sewer. The existing residential land uses and residentially zoned lots
would be able to continue pursuant to current County Ordinances. The wider area is planned and
zoned for commercial and industrial uses, so expansion of the residential development would not
be supported. Any future request to change the land use should be consistent with current
commercial and industrial land use designations.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 08/16/06 MEETING:
The Planning Commission first heazd comments from the public on the various areas proposed
for modifications. The Commission next consulted with their legal counsel on the
appropriateness of voting on some of the areas because of pending rezoning and CPPA
applications. The Commission then voted on each of the azeas separately. The public comments
and votes are included together below for simplicity purposes.
Area #I had no public comments.
The Commission unanimously recommended approval of the modifications.
Area #2 had one speaker. An attorney spoke on behalf of his clients in Areas #2 and #4 who
were actively seeking rezoning and/or CPPA amendments. The applicants believed having UDA
and SWSA modifications done at the same time their applications were being reviewed did not
weigh in their favor and they requested that the applications be permitted to run through the
process first.
By a majority vote, the Commission recommended that no modifications be nsade to Area #2 at
this time. The vote was as follows:
YES INO CHANGE) Mohn, Kerr, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Morris, Manuel, Unger, Wilmot
NO: Light
Area #3 had no public comments.
The Commission unanimously recommended approval of the modifications.
Area #4 had one speaker (the same attorney who spoke under Area #2)
The Commission unanimously recommended that no modifzcations be made to Area #4 at this
time.
Area #5 had three speakers. An attorney spoke on behalf of his client in Area #5 who was
currently circulating a rezoning application for comments. His client owned an 85-acre parcel of
which approximately 50 acres were located within Area #5. Since the property was within an
active development process and any modification could affect his client's property, the attorney
requested that the application be allowed to run its course before the modification was
considered.
A representative from a local engineering/design firm pointed out a property sandwiched between
two roads, one with existing utilities and one with the potential to be served by utilities. The
property was along Justes Drive, off Route 522, going back to the middle and elementary schools.
He believed this particular property should be included in the SWSA as well.
A citizen commented on the considerable amount of undeveloped area around the two schools
and believed the potential for a neighborhood center existed here. He thought the line should
include the entire surrounding area for a neighborhood center, possibly all the way over to
Parkins Mill Road, not just the school site. He added that of the four new neighborhood centers
planned in the County, this was the only one outside of the UDA line.
By a majority vote, the Commission recommended that no modifications be made to Area #5 at
this time. The vote was as follows:
YES tN0 CHANGE): Mohn, Kerr, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Morris, Manuel, Unger
NO: Light, Wilmot
Area #6 had one speaker. A property owner within the Town of Stephens CitypTown~Limits
asked for further clarification on how the modifications would affect him and his roe The
staff explained that the Town's policies prevail on all property within the town boundaries;
therefore, the SWSA/ UDA boundary modifications would not affect properties within the town
limits.
The Commission unanimously recommended approval of the modifications to Area #6.
Area #7 had one speaker. A representative for a local engineering/design firm came forward to
speak on behalf of owners of property on both sides of Route 37 within Area #7. He noted that a
portion of the property is within the existing UDA and half of the property is within the existing
SWSA. He said a CPPA amendment was submitted last year for consideration of a UDA
expansion. The property in question was 250 acres in size and had the potential for R4
development. In addition, the CPPA amendment had offered the potential for a public school bus
facility, which the applicant is still willing to pursue. The applicant asked that this property not
be removed from the UDA.
By a majority vote, the Commission recommended that no modifications be made to Area #7 at
this time. The vote was as follows:
YES (NO CHANGEI: Mohn, Kerr, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Manuel, Unger
NO: Light, Morris, Wilmot
Area #8 had no public comments.
By a majority vote, the Commission recommended approval of the modifications to Area #8. The
majority vote was as follows:
YES (RFC APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS): Unger, Manuel, Morris, Light, Ours,
Kriz, Triplett, Kerr, Mohn, Wilmot
NO• Thomas
Land Use Policy Text Amendment had no public comments.
By a unanimous vote, the Commission recommended approval of the Land Use Policy Text
Amendment with the removal of all references to Area #7, since that particular area was
recommended for no modifications at this time.
(Please Note: Commissioners Watt and Oates were absent for the 08/16/06 meeting.)
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 06/21/06 MEETING:
The Planning Commission received public comments on each individual area separately.
Citizens came forward to speak for Areas 1, 2, 4, and 5. Under Area #1, five citizens spoke with
one affected property owner reporting a rezoning application actively in the process of review;
three citizens who were opposed to this particular active rezoning and believed the boundary line
modifications should take place before the rezoning was considered; and one property owner
desiring to get public sewer. Under Area #2, two affected property owners spoke against the
boundary line modifications because of active CPPA applications or who considered the changes
as a devaluation of their properties or a hindrance to the development of their properties. Under
Area #4, one affected property owner spoke in opposition and under Area #5, two affected
property owners spoke in opposition, both giving the same reasons as previously mentioned.
Although staff had stated that individual land use designations on properties, whether they be
industrial, commercial, residential, or rural areas, would not change through this boundary
modification process, Commissioners noted an underlying feeling by the public that a property
removed from the UDA would be devalued and the impression that property owners would not be
able to develop their property as they had intended when they purchased it. Commission members
noted that if someone purchased property because it was within the UDA, they found it difficult
to support an action that would remove that classification off their property. Commission
members believed that if a property is under any type of active application process, such as a
rezoning or a CPPA amendment, then the boundary line modifications for that area should not be
acted upon until that property completes its application process; they believed that acting on the
boundary line modifications in those particular areas beforehand may be premature and prejudice
the review of those proposals.
Although some Commissioners were ready to move forward on the areas that were not contested,
other Commissioners believed the Commission would be remiss to assume there were not active
applications on properties or interests that were concerned about particular boundaries.
Commissioners agreed with the intent of the boundary line adjustments, but expressed concern
about sacrificing some of the integrity of the UDA Study and the CPPA process, if action was
taken on the UDA and SWSA boundaries before those processes moved forward. From an equity
perspective, they agreed that if some areas were being considered for tabling, then all of the areas
should be tabled or postponed.
A motion was then made, seconded, and unanimously passed to table the entire UDA/SWSA
Boundary Modification package until not only after the CPPA process has concluded, but also to
coincide with the conclusion of the UDA Study or at least until the subcommittee is deeper into
the UDA Study, in order to allow the underlying land uses to be examined and all processes can
be brought together comprehensively.
(Commissioners Watt and Thomas were absent from the meeting.)
UDA &. SWSA Boundary
Modification Exercise & Policy Text Changes
On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby noti-
fied of a Public Hearing being held on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 at
7:15pm. The Public Hearing is part of the regular Board of Supervisors meet-
ing and will be held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration
Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia.
This meeting will consider modifications to the boundaries of the Urban De-
velopment Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA)
and associated policy teat. This item was previously discussed by the Plan-
ning Commission at a Public Hearing held on Tune 21, 2006 and at a public
meeting held on August 16, 2006. The Planning Commission has provided a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
The UDA Study has identified eight general areas where differences with the
boundaries occur or where inconsistency with the land use designations of the
Comprehensive Policy Plan has been recognized. This current effort seeks to
affirm the land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and to provide consis-
tency with the county's future land use designations.
FREDERICK COLINTY
DEFAATM ENT OF FL.4NNING
AND DE4'ELOFMENT
107 N. Kent Street `
Suite 202 Any interested parties may attend this Public Hearing. You have been identified as an owner of property within an area
Winchester, VA, 22601
where the proposed boundary is to be modified A copy of the agenda will be available for review at the Handley Li-
brary and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or ai the Department of Planning and Development located at
" Phone: 540-665-5651 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia Information regarding this application will also be available via the
Fax: 540-665-6395 Planning Departrnent's Web Page at www co frederickva us/PlannfngAndDeveloamendPlanninPAndDev htm
.
, ,
, _
~
~
`
~; t z
~-- z
~- r .' ~,
,~
__.
i~
4 _
r
/
':
`
' ~ _ .• ~ ~ _ :fit
- -` •_
~
,r _
~ ~=,~ ¢
~
~
o ~~:: r;' ~
, G r
~..
' C'
~
v
Y
~ ~-
' _, ~ _-
. 1
.. ..r
... ) ~1• ~ •. ~
~.
~
+. - ~.
l .~ ..._.- ... -_.-
y
(F ~."~
n...e.
./
~
~
f
~
~~~Ll ` ~y
~y
r. J f 1 _
.-~~ ~
~
~,/~
- ! -
_
`:
G
C -V. ~ 1 __...
.. _.
(n i
tv
n --
C ~ _
~ ti,i1
D
~-`!'\ _
_
~ ~
._
K ~
u i . ~
~
~
~,
a~ -
i
~ ~ -
- _
..
v'
~! f ~ ~ i ~_
_ ~_
~ ..
v V ~ ' l.' 1 Y, J
~
~i
.`
i - ~.. '
_
~. ~ `
_ ~~` ~~ S.
~~
_
'
Y~
_
;
~ .
;,~ ;~
o n --
~
'
D , ~ ,
_
„'
` t
_~
`_.
n ,
'~~ _ =,i
_ _
~ ti
~,:
_ -
_
_
v
.,. - I _
• rF" ~ -
l r ,,~ ~ -~-~
~
~_
'L ... i
~
... J ~ ~~/
\` ~
!I -' j
~~ 1
~ r~
1
. d
)
_?~
Cam` ~
i' j'~
~
1 ~
f7"
C
N
N
O
l`
~•
D
a
0
0
m
a
U
C
a
0
0
m
m
I~
D ~
Q v
C ~j
N ~
[D (n
Q
D
m
v
y1 1
n
`G
--J
O
7
W
O
C
Q
fll
`~
0
N
V
O ~S
C
N
~, D
o
°D
m
v
0
3
_CP
C
T Q
m °
m
y~z
m
r
~.
D
a
0
m
m
z
C~
C
D
z
0
a
0
m
~~ ~,
IJ ,`,
D ~
a v
c ~
~ ~
~ m
a
D
m
v
0
N
O GGG
D
y
m
v
0
N
v
0
T ~
N ~
N
I,
G
D
a
0
a
0
m
m
a
C/:
D
a
0
a
0
m
a
D
N
(D
a
D
m
v
ti
N
N
0
v
a
UJ
D
0
0
D
v
0
w
0
„~
c
o D
0
a° (lj
nJ
N
O
~ O
~ O
U
~ ~
~ D
O r'
t O
C -p
a ~
m
.~ Q
~;
D ~
a v
~ ~
w m
m ~
a
D
m
v
0
~ ~
0
a (/7
0
D
D
N
v
T~
~ o
® ~
.~` v ~ i~ Q i~ ~ v a W -~ ~~ a
~ 7 <,
~ ~ ,.
',./ • i -
.,
~ ~ l+~
~ / ~ \\ r( ~ ~KK
~I ~ Z ~• ~ 5 /n C\1~ ~/~ ~ r V J`
r d
I ~f~ ky • d ~7I + 7~ ~
i TI~ • I l ~' ~^ N' pY``
l f 1'J I ~ ~ 11 I ~ ~~ ~ \ 1(_~ ~
n`F 11 ~f I 'r?-' C C` .~ lti`~ JY I
_`ilr\`~, • J vim/ Rd"^ ^I< 1"'f I /
y'~ ~,voaM ~• 1 ~ L ~ ~- ~ T,~ ~~ ~ ~y~~ l
V ipso • y / t ~ ~ -t / ,~r`" '~eh ~/_a f
\. ~ ~ r ~
~\ ~ ~ ~ 1
• --•.~ i /
•
~~•" ~• •~
r •' • ~-
• • + ii
i ~i
•; • ~
0
ti ~
o ~
D
D
o ~
m
0
cn
0
~o
i
~ ~ R1
• `~
D ~
~ D
o ~
ti o
o -a
n O
N ~
a ry
Q
i^
D -o
Q v
~ n
N ~p
(D N
c
D
m
v
O
N ~
O
O
o D
o
D
N CD
o ~
'' 0 0
F
z
~. yt"a .. - ._ _
3~
M ~ty ~
V pad
c, _ ~:'
~ r'i ~
I c , J~~
J ~ ~_ r { i
it ` ~ i~~ ~~~~
> ~ ~ (Y
~.. ,.~, i ~ f`s
./ -~
a
two O
a ,'~ ~.
O \ ~.. ..:P'P
~ ~ _ ! i :~ r
,a ~'*~ ~~
~~
~ vim,
`\
./ys~ok C
,'--
;'j
1~ c r
~..
., `/ I
`'~ ~ - ':
aJ~
,~ .~,;
~ y~~; i
~~: ~~
_ ~=
i.. --~-
C!\J r
;,
79;
~'
c ,~
{ ~ ~~.
c. ~ ^,
J
N G
D
o v
O
G
0
T ~
m ~
Z
r'
•
D
o ti
~ O
O -C
v' C
~ y
a
~J 1~/
D ~
c v
m ~
<C N
d
D
m
m
n
~_
J
W
Q
C
C
O
!r
o (n
o D
o
D
N m
o m
T o G
m 6J
l - i
7r ~ ~ % i
~, ~ / _ _
~` ~4' , 'i/'~F ~~" ~ ' ~ / c a` hh~ ~y ~
5 .'~r r/ ~r; ~ I
T ~ /
r
/ ~v,/'• l~ I / ~ /~ •~ ~~ • ~ ~
n ~ ~\°
~ _ IY ti / ~ F J r/ % / J,~.~ ~ fS
y, P~
} /
I ~ ~ ~ ~1,.. ~ ~ / / ~ /
•
7 ~. i ~ ~
~l ~' . i v v ~ /` llll ~ ~ `-i-/ ~~
d log R,-. ~ ` ,. ~ ~ X c,)` / ~~ '- tl 11 ~+.~ ~~~ ~~ ~ rrj / r
-' CV ut ~ o ~~ ~.F ~ I(~n~ ~di ~ nJ 111 v ~~ id av/'`i,
.~ /
.~ I r kid i ~ '-. ~ ~ ~-~14~~ ~ ~ I i I ~ \ ~,~
~A .'. ~41 plc ~Y~.~ 'r e\"~. `+'~~ ^: \~ _ ~ ~~'~i
< O I\ ~ ,°' ,;r. 7 '. Y ~G~ / ra.aker xa_~ "r ~ r
L'~ wry., / jd/!o ~~2/ .~" \. a r ~C\ `v
x )
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ 11 1 ~ ~ ~ i ~y ~.
. ~ §Y~ ^ Ll rJ l I ~ ~~. 'Y 9 vnb i Pr ~~ ~ ryi ~ '
0
o i
o
o `
w ~
O
T ~
~ O
•
•
C/l
D ~
~ D
o ~
~ O
o a
o. ~
m
In, a
u ~
~,
a v
C ~j
N ~
N VI
Q
D
m
~~ ~
n
C
Q
0
a
m
o ~
°o (/)
o D
o
D
N
O
~ o O
N ~
~` '~'>
i --- m ~~,
/ / . / % ~ µ~!c1~1
~ ~lrtip//~~~ ~ ~ / V / ~ / ~ ,~ i
~/1 vv / ~~~ fi~~ ~i -A
~° ~ \
l ~ s~~a ~••• '~~-. ~ ~~e'
~/
\ O 1 /L 1Yr~
> ( ~ ~ ~~
~'^y--r ^~ ~I • N ~ ~ / Y Ile -
~~ ~s~ ~~/A / ~ -„ate. • ~~ ~~..;~ ~ z ~ m
Y x' .x -v,,,x, / ,. / ~ -\ ~~ fit..- ~ "\%~ pit 'ti. .%-^
5, r a ~ .
to ;' si ~Y 7> c; ~ • ~" '•` ~'~ -
/i
V ry 4~ \~y~ ~ •••E ~\~ ` ~~~ sew ~'~ c"/n„ ~.:y.-
l' '/, ~/ \ /r, I e q/
c
N D
o ~
D
v
o ~
'~ °o
m
D D
O
a o
o -o
m o
a m
a
~ t
~~.
a v
~ ~
m ~
;D N
d
D
m
a~
5 ~
(i
`G
C
W
O
C
n
m
o ~C
N G
O
~, D
a
D
m
m
o
„~ m
/ ~
/ I r `\
(I t~ _ r ~/
~/% ~ i ~~ ~ .._ __ ~ ,r / `~
/ / \ \\~.'
ii ~i \lr ;
~, i ~
j _ A~ ~ ~~ ~ n ~ i
l
r^' / ~ • ~ ,
~` ~ • \
' Y/'~\} ~~ 'JAI,... 1 `~i 1~ '~~ Fcn~~ ~/
"" y /~s`,,~ ~~ i ~,rr s ` r
•~ A~ r ~ t ~ ; A ~~ ~ -.
~ ~ ~~
// ~'~ rrl / T.
~ •~~e ~ ~ i ~ .~ Haan !~
~ ~
Or _~'a/ •
• /
~( Q~ a e!
aaJ, % ~~
Fenn V~ `` ` •~•' r ~~
~ s~
_.. ~ a r _, `~ r
- .ire \ xr.. ~~.
'_ ~~~ •
~~ ~ •`'
0
a
c ~
~D
i
D
m
v
D
-0 1
0
a
0
N
a C
._. ~
D
fi ~
•5 ~ O
-~ a
0
n N
m
`~ Q
0
O
C
J
Q
`~
O
O
N
D
D
m
N
N
5
Z
m
~ __ ~ ~ _- _. . .,.-ter `
z / :.. ~
'.a f -- _ r
„
/
~ 1
5 _
: '~~ I
~ ~.%
~ w 6
'
..
i ti ~ ti
~~_•. ~`
}}F
•
~
~~
~
j
~ NI
~~~ ~'~
'~ I I
~.
~~i
•~ \ ~
_..
~
_~ ~~
... _
~~ • Y^
q~ _ f /
_~
~~j 1
~ T ;~-
~. '._.n~
tia. ~ mom... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ i
/// rlL
~ 1
~ -~ '~ - . J ' - ~ ~~,
: ~ , ~ ~~
,,
.
~ ,; ,
`
' --
.
~
f
~ ~
~~~ .
,
~,
~ ~
~.
-~-~' f
_
by ~~ ~/ /
. ~~ ~~.
~ ?` r