The URL can be used to link to this page

July 12 2017_ Board_Agenda_Packet AGENDA BUDGET WORK SESSION AND REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2017 5:00 P.M., 7:00 P.M. BOARD ROOM, COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 107 NORTH KENT STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 5:00 P.M. Board of Supervisors Budget Work Session 7:00 P.M. Regular Meeting - Call To Order Invocation Pledge of Allegiance Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Board should adopt the Agenda for the meeting. Consent Agenda: (Tentative Agenda Items for Consent are Tabs: A, C, D, E, F, G, O and P) Citizen Comments (Agenda Items Only, That Are Not Subject to Public Hearing.) Board of Supervisors Comments Minutes: (See Attached)A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Regular Meeting, May 10, 2017. 2. Work Session with Airport Authority, May 24, 2017. County Officials: (See Attached)B 1. Committee Appointments. ------------------------------------------- AGENDA BUDGET WORK SESSION AND REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2017 PAGE 2 2. Resolution Authorizing Participation in the New Rate Case REC Filed. (See Attached)C ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Acknowledgement of Receipt of Certified Copies of the Abstract of Votes (See Attached)D from the June 13, 2017 Primary Election. ----------------------- Committee Reports: (See Attached)E 1. Public Safety Committee. -------------------------------------------- (See Attached)F 2. Public Works Committee. -------------------------------------------- (See Attached)G 3. Information Technologies Committee. --------------------------- Public Hearing: 1. The Board of Supervisors will Conduct a Public Hearing, Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-1800, Regarding the Following Proposed Conveyances of Interests in Real Property Owned by the County: (1) to the Virginia Department of Transportation, a fee simple interest in an area of approximately 9,160 square feet (0.21 acres) and a temporary construction easement over an area of approximately 6,833 square feet (0.157 acres), the fee simple area constituting portions of and the easement area being over portions of Tax Parcel Numbers 65C-1-B, 65C-1-C, 65C-1-G, and 65C-1-H, and a fee simple interest by quitclaim in any area currently used as the right-of-way for Sulphur Springs Road (Route 655) adjacent to such parcels; (2) to Rappahannock Electric Cooperative, a permanent utility easement over an area of approximately 5,473 square feet (0.126 acres), the easement area being over portions of Tax Parcel Numbers 65C-1-B, 65C-1-C, 65C-1-G, and 65C-1-H; (3) to Verizon Virginia, Inc., a permanent utility easement over an area of approximately 5,473 square feet (0.126 acres), the easement area being over portions of Tax Parcel Numbers 65C-1-B, 65C-1-C, 65C-1-G, and 65C-1-H; (4) to the Virginia Department of Transportation, a fee simple interest in an area of approximately 44,384 square feet (1.019 acres), the area being AGENDA BUDGET WORK SESSION AND REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2017 PAGE 3 a portion of Tax Parcel Number 65-A-104; and (5) to Verizon Virginia, Inc., a permanent utility easement over an area of approximately 21,029 square feet (0.483 acres), the area being over a portion of Tax Parcel Number 65-A-104. All of the foregoing proposed conveyances are in the Shawnee Magisterial District and are for purposes of the improvement of Sulphur Springs Road (Route 655), State Highway Project 0655-034-274, RW201, M501, (See Attached)H Parcels 010 and 015, UPC 59259. ------------------------------------ Planning Commission Business: Public Hearing: 1. Proposed Abandonment of Public Road Security Drive (portion). By Resolution of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, passed on May 10, 2017, notice is hereby given that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors intends to abandon a portion of Security Drivefrom a point 432.77 feet east of its intersection with Independence Drive and extending to the end of Security Drive, a point 802.88 feet east of its intersection with Independence Drive, the affected right-of-way area containing .5735 acres, more or less. Any landowner affected by the proposed abandonment may file a petition for a public hearing with the Frederick County Board of Supervisors within 30 days of the date of this notice. If any landowner affected by the proposed abandonment files such a petition, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing on the proposed abandonment at 7:00 p.m. on July 12, 2017, in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601. th This notice is given on the 5 day of June, 2017, by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. (See Attached)I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Proposed Conveyance to Navy Federal Credit Union of a Fee Simple Interest in an Area Comprised of 0.5735 Acres, More or Less, Currently Constituting a Segment of Security Drive, but which is proposed to be abandoned as a right-of-way, from a point 432.77 feet east of its intersection with Independence Drive and extending to the end of Security AGENDA BUDGET WORK SESSION AND REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2017 PAGE 4 Drive, a point 802.88 feet east of its intersection with Independence Drive, and adjacent to 141 and 146 Security Drive, Tax Parcel Number 64-11-11, (See Attached)J in the Shawnee Magisterial District. ------------------------------ 3. Rezoning #03-17 for Rutherford Crossing, Submitted by Greenway Engineering, Inc.,to Rezone 22.16+/- Acres from the M1 (Light Industrial) District to the B2 (General Business) District with Proffers and 27.07+/- Acres of Land Zoned M1 (Light Industrial) District with Proffers to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with Revised Proffers. The Property is Fronting on the Southeast Side of Market Street and the North Side of Milton Ray Drive and is Identified by Property Identification Number 43-A-99 in the Stonewall (See Attached)K Magisterial District. ---------------------------------------------------- 4. Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165 Zoning, Article IV Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401 RA Rural Areas District, §165-401.03 Conditional Uses. Article IV Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 402 RP Residential Performance District, §165-402.03 Conditional Uses. Article II Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers, and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204 Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, §165-204.30 Doctors of Medicine, Dentists and Other Health Practitioners in the RP (Residential Performance) District and the RA (Rural Areas) District.Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on Medical Offices in the RP (Residential Performance) and RA (See Attached)L (Rural Areas) District as a Conditional Use. -------------------- Other Planning Items: 1. Resolution to Allow Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) to be Utilized for (See Attached) M Proffer Payments within the Village at Middletown. ---------- 2. Discussion Slaughterhouses as a Conditional Use in the Rural Areas (RA) (See Attached)N Zoning District. ---------------------------------------------------------- 3. Resolution Re: Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Signatory (See Attached)O Authority. ----------------------------------------------------------------- (See Attached) P 4. Road Resolutions: ----------------------------------------------------- a. Red Bud Run Section 2, Phases 3-8. b. Raven Pointe Section 6, Phase 2. AGENDA BUDGET WORK SESSION AND REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2017 PAGE 5 Board Liaison Reports (If Any) Citizen Comments Board of Supervisors Comments Adjourn ATTACHMENT1 ATTACHMENT2 ATTACHMENT3 ATTACHMENT5 d Attachment A Frederick County Broadband Gaps Map Features Broadband Gaps Winchester City Limits As Identified by CIT in the 2013 Roads 1 Frederick County, VA Broadband Interstates Study. Primary 2 Secondary Private Named Roads 3 TRANSTECH DSL 4 Cable 5 Both Frederick County Boundary 6 7 8 28 12 9 10 28 15 14 19 18 16 20 25 17 26 21 22 23 27 24 µ Broadband gaps were identified by areas Map Produced by: Frederick County IT of relative high concentration of both GIS Division residential and commercial structures in areas 107 N Kent St with little to no DSL or Cable coverage as 012468 Winchester, VA 22601 identified by VITA. Miles Drafted 9/5/2013 Attachment B Frederick County Telecommunications Grant 2018 Map Features Potential Broadband Gaps 2018 Priority Coverage Areas 1. Wilde Acres (16) 2. Redland - Fairview -Parishville Rd (7,8) 3. Hunting Ridge - Siler Rd (6) Winchester City Limits Roads Interstates Primary Secondary 6 7, 8 Private Named Roads VITA Broadband Coverage DSL Cable Both Cable & DSL Frederick County Boundary 16 µ Broadband gaps for 2018 Telecommunications grant were identified as areas of relatively high Map Produced By: Frederick County Dept. populations in rural Frederick County, VA that of Information Technology show little or no DSL or Cable coverage based 012468 GIS Division. Miles on Virginia Broadband Maps produced by VITA. Drafted 6/27/2017 Fairview Virginia Telecommunication Initiative (VATI) 2017 Program Guidelines and Criteria tm; William C. Shelton Tamarah Holmes, Ph.D. Matthew Weaver tm; Table of Contents uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu Program Guidelines uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu Background uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu Program Description uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu Eligible Applicant uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu Selection Process uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu Program Requirements uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu Projects Must Only Address Unserved areas uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu Multiple Applications uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu Internet Speed uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu ImplementationDeadline uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu Applicants Must Demonstrate Suitable Fiscal Standing and Management Capabilities uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu Proposal Due Date uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu Definitions uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu Request for Proposal Questions uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu List of Required Attachments tm; Program Guidelines Background Program Description tm; Eligible Applicant Selection Process Program Requirements Projects Must Only Address Unserved areas Multiple Applications tm; Project Financing Internet Speed Implementation Deadline Applicants Must Demonstrate Suitable FiscalStanding and Management Capabilities tm; Proposal Due Date Wednesday, December 21, 201611:59 p.m tm; Definitions Connect America Fund (CAF) Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) Eligible Project Costs Fiber-to-the-Home (FTTH) Fixed Wireless Hybrid Fiber Coaxial (HFC) Last-Mile e.g. Middle Mile e.g. Service Area Underserved tm; Request for Proposal Questions Project Area Need Project Description tm; Project Timeline Project Budget tm; Service Additional Information tm; List of Required Attachments tm; Virginia Telecommunication Initiative 2018 Input Session Notes Patrick Fly 6/13/2017 2017 VATI Highlights - In 2017 17 grant applications reviewed, the top 5 project were awarded funding totally just shy of $1 million. - Awardees: Augusta County – Lingo Networks - $278,880 o AlbemarleCounty – Century Link - $118,400 o Bland County – WVVAnet - $192,141 o Greensville County – Telpage – $162,334 o Gloucester County – Cox Communication – $193,094 o - All projects awarded in 2017 had at least a 20% match by the jurisdiction or private partner - Impact: 1,296 Virginia Residents, 22 Businesses, 2 Community Anchor will get >10Mbps/3Mbps - Actual implementation speeds range from 10Mbps/3Mbps to 300Mbps/30Mbps 2018 VATI Changes/Requirements - Evaluation Criteria: Demonstrated Need –Unserved area is < 10Mbps/1Mbps o Demonstrated Benefit –Direct Benefit to community, service take rates, target o subscribers VATI Implementation Speed – must meet > 10Mbps/3Mbps o Readiness/Capacity –Applicant and Co-Applicant must have capacity to build o Cost Leverage –Proposed construction cost and leverage must meet guidelines in o application - Changes: Require a 30 Day public Comment period from the locality before submission of the o grant Allow for Residence and Business input Allow for input from other providers in area Public comment must be advertised in Newspaper and on Locality Website at a minimum providers do not have to submit financial documentation o Provide adoption plan and marketing plan – who does what locality or provider o Provider validation criteria that the speeds meet VATI guidelines for new connections o DHCD will have additional 2 – 3 week Public Comment after applications are submitted o prior to selecting awardees - DHCD Decisions to make still: Will they consider Passing and/or Take Rate? o If there is overlap in coverage area what is acceptable? o Grant will be paid out in fiscal year, to locality to distribute funds. Localities have legal o and financial concerns with this. - TentativeGrant Schedule: June 26, 2017 – Webinar on how to apply for grant and release of Application Packets o September 6, 2017 – Application Deadline (May Change, did last year) o Governor’s Award Announcement – November to December 2017 o Contract Negotiations o Close out of Grant and Project Payout – June 20, 2018 o COUNTY of FREDERICK Jay E. Tibbs DeputyCounty Administrator 540/665-5666 Fax 540/667-0370 E-mail: jtibbs@co.frederick.va.us MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Jay E. Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator SUBJECT: Sulphur Springs Road Improvement Project DATE: July 7, 2017 The Public Works Committee, at its April 25, 2017 meeting, recommthe conveyance of right-of-way and utility easements to VDOT for the future widening of Su of Supervisors at its May 10, 2017 meeting approved moving forwa Board will be conveying public property, a public hearing is req A public hearing has been scheduled for the Boards July 12, 2017 meeting. At the conclusion of the hearing, staff is seeking Board action on the proposed conveyance of right-of-way and utility easements. Attachment 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: John A. Bishop AICP, Assistant Director - Transportation RE: Security Drive Partial Abandonment DATE: July 5, 2017 ting, staff was instructed to advertise for the abandonment of a portion of Security Drive as highlighted in the attached draft plats which depict the modified area of roadway that will be requested for state acceptance and removes the area that the County wishes to abandon. To date, no comments have been received and the item is ready for action. This item is a public hearing and staff is seeking action on the attached resolution for abandonment and rescission of previous request. JAB/pd Attachments 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 RESOLUTION BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RECISSION OF PREVIOUS REQUEST FOR VDOT TO ADOPT SECURITY DRIVE AND PARTIAL ABANDONMENT OF ROADWAY th The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, in regular meeting on the 12 day of July 2017, adopted the following: WHEREAS, Frederick County previously requested on September 28, 2016 that the Virginia Department of Transportation adopt Security Drive into the Secondary System of State Highways; WHEREAS, surrounding property owners have requested modifications to the extent of that previous request; WHEREAS, based upon the requested changes there is a portion of the previous request that is no longer a necessary addition to the public road system; WHEREAS, the County will be coordinating with VDOT to submit a modified request for acceptance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, thatthe Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, rescinds their request to adopted Security Drive (Route 1462) into the Secondary System of State Highways. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, abandons .5735 acres of Security Drive as depicted in the attached draft plats. Passed this 12th day of July, 2017 by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman ____ Gary A. Lofton ____ Robert W. Wells ____ Bill M. Ewing ____ Gene E. Fisher ____ Judith McCann-Slaughter ____ Blaine P. Dunn ____ A COPY ATTEST ______________________________ Kris C. Tierney, Interim Frederick County Administrator PDRes #30-17 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: John A. Bishop AICP, Assistant Director - Transportation RE: Security Drive Conveyance of Right-of-Way DATE: July 5, 2017 At the May 10, 2017 Board of Supervisors meeting, staff was instructed to advertise for the abandonment of a portion of Security Drive. At the June 2, 2017 Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board authorized staff to advertise for the resulting need to convey the abandoned right-of-way to the surrounding property owners. The impacted areas are depicted upon the draft plats which are attached. Upon Board authorization, the abandoned right-of-way will be conveyed to the surrounding property owners, which in this case, is Navy Federal Credit Union. This is a public hearing and staff is seeking Board action on the conveyance. JAB/pd Attachments 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 RESOLUTION APPROVING DECLARATION AS SURPLUS PROPERTY AND CONVEYANCE OF SECURITY DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION WHEREAS , the County of Frederick, Virginia, is the owner of real property encompassing .5735 acres of Security Drive right-of-way as more fully described in the attached plats; and WHEREAS , the portion of right-of-way depicted in the attached plats is not needed for the public road system; and WHEREAS , abandoned right-of-way is conveyed to the surrounding property owners; and WHEREAS , Navy Federal Credit Union owns all of the property surrounding the right-of-way; and WHEREAS , the Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing on the declaration as surplus and conveyance of .5735 acres of Security Drive right-of-way depicted in the attached plats on July 12, 2017. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia hereby declare the real property and improvements on .5735 acres of Security Drive Right-of- Way surplus property; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia approve the conveyance of the property to Navy Federal Credit Union for incorporation into parcel 64-11- 11; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Interim Frederick County Administrator is hereby authorized to Navy Federal Credit Union. Passed this 12th day of July, 2017 by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman ____ Gary A. Lofton ____ Robert W. Wells ____ Bill M. Ewing ____ Gene E. Fisher ____ Judith McCann-Slaughter ____ Blaine P. Dunn ____ A COPY ATTEST ______________________________ Kris C. Tierney, Interim Frederick County Administrator PDRes #31-17 REZONING APPLICATION #03-17 RUTHERFORD CROSSING Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: June 30,2017 Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 06/07/17 Public Hearing Held; Recommended Approval Board of Supervisors: 07/12/17 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 22.16+/- acres from the M1 (Light Industrial) District to the B2 (General Business) District with proffers and 27.07+/- acres of land zoned M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with revised proffers. LOCATION: The subject property fronts on the southeast side of Market Street and the north side of Milton Ray Drive within the Rutherford Crossing Development. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 07/12/17 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: This is an application to rezone a total of 49.23 acres of land from the M1 District to the B2 and M1 Districts with proffers; specifically the application seeks to rezone 22.16 acres from the M1 District with proffers to the B2 District with proffers and 27.07 acres from the M1 District to the M1 District with revised proffers. The subject property is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and is located within the limits of the Northeast Land Use Plan of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this property with an industrial land use designation which is reflective of the current zoning of the subject property. Staff would note that the property is adjacent to commercial zoning B2 (General Business) on two sides and residential zoning RP (Residential Performance) on one side. Therefore, the request for a portion of the property to be rezoned to the B2 (General Business) District could be acceptable. The remainder of the site, which is located the northwestern side of the W&W Railroad Line, will retain the existing M1 zoning designation. The property was originally zoned to the M1 District in 2001 and revised in 2004 and 2007. The proffers associated with this rezoning are constant with the obligations entered into with the original rezoning. Specifically, the application still accounts for the 1,245,000 sf building cap, the dedication of Route 37, and the requirement of a Transportation Impact Analysis for future site plans that exceed the 26,652 ADT as calculated for the total acreage of the Rutherford Crossing Development. The Applicant The has also provided a monetary contribution of $0.10 per building square foot for Fire and Rescue. Planning Commission did not identify any concerns with the request and recommended approval of the application at their June 7, 2017 meeting. Following the required public hearing, a decision regardingthis rezoning applicationby the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. TheApplicantshould be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Board of Supervisors. Rezoning #03-17 Rutherford Crossing June 30, 2017 Page 2 This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 06/07/17 Public Hearing Held; Recommended Approval Board of Supervisors: 07/12/17 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 22.16+/- acres from the M1 (Light Industrial) District to the B2 (General Business) District with proffers and 27.07+/- acres of land zoned M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with revised proffers. LOCATION: The subject property fronts on the southeast side of Market Street and the north side of Milton Ray Drive within the Rutherford Crossing Development. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 43-A-99 PROPERTY ZONING : M1(Light Industrial) PRESENT USE: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: M2 (Industrial General) Use: Vacant RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential South: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential B2 (General Business) Commercial M1 (Light Industrial) Office/Vacant East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential M1 (Light Industrial) Office M2 (Industrial General) Use: Vacant West: M1 (Light Industrial) Use: Vacant B2 (General Business) Commercial Rezoning #03-17 Rutherford Crossing June 30, 2017 Page 3 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: A VDOT review has been completed on the Rutherford Crossing Parcel 43-A-99 Rezoning dated March 7, 2017 and received by this office March 13, 2017. VDOT is satisfied with the transportation proffers offered in this rezoning application. Frederick County Fire Marshall: Plan approved. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: Please see letter from Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Executive Director dated April 5, 2017. Frederick County Department of Public Works: Upon review of the subject rezoning request, we offer the following comments: A comprehensive review of stormwater management, erosion and sediment control, site grading, etc. will be performed at the time of site plan review. Any proposed disturbance of wetlands, flood plains, etc. shall be carefully mitigated and submission of any federal, state, or local environmental permits shall be submitted at the time of land disturbance application. As part of the original Rutherford Crossing Development, off-site improvements were performed on the DeHaven property. A review and inspection of the downstream properties shall be performed by the developer, downstream property owners and Frederick County Staff to ensure the channel improvements are functioning as designed and constructed. During this inspection, we want to ensure no ero determined that impacts are occurring, the channel work shall be performed as part of the new development. It is possible that additional stormwater management controls on site could be necessary. The stormwater design requirements shall comply with Frederick County Chapter 143 and VADEQ requirements. We offer no additional comments. We recommend approval of the subject rezoning. Frederick County Attorney: The proffer statement dated April 19, 2017 is legally sufficient as a proffer statement. City of Winchester: The City of Winchester has no comments as water and sewer is provided by the F.C.S.A. Planning & Zoning: 1)Site History On April 22, 2002 the County approved Rezoning #07-01 which rezoned 113 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District and 3.7 acres from the RP (Residential Performance) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District, rezoned 21.8 acres from the RA District and 1.4 acres from the RP District to the B2 (General Business) District, rezoned 14.5 acres from the RA District to the B3 Rezoning #03-17 Rutherford Crossing June 30, 2017 Page 4 (Industrial Transition) District with proffers (including an IA Interstate Area Overlay). On July 14, 2004 the County approved Rezoning #06-04 which rezoned 13.4 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District, the B2 (General Business) District, the B3 (Industrial Transition) District and the M1 (Light Industrial) District to the B2 and B3 Districts with proffers. This was a reconfiguration of 12.65 acres that was part of Rezoning #07-01, plus the rezoning of .75 adjoining additional acres. All proffers associated with Rezoning #07-01 were carried forward to Rezoning #06-04. On January 24, 2007 the County approved Rezoning #17-06 which rezoned a portion of the property to the B2 District and also updated the proffers for the remainder of the site which totaled 138.6 acres (minus the FEMA property). 2)Comprehensive Policy Plan The 2035 Comprehensive Plan is the guide for the future growth of Frederick County. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan is an official public document that serves as the Community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of Community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. The Area Plans, Appendix I of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, are the primary implementation tool and will be instrumental to the future planning efforts of the County. Land Use The subject property is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and is located within the limits of the Northeast Land Use Plan of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this property with an industrial land use designation which is reflective of the current zoning of the subject property. Staff would note that the property is adjacent to commercial zoning B2 (General Business) on two sides and residential zoning RP (Residential Performance) on one side. Therefore, the request for a portion of the property to be rezoned to the B2 (General Business) District could be acceptable. The remainder of the site, which is located on the northwestern side of the W&W Railroad Line, will retain the existing M1 zoning designation. Environmental Features It should be noted that approximately 95% of the property located on the northwestern side of the W&W Railroad Line (the retained M1 area) is within the Hiatt Run floodplain. A portion of the subject property proposed to be rezoned to the B2 District also contains floodplain. Transportation and Site Access The subject property has frontage on both Milton Ray Drive and Market Street; access will be determined in the future at the site plan stage. Rezoning #03-17 Rutherford Crossing June 30, 2017 Page 5 The proffers associated with this rezoning are consistent with the obligations entered into with the 2006 proffer statement for this property. Specifically, the proffer statement continues to dedicate the land area within the property for the 350 foot wide Route 37 corridor and the interchange ramp access area. The Owners shall prepare and submit the plat for the dedication within 90 days of request by the County. The proffer statement also continues to require a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for future site plans that exceed the 26,652 ADT as calculated for the total acreage of the Rutherford Crossing Development. The Owners have proffered that the improvements demonstrated by the TIA shall be included in the site plan design for the development application. All other transportation improvements identified in the 2006 proffer statement have been completed. 3) Proffer Statement Dated March 7, 2017, Revised April 19, 2017: A. RZ #17-06 Proffer Statement : The Owners recognize that parcel 43-A-99 was one of three parcels covered under Rezoning #17-06. The Owners recognize that the 2006 rezoning established a limit of 1,245,000 square feet of total building structural area and limited the site to three Interstate Overlay signs. The Owners agree that future development activities within the property will be subject to these limitations. Staff Note: The site is currently approved for 430,795 sf of structural area (includes constructed and approved totals). B. Transportation Enhancements: Proffer to dedicate the land area within the property for the 350 foot wide Route 37 corridor and the interchange ramp access area. The Owners shall prepare and submit the plat for the dedication within 90 days of request by the County. The Owner proffers to submit a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for future site plans proposed for the property that exceed 26,652 ADT as calculated for land developed within the total acreage of Parcels 43-A-98, 43-A-99 and 43-A-100 (as they existed when approved with Rezoning #17-06). The Owners proffer that the improvements demonstrated by the TIA shall be included in the site plan design for the development application. Staff Note: ysis, the current project volume from the site for all constructed and approved development totals 24,095 ADT. C. Property Development Requirements: Monetary Contribution of $0.10 per developed primary structural square foot for Fire and Rescue. Prohibited Use Truck Stops (SIC 5541) Rezoning #03-17 Rutherford Crossing June 30, 2017 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION FROM THE 06/07/17 MEETING: Staff reported this application is to rezone a total of 49.23 acres of land from the M1 District to the B2 and M1 Districts with proffers; specifically the application seeks to rezone 22.16 acres from the M1 District with proffers to the B2 District with proffers and 27.07 acres from the M1 District to the M1 District with revised proffers. Staff noted this property was originally rezoned in 2001, and revised in 2004 and 2007. Staff then provided an overview of the site and the proposed proffers. Mr. Evan Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, representing the Applicant came forward. Mr. Wyatt stated that the area seeking a rezoning to the commercial district would be consistent with the existing commercial areas within Rutherford Crossing and the proffers are still intact from the original rezoning. A Commission Member inquired with regards to the monetary contribution proffered to Fire & Rescue; with the change from light industrial to business, this may also impact the local police therefore would expectation over time with rezonings has been to support Fire & Rescue therefore they have tried to mirror other commercial and industrial rezonings which is the $0.10 per square foot and he feels it is appropriate. A Commission Member requested clarification that the M1 parcel being rezoned is just revising proffers and what is this accomplishing. Mr. Wyatt explained specifically the application seeks to rezone 22.16 acres from M1 District with proffers to B2 District with proffers and 27.07 acres from M1 District to M1 District with revised proffers. A Commission Member commented there are approximately seven residential properties along Route 11, would like to see the Applicant be willing to provide a 20 foot sewer easement across the back of these properties. A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously passed to recommend approval of REZ #03-17 for Rutherford Crossing. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 07/12/17 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: This is an application to rezone a total of 49.23 acres of land from the M1 District to the B2 and M1 Districts with proffers; specifically the application seeks to rezone 22.16 acres from the M1 District with proffers to the B2 District with proffers and 27.07 acres from the M1 District to the M1 District with revised proffers. The subject property is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and is located within the limits of the Northeast Land Use Plan of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this property with an industrial land use designation which is reflective of the current zoning of the subject property. Staff would note that the property is adjacent to commercial zoning B2 (General Business) on two sides and residential zoning RP (Residential Performance) on one side. Therefore, the request for a portion of the property to be rezoned to the B2 (General Business) District could be acceptable. The remainder of the site, which is located the northwestern side of the W&W Railroad Line, will retain the existing M1 zoning designation. Rezoning #03-17 Rutherford Crossing June 30, 2017 Page 7 The property was originally zoned to the M1 District in 2001 and revised in 2004 and 2007. The proffers associated with this rezoning are constant with the obligations entered into with the original rezoning. Specifically, the application still accounts for the 1,245,000 sf building cap, the dedication of Route 37, and the requirement of a Transportation Impact Analysis for future site plans that exceed the 26,652 ADT as calculated for the total acreage of the Rutherford Crossing Development. The Applicant The has also provided a monetary contribution of $0.10 per building square foot for Fire and Rescue. Planning Commission did not identify any concerns with the request and recommended approval of the application at their June 7, 2017 meeting. Following the required public hearing, a decision regarding this rezoning application by the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The Applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Board of Supervisors. 650283 WELLTOWN RD REZ # 03 - 17 EBERT RD 165 165 MIRACLE MIRACLE WAY Rutherford Crossing WAY 632 225 WELLTOWN RD MIRACLE PIN: WAY 616 184 WELLTOWN RD 43 - A - 99 MIRACLE WAY 606 Rezoning from M1 to B2/M1 with revised proffers WELLTOWN RD Zoning Map 158 PARSON CT 586 222 WELLTOWN RD MIRACLE WAY 570 149 WELLTOWN RD PARSON CT 207 560 EBERT RD WELLTOWN RD 195 EBERT RD WELLTOWN RD 532 139 REZ #03-17 WELLTOWN RD PARSON CT 522 43 A 99 WELLTOWN RD 514 WELLTOWN RD 2075 2157 MARTINSBURG ST MARTINSBURG PIKE 661 PIKE 490 2135 WELLTOWN RD WELLTOWN RD 2077 MARTINSBURG WELLTOWN RD MARTINSBURGPIKE 484 2123 PIKE WELLTOWN RD MARTINSBURG PIKE 2109 486 § ¨¦§ ¨¦ MARTINSBURG WELLTOWN RD 8181 2099 PIKE 2073 MARTINSBURG WELLTOWN RD 456 MARTINSBURG PIKE 450WELLTOWN RD PIKE WELLTOWN RD 2089 444 MARTINSBURG JESSICA LN WELLTOWN RD PIKE 2061 WELLTOWN RD 438 MARTINSBURG MARTINSBURG WELLTOWN RD 428 PIKE WELLTOWN RD MARTINSBURG WELLTOWN RD 2045 430 2070 416 MARTINSBURG MARKET ST MARTINSBURG WELLTOWN RD PIKE PIKE REZ #03-17 2015 2060 MARTINSBURG WELLTOWN RD 43 A 99 MARTINSBURG PIKE PIKE WELLTOWN RD 2040 1995 MARTINSBURG MARTINSBURG 2024PIKE PIKE MARTINSBURG 360 PIKE WELLTOWN RD 1985 2002 261 MARTINSBURG MARTINSBURG 2014 MARKET ST PIKE PIKE MARTINSBURG 366 1947 PIKE WELLTOWN RD 1984 1957 MARTINSBURG MARTINSBURG WELLTOWN RD MARTINSBURG PIKE PIKE 235 PIKE 1937 2010 MARKET ST 01 MARTINSBURG MARTINSBURG PIKE 11 PIKE 1962 1917 1974 MARTINSBURG MARTINSBURG 251 MARTINSBURG PIKE 1927 PIKE 1907 MARKET ST PIKE MARTINSBURG MARTINSBURG1952 191 PIKE Applications PIKE MARTINSBURG 1897 § ¨¦ MARKET ST PIKE MARTINSBURG 81 Sewer and Water Service Area PIKE Stephenson 01 Parcels 11 1912 Building Footprints MARTINSBURG B1 (Neighborhood Business District) PIKE 1876 B2 (General Business District) MARTINSBURG 151 111 PIKE MARKET ST B3 (Industrial Transition District) 1864 MERCHANT ST 121 MARTINSBURG EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) 111 § ¨¦ MERCEDES CT PIKE 1854 1840 81 MERCHANT ST 112 HE (Higher Education District) 141149163 MARTINSBURG MARTINSBURG MARKET ST M1 (Light Industrial District) Note: REZ # 03 - 17 M2 (Industrial General District) Frederick County Dept of MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) Rutherford Crossing Planning & Development I MS (Medical Support District) 107 N Kent St PIN: Suite 202 OM (Office - Manufacturing Park) 43 - A - 99 Winchester, VA 22601 R4 (Residential Planned Community District) Rezoning from M1 to B2/M1 with 540 - 665 - 5651 revised proffers R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) Map Created: May 10, 2017 Zoning Map RA (Rural Areas District) Staff: cperkins RP (Residential Performance District) 03106201,240Feet 650283 WELLTOWN RD REZ # 03 - 17 EBERT RD 165 165 MIRACLE MIRACLE WAY Rutherford Crossing WAY 632 225 WELLTOWN RD MIRACLE PIN: WAY 616 184 WELLTOWN RD 43 - A - 99 MIRACLE WAY 606 Rezoning from M1 to B2/M1 with revised proffers WELLTOWN RD Location Map 158 PARSON CT 586 222 WELLTOWN RD MIRACLE WAY 570 149 WELLTOWN RD PARSON CT 207 560 EBERT RD WELLTOWN RD 195 EBERT RD WELLTOWN RD 532 139 REZ #03-17 WELLTOWN RD PARSON CT 522 43 A 99 WELLTOWN RD 514 WELLTOWN RD 2075 2157 MARTINSBURG ST MARTINSBURG PIKE 661 PIKE 490 2135 WELLTOWN RD WELLTOWN RD 2077 MARTINSBURG WELLTOWN RD MARTINSBURGPIKE 484 2123 PIKE WELLTOWN RD MARTINSBURG PIKE 2109 486 § ¨¦§ ¨¦ MARTINSBURG WELLTOWN RD 8181 2099 PIKE 2073 MARTINSBURG WELLTOWN RD 456 MARTINSBURG PIKE 450WELLTOWN RD PIKE WELLTOWN RD 2089 444 MARTINSBURG JESSICA LN WELLTOWN RD PIKE 2061 WELLTOWN RD 438 MARTINSBURG MARTINSBURG WELLTOWN RD 428 PIKE WELLTOWN RD MARTINSBURG WELLTOWN RD 2045 430 2070 416 MARTINSBURG MARKET ST MARTINSBURG WELLTOWN RD PIKE PIKE REZ #03-17 2015 2060 MARTINSBURG WELLTOWN RD 43 A 99 MARTINSBURG PIKE PIKE WELLTOWN RD 2040 1995 MARTINSBURG MARTINSBURG 2024PIKE PIKE MARTINSBURG 360 PIKE WELLTOWN RD 1985 2002 261 MARTINSBURG MARTINSBURG 2014 MARKET ST PIKE PIKE MARTINSBURG 366 1947 PIKE WELLTOWN RD 1984 1957 MARTINSBURG MARTINSBURG WELLTOWN RD MARTINSBURG PIKE PIKE 235 PIKE 1937 2010 MARKET ST 01 MARTINSBURG MARTINSBURG PIKE 11 PIKE 1962 1917 1974 MARTINSBURG MARTINSBURG 251 MARTINSBURG PIKE 1927 PIKE 1907 MARKET ST PIKE MARTINSBURG MARTINSBURG1952 191 PIKE PIKE MARTINSBURG 1897 § ¨¦ MARKET ST PIKE MARTINSBURG 81 PIKE Stephenson 01 11 1912 MARTINSBURG PIKE 1876 MARTINSBURG 151 111 PIKE MARKET ST 1864 MERCHANT ST 121 MARTINSBURG 111 § ¨¦ MERCEDES CT PIKE 1854 1840 81 MERCHANT ST 112 141149163 MARTINSBURG MARTINSBURG MARKET ST Note: REZ # 03 - 17 Frederick County Dept of Rutherford Crossing Planning & Development I 107 N Kent St PIN: Suite 202 43 - A - 99 Winchester, VA 22601 Applications Rezoning from M1 to B2/M1 with 540 - 665 - 5651 revised proffers Sewer and Water Service Area Map Created: May 10, 2017 Location Map Parcels Staff: cperkins Building Footprints 03106201,240Feet 650283 WELLTOWN RD REZ # 03 - 17 EBERT RD 165 165 MIRACLE MIRACLE WAY Rutherford Crossing WAY 632 225 WELLTOWN RD MIRACLE PIN: WAY 616 184 WELLTOWN RD 43 - A - 99 MIRACLE WAY 606 Rezoning from M1 to B2/M1 with revised proffers WELLTOWN RD Long Range Land Use Map 158 PARSON CT 586 222 WELLTOWN RD MIRACLE WAY 570 149 WELLTOWN RD PARSON CT 207 560 EBERT RD WELLTOWN RD 195 EBERT RD WELLTOWN RD 532 139 REZ #03-17 WELLTOWN RD PARSON CT 522 43 A 99 WELLTOWN RD 514 WELLTOWN RD 2075 2157 MARTINSBURG ST MARTINSBURG PIKE 661 PIKE 490 2135 WELLTOWN RD WELLTOWN RD 2077 MARTINSBURG WELLTOWN RD MARTINSBURGPIKE 484 2123 PIKE WELLTOWN RD MARTINSBURG PIKE 2109 486 § ¨¦§ ¨¦ MARTINSBURG WELLTOWN RD 8181 2099 PIKE 2073 MARTINSBURG WELLTOWN RD 456 MARTINSBURG PIKE 450WELLTOWN RD PIKE WELLTOWN RD 2089 444 MARTINSBURG JESSICA LN WELLTOWN RD Applications PIKE 2061 WELLTOWN RD 438 MARTINSBURG MARTINSBURG Sewer and Water Service Area WELLTOWN RD 428 PIKE WELLTOWN RD Parcels MARTINSBURG WELLTOWN RD 2045 430 Building Footprints 2070 416 MARTINSBURG MARKET ST MARTINSBURG WELLTOWN RD Long Range Land Use PIKE PIKE REZ #03-17 Residential 2015 2060 MARTINSBURG Neighborhood Village WELLTOWN RD 43 A 99 MARTINSBURG PIKE PIKE Urban Center WELLTOWN RD 2040 1995 Mobile Home Community MARTINSBURG MARTINSBURG Business 2024PIKE PIKE MARTINSBURG 360 Highway Commercial PIKE WELLTOWN RD 1985 2002 Mixed-Use 261 MARTINSBURG MARTINSBURG 2014 MARKET ST Mixed Use Commercial/Office PIKE PIKE MARTINSBURG 366 1947 Mixed Use Industrial/Office PIKE WELLTOWN RD 1984 1957 MARTINSBURG Industrial MARTINSBURG WELLTOWN RD MARTINSBURG PIKE PIKE 235 Warehouse PIKE 1937 2010 MARKET ST 01 MARTINSBURG Heavy Industrial MARTINSBURG PIKE 11 PIKE 1962 Extractive Mining 1917 1974 MARTINSBURG MARTINSBURG Commercial Rec 251 MARTINSBURG PIKE 1927 PIKE 1907 MARKET ST PIKE Rural Community Center MARTINSBURG MARTINSBURG1952 191 PIKE Fire & Rescue PIKE MARTINSBURG 1897 § ¨¦ MARKET ST PIKE MARTINSBURG 81 Sensitive Natural Areas PIKE Stephenson 01 Institutional 11 1912 Planned Unit Development MARTINSBURG Park PIKE 1876 Recreation MARTINSBURG 151 111 PIKE MARKET ST School 1864 MERCHANT ST 121 MARTINSBURG Employment 111 § ¨¦ MERCEDES CT PIKE 1854 1840 81 MERCHANT ST 112 Airport Support Area 141149163 MARTINSBURG MARTINSBURG MARKET ST B2 / B3 Note: REZ # 03 - 17 Residential, 4 u/a Frederick County Dept of High-Density Residential, 6 u/a Rutherford Crossing Planning & Development I High-Density Residential, 12-16 u/a 107 N Kent St PIN: Suite 202 Rural Area 43 - A - 99 Winchester, VA 22601 Interstate Buffer Rezoning from M1 to B2/M1 with 540 - 665 - 5651 revised proffers Landfill Support Area Map Created: May 10, 2017 Long Range Land Use Map Natural Resources & Recreation Staff: cperkins Environmental & Recreational Resources 03106201,240Feet AMENDMENT Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: June 7, 2017 - Recommended Approval - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: July 12, 2017 APPROVED DENIED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING #03-17 RUTHERFORD CROSSING , WHEREAS REZONING #03-17 Rutherford Crossing, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 22.16 acres from M1 (Light Industrial) District to the B2 (General Business) District with proffers and 27.07 acres of land zoned M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with revised proffers with a final revision date of April 19, 2017 was considered. The subject property fronts on the southeast side of Market Street and the north side of Milton Ray Drive within the Rutherford Crossing Development, in the Stonewall Magisterial District and is identified by Property Identification No. 43-A-99; and , WHEREAS the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on June 7, 2017 and recommended approval; and , WHEREAS the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on July 12, 2017; and , WHEREAS the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to rezone 22.16 acres from M1 (Light Industrial) District to the B2 (General Business) District with proffers and 27.07 acres of land zoned M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with revised proffers with a final revision date of April 19, 2017. The conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the Applicant and the Property Owner is attached. PDRes #27-17 -2- This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 12th day of July, 2017 by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman ____ Gary A. Lofton ____ Bill M. Ewing ____ Robert W. Wells ____ Gene E. Fisher ____ Judith McCann-Slaughter ____ Blaine P. Dunn ____ A COPY ATTEST _________________________________ Kris C. Tierney, Interim Frederick County Administrator PDRes #27-17 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors FROM: M. Tyler Klein, AICP, Planner SUBJECT:Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment Medical Offices in the RP (Residential Performance) and RA (Rural Areas) Districts as Conditional Uses DATE: June 30, 2017 This is a proposed amendment to Chapter 165 Zoning Ordinance, to add Medical Offices as a conditional use in the RP (Residential Performance) and RA (Rural Areas) Zoning Districts. Currently, this use is permitted by right in the B1 (Neighborhood Business) and the B2 (General Business) Zoning Districts. Staff has drafted an amendment to add Medical Offices as a conditional use in the RP and RA Districts. Staff has also drafted supplemental use regulations that would correspond to the use additional requirements could be added during the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process if necessary. The Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) discussed this proposed amendment at their January 2017 meeting. The DRRC agreed with the proposed change, and further recommended it also be allowed in the RA Zoning District as a conditional use. This item was discussed by the Planning Commission on March 15, 2017; the Planning Commission agreed with the changes and sent the item forward for review by the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors discussed this item on April 12, 2017; the Board of Supervisors requested additional supplemental use regulations be included, such as restricting the use from residential subdivisions and neighborhoods in the RP Zoning District, requiring the primary use be medical office, and requiring frontage on collector or arterial roadways. The Board of Supervisors discussed the amended item on May 10, 2017; the Board of Supervisors agreed with the proposed changes and sent the amendment forward for public hearing. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for this item at their June 7, 2017 meeting; there were no citizen comments and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the amendment. The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by the DRRC This proposed amendment is being and the Planning Commission (with bold italic for text added). presented to the Board of Supervisors as a public hearing item. A decision by the Board of Supervisors on this proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is sought. Please contact staff if you have any questions. Attachments:1.Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics. 2.SIC Manuel 801, 802, 803, and 804 3.Resolution MTK/pd ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Part 401 RA Rural Areas District § 165-401.03 Conditional uses. The following uses of structures and land shall be allowed only granted for the use: NN. Offices and clinics of doctors of medicine, dentists and other h 803, and 804). Part 402 RP Residential Performance District § 165-402.03 Conditional uses. Uses and associated signs permitted with a conditional use permit shall be as follows: A. Convalescent and nursing homes and adult care residences and as B. Cottage occupations, as defined. C. Nationally chartered fraternal lodges or civic clubs, social ce an approved site plan, meeting the requirements of this chapter (1) All principal activities shall take place entirely within an en (2) All outdoor facilities shall be incidental to the principal fac (3) No facility or activity shall be erected or conducted less than or area within other districts which are predominantly residenti D. Day-care facilities. E. Rooming houses, boardinghouses and tourist homes. F. Veterinary offices, veterinary clinics or veterinary hospitals, nonmedical purposes. G. Museums F. Offices and clinics of doctors of medicine, dentists and other health practitioners (SIC 801, 802, 803, and 804). Article II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS Part 204 Additional Regulations for Specific Uses § 165-204.30. Doctors of medicine, dentists and other health practitioners in Performance) District and the RA (Rural Areas) District. Doctors of medicine, dentists and other health practitioners in District and the RA (Rural Areas) District shall be subject to t A.Excluding buffers and screening, the use and site shall adhere to, and implement, General Business (B2) Zoning District design standards; B. Buffers and screening (including distance, opaque elements, and landscaping) shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator; C.The use must front on and be accessed via a collector or arteria D. E.The use shall not be located within a residential development/subdivision; and ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: June 7, 2017 Recommended Approval BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: July 12, 2017 APPROVED DENIED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 165, ZONING ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS PART 401 RA RURAL AREAS DISTRICT §165-401.03. CONDITIONAL USES PART 402 RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT §165-402.03. CONDITIONAL USES ARTICLE II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES PART 204 ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES §165-204-30. DOCTORS OF MEDICINE, DENTISTS AND OTHER HEALTH PRACTITIONERS IN THE RP (RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE) DISTRICT AND THE RA (RURAL AREAS) DISTRICT WHEREAS, an ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning to add Medical Offices as a conditional use in the RP (Residential Performance) District and RA (Rural Areas) District, along with supplemental use regulations that would correspond to the use was considered; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance on June 7, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance on July 12, 2017; and PDRes #08-17 -2- WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds that the adoption of this ordinance to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in good zoning practice; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Chapter 165, Zoning, is amended to modify Article IV, Agricultural Supervisors that and Residential Districts, Part 401 RA Rural Areas District, §165-401.03 Conditional Uses; Part 402 RP Residential Performance District; §165-402.03 Conditional Uses; Article II, Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers, and Regulations For Specific Uses, Part 204 Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, §165-204.30 Doctors of Medicine, Dentists and other Health Practitioners in the RP (Residential Performance) District and the RA (Rural Areas) District to add Medical Offices as a conditional use in the RP (Residential Performance) District and RA (Rural Areas) District, including supplemental use regulations that would correspond to the use. Passed this 12th day of July, 2017 by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman ____ Gary A. Lofton ____ Bill M. Ewing ____ Judith McCann-Slaughter ____ Gene E. Fisher ____ Blaine P. Dunn ____ Robert W. Wells ____ A COPY ATTEST ______________________________ Kris C. Tierney, Interim Frederick County Administrator PDRes #08-17 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors FROM: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director SUBJECT: Resolution to Allow the Use of Transfer of Development Rights for Proffer Payments for the Village at Middletown DATE: June 30,2017 Staff has received a request from Dave Holliday Construction to allow the use of extinguished Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) to serve as monetary proffer payments within the Village at Middletown. This development is located within the Town of Middletown but has proffers payable to Frederick County per the Joint Agreement for the Administration of Proffers. The site was originally rezoned in 2006 and revised in 2017. With the 2017 proffer revision an allowance to utilize Supervisors. The Village at Middletown proffered the following monetary contribution: The Applicant shall contribute to the Town for transfer to the County the sum of $13,952.06 per single family detached dwelling unit for capital improvements to capital facilities located at Middletown Elementary School, Robert E. Aylor Junior High School, Sherando High School, or any newly constructed capital school facility which serves school age children of the Town of Middletown, payable upon the issuance of an occupancy permit for each single family detached unit. Per proffer 16.1 of the Village at Middletown Subject to approval by Frederick County, in lieu of the per unit monetary contributions for School Construction as provided above, the Applicant may extinguish a Transferrable Development Right (TDR) within Frederick County. No monetary proffers for School Construction shall be required for any dwelling unit constructed utilizing this method, but all remaining proffered commitments shall remain applicable to such As stated in proffer 16, the use of approval by the Board of Supervisors. If approved, staff would oversee the severance and ized for the proffer payments. If the request is denied, the applicant would be required to pay the monetary per unit proffer. Village at Middletown TDR June 30, 2017 Page 2 The Board of Supervisors discussed this request on June 14, 2017 and tabled the item for 30 days to allow for further discussion and consideration. By severing and extinguishing a TDR (dwelling unit right) you are eliminating the ability for that dwelling unit to be constructed in the rural areas and decreasing the future impact of that unit on County services. As outlined on page Rural Areas Report & Recommendationthe dispersed population resulting from rural area growth challenges the cost-efficient provision of County services such as Schools, Fire and Rescue, Public Safety, Parks and Recreation, and Libraries. These are capital costs currently not addressed by the rural area land owner or home buyer. New dwellings in the rural areas also have a negative impact on the public road infrastructure which cannot be recovered. e a minimum of 450 acres (sending area 1/agricultural districts). The amount of protected rural land conversion table below). Table 2 Maximum Density Allowed in Zoning Districts through Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program Designated Each Transferred Density Right Sending Area May Be Converted to This Bonus Density in the Receiving Area Sending Area #1 1 Density Right =2 Dwelling Units Sending Area #2 1 Density Right =1.5 Dwelling Units Sending Area #3 1 Density Right =1 Dwelling Unit Please contact staff if you have any questions. Attachments: 1. Request Letter 2. Village at Middletown Proffers 3. Joint Agreement for the Administration of Proffers 4. Rural Areas Report & Recommendation (Adopted April 22, 2009) 5. Resolution CEP/pd RAR URALREASEPORT AReportfromtheRuralAreasSubcommittee &R RecommendedbytheSubcommitteeonFebruary19,2009 ECOMMENDATION RecommendedbythePlanningCommissiononApril1,2009 AdoptedbytheBoardofSupervisorsonApril22,2009 February2009,FinalVersion Followingsixmonthsofresearch,presentations,discussions,andevaluations,theRural FC REDERICK OUNTY AreasSubcommitteeofferedtheir PreliminaryThoughts regardingthe/Ò·äxruralareas. TheÒ,-z··;;xPreliminaryThoughts werepresentedtothecommunityduringapublic B OARD OF meetingheldonFebruary5,2009.Aftertakingintoconsiderationthecommentsreceived duringthispublicsession,theSubcommitteefinalizedtheirresearch,andonFebruary19, S’ UPERVISORS 2009,forwardedarecommendationtotheBoardofSupervisors.Thisrecommendationis includedintheRuralAreasReport&Recommendation. RA URALREAS S UBCOMMITTEE Developmentpressuresintheruralareas,whichintensifiedoverthepastdecade,are significantlyimpactingour-Òz·äxruralcharacter.Theresidentialdevelopmentthatis resultingfromthispressureimpactstheCountyinvariousways.Itincreasesdemandsfor Countyservices.Itsignificantlyimpactsthevitalityoftheagriculturaleconomyasfarmland isconvertedfromactiveagriculturetoresidentialuse.Additionally,thedevelopment pressuresandresultingresidentialdevelopmentimpactstheruralcharacterofthe community,detractingfromviewshedsandtherurallandscape. February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation E xecutive Summary 3 Rural Areas Subcommittee 5 Rural Areas Defined 6 Issues for Consideration 10 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan 12 State Enabled Tools for Managing Growth in the Rural Areas 13 Growth Management Tools Not Fully Utilized in the Rural Areas 22 Community Involvement Process 23 Rural Area Subcommittee’s 26 Preliminary Thoughts Public Meeting 27 Recommendation 30 Appendix I Community Input – “Ideas” List II Comments offered as part of the Community Meeting Surveys III Researched Materials IV Organization Submitted Materials FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 2 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation Executive Summary Development pressures in the rural areas, which intensified over the past decade, are significantly impacting our community’s rural character. The residential development that is resulting from this pressure impacts the County in various ways. It increases demands for County services. It significantly impacts the vitality of the agricultural economy as farmland is converted from active agriculture to residential use. Additionally, the development pressures and resulting residential development impacts the rural character of the community, detracting from viewsheds and the rural landscape. The Subcommittee affirmed the existing land use policies of the County’s 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan are appropriate, are supported, and should continue to be promoted. Those policies are: The rural area goals of the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan state: The intention to preserve rural character and open space. The intention to improve the rural view shed. A belief that preserving the rural character and viewshed furthers the community’s attractiveness and value. The document also contains the following goals for the larger community, beyond those specifically focused on the rural areas: Maintain the rural character of areas outside of the Urban Development Area, (UDA). Ensure that land development activities in the rural areas are of an appropriate quality. Protect the rural environment. Utilize the UDA to provide public services at a lower cost. Following six months of research, presentations, discussions, and evaluations, the Rural Areas Subcommittee offered their Preliminary Thoughts regarding the County’s rural areas. These Preliminary Thoughts were presented to the community during a public meeting on February 5, 2009. It was during this public session that the committee recorded various comments, suggestions, and endorsement of their Preliminary Thoughts. The Rural Areas Subcommittee has taken the received public comments into consideration, and formulated a recommendation for the Board of Supervisors’ consideration. Additional details on this process and the Subcommittee’s recommendations are included in the body of this document. The Subcommittee’s recommendations encourage the County to: Implement enhancements to the existing health system requirements applicable to on-site private residential health systems. Increase the reserve drainfield area to 100 percent. The current regulations require a 50 o percent reserve area which does not enable a homeowner to fully replace a failed health system. Continue to allow health systems that meet the Virginia Department of Health’s, (VDH) o General Approval requirements. Prohibit health systems that are permitted through the Provisional and Experimental Approval process. FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 3 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation Prohibit the use of Discharge Health Systems, and require Board of Supervisors’ approval o for Pump-and-Haul permits. Support Operation and Maintenance Requirements for alternative health systems. o Enable the use of Community Health Systems within defined Rural Community Centers. Implement enhancements to the existing Rural Preservation Lot subdivision requirements. Maintain a minimum lot size of two acres. o Increase the preservation lot (cluster set-aside lot) from 40 percent of the parent tract to a o minimum 60 percent of the parent tract. Establish a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. Consider identifying ‘sending’ areas based on rich agricultural soils and ridgeline viewsheds o In identifying ‘sending’ areas, recognize that a property’s location, soil, and terrain heavily influence its capacity to be developed and thus its development value. TDR ‘sending’ areas should be designated in an effort to discourage development. Consider using ‘receiving’ areas where residential development is desired. o Within the UDA on residentially planned areas that are zoned RA. Within Urban Centers and Neighborhood Villages. In Rural Community Centers with adopted boundaries. Structure the TDR program so that it is economically advantageous for the development o community to purchase development rights from key agricultural areas of the County. Structure the TDR program so that it is economically advantageous for landowners to sell o their development rights as opposed to selling their land for development. Pursue state enabling legislation that would allow the County to implement Impact Fees for new construction. Seek, support, and participate in collective lobbying efforts to secure impact fee-enabling o legislation to adequately address the impacts new construction places on the county. Strengthen opportunities that support and promote agriculture. Promote forum and network opportunities that would further produce marketing and o agriculture economy support. On February 19, 2009, the Subcommittee forwarded these recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. The Board of Supervisors adopted this report as a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan on April 22, 2009. FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 4 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation Rural Areas Subcommittee In July 2008, the Board of Supervisors created the Rural Areas Subcommittee to take the lead role in evaluating the rural areas of the County. This Subcommittee was charged with: Identifying the growth and development trends and related issues in the rural areas of the County; Gathering ideas to address those issues; and Forwarding a recommendation for resolution to the Board of Supervisors. In an effort to encourage public participation, and in order to learn about the community’s ideas for the rural areas, a variety of tools and mediums were used to inform the community about the Rural Areas Subcommittee effort. A webpage was established where up-to-date meeting discussion and summary materials were made available. The webpage also contained an informative PowerPoint presentation which outlined the issues the Subcommittee was charged with evaluating. Citizen ideas were accepted via an online comment page, as well as a dedicated Rural Areas Study e-mail address, and could also be mailed or dropped off to the County’s Planning and Development office. FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 5 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation Rural Areas Defined For the purpose of this study, the Subcommittee looked at growth in the County’s rural areas. These rural areas included all land located outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service area (SWSA). It should be noted that the communities of Lake Holiday, Shawneeland, and Mountain Falls are planned for suburban residential uses and, therefore, were excluded from this rural area study. The rural areas of Frederick County account for approximately 89 percent of the County’s land area. FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 6 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation County Growth Trends The County has experienced a constant growth rate the past three decades – between 1970 and 2000, the average annual population growth rate was 2.9 percent. This annual growth rate rose to 3.17 percent for the period between 2000 and 2006, resulting in a January 2008 provisional population estimate of 73,818 persons, based on Weldon Cooper Center projections. The County’s growth rate since 2000 places the jurisdiction within the top 10 population gainers in the Commonwealth of Virginia, gaining 13,740 persons since 2000. The 2000 US Census indicated that approximately half of the County’s population resides in the rural areas of the County. County data evaluations indicate that since 1990, approximately 30 percent of the new home construction has occurred in the rural areas. County Growth Management Tool – the UDA In the late 1980s, the County implemented the use of the Urban Development Area (UDA) as its primary growth management tool. The UDA, an adopted policy tool incorporated into the County’s Comprehensive Policy Plan for over 20 years, directs that suburban residential growth occur within the UDA, where public service provisions, such as water and sewer, are provided. In an effort to maintain an appropriately sized UDA, responsive to growth pressures for residential growth, approximately 5,700 acres have been added to the UDA since 1990; which results in 5,700 acres that have been removed from the rural areas and positioned for more intensive uses. Strategically, this inclusion of additional acreage in the UDA was intended to relieve development pressures from the rural areas, so that agricultural opportunities could be pursued and maintained. The County recognizes that an increasing growth rate, such as the rate experienced by Frederick County since 2000, results in an accelerated consumption of quality rural landscapes and character, and erodes the county’s agricultural economy. County Land Division Ordinance Provisions as Compared to Neighboring Jurisdictions The Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances contain the applicable regulations that enable and guide the subdivision of land within the rural areas of the County. The two ordinance provisions that apply to the creation of more than three lots from a single land parcel are the Major Rural Subdivision and the Rural Preservation Lots (cluster). Each provision is based on a maximum allowed density of one unit per five acres. The Major Rural Subdivision Ordinance provision requires that lots be established with a minimum lot size of five acres, have direct access to public roads, and contain private individual health systems. The Rural Preservation Lot (“clustering”) ordinance provision requires that lots be established with a minimum lot size of two acres, have direct access to public roads, contain private individual health systems, and maintain at least 40 percent of the parent tract in a single “preservation” parcel. FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 7 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation NeighboringJurisdictionsRuralDensitiesandLotSizes(Basedonnonclusterprovisions) JurisdictionDensityMinimumLotSize Frederick 1lotper5acres 5acres Rockingham 1lotper15acres w/SUP1acre Warren Totalof9lotsperparcel,regardlessofparcelsize10acres FauquierSlidingscale:2per10 butdecreasesafter10acres2acres Prince 1lotper10acres 10acres William Loudoun 1lotper10acres 10acres ClarkeSlidingscale:1lotper7acres,butdecreasesafter15acres2acres Shenandoah 1lotper3.5acres 3.5acres New Lot Creation Trends The County has realized a gradual increase in the number of lots created annually in the rural areas of the County. It is notable that while the County’s growth management policy, the Urban Development Area, seeks to direct new growth towards a concentrated density in the UDA, the County continues to experience about a third of new lot creation occurring in the rural areas. RuralAreasLotCreationHistory NumberofLotsCreatedPercentageofCountywide Year intheRuralAreasResidentialLotsCreated 200120627% 200222630% 200322633% 200431237% 200531036% 200645652% 200722435% FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 8 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation The use of the Rural Preservation Subdivision (two-acre minimum lot size with a 40 percent preservation area) has increased in recent years, and is now more common than the more traditional 5-acre Major Rural Subdivision land division option. ApplicationType199920002001200220032004200520062007 RuralPreservationSubdivisions00514121421117 MajorRuralSubdivisions22492101020 During the period between January 2004 to June 2008, 82 subdivision applications (Rural Preservation & Major Rural Subdivisions) were submitted to the County seeking to create 1,451 lots in the rural areas (approximately 7,255 acres). This does not account for Minor Rural Subdivisions requested – which create less than three lots. Only 912 of these lots have been recorded (created) as of June 30, 2008. The balance has been designed and final plat approvals are pending. New Home Construction Trends The County has realized a gradual increase in the number of new homes constructed in the rural areas, which continues to capture about a third of the new residences constructed in the County. NewResidentialBuildingPermitsIssuedinRuralAreas NumberofResidential PercentageofCountywideNew BuildingPermitsissuedinthe YearResidentialBuildingPermits RuralAreas 200125329% 200227831% 200324728% 200427426% 200535227% 200625224% 200716029% All projections indicate growth trends in the rural areas will continue, if not increase. FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 9 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation Issues for Consideration The RA Subcommittee identified five issues that warranted consideration in evaluating the rural areas and its associated land development pressures. These five issues each have associated affects on the rural areas, as well as the entire County: 1. The Rural Areas – UDA Relationship 2. Agricultural Economy 3. Land Development and Design 4. Community Services and Facilities 5. Transportation The Rural Areas – UDA Relationship The County’s Comprehensive Policy Plan utilizes the land use concept called the Urban Development Area (UDA). The UDA defines the area in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. Necessary public services, such as public water and sewer, will be provided within the UDA. The County also uses the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) as a tool to capture commercial and industrial uses, however this area does not allow residential uses, thus its importance in the rural areas discussion is less significant. The UDA and SWSA are planned growth areas within the County positioned to most effectively and efficiently provide necessary public services such as: Transportation, including vehicular and pedestrian; Schools; Parks and Recreation; Fire and Rescue; and Public Safety. New state-mandated Storm Water Management regulations will add increased development costs to projects in the UDA. These new state regulations may inadvertently shift residential development pressures to the rural areas where it would be less costly to comply. Agricultural Economy The County has experienced a net loss of 6,528 acres from the County’s Agricultural and Forestal Districts since the 1980’s. Through its study of the rural areas, the County strives to support and promote agricultural economy interests and associated pursuits in the rural areas. One potential challenge that confronts the County is its location and affordability, in relation to the Northern Virginia market. This proximity to Northern Virginia will result in increased land demand for housing, as experienced more significantly in the past five years. This pressure for housing will indirectly discourage agricultural activities as land owners evaluate the benefits of abandoning their agricultural venture and converting their farmland to large-lot rural residential subdivisions. Land Development and Design Present ordinance provisions permit a residential density of one unit per five acres. As discussed previously in this document, subdivision options exist that enable this one unit per five acre density to be applied in either a Major Rural Subdivision (with a by-right minimum of five acre lots) or in a Rural Preservation Lot Subdivision (with a by-right cluster minimum lot size of 2 acres). The existing ordinance enables these subdivisions to occur administratively; no legislative action or rezoning application is necessary. A significant amount of available land, and the relative ease in converting it for housing, may indirectly promote housing growth. FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 10 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation Community Service and Facilities The dispersed population resulting from rural area growth challenges the cost-efficient provision of County services such as Schools, Fire and Rescue, Public Safety (Sheriff), Parks and Recreation, and Libraries. Current capital facility fiscal modeling utilized by the County (adopted Development Impact Model in July 2008)) projects that every new single-family home constructed in the County places a negative impact of $23,818 on the County’s capital infrastructure (schools, fire and rescue, public safety, parks, library). These are capital costs currently not addressed by the rural area land owner or home buyer, and become a burden on the County and the County-wide taxpayer. The County must provide the necessary public services, yet it is unable to recover the costs under the current structure of the County Code and State laws. Transportation The ever expanding growth and development pressures in the rural areas are taxing on the road infrastructure. This is illustrated by the number of roads residents have requested be placed on the County’s Six Year Road Improvement Program for hard surface treatment.Currently, the County’s Six Year Road Improvement Program plan has enough roads requested for inclusion in the Hard-Surface Road Programs to take well over 20 years to complete (based on today’s, 2008 fiscal constraints). The current Hard-Surface Road Plan has 30 roads, totaling over 35 miles, awaiting improvements. Funds are limited for rural area road improvements as most state road dollars are dedicated for the more heavily traveled primary and secondary roads in the more densely populated areas of the State and County. In recent years, the State has established the Rural Rustic Road Program which enables funds and provides for basic paved access in the rural areas. This is a good tool to stretch the limited funds and provide for a hard surface treatment. Unfortunately, it is not meant for every unpaved road. This program does not rebuild the road; no engineering or major improvements may be funded through the Rural Rustic Road Program. So there should not be significant increases in traffic on the qualifying portion of road. Paving follows the guidelines for very low volume local roads (less than 1,000 vehicles per day). Qualifying for this program requires that the Board of Supervisors document its commitment to limit growth on the road and indicate that growth and traffic generation will not increase significantly on the road for ten years. This commitment by the Board would require the Board to significantly alter the development potential in the vicinity of the rural rustic road so there is assurance that growth will not result. Current capital facility fiscal modeling projects that every new single-family home constructed in the County places a negative impacton the public road infrastructure. These are capital costs currently not addressed by the rural area land owner or home buyer, and become a burden on the County. Again, like school and fire and rescue services, the County must provide the public services, yet it is unable to recover the costs. The projected capital cost and economic burden for each new home constructed in the County is in excess of $23,000, excluding the impacts on our road system. Those homes constructed in the rural areas currently do not contribute to this capital cost impact. FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 11 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan is the guiding document for long-range land use and transportation planning in the County. In reviewing this adopted policy document, it is important to note the goals applicable to the County’s rural areas. The rural area goals of the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan state: Preserve rural character and open space. Improve the rural view shed. A belief that preserving the rural character and viewshed furthers the community’s attractiveness and value. The document also contains goals for the larger community, outside of the rural areas emphasis, which states: Maintain the Rural Character of areas outside of the UDA. Ensure that land development activities in the rural areas are of an appropriate quality. Protect the rural environment. Utilize the UDA to provide public services at a lower cost. It is these adopted policy goals that the Rural Areas Subcommittee kept in mind as they followed their mission and charge. FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 12 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation State Enabled Tools for Managing Growth in the Rural Areas The study effort involved evaluating all available tools for managing growth in the County’s rural areas as enabled by the Commonwealth of Virginia. This evaluation identified more traditional tools designed to manage growth, as well as tools that indirectly affect growth, in the rural areas. The following are the tools identified as being enabled by the State for use within Frederick County. It is important to note that Frederick County has not been enabled to utilize Impact Fees; therefore, Impact Fees have been excluded from this list. 1. Urban Growth Boundaries 2. Chapter 2232 Review - Development consistency with the Comprehensive Policy Plan 3. Special Exception Permitting (a.k.a. Conditional Use Permits) 4. Cluster Development Zoning 5. Large Lot Zoning 6. Conservation Easements 7. Historic Districts 8. Density Incentives 9. Establishment of Agricultural and Forestal Districts 10. Purchase of Development Rights 11. Transfer of Development Rights 12. Virginia Department of Health (VDH) health system regulations 13. Implementation of a Use Value Assessment and Taxation, “Land Use” 14. Implementation of a Sliding Scale Property Tax Rate. FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 13 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation 1.Urban Growth Boundaries Extensions of infrastructure, particularly water and sewer lines and major streets, significantly affect the timing and density of development. The Comprehensive Policy Plan can designate areas which are planned for immediate or long-term utility service, thereby coordinating development approvals (rezoning) and utility extensions to achieve an orderly and compact development pattern adjacent to existing settlements. Urban Growth Boundaries in Virginia are not zoning designations per se, but rather policy designations established in the Comprehensive Policy Plan so as to guide decisions about rezoning . applications and public infrastructure investment Frederick County has implemented this tool in the form of the Urban Development Area. 2.“Chapter 2232” Review The Comprehensive Policy Plan is considered advisory and it serves as a guide for the physical development of the community. However, according to §15.2-2232 of the Virginia Code, the Comprehensive Policy Plan “shall control the general and approximate location, character, and extent of each feature shown”. While the Comprehensive Policy Plan itself does not directly regulate land use, the Plan does have status as a fundamental instrument of land use control, once it is adopted by the local governing body. Section 15.2-2232 provides that unless a feature is already shown on the adopted plan, no street or connection to an existing street, park, or other public area, public building or public structure, public utility facility or public service corporation, whether publicly or privately owned, shall be constructed, established, or authorized until its location has been approved by the local Planning Commission as being substantially in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Policy Plan. Frederick County exercises this review for public facilities. 3.Special Exception permitting (aka Conditional Use Permits) Zoning ordinances usually delineate a number of uses that are allowed as a matter of right, and a number referred to as ‘Conditional Use Permits’ in Frederick of uses that are allowed by special exception ( County) . Uses allowed by special exception are those considered to have a potentially greater impact upon neighboring properties or the public than those uses permitted by right in the district. For example, houses of worship may be desirable in a residential area, but controls over parking, circulation, setbacks and landscaping may be needed to prevent them from adversely affecting surrounding residences. By classifying them as special exceptions, separate and specialized regulations or conditions can be imposed by the locality to mitigate the adverse impacts. These conditions may be imposed and need not be negotiated or agreed to by the applicant. Such conditions must be specific, reasonable, and enforceable. FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 14 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation 4.Cluster Development Zoning Under cluster zoning provisions, when a residential subdivision is created, it is designed so that the dwelling units are clustered together on smaller than average lots on only a portion of the tract, leaving the remainder available for open space or similar uses. Clustering may be used in either urban or rural areas. However, the term “cluster zoning” is usually associated with rural land use issues. Depending on the provisions of the specific cluster ordinance, the remaining open space within cluster developments may be held in common and/or be a strictly agricultural or environmental area with no “development rights” remaining. The open space parcel(s) may be allowed to have a dwelling unit with a permanent easement that prohibits further subdivision or additional dwellings. In urban areas, cluster provisions are typically uses for preserving sensitive environmental features and/or for encouraging a compact development pattern that makes efficient use of infrastructure. In rural areas, cluster provisions are typically aimed at agricultural and forestal conservation. Cluster provisions can be voluntary options with a zoning district, or they can be mandatory. A rezoning may also be required in order to create a cluster development. One of the key advantages of rural cluster techniques is that the tool can help to preserve rural land resources while still meeting the desires of rural landowners to obtain a relatively high development value for their property. Typically, rural cluster provisions allow roads and dwellings to be sited with less disruption to views from the public road right-of-way and/or with greater buffer distances between neighboring properties. Frederick County permits clustering via the Rural Preservation Lot provision in the Rural Areas Zoning District. 5.Large Lot Zoning Large lot zoning is one of the techniques in a more inclusive category of zoning techniques called agricultural zoning or agricultural protection zoning. Large lot zoning simply requires that the minimum lot size in a designated rural zoning district is set at a large enough size to protect agricultural activities from excessive encroachment of residential and other non-agricultural land uses. The American Farmland Trust defines a “large lot” for the purposes of agricultural protection as being 20 acres or more. Many localities consider smaller, minimum lot size such as five or 10 acres as being a “large lot” measure. However, if lots less than 10 acres are permitted without a clustering provision, there is a risk that such development will create undue encroachment on agricultural areas and undermine the purpose of the tool. Thus, large lot zoning provisions are often combined with cluster zoning provisions within a given zoning district. FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 15 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation Large lot zoning is relatively inexpensive in that it relies on the police powers of conventional zoning to protect farmland from encroachment of residential development, thereby helping to reduce conflicts between farms and non-farm neighbors. If lot sizes are large enough, and if the locality provides for more intensive development to locate in urban areas or service districts, this technique can help reduce sprawl and public infrastructure costs. It appears to be used most commonly in areas where the farm economy is strong and farmers generally want protection from development. Thus, in areas where the value of rural land for development is far higher than its value for farming, it can be difficult to implement without support of the farming community. Like all zoning measures, it is not permanent and can be changed by local legislative action. 6.Conservation Easements A conversation easement (also known as an Open Space or Scenic Easement) is a legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust or government agency that limits the use of land by recording deed restrictions that prohibit or severely restrict further development in order to protect the conservation value of the property, such as farmland, watersheds, wildlife habitat, forests, and/or historical lands. Each easement is unique in terms of acreage, description, use restrictions, and duration. These details are negotiated between the property owner granting the easement, and the organization that will be holding the easement. Conservation easements are typically established in perpetuity, but may be established for shorter periods. The easement allows a property owner to continue to own any underlying interest in the land that is not specifically limited by the easement, to use the land within the terms and restrictions of the easement, and to sell the land or pass it on to heirs (with the easement restrictions conveying with the land). Conservation easements do not permit public access unless specifically provided. Conservation easements may be established through purchase, lease (short term), or through donation. In all of these easement programs, the easement is established through the voluntary cooperation or initiative of the landowner. Frederick County is actively pursuing conservation easements through the County’s Conservation Easement Authority, in an effort to protect and preserve the rural landscape. Leasing of Development Rights. When conservation easements are acquired for short periods, they are called easement leases, term easements or the leasing of development rights (LDR). LDR is the same as Purchase of Development Rights except that the term of the easement can be as short as five years, under amendments to Virginia’s Open Space Land Act made in 1981. To date, no Virginia locality has enacted an LDR program, but the concept’s potential to be a good alternative to Use Value Assessment, because the locality can set the terms of eligibility, easement duration, restriction, and compensation; whereas under the Use Value program, the state sets most of the rules. However, like Use Value Assessment, the LDR program is a temporary solution to the problem of farmland and open space conversion. FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 16 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation Donation. When conservation easements are accepted as donations from landowners, the donor property owner qualifies for certain tax incentives at the State and Federal levels, instead of receiving payment from the locality. For landowners in the upper tax brackets, these provisions can be quite lucrative. Localities may accept donations of conservation easements, and many private or semi-private institutions also accept easement donations. Easement donations can also be promoted by localities in conjunction with a PDR program. 7.Historic Districts Localities are authorized by the Virginia Code to establish Historic Districts for designated historic landmarks and defined “historic areas,” including adjacent properties and land contiguous to road corridors leading to such areas. The governing body may provide for a review board to administer the ordinance, often called a Board of Architectural Review. The ordinance may include provisions that no building or structure, including signs, shall be erected or altered within any such district unless approved by the review board as being architecturally compatible with the historic landmarks, buildings, or structures in the district. Localities typically prepare design guidelines to aid in the administration of such districts. Such districts are established as “overlay” districts which do not alter the underlying zoning regulations, per se, but rather provide additional requirements for the design and form of new and/or expanded buildings. The establishment of a Historic Overlay District provides a great deal of authority to a locality in affecting visual character of a neighborhood in terms of architectural and urban design, going well beyond the accepted purview of conventional zoning provisions which deal merely with the height, bulk, use, and intensity of buildings. Frederick County, via the County’s Historic Resources Advisory Board, encourages property owners to participate in the expansion and establishment of historic districts. 8.Density Incentives A zoning ordinance is a principal planning tool used by localities to achieve their development objectives. Historically, zoning ordinances were purely regulatory tools that established minimum standards for new development. However, because “minimum standards” many times becomes “maximum performance,” zoning ordinances have evolved to include incentive-based approaches to community development objectives. Although different types of incentives can be incorporated into a zoning ordinance (fast track plan reviews, reduced application fees, etc.) the most positive incentive to developers is often increased density. FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 17 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation Incentives may be considered and applied through the rezoning process and/or directly through provisions of the zoning ordinance text. In the rezoning process, a locality’s Comprehensive Policy Plan provides recommended density, and intensity ranges for areas planned for residential uses. Establishing density as part of a rezoning approval is a matter of extent to which the objectives as specified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan are met by the rezoning proposal. Incentives may also be directly incorporated into a locality’s zoning ordinance text, and be available to anyone who meets the standards established in the zoning ordinance. Incentives may be structured to foster an assortment of community objectives including, but not limited to, affordable housing, dedication of land for highway improvements, reservation of land for open space, enhanced landscaping or signage design, and dedication of land for public use. 9.Establishment of Agricultural and Forestal Districts The Virginia Code provides for the voluntary creation of Agricultural and Forestal Districts (AFDs) in order to “provide a means for a mutual undertaking by landowners and localities to protect and enhance agricultural and forestal land as a viable segment of the Commonwealth’s economy and as an economic and environmental resource of major importance.” Agricultural and/or Forestal Districts are established by the local ordinance to run for a set number of years (from four to ten), during which property owners continue to hold fee simple title to the land, and enjoy various benefits provided by the Code for such districts. The local ordinances usually include provisions that permit the landowner to withdraw from the program under certain defined circumstances. AFDs are established at the request of landowners, who must assemble at least 200 acres of contiguous land and be approved for a district by the local governing body. Districts last from four to ten years and can be renewed. Being in a district ensures a landowner that his land will continue to be eligible for the Use Value Assessment, even if the program is otherwise rescinded by the locality. The AFD also provides some extra protection against certain public infrastructure improvements. In and of itself, an AFD does not change the zoning within its borders. However, an AFD can be a factor in the locality’s zoning decisions and planning policies. Further, in adopting an AFD, the governing body may require, as a condition of creation of the district, that any parcel in the district shall not, without the prior approval of the governing body, be developed to any more intensive use or to a certain more intensive use (other than uses resulting in more intensive agricultural or forestal production), during the period which the parcel remains within the district. Frederick County presently has three Agricultural and Forestal Districts. 10.Purchase of Development Rights When conservation easements are purchased as part of a broad government program, it is typically called “Purchase of Development Rights” or PDR. In some other parts of the country it is also known as PACE or Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easements. Purchasing “development rights” is the FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 18 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation same as purchasing conservation easements or that portion of the “bundle of rights” that allows landowners to construct dwellings or non-farm commercial structures on the property. Thus, when a locality purchases a conservation easement from a landowner, it essentially “buys” the right to develop the land and “retires” that right by placing a permanent conservation easement on the property that restricts or prohibits further non-farm development. Typically, these easement restrictions run in perpetuity. Frederick County, through the County’s Conservation Easement Authority, is pursuing an active PDR program. 11.Transfer of Development Rights TDR, or Transfer of Development Rights, is a concept in which some or all of the rights to develop a parcel of land in one district (the sending district) can be transferred to a parcel of land in a different district (the receiving district). The TDR is a tool used to preserve open space, farmland, water resources and other resources in areas where a locality wishes to limit or curtail development. In a classic TDR system, one or more sending districts are identified, as well as one or more receiving districts. “Development rights” are assigned to landowners in the sending district, typically on the basis of a certain number of permitted dwellings per acre. Owners of land in the sending district are not allowed to develop at the full level of their development rights, but instead may sell their development rights to owners of land in the receiving district, who may then use the newly acquired development rights to build at higher densities than normally allowed by existing zoning (without further legislative approval). TDR systems are intended to maintain designated land in open or non-developed uses and to compensate owners of the preserved land for the loss of their rights to develop it. Frederick County continues to investigate the benefits of a TDR program, and is tracking the General Assembly’s efforts to enhance existing enabling legislation. 12.Private On-Site Health System Regulations The Virginia Department of Health regulates the private on-site health systems that are necessary for a residence to be constructed in Frederick County’s rural areas. VDH, through its statewide regulations, enables a number of health systems (general, provisional, and experimental approvals), from conventional drainfields to alternative systems to engineered discharge designs, and programs (i.e., conditional construction permits) for private on-site health systems. In recognition of the varying site characteristics throughout the Commonwealth, localities are provided the ability to request that certain systems and programs not be permitted in a jurisdiction. Through presentations by experts from both the public and private sector, the County has been made aware of various aspects of the existing state regulations that may be enhanced in their application within Frederick County. Frederick County may: FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 19 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation Require larger drainfield reserve areas than the existing State standard of 50 percent of the primary drainfield. Most communities surveyed required 100% reserve drainfields; Frederick County requires a 50% reserve. Limit the types of private on-site health systems available, based on the State’s three tiers of approvals:- general approval, provisional approval, and experimental system approval. Limit the types of private on-site health systems permitted based on a particular system’s design, and whether it’s conventional, alternative, discharge, or even pump-and-haul. Other communities are more restrictive than Frederick County in its use of discharge and pump-and- haul systems. Require Operation and Maintenance of health systems. This was encouraged by the attending experts. It was also noted that the State may require such an O&M program by July 2009. Prohibit off-site drainfields. Most communities surveyed prohibit the off-site drainfield; Frederick County currently allows it. Require greater well-head separation distances. Most communities surveyed require 100-foot separations; Frederick requires 50 feet. Expect a minimum lot size of at least two acres to accommodate an on-site health system, and, in addition, larger lot requirements are more desirable to accommodate the most appropriate systems applicable to the site’s soil type. It was suggested that smaller lots may become design challenges and often lead to the installation of undersized and/or inappropriate systems simply to assure the usability of a parcel. 13.Implementation of a Use Value Assessment and Taxation, “Land Use” The Use Value Assessment and Taxation Program uses discounts in property tax assessments to promote and preserve agricultural, forestal and open space lands. Use Value Assessment (also commonly known as “land use” or “land assessment”) is a State-guided program available to localities in which the locality can tax farmland and open space land at its “uses” value rather than its fair market value. In most rapidly growing jurisdictions, this typically reduces the real estate tax on the land by a significant amount, thus making it easier to continue a farming business. The program is voluntary to the landowner and requires only five acres to qualify under agricultural or open space classification or twenty acres under the forestal use classification (areas as small as one quarter acre may qualify if adjacent to a scenic river, scenic highway, or other specific instances provided by the Code). Rollback taxes must be paid when the property is removed from the program. FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 20 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation Land Use Assessment does not stop the pressure to convert farmland to urban development, but does appear to temporarily reduce some of the pressure on landowners in areas where urban development pressures are causing tax burdens to rise. Frederick County utilizes the Land Use Assessment Program. 14.Implementation of a Sliding Scale Property Tax Rate The locality may reduce one’s real property taxes based on the number of years which the landowner agrees not to develop the property, for up to 20 years. Rollback taxes equal the deferred tax plus interest from the effective date of the agreement. Enabled in 1999 (Ch. 1026, Acts of the Assembly); not used to date. Through research and presentations, the County has been made aware of various aspects of the existing state regulations pertaining to the Sliding Scale Property Tax Rate. It was believed that with the increasing demand for land, and the associated land value increase associated with the demand, the benefits of the sliding scale tax rate would be far exceeded by the benefit of developing the property. Further thoughts suggest that if a property owner is willing and able to defer their development rights for up to 20 years, the sliding scale tax rate would not act as an incentive, but simply an added benefit. In its application in Frederick County, the benefits of sliding scale vs. Land Use alone would be minimal. FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 21 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation Growth Management Tools Not Fully Utilized in the Rural Areas The study effort involved evaluating all available tools for managing growth in the County’s rural areas as enabled by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and more importantly, identifying those tools that may not be fully utilized in Frederick County. The following are the tools identified as being worthy of further consideration and implementation to more effectively manage the growth in the rural areas. State enabled opportunities that promote agricultural economy and viewshed preservation Subdivision Layout Design Requirements Evaluate if increasing the set-aside, “preservation” lot size from the current minimum of 40 o percent to 60 percent of the parent tract, would assist in promoting agricultural opportunities. Consider establishing a maximum lot size for the buildable lots created in a preservation o subdivision. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) and Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Programs Evaluate if a TDR Program and associated incentives would be beneficial to the community. o Such a program could encourage developers to seek out and purchase the development rights from the agricultural property owners. Pursue state and federal grants to fund the PDR Program. o Tax Assessment Programs Evaluate if establishing a Sliding Scale Land Use Assessment Program would benefit the o community. State enabled opportunities that mitigate environmental and fiscal impacts to the county Residential Density Consider if revisiting the residential density permitted in the rural areas is appropriate. o Evaluate existing densities in adjoining communities to ascertain if Frederick County is comparable with other jurisdictions. Health Systems Private on-site systems o Evaluate existing state regulations, and ascertain if more stringent standards should be utilized in recognition that soil types in Frederick County are not always comparable nor compatible with state-wide standards. Community systems o Evaluate the use of community health systems within the Rural Community Centers as a means to alleviate existing system failures. Additional details on these identified, but not fully utilized tools, are included on pages 26 and 27 of this report. Community Involvement Process FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 22 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation A variety of tools and mediums were used to inform the community about the RA Subcommittee effort: Rural Areas Webpage. A webpage was created that contained information about the study effort, copies of the meeting agendas and minutes, and announcements about community meeting sessions. The study’s webpage was also hyperlinked from the County’s homepage, and its address was: www.co.frederick.va.us/planning/SpecialProjects/RA/RAstudy.aspx Online Comment Form. When visiting the study’s webpage, one could also provide their ideas and opinions on the study through an Online Comment Form. E-Mailing List. A mailing list was established to keep interested parties informed on the study’s efforts. Up to 50 homes signed up for this e-mail update service. E-mail. An e-mail address was established to receive citizen comments and ideas. Community Meetings. Three community meetings were held the first two weeks of November 2008. Through these meetings, information was made available to inform interested participants about the rural study, the state-enabled tools available to the county, and the tools that the Subcommittee identified as possible areas to improve upon. These community meetings also ended with participants being encouraged to complete a study survey as a means to convey their individual thoughts on a list of potential tools that could be further implemented in the rural areas. Informative handouts distributed at these community meetings are on the following pages. FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 23 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation Rural Area Subcommittee’s Preliminary Thoughts At the RA Subcommittee meeting on November 20, 2008, the Subcommittee reviewed the materials to date, including the community meeting surveys, and based on this information, offered their Preliminary Thoughts on a potential resolution to their rural areas review charge: Category{Ò,-z··;;xt©;zz©äwÒmw· DensityMaintain1unitper5acres RezoningNo PrivateHealthSystems DrainfieldReserveArea Increasefrom50%to100% WellSeparationDistance Requiremoredetailspriortorecommendation ContinuetoallowGeneralApprovalsystems;nolongerallow AcceptableHealthSystemapprovals ProvisionalnorExperimentalsystemapprovals Donotallowprivate,onsiteresidentialdischargesystems. DischargeHealthSystems Dischargesystemsareaerobicsystemsthatdischargeeffluent intodryorintermittentflowcreekbedsanddrainageswales. PumpandHaul AllowwithBoardofSupervisorsapproval OffsiteDrainfieldEasements ContinuetoAllow SupportedConcept.Requiresmorestudy.IfStatedoesnot Operation&MaintenanceRequirements implementamaintenanceprogrambytheStateCode identifiedJuly2009deadline,theCountyshould. SupportedconceptfortheRuralCommunityCenters. CommunityHealthSystems Requiresmorestudy. RuralPreservationSubdivisionPreservationTractsize Minimumlotsize Maintain2acres PreservationTractSize Increasefrom40%to60% PreservationTract Clarifythatitiscountedtowardoveralldensity ImplementaTDRprogram.Supportforincreasingtransfer developmentdensitiesinefforttoencourageuseofTDR TransferofDevelopmentRights(TDRs) program.TDRbankingispresentlynotpermitted,buthas beenincludedinthecurrentGeneralAssemblydiscussions. FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 26 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation Public Meeting The RA Subcommittee held a public comment meeting on February 5, 2009 where the Subcommittee’s Preliminary Thoughts were presented to the community, and public comment was recorded. The meeting was attended by approximately 50 people. Below is a summary of the meeting, with emphasis on the comments received. Eric Lawrence, AICP, Director of Planning and Development for Frederick County, began the meeting by providing an overview of the subcommittee’s mission, and of the information that the group used as the basis for its recommendations. Following this abbreviated version of the presentation given during the community meetings held in November, Mr. Lawrence proceeded to outline the subcommittee’s Preliminary Thoughts and recommendations. ThesePreliminary Thoughts, outlined on the previous page (page 26), were the result of the committee’s analysis of the tools available to the County for use in managing growth. At the core of these Preliminary Thoughts was the subcommittee’s understanding of the following issues: 1.Relationship of the rural areas to the UDA 2.Agricultural economy 3.Land development and design 4.Community services and facilities, 5.Transportation Following this overview of the subcommittee’s Preliminary Thoughts, the public was given the opportunity to share their opinions and suggestions. Below are excerpts from the public comment session; the full text is available upon request. Mr. John Gavitt of the Gainesboro Magisterial District spoke on behalf of the citizens’ group, Preserve Frederick. He said Preserve Frederick continues to support the work of the Rural Areas Subcommittee and he agreed there are a variety of tools available to manage growth in the rural areas. “…It is clear that rural landowners should be compensated for giving up their development rights except where there is donation. …All citizens must understand that preserving important rural lands for the future will not occur unless there is some level of sacrifice today. …As important as it is to save our land, it is equally important that any program enacted also save our agricultural industry and infrastructure.” Mr. Bob Carpenter of the Gainesboro Magisterial District spoke on behalf of another citizens’ group, the Committee to Preserve Rural Life in Frederick County. Mr. Carpenter commended Mr. Shickle and the members of the Subcommittee for the work that has transpired over the last several months. He stated “from the time we started this process last July to where we are tonight …a lot of good things have occurred. …One of those is the fact that we, [Committee to Preserve Rural Life and Frederick County] have agreed to solicit, pursue, and try to find a way to work with Richmond to get the impact fee model discussed and on the record.” Mr. Carpenter asked that the Subcommittee continue to focus on the TDR Program and to keep in mind that not all land is created equal. Also, he asked the Subcommittee to continue with their study of community waste systems. FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 27 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation Mr. John Good, Jr., of Stonewall Magisterial District, stated that both he and his family were happy with and appreciated the work this Subcommittee has accomplished. The preservation of land value without dramatically reducing the density is very important to him. He expressed concern about the 100 percent reserve area. Mr. Good believed the concept is good for people who want to fix their systems; however, the problem is not many people fix their failing systems. He raised another concern is about off-site easements and not allowing those anymore. Mr. Lawrence clarified that the Subcommittee does not support elimination of the off-site easement. Mr. Paul Anderson of Back Creek Magisterial District and President of Frederick County Farm Bureau, stated he appreciates the work the Subcommittee has been doing. Mr. Anderson liked the idea of the TDR Program, and he also believed the PDR Program would be a good program to go along with that. Mr. Anderson did not want agriculture to suffer financially so the general public can drive out and see beautiful countryside. …One issue that concerns Mr. Anderson is the two-acre lot issue. “If someone needs to sell lots, two lots probably wouldn’t do it; if he sells the third lot, he has to put a road in. …[Therefore] he’s going to sell property to a developer and have 19 lots put in to get the money he needs. …There are many different alternate systems and the ideal goal should be to keep lot sizes down to a minimum in order to preserve as much farm land as possible.” Mr. Anderson liked the idea of going from 40 percent to 60 percent open space, but felt lot sizes could possibly be reduced based on the type of health systems used. Ms. Charlotte Messick of Back Creek Magisterial District reminded everyone that, “this County needs to find ways to not only educate the young people coming up to be farmers, but to encourage the farmers that are here in every way they can to stay in farming, not because of the monetary reasons, but you don’t have scenic viewsheds without a knowledgeable farmer to make that viewshed.” Ms. Mary Anderson of Back Creek Magisterial District, a member of the Frederick County Farm Bureau Board, was asked to read a letter from Mr. John Stetzel, who was not able to attend. Ms. Anderson read that Mr. Stetzel is in favor of controlling growth in the County; however, he believed there needs to be a balanced control between the rural areas and the areas within Urban Development Area. …Mr. Stetzel hoped that ultimately, the changes decided upon will not only meet the goals of controlling growth, but that those changes do not negatively impact landowners’ equity. Mr. Patrick Felling of Red Bud Magisterial District and represents the Potomac Conservancy said one of the issues in his mind was the potential for Purchase of Development Rights and Transfer of Development Rights programs to maintain property values for the landowner without increasing the density in rural areas. Ms. Diane Kearns of Gainesboro Magisterial District thanked the Subcommittee for all their work. She suggested creating an agriculture task force, possibly through the EDC. TDRs are a great concept and she applauded the idea. Ms. Kearns agreed with Mr. Carpenter that not all land is created equal and that reality should be taken in account. She believed it would be beneficial to get as many of the sectors of the public involved as possible. Following the comment period, members of the community had questions for Mr. Lawrence about the details of the existing rules for development in the rural areas and how they related to any potential changes. Responding to questions about TDRs, Mr. Lawrence strongly suggested that if the TDR Program is created, that the county not identify sending areas where one would expect the urban development area to be in the FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 28 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation future. He said the receiving area could be designated rural community centers, it could be designated urban centers, or it could be designated residentially-planned areas within our Urban Development Area. Also included as a public comment was a letter received from the Winchester Frederick County Economic Development Community (EDC), which explained that in the late 1990s, the EDC Strategy did contain an agribusiness component, and due to the intensification of the tourism effort and waning participation of the agribusiness community, the EDC ceased related activities around 2000. Recently, however several local agribusiness stakeholders asked if the EDC would restart its agribusiness effort. As a part of their new efforts, the EDC expressed a willingness to expand upon their activities with the agribusiness community. The agribusiness community members meeting with the EDC identified several potential areas for greater growth within the area’s agricultural community including Wineries, tie into retail market, sole focus on agri- tourism/ agri-tainment, and assistance/partnership with new crops, marketing, financing, etc. FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 29 of 30 February2009,FinalVersionRuralAreasReport&Recommendation Recommendation In conclusion, the Rural Areas Subcommittee is recommending that the following changes be considered by the Board of Supervisors: Increase the Private Health System’s Drainfield Reserve Area requirement from 50 to 100 percent. Continue to allow General Approval of Private Health Systems, however, cease from allowing Provisional or Experimental System Approvals. Cease allowing private, on-site residential discharge systems. Allow Pump-and-Haul sewage disposal, as a last resort, with Board of Supervisors’ approval. Increase the required size of Rural Preservation Tracts from 40 to 60 percent, maintain a minimum lot size of two acres, and clarify that the Preservation Tract counts toward the overall density. Implementation of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, and supports increasing transfer development densities in an effort to encourage use of the TDR program. TDR banking is presently not permitted, but has been included in the current General Assembly discussions, and should be considered, if enabled. Community Health Systems: subcommittee supports the concept for use within the defined Rural Community Centers. In addition to these suggested changes, the subcommittee recommends that the following receive further, in- depth study: Well Separation Distance Requirements: subcommittee requires more details prior to offering a recommendation. Operation and Maintenance Requirements: subcommittee supports the concept but requires more information prior to offering a recommendation. If the state does not legislatively implement a maintenance program by its deadline of July 2009, the County should. Community Health Systems: subcommittee requires more details prior to offering a recommendation for use outside of defined Rural Community Centers. FrederickCountyBoardof{Ò¦;©Ýz©xRuralAreasSubcommittee Page 30 of 30 RESOLUTION BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS th The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, in regular meeting on the 12 day of July 2017, adopted the following: WHEREAS, Frederick County has received a request from Dave Holliday Construction to allow payments within the Village at Middletown, located in the Town of Middletown; WHEREAS, proffer 16.1 of the Village at Middletown states Subject to approval by Frederick County, in lieu of the per unit monetary contributions for School Construction as provided above, the Applicant may extinguish a Transferrable Development Right (TDR) within Frederick County. No monetary proffers for School Construction shall be required for any dwelling unit constructed utilizing this method, but all remaining proffered commitments shall remain applicable to such WHEREAS, The Frederick County Board of Supervisors is supportive of the use of extinguished thin the Village at Middletown; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, thatthe Board of Supervisors of Frederick County hereby supports and approves the use of extinguished serve as monetary proffer payments within the Village at Middletown. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this approval is contingent upon receipt by Frederick County of an acceptable document extinguishing the subject development rights. Passed this 12th day of July, 2017 by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman ____ Gary A. Lofton ____ Robert W. Wells ____ Bill M. Ewing ____ Gene E. Fisher ____ Judith McCann-Slaughter ____ Blaine P. Dunn ____ A COPY ATTEST ______________________________ Kris C. Tierney, Interim PDRes #21-17 Frederick County Administrator COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors FROM: M. Tyler Klein, AICP, Planner SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment Slaughterhouses as CUP in RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District DATE: June 30, 2017 This is a proposed amendment to Chapter 165 Zoning Ordinance to allow slaughterhouses in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District as a conditional use Staff has drafted a revision to the Zoning Ordinance to include a new definition for slaughterhouses as well as supplemental use regulations that would correspond to the use additional requirements could be added during the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process if necessary. The inclusion of this use seeks to expand and clarify opportunities for agribusiness in and is supported by the 2035 Comprehensive Plan Rural Areas and Agribusiness Development sections. This item was proposed to staff by abusiness owner and current slaughterhouse operator seeking to expand and/or relocate their nonconforming use. This item was discussed by the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their April 27, 2017 regular meeting;the DRRC agreed with the proposed ordinance amendment and forwarded the item to the Planning Commission for discussion. The Planning Commission discussed this item on June 7, 2017; the Planning Commission agreed with the changes and sent the item forward for review by the Board of Supervisors. The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed change supported by the DRRC and the Planning Commission (with bold italic for text added). This item is presented for Staff is seeking direction from the Board of Supervisors on this Zoning discussion. Ordinance text amendment. Attached is a resolution directing the item to a public hearing should the Board of Supervisors deem it to be appropriate. Attachment: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics. 2.Resolution MTK/pd ATTACHMENT 1 Article I General Provisions; Amendments; and Conditional Use Permits Part 101 General Provisions § 165-101.02. Definitions and Word Usage. SLAUGHTERHOUSES. Establishments primarily engaged in the slaughtering or processing of meats for human consumption or other related products. The word "slaughterhouse," as used in this definition, shall not be construed to prohibit persons who are actually farm sheep, swine, goats and fowl for their own family use. Article II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS Part 204 Additional Regulations for Specific Uses § 165-204.17 Slaughterhouses and rendering plants. A. It shall be unlawful to operate any slaughterhouse, abattoir, rendering plant or establishment where animals or fowl, dead or alive, are processed or where food or f unless such place or establishment is maintained and operated in times. B. Such establishments shall be so constructed and maintained as to insects and rodents. The doors, windows and other openings there and wire window screens of not coarser than fourteen-gauge mesh. C. The word "slaughterhouse," as used in this definition, shall not be construed to prohibit persons who are actually farmers from killing their own cattle, sheep, swine D. All buildings, animal unloading/staging areas, and animal pens from all property lines. E. Total building(s) square footage should not exceed 20,000 square feet (SF). F. All operations must be under roof and screened from view from adjoining properties and public streets. G. Additional buffering and screening may be required as specified the Zoning Administrator. ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Part 401 RA Rural Areas District § 165-401.03 Conditional uses. The following uses of structures and land shall be allowed only granted for the use: A. Bed and Breakfasts, Farm Stay B. Country clubs, with or without banquet facilities. C. Manufacture or sale of feed and other farm supplies and equipmen D. Fruit packing plants. E. Off-premise farm markets. F. Off-premises wayside stands. G. Country general stores. H. Service stations. I. Antique shops. J. Restaurants. K. Kennels. L. Petting farms. M. Television or radio stations. N. Motels. O. Auction houses. P. Campgrounds, tourist camps, recreation areas and resorts. Q. Commercial outdoor recreation, athletic or park facilities. R. Nationally chartered fraternal lodges or civic clubs, social S. Sawmills and plaining mills, Type B. T. Ambulance services. U. Retailing or wholesaling of nursery stock and related product V. Landscape contracting businesses. W. Public garages without body repair, provided that the followi (1) All repair work shall take place entirely within an enclosed str (2) All exterior storage of parts and equipment shall be screened from the view of surrou properties by an opaque fence or screen at least six feet in hei adequately maintained. X. Public garages with body repair, provided that the following conditions are met: (1) All repair work shall take place entirely within an enclosed str (2) All exterior storage of parts and equipment shall be screened fr properties by an opaque fence or screen at least six feet in hei adequately maintained. Y. Sand, shale and clay mining, provided that the following conditi (1) All mining shall be above the mean, existing grade level of a pa (2) All mining operations shall meet all applicable requirements of gencies. (3) Such mining operations shall meet the landscaping and screening regulations, height, area and bulk regulations and site plan requirements contained in the EM Extractive Manufacturing District regulations. Z. Cottage occupations (as defined). AA. Cottage occupation signs. BB. Veterinary office, clinic or hospital, including livestock services. CC. Day-care facilities. DD. Humanitarian aid organizational office. EE. Schools (with residential component). FF. Fruit and vegetable stands (SIC 5431). GG. Blacksmith shops (SIC 7699). HH. Farriers (SIC 7699). II. Horseshoeing (SIC 7699). JJ. Taxidermists (SIC 7699). KK. Welding Repair (SIC 7692). LL. Flea Markets, Operated Indoors or Outdoors. MM. Treatment Home. NN. Special event facility. OO. Commercial shooting and archery ranges (indoor or outdoor). PP. Ice cream parlor or bakery. QQ. Craft and gift shops. RR. Slaughterhouses. ____________________________ Action: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: July 12, 2017 APPROVED DENIED RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CHAPTER 165, ZONING ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS; AMENDMENTS; AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS PART 101 GENERAL PROVISIONS §165-101.02 DEFINITIONS AND WORD USAGE ARTICLE II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES PART 204 ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES §165-204.17 SLAUGHTERHOUSES AND RENDERING PLANTS ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS PART 401 RA RURAL AREAS DISTRICT §165-401.03 CONDITIONAL USES WHEREAS, an ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning to allow slaughterhouses in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District requiring a conditional use permit (CUP); and WHEREAS, The Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) reviewed the changes at their April 27, 2017 meeting and agreed with the proposed changes to allow slaughterhouses in the RA Zoning District requiring a conditional use permit (CUP) and sent the item forward for review by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors; and PDRes #26-17 -2- WHEREAS, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed changes at their regularly scheduled meeting on June 7, 2017 and agreed with the proposed changes; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors discussed the proposed changes at their regularly scheduled meeting on July 12, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds that in the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice, directs the Frederick County Planning Commission hold a public hearing regarding an amendment to Chapter 165; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REQUESTED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that the Frederick County Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing to allow slaughterhouses in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District requiring a conditional use permit (CUP). Passed this 12th day of July, 2017 by the following recorded vote: This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman ____ Gary A. Lofton ____ Bill M. Ewing ____ Blaine P. Dunn ____ Gene E. Fisher ____ Robert W. Wells ____ Judith McCann-Slaughter ____ A COPY ATTEST ______________________________ Kris C. Tierney, Interim Frederick County Administrator PDRes #26-17 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: John A. Bishop AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation RE: Signatory Authority DATE: June 22, 2017 As you may be aware, within the scope of numerous dealings with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and particularly revenue sharing projects, the County staff regularly needs to sign agreements for various aspects of project administration. As part of that process, VDOT requires that a resolution be adopted by the Board of Supervisors granting signatory authority to the individual signing these agreements. To that end, please find attached the resolution which would empower Interim Frederick County Administrator, Kris C. Tierney to sign these agreements. JAB/pd Attachment 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 RESOLUTION BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS th The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, in regular meeting on the 12 day of July 2017, adopted the following: WHEREAS, Frederick County has received a request from Virginia Department of Transportation for signatory authority granted by the Board of Supervisors to the individual signing when executing agreements with outside agencies; and WHEREAS, the County will be engaged in a number of County managed projectsleading to more agreements with outside agencies; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, thatthe Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, grants authority for Interim Frederick County Administrator, Kris C. Tierney to execute project administration agreements with outside agencies. This authority shall be in effect on the day of adoption. Passed this 12th day of July, 2017 by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman ____ Gary A. Lofton ____ Robert W. Wells ____ Bill M. Ewing ____ Gene E. Fisher ____ Judith McCann-Slaughter ____ Blaine P. Dunn ____ A COPY ATTEST ______________________________ Kris C. Tierney, Interim Frederick County Administrator PDRes. #25-17 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 Memorandum To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors From: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator Date: June 30, 2017 RE: Red Bud Run Section 2 - Phases 3-8 The following additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory provision or provisions cited, are hereby requested; the right of way for which, including additional easements for cuts, fills and drainage, as required, is hereby guaranteed: Morlyn Drive, State Route Number 1612 0.33 miles Merlot Drive, State Route Number 1614 0.41 miles Staff is available to answer any questions. MRC/ks 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 RESOLUTION BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, in regular meeting on the 12th day of July, 2017, adopted the following: WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Form AM-4.3, fully incorporated Court of Frederick County; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on June 9, 1993, for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described in the attached Form AM-4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 33.2-705, Code of Virginia, and the Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of- way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman ____ Gary A. Lofton ____ Bill M. Ewing ____ Robert W. Wells ____ Blaine P. Dunn ____ Gene E. Fisher ____ Judith McCann-Slaughter ____ A COPY ATTEST _____________________________ Kris C. Tierney, Interim Frederick County Administrator PDRes. #28-17 In the County of Frederick By resolution of the governing body adopted July 12, 2017 The following VDOT Form AM-4.3 is hereby attached and incorporated as part of the governing body's resolution for changes in the secondary system of state highways. A Copy Testee Signed (County Official): ____________________________________________ Report of Changes in the Secondary System of State Highways Project/Subdivision Red Bud Run Section 2 Phase 3-8 Type Change to the Secondary System of State Highways: Addition The following additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory provision or provisions cited, are hereby requested; the right of way for which, including additional easements for cuts, fills and drainage, as required, is hereby guaranteed: Reason for Change: New subdivision street Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute:§33.2-705 Street Name and/or Route Number Morlyn Drive, State Route Number 1612 Old Route Number: 0 From: Route 1614, Merlot Drive - west intersection To: Route 1611, Kemper Street, a distance of: 0.33 miles. Recordation Reference: Inst. #s 090012698, 110008464, 11008465, 110002461 Right of Way width (feet) = 54' Street Name and/or Route Number Merlot Drive, State Route Number 1614 Old Route Number: 0 From: Route 1612, Morlyn Drive - west intersection To: Route 1611, Kemper Street, a distance of: 0.41 miles. Recordation Reference: Inst. #s 090012698, 110008464, 11008465, 110002461 Right of Way width (feet) = 54' VDOT Form AM-4.3 (4/20/2007) Maintenance Division Date of Resolution: July 12, 2017 Page 1 of 1 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 Memorandum To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors From: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator Date: June 30, 2017 RE: Raven Pointe Section 6 - Phase 2 The following additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory provision or provisions cited, are hereby requested; the right of way for which, including additional easements for cuts, fills and drainage, as required, is hereby guaranteed: Derrynan Court, State Route Number 1545 0.05 miles Taggart Drive, State Route Number 15350.07 miles Summerfield Drive, State Route Number 1536 0.06 miles Summerfield Drive, State Route Number 1536 0.05miles Staff is available to answer any questions. MRC/ks 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 RESOLUTION BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, in regular meeting on the 12th day of July, 2017, adopted the following: WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Form AM-4.3, fully incorporated Court of Frederick County; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on June 9, 1993, for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described in the attached Form AM-4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 33.2-705, Code of Virginia, and the Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of- way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman ____ Gary A. Lofton ____ Bill M. Ewing ____ Robert W. Wells ____ Blaine P. Dunn ____ Gene E. Fisher ____ Judith McCann-Slaughter ____ A COPY ATTEST _____________________________ Kris C. Tierney, Interim Frederick County Administrator PDRes. #29-17 In the County of Frederick By resolution of the governing body adopted July 12, 2017 The following VDOT Form AM-4.3 is hereby attached and incorporated as part of the governing body's resolution for changes in the secondary system of state highways. A Copy Testee Signed (County Official): ____________________________________________ Report of Changes in the Secondary System of State Highways Project/Subdivision Raven Pointe Section 6 Phase 2 Type Change to the Secondary System of State Highways: Addition The following additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory provision or provisions cited, are hereby requested; the right of way for which, including additional easements for cuts, fills and drainage, as required, is hereby guaranteed: Reason for Change: New subdivision street Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute:§33.2-705 Street Name and/or Route Number Derrynan Court, State Route Number 1545 Old Route Number: 0 From: Route 1536, Summerfield Drive To: cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.05 miles. Recordation Reference: Inst. 170002408 Page 160200 Right of Way width (feet) = 50' Street Name and/or Route Number Taggart Drive, State Route Number 1535 Old Route Number: 0 From: Existing Route 1535, Taggart Drive To: Route 1536, Summerfield Drive, a distance of: 0.07 miles. Recordation Reference: Inst. 170002408 Page 160200 Right of Way width (feet) = 54' Street Name and/or Route Number Summerfield Drive, State Route Number 1536 Old Route Number: 0 From: Route 1535, Taggart Drive To: Roure 1545, Derrynan Court, a distance of: 0.06 miles. Recordation Reference: Inst. 170002408 Page 160200 Right of Way width (feet) = 54' VDOT Form AM-4.3 (4/20/2007) Maintenance Division Date of Resolution: July 12, 2017 Page 1 of 2 Street Name and/or Route Number Summerfield Drive, State Route Number 1536 Old Route Number: 0 From: Roure 1545, Derrynan Court To: Existing Route 1536, Summerfield Drive, a distance of: 0.05 miles. Recordation Reference: Inst. 170002408 Page 160200 Right of Way width (feet) = 54' VDOT Form AM-4.3 (4/20/2007) Maintenance Division Date of Resolution: Page 2 of 2