CPPC 10-09-95 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703/665-5651
FAX 703/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee
FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Directors/
RE: Meeting Date and Agenda
DATE: October 4, 1995
There will be a meeting of the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee on October 9, 1995
at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room of the Old County Court House.
Please let me know if you are unable to attend.
AGENDA
1. Discussion of input received at Round Hill Public Meeting.
Enclosed is a summary of comments made at the September 25 public meeting at the
Round Hill Fire Hall. The main topic of discussion continues to be the provision of
sewer to the area. The majority of comments on the proposed land use plan centered
around the delay in getting sewer to the established area of the community.
I have spoken with Wendy Jones and requested that the Sanitation Authority prepare an estimate of
providing sewer service to the areas designated for future development within the current land use
plan. Preliminary indications are that the cost will be significantly greater than the estimate provided
in the Alternate Waste Water Treatment Study (This study, completed in 1993, forecasts a cost of
1.4 million).
Also enclosed you will find some information on the existing number of uses within the study area
that could be expected to have a use for public sewer, were it available. Our estimates indicate 176
properties with an improvement value over $25,000.00. If the 1.4 million dollar estimate were
107 North Kent Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
accurate, the cost per property to fund a sewer extension would be roughly $8,000.00.
This would seem to rule out the possibility of an extension being funded by existing land uses.
One possible modification to the plan which might help to alleviate some of the criticism over timing
of a possible sewer extension would be to eliminate the "phasing" in the plan. None of the proposed
land use would have to be changed. We could simply do away with the five year intervals for the
three areas currently delineated as phases.
As it is currently proposed, the phasing is not intended to be a hard and fast standard that would
necessarily prevent certain areas from developing prior to others. If the phasing were eliminated
development of the community would still be subject to the rezoning and master development plan
process. Ultimately, the timing of development would be up to market forces and Board of
Supervisors' approval. A logical progression of development westward would likely take place with
or without phasing. However, this would remove any restriction within the plan, real or perceived,
to extending sewer to what is currently Phase III should funding somehow become available.
A second possibility might be to leave the phasing intact, but remove the time frame. We might label
the areas as Phase A, B, and C. We could also add language to the text of the plan which indicates
a willingness to allow sewer to be extended to the various areas assuming funding and other necessary
regulations are in place. In other words, if a source of funding were to become available, whether
public or private, the plan itself would not prevent the County from permitting the extension of sewer.
This does not mean that there might not be other factors that would prevent the extension from taking
place.
2. Discussion of where to go from here.
One other requested change to the plan involved extending the boundary of the Community Center
to include an additional 300 acres along the southeastern edge of the current boundary. Staff does
not feel this would be appropriate.
Once the Committee decides on any changes they might like to make to the plan as a result of the
public meeting, the next step is to decide whether you are ready to recommend the plan to the
Planning Commission.
KCT/bah
Attachments
Public Meeting: Proposed Land Use Plan for Round Hill
September 25, 1995
Questions asked by citizens in attendance:
1. Don't bring the sewer into particular neighborhoods. Will I be required to nook -up to the
sewer line if it comes into my neighborhood?
2. Is it more economical to hook-up to the sewer as soon as its available, versus 5 years
later?
3. Why not combine Phases I and III? Coordinating these two phases will enable the Round
Hill Community to obtain the much needed sewer, sooner.
4. Can the County control the proposed Round Hill Development (based on availability of
sewer)?
5. Winchester Annexation. If the sewer is extended to the Round Hill area, will the area be
in jeopardy of being annexed by the City?
6. Does Round Hill have an adequate water supply? Is the water supply even adequate to fill
the allotted sewer? Can the development of one major business take all of the available
sewer capacity, even before the Round Hill residents have an opportunity to hook-up?
7. What drives planning in the Round Hill area? Is it that a developer has expressed interest
in developing a sector?
8. How can the developers in Phase I and II be held responsible for providing new county
facilities (parks, fire stations)?
9. Phase I and II development should pay for a significant portion of the costs to extend the
sewer. Can the County tax development in Phase I and II to cover the expense?
10. Who owns Phase I and II?
11. The proposal for Phase I includes light industry. Is this light industry like that found in
Fort Collier?
12_ When does my property get rezoned to business? Will I be forced to move?
13. Why not build a water tank for both City and County use? Why should County residents
buy water from the City?
14. Why are failing septic tanks being put on the back shelf? Can these septic tanks last
another 10 - 15 years waiting for sewer? Phase III is a form of black -mail: if residents
want water and sewer, they'll have to allow development to occur. If development occurs
between Round Hill and the City, then there will be no obvious divider between the two.
The Round Hill Community does not want to be part of Winchester!
15. Why allow Phase III development when Phase II needs water and sewer?
16. The County only sees Round Hill as land, not as a community like the residents see it.
17. Why doesn't the County help finance low interest loans for residents to provide sewer?
18. If the State brings water to the new VDOT facility, can others tap into the line?
19. Why create a need for sewer in Phase II. Provide Phase III with sewer first.
20. .Are state loans available for health conditions? Are these loans available for failing septic
systems?
21. Why not reverse phases III and II? The residents of Round Hill should get sewer before
new development!
22. If Phase III does not grow, can they still afford sewer for the residents in Phase II?
23. Is there a legal barrier which prohibits business from paying twice as much as residents for
sewer hook-up? This additional cost to businesses could be used to help off -set the costs
residents would have to endure.
24. How does this plan help the community?
25. Why not run the sewer straight to Round Hill? Why does it have to follow the Railroad
tracks or development?
26. Why can't my land along the railroad tracks be rezoned to Ml, while land on the other side
of the tracks is proposed for M1 zoning?
27. Democracy is running the circus from the monkey cage.
28. Why does the county spend money on fire trucks and more land for a landfill, but not on
the health and safety of the Round Hill residents?
29. When will Phase III be initiated? Is it when the sewer is extended completely through
Phase II?
30. Who owns the line after a developer extends it? Can the Round Hill community extend
the line, and charge others hook-up fees to offset the expense the Round Hill community
endured?
ROUND HILL COMMUNITY CENTER STUDY
Current Land Uses
Based on information available through the Real Estate Listing, printed for the Department of
Planning and Development, the following is presented.
Total number of properties in the Round Hill Community Center ......... 403
Number of properties with improvement values above $25,000, and are considered to be used
primarily for residential purposes:
► Entire Community Center ...........................247
► Within Phase 1 .............................................54
► Within Phase 2 ..............................................2
► Within Phase 3 ............................................120
► Outside of the proposed Phases....................71
Number of properties with improvement values below $25,000 (Considered vacant or underused):
► Entire Community Center..............................140
► Within Phase 1 ................................................45
► Within Phase 2 .................................................2
► Within Phase 3 ................................................74
► Outside of the proposed Phases.......................19
Number of properties with improvement values above $25,000, and are considered to be used
primarily for business purposes:
► Entire Community Center..............................17