Loading...
CPPC 12-13-04 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) FROM: Susan K. Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner f,- 1,E RE: December Meeting and Agenda DATE: December 7, 2004 The Frederick County Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) will be meeting on Monday, December 13th, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the first floor conference room of the County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The CPPS will discuss the following agenda items: AGENDA 1) Rural Areas Study - Further discussion of the Rural Areas Study. 2) Other. Please contact the department if you are unable to attend this meeting. Thank you. Please note the earlier start time for this meeting. Access to the County Administration Building for night meetings that do not occur in the Board Room will be limited to the back door of the four-story wing. I would encourage committee members to park in the county parking lot located behind the new addition or in the Joint Judicial Center parking lot and follow the sidewalks to the back door of the four-story wing. The door will be locked; therefore, please wait for staff to open the door. SKB/bad Attachments 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 . Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 ITEM #1 Rural Areas Study Continuation of Policy Formulation Stage In October and November of 2004 the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) and the Planning Department held six public meetings and eight stakeholder meetings to get input on the proposals under consideration as part of the Rural Areas Study. The following public meetings were held: October 26 Armel Elementary School October 28 Middletown Elementary School November 9 Stonewall Elementary School November 15 Frederick County Middle School November 16 Indian Hollow Elementary School November 18 County Administration Building (Large Landowners) Between 30 and 60 members of the public attended each of the five general meetings. Over 120 members of the public attended the large landowner meeting. Comments and questions from these public meetings are attached to this memo. The following stakeholder meetings were held: October 25 Town of Middletown October 26 Frederick County Farm Bureau (1001 total members, 241 producer members) October 27 Community Consensus Coalition (CCC) (16 organizations representing nearly 3,300 people) October 27 Winchester Wheelmen (100 total members) November 4 Top of Virginia Builders Association (150 total members) November 8 Land Design and Engineering Community November 10 Frederick County Fruit Grower's Association (35 total members) November 18 Town of Stephens City Comments and questions from these stakeholder meetings are attached to this memo. Also included are official responses from the Town of Middletown, the Winchester Wheelmen and the Farm Bureau. During the public and stakeholder meetings, there appeared to be general agreement on the proposals for the Green Infrastructure, Rural Economy, Rural Community Centers and the Relationship of the Rural Areas (RA) to the Urban Development Area (UDA). There were differing opinions on the land development options, particularly regarding density and rezoning. Having completed this phase of the study process, the Rural Areas Study working group, has been considering all of the comments received from the public and stakeholders. This working group has been refining its proposals to incorporate the comments received. These proposals are described below. Post Consultation Option Developed by the Rural Areas Study Working Group This new proposal includes all of the proposals for the Green Infrastructure, Rural Economy, Rural Community Centers and Relationship of the RA to the UDA that were endorsed by the CPPS at its meeting of September 13th and presented at the joint work session with the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission on September 28, 2004. Following the Fall 2004 public input stage, a new proposal has emerged from the working group for land development. Under this proposal, the density would remain for all tracts zoned Rural Area (RA) at one dwelling per five acres. All tracts would have the by -right ability to subdivide a certain number of parcels. The general consensus of the group is up to ten lots in a five year period. If a landowner wanted to subdivide more than ten lots in a five year period, a rezoning would be required. It would be the landowner's decision whether to develop the property at a slower rate by -right or to seek a rezoning to develop a site at a faster rate. In developing this proposal, the working group sought: • to maintain existing property densities; • to give landowners flexibility to subdivide their property by -right to generate cash; • to enable the County to better cope with the impacts of by -right development; and, • to mitigate the impacts of large scale residential development. Many of the common features included with the three land development options considered at the Fall 2004 public meetings are still supported. The attached table includes details of the new proposal. 3 Rural Areas Study Land Development Option — December 2004 Land owner chooses either by- right or rezoning process By -right process Rezoning process Density 1 dwelling per 5 acres 1 dwelling per 5 acres Basis for Determining Density Parent tract as of date of adoption of revised ordinance Parent tract as of date of adoption of revised ordinance Allowance Up to 10 lots in 5 years Rezoning required if more than 10 lots created in 5 years Minor Subdivisions (first 1-2 new lots from the parent tract Allowed by -right Process Administrative review by staff Major Subdivision (3+ new lo] -Allowed within by -right allowance of 1 lots in 5 ears) by -right Process Master Development Plan - reviewed by staff & brought to a public meeting for public comment Major subdivision (with the number of units beyond that allowed by -right) Requires a rezoning Process Approval by Board of Supervisors ata public hearing Density Bonus 10% bonus for larger set-aside 10% bonus for larger set-aside 10% bonus for conservation easement 10% bonus for conservation easement Possible 10% bonus for exemplary MDP Family lots Up to 2 by -right, waiver required 3 or more Minimum lot size 1 acres & subject to health department issues 1 acres & subject to health department issues Drainfield 100% reserve area, easements allowed 100% reserve area, easements allowed Green Infrastructure Yes Yes Mandatory Conservation Design (with flexibility) Yes Yes Land owner chooses either by- right or rezoning process By -right process Rezoning process Conservation set-aside 50% 50% Density credit for primary resources Yes Yes Road Corridor Buffer 150' (possibility for waiver) 150' (possibility for waiver) Perimeter Buffer 100' where bordering non- residential RA or Ordinance requirement (possibility for waiver) 100' where bordering non- residential RA or Ordinance requirement (possibility for waiver) On-site public roads Yes Yes Off-site road improvements No Yes Proffers No Yes Fees To cover review costs To cover review costs Impact on staff Additional staff review process to review MDPs Same as at present Comments from the Rural Areas Study Public Meetings Tuesday, October 26 Armel Elementary School Thursday, October 28 Middletown Elementary School Tuesday, November 9 Stonewall Elementary School Monday, November 15 Frederick County Middle School Tuesday, November 16 Indian Hollow Elementary School Thursday, November 18 Frederick County Administration Building Comments from the Rural Areas Study Public Meeting Armel Elementary School October 26, 2004 Is 30% in RA a real number. Is supply in UDA causing higher RA number. Is 30% trend affected by planning. Should higher density residential accompany community centers. If 30% in RA is the people's desire, should it be controlled. Value of land should be considered part of the rural economy. Economic analysis of 3 options. - Impact on land values Why 100 acre cutoff What would prevent developer from buying multiple tracks under 100 acres. Impact falls on only a few individuals Plan may cause in increase in subdivisions under current 1 to 5 Unfair densities for larger parcels How would proffers apply to landowners on same road (Ex. Who pays for paving?) Who ultimately pays proffer? & When? Owner vs. Purchaser Alternatives to proffers Rezoning is too expensive for agricultural community — creates pressure to sell Stricter clustering rules will create odd open spaces Land: asset vs. resource 300' Road Buffer- who is responsible - too expensive to fence — too close to development for crops State constraints prevents better alternatives (Ex: lack of impact fees) -2- Planning for future creates hardships for current landowners. Plan developments at set rates — x number of homes per year Reverse densities — concentrate homes in larger lots Lack of public awareness Large landowner is minority — will opinion be heard Impacts on local builder -3- Comments from the Rural Areas Study Public Meeting Middletown Elementary School October 28, 2004 Why 100 acres? Include prime agricultural land in density How is prime agricultural land defined What are the rules Limiting development on prime land could harm value of land Would conservation easements be under time constraint Conservation easement vs. scenic easement Cave areas — conservation Rural area buffers — not usable can't be farmed Lots should be closer to state roads & further from farm land Lower tax rates for properties in land use Example of tax burden on preservation lots/preservation easements Put more emphasis on tourism Water & sewer in RCC's Need to expand services to RCC's to expand growth Foster growth in urban areas — not rural areas Farmers should be allowed to run "farm shops" that serve their community Can public water & sewer be accessed in the Rural Area Will comprehensive plan be changed to reflect SWSA/UDA expansion Limiting density / number of lots can hurt the retirement of farmers Burden should be put on developers -4- Sidewalks should be required in Rural Subdivisions/Areas Rural Area buffer will not work in some areas Would the buffer be part of the lot or separate Increased setbacks from road for future road expansions Shouldn't be taxed for buffer area Farmers should be able to sell/subdivide a few lots per year rather than developing it all at once Need to keep the cost down so people don't have to develop Look at Clarke County 10 acre option — better use -still some land left Maintenance of set aside parcel If orchards are developed the trees need to be pushed/burned You have to have a certain amount of land in order to make a profit. Scenic agriculture could deteriorate Subdivision options for preservation parcels County Gains nothing for Conservation Easements Restrictions are placed on preservation parcels How would Board of Supervisor decide which Rural Area parcel to rezone -5- Comments from the Rural Areas Study Public Meeting Stonewall Elementary School November 9, 2004 Green Infrastructure Clarify the primary & secondary resource density Be clear of the meaning of slope size & prime agriculture land Who checks the size & status of primary & secondary resources Currently, primary resources don't count to density Clustering still gives you ability to use the non-developed lot State road standards hurt green infrastructure concept. Why not private roads? 400' buffer is needed to achieve wildlife preservation Support concept of green infrastructure Why aren't historic properties included in the resource lists? Will Conservation Easements have a time limit? What kinds of rules will be enforced regarding secondary resources? Who makes decision of what is "Prime Agriculture" Land? Why should we tell landowners where to place open space? Why aren't we trying to keep people off of rural roads instead of creating scenic buffers? Track real definition of prime land Why wasn't low impact development part of an option? Communal water & sewer? Look at innovative systems in U.S. How will water & sewer be provided to clustered development? Require one tree per lot How will open space be maintained? Enforce H.O.A. rules. Why not C.D.A.'s? -6- Oppose community systems due to failure. Lot should be defined by ability to have well & septic, not by size. Rural Economy Promote organic agriculture Why tell farmers what to do in an economic sense Allow B 1 uses in Rural Land Farmland is increasing here, leave it alone What triggered RA study? Specific list need to be created that outline every aspect of the study Increase in population made RA study needed Economic factors have created influx of people & lot prices Can farmers sell products from their land now? Rural Community Centers Land Development Give farmers incentive to keep farming What is the incentive for farmers not to sell out now? Ask state for the ability to acquire impact fees Policy is causing farmers to want to sell out Landowners shouldn't have to go through rezoning Would this proposal slow growth? -7- County is driving up the cost of development in the UDA 4'' option of staying the same Percentage of land for each option Is this an effort to cap development Process is very open to the willing Loudoun County has caused much of this growth Local farmers don't have many options other than total dividing of their land History will repeat itself here in Frederick County unless we learn a lesson from Loudoun County. Where did these recommendations come from? (Lease Conservation Easements) -s- Comments from the Rural Areas Study Public Meeting Frederick County Middle School November 15, 2004 Green Infrastructure Need to be stronger with secondary resources. What is prime agriculture land? Farmers paying a lot of money for taxes. How much longer can farmers survive? Not many future farmers. Five acre lots too large for sense of community. Prefer two acre lot size. Why 60% set a side? Five acres uses up the land faster. Is there a distance buffer from streams for development? What benefit do I get if I place my land in a conservation easement? What is "considered" mean? (secondary resources) Would County consider purchasing green infrastructure? Rural Economy Housing should be located on shale soil as opposed to prime agriculture land. Not overly restricting lands where there is no one to take over operations. What is the County offering for the restrictions on land? What incentives are there to encourage farmers to stay? Every five years landoviners can sell another lot. Increasethe number of lots permissible over time if farmer stays. -9- Sale of development rights to private corporation. Rural Community Centers Is there a Community Center "UDA"? Planning should take into account the economic impact of development (development in rural areas that are not contributing) Are urban vs. rural discussions brought on by proffers? Are they looking for more support from land developers? Land Development Options Idea of rezoning is not very popular. Burden is on the landowner. System in place is not broken ... Don't fix it. When are the secondary resources deemed "possible" to conserve? Forest and horses are not good farming. How would a horse farm be taxed in a land use? Would the process be longer if there is a 4th option? How do you document an ongoing business? (Existing businesses that are grandfathered) Are there any foundational principles that have been I.D. to guide this process? Slow/fast growth designation is based on property reassessment. Where are we at in the slow/fast growth? Offer incentives to keep farmers farming Is the UDA already zoned for urban development, and therefore proffers are not applicable? What is the percentage of development in the UDA? How many 100 plus acres landowners are there? How many acres? All of these proposals hit the same people. All of these discussions are having landowners sell out early. Why should I wait to sell my land? If tighter restrictions are in place, it will bring revenue for land higher. Encourage clustering of homes to have the returns remain the same. How many landowners with 100 plus acres are in agreement with this? Are current set -a -side rules set that the land can be subdivided again after a few years? How is the water quality going to be affected with all the development? Farming has an impact on water quality. Who maintains the set -a -side? Be wary of 25 acres lot option — upkeep negligence. Farmers and community are punished by nuisance of big developments. All options are legislating sprawl - smaller lots in tighter clusters reduce consumption of land. Are there any bankers on the committee? - Potential financial impact on landowners. Comments from the Rural Areas Study Public Meeting Indian Hollow Elementary School November 16, 2004 Green Infrastructure Why must a few large landowners keep Frederick County rural/green? Fiscal deficit for every new house built. There is a need to protect steep slopes / how are steep slopes defined? Rural Economy How is landowners benefit from rural diversification? Makes sense to encourage landowners to look at other economic areas RCC's. Rural Community Centers What is limited commercial development? (Small scale) Land Development Concept is good but development is expanding out into the county and it needs to stop. Restriction/guidelines for growth areas for rural areas. Can't assume Shenandoah River can supply water for development forever. Relaxed control in RA has lead to random development (roads, wells) Development must pick up the tab for what they use (infrastructure). Water, sewer, (onsite) not addressed. Why not get new legislation to allow benefits of rezoning without doing a rezoning. Some of the options would take 1/3 of land value. Need to get help from State to make subdivisions not so liberal. -12- More restrictions on large developments — Require the developers to pay more — more teeth Issues have to deal with large developers — not landowners Current regulations create the problems- No control- Rezoning -at least you would know what is going on. These options will not change things. Limit maximum number of houses that could be built on a tract. Land developers vs. conservation - County is reacting not planning Even with number one the fiscal impact wouldn't be met What is the collection rate of proffers? Does any of State sales tax go to school? How far "off site" does "off site" mean? Is intent to define rules or define vision? How much open land is already subdivided but not built? Are these unbuilt lots subject to new regulations? County should know how much land has already been subdivided? Would these options come to a County vote? Does conservation easement mean forever? Local tax breaks for people who place their land in conservation easement? Set aside parcels should not qualify for tax breaks — only conservation easements. Do subdivisions in RA pay back taxes from land use? Set aside parcel should be permanent. In future will we have new subdivisions on 40% tracts — they should not be able to be subdivided further. - 13- Comments from the Rural Areas Study Public Meeting Large Land Owners November 18, 2004 Government can't tell people where to live. County policies drive development into Rural Area. County should reduce cost of developing in UDA. Farm numbers & acreage has increased in Frederick in last 5 years. Proposals are downzoning & will decrease land value. A 10 acre lot worth same as 5 acre lot. Rezoning unacceptable — BOS will not approve all new subdivisions. All options will drive up the cost of housing. Proposal more radical than Loudoun's plan Why do farmers have to fight with Board to protect their land. How many members on CPPS own parcels of more than 100 acres? Proposal is a penalty on farmers. Proposals would cause a flood of rezonings. Land use tax deduction is a good thing People will not pay $30,000 per acre for 10 acres. Farmers are thinking generations ahead. CPPS idea was to maintain land for future generations, was not about taking land rights. Look at issue as a whole community instead of individuals. Agriculture land has "prepaid" proffers because farms cost the county nothing. Land is a farmer's retirement and he needs the ability to sell a little at a time. Increase in buffers is a waste of land. -14- Proposal looks through everyone's eyes but farmers. Property is not a scenic resource for the public. Current ordinance provides adequate protection from national builders. Will proposal freeze UDA boundary? Problems being caused by UDA. Buffers and decreased density take too much acreage. Buffers create need for roads which equals money. Flaws with rezoning — Answer always NO — Increased cost for developer is passed on to purchaser. Proposals will drive landowners to sell to national builders — "little guy" can't afford rezoning. Five acre density should be retained. Why is there suddenly a problem with the five acre density? Thirty percent of homes have always been built in the Rural Areas. Rural area homes cost more and thus pay more taxes. This offsets lack of proffers. Should ask state "nicely" for impact fees in place of proffers. Not counting Primary Resources takes away too much land. Proposals drive farmers to sell. If you want to end growth then decrease new jobs. Ideas and proposals have disconnects. Other costs come with new land use options - Northern Virginia examples How is greenspace maintained? How would set aside be taxed? Differentiate between "open space" & "infrastructure green space" -15- Proposals limit number of options for large landowners. Merits an economic analysis. Penalizing too few a number of people. The more expensive you make the process the more you put land in the hands of large landowners. Farmers can't afford cost of developing land. Proffer money is "peanuts" compared to overall budget concerns. Proposal forces new generations to have to move out. Frederick County has refused industrial growth while allowing new residential development. Five acre density helped to control density at first, but size is too large as owners age. This is a waste of land. New septic technology allows for much smaller lots and saves land. Five acre lots takes land out of Agriculture Use. Consequences always come back on farmers. Make developers pay not farmers. Current infrastructure does not support current needs. Agriculture & development need to be able to coexist. Must protect farmers that wants to keep farming. New homeowners should be made aware of the sounds/smells/schedule associated with agriculture. Costs are passed onto consumer or eaten by large landowner. Landowners haven't made the problems so don't penalize the landowners. What is the problem? Incentivise creating more open space. Give density bonuses for maintaining agriculture use. What prompted the study? Proposal will decrease value. Why pay taxes that are from an assessment that is not the same as current/future value. -16- Proposal will decrease assessment. Secondary resource proposal dictates where lots can be placed. Growth aided by identification of 55 mile blast zone. Moving government offices have driven growth. Farming is already hard enough. Proposal leaves farmers with no choice. Rezoning is worst option Taxes won't change but sale values will decrease. Clustering makes sense. Phasing program would keep rural area from developing overnight. Singling out 400 landowners will not make a significant change. County should set up program where the tax rate for farmers is frozen. (Until a lot is created) Next BOS meeting is December 8, 2004 County needs to avoid legal conflict. -17- 1 2 3 .19 1 C 7. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY Schedule of Stakeholder Meetings Monday, October 25, 8:45 AM @ Middletown Town Hall Tuesday, October 26, 11:30 AM @ Valley Farm Credit Wednesday, October 27, 11:30 AM @ County 1st Floor Conference Rm. Wednesday, October 27, 7:00 PM @ Blue Ridge Schwinn Thursday, November 4, 5:30 PM @ Travelodge Monday, November 8, 11:30 AM @ County Board Room Wednesday, November 10, 4:30 PM @ Association Headquarters Town of Middletown Frederick County Farm Bureau Community Consensus Coalition (CCC) Winchester Wheelmen Top of Virginia Builders Association Land Design and Engineering Community Frederick County Fruit Grower's Association 8. Thursday, November 18, 11:00 AM Town of Stephens City @ Stephens City Town Offices Rural Areas Study Stakeholder Work Sessions Town of Middletown October 25, 2004; 8:45 AM Middletown Town Hall General Discussion Summary The second stakeholder work session with the Town of Middletown was held on Monday, October 25, 2004 at 8:45 AM. The work session was hosted by the Town in the Council Chambers and was attended by Mayor Gene Dicks, Ralph Bloom, Chairman of the Planning Commission, and Patricia Mullins, the Town Clerk. It is noted that Planning Commissioner and CPPS member Bob Morris (Shawnee) was in attendance. Senior Planner Susan Eddy, Planning Director Eric Lawrence, and Deputy Planning Director Mike Ruddy were also present. Mr. Bill Daly, Town resident was also present and observed the meeting. The discussion between the Town and County continued to be constructive and informative. Numerous issues associated with the future of the rural areas in Frederick County were discussed, including joint Town and County planning issues, historic and battlefield preservation, viewshed protection, traffic and safety on Town roads, and the density and design of new rural residential development. In addition to the discussion of the Rural Areas Study, the group took this opportunity to discuss the ongoing Foresight Middletown efforts and the relationship between the two planning efforts. Participant Comments and Issues 1. The Town will be providing the County with a formal review and comment of the Rural Area Study efforts. This will be provided by the Planning Commission and Town Council and is anticipated to be received by the beginning of December. 2. Many of the Town's goals as they pertain to the rural areas of Frederick County adjacent to the Town are expressed in the Foresight Middletown document. This point was emphasized by the group. Foresight Middletown identifies limited expansion of the Town boundaries to North and South and no expansion of the Town boundaries to the east and west. A distinct transition from the Town to the rural areas of Fredrick County is a key element of maintaining the identity of the Town and, conversely, the County's rural area. Coordination of plans, ordinances, and efforts in regard to the areas immediately adjacent to the Town that are outside of the proposed expansion areas is supported. In particular, adjacent to the Interstate 81 exit. This will help to ensure that development of this area is consistent with Middletown's rural context plan. -i- The residents of the Town have expressed that the current use of the land that surrounds the Town is desirable and should be preserved for the future. These desirable land uses include orchards, agricultural land, and historical battlefields. 4. The Historical battlefields are extremely important to the Town economy and character. It was noted that the Cedar Creek Battlefield provides a buffer to approximately half of the Town. 5. The requirement of clustering the residential development in the rural areas was noted as potentially being beneficial to maintaining the viewsheds of the historical battlefields that surround the Town of Middletown. Planning Commissioner Morris noted that the transportation issues revolving around the battlefields were currently being studied by the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission and could be of benefit to the Town. In particular, efforts to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian connections in and around the Town and the battlefields. 7. Encouragement was offered by the Town to the County to continue to work with the Town on the adoption and implementation of the Foresight Middletown plan. -2- DEC -02-04 05:16 AM Towj of Middletown 8, 2004 FILE Ms. usan K, Eddy, AICD Seni r Planner, Department of Planning Cou ty of Frederick 107. Kent St,, Suite 202 Win ester, VA 22601 Re. I Rural Areas Study Eddy: Town of Middletown PO Box 696 Middletown, Virginia 22645 (540) 869-2226 0 Fax (540) 869-4306 As p rt of the current Rural Areas Study (RAS) project you have asked for the "sen e" of the Town Council of Middletown regarding our recommendations concerning land use in the areas surrounding Middletown. In the Spring of this year, citizens of Middletown completed a thorough and detail d planning exercise known as Foresight Middletown. The resulting document is currently being incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan of Middletown. For t 'e purposes of the Study, we consider the rural areas immediately adjacent to Middletown to be approximately as follows: "North" is considered to be the area northeast of the current town boundary, between the CSX railroad right-of-way and Interstate 81, extending to Route 633 (scat ), approximately 1.7 miles. is the area bounded by Route 633, Watson Run, Cedar Creak ndoah County line) and the CSX right-of-way, approximately 1.8 miles, °Sout "is the area bounded by the CSX railroad right-of-way, Cedar Creek, the Warr County line and Interstate 81, approximately 1.8 miles. "East" is the area bounded by the Warren County line to its intersection with Route 627, then in a line parallel to 1-81 northeast to Route 635, then west along Route 636 and 709 to Route 633 at 1-81, approximately 1.3 miles. The F�resight Middletown document, under'Visbn for the Future of Middi town in the Year 2040" states (in part:) Th�Town has worked successfully with the County and local fan owners to permanently maintain this green buffer around town. Page 1 of 8 DEC -02-04 05:06 AM P.01 J ' ♦e Town has established distinct and beautiful community "gateways" a the main north and south entry points to Town and maintains a very c ar edge that distinguishes the Town fabric from the surrounding Und "Planning Policies,° Section 2, "New Development: Land Use and Urban Des r n," General Principles, states (in part) 7, e Town should remain an important "rural center"' and the focal paint of the ldcal community ofinterest, but it should not become a major service district of a major population and employment center. ft should remain a small town. These statements clearly describe the overall intent of the plan, that Middletown shou�d be "bufifered' by open space, have distinguishable edges and gateways, and remain a "small town_` Und Ir "Implementation Actions and Next Steps" the Foresight Middletown document states (in part:): Sh4 Term Actions 11. Both the Town and the County will formaffy adopt this Vision Plan for 2040 I rForesrght Middletown"'- including the Vision, Planning Framework, Master Plan and Illustrative Plan) as an element of the Comprehensive Plans of both jurisdictions 3.1 Both the Town and County will simultaneously implement Traditional Design techniques in accord with the policies of this Plan, by. I -1 Outlining the basic elements of Traditional. Neighborhood Design (TND) in .the Comprehensive Plans Adopting a Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) ordinance for the Town and for application to adjacent County land, as appropriate — such . ordinance shall include specific provisions for the major areas of Town, including but not limited to, Main Street in the existing town, extended Main Street north and south and new residential side streets. Identifying and addressing any barriers to TND development in the current zoning and land subdivision and development ordinances of the Town and County Providing density and other incentives to make TND a preferred choice of landowners, as needed Page 2 of 3 DEC -02-04 05:07 AM P. 02 Revising the existing B-9 regulations to incorporate certain TND features for Reliance Road consistent with the Town's desire to maintain its small- town character, while also addressing the practical needs of this road as a major thoroughfare into Town i 4 Both the Town and County will review aU ordinances, and amend as 1 needed to ensure that the transition areas into Town along Main Street as defined in this plan are encouraged and permitted by all current j regulations. 6. The Town and County will adopt annexation agreements (or boundary line adjustment agreements) for the orderly adjustments of the Town boundaries to include adjacent territory in concert with the location and sequential priorities established by this Plan, contingent upon implementing the urban design policies for the annexed land and in full accord with the Town's utility capacities. 7.1' These short-term actions, such as amendments to the comprehensive plan and new zoning provisions, should be substantially accomplished before any boundary adjustments take place. OngI ing Actions Ii The Town will work closely with the County and local rural landowners to maintain a green buffer of farmland surrounding the Town, through techniques such as agricultural zoning and open space land acquisition I 1-. The Town will annually, and as needed, monitor its rate of development to avoid over -committing to new areas adjacent to Town; ' the Town will work with landowners and the County to add new areas through boundary line adjustments in a phased, orderly fashion to ensure a moderate rate of development in a form that conforms to the policies of this plan. The Foresight Middletown document addresses the immediately surrounding areas, as outlined below, NOR: H "No" of Town (existing boundary to Lord Fairfax Community College (LFCC) and . oute 634): See "Planning Poiicies.n I Page 3 of 8 DEC -02-04 05:07 AM P. 03 3: Carefully Add Town Fabric to the North E and the Town fabric and the historic character of Main Street north to the e trance to the College during the next few decades. Expansion of the Town fe brit to the north is a higher priority than expansion to the south. tend the human scale, grid street pattern and sewer service, to the north of wn on both sides of Main Street, between Meadow Brook Creek and 1-89, 1 accord with the general and specific design policies set forth below. er, as regards the very long term: A'low for future expansion of Town fabric north of the College in the very long term (post 2040). Any expansions of the Town fabric farther north or south of tt e proposed expansion areas shown in this plan are beyond the time frame o ithis plan. If there comes a time when the -"own wishes to furtherexpand it fabric beyond the areas shown in this plan, expansions to the north will c ntinue to be a higher priority than expansions to the south. 5. E tablish clear "gateways" with transition areas at the major entrances to Town, and clear edges between the Town's urban fabric and the surrounding rural countryside. Thel points suggest the creation of appropriate zoning districts, together with relev nt annexation agreements and ordinances, to be implemented at the time of dei elopment. RECQMMMENDATICN Bey*d this area (to Route 633 as described above) it is our recommendation that RAS Option 1, with a density of 1:5 be implemented. of Town (existing boundary to Watson Run, etc.) See "Planning Policies." 2: Do Not Add Town Fabric to the West 7 e Town should not expand the Town fabric west across Meadow Brook c eek Rather, this area should either be preserved as part of the National JLI���"storical Park or have only minimal additional development, of a rural clharacter, to minimize impacts on the Battlefield. Page 4 of 8 DEU-02-04 05:08 AM RECOMMENDATION P.04 Bey a d this area (approximately.to Watson Run as described above) it is our recorim9ndation that RAS Option 1, with a density of 1:5 be implemented, to the exter t not in conflict with battlefield preservation. Sa "Soujh" of Town (as described above) See "Planning Policies.' 4: Carefully Add Town Fabric to the South ♦ E pand the Town fabric to the south, taking care to ensure that the west side o Routs f f be preserved as a rural area, with only a mTnupal expansion of T wn fabric into that area, staying close to the current Town boundaries. 4 Additional, compatible infill industrial development among the existing in Justrial buildings will be encouraged. Public sewer service will be extended tc serve these areas as they develop, in accord with the maps of this plan. A 1 new development in this area at the south edge of Town shodld be d signed to preserve the character of the views from the battlefield. . ? is area should be developed with a mixture of low to moderate density rE sidential uses resulting in average, overall gross densities similar to — a hough not necessarily identical to - those of the current, .overall residential density in the Town. Protecting the viewshed of the battlefield will be a mplished through large setbacks of new houses from Rt. f 1 in c njunction with large lots along the frontage of Rt. f f. aG n the east fide of Rt. 11, smaller single family lots and some higher density d elling types will be permitted between the ridgeline and 1-8 f with dense, fixed vegetative plantings to limit the visual impact on the battlefield. The /and area on the west side of Route f f should be developed in a similar rr anner, howeveri a wooded area between the Town fabric and the battlefield s ould be pr?yi ndlor fp�gjned to protect the view.�Ogc� pf #h b ttlefield. Sae iso "Specific Policies for Key Areas Shown ori the Conc�ptugl Master Plan" 9, southeast Addition t Develop the Southeast Addition as a iu- w -density d, wit`; tl{e primary consideration being protection of the via wshed from the Cedar reek battlefield. Page 5 of 8 DEC -02-04 05:08 AM P.05 E� sure that any houses fronting on Route 11 be on large lots with deep setbacks from the road and should have a farmstead" architectural character, w th a large main house that faces Rt. 11 and features traditional forms and rr ssing, along with outbuildings, hedgerows and other features common to the agricultural landscape. ♦ E�sure extensive buffers and setbacks from any new development to the b ttlefreld area. Views of the area from Route 11 should maintain a rural c aracter; compatible with the surrounding area. 10. Southwest Addition • Develop the Southwest Addition as a low-density residential neighborhood, th the primary consideration being protection of the viewshed from the Cedar Creek battlefield. Protect views from the battlefield by an extensive undisturbed wooded b ffer along any frontage adjacent to the battlefield. •Provide extensive buffers and setbacks from any new development to the b ttlefield area. Views of the area from Route 11 should maintain a rural c aracter, compatible with the surrounding area. Ensure that any houses fronting on Route 11 be on large lots with deep setbacks from the road and should have a- rural or "farmstead" amhitactural cliaracter with traditional forms and massing, outbuildings, hedgerows and o her features of the agricultural landscape. O Regardless of the 'density, lot and street pattems of any additions in the southwest area, the overall policy for such development is that it should either appear to be rural in character and constitute a "soft" edge to the Town so that it is compatible with the battlefield, or it should appear to simply move the existing "hard" edge of Town a bit closer to the battlefield, with little or no change in the profiles or visual character of buildings as seen from the battlefield. development applicants will be expected to prepare graphic s ulations of the visual impact of their proposed development in order for the wn to judge whether this policy is being met. 11. industrial Additions asure that additional buildings to within the existing industrial properties,along ute 11 maintain extensive landscaped setback (a, RpVte i 1 and maintain t a lural character of the roadway. Page 6 of 8 IJELI-OL-04 Ob -019- r4rq Ensure that new development has low building heights, is screened with an informal pattern of native vegetation, and uses muted colors that blend with the lar dscape and skyline so as to not be detrimental to the existing viewshed from th battlefield area or from Route 11. ♦ P mit the northern -mast portion of the industrially -zoned area to be rezoned as low density residential use and developed with a limited number of large lot residential units similar to the other new houses along Rt. 11 between the Town an I the industrial area, in order to achieve an appearance and profile that is m re compatible with views from the battlefield. 12. Bettletield Area the area that will become the new Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National al Park from development or land uses that would be detrimental to the setting and rural character of the battlefield landscape. These points suggest the creation of appropriate zoning districts, together with raiev nt annexation agreements and ordinances, to be implemented at the time of de elopment. Further, incentive techniques to protect secondary conservation resou ccs should be implemented to include the mentioned buffer areas. Outside the immediately adjacent area described, the land is principally contemplated to became, if not already, part of the National Historical Park, Devel pment other than that outlined in the cited policies ought to be disco raped, "East'i of Town (as described above) See "Planning policies." PolicO 1: Do Not Add Town Fabric to the East 7 The Town should not expand its urban fabric across 1-81, but the County st, ould grant the Town influence over this rural area (through planning policies a opted jointly by both jurisdictions; and possibly via annexation agreements to ensure rigor). development should be allowed around the I-81 interchange, it should be a mix of light industriaOechnology and commercial d its architecture should reflect the history and character of the Town 5e just another "strip" commercial stop along 1-81. This willlikely :hanges or additions to the County and/or Town zoning regulations sites. These sites as shown on the conceptual Master Plan, should Page 7 of 8 P.06 DEC -02-04 05:09 AM P.07 reC five Town services and will enlarge the Town's tax base and thus should ev tually'be incorporated into the Town limits. RECO$WENDATION the area subject of Policy 1, as described in "East" above, it is our endation that RAS Option 1 with a density of 1:5 be implemented. IMPOJTANT NOTES Pleasc note the. following, important statements concerning the foregoing comm ntary and citations: Quotes from the Foresight Middletown o the entire document for ttieshow in fcs fullacon context. are selects ns therefrom. Please Recon) mend ations herein are offered for the sole purpose of addressing your request concerning input for the RAS projTov� adere thus or relimitd in ndegobsolete ths e to the particular project and do not super cade Fore gist Middletown document and its conclusions, recommendations and obse ations• This letter is not the result of a public hearing process and represents, as reque ted, the "sense" of the Town Council of Middletown, a designated , stak9f older in the Rural Areas Study. Kindf contact us should you have questions or seek additional information. Sub fitted for. consideration by the Town Council of Middletown S incelraiy, ,"I/ Gene r. Dicks Page 8 of 8 Rural Areas Study Stakeholder Meetings Frederick County Farm Bureau October 26, 2004; 11:30 AM —1:00 PM Valley Farm Credit Building Summary The second stakeholder meeting with the Frederick County Farm Bureau was held on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 at 11:30 AM. The meeting was hosted by the Farm Bureau's governing board at its meeting facility in the Valley Farm Credit Building at 125 Prosperity Drive. The meeting began with a presentation of the Rural Areas Study and the resulting CPPS recommendations. Paul Anderson, chairman of the Frederick County Farm Bureau, followed with the Farm Bureau's opinions regarding the Rural Areas Study. Lastly, the meeting was opened to comments from individuals attending the meeting. Approximately 20 of the 150 Farm Bureau members were in attendance. It is noted that Supervisor Gary Dove (Gainesboro) attended the meeting, as did Planning Commissioners Charles S. Dehaven, Jr. (Stonewall), Robert A. Morris (Shawnee), and George J. Kriz (Gainesboro). Senior Planner Susan Eddy and Planning Technician Patrick Sowers represented Frederick County. Outline of Issues I. Frederick County Farm Bureau — Land Use Policies 1. The Frederick County Farm Bureau is opposed to any change to the current density of one house per five acres in Frederick County. 2. The Frederick County Farm Bureau is opposed to changes in county policy concerning rural well and septic systems on rural lots. 3. The Frederick County Farm Bureau is opposed to requiring zoning changes for rural subdivision. The proffers associated with a rezoning are too expensive for a farmer to pay alone. Furthermore, the Farm Bureau considers farmland to have "prepaid" proffers because farmers have paid taxes on their land while costing the county practically nothing in terms of infrastructure costs. 4. The Farm Bureau believes that all land in a track should be counted when considering density. Excluding primary resources from the density -1- calculation is not right because land that is not suitable for housing can still be used as pastureland. 5. The Frederick County Farm Bureau supports a change in county policy on rural land for smaller lots with larger open space (50 acres). 6. The Farm Bureau opposes larger lot size in Rural Areas (more than 5 acres). 7. The Frederick County Farm Bureau supports an effort to slow growth in the county at large not just rural areas. Slowing growth in the rural areas unfairly affects the farming community. 8. The Frederick County Farm Bureau supports growth based on our resources (water roads, schools, and infrastructure) and suggests a serious water resources study. 9. The Farm Bureau recommends that the Board of Supervisors enact an ordinance requiring a disclaimer on rural area plats informing purchasers that their property is in an agricultural area and the noise, dust, etc., may cause an inconvenience to them. Similar actions take place in Clarke and Shenandoah County. 10. The Frederick County Farm Bureau believes that the county should require a farm fence (to state standards) erected between developed land and agricultural land, paid for by the developer. This would keep residential homeowners from coming onto farmland. 11. The Farm Bureau supports 100 foot buffers between agriculture and residences built in urban and rural areas. 12. The Frederick County Farm Bureau supports farmland preservation through development rights. The public should pay for a PDR program as they would benefit. 13. The Farm Bureau would support change in county policy on rural growth as long as it does not financially affect agriculture. This claim was combined with the idea that if residents enjoy the scenery provided by farmland then the citizens should pay for that scenery through the purchase of development rights. 14. There should be no restrictions on agriculture in conservation set -asides. II. Participant Comments -2- I . Changing densities penalizes large landowners. 2. Change in density discriminates against large landowners. 3. Farmers don't use the public infrastructure. Why should they bear the burden of mitigating impacts on infrastructure? 2. The conservation set aside has restrictions on use. There should be no agricultural exemptions. 3. Purchase of Development Rights should be implemented as an option 4. Frederick County should stop providing new infrastructure to inhibit new growth in the county. 5. The percentage of building permits in the RA (30%) compared to the UDA has stayed constant. Why is there the sudden need for new policy? 6. It is cheaper to build in the Rural Areas because proffers aren't required in the RA. 7. It is difficult to expand a farming operation in Frederick County because land owners will only sell their land as residential because residential land is worth more money. 8. The county cannot control most agricultural issues because they are driven by the national market. 9. A 300 foot state road buffer does not make sense if there are already homes fronting the roadway. 10. Large lot subdivisions should not need to use state roads. Additionally, it does not make sense to require a state road before a building permit is issued. 11. The proposals would hurt only a handful of people and would force farmers to sellout now to avoid losing a large amount of money. 12. Over time there will be fewer farmers so they will have less input. 13. The land owner should not have to pay to put a state road over the 300 foot road buffer. Who will maintain the buffer? 14. The proposals penalize those who have stayed in farming. -3- 15. A Purchase of Development Rights program is much needed in the county to help limit growth. 16. The densities should remain at 1 home per 5 acres. 17. Costs associated with rezoning will force farmers to sell to developers. This will lead to a lack of staggered development because the developer can afford to do it all at once. 18. The county should be able to freeze taxes as a form of subsidizing agriculture. 19. Survey results will be biased. 20. The government should do the right thing and protect the minority. -4- Frederick County Farm Bureau (2005) local policies pertaining to Frederick County Rural Area Study 1. We are opposed to any change in the one house per five acre density in Frederick County. 2. We are opposed to any changing to county policy on rural well & septic systems on rural lots. 3. We are opposed to requiring zoning changes for rural sub -division. 4. All land in a track should be counted when considering density, land not suitable for houses makes good pastureland. 5. We support a change in county policy on rural land for smaller lots with larger open space (50 acres). 6. We oppose larger lot size in RA area (more than 5 acres). 7. We support an effort to slow growth in county at large. Not just rural areas. 8. We support growth based on our resources (water, roads, schools & infrastructure). 9. We recommend that the Frederick County BOS enact an ordinance requiring a disclaimer on rural area plats informing purchasers that their property is in an agriculture area and the noise, dust, etc., may cause an inconvenience to them. 10. County should require farm fence erected between developed land and ag land, paid for by developer. 11. We support 100" setbacks between ag land and residences being built in rural or urban areas. 12. We support farmland preservation through development rights. 13. We would support change in county policy on rural growth as long as it does not financially affect agriculture. Rural Areas Study Stakeholder Work Sessions Community Consensus Coalition October 27, 2004; 11:30-1:00 PM Frederick County Administration Building General Discussion Summary The second stakeholder work session with the Community Consensus Coalition was held on Wednesday, October 27th, at 11:30 AM. The discussion session was in the Frederick County Administration Building, located at 107 North Kent St. in Winchester. Three CCC members were in attendance at the meeting. Numerous issues and comments associated with proposed changes to Frederick County's rural areas were discussed. It is noted that Board of Supervisors member Linda Tyler (Stonewall) was present along with Planning Commissioners John Light (Stonewall) and Chuck DeHaven (Stonewall) and Comprehensive Plans and Policy Subcommittee members Diane Kearns and June Wilmont. Senior Planner Susan Eddy and Planner Candice Mills represented Frederick County. Participant Comments 1. Concerns were raised regarding the costs associated with the rezoning option, especially if a land owner's application is denied. 2. Input from people that live in the urban areas of the county is needed. Everyone needs to understand that this is not only a rural problem 3. The county needs to look at the types of business they are going to allow. Many rural economic ideas that might seem good in actuality are not viable. 4. The 10 acre density requirement option seems to have the most impact on the rural area and might be best at controlling residential growth. 5. The county should make sure that the Green Infrastructure concepts are incorporated into the rural areas. 6. Many people are concerned about the county taking away property rights, especially if primary resources are removed from density calculations. 7. The allowed density needs to be reduced, you can't keep everyone's property rights and slow down development at the same time. 8. People need to be educated about the true costs if the rezoning option is what the county decides on. It needs to be understood that the land owner is not the one who pays for the proffers; it is ultimately the person who buys the lot. 9. The larger picture needs to be looked at, we need to look at the issues as a community not just as individual property owners. 10. Capital facilities model should be run for the three options. -2- Rural Areas Study Stakeholder Work Sessions Winchester Wheelmen October 27,2004; 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM Blue Ridge Schwinn Bike Shop General Discussion Summary The second stakeholder work session with the Winchester Wheelmen was held on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 at 7:00 PM. The work session was hosted by the Winchester Wheelmen at its regular meeting place, the Blue Ridge Schwinn Bike Shop located at 2228 G Papermill Road, Winchester. Seven Winchester Wheelmen members were in attendance and the evening's discussion was constructive and informative. Numerous issues associated with the future of the rural areas in Frederick County were discussed, involving an array of topics that included bicycle planning, viewshed protection, traffic and safety on rural roads, and the density and design of new rural residential development including clustering. In addition to the discussion of the Rural Areas Study, the group took this opportunity to discuss current bicycle planning efforts in Frederick County. Of particular interest to the group was the incorporation of bicycle improvements into development projects and future efforts to enhance and implement the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. It is noted that Planning Commissioner and CPPS member Bob Morris (Shawnee) was in attendance. Senior Planner Susan Eddy and Deputy Planning Director Mike Ruddy represented Frederick County. Winchester Wheelmen Comments and Issues 1. The Wheelmen reiterated many of the issues and concerns that they had discussed during the first stakeholder meeting held at the beginning of the Rural Area study process. The increasing conflicts between bicycle/pedestrian traffic and the traffic generated by the growth in the County, and the lack of bicycle facilities remained a significant concern of the group. 2. An overriding conviction of the participants was that the County should facilitate improvements to the bicycle network through the incorporation of a variety of alternatives including shared road options, extra wide pavement and vehicle lanes, bike lanes, and multi purpose trails. This should occur in County road improvement projects. Warrior Drive and Amherst Street were two examples of recent projects that were cited which did not include accommodations for the bicyclist. The improvements could also be proffered by the development community. 3. It was noted that one of the potential benefits of the proposed rezoning option would be to provide the ability for the County and the State to incorporate bicycle accommodations that are identified in the Comprehensive Plan into road improvements that have been proffered by the developers of Rural Area housing projects. This would result in a safer environment for bicyclists riding in the rural areas of the County. 4. The requirement of clustering the residential development in the rural areas was beneficial to maintaining the viewsheds available to bicyclists in Frederick County. 5. The clustering requirement was also potentially beneficial in that the design of the cluster developments would result in fewer individual driveways along the rural roads of the County. This would increase safety on these roads. 6. The promotion of cycling routes in Frederick County should be enhanced. The developed bicycle routes and tours could build upon those that exist today and promote many of the County's attributes including its rural viewsheds, the many historical sites, and the apple/agricultural community. The promotion of the routes and tours, including signage along the roads of Frederick County, would enhance the community's awareness of bicycling and enhance the general safety of bicycling in rural areas. 7. The County Planning Department and Parks and Recreation Department should work on updating the trail system and the bicycle plan. There is a need to improve connectivity between areas of the County and create a network of bicycle opportunities. To better address the needs of the more serious bicyclist, enhancements within the pavement of the roadway to accommodate the bicyclist would be preferable. Major corridors that would provide better access to and from places of work, such as Warrior Drive, should provide such enhancements. 8. It was recognized that the Winchester Wheelmen are advocates for all forms of bicyclists and bicycle user groups in Frederick County. -2- November 29, 2004 County of Frederick Planning Department 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 To Whom It May Concern: The Winchester Wheelmen is a bicycling club that serves the Northern Shenandoah Valley. Its membership consists of approximately 100 individuals and families whose expressed goals are: 1, promoting bicycling as a recreation, as a sport, and as a viable means of transportation 2. promoting public recognition of the need for safer cycling conditions 3. encouraging the development of public facilities, including bike paths and trails, for recreational and functional uses of bicycles 4. cooperating with public authorities in the observance of all traffic regulations Due to the narrow secondary road system and lack of paved shoulders we firmly believe that Frederick County needs to consider limited development in rural areas. It has been the history of our county to overbuild the residential system prior to building the essentials of roads, schools, and public safety. The current rapid growth being experienced by our region clearly highlights the problems of over development. From the bicyclist's point of view the biggest problem facing the rural areas is a combination of road safety and traffic volume. This is only compounded when development is allowed to explode at the current rate. As bicyclists, we also favor the saving of green space. This would provide our community with cleaner air, a safer environment, and a world of nature for all to enjoy. It currently appears to be the goal of county officials to turn the Valley into a mass of parking lots, driveways, and rooftops. We would ask: Where does it stop? We believe that Option #3 might be the best option at the current time. If it will slow down development and save some green space, i.e., farm land, forest land, and general open space, then it would be the option of choice. We truly love our beautiful valley. It is our home and needs to be protected. Please help us save what we have. Respectfully submitted, Mike Peary, ice President Winchester Wheelmen P.O. Box 1695 Winchester, VA 22604 Rural Areas Study Stakeholder Work Sessions Top of Virginia Builders Association November 4, 2004; 5:30-900 PM Travelodge General Discussion Summary The second stakeholder work session with the Top of Virginia Builders Association (TVBA) was held on Thursday, November 4, 2004 at 5:30 PM. The discussion session was a part of TVBA's monthly meeting held at the Travelodge Hotel, located at 1019 Millwood Pike. Approximately one hundred members of the TVBA were in attendance for the evening's discussion, which differed slightly from the other stakeholder work sessions. Instead of an open forum, the TVBA decided instead to ask a series of questions regarding the rural areas study. These questions will in turn help the TVBA to prepare a formal statement to the county regarding their position on the rural area study. This statement will be submitted to the county at a later date. It is noted that Supervisor Linda Tyler (Stonewall), and Planning Commissioners Chuck Dehaven, (Chairman) John Light, (Stonewall) and George Kriz (Gainesboro) were in attendance along with Senior Planner Susan Eddy and Planner David Beniamino. Outline of Questions 1) If clustered development is preferred by the county, will off-site septic systems still continue to be allowed on smaller lots that can't accommodate a drainfield? 2) Why is a rezoning necessary to plan for better development outside the UDA? 3) Are any new fees being discussed in the rural areas as a part of this study? 4) Which of these three options has the CPPS preferred? 5) Is the county considering an expansion of the UDA at this time? 6) Will current subdivision plans already submitted to the county be affected if one of these options is chosen? 7) What is the impact to property values if rezonings are denied by the Board of Supervisors? 8) Please explain the process in revising the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance if one of these options is chosen? 9) Should the comprehensive plan include commercial and high density housing in the rural community centers? 10) What policy goals is Frederick County trying to achieve in the rural areas? -2- Rural Areas Study Stakeholder Work Sessions Land Design & Engineering Community November 8,2004; 11:30 AM -1:30 PM Frederick County Administration Building General Discussion Summary The second stakeholder work session with the Land Design and Engineering Community was held on Monday, November 8, 2004 at 11:30 AM. The work session was held in the Frederick County Administration building at 107 N. Kent Street. About fifteen participants representing six firms were in attendance and the afternoon's discussion was constructive and informative. A number of issues associated with the subdivision of land in Frederick County were discussed, including re -zoning, density, minimum lot size, requirement of road frontage, buffers, and primary resources. It is noted that Planning Commissioners Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. (Stonewall), George J.Kriz (Gainesboro), and Pat Gochenour (Red Bud) were in attendance along with Senior Planner Susan Eddy, Zoning Administrator Mark Cheran and Zoning Technician Bernie Suchicital. Questions Raised During the Meeting 1. Will just one of the density options be chosen? 2. Why was this study started? 3. How many parcels of land are over 100 acres? 4. Is a 60 percent conservation set -a -side feasible? What will the county be like in 50 years with development pressures changing? 5. Who will maintain the open space created by clustering and conservation? 6. Are conservation easements required? 7. What is the cut-off date? How will this affect current projects that are still in the approval process? Participant Comments L A re -zoning is not favored. Instead, the county should focus on a 10 -acre density across the board. Clustering and green preservation should be required or be made more appealing, with a 1:5 density. 2. 2 -acre lots are more appropriate in size. Remove the 5 -acre lot and cluster on a 1 - acre lot, with the lot size based on health systems. Clustering, in general, is much easier for the developer. 3. Road buffers should preserve the scenic byways, but this will take away the flexibility of the designer. A 300 -ft setback is too much as a buffer, and it will not be needed for future road widening. Instead, a 60'-100' buffer would be more reasonable, especially when considering that some properties might only be 300' deep or less. Also, a 150' buffer around the development's perimeter might be too restrictive to some sites. 4. A blanket buffer rather than a use -based buffer would be simpler. 5. Consider fee simple dedications of roads to county until they meet state standards (liability issue). 6. Any subdivisions with 3 lots or more should include a road built to state standards, 7. Should primary conservation resources (steep slopes, floodplains) be subtracted from the density formula? Though a steep slope was defined as a grade of 50 percent or higher, everything is still viewed as subjective. Will FEMA standards be used in determining the basis of a flood plain? Some preferred to have the resources preserved and identified, but not factored into the formula. Protecting the resources should not influence the density of the site. 8. A participant suggested no changes to any of the zoning requirements. He suggested proffers to take care of the impact fees, and that buffers will only require the state to build more roads. 9. New parcels of land will need some sort of road access. Possibly create more continuous parcels to better enhance rural preservation. 10. A set -a -side will help with the configuration of development. It will give more flexibility in the design of the layout. Final Remarks 1. Option 3 preferred by three of the participants. 2. The group requested a definite cut-off date to submit subdivision plans before any new policies go into effect. 3. One member wished to share that Frederick County is the best place to conduct business and to understand its local laws and procedures. He preferred no changes in policy but understood that something needs to be done to assist with the off-site issues. -2- Rural Areas Study Stakeholder Work Sessions Frederick County Fruit Growers Association November 10, 2004; 4:30 PM - 6:30 PM Frederick County Fruit Growers Association Building General Discussion Summary The second stakeholder work session with the Frederick County Fruit Growers Association was held on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 4:30 PM. The work session was hosted by the Association at its facility located at 801 Fairmont Avenue, Winchester. Approximately thirteen people participated in the meeting and the evening's discussion was constructive and informative. Members of the Association had previously participated in the public process and were well informed regarding the rural area issues. Numerous issues associated with the future of the rural areas in Frederick County were discussed, involving an array of topics that included the agricultural industry, taxation, and the density and design of new rural residential development. It is noted that Planning Commissioners Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. (Stonewall), John Light (Stonewall), Cordell Watt (Back Creek) and Pat Gochenour (Red Bud), and CPPS member Diane Kerns attended the meeting. Senior Planner Susan Eddy and Deputy Planning Director Mike Ruddy were also present. Frederick County Fruit Growers Association Comments and Issues The fruit growing industry is not in a healthy condition and many growers are feeling the impacts of the current economic situation. It was emphasized that for many fruit growers and farmers the land that they own is considered a major asset, if not their only asset, and is their retirement nest egg. Any diminishment in the density of the rural areas by reducing the development rights would take away, or significantly reduce the primary asset of many landowners. There was general agreement that the density issue was of primary concern to the fruit growers and that the present density should be maintained. 2. It was identified that the process a landowner would have to go through to develop his property should be simple rather than complex. 3. The impacts of the rural development should be addressed if a property is developed. The impact to schools should be mitigated as should the impact to roads. However, concern was raised that it may be difficult to address downstream impacts of a project on the County's road system. 4. Recognizing a situation that occurred several years ago regarding the general public's dismissal of a road improvement project in a rural area, Jones Road, the statement was made that rural areas are rural and should remain rural not urban. In general, rural residents do not want rural road improvements. 5. The rezoning option presented concerns based upon the potential conflicts that would occur in the future between the residents of rural Frederick County. It was the belief of many that this process would divisive and would pit neighbor against neighbor. Further, the process is open to political pressure and the Board of Supervisors would have to provide leadership when evaluating a rezoning application. 6. Participants identified that a master development plan process for contiguous properties in the Rural Area would be important. This requirement would ensure that the big picture is being considered and that the best conservation areas and resources are being preserved when designing the plan. 7. Members of the group stated that minimum lot sizes less than two acres would not be good. This concern was primarily due to the drainfield requirements of a traditional health system. 8. Questions regarding the clustering requirements were addressed during the meeting. A general statement was made that the requirements of the ordinances implementing the policies should remain flexible. 9. Historically, it was the belief of several of the participants that the agricultural industry and large landowners had paid more than their fair share of taxes into the County system and that this amount was above and beyond the services used by this group. This sentiment was summarized in the statement that they had pre -paid their proffers. 10. Recognition was given that the five acre concept was originally devised to limit residential development in the rural areas and preserve agricultural operations. It was noted that the new concepts being discussed at this meeting sought to achieve the same thing; to promote agricultural activities and to promote the environment. 11. Members were urged to think not just of themselves as large landowners but to think of the community as a whole. The following question was asked. What do you want the community to look like in the future? It was also recognized by the group that approximately 400 large landowners constitutes a small part of the voting population. 12. The ability of a landowner to continue to develop small amounts of his property while avoiding selling out to a big builder evolved during this meeting. The comments focused on avoiding the rezoning process, which is perceived to be problematic for an individual farmer/landowner, and allowing a small number of lots to be subdivided of each year. The concept being one in which the large landowner could continue to farm the property wU11c maintaining a cash flow option with the sale of some lots. The option of banking the number of lots allowed each year to a certain amount was discussed. Some of the issues that this approach addressed include the capital gains tax bracket threshold, the front end costs -2- associated with the development of rural subdivisions, and the security it provided to the landowner. 13. The group requested clarification on the ability of an organization or limited partnership to utilize the family subdivision process to create lots for members of the family. Traditionally, this option was available to the landowners. However, sophistication in the way farming operations have become structured has led to complications with this approach. -3- Rural Areas Study Stakeholder Work Sessions Town of Stephens City November 18,2004; 11-12:30 AM Stephens City Town Hall General _Discussion Summary The second stakeholder work session with the Town of Stephens City was held on Thursday, November 18, at 11 AM. The discussion session was held in the Stephens City Town Hall, located at 1033 Locust St. Three representatives of the Town of Stephens City were in attendance, Mayor Ray Ewing, Town Administrator Michael Kehoe and Planning Commissioner Butch Fravel. The morning's discussion was both constructive and informative and the town provided the county with both comments and suggestions. It is noted that Senior Planner Susan Eddy and Planner David Beniamino represented Frederick County. Partici ant Comments 1) Rural development in the county continues to negatively affect the town's transportation network. This same development has had a negative effect on the county's school system as well. These two aspects make it necessary for a proffer system to in place for future rural development. 2) The Town of Stephens City is in favor of option # 1, the rezoning option. Much of the rural growth that has been occurring over the past twenty years has left the financial burden on the home buyers inside of the UDA. 3) The maps included in the rural area study should delineate the location of the towns of Stephens City and Middletown as compared to the rest of the UDA. 4) The town was in favor of the rural economy proposals in the study. With the global economy setting the prices for much of the world's agricultural products, the county can do little to increase the price for a farmer's goods. However, the proposals to make it easier for farmers to diversify their business are positive. 5) The town was in favor of the Green Infrastructure concept proposed by the county, as they have adopted related measures on their own. Stephens City currently gives land with primary resources (floodplains, steep slopes and wetlands) 50% credit toward the development of land. This idea was suggested as something the county may want to incorporate to appease landowners with these types of resources on their land. 6) The town liked the idea of letting small scale commercial development occur in the rural community centers. This could help rural residents shop near their homes instead of driving into the UDA, causing further congestion on our road network. 7) The town felt the county was making a positive step in requiring the clustering of homes on smaller lots for all new subdivisions. However, they felt that the county should take a closer look into health system technology to revamp these requirements. Currently, the county allows any type of health system that the State of Virginia recognizes. The town feels that the county should select only a handful of the more scientifically sound systems to help prevent problems in the future. 8) The town felt that changes to the allowed number of family lots is a positive one. 9) Frederick County and the Town of Stephens City should continue to work together to facilitate a coordinated planning effort into the future. -2- C: • Frederick County Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 Individual Comments ik Ate,\ COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space ew housing _ Traffic Road conditions/road safety Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? 11Yes Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? Yes _ No If yes, Please write it below. Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? _ Yes _ No Please I on this is No ��� f.���`. ��z- ` ���- ��:�:�ie-� ✓✓z� Do you have a preferred lan.development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural .Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? _ Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 — Rezoning Option Option 2 — By -Right Option Option 3 —10 acre Option _ Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddynco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 h® N`_ 1 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space New housing — Traffic — Road conditions/road safety _ Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? _ Yes _ No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? _ Yes _ No If yes, Please write it below. Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes -/' No Please write any comments on this issue below. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? _ Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? Option 1 – Rezoning Option Option 2 – By -Right Option _ Option 3 –10 acre Option _ Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to sedd T a,co.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) Loss of active farmland Loss of non-farm open space _ New housing Traffic nn > _ Road conditions/road safety Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? � Yes _ No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? __4 Yes _ No If yes, Please write it below. I r / � V Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes _ No Please write any commcnts on this issue below. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fail 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? Option 1 – Rezoning Option _ Option 2 – By -Right Option Option 3 –10 acre Option — Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddvna.co.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY fArA�'e_ ! What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) Loss of active farmland — Loss of non-farm open space New housing W4 i>1 --/Traffic R/`� bo � f Road conditions/road safety Other (please specify) , Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? Cs _ No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. / r T1 (rs 'CA_4 a �tt i G' l Yi" t `r (i YIACd r [� �l ✓� Gt E' `t �'� Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? V' Yes _ No If yes, Please write it below. /7u_ �c Do y believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes _ No Please write any comments on this issue below. � Piy � �v pin f',� f � � 5 �s -- �•c? f �-/ ��,., «.,., Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Yall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? — Yes — No If yes, what is your preference? / Option 1 – Rezoning Option _ Option 2 – By -Right Option _ Option 3 –10 acre Option Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions _ Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddy@co.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: _540/1665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space w housing Road conditions/road safety _ Traffic _ Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? Yes V No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density or the rural areas? /�r Yes _ No If yes, Please write it below. Do you belie that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes No Please write any comments on this issue below. \ e Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at t t Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 — Rezoning Option _ Option 2 — By -Right Option _ Option 3 — 10 acre Option _ Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddvn,co.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 Si t A, �e' co r\ COUNTY ®f FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) Loss of active farmland Loss of non-farm open space New housing 1.1 I raffic — Road conditions/road safety _ Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? _ Yes _L:�`No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. 20 K4p. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? Yes _ No If yes, Please write it below. iZ. Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes lNo Please write any comments on this issue below. f]P <L f :3 sty' e4e - f C = 7` C ti Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 PAlic Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? _ Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 – Rezoning Option Option 2 – By -Right Option ption 3 – 10 acre Option 1/Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddykco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 7 s 54c`r\e wa ll COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) _ Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space New housing Traffic Road conditions/road safety XOther (please secify) CC— L u5 .1E' Q..qjg- 0;k _'Eo q&tT 60LLC_t(WJ d1Ak- Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? _ Yes XZ_ No Please provide any comments comments on the Green Infrastructure q e�low. C 4J W W -LU Ai L44S CG .8041V Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? Xyes No If yes, Please write it below. W ts, o Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes X No Please write any comments on this issue below. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004,ublic Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? Yes X_ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 – Rezoning Option Option 2 – By -Right Option Option 3 – 10 acre Option Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. f * 616-C*Ow 1 _G CNE 0 �=�lo _7*L( CDO 4, 5 For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddy(kco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 -Iqot,e u -,a �\ COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) _ Loss of active farmland—Loss of non-farm open space New housing affic Road conditions/road safety _ Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? _ Yes t__10 Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? L__�Yes _ No If yes, Please write it below. r € 1 Do you believe tha a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? — Yes _ No Please write any comments on this issue below. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? _ Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 – Rezoning Option Option 2 – By -Right Option O tion 3 – 10 acre Option C ,u�rent Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to sedd T a,co.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 4Gl\e cwa COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) _ Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space !� New housing — Traffic _ Road conditions/road safety _ Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? V Yes _ No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? /Yes _ No If yes, Please write it below. 11,10 Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes`` No Please write any comments on this issue below. below. f th♦r F(1'/f'it A), AllinI t- r� Lf./ 61/ 6 L�Ji .J� [A. GS" -r/. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? _ Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? Option 1 – Rezoning Option �f Option 2 – By -Right Option Option 3 –10 acre Option > TP,5ATC <Egywt: f�4,f a . Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions _ Other, please waste m below I I r KuQ e"Vwt',:%pry ,j. SAntt ius FuF DEtj Sl7i , Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddynco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 oAewa k I COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space _ New housing _ lratrlc _ Road conditions/road safety C Other (please specify) 1�'z_ I >��-r %% e pd,2 r UaicrS more Ccs mayor Fah'V eI 1 d(.f CJS' "�1 . Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? _ Yes V No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. \ /d/ f ,tet /' - o /o TT a/ �? �i 6z 7` 7- 6 a (-i/ /,!12,o .4 (, u, -l -)V (proO_Y- Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? Yes No T r _ rw - - - - —_� _ _._ 1- -1- Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes -�C No Please write any comments on this issue below. 111119,n _ _ Czar. 7ro /fd Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? _ Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 - Rezoning Option — Option 2 - By -Right Option Option 3 - 10 acre Option — Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in below P�oTS '2)?oc�;b �e /efT" :--1 c i 0a.c,eT _-�ar .1'P(Aaa� jwerl h��;lT if r�!% %Qi/f'Q�i1l7�4 UQCCIr77 Wll,D'b TO Lhal?606 '7-9 Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddykco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Fred nick County? (select one) — Loss of active farmland if Loss of non-farm open space New housing Road conditions/road safety Traffic Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. / Yes No Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? _ Yes — No If yes, Please write it below. /:,.h a r-�i c ��i.i• �t;y Uin,� Chi � LN.- r.��.� cYt-LA/o '_"67 L.P_ `7/ 7- he- a,,m /Cv A" 7 Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? es _ No Please write any comments on this issue below. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 – Rezoning Option Option 2 – By -Right Option Option 3 – 10 acre Option Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in below Please feel free to write exten ed e�omments on any�lto/p� c on the of s or at ch anoth r sheet of paper.,;.- 7/�i.c.�u{� p �yy t�✓i 6 it dtc IX.� For more a formation about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, y Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddykco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 1 LSA Date: November 9, 2004 To: Frederick County Officials Re: Rural Areas Study From: Maya White Sparks, P. 0. Box 24, Stephens City, VA 22655; email to: s iral rCshentel.net; phone: 540-868-2664 I applaud the proposed limitations on housing per acre currently under study. Rampant development is ruining our county and must be checked and planned carefully. However, I would modify the proposal in the following ways: 1. Designate a certain percentage of future development to meet the 5 acre requirement, a certain percentage to meet the 10 acre requirement, In this way, we are more likely to provide housing for people at various income levels. If not, we run the risk of forcing future young people and low- wage earners out of the county, creating a lovely place only accessible to the rich. 2. Please add requirements for the creation of Greenways and Wildlife Routes as a part of all future development sites, new roads, and road improvement plans. (See attached proposal). 3. Please require developers to leave at least one tree on each acre of each housing lot. Thank you so much for soliciting public input on these matters of crucial importance to our county. Please let me know if future committees or sub- committees, study groups etc. are forming, I would be very interested in participating. Sincerely, Founding member of The GreenWoys Group ME Trees, Greenways, and Wildlife Routes A Proposal for Additions to the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan for Rural Areas Respectfully submitted by The GreenWays Group, November 2004 Contact: Maya White Sparks 540-868-2664 Email: spiralgr@shentel.net P. 0. Box 24 Stephens City, VA 22655 Let the Comprehensive Plan for Rural Areas read: "All developers of rural land in Frederick County will leave standing at least one tree per acre on each lot developed for housing. All developers are also required to set aside a portion of undeveloped land for a Greenway at each development site. Each Greenway shall be at least 400 feet wide and provide a conduit for wildlife. Developers will work with a Frederick County Greenway Committee to plot the course of the new Greenway in order to maximize its connection with existing adjacent undeveloped areas, Conservation Easements, and other Greenways within the County and along its borders. Whenever a creek or river crosses an area to be developed, the waterway's route shall be the first priority for determining the Greenway, with at least 200 feet on each side of the waterway available for conservation. If roads must intersect a Greenway, safe crossings for Wildlife must be constructed. Once a Greenway is established it is under the County's jurisdiction and may be utilized for hiking and bike paths* while preserving it's ability to shelter wildlife. When new roads are constructed and existing roads upgraded, wildlife crossing routes shall be included." Another option would be to make new Greenways, or a percentage of them, conservation easements. O Why do we want Trees, Greenways, and Wildlife Routes? Quality of Life. Frederick County's rural areas have offered to its residents a unique quality of life that we see disappearing daily beneath developers' bulldozers. Greenways can help us to preserve a tradition of natural beauty for local residents whose families live here in order to enjoy its unique, rural character. As we make room for our growing population, Greenways will ensure that each new residential community retains some of the natural landscape and a better quality of life. Health.. Recreation, and Tourism. Greenways can provide inviting opportunities for health giving exercise and recreational activities such as hiking, biking, and bird watching. Our county sorely lacks bike routes that are free of traffic dangers and young people need access to outdoor activities near their homes. Greenways that link communities can become alternative routes for travel. Long Greenways, especially those that connect with the national park system, can become attractive tourist destinations. • Wildlife and the Environment. Greenways are good for the region's ecosystems. As our unsustainable and still growing human population stamps out species after species and causes untold suffering in the natural world, Greenways can assist many kinds of creatures as they try to adapt to development's radical transformation and destruction of their habitats. Large, green spaces are best, but if we must build human housing in such areas, it seems the least we can do is to provide safe conduits for wildlife to escape to green places that can support them. Keeping the Greenway at least 400 feet wide will actually provide habitat for some wildlife, as well (omericantraits. org, see attached). Greenways, along with wildlife crossing routes in our roads system, will have the added benefit of guiding wildlife away from traffic, increasing safety of humans as well as causing less animal deaths. The more trees we have, the better off our ecosystem is, for they provide cleaner air for all of us and habitat for the birds that give us so much pleasure. They also stave off the effects of erosion, and provide habitat for insects and other species. Because the Shenandoah River is a primary water source in our area, woodlands along our streams will help filter the pollutants in the water that we use everyday. • History. Working in consort with local historical preservation groups, the Greenway system could preserve and reclaim routes of the past, for example, indigenous trade routes or defunct railways. Greenways could connect historic battlefields, providing alternative ways to explore our civil war history. As we destroy more and more wild places, Greenways will be places that preserve our natural history. Some Greenways could be marked with signs or electronically guided tours that identify the native flora and fauna. EM Why Do We Want Trees, Greenways, and Wildlife Routes (cont'd) The Future. Once destroyed and built on, our green spaces cannot be replaced. If development is allowed to continue unchecked, with no consideration for its impact on the natural world and our quality of life, our generation will have destroyed a natural resource that has made our area a haven of beauty and a last stronghold of a fast -disappearing way of life. Once it is developed we cannot go back and future generations will never know the beauty and solace of the Shenandoah Valley/Frederick County Area. Suggestions Re: Coordinating Efforts and Potential Resources Winchester Green Circle Frederick County Conservation Easement Committee Clarke County's Conservation Easement Authority and Mountain Land Plan Committee Frederick County Development Review and Regulations Sub -Committee The Opequon Watershed organization 609 S. Braddock St., Winchester, VA 22601 (Note: Opequon Creek borders Frederick and Clarke Counties and would be an ideal site for inter -county coordination of a Greenway or Conservation Easement) Virginia Department of Transportation -Virginia Transportation Ehancement Program awards money for bike trails: 1-800-444-7832 -Transportation Research Council Study on the use of wildlife passages (now being tried on U.S. 17) Federal Highway Administration -encourages the addition of wildlife passages and recently recognized the U.S. Route 17 project as an Exemplary Ecosystem Initiative Lake Jackson Ecopassage Alliance - a nonprofit group that raised funds to see what it would take to design a permanent wildlife crossing under a highway so that turtles, alligators, snakes, and frogs could safely cross. (www.takejacksonturtles.org) Chesapeake Bay Watershed -working to clean up the watershed to the bay—the Shenandoah is part of that watershed and Greenways along the River would help the cause. 0 American Trails Page 1 of 5 j I - j chapter Three I j pi Tile two major ecological functions tluit greenways am fidfill for wildlife are proz4ding habitat and acting as conduits. Chapter Three: Greenways and W1111diffe A greenway's potential to serve as habitat for native plant and animal species will depend upon its size and the condition of the surrounding land. Generally, the larger the greenway, the more species and individuals it will support. Ali habitat within a greenway, however, may not be suitable for some species because of edge erects. Edge effects are particularly acute where a cultivated field borders a native forest or wovdiot. Increased light and wind at the forests edge leads to drier soils, wore iight-favoring species, and more biowdowns. Species that are adapted to the moist soils and shady environment of the forest interior are unable to survive in edge habitat. i.lUll'1' W- Iyji, Figure 2. Edget Effects. Increased light, wind, and predators characterize the edge of a forest �— - — - " — — — -- — — — — where it borders a field. Each effect _3�.'ii�s penetrates differently into the forest 'T, = as indicated by the arrows. Not only are 1'TYa,q species adapted to interior habitat, but they are not adapted to the presence of species which inhabit edge. More edge increases the ability of non -interior species, such as the common grackle or brown -headed cowbird, to feed on interior ones or to compete with them for nesting sites or food. Edge species also introduce a new set of diseases to which interior species may be vulnerable. Vegetation and wildlife react to the effects of edge differently. While changes in vegetation at edges, due largely to increased light and wind, may extend 35 to 100 feet into a temperate forest, researchers have noted adverse effects to wildlife as deep as 1,000 to 2,000 feet from a forest's edge (Wilcove, et al., 1986). This difference stems, at least in part, from predators venturing into interior habitat (see Figure 2). Because the problem of edge effect is so acute, many greenways will be most useful for animals whose natural habitat is linear. River systems are a good example. Riparian ecosystems support high densities of vertebrates. They often contain more species and more individuals than drier surrounding land. Seventy-five percent of the vertebrates in Oregon and Washington's Blue Mountains depend upon, or prefer, riparian habitat (Thomas, et al., 1979). In arid and semi -arid lands, river corridors are extremely important. In Arizona and New Mexico, eighty percent of the vertebrate species depend upon riparian zones during at least part of their life (Johnson, 1989). 111.1/ VYVY YY.a le 111+Cr aL,I a is. Grg r e s o Lll lie s/ grecerivays/l,�� J�lL1 Y y.uuriii 5/ 15/04 American Trails Aka < R5N,-1TER1OR17A#rM LLJ EDGE HARrM Page 2 of 5 Figure 3. Effects of fragmentation and narrowness on interior habitat. The drawing at left shows a natural patch of land with edge effects penetrating around its perimeter. In the middle, a road has dissected the same.patch, greatly reducing the amount of interior habitat. A greenway, at right, will often have little interior habitat because it is too narrow to overcome the effects of edge. In agricultural landscapes. hedgerows, shelterbelts, and fencerows offer what may be the only wooded or shrubby habitat. Rows of shelter trees provide habitat for birds in Minnesota (Yahner, 1982). In Great Britain where agriculture dominates much of the landscape, roadsides are critical breeding habitat for many species of rodents, birds, and insects (Way, 1977). In a landscape with little natural land, a greenway, no matter how narrow, will be beneficial. Greenways and wildlife -- conduit _- _ ..;���y •ice"�� Figure 4. Hedgerows in an agricultural landscape. Many agricultural landscapes have rows of shrubs or trees along the edges of fields or planted as protection for homes and livestock. Photo: USDA Soil Conservation Service A wildlife population has two basic requirements for long-term survival: enough natural space to satisfy life needs of individuals and a population which can sustain itself. Fragmentation threatens many wildlife species' ability to meet both those requirements. Properly designed and managed greenways, however, can help wildlife overcome effects of fragmentation by:increasing the effective size of protected areas; creating access to different habitats; and connecting wildlife populations. Increasing effective size of protected areas -- Wildlife species require a certain amount of habitat to survive -- they need to roam in order to breed and to find food and nesting, den, or burrow sites. Generally, the larger the animal, the greater its home range. An animal's home range will also depend upon its trophic level -- how high on the food chain it resides. Predator species usually have larger home ranges than herbivores of equivalent size. Since a wildlife population needs to be of a certain size to remain healthy, the amount of natural land it requires is proportional to the home range of its individuals. Figure 5. How greenways increase the effective size of existing reserves. The circle represents a theoretical amount of land a species needs. Any one of the reserves is not large enough. If greenways connect the reserves, there may be enough protected land for the species. Lltt�7.IIS'VWV�.[ir1.L�rtLQlltr[LLIJ.VI�/i�.SC'iLi1'C�G..�l��vil:=l�j%s/ivc � ':C:%v�. etET2 11 American Trails GREENYRY E) RESERVES UREA NEED ED BY A SFE CIES Page 3 of In fragmented landscapes, the needed amount of natural land may exist but be divided into isolated pieces. If greenways connect smaller parcels, animals can move among them, utilizing their total area, not just that of an individual patch. The "effective size" of each patch thus approaches the total size of all the connected natural areas. In this way, greenways can increase the effective size of a series of protected areas (see Figure 5). Creating access to different habitats -- Natural space alone is not enough to ensure wildlife conservation -- diversity of habitat types is also critical. Species such as raccoon, white-tailed deer, river otter, and gray fox use more than one kind of habitat (see Figure 6). Thus, a patch of natural land may correspond to a species' home range, but might not contain all the habitats the species needs. Patterns of development often create barriers between necessary habitats, hampering wildlife's efforts to survive. Connecting patches which support different habitats with greenways can greatly enhance an individual's opportunity to reach the diversity of habitats it needs to survive. NTETW T6 roOD I4 UTMAL AREA BREED II+G BzMROVM SATES D E4°ELOPhENr i+ ` GREENVAYS Figure 6. Isolation fromhabitat. The figure in the upper left depicts a patch of natural land interpersed with habitats. In the upper right, a development has left important habitat intact, but has prevented animals from utilizing it. Connecting habitat patches with greenways, as in the bottom figure, gives these species the opportunity to use all the undeveloped landscape. Connecting wildlife populations -- The same forces which separate individuals from needed natural lands can also prevent them from finding other members of their species. As forest interior shrinks, the distance between members of a species increases. Intervening land becomes a barrier if it harbors predators, or if species are naturally unwilling to traverse it. Isolation from others in their species affects wildlife populations in two ways: demographically and genetically. Demographic effects of isolation will occasionally lead wildlife populations living in small patches of forest (or prairie, wetlands, desert) to die off in that immediate area. Causes include disease, disturbance, increase in predators or competitors, and fluctuations in birth and death rates. Small wildlife populations are more likely to succumb to these random events than large ones. These localized extinctions occur naturally. If a population of white-footed mice, say, dies off in a small patch of woodland, individuals from a nearby patch will recolonize the now vacant woodlot. C`9) j �-+� 7,,J� i J1 irii :/%wvv �N.ainerlCai►tra1lS.Gi %rCSGUrces/greer�way s/1.. JJ�i; ii rv�.ilt�ii American Trails Pate 4 of 5 By creating small and isolated patches of natural space, fragmentation can divide a once large wildlife population into smailer, more vulnerable populations. Fragmentation also makes it more difficult for members of other populations to recolonize vacated habitat. While greenways may not make demographically driven local extinctions any less likely, they can provide conduits to make recolonization by other populations easier (see Figure is). r, �" _t J' . _ ,_� _ �i,,;,,�,yY.. _ .mss ` • _ _ . -"`-� : _ .r Figure 7. Providing access to other populations. The illustration shows two patches of forest connected by a corridor. If a population dies out in one patch, then individuals can make their way from the other and recolonize it. Wildlife populations can be susceptible to a number of genetic effects from isolation. Close relatives are more likely to mate as populations become isolated. Common results of breeding between relatives are increased juvenile mortality, decreased fertility, and reduced overall ability of a species to survive. Small populations are likely to become more genetically similar -- the potential for change and adaptation is lost. A species may lose a rare genetic trait which could help it survive under different circumstances. In most species, some individuals will disperse away from their natal population to ensure genetic diversity. In fragmented landscapes, greenways can play an important role in making such dispersal possible. Given the opportunity to fulfill their natural tendencies to disperse, individuals will bring new genes to a population with declining genetic diversity. A greenway can provide that opportunity. Adapting to long-term changes -- As the dinnate ctianges, whether due to human rnfluence or not, plants and animals will have to disperse and find areas to which they have adapted. While a single, locally oriented greenway may help connect two populations of a wildlife species, it is unlikely to provide the substantial linkages necessary for plant and animal species to respond to long-term climatic changes. When possible, cooperating with neighboring towns or jurisdictions could ensure that greenways join up at municipal boundaries, thereby es a is ing broad -scale connections extendin bevond the borders ot a given town. Designing greenways as effective conduits A greenway will only act as a conduit for wildlife if individuals are willing and able to travel along it. Width and quality play major roles in determining whether animals will use a greenway for movement. A greenway must also offer a continuous link with as little disturbance from roads and other development as possible. How wide? There is not a magic width at which a greenway will begin to act as a conduit. As a general rule, wildlife ecologists recommend that there be a one-to-one ratio between edge and interior habitat in a conduit greenway. Drawing on figures presented on page 12 relating to edge effects, a greenway would need to be 400 feet wide to balance 200 feet of edge habitat (100 feet of edge on either side) with 200 feet of interior habitat. 11 U'P'/ W—wv✓.a«,er,canuaiis.0rbires:,urcesigree.-O.ra s PLS3E�� Vy.I,IM U9 S/ i iin4 American Trails Page 5 of 5 Many species use riparian corridors for movement. Thus, estabiishing a greenway in a riparian zone will offer a good opportunity to protect its conduit function. Proper width of a riparian movement greenway depends largely on the nature of the riparian zone. Such a greenway should be wide enough to include the entire riparian zone (see Figure 10, page 23) on at least one side of the stream and interior habitat in associated uplands. Ideally, this interior habitat would exist in a one-to-one ratio with edge habitat. Species sensitive to humans will need wider greenways for movement than will more tolerant ones. Therefore, another factor determining width for a greenway is the species most likely to use it. Large predator species may require greenway widths measured in miles. Other species such as the blue jay will travel along a narrow hedgerow (although capable of flying across open lands, jays, like many birds, prefer to remain in woodlands). Quality of the greenway is as important as width. Not all species should be able to move along a corridor. Exotic species may move along corridors creating competition for native ones. Maintaining a greenway with native plant species and minimizing the amount of edge habitat will help ensure that exotic species will not displace desirable ones. The quality of surrounding land will also influence how effectively a greenway will function as a conduit. The greater level of development in lands adjacent to the greenway, the wider the greenway will need to be to overcome disturbance from noise, people, and pets (dogs and cats are very efficient predators). Guidelines for designing greenways to provide habitat and act as conduits Habitat: Identify the needs of the most sensitive species for which the greenway is to provide habitat. Greenway managers should be particularly aware of species which are sensitive to edge effects because greenways will generally contain a lot of edge habitat. For the most part, greenways will not, by themselves, provide good habitat. Therefore, do not allow greenway projects to proceed at the expense of other initiatives which will provide habitat, such as large reserves. Conduits: Concentrate on matching natural characteristics of the landscape -- both in terms of species composition and connecting patches of habitat which were originally connected but human development has left isolated. Ensure that the greenway meets the movement needs of the species which are most sensitive to people. It may be necessary to build tunnels under roads or include specific habitat which a particular species requires. General requirements: Undertake a natural resource inventory before planning and designing a greenway. The inventory will identify the area's native mixture of species and special plants, animals, and habitats. Follow the inventory with a review of research done on the local landscape. Such a review may reveal studies concerning conservation needs of native plant and animal species or local impacts of edge effects. 0 `/1c1nn llLL�.//vJ V�V�. a1Ll,rl�iarlu$iiS. vrs�s/i �SGi.iiG�S/'r✓..7��ii`vvaj���fi J.3vuYJ�.uui�j. J J%V� COUNTY of ]FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAIL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space New housing Traffic ti 4 f Road conditions/road safety then (please specify) r)i Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? _ Yes _ No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? I- Yes No If yes, Please write it below. Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? _ Yes _moo Please write any71,0oon this issue below. d_41) .5 .„ Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the F51-2 - 004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? __p Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 – Rezoning Option — Option 2 – By -Right Option Option 3 – 10 acre Option �urrent Zoning Ordinance Provisions c f /�(q �i _7 kO er, pflease write in below t� �r7''! �� .°� P?- 2'�=.�'7's,. 4A /lr E f%/.E1L.��f Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddvnco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 0 tA (D S40NC_ WQ q COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) Loss of active farmland Loss of non-farm open space _ New housing Traffic _ Road conditions/road safety 7 Other (please specify) �� Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? _ Yes No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. ' -res ��j c-, `j f� 444ff � �4- e cl sem• c v.,f e<� ,�' of 4'z_ 6i 1-e's aa-relx� ' ci'd I n � 4-tw-' o�- Do you have a pry eked residential density for the rural areas? _ Yes _ No I1 Yes Please write it below. I'61,q 1S Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes No Please write writeany comments on this issue below. 1.;ou 1d MA k -p- Gv r - Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? _ Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 — Rezoning Option Option 2 — By -Right Option Option 3 — 10 acre Option Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in below i+ a �1 ' S - �oe C c c J r� dp-, 5 .1-c, u S I! °e,:� Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or atlach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddykco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 ra rJ dL i l"XI7s"'1(d Lpe- s�ff SOd� -� ts�- t 5 Pre4 �� � . `�, _ 5 �M, � l of as 02- C_� �- MAJ (C - COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What �the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) 1 --Loss of active farmland — Loss of non-farm open space New housing — Road conditions/road safety Traffic Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? t_'es _ No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? 41 Yes No If yes, Please write it below. Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? _ / Yes _ No Please write any comments on this issue below. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? _ Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 – Rezoning Option _ Option 2 – By -Right Option Option 3 –10 acre Option Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other please write in_ below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddykco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 l ) vllal f t Ji a 47 CA� 4D. I A, Fd . 6y. tAaJL COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) _ Loss of active farmland Loss of non-farm open space _ New housing _ Traffic _ Road conditions/road safety Other (please specify) C VoP ell, ,. 7f, Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? V --yes — No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. , n S •1 :'i: 9-'�f`F.f'.'•% •� E°.�i+..,,i� `..C. ri e Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? _ Yes _ No If yes, Please write it below. � h F� f _ ���". "�" ,� r/�? � ^-'�`i1 '-' f/: FF r• � �.;• � 4 .�fifi e�` t t f a =` - �� �Nr Do ou believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes No Please write any comments on this issue below. _ r Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? '/Option 1 – Rezoning Option _ Option 2 – By -Right Option Option 3 – 10 acre Option Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in below F r f r �j'. �,1'-Y � i ! .-"'i-�,_-.b FT._r f..- !f "� r� c.'" ..� •'�1 , ��.r♦ Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddykco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 0 /Lk-y g,q ?V7 MUI MMs F-rcA . C_-�Y. M Od�-_ COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) Loss of active farmland '/ Loss of non-farm open space _ New housing Road conditions/road safety _ Traffic Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study?%` .. Yes _ No r Please provide o comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? If yes, Please write it below! X Yes No Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? y Yes _ No Please write any comments on this issue below. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? — Yes No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 – Rezoning Option Option 2 – By -Right Option Option 3 –10 acre Option _ Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddykco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 Fr?_ -d . c_v - MIMIC - COUNTY IMIC COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virg+n'a 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX- 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space New housing _Traffic Road conditions/road safety _ Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? Yes _ No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? Yes _ No If yes, Please write it below. I ►eLo Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? !�' Yes — No Please write any comments on this issue below. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? �'` Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 – Rezoning Option Option 2 – By -Right Option Option 3 –10 acre Option .-"-Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddy(kco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 Fred . C,+ Y. hk � Aa le__ COUNTY®f FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North I;ent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space r% New housing _ Traffic Road conditions/road safety _ Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? 'Yes _ No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? Yes _ No If yes, Please write it below. 1:1440 Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes No Please write any comments on this issue below. r ! 6 a•, c f b l lX w4� a '2 "Cf' a,—J V -PA_ C Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? _ Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 — Rezoning Option Option 2 — By -Right Option _ Option 3 —10 acre Option %Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions _ Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more in about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddy_@co.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 G,A, C -1-y. At- ddle_ COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RU RAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space New housing Road conditions/road safety Traffic Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? _ Yes _ No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? Yes ✓ No If yes, Please write it below. you b"elieve that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes ��f%F No Please write any comments on this issue below. "U"AJ, `' y,t qr k G—V LT Jx 12 E , ! 11,'.t Lc g ' � is k i [, � > a GlJ"" " e 4 i°i �.. c_ s3 �1 Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? _ Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 — Rezoning Option Option 2 — By -Right Option _ Option 3 —10 acre Option Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions v Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this torm or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddykco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 co A "(J-4-, 4v-7" /2-t,"'�s""? j tj,-tj--t k-&� 0-� COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) _ Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space New housing. _ Traffic Road conditions/road safety X Other (please specify) ' QFC Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? _ Yes X No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. _ Com. "�� " �, F�' ! C, CCU-) A 6177 1 J . a � . i � :;Fop P" / Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? Yes _ No If yes, Please write it below. /0 A Cee Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes No Please.write any comments on this issue below. y Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? _ Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 — Rezoning Option Option 2 — By -Right Option X Option 3 —10 acre Option Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in below f Al-;" Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddykco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 C; 0..q L s/fDuLrJ SD v.Clli CD W IIAII y l e s sh-"f Vic r-///,f/EOG& ///Ae"g S7`e4,c"-, 6 C -D COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) Loss of active farmland — Loss of non-farm open space _ New housing 2 Road conditions/road safety / Traffic — Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? — Yes _ No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. l e Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? _ Yes k No If yes, Please write it below. Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes _ No Please write any comments on this issue below. / f✓e vsZ2�-.c�,r u . ta:.cl�� ��i/e� i��.v--- /P' ��� /� A Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? _,�( Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? Option 1 – Rezoning Option Option 2 – By -Right Option _ Option 3 –10 acre Option — Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions _ Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. n Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddya co.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) G _ Loss of active farmland �✓ Loss of non-farm open space New housing _ Trafficy O �1 5 Road conditions/road safety _ Other (please specify) awl � ! y�bp�g I Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? V Yes _ No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? V*"' Yes No If yes, Please write it below. Z j drr_.c� Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? tYes _ No Please write any comments on this issue below. SOMF7/�/�� �E�s i d $— �ox'� QVJci�LY /�2F_ 77F2rJ/LACr Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the/Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? V Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? V Option 1 — Rezoning Option Option 2 — By -Right Option Option 3 —10 acre Option Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddynco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 -r//-zl- d)—/y .J 7 S -7-v I Al �ifF T!4/�t'i.eJ C o F d d 7'� /iCLA ,9 15 z A Ta '7 -*A-7' L A--Jr? rvf� �D.� f ti ?Tle£'�( <��lr; . "Tv T�fF Ho HFV7711 H �� c1 FJc- CIS -7-b A PA A ��L,f i Fjjy ry L-0 cJ E• %E� t-/ f: E 11 D 1 � i/ a � dS i io God -,-7.d X16 7a Ay5ce eJ -r --- .rr�Cie/ �,� b' C. �I¢ /�F .� � A- 7J ! fFE.CE..�1 s' /E/4-T� �f ®Q -.Cf /�',r✓C€ �f'i �,/ i L% ItkS TA -4 I NFX# V TES c -7n�/� �9rs.4 �e.48 •� d.,Q 7- ! i A Lo f o,c 7-*aEr1�c�f'a���?" is y z7 1JZ A -P d7- AeO Lt1 n tle !q ,? 77,AL":,y (:f 1'/� rc� ©�!- P LL &/-/ s! o,,/ /2W.- 77( 02- COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY Whh t is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) _ 7Loss of active farmland Loss of non-farm open space New housing _ Traffic Road conditions/road safety _ Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study?�`� Yes _ No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. err, I tr",v I'Ar Ar4iX C :– CUn�UNu %'Urn Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? '- Yes No Do�you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes _ No Please write any comments on this issue below. roads t seLonc- :>4s Wsones Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? ✓ Option 1 – Rezoning Option w, 4�n fic rni) r Iwo Option 2 – By -Right Option Option 3 – 10 acre Option jv_t"C 4-c to ac:'z_ Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions r, Other, please write in below lksouI C 'Hg tj 6t n (I I4rnk -7`iw k, ms ���? Jury 5 Ir,Lt — (` Cl . gyp;, Ctc C 1F cc' 0{ Aft ��:r " ,) (� 9 S -Lr� P YC� " YX�C l� i r, �s o r2 l c Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another ( by sheet of paper. oUQrfL"'P'0 kA For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site. at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddynco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 L I �c�� i �� y� c0 �L � Si 2f_- t�t� �`'� act&_ 4-I, � �L'�izl C�)�r�rr�i�� �f COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY k What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) _ Loss of active farmland Loss of non-farm open space _ New housing Traffic au Road conditions/road safety Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? Yes — No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? _ Yes _ No If yes, Please write it below. Do you–believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes _ No Please write any comments on this issue below. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? — Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 – Rezoning Option _Option 2 – By -Right Option Option 3 – 10 acre Option _ Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddya co.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) Loss of active farmland Loss of non-farm open space New housing Traffic Road conditions/road safety — Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? _ Yes` V No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. i Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? Yes No If yes, Please write it below. Do you be that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? — Yes f No Please write any comments on this issue below. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? — Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 – Rezoning Option Option 2 – By -Right Option Option 3 – 10 acre Option Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions 1 Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more in about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddykco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 P �m COUNTY ®f FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX- 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) 1/ Loss of active farmland — Loss of non-farm open space New housing — Traffic Road conditions/road safety — Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? _ Yes ��No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? Yes — No r If yes, Please write it below. / Y Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? — Yes —/ No Please write any comments on this issue below. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 — Rezoning Option Option 2 — By -Right Option Option 3 — 10 acre Option I Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions _ Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddykco frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) _ Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space New housing ' ,r- �Traf_ Road conditions/road safety `� Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? _ Yes ,t No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? Yes No If yes, Please write it below. Do you believe that rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? — Yes—'frr�NO-._,r Please write any comments on this issue below. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? _ Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 – Rezoning Option Option 2 – By -Right Option Option 3 – 10 acre Option Current Zoning Orduaa ce Provisi®� c =1 _Other, p– lease write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddykco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 f f� COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) _ Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space — New housing_ Traffic Ze ab )'U16, pad co ditions/road safety -I-� Other (please speci _fy wtiIrl / �� .` i No Wvp&I N�'�'�D�'A'L ��U� d�PwrelNT Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? — Yes _ Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastrpcture below. / J 7'J Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? If yes, Please write it below. d , 7 r -C A-) 11, "C� �C Yes _ No ,1\j&, Do you believe that a rezoning should be required fox residential development in the rural areas? Yes No Please 11write any comments on this ipss�u b o �,,, n . z Y) "�`�l moi' ` [iV�— Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? Yes — No If yes, what is your preference? — Option 1 - Rezoning Option Option 2 - By -Right Option Option 3 - 10 acre Option Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions — Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at vwww.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddvna co frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 L. L. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone. 540/6-65-5651 FAX; 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY Wh is the biggestpr blem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? ec one) of activ 11 rmland _ L ss of n -farm open space _ New Nous _ Tr _ Road nditions/roa safety ex (plea e specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? _ Yes !,,"'No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? d Yes No If yes, Please write it below. Do you believe t a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes — No Please write any comments on this issue below. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? _ Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? – ezoning ption _ Option 2 – By -Right Option' -/ . Option9ptionlam, urr g Urdinance Provisions _ Qthe'-; pli-ase4aite �'*? below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.fxederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddya co.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 L.L l COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) _ Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space New housing _ Traffic _V,4ioad conditions/road safety _ Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? _ Yes !. No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? V Yes _ No If yes, Please write it below. I r-- /q _'-� k Do you believe a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes `� No Please write any comments on this issue below. referred land development option among those described at the F i 02 04 Public Doyou have a p p Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? es _ No If yes, what is your preference? — Option 1 – Rezoning Option _ Option 2 – By -Right Option _ Option— 0 a –rP n tion ----- i,-Iffurrent Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in e ow Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddy@co.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 Rural Area Plan Alternatives Goals L.L. The goals of the rural area plan should be to preserve agricultural open space, promote public land, cluster rural residential housing, and ensure infrastructure keeps pace with growth in the rural areas. Plan Objectives 1. Maintain property value into the future; at a minimum, maintain the existing 5 acre density so farmers can still rely on it for retirement income. 2. Promote open acreage for public enjoyment. Make it useful to that end. 3. Preserve environmentally sensitive areas. 4. Provide for community growth while protecting 1, 2 and 3. 5. Provide density bonuses as incentives for developments that preserve more than the minimum open acreage and protect environmentally sensitive areas. The County has identified 4 options for the rural area's future (including the current regulations). If farmers are assured that their property will maintain its value into the future, they can continue to farm without having to worry about the loss of value of their property. Impact Fee Option/Capital Needs Assessments/Matching Alternatives Provide provisions for payment by a subdivider or developer of land of a pro rata share of the cost of reasonable and necessary road improvements, located outside the property limits of the land owned or controlled by him but serving an area having related traffic needs to which his subdivision or development will contribute, to reimburse an initial subdivider or developer who has advanced such costs or constructed such road improvements. This will ensure that the value of farmers' land is not reduced, thus promoting continued farming, while addressing road improvement issues. In addition, the new ordinance text could provide for participation in the existing VDOT road fund matching. The plan currently provides for matching up to $500,000.00. A new bill is being introduced this legislative session to increase the matching to $5,000,000.00. Initiate a Capital Needs Assessment District in rural areas. New developments could be subjected to this assessment to provide improved road services in the assessment area. Incentive Alternatives The incentive option contemplates that farmers will continue their operations so long as they make good business sense. Where the future use of the land and its corresponding value is reduced, farmers will have to weigh whether to continue operations and risk loss of value, or cash out immediately. In short, the incentive is to stay in farming because you are not at risk of losing the value of land, your primary asset. The protection of property values into the future can be accomplished by maintaining the current by right 5 acre lot density. To maintain open acreages, farmers should not be put in a position where they must choose between developing now or losing property value. So 0 Rural Area Plan Alternatives long as farmers know that their land asset will be available for their retirement, they will continue to farm as long as they are financially positioned to do so. Current codes provide adequate protection for environmentally sensitive areas. They do not address a plan to consolidate or manage such areas. An alternate way to achieve all of these objectives, which has not been fully explored, is incentive development. Incentive development would utilize smaller lot sizes with the existing density (1:5 acres). Agricultural Preservation Density Bonus Farmers could earn a density bonus for each year they continue to farm their property. This option would maintain the existing 1:5 by right residential base density for a parcel, and increase that density by one residence per parcel for each year the property remains in active agricultural use. Green Space Density Bonus Where landowners dedicated 90% of their parcel to open acreage and clustered lots, they would receive a 1 residence per 4 acres density bonus. Clustering of the lots would promote the retention of open acreage, and preserve environmentally sensitive areas. By providing for these hamlet developments in rural areas, landowners' current density and land value is preserved, the area of land that is dedicated to residential structures is reduced, and open acreage is preserved. Where environmentally sensitive areas exist on property, they will still be preserved to the maximum extent possible, and wherever possible, they will be located in designated open acreage areas. Providing an incentive that promotes larger open acreages will make it easier to connect and manage such areas. To illustrate, under the current zoning, a 100 acre property could provide 20 lots. Under the proposed mandatory clustering provision with 2 acre lot minimums, these lots would incorporate 40 acres of this land with the 20 structures. The remaining 60 acres would be left as open acreage. Under the incentive option with density bonus, a 100 acre parcel would provide 25 lots on only 10 acres of land. This would provide 90 acres of open acreage. The larger remainder tracts would preserve more open acreage and make pocket farms of a size where they could conceivably still be profitable. On a larger parcel of 300 acres, the current ordinance would permit 60 lots. Under the County's density adjusted proposals where there are reduced densities for acreages above 100 acres, 28 to 40 lots could be developed depending on which density reduction was adopted. Such lots would result in between 56 and 80 acres being designated to residential use. Up to 220 acres would remain as open acreage. Under the incentive option with density bonus, a 300 acre parcel would provide 75 residential lots on 30 acres, and preserve 270 open acres. Below is a comparison of the options. 2 Rural Area Plan Alternatives Parcel Density Restricted Ordinance Current Incentive Ordinance with Size 2 Acre Minimum Lots Ordinance Density Bonus (Acres) 1:5 Acres —Base 1:5 Acres 1:4 Acres 1:25 — 1:10 for Acreages > 100 Residential ResidentialOpen Residential Residential Kesidential Open Lots Acreage Acreage Lots Lots Acreage Acreage 100 20 40 60 20 25 10 90 200 24-30 48-60 152-140 40 50 20 180 300 28-40 56-80 244-220 60 75 30 270 400 32-50 64-100 336-300 80 100 40 360 500 36-60 72-120 428-380 100 125 50 450 Green Infrastructure The current proposals look to preserve green infrastructure, which are environmentally sensitive or historic areas. Discussions have addressed penalizing property owners with such features by excluding these features from their total acreage calculation. The incentive option provides for larger expanses of open acreage that could easily accommodate the sensitive or historic areas. Open Acreage The open acreage that would be available as a result of development could be dedicated to the state or local park system for preservation and maintenance in a natural state, or for passive recreational uses. Alternatively, such acreages could be placed under farming covenants and restrictions to ensure they remain cultivated, grazed or otherwise undeveloped other than as a farm. Dedication of such areas to nonprofit preservation groups should also be an acceptable use of open acreage. Wherever such open acreages exist on a parcel adjacent to a proposed development parcel, the proposed development should provide its open acreage adjacent to the existing open acreage to provide a connected greenway. The property owner and the County should enforce the farming covenants and restrictions that are placed on open acreage. Such restrictions should be revocable if the area is included in the Urban Development Area, or is otherwise rezoned for residential development. C NOV 2 3 COUNTY of FREDERICK oa2mm Department of Planning and Development 07 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY W>at is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space New housing Road conditions/road safety — Traffic Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? Please providany o nts on the Infrastructure below. Oral 5 Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? _Yes V No A If yes, Please write it Yes No Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes I� 0 1 '_ Please write any comments on9 this issue below. {^�5fi�`G('� T� !y a f—�yl'y�s0 / `iNv+L clG( Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the FA 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? _ Yes No If yes, what is your preference? Option 1 – Rezoning Option Option 2 – By -Right Option Option 3 – 10 acre Option current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddya co.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 0O, -(Y/ r (evk 4IL CD ;70 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development North rent Street, Winchester, V irgiriia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Ru RAL I AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) _ Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space New housing _ Traffic Road conditions/road safety — Other (please specify) P, Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? Yes _ No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. \ r^ I Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? Yes _ No If yes, Please write it below. r fls �,ew ��Lo(��� � C4.S �•c�u] r1.c�S-�S CLS (�QSS��I`� Do yo believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? vYes No Please writeany comments on this issue below. -;t) t Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? — Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 – Rezoning Option Option 2 – By -Right Option Option 3 – 10 acre Option Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions ✓Other, please write in below Ino�.�s�_ fir- 5`0 �cr�S� 1�c�S� C'c � on F -e—S:' S ceu T-a.G 0- inn a S Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddya co.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 AIRVI Susan Eddy Frederick County Planning Department 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Ms. Eddy, CHILL r ,1 -XM = John and Sarah Stelzl 560 Grim Road Stephens City, Virginia 22655 November 19, 2004 Home: (540) 869-0643 Office/fax: (540) 869-1327 Email: stelzl@visuallink.com I would like to thank the CPPS, planning staff and those officials who have worked with the rural areas study. I appreciate the extra efforts you've made to contact interested citizens and citizen groups. After attending several of the public meetings and seeing the issues addressed I'm inclined to be in favor of the current five acre by right ordinance. Involving the Board of Supervisors in rezonings would be a cumbersome process that could be too easily swayed by whichever side packs the public hearing. Increasing the lot size may or may not devalue land, it's the perception of this option that concerns me. I'm able to borrow money to invest in my farm based on my land's value. If my lender sees these rezonings as a downzoning and consequent devaluing of my property then further improvements to my farm business would be difficult if not impossible. Also, if the larger lot sizes did devalue my land would the County want to reflect that in my real estate tax bill? To answer the questions on the paper from November 18, 2004: 1) all are a concern, however I would rate the loss of active farmland as the biggest problem 2) the Green Infrastructure is OK for the basis of the study 3) had rezoning been required all along I could support it, since it has not been a requirement in the past I do not support it for the future 4) I prefer the current zoning ordinance. Even though farmers pay land use taxes it is farmland's lack of development that supports the county. To ask those who are transitioning out of farming to continue those subsides, at their expense is wrong. I believe that if our County had a purchase of development rights program, then there would be an option for landowners to sell other than development, and most of these zoning issues would become moot points. Sincerely, J ........ IT r` John Stelz] cc: Bill Ewing, Opequon District Supervisor E C E � W E COUNTY of FREDERICK N, ov L9 2004'10Department of Planning and Development 107 rthtent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 FREDERICK COUNTY Tel phone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) _ Loss of active farmland — Loss of non-farm open space New housing _ Traffic _ Road conditions/road safety — Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? 1" Yes _ No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? ✓ Yes No If yes; Please write itI&ASL Do ou believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes _ No Please write any comments on this issue bell v.S PrO'Wp Snn Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Stud Fa 112004 brochure? V --yes— No If yes, what is your preference? V Option 1 – Rezoning Option _ Option 2 – By -Right Option Option 3 –10 acre Option Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions _ Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddykco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 CO Ae- J�A- G ` r�. ol Svv�-OA 0 WA� - ,N\ vul SA� r - V. Cov� Q— �� --VA-vV\1 0 E C E�� E COUNTY of FREDERICK I i 9 2004 epartment of Planning and Development �a 0 / 2 107 No nt Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Tele hone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) _ Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space New housing _ Traffic _ Road conditions/road safety _ Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? X Yes _ No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? X Yes _ No TF—, 131-- mri+P it I-Anm Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? X_ Yes _ No Please write any comments on this issue below. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? y Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? Option 1 — Rezoning Option _ Option 2 — By -Right Option Option 3 —10 acre Option Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddykco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 lam. '�'�C'-�, ^' "" u i V,� o wt�; 4,S,.q C�l Y,.,eA,As AL -k ' AOL A D*N UP- a44U US r \u's � 2 . sesw�vw,�;kox(�Y- c e�c �• �o ne�1�bs�s. E C E � W E COUNTY of FREDERICK K!ov 2- 9 2004 Department of Planning and Development 107 N rth I _,lent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 FREDERICK COUNTYTel hone. 540/665-56_,51 FAX- 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) _ Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space _ New housing _ Traffic Road conditions/road safety _ Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study?es — No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? _ Yes — No If yes, Please write it below. -% e ec'- re Fu. t N. T,I�Z'C� A A,71 "1\\ Do yo ' elieve that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes — No Please write any comments on this issue below. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the F 004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Stud a 2004 brochure? — Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? Option 1 – Rezoning Option _ Option 2 – By -Right Option Option 3 – 10 acre Option _ Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions _ Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or _call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddykco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 R -O �cy COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) _ Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space — New housing Traffic /? Road conditions/road safety `� Other (please specify) l �G✓�a'��� ��' �P $"�`� Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? _--�es — No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. 'Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? Yes — No If yes, Please write it below. Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? ►/Yes _ No Please write any comments on this issue below. �iaa'� �t�c�L U.,�.��ri✓.,t' �s��.��j ��..�� Gd,2 f3�t/�z�,of.�t�% u����dr ,20� /rr,,a/�����.vs�� � f?2rJ��c�2S 17frJs %�;r✓w /,ter �,����� i� r5tl�a�v �.�. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Stud' Fall 2004 brochure? — Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? d/(yption 1 – Rezoning Option Option 2 – By -Right Option _ Option 3 –10 acre Option Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions — Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddykco frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 07 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non -faun open space New housing — Traffic Road conditions/road safety _ Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? _ Yes _ No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? L/' Yes _ No If yes, Pleasewriteit below. Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes _ No Please write any comments on this issue below. rLe ten; �y c��..} Gvr Kr_j % S uv c-_ Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? tlYes _ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 – Rezoning Option — Option 2 – By -Right Option Option 3 – 10 acre Option ✓Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions _ Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddya co.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 01 .�-v ?dj- O,r`... Z.vo�� ®wr.2..J � s�,.;� .Jl ►N'� er���zr�; z S. 5�c,1.,. ,z�, o�ci�� ,P L-aw 1� �-D subs �?�� e1lS a IeSS AA� 1,-\ i� �.� hzxz� rrJ,-vNcI�- S�.w1 c-1.,�%r . r 5 X12 �, �� �. ���;rrY.r�k �°�• i . 5 ill , fl `1 CA uk- So �;•` \2rc�e �,ircBAS of 1v\ci S.r.re_ the ass��sc�cl ,�a�.a� 7%1A e.A i of l� �J 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space New housing Road conditions/road safety Traffic X Other (please specify) >> This question seems somewhat ambiguous to me. If the real "problem" as defined by Frederick County is the loss of the county's rural character (and the associated conservation resources that you identify), then we can identify the causes and effects of that problem. The main cause is simply the increasing residential and commercial growth pressure in our area. A second cause may be a decreasing economic viability of farming. What you list above is a mix of causes (new housing) and effects (loss of farms and open space). I can't select one effect as the most severe — they are all severe. If you can minimize or control the causes (and thus reduce the severity of the problem), then you can hopefully reduce all of the effects, not just some of them. I know — long answer to a short question, but as one who values and treasures the rural character of this county, I can't prioritize one characteristic over another — they are all equally important. Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? X Yes _ No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. >> I think it's important to identify the assets that you value and that you want to preserve. My main concern regards the identification of the secondary resources. I find it disturbing that the county's numerous historic resources (both sites and structures) were not included as a primary example in this category. I'm also concerned about the weight that this classification will actually carry once development proposals are being considered. Many developers will pay lip service to preserving resources (historic or otherwise) on developing land, but this changes very quickly when the preservation starts costing them in numbers of houses built. If you keep a historic structure but completely envelop it with new housing, then you have saved the physical structure but you have still destroyed the character. The proposal states that secondary resource development will not be restricted but developers will be required to work with county planners to preserve resources whenever possible. What does this mean? Who defines "whenever possible". I think this needs to be stronger — we need to specifically define the circumstances under which the secondary resource preservation can be overridden (hopefully there won't be many). Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? X Yes _ No If yes, Please write it below. >> If it was totally up to me (and ignoring the financial impact to property owners), I would prohibit any further residential housing in the rural areas, except family subdivisions. Obviously, this is impractical. Given the choices you have developed, I favor Option three, which is the only option that would seem to actually reduce by any significant amount the number of homes that can be built vl ring is required (I assume that this is the outside of the UDA. This only works if mandatory cluste intent). I can't evaluate Option one, because it seems that it's effectiveness would only be determined by the philosophies (or whim?) of current and future county supervisors. Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes _ No Please write any comments on this issue below. >> (see previous comment) Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? _ Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? — Option 1 – Rezoning Option Option 2 – By -Right Option X Option 3 –10 acre Option — Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions — Other, please write in below >> I attended one of the public meetings you held and was disturbed (although not too surprised) by the arrogant position taken by some of the (obviously) large tract / farm landowners in the audience. They continue to push their view that "it's their land" and nobody should tell them what to do with it, totally ignoring (or not understanding) the huge impact that the future use of their land can have on the citizens of Frederick County (both financially and from a "quality of life" perspective). We all need to compromise. I was especially disappointed that while the planning staff attempted to clarify issues and answer questions at the end of the meeting, some of these same property owners started talking amongst themselves, ignoring the speakers, and making it difficult to concentrate for the rest of us. It was very rude. That said, I'm sure you're aware (and experiences in other counties have shown) that property rights cannot be ignored. I feel strongly that policies put in place to preserve the rural character of the county must include conservation easement and/or purchase of development rights (PDR) programs. I know that the county is studying this, but these programs should play a more prominent role in this process now. I believe studies have shown that these programs do not cost money in the long run, but actually save money - they actually work. The county should be doing more to educate the citizens (especially large tract land -owners) on the workings of CE/PDRs. With strong county advocacy and citizen understanding of the benefits, it shouldn't be that difficult to obtain the funding to implement these programs. I strongly support and commend you for what you're doing here. The proposed options are reasonable compromises and the "common features" are all desirable and important. I only hope that the final implementation will be strong enough to actually make a difference and not be "watered down" by development interests and property owners, and that it will stand the test of time. Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddykco frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 To: Frederick County Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee Frederick County Planners From: Betsy Gano Brumback, landowner over 100 acres and Certified General Real Estate Appraiser in VA and WV Chief Real Estate Appraiser for Valley Farm Credit Re: Rural Study Area Date: 11/19/04 I attended your meeting last night (11/18/04) and quietly listened to the presentation and to the speakers many of whom had done their research before the meeting and many have attended the meetings thus far. Speaking as a landowner in this county and as a 5th generation Frederick County farm family and having also married a "Century Farmer" We do not need these regulations. We are proud of our land and we intend to keep our land in the family for the next generations to come. We don't intend to sell and get rich and move on as many of you indicated that we are waiting for the next national builder to make an offer. We love our heritage and we love our land just as our fore fathers have and we will keep, maintain, and continue to farm the land for as long as we can and the next generation can take over. Additional regulations and policies are not needed to take care of this so-called "problem". We will take care of our land and we have the fortitude to stick it out for the years to come. Yes-- we may have to sell a lot here or there as needed- but we don't want subdivisions as much as the next guy. However to take away our right to do with our land as we wish is totally absurd. If the county wants to beautify and keep the natural scenery then they can buy parks and scenic easements -- to punish our family farm for growth is absurd. If 30% of the growth in this county is in the rural areas, then why are we studying the rural areas? The demand for services, schools, and infrastructure is the problem-- this problem lies in the 70% non -rural land. That is where the studies need to be held — you need to spend planning time and dollars on managing the UDA, studying road improvements in this area, schools, water and sewer needs, etc. The rural areas need to be left to the rural caretakers as they have been for the last 200 years. My family settled here in the late 1700's and as a family in total we have slightly over 1,300 acres, and my husband's family has been farming since the late 1800's and currently farm over 2,000 acres. We have a lot at stake, we are not leaving the county, we are not looking for a get rich and leave scheme- we simply want to preserve what rights we have, we love the land as much as the guy that has the 2 acres that looks out over our farm. However for some one in an office or some one sitting on the 2 acres to tell us what we can and can't do on land that has been in family ownership over 200 years is the opposite of what our fore fathers thought when they moved from France and Germany to settle in this county. 0 In my profession I am a real estate appraiser and cover Valley Farm Credit's territory of 5 counties in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia and 3 in the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia. I spend many hours on farms talking with farmers about the daily life, the struggle and demand for their land, yet the low demand for their products. The farms I cover are poultry to orchard to hay crops to beef cattle. For many their land is all they have to pass on to their children, they have worked hard to keep it and it is truly their legacy to pass on to the next generation. Many of their children will and intend to keep, preserve, and maintain the land. Many have looked for other ways to keep the next generation on the farm and a profit to pay the bills, either through farm markets, farm entertainment, or equestrian centers. To hamper the individuals who have been here for generations upon generations is like cutting off the hand that fed you. Did you purchase your pumpkin in October at a local farm market? Or did you pick one up at Wal Mart? How about apples and peaches do you buy local? Or do you grab a bag from Washington State at Food Lion or peaches fresh from California? Even Christmas trees are imported from Washington and Oregon before Thanksgiving for your Food Lion convenience. This is what needs to change — you want the farmer to farm then support him and his products- buy local- support local products. We all know that another Wal- Mart in this county doesn't support local products, yet those that support the new Wal- Mart are the first to cry "where are the farmers", "we have to slow growth" "save the land" That is like talking out of both sides of your mouth. Bottom line-- as a landowner I want my rights preserved. I intend to do all I can and so does my family and my husband's family to keep rural agriculture in this county. To have people sitting in subdivisions that don't get up in the early hours to feed calves, or spray orchards late in the night after working all day in the hot sun and they tell us what we can and can't do --then yes that will force us to a decision we don't want to make. Leave the rural study alone, close the book, and use your talents and resources in managing the UDA — that's the monster that is requiring so much of the county's drain on services, not the rural areas. Betsy Gano Brumback 540 Barley Lane Winchester, VA 22602 540-545-8774 office 540-545-8773 home Zural areas study Subject: Rural areas study Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:29:14 -0500 From: "Michael Rutkaus" <mrutkaus@visuallink.com> Organization: visuallink.com To: seddy@co.frederick.va.us HI, Biggest problem: ew Housing Yes Support Green Infrastructure Preferred residential density 1:10 Rezining should be required Preferred option Option 1 Thank you for your work, Michael Michael Rutkaus A Better Resume 218 Light Road Winchester, VA 22603 K4QET i 1 /T)P70Ad d -3R P iral Areas Study Subject: Rural Areas Study Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:17:32 -0500 From: "Thomas J. Boyd" <tboydva@comcast.net> To: "seddy@co.frederick.va.us" <seddy@co.frederick.va.us> Dear Ms. Eddy, My name is Thomas Boyd. I am a resident of Arlington County, VA, but my roots are in Winchester and I belong to the Boyd family owning over 100 acres of land in Frederick County. Although I have not lived in the Winchester area in 20 years, I have recently been brought aware of the Countys Rural Areas Study through discussions with my brother, Bob Boyd who still farms our family lands. At the insistence of my brother and our familys legal representation, I attended last Thursday nights meeting and wish to give you my thoughts and impressions. I had hoped to do this sooner while the night was fresher in my head, but my home computer died on Friday and I have just gotten back up and running! Unfortunately, my mother has been ill and I took her home about « hour before the meeting was over so I did not witness first-hand how things ended. My impression from speaking to my brother is that no real resolution was agreed upon. This is a shame, because I feel that most of the speakers brought very valid objections to the current set of alternatives and the arbitrator did a nice job of summarizing the comments and, as far as I could tell, no strong or even rational justification(s) for the current proposed alternatives came to light. I believe that the speakers I heard brought up and adequately defended the following: 1. Each alternative unfairly reduces the land value of those who own more than 100 acres. 2. Each alternative can be circumvented before being enacted by parceling existing property; and 3. That each alternative has a high probability of causing the very outcome for which it was intended to mitigate i.e. that large land owners offload their land to be developed rather than losing all they have worked so hard for. There were many more valid points brought up and they all lend credence to the fact that each current alternative is inadequate to address the real or perceived overdevelopment of rural areas. I liken your potential alternatives to telling your child that they will be punished for getting into the cookie jar tomorrow. If they know theyre going to be punished, they are going to go ahead and eat the cookies (the very action you wish to discourage). During the time before this meeting, my family and other large land owners have had several lengthy discussions on how the problem can be fairly addressed. We have had the council of Mr. Ty Lawson who spoke at last Thursdays meeting outlining a new alternative that is not burdened with the fallacies of the original three outlined by the Planning Department. He has provided your office with a copy of this alternative. I find this alternative equitable to all parties and provides a fair compromise between land owners keeping their value and preservation of natural resources in the County. It also represents an incentive -based alternative which rewards (not penalizes) land owners for conserving land and clustering development so that open space can be preserved. I will say at this point, that I presently do not live in Frederick County, but within about 8 years plan to actively farm our land using innovative technologies currently under R&D efforts within my work organization. I need my family lands intact to do this, so I am keenly concerned about poor policy making us sell before our land value gets cut in half. I suppose in a business sense, with the proceeds of land sale in Frederick County, I could buy more land elsewhere (where property values are lower). I dont want that to happen and as far as the official dialog from your office, you dont want that either. I dont know the real reason for the current alternatives being put forward when they so blatantly target those who own more than 100 acres. I have heard that it due to lobbying efforts by some large land owners who have parceled land already and stand to 11/23/2004 10:18 � iral Areas Study gain more if others land value is decreased. Being a Washingtonian, I am keenly aware of the influence of lobbyist and the distasteful bias they bring to our federal government. I would hope at the local level you would be less inclined to be influenced as such. Many of my associates in this matter feel this must in fact be the case, as anyone using logic and good sense could see how badly each of the final alternatives currently on the table will so miserably fail. I suppose if the lobbyist theory is correct, it makes no difference what any of us say. We are wasting our time. However, if you really do want to arrive at a win/win situation (as the arbitrator invited us to suggest ends to this means), I greatly urge you to consider adding Mr. Lawsons alternative (he provided a copy, but if you need additional ones, please contact his office directly: 540-665-0050). I look forward to this alternative being included in future discussions. I believe you will find the land owners as well as any reasonable citizens much more receptive to it. Please keep me informed via return email as to whether this alternative will be considered. I urge you and your study group to do the right thing and provide incentive for a group of hard-working and intelligent land owners to keep their land and not sell out. Board members are elected under the expectation that the equitable alternatives will at least be evaluated. sincerely, Thomas J. Boyd (Tom) Q 11/23/2004 10:18 A j COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107T01th Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FA.Y:540/665-6395 RURAL ARES STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frede ickLoss oof County? ct flrra open space Loss of active farmland Traffic �— New housing Othex (plea e specify) L, Road onditi s ads safety k,�` . Ott using t o Green. Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? Yes _ No D y u su pp _r, clip (''men Inftastractattbelow. Do you have a preferred residential density for t_aE nua'. 2'J-uu-z" If ves, Pleape. white it below. Do yeti elieve tl-lat a rezoning should be rcquired £ox residential development in the rural areas? I/ Please write any corm .erns n this Issue below. ' Yes No r _ . ,� ds , -uG..'f '-p_ t,1�i „ 1 ` y option amore those bed at the Fall 2004 Public Do yo have a preferred d deti clopzxx P g Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Stuffy Fall 2004 brochure? VIYes No If yes, what is your preference? V, Option l — RezonuZg Option Option 2 — By -Right Optic u� _ Option 3 — 10 acre Optioza Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, pleas", 1i e iii b� „ A _ i A -r ,r _7-7 Please feel free to write extended coinnicnts on, any topic on the back of this form m attach astothE-t_ sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Fredmick County goverzxixrent web site at wwtv.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Plaz 119 and Development at (540) 665-5651, Comments can be scut directly to the Planning Department, 107 Mortis Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to r a,co.fre�ezxc)�:.va.us, Remm by December 1, 2004 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 lephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) _ Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space New housing _ Traffic Road conditions/road safety Other (please specify) dl o re u �r W- S " C L e v_ 7 <571v e- / 7—C_-7 ,.t '3 � x sr ':_ A t E -5/ T� ,ate c u c � A R_ - o T-74 C-e— �_, (7T I' AJ 44- 4 G- rA 5 Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis f 2 � or e rural areas study? ✓Yes _ No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. l¢� tjc> r 2�-w�+� �.� sup2 Tl�ps 5��u � D �� if�c= ` r� j c �-/iL) 25LE Oma. 1S M u c t4- L A Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? Yes No If yes, Please write it below. �" f.� %macx1STt"G t7 _ Fa F r� p t f .J C,y_ 1 lF/TLD ` r!4 Rf.; � , — Dou believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? o Yes _ No Please write any comments on this issue below. 41 W e c ;te /J ° f ee Fr f T �f✓17 j-'-, riT 11'`7lyA SS6cfffc- Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? Option 1 — Rezoning Option Option 2 — By -Right Option Option 3 —10 acre Option Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddykco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 01 PC I Aj T-- F f4- tF 6,4-, Ilk p T 71-7-1 A/ CF tar T- -Ef J 7 1-44 r ko At' TO 14- t4A 7 /J v 55 Sep 7- -4- 7-F— e-02> F Ij C) A4 iii COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) _ Loss of active farmland Loss of non-farm open space r�New housing ✓Traffic Road conditions/road safety _ Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? /Yes _ No P1P9CP nrn"-ide_ nnv comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? Yes _ No If yes, Please write it below. eC GtiZ. "Z) 7 Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes No Please write any comments on this issue below. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? --" Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? x/. Option 1 — Rezoning Option Option 2 — By -Right Option _ Option 3 — 10 acre Option Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddykco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 Barbara J. Chaplin PO Box 2142, Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 888-3100; btc(a--)btcent.com; (540) 888-4833 (fax) October 28, 2004 Susan Eddy, Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Susan: Thank you for the information on the current Zoning Ordinance and the proposed Land Development Options. I have reviewed the proposed options and offer the following comments / suggestions. Rural Areas Study: Biggest Problem: 1. Ground Water Purity. Ground Water pollution from septic systems can affect the water obtained from County wells; a -coli bacteria in well water has caused serious illness and the loss of property sale when found in test samples. Too many homeowners tapping into the same underground streams causes dry wells. These have been well publicized concerns in the County in the past and are grave concerns with population growth. 2. Road conditions / safety. County switchback roads were not built and are not maintained for heavy use traffic; periodic tar and gravel patching and resurfacing, rather than asphalt repaving, presents difficult driving conditions for experienced back road drivers and is extremely hazardous when a driver is not experienced with handling such conditions. Green Infrastructure Support: Yes - provided 1) lakes / ponds, wetlands, and other 165-31, B definitions are included as primary resources, and 2) land assessment values are lower for primary and secondary resources acreage. Preferred Residential Density: Yes - based on topography & type of water / sewer: 1. Mountains ("steep slopes" - well/septic): 1 house / 20 acres 2. Other well/septic: 1 house / 10 acres 3. Public water/sewer: min. 1/2 acre lot 4. Homeowner Subdivision with own water / sewage treatment facility: min. 2 acre lot Should Rezoning Be Required For Development In Rural Areas? Yes 1. See Density above. 2. Family Farm Waiver: immediate family living and working on the farm follow above density rules without rezoning requirement. Preferred Land Development Option: Other 1. Opt. 1 - Rezoning Required 2. Opt. 1 - BOS / Public Process for rezoning, except family farm waiver 3. Density per above - no consideration per "parent tract of record as of date of adoption of new ordinance" - see # 1 under Common Features of Land Development Options below Rural Areas Study Barbara Chaplin to Susan Eddy Page 1 of 3 l'J 4. Opt. 1 - Off-site road improvement - developer pays for road improvements, turns over to State / County for on-going maintenance; Planning Commission provides impact study (at developer's expense) to determine current road capability and needed improvements 5. Opt. 2 & 3 - Proffers - No - protected natural features should be required as a conservation set- aside without deviation or waiver as part of permission for residential development 6. New - Any newly approved subdivision, developer pays County $5,000 "school fee" per lot Common Features of Land Development Options: I truly believe a workable development plan needs to look at each area of the County as a separate entity based on common features such as roads (how straight and well maintained they are, how close development roads are to main highways, etc.), topography (steep mountain areas do not have the same ability for developmental growth as flat terrain), well/septic vs. public water/sewer (the former requires more per person space and the latter require less), etc. Parent tract density is not a good idea. Many of the owners in this area "own" contiguous parcels, each with their own plat. I am trying to find a recent land sale of 500 acres for my reassessment "hearing"; the most likely "owner" actually owns 684 acres under 4 map numbers: 100, 146, 150, 288 acres. Thus, this 500 acres which would allow 100 houses under the current ordinance, 36-60 houses under proposed density consideration, could be developed into 20 + 29 + 30 + 35 = 114 houses (approximately). 2. Minor subdivision (2 new lots or less) allowed by right - as long as they follow the density guidelines or family farm guidelines I outlined above, I agree. 3. Mandatory clustering of houses - won't work for most property in the mountains where you're lucky to find buildable locations somewhere on the property and is a potential health hazard for well/septic property where too many wells are too close to septic systems. Clustering in a public water/sewer development where green space is set aside would work and would be a good idea - until there is a policy change that would allow a developer to develop that set aside. 4. Required conservation set-aside on well/septic acreage would be the land around the house based on the density acreage proposed above. Required conservation set aside for public water/sewer development is, as stated in "Clustering" comments, a worthwhile and workable solution for such developments as long as developers are not allowed to get a waiver to build on such set-aside in the future. 5. Density bonuses should not be considered. Developers should pay for the right to develop property, not receive money (bonus) for following required ordinances. With green space set - asides (parks, woodland, lakes, etc.), they will benefit from buyers wanting to settle in such a development. [Reston VA, Columbia MD are prime examples.] 6. Minimum lot size of one to two acres - everywhere? I don't think that will work - probably too big for most public water/sewer housing developments; about right for association developments with own water and sewer treatment facilities; too small for well/sewer lots. Please see my density suggestions based on topography, roads, type of water & sewage disposal. 7. Protected natural features ... would not count toward site's allowed density. I think this is a great idea. And this will work with the set-aside requirements. 8. Suggested buffer of 300' along state roads - that's good for a good sized public water/sewer development located off of primary and secondary State roads, but out here where there are Rural Areas Study Barbara Chaplin to Susan Eddy Page 2 of 3 tertiary and worse State / County maintained roads, that's an added expense for privately maintained driveways for the roadside property owners. I would certainly not object, since we have no road frontage. 9. Suggested buffer of 150' around new subdivisions - I think this should be 300'. It could be included in the green space set-aside, but it would certainly help to appease neighbors who are not thriiied with a development going in next door. 10. All new roads to be state roads - agree, but should be paid for by the developer and turned over to the State / County for maintenance after all development lots are sold. 11. Family division lots allowed by -right - as long as they follow the density acreage guidelines, there should be no rezoning requirement and no need for a waiver clause. Family members who inherit (whether their "parent" owner is still living or not) a piece of the family farm and are not interested in living on / maintaining the property frequently want the money and sell, so they should not be allowed a waiver from the overriding density requirements. One local family gave 10 acre lots to each of their 2 daughters and financially helped with the house building - one of the daughters divorced; her husband demanded, and won, half of the land/house - the parents could not afford to buy back their land and had not put a contingency clause in the deed, so that 10 acres (and house) now belongs to someone else. In another local divorce case, the wife got half of the husbands 10 acres property and the house that was on that part of the property - that land had been in his family for generations - she would not accept a contract from anyone in the family, but sold it to the first buyer who met her asking price. A third local family settled things more amicably - one of the 4 siblings did not want her piece of inherited property so sold it within family. Rural Areas Study Barbara Chaplin to Susan Eddy Page 3 of 3 Rural Areas Study input, Subject: Rural Areas Study input. Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:52:31 -0400 From: Danrock000@cs.com To: seddy@co.frederick.va.us October 21st, 2004 Ms. Eddy, Although the property located along Rest Church Road titled "Duncan Run, LLC" (TAX ID# 33-A15) is not techincally deemed a permanent conservation easement, the long-term plan of the LLC is to maintain the property's use as a source for re -forestation and wildlife conservation. The property currently is, and has been for some time, a qualified land -use tax entity. We do not intend to construct a permanent residential structure on this site for a period of at least five (5) to ten (10) years, and we will most definately not be involved in the construction of a commercial or industirial site on,the premises. The land was purchased because of the serenity and privacy that the land afforded, and we would hope that the county and its board would do its best to limit the potential residential, commercial, or industurial development in the nearby areas. By allowing this type of development to occur, this would in effect rob the property of its innate value both as a sanctuary, and as a natural resource. The members of Duncan Run LLC appreciate the letter that we received from your office about the rural issues from the County Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcomittee. We hope that we have made our future plans and intentions more understandable to you. Cordially, Duncan Run LLC, c/o William Truban, Esq. P.O. Box 289 Boyce, VA 22620 Cc: W. Truban, Esq. File 1 API PADA 17.74 D7 NOVp 2�C� 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development FREDERICK COI�AjlfN� rth I ent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 PLANNING & DEVEL EIVT Tetephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) ,Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space +.Z New housing �u��c�?/vJ ���2. _--� — Traffic — Road conditions/road safety — Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? i/ Yes No Please provide a y co ents on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? Yes No If yes, Please write it below. e ou believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Do Yes No Please write any comments on this issue below. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? — Yes — No If yes, what is your preference? — Option 1 – Rezoning Option — Option 2 – By -Right Option Option 3 –10 acre Option — Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other_ nlease write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddynco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) _ Loss of active farmland V' Loss of non-farm open space New housing _ Traffic _ Road conditions/road safety — Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? V`Yes _ No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? i__ -Yes No If yes, Please write it below. 10 Do}Pu believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? V Yes _ No Please write any comments on this issue below. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? L_�es _ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 – Rezoning Option 'Prtion 2 – By -Right Option 1/ Option 3 – 10 acre Option _ Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions _ Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddykco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 FROM : DRY RUN FARMS FAX N0. : 5408691878 Nov. 04 2004 11:21AM P1 COUNTY of FREDERICK -Department of Plam�ing and Development 107 North Ken t-Strect, Winc:hestcr, Vitgim. a 22601-5000 Teleph©ne: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS S TUUY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) Loss of active farmland __ Loss of non-farm open space New housing _,,,__'Traffic Road conditions/road safety Other (please specify) Do you support using the Careen Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? Yes No Please provide any coinments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? Yes No Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the r -Ural areas? Yes I- No Please write any comments on this issue below. Do you have n preferred Land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also desctibed in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option Z – Rezoning Option Option 2 – By -Right option — Option 3 – 10 acre Option CuTlent Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach a nother sheet of paper, For more infon-nation about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co_frederick.va_us or call the Department of Pla. nina and Development at (540) 665-565i, Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Strect, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to sed ri&-ya Return by December 1, 2004 Nov -05-04 09: 05A FRED L_ GLAIZE , LC FRED Co FRUIT OGP.66 3464 PAGE 01' O1 11/02/2004 10:25 5406678532 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Streer, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephoor: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6345 RURAL. AREAS ST'UD'Y What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) Loss of active farmland — Loss of non-firm open space _ New housing Road conditions/toad safety — Traffic Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastrucnrre as a basis for the rural areas study? Yes _ No Please provide any coznmeMs on the Green Infrastructure below_ Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? Yes X No If yes, 'lease write it below. / p Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes X No Please write any comments on this issue below. r jOr � Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Njeetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? , Yes No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 - Rezoning Option Option 2 - By -Right Option 6LJ wl tc v> Option 3 - 10 acre Option _ Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions _ Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or zttach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural ureas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at ww"W.Co.frederick.va.us or can the Department of Planning and Development at (.540) 665-5651. Cornments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 147 North Kent StrtM Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddygco Frederick va.us. Return by Decernbcr 1, 2004 Dn I PAINTER-LEWIS, . E—� CONSULTING ENGINE S r. tel.: (540)662-5792 116 South Stewart S fax.. (540)662-5793 Winchester, VA 22301 " email: office@painterlewis.com 12 NOVEMBER. 200 PLANNING & DEVELOPMEN i z __ Ms. Susan Eddy, Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: RURAL AREAS STUDY Dear Susan: As long as the county allows residential growth, we have to find a way to pay for the associated impacts to the public infrastructure and preserve the rural character of the county. Of the three options presented in the Rural Areas Study flyer, I believe the only option that will provide the county with real solutions to current problems is Option 1 - "Rezoning". I do not favor changing the density currently allowed under the subdivision regulations for the RA zone. I would favor creating a new zoning category to be applied to any subdivision creating more that three lots. The emphasis of the new category would include: 1. maintain the current density rights for land owners; 2. improvement of existing state roads; 3. minimize construction of new public roads; 4. creation of Rural Preservation/cluster subdivisions; 5. putting as much land as possible into private residential lots in order to maintain tax income (that is, rural preservation lots); 6. set voluntary, monetary proffers adequate to fund public infrastructure; 7. preserve primary and secondary cultural resources; 8. presentation of subdivision designs to planning department for review, coordination with other developments, and approval. Increasing the cost to develop residential lots in the rural areas will have the intended consequence of generating more demand in the SWSA. However, lots in the SWSA are increasingly rare. The county should allow the private development community to do the leg work of putting together plans for expanding, and designing in, the SWSA, while maintaining review and approval authority. C. L.A. P.IN ER-LEWIS, P.L.C. .ural Areas Comments -- (1) Questionnaire and (2) Preserve livestock Subject: Rural Areas Comments -- (1) Questionnaire and (2) Preserve livestock Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:20:22 -0600 From: "Painter, James H \(Jim% GVSOU <jhpainter@att.com> To: <seddy@co.frederick.va.us> Frederick County Planning Dept., A. RURAL AREAS STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE * Biggest problem -- Road conditions/road safety * Do you support Green Infrastructure -- Yes. We need to do anything that preserves the rural environment. The alternative is Modern Suburbia with houses just farther apart for "rural". * Preferred residential density -- 1 house/10 acres by right. (But a transition zone is needed between the UDA and Rural Areas. Allow Rezoning Option adjacent to UDA and around the larger Rural Community Centers. Rezoning will be/is a political minefield.) * Rezoning required for residential in Rural Areas -- Not if minimum lot size is large enough. Again, no one will be satisfied with the results of rezoning, even me! * Preferred land development option -- Option 3 - 10 acre option. (Minimum density for TRUE Rural Areas. Otherwise, it's not rural! I even like Rappahannock's 25 acre minimum, but that is radical.) Comment: There needs to be a transition zone around the UDA to allow for growth of the UDA. At some point in the future (20 yrs.?), what are now Rural Areas will become part of the UDA, especially as water and sewer is extended. B. PRESERVE LIVESTOCK IN RURAL AREAS, OR THEY WON'T BE RURAL! We need to preserve Rural Areas, not just turn Frederick County into "large -lot" suburbia. What do I see as Rural? Old farm houses, fields of crops, fenced pastures with livestock, out -buildings (corn cribs are really "neat" looking) and barns. We can't make people build old-style farm houses; we can't make people plant 4 acres of soy beans; we can't make people build corn cribs or barns. But we can PRESERVE their right to fence a pasture and raise a few farm animals. The Brochure notes, "... the county should continue to support agriculture However, private developers are overriding this support by banning livestock in their subdivisions. I was told years ago that only farmers that inherited their land could make a living by farming in Frederick County. You can't possibly purchase land and farm it profitably today, so any new agricultural operations will be by "hobby farmers." Check out www.hobbyfarmsmagazine.com . You know there is a "hot" trend when there is a magazine for it! And one of hobby farmers chief interests is raising a few animals. Suggestion: Do NOT allow developers to ban the keeping of animals in Rural Areas. Obviously; some maximum density of animals must be specified to prevent intensive hog or chicken farming. We want to avoid major problems of manure disposal and odor. But why let the developers ban livestock? This should be a public policy decision, not private. There is no rural preservation without animals! Subdivision regulations restrict many actions by developers and homeowners, such as setbacks and density. Why not have a livestock "density"? "Restrictions on the keeping of livestock and farm animals may not require a density of animals less than 1 horse/1.5 acres, 4 sheep/acre, 4 hogs/acre, 1 cow/acre or 20 chickens/acre or equivalent combinations thereof." There could be a setback for barns or animal sheds. My wife and I now have three sheep. They peep out the white -painted board fence at the front of our 3 acres. "Really cute" for the sight -seers. Our neighbors are talking about getting a small flock of chickens or a few alpacas. My dentist raises a small flock of Shetland sheep. One of his assistants raises chickens for organic eggs. Yes, N HE INE 1111c11MA 1.10 W lural Areas Comments -- (1) Questionnaire and (2) Preserve livestock sheep urine and manure can smell a little, and that is inappropriate in high-density developments. But we -are talking about RURAL areas. Unfortunately, the east side of Apple Pie Ridge Road is deed -restricted to allow only two horses on their 5 -acre lots. With modern, suburban houses sitting in the middle of 5 acres. Normal suburban landscaping applied to 5 acres. Yecccch! You might as well just put the whole county into the Urban Development Zone if this is what we plan to happen. It doesn't change if you reduce the density; you just have houses farther apart with the Modern Suburban Subdivision Look. There is nothing wrong with this if you want to live in modern high-density subdivision, but it is not RURAL. Thank you, Jim Painter 3591 Apple Pie Ridge Road Winchester, VA 22603 (703) 722-9765 07- 1 1 n 9r1)nna 1) -?5 P) Re�A yeas Study Subject: Re: Rural Areas Study Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 11:03:14 -0400 From: "Btc Enterprises, Inc." <btc@btcent.com> To: "Susan Eddy" <Seddy@co.frederick.va.us> Susan: I know the 20 -acre mountain area lot size, I proposed, will not pass anyone else's criteria, but I do believe terrain must be strongly considered in any determination of development and in assessed property value. I would support the 10 -acre minimum for mountain & any other well/septic areas in the County. The well/septic vs. public water/sewer issue, in my opinion, should be the driving force for any consideration of property development. The secondary consideration should, again in my opinion, be the State / County road access to the proposed development (how good are the roads?). And, I strongly believe and agree that development should be tied into the developer's agreement to set aside green space, pay for road improvements, and also must pay the County a "school fee" per lot to help offset the building of new schools needed by residents of that development. The County assessments should thereafter reflect the road maintenance and school costs for a densely populated area at a higher rate than for less densely populated areas. Has the Virginia Department of Forestry been involved in any of these options / plans? I'd be interested in hearing Gerald Crowell's opinion. This has obviously been a monumental undertaking for you and those working with you! I am so impressed. Thank you for listening. Barbara DEC - 1 200410, COUNTY of FREDERICK D artment of Planning and Development FREDERICI QI{ "Ken Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 & L jLANNiNG e ep one: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY Vhat is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space 1-4ew housing _ Traffic Road conditions/road safety _ Other (please specify) irt using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? _ Yes ��` No .ase provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? _ Yes No [f yes, Please write it below. Do,3� - believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? i/ Yes No Please write any comments on this issue below. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? _ Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? — Option 1 – Rezoning Option Option 2 – By -Right Option _ Option 3 –10 acre Option Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddykco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 ural Area Study Comments Subject: Rural Area Study Comments Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:02:31 -0500 From: "Jones, Kelley R., ,CPMS" <kelley.jones@cpms.osd.mil> To: "'seddy@co.frederick.va.us` <seddy@co.frederick.va.us> 1. What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? A: Loss of Active Farmland 2. Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? A: Yes, consideration for the secondary conservation reseources should be strictly enforced by ensuring county planners are properly protecting these resources and not just rubber- stamping approvals. The approvals should be based on actual field site inspections, accurate GIS data, accurate topographic maps, and soil studies. All to often county staffs are u nderfunded and are unable to do the job correctly and it becomes another bureacractic paper pushing scenario. 3. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? A: Yes, One house per every ten acres for newly constructed homes. 4. Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? A: Yes 5. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings? A: No. Other, Rezoning required with one house per 10 acres. A combination of Option 1 and Option 3. Thanks, Kelley Jones Home Information: 110 Jalapa Trail Winchester, VA 22602 540-877-9987 Work Information: Department of Defense Civilian Personnel Management Service Field Advisory Services Division -Labor Relations Branch 1400 Key Boulevard, Suite B200 Arlington, VA 22209-5144 Commercial (703) 696-6301 Ext. 412 Fax (703) 696-4588 Customer Survey - Help us to help you. Link is: http://www.cl2ms.osd.mil/survey/index.asp 1 of l 12!2/2004 10:41 A, COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 .lephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) _ Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space New housing Traffic Road conditions/road safety Other (please specify) c ctt�1-41t l Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? Yes _ No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. R__n Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? Yes _ No If ves. Please write it below. Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes— No Please write any comments on this issue below. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? _ Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 – Rezoning Option _ Option 2 – By -Right Option A Option 3 – 10 acre Option Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions (lthPr 1'11P�JCP �I77'1tP in hPlnm Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddykco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Jephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) _ Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space New housing _ Traffic!s^ _ Road conditions/road safety e Other (please specify) 'S '60A% Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? I Yes _ No Please provide any comments on the 1�reejnfrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? V Yes _ No If ves. Please write it below. _ Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes No Please write ancommeV on this issue below. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? J_ Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 — Rezoning Option Option 2 — By -Right Option Option 3 — 10 acre Option Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddya co.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 ,��if. I.,A.Cir 6d �� ldh�I C E v E D DEC L LCI;4 FREDERICK COUNNT et enmuNC; & DEVEEO COUNTY of FREDERICK JDepartment of Planning and Development -ent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) Loss of active xmland Loss of qon-f�open space New housing ' e-? -�, Traffic_Peek `­ 4 - Road conditions/road safety Other (please specify){ Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? Yes No any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? _t Yes No Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? Yes No Please write any comments on this issue below. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? _ Yes — No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 – Rezoning Option _ Option 2 – By -Right Option Option 3 – 10 acre Option _ Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to sed ykco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 lephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) !ss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space New housing _ Traffic Road conditions/road safety _ Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? 2Yes on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? Ifves. Please write it - (�, s� s z � �-u`Yt,+G n� Do �u believe that a rezoning should be �/ Yes NoPlease waste any A om_ l�f i I . _. a . Y Yes No for lesidential development in thcv rural areas? it,s on this issue below. , , Do you have a preferred land) development option among those described at the F 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? _ Option 1 — Rezoning Option Option 2 — By -Right Option Option 3 — 10 acre Option urrent Zoning Ordinance Provisions C::t/AI er,1� ' lease write in below Im U,ac(2of this v �� Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic*ne bk form or attach an then C sheet of paper. "IVe— For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can -be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddvnco.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 -lad I� Np-� mki�z, T��" N-Al J2,ArwrA`� Ul'G.J 0� YYYIS Gyre, ?,Cl� , (�j cl)I*v TOAs� 146-aj�L �e— em tA cuo� -Tp�-�Lt,{yylPifs t� l �GISS � �� s L%b���'l., � k 7kf Y� r�i aj s, �t& L'bz,,5; o�wL aynr�blA ^ -P�(' �bynks3����i1^2 CO�-n�.Q, Gn'1� _.. �''.'1L�-I„ M �.. , Y�� ,,.Fd..i^ iia, c , COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RURAL AREAS STUDY What is the biggest problem facing the rural areas of Frederick County? (select one) Loss of active farmland _ Loss of non-farm open space New housing _ Traffic _ Road conditions/road safety _ Other (please specify) Do you support using the Green Infrastructure as a basis for the rural areas study? � Yes _ No Please provide any comments on the Green Infrastructure below. Do you have a preferred residential density for the rural areas? X Yes _ No If yes, Please write it below. Do you believe that a rezoning should be required for residential development in the rural areas? _ZYes No Please write any comments ion this issue below. Do you have a preferred land development option among those described at the Fall 2004 Public Meetings and also described in the Rural Areas Study Fall 2004 brochure? >< Yes _ No If yes, what is your preference? `X Option 1 — Rezoning Option Option 2 - By -Right Option Option 3 — 10 acre Option Current Zoning Ordinance Provisions Other, please write in below Please feel free to write extended comments on any topic on the back of this form or attach another sheet of paper. For more information about the Rural Areas Study, visit the Frederick County government web site at www.co.frederick.va.us or call the Department of Planning and Development at (540) 665-5651. Comments can be sent directly to the Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, 22601 or emailed directly to seddyka co.frederick.va.us. Return by December 1, 2004 G) �.rJi" �.i-�-Lz-c� �y-./1:-i1�.�-t�Y G� C�"t-'�.x.�r��.L�v✓'1' CJ �C2�4'��-t- .lJ- C� •z-u�- ; .,Ll./.lvnr� Ly2 l�rzZ�rr... G�.�. /�- ��Q21J�.-�•n— „Lr / - " L%�.-�t��2.,�� �+ Z/'✓'F'i,/c, .�- f w- .L7 w f//�yri/.n .1 2._.2�+ C./ ./Z..IJ`�'Z.«�CX.- LE_�,��✓Ll1_./�--�C-�.i \ ✓ L.1/;'V•�i ./v i�4 n._ J ✓..::�i%l.z�� �2-C� � C�z.�:_ C�✓,TY T1�'lintiz�t-w� r J 7 �- ���. , - \ Notes from Rural Areas Talk to Stephens City Rotary Club Tuesday, November 30, 2004, Western Steer Restaurant, 7:30 AM • Consider the type of land (ex. —limestone v. shale); • Take advantage of proffers; • Consider completing Route 37; • When Loudoun County increased their lot sizes, more people moved from Loudoun to Frederick County; and • Affordable housing is needed. The people who work here can't afford to live here.