CPPC 06-13-05 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
MEMORANDUM
TO: Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS)
FROM: Susan K. Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner SK(5
RE: June Meeting and Agenda
DATE: June 6, 2005
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
The Frederick County Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) will be
meeting on Monday, June 13th, 2005 at 7:30 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
2) Urban Development Area Study
3) 2005 Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment Requests
4) Other
Please contact the department if you are unable to attend 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.
SKE/bad
Attachments
-1-
107 North hent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
ITEM #1
Rural Areas Study
The Board of Supervisors at its meeting on May 11, 2005 reviewed a table of land
development proposals for the Rural Areas. This Board of Supervisor's agenda item is
attached for your benefit. Also attached are the minutes from that May 11th meeting
concerning this item. You have been requested to provide comments on this latest
proposal which can be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
Should the Board of Supervisors desire to adopt these land development proposals, I have
modified the Draft Rural Areas Study (as endorsed by the CPPS on January 4, 2005) to
reflect the latest proposals (see attachement). In order to make review of these changes
easier, I have struck -through text and used a different font for the new text. You will
note that I did borrow some wording from the Ad-hoc Committee's Plan, dated March
21, 2005, when I thought it was appropriate. Your comments on the revised text are
encouraged. Again, all comments will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
-2-
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Board of Supervisors
540/665-5666
540/667-0370 fax
Richard C. Shickle - Chairman
Gary W. Dove - Vice Chairman
Gainesboro District
Gene E. Fisher
Shawnee District
To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors_
From: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman.
Subject: Rural Area Study
Date: May 5, 2005
Lynda J. Tyler
Stonewall District
Bill M. Ewing
Opequon District
Barbara E. Van Osten
Back Creek District
Gina A. Forrester
Red Bud District
On March 23, 2005 the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution directing the Planning
Commission, the CPPS Committee, the Staff and other interested parties to review the
Rural Areas Study Proposal in response to the recommendations made by the Large Land
Owners Ad Hoc Committee and report back to the Board of Supervisors in 30 days. You
have received this report (see attached).
It would be appropriate, at this time, for the Board of Supervisors to give the Planning
Commission some direction. I have taken the liberty of preparing a chart that would give
the Planning Commission such direction. If the Board chooses to endorse this chart, the
next logical step would be for the Planning Commission and staff to study Frederick
County's Ordinances and determine what changes and/or additions would be needed.
This review may well lead to the need for further discussion, the identification of
additional issues and/or the need for additional direction. In other words "the devil is in
the detail".
Where did the chart come from? The chart is my attempt to take the best thinking from
the Large Land Owners Ad Hoc Committee on `By -Right 5 Acre" and "Rural
Preservation" development and add a new "Rural Area Rezoning Option" based upon the
best thinking of the CPPS Committee.
Some will say this direction does not go far enough while others will say that it goes too
far. I believe that it is a good compromise that can achieve by -in and consensus from all
stake holders. This is not the first time nor do I believe it is the last time that the County
will examine these issues.
I am seeking your endorsement of this direction so that the Planning Commission and
Staff can begin a review of our ordinances. Any and all ordinance changes will require a
public hearing.
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601
' COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
if :eA y ✓
TO: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator - 1
�R 0Cz
2
��/`� r1 Frederic
FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director 1 = Adminstratorsrf;�,e
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Resolution — RA Study \ ~i
DATE: March 17, 2005
At the Planning Commission's March 16, 2005 meeting, the Commission unanimously
approved the following resolution, and directed that the resolution be forwarded to the
Board of Supervisors. Thank you.
"The Planning Commission respectfully recommends that the Ad Hoc Committee,
the Planning Commission, the Staff, and other interested parties are given 30 days
to review and groom the Rural Areas Study recommendations which are on the
table and report back to the Board of Supervisors."
ERL/rsa
Upon a motion by Vice -Chairman Dove,:seconded_by Supervisor Van Osten, the
Board approved the Planning Commission's recommendation that the Ad Hoc Committee,
Planning Commission, Staff, and other interested parties be given 30 days to
review and groom the Rural Areas Study recommendations, which are on the table
and report back to the Board.
Approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle Aye Gina A. Forrester Absent
Gary W. Dove Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye
Bill M. Ewing Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye
Gene E. Fisher Aye
107 North Dent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
TO:
CC:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
Kris 'Tierney
Board of Supervisors Assistant County Administrator
Planning Commission
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) fi
Ad -Hoc Committee
` AP
Susan Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner
11I1(lili l Al%kg Draft Policy Review — Update #3
DATE: April 22, 2005
The Planning Commission, CPPS and Ad-hoc Committee have been meeting together for
the last 30 days to discuss rural area proposals. While the group did not develop a new
plan within the timeframe set by the Board of Supervisors, they did reach agreement on
some points and had many comments which I am forwarding to you via this report.
The key points I was asked to convey from the final meeting are listed below:
• The group, with one abstention, opposes a -rezoning:
• The group suggests a blending of the current 5 acre and rural preservation options,
such that the number of "cookie -cutter" five acre lots is limited, (perhaps to 2 lots,
perhaps to 6 lots, perhaps to 10 lots) and after that limit, a rural preservation
scheme is mandatory. This would promote open space.
• The group believes that the minimum lot size under the rural preservation option
should be reduced to 1 acre to promote open space.
Key points of general agreement from earlier meetings include:
• Preservation of open space is critical.
• Smaller lot sizes allow larger required set -asides.
• Communal health systems could be allowed if built to FCSA standards and
dedicated to FCSA.
• Inspection of health systems is advised.
• A new road should continue to be required after two lots have been created on an
existing state road.
• All roads should be built to state road standards.
• All roads should be turned over to the state unless a waiver is given by BOS.
• Any historic review should include only properties already on the State or
National Register.
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Many other comments were raised by individual members at the last meeting and these
are included below:
• Due to a lack of consensus, it may be necessary to keep current ordinances and
make only minor adjustments.
• Some, particularly CPPS members, were disappointed that we haven't been able
to achieve more of the goals.
• A serious look at vesting, particularly as it affects MDPs, must take place.
+ Required fencing was favored by some but considered problematic, especially as
concerns long term maintenance, by others.
• Restricting off-site easements on 5 -acre lots would have a big impact, and would
likely encourage more people to do rural preservation development.
• Many members believed that secondary resources should be voluntarily
preserved.
• One member reminded the group that a rezoning option is the only way to obtain
funding and to get off site road improvements.
• One member questioned communal systems.
• One member wanted phasing reconsidered as a way to slow development.
The combined groups have worked conscientiously and amicably for 30 days and look
forward to the Boards' consideration of their views...
If you have any questions, please contact me at 665-5651.
SKE/dlw : - .
RURAL PRESERVATION DIRECTION CHART
Revised 4/18/2005
Five Acre 100 Acre
Rural 100 Acre
BY -Right Max
Preservation Max
M' 'num Lot Size
5 acres
2 acres
Density
1 in 5 acres 20
1 in 5 acres plus 1
Set Aside 50%
N/A
Yes 21
Set Aside 60%
N/A
N/A
Set Aside 70%
N/A
N/A
Phasing
No
Yes (Negotiated)
Green Infrastructure
Primary
Yes
Yes
Secondary -Voluntary
No
Yes
Public Streets
Without Waiver
Yes
Yes
With Waiver
No
No
Environmental Review
Without Waiver
Yes
Yes
With Waiver (Staff)
No
N/A
Transportation Review
Without Waiver
Yes (3 or more)
Yes (3 or more)
With Waiver (Staff)
No (2 or less)
No (2 or less)
R. .aw of Historic Sites
(formally identified only)
Yes
Yes
Community Water/Sewer
No
No
Off -Site Drainfield
No
Yes
Set Backs (State Roads and
Non -Residential R.A.)
Without Waiver
Yes (3 or more) (b)
Yes (b)
With Waiver (Staff)
No (2 or less)
N/A
Fencing Against Non -Residential
R.A.
(V -Dot Specs)
Yes
Yes
Approvals
Plat/Sketck (Staff)
MDP Process
Proffers No
Allowed within Defined Community Center
Without Waiver No
With Waiver Yes
Fao,.ily Varience Lots (a)
(a) Per State Code and/or Local Ordinance
(b) Requires Existing Set Back Ordinance Adjustments
No
No
Yes
(a)
Rezoning
30,000 sq. ft.
Various
Yes
25% Bonus
50% Bonus
Yes (Negotiated)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
N/A
Yes (All)
N/A
Yes
Optional
Yes
Yes (b)
N/A
Yes
Rezoning &
MDP
Yes
Yes
N/A
(a)
100 Acre
Max.
21
25
30
Richard C. Shickle Aye
Gary W. Dove
Aye
Bill M. Ewing
Aye
Gene E. Fisher
Aye
Gina A. Forrester
Aye
Lynda J. Tyler
Aye
Barbara E. Van Osten
Aye
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE CHAIRMAN RE: RURAL AREAS STUDY -
Chairman Shickle advised that this was his attempt to respond to the report from the Planning
Commission, CPPS Committee, staff, and the Ad Hoc Committee regarding the Rural Areas proposal.
He then reviewed the chart outlining his proposals:
-17-
Five Acre 100 Acre
Rural
100 Acre
100 Acre
By -Right Max
Preservation
Max Rezoning
Max.
Minimum Lot Size
5 acres
2 acres
30,000 sq. ft
Density
1 in 5 acres 20
1 in 5 acres plus 1
Various
Set Aside 50%
N/A
Yes
21 Yes
21
Set Aside 60%
N/A
N/A
25% Bonus
25
Set Aside 70%
N/A
N/A
50% Bonus
30
Phasing
No
Yes (Negotiated)
Yes
(Negotiated)
Green Infrastructure
Primary
Yes
Yes
Yes
Secondary -Voluntary
No
Yes
Yes
Public Streets
Without Waiver
Yes
Yes
Yes
With
No
No
No
Waiver
Environmental Review
Without Waiver
Yes
Yes
Yes
With Waiver (Staff)
No
N/A
N/A
Transportation Review
Without Waiver
Yes (3 or more)
Yes (3 or more)
Yes (All)
-17-
With Waiver (Staff) No (2 or less)
Historic Sites Review
Yes
Community
No
Water/Sewer
Off -Site Drainfield
No
Set Backs (State
Roads and
Non -Residential R.A.)
Without Waiver
Yes (3 or more)
(b)
With Waiver (Staff)
No (2 or less)
Fencing Against Non -
Residential R.A.
(V -Dot Specs)
Yes
Approvals
Plat/Sketch
(Staff)
Proffers No
Allowed within Defined
Community Center
Without Waiver No
With Yes
Waiver
Family Variance Lots (a)
(a) Per State Code
and/or Local Ordinance
(b) Requires Existing Set Back
Ordinance Adjustments
No (2 or less)
Yes
No
Yes
Yes (b)
N/A
Yes
MDP Process
No
No
Yes
(a)
N/A
Yes
Optional
Yes
Yes (b)
N/A
Yes
Rezoning &
MDP
Yes
Yes
N/A
(a)
Chairman Shickle recommended that this proposal be sent forward to the Planning Commission and other
committees for review and for examination and comparison to existing ordinances to see what changes
would need to be made. Once the questions and concerns are addressed then these changes would be sent
forward for public hearing.
Upon a motion by Vice -Chairman Dove, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved
sending this proposal to the Planning Commission for review and study.
Supervisor Tyler asked about the rural preservation set aside bonuses.
Chairman Shickle advised that a landowner could set aside as much land as he/she wanted;
however, there would be no density bonuses greater than 50%.
Supervisor Tyler stated that she did not think the Board should encourage public streets in the rural
areas and asked that this issue be addressed.
Chairman Shickle stated that the Committee could recommend a waiver process.
Supervisor Van Osten stated that she believed 30,000 square foot lots were only appropriate in
the rural community centers and not for the entire RA area. She also believed that any type of communal
system should be a dedicated system. She concluded bythanking the Chairman for his work on this issue.
Supervisor Dove thanked all of the citizens who were involved through the Rural Areas study
process.
Deputy Planning Director Michael Ruddy advised that the Comprehensive Plan would need to be
amended along with the Zoning Ordinance, should these changes be adopted.
Senior Planner Susan Eddy stated that this would be a two step process because it would be easier
for the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee to write ordinance amendments ifthey have
a plan in front of them.
Assistant Administrator Tierney stated that staffcould work with the committees and provide the
Board with feedback regarding the Comprehensive Plan update and Zoning Ordinance amendments.
Supervisor Forrester asked what separates the Urban Development Amendment from the Rural
Areas, is it water and sewer? She asked what would keep the UDA restraints in effect? She stated that
-19-
she would like to see public water and sewer and small lots limited to the rural community center.
There being no further discussion, the Board approved the motion to send this proposal to the
Planning Commission by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle
Aye
Gary W. Dove
Aye
Bill M. Ewing
Aye
Gene E. Fisher
Aye
Gina A. Forrester
Aye
Lynda J. Tyler
Aye
Barbara E. Van Osten Aye
COMMITTEE REPORTS
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE - APPROVED
The Public Works Committee met on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 at 8:00 a.m. All members were
present except Bob Wells and Jim Wilson.
The following items were discussed:
***Items Requiring Action***
1. Revised Guidelines for the Shawneeland Sanitary District (SSD) Advisory Committee -
APPROVED
Mr. George Ludwig presented revised guidelines for the selection and function of the SSD
Advisory Committee. These guidelines had been prepared by an ad hoc committee consisting of George
Ludwig, Bob Hartman, George Higgenbotham, Back Creek Magisterial District Supervisor Barbara Van
Osten, and staffinember Dave Burleson. After reviewing the proposed document and suggesting a few
minor changes, the committee unanimously recommendedthat therevised guidelines be forwarded to the
board of supervisors for their review and approval. (Attachment 1)
Upon amotion by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Van Osten, the Board approved the
Revised Guidelines for the Shawneeland Sanitary District (SSD) Advisory Committee. The above motion
was approved by the following recorded vote:
-20-
Rural Areas Study
Draft Plan —June 6, 2005
I)lttl VY -- 6 (j I)-5
Table of Contents
Introduction
Background
Goals
Green Infrastructure
Introduction
Designing the Frederick County Green Infrastructure Network
Implementing the Frederick County Green Infrastructure Network
Expanding the Frederick County Green Infrastructure Network
Green Infrastructure Policies
Land Development
Introduction
Density
Phasing
Process
Conservation Design Subdivisions
Family Division Lots
Buffers
Health Systems
Roads
Other Rural Residential Development
Conservation Easements
Land Development Policies
Rural Economy
Introduction
Rural Economy and the Green Infrastructure
Agriculture
Forestry
Existing Agricultural and Forestal Programs
New Agricultural and Forestal Tools
Land Stewardship
Rural Diversification
Equine Industry
Rural Tourism and Active Recreation
Tuscarora Trail
Other Industrial and Mining Activities
Rural Economy Policies
Rural Community Centers
Background
Rural Areas Study
Rural Community Center Policies
-2-
D RA FT — 6'610-4
Introduction
The rural areas of Frederick County are valued by residents, business owners, employees
and visitors pr4fnar-il for their rural character. With a rich inventory of natural, heritage,
and agricultural resources, the rural areas have historically defined the physical and
cultural landscape of Frederick County and remain a keystone of the County's identity.
Preservation of the rural character is the overall goal of this rural areas plan.
Background
The rural areas of Frederick County consist of all land located outside of the County's
designated Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area
(SWSA). The rural areas comprise the majority of Frederick County's land area and
consist of several distinct communities that are home to half of the County's population.
Frederick County has been experienced steady overall growth since the 1970's. The
rural areas annually capture approximately 30% of all new residential units built in the
County, with the remaining 70% developing within the UDA. Just in the last year
(2004) this statistic has altered so that the rural areas are capturing 40%
of the new residential development with the remaining 60% in the UDA.
Some of this trend can be identified as the recent upsurge in new
residential construction in the R5 (Residential Recreational Community)
Districts, such as Shawneeland and the Summit, which are also
considered a part of the rural areas. VAide the p ,,t4ien of housing u nits i the
mFal areas has not ehanged� The aet" number of new residential lots has risen
dramatically, from 137 lots created in the RA (Rural Areas) District in 1999 to 292 lots
created in 2004. Much of this growth can be attributed to a thriving economy in Northern
Virginia and in the Winchester/Frederick County area itself.
Accompanying the growth in residential development since the 1970's has been a decline
in agriculture in the County, particularly in the apple industry. Together the decline in
agriculture and the increase in residential dwellings have led to a loss of open space, a
much valued feature of the rural landscape.
Recognition of these trends prompted concern with the impact of new development on
rural resources, community services, and the long-standing rural character of Frederick
County. In response to such interest, the County conducted a rural areas study in from
2003 and 2004 through 2005.
The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) of the Planning
Commission was tasked with undertaking the rural areas study. Public participation was
the foundation of the rural areas study process. A variety of formats were used to obtain
the input of stakeholders and the general public throughout the process, this included
visioning and issue identification meetings, a resident's survey, stakeholder presentations,
and general information meetings. In addition a group of large rural landowners
SM
DRAFT — 6i6,1)i;
developed an alternate rural areas plan and then worked with the
Planning Commission to refine common proposals.
The rural areas study was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in (date) of 2005 and now
forms part of the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Goals
The overall goal for the rural areas is to preserve the rural character.
This is an imprecise goal, but aspects of rural character have been defined and further
goals to clarify the overall goal have been articulated and received wide community
support. The goals of the rural areas plan will be to:
• Preserve open space.
• Protect natural resources.
• Protect historic, features.
• Encourage agriculture and forestry.
• Encourage a diverse rural economy that is compatible with the rural
character.
• Minimize the amount of land used for residential development.
• Minimize the impact of development.
• Direct residential development to the Urban Development Area (UDA).
• Maintain and enhance the Rural Community Centers.
Preserve open space
Many of the concerns raised during the development of the rural areas study centered on
the loss of open space. The County loses its rural character as it loses its open space.
Specific strategies have been formulated in this plan to preserve open space. These
include increasing the open space
set-aside parcels in rural preservation subdivisions, giving incentives,
through a rezoning option, for even larger open space set -asides, and
encouraging conservation easements
Protect natural resources
SM
Another key feature of the rural character is the natural resources of the County. This
includes waterways, wetlands and mountains. This plan plaees at its e0fe emphasizes
the Green Infrastructure, the network of interconnected natural resources. All planning in
the rural areas should be based on the Green Infrastructure. The County will
encourage developers to take into account natural features not currently
protected by current ordinances, such as prime agricultural soils and woodlands, shoul
now betaken into uvvVuYt when new deVe1 V1111LJ C1la l�lVCand work with the
Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District to encourage effective
planning of these resources.
Protect historic, features
Frederick County contains a wealth of historic, afeheolog ^^' and etiltufal features, few of
which are currently protected by ordinances and regulations. This plan encourages
the County to investigate placing additional properties on the Virginia
Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places, so they
too can be protected. This Plan includes historic, ar-eheologieal and tthufa'
fees- properties within the framework of the Green Infrastructure and states that
they should be taken into account when new developments are designed.
Encourage agriculture and forestry
Agriculture and forestry are the activities most associated with the rural areas. While the
agriculture industry in particular is undergoing changes, the County should continue to
support these activities through the continuation of its agricultural and forestal districts
and its land use taxation program. The County should fufthe actively encourage
agriculture and forestry in the open space set -asides of rural residential
subdivisions. thuoµgh the le:, .....le .t that all r-esid. *' ' developments �
11L1U1 UV V �1VrJ1111J11LJ rJCVVZQe-\JI )Gill
sp most e€�Ari wu- be used — -.-�«�za� The County should also work
with other agencies and commissions to actively promote agriculture and forestry.
Encourage a diverse rural economy that is compatible with the rural character
The County recognizes that changes in the agricultural industry make it impossible
difficult for some farmers to continue with their current occupations. In order to
encourage land owners to stay on their land and to offer a viable alternate to subdividing
and selling land, the County should encourage rural diversification. The chief strategy
for implementing this goal should be to review current ordinances to enable a range of
uses, such as equestrian activities, specialty farming ventures (i.e. nursery
production, small fruit and vegetable production, alternative livestock
production, etc.) and tourist accommodation, in the rural areas.
Minimize the amount of land used for residential development
Large residential subdivisions are not in keeping with the rural landscape. However, the
County has sought to maintain current densities to protect the interest of landowners. In
-5-
DRAFT — 6i6l05
order to maintain current densities while preserving the rural character, the County
should increase the required amount of open space in ,.osteal rural preservation
subdivisions and ler-ease a the fnipimumot . The County should further introduce
a rezoning option for residential subdivisions which would have a
significantly larger open space requirement and smaller lots sizes. adOpta
phasing plan that limits the number- of new lots tha4 ean be er-ea4ed in a given time period.
Minimize the impact of development
Mueh Some development in the rural areas is not in keeping with the character of the
rural landscape. This includes the physical and visual impacts of development as well as
the impact on the County itself to provide facilities and services for this development.
The County should seek quality development appropriate to a rural area and should
pursue the means for mitigating fiscal and physical impacts. To that end the County
should introduce an option to rezone property in the rural area to a new
rural residential district.
Direct residential development to the Urban Development Area (UDA)
The UDA is the appropriate location for urban and suburban development. Through its
designation of the UDA boundary, the County commits itself to providing services for
this type of development including utilities, improved roads and other urban facilities.
i the .,,fa area" Sewer and water lines should not be extended into the rural areas for
residential development. Furthermore, large suburban denser subdivisions should
only be allowed in the rural areas through a rezoning process and they should be required
to mitigate all impacts as in the UDA.
Maintain and enhance the Rural Community Centers.
The Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies eleven Rural Community Centers. A detailed
study of each rural community center should be undertaken to examine in greater detail
development patterns and trends and to formulate polices for their development. In the
interim, small-scale commercial development should be allowed. The residential density
in the rural community centers should remain the same as the rest of the Rural Area
District, with a rezoning option, if this is appropriate to the character of the
Dural Community Center.
-6-
DRAFT — 616/05
Green Infrastructure
Introduction
The f .,,,.,o<. efk a md whieh the An important feature of the Rural Areas Plan is
based -is the concept of Green Infrastructure. Green Infrastructure is the County's natural
life support system - an interconnected network of land and water that supports native
species, maintains natural ecological processes, sustains air and water resources and
contributes to the health and quality of life for this community and its people. Green
Infrastructure encompasses farmland, streambeds, woodlands, parks and scenic views.
The Green Infrastructure includes those features which enrich the quality of life and are
necessary for the protection of clean air, water, and natural resources, and will serve as
the central organizing concept for future land use in the rural areas.
The Green Infrastructure concept identifies critical areas for conservation, establishes
priorities for protection, and recommends tactics for implementation. It focuses on
ecologically important resource areas (woodlands, high quality wildlife habitat), highly
productive working landscapes (farmland and forestland) and critical areas for the
protection of aquatic resources (wetlands, riparian corridors, floodplains). It can also
include culturally important resources such as historic buildings and battlefields, which
while not part of the Green Network, are valued by the community and contribute to the
overall character of the area.
The Green Infrastructure concept has been endorsed by Frederick County for its rural
areas. General Green Infrastructure concepts were evaluated and modified locally as part
of the County's Rural Area Study in order to reflect this community's values, future
vision, and local interests.
Designing the Frederick County Green Infrastructure Network
In order to design the Frederick County Green Infrastructure Network, desired network
attributes were identified and data gathered on their spatial arrangements.
Firstly, all land features protected by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance were
considered. These included:
• floodplains;
• lakes and ponds;
• wetlands, natural waterways and riparian buffers;
• sinkholes;
• natural stormwater retention areas; and
• steep slopes.
These areas warrant the highest level of protection, and are inherent! generally
unbuildable land unfit for development. These areas are the Primary Conservation
Resources of the Frederick County Green Infrastructure Network.
1WR
!) !. V f - 6/6/05
Secondly, other landscape features were evaluated for possible inclusion in the Green
Infrastructure Network. These were based on input from the public and stakeholders that
was received through the Rural Areas Study process. Suggested features worthy of
consideration in the development process include:
• Woodlands;
• Prime agricultural soil;
• Agricultural and forestal districts;
• Meadows;
• Orchards;
• Ridgelines;
• Scenic viewsheds (when defined)-,
• Unusual geologic formations;
• Existing corridor screening;
• Land under conservation easements;
• Parks; and
• Trails.
Land resources such as these should be classified as Secondary Conservation Resources
of the Frederick County Green Infrastructure Network.
Thirdly, historic features were evaluated for possible inclusion in the Green Infrastructure
Network. These ,A,e-a-lso based on input fr-ofn the p b ie atakeholde-.�
--A-d thfough 1he Rural Afeas Study process. Suggested features wofthy o
consideration in development pf!oeess include. Historic Properties listed in the
Rural Landmarks Survey Report, Frederick County, Virginia, and Civil War
Battlefields and Sites (as defined by the National Parks Service
Shenandoah Valley Civil War Sites Study), should be classified as
Secondary Resources.
Secondary conservation resources will not have the same level of protection as primary
resources. However, their presence on a site will should be a consideration in designing
any new developments. Land owners and developers should be r ed to work • it
V U1
Gel Ay ers to ins fe that will be encouraged to protect secondary conservation
resources, but this will be done on a voluntary basis. afe pfesefv whenevef possible.
An exception to this will be the historic features designated as secondary
-8-
1) R A_l T -- 6,'(i %i i
resources. These should be taken into consideration by land owners and
developers.
Implementing the Frederick County Green Infrastructure Network
Based on the elements of the Green Infrastructure accepted by this community, the
network was mapped. The Green Infrastructure Map shows the known Frederick County
Green Infrastructure. While this map illustrates a community -wide inventory, it will be
superseded enhanced by more detailed analyses provided with individual applications.
It should be a requirement of all applications for development in the rural areas to
identify and map primary conservation resources and eaftsen,ation
designated historic resources. Applicants should also be required to consider the
primary and sem designated historic resources of surrounding properties.
Land owners and developers will be encouraged to identify and map
secondary conservation resources, but this will be done on a voluntary
basis. Land owners and developers will be
encouraged to work with County planners at an early stage, before costly engineering
studies have been undertaken, to determine which portion of a site is best
suited for development. The common goal will be to steer development away from
both primary and secondary conservation resources, to maximize an efficient use of the
property
Over time, as detailed plans showing the primary and secondary resources are submitted
with applications, County planners will be able to build a vefy more detailed map of the
County's Green Infrastructure.
Development will be is prohibited in Primary Conservation Areas. This is , efisiste
with by current ordinances. Property owners will continue to get credit towards a site's
overall residential density for primary conservation areas, even though they will not be
building in those areas.
The County will require encourage eansefvatieii Elesi rural preservation
subdivisions, instead of traditional five -acre lot subdivisions, for all new
residential development in the rural areas.
ifessid—eflAial Elevelopmef4 in which t4e major-ity of the land is protected from delvelopffielfit.
0
34 of the
sited In rural preservation subdivisions, the County will require lando aler-r to
place Both primary a -d Seco daf-) conservation features wig- to be placed in the set-
aside parcel and will encourage the placement of secondary conservation
features in the set-aside parcel.
Land owners and developers should have their subdivision plans reviewed
by the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District. This review will
focus on the plan's conservation of primary resources and the secondary
resources identified by the applicant. The District will offer technical
-9-
DR A FT - 616i 1}5
advice to mitigate any negative impacts of development. Applicants will
not be required to accept the Soil and Water Conservation District's
advice, and developers of traditional five acre lots may have this review
requirement waived by the Planning Department.
Expanding the Frederick County Green Infrastructure Network
The Frederick County Green Infrastructure will contract and expand as development
occurs. Some of the Green Infrastructure, such as farmland, will be lost as houses are
built. However, some conservation features of ea& sites will be saved due to the
preservation of 6"' 50% or greater of each site ental y enhanced of
the cot aside par- parent tract.
The County should adopt other strategies for expanding the Green Infrastructure. This
could includes increasing land for parks and trails, both public and private. This could
also includes encouraging conservation easements (see the section on land development).
The County shcould also consider expanding the Green Infrastructure Network to cover
the whole County, including the Urban Development Area (UDA) and shcould
encourage the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission to extend the Green
Infrastructure Network throughout the region.
1) It AFT — 6,16/05
Green Infrastructure Policies
Goal - Preserve the rural character
Goal - Preserve open space
Goal - Protect natural resources
Goal - Protect historic, archeological and eultu features
Strategy 1 — Adopt the Green Infrastructure concept as the framework for maintaining the
character of the rural areas and for protecting the natural environment.
Strategy 2 — Prohibit development in Primary Conservation Areas.
Strategy 3 — Guide develap+nepA away ffem Encourage the protection of Secondary
Conservation features.
Strategy 4 — Promote a linked network of protected green space.
Implementation Measures:
1. Map the primary conservation resources and update as new information is made
available.
Define ; or -Elia neer the f +
v. uViiiaV all Vi u111a.a�livVy µ1V UV VV11l1LL1,' VV11JV
3. Map the known secondary conservation resources.
4. Develop a program to identify and map additional information on secondary
conservation resources.
5. Condiiet a visual landscape study of the nir-al afeas te deter -mine signifieal+t seenie
areas-
6. Review and develop ordinances to promote the Green Infrastructure Network.
7. Review and develop ordinances to prohibit development in the primary
conservation areas.
8. Review and develop ordinances to establish a consistent definition of steep slopes.
9. Require detailed information and a map sui-,�e of the primary and seeefldafy
conservation resources with all developments which require a rezoning, master
development plan, subdivision design plan, site plan, or preliminary sketch plan.
10. Require information and a map of the designated historic resources
with all developments which require a rezoning, master
development plan, subdivision design plan, site plan, or preliminary
sketch plan.
M
OR x I 1, w(1/0_5
11. Encourage information and a map of the secondary conservation
resources with all developments which require a rezoning, master
development plan, subdivision design plan or a site plan.
12. Require a consideration of the primary and spy conservation resources and
designated historic resources of the surrounding area with all
developments which require a rezoning, master development plan, subdivision
design plan, site plan, or preliminary sketch plan.
13. Encourage rural preservation subdivisions.
14. Promote the protection of the Green Infrastructure (both especially primary aPA
seeondar-y resources) as the highest priority in designating the set-aside portion of
conservation design subdivisions.
15. Encourage linked envir-opmefAally enhance set-aside parcels.
16. Set up an environmental review process of rural subdivisions by the
Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District.
17. Promote the use of conservation easements and the purchase of development
rights to enlarge the Green Infrastructure Network.
18. Seek to expand the Green Infrastructure Network.
19. Establish a trail system linked to the Green Infrastructure Network.
20. Survey County owned land to identify land to be included in the Green
Infrastructure network.
21. Commit the County to designating appropriate future County owned land for
inclusion in the Green Infrastructure network.
22. Consider expanding the Green Infrastructure Network to cover the whole County,
including the Urban Development Area (UDA).
23. Encourage the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission to extend the
Green Infrastructure Network throughout the region.
-12
DRAVI' - 6/6105
Land Development
Introduction
Residential land development in the rural areas of Frederick County has been sporadic,
randomly located and market-driven for many years. The prized landscape of the rural
areas has been slashed altered by a succession of free standing large lot residential
subdivisions.
In recent years, the number of residential lots created has risen dramatically. allhouo
The proportion of new rural lots, to overall county lots, has wed steady
increased to approximately 300 almost 40%.
New Lots Created
Year
# of RP lots created
# of RA lots created
RA lots - % total lots
created
1999
310
137
31%
2000
311
235
43%
2001
571
206
27%
2002
536
226
30%
2003
456
226
33%
2004
507
292
37%
TOTAL
2,691
1,322
33%
The majority of lots created in the rural areas are scattered throughout the County. In
2003 2004 for example, 2-26 292 rural lots were created in the RA District. 6.9 110
were created in rural preservation lots, where the houses are clustered and 40% of the site
remains in a set-aside parcel. X22 lots were created in a major subdivision, a subdivision
with four or more traditional five acre lots. The vast majority, 1-5-3160 lots, were created
in minor subdivisions, which include subdivisions resulting in three or fewer traditional
five acre lots, family division lots or agricultural lots. The result is that most new
residential development is strung out along existing state roads in an unplanned fashion.
Residential development in the rural areas has been by -right and new developments have
not mitigated their impacts either physically or fiscally. The County has had no control
over the timing of this development. The burden has fallen to the County residents in
general to supply the roads, schools, fire and rescue services etc that are needed to
support the new housing, whenever and wherever it is constructed.
One clear goal of the rural areas study undertaken in from 2003 and 2004 through
2005 was to establish a system to better manage the residential growth in the rural areas.
Five guiding principles endorsed by the Board of Supervisors in May of 2004 shape the
land development policies of the rural areas. These are:
• Gross density to average one dwelling per five acres:
• Maximize conserved open space;
• Preference to cluster new dwellings to conserve rural resources;
-13-
DRf1FY - 6/610-5
Rezoning process for rural areas to address physical and fiscal impacts and costs;
and
• Protect and support agriculture via policies and programs.
__ - .. .. .. . . _. -
' . . I
Density
The residential density for land in the Rural Areas District (RA) should in general
remain at one dwelling per five acres. Density bonuses should be given only in the
case of a rezoning, where the impacts of development are mitigated.
im,esfigar pr-e31tevefnellts Or- the
The density bonus, possibly as much as 50%
of the total number of units, would be given based on standards and criteria to be
set out in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, provided the County could cope with
the impacts of the increased density.
MINJIMMM
MIEFF45FROH"M 'I"
By -right Subdivisions Fr-eeess
Two options for by -right rural subdivisions will remain in the RA District —
five acre traditional lots and rural preservation subdivisions, which allow
for lots as small as two acres and have a mandatory open space set-aside
parcel. In order to foster the goal of increasing open space in the rural
areas, the open space set-aside parcel in rural preservation subdivisions
-14-
IlN-AFT — 6/6/05
should be increased to a minimum of 50%. An additional development
right will continue to be allowed for the open space set-aside parcel as a
bonus to encourage this type of development.
Land owners wishing to subdivide, by -right, rural aee-e lots would only be
required to submit a sketch plan. '
Ll11V YY GLIIVV VS 10 lots 1„ o .
A land owner seeking to develop 4ffee o- more rural preservation lots would be
allowed and encouraged to submit a master development plan (MDP).
These rural MDPs would be somewhat similar to a master development plan in the
Urban Development Area (UDA). The plan would show the primary and seeandafy
conservation features, designated historic properties, secondary
conservation features as chosen by the applicant, the location of roads, buffers
setbacks, and the general location of houses. A key feature to be shown on the Rural
MDPs would be the location of drainfields and well sites. This would insure that the
lots could meet health department requirements. While phasing of the houses
would be shown, this would be general phasing and would not commit either the property
owner or the County to construction of particular houses in designated years. Land
owners would be r-equifed encouraged to master plan contiguous parcels in common
ownership. The main advantage of a rural MDP for a landowner would be to
vest the plan.
Rezoning Option
Land owners seeking to subdivide to allow more than the by -right allowance of 10 lots
in 5 yerg one dwelling per five acres, would need to secure a rezoning from the RA
District to a new Rural Residential District. This would require approval from the
County Board of Supervisors. Rural preservation style development, not five
acre lots, would be mandatory. It is envisioned that a density bonus of
25% could be granted if a set-aside parcel of at least 60% of the site were
established. It is further envisioned that a density bonus of 50% could be
granted if a set-aside parcel of at least 70% of the site were established.
In order to accommodate these large set-aside parcels, the minimum lot
size in the new Zoning District should be reduced to 30,000 square feet.
All requests for rezonings to the new district would require the submission of a rural
master development plan and a report analyzing the impacts of the rezoning. Successful
rezonings would be required to mitigate the identified impacts. Rezonings would only be
granted in cases where the impacts of the development, including the impact on roads and
capital facilities, such as schools, were mitigated. it is likely Rezonings would also
include a voluntary phasing plan.
In general, rezonings would be allowed in the appropriate rural
community centers and near to major roads that could cope with the
increased volume of traffic. Criteria for the new Rural Residential District,
DRAFT- 6!61,05
including the appropriate locations and design standards, would be
established in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
Nol W-11001,11011 MEN
moll
1 I
111101. �-
PI
MIN
Set-aside Parcels
-16-
DRAFT _ 616/0-5
It is proposed that uses compatible with a rural setting and not incompatible with rural
residential development be encouraged in the set-aside parcels of eonservution sign
rural preservation subdivisions. These would likely include some types of
agriculture, forestry, passive and active recreation and equestrian activities. The County
will actively encourage such uses. These uses help to maintain the rural character and
will provide affordable land for future farms. Each set-aside parcel will have one
additional residential development right, as described above f om within the
ever -all -density of one dwelling per 5 acres. In many circumstances it will be an original
house on the set-aside parcel. It is not intended that homeowner associations will own
the set-aside parcels. This will be possible though, as some uses, such as an equestrian
establishment, might lend themselves to a homeowners association.
Family Divisions Lots
Family division lots should continue to be allowed by -right as per state and local
ordinances. €exp to two new lots. 4waiver- shouldTequired—fer- the third of
subsequent lots. Family division lots should eontintie to eatint towards a pafent traet's
over-all density. in keeping with the new proposal fof! time felease subdivisions, the
fveofding of family lots will eottnt towards a parent tr-aet's by right al1e,1A,anee of 10 lots
in any 5 year- period. The Zoning Otdinance will also be fevielxed to fequiFe aw-Ber-ship
f r ., sot pefiod of tifne to disc.,,,, age abuse of the family . iyisio let-,.
rsrsr .
W-1 min
Setbacks
Setbacks should continue to be required as per the existing ordinance
along state roads. The Planning Department could be allowed to waive
this setback requirement for less than two new houses. Existing setbacks
against agricultural land and orchards should be maintained. Setbacks
against other non-residential RA uses should be investigated further.
Health Systems
As stated in the introduction, residential growth in this County is targeted to the Urban
Development Area (UDA), where public water and sewer are provided. No water and
sewer lines are proposed for residential development in the rural areas. hle
^' �,ea4 tow, � ' the ' Therefore, r� a}l Health systems
.J ..................,... ���rcrrr�Zcr�pi-op e Se�rcnv-itirizrr-c crccr� . �vr�
tntis
t should be accommodated on individual lots, although easements to nearby lots
will be allowed for rural preservation lots. Five -acre traditional lots will be
required to accommodate their own health systems and wells on-site.
Alternative systems acceptable to the Virginia Department of Health will continue to
be acceptable to Frederick County, pfovided that they are of eommunal.
-17-
URA "l' — 6/6105
In order to provide a solution for drainfields that may fail in the future, it is
recommended that the amount of land for a reserve drainfield should be increased from
the current 50% to 100%. It is also recommended that increased inspection of
health systems be investigated.
Communal water and sewer facilities may be allowed with rezonings. In
all cases these systems should be built to Frederick County Sanitation
Authority standards and should be dedicated to the Frederick County
Sanitation Authority. In the rural community centers, communal water
and sewer facilities should include capacity to accommodate existing
residences in the center.
Roads
A4—Rural subdivision should have public roads that meet County and Virginia
Department of Transportation standards and requirements. Up to two new lots will be
allowed on an existing state road or on a private road. Construction of a third house
would trigger the requirement for a state road. This state road requirement could
be waived by the Board of Supervisors, but the road would still need to be
constructed to state standards.
Curb and gutter wi44 should not be required with rural residential subdivisions.
Sidewalks and streetlights wi44 should not be required with rural residential
subdivisions. Underground utilities will should be required in eaiisefvalian design
the new Rural Residential District.
Fencing
Fencing against non-residential development would be required in new RA
and RR subdivisions. This would be fencing that meets Virginia
Department of Transportation Standards.
Other Rural Residential Development
Not all land outside of the UDA and SWSA is zoned RA. Four sites in the rural area are
zoned R5 - Residential Recreational Community District (Lake Holiday, Shawnee -Land,
Wilde Acres and Shenandoah). All but Shenandoah have some development, but all four
have the potential for further house construction. The R5 communities were developed
with an emphasis on recreational and open space uses. All were required to provide
environmental protection. While these developments serve a unique demand in the
housing market, they effectively allow dense subdivisions in the rural area, contrary to
the goals of this plan. No further R5 developments are encouraged.
Also within the rural area are six sites zoned MHl - Mobile Home Community District.
These small sites are near Gore, Albin, Bethel Grange, Double Tollgate, Armel, and
Middletown. While these sites serve a niche in the market, and provide affordable
housing, they effectively allow dense residential development in the rural area, contrary
to the goals of this plan. No further mobile home communities are eneaufaged likely in
the foreseeable future.
Conservation Easements
A recurrent theme in the public participation phase of the rural area study is the wish of
many rural landowners not to develop their land. Often they want to keep a working
farm or preserve a family's property to pass down to future generations. However, due to
the changing agricultural economy and personal circumstances, landowners often need to
get value out of their land. In order to preserve rural character and discourage further
subdivision, the County will encourage landowners to enter into conservation easements
to protect rural land.
A conservation easement is a simple legal agreement between a landowner and a
government agency or a non-profit conservation organization that places permanent
limits on the future development of the property in order to protect the conservation value
of the land. The easement may also specifically protect natural, scenic or historic
features of the property. Conservation easements, while typically donated, can also be
purchased by a government agency or a non-profit conservation organization where
funding is available.
There are currently 10 conservation easements in Frederick County. Nine are held by the
Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF), a state agency established by the Virginia General
Assembly to hold easements in public trust. These include:
SITE
Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation
Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation
Chapin, William A.
Civil War Preservation Trust
Fort Collier Civil War Center, Inc.
Kernstown Battlefield Association
Kernstown Battlefield Association, Inc.
National Trust for Historic Preservation
Wells, Harry W. & Mary Louisa Pollard
ACREAGE
RECORDED
15
06/29/01
135
06/29/01
143
09/13/02
222
11/09/00
10
09/13/02
62
08/28/03
108
03/28/03
183
10/29/02
1,019
11/04/98
At present there is also one riparian easement in Frederick County. A riparian easement
permanently restricts uses along a stream to those consistent with protecting water
quality. 19.8 acres of land along .91 miles of Brush Creek are protected by a riparian
easement. The Brush Creek easement is held by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the
Valley Conservation Council.
The voluntary donation of a conservation easement is an excellent method of open space,
natural resource and heritage protection. The landowner who donates a conservation
easement permanently protects the land, while retaining ownership and enjoyment of the
property. There is no public access to conservation easement properties. In many cases
the donation of a conservation easement provides substantial federal, state and local tax
advantages and estate planning benefits to the landowner. The public benefits through
the protection of important natural and cultural resources and scenic vistas. In addition
-19-
1) RA F T -- 6i6/05
local taxpayers will never have to pay for the expensive public services, such as schools,
roads, police, etc. that a new residential development would have demanded.
Due to the many benefits of conservation easements, the County should commit itself to
the establishment of a Conservation Easement Authofity Program. This allthOfi
would have the powe enable the County to accept voluntary conservation easements
and wise- to purchase conservation easements should funding become available.
W-011
DRAFT — 616/05
Land Development Policies
Goal - Preserve open space
Goal — Protect natural resources
Goal — Protect historic, archeologieal and eultu features
Goal — Minimize the amount of land used for residential development
Goal - Minimize the impact of development
Goal — Direct residential development to the Urban Development Area (UDA)
Strategy 1 Base land development regulations on the Green Infrastructure concept
Strategy — Requife that. Encourage new developments to be carefully designed
around a site's conservation features
Strategy — Require Encourage conse •a*ief rural preservation subdivisions. design
Strategy 4 - Establish a Rural Residential District designed to preserve
greater open space areas.
Strategy — Require Arte subdivisions that developments granted through a
rezoning process te-mitigate their physical and fiscal impacts
Strateay 7 — Promote the use of conservation easements
Implementation Measures:
1. Require information and a sufvey map of primary and seeefidary conservation
features and designated historic features with all developments which
require a rezoning, master development plan, subdivision design plan, site plan,
or sketch plan.
-21-
DRAFT— 616/05
2. Requir-e-Encourage a consideration of the secondary conservation features of
thes„ri.o„n,l;ng aro with all developments which require a rezoning, master
development plan, subdivision design plan, or site plan, of sketch plan
3. Req-use—consefvation: designsubdivisions. Encourage rural preservation
subdivisions.
4. Continue to prohibit development on primary conservation features.
5. Review ordinances to establish a consistent definition of steep slopes.
6. Promote the protection of the &een T„f.,stfuetufe (bet primary conservation
and seeendafy resources) as the highest priority in designating the set-aside
portion of consefva en design rural preservation subdivisions.
7. Establish a 6vOX e on*^lb haneed minimum 50% set aside parcel in
rural preservation subdivisions.
v. a_vUtiava. AAwV KV . ViVp111V11L an L11V JV
t aside par -eel unless the set aside is bfeught
into the T T, -b n Development A Fe (UDA) ) t L i i, t i 1.
�...... ...... v 1 vK11 i........,r..11...1L � u vK `v 1r1 iT
Sought.
9. R-equir-e Allow one extra development right (from theover-all density of 1 ni
per -5 -yes} to remain with each open space set-aside parcel.
10. Encourage farming and forestry in the set-aside parcel of rural preservation
eensefvafien design subdivisions.
11. Allow uses in the set-aside parcel of cense f..,,t_on design rural preservation
subdivisions that are compatible with the sites need for protection and with the
maintenance its rural character.
12. Rest-Fiet by right r-esidenlW develepmepA in the Rtffa4 Areas Dist-Fiet (" to 10
lets ,, eate ; five year- if n l
1 tf� .
13. Establish a new Rural Residential Zoning District to encourage the preservation
of large tracts of open space. fox lafge subdivisions (the that a the b �*
(these
K11V v. K11Vv of iv lots 111 any ✓ year- LIlI1V
14. Allow a higher density in the new Rural Residential Zoning
District
15. Allow lot sizes as small as 30,000 square feet in the new Rural
Residential Zoning District
16. Establish standards for the new Rural Residential Zoning District to insure that
development is in an appropriate location and mitigates its physical and
fiscal impacts and costs.
17. Require a sketch plan for up to two new RA subdivisions.
18. Require Establish a rural areas master development plan, that would be
voluntary, that would provide vesting for the property owner fel'
subdivisions larger- than two lots.
19. Encourage master development plans that cover all contiguous parcels within a
single ownership.
vn. Develop st LnKuMs and efito,;, f -difig v sident4a density bonuses.
vi. increase road VV1111V« b L1f11 sTaand ne note 1 l
22. Re-examine setbacks between residential RA development
and non-residential RA development.
23. Allow oft -site drainfield easements only for rural preservation
subdivisions.
-22-
DRAFT.'— 6/6/0-5
24. Ivestigate the increased inspection of health systems.
25. Require a 100% reserve drainfield.
26. Allow communal water and sewer facilities with a rezoning.
27 17equi f Offee family division1 �
v • i �v�uaa v ..•. • • ua . vi iVi Biu V V va laiviV new 11411/11 �' 1ViJ.
20. Require Thai all new roads in the rural areas be public roads, unless a
waiver is granted.
29. Require fencing against non-residential development in new
RA and RR subdivisions.
30. Establish a Conservation Easement AtAhofit Program.
-23-
DRAFT ti,`i /0-5
Rural Economy
Introduction
The rural economy of Frederick County plays a significant role in the life and livelihood
of its inhabitants. The rural areas are not a mere scenic backdrop for the urban areas, but
are a source of jobs and livelihood worth preserving. The rural economy generates a net
revenue for the County. The taxes paid by clew deasit3,, an agricultural economy
exceed the cost of services provided. A thriving rural economy is a critical component of
the future vision for the rural areas.
Rural Economy and the Green Infrastructure
The vast majority of the land in the rural areas is in agricultural or forestry use.
Agriculture and forestry have a greater role than a purely economic one. Agriculture
provides much more than food. Forests provide much more than timber. These lands also
supply preduetsNk4th little yet • alu but have great cultural and environmental
importance, that inel ,, ing and provide open space, wildlife habitats, clean air and
water, flood control, groundwater recharge, scenic views and cultural heritage. Farms
and forests give Frederick County its rural character.
Agricultural and forest land account for the majority of the county's Green Infrastructure.
The farms and forests are the largest pieces of land which hold together the county's
natural ecosystem. Protection of the County's rural economy — especially through
preservation of farms and forests achieves conservation of the County's Green
Infrastructure and its rural character.
Agriculture
Agriculture has historically served as the foundation of Frederick County's rural
economy. In particular, Frederick County is associated with the apple industry and its
various support services. mer Agricultural activities occur on both a large and
small scale in the rural areas, with open land devoted not only to orchards, but also to hay
production, cattle grazing, and crop cultivation. The central role of agriculture to the
rural economy translated into the land use patterns that shaped the rural landscape
traditionally associated with Frederick County.
The County contains large areas of prime agricultural soil. The 1982 Soil Survey of
Frederick County prepared by the Soil Conservation Service of the US Department of
Agriculture classified all soils and designated some as prime farmland. The largest
concentration of prime agricultural soil is in a band approximately five miles wide,
running north to south, west of Interstate 81 (see map).
Over the past 20 years the agriculture industry has undergone great change. This change
has been driven by many factors, not the least of which is an increasingly competitive
-24-
1)R.- FT — 6/6/0-5
global market. In Frederick County, this period of transition has been accompanied by a
decline in large scale farming operations, as well as diminishing farm profits.
The table below shows general farm characteristics for Frederick County. Overall both
the number of farms and the number of acres in farmland have increased since 1987.
However, these figures should be treated cautiously as the Census of Agriculture's
definition of a farm changed in 1997 and the census methodology changed in 2002.
Many small farms have since been included. Inclusion of these small farms is also a
factor in lowering the average size of a local farm, identified as 156 acres in 2002.
Farm Characteristics
Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002
A further breakdown of farm sizes is contained in the table below. This shows the clear
increase in number of small farms, especially those under 50 acres and the decrease in
large farms of 500 - 999 acres.
Number of Farms by Farm Size
Farm Characteristics
Farm Size
Year
1987
1992
1997
2002
Change
from 1987-
2002
Percent
Change
1987 -
2002
Number of Farms
555
536
568
720
165
30%
Farmland (Acres)
111,116
98,142
99,926
112,675
1,559
1%
Avg. Farm Size (Acres)
200
183
178
156
-44
-22%
Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002
A further breakdown of farm sizes is contained in the table below. This shows the clear
increase in number of small farms, especially those under 50 acres and the decrease in
large farms of 500 - 999 acres.
Number of Farms by Farm Size
Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002
Frederick County has long been associated with the apple industry and its various support
services. However, all indicators point to a significant decline in apple growing locally.
The number of acres in apple trees has declined 13% in the last 15 years (see table
below), with the largest decline occurring in the last five years. Further, the amount of
apples produced has fallen from 162,586,000 pounds in 1987 to 111,452,000 pounds in
-25-
Number of Farms by
Farm Size
Year
1987
1992
1997
2002
Change from
1987-2002
Percent
Change
1987-2002
1 - 9 Acres
28
31
30
51
23
82%
10 — 49 Acres
141
147
146
231
90
64%
50 - 179 Acres
198
202
227
260
62
31%
180 - 499 Acres
137
106
120
138
1
<1%
500 - 999 Acres
40
37
35
28
-12
-30%
1000 + Acres
11
13
10
12
1
9%
Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002
Frederick County has long been associated with the apple industry and its various support
services. However, all indicators point to a significant decline in apple growing locally.
The number of acres in apple trees has declined 13% in the last 15 years (see table
below), with the largest decline occurring in the last five years. Further, the amount of
apples produced has fallen from 162,586,000 pounds in 1987 to 111,452,000 pounds in
-25-
D RAFT — 6/6,105
2002, a decline of 31 %. Despite this decline, Frederick County retains its position as the
number one apple producing county in Virginia.
Frederick County also leads the state in peach production. However, the number of acres
of peach orchards declined from 777 acres in 1987 to 414 acres in 2002, a decline of
47%.
Characteristics of Agriculture
Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002, Virginia Agricultural
Statistics Service
Countering the decline in acreage for orchards has been the increase in land in forage,
principally hay. The number of acres of forage grew by 38% between 1987 and 2002.
The dry tonnage of forage produced increased by a similar percentage. Nursery and
green house sales have also risen dramatically in the last five years, but they remain a
small part of the county's agricultural sector.
Employment in agriculture also eopAinues to has been decreasinge. The 1990 U.S.
Census listed 663 workers in farming, forestry and fisheries occupations. In 2000, 378
people were working in farming, forestry and fisheries occupations. These numbers do
not include those employed in farm related occupations such as food processing and
sales. Employment in agriculture is likely to drop further as the average age of a Virginia
farmer is now 56.7 years.
The decline of the local orchard industry and diminished profits in agriculture overall
suggest that the agricultural industry in Frederick County is in a significant period of
transition. While the county should continue to promote and protect agriculture,
alternative markets and alternative crops must be explored. In addition commercial
alternatives to agriculture must be examined for those unable to continue with traditional
farming.
-26-
Characteristics
of A riculture Products
Year
1987
1992
1997
2002
Change from
1987-2002
Percent Change
1987-2002
Cattle and Calves (Units)
17,799
19,078
18,234
20,113
2,314
13%
Corn (Acres)
2,762
2,644
3,053
3,254
492
18%
Forage (Acres)
18,458
20,030
19,665
25,530
7,072
38%
Orchards Acres
9,459
9,743
9,670
7,902
-1557
-16%
Apple Orchards
(Acres)
8,602
9,068
9,017
7,442
-1160
-13%
Peach Orchards
(Acres)
Apple Production
(1000 Pounds)
777
162,586
615
150,985
607
112,354
414
111,452
-363
-47%
51,134
-31%
Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002, Virginia Agricultural
Statistics Service
Countering the decline in acreage for orchards has been the increase in land in forage,
principally hay. The number of acres of forage grew by 38% between 1987 and 2002.
The dry tonnage of forage produced increased by a similar percentage. Nursery and
green house sales have also risen dramatically in the last five years, but they remain a
small part of the county's agricultural sector.
Employment in agriculture also eopAinues to has been decreasinge. The 1990 U.S.
Census listed 663 workers in farming, forestry and fisheries occupations. In 2000, 378
people were working in farming, forestry and fisheries occupations. These numbers do
not include those employed in farm related occupations such as food processing and
sales. Employment in agriculture is likely to drop further as the average age of a Virginia
farmer is now 56.7 years.
The decline of the local orchard industry and diminished profits in agriculture overall
suggest that the agricultural industry in Frederick County is in a significant period of
transition. While the county should continue to promote and protect agriculture,
alternative markets and alternative crops must be explored. In addition commercial
alternatives to agriculture must be examined for those unable to continue with traditional
farming.
-26-
1)It,1tF" 1' — 6/6/05
Forestry
Forest land accounts for approximately 56% of the total land in Frederick County. The
latest estimate (2001 Virginia Forest Survey) of forest land for the County is 151,543
acres. This is a 17% increase from the 1992 figure of 129,262 acres. The vast majority
of forest land in the County is in private ownership. The George Washington National
Forest accounts for 4,431 acres of the County's forest land.
The dominant forest type in the County is Oak -hickory (75% of all acreage) with some
Oak -pine as well (19%). Frederick County's average annual timber harvest value
between 1986 and 2001 was $458,853. This places the county 81St among the 98
counties in Virginia. Despite its vast forests, Frederick County is not a major force in the
Virginia timber industry.
While detailed information for Frederick County is not available, throughout Virginia
there is an increasing parcelization of forested land. Small parcels and proximity to
houses make commercial forest management more difficult.
With the advent of the Forest Stewardship Program in 1978, private landowners have
been encouraged to develop a written management plan. These plans are comprehensive,
multi -resource management plans that can cover timber, wildlife habitat, watershed
protection and recreational opportunities. Throughout the state of Virginia only 17
percent of private forest -land owners have a written management plan. These are
generally owners of large (500+ acres) forests.
Much more could be done in Frederick County to both encourage comprehensive forest
management and increase timber yields.
Existing Agricultural and Forestal Programs
Frederick County has long been supportive of agriculture and forestry and actively
encourages and promotes these uses. Two key programs are described below.
1. Agricultural and Forestal Districts
Agricultural and forestal districts are rural areas reserved for the production of
agricultural products and timber. A district constitutes a voluntary agreement between
landowners and the County that no new, non-agricultural uses will take place in the
district. However, an agricultural and forestal district is not a zoning district.
From the landowner's point of view, the district provides 1) strength in numbers with
neighboring farmers; 2) land use taxation; 3) protection from nuisance suits 4)
assurance that the district will be taken into account in local planning decisions, such
as rezonings; and 5) protection in most cases from government acquisition of land or
special assessments for public utilities.
-27-
DR -AFT — 6/6/05
Landowners agree not to subdivide their land to a more intensive non-agricultural use
during the term of the district. The County agrees to shield the district from
development pressure.
There are three two agricultural and forestal districts in Frederick County — South
Frederick (11,259) aand Double Church (see map' (1,5 12 aes) and Re fiig
Chufeh (472 aefes) All thfee Ehst iets afe upr-enewa4 in 2005. Participation in
the districts has declined significantly since 2000. Agricultural and forestal
districts currently do not offer enough incentives for many participants to continue.
Further benefits could encourage greater and more prolonged participation.
2. Land Use Tax Deferral
Frederick County has adopted a land use tax deferral program. Taxpayers owning
and operating qualifying agricultural, horticultural and forestry uses are eligible for a
special annual deferment of real estate taxes on the property. The land is assessed at
its value for agriculture, horticultural or forestry, instead of at its full fair market
value, which is generally higher. This ensures that owners of farms, orchards, and
forests do not find it necessary to sell their land because they can not pay real estate
taxes based upon market rate assessments. When property is removed from land use,
due to a change in use, roll -back taxes are applied for the current and preceding five
(5) years plus interest.
New Agricultural and Forestal Tools
In addition to continuing its existing programs, the County should promote additional
tools for protecting farmland. These will also benefit forest lands.
1. Gensen,atienjDesifm Rural Subdivision Set -Asides
The eensefvafien design rural preservation subdivisions detailed in the section on
land development require that 6"0 50% of the land in these subdivisions be set aside
fef eefise fv as open space. Even greater set -asides will result with
rezonings. This open space set-aside will be promoted for agricultural or forestry
use compatible with the adjacent residential properties. The exclusion of such uses in
the deeds and covenants recorded with approved rural subdivisions should be
discouraged.
2. Conservation Easements/Purchase of Development Rights
A conservation easement is a legal agreement between a landowner and a government
agency or a non-profit conservation organization that places permanent limits on the
future development of the property in order to protect the conservation value of the
land. Grantors generally retain the right to use their land for farming or similar
purposes. They continue to hold title to their property and may restrict public access
-28-
1)Rt\17 6l6i0
and sell their property. A more detailed description of easements in contained in the
section on land development.
In the past landowners in Frederick County have had to look elsewhere for
organizations willing to hold conservation easements or purchase development rights.
It is a proposal of this plan to establish a Frederick County Conservation Easement
Autheri Program to enable the County to hold voluntary easements and to
purchase development rights.
Land Stewardship
Agricultural and forestry uses provide many benefits to the natural environment including
flood control and groundwater recharge. However, some practices, such as draining
wetlands or farming highly erodable land, can have negative impacts on the environment.
The County will encourage environmentally sound farm and forest management
practices.
Financial or "cost share" assistance is available to private landowners for many
management activities. Most federal programs are administered by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), Farm Services Agency (FSA), and Soil &
Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs). Major programs include the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP).
The primary goal of these programs is to preserve wetlands and water quality, prevent
soil erosion, and improve wildlife habitat through the adoption of Best Management
Practices and conversion of sensitive agricultural lands to streamside or riparian buffers.
State programs are administered by the Virginia Department of Forestry (DOF) and
include the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP) and Reforestation of Timberlands
(RT). The primary goal of both programs is the reforestation of harvested lands. In 2002
the Virginia General Assembly enacted a Riparian Buffer Tax Credit which provides tax
credits for owners of timberlands which abut a waterway.
The County will work with the Virginia Extension Service to promote good stewardship
and conservation practices of all rural land and to publicize programs and funds to aid
land conservation.
Rural Diversification
Despite the County's best efforts to protect and promote agriculture, the health of the
agriculture industry is largely dependent on factors well beyond the control of the
County. These factors include foreign competition, availability of labor, government
regulations, fuel prices and interest rates. In light of the changing face of agriculture, the
County will complement its continued support of agriculture and forestry with greater
opportunities for diversification.
-29-
1M _k l= T - 6IW05
Economic activity which is compatible with agriculture will be encouraged and promoted
in the rural areas. Any activity must be compatible in terms of scale, use and intensity
with the rural environment. Activities such as small hotels and 'horse stable can play a
valuable role in providing a balanced rural economy. Land based tourism and recreation
particularly lend themselves to the rural environment, but their very success is contingent
on the maintenance of the rural character. However, rural diversification should ideally
complement agriculture and should not be allowed to prejudice agricultural activities.
The County commits itself to the creation of a Rural Economy Task Force to further
study economic diversification. This task force will draw members from the local farm
community, local businesses, the Winchester Frederick County Economic Development
Commission and the Chamber of Commerce. The task force will examine in greater
detail the existing rural economy and explore alternatives to insure a vibrant rural
economy.
One task force undertaking should be to provide input to the Planning Commission in a
review of ordinances to enable rural diversification. The County will encourage, not
impede, appropriate economic development. Such appropriate development may be
allowed by -right or with a conditional use permit, subject to meeting performance
standards including traffic capacity limits, employee limits and site design standards.
The County should make the rural economy a significant focus of the Winchester
Frederick County Economic Development Commission.
Equine Industry
Virginia is the 5th largest equine state in the U.S. The equine industry is Virginia is
centered in the Northern Region, which includes Frederick County, but is largely based in
Loudoun and Fauquier Counties. To date Frederick County has not been a major force in
the equine industry.
Trail riding and pleasure are the largest equine uses in Virginia. Breeding,
competition/shows and racing are far behind. With the strength and growth of the equine
industry in the northern region of Virginia and the dominance of small, recreational
facilities, Frederick County could take on a greater role in the Virginia equine industry.
A first step is to review current ordinances to allow additional equine related activities in
the rural areas.
Rural Tourism and Active Recreation
Tourism is a growing industry in Virginia, expanding more than 47% from 1994 through
2002. According to the Virginia Tourism Corporation (VTC), tourism is the third largest
employer in Virginia behind business services and health services. Frederick County's
share of the Virginia tourism industry is small but growing. The VTC estimates that
travel employment in Frederick County grew from 520 in 1993 to 778 in 2001 and that
travel spending in the County grew from $31,690,000 in 1993 to $52,142,570.
-30-
While it is not possible to separate the rural tourism figures from the County figures, it is
possible to conclude that with the continued growth in the tourism industry, there is scope
for additional tourism related development in the rural areas. Some forms of tourism
particularly lend themselves to rural areas. These include scenic drives, hiking, wildlife
observation, equestrian activities, mountain biking, camps and bed and breakfast
accommodation, to name just a few.
The County could take a stronger lead in promoting tourism and recreation activities in
the rural areas. A first step is to review current ordinances to allow additional tourism
related activities in the rural areas.
The local tourism industry is strongly ham linked to the County's rich historic
and cultural resources. The County should continue its protection of these resources and
investigate placing further properties on the state and national registers
of historic places. designate them as seeendary-coere=ation fesour-ses withinthe
fiamework of the—Gfeeii ln4astfuetufe. In particular the County should continue to
promote and preserve its Civil War Battlefields (see chapter on History). The County
should also work with the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission in
developing its Walking and Wheeling program that links communities and historic,
recreational, and scenic areas via roads and trails.
Tuscarora Trail
The Tuscarora Trail is a 249 mile hiking trail situated generally along the
mountain ranges to the west of the Shenandoah and Cumberland Valley.
It connects to the Appalachian Trail in Shenandoah National Park and in
Pennsylvania northeast of Carlisle.
Approximately 26 miles of the Tuscarora Trail is in Frederick County (see
map). Of this total, approximately 11.25 trail miles are protected by
easements on private property, 3.75 trail miles are on unprotected private
property and 11 trail miles are on public roads.
This trail is an important feature in the county for recreation and for the
promotion of tourism. For safety reasons, the County supports the
relocation of the trail off of the public roads wherever possible. The
County supports voluntary trail easements for sections of the trail on
private property to insure the long-term viability of the Tuscarora Trail and
also encourages conservation easements that protect viewsheds from the
Tuscarora Trail.
Other Industrial and Mining Activities
There are some industrial and mineral extraction sites in the rural areas unrelated to
agriculture or forestry. These sites include the many quarries, Bluestone Industrial Park
and isolated industrial sites. In keeping with the guiding pfinciple of this l plan to
pr_omote agficultur-e and f ,-estry andm iie—epen space, e major- —changes —are
-31-
DRAFT- 0/6/045
pF-epesed. Isolated requests for new industrial sites will likely not be
supported. The County may however, in the future, designate additional
locations for industrial uses as part of a comprehensive planning effort.
Under such a scenario, existing rural areas land might be planned for
industrial development.
-32-
DR.Al='T — 6)16/05
Economy Policies
Goal: Encourage agriculture and forestry
Goal: Encourage a diverse rural economy that is compatible with the rural
character
Goal: Minimize the impact of development
Strategy 1 — Protect agricultural land and promote the local agricultural industry
Strategy 2 — Protect forest land and promote healthy, sustainable forest resources.
Strategy 3 — Allow economic activities compatible with a rural setting.
Strategy — Encourage good stewardship and conservation practices on all rural land.
Strategy 5 — Promote the use of conservation easements.
Implementation Methods:
1. Review ordinances to enable the full a greater range of agricultural and forestry
related activities in the rural areas.
2. Allow and encourage agricultural and forestry uses within the eonse . atio„ aro set
aside portion of conserwation design rural subdivisions.
3. Designate prime agr-ictiltur-al soil and woodlands as secondary conservation resources.
4. Engage the Winchester Frederick County Economic Development Commission and
the Winchester Frederick County Chamber of Commerce to proactively promote
agriculture as an important element of the local economy. Specifically, these
organizations should coordinate community education initiatives and industry and
market research, as well as strategic marketing and small business development in
support of local agriculturalists.
5. Encourage the expansion of existing agricultural and forestal districts and the creation
of additional districts.
6. Protect land located within agricultural and forestal districts from encroachment by
suburban and urban land uses. Discourage expansion of the Urban Development
Area (UDA) to include land adjacent to an existing agricultural and forestal district.
7. Investigate and adopt measures to increase the value of joining and remaining in an
agricultural and forestal district, such as priority treatment in any future purchase of
conservation easement/development rights program and enhanced tax benefits and/or
relief.
8. Work with the Virginia Tech Agricultural Research Center in Frederick County to
develop relationships and programs that benefit the local agricultural community,
W19s
DRAt" — 636/05
9. Work with the Virginia Horse Industry Board to promote the development of the
equine industry in Frederick County.
10. Retain land use taxation.
11. Establish a Rural Economy Task Force to further study economic diversification.
12. Review ordinances to allow appropriate cominercial, industrial, employment and
institutional uses in the Rural Area to diversify the rural economy.
13. Coordinate with the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission to establish a
Walking and Wheeling program that links communities and historic, recreational, and
scenic areas via roads and rails.
14. encourage voluntary trail easements for properties along the
Tuscarora Trail, and also encourage conservation easements that
protect viewsheds from the Tuscarora Trail.
15. Establish a Conservation Easement "" Program and investigate funding
sources for a Purchase of Development Rights Program.
16. Promote forest management plans.
17. Promote state and federal programs that provide financial and technical assistance for
the conservation of natural resources and the encouragement of wildlife habitats.
18. Work with the Virginia Extension Service to promote good stewardship and
conservation practices of all rural land.
-34-
)lti;il ! _ 6i6/05
Rural Community Centers
Background
Rural community centers are small activity nodes or small centers of residential
development in the rural areas of Frederick County. They are settlements that preceded
the steady residential growth in the rural areas that began in the 1970's. Some have
historical buildings and historical connections.
The 1976 Frederick County Comprehensive Plan designated a number of population
centers as "Development Areas". The 1982 Comprehensive Plan refined these into Rural
Community Centers. 13 Rural Community Centers, including the towns of Stephens City
and Middletown, were designated, and the 1982 Plan recommended detailed studies of
each center to take account of unique characteristics.
From 1984 to 1985 a study of the Rural Community Centers, which included a series of
public meetings, took place. Among the issues studied at that time were residential
development, commercial development, housing density, mobile homes and public
services, particularly the provision of public water and sewer. The 1984/85 study led to
the formulation of rural community centers policies in the 1989 Comprehensive Plan. 11
Rural Community Centers were identified in the 1989 Plan.
The current Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies these same eleven Rural Community
Centers. They are shown on the map below. These are:
Gore Reynolds Store
Gainsboro Round Hill
Armel Shawneeland/North Mountain
Star Tannery Whitacre/Cross Junction
Albin Clearbrook/Brucetown
Stephenson
Five Rural Community Centers (Gore, Gainsboro, Clearbrook/Brucetown, Stephenson
and Round Hill) have identified boundaries on the Current Land Use Map in the
Comprehensive Policy Plan. The other six are identified only by circles on the map. To
date a detailed plan has been prepared only for the Round Hill Community Center. It
now forms part of the adopted Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Rural Areas Study
The rural areas study in 2003-2004 examined the development patterns and roles of the
eleven rural community centers. The rural community centers have very different sizes
and functions. It is recommended that a detailed study of each rural community center be
undertaken to examine in greater detail development patterns and trends and to formulate
polices for development. The studies should examine both land uses and design issues.
Particular attention should be given to historic buildings and structures as these often give
the centers much of their character. Health systems will also need to be examined in
detail. The studies and any resulting policies should be developed with the close
cooperation of the residents of those centers.
IRS --2
p'
These studies may take years to complete and an interim set of general policies for all of
the rural community centers needed to be developed. The general policies were based on
an assessment of each center (see below). Commercial development that is of a use,
scale and intensity that is consistent with the rest of the center will be encouraged.
Until detailed studies are completed, residential density wi4l should in general remain
the same as the rest of the Rural Areas (RA) District. However, because the rural
community centers have established population centers, five acre lots
and rural preservation lots should not be allowed in these centers without
a waiver from the Board of Supervisors. Instead, rezonings should be
encouraged in those rural community centers as detailed below.
Rezonings allow for smaller lots, which are often consistent with those
found in the rural community centers. In addition, rezonings allow for
communal water and sewer systems which could be of great benefit to
existing residents in these centers.
Reynolds Store, Shawneeland/North Mountain and Whitacre/Cross Junction function as
commercial nodes. Each serves a large, dispersed catchment area. It is proposed that
these rural community centers remain very small commercial nodes. Some new
commercial development, particularly development that serves the needs of the
catchment area, such as a retail store or a restaurant, would be appropriate. It is
recommended that boundaries be designated in the detailed studies to remove any doubt
that commercial development is appropriate only in a small area. Additional residential
development is not proposed for these three areas.
Star Tannery is a small crossroads serving a catchment population in the far southwest
corner of the County. It is proposed that Star Tannery remain a small commercial node
with some increase in commercial uses to serve the surrounding population. Star
Tannery will likely come under further development pressure in the future as the Corridor
H (Route 55) widening takes place in West Virginia. Residential development in this
rural community center is very low density and no intensification of residential
development, through a rezoning, is proposed.
Albin is primarily a residential community with commercial nodes at the north and south
entrances. Additional commercial development to serve the surrounding population
could be accommodated in Albin. A detailed study of Albin would determine whether
commercial development should be confined to the two existing commercial areas or be
interspersed throughout the Albin rural community center. The study should also
recommend boundaries for the center and examine residential densities.
Armel is also a residential enclave with a small commercial node. Additional
commercial establishments could be accommodated in this area to serve the local
population. The nearby Shenandoah Community may, when developed, generate a larger
market for commercial uses in Armel. The remainder of the rural community center is
residential. The Eastgate Industrial Park is located near the Armel rural community
-36-
DRA JF — 6f6/05
center. However, it does not function as part of the center and should not be included
within the center boundaries. A detailed study of Armel should designate center
boundaries, identify appropriate areas for modest commercial development, and examine
in detail residential density.
Gore is one of the oldest settlements in Frederick County. It is now largely a residential
community but contains some non-residential uses. Additional commercial
establishments could be accommodated in this area to serve the local population. A
detailed study of Gore should re-examine the center's boundaries and identify areas for
appropriate commercial development and denser residential development.
Gainsboro is a rural community center with a dispersed population. It is largely
residential, but with a less dense pattern of development than some of the other rural
community centers. Gainsboro has a small cluster of non-residential uses. Additional
commercial establishments could be accommodated in this area to serve the local
population. A detailed study of Gainsboro should re-examine the center's boundaries
and identify areas for appropriate commercial development and possibly denser
residential development.
Clearbrook/Brucetown is within the area covered by the Northeast Land Use Plan.
Clearbrook/Brucetown has a variety of commercial and residential components. The
Clearbrook area, along route 11 is included in the Sewer and Water Services Area
(SWSA) and contains many commercial and industrial facilities along with residences.
The Brucetown area is a more traditional rural center with a few commercial facilities
and a clustering of older residences. A detailed study of Clearbrook/Brucetown should
re-examine the center's boundaries and identify areas for appropriate commercial
development, which might actually be different for the two areas. It should also explore
residential densities in greater detail.
Stephenson is a rural community center in transition. A significant portion of the rural
community center is now part of the Urban Development Area (UDA). This allows for
connection to county sewer and water lines. Most of the rural community center is within
the Sewer and Water Services Area (SWSA). Sewer and water service is available to
commercial and industrial sites and existing houses within the SWSA. The rezoning of
Stephenson Village from the RA District to the R4 (Residential Planned Community)
District will greatly impact the Stephenson rural community center. Due to the many
changes affecting the Stephenson area, a detailed study of this rural community center is
vital. Prior to a detailed study of the Stephenson rural community center, the interim
policies for all rural community centers will be relevant.
A detailed study of the Round Hill rural community center was adopted in 1996 and is
included within this rural areas plan. Due to recent changes in the Round Hill area
however, a new study of Round Hill may be necessary in the future.
The goals, strategies and policies in this section will apply to all rural community centers,
with the exception of Round Hill which already has a detailed plan.
-37-
I)WkFT - 6/6/05
Rural Community Center Policies
The Rural Community Center policies apply to all centers except Round Hill, which
already has a detailed plan incorporated into the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Goal: Maintain and enhance the Rural Community Centers.
Strategy -I Encourage commercial development in the Rural Community Centers that
is of a use, scale and intensity that is consistent with the rest of the center.
Strategy 2 Prevent the Rural Community Centers from becoming high growth areas.
Strategy -2 Allow residential development at the same density as with the rest of the
Rural Areas (RA) District.
Strategy 3 Allow educational and governmental uses that are of a suitable use, scale
and intensity.
Strategy 4 Prepare detailed studies of each rural community center
Implementation Measures:
1. Allow commercial development that serves the local area and is compatible in
use, scale and character to the rural community center.
2. Requir-e fesideRtial development to meet the RA District r-esiden4W standar-ds.
3. Allow five acre traditional lots and rura! preservation subdivisions
only with a waiver from the Board of Supervisors.
4. Encourage rezonings in the rural community centers.
5. Encourage the clustered houses associated with any rezoning to be
located near existing residences.
6. Encourage rezonings to provide communal water and sewer
facilities that benefit the wider rural community center.
7. Consider educational and governmental uses on a case by case basis
8. Prepare a detailed study for each rural community center
9. Secure the cooperation of local residents in developing policies for each center
10. Establish design guidelines for each center
11. Promote the retention and re -use of historic structures
12. Develop boundaries for centers that are currently only noted by a circle on the
land use map
13. Review those center boundaries already delineated on the land use map
14. Consider overlay districts to guide development in individual centers
-38-
DRAFT — 6/6/05
15. Consider ordinance changes to allow a higher residential density
16. Consider ordinance changes to promote small scale commercial development
Wit
ITEM #2
Urban Development Area Study
Agenda item to be forwarded separately.
-3-
ITEM #3
2005 Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment Requests
The deadline for Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment (CPPA) requests was June 1,
2005. 11 requests were received. A table and map of the requests are attached. It is
anticipated that a joint work session of the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission
and CPPS will take place in July to discuss these requests.
-4-
2005 Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments (CPPA) Applications
Summary of Requests
CPPA
Number
Name of Request
Type of Request
Parcel(s)
Acreage*
#01-05
JORDAN SPRINGS
UDA Expansion
(Mixed Use)
44-A-294, 44 -A -294A
75-A-94
135
#02-05
CROSSPOINTE
UDA Expansion
(Residential)
52.10
#03-05
HUNTSBERRY ESTATE
UDA Expansion
(Residential)
55 -A -3,55-A-4
240
#04-05
LEONARD PROPERTY
UDA Expansion
(Residential)
75-A-112, 75-A-113
57.3
#05-05
MORELAND LANE
UDA Expansion
(Mixed Use)
43 -A -75,44-A-1, 44-A-3, 44 -A -3B
130
#06-05
ARCADIA — RT. 277
UDA Expansion
(Mixed Use)
86-A-156, 86-A-171, 86-A-177,
86-A-178, 86 -A -178A, 87-A-1
169.33
#07-05
ARCADIA — RT. 50 EAST
UDA Expansion
(Mixed Use)
65-A-116
59.09
408-05
BLACKBURN LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP
UDA Expansion
(Planned Unit Development)
62-A-80, 63 -A -80I
234.19
#09-05
BOWMAN -SHOEMAKER
UDA Expansion
(Mixed Use)
86 -A -78,86 -A -79,86-A-80,
86-A-81
79.41
#10-05
MADISON FARMS
UDA Expansion
(Residential)
87-A-15
44-A-138
149
#11-05
SUMMIT POINT
UDA Expansion
(Residential)
19.6
o- r--• ---- -r .,.,.,.y — ... y_u 1r1c upp1i uiiun. cimmare amenament may involve additional acreage to ensure contiguity of boundaries.
05.05
all ..
• 4C r'
I �
0 05
i-.
• `. 03-05 E
i �•
08-05 CPPAs 2005
JDA
i
•ti 1 SWSA
0 .0k j Roads Network
-J,
J Primary Roads
^/ Secondary Roads
Tertiary Roads
VVinc Roads
Frederick_County
OZ -05 Towns
J
Comprehensive
04-05 �' Policy Plan
Amendment
Requests
Ofi-05 2005
DRAFT
i
�k !
iti_1 09-05
-,,q9 10-05
/W.
! Created by F .silk C—ty
4 6.6 0.3 0 06 1.2 1 8 2A Planning OepaNmeM
Miles June2
Over the past several months the UDA Working Group has been working to establish an
approach to the study of the County's Urban Development Area. The efforts of the group
have focused around two key areas. Firstly, the development of goals for the UDA Study
that portray the guiding principles or philosophies envisioned for the study. Secondly, the
solicitation and involvement of key stakeholder groups in the initial stages of the study.
The group engaged several key stakeholder groups in an effort to fully understand the
concerns of these groups, what impact development patterns within the UDA would have
on these groups, and potential approaches that could be incorporated into the UDA Study
to address the needs of these groups. This report is provided in summary of the efforts of
the UDA Working Group and an identification of important issues to be addressed in the
study. This report also serves as a basis for future direction.
Goals for the UDA Study.
• Promote a balance of housing opportunities to address lifestyle, size, cost, and
availability.
• Adopt a philosophy of development that concentrates on creating neighborhoods which
incorporate residential, retail, educational, and public uses, commercial services,
opportunity for employment, and institutional and recreational resources.
• Provide for a comprehensive transportation system that enhances local and regional
connectivity and incorporates all types and modes of transportation.
• Achieve a business development strategy that seeks to provide appropriate locations for
commercial and industrial opportunities and seeks to achieve a balanced ratio between
the residential and commercial/industrial growth of 60 percent residential to 40 percent
commercial/industrial (60/40) within the UDA/SWSA.
• Provide adequate areas for regional, community, and neighborhood parks and ensure
broad access to a variety of recreational opportunities.
• Identify criteria and principles to guide future modifications of the UDA/SWSA.
• Develop principles that address the future land needs of the school system, guide the
location of school facilities, and promote collaboration.
• Develop a water and sewer facilities plan that is designed to facilitate the County's
UDA/SWSA land use planning efforts.
• Identify and sustain green infrastructure and protect the County's environmental systems
and resources by preserving green space and open space linkages and connectivity.
• Establish a creative system of rewarding innovative residential and commercial
development practices in the UDA that further the vision of the UDA and the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Endorsed by the CPPS on April 11, 2005 (modified UDA Working Group 06/07/05)
Stakeholder Group Summaries.
Frederick Countv Sanitation Authori
The FCSA is currently embarking on a study of the long range wastewater facility needs
of the community and an update to the water and sewer facilities plan.
A significant impact from evolving nutrient reduction regulations is anticipated. Nutrient
Cap allocations and TMDL's (Total Maximum Daily Loads) regulations promulgated by
the State will have an impact on development within the UDA.
Planning efforts should be cognizant of State regulations and limits proposed for the
Parkins Mill and Opequon wastewater facilities and the future Crooked Run facility.
The opportunity exists to coordinate the planning efforts of the FCSA/FWSA and the
UDA Study to ensure a valid land use plan that respects the limitations and opportunities
of the water and sewer resources available to Frederick County.
Frederick County Parks and Recreation.
Update of community parks and recreation needs assessment based upon recognized
standards.
Evaluation of current park policies pertaining to the type and location of new facilities.
Greater emphasis on joint use of facilities for a variety of entities and uses.
Increased focus on community scale parks approximately 30 - 50 acres in size.
Limited life -span of Clearbrook Park. A need exists to anticipate the need for an
additional regional park within the UDA.
Greater emphasis on the provision of pocket and neighborhood parks by the development
community in conjunction with new development projects.
Connectivity — of trails, parks, and community uses.
Industrial Parks Association.
Available labor force, or lack thereof.
Affordable housing, or lack thereof.
Inventory of available and planned industrial sites.
Better coordination of community utility efforts.
Frederick County Public Schools.
Based upon anticipated number of units (UDA Report), the following school facility
needs can be anticipated to be needed within the next 7 — 10 years to address current
growth within the UDA.
Number of RP units (UDA chart):
Number of Students:
Elementary (*0.39)
Middle (*0.14)
High (*0.17)
9,491
6,644 (9,491*0.7)
3,701 FCPS Goal enrollment 550 Students
(6.73 Elementary Schools)
1,329 FCPS Goal enrollment 850 Students
(1.56 Middle Schools)
1,613 FCPS Goal enrollment 1350 Stdts.
(1.19 High Schools)
All Elementary School Facilities within the UDA are presently at or above programmed
capacity.
The next two elementary schools to be constructed will relieve capacity issues at existing
facilities. It is anticipated that they will immediately meet their programmed capacities.
Capital Improvement Planning is of primary importance. Efforts to address the capital
needs of the school system, and potentially other public agencies, within the
Comprehensive Plan and CIP should be a priority effort in conjunction with the study of
the UDA.
Land acquisition policies for public and school use should be addressed. Inventory,
location, development proffer guidelines, and the joint use of community facilities are
components of the Comprehensive Plan to be further developed.
Development of an enhanced relationship between the schools, planning, and parks and
recreation departments and boards should be fostered to enhance collaboration and
facilitation of future planning and operational needs of the County.