HRAB 03-17-15 Meeting Agenda COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
TO: Historic Resources Advisory Board
FROM: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
RE: March 17, 2015 HRAB Meeting Agenda
DATE: March 9, 2015
The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) will be meeting on Tuesday,
March 17, 2015, at 6:00 p.m., in the Board of Supervisors Executive Session Room* in the
Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. Th e
HRAB will discuss the following items:
AGENDA
1. Minutes.
February 2014
2. 2015 HRAB Meeting Dates.
3. Review of the Rezoning Application for the McCann Slaughter Properties.
4. Review of the Rezoning Application for the Blackburn Property.
Please contact this office if you will not be able to attend the meeting. Thank you.
*PLEASE NOTE MEETING LOCATION
Access to this building is limited during the evening hours. Therefore, it will be necessary to
enter the building through the rear door of the Board Room. I would encourage Committee
members to park in the County parking lot located behind the new addition (accessible off of
Cameron Street).
CEP/pd
Attachments
MEMORANDUM
Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB)
February 18, 2014
Board of Supervisors Executive Session Room of the County
Administrative Building
107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA
Members Present: Lauren Murphy, Elizabeth Fravel, Mary Turner, Denny Perry, Stacey Yost,
Chris Oldham , Gary Oates, Maral Kalbian
Members Absent: Claus Bader, Clint Jones, David O’Neil
Staff Present: Candice Perkins
Applicants Present: Gary Oates on behalf of the McCann Slaughter Family
Agenda Items: December 2013 Minutes, 2014 Meeting Dates, CPPA Application for the McCann
Slaughter Properties
Call to order at 6:30 PM.
Item 1: May 2013 - minutes approved with two changes.
Item 2: Meeting dates were acknowledged.
Item 3: Continued Discussion from the December 2013 meeting on the CPPA Application for the
McCann Slaughter Properties.
The applicant discussed a small commercial area in addition to the OM Land Use Designation
(OM) somewhere along the new road. The representative from SVBF was not aware of the
changes; he stated that the foundation feels that this is a very important property because it
contains core area for the second and third battlefields. The Foundation currently holds
easements on the nearby Shockey property (with a battery from second Winchester). He
further stated that in 2005 they approached the family and asked permission to do an appraisal
so they could make an offer. They offered an easement and a fee simple purchase and the
appraised value was not accepted by the owner. They have not been in touch with them since.
The foundation would like to acquire the property or an easement and would offer fair market
price as an offer. The SVBF would be in contact with the family and hopefully pursue an offer.
It's an important part of the two battlefields that the foundations already own parts of.
During the Third Winchester, there was a Calvary mass rode down the corridor. They took over
Fort Collier and Star Fort and then swept the confederate forces away. One of the largest
Calvary masses occurred at Stephenson’s Depot. It was questioned whether Route 37 would
impact the viability of the site? North of Cedar Creek Battlefield there isn't a lot of land that has
retained its integrity. This property and some sites south of Redbud Road are pretty much all
that's left of Third Winchester that hasn't lost its integrity. The Foundation tries not to buy
isolated properties. He further stated that view shed protection is part of what they also look at
and that value is higher if the property is adjacent to an already protected site. This property is
already impacted by the presence of the railroad. At one time the foundation was also looking
at some other properties along McCanns Road. From the Civil War and colonial standpoint this
property is a gem. He further addressed the Shockey five acre lots, which they were working
with them back in 2009 but that didn’t work out; t hings haven't worked out in the northern
part of the County as the foundation had hoped. It's all open land now and one person can pull
the pin out and cause the entire area to potentially develop. If the property is developed, it
should be buffered as much as possible.
The HRAB then discussed the trails proposed in the CPPA application, and questioned the
purpose and value of them. Within battlefields, you are there to see the landscape as it was at
that time. The Snowden Bridge type trails are recreation and have no historical value. It's more
of an intrusion, not protection of the area. Who would want to walk around an industrial park
other than employees? The HRAB also noted that with Greystone they didn't provide any trails,
and this development would provide connections. It wouldn't be historic, but a connection.
The HRAB was torn with this application. They were not happy with removing the DSA from a
core area of two battlefields. They felt that there wasn’t much guidance from the existing text
for what the current plan calls for. What does the DSA actually mean? The Comprehensive
Plan said to develop the UDA, but the Comprehensive Plan also states the need to preserve
battlefield. The HRAB stated that the plan should leave the DSA in one area and show the
remainder as OM designation and that text is needed to describe how the property should be
developed.
There was a battlefield preservation plan done in 1999 that focused on the area south of
Redbud Road. The County has looked at some preservation and did a good plan at that time.
When looking at the SVBF maps online, this property was more important with the second than
the third. The applicant pointed out that Stephenson Depot isn't actually on this property; it's a
little north on the Cutshaw property. Buffer should be on the floodplain area and the front
corner of the site.
The HRAB stated that they can't fix the issue that there isn't text that goes with the plan. The
DSA became a catch all for all uses, and it's not defined. The HRAB discussed whether the
property could be developed sensitively. It appeared that the County doesn't want to show
both uses (DSA and OM), because it could possibly be manipulated. The HRAB still would like to
see both uses on the property and have text that supports it. Retain the DSA along the
floodplain and historic area and show the remainder as OM designation. Hopefully and
easement can be established on the reminder.
Motion was presented to preserve the DSA on the area west and north of the stream,
the rest is fine for changing the zoning. The limits would be the floodplain area as
defined. The motion fails.
The HRAB discussed an approach to not remove the DSA at all. It's an area that has two core
areas and the Comprehensive Plan states to preserve these areas. The purpose of the HRAB is
to support historic preservation. If the CPPC supports the changed land use, then they can
decide differently. Personal feeling is not to remove the DSA. There is policy that supports the
preservation. Second preference would be a sensitive development.
A second motion was presented to recommend denial of the CPPA, this motion was
seconded and approved. The HRAB felt they had insufficient information to support the
request and that the Comprehensive Plan supports the preservation of battlefields. The
property in the past was already determined to be important by the initial designation
as DSA. It's core, it's important.
Other comments:
It's not the job to figure out what sensitive development is. The HRAB needs to focus on the
historic element of the property. The HRAB was concerned about the text that would be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors since it would not come back before the HRAB. This site
is very cutoff from the rest of the battlefield. Since he doesn't have the historic details, we can't
make a decision. If we keep going like this, we keep chipping away at the battlefield. It is very
difficult to tell from the maps, when it comes to battlefield unless you do archeology. It's the
collection of what is left of the collection of properties. Unlike historic sites you can look at and
determine the integrity, battlefields are a more fluid endeavor. It is the collective value of what
is left. Who should the burden of proffer be on, the HRAB or the applicant? We have been
requiring more information with recent applicants. This is a historic landscape, but the burden
should fall on the HRAB/County.
Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
FREDERICK COUNTY
HISTORIC RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD (HRAB)
2015 TENTATIVE MEETING DATES
January 20, 2015 – cancelled
February 17, 2015 - Cancelled
March 17, 2015
April 21, 2015
May 19, 2015
June 16, 2015
July 21, 2015
August 18, 2015
September 15, 2015
October 20, 2015
November 17, 2015
December 15, 2015
HRAB meetings are tentatively scheduled for the third Tuesday of each month and begin at
6:00p.m. For further information, please call Candice Perkins at 540-665-5651.
Item # 3
Rezoning Application for the McCann Slaughter Properties
The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) has been asked to provide a comment pertaining
to a rezoning application for the McCann-Slaughter properties. These parcels are identified by
Property Identification Numbers 44-A-40 and 44-A-25B, in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
The McCann-Slaughter parcels contain approximately 156.6 acres, near the intersection of
Martinsburg Pike and Old Charlestown Road, on both sides of McCann Road, and adjacent to
the CSX Railroad. The Board of Supervisors approved the previously requested CPPA
amendment on August 13, 2014, this approved a designation of industrial, mixed use
industrial/office and historic/DSA on the subject properties (see attached map) in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
The Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley published by the National Park Service
identifies these properties as core battlefield area for the Battle of Third Winchester (Opequon)
with retained integrity.
The HRAB discussed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for this site at the December 2013
meeting and the February 2014 meeting. The minutes from the meetings are attached.
The applicant has proffered the following with this rezoning application:
Access shall only be from Old Charlestown Road (only emergency access would b e
permitted on McCanns Road).
The applicant proposes to vacate a portion of McCanns Road, the remaining roadbed
will be available to the general public as a trail.
A 30.243 acre portion of the site shall be preserved within an open space easement.
Staff is seeking comments from the HRAB on the historical elements possibly impacted by
proposed rezoning application. The comments will be forwarded to the Planning Commission
and the Board of Supervisors.
Attachments:
1. Application, Proffer Statement and Impact Statement
2. Relevant sections from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
3. December 2013 and February 2014 minutes
4. Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley Maps and Text
2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
APPENDIX I – AREA PLANS
NORTHEAST FREDERICK LAND USE PLAN
MCCANN-SLAUGHTER AMENDMENT
(BOS APPROVED AUGUST 13, 2014)
The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC), at their April 14, 2014 meeting,
recommended that the following amendment be incorporated into the Northeast Land Use
Plan:
The CPPC proposed the following balanced approach as an amendment to the Northeast
Land Use Plan for the McCann-Slaughter properties located near the intersection of
Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Old Charlestown Road (Route 761). This location has
historically been identified as a Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) due to the
environmental and historical features on and around the site, most notably Stephenson’s
Depot.
• Protection of the environmental features of the site.
• Preservation of those areas identified with DSA’s and development limited to
those areas to the south of the DSA’s and south of McCann’s Road.
• Utilizing McCann’s Road and other historical features, such as Milburn Road,
as features to be protected and potentially used in a manner that promotes
their historical context (an extension of the historical trail system in the area).
• An O.M. (Mixed Use Office/Industrial) land use designation.
• Access to be provided via a new north south road that would generally be
adjacent to the border of the Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) providing
access from Old Charles Town Road to McCann’s Lane and the southern
portion of the property. Ultimately, Route 37 would divide the southern
portion of the property. No access would be permitted to McCann’s Lane for
vehicular access to Martinsburg Pike or Milburn Road.
Subsequently, the proposal was further evaluated to determine if other elements could be
incorporated into the proposed amendment that would further ensure the environmental,
historical, and development resources were protected, promoted, and sensitively integrated
together in this balanced amendment to the Northeast Land Use Plan. To that end, the
following items should be addressed with the future development of this area.
• A buffer adjacent to McCann’s lane that is approximately 50’ in width (from the
centerline). Contained within this area; native landscape plantings and preservation
of the existing hedgerows aimed at preserving this resource and its character,
interpreting the historical landscape, and buffering the future development.
• A transitional buffer between the existing floodplain and future land uses that
promotes environmental best management practices and buffers the historical DSA
from the future land uses (landscaping, building height transitions, view sheds). This
buffer may include areas of the identified environmental resources.
• The ability to include a small area of neighborhood commercial land use in support of
the proposed OM land use. This would be located in the northern portion of the OM
land use adjacent to the future road.
• An interpretive trail head/parking area in the northern portion of this area adjacent
to the proposed road could be incorporated into the design of the project, potentially
in conjunction with a small area of neighborhood commercial. The interpretation may
be reflective of the environmental and historical resources of the site and area.
• The CPPC recommended the OM land use designation extends to the center of the
stream. (A subsequent evaluation of this indicated it would be more appropriate to
have the edge of the ultimate floodplain be the common boundary as a floodplain is,
by definition in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, an identified Developmentally
Sensitive Area).
• The location and design of the road should be sensitive to the environmental and
historical resources and should have minimal impact.
• Historical signage consistent with currently used signage should be provided.
• Historically relevant features, such as split rail fences, should be considered as a
feature of the future development. But care should be taken to ensure the character
of the resource isn’t changed.
• Appropriate traffic controls should be provided on McCann’s Lane to ensure that it is
used only for pedestrian and bicycle users.
In general, balance was maintained as the overarching theme of the discussion of the CPPC,
and subsequently, the discussion of the ad-hoc CPPC/HRAB group.
0111
EAS
YLIVI
N
G
S
T
WIL
L
A
R
D
ST
JIRE
H
L
N
EBE
R
T
R
D
MILTO
N
RAY
D
R
OLD CHARLES
T
O
W
N
R
D
MART
I
N
S
B
U
R
G
PIKE
MCC
A
N
N
S
R
D
MIL
B
U
R
N
R
D
SNO
W
D
E
N
B
R
I
D
G
E
B
L
V
D
FloodZoneA
44 A 40
44 A 25B
ParcelsLong Range Land Use
Rural Community Center
Business
Mixed-Use
Mixed Use Commercial \ Office
Highway Commercial
Warehouse
Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Mixed Use Industrial \ Office
Extractive Mining
Residential
Planned Unit Development
Mixed Use Age Restricted
Urban Center
Neighborhood Village
Recreation
Commercial Recreation
Open Space
Natural Resources & Recreation
Park
Historic \ DSA
Fire & Rescue
Institutional
School
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: May 7, 2014Staff: mruddy
MART
I
N
S
B
U
R
G
P
I
K
E
FAIR LN
MILB
U
R
N
R
D
WE
L
L
T
O
W
N
R
D
STE
P
H
E
N
S
O
N
R
D
OLD CHARLES TOW
N
R
D
EBERT
R
D
WE
L
L
T
O
W
N
R
D
0181
MCCA
N
N
S
R
D
GUN
C
L
U
B
R
D
AMOC
O
L
N
I81, AC
C
E
S
S
I
8
1
,
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
8
1
,
A
C
C
E
S
S
Draft NELUP Admendment
Approved: August 13th, 2014
0 1,000 2,000500 Feet
Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB)
December 17, 2013
Board of Supervisors Executive Session Room of the County
Administrative building
107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA
Members Present: Lauren Murphy, Elizabeth Fravel, Mary Turner, Denny Perry, Stacey Yost, Chris
Oldham , Gary Oates, Maral Kalbian
Members Absent: Claus Bader, Clint Jones, David O’Neil
Staff Present: Candice Perkins
Applicants Present: Gary Oates on behalf of the McCann Slaughter Family
Agenda Items: May 2013 Minutes, Historic Plaque application for the Carr-Brumback-Owens House and
review of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request for the McCann Slaughter Properties
Call to order at 6:30 PM.
Item One: The May 2013 minutes were adopted as presented.
Item Two: Planner Perkins introduced the plaque application for the Carr-Brumback-Owens House
owned by David Holliday. The HRAB stated that this was a well preserved property and recommended
approval of the plaque application. The plaque application will be scheduled for the Board of
Supervisors.
Item Three: The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) has been asked to provide a comment
pertaining to a requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the McCann-Slaughter property. These
parcels are identified by Property Identification Numbers 44-A-40 and 44-A-25B, in the Stonewall
Magisterial District. The McCann-Slaughter parcels contain approximately 160 acres, near the
intersection of Martinsburg Pike and Old Charlestown Road, on both sides of McCann Road, and
adjacent to the CSX Railroad. The properties are collectively designated in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
for various types of land uses, including Developmentally Sensitive Areas and Industrial.
The Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley published by the National Park Service identifies
these properties as core battlefield area for the Battle of Third Winchester (Opequon) with retained
integrity.
The applicant’s representative presented a sketch of the proposed layout for a potential industrial park.
The HRAB questioned if the requested industrial park could be laid out in a sensitive way, preserving the
viewsheds and the significant portions of the property. The location of the existing historic markers was
also considered and the impact the land use change would have on the viewsheds associated with the
markers. The HRAB also inquired if the use of tax credits and the preservation of the property would be
worth as much as the potential industrial land. The applicant responded that it would not.
After further discussion, the HRAB questioned why the DSA needed to be removed. The DSA was
originally created and shown on this property because of its historic nature and the HRAB wanted to
know what had changed and why the Board should consider a change in land use. The HRAB was
concerned with the removal of the DSA because this is the last bit of core battlefield within this area.
The battlefield areas keep being eroded, first with the rezoning of Stephenson’s Village and then
Graystone. The group also discussed the recently adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the fact that
one goal was to preserve battlefield areas. There are policies in place that support the preservation of
core battlefield areas. The HRAB also wanted comments from the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield
Foundation regarding the scale of the project and the impact it would have; it was rested that the
foundation be invited to the next HRAB meeting.
After the discussion, the HRAB requested that the applicant consider retaining DSA on the most
significant portions of the property and consider office land use on the balance. The HRAB ultimately
was comfortable with the requested land (low impact/sensitive industrial) use change so long as the
discussed trail network was included and the most significant part of the battlefield remains in DSA. The
HRAB then requested to see the text that is formulated by the CPPC that will be forwarded to the Board
of Supervisors for their review.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:15p.m.
Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB)
February 18, 2014
Board of Supervisors Executive Session Room of the County
Administrative Building
107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA
Members Present: Lauren Murphy, Elizabeth Fravel, Mary Turner, Denny Perry, Stacey Yost,
Chris Oldham , Gary Oates, Maral Kalbian
Members Absent: Claus Bader, Clint Jones, David O’Neil
Staff Present: Candice Perkins
Applicants Present: Gary Oates on behalf of the McCann Slaughter Family
Agenda Items: December 2013 Minutes, 2014 Meeting Dates, CPPA Application for the McCann
Slaughter Properties
Call to order at 6:30 PM.
Item 1: May 2013 - minutes approved with two changes.
Item 2: Meeting dates were acknowledged.
Item 3: Continued Discussion from the December 2013 meeting on the CPPA Application for the
McCann Slaughter Properties.
The applicant discussed a small commercial area in addition to the OM Land Use Designation
(OM) somewhere along the new road. The representative from SVBF was not aware of the
changes; he stated that the foundation feels that this is a very important property because it
contains core area for the second and third battlefields. The Foundation currently holds
easements on the nearby Shockey property (with a battery from second Winchester). He
further stated that in 2005 they approached the family and asked permission to do an appraisal
so they could make an offer. They offered an easement and a fee simple purchase and the
appraised value was not accepted by the owner. They have not been in touch with them since.
The foundation would like to acquire the property or an easement and would offer fair market
price as an offer. The SVBF would be in contact with the family and hopefully pursue an offer.
It's an important part of the two battlefields that the foundations already own parts of.
During the Third Winchester, there was a Calvary mass rode down the corridor. They took over
Fort Collier and Star Fort and then swept the confederate forces away. One of the largest
Calvary masses occurred at Stephenson’s Depot. It was questioned whether Route 37 would
impact the viability of the site? North of Cedar Creek Battlefield there isn't a lot of land that has
retained its integrity. This property and some sites south of Redbud Road are pretty much all
that's left of Third Winchester that hasn't lost its integrity. The Foundation tries not to buy
isolated properties. He further stated that view shed protection is part of what they also look at
and that value is higher if the property is adjacent to an already protected site. This property is
already impacted by the presence of the railroad. At one time the foundation was also looking
at some other properties along McCanns Road. From the Civil War and colonial standpoint this
property is a gem. He further addressed the Shockey five acre lots, which they were working
with them back in 2009 but that didn’t work out; t hings haven't worked out in the northern
part of the County as the foundation had hoped. It's all open land now and one person can pull
the pin out and cause the entire area to potentially develop. If the property is developed, it
should be buffered as much as possible.
The HRAB then discussed the trails proposed in the CPPA application, and questioned the
purpose and value of them. Within battlefields, you are there to see the landscape as it was at
that time. The Snowden Bridge type trails are recreation and have no historical value. It's more
of an intrusion, not protection of the area. Who would want to walk around an industrial park
other than employees? The HRAB also noted that with Greystone they didn't provide any trails,
and this development would provide connections. It wouldn't be historic, but a connection.
The HRAB was torn with this application. They were not happy with removing the DSA from a
core area of two battlefields. They felt that there wasn’t much guidance from the existing text
for what the current plan calls for. What does the DSA actually mean? The Comprehensive
Plan said to develop the UDA, but the Comprehensive Plan also states the need to preserve
battlefield. The HRAB stated that the plan should leave the DSA in one area and show the
remainder as OM designation and that text is needed to describe how the property should be
developed.
There was a battlefield preservation plan done in 1999 that focused on the area south of
Redbud Road. The County has looked at some preservation and did a good plan at that time.
When looking at the SVBF maps online, this property was more important with the second than
the third. The applicant pointed out that Stephenson Depot isn't actually on this property; it's a
little north on the Cutshaw property. Buffer should be on the floodplain area and the front
corner of the site.
The HRAB stated that they can't fix the issue that there isn't text that goes with the plan. The
DSA became a catch all for all uses, and it's not defined. The HRAB discussed whether the
property could be developed sensitively. It appeared that the County doesn't want to show
both uses (DSA and OM), because it could possibly be manipulated. The HRAB still would like to
see both uses on the property and have text that supports it. Retain the DSA along the
floodplain and historic area and show the remainder as OM designation. Hopefully and
easement can be established on the reminder.
Motion was presented to preserve the DSA on the area west and north of the stream,
the rest is fine for changing the zoning. The limits would be the floodplain area as
defined. The motion fails.
The HRAB discussed an approach to not remove the DSA at all. It's an area that has two core
areas and the Comprehensive Plan states to preserve these areas. The purpose of the HRAB is
to support historic preservation. If the CPPC supports the changed land use, then they can
decide differently. Personal feeling is not to remove the DSA. There is policy that supports the
preservation. Second preference would be a sensitive development.
A second motion was presented to recommend denial of the CPPA, this motion was
seconded and approved. The HRAB felt they had insufficient information to support the
request and that the Comprehensive Plan supports the preservation of battlefields. The
property in the past was already determined to be important by the initial designation
as DSA. It's core, it's important.
Other comments:
It's not the job to figure out what sensitive development is. The HRAB needs to focus on the
historic element of the property. The HRAB was concerned about the text that would be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors since it would not come back before the HRAB. This site
is very cutoff from the rest of the battlefield. Since he doesn't have the historic details, we can't
make a decision. If we keep going like this, we keep chipping away at the battlefield. It is very
difficult to tell from the maps, when it comes to battlefield unless you do archeology. It's the
collection of what is left of the collection of properties. Unlike historic sites you can look at and
determine the integrity, battlefields are a more fluid endeavor. It is the collective value of what
is left. Who should the burden of proffer be on, the HRAB or the applicant? We have been
requiring more information with recent applicants. This is a historic landscape, but the burden
should fall on the HRAB/County.
Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Item # 4
Rezoning Application for the Blackburn Property
The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) has been asked to provide a comment pertaining
to a rezoning application for the Blackburn property. This site is identified by Property
Identification Number 63-A-80I, in the Back Creek Magisterial District. The Blackburn property
contains approximately 128.82 acres, and fronts Apple Valley Road and Route 37. The rezoning
application seeks to rezone 92 acres of the subject property to the M1 (Light Industrial) District
with proffers.
The Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley published by the National Park Service
identifies these properties as core battlefield area for the First and Second Battle Kernstown
with retained integrity. Per the applicant’s impact statement:
1st Kernstown – While there was troop movement across the submect property, the
battle map shows the fighting occurred north of Middle Road and east of Apple Valley
Road.
2nd Kernstown - While there was troop movement across the submect property, the
battle map shows the fighting occurred north of Middle Road and east of Apple Valley
Road.
The applicant has proffered the following:
Continuation of the landscape screen along Apple Valley Road for the Kernstown
Battlefield viewshed.
All loading docks shall be screened form adjacent properties (zoned Rural or
Residential).
Only one entrance shall be located on Apple Valley Road.
Staff is seeking comments from the HRAB on the historical elements possibly impacted by
proposed rezoning application. The comments will be forwarded to the Planning Commission
and the Board of Supervisors.
Attachments:
1. Application, Proffer Statement, GDP, Aerial Maps and Impact Statement
2. Relevant sections from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
3. Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley Maps and Text