Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_11-02-94_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on November 2, 1994. PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman /Back Creek District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Stonewall District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Richard C. Shickle, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opeyuon District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; and Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison. Planning Staff present: Robert W. Watkins, Director and Secretary; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator; and Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director. ABSENT: S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District CALL TO ORDER Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 21. 1994 . The first order of business was the consideration of minutes. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the minutes of September 21, 1994 were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman Golladay accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. 3889 I'a COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee - 10127 Mtg. Mr. Thomas reported that the DR &RS began discussions on amendments concerning sign regulations. He said that the majority of the meeting, however, was used to discuss vested rights. Mr. Thomas said that the DR &RS would like to be able to present policy standards on vested rights for the Planning Commission to follow for rezonings and master development plans. Sanitation Authority Mrs. Copenhaver said that she was not able to attend the meeting, however, meeting minutes reflect that the Parkins Mill expansion is continuing, comments have been received from Environmental Quality for the sewer on Route 522, and bids, easement plats, and letters to property owners are being prepared. Battlefield Task Force Mr. Watkins reported that the first battlefield forum was held on October 22 and approximately 24 people attended. Mr. Watkins said that the participants discussed goals, strategies, and developed some ideas. The Task Force will conduct another public forum on November 12 at Armel School from 1:00 - 5:00 p.m. LIAISON APPOINTMENTS Chairman Golladay appointed Richard Shickle as the Planning Commission's liaison to the Winchester City Planning Commission and Robert Morris as the Planning Commission's liaison to the Historic Resources Advisory Board. SUBDIVISIONS Subdivision Application #009 -94 of Hampton Chase, Section I, to subdivide 12.02 acres for proposed single- family housing_ This property is located adjacent to the City of Winchester and the Frederick County boundary line, just north of Battle Avenue and is identified as PIN 54 -A -94 in the Stonewall District. 3890 K Action - Approved Mr. Miller said that this portion of the Hampton Chase proposal was previously planned for townhouses, but was converted to 36 zero lot line single- family residences. Mr. Miller also stated that Lots 36 through 41 on the northwest side of this section have a 50' zoning buffer because they back up against B2 zoning. He said that the plats for this section will need to clearly show this and indicate that it is an area where no structures can be placed. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., with the engineering firm of G. W. Clifford & Associates, and Mr. David Holliday, the developer, were present to represent this application. The Commission had no problems with the subdivision and felt it was in conformance with the approved revised master plan. Commissioners felt, however, that the appropriate deed and plat restrictions should be carried out to indicate the 50' setback for building construction to accommodate the zoning buffer. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Stone, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve Subdivision Application #009 -94 of Hampton Chase, Section 1, to subdivide 12.02 acres for 36 zero lot line single - family residences with the stipulation that appropriate notifications be placed on the deeds and plats for Lots 36 through 41 to indicate the 50' building restriction setback line to accommodate the B2 buffer line. Subdivision Application #010 -94 of Negley Construction, Inc. to subdivide 5.97 acres for commercial use. This property is located behind the Days Inn on Welltown Road (Rt. 661) and is identified as PIN 43 -A -52 and 52B in the Stonewall District. Action - Approved Mr. Miller said that no master plan is in existence for this project, and waiver of that requirement is recommended. He said that the developer of this project will be responsible for completing a maintenance agreement between the owner of the property and the county as to where the stormwater detention facility should be located. Mr. Miller said that this must be accomplished before the street can be taken into the secondary road system. Mr. Paul Negley, the property owner, was present to answer questions from the Commission. The Commission had no problems with the subdivision and felt that all ordinance requirements had been met. 3891 0 Upon motion made by Mr. DeHaven and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Subdivision Application #010 -94 of Negley Construction, Inc. to subdivide 5.97 acres for commercial use with the condition that all review agency comments are adequately addressed. EXTENSION OF SEWER TO ARTHUR FULTON PROPERTY Mr. Tierney said that the Board of Supervisors plans to consider Mr. Arthur Fulton's request for permission to extend sewer to his property at the corner of Routes 635 and 277 at their November 9 meeting. He said that the Planning Commission informally discussed this item at their meeting of September 21. Mr. Tierney said that the staff has been in touch with the Sanitation Authority and they have no problem with residences along Route 636 hooking into a two -inch line, assuming that county policies permit it; however, there would be an expense involved on the part of the individuals involved with hooking into the line. He said that each residence would have to pay for the installation of a line from their residence to the two -inch main, a grinder pump, and a tap fee. Mr. Tierney said that the Health Department will not allow residential hookups to a pressurized line which is under four inches in diameter unless the sewage first goes through a grinder pump. The Commissioners were of the opinion that the Fulton tract should be permitted to hook into public sewer because the tract was located adjacent to the Sewer and Water Service Area boundary and because the property was zoned for industrial use. However, they did feel the line should not be extended to serve only one customer, especially since so many people in this area were experiencing failing septic systems. The Commission felt that the line should also be extended to those residences along Route 277 and Route 636 that need it. Some Commissioners felt that a two -inch force main with grinder pumps was a short-cited approach to extending sewer to an area. They did not want the citizens in that area to bear the increased costs of a grinder pump simply because the county did not choose to install a three or four inch line. The staff pointed out that the county should provide enough capacity to make the project economically feasible, without creating excess capacity to allow for additional development. There were no citizen comments. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine, 3892 5 BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission unanimously endorsed the extension of the Sewer and Water Service Area to the Fulton property, including the surrounding residences along Route 277 and Route 636 with failing septic systems; and that after Board endorsement of the extension, they recommended that this proposal go back to the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee to determine parameters and to work out the technical and cost aspects. (Mr. Wilson was absent.) Conditional Use Permit #009 -94 of Robin G. Dassler for a dog kennel. This property is located on Northwestern Pike (Route 50 West) and is identified as PIN 28 -A -155 in the Gainesboro District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Miller said that dog kennels are permitted in the RA (Rural Areas) zoning District with an approved conditional use permit. He said that the applicant has advised the staff that the kennel will be used only for housing and breeding dogs that belong to her. He said that there will be no boarding of dogs not owned by the owner. Mr. Miller added that the applicant is working with the Health Department and the Department of Environmental Quality on the proper disposal of dog waste. Mr. Pete Dassler, applicant and property owner, stated that the kennel will be strictly for breeding and there would be no boarding of dogs. Chairman called for public comment and the following person came forward to speak in opposition: Mr. James Baker, a neighbor who lives two houses away from Mr. and Mrs. Dassler, said that he was in opposition to this because of the potential noise and smell. Mr. Baker said that he lived a couple hundred yards from the Dassler residence. The Commissioners felt that the site was well - screened and far enough from nearby residents that it would impose minimal impact. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mrs. Copenhaver, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #009 -94 of Robin G. Dassler for a dog kennel with the following conditions: I . All review agency comments must be complied with at all times. 3893 R 2. Change of use or expansion of facilities to accommodate this use will require a new conditional use permit. 3. All associated materials and supplies shall be stored inside. 4. All requirements of the Frederick County Code and the Code of Virginia pertaining to dog kennels must be complied with at all times. 5. No boarding of dogs not owned by the applicant. The vote for this application was: YES (TO APPROVE THE CUP)_ Shickle, DeHaven, Morris, Thomas, Golladay, Marker, Copenhaver, Stone, Light NO: Romine (Mr. Wilson was absent.) Conditional Use Permit #011 -94 of Joseph Edmiston for a dog kennel. This property is located on Round Hill Road (Route 803) and is identified as PIN 52 -A -232 in the Back Creek District. Action - Recommended Denial Mr. Miller said that dog kennels are permitted in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved conditional use permit, however, the Edmistons established their kennel without getting the required permit. He said that they are now coming forward with their request as a result of complaints about the noise generated by their kennel. Mr. Miller said that the property fronts on Round Hill Road and there are residences on the other three sides of the property. Mr. Miller said that the staff visited the site on October 19 and observed that a privacy fence, which is only half completed, is being constructed around the kennel. Mr. Miller felt that a privacy fence may not have much impact on generated noise. He said that a 20' X 30' concrete slab with a chain link fence and plastic cover has been constructed for the kennel. He said that Mr. Edmiston has advised that he intended to construct a building on the slab to house his dogs, however, Mr. Miller pointed out that the base construction of the building is in violation of required setbacks. Mr. Miller said that Mr. Edmiston has suggested keeping the dogs in the garage and Mr. Miller felt this was not a reasonable solution because the garage was not ventilated, it did not have heat or air conditioning, and keeping the dogs penned in the garage as a noise abatement technique would probably become an untenable situation. 3894 7 Mr. Miller said that the staff felt that allowing the kennel would definitely have a significant impact on the neighborhood and should not be allowed. Commissioners asked if this was a boarding kennel. Mr. Miller said that it was a breeding kennel, not a boarding kennel. Mr. Joseph Edmiston, applicant and property owner, introduced himself and his wife, Laura Edmiston. Mr. Edmiston said that he was in contact with the Frederick County Inspections Department and he also obtained a kennel license and neither agency had made him aware that he might need a conditional use permit. Mr. Edmiston said that the six foot privacy fence has been completed and he felt this helped the situation by keeping stray dogs and other animals out of the sight of his dogs. Mr. Edmiston said that he has also been housing potential barking dogs within the garage at night. He said that he can enclose and soundproof the kennel by constructing a building alongside the kennel and be within the required setbacks. Mr. Edmiston said that he spoke with three adjoining property owners and they had no objections to his kennel. Mr. Edmiston presented photographs of the kennel, fence, and garage and he also presented written statements from three adjoining property owners. Commissioners asked Mr. Edmiston what breed the dogs were. Mr. Edmiston replied that he has Golden Retrievers, Samoyeds, and Shelties. Mr. Edmiston said that he has 15 dogs, but his kennel license permits him to have 20 dogs. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Light, the Commission unanimously voted to make the letters apart of the minutes. (The letters are located in CUP File X1011 -94 of Joseph Edmiston.) Chairman Golladay called for public comment and the following persons came forward to speak in opposition: Mrs. Mary Nelson came forward and introduced herself and Mrs. Sandra Pennington. Mrs. Nelson said that both she and Mrs. Pennington live about 200' feet from the Edmistons. Mrs. Nelson said that she has called the Sheriffs Department, the Dog Warden, and the Planning and Zoning Department to complain about the noise. She said she has called the Sheriffs Department at 3:00 a.m. to come out and quiet the dogs. She said that this has been going on all summer. Mrs. Pennington said that in May she was diagnosed as having MS and fatigue brings on her attacks. Mrs. Pennington played a tape of barking dogs that she said she taped from her front porch last week. Mrs. Pennington said that the privacy fence is not helping the situation. Mr. Pennington was also present. Mr. Jammie Williamson said that his 76 year old grandmother cannot sleep due 3895 P to the barking dogs. He said that Mr. Edmiston's barking dogs are upsetting his own dog. Mr. Edmiston felt that the barking these people spoke of was not coming from his dogs. He said that his dogs are bedded down from 8:30 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. Commissioners were concerned about the conflict that some neighbors, in particular the ones that submitted letters, had no problems with noise, while those neighbors present said they were bothered by noise. They felt that a determination needed to be made as to whether the noise was in fact coming from Mr. Edmiston's dogs. The Commissioners felt that if the noise was coming from Mr. Edmiston's dogs, they would not approve the CUP. Mr. Light felt that if there were complaints, then some action needed to be taken and he moved to deny the conditional use permit. This motion was seconded by Mr. Romine, but failed by the following vote: YES (TO DENY THE CUP): Stone, Light, Marker, Romine, Golladay NO: Copenhaver, Thomas, Morris, DeHaven, Shickle Mr. Stone next moved and Mr. Morris seconded the motion to table the application for 30 days in order to determine if the barking was coming from Mr. Edmiston's dogs. Chairman Golladay appointed Commissioners from the Gainesboro and Back Creek Districts to investigate with neighbors in the area to determine where the noise was coming from. This motion failed, however, by the following tie vote: YES (TO TABLE FOR 30 DAYS): DeHaven, Morris, Thomas, Copenhaver, Stone NO: Shickle, Romine, Marker, Light, Golladay Chairman Golladay decided to take further public comment and the following person came forward: Mr. Richard Nelson, adjoining property owner, said that on September 9, the Sheriffs Department was called because the dogs were barking and no one could sleep. Mr. Nelson said that the Sheriffs Department was called again on August 15 at 3:00 a.m. Mr. Marker moved for denial of the Conditional Use Permit and this motion was seconded by Mr. Romine. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend denial of Conditional Use Permit #52 -A -232 of Joseph Edmiston for a dog kennel 3896 I to be located on Round Hill Road (Route 803) in the Back Creek Magisterial District. The vote on this recommendation was as follows: YES (TO DENY THE CUP): Shickle, DeHaven, Morris, Romine, Marker, Copenhaver, Light, Stone, Golladay NO: Thomas (Mr. Wilson was absent.) Rezoning Application #007 -94 of Frederick Mall Land Trust to rezone three acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance). This property is located west of Greenwood Road (Rt. 636) on the south side of Senseny Road (Rt. 657) and is identified as PIN 54- A -125A in the Shawnee District. Action - Recommend Approval Mr. Harry Benham, who was present on behalf of the applicant, stated that in September, the Planning Commission recommended the approval of the rezoning of the adjacent Giles property (Parcel 195). Mr. Benham said that the parcel in question is a very thin parcel (approximately 180' or 200' by 1,000') and Mrs. Shreck lives on the front portion, next to the road. He said that the rear of her property is inaccessible. He said that Mrs. Shreck asked if the remainder of her parcel could be developed along with the adjacent Giles tract, otherwise she would have this long thin piece of property between the Giles tract and the farm parcel. (It was noted that Parcel 120 was an active farm.) Mr. Benham said that Mrs. Shreck will retain her house and its frontage; only the rear part of her property would be used in the development. Commissioners noted that V DOT recommended that the site access road be located opposite existing Route 1243 (Country Park Drive) to reduce possible turning movement problems. They asked if there would be sufficient area available to accomplish this. Mr. Benham replied that a small portion of the front of Mrs. Shreck's property would have to be used, however, by adjoining the three acres with the 16 acres, they can get the entrance as recommended by VDOT. Mr. Benham added that the applicant had proffered no more than 32 units with the Giles parcel and with the addition of Mrs. Shreck's parcel, they have increased that to no more than 42 units, and this includes Mrs. Shreck's existing house. There were no public comments. Commissioners expressed great concern that with each approved development 3897 10 proposal, Senseny Road was fast approaching its threshold for handling traffic. They felt that at some point, development would have to stop until something was done with the road to be able to support the traffic. Mr. Watkins stated that the WATS predicts that if development continues as it has been, that Senseny Road will be deficient in terms of Level. D Service or below by 2010. He said that the WATS supports the Planning Commission's concern. Given the location of the parcel within the UDA and adjacent existing and proposed RP zoning, along with the applicants proffered limit on the number of units and monetary contribution to the general fund, the Commission was agreeable to rezoning the parcel. Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning Application #007 -94 of Frederick Mall Land Trust to rezone three acres from RA (Rural Area) to RP (Residential Performance) subject to the conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owner. Rezoning Application #008 -94 of lames Carroll to rezone 2.81 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General). This property is located at the intersection of Custer Avenue and Pembridge Road and is identified as PIN 64A -4 -20A in the Shawnee District. Action - Tabled to December 7, 1994 Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin, with G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., was representing the property owner and applicant, Mr. James H. Carroll. Mr. Gyurisin felt there were two outstanding issues regarding this request. He said that the first issue involved the impact to Fire and Rescue Services. He said that after getting the results of the County's Impact Model, they revised their proffer statement to include an increased emergency services payment to Fire and Rescue. Mr. Gyurisin said that the other issue was a discrepancy on which lots were involved in this rezoning. He presented a survey showing the four lots involved and he said that those four lots total the amount of acreage advertised for this public hearing. Mr. Thomas felt that traffic was going to be a major consideration at this location and he inquired if there were any entrances planned to get back onto Route 50 from this location. Mr. Gyurisin replied that there were no plans to modify the existing street network. Chairman Golladay called for public comment and the following people came forward to speak in opposition: 3898 Mr. Charles Bennett, a homeowner in Pembridge Heights and a member of the Board of Directors for the Pembridge Heights Homeowners Association, presented a petition with 199 signatures of residents in his development who were opposed to rezoning this parcel of land. Mr. Bennett said that the issues of the homeowners association were: 1) the increase in traffic from this proposal and other development along Route 50; 2) the existing access road does not seem to be adequate to allow safe access and the single entrance to Route 50 is a problem; 3) Pembridge Drive is tar and chip and is not adequate to handle existing subdivision traffic; 4) a run -off problem exists on proposed Parcel B; and 5) complaints have been received about a sewer -like stench coming from the proposed site. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. DeHaven, the Commissioners unanimously voted to make the petition a part of the official record. (petition located in Rezoning File #008 -94 of James H. Carroll) Mr. Gene Kefler, a homeowner in Pembridge Heights, said that the notification letter that he received from the County indicated that this proposal was for Parcel 64A -10 -B, when in actuality it's for a much larger area, Parcels 64A- 4 -20A, 64A -10 -A, and 64A -10 -B. Mr. Ketler felt that Custer Avenue and Pembridge Drive were inadequate to handle the existing traffic, let alone the addition of commercial traffic. He also felt that a commercial use at the entrance to this subdivision was inappropriate. Ms. Regina Rishawd, a homeowner on Lot 51 in Pembridge Heights, read a letter from her neighbors, Allison and Steve Mundy, who were unable to attend the meeting. Mrs. Rishawd said that she was in concurrence with Mr. and Mrs. Mundy's feelings and was strongly opposed to the rezoning. Mr. John Smoot, Pembridge Heights resident, felt it would be very difficult to add a deceleration lane along Route 50, entering Custer Avenue, because of a large 50+ long swale, which was approximately 6' -8' deep. Mr. Smoot said that they have only one entrance that needed to handle 200+ residents and three school bus schedules and he was concerned about additional commercial traffic. He also had concerns about noise that may be generated from commercial development. Mr. Cary Kimble, a resident of Pembridge Heights and a member of the Board of Directors of the Pembridge Heights Homeowners Association, said that there was already a traffic problem here and he felt the rezoning will make the problem worse. Mr. Kimball thought that Mr. Carroll had not maintained the property very well. Mr. Kimball said that they have had to call their representative on the Board of Supervisors about mowing, debris, and to eliminate the storage of construction machinery and materials. Mr. Tom Hantz, resident on Pembridge Drive, said that he moved to this area to be in a quiet neighborhood. He thought the business zoning would destroy that and that the area would become an eyesore. 3899 IVA Mr. David Head, resident of Pembridge Heights and member of the Board of Directors of the Pembridge Heights Homeowners Association, said that the intersection at Custer Avenue and Route 50 is dangerous. He said that there is no turn lane and where it changes from 55 mph to 35 mph, he has nearly been rear -ended in his vehicle several times, especially in bad weather. Mr. Head said that the turn is very sharp and is considered to be unsatisfactory for use by the community. He said that they expected this property to be a community- oriented property, not a strip mall. Mrs. Laura Fox, homeowner on Pembridge Drive, was opposed to rezoning and felt this area should be kept residential. Mr. Jim Davern, homeowner in Pembridge Heights, said that he has direct view of this property from his home. Mr. Davern felt that others in this subdivision should have been sent letters of notification besides just the "adjoining" property owners. Ms. Marianne Gordon, resident of Pembridge Heights, felt that business zoning at this location would be a detriment to the Pembridge Heights community. Ms. Elizabeth Harmon, adjoining property owner, was under the impression that this area was to remain as open space. Ms. Kay Hunt, adjoining property owner, said that she was told when she purchased her property that this land was to remain vacant because it was a floodplain. (Mr. Sager asked Mrs. Hunt who gave her that information and she replied that her realtor said he got the information from the owner.) Mr. Mark Shanholtz, resident of Pembridge Heights, said that this property is not on Route 50. He said that you come off Route 50 into the residential area to get to this parcel. He felt that a lot of traffic would be generated by a business located here. Mr. Scott Snyder, homeowner in Pembridge Heights, was opposed because of the increase in traffic and because of the potential for the proposal to decrease the market value of area homes. Ms. Mary Harris, resident of Pembridge Heights and a realtor, said that she was unhappy with the type of homes that were built in this subdivision and she was unhappy with the traffic problems. Mr. James H. Carroll, the owner of the property, came forward for rebuttal. Mr. Carroll said that Carroll Construction Company does not own this property and never has. Mr. Carroll said that he never told anyone that this property was floodplain. Regarding the safety factor, Mr. Carroll said that he met with VDOT's resident engineer, Mr. William H. Bushman, at the site and Mr. Bushman said there would be a traffic light at this location within a year. 3900 13 Mr. Carroll said that L.F. Franklin Company was paving at this location this past summer. He said that L.F. Franklin stored asphalt material on his property without his permission. Mr. Carroll said that he resented the public comment implying that Carroll Construction Company was not a good caretaker of the property. Mr. Carroll said that the developers of this subdivision asked him if they could have right -of -way through his property for access to Route 50. Mr. Carroll said that he had an informal discussion with the Planning Commission to get their feelings on granting him commercial zoning if he would give these people an easement. He said that at the time, the Commission's feelings were favorable, but when the rezoning came up, it was denied. Mr. Carroll felt that there was so much commercial zoning along this road now, that no one would want to put a house there. Chairman Golladay concurred with Mr. Carroll about the discussion that took place at that time. He said, however, that the uses, and whether or not the proposal would be for B1 or B2, was not specified. Chairman Golladay said that his major concern with this property was the uses. He said that he did not have a problem with this being commercial, as long as it was compatible with the neighborhood. The Commissioners were in agreement that the intersection at 50 and Custer Avenue was dangerous and needed work. It was pointed out that traffic had to travel through the commercial area in order to get to the residential development. Some Commissioners felt they could support a B1 zoning or a B2 zoning if the more intense uses were proffered out, while other Commissioners felt it was too late to put commercial zoning here, since most of the homes in Pembridge Heights had already been built and sold. Mr. Morris moved to deny the rezoning and this was seconded by Mr. Thomas. The motion to deny failed, however, due to the following vote: YES (TO DENY THE REZONING): Morris, Thomas, Golladay, Stone NO: Light, Copenhaver, Marker, Romine, DeHaven, Shickle (Mr. Wilson was absent.) At the Commission's request, the staff read the B2 uses. A motion was next made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mrs. Copenhaver to table the application for 30 days. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously table Rezoning Application #008 -94 of James H. Carroll to rezone 2.81 acres at the intersection of Custer Avenue and Pembridge Drive from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business 3901 14 General) for 30 days or until the Commission's December 7, 1994 meeting. COMPLETION OF CORRIDOR STUDY REPORT Mr. Tierney presented the completed Report on Policies for Business Corridors within Frederick County Mr. Tierney said that the report culminates nearly two years of work on the part of the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee. He said that the report contains statistical information on existing land use and zoning as well as environmental features for the three corridors examined. Mr. Tierney said that a desired scenario for future land use for the three corridors is also mapped out, along with locations of needed road connections. The Planning Commission unanimously endorsed the report. CORRIDOR H VIRGINIA CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Mr. Watkins said that the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board instructed VDOT to form an advisory committee to study the West Virginia Corridor H proposals. He said that the Virginia Citizens Advisory Committee was formed with representatives from various local governments and groups. Mr. Watkins presented the final statement of consensus and recommendations from the Advisory Committee. Mr. Milton Boyce, resident of Stephens City, came forward to speak about the Inland Port. He said that Virginia wanted the Inland Port to be able to ship area goods out of Norfolk, instead of New York harbor, and it had the potential to bring money to Virginia. Mr. Boyce said that he has observed many signs restricting truck traffic going to the Inland Port. He did not think this was wise, since he felt the biggest users of the Inland Port were Ohio and West Virginia. Mr. Boyce felt that the original proposal needed to be looked at again, especially since the surrounding areas were promised that we would take care of their goods and help rebuild Norfolk. He said that he read in the newspaper that the Inland Port was only making $10,000,000 a year. He felt that was obvious, because there was no route that would bring you across West Virginia to get you to that Inland Port without going to New York. No action was needed by the Commission on this item. 3902 15 ADJOURNMENT No other business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Watkins, Secretary Jame V. Golladay, Jr., Chair 3903