HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 03-01-00 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
MARCH 1, 2000
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) February 2, 2000 Minutes .............................................. A
2) Application Action Summary ........................................... B
3) Committee Reports ............................................... (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments.................................................(no tab)
PUBLIC MEETING
5) 2000 Primary Road Improvement Plan
(Mr. Mohn).......................................................... C
6) Request for a Waiver to the 50' Right -of -Way Requirement, Section [§144-31.C(3)] of
the Subdivision Ordinance, submitted by Weichert Realtors on behalf of John W. Hanes,
Jr. and John W. Hanes, III. The 29 -acre parcel is located adjacent to the West Virginia state
line and is identified with Property Identification Number 34 -A -127A in the Stonewall
Magisterial District.
(Mr. Ruddy) ........................................................ D
DISCUSSION ITEMS
7) Discussion Regarding Loading Space Standards. The Development Review and
Regulations Subcommittee proposes an amendment to Section 165-28, Loading Areas,
which reduces several existing requirements and provides additional flexibility.
(Mr. Ruddy)......................................................... E
8) Discussion of Committee Statement of Purpose and Membership
(Mr. Tierney) ........................................................F
9) Other
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
This meeting was held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent
Street in Winchester, Virginia on February 2, 2000.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice -Chairman/
Back Creek District; Gregory L. Unger, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee
District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; W. Wayne
Miller, Gainesboro District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon
District; George Kriz, Gainesboro District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Sidney A.
Reyes, Board Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison
STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director/Secretary; Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Planning
Director; Christopher M. Mohn, Planner Il; Mark R. Cheran, Planner 1; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPLICATIONS ACTION SUMMARY
Chairman DeHaven accepted the report for the Commission's information.
CHAIRMAN WELCOMES NEW COMMISSION MEMBERS
Chairman DeHaven welcomed the new Planning Commission members, George Kriz,
representing the Gainesboro District; Gregory L. Unger, representing the Back Creek District; and Gene E.
Fisher, Citizen at Large. The new members replaced Terry Stone, Gainesboro District, Marjorie H.
Copenhaver, Back Creek District, and George L. Romine, Citizen at Large, whose terms had expired.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of February 2, 2000 Page 471
-2 -
MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 1, 1999 AND DECEMBER 15, 1999
Upon motion made by Mr. Morris and seconded by Mr. Ours, the minutes of December 1,
1999 were unanimously approved as presented.
Upon motion made by Mr. Ours and seconded by Mr. Marker, the minutes of December 15,
1999 were unanimously approved as presented.
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 01/27/99 Mtg.
Mr. Christopher M. Mohn, Planner II and staff support for the DRRS, reported that the
committee discussed the loading space issue and a potential amendment to the height limitations and exceptions.
Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) - 01/24/00 Mtg.
Mr. Robert M. Morris, HRAB member, stated that although he was unable to attend the
meeting, the agenda indicated that the HRAB would be nominating a chairperson, they would be discussing
a historic plaque for Rose Hill Farm, and would review a historic plaque application submitted by Thomas and
Barbara Keech.
Mr. Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director, added that the HRAB has recommended to the Board
of Supervisors that those two properties be given historic plaques.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Conditional Use Permit 401-00 of Edwin L. Lambert, Jr. for a Cottage Occupation to operate a
contracting business. This property is located at 1521 Cedar Hill Road, zoned RA (Rural Areas) and
is identified with P.I.N. 33-A-36 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions
Mr. Mark R. Cheran, Planner I, read the background information and review agency
comments. Mr. Chcran pointed out that the applicant is currently operating his business as a Home
Occupation, which limits him to one contractor's vehicle. He explained that the applicant wishes to begin
operating from an accessory structure, which is a two -bay garage with an office, and he desires to have two
backhoes on the premises.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of February 2, 2000 Page 472
-3 -
The applicant and owner, Mr. Edwin L. Lambert, Jr., described his contracting business as
the repair of underground gas tanks for service stations. Responding to questions from the Commission, Mr.
Lambert said that there will be no welding equipment or dump trucks associated with the business and he will
be the only employee. In response to the Commission's inquiry about why two backhoes were needed, he
replied that one was for farm use and one backhoe was for his repair business. Mr. Lambert believed he would
be able to comply with all of the conditions of his permit.
There were no public comments.
No other issues were raised by the Commission.
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 Conditional Use Permit #01-00 of Edwin L. Lambert, Jr. for a Cottage Occupation to operate a
contracting business at 1521 Cedar Hill Road with the following conditions:
All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times.
2. No more than two backhoes shall be kept on the property.
3. All equipment and storage associated with the business shall be kept wholly within the accessory
structure; this will include the backhoes.
4. No additional employees shall be permitted.
5. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements; sign shall not
exceed four square feet.
6. Any change of use or expansion of the business will require a new Conditional Use Permit.
Proposed Updates to the 2000-2001 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), which is a prioritized list of
projects requested by numerous County agencies, to be reviewed for potential allocation in the ensuing
five-year period. The plan is created as an informational document to assist in the development of the
County's annual budget. The CIP is an advisory document; projects are not necessarily funded because
of their inclusion in the CIP.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director, stated that the Comprehensive Plans &
Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) has forwarded the 2000-2001 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) to the
Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Wyatt said that the CPPS evaluated new project requests provided
by the Frederick County School Board, the Regional Airport Authority, and the Frederick County Parks &
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of February 2, 2000 Page 473
-4 -
Recreation Department, and following evaluation, modified the project rankings and financial data accordingly.
Mr. Wyatt continued, stating that based on questions raised during the Planning Commission's
discussion of the CIP on January 5, 2000, it was determined that land acquisition was not part of the cost for
the Frederick County_ Public School Transportation -Maintenance -Central Warehouse facility, and the
Winchester Regional Airport was not enabled to establish a capital fund for facilities development. At the
January 12, 2000 Board of Supervisors' meeting, the appropriateness of project priorities was confirmed,
however, additional information regarding project cost estimates was requested.
Mr. Wyatt summarized the plan by stating that 28 projects were submitted by five departments
or agencies; total project costs estimated at $71,825,263; the debt service estimated at $34,761,405; and the
total County costs for capital projects estimated at $106,586,668.
Several questions were raised and then discussed by the Commission and staffconceming why
proffers received by the County are not shown on the CIP and if there were procedures in place to assure that
proffer money was used for the specific purpose it was intended for during rezoning. It was noted that the CIP
document is a tool intended to identify departmental priorities (capital expenditures) and the estimated costs;
it does not project revenue or demonstrate what monies the County intends to spend each year on each project.
It was further noted that the monies the County receives from conditional zoning proffers are put into the
County's general fund, in specific line items that are earmarked for their intended purposes, and the Board of
Supervisors utilizes those monies when they prepare the budget for specific projects.
The staff pointed out that cash proffers for capital facilities have to be tied to the CIP,
however, cash proffers for road improvements or volunteer fire company needs do not necessarily have to be
tied to the CIP. It was also pointed out that the Finance Department is charged with the responsibility of
making sure proffer monies are categorized properly and regular audits are based on that information.
No other issues were raised and the Commission members were in support of the document
as presented. There were no public comments.
Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Ours,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously forward a
recommendation of approval for the 2000-2001 Capital Improvements Plan for Frederick County to the Board
of Supervisors as presented.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Discussion Regarding the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) Public Information
Meetings on the Proposed Land Use Study for the Northeastern Frederick County Area held on January
13"' and 18"' , 2000 at the Stonewall Elementary School Cafeteria.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director, stated that the Comprehensive Plans and
Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) conducted two visioning meetings at Stonewall Elementary School on January
13, 2000 and January 18, 2000. Mr. Wyatt said that the goal for the meetings was to provide educational
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of February 2, 2000 Page 474
-5 -
opportunities, to demonstrate the benefits of guiding land use decisions through an adopted land use plan, and
to identify issues that were of importance to the meeting participants. He noted that attendance for both
meetings involved 144 participants, not including county officials, subcommittee members, staff, or the news
media. He added that the staff has also made a presentation for comment to the Economic Development
Commission's Business Attractions Committee and has also been invited to attend the Industrial Parks
Association meeting.
For the benefit of new Commission members and others who were unable to attend the
meetings, Mr. Wyatt identified and described the study area, using several display maps. Mr. Wyatt next
briefly reviewed some of the issues that were discussed and the information shared. He then presented the
findings of the meetings for the Commission's information.
One subject raised by a member of the Commission was that many citizens in this area of
Frederick County would like water and sewer extended to them, however, the residents may not realize that they
would have to pay for their own connection fees. It was suggested that during the staffs meeting with the
Sanitation Authority and Service Authority, that a cost estimate be determined so the residents could be made
aware of the connection fees, should sewer and water be extended to this area.
Another concern raised was why the study area did not include the area west of I-81 because
future development in that area will be interchanges going both east and west. It was pointed out that a large
amount of that area to the west will be impacted and if the study concentrates only on the area to the east of
I-81 and not west of I-81, an opportunity for a comprehensive study will be missed. The staff responded that
the Board of Supervisors had instructed the staff to include the areas on the east and west sides three
interchange points, Exits 317, 321, and 323, but the Board did not direct the CPPS to include the areas
suggested, which would be roughly %2 mile outside of 1-8 I's boundaries.
Staff added that two issues were identified when this presentation was made to the Economic
Development Commission's Business Attractions Committee: The first recommendation was that whatever
is ultimately done for the developed areas of the study, an allowance for a minimum of 25 % commercial and
industrial areas should be made to offset the residential service costs. The second item, also dealing with
residential, pointed out that the 1996 Plan only extended the Sewer and Water Service Area; however, if this
is to be the County's new industrial area, it would make sense to consider the allowance of residential uses
within this portion of the County to facilitate the future industrial uses. Commission members agreed, adding
that balanced growth is needed.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Mr. Edward Butler, resident of Clearbrook, came forward to express his concerns about the
water and sewer issue in this area. Mr. Butler said that residents in the area didn't have problems with their
water and sewer before the Flying J truck stop came in. He said that it was only after Flying J established itself
and began using 35,000 gallons per day that the residents began to have problems. He said that the recent
occurrence of well contamination (15 wells to date) has been attributed to the establishment of the Flying J
truck stop. Mr. Butler expressed his concern that now, as a result, the residents have to foot the bill to get
water and sewer because of the situation they find themselves in. Mr. Butler said area residents formed the
"Clearbrook Citizens for Safety" group so they could be heard. He said that the area residents are in favor of
the study the Planning Staff is conducting to create a plan for this area. Mr. Butler next spoke of the traffic
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of February 2, 2000 Page 475
-6 -
problems and air pollution created by all the trucks using the Flying J facility_
Mr. Thomas Stevenson, a member ofthe Clearbrook Citizens for Safety, said that the primary
concern of this citizens' group when it was first established was traffic safety. Mr. Stevenson said that a traffic
accident had just occurred at Flying J this afternoon and created a traffic jam that extended to the entrance, all
the way across the bridge, and down the northbound and southbound deceleration lanes. He said that one or
two more trucks and traffic would have been backed up into the travel lanes of I-81. Mr. Stevenson said that
since the bridge was completely blocked, there was no way an emergency services vehicle could get across the
bridge. Mr. Stevenson believed the roads should be in place to handle the traffic before the development takes
place. Mr. Stevenson said that the residents in that area have seen no benefits from Flying J; they have seen
no improvements to the roads or snow removal. He said that they have seen costs, however, to their air quality
and transportation.
Ms. Kim Dodd, area resident, was in favor of controlled, creative growth. She was not pleased
with the situation created by Flying J truck stop.
No action was needed or taken by the Commission regarding this discussion item.
Discussion Regarding a Proposed Amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Supplemental Use
Regulations, Section 165-24, "Height Limitations; Exceptions" of the Frederick County Code.
Action - Advertise Amendment for Public Hearing
Mr. Christopher M. Mohn, Planner II, stated that the proposed amendment, requested by Mr.
Stephen M. Gyurism of G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., would allow general office uses in the B2 (Business
General) District and the B3 (Industrial Transition) District and hotel and motel uses in the B2 (Business
General) District to be exempt from the maximum height requirement of 35 feet; the amendment would also
stipulate that the height of such buildings may not exceed 60 feet. Mr. Mohn said that the proposed amendment
was endorsed by the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at their meeting of January
27, 2000. Mr. Mohn next provided a brief overview of the amendment for the Commission's information.
Members of the Commission discussed the issue of taller buildings impacting adjoining
properties, particularly residentially -zoned properties, by visually blocking views and/or shading. Concernwas
raised that the proposed increase in setback for taller buildings was not great enough, if the building adjoined
a residential property. It was suggested that the wording, "...in cases where the building is adjacent to a
residential area, the setback will be adjusted to insure that significant shading does not occur on the residential
areas..." could be incorporated into the amendment.
The staff pointed out that under today's standards, a three-story building of 35' would need
to be 50' from the property line; under the proposed height amendment, a five -story building of 60' would need
to be 75' from the property line.
A member of the DRRS added that the Fire Marshal has given his approval of the proposed
amendment. He recalled that the 35 -foot restriction was placed in the ordinance some time ago, due to the
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of February 2, 2000 Page 476
-7 -
County's inability to fight fires over a certain height level; this situation no longer exists since the County has
a fire truck and ladder that will reach the proposed new structure heights.
Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin of G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. said that his firm has had
interest expressed from two clients who wanted to construct buildings taller than what the County's ordinance
permits. Mr. Gyurisin stated that the issue is primarily one of economics and competition; due to the increasing
cost of commercial property, clients prefer to construct buildings up rather than spread out. He added that
regarding the competition aspect, flexibility is available in the City of Winchester and along Pleasant Valley
Road for allowable heights up to 55'.
Chairman DeHaven polled the Commission to determine if the majority of members preferred
the proposed ordinance to be presented as written or with an amendment for the scheduled public hearing on
February 16, 2000. Commissioners Fisher, Kriz, Ours, and Thomas preferred to see the ordinance amended;
Commissioners Miller, Wilson, Marker, Light, Morris, and Unger preferred the ordinance as presented.
OTHER
RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION FOR DEPARTING COMMISSIONERS MARJORIE H.
COPENHAVER, GEORGE L. ROI%IINE, AND TERRY STONE
Chairman DeHaven read a Resolution of Appreciation honoring three departing
commissioners, Marjorie H. Copenhaver, George L. Romine, and Terry Stone.
Upon motion made by Mr. Wilson and second by Mr. Marker, the Planning Commission
unanimously approved the resolutions for the departing members.
ADJOURNMENT
unanunous vote.
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. by
Respectfully submitted,
Kris C. Tierney, Secretary
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of February 2, 2000 Page 477
APPLICATION ACTION SUMMARY
(printed February 18, 2000)
'<
Application newly subnv
PP Y
tted.
REZONINGS:
Manuel C. & Pearl A. DeHaven
& W.D. & Dorothy Orndorff
Z #10-99 "Mr. Fuel"
Stonewall
9.4382 acres from M2 to B3 and .8263
acres from RA to B3;
10.2645 ac. of IA Overlay District
Location:
500'± so. of intersection of Rest Church Rd. (Rt. 669) & Martinsburg
Pk. (Rt. 11), betwn Rt. 11 & I-81, & continuing so, to Duncan Run.
Submitted:
04/13/99
PC Review:
05/05/99 - recommended approval with proffers
BOS Review:
05/26/99 - tabled
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS:
Cross Creek Village
DP #02-00
Back Creek Residential Lots on 42.5 acres (RP)
Location:
Apple Valley Road (Rt. 652)
Submitted:
01/24/00
PC Review:
02/16/00 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
03/08/00
Admin. Approved:
Pending
Morgaine Trace Subdivision
DP #01-00
Shawnee
Residential Single -Family Detached
Urban Lots on 38.1 acres
Location:
East side of Front Royal Pk. (Rt. 522), 1.2 mi. south of Airport Rd.
(Rt. 645), 0.30 miles north of Paper Mill Rd. (Rt. 644)
Submitted:
12/23/99
PC Review:
01/19/00 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
02/08/00 - approved
Admin. Approved:
Pending
Lexington Court (MDP #04-99)
Opequon
26 townhouse units & 3 urban single-
famil lots on 4.8635 ac. RP
Location:
Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277)
Submitted:
07/14/99
PC Review:
12/15/99 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
01/12/00 - approved
Admin. Approved:
02/15/00
Oakdale III, Raven Pointe, Raven
Oaks, Ravenwin DP #02-99
Shawnee
668 residential dwelling units on 247
acres of RP -zoned land
Location:
North side of Rt. 50, East of Winchester
Submitted:
05/11/99
PC Review:
06/02/99 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
07/14/99 - approved
Admin. Approved:
Pending
SUBDIVISIONS:
Location: r02/02/00
28, Corner of McGhee Rd. (Rt. 861) & Kentmere Ct. (Rt. 869) I
11
Submitted:
MDP #006-93 MDP approved by BOS 07/14/93; MDP approved admin. 12/13/99
11 (latest revision)
Subd. Admin.
Applications Action Summary
Printed February 18, 2000
Commonwealth Business Center -
Lot 4 SUB #29-99
Back Creek
Subd. of 2 lots: Lot 4A: 1.0000 ac. &
Lot 4: 2.9346 ac. 3
Location:
On Commonwealth Dr., approx. 661' from intersection w/ Valley Pk.
Submitted:
12/15/99
MDP #03-99
MDP approved by BOS 07/14/99; MDP admin. approved 07/19/99
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
Ralph S. Gregory & Battlefield
PartnershipSUB #28-99
Back Creek
Subdivision of 82.136 acres into two lots
- Lot 27A & Lot 27B 1
Subd. of 2 lots & boundary line
ad"ustment; 14.1559 ac. 2
Location:
Rt. 11 S. (650'+)
north of Marathon Dr., & at end of Sulky Dr.
Submitted:
12/01/99
Subd. Admin. Approved:
MDP #001-92
MDP approved by BOS 4/8/92; Rev. MDP admin. approved 10/13/99
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
Ft. Collier Industrial Park (Win-
chester Pasta) (SUB #26-99
Stonewall
Subdivision of 82.136 acres into two lots
- Lot 27A & Lot 27B 1
Location:
SE end of Park Center Dr. (Rt. 1323), approx. 0.15 mi. SE of the
Westbrooke Rd. (Rt. 1320) intersection
Submitted:
10/13/99
MDP #004-91
MDP approved by BOS 10/09/91; MDP admim. approved 02/24/98
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
Adams Family Ltd. Ptnrshp.
SUB #25-99
[_ Shawnee Subdivision of 26.45 acres into 2 lots
1)
Location:
Airport Business Center, Parcel 4, Airport Road
Submitted:
10/07/99
MDP #009-87
last revision of MDP was admin. approved 06/22/99
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed February 18, 2000
Airport Parc Bldg. A (Airport
Business Center) (SUB #23-99
Shawnee Subdivision of 64.2 ac. into 2 lots
1 w/ Flex Tech Overlay)
Location:
Intersection of Airport Road & Admiral Byrd Drive
Submitted:
10/05/99
MDP #009-87
MDP approved by BOS 09/23/87; latest MDP revision
administratively approved 06/22/99
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pendin
Prince Frederick Office Park,
Phase II SUB #22-99)
Shawnee Subdivision of 49.910 acres into 5 lots
2)
Location:
1/4 mi. so. F Rt. 50E., 1/4 mi. east of Rt. 522N., immediately west of
Prince Frederick Dr., immediatelysouth of Winchester Reg. Airport
Submitted:
09/30/99
MDP #001-93
MDP approved by BOS 04/14/93; MDP admin. approved 06/08/93
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending_
Frank W. Nichols Property
SUB #21-99 NO MDP
Opequon
Subdivision of 2 lots: Lot 1 - 14,742 s.f.;
Lot 2 - 14,987 s.f.
Location:
239' northwest of the Montgomery Circle/ Fairfax Dr. intersection
Submitted:
09/27/99
PC Review:
10/20/99 - recommended approval w/ sidewalk exception
BOS Review:
11/10/99 - approved w/ sidewalk exception
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed February 18, 2000
RavenWing, Section 1
SUB #20-99
Shawnee
80 single-family urban lots on 24.5711
acres
Location:
North side of Rt. 50 East of Winchester
I
Submitted:
I
08/27/99
MDP #02-99
MDP Approved by BOS 07/14/99; Admin. Approval is Pending
Subd. Admin. Approved.
Pending
Thomas A. & Helen S. Grove
Subdivision (SUB #19-99)
NO MDP
Shawnee
Subdivision of 5.958 acres into 2 lots
(Ml)
Location:
South side of Airport Road (Rt. 645)
Submitted:
08/06/99
PC Review:
09/01/99 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
09/08/99 - approved
Admin. Approved:
Pending
Merriman's Chase (SUB #13-99)
Back Creek
Subdivision of 26.895 ac. into 48 single-
family residential lots (RP)
Location:
W. side of Merrimans Ln. (Rt. 621), along Rt. 37 at Abrams Creek
and Winchester & Western Railroad
Submitted:
04/26/99
MDP #006-98 (formerly known as
Willow Branch)
Approved by BOS 01/13/99; Admin. Approved 02/12/99
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed February 18, 2000
The Camp/Tasker Rd. (JASBO,
Inc. /F. Glaize) (SUB #011-99
Opequon
Subd. of 50.52 ac. into 170 single-family
residential lots Win 3 sections
Location:
So.west corner of Tasker Rd. (Rt. 642) & White Oak Rd. (Rt. 636)
Submitted:
02/18/99
MDP #004-98 (Tasker Rd. Land Bays)
MDP approved by BOS 07/08/98; MDP approved admin. 09/04/98
Suubd. Admin. Approved:
Section 1 approved 10/27/99; Sections 2 and 3 are pending
Fort Collier - Lot 32
SUB #09-99
Stonewall
Subdivision of 1 lot consisting of 4.7374
acres 1
Location:
Property fronts the northwest corner of the intersection of Brooke Rd.
(Rt. 1322) & West Brooke Rd. (Rt.1320)
Submitted:
01/29/99
MDP #004-91
MDP approved by BOS 10/09/91; admin. approved 11/22/91
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
Stonewall Industrial Pk. - Lot 32
SUB #06-99
Gainesboro
Subdivision of 24.5524 ac. into 60 lots
1 for single-family det. traditional homes
Subdivision of 1 lot consisting of 5.4455
ac. 1)
Location:
Corner of Century
Ln. (Rt. 862) & Lenoir Dr. (F-732).
Submitted:
01/27/99
Subd. Admin. Approved:
MDP #006-93
MDP approved by BOS 07/14/93; MDP admin. approved 07/28/93
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
Canter Estates - Section I
SUB #05-99)
Shawnee
Subdivision of 24.5524 ac. into 60 lots
1 for single-family det. traditional homes
Location:
Northwest corner of intersection of White Oak Rd. (Rt. 636) &
Macedonia Church Rd. (Old Rt. 642)
Submitted:
02/08/99
MDP #004-98 (Tasker Rd. Land Bays)
MDP approved by BOS 07/08/98; MDP admin. approved 09/04/98
Subd. Admin. Approved:
02/11/00
Applications Action Summary
Printed February 18, 2000
Tybrooke, L.C. (SUB #03-99)
NO MDP
Gainesboro
2 Lots; Tl. Acreage 4.1277 (B2 & RA)
Location:
Front Royal Pk (Rt. 522) at Albin; 1 mile N. of Winch. B (Rt. 37)
Submitted:
01/22/99
PC Review:
03/17/99 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
04/12/99 - approved
Subd. Admin. Approved:
pending
Autumn Glen, Sect. I
SUB #015-98
Opequon
21 lots - duplex & multiplex (52
dwellings) on 14.8 ac. (RP)
Location:
South side of Tasker Rd. (Rt. 642), 0.25 mi. East of Rt. 647
Submitted:
06/30/98
MDP#004-98 (Tasker Rd Land Bays)
MDP approved by BOS 07/08/98; MDP Pending Admin. Approval
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Phase I approved on 11/04/98 for 21 dwellings
Lenoir City Co. Lot 2; Stonewall
Indust. Pk. SUB #007-97)
[Gainesboro
Subdivision of a 2.6584 ac. lot (Ml)
Location:
McGhee Rd. (Rt. 861); approx. 1,000' from Tyson Dr. intersection
Submitted:
07/28/97
MDP #006-93
Approved by BOS 07/14/93; Admin. Approved 07/28/93
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
Dominion Knolls (SUB #005-97)Stonewall
75 s.E zero lot line lots on 20.278 ac.
Location:
So -west corner of Baker Ln. (Rt. 1200) & Ft. Collier Rd. (Rt. 1322)
Submitted:
05/16/97
MDP #001-97
Approved by BOS 04/09/97; Admin. Approved 06/30/97
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Sect. 1 (25 lots) approved 06/02/98; Sect. 2 approved; Sect. 3 ndin
Applications Action Summary
Printed February 18, 2000
Co. IDC (SUB)
FWinchester-Fred Back Creek
2 MI Lots 0.552 acres & 20.285 acres
Location:
Southeast side of Development Lane
OSubmitted:
09/08/95
MDP #003-87:
A roved by BOS 07/08/87; Admin. Approved 06/08/88
Pending Admin. Approval
Awaiting signed plats.
Abrams Point, Phase I SUB
[Shawnee
230 SF Cluster & Urban Lots
Location:
South side of Rt. 659
Submitted:
05/02/90
PC Review:
06/06/90 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
06/13/90 - approved
rpending Admin. Approval:
Awaiting deed of dedication, letter of credit, and signed plat
Harry Stimpson (SUB)
O e uon Two B2 Lots
Location:
Town Run Lane
Submitted:
09/23/94
PC Review:
10/19/94 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
10/26/94 - approved
Pending Admin. Approval:
Awaiting signed plat.
SITE PLANS:
Premier Reticles, Ltd.
SP #07-00
Back Creek
Wholesale Trade & Office; 4,000 s.f.
bldg. on 1.0 ac. parcel 3
Location:
Commonwealth Court, off Valle Pk. (Rt. 11)
Submitted:
01/30/00
Approved: 1P
Pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed February 18, 2000
Outreach to Asia Nationals
Gainesboro Addit. to exist. bldg. for humanitarian
SP #06-00
aid, residence. &church Al
160 Industrial Drive
Submitted:
Location:
Off Rt. 522 North, 0.6 mi. north of Hunting Ridge Rd.
Submitted:
02/01/00
Approved:
Pending
oral Graphics Services, Inc.
ISP #05-00
Back Creek
6,600 sf. warehouse addition to an
existing 31,973 s.f. industrial bldg, 1
Location:
160 Industrial Drive
Submitted:
01/14/00
Approved:
Pendin
Winchester Regional Airport
AuthoritySP #04-00
Shawnee
Aircraft Parking Apron; 2.3+ acres to
be developed; (AP1)
Location:
Winchester Regional Airport
at 491 Airport Road
Submitted:
01/11/00
Pendin
Approved:
Pending
Signet Screen Printing
SP #03-00
Stonewall
10,000 s.f. warehouse for printing; 0.98
acres 2
Location:
South side of Ft. Collier Rd., 460' east of Baker Lane
Submitted:
01/06/00
Approved:
Pendin
Grace Brethren Church
(SP #02-00)
Stonewall
Church; 3 ac. developed of a 22.6 ac.
tract
Location:
Rt. 656
Submitted:
01/06/00
Approved:
Pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed February 18, 2000
AMK Products, Inc. SP #Ol-00
Shawnee Phase I - 12,000 s.f. warehouse 1
Location:
800 Airport Road
Submitted:
01/18/00
A roved:
Pending
Dawson Industrial Park
SP #68-99
Back Creek
Maintenance Shed; 6.95 ac. site to be
developed 1
Location:
Rt. 651 & Dawson Dr., just north of Rt. 37
Submitted:
12/16/99
Approved:
01/10/00
Powell's Plumbing (SP #67-99)
Shawnee office & storage for bldg. -related con-
truction; 1.0366 ac. 1 w/ Flex Tech
Location:
Muskoka Court, adjacent to Airport Rd.; Airport Business Center,
Section 2, Parcel 20
Submitted:
12/06/99
Approved:
Pendin
WN203 Roadway/ Gap Run
Calvin Ritter prop.) SP #65-99
Gainesboro commercial telecommunications tower
Location:
Rt. 50W to last driveway before Mahlon Dr.; up drive to quarry site
on right of hillside
Submitted:
12/01/99
Approved:
02/04/00
Applications Action Summary
Printed February 18, 2000 10
Lakeside Library (SP #56-99)Shawnee
Library Complex; 5.40 ac. of a 16.0 ac.
site to be developed
Location:
Macedonia Church Road
Submitted:
10/29/99
Approved:
02/16/00
Central Coca-Cola Bottling Co.,
Inc. SP #55-99
Back Creek
400,000 s.f, multi -phase mfg. facility;
24.87 ac. site 1
Location:
Intersection of Shady Elm Rd. & Apple Valley Rd.
Submitted:
10/21/99
Approved:
Pending
Kraft Foods Wastewater
Treatment Bldg. SP #54-99
Stonewall
2,300 s.f. addition to existing mfg.
facility; 20 -acre site 1
Location:
220 Park Center Drive
Submitted:
10/12/99
Approved:
02/17/00
Jim Wilson Warehouse #2
SP #49-99
Stonewall
Reconstruct 30,000 s.f. warehouse bldg.
On existing foundation 1
Location:
Lenoir Drive
Submitted:
08/31/99
Approved:
Pending
Irongate, Inc. (SP #48-99)10
pequon
Addit. to exist. steel fabrication shop;
0.25 ac. develop. on 1.438 ac. site 1
Location:
201 Ridings Lane
Submitted:
08/30/99
Approved:
Pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed February 18, 2000 11
Park Place Condominiums,
Section II SP #44-99
Shawnee
88 unit apartment complex; 9.52 ac. of 1I -
ac. parcel developed (RP)
Location:
S.E. corner of Valley
Mill Rd. (Rt. 659) & Brookland Ln. (Rt. 658)
Submitted:
08/18/99
Pending
Approved:
Pending
Stonewall Industrial Park, Lots
26, 27, & 28 SP #42-99
Gainesboro
10,450 s.L office/ 154,325 s.f.
warehouse; 12.08 ac. parcel 1
Location:
McGhee Road; Stonewall Industrial Park
Submitted:
07/30/99
Approved:
Pending
Shenandoah Valley Baptist
Church SP #40-99
Opequon
2- 756 s.f. additions to existing church
bldg. for storage use
Location:
4699 Valley Pike
Submitted:
07/12/99
Approved:
Pending
Fairfax Court (SP #38-99)
Opequon
Single-family & Multi -family
Residential Use (RP)
Location:
Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277)
Submitted:
07/14/99
Approved:
Pending
Appleland Sports Center, Inc.
SP #37-99
Back Creek
Expansion of existing commercial
recreation area; (RA)
Location:
4490 Valley Pike
Submitted:
07/14/99
Approved:
02/14/00
Applications Action Summary
Printed February 18, 2000 12
Kim & Marietta Walls
SP #34-99
Stonewall
office (B2); 1.58 ac. parcel (1.0 ac. in
Ci!j of Wine.; 0.58 ac. in Fred. Co.
Location:
909 North Loudoun St.
Submitted:
06/22/99
Approved:
Pending
Wine. -Fred. Co. Chptr. of the
American Red Cross SP #23-99
Stonewall
16,160 sq.ft. office facility on 2.0213 ac.
parcel 2
Location:
E. side N. Frederick Pk; approx. 1/4 mi. N. of Winc. Corp. limits
Submitted:
05/13/99
Approved:
Pending
im Henry Property - Mini
Farehouse SP #057-98
Stonewall
7,504 sf. warehouse; 4 ac. developed of
a 7.74 ac. site 3
Location:
Intersection of Baker Lane & Fort Collier Road
Submitted:
08/26/98
Approved:
Pending
Moffett Property (SP #050-98)Stonewall
Stonewall
Metal warehse. addition (4,800 g.s.f.);
1.392 ac. site; 0.465 disturbed 3
Location:
1154 Martinsburg Pike
Submitted:
07/21/98
Approved:
Pending
T.P. & Susan Goodman
SP #044-98
Stonewall
Hackwood/ Minor Site Plan (RA)
Location:
534 Redbud Road
Submitted:
06/10/98
Approved:
Pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed February 18, 2000 13
Southeast Container (SP #001-98)
Stonewall District Parking Lot; 0.2 ac. Disturbed on a
Church Expansion; 2.5 ac. to be
developed of a 29.5115 ac. site (RA)
89.6 ac. Site (Ml)
East side of Rt. 642; approx. 2,500' so. of the Rt. 37/1-81 Interch .
Submitted:
Location:
Ft. Collier Industrial Park
Submitted:
01/06/98
I[Approved:
Pending I
Agape Christian Fellowship
Church Sanctua (SP #005-97)
Shawnee
Church Expansion; 2.5 ac. to be
developed of a 29.5115 ac. site (RA)
Location:
East side of Rt. 642; approx. 2,500' so. of the Rt. 37/1-81 Interch .
Submitted:
02/12/97
Approved:
Pending
Shenandoah Bldg. Supply
(SP #056-96)
Gainesboro
Warehouse on 5 acres (Ml)
Location:
195 Lenoir Drive (Stonewall Industrial Park)
Submitted:
12/16/96
Approved:
Pending
Stimpson/Rt. 277 Oil & Lube
Service (SP #030-96)
Opequon
Oil & Lube Serv., Car Wash, Drive -
1 Thru on 2.97 ac. (1132)
Location:
152 Fairfax Pk. (behind Red Apple Country Store)
Submitted:
07/03/96
Approved:
Pending
AMOCO/House of Gifts
(SP #022-96)
Gainesboro
Gas Pump Canopy 880 sq. ft. area of a
1 0.916 acre parcel (RA)
Location:
3548 North Frederick Pike
Submitted:
05/08/96
Approved:
Pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed February 18, 2000 14
American Legion Post #021
(SP #018-96)
Stonewall
Addition to lodge building on 3.4255
acre site (132)
Location:
1730 Berryville Pike
Submitted:
04/1.0/96
Approved:
Pending
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
Edwin L. Lambert, Jr.
(CUP #01-00)
Stonewall Cottage Occupation - Contractor
Location:
1521 Cedar Hill Road, Clearbrook
Submitted:
12/27/99
PC Review:
02/02/00 - recommended approval w/ conditions
BOS Review:
02/23/00
SBA, Inc. (Richard Miller Cooley
Property) (CUP #03-99)
Opequon
Commercial Telecommun. Facility:
250' self-supporting lattice tower (RA)
Location:
173 Catlett Lane, Middletown
Submitted:
03/12/99
PC Review:
04/07/99 - tabled at the applicant's request for 90 days to 07/07/99;
07/07/99 - tabled at the applicant's request for 30 days to 08/04/99
08/04/99 - tabled at the applicant's request indefinitely
BOS Review:
not yet scheduled
Applications Action Summary
Printed February 18, 2000 15
COUNTY of FP; EDERaC
Department of Planning and D2veicpm. Tent
5Ja/ s65-5651
FAX: 540/673-0632
To: Planning Commission Members
From: Christopher M. Moh , anner II
Subject: 2000 Primary Road Improvement Plan
Date: February 18, 2000
Enclosed is the Draft 2000 Frederick County Primary Road Improvement Plan for review by the
Planning Commission. The purpose ofthis plan is to advise the Commonwealth Transportation Board
of the funding priorities for the Primary Road System in Frederick County. Frederick County
representatives will be attending the 2000 Pre -allocation Hearing on Thursday, March 23, 2000, at
the Augusta County Government Center to present this plan to the Commonwealth Transportation
Board.
The plan presented to you maintains the same priorities that were presented in the 1999 plan. The
Transportation Committee will consider the draft plan at their regular meeting scheduled for
Thursday, February'29, 2000, and a recommendation will be conveyed to the Planning Commission.
Staff asks that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for consideration by the Board
of Supervisors at their March 8, 2000, meeting.
*uiulAl
Enclosure
U:\Chris\common\Transportation\Road Plans\Primary Road Plan\2000 Primary PC.MEM.wpd
ltd; North Kent Street - _Mnchest,er, Vllrgim a 2216101.50,00
2000 PRIMARY ROAD
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
for
FREDERICK COUNTY
DR4FT
PU FF e C>Fi'.
The 2000 Primary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County, Virginia continues to focus on the
development of a new limited access arterial corridor and improvements to existing major and minor
arterial systems within the county's Urban Development Area. The improvements recommended
in this plan remain consistent with the Winchester Area Transportation Study and the Interstate 81
Improvement Study and will complete the primary road system necessary to manage the traffic
demands in Frederick County and the City of Winchester into the foreseeable future. These projects
are listed in order of priority and will continue to appear on subsequent plans until funding has been
secured for their completion.
2000 PRIMARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN
1) Route 37 Eastern Bypass (Alternative C)
A) Continued reimbursement of funding provided by Frederick County to undertake the
study and prepare the Environmental Impact Statement for the preferred alternative
recommended by the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
B) Initiate engineering and design, acquire right-of-way, and establish a construction
phase schedule for the preferred alternative between the southern terminus of Route
37 to the new intersection with Route 7 east of the City of Winchester as follows:
* From the southern terminus of Route 37 to Route 522
* From Route 522 to Route 50/17
* From Route 50/17 to Route 7
C) Program funds to initiate engineering and design, right-of-way acquisition and
construction from Route 7 to the Route 37 northern terminus once a final study
corridor is agreed upon by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the County
of Frederick.
2) Route 277 (East of Stephens City)
From: I-81/277/647 Intersection (East of Stephens City)
To: Route 340/522 South Intersection (East of Double Toll Gate)
Phase I - From the I-81/277 Interchange to Route 636
Phase II - From Route 636 to Route 340/522
A) Continue engineering and design, acquire the right-of-way, and establish a
construction schedule for the phased improvement of Route 277
B) Work with county staff to acquire dedicated right-of-way and achieve grading,
drainage, and construction improvements in conjunction with development projects
which occur along the corridor until such time that funding is available for
construction.
C) Program funding for the completion of right-of-way acquisition and construction of
the entire segment as described above.
3) Route 11 (North and South of Winchester)
A. From: Southern limits of the CAy of Winchester
To: Route 37 Interchange (Route 11/Route 65 1)
Widen and improve to five lanes.
B. From: Northern limits of the City of Winchester
To: Interstate 81 Exit 317 Interchange
Widen and improve as necessary.
4) 1-81 (East of Winchester)
From: West Virginia line
To: Warren County line
Provide additional through lanes, collector -distributor lanes, modifications to existing access
points, and additional access points to the main line as recommended by the Interstate 81
Study and the Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS).
Priority One - Route 277, Exit 307, to Route 37 North
Priority Two - Route 669 Bridge Reconstruction
Priority Three - Remainder of I-81 in Frederick County
5) Commuter Park and Ride ]Lots
Conduct studies and utilize existing information from the Lord Fairfax Planning District
Commission to determine the location of needed facilities.
U:\Chris\common\Transportation\Road PlansTrimary Road Plan\2000 Primary Rd Plan "Cext.wpd
LEGEND
m.z Route 37 - Phase I
Route 37 - Phase 11
Route 37 - Phase III
Route 37 - Phase IV
Route 277 - Phase I
Route 277 - Phase II
Route 11
Interstate 81, Priority One
Interstate 81 - Route 669 Bridge, Priority Two
Interstate 61, Priority Three
—
Route 11 Route 37
1-81
110y�JE--, SIT" R.
. . ....... .. ; kub-
14.
•
0
Route 37
-Ro e 277
2000 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
PRIMARY ROAD PLAN
w COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/678-0632
Iv EMORAN D IM
TO: Planning Commissioners
FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, Zoning Administrator
SUBJECT: Request for Exemption from the Subdivision Ordinance Requirement,
John W. Haynes Property
DATE: February 22, 2000
Staff has received a request from Ms. Sherry Davis -Pullen, Weichert Realtors, on behalf of Mr. John
W. Haynes to gain a exemption to the 50 -foot right-of-way width requirement of the Subdivision
Ordinance [§ 144-31.C(3)]. The Board of Supervisors, upon recommendation of the Planning
Commission, may allow for exemptions to the Subdivision Ordinance in cases of unusual situations
or when strict adherence to the general regulations would result in substantial injustice or hardship
[§ 144-5].
Mr. Haynes owns a 129 -acre parcel in the Stonewall Magisterial District adjacent to the West
Virginia State Lane; the parcel is identified with Property Identification Number 34 -A -127A. Access
to this property is via a private road with a 30 -foot right-of-way width. This existing right-of-way
does not connect to a state road in Virginia, rather to West Virginia Route 28/2. Previously, this
parcel contained approximately 60 acres in west Virginia; however, a subdivision along the state line
created the existing parcel.
The Subdivision Ordinance requires that lots be created with a minimum 50 -foot right-of-way width
[§ 144-31.C(3)]. As access to the parcel in question is via an existing right-of-way across property
owned by others, the request asks that the Board of Supervisors exempt this land division from the
50 -foot requirement so that the existing right-of-way may be utilized. Based on the location of this
land division, history of subdivisions, and the nature of the surrounding properties, staff feels that a
waiver to allow for use of the existing right-of-way is reasonable. The waiver should be for the
creation of this one lot.
The Planning Commission should make a recommendation on this request to the Board. Staff is
available to address your concerns.
Attachment
107 North Kent Street - Win, chester, Virginia 22601-5000
e ;
0% r
PC; 1v� d,
altorsr
WEICHERT
ONE STOP.
January 20, 2000
Frederick County
Department of Planning and Zoning
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Attention. Mike Ruddy
Dear Sir:
Front Royal Office
824 John Marshall Highway
Front Royal, VA 22630
(540) 635-8000
Fax: (540) 635-1631
I am writing on behalf of my clients John W. Hanes, Jr. and John W. Hanes, III in
regards to the subdivision of their land in Stonewall District, Frederick County. The
parcel is identified as tax map 34 -A -127A, Deed Book 762 page 1821.
It is my understanding in order for this land to be subdivided by the current
requirements a waiver must be granted by the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors for the right of way leading from State Route 28/2 in Berkely County, West
Virginia that is less than 50' wide. The property is currently being accessed by a 30'
right of way.
Attached are copies of statements from the adjoining land owners indicating they
are not willing to increase the right of way to 50'
I am requesting that this item be entered into the Planning Commission and Board
of Supervisors.
Thank you,
Serry Da/s-Pullen
Associate Broker
Weichert Realtors
Enclosures
Ask About Weichert's One -Stop Shopping Services /�
Offices located throughout Connecticut s New York ■ New ,Jersey ■ Pennsylvania ® Delaware ■ Maryland n Virginia m Washington, D.C. 1 1
eam� no
wvnrtru-
xm
January 15, 2000
To Whom It May Concern:
The right of way crossing my property leading from the West Virginia State Route 28/2 in Mill
Creek District, Berkeley County, West Virginia has been in existence since 1954 at a width of 23
feet, and in 1998 was increased to a width of 30 feet for the purpose of ingress and egress to the
adjoining property owners, Specht, Hanes and Dove. NVe are not interested in increasing the
HL,ht of wav to 50 feet.
Daniel L. Lewis
�,, ,
+ - v
Pamela W. Lewis
January 5, 2000
To Whom It May Concern:
The right of way crossing my property leading from the West Virginia State Route 28/2
in Mill Creek Magisterial District, Derkely County, West Virginia has been in existence
for least 25 years at a width of 30 feet for the purpose of ingress and egress to the
adjoining property owners, Hanes and Dove. We are not interested in increasing the right
of way to 50 feet.
xc:f -A cv-t'�
Q-Q:�Ly �- ( )& -tat
vfa---� -------
January 5, 2000
To Whom it May Concern:
The right of way crossing my property leading from the West Virginia State borate 28/2
in Mill Creek Magisterial District, Berkely County, West Virginia has been in existence
for least 25 years at a width of 30 feet for the purpose of ingress and egress to the
adjoining property owners, Hanes and Dove. We are not interested in increasing the right
of way to 50 feet.
---- --- ---
��
FINAL, PIAT, MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION
of the PROPERTY CONVEYED TO
John W. Hanes Jr. & John W. Hanes, III
Deed Book 762, Page 1821 TM 434 -A -127A
July 12, 1999 Zoned RA
Stonewall District, Frederick County, Virginia
VICINFfY SKETCH
n.
e
4 r _
r --
a ia3_�
(
crtnvcv�nln �
1, Michael M. Artz, a duly authorized land surveyor, do hereby certify that the lands hereby adjusted is in the names
of John W. Jr., & John W. Hanes, III and was acquired by them as stated in the Owner's Certificate. I further certify
that these tracts are properly and ac rately described and are within the boundaries of the original tracts.
Certified Land Surveyor
OWNER'S CERTIFICATE:
The undersigned fee simple owners hereby certify that the land herein divided is a portion of the land acquired by
John W. Hanes Jr. & John W. Hanes, III by deed dated July 11, 1991 and recorded in Deed book 762, Page 1821.
Both deeds being of record in the Clerk's Office of Frederick County, Virginia. This division as it appears on the
accompanying plats is with the free consent and in accordance with the desires of the undersigned owners of said land
and the same is hereby confirmed and submitted for record idthe Clerk's Office of Frederick County, Virginia.
John W. Hanes, Jr.
NOTARY CERT IFICAT'E:-."-Sj;ATE OF �W)c ' n ,�„ • CIT /CO_- OF
17 - , to -wit: The foregoing owners consent and dedication was acknowledged before me. This
1. day of i 1C. e 1r J�_ � 19 `J .
My commission expires
� Notary Public
John W. Hanes, III
NOTARY CER TIFIC?+' E STATE 00") 7," .� �lC ; CITY/COUNTY OF
4 to -wit: The foregoing owners consent and dedication was acknowledged b �o this
L 4=-, day of F` _'.; ry 19? ; r 2� E k� JONES
ES
�Y �4ealrYesk
My commission expires
Notary PubW
�a01QlaB.:1
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
This Divison is approved by the undersigned in accordance with existing subdivisioit'regulations and way be
admitted to record.
date Frederick County Subdivision Administrator
SHEET 1 OF 3
NOTES:
1. BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON WAS DETERMINED BY A FIELD RUN SURVEY
PERFORMED BY ARTZ & ASSOCIATES ON JULY 12, 1999.
2. 11115 PLAT IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
3. OTHER RIGHTS -OF -WAYS OR EASEMENTS, IF ANY, ARE NOT SHOWN.
4. THIS IS AN AGRICULTURAL LOT DIVISION.
NEW PARCEL
29.515 AC.
34—A -127A
129.00 AC. ORIG.
99.491 AC. ADJ.
RR
L14 r�
REBAR
FOUND
MLY Lfr' a
t7c7NVA t2cAAF,
11.91552 AC.
EXISTING 30'
INGRESS -EGRESS EASEMENT
TO WV RTE 28/2
KE
THIS PORTION OF THE EXISTING
INGRESS/EGRESS ESMT. ACROSS
29.515 AC. TRACT IS INCREASED
TO 35' FEET FOR ATOTAL
WIDTH OF 50'
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
L1
S 3616'44" E
2590.06'
L2
S 03'03'19" W
315.66'
L3
N, ,7726'52" W
51.72'
L4
N 63'59'18" W
137.59'
L5
N 46'40'48" W
55.58'
L6
N 64'35'57- W
169.61'
L7
N 7(103'24" W
268.81'
L8
N 64756"11" W
198.55'
L9
N 60'36'05" W
156.02'
L10
N 5502'08" W
361.81'
Lit
N 22'15'25" E
221.77'
L12
N 22'08'57' W
942.14'
L13
N 2235'37_ W
571.07'
L14
N 44'26'39" W
10.59'
L15
N 57'37'38" E
107.05'
L16
N 50'29'52" E
1 81.82'
ALLY Lm a Z<
PONRAk t7Ve `
O�
"-A-121 922V 227�1a APPROXIMATE STATE LINE
POST i AS DETERMINED BY PREVIOUS SURVEYS
pIT.TjUmar
MICHAEL Nil. ARTZ
No. 195
L"b SURV' NP
REBAR
FOUND
�'
10
HMZ5
le
a9.491 /C, MWItJM
NANCY 0.5rFA&ttr
NEW 50' WIDE \\ S„.61 PC.
EASEMTS
EN
TO RESIDUAL PARCEL \
ti
34 -A -127A \
(, 762/1821 \ I
•?` Oen F, �8
� ppJOpP� �
a Wit" OP
\6
FINA_ PLAr, MINOR 1\ Mefi V�V 5L ✓ IA54Oi
Cr TS_� rizoMr Y COV —10 10
JC'NN W, HANtl 5, J1; Z, �
JOIN W. KANI1 S, 111
STOhrWALL mrrmf', rm171 mcK coL" Y, vircli eIlA
5C_NX: I" - 400' VAIV: JULY 12, 1999
rM5FNf BIZ:
JOM W. Jr., & JOM W. KAM5, III
TM It" -A -127A W762, I'6 1d21
PROJECT 1995157
REBAR
SET
7_o, 1. J!r'19.t? L.
�p
O REBAR
`�v SET
h B'•
Rp , b
AV EDNA H. LIGHT r'
BK 7 5 5 PG U 9'u 43 PG. 379 (FRED. CO.)
DB 160 PG. 5S5 (BERK. CO.)
wyj
6 RTE
'2
z / EDWARD L
g ?�—RESERVEDSRIt AESS D:
!ra•I.R.S.� 4' % EGRESSEASEWNT DB 191
b \ / (CENTEflm ONFARMLAW PG. 72.
bSS I.R.S. ( IT EAST OF
p m FARM LANE Cq
EDNA H. LIGHT ^� RA(rL 189.30 ACRES— DANIEL
T
REMAINDER DB 35
PG.422
POST
N4T172n 121.47' HOUSE N 1
SLREOy 33.41 ACRESio, 1
COM R POST 1, (SEE NOTE tl3)
. ria�x a 1�2R2r aa• I; C��r
/ Vtg N� �•[/Lg
DONALD LROSE
8 W
24i Gy4r &e• I.R.S. DB 2 19'
tAk—ERKC.0.
OFSLEEPHIJ,
18930 ACRES REMAINDER \\
ONCLUDES 57.06 ACRES IN W.VA, OF WHICH 0.06 ACRES
r IS CLAIMED BYADVERSE POSSESSION, AND INCLUDES
i132-24 ACRES IN VIRGINIA, OF WHICH 0.30 ACRES IS \\I'-
CUVMED BY ADVERSE POSSESSION.)
GLEN E RUSSELL ----
DS 3S7 PG. 336 \
1. RIRON
S. DENOTES ROD SET.
NOTES. I.R.S.�'lot
2. ALL PROPERTY SHOWN IN VIRGINIA IS ZONED RA; ALL
PROPERTY SHOWN ISAGAICULTURALLYUSED.
3. THE 33.41 ACRES SHOWN INCLUDES 0.62 ACRES CLAIMED
PBYADVERSEPOSSESSION.
�YP� BROMN
600 0 600 1200
FINAL PLAT FOR MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION
y� of the land of
BILLY LEE DOVE AND DONNA DOVE
`"""A'N "• • STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
f
�cav0u eq0''.�� MILL CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, BERKELEY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA
& JCEms
y _ JANUARY 8, 1991 SCALE: 1" : 600'
No. 56
S{E A E L}: FIELD SUiUE1'By PLAT PREPARED BY 2
GALVOLOEEITIMU% ROUMEBHONN
9P
VII& o� 1225 W. MNG STREET R7.1 Box 07-G of
' N MAFMNSSURO, WVA. 25401
�. GGVIARO3TONN. W.V A. 25420
' .....w �PHONE (304) 25V4172 PHONE (301) 2215572 2
✓I W, I A. FREOF. RICK COUNTY. SCT.
' 1 ms Instrument of —Ung was Producod
me cn ;tM Y�1
q/ :00.. .,o
�j1C w",Ih finite
c du'tnowlzdgn'mI thereto annexed was
wlmitt j to mord.
..bc�i �6, W
'C-DU11TY r-)- I+REDERICE,
TJepz;i -meni of Plan ing ar d Development
54D/ 665-5'651
FAI'a: 540/673-0632
1M EMORA D X11
To: Planning Commission
From: Michael T. Ruddy, Zoning Administrator
Subject: Discussion - Loading Areas
Date: February 18, 2000
Staff presented several proposed text amendments to the Development Review and Regulations
Subcommittee (DRRS) pertaining to loading spaces, at their January 27,1999 meeting. The amendment
was initiated by the Planning Commission who considered access to loading spaces, and appropriate
surface materials, at your joint work session held with the DRRS on December 15, 1999. The attached
amendment was forwarded by the DRRS for discussion and consideration by the Planning Commission.
Summary of DRRS Action:
The DRRS felt it was important to clarify the ambiguities within the ordinance. After discussing at length
the pros and cons of paved and gravel surfaces, their recommendation favored requiring a paved
standard for all loading spaces. In thoroughly evaluating the loading space ordinance, the DRRS did feel
that it would be appropriate to reduce several of the standards presently required for loading spaces. This
includes eliminating the requirement to .provide curb and gutter, raised islands, and landscaping. The
proposed amendment reflects, in particular, the desire to provide increased flexibility in the Zoning
Ordinance and the recommendations of the DRRS.
History:
As you may recall, the Planning Commission previously affirmed staff s interpretation that access to all
loading spaces shall be provided via driveways and aisles meeting the requirements for parking lots
contained in Section 165-27. In essence, that the surface materials provided should be appropriate for
the zoning district in which the development is located. The Planning Commission further recommended
lv'7 (orih ;zent SirLei Si�I nL ,Est r, Vary, nia -15-DOI
Planning Commission Discussion
Page 2
February 18, 2000
that consideration should be given to smaller start-up businesses, often local businesses, with regards
to reducing the requirements. In particular, several commissioners believed that it may be appropriate
to eliminate the paving requirement for certain uses, in certain zoning districts, that generated minimal
loading space activity. The Planning Commission was very clear that it would be inappropriate to allow
reduced standards for the larger, high traffic users.
Once again, the attached text forwarded by the DRRS clarifies this section of the ordinance and reduces
several of the existing requirements applicable to loading areas.
MTR/ch
Attachments
U:\Mike\Common\DRRS\Ioadingsppc.mem
165-23. Loading areas.
Spaces for the loading and unloading of trucks and vans shall be provided in association with
business and industrial uses as follows:
A. Loading spaces required.
(1) The number of loading spaces required shall be as follows:
Type of Use Loading Spaces Required
Food stores, restaurants and taverns 1 for first 10,000 square feet of
floor area plus 1 for each
additional 30,000 square feet
Retail and personal services 1 for first 10,000 square feet of
floor area plus 1 for each
additional 30,000 square feet
Hotels and motels, lodges, clubs, fraternal 1 for each 20,000 square feet
organizations and indoor recreation of floor area
Office buildings 1 for structures between
30,000 and 100,000 square
feet; 1 for each additional
100,000 square feet
Manufacturing, wholesale, trucking, 1 for each 40,000 square feet
construction and industrial uses of floor area
Schools, hospitals and nursing homes 1 for each structure with more
than 100,000 square feet of
floor area
(2) Interpretation.
(a) When a use is not specifically listed above, the Zoning Administrator shall
determine which of the above categories to use to determine the spaces
required, based on similarities between the characteristics of the uses. When
a use is not specifically listed above, the Zoning Administrator may also use
information provided by the application or other sources of information to
determine the number of spaces required.
(b) In cases where mixed uses share the same loading area, the loading spaces
required shah equal the sum of the spaces required for the various uses. In
some cases, different uses will be contained in a single structure or site plan,
and in those cases, the spaces required shall equal the sum of the spaces for
each use.
B. Loading space dimensions. Each required loading space shall be twelve (12) feet
wide and forty-five (45) feet long. Each loading space shall have a vertical clearance
of fourteen (14) feet.
C. Obstructions and structures. Loading spaces shall be designed to permit loading and
unloading without requiring the moving of any parked motor vehicle. Utility poles,
light standards, trash containers and similar structures shall not be permitted within
loading spaces.
(2) Space Demarcation
(4) Raised Islands
(11) Landscaping
(12) Pedestrian Access.
In addition, the above loading areas may be exempt from providing (3) Curbs and
Gutters. However, the Zoning Administrator, upon consultation with the County
Engineer, may require the provision of curb and gutters when necessary to implement
a stormwater management plan.
U:\Mike\Common\DRRS\loadingrcvpc.wpd
§ 165-27
SHADE TREES
SCALE 1:40
ZONINCy
§ 165-28
EXAMPLE PLE PARxENG LOT
§ 165-28. Loading areas.
Spaces for the loading and unloading of trucks and vans shall be provided in
association with business and industrial uses as follows:
0'
A. Loading spaces required.
(1) The number of loading spaces required shall be as follows:
16539
§ 165-28 FREDERICK COUNTY
CODE § 165-28
Type of Use
Loading Spaces Required
Food stores, restaurants and
1 for first 10,000 square
taverns-
feet of floor area plus 1 for
each additional 30,000
square feet
Retail and personal services
1 for first 10,000 square of
floor area plus 1 for each
additional 30,000 square
feet
Hotels and `motels, lodges,
1 for each 20.000 square
clubs, fraternal organizations
feet of floor area
and indoor- recreation
Office buildings
1 for structures between
30,000 and 100,000
square feet: 1 for each addi-
tional 100,000 square feet
Manufacturing, wholesale,
1 for each 40,000 square
trucking, construction and in-
feet of floor area
dustrial uses
Schools, Schools, hospitals and nursing
homes
(2) Interpretation.
When a use is not specifically listed above, the Zoning
Administrator shall determine which of the above categories
to use to determine the spaces required, based on similarities
between the characteristics of the uses. When a use is not
specifically listed above, the Zoning Administrator may also
use information provided by the applicant or other sources of
information to determine the number of spaces required.
(a)
1 for each structure with
more than 100,000 square
feet of floor area
(b) In cases where mixed uses share the same loading area, the
loading spaces required shall equal the sum of the spaces
required for the various uses. In some cases, different uses will
be contained in a single structure or site plan, and in those
' 16 540
§ 165-28 ZONING § 165-29
cases, the spaces required shall equal the sure of the spaces
for each use.
B. Loading space dimensions. Each required loading space shall be
twelve (12) feet wide and forty-five (45) feet long. Each loading space
shall have a vertical clearance of fourteen (14) feet.
C. Obstructions and structures. Loading spaces shall be designed to
permit loading and unloading without requiring the moving of any
parked motor vehicle. Utility poles, light standards, trash containers
and similar structures shall not be permitted within loading spaces.
D. Access. In no case shall a loading space be approved which requires
ai a vehicle enter or back directly-from loading spaces onto public
roads. All loading spaces shall be provided access to a public road
using an entrance which meets all requirements of the Frederick
County Code and the Virginia Department of Transportation. Access
s aces
�dt�ey�sad aisles mei nthe requirements or paring ots as c; -F
§ 165-25. Motor vehicle access.
A. New driveways.
(1) Private driveways shall be allowed to provide access to individual
residences or uses. Private driveways shall also be allowed to
provide access to parking lots and loading areas shared by a
number of residences or uses.
(2) In order to provide safe and convenient access and to provide
efficient travel on arterial highways, a minimum spacing shall be
provided between new driveways and entrances onto collector
roads and onto primary and arterial highways, in the following
zoning districts:
B1 Neighborhood Business
82 Business deneral
B3 Industrial Transition
M1 Light Industrial
Nl2 Industrial General
1
16541 10-10-95
165-2--7. PtiRVOW- 9.,.0 3
§
165-27 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165_27
(3) When shared parking is provided an abutting lots, means of
pedestrian access shall be provided between each use snaring
the parking and the parking area.
(4) When shared parking is provided on I abutting lots, a lease,
easement or other form of agreement shall be executed among
the property owners sharing the parking assuring the use of the
required parking spaces and assuring proper maintenance of the
parking area. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Zoning
Administrator for review and approval.
C. Parking space size. All required parking spaces shall be at least one
hundred eighty (180) square feet in size and shall be no less than nine
(9) feet in width. s
D. Na part of a tractor truck, tractor truck trailer, semitrailer, bus or dump
truck shall be parked or stored within the RP Residential Performance
District, the RS Residential Recreational Community District or the
MH1 Mobile Home Community District Any truck with a total length
cf twenty -rive (25) feet or greater shall not be parked or stored within
the RP, R5 or MH1 Zoning Districts. [Amended 6-9-19531
E. Parking lots. Parking spaces shared by more than one (1) dwelling or
use, re a for any use in the business or industrial zoning district or
required for any lristitut cnal, commercial or industrial use in any
zoning district stall meet the following requirements:
(1) Surface materials. in the RP Residential Performance District, the
esiaEntia anned Community Distr ct the R5 Residential
Recrea-donal Community District, the MH1 Mobile .Home
Community D'+strict, the B1 Neighborhood Business Dieaicb 'the
B2 Business General District and the E3 industrial Transition
District and in shopping centers, office parks and industrial par=ks,
parking lots shall be paved with concrate,' bituminous concrete or
similar materials. Such surface materials shall provide a durable,
dust and gravel -free, hard surface. The Zoning Administrator may
determine that other hard -surface materials are appropriate for
effective stormwater management and efficient maintenance. In
other cases, parking lots shall be paved with a minimum of
double prime -and -seal treatment or an equivalent surface.
(2) Space demarcation. All parking spaces shall be marked by durable
painted lines or curbs extending the length of the space. The
16534 10-25-93
§ 165-27 ZONING § 165-27
Zoninc administrator may allow appropriate alternative markings_
Signs End pavement markings shall be utilized, as necessary, to
ensure safe traffic movement and pedestrian access and to
desigrare handicapped parking spaces.
(3) Curbs and gutters. Concrete or rolled asphalt curbing and gutters
shall be installed around the perimeter of all parking lots in the RP
Residential Performance District, the R4 Residential Planned
Comm=unity District, the R5 Residential Recreational Community
Distric-,, the MH1. Mobile Home, Community District, the Bt
Neighccnccod Business District, the -62 Business General District
and u e 83 industrial Transition District and in shopping centers,
of;
§ 165-27 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-27
Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Cade. Handicapped parking
spac-s shall i lave a i i i► iiTii.im -width of L vel' e (12) feet,
Handicapped spaces shall be located on the perimeter of the
parking lots adjacent to sidewalks. A three -foot -vide curb ramp
shall be provided adjacent to the handicapped parking spaces to
provide access to the sidewalk. The number of spaces provided
shall be as follows:
Required
Total Farking Spaces Handicapped Spaces
1 to 25
1
26 to 50
2
51 to 75
t 3
71 to 100
4
101 to 150
5
151 to 200
6
201 to 300
7
301 to 4,00
S
401 to 500
9
501 and more
2% of total
(7) Entrance requirements. In no case shall a parking lot be approved
whic: i requires that vehicles back from parking spaces onto public
roads. All parking lots shall be provided access to a public road
using an entranca which meets all requirements of the Frederick
County Cade and the Virginia Department of TransporrLation. Tne
wid`Lh of driveways serving the parking lot shall not be less than
twenty-r4ur (24) feat for two-way c and twelve (12) feet for
one-,vay traffic. [Ambrided 6-3-19931
(8) Aisle requirements.
(a) Access to each parking space shall be provided by an aisle
with the following width:
(Cont`d on page 16537)
16536 1q-15-93
9
§ 165-27 ZONING § 165-27
Aisle Width
Parking Space Angle 1 --way 2 -Way
(degrees) () (feet)
Parallel 12 20
30 12 20
45 15 20
60 18 22
90 22 22
(b) For other angles, the aisle width shall be the same as for the
nearest angle in -the above table.
(9) Obstructions and structures. Parking lots shall be designed to
permit each vehicle to proceed to and from all unoccupied
parking spaces without requiring the moving of any other parked
motor vehicle. Utility poles, light standards, trash containers and
similar structures shall not be permitted within any aisle or parking
space. Any structure located in a parking lot shall be surrounded
on all sides abutting spaces or aisles by a 'six-inch concrete curb.
The structure shall be separated from the curb by a distance of
three (3) feet.
(10) Drive-in lanes. A separate lane, with a minimum width of twelve
(12) feet, shall be provided for all drive-in or pickup facilities. Such
lanes shall be clearly separated from parking spaces, aisles and
driveways. Sufficient drive-in lane length shall be provided to allow
the stacking of five (5) automobiles per drive-in window.
(11) Landscaping. Parking lots in the RP Residential Performance
District. the R4 Residential Planned Community District. the R5
Residential Recreational Community District, the MH 1 Mobile
Home Community District. B1 Neighborhood Business District.
1 the B2 Business General District and the B3 Industrial Transition
District and in shopping centers, office parks and industrial parks
shall be landscaped to reduce the visual impact of glare and
headlights on adjoining properties and rights-of-way. Parking lots
should be adequately shaded to reduce reflected heat. Landscap-
16537
1
§ 165-27 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-27
ing shall also be provided to reduce the visual expansiveness of
parking lots. Landscaping shall be provided in such parking lots
as follows.-
(a)
ollows:(a) Perimeter landscaping. Required parking lot setback areas,
abutting the parking lot, shall be planted with shade trees and
other landscaping. A three -foot -high evergreen hedge. fence,
berm or wall shall be provided as necessary to prevent
headlights from shining on public rights-of-way and adjoining
properties. A minimum of one (1) shade tree for every forty
(40) feet of parking lot perimeter shall be provided. Additional
trees may be required to properly shade the lot.
(b) interior landscaping. A minimum of five percent (5%) of the
interior portions of a parking lot shall be landscaped for the
purpose of providing shade trees. Such interior landscaping
shall be provided on raised islands and in continuous raised
strips extending along the length of a parking bay. Within the
parking lot, raised islands and landscaped areas should be
used to delineate traffic and pedestrian circulation patterns.
The shade trees provided shall be of an appropriate type to
ensure shading at maturity. No less than one (1) shade tree
shall be provided for each ten (10) parking spaces.
{12y Pedestrian access. Sidewalks shall be provided as necessary
within parking lots to protect pedestrians and promote the safe
and efficient movement of pedestrians and vehicles. In large
parking lots, pedestrian walkways and crosswalks shall be
provided, marked by durable painted stripes and appropriate
signs.
(13) Setbacks. All parking lots shall be located no closer than five (5)
feet from any property line.
16538
COUNTY of FREDER1C
Department of Planning and Development
5401665-5651
FAX: 540/673-0632
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director /c/
RE: Committee Purpose and Membership
DATE: February 15, 2000
As you may be aware, the Commission's bylaws state that:
"In establishing committees, the Commission shall describe the purpose, membership
and terms of office of each Committee. "
At the Chairman's request, the staff has prepared a brief description of the Planning Commission's
two current standing committees along with some proposed language which addresses membership
on the committees. After some discussion, the Commission may wish to adopt the language or some
variation as your policy.
In light of the priority which was assigned to addressing rural land use patterns at this year's retreat,
another issue that needs to be considered is whether the Commission prefers to establish a separate
committee to deal with these issues or utilize the existing committee structure. There are some
staffing issues that need to be factored into this decision.
Please let me know if I can answer any questions.
KCT/ch
Attachment
U: UK ri s\200Mm emoskm i tees. wpd
1,97 North Kent Street , Winchester, -Virginia 221601-5001
Proposed Planning Commission Committee Descriptions
and Terms of Membership
2/15/00
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee: The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee
has three primary responsibilities. First, the Committee works closely with the Planning staff to prepare
an annual update of the Coun 's m rehensi1�ation�syum
an; second, the County's Ctal
Im rovement Pl�zs assembled by staff (based on infoitted by various Countydepartments
an agencies�is tFien reviewed and priorities are set by the Committee. Finally, the Committee reviews
requests for adjustments in the location of the County's Sewer and Water Service Area and the Urban
Development Area boundaries. In addition to these annu " activities, the Committee may also be as e
to undertake special projects such as the preparation of polies or land use plans for specific oeo ra hic
areas. In each instance, the Committee forwards recommendations or proposed updates to the Planning
Commission which in turn forwards recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for final disposition.
Development Review and Regulations Committee: The Development Review and Regulations
Committee's primary task is to work with the Planning staff to develop revisions to the County's
subdivision and zoning regulations. Items to be considered for amendment maybe initiated in any of the
following ways: 1)_ divor groups interested in a specific amendment can develop alternate
language and request that the Committee evaluate the proposal; or 2) the Committee might be asked
to review a code section by members of the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors; and finally,
3) staff may bring a proposed modification to the Committee as a 'resu o a situation that arises out of
tI readministration of the ordinances. The Committee is responsible for evaluating requests for
amendments or developing proposed amendments themselves. In addition to the evaluation of
amendments, the Committee may also be asked to make recommendations on various site plan and
subdivision -related issues which may come before the Plamung ommission in the przi-o awaiver
rewest. In each case, the Committee is ultimately responsible for preparing a recommendation which
—fi forwarded first to the Planning Commission and then to the Board of Supervisors for final disposition.
Membership on Committees of the Planning Commission is determined by ap�_aintment by the
Commission's Chairman. In selecting members, the Chairman may look to members ofthe Commission
and county staff, as well as members of the general public.
lel' terms e. Committee members may serve consecutive terms but are surto ' ual
reappointment. Chairmanship of the Committees is determined by a majority vote o I ", e Committee
em ers li ; and is a. one-year term.
Temporary Members: In addition to regular membership, the Chairman may (at his discretion) appoint
temporal members tog� mittees. Such members should have a particular expertise in a subject matter
temporary
iscussed by the Committee or be a resident of, or otherwise represent, a specif c geographic area
which is the subject of a Committee study. The length of term of a temporary member shall be
determined by the Chairman with input from the Commission and shall be stated at the time of the
individual's appointment.