HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 11-05-03 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
November 5, 2003
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER
TAB
1) September 3, 2003 Minutes, September 17, 2003 Minutes and October 1, 2003 Minutes (A)
2) Committee Reports ................................................. (no tab)
3) Citizen Comments ................................................. (no tab)
PUBLIC MEETING
4) Master Development Plan 408-03 for Abrams Pointe, submitted by G. W. Clifford &
Associates, Inc., for 240 single-family detached urban lots. The application is a revision of
the currently approved master development plans #07-89, Abrams Pointe, and #02-95,
Coventry Court. The property is located north of Frederick Heights, south of Brookland
Heights, east of Heritage Hills and west of Briarwood Estates. Abrams Creek flows adjacent
to the north property line. The site is identified by Property Identification Numbers (PINs)
54-3-1, 55-2-1, 55-A-185, 55-A-186 and 55-A-187, which are all within the Red Bud
Magisterial District.
(MT. Camp) ........................................................... (B)
5) Other.
•
:7
•
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on September 3, 2003.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice
Chairman/Opequon District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie
F. Straub, Red Bud District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District;
Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; and Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Robert A. Morns, Shawnee
District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Lynda Tyler, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Vincent
DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Christopher M. Mohn, Deputy Planning
Director; Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner; Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II; and, Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES - JULY 16, 2003 AND AUGUST 6, 2003
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the
minutes of July 16, 2003 were unanimously approved as presented.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the
minutes of August 6, 2003 were unanimously approved as presented.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of September 3, 2003 Page 1146
9HE
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 09/08/03 Mtg.
Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS will be discussing the rural areas at their
September 8, 2003 meeting.
Transportation Committee - 09/02/03 Mtg.
Commissioner Kriz reported that the Transportation Committee recommended approval ofthe
2004-2005 through 2009-2010 Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan which includes the major
road improvement projects, the hard surface road improvement projects, and the incidental construction.
Commissioner Kriz reported a new program that is now available entitled, the Rural Rustic Road Program,
which provides for road paving with tar and chip at a cost which is considerably less than conventional paving.
He said there are strict requirements that must be met; however, it would provide hard surfacing of roads in
some areas at a lower cost.
Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB)
Commissioner Gochenour reported that the HRAB will meet on September 16, 2003.
Additionally, Commissioner Gochenour announced that she will be representing Frederick County at the
Preservation Alliance of Virginia Conference in Norfolk on September 21 through 23.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Mr. Raymond C. Sandy, a resident at 145 Land Grant Lane in Stephens City, came forward
to address the Commission regarding a public meeting item on the agenda, the master development plan for
Dogwood Landing. Mr. Sandy stated that he was an adjoining property owner. He was opposed to the
proposed master development plan for numerous reasons which he elaborated on, such as, the high density, the
environmental impact to the lake and adjoining wooded areas of the park, the impact to schools, possible
vandalism, the impact to park resources, and the questionable conduct of county officials and developers during
this process.
Dr. James Dumont, a resident at 1074 Merrimans Lane, also came forward to address the
Dogwood Landing master development plan. Dr. Dumont said he did not have any overall objections to the
plan, although he recognized the inclusion of this propertyin the UDA, and the eventual extension of sewer and
water to the area, will substantially increase the value of the property and consequentially, the applicant should
provide, in return, the protection of Abrams Creek. He said that Abrams Creek and the surrounding wetlands
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of September 3, 2003 Page 1147
-3 -
have been documented as an area of great ecological interest and importance to the community in general,
especially since it traverses the town, the park, and the country club golf course. He added that Abrams Creek
has been determined to be substantially impaired by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality on two
counts: it has an excessively high chloroform count and, secondly, there is a depletion in the amount and variety
of aquatic life. He believed, therefore, it was the obligation of the County to protect the creek from further
degradation. Dr. Dumont said that he has discussed this matter with a couple fresh -water ecologists and they
believe what is required is the protection of all wetlands incorporated within the area under consideration and,
furthermore, there should be a 30-50 foot boundary area beyond the existing wetlands to protect them from
further degradation. Given that, Dr. Dumont believed everyone could look forward to maintaining the stream
in good quality for future generations.
PUBLIC MEETING
Master Development Plan #06-03 of Dogwood Landing, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.,
for 25 single-family detached small lots on 7.65 acres. The property is located adjacent and north of
Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277),1,500+ feet west of the intersection of Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) and White Oak Road,
adjacent and west of Sherando Park, and is identified with P.I.N.s 86-A-141, 86-A-142, and 86 -A -142A
in the Opequon Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Planner Jeremy F. Camp provided the background information and review agency comments.
Planner Camp stated that the acreage is currently divided into three parcels: two of the parcels are zoned RP,
totaling 6.4 acres, and the eastern parcel consists of 1.25 acres and is zoned RA. He said the RA parcel is not
proposed to be developed; instead, the applicant will be exchanging it with Sherando Park for the land
comprising Landgrant Lane. He noted that following the land transfer, the applicant proposes to relocate
Landgrant Lane so it intersects with the proposed access road, referred to as April Avenue. He also noted that
April Avenue will be built to VDOT standards, but will be maintained as a private road.
Planner Camp continued, stating that analysis of the master development plan did not reveal
any significant problems, however, two areas of consideration recognized by the staff involved the cul-de-sac
length waiver and the entrance. Regarding the cul-de-sac, Planner Camp said that since the proposed cul-de-
sac will be privately maintained, the zoning ordinance restricts its length to 500'. He noted that the ordinance
grants the Planning Commission the authority to grant a waiver to this requirement of up to 800' in length; the
applicant for Dogwood Landing requests a cul-de-sac length of 800'. Regarding the entrance, Planner Camp
stated that the proposed entrance meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance, however, the location of the
entrance is contingent on the closure of Landgrant lane. He said that if Landgrant Lane cannot be closed by
the applicant, the entrance to the property would have to be relocated towards the center of the parcel.
Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. of G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. came forward to
represent Mr. Tinker Grove, the contract owner of the parcel. Mr. Maddox assured the Commission that
neither of the two residents who currently utilize Landgrant Lane will lose their access. He stated that Mr.
Sandy will be granted a deeded right-of-way to his property, which he would be responsible for maintaining.
He also stated that they will be constructing a paved driveway to Mr. Sandy's property, as well as providing
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of September 3, 2003 Page 1148
S!
a residential separation buffer between the development and his property. Furthermore, Mr. Maddox noted
that the trees planted for this buffer would be in addition to the screen commitment between the Parks
Department and this development and the trees required by the zoning ordinance for residential developments.
The primary concerns of the Planning Commission were in regards to the possible relocation
of Landgrant Lane and the possible transfer of land between the County (Sherando Park) and the applicant.
The Planning Staff asserted that the application stands on its own whether or not these possible elements occur
or not. Planner Camp pointed out that regardless if Landgrant Lane is relocated or ifthe land swap takes place,
the master development plan meets or exceeds the County's requirements. Mr. Maddox remarked that these
elements were put on the plan in an effort to address agency comments, particularly those from the Department
of Parks and Recreation.
Several other concerns were also raised during the meeting. One concern dealt with the
absence of the provision of a community center on the plan, however, Planner Camp pointed out that a
community center is not required since the lot sizes are proposed to be 5,000 square feet, or larger. Planner
Camp also noted that the developer will be required to spend the same amount of money on recreational
facilities as any similar development throughout the County; however, the developer will be providing the
money to the Department of Parks and Recreation for improvements that will occur within the park, instead
of within the development. In addition, a ten -foot wide trail will connect the proposed development to the park
so that future residents can easily access the facilities.
Another concern focused on the compatibility of the proposed development with the
surrounding area. Some comments were raised concerning possible problems with residences located so close
to the park. There were other comments regarding the appropriateness of the proposed density, which is
somewhat higher than average for the immediate area; however, several commissioners pointed out that the
density could be significantly higher than proposed.
There were no other citizen comments regarding the proposed master development plan,
besides those given during the Citizen Comments portion of the meeting.
The design of the proposed private road did not present a problem for the Commissioners. It
was noted that the proposed roundabout provides access for emergency vehicles and road maintenance.
Furthermore, although the proposed road will be privately maintained by the future homeowners association,
the road will be constructed to VDOT design standards. Upon motion made by Commissioner Moms and
seconded by Commissioner Kriz, the Commission recommended approval of the master development plan,
including the requested waiver for the 800 -foot cul-de-sac length.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
Master Development Plan #06-03 of Dogwood Landing, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., for
25 single-family detached small lots on 7.65 acres, including a waiver of the zoning ordinance to allow a cul-
de-sac length of 800', by the following majority vote:
YES (TO APPROVE): Rosenberry, Triplett, Kriz, DeHaven, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt,
NO: Straub, Gochenour, Thomas
(Please note: Commissioners Fisher and Ours were absent from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of September 3, 2003 Page 1149
I•le
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Request for Extension of Sewer and Water Services, submitted by M. Willis V. dte and others, to extend the
Urban Development Area (UDA) by approximately 320 acres. This site includes six parcels of land currently
zoned RA (Rural Areas) District. The subject site is located adjacent to and west of the City of Winchester,
east of Route 37, and adjacent to and south of Merriman's Lane (Route 621). The proposed expansion area
is connected to Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) by one parcel. The subject properties are identified by
Property Identification Numbers 53-A-91, 63 -A -2A, 53-A-92, 53 -A -92A, 53 -A -92B and 53-A-90 in the
Shawnee Magisterial District.
No Action Required
Senior Planner Abbe S. Kennedy stated that staff has received a request from the owners of
Willow Grove, LC, 740 LLC, 750 LLC, 227 Orchard Lane, and Kenneth F. Marshall, owner of Pembroke
Cove Properties, LLC to consider a request to expand the Urban Development Area (UDA) to include
approximately 320 acres currently zoned RA (Rural Areas). Planner Kennedy stated that the six subject
parcels are not under common ownership, however, all of the property owners have consented to collective
representation. She said these property owners contend that their land is better suited for suburban
development enabled by inclusion within the UDA as opposed to remaining in agricultural land use.
Planner Kennedey continued, stating that the Comprehensive Plans and Programs
Subcommittee (CPPS) considered this request at their meeting on July 14, 2003 and was generally supportive
in concept to the proposal of the UDA expansion request_ She said that infrastructure concerns regarding water
and sewer service, as well as transportation, were expressed. In addition, she said that consideration of a land
use study for the area west of the city and east of Rt. 37 was addressed.
Mr. Willis White, one of the property owners, stated that these properties are no longer viable
for agricultural land use and are presently surrounded by residential development, both within the City of
Winchester and Frederick County. Mr. White spoke about the four goals the property owners had: 1) to
maintain a place to live for themselves and their children; 2) to preserve the existing old homes on the property,
which are currently occupied; 3) to provide some influence on what develops around them; and 4) to protect
the lake and wetlands.
Concern was expressed by a couple of the commissioners regarding the inclusion of such a
large amount of land into the UDA because of the number of existing lots available for development currently
within the UDA. Other commissioners believed this area was a logical location for UDA-style development,
due to the surrounding development within the City of Winchester and its location inside Route 37.
Consideration of this area as a transitional zone, utilizing one to two -acre lot sizes, was suggested as a way of
making the development more compatible with the adjacent low density, up -scale area. The idea ofplacing only
a portion of the proposed acreage into the UDA, and not all of it, was also raised.
Concerns regarding the site's infrastructure, particularly transportation issues and the
availability of sewer and water prevailed, however, and the need for a land use study for the area east of Route
37 was suggested. Also suggested was the possibility of postponing the request until the CPPS completed its
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of September 3, 2003 Page 1150
Rural Areas Policy Study, which would take into consideration densities in rural areas.
Other developmental concerns raised were the impacts to schools; impacts to and preservation
of environmental features, such as the wetlands and flood plains; impacts to the taxpayers; and precedent
setting for future UDA expansion requests.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
address the Commission:
An adjoining property owner, Mr. Jeffrey (Jeff) Solenberger, was interested in knowing what
his future land use options were for his adjoining 198 -acre tract.
Mr. Donald (Don) Mallott, a resident at 828 Merrimans Lane, inquired if there would be an
on-ramp at the end of Jubal Early Drive onto Rt. 37 because he was concerned about the proximity of
commercial development to residential.
No action was formally taken by the Commission as this was considered a discussion item.
The Planning Staff stated that the Commissions comment would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors dor
their discussion of this item. (Commissioners Ours and Fisher were absent from the meeting.)
Proposed Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) Amendment to Relocate a Planned Major Collector Road
and to Propose Business Land Use in the Vicinity of the Intersection of Route 11 and Rest Church Road.
This request has been submitted by G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., on behalf of property owner
George Sempeles to facilitate preparation of a business Ehd industrial development proposal for
approximately 104 acres. The property is identified by Property Identification Numbers 34-A-2 and 34-
A-4 and are located in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
No Action Required
Commissioner Light said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item,
due to a possible conflict of interest.
Senior Planner Abbe S. Kennedy reported that staff has received a request from G. W. Clifford
& Associates, Inc. on behalf of George Sempeles to consider a request for an amendment to the Northeast Land
Use Plan which would relocate a planned collector road, in the vicinity of the intersection of Rt. 11 and Rest
Church Road, and to allow for a business land use designation in a portion of the subject location. Planner
Kennedy stated that the amendment is requested in order to facilitate a business and industrial development
proposal for approximately 104 acres to be rezoned from RA (Rural Areas) to M1 (Light Industrial) and B2
(Business General).
Planner Kennedy continued, stating that a preliminary rezoning proposal was submitted to staff
in April of 2003, at which time VDOT was not satisfied with the planned transportation improvements. She
said the principal issue involved the short distance between the I-81 northbound on/off ramps and the Rt. 11
intersection, which would result in a deficiency for truck stacking. Planner Kennedy stated that VDOT has
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of September 3, 2003 Page 1151
-7 -
recommended that truck traffic entering the Sempeles site turn right on Rt. 11, left on Woodbine, and enter the
site from Woodbine Road, effectively transforming Woodbine Road into a collector road. In an effort to
address these concerns, she said the applicant's request suggests that Woodbine Road be identified as the
planned collector road and that the collector road currently shown bisecting the Sempeles property be deleted
from the plan.
In addition, Planner Kennedy stated that the Comprehensive Plans and Programs
Subcommittee (CPPS) considered this request during their meetings in June and July, 2003. She said that at
the June meeting, committee members requested discussion and direct input from a VDOT representative
regarding this issue, prior to forwarding any recommendation to the Planning Commission. She noted that on
July 14, 2003, Mr. Lloyd Ingram, Traffic Engineer with VDOT, commented that the proposed relocation
utilizing Woodbine Road was the best solution available at this time to accommodate truck stacking length.
In conclusion, Planner Kennedy stated that the CPPS voted to recommend the request for relocation of the
major collector road.
During their discussion ofthe proposed relocation ofthe planned major collector road,
the Planning Commission raised concerns regarding truck stacking on Route 11 that would probably
occur as a result of this proposal. Concerns regarding the traffic counts noted in the Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) information provided by PHR&A were expressed by one commissioner.
Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., of G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., representing the
property owner, Mr. George Sempeles, stated that the actual average daily trips for the pending Sempeles
industrial rezoning request would be less than that shown, and that the TIA would be updated for the
rezoning request, if the amendment to the NELUP was approved. Mr. Maddox believed there was the
potential for a very large investment in the County with a reasonable amount of traffic load.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Mr. David Darsey observed that this was all a solution to the interchange at Rest Church
Road, by moving the entrance to the south, however, he was concerned about the traffic impacts to the south,
in Clearbrook and believed those should be considered.
Mr. Chris Daniels, an adjoining property owner, spoke in support of the planned major
collector road relocation, stating that he opposed the existing location of the planned road which runs through
his property.
A citizen asked the Planning Commission if they were aware of the expansion of a residential
housing development occurring in Berkeley County, in close proximity to the Virginia line, which would be
utilizing I -S 1 exit 323.
The discussion concluded that re-routing truck traffic to turn right on Route 1 I and then left
on Woodbine Road, as suggested by VDOT, was an acceptable alternative to the existing planned major
collector road location. The Commission also believed that business land use along that portion of the
Sempeles site fronting Route 1 I would be appropriate.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of September 3, 2003 Page 1152
-8 -
No action was formally taken by the Commission. The Planning Staff stated that all the
Commission's comments would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. (Commissioner Light abstained
from all discussion and Commissioners Fisher and Ours were absent from the meeting.)
Proposed Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) Amendment to expand the Sewer and Water Service Area
to include approximately 98 acres of land currently zoned EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. The
property is located on Brucetown Road (Route 672) in the vicinity of Interstate 81, Exit 321, in the
Stonewall Magisterial District.
No Action Required
Senior Planner Abbe S. Kennedy reported that the staff had received a request from Triad
Engineering, Inc. for an expansion to the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) for property located on
Brucetown Road (Rt. 672) in the vicinity of the I-81 Interchange at Exit 321. Planner Kennedy stated that the
applicants have requested to expand the SWSA to include approximately 98 acres of land currently zoned EM
(Extractive Manufacturing) District; a portion of the site is presently located within the SWSA.
Mr. Ty Lawson, Esquire, stated that this request is part of an evaluation of this site for a
potential rezoning for a milk -balancing facility. Mr. Lawson said that there are small portions of this property
that are already within the SWSA and it is their intent to move the SWSA line to include the entire parcel.
The Planning Commission generally supported the inclusion of the subject 98 -acre parcel into
the SWSA and was particularly good for economic reasons. One Commissioner stated that it was typically
common to include the entire parcel within the SWSA, if a portion of that site lies within the existing SWSA.
It was also noted that this property would actually end up being a down -zoning, it was a good use of the land,
and a proper location.
There were no public comments.
The Planning Staff stated that all of the Commission's comments would be forwarded to the
Board of Supervisors. No formal action was required from the Planning Commission. (Commissioners Ours
and Fisher were absent from the meeting.)
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO HOG FARM REGULATIONS
No Action Required
Planner Jeremy F. Camp stated that during June and July ofthis year, the Development Review
and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS), with input from Mr. Paul Anderson of the Frederick County Farm
Bureau, evaluated numerous potential changes to the zoning ordinance aimed at modifying current hog farm
regulations. Planner Camp reported that early in the discussion, the DRRS identified that their primary goal
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of September 3, 2003 Page 1153
IRE
was to change the ordinance so the small family farmer could keep a limited number of hogs their property
without having to comply with the 200' setback requirement. He explained that the 200' setback requirement
applies to all hog operations, regardless of the number of hogs on a tract of land. Planner Camp stated that
the proposed ordinance amendment would change the current 200' setback requirement for hog operations so
it would only apply to operations with more than 30 hogs. He said this number was chosen by the DRRS
because it would allow up to three litters of piglets at one time. He added that minor text changes and a new
definition is required for the proposed change.
The Planning Commission expressed concerns that the proposed ordinance segregated hogs
from other agricultural commodities. In addition, they expressed concerns that the proposed ordinance did not
provide any setbacks for properties with 30 hogs or less. The Commission also believed the proposed
ordinance would be difficult to enforce. Based on these concerns, the Planning Commission advised the staff
that the proposed ordinance was not acceptable.
Chairman DeHaven called for anyone in the audience who wished to speak concerning this
matter and the following person came forward:
Mr. Paul Anderson, President of the Frederick County Farm Bureau, stated that the Farm
Bureau is opposed to any ordinance that restricts normal agricultural practice and that may single out a
particular agricultural commodity. Mr. Anderson stated that the proposed 200' setback was a considerable
amount of land that would be wasted. He suggested thatthe Commission investigate confined feeding
operations through the State Department of Agriculture and use their guidelines.
The Planning Staff stated that all of the Commission's comments would be forwarded to the
Board of Supervisors. No formal action was required from the Planning Commission. (Commissioners Ours
and Fisher were absent from the meeting.)
OTHER
VIRGINIA CITIZENS PLANNING ASSOCIATION INC.
As the President of the Virginia Citizens Planning Association, Inc., Commissioner Morris
announced that the annual Institute for Planning Commissioners will be held on October 12, 2003.
Commissioner Morns encouraged anyone who is able to attend this institute. He said there are a number of
contemporary planning issues on the agenda, including speakers from the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech,
and the University of Illinois. In addition, Commissioner Moms announced that an incentive package is being
offered to help compensate for the tuition payment.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of September 3, 2003 Page 1154
-10 -
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
Chairman DeHaven remarked that the Planning Commission conducts its meetina format
somewhat differently from the Board of Supervisors concerning public input and the difference in format has
created occasional problems for the Board. Chainnan DeHaven said the issue has come to the point where it
might be appropriate, in order to help the Board at their level, if the Planning Commission used the same
format as the Board for discussing items on the agenda. Specifically, he said the Board of Supervisors accepts
public comment for public meeting items only during the Citizen Comments portion oftheir meeting. Chairman
DeHaven said the Planning Commission would continue to accept public comment during consideration of the
public hearing items, however, public comment on all other items on the agenda would be accepted only during
the general Citizen Comments portion of the meeting. He noted that this format would mirror the Board's
format.
The Board of Supervisors' Liaison, Mrs. Lynda Tyler, commented that she liked the relaxed
atmosphere of the Planning Commission meetings and the fact that the public was given the opportunity to
participate during the Commission's discussions. Mrs. Tyler said that the format for public input during public
hearings is very clear at the Board level, however, the format of the public meetings is somewhat confusing.
The majority of the Planning Commission preferred to hear from the public during the
Commission's discussion of each specific item on the agenda. It was also noted that points are raised during
the Commission's discussion and the applicant's presentation that the public would not be able to comment on,
if their comments were only received during the Citizen Comments portion of the meeting. A suggestion was
made that the Commission remind the public of the Board's format for public meetings. The Commissioners
believed their format was working well for them and decided not to change it.
ADJOURNMENT
unanimous vote.
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. by a
Respectfully submitted,
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of September 3, 2003 Page 1155
•
0
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on September 17, 2003.
PRESENT: . Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice
Chairman/Opequon District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie
F. Straub, Red Bud District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District, Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Gene
E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Lynda Tyler, Board of Supervisors Liaison;
Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: John H. Light, Stonewall District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Cordell Watt,
Back Creek District; and Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Christopher M. Mohn, Deputy Planning
Director; Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner; Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II; and, Beverly H. Dellinger, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 09/08/03 Mtg.
Chairman DeHaven reported the CPPS is continuing discussions on rural areas issues. He
said that information gathering with the general public will not be pursued until after the first of the year.
Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) - 09/17/03 Mtg.
Commissioner Gochenour reported that the HRAB reviewed the Crosspointe rezoning
proposal, submitted by Mr. Charles E. Maddox, of Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., regarding property
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of September 17, 2003 Page 1156
-2 -
located in the Kernstown area, adjacent to Tasker Road (Rt. 642) and east of the end of the Winchester Bypass
(Rt. 37) and the Hiatt Run condominiums master development plan, submitted by Painter -Lewis, L.L.C. for
property located on the eastern side of Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11) and north of McCann Lane. Commissioner
Gochenour reported that both proposals received strong opposition from the members of the HRAB due to the
potential of destroying significant pristine historic landmarks which are eligible for the National Historic
Resource Registry. She commented that there was not enough time for a thorough review. She said that a
detailed report on this meeting should be forthcoming and this report should be reviewed by HRAB members
prior to the Planning Commission proceeding with the rezoning proposal and the master plan.
Winchester Planning Commission (WPC) - 09/16/03 Mtg.
Winchester City Liaison, Mr. Vincent DiBenedetto, reported the following items considered
by the WPC: 1) approved a 54 -lot subdivision behind Virginia Apple Storage off Valley Avenue with the main
entrance on Harvest Drive; 2) tabled a 79 -unit subdivision with entrances on Middle Road and Valley Avenue
through Lake Drive; 3) revisited a subdivision plan at Moreland Hills in Meadowbranch, near the County line,
which includes a path through the wetlands area and, hopefully, continues to Merrimans Lane; a
recommendation of approval was forwarded to Council with a modification to the path which will, hopefully,
make it easier to reach Merrimans Lane and will result in the first completed mile of the Green Circle. Mr.
DiBenedetto remarked it may have future implications, if the property in that area is included into the UDA
and developed, a connection may be sought.
In addition, Mr. DiBenedetto wanted to clarify an issue raised by the County Planning
Commission two weeks ago during discussion on the UDA, regarding the extension of Jubal Early out to Rt.
37; he said there was a comment that City Council voted no on a plan to extend Jubal Early in July 1999. Mr.
DiBenedetto said he researched the City's records and checked with the City Planning Department, and Jubal
Early Drive extended still remains on the City's plan, it is on the WATS Plan, it is in the Comprehensive Policy
Plan, and it is strongly supported by the City. He said the vote in 1999 had to do with a specific proposal and
funding for upcoming years; it was lost on an 8-5 vote accepting the plan VDOT wanted because many
members believed it would take up too much road allocation funds for too long a time. He said that a couple
individuals voted against it for environmental reasons; however, the majority of Council at that time, and still
today, are committed to having the east -west connection.
PUBLIC HEARING
Rezoning Request #08-03 of SWEJ, LLC, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 4.017 acres
from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District. This property is located on
the north side of Senseny Road and adjoins the Senseny Glen Subdivision to the north and west, and is
identified with P.I.N. 65-A-47 and 65-A-48 in the Red Bud Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval With Proffers
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of September 17, 2003 Page 1157
-3 -
Planner Jeremy F. Camp presented the background information and review agency comments.
He stated that Dell Court will be the point of access for the five proposed single-family detached traditional
lots; no transportation improvements are required; no environmental features or historical resources exist on
the property; and, the properties are located within the Urban Development Area (UDA). Planner Camp
summarized the conditions proffered by the applicant, as follows: Only five single-family detached traditional
lots will be permitted; access is limited to Dell Court (Rt. 1409) only; .40 acres of the site will be used as open
space with an access easement from Dell Court; a road efficiency buffer will be provided and maintained by
the future HOA; a GDP (Generalized Development Plan) is proffered depicting the general details of the
proffers; a monetary contribution of $10,089 per lot will be paid to Frederick County, which is equal to 100%
of the projected impacts to capital facilities.
In addition, Planner Camp noted that staff has received a letter of support from the adjoining
property owner to the east.
Commissioner Straub asked the staff for additional description of the road efficiency buffer;
she commented that the configuration of the access easement to the open space area was somewhat
unconventional; and she expressed concern about the cumulative affect of increased housing in this area on the
Senseny Road Elementary School, which she believed was either at capacity or over capacity at this time.
Planner Camp replied that the applicant is proffering an 80 -foot road efficiency buffer, which is one of the two
options permitted by the ordinance. Regarding the layout of the access easement, Planner Camp replied that
the applicant's intent was to provide all of the lots with access to the open space located in the rear of the
development.
Commissioner Gochenour commented that despite the low number of vehicle trips per day
projected to be generated by this proposed five -lot subdivision, the cumulative impact of traffic from these lots,
along with other subdivisions currently developing along Senseny Road, will have a significant overall impact
on the transportation system. In addition, Commissioner Gochenour was concerned about the cumulative
impact to the area's water supply and schools. She mentioned residents in the Saratoga Meadows subdivision
who recently complained of a water pressure problem. Commissioner Gochenour believed these three issues
should be addressed before any additional rezonings were approved on Senseny Road.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, representing SWEJ, LLC, stated that this
four -acre parcel already contains road access and water and sewer facilities on site. Regarding the GDP, Mr.
Wyatt said they've shown the open space area, the road efficiency buffer, and their intend was to depict the
residential development area, but not necessarily the physical location of each of the five lots. He also
mentioned their intent to correct an inconsistency in the GDP text that was pointed out by the staff, concerning
the lot layout, with a modification to the language within Section E of the proffer to read, "the applicant hereby
proffers to provide for a GDP depicting the location of residential land use and the location of all road
efficiency buffers and open space areas associated with the four -acre site."
Mr. Wyatt added that the adjoining property owner immediately to the east was in support of
this request. Mr. Wyatt further added that Mr. Boyle, the applicant, who lives in the house alongside the four -
acre site, has been in touch with the neighbors in the immediate vicinity and he did not find anyone who had
concerns with the development of this property into five lots.
Commissioner Straub inquired if the five lots would be incorporated into the Senseny Glen
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of September 17, 2003 Page 1158
-4 -
subdivision. Mr. Wyatt replied that the language within the proffer states that the five lot owners will be
responsible for the maintenance of the buffer and VDOT will maintain the cul-de-sac. Mr. Wyatt said the five
lots are not a part of the Senseny Glen subdivision per say, although they will certainly look and feel as if they
do.
Chairman DeHaven called for citizen comments, however, no one came forward to speak.
The majority of the Commissioners believed this was a straight -forward application in an area
that was appropriate for this type of rezoning.
Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning with the revised
proffer language included by Mr. Wyatt concerning the GDP. This motion was seconded by Commissioner
Kriz.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
Rezoning Application #08-03 of SWEJ, LLC, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 4.017 acres from
RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District for five single-family detached traditional
lots with the proffers submitted by the applicant and one modification to the language within Section E of the
proffer to read, "the applicant hereby proffers to provide for a GDP depicting the location of residential land
use and the location of all road efficiency buffers and open space areas associated with the four -acre site"
The majority vote was as follows:
YES (TO APPROVE): Unger, Morris, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Fisher, DeHaven
NO: Straub, Gochenour
(Please note: Commissioners Watt, Light, Triplett, and Rosenberry were absent from the meeting.)
Rezoning Request #09-03 of Shenandoah Mobile Courts, Inc., submitted by Greenway Engineering, to
rezone 7.08 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to MH -1 (Mobile Home Community) District. This
property is located on the east side of Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522),1,000' South of the intersection of Rt.
522 South and Papermill Road (Rt. 644). This property is identified with P.I.N. 76-A-1 in the Shawnee
Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Planner Abbe S. Kennedy reported that this rezoning request is a result of the pending
construction of the planned major collector road that will cross the Shenandoah Mobile Court and result in the
displacement of 15 mobile home units. She explained that a prior UDA expansion request for this site was
based on the intent to expand the mobile home park to accommodate the 15 mobile home units displaced due
to the construction of the major collector road associated with the access road to the Middle School site.
Planner Kennedy stated that the applicant has recently submitted a recorded easement plat showing a proposed
50 -foot road efficiency buffer and an 80 -foot right-of-way dedication for this major collector road; the
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of September 17, 2003 Page 1159
-5 -
Frederick County School system has indicated their intent to provide the 50 -foot reduced road efficiency buffer
with a six-foot high berm and an evergreen screening of trees planted every ten -foot on center.
In addition, Planner Kennedy noted that the property is within the UDA (Urban Development
Area); it is within the study area of the South Frederick Land Use Plan; and, there were no negative review
agency comments. She stated that the applicant's proffer statement notes that the subject mobile home
community shall not exceed a maximum density of 57 units for the entire parcel; staff would suggest that the
proffer be amended to note that this 7.08 -acre portion of the site will accommodate no more than 15 units,
given the fact that this rezoning request is limited to the 7.08 -acre portion of the entire 14.21 -acre parcel.
Commissioner Morris inquired if the overall density of this proposal was the same as it was
before the initiation of the school project and Planner Kennedy replied that it was.
Commissioner Gochenour had questions regarding the storm water management.
Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering, the owner and the applicant, came forward to reply
to the Commissioners' questions. Mr. Smith assured the Commission there will be no increase in the overall
density; presently, there are 57 units, of which 15 units are being displaced and moved to the rear of the
property. Regarding the staff s recommendation to specify a maximum of 15 units on the seven acres, he said
their boundary line adjustment added seven additional acres to the original seven creating 14 acres acres total.
Mr. Smith requested that the Commission allow the flexibility to accommodate the same number of mobile
homes on a larger area to accommodate double -wide mobile homes and larger yard areas.
Mr. Smith continued, addressing the road access; his plan was to keep one of their two
entrances on Rt. 522. He said they will eliminate one entrance on Route 522, however, they are gaining an
extra entrance on the new access road. Regarding the storm water management plan, Mr. Smith said he will
be constructing a dry pond adjacent to the property for storm water management control.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak.
Commissioner Morris commented that it was no surprise that the cost of housing in this area
was ever-increasing; he believed there was a need for low-income housing and this was one way of meeting that
need.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Rezoning Request #09-03 of Shenandoah Mobile Courts, Inc., submitted by Greenway
Engineering, to rezone 7.08 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to MH- I (Mobile Home Community) District
with proffers as submitted by the applicant.
(Please note: Commissioners Watt, Light, Triplett, and Rosenberry were absent from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of September 17, 2003 Page 1160
ADJOURNMENT
unanimous vote.
No farther business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. by a
Respectfully submitted,
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of September 17, 2003 Page 1161
0
•
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on October 1, 2003.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice
Chairman/Opequon District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie
F. Straub, Red Bud District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; George
J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District;
Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large;
Richard C. Shickle, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay
Cook, Legal Counsel.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Christopher M. Mohn, Deputy Planning
Director; Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner; Jeremy F. Camp, Planner 11; and, Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 09/25/03 Mtg.
Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS is continuing discussions on the parking of
semi -trailers and tractors in RP -zoned areas; he said the DRRS provided the staff with ideas and suggestions
on how to proceed. Commissioner Thomas said that the DRRS also discussed other items to pursue over the
next several months.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of October 1, 2003 Page 1162
-2 -
PUBLIC HEARING
The Virginia Department of Transportation and the Frederick County Planning Commission, in
accordance with Section 33.1-70.01 of the Code of Virginia, will conduct a joint public hearing. The
purpose of this public hearing is to receive public comment on the proposed Secondary Six -Year Plan
for Fiscal Years 2004/05 through 2009/10 in Frederick County, and on the Secondary System
Construction Budget for Fiscal year 2004/05.
All projects in the Secondary Six -Year Plan that are eligible for federal funds will be included in the
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which documents how Virginia will obligate
federal transportation funds.
Action - Recommended Approval
Planner Jeremy F. Camp presented the 2004-2005 Frederick County Secondary Road
Improvement Plan to the Commission. Planner Camp said the major road improvement projects have
undergone no major changes this year. He reported that Aylor Road, in two sections, remains the top priority,
followed by Warrior Drive, Greenwood Road, and Sulphur Springs Road. He said the hardsurface road
improvement projects have not undergone any priority changes, however, there is a significant change due to
the initiation of the Rural Rustic Road Program by VDOT. He noted that currently, Adams Road is the only
road in Frederick County within this program which allows the County the option for paving roads currently
on the hardsurfacing improvement list to be overlaid with tar and chip instead of the normal surface material.
Planner Camp said the top five priorities for the hardsurface road improvement projects were Adams Road,
in two sections, Back Creek Road, Gough Road, and Ebenezer Church Road.
Planner Camp continued, stating that on September 2, 2003, the Transportation Committee
recommended approval of the 2004-2005 Secondary Road Improvement Plan as presented to the Commission.
Planner Camp said there were no citizen comments at the meeting.
Mr. Benjamin (Ben) Lineberry with VDOT, Edinburg Residency, came forward to provide
information on the status of Warrior Drive, which was a question raised by the Commission. Mr. Lineberry
said there were delays because of issues dealing with the construction design for crossing Wrights Run,
however, the completion date is scheduled for sometime in the Fall of this year.
Mr. Jerry Copp with VDOT, Edinburg Residency, came forward to answer questions
regarding the status of Hollow Road, the funding procedures for Greenwood and Sulphur Springs Road, and
to provide a description of the guidelines for VDOT's Rural Rustic Program. In light of the 500 vehicle trips
maximum guideline for the rural rustic roads, a member of the Commission questioned the county's ability to
control growth on those roads in light of by -right development on five -acre tracts in rural areas.
Chairman DeHaven called for public input, however, no one came forward to speak.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours,
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of October 1, 2003 Page 1163
-3 -
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the Secondary Six -Year Plan for Fiscal Years 2004/05 through 2009/10 in Frederick County, and
on the Secondary System Construction Budget for Fiscal year 2004/05 as presented.
Request for Expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) to include the entire area of a
98.7768 acre parcel which is located approximately three quarters of a mile east of Martinsburg Pike
(Route 11), on the north side of Brucetown Road (Route 672). The parcel is identified by Property
Identification Number 34-A-11, and is located in the Stonewall Magisterial District
Action - Recommended Approval
Senior Planner Abbe S. Kennedy stated that the Planning Staff has received a request from
Triad Engineering, Inc. to include approximately 98 acres of land, currently zoned EM (Extractive
Manufacturing) into the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA); she noted that a portion of the site is
currently located within the SWSA. Planner Kennedy stated that the catalyst for this request is the following
item on the Planning Commission's agenda this evening, a rezoning request to down zone the property from
EM to M 1 (Light Industrial). She said that both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors have
discussed this SWSA expansion request and by action of the Board of Supervisors on September 10, 2003,
the staff has been instructed to schedule the SWSA request for public hearings.
Mr. Ty Lawson, the attorney representing the applicant, was present to answer questions from
the Conmussion.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Mr. Kurt Waldruff, a resident at 2206 Brucetown Road, expressed his concern that the entire
98 -acre parcel was being proposed for inclusion in the SWSA and for rezoning for a 125,000 square foot
building; he questioned the applicant's intent for the remainder of the property. Mr. Waldruff had concerns
about the traffic impacts as well as the anticipated water usage. In addition, he commented that the
neighborhood meeting hosted by the applicant was not well -advertised or posted and he believed that many
residents were unaware of the meeting.
Ms. Trudy Franklin, a resident at 2494 Brucetown Road, expressed her concerns about the
existing traffic situation on Brucetown Road and her concern for neighborhood safety and property damage.
She said that Brucetown Road has no shoulders and the daily volume of truck traffic is almost intolerable; she
counted 30 trucks in less than '/2 -hour period which continues daily for about four hours. Ms. Franklin said
that she spoke to someone at VDOT in Edinburg regarding a No Through Truck Traffic restriction on
Brucetown Road and she would like to have that pursued. She mentioned that porches are located two feet off
the road, there are mailboxes six inches from the road, and telephone poles are less than 12 inches off the road;
she said that 18 -wheelers are traveling on this road on their way from the quarry. She reported that she has
had damage to her property; she stated that the road is dangerous and the trucks are destructive. Ms. Franklin
remarked that before any approvals take place for industrial growth in this area, she would like to see: 1) a
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of October 1, 2003 Page 1164
-4 -
no through truck traffic restriction on Brucetown Road; 2) improvements to the existing roads for safety; and,
3) no industrial traffic through Brucetown.
Ms. Kathy Whitier, a Brucetown resident, commented that during the summer months,
Clearbrook Park produces considerable traffic and there are occasions on weekends when there are 100 vehicles
lined up along Brucetown I:oad. She said that her home is 10 feet off the road and she is very much impacted
by the existing traffic on Brucetown Road. Ms. Whitier said that before future development takes place, the
impacts on the existing homes and roads needs to be studied.
Mr. Kenneth Y. Stiles, a resident and dairy farmer in the Stonewall District, pointed out that
the sole question before the Commission on this request is the question of the extension of the SWSA; he
commented that for at least 25 years, the County has been making continual efforts to get a water line to
Brucetown and, hopefully, a sewer line also. Mr. Stiles said that if this particular area was included in the
SWSA, it would bring those lines closer to Brucetown; and, more importantly, it would be at the point where
the line is out of the rock and near shale. He said that the cost of extending the line through the limestone has
always been the prohibitive factor; he said that a number of studies were done and grants applied for. In
conclusion, Mr. Stiles said that the closer the line gets, the sooner the service can ultimately be looked forward
to in Brucetown.
Mr. Mark Bragg, a resident of Brucetown, came forward to address the traffic situation. It
was Mr. Bragg's opinion that this 98 -acre tract was being considered for a future industrial park. Mr. Bragg
stated that Brucetown Road can not handle the traffic for that kind of use. Mr. Bragg suggested that Woodside
Road (Rt. 67 1) be utilized as the access for any future industrial use on that property.
Since everyone had been given an opportunity to speak, Chairman DeHaven closed the public
comment portion of the meeting.
Commissioner Light commented that when this request came before the Comprehensive Plans
and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS), it was viewed as a good business which the County should try to
accommodate; however, since that time, there has been no commitment from the applicant on how the traffic
concerns will be addressed. Commissioner Light was hesitant about placing 100 acres of M1 -zoned land in
the SWSA without knowing how Brucetown Road, from the quarry to Rt. 11, and the intersection of
Brucetown Road, Hopewell Road, and Rt. 11, will function. He realized that traffic did not apply to the
SWSA, however, he believed it was a package deal and the traffic impacts needed to be mitigated. He added
that this parcel is served by rail, gas, and electric, all within 1-81 access; he said the potential for intensive uses
and traffic exists and the Commission needs to know how it can be safely handled.
* Commissioner Light moved to table the SWSA request to allow further study by the Planning
Staff and VDOT of the traffic impacts, particularly, any possible solutions at the intersection and Brucetown
Road that would create safe traffic flow, if the requested 100 acres of rezoned land fed into the area, and to
provide a recommendation to the Commission. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Straub and was
passed by the following majority vote:
YES (TO TABLE): Straub, Gochenour, Watt, Light, Kriz, Fisher, Rosenberry
NO: Unger, Morris, DeHaven, Thomas, Ours, Triplett
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of October 1, 2003 Page 1165
sm
*(PLEASE NOTE: COMMISSIONER LIGHT'S MOTION WAS RESCINDED LATER IN THE
MEETING; A NEW MOTION WAS MADE, SECONDED, AND VOTED ON BY THE
COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE SWSA EXPANSION.)
Rezoning #10-03 of Frederick Land Company, LLC, submitted by Triad Engineering, to rezone 98.7768
acres from EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District to MI (Industrial Light) District. This property is
located approximately three quarters of a mile east of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11), on the north side
of Brucetown Road (Route 672), and is identified with Property Identification Number 34-A-11 in the
Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Senior Planner Abbe S. Kennedy acknowledged that the request to down -zone the subject
parcel from EM (Extractive Manufacturing) to M 1 (Light Industrial) zoning is fundamentally in conformance
with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan; however, the impacts to the existing infrastructure,
specifically, transportation, sewer, and water, have not been clearly addressed by the applicant in the submitted
rezoning request. She said there were no guarantees from the applicant within the rezoning request limiting
the square footage of M 1 use, nor any guarantees on traffic generation which could mitigate the impact to
Brucetown Road and Rt. 11. Also, she pointed out there are no guarantees as to how any road improvements
that may be required to mitigate the impact of this proposal or any future site plans for the entire 98 -acre
industrial site will be addressed. In addition, no traffic impact analysis was submitted with the rezoning
request.
Planner Kennedy continued, noting that VDOTs comments include a number of transportation
improvements that will need to be addressed and she read those for the Commission. She commented that none
of these road improvements are offered in a guarantee to the County as part of the rezoning proposal; in
addition, none of the mentioned road improvements are listed on the County's Six -Year Transportation Plan.
She added that the submitted proffer statement, although not signed by the owner or notarized, states that
following the approval of a site plan and building permit for an initial 125,000 square -foot facility, plus
ancillary uses, the property owner will prepare and submit a traffic impact analysis for any subsequent projects
on this property. She further added that no specific use has been identified in the impact analysis statement
by the applicant, nor identified in a proffer statement, therefore, any allowed use within the M 1 District could
occur on the 98 -acre site. In conclusion, she stated that no generalized development plan has been submitted
that would identify the number, size, or location of this or any future proposed M 1 facilities that could occur
as a result of the approval of this rezoning.
Commissioner Thomas pointed out that this request was for a down zoning, which is a less -
intensive use than what is already allowed on the property; he said the projected impacts should focus on the
difference in the level of traffic that would be experienced from this site being completely developed as an
extractive mining site compared to being completely developed as an M 1 site.
Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence interjected that the staff looks to the applicant to provide
details to assist in the analysis and to show projected impacts on the road system; he said that without this
impact study, the traffic impacts are all speculation at this point in time.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of October 1, 2003 Page 1166
rem
Mr. Ben Linebury with VDOT, Edinburg Residency, was asked whether VDOT had received
any of the information referred to by Director Lawrence. Mr. Linebury stated that VDOT has not received a
traffic impact analysis that would bear the information Director Lawrence mentioned.
Mr. Ty Lawson came forward on behalf of the applicant and stated that this property is a
potential site for the Maryland -Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative Association, Inc. for a milk balancing
facility. He said the proposed user of this site is a cooperative of dairy farmers, wholly owned by dairy
farmers, and exists solely for the benefit of the dairy farmers involved in the co-op. Mr. Lawson explained that
similar sites are being evaluated in Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia in the sense that they are close to
I-81, however, the other sites are properly zoned and have utilities. He mentioned that this site is immediately
adjacent to the water treatment plant, which is of particular interest for the user, and two corners of the
property already fall within the SWSA. He pointed out that sealed tankers will be used for transport, not dump
trucks that would be associated with a quarry, and because of the location to I-81, trips will be west -bound to
81 and then north and south to various points in the country.
Mr. Lawson added that a traffic study has been commissioned from Mr. John Callow of
Patton, Harris, Rust, & Associates, Inc. and their traffic study produced to this point confirms that the Level
of Service (LOS) that exists today will not be degraded, if this plant comes on line. Mr. Lawson explained that
the numbers used for the study, 150 trucks per day and 50 employees per day, were intentionally inflated,
although the more realistic figures would be approximately 20-40 trucks per day. He said that even at the
higher number, the existing LOS is not degraded. In order to be suitable for this proposed used, he said that
this site needs to have the extension of the SWSA to include the property, the property needs to be down -zoned
from EM to M 1, and utilities need to be extended to the property. Mr. Lawson reminded the Commission that
this site is being evaluated along with others and because the other sites being evaluated do not have these
deficiencies, time is of essence.
Mr. Lawson next described what a milk -balancing facility does. Briefly, he said the facility
accepts raw milk directly from farms and processes it into products such as butter, condensed milk, cream, and
powdered milk which are in turn sold to other industry, primarily the baking industry. He noted that a
significant amount of distilled water comes out of this process when the milk is converted to other products;
this facility is projected to generate up to 300,000 gallons per day of distilled water. Mr. Lawson explained
that when evaluating the other sites, a criteria considered included which sites would have a use for the distilled
water and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority has expressed an interest in capturing this by-product.
Mr. Lawson continued, stating that they have been working with VDOT and Frederick County
on a proffer that deals specifically with traffic and an outline of their proposal would be submitted to the Board
of Supervisors for their consideration, as follows: 1) The owner of the property will agree to install trip
counters, which record all vehicles entering and exiting the property on a daily basis; 2) The owner will agree
that once a predetermined number of trips are reached, a traffic study will be commissioned by the owner; 3)
The owner, working and cooperating with VDOT and Frederick County, will agree at that time, what traffic
improvements need to be installed to address any issues raised by the study, which are attributable to any
increased vehicle trips generated by activities on the property; that cooperation will include the pursuit by all
parties of industrial access, revenue sharing, and/or any other program available to fund said improvements;
and, 4) If the programs and other cooperation are unsuccessful, the owner will agree to install the improvements
before it proceeds with any further development of the property that will yield increased vehicle trips.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of October 1, 2003 Page 1167
-7 -
In conclusion, Mr. Lawson stated that it has been expressed that there is a concern about
rezoning this property somewhat hypothetically, and this situation is unusual, not only for a down zoning, but
that it is for a specific use. This owner has no difficulty and will agree that any rezoning by the Board of
Supervisors will either be contingent on or will not occur, unless this owner commits to this facility, which
means the owner commits to purchase the property and install the facility that has been described.
Chairman DeHaven called for questions for Mr. Lawson from the Commission.
Commissioner Straub pointed out that the proposed 125,000 square -foot facility will occupy
approximately three acres; she was concerned why all of the 98 acres was being requested for rezoning and she
questioned the applicant's intentions for the remainder of the property. She also inquired if the applicant would
be willing to proffer out any uses in the M 1 District for the remaining acreage. She remarked that there was
not a significant amount of the property currently inside the SWSA. Mr. Lawson replied that the only use
proposed at this point is to build the facility that has been described. He added that they are hoping there may
be opportunities to expand into other facilities involving milk producers which relate to their business of
generating and marketing milk.
Commissioner Rosenberry was concerned about moving forward on a rezoning without having
an impact study or a proffer. He remarked that it would be difficult for the Commission to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors without the benefit of reviewing those documents. Commissioner
Rosenberry asked Mr. Lawson if he would consider delaying the rezoning until those documents were
completed or if he could present something in writing to the Planning Commission as a guarantee. Mr. Lawson
continued to state that the proffers and other information will be completed in time for the Board's hearing.
Commissioner Rosenberry inquired if the applicant could address the road improvements
recommended by VDOT that were listed in the staff's report. Mr. Lawson stated that their pending traffic
study indicates that the improvements recommended by VDOT were not warranted by this facility on the roads
as they exist today. Mr. Lawson stated that if, in the future, their use generates that traffic count, the applicant
is committed to do another traffic study and is committed to making the improvements needed.
Commissioner Fisher asked for clarification on the number of acres that will be needed for this
facility, including the parking, accessory structures, etc. He also had questions on when the trips generated
would trigger the traffic studies and on what acreage the studies and restrictions would be based.
Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Lawson if the traffic study could calculate the potential
maximum trips per day, if the property was fully developed as an extractive mining site, including the
distribution of the types of traffic and trips, and then what could be expected if the entire 98 acres were
developed as an MI site. Commissioner Thomas said he would be interested in knowing if there would bean
increase or decrease in traffic.
Commissioners Straub and Gochenour wanted to see something in writing, by way of
guarantees for the Commission, so that they could make a recommendation to the Board based on facts.
Commissioner Morris said that Mr. Lawson made reference to the possibility of a conditional
zoning of some sort, by suggesting that he would be willing to put in writing that rezoning would be completely
dependent upon this company coming to this site. The Commission's legal counsel, Mr. Jay Cook, advised
that Frederick County can not engage in conditional zoning.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of October 1, 2003 Page 1168
-8 -
Commissioner Morris believed all of the Commissioners were supportive of this particular
industry and were sensitive to the associated time frame; he appreciated the fact that the Commission knew up
front what specific industry was coming. He said that he would hate to see the Commission do anything that
would immediately side track the entire discussion of this particular industry coming to Frederick County and
lose it because of fumbling with procedures and rules. However, he shared the feelings previously expressed
about the lack of a written proffer approved by the County Attorney and some of the transportation issues.
As a minimum, he hoped the Commission might officially designate some type of resolution stating that the
Commission was very much in favor of this particular project, so that during negotiations, some goodwill
would be expressed, even in the lack of procedural discussions, that the County is working through the process.
At this point, Chairman DeHaven commented on procedural issues, noting that this item would
not qualify for an actual rezoning until such time as it is included in the SWSA. Chairman DeHaven pointed
out that the previous request, which was tabled, will not be able to be reconsidered by the Commission until
the first meeting in November, at the earliest, because of advertising requirements. He said that unless the
Commission would care to reconsider their decision to table, the SWSA issue will not be dealt with by the
Commission until the first meeting in November, at the earliest, although it would not preclude the Commission
from making a recommendation concerning the rezoning request.
Chairman DeHaven next called for public comments and the following persons came forward
to speak:
Mr. Kenneth Y. Stiles, a resident of Stonewall District and a member/owner of the Maryland -
Virginia Milk Producers Association, stated that it makes no financial difference whatsoever to the dairy
farmers in Frederick County whether this facility is located in Frederick County, Berkeley County, or
Washington County, Maryland because it has no financial impact from that standpoint. Mr. Stiles said that
as for other uses on the site, mindful that he could not speak for the co-op, but the co-op's headquarters are
in Reston, Virginia and at some point, it would make sense to relocate that facility to this location. Mr. Stiles
remarked that the Commission's previous decision to table the SWSA request without asking the applicant how
it would affect their time table was irresponsible and could tilt the decision of the applicant in another direction.
Mr. Stiles was not in favor of holding up the application because of procedural issues.
Mr. Stiles continued, addressing the following issues: 1) this was, in fact, a down -zoning; 2)
the nature ofthe traffic generated will be different than ifthe property was used as EM; 3) the use will generate
tax revenue for the County; this plant will have a significant amount of machinery and equipment, which is
subject to the machinery and tools tax; many individuals believe the County needs to aggressively pursue
developing this sector of the economy; 4) employment; 50 jobs are projected; 5) the traffic, both trucks and
employees, is distributed over 24 hours a day, which will ameliorate the impact to a degree. Mr. Stiles
expressed concern about two other issues: he mentioned that when a rezoning comes up for discussion, the
applicant is frequently asked what uses he is willing to proffer out; he said that if there is a use in the M 1 Zone
that is not suitable, it should be removed from the ordinance so it's not allowed in the first place. Finally, Mr.
Stiles expressed support for the individuals stating their concerns about the traffic through Brucetown. He
remarked it was no place for heavy-duty trucks, particularly milk trailers or quarry trucks, and he would fully
support any efforts by the Commission and the Board to prohibit through truck traffic on the section of road
that leads directly through Brucetown to the bridge.
Mr. David (Dave) Kollar, Chairman of the Winchester -Frederick County Economic
Development Commission (EDC), briefly described his background and experience in the field of economic
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of October 1, 2003 Page 1169
development in this area and the state. Mr. Kollar said that one of the lessons he has learned in his capacity
over the previous 12 years, particularly in regards to business and industrial development, is that there are two
things that local government frequently has no control over—one of them is timing, and sometimes timing is
everything, and the other was perception. Mr, Kollar advised that getting good -quality industry to locate in
a community doesn't happen overnight and is not easy, he said there is not a cornucopia of businesses that are
waiting to locate in a community—it is an effort. He said the perceptions that the community puts forth by
decisions made often turns green lights into yellow lights.
Mr. Kollar continued, stating the Winchester -Frederick County Economic Development
Commission (EDC) responds to applicants who inquire about the community, especially when one of those
applicants fits one of the five cluster industries sought by the EDC --technology and health, food, printing,
plastics, and metals. Mr. Kollar said the EDC responds professionally and quickly because in business and
industry, time is money. He said the proposed user is one of those sought-after clusters that, quite frankly, this
community is doing quite well with. Mr. Kollar hoped that the Commission could move forward on this
because this was an industry that works well in our community and is a high-tech facility. Mr. Kollar said that
he has toured the facility, and has spent a number of hours at the facility, and from his personal inspection, he
can state that this is a high-quality client. Mr. Kollar pointed out that one of the nice benefits from this facility
is the water that Mr. Lawson spoke of, he said that any water treatment facility is going to tell you that if they
have access to distilled water, it is a plus. Mr. Kollar said that he also serves on the Air Quality Board for the
community and although there is truck traffic associated with this use, it will bring truck traffic closer from
the producers to the processor; consequently, the net affect will probably be a reduction in truck pollution. He
concluded by saying the user was a Virginia Company and, in many ways, it is one of our own.
Mr. Kurt Waldruff, a resident on Brucetown Road, argued the point that if the applicant was
truly committed, then the application package would be complete and it is not. Mr. Waldruff said that the
applicant was not prepared, there are no guarantees, and the applicant is placing the onus on the Planning
Commission. Mr. Waldruff wanted to know what distilled water was exactly; was it potable or was it gray
water? He questioned who would pay for the water and sewer usage. It was Mr. Waldruff s contention that
there certainly would be an increase in vehicles because the land is currently a vacant field. He remarked that
there was some reason why this property has not been used for extractive manufacturing. Mr. Waldruff didn't
believe an entrance to the site could be achieved from Brucetown Road; in fact, he believed there was no access
to the property.
Ms. Kathy Whitier had several questions which included: what type of cleaners are going to
be used to clean the milk products; what process is used to remove the distilled water from the raw products;
is the raw product heated in some way; and will the use impact air quality. Ms. "tier asked the Commission
what would happen to the M 1 Zoning on the property, if this proposal is passed and the user decides not to
locate here.
Since everyone had been given an opportunity to speak, Chairman DeHaven closed the public
comment portion of the meeting.
Mr. Lawson returned to the podium to address some of the concerns raised by the citizens and
the Commission. Mr. Lawson explained that no products would be burned and the distilled water is a result
of the evaporation process. He also clarified that this applicant is positively stating that they will not pursue
the rezoning, unless a decision is made to commit to go to this site. He next referred to the comments made
about proffers. Mr. Lawson stated that he previously pointed out for the record what the applicant intends to
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of October 1, 2003 Page 1170
-10 -
do and proffer as part of this project. He said that somehow, this has been turned around to suggest shame on
the applicant for not making certain proffers. Mr. Lawson suggested to the Commission the illegality of that
request and that a county can not demand proffers from any applicant. He stated that proffers are things
offered from applicants and it is very dangerous to slip into the other side ofthings and suggest there are certain
demands of applicants, no matter who it is. Mr. Lawson remarked that he was being forthright in telling the
Comrnission what the applicant is in the process of doing and what the applicant s wu,u,g to do, ii Uns SILK .s
selected; he said he could put these items in writing and the Board could decide if they want to accept them.
Commissioner Kriz inquired why the entire 98 acres were needed rather thanjust the ten acres.
Mr. Lawson replied that it is what is for sale; there is not a subdivided tract that is for sale. Referring to the
timing involved, Mr. Lawson said that to suggest that not only does this property need to be rezoned, but
subdivided as well, could not occur in the time frame available. Mr. Lawson noted that the applicant also owns
and operates a site in Howard County, Maryland, which they have owned since 1957. He explained that the
site is 225 acres, the plant is approximately the same size as the one proposed for Frederick County, and the
remainder of the property is in corn and soybean. Mr. Lawson expressed his hope that the Frederick County
site, with its extra acreage, would be an opportunity for them to expand their facility.
Commissioner Gochenour inquired ifthe applicant could provide the information intended for
the Board to the Commission to aid in making a recommendation; she also inquired about the traffic
improvements on Page 5 of the staff report that were suggested by VDOT. Mr. Lawson stated again that the
preliminary traffic analysis they have done indicates there is no degrading of service if this facility were to
be placed on that property today and, therefore, those improvements are not warranted as a a result of this
facility coming onto the property. Nevertheless, he said they are agreeing, and he referred to the four items
that he previously read into the record, to placing traffic counters on the road exiting the property so that an
actual count can be made and if a pre -designated number is exceeded, that number to be determined by VDOT,
Frederick County, and the owner which indicates service is degraded on Brucetown Road, then that number
will trigger a second study; he stated that whatever that second study dictates, then those improvements will
be made. He commented that the difficulty about responding tonight is that the facility proposed is all there
is; it is difficult to proffer for some hypothetical that is not in their plans. Again, Mr. Lawson stated that they
will not put this application before the Board for final rezoning approval, unless there is a commitment to locate
this facility on this particular property.
Commissioner Morris commented that the Commission may have missed something in the
applicant's presentation about who is actually purchasing this property and for what purpose. Commissioner
Morris said that in this particular case, it is not a developer or a land speculator who is purchasing this
property with subdivision in mind. He said the entire property is being purchased by the milk co-op. He
remarked that since they are not real-estate intended or developers, one would have to assume they have no
intention of further subdividing this land for any other particular use, other than the milk cooperative.
Commissioner Ours remarked if the potential for this industry came before any other
community, it would probably be greeted with much excitement; however, the Commission seemed to be
throwing out road blocks. He commented that this industry will have a positive impact on water use, it will
provide jobs, and it supports the agricultural nature of the county. Mr. Ours understood the concerns of the
residents in that area, however, he believed the problem that needed to be addressed was caused by the existing
extractive manufacturing business, not the potential business under consideration. He was also appreciative
of knowing who the user of the property was; he noted that with the furor over a possible tax increase, this
industry would help to increase the revenue base of the county.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of October 1, 2003 Page 1171
-11 -
Commissioner Thomas agreed with the points made by Commissioner Ours. Commissioner
Thomas said that during his long tenure on the Planning Commission, he can not remember the Commission
ever trying to extract proffers or reproach an applicant for attempting to down -zone a property. He stated that
this is not agricultural property, regardless of what the use is; he said the entire property could be mined, a
much more intensive use than 98 acres of an M 1 site. He believed this use would be a benefit to the community
with very little negatives.
Commissioner Morris said that he did not want to take a chance of losing this particular
industry because of formality and policy issues. Commissioner Morris said that he also had trust in the
applicant's promise that this will not be brought before the Board of Supervisors for a rezoning if they do not
have a commitment from this company. He believed there was enough before the Commission in good faith
on everyone's part to make an exception to the requirements.
Chairman DeHaven agreed with the comments made by Commissioners Ours, Thomas, and
Morris. Chairman DeHaven stated that our community strives to encourage, accept, and accommodate a new
industrial family into the area. He had no doubts that most any community in the nation would welcome this
applicant. Although he agreed it was a stretch from the Commission's normal procedures because there was
less than the full -detailed information the Commission prefers to see, he pointed out that the Commission was
solely an advisory panel and the final decision is made by the Board of Supervisors. Chairman DeHaven
believed this would be a win-win for the community and he was confident the issues could be addressed.
Commissioner Light stated that when considering land for inclusion in the SWSA, it is
assumed that the land is being prepared for future development. Commissioner Light said the problem in this
particular case is the insufficient roadway, with insufficient traffic evidence, and an unsafe situation. He said
it did not seem out of line for him to request a traffic study to prepare the property for a safe situation before
placing it within the SWSA. Commissioner Light stated that if it would be appropriate, he would withdraw
his previous motion to table the SWSA request. He said he was unaware of the timing for advertising when
he made the motion, although, after reading the rezoning package, it appeared to be incomplete and did not
address the traffic issues. He said he certainly supported the use; it is the cleanest industry possible, however,
he believed the transportation segment was an unsafe situation.
A brief counsel was made with the Commission's legal attorney concerning the appropriateness
of Commissioner Light withdrawing his previous motion. Commissioner Straub read from her copy of Robert's
Rules of Order. It was determined that the vote could be rescinded if done at the same meeting by someone
who voted in favor of the previous motion.
Commissioner Light moved to reconsider his previous motion to table. This motion was
seconded by Commissioner Thomas and passed unanimously.
Commissioner Light next moved to approve the request for expansion of the SWSA to include
the entire area of the 98.7768 -acre parcel in question. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the request from Triad Engineering, Inc. for the expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area
(SWSA) to include the entire area of a 98.7768 -acre parcel, identified with P.I.N. #34-A-11 in the Stonewall
Magisterial District.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of October 1, 2003 Page 1172
-12 -
Many of the Commissioners were displeased about the incompleteness of the rezoning
application package because the information required is typically evaluated in detail; they believed there were
many unanswered issues. However, because the proposed use was an outstanding industry presenting good
economic development potential for the County and because of the urgency of timing for the proposal, the
Commission decided to go along with the rezoning.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Triplett,
BE IT RESOLVED, That by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
recommend approval of Rezoning # 10-03 of Frederick Land Company, LLC, submitted by Triad Engineering,
to rezone 98.7768 acres from EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District to Ml (Industrial Light) District. This
property is located approximately three quarters of a mile east of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11), on the north
side of Brucetown Road (Route 672), and is identified with Property Identification Number 34-A-11 in the
Stonewall Magisterial District. The majority vote was as follows:
YES (TO APPROVE REZONING): Straub, Watt, Unger, Morris, Light, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Fisher,
Triplett, Rosenberry, DeHaven
NO: Gochenour
OTHER
FORWARD REQUEST TO TRANSPORTATION"COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER RESTRICTION
OF EAST -BOUND TRUCK TRAFFIC ON BRUCETOWN ROAD (RT. 672)
Commissioner Thomas made a motion for the Planning Commission to send a request to the
Transportation Committee to consider the initiation of the process to attempt to restrict east -bound through
truck traffic on Brucetown Road (Rt. 672), beyond the existing Chem -Stone entrance. This motion was
seconded by Commissioner Ours and passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. by a
unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of October 1, 2003 Page 1173
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #08-03
Abrams Pointe (revision to MDP # 07-89 and #02-95)
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: October 22, 2^03
Staff Contact: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application.
It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 11/05/03 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 12/10/03 Pending
LOCATION: This property is located north of Frederick Heights, south of Brookland Heights, east
of Heritage Hills and west of Briarwood Estates. Abrams Creek flows adjacent to the north property
line.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 54 -3 -1,55 -2 -1,55 -A -185,55-A-186 and 55-A-187
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: RP (Residential Performance)
Land Use: Vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North:
Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District
Use: Residential
South:
Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District
Use: Residential
East:
Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District
Use: Residential
West:
Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District
Use: Residential
PROPOSED USE: 240 Single Family Detached Urban Lots (12, 000 square foot minimum)
MDP #08-03, Abrams Pointe
Page 2
October 22, 2003
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See attached letter from VDOT dated September 15, 2003 to
G. W. Clifford & Associates.
Planning Staff Comment: In discussion with planning staff and representatives from VDOT, the
applicant has offered to enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT for a potential signal light
at the Greenwood Road intersection. The applicant has also agreed to work with VDOT to
implement traffic calming measures along Williamson Road.
Fire Marshal: See attached comment sheet.
Sanitation Authority: Approved as noted - 3 items to be addressed.
Service Authority: No comments on MDP. Flows have been included in future flows to Opequon
and Greenwood Metering Station (60,000 gal/day).
Counly Inspections: No comment required at this time. Shall comment at the time of subdivision
lot review.
Winchester Health Depart : The development is to be served by public water and sewer.
Public Works: We have no comments regarding the proposed revised MDP which incorporates
Coventry Court within the Abrams Pointe subdivision. We reserve the right to perform a detailed
review at the time of the subdivision design submittal.
Geographic Information Systems: 1. Farmington Boulevard - is DENIED - Current Farmington
Boulevard starts at Greenwood Road and house numbering goes higher to the east. Cannot have
duplicated numbers with the same numbers. Greenwood Road is a four-way intersection on a major
arterial roadway. Must be renamed. 2. The following road names were previously APPROVED
and reserved for use, by Abrams Pointe II, in the Frederick County Road Naming system: (some
suffixes have been changed from the original request for road names: Williamson Road (extension),
Castle Court, Duke Court, Bishop Court, Triangle Court, Sundial Court. 3. The following new road
names are APPROVED and reserved for use, by Abrams Pointe II, in the Frederick County Road
Naming system: Malbec Court, Pawn Court, and Jeni Court. 4. The following road names have
been DENIED for use in the Frederick County Road Naming system: Hunter Run Road - does not
connect with another road name using the same name. Conflicts with Road Naming Principle: No
longer accepting road names with the same first word as a road currently in the system. Must be
renamed.
MDP #08-03, Abrams Pointe
Page 3
October 22, 2003
Parks & Recreation: Plan appears to meet open space requirements. I would encourage the
developer to consider a linear park trail throughout the development for the benefit of the residents.
Winchester Regional Airport: The above referenced proposal has been reviewed and it appears that
the proposed site plan will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport as
the proposed development lies outside of the Airport's Part 77 surfaces. Thank you for your
cooperation and consideration in the continuing safe operations of the Winchester Regional Airport.
Frederick County Public Schools: No additional comments at this time.
Planning & Zoning:
Site History:
The original Frederick County Zoning Maps (U.S.G.S. Winchester and Stephenson
Quadrangles) depict the zoning for the subject parcels which comprise the proposed master
development plan as R-2 District and R-6 District. This acreage was reclassified to RP
(Residential Performance) District on September 28, 1983 when this zoning district removed
the R1, R2, R3, and R6 zoning districts. The master development plan for Abrams Point was
approved by Frederick County on June 18, 1990. The master development plan for Coventry
Court, which is being added to Abrams Point with this application, was approved by
Frederick County on June 19, 1995.
Site Suitability:
Land Use Compatibility
The site of the proposed project lies in an area of predominately single family detached
housing. However, there are townhouses to the north of the site. The proposed lot sizes of
this development are consistent with the average lot sizes in the surrounding area.
Historic resources
No significant historic resources have been identified on the site.
Environment
5.45 acres of flood plains, 9.0 acres of steep slopes and three (3) natural waterways are
present on the site. Abrams Creek is the primary natural waterway on the site. The other two
natural waterways are located between the proposed development and Heritage Hills
Subdivision, and along the western boundary of the portion of the property currently referred
to as Coventry Court. Riparian buffers are required by the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance along natural waterways to maintain the integrity of stream channels and reduce
the effect of upland sources of pollution. The soils comprising the parcels are within the
MDP 908-03, Abrams Pointe
Page 4
October 22, 2003
Martinsburg shale geologic area.
Transportation
The proposed master development is most significantly different from the original master
development plans in terms of the new road layout. Of most significance, the link to Hunter
Run Road over Abrams Creek has been eliminated. The Eastern Road Plan, found on page
7-15 of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, designates this link as part of a future collector road
network which would link Valley Mill Road (Route 659) with Senseny Road (Route 657)
and Greenwood Road (Route 656). An illustration of this future road network is shown
below:
Applicant's Comments: "The completion of Greenwood Road project by VDOT since the
original MDP approvals has created the capacity in the major connector system to handle
the planned traffic without the need for the Hunter Run Road connection. In fact, the Hunter
Run Road connection would create undesirable cut -through traffic and increased impact on
Valley Mill Road and its Route 7 intersection."
VDOT's Comments: "We realize a change in traffic volumes flowing to existing roadways
due to revision in the road system. The flows appear to become stronger toward Senseny
Road and Greenwood Road.... it appears that the traffic volumes on Senseny Road and
Greenwood Road are actually in the realm of multi -lane category which is defined as
warranting four travel lanes to sustain Level of Service C, currently acceptable in VDOT
roadways. "
MDP #08-03, Abrams Pointe
Page 5
October 22, 2003
Comprehensive Policy Plan
The subject parcels are within the county's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer
and Water Service Area (SWSA). The acreage of the proposed development is not part of a
small -area land use plan found in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The
Comprehensive Policy Plan states that suburban residential development must occur within
the UDA.
Project Scope:
The proposed master development plan for Abrams Point consists of 240 single family
detached urban lots on a total of 117.74 acres of land which is currently zoned RP
(Residential Performance) District. This is a reduction in density from the original master
development plans, which are approved for up to 264 single family detached urban and
single family detached cluster (8, 000 square foot minimum) lots. Currently, Abrams Pointe
and Coventry Court have been approved by Frederick County as separate developments.
This revision would incorporate Coventry Court with the future Abrams Pointe Subdivision.
A total of 23.60 acres (20%) of open space is proposed. The majority of this open space is
located along Abrams Creek and the other two natural waterways located on the site. The
Zoning Ordinance requires at least 17.66 acres (15%) of open space for the proposed
development. Of the required open space for this development, less than 50% is located in
areas of floodplain, steep slopes and wetlands.
No recreational facilities are required by the Zoning Ordinance for this development.
However, the original master development plan calls for a trail system throughout the
development. The Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation supports this
concept, and "encourages the applicants to consider a linear park trail throughout the
development for the benefit of the residents. "
The applicant has stated that the developer intends to utilize the street tree option of the
recently adopted landscaping ordinance. This will require landscaping along all roads in the
development.
Issues:
After analysis of this application for a master development plan staff believes that it is
appropriate to identify the following four concerns for the purpose of this report. The first
two comments are of a technical nature, and are being discussed for clarification purposes.
Comment numbers 3 and 4 are fundamental issues which need to be evaluated by the
Planning Commission. The Board must then determine the appropriateness of comment
number 4.
MDP #08-03, Abrams Pointe
Page 6
October 22, 2003
I) Width of Riparian Buffer. Staff notes that the riparian buffers shown on the
preliminary master developmentplan are scaled and labeled inappropriately. The
Zoning Ordinance requires riparian buffers to be at least 35 feet in width, measured
from both sides of the channel scar line. The entire width of the buffer will be over
70 feet wide.
2) Transportation Mitigation. As noted above, the applicant has verbally agreed to
enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT and implement traffic calming
measures along Williamson Road. Staff requests the applicant to reiterate this
agreement with the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors and provide
such a commitment in a notation on the master development plan.
3) Active Road Efficiency Buffer Waiver. The applicant has requested a waiver to
allow individual lots to be located within the active portion of the required road
efficiency buffer along Greenwood Road. The Zoning Ordinance grants the
Planning Commission with the authority to grant such a waiver when appropriate.
4) Inconsistency with Eastern Road Plan. The applicant's proposal to remove the
bridge crossing and road connection to Hunter Run Road is the major concern with
this application. While this modification may have some positive impacts, such as
eliminating cut -through traffic, a negative impact would be the increased traffic that
would be directed to Senseny Road and Greenwood Road.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/05/03 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
This application for the revision of Abrams Court, including the incorporation of Coventry Court,
would be consistent with the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan, and the requirements
of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance, if the applicant's modified
transportation plan is determined appropriate by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
All of the issues identified by planning staff, the review agencies, and the Planning Commission
should be appropriately addressed prior to a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
�iriir Il1i1111111 !i�0i.,.
.. :. tn� ♦ �i� _ .. �� ,ma -1/55y
imus = IIIIIV�' -��o. -v�itu ►; �� ��� ,� ' ��� ��,, f
tPAP OPEN&
MDP # 08-03
ABRAMS POINTE
PINs:
55-2-1154-3-1
55-A-185, 186, 187
N
W+ E
S
0 0.05 Miles
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
EDINBURG RESIDENCY
Philip A. Shucet 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE
COMMISSIONER EDINBURG, VA 22824
September 15, 2003
Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P.
G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
Ref: Abrams Pointe Revised Master Development Plan
Route 656, Greenwood Road & Route 657, Senseny Road
Frederick County
Dear Chuck:
JERRY A. COPP
RESIDENT ENGINEER
TEL (540) 984-5600
FAX (540) 984-5607
A VDOT review has been completed on the "revised" Master Development Plan dated
August 1, 2003 (received August 25, 2003) for the referenced project. Our comments follow and
are shown in red to reflect our concerns relative to the Master Development Plan.
• VDOT estimated volume of traffic for the Year 2002 for this section of Route 657,
Senseny Road is 9,800 AADT which includes 5% trucks. The 1993 volume of
Route 1213, Williamson Road was 1200. With these volumes projected to the Year
2006, we find 12,000 AADT on Route 657 and 1765 AADT on Williamson Road. Add
the Master Development Plan volume of 620 trips per day and the total feed to Route 657
would be 2385.
• On Route 656, Greenwood Road, the Year 2002 volume is 6,400 AADT projected to the
Year 2006. The volume becomes 7,780 AADT. Add 1,700 trips per day off Farmington
Boulevard in the Master Development Plan and Route 656 volume becomes 9,480
AADT. All the above assumes a 2006 build out year. This also suggests an updating of
traffic impact data considering the approval dates of 1990/1991 for the Master
Development Plan prior to revision.
• In consideration of the foregoing comments, it appears the traffic volumes on Routes 656
and 657 are actually in the realm of multi -lane category which is defined as warranting
four travel lanes to sustain Level of Service "C", currently acceptable in VDOT
roadways. Please review the attached VDOT information depicted in red on the Master
Development Plan and on the Frederick County Map pages covering the area.
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., F.E., V.P.
Ref: Abrams Pointe Revised Master Development Plan
September 15, 2003
Page #2
• The Typical Sections shown on the Master Development Plan should show actual
preliminary pavement structures based on C BR6. This would avoid v DG T approval of a
substandard pavement structure as shown on the revised Master Development Plan.
• It would be desirable to provide pavement structures more nearly that called for to
accommodate the volume shown for the roads. This could also be supplemented with a
chart illustrating the dimensions based on volumes.
• We realize a change in traffic volumes flowing to existing roadways due to revisions in
the road system. The flows appear to become stronger toward Routes 656 and 657 and
should be illustrated accordingly.
• Our conclusion would be that some form of phasing should be provided to better define
the roadway needs. Also, if proffers were part of the original Master Development Plan,
there should be some modification to identify improvements consistent with current
volumes at site plan stages. Please list any/all proffers on the Master Development Plan.
All the above comments should be considered and a refined revision of the Master Development
Plan should be provided to this office for VDOT review.
If there are any questions, please call.
Sincerel
.
Barry J. Sweitzer, Transportation Roadwa ngineer
For: Lloyd A. Ingram, Transportation Engineer
BJS/rf
Enclosures
xc: Mr. Dave Heironimus
Mr. Jeremy Camp
Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package
Request for Master Development Plan Comments
Virginia Department of TraosportatiQ._
Mail to:
Virginia Department of Transportation
Attn: Resident Engineer
14031 Old Valley Pike
Edinburg, VA 22824
(540) 984-5600
Hand deliver to:
Virginia Department of Transportation
2275 Northwestern pike
Winchester, VA 22603
(540) 535-1818
Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Virginia Department of
Transportation with their review. Please attach three (3) copies of the MDP with this sheet.
Applicant's Name:
Address:
G. W. Clifford &
117 E. Piccadilly Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Phone Number: (540)667-2139
Inc_
Name of development and/or description of the request:
Abrams Pointe
Location of Property:
Northwest of SR 656 (Greenwood Road) north of Frederick Heights Subdivision and
South of Brookland Heights
Virginia Department of Transportation's Comments:
tSee daR:[« [:a■[atKa ai iiViliiIl�nwZan[:;tic �1 1.1[.r:1-As.'oZ/T�:�
E P 7 2003
Oct 22 03 04:21p C_w. clifford & assoc. 540-665-0493 p.2
I.ui1uu1 numoer
MDP03-0010
Project Name
Abrams Pointe
Address
117 E.Piccadilly Street
Type Application
Master Development
Current Zoning
RP
Automatic Sprinkler System
No
Other recommendation
Emergency Vehicle Access
Not Identified
Siamese Location
Not Identified
Emergency Vehicle Access Comments
Access Comments
Date received
8/21/2003
City
Winchester
Tax 1D Number
55-2-1 & 54-3-1
Date reviewed
8/22/2003
Applicant
G.W.Clifford &Associates
State zip
VA 22601
Fire District
18
Recommendations
Automatic Fire Alarm System
No
Requirements
Hydrant Location
Not Identified
Roadway/Aisleway Width
Not Identified
Date Revised
Applicant Phone
540-6672139
Rescue District
18
Election District -
Red Bud
Residential Sprinkler System
Yes
Fire Lane Required
Yes
Special Hazards
No
Additional Comments
Fire ,hydrants shall be installed within 400 feet of all single family dwelling units and set within 3 feet of
the curbline. Alternatives may be acceptable when providing improved Fire Department access. One
section of Williamson Road is identified as Hunter Run Road, a change is required to alleviate
duplication.
Plan Approval Recommended Reviewed By Signature
Yes rmothy L. Welsh rifle PLAN9 APPROVED
Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package
APPLICATION
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Department of Planning and Development Use Only
Date application received
Complete - Date of acceptance
Incomplete - Date of Return
1.
2.
3.
Project Title:
Abrams Pointe
Application # 8"'0.3
Owner's Name: Jasbo, Inc. & Fred L. Glaize, III
P.O. Box 888
Winchester, VA 22604
Fred L. Glaize III & Beverley Shoemaker
(Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest)
Applicant: G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
Address: c/o Chuck Maddox
117 E. Piccadilly St., Winchester, VA 22601
Phone: (540) 667-2139
4. Design Company: G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Phone Number: (540) 667-2139
Contact Name: Chuck Maddox
Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package
APPLICATION cont'd
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
5. Location of Property: Northwest of SR 656 (Greenwood Road) north of
Frederick Heights Subdivision and south of
Brookland Heights
6. Total Acreage: 117.74
7. Property Information:
a) Property Identification Number (PIN):
b) Current Zoning:
c) Present Use:
d) Proposed Use:
55-2-1,54-3-1,55-A-185 thru 187
RP
Vacant
Single Family Detached Urban
e) Adjoining Property Information: See Attached
Property Identification Property Uses
North
South
East
West
f) Magisterial District:
8. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan?
Original Amended X
I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick
County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development
plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material
will be complete prior to the submission of my master development plan application.
Signature:
Date:
♦b/��/ ® 27 0 104--03
2
Abrams Pointe
ID#
Name
Address
Zoning
Use
55C-1-6
Lawerence H Connell
135 Pebblebrook Cir, Madison, AL 35808
RP
Residential
55C-1-7
Donald R Mencer
568 Greenwood Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55C-1-8
Kenneth G Ashby
576 Greenwood Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55C-3-19
Virginia K Goodman
119 Woodys Place, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55C-3-13
Robert G Landis
124 Woodys Place, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55C-7-5-32
James M & Sonia J Thorne
4071 Old Charles Town Rd, Berryville, VA 22611
RP
Residential
55C-7-5-33
David Todd Ferguson
110 Van Buren Place, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55C-2-1-43
Hugo & Theresa Reyes
115 Cloverdale Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55C-2-1-44
Andrew & Kristi Rig Leman
117 Cloverdale Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55C-2-1-46
John S Barker
114 Cloverdale Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55C-4-2-62
Richard & Bernadette Sisler
113 Astoria Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55C-4-2-63
Mark Fitzpatrick
116 Astoria Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55C-4-2-64
John & Emily Elliott
114 Astoria Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55C-4-2-65
Barbara Howell
112 Astoria Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55C-5-3-79
Martin & Jennifer Campero
113 Fenwick Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55C-5-3-80
Donald & Lisa Martinson
112 Fenwick Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55C-6-4-97
Buryl & Helen Noah
121 Windcrest Cir, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55C-6-4-98
Russell & Linda Fiddler
124 Windcrest Cir, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55C-6-4-99
Richard & Pamala Kelchner
122 Windcrest Cir, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55C -7-5-37A
Randolph Larrick & William Ward
P.O. Box 444, Winchester, VA 22604
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-205
Emily Mather Poe
231 Willowbrook Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-206
Jeffrey A & Shawna L Huff
229 Willowbrook Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-207
Shawn C Gum
227 Willowbrook Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-208
William J & Marianne O'Neill Jr
10304 Colony Park Dr, Fairfax, VA 22032
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-209
Gordon E & Tina M Davis
105 Stanley Dr, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-210
Robert C Cheshire
221 Willowbrook Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-211
WWP Investments LLC
P.O. Box 725, Winchester, VA 22604
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-212
Annmarie S & Douglas C Sharp
217 Willowbrook Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-213
Timothy J Ivins
215 Willowbrook Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-214
Michael J & Nanette M Farinholt
213 Willowbrook Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-215
Myron L Litzler
211 Willowbrook Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-216
RG McDonald Properties LC
P.O. Box 2321, Winchester, VA 22604
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-217
Kent M Daily
207 Willowbrook Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
_
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-218
Kimberly Love Stout
205 Willowbrook Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
gilbert w. clifford and associates, inc
Page 2
54B-2-3-219
Roger L & Joyce L McDaniel
234 Bryarly Rd, Winchester, VA 22603
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-220
Betsy C Cosgrave
2229-B Park Mills Rd, Adamstown, MD 21710
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-221
Robert Rucker & Elizabeth A Slater
P.O. Box 561 Upperville, VA 20185
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-222
Kendra S Orndorff
113 Willowbrook Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-223
Laura Scott Bonnett Fabrizio
111 Willowbrook Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-224
Deborah E Crawford
109 Willowbrook Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-225
Theodore R & Sylvia D Corbin
310 Butterscotch Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-226
Charles F & Roxie G Palmer
185 Timberlakes Ln, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-227
Charles I & Joan M Snyder
103 Willowbrook Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-228
Charles D & Sonya L May
501 Hickory Trl, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-229
Michelle Diehl
215 Waterford Ln, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-230
David M & Laurie J Yost
213 Waterford Ln, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-231
Davclow LLC
296 Victory Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-232
Angela C Desarro & David L Seal
151 Pemridge Dr, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-233
Charles L Hill
207 Waterford Ln, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-234
Rachel Falyar
205 Waterford Ln, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-235
Delroy A & Sandra L Hutchinson
203 Waterford Ln, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-236
Powell & Associates
1303 Frog Hollow Rd, Winchester, VA 22603
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-237
Paula L Nesselrodte
119 Waterford Ln, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-238
Cheryl D Dyksen
117 Waterford Ln, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-239
Kenneth W Mitchell & Kelly R Stine
115 Waterford Ln, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-240
Davclow LLC
296 Victory Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-241
William F & Heather L Welsh
111 Waterford Ln, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-242
Donna L Royster
109 Waterford Ln, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-243
Kevin K & Linda L Smith
569 Asilomar Ave, Pacific Grove, CA 93950
RP
Residential
54B-2-3-244
Marian Anna Sweeney
105 Waterford Ln, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54C -12-C-58
Clarke & Doris Grimmett
207 Meade Dr, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Vacant
55-2-2
Double S Associates, LC
1616 Whitier Ave, Winchester, VA 22601
RP
Vacant
54H-1-69
Bartbara N Toompas
120 Huntcrest Cir, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54H-1-70
Diann L Lockhart
926 Dicks Hollow Rd, Winchester, VA 22603
RP
Residential
54H-1-71
Ray A & Glenna L Pyne
116 Huntcrest Cir, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54H-1-72
Evangeline M Seibel
114 Huntcrest Cir, Win chester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54H-1-73
54H-1-74
54H-1-75
54H-1-76
54H-1-87
54H-1-88
54H-1-89
54H-2-1 A-101
54H -2 -IA -102
54H -2 -IA -103
54E -9-E-9
54E -10-C-7
54E -10-C-8
54E -10-C-9
54E -10-C-10
54E -10-C-11
54E -10-C-12
54E -1-E-2
54E -1-E-3
54E -1-E-4
54E -1-E-5
54E -1-E-6
54E -1-E-7
54E -1-E-8
54E -1-E-9
54E -1-E-10
54E -1-E-11
54E -1-E-12
54E -2-C-9
54E -2-C-10
54E -2-C-11
54E -2-C-12
gilbert w. clifford and associates, inc
Page 3
Richard L & MelissaD Upperman
Anthony C & Melissa A Johnson
Paul W & Julia A Smith
William A & Maria D Cazares
Larry Eugene & Tamela S Cooper Jr
Ralph L & Judy E Carty
Rodham T & Elizabeth S Rust Jr
Michael H Cullers
Richard J & Nancy A Dillon
Robert E & Sue Ann & Donna Fletcher
Paul J & Patricia A Whittemore
Lucien M Grimm
Harold M & Lola B Baker
Brian G & Jaunita G Lopez
Herbert R Cunningham
Joyce M Audino
John C White & Rebecca A Ashby
Michael W & Amonda K Ashwood
Shen. Valley Community Residents
Stanley L & Shana K Evans
Gaynor W & Ruth A Vann
Mary S Marcus
Mary Beth E McCarthy & Randy Johnson
Mark T Weir & Diana L Anderson Weir
Douglas E Borden
Harry J & Susan M Wolford Jr
Michael B & Wanda D Roop
Christopher M & Geralyn R Mohn
James D Hickerson
Mark A & Susan L Newbrough
William John Sorokin Jr
John K & Robin A Dorsev
112 Huntcrest Cir, Winchester, VA 22602
110 Huntcrest Cir, Winchester, VA 22602
108 Humtcrest Cir, Winchester, VA 22602
106 Huntcrest Cir, Winchester, VA 22602
101 Crest Cir, Winchester, VA 22602
100 Crest Cir, Winchester, VA 22602
102 Crest Cir, Winchester, VA 22602
P.O. Box 2123, Winchester, VA 22604
126 Huntcrest Cir, Winchester, VA 22602
124 Huntcrest Cir, Winchester, VA 22602
125 Williamson Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
212 Massie Dr, Winchester, VA 22602
214 Massie Dr, Winchester, VA 22602
216 Massie Dr, Winchester, VA 22602
218 Massie Dr, Winchester, VA 22602
220 Massie Dr, Winchester, VA 22602
222 Massie Dr, Winchester, VA 22602
303 Ridge Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
750 Merrimans Ln, Winchester, VA 22601
307 Ridge Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
309 Ridge Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
311 Ridge Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
313 Ridge Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
315 Ridge Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
317 Ridge Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
319 Ridge Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
318 Ridge Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
316 Ridge Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
1601 Siler Rd, Winchester, VA 22603
203 Ridge Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
205 Ridge Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
207 Ridge Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
gilbert w. clifford and associates, inc
Page 4
54E -2-C-13
Donald E Slawson
209 Ridge Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54E -2-C-14
Paul F Louks
5036 Barley Dr, Stephens City, VA 22655
RP
Residential
54E -2-C-15
Raymond L & Darcey A Floyd Jr
213 Ridge Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54E -2-C-16
Jamie Lynn Phillips
215 Ridge Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54E -2-C-17
Joyce S Hamman
312 Miller St, Winchester, VA 22601
RP
Residential
54E -2-C-18
Alice C Welsh
219 Ridge Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54E -2 -C -19A
Edward E Hillyard Jr
221 Ridge Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54E -2 -E -IA
David J & Mary Jane Pacini
301 Ridge Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54E -3-C-6
Ronald B & Charlotte A Ward
113 Ridge Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
54E -3-C-7
Martin B Gavis
414 S Braddock St, Winchester, VA 22601
RP
Residential
54E -3-C-8
Dana Stotler Dove
117 Ridge Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55 -A -194A
Thomas C Glass
847 Lake Saint Clair Dr, Winchester, VA 22603
RP
Vacant
55D -2-58A
Country Park Homeowners Association
147 Lake Saint Clair Dr, Winchester, VA 22603
RP
Vacant
55-A-188
Brenda L Vance
690 Greenwood Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55-A-184
Bettie E Winslow
711 Greenwood Rd, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-1-1
Carla M Englehart
101 Farmington Blvd, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-1-2
Gregory H Barbour
103 Farmington Blvd, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-1-3
Scott K McCafferty & Donna J Hall
105 Farmington Blvd, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-1-20
Matthew D & April M Roberts
100 Farmington Blvd, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-2-21
Richard R & Cathy L Bowling
200 Lilys Way, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-2-22
Charles D Harris
202 Lilys Way, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-2-23
James M & Michele Pietrangelo
204 Lilys Way, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-2-24
Shannon D Caudill & Patricia Hockey
206 Lilys Way, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-2-25
Charles D Wallace III
208 Lilys Way, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-2-26
Timothy R & Darline S Puffinburger
210 Lilys Way, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-3-47
Frank D & Brenda V Powers
101 Orchid Ct, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential