HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 07-15-15 Meeting Agenda AGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
July 15, 2015
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission
should adopt the Agenda for the meeting ................................................................ (no tab)
2) May 20, 2015 and June 17, 2015 Minutes ...................................................................... (A)
3) Committee Reports .................................................................................................. (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments ................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
5) Addition to the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District – The proposed addition
is a 5 acre tract within one parcel and is located in the Stonewall Magisterial District
along Redbud Road.
Mr. Cheran ....................................................................................................................... (B)
6) Addition to the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District – The proposed
addition is a 175.00+/- acre tract within one parcel and is located in the Back Creek
District along Conestoga Lane.
Mr. Cheran ....................................................................................................................... (C)
7) 2015-2020 Agricultural and Forestal District Addition of Parcels Less Than 5 Acres
– This Public Hearing is to consider the addition of 46 parcels each less than 5 acres in
size to the following Districts: Albin, Apple Pie Ridge, Double Church, Red Bud, South
Frederick and South Timber Ridge Districts. This could add up to an additional 87 acres
to the established 11,425.93 acres within the Agricultural and Forestal District Program
for the ensuing five year period. Properties that are incorporated into an Agricultural and
Forestal District are guaranteed certain protection as specified in Section 15.2-4300 of the
Code of Virginia.
Mr. Cheran ....................................................................................................................... (D)
-2-
8) Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning,
Article IV – Agricultural and Residential District, Part 401 – RA Rural Areas
District, §165-401.02 Permitted Uses, Article II – Supplementary Use Regulations,
Parking, Buffers and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204 – Additional
Regulations for Specific Uses, §165-204.22 Farm Wineries, Article I – General
Provisions, Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 – General
Provisions §165-101.02. Definitions and Word Usage. Revisions to the Zoning
Ordinance to include farm breweries, farm distilleries as permitted uses in the RA (Rural
Areas) District.
Mrs. Perkins ..................................................................................................................... (E)
9) Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning,
Article VIII, Development Plans and Approvals, Part 802 –Site Plans §165-802.01
Activities Requiring Site Plans, §165-802.02 Site Plan Applications; Review, §165-
802.03 Site Plan, §165-802.04 Required Improvements, Article I, General
Provisions; Amendments; and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 – General
Provisions, §165-101.02 Definitions & Word Usage. Revisions to the Zoning
Ordinance to update the site plan requirements.
Mrs. Perkins ..................................................................................................................... (F)
Other
Adjourn
Commonly Used Planning Agenda Terms
Meeting format
Citizen Comments – The portion of the meeting agenda offering an opportunity for the public to provide
comment to the Planning Commission on any items not scheduled as public hearing items.
Public Hearing– A specific type of agenda item, required by State law, which incorporates public comment as a
part of that item prior to Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors action. Public hearings are held for
items such as: Comprehensive Plan policies and amendments; Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
amendments; and Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit applications. Following the Public Hearing, the
Planning Commission will take action on the item (see below).
Action Item–There are both public hearing and non‐public hearing items on which the Planning Commission
takes action. Depending on the actual item, the Planning Commission may approve, deny, table, or forward a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the agenda item. No public comment is accepted
during the Action Item portion of the agenda.
Information/Discussion Item– The portion of the meeting agenda where items are presented to the Planning
Commission for information and discussion. The Planning Commission may offer comments and suggestions,
but does not take action on the agenda item. No public comment is accepted during the
Information/Discussion Item portion of the agenda.
Planning Terminology
Urban Development Area or UDA – The UDA is the county’s urban growth boundary identified in the
Comprehensive Plan in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. The UDA is an area
of the county where community facilities and public services are more readily available and are provided more
economically.
Sewer and Water Service Area or SWSA – The SWSA is the boundary identified in the Comprehensive Plan in
which public water and sewer is or can be provided. The SWSA is consistent with the UDA in many locations;
however the SWSA may extend beyond the UDA to promote commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses
in area where residential land uses are not desirable.
Land Use – Land Use is the nomenclature which refers to the type of activity which may occur on an area of
land. Common land use categories include: agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial.
Zoning District ‐ Zoning district refers to a specific geographic area that is subject to land use standards.
Frederick County designates these areas, and establishes policies and ordinances over types of land uses,
density, and lot requirements in each zone. Zoning is the main planning tool of local government to manage
the future development of a community, protect neighborhoods, concentrate retail business and industry, and
channel traffic.
Rezoning – Rezoning is the process by which a property owner seeks to implement or modify the permitted
land use activities on their land. A rezoning changes the permitted land use activities within the categories
listed above under Land Use.
Conditional Use Permit or CUP ‐ A CUP allows special land uses which may be desirable, but are not always
appropriate based on a location and surrounding land uses. The CUP requested use, which is not allowed as a
matter of right within a zoning district, is considered through a public hearing process and usually contains
conditions to minimize any impacts on surrounding properties.
Ordinance Amendment – The process by which the County Code is revised. Often the revisions are the result
of a citizen request with substantial justification supporting the change. Amendments ultimately proceed
through a public hearing prior to the PC forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
County Bodies Involved
Board of Supervisors or BOS ‐ Frederick County is governed by an elected Board of Supervisors composed of
seven members, one from each magisterial district, and one chairman‐at‐large. The Board of Supervisors is the
policy‐making body of the county. Functions of the Board of Supervisors related to planning include making
land use decisions, and establishing growth and development policies.
Planning Commission or PC ‐ The PC is composed of 13 members, two from each magisterial districts and one
at‐large, appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the
Board of Supervisors which then takes final action on all planning, zoning, and land use matters.
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee or CPPC – The CPPC is a major committee of the PC whose
primary responsibility is to formulate land use policies that shape the location and timing of development
throughout the County. Included in the work are studies of specific areas to develop guidelines for future land
use within those areas. The CPPC also considers requests for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
Decisions by CPPC are then forwarded to the PC for consideration.
Development Review and Regulations Committee or DRRC – The DRRC is the second major committee of the
PC whose primary responsibilities involve the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan in the form of
Zoning and Subdivision ordinance requirements. Requests to amend the ordinances to the DRRC are made by
the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, local citizens, businesses, or organizations. DRRC decisions
are also forwarded to the PC for consideration.
A
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3215
Minutes of May 20, 2015
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 May 20, 2015.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Robert S. Molden, Opequon District; H.
Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; J. Rhodes Marston, Back Creek District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek
District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; Christopher M.
Mohn, Red Bud District; Charles F. Dunlap, Red Bud District: Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney;
Robert Hess, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Mark Loring, City of Winchester Liaison.
ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; J.
Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director; John A.
Bishop, Deputy Director Transportation; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning
and Subdivision Administrator; and Shannon L. Conner, Administrative Assistant.
-----------
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wilmot called the May 20, 2015 meeting of the Frederick County Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Wilmot commenced the meeting by inviting everyone to
join in a moment of silence.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3216
Minutes of May 20, 2015
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) – 5/11/15
Commissioner Mohn reported further discussion was held on the Kernstown Area Plan.
He noted there is a Public Meeting being held on May 26, 2015 regarding this.
-------------
City of Winchester Planning Commission – 5/19/15
Mr. Mark Loring, Winchester City Planning Commission Liaison, reported the
Commission recommended approval of two items: A zoning ordinance for home improvement donation
centers; Conditional Use Permit for the Amphitheater at the Taylor Hotel.
-------------
Board of Supervisors Report – 5/13/15
Board of Supervisors’ Liaison, Supervisor Robert Hess, reported the Board of
Supervisors held a Public Hearing on the rezoning of the Blackburn Commerce Center. There were no
comments and it was unanimously approved. The next item was an ordinance amendment to include OM
District as a permitted use in the R4 District, this also was approved. The third item was an ordinance
amendment regarding permeable pavers and this was approved. Mr. Hess reported the rezoning for CB
Ventures LLC has been delayed to June 10, 2015. He explained before the meeting the applicant
submitted a revised proffer to reduce the height limitation to 35 feet and provided additional information
to the Board of Supervisors. The Board voted to delay the vote in order to properly evaluate the recent
information that was provided. The final item was the MDP for the Blackburn Property in which the
waiver request for private roads was approved.
-------------
Citizen Comments
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the
Planning Commission’s agenda or any item that is solely a discussion item for the Commission. No one
came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen comments portion of the meeting.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3217
Minutes of May 20, 2015
PUBLIC HEARING:
2015-2020 Agricultural and Forestal District Update – The renewal of these Districts will establish
a total of 11,425.93 acres within the Agricultural and Forestal District Program for the ensuing five
year period. Properties that are incorporated into an Agricultural and Forestal District are
guaranteed certain protection as specified in Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia.
Action – Recommended Approval of the
Renewal of Eight Existing Districts
Commissioner Kenney would abstain from all discussion on these items for a possible
conflict of interest.
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that the Agricultural
District Advisory Committee (ADAC) met on April 20, 2015, and unanimously recommended the
renewal of the eight Agricultural and Forestal District: the Albin Agricultural and Forestal District; the
Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District; the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District;
the Green Springs Agricultural and Forestal District; the North Opequon Agricultural and Forestal
District; the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District; the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal
District; the South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District.
Mr. Cheran proceeded to give the location and description of each of the eight districts
proposed for renewal. The Planning Commission considered and acted upon the renewal of each district
separately, as follows:
Update of the Albin Agricultural and Forestal District
This District will consist of 1,011.50+\- acres within 13 parcels located within the Gainesboro Magisterial
District, west of Route 37, north and south of Route 522, near the Albin Rural Community Center. This
District contains predominantly agricultural operations with 90 percent agriculture (livestock, orchards,
and crop harvest) and 10 percent open-space/woodlands. The area within the District is rural in nature.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments. No one came forward
to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
No issues or areas of concern were raised by the Commission members.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Marston and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the update and renewal of the Albin Agricultural and Forestal District consisting
of 1,011.50+/- acres located in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
(Note: Commissioners Ambrogi, Thomas, Oates, and Crockett were absent from the meeting)
_____
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3218
Minutes of May 20, 2015
Update of the Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District
This District will consist of 887.59+/- acres within 32 parcels located within the Gainesboro and
Stonewall Magisterial Districts, along Payne Road (Route 663) to the north, Welltown Road (Route 661)
to the east, Apple Pie Ridge Road (Route 739) to the west, and Glendobbin Road (Route 673) to the
south. This District contains predominantly agricultural operations with 90 percent agriculture (livestock,
orchards, and crop harvesting) and 10 percent open-space/woodlands. The area within the District is rural
in nature.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments. No one came forward
to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
No issues or areas of concern were raised by the Commission members.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Marston and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the update and renewal of the Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District
consisting of 887.59+/- acres located in the Gainesboro and Stonewall Magisterial Districts.
(Note: Commissioners Ambrogi, Thomas, Oates, and Crockett were absent from the meeting)
_____
Update of the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District
This District will consist of 923.16+/- acres within 17 parcels located within the Opequon Magisterial
District, along Double Church Road (Route 641), Canterburg Road (Route 636), Grim Road (Route 640),
Wise Mill Lane (Route 737). This District contains 75 percent agriculture (livestock and cultivation of
hay) and 25 percent open-space/woodlands. The area within the District is rural in nature.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments and the following
person came forward to speak:
Ms. Stephanie Shahan who lives on Whitfield Circle just off of Double Church Road
inquired is the property across the road from her property part of the Agricultural and Forestal District, as
she could not distinguish from a map provided to her. Chairman Wilmot noted all the maps for the
Agricultural and Forestal District are located on the website and Ms. Sheehan is welcome to call Staff if
she needs further clarification.
No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment
portion of the hearing.
No issues or areas of concern were raised by the Commission members.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Marston and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap,
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3219
Minutes of May 20, 2015
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the update and renewal of the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District
consisting of 923.16+/- acres located in the Opequon Magisterial District.
(Note: Commissioners Ambrogi, Thomas, Oates, and Crockett were absent from the meeting)
_____
Update of the Green Springs Agricultural and Forestal District
This District will consist of 385.63+/- acres within 2 parcels located within the Gainesboro Magisterial
District, along Glaize Orchard Road (Route 682) to the south, and Green Springs Road (Route 671) to the
east. This District contains 40 percent agriculture (livestock, and crop harvesting) and 60 percent open-
space/woodlands. The area within the District is rural in nature.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments. No one came forward
to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
No issues or areas of concern were raised by the Commission members.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Marston and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the update and renewal of the Green Springs Agricultural and Forestal District
consisting of 385.63+/- acres located in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
(Note: Commissioners Ambrogi, Thomas, Oates, and Crockett were absent from the meeting)
_____
Update of the North Opequon Agricultural and Forestal District
This District will consist of 407.48+/- acres within 6 parcels located within the Stonewall Magisterial
District, along Old Charlestown Road (Route 761), Opequon Creek to the east, and Slate Lane to the
west. This District contains predominantly agricultural operations with 90 percent agriculture (livestock
and crop harvesting) and 10 percent open-space/woodlands. The area within the District is rural in nature.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments and the following
persons came forward to speak:
Ms. Nancy Gallager of the Stonewall Magisterial District expressed her concern of bio-
solids being applied to farm right beside her property. She is concerned with possible well
contamination, airborne pathogens, and the adjacent creek becoming harmed. She would like to see
further review of these hazards by the County.
Mr. Pat Gallager of the Stonewall Magisterial District inquired if the County has a person
that monitors these bio-solids and who to contact with questions and concerns. Chairman Wilmot advised
he contact Staff to obtain this information.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3220
Minutes of May 20, 2015
No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment
portion of the hearing.
No issues or areas of concern were raised by the Commission members.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Marston and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the update and renewal of the North Opequon Agricultural and Forestal District
consisting of 407.48+/- acres located in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
(Note: Commissioners Ambrogi, Thomas, Oates, and Crockett were absent from the meeting)
_____
Update of the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District
This District will consist of 985.59+/- acres within 36 parcels located within the Stonewall Magisterial
District, and generally located along Red Bud Road. This District contains 75 percent agriculture
(livestock, horses, and crop harvesting) and 25 percent open-space/woodlands. The area within the
District is rural in nature.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments and the following
persons came forward to speak:
Mr. William Crittenden representing the House of Jacob Church inquired if there are any
changes in their area that they should be aware of. Chairman Wilmot noted the only change being the
elimination of parcels under 5 acres in size.
No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment
portion of the hearing.
No issues or areas of concern were raised by the Commission members.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Marston and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the update and renewal of the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District
consisting of 985.59+/- acres located in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
(Note: Commissioners Ambrogi, Thomas, Oates, and Crockett were absent from the meeting)
_____
Update of the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District
This District will consist of 5845.90+/- acres within 46 parcels located within the Back Creek Magisterial
District, along Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622), Middle Road (Route 628), Marlboro Road (Route 631),
and Hites Road (Route 625). This District contains predominantly agricultural operations with 90 percent
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3221
Minutes of May 20, 2015
agriculture (orchard and crop harvesting) and 10 percent open-space/woodlands. The area within the
District is rural in nature.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments and the following
persons came forward to speak:
Mr. Paul Anderson came forward to voice his concern on the elimination of parcels that
are less than 5 acres. He requested this decision be revisited and he does not feel it is accommodating to
the property owners.
No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment
portion of the hearing.
No issues or areas of concern were raised by the Commission members.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Marston and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the update and renewal of the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District
consisting of 5845.90+/- acres located in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
(Note: Commissioners Ambrogi, Thomas, Oates, and Crockett were absent from the meeting)
_____
Update of the South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District
This District will consist of 979.08+/- acres within 16 parcels located within the Gainesboro Magisterial
District, along Hollow Road (Route 707) to the north, Muse Road (Route 610) and Gold Orchard Road
(Route 708) to the east. This District contains predominantly agricultural operations with 90 percent
agriculture (orchard and crop harvesting) and 10 percent open-space/woodlands. The area within the
District is rural in nature.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments. No one came forward
to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
No issues or areas of concern were raised by the Commission members.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Marston and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the update and renewal of the South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal
District consisting of 979.08+/- acres located in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
(Note: Commissioners Ambrogi, Thomas, Oates, and Crockett were absent from the meeting)
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3222
Minutes of May 20, 2015
Draft Update of the 2015-2016 Frederick County Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans.
The Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans establish priorities for improvements to the
Primary and Interstate road networks within Frederick County.
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Planning Commission of Frederick
County, in accordance with Section 33.2-331 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 Six Year
Plan for Secondary Roads for Fiscal Year 2016.
Deputy Director-Transportation, John A. Bishop, began his presentation with the
Interstate Road Improvement Plan, which contains I-81, the only interstate in Frederick County. He
reported VDOT is moving forward with the Exit 310 project which should take about two years for
completion. Mr. Bishop noted to the Interstate Road Improvement Plan there have been minor changes to
the text as follows: Addition of the word evaluate to the discussion of collector distributor lanes in the
first paragraph of I-81 improvements; In bullet B of I-81 improvements “There is an urgent need to begin
increased study of this project” has been replaced with “Note: Relocation study is underway.”
Regarding the Primary Road Improvement Plan, Mr. Bishop said there was a minor
change and Route 37 continues to be the top priority. Mr. Bishop explained the change being in bullets
3B and 3C for Route 11, “Merchant Street” has been replaced with “Cedar Hill Road” in accordance with
modeling done for the Route 11 North Area Plan.
Regarding the Secondary Road Improvement Plan, Mr. Bishop commented that although
it is much less dollars than the Interstate and Primary Plans, it receives the most attention. Mr. Bishop
noted that Frederick County and VDOT collaborate closely on the Secondary Road Improvement Plan.
Mr. Bishop explained the first eight items on the list of major road improvement projects remains the
same as the previous year. There have been three items added to the list that are revenue sharing projects:
Valley Mill Road, under design; Airport Road Extension, at a standstill; Snowden Bridge Boulevard,
ready for the bid process. Mr. Bishop noted a key element to the updated Secondary Road Improvement
Plan is throughout the document Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects have been renamed as Non-
Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects in an effort to make it clearer that dirt/gravel roads are being
addressed.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments and the following
persons came forward to speak:
Ms. Priscilla Schultz of Double Church Road, Stephens City VA came forward to voice
her concerns on the speed limit and traffic hazards that are associated with Double Church Road. She
would like to recommend lowering the speed limit and possibly posting stop signs at the various
intersections.
Ms. Stephanie Shahan came forward again to also voice her concerns on the speeding
that takes place on Double Church Road. She also noted her concern with the relocation of Route 277
and the improvement plan. She would like to meet with Staff at some point to get clarification on exactly
where the relocation of Route 277 will fall.
No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment
portion of the hearing.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3223
Minutes of May 20, 2015
Commissioner Kenney inquired how long do the projects stay in the pipeline. Mr.
Bishop responded it is a reflection of at what rate the funds come to the County and are available for use
and what type of funding packages are available. Mr. Bishop noted the focus for the State right now is on
House Bill 2 and House Bill 1887. He noted the backlog for funding is overwhelming.
Commissioner Mohn inquired how are the safety concerns that have been brought forth
addressed. Mr. Bishop explained VDOT is regularly looking at the traffic concerns on Double Church
Road. He noted a traffic study has been conducted; however, it does not always reflect these types of
hazards. Mr. Bishop also noted enforcement of these types of traffic concerns is a challenge all over the
County.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Manuel,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the 2015-2016 update to the Frederick County Interstate, Primary, and Secondary
Road Improvement Plans.
(Note: Commissioners Ambrogi, Thomas, Oates, and Crockett were absent from the meeting)
-------------
ACTION ITEM:
Rezoning #04-15 of Abram’s Chase, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to revise proffers
associated with Rezoning #11-06, approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 10, 2007. This
revision changes the 13 residential units to age restricted residential units and adjusts the monetary
contribution to offset the impact of development accordingly. The properties are located on the
north side of Senseny Road (Route 657); approximately 400’ west of the intersection of Channing
Drive and Senseny Road in the Red Bud Magisterial District, and are identified by Property
Identification Numbers 65-A-27A and 65-A-28A.
Action – Recommend Approval
Deputy Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported this rezoning is to revise proffers associated
with Rezoning #11-06 and the revision relates to the residential land use sections of the proffers. Mr.
Ruddy explained Proffer B, Residential Land Use, has been modified with this proffer amendment to add
the qualification that the residential dwelling units will be age-restricted. He noted as a result of this
change, the Applicant has also modified the Monetary Contribution to offset the Impact of Development
by eliminating the contribution to schools. Mr. Ruddy noted Proffer D now states that the Applicant will
pay $2835.00 for each residential lot platted to the Treasurer of Frederick County.
Mr. Evan Wyatt of Greenway Engineering representing the Applicant welcomed any
question from the Planning Commission. There were no questions at this time.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Mohn and seconded by Commissioner Manuel,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Rezoning #04-15 Abram’s Chase, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to revise
proffers associated with Rezoning #11-06, approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 10, 2007.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3224
Minutes of May 20, 2015
This revision changes the 13 residential units to age restricted units and adjusts the monetary contribution
to offset the impact of development accordingly. The properties are located on the north side of Senseny
Road (Route 657); approximately 400’ west of the intersection of Channing Drive and Senseny Road in
the Red Bud Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 65-A-27A and
65-A-28A.
-------------
INFORMATIONAL/DISCUSSION ITEM:
Farm Breweries and Distilleries – revision to the Zoning Ordinance to include farm breweries, and
farm distilleries as permitted uses in the RA (Rural Areas) District.
No Action Required
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this is an ordinance amendment to update
the farm winery text to include farm breweries and farm distilleries as permitted uses in the RA (Rural
Area) District pursuant to the Code of Virginia. She stated the ordinance amendment includes new and
revised definitions. Ms. Perkins noted the revisions are as follows:
Addition of Farm Breweries and Distilleries
Addition of on-site sales, tasting during regular business hours
Kitchen and catering activities related to the business
Removal of the site plan requirement and addition of an illustrative sketch plan
requirement
Revision to the special events allowance to decrease the number of people
permitted onsite without a festival permit from 150 to 100 (which is consistent
with the County Code requirements for festival permits)
Ms. Perkins also noted the DRRC discussed this amendment at their April 2015 meeting
and sent the proposed changes to the Planning Commission for discussion.
Commissioner Unger commented this has been discussed to great length and it appears
ready this time.
Commissioner Manuel inquired the size farm needed for this type of operation. Ms.
Perkins noted the minimum is 10 acres.
Commissioner Kenney noted this appears ready and he is in favor of the idea.
-------------
Site Plan Revision Requirements – revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to update the site plan
requirements.
No Action Required
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3225
Minutes of May 20, 2015
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this is a revision to Part 802 of the Zoning
Ordinance to update the text to include provisions for minor site plans as well as inclusion of a new
illustrative sketch plan. Ms. Perkins explained minor site plans have commonly been submitted and
approved; however the term and requirements for these plans has never been codified. She noted
illustrative sketch plans are also proposed for inclusion; these would be applicable to agricultural
businesses such as farm wineries, distilleries and breweries, as well as conditional use permits that may
not need an engineered site plan.
Ms. Perkins concluded the DRRC discussed this amendment at their April 2015 meeting
and with minor revisions forwarded it to the Planning Commission for discussion.
There were no comments from the Planning Commission at this time.
-------------
OTHER
Cancelation of the regular meeting on June 3, 2015
Chairman Wilmot announced there were no pending items for the Planning
Commission’s June 3, 2015 meeting.
A motion was made by Commissioner Manuel to cancel the June 3, 2015 meeting of the
Planning Commission. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Mohn and unanimously passed.
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner Manuel to
adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Mohn and unanimously passed. The
meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
June Wilmot, Chairman
____________________________
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3226
Minutes of June 17, 2015
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 June 17, 2015.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice
Chairman/Opequon District; Robert S. Molden, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District;
Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; J. Rhodes Marston, Back
Creek District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Charles F.
Dunlap, Red Bud District: Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; Robert Hess, Board of Supervisors
Liaison; Steve Slaughter, City of Winchester Liaison.
ABSENT: J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Kevin
Kenney, Gainesboro District
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director; John A.
Bishop, Deputy Director-Transportation; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; and Shannon L. Conner,
Administrative Assistant.
-----------
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wilmot called the June 17, 2015 meeting of the Frederick County Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Wilmot commenced the meeting by inviting everyone to
join in a moment of silence.
-------------
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting.
-------------
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted the minutes of their May 6, 2015 meeting.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3227
Minutes of June 17, 2015
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Conservation Easement Authority – 05/28/15 Mtg.
Commissioner Triplett reported discussion was held on the Informational Conservation
Easement Videos, and at that time the videos were presented.
-------------
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) – 06/08/15 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported the committee discussed the Kernstown Area Plan and
voted to move it forward to the Planning Commission for discussion.
-------------
Board of Supervisors Report – 05/27/15 & 06/10/15 Mtgs.
Board of Supervisors’ Liaison, Supervisor Robert Hess, reported at the May 27, 2015
meeting a Public Hearing was held for the renewal of the Agricultural & Forestal Districts. During the
Public Hearing and with Board discussion it was revealed that adjacent property owners were properly
notified, although there was no legal requirement to do so. He explained the 46 owners of the small
parcels that were proposed to be removed from the Districts were not notified by letter of the proposed
removal. The Board approved the renewal of the Agricultural & Forestal Districts as advertised with the
understanding that Staff moves forward with legal notification to add the 46 parcels back into the
Agricultural & Forestal Districts, and then review the parcels individually for those who wish to be
removed. Mr. Hess reported at the same meeting a Public Hearing was held for the Interstate Primary &
Secondary Road Improvement Plans, at which time the Board unanimously approved.
Supervisor Hess reported at the June 10, 2015 meeting a report was received from the
Development Impact Model Oversight Committee regarding the model including a recommendation for
the annual update and a request to allow staff to utilize the results of the update. Thi s was unanimously
approved. Mr. Hess noted a Public Hearing was held for REZ #03-15 MBC LC to rezone two parcels. A
motion was made to approve the rezoning with a change to the transportation proffer to allow the use of
the funds for general transportation improvements rather than restricting those funds to pedestrian
improvements. Mr. Hess also reported the request by CB Ventures LLC REZ #05-14 was withdrawn by
the Applicant the day of the Board of Supervisors meeting. Also at the meeting, discussion was held on
the proposed ordinance revision for Farm Breweries & Distilleries. The Board suggested minor changes
to the text and unanimously agreed to move it forward to Public Hearing. Mr. Hess noted discussion was
also held on the Site Plan Requirements. This was also moved forward to Public Hearing.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3228
Minutes of June 17, 2015
City of Winchester Planning Commission – 06/16/15 Mtg.
Commissioner Slaughter reported the Commission held two Public Hearings. He
explained the first was a CUP for the Sacred Heart Academy gymnasium expansion. He stated the second
was a CUP for the expansion of the Museum of the Shenandoah Valley. He noted guidance was also
provided to the City Council regarding safety improvements in the proximity of Indian Alley and the
Discovery Museum.
-------------
Citizen Comments
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the
Planning Commission’s agenda or any item that is solely a discussion item for the Commission. The
following individuals came forward:
Rebecca Arnett spoke regarding Blue Ridge Youth Soccer Association (BRYSA). She
explained her family has been involved with BRYSA for 16 years. The organization has benefited her
daughters tremendously. She noted they have learned team work and how to persevere. Ms. Arnett stated
they have also made many long lasting friendships through the organization. She feels having these
additional fields would be fantastic for the community.
Ray Lanham spoke on behalf of BRYSA. He explained after hearing the comments and concerns from
the citizens at the May 6, 2015 Planning Commission meeting the organization felt a community meeting
needed to be held. He noted Mr. and Mrs. Sheehy, the owners of Winchester Montessori graciously
hosted the meeting on June 6, 2015. Mr. Lanham reported Nathan Laing the Commissioner of BRYSA,
Jim Carden the Executive Director of Winchester United, and himself were present at the meeting along
with approximately 25 community members. He explained they felt a meeting needed to be held to let
the citizens know about BRYSA and what they want to do with the property. He noted most importantly
they wanted to hear the citizens’ concerns. It became apparent these concerns needed to be addressed.
Mr. Lanham stated on June 8, 2015 he and Nathan Laing met with Staff to discuss changes that needed to
be made on this property. The concerns that were addressed were explained by Mr. Lanham:
Security – the mode of operation will be complete supervision of players and visitors at
all times during practice sessions and games to be monitored by coaches, team managers,
and parents; no pregame or post game loitering; no tobacco or alcohol; no trespassing
signs will be posted; the property will be gated; a fence between Winchester Montessori
and the BRYSA property will be installed; a swing gate installed for the parking lot of
Winchester Montessori ; signs for traffic will be posted; BRYSA could potentially rent
out the property and there will be a BRYSA member there at all times.
Screening – will provide 75’ no build zone between BRYSA and any adjoining property;
between 120 George Drive, will place two rows of evergreen trees 6’ in height and 8’ on
center staggered; between 1148 W. Parkins Mill Road, will place three rows of
evergreen trees 6’ in height and 8’ on center staggered.
Trash – players, parents, and coaches will be responsible for clean-up and all trash will
be removed daily.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3229
Minutes of June 17, 2015
Lighting – BRYSA will follow the ordinance which will be turned off by 10:00 p.m.
Environmental – will have natural all grass fields
Alex Stanford spoke in support of BRYSA. She explained she began playing through BRYSA at age 4,
began to play travel for Winchester United in the 4th grade, and after 3 years she and her family realized a
change was needed in order for her to play at a higher level. She noted practices were constantly canceled
due to the slightest of weather. At that time she began to play for a team in Loudoun County. Ms.
Stanford concluded there are many talented soccer players in the area and a more adequate facility would
offer many more opportunities for these athletes.
Luke Mason spoke in support of BRYSA. He explained he has been a part of the organization for 15
years. Mr. Mason noted this is about more than just soccer. He stated the organization helps build
character, relationships, and a strong work ethic. He concluded the organization is maintained with high
standards and he takes pride in that.
Lauren Mason, a player for Winchester United, came forward to speak in support of BRYSA. She noted
the organization has many great coaches and players. She stated when traveling to various places they
have nice fields and restrooms. She noted it would be really nice to have good fields here in our area and
it would be good for the community.
Jennifer Gaylor, a resident of Frederick County, came forward to speak. She explained her daughter has
played for BRYSA for 5 years. She agreed with the comments the previous speakers have made. She
noted everyone becomes one great big family and the new facility would be a great asset for the
community.
Mike Danielson was the next supporter of BRYSA to come forward. He noted BRYSA needs its own
home, someplace they can control. He feels it would give BRYSA an identity.
No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen comments
portion of the meeting.
-------------
ACTION ITEM
Conditional Use Permit #01-15 for Blue Ridge Youth Soccer Association, for a Commercial
Outdoor Recreation Facility. The Properties are located east of the City of Winchester, on the west
side of US Highway 50/17, at the southeastern corner of the intersection of Route 50/17 and with
West Parkins Mill Road (Route 644). The properties are identified with Property Identification
Numbers 77-A-26A and 77-A-26B in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action – Recommend Approval
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, noted as previously reported this is a request by the
Blue Ridge Youth Soccer Association for a Conditional Use Permit for a commercial outdoor recreation
facility on two parcels of land that total 57 acres. Ms. Perkins reported the Applicant held a meeting on
June 6, 2015 with the residents to discuss their concerns. She explained the conditions of the CUP
(Conditional Use Permit) have been updated to include: security fencing along the adjacent school
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3230
Minutes of June 17, 2015
property and a gate for their entrance; the property will be gated when not in use; the proposed buffer has
been increased to three rows of evergreen trees instead of a single row, minimum parking standards,
allowance for concession stand, trash removal, and a minimum of 75’ setback for all fields to adjacent
properties.
Ms. Perkins offered to answer any question the Planning Commission may have. There
were no questions at this time.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Ambrogi and seconded by Commissioner Triplett,
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #01-15 for Blue Ridge Youth Soccer Association, for a Commercial
Outdoor Recreation Facility with the following conditions:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. An engineered site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Frederick County Planning
Department; all site plan improvements shall be implemented prior to utilizing the facility.
3. Minimum parking shall be thirty (30) spaces per field. Access to the site shall be gated when the
fields are not in use.
4. Permanent bathroom facilities shall be provided on site.
5. One permanent concessions stand shall be permitted.
6. All trash shall be removed from the fields each day the fields are in use.
7. One freestanding sign shall be permitted; this sign shall not exceed 12’ in height and 50 square
feet in size; this sign shall be located on West Parkins Mill Road.
8. Site lighting shall conform with 165-20.07F – Lighting Standards for Recreational Facilities in all
Zoning Districts (Class III facility – full cutoff luminaries must be used to control spill light). All
lighting shall be turned off by 10:00 p.m.
9. All fields shall be a minimum of 75’ from any adjoining property boundary.
10. A 3 row of evergreen trees 6’ in height, planted a maximum of 8’ on center shall be provided
along any property line that boarders a residential dwelling, where existing woodlands (minimum
50’ width) are not present. Screening shall be phased as the fields are constructed.
11. Wire fencing shall be provided along parcel 77-A-26C; a gate shall also be provided to restrict
access into 77-A-26C.
12. Hours of operation shall be 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
13. The property shall only have one entrance, and that entrance shall be onto West Parkins Mill
Road. There shall be no entrances onto Route 50. Emergency access that is not open to the
public may be shown if approved by VDOT.
14. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new Conditional Use Permit.
-------------
INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS
Kernstown Area Plan – A proposed amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; Appendix I –
Area Plans. The Kernstown Area Plan looks to update, renew, and expand the land use and
transportation plans for the Kernstown area. The study area is generally located along Route 11,
south of the City of Winchester, and north of the Town of Stephens City, and west of I-81. The
Kernstown Area Plan builds on the Route 11 South Corridor Plan, and the balance of the Southern
Frederick Plan which was adopted in 1998, by incorporating the western portion of this plan into
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3231
Minutes of June 17, 2015
the Kernstown Area Plan. This Draft Plan is reflective of the work of a number of citizen
volunteers who have previously worked on updating the County’s Area Plans, the input of the
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee, and public input received through the process.
No Action Required
Deputy Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported the Kernstown Area Plan has been worked
on by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC) and the draft is reflective of the work
of a number of citizen volunteers who have previously worked on updating the County’s Area Plans in
addition to the input of the CPPC. Mr. Ruddy noted, the draft addresses residential development,
business development, transportation, historic resources, natural resources, and community facilities. Mr.
Ruddy explained the Kernstown Area Plan utilizes the previously adopted area plans (Southern Frederick
Land Use Plan and Route 11 south Corridor Plan) as a basis to build on.
Mr. Ruddy reported a public information and input meeting was held on May 26, 2015 at
the MidAtlantic Farm Credit building in Kernstown. He explained this was an important meeting because
it was an opportunity for citizens to come and discuss what all is part of the plan and provide input and
comments at that time. Mr. Ruddy pointed out since the Planning Commission agenda was distributed,
Staff has continued to receive comments and have been evaluating some additional changes to make. He
noted a letter was placed at everyone’s dais from Mr. Ralph Gregory consisting of additional comments.
Mr. Ruddy presented four maps that encompass the Kernstown Area Plan: Land Use, Transportation;
Trails; Natural/Historical Resources
Mr. Ruddy elaborated on the public comments and requests. He explained a more
significant amount of flexibility was added to the identified Rural Historic Resource Areas description to
encourage adaptive reuse and sensitive development of the areas where appropriate. Mr. Ruddy noted,
citizens were very supportive of the resources and the environment in the Bartonsville area. He stated the
area identified as the Bartonsville DSA/Rural Historic Resource Areas was reduced in size to allow
additional areas of Commercial Recreation land use to the south and additional areas of Commercial land
use to the north specifically to address a property owner’s request. Mr. Ruddy also reported Route 11
south in the vicinity of Bartonsville was maintained at its current designation with no additional
improvements identified. He pointed out; as a result of the plan, no additional widening of Route 11 in
the immediate Bartonsville area is anticipated. Mr. Ruddy noted it is important to recognize the
mechanics of this. It is important to recognize the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) changes and
the Urban Development Area changes. He explained there will be a net increase of approximately 50
acres to the SWSA and a reduction of 28 aces in the Urban Development Area.
At this time Mr. Ruddy welcomed comments and concerns from the Planning
Commission members.
Commissioner Thomas inquired, when going from a historic designation to rural
designation does that give the property owner the assumption they can develop the property in the future,
would it also allow the property to be broken into five acre lots at any given time without the County’s
input. He also asked is it truly a historic area we would be losing or is it a peripheral historic area.
Mr. Ruddy responded they are certainly historical areas but they would be able to do in
the Bartonsville area what the Rural Area designation would allow. For instance, they would be able to
subdivide if their density and lot acreage would allow. He explained they would be allowed to work with
the County on a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) if they felt a restaurant facility would be appropriate. The
property owner would not be able to turn the property into a commercial or industrial location because the
land use would not support it. Mr. Ruddy noted it’s important to recognize the second area in the
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3232
Minutes of June 17, 2015
Kernstown Battlefield location that is recognized as a DSA but could revert back to Rural Area (RA)
designation is wholly protected by the Kernstown Battlefield Association through ownership of the
property or future easements that they are obtaining on the adjacent properties. He noted RA designation
has been reinforced over the last few years and that is something to be supported.
Commissioner Thomas asked, is the future being given away too much that the historical
area will be lost by using RA designation or should we use a combination of RA and Historical Area on
some of this, such as the more significant Historical areas. He suggested possibly keeping the Historical
designation and the peripheral areas designate RA.
Mr. Ruddy explained, in the process, we are always trying to balance just that, to allow
the property owners to do certain things but also to recognize our resources. He noted Development
Sensitive Areas (DSA) have been a good tool for the County in identifying those places and locations.
Mr. Ruddy noted when everyone uses the DSA they are reflecting what it is the County is looking to see
and that is promoting those Historic resources, but also allowing things to happen in and around those
resources creatively.
Commissioner Thomas commented he appreciates the property owner’s rights and wants
to keep those rights flexible. He stated possibly part of this should have some historical designation to
preserve the significant parts of it.
Mr. Ruddy noted, there have been discussions in that regard with the adjacent property
owners in the area wanting to have commercial opportunity and citizens within the Bartonsville area in
particular valuing what they have and valuing the future of that, as the resources that are there today and
trying to find a balance.
Commissioner Oates commented, when he became a Planning Commission member in
2005, the mapping was mainly white. He stated he was pleased that over the last 10 years on the land use
plans, colors have been added to identify areas that were to be preserved. He noted the color acted as a
chip indicating the land has been looked at, was a DSA, etc. He pointed out it gave citizens notice that
the land was not to be used for high density residential or commercial/light industrial uses. He stated,
leaving the mapping white is going to reopen the door for confusion and the false sense the property can
be developed. Commissioner Oates noted, in recent years we haven’t had citizens’ think the property was
missed being designated because maps were appropriately color coded. He elaborated if it was in the
DSA and there was a legitimate reason why part of it should come out then a study could be done to
analyze that. He noted keeping the colors on the maps will put everyone on notice that something exists
there and it will prevent citizens from getting the false sense something can be done with the property (ex.
Rezoning, serviced by SWSA, etc…) when actually it cannot.
Mr. Ruddy commented he appreciates everyone’s comments and input as this will
continue to be a work in progress.
____
Conservation Easement Authority Video
Director, Eric L. Lawrence presented a brief update on the Conservation Easement
Authority (CEA). He explained, the CEA was created by the Board of Supervisors in 2005. The goal of
the CEA is to provide a means to assist County landowners in protecting and preserving farm and forest
land, open space, scenic vistas, historic sites, water resources, and environmentally sensitive land. He
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3233
Minutes of June 17, 2015
noted the CEA acts as a clearing house for conservation easement information and it provides guidance to
property owners interested in pursuing things further. Mr. Lawrence stated the decision is ultimately that
of the property owner. Mr. Lawrence commented, as of April 2015 there are over 8,000 acres in
Conservation Easements within the County.
Mr. Lawrence reported, over the past year, the CEA has partnered with Potomac
Conservancy on a video series of information specific to Frederick County. He noted the series consists
of five videos, two of which are available now online and the others will soon follow. Mr. Lawrence
introduced Ms. Diane Kearns, Chairman of the CEA. He then presented the CEA informational video.
Mr. Lawrence noted the video series is available via Comcast channel 16 and www.fcva.us/cea.
-------------
OTHER
Cancelation of the regular meeting on July 1, 2015
Chairman Wilmot announced there were no pending items for the Planning
Commission’s July 1, 2015 meeting.
A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas to cancel the July 1, 2015 meeting of the
Planning Commission. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Oates and unanimously passed.
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner Oates to adjourn
the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Dunlap and unanimously passed. The meeting
adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
June Wilmot, Chairman
____________________________
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
B
AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT UPDATE
RED BUD ADDITION
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: June 30, 2015
Staff Contact: Mark Cheran, Zoning Administrator
Reviewed Action
Agricultural District Advisory Committee: 06/24/15 Recommended Approval
Planning Commission: 07/15/15 Public Hearing Scheduled;
Action Pending
Board of Supervisors: 08/12/15 Pending
PROPOSAL: Addition of a 5.0+/- acre parcel to the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District.
LOCATION: This addition is located along Red Bud Road.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall Magisterial District.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE 07/15/15 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
This is a request to the Frederick County Planning Commission to add a 5.0 +/- acre parcel to the Red
Bud Agricultural and Forestal District. The District currently has a total of 985.59+/- acres. This
District addition meets the intent of Chapter 43, Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended, and has been evaluated in conjunction with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. If approved with
the additional 5.0+/- acre parcel, the District will now have a total of 990.59+/- acres. The 2015-2020
Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District is a valid Agricultural and Forestal District through May 27,
2020. The Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) unanimously recommended
approval of the 5.0+/- acre 2015-2020 Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District at their meeting
on June 24, 2015.
Following a public hearing, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to forward to the
Board of Supervisors would be appropriate.
Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District Addition
June 30, 2015
Page 2
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Agricultural District Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors
to assist them in making a decision on this application of this 5.0+/-acre parcel addition to the
Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District. It may also be useful to others interested in this
matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant
throughout this staff report.
Reviewed Action
Agricultural District Advisory Committee: 06/24/15 Recommended Approval
Planning Commission: 07/15/15 Public Hearing Scheduled;
Action Pending
Board of Supervisors: 08/12/15 Pending
This is a request to the Frederick County Planning Commission to enlarge the Red Bud Agricultural and
Forestal District. This request is to add one parcel of 5.0 +/- acres.
Chapter 43, Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, enables local governments to
establish Agricultural and Forestal Districts to conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands for
the production of food and other agricultural products and to provide natural and ecological resources.
The Code of Virginia requires the local governing body to establish an ADAC for the purpose of
reviewing proposals that establish or renew Districts to ensure conformity with the provisions of
Section 15.2-4300. The District was established in 2006 and subsequently updated on May 27, 2015.
Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors approves, approves with modifications, or denies the proposal to
add land to an Agricultural and Forestal District.
LOCATION AND SIZE:
This parcel is located along Red Bud Road. The Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District currently
contains 985.59+/- acres. The proposed addition of this parcel (Tax Map Number: 43-A-159A) of 5.0
+/- acres will increase the District to a total acreage of 990.59+/-acres.
AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
A is house located on the parcel.
LAND USE:
The land use of the parcel is residential use.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County (Comp Plan) provides guidance when
considering land use actions. The District lies in an area that is outside the Urban Development Area
(UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The area is located within the Northeast Land Use
Plan. The parcels have no land use designation, which indicates the area should remain rural.
Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District Addition
June 30, 2015
Page 3
LAKES/PONDS/STREAMS:
The parcel lies primarily within the Redbud Run drainage area, and partially within the Hiatt Run
drainage area. The parcel will assist with managing the quality of the County’s water resources.
PRIME AGRICULTURE SOIL:
There is a limited amount of prime agricultural soils located within the parcel, which are Blairton,
Carbo, Frederick, Guernesy and Massanetta.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 07/15/15 FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING:
This is a request to the Frederick County Planning Commission to enlarge the Red Bud Agricultural and
Forestal District. The District has a total of 985.59+/- acres. This addition meets the intent of Chapter
43, Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and has been evaluated in
conjunction with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. If this additional 5.0+/- acre parcel is approved, the
990.59+/- acre District will be referred to as the 2015-2020 Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District
and will be a valid Agricultural and Forestal District through May 27, 2020. The Agricultural District
Advisory Committee (ADAC) unanimously recommended approval of the 5+/- acre 2015-2020
Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District at their meeting on June 24, 2015.
Following a public hearing, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to forward to the
Board of Supervisors would be appropriate.
REDB
U
D
R
D
VALLEY MILL
R
D
SENSENY R
D
ST820
ST660
ST659ST661
ST656
ST664
ST661
ST661
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
Winchester
2015-2020 Red Bud Addition
Agricultural & Forestal District
District Acreage: 990.59 Ac.
I 0 0.4 0.80.2 MilesNote:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: May 28, 2015
0111
017
017
0137
0111
Future Route 37 Bypass
SEN
S
E
N
Y
R
D
VALLEY MILL RD
RE
D
B
U
D
R
D
43 A 159A5 Acre Addition
C
AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT UPDATE
SOUTH FREDERICK ADDITION
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: June 30, 2015
Staff Contact: Mark Cheran, Zoning Administrator
Reviewed Action
Agricultural District Advisory Committee: 06/24/15 Recommended Approval
Planning Commission: 07/15/15 Public Hearing Scheduled;
Action Pending
Board of Supervisors: 08/12/15 Pending
PROPOSAL: Addition of a 175.00+/- acre parcel to the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal
District.
LOCATION: This addition located along Conestoga Lane.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek Magisterial District.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE 07/15/15 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
This is a request to the Frederick County Planning Commission to add a 175.00+/- acre parcel to the
South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. The District currently has a total of 5,845.90+/-
acres. This District addition meets the intent of Chapter 43, Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, and has been evaluated in conjunction with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. If
approved with the additional 175.00+/- acre parcel, the District would now have a total of 6,020.90+/-
acres. The 2015-2020 South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District is a valid Agricultural and
Forestal District through May 27, 2020. The Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC)
unanimously recommended approval of the 175.00+/- acre 2015-2020 South Frederick
Agricultural and Forestal District at their meeting on June 24, 2015.
Following a public hearing, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to forward to the
Board of Supervisors would be appropriate.
South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District Addition
June 30, 2015
Page 2
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Agricultural District Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors
to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested
in this matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant
throughout this staff report.
Reviewed Action
Agricultural District Advisory Committee: 06/24/15 Recommended Approval
Planning Commission: 07/15/15 Public Hearing Scheduled;
Action Pending
Board of Supervisors: 08/12/15 Pending
This is a request to the Frederick County Planning Commission to enlarge the South Frederick
Agricultural and Forestal District. This request is to add one parcel of 175.00+/- acres.
Chapter 43, Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, enables local governments to
establish Agricultural and Forestal Districts to conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands for
the production of food and other agricultural products and to provide natural and ecological resources.
The Code of Virginia requires the local governing body to establish an ADAC for the purpose of
reviewing proposals that establish or renew Districts to ensure conformity with the provisions of
Section 15.2-4300. This District has update on May 27, 2015. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors
approves, approves with modifications, or denies the proposal to add to an Agricultural and Forestal
District.
LOCATION AND SIZE:
This 175 +/- acre parcel is located in the Back Creek Magisterial District along Conestoga Lane.
The South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District currently contains 5,845.90+/- acres. The
proposed addition of this parcel (Tax Map Number: 85-A-3) of 175.00+/- acres will increase the
District to a total acreage 6,020.90+/- acres.
AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
The agricultural operations in the District are 90 percent agriculture (orchard, and crop harvesting) and
10 percent open-space/woodlands. This parcel is agriculture in nature. The area within the District is
rural in nature.
LAND USE:
The parcel is agricultural and residential use.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County (Comp Plan) provides guidance when
considering land use actions. The District is outside the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer
and Water Service Area (SWSA), and is not part of any land use plan or study by the County. The
current land use should remain in its present land use of pristine condition with orchards, agricultural,
South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District Addition
June 30, 2015
Page 3
and residential.
The intent of the Rural Areas is to maintain agriculture as a significant portion of the County’s economy
and to maintain the rural character of areas outside of the Urban Development Area. The
Comprehensive Plan can accomplish this by promoting the inclusion of additional land in Agricultural
and Forestal Districts. The Comprehensive Plan supports the addition of this parcel, for it provides an
opportunity for the agribusiness community to conduct long range planning efforts for the management
of their operations, while providing a reserve of agricultural land through the year 2020.
LAKES/PONDS/STREAMS:
The parcel lies primarily within the Opequon Creek and Stephens Run drainage area. The parcel will
assist with managing the quality of the County’s water resources.
SOILS:
The general relief of the parcel varies from rolling hills to flat land to the north, west, south and east.
This parcel lies within the Opequon Creek watershed and water is available from ponds, wells and
springs.
PRIME AGRICULTURE SOIL:
The largest amount of prime agricultural soils located on the parcel is Frederick-Poplimento.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 07/15/15 FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING:
Based on this information, staff feels that this addition is agriculturally significant as outlined in the
Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act. Furthermore, this addition would conform to the County’s
Comprehensive Policy Plan which labels the area as rural. This is a request to the Frederick County
Planning Commission to enlarge the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. The South
Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District, has a total of 5,845.90+/- acres. This addition meets the
intent of Chapter 43, Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and has been
evaluated in conjunction with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This addition to the District provides an
opportunity for the agribusiness community to conduct long range planning efforts for the management
of their operations, while providing a reserve of agricultural land through the year 2020. Should this
additional 175.00 +/-acre parcel be approved, the 6,020.90+/- acres District will be referred to as the
2015-2020 South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District and will be a valid Agricultural and
Forestal District through May 27, 2020. The Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC)
unanimously recommended approval of the 175+/- acre 2015-2020 South Frederick Agricultural
and Forestal District at their meeting on June 24, 2015.
Following a public hearing, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to forward to the
Board of Supervisors would be appropriate.
MIDDLE RDLA
U
R
E
L
G
R
O
V
E
R
D
MARLBORO RD
BA
R
L
E
Y
L
N
§¨¦81
0111Stephens City
Winchester
LAU
R
E
L
G
R
O
V
E
R
D
2015-2020 South Frederick Addition
Agricultural & Forestal District
District Acreage: 6,020.90 Ac.
I 0 0.85 1.70.425 MilesNote:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: May 28, 2015
01277
ST622
ST622
ST628
ST628
0137
0137
Future Route 37 Bypass
MIDDLE
R
D
CED
A
R
C
R
E
E
K
G
R
LAUREL GR
O
V
E
R
D CEDA
R
C
R
E
E
K
G
R
CEDAR CREEK GR
85 A 3175 Acre Addition
D
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator
SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Consideration for Inclusion of Parcels of Less Than 5 Acres into
the Agricultural and Forestal Districts
DATE: June 30, 2015
On May 27, 2015, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors adopted the eight 2015-2020
Agricultural and Forestal Districts totaling 11,425 acres. Forty-six (46) parcels totaling 87 acres
were not included in the adopted Agricultural and Forestal Districts. These forty-six (46) parcels
were each less than 5 acres in size and were not participants in the County’s Land Use
Assessment Program. The Board of Supervisors has requested that each of these parcels be
given further consideration, and that the proper ty owners be given an opportunity to
participate in the evaluation.
The County’s Agricultural and Forestal District Program is intended to recognize promote and
protect our agricultural economy. One strategy utilized to protect agricultural operations is an
ordinance requirement that establishes a 200-foot building setback against the agricultural
district; essentially working to minimize impacts on agricultural activities from non-agricultural
structures. In February 2015, the Frederick County Agricultu ral Advisory Committee (ADAC)
found that parcels less than 5 acres, not in the Land Use Assessment Program, and in an
Agricultural District, could be placing unintended restrictions on adjacent properties.
Therefore, the ADAC recommended that such propert ies not be included in the Agricultural
District.
In response to the Board of Supervisors’ May 27, 2015 request, the ADAC held a meeting on
June 24, 2015 to consider including the 46 parcels of less than 5 acres into the County’s
Agricultural and Forestal Districts. Staff presented each of the 46 parcels previously not
included in the District for review. The property owners where offered an opportunity to voice
their position regarding placement of their 5 acre or less parcel into the Agricultural and
Forestal District. A number of property owners attended the meeting and voiced their
preference that their parcels be included in the Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The ADAC
RE: Public Hearing – Consideration for Inclusion of Parcels of Less Than 5 Acres into
the Agricultural and Forestal District
Page 2
June 30, 2015
discussion did include a review of how placement of a parcel into an Agricu ltural and Forestal
District would place additional setback restrictions of 200 feet on adjoining properties, but
ultimately supported the interests of property owners wanting participation and inclusion in
the Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The ADAC recommended that all forty-six (46) parcels
be included in their respective Districts.
Following the public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a
recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors.
Enclosed in this memorandum for your review are:
1. Minutes of June 24, 2015 ADAC meeting.
2. List of 46 properties less than 5 acres proposed for inclusion in the
Agricultural and Forestal District.
3. Location maps of the 46 parcels demonstrating the influence of the 200 foot
Agricultural District setback on adjoining properties.
4. Letter sent to property owners requesting their participation in the ADAC’s
June 24, 2015 meeting.
MRC/pd
1
MEETING SUMMARY
OF THE
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Held in the Board of Supervisors Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North
Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on June 24, 2015.
PRESENT: Carly C. Ay, Stonewall District; Dudley H. Rinker, Back Creek District; John Stelzl, Opequon
District; John D. Cline, Stonewall District; and Cordell L. Watt, Gainesboro District
ABSENT: Harman Brumback, Back Creek District; Jason McDonald, Shawnee District; and John R. Marker,
Back Creek District Alternate
Staff: Eric Lawrence, Director of Planning & Development; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator; and
Pam Deeter, Secretary
OTHER: Ellen Murphy, Commissioner of Revenue; Seth Thatcher, Assessor; and eight property owners
and/or representatives.
The meeting was called to order by Mr. Cheran. Items one and two on the agenda are two new
properties that want to come into the Agricultural and Forestal District. Item three on the agenda is 46
properties that were not included in the renewal of the 2015-2020 Agricultural and Forestal District, for
which the Board of Supervisors requests a re-evaluation.
Mr. Cheran stated that people continue to express a desire to be included in the Agricultural District; the
agenda this evening is an opportunity to consider their addition to the District.
Item 1: Addition of 5 acres, PIN 43-A-159A, to 2015-2020 Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District
This is a request to the Frederick County Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) to add a 5.0+/-
acre parcel, PIN 43-A-159A, to the 2015-2020 Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District. The parcel is
located along Red Bud Road and the District currently has 985.59 acres. If approved this would increase
the 2015-2020 Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District to 990.5+/- acres. This addition meets the
intent of Chapter 43, Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia, and has been evaluated in conjunction
with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan which keeps this area rural in nature.
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Watt , the ADAC recommended approval of the
addition of the 5.0+/- acres, PIN 43-A-159A, to the 2015-2020 Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District.
2
Item 2: Addition of 175 acres, PIN 85-A-3, to 2015-2020 South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal
District
This is a request to the Frederick County Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) to add a 175-
acre parcel, PIN 85-A-3, to the 2015-2020 South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. The parcel is
located along Conestoga Lane. If approved this would increase the 2015-2020 South Frederick
Agricultural and Forestal District to 6,020.90+/- acres. This addition meets the intent of Chapter 43,
Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia, and has been evaluated in conjunction with the 2030
Comprehensive Plan which keeps this area rural in nature.
On a motion made by Mr. Watt and seconded by Mr. Rinker, the ADAC recommended approval of the
addition of the 175 acres, PIN 85-A-3, to the 2015-2020 South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal
District.
Item 3: Re-Evaluation of the addition of 46 parcels, totaling 87 acres, to various Agricultural and
Forestal Districts.
Mr. Cheran gave background information that at the ADAC meeting in February 2015, ADAC discussed
whether properties that were less than 5 acres in size and not in the County Land Use Assessment
Program should be included in an agricultural and forestal district. These properties’ placement in the
District could impact adjacent property owners by requiring a building setback of 200 foot from
agricultural district boundaries. The ADAC recommended that such properties not be included in the
Agricultural and Forestal District.
The Board of Supervisors met on May 27, 2015, and adopted the eight 2015-2020 Agricultural and
Forestal Districts totaling 11,425 acres which did not include 46 parcels (total 87 acres) that were less
than 5 acres in size, and not in the County’s Land Use Assessment Program. The Board of Supervisors
requested that the ADAC review the 46 parcels, and permit the 46 property owners the opportunity to
participate in the evaluation.
Before the presentation started, an ADAC member spoke about the importance of small parcels which
helped create the individual Agricultural and Forestal Districts, which these landowners support
agricultural in the County, and therefore should be included in the agricultural district program.
Mr. Cheran stated that as the ADAC reviews the 46 parcels, staff will present an illustrative map of each
parcel, and include the 200 foot buffer area on adjacent properties to depict the potential setback
restriction on an adjacent property’s use.
3
PIN 42-A-61 Mr. Cheran started his presentation with the Albin District. This parcel is owned by DTS LC
and the size of the parcel is 2.50 acres. A committee member spoke and said that it is the right of
landowner if he wants to be in the Agricultural District to protect them. It was noted that the parcel is
surrounded by the Agricultural District, and there are no adjacent houses. On a motion made by Mr.
Rinker and seconded by Mr. Stelzl, the ADAC unanimously recommended approval of including PIN 42-
A-61 into the 2015-2020 Albin Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN(s) 31-A-170 and 31-A-171 Located in the Apple Pie Ridge District, these two parcels are owned by
Fruit Hill Orchard Inc. One parcel has 0.34 acres and the other 1.07 acres. Again the map is showing a
200 foot setback of how it would affect adjoining property owners. A committee member confirmed
that these properties already adjoin an orchard.
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Stelzl, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN(s) 31-A-170 and 31-A-171 into the 2015-2020 Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural and
Forestal District.
PIN 85-A-25 The next 10 properties are located in the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District.
The first to consider is PIN 85-A-25, a 0.50 acre parcel owned by Roger Siever. This is a small property
with limited expansion opportunity. Placement of the property into the Agricultural District will place
additional setback burdens on its adjacent properties. A committee member asked if this restriction
affects the parcel that is in Agricultural District from building. Mr. Cheran replied, no. A committee
member stated then why do we want to restrict an adjacent parcel from building.
A committee member said if a landowner wants to be back in the District than we should allow him back
in. A question was posed is this a new addition or was this property already in District. Mr. Cheran
replied this landowner was already in the District.
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Stelzl, the ADAC recommended approval of
including PIN 85-A-25 into the 2015-2020 Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District. One
committee member opposed the motion.
PIN 85-A-33 PIN 85-A-33 is owned by Jessie Judd and the parcel size is 0.37 acres. Mr. Cheran showed
the buffers on the map which could affect the properties to the west and east. It was noted that
placement of this property in the District is impacting the neighboring property. A member asked if the
fields were in the Agricultural District and Mr. Cheran said no. A committee member said this property
wants back in District but yet he hasn’t done anything to support or hurt it the Agricultural District.
Another member spoke up and said he helped to form the District.
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Stelzl, the ADAC recommended approval of
including PIN 85-A-33 into the 2015-2020 Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District. Two
committee members opposed the motion.
4
PIN 85-A-132 PIN 85-A-132 is owned by Sandra Ritenour, and is 3.67 acres. The property owner came
forward to speak. This piece of land was cut from the original farm and a house was placed on the
property and surrounding this property is Agricultural and Forestal family owners. In the past, the
property owners stated she has raised corn, steers, goats, and sheep on this property. Ms. Ritenour
would like to stay in the District.
On a motion made by Mr. Stetzl and seconded by Mr. Rinker, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 85-A-132 into the 2015-2020 Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 85-A-139A PIN 85-A-139A is owned by Gary and Linda Scothorn, and contains 1.29 acres. Mr.
Scothorn came forward to speak. Mr. Scothorn confirmed the area where he could build. He expressed
that he would obtain a building permit if he decided to build. His house is setting in the middle of his
property and he owns several other smaller parcels with separate deeds around his larger tract of land.
On a motion made by Mr. Ay and seconded by Mr. Stelzel, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 85-A-132 into the 2015-2020 Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 86-A-33 PIN 86-A-33 is owned by Betty Stelzl, and contains .12 acres. Mr. Stelz spoke for his
mother, and stated that the buffer does come onto his farm which is in the Agricultural District and also
across the road and this property is surround by farmland. This property was part of the main farm but
when Grim Road went in this piece of property was separated from the main farm.
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Ay, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 86-A-33 into the 2015-2020 Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District.
Mr. Stelzl abstained from voting and the vote was unanimously passed.
PIN 86-A-230A PIN 86-A-230A is owned by Jeffery and Joseph Gore, and the parcel has 0.97 acres. Mr.
Cheran said the 200 foot buffer has been placed on the map and this buffer could impact the adjoining
property owners
On a motion made by Mr. Stelzl and seconded by Mr. Rinker, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 86-A-230A into the 2015-2020 Double Church Agricultural and Forestal
District.
PIN 86-A-231 PIN 86-A-231 is owned by Fred Gore, and the parcel has 2.50 acres. The property
appears to be less than 100 feet wide, possibly an old right-of-way. The properties on both side of this
parcel are in the Agricultural and Forestal District.
On a motion made by Mr. Stelzl and seconded by Mr. Rinker, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 86-A-231 into the 2015-2020 Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 86-A-245 PIN 86-A-245 is owned by John and Virginia Booth and the parcel has 0.50 acres. A
committee member spoke up and said that Ms. Booth contacted him that she was interested in staying
in the Agricultural and Forestal District.
5
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Cline, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 86-A-245 into the 2015-2020 Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN(s) 86-A-264 and 86-A-264A PIN(s) 86-A-264 and 86-A-264A are owned by Shirley Ritenour, one
parcel is 0.50 and the other is 0.53 acres in size. A committee member spoke up that the field in the
back is Clevenger Property and to the best of his knowledge this property is in Agricultural District.
On a motion made by Mr. Stelzl and seconded by Mr. Rinker, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 86-A-264 and 86-A-264A into the 2015-2020 Double Church Agricultural and
Forestal District.
PIN 43-A-159 The next 11 properties are located in the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District. The
first to consider is PIN 43-A-159, a 2 acre property owner by R & J Land Development, LLC.
Mr. Oates came forward to speak on behalf of the property owner. The property to the North and East
of the R & J Land Development land was just recommended for approval tonight (earlier on agenda) to
go into the Agricultural District. Mr. Oates stated that property buffers don’t go across the road because
that is a front setback and on other side of this property is a commercial site which would have no
impact on this property. The landowner wants to stay in the Agricultural District. Mr. Oates stated that
all buffer stops at the state maintained road or right-of-way and they don’t continue past the road.
On a motion made by Mr. Stelzl and seconded by Mr. Rinker, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 43-A-159 into the 2015-2020 Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 44-A-28C PIN 44-A-28C is owned by Robert and Marsha Boden and the parcel has 4.30 acres. Mr.
Oates came forward to speak on behalf of the landowners. The property to the North, East and South
are in the Agricultural District. When the District was formed ten years ago Mr. Oates stated he needed
a lot of these little parcels to meet the criteria to form a District and also to tie together the larger farm
parcels.
A committee member gave his opinion that putting on an addition to a house in the 200 foot buffer is
different from someone trying to put in 20 lots. Maybe there needs to be a change in an amendment.
Mr. Cheran said if you are adding onto the principal structure that is where the 200 foot comes into
play. Now, if you were putting up an accessory dwelling, the 200 foot buffer wouldn’t come into play.
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Ay, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 44-A-28C into the 2015-2020 Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 44D-2-6 PIN 44D-2-6 is owned by Charles Willis and the parcel is 2.00 acres in size. Ms. Willis
contacted staff and wants to be in the Agricultural and Forestal District. Mr. Oates stood up and stated
when this District was formed he needed this piece to connect to Huntsberry Farm so they could be in
the Agricultural District. Mr. Oates said when the District was formed there was no lot size. We need to
6
have 200 acres to form the Districts and the properties could be one mile in apart from another and still
be in the Agricultural District.
On a motion made by Mr. Stelzl and seconded by Mr. Rinker, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 44D-2-6 into the 2015-2020 Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 55-A-5B PIN 55-A-5B is owned by Vera Herring and the parcel size is 1.00 acre. Mr. Oates spoke
again this is another property that helped form the District. The property to the East and the South
belongs to her son; to the West is the Battlefield. Ms. Herring property buffer won’t affect anyone since
surrounding property is in Agricultural District.
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Cline, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 55-A-5B into the 2015-2020 Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 55-A-5D PIN 55-A-5D is owned by Kevin Herring and the parcel size is 1.21 acres. Mr. Oates said
this is Vera Herring’s son and he is surrounded by Agricultural District land.
On a motion made by Mr. Stelzl and seconded by Mr. Rinker, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 55-A-5D into the 2015-2020 Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 55-A-14 PIN 55-A-14 is owned by Ernest Lam and the parcel size is 2.00 acres. The buffers were
shown on the map for viewing to the Committee. Mr. Oates spoke again that this property owner
helped form the District and would like to remain in the District.
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Stelzl, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 55-A-14 into the 2015-2020 Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN(s) 55-A-115 and 55-A-117 PIN(s) 55-A-115 and 55-A-117 are owned by Mr. Jeff Jenkins through
two different holding companies: Jeffrey Jenkins and R & J Land Development. The Jeffrey Jenkins parcel
has 1.75 acres and the R & J Land Development has 4.33 acres in size. Mr. Oates said these parcels are
both surrounded by Church and a subdivision
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Stelzl, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN(s) 55-A-115 and 55-A-117 into the 2015-2020 Red Bud Agricultural and
Forestal District.
PIN 55-A-118 PIN 55-A-118 is owned by Dawn Stultz and her parcel contains 1.13 acres.
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Stelzl, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 55-A-118 into the 2015-2020 Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN(s) 55-A-177 and 55-A-178A PIN(s) 55-A-177 and 55-A-178A are owned by William Schuller Jr., and
William and Genevieve Schuller. One parcel contains 0.38 acres and the other parcel contains 1.28 acres
in size. Mr. Oates said Mr. Schuller has purchased these properties one at a time and never
consolidated the land. Each of the properties might have an old house on it and he uses that as a shed.
Mr. Schuller has cattle on the land and also uses the fields for hay.
7
On a motion made by Mr. Stelzl and seconded by Mr. Rinker, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 55-A-177 and 55-A-178A into the 2015-2020 Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal
District.
PIN 77-A-83 The next 21 properties are located in the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District.
The first to consider is PIN 77-A-83, a 0.5 acre property owned by Constance Meagher.
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Stelzl, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 77-A-83 into the 2015-2020 South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN(s) 73-A-27 and 73-A-28 PIN(s) 73-A-27 and 73-A-28 are owned by Martha Cooley and Vernon Riding
Trust. Ms. Cooley’s property has 4.00 acres in size and the Trust property has 4.00 acres as well. These
properties are along Germany Road.
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Stelzl, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN(s) 73-A-27 and 73-A-28 into the 2015-2020 South Frederick Agricultural and
Forestal District.
PIN(s) 73-A-30, 73-A-30A, and 73-A-30E PIN(s) 73-A-30, 73-A-30A, and 73-A-30E are owned by Dudley
Rinker, Kenton and Kathy Noffke and Dudley Rinker. Mr. Rinker’s one property is 4.83 acres and the
other property is 1.01 acres in size. Mr. and Mrs. Noffke’s property has 1.71 acres. Mr. Rinker has
abstained from the vote.
On a motion made by Mr. Cline and seconded by Mr. Stelzl, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PINs 73-A-30, 73-A-30A, and 73-A-30E into the 2015-2020 South Frederick
Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 73-A-34 PIN 73-A-34 is owned by Charles Hamilton and consists of 4.80 acres.
On a motion made by Mr. Cline and seconded by Mr. Rinker, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 73-A-34 into the 2015-2020 South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 73-A-38 PIN 73-A-38 is owned by Mark and Roxanna Orndorff and consists of 3.57 acres. This
property is along Middle Road.
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Stelzl, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 73-A-38 into the 2015-2020 South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 73-12-11 PIN 73-12-11 is owned by Charles and Vicky Murphy and consists of 2.86 acres.
On a motion made by Mr. Stelzl and seconded by Mr. Rinker, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 73-12-11 into the 2015-2020 South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District.
8
PIN(s) 73-12-23 and 73-12-26 PIN(s) 73-12-23 and 73-12-26 are owned by David and Patricia Hlavinka
and David and Julie Menefee. The Hlavinka property consists of 2.98 acres and the Menefee property
consists of 2.29 acres in size. The Menefee sent in a letter wanting to stay in the Agricultural District. It
was noted that these lots are in a Rural Preservation Subdivision, with recorded setbacks; therefore the
200 foot Agricultural District buffer will not affect the lots within the rural preservation subdivision.
On a motion made by Mr. Stelzl and seconded by Mr. Rinker, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN(s) 73-12-23 and 73-12-26 into the 2015-2020 South Frederick Agricultural and
Forestal District.
PIN 74-A-10F PIN 74-A-10F is owned by Larry and Joyce Earhart and consists of 1.46 acres. Mr. and
Mrs. Earhart came forward to speak. Mrs. Earhart expressed their concerns that your property doesn’t
have to be in land use to be in the Agricultural District and they feel they are being penalized because
they have a small parcel which is not in the land use program. They support the Agricultural District and
have been in the district for many years. The surrounding properties are in the Agricultural District. A
committee member asked the property owner if their larger property is in the Land Use Program and
Agricultural and Forestal District Program. Mrs. Earhart said yes for many years. The Earhart’s stated
that they did not want their neighbor to construct a house, and that the additional 200 foot Agricultural
District buffer placed on the adjacent property would prohibit the construction of a house on the
adjacent property, further preserving their farming operation.
On a motion made by Mr. Stelzl and seconded by Mr. Rinker, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 74-A-10F into the 2015-2020 South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN(s) 74-A-14, 74-A-15A, and 74-A-15 PIN(s) 74-A-14, 74-A-15A, and 74-A-15 are owned by Cheryl
Humphries and Pamela Lewis. Two of the properties owned by Ms. Humphries consist of 2.0 acres and
1.23 acres. The joint property with Pamela Lewis is 3.00 acres in size.
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Stelzl, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN(s) 74-A-14, 74-A-15A, and 74-A-15 into the 2015-2020 South Frederick
Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 61-A-23A PIN 61-A-23A is owned by BHS, LC and the parcel is 1.00 acre in size.
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Watt, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 61-A-23A into the 2015-2020 South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 62-A-27 PIN 62-A-27 is owned by William Copenhaver and the parcel is 1.30 acres.
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Stelzl, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 62-A-27 into the 2015-2020 South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District.
9
PIN 61-A-29 PIN 61-A-29 is owned by BHS, LC and the parcel is 1.25 acres in size.
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Stelzl, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 61-A-29 into the 2015-2020 South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN(s) 61-A-43E and 61-A-44 PIN(s) 61-A-43E and 61-A-44 are owned by Carol Melby and Joseph
Snapp. Ms. Melba’s is property is 1.00 acre in size and Mr. Snapp’s is 2.20 acres.
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Stelzl, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN(s) 61-A-43E and 61-A-44 into the 2015-2020 South Frederick Agricultural and
Forestal District.
PIN 73-A-64A PIN 73-A-64A is owned by Holly and Samuel Dillender and the parcel size is 2.32 acres.
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Stelzl, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 73-A-64A into the 2015-2020 South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 26-A-61A The next parcel is located in the South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 26-A-61A, is a 2 acre property owned by CLW Holdings. The surrounding is all Agricultural and
Forestal District.
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Stelzl, the ADAC unanimously recommended
approval of including PIN 26-A-61A into the 2015-2020 South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal
District. Mr. Watt abstained from the vote.
Mr. Cheran will take the recommendation to the Planning Commission on July 15, 2015 and to the Board
of Supervisors on August 12, 2015.
Mr. Watt wanted to get the opinion of the committee members about building an addition onto a
home. Mr. Watt stated that he does not believe the intent of an Agricultural and Forestal District is to
restrict an adjoining property owner’s ability to construct a building addition to his or her house. But,
unfortunately, today’s recommendations to include parcels into the agricultural district did subject
adjacent property owner’s to additional setback restrictions.
A committee member noticed on the map that the future Route 37 extension is against the Agricultural
and Forestal District. The committee member wanted to know how this would affect the District. Staff
noted that when an Agricultural District is either created or renewed by the Board of Supervisors it is
noted that a major road or subdivision is in the Comprehensive Policy Plan for that area, and that the
establishment of the Agricultural District will hinder the ability to implement the planned infrastructure.
But it was also noted that the Board could elect not to include a parcel into the agricultural district if the
planned infrastructure was envisioned to be constructed within the next 5 years and that the Board felt
10
the planned infrastructure should supersede the agricultural protections offered by participation in an
Agricultural District.
A committee member had a question about PATH (Power Lines). If a landowner in the Agricultural and
Forestal District, is approached by a utility company for a right-of-way through his property is this
allowed. Mr. Cheran replied the way state code is written it should recognize the Agricultural Forestal
District and should be taken into consideration but not sure if it would stop them or not. If the
landowner opposed this action it would certainly strengthen the landowner’s legal position being in the
District.
The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Ag & Forestal District Properties Less Than 5 Ac Recommended for Inclusion From ADAC June 24, 2015 Meeting
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts
42 A 61 DTS LC 2.50 Albin
31 A 170 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC 0.34 ApplePieRidge
31 A 171 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC 1.07 ApplePieRidge
85 A 33 JUDD, JESSIE F 0.37 Double Church
85 A 25 SIEVER, ROGER DALE 0.50 Double Church
85 A 132 RITENOUR, SANDRA R 3.67 Double Church
86 A 230A GORE, JEFFERY M & JOSEPH F 0.97 Double Church
86 A 231 GORE, FRED B ET ALS 2.50 Double Church
86 A 245 BOOTH, JOHN H. & VIRGINIA G.0.50 Double Church
86 A 264A RITENOUR, SHIRLEY 0.53 Double Church
86 A 264 RITENOUR, SHIRLEY 0.50 Double Church
85 A 139A SCOTHORN, GARY L & LINDA O 1.29 Double Church
86 A 33 STELZL, BETTY R 0.12 Double Church
43 A 159 R & J LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC 2.00 Red Bud
44 A 28C BODEN, ROBERT R. JR. & MARSHA 4.30 Red Bud
44D 2 6 WILLIS, CHARLES I.2.37 Red Bud
55 A 5B HERRING, VERA J 1.00 Red Bud
55 A 5D HERRING, KEVIN L 1.21 Red Bud
55 A 14 LAM, ERNEST L 2.00 Red Bud
55 A 117 R & J LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC 4.33 Red Bud
55 A 115 JENKINS, JEFFREY G 1.75 Red Bud
55 A 118 STULTZ, DAWN M 1.13 Red Bud
55 A 178A SCHULLER, WILLIAM H SR & GENEVIEVE 1.28 Red Bud
55 A 177 SCHULLER, WILLIAM HAMPTON JR 0.38 Red Bud
62 A 27 COPENHAVER, WILLIAM R 1.30 South Frederick
61 A 44 SNAPP, JOSEPH DAVISON 2.20 South Frederick
61 A 43E MELBY, CAROL J 1.00 South Frederick
61 A 23A BHS, LC 1.00 South Frederick
73 A 64A DILLENDER, HOLLY B & SAMUEL C JR 2.32 South Frederick
61 A 29 BHS, LC 1.25 South Frederick
73 A 38 ORNDORFF, MARK A & ROXANNA M 3.57 South Frederick
73 12 11 MURPHY, CHARLES R & VICKY O 2.86 South Frederick
73 12 26 MENEFEE, DAVID & JULIE 2.29 South Frederick
73 12 23 HLAVINKA, DAVID D & PATRICIA E 2.98 South Frederick
73 A 34 HAMILTON, CHARLES A.4.80 South Frederick
73 A 28 RIDINGS, L VERNON RESIDUAL TRUST 4.00 South Frederick
74 A 15 HUMPHRIES, CHERYL W. & PAMELA LEWIS 3.00 South Frederick
73 A 27 COOLEY, MARTHA 4.00 South Frederick
74 A 14 HUMPHRIES, CHERYL W.2.00 South Frederick
74 A 15A HUMPHRIES, CHERYL W.1.23 South Frederick
73 A 30A NOFFKE, KENTON L & KATHY C 1.71 South Frederick
73 A 30E RINKER, DUDLEY H.1.01 South Frederick
73 A 30 RINKER, DUDLEY H.4.83 South Frederick
72 A 83 MEAGHER, CONSTANCE M 0.50 South Frederick
74 A 10F EARHART, LARRY L & JOYCE C 1.46 South Frederick
26 A 61A CLW HOLDINGS LLC 2.00 South Timber Ridge
Page 1
42 A 61
N
F
R
E
D
E
R
I
C
K
P
I
K
E
GOLDS HILL RD
N
F
R
E
D
E
R
I
C
K
P
I
K
E
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 3, 2015
01522
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts42 A 61 DTS LC 2.50 Albin
31 A 171
31 A 170
APP
L
E
P
I
E
R
I
D
G
E
R
D
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 3, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts31 A 170 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC 0.34 Apple Pie Ridge31 A 171 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC 1.07 Apple Pie Ridge
86 A 245
CAN
T
E
R
B
U
R
G
R
D
D
O
U
B
L
E
C
H
U
R
C
H
R
D
HUDSO
N
H
O
L
L
O
W
R
D
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 3, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts86 A 245 BOOTH, JOHN H. & VIRGINIA G. 0.50 Double Church
86 A 231
D
O
U
B
L
E
C
H
U
R
C
H
R
D
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 3, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts86 A 231 GORE, FRED B ET ALS 2.50 Double Church
86 A 230A
D
O
U
B
L
E
C
H
U
R
C
H
R
D
VIRGI
N
I
A
D
R
WEST S
T
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 3, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts86 A 230A GORE, JEFFERY M & JOSEPH F 0.97 Double Church
85 A 33
FAMI
L
Y
D
R
VALL
E
Y
P
I
K
E
THEATER LN
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.03 0.060.015 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 3, 2015
0111
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts85 A 33 JUDD, JESSIE F 0.37 Double Church
85 A 132
PEACE
A
N
D
P
L
E
N
T
Y
L
N
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 3, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts85 A 132 RITENOUR, SANDRA R 3.67 Double Church
85 A 139A
FIREFLY LN
EWI
N
G
S
L
N
ELEV
E
N
M
O
O
N
S
P
L
FALLI
N
G
M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N
P
L
MAR
Y
S
W
I
N
D
C
T
DRA
G
O
N
F
L
Y
W
A
Y
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 3, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts85 A 139A SCOTHORN, GARY L & LINDA O 1.29 Double Church
85 A 25
VALL
E
Y
P
I
K
E
C
A
M
P
B
E
L
L
L
N
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.03 0.060.015 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 3, 2015
0111
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts85 A 25 SIEVER, ROGER DALE 0.50 Double Church
86 A 264A86 A 264
DO
U
B
L
E
C
H
U
R
C
H
R
D
HUDSO
N
H
O
L
L
O
W
R
D
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 3, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Frestal Districts86 A 264 RITENOUR, SHIRLEY 0.50 Double Church86 A 264A RITENOUR, SHIRLEY 0.53 Double Church
86 A 33
GRIM
R
D
WISE MILL
L
N
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts86 A 33 STELZL, BETTY R 0.12 Double Church
44 A 28C
44 A 28C
MI
L
B
U
R
N
R
D
MARQ
U
I
S
C
T
CAVA
L
I
E
R
L
N
REDBUD RD
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
Future Route 37 Bypass
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts44 A 28C BODEN, ROBERT R. JR. & MARSHA 4.30 Red Bud
55 A 117
55 A 115
R
E
D
B
U
D
R
D
MO
R
G
A
N
M
I
L
L
R
D
WO
O
D
S
M
I
L
L
R
D
MERLOT DR
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts55 A 115 JENKINS, JEFFREY G 1.75 Red Bud55 A 117 R & J LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC 4.33 Red Bud
55 A 5D
RE
D
B
U
D
R
D
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts55 A 5D HERRING, KEVIN L 1.21 Red Bud
55 A 14
REDBU
D
R
D
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts55 A 14 LAM, ERNEST L 2.00 Red Bud
43 A 159REDBUD RD
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts43 A 159 R & J LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC 2.00 Red Bud
55 A 178A
55 A 177
VALLEY MILL RD
LIKENS WAY
JULEE DREV
E
T
T
E
P
L
R
A
C
E
Y
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
C
A
M
D
E
N
D
R
C
H
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
R
MILL RACE
D
R
MILL RACE
D
R
A
R
T
I
L
L
E
R
Y
R
D
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts55 A 177 SCHULLER, WILLIAM HAMPTON JR 0.38 Red Bud55 A 178A SCHULLER, WILLIAM H SR & GENEVIEVE 1.28 Red Bud
55 A 118
55 A 118
MO
R
G
A
N
M
I
L
L
R
D
R
E
D
B
U
D
R
D
MERLOT DR
FIRS
T
W
O
O
D
S
D
R
S
H
I
R
A
Z
C
T
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts55 A 118 STULTZ, DAWN M 1.13 Red Bud
55 A 5B REDBU
D
R
D
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts55 A 5B HERRING, VERA J 1.00 Red Bud
44D 2 6
RE
D
B
U
D
R
D
MAR
Q
U
I
S
C
T
MI
L
B
U
R
N
R
D
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts44D 2 6 WILLIS, CHARLES I. 2.37 Red Bud
61 A 23A
BA
R
L
E
Y
L
N
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts61 A 23A BHS, LC 1.00 South Frederick
61 A 29
61 A 29
B
A
R
L
E
Y
L
N
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts61 A 29 BHS, LC 1.25 South Frederick
73 A 28
73 A 27
GER
M
A
N
Y
R
D
OAK
H
I
L
L
D
R
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts73 A 27 COOLEY, MARTHA 4.00 South Frederick73 A 28 RIDINGS, L VERNON RESIDUAL TRUST 4.00 South Frederick
62 A 27
CEDAR CREEK GR
MILLE
R
R
D
GLA
S
S
S
P
R
I
N
G
L
N
GLASS SP
R
I
N
G
L
N
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts62 A 27 COPENHAVER, WILLIAM R 1.30 South Frederick
73 A 64A
BARLEY
L
N
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts73 A 64A DILLENDER, HOLLY B & SAMUEL C JR 2.32 South Frederick
74 A 10FCARTERS LN
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts74 A 10F EARHART, LARRY L & JOYCE C 1.46 South Frederick
73 A 34
MIDDL
E
R
D
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts73 A 34 HAMILTON, CHARLES A. 4.80 South Frederick
73 12 2373 12 26
SER
V
I
C
E
B
E
R
R
Y
C
T
CART
E
R
S
L
N
BU
N
C
H
B
E
R
R
Y
R
I
D
G
E
C
T
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts73 12 23 HLAVINKA, DAVID D & PATRICIA E 2.98 South Frederick73 12 26 MENEFEE, DAVID & JULIE 2.29 South Frederick
74 A 14
74 A 15A
MARLBORO RD
CA
R
T
E
R
S
L
N
Stephens City
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts74 A 14 HUMPHRIES, CHERYL W. 2.00 South Frederick74 A 15A HUMPHRIES, CHERYL W. 1.23 South Frederick
74 A 15
CA
R
T
E
R
S
L
N
Stephens City
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts74 A 15 HUMPHRIES, CHERYL W. & PAMELA LEWIS 3.00 South Frederick
72 A 83
MIDDLE RD
CLA
R
K
R
D
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts72 A 83 MEAGHER, CONSTANCE M 0.50 South Frederick
61 A 44
61 A 43E
CEDA
R
C
R
E
E
K
G
R
W
O
A
K
S
L
N
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Frestal Districts61 A 43E MELBY, CAROL J 1.00 South Frederick61 A 44 SNAPP, JOSEPH DAVISON 2.20 South Frederick
73 12 11
C
A
R
T
E
R
S
L
N
GER
M
A
N
Y
R
D
CARTER
S
L
N
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts73 12 11 MURPHY, CHARLES R & VICKY O 2.86 South Frederick
73 A 30
73 A 30A
73 A 30E
MARLBORO RD
H
I
T
E
S
R
D
GER
M
A
N
Y
R
D
OAK
H
I
L
L
D
R
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts73 A 30 RINKER, DUDLEY H.4.83 South Frederick73 A 30A NOFFKE, KENTON L & KATHY C 1.71 South Frederick73 A 30E RINKER, DUDLEY H.1.01 South Frederick
73 A 38MIDD
L
E
R
D
CARTER
S
L
N
LAUREL G
R
O
V
E
R
D
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts73 A 38 ORNDORFF, MARK A & ROXANNA M 3.57 South Frederick
26 A 61A
MUS
E
R
D
Property Removed from the
2015-2020 Agricultural & Forestal Districts
I 0 0.03 0.060.015 Miles
Note:
Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: June 4, 2015
200 Foot Buffer
Parcels
PIN Owner Acres Ag & Forestal Districts26 A 61A CLW HOLDINGS LLC 2.00 South Timber Ridge
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
NOTIFICATION OF MEETING
June 8, 2015
RE: AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS
On May 27, 2015, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors adopted the eight 2015-2020
Agricultural and Forestal Districts totaling 11,425 acres. 46 parcels totaling 87 acres were not included
in the adopted Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The 46 parcels were each less than 5 acres in size
and were not participants in the County’s Land Use Assessment program. The Board of Supervisors
has requested that each of these parcels be given further consideration, and that the property owners be
given an opportunity to participate in the evaluation.
On behalf of the Frederick County Agricultural Advisory Committee (ADAC), you are
hereby notified of a meeting being held on Wednesday, June 24, 2015, at 6:00 p.m. The
meeting will be held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at
107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. This meeting will consider the inclusion of
additional parcels into the recent adopted 2015-2020 Agricultural and Forestal Districts.
The county’s Agricultural and Forestal District program is intended to recognize promote and protect
our agricultural economy. One strategy utilized to protect agricultural operations is an ordinance
requirement that establishes a 200-foot building setback against the agricultural district; essentially
working to minimize impacts on agricultural activities from non-agricultural structures. In February
2015, the ADAC found that parcels less than 5 acres, not within the Land Use Assessment program,
and in an Agricultural District, could be placing unintended restrictions on adjacent properties.
Therefore, the ADAC recommended that such properties not be included in the Agricultural District.
Attached include those properties which you own, which you had previously submitted for inclusion in
the Agricultural and Forestal District program, but which were not included in the updated Districts on
May 27, 2015. The map also illustrates the setback buffer and its impact on adjoining properties. If
you no longer wish for your parcels to be considered for inclusion in the Agricultural and Forestal
District, please notify us at 540-665-5651 or via e-mail at MCheran@fcva.us. If you do wish for the
continual consideration of these parcels to be included in the Agricultural and Forestal District
program, we would welcome your participation in the meeting on June 24, 2015, as noted above.
Sincerely,
Mark R. Cheran
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator
Attachment(s)
MRC/pd
E
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Farm Breweries and Distilleries in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District
DATE: June 29, 2015
In 2009 Frederick County adopted standards for farm wineries pursuant to the requir ements of the
Code of Virginia. The standards allowed for the wineries along with permissible accessory uses such
as special events and onsite tasting and sales. In 2014, additional standards were introduced in the
Code of Virginia to allow for farm breweries. Additionally, this year allowances were introduced for
farm distilleries. Staff has drafted revisions to the farm winery text to include allowances for farm
breweries and farm distilleries. Other changes include removing provisions already regulated by
the Code of Virginia for these uses.
The changes included with this revision are as follows:
Addition of Farm Breweries and Distilleries, with updated and new definitions;
Removal of provisions currently regulated by the Code of Virginia;
Addition of tours, kitchen and catering activities;
Addition of an allowance for providing light refreshments and appetizers (food preparation
beyond this, excluding catering for special events, shall require a Conditional Use Permit for a
restaurant);
Removal of the site plan requirement and addition of an illustrative sketch plan
requirement;
Revision to the events allowance to decrease the number of people permitted onsite
without a festival permit from 150 to 100 (consistent with the County Code requirement for
festival permits).
For Clarification, the Code of Virginia permits farm wineries, breweries and distilleries to conduct
the following (exempt from local regulation):
The production and harvesting of agricultural products for the manufacturing of alcoholic
beverages;
On-premises sale, tasting, or consumption of wine, beer, alcoholic beverages during regular
business hours within the normal course of business;
The direct sale and shipment of wine, beer, alcoholic beverages to licensed wholesalers and
out-of-state purchasers;
The storage and warehousing of wine, beer and alcoholic beverages;
The sale of product-related items that are incidental to the sale of wine, beer or alcoholic
beverages;
Planning Commission – Public Hearing
Farm Wineries, Breweries and Distilleries
June 29, 2015
Page 2
The DRRC discussed this amendment at their April 2015 meeting and sent the proposed changes to
the Planning Commission for discussion. The Planning Commission discussed this item on May 20,
2015; the Planning Commission agreed with the changes and sent the item forward for review by
the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors discussed this item at their June 10, 2015
meeting; the Board agreed with the proposed uses however it was requested that staff remove the
provisions currently regulated by the state. Attachment #1 reflects the changes requested by the
Board of Supervisors.
The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by
the DRRC (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added). This item is
presented for public hearing. A recommendation from the Planning Commission on this
proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is sought. Please contact me if you have any
questions.
Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics.
2. Code of Virginia – Farm Wineries, Breweries and Distilleries
CEP/pd
ARTICLE IV
AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Part 401 – RA Rural Areas District
§ 165-401.02 Permitted uses.
Structures and land shall be used for one of the following uses:
EE. Farm Breweries.
FF. Farm Distilleries.
Article II
SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES
Part 204 – Additional Regulations for Specific Uses
§ 165-204.22. Farm Wineries, Farm Breweries and Farm Distilleries.
Farm Wineries, Farm Breweries and Farm Distilleries in the RA (Rural Areas) District, shall meet the
following requirements:
A. Farm Wineries. A farm winery shall be licensed as a Class A or Class B farm winery in accordance
with Section 4.1-207 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, and shall be located in the RA (Rural
Areas) District. No farm winery shall be established until an illustrative sketch plan has been
approved. All activities specified under 15.2-2288.3E of the Code of Virginia shall be permitted.
B. Farm Breweries (limited brewery). A farm brewery shall be licensed as a Limited Brewery in
accordance with Section 4.1-208 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, and shall be located in the RA
(Rural Areas) District. No Limited Brewery shall be established until an illustrative sketch plan has
been approved. All activities specified under 15.2-2288.3:1 of the Code of Virginia shall be
permitted.
C. Farm Distillery (limited distiller’s). A farm distillery shall be licensed as a Limited distiller in
accordance with Section 4.1-206 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, and shall be located in the RA
(Rural Areas) District. No Limited Distillery shall be established until an illustrative sketch plan has
been approved. All activities specified under 15.2-2288.3:2 of the Code of Virginia shall be
permitted.
D. The following activities are permitted accessory uses at farm wineries, breweries and distilleries:
(1) On site tours;
(2) Kitchen and catering activities;
(3) Providing light refreshments and appetizers (food preparation beyond this, excluding
catering for events, shall require a Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant).
E. Special Events shall be permitted only on farm wineries, farm breweries and farm distilleries of ten
acres or larger. Special Events for the purposes of this section shall include but are not limited to
meetings, conferences, dinners, festivals, and wedding receptions. Any event at which more than
150 100 people are anticipated and will include music and entertainment will require a festival
permit.
F. An illustrative sketch site plan in accordance with the requirements of Article VIII shall be submitted
to and approved by Frederick County for all farm wineries, distilleries and breweries.
G. Farm wineries, breweries and distilleries that share a private access easement with another
property owner/s, must show the easement allows a use of this type or written permission must be
obtained by the sharing parties.
ARTICLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
Part 101 – General Provisions
§ 165-101.02. Definitions and word usage.
FARM BREWERY - A brewery licensed as a limited brewery under subdivision 2 of Section 4.1-208 of
the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended).
FARM DISTILLERY - A distillery licensed as a limited distillery under subdivision 2 of Section 4.1-206 of
the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended).
FARM WINERY – A winery licensed as a farm winery under subdivision 5 of Section 4.1-207 and defined
under 4.1-100 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended).
FARM WINERY - An establishment (i) located on a farm in the commonwealth with a producing vineyard, orchard,
or similar growing area and with facilities for fermenting and bottling wine on the premises where the owner or
lessee manufactures wine that contains not more than 18% alcohol by volume or (ii) located in the commonwealth
with a producing vineyard, orchard, or similar growing area or agreements for pur chasing grapes or other fruits
from agricultural growers within the commonwealth, and with facilities for fermenting and bottling wine on the
premises where the owner or lessee manufactures wine that contains not more than 18% alcohol by volume. A
minimum of 51% of the fresh fruits or agricultural products used at the winery for the production of wine shall be
grown or produced on the farm, and no more than 25% of the fruits, fruit juices or other agricultural products may
be grown outside of the commonwealth. Accessory uses shall include wine-tasting rooms, accessory food sales
related to wine tasting, and the sale of wines produced on site.
§ 15.2-2288.3. Licensed farm wineries; local regulation of certain activities.
A. It is the policy of the Commonwealth to preserve the economic vitality of the Virginia wine
industry while maintaining appropriate land use authority to protect the health, safety, and
welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth, and to permit the reasonable expectation of uses in
specific zoning categories. Local restriction upon such activities and events of farm wineries
licensed in accordance with Title 4.1 to market and sell their products shall be reasonable and
shall take into account the economic impact on the farm winery of such restriction, the
agricultural nature of such activities and events, and whether such activities and events are usual
and customary for farm wineries throughout the Commonwealth. Usual and customary activities
and events at farm wineries shall be permitted without local regulation unless there is a
substantial impact on the health, safety, or welfare of the public. No local ordinance regulating
noise, other than outdoor amplified music, arising from activities and events at farm wineries
shall be more restrictive than that in the general noise ordinance. In authorizing outdoor
amplified music at a farm winery, the locality shall consider the effect on adjacent property
owners and nearby residents.
B, C. [Expired.]
D. No locality may treat private personal gatherings held by the owner of a licensed farm winery
who resides at the farm winery or on property adjacent thereto that is owned or controlled by
such owner at which gatherings wine is not sold or marketed and for which no consideration is
received by the farm winery or its agents differently from private personal gatherings by other
citizens.
E. No locality shall regulate any of the following activities of a farm winery licensed in
accordance with subdivision 5 of § 4.1-207:
1. The production and harvesting of fruit and other agricultural products and the manufacturing
of wine;
2. The on-premises sale, tasting, or consumption of wine during regular business hours within
the normal course of business of the licensed farm winery;
3. The direct sale and shipment of wine by common carrier to consumers in accordance with
Title 4.1 and regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board;
4. The sale and shipment of wine to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, licensed wholesalers,
and out-of-state purchasers in accordance with Title 4.1, regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board, and federal law;
5. The storage, warehousing, and wholesaling of wine in accordance with Title 4.1, regulations
of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, and federal law; or
6. The sale of wine-related items that are incidental to the sale of wine.
§ 15.2-2288.3:1. Limited brewery license; local regulation of certain activities.
A. It is the policy of the Commonwealth to preserve the economic vitality of the Virginia beer industry
while maintaining appropriate land use authority to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of
the Commonwealth and to permit the reasonable expectation of uses in specific zoning categories. Local
restriction upon such activities and public events of breweries licensed pursuant to subdivision 2 of §
4.1-208 to market and sell their products shall be reasonable and shall take into account the economic
impact on such licensed brewery of such restriction, the agricultural nature of such activities and events,
and whether such activities and events are usual and customary for such licensed breweries. Usual and
customary activities and events at such licensed breweries shall be permitted unless there is a substantial
impact on the health, safety, or welfare of the public. No local ordinance regulating noise, other than
outdoor amplified music, arising from activities and events at such licensed breweries shall be more
restrictive than that in the general noise ordinance. In authorizing outdoor amplified music at such
licensed brewery, the locality shall consider the effect on adjacent property owners and nearby residents.
B. No locality shall regulate any of the following activities of a brewery licensed under subdivision 2 of §
4.1-208:
1. The production and harvesting of barley, other grains, hops, fruit, or other agricultural products and the
manufacturing of beer;
2. The on-premises sale, tasting, or consumption of beer during regular business hours within the normal
course of business of such licensed brewery;
3. The direct sale and shipment of beer in accordance with Title 4.1 and regulations of the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board;
4. The sale and shipment of beer to licensed wholesalers and out-of-state purchasers in accordance with
Title 4.1, regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, and federal law;
5. The storage and warehousing of beer in accordance with Title 4.1, regulations of the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board, and federal law; or
6. The sale of beer-related items that are incidental to the sale of beer.
C. Any locality may exempt any brewery licensed in accordance with subdivision 2 of § 4.1-208 on land
zoned agricultural from any local regulation of minimum parking, road access, or road upgrade
requirements.
(2014, c. 365.)
Legislative Information System
Page 1 of 1Legislative Information System
6/1/2015http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+coh+15.2-2288.3:1+701411
VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY --2015 SESSION
CHAPTER 695
An Act to amend and reenact §§4.1-206,4.1-231,and 4.1-233 of the Code of Virginia and to amend
the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 15.2-2288.3:2,relating to alcoholic beverage
control;limited distiller's license.
[S 1272]
Approved March 27,2015
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1.That §§4.1-206,4.1-231,and 4.1-233 of the Code of Virginia are amended and reenacted and
that the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 15.2-2288.3:2 as follows:
§4.1-206.Alcoholic beverage licenses.
The Board may grant the following licenses relating to alcoholic beverages generally:
1.Distillers'licenses,which shall authorize the licensee to manufacture alcoholic beverages other
than wine and beer,and to sell and deliver or ship the same,in accordance with Board regulations,in
closed containers,to the Board and to persons outside the Commonwealth for resale outside the
Commonwealth.When the Board has established a government store on the distiller's licensed premises
pursuant to subsection D of §4.1-119,such license shall also authorize the licensee to make a charge to
consumers to participate in an organized tasting event conducted in accordance with subsection G of
§4.1-119 and Board regulations.
2.Limited distillers'licenses,to distilleries that manufacture not more than 36,000 gallons of
alcoholic beverages other than wine or beer per calendar year,provided (i)the distillery is located on a
farm in the Commonwealth on land zoned agricultural and owned or leased by such distillery or its
owner and (ii)agricultural products used by such distillery in the manufacture of its alcoholic
beverages are grown on the farm.Limited distillers'licensees shall be treated as distillers for all
purposes of this title except as otherwise provided in this subdivision.
3.Fruit distillers'licenses,which shall authorize the licensee to manufacture any alcoholic beverages
made from fruit or fruit juices,and to sell and deliver or ship the same,in accordance with Board
regulations,in closed containers,to the Board and to persons outside the Commonwealth for resale
outside the Commonwealth.
3.4.Banquet facility licenses to volunteer fire departments and volunteer rescue squads,which shall
authorize the licensee to permit the consumption of lawfully acquired alcoholic beverages on the
premises of the licensee by any person,and bona fide members and guests thereof,otherwise eligible for
a banquet license.However,lawfully acquired alcoholic beverages shall not be purchased or sold by the
licensee or sold or charged for in any way by the person permitted to use the premises.Such premises
shall be a fire or rescue squad station or both,regularly occupied as such and recognized by the
governing body of the county,city or town in which it is located.Under conditions as specified by
Board regulation,such premises may be other than a fire or rescue squad station,provided such other
premises are occupied and under the control of the fire department or rescue squad while the privileges
of its license are being exercised.
4.5.Bed and breakfast licenses,which shall authorize the licensee to serve alcoholic beverages in
dining areas,private guest rooms and other designated areas to persons to whom overnight lodging is
being provided,with or without meals,for on-premises consumption only in such rooms and areas,and
without regard to the amount of gross receipts from the sale of food prepared and consumed on the
premises.
5.6.Tasting licenses,which shall authorize the licensee to sell or give samples of alcoholic
beverages of the type specified in the license in designated areas at events held by the licensee.A
tasting license shall be issued for the purpose of featuring and educating the consuming public about the
alcoholic beverages being tasted.A separate license shall be required for each day of each tasting event.
No tasting license shall be required for conduct authorized by §4.1-201.1.
6.7.Museum licenses,which may be issued to nonprofit museums exempt from taxation under
§501(c)(3)of the Internal Revenue Code,which shall authorize the licensee to (i)permit the
consumption of lawfully acquired alcoholic beverages on the premises of the licensee by any bona fide
member and guests thereof and (ii)serve alcoholic beverages on the premises of the licensee to any
bona fide member and guests thereof.However,alcoholic beverages shall not be sold or charged for in
any way by the licensee.The privileges of this license shall be limited to the premises of the museum,
regularly occupied and utilized as such.
7.8.Equine sporting event licenses,which may be issued to organizations holding equestrian,hunt
and steeplechase events,which shall authorize the licensee to permit the consumption of lawfully
acquired alcoholic beverages on the premises of the licensee by patrons thereof during such event.
2 of 6
However,alcoholic beverages shall not be sold or charged for in any way by the licensee.The
privileges of this license shall be (i)limited to the premises of the licensee,regularly occupied and
utilized for equestrian,hunt and steeplechase events and (ii)exercised on no more than four calendar
days per year.
8.9.Day spa licenses,which shall authorize the licensee to (i)permit the consumption of lawfully
acquired wine or beer on the premises of the licensee by any bona fide customer of the day spa and (ii)
serve wine or beer on the premises of the licensee to any such bona fide customer;however,the
licensee shall not give more than two five-ounce glasses of wine or one 12-ounce glass of beer to any
such customer,nor shall it sell or otherwise charge a fee to such customer for the wine or beer served
or consumed.The privileges of this license shall be limited to the premises of the day spa regularly
occupied and utilized as such.
9.10.Motor car sporting event facility licenses,which shall authorize the licensee to permit the
consumption of lawfully acquired alcoholic beverages on the premises of the licensee by patrons thereof
during such events.However,alcoholic beverages shall not be sold or charged for in any way,directly
or indirectly,by the licensee.The privileges of this license shall be limited to those areas of the
licensee's premises designated by the Board that are regularly occupied and utilized for motor car
sporting events.
10.11.Meal-assembly kitchen license,which shall authorize the licensee to serve wine or beer on
the premises of the licensee to any such bona fide customer attending either a private gathering or a
special event;however,the licensee shall not give more than two five-ounce glasses of wine or two
12-ounce glasses of beer to any such customer,nor shall it sell or otherwise charge a fee to such
customer for the wine or beer served or consumed.The privileges of this license shall be limited to the
premises of the meal-assembly kitchen regularly occupied and utilized as such.
11.12.Canal boat operator license,which shall authorize the licensee to permit the consumption of
lawfully acquired alcoholic beverages on the premises of the licensee by any bona fide customer
attending either a private gathering or a special event;however,the licensee shall not sell or otherwise
charge a fee to such customer for the alcoholic beverages so consumed.The privileges of this license
shall be limited to the premises of the licensee,including the canal,the canal boats while in operation,
and any pathways adjacent thereto.Upon authorization of the licensee,any person may keep and
consume his own lawfully acquired alcoholic beverages on the premises in all areas and locations
covered by the license.
12.13.Annual arts venue event licenses,to persons operating an arts venue,which shall authorize
the licensee participating in a community art walk that is open to the public to serve lawfully acquired
wine or beer on the premises of the licensee to adult patrons thereof during such events.However,
alcoholic beverages shall not be sold or charged for in any way,directly or indirectly,by the licensee,
and the licensee shall not give more than two five-ounce glasses of wine or one 12-ounce glass of beer
to any one adult patron.The privileges of this license shall be (i)limited to the premises of the arts
venue regularly occupied and used as such and (ii)exercised on no more than 12 calendar days per
year.
§4.1-231.Taxes on state licenses.
A.The annual fees on state licenses shall be as follows:
1.Alcoholic beverage licenses.For each:
a.Distiller's license,if not more than 5,000 gallons of alcohol or spirits,or both,manufactured
during the year in which the license is granted,$450;if more than 5,000 gallons but not more than
36,000 gallons manufactured during such year,$2,500;and if more than 5,000 36,000 gallons
manufactured during such year,$3,725;
b.Fruit distiller's license,$3,725;
c.Banquet facility license or museum license,$190;
d.Bed and breakfast establishment license,$35;
e.Tasting license,$40 per license granted;
f.Equine sporting event license,$130;
g.Motor car sporting event facility license,$130;
h.Day spa license,$100;
i.Delivery permit,$120 if the permittee holds no other license under this title;
j.Meal-assembly kitchen license,$100;
k.Canal boat operator license,$100;and
l.Annual arts venue event license,$100.
2.Wine licenses.For each:
a.Winery license,if not more than 5,000 gallons of wine manufactured during the year in which the
license is granted,$189,and if more than 5,000 gallons manufactured during such year,$3,725;
b.(1)Wholesale wine license,$185 for any wholesaler who sells 30,000 gallons of wine or less per
year,$930 for any wholesaler who sells more than 30,000 gallons per year but not more than 150,000
gallons of wine per year,$1,430 for any wholesaler who sells more than 150,000 but not more than
300,000 gallons of wine per year,and,$1,860 for any wholesaler who sells more than 300,000 gallons
3 of 6
of wine per year;
(2)Wholesale wine license,including that granted pursuant to §4.1-207.1,applicable to two or more
premises,the annual state license tax shall be the amount set forth in subdivision b (1),multiplied by
the number of separate locations covered by the license;
c.Wine importer's license,$370;
d.Retail off-premises winery license,$145,which shall include a delivery permit;
e.Farm winery license,$190 for any Class A license and $3,725 for any Class B license,each of
which shall include a delivery permit;
f.Wine shipper's license,$95;and
g.Internet wine retailer license,$150.
3.Beer licenses.For each:
a.Brewery license,if not more than 500 barrels of beer manufactured during the year in which the
license is granted,$350;if not more than 10,000 barrels of beer manufactured during the year in which
the license is granted,$2,150;and if more than 10,000 barrels manufactured during such year,$4,300;
b.Bottler's license,$1,430;
c.(1)Wholesale beer license,$930 for any wholesaler who sells 300,000 cases of beer a year or
less,and $1,430 for any wholesaler who sells more than 300,000 but not more than 600,000 cases of
beer a year,and $1,860 for any wholesaler who sells more than 600,000 cases of beer a year;
(2)Wholesale beer license applicable to two or more premises,the annual state license tax shall be
the amount set forth in subdivision c (1),multiplied by the number of separate locations covered by the
license;
d.Beer importer's license,$370;
e.Retail on-premises beer license to a hotel,restaurant,club or other person,except a common
carrier of passengers by train or boat,$145;for each such license to a common carrier of passengers by
train or boat,$145 per annum for each of the average number of boats,dining cars,buffet cars or club
cars operated daily in the Commonwealth;
f.Retail off-premises beer license,$120,which shall include a delivery permit;
g.Retail on-and-off premises beer license to a hotel,restaurant,club or grocery store located in a
town or in a rural area outside the corporate limits of any city or town,$300,which shall include a
delivery permit;
h.Beer shipper's license,$95;and
i.Retail off-premises brewery license,$120,which shall include a delivery permit.
4.Wine and beer licenses.For each:
a.Retail on-premises wine and beer license to a hotel,restaurant,club or other person,except a
common carrier of passengers by train,boat or airplane,$300;for each such license to a common
carrier of passengers by train or boat,$300 per annum for each of the average number of boats,dining
cars,buffet cars or club cars operated daily in the Commonwealth,and for each such license granted to
a common carrier of passengers by airplane,$750;
b.Retail on-premises wine and beer license to a hospital,$145;
c.Retail off-premises wine and beer license,including each gift shop,gourmet shop and convenience
grocery store license,$230,which shall include a delivery permit;
d.Retail on-and-off premises wine and beer license to a hotel,restaurant or club,$600,which shall
include a delivery permit;
e.Banquet license,$40 per license granted by the Board,except for banquet licenses granted by the
Board pursuant to subsection A of §4.1-215 for events occurring on more than one day,which shall be
$100 per license;
f.Gourmet brewing shop license,$230;
g.Wine and beer shipper's license,$95;
h.Annual banquet license,$150;
i.Fulfillment warehouse license,$120;
j.Marketing portal license,$150;and
k.Gourmet oyster house license,$230.
5.Mixed beverage licenses.For each:
a.Mixed beverage restaurant license granted to persons operating restaurants,including restaurants
located on premises of and operated by hotels or motels,or other persons:
(i)With a seating capacity at tables for up to 100 persons,$560;
(ii)With a seating capacity at tables for more than 100 but not more than 150 persons,$975;and
(iii)With a seating capacity at tables for more than 150 persons,$1,430.
b.Mixed beverage restaurant license for restaurants located on the premises of and operated by
private,nonprofit clubs:
(i)With an average yearly membership of not more than 200 resident members,$750;
(ii)With an average yearly membership of more than 200 but not more than 500 resident members,
$1,860;and
(iii)With an average yearly membership of more than 500 resident members,$2,765.
4 of 6
c.Mixed beverage caterer's license,$1,860;
d.Mixed beverage limited caterer's license,$500;
e.Mixed beverage special events license,$45 for each day of each event;
f.Mixed beverage club events licenses,$35 for each day of each event;
g.Annual mixed beverage special events license,$560;
h.Mixed beverage carrier license:
(i)$190 for each of the average number of dining cars,buffet cars or club cars operated daily in the
Commonwealth by a common carrier of passengers by train;
(ii)$560 for each common carrier of passengers by boat;
(iii)$1,475 for each license granted to a common carrier of passengers by airplane.
i.Annual mixed beverage amphitheater license,$560;
j.Annual mixed beverage motor sports race track license,$560;
k.Annual mixed beverage banquet license,$500;
l.Limited mixed beverage restaurant license:
(i)With a seating capacity at tables for up to 100 persons,$460;
(ii)With a seating capacity at tables for more than 100 but not more than 150 persons,$875;
(iii)With a seating capacity at tables for more than 150 persons,$1,330;
m.Annual mixed beverage motor sports facility license,$560;and
n.Annual mixed beverage performing arts facility license,$560.
6.Temporary licenses.For each temporary license authorized by §4.1-211,one-half of the tax
imposed by this section on the license for which the applicant applied.
B.The tax on each such license,except banquet and mixed beverage special events licenses,shall be
subject to proration to the following extent:If the license is granted in the second quarter of any year,
the tax shall be decreased by one-fourth;if granted in the third quarter of any year,the tax shall be
decreased by one-half;and if granted in the fourth quarter of any year,the tax shall be decreased by
three-fourths.
If the license on which the tax is prorated is a distiller's license to manufacture not more than 5,000
gallons of alcohol or spirits,or both,during the year in which the license is granted,or a winery license
to manufacture not more than 5,000 gallons of wine during the year in which the license is granted,the
number of gallons permitted to be manufactured shall be prorated in the same manner.
Should the holder of a distiller's license or a winery license to manufacture not more than 5,000
gallons of alcohol or spirits,or both,or wine,apply during the license year for an unlimited distiller's or
winery license,such person shall pay for such unlimited license a license tax equal to the amount that
would have been charged had such license been applied for at the time that the license to manufacture
less than 5,000 gallons of alcohol or spirits or wine,as the case may be,was granted,and such person
shall be entitled to a refund of the amount of license tax previously paid on the limited license.
Notwithstanding the foregoing,the tax on each license granted or reissued for a period of less than
12 months shall be equal to one-twelfth of the taxes required by subsection A computed to the nearest
cent,multiplied by the number of months in the license period.
C.Nothing in this chapter shall exempt any licensee from any state merchants'license or state
restaurant license or any other state tax.Every licensee,in addition to the taxes imposed by this chapter,
shall be liable to state merchants'license taxation and state restaurant license taxation and other state
taxation the same as if the alcoholic beverages were nonalcoholic.In ascertaining the liability of a beer
wholesaler to merchants'license taxation,however,and in computing the wholesale merchants'license
tax on a beer wholesaler,the first $163,800 of beer purchases shall be disregarded;and in ascertaining
the liability of a wholesale wine distributor to merchants'license taxation,and in computing the
wholesale merchants'license tax on a wholesale wine distributor,the first $163,800 of wine purchases
shall be disregarded.
§4.1-233.Taxes on local licenses.
A.In addition to the state license taxes,the annual local license taxes which may be collected shall
not exceed the following sums:
1.Alcoholic beverages.-For each:
a.Distiller's license,if more than 5,000 gallons but not more than 36,000 gallons manufactured
during such year,$750;if more than 36,000 gallons manufactured during such year,$1,000;and no
local license shall be required for any person who manufactures not more than 5,000 gallons of alcohol
or spirits,or both,during such license year;
b.Fruit distiller's license,$1,500;
c.Bed and breakfast establishment license,$40;
d.Museum license,$10;
e.Tasting license,$5 per license granted;
f.Equine sporting event license,$10;
g.Day spa license,$20;
h.Motor car sporting event facility license,$10;
i.Meal-assembly kitchen license,$20;
5 of 6
j.Canal boat operator license,$20;and
k.Annual arts venue event license,$20.
2.Beer.-For each:
a.Brewery license,if not more than 500 barrels of beer manufactured during the year in which the
license is granted,$250,and if more than 500 barrels of beer manufactured during the year in which the
license is granted,$1,000;
b.Bottler's license,$500;
c.Wholesale beer license,in a city,$250,and in a county or town,$75;
d.Retail on-premises beer license for a hotel,restaurant or club and for each retail off-premises beer
license in a city,$100,and in a county or town,$25;and
e.Beer shipper's license,$10.
3.Wine.-For each:
a.Winery license,$50;
b.Wholesale wine license,$50;
c.Farm winery license,$50;and
d.Wine shipper's license,$10.
4.Wine and beer.-For each:
a.Retail on-premises wine and beer license for a hotel,restaurant or club;and for each retail
off-premises wine and beer license,including each gift shop,gourmet shop and convenience grocery
store license,in a city,$150,and in a county or town,$37.50;
b.Hospital license,$10;
c.Banquet license,$5 for each license granted,except for banquet licenses granted by the Board
pursuant to subsection A of §4.1-215 for events occurring on more than one day,which shall be $20
per license;
d.Gourmet brewing shop license,$150;
e.Wine and beer shipper's license,$10;
f.Annual banquet license,$15;and
g.Gourmet oyster house license,in a city,$150,and in a county or town,$37.50.
5.Mixed beverages.-For each:
a.Mixed beverage restaurant license,including restaurants located on the premises of and operated
by hotels or motels,or other persons:
(i)With a seating capacity at tables for up to 100 persons,$200;
(ii)With a seating capacity at tables for more than 100 but not more than 150 persons,$350;and
(iii)With a seating capacity at tables for more than 150 persons,$500.
b.Private,nonprofit club operating a restaurant located on the premises of such club,$350;
c.Mixed beverage caterer's license,$500;
d.Mixed beverage limited caterer's license,$100;
e.Mixed beverage special events licenses,$10 for each day of each event;
f.Mixed beverage club events licenses,$10 for each day of each event;
g.Annual mixed beverage amphitheater license,$300;
h.Annual mixed beverage motor sports race track license,$300;
i.Annual mixed beverage banquet license,$75;
j.Limited mixed beverage restaurant license:
(i)With a seating capacity at tables for up to 100 persons,$100;
(ii)With a seating capacity at tables for more than 100 but not more than 150 persons,$250;
(iii)With a seating capacity at tables for more than 150 persons,$400;
k.Annual mixed beverage motor sports facility license,$300;and
l.Annual mixed beverage performing arts facility license,$300.
B.Common carriers.-No local license tax shall be either charged or collected for the privilege of
selling alcoholic beverages in (i)passenger trains,boats or airplanes and (ii)rooms designated by the
Board of establishments of air carriers of passengers at airports in the Commonwealth for on-premises
consumption only.
C.Merchants'and restaurants'license taxes.-The governing body of each county,city or town in
the Commonwealth,in imposing local wholesale merchants'license taxes measured by purchases,local
retail merchants'license taxes measured by sales,and local restaurant license taxes measured by sales,
may include alcoholic beverages in the base for measuring such local license taxes the same as if the
alcoholic beverages were nonalcoholic.No local alcoholic beverage license authorized by this chapter
shall exempt any licensee from any local merchants'or local restaurant license tax,but such local
merchants'and local restaurant license taxes may be in addition to the local alcoholic beverage license
taxes authorized by this chapter.
The governing body of any county,city or town,in adopting an ordinance under this section,shall
provide that in ascertaining the liability of (i)a beer wholesaler to local merchants'license taxation
under the ordinance,and in computing the local wholesale merchants'license tax on such beer
wholesaler,purchases of beer up to a stated amount shall be disregarded,which stated amount shall be
6 of 6
the amount of beer purchases which would be necessary to produce a local wholesale merchants'license
tax equal to the local wholesale beer license tax paid by such wholesaler and (ii)a wholesale wine
licensee to local merchants'license taxation under the ordinance,and in computing the local wholesale
merchants'license tax on such wholesale wine licensee,purchases of wine up to a stated amount shall
be disregarded,which stated amount shall be the amount of wine purchases which would be necessary
to produce a local wholesale merchants'license tax equal to the local wholesale wine licensee license tax
paid by such wholesale wine licensee.
D.Delivery.-No county,city or town shall impose any local alcoholic beverages license tax on any
wholesaler for the privilege of delivering alcoholic beverages in the county,city or town when such
wholesaler maintains no place of business in such county,city or town.
E.Application of county tax within town.-Any county license tax imposed under this section shall
not apply within the limits of any town located in such county,where such town now,or hereafter,
imposes a town license tax on the same privilege.
§15.2-2288.3:2.Limited distiller's license;local regulation of certain activities.
A.Local restriction upon activities of distilleries licensed pursuant to subdivision 2 of §4.1-206 to
market and sell their products shall be reasonable and shall take into account the economic impact on
such licensed distillery of such restriction,the agricultural nature of such activities and events,and
whether such activities and events are usual and customary for such licensed distilleries.Usual and
customary activities and events at such licensed distilleries shall be permitted unless there is a
substantial impact on the health,safety,or welfare of the public.
B.No locality shall regulate any of the following activities of a distillery licensed under subdivision
2 of §4.1-206:
1.The production and harvesting of agricultural products and the manufacturing of alcoholic
beverages other than wine or beer;
2.The on-premises sale,tasting,or consumption of alcoholic beverages other than wine or beer
during regular business hours in accordance with a contract between a distillery and the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board pursuant to the provisions of subsection D of §4.1-119;
3.The sale and shipment of alcoholic beverages other than wine or beer to licensed wholesalers and
out-of-state purchasers in accordance with Title 4.1,regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board,and federal law;
4.The storage and warehousing of alcoholic beverages other than wine or beer in accordance with
Title 4.1,regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board,and federal law;or
5.The sale of items related to alcoholic beverages other than wine or beer that are incidental to the
sale of such alcoholic beverages.
C.Any locality may exempt any distillery licensed in accordance with subdivision 2 of §4.1-206 on
land zoned agricultural from any local regulation of minimum parking,road access,or road upgrade
requirements.
F
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Site Plan Revisions and Additions
DATE: June 29, 2015
Staff has prepared a revision to Part 802 of the Zoning Ordinance to update the text to include
provisions for minor site plans as well as inclusion of a new illustrative sketch plan. Minor site plans
have commonly been submitted and approved; however the term and requirements for these plans
has never been codified. Illustrative sketch plans are also proposed for inclusion; these would be
applicable to agricultural businesses such as farm wineries, distilleries and breweries, as well as
conditional use permits that may not need an engineered site plan.
A minor site plan would constitute a revision that increases an existing structure area by 20% or less
and does not exceed 5,000 square feet of disturbed area. Minor site plans include reduced
submission guidelines and have a reduced review fee. Illustrative sketch plans would not need to
be sealed by a licensed professional, the property owner would be able to complete this exercise on
their own. There would be no fee associated with this exercise.
The DRRC discussed this amendment at their April 2015 meeting. The DRRC had minor revisions
and sent the proposed changes to the Planning Commission for discussion. The Planning
Commission discussed this item on May 20, 2015; the Planning Commission agreed with the
changes and sent the item forward for review by the Board of Supervisors. The Board of
Supervisors discussed this item on June 10, 2015; ultimately the Board of Supervisors sent the
amendment forward for public hearing as drafted.
The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by the
DRRC (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added). This item is presented
for public hearing. A recommendation from the Planning Commission on this proposed Zoning
Ordinance text amendment is sought. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Attachment: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics.
CEP/pd
ARTICLE VIII
DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND APPROVALS
Part 802 – Site Plans
§ 165-802.01 Activities requiring site plans or illustrative sketch plans.
A. In order to ensure that the requirements of this chapter have been met, a site plan shall be required
to be submitted to the County for the following uses:
(1) Any use in the business or industrial zoning districts, the EM Extractive Manufacturing District,
the MS Medical Support District, or the HE Higher Education District.
(2) Any nonresidential uses in which with automobile parking spaces. is to be used by more than
one establishment.
(3) Any of the following residential uses not required to submit a subdivision design plan for
approval:
(a) Multiplexes;
(b) Townhouses, Back-to-Back Townhouses;
(c) Garden apartments;
(d) Multifamily residential buildings;
(e) Age‐restricted multifamily housing;
(f) Other allowed multifamily residential uses;
(g) Mobile home parks.
(4) Convalescent and nursing homes. and allowed nonresidential uses in the RP, R4 and R5 Zoning
Districts.
(5) Public and semipublic uses and buildings.
(6) Required landscaped buffers and landscaped screens.
(7) Required recreational facilities.
(8) Any parcel of land proposed to contain more than one dwelling unit, except those residential
units allowed as agricultural accessory uses.
(9) Mobile home parks. Non-residential uses permitted in the RP, R4 and R5 Zoning Districts.
(10) The use, change of use or construction of any improvement or facility that is to be reviewed by
the Planning Commission to determine conformance with the Comprehensive Plan under
§ 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia.
B. The Zoning Administrator may require a site plan or illustrative sketch plan to be submitted with an
application for a conditional use permit or any use specified under 165-204.
C. No permit shall be issued for the construction of any building or improvement on the site of any of
the above uses until the site plan or illustrative sketch plan is approved.
D. All nonbusiness or nonindustrial uses in a residential subdivision shall submit a subdivision design
plan, as required in the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, instead of a site plan.
E. Illustrative sketch plan shall be required for the following uses:
(a) Farm Wineries;
(b) Farm Breweries;
(c) Farm Distilleries.
§ 165-802.02 Site plan applications; review.
A. Applicants shall submit two copies of the site plan to the Zoning Administrator for review, along with
applicable fees and completed application materials required by the Zoning Administrator. Final
approval of the site plan shall be given by the Zoning Administrator. At least five copies of the site
plan are required to be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for final approval.
B. Applicants shall prepare and submit a Traffic Impact Analysis with all site plan applications, in
accordance with the adopted Traffic Impact Analysis Standards.
C. Applicants shall provide comments on the site plan from various agencies as required by the
Department of Planning and Development.
D. The Zoning Administrator may require the applicant to present the site plan to the Technical Review
Committee for review. The Committee shall make recommendations to the Zoning Administrator
concerning whether the plan meets the requirements of the Frederick County Code.
E. A site plan submission shall be considered to be complete when the fees, plans, application materials
and comments have been received and when the Technical Review Committee has reviewed the
plan, if required.
F. When the site plan submission is complete, the Zoning Administrator may submit the site plan to the
Planning Commission for its review.
(1) The Zoning Administrator shall determine whether to submit the site plan to the Planning
Commission based on the following considerations:
(a) The scale or intensity of the proposed use.
(b) Potential impacts on surrounding properties.
(c) Potential traffic hazards or congestion.
(2) In addition, the Planning Commission may request that the site plan be presented to the
Commission for its review.
G. The Planning Commission may make recommendations to the Zoning Administrator concerning the
site plan. The Zoning Administrator shall incorporate such recommendations into the review of the
site plan. The site plan shall be finally approved or denied by the Zoning Administrator.
H. Approval of the site plan shall expire within five years of the approval date unless building permits
have been obtained for construction.
I. The Zoning Administrator or his designated representative shall periodically inspect the site during
construction to ensure that the site plan requirements are met.
J. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any use or site requiring a site plan until all
requirements shown on the approved site plan have been met and all improvements shown on the
site plan have been provided. If structures and improvements have been provided sufficient to
guarantee public health and safety but if all site plan improvements have not been completed, a
certificate of occupancy shall only be issued if a bond with surety or other acceptable guaranties have
been provided to insure that all approved improvements will be provided. Such guaranties shall be
for a limited time period acceptable to the Zoning Administrator, during which time said
improvement shall be completed.
Site Plan Review Process
K. The Board of Supervisors, by resolution, may establish a schedule of fees for the review of site plans.
§ 165-802.03 Site plan and illustrative sketch plan contents.
The site plan or illustrative sketch plan shall be clearly legible and shall be drawn at a scale acceptable
to the Zoning Administrator. The site plan shall include three general sections, the project information
section, the calculations section, and the site plan and details section. The information required for each
section is listed below:
A. Project information section.
(1) A title that includes the name of the proposed or existing business and a subtitle which describes
the proposed development.
(2) The name, address, and phone number of the landowner, developer, and designer.
(3) The Frederick County Property Identification Number (PIN) of all lots included on the site plan.
(4) The number and type of dwelling units included on the site plan for residential uses.
(5) The total land area and total developed land area of all lots included on the site plan.
(6) A detailed description of the proposed use or uses of the development, as well as a description of
the existing use or uses.
(7) A reference to any other site plan or master development plan approved by the County for the
site.
(8) The date the site plan was prepared and a list of all revisions made, including the date and a
description of why the site plan was revised.
(9) A table of contents including all pages of the site plan.
(10) A list of all proposed utility providers, with their address, name and phone number.
(11) An inset map showing the location of the site, along with the location of streets, roads and land
uses within 500 feet of the property.
(12) A statement listing all requirements and conditions placed on the land included in the site plan
resulting from approval of conditional zoning or a conditional use permit.
(13) A description of setbacks or conditions placed on the site as a result of an approved variance.
(14) The name of the Magisterial District within which property is located.
B. Calculations section.
(1) Calculations showing the floor area ration (FAR) of the site, including the maximum allowed FAR,
total ground floor area, total floor area, and total lot area.
(2) Calculations showing the total number of required and proposed parking spaces, including the
total number of existing and proposed spaces.
(3) Calculations showing the total number of required handicap spaces, including the total number of
existing and proposed spaces.
(4) Calculations showing the total number of required loading spaces, including the total number of
existing and proposed spaces.
(5) Calculations showing the total number of required perimeter and interior trees required,
including the number of provided trees.
(6) Calculations showing the percentage of the property that will be landscaped and the percentage
of woodlands disturbed.
C. Site plan and details section.
(1) The location of all adjoining lots with the owner's name, specific use, zoning, and zoning
boundaries shown.
(2) The location of all existing or planned rights-of-way and easements that adjoin the property, with
street names, widths, and speed limits shown.
(3) All nearby entrances that are within 200 feet of any existing or proposed entrances to the site.
(4) All existing and proposed driveways, parking and loading spaces, parking lots and a description of
surfacing material and construction details to be used. The size and angle of parking spaces,
aisles, maneuvering areas, and loading spaces shall be shown.
(5) A North arrow.
(6) A graphic scale and statement of scale.
(7) A legend describing all symbols and other features that need description.
(8) A boundary survey of the entire parcel and all lots included with distances described at least to
the nearest hundredth of a foot.
(9) The present zoning of all portions of the site, with the location of zoning boundaries.
(10) The location of all existing and proposed structures, with the height, specific use, ground floor
area, and total floor area labeled.
(11) The location of all existing and proposed outdoor uses, with the height, specific use, and land
area labeled.
(12) Existing topographic contour lines at intervals acceptable to the Zoning Administrator. Proposed
finished grades shall be shown by contour.
(13) The location of the front, side, and rear yard setback lines required by the applicable zoning
district.
(14) The location and boundaries of existing environmental features, including streams, floodplains,
lakes and ponds, wetlands, natural stormwater retention areas, steep slopes, and woodlands.
(15) The location of outdoor trash receptacles.
(16) The location of all outdoor lighting fixtures.
(17) The location, dimensions, and height of all signs.
(18) The location of required buffers, landscaping buffers, and landscaped screens, including
examples, typical cross sections or diagrams of screening to be used. The location and
dimensions of required fencing, berms, and similar features shall be specified.
(19) The location of recreational areas and common open space.
(20) The location of all proposed landscaping with a legend; the caliper, scientific name, and
common name of all deciduous trees; the height at planting, scientific name, and common name
of all evergreen trees and shrubs.
(21) The height at planting, caliper, scientific name, and common name shall be provided for all
proposed trees. The height at planting, scientific name and common name shall be provided for
all shrubs.
(22) The location of sidewalks and walkways.
(23) The location and width of proposed easements and dedications.
(24) A stormwater management plan describing the location of all stormwater management facilities
with design calculations and details.
(25) A soil erosion and sedimentation plan describing methods to be used.
(26) The location and size of sewer and water mains and laterals serving the site.
(27) Facilities necessary to meet the requirements of the Fire Code.
(28) A signed seal of the certified Virginia land surveyor, architect, or engineer who prepared the
plan.
(29) A space labeled "Approved by the Frederick County Zoning Administrator" for the signature of
the Zoning Administrator, approval date, and a statement that reads "site plan valid for five years
from approval date."
D. Minor Site Plans. A minor site plan may be submitted in lieu of a full site plan for additions to
existing sites. A minor site plan shall constitute a revision that increases an existing structure area
by 20% or less and does not exceed 5,000 square feet of disturbed area. Minor site plans, at a
minimum shall include the following information:
(1) A title that includes the name of the proposed or existing business and a subtitle which
describes the proposed development.
(2) The name, address, and phone number of the landowner, developer, and designer.
(3) The Frederick County Property Identification Number (PIN) of all lots included on the site plan.
(4) The total land area and total developed land area of all lots included on the site plan.
(5) A detailed description of the proposed use or uses of the development, as well as a description
of the existing use or uses.
(6) A reference to any other site plan or master development plan approved by the County for the
site.
(7) The date the site plan was prepared and a list of all revisions made, including the date and a
description of why the site plan was revised.
(8) A table of contents including all pages of the site plan.
(9) An inset map showing the location of the site, along with the loc ation of streets, roads and land
uses within 500 feet of the property.
(10) A statement listing all requirements and conditions placed on the land included in the site plan
resulting from approval of conditional zoning or a conditional use permit.
(11) A description of setbacks or conditions placed on the site as a result of an approved variance.
(12) The name of the Magisterial District within which property is located.
(13) Calculations showing the total number of required and proposed parking and loading spaces,
including the total number of existing and proposed spaces.
(14) Calculations showing the total number of required perimeter and interior trees required,
including the number of provided trees. The Zoning Administrator shall determine the number
of landscaping plants required, proportional to the additions shown on the minor site plan.
(15) A signed seal of the certified Virginia land surveyor, architect, or engineer who prepared the
plan.
(16) Any other information determined by the Zoning Administrator necessary for the review of the
minor site plan.
(17) The Zoning Administrator may eliminate any of the above requirements on a minor site plan, if
it is determined not to be warranted.
E. Illustrative sketch plan. An illustrative sketch plan may be submitted in lieu of a site plan for farm
wineries, farm breweries and farm distilleries, or if required as part of a Conditional Use Permit.
Illustrative sketch plans, at a minimum shall include the following information:
(1) A title that includes the name of the proposed or existing business and a subtitle which
describes the proposed development.
(2) The name, address, and phone number of the landowner, developer, and designer.
(3) The Frederick County Property Identification Number (PIN) of all lots included on the sketch
plan.
(4) The total land area and total developed land area of all lots included on the sketch plan.
(5) Illustrative Sketch plan shall include a drawing of all aspects of the business operations on the
site.
(6) Size and dimensions of parking areas and signs if any, location of any floodplains or other
environmental features.
(7) For cottage occupations, the sketch plan shall show the residence and all improvements
associated with the cottage occupation.
(8) Distances between on site structures and adjacent residential structures and other buildings,
the location and width of adjacent right-of-way, adjoining properties, and easements.
(9) A statement listing all requirements and conditions placed on the land included in the sketch
plan resulting from approval of a conditional use permit.
(10) The name of the Magisterial District within which property is located.
(11)The illustrative sketch plan need not be drawn to scale, nor does it have to be prepared by a
licensed professional. However, distances from structure to adjacent lot lines must be
accurately depicted.
F. D. Other information or statements may be required on the site plan by the Zoning Administrator to
ensure that all requirements of the Frederick County Code are met.
G. E. All site plans shall conform with master development plans that have been approved for the land
in question.
H. F. When required, deed restrictions, deeds of dedication, agreements, contracts, guaranties or other
materials shall be submitted with the site plan.
§ 165-802.04 Required improvements.
A. All improvements and construction on the site shall conform with the approved site plan or
illustrative sketch plan and the requirements of the Frederick County Code.
B. The Zoning Administrator may require a bond with surety or other acceptable guaranties to insure
the completion of required improvements. Such guaranties shall be in the estimated amount of the
required improvements. Such guaranties shall be for a period of completion set by the Zoning
Administrator with consultation with the applicant. Such guaranties shall be released when the
required improvements have been completed.
ARTICLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS; AMENDMENTS; AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
Part 101 – General Provisions
§ 165-101.02 Definitions & word usage.
SITE PLAN - A specific and detailed plan of development which contains detailed engineering drawings
of the proposed uses and improvements required in the development of a given parcel or use of
development meeting the requirements of this chapter. In all Articles of this Chapter, where the term
'site plan' is used, it shall also include the term 'minor site plan'.
ILLUSTRATIVE SKETCH PLAN – An illustrative plan that accurately depicts the development of a parcel or
use meeting the requirements of this chapter. Illustrative site plans may be required for agricultural
uses or as part of a conditional use permit.