PC_07-18-12_Meeting_Minutes , . . .
. .
. .
• ..
.. .
. , .
, . •
., .
. ,
. , ..... • •MEETINGIVIINT.J—TES • .
-
_
.i... •, . 1
,
kill, - : * - ' • ' . _ \. •
. '
,. ': '' • OF TIIE.
— .
, .
' FREDERICK.(OUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
-
_
The'Meeting was held in'The•Board,Room of The Frederick-County Adiriiiiistration.Building 41,07 North
• - Kent:Street in-Winchester,Virginiao5fahly:18',2012',
_ _ _
. ' PRESENT: 'June M. Wilmot; Qhairtrian/Member at Large; Brian Madagart: Opequon District; Gary
. .. ' R. Oates, Stonewall:District.,I. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall 'District, :Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee
. District;Kevin W. Kenney, Gainegboro,District; Charles:E.,Triplett, GrainesborO:District; Greg L. Unger,
,
Back Creek District., Kevin '0:. crosen, Back Creek District, Christopher M. Mol-m, ,Red Bud District;
- - - J61•11P David 'Smith, Jr., :City of*Winchester 'planning Commission's Liaisom Ross P. Spicer, Frederick
County'Board of SuperYisOrS' Liaison; and Roderick:B. Williams, Frederfck County Attorney.
ABSENT: - Roger L..Thomas!,Vice Chairthan/Opequori District'H..Paige'Manuel, Shawnee District
' • and Philip Elemieux, Red lltid District, . .
,
-:
, ,: -.- • STAFF PRESENT:. Mi`Crhae`11.'... Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director, Mark R. Cheran, Zoning &
SOcti.Y.isi op Administrator;,andkeried S.Arlotta,Clerk: ..:. .
• . .
_ . .
, -
_.
--, „-' CA:LL.TO ORDER •ADOPTION OF AGENDA
-
.. .
' Chairman Willi-tot called the meeting to order' at *7:00 p.m. A motion was made by
Commissioner Oates to adopt_the agenda.for this evening's meeting as presented. This motion was .
, seconded:by'Corruni*SSiOher'CroCkett,arid'unanimously Passed. .
• , , .
,
' . . ----------- -
,
„
; • , .
MINUTES . •
_
UporiMOtiOninade by"Commissioner Oates and seConded by COMMiSsioner Crockett,the
.,, „, , . .
- : - in i nutesi of May°16,2012 were,unanimously a:pproved.as presented.
,
. .. Upon.motion made by Commis§ibrier OateS-and,SeConded by Commissioner Crockett,the
minutes of.1.1.me 6; 2012'were unanirnotiSly approyed as presented.
„ - -
• ,.
,
,
..,
_
- • .
. .
,
i Frederick County Blanning'Commissioh Page 2878
' JvlinUtes'ofJuly f8y20.12 - •
: . ,
. . _
. ..
, * .
' .
. _ .
„ - -
„ ..
•
•
•
COMMITTEE°REPORTS ` -. -
Comprehensive'Plans&Programs.Committee{(CPPC).=.7./09/12 Mtg., •
•
Commissioner Mohn°reported that the CPPC discussed the Urban Design,Center Cabinet
• .and.the report of the various Urban.Design .Center Land U.se Programs. He said the CPPC reached the
" .consensus that they had;done,as much with it as they could at this time and he,believed a work session
• wi'll'be scheduled with the Planning Coinnirssion.and'the Board.of'Supervisors.
City of Winchester Planning C
ommi lion=7/17/121VItg:
Chairman Wilmot welcomed the City Planning, Comni_ission' • Liaison, Commissioner
John David,Sinitl ,Jr: Mr.. S"mith reported that-the City Planning Commission discussed'a conditional use
permit conversion on the ground floor of the old. Social ;Services Building:. on. Boscawen 'Street; they
discussed a permit for a motor vehicle'painting and upholstery business; and they also discussed a,multi-
• family dwelling on.Millwood Avenue. He said all of these items wore inoved-forward to City'Council.
Mr. Smith said the City;Planning;Commission also discussed temporary. signage'.
.CITIZEN COMMENTS
•
Chairman Wilmot called fôncitizeii comments on any'issenoton this evening's agenda.
• No'one came forward tO speak and Chairman'Wil'mot closed'ihe citizen comments portion of the meeting.
•
PUBLIC,HEARING
•
Conditional Use Permit`#10-11 of Joseph Racey, Sr. and AT&T Moa ility'for-a 199-foot monopole
telecommunications facility 'at,3392 Back Mountain .R oad. This property. °is zoned RA (Rural
Area s)District-and is identified"With
h P.LN: 59-A-6'in,the:•Back<Creek Magisterial Distric t,
Action-Recoininended Approval with Conditions
•
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, ,Ma'rk R. Cheran, reported the nearest dwellings'
• are•;approximately 800' •feet from the proposed facility. He said the zoning ordinance requires the
applicant to provide confirmation that an attempt was made to collocate on existing telecommunication
facilities:„ Mr Cheran.confirmed the=''applicant.did provide, an "inventory'of existing telecommunication
•facilities and the;applicant `believes; there are no other facilities or possible 'collocation opportunity
structures existing=in this target
•
- _Frederick'County Planning Page 2879 'Commission g.
Minutes ofJ,uly 18,201'2
•
-3. --
•
Mr Cheran ointed,out the Historic R'esources.;Advisory Board (HRAB) had concerns' - • - •
v ith:the location•of the:prop osed tower and they identified,three potentially significant;structures,within
.
the .immediate area of;the subject si"tie;, one tructure :is' located;on the,srte. 'The- three structures :are
included'in the Rural"Landmarks;SurveyReport Mr::Cheran said the HRAB also had some concern with
the wooded area at the proposed.tower ,location and they suggested a tree preservation area should be
. - 'identified on the:site plan to.help=.screen the proposed tower and compound,, ,
Mr Cheran;next,read a1ist.of recommended conditions, should the Planning Commission
• = f nd°the proposed tower to beaappropr,iate°in this location
I
Commissioner Oates' referred to the HRAB's comment:�about screening the equipment
shed•and the base of the tower. He noticed,this was not in-eluded;'as one'of'the conditions of the permit
- he.asked Mr:Cheran-if this Was- with the applicant ;Mr Cherantreplied this could.be added
to d'„the 'list of conditions,; if the: Planning Commission 'desires to do so however, the first condition
recommended states that all agency comments and.requirements shall be,complied with at all times: Mr:
Cheran added a minor site plan will-need to be submitted and'reviewed and the screening could be .
assured at that time
t Ms.. Tracey Anderson, 'zoning .attorney' With Donohue &: "Stearns; PLC; was the
.representative for the applicants, AT&T Mobility and Mr:;,Joseph Racey, Sr, Ms. Anderson stated the
objective:of this site is.to provide enhanced°coverage along Back Mountain Road (Rt.,600),Wardensville
- Grade ;(Rt. 608),, Cedar Creek Grade, (Rt.,;622); Middle Road (Rt-.•628); Mount Williams; and the •
surrounding communities: She explained the site is"intendedto work in conjunction with the AT&T`
facilities currentlyon-air in Winchester; 'In addition,the-,proposed`site'wilhenable"better'handoff between
;existing•AT&T sites-at Hunting.Ridge;,•Cliffdale; and Lebanon Church; thus extending the coverage and
iodiminishing the dropped Balls in-the area She said commuters•and residents Will experience better quality
' ,service andthe proposed site will also'help offload traffic from the above mentioned ekisting AT&TSites.
. - ,Ms. Anderson next spoke',about th.e arecent;'increase in data traffic as compar_•ed:to'voice
traffic,'She;said the band widths are not currently sufficient 7 to'handle customers' data traffic.(elnails and;
sictures i which is being used more frequently than: simply having a voice conversation. In addition, .
tatistics•show the;average smart phone'usertidemands ten times,theamount of data and voice traffic as the
non-smart'phone'user-.:. She said;even where AT&T had adequate-facilities for voice'data in the past,now .
' AT&T,#along with other carriers; will :need:to. install either'more powerful antennas or 'increase the
' 'nurnber;oftowers to handle both,the'increase in•users and the data traffic;,
Ms. Anderson stated there will be room Within the equipment compound and on the
monopole for three additional carriers.• She said AT&T is required by Frederick County's Zoning;
Ordinance to look; at, alternative facilities; or existing tall structures: Ms Anderson said no existing•
' ; facilities ,Or tall str':uctures were available or•appropr:'i'ate for-their needs.
Commissioner Oates raised the•issue from:the HRAB.about screening of the bottom of
" , the'tower-.and 'compound. Commissioner Oates said there was no note for the site plan or in the.
conditions,about maintaining a vegetative buffer. He recognized this site'is in,the woods; however, if the
site was_ever logged, he; thought the; screening would have to be replaced.' Ms Anderson replied that ,
- AT&T is willing,to work this-out and she has;discussed with Mr: Chelan:the;local type of:Landscaping
that; would be appropriate., ',She' said that; AT&T".will provide a nd maintain thevegetative screening
. surroundingsthe 46 foot b.y 80-foot fenced equipment compound,.as.well,as the'bottom of°•the monopole.
Frederick County Planning:Commission Page 2880
Minutes ofJuly 1;8,'20,1.2 •
_4_
,. Commissioner-Unger recalled:;previous applications•-f or telecommunications-facilities that •
were''submitted,bathe facilities were;not forthcoming Heasked"the applicant what the;chances"were;for •
this particular tower to be constructed Ms: Anderson said two 'other sites m.'Frederick County went
through the. preliminary !stages of engineering and,.site plan drawings; however, they were withdrawn
because AT&T, was.seeki'ng,a„more_suitable site. She said,this particular.site will likely go forward, given thatthe others`were vetted and dropped. • `
Commissioner Crosen noted the 'comments from, the. Winchester Regional Airport,
requesting.that all structures need`to be marked and lighted in;accordance with FAA (Federal Aviation .
Administration) regulations..: Commissioner Crosen also noted the comment- that if the Board of
Supervisors requires the tower`to be lighted, a,li"ghting shield will need to be placed to.mitigate visual.
impact onto:adjoin ing properties. Ms.Anderson replied it will be up to the Planning Commission andthe
Board of Supervisors to decide, what as most appropriate;:regarding°the ,lighting. She said the FAA
= requires towers 200 feet of greater to be lighted :Ms Anderson noted that.for this particular tower, the
landlord is amenable to lighting the tower and AT&T'is More than willing to comply. In addition, she
= commented that special types'of`beacons.are,avail'able for.the tops4of the towers which do not cause,light
- interference with the ground area.below"the,tower'. She said this: will'be:something that the Regional
Airport'will discuss with the Planning Commission and the Board ofSupervisors',to`determine what is the
best;forthisiocation.
Commissioner 'Unger commented about this tower being 'one foot below the 200-foot
` - AGL tower:required to be lighted by:the.FAA.• 'Ms. Anderson'said the.reason the decision,is left up;to
' the regional,airport and.the FAA is-that a lighted tower^indicates`to pilots that-the structure is at a height
-
,, .:. -. .: of -200 feet: She said the FAA sometimes liana problem with lighted towers'between 150 to 199 feet,
depending on the flight•�path, because pilots in the area may,mistakenly interpret the tower to be "at;200'
. g path e said the decision.must really be reached by.the regional airport and consideration of
• • feet or above. She
the-flight ath ,
" Chairman Wi'linotopened-�thepublic.hearing and,called,for.anyone who wished to speak.
.regardingthis telecommunications,faciliiy. No one came forward to,speak and Chairman Wilmot closed
the-public comment,portion of the hearing_" .
Commis sioner'.Oates remarked that;if'the.tower is`lighted he would prefer-to see alight
shield installed Mr Cheran added for clarification that,Ms. Anderson was correct regarding the FAA
` rules and,regional airport-rules,regarding lighting. He said the Airport Authority is a previewing agency,
for',this site°plan; if the Airport Authority.wants lights to be installed,-it,will happen.. Mr. Cheran said-the
_ ,zoning ordinance'was recently revised.regarding outdoor lighting;,he said lighting of towers is regulated
-in the-Ord inanee 4rid the lighting 0am ot l be reflected on'adjoining properties;
Commissioner.Crosen made a"motion to recommend approval of CUP'#.10.-4-1 of Joseph
Racey, Sr;and AT&T Mobility with Commissioner Oates' comments regarding screening-and'•with the
understanding that Winchester:Regional Airport will rule on the lighting- In addition, the conditions
- -
recommended the staff will also apply. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Unger and
unanimously passed. '. - .
•
BE-.IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Conditional:Use Permit #1,0-11 of Joseph Racey, Sr and AT&T Mobility for•a
199-foot,monopole, telecommunications .facility. at 3392 Back Mountain Road: with the condition that
- screening!will be provided and maintained around' the base of the:. tower and the fenced equipfnent . •
,
- Frederick County Planning Commission Page2881
Minutestof July.18;2012-
_.5_
regarding dl htin with
top of tldie -monopoleWIncaddrt addition he f] Airport will.make:the final decisions ' -
p
lighting following conditions will apply to this
• conditional.use permit:'
I. All review,agency comments and requirements shall.be complied with at all times.
The towershall be•lavailable:for collocating personal wireless,services providers
•
■ . A minor site plan shall be approved 3. proved by Frederick C ounty.
4!. The tower shall,be removed by theiapplicant or property owner within .12 months of abandonment
'of operation.
5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within 412.:months.of the approval of this
' . conditional:use permit,the Conditional`use permitwill be deemed invalid.;
6. Any expansion or modification of this,use will:require a new conditional use perrnit. .
,(Commissioners Thomas,'Lemieux,,and:Manuel were abseiitfr"oin the fneeting)
An amend"ment'to the Frederick County Code;Ch apter'144, Subdivision"of Land,Article V,Design.
.• . greater Section 144;.20 Sewer and. Water Service. This ordinance revision will exempt lots
grea errthan -20 acres from the individual on4ot systems, requirements (drainfields) in the RA
District.
Action,—Recommended,Approval
Deputy Planning;Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported this amendment was previously
discussed by the Planning Commission of their meeting on May 1'6•; 2012: In addition, the Board of
Supervisors discussed, the ;anienditientr at their June 13, 2012 meeting and agreed to forward, the
amendment to public hearing.;
Mr. Ruddy stated the ;staff received'a,request to include a.drainfield exemption for lots
(parent tracts)'20 acres or,greater in 'size and which are part of a,minor"rural subdivision. He said the'
" " • subdivision•.ordinance requires all lots'which;are being subdivided.to'be provided with.,a drainfield,and a
Al
' 100%0 reserve 'area_per'Chapter 1.6'1. This,Tequirement was put into place when agricultural' lots were
deleted.from the zoning;ordinance`in 2009 as,:part"of the.Rural Areas Study. He.said'an-example of the.
current ordinance requirement would�be'a large vacant parent tract,being required to provide a drainfield
area when subdividing.,one,;family lot (or five=acre lot)., Mr Ruddy said this request is to exempt the
parent,tracts fror ;the drainfield requirement itself'and it is an economic,consideration.
• • Chairman Wilmot•opened the public hearing'and called'for citizen comments. No one
; a came forward to.speak arid Chairman Wilmot closed°the public comment;portion°of`thehearing.
ip -Frederick-County Planning Commission Page 2882
Minutes,ofJuly, F8,,2012 .
•
•
•
•
' Commissiorie'r.0ates°sa�d"le,was`the individual,who brought this request-forward. He
said he was surveying a 38 acre parcel for a,client who wanted to subdivide off a two-acre family lot:
• Commissioner Oates said the requirement called Rot-,a drain-field on the`reserve parcel, which was not
- • '- being,developed:, He said by`the time they figured; the -costs for a soil. scientist, a back hoe, and the
submittal fee the'total'ainounted to,approximately$2,500-$33,000 for•the drainfield. Commissioner Oates,
thought this was a.fairly large expense;simply to cut off a two-acre°parcel,
' Commissioner'OatesvMade a motion to recommend,approval of the proposed amendment
as presented.. This:motion was'second Commissioner Triplettand was unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED that,the Frederick,County Planning Commission does'hereby recommend approval.
• of an'amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chap ter 144, ,Subdivision of Land, Article V, Design
• Standards, Section 144.20'.°Sewer:_and:Water Service: This ordinance revision will exempt lots.greater
than 20,acr..es from the individual.,on lot-systems requirements (drainfi'elds):in the District.
• (Commissioners'Thomas; Lemieux, and)Manuel were absent from the meeting.).
•
•
COMNIISSION DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION OF THE:STONEWALL WAREHOUSING.SITE PLAN
Commissioner Oates said'he would abstain from-all discussion on this item, due: to a
possible:conflict of interest.
• Zoning and Subdivision.Administrator, Mark R:: Cheran, reported that in order to keep
the Planning:Commission aware of;development:activ.`ity in the vicinity of the°proposed Route:37'right-of-
way, all proposed'situ plans and subdivisions within the planned right-of-way for Route;37 are presented.
to the,Planning Commission for information. Mr.: Cheran stated_this site is located on McGhee Road in.
• the'Stonewall IndustriaI Park and is within the path:of.Route 37. He said;:the original plans for.Stonewall
,IndustrialPPark did not accommodate the,Route,37 right-of-ways, :Mr Cheran,said this site plan is being
presented to the Commission for information only and no action is required: Any comments received
from the Commission wit-l.be-,forwarded to the Board.of'S:upervrsors for their meeting'on August 8,:2042..
He added thatMr. Thomas Grlpm,,the'prope 9owner, as welt.45 a representative with,GreyWolfe, Inc.,,
the'land_surye ors'are available to answer an uestions•from the
Commission,.
'Commissioner Crockett:asked when the.Route ,37 ;right-of way was designated on this•
,property, Specifically, he inquired 'i'f'the lot was created before' the right-of`way or the• right-of-way
designated?befoie the'lbt was created.
• Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, stated that Route 37 has obviously been a
road that has been planned for a number of years. In the early to mid:90's,.it,started gaining traction and
then in the mid 90's, "Alternative C" Was designated as'the route for the Route 37 right-of-way in this
location. Subsequently, different and more refined planning efforts, including the center line and right-of:-
way designations have occurred over the years;probably in early 2000: Mr: Ruddy said the lots in the
Stonewall;Industrial Park existed prior.fo th s;t iie.
Frederick'County Planning Commission Page 2883
Minutes,df'July 18,;2012. •
•
Commissioner;Crockett inquired what legaliequirements'.Would be on the landowner-to,- • •
either utilize the;property or not Mr Ruddy replied there are no legal requirements at this point in the
development process 'Mr, Ruddy said:that future complications may come;from development of the road
or•right-of-way acquisition, and costs increase as buildings and •developtnent-occurs under the ,path; of
future Route 3 T. However, atthe site developnentstage,the County will;let the'development occur. Mr.,
- + Ruddy pointed out that it is in,the earlier.planning entitlement stages,,such as the rezoning, where the
County has a greater ability'to recognize the road,,which is a,huge component of the• Comprehensive
• Policy Plan,;and"make sure it IS addressed through proffers and orientation of development. Mr: Ruddy
.. said the rezoning provides the ability to address the situation more thoroughly. He said legally, the
applicant has the ability-toamoveforward with the project atthe site.development plan stage.
Commissioner Kenney°stated he has worked in the Stonewall Industrial Park for,about.30
years and it has always' been:. an attractive, :mid-range industrial ,park. with good water. and sewer
avalabili ty. He said there have been numeroiss•clierits from,Out of the area Who wanted to buy 8-10 acre
parcels•'of land; SOmetirne-Sits is difficult to accommodate them in their market range. He said four or five
. clients in recent years have wanted to'purchase this size:lot or'be in this general area, but when they start
factoring in the,possible future legal ramifications as far As where they stand for,marketability for resale,
they have been very concerned,;and had relocated to some other;area :Commissioner Kenney believed
this-has hindered development in the park for them and for the,County. He said this :issue conies up
frequently andhas impacted decision-snaking:
Comm issioner-Mohn.followed-up'by stating this proposed route s•-hot the actual right-of
• way.yet,'but,it is simply'the path for•the future tight-of-Way, He agreed with,Mr:'Ruddy that.right-of-way
dedications should be negotiated atithe rezonin g stage e of development. `However, in the case of.by-right
• p p , property Y g , g y or impacts be done to
deuelo merit where is ahead ..zoned or subdivided there'.is reall, not much that can.
com el action at°that oint Nevertheless he;a reed i is somethiii- whicph diss a co ts people's
' decision-making. Commissioner Mohn acknowledged- there were o ortuni 'associated with
identifying;a"path;"but it is somewhat ofa warning at this point.
Mr. Ruddy stated_that as time has gone by, the :right of-way designation, of where the
centerline of Route 37 will be hasrbecome,fairly concrete,.,especially°'in this,area.. He commented that
. • Route 37 is:a very important transportation proj'ect,,not only for the County, but this region: Mr. Ruddy
said,pl'ans continue to advance,•and particularly, at the southern parcof Route 37, where the first steps of
construction' are actually occurring: Mr Ruddy reiterated that Route. 37 is'a prominent part of the
County's long-range•transportation plan_and,it should"continue to be-recognized:
Chairman Wilmot commented'that the purpose of'this'exercise is for the Commission's
information;and it-is"not for action. -She said the owner has aright to develop his-property and that right
was:created;when the°property•was rezoned.
(Note Commissioner'Oates abstained from discussion; Commissioners Thomas, Lemieux, and Manuel
were absent from the•meeting.)
•
•
lirederick'County Planning Commission Page 2884
Minutes ofJuly 18,2012 •
_8 •
• OTHER:. _
•
•` ' CANCELLATION OF'THE AUGUST'1,.2012;MEETING.
• •
Chairman Wilmot announced. `there were no pending items for the Planning
'Commission's August 1, 202 meeting. •
Upon,motion made, b' Commissioner Crockett and seconded by Commissioner:Mdhn
the Planning,Commission unanimously, voted'to cancel the Planning Commission"s regularly scheduled
meeting of August 1, 20.12. •
•
ADJOURNMENT
No furthef,business"remained to be'discussed and upon motion'by Commissioner Oates
and second by Commissioner Crockett;the meeting adjourned at'7s45 p m'.'by a tmaiiimous vote.
Respectfully'submitted,
•
Jun
lg. .`Wilmot, Chairman
Er I R.Lawrence secretary
•
•
•
Frederick County Planning'Coinm`ssion - Page 2885
'Minutes ofJuly 1`8 2012
•