HomeMy WebLinkAbout17-05 Comments (2)RONALD LEWIS NAPIER
J. DANIEL POND II
KIMBERLY M. ATHEY
CLIFFORD L. ATHEY, JR.
J. DANIEL POND RI
JOHN S. BELL
NAPIER, POND, ATHEY ATHEY, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
35 N. ROYAL AVENUE
P.O. BOX 395
FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA 22630
April 4, 2006
Members of the Frederick County Planning Commission
PHONE (540) 635 -2123
FAX (540) 635 -7004
lawyers @npaalaw.com
PLEASE REPLY TO:
P.O. BOX 395
Re: Memorandum of Law Related to Application for Rezoning of Tax Map Parcels 43 -A-
15(B) and 43 -A -16 Containing 67.73 Acres Located in the Stonewall Magisterial
District of Frederick County (Russell Glendobbin)
Dear Planning Commissioners:
The 67.7242 acre Russell Glendobbin property which is the subject matter of this
rezoning application consists of two parcels, one of which is 36.6389 acres (Parcel A) and the
other is 31.1853 acres (Parcel B). The entire area of the site is located within the Urban
Development Area (UDA). Parcel A is the preservation parcel "40% parcel of the
Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision, a rural preservation subdivision totaling sixteen lots that was
approved by Frederick County in 2002.
Parcel A is situated at the south end of the Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision adjacent to
Stonewall Industrial Park. Parcel B extends north from Parcel A to Glendobbin Road, and is
immediately east and adjacent to lots 3 through 16 of Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision.
It is important to note that the acreage comprising the Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision
was located within the UDA at the time of subdivision approval.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
The foregoing Memorandum of Law addresses the following questions presented: (1)
Whether the applicant has the right under Virginia law and the Code of Frederick County to
apply for this rezoning when a portion of the land was the Rural Preservation Parcel (40%
parcel) of Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision; and (2) Whether the Frederick County Planning
Commission would be acting in a manner consistent with the comprehensive plan and the
county zoning ordinance by approving the application for rezoning to Residential Performance
(RP) when the land is within the Urban Development Area?
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The 67.7242 acre Russell Glendobbin property lies wholly within the Urban
Development Area (UDA) of Frederick County, with the majority of the acreage also within
the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA).
2. The site is located adjacent to the Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision, a rural preservation
subdivision created by the applicant that is currently developing with single family detached
units on 2 -acre lots.
3. The proposed development of the Russell Glendobbin property will provide a transition
from the more intensive land uses within Stonewall Industrial Park to the low density
residential development pattern that extends north and west from this area.
4. Approximately 37 acres of the site is platted as the preservation parcel (40% parcel) of
the existing Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision.
5. A Rural Preservation Parcel is normally reserved exclusively for open space or
agricultural uses; however, Section 165- 54(D)(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance
encourages the Board of Supervisors to release a preservation parcel that is within the UDA
from such development restrictions.
6. The rezoning of the site for single family residential development is consistent with the
Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, which expressly calls for suburban residential uses to
predominate on this property because it is wholly within the UDA.
7. The integration of average one acre lots contained within this proposal will create an
alternative residential development pattern that will ultimately enhance consumer choice and
foster a dynamic housing market, both of which are key objectives of the Frederick County
Comprehensive Plan.
8. The Applicant has offered a proffer program that will appropriately and effectively
mitigate the impacts of this development.
9. The portion of the UDA wherein the Russell Glendobbin property is located is a
transitional area that currently includes light industrial, low density residential, and agricultural
land uses.
10. By introducing alternative lot sizes served by public facilities to an area of relatively
low residential densities, this proposal will result in an appropriately diverse residential
development.
11. The proposed rezoning of the subject acreage from RA (Rural Areas) to RP
(Residential Performance) is consistent with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy
2
Plan within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area
(SWSA).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Section 15.2 -2223 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. provides for the
preparation and adoption of a Comprehensive Plan by each locality in the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
Virginia Code Section 15.2 -2223 states in pertinent part that "the local planning
commission shall prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan for the physical development
of the territory within its jurisdiction and every governing body shall adopt a comprehensive
plan for the territory under its jurisdiction.
In the preparation of a comprehensive plan, the Planning Commission is required by the
Commonwealth to make careful and comprehensive surveys and studies of the existing
conditions and trends of growth, and of the probable future requirements of its territory and
inhabitants. The Comprehensive Plan must be made with the purpose of guiding and
accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory which will,
in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health,
safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the inhabitants, including
the elderly and persons with disabilities. (See Section 15.2 -2223, Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended)
The Commonwealth also requires that the Comprehensive Plan designate the general or
approximate location, character, and extent of each feature shown on the plan and indicate
where existing lands or facilities are proposed to be extended, widened, removed, relocated,
vacated, narrowed, abandoned, or changed in use as the case may be."
The plan, with the accompanying maps, plats, charts, and descriptive matter, must also
show the locality's long -range recommendations for the general development of the territory
covered by the plan. That plan must include, but need not be limited to:
The designation of areas for various types of public and private development and use.
such as different kinds of residential, including age restricted, housing; business; industrial;
agricultural; mineral resources; conservation; recreation; public service; flood plain and
drainage; and other areas;
The state also requires the preparation of an official map and capital improvements
program, a subdivision ordinance, a zoning ordinance and zoning district maps, mineral
resource district maps and agricultural and forestall district maps, where applicable. (See
Virginia Code Section 15.2 -2223, et seq.)
Generally, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2 -2223, the County of Frederick has
prepared a Comprehensive Plan along with an Official Zoning Map. Moreover, the Frederick
County' government has designated certain areas of the county for residential development
which it refers to as its Urban Development Area.
Because the 67 acre Russell Glendobbin parcels are clearly within the Urban
Development Area as designated by the Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors pursuant to its authority under Virginia Code Section 15.2 -2223, an outright denial
of a rezoning petition seeking a residential zoning classification for this particular site would be
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and potentially subject Frederick County to litigation
to enforce its Comprehensive Plan by Glen and Pamela Russell.
In addition, Section 165 -54(D) of the Frederick County Code which pertains to Rural
Areas Districts and Rural Preservation Lots states as follows:
1. Within the RA Rural Areas District, lots as small as two acres shall be permitted on
tracts over 20 acres in size, subject to the following:
a. Forty percent of the parent tract must remain intact as a contiguous parcel.
b. This acreage must be designated prior to the division of the fourth lot.
c. No future division of this portion of the parent tract will be permitted.
2. Exception to single forty percent parcel. In cases where excessive topography or other
natural features of a site create a situation where a higher quality subdivision design resulting
in Less physical and /or visual disruption could be achieved by allowing two residual parcels to
be created, the Planning Commission may permit the 40% to be made up of two parcels.
3. Board waiver of division restriction. Ten years from the date of the creation of any
forty percent parcel and following a public hearing, the Board of Supervisors may release the
parcel from the restrictions of Subsection D(1) through the process of rezoning, provided that
the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time. Any
forty- percent parcel which is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) at the time of its
creation or is included within the UDA as a result of a future expansion of the UDA, shall be
eligible for rezoning at that point and shall not be subject to the ten -year restriction on
rezoning. (See Section 165- 54(D), Code of Frederick County)
Specifically, Frederick County Code Section 165- 54(D)(3) states that any 40% parcel
which is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) at the time of its creation or is included
within the UDA as a result of the future expansion of the UDA, shall be eligible for rezoning
at that point and shall not be subject to the ten -year restriction on a change of zoning and
further resubdivision.
As a result thereof, even though the 36.5389 acre Parcel A which is contained within
the Russell Glendobbin site is currently a preservation parcel as defined in Frederick County
Code Section 165 -54(D) as a result of the Russell's 2002 subdivision which created Glendobbin
4
Ridge Subdivision, that Rural Preservation Parcel "shall still he eligible for rezoning" since at
the time of its creation as a Rural Preservation Parcel within the Glendohbin Ridge Rural
Areas Subdivision, the Rural Preservation Parcel was located within the Urban Development
Area.
In conclusion, this Application for rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
for Frederick County since the land is wholly within the Urban Development Area. This
Planning Commission recommended and the County Board of Supervisors adopted a future
Land Use Map which reflects that the subject property should be rezoned to residential
performance as permitted in the Urban Development Area and the Code of Frederick County.
This remains true even though a portion of the property was subdivided in 2002 to a Rural
Preservation Lot. Therefore, 1 request, on behalf of my clients. Glen and Pamela Russell, that
you approve this Application.
Kimberly M. Athey
HARRISON JOHNSTON, PLC
21 South Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601
P.O. Box 809 Winchester, Virginia 22604
Telephone 540.667.1266
Facsimile 540.667.1312
March 30, 2006
Mrs. June Wilmot, Chair
Frederick County Planning Commission
412 Westside Station Drive
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Mrs. Wilmot:
MAR 3 1'_s
Stephen L Pettier, Jr.
Direct F 540.545.8582
pe ttler @harrison- johnston.com
Mobile 540.664.5134
Re: Rezoning Application #17 -05 for Russell Glendobbin; Adjoining property of Harley
and Roxie Ostlund
Please be advised that I represent Harley and Roxie Ostlund. They are the owners of lot 15
of the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision. This property adjoins the lots proposed to be re -zoned in the
above referenced application which comes before the Planning Commission on April 5, 2006. In
fact, 36.5387 acres of the land proposed for rezoning (over half) is the rural preservation lot created
during the subdivision approval of the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision. There is an easement on my
clients' property which is referenced in the Russell Glendobbin proffer statement (dated March 10,
2006) and the impact analysis dated March 2006. The Ostlunds have sought my counsel regarding
concerns they have about the easement and the deed of dedication relative to the rural preservation
lot. The Ostlunds have asked me to report my findings to you and the other members of the planning
commission (who I have copied with this letter). My findings are as follows.
When the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision was created, as deed of dedication with restrictions
was granted in favor of the property owners in the subdivision. This was recorded on January 9,
2003 in the Clerk's office for Frederick County. The deed of dedication incorporates the subdivision
plat which creates the lots in the subdivision. On the plat, there is set forth an easement titled "50'
PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT" from the cul de sac at the end of Union View Lane, 25 feet of
which runs across my clients lot (lot 15) and 25 feet which runs on lot I6. There is no reservation
of the noted easement by the declarant of the subdivision recited in the deed of dedication. However,
there is a note on the plat, which reads as follows:
The proposed private driveway /road is not built according to street specifications of and will not be
maintained by, the V rginiaDepartmentofTranspor tationorFrederickCounty. The improvement and
maintenance of said driveway /road shall be the sole responsibility of the owners of lots which are
provided with access via the driveway /road. Said driveway /roads will not be considered for inclusion
into the state secondary system until they meet the applicable construction standards of the Virginia
Department of Transportation. The cost of bringing said driveway /road to acceptable standards shall
not be borne by the Virginia Department of Transportation nor by Frederick County.
Letter to Frederick County Planning Commission,
March 30, 2006
Page 2
The plat also sets forth the following note on the 36.5387 acre lot which is the subject of rezoning:
40 %RESERVE LOT 36.5387 AC. (CANNOT BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED PER SECTION 165
54D ZONING ORDINANCE)
A copy of the page showing these notes is attached with this letter.
The Russell's proffer statement, at paragraph 11.3, sets forth their proffer to create a "private
gated connection between the internal road network for the project and Union View Lane for
emergency access. Said connection shall be extended from the Property across the existing 50 -foot
access easement within the Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision to the current terminus of Union View
Lane." This is the easement shown to be on the Ostlund's property (in part).
Given these facts, I have advised the Ostlunds regarding their rights relative to the easement
on their property and the deed of dedication as follows:
1. The deed of dedication does not appear to grant the 50' access easement in favor of the
"Reserve Lot." As this is not expressed in the deed of dedication, Virginia law requires one
to look to the plat. The note on the plat expressly states that the easement was not granted
to VDOT as the public roads in the subdivision were. Instead the note states that the
"improvement and maintenance of said driveway /road shall be the sole responsibility of the
owners of lots which are provided with access via the driveway /road." The "owners of lots
which are provided access" are arguably the owners oflots 16 and 15 as the Reserve Lot was
created to be set aside for the benefit of the subdivision as a whole. Thus, there is an issue
as to whether or not the "Reserve Lot" in the rezoning application has a right to use the
easement on lots 15 and 16.
2. As a matter of law in Virginia, "no use may be made of the easement which is different from
that established at the time of its creation and which imposes an additional burden upon the
servient estate." Hayes v. Aquia Marina Inc. 243 Va. 255, 414 S.E.2d 820 (1992), citing
Cushman Corporation v. Barnes, 204 Va. at 253, 129 S.E.2d at 639 -40 (1963). Under the
instant facts, if it is assumed that the 50' access easement is granted in favor of the Reserve
Lot, the joinder of that lot with an additional 30 acres and the subdivision of the resulting
parcel into 60 lots creates an enormous additional burden on the Ostlund's lot 15. At the
time the easement was granted, it was granted in favor of a rural preservation lot. Now it is
proposed to serve as an access to a 60 home subdivision (although admittedly not a primary
access). The result of such a change of use is that the easement is therefore extinguished as
set forth in the Cushman opinion. See also, Ellis v Simmons, ions, 270 Va. 371, 619 S.E.2d 88
(2005).
3. The note on the plat pertaining to the fact that the Reserve Lot cannot be further subdivided
arguably prohibits the owner of the lot from doing so. The deed of dedication expressly
Letter to Frederick County Planning Commission,
March 30, 2006
Page 3
allow the owners of lots in Glendobbin Ridge to enforce its terms. The deed of dedication
contains conflicting restrictions regarding subdivision of the Reserve Lot. It is exempted
from a general restriction imposed on all other lots in the subdivision (paragraph 16), but
imposes a restriction in the plat. Virginia Code 15 2 -2265 provides that the recordation of
a valid plat conveys the rights set forth therein to the locality designated. This is regardless
of there being a deed of dedication or statement in a deed of dedication specifying the rights.
See, Burns v. Board of Supervisors, Stafford County, 226 Va. 506, 312 S.E.2d 731 (1984).
Thus the Russells are deemed to have granted the right to enforce the "no further
subdivision" restriction set forth in the subdivision plat to the Board of Supervisors of
Frederick County as a matter of law.
4. The Ostlunds have a cause of action against the Russells to stop them from subdividing the
Reserve Lot as the plat of the subdivision which they relied upon when they purchased their
property in 2004 expressly states that the Reserve Lot will not be subdivided. Thus, under
principles of equity, the Russells should be estopped from now subdividing land which the
public record appears to restrict. Any ambiguity created in the deed of dedication and plat
drafted by the Russells is their doing and it would be unjust to allow the Russells to benefit
from this to the detriment of the innocent purchasers of the lots in the Glendobbin Ridge
Subdivision.
The Ostlunds understand that with the exception of the rights granted to the County as set
forth in item No. 3, the issues set fort are theirs to pursue against the Russells. However, they ask
that you give consideration to these matters in weighing the decision to approve the rezoning request.
Hopefully your decision will obviate their need to take independent action.
Thank you for your courtesy and attention to the Ostlund's concerns. Should you or any
member of the Planning Commission have any questions in any regard, please do not hesitate to
contact me. With best regards, I am
Ve t trul
y
St- hf n L. Pettler, Jr.
SLP /jdw
Enclosure
Cc: All Members of the Frederick County Planning Commission
Susan Eddy, Frederick County Planning (By hand delivery)
Mr Mrs. Ostlund
43 -4-
N 5 �1 3 R q Q G /CU
10 CTU R
in
m
m
m
0
m
N
M
o f
U z
a
F 4 tD
0
let
O
z
w
J
1
67 E
lot 73
43 -9 -73
RA VACANT
tP
0
SPRING
1
MCKOWN
43 -A -I5
RA VACANT
I PURSTIINAU SURVEYING' (540) 662 -9323
111 SOUTH LOUDOUN STREET
WINCHESTER VIRGINIA 22601
The proposed private drMway /road Is not built according to
street specilicallons of and will not be maintained by, the Virginia
Department of bnspotlgion or Ftederlck County. The Improve-
ment end maintenance al aid driveway /roaii shell be the sole
responsibility of the owning of Iota which are provided with access
vie the driveway /toad. Said driveway /roads will not be-
considered for inclusion into the state secondary system until they
:meal the applicable construction standards of the Virginia
Department of Transportation. The cost of bringing Bald
driveway /road to ecceptsble standards shell not be borne by the
Veginle Department of Ttatsportation nor by Frederick County.
FINAL PLAT
RURAL PRESERVATION SUBDIVISION
GLENDOBBIN RIDGE
STONEVALL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
VALLEY,SU8D SECTION 4
ALL LOTS IN THE NAME OF MA)2SHALL MILLS INC.
lot '72 RA i lot 71 RA II lot 70 RA
43 -9 -72 VACANT 43 -9 -71 VACANIr VACANT 4
1 N 68 °01'07 "V 1519.94' 43 -9 -70 w mz
I°• BR (0 01 Q
°M
40 7. RESERVE LOT
36.5387 AC.
(CANNOT BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED
PER SECTION 165 -54D OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE)
5 68 °09'S9 "E 1220
1
LOT 16
5°' aRL
%DRAIN
FIELD
N
t,
1
0
n
LOT IS i n
rev 10/10.'02
1—
z
cr
4
0
4
4
Ct
co d
o co
m
M
1
c
March 30, 2006
Susan K. Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner
The Department of Planning Development
107 N. Kent St., 2 "d Floor, Winchester, VA 22601
Ms. Eddy,
My name is J.P. Darlington and I am writing to you to formally express my
concerns over the proffered rezoning application, #17-05 of Russell
Glendobbin. I own land adjoining two sides of the Russell property in
question. I have three hundred acres which consists of 51 5- acre lots and a
45- acre parcel on which I live. All of this land is part of Spring Valley
Estates. My land extends from Rt. 37 to large lots along Glendobbin Rd.
I have a number of concerns and objections to this request for rezoning.
First, the requested land use is inconsistent with the surrounding area. The
proposal for less than 1/2-acre lots would be adjacent to land owned by me
and the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision, created in 2002,
which contains two- to five -acre lots and a large set -aside parcel which
together meet the RA zoning of the area specifying an average density of
one home per five acres. Most subdivisions along Glendobbin Road, inside
of the UDA, contain lots of five acres or even greater. Most other parcels in
the immediate vicinity are zoned RA and contain either five -acre home sites
or large orchards.
Second, the Preservation Parcel, the 40% set -aside parcel with 36.54 acres
(Parcel 43 -A -16) established in 2002, should remain "preserved Families
in the adjacent Glendobbin Ridge subdivision recently purchased their lots
with the expectation that the set -aside parcel would remain that way. Also,
it seems clear that the UDA line in this area of the Stonewall District seems
to follow no natural boundaries nor follow any zoning logic. It is my
opinion that even though the current UDA would double the value of my
property I feel that the UDA is inappropriate for this area and should be
lifted.
Third, high density communities do not exist in this area, what is being
proposed will reshape this entire community and pave the way for more of
this type of development.
Fourth, in the rezoning request, this requested high- density subdivision
adjoins the industrial park so there is real concern about the likelihood of
running a street into the industrial park which would result in a mix of
residential and industrial traffic through the industrial park as well as
through residential areas for cut over access to Glendobbin, Apple Pie
Ridge, and Rt. 522.
Fifth, VDOT estimates a traffic increase of an additional 1300 trips daily on
Glendobbin Rd., Payne Rd., Welltown Pike, and Apple Pie Ridge. These
additional trips are on top of the already existing traffic and a lot of this
additional traffic would happen during the worst times when the road system
out here is already flooded with the surge when school lets out and work
shifts change. As it is the access to this area off of Welltown Pike to the east
and Apple Pie Ridge to the west is backed up in the mornings and
afternoons.
In closing I urge you to deny this request for rezoning because the proposed
high- density subdivision is not compatible with the surrounding area and
would create serious traffic issues.
Sincerely,
J.P. Darlington
Planning Commission Public Hearing for the Russell Glendobbin Rezoning
Sign -up Sheet to speak during the public hearing
Name (please print)'-
I diI Ss
Name (please print)'
5'C /c'q Y4//l /3
Name (please print
k)iNAh
Name (please print
Name (Pie* print)
Name (please print);.
ar Y11 l t-IS
Warne '(please print)
Name (please print)
•�•.•sition
(c cle one)
Su po or
sition
(circle one)
.ortor
1... `ion?
(circle one)
pe `ion
(circle one)
Support or •,y,
Opposition=2
(circle one)
Support or;
Opposition
(circle one)
Support or;
Opposition
(circle one)
Support or-
Opposition
(circle one)
Support or
Opposition
(circle one)
Street
City
Address
11/ 7'2 l-Wag OR_
C.IearbtoL V�Y
Street
City
Address
/l 7Pai o 7/ /7 /y t_
D i,ntra i
App Street 3 i�
090 pp r t
C■ry
E
Address
p
Street p O S hp
City \Vc'‘5-0kr VYy 22(„o:
dd ess
Street
3 Z v o,J tes,6 L /r e
city AJij Ste/e v4
Street
City
Address
22Z cA to N V' rzv.+
w tr'cr/ ,cSr k /Z yr
Address
Street ZC...k
City
Street
City
Address
Street
City
Address
Street
City
Address
Street
City
Address
Street
City
Address
Magisterial Distract,
Sf ohtwa 1�
Magisterial District
00 qad
Magisterial District
S r.) j t
Magisterial District
Magisterial District
`skret,3q l I
Magisterial •District'i
Stone wa-
Magisterial District
STc ew
Magisterial District
Ste- I
Mag Distric
jF
M agisterial Dis trict•_,?
3y t a r�"�c
Magisterial District
Magisterial District
Magisterial District
Planning Commission Public Hearing for the Russell-Glendobbin Rezoning
Sign-up Sheet to speak during the public hearing
Name (please print)
0 #42inztr., Se4 tte
Name (kaaie'printy
Name (please print)
Name (please print)
Narrie
•a2Name (PleaS`e print),,•.
Nagle (please print)ie
Name (please print):
i'in6 print)"
print)
Nainelplease
Name'(please kint)
Name (please print)
-Sijorto r)
Opp siticib
le one)
Support'or
Opposition:?,
(circle one)
Support �r
OPposition
(circle one)
..yOpposition 7.
(circle one)
Support
OIDID2stti9n
(circle one)
Support or
OPPosition?,
(circle one)
Opposition (circle one)
.SUpportbr
},.OPPOSition?t.:
(circle one)
0PPOSitio‘ri 4 1
(circle one)
SUpportor
Opposition
(circle one)
:StippOrtiCf,./.:;;;;;;
(circle one)
Support or 7
Opposition
(circle one)
Support
OppOsition
(circle one)
Address 4g
Street 77 )11° V4 0/4-0
cit fri4Ittn- ts 4 et Alit.
Street
City
Address
Street
City
AcioresS"
Street
City
Address
Street
City
Address
Street
City
AddresS
Street
City
Address-
Street
City
Street
City
Address
Stree:
City
Address
Street
City
Street
City
Address
Street
City
Address
i r ttaa,kiC Ccii
Magisterial District" r
Magisterial District*
Magisterial District
a.. 41
Magisterial District;
Magisterial District;
Magisterial District'
Magisterial Pistnctk
ttl::71*.aitttitt:
Magistenal.Distnot
Magisterial District,.
Mad !Stege
Magisterial Distnct
Magisterial District
1
Planning Commission Public Hearing for the Russell Glendobbin Rezoning
Sign -up Sheet to speak during the public hearing
Name (please print);.
Mina C)L/esvt I'd t2
p g ame (please print)
KA c
ame {please pant) -n
C /)'milY 77 /n PSo n1
Name (please print)
heriv S. IE/4 -ct_
Name' (please print):
Name (please print)
Name (please print)
••por or:
.8 •sition
(circle one)
%SuPP .?or
pQsdion
(c le one)
r Sup ort or
Opp sito
(c le one)
S rt or
Opp sition
(c le one)
cSujpport or)
Opposition.?
(cirgIyf one)
Su •.o or
•ppo' Lion
(ci I- one)
Support or
Opposition
(circle one)
Suppo o r
Opposition
(circle one)
Support or
Opposition.
(circle one)
Support or;t
Opposition
(circle one)
Support of
Opposition
(circle one)
Suppoit or
Opposition
(circle one)
Support
Opposition
(circle one)
A/ Addres
Streel9 /4- Pay Pit /K
City (NI N�rtQ�3'CH
!J Address
Street g /9 f a yA C
City j r kGeCRyt �i�
Street
City
Address
4 /4'S06NIa 6 /JJ
Street
City
Addr, ss
307�7� two
Street
City
Address
/3,Z wt I.k Drive.
Street
City
Street
City
Address
Street
City
Street
City
Street
City
Stree:
City
Address
Street
City
Address
Magisterial. District
SfrltwA"
f
Ma gisterial District,,,
S .c4 tc C
Magisterial District;
4�a ✓sZ 4,
Magisterial District>
Magisterial District
Sl-oKc iv-ea II
Ma g stertal p istrict
MagistenaLDistrict
i t
Magisterial Di`str
Magisterial District
e r t
Mag sterial District_'.
Magisterial Distript
Magisterial District
Magisterial District
Planning Commission Public Hearing for the Russell-Glendobbin Rezoning
Sign-up Sheet to speak during the public hearing
4 1
Nains (please print)...
ti
(z--Qog L 6
NarnelPieaSe printy
/4.: 5,
•J arTle (PlOae!'..0.
Line/sof/
Name (please print)
Name
/c4 /4 7
1
Name (please print)
zanno5chnoder
Histarria (plea'Se rint)
Pie•--4 A 01/4",-
Name (please print)v
-Jpr (AU o VIT7
p4Oriqtreqe401:01rir41-•
ATh 6Th
1;
Name(pI&asa print)'
h4 ()hArf Orb
Name (OleaSePrint)
VE
'Nati; (Please print).
Warne (please print)
Narne (please'print)
rt23-
ition
(c le one)
PP
Oppo ion
(c e one)
Oupp
Opp
'pen.?
le one)
ort or
n
e one)
(c1
one)
0 or
ppoei
one
,Supp
Tqkp ition
le one).
n uPP
S• OP itiori
(Ci one)
Suppo orci.
e one)
N.554alit
SYRP
(circle one)
Support or
Opposition?
(circle one)
Support or
Opposition
(circle one)
Street
City
Address
Address
Street
City 12 C ita" DC4
Address
Street
Street
.53 6c,l,,„„ I
City
Address
Street /1/47 9/t /42 yi;ei tcJt
Cit 4-€"/Z 5 1/21
Addi
t-&) ZA /OS 7744.-
Street
COY /(4 JeiltA r rAgA_ Cr.
Address
Street
to V 0,,
City
Address
street /93 Ptt4
City (...v/A; e GT en.. 44
Address
Street -/Gt, tob
City tA I NC rizsist_ V/1 Z ZCOCJt
4
Street
Ctty
AddresS
Street
City
Address
Street
City
Address
MagistelatDistricc
MagisteriatDietript•
itgracfr.e.,
Magieter District
Magisterial Distriet-'
Magisterial
JO i3OCCIL(
Magisterial: DiettictA,•,.
ssrantw
4
Addres
Street "01 010 10 tea
City 1
Addre
Street 299
City
r
Magisterial District
STE.WEW/i t_
fl
Magisterial
Magisterial District
Staive
71) A
4611#: PiStrict.
&II NE40
Magisterial
District
Ju(: -01 -06 02:O1pm From -543 7004
RONAI.O LEWIS NAPO.R
J. DANIEL POLE 11
RINBERIY M. AThEY
(:UFF'ORO L. ATHIW JA
.6 DANIEI. POND Ill
JOHN. BELT.
Facsimile: (540) 667 -0370
John Riley, County Administrator
County of Frederick
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear John:
540 635 Tit
NAPIER, POND, ATHEY ATHE?, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AI' LAW
:5 N. ROYAI.AYL•'NUE
W. 1.10X S'1.5
FRONT ROYAL, V(R(.INIA 226:W
June 1, 2006
T -820 P.001/001 F -746
PHONE 1540)636-2013
MX (S10)635 -7004
E wr,:r.(90np: slaw c.,
PI.1 REPLY TO:
P.O. BOX 145
Re: Request to Move Date of Public Hearing on Rezoning Application #17 -05 (Russell
Glendobbin)
My firm represents Glen W. Russell and Pamela L. Russell with respect to Rezoning
Application #17 -05 relating to Tax Map Parcels 43- A -15(B) and 43 -A -16 containing
approximately 67.73 acres located in the Stonewall Magisterial District of Frederick County
(Russell- Glendobbin). As a result of scheduling conflicts related to another matter, I request
that the Public Hearing before the Frederick County Board of Supervisors be retnoved from
the June 14, 2006 Agenda and placed on the June 28, 2006 Agenda for Public Hearing and
Final Action.
1 apologize for any inconvenience related to my request, however, I believe it is
important that I be able to attend this meeting on behalf of my client.
Lastly, if you are amenable to my request, at your earliest convenience, please confirm
in writing that the date of the Public Hearing has been moved.
Cc: Eric Lawrence, Director of Planning
Facsimile: (540) 665 -6395
Singe el
Clifford L. e y, Jr.
CSRRORATE'.
Chantilly
VIRGINIA OFFICES:
Clank Ily
Bridgewater
Fredericksburg
Leesburg
Richmond
Virginia Beach
Winchester
Woodbridge
LABORATORIES:
Chantilly
Fredericksburg
MARYLAND OFFICES.
Baltimore
Columbia
Frederic)
Germantown
Hollywood
Hum Valley
WE`T VIRGINIA
OFFICE'.
Martinsburg
T 540.667 2139
F 540 665 0493
117 East Piccadilly Slreel
Winchester, VA
22601
Patton Harr•ust Associates,pc
Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Arch'rects.
April 11, 2006
Mr. John R. Riley, Jr.
County Administrator
Frederick County, Virginia
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
1
RE: Russell Glendobbin Rezoning Application Amendments
Dear Mr. Riley:
In recognition of concerns of both the Frederick County Planning Commission and
citizens of Frederick County, our client has decided to amend the Russell Glendobbin
rezoning application to both remove the existing Glendobbin Ridge preservation tract
from the proposed rezoning and to decrease the total number of homes from a
proffered maximum of 60 dwelling units to 45 dwelling units. These changes are
significant and have been addressed through a revised proffer statement and generalized
development plan, both dated April 11, 2006. At the April 5, 2006 Planning
Commission meeting, the Planning Commission voted to deny the waiver needed for
the existing preservation tract which eliminated the need for a vote on the rezoning
itself. As the waiver is no longer needed for the application and due to the fact that the
scale of the project has decreased, we would like to request that the proposed rezoning
be sent back to the Planning Commission in order to obtain a recommendation based
upon the merits of the amended application.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Patton Harris Rust Associates
Patrick R. Sowers
PRS
Enclosure Revised Proffer Statement
cc: Susan Eddy, Frederick County Planning
APR 1 1 M
P: \Planning \RetoringApp /icakons \Frederick County \Paramount Orrick \PC ProfferArnend Lerner 032806.doc
RONALD IFAVIS NAPIER
J. DANIEL POND 11
KIMBERLY M. AMEN'
CLIFFORD L. AYH EY JR.
J. DANIEL POND III
JOHN S. BELL
Dear Planning Cormnissioners:
NAPIER, POND, ATHEY ATHEY, P.C.
All LO RN EYS Ar LAW
35 N. ROYAL AVENUE
Y.O. BOX 395
FRONT ROYAI, VIRGINIA 22630
April 4, 2006
Members of the Frederick County Planning Commission
PHONE (540) 635 -2123
PAX (540) 635 -7004
lawyers @npaalaw
PLEASE REPLY TO.
PO. BOX 395
Re: Memorandum of Law Related to Application for Rezoning of Tax Map Parcels 43 -A-
15(B) and 43 -A -16 Containing 67.73 Acres Located in the Stonewall Magisterial
District of Frederick County (Russell Glendobbin)
The 67.7242 acre Russell Glendobbin property which is the subject matter of this
rezoning application consists of two parcels, one of which is 36.6389 acres (Parcel A) and the
other is 31.1853 acres (Parcel B). The entire area of the site is located within the Urban
Development Area (UDA). Parcel A is the preservation parcel "40% parcel of the
Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision, a rural preservation subdivision totaling sixteen lots that was
approved by Frederick County in 2002.
Parcel A is situated at the south end of the Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision adjacent to
Stonewall Industrial Park. Parcel B extends north from Parcel A to Glendobbin Road, and is
immediately east and adjacent to lots 3 through 16 of Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision.
It is important to note that the acreage comprising the Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision
was located within the UDA at the time of subdivision approval.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
The foregoing Memorandum of Law addresses the following questions presented: (1)
Whether the applicant has the right under Virginia law and the Code of Frederick County to
apply for this rezoning when a portion of the land was the Rural Preservation Parcel (40%
parcel) of Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision; and (2) Whether the Frederick County Planning
Commission would be acting in a manner consistent with the comprehensive plan and the
county zoning ordinance by approving the.application for rezoning to Residential Performance
(RP) when the land is within the Urban Development Area?
APR 5 2006 s
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The 67.7242 acre Russell Glendobbin property lies wholly within the Urban
Development Area (UDA) of Frederick County, with the majority of the acreage also within
the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA).
2. The site is located adjacent to the Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision, a rural preservation
subdivision created by the applicant that is currently developing with single family detached
units on 2 -acre lots.
3. The proposed development of the Russell Glendobbin property will provide a transition
from the more intensive land uses within Stonewall Industrial Park to the low density
residential development pattern that extends north and west from this area.
4. Approximately 37 acres of the site is platted as the preservation parcel (40% parcel) of
the existing Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision.
5. A Rural Preservation Parcel is normally reserved exclusively for open space or
agricultural uses; however, Section 165- 54(D)(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance
encourages the Board of Supervisors to release a preservation parcel that is within the UDA
from such development restrictions.
6. The rezoning of the site for single family residential development is consistent with the
Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, which expressly calls for suburban residential uses to
predominate on this property because it is wholly within the UDA.
7. The integration of average one acre lots contained within this proposal will create an
alternative residential development pattern that will ultimately enhance consumer choice and
foster a dynamic housing market, both of which are key objectives of the Frederick County
Comprehensive Plan.
8. The Applicant has offered a proffer program that will appropriately and effectively
mitigate the impacts of this development.
9. The portion of the UDA wherein the Russell Glendobbin property is located is a
transitional area that currently includes light industrial, low density residential, and agricultural
land uses.
10. By introducing alternative lot sizes served by public facilities to an area of relatively
low residential densities, this proposal will result in an appropriately diverse residential
development.
11. The proposed rezoning of the subject acreage from RA (Rural Areas) to RP
(Residential Performance) is consistent with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy
2
Plan within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area
(SWSA).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Section 15.2 -2223 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, provides for the
preparation and adoption of a Comprehensive Plan by each locality in the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
Virginia Code Section 15.2 -2223 states in pertinent part that "the local planning
commission shall prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan for the physical development
of the territory within its jurisdiction and every governing body shall adopt a comprehensive
plan for the territory under its jurisdiction.
In the preparation of a comprehensive plan, the Planning Commission is required by the
Commonwealth to make careful and comprehensive surveys and studies of the existing
conditions and trends of growth, and of the probable future requirements of its territory and
inhabitants. The Comprehensive Plan must be made with the purpose of guiding and
accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory which will,
in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health,
safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the inhabitants, including
the elderly and persons with disabilities. (See Section 15.2 -2223, Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended)
The Commonwealth also requires that the Comprehensive Plan designate the general or
approximate location, character, and extent of each feature shown on the plan and indicate
where existing lands or facilities are proposed to be extended, widened, removed, relocated,
vacated, narrowed, abandoned, or changed in use as the case may be."
The plan, with the accompanying maps, plats, charts, and descriptive matter, must also
show the locality's long -range recommendations for the general development of the territory
covered by the plan. That plan must include, but need not be limited to:
The designation of areas for various types of public and private development and use.
such as different kinds of residential, including age restricted, housing; business; industrial;
agricultural; mineral resources; conservation; recreation; public service; flood plain and
drainage; and other areas;
The state also requires the preparation of an official map and capital improvements
program, a subdivision ordinance, a zoning ordinance and zoning district maps, mineral
resource district maps and agricultural and forestall district maps, where applicable. (See
Virginia Code Section 15.2 -2223, et seq.)
Generally, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2 -2223, the County of Frederick has
prepared a Comprehensive Plan along with an Official Zoning Map. Moreover, the Frederick
County government has designated certain areas of the county for residential development
which it refers to as its Urban Development Area.
Because the 67 acre Russell Glendobbin parcels are clearly within the Urban
Development Area as designated by the Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors pursuant to its authority under Virginia Code Section 15.2 -2223, an outright denial
of a rezoning petition seeking a residential zoning classification for this particular site would be
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and potentially subject Frederick County to litigation
to enforce its Comprehensive Plan by Glen and Pamela Russell.
In addition, Section 165 -54(D) of the Frederick County Code which pertains to Rural
Areas Districts and Rural Preservation Lots states as follows:
1. Within the RA Rural Areas District, lots as small as two acres shall be permitted on
tracts over 20 acres in size, subject to the following:
a. Forty percent of the parent tract must remain intact as a contiguous parcel.
b. This acreage must be designated prior to the division of the fourth lot.
c. No future division of this portion of the parent tract will be permitted.
2. Exception to single forty percent parcel. In cases where excessive topography or other
natural features of a site create a situation where a higher quality subdivision design resulting
in less physical and /or visual disruption could be achieved by allowing two residual parcels to
be created, the Planning Commission may permit the 40% to be made up of two parcels.
3. Board waiver of division restriction. Ten years from the date of the creation of any
forty- percent parcel and following a public hearing, the Board of Supervisors may release the
parcel from the restrictions of Subsection D(1) through the process of rezoning, provided that
the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time. Any
forty percent parcel which is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) at the time of its
creation or is included within the UDA as a result of a future expansion of the UDA, shall be
eligible for rezoning at that point and shall not be subject to the ten -year restriction on
rezoning. (See Section 165- 54(D), Code of Frederick County)
Specifically, Frederick County Code Section 165- 54(D)(3) states that any 40% parcel
which is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) at the time of its creation or is included
within the UDA as a result of the future expansion of the UDA, shall be eligible for rezoning
at that point and shall not be subject to the ten -year restriction on a change of zoning and
further resuhdivision.
As a result thereof, even though the 36.5389 acre Parcel A which is contained within
the Russell Glendobbin site is currently a preservation parcel as defined in Frederick County
Code Section 165 -54(D) as a result of the Russell's 2002 subdivision which created Glendobbin
4
Ridge Subdivision, that Rural Preservation Parcel "shall still be eligible for rezoning" since at
the time of its creation as a Rural Preservation Parcel within the Glendobbin Ridge Rural
Areas Subdivision, the Rural Preservation Parcel was located within the Urban Development
Area.
In conclusion, this Application for rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
for Frederick County since the land is wholly within the Urban Development Area. This
Planning Commission recommended and the County Board of Supervisors adopted a future
Land Use Map which reflects that the subject property should be rezoned to residential
performance as permitted in the Urban Development Area and the Code of Frederick County.
This remains true even though a portion of the property was subdivided in 2002 to a Rural
Preservation Lot. Therefore, I request, on behalf of my clients. Glen and Pamela Russell, that
you approve this Application.
Kimberly M. Athey
HARRISON JOHNSTON, PLC
21 South Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601
P.O. Box 809 Winchester, Virginia 22604
Telephone 540.667.1266
Facsimile 540.667.1312
March 30, 2006
Mrs. June Wilmot, Chair
Frederick County Planning Commission
412 Westside Station Drive
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Mrs. Wilmot:
MAR 3 1' 2006
Stephen L. ?Pettier, Jr.
Direct Fax x =540:545.8582
pettler@harrison-johnston.com
Mobile 540.664.5134
Re: Rezoning Application #17 -05 for Russell Glendobbin; Adioining property of Harley
and Roxie Ostlund
Please be advised that I represent Harley and Roxie Ostlund. They are the owners of lot 15
of the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision. This property adjoins the lots proposed to be re -zoned in the
above referenced application which comes before the Planning Commission on April 5, 2006. In
fact, 36.5387 acres of the land proposed for rezoning (over half) is the rural preservation lot created
during the subdivision approval of the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision. There is an easement on my
clients' property which is referenced in the Russell Glendobbin proffer statement (dated March 10,
2006) and the impact analysis dated March 2006. The Ostlunds have sought my counsel regarding
concerns they have about the easement and the deed of dedication relative to the rural preservation
lot. The Ostlunds have asked me to report my findings to you and the other members of the planning
commission (who I have copied with this letter). My findings are as follows.
When the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision was created, as deed of dedication with restrictions
was granted in favor of the property owners in the subdivision. This was recorded on January 9,
2003 in the Clerk's office for Frederick County. The deed ofd edicati on incorporates the subdivision
plat which creates the lots in the subdivision. On the plat, there is set forth an easement titled "50'
PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT" from the cul de sac at the end of Union View Lane, 25 feet of
which runs across my clients lot (lot 15) and 25 feet which runs on lot 16. There is no reservation
of the noted easement by the declarant of the subdivision recited in the deed of dedication. However,
there is a note on the plat, which reads as follows:
The proposed private driveway /road is not built according to street specifications of and will not be
maintained by, the Virginia Department of Transportation or Frederick County. The improvement and
maintenance of said driveway /road shall be the sole responsibility of the owners of lots which are
provided with access via the driveway /road. Said driveway /roads will not be considered for inclusion
into the state secondary system until they meet the applicable construction standards of the Virginia
Department of Transportation. The cost of bringing said driveway /road to acceptable standards shall
not be borne by the Virginia Department of Transportation nor by Frederick County.
Letter to Frederick County Planning Commission,
March 30, 2006
Page 2
The plat also sets forth the following note on the 36.5387 acre lot which is the subject of rezoning:
40 RESERVE LOT 36.5387 AC. (CANNOT BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED PER SECTION 165
54D ZONING ORDINANCE)
A copy of the page showing these notes is attached with this letter.
The Russell's proffer statement, at paragraph 11.3, sets forth their proffer to create a "private
gated connection between the intemal road network for the project and Union View Lane for
emergency access. Said connection shall be extended from the Property across the existing 50 -foot
access easement within the Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision to the current terminus of Union View
Lane." This is the easement shown to be on the Ostlund's property (in part).
Given these facts, I have advised the Ostlunds regarding their rights relative to the easement
on their property and the deed of dedication as follows:
1. The deed of dedication does not appear to grant the 50' access easement in favor of the
"Reserve Lot." As this is not expressed in the deed of dedication, Virginia law requires one
to look to the plat. The note on the plat expressly states that the easement was not granted
to VDOT as the public roads in the subdivision were. Instead the note states that the
"improvement and maintenance of said driveway /road shall be the sole responsibility of the
owners of lots which are provided with access via the driveway /road." The "owners of lots
which are provided access" are arguably the owners oflots 16 and 15 as the Reserve Lot was
created to be set aside for the benefit of the subdivision as a whole. Thus, there is an issue
as to whether or not the "Reserve Lot" in the rezoning application has a right to use the
easement on lots 15 and 16.
2. As a matter of law in Virginia, "no use may be made of the easement which is different from
that established at the time of its creation and which imposes an additional burden upon the
servient estate." Haves v. Aquia Marina, Inc., 243 Va. 255, 414 S.E.2d 820 (1992), citing
Cushman Corporation v. Barnes, 204 Va. at 253, 129 S.E.2d at 639 -40 (1963). Under the
instant facts, if it is assumed that the 50' access easement is granted in favor of the Reserve
Lot, the joinder of that lot with an additional 30 acres and the subdivision of the resulting
parcel into 60 lots creates an enormous additional burden on the Ostlund's lot 15. At the
time the easement was granted, it was granted in favor of a rural preservation lot. Now it is
proposed to serve as an access to a 60 home subdivision (although admittedly not a primary
access). The result of such a change of use is that the easement is therefore extinguished as
set forth in the Cushman opinion. See also, Ellis v. Simmons, 270 Va. 371, 619 S.E.2d 88
(2005).
3. The note on the plat pertaining to the fact that the Reserve Lot cannot be further subdivided
arguably prohibits the owner of the lot from doing so. The deed of dedication expressly
Letter to Frederick County Planning Commission,
March 30, 2006
Page 3
allow the owners of lots in Glendobbin Ridge to enforce its terms. The deed of dedication
contains conflicting restrictions regarding subdivision of the Reserve Lot. It is exempted
from a general restriction imposed on all other lots in the subdivision (paragraph 16), but
imposes a restriction in the plat. Virginia Code 15.2 -2265 provides that the recordation of
a valid plat conveys the rights set forth therein to the locality designated. This is regardless
of there being a deed of dedication or statement in a deed of dedication specifying the rights.
See, Burns v. Board of Supervisors, Stafford County, 226 Va. 506, 312 S.E.2d 731 (1984).
Thus the Russells are deemed to have granted the right to enforce the "no further
subdivision" restriction set forth in the subdivision plat to the Board of Supervisors of
Frederick County as a matter of law.
4. The Ostlunds have a cause of action against the Russells to stop them from subdividing the
Reserve Lot as the plat of the subdivision which they relied upon when they purchased their
property in 2004 expressly states that the Reserve Lot will not be subdivided. Thus, under
principles of equity, the Russells should be estopped from now subdividing land which the
public record appears to restrict. Any ambiguity created in the deed of dedication and plat
drafted by the Russells is their doing and it would be unjust to allow the Russells to benefit
from this to the detriment of the innocent purchasers of the Lots in the Glendobbin Ridge
Subdivision.
The Ostlunds understand that with the exception of the rights granted to the County as set
forth in item No. 3, the issues set fort are theirs to pursue against the Russells. However, they ask
that you give consideration to these matters in weighing the decision to approve the rezoning request.
Hopefully your decision will obviate their need to take independent action.
Thank you for your courtesy and attention to the Ostlund's concerns. Should you or any
member of the Planning Commission have any questions in any regard, please do not hesitate to
contact me. With best regards, I am
SLP /jdw
Enclosure
Cc: All Members of the Frederick County Planning Commission
Susan Eddy, Frederick County Planning (By hand delivery)
Mr Mrs. Ostlund
43-4-
ORR /S R4 A G/C
X Ns 29.19'
2
0
m
N SPRING VALLEY,SUBD SECTION 4
Z lot 73 I ALL LOTS IN THE NAME OF MA SHALL MILLS INC.
43 -9 -73 lot 72 RA i lot 71 RA 1 lot 70 RA
RA VACANT 43 -9 -72 VACANT 43 -9 -71 VACANIr VACANT '4
j N 68°01'07"W 1519.94' 143 -9 -70 O co z
co LD4
DO' BRL (D pl U
4
a
D M. FURTTENAU
NO. 1455
taltoov
suroc4
MCKOWN
43 -A -I5
RA VACANT
40 RESERVE LOT
36.5387 AC.
(CANNOT BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED
PER SECTION 165 -54D OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE)
LOT 16
I FURMINAU SURVEYING (540) 662 -9323
111 SOUTH LOUDOUN STREET
WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601
The proposed private driveway /road Is not built according to
street specifications of and will not be maintained by, the Virginia
Department of 'Transportation or Frederick County. The improve-
ment and mairaenence d add &honey /road shall be the sole
responsibility of the wain of lots which are provided with access
vie the driveway /road. Bald driveway /roads will not be
considered for inclusion into the state secondary system until they
•meet the applicable construction standards of the Virginia
Department of Transportation. Tho cost .of bringing said
drive/my /road to acceptable standards shell not be borne by the
Virginia Department of Transportation nor by Frederick County.
FINAL PLAT
RURRL PRESERVRTION SUBDIVISION
GLENDOBBIN RIDGE
STONEWALL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY. VIRGINIA
50' BRL
DRAIN
FIELD
5 68 °09'59 "E 122Q
1
E
1
441.2'
J
0
LOT Cc I i p
0
rev 10/10.'02
SCALE I" 250'
ctr`1—
ct
W Ch
DATE: SEPT. 16, 2002
c
s
March 30, 2006
Susan K. Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner
The Department of Planning Development
107 N. Kent St., 2'' Floor, Winchester, VA 22601
Ms. Eddy,
My name is J.P. Darlington and I am writing to you to formally express my
concerns over the proffered rezoning application, #17 -05 of Russell
Glendobbin. 1 own land adjoining two sides of the Russell property in
question. I have three hundred acres which consists of 51 5- acre lots and a
45- acre parcel on which I live. All of this land is part of Spring Valley
Estates. My land extends from Rt. 37 to large lots along Glendobbin Rd.
I have a number of concerns and objections to this request for rezoning.
First, the requested land use is inconsistent with the surrounding area. The
proposal for less than -acre lots would be adjacent to land owned by me
and the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision, created in 2002,
which contains two- to five -acre lots and a large set -aside parcel which
together meet the RA zoning of the area specifying an average density of
one home per five acres. Most subdivisions along Glendobbin Road, inside
of the UDA, contain lots of five acres or even greater. Most other parcels in
the immediate vicinity are zoned RA and contain either five -acre home sites
or large orchards.
Second, the Preservation Parcel, the 40% set -aside parcel with 36.54 acres
(Parcel 43 -A -16) established in 2002, should remain "preserved Families
in the adjacent Glendobbin Ridge subdivision recently purchased their lots
with the expectation that the set -aside parcel would remain that way. Also,
it seems clear that the UDA line in this area of the Stonewall District seems
to follow no natural boundaries nor follow any zoning logic. It is my
opinion that even though the current UDA would double the value of my
property I feel that the UDA is inappropriate for this area and should be
lifted.
Third, high density communities do not exist in this area, what is being
proposed will reshape this entire community and pave the way for more of
this type of development.
Fourth, in the rezoning request, this requested high- density subdivision
adjoins the industrial park so there is real concern about the likelihood of
running a street into the industrial park which would result in a mix of
residential and industrial traffic through the industrial park as well as
through residential areas for cut over access to Glendobbin, Apple Pie
Ridge, and Rt. 522.
Fifth, VDOT estimates a traffic increase of an additional 1300 trips daily on
Glendobbin Rd., Payne Rd., Welltown Pike, and Apple Pie Ridge. These
additional trips are on top of the already existing traffic and a lot of this
additional traffic would happen during the worst times when the road system
out here is already flooded with the surge when school lets out and work
shifts change. As it is the access to this area off of Welltown Pike to the east
and Apple Pie Ridge to the west is backed up in the mornings and
afternoons.
In closing I urge you to deny this request for rezoning because the proposed
high- density subdivision is not compatible with the surrounding area and
would create serious traffic issues.
Sincerely,
February 16. 2006
Sincerely,
SKE/bhd
Mr. Patrick Sowers
Patton Harris Rust Associates
117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
RE: Proposed Rezoning of Russell Glendobbin Property #17 -05)
S>siki_AW-A
Susan K. Eddy, AICP
Senior Planner
COUNTY of FREDERIC
Department of Planning and Development
540/665 -5651
FAX: 540 /665 -6395
Dear Patrick:
The Frederick County Planning Commission, at their meeting on February 15, 2006,
granted a postponement of the Russell- Glendobbin Rezoning Application #17 -05 as per
your written request. The application is now scheduled to be heard at a Planning
Commission Public Hearing on April 5, 2006.
If you have any question regarding this action, please feel free to contact me.
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000
i;; RECOPY
Russell Glendobbin
Subject: Russell Glendobbin
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:21:32 -0500
From: "Diane Kearns" <didi @shentel.net>
To: <seddy @co.frederick.va.us>
11
Hey Susan
Just formally noting Fruit Hill's opposition to this rezoning: RP next to orchard with no setback, (shouldn't be an option),
doesn't fit in with neighboring property, technically able but shouldn't be requesting rezoning on set aside so soon. All the things
we spoke of last night
Thanks.... since everyone seemed to think it would go absolutely no where I didn't bother Gary with it.
Diane
I of 1 2/14/2006 3:38 PM
Glendobbin Postponement
Mike,
Thanks,
Patrick
Subject: Glendobbin Postponement
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:44:09 -0500
From: "Patrick R. Sowers" <Patrick.Sowers @phra.com>
Organization: PHR +A
To: "'Mike Ruddy <Mruddy @co.frederick.va.us>
I left you a voicemail but I wanted to send you an e-mail as well to verify the postponement request for the
Russell Glendobbin application. We would like to postpone the public hearing for 60 days in order to revise the
application appropriately.
Patrick R. Sowers
Planner
Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc
117 East Piccadilly Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
P 540.667.2139
F 540.665.0493
www.phra.com
1 of 1 2/15/2006 9:50 AM
\I
CORPORATE:
Chantilly
VIRGINIA OFFICES:
Clalllllly
Bridgewoter
Fredericksburg
Leesburg
Richmond
Virginia Bead,
VVlnchesler
Woodbridge
LABORATORIES:
Chantilly
Fredericksburg
MARYLAND OFFICES:
Ballimore
Columbia
Frederick
Germantown
Hollywood
Hunt Valley
WEST VIRGINIA
OFFICE:
Maolnsburg
r 540.667.2139
F 540.665.0493
117 East Piccadilly Street
Winchester, VA
2260)
Patton Harri dust Associates,pc
Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Archilecls
February 14, 2006
Mr. Michael Ruddy
Deputy Director of Planning
Frederick County Planning
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Russell Glendobbin Public Hearing Postponement Request
FEB 1 4 2006
Dear Mr. Ruddy,
This correspondence is to serve as formal notice that our client wishes to postpone the
public hearing scheduled for the February 15, 2006 Planning Commission meeting for the
Russell Glendobbin rezoning application. Progress is currently being made on both a
revised proffer statement and generalized development plan. As such, the application in
its current state does not reflect the current development scheme of the property. We
respectfully request a postponement of the application until such time that the project
GDP and proffers can be revised.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
PATTON HARRIS RUST ASSOCIATES
Patrick R Sowers, Planner
Russell Glendobbin
Subject: Russell Glendobbin
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 09:07:54 -0500
From: "Patrick R. Sowers" <Patrick.Sowers @phra.com>
Organization: PHR +A
To: "'Eric Lawrence <elawrenc @co.frederick.va.us
"'Susan Eddy' <Seddy @co.frederick.va.us>
CC: "'Chuck Maddox <cmaddox @shentel.net>
Eric,
After discussions with our client, we would like to further delay the Russell- Glendobbin planning commission meeting
date. We would like to place the application on the February 15 PC meeting agenda. Please contact me if you have
any questions or concerns.
Thanks,
Patrick
Patrick R. Sowers
Planner
Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc
117 East Piccadilly Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
P 540.667.2139
F 540.665.0493
www.0hra.com
1 of 1 1/9/2006 9:57 AM
Russell Glendobbin PC Meeting Date
Subject: Russell Glendobbin PC Meeting Date
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:00:16 -0500
From: "Patrick R. Sowers" <Patrick.Sowers @phra.com>
Organization: PHR +A
To: "'Susan Eddy <Seddy @co.frederick.va.us
"'Eric Lawrence <elawrenc @co.frederick.va.us>
CC: "'Chuck Maddox <cmaddox @shentel.net>
Susan and Eric,
This correspondence is to serve as formal notice that our client wishes to postpone advertisement of the Russell
Glendobbin rezoning application. We would like to place the application on the agenda for the first Planning
Commission meeting in February. Please feel free to call if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Patrick
Patrick R. Sowers
Planner
Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc
117 East Piccadilly Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
P 540.667.2139
F 540.665.0493
www.phra.com
I of 1 12/22/2005 4:58 PM