PC 08-19-15 Meeting Agenda
REVISED AGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
August 19, 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) July 15, 2015 Minutes ..................................................................................................... (A)
3) Committee Reports .................................................................................................. (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments ................................................................................................... (no tab)
ACTION ITEM
5) Waiver and Subdivision Request Subdivision #02-15 for Jackson’s Retreat Request,
submitted by Foltz Investment Group LTD., is requesting a waiver(s) of Article V.
Design Standards: §144-17.L Curbs and gutters; §144-18 Sidewalks and pedestrian
walkways; and §144.19 Streetlights. These waivers will enable a subdivision to occur on
this property. The property is located 0.2 miles east of the intersection of Launchris
Drive and Jones Road. The property is identified with Property Identification Number
62-A-50 in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Mr. Cheran ....................................................................................................................... (B)
INFORMATION/DISCUSSION
6) Master Development Plan #04-15 for Hiatt Run Condominiums, submitted by Painter-
Lewis, P.L.C. to develop 11.105 acres of land zoned RP (Residential Performance) District
with 8 garden apartment buildings that have a total of 120 residential units. The subject
properties located near Stephenson at the intersection of Route 11 North and McCann Road
(Route 838) in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property
Identification Numbers 44-A-17 and 44-A-10. Please note this item is presented for
informational purposes only.
Mrs. Perkins ....................................................................................................................... (C)
-2-
7) Self-Storage Facilities in the Rural Areas District. Discussion on revision to the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to include self-storage facilities as a conditional use
in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District.
Mrs. Perkins ..................................................................................................................... (D)
8) Variance Request. Discussion on revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to
revise the variance requirements per the Code of Virginia.
Mrs. Perkins ..................................................................................................................... (E)
9) Setbacks from Agricultural and Forestal Districts. Discussion on amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance to revise the setbacks from parcels within Agricultural and Forestal
Districts in the RA (Rural Areas) District.
Mrs. Perkins ..................................................................................................................... (F)
10) Update on House Bill 2
Mr. Bishop ....................................................................................................................... (G)
11) Kernstown Area Plan – This is a second discussion opportunity on the Kernstown Area
Plan, a proposed amended 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 the Kernstown Area Plan. This Draft Plan is reflective of the
input of the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee, and other groups, and the
valuable public input received through the process. We would like to provide the
Planning Commission with a review of the study and the draft work that has been
completed to date.
Mr. Ruddy ........................................................................................................................ (H)
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 3234
Minutes of July 15, 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 July 15, 2015.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice
Chairman/Opequon District; Robert S. Molden, Opequon District; J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District;
Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; J. Rhodes Marston, Back
Creek District; Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, 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.
ABSENT: Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District;
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; 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 July 15, 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 Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Manuel,
the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda with a revision for this evening’s meeting.
-------------
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Crockett and seconded by Commissioner Manuel,
the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the minutes of their May 20, 2015 and June 17, 2015
meetings.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3235
Minutes of July 15, 2015
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee – 7/13/15
Commissioner Mohn reported, the primary topic of discussion was the initiation of the
update to the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. He noted the first phase being demographic data has been
initiated. He concluded further discussion on this will take place and will continue to move forward.
-------------
Board of Supervisors Report –
Board of Supervisors’ Liaison, Supervisor Robert Hess reported the Board of Supervisors
held a public hearing on Rezoning 02-15 Blue Ridge Youth Soccer Association which was approved. A
public hearing was also held for Conditional Use Permit 01-15 Blue Ridge Youth Soccer Association at
which time a condition was added noting no permanent sound or music amplific ation would be permitted.
The Conditional Use Permit was then approved. A proffer amendment for Abram’s Chase was approved
as well. Mr. Hess noted, the Board of Supervisors would like to request the Planning Department Staff
look into the revenue sharing funds from the Russell 150 property and determine how these funds can be
used elsewhere in the County.
-------------
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.
-------------
PUBLIC HEARING
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.
Action – Recommend Approval
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported this is a request to add
a 175.00+/- acre parcel to the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. Mr. Cheran explained
the District currently has a total of 5,845.90+/- acres and if approved with the additional 175.00+/- acre
parcel, the District would now have a total of 6,020.90+/- acres. Mr. Cheran noted the Agricultural
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3236
Minutes of July 15, 2015
District Advisory Committee (ADAC) unanimously recommended approval of this item at their June 24,
2015 meeting.
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.
There were no questions or comments from Commission members at this time.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Marston and seconded by Commissioner Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the 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.
(Note: Commissioners Oates and Unger were absent from the meeting)
-------------
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 and Agricultural and Forestal District are guaranteed certain protection
as specified in Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia.
Action- Listed separately below
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported in February 2015 the
Frederick County Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) met to consider the eight
Agricultural and Forestal Districts the County currently has. He explained during the review process, the
ADAC found there were parcels less than 5 acres, not in the Land Use Assessment Program, and in an
Agricultural District. Mr. Cheran noted that the ADAC felt this could be placing unintended restrictions
on adjacent properties that would include excessive building setbacks and eliminating opportunity for
placement of buildings on a property. Therefore, the ADAC recommended such properties not be
included in the Agricultural and Forestal Districts.
Mr. Cheran referenced the May 27, 2015 Frederick County Board of Supervisors meeting
at which time the eight 2015-2020 Agricultural and Forestal Districts totaling 11,425 acres were adopted.
He noted forty-six (46) parcels totaling 87 acres were not included in the adopted Agricultural and
Forestal Districts. These 46 parcels were each less than 5 acres and were not participants in the County’s
Land Use Assessment Program. Mr. Cheran reported, as a result the Board of Supervisors requested each
of these parcels be given further consideration and the property owners be given an opportunity to
participate in the evaluation.
Mr. Cheran reported, on June 24, 2015 the ADAC held a meeting to consider the
inclusion of the 46 parcels of less than 5 acres into the County’s Agricultural and Forestal Districts. He
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3237
Minutes of July 15, 2015
noted, the 46 property owners were invited to participate and 10 properties were represented at the
meeting.
Mr. Cheran shared the comments from the Agricultural District Advisory Committee
(ADAC) and the comments are as follows:
Importance of Agricultural Districts and to welcome all who wish to be included
Important to recognize those properties that were part of the original creation of the
Districts, without which the District may not have qualified
Important to recognize that inclusion in the Agricultural District creates impacts (greater
setbacks) on adjacent properties, therefore it must be deemed appropriate to include a
parcel if it is not directly contributing to farm use
Mr. Cheran noted, the ADAC recommended approval for inclusion of all 46 parcels into
the Agricultural District program.
Mr. Cheran reported, Staff notified the 46 property owners as well as the adjoining
property owners. At the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the 46 parcels were organized
into three groups and are as follows:
Group 1 – Parcels not adjacent nor encapsulated by existing Agricultural Districts
Group 2 – Parcels adjacent to existing Agricultural Districts
Group 3 – Parcels encapsulated by existing Agricultural Districts
Commissioner Thomas inquired what the impact to the 46 parcels is if they would not be
included back in the Agricultural and Forestal Districts. Mr. Cheran noted, there would not be any
impacts. He continued, if the parcels were in the Land Use Assessment Program there may be tax
impacts; however, these 46 parcels are not in the Land Use Assessment Program. Commissioner Thomas
asked for clarification on the Agricultural and Forestal District definition. Mr. Cheran reiterated, the
Agricultural and Forestal Districts are established to protect Agricultural and Forestal operations,
recognizes and promotes our agricultural economy, preserves open space, utilizes a tool in land use
actions, and once adopted the Districts become part of the County’s Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Commissioner Dunlap noted, in the event we recommend approval of the 46 parcels to be
included, his concern is the 200 ft. building setback and would there be any form of relief for these
property owners should they want to construct an additional structure and the 200 ft. setback be a factor.
Mr. Cheran explained, the relief that would apply is an application for a Variance to the Board of Zoning
Appeals (BZA).
Commissioner Marston inquired what the minimal amount of acres is for an Agricultural
District to exist. Mr. Cheran responded the creation of an Agricultural and Forestal District starts out
with a core of 200 acres and within a mile radius of that other property owners may choose to join in.
Commissioner Marston asked if taking any of the 46 parcels out would jeopardize the existence of any of
the Districts. Mr. Cheran noted, without the 46 parcels in question today, it would leave a total of 11,513
acres in the eight Agricultural and Forestal Districts and all could remain intact.
Commissioner Thomas commented, it appears none of these parcels could meet the intent
of the Agricultural and Forestal District. He noted, you’re not going to farm on a tenth of an acre, you’re
not going to farm on a half-acre that has a house on it, and therefore it would not be preserving farm or
forest land. Mr. Cheran explained, when assembling the Agricultural and Forestal Districts that is when
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3238
Minutes of July 15, 2015
all of the 46 parcels in question were included. He noted, knowing the setbacks were changed to Rural
Area (RA) study; it did appear it would be a hindrance on adjoining property owners. Commissioner
Thomas stated, it appears for those half-acre or even up to 2 acre parcels this would be giving them
control of land two and three times the size of the property they own; for example, they may own 1 acre
but control 3 or 4 acres of someone else’s property. Mr. Cheran noted, given the setbacks that statement
would be correct.
Commissioner Crockett commented, looking at the aerial photos provided, most of the 46
parcels appear to be residences. Mr. Cheran concurred; they are mostly single family dwellings.
Commissioner Crockett stated, he is in support of preserving agricultural land but also the rights of the
adjacent property owners cannot be ignored.
Commissioner Marston commented, his concern is the County may be headed down a
wrong path should all of the 46 parcels be put back into the Agricultural and Forestal Districts. He stated
the clean-up down the road may be lengthy.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments. The following citizens
came forward to speak.
Mr. John Toney of the Back Creek Magisterial District came forward to speak. Mr.
Toney presented a photo of the Carter Hall property that has an adjacent property which is part of the 46
parcels being discussed. He commented he does not believe a residence and work shop should qualify to
be put in an Agricultural and Forestal District. Chairman Wilmot requested Mr. Cheran identify this
parcel (79-A-10F) via the onscreen map.
Mrs. Joyce Earhart of the Back Creek Magisterial District came forward to speak. Mrs.
Earhart owns the property being referenced by Mr. John Toney. She explained, at the last ADAC meeting
it was noted they were not required to be in the Land Use Assessment Program to be part of an
Agricultural District, therefore they do not understand why their parcel was removed. She stated, as an
owner of a small parcel and a larger adjoining parcel they feel they should be grand fathered in due to the
fact they have been part of the Agricultural and Forestal District for years. She concluded, they
respectfully request their property remain in the Agricultural and Forestal District.
Ms. Sandra Ritenour of the Opequon Magisterial District and the Double Church
Agricultural and Forestal District came forward to speak. Ms. Ritenour explained her property is one of
the 46 parcels in question. She noted, she is grateful this decision is being revisited by the County. Ms.
Ritenour explained her property was part of the family farm which still surrounds her property. She
concluded her request is that the Planning Commission take each parcel individually and reconsider their
placement.
Mr. Larry Earhart of the Back Creek Magisterial District came forward to comment. He
stated his property has been in the district for years and should remain there. He noted the adjacent
neighbors had the opportunity to complain or dispute years ago and no one did so; therefore, he feels no
one should complain now.
Mr. William Schuller of the Shawnee Magisterial District came forward and stated he
would like his property to be put back into the Agricultural and Forestal District.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3239
Minutes of July 15, 2015
Chairman Wilmot asked if there were any other citizens who wished to speak. No one
came forward and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Mohn commented he sees the need to look at a lot of these parcels
individually. He is concerned with the groupings and wants to be sure what is being viewed graphically
is accurate. Mr. Cheran elaborated on the photos noting, they are just an overview and if the parcels are
viewed individually the graphics will be accurate.
Chairman Wilmot explained the 3 grouping to ensure everyone is clear and asked if there
were any questions. There were not questions at that time.
Commissioner Thomas commented, Group 1 (not adjacent to or encapsulated by
Agricultural District) should not be included in the Agricultural and Forestal District. He elaborated,
Group 2 (adjacent to existing Agricultural District) should be evaluated individually and Group 3
(encapsulated by existing Agricultural District) should be included.
Supervisor Hess provided a background of what transpired at the recent Board of
Supervisors meeting. He explained, the night of the meeting it was already a couple days past the
expiration date for the Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The proposal that was presented and was
advertised for the public hearing did not include the 46 parcels. He noted there was no option left for the
Board of Supervisors to add any of the 46 parcels back in to the Districts. The Board of Supervisors
approved the Agricultural and Forestal Districts with these removed and noted the property owners of the
removed 46 parcels had not been notified.
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence commented, Mr. Hess explained it well. He noted
in order to get to tonight all advertisement was complete in all legal aspects, invites were sent to the 46
property owners as well as legal notifications sent to adjacent property owners. Mr. Lawrence noted
every effort has been made to make sure the public is properly notified and aware of what is going on.
Chairman Wilmot reiterated the Groupings to ensure all Commission Members are clear
and able to proceed.
Commissioner Marston inquired if a parcel is removed can that parcel be put back in the
Agricultural and Forestal District after 5 years. Mr. Cheran responded yes, by going through the process
again.
Commissioner Thomas made a motion which was seconded by Commissioner Triplett to
exclude Group 1(not adjacent or encapsulated by existing Agricultural District) and include Group 3
(encapsulated by existing Agricultural District) in the 2015-2020 Agricultural and Forestal District.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval to exclude Group 1(not adjacent or encapsulated by existing Agricultural District)
and include Group 3 (encapsulated by existing Agricultural District) in the 2015-2020 Agricultural and
Forestal District.
(Note: Commissioners Oates and Unger were absent from the meeting)
The remaining 19 parcels, Group 2 (adjacent to existing Agricultural District) were voted on
individually and the results are as follows:
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3240
Minutes of July 15, 2015
PIN(s) 31-A-170 and 31-A-171 A motion was made by Commissioner Mohn, seconded by
Commissioner Dunlap and unanimously approved to include these parcels in the Apple Pie Ridge
Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 85-A-132 A motion was made by Commissioner Mohn, seconded by Commissioner Dunlap and
unanimously approved to include this parcel in the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 44-A-28C Commissioner Thomas clarified the buffer does not extend across the road.
Commissioner Kenney noted that not much agriculture activity can take place on this property.
Commissioner Mohn commented to leave the property in and the impacts are not severe. A motion was
made by Commissioner Mohn, seconded by Commissioner Manuel and passed by majority vote to
include this parcel in the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 55-A-115 A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Kenney and
unanimously approved to exclude this parcel from the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 55-A-117 A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Kenney and
unanimously approved to exclude this parcel from the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 55-A-14 A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Mohn and
unanimously approved to exclude this parcel from the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN(s) 55-A-177 and 55-A-178A Commissioner Thomas clarified the buffer does not extend across
Valley Mill Road. Commissioner Mohn commented these parcels are contiguous to the Agricultural
District and it would be appropriate to keep them in. A motion was made by Commissioner Mohn,
seconded by Commissioner Marston and unanimously approved to include these parcels in the Red Bud
Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 44D-2-6 A motion was made by Commissioner Mohn, seconded by Commissioner Manuel and
approved by majority vote to include this parcel in the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN(s) 73-A-27 and 73-A-28 A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by
Commissioner Triplett and unanimously approved to include these parcels in the South Frederick
Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 74-A-10F Commissioner Thomas clarified the buffer does not extend across the road. He also
noted the property across the road is not developed; therefore, if included it would give this parcel control
of property that is not theirs. A motion was made by Commissioner Dunlap, seconded by Commissioner
Triplett and unanimously approved to exclude this parcel from the South Frederick Agricultural and
Forestal District.
PIN 73-A-34 A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Kenney and
unanimously approved to exclude this property from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal
District.
PIN(s) 73-A-30 and 73-A-30E A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by
Commissioner Molden and unanimously approved to include these parcels in the South Frederick
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3241
Minutes of July 15, 2015
PIN 73-A-30A Commissioner Thomas commented this appears to be a single family dwelling. A
motion made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Molden and approved by majority
vote to exclude this parcel from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 73-A-64A Commissioner Marston commented he knows this property is completely agriculture. A
motion made by Commissioner Marston, seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously approved
to include this parcel in the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District.
PIN 61-A-44 A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Triplett and
unanimously approved to include this parcel in the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District.
(Note: Commissioners Oates and Unger were absent from the meeting)
-------------
Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, Article IV –
Agricultural and Residential District, Part 401 – RA Rural Areas District, §165-401.2 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. Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to include farm breweries, farm distilleries as
permitted uses in the RA (Rural Areas) District.
Action – Recommend Approval
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. Ms. Perkins noted 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 (noted: this was a
major change);
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 restaurants);
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).
Ms. Perkins explained for clarification, the Code of Virginia permits farm wineries,
breweries and distilleries to conduct the following (exempt from local regulation ):
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3242
Minutes of July 15, 2015
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;
The sale of product-related items that are incidental to the sale of wine, beer or alcoholic
beverages;
Ms. Perkins noted 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 to the Board of Supervisors for review. The Board of Supervisors discussed this item at their
June 10, 2015 meeting and agreed with the proposed uses; however, it was requested that Staff remove
the provisions currently regulated by the state.
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.
There were no questions or comments from Commission members at this time.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning,
Article IV – Agricultural and Residential District, Part 401 – RA Rural Areas District, §165-401.2
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. Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to include farm breweries, farm distilleries as permitted uses
in the RA (Rural Areas) District.
(Note: Commissioners Oates and Unger were absent from the meeting)
-------------
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.
Action – Recommend Approval
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3243
Minutes of July 15, 2015
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this is a proposed revision to part 802 of the
Zoning Ordinance to update the text to include provisions for minor site plans as well as the inclusion of
an illustrative sketch plan. Ms. Perkins noted minor site plans have commonly been submitted and
approved; however, the term and requirements for these plans has never been codified. Ms. Perkins
explained, for illustrative sketch plans this is a new inclusion; these would be applicable to agricultural
businesses such as farm wineries, distilleries and breweries. She also noted this would be an exercise the
property owner could complete themselves and it would not need to be sealed by a licensed professional.
Ms. Perkins reported 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. She also
noted minor site plans have a reduced submission guideline and a reduced site plan fee. Ms. Perkins
clarified an illustrative sketch plan would not have a fee associated with it.
Ms. Perkins noted, the DRRC discussed this amendment at their April 2015 meeting and
with minor revisions 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. Ms. Perkins stated this item
was discussed by the Board of Supervisors on June 10, 2015 and sent forward for public hearing as
drafted.
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.
There were no questions or comments from Commission members at this time.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Crockett,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of 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.
(Note: Commissioners Oates and Unger were absent from the meeting)
-------------
OTHER
Cancelation of the regular meeting on August 5, 2015
Chairman Wilmot announced there were no pending items for the Planning
Commission’s August 5, 2015 meeting.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3244
Minutes of July 15, 2015
A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas to cancel the August 5, 2015 meeting of
the Planning Commission. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Molden and unanimously
passed.
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner Dunlap to
adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously passed. The
meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
June Wilmot, Chairman
____________________________
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
B
WAIVERS and SUBDIVISION REQUEST
SUBDIVISION #02-15 FOR JACKSON’S RETREAT
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: July 13, 2015
Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application.
It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 08/19/15 Pending; Public Meeting
Board of Supervisors: 09/09/15 Pending
LOCATION: The property is located 0.20 miles east of the intersection of Launchris Drive and
Jones Road.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 62-A-50
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RP (Residential Performance) District
Land Use: Vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE:
North: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
South: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
East: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR 08/19/15 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: There
was no Master Development Plan so the subdivision design plan is presented as information.
This proposed subdivision of nine (9) lots with the dimensional requirements of the single-family
detached rural traditional housing type; in particular, the minimum lot size of 100,000 square
feet. These proposed lots will be accessed directly onto Lauchris Drive (Route 1120); this
proposed subdivision is located outside the UDA and SWSA as indicated in the 2030 Frederick
County Comprehensive Policy Plan.
The subdivision design plan does have three (3) waiver requests. When considering the waiver
requests, the Planning Commission should consider the surrounding properties and their existing
improvements. A recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors
regarding the three (3) waiver requests is desired.
Waivers and Subdivision Request
Subdivision #02-15 for Jackson’s Retreat
July 13, 2015
Page 2
Action on three items would be appropriate:
Elimination of §144-17 (L) Curb and Gutter (Board waiver)
Elimination of §144-18 (A) (1)Sidewalks and pedestrian walkways (Board waiver)
Elimination of §144-19 Streetlights (Board waiver)
All issues and concerns raised by the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors for their consideration.
SUBDIVISION SPECIFICS: Subdivision of 24.85+/- acres into nine (9) single-family
detached rural traditional lots (maximum area of 100,000 square feet each).
REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS:
Department of Transportation: Please see attached email dated July 1, 2015 from Arthur R.
Boyce, III, Land Development Engineer
Frederick County Fire Marshall: Plans approved
Inspections: Dwellings shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code
(USBC) and The International Residential 2012 Codes. Engineer Design required on all
foundation and/or slabs with greater than 8” fill or 24” clean sand/gravel. All garage slabs in
excess of allowed fill required an engineered design as well. An approved sewage disposal
system is required as approved by the Virginia Health Department. Grade shall be sloped away
from foundations a minimum 6” in 10’. Any retaining walls in excess of 3’ of unbalanced fill
requires engineering and a building permit.
Parks and Recreation: Park and Recreation requirements appear to be met.
GIS: Please see attached letter dated April 13, 2015 from Kyle Schwizer, GIS Technician.
Frederick County Public Schools: No comments.
Planning Staff Review:
Public Meeting Requirement
The Subdivision Ordinance requires that land divisions in the RP (Residential Performance)
Zoning District, without an approved Master Development Plan (MDP) be presented to the
Waivers and Subdivision Request
Subdivision #02-15 for Jackson’s Retreat
July 13, 2015
Page 3
Board of Supervisors (Chapter144-12-E). The MDP requirement may be waived under Section
165-801.03A of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance provided:
1) A proposed subdivision contains ten (10) or less traditional detached single-family
dwelling units.
2) The proposed subdivision is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for
future development.
3) The proposed subdivision is harmonious with the surrounding properties and land uses.
4) The proposed subdivision does not affect the intent of the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance, and Code of Frederick County Chapter 144; Subdivision of Land.
This proposed subdivision appears to meet the requirements for a waiver from the MDP
requirements. The applicant has been granted a waiver of the MDP requirements. This
project contains land zoned RP and does not have an approved MDP; therefore, Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors review is necessary.
Background
The Board of Supervisors approved the Dav-Mar Village Subdivision on August 16, 1976.
This subdivision was developed under the R-2 (Residential Limited) Zoning District, with lots of
1.0+/- acres in size. These lots were on private health systems and wells. This subdivision was
approved for a total of 49 lots, within three (3) sections. A total of 31 lots have been plated
within Sections 1 & 2.
Frederick County amended its ordinance in 1989 to change the R-2 Zoning Districts to the
current RP Zoning District; with new lot dimensional requirements. One of lot types is the
single-family detached rural traditional, with minimum lot area of 100,000 square feet. This
proposed subdivision (Exhibit “A”) will create nine (9) single-family detached rural traditional
lots. These proposed lots are allowed in the RP Zoning District, and will be served by private
health systems and wells.
Requested Waivers
The Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance requires that RP subdivisions must provide: curb
and gutter, sidewalk and streetlights. The applicant has sought an exception from these
requirements, as Sections 1 & 2 of the Dav-Mar subdivision do not have the identified
improvements. The adjacent subdivisions of similar size do not have these identified
improvements. Therefore, the applicant has requested a waiver of the improvements.
Waivers and Subdivision Request
Subdivision #02-15 for Jackson’s Retreat
July 13, 2015
Page 4
§144-17 (L) Curbs and gutter specifies that: Curbs and gutters shall be constructed
along both sides of all streets in any subdivision containing lot(s) less than 15,000 sq.
ft. or lot widths of 80 feet or less at the street.
§144 -18 (A) (1) Sidewalks and pedestrian walkways specifies that: Sidewalks shall be
installed along both sides of all local streets in any subdivision located in the RP
(Residential Performance), R-4 (Residential Planned Community), R-5 (Residential
Recreational Community) Districts, and residential areas in the MS (Medical
Support) Districts.
§144-19 Streetlights specifies that: Streetlights of adequate type and intensity shall be
required to promote public health and safety in any subdivision located in the RP
(Residential Performance), R-4 (Residential Planned Community) R-5 (Residential
Recreational Community) Districts and residential areas in the MS (Medical
Support) District,
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR AUGUST 19, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING: This proposed subdivision of nine (9) lots complies with the dimensional
requirements of the single-family detached rural traditional housing type; in particular, the
minimum lot size of 100,000 square feet. These proposed lots will be accessed directly onto
Lauchris Drive (Route 1120); this proposed subdivision is located outside the UDA and SWSA
as indicated in the 2030 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan.
The subdivision design plan does have three (3) waiver requests. When considering the waiver
requests, the Planning Commission should consider the surrounding properties and their existing
improvements. A recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors
regarding the three (3) waiver requests is desired.
Action on three items would be appropriate:
Elimination of §144-17 (L) Curb and Gutter (Board waiver)
Elimination of §144-18 (A) (1)Sidewalks and pedestrian walkways (Board waiver)
Elimination of §144-19 Streetlights (Board waiver)
BROOKNEILLSubdivision
MARSHALLACRESSubdivision
DAV MARVILLAGESubdivision
JACKSONWOODS ESTATESSubdivision
STONEBROOKFARMSSubdivision
JACKSONORCHARDSubdivision
SEWELL &ROYSTONSubdivision
ST621
ST628
ST621
STONEBROOK RD
MIDD
L
E
R
D
BRO
O
K
N
E
I
L
D
R
LAUNC
H
R
I
S
D
R
STUAR
T
D
R
JONES RD
2340JONES RD
2274JONES RD
3670MIDDLE RD
120STUART DR
118STUART DR
146STUART DR
155STUART DR
149STUART DR
2587JONES RD 2597JONES RD
2621JONES RD
2521JONES RD
2419JONES RD
2299JONES RD
111LAUNCHRIS DR
115LAUNCHRIS DR
112LAUNCHRIS DR
108LAUNCHRIS DR
2394JONES RD
155BROOKNEIL DR
177BROOKNEIL DR
162BROOKNEIL DR
2553JONES RD2537JONES RD
2402JONES RD
2418JONES RD
2193JONES RD
3475MIDDLE RD
201JORDAN DR
115MARSHALL LN3668MIDDLE RD
2520JONES RD
123STUART DR
140STUART DR
132STUART DR
124STUART DR
151STUART DR
148STUART DR2577JONES RD 2641JONES RD
2485JONES RD
2469JONES RD
2441JONES RD
2391JONES RD
2377JONES RD
2247JONES RD
101STONEBROOK RD103STONEBROOK RD
2430JONES RD
104STONEBROOK RD
108STONEBROOK RD
3523MIDDLE RD
203JORDAN DR
129STUART DR
127STUART DR
145STUART DR
142STUART DR
138STUART DR
134STUART DR
122STUART DR
157STUART DR
2363JONES RD
2327JONES RD
2285JONES RD
103LAUNCHRIS DR 105LAUNCHRIS DR
113LAUNCHRIS DR
102LAUNCHRIS DR
102STONEBROOK RD
100STONEBROOK RD
2444JONES RD
123BROOKNEIL DR
184BROOKNEIL DR
148BROOKNEIL DR
3536MIDDLE RD
2342JONES RD
198GREENFIELDAVE
2344JONES RD
2230JONES RD
2610JONES RD
3640MIDDLE RD
2532JONES RD
115STUART DR
126STUART DR
160STUART DR156STUART DR152STUART DR
2631JONES RD2503JONES RD
2347JONES RD
2315JONES RD
101LAUNCHRIS DR
107LAUNCHRIS DR
106LAUNCHRIS DR
104LAUNCHRIS DR
202BROOKNEIL DR
Applications
Parcels
Building Footprints
B1 (Business, Neighborhood District)
B2 (Business, General Distrist)
B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District)
EM (Extractive Manufacturing District)
HE (Higher Education District)
M1 (Industrial, Light District)
M2 (Industrial, General District)
MH1 (Mobile Home Community District)
MS (Medical Support District)
OM (Office - Manufacturing Park)
R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
R5 (Residential Recreational Community District)
RA (Rural Area District)
RP (Residential Performance District)
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: April 6, 2015Staff: mcheran
JO
N
E
S
R
D
MIDD
L
E
R
D
GREENFIELD AVE
STONEBROOK RD
BRO
O
K
N
E
I
L
D
R
STUAR
T
D
R
RAMS
E
U
R
L
N
BROOKNEIL DR
0137
SH
A
R
O
N
D
R
BE
V
E
R
L
Y
D
R
LAUNCH
R
I
S
D
R
S
T
O
N
Y
M
E
A
D
E
D
R
Zoning Ordinance Waiver RequestFoltz Investment Group, LTDPINs:62 - A - 50144.17.L Curb Gutter144.18 Sidewalk144.19 Streetlight
Zoning Ordinance Waiver RequestFoltz Investment Group, LTD PINs:62 - A - 50114.17.L Curb Gutter144.18 Sidewalk144.19 Streetlight
0 460 920230 Feet
62 A 50
C
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #04-15
Hiatt Run Condominiums
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: August 6, 2015
Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application. It may
also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 08/19/15 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 09/09/15 Pending
PROPOSAL: To develop 12 acres zoned RP (Residential Performance) with eight garden apartment
buildings; six buildings containing 16 units each and two buildings containing 12 units each (total of 120
units with a total density of 10 units per acre).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 44-A-17, 44-A-10
LOCATION: The property is located near Stephenson, on the northeast corner of the intersection of
Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) and McCann Road (Route 838).
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Vacant and Residential
ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES:
North: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
South: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Agricultural
West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 08/19/15 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Master Development Plan for the Hiatt Run Condominiums appears to be consistent with the
requirements of Article VIII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance, and this MDP is in a
form that is administratively approvable. While the land uses proposed with this plan are inconsistent
with the Northeast Land Use Plan, the subject properties are currently zoned RP (Residential
Performance); the residential zoning on the subject properties dates back to the original Frederick
County Zoning Map. The subject properties are also located within the Sewer and Water Service Area
(SWSA). Garden apartment uses (density of up to 10 units per acre) is as permitted use within the RP
District. All of the issues brought forth by the Planning Commission should be appropriately addressed
by the applicant. This MDP is being presented as an informational item only, no action is needed.
MDP #04-15 Hiatt Run Condominiums
August 6, 2015
Page 2
It appears the application meets all requirements. Following presentation of the application to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, and the incorporation of your comments, staff is
prepared to proceed to approval of the application.
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation: The Master Plan for this property appears to have a
measurable impact on Route 11, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. The
MDP is acceptable.
Before making any final comments, this office will require a complete set of site plans, drainage
calculations and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review.
VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications,
traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Prior to construction on the
State’s right-of-way the developer will need to apply to this office for issuance of appropriate permits to
cover said work.
Frederick County Fire Marshal: Plans approved.
Frederick County Public Works: We have no comments regarding the proposed Master Development
Plan for Hiatt Run Apartments.
Frederick County Inspections: No comments required at this time, shall comment on site plan review.
Frederick County Sanitation Authority: Please see attached letter dated April 13, 2015, from Uwe E.
Weindel, PE.
Frederick County Parks and Recreation: Revisions added on 6/15/15 appear to satisfy Parks and
Recreation concerns regarding Recreation Unit requirements. Revisions appear to meet Parks and
Recreation requirements.
Virginia Department of Health: Health Department has no objection so long as public water and
sewer are utilized.
Frederick County Public School: Please see attached letter dated April 21, 2015, from K. Wayne Lee,
Jr., LEED AP.
Planning & Zoning:
A) Master Development Plan Requirement
A master development plan is required prior to development of this property. Before a master
development plan can be approved, it must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, Board of
Supervisors and all relevant review agencies. Approval may only be granted if the master
development plan conforms to all requirements of the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances. The purpose of the master development plan is to promote orderly and planned
development of property within Frederick County that suits the characteristics of the land, is
harmonious with adjoining property and is in the best interest of the general public.
MDP #04-15 Hiatt Run Condominiums
August 6, 2015
Page 3
B) Site History
The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) depicts the
zoning for the subject parcel as R-3 (Residential Limited) District. The zoning changed to RP
(Residential General) District on September 28, 1983 when the R1, R2, R3, and R6 Zoning
Districts were reclassified. There are no proffers on these properties.
In 2004 a Master Development Plan (MPD#04-04) for Hiatt Run Adult Community was
approved by the Board of Supervisors; this MDP was for 47 single family small lot dwelling
units on parcel 44-A-17. A subdivision design plan was subsequently submitted by the previous
property owner but the lots were never platted. Approval of the Hiatt Run Condominiums
Master Development Plan will nullify the previous approvals for the single family small lot
development.
C) Site Suitability & Project Scope
Comprehensive Policy Plan:
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's
guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key
components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the
living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to
plan for the future physical development of Frederick County.
Land Use Compatibility:
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Land Use Plan (Appendix I) provide guidance
on the future development of the property. The properties are located in the SWSA (Sewer and
Water Service Area). The 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies the general area surrounding this
property with a high density residential land use designation. The Northeast Land Use Plan
shows the subject property with a designation of DSA – Historic Resources and Recreation. The
Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, published by the National Park Service,
identifies the site as being part of the Second and Third Battles of Winchester core battlefield
area. Specifically, the site is part of the area of Stephenson’s Depot.
While the land uses proposed with this plan are inconsistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan,
the subject properties are currently zoned RP (Residential Performance); the residential zoning
on the subject properties dates back to the original Frederick County Zoning Map. The subject
properties are also located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Garden apartment
uses (density of up to 10 units per acre) is as permitted use within the RP District.
Environment:
Hiatt Run, a tributary to Opequon Creek, flows through the southern portion of parcel 44-A-17.
There is a zoning ordinance requirement for a riparian buffer along natural waterways in
Frederick County. No development or land disturbance is permitted in a riparian buffer, other
than the recreational area and trails within the open space for this development. Floodplains also
exist on the property.
MDP #04-15 Hiatt Run Condominiums
August 6, 2015
Page 4
Site Access and Transportation:
The Hiatt Run development will have two unsignalized entrances on Martinsburg Pike. The
applicant is dedicating 20’ of right-of way for Martinsburg Pike and 25’ of right-of-way on
McCann’s Road. The applicant is also constructing a 5’ sidewalk along Martinsburg Pike.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 08/19/15 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Master Development Plan for the Hiatt Run Condominiums appears to be consistent with the
requirements of Article VIII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance, and this MDP is in a
form that is administratively approvable. While the land uses proposed with this plan are inconsistent
with the Northeast Land Use Plan, the subject properties are currently zoned RP (Residential
Performance); the residential zoning on the subject properties dates back to the original Frederick
County Zoning Map. The subject properties are also located within the Sewer and Water Service Area
(SWSA). Garden apartment uses (density of up to 10 units per acre) is as permitted use within the RP
District. All of the issues brought forth by the Planning Commission shoul d be appropriately addressed
by the applicant.
This MDP is being presented as an informational item only, no action is needed.
It appears the application meets all requirements. Following presentation of the application to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, and the incorporation of your comments, staff is
prepared to proceed to approval of the application.
MAYNARDWILLIARDSubdivision
0111
43 A 128
43 A 129
44 A 24 44 A 25B
43 A 127
43 A 126
44 A 40
43 A 125
43 A 115 43 A 123
43 A 12243 A116
43 A 12143 A 112
44 A 23
44 A 25A43 A 118
43 A 119
44 A 22
44 A 21
43 A 120 44 A 20
44 A 19
44 A 12
44 A 17
44 A 18
44 A 12A
44 A 16
44 A 15
44 A 12B
44 A 14
44 A 13 44 A 10
44 A 11
44 A 8
44 A 744 A 5A
44 A 5B44 A 5B44 A 6B
44 A 5
EBERT
R
D
MART
I
N
S
B
U
R
G
PIKE
MCCA
N
N
S
R
D
Applications
Parcels
Sewer and Water Service Area
Future Rt 37 Bypass
Building Footprints
B1 (Business, Neighborhood District)
B2 (Business, General Distrist)
B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District)
EM (Extractive Manufacturing District)
HE (Higher Education District)
M1 (Industrial, Light District)
M2 (Industrial, General District)
MH1 (Mobile Home Community District)
MS (Medical Support District)
OM (Office - Manufacturing Park)
R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
R5 (Residential Recreational Community District)
RA (Rural Area District)
RP (Residential Performance District)
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: July 27, 2015Staff: cperkins
Stephenson
MART
I
N
S
B
U
R
G
P
I
K
E
MCCA
N
N
S
R
D
EBERT
R
D
MDP # 04 - 15Hiatt Run CondominiumsPINs:44 - A - 17, 44 - A - 10Apartment Complex
0 360 720180 Feet
MDP 04-15
0111
MDP # 04 - 15Hiatt RunCondominiumsPINs:44 - A - 17, 44 - A - 10Apartment Complex
MDP 04-15
MAYNARDWILLIARDSubdivision
0111
43 A 128
43 A 129
44 A 24 44 A 25B
43 A 127
43 A 126
44 A 40
43 A 125
43 A 115 43 A 123
43 A 12243 A116
43 A 12143 A 112
44 A 23
44 A 25A43 A 118
43 A 119
44 A 22
44 A 21
43 A 120 44 A 20
44 A 19
44 A 12
44 A 17
44 A 18
44 A 12A
44 A 16
44 A 15
44 A 12B
44 A 14
44 A 13 44 A 10
44 A 11
44 A 8
44 A 744 A 5A
44 A 5B44 A 5B44 A 6B
44 A 5
EBERT
R
D
MART
I
N
S
B
U
R
G
PIKE
MCCA
N
N
S
R
D
Applications
Parcels
Sewer and Water Service Area
Future Rt 37 Bypass
Building Footprints
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: July 27, 2015Staff: cperkins
Stephenson
MART
I
N
S
B
U
R
G
P
I
K
E
MCCA
N
N
S
R
D
EBERT
R
D
MDP # 04 - 15Hiatt Run CondominiumsPINs:44 - A - 17, 44 - A - 10Apartment Complex
0 360 720180 Feet
MDP 04-15
0111
MDP # 04 - 15Hiatt RunCondominiumsPINs:44 - A - 17, 44 - A - 10Apartment Complex
MDP 04-15
D
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: Ordinance Amendment - Self-Storage Facilities in the RA (Rural Areas) District
DATE: July 31, 2015
Staff has been requested to assess the potential to include self-storage facilities as a conditional
use in the RA (Rural Areas) District. Currently self-storage is a permitted use in the B2, B3, M1
and M2 Districts. It has been requested that staff look into self-storage in the RA District due to
this use requiring limited infrastructure (such as water and sewer). Currently other commercial
uses permitted through a conditional use permit include:
Country clubs, with or without banquet facilities.
Country general stores.
Service stations.
Antique shops.
Restaurants.
Motels.
Auction houses.
Campgrounds, tourist camps, recreation areas and resorts.
Commercial outdoor recreation, athletic or park facilities.
Nationally chartered fraternal lodges or civic clubs, social centers and their related
facilities.
Sawmills and planning mills, Type B.
Landscape contracting businesses.
Veterinary office, clinic or hospital, including livestock services.
Day-care facilities.
Welding Repair (SIC 7692).
Flea Markets, Operated Indoors or Outdoors.
The DRRC discussed this amendment at their July 2015 meeting. The DRRC had minor revisions and
sent the proposed changes to the Planning Commission for discussion. 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
Planning Commission Discussion
Self-Storage Facilities in the RA (Rural Areas) District
July 31, 2015
Page 2
discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the
Board of Supervisors.
Attachment: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics.
CEP/pd
Proposed Changes to Chapter 165 – Self-Storage Facilities
Original language
Draft revisions
ARTICLE IV
AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Part 401 – RA Rural Areas District
§ 165-401.03 Conditional uses.
The following uses of structures and land shall be allowed only if a conditional use permit has been
granted for the use:
NN. Self-Service Storage Facilities
Article II
SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES
Part 204 – Additional Regulations for Specific Uses
§ 165-204.18 Storage facilities, self-service.
Where allowed, self-service storage facilities shall meet the following requirements:
A. Self-service storage facility operations shall be permitted as a p rimary or accessory use in all zoning
districts in which they are permitted.
B. All parking areas, travel aisles and maneuvering areas associated with the self-service storage facility
operations shall be paved with asphalt, concrete or similar material to provide a durable hard
surface.
C. Buildings are permitted that provide interior and exterior accessible units. Individual units within the
self-service storage building shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in area.
D. Minimum building spacing shall be 30 feet apart. Loading areas shall be delineated to ensure that
adequate travel aisles are maintained between buildings.
E. Recreational vehicles and boats shall be permitted to be stored within completely enclosed areas of
the self-service storage facility, provided that the storage area is separate from the parking areas
and travel aisles and is depicted on the approved site development plan. Areas utilized for this
purpose shall be exempt from the surface requirements specified under § 165-204.18B.
F. Self-service storage facilities shall meet the following landscaping or screening requirements:
Proposed Changes to Chapter 165 – Self-Storage Facilities
(1) Facilities located in the B-2 Business General District shall be completely screened around the
perimeter of the property by a double row of evergreen trees that are staggered and planted a
maximum of eight feet off center and are a minimum of six feet in height when planted.
(2) Facilities located in the B-3 Industrial Transition District or the M-1 Light Industrial District shall
be required to landscape the yard area within the front yard setback to provide for a double row
of evergreen trees that are staggered and planted a maximum of eight feet off center. The side
and rear yards shall be planted with a single row of evergreen or deciduous trees that are
planted a maximum of 40 feet off center. All trees shall be a minimum of six feet in height at the
time of planting.
(3) Facilities located on parcels that are within a master planned industrial park or office park shall
be required to landscape the perimeter of the facility with a single row of evergreen or
deciduous trees that are planted a maximum of 40 feet off center. All trees shall be a minimum
of six feet in height at the time of planting.
(4) The required planting of all trees described under this Subsection F shall occur in an area that is
between the adjoining property boundary line and the placement of security fencing. The
installation of an opaque wall or fence that is a minimum of six feet in height may substitute for
required landscaped areas in all zoning districts.
G. Self-service storage facility operations shall be designed to accommodate the storage of residential,
commercial and industrial items, excluding hazardous, toxic and explosive materials. No use, sale,
repair or activity other than storage shall be permitted to occur in self-service storage facility
operations. A copy of the lease agreement which describes the requirements of this subsection shall
be approved in conjunction with the site development plan for the self -service storage facility
operation.
H. In addition to the above, self-service storage facilities in the RA (Rural Areas) District shall adhere
to the following requirements:
(1) All development shall conform to all B2 (General Business) District standards.
(2) All development shall have direct access onto a paved state road.
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: Ordinance Amendment – Variance Requirements
DATE: July 31, 2015
During the 2015 Session, the Virginia General Assembly passed amendments to the Code of Virginia
pertaining to the operation of the local Board of Zoning Appeals. These changes require changes to
be made to the Zoning Ordinance to be compliant with the revisions to the Code of Virginia
pertaining to the Board of Zoning Appeals and the standards by which the Board reviews variance
requests.
Specific changes include:
• The definition of “variance” has been revised.
• The administrative appeals section has been updated to be consistent with the code
of Virginia – the determination of the Zoning Administrator shall be presumed to be
correct and the burden of proof falls on the applicant to rebut the presumption of
correctness.
• Within Section C – Variances - the term “unnecessary hardships” has been replaced
with the phrase “unreasonable restriction on the utilization of the property”.
• Several other minor revisions have been included that reformat the ordinance to
comply with the changes.
The DRRC discussed this amendment at their July 2015 meeting. The DRRC endorsed the changes
and sent the amendment forward to the Planning Commission for discussion. 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
discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the
Board of Supervisors.
Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics.
2. Code of Virginia – BZA and Variances
CEP/pd
Proposed Changes to Chapter 165 – Variances
Original language
Draft revisions
ARTICLE X
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Part 1001 – Board of Zoning Appeals
§ 165-1001.01 Appointment; organization; terms.
A Board of Zoning Appeals shall be appointed by the Circuit Court according to the requirements and
provisions of the Code of Virginia. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall organize and conduct itself
according to all requirements of the Code of Virginia. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall consist of five
members appointed for five-year terms.
§ 165-1001.02 Powers and duties.
A. Administrative appeals. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall hear and decide appeals from any order,
requirement, decision or determination made by the Zoning Administrator, Director of Planning and
Development or other administrative officer with authority to administer or enforce the
requirements of this chapter. The determination of the Zoning Administrator shall be presumed to
be correct. At a hearing, the Zoning Administrator shall explain the basis for their determination
after which the appellant has the burden of proof to rebut such presumption of correctness by a
preponderance of the evidence. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall consider any applicable
ordinances, laws and regulations in making its decision.
(1) Procedures. An appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals may be taken by any person, department,
board, County or municipality aggrieved or affected by any decision of the Zoning Administrator.
Such appeal shall be taken within 30 days after the decision by filing with the Zoning
Administrator and Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof.
The Zoning Administrator shall transmit to the Board all the papers constituting the record upon
which the action appealed was taken. An appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the
action appealed unless the Zoning Administrator certifies to the Board that, by reason of facts
stated in the certificate, a stay would, in his opinion, cause imminent peril to life or property, in
which case proceedings shall not be stayed otherwise than by a restraining order granted by the
Board or by a court of record, on application and on notice to the Zoning Administrator and for
good cause shown.
(2) The Board shall fix a reasonable time for the hearing of an application or appeal and shall give
public notice thereof as well as due notice to the parties in interest. It shall decide the appeal
within 60 days. The Board may reverse or affirm wholly or partly or may modify an order,
requirement, decision or determination appealed according to the procedures described in the
Code of Virginia.
B. Map interpretations. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall hear and decide applications for the
interpretation of the Zoning District Map after notice to the owners of the property affected and
after a public hearing held according to the requirements of the Code of Virginia. The Board shall
Proposed Changes to Chapter 165 – Variances
interpret the map in such a way as to carry out the intent and purpose of this chapter for the
particular district in question. The Board shall not have the power to change substantially the
locations of district boundaries as established by this chapter. The Board shall not have power to
rezone property.
C. Variances. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall hear and decide applications for variances from specific
terms or requirements of this chapter in specific cases. Variances shall only be granted by the Board
in the following cases:
(1) When granting the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. The burden of proof shall
be on the applicant for a variance to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that their
application meets the standard for a variance as defined;
(2) A variance shall be granted if the evidence shows that the strict application of the terms of the
ordinance would unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property or that the granting of
the variance would alleviate a hardship due to a physical condition relating to the property or
improvements thereon at the time of the effective date of the ordinance and:
a. The property interest for which the variance is being requested was acquired in good
faith;
b. Any hardship was not created by the applicant for the variance;
c. The granting of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property
and nearby properties in the proximity of that geographical area;
d. Condition or situation of the property concerned is not of so general or recurring a
nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to
be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance;
e. The granting of the variance does not result in a use that is not otherwise permitted on
such property or a change in the zoning classification of the property; and
f. The relief or remedy sought by the variance application is not available through a
Conditional Use Permit process or the process for modification of a zoning ordinance.
(2) When owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will
result in unnecessary hardship. Variances shall only be granted when the property owner can
show that his property was acquired in good faith and where the owner can show that the
hardship was not self-inflicted. Variances shall be granted where, by reason of the exceptional
conditions on the property at the time of the effective date of this chapter, the strict application
of the requirements of this chapter would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of
the property. Variances shall be granted to alleviate a clearly demonstrable hardship
approaching confiscation. Variances shall not be granted to provide a special privilege or
convenience sought by the applicant. A variance shall not be granted when the condition being
alleviated is of a recurring nature so that the condition could better be alleviated by a zoning
amendment.
(3) When the granting of the variance will maintain the intent of this chapter.
(4) Variances shall be granted to alleviate the following types of conditions:
Proposed Changes to Chapter 165 – Variances
(a) Narrowness, shallowness, size or shape of a specific piece of property.
(b) Exceptional topographic conditions.
(c) Extraordinary conditions concerning the use of adjacent properties.
(d) Other extraordinary conditions of the specific parcel of land.
(5) Variances shall only be authorized if the Board finds the following:
(a) That the strict application of this chapter would produce undue hardship as described
above.
(b) That such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning
district and the same vicinity.
(c) That the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property and that the character of the district will not be changed by granting the
variance.
(3) No variance shall be granted for any proposed use, development or activity in the Floodway
District that will cause any increase in flood levels during the one-hundred-year flood.
(4) When considering a variance application located within the floodplain districts, additional
factors contained in ARTICLE VII, § 165-702.18, must be followed.
D. Procedures. Applications for variances shall be made to the Zoning Administrator in accordance with
rules adopted by the Zoning Administrator. Plans, maps and other application materials shall be
provided by the applicant as required. Variances; shall be promptly transmitted to the Board of
Zoning Appeals for public hearing. No variance shall be granted until after notice and a public
hearing is held according to the requirements of the Code of Virginia. Applications for variances shall
be accompanied by a nonrefundable fee in an amount as set by resolution of the Board of
Supervisors from time to time.
APPEALS AND VARIANCES
Proposed Changes to Chapter 165 – Variances
E. Conditions. In granting a variance, the Board of Zoning Appeals may impose such conditions
regarding the location, character and other features of the proposed structure or use as it may deem
necessary in the public interest and may require a guaranty or bond to ensure that the conditions
imposed are being and will continue to be complied with.
F. Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals may be appealed to the Circuit Court according to
procedures set forth in the Code of Virginia.
ARTICLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
Part 101 – General Provisions
§ 165-101.02 Definitions and word usage.
VARIANCE - A reasonable deviation from those provisions regulating the shape, size or area of a lot or
parcel of land, or the size, height, area, bulk or location of a building or structure when the strict
application of this chapter would result in unnecessary or unreasonable hardship to the property
owners unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property, and such need for a variance would not be
shared generally by other properties, and provided that such variance is not contrary to the intended
spirit and purpose of this chapter and would result in substantial justice being done.
Complete Petition Filed with Planning
Department (Variance or Appeal)
Notification of BZA
Public Hearing
BZA Meeting
Favorable
Decision
Variance or
Appeal Approved
Unfavorable
Decision
Variance or
Appeal Denied
VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY --2015 SESSION
CHAPTER 597
An Act to amend and reenact §§15.2-2201,15.2-2308,15.2-2309,and 15.2-2314 of the Code of
Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 15.2-2308.1,relating to
variances.
[H 1849]
Approved March 26,2015
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1.That §§15.2-2201,15.2-2308,15.2-2309,and 15.2-2314 of the Code of Virginia are amended and
reenacted and that the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 15.2-2308.1 as
follows:
§15.2-2201.Definitions.
As used in this chapter,unless the context requires a different meaning:
"Affordable housing"means,as a guideline,housing that is affordable to households with incomes at
or below the area median income,provided that the occupant pays no more than thirty percent of his
gross income for gross housing costs,including utilities.For the purpose of administering affordable
dwelling unit ordinances authorized by this chapter,local governments may establish individual
definitions of affordable housing and affordable dwelling units including determination of the appropriate
percent of area median income and percent of gross income.
"Conditional zoning"means,as part of classifying land within a locality into areas and districts by
legislative action,the allowing of reasonable conditions governing the use of such property,such
conditions being in addition to,or modification of the regulations provided for a particular zoning
district or zone by the overall zoning ordinance.
"Development"means a tract of land developed or to be developed as a unit under single ownership
or unified control which is to be used for any business or industrial purpose or is to contain three or
more residential dwelling units.The term "development"shall not be construed to include any tract of
land which will be principally devoted to agricultural production.
"Historic area"means an area containing one or more buildings or places in which historic events
occurred or having special public value because of notable architectural,archaeological or other features
relating to the cultural or artistic heritage of the community,of such significance as to warrant
conservation and preservation.
"Incentive zoning"means the use of bonuses in the form of increased project density or other
benefits to a developer in return for the developer providing certain features,design elements,uses,
services,or amenities desired by the locality,including but not limited to,site design incorporating
principles of new urbanism and traditional neighborhood development,environmentally sustainable and
energy-efficient building design,affordable housing creation and preservation,and historical
preservation,as part of the development.
"Local planning commission"means a municipal planning commission or a county planning
commission.
"Military installation"means a base,camp,post,station,yard,center,homeport facility for any ship,
or other activity under jurisdiction of the U.S.Department of Defense,including any leased facility,or
any land or interest in land owned by the Commonwealth and administered by the Adjutant General of
Virginia or the Virginia Department of Military Affairs."Military installation"does not include any
facility used primarily for civil works,rivers and harbors projects,or flood control projects.
"Mixed use development"means property that incorporates two or more different uses,and may
include a variety of housing types,within a single development.
"Official map"means a map of legally established and proposed public streets,waterways,and public
areas adopted by a locality in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 (§15.2-2233 et seq.)hereof.
"Planned unit development"means a form of development characterized by unified site design for a
variety of housing types and densities,clustering of buildings,common open space,and a mix of
building types and land uses in which project planning and density calculation are performed for the
entire development rather than on an individual lot basis.
"Planning district commission"means a regional planning agency chartered under the provisions of
Chapter 42 (§15.2-4200 et seq.)of this title.
"Plat"or "plat of subdivision"means the schematic representation of land divided or to be divided
and information in accordance with the provisions of §§15.2-2241,15.2-2242,15.2-2258,15.2-2262,
and 15.2-2264,and other applicable statutes.
"Preliminary subdivision plat"means the proposed schematic representation of development or
subdivision that establishes how the provisions of §§15.2-2241 and 15.2-2242,and other applicable
2 of 6
statutes will be achieved.
"Resident curator"means a person,firm,or corporation that leases or otherwise contracts to manage,
preserve,maintain,operate,or reside in a historic property in accordance with the provisions of
§15.2-2306 and other applicable statutes.
"Site plan"means the proposal for a development or a subdivision including all covenants,grants or
easements and other conditions relating to use,location and bulk of buildings,density of development,
common open space,public facilities and such other information as required by the subdivision
ordinance to which the proposed development or subdivision is subject.
"Special exception"means a special use,that is a use not permitted in a particular district except by
a special use permit granted under the provisions of this chapter and any zoning ordinances adopted
herewith.
"Street"means highway,street,avenue,boulevard,road,lane,alley,or any public way.
"Subdivision,"unless otherwise defined in an ordinance adopted pursuant to §15.2-2240,means the
division of a parcel of land into three or more lots or parcels of less than five acres each for the purpose
of transfer of ownership or building development,or,if a new street is involved in such division,any
division of a parcel of land.The term includes resubdivision and,when appropriate to the context,shall
relate to the process of subdividing or to the land subdivided and solely for the purpose of recordation
of any single division of land into two lots or parcels,a plat of such division shall be submitted for
approval in accordance with §15.2-2258.
"Variance"means,in the application of a zoning ordinance,a reasonable deviation from those
provisions regulating the shape,size,or area of a lot or parcel of land,or the size,height,area,bulk,or
location of a building or structure when the strict application of the ordinance would result in
unnecessary or unreasonable hardship to the property owner unreasonably restrict the utilization of the
property,and such need for a variance would not be shared generally by other properties,and provided
such variance is not contrary to the intended spirit and purpose of the ordinance,and would result in
substantial justice being done.It shall not include a change in use,which change shall be accomplished
by a rezoning or by a conditional zoning.
"Zoning"or "to zone"means the process of classifying land within a locality into areas and districts,
such areas and districts being generally referred to as "zones,"by legislative action and the prescribing
and application in each area and district of regulations concerning building and structure designs,
building and structure placement and uses to which land,buildings and structures within such designated
areas and districts may be put.
§15.2-2308.Boards of zoning appeals to be created;membership,organization,etc.
A.Every locality that has enacted or enacts a zoning ordinance pursuant to this chapter or prior
enabling laws,shall establish a board of zoning appeals that shall consist of either five or seven
residents of the locality,appointed by the circuit court for the locality.Boards of zoning appeals for a
locality within the fifteenth or nineteenth judicial circuit may be appointed by the chief judge or his
designated judge or judges in their respective circuit,upon concurrence of such locality.Their terms of
office shall be for five years each except that original appointments shall be made for such terms that
the term of one member shall expire each year.The secretary of the board shall notify the court at least
thirty days in advance of the expiration of any term of office,and shall also notify the court promptly if
any vacancy occurs.Appointments to fill vacancies shall be only for the unexpired portion of the term.
Members may be reappointed to succeed themselves.Members of the board shall hold no other public
office in the locality except that one may be a member of the local planning commission.A member
whose term expires shall continue to serve until his successor is appointed and qualifies.The circuit
court for the City of Chesapeake and the Circuit Court for the City of Hampton shall appoint at least
one but not more than three alternates to the board of zoning appeals.At the request of the local
governing body,the circuit court for any other locality may appoint not more than three alternates to the
board of zoning appeals.The qualifications,terms and compensation of alternate members shall be the
same as those of regular members.A regular member when he knows he will be absent from or will
have to abstain from any application at a meeting shall notify the chairman twenty-four hours prior to
the meeting of such fact.The chairman shall select an alternate to serve in the absent or abstaining
member's place and the records of the board shall so note.Such alternate member may vote on any
application in which a regular member abstains.
B.Localities may,by ordinances enacted in each jurisdiction,create a joint board of zoning appeals
that shall consist of two members appointed from among the residents of each participating jurisdiction
by the circuit court for each county or city,plus one member from the area at large to be appointed by
the circuit court or jointly by such courts if more than one,having jurisdiction in the area.The term of
office of each member shall be five years except that of the two members first appointed from each
jurisdiction,the term of one shall be for two years and of the other,four years.Vacancies shall be filled
for the unexpired terms.In other respects,joint boards of zoning appeals shall be governed by all other
provisions of this article.
C.With the exception of its secretary and the alternates,the board shall elect from its own
membership its officers who shall serve annual terms as such and may succeed themselves.The board
3 of 6
may elect as its secretary either one of its members or a qualified individual who is not a member of
the board,excluding the alternate members.A secretary who is not a member of the board shall not be
entitled to vote on matters before the board.For Notwithstanding any other provision of law,general or
special,for the conduct of any hearing,a quorum shall be not less than a majority of all the members of
the board and the board shall offer an equal amount of time in a hearing on the case to the applicant,
appellant or other person aggrieved under §15.2-2314,and the staff of the local governing body.
Except for matters governed by §15.2-2312,no action of the board shall be valid unless authorized by a
majority vote of those present and voting.The board may make,alter and rescind rules and forms for its
procedures,consistent with ordinances of the locality and general laws of the Commonwealth.The board
shall keep a full public record of its proceedings and shall submit a report of its activities to the
governing body or bodies at least once each year.
D.Within the limits of funds appropriated by the governing body,the board may employ or contract
for secretaries,clerks,legal counsel,consultants,and other technical and clerical services.Members of
the board may receive such compensation as may be authorized by the respective governing bodies.Any
board member or alternate may be removed for malfeasance,misfeasance or nonfeasance in office,or
for other just cause,by the court that appointed him,after a hearing held after at least fifteen days'
notice.
E.Notwithstanding any contrary provisions of this section,in the City of Virginia Beach,members
of the board shall be appointed by the governing body.The governing body of such city shall also
appoint at least one but not more than three alternates to the board.
§15.2-2308.1.Boards of zoning appeals,ex parte communications,proceedings.
A.The non-legal staff of the governing body may have ex parte communications with a member of
the board prior to the hearing but may not discuss the facts or law relative to a particular case.The
applicant,landowner or his agent or attorney may have ex parte communications with a member of the
board prior to the hearing but may not discuss the facts or law relative to a particular case.If any ex
parte discussion of facts or law in fact occurs,the party engaging in such communication shall inform
the other party as soon as practicable and advise the other party of the substance of such
communication.For purposes of this section,regardless of whether all parties participate,ex parte
communications shall not include (i)discussions as part of a public meeting or (ii)discussions prior to
a public meeting to which staff of the governing body,the applicant,landowner or his agent or attorney
are all invited.
B.Any materials relating to a particular case,including a staff recommendation or report furnished
to a member of the board,shall be made available without cost to such applicant,appellant or other
person aggrieved under §15.2-2314,as soon as practicable thereafter,but in no event more than three
business days of providing such materials to a member of the board.If the applicant,appellant or other
person aggrieved under §15.2-2314 requests additional documents or materials be provided by the
locality other than those materials provided to the board,such request shall be made pursuant to
§2.2-3704.Any such materials furnished to a member of the board shall also be made available for
public inspection pursuant to subsection F of §2.2-3707.
C.For the purposes of this section,"non-legal staff of the governing body"means any staff who is
not in the office of the attorney for the locality,or for the board,or who is appointed by special law or
pursuant to §15.2-1542.Nothing in this section shall preclude the board from having ex parte
communications with any attorney or staff of any attorney where such communication is protected by the
attorney-client privilege or other similar privilege or protection of confidentiality.
D.This section shall not apply to cases where an application for a special exception has been filed
pursuant to subdivision 6 of §15.2-2309.
§15.2-2309.Powers and duties of boards of zoning appeals.
Boards of zoning appeals shall have the following powers and duties:
1.To hear and decide appeals from any order,requirement,decision,or determination made by an
administrative officer in the administration or enforcement of this article or of any ordinance adopted
pursuant thereto.The decision on such appeal shall be based on the board's judgment of whether the
administrative officer was correct.The determination of the administrative officer shall be presumed to
be correct.At a hearing on an appeal,the administrative officer shall explain the basis for his
determination after which the appellant has the burden of proof to rebut such presumption of
correctness by a preponderance of the evidence.The board shall consider the purpose and intent of any
applicable ordinances,laws,and regulations in making its decision.For purposes of this section,
determination means any order,requirement,decision or determination made by an administrative
officer.Any appeal of a determination to the board shall be in compliance with this section,
notwithstanding any other provision of law,general or special.
2.To authorize Notwithstanding any other provision of law,general or special,to grant upon appeal
or original application in specific cases such a variance as defined in §15.2-2201 from the terms of the
ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest,when,owing to special conditions a literal
enforcement of the provisions will result in unnecessary hardship;,provided that the spirit of the
ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done,as follows:the burden of proof shall be on the
4 of 6
applicant for a variance to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his application meets the
standard for a variance as defined in §15.2-2201 and the criteria set out in this section.
When a property owner can show that his Notwithstanding any other provision of law,general or
special,a variance shall be granted if the evidence shows that the strict application of the terms of the
ordinance would unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property or that the granting of the variance
would alleviate a hardship due to a physical condition relating to the property or improvements thereon
at the time of the effective date of the ordinance,and (i)the property interest for which the variance is
being requested was acquired in good faith and where by reason of the exceptional and any hardship
was not created by the applicant for the variance;narrowness,shallowness,size,or shape of a specific
piece of property at the time of the effective date of the ordinance,or where by reason of exceptional
topographic conditions or other extraordinary situation or condition of the piece of property,or of the
condition,situation,or development of property immediately adjacent thereto,the strict application of
the terms of the ordinance would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the
property or where the board is satisfied,upon the evidence heard by it,that the granting of the variance
will alleviate a clearly demonstrable hardship,as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience
sought by the applicant,provided that all variances shall be in harmony with the intended spirit and
purpose of the ordinance.(ii)the granting of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property and nearby properties in the proximity of that geographical area;(iii)the condition
or situation of the property concerned is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably
practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance;
(iv)the granting of the variance does not result in a use that is not otherwise permitted on such
property or a change in the zoning classification of the property;and (v)the relief or remedy sought by
the variance application is not available through a special exception process that is authorized in the
ordinance pursuant to subdivision 6 of §15.2-2309 or the process for modification of a zoning
ordinance pursuant to subdivision A4 of §15.2-2286 at the time of the filing of the variance application.
No such variance shall be authorized by the board unless it finds:
a.That the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship relating to the property;
b.That the hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the
same vicinity;and
c.That the authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and
that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance.
No variance shall be authorized considered except after notice and hearing as required by
§15.2-2204.However,when giving any required notice to the owners,their agents or the occupants of
abutting property and property immediately across the street or road from the property affected,the
board may give such notice by first-class mail rather than by registered or certified mail.
No variance shall be authorized unless the board finds that the condition or situation of the property
concerned is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of
a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance.
In authorizing granting a variance,the board may impose such conditions regarding the location,
character,and other features of the proposed structure or use as it may deem necessary in the public
interest,and may require a guarantee or bond to ensure that the conditions imposed are being and will
continue to be complied with.Notwithstanding any other provision of law,general or special,the
property upon which a property owner has been granted a variance shall be treated as conforming for all
purposes under state law and local ordinance;however,the structure permitted by the variance may not
be expanded unless the expansion is within an area of the site or part of the structure for which no
variance is required under the ordinance.Where the expansion is proposed within an area of the site or
part of the structure for which a variance is required,the approval of an additional variance shall be
required.
3.To hear and decide appeals from the decision of the zoning administrator after notice and hearing
as provided by §15.2-2204.However,when giving any required notice to the owners,their agents or
the occupants of abutting property and property immediately across the street or road from the property
affected,the board may give such notice by first-class mail rather than by registered or certified mail.
4.To hear and decide applications for interpretation of the district map where there is any
uncertainty as to the location of a district boundary.After notice to the owners of the property affected
by the question,and after public hearing with notice as required by §15.2-2204,the board may interpret
the map in such way as to carry out the intent and purpose of the ordinance for the particular section or
district in question.However,when giving any required notice to the owners,their agents or the
occupants of abutting property and property immediately across the street or road from the property
affected,the board may give such notice by first-class mail rather than by registered or certified mail.
The board shall not have the power to change substantially the locations of district boundaries as
established by ordinance.
5.No provision of this section shall be construed as granting any board the power to rezone property
or to base board decisions on the merits of the purpose and intent of local ordinances duly adopted by
the governing body.
5 of 6
6.To hear and decide applications for special exceptions as may be authorized in the ordinance.The
board may impose such conditions relating to the use for which a permit is granted as it may deem
necessary in the public interest,including limiting the duration of a permit,and may require a guarantee
or bond to ensure that the conditions imposed are being and will continue to be complied with.
No special exception may be granted except after notice and hearing as provided by §15.2-2204.
However,when giving any required notice to the owners,their agents or the occupants of abutting
property and property immediately across the street or road from the property affected,the board may
give such notice by first-class mail rather than by registered or certified mail.
7.To revoke a special exception previously granted by the board of zoning appeals if the board
determines that there has not been compliance with the terms or conditions of the permit.No special
exception may be revoked except after notice and hearing as provided by §15.2-2204.However,when
giving any required notice to the owners,their agents or the occupants of abutting property and property
immediately across the street or road from the property affected,the board may give such notice by
first-class mail rather than by registered or certified mail.If a governing body reserves unto itself the
right to issue special exceptions pursuant to §15.2-2286,and,if the governing body determines that
there has not been compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit,then it may also revoke
special exceptions in the manner provided by this subdivision.
8.The board by resolution may fix a schedule of regular meetings,and may also fix the day or days
to which any meeting shall be continued if the chairman,or vice-chairman if the chairman is unable to
act,finds and declares that weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for members to
attend the meeting.Such finding shall be communicated to the members and the press as promptly as
possible.All hearings and other matters previously advertised for such meeting in accordance with
§15.2-2312 shall be conducted at the continued meeting and no further advertisement is required.
§15.2-2314.Certiorari to review decision of board.
Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the board of zoning appeals,
or any aggrieved taxpayer or any officer,department,board or bureau of the locality,may file with the
clerk of the circuit court for the county or city a petition that shall be styled "In Re:date Decision of
the Board of Zoning Appeals of [locality name]"specifying the grounds on which aggrieved within 30
days after the final decision of the board.
Upon the presentation of such petition,the court shall allow a writ of certiorari to review the
decision of the board of zoning appeals and shall prescribe therein the time within which a return
thereto must be made and served upon the secretary of the board of zoning appeals or,if no secretary
exists,the chair of the board of zoning appeals,which shall not be less than 10 days and may be
extended by the court.The allowance of the writ shall not stay proceedings upon the decision appealed
from,but the court may,on application,on notice to the board and on due cause shown,grant a
restraining order.
Any review of a decision of the board shall not be considered an action against the board and the
board shall not be a party to the proceedings;however,the board shall participate in the proceedings to
the extent required by this section.The governing body,the landowner,and the applicant before the
board of zoning appeals shall be necessary parties to the proceedings in the circuit court.The court may
permit intervention by any other person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the
board of zoning appeals.
The board of zoning appeals shall not be required to return the original papers acted upon by it but it
shall be sufficient to return certified or sworn copies thereof or of the portions thereof as may be called
for by the writ.The return shall concisely set forth such other facts as may be pertinent and material to
show the grounds of the decision appealed from and shall be verified.
If,upon the hearing,it shall appear to the court that testimony is necessary for the proper disposition
of the matter,it may take evidence or appoint a commissioner to take evidence as it may direct and
report the evidence to the court with his findings of fact and conclusions of law,which shall constitute a
part of the proceedings upon which the determination of the court shall be made.The court may reverse
or affirm,wholly or partly,or may modify the decision brought up for review.
In the case of an appeal from the board of zoning appeals to the circuit court of an order,
requirement,decision or determination of a zoning administrator or other administrative officer in the
administration or enforcement of any ordinance or provision of state law,or any modification of zoning
requirements pursuant to §15.2-2286,the findings and conclusions of the board of zoning appeals on
questions of fact shall be presumed to be correct.The appealing party may rebut that presumption by
proving by a preponderance of the evidence,including the record before the board of zoning appeals,
that the board of zoning appeals erred in its decision.Any party may introduce evidence in the
proceedings in the court.The court shall hear any arguments on questions of law de novo.
In the case of an appeal by a person of any decision of the board of zoning appeals that denied or
granted an application for a variance,or application for a special exception,the decision of the board of
zoning appeals shall be presumed to be correct.The petitioner may rebut that presumption by showing
to the satisfaction of the court that the board of zoning appeals applied erroneous principles of law,or
where the discretion of the board of zoning appeals is involved,the decision of the board of zoning
6 of 6
appeals was plainly wrong and in violation of the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance proving by
a preponderance of the evidence,including the record before the board of zoning appeals,that the
board of zoning appeals erred in its decision.
In the case of an appeal by a person of any decision of the board of zoning appeals that denied or
granted application for a special exception,the decision of the board of zoning appeals shall be
presumed to be correct.The petitioner may rebut that presumption by showing to the satisfaction of the
court that the board of zoning appeals applied erroneous principles of law,or where the discretion of
the board of zoning appeals is involved,the decision of the board of zoning appeals was plainly wrong,
was in violation of the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance,and is not fairly debatable.
In the case of an appeal from the board of zoning appeals to the circuit court of a decision of the
board,any party may introduce evidence in the proceedings in the court in accordance with the Rules
of Evidence of the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Costs shall not be allowed against the locality,unless it shall appear to the court that it acted in bad
faith or with malice.In the event the decision of the board is affirmed and the court finds that the
appeal was frivolous,the court may order the person or persons who requested the issuance of the writ
of certiorari to pay the costs incurred in making the return of the record pursuant to the writ of
certiorari.If the petition is withdrawn subsequent to the filing of the return,the locality may request that
the court hear the matter on the question of whether the appeal was frivolous.
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: Ordinance Amendment – Setbacks from Agricultural and Forestal Districts
DATE: August 13, 2015
During the 2015-2020 Agricultural and Forestal District update, concern was presented over the
inclusions of parcels less than five (5) acres into the districts due to their impacts on adjacent
parcels that were not in agricultural districts. The concern was that placement of these parcels of
less than five (5) acres in size into the Agricultural District did not clearly further agriculture
pursuits and interests, and often contained residences, yet the resulting 200-foot setback placed
greater restrictions on their adjacent neighbors. Essentially, someone with a two (2) acre parcel
could control development activity on their two (2) acres as well as their neighbor’s two (2) acres
(when the 200-ft setback was applied).
The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing for the inclusion of these parcels less then 5 acres
into the agricultural districts at their August 12, 2015 meeting. At that meeting they deferred
action on accepting or denying the inclusion of many of these parcels and directed staff to draft an
ordinance amendment that would allow the inclusion of the parcels without impacting adjacent
parcels.
Staff has drafted an amendment to the RA (Rural Areas) District setbacks to address this issue; the
proposed amendment includes the following:
Utilizes the RA setback requirement based on adjoining parcel size previously
adopted in 2007
Includes setbacks for parcels that abut agricultural district, based on the size of the
parcel within the adopted agricultural district
Parcels within an agricultural district that are 6 acres or less would require a 50’
setback and parcels over 6 acres would require the 200’ setback
The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes (with
strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added). This item is presented for
discussion. The DRRC will be reviewing this ordinance amendment at their August 27, 215 meeting.
All comments will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics.
CEP/dlw
Attachment 1
Original language
Draft revisions
ARTICLE IV
AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Part 401 – RA Rural Areas District
§ 165-401.07 Setback requirements.
The following setback requirements shall apply to all parcels within the RA Rural Areas Zoning District:
A. Setbacks for all lots other than rural preservation lots shall be as set out below.
[Amended 2-28-2007; 4-27-2011]
(1) Front setbacks. The front setback for any principal or accessory use or structure located on a
traditional five-acre lot shall be 60 feet from the property line or right-of-way of the street,
road or ingress/egress easement.
(2) Side or rear setbacks. The minimum side or rear setback for any principal use or structure shall
be determined by the primary use of the adjoining parcel as follows:
Adjoining Parcel Size Setback (Side and Rear) (feet)
6 acres or less 50
More than 6 acres 100
Agricultural and Forestal District, 6
acres or less
50
Agricultural and Forestal District,
more than 6 acres
200
Orchard (regardless of parcel size) 200
G
H
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
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP
Deputy Director
RE: Kernstown Area Plan – Planning Commission 2nd Discussion
DATE: August 5, 2015
The upcoming Planning Commission meeting will provide a second opportunity for the
Planning Commission to discuss the Kernstown Area Plan. The Kernstown Area Plan is a
proposed amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; Appendix I – Area Plans.
Previously, the Planning Commission discussed the plan at their June 17, 2015 meeting
and offered valuable input that was incorporated into the plan.
Overview
The Kernstown Area Plan looks to update/renew/expand the land use and transportation
plans for the Kernstown area, generally located along Route 11, south of the City of
Winchester and north of the Town of Stephens City, and west of I-81. This effort will
utilize the previously adopted area plans (Southern Frederick Land Use Plan and Route
11 South Corridor Plan) as a basis to build upon and would integrate the C/I opportunities
and the areas of mixed use with future transportation plans.
The Kernstown study area is located in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Public Input
The Kernstown Area Plan, which kicked off in the beginning of 2015, has been worked
on by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC). 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 Comprehensive Plans and
Programs Committee. In addition, the draft has incorporated input from the public
through the public information meeting and more directly through individual
correspondence and discussion with property owners in the area. The draft addresses
residential development, business development, transportation, and historic resources,
natural resources, and community facilities.
Kernstown Area Plan – Planning Commission 2nd Discussion
August 5, 2015
Page 2
As mentioned, a public information and input meeting was held on May 26, 2015. The
meeting was held at the MidAtlantic Farm Credit Building in Kernstown and was well
attended with approximately fifty (50) stakeholders participating and engaging in a lively
and thorough discussion during the meeting. Staff introduced the study, sought additional
input, and encouraged further participation in the study throughout the public process.
The previously adopted area plans (Southern Frederick Land Use Plan and Route 11
South Corridor Plan) provided the basis that the updated Kernstown Area Plan was built
upon. The additional work of the CPPC also sought to integrate the best of the more
comprehensive and general components of the recently approved Southern Frederick
Area Plan and the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Area Plan into the Kernstown Plan. This
was reflective of the valuable public participation and effort from the working groups and
transferability in these previous plans.
The resulting land use plan continues to focus on the following four main areas as
follows:
1. Urban Areas and Residential Development
2. Business Development
3. Transportation
4. Natural Resources, Historic Resources, and Public Facilities
The above four sections were then drafted into a cohesive draft version of the Kernstown
Area Plan which was then presented to the public at the Public Information and Input
meeting, The draft plan was further refined over the summer with the additional input
received. Most recently, the draft was presented to the Transportation Committee on July
27, 2015 and the Historic Resources Advisory Board on July 28, 2015. Input from these
two bodies was incorporated into the draft and has been highlighted accordingly.
As a result of this effort and the various input received the Kernstown Area Plan is
presented to the Planning Commission for a second discussion and further input.
Ultimately, Staff will be looking for direction from the Board of Supervisors to move the
Kernstown Area Plan through the public hearing process.
For more information about the study effort, please visit the website at
www.fcva.us/kernstown or contact me directly.
MTR/pd
Attachments: 1. Input and Adjustments to the Draft Plan
2. Planning Commission Comments from June 17, 2015 meeting
3. Draft Report
Attachment 1
INPUT AND ADJUSTMENTS TO THE DRAFT PLAN
The following is provided in summary of the general questions and comments received
during the public information and input meeting. Also, a general description of some of
the changes and adjustments made following the meeting has been included to highlight
those made in response to some of the comments provided.
General comments and questions.
Enabling some form of reuse/development with the areas identified with DSA,
Rural Historic Resources Area.
North of Bartonsville, allow some additional commercial opportunity.
Firm comments from residents of Bartonsville to protect this area from the
encroachment of commercial. Also, expressed concern about widening of Route
11 and potential impact on historic properties.
Pleased with “adaptive reuse” if allows sensitive projects e.g. restaurant, B & B.
Water and sewer questions; Big picture - where is water coming from. Details-
making sure it is available to allow development and adaptive reuse to occur.
Praise for Creekside development context and quality encouraged by repeating
this with new development in Kernstown area.
Questions about details of trails and connections within study area. Talked about
complete streets. Flexible approach to design. Recognized separate hike/bike
trail on Route 11, example being in front of Kernstown Commons.
Concerns were expressed about making sure the right-of-way was available,
particularly along Route 11 in the northern area, to allow improvements to the
roads in support of the anticipated development.
Who was involved in preparation of plan?
Shout out to Sherando students who helped. The Sherando High School Student
Learning Group completed a project this spring that identified and evaluated the
Historic Resources, in addition to the Natural Resources, in the Kernstown Area.
ADJUSTMENTS MADE TO THE DRAFT KERNSTOWN AREA PLAN BASED
ON INPUT RECEIVED
Transportation Committee
An early draft of the Kernstown Area Plan was presented to the Frederick County
Transportation Committee on Monday, April 27, 2015. At this meeting, members of the
Transportation Committee offered comments including the following:
The current planned transportation network was maintained in the Kernstown
Area Plan. In the future, changes may be considered if warranted based upon
more in depth transportation analysis. The current planned transportation network
in the vicinity of Route 11, Route 37, and Interstate 81 is extremely significant.
Any modifications that may negatively impact this area should be avoided. The
existing transportation network has been reinforced in the maps. Adjustments
made to the text of the Plan to reflect future study if warranted (page 16)
Areas of DSA should be limited and should not hinder property owners from the
development or use of their properties. Areas of identified DSA’s have been
reduced, in particular in the South Bartonsville area (pages 7, 19, 20).
More flexibility has been reinforced in the text of the Plan to encourage the
sensitive development and adaptive reuse of the properties.
General Public Comments and Requests.
A more significant amount of flexibility was added in the identified Rural Historic
Resource Areas description to encourage adaptive reuse and sensitive
development of the areas where appropriate. Care was added to promote the
flexible ability to develop properties in the identified DSA’s in a manner that was
respectful to the character and context of these areas (pages 7, 19, 20).
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 request.
Route 11 south in the vicinity of Bartonsville was maintained at its current
designation with no additional improvements identified. Therefore, as a result of
this plan, no additional widening of Route 11 in the immediate Bartonsville area
was anticipated.
Attachment 2
Planning Commission comments from June 17, 2015 meeting.
Immediately prior to the Planning Commission discussion, Staff had received input from
a property owner in the south Bartonsville regarding the commercial recreation
designation area of land use and general input from others regarding the DSA’s. As a
result, a draft land use map had been prepared and presented that reflected this input; the
removal of the areas of DSA and the conversion of the commercial recreation land use to
commercial.
Mr. Thomas: Posed the question when going from a historic designation to rural
designation does that jive the property owner the assumption that they can develop the
property in the future, would it also allow the property to be broken into 5 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 peripheral historic areas.
Mr. Ruddy: Noted they are certainly historical areas but they would be able to do in the
Bartonsville Area what the rural area zoning designation would allow. For instance, they
would be able to subdivide if their density and lot acreage would allow. They would also
be allowed to work with the County on a 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. In addition
it’s important to recognize the second area in the Kernstown Battlefield location that is
recognized as a DSA but could revert back to RA designation is wholly protected by the
Kernstown Battlefield Association through ownership of the property or future easements
that they’re obtaining on the adjacent properties. He noted rural area designation has
been reinforced over the last few years and that is somethings to be supported.
Mr. 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. Keep the historical
designation and the peripheral areas designate RA.
Mr. Ruddy: Noted that is a very good point. In the process we are always trying to
balance that, to allow the property owners to do certain things but also to recognize our
resources. Development Sensitive Areas have been a good tool for the County in
identifying those places and locations, it’s insuring that when everyone uses the DSA that
they’re 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.
Mr. Thomas: Appreciates the property owner’s rights and wants to keep those rights
flexible. He stated maybe 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 valuin g the future of that, as
the resources that are there today and trying to find a balance.
Mr. Oates: Noted when he first came on the Planning Commission in 2005, the
mapping was mainly white. He was pleased that over the last 10 years or so on the land
use plans, colors have been added to identify areas that were to be preserved. He stated
the color acted as a chip that noted the land had 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. He stated leaving the mapping white is going
to reopen the door for confusion and the false sense the property can be developed. He
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
it actually cannot.
Mr. Ruddy: Appreciated everyone’s comments and input as this will continue to be a
work in progress.
As a result of the additional Planning Commission input and the discussion of the
above requests and changes, Staff added back the DSA designation to the draft land
use plan. Flexibility in the adaptive reuse of properties and resources in these rural
area identified with a DSA continues to be encouraged.
Please note that the input and adjustments suggested by the HRAB and
Transportation Committee is noted in the text of the document.
- Transportation Committee Input; April 27, 2015 and July 27, 2015
- Historic Resources Input; July 28, 2015
The Draft Kernstown Area Plan will be presented to the Town of Stephens City in
August.
§¨¦81§¨¦81
0137
0111
0137
0111
City of
Winchester
H o ge R un
O
p
e
q
u
o
n Cre
e
k
Opeq
u
on C
r
eek
O pe
qu
on
Cr
e
e
k
Hoge
Run
H
o
g
e
R
u
n
Opequon C
r
e
ek
O pe qu o n C r e e k
Op
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Op
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Kernstown Area Plan
Alternative Land Use - Draft
PC and BOS Discussion
June 1, 2015
Revisions:
June 17, 2015 - Remove DSA
- Change Commercial Rec to Commercial
July 1, 2015 - Add back DSA's
F00.510.25 Miles
Kernstown Area Plan
Urban Development Area
Sewer & Water Service Area
Parcels
Future Rt 37 Bypass
!(Proposed Interchanges
Long Range Land Use
Residential
Neighborhood Village
Urban Center
Mobile Home Community
Business
Highway Commercial
Mixed-Use
Mixed Use Commercial/Office
Mixed Use Industrial/Office
Industrial
Warehouse
Heavy Industrial
Extractive Mining
Commercial Rec
Rural Community Center
Fire & Rescue
DSA
Institutional
Planned Unit Development
Park
Recreation
School
Rural Areas
Rural Areas
Town of
Stephens City
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
Kernstown
Neighborhood Village
Bartonsville
South
Kernstown
Industrial Area
Kernstown
Industrial Area
Interstate
Commercial at 310
Interstate
Commercial at 310
Shady Elm
Economic Development Area
Shady Elm
Economic Development Area
Rural Areas
Rural Areas
Kernstown
Bartonsville
City ofWinchester
Hoge R
u
n
Op
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Hoge R
u
n
Ope
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Opequon Creek
Op
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Op
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
H
o
g
e
R
u
n
Ope
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Opequ
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Opeq
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Kernstown Area Plan
Transportation Map - DraftPC and BOS DiscussionJune 1, 2015
F00.5 10.25 Miles
Transportation
Kernstown Area Plan
Sewer & Water Service Area
Parcels
Urban Development Area
Future Rt 37 Bypass
Proposed Interchanges
New Minor Arterial
Improved Minor Arterial
New Major Collector
Improved Major Collector
New Minor Collector
Improved Minor Collector
Improved Major Arterial
Trails
Ramp
New Major Arterial
Town ofStephens City
City ofWinchester
Hoge R
u
n
Op
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Hoge R
u
n
Ope
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Opequon Creek
Op
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Op
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
H
o
g
e
R
u
n
Ope
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Opequ
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Opeq
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Kernstown Area Plan
Transportation w/ Trails Map - DraftPC and BOS DiscussionJune 1, 2015
F00.5 10.25 Miles
Transportation
Kernstown Area Plan
Sewer & Water Service Area
Parcels
Urban Development Area
Future Rt 37 Bypass
Proposed Interchanges
New Minor Arterial
Improved Minor Arterial
New Major Collector
Improved Major Collector
New Minor Collector
Improved Minor Collector
Improved Major Arterial
Trails
Ramp
New Major Arterial
Town ofStephens City
Æc
³n
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
Shady Oak
Springdale
Brightside
Hillandale
Carysbrook
Fort Colvin
The Willows
Long Meadows
Rose Hill Farm
Neill-Huck House
Grove, Will House
Carbaugh, S. House
Carysbrook Redoubt
Hinkle, M. Dr. House
Sprindale Flour Mill
Stoney Lonesome Farm
Kernstown Battlefield
Tenant House at Brightside
Opequon Presbyterian Church
BOWMAN LIBRARY
City of
Winchester
H o g e R un
O
p
e
q
u
o
n Cre
e
k
Hoge Run
O
peq
uon Creek
Opequon C
r
e
ek
O p e qu
o n
C
r
e e k
Op
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
H
o
g
e
R
u
n
Op
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
O pe qu on C r e e k
O pe qu o n Cr e e k
Kernstown Area Plan
Historic and Natural Resources Map
Draft - PC and BOS Discussion
June 1, 2015
F00.510.25 Miles
Kernstown Area Plan
Urban Development Area
Sewer & Water Service Area
Parcels
Future Rt 37 Bypass
!(Proposed Interchanges
#Historic Rural Landmarks
Long Range Land Use
DSA
Hoge's Ordinary
Stone House at Bartonsville
House at Bartonsville
Ebersole-Petrie House
Zig-Zag Trenches
Town of
Stephens City
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
1
August 3, 2015 Draft
KERNSTOWN AREA PLAN
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
APPROVED ON TBD, 2015
PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TBD, 2015
ENDORSED BY THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
TBD, 2015
- Transportation Committee Input; April 27, 2015 and July 27, 2015
- Historic Resources Input; July 28, 2015
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
2
August 3, 2015 Draft
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
3
August 3, 2015 Draft
KERNSTOWN AREA PLAN
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 the Kernstown Area
Plan.
The goal of the plan is to bring the areas within the study boundary
into a cohesive and proactive area plan. The Kernstown Area Plan
continues to identify opportunities to create new communities,
integrate land use and transportation choices, address community
infrastructure needs, and expand the County’s goals for economic
development.
A series of maps have been prepared which identify Future Land Use,
Transportation, and Natural, Historical, and Community Facilities
within the study area.
In this 2015 update, several changed or enhanced areas of land use
focus were envisioned; the Shady Elm Road area continues its
economic development emphasis, the Route 11 corridor seeks to
capitalize on Interstate Commercial opportunities, the industrial land
uses north of Route 37 and east of Route 11 are reinforced, and the
Bartonsville and Kernstown historical and cultural areas have been
identified with the Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) designation.
The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) suggested an alternate
approach that further recognizes these resource areas as Heritage
Resource Areas. Such an approach should be incorporated into the
review of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan as it may be attributable to
other areas of the Frederick County.
The Kernstown Area Plan in the vicinity of Route 37 and Interstate 81
feeds directly into the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan with
the Crosspointe Development. Interstate 81 improvements at the 310
Interchange, Phase 1 of which is scheduled to commence in 2015, in
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
4
August 3, 2015 Draft
this location further supports this area plan. Route 11, Valley Pike,
links the Kernstown Area Plan with the City of Winchester to the north
and the Town of Stephens City to the south.
The Kernstown Area Plan promotes a new area of new land use focus;
the Kernstown Neighborhood Village in the Creekside area, along the
west side of Route 11. This area is within the Urban Development Area
and seeks to incorporate the recently developed residential
communities with new infill residential and commercial opportunities.
This area should promote an attractive street presence along the
frontage of Route 11 and reaffirm Kernstown as a distinct community,
blending the old with the new, and building on the successful
developments that have occurred in this area of the County.
An overview to planning in Frederick County.
Planning efforts, such as the Kernstown Area Plan, enable the
community to anticipate and deal constructively with changes
occurring in the community. Planning helps guide the future growth of
the community and is intended to improve the public health, safety,
convenience, and welfare of its citizens.
The Plan provides a guide for future land use and was a collaborative
effort of the citizens of Frederick County, County Planning Staff,
Planning Commissioners, and Board of Supervisors. However, it is the
property owners who are the ones who make the decision as to
whether or not to implement the Plan as it applies to their property.
Future rezoning is a means of implementing the Plan. Rezonings in
Frederick County have historically been initiated by the property
owner, or with their consent. There is no reason to expect that this
will change in the future.
Therefore, it is important to remember that the Plan is a guide for the
future of the community, but that the property owner is ultimately the
one who controls the future use of their property.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
5
August 3, 2015 Draft
Land Use
The goal of this area plan is to integrate the commercial and industrial
(C/I) opportunities and the areas of mixed use with future
transportation plans and to recognize the historical and natural
resources abundant in this area plan.
Shady Elm Economic Development Area
The Shady Elm Economic Development Area is designed to be a
significant area of industrial and commercial opportunity that is fully
supportive of the County Economic Development Authorities targeted
goals and strategies. The intent of the industrial designation is to
further enhance the County’s commercial and industrial areas and to
provide focus to the County’s future regional employment centers. In
specific areas a mix of flexible uses, with office uses in prominent
locations is encouraged. Such areas are supported by substantial
areas of industrial and commercial opportunity, and provide for areas
that are well designed with high quality architecture and site design.
It is the intent of such areas to promote a strong positive community
image.
Kernstown Interstate Commercial @ 310
Located at a highly visible location on a prominent interstate
interchange, this area of land use both north and south of Route 37
along Route 11, is designed specifically to accommodate and promote
highway commercial land uses and commercial uses that continue to
promote this area as a regional commercial center.
Particular effort must be made to ensure that access management for
the supporting transportation network is a key priority as the function
of the interstate and primary road network is of paramount
importance. Access to the areas of interstate commercial land uses
shall be carefully designed. Access Management is a priority along the
Route 11 corridor.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
6
August 3, 2015 Draft
The building and site layout and design of the projects shall be of a
high quality. In addition, an enhanced buffer and landscaping area
shall be provided adjacent to the Interstate 81 right-of-way, its ramps,
and along the main arterial road, Route 11, the Valley Pike. A
significant corridor appearance buffer is proposed along Route 11
similar to that established for Route 50 West corridor in the Round Hill
Land Use Plan which consisted of a 50’ buffer area, landscaping, and
bike path. The recently developed Kernstown Commons provides an
excellent example of an enhanced buffer and landscaping area along
Route 11 that also includes a multipurpose trail that serves the area.
Kernstown Industrial Area
The existing industrial land uses north of Route 37 and both east and
west of Route 11 are reinforced with this area plan. Industries
including Trex and H. P. Hood, are well established and should
continue to be supported in this area. Additional industrial and
opportunity that is fully supportive of the County Economic
Development Authorities targeted goals and strategies should be
promoted. The intent of the industrial designation is to further
enhance the County’s commercial and industrial areas and to provide
focus to the County’s regional employment centers.
Kernstown Creekside Neighborhood Village
Kernstown Creekside Neighborhood Village serves as a focal point to
the Kernstown Area and as a gateway feature for this important
County location. In addition, the Kernstown Creekside Area serves as a
gateway into the City of Winchester, and on a broader scale, a
gateway feature for this portion of Frederick County as citizens and
visitors approach this portion the County from the south. This
neighborhood village should promote a strong positive community
image. Residential land uses would be permitted only as an accessory
component of the neighborhood village commercial land uses. This
area should have a strong street presence with particular attention
being paid to the form of the buildings adjacent to Route 11. It is the
intent of this plan to reaffirm Kernstown as a distinct community,
blending the old with the new, and building on the successful
developments that have occurred in this area of the County.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
7
August 3, 2015 Draft
Defined Rural Areas
The Kernstown Area Plan has sought to further define the boundary
between the Rural and Urban Areas of the community. As noted, the
above areas of proposed land use combine to frame the western
boundary of the County’s urban areas. In addition, the rural areas to
the west of Shady Elm Road south of the industrial areas further define
the County’s urban area in this location. The plan provides enhanced
recognition of the rural residential land uses, Hedgebrook Farm, and
the agricultural areas adjacent to Middle Road. This recognition and
the location and boundaries of the proposed land uses further promote
a clean separation between the County’s rural and urban areas. The
continuation of agricultural uses west of Route 37 and Shady Elm Road
will encourage the continuation of agribusiness activity and protect the
integrity of the properties voluntarily placed in the South Frederick
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Kernstown and Bartonsville Developmentally Sensitive Areas
(DSA’s) - An alternate approach that recognizes these resource areas
as Heritage Resource Areas, could be evaluated to more accurately
reflect the role of these areas.
A State Historic District designation is recommended for the portion of
the Grim Farm, site of the Kernstown Battlefield owned by the
Kernstown Battlefield Association (KBA) that is located in the county.
This designation is intended to recognize the preservation of the core
area of the Kernstown Battlefield. County regulations stipulate that
the formation of a historic district must be accomplished through the
consent of the land owner. The County continues to support the
Kernstown Battlefield Associations efforts in preserving and promoting
this tremendous County resource.
A similar State Historic District designation should be pursued, in
conjunction with property owners, in the Bartonsville Heritage
Resource Area. In addition to its historical significance, much of the
Bartonsville area is also within the 100 year flood plain and would
therefore be otherwise limited in terms of development potential. In
Bartonsville, the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, or restoration of
historic structures should be encouraged. Future development
applications that have historic resources on the property should
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
8
August 3, 2015 Draft
incorporate the resources on the site into development. Any future
development should be sensitive to those resources present on the
site.
The County’s Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) suggested
creating a hierarchy evaluation for the preservation, adaptive reuse,
continuation of existing property and use choices that may be available
when evaluating these areas. In essence, a guide to the preferred
approach to addressing the future of these identified heritage
resources. Such an approach should be incorporated into the review of
the 2035 Comprehensive Plan as it may be attributable to other areas
of the Frederick County. Archeological resources should also be a
consideration within these identified areas and in the County in
general.
Bartonsville South
Perhaps the most outstanding feature of the land from Bartonsville
south to the Stephens City limits is the relatively pristine state of the
southern portion of the corridor. It remains relatively undeveloped.
The majority of this segment of the study area is currently either used
for agriculture or is vacant. Only two, small-scale commercial
enterprises are situated in this portion of the corridor. The bigger of
the two is a commercial recreational land use known as Appleland.
This commercial recreation land use is expanded upon to further
promote the expansion of this land use in this location. In addition,
this area promotes the further expansion of general commercial land
uses in the future by encouraging the conversion of the commercial
recreation land uses to general commercial land uses.
As noted, the Route 11 South corridor, in the area in and around
Bartonsville, is shown as the site of a future Historic District.
One of the significant elements of this plan is the buffering of Route 11
South. This southern section of the corridor from Stephens City, north
to Bartonsville is intended to be set apart from the existing commercial
development along the northern third of the corridor. The intent is
that, through a combination of setbacks, vegetative screening,
planting of shade trees along the edge of the right-of-way, and the
provision of bike way and pedestrian access, the corridor would have a
parkway-like appearance. A planted median strip is also envisioned
when this section of Route 11 South becomes four lane. Uses locating
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
9
August 3, 2015 Draft
within this section of the corridor would be expected to have no direct
access to Route 11 South, but rather would access a proposed east-
west connector road which in turn would intersect Route 11 South.
Valley Pike Trail
For the Kernstown Area Plan, it is recommended that a new multi-
purpose path be constructed along the length of Valley Pike through
the study area connecting areas of land use, in particular those
resources identified as DSA’s, and providing connections with the City
of Winchester and the Town of Stephens City. This pathway should be
consistent with the path that exists in several locations along the road
today. Examples of this include that directly in front of Kernstown
Commons. Such a recreational resource would provide an excellent
example for other opportunities in the County.
In general, the goals for land use in the Kernstown Area Plan are to;
Promote orderly development within areas impacted by new
infrastructure.
Provide a balance of industrial, commercial, residential, and
agricultural areas.
Promote mixed-use development in-lieu of large areas of
residential.
Concentrate industrial and commercial uses near and around
interstate, arterial, and major collector interchanges and
intersections.
Encourage the preservation of prime agricultural areas and the
continuation of Agricultural and Forestal Districts.
SWSA Adjustment.
The land use plan recommends an adjustment of the SWSA in the
western portion of the study area in the proximity of Shady Elm Road,
south of Route 37 and to the rear of the existing industrial parcels.
This would bring the SWSA in line with the properties that are
designated for industrial land uses. In addition, an adjustment of the
SWSA is proposed just south of this location, adjacent to the east side
of Shady Elm Road, to include the Carbaugh properties. This
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
10
August 3, 2015 Draft
adjustment relocates the SWSA to cover properties that are
designated with an industrial land use. This is to further the
Comprehensive Plan’s goal to ensure that an adequate supply of
properties are available within the SWSA for economic development
opportunities.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
11
August 3, 2015 Draft
Residential Development
The only area of urban residential development is located within the
Urban Development Area in the location identified as the Kernstown
Creekside Neighborhood Village. In recent years, the Woodbrook
Village and Cross Creek Village communities have added value to this
area. Currently under development is the Doonbeg community which
sits adjacent to the existing Plainfield Heights neighborhood. New
residential uses should complement the existing residential uses,
should be generally of a higher residential density and should include a
neighborhood commercial component as described in the Kernstown
Creekside Neighborhood Village Land Use. It will be very important to
mix residential development in this area with the right balance of
commercial uses.
In this area, slightly higher residential densities that may fall within
the 6-12 units per acre range are envisioned (this is generally attached
houses and may also include multifamily and a mix of other housing
types).
These densities are necessary to accommodate the anticipated growth
of the County within the urban areas and are consistent with
established patterns within the study area and the densities needed to
support the future residential land uses envisioned in the Plan.
The residential land uses west of Shady Elm Road within the study
area are envisioned to remain rural area residential in character.
Shady Elm Road south may generally be considered as the boundary
between the urban areas and rural areas within the western part of
this study area. This provides a transition area to the Opequon Creek
and to the well-established rural character of the Middle Road and
Springdale Road area.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
12
August 3, 2015 Draft
Business Development
The business development section of the plan seeks to identify items
and locations that would be complementary to the Urban Areas and
Residential Development, Transportation and Natural Resources,
Historic Resources and Public Facilities portion of the plan.
The business development recommendations are also intended to
implement the 2030 Comprehensive Plan by promoting the efficient
utilization of existing and planned land areas and transportation
networks. Further, the recommendations promote commercial,
industrial, and employment land use areas to assure the County’s
desired taxable value ratio of 25 percent commercial/industrial to 75
percent residential and other land use is achieved.
The Plan provides for new industrial park and employment center
areas to match the Economic Development Authorities vision for this
portion of Frederick County.
The Plan identifies a prime area for industrial land uses, the Shady Elm
Economic Development Area, to capitalize on future industrial and
commercial employment opportunities. Existing areas of industrial
development are recognized with additional development promoted.
Regional commercial development opportunities are reinforced in the
Kernstown Interstate commercial area. In addition, an area is
identified for neighborhood village commercial use, including retail, to
accommodate existing residential communities and to build upon the
successful Creekside commercial project.
The improvements to the Exit 310 Interchange on interstate 81 at
Route 37 furthers the significant commercial opportunities that the
Plan seeks to take advantage of by identifying the Kernstown
Interstate Commercial @ 310 area of land use. Future improvements
identified for this area are envisioned to continue to enhance this areas
major role for commercial and industrial development.
Business development group recommendations continue to identify
desirable business types to draw to the area. Including, but not limited
to;
Light Industrial/High Tech targeted businesses.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
13
August 3, 2015 Draft
Lodging / Event / Dining along the Route 11 corridor and at the
interstate.
Fast-Casual Dining (e.g. Panera, Chipotle)
Higher-end dining (Chain and Local businesses) as well as
casual Pub’s and Cafes.
Premium Grocery & Retail.
The business development group also provided the following general
comments:
1. All areas should be designed to promote/support pedestrian and
bike access, making this a walkable environment. In particular
in the Kernstown Creekside Neighborhood Village which should
be a highly walkable community. This will decrease reliance on
cars and enable residents to more readily access business and
employment centers.
a. To expand the pedestrian & bike access to the
undeveloped land identified with the DSA’s. These areas
of cultural, natural, and recreational resources should
include walking/biking trails.
2. Promote development of small parcels of land that already
contain residential structures along transportation corridors for
business purposes, examples of which may include doctors,
dentist offices, and other professional offices. Promotion could
be in the form of incentives or credits to offset the cost of site
improvements and transportation improvements required by the
site development.
3. Restaurants and community based businesses such as Dry
Cleaners, Convenience Stores, and the like, should be located
close to and easily accessible by car or by foot to the areas
targeted as industrial, commercial and office uses. This could
also be within the Neighborhood village commercial areas which
are located within accessible distances from these areas.
4. The Kernstown area would be a natural fit for various outdoor
events and festivals, especially associated with the Kernstown
Battlefield Area DSA and once the road and walking path
networks have been enhanced and more lodging and dining
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
14
August 3, 2015 Draft
options are available. This type of business has a low impact on
the environment and provides an external infusion of revenue.
Specific Implementation Steps have been identified which would
further promote business development opportunities in the Kernstown
Area Plan and Frederick County in general. This is consistent with
those identified in the Senseny/Eastern Frederick County Urban Area
Plan and the Southern Frederick Area Plan. These include:
The creation of a Future Land Use Revenue Incentive Program
that provides property owners with the ability to sell residential
density rights to keep their property available for future
employment, commercial, or industrial land use as
recommended by the Comprehensive Policy Plan. This program
would incentivize the property owner by providing a revenue
income source in the near term and future revenue income
when the property is zoned for employment, commercial or
industrial land use.
Incentivize the property owner with automatic placement of the
property into the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) if a
rezoning application is processed for future employment,
commercial, or industrial land use.
Incentivize the property owner with County endorsement of
Economic Development Access (EDA) funds and/or Revenue
Sharing Funds to assist in the financing of major road
infrastructure needed to serve the development project.
Additionally, provide for County-managed support of the major
road infrastructure projects to streamline the approval process
for project design and construction management.
Incentivize the property owner through the implementation of
expedited rezoning processes for future employment,
commercial, or industrial land use as recommended by the
Comprehensive Policy Plan.
The County should support and partner with various athletic
organizations to sponsor regional or state tournaments and
events using existing facilities to promote tourism in support of
existing hotels, restaurants, and attractions.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
15
August 3, 2015 Draft
Transportation
The County’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan’s Eastern Road Plan identifies
several significant transportation improvements within the study area
boundaries. These plans call for improvements to existing road
alignments and interchanges, the relocation of existing roadways, and
the construction of new road systems and interchanges.
Transportation improvements to the interstate, arterial and collector
road systems will contribute to improved levels of service throughout
the study area, and will shape the land use patterns in the short and
long term.
In support of the new areas of land use, a transportation network has
been proposed which relates to the location and context of the areas of
land use, promotes multi-modal transportation choices and walkability,
furthers the efforts of the Win-Fred MPO, and reaffirms the planning
done as part of the Route 11 South Plan and the original Southern
Frederick Plan. In this study there is a direct nexus between
transportation and land use.
The improvements to Interstate 81, Exit 310, provides an improved
orientation for the County’s primary road system and provides new
opportunities to create a transportation network which supports the
future growth of the community in the right locations. This area is
also heavily influenced by the ongoing and future improvements to
Route 11 South, Shady Elm Road, and the future extension of
Renaissance Drive to complete a key east-west connection south of
Route 37. South of Bartonsville, in the area north of the Town of
Stephens City, the road network provides for important connections
into the Town and to the east to connect with the planned alignment of
the Tasker Road flyover of Interstate 81.
Roundabouts will be considered as a priority preference for intersection
design. Roundabouts are particularly effective when used in series
and when used where intersection spacing may be an issue. A
roundabout would be particularly effective at the intersection of Shady
Elm Road and Renaissance Drive.
Access Management is a significant consideration of this study and
general transportation planning in Frederick County. This concept is
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
16
August 3, 2015 Draft
supportive of providing for key connections to the south. The use of
frontage roads, minor collector roads, and inter parcel connections to
bring traffic to access points is promoted.
The context of the collector road network is proposed to be different
with the focus being placed on a complete street thoroughfare design
and a more walkable environment. Particular attention should be paid
to street network within the Kernstown Creekside Neighborhood
Village Area to ensure that is highly walkable. The change in context in
this specific location is to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses
and community goals. The surrounding land use, site design, and
building design are features that will help create context and promote
the improvement of this area as a focal point and as a place with more
distinct character. Attention should be provided to the context of the
street in the Neighborhood Village Commercial Areas to ensure that
these prominent locations are safe and accessible to all modes of
transportation. Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations should be
fully integrated to achieve complete streets. Appropriately designed
intersection accommodations should include pedestrian refuge islands
and pedestrian actualized signals.
In general, the road south of Apple Valley Road will provide for a more
functional complete street. North of Apple Valley Road, Route 11 will
have a more urban scale with a character that builds upon the
architecture established in the existing Creekside area.
Special attention should be paid to ensure the transportation
considerations of the Town of Stephens City to the south and the City
of Winchester to the north are fully coordinated.
In addition, transportation improvements in the Kernstown Battlefield
area and the Bartonsville Rural Historic District area should include
taking a proactive approach in creating safe interconnected routes to
the battlefield park from the adjacent areas and creating additional
access points. Traffic calming across the entire frontage of Kernstown
Creekside Neighborhood Village is warranted with special attention
placed on providing a safe and efficient access to this mixed use area
of the community.
Consistent application of Comprehensive Plan goals to achieve an
acceptable level of service on area roads and overall transportation
network, level of service C or better, should be promoted. Further,
efforts should be made to ensure that additional degradation of the
transportation beyond an acceptable level of service shall be avoided.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
17
August 3, 2015 Draft
Consideration of future development applications within the study area
should only occur when an acceptable level of service has been
achieved and key elements and connections identified in this plan have
been provided.
Further in depth study should occur in the future regarding the
preferred alignment of the road connections in the area immediately
south and adjacent to the Bartonsville area. Consideration should be
given to ensure the future road network functions adequately and is
sensitive to the many constraints that exist in that general area.
Other recommendations from the transportation group:
Emphasize the role of the State and the development
community in the implementation of the planned road system.
Promote areas of viable rail access for industrial uses.
Use modeling to determine lane needs based upon build out of
planned land uses, but consider plans of neighboring localities
when making recommendations. Consider the needs of bicycle
users and pedestrians in the following ways:
o Continue to plan all streets as “complete” streets which
consider all users.
o Within residential neighborhoods, this would mean that
sidewalks be used and cyclists share the roads. Use of
striping that defines parking bays or cycling areas would
be preferred.
o On collector roadways or higher, make use of separated
multi-use paths at least 10 feet in width.
o Incorporate wide shoulders or bike lanes into roadways
that have budgetary or right-of-way limitations. This
would be viewed as a step toward the ultimate goal of a
separated facility.
o Make use of paved shoulders with striping on rural
roadways as a long term measure. Rural roadways would
be defined by traffic count or as roadways outside of the
UDA that are not part of the Primary System (ex. Shady
Elm Road, Springdale Road).
o Bike paths should be constructed on the same grade as
the adjacent roadway.
o Bike path maintenance should be addressed by adjacent
property owner groups whenever possible.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
18
August 3, 2015 Draft
Continue to enforce improved access management with
redevelopment or new development.
o This includes, but is not limited to, entrance location and
spacing as well as traffic signal location and spacing.
Roundabout use is preferred over signalization of intersections
where traffic control is needed. A perfect example of this is at
the intersection of Shady Elm Road and Renaissance Drive. A
roundabout in this location would effectively address the turning
movements of the industrial and commercial traffic, while
creating a separation, calming the traffic heading south on
Shady Elm in front of the existing rural residential uses.
Attractive median treatments (as alternative to standard grey
concrete median) other than grass or other landscaping should
be considered when maintenance agreements with VDOT cannot
be achieved.
o Treatments should be reasonably consistent
Street sections could be modified due to DCR changes specific to
drainage requirements.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
19
August 3, 2015 Draft
Natural Resources, Historic Resources, and Public Facilities
Natural Resources
Frederick County should be a community that understands, values,
and protects its natural resources.
The natural resources element of the Kernstown Area Plan should
directly correlate to the Natural Resources chapter of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
To that end, Frederick County should focus on the creation of
greenways, stream valley parks and stream buffers around waterways.
Shared use trails should be constructed that connect these features to
other public facilities. Consideration should be given to creating linear
parks with shared use trails along major streams, particularly the
Opequon Creek, with buffering vegetation appropriate for preventing
erosion, filtering pollutants, and providing wildlife habitat.
Shared use trails should provide connections to other shared use trails
as well as other public facilities in the study area.
New construction within the study area should take into account the
natural resources located on and around their property.
Ensure that when new developments are planned, connectivity of
greenways is included through the project.
Preserve and maintain existing natural wetlands, woodlands, and
grasslands to the maximum feasible extent to provide wildlife habitats
for animals and plants. Buffer wetlands and creeks using latest water
management principles to promote environmental protection of those
localities, stabilize stream banks, and promote such protective steps
during residential development throughout the Kernstown area.
All types of urban open spaces like greenways, squares, plazas, urban
parks, playgrounds and street medians should be considered as part of
more urban development planning and implemented wherever
reasonable, especially within the identified Kernstown Creekside
Neighborhood Village.
Ensure that storm water is managed in accordance with the County’s
Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and Virginia’s storm water
Requirements, and work to implement Low Impact Development (LID)
measures where appropriate.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
20
August 3, 2015 Draft
Provide for best storm water management practices at Neighborhood
Village centers, residential developments, commercial developments,
and industrial areas to facilitate environmental protection.
Protect floodplains and steep slopes from unsuitable uses and
recognize their value for storm water management and ecological
functions.
Ensure that with new development, people and wildlife are protected
from unhealthy levels of noise and light.
Historic Resources
Frederick County should recognize and protect the historic structures
and sites within the study area.
The historic element of the Kernstown Area Plan should directly
correlate to the Historic Resources chapter of the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan.
To that end, the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, or restoration of
historic structures should be increased. The Comprehensive Plan calls
for the adaptive reuse of historic structures, future development
applications that have historic resources on the property should
incorporate the site into development.
Two main Developmentally Sensitive Areas have been identified within
the Kernstown Area Plan. These Developmentally Sensitive Areas,
including historic areas, are shown on the land use map for the study
area. By recognizing these historic sites and structures, the Kernstown
Area Plan is implementing the policies of the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan. As an alternative approach to recognizing these resources, a
designation such as Rural Historic Resource Areas, or some alternative
description, could be evaluated to more accurately reflect the role of
these areas.
Significant structures and properties shown with a developmentally
sensitive/historic designation should be buffered from adjacent
development activity.
Require archaeological surveys to be conducted prior to development,
particularly any that involve battlefield areas, homesteads, Indian
Native American encampments, and waterways.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
21
August 3, 2015 Draft
The Rural Landmarks Survey should be updated and maintained
regularly in order to keep current the inventory of structures older
than fifty years.
Further in depth study should occur in the future, and by any applicant
for a rezoning prior to the submission of rezoning applications,
regarding the potential for additional historic landmarks located in the
area covered by the Kernstown Area Plan. Consideration should be
given to incorporating any identified landmarks that may qualify for
future updates to the Rural Landmarks Survey into projects.
Encourage the protection of potentially significant historic structures
and sites as identified by the Frederick County Rural Landmarks
Survey.
There are several historic sites and markers in the Kernstown Area
Plan. Those sites and markers should be buffered from adjacent
development activities and preserved in their original condition
whenever possible during any development or land use planning.
The Springdale Flour Mill is located in the center of Bartonsville and
would be ideal for use as a key element for the Bartonsville Rural
Historic Heritage Resource Area. It would be appropriate for the use on
the property to develop as something which would encourage the
protection of the structure and provide a use which encourages
adaptive reuse users to utilize the property. Protection and adaptive
reuse of the property is encouraged.
Frederick County should assist property owners that want to register
their properties with the State or National Register.
Encourage the establishment of historic districts and the protection of
historic areas identified by the Battlefield Network Plan, particularly
the Kernstown Battlefield site.
Increasing shared use trails throughout the study area would give
emphasis to the preservation and rehabilitation of nearby historic sites
and structures. Developments should incorporate and/or convert
historic properties into recreational elements, including shared use
trails, parks, and museums. The Zig-Zag trenches should be preserved
and connected via a linear park/trail network to those areas identified
in the Southern Frederick Area Plan. Opportunities for trail
connections across or under the interstate should be evaluated. This
would allow for a broader regional network connecting with similar
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
22
August 3, 2015 Draft
resources in the Southern Frederick Area Plan and the
Senseny/Eastern Frederick Area Plan.
Developers of Neighborhood Village development in the study area
should integrate into the center’s development plans, the preservation
of prominent historical, natural, and architectural resources within the
Neighborhood Village boundaries. Such examples include the
restoration, rehabilitation, or adaptive reuse of historic homes,
churches, other buildings, Civil War site markers, etc.
Community Facilities
The need for public spaces within the study area needs to be
acknowledged. Opportunities for small public spaces within the
Kernstown Creekside Neighborhood Village should be pursued.
The public facility element of the Kernstown Area plan should directly
correlate to the Public Facilities chapter of the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan. The public facilities element should also expand upon the existing
2030 Comprehensive Plan and ensure that opportunities for needed
public facilities, which are not currently identified, are not missed.
To that end, the following recommendations are offered.
The development community should work with FCPS, Fire & Rescue,
and Parks and Recreation to determine future public facility needs.
Recommendations from the 2007 Win-Fred MPO Bicycle & Pedestrian
Mobility Plan should be adopted by the Board of Supervisors and
pedestrian facilities shown in the plan should be constructed. This plan
should also be utilized as a reference for accommodation
recommendations and guidelines.
Ensure connectivity with existing or proposed bicycle or pedestrian
transportation accommodations wherever possible. In particular, those
planned or existing in the Town of Stephens City or in the City of
Winchester.
Pedestrian facilities should be constructed that connect neighborhoods
to commercial areas, employment areas and public facilities to
promote access and walkability.
Trails should be planned and constructed that connect the Kernstown
DSA, the proposed Valley Pike Trail, and The Bartonsville DSA (see the
Valley Pike Trail example described in the land use section).
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
23
August 3, 2015 Draft
Linear parks should be constructed along creeks where permissible
due to topography.
With regards to Public Utilities, the Frederick County Sanitation
Authority (FCSA) and County should continue to ensure the availability
of adequate water resources in conjunction with the future land uses
identified in Area Plans and future development, determine the
capacities of water and sewer treatment facilities and projected
impacts of future land uses, and provide opportunities for expansion of
water and sewage treatment facilities.
Zoning Amendments to implement the plan
Revised/more flexible B2 Overlay concept
Neighborhood Village Commercial areas are envisioned to be
compact commercial centers that focus and complement the
surrounding neighborhoods, are walkable and designed at a
human scale, and which are supported by existing and planned
road networks.
Accessory residential uses within the neighborhood Villages are
only permitted as an accessory component of the commercial
land uses within the core area. However, the residential uses
are allowed in a variety of configurations and are not just
limited to the second and third floors of commercial
buildings. They may also be located in separated
buildings, again provided that they are accessory to the
commercial uses. This provides a greater amount of flexibility
with the residential design, while still affording the commercial
land uses primary status. Previously, residential land uses were
only permitted on the second floor and above commercial
buildings.
Traditional Neighborhood Design Zoning Classification
This flexible zoning classification is intended to enable
Neighborhood and Urban Village Centers, or a part thereof, to
be developed.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
24
August 3, 2015 Draft
KERNSTOWN AREA PLAN
Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA’s)
Developmentally Sensitive Areas encompass a variety of
resources in the County, such as floodplains, steep slopes, karst
terrain, agricultural areas, water resources, and historic
resources, including archeological resources.
These developmentally sensitive areas and resources are further
identified in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and integrated into
the Area Plans contained with Appendix I of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
Development consistent with those Area Plans should recognize
these sensitive natural and historic resources and strive to
preserve, protect, and enhance them through a range of
preservation and adaptive reuse approaches. Each Area Plan
provides an opportunity to further describe the methods to
recognizing the County’s Developmentally Sensitive Areas.
- Transportation Committee Input; Define DSA’s