PC 11-05-14 Meeting MinutesMEETING MINUTES
OF TI4E
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on November 5, 2014.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice
Chairman/Opequon District; Robert S. Molden, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; J.
Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel,
Shawnee District; J. Rhodes Marston, Back Creek District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Charles
E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud
District; Charles F. Dunlap, Red Bud District: Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; Robert Hess,
Board of Supervisors Liaison; Mark Loring, City of Winchester Liaison.
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director; John A.
Bishop, Deputy Director -Transportation; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator;
Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; and Shannon L. Conner, Administrative Assistant.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wilmot called the November 5, 2014 meeting of the Frederick County
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Wilmot commenced the meeting by inviting
everyone to join in a moment of silence..
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening's meeting.
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Molden, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted the minutes of their October 1, 2014 meeting.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3159
Minutes of November 5, 2014
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Frederick County Sanitation Authority —10/28/14 Mtg.
Commissioner Unger reported rainfall for last month was .61 inches, with the previous
month being 3.28 inches, making this a fairly good average for the year. Water usage at the Diehl Plant
was 2.6 mgd; water usage at the Anderson Plant was 2.0 mgd; and right around 1.0 mgd was purchased
from the City. The daily average use is about 5.67 mgd, which is very normal for this time of year. The
elevation at the Diehl Quarry did go down a few feet, it is now at 657 and was at 662 last month, due to
repairs made on a pump at the plant; the Anderson Quarry elevation rose about a foot.
Commissioner Unger also reported the water leaks in the County are improving. The
leaks are running around 3% versus 17% from the previous month. He noted there has been a lot of work
done on the water lines to accomplish this. The Sanitation Authority was audited last month and
Commissioner Unger noted it went very well.
City of Winchester Planning Commission —10/21/14 Mtg.
Commissioner Loring reported the Planning Commission for the City of Winchester
considered three actions items and four administrative actions. The items were as follows, a CUP for
VFW post to operate a private club, two zoning ordinance amendments, one affecting side and rear
setbacks in CMI district and one affecting nonconforming uses in vested rights across the city. There
were two administrative approvals. The approval being for the Chop Stix Cafe for a major revision taking
place and also approve the site plan for The Lofts at Jubal Square.
Transportation Committee —10/27/14 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported the committee reviewed the Transportation portion of the
Capital Improvement Plan, and noted there are no changes at this time due to lost funding, therefore
several projects remain idle.
Board of Supervisors Report —10/8/14 Mtg.
Board of Supervisors' Liaison, Supervisor Robert Hess, reported there were two Planning
Commission items addressed at the October 8, 2014 meeting. The Governors Hill proffer amendment
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3160
Minutes of November 5, 2014
was presented and approved by the Board of Supervisors. An informational item was presented in
regards to the Black Diamond site plan, of which the Board took note of the uncertainty of funding for
Route 37 and that it is unreasonable to suggest the property owner/s carry this burden.
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
Rezoning #04-14 Baker and Lepley properties, submitted by Lewis and Melissa Baker, Fred and
Alice Baker, and Krista Lepley to rezone 8.59+/- acres from MHl (Mobile Home Community)
District and RA (Rural Area) District to the RA (Rural Area) District. The properties are located
on Sinking Springs Lane in Gore. The properties are identified by Property Identification Numbers
28-A-75, 28-A-76, and 28-A-82 in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this is a request to rezone 8.59 +/- acres
from the MH -1 (Mobile Home Community) and RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District to the RA Zoning
District. Ms. Perkins noted that this rezoning consists of three parcels that are currently split zoned and
the proposal is to down zone all to the RA District. The land use proposed in the application is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and promotes the County's rural areas. Ms. Perkins noted this is a positive
rezoning application as it removes areas of mobile home communities that would not typically be used for
a mobile home park due to the location outside of the water and sewer service area and the urban
development area. Commissioner Unger reiterated that this is a positive rezoning application.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this
request to come forward. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public
comment portion of the hearing.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Triplett,
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the Rezoning #04-14 Baker and Lepley properties, submitted by Lewis and Melissa Baker,
Fred and Alice Baker, and Krista Lepley to rezone 8.59+/- acres from MH1 (Mobile Home Community)
District and RA (Rural Area) District to the RA (Rural Area) District.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3161
Minutes of November 5, 2014
Conditional Use Permit #03-14 for Caroline E. Watson, for in Home Child Care. This property is
located at 215 Westmoreland Drive in Stephens City. The property is identified with Property
Identification Number 75E-1-3-165 in the Opequon Magisterial district.
Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported the property is
currently zoned RP (Residential Performance) and the land use is Residential. This licensed child care
facility has been in operation at this principal structure for 14 years. Mr. Cheran noted the applicant was
not aware that a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) was needed for this service until this point; Staff made
note there are conditions that will apply to the applicant for this CUP.
Mrs. Caroline Watson was present and available for questions. Commissioner Thomas
asked Mrs. Watson if she understood the conditions listed within the permit. He inquired as to if
condition #2 would cause any problems (7 a.m. to 5 p.m.) and would it be more feasible if it were 6 a.m.
to 6 p.m. Mrs. Watson responded this would not cause any problem and a child being at the residence
after 5 p.m. is very rare.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for anyone who wished to speak
regarding this request to come forward. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the
public comment portion of the hearing.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Oates,
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #03-14 for Caroline E. Watson, for in Home Child Care at 215
Westmoreland Drive with the following conditions:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
Hours of operation shall be permitted from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
The applicant shall satisfy the licensing requirements of the Virginia Department of Social
Services and the County of Frederick.
4. No business sign associated with this Conditional Use Permit (CUP) shall be erected on the
property.
Other than those children residing on the property, there shall be no more than twelve (12)
children being cared for at any given time.
6. Other than those persons residing on the property, there shall be no more than one (1) employee
working at the daycare at any time.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3162
Minutes of November 5, 2014
7. Any expansion or change of use will require a new Conditional Use Permit.
Rezoning #02-14 Heritage Commons, L.L.C., submitted by Lawson and Silek, P.L.C., to rezone
96.28+/- acres from BS (Business General) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District
and 54+/- acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to R4 (Residential Planned
Community) District and .31+/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the R4 (Residential
Planned Community) District with proffers. The properties are located west of the intersection of
Front Royal Pike (Route 522) and Airport Road (Route 645) and are identified by the Property
Identification Numbers 63-A-150, 64-A-10, and 64-A-12 in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Denial by Unanimous Vote
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, provided a detailed history of the applicant's pursuit
in Rezoning #02-14 Heritage Commons. Ms. Perkins reported this rezoning contains proffers and
modifications that go along with the R4 zoning request. This same property was rezoned in 2005,
formally known as the Russell 150 property. She noted this rezoning request was discussed by the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors at a staff briefing held on September 3, 2014.
Ms. Perkins reported the R4 district is a mixed use district that allows an applicant to
modify or tailor the ordinance to further meet the needs of the community that they envision. The key
points of the modification document are: 100% per townhouse and multifamily whereas the R4 limits the
development to 40%; an increase in the residential density, proposing twelve units an acre whereas the R4
is typically four units an acre; an increase in the commercial maximum; a decrease in the open space from
30% to 15%; request to have private streets rather than public streets; commercial building height up to
80 feet; as well as inclusion of a modified apartment building dimensional layout.
Ms. Perkins noted the land uses presented with this rezoning application are not
consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the application does not adequately address
the negative impacts associated with this request; in particular, the negative transportation and fiscal
impacts. Also noted, many of the reviewing agencies concerns and comments remain unaddressed,
specifically VDOT, Frederick County Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, the County Attorney, as well
as Public Works. She reiterated the R4 district zoning enables a mixed use development, this could be a
town center type use, however as proffered this application would clearly allow for separate uses whereas
the residential and commercial areas could be clearly segregated from each other.
Ms. Perkins reported the negative fiscal impacts associated with the residential uses
proposed on the property have not been satisfactorily addressed, the market and fiscal impact analysis
shows a positive fiscal gain however it does require full build out to achieve this which could be upwards
of fifteen years. Ms. Perkins noted that proffer fazing falls grossly short of achieving what the model is
utilizing to achieve the positive fiscal gain. Also explained, it does not proffer the multifamily units to be
market rate as shown in the analysis. Ms. Perkins reported the analysis does not reflect the Commissioner
of Revenue or the Treasurer's comments regarding inaccurate data that was used.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3163
Minutes of November 5, 2014
Ms. Perkins reported the County's development impact model projects a negative impact
of $13,062 per single family attached or town house unit and $11,339 per multifamily unit on County
capital facilities. She explained that based on the unit cap in the proffers the potential negative impact of
the residential units will have on the County facilities is $13.9 million. Also noted, the development
should not be utilizing the future tax contributions of the commercial land bays to offset the negative
impacts of the residential units without guaranteed phasing of the commercial uses to be built in
conjunction with the residential uses. Ms. Perkins continued that within the proffers the applicant has
included a phasing proffer with the proposal being; receive a building permit for 50,000 sq. ft. of
commercial with the first 300 units, then secure an occupancy permit for that 50,000 sq. ft. prior to
starting the 600t" unit; then receive a building permit for an additional 50,000 sq. ft. of commercial at the
600t" multifamily unit however there is no trigger for the occupancy permit for the second 50,000 sq. ft.
Therefore, the proffer would allow the construction of 599 multifamily residential and 184 townhouses
with the construction of 50,000 sq. ft. of commercial area. She noted, with the development impact
model projections, that is over $1 million annually in negative impacts. This is not consistent with the
analysis that was provided by the applicant to maintain economic balance nor does it guarantee to offset
the impacts from the residential units.
In regards to Comprehensive Plan conformance, Ms. Perkins reported the land uses
shown within land bays 3 and 7 are not supported by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, land bay 3 is shown
with mixed residential and commercial land uses; the Comprehensive Plan designates this area entirely
for employment land uses. Also noted, land bay 7 is shown with the ability to develop with 100%
commercial or industrial uses. The Comprehensive Plan shows the land bay 7 area as solely high density
residential.
Deputy Director -Transportation, John A. Bishop, provided an overview in regards to the
Transportation concerns on this rezoning. He reported that after some questions and a bit of confusion it
is to be noted that the County has not previously nor is actively doing any design work on the portion of
the property in question. Mr. Bishop reported there are several concerns as follows: $1,000,000 in cash
proffers currently on the property that is not listed in the current package; Chapter 527, approximately
1,000 additional units and 500,000 sq. ft. of office/commercial/industrial under the 1.2 million sq. ft.;
Warrior Drive, Mr. Bishop believes the language has improved however it appears easy to avoid; the
construction commitments are completely reliant on a revenue sharing agreement between the County and
the applicant, which does not exist at this point; the road section details that have been added are very
helpful.
Commissioner Wilmot requested Mr. Bishop share with everyone the importance of
Chapter 527. Mr. Bishop explained that Chapter 527 is the state code requiring the study of development
which is going to increase vehicle trips on state roads. He noted if the County knowingly accepts
something that should have previously been studied, the County would be in violation of Chapter 527.
Mr. Bishop stated that a representative from VDOT was present and available for any questions.
Ms. Perkins returned to the podium and reiterated that this rezoning application is not in
conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. She noted staff was available for any questions.
Commissioner Oates asked in regards to the entrance language in the proffers, would it
be appropriate to have the GDP revised. Mr. Bishop responded that the language that has been presented
resolves the issue. Commissioner Oates inquired regarding proffers: is there anything in the proffers that
prohibits the County from getting 1,050 units of low income apartments the way they are currently
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3164
Minutes of November 5, 2014
written? Ms. Perkins responded that is correct, the proffers in the package do not proffer market rate
units.
Mr. Thomas (Ty) Moore Lawson, P.C. with Lawson & Silek, P.L.C. was present on
behalf of the property owner and the contract purchaser/developer. Mr. Lawson gave an overview of the
rezoning request. He noted this rezoning was originally filed in September 2013. He stated this rezoning
is intended to replace the approved rezoning of 2005 in its entirety, which was a rezoning with proffers.
The approved rezoning had a road alignment which is not the current road alignment that has been
approved by VDOT. Mr. Lawson noted there are two revenue sharing programs in place, one that Mr.
Bishop mentioned as well as another that runs from the traffic circle down to Airport Road and shows the
beginning of Warrior Drive. Mr. Lawson mentioned that under the original Russell 150 there was CDA
funding, that has since failed. He also emphasized that the Russell 150 is bankrupt and has failed.
Mr. Lawson explained that he had circulated revised proffers that contained significant
changes over those proffers included in the agenda. The first change being that the multifamily would be
market rate as proffered and as the market analysis depicted. The word "market rate" will appear in front
of every reference to multifamily throughout the document. There was a request to drop the industrial
and that has been deleted. The other change suggested was regarding the Chapter 527 issue, the result
after meeting with staff was to cap the trips from this development at 23,177 and put in a mechanism that
notes if that number is reached how it will be addressed with subsequent traffic studies. That will
eliminate any complaint or issue about traffic study. Mr. Lawson next talked about the guarantee of mix,
the guarantee of commercial along with the multifamily. He noted the wording has been changed and tied
to certificate of occupancy. He stated in order to get a certain number of certificates of occupancy for
multifamily; there has to be a certificate of occupancy for a certain square footage of commercial. Those
are the only changes in the proffers at this time.
Mr. Lawson next talked about the generalized development plan. He presented a slide
showing the drawing and alignment of roads that was received from Pennoni Associates Inc. who is the
contractor working for the State and the County to design and build a road network pursuant to two
revenue sharing programs between the State and the County which includes a bridge over I-81 to connect
to Tevis Street; it shows a two lane traffic circle that connects the Northern Y, Warrior Drive, and the
main boulevard. He noted that the design of this is coming from Pennoni Associates Inc. on behalf of the
State and the County. Mr. Lawson stated it has been suggested the applicant get and engineer drawing
which became problematic because there is only one engineering firm working for the State and the
County. He noted it has been proffered to dedicate the road alignment that is necessary and also proffered
to back stop the County for its share under these revenue sharing programs.
Mr. Lawson presented slides of the staff stated comments; mixed use development and
the concern that the mixed use urban center concept has been lost and not assurances of what
development will materialize, he noted the language they are using is mix and are guaranteeing a mix
within certain ranges and caps; next comment was regarding R4 zoning would enable a mixed use
however there are no assurances, he stated the property needs to be looked at as a whole and with the
tables presented they believe the ordinance will be satisfied and there will the mix of residential and
commercial and a very desirable mix, there is a cap on the residential of 1,200 and there is no cap on the
commercial other than the safeties that have been put in for traffic etc...; the concern regarding
Comprehensive Plan conformity, in particular proffered uses in certain land bays, he emphasized this
project needs to be considered as a whole, suggests in doing so will be in conformity to the
Comprehensive Plan; the concerns regarding the revenue sharing plan and no guarantees if the revenue
sharing fails, he noted it is being put in the proffers and it's being proposed that they will be paying the
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3165
Minutes of November 5, 2014
County's share and it is a condition that runs with the land if this is approved; the next concern is for
Warrior Drive and there needs to be more of an accommodation for it, it has been proffered to dedicate a
right of way at such time when it's designed; the comments there are no guarantees to offset impacts and
needs to be commercial development in conjunction with residential, Mr. Lawson noted that the Market
and Fiscal Impact Analysis provided reflects all of the components being tax positive; the concern on
phasing and lack of proffered phasing, there is phasing, a cap on residential is now in place; TIA (traffic
impact analysis) has been satisfied by capping trips at 23,177; PPEA and the need for this proffer is
unclear and there is no commitment for a County Administration building on this property, he noted they
agree and that the offer is still there with a timeline of one year; a mention of a height issue, this is not in
the flight path of Winchester Regional Airport and will abide by any FAA regulations.
Mr. Stuart M. Patz, President of Patz & Associates, Inc. author of the applicant's market
and fiscal impact analysis, came forward to explain more about the proposed project. He noted the
current copy of the analysis has been reviewed by the Commissioner of the Revenue for the County and
has been deemed to be successful and accurate with one small error being changed. Mr. Patz reported the
report shows a phased development not based on proffers but based on market trends to show that the
fiscal impact analysis could be positive/would be positive in five year increments. The conclusions of the
fiscal impact analysis are at build out the County will have revenue benefits of net 3.2 million dollars a
year. That is based on how the fiscal impact analysis is composed of onsite revenue and expenses as well
as offsite, which differs from the County's DIM model. Mr. Patz noted that in the report the minimum
household income required to support the rents at the market rate upscale communities would be $40,000
for a one bedroom unit, increased for two and three bedroom units, townhouses would require higher
income at a minimum of $75,000 income level, therefore the report uses and average of $65,000 for the
expenditure potential. This type of fiscal impact analysis is used all over the country by the firm. Mr.
Patz stated that the report presented at this time has been approved by the Frederick County Commission
of the Revenue.
Mr. Patz commented that: onsite and offsite expenditures are used in the analysis;
determined apartment units at the income rage being proposed and the upscale has a smaller pupil per
generation rate; the market study is based on market trend and not on proffers. Mr. Patz emphasized that
this project is unique to the area, more upscale than anything else in the area, and will generate a positive
impact no matter how the numbers are calculated. Mr. Patz noted the County Administration building
would be constructed on the site and was used in this analysis. It was done with the understanding that
the public investment is a key anchor for this property to generate 3.2 million annually in net revenue at
build out. He noted the importance of this.
Mr. Lawson presented a video on behalf of The Cathcart Group which depicts a
community in Charlottesville VA that is very similar to the project at hand. Mr. Cathcart explained their
primary focus is luxury apartments. He noted they develop them, they build them, and they own and
manage them. Mr. Cathcart stated the envision for Heritage Commons is similar to their property known
as The Reserve at Belvedere, and also building the same design in Harrisonburg VA. The outlook is to
build the finest residential communities in the market area which will be a high end community. Mr.
Cathcart gave a brief overview of all the amenities within the communities. Mr. Cathcart passed out
company information documents to Commission Members. Mr. Cathcart noted that his business is in this
for the long haul and feels that is important when developing a project like this. He stated he is convinced
these types of properties are successful and will produce high tax revenue.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3166
Minutes of November 5, 2014
Mr. Lawson gave closing comments, he noted this is a lot to digest, it's a big project, and
he insists everything is tax positive. Mr. Lawson asked for comments and that this be forwarded to the
Board of Supervisors for approval on December 10, 2014.
Chairman Wilmot asked Commission Members if there were any questions for the
presenters at this point. There were no questions at this time.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for anyone who wished to speak
regarding this request to come forward.
Mr. Alan Morrison who resides in the Gainesboro District spoke in opposition of this
rezoning request. He noted he appreciates the use of imagination; however he is concerned it is too far
from reality. Mr. Morrison is concerned that the impact on the County taxpayer will be that of a negative
one.
Mrs. Ellen Murphy, Commissioner of the Revenue for Frederick County, VA spoke in
reference to mathematical errors that affected the type of revenue she is familiar with. Mrs. Murphy
contacted Mr. Patz and explained that she had concerns and most of the adjustments were made for this
presentation. She also noted that by doing so did not mean she was endorsing or anyway encouraging this
project at this time. Mrs. Murphy stated she is not in a position to disapprove and her involvement was to
bring the errors to the forefront for correction.
Mr. Clarence Davis Jr., Pastor of Calvary Church of the Brethren which borders the
Heritage Commons property spoke in favor of the rezoning. He stated he and his congregation are
excited about the possibility of having the transportation issues made easier in regards to entering and
exiting the church property. Mr. Davis noted the Heritage Commons property has been neglected for
many years and he and the congregation are anxious to see it cleaned up and more presentable to the
community.
Chairman Wilmot asked if anyone else would like to speak, no one came forward. The
public hearing portion of the application review was closed.
Chairman Wilmot asked Staff if they had any additional thoughts or comments. Mr.
Bishop came forward to clarify a few points. He noted currently there are three revenue sharing awards
that apply to the various roads involving this property. Mr. Bishop clarified that revenue sharing projects
are not State projects, the state is involved however, the County applies for funds and are subject to
approvals and all the processes that go along with being involved in a revenue sharing project.
Chairman Wilmot asked for a recommendation based on the information currently at
hand and not the new proffers that were recently submitted. Commissioner Thomas noted that from a
macro standpoint this could be a nice project, however this project contains significant inconsistencies
and many details that need to be resolved. He stated he hopes this project can move forward as shown but
not as written in the proffers. Commissioner Manuel posed a question to Mr. Bishop, he asked for
clarification on the most recent TIA. Mr. Bishop stated the most recent TIA for this location was 2004.
Commissioner Manuel posed a question to Ms. Perkins, he inquired as to the status of water and sewer.
Ms. Perkins stated that in 2013 FCSA stated they do have adequate water and sewer available in terms of
the plants to serve the property however there is question about the lines and infrastructure being adequate
in serving the property. The question still remains as to what may have to be upgraded and installed to
accommodate the property and who will pay for that.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3167
Minutes of November 5, 2014
Commissioner Manuel made a motion to recommend denial of this rezoning to the Board
of Supervisors. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and passed by a unanimous vote.
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously deny approval
of Rezoning #02-14 Heritage Commons, L.L.C., submitted by Lawson and Silek, P.L.C., to rezone
96.28+/- acres from BS (Business General) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District and
54+/- acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District
and .31+/- from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District with
proffers.
OTHER
Cancellation of the Regular Meeting on November 19, 2014
Chairman Wilmot announced there were no pending items for the Planning
Commission's November 19, 2014 meeting.
A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas to cancel the November 19, 2014 meeting
of the Planning Commission. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Dunlap and unanimously
passed.
I�11111" 11,100 1 ORN I
No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner Oates to adjourn
the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously passed. The
meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
JUL Y14 Chairman
Eric R. awrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3168
Minutes of November 5, 2014