PC 08-15-12 Meeting Agenda
AGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
August 15, 2012
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 18, 2012 Minutes ...................................................................................................... (A)
3) Committee Reports .................................................................................................. (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments .................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC MEETING
5) Master Development Plan #04-12 for Doonbeg LLC, submitted by Greenway
Engineering, to construct 24 single family small lot homes. The property is located on the
north side of Apple Valley Road (Route 652) approximately ¼ mile west of the Valley Pike
(Route 11 South) intersection, in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and is identified by
Property Identification Number 63-A-52A.
Mr. Lawrence ................................................................................................................... (B)
6) Master Development Plan #05-12 for Winchester-81 LLC, submitted by Greenway
Engineering, for Commercial Uses. The property is located on the north side of Route 37, the
east side of Route 11 and the west side of Interstate 81, in the northwest quadrant of Interstate
81 Exit 313, in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification
Number 75-A-10A.
Mr. Ruddy ........................................................................................................................ (C)
COMMISSION DISUCSSION
7) Business Development Advancement Study (BDAS) Report and Recommendation
Mr. Lawrence ................................................................................................................... (D)
8) Urban Center Report
Mr. Ruddy ........................................................................................................................ (E)
9) Other
10) Adjourn
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2878
Minutes of July 18, 2012
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The meeting was held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North
Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on July 18, 2012.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary
R. Oates, Stonewall District; J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee
District; Kevin W. Kenney, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger,
Back Creek District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District;
John David Smith, Jr., City of Winchester Planning Commission’s Liaison; Ross P. Spicer, Frederick
County Board of Supervisors’ Liaison; and Roderick B. Williams, Frederick County Attorney.
ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District;
and Philip E. Lemieux, Red Bud District.
STAFF PRESENT: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning &
Subdivision Administrator; and Renee’ S. Arlotta, Clerk.
-----------
CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. A motion was made by
Commissioner Oates to adopt the agenda for this evening’s meeting as presented. This motion was
seconded by Commissioner Crockett and unanimously passed.
-------------
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Crockett, the
minutes of May 16, 2012 were unanimously approved as presented.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Crockett, the
minutes of June 6, 2012 were unanimously approved as presented.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2879
Minutes of July 18, 2012
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) – 7/09/12 Mtg.
Commissioner Mohn reported that the CPPC discussed the Urban Design Center Cabinet
and the report of the various Urban Design Center Land Use Programs. He said the CPPC reached the
consensus that they had done as much with it as they could at this time and he believed a work session
will be scheduled with the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
-------------
City of Winchester Planning Commission – 7/17/12 Mtg.
Chairman Wilmot welcomed the City Planning Commission’s Liaison, Commissioner
John David Smith, Jr. Mr. Smith reported that the City Planning Commission discussed a conditional use
permit conversion on the ground floor of the old Social Services Building on Boscawen Street; they
discussed a permit for a motor vehicle painting and upholstery business; and they also discussed a multi-
family dwelling on Millwood Avenue. He said all of these items were moved forward to City Council.
Mr. Smith said the City Planning Commission also discussed temporary signage.
-------------
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any issue not on this evening’s agenda.
No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen comments portion of the meeting.
--------------
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit #10-11 of Joseph Racey, Sr. and AT&T Mobility for a 199-foot monopole
telecommunications facility at 3392 Back Mountain Road. This property is zoned RA (Rural
Areas) District and is identified with P.I.N. 59-A-6 in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Action – Recommended Approval with Conditions
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported the nearest dwellings
are approximately 800 feet from the proposed facility. He said the zoning ordinance requires the
applicant to provide confirmation that an attempt was made to collocate on existing telecommunication
facilities. Mr. Cheran confirmed the applicant did provide an inventory of existing telecommunication
facilities and the applicant believes there are no other facilities or possible collocation opportunity
structures existing in this target area.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2880
Minutes of July 18, 2012
Mr. Cheran pointed out the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) had concerns
with the location of the proposed tower and they identified three potentially significant structures within
the immediate area of the subject site; one structure is located on the site. The three structures are
included in the Rural Landmarks Survey Report. Mr. Cheran said the HRAB also had some concern with
the wooded area at the proposed tower location and they suggested a tree preservation area should be
identified on the site plan to help screen the proposed tower and compound.
Mr. Cheran next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Planning Commission
find the proposed tower to be appropriate in this location.
Commissioner Oates referred to the HRAB’s comment about screening the equipment
shed and the base of the tower. He noticed this was not included as one of the conditions of the permit
and he asked Mr. Cheran if this was discussed with the applicant. Mr. Cheran replied this could be added
to the list of conditions, if the Planning Commission desires to do so; however, the first condition
recommended states that all agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. Mr.
Cheran added a minor site plan will need to be submitted and reviewed and the screening could be
assured at that time.
Ms. Tracey Anderson, zoning attorney with Donohue & Stearns, PLC, was the
representative for the applicants, AT&T Mobility and Mr. Joseph Racey, Sr. Ms. Anderson stated the
objective of this site is to provide enhanced coverage along Back Mountain Road (Rt. 600), Wardensville
Grade (Rt. 608), Cedar Creek Grade (Rt. 622), Middle Road (Rt. 628), Mount Williams, and the
surrounding communities. She explained the site is intended to work in conjunction with the other AT&T
facilities currently on-air in Winchester. In addition, the proposed site will enable better handoff between
existing AT&T sites at Hunting Ridge, Cliffdale, and Lebanon Church, thus extending the coverage and
diminishing the dropped calls in the area. She said commuters and residents will experience better quality
service and the proposed site will also help offload traffic from the above mentioned existing AT&T sites.
Ms. Anderson next spoke about the recent increase in data traffic as compared to voice
traffic. She said the band widths are not currently sufficient to handle customers’ data traffic (emails and
pictures) which is being used more frequently than simply having a voice conversation. In addition,
statistics show the average smart phone user demands ten times the amount of data and voice traffic as the
non-smart phone user. She said even where AT&T had adequate facilities for voice data in the past, now
AT&T, along with other carriers, will need to install either more powerful antennas or increase the
number of towers to handle both the increase in users and the data traffic.
Ms. Anderson stated there will be room within the equipment compound and on the
monopole for three additional carriers. She said AT&T is required by Frederick County’s Zoning
Ordinance to look at alternative facilities or existing tall structures. Ms. Anderson said no existing
facilities or tall structures were available or appropriate for their needs.
Commissioner Oates raised the issue from the HRAB about screening of the bottom of
the tower and compound. Commissioner Oates said there was no note for the site plan or in the
conditions about maintaining a vegetative buffer. He recognized this site is in the woods; however, if the
site was ever logged, he thought the screening would have to be replaced. Ms. Anderson replied that
AT&T is willing to work this out and she has discussed with Mr. Cheran the local type of landscaping
that would be appropriate. She said that AT&T will provide and maintain the vegetative screening
surrounding the 40-foot by 80-foot fenced equipment compound, as well as the bottom of the monopole.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2881
Minutes of July 18, 2012
Commissioner Unger recalled previous applications for telecommunications facilities that
were submitted, but the facilities were not forthcoming. He asked the applicant what the chances were for
this particular tower to be constructed. Ms. Anderson said two other sites in Frederick County went
through the preliminary stages of engineering and site plan drawings; however, they were withdrawn
because AT&T was seeking a more suitable site. She said this particular site will likely go forward, given
that the others were vetted and dropped.
Commissioner Crosen noted the comments from the Winchester Regional Airport
requesting that all structures need to be marked and lighted in accordance with FAA (Federal Aviation
Administration) regulations. Commissioner Crosen also noted the comment that if the Board of
Supervisors requires the tower to be lighted, a lighting shield will need to be placed to mitigate the visual
impact onto adjoining properties. Ms. Anderson replied it will be up to the Planning Commission and the
Board of Supervisors to decide what is most appropriate regarding the lighting. She said the FAA
requires towers 200 feet or greater to be lighted. Ms. Anderson noted that for this particular tower, the
landlord is amenable to lighting the tower and AT&T is more than willing to comply. In addition, she
commented that special types of beacons are available for the tops of the towers which do not cause light
interference with the ground area below the tower. She said this will be something that the Regional
Airport will discuss with the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to determine what is the
best for this location.
Commissioner Unger commented about this tower being one foot below the 200-foot
AGL tower required to be lighted by the FAA. Ms. Anderson said the reason the decision is left up to
the regional airport and the FAA is that a lighted tower indicates to pilots that the structure is at a height
of 200 feet. She said the FAA sometimes has a problem with lighted towers between 150 to 199 feet,
depending on the flight path, because pilots in the area may mistakenly interpret the tower to be at 200
feet or above. She said the decision must really be reached by the regional airport and consideration of
the flight path itself.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for anyone who wished to speak
regarding this telecommunications facility. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed
the public comment portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Oates remarked that if the tower is lighted, he would prefer to see a light
shield installed. Mr. Cheran added for clarification that Ms. Anderson was correct regarding the FAA
rules and regional airport rules regarding lighting. He said the Airport Authority is a reviewing agency
for this site plan; if the Airport Authority wants lights to be installed, it will happen. Mr. Cheran said the
zoning ordinance was recently revised regarding outdoor lighting; he said lighting of towers is regulated
in the ordinance and the lighting cannot be reflected on adjoining properties.
Commissioner Crosen made a motion to recommend approval of CUP #10-11 of Joseph
Racey, Sr. and AT&T Mobility with Commissioner Oates’ comments regarding screening and with the
understanding that Winchester Regional Airport will rule on the lighting. In addition, the conditions
recommended by the staff will also apply. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Unger and
unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #10-11 of Joseph Racey, Sr. and AT&T Mobility for a
199-foot monopole telecommunications facility at 3392 Back Mountain Road with the condition that
screening will be provided and maintained around the base of the tower and the fenced equipment
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2882
Minutes of July 18, 2012
compound and with the understanding that the Winchester Regional Airport will make the final decision
regarding lighting for the top of the monopole. In addition, the following conditions will apply to this
conditional use permit:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. The tower shall be available for collocating personal wireless services providers.
3. A minor site plan shall be approved by Frederick County.
4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within 12 months of abandonment
of operation.
5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within 12 months of the approval of this
conditional use permit, the conditional use permit will be deemed invalid.
6. Any expansion or modification of this use will require a new conditional use permit.
(Commissioners Thomas, Lemieux, and Manuel were absent from the meeting.)
-------------
An amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article V, Design
Standards, Section 144.20 Sewer and Water Service. This ordinance revision will exempt lots
greater than 20 acres from the individual on-lot systems requirements (drainfields) in the RA
District.
Action – Recommended Approval
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported this amendment was previously
discussed by the Planning Commission at their meeting on May 16, 2012. In addition, the Board of
Supervisors discussed the amendment at their June 13, 2012 meeting and agreed to forward the
amendment to public hearing.
Mr. Ruddy stated the staff received a request to include a drainfield exemption for lots
(parent tracts) 20 acres or greater in size and which are part of a minor rural subdivision. He said the
subdivision ordinance requires all lots which are being subdivided to be provided with a drainfield and a
100% reserve area per Chapter 161. This requirement was put into place when agricultural lots were
deleted from the zoning ordinance in 2009 as part of the Rural Areas Study. He said an example of the
current ordinance requirement would be a large vacant parent tract being required to provide a drainfield
area when subdividing one family lot (or five-acre lot). Mr. Ruddy said this request is to exempt the
parent tracts from the drainfield requirement itself and it is an economic consideration.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for citizen comments. No one
came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2883
Minutes of July 18, 2012
Commissioner Oates said he was the individual who brought this request forward. He
said he was surveying a 38-acre parcel for a client who wanted to subdivide off a two-acre family lot.
Commissioner Oates said the requirement called for a drainfield on the reserve parcel, which was not
being developed. He said by the time they figured the costs for a soil scientist, a back hoe, and the
submittal fee, the total amounted to approximately $2,500-$3,000 for the drainfield. Commissioner Oates
thought this was a fairly large expense simply to cut off a two-acre parcel.
Commissioner Oates made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment
as presented. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and was unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval
of an amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article V, Design
Standards, Section 144.20 Sewer and Water Service. This ordinance revision will exempt lots greater
than 20 acres from the individual on-lot systems requirements (drainfields) in the RA District.
(Commissioners Thomas, Lemieux, and Manuel were absent from the meeting.)
-------------
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION OF THE STONEWALL WAREHOUSING SITE PLAN
Commissioner Oates said he would abstain from all discussion on this item, due to a
possible conflict of interest.
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that in order to keep
the Planning Commission aware of development activity in the vicinity of the proposed Route 37 right-of-
way, all proposed site plans and subdivisions within the planned right-of-way for Route 37 are presented
to the Planning Commission for information. Mr. Cheran stated this site is located on McGhee Road in
the Stonewall Industrial Park and is within the path of Route 37. He said the original plans for Stonewall
Industrial Park did not accommodate the Route 37 right-of-way. Mr. Cheran said this site plan is being
presented to the Commission for information only and no action is required. Any comments received
from the Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their meeting on August 8, 2012.
He added that Mr. Thomas Gilpin, the property owner, as well as a representative with GreyWolfe, Inc.,
the land surveyors, are available to answer any questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Crockett asked when the Route 37 right-of-way was designated on this
property. Specifically, he inquired if the lot was created before the right-of-way or the right-of-way
designated before the lot was created.
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, stated that Route 37 has obviously been a
road that has been planned for a number of years. In the early to mid 90’s, it started gaining traction and
then in the mid 90’s, “Alternative C” was designated as the route for the Route 37 right-of-way in this
location. Subsequently, different and more refined planning efforts, including the center line and right-of-
way designations have occurred over the years, probably in early 2000. Mr. Ruddy said the lots in the
Stonewall Industrial Park existed prior to this time.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2884
Minutes of July 18, 2012
Commissioner Crockett inquired what legal requirements would be on the landowner to
either utilize the property or not. Mr. Ruddy replied there are no legal requirements at this point in the
development process. Mr. Ruddy said that future complications may come from development of the road
or right-of-way acquisition, and costs increase as buildings and development occurs under the path of
future Route 37. However, at the site development stage, the County will let the development occur. Mr.
Ruddy pointed out that it is in the earlier planning entitlement stages, such as the rezoning, where the
County has a greater ability to recognize the road, which is a huge component of the Comprehensive
Policy Plan, and make sure it is addressed through proffers and orientation of development. Mr. Ruddy
said the rezoning provides the ability to address the situation more thoroughly. He said legally, the
applicant has the ability to move forward with the project at the site development plan stage.
Commissioner Kenney stated he has worked in the Stonewall Industrial Park for about 30
years and it has always been an attractive, mid-range industrial park with good water and sewer
availability. He said there have been numerous clients from out of the area who wanted to buy 8-10 acre
parcels of land; sometimes it is difficult to accommodate them in their market range. He said four or five
clients in recent years have wanted to purchase this size lot or be in this general area, but when they start
factoring in the possible future legal ramifications, as far as where they stand for marketability for resale,
they have been very concerned and had relocated to some other area. Commissioner Kenney believed
this has hindered development in the park for them and for the County. He said this issue comes up
frequently and has impacted decision-making.
Commissioner Mohn followed-up by stating this proposed route is not the actual right-of-
way yet, but it is simply the path for the future right-of-way. He agreed with Mr. Ruddy that right-of-way
dedications should be negotiated at the rezoning stage of development. However, in the case of by-right
development, where property is already zoned or subdivided, there is really not much that can be done to
compel action at that point. Nevertheless, he agreed it is something which dissuades or impacts people’s
decision-making. Commissioner Mohn acknowledged there were opportunity costs associated with
identifying a “path,” but it is somewhat of a warning at this point.
Mr. Ruddy stated that as time has gone by, the right-of-way designation of where the
centerline of Route 37 will be has become fairly concrete, especially in this area. He commented that
Route 37 is a very important transportation project, not only for the County, but this region. Mr. Ruddy
said plans continue to advance, and particularly, at the southern part of Route 37, where the first steps of
construction are actually occurring. Mr. Ruddy reiterated that Route 37 is a prominent part of the
County’s long-range transportation plan and it should continue to be recognized.
Chairman Wilmot commented that the purpose of this exercise is for the Commission’s
information and it is not for action. She said the owner has a right to develop his property and that right
was created when the property was rezoned.
(Note: Commissioner Oates abstained from discussion; Commissioners Thomas, Lemieux, and Manuel
were absent from the meeting.)
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2885
Minutes of July 18, 2012
OTHER
CANCELLATION OF THE AUGUST 1, 2012 MEETING
Chairman Wilmot announced there were no pending items for the Planning
Commission’s August 1, 2012 meeting.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Crockett and seconded by Commissioner Mohn,
the Planning Commission unanimously voted to cancel the Planning Commission’s regularly scheduled
meeting of August 1, 2012.
-------------
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and upon motion by Commissioner Oates
and second by Commissioner Crockett, the meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. by a unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________________
June M. Wilmot, Chairman
_______________________________________
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #04-12
DOONBEG LLC
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: July 30, 2012
Staff Contact: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director
Reviewed
Planning Commission: 08/15/12 Pending
Action
Board of Supervisors: 09/12/12 Pending
PROPOSAL:
To construct 24 single family small lot homes on 4.67 +/1 acres (5.14 units per acre).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
: Back Creek
LOCATION:
The subject property is located on the north side of Apple Valley Road (Route 652)
approximately ¼ mile west of the Valley Pike (Route 11 South) intersection.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 08/15/12 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Doonbeg Master Development Plan proposes up to 24 single family small lots including
recreational amenities on approximately 4.67 acres of land zoned RP (Residential Performance) District.
Requested waivers for Board of Supervisor consideration, with a recommendation from the Planning
Commission:
Wavier #1:
If the waiver is granted, in-lieu-of a community center, the project would provide recreational
amenities including walking trails, benches, and a community gathering area with fire pit.
Community Center Waiver (§165-402.08.A.1 of the Zoning Ordinance)
Waiver #2:
If the waiver is granted, this project would be constructed with a private road and cul-de-sac, and
not continue onto the adjacent easterly property.
Inter-parcel Connection Waiver (§144-17.B.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance)
Waiver #3:
If this waiver is granted, this project would utilize and implement low-impact design standards,
which includes environmentally friendly stormwater management techniques without the use of
traditional curb and gutter.
Curb and Gutter Waiver (§165-202.03.A.14 of the Zoning Ordinance and §144-17L
of the Subdivision Ordinance).
Staff is seeking comments from the Planning Commission,
and recommendations on the three requested waivers.
MDP #04-12, Doonbeg LLC
July 30, 2012
Page 2
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.
LOCATION:
The subject property is located on the north side of Apple Valley Road (Route 652)
approximately ¼ mile west of the Valley Pike (Route 11 South) intersection.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
: Back Creek
PROPERTY ID NUMBER
: 63-A-52A
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE
:
Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) District
Use: Unimproved
ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES:
North: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
South: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
East: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
PROPOSAL:
To construct 24 single family small lot homes on 4.67 +/1 acres (5.14 units per acre).
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation
: The Master Development Plan for this property appears to
have little measurable impact on Route 652, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the
property. The proposed private road design appears acceptable.
Frederick County Fire & Rescue:
At the end of the street in the cul-de-sac it will be very tight for
ladder trucks. All the way around the cul-de-sac there needs to be heavy duty pavers. The same as in
front of the hydrants. Plans approved.
Frederick County Fire Marshal
: Plans approved.
Frederick County Public Works: Refer to Sheet 2 of 3: Insure that the appropriate right-of-ways are
obtained from lot owners Tax Map 63-4-46A and Tax Map 63-A-47 to accommodate the proposed
entrance to Doonbeg Court. Refer to Sheet 3 of 3: In the final site plan design, verify that the grades
and channel in front of lot Tax Map 63-A-53 are adequate to accommodate the storm flows from the
subdivision. Refer to Sheet 3 of 3: Typical Walkway Paver: Consider the use of underdrains under the
MDP #04-12, Doonbeg LLC
July 30, 2012
Page 3
concrete edger to prevent the buildup or ponding of surface runoff under the pavement and above the
underlying plastic soils.
Frederick County Inspections Department:
Comments shall be made at site plan/subdivision
submittal. No comments at this time.
Frederick County Sanitation Authority:
Review #1 approved as noted (2) items.
GIS Department:
The road name Doonbeg is approved and reserved for use in the Doonbeg residential
subdivision.
Parks and Recreation Department:
Plan appears to meet ordinance requirements.
Winchester Regional Airport:
The Master Development Plan has been reviewed and it appears that
the proposed plan will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. The
proposed development lies within the airport’s airspace; however, it does fall outside of the airport’s
Part 77 close in surfaces and will not require filing with the FAA.
Frederick County Schools:
Even though the impact of this development on FCPS is small, the
cumulative impact of this development and other developments in Frederick County will eventually
require construction of new schools and support facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment.
We estimate that the 24 single family detached units in this development will house 3 high school
students, 3 middle school students and 5 elementary school students. In order to properly serve these 11
additional students, Frederick County Public Schools will outlay $380,000 in capital expenditures and
$112,000 annually in operating costs. It is noted that Doonbeg Court will be a private lane. Our buses
don’t travel down private lanes. Students who live in Doonbeg will need to walk to Apple Valley Road
and meet the bus at a location designated by our Transportation Department.
Planning & Zoning:
Please see attached letter from Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner, dated June 7,
2012. Issues are addressed by applicant in letter from Greenway Engineering, dated July 5, 2012.
A)
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.
Master Development Plan Requirement
B)
The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the
subject parcels as being zoned R-2 (Residential Limited). The zoning changed to RP
(Residential General) District on September 28, 1983 when the R1, R2, R3, and R6 zoning
districts were reclassified. The RP zoning applicable to this site does not have proffered
conditions.
Site History
MDP #04-12, Doonbeg LLC
July 30, 2012
Page 4
The Hilda Mae Master Development Plan (MDP #10-04) was previously submitted for the
subject site. The Doonbeg Master Development Plan is a revision to the Hilda Mae, slightly
increasing the number of single family small lots (from 20 to 24), and introducing low impact
design features.
C)
Comprehensive Policy Plan:
Site Suitability & Project Scope
The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy 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.
[Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1]
The proposed 4.67-acre parcel is zoned RP (Residential Performance) and is within the UDA
(Urban Development Area) and the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area). The
Comprehensive Policy Plan states that suburban residential development should occur within the
UDA.
Land Use Compatibility:
The 4.67 acre site is located adjacent to existing residential land uses in an area of Frederick
County which is predominately residential in nature. To the north is Plainfield Heights
Subdivision, which consists of single family detached traditional dwellings. To the west is Cross
Creek Village, which consists of single family small lot dwellings. To the south and east are
older existing RP single family detached dwellings.
Site Access and Transportation:
Access to the site is proposed via an entrance off of Apple Valley Road (Route 652), which is a
minor collector road. Per VDOT requirements, a new right turn lane shall be provided for the
proposed entrance. The master development plan does provide for a 150 foot right turn lane.
Buffers and Screening:
The proposed preliminary master development plan shall provide a residential separation buffer
adjacent to the north, south and east property lines. The project will be providing Full Screen,
category B buffers. This buffer distance will be 25 feet against the southern property line, and
will be expanded to 32 feet against the eastern and northern property lines to accommodate
existing water and sewer easements. The full screen buffer includes three plants per 10 linear
feet; 1/3 deciduous trees, 1/3 evergreen trees, and 1/3 shrubs. A 6 foot high board-on-board
opaque fence is also provided.
MDP #04-12, Doonbeg LLC
July 30, 2012
Page 5
D)
Waivers Requested
A number of waivers (both administrative and legislative) from ordinance requirements are being
sought with this application. Sheet 1 of 3 of the master development plan contains a list of the
requested waivers; this list will be revised prior to final MDP to reflect those waivers granted.
The requesting of the waivers is specifically permitted by the pertinent sections of ordinance.
Wavier #1:
The application requests a waiver from the community center requirements specified in §165-
402.08.A.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The waiver requires the applicant to demonstrate how an
equivalent recreational value of three recreation units for each 30 dwellings is being provided
within the project as a condition of securing this waiver from the Board of Supervisors. The
master development plan includes a Recreational Units Table and Narrative on Sheet 2 of 3
which details the amenities which will be provided in-lieu-of a community center. Those
amenities include walking trails, benches, and a community gathering area with fire pit. The
Parks and Recreation Department supports the in-lieu-of amenity package.
Community Center Waiver (legislative – Board of Supervisors waiver).
Waiver #2:
The application requests a waiver from the inter-parcel connection requirement specified in
§144-17.B.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance. This waiver would enable the Doonbeg project to be
constructed with a private road and cul-de-sac, and not continue onto the adjacent property.
Inter-parcel Connection Waiver (legislative – Board of Supervisors waiver).
Waiver #3:
The application requests a waiver from the curb and gutter requirements specified in §165-
202.03.A.14 of the Zoning Ordinance and §144-17L of the Subdivision Ordinance. This waiver
is being sought as part of the projects’ efforts to utilize and implement low-impact design
standards, which includes environmentally friendly stormwater management techniques without
the use of traditional curb and gutter. The master development plan provides a private road
section without the traditional curb and gutter.
Curb and Gutter Waiver (legislative – Board of Supervisors waiver).
Waiver #4
The application requests a waiver from the VDOT standard sidewalks specified in §144-18.C of
the Subdivision Ordinance. This waiver would enable the project to utilize walkway pavers
along the road’s edge rather than traditional concrete sidewalks, an aspect of the low impact
design standards.
: VDOT Standard Sidewalks Waiver (administrative – staff waiver).
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 08/15/12 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Doonbeg Master Development Plan proposes up to 24 single family small lots including
recreational amenities on approximately 4.67 acres of land zoned RP (Residential Performance) District.
The MDP depicts appropriate land uses and 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, if the three requested waivers are granted by the Board of Supervisors. All
MDP #04-12, Doonbeg LLC
July 30, 2012
Page 6
of the issues identified by staff, review agencies, as well as those issues brought forth by the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors, should be appropriately addressed by the applicant.
Requested waivers for Board of Supervisor consideration, with a recommendation from the Planning
Commission:
Wavier #1:
If the waiver is granted, in-lieu-of a community center, the project would provide recreational
amenities including walking trails, benches, and a community gathering area with fire pit.
Community Center Waiver (§165-402.08.A.1 of the Zoning Ordinance)
Waiver #2:
If the waiver is granted, this project would be constructed with a private road and cul-de-sac, and
not continue onto the adjacent easterly property.
Inter-parcel Connection Waiver (§144-17.B.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance)
Waiver #3:
If this waiver is granted, this project would utilize and implement low-impact design standards,
which includes environmentally friendly stormwater management techniques without the use of
traditional curb and gutter.
Curb and Gutter Waiver (§165-202.03.A.14 of the Zoning Ordinance and §144-17L
of the Subdivision Ordinance).
It appears that the application meets all requirements. Following presentation of the application to
the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, incorporation of comments, and granting of
the requested waivers, staff is prepared to proceed to approval of the application.
Staff is seeking comments from the Planning Commission,
and recommendations on the three requested waivers.
NU T M EG LN
CRANBERRY CT PLAINFIELD DR
APPLE VALLEY RD
63 A 57
63 A 52 63 A 53
63 A 56
63 A 45
63 A 46
63 A 52A
63 A 47 63 A 46A 63 A 48
63 A 49 63 A 50 63 A 51
63 A 44
63 A 55
63B 31 72A
63 A 53A
63B 31 63
63B 31 64 63B 31 62
63B 1 4 63B1 363B 31 65
63B 31 61
63B 1 6
63B 1 563B 31 67
63B 31 60 63B 1 763B 31 66
63B 1 9
63B 1 8
63B 31 59
63B 1 18
63B 31 58
63B 1 20
63B 1 19
63B 31 5563B 31 54 63B 31 56 63B 31 57
63B 1 10
63B 1 21
63B 1 24
63B 2 258A
63B 1 23
63B 32 47
63B 32 50A
63B 32 46 63B 32 45 63B 32 44
63B 32 43
63B 1 11 63B 1 22
63B 32 42
63B 1 16
63B 3 287A 63B 1 12
63B 1 13 63B 1 14 63B 1 1563B 32 88 63B 22 58
MDP0412
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 Com munity District)
MS (Medical Support District)
OM (O ffice - Manufacturing Park)
R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
R5 (Residential Recreational Community District)
RA (Rural Area District)
RP (Residential P er formance District)0 200 400100 Feet
I
Note:Frederick County D ept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map C reated: July 9, 2012Staff: elawrence
Winchester
MDP # 04 - 12DoonbegPINs:63 - A - 52ASingle Family Small Lot Residential
MDP # 04 - 12DoonbegPINs:63 - A - 52A
Sing le Family Small Lot Residential
NU T M EG LN
CRANBERRY CT PLAINFIELD DR
APPLE VALLEY RD
63 A 57
63 A 52 63 A 53
63 A 56
63 A 45
63 A 46
63 A 52A
63 A 47 63 A 46A 63 A 48
63 A 49 63 A 50 63 A 51
63 A 44
63 A 55
63B 31 72A
63 A 53A
63B 31 63
63B 31 64 63B 31 62
63B 1 4 63B1 363B 31 65
63B 31 61
63B 1 6
63B 1 563B 31 67
63B 31 60 63B 1 763B 31 66
63B 1 9
63B 1 8
63B 31 59
63B 1 18
63B 31 58
63B 1 20
63B 1 19
63B 31 5563B 31 54 63B 31 56 63B 31 57
63B 1 10
63B 1 21
63B 1 24
63B 2 258A
63B 1 23
63B 32 47
63B 32 50A
63B 32 46 63B 32 45 63B 32 44
63B 32 43
63B 1 11 63B 1 22
63B 32 42
63B 1 16
63B 3 287A 63B 1 12
63B 1 13 63B 1 14 63B 1 1563B 32 88 63B 22 58
MDP0412
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 Com munity District)
MS (Medical Support District)
OM (O ffice - Manufacturing Park)
R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
R5 (Residential Recreational Community District)
RA (Rural Area District)
RP (Residential P er formance District)0 200 400100 Feet
I
Note:Frederick County D ept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map C reated: July 9, 2012Staff: elawrence
Winchester
MDP # 04 - 12DoonbegPINs:63 - A - 52ASingle Family Small Lot Residential
MDP # 04 - 12DoonbegPINs:63 - A - 52A
Sing le Family Small Lot Residential
c
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #05-12
WINCHESTER-81 LLC
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: July 30, 2012
Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director
Reviewed
Planning Commission: 08/15/12 Pending
Action
Board of Supervisors: 09/12/12 Pending
PROPOSAL:
Commercial Uses: Office, Flex-Tech, Warehouse Distribution and other B3 District by-
right land uses.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
: Shawnee
LOCATION:
The subject property is located on the north side of Route 37, the east side of Route 11
and the west side of Interstate 81, in the northwest quadrant of Interstate 81 Exit 313.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 08/15/12 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Winchester-81 LLC Master Development Plan proposes a commercial development on
approximately 23 acres of land zoned B3 (Industrial Transition) District. The MDP depicts appropriate
land uses and appears to be consistent with the requirements of Article VIII, Master Development Plan,
of the Zoning Ordinance. Due consideration has been given to the Interstate 81 Improvement Project.
However, at this time, no accommodations for the project have been made. This MDP is in a form that
is administratively approvable. All of the issues identified by staff, review agencies, as well as those
issues brought forth by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, should be appropriately
addressed by the applicant.
Staff is seeking comments from the Planning Commission.
It appears that 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.
MDP #05-12, Winchester-81 LLC
July 30, 2012
Page 2
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.
LOCATION:
The subject property is located on the north side of Route 37, the east side of Route 11
and the west side of Interstate 81, in the northwest quadrant of Interstate 81 Exit 313.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBER
: 75-A-10A
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE
:
Zoned: B3 (Business, Industrial Transition) District
Use: Vacant
ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES:
North: B2 (Business General) Use: Commercial
B3 (Industrial transition) Distribution
South: B2 (Business General) Use: Commercial
East: B2 (Business General) Use: Vacant (Crosspointe)
West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
PROPOSAL:
Commercial: Office, Flex-Tech, Warehouse Distribution and other B3 District by-right
land uses.
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation: The Master Development Plan for this property appears to
have significant measurable impact on Routes 1167 and 11, the VDOT facilities which would provide
access to the property. 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, 7th 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.
MDP #05-12, Winchester-81 LLC
July 30, 2012
Page 3
Frederick County Fire & Rescue:
Plans approved as submitted.
Frederick County Fire Marshal
: Plans approved as submitted.
Frederick County Public Works
: Based on our review, we understand that the owner plans to develop
approximately 23 acres of B3 zoned property as an extension of Commonwealth Court. The proposed
extension and associated cul-de-sac indicates four entrances. A review of sheet 3 of 3 indicated a
general location for a proposed stormwater management facility. This location should be coordinated
with the Virginia Department of Transportation to ensure that it does not conflict with any future
improvements to the I-81/Route 37/Route 11 interchanges. In addition, a note should be added to this
plan to indicate that the design of a stormwater management plan for the proposed development shall
accommodate off site drainage from the existing development located to the north of the site. Dedicated
drainage easements may be required to route the runoff through the proposed I-81 site. An evaluation of
the existing culvert under Route 37 shall be included in the design of the stormwater management
facility. It should be noted that the actual design of the stormwater management plan for this site will,
most likely, occur after the new stormwater regulations have been implemented by the Commonwealth.
Frederick County Inspections Department:
No comments required at this time. Shall comment on
site plan.
Frederick County Sanitation Authority:
First review – one item – correct and resubmit.
Winchester Regional Airport:
It appears that the proposed master development plan will not have an
impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. The proposed site does lie within the airport’s
airspace; however, it falls outside of the airport’s Part 77 close in surfaces. The Airport does request the
opportunity to comment on future construction site plans of commercial buildings or communication
towers to ensure compatibility with Airport surfaces/operations.
Planning & Zoning:
Please see attached letters from Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner, dated
October 6, 2012, September 19, 2011 and June 25, 2011.
A)
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.
Master Development Plan Requirement
B)
Site History
The adjacent Commonwealth Business Center Master Development Plan (MDP #03-99) was
approved in July of 1999 and subsequently revised in June 2006 (MDP #05-06) to enable the
MDP #05-12, Winchester-81 LLC
July 30, 2012
Page 4
development of the Gander Mountain and Camping World commercial projects which included
the extension of Commonwealth Court to this site.
C)
Comprehensive Policy Plan:
Site Suitability & Project Scope
The Frederick County 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 proposed 23.15 acre parcel is zoned B3 (Industrial Transition) District and is within the
SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area). The Comprehensive Policy Plan states: The Urban
Development Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of residential
development will occur. Commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses are also encouraged
within the Urban Development Area. The Sewer and Water Service Area is consistent with the
Urban Development Area in many locations. However, the Sewer and Water Service Area may
extend beyond the Urban Development Area to promote commercial, industrial, and institutional
land uses in areas where residential land uses are not desirable.
Site Access and Transportation:
Access to the site is proposed via an extension of existing Commonwealth Court, Route 1176.
The general location of the site entrances are shown on the Master Development Plan.
Commonwealth Court provides a direct connection to Route 11 at an existing signalized
intersection.
The Interstate 81, Exit 310 Interchange Improvement Project is adjacent to this property. Areas
of this property have been identified as being within the limits of the project. The MDP does not
reflect this project or the right-of-way needs associated with it. At this time, the Master
Development Plan is moving forward without recognition of this project.
VDOT has commented: The Master Development Plan for this property appears to have
significant measurable impact on Routes 1167 and 11, the VDOT facilities which would provide
access to the property.
Buffers, Screening and Waivers:
The proposed preliminary master development plan will be providing a C category buffer with a
full screen adjacent to the west property line as it fronts on Route 11, directly across from the
properties zoned RP (Residential Performance). The full screen buffer includes three plants per
10 linear feet; 1/3 deciduous trees, 1/3 evergreen trees, and 1/3 shrubs. A 6 foot high earthen
berm or board-on-board opaque fence is to be provided.
MDP #05-12, Winchester-81 LLC
July 30, 2012
Page 5
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 08/15/12 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Winchester-81 LLC Master Development Plan proposes a commercial development on
approximately 23 acres of land zoned B3 (Industrial Transition) District. The MDP depicts appropriate
land uses and appears to be consistent with the requirements of Article VIII, Master Development Plan,
of the Zoning Ordinance. Due consideration has been given to the Interstate 81 Improvement Project.
However, at this time, no accommodations for the project have been made. This MDP is in a form that
is administratively approvable. All of the issues identified by staff, review agencies, as well as those
issues brought forth by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, should be appropriately
addressed by the applicant.
Staff is seeking comments from the Planning Commission.
It appears that 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.
KERNSTOWNCOMMONSSubdivision
CROSSPOINTECENTERSubdivision
COMMONWEALTHBUSINESS CENTERSubdivision
ECHO VILLAGESubdivision
0111
0137
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
ST642
ST642
ST847
FAY ST
K I N G L N
RT37 S
T A S K E R R D
V A L L E Y P I K E
RT37 N
K E R N S T O W N
C O M M O N S
B L V D
C
O
M
M
O
N
W
E
A
LT
H C
T
H I L L A N D A L E L N
75 5 5
75 5 4
75 5 10
75 5 3
75 5 B
75 A 90
75 5 9
75 5 6
75 5 7
75 5 8 75 5 2
75 5 8A
75A 6 B12A
75 5 1
75 A 10A 75 A 91K
75 A 91B
75 A 92
75A 3 45
75 A 91J
75A 3 44
75A 3 42 75A 72 3
63 A 85
75 A 91C
75A 3 33 75A 2 41
75A 72 1 75 A 975A 3 32
75A 2 31
75A 2 40
75A 2 39
75A7 2 2 63 A 63
75A 420B
75A 2 3075A 2 29 75A2 38
75A 2 37 63 A 64
75 A 91D
75A1 4
75A 2 28 75A 1 2 75A 1 1
63 A 86A
75A 1 11
63 A 62
75A1 3
75A1 5
63 A 65
75 A 91G
75 A 91I
75A1 875A1 9
75A 1 10
63 A 66A
75A1 7 75A1 6
75 A 91E75 A 91H
MDP0512
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 Com munity District)
MS (Medical Support District)
OM (O ffice - Manufacturing Park)
R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
R5 (Residential Recreational Community District)
RA (Rural Area District)
RP (Residential P er formance District)0 200 400100 Feet
I
Note:Frederick County D ept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map C reated: July 19, 2012Staff: mruddy
Winchester
MDP # 05 - 12Winchester-81 LLCPINs:75 - A - 10ACommercial Uses
MDP # 05 - 12Winchester-81 LLCPINs:75 - A - 10A
Commercial Usesl
D
BDAS Report &
Recommendations
A New Strategy:
Advancing the Comprehensive Plan from
Vision to Shovel-Ready Business Development Sites
Business Development Advancement Study (BDAS)
Committee Recommendation
July 12, 2012
Business development plays an important role in our local economy through employment
opportunities and tax contributions. Efforts to advance its investment through welcoming and
accommodating new construction would enhance our community’s competiveness. The
Frederick County 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies areas for future business development,
yet without the appropriate site zoning and infrastructure those future business development
sites may not be deemed shovel-ready and capture prospective business investment.
Following three months of research, presentations, discussions, and evaluations, the Business
Development Advancement Study (BDAS) Committee offered their Preliminary Thoughts
regarding Frederick County’s planned business development areas. The Committee finalized
their research and on July 12, 2012 forwarded a recommendation to the Frederick County
Planning Commission and the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. This recommendation is
included in the Business Development Advancement Study Report & Recommendation.
July 12, 2012 Business Development Advancement Study
Report & Recommendation
Frederick County Planning Commission’s Business Development Advancement Study Committee Page 2 of 23
Page
Executive Summary 3
BDAS Committee 6
Business Development Defined 6
Issues Prompting Business Development Advancement Study 6
2030 Comprehensive Plan 10
Evaluation for Site Shovel-Readiness 13
BDAS Committee’s Preliminary Thoughts 16
Cost – Benefit Analysis 18
BDAS Recommendation 20
Appendix
Financing Tools for Promoting Business Development
2030 Comprehensive Plan - Business Development - Office and Industrial
2030 Comprehensive Plan – Achieving Fiscal Balance Through Land Use Planning
Cost Benefit Analysis background
July 12, 2012 Business Development Advancement Study
Report & Recommendation
Frederick County Planning Commission’s Business Development Advancement Study Committee Page 3 of 23
Executive Summary
Business investment within Frederick County is essential to our quality of life. The investment
offers quality high wage employment opportunities for our residents. The investment offers
stability to the workforce. The investment provides tax revenue to support the quality county
services that meet our community’s demand for a high quality of life.
Frederick County is well positioned geographically to capture future business development.
The community could better capitalize on its geographic location by zoning properties for
business development and securing funds to address associated infrastructure improvements.
In order to harness the benefits of business development, it is essential to have quality sites
available for business to utilize.
The BDAS has identified seven key business development areas reflective of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan’s business development land use designation and goals, as well as ease in
terms of facilitating transportation and water and sewer infrastructure improvements.
The BDAS recommends that the County undertake the following initiatives which collectively
will enhance the community’s advancement of business development within the targeted
business development areas identified in this report.
Business Development Initiatives
• Secure zoned and shovel-ready sites
o Identify and prioritize key areas/sites
o Encourage property owner initiated rezoning within prioritized areas
o Utilize staff expertise to analyze sites and provide comment for rezoning
applications
o Waive rezoning application fee and detailed Impact Analysis (including TIA
Transportation Impact Analysis ) if proffer statement adequately addresses
mitigation of impacts
• Establish public-private agreements to enable the Economic Development Commission’s
(EDC) marketing of key business development sites
o Owner agreed upon sales price that can be marketed to prospective targeted
business users
Utilize independent appraisal that is updated every 3 years
o Establish a pre-determined time frame to market property
10 years for target areas that are envisioned to development in the near
future
20 years for target areas that are envisioned to development in the long
term
July 12, 2012 Business Development Advancement Study
Report & Recommendation
Frederick County Planning Commission’s Business Development Advancement Study Committee Page 4 of 23
• Annually refund real estate land use tax deferment for business development sites
o Calculate deferment : Land Use Tax Assessment value minus new Real Estate
Assessment after rezoning
o Utilize a Performance Agreement between property owner and Industrial
Development Authority (IDA)
Performance measures will include: proper zoning, executed sales price
agreement, documented effort as a willing seller for EDC clients
Do not include Rollback
Deferment refund would continue until site is developed
• Perform preliminary site analysis for large tracts
o Conduct wetlands and historic reviews in advance of site development
o Design and construct regional stormwater management facilities per new state
code
• Fastrack Development Review Process for targeted businesses
o Establish a coordinated review agency effort to enable targeted businesses to
receive prompt development reviews.
o Allow concurrent development application reviews
o Assure that review agencies will provide development proposal review
comments within set time frames all in an effort to promptly secure
development review approvals
Development Application Review and agency review response time
• Rezoning – 10 days for review agency comment; then 45 days for
public hearings
• Master Development Plan – 30 days
• Subdivision – 30 days
• Site Plan – 30 days
• Land Disturbance – 5 days
• Building Permit – 5 days
o Fastrack program will enable cumulative approvals needed for building
construction to be issued in less than 3 months, rather than the typical 12-24
month process
July 12, 2012 Business Development Advancement Study
Report & Recommendation
Frederick County Planning Commission’s Business Development Advancement Study Committee Page 5 of 23
• Pursue public investment towards infrastructure needs associated with target
businesses
o Seek local, state, and federal financing
Grants, low interest financing, bonding
o Utilize Return on Investment (ROI) analysis when considering fiscal contributions
20 year ROI payoff
o Explore the use of an Industrial Development Corporation-type (IDC) of structure
to invest, manage, and develop the business sites to fruition
• Reserve water and sewer capacity for planned business development areas
o Work with FCSA to assure that adequate capacities (within transmission systems
as well as treatment facilities) will be available to serve the targeted EDC users
within the planned business development areas.
On July 12, 2012 the BDAS Committee forwarded this recommendation to the Board of Supervisors
and Planning Commission for their consideration. Additional details on the recommendation are
located beginning on page 20 of the report.
July 12, 2012 Business Development Advancement Study
Report & Recommendation
Frederick County Planning Commission’s Business Development Advancement Study Committee Page 6 of 23
Business Development Advancement Study Committee
In February 2012, the Planning Commission set out to establish the Business Development
Advancement Study (BDAS) Committee to take the lead role in evaluating improved business
development opportunities in the County. The Committee was structured to include
representation from the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, Frederick County
Sanitation Authority, and Winchester-Frederick County Economic Development Commission.
Mission Statement:
“To forward to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors a
recommendation of priority business areas based on the evaluation of all
information and infrastructure funding programs readily available, prioritization
of planned industrial sites, advancement of preparations to accommodate
shovel-ready sites, and providing economic development interests better choices
in competitive locations.”
Business Development Defined
For the purpose of this study, the Committee coined the term Business Development to
encompass the business and industrial sectors that have been identified as targeted businesses
in the County’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan as well as by the Winchester-Frederick County
Economic Development Commission (EDC). Those targeted businesses include:
• Healthcare Research and Development
• Food Processing,
• Plastics Manufacturing,
• Back Office Support,
• Distribution/Repackaging and Assembly Centers, and
• Government Activity
The County’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan accommodates business development within the
planned business and industrial land use areas of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning
Ordinance permits the business development uses in the OM Office Manufacturing, M1 Light
Industrial, and the M2 Industrial General Zoning Districts.
July 12, 2012 Business Development Advancement Study
Report & Recommendation
Frederick County Planning Commission’s Business Development Advancement Study Committee Page 7 of 23
Issues Prompting Business Development Advancement Study
Because of the use of the internet and the work of consultants, the economic developer’s time
to influence and work with a prospect has diminished significantly. By the time state and local
economic developers learn of a project, it is generally more advanced and consequently the
prospect is closer to making a decision. While a project could have required eighteen months to
reach a conclusion ten years ago, today it is not unusual for a project to run its course in
four to six months.
The challenge then is to understand and confront these changes. Business cannot be done the
way it has always been done. If prospects are making decisions faster, then the availability of
information and the responsiveness of economic development organizations must also be
faster. If customers are using the internet as a way to collect data, websites must be accurate,
complete and easy to navigate.
If consultants have been integrated into the process, then understanding their needs and
including them in marketing efforts is essential. Knowledge of active business sectors and those
community assets which align with their needs will offer value to the consultant and the client.
The critical factors of business in deciding a location include:
• Labor
• Product (sites and buildings)
• Transportation and Markets
• Business Climate
• Quality of Life
In the product category, quality sites and buildings must be available and ready to go. The
competition has them, so a community that does not is at a distinct disadvantage. Once
a decision has been made to move forward on a project, businesses want to begin without
delay. It is not acceptable to be held up by zoning issues or other public hearing procedures.
Getting the new project underway is essential and anything that hinders this reduces a
community’s chances of success
While with labor considerations, it is most likely the prospect will want to explore the
availability of sites, existing buildings, or build-to-suit opportunities. Business expects ready-to-
go properties; as was mentioned previously, the time frame for projects is such that business
cannot wait for property to be rezoned or for extensive site work. Nor do businesses want to
endure what is many times a distasteful public process, especially if speed-to-market and
competitive opportunities are in play.
Product is not just the responsibility of local government. The private sector plays a critical role
in providing this location factor. The local economic development organization and local
July 12, 2012 Business Development Advancement Study
Report & Recommendation
Frederick County Planning Commission’s Business Development Advancement Study Committee Page 8 of 23
government must encourage and assist the private sector where possible in the development
of quality product. Part of the product development effort that does fall squarely on local
government is the development of adequate local infrastructure, especially water and sewer.
Having capacity available helps to ensure competitiveness, and it is an essential element in
encouraging the local private sector developer to invest his or her resources to provide quality
product. Local governments must also work with the private sector to encourage the
development of telecommunications, especially broadband networks.
Timeframes for site location decisions have condensed rapidly during the
last 10 years. All other things being equal, a community that has buildings
and sites ready-to-go will win business decisions over those which do not.
It is the Committee’s opinion that it is time to consider an enhancement to the implementation
process in an effort to advance the positive tax advantages of targeted business developments.
Business Opportunities Lost
It is recognized that not all businesses that express interest in locating in Frederick County may be
appropriate fits for the county. But, regardless, the county should be prepared to accommodate all
businesses with an emphasis on those targeted business (see attached table for businesses). Land
must be planned and be available to accommodate business interest.
Parcels
Acreage
Average
Parcel
Size
Total Undeveloped Industrially
Zoned Land
158 2,500 15.8
Acreage Available > 19.99 acres
34 1,440 42.3
Parcels with Agreed Upon
Predetermined Sale Price
(available for EDC marketing)
13 650 50
The conclusion is that there are limited sites to market.
Year Parcels Total Acres Largest Tract
2011 13 650 120
2007 6 235 110
2006 6 460 110
2000 9 1035 110
July 12, 2012 Business Development Advancement Study
Report & Recommendation
Frederick County Planning Commission’s Business Development Advancement Study Committee Page 9 of 23
And the amount of acreage available for marketing has decreased significantly over the past
decade.
Our community’s limited inventory of pre-qualified Virginia Economic Development Partnership
(VEDP) sites has contributed to our being removed very early from the site selection process. Why
or How the system is broken?
• Time needed for rezoning
• Increased taxes to property owner when rezoned from rural to business development
lands
• Cost of proffers
• Wastewater availability/capacity/costs
• Cost of land, when compared to competing jurisdictions
• Less cost to property owner to develop rural residential lots versus business
development lands.
• Fluidity of required transportation demands
• Replenishment rate of economic development lands
July 12, 2012 Business Development Advancement Study
Report & Recommendation
Frederick County Planning Commission’s Business Development Advancement Study Committee Page 10 of 23
2030 Comprehensive Plan
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan offers guidance for future land use decisions and, more importantly,
identifies key areas that are planned for future business development opportunities. The
development of commercial and industrial sites is vital to the financial success of Frederick County,
and our efforts to achieve our fiscal goals in providing services to county residents.
A number of Policies of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan were specifically crafted to support Business
Development such as:
• Identify and recognize areas in the county most strategically suited to meet the
requirements of office and industrial development
• Proactively attract desired business entities, and
• Consider regulations encouraging and/or requiring service redundancy in office and
industrial areas
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan’s planned industrial land uses are so designated after consideration
of: site topography and geology; existing and planned transportation networks; existing and
potential for public water and sewer service infrastructure; existing and potential for electric and
communication network improvements; and proximity to residential land uses to avoid use
conflicts.
It is through The Plan that these key sites are identified and reserved for future business
development, all in an effort to achieve the targeted tax assessment ratio of 25 percent C/I to 75
percent Other land uses such as residential.
Implementation of business development land uses depicted in The Plan has been by a property
owner’s initiative to seek a rezoning. It is through the rezoning process that a property owner is
expected to mitigate transportation impacts, and extend water and sewer to the property
presuming the property is not already served.
Target: Plan for C/I to Represent 25 Percent of Real Estate Assessments
In an effort to maintain the county’s ability to provide high quality services while at the same
time maintaining low real estate tax rates, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is utilizing land use
planning and C/I opportunities to offset impacts from existing and planned residential uses. If it
is a goal for Frederick County to have 25 percent of the total county assessments come from C/I
land use values, then it is obvious that at only 13.56 percent (4,556 acres) the county needs
additional developed C/I uses. To achieve the 25 percent assessment target in 2010, an
additional 2,761 developed acres of C/I land uses are needed.
Recognizing the county’s 2.9 percent annual growth rate over the past 3 decades, the 2030
Comprehensive Plan is designed to accommodate an additional 4,859 acres of new C/I
opportunities. This projection indicates that the 2030 Comprehensive Plan contains a minimum
July 12, 2012 Business Development Advancement Study
Report & Recommendation
Frederick County Planning Commission’s Business Development Advancement Study Committee Page 11 of 23
designation of 12,176 acres for C/I land uses within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA).
Further fluctuations may be anticipated with additional residential growth.
The Committee looked at planned industrial areas depicted in the County’s 2030
Comprehensive Plan, more specifically depicted on the Eastern Frederick Long Range Land Use
Plan, as locations to accommodate future business development. These business development
areas were further refined to include only areas that contained planned industrial land use
opportunities and were vacant. Seven key Planned Business Development Areas were targeted
for further study as part of the BDAS.
July 12, 2012 Business Development Advancement Study
Report & Recommendation
Frederick County Planning Commission’s Business Development Advancement Study Committee Page 12 of 23
July 12, 2012 Business Development Advancement Study
Report & Recommendation
Frederick County Planning Commission’s Business Development Advancement Study Committee Page 13 of 23
Evaluation for Site Shovel-Readiness
In an effort to advance business development, and increase the quantity of quality shovel-ready
sites, the BDAS Committee reviewed the following:
• The 2030 Comprehensive Plan’s Planned Industrial sites;
• Geological conditions;
• Water and sewer availability;
• Transportation; and,
• Known funding and incentive programs in an effort to prioritize and advance sites towards a
shovel-ready status.
Geology
The areas planned for business development are generally located within either shale or karst
geology. Shale is the dominant geology east of Interstate 81; Karst is the dominant geology
west of Interstate 81.
Shale geology offers excellent advantages as shale may be utilized for fill materials eliminating
the need to import fill. Shale also offers a solid base on which structure foundations and
stormwater facilities may be constructed. The shale geology is generally more economical for
development purposes.
The soluble nature of Karsts geology makes the soil susceptible to sinkholes, and the limestone
deposits add to blasting and rock removal expenses. Due to the dissolution of karsts soils,
stormwater management facilities generally need to be lined to avoid washouts. The soluble
materials could also lead to building pad failures. Construction expenses associated with karst
soils may be minimized with advance exploration techniques such as deep boring, air probes,
and seismic refractions to identify deep bedrock depositions; such an exploration could indicate
areas that could be susceptible to sinkholes and therefore areas that should be avoided.
Best locations for business development, from a geology perspective: Reliance Road area;
Route 522S/Tasker Road area; and the Route 522S/Route 37/Parkins Road area.
The committee concluded that while construction costs associated with developing sites in
karsts dominated areas are typically higher, the price differential is rarely significant enough to
justify not marketing those sites for C/I development.
July 12, 2012 Business Development Advancement Study
Report & Recommendation
Frederick County Planning Commission’s Business Development Advancement Study Committee Page 14 of 23
Water and Sewer Availability
The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) recognizes the County’s Sewer and Water
Service Area (SWSA) as county policy which defines the boundary limits for water and sewer
service as provided by the FCSA. The SWSA does not guarantee the availability of water and
sewer service. The FCSA is responsible for the water supply and sanitary sewer transmission
within the designated sewer and water service area.
The FCSA manages the system with a water capacity of 7.42 Million Gallons per Day (MGD),
with an average annual use of 4.75 MGD. Various quarries provide the majority of the system’s
water supply, with an agreement with the City of Winchester supplementing the system with
up to 2MGD. On the sanitary side, FCSA is able to treat 11.895 MGD.
Based on various factor such as existing conveyance system infrastructure, and proximity to
supply and treatment facilities, the FCSA indicated that some of the 2030 Plan’s planned
industrial areas are more economical to serve than others. As such, the FCSA identified three
areas that warrant consideration as priority areas from a service perspective:
• Rt522S/Future Route 37 vicinity
o Water main is located on Rt522 adjacent to area
o Sewer plant (Parkins Mill Plant) is located adjacent to area on Parkins Mill Road
• I-81/Route 37/Martinsburg Pike vicinity
o Area is presently served by water and sewer; additional capacities are available
o Red Bud Run pump station is capable of increased flows (a 1.8 MGD capability,
operating at 1.0 MGD)
• Rest Church Road vicinity & Hopewell Road vicinity
o Area could ultimately be served by a new sewer package plant (“plant #4”)
designed solely for non-residential uses.
o Estimated $5,000,000 plant
o 2-3 MGD
o Implement composting and other land applications (creative solutions) to
address nutrient limitations
o Water supply to area is limited so no food processing or other heavy water users
envisioned
o Does need a water storage tank of approximately 150-200 feet high to satisfy
water pressure needs
July 12, 2012 Business Development Advancement Study
Report & Recommendation
Frederick County Planning Commission’s Business Development Advancement Study Committee Page 15 of 23
Transportation
The transportation improvements that were evaluated and discussed were those
improvements included on the adopted Eastern Road Plan (ERP), a component of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan. It was noted that while all the improvements identified in the ERP may
not be needed to bring a single site to shovel-ready status, the overall planned road
improvements would be essential to accommodate the traffic generated with ultimate build-
out of the planned Business Development areas.
It was noted that some of the studied planned industrial areas were more suitable than others
for business development simply reflective of the economics of being able to utilize existing
transportation infrastructure. With consideration of the additional expense of new
infrastructure, the following areas were identified as cost effective areas to support business
development:
• Rt522S/Future Route 37 vicinity
o Good transportation access today; planned improvements would enable
additional business development without burdening transportation network
o Could potentially use the Route 522/Route 37 (planned intersection) as access
point into Area to accommodate initial access. Preliminary access could be
constructed to ultimate Route 37 design standards
o This area offers the most desirable site in terms of cost of improvements
compared to potential acreage and existing capabilities
o This is a significant land bay that is well set up to be able to distribute traffic to
roadways with available capacity as well as potential future interchanges
• I-81/Route 37/Martinsburg Pike vicinity
o Economic Access Funding is being utilized to assist the developer construct
Snowden Bridge Boulevard from Route 11 to the Graystone Industrial Park.
o Economic Access Funding has been reserved for upgrading and signalization of
Ebert Road, but this funding may be returned to VDOT for redistribution in the
near future if the developer match is not committed
Creative financing may be needed regardless of the planned industrial area. TIF and BID-type
financing should be evaluated. VDOT Revenue Sharing and Economic Access Funding programs
should be promoted. Sensible roads and not roads designed to last forever should be
considered. Possibly utilize one program (i.e. TIF) to represent required match funding for
another program.
July 12, 2012 Business Development Advancement Study
Report & Recommendation
Frederick County Planning Commission’s Business Development Advancement Study Committee Page 16 of 23
BDAS Committee’s Preliminary Thoughts
Following presentations and discussions by experts in the fields of water and sewer,
transportation, geology, and economic development, the BDAS Committee generated their
Preliminary Thoughts for how the County could best advance shovel-ready business
development sites.
The Business Development Advancement Study (BDAS) Committee’s Preliminary Thoughts:
• Prioritize future business development areas that could contain shovel-ready sites and
serve the community over the next 20 – 30 years. Some areas will be available in the
near term, others toward the end of the 20-30 period. The Planned Business
Development areas identified below are listed in order of priority considering the
shovel-readiness criteria.
Route 522 South and Parkins Mill Road (and future Route 37 East) area
I-81/Route 37/Route 11 North Stephenson area
Kernstown area– Route 37/Route 11/Shady Elm Road
Clearbrook area – I-81 Exit 321 and Exit 323, around interchanges and
east of Route 11
Stephens City east area– northwest of Route 277 and Route 522
Stephens City south area – within town boundaries
Reliance Road area
• Secure business development zoning for planned business areas.
o Encourage and support property owner initiated rezoning of Comprehensive
Plan identified business areas/sites
o Business Development zoning includes:
M1 Light Industrial
M2 Industrial General
OM Office-Manufacturing Park
• Secure infrastructure funding to improve transportation access and water and sewer
service to the business areas
• Secure Real Estate Tax Relief for business zoned yet agriculturally used properties
o Current Virginia law states that if a property owner requests a rezoning, then the
property will no longer qualify for the Land Use (LU) Tax Assessment program.
Therefore, the rezoned site will be taxed based on the newly rezoned
assessment.
o Current Virginia tax law states that if the zoning is changed by the locality (the
Board’s action NOT a request from the landowner) then that farmer may remain
in land use (LU) as long as he continues to farm the property.
July 12, 2012 Business Development Advancement Study
Report & Recommendation
Frederick County Planning Commission’s Business Development Advancement Study Committee Page 17 of 23
o In an effort to support property owner initiated rezoning requests and not
penalize same for seeking to implement business development zoning while
continuing to utilize sites for agricultural uses, it may be appropriate to seek
legislation at the General Assembly to enable the Frederick County
Commissioner of the Revenue to permit continued use of the Land Use (LU) Tax
Assessment program for properties that continue to be in agricultural use yet
may have been rezoned to enable future business development. At such time as
the property implements business development use, roll-back taxes for the
proceeding five year should be due
• Establish public-private partnerships to advance key planned business areas to shovel
ready status.
o Enter into agreement with property owner regarding a sales price for their land
holdings, with consideration for annual inflationary adjustments, and a 10-year
term on the sales price agreement
o Waive rezoning application fees and impact analysis for properties
o Encourage favorable consideration of rezoning applications that adequately
address and mitigate future transportation impacts via a conditional rezoning
proffer statement
o Seek funding opportunities to implement necessary infrastructure
• Evaluate and secure infrastructure funding programs that are appropriate for specific
sites
o Private Consortium Financing
o Grant Funding
o Low Interest Rate Financing
o Tax Increment Financing (TIP)
o Special Tax District Financing
• Reserve water and sewer capacity for planned business development areas
o Work with FCSA to assure that adequate capacities (within transmission systems
as well as treatment facilities) will be available to serve the targeted EDC users
within the planned business development areas.
Cost – Benefit Analysis
In an effort to better understand the fiscal benefits (a.k.a. Return on Investment) derived from
business development, the BDAS Committee analyzed a development scenario for three of the
top prioritized BDAS business development areas:
• Parkins Mill (Route 522 South and Parkins Mill Road and future Route 37 East area),
July 12, 2012 Business Development Advancement Study
Report & Recommendation
Frederick County Planning Commission’s Business Development Advancement Study Committee Page 18 of 23
• Winchester North (I-81/Route 37/Route 11 North Stephenson area), and
• Rest Church (Clearbrook area – I-81 Exit 321 and Exit 323, around interchanges and east
of Route 11)
The scenarios included considerations pertaining to: acreage potentially available for business
development; cost of transportation, water and sewer infrastructure improvements necessary
to serve the business development; potential sewer system capacity limitations that directly
correlates with the type of business development that might be possible; non-local
infrastructure improvement funding sources; and projected Return on Investment benefits to
the community. The scenarios consider Manufacturing and Warehousing land uses,
independently as well as a blend of the two uses within each development area scenario. It is
noteworthy to mention that the fiscal benefit analysis does not factor in the number of jobs
and their associated wages.
July 12, 2012 Business Development Advancement Study
Report & Recommendation
Frederick County Planning Commission’s Business Development Advancement Study Committee Page 19 of 23
Return on Investment Scenarios
Parkins Mill Winchester North Rest Church
Total Acreage 1,732 810 1,469
Total Immediate
Developable Acreage
500 250 350
Wastewater Capacity
Available
Up to 3 MGD Up to 800,000 MGD Up to 600,000 MGD
Immediate
Infrastructure Cost
$5,275,000 $6,250,000 $9,415,500
Infrastructure Funded
via Non-Local Funds
$1,500,000
*road access multiple awards
$1,500,000
*road access multiple awards
*special taxing district
$637,500
*road access
Net Immediate
Infrastructure Cost
$3,775,000 $4,750,000 $8,112,381
Infrastructure Bonding
Costs 20 year
$5,490,182 $6,908,177 $14,816,221
Net Revenues
(Manufacturing) 20 year
$18,897,118 $17,479,123 $16,247,919
Net Revenues
(Warehousing) 20 year
$6,045,118 $4,627,123 $3,422,919
Net Revenues
(Blend – 50/50) 20 year
$12,497,118 $11,053,123
$9,848,919
Break-even Year
(Manufacturing)
6 7 3
Break-even Year
(Warehousing)
10 13 3
Break-even Year
(Blend – 50/50)
7 9 3
Assumptions/Notes
• Manufacturing per acre return: $19,355
• Warehousing per acre return: $9,155
• Blend per acre return: $14,225
• First project does not locate until year 3
• Projects occurs every three years absorbing 20 acres
• Bond terms are 4% for 20 year
• Rest Church plan calls for $8 million capital outlay to gain additional 500,000 MGD, added with third
project.
July 12, 2012 Business Development Advancement Study
Report & Recommendation
Frederick County Planning Commission’s Business Development Advancement Study Committee Page 20 of 23
BDAS Recommendation
The Business Development Advancement Strategy has been designed to bring shovel-ready
sites into readiness for the owner, the potential user, and the county in terms of increased
revenue. There has been an attempt to bring predictability to the economic development
process in an environment which has changed significantly over the past several years. It looks
more like a partnership of owner, user, and County and getting each of the partners to an
effective end result for each.
Efforts have been incorporated that contribute towards the implementation of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, specifically its business development land use designations (resulting in
OM, M1, and M2 zoning districts). It is also suggested that energies be concentrated at a few
strategic locations so as to maximize the program’s benefits: Focus public-private investment in
the highest priority areas to improve transportation and water and sewer availability.
The BDAS has identified seven key business development areas reflective of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan’s business development land use designation and goals, as well as ease in
terms of facilitating transportation and water and sewer infrastructure improvements. Those
areas are listed below, with the top prioritized area listed first:
o Parkins Mill area
• Route 522 South / Parkins Mill Road (and future Route 37 E) area
• Approximately 1,732 Acres
• 32 properties over 10 acres in size
• Land Use Plan Designation: Mixed Use Office/Industrial Land Uses
• Envisioned Zoning District: OM Office Manufacturing
o Winchester North area
• I-81 Exit 317
• Approximately 810 Acres
• 19 properties over 10 acres in size
• Land Use Plan Designation: Industrial Land Uses
• Envisioned Zoning District: M1 Light Industrial
o Rest Church Road area
• I-81 Exit 323
• Approximately 1,469 Acres
• 32 properties over 10 acres in size
• Land Use Plan Designation: Mixed Use Industrial/Office, Industrial,
Heavy Industrial, and Warehouse Land Uses
• Envisioned Zoning District: OM Office Manufacturing, M1 Light
Industrial, and M2 Industrial General
July 12, 2012 Business Development Advancement Study
Report & Recommendation
Frederick County Planning Commission’s Business Development Advancement Study Committee Page 21 of 23
o Kernstown area
• I-81 Exit 310/Route 37 South/Route 11 South
• Approximately 378 Acres
• 10 properties over 10 acres in size
• Land Use Designation: Industrial Land Uses
• Envisioned Zoning Designation: M1 Light Industrial
o Clearbrook area
• I-81 Exit 321/Hopewell Road
• Approximately 665 Acres
• 12 properties over 10 acres in size
• Land Use Plan Designation: Industrial and Mixed Use
Industrial/Office Land Uses
• Envisioned Zoning District: M1 Light Industrial, OM Office
Manufacturing, and B3 Industrial Transition
o Stephens City East area
• Route 277 / Route 522 S / Route 636
• Approximately 1,052 Acres
• 23 properties over 10 acres in size
• Land Use Plan Designation: Mixed Use Industrial/Office and
Industrial
• Envisioned Zoning District: OM Office Manufacturing and M1 Light
Industrial
o Stephens City Proper area
• With the Town of Stephens City
• Approximately 191 Acres
• 3 properties over 10 acres in size
• Land Use Designation: Industrial Land Use
• Envisioned Zoning District: I-1 Industrial Transition and I-2 General
Industrial
The BDAS recommends that the County undertake the following initiatives which collectively
will enhance the community’s advancement of business development in the target business
areas.
Business Development Initiatives
• Secure zoned and shovel-ready sites
July 12, 2012 Business Development Advancement Study
Report & Recommendation
Frederick County Planning Commission’s Business Development Advancement Study Committee Page 22 of 23
o Identify and prioritize key areas/sites
o Encourage property owner initiated rezoning within prioritized areas
o Utilize staff expertise to analyze sites and provide comment for rezoning
applications
o Waive rezoning application fee and detailed Impact Analysis (including TIA
Transportation Impact Analysis ) if proffer statement adequately addresses
mitigation of impacts
• Establish public-private agreements to enable the Economic Development Commission’s
(EDC) marketing of key business development sites
o Owner agreed upon sales price that can be marketed to prospective targeted
business users
Utilize independent appraisal that is updated every 3 years
o Establish a pre-determined time frame to market property
10 years for target areas that are envisioned to development in the near
future
20 years for target areas that are envisioned to development in the long
term
• Annually refund real estate land use tax deferment for business development sites
o Calculate deferment : Land Use Tax Assessment value minus new Real Estate
Assessment after rezoning
o Utilize a Performance Agreement between property owner and Industrial
Development Authority (IDA)
Performance measures will include: proper zoning, executed sales price
agreement, documented effort as a willing seller for EDC clients
Do not include Rollback
Deferment refund would continue until site is developed
• Perform preliminary site analysis for large tracts
o Conduct wetlands and historic reviews in advance of site development
o Design and construct regional stormwater management facilities per new state
code
• Fastrack Development Review Process for targeted businesses
o Establish a coordinated review agency effort to enable targeted businesses to
receive prompt development reviews.
o Allow concurrent development application reviews
o Assure that review agencies will provide development proposal review
comments within set time frames all in an effort to promptly secure
development review approvals
Development Application Review and agency review response time
July 12, 2012 Business Development Advancement Study
Report & Recommendation
Frederick County Planning Commission’s Business Development Advancement Study Committee Page 23 of 23
• Rezoning – 10 days for review agency comment; then 45 days for
public hearings
• Master Development Plan – 30 days
• Subdivision – 30 days
• Site Plan – 30 days
• Land Disturbance – 5 days
• Building Permit – 5 days
o Fastrack program will enable cumulative approvals needed for building
construction to be issued in less than 3 months
• Pursue public investment towards infrastructure needs associated with target
businesses
o Seek local, state, and federal financing
Grants, low interest financing, bonding
o Utilize Return on Investment (ROI) analysis when considering fiscal contributions
20 year ROI payoff
o Utilize an Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) to manage and implement
infrastructure improvements
• Reserve water and sewer capacity for planned business development areas
o Work with FCSA to assure that adequate capacities (within transmission systems
as well as treatment facilities) will be available to serve the targeted EDC users
within the planned business development areas.
BDAS Report Appendix:
Financing Tools For Promoting
Business Development
BDAS Report Appendix:
Financing Tools for Promoting Business Development
Road Development
1. Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund
Description
It provides grants, revolving loans, or other financial tools and equity contributions
to encourage the development of transportation projects and to provide monies to
address the transportation aspects of economic development opportunities.
The financial assistance may be used for transportation capacity development, on
and off site; road, rail, mass transit or other transportation access costs beyond the
funding capability of existing programs; studies of transportation projects including
but not limited to environmental analysis, geotechnical assessment, survey, design
and engineering, advance right-of-way acquisition, traffic analysis, toll sensitivity
studies, financial analysis, or any other transportation development activity
permitted by law.
Amount
$30 million = Loans from the Fund of up to $30 million will be interest-free. Loan
terms will vary but shall not exceed seven years.
$5 million = Grants of up to $5 million.
Notes
Must meet Governor’s Opportunity Fund criteria
Still eligible for other State road funding pools
2. Virginia Transportation Infrastructure Bank
Description
Bank is intended to alleviate, in part, a critical need for additional sources of funding
to finance present and future needs of the Commonwealth of Virginia for the design
and construction of roads and highways. This includes including toll facilities, mass
transit, freight, passenger and commuter rail, including rolling stock, port and airport
and other transportation facilities.
The purpose of the bank is also to encourage the investment of both public and
private funds in the development of eligible transportation projects and to provide
an alternative source of financing for present and future transportation needs in the
commonwealth.
Under the VTIB Act, a Project means i) the construction, reconstruction,
rehabilitation or replacement of any interstate, state highway, toll road, tunnel, local
road, or bridge; or ii) the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation or replacement
of any a) mass transit, b) commuter, passenger or freight rail, c) port, or d) airport
facility; or the acquisition of any rolling stock, vehicle or equipment to be used
therewith.
Loans, grants, credit enhancement and other financial assistance available.
Amount
$282 million = Initial capitalization by General Assembly
$56 million = Grants to Governmental Entities to finance projects. Governmental
Entities applying for a grant must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Manager,
the project cannot be financed on reasonable terms or would otherwise be
financially infeasible without the grant.
3. Economic Development Access Fund
Description
This is a state-funded incentive program intended to assist localities in attracting
sustainable businesses that create jobs and generate tax revenues within the
locality. The program makes funds available to localities for road improvements
needed to provide adequate access for new or substantially expanding qualifying
establishments. Economic Development Access funds are allocated by the
Commonwealth Transportation Board in accordance with its policy and may be used
for financing the construction or improvement of secondary or local system roads
within all counties and cities and certain towns that are part of the Urban System.
“Qualifying Establishments” include manufacturing, processing, research and
development facilities, distribution centers, regional service centers, corporate
headquarters, or other qualifying establishments that also meet basic employer
criteria as determined by the VEDP in consultation with the VDBA.
Amount
$600,000 = unmatched
$150,000 = additional if match by non-State source
Notes
Regular or bond project eligible
Five year window to capture capital investment and jobs on bonded project
It is intended that Economic Development Access Program funds be requested as
reasonably needed by the localities of the state, but that these funds not be
anticipated from year to year. Unused eligibility from a preceding year cannot be
carried forward to an ensuing fiscal year.
Subject to available funding, the maximum unmatched allocation to a locality within
any one fiscal year is $500,000
4. Revenue Sharing
Description
This program provides additional funding for use by a county, city, or town to
construct or improve the highway systems within such county, city, or town, with
statutory limitations on the amount of state funds authorized per locality. Funds can
also be requested for eligible additions in certain counties of the Commonwealth.
Locality funds are matched with state funds for qualifying projects. An annual
allocation of funds for this program is designated by the CTB.
Eligible projects include work including construction, reconstruction, improvement,
and eligible street additions. Any work deemed to be maintenance work is not
eligible for Revenue Sharing funding.
Amount
$10 million = maximum of locality application
Each locality’s request for up to $1 million in Revenue Sharing Program funding will
be evaluated before considering additional funding for requests that exceed $1
million. Priority will be given to allocations that accelerate projects in the
Commonwealth Transportation Six Year Improvement Program or the locality’s
capital plan and prioritized as follows.
Notes
Requires dollar for dollar match
5. Special Taxing District
Description
A special district is an independent unit of local government organized to perform a
single governmental function or a restricted number of related functions. Special
districts usually have the power to incur debt and levy taxes; however, certain types
of special districts are entirely dependent upon enterprise earnings and cannot
impose taxes. Examples of special districts are water and flood control districts, and
transit authorities, port authorities, and electric power authorities.
Amount
$10 million to 141 million
Notes
Examples
Prince William Parkway Project ($40,000,000) in Prince William County
A levy of $0.20 per $100 assessed value on commercial and industrial
zoned property (including commercial apartments), or property used for
commercial or industrial purposes within the district
State code permits special tax levy on real estate only, creates some challenges
Water & Wastewater Development
1. Community Development Block Grant
Description
The Virginia Community Development Block Grant (VCDBG) is a federally-funded
grant administered by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development (DHCD) since 1982. DHCD provides funding to eligible units of local
government (non-entitlement communities only) for projects that address critical
community needs including housing, infrastructure, and economic development.
The three national objectives for CDBG funding are:
Activities benefiting low- and moderate-income persons;
Activities which aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight;
and
Activities designed to meet community needs having a particular
urgency.
Community Improvement Grants (CIG’s) enable localities to implement solutions to
identified local community development problems. These grants include acquisition,
construction, reconstruction, installation, and development of comprehensive,
economic development, housing, community facility, and community service facility
projects. A substantial majority of the Virginia CDBG allocation will be made
available to localities in the form of these types of grants.
Amount
$700,000 - $1,000,000 (annual estimate)
Notes
Must go toward projects that create job and business opportunities for low- and
moderate-income persons, particularly in the most economically disadvantaged
2. Water and Waste Disposal Direct Loans and Grants (United Stated Department of
Agriculture Rural Development)
Description
Program seeks to develop water and waste disposal systems in rural areas and
towns with a population not in excess of 10,000. To qualify, applicants must be
unable to obtain the financing from other sources at rates and terms they can afford
and/or their own resources. Funds can be used for construction, land acquisition,
legal fees, engineering fees, capitalized interest, equipment, initial operation and
maintenance costs, project contingencies, and any other cost that is determined by
the Rural Development to be necessary for the completion of the project. Projects
must be primarily for the benefit of rural users.
BDAS Report Appendix:
Business Development
Office and Industrial
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT – OFFICE & INDUSTRIAL
THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
5
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT – OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL
CURRENT CONDITIONS
Strategically placed in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States, Frederick
County’s location on the eastern seaboard is a valuable asset to companies
serving the US markets and Europe.
Frederick County is the northernmost community in the Commonwealth of
Virginia. The County’s location places its businesses halfway between the
markets of the north and south, within a one-day haul of 50% of the U.S.
population. Over 60% of the goods manufactured in the United States are
distributed from the 750-mile (1,207 kilometers) area.
In addition to being half way between Boston and Atlanta, Winchester-
Frederick County is well positioned equidistant between Los Angeles and
London. For national and international companies, being in the Eastern Time
Zone maximizes their hours of operations, which helps to improve
efficiencies.
Excellent road, rail, inland ocean port and the Dulles World Cargo Center
provide access to the major markets in North America, Latin America, and
globally.
Interstate 81 runs directly through the County. Several major airports are
within 100 miles of Frederick County, including Washington-Dulles
International Airport, Baltimore-Washington International Airport, and Ronald
Reagan Washington National Airport. Frederick County is home to a growing
regional general aviation airport. These assets support access to Frederick
County’s economic development opportunities.
With the formation of the Washington-Baltimore Metropolitan Statistical Area
after the 1990 US Census, the fifth largest USA market begins at the County
Line. This close proximity to Washington D.C. also provides access to the
unique opportunities associated with the Federal Government and the
County’s location is supportive of those policies established for purposes of
Homeland Security.
In addition to the ideal geographic location of Frederick County, other
significant strengths of the Frederick County market, particular to attracting
new office and industrial development, include favorable tax rates, a high
quality of life, education, healthcare, workforce, and a diverse current office
and industrial community. Frederick County is currently home to several
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT – OFFICE & INDUSTRIAL
THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
6
government agencies including, FEMA, Corps. of Engineers, and the FBI.
Frederick County has an incredibly low tax rate in comparison to neighboring
communities. Supported by a proactive Economic Development Commission
(EDC), the areas workforce has a high work ethic and a low turnover rate.
The area has an educated workforce with 84% of county residents being high
school graduates and 24% with bachelors or more advanced degrees.
Education opportunities abound in Frederick County which has a well
respected primary education system. In addition, higher education
opportunities exist with a growing student base at the following
establishments;
Shenandoah University
Lord Fairfax Community College
The community has an excellent healthcare system which is centered around
the Valley Health Systems. Facilities include:
• Winchester Medical Center
• Regional Referral Center
• Level II Trauma Center
• Quick Care / Urgent Care Centers
• Health and Wellness Center
Frederick County provides a high quality of life which is considered to be an
important factor in recruiting companies and maintaining a desirable
workforce. The City of Winchester, with its successful downtown walking
mall, is a resource for additional workforce and provides numerous retail and
entertainment opportunities.
Current office and industrial operations within the community provide for
diversity in current business markets. The area is not linked to one major
industry or employer. There is a redundancy in resources offered at certain
business parks. In addition, a Foreign Trade Zone with several locations
provides tax free trade areas.
FUTURE FOCUS
Frederick County should focus on targeted office and industrial economic
development opportunities over the next twenty years. It can be anticipated
that there will be an increased opportunity to capitalize on the following
operations:
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT – OFFICE & INDUSTRIAL
THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
7
Food Processing
Anticipate increase in number of food processors locating in area as
out-sourcing internationally is not an option. Processers seek access to
resources, location and workforce within a right-to-work locality. Water
resources will be necessary for this industry.
Distribution/Repackaging and Assembly Centers
Anticipate increase in distribution and repackaging centers based on
area location and proximity to transportation
Healthcare Research & Development
Anticipate increase in healthcare related research and development
operations
Plastics Manufacturing
Anticipate increase in plastics manufacturing, an industry already
common in this area. Water resources will be necessary for this
industry.
Back Office Support
Anticipate increase in back office support organizations. Current
examples operating in Frederick County include Navy Federal Credit
Union and American Background.
Government Activity
Anticipate an increase in government agencies locating operations to
Frederick County. Location plays major factor, in particular, Homeland
Security locational factors are extremely favorable in Frederick County.
COOP’s, Continuity of Operations Plans, highlight the attributes of
Frederick County.
Additional government activity in Frederick County will result in an increase in
the number of jobs directly related to their presence. Those jobs will typically
be highly skilled, high paying jobs. In addition, there will be an increase in
support and ancillary jobs. Similarly, there will be a significant increase in
ancillary support business opportunities such as support contractors, many of
which will be higher tech. As previously noted, this will drive a need for
services, housing, entertainment, retail, and other businesses.
A well planned business development marketing strategy will not be effective
if insufficient acreage has been set aside to accommodate desired business
uses in suitable key locations. The Area Plans will need to identify and
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT – OFFICE & INDUSTRIAL
THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
8
incorporate ample areas of business and industrial land use in support of the
business development goals of The Plan.
Frederick County is supportive of green initiatives in the field of economic
development. Sustainable development initiatives should be recognized and
their implementation incentivized. Such an example is rail access and
transportation which will become more valuable and expected in industrial
settings due to desire to operate effectively and efficiently.
Frederick County should be proactive in ensuring the resources necessary for
economic development are planned in a sustainable way and available in
support of the identified office and industrial users.
With regards to water, waste water treatment, and electricity, manufacturers
will be concerned with quantity and availability, but also of equal or greater
importance will be quality and service reliability. There is a finite capacity of
these resources that must be managed accordingly.
The concept of redundancy will need to be a priority. Manufacturers and
government agencies will require redundancy in services necessary to support
their economic investment and growth.
COMMUNITY BENEFITS
The value of office and industrial business development to Frederick County is
immeasurable. As part of the County’s economic development effort, office
and industrial growth is a key component for ensuring a selection of
employment opportunities for the citizens of Frederick County.
The continuation of a low residential tax rate is a direct result of the
expansion of the commercial and industrial tax. Currently commercial and
industrial tax revenue accounts for approximately 13% of the County’s tax
base. The County’s goal indicates this should be around 25% to ensure a
balanced fiscal environment and a continuance of low real estate taxes.
The County’s development impact model projection for a single-family home
anticipates tax revenue of approximately fifty percent of the projected costs
to the County. The County’s fiscal survival is dependent upon recruiting office
and industrial occupants which offset those residential costs.
An effective office and industrial business development strategy will also
ensure the stabilization of the workforce and maintain low levels of
unemployment. An increase in high skill, high paying jobs locally will result in
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT – OFFICE & INDUSTRIAL
THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
9
a decrease in number of skilled residents commuting outside the region to the
Northern Virginia region.
Overall, a sound office and industrial business development strategy will
result in the conservation of a variety of finite resources and promote a high
quality of life for the citizens of Frederick County.
POLICIES/IMPLEMENTATION
POLICY:
IDENTIFY AND RECOGNIZE AREAS IN THE COUNTY MOST
STRATEGICALLY SUITED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF OFFICE AND
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
IMPLEMENTATION:
• Complete review of area land use plans to ensure sufficient acreage is
identified and reserved for office and industrial use to enable a
balanced County tax base.
o Lands identified for business use should avoid limestone areas
where karst geology is present.
o Ensure these lands are properly located in relation to
transportation and water, sewer, and natural gas.
• Communications infrastructure, such as voice and data fiber, should be
extended to areas identified for office and industrial use.
• The zoning process and support should be examined by the County to
encourage willingness on the part of landowners of properties
identified in Area Plans (see Appendix I) to proceed with rezoning.
POLICY:
PROACTIVELY ATTRACT DESIRED BUSINESS ENTITIES
IMPLEMENTATION:
• Review/revise office and manufacturing zoning to minimize the
number of low tax generating entities locating in the area.
o Minimize distribution centers as they have a minimal personal
property tax, typically result in lower paying jobs, and absorb
greater land mass than other uses.
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT – OFFICE & INDUSTRIAL
THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
10
o Maximize targeted industries such as governmental facilities, as
well as high-tax base industries that have a low resource
requirement.
• Continue to examine and fund business location marketing that builds
or modifies the current business base to take the County forward to its
goal of increased income for its citizens and tax value for the County.
POLICY:
CONSIDER REGULATIONS ENCOURAGING AND/OR REQUIRING
SERVICE REDUNDANCY IN OFFICE & INDUSTRIAL AREAS
IMPLEMENTATION:
• Complete an analysis to determine services most desirable for
redundancy and determine the feasibility of service redundancy in
currently zoned office and industrial areas.
• Create incentives for industrial site developers to implement service
redundancy.
POLICY
: FUNDING OF POLICIES
IMPLEMENTATION
:
• Determine funding plan for policies such as service redundancy, water
availability, electric service, communication, etc. These could include
public/private funding and transportation access funds for industrial
development.
• Address how the County’s public role could be used more effectively in
lowering development costs.
COMMUNITY PARTNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS
• Winchester-Frederick County Economic Development Commission
• Industrial Development Authority
• Industrial Parks Association
• Blue Ridge Board of Realtors
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT – OFFICE & INDUSTRIAL
THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
11
SUPPORTING MATERIALS AND RESOURCES
• Economic Development Commission Targeted Business Plan
• WinVa.com
BDAS Report Appendix:
Achieving Fiscal Balance Through
Land Use Planning
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
35
THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ACHIEVING FISCAL BALANCE THROUGH LAND USE PLANNING
THE 25% COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL – 75% OTHER REAL ESTATE TAX
ASSESSMENT RATIO
Local governments throughout the country rely on the revenue collected from
real estate taxes to fund their general operation. Therefore, it is
understandable that the revenue-generating potential for properties receives
strong consideration during land use and development decisions. In many
circumstances, a site’s ability to generate revenue, and an applicant’s
capability to adequately mitigate negative fiscal impacts, are driving factors
behind the development approval process.
Prompted in part by fiscal concerns, local governments plan and ultimately
zone large tracts of land for commercial and industrial use, to ensure that
there is not only adequate land available for current demand but also for
future demand. This practice of using land use policies (a.k.a. Comprehensive
Plan) and the zoning ordinance to achieve fiscal objectives rather than purely
land-use objectives is commonly referred to as ‘fiscal zoning’. Under the
fiscal zoning approach, local governments discourage proposed developments
that have the potential to create a net financial burden on the county and will
instead encourage development that promises a net financial gain. Fiscal
consideration is a significant element of land use planning.
The county has successfully utilized the Comprehensive Policy Plan to
designate areas of the county for future commercial and industrial (C/I) land
use opportunities since the early 1970s. Over the years this practice has
helped reserve designated land for vital tax generating land uses. Through
the policies of the Comprehensive Plan areas designated for C/I land uses can
be implemented through the rezoning process, which then allows the property
owner to develop the site into commercial and/or industrial uses. Once the
C/I use has been constructed, the county is then able to bring in additional
tax revenues from the site. Through the support and encouragement of C/I
uses, the county over the past decade has successfully maintained a relatively
low (0.51 to 0.71 percent) real estate tax rate while continuing to provide a
high quality of public services to its citizens.
The Frederick County 2030 Comprehensive Plan strives to incorporate a more
comprehensive analysis of the C/I land uses and their contribution towards
the county’s fiscal health into its overall community planning effort. The
importance of the C/I land use has elevated in recent years as the country
strives to overcome the challenging economic times. In an effort to plan for
the county’s prosperous future, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan has been
drafted to designate sufficient acreage for C/I land use opportunities that is
necessary to generate tax revenue that is necessary to offset the county’s
costs for providing public services to the important but more financially
burdensome residential land use.
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
36
THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
It is the county’s goal to create a policy plan that balances land uses and their
associated tax contributions to ensure that those contributions offset the
countywide cost of community services. This goal should be achieved by
utilizing the land use plan to assist the county in achieving a real estate tax
assessment ratio of 25 percent C/I to 75 percent Other land uses such as
residential. Ultimately, the land use plan should be designed to plan for
adequate revenue opportunities to ensure that the county is capable of
providing its citizens with desired public services without having to place
additional tax burdens on those citizens to fund the services.
This document strives to provide additional background materials and a better
understanding in support of the C/I policies and goals of Frederick County.
ANALYSIS
Evaluation of Costs of Community Services (COCS) by land use
A Cost of Community Services study is one of the simplest forms of fiscal
analysis available to local government. This study groups major land use
categories together and evaluates all revenues and expenditures of the land
uses throughout the county. In 2003, the American Farmland Trust (AFT), in
working with the Frederick County Farm Bureau, analyzed Frederick County’s
FY02 budget, its revenue and expenditures, in an effort to determine the
Costs of Community Services (COCS) by land use. This study was targeted to
illustrate the minimal impact that agricultural lands place on county services,
but residential and commercial/industrial land uses were also analyzed. The
study concentrated on fiscal year 2002 (July 2001 to June 2002), and
represented a 12 month ‘snap-shot’.
The American Farmland Trust study of Frederick County, VA found the
following:
Land Use Cost of Service per $1
Revenue Generated
Residential $ 1.19
Commercial/Industrial $ 0.23
Agricultural/Open Space $ 0.33
The AFT study found that residential land uses receive $1.19 in community
services for every $1 contributed in tax revenue. More importantly, this study
also found that the revenue generated by C/I land uses are more than four
times their projected costs for community service.
While it is noted that this study was conducted a few years ago, the premise
behind the analysis does capture a key aspect of the county’s typical financial
situation: C/I is vital to the county’s tax base, and that in 2002, the C/I land
uses contributed 18.82% of the total real estate tax revenue.
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
37
THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
In order to project the capital fiscal impacts that would be associated with
residential developments, Frederick County utilizes a Development Impact
Model (DIM). This DIM is a micro-level model with the ability to analyze site
specific land use data. In 2010, as part of the annual review of the DIM, the
Development Impact Model-Oversight Committee (DIM-OC) utilized the DIM
to evaluate the costs for service for residential land uses. The DIM projects
fiscal analysis over a 20 year period (a 20 year ‘snap-shot’), and considers full
revenue contributions and expenditure demands, traditional budget elements
as well as the associated Capital Improvement Plan projects. The DIM
considers the various revenue sources such as real estate and property taxes,
as well as sales, meals, and other potential taxes enabled within the
community. The findings that were generated from the residential analysis
were surprising. The DIM projected that over a 20 year period a single family
residence valued at $270,000 would cost the county $1.95 for every $1
contributed. The DIM’s projections indicate a significant disparity in the
relationship between residential tax contributions and its associated service
expectations.
2010 Development Impact Model (DIM)
projections over 20 year period
$270,000 Single
Family Dwelling
Tax Revenue $72,881
Real Estate (direct contributions) $26,125
Personal Property, Sales, Meals,
etc (indirect contributions)
$46,756
County Service Expenditures $142,394
Capital (schools, public safety,
library, etc)
$ 21,672
Operations $120,722
These two studies reinforce the generally accepted belief that residential land
uses require more services than their associated tax contributions cover,
while on the other hand commercial and industrial land uses offer significant
tax revenues which exceed their associated cost for community services.
More importantly, these two studies show that the revenues generated by C/I
land uses are essential in the county being able to mitigate the residential
land use costs for community services, and provide for more opportunities
and quality of life elements that make for a great community.
Evaluation of County Tax Revenue and Expenditures
Utilizing figures for the county’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2010, one gains a
better understanding from where funds are derived, and where those funds
are then spent.
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
38
THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Real Estate taxes represented 43 percent ($41.1 million) of the county’s tax
revenue in 2010.
This real estate tax revenue is derived from various land uses: residential,
commercial, industrial, and agricultural. In 2010 C/I land uses brought in
$5.6 million in real estate taxes, or 13.56 percent of the total real estate tax
revenue. It should be noted that C/I uses only occupy 1.79 percent of the
County’s total land area and contribute $1,229.5 per acre in real estate taxes.
In addition to real estate taxes, C/I land uses are also significant contributors
to personal property, local sales, meals and lodging, business license, and
other local taxes. C/I land uses are vital contributors to the local tax revenue
and ultimately contribute over 75 percent of the County’s total tax revenue.
At the other end of the spectrum, residential land uses brought in $24.3
million in real estate taxes, or 59.2 percent of the total real estate tax
revenue. Residential land uses make up 27 percent of the County’s total land
area and contribute an average of $353.40 per acre in real estate taxes.
In reviewing the county’s expenditures for the same period, a significant
portion of the county’s funds are directed towards education ($65.3 million).
At 52.1 percent of the expenditures, the county is clearly committed to
educating its residents, preparing for the future, and providing for a high
quality of life.
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
39
THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This review of the County’s 2010 tax revenues and expenditures clearly
illustrates that while residential land use contribute a majority of the real
estate taxes collected by the County, the costs for covering services provided
to those resident far exceeds their contributions. As depicted in the chart
above, the expenditures for education (which is a service connected with
residential land uses), is more than three times the contributions made from
residential property.
Through solid land use and financial planning, the county has maintained a
stable, relatively low real estate tax rate for the past decade while continuing
to provide top notch services to its residents. Utilizing the benefits of C/I, an
increase in C/I land uses would offer the county an even greater ability to
provide services or cover the increasing costs of services.
Recognition of C/I Contributions to the Tax Base
Commercial and industrial land uses offer significant benefits to the
community, in terms of tax contributions (real estate, meals, machinery,
room, etc.) with minimal expectations and impacts on county services. C/I
land uses also offer key employment opportunities for the residents of the
county to help improve their individual quality of life and achieve their
personal goals.
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
40
THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Based on the 2010 tax revenues, C/I properties represented more than 13
percent of the total real estate property assessments in the county, but
accounted for less than 2 percent of the land area within the county. While
land values will certainly fluctuate with the ebb and flow of the economy, C/I
values will continue to be significant contributors to the county’s tax base and
more importantly, C/I tax contributions will offset the residential land use cost
for services.
Target: Plan for C/I to Represent 25 Percent of Real Estate Assessments
In an effort to maintain the county’s ability to provide high quality services
while at the same time maintaining low real estate tax rates, the 2030
Comprehensive Plan is utilizing land use planning and C/I opportunities to
offset impacts from existing and planned residential uses. If it is a goal for
Frederick County to have 25 percent of the total county assessments come
from C/I land use values, then it is obvious that at only 13.56 percent (4,556
acres) the county needs additional developed C/I uses. To achieve the 25
percent assessment target in 2010, an additional 2,761 developed acres of
C/I land uses would have been needed.
Recognizing the county’s 2.9 percent annual growth rate over the past 3
decades, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan should be designed to accommodate
an additional 4,859 acres of new C/I opportunities. This projection indicates
that the 2030 Comprehensive Plan should contain a minimum designation of
12,176 acres for C/I land uses within the Sewer and Water Service Area
(SWSA). Further fluctuations may be anticipated with additional residential
growth.
2030 Comprehensive Plan
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan has been developed to incorporate a balance of
land uses in order to achieve needed tax revenues. The Plan achieves the
land use policy target of ensuring that 25 percent of the projected
assessments will be in C/I land uses. This is accomplished by designating
16,700 acres for future C/I land uses, which will occupy approximately 2/3 of
the 25,000-acre Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA).
The Plan also incorporates opportunities for mixed use developments and
single family residential uses at a minimum density of 4 units per acres within
the designated Urban Development Area (UDA). The policy of directing
residential growth into the UDA also promotes a more efficient use of land
and community services, ultimately offering additional cost savings to the
county.
Mixed use developments also offer additional revenues to address the
demands for services generated by the residential uses. Mixed-use
developments – such as urban center and neighborhood villages – are
planned developments that encourage and accommodate a mix of land uses.
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
41
THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
These projects include an appropriate mix of commercial, office, and
residential development. They provide an efficient development pattern that
can foster economic development, provide diversity in land use, and reduce
the number and the length of automobile trips. These mixed uses projects are
encouraged in appropriate locations in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
CONCLUSION
The land use designations contained within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
accommodate the goal of providing 25 percent C/I land uses to 75 percent
Other land uses. Maintaining a healthy C/I ratio will help the county maintain
its current tax rates while continuing to enhance the services provided the
residents - particularity in the area of education. It is through the use of land
use policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan that these goals will be
supported and achieved.
In an effort to reinforce a sound policy basis that balances land use planning
and fiscal policies, the ratio of 25/75 between C/I and other land uses in
terms of available land areas and taxable value of the land uses shall be the
established benchmark. This policy shall dictate that at least 25 percent of
the taxable land value (land plus improvement value) in the county should
contain C/I land uses, and conversely that no more than 75 percent of the
taxable land area should be for uses other than C/I land. By achieving this
policy goal, the County will ensure that taxable land values equate to the
projected expenditures.
BDAS Report Appendix:
Cost-Benefit Analysis
BDAS Report Appendix:
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Cost Estimates
Parkins Mill
Item Unit Price Total
Pump Station 1 1,250,000$ 1,250,000$
8" Force Main 9500 30$ 285,000$
Waterline 19000 30$ 570,000$
Fire hyrants 48 2,500$ 120,000$
24' Rural Road 11000 150$ 1,650,000$
Improve Ex. Road 10000 80$ 800,000$
Regional Pond 1 600,000$ 600,000$
5,275,000$ Total
Winchester North
Item Unit Price Total
Rt 37 Slip Ramp 1 1,250,000$ 1,250,000$
I-81 Exit 317 NB Ramp
Relocation 1 6,200,000$ 6,200,000$
7,450,000$ Total
Rest Church
Item Unit Price Total
Pump Station 1 350,000$ 350,000$
6" Force Main 3500 28$ 98,000$
Waterline 8500 30$ 255,000$
Fire Hydrants 21 2,500$ 52,500$
24' Rural Road 4500 150$ 675,000$
1,430,500$ Total
New Package Plant to
increase sewage capcity
to 500,000 GPD 1 8,000,000$ 8,000,000$
9,430,500$ Total
DI
R
E
C
T
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
An
n
u
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$0
$
0
$
3
8
7
,
1
0
0
$
3
8
7
,
1
0
0
$
3
8
7
,
1
0
0
$
7
7
4
,
2
0
0
$7
7
4
,
2
0
0
$
7
7
4
,
2
0
0
$
1
,
161,300
$
1
,
1
6
1
,
3
0
0
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$0
$
0
$
3
8
7
,
1
0
0
$
7
7
4
,
2
0
0
$
1
,
1
6
1
,
30
0
$
1
,
9
3
5
,
5
0
0
$
2
,
7
0
9
,
7
0
0
$
3
,
48
3
,
9
0
0
$
4
,
6
4
5
,
2
0
0
$
5
,
8
0
6
,
5
0
0
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
An
n
u
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$1
,
1
6
1
,
3
0
0
$
1
,
5
4
8
,
4
0
0
$
1
,
5
4
8
,
40
0
$
1
,
5
4
8
,
4
0
0
$
1
,
9
3
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
93
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
9
3
5
,
5
0
0
$
2
,
3
2
2
,
600
$
2
,
3
2
2
,
6
0
0
$
2
,
3
2
2
,
6
0
0
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$6
,
9
6
7
,
8
0
0
$
8
,
5
1
6
,
2
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
6
4
,
60
0
$
1
1
,
6
1
3
,
0
0
0
$
1
3
,
5
4
8
,
5
0
0
$
1
5
,
48
4
,
0
0
0
$
1
7
,
4
1
9
,
5
0
0
$
1
9
,
7
4
2
,
100
$
2
2
,
0
6
4
,
7
0
0
$
2
4
,
3
8
7
,
3
0
0
DI
R
E
C
T
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
An
n
u
a
l
Co
s
t
s
$2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Co
s
t
s
$2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
5
4
9
,
0
1
8
$
8
2
3
,
5
2
7
$
1
,
0
9
8
,
0
3
6
$1
,
3
7
2
,
5
4
6
$
1
,
6
4
7
,
0
5
5
$1
,
9
2
1
,
5
6
4
$
2
,
1
9
6
,
0
7
3
$2,470,582
$
2
,
7
4
5
,
0
9
1
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
An
n
u
a
l
Co
s
t
s
$2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Co
s
t
s
$3
,
0
1
9
,
6
0
0
$
3
,
2
9
4
,
1
0
9
$
3
,
5
6
8
,
61
9
$
3
,
8
4
3
,
1
2
8
$
4
,
1
1
7
,
6
3
7
$
4
,
39
2
,
1
4
6
$
4
,
6
6
6
,
6
5
5
$
4
,
9
4
1
,
164
$
5
,
2
1
5
,
6
7
3
$
5
,
4
9
0
,
1
8
2
BD
A
S
RO
I
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
:
Pa
r
k
i
n
s
Mi
l
l
| Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
NE
T
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
An
n
u
a
l
Re
t
u
r
n
($
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
)
(
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
)
$
1
1
2
,
5
9
1
$
1
1
2
,
5
9
1
$
1
1
2
,
59
1
$
4
9
9
,
6
9
1
$
4
9
9
,
6
9
1
$
4
9
9
,
6
9
1
$
8
8
6
,
7
9
1
$
8
8
6
,
7
9
1
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
t
u
r
n
($
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
)
(
$
5
4
9
,
0
1
8
)
(
$
4
3
6
,
4
2
7
)
(
$
3
2
3
,
8
3
6
)
(
$
2
1
1
,
24
6
)
$
2
8
8
,
4
4
5
$
7
8
8
,
1
3
6
$
1
,
2
8
7
,
827
$
2
,
1
7
4
,
6
1
8
$
3
,
0
6
1
,
4
0
9
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
An
n
u
a
l
Re
t
u
r
n
$8
8
6
,
7
9
1
$
1
,
2
7
3
,
8
9
1
$
1
,
2
7
3
,
8
9
1
$1
,
2
7
3
,
8
9
1
$
1
,
6
6
0
,
9
9
1
$
1
,
66
0
,
9
9
1
$
1
,
6
6
0
,
9
9
1
$
2
,
0
4
8
,
091
$
2
,
0
4
8
,
0
9
1
$
2
,
0
4
8
,
0
9
1
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
t
u
r
n
$3
,
9
4
8
,
2
0
0
$
5
,
2
2
2
,
0
9
1
$
6
,
4
9
5
,
98
1
$
7
,
7
6
9
,
8
7
2
$
9
,
4
3
0
,
8
6
3
$
1
1
,
09
1
,
8
5
4
$
1
2
,
7
5
2
,
8
4
5
$
1
4
,
8
0
0
,
936
$
1
6
,
8
4
9
,
0
2
7
$
1
8
,
8
9
7
,
1
1
8
As
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
$
1
9
,
3
5
5
p
e
r
ac
r
e
pe
r
ye
a
r
so
u
r
c
e
:
ED
C
re
c
e
n
t
ne
w
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
Ne
w
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
O
n
e
ev
e
r
y
th
r
e
e
ye
a
r
s
on
20
ac
r
e
s
f
i
r
s
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
do
e
s
no
t
lo
c
a
t
e
un
t
i
l
ye
a
r
3
Bo
n
d
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
$
3
,
7
7
5
,
0
0
0
4
%
fo
r
20
ye
a
r
s
bo
n
d
wo
u
l
d
go
to
w
a
r
d
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
in
ye
a
r
1
DI
R
E
C
T
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
An
n
u
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$0
$
0
$
1
8
3
,
1
0
0
$
1
8
3
,
1
0
0
$
1
8
3
,
1
0
0
$
3
6
6
,
20
0
$
3
6
6
,
2
0
0
$
3
6
6
,
2
0
0
$
5
4
9
,
3
0
0
$
5
4
9
,
3
0
0
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$0
$
0
$
1
8
3
,
1
0
0
$
3
6
6
,
2
0
0
$
5
4
9
,
3
0
0
$
9
1
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
28
1
,
7
0
0
$
1
,
6
4
7
,
9
0
0
$
2
,
197,200
$
2
,
7
4
6
,
5
0
0
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
An
n
u
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$5
4
9
,
3
0
0
$
7
3
2
,
4
0
0
$
7
3
2
,
4
0
0
$
7
3
2
,
4
0
0
$9
1
5
,
5
0
0
$
9
1
5
,
5
0
0
$
9
1
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
0
9
8
,
600
$
1
,
0
9
8
,
6
0
0
$
1
,
0
9
8
,
6
0
0
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$3
,
2
9
5
,
8
0
0
$
4
,
0
2
8
,
2
0
0
$
4
,
7
6
0
,
60
0
$
5
,
4
9
3
,
0
0
0
$
6
,
4
0
8
,
5
0
0
$
7
,
32
4
,
0
0
0
$
8
,
2
3
9
,
5
0
0
$
9
,
3
3
8
,
100
$
1
0
,
4
3
6
,
7
0
0
$
1
1
,
5
3
5
,
3
0
0
DI
R
E
C
T
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
An
n
u
a
l
Co
s
t
s
$2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Co
s
t
s
$2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
5
4
9
,
0
1
8
$
8
2
3
,
5
2
7
$
1
,
0
9
8
,
0
3
6
$1
,
3
7
2
,
5
4
6
$
1
,
6
4
7
,
0
5
5
$1
,
9
2
1
,
5
6
4
$
2
,
1
9
6
,
0
7
3
$2,470,582
$
2
,
7
4
5
,
0
9
1
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
An
n
u
a
l
Co
s
t
s
$2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Co
s
t
s
$3
,
0
1
9
,
6
0
0
$
3
,
2
9
4
,
1
0
9
$
3
,
5
6
8
,
61
9
$
3
,
8
4
3
,
1
2
8
$
4
,
1
1
7
,
6
3
7
$
4
,
39
2
,
1
4
6
$
4
,
6
6
6
,
6
5
5
$
4
,
9
4
1
,
164
$
5
,
2
1
5
,
6
7
3
$
5
,
4
9
0
,
1
8
2
BD
A
S
RO
I
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
:
Pa
r
k
i
n
s
Mi
l
l
| Wa
r
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
NE
T
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
An
n
u
a
l
Re
t
u
r
n
($
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
)
(
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
)
(
$
9
1
,
4
0
9
)
(
$
9
1
,
4
0
9
)
(
$9
1
,
4
0
9
)
$
9
1
,
6
9
1
$
9
1
,
6
9
1
$9
1
,
6
9
1
$
2
7
4
,
7
9
1
$
2
7
4
,
7
9
1
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
t
u
r
n
($
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
)
(
$
5
4
9
,
0
1
8
)
(
$
6
4
0
,
4
2
7
)
(
$7
3
1
,
8
3
6
)
(
$
8
2
3
,
2
4
6
)
(
$
7
3
1
,
5
5
5
)
(
$
6
3
9
,
86
4
)
(
$
5
4
8
,
1
7
3
)
(
$
2
7
3
,
3
8
2
)
$
1
,
4
0
9
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
An
n
u
a
l
Re
t
u
r
n
$2
7
4
,
7
9
1
$
4
5
7
,
8
9
1
$
4
5
7
,
8
9
1
$
4
5
7
,
8
9
1
$
6
4
0
,
9
9
1
$6
4
0
,
9
9
1
$
6
4
0
,
9
9
1
$
8
2
4
,
0
9
1
$
8
2
4
,
0
9
1
$
8
2
4
,
0
9
1
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
t
u
r
n
$2
7
6
,
2
0
0
$
7
3
4
,
0
9
1
$
1
,
1
9
1
,
9
8
1
$1
,
6
4
9
,
8
7
2
$
2
,
2
9
0
,
8
6
3
$
2
,
93
1
,
8
5
4
$
3
,
5
7
2
,
8
4
5
$
4
,
3
9
6
,
936
$
5
,
2
2
1
,
0
2
7
$
6
,
0
4
5
,
1
1
8
As
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
$
9
,
1
5
5
p
e
r
ac
r
e
pe
r
ye
a
r
so
u
r
c
e
:
ED
C
re
c
e
n
t
ne
w
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
Ne
w
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
O
n
e
ev
e
r
y
th
r
e
e
ye
a
r
s
on
20
ac
r
e
s
f
i
r
s
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
do
e
s
no
t
lo
c
a
t
e
un
t
i
l
ye
a
r
3
Bo
n
d
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
$
3
,
7
7
5
,
0
0
0
4
%
fo
r
20
ye
a
r
s
bo
n
d
wo
u
l
d
go
to
w
a
r
d
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
in
ye
a
r
1
DI
R
E
C
T
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
An
n
u
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$0
$
0
$
2
8
5
,
1
0
0
$
2
8
5
,
1
0
0
$
2
8
5
,
1
0
0
$
5
7
0
,
20
0
$
5
7
0
,
2
0
0
$
5
7
0
,
2
0
0
$
8
5
5
,
3
0
0
$
8
5
5
,
3
0
0
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$0
$
0
$
2
8
5
,
1
0
0
$
5
7
0
,
2
0
0
$
8
5
5
,
3
0
0
$
1
,
4
2
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
99
5
,
7
0
0
$
2
,
5
6
5
,
9
0
0
$
3
,
421,200
$
4
,
2
7
6
,
5
0
0
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
An
n
u
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$8
5
5
,
3
0
0
$
1
,
1
4
0
,
4
0
0
$
1
,
1
4
0
,
4
0
0
$1
,
1
4
0
,
4
0
0
$
1
,
4
2
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
42
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
4
2
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
7
1
0
,
600
$
1
,
7
1
0
,
6
0
0
$
1
,
7
1
0
,
6
0
0
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$5
,
1
3
1
,
8
0
0
$
6
,
2
7
2
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
4
1
2
,
60
0
$
8
,
5
5
3
,
0
0
0
$
9
,
9
7
8
,
5
0
0
$
1
1
,
40
4
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
,
8
2
9
,
5
0
0
$
1
4
,
5
4
0
,
100
$
1
6
,
2
5
0
,
7
0
0
$
1
7
,
9
6
1
,
3
0
0
DI
R
E
C
T
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
An
n
u
a
l
Co
s
t
s
$2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Co
s
t
s
$2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
5
4
9
,
0
1
8
$
8
2
3
,
5
2
7
$
1
,
0
9
8
,
0
3
6
$1
,
3
7
2
,
5
4
6
$
1
,
6
4
7
,
0
5
5
$1
,
9
2
1
,
5
6
4
$
2
,
1
9
6
,
0
7
3
$2,470,582
$
2
,
7
4
5
,
0
9
1
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
An
n
u
a
l
Co
s
t
s
$2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Co
s
t
s
$3
,
0
1
9
,
6
0
0
$
3
,
2
9
4
,
1
0
9
$
3
,
5
6
8
,
61
9
$
3
,
8
4
3
,
1
2
8
$
4
,
1
1
7
,
6
3
7
$
4
,
39
2
,
1
4
6
$
4
,
6
6
6
,
6
5
5
$
4
,
9
4
1
,
164
$
5
,
2
1
5
,
6
7
3
$
5
,
4
9
0
,
1
8
2
BD
A
S
RO
I
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
:
Pa
r
k
i
n
s
Mi
l
l
| Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
& Wa
r
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
NE
T
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
An
n
u
a
l
Re
t
u
r
n
($
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
)
(
$
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
)
$
1
0
,
5
9
1
$
1
0
,
5
9
1
$
1
0
,
59
1
$
2
9
5
,
6
9
1
$
2
9
5
,
6
9
1
$
2
9
5
,
6
9
1
$
5
8
0
,
7
9
1
$
5
8
0
,
7
9
1
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
t
u
r
n
($
2
7
4
,
5
0
9
)
(
$
5
4
9
,
0
1
8
)
(
$
5
3
8
,
4
2
7
)
(
$
5
2
7
,
8
3
6
)
(
$
5
1
7
,
24
6
)
(
$
2
2
1
,
5
5
5
)
$
7
4
,
1
3
6
$
3
6
9
,
827
$
9
5
0
,
6
1
8
$
1
,
5
3
1
,
4
0
9
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
An
n
u
a
l
Re
t
u
r
n
$5
8
0
,
7
9
1
$
8
6
5
,
8
9
1
$
8
6
5
,
8
9
1
$
8
6
5
,
8
9
1
$
1
,
15
0
,
9
9
1
$
1
,
1
5
0
,
9
9
1
$
1
,
1
5
0
,
9
9
1
$
1
,
43
6
,
0
9
1
$
1
,
4
3
6
,
0
9
1
$
1
,
4
3
6
,
0
9
1
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
t
u
r
n
$2
,
1
1
2
,
2
0
0
$
2
,
9
7
8
,
0
9
1
$
3
,
8
4
3
,
98
1
$
4
,
7
0
9
,
8
7
2
$
5
,
8
6
0
,
8
6
3
$
7
,
01
1
,
8
5
4
$
8
,
1
6
2
,
8
4
5
$
9
,
5
9
8
,
936
$
1
1
,
0
3
5
,
0
2
7
$
1
2
,
4
7
1
,
1
1
8
As
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
$
1
4
,
2
5
5
p
e
r
ac
r
e
pe
r
ye
a
r
so
u
r
c
e
:
ED
C
re
c
e
n
t
ne
w
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
Ne
w
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
O
n
e
ev
e
r
y
th
r
e
e
ye
a
r
s
on
20
ac
r
e
s
f
i
r
s
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
do
e
s
no
t
lo
c
a
t
e
un
t
i
l
ye
a
r
3
Bo
n
d
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
$
3
,
7
7
5
,
0
0
0
4
%
fo
r
20
ye
a
r
s
bo
n
d
wo
u
l
d
go
to
w
a
r
d
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
in
ye
a
r
1
DI
R
E
C
T
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
An
n
u
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$0
$
0
$
3
8
7
,
1
0
0
$
3
8
7
,
1
0
0
$
3
8
7
,
1
0
0
$
7
7
4
,
2
0
0
$7
7
4
,
2
0
0
$
7
7
4
,
2
0
0
$
1
,
161,300
$
1
,
1
6
1
,
3
0
0
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$0
$
0
$
3
8
7
,
1
0
0
$
7
7
4
,
2
0
0
$
1
,
1
6
1
,
30
0
$
1
,
9
3
5
,
5
0
0
$
2
,
7
0
9
,
7
0
0
$
3
,
48
3
,
9
0
0
$
4
,
6
4
5
,
2
0
0
$
5
,
8
0
6
,
5
0
0
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
An
n
u
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$1
,
1
6
1
,
3
0
0
$
1
,
5
4
8
,
4
0
0
$
1
,
5
4
8
,
40
0
$
1
,
5
4
8
,
4
0
0
$
1
,
9
3
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
93
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
9
3
5
,
5
0
0
$
2
,
3
2
2
,
600
$
2
,
3
2
2
,
6
0
0
$
2
,
3
2
2
,
6
0
0
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$6
,
9
6
7
,
8
0
0
$
8
,
5
1
6
,
2
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
6
4
,
60
0
$
1
1
,
6
1
3
,
0
0
0
$
1
3
,
5
4
8
,
5
0
0
$
1
5
,
48
4
,
0
0
0
$
1
7
,
4
1
9
,
5
0
0
$
1
9
,
7
4
2
,
100
$
2
2
,
0
6
4
,
7
0
0
$
2
4
,
3
8
7
,
3
0
0
DI
R
E
C
T
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
An
n
u
a
l
Co
s
t
s
$3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Co
s
t
s
$3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
6
9
0
,
8
1
8
$
1
,
0
3
6
,
2
2
7
$1
,
3
8
1
,
6
3
5
$
1
,
7
2
7
,
0
4
4
$
2
,
07
2
,
4
5
3
$
2
,
4
1
7
,
8
6
2
$
2
,
7
6
3
,
271
$
3
,
1
0
8
,
6
8
0
$
3
,
4
5
4
,
0
8
8
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
An
n
u
a
l
Co
s
t
s
$3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Co
s
t
s
$3
,
7
9
9
,
4
9
7
$
4
,
1
4
4
,
9
0
6
$
4
,
4
9
0
,
31
5
$
4
,
8
3
5
,
7
2
4
$
5
,
1
8
1
,
1
3
3
$
5
,
52
6
,
5
4
1
$
5
,
8
7
1
,
9
5
0
$
6
,
2
1
7
,
359
$
6
,
5
6
2
,
7
6
8
$
6
,
9
0
8
,
1
7
7
BD
A
S
RO
I
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
:
Wi
n
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
No
r
t
h
| Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
NE
T
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
An
n
u
a
l
Re
t
u
r
n
($
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
)
(
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
)
$
4
1
,
6
9
1
$
4
1
,
6
9
1
$
4
1
,
69
1
$
4
2
8
,
7
9
1
$
4
2
8
,
7
9
1
$
4
2
8
,
7
9
1
$
8
1
5
,
8
9
1
$
8
1
5
,
8
9
1
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
t
u
r
n
($
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
)
(
$
6
9
0
,
8
1
8
)
(
$
6
4
9
,
1
2
7
)
(
$
6
0
7
,
4
3
5
)
(
$
5
6
5
,
74
4
)
(
$
1
3
6
,
9
5
3
)
$
2
9
1
,
8
3
8
$
7
2
0
,
629
$
1
,
5
3
6
,
5
2
0
$
2
,
3
5
2
,
4
1
2
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
An
n
u
a
l
Re
t
u
r
n
$8
1
5
,
8
9
1
$
1
,
2
0
2
,
9
9
1
$
1
,
2
0
2
,
9
9
1
$1
,
2
0
2
,
9
9
1
$
1
,
5
9
0
,
0
9
1
$
1
,
59
0
,
0
9
1
$
1
,
5
9
0
,
0
9
1
$
1
,
9
7
7
,
191
$
1
,
9
7
7
,
1
9
1
$
1
,
9
7
7
,
1
9
1
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
t
u
r
n
$3
,
1
6
8
,
3
0
3
$
4
,
3
7
1
,
2
9
4
$
5
,
5
7
4
,
28
5
$
6
,
7
7
7
,
2
7
6
$
8
,
3
6
7
,
3
6
7
$
9
,
95
7
,
4
5
9
$
1
1
,
5
4
7
,
5
5
0
$
1
3
,
5
2
4
,
741
$
1
5
,
5
0
1
,
9
3
2
$
1
7
,
4
7
9
,
1
2
3
As
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
$
1
9
,
3
5
5
p
e
r
ac
r
e
pe
r
ye
a
r
so
u
r
c
e
:
ED
C
re
c
e
n
t
ne
w
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
Ne
w
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
O
n
e
ev
e
r
y
th
r
e
e
ye
a
r
s
on
20
ac
r
e
s
f
i
r
s
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
do
e
s
no
t
lo
c
a
t
e
un
t
i
l
ye
a
r
3
Bo
n
d
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
$
4
,
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
4
%
fo
r
20
ye
a
r
s
bo
n
d
wo
u
l
d
go
to
w
a
r
d
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
in
ye
a
r
1
DI
R
E
C
T
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
An
n
u
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$0
$
0
$
1
8
3
,
1
0
0
$
1
8
3
,
1
0
0
$
1
8
3
,
1
0
0
$
3
6
6
,
20
0
$
3
6
6
,
2
0
0
$
3
6
6
,
2
0
0
$
5
4
9
,
3
0
0
$
5
4
9
,
3
0
0
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$0
$
0
$
1
8
3
,
1
0
0
$
3
6
6
,
2
0
0
$
5
4
9
,
3
0
0
$
9
1
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
28
1
,
7
0
0
$
1
,
6
4
7
,
9
0
0
$
2
,
197,200
$
2
,
7
4
6
,
5
0
0
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
An
n
u
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$5
4
9
,
3
0
0
$
7
3
2
,
4
0
0
$
7
3
2
,
4
0
0
$
7
3
2
,
4
0
0
$9
1
5
,
5
0
0
$
9
1
5
,
5
0
0
$
9
1
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
0
9
8
,
600
$
1
,
0
9
8
,
6
0
0
$
1
,
0
9
8
,
6
0
0
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$3
,
2
9
5
,
8
0
0
$
4
,
0
2
8
,
2
0
0
$
4
,
7
6
0
,
60
0
$
5
,
4
9
3
,
0
0
0
$
6
,
4
0
8
,
5
0
0
$
7
,
32
4
,
0
0
0
$
8
,
2
3
9
,
5
0
0
$
9
,
3
3
8
,
100
$
1
0
,
4
3
6
,
7
0
0
$
1
1
,
5
3
5
,
3
0
0
DI
R
E
C
T
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
An
n
u
a
l
Co
s
t
s
$3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Co
s
t
s
$3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
6
9
0
,
8
1
8
$
1
,
0
3
6
,
2
2
7
$1
,
3
8
1
,
6
3
5
$
1
,
7
2
7
,
0
4
4
$
2
,
07
2
,
4
5
3
$
2
,
4
1
7
,
8
6
2
$
2
,
7
6
3
,
271
$
3
,
1
0
8
,
6
8
0
$
3
,
4
5
4
,
0
8
8
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
An
n
u
a
l
Co
s
t
s
$3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Co
s
t
s
$3
,
7
9
9
,
4
9
7
$
4
,
1
4
4
,
9
0
6
$
4
,
4
9
0
,
31
5
$
4
,
8
3
5
,
7
2
4
$
5
,
1
8
1
,
1
3
3
$
5
,
52
6
,
5
4
1
$
5
,
8
7
1
,
9
5
0
$
6
,
2
1
7
,
359
$
6
,
5
6
2
,
7
6
8
$
6
,
9
0
8
,
1
7
7
BD
A
S
RO
I
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
:
Wi
n
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
No
r
t
h
| Wa
r
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
NE
T
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
An
n
u
a
l
Re
t
u
r
n
($
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
)
(
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
)
(
$
1
6
2
,
3
0
9
)
(
$
1
6
2
,
3
0
9
)
(
$1
6
2
,
3
0
9
)
$
2
0
,
7
9
1
$
2
0
,
7
9
1
$2
0
,
7
9
1
$
2
0
3
,
8
9
1
$
2
0
3
,
8
9
1
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
t
u
r
n
($
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
)
(
$
6
9
0
,
8
1
8
)
(
$
8
5
3
,
1
2
7
)
(
$
1
,
0
1
5
,
43
5
)
(
$
1
,
1
7
7
,
7
4
4
)
(
$
1
,
1
5
6
,
95
3
)
(
$
1
,
1
3
6
,
1
6
2
)
(
$
1
,
1
1
5
,
371)
(
$
9
1
1
,
4
8
0
)
(
$
7
0
7
,
5
8
8
)
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
An
n
u
a
l
Re
t
u
r
n
$2
0
3
,
8
9
1
$
3
8
6
,
9
9
1
$
3
8
6
,
9
9
1
$
3
8
6
,
9
9
1
$
5
7
0
,
0
9
1
$5
7
0
,
0
9
1
$
5
7
0
,
0
9
1
$
7
5
3
,
1
9
1
$
7
5
3
,
1
9
1
$
7
5
3
,
1
9
1
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
t
u
r
n
($
5
0
3
,
6
9
7
)
(
$
1
1
6
,
7
0
6
)
$
2
7
0
,
2
8
5
$
6
5
7
,
2
7
6
$1
,
2
2
7
,
3
6
7
$
1
,
7
9
7
,
4
5
9
$2
,
3
6
7
,
5
5
0
$
3
,
1
2
0
,
7
4
1
$3,873,932
$
4
,
6
2
7
,
1
2
3
As
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
$
9
,
1
5
5
p
e
r
ac
r
e
pe
r
ye
a
r
so
u
r
c
e
:
ED
C
re
c
e
n
t
ne
w
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
Ne
w
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
O
n
e
ev
e
r
y
th
r
e
e
ye
a
r
s
on
20
ac
r
e
s
f
i
r
s
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
do
e
s
no
t
lo
c
a
t
e
un
t
i
l
ye
a
r
3
Bo
n
d
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
$
4
,
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
4
%
fo
r
20
ye
a
r
s
bo
n
d
wo
u
l
d
go
to
w
a
r
d
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
in
ye
a
r
1
DI
R
E
C
T
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
An
n
u
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$0
$
0
$
2
8
5
,
1
0
0
$
2
8
5
,
1
0
0
$
2
8
5
,
1
0
0
$
5
7
0
,
20
0
$
5
7
0
,
2
0
0
$
5
7
0
,
2
0
0
$
8
5
5
,
3
0
0
$
8
5
5
,
3
0
0
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$0
$
0
$
2
8
5
,
1
0
0
$
5
7
0
,
2
0
0
$
8
5
5
,
3
0
0
$
1
,
4
2
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
99
5
,
7
0
0
$
2
,
5
6
5
,
9
0
0
$
3
,
421,200
$
4
,
2
7
6
,
5
0
0
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
An
n
u
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$8
5
5
,
3
0
0
$
1
,
1
4
0
,
4
0
0
$
1
,
1
4
0
,
4
0
0
$1
,
1
4
0
,
4
0
0
$
1
,
4
2
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
42
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
4
2
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
7
1
0
,
600
$
1
,
7
1
0
,
6
0
0
$
1
,
7
1
0
,
6
0
0
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$5
,
1
3
1
,
8
0
0
$
6
,
2
7
2
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
4
1
2
,
60
0
$
8
,
5
5
3
,
0
0
0
$
9
,
9
7
8
,
5
0
0
$
1
1
,
40
4
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
,
8
2
9
,
5
0
0
$
1
4
,
5
4
0
,
100
$
1
6
,
2
5
0
,
7
0
0
$
1
7
,
9
6
1
,
3
0
0
DI
R
E
C
T
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
An
n
u
a
l
Co
s
t
s
$3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Co
s
t
s
$3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
6
9
0
,
8
1
8
$
1
,
0
3
6
,
2
2
7
$1
,
3
8
1
,
6
3
5
$
1
,
7
2
7
,
0
4
4
$
2
,
07
2
,
4
5
3
$
2
,
4
1
7
,
8
6
2
$
2
,
7
6
3
,
271
$
3
,
1
0
8
,
6
8
0
$
3
,
4
5
4
,
0
8
8
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
An
n
u
a
l
Co
s
t
s
$3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Co
s
t
s
$3
,
7
9
9
,
4
9
7
$
4
,
1
4
4
,
9
0
6
$
4
,
4
9
0
,
31
5
$
4
,
8
3
5
,
7
2
4
$
5
,
1
8
1
,
1
3
3
$
5
,
52
6
,
5
4
1
$
5
,
8
7
1
,
9
5
0
$
6
,
2
1
7
,
359
$
6
,
5
6
2
,
7
6
8
$
6
,
9
0
8
,
1
7
7
BD
A
S
RO
I
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
:
Wi
n
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
No
r
t
h
| Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
& Wa
r
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
NE
T
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
An
n
u
a
l
Re
t
u
r
n
($
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
)
(
$
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
)
(
$
6
0
,
3
0
9
)
(
$
6
0
,
3
0
9
)
(
$6
0
,
3
0
9
)
$
2
2
4
,
7
9
1
$
2
2
4
,
7
9
1
$2
2
4
,
7
9
1
$
5
0
9
,
8
9
1
$
5
0
9
,
8
9
1
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
t
u
r
n
($
3
4
5
,
4
0
9
)
(
$
6
9
0
,
8
1
8
)
(
$
7
5
1
,
1
2
7
)
(
$
8
1
1
,
4
3
5
)
(
$
8
7
1
,
74
4
)
(
$
6
4
6
,
9
5
3
)
(
$
4
2
2
,
1
6
2
)
($
1
9
7
,
3
7
1
)
$
3
1
2
,
5
2
0
$
8
2
2
,
4
1
2
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
An
n
u
a
l
Re
t
u
r
n
$5
0
9
,
8
9
1
$
7
9
4
,
9
9
1
$
7
9
4
,
9
9
1
$
7
9
4
,
9
9
1
$
1
,
08
0
,
0
9
1
$
1
,
0
8
0
,
0
9
1
$
1
,
0
8
0
,
0
9
1
$
1
,
36
5
,
1
9
1
$
1
,
3
6
5
,
1
9
1
$
1
,
3
6
5
,
1
9
1
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
t
u
r
n
$1
,
3
3
2
,
3
0
3
$
2
,
1
2
7
,
2
9
4
$
2
,
9
2
2
,
28
5
$
3
,
7
1
7
,
2
7
6
$
4
,
7
9
7
,
3
6
7
$
5
,
87
7
,
4
5
9
$
6
,
9
5
7
,
5
5
0
$
8
,
3
2
2
,
741
$
9
,
6
8
7
,
9
3
2
$
1
1
,
0
5
3
,
1
2
3
As
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
$
1
4
,
2
5
5
p
e
r
ac
r
e
pe
r
ye
a
r
so
u
r
c
e
:
ED
C
re
c
e
n
t
ne
w
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
Ne
w
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
O
n
e
ev
e
r
y
th
r
e
e
ye
a
r
s
on
20
ac
r
e
s
f
i
r
s
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
do
e
s
no
t
lo
c
a
t
e
un
t
i
l
ye
a
r
3
Bo
n
d
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
$
4
,
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
4
%
fo
r
20
ye
a
r
s
bo
n
d
wo
u
l
d
go
to
w
a
r
d
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
in
ye
a
r
1
DI
R
E
C
T
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
A nn
u
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$0
$
0
$
3
8
7
,
1
0
0
$
3
8
7
,
1
0
0
$
3
8
7
,
1
0
0
$
7
7
4
,
2
0
0
$
7
7
4
,
2
0
0
$
7
7
4
,
2
0
0
$
1
,
1
6
1
,
3
0
0
$
1
,
1
6
1
,
3
0
0
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$0
$
0
$
3
8
7
,
1
0
0
$
7
7
4
,
2
0
0
$
1
,
1
6
1
,
3
0
0
$
1
,
9
3
5
,
5
0
0
$
2
,
7
0
9
,
7
0
0
$
3
,
4
8
3
,
9
0
0
$
4
,
6
4
5
,
2
0
0
$
5
,
8
0
6
,
5
0
0
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
A nn
u
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$1
,
1
6
1
,
3
0
0
$
1
,
5
4
8
,
4
0
0
$
1
,
5
4
8
,
4
0
0
$
1
,
5
4
8
,
4
0
0
$
1
,
9
3
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
9
3
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
9
3
5
,
5
0
0
$
2
,
3
2
2
,
6
0
0
$
2
,
3
2
2
,
6
0
0
$
2
,
3
2
2
,
6
0
0
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$6
,
9
6
7
,
8
0
0
$
8
,
5
1
6
,
2
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
6
4
,
6
0
0
$
1
1
,
6
1
3
,
0
0
0
$
1
3
,
5
4
8
,
5
0
0
$
1
5
,
4
8
4
,
0
0
0
$
1
7
,
4
1
9
,
5
0
0
$
1
9
,
7
4
2
,
1
0
0
$
2
2
,
0
6
4
,
7
0
0
$
2
4
,
3
8
7
,
3
0
0
DI
R
E
C
T
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
A nn
u
a
l
Co
s
t
s
$5
6
,
5
7
4
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Co
s
t
s
$5
6
,
5
7
4
$
1
1
3
,
1
4
9
$
1
6
9
,
7
2
3
$
2
2
6
,
2
9
7
$
2
8
2
,
8
7
2
$
3
3
9
,
4
4
6
$
3
9
6
,
0
2
1
$
4
5
2
,
5
9
5
$
1
,
0
9
0
,
9
1
0
$
1
,
7
2
9
,
2
2
6
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
A nn
u
a
l
Co
s
t
s
$6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Co
s
t
s
$2
,
3
6
7
,
5
4
1
$
3
,
0
0
5
,
8
5
7
$
3
,
6
4
4
,
1
7
2
$
4
,
2
8
2
,
4
8
8
$
4
,
9
2
0
,
8
0
4
$
5
,
5
5
9
,
1
1
9
$
6
,
1
9
7
,
4
3
5
$
6
,
8
3
5
,
7
5
0
$
7
,
4
7
4
,
0
6
6
$
8
,
1
1
2
,
3
8
1
NE
T
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
An
n
u
a
l
Re
t
u
r
n
($
5
6
,
5
7
4
)
(
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
)
$
3
3
0
,
5
2
6
$
3
3
0
,
5
2
6
$
3
3
0
,
5
2
6
$
7
1
7
,
6
2
6
$
7
1
7
,
6
2
6
$
7
1
7
,
6
2
6
$
5
2
2
,
9
8
4
$
5
2
2
,
9
8
4
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
t
u
r
n
($
5
6
,
5
7
4
)
(
$
1
1
3
,
1
4
9
)
$
2
1
7
,
3
7
7
$
5
4
7
,
9
0
3
$
8
7
8
,
4
2
8
$
1
,
5
9
6
,
0
5
4
$
2
,
3
1
3
,
6
7
9
$
3
,
0
3
1
,
3
0
5
$
3
,
5
5
4
,
2
9
0
$
4
,
0
7
7
,
2
7
4
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
An
n
u
a
l
Re
t
u
r
n
$5
2
2
,
9
8
4
$
9
1
0
,
0
8
4
$
9
1
0
,
0
8
4
$
9
1
0
,
0
8
4
$
1
,
2
9
7
,
1
8
4
$
1
,
2
9
7
,
1
8
4
$
1
,
2
9
7
,
1
8
4
$
1
,
6
8
4
,
2
8
4
$
1
,
6
8
4
,
2
8
4
$
1
,
6
8
4
,
2
8
4
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
t
u
r
n
$4
,
6
0
0
,
2
5
9
$
5
,
5
1
0
,
3
4
3
$
6
,
4
2
0
,
4
2
8
$
7
,
3
3
0
,
5
1
2
$
8
,
6
2
7
,
6
9
6
$
9
,
9
2
4
,
8
8
1
$
1
1
,
2
2
2
,
0
6
5
$
1
2
,
9
0
6
,
3
5
0
$
1
4
,
5
9
0
,
6
3
4
$
1
6
,
2
7
4
,
9
1
9
As
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
$
1
9
,
3
5
5
p
e
r
ac
r
e
pe
r
ye
a
r
so
u
r
c
e
:
ED
C
re
c
e
n
t
ne
w
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
Ne
w
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
O
n
e
ev
e
r
y
th
r
e
e
ye
a
r
s
on
20
ac
r
e
s
f
i
r
s
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
do
e
s
no
t
lo
c
a
t
e
un
t
i
l
ye
a
r
3
Bo
n
d
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
$
8
,
7
7
8
,
0
0
0
4
%
fo
r
20
ye
a
r
s
bo
n
d
wo
u
l
d
go
to
w
a
r
d
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
in
ye
a
r
1
$8
mi
l
l
i
o
n
ca
p
i
t
a
l
ou
t
l
a
y
to
ga
i
n
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
50
0
,
0
0
0
MG
D
,
ad
d
e
d
wi
t
h
th
i
r
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
BD
A
S
RO
I
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
:
Re
s
t
Ch
u
r
c
h
Ar
e
a
| Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
DI
R
E
C
T
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
A nn
u
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$0
$
0
$
1
8
3
,
1
0
0
$
1
8
3
,
1
0
0
$
1
8
3
,
1
0
0
$
3
6
6
,
2
0
0
$
3
6
6
,
2
0
0
$
3
6
6
,
2
0
0
$
5
4
9
,
3
0
0
$
5
4
9
,
3
0
0
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$0
$
0
$
1
8
3
,
1
0
0
$
3
6
6
,
2
0
0
$
5
4
9
,
3
0
0
$
9
1
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
2
8
1
,
7
0
0
$
1
,
6
4
7
,
9
0
0
$
2
,
1
9
7
,
2
0
0
$
2
,
7
4
6
,
5
0
0
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
A nn
u
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$5
4
9
,
3
0
0
$
7
3
2
,
4
0
0
$
7
3
2
,
4
0
0
$
7
3
2
,
4
0
0
$
9
1
5
,
5
0
0
$
9
1
5
,
5
0
0
$
9
1
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
0
9
8
,
6
0
0
$
1
,
0
9
8
,
6
0
0
$
1
,
0
9
8
,
6
0
0
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$3
,
2
9
5
,
8
0
0
$
4
,
0
2
8
,
2
0
0
$
4
,
7
6
0
,
6
0
0
$
5
,
4
9
3
,
0
0
0
$
6
,
4
0
8
,
5
0
0
$
7
,
3
2
4
,
0
0
0
$
8
,
2
3
9
,
5
0
0
$
9
,
3
3
8
,
1
0
0
$
1
0
,
4
3
6
,
7
0
0
$
1
1
,
5
3
5
,
3
0
0
DI
R
E
C
T
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
A nn
u
a
l
Co
s
t
s
$5
6
,
5
7
4
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Co
s
t
s
$5
6
,
5
7
4
$
1
1
3
,
1
4
9
$
1
6
9
,
7
2
3
$
2
2
6
,
2
9
7
$
2
8
2
,
8
7
2
$
3
3
9
,
4
4
6
$
3
9
6
,
0
2
1
$
4
5
2
,
5
9
5
$
1
,
0
9
0
,
9
1
0
$
1
,
7
2
9
,
2
2
6
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
A nn
u
a
l
Co
s
t
s
$6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Co
s
t
s
$2
,
3
6
7
,
5
4
1
$
3
,
0
0
5
,
8
5
7
$
3
,
6
4
4
,
1
7
2
$
4
,
2
8
2
,
4
8
8
$
4
,
9
2
0
,
8
0
4
$
5
,
5
5
9
,
1
1
9
$
6
,
1
9
7
,
4
3
5
$
6
,
8
3
5
,
7
5
0
$
7
,
4
7
4
,
0
6
6
$
8
,
1
1
2
,
3
8
1
NE
T
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
An
n
u
a
l
Re
t
u
r
n
($
5
6
,
5
7
4
)
(
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
)
$
1
2
6
,
5
2
6
$
1
2
6
,
5
2
6
$
1
2
6
,
5
2
6
$
3
0
9
,
6
2
6
$
3
0
9
,
6
2
6
$
3
0
9
,
6
2
6
(
$
8
9
,
0
1
6
)
(
$
8
9
,
0
1
6
)
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
t
u
r
n
($
5
6
,
5
7
4
)
(
$
1
1
3
,
1
4
9
)
$
1
3
,
3
7
7
$
1
3
9
,
9
0
3
$
2
6
6
,
4
2
8
$
5
7
6
,
0
5
4
$
8
8
5
,
6
7
9
$
1
,
1
9
5
,
3
0
5
$
1
,
1
0
6
,
2
9
0
$
1
,
0
1
7
,
2
7
4
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
An
n
u
a
l
Re
t
u
r
n
($
8
9
,
0
1
6
)
$
9
4
,
0
8
4
$
9
4
,
0
8
4
$
9
4
,
0
8
4
$
2
7
7
,
1
8
4
$
2
7
7
,
1
8
4
$
2
7
7
,
1
8
4
$
4
6
0
,
2
8
4
$
4
6
0
,
2
8
4
$
4
6
0
,
2
8
4
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
t
u
r
n
$9
2
8
,
2
5
9
$
1
,
0
2
2
,
3
4
3
$
1
,
1
1
6
,
4
2
8
$
1
,
2
1
0
,
5
1
2
$
1
,
4
8
7
,
6
9
6
$
1
,
7
6
4
,
8
8
1
$
2
,
0
4
2
,
0
6
5
$
2
,
5
0
2
,
3
5
0
$
2
,
9
6
2
,
6
3
4
$
3
,
4
2
2
,
9
1
9
As
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
$
9
,
1
5
5
p
e
r
ac
r
e
pe
r
ye
a
r
so
u
r
c
e
:
ED
C
re
c
e
n
t
ne
w
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
Ne
w
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
O
n
e
ev
e
r
y
th
r
e
e
ye
a
r
s
on
20
ac
r
e
s
f
i
r
s
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
do
e
s
no
t
lo
c
a
t
e
un
t
i
l
ye
a
r
3
Bo
n
d
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
$
8
,
7
7
8
,
0
0
0
4
%
fo
r
20
ye
a
r
s
bo
n
d
wo
u
l
d
go
to
w
a
r
d
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
in
ye
a
r
1
$8
mi
l
l
i
o
n
ca
p
i
t
a
l
ou
t
l
a
y
to
ga
i
n
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
50
0
,
0
0
0
MG
D
,
ad
d
e
d
wi
t
h
th
i
r
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
BD
A
S
RO
I
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
:
Re
s
t
Ch
u
r
c
h
Ar
e
a
| Wa
r
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
DI
R
E
C
T
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
A nn
u
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$0
$
0
$
2
8
5
,
1
0
0
$
2
8
5
,
1
0
0
$
2
8
5
,
1
0
0
$
5
7
0
,
2
0
0
$
5
7
0
,
2
0
0
$
5
7
0
,
2
0
0
$
8
5
5
,
3
0
0
$
8
5
5
,
3
0
0
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$0
$
0
$
2
8
5
,
1
0
0
$
5
7
0
,
2
0
0
$
8
5
5
,
3
0
0
$
1
,
4
2
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
9
9
5
,
7
0
0
$
2
,
5
6
5
,
9
0
0
$
3
,
4
2
1
,
2
0
0
$
4
,
2
7
6
,
5
0
0
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
A nn
u
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$8
5
5
,
3
0
0
$
1
,
1
4
0
,
4
0
0
$
1
,
1
4
0
,
4
0
0
$
1
,
1
4
0
,
4
0
0
$
1
,
4
2
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
4
2
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
4
2
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
7
1
0
,
6
0
0
$
1
,
7
1
0
,
6
0
0
$
1
,
7
1
0
,
6
0
0
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$5
,
1
3
1
,
8
0
0
$
6
,
2
7
2
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
4
1
2
,
6
0
0
$
8
,
5
5
3
,
0
0
0
$
9
,
9
7
8
,
5
0
0
$
1
1
,
4
0
4
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
,
8
2
9
,
5
0
0
$
1
4
,
5
4
0
,
1
0
0
$
1
6
,
2
5
0
,
7
0
0
$
1
7
,
9
6
1
,
3
0
0
DI
R
E
C
T
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
A nn
u
a
l
Co
s
t
s
$5
6
,
5
7
4
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Co
s
t
s
$5
6
,
5
7
4
$
1
1
3
,
1
4
9
$
1
6
9
,
7
2
3
$
2
2
6
,
2
9
7
$
2
8
2
,
8
7
2
$
3
3
9
,
4
4
6
$
3
9
6
,
0
2
1
$
4
5
2
,
5
9
5
$
1
,
0
9
0
,
9
1
0
$
1
,
7
2
9
,
2
2
6
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
A nn
u
a
l
Co
s
t
s
$6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
$
6
3
8
,
3
1
6
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Co
s
t
s
$2
,
3
6
7
,
5
4
1
$
3
,
0
0
5
,
8
5
7
$
3
,
6
4
4
,
1
7
2
$
4
,
2
8
2
,
4
8
8
$
4
,
9
2
0
,
8
0
4
$
5
,
5
5
9
,
1
1
9
$
6
,
1
9
7
,
4
3
5
$
6
,
8
3
5
,
7
5
0
$
7
,
4
7
4
,
0
6
6
$
8
,
1
1
2
,
3
8
1
NE
T
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
Ye
a
r
1
Ye
a
r
2
Ye
a
r
3
Ye
a
r
4
Ye
a
r
5
Ye
a
r
6
Ye
a
r
7
Ye
a
r
8 Year 9 Year 10
An
n
u
a
l
Re
t
u
r
n
($
5
6
,
5
7
4
)
(
$
5
6
,
5
7
4
)
$
2
2
8
,
5
2
6
$
2
2
8
,
5
2
6
$
2
2
8
,
5
2
6
$
5
1
3
,
6
2
6
$
5
1
3
,
6
2
6
$
5
1
3
,
6
2
6
$
2
1
6
,
9
8
4
$
2
1
6
,
9
8
4
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
t
u
r
n
($
5
6
,
5
7
4
)
(
$
1
1
3
,
1
4
9
)
$
1
1
5
,
3
7
7
$
3
4
3
,
9
0
3
$
5
7
2
,
4
2
8
$
1
,
0
8
6
,
0
5
4
$
1
,
5
9
9
,
6
7
9
$
2
,
1
1
3
,
3
0
5
$
2
,
3
3
0
,
2
9
0
$
2
,
5
4
7
,
2
7
4
Ye
a
r
11
Ye
a
r
12
Ye
a
r
13
Ye
a
r
14
Ye
a
r
15
Ye
a
r
16
Ye
a
r
17
Ye
a
r
18 Year 19 Year 20
An
n
u
a
l
Re
t
u
r
n
$2
1
6
,
9
8
4
$
5
0
2
,
0
8
4
$
5
0
2
,
0
8
4
$
5
0
2
,
0
8
4
$
7
8
7
,
1
8
4
$
7
8
7
,
1
8
4
$
7
8
7
,
1
8
4
$
1
,
0
7
2
,
2
8
4
$
1
,
0
7
2
,
2
8
4
$
1
,
0
7
2
,
2
8
4
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Re
t
u
r
n
$2
,
7
6
4
,
2
5
9
$
3
,
2
6
6
,
3
4
3
$
3
,
7
6
8
,
4
2
8
$
4
,
2
7
0
,
5
1
2
$
5
,
0
5
7
,
6
9
6
$
5
,
8
4
4
,
8
8
1
$
6
,
6
3
2
,
0
6
5
$
7
,
7
0
4
,
3
5
0
$
8
,
7
7
6
,
6
3
4
$
9
,
8
4
8
,
9
1
9
As
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
$
1
4
,
2
5
5
p
e
r
ac
r
e
pe
r
ye
a
r
so
u
r
c
e
:
ED
C
re
c
e
n
t
ne
w
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
Ne
w
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
O
n
e
ev
e
r
y
th
r
e
e
ye
a
r
s
on
20
ac
r
e
s
f
i
r
s
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
do
e
s
no
t
lo
c
a
t
e
un
t
i
l
ye
a
r
3
Bo
n
d
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
$
8
,
7
7
8
,
0
0
0
4
%
fo
r
20
ye
a
r
s
bo
n
d
wo
u
l
d
go
to
w
a
r
d
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
in
ye
a
r
1
$8
mi
l
l
i
o
n
ca
p
i
t
a
l
ou
t
l
a
y
to
ga
i
n
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
50
0
,
0
0
0
MG
D
,
ad
d
e
d
wi
t
h
th
i
r
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
BD
A
S
RO
I
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
:
Re
s
t
Ch
u
r
c
h
Ar
e
a
| Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
& Wa
r
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
1
July 9, 2012
Urban Center Design Cabinet
In an effort to further implement the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Urban
Center design plans are intended to provide further guidance to property
owners and developers located in areas identified as Urban Centers. The
design plans will evaluate how the various land uses can be mixed into an
intensive, walkable, interconnected neighborhood with public open spaces
and integrated community facilities. In addition, the design plans will
recognize those key attributes that are important to the success of the
Urban Centers and express the “hook” that may advance each Urban
Center’s unique character.
It is anticipated that the Urban Center design plans will be incorporated into
Appendix I of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Top 5 Attributes of Urban Centers:
1) Entertainment
2) Transportation
3) Residential
4) Employment
5) Public Services
• Crosspointe Urban Center
Identified Urban Centers
• Parkins Mill Urban Center
• Greenwood Urban Center
• Sherando Urban Center
2
Urban Center design plans (Discussion themes).
It is the intent of the Urban Center Design Cabinet planning effort to facilitate a
fluid planning and development process that proactively encourages the identified
urban centers to be successful examples of urban centers in Frederick County by
articulating the potential short term and long term vision for these great locations.
Future collaboration between the County and property owners through future
planning and rezoning efforts will be essential.
Common Vision for each of the Urban Centers.
• General themes and key attributes that build of each other/a list of concepts;
see what fits a particular Urban Center
Incremental steps.
• What would the Urban Centers look like in the short term (2025) and
what would they be ultimately (2050).
How many Urban Centers could this area support in the short term.
• Prioritize
What does it take for this to be successful?
• A hook; employment/entertainment/cultural life/destination.
• Transportation
• Utilities
• A mix of uses in identified locations (ranges to support the
implementation of Urban Centers).
• Implementation of incentives to support Urban Centers, including
financing.
• Convenience and cost. Understanding of what killed underperforming
and failing centers, in this community and elsewhere.
3
What is an Urban Center?
The Urban Centers are envisioned to be intensive, walkable urban areas that
are well integrated with the surrounding community. The urban center
should be based on the principles of New Urbanism or Traditional
Neighborhood Design promoted in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. They shall
contain a large commercial core, generally higher residential densities with a
mix of housing types, an interconnected street system, uses accessible from
the boulevards that serve the urban center, and public open space around
which the urban center is designed. Multiple uses are envisioned in single
structures. Community facilities shall also provide a focal point for the urban
center and surrounding community. Public spaces in the form of pocket
parks, plazas, or greens shall be further integrated into the design of the
Urban Centers.
Top 5 Attributes of Urban Centers:
1) Entertainment
Access to a variety of forms of entertainment;
Cinema
Amphitheatre
Greens
Dining
Recreation
2) Transportation
Transportation efficient land use and design
Count on transit, but not mass transit
Parking and the importance of its design and evolution
3) Residential
Product selection with quality and architectural character
Architectural character is most significant to success of
residential centers
Density thresholds related to high form based standards
FAR (floor Area Ratio) standards
4
4) Employment
Access to a range of jobs within the Urban Centers
5) Public Services
Community focal points
Character anchor for the community
Efficient and fiscally responsible
Water and sewer
Work with FCSA to assure that adequate capacities,
transmission and treatment, will be available to serve the
Urban Centers.
What does it take for this to be successful?
Application of the above to each of the identified Urban Centers as follows:
5
Crosspointe Urban Center
The designated Crosspointe Urban Center provides an opportunity to enable
either the currently approved project or an intensification of the proposal to
allow for a greater mix of land uses, including residential, for a greater
economic return to both the County and the property owner. The
Crosspointe Urban Center is envisioned to be the most commercial and
urban of the urban centers and, at the convergence of Interstate 81, Route
37 and future Warrior Drive, is ideally located to be the most intensive. The
residential densities in this area have the potential to be the highest in the
County’s urban areas. Opportunities exist to further the entertainment
characteristics of this area based on its location, visibility and accessibility.
• Examples include; Villages at Leesburg, Fairfax Corners, West Broad,
Kingstowne.
o A hook; employment/entertainment/cultural life/destination.
Office and employment mix with power commercial
opportunities
Entertainment district
Core commercial high density
No height limitations
High Density Residential; 12-16 units per acre to 6-12
units per acre (maximum and minimum densities with
minimum on the fringes).
o Transportation. Premier access; Interstate 81 and Route 37,
Warrior Drive.
o Utilities. Good.
7
Parkins Mill Urban Center
This designated urban center provides an opportunity to introduce a mix of
uses into a largely undeveloped area in a way that builds the identity and
enhances the economic performance of these communities. This area is
already anchored by an elementary school and middle school.
Similar to the Senseny and Greenwood Urban Center, this Urban Center
should also embrace a traditional main-street feel, be pedestrian-friendly,
ecologically sensitive and architecturally distinctive, honor the area’s local
heritage and promote urban life in a dynamic new way. This urban center
should be defined by tree-lined boulevards and an inviting central park area
oriented around the existing public facilities.
The residential densities in the center of this area are envisioned to be 10-12
units per acre in the core area, tapering off to 6 units per acre on its
perimeter adjacent to the existing residential land uses.
• Scale - Landsdowne Town Center
o A hook; employment/entertainment/cultural life/destination.
School Cluster/Community Facilities
Aquatic Facility
High Density Residential; 12-16 units per acre to 6-12
units per acre (maximum and minimum densities with
minimum on the fringes).
Walkability
Mixed use commercial in block east of Route 522;
significant vehicle trips in this area
Non residential adjacent to Route 37
o Transportation. Good; 522 visibilty, Papermill Road and Justes
Drive extended. Proximity to Route 37.
o Utilities. Excellent.
9
Greenwood Urban Center
The designated Greenwood Urban Center provides an opportunity for a focal
point for an area where most of the recent suburban residential development
has occurred. The Greenwood Urban Center is envisioned to introduce a mix
of uses into already developed areas in a way that builds the identity and
enhances it livability.
This Urban Center should embrace a traditional main-street feel, be
pedestrian-friendly, ecologically sensitive and architecturally distinctive,
honor our region’s local heritage and look to the future by promoting urban
life in a dynamic new way. This lifestyle center should be defined by tree-
lined boulevards and an inviting central park area oriented around the
existing historic farm house and grounds.
The residential densities in the core of this area are envisioned to be in the
12-16 units per acre range, tapering off to 6 units per acre on its perimeter.
Anchored in all directions by existing and proposed schools and park areas,
this Urban Center is tailored to be the future focal point of the Senseny Road
and Greenwood area.
• Scale - Landsdowne Town Center
o A hook; employment/entertainment/cultural life/destination.
Campus community/Office
Home for the east side residents; major residential
Supported by uses conducive to residential living;
Recreational features and urban farming
Commercial core with Creekside style architecture
Four story maximum
High Density Residential; 12-16 units per acre to 6-12
units per acre (maximum and minimum densities with
minimum on the fringes).
o Transportation. Excellent; Inverlee and Channing, Proximity to
Routes 7 and 50, future Route 37.
o Utilities. Good
11
Sherando Urban Center
The Route 277 Urban Center is envisioned to be an intensive, walkable
urban area that is well integrated with the surrounding community. It shall
contain a large commercial core, generally higher residential densities with a
mix of housing types, an interconnected street system, and public open
space around which the urban center is designed. Community facilities shall
also provide a focal point for the urban center and surrounding community.
Presently, Sherando High School and Sherando Park provide this function.
In the future, these resources shall be complemented by a new Elementary
School which shall serve the existing and future population and be located
within the urban center. Public spaces in the form of pocket parks, plazas,
or greens shall be further integrated into the design of the Route 277 Urban
Center.
The Route 277 Urban Center is centrally located to the community and is in
the short term, respectful to the Agricultural District. The commercial and
residential mix of land uses shall have a strong street presence and shall
relate to existing Route 277, Warrior Drive and Double Church Road. The
mix of commercial, residential, employment, and community uses shall be
linked to the surrounding community with inter modal transportation choices
and public open spaces.
• Scale - Landsdowne Town Center
o A hook; employment/entertainment/cultural life/destination.
Entertainment and Recreation
Destination commercial
Main Street character
Fairfax Corner, REI, Theatre
High Density Residential; 12-16 units per acre to 6-12
units per acre (maximum and minimum densities with
minimum on the fringes).
o Transportation. Short term; limited, Route 277, long term; good,
Warrior Drive and South Frederick Parkway.
o Utilities. Average.