PC 07-18-12 Meeting Agenda
AGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
July 18, 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) May 16 , 2012 and June 6, 2012 Minutes ......................................................................... (A)
3) Committee Reports .................................................................................................. (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments .................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
5) Conditional Use Permit #10-11 for Joseph Racey, Sr., and AT&T Mobility, for a 199
foot Monopole Telecommunications Facility. This property is located at 3392 Back
Mountain Road, and is identified with Property Identification Number 59-A-6 in the Back
Creek Magisterial District.
Mr. Cheran ....................................................................................................................... (B)
6) Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 144 Subdivision of Land, Article V Design Standards,
§144.20 Sewer and Water Service – Revision to exempt lots greater than 20 acres from the
individual on-lot systems requirements (drainfields) in the RA District.
Mr. Lawrence ................................................................................................................... (C)
COMMISSION DISUCSSION
7) Stonewall Warehousing Site Plan
Mr. Cheran ....................................................................................................................... (D)
8) Other
9) Adjourn
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2857
Minutes of May 16, 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 May 16, 2012.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; J. Stanley
Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee
District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Kevin O. Crosen,
Back Creek District; Philip E. Lemieux, Red Bud District; Ross P. Spicer, Board of Supervisors’ Liaison;
and Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney.
ABSENT: Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Kevin W. Kenney, Gainesboro District
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director; John A.
Bishop, Deputy Director-Transportation; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; 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 Thomas to adopt the agenda for this evening’s meeting as presented. This motion was
seconded by Commissioner Madagan and unanimously passed.
-------------
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Economic Development Commission
– 5/11/12 Mtg.
Commissioner Madagan reported the EDC provides funding to the Lord Fairfax Small
Business Development Center as a part of the EDC’s initiative to promote economic development. The
Director of the SBDC, Bill Sirbaugh, presented the SBDC’s annual report at the EDC’s meeting on May
11. Commissioner Madagan said Mr. Sirbaugh reported that this year’s client activity is on par with
previous years, with about 202 contacts. Mr. Sirbaugh had reported that during 2011, there was a
balance of assistance and inquiries between those starting a business and those already in business. Mr.
Sirbaugh provided statistics showing that for the minimal amount of funding the EDC provides, they are
getting about a ten-fold direct return on their funding. In other business, the EDC staff provided an
update on the VIP tours conducted in April. Staff reported there were 76 attendees; 50% of those were
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2858
Minutes of May 16, 2012
first time attendees; everyone was satisfied; and everyone said they would recommend the tour to a
colleague.
-------------
Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB)
Commissioner Oates reported that the HRAB considered an historic property designation
plaque application for the White Hall United Methodist Church. He said the HRAB recommended
approval and sent the plaque application forward to the Board of Supervisors for their June 13, 2012
meeting.
– 5/15/12 Mtg.
-------------
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC)
Commissioner Oates reported the CPPC held their election of officers. He said Mr.
Christopher M. Mohn was elected Chairman and he will remain as the Vice Chairman. Commissioner
Oates said the CPPC discussed mixed-use community centers. He said the working group will hold one
more meeting before the entire group meets in June to consider all the ideas.
– 5/14/12 Mtg.
-------------
Chairman Wilmot announced that on March 7, 2012, the Planning Commission appointed
a new study group called, the Business Development Advancement Study (BDAS) Committee. She said
the BDAS Committee is tasked with undertaking an evaluation of how the County’s Comprehensive Plan
is implemented through business development, and to offer recommendations on how the County might
further advance business development in our area. Chairman Wilmot noted that the BDAS Committee
held its first meeting on March 29, 2012.
Business Development Advancement Study (BDAS) Committee
-------------
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.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
--------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2859
Minutes of May 16, 2012
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit #02-12 for Pippin Enterprises, LLC for a Commercial Outdoor Recreation
Use for the purpose of expanding Conditional Use Permit #05-98, Appleland Sports Center, which
is adjoined with the Appleland Golf Course, at 4506 Valley Pike (Route 11). These properties are
further identified by P.I.N.s 74-A-74, 74-A-75, 75-A-27, and 75-A-27A in the Back Creek
Magisterial District.
Action – Recommended Approval with Conditions
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported this conditional use
permit application is for an expansion of an approved commercial outdoor recreation use, specifically the
Appleland Golf Course (CUP #05-98), to allow the extension of a nine-hole golf course. Mr. Cheran
explained that the proposed conditional use permit (CUP) is to expand the golf course and will include
four properties. He said the existing Appleland Sports Center has an approved site plan, which will
provide for parking for the proposed expansion. He said the proposed CUP shall utilize only the existing,
approved commercial entrance from Route 11. No other entrances will be utilized from Route 11 or
Route 649. Mr. Cheran next read a list of recommended conditions for the permit, should the
Commission find this expansion to be appropriate.
Commissioner Thomas raised a question about the accessory retail use, which was
allowed with the permitted recreational uses under CUP #05-98. He was concerned about how extensive
those retail sales could be with the language used in the staff report and if the applicant could sell
everything from go-carts and golf clubs to clothing and gasoline.
Mr. Ralph Gregory, the applicant and property owner, said the reason for the revised
permit is because the land they want to expand the golf course onto is not a part of Appleland, but is a
separate track of land. Mr. Gregory explained they were only using a small portion of the entire property;
he said the remainder of the property is in active farming.
Chairman Wilmot asked how many holes are planned for the golf course. Mr. Gregory
said there are nine holes at present and they plan to have a 12- hole course when they are finished with the
project. Mr. Gregory said they are adding three “Par Four” holes to the course, making this an “executive
golf course.”
Chairman Wilmot asked for clarification on the comments from the Health Department.
Mr. Cheran replied that the Health Department had no objections as long as only three holes were added
to the existing nine-hole golf course and there would be no additional structures built or additional wells
drilled. Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, added that if the applicant wants to expand his golf course
beyond 12 holes, the county would need to have a new review by the Health Department to make sure the
agency is satisfied.
Commissioner Thomas raised the concern that language within the staff report refers to a
Par Three Golf Course; however, Mr. Gregory is stating that he wants to have Par Four holes.
Commissioner Thomas inquired if the language needs to be revised so that the applicant doesn’t run into
difficulties in the future because of a possible misinterpretation. Mr. Cheran said that he would revise the
language in the report.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2860
Minutes of May 16, 2012
Commissioner Oates commented that the par of the ranges is not included within the
conditions. Commissioner Oates pointed out that this area is served by the Sanitation Authority and if
Mr. Gregory decides to add more than 12 holes, he could acquire public water and sewer and not use the
drainfield. Commissioner Oates said Mr. Gregory has the ability to expand, if he desires.
Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing to citizen comments and called for
anyone wishing to speak either in favor or opposition to the CUP. No one came forward to speak and
Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Unger next made a motion to recommend approval with the conditions
recommended by the staff. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Crosen and unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #02-12 for Pippin Enterprises, LLC for a Commercial
Outdoor Recreation Use for the purpose of expanding the Appleland Golf Course (CUP #05-98), located
at 4506 Valley Pike (Route 11), with the following conditions:
1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times.
2. No additional entrances permitted onto Route 11 from this site.
3. Any expansion of current facilities approved via the current site plan, will require a new site plan.
4. Hours of operation shall not exceed 11:00 p.m.
5. No additional signage allowed.
6. Lighting must be directed away from Route 11 and adjoining properties.
7. Noise shall be controlled so as not to impact adjoining properties; sound levels from the property
line shall not exceed 75dba (A scale).
8. Approval of CUP #02-12 will null and void CUP #05-98.
9. Any expansion of use will require a new CUP.
(Note: Commissioners Mohn and Kenney were absent from the meeting.)
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2861
Minutes of May 16, 2012
Draft Update of the 2012 -2013 Frederick County Primary & Interstate Road Improvement Plans
The Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans establish priorities for improvements to the
Primary and Interstate road networks within Frederick County. Comments from the
Transportation Committee and the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors. Ultimately, the priorities adopted by the Board of Supervisors will be forwarded to
the Commonwealth Transportation Board for consideration.
The Virginia Department of Transportation and the Planning Commission of Frederick County, in
accordance with Section 33.1-70.01 of the Code of Virginia, will conduct a joint public hearing to
receive public comment on the proposed Six Year Plan for Secondary Roads for Fiscal Year 2013.
All projects in the Secondary Road Improvement Plan that are eligible for federal funds will be
included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which documents how
Virginia will obligate federal transportation funds.
Action – Recommended Approval
Deputy Planning Director for Transportation, John A. Bishop, reported this is the
County’s annual process to update the secondary, interstate, and primary road improvement plans. Mr.
Bishop said the key for the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is the secondary plan; he said
the interstate and primary plans are for the county’s own purposes and VDOT’s education.
Mr. Bishop presented the major road improvement projects for 2012/2013 and the
number one project continues to be Sulphur Springs Road (Rt. 655) and will remain as the number one
project until completion. He noted that it is funded and moving forward. He said the second project is
Red Bud Road (Rt. 661), which was elevated to the next highest priority by the Board of Supervisors
prior to this plan being adopted by the Board last year. Mr. Bishop said there is partial funding allocated
for beginning design.
Moving to the Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects, Mr. Bishop noted only one
funded project, Woodside Road (Rt. 671), which is funded through a bond held by Titan Concrete. He
noted there are no state dollars on hardsurface road improvements this year.
Regarding the more significant Unscheduled Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects,
Mr. Bishop stated this list has grown this year to 27 projects with the addition of Hunting Ridge Road (Rt.
608). He pointed out that projects 1-3 do not have a rating because they were formally on the Scheduled
List and dropped back down to the Unscheduled List due to de-allocations on the part of VDOT. He said
the reason these projects still appear at the top of this list was basically the guidance received in the past
couple years from the Board and Commission. Specifically, since they had reached “scheduled” status
and were de-allocated, it was the right thing to do to keep them in the top status so that when funds do
become available, they would be the first to receive the funding. He noted the same holds true for the
projects at the bottom of the list: Glaize Orchard Road (Rt. 682), Light Road (Rt. 685), Cattail Road (Rt.
731), and Hunting Ridge Road (Rt. 608). He said these projects had been added since the last time funds
were available to do projects, so they are not ranked. He noted the reason they have not been re-ranked is
because there has been no money to fund them.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2862
Minutes of May 16, 2012
Moving on to the Interstate Road Improvement Plan, Mr. Bishop reported this plan has
not changed since last year. He said it continues to highlight the need for the relocation of Exit 307,
improvements to Exit 310, and variable widening throughout the corridor. Mr. Bishop stated that Exit
310 did receive in excess of $30 million in funding from the governor last year. He said the process is
moving forward and the county has recently finalized an agreement that includes Frederick County,
Crosspointe Development, and VDOT, to get the project moving forward. The items in that agreement
deal with road improvements that have to be done within Crosspointe in order to actually move forward
with Exit 310. The agreement has recently been executed and, therefore, the project continues to be under
design and should be moving forward somewhat expediently.
Regarding the Primary Road Improvement Plan, Mr. Bishop said the need for park and
ride lots continues to be highlighted, although the county is not solely looking at Route 7 for park and ride
lots. Additionally, Route 37 continues to be the top priority, with the top phase of Route 37 continuing to
be Exit 310 over to Route 522. He noted that segment continues to be the most important section of the
road, even though the entire road is needed. Route 277 is still shown as a priority, as well as the South
Frederick Parkway, Item Number 4, which is associated with the Exit 307 relocation, if and when it
should take place. Mr. Bishop noted Route 277 was the other project that received significant funding
last year through the governor’s office and it is currently in the design stage.
Mr. Bishop reported that the Transportation Committee reviewed these items at their
meeting on April 23, 2012, and recommended approval. He said the staff is seeking a recommendation
from the Planning Commission to forward to the Board of Supervisors.
Commissioner Oates referred to the Woodside Road (Rt. 671) project on the Hardsurface
Road Improvement list and he recalled this project was to be funded through a proffer from a rezoning
from a few years ago. Commissioner Oates believed a motion on this road plan from the Planning
Commission to the Board should include a recommendation to enable that proffer so the project could be
started. Mr. Bishop replied this was Titan Concrete’s proffer and was for them to improve the roadway
from their entrance out to Route 11 and it is backed by a $100,000 bond. He said if that bond were pulled
today, the funds would not be sufficient to complete that improvement because it has been undone for so
long. Mr. Bishop said there have been numerous meetings over the years with Mr. Lawson, a
representative for Titan Concrete, Board Supervisor, Chuck DeHaven, and VDOT. He said to this point,
the decision has not been made to pull the bond; however, that remains to be an outstanding obligation.
Commissioner Triplett inquired about the Warm Springs Road project. Mr. Bishop did
not foresee any hope of getting the project done, due to the lack of funding.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak
concerning any of the projects on the Update to the Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road
Improvement Plans. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment
portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Oates made a motion to recommend approval of the Update of the
Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Improvement Plans with the additional recommendation that the
one project on the Hardsurface Road Improvement list, Woodside Road (Rt. 671), be pursued and
completed within the next year. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously
passed.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2863
Minutes of May 16, 2012
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the Draft Update of the 2012-2013 Frederick County Primary and Interstate Road
Improvement Plans. The Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans establish priorities for
improvements to the Primary and Interstate road networks within Frederick County. The priorities
adopted by the Board of Supervisors will be forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for
consideration.
(Note: Commissioners Mohn and Kenney were absent from the meeting.)
-------------
Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Land Use Plan – This plan encompasses the area of the
County that is generally east of the City of Winchester and Interstate 81 to the Clarke County line
and from Redbud Run in the north to the Opequon Creek in the south. The Plan contains four
maps and a narrative text that covers the following areas: Urban Areas and Residential
Development; Business Development; Transportation; and Natural Resources, Historic Resources,
and Public Facilities. This plan is an update to Appendix I of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the
Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan, a component of the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan.
Action – Recommended Approval
Deputy Director, Michael T. Ruddy, stated that staff is seeking a recommendation
from the Planning Commission on this plan to go forward to the Board of Supervisors in June.
Mr. Ruddy reported this plan involved a major public participation effort and included a
collaborative effort between local citizens, business owners, residents, the planning staff, the
Planning Commission, and members of the Board of Supervisors. He said ultimately,
implementation of the plan itself will fall to the individual property owners. Mr. Ruddy said this
was a good public participation effort and covers four main components: urban areas and
residential development; business development; transportation; and natural resources, historic
resources, and public facilities. He noted that the importance of the four components is that they
align directly with the 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Mr. Ruddy next talked about the maps included with this plan. The first map
identified land use, which covers residential land uses, predominantly with a higher density than
has previously occurred within the county’s urban development area, and it provides focal points
within the urban areas. Three areas that have been identified as future urban centers include: the
Crosspointe area; the Greenwood Urban Center; and the Parkins Mill Urban Center and
Neighborhood Village. He next talked about the business development components, which
included the continued recognition of the interstate and highway commercial areas on Route 7,
Route 50, and Route 522; Warrior Drive and areas adjacent which could provide future
employment opportunities with good commercial locations. Mr. Ruddy also spoke about the
Parkins Mill Economic Development Area, a new area of land use from a business development
perspective, located just south and east of future Route 37.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2864
Minutes of May 16, 2012
Mr. Ruddy said the plan not only addresses land use, but also addresses
transportation. He said the plan includes a map which lays out the street infrastructure network
needed to support this plan. Not only does the plan include streets, but it also identifies a variety
of trail connections. Many of the trail connections coincide with existing roads and some, such
as the Abrams Creek Trail, provide new connections for recreational purposes. He said from a
transportation perspective, it continues to reinforce access management, the complete street
concepts endorsed in the Comprehensive Plan, corridor design elements, and other key areas,
such as in front of the Millbrook High School, adjacent to Shenandoah University, and the
transportation within the designated urban centers.
Mr. Ruddy said the final map includes the historical and natural resources and
public facilities. Mr. Ruddy said the map recognizes the green infrastructure in this part of the
County, it protects the environmental corridors, identifies potential historic districts and key
preservation areas, it locates public facilities as community focal points, and at the same time,
identifies new school and park locations. He said most importantly, it recognizes the landfill and
provides a landfill support area, in addition to an airport support area.
No issues or areas of concern were raised by Planning Commission members.
The Planning Commission favorably endorsed the plan as presented.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to
speak in favor or opposition to this plan. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot
then closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Lemieux made a motion to recommend approval of the Senseny/ Eastern
Frederick Urban Area Plan. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously
passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Land Use Plan. This plan
encompasses the area of the County that is generally east of the City of Winchester and Interstate 81 to
the Clarke County line and from Redbud Run in the north to the Opequon Creek in the south. The Plan
contains four maps and a narrative text that covers the following areas: Urban Areas and Residential
Development; Business Development; Transportation; and Natural Resources, Historic Resources, and
Public Facilities. This plan is an update to Appendix I of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Eastern
Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan, a component of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
(Note: Commissioners Mohn and Kenney were absent from the meeting.)
-------------
PUBLIC MEETING:
Rezoning #05-12 of BPG Properties, submitted by Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich & Walsh, P.C., to
revise proffers associated with Rezoning #05-08, approved by the Board of Supervisors on September
24, 2008. This revision relates to the “Transportation Mitigation” section of the proffers. The
properties are located approximately .61 miles north of the Route 11 intersection with Cedar Hill
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2865
Minutes of May 16, 2012
(Route 671), bounded on the west by Interstate 81, and on the east by Martinsburg Pike (Route 11).
The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 33-A-109 and 33-A-110 in the Stonewall Magisterial
District.
Action – Recommended Approval with Condition
Deputy Director of Transportation, John A. Bishop, reported that this applicant is
requesting a minor proffer revision under the new State Code which allows Board of Supervisors’ action
without a public hearing. Mr. Bishop stated the revision is focused on transportation and the purpose of
the application is to allow for multiple users on this site, which was previously not envisioned. He said
the revision to the proffers would allow for a second entrance on Route 11 and a proration of the cash
proffers based on the square footage of development. He added the proposed entrance meets all current
spacing standards.
Mr. Bishop explained that when this property was rezoned to a B3 parcel back in 2008, it
was envisioned as a single use with up to a 750,000 square-foot warehouse. Consistent with that, it had a
single entrance with a proffer that allowed for the relocation of that entrance up to Branson Spring Road.
This would allow for a future inter-parcel to the north. The reason this was not planned to be done right
away, is because the existing right-of-way does not allow room for a right-turn lane and the property
owner to the north is not interested in providing right-of-way for the right-turn lane. Mr. Bishop said
since that time, the applicant has worked to market their property and it has become evident that they
would do better to allow for multiple uses, which is the reason for the rezoning application before the
Commission this evening. Mr. Bishop said in order to allow for additional users, the applicant is asking
to be permitted to add a second entrance, near the southern border of the property.
Mr. Bishop further explained that the relevant language which would move the northern
entrance up to Branson Spring Road and absorb the cost, as well as aide in the cost of a signal at that
future intersection, remains within the proffer. The other new language involves a change of the cash
proffers to a proration, depending upon how much the applicant is developing at the time. Mr. Bishop
said if a user would only require 300,000-400,000 square feet, the applicant would pay a proportionate
share of their cash proffer, as opposed to the entire cash proffer. The remainder would be paid if and
when the remainder of the property is built out.
Mr. Bishop noted this application has been reviewed by the County Attorney and he did
not have comments. VDOT passed along a positive recommendation and at this time, the staff does not
have any concerns. He said the proposed entrances seem to be appropriate; he said the staff was insistent
on the one entrance prior to this because it was only planned to be a single user.
A member of the Commission asked if both proposed entrances would have right -turn
lanes. The staff replied yes; a right-turn lane will also be constructed for the relocated entrance for the
property to the north, once it develops.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2866
Minutes of May 16, 2012
Mr. John Foote, with Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich & Walsh, P.C., was present to
represent the applicant, BPG Properties, Ltd. Mr. Foote stated a user of a portion of this property has
been identified and that is why the applicant is interested in separating the parcel with multiple entrances.
Mr. Foote said that because of a confidentiality agreement, the applicant could not identify the user;
however, he did say it was a large pharmaceutical distribution company.
Referring to the adjustment of the applicant’s $550,000 escalation proffer, which was
based on the floor area constructed, a commissioner expressed his concern that the applicant desired to
pay only a portion of that amount for a single user, instead of the full amount. The concern was if the
applicant didn’t build the full 750,000 square feet, the county would not get the full $550,000. Mr. Foote
stated this was correct; he said their contention was if the full level of development was not reached, the
same degree of mitigation was not required. Mr. Foote pointed out the escalator clause had already been
triggered, because they were 18 months past the original rezoning; he said the escalator amount was no
longer $550,000, but has now escalated to a greater amount.
An additional issue was raised by a commissioner concerning a two-to-three acre
property immediately south of the applicant’s proposed entrance, which would be prohibited from getting
an entrance onto Route 11 because the applicant’s entrance would be too close. It was noted the property
to the south would not be able to create an entrance because of access management standards. The
commissioner preferred the applicant create an inter-parcel connector so this property to the south would
not be landlocked. Mr. Foote said they were agreeable to doing so.
Chairman Wilmot next opened the public meeting to citizen comments and called for
anyone wishing to speak in favor or opposition to the request. No one came forward and Chairman
Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
A motion was made by Commissioner Oates to recommend approval of this rezoning
with the condition that the property to the south of the applicant’s parcel be given an inter-parcel
connection via the applicant’s proffer statement. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Unger and
unanimously passed.
(Note: Commissioners Mohn and Kenney were absent from the meeting.)
-------------
DISCUSSION
Discussion of a proposed ordinance amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144,
Subdivision of Land, Article V, Design Standards, §144.20 Sewer and Water Service. This revision
would exempt lots greater than 20 acres from the individual on-lot systems requirements
(drainfields) in the RA District.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2867
Minutes of May 16, 2012
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported the staff has received a request to include a
drainfield exemption for lots (parent tracts) which are 20 acres in size or greater and which are a part of a
minor rural subdivision. She said the subdivision ordinance currently requires that all lots that are being
subdivided be provided with a drainfield, in addition to a 100% reserve area per Chapter 161. Ms.
Perkins said this requirement was enacted when agricultural lots were deleted from the zoning ordinance
in 2009 as part of the Rural Areas Study.
Ms. Perkins stated this item was discussed by the Development Review and Regulations
Committee (DRRC) at their meeting in March 2012, and then emailed to the DRRC on April 4, 2012.
She said the DRRC endorsed the changes and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for
discussion.
Commissioner Oates said he is the one who brought this item forward because he had a
case where he was doing a family subdivision off a working farm and it did not seem appropriate to have
a drainfield reserved for the parent tract which would continue to be farmed and there were no plans for
development.
No issues or areas of concern were raised by other Commission members. The Planning
Commission believed this proposed amendment was appropriate and agreed to forward this item to the
Board of Supervisors for their discussion.
(Note: Commissioners Mohn and Kenney were absent from the meeting.)
-------------
Discussion of a proposed ordinance amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165,
Zoning, Article IV, Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401, RA Rural Areas District, §165-
401.07 Setback Requirements. This revision would apply to the accessory structure setback
requirements in the RA District.
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported the staff has received a request to include a
setback exemption for accessory structures in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, if it is the first
structure to be constructed on a property. Ms. Perkins stated that in the RA District, the dwelling is
typically the primary structure and the accessory structure would have lesser setbacks than the dwelling.
However, under the current ordinance, if a structure other than a dwelling was constructed on the property
first, it would be considered the primary structure and would be subject to the primary setbacks. Ms.
Perkins said this proposed amendment would allow the construction of one non-inhabitable accessory
structure with lesser setbacks, prior to the construction of the principal structure. She said this accessory
structure could not contain any residential uses prior to the construction of the primary use and could not
exceed 500 square feet in size.
Ms. Perkins reported that this item was discussed by the Development Review and
Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their February 2012 meeting and then emailed to the DRRC on April
4, 2012. She said the DRRC endorsed the changes and recommended that it be sent to the Planning
Commission for discussion.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2868
Minutes of May 16, 2012
No issues or areas of concern were raised by members of the Commission. The Planning
Commission believed the proposed amendment was appropriate and agreed to forward this item on to the
Board of Supervisors for their discussion.
(Note: Commissioners Mohn and Kenney were absent from the meeting.)
-------------
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and upon motion by Commissioner Oates
and second by Commissioner Ambrogi, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. by a unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________________
June M. Wilmot, Chairman
_______________________________________
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2869
Minutes of June 6, 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 June 6, 2012.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; J. Stanley
Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee
District; Kevin W. Kenney, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger,
Back Creek District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; Carroll (Beau) Correll, 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: Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Philip E. Lemieux, Red Bud District
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision
Administrator; Dana M. Johnston, Zoning Inspector; 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 Triplett and unanimously passed.
-------------
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the
minutes of April 18, 2012 were unanimously approved as presented.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the
minutes of May 2, 2012 were unanimously approved as presented.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2870
Minutes of June 6, 2012
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Conservation Easement Authority (CEA) - 5/24/12 Mtg.
Commissioner Triplett reported that the CEA discussed an upcoming dinner sponsored
by the Conservation Partners for persons who are potentially interested in placing their land into a
conservation easement. The dinner is scheduled for June 18, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. at the Valley Farm Credit.
-------------
Economic Development Commission (EDC) – 6/01/12 Mtg.
Commissioner Madagan reported the EDC discussed the effectiveness of the Career
Awareness Program both short and long term. He said it was clear from a short-term perspective that the
program is a huge success, based on the post-tour surveys of the students, teachers, and VIPs involved.
He said the EDC discussed at length how to better measure the effectiveness in the long term.
Commissioner Madagan said that although a noteworthy solution was not reached, members from both
industry and the school system indicated their continued involvement was the achieved success and is
helping to change the stereotype related to manufacturing.
Commissioner Madagan said the other item of discussion was the Valley Air Now
Initiative and the staff provided an update on the continued steps to educate the public on the ozone and
ways to keep it within check.
-------------
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 #03-12 of James W. Frye for a kennel at 323 Hunting Ridge Road (Rt. 608).
The property, zoned RA (Rural Areas), is identified with P.I.N. 30-A-98A in the Gainesboro
Magisterial District.
Action – Recommended Approval with Conditions
Zoning Inspector, Dana M. Johnston, provided the background information and noted this
application is a result of a zoning violation reported on the property. Mr. Johnston stated that a
conditional use permit (CUP) is one avenue to abate the violation. He noted this violation is pending a
court hearing in September.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2871
Minutes of June 6, 2012
Mr. Johnston reported the property size is slightly greater than one-half acre and the
closest dwelling is 45 feet away. He said the use will be conducted within the applicant’s home. He said
the applicant believes there should be no more than 30 dogs and puppies on the property at any given
time, considering the number of female-owned dogs and the average size of potential litters for each
female. Mr. Johnston stated the staff is requiring a six-foot, board-on-board fence on all sides of the
property to mitigate any potential impacts on adjoining properties. He said the applicant intends to
construct a 35-foot by 127-foot dog run on the southern portion of the property. Mr. Johnston next read a
list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate.
Numerous questions were raised by Commission members. Commissioner Triplett asked
how many dogs were currently on the property and staff replied there were 11. Commissioner Madagan
asked staff to point out the location on the property for the proposed 35-foot by 127-foot dog run.
Commissioner Thomas inquired if a State agency would oversee the health and breeding aspects of a
kennel; a health concern was raised about the potential for 30 dogs and two or more adults within the
same dwelling. Staff replied they were unaware of a State agency that would oversee kennel operations;
however, the Health Department commented on dog waste disposal. Commissioner Unger asked if there
was a potential issue with voting on this application with a pending court date. The staff replied that if
the Board of Supervisors ultimately approves the CUP, the pending court case would be dropped.
Commissioner Madagan inquired about how recommended Condition #4, “All dogs shall be controlled so
as not to create a nuisance to any adjoining properties by roaming free or barking,” would be monitored
and enforced. Staff replied this would be treated similar to any other violation and would be on a
complaint basis. Commissioner Manuel referred to recommended Condition #3, “This CUP is to allow
breeding only. Boarding of dogs will not be permitted on property,” and he asked if this included sales as
well as breeding. Staff replied yes. Chairman Wilmot asked if the 30-dog limit was a staff
recommendation and the staff noted that upon consulting with the applicant, the staff believed 30 was
more than enough to accommodate the applicant’s needs.
Mr. James W. Frye, the owner and applicant, stated this operation started out as a hobby
with two litters sold last year and two litters sold this year. Mr. Frye said he placed a sign out for sale of
puppies and that is when he was informed by letter that he was operating an illegal business. Mr. Frye
said he currently has eleven dogs which are all kept indoors. Mr. Frye said his home contains 1,200
square feet upstairs, an additional 1,200-plus square feet downstairs, and the carport and garage. He said
all the dogs are licensed and vaccinated. He explained he utilizes four shock collars for each group of
dogs that go outside and in addition, he utilizes an ultra-sonic bark deterrent system to discourage
barking.
Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Frye how he planned to dispose of dog waste. Mr.
Frye replied that he contacted the Frederick County Landfill and they will accept dog waste. Mr. Frye
said dog waste will go inside the dumpster at the landfill, the same as regular trash disposal.
Commissioner Kenney asked about the approximate length of time between the breeding, when the pups
are born, and when the pups are ready for sale. Mr. Frye replied the dogs have nine weeks of pregnancy
and eight weeks after birth before they can be sold. Commissioner Crosen inquired if Mr. Frye knew if
any of his neighbors may perceive of potential problems with the operation of this business at his home.
Mr. Frye said he spoke with his neighbors and everyone is satisfied. Mr. Frye said the DeHavens
suggested placing the fence 25-30 feet back from the front of the property line to allow adequate site
distance for exiting the driveways.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2872
Minutes of June 6, 2012
Commissioner Triplett asked Mr. Frye if he would be able to comply with the conditions
recommended by the staff. Under Condition #5, “All dogs must be confined indoors by 9:00 p.m. and not
let outdoors prior to 8:00 a.m.,” Mr. Frye asked if it would be permissible to take the pregnant and
nursing females outside during the night as long as they are supervised. Commissioners suggested that
Condition #5 should be revised to state, “All dogs must be confined indoors by 9:00 p.m. and not let
outdoors prior to 8:00 a.m., unless accompanied by owners.”
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for citizen comments. No one
came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Triplett stated that based on the applicant’s claim that he could comply
with all of the conditions of the conditional use permit, he had no problems with Mr. Frye operating his
business.
Commissioner Triplett made a motion to recommend approval of CUP #03-12 of James
W. Frye with the conditions recommended by the staff and with Condition #5 revised to state, “All dogs
must be confined indoors by 9:00 p.m. and not let outdoors prior to 8:00 a.m., unless accompanied by the
owners.” This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kenney.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #03-12 of James W. Frye for a kennel at 323 Hunting
Ridge Road (Rt. 608) with the following conditions:
1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times.
2. No more than 30 dogs and puppies allowed on the property at any given time.
3. This conditional use permit is to allow breeding only. Boarding of dogs will not be
permitted on the property.
4. All dogs shall be controlled so as not to create a nuisance to any adjoining properties by
roaming free or barking.
5. All dogs shall be confined indoors by 9:00 p.m. and not let outdoors prior to 8:00 a.m.,
unless accompanied by the owners.
6. A six-foot, board-on-board fence must be constructed along all adjoining properties.
7. No signage allowed with this use.
8. Any expansion or modification of this use will require the approval of a new conditional use
permit.
(Note: Commissioners Mohn and Lemieux were absent from the meeting.)
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2873
Minutes of June 6, 2012
An amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Agricultural and
Residential Districts, Part 401, RA (Rural Areas) District, Section 165-401.03, Conditional Uses,
and Article I, General Provisions Amendments and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101, General
Provisions, Section 165-101.02, Definitions and Word Usage. The proposed revisions would allow
“Treatment Homes” as a conditional use in the RA District and revisions to the definition of adult
treatment home.
Action – Recommended Approval
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, reported the staff had received a request to include
“Treatment Homes” as a conditional use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District and to revise the
definition of “Adult Treatment Home.” Mr. Lawrence said Adult Treatment Homes are currently only
permitted in the MS (Medical Support) District.
Mr. Lawrence said the proposed amendment will revise the definition of “Adult
Treatment Home” to “Treatment Home,” it will add the provision that it is for all ages, and will include
drug treatment. He said the proposed amendment will add “Treatment Home” as a conditional use in the
RA (Rural Areas) District; it will delete the definition of “Drug Treatment Home” because this use is
being incorporated into the definition of “Treatment Home;” and it will revise the MS District to include
the term “Treatment Home” and delete “Drug Treatment Home.”
Mr. Lawrence reported that the DRRC (Development Review and Regulations
Committee) endorsed the amendment and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for
discussion. He said the Planning Commission discussed the proposed amendment on May 2, 2012; they
agreed with the revisions and recommended it be sent forward to the Board of Supervisors for discussion.
The Board of Supervisors discussed the item at their May 23, 2012 meeting and sent the amendment
forward for public hearing.
Chairman Wilmot commented that the State regulates who is within the treatment
centers, thus eliminating her concern about allowing all ages within the treatment home.
Along those same lines, Commissioner Thomas asked if the State recommends which
zoning districts a treatment home should be located within. Mr. Lawrence said the staff has not seen any
indications that the State recommends where a treatment facility should be located; however, they do
regulate the use of the facility. Mr. Lawrence said the catalyst behind this amendment was an
organization that wished to open a treatment facility with opportunities for children, as well as adults, and
also provide treatments for chemical dependency. He said when the staff reviewed the ordinance, they
determined the ordinance did not permit the operation as the applicant intended. Mr. Lawrence pointed
out that with a conditional use permit process, there is more opportunity to learn about the particular
operation and conditions may be established, if there are concerns about the size of the operation or the
treatment types.
Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing to citizen comments. No one came
forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2874
Minutes of June 6, 2012
Commissioner Thomas said he assumed a facility of this nature would most likely
construct a new building or if an existing structure was used, it would most likely have a large amount of
rehabilitation associated with it. He inquired if the use of structures in the RA (Rural Areas) District
would fall solely under the BOCA Code or were there separate State regulations that would control the
building standards, criteria, and layouts for treatment facilities. Mr. Lawrence said that he did not look
into the building code requirements. He pointed out that if the structure is in the rural areas of the
County, it would not have access to public water and sewer. Therefore, the structure would have a
limiting factor as to how many people the facility could accommodate based on the drainfield and the
health system. Mr. Lawrence said if the Health Department and Building Code requirements could be
satisfied and the scale of the operation is appropriate for the location, then the use could occur within the
RA District.
Commissioner Crockett believed this type of medical treatment could benefit from being
within a non-medical, institutional environment. Commissioner Crockett said the only downside he could
predict is if the facility was placed in a rural environment next to a cluster of homes and the adjoining
residents may have issues. Mr. Lawrence said the staff considered this and it is one of the reasons staff
believed a conditional use permit was more appropriate than a “by right” opportunity.
Commissioner Thomas expressed caution from the view of the fire and public safety
departments because a treatment home would probably use those types of facilities more frequently than
the average rural areas’ resident. Mr. Lawrence replied that from a staff perspective, they would be
looking for more information about the facility and making sure, through agency comments, that fire and
rescue and health departments were satisfied.
Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed
amendment to allow “Treatment Homes” as a conditional use in the RA District and the revisions to the
definition of adult treatment home. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Madagan and
unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of an amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV,
Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401, RA (Rural Areas) District, Section 165-401.03,
Conditional Uses, and Article I, General Provisions Amendments and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101,
General Provisions, Section 165-101.02, Definitions and Word Usage. The proposed revisions would
allow “Treatment Homes” as a conditional use in the RA District and revisions to the definition of adult
treatment home.
(Note: Commissioners Mohn and Lemieux were absent from the meeting.)
-------------
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Discussion of a proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article
IV, Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 402, RP (Residential Performance) District; Article
II, Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers, and Regulations for Specific Uses; Article I,
General Provisions, Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits. This proposed amendment would
provide revisions to the RP Zoning District and other sections of the zoning ordinance that pertain
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2875
Minutes of June 6, 2012
to the RP Zoning District in order to modify the format, provide additional flexibility and housing
options, and provide updates to the zoning ordinance to ensure it is in conformance with the 2030
Comprehensive Policy Plan.
No Action Required
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, recalled that this item was presented to the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors at a work session in early May of 2012. Although there was
excellent discussion, he said the conclusion was for the amendments to come back after some time had
passed to provide the Commission and Board members with sufficient time to review the materials. Mr.
Lawrence stated this proposed amendment is now being presented to the Commission as a discussion
item.
Mr. Lawrence said the proposed amendment presented this evening is one aspect of
implementing the 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan. He said efforts were made during the update of the
Residential Performance (RP) Zoning District to ensure that the requirements: 1) were in a format that
was easier to understand; 2) provided additional flexibility and housing options; 3) were up-to-date with
the current needs of the community; and 4) were in conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Lawrence next reviewed and discussed the proposed changes with the Commission.
Chairman Wilmot asked those Commissioners who serve on the Development Review
and Regulations Committee (DRRC) and who have been exposed to this on a number of different levels,
if they had any comments or suggestions regarding what was presented this evening. Commissioner
Kenney believed the staff did an excellent job of incorporating all of the suggestions and intentions into
the revisions presented and captured the strategies needed to make the residential community more
flexible and more attractive.
Commissioner Crockett said he appreciated the work to revise the ordinance to a format
that was easier to understand for those not working in the building community. He thought the staff did
an excellent job with the revisions. Mr. Lawrence said the staff would forward the Commission’s
comments on to the Board of Supervisors.
-------------
Discussion of a proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, and
Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land. Revisions to the approval authority for waiver opportunities
provided to the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors, and the Zoning and Subdivision
Administrator are proposed.
No Action Required
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, reported that this proposed amendment is
one the staff has been working on for a number of years. However, the urgency of finalizing the
project has come about due to a court decision suggesting that the Planning Commission should
not be the final authority on waivers; but rather, the responsibility for that decision should fall to
either the staff or the elected officials at the legislative Board of Supervisors level. Mr. Lawrence
said the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC), along with the staff,
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2876
Minutes of June 6, 2012
identified all of the waiver opportunities in both the zoning and the subdivision ordinances, and
determined whether each one should be a staff administrative approval or whether it should be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. He noted that if the waiver request goes to the Board of
Supervisors, it must first come before the Planning Commission for a recommendation.
Mr. Lawrence stated that in deciding whether the waiver request should be an
administrative or a legislative action, the staff considered the application. If it was a waiver
opportunity that would be requested during the process when the Board is making a decision,
whether it is a master plan or subdivision plan review, then the waiver will also be a Board
action. If the waiver is being applied at the site plan stage, which is an administrative action,
then the waiver will be an administrative action. He said this was the method of thinking the
staff and the DRRC used in deciding whether the waiver request should be an administrative or
Board action. Mr. Lawrence said another factor that was taken into consideration was if the
waiver may have an impact on an adjacent property. He said it was recommended that this
action should not be administrative, but should be a Board action; so those waivers will continue
to go to the Board. He said if the waiver would apply internally to a project and would not affect
the adjoining properties, then the action was left at the administrative level.
Mr. Lawrence added that if the staff is considering an administrative waiver, the
staff will inform the Board of Supervisors about the waiver. He said this will be an opportunity
for the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to see what development proposals
are about to be constructed. He noted that the rezoning of the property would have already been
approved, but the master plan shows the entire picture and the staff thought doing something
similar with the waiver would be appropriate.
Chairman Wilmot said the Commission is aware there is a legal issue involved in
this. Chairman Wilmot expressed a concern about whether this process would add additional
time for the applicant to get through the review process. Mr. Lawrence said the staff is aware of
this issue and the way it is proposed administratively, a project submittal could get done in a day
or two. If the project goes to the Board of Supervisors, it does add a little more time; however,
it’s not a public hearing aspect, so it is just a matter of the time needed to get the item on the
Planning Commission’s and Board of Supervisors’ schedule.
-------------
OTHER
City of Winchester Planning Commission
Chairman Wilmot introduced the new liaison from the City of Winchester’s Planning
Commission, Commissioner Carroll (Beau) Correll, Jr. Chairman Wilmot asked Commissioner Correll if
there was anything he wanted to share regarding the City of Winchester. Commissioner Correll stated the
City of Winchester amended and re-enacted several articles of the City’s zoning ordinance dealing with
the possibility of a stadium locating within the City limits. Commissioner Correll said the City also
approved an administrative action regarding a proposed expansion for Carmike Cinemas.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2877
Minutes of June 6, 2012
-------------
CANCELLATION OF THE JUNE 20, 2012 AND JULY 4, 2012 MEETINGS
Chairman Wilmot announced there were no pending items for the Planning
Commission’s June 20, 2012 meeting and the July 4, 2012 meeting was a holiday.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Oates, the
Planning Commission unanimously voted to cancel the Planning Commission’s regularly scheduled
meetings of June 20, 2012 and July 4, 2012.
-------------
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and upon motion by Commissioner Oates
and second by Commissioner Madagan, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. by a unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________________
June M. Wilmot, Chairman
_______________________________________
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #10-11
JOSEPH RACEY, SR. AND AT&T MOBILITY
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: June 28, 2012
Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on
this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter.
Reviewed
Planning Commission: 07/18/12 Pending
Action
Board of Supervisors: 08/08/12 Pending
This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to enable the construction of a 199 foot Monopole
Telecommunications Facility with a 3,200 square foot equipment compound with an 11 foot 5
inch by 20 foot equipment shelter.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would suggest the following
conditions be placed on the CUP:
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 twelve (12)
months of abandonment of operation.
5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (12) months of the
approval of this Conditional Use Permit, the CUP will be deemed invalid.
6. Any expansion or modification of this use will require a new Conditional Use Permit.
Following the requisite public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission
to offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors.
CUP #10-11, Joseph Racey and AT&T
June 28, 2012
Page 2
LOCATION
: This property is located at 3392 Back Mountain Road.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
: Back Creek
PROPERTY ID NUMBER
: 59-A-6
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE
:
Zoned: RA (Rural Areas)
Land Use: Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE
:
North: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential
South: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential
East: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential
West: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential
PROPOSED USE
: This application is for a 199 foot Monopole Telecommunications Facility
with a 3,200 square foot equipment compound with an 11 foot 5 inch by 20 foot equipment
shelter.
REVIEW EVALUATIONS
:
Virginia Department of Transportation:
Please see attached letter dated July 1, 2011 from
the Department of Transportation.
Fire and Rescue:
Requiring a key box to be installed for access. Plans approved.
Inspections Department:
Structure shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building
Code and Section 312, use group U (Utility and Miscellaneous) of The International Building
Code 2009. The structure is required to comply with Chap 15 & 16 of the IBC 2006 for
structural load, as well as Section 3108 for Towers. Fencing greater than 6’ in height requires a
building permit. The new 195’ tower shall be located and equipped with step bolts and ladders
so as to provide ready access for inspection purposes. The tower shall not cross or encroach
upon any street or other public space, or encroach upon any privately owned property without
written consent of the owner of the encroached-upon property. (See 3108.2, Location and
Access.) Special instructions per Chap 17 IBC 2006 apply to this structure. Plans submitted
for review shall be sealed by a Virginia Registered Design Professional. Equipment shelters
require a building permit. Snow bridging requires a building permit. Antennas require a
building permit.
CUP #10-11, Joseph Racey and AT&T
June 28, 2012
Page 3
Frederick County Sanitation Authority:
The Sanitation Authority does not serve this area.
Winchester-Frederick County Health Department:
Health Department has no objections to
the request so long as no existing or proposed drainfields or wells are affected.
Winchester Regional Airport: In accordance with the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2294,
and the Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Proposed Construction, FAA Form 7460-1
applicant is required to be filed with the Federal Aviation Administration with a copy forwarded
to this office for review and comment. Upon completion of the aeronautical study by the FAA, a
copy must be forwarded to this office for final review comment. Any temporary construction
equipment exceeding the overall height of the proposed structure including all
appurtenances will require filing of a separate 7460-1 form with the FAA before
construction begins and requires a separate review by the Airport Authority. The form can
be found online at the FAA’s website http://forms.faa.gov/. Towers over 200 feet AGL are
required by FAA to be lighted and depending on the proximity of a tower to an airport, towers of
less height are required to be lit. For towers between 150 and 199 feet AGL, the Winchester
Regional Airport requests all structures to be marked and lighted in accordance with FAA
Advisory Circular 70/7460-1K, Change 2. Final comment on behalf of the Airport Authority
will be withheld pending a review by this office of the Determination Study completed by the
Federal Aviation Administration.
Historic Resources Advisory Board:
Please see the attached letter dated November 22, 2011
from the HRAB.
Planning and Zoning: The 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County
(“Comprehensive Plan”) provides guidance when considering any land use action. This
proposed 199 foot monopole-type commercial telecommunication facility is located on property
identified within the Comprehensive Plan to remain rural and is not part of any land study. The
properties immediately adjacent to this proposed CUP are currently zoned RA (Rural Areas)
Zoning District. The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit for a 199 foot monopole
-type commercial telecommunications facility on a 75+/-acre property, with the nearest
dwelling(s) being approximately 800 feet from this facility.
The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for commercial telecommunication facilities in
the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The
zoning ordinance requires that all proposed telecommunication facilities be subject to additional
performance standards in order to promote orderly economic development and mitigate the
negative impacts to adjoining properties, residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas
and properties of significant historic values. The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory
Board (HRAB) via the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report, has identified three
potentially significant structures within the immediate area of the subject site; one structure is
located on-site. (See HRAB comments.)
CUP #10-11, Joseph Racey and AT&T
June 28, 2012
Page 4
Furthermore, the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires an applicant to provide
confirmation that an attempt was made to collocate on an existing telecommunication facility,
and possible co-location structures. The applicant has provided an inventory of existing
telecommunication facilities, and no other telecommunication facility or possible co-location
opportunity structures exist in this area. This proposed commercial telecommunication facility
will be positioned to provide the existing and future land uses in this area of the County with
telecommunication needs.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 07/18/12 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
:
This is a request to seek approval for the construction of a 199 foot Monopole
Telecommunications Facility with a 3,200 square foot equipment compound with an 11 foot 5
inch by 20 foot equipment shelter. Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate,
Staff would suggest the following conditions be placed on the CUP:
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 twelve (12)
months of abandonment of operation.
5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (12) months of the
approval of this Conditional Use Permit, the CUP will be deemed invalid.
6. Any expansion or modification of this use will require a new Conditional Use Permit.
Following the requisite public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission
to offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors.
G
Winchester
Middletown
StephensCity
0111
01259
01522
01522
0155
0137
01277
0111
0150
01127
01522
0150
01522
017
01522
0150
0111
01522
01522
0137
§¨¦81
§¨¦66 ST627
ST669
ST701
ST620
ST608
ST693
ST654
ST771
ST684
ST696
ST688
ST734
ST695
ST694
ST659
ST643
ST631
ST654
ST690
ST803
ST723
ST789
ST628
ST630
ST751
ST610
ST660
ST644
ST608
ST1012
STT-627
ST657
ST673
ST624
ST622
ST600
ST642
ST739
ST655
ST679
ST600
ST671
ST625
ST636
ST663 ST661
ST608
ST703
ST621
ST612
ST649
ST627
ST600
ST699
ST817
ST600
ST672
ST600
ST671
ST704
ST622
ST636
ST759
ST622
ST604
ST757
ST633
ST733
ST642
ST641
ST677
ST842
ST640
ST665
ST702
ST603
ST661
ST614
ST623
ST656
ST600
ST820
ST639
ST672
ST629
ST681
ST638
ST692
ST732
RIDGEWAYESTATES
SAMS RIDGE
REYNOLDSWOODS
TIMBERRIDGE
RITTERMOUNTAIN
RITTERMOUNTAIN
BACK CREEKHEIGHTS L1
APPLE PIEMEADOWS
RHINEFORESTESTATES GREENSPRINGSESTATES QUAILMEADOWS
PLEASANTVALLEYFARMS CARROLLTON
THEKNOLLS
BABBSRUN
ASHLANDMEADOWS
COTTONWOOD
HIATTSRUN
BETHEL
WESTVIEWWELLTOWNACRESFAIRLANEORCHARD
COUNTRYSIDE VIEW
SPRINGVALLEY
CHESTNUTRIDGEESTATES
HUNTERSVALLEY
MOUNTAINFALLSPARK
PAXTONHILLS
RICHARDWILLIAMSL10 WINCHESTERREGIONAL AIRPORT
STONEYMEADE
STONEBROOK FARMS
BROOKNEILL
WESTVIEWBUSINESSCENTRE
SHERIDANSMISS
TRAILSEND
DUCKRUN
CANTERESTATES
CEDAR CREEKCROSSING
WESTERNVIEW
MATTHEWSRIDGE
KENDALLMILLS
STONEWALLINDUSTRIALPARK
SHAWNEELAND
SOUTHERNHILLS
CROSSPOINTECENTER
VILLAGESAT ARTRIP
FORESTLAKESESTATES
MAYA RIDGEESTATES
SHENANDOAH
WAVERLYFARM
WINCHESTERMEDICALCENTER
LORD FAIRFAXCOMMUNITYCOLLEGE
THIRDWINCHESTERBATTLEFIELD
CEDAR CREEKBATTLEFIELD
SILVER LAKEPROPERTIES
CEDARHILLESTATES
BRUSHCREEK
PAINTERHILL
CARROLLTONESTATES
BERRYHILL
AIRPORTBUSINESSCENTER
AUTUMNHILLSESTATES
BABBSMOUNTAIN
BARRINGTONHILLSESTATES
EARLHAINES-SHANHOLTZ
THEORCHARD
TANNERYHILLS
HUNTINGRIDGEESTATES
DAWNHEIGHTS
SILERHEIGHTS
DUNDRIDGEFARM
ROSCOMMON
FALL RUN FOREST
FORT COLLIERINDUSTRIALPARK
FREDERICKCOUNTYLANDFILL
GOVERNORSHILL
GREAT NORTHMOUNTAINWILDERNESS AREA
HAINES-WESLEYCHAPEL
HEDGEBROOKHILLS
ABRAMSPOINTE
HICKSMEADOW
HOGUECREEKESTATES
HOMESTEADSLEEPYWOODS
HOOVERMOUNTIAN
KILKENNYESTATES
WHISPERINGMEADOWS
SMOKEYSHIRE
KOVACHSUBDIVISION
LAKEHOLIDAY
LAKE ISSACESTATES
LAKESERENE
LAKESAINTCLAIR
LEETOWN
OLD MILLESTATES
SLEEPYCREEK
SPORTSMANWOODS
LONGMEADOWS
EASTGATECOMMERCECENTER
CARLISLEHEIGHTS
BUSHYRIDGE
CEDARCREEKESTATES
DEER CREEKESTATES
SNOWDENBRIDGE
MIDDLEROADESTATES
DEVLANDFARMS
EQUESTRIANESTATES
GREENSPRINGACRES
TIMBERRIDGEFARMS
LONGVIEWACRES
CITY OFWINCHESTER
ACORNHILL
MCGUIREHILLS
MEADOWSEDGE
NorthMountainEstates
OPEQUONRIDGE
WOODSMILL
#Towers & Antennas (2005)
!Recent FCC Towers
!Antenna Structure Register (ASR 2005)
ASR 3mile Buffers (2005)
FCC Licensed Communication Structuresin Frederick County. Virginia
´
0 3.5 71.75 Miles
Racey Tower Location
c
Attachment 1
PC Discussed: 5/16/2012
BOS Discussed: 6/13/2012
PC Public Hearing 7/18/2012
Chapter 144 – Subdivision of Land
ARTICLE V
Design Standards
§ 144.20. Sewer and water service.
Generally, in the sewer and water service area designated by the Frederick County
Comprehensive Plan or where public sewer and water is available, such service shall be extended
by the developer to all lots within a subdivision and throughout the limits of the property to
adjoining properties. Such facilities shall meet all regulations and specifications of the Frederick
County Sanitation Authority or other applicable federal, state or local agencies.
A. Central sewer or water systems. Any person proposing the construction of a central
sewer or water facility shall obtain a written agreement with the Frederick County
Sanitation Authority, prior to final subdivision plat approval, which states that said
facility shall become the property of the Sanitation Authority. Such systems shall only be
constructed if they are in conformance with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive
Plan.
B. Private sewage systems. Installation of privately owned sewage collection and treatment
facilities shall meet all the requirements of the State Water Control Board, the Virginia
Department of Health and any other state or local agencies having authority over such
installations. Such facilities shall not be designated or utilized to serve more than one
residence.
C. Individual on-lot systems. The Subdivision Administrator shall not approve any
subdivision where a public sanitary sewer system is not provided unless a written
statement from the local health official is present to the effect that the area contained in
each subdivided lot is satisfactory for the installation of an on-site sewage disposal
system. These requirements shall not apply to a parent tract that is part of a minor rural
subdivision, so long as said parent tract remains a minimum of 20 acres after the
subdivision.
tracts subdivided for agricultural purposes in minor rural subdivision.
D
MC
G
H
E
E
R
D
43 94 73
43 A 16
43 A 19
43 19 64
43 19 43
43 19 63
43 19 40
43 19 31
43 19 61
43 19 62
43 94 72
43 19 60
43 19 65
43 1959A
43 19 59
43 19 58
43 19 66
43 19 54
43 19 67
43 19 44
43 A 15B43 20 16
SitePlan0112
Applications
Parcels
Building Footprints
B1 (Business, Neighborhood District)
B2 (Business, General Distrist)
B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District)
EM (Extractive Manufacturing District)
HE (Higher Education District)
M1 (Industrial, Light District)
M2 (Industrial, General District)
MH1 (Mobile Home Community District)
MS (Medical Support District)
OM (Office - Manufacturing Park)
R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
R5 (Residential Recreational Community District)
RA (Rural Area District)
RP (Residential Performance District)0 150 30075 Feet
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: July 02, 2012Staff: mcheran
RT37 N
TYSO
N
D
R
LENO
I
R
D
R
UN
I
O
N
V
I
E
W
L
N
WE
L
L
T
O
W
N
R
D
MCG
H
E
E
R
D
GL
O
U
C
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
CE
N
T
U
R
Y
L
N
TYSO
N
D
R
0137
GLENDOBB
I
N
R
D
GLENDOB
B
I
N
R
D
RT37, ACCESS
AP
P
L
E
P
I
E
R
I
D
G
E
R
D
MARTINS
B
U
R
G
P
I
K
E
MARTINSBU
R
G
P
I
K
E
KE
N
T
M
E
R
E
C
T
MA
R
T
I
N
S
B
U
R
G
E
X
I
T
R
A
M
P
S
M
A
R
T
I
N
S
B
U
R
G
E
X
I
T
R
A
M
P
S
FORTRESS DRWILLIAMS CIR
I
8
1
,
A
C
C
E
S
S
WE
L
L
T
O
W
N
R
D
MCGH
E
E
R
D
GL
O
U
C
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
WE
L
L
T
O
W
N
R
D
W
E
L
L
T
O
W
N
R
D
LEN
O
I
R
D
R
TYSO
N
D
R
W
E
L
L
T
O
W
N
R
D
MCGHEE RD
MCG
H
E
E
R
D
Site PlanStonewall WarehousingPINs:43 - 19 - 65
Site PlanStonewall WarehousingPINs:43 - 19 - 65