Loading...
PC 10-19-11 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia October 19, 2011 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) September 7, 2011 Minutes............................................................................................. (A) 3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) Conditional Use Permit 909-11 for Sarah Hott, for a Cottage Occupation — Hair Salon. The property is located at 99 Plantation Drive, and is identified with Property Identification Number 65B -4-A-9 in the Red Bud Magisterial District, Mr. Johnston.................................................................................................................... (B) COMMISSION DISCUSSION 6) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165 Zoning, Article I General Provisions, Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 General Provisions, 165- 101.02 Definitions and word usage; Article II Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 201 Supplementary Use Regulations, 165-201.08 Protection of environmental features - Riparian Buffers. Revisions to the riparian buffer requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance Mrs. Perkins...................................................................................................................... (C) 7) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165 Zoning, Article II Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers, and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204 Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, 165-204.19 Telecommunications facilities, commercial - Revisions to commercial telecommunication facilities of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Perkins...................................................................................................................... (D) 8) Other FILE COPY MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COYI-MRSSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on September 7, 2011. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chainnan/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; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Philip E. Lemieux, Red Bud District; Jennifer Beatley, City of Winchester Planning Commission Liaison; and Rod Williams, County Attorney. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; 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. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the September 7, 2011, Planning Commission agenda for this evening's meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of July 6, 2011 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of August 3, 2011 were unanimously approved as presented. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2793 Minutes of September 7, 2011 COMMITTEE REPORTS Sanitation Authority — 8/16/11 Mtg. Commissioner Unger stated the Sanitation Authority reported a slight increase in water usage than normal for last month. A significant leak was discovered in front of the Food Lion on Route 277 and the Authority hopes the repair of this leak will bring the water usage back down. Smaller leaks were found in other areas of the County. The Authority filed a violation with Stephens City over the rag problem. Also discussed was the problem of persons who haul water from fire hydrants, for such things as swimming pools, because the Authority is not being paid for water lost. Work is continuing on placing a new cover for the Parkins Mill Plant for the odor problem. The Sanitation Authority is working on a proposal whereby owners or leasees of rental units would be required to submit a down payment or deposit for water service. Frequently, when the leasee leaves the rental unit, the Authority is not getting paid for the previous month's water. Lastly, work has begun on formulating a drought plan. Economic Development Commission (EDC) — 8/05/11 & 9/02/11 Mtgs. Commissioner Madagan reported that on August 5, the EDC reviewed the first quarter project list which includes the website revamp; the O -Zone Early Action Plan; Pro -active Marketing; Career Awareness Program; Business Showcase Program; and the EDC Strategy Update for the first quarter. Additionally, the EDC reviewed the Board of Directors survey results and implemented some minor change plans based on the findings. The EDC discussed the update of the website in more detail and the project status. Commissioner Madagan reported that on September 2, the EDC strategy was discussed. Since both the City and the County recently updated their Comprehensive Policy Plans, it was felt the EDC should try to frame their strategy based on the economic development portions of those plans and they will be reaching out to the staff members of both localities to seek presentations at their November meeting. City of Winchester Planning Commission — 8/16/11 Mtg. Ms. Jennifer Beatley, City of Winchester Planning Commissioner, reported that the Planning Commission for the City of Winchester recommended to City Council the rezoning of a parcel of land from HR1 to HR; recommended approval of a request to vacate a strip off west Clifford Street to an adjacent property owner; and recommended denial of a request to vacate a portion of the North Kent Street right-of-way to an adjacent property owner. Frederick County Planning Commission rage iy4 Minutes of September 7, 2011 -3 - KICKOFF FOR SENSENY/EASTERN FREDERICK URBAN AREA PLAN Chairman Wilmot announced two public introduction meetings for the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan to be held in September to introduce the study, seek early input, and to encourage participation in the study and working groups. Chairman Wilmot described which area the study will encompass and the intended purpose of the study. Those two meetings were scheduled for Thursday, September 15, 2011, at 7:00 p.m., at the Millwood Station Volunteer Fire & Rescue facility at 252 Costello Drive; and, Tuesday, September 20, 2011, at 7:00 p.m., at the Greenwood Mill Elementary School, at 281 Charming Drive. She encouraged the public to get involved and provided the website. 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 comment portion of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit #08-11 of Smithfield Properties to re-establish a discontinued non- conforming use in order to enable construction of a single-family dwelling. The property is located at 417 Frog Hollow Road, and is identified with P.I.N. 22-A-20 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Zoning Inspector, Dana Johnston, provided the history and background information for this parcel. Mr. Johnston reported that staff's research indicated a dwelling was established on the property prior to 1970 and aerial photos from 1988 to 2001 show a dwelling on the property. However, the dwelling burned down on June 2, 2004, as evidenced by a newspaper article in the Winchester Star; he said the house was not replaced. Mr. Johnston stated that a survey by Artz & Associates, land surveyors, dated December 7, 2007, indicates the burnt dwelling's foundation encroached on the western property line up to 2.2 feet. He noted that a manufactured structure has recently been brought onto the site in an effort to re-establish a dwelling. He also noted the property's size, building setback requirements, and existing septic drainfield has rendered the property a challenge to place the dwelling. Mr. Johnston stated the re-establishment of the residential nonconforming use would enable the dwelling to be placed on the site in the general vicinity of the previously -existing dwelling. Mr. Johnston explained that the applicant purchased the property in 2007. In 2009, application for a building permit was made to establish a new dwelling in the general location where the burnt dwelling previously stood. A complaint was received regarding the construction of a dwelling on the property, as well as the dwelling placement being too close to the adjacent southwestern property line. He reported that upon further research, staff detennined that while the location of the new dwelling was consistent with that of the burnt dwelling, more than 12 months had passed since the dwelling burned and the placement near the adjacent property line was no longer legally nonconforming. It was determined Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2795 Minutes of September 7, 2011 that the ability to place the dwelling on the property and its placement in the vicinity of the burnt dwelling would require the re-establishment of the legally nonconforming use, achieved with the approval of a conditional use permit. Mr. Johnston concluded that based on the documentation provided, the staff believed this property met the intent of the zoning ordinance in respect to re-establish a nonconforming use and is appropriate. He said the new dwelling will be less nonconforming than the original use due to the house being constructed five feet from the property line, unlike the previous dwelling which was constructed over the property line. Commissioner Thomas commented that because the previous dwelling was 2.2 feet over the property line, the nonconforming' use category would still not allow the new dwelling to be constructed over the property line. He commented this application was in a gray area as to whether it was a nonconforming use. Commissioner Thomas asked if there was a topographic issue involved that would prevent the proposed dwelling from being constructed closer to the front of the property and allow the structure to meet the setbacks. Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated that part of the challenge is the applicant is using the existing well and drainfield; he said the dwelling can't be moved closer to the front because it would encroach on the existing drainfield. In addition, the size of the parcel and building setbacks limit the area for placement of the structure. Mr. Lawrence said it was the applicant's contention that they had an existing foundation and a history of a house placed at this general location; therefore, if the house is kept five feet within the property, the impact has been lessened on the adjoining property and re- establishing a dwelling where one previously existed could take place. Mr. Richard Butcher, co-owner of Smithfield Properties, the applicant, was present to answer questions from the Planning Commission. Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments and called for anyone wishing to speak regarding the proposed conditional use permit. The following person came forward to speak: Mr. Earl Nicholson, Jr., adjoining property owner, expressed his concern about the placement of the new dwelling so close to his property line and up on a hill overlooking his home. He was also concerned about the mounding of dirt onto his property in an effort to level land for the new structure. He thought the previous dwelling was placed illegally. Mr. Nicholson believed the placement of the new structure would negatively affect his property's value. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Thomas inquired of the applicant if there was a Health Department drawing showing the location of the sanitary drainfield and Mr. Butcher replied yes. Commissioner Thomas asked if the drainfield location would preclude moving the structure forward and Mr. Butcher replied yes. Mr. Butcher said the septic tanks and lids would have to be moved and the well is located behind the proposed structure. Mr. Butcher commented that he was placing a 24 -foot by 35 -foot modular home consisting of two bedrooms and one bathroom. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2796 Minutes of September 7, 2011 -5 - Commissioner Unger asked if the piers for the structure were in place. Mr. Butcher replied the footings have been dug, piers are in place, and inspections have been passed. Mr. Butcher said the structure is on its foundation and hurricane straps are hooked up. Mr. Butcher said he received his building permit in March of 2010. Commissioner Unger questioned how the applicant was able to obtain a building permit for a nonconforming structure. Mr. Johnston interjected that the issuance of the building permit was an oversight. He said the permit was signed based on the information provided during review of the building permit. He said the conditional use permit is being used as a remedy to correct this oversight. Mr. Lawrence clarified that the information submitted with the building permit application stated that the applicant wanted to replace a burned -out house. However, the burned structure occurred five years earlier and the zoning ordinance only allows placement of a non -conforming house within 12 months of being destroyed. Mr. Lawrence said this situation could be remedied through the conditional use permit (CUP) process, which is re-establishing a legally nonconforming use, or through the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). He said staff believed the CUP route was the most logical because there was a clear history documenting a structure existed on this property, rather than trying to get all of the setbacks waived. Mr. Lawrence said this is not a traditional CUP because there are no conditions and the permit cannot be revoked. Commissioner Unger inquired about the procedure for handling a future complaint, since the CUP could not be revoked. Mr. Rod Williams, Legal Counsel for the Planning Commission, replied it would ultimately be enforced through the violation process, which would go through the court process for adjudication. Commission members continued to discuss at length the issues involved with this application. Commissioner Kriz stated that he visited the site and although the site had an approved health permit, he did not think the existing septic field would meet current Health Department standards. Commissioner Kriz thought the options to resolve this situation were limited. Commissioner Kriz next made a motion to approve the CUP as presented. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and passed by the following majority vote: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL): Crosen, Ambrogi, Manuel, Oates, Madagan, Kriz, Triplett, Lemieux, Wilmot NO: Unger, Crockett, Thomas, Mohn BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 408-11 of Smithfield Properties to re-establish a discontinued nonconforming use in order to enable construction of a single-family dwelling at 417 Frog Hollow Road. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2797 Minutes of September 7, 2011 RELIANCE ROAD AREA LAND USE PLAN — An amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan, Appendix I, to include a new area plan for the Reliance Road area of Frederick County. The Reliance Road Area Plan introduces future commercial and technology land use designations to an area totaling approximately 311 acres. This plan includes provisions for transportation improvements to accommodate the land use designations. At this time, the plan does not include an expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Reliance Road Area Land Use Plan encompasses the area generally east of I-81 and the Town of Middletown, along Reliance Road, within the Opequon Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, reported that in the Spring 2010, the Town of Middletown approached Frederick County seeking a boundary line adjustment (BLA) between the two jurisdictions. The request included the support of the major land owners within the proposed BLA area. Mr. Lawrence said the County agreed to evaluate the Town's request and the Reliance Road Steering Committee (RRSC) was convened and consisted of elected officials of both jurisdictions. He said the RRSC identified three steps in the process towards a possible BLA: 1) adopt a Land Use Plan for the identified area; 2) evaluate provisions for water and sewer service to the area; and 3) consider the BLA. Mr. Lawrence stated that the Reliance Road Area Land Use Plan has been discussed and studied at various levels of local government and by citizens at a public meeting over the past year. Mr. Lawrence reported that the proposed land use plan identifies future commercial and technology uses for the 311 -acre study area. The concept includes approximately 44 acres of business uses, such as hotels, restaurants, and gasoline/convenience centers, and approximately 259 acres of technology, such as advanced security, assembly, business services, and life sciences. He said there were no plans for residential land uses. Mr. Lawrence said it was recognized that the I-81 interchange in the immediate vicinity was under-utilized and could be used to support business uses that would cater to the traveling public. Also recognized were the limited water and sewer availabilities and the fact that the plan does not include an expansion of the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). He noted that if the plan is adopted, efforts should be implemented to properly manage the permitted land uses reflective of available water and sewer capacities. He said the SWSA issue would need to be revisited as the Town's water capacities are deemed available to serve the various sites. Mr. Lawrence stated that in addition to the land use concepts, it was recognized that some of the transportation deficiencies will also need to be addressed. He noted that although the interstate interchange functions well today, improvements will need to take place as development occurs. In order to facilitate those improvements, Bucktown Road will need to be relocated and used to facilitate access with the various land bays; the plan also promotes the continuation of the boulevard -type road systems along Reliance Road. Mr. Lawrence said the plan ultimately envisions the Town providing water and sewer. He said it was apparent the sewer capacities are available, however, the water is the limitation. Mr. Lawrence said the Town is continuing to investigate options as to where they might obtain water. Because the land use plan has not identified where the water source would come from, he said this plan solely looks at land use and transportation. Mr. Lawrence commented that suburban -type residential growth is not supported by Frederick County because of the fiscal impacts on the County's system. Mr. Lawrence next introduced Middletown Councilor, John Blaisdell, and Middletown Zoning Administrator, Fred Wharton, who were available to answer questions from the Planning Commission. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2798 Minutes of September 7, 2011 -7 - Commissioner Oates referred to the residential parcels between the future technology and Reliance Road. He said he realized those property owners were most likely electing not to be a part of the land use plan at this time, but as properties change hands in the future, he did not want to have to go through a text amendment process to get those little pieces in. Commissioner Oates asked if there was some mechanism that could be used through the land use plan that would allow those parcels to come in at some point in the future. Mr. Lawrence said the reason the RRSC proposed not to include those property owners is because they were very vocal at the onset that they did not want to be involved. The RRSC believed it was appropriate to respect their rights and leave them out. Mr. Fred Wharton, Zoning Administrator for the Town of Middletown, stated that the Town was having discussions with the City of Winchester about the possibility of obtaining more water. Mr. Wharton said the City Council will be meeting on September 26, 2011 to discuss the Town's request and have indicated they are favorable to supplying the Town with more water. Mr. Wharton said the Town of Middletown has not had an increase in their water supply for 30 years. He said the Town is requesting increments of 10,000 gallons per year for the next 30 years in order to meet the needs for the potential uses across I-81. Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments regarding this land use plan. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Thomas believed this was a good plan, it was an appropriate location, and. the transportation system was available. He stated that if the Town of Middletown could work out the water problem, it would be a very good addition to Frederick County and the Town of Middletown. Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of the Reliance Road Area Land Use Plan. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the Reliance Road Area Land Use Plan. This document is an amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan, Appendix I, to include a new area plan for the Reliance Road area of Frederick County. The Reliance Road Area Plan introduces future commercial and technology land use designations to an area totaling approximately 311 acres. This plan includes provisions for transportation improvements to accommodate the land use designations. At this time, the plan does not include an expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Reliance Road Area Land Use Plan encompasses the area generally east of 1-81 and the Town of Middletown, along Reliance Road, within the Opequon Magisterial District. An amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article II, Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204, Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, 165-204.26 Public Utilities; Article IV, Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401, RA (Rural Areas) District, 165-401.05 Minimum Lot Size; and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article V, Design Standards, 144-024, Lot Requirements. This ordinance amendment consists of revisions to the minimum lot size and setback requirements for lots that contain public utilities. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2799 Minutes of September 7, 2011 ME Action — Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that this proposed subdivision and zoning ordinance text amendment addresses the lot sizes and setbacks for public utilities. Ms. Perkins said this proposed amendment would allow the zoning administrator to establish lot size and setback standards for lots created for the purpose of public utilities. She said the regulations would be applicable to political subdivisions, municipal corporations, VDOT, the Service Authority, as well as the Sanitation Authority. She noted that it waives the health system requirements and establishes a minimum 15 -foot access width. Ms. Perkins stated this amendment was discussed by the Development Review & Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their July 28, 2011 meeting. The DRRC endorsed the amendment and sent it forward to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission discussed the item at their August 3, 2011 meeting and the Board of Supervisors discussed it at their August 10, 2011 meeting. The Board sent the amendment forward for public hearing. Chainnan Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments and called for anyone wishing to speak. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. No questions or issues were raised by the members of the Commission. The Planning Commission believed the amendment was appropriate as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article II, Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204, Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, 165-204.26 Public Utilities; Article IV, Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401, RA (Rural Areas) District, 165-401.05 Minimum Lot Size; and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article V, Design Standards, 144-024, Lot Requirements. This ordinance amendment consists of revisions to the minimum lot size and setback requirements for lots that contain public utilities. An amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 606, Section 165-606.02, Allowed Uses; and Article H, Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204, Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, Section 165-204.12, Motor Vehicle Service Uses and Public Garages. This revision will allow automotive repair shops as a permitted use in the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District and will establish regulations for specific uses. Action — Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this proposed amendment will include automotive repair shops as a permitted use in the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. She said currently, this use is only permitted in the B3 (Industrial Transition) and M2 (Industrial General) Districts, as well as in RA (Rural Areas) with a conditional use permit. Ms. Perkins said the proposed Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2800 Minutes of September 7, 2011 MM amendment would allow all of the uses listed under SIC 752 in the M1 District. She said it also includes some supplementary use restrictions, which address the screening requirements for the storage of inoperable vehicles, as well as a prohibition of automobile sales as an accessory use for auto shops in the RA, M1, and M2 Districts. Ms. Perkins said the Development Review & Regulations Committee (DRRC) discussed this amendment at their May 26, 2011 meeting; the Planning Commission discussed the amendment at their meeting on July 6, 2011; and the Board of Supervisors discussed the amendment at their meeting on July 27, 2011 and instructed the staff to forward the amendment for public hearing. Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing for citizen comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. No questions or issues were raised by the members of the Commission. The Planning Commission believed the amendment was appropriate as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, 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 VI, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 606, Section 165-606.02, Allowed Uses; and Article II, Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204, Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, Section 165-204.12, Motor Vehicle Service Uses and Public Garages. This revision will allow automotive repair shops as a permitted use in the Ml (Light Industrial) Zoning District and will establish regulations for specific uses. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Discussion of a proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article H, Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers, and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 203, Buffers and Landscaping, Section 165-203.01, Landscaping Requirements, and Section 165-203.02 Buffer and_ Screening Requirements. This proposed amendment provides revisions to the landscaping requirements within the zoning ordinance. Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that over the years, the staff has encountered issues regarding the landscaping requirements contained within the zoning ordinance. Specifically, concerns have been expressed over the allowable plant types, maintenance of plants, enforcement and bonding, residential separation buffers, and road efficiency buffers. Mr. Perkins stated that in order to resolve these issues and make the landscaping ordinance easier to understand and implement, the staff has drafted proposed changes to the landscaping requirements contained within the zoning ordinance. Ms. Perkins reviewed the proposed changes with the Commission. Those changes included: types of landscaping; provisions for the condition, planting procedures, and maintenance of landscaping; provisions for the replacement of dead or dying plants; provisions for removal of landscaping; maintenance of fences and walls; revisions to existing trees credit sections; revisions to the Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2801 Minutes of September 7, 2011 -10 - enforcement and monetary guarantee provisions; revised buffer and screening text; as well as revisions to the residential separation buffers and road efficiency buffer sections. Ms. Perkins stated that the Development Review & Regulations Committee (DRRC) first reviewed these changes back in October 2009 and then again in May and July of 2011. At the July meeting, the DRRC endorsed the changes and recommended they be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. Ms. Perkins recognized Mr. Jay Banks, a member of the DRRC who was present at this evening's meeting, for his considerable assistance with the proposed amendment. Chairman Wilmot also recognized Mr. Jay Banks and thanked him for all his work and input on the DRRC. Chairman Wilmot asked Mr. Perkins how this amendment would benefit Frederick County and also, how would it benefit the user/developer. Ms. Perkins said the proposed amendment provides more options for landscaping types and species; it provides text language that is easier to understand; and, it addresses concerns raised over the years by landscapers. Ms Perkins said the revisions create a better, user-friendly ordinance. Commissioner Thomas referred to Page 11, Subparagraph 4, The buffer width maybe reduced by to twenty percent (20%) when the line of sight from the traveling lane is at least ten (10) feet above the rear yard elevation of the ground floor of the dwelling. Commissioner Thomas said his interpretation was the language should be opposite and state, "when the line of site ... is at least ten feet below the rear yard..." because a physical buffer of the topography would push the sound upward instead of having it go down into the rear yard. Commissioner Thomas said if the house was on top of the hill and the road below, the road noise is not going to travel up to the house; however, if the house is below and the road above, the noise comes down to the house. Ms. Perkins said she would take another look at the wording to see what could be done. Commissioner Oates asked if the Poplar tree species could be added as an option to the landscaping list. He said the Poplar species is similar to the Sycamore and is recommended in some of the BMPs (best management practices). Ms. Perkins thanked the Commission for their comments and said she would forward those comments to the Board of Supervisors for their discussion. Discussion of a proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401, RA (Rural Areas) District, Section 165-401.02; and Part 402 RP (Residential Performance) District, Section 165-402.02. This proposed amendment provides revisions to the permitted uses in the RA and RP Zoning Districts. Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that this revision includes additional permitted uses in the RA (Rural Areas) and RP (Residential Performance) Zoning Districts. Specifically, the amendment would add "public buildings" as a permitted use in the RA and RP Districts; "libraries" as a permitted use in the RA District; and "museums" as a permitted use in the RP District. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2802 Minutes of September 7, 2011 -11- Ms. 11_ Ms. Perkins said this item was discussed at the Development Review & Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their meeting on July 27, 2011. She said the DRRC endorsed the proposed amendment and forwarded it to the Planning Commission for discussion. The Plarming Commission had no immediate questions or concerns with the proposed amendment and believed the changes were appropriate as presented. CANCELATION OF THE COMAUSSION'S SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 MEETIIQG Chainman Wilmot announced there were no pending items for the Planning Commission's September 21, 2011 meeting. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to cancel the September 21, 2011 meeting. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:15 pan. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2803 Minutes of September 7, 2011 C: • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #09-11 cw��G ` ooG SARAH HOTT w Staff Report for the Planning Commission w Prepared: September 23, 2011 Staff Contact: Dana M. Johnston, Zoning Inspector 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 Action Planning Commission: 10/19/11 Pending Board of Supervisors: 11/09/11 Pending EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request for a Cottage Occupation — Hair Salon. 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. No signage allowed with this Conditional Use Permit. 3. Hours of operation shall be permitted from 9:00 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 4. Hair salon is limited to eight customers per day. 5. Other than applicant, one other employee is permitted. 6. Any expansion or change of use shall 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. Page 2 CUP #09-11, Sarah Hott September 23, 2011 LOCATION: This property is located at 99 Plantation Drive. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 65B -4-A-9 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residence ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residence South: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residence East: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residence West: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residence PROPOSED USE: This application is for a Cottage Occupation — Hair Salon. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virl4inia Department of Transportation: The application for a Conditional Use Permit for this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 792, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. During business hours, applicant to provide adequate space for customer parking to allow customers to park and turn around so the customer does not have to back into Route 792. Should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT commercial standards. Frederick County Fire Marshall: Plans approved as submitted. Frederick County Inspections: Area may be required to comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 302 — B, Business Use Group of the International Building Code/2009. Other Code that applies is ICC/ANSI Al 17.1-03 Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. Note: The 2006 Uniform Statewide Building Code can be utilized up to March 1, 2012. Conditional Use of existing basement area as hair salon: A change of use permit is required. Please submit a detailed floor plan with your permit. A Plumbing Permit is required for the sink installation. A mechanical permit is required for the installation of the required ventilation. (T403.3, IMC 09 — 20 cfm/person is required for Beauty Salons.) An accessible entrance is provided. Lever type hardware shall be provided on all doors along the accessible route and business areas. Existing paved parking area meet ANSI Al 17.1-03 for slopes and Page 3 CUP #09-11, Sarah Hott September 23, 2011 unloading area. Accommodations shall be provided for persons with disabilities. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: This site is currently served by the Sanitation Authority. Planning and Zoning: The 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County ("Comprehensive Plan") provides guidance when considering land use actions. A hair salon is a permitted use as a cottage occupation in the RP (Residential Performance) zoning district with an approved Conditional Use Permit. The proposed use will take place on a half acre parcel located in the RP (Residential Performance) zoning district. The proposed use will take place within the applicant's dwelling in a 23'x 11' room, accessed by an exterior door leading to a paved driveway. The hair salon is equipped with one hair salon sink and two hair salon chairs. The applicant feels that 12 p.m. through 5 p.m., Tuesday through Saturday, four customers per day, and no employees is sufficient with operating this hair salon. However, staff is considering flexibility and future expansion and believes that 9 a.m. through 5 p.m., Monday through Saturday, eight customers per day and allowing for an additional employee would be appropriate for this CUP. There will be no signs with this Conditional Use Permit. Based upon the limited scale of the proposed use and evaluation of the property, it appears this would not have any significant impacts on the adjoining properties. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 10/19/11 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: 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. No signage allowed with this Conditional Use Permit. 3. Hours of operation shall be permitted from 9:00 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 4. Hair salon is limited to eight customers per day. 5. Other than applicant, one other employee is permitted. 6. Any expansion or change of use shall 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. F 65B 1 C 64 �5B 1 C+70 a C 72 65B v74 B* dS6 i � 656 51 C+76 65B 1 C+78 6'5B 3 B 53 �� 1d 1' 4 fy \AM. mom `i 65B a A13 65B 4 M A 12 65B 4 0 656 a 65B 4 b5B 3 B 41 6563 656.3 B 42 8 45 • � �5B 3 B"g Baa • a7 65B 3 � B 46 + r 659 3 B 48 6 656 3 �6g5TB�• B 50 3 • 656'3 -RT-92 65B 3 i 65613 Application C1Parcels Building Footprints B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) 62 (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) r 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) 6;29 65B 3 W. -A5 rA is UU00 moo Ir, � 797 ,). LVWinchester 4 i CUP #09-11 Sarah Hott PIN: 65B - 4 - A - 9 Cottage Occupation Hair Salon 0 75 150 Note: Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development N Kent St Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 540 - 665 - 5651 Map Created: Sept 13, 2011 Staff: djohnston 300 Feet Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting h BOS Meeting``— APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (7 -he applicant if the owner other) NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE �e` 9 3Cq 2. Please list all owners, occupants (adult individuals as well as any entities occupying the property), or parties in the interest of the property: 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) 4. The property has a road frontage of .j0 Ll;r feet and a depth of feet and consists of acres. acres . (Please be exact 5. The property is owned by S(' _�&as evidenced by deed from L recorded (orevicus owner) in deed book no. on page , as recorded in the records of .he Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. Tax(Parcel)Identification (I.D.)No. 65 cj Magisterial District Current Zoning dLe— (� 7. Adjoining Property: USE North e East South CI Westld� ZONING The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) 9. It is proposed that,the following buildings will be constructed: 10. The following are all of the individuals, finks, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: 5 � i NAME Ln� `j f ''i ADDRESS�`(� PROPERTY ID# NAME S -t ADDRESS �^ �, :jam PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS 5 05-0 ON PROPERTY ID# �V NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. - 14 71) Aeolo)s .41 P� OTHER 51 701 70 58 W 3 Jl. > N � � a m c y c W N N N J W y 75' 10 W_ 2 3 S f 58.34 MAR KER - CONCRETE .71 — N88' 11-11-57 WINCHESTER FREDERICK HEALTH DEPT. WILLIAM D. MASH WILLIAM D. NASH, SANITARIAN A L. LIN DAL L A. L. LINDALL. M.O. HEALTH DIRECTOR APPROVED BY, COMMON COUNCIL. CITY OF WINCHESTER.. Wi-tOYEMBER 12, 1937 s_ 1 _ :RANT CITY MANAGER OTHER LAND rte' wsawt- u aul-me zzw rc = F z" 00 oa 210' i• WY zzwozusoun 131 a -{-W<z0k. 111 OMUO I ; 10, 'A 01rwOm On WM Wspp Q CZ 4M�F JW z amuox W 1D 'ZU' I-4cc S0ZWZO1- CO �8SW0 W WJ> i.,aast ~Y. W W0U. wo FdtYW J.� ld- =4110z$sa0OWid a tFt ~"y .a 'JOWaO w W JJUU WWO =<ZZ<u2Z In FzOFdteto- qq CC O sinzzac r t I�� u� W.ao=Sz - _oo;<J quo mZF.WJ Zen NJWZ3MZV i A 70 70 58' ' W J > C p1I A 0 N H H z Q 8 9 a ' 58.34 CO CRETE MARKER SEN S E-_ ?u, (.r�I 0 Nov. 11, 1057 APPROVED FOR VA. DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS BY, C. H. COFFMAN, RES. EHGR. NOV. I1, 1957 APPROVED FOR FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF Si BY: C. M. ROSENBERGER CHAIRMAI OTHER LAND 210' LAND 131 I ; 10, f 0: 0' 70' 70' 58 OTHER1LAND 1 W I a a mI M- In nn qq CC y I�� - N ty 210' - _ z �- t z 1061 13 14 15 / °14 o S 88 38' E - 211.29 1 70. 58.3 N CONCRETE MARKER 657 --�— R T. _ R AD B. 8. B. REALTY CO. BURNING KNOLLS SUBDIVISION SECTION "A" SENSENY ROAD SHAWNEE DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA it, = 100` OCTOBER, 1957 LEE A. EBERT, C. L. S. Nov. 11, 1057 APPROVED FOR VA. DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS BY, C. H. COFFMAN, RES. EHGR. NOV. I1, 1957 APPROVED FOR FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF Si BY: C. M. ROSENBERGER CHAIRMAI 12. Additional continents, if any:�'N Loifaw-�- rwrl ncUn+t-) 0oua'a I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address Owners' Telephone No.(1�- -;q TO BE COMPLETED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CGDE: RENEWAL DATE: WA t� Cr0��. • L • COUNTY of F REMERICK 11,vpartmeni of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM O 1�L-� iJ p N �, M 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planneru Subject: Discussion — Riparian Buffers Date: October 3, 2011 Staff has been requested to review the riparian buffer requirements contained within the Zoning Ordinance and the provisions for disturbing and crossing them. Pertinent definitions to this amendment are as follows: • RIPARIAN BUFFER - An area of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation that permits inundation by water and is at least 35 feet in width, measured outward from both sides of a natural waterway beginning along the slope of the ground from the channel scar line. A riparian buffer is managed to maintain the integrity of stream channels and reduce the effect of upland sources of pollution by trapping, filtering, and converting sediments, nutrients, and other chemicals. • NATURAL WATERWAY - Creeks, streams, runs, or other annual or perennial waterways identified on United States Geological Survey, Commonwealth of Virginia or Frederick County maps. • ACCESS - A way or means of vehicular or pedestrian approach to provide physical entrance to a property. • STREET - A roadway dedicated to or owned by Frederick County or the Virginia Department of Transportation; also, existing privately owned rights-of-way which serve as the principal means of access to more than one property. • ROADS - A street dedicated to or owned by Frederick County or the Virginia Department of Transportation; also, existing privately owned rights-of-way which serve as the principal means of access to more than one property. In accordance with §165-201.08 - Protection of environmental features. Wetlands, natural waterways, and riparian buffers - Disturbance of wetlands is only permitted in accordance with the requirements of the United States Army Corps of Engineers or other qualified state or federal agency. The disturbance of natural waterways and riparian buffers is prohibited, except when necessary for public utilities, public facilities, or roads. Therefore, under the current definitions and ordinances, riparian buffers cannot be disturbed for the construction of new private roads or for private access to any property. Staff has prepared an ordinance amendment that includes the following: • Amendment to allow riparian buffers to be disturbed for the following: o Public or private utilities; o Public facilities, access to a property or roads; o Riparian buffer restoration or enhancement projects; 0 6r dop w1ands; 10 North ent treet, Suite 202 ® '"Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Planning Commission Discussion Riparian Buffers October 3, 2011 o Pedestrian, recreational and/or bicycle trails; and, o Planning Commission waiver to allow for the disturbance of riparian buffers for the creation of park areas or for stormwater management purposes. • Amendments to the definition of "road" and "street" to remove the word "existing". The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their July and September 2011 meetings. The DRRC endorsed the amendment with minor changes and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by the DRRC (with bold italic for text added). This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Attachment: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics. CEP/bad Attachment 1 ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS § 165-101.02 Definitions & word usage. RIPARIAN BUFFER - An area of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation that permits inundation by water and is at least 35 feet in width, measured outward from both sides of a natural waterway beginning along the slope of the ground from the channel scar line. A riparian buffer is managed to maintain the integrity of stream channels and reduce the effect of upland sources of pollution by trapping, filtering, and converting sediments, nutrients, and other chemicals. ROAD - A street dedicated to or owned by Frederick County or the Virginia Department of Transportation; also, eXiStiRg privately owned rights-of-way which serve as the principal means of access to more than one property. STREET - A roadway dedicated to or owned by Frederick County or the Virginia Department of Transportation; also, existing privately owned rights-of-way which serve as the principal means of access to more than one property. Article II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES § 165-201.08 Protection of environmental features. B. All developments which require a rezoning, master development plan, subdivision design plan, site plan, or preliminary sketch plan shall preserve the following environmental features as described: (3) Wetlands, natural waterways, and riparian buffers. Disturbance of wetlands is only permitted in accordance with the requirements of the United States Army Corps of Engineers or other qualified state or federal agency. The disturbance of natural waterways and riparian buffers is prohibited, except when necessary for, and onlyin conformance with Part 702, the following: i. Public or private utilities; ii. Public facilities, access to a property or roads (only perpendicular riparian buffer crossings shall be permitted); iii. Riparian buffer restoration or enhancement projects; iv. Creation of wetlands; v. Pedestrian, recreational and/orbicycle trails; and, vi. The Planning Commission may allow for the disturbance of riparian buffers for the creation of park areas or for stormwater management purposes. C • • COUNTY of FREDERICK T',epardr�'leapt of Planning and Developnient MEMORA ND T 540/665-5655 (�J ��AX: 540/665-6395 To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Candice E. Perkins, A1CP, Senior Planner Subject: Discussion — Commercial Telecommunication Towers Date: October 3, 2011 I - Staff has been requested to revise § 165-204.19 - Telecommunications facilities, commercial. The primary changes proposed are as follows: Changes to the introductory language to include recognition of a 15.2-2232(A) (Code of Virginia) review in the ordinance. • Addition of language that states there must be a need for a facility. o Clarifying that co -location efforts should extend to buildings and structures generally and not just existing telecommunication towers. The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their meeting on September 22, 2011. The DRRC endorsed the amendment with minor changes and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by the DRRC. This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Attachment: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics and deletions shown in striliethrough-. CEP/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Attachment 1 § 165-204.19 Telecommunications facilities, commercial. Fief -o—sec4iefi is o enstffe that the sitiffg of No commercial telecommunication dies facility shall be sited, constructed, or operated except pursuant to a ^,,,.,,_ +i,,.,,,, conditional use permit issued through the publie hear-ing process defined in Part 103 of Article I of this chapter. Commercial telecommunication facilities that locate on existing structures and towers shall be exempt from the conditional use permit requirement. The issuance of a conditional use permit for the siting, construction, and operation of a commercial telecommunication des acili is permitted within the zoning districts specified in this chapter, provided that, pursuant to Section 15.2-2232(A) of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), the general location or approximate location, character, and extent of such facilities is substantially in accord with the adopted comprehensive plan or part thereof and that adjoining properties, residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas and properties of significant historic value are not negatively impacted. A. Information required as part of the conditional use permit application and that the Plannin Commission and the Board of Supervisors may consider in acting on the application shall include, but not be limited to, the following: _ (1) Information regarding the need for the facility, including but not necessarily limited to usage statistics, operational data, and maps and reports showing current and anticipated radio frequency propqp_,ation. (1) (2)A map depicting the search area used in siting e-'� the proposed commercial communications facility. (2) (3)ldentification of all service providers and commercial telecommunication facility infrastructure within a proposed search area. The applicant shall provide confirmation that an attempts to collocate on an existing structures or towers teleeaffhqitmioatie faeility has have been made and, if such attempts were unsuccessful, the reasons so. (J) Information demonstrating that the proposed commercial telecommunication facility is in compliance with the Federal Communication Commission's established ANSUIEEE standards for electromagnetic field levels and radio frequency radiation. (4) L5JAn affidavit signed by the landowner and by the owner of the facility stating that xis they are aware that a either or both of them may be held responsible for the removal of the commercial telecommunications facility as stated in § 165- 204.19B(7)." B. If the Board of Su ervisors rants a conditional use permit under this section the The following standards shall then apply to any property in which a commercial telecommunication facility is sited, in order to promote orderly development and mitigate the negative impacts to adjoining properties, residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas and properties of significant historic value: Attachment 1 (1) The Planning Commission may reduce the required setback distance for commercial telecommunication facilities as required by § 165-201.03B(8) of this chapter if it can be demonstrated that the location is of equal or lesser impact. When a reduced setback is requested for a distance less than the height of the tower, a certified Virginia engineer shall provide verification to the Planning Commission that the tower is designed, and will be constructed, in a manner that if the tower collapses for any reason the collapsed tower will be contained in an area around the tower with a radius equal to or lesser than the setback, measured from the center line of the base of the tower. In no case shall the setback distance be reduced to less than 1/2 the distance of the tower height. Commercial telecommunication facilities axed to existing structures shall be exempt from setback requirements, provided that they are located no closer to the adjoining property line than the existing structure. (2) Monopole -type construction shall be required for new commercial telecommunication towers. The Board of Supervisors may allow lattice -type construction for new telecommunication towers when existing or planned residential areas will not be impacted and when the site is not adjacent to identified historical resources. (3) Advertising shall be prohibited on commercial telecommunication facilities except for signage providing ownership identification and emergency information. No more than two signs shall be permitted. Such signs shall be limited to 1.5 square feet in area and shall be posted no higher than 10 feet above grade. (4) When lighting is required on commercial telecommunication facility towers, dual lighting shall be utilized which provides daytime white strobe lighting and nighttime red pulsating lighting unless otherwise mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications Commission. Strobe lighting, shall be shielded from ground view to mitigate illumination to neighboring properties. Equipment buildings and other accessory structures operated in conjunction with commercial telecommunication facility towers shall utilize infrared lighting and motion -detector lighting to prevent continuous illumination. (5) Commercial telecommunication facilities shall be constructed with materials of a galvanized finish or painted a noncontrasting blue or gray unless otherwise mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal Communication Commission. (6) Commercial telecommunication facilities shall be adequately enclosed to prevent access by persons other than employees of the service provider. Appropriate landscaping and opaque screening shall be provided to ensure that equipment buildings and other accessory structures are not visible from adjoining properties, roads or other rights-of- way. (7) Any antenna or tower that is not operated for a continuous period of 12 months shall be considered abandoned, and the owner of such tower shall remove same within 90 days of receipt of notice from the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. Removal includes the removal of the tower, all tower and fence footers, Attachment underground cables and support buildings. If there are two or more users of a single tower, then this provision shall not become effective until all users cease using the tower. If the tower is not removed within the ninety -day period, the County will remove the facility and a lien may be placed to recover expenses.