Loading...
PC 07-19-06 Meeting AgendaFILE COPY AGE? FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia July 19, 2006 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) June 7, 2006 Minutes....................................................................................................... (A) 2) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) Conditional Use Permit #04-06 of Andrew Datt and Paul Anderson for a 150 foot Telecommunications Facility. This property is located at 1009 Germany Road (Route 625), and is identified with Property Identification Number 73-A-100 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (B) 5) Conditional Use Permit #05-06 of Hilltop House, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC, for an Adult Care Facility. This property is located at 111 Denny Lane, just off Route 7, and is identified with Property Identification Number 5513-A-6 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Mr. Henry......................................................................................................................... (C) PUBLIC MEETING 6) Waiver Request of Judith Shifflett, submitted by Artz & Associates, PLC, for an exception of Chapter 144, Article V — Design Standards, § 144-24B — Lot Requirements; Chapter 165, Article VI — RP Residential Performance District, § 165-65(B)3, § 165-65(D)5, and § 165- 65(D)6 for a Boundary Line Adjustment and Consolidation of three parcels. The properties are located 1500 feet north of the intersection of Lauck Drive and Route 522, identified by Property Identification Numbers 53A -A-36 and 53A -A-37 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (D) COMMISSION DISCUSSION 7) Site Plan for Gainesboro Elementary School Ms. Perkins...................................................................................................................... (E) 8) Subdivision of Lenoir City Company of Virginia, Stonewall Industrial Park, regarding Route 37 right-of-way Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (F) 9) Other MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on June 7, 2006. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Philip A. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison; and Lawrence R- Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner, John A. Bishop, Transportation Planner; Candice Perkins, Planner H; Bernard S. Suchicital, Planner; Kevin T. Henry, Planning Technician; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Kerr, the minutes of April 19, 2006 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Kerr, the minutes of May 3, 2006 were unanimously approved as presented. Frederick County Planning Commission D Minutes of June 7, 2006 Page 1756 -2 - COMMITTEE REPORTS Transportation Committee — 05/22/06 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the Transportation Committee discussed the possibility of raising the bus fare in the County from $.50 to $1.00. He said Lord Fairfax passengers were polled to determine the best times for routing the buses. Commissioner Oates said impact fees in the Rural Areas were also discussed. Economic Development Commission (EDC) — 06/02/06 Mtg. Commissioner Thomas said a study developed by the EDC was discussed to educate the public on the cost of commuting. Commissioner Thomas reported that the cost of commuting to Fairfax was $18- 20,000 per year; the cost of commuting to Leesburg was in the $6,000 range; and the cost of commuting to Herndon, along with other surrounding areas, was in between. Commissioner Thomas said the EDC is working on a plan to get this information out to the public. Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 05/25/06 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that the DRRS discussed the possibility of widening the sidewalk width requirement from four feet to five feet. He said additional discussion will take place. City of Winchester Planning Commission City Liaison, Mr. David Shore, stated that the City has begun an 18 -month update of their Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Shore said that some of the interesting projects currently taking place include the Valley Avenue widening, the Papermill Road re -alignment, and initial discussions on the future road going from South Pleasant Valley Road over to the Russell Farm projects. APPOINTMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MODEL COMMITTEE Chairman Wilmot reported that that Board of Supervisors has asked for appointments to Development Impact Model Committee from the Planning Commission. Chairman Wilmot said she was pleased to report that both Commissioner Manual and Commissioner Thomas have agreed to serve. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 7, 2006 Page 1757 -3 - CERTIFIED PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Chairman Wilmot expressed congratulations to two Planning Commissioners, Mr. Paige Manuel and Mr. Gary Oates, for their recent completion of the CPEAV's Certified Planning Commissioners Program. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item not on this evening's agenda; however, no one came forward to speak. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #03-06 of O -N Minerals (Chemstone), submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 639.13 acres, commonly referred to as the Middle Marsh property and the Northern Reserve property, from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Rt. 758), west of Hites Road (Rt. 625) and on both sides of Chapel Road (Rt. 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and Shenandoah County, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Rt. 624). The properties are identified by P.I.N.s 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Denial Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director, reported that this rezoning application was previously presented to the Planning Commission at their April 5, 2006 meeting and was tabled for 60 days. Mr. Ruddy said there were numerous issues that were unresolved and concerns that were discussed at the April 5, 2006 meeting. He said those items included, but were not limited to, the following: the potential impacts associated with the more intensive use of the properties; the applicant had not proffered a commitment to the use of the property beyond those that would be enabled by the broader EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Zoning Classification; the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB), with the collaboration of the historical stakeholder groups, expressed concerns regarding view shed coordination and mitigation and cultural resource surveys on the property; transportation impacts in general were discussed, and more specifically, at the intersection of Route 625, Fifth Street, and Route 11 within the Town of Middletown; potential groundwater, dust, and blasting controls on adjacent properties, along with general environmental concerns, were discussed; and finally, the rural view shed was a topic of discussion. He said the goal of the comments provided previously, and particularly those of the HRAB, were to promote an approach to this rezoning application that was mutually beneficial to the applicant, to the environment, to the adjacent community, to the historic preservation stakeholders, and to the historic context of the surrounding landscape. Mr. Ruddy said that prior to tabling, the Planning Commission provided additional comments to the applicant to assist them in their modification of their rezoning request. He said that since the April 5, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, staff has not received any materials from the applicant towards modification of the rezoning application and the concerns and issues identified at the April 5 Planning Commission meeting remain unaddressed at this time. Mr. Ruddy added that following the mailing of tonight's Planning Commission agenda, the staff received a request to table this application from the applicant's representative. Mr. Ruddy said this request should be considered by the Planning Commission this evening, consistent with the Planning Commission's Bylaws. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 7, 2006 Page 1758 -4 Mr. Ruddy continued, stating that since the April 5, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, the staff has received a significant amount of correspondence regarding the rezoning application, some of which has been included in the agenda; he noted many more letters have been received since the agenda was mailed. Also included with the correspondence is a revised resolution from the Town of Middletown expressing their concerns; a letter from Mr. Woody Bousquet, a local environmentalist related to Shenandoah University; and a letter from the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation. Mr. Ruddy stated that this afternoon, the Commonwealth of Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources, Mr. L. Preston Bryant, requested that the letter included in the Commission's previous agenda be presented again this evening. In addition, Mr. Ruddy said that since the Planning Commission's last meeting, the staff and the applicant met with Mr. David Bennett, with the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy (DMME), to discuss the role of the DMME in the permitting and monitoring of operations such as the Global Chemstone. Commissioner Kriz inquired what other uses could take place on the property besides extractive manufacturing, if the property was rezoned to EM. Mr. Ruddy replied there were a variety of uses, including concrete production, block manufacturing, and other relatively intensive industrial and manufacturing Chairman Wilmot next called for the applicant to come forward. Mr. Joseph Ferrell, the Vice President and General Manager of O -N Minerals Inland Division, which includes the Chemstone operation, stated that through interactions with the staff and the Commission's previous meeting, they understood there were numerous issues involving dust, blasting, viewshed, wells, water conservation, traffic, and other possible land uses. Mr. Ferrell said they were in the process of developing very detailed answers to each of these issues; and, they will need time to work through those issues, as well as the information received from the public this evening. He asked the Commission to table the rezoning to give them the opportunity to fully flush out and address the issues. Mr. Ferrell said he anticipated listening as the citizens made their comments and will incorporate those comments in their efforts to provide a complete and comprehensive package to the Planning Commission. Chairman Wilmot next declared the public hearing open and called for speakers to come forward. Ms. Suzanne Chilson came forward to speak on behalf of the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation in Middletown, which is in the Back Creek District. Ms. Chilson said the Cedar Creek Battlefields Foundation has been working for decades to preserve a small part of the Valley's history and has succeeded in acquiring over 600 acres of the battlefield in Middletown. She said that in 2002, Congress recognized the historic importance and natural beauty of the area and created the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Parks, consisting of over 3,000 acres. Ms. Chilson stated that the Foundation's Board of Directors and members believe that the request by O -N Minerals to change the zoning on 639 acres would not only increase the level of mining and truck traffic on Valley Pike, but would open the door to other intrusive industries, such as concrete and asphalt operations. She noted that these activities would negatively impact the Foundation's property on Cedar Creek, which lies directly downstream from the quarry. Ms. Chilson said the Cedar Creek Battlefields Foundation urges the Planning Commission to carefully consider this request and deny the application in its present form. Ms. Elizabeth McClung, the Executive Director of Belle Grove Plantation in the Back Creek District, presented written statements from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which is the landowner of Belle Grove Plantation, and from Belle Grove Plantation's Board of Directors. Ms. McClung said that Belle Grove Plantation's Board of Directors, the Staff, and volunteers can not support the proposal in its present form. operations have direct impact on Belle Grove and are already problematic in terms She said the quarry's current of Belle Grove's historic landscape and view shed, and for the public safety of visitors from around the world. She said that without significant written revisions to the proposal and careful oversight by the Planning Commission, the Chemstone rezoning application and expansion will only worsen the conditions. Ms. McClung Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 7, 2006 Page 1759 -5 - urged the Planning Commission to readdress all of the recommendations submitted by the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) on January 3, 2006, and require these recommendations to be met before the application is again considered. Ms. McClung said Belle Grove Plantation's main concerns include two: first, view shed impact; they encourage the quarry to work with Belle Grove, the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, and the National Park Service to undertake a comprehensive view shed analysis and to subsequently present a written plan and timeline to mitigate, remove, screen, and/or plant the existing large waste pile to .the northwest of Belle Grove and the existing lime plant, which is visible from both Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Foundation's property. Secondly, the traffic and public safety issues are a concern; the quarry truck traffic through Middletown and along Route 11 is already a challenge for local traffic, as well as visitors. Ms. Stephanie Pendleton, speaking on behalf of the Greater Middletown Business Association, said that Middletown, with a population of about 1,200, currently has no industry since Route 11 Potato Chips moved to New Market, and looks to its few retail businesses as its sole source of business tax income. Ms. Pendleton said these businesses range from live theater to restaurants, hotels, motels, antique shops, and gas station convenience stores; she said these businesses derive the majority of their income from visitors to Middletown, rather than the residents themselves. With that in mind, she said it is critical to their livelihood and ultimately to Middletown itself, that the community continues to be a desirable destination for tourists. Ms_ Pendleton said the rezoning of RA -zoned properties immediately west of Middletown would spell economic disaster for Middletown's member businesses. She said the increase in heavy commercial vehicles would envelope the community in constant background traffic noise; she said existing truck traffic is already intrusive. She noted that with the increased noise pollution comes the added air pollution from commercial traffic which currently deposits a grey layer of fine limestone particles and diesel soot on most exterior surfaces. Ms. Pendleton pointed out that immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of Middletown lies the Nation's newest national park, the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historic Park; she commented that tourists and Virginia residents alike come to the Shenandoah Valley to enjoy the clean air and open vistas. She said thanks to the last 100 years of dedicated conservationists, politicians, and landowners, the public can today enjoy one of the most incredible historical and natural resources within the eastern United States. With that in mind, she asked that the Commission recommend denial of the rezoning application. Mr. Carl Bernhard, a Middletown resident in the Back Creek District, requested that the Commission vote against the proposed rezoning of all the land that borders the one side of small, historic Middletown. Mr. Bernhard said he moved to Middletown just six months ago from Germantown, Maryland to escape the large commercial developments and traffic issues, the very same negative issues that many of the residents fear will come with this rezoning. He believed the rezoning would negatively impact not only the residents' lives today, but the lives of future generations. Mr. Bernhard said that he was not only a fourth- generation resident and great grandson of a quarryman, but the Vice President of the Greater Middletown Business Association, a member of the Garden Club, a member of the Belle Grove and Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, and a member of Preserve Frederick. He said all of the members of these local organizations have voiced grave concerns. He said the rezoning of so much land all at once for the purpose of mining and extraction of water will greatly impact the County as we currently know it; he said the affects of the rezoning will be everlasting and will affect future small businesses from moving into the area. Mr. Bernhard said the increase in the number of commercial trucks alone on Middletown's small main street can and will decrease the desire of many to live in this area. Ms. Theresa Domhen Adams, a resident of Middletown in the Back Creek District, asked what the citizens wanted to surround themselves with, not just the Middletown residents, but Frederick County residents as well. She asked if we wanted to embrace the environment or to scar and destroy it permanently. Ms. Adams stated the mine itself is an eyesore and a pollutant, and to extend that further would be a disgrace. Ms. Adams implored the Commission to recommend denial of the rezoning. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 7, 2006 Page 1760 _6_ Mr. Larry Hamilton, a resident of Back Creek District and a member of Preserve Frederick, said the members of the Preserve Frederick organization oppose the rezoning proposal of O -N Minerals. Mr. Hamilton believed an unsightly strip-mining operation, tangled up with industrial uses and future water storage, will negatively impact historic Middletown's community and Frederick County. Mr. Hamilton said the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan does not provide a direction for addressing massive incompatible land use changes such as this one. He commented that serious issues of liability on many levels may be a future problem; he said the taxpayers and voters will bear the burden and pay the consequences. Mr. Hamilton added that a dirty industrial corridor like this has the potential to affect every citizen in Frederick County and the Shenandoah Region, all the way to the Chesapeake Bay and beyond. He believed this was not simply a vote for mining and heavy industrial uses, but a vote for water, which is wrong. He said the Frederick County Sanitation Authority's (FCSA) connection to this industrial land use application needs to. be completely extracted and thoroughly examined on its own merits in a public forum. Mr. Hamilton commented that Cedar Creek, the National Historic Park, and Middletown, which all enhance the vitality of the County's quality of life, were at risk. Mrs. Wendy Hamilton, a founding member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, said the goal of the Comprehensive Policy Plan is to protect and improve the living environment in Frederick County. Ms. Hamilton commented that although the Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address EM uses, tearing down forests, devastating groundwater sources, and devaluing farms and homes will not work with their countryside community. She said that a loud, dirty industry is not appropriate in a place that supports some of the County's clean industry and where tourists flock to watch Civil War reenactments. She said that O -N Minerals' inaction of not responding promptly with a new application or addressing issues speaks volumes. She added that Congressman Wolf and United States Senators valued this property enough to provide this area with a national treasure and this elegant piece of property deserves respect, stewardship, and protection. She requested that the Commission recommend denial of the rezoning application. Ms. Dale Nichols, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, expressed a variety of concerns regarding impacts to the residents' quality of life, their health, their property values, and the safety of their children. Ms. Nichols' opinion was that view shed mitigation would not work; she said she would need at least a 40 -foot berm, the height of a four-story building, to shield her from the quarry which is proposed to be dug 1,200 feet from her back door. She said there was nothing that would ensure her view shed or shield her home from quarry dust, dirt, and particle matter. Ms. Nichols said that when she purchased her property ten years ago, the area was zoned RA (Rural Areas), and she was told by Chemstone that this land was to be used as a buffer for the Middletown quarry. She commented that numerous quarry companies have owned this land over 50 years and she asked why they all waited to apply for rezoning. She believed that Frederick County knew this property could be mined in the future; she asked why the County continued to allow residential development to occur all through this part of the Valley. Ms. Nichols believed the zoning laws then and now should be protecting the residents. She asked the Commission to recommend denial of the rezoning. Ms. Dee Burgoyn, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of the Back Creek District on the Old Pickerall Place, said that Phase I Archeological Surveys are promised to the HRAB for Belle Grove and the National Historic Park to locate, identify, and comprehensively record all historic sites, buildings, structures, and objects on the property, if this land were to be rezoned. She said, however, that O -N Minerals did not respond to the request for Phase II or Phase III Surveys, if warranted. Ms. Burgoyn noted that O -N has proffered eight acres to Belle Grove, if this application for rezoning is approved. She wondered why the land had to be rezoned in order for the applicant to give eight acres to Belle Grove. She commented that this Valley is rich with history; she said that one only needs to see a re-enactment photo with the quarry operations in plain site to understand that adding more quarries, asphalt plants, or sewage treatment facilities is not going to be a tourist draw, nor would it encourage clean industry to move here. Ms. Burgoyn also mentioned the 12 family members who are buried in the property north of Chapel Road near the abandoned farmhouse. She said this cemetery dates back 125 years ago and is clearly marked on the 1986 Deed of Sale. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 7, 2006 % Page 1761 as Ms. Linda Shepard, a resident at 2432 Laurel Lane in historic Middletown, expressed her concerns about the accuracy of some the facts being distributed by the group, Preserve Frederick. Ms. Shepard said the quarry is in her backyard and she contends with quarry's trucks everyday. She did not believe the additional trucks from Chemstone's expansion would ruin Middletown. She did not see her neighborhood as a dirty industrial corridor and she did not believe her property values would be affected because of the rezoning. She asked the Commission to consider whether or not they would refuse the applicant's rezoning based on a lot of rumor and innuendo. Mr. John K. Owings, a resident at 2239 Sixth Street in Middletown, said his home faces the quarry on Sixth Street and over the years he has noticed the large berms of dirt on the battlefield, the increased dust, and the increased rumble of trucks. Mr. Owings believed Middletown was one of the last remaining true gems of the Valley; however, it was slowly being chipped away. Mr. Owings said the local residents do not want a big quarry that will increase more dust, more dirt, more pollution, and more truck traffic especially. Mr. Robert Spangler, a resident at 276 Westernview Drive in the Back Creek District, spoke in opposition. He stated that the March 2000 agreement between the FCSA and Chemstone would provide Chemstone with many financial benefits. Mr. Spangler said that according to the agreement, FCSA agrees to pay the costs for getting the land rezoned, to pay the construction costs for relocating ball fields, to pay for installing and maintaining monitoring wells, to pay for water loss from nearby wells which are proven to be caused by FCSA, to pay for pipelines and pumping equipment and allow Chemstone to use, and to hold Chemstone harmless from all issues raised by regulators or private citizens. Mr. Spangler said that after Chemstone is exhaustively mined, FCSA would have a water storage pit with which to partially serve the Urban Development Area (UDA) of the County. He said that Chemstone would not have the expense of filling the pits and reclaiming the land, leaving instead, a permanent eyesore. Mr. Spangler offered another scenario where Chemstone may decide it is more profitable to sell or lease portions of their land to other industry. Mr. Jim Giraytys, a resident at 301 Longview Lane in the Back Creek District, said he was a member of the Air Improvement Task Force for Winchester -Frederick County and he was a certified consulting meteorologist; however, tonight he was speaking strictly as a private citizen. Mr. Giraytys believed the 1,800 trucks should be a serious concern. He said the focus of the air quality issues tend to be on ozone, but particulate matter, specifically the 2.5 micron, is a concern because it penetrates the lungs and is the most serious problem in terms of health issues. Mr. Giraytys said the diesel trucks currently used by Chemstone are not required to meet the new EPA Standards for vehicle emissions because they are grandfathered; he predicted those trucks would be in service for a substantial amount of time. Mr. Giraytys strongly recommended that an estimate of the amount of PM 2.5 pollution emitted by those trucks be calculated and a strategy developed for mitigation. Dr. Woodward Bousquet, coordinator of the Environmental Studies Program at Shenandoah University and a resident of Winchester, said he and four of his students recently studied water quality and ecological habitats of Cedar Creek and its surrounding water shed. He said their findings are contained in a report released by the Potomac Conservancy entitled, Cedar Creek Revealed. Dr. Bousquet said he had several concerns about the rezoning application for the Chemstone property. First, he said several State and Federal agencies with expertise to identify and evaluate environmental impacts were not a part of the evaluation process, yet the Comprehensive Policy Plan for Frederick County states the County will protect the natural environment from damage due to development activity, that the County will identify and protect important natural resources, and the County will avoid development in environmentally sensitive areas, and prohibit uses that damage or pollute the environment. Dr. Bousquet asked how the County can meet these goals without involving the appropriate State and Federal agencies. Secondly, the applicant included an impact analysis that did indeed evaluate some of the potential environment impacts, but it was his professional opinion that the impact analysis is inadequate in several respects. He pointed out an example of a discrepancy within the impact analysis dealing with steep slopes. Dr. Bousquet said both he and his students are not particularly familiar with this property, but know of property just a short distance away that is comparable and those properties have some of the most diverse Frederick County Planning Commission Min T I age 16"lnutes of June 7, 2006 9'tj^B{ R biological communities and scenic natural features of the region. Dr. Bousquet concluded by stating that the future of the natural resources of our region and the collective future as residents deserve more careful consideration. Ms. Anita Holley, of Back Creek District, stated that she owned a business called, "The Wonderful Store," located at 7841 Main Street in Middletown, and she lived above the store on the second floor. Ms. Holley said that she owns this historic property which is already suffering from the vibrations caused by the trucks. Ms. Holley said that what she was about to say may be considered extreme; however, she believed the situation was extreme. She said that one definition of rape is the violent destructive treatment of something, such as the rape of a beautiful stretch of countryside or to rape the land for its resources. Ms. Holley added to that the rape of a peaceful, healthy lifestyle; she said she moved to Middletown from New York City six years ago. She said her business was in its fifth year and growing and she runs it single-handedly. She said a large amount of her business comes from visitors from out of town and she believed her business and lifestyle were in jeopardy. She believed the Chemstone expansion was a very real and personal threat to her future. Ms. Amy Hartman, a member of Preserve Frederick and resident of the Back Creek District, said that Middletown's Comprehensive Plan sums up the Town's outlook on the contradictions of the rezoning application and she proceeded to read several sections of the Plan. Ms. Hartman said there was not anything more contradictory to the guidelines in the Plan than a heavy, dirty industrial corporation operating within a rural, historic national park and battlefield community. She said it was clearly incompatible and ask that the Commission vote no on the mining rezoning. Mr. Chris Stubbs, with the National Park Service (NPS) at Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, said they were located adjacent to the Chemstone property. He said the park includes the Belle Grove Plantation, the Cedar Creek Battlefield, and other important historic and natural resources in Frederick, Shenandoah, and Warren Counties. Mr. Stubbs said the National Park Service (NPS) submitted a letter in March of 2006 to the Frederick County Planning Department. He proceeded to summarize the points of the letter, as follows: the NPS is concerned about increased truck traffic in Middletown as depicted by Chemstone's traffic impact analysis; the proposed additional 801 truck trips per day will distract from the historic character of the area and pose a safety threat to residents and visitors; Chemstone has suggested they could construct a conveyor system that would decrease the amount of truck traffic required by the mine expansion; Frederick County is encourage to require this conveyor system as a condition of the rezoning proposal; the NPS is concerned about the impact to the view shed, the landscape, and the historic scene; viewed from Route 11, Belle Grove, and the Cedar Creek Battlefield, there is a striking visual impact from the large-scale mining operation on the historic properties; the NPS believes Chemstone should fully analyze the impacts and present acceptable methods for mitigating them; the NPS is concerned about air quality and fugitive dust emissions, noise, and vibration from blasting, particularly to Belle Grove Plantation; and ground water draw down and possible surface water impacts from the drawdown. Mr. William Graham, a registered engineer of the Commonwealth of Virginia and a resident of Back Creek District, commented there was no greater scarring of the outer layer of the earth's crust, nor any greater negative impact on foliage, air, or water quality than a quarry. He said a quarry leaves acres of rocks exposed forever, with little or no chance that water will ever approach the edges of the cavity to fill the void or that foliage will ever be able to grow on the remaining exposed rock surfaces. Mr. Graham said that what was acceptable to the public or good for the economy in past years, when portions of Chemstone first began operations in the Shenandoah Valley, should no longer automatically be assumed or granted and must be questioned by the Board about whether it is ecologically appropriate. Mr. Graham mentioned the considerable information that was available on the internet regarding quarries; he said one website, a quarry -mining trade magazine, had topics such as, "overcoming community opposition to your operation" or "affective approaches with local zoning and permit officials." Mr. Graham said it was obvious the mining industry is increasingly required to struggle for zoning permits all over the United States. Mr.Graham suggested that Chemstone sell Frederick County Planning CommissionM R M V Page 1 163 Minutes of June 7, 2006 7 am their land, or they could remove the minerals underground, excavating subterraneously, leaving the land surface undisturbed. Mr. Graham asked the Commission to heed the wishes of their constituents, and the health and ecological problems expressed, and he requested the Commission vote no on the request. Ms. Julie Clevenger, a founding member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of the Back Creek District, said there was a gaping hole in the Comprehensive Policy Plan because there was a complete lack of direction regarding mining operations. She referred to the sections of the Plan regarding business and industrial concerns, which stated that -"policies- are needed concerning how to deal with new requests for large mining operations." Ms. Clevenger asked how public officials could be expected to. make fair and knowledgeable judgments on a proposal as vast and as vague as this one, without appropriate guidelines. She said that mining has been occurring in Frederick County over the last 100 years and yet, guidelines have not been set forth. Ms. Clevenger believed that before a proposal of this size is considered, very cautious guidelines need to be in writing for all parties, including the County, the developers, the citizens, and the business industry. She quoted additional sections of the Comprehensive Policy Plan that called for, "... necessary facilities and infrastructure improvements need to be provided for planned business and industrial uses..." and, "...to ensure that adequate roads and facilities are provided." She said that historic Middletown was not equipped or structured to handle intense heavy and dirty industries that would come from a quarry expansion. Ms. Clevenger said that every aspect of the proposal spells conflict for their town, which is characterized by historic structures and community businesses. She said Middletown's old, rich history and architecture are not conducive to industrial infrastructure changes. - Ms. Mary Bowser, a resident of the Back Creek District, said she lives in a cabin built by her husband's grandfather near the historic mill, where Meadowbrook meets Cedar Creek. Ms. Bowser quoted sections of the Comprehensive Policy Plan dealing with land use. She said that passing a rezoning of rural areas to extractive manufacturing in Middletown is in direct violation of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. She said it develops an area that should be designated as a preserve of environmental open space. In addition, Ms. Bowser quoted sections of the Comprehensive Policy Plan dealing with the separation of business and industrial uses, as wells as the separation from residential uses. Ms. Terri Loria, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of the Back Creek District, also quoted sections of the Comprehensive Policy Plan dealing with "steep slopes and other unique environmental features,"... and "... where development should be carred out in a manner that protects these features" She said that Middletown has more unique environmental features than any where else in Frederick County. Ms. Loria believed the Comprehensive Plan was specifically pinpointing Middletown's rolling hills, slopes, and geography. She said measures aimed at increasing the appeal of areas to tourists and businesses need to be developed and implemented; however, the sharp increase in industrial traffic and pollutants from the mining operation are in no way creating small-town ambiance, which is the key economic ingredient to the success of Middletown's businesses and tourism. She added that negative visual impacts, traffic, and noise will only erode the Town's assets consisting of Main Street, the National Park, the Battlefield, and the area's rural character. She further added that 1,300 dump truck trips per day will in no way help to minimize congestion of the main corridor through their quaint, one -light town. Mr. Fred Potter, a member of Preserve Frederick and resident of Back Creek District, spoke about the other uses permitted within the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Zoning District, from concrete plants to fast-food restaurants, to production factories. Mr. Potter said that Frederick County and Middletown have something special that could be made even more desirable, if planned properly. He noted that O -N Chemicals has not offered any restrictions on the uses of the EM Zoning in Middletown; he believed this was unreasonable and unfair to the citizens. Mr. Potter pointed out that the Route 50 East corridor, which consists of 3,000 acres, is the County's largest land use plan and has great potential for commercial growth. He noted that it was an industrial corridor for tractor trailers and big industry; he noted that roads here are equipped for heavy traffic and over -sized vehicles. Additionally, he said the heaviest traffic to this corridor is 1,406 vehicles traveling the segment between Routes 522 and 655. He stated that this trips -per -day amount represents the same amount of traffic slated to Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1764 Minutes of June 7, 2006 W & V -10 - occur on the scenic Route 11 Byway. He said that if this rezoning is passed, Middletown will be bombarded with both land use and road use impacts, and Middletown was not set up to be an industrial zone. Mr. Potter commented that the Rural Areas Study has not yet been completed, but a great deal of citizen input went into this project and should be referred to in regards to this rezoning. He noted three expectations and goals to this study that should be considered. First, recognition that growth and change are inevitable; second, the desire to manage growth and change to insure perpetuation of rural character; and third, the desire to manage growth and change to mitigate the impacts on the community. Mr. Potter quoted a section of the Comprehensive Policy Plan under land use which stated that, ... conflicts occur when incompatible uses or zoning districts are adjacent to one another." Mrs. Patricia Gochenour, a resident of the Red Bud District, had concerns about continued pollution of the air and water and the affects of that pollution on wildlife and man. She stressed the importance of community education, what it means to build a community on Karst topography, and how a community can protect its water supply. She announced an educational opportunity hosted by the Shenandoah Basin Project this Friday, June 9, at Orknely Spring, entitled, "Save the Sheandoah Valley's Water, Air, Land, and Heritage." She asked that the Planning Commission vote no on the rezoning request. Ms. Tara Shostek, a resident of the Chimney Hills community in Middletown, commented that Chimney Hills is a relatively new community consisting of approximately 40 homes in varying states of completion. Ms. Shostek believed the quality of life for all of the families in these new homes would be destroyed, if this rezoning was approved. She said that when they researched the area, they found it to be a historic, one -light town, not a mining community. She said they relied on the RA Zoning of the surrounding area and they had a reasonable expectation that uses of these properties would not significantly change. She asked how Frederick County could justify rezoning this property for mining and heavy industrial uses when it is wholly inconsistent with the current residential use. Ms. Shostek said that she and her husband moved to Middletown to escape the congestion and pollution of the City. She added that the rezoning application is inadequate and should not be approved. She said that since her property is not directly adjacent to the Chemstone property, the application does not specifically address impacts to her house, her well, and her family. Mr. David Nichols, a resident of the Back Creek District, said his family has lived adjacent to the Chemstone property since 1955 and for the most part, Chemstone has been a good neighbor. Mr. Nichols said Mr. Stimpson, the General Manager of Chemstone, has repeatedly stated that Chemstone wants to be good neighbors; however, after reading Chemstone's rezoning application, he doesn't see how it would be possible. He said the rezoning of 639 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) is entirely too much. Mr. Nichols said his property sits at the corner of Chapel and Hites Road and if this application is approved, he could have any number of industrial uses in his back yard. Mr. Nichols read a list of some of the permitted uses, including: water and sewage treatment plants, electric generating plants, pre -stress concrete plants, asphalt plants, and many other uses. He was also concerned about the amount of water that would be pumped from this property. He said that Mr. Chuck Maddox, who is a consultant for both Chemstone and the FCSA, stated at the April meeting that there will be ten million gallons of water per day pumped from this property; he said this can not be good for neighboring wells and springs. Mr. Nichols also raised the concern of liability and who would pay for potential damages. Mr. Nichols believed it was important to note that this is not a small, local comparry; he said O -N Minerals is in the business of making money. He did not think it was right for this company to expand its operation by 639 acres when there is no clear advantage to the citizens of Frederick County. He said the citizens look to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to put the best interest of the citizens before the financial well being of O -N Minerals. Dr. Ranna Lachlan, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of the Back Creek District, Ii. i:::r'*ning communities as a child and teenager. She said she said that she was a miner's daughter and she l comes from Australia which is famous world-wide for its significant mining industry. Dr. Lachlan said her father headed -up the operations for five mining corporations and two common themes were the location of mines in remote, water -deprived areas in Australia's famous outback and no where near existing towns. Dr. Lachlan said Frederick County Planning Commission((�� j U 1 I r� (� Page 1765 Minutes of June 7, 2006 D h j V -11 - that where towns and mines do co -exist, they are towns that grow up around the mines to service the mines, not the other way around. She said the granting of this rezoning will allow the mine to swallow a historic town that already exists for multiple other reasons than the mine. She said the change in the Town's historic character, as well as the land surrounding the Town, would be irreversible. She believed this operation would pillage and scar ined the area as hallowed land because it was a part of the pristine fertile, historic, and hallowed land; she def Mississippian Native American Heritage Region and the final resting place of fallen Confederate and Northern soldiers alike. She also mentioned the potential damage to an environmentally -sensitive, clean water way such as Cedar Creek; she noted that these water issues will have implications all the way to the Chesapeake Bay. Dr. Lachlan said the local residents' back yards are actually the back yards for millions of people. Mr. Bob Luce, a resident of Middletown and a retired professional geologist. Mr. Luce said that he managed large investigations of contaminated groundwater movement in karst terrains in both Missouri and North Carolina. W. Luce said he generally supports the mining industry, but because of the preset use of the surrounding land, he thought rezoning was inadvisable in this case. He said the extension of limestone mining west and north of Middletown could bring consequences detrimental to the health and well-being of people living on farms and in residences in proximity to the operation. In addition to causing occasional fly rock, blasting will open existing rock fractures or develop new fractures that could cause nearby wells to dry up and/or drainfields to malfunction. He explained that in this coarse terrain, ground sustenance and collapse can be enhanced, not only by blasting, but also by groundwater withdrawals in conjunction with mining and mineral processing. He said that fluctuating groundwater tables can further accelerate karst development. Also fracturing induced by blasting can release residual clays from sinkholes and voids, thereby fouling water wells. He added that the operations of crushing grinding, cal -citing, and loading facilities near the mining area brings the potential for large accumulations of dust and hazardous metals. Mr. Luce said that some of these negative consequences could be mitigated with a very conservative and enforced mining plan incorporating large buffer zones; however, no such plans have been provided. He concluded by saying that even withsuch plans, there will always be an element of risk because of the uncertainty in the locations of subsurface connections in a karst area. Mr. Rob Magnus, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of the Back Creek District, said he was a new business owner in Middletown. Mr. Magnus said that this massive industrial land use rezoning application is being paid for by the FCSA, according to a March 2, 2000 lease agreement between FCSA and Global Stone/ Chemstone Corporation. He said the FCSA is charged with providing water services to Frederick County and is a private, non-profit company which works with limited oversight from County officials. He said Frederick County's Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission have made great strides in planning for growth; they have demonstrated they are looking out for the best interests of this County. Smart planning is evident through their initiatives, including the UDA and the Rural Areas Study. Mr. Magnus believed that everything is done to see that growth is managed so future generations can continue to work from a solid infrastructure that's being put in place now. He believed water and sewer was the key to growth. He commented that back in 2005, the Board of Supervisors' Chairman, Mr. Richard Shickle, stated that he would prefer to see a regional approach for water utilizing the river; however, the FCSA has focused their efforts on groundwater extraction and karst holding pits or reservoirs. He believed Karst holding pits present a very real possibility for water contamination and have proven to be unreliable for safety reasons. The FCSA is paying for this rezoning so they can get access to the pits and groundwater on the property. This is a method of supplying water which has proven not to live up to expectations. He said that what O -N gets is a massive rezoning that would otherwise not be approved on its own merits and the County gets an undependable water source. Mr. Shayne Lachlan, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of the Back Creek District, noted that each of the Commission members should have a copy of the FCSA's agreement with Chemstone which outlines the transfer of water rights from the Middletown, Clearbrook, and Strausburg quarries to the FCSA. He commented that the 10,000 customers, including residents, businesses, and major industries supplied by the FCSA, should not be forced to bear the burden of costs associated with the application. He said there were costs associated with expansion in any business; however, the customers of this quasi -public utility should not be Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 7, 2006 -12 - forced to finance a quarry rezoning application. He noted that Section Six of the lease agreement outlines how FCSA will be responsible for compensating neighboring property owners for loss of wells, but he asked who will prove what made the wells go dry and who will be responsible for determining the when and how. He said Section Seven outlines the FCSA's responsibility for the cost of relocating baseball fields in Clearbrook so that O -N can expand mining operations; Section Eight describes how the FCSA is paying for the costs of rezoning, including consultant and filing fees, attorney's fees, and court costs. He asked how the FCSA could justify the costs considering the amount of water the current quarry sites are yielding. He said that O -N does not own the property they now mine in Middletown; the land is owned by Genstar. He said the FCSA agreed to lease water rights with Middletown, Clearbrook, and Strausburg; however, since Genstar is not a party of the contract, the agreement raises many red flags. Mr. Lachlan said the UDA is being built on the assumption that the groundwater from the Middletown quarry site will be available to yield ten million gallons per day; he asked if it wouldn't be more reasonable to secure a more dependable water supply from the river. Mr. Paul Clevenger, a founding member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of the Back Creek District, said Mr. Maddox had'stated .that if the quarry rezoning was approved, the residents would have an additional ten million gallons of water per day. Mi. Clevenger said Mr. Maddox's statement prompted him to investigate the significance of water in this situation. He reported that correspondence between Board of SupervisorsChairman, Richard Shickle, and the FCSA's Director, H. Wellington Jones, dated August 28, 2001, outlined the amounts of water planned to be available to Stephens City, Clearbrook, and Middletown. Mr. Clevenger next read the _amounts of available water reported by the FCSA's consultant group to the Commonwealth of Virginia in May of 2005, and he noted some discrepancies. He said the FCSA engineers reported that potential yields from the Middletown-Strausburg quarries have not yet been determined. Mr. Clevenger believed the FCSA has made promises it may not be able to keep. He said, for example, in 2001 FCSA projected quarries near Clearbrook would make the County self-sufficient until 2020; however, today the d by the City of Winchester. Mr. Clevenger stated that the UDA now County's water supply is being supplementeg. He said that based on the Virginia Commonwealth and the has 10,000 homes with 10,000 more Comm County's figures, 5.2 million gallons of water per day will be needed to serve existing residents. Mr. David Kollar, the President of D -K Industrial Services in the Gainesboro District and a resident of the City of Winchester, asked that the Commission recommend approval of the rezoning application only after the applicant, the staff, and other select, qualified organizations or individuals cooperatively discuss how this operation could work for everyone. It was Mr.. Kollar's opinion that a rural community, a park, and a functioning, expanding quarry could co -exist, collaborate, and thrive within the same environment. Mr. Kollar said he had this conviction because he has seen it functioning well in Vermont, Texas, and other areas throughout the east coast of the United States. He said there are examples it could be modeled after. He believed that once all of the facts and various components are brought forward on why this expansion should be approved, he believed the Commission could, in good conscience, vote in favor of the rezoning_ Ms. Heather Richards, the Director of Headwaters Conservation for the Potomac Conservancy, said that Potomac Conservancy is a non-profit river conservation organization dedicated to protecting the health, beauty, and enjoyment of the Potomac River and its tributaries. She said in 2003, the Potomac Conservancy identified Cedar Creek and its watershed as an area of particular importance in the Shenandoah Valley due to its landscape of relatively undisturbed farms and forests. Ms. Richards stated that at the end of 2005, they released a report, published in conjunction with the Shenandoah University, which detailed the ecological and historic context of the Cedar Creek Watershed. She said the research conducted by the students, as well as the Division of Natural Heritage and the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, was earned out on land adjacent to the property under consideration for rezoning. Ms. Richards said the research reported several rare plant communities in existence in this area, in particular, rare limestone cliff habitats which support a variety ofunique plant species and mature hardwood forests. She said that given the geology and aspects of the property, it was entirely possible that similar ecosystems and rare communities could exist on the Chemstone property. She added that the uniqueness and special ecological character of the property should be thoroughly examined before any Page 1767 Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 7, 2006 Mi D N & V t� -13 - determination is made on this issue. Ms. Richards continued, stating that in addition to the sensitive ecosystems, they were also concerned about the impact of a larger and more intensive quarry operation or other permitted uses under EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District on water quality and aquatic life in Cedar Creek; she said significant efforts should be made to preserve or restore forested buffers along Watson Run, Middle Marsh Brook, and Cedar Creek. She stressed that any influx of water running off of the site could choke off the diverse aquatic life in Cedar Creek. She concluded by saying that Cedar Creek was widely regarded by.State agencies, by citizen monitoring groups, and by independent researchers as one of the cleanest streams in the Shenandoah Valley and she urged the Commission to recommend denial of the application. Ms. Betsey Hickman, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, stated that four years ago she moved to Middletown. She said that if the mining expansion is passed, she believed many things will change and the quality of life she has experienced will change. She described some of the good sites, sounds, and aromas of Middletown and she described it as a lovely and quaint little town. She believed the increased trucks, noise, dust, and pollution would have a negative affect on the future of Middletown, including its businesses, the residents, and tourism. . Ms. Debbie Miller, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of the Back Creek District, came forward to speak on behalf of Kimberly Cunningham, who was not able to be present this evening. Ms. Miller said that Ms. Cunningham is a resident of Shenandoah County and has an eight-year history with O -N Minerals and Global Chemstone. She stated that Ms. Cunningham's complaints to Chem- stone started about one month after she moved into her home and today, eight years later; after filing complaints, her complaints go unresolved and unaddressed. Ms. Miller relayed a list of occurrences at the residence of Ms. Cunningham in Strausburg and very likely what Middletown residents could experience, as follows: seismograph readings are as high as 9. 1, pictures have been knocked off walls, shelves have fallen, and cracks in the house foundation have been reported; heavy truck traffic and associated jack -braking creates disturbances at all hours of the night; frequent occasions of fallen debris from trucks consisting of rock and gravel; and considerable amounts of dust and ash, both inside and outside of the house. Mr. Hal Stalcup, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, came forward to speak of the incompatibility of a limestone quarry and a residential area.- Mr. Stalcup was concerned about blasting mishaps. He reported an occasion on April 25, 2006, where a limestone quarry blast occurred in neighboring Clarke County sent rocks the size of baseballs and basketballs through an area where he drives to work. He reported that a 50 -pound rock was sent 1,760 feet into the property of a nearby resident; another rock sent in flight by the blast hit a vehicle parked five feet from a residence causing an estimated $10,000 damage to the vehicle. Mr. Stalcup said that ON has explained how their blasts are regulated and that their blasting contractor is highly qualified; however, they are governed by the same regulations as Clarke County's quarry. He said that accidents do happen and people make mistakes. He said accidents that occur at a blasting site beside residential areas put lives at risk. Mr. Stalcup said that ON Minerals reported they intend to mine within 500 feet and as close as 100 feet of residential properties, if they could be permitted to do so. Mr. Jim Peters, a resident at 8233 Middle Road in Strausburg, said he lived across Cedar Creek in Shenandoah County and was a hydro -geologist by profession. Mr. Peters believed there was considerable scientific evidence to indicate a great deal of uncertainty about the affects that extractive mining will have on the local groundwater system. He said the U.S. Geological Survey recently completed a five -county study dealing with a groundwater system in a karst environment; among the conclusions of the study is that within a karst environment, the prediction of the affects of withdrawals on the groundwater system are highly unpredictable and very difficult to evaluate. Mr. Peters said that an accurate evaluation of the affects of groundwater withdrawal needed for extraction of mining on the water supplies of nearby domestic wells is unlikely until mining and water withdrawals actually begin; he said this may be too late to correct adverse affects. He said that because of the uncertainty involved, he asked that the application be denied in order to protect the drinking water of current and future citizens of this area. Frederick County Planning Commission rage i /oa Minutes of June 7, 2006 0 U U U V V -14-� Mr. Richard Dye, owner of property within the Back Creek District, said he shared a 4,600 -foot boundary with the Chemstone property proposed for rezoning. Mr. Dye said he has owned this land since 1978 and hoped to build a retirement home on the property; he intended to sell five -acre lots to other prospective homeowners, so he could acquire the money to'build his retirement home. Mr. Dye said the impacts of a quarry next door will render this area unsuitable for a residence. He said the proposed rezoning will be devastating to the value of his property and he urged the Commission to recommend denial. Mr. Eric Steere, a resident of the Gainesboro District, said he was a former physical therapist and currently is completing his fourth year in medical studies at George Washington AUC to become a doctor. Mr. Steere wanted to speak to the Commission about water -borne pollutants in this region and his documentation stems from the CDC and State-sponsored health authorities. Mr. Steere had presented a handout to the Commissioners regarding the topics of his discussion. Mr. Steere'reported the results of water tests done on local well systems from 1995 until April, 2006, which revealed occasional high levels of heavily -toxic elements, including nitrate, cadmium, iron, and lead. He said that cadmium was found at times to be 41% above the maximum levels and it can cause direct kidney damage, resulting in secondary hypertension, osteoporosis; and in animal studies causes liver and neural damage. He said the nitrates were found at 83%-166%; iron was found at 733% above maximum; and lead, which is found in coal burning and mining, was at slightly below 3,333% above the maximum. He named all of the health problems associated with the high levels of these elements. Mr. Steere said that mining will undoubtedly create fractures and widen already existing fractures in karst. He said that by fracturing, alternate routes are introduced that will bypass the natural filtration systems. He was concerned the mining will also drain the natural aquifers, the water reservoirs, and local wells. Mr. Keith McNeely, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, said that he was a cardio -thoracic intensive care unit nurse at Winchester Medical Center. Mr. McNeely said that air- borne pollutants and fine particulate matter generated by limestone mining operations, extraction, and mining of limestone products will affect the health of Frederick County residents. He said this massive mining proposal puts residents of the Middletown area directly in harms way because of the westerly prevailing winds. Residents of Middletown and students at Lord Fairfax Community College and Middletown Elementary School will be directly exposed to far greater emissions from blasting, extraction, and refining of minerals. He said that too many residents in the County already suffer from asthma from environmental triggers linked to this or other chronic obstructive lung diseases, including emphysema and chronic bronchitis; he noted that these disease processes affect primarily children and the elderly. He believed the county would be harming more children and the elderly, if this application is allowed. Mr. McNeely reported that the American Lung Association of Virginia reports that Northern Virginia -received an "F" for levels of particulate pollution and Ozone. He said the particulate matter, breathed in, causes irritation and inflammation of the lungs; long-term exposure destroys and scars lung tissue. He added that emissions are measured in tons per year and the leading contributor is already O- N Minerals, dwarfing emissions from other industries in the County. He further added that Valley Air Now minutes from March 2006 state, "... p.m. levels have been stagnant and project the levels will go up ten percent by 2018." For the sake of the public's health, Mr. McNeely urged the Commission to recommend denial of the request. Ms. Sharon Santemyers, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, said that as a public school educator, she understood how this application could affect the school systems. Ms. Santemyers stated that surface mining releases toxic chemicals into the air and groundwater. She stated that according to the EPA, over one half of all toxic chemicals reported are known or suspected neurological or developmental toxins. She said these toxins greatly interfere with children's growth and learning. She said the neurological development of unborn children is at risk when their pregnant mothers are exposed to air and groundwater toxins. The effects translate into learning disabilities, dyslexia, mental retardation, pervasive development disorders, and behavioral disorders. Ms. Santemyer said that children who live near the mine sites are at a greater risk for these neurological impairments. Ms. Santemyer quoted some statistics on the numbers of Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1769 Minutes of June 7, 2006 BUM V -15 - children with neurological and developmental defects in the nation whose illnesses were caused by exposure to known toxic substances; she provided statistics on the numbers of school children who have difficulty with basic proficiency skills. Ms. Rebecca Stalcup, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, stated that increased truck traffic emissions will have severe health consequences for the community. Ms. Stalcup stated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports that diesel exhaust is one of the greatest public health risks of all air pollutants. She explained that diesel combustion releases fine particles and gases into the air, commonly called soot, and these particles are typically smaller than the 2.5 microns or 1/30 the width of a strand of hair. Ms. Stalcup further explained that diesel soot is a part of fine particulate matter and an air-quality contaminant regulated under the Clean Air Act. She noted that diesel soot contains many toxins and can be inhaled into the deepest parts of the lungs where it is able to enter the bloodstream. She said that scientific studies indicate fine particles are linked directly to asthma, bronchitis, acute and chronic respiratory symptoms, such as shortness of breath, painful breathing, cancer, and premature death; she noted how children are more greatly affected. In conclusion, she said that the health assessment document prepared by the EPA and corroborated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the World Health Organizations states that inhaled diesel exhaust likely causes cancer in humans. She asked for the Commission to recommend denial of the application., Ms. Laurie Hunter, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, came forward to speak about the safety and proximity of the proposed mining operation. Ms. Hunter said that mines and quarries are very dangerous places and are far too dangerous to be within a couple feet from residences where children play, where residents garden, and residents cook out. She said there are 14 or more children living in the Westernview subdivision, not including pets. She said many of the homes on Westernview Drive border the Middle Marsh property, just north of Chapel Road and homes are built 200 feet from the property that O -N Minerals has requested for rezoning. She was concerned about flying rocks and debris from blasting. She said that the Global Chemstone's James River plant in Botantorte County in Virginia reported a terrible tragedy in 1996 where a young teenager who was fishing died as a result of an electrical fault which resulted from improper installation of a water pump cable that ran into the river; she said that Global Chemstone was found to be at fault. Ms. Hunter said the residents have not yet heard about the berm heights for their area; she had concerns about young children climbing over a berm or a fence. Mr. Kevin Barrington, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, came forward to speak about road traffic safety. Mr. Barrington said that as this County grows in population with new businesses, more vehicles of all sizes are put onto the roadways. Mr. Barrington said he was employed as a police officer in the Commonwealth of Virginia and public safety is his life. Mr. Barrington said local residents see quarry materials being transported all over back roads, often to avoid the weight scales on Valley Pike and I- 81; he said vehicles that are 75 -feet long and weighing up to 80,000 pounds are often seen exceeding the posted speed limit and barreling down back country roads. He said these back roads are unsafe, have unsafe shoulders, tight curves, and are hilly. He noted that families travel these roads, along with teenagers with new licenses, elderly persons with slower reaction times, school buses, farmers riding farm equipment, and people riding on horseback. As a law enforcement officer, he said he could speak from personal experience that there is little defense when an 80,000 pound truck hits something at a high rate of speed and someone is either hurt or killed. Mr. Barrington said that tripling the amount of heavy industrial traffic trips in the local community and countryside is a recipe for disaster. He said that according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, in the year 2000, the latest known data available, traffic crashes cost this nation over 230 billion dollars. Mr. Joe Hickman, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, said that VDOT's response to O -N Minerals' proposal stated that "... it appears there will be little measurable impact to Route 727 or McCune Road,..." which is the access road to the Middletown plant and is not traveled by Town residents. Mr. Hickman said that VDOT's only comment about the truck traffic that will travel through historic Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 7, 2006 0 0 Page 1770 V V W -16 - Middletown was that they had "reviewed it." He commented that Route 1 I has just been designated as a scenic byway. He said Route 1 I is a state road and may very well stand up to the heavy truck traffic for a period of time, but eventually, 50 -80,000 -pound trucks traveling over these roads will degrade the surface of Main Street and all of the roads the trucks travel. Mr. Hickman noted that all of the roads are covered with limestone dust and gravel and sections of Main Street tum white from the packed lime dust. He said the noise from lake braking, as trucks gear -up pulling up to Main Street from a standing stop, is already constant, night and day. He said the Middletown Town Council already has serious concerns about the truck traffic through this quaint, historic town Mr. Hickman said the Council's May 8, 2006 resolution highlights citizens' concerns about this proposal and includes this statement about traffic: "Whereas increased limestone mining is projected to create negative traffic and noise impacts with up to 1,400 industrial vehicles traveling through the Town of Middletown each day... which amounts to nearly one truck per minute, 24 hours per day, seven days a week. Mr. Hickman said that all of the truck trips referenced in the application are only for the trucks carrying limestone materials; the application is silent on heavy industrial truck trips for all other proposed uses. He added that rolling caravans of heavy industrial trucks are not compatible with the rural, historic community for many reasons, including fumes, noise, and dust. Ms. ReGene Rybol, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek, stated that Governor Tim Kame and the Secretary of Natural Resources, L. Preston Bryant, Jr., responded to Middletown's concerns regarding O -N Minerals' application with a three-page letter addressing possible impacts to the environment, wildlife, and historical impacts to the community and the region: Ms. Rybol summarized the important points of Secretary Bryant's letter as follows: The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) has identified terrestrial and aquatic habitats that will be affected and are within this proposed project's area. State -threatened species that have been identified include wood turtles and several species of birds, including the loggerhead shrikes, Bewick's wren, and upland sandpipers. The American Bald Eagle has been sighted and noted for the past four years by many different citizens; these sightings were within the proximity of Belle Grove and Meadow Mills Lane and include a sighting on the day the HRAB review was written in December of 2005. She said the Bald Eagle is on the endangered species list and is protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act. She added that the nearby Meadow Brook is designated as a Class V Coldwater Stream capable of supporting a stockable trout fishery and according to Will Orndorff of the Virginia Department of Conservation it is a highly -desirable wildlife resource and should be treated as delicately as a threatened species. In conclusion, she said there are too many critical environmental issues and she urged the Commission to vote no to the rezoning. Dr. Charles Hagan, a resident of Back Creek District and president of the Shenandoah Audubon Society, said he personally surveyed the project area and the surrounding woodlands. Dr. Hagansaid this.area of Cedar Creek has water so clear that you can see the fish from the tops of the limestone bluffs that rise from the creek side. He said it was a relatively unblemished habitat for a large and diverse group of wildlife species, including neo -tropical migrants, various species of water birds and waterfowl, wood warblers, occasional osprey, and other birds that were at one time, common in the Shenandoah Valley. Dr. Hagan said the DGIF has identified specific habitat affects, which may endanger threatened species. Dr. Hagan said that wildlife habitat loss is often not noticed until its gone forever and can not be retrieved. He said the issue is not whether the Shenandoah Valley will be developed, but how it will develop and whether material desire will ultimately lessen the quality of life that residents sought here in the first place. He believed the proposal was a flawed plan and places too much stress on a beautiful natural area already impacted by the extractive industry. He urged the Commission to vote no. Mr. Bill Hunter, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, talked about the economic aspects of the proposal. Mr. Hunter did not think the mining expansion would benefit the local economy because it was a dirty, low -tax, low job industry, and could not be as beneficial as other high-tech industries might be. He thought the primary focus should be the negative impacts on tourism and business. He mentioned the new national park and businesses, such as the Wayside Inn and Theatre, Anita's, and the Irish Isle, which he felt would be affected if tourism is impacted. Mr. Hunter said that tourism is Virginia's second largest Page 1771 Frederick County Planning Commission NMi('1 I nutes of June 7, 2006 n V V -17 - industry, representing a 15.3 billion dollar investment in the economy and employing more than 280,000 people. He added that. nearly 10% of the State's tourism dollars change hands in the Shenandoah Valley. He further added that in 2003, Winchester and Frederick County alone generated an excess of 72 million dollars in tourism - related, taxable sales. He noted that the Cedar Creek Battlefield remains one of the few places where re -enactors can carry out the order of battle on the ground that their ancestors fought and died on- He remarked that Congress believed the land in question was significant enough to make it a part of a national historic park. Mr. Clarence Steere, a resident of Gainesboro District, said that mining is an important industry, but it has its place; he said Middletown is not the same place it was 52 years ago. He said that considerable changes have taken place since the 693 acres were sold to Chemstone. Mr. Steere said the town now has a national historic park, it has a thriving national heritage of historic importance, and a rapidly growing number of residential developments. He said. if these mining companies had made known their intentions when they purchased this property, then many of the people who have come to Middletown to set up their shops and homes wouldn't be faced with what they are faced with today. He added that it is not just the residences around Belle Grove and Westernview Drive alone who are opposed, but it is all of Middletown. Mr. Steere commented that no one will be exempt from the noise, the dust, and the pollution. He added that during the last five decades, the companies that owned this land had no problem paying the taxes for rural-agricultual land and leasing it to farmers. Mr. Steve Beall, a member of Preserve Frederick, came forward to give the Commission a financial summary for O -N Minerals. Mr. Beall said the company declared bankruptcy as recently as 2004, but has emerged from bankruptcy in the last two years. He said their combined operating loss for 2004 and 2005 is approximately 38 million dollars. He reported that they continue to operate under the burden of a debt load that severely restricts their operation and is a constant threat to bring down their business. Mr. Beall noted that in April 2006, less than two months ago, O -N Minerals filed a Form 15 with the US Securities and Exchange Commission; they announced their intent to de -register common and preferred stock and suspend their reporting obligations under the SEC rules. Mr. Beall believed this was a very serious move and most public companies would obviously resist making such a move. He said that by this filing with the SEC, O -N Minerals is not obligated to voluntarily comply with reporting requirements in the future, which means that many of the details concerning this company will no longer be available to the public and can be kept private. He said that while O -N Minerals has every right to make this change, it raises significant questions about the intent of the company to share operating results, business transactions, and other relationships that may significantly affect the financial future of the company in the community. Mr. Beall asked that the Commission vote no. . Mr. Kurt Borgoyn, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, wanted to further expound on some of the issues raised by Mr. Beall. Mr. Borgoyn quoted from the l OK filed with the SEC by ON Minerals in March 2006, and on December 31, 2005, the company was a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos -induced illnesses involving claims of approximately 47,000 claimants. He said the document goes on with respect to silica; the company was co-defendant in cases involving about. 15,219 claimants. He next quoted a statement in the document by O -N Minerals as follows, "Management can not predict whether or not the company's available insurance will be adequate to cover any and all asbestos claims that arise in the future or that the company will have the ability to otherwise successfully defend or resolve such cases. If there are not developments that reduce the impact of asbestos litigation or its costs, the company's available insurance may be insufficient to cover all future claims and there could be materially -adverse affects on the company's results of operation, liquidity, and financial condition." Mr. Borgoyn added that over the years, O- N Minerals has historically operated large shipping vessels and as of yesterday, the company announced the sale of six additional vessels and plans to sell the remaining three. He said it was obvious the company continues to be forced to sell important assets to generate cash to pay debt obligations. Mr. Borgoyn further added that considering the financial difficulties and bankruptcy in 2004, one might think compensation for senior management may have decreased; however, the l OK revealed that earnings for the CEO went up from $446,000 in 2003 to in excess of 1.4 million dollars for 2005. He said that earnings for other top executives of the Frederick County Planning Commission n p (� (� T Page 1772 Minutes of June 7, 2006 1_J Rj II lI r� company showed similar increases. Mr. Gary Nichols, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, said that he has lived in Frederick County for most of his life. Mr. Nichols stated that even if O N Minerals has the desire to be a good neighbor, he was concerned they may not have the resources that would allow them to operate safely and to properly protect their neighbors. He asked what would happen if someone was injured or property damaged from their normal operations; he asked if anyone would ever be able to collect for this liability. He said that if O -N Minerals offers a number of attractive proffers in order to convince the County to pass this rezoning, he wondered if they will even be able to carry out the proffers into the future. He asked what recourse County citizens would have, if the company fails to perform the promised proffers. He asked who would enforce the promises. Mr. Nichols asked if the county citizens would be forced to take O -N to court, if O -N Minerals failed to perform. He noted they already had over 60,000 claims against them and he wondered if Frederick County would be number 60,001. Mr. Nichols commented that this company has had to sell assets recently in order to survive and this has included some of their operations, as well as their shipping vessels. He asked if O -N Minerals might consider selling off some of this land to heavy industrial users and they are simply trying to maximize on the value of their property by having it all zoned for extractive manufacturing. Mr. Nichols thought it was ironic that one of the shipping vessels just sold was the "S. S. Middletown." In conclusion, Mr. Nichols asked if the company had any plans of constructing a coal-fired power plant in historic Middletown; he said under EM Zoning it would be permitted. Mr. Nichols said that if this is approved, 639 acres of historic and scenic land, zoned for heavy industrial use, would be turned over to a company. that is desperate financially; he asked if the company would protect the land or destroy it. He believed that aproving the rezoning request would lead to disastrous results for Frederick County. Mr. Stephen Miller, a member of preserve Frederick and a resident of the Back Creek District, came forward to review all the concerns raised by the Frederick County Planning Commission at their April 5, 2006 meeting during their initial consideration of the rezoning. Mr. Miller summarized the concerns as follows: The monitoring of water quality and quantity of citizens' wells and water systems; change the maximum 30 -foot berm allowance to an average of 30 -foot berms; specify the minimum height of berms; future owners are bound by the proffers; all agreements should be attached to the proffers and be clear and understandable to all parties involved; determine who will mediate remediation; methods for administration of seismographs need to be stated; groundwater and seismograph issues need resolved; the proffer is broad and basic; site limitations and topographical map should be included; involvement of DMME to clarify issue; will an escrow or bond fund be established for well owners; residents should not have to hire a lawyer at their own expense if their well goes dry; there has been no problem with a drawdown at Clearbrook, but with FCSA drilling on Middletown property, a different problem is posed; plans should show berms, details, phasing program, increased buffers, etc. Mr. Miller said there has been no response, answers, or outreach since the onset of this application by O -N Minerals. Ms. Brooke Dalton, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, said this year she was crowned Miss Middletown Honorary Fire Chief from Middletown Volunteer Fire and Rescue. Ms. Dalton said she was a third generation Middletown resident and stated that both her parents and grandparents lived in Middletown all of their lives. Ms. Dalton expressed her hope that Middletown could retain its historical and family-oriented atmosphere. She next asked all those persons in the audience who were opposed to the rezoning application to please stand. (The room was filled to capacity and almost all of the persons in the room stood.) Ms. Dalton next presented petitions consisting of approximately 500 names. Ms. Dalton asked the Commission to recommend denial of the rezoning on behalf of all those persons standing and the approximately 500 people represented by the petitions. Mr. Jeff Carter, a founding member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of Back Creek District, thought it was astounding that Middletown and the surrounding areas would come together with such passion as those who spoke before the Commission tonight. Mr. Carter asked what community in America today should be forced to defend its way of life; he thought none should, but the residents of his community rose to the challenge. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 7, 2006 Page 1773 -19 - Mr. Carter said this area was blessed with history and natural beauty; he talked about the areas natural, historic, and economic gifts. Mr. Carter said that other localities struggle with lost industry and with residents moving away, but this area has growth knocking on its door. He asked if it was wise to expand an industry that provides very few jobs and contributes so little to the local economy, especially one that has a negative impact on natural and historic resources. Mr. Carter said that Frederick County's Comprehensive Policy Plan is designed to direct the right growth to the proper area; however, it has failed to do so with mining, even though its limestone belt stretches the length of the County. Mr. Carter argued that despite the fact O -N Minerals' predecessors initially located a mine next to three incredible public assets, it does not mean it is appropriate for O -N to triple its operations there. He stated that Frederick County has more than 1,000 acres zoned for mining and extractive manufacturing; he asked how much more the County needed to accommodate and where. Mr. Walter McCauley, a resident at 7948 Church Street in Middletown and a member of Preserve Frederick, said the Commission has heard many comments on the impacts to physical health, but he believedthe impacts on emotional health were equally important. Mr. McCauley said the mind and body are not separate entities; they interplay. He said the health of one affects the health of the other and emotional health is dependent upon the satisfying quality of life. He relayed a story about the rebuilding of an opera house Vienna, Austria after World War Il. He said the Viennese people wanted to reconstruct the Opera House prior to reconstructing roads, municipal buildings, or housing. He said when the Viennese people were asked why they chose to rebuild the opera house first, they replied that after so much horror and ugliness, they needed light and beautyin their lives. Mr. McCauley said he wanted to speak against the proposed rezoning because it would take the light and the beauty out of Middletown. He said people do not need more sources of anxiety, irritation, or stress in their lives. He said places like Middletown were needed for emotional well-being. He asked that the Commission recommend denial of the rezoning. Mr. Byron Smith, a resident of the Back Creek District, said he recently moved into this area. Mr. Smith raised the issue of safety for the local children and their safety riding on school buses. He.said that during his morning travels, he has seen school buses and big trucks miss hitting each other's mirrors by inches; he said he has observed trucks traveling behind school buses and if the school bus had to suddenly stop, there would have been no way the truck could have stopped safely behind the bus. Mr. Smith said a newspaper reported an incident in Prince George's County about a dump truck loaded with gravel ran into the back of a school bus, which pushed the school bus head-on into a pick-up truck. He said the accident killed the school bus driver, injured several children, and killed the driver of the pick-up truck. Mr. Smith didn't believe the citizens of Middletown needed this in their community. He asked the Commission to vote no on this application._ Mr. Paul Kisak, a member of Preserve Frederick and a resident of the Back Creek District, said there were many people this evening who could not say all they wanted to say because of the two -minute limit. Mr. Kisak said this is not over and everyone has much more to say and a lot more to do. He said that everyone appreciates the Commission's time and patience and hopes the Commission will continue to give everyone the opportunity to express their viewpoints. He again thanked the Commission and requested that they vote to deny the application. Ms. Julie Clevenger returned to the podium and requested the Commission proceed with a vote on the application this evening and not table. Ms. Clevenger said that the constituents have been ready; they only had 60 days to prepare and they have come very prepared along with many things that were not able to be said, as mentioned by Mr. Kisak. She said there is a lot more available to bring forward. She said that based on what they have brought forward this evening, she hoped the Commission would take this into consideration and vote no or yes, but not to table. Mr. Keith McNealy stated that ten years ago, when he purchased his property, which adjoins Global Cheinstone's property, he went to the offices of Global Chemsione and inquired what their intentions were for the property. He said he was told this property was a buffer and would never be developed in his lifetime. Frederick County Planning CommissionPa ge 1774 UMinutes of June 7, 2006 -20 - Mr. McNealy said it is ten years later and they have pulled the wool over his eyes. He warned the Commission not to let Chemstone do the same to the Commission. Mr. David Kollar returned to the podium to address Ms. Clevenger's request for a vote this evening and not have the application tabled Mr. Kollar said that if that is a consideration, could the Commission consider tabling the application for further examination by the staff and the applicant. Since everyone who had wanted to speak had been given the opportunity to do so, Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Chairman Wilmot thanked everyone on behalf ofthe Commission for a very comprehensive public hearing. She next provided an opportunity for the applicant to return to the podium to add any further information or intent on a future motion. Mr. Lawson returned to the podium and renewed the applicant's request for a tabling. Mr. Lawson said they want to have the opportunity to fully respond to the Commission's and the citizens' comments that were raised. Chairman Wilmot asked Mr. Lawson if he would like to waive the time frame on a possible tabling and Mr. Lawson replied yes. He had no specific anticipated time frame, but thought it would probably be within the 90 -day range. Commissioner Ours asked Mr. Lawson why no new information had been submitted since the Planning Commission's initial consideration of this application. Mr. Lawson noted that dialogue has been taking place, referencing meetings between the staff and the DMME. Mr. Lawson said he was working on a proffer statement that would incorporate not only items already in State and Federal regulations, but items that are site specific and what can be accomplished by this landowner. Commissioner Mohn asked the staff to review the State's role in mediating disputes and dealing with various off-site impacts. Mr. Ruddy said that during discussions with Mr. Benner of the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy (DMME), it became clear that while the DMME regulates the operation of the mining company, along with permitting and safety issues, the scope of their involvement beyond the property or permit is very limited. In fact, he said the DMME is reluctant to become involved with any of the issues that may revolve around blasting or water issues. With this explanation, Commissioner Mohn assumed then, that it may be a misconception to suggest that the State or Federal government would provide protections to the local community and Mr. Ruddy believed that assumption was accurate. Commissioner Mohn inquired of staff if O -N Minerals had submitted a Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment (CPPA) application by the June 1, 2006 deadline or if the land subject to the rezoning was in any way planned for something other than rural areas use, such as a text amendment. Mr. Ruddy replied that no comprehensive plan amendment has been submitted by the applicant in this location, nor was this area considered for another planned use other than rural areas. Commissioner Ours asked the staff about requirements for remediation of the land after it has been mined, such as within a certain time frame. Mr. Ruddy said there were considerable requirements; however, it became very clear through discussions that there were a lot of opportunities to modify requirements and approach things in a different manner. Commissioner Thomas inquired if the property was given to the FCSA before remediation, if this would negate any responsibility on O -N Minerals' part to remediate the property. Mr. Ruddy replied that particular issue would be under the purview of the DMME. Commissioner Thomas assumed that once the property changed hands and was turned over to a quasi -public entity, the regulations would change. Commissioner Thomas said that if this rezoning request is tabled this evening, he would need to have a clear understanding of the agreement between the FCSA and v -N Minerals prior to u s co�.,ing back before the Commission. Commissioner Thomas said there were terms and statements within the agreement that were confusing, such as, "terinination of liability," "hold harmless," "transfer of property," "water rights," and Frederick County Planning Commission(� j� rage i i i3 Minutes of June 7, 2006 9 ;,{ J p ► V V this could have a significant impact on his decision on the rezoning. In addition, he thought it was important for the community to be aware because there were statements that could be interpreted in different ways and may have significant liability, not only on surrounding property owners, but the FCSA. He added that the FCSA passes their liability on to everyone who purchases water from them. Mr. Ruddy confirmed Commissioner Thomas' prudent request for involvement from the FCSA's Counsel and the County's Counsel as the discussion on this moves forward. Commission members commented that the public's presentation was far better than what was provided by the applicant, in terms of the information provided and organization. Commissioner Thomas next summarized issues that he believed were noteworthy, as follows: The traffic impact analysis submitted was woefully inadequate and needs to be redone. The use of numbers of vehicles for trip generation in the traffic impact analysis is inappropriate when 60-70% of the traffic will be 40 - ton dump trucks and will not result in an accurate analysis. A route analysis needs to be done which examines the geometrics and conditions of the road, in particular, the impact of 800-900 severely -loaded 40 -ton trucks on the road itself. A strip map should be included so the community understands the vehicle traffic pattern that will occur with heavily -loaded vehicles from the quarry, through Middletown, and onto their destination. The environmental impact analysis is lacking; there was nothing within the environmental impact analysis that addressed air quality. A particulate matter study is needed with a wind -rose analysis showing the distribution of the particulate matter, the levels of particulate matter that will be experienced by the surrounding residents, and the particulate matter size that will be distributed. In light of all the nearby farms and livestock, information is needed on how the particulate matter may affect surrounding agricultural and orchard land uses; for example, the affect of particulate matter on grazing cattle and the pollination of orchard fruit trees. In addition to outside dust, dust inside homes also needs to be addressed. Particulate matter of this size will get inside new homes as well as older homes and all homes within a couple mile area will have a significant dust problem within the home. Regarding the subject of determining liability for water wells and blasting damage, how will the applicant monitor existing wells from a quality and quantity standpoint and how will the existing homes be inventoried and evaluated. A plan should be developed with a process for damage assessment and appeals that doesn't require surrounding homeowners to invest an extensive amount of money hiring lawyers and suing. Due to the significant size of this project, a bonding process above the minimum State standards is needed to protect the surrounding homeowners against potential future damages and liabilities, if the company has financial difficulties and moves out of the area. No information was provided by the applicant regarding meetings with surrounding property owners; neighborhood meetings should take place to convey the applicant's plan, how the property owners will be protected, and what the applicant's blasting plan will be. Since the biggest potential problems will come from areas outside of the quarry site, and the State only regulates on-site, permitted areas, something significantly more than the minimum State -regulated requirements is needed. For example, one seismograph in a blasting area with this kind of topography is substantially inadequate; there should be three -to -five for every blasting plan. The liability for surrounding homeowners for water wells and blasting needs to be substantially expanded. The applicant needs to examine allowed uses in an EM area and consider what is realistically going to be done there and the uses that are not going to be needed should be taken out through a proffer to avoid confusion by adjoining property owners about what can be done here. Another significant item is the life of the quarry operation; specifically, will it be a five-year operation or a 50 -year operation, and what is the applicant's phase plan for development of the quarry and the extent of that development. Is it the applicant's intent to proceed down the Valley with this operation and are there plans for remediation of areas left behind as the operation moves along, or are the areas left open through the entire process. Has the applicant considered a mining operation versus an open quarry? Although a mining operation would have less impact on the visual area and produce less dust, it still has the same amount of impact on blasting and water wells. In conclusion, Commissioner Thomas believed the applicant needed at least 90 days to put together a package that would even begin to approach the expected quality for review and consideration. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1776 Minutes of June 7, 2006 D n N V Y _22_ Commissioner Morris said there was nothing that could be proffered that would make this an acceptable rezoning for him. He believed the issues raised by the public were valid and require mitigation, which could not be accomplished in anyway except by denying the rezoning. For those reasons, Commissioner Morris was not in favor of granting a 90 -day extension and he believed the Commission should proceed with voting this evening. Commissioner Oates agreed with many points raised by Commissioner Thomas. In addition, Commissioner Oates wanted the applicant to revisit the issues raised by the HRAB, the Town of Middletown, and Public Works. Commissioner Oates said he was very much concerned with well issues and would like to see some type of bonding process; he did not want the burden of proof to fall on the local residents. He also wanted to see increased buffer distances to keep the operation further away from residences. Commissioner Oates said his concern with voting this evening was the possibility of the Board of Supervisors sending it back to the Planning Commission again; he thought the applicant should be given the opportunity to revise the application so that the package accurately reflects what is being sent to the Board. Commissioner Unger was also concerned about the buffer and he thought the operation was getting too close to the residences. In addition, he was concerned about the unsightly appearance of dirt piles that residents of the community would have to look at for the next ten, 25, or 50 years. Commissioner Unger asked whether the applicant might be able to produce a drawing showing what they anticipate their operation to look like over the next ten, 25, and 50 years so that the community knows what to expect. Commissioner Ours also agreed with the issues raised by Commissioner Thomas. However, it seemed to Commissioner Ours that if there are that many concerns, then there was a problem with this rezoning. He was very concerned about how the land would be remedied. He wondered if it would even be possible to mitigate the impacts on the view shed, especially when this property comes within feet of residential property. Commissioner Ours said he read the March 2000 Agreement between Global Chemstone and the FCSA. He said that if this were to go forward and at some point, the mining is completed and the property conveyed per the agreement, the FCSA is not in the business of land remediation. Commissioner Ours also raised the traffic issue. He said the affects of the truck traffic from the quarry operation is evident driving through the Town of Middletown and he was concerned about the affects from even more truck traffic. Commissioner Ours said that one of the big issues the Planning Commission has deliberated with in the past with industrially -zoned areas is how to get the traffic from the industrial areas out onto the interstate. He recalled previous Commission deliberations about areas in northern Frederick County, which were in rural areas. However, in this case, the area in question is an actual thriving community. Commissioner Ours commented on the size of the national historic park and noted it extends far beyond just the Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek area; he said it encompassed numerous homes in the area and goes directly up to the border of this rezoning. In conclusion, Commissioner Ours believed this rezoning went against the essence of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Commissioner Kriz also agreed with Commissioner Thomas' summary of pertinent issues. He thought it would be difficult for the applicant to come back within 90 days, considering all of the issues raised, particularly the health issues, and have those issues adequately addressed. He agreed with some of the other Commissioners that a vote should be taken this evening. Commissioner Mohn also questioned how the applicant could adequately address the issues, ifhe had 90 days or a year in terms of the amount of analysis that was needed in this case. Commissioner Mohn said that if the applicant did proceed with all of the studies, he wasn't sure whether the results would make a difference to him because, fundamentally, this was a land -use issue. He stressed that the time for expansion of this quarry and the industrial use of these particular properties has long passed. He said the surrounding community is clearly residential at this point in time. Commissioner Mohn pointed out that the Commission had previously asked for additional information 60 days ago and nothing was produced. Commissioner Mohn believed this Frederick County Planning Commission0 p Page 1777 Minutes of June 7, 2006 D D / 111 V V -23 - rezoning request should be considered in the spirit of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Commissioner Kerr said that many of the issues raised by Commissioner Thomas were raised to the applicant 60 days ago and the Commission has received no response. Commissioner Kerr wondered what quality of response would be received in 90 more days. Commissioner Kerr commended the citizens who attended the meeting because it was very enlightening for him. Commissioner Thomas agreed with all of the comments made by the other Commission members; however, he was concerned about the Commission's responsibility to the Board of Supervisors and to the citizens. He believed the Commission's responsibility was to send a package forward that is worthwhile and gives the Board the ability to review a complete package. He said the rezoning application in its present form does not -afford the Board any opportunity to review; he said the Board will have no option other than to send the application back to the Commission. Addressing Commissioner Thomas's remarks, Commissioner Mohn said the Commission has to vote on what it receives. He said the Commission has received inadequate applications in the past and they have not been given endless amounts of time to provide additional analysis at their discretion. He stated that if the Commission's recommendation was for denial, he hoped it would be based on the Comprehensive Policy Plan and not on any amount of the technical analysis, or the water, or other issues. He believed this was a fundamental land use issue. Commissioner Mohn was adamant that this land use does not work and was not compatible. Commissioner Ours made a motion to deny the rezoning application and he requested that all materials that were provided to the Commission from the public be included as part of the record that goes forward to the Board of Supervisors. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Morris. Commissioner Light also agreed with Commissioner Thomas' review of the issues. Commissioner Light believed it would be difficult to rezone this property at this time because of all the residential development that has occurred around the Chemstone site. On the other hand, Commissioner Light said he didn't hear any real complaints from the public about the quarry's present-day operation. Commissioner Light said he could not determine from the application whether Chemstone would limit their operation to an active core area or even how much quarrying they planned to do. He couldn't say whether he would disagree with the rezoning that limited quarrying down to a very few acres and if there were proffers with captures, triggers, or dates because it could be an opportunity to protect the surrounding residents. He suggested that a revised application and proffer could result in a minor amount of rezoned land with protections; whereas, the neighbors have no protection today. He thought the battlefields may have a better opportunity for a topographical view shed protection system, which would protect Belle Grove and the battlefields through a rezoning, than what they have today. In addition, protection standards against increased traffic could be incorporated, which is something that is not done today_ Commissioner Thomas continued to be concerned about sending this application forward to the Board of Supervisors in its present state. He was concerned about doing a disservice to both the Board and the citizens without allowing the applicant to go back and improve the application with a phasing plan, or offering a commitment to a smaller area, or providing protections for surrounding areas. Commissioner Mohn did not think the anticipation of the Board's action should be a consideration for the Commission. He also did not believe it was the Commission's responsibility to find ways to package rezonings in some format that will be okay for the Board to pass. Commissioner Mohn said he did not hear anything this evening that makes him think something could be done with the proposal to make it compatible as a land use. He commented that it was the Board's prerogative to send it back to the Commission and to tell the Commission if they want an extensive analysis done. Frederick County Planning Commission, Minutes of June 7, 2006 0 N F Page 17/78 V -24 - Commissioner Oates also preferred not to forward the application in its present form to the Board of Supervisors. He preferred to send a package that, if it was approved, would not be nearly as bad as what was in front of the Commission today. At this point, Chairman Wilmot called for a vote for the motion that was on the table. The majority vote was in favor of the motion to recommend denial of the rezoning request. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of Rezoning #03-06 of O -N Minerals (Chemstone), submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with the caveat that that all materials that were provided to the Commission from the public be included into the record that goes forward to the Board of Supervisors. This application includes the Middle Marsh property, located east of Belle View Lane (Rt. 758), west of Hites Road (Rt. 625) and on both sides of Chapel Road (Rt. 627), and the Northern Reserve property, which is bounded to the south by Cedar.Creek and Shenandoah County, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Rt. 624). The vote was as follows YES (TO REC. DENIAL): Watt, Morris, Oates, Wilmot, Ours, Kriz, Kerr, Mohn NO: Unger, Manuel, Light, Thomas (Note: Commissioner Triplett was absent from the meeting.) DISCUSSION DISCUSSION OF THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA (UDA) AND THE SEWER AND WATER SERVICE AREA (SWSA) BOUNDARIES. No Action Required Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, presented the proposed Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) Boundary Modifications, which were a component of the on- going UDA Study. Mr. Ruddy said it was determined that prior to moving forward with the more creative and proactive land use policy efforts of the UDA Study, the UDA and SWSA boundaries should appropriately reflect the current land use designations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, as an initial step. In addition, he said the UDA and SWSA boundaries should follow logical and consistent boundaries or features and relate to each other. Mr. Ruddy said the modifications of the UDA and SWSA boundaries to more appropriately reflect the current land use designations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan will result in an approximate reduction of 5,624 acres in u e '—JDA and a reduction of approximately 1;495 acres, the proposed UDA would be 16,220 acres in size and the proposed SWSA would be 25,254 acres in size. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 7, 2006 0 Page 1779 -25 - Mr. Ruddy added that the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee endorsed the UDA/SWSA Boundary Modification Exercise at their meeting on May 8, 2006 with two suggestions. The first, the maintenance of the B2 portion of the Jordan Springs Monastery property within the SWSA should be incorporated into the mapping; and second, the recognition of the Echo Village residential community should be incorporated into the policy language. Mr. Ruddy proceeded to show a series of slides depicting the eight areas in the County where modifications were proposed. Commissioner Thomas inquired if this exercise could be construed in any way as a "taking" by reducing the UDA or inhibiting the value of properties in the view of property owners. Commissioner Thomas also asked what the Commission was hoping to solve by going through this exercise. Mr. Ruddy said the study committee does not believe that any of these actions would result in a "taking" situation because the value would be placed on the current land use designations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence added that the actual zoning of a property dictates what can or can not be done on a property and has the identified permitted uses. Mr. Lawrence said this exercise will not take away the property's permitted uses. Commissioner Thomas commented that whether or not the property is within the UDA is a primary factor when considering a rezoning application. He said a property owner will now be required to go through two legislative actions; getting the property within the UDA and getting the proper zoning. Other Commissioners believed that before this action could be considered a regulatory taking, the properties would have to be down -zoned, causing certain development rights to be taken away. However, it was thought the action could possibly change the perceived value of the properties being removed. Some members thought it would be best to clear up the boundaries now, so the existing land would be consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. It was noted that only a few areas would be impacted in the way suggested because the vast majority of the land affected was zoned either commercial, industrial, or was within the Town of Stephens City; very few areas had the potential for RP development. Commissioners wanted to make sure the affected property owners were informed through written notification of the proposed modifications because it was a significant land use action. It was noted that the area maps were presented at the three separate public meetings held to inform the public of this exercise. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 7, 2006 Page 1780 /�t111� -z6 - ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Mohn, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1781 Minutes of June 7, 2006. 0 ,RD & F • C-: J 4w4` y� CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #04-06 w ANDREW DATT AND PAUL ANDERSON w Staff Report for the Planning Commission wl, Prepared: June 28, 2006 I>JB 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 Action Planning Commission: 07/19/06 Pending Board of Supervisors: 08/23/06 Pending LOCATION: This subject property is located at 1009 Germany Road (Route 625). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 73-A-100 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT' USE: ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Areas) East: RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas) Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential Land Use: Vacant Land Use: Vacant Land Use: Vacant Land Use: Vacant PROPOSED USE: 150- Foot Monopole Commercial Telecommunications Facility REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The application for a Conditional Use Permit for this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 625, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. A Standard PEI entrance will need to be constructed. Before any work is performed on the right-of-way, a VDOT permit is required. CUP #04-06, Andrew Datt and Paul Anderson June 28, 2006 Page 2 Fire Marshal: Plan approved as submitted. 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/2003. Structural plans submitted for permit application shall be sealed by a VA Licensed Design Professional. Please note the requirements in Chapter 17 Special Inspections for this type structure, soils, concrete, bolts, etc. Note: All Chapter 1 VUSBC min. inspections shall be conducted by the Frederick County inspection staff. Request to utilize a third party inspection agency, that complies with the Frederick County policy, shall have prior approval granted by the Building Code Official. Sanitation Authority: We do not serve this area. Winchester -Frederick County Health Department: The Health Dept. has no objections to the Conditional Use Permit for the monopole; as long as the existing well and septic system are properly located and marked to avoid damage. If the septic system is damaged, a new drainfield site will need to be located, and the site will have to meet today's regulations. Winchester Regional Airport: Structure should be marked and lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1J, Obstruction Marking and lighting, Chapters 4, 8 (M -Dual) & 13. Although the Federal Aviation Administration's regulations do not require structures under 200' to be lighted, on behalf of the Airport Authority we are requesting the tower to be lit for safety due primarily to the ongoing medevac operations throughout Frederick County. In addition, the location of this site is on top of a knoll, which factors into our request. Provided that this condition is met, - The Winchester Regional Airport Authority has no objections to this CUP. City of Winchester: No comments. Planning and Zoning: The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for commercial telecommunication facilities in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Commercial telecommunication facilities are subjected to additional performance standards in order to mitigate negative impacts to residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas, and properties of significant historic values. This proposed 150 -foot monopole -type commercial telecommunication facility is located outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA), and does not appear to have any significant impacts on the surrounding residential properties �y ____g Ordinance _ p •�-o� �. �rJn applications for COrnmPrr.ial The Frederick CountZonin Ordinance S eciliW that telecommunication facilities provide an inventory of existing telecommunication facilities in the area, and staff would concur that there are no existing facilities or appropriate structures available for co -location in this general area. The maps provided within the application, analyzing coverage need in this area, appear to be sufficient to determine the adequacy of the search area, and the existing CUP #04-06, Andrew Datt and Paul Anderson June 28, 2006 Page 3 coverage and capacity of the licensee holder in the vicinity of the proposed facility. As shown on the maps in your agenda, the coverage needs will be met by a facility at this location. The applicant proposes to build a 150 -foot monopole -type telecommunication facility that is designed to accommodate commercial telecommunication carriers. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires a minor site plan for new commercial telecommunication facilities. This site plan will address the location of an 11.6' by 20' equipment shelter and lighting on the 150 -foot monopole tower, to mitigate illumination to neighboring properties and right-of-ways. A certified Virginia engineer shall provide verification that the tower is designed, and will be constructed in a manner that, should the tower collapse 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. The setbacks for this proposed commercial telecommunication facility will be approximately 340 feet from the road right-of-way, 250 feet from rear property line, and 500 feet from the right property line. This proposed commercial telecommunication facility will be in conformance with Section 704 of the Telecommunication Act of 1996. In evaluating this application, it has been demonstrated that there is a need for the infrastructure within this area of the County as identified. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 07/19/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Staff believes that this application for a commercial telecommunication facility has adequately addressed the requirements of Section 165-48.6 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance in that a need for this facility, based on a lack of coverage and capacity in this part of Frederick County, has been demonstrated. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this application, the following conditions of approval would be appropriate: 1. Tower will be a monopole type, not to exceed 150 feet in height. 2. All Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requirements and review agency comments shall be addressed and complied with at all times. 3. The tower shall be available for co -locating personal wireless services providers. 4. A minor site plan shall be approved by Frederick County. 5. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within twelve (12) months of abandonment of operation. 6. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (12) months of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, then the CUP will be deemed invalid. 7. A certified Virginia engineer shall provide verification that the tower is designed, and will be constructed in a manner that, should the tower collapse 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. 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. '�r � � SIMPSO9 , JOHH t !mow ti 73 A 36q 0 RICHARDS FRUIT MARKET, LLC 63.27 . 9 • ,000 y/ c� Cy f SU34C, Q 7;'SA'v .yam l -, V A' i yF�Z/,y 4 2S,q J� 73 A 29 o', Ryyry r%' RIDING 46.57 RUBY NkFRpR P 954 ..,. F Bz3 Rr/FS C 73 a 97 H&E, LC 89.63 Y � W O � �r v W J2 b yj cot i 4 73 A 99 ar RINKER PROPERTIES, L.0 � •,I 80.06 , AI u Q V Q' J� 73 A 100 (�) Q ;3 ANDERSON, PAUL G JR & MARY EDNA 'Z ��, 100 ' J 73 F 5 1� �i`•s., STOVER, DOUGIA 8 6 w Marl boro Riles1W _ 0 r z a 73 i 73 A 101 i 2 SOY 4 3 BAUSERMAN, SHIRLEY D '+'CN,R0 ° 63.25 5� I r_6s 4 C 9 10 � '16 • oa TP r CO^ �s gyp Z 84A 46 s c KAHN, LLC Z� 149.95 5 350116�Rer /V S—dn Rneas Zoning M2 (InUusuul. General -1-1) i iCl6 / "..' Roaas ( g1-11 oa Dielrcll �' MHI (M°blle Hanw C°mmunlry D�uncl) \ B1 °n° - Andrew Datt & Paul Anderson FrenemkCountyDept Of ^� Pdevry Roaea vu.°m°am, Cly Rmas D: (eaa�e°aa. ce°e�al oreb,n) ms v.+°mem sava°n o•u,c0 ups-�!:1L �+ Planning & Development emla,eva 4M B] 16ua,ro¢.ImWsluel T -1—Dnm,il Rd fR°cJenlul, Plane°a Cumm rc0 ��" O V 107 N Kent 5 �WP:.,.-0S [NRS EM Icxlmnrv° Menu'.. no Dmven 40 R5 (R—.1.1 Recraeu°nel Cummu tlw Dielndl �. CUP # 04 - Vv;.,hester, 'Jn 22601 He (H( 73 —A - 100) '^"�'^' CO.FREDERICK.VA.US gn.r eeaealwn onu,n RA warmA ws D•I„=u June 21, 2006 Mt (Intluelral, Li011 D,elcl) RP (R°selentul Pean,nunca Dislacp `�.i ]5011 Buller /�/aewn°ery Ro.E. Zoning M20n°vunel. General Drelne) 1 n R1 (Bvuneee,—pebole°oe Dwlcp 4MMHtW.—n 1 '°` P "`" °` "°"`°�"" Andrew Datt & Paul Anderson Fred,n.kCountyDept of �v Pnmm� Rosn.®w+ncll..ler ca. Re.a. az .eeaceuual o.1na) t' ms pn.°1�1 sepp°n °moral w[ Planning & Development LDP a 0e - 00 a� B3 (bau ° ml Tmn.ni°n D1urc1) JW Re IReueenlml, Pmnne° Cem —I, Qurcl) CUP # 04 - 06 107 N Kent St 14m EM(Eu1—Manul-- Dmmu) 1' � R5 s Winchester, VA 22601 0 (Reueenlmi Reuealmnal C°mmunlry Qurcp fW EMohs Ed-- M(R—Aree.Diulwp ( 73 - A - 100) w' m' w.CO.FREDERICK.VA.US 40 ml on..—, —I RP lRememmlPertermanae Qmncq ��.• June 21, 2000 �/ssan een°, Ns°w^ery nom° zoning min°aeemm. c -1m —me) Andrew Datt & Paul Anderson Fledn.kCountyDept of /�/ Pnmery qma. )mmrnen°r cM aem. a: tees^°u, c<^^rei osma) xss A+adeai sePp°n °.n^a) w e Planning & Development s m k "�� s sa teen"`�. maeu�i rr.^w°^ omr.pY q� tgeuaen°N, Pannetl C°mmuniq gaeG) CUP # 04 - 06 707 N Kent St an tFa..an•, m°°w°a^m� °�°ma) qs tgem°mul qrL°°mei c°mm^^M omrcal 5 Winchester, VA 22601 j ( 73 - A - 100) www,CO.FREDERICK.VAUS qE MSB"er Eae...amu) qn tq^raln ez.na�,eo t--��y— June 21.2006 i y,+�rn)Mau.vnt l�pla °ama) as lgecnemwi PercPrmance ❑vna) '° Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA '7 t —9%A/ 1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner - �( other) NAME: -o 1-J Ib�-, 7 ADDRESS: ye6 rW etoGe 7otaa 5� t 11 r-aLNl X10-76 TELEPHONE L�.c : C�l«� 1t(3- 697a Lite) $ -yllI 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) tool 2or3o S:t--P�S C�� UA b55 "V M 1 W 6 o n AV VA — a3 1 dlf +r 767, r v na MF1 RLgv� �► "TVk,/il ZlfskiT Ofi►Yo �A leFi�X �� Icr vJN�CH bi Go,14GS 4= $FAX i2FiA'7C �i - Col�� Gcrit+-tfl►sy 20. 4. The property has a road frontage of feet depth of feet and consists of and a -0i, (Please be exact) ,oa acres. 5. The property is owned by ;AjL MAtt"y �D'as°"J as evidenced by deed from V P,,J n /J , (2-0t 0 Qr'S recorded in deed book no. (previous owner) records of the Clerk of thea C suit Court, County the Frederick. 6. Tax(Parcel)Identification (I.D.)No. -1-3 A app Magisterial District Current Zoning 7. Adjoining Property: North USE East —� South West ZONING —P --A (Z A {L /-\ 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: A 150 M1oPy� /kin &'s 1\'6" x�� L QU 1 P N�rJ i S 1`��T�'CZ 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, 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: NAME1�EGL�tnJ 2+o� S ���i�Jm �SLoS� ADDRESS/a�?' Cir'%VA a a6Ss PROPERTY ID# `73 .4 G.A NAME ADDRESS 61,;' MFIWa ze p po �•�SS PROPERTY IDI --�3 A a -s NAME{}2� 40(L iaaA ,j o- Owi�) is ADDRESS ��6 �4 �Ny 20. SQL -p S C%TV VA aa�S� PROPERTY IN --73 Q G NAME Z,c-,) t,3 4,s 2ts%Doat ao ADDRESS I��� Cs�=cznc�a�r 2�, . St%VM-�S C1-ry VF+ PROPERTY ID# -3 /4 an r NAME if i / ' ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# X13 A _--'8 r , rI t k I/ NAME (70&-1 ADDRESS Q D . S7'9110'�S PROPERTY ID# 3 A NAMEyC-(trJw Q,o2�S�o�i� i R.�S+ ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# -a3 /k 914 I/ -11 I l " l NAME Z � -� G�t.aP��rc L.0 ADDRESS M82c_9oZ,0 Zr�. 5 � �-P-tt�S �,-ryvA PROPERTY ID#�3 A 9� ANS �3�ySL1 NAME C�Zoo ADDRESS 16& 2� PROPERTY NAME t i t, ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# /1 NAME ADDRESS 13 &1 NLHsZ� Q�2a 2c� PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# 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. 12. Additional comments, if any: 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. 01 UE'Sc -WIJy eVAD VA ,�55 TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) {t,A� l A`1 , 97, �� (Phone) Z O V�c 9 (Address)_/00!7CIA-" the owner(s) of all those tracts or arcels of land ("P&perty") conveyM to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. on Page , and is described as Parcel: Lot: Block: Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) A (Phone) 01�1 I _Z§ - (Address) :?q&& 1J t---iJ e DC_,_ ZA-�. l Cl To act as my true and lawful attorney -m -fact for and ni my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: ❑ Rezoning (including proffers) )( Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: i ms authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness the I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this � day of 200, Signature(s) - r v ,„t/ ,J' State of Virginia, CyityiCounty of F—! Q Cc To -wit. I, _ _ _ , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in th;. jurisdiction aforesaid this I D, day of U f; l , 200_(O. IPA_ My Conunission Expires: No Pu c Radio Frequency Report For Ridings Hill Site 1009 Germany Road Stephens City, Frederick County, VA 22655. ,R singular . AFI Prepared by: Hershell Dailey RF Engineer Reviewed by: Sandeep Gupta RF Lead Engineer Approved by: Jimreivat Veeramanas RF Manager Cingular Wireless 7150 Standard Drive Hanover, MD Tel: 410-712-7815 Fax: 410-712-7784 Proprietary and Confidential: Cingular wireless and authorized clients only COVERAGE OBJECTIVE: The primary objective is to build a new site in the area of Ridings Hill that will provide coverage especially along Marlboro Road, Germany Road, Middle Road and Carters Lane. The addition of this site will provide service for the residents of Ridings Hill and surrounding areas. Cingular networks' nearest existing sites are Opequon, Stephen City, and Middletown. This site will extend the coverage onto Marlboro Road, Middle Road and Germany Road by providing overlapping coverage with existing sites. This site will benefit the customers commuting along these roads and the residents of this neighborhood. No existing structure was found which could satisfy the Coverage needs for this Search Ring. The proposed facility will operate with following RF parameters This proposed installation at 1009 Germany Rd, Stephens City, VA 22655 will not disturb or diminish with Radio, Television, Telephone or other household electronic appliances. Cingular Wireless will work within its spectrum of frequencies and will not interfere with county's emergency frequencies or other county frequencies. ..Cingular -,11 Proprietary and Confidential: Cingular wireless and authorized clients only RF PARAMETERS FOR SITE: 1834_LANDONVILLE Sector 1 Sector 2 Sector 3 1 Antenna Type Transmit / Receive Transmit / Receive Transmit/ Receive Antenna Make Panel Panel Panel 2 Antenna Model XDU06-80-R XDU06-80-R XDU06-80-R Antenna Manufacturer CSS CSS CSS Frequency TX: (869.040-879.990) MHz; (890.010-891.480) MHz; (1950-1965) MHz; (1970-1975) MHz ; RX : 824.040 - 834.990 MHz; 845.010 - 846.480 MHz; 1870 - 1885 MHZ ; 1890 - 1895 MHZ 3 Modulation QPSK/ GMSK / 8- PSK QPSK! GMSK / 8- PSK QPSK/ GMSK / 8- PSK Effective 250 Max (cellular) , 500 250 Max (cellular) , 500 250 Max (cellular) , 500 4 Radiated Power( Max (PCS) Max (PCS) Max (PCS) Watts 5 Azimuths 0 120 240 This proposed installation at 1009 Germany Rd, Stephens City, VA 22655 will not disturb or diminish with Radio, Television, Telephone or other household electronic appliances. Cingular Wireless will work within its spectrum of frequencies and will not interfere with county's emergency frequencies or other county frequencies. ..Cingular -,11 Proprietary and Confidential: Cingular wireless and authorized clients only CINGULAR WIRELESS EXISTING GSM COVERAGE NEAR RIDINGS HILL s e' 2.6•NATIONAL FRUIT 1 miles 657 c � SHENANDOAH UNIVERSITY W CSP.IE ON A STEPH�''ITY LOSTT -ORNER Mon o b Ridings Hill Cattle Fa r }Z Ta Ze Fhid�e �� o s % LESENOArCHURCH I�11DpLIE IO Triton col cl-Q35 Clingular GSM On -Air Sites Existing Cingular GSM Coverage Proposed Candidate PROPRIETARY AIID COIIFIDE[IT1AL: CIIIGULAR WIRELESS ARD AUTHORIZED CLIEHTS OIH_Y CINGULAR WIRELESS PROPOSED COVERAGE WITH RIDINGS HILL CANDIDATE i ¢A itrhigs Hill Cattle -Fa r __.._._ IJIIDDLEWN Tri[oh col n r� /l Cingular GSM On -Air Sites Proposed Candidate Coverage Existing Cingular GSM Coverage Proposed Candidate PROPRIETARY AND WIRELESS AIR) AUTHORIZED C_LIEIITSf LILY % I Topo USA® 5.0 t� I J SRsas .5 r c � yR , �Prnposedrte of 150' Monopole - f;. ngs .._ I :Hill �, i'•� ,_.. 6Ib 5e —'" SR 631 f ........ \ \ .b t r: p. / y k, i �S Oql n Data use subject to license. nT� Scale 1 :25,000 © 2004 DeLorme. Topo USA® 5.0. vmw.delorme.com 1"= 2,083.3 P Data Zoom 13-0 165-48.6. Commercial telecommunication facilities A. Information required as part of the conditional use permit application shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) A map depicting the search area used in siting each proposed commercial communications facility. Please See the Attached Map (2) Identification of all service providers and commercial telecommunication facility infrastructure within a proposed search area. The applicant shall provide confirmation that an attempt to collocate on an existing telecommunication facility has been made. Please See the Attached Propagation Maps (3) Information demonstrating that the commercial telecommunication facility is in compliance with the Federal Communication Commission's established ANSI/IEEE standards for electromagnetic field levels and radio frequency radiation. Please See the Attached Radio Frequency Justification (4) An affidavit signed by the landowner stating that he/she is a aware that he/she may be held responsible for the removal of the commercial telecommunications facility as stated in 165-48.613 (7). Please See Attached Landowner Affidavit B. The following standards shall apply to any property in which a commercial telecommunication facility is sited, in order to promote orderly economic development and mitigate the negative impacts to adjoining properties. (1) The Planning Commission may reduce the required setback distance for commercial telecommunication facilities as required by 165-24B(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 of line of the base of the tower. In no case shall the setback distance be reduced to less than %2 the distance of the tower height. Commercial telecommunication facilities affixed 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. Cingular will meet all county setback requirements in accordance with county code. (2) Monopole -type construction shall be required for new commercial telecommunication towers. The Planning Commission may allow lattice -type construction for new telecommunication towers that are located outside the Urban Development Area and are not adjacent to properties that are identified as historic sites. The proposed communications facility will is designed as a monopole in accordance with the Frederick County Ordinance. Please see attached construction drawings page A-2. (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. There will be no more than two signs which will provide ownership identification and emergency information. The signs will comply with Frederick County code and be limited to 1.5 square feet and not 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 Cominission. 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. Although this facility is under 200 feet and would note normally require any lighting, due to a request by the Winchester Regional Airport. (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 Communications Commission. The monopole will be constructed of galvanized steel and colored gray in accordance with Frederick County code. (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. The proposed 75'x75' area will be enclosed by a chain linked fence with barbed wire to prevent unauthorized use. Please see attached construction drawings A-1 and A-4. (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 Frederick County department of Planning and Development. Removal includes the removal of the tower, all tower and fence footers, 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. If the tower is not operated for a continuous period of twelve months the tower will be removed within 90 days of receipt of notice from Frederick County department of Planning and Development. 1GK ' CO qw4 �a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 905-06 t HILLTOP HOUSE w Staff Report for the Planning Commission R°'^u Prepared: July 5, 2006 Staff Contact: Kevin T. Henry, Planning Technician 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: 07/19/06 Pending Board of Supervisors: 08/23/06 Pending LOCATION: This subject property is located at 111 Denny Lane (just off Route 7). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 5513-A-6 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT' USE: ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: MH1 (Mobile Home Community) South: B2 (General Business) East: RP (Residential Performance) West: B3 (Industrial Transition) PROPOSED USE: Adult Care Facility REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residential Land Use: Residential Land Use: Commercial Land Use: Residential Land Use: Residential Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The application for a Conditional Use Permit for this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 7, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Prior to operation of the business, a commercial entrance must be constructed to our standards to allow for safe egress and ingress of the property. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. The permit is issued by this office and CUP 905-06, Hilltop House July 5, 2006 Page 2 requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Plan approved as submitted. Inspections Department: No comments at this time. Will comment on site plan review. Sanitation Authority: The Authority serves this facility. There is adequate sewer and water capacity to serve this site. Winchester -Frederick County Health Department: The Health Dept. has no objections as long as public water and sewer are utilized. Winchester Regional Airport: Since the Conditional Use Permit does not appear to have any impact on the operations of the Winchester Regional Airport, there are no objections or special conditions requested. Planning and Zoning: This proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is for an Adult Care Facility. The applicant is currently operating a 74 bed adult care facility under CUP x#03-93, previously revised from CUP 404-88. The location of this proposed additional operation will take place to the east of the current care facility, which is proposed to have 68 beds, and create a total of 56 parking spaces for the entire site. Convalescent and nursing homes are permitted in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District with an approved CUP. There is no objection to this application, but the submission of a site plan should be required to insure all issues associated with this use are adequately addressed. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 07/19/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would recommend the following conditions: 1) All review agency comments will be addressed and complied with as required. 2) All federal, state, and local regulations applicable to adult care facilities will be complied with at all times. 3) A site plan shall be submitted and receive approval prior to construction on the site. 4) The entrance onto Route 7 will strictly be a single right in/out driveway. Following the requisite public /searing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors. Hilltop House Frederick of E Planning 8 D—1 Developp ment CUP# 05 - 06 107 N Kent St Streets N rera°"r+�°°° s Winchester, VA 22601 a°°°.®vn° 1.—cn ama. ( 55B - A - 6)—.CO.FREDERICK.VA.US June 23, 2006 ^ n I 0 L,�P 55E 1 72A REGENCY HEIGHTS PROPERTYo 4.25 a N=o N � o WII70EN LULEY$RE, LI,G 129.9E p ° w 4 rLaSQ�C` 55 A 26 MBC, LC 4.53 Alvl' am^ Q 4 S58 A 22A m o $ Awroo scrLc h ' m I � ryv C M Irr ■ C M* a I ZZ m = o z S5B A 6 a " 5MI7H, JOSEPH C tpa �44.96 .n 1 � / NPµ114K1N5 4 55 A. .34 %04? 9 q MBCwL'( 55 PS EioN,1NG P� i Cp4LY1EF 1:f AN jw fit OOV ]]ql B.- .NS—dory R.da Zonlna M]Bnduslrol. GeneralpMntll S[rme25 / Tewry Rwtla •;7 Bt (Ruunev,, Wwneornootl DN1e1 AIM m.,R (Meml. Home edmmdem D,.ma) Hilltop House Fredenck County Dept of /�/ pnmery Roeda a"Anceeasr U1 —d.B2 �Buuneu. General D�alea) 4W MS M.— Suppld D—.) µ� �i� Planning B Development e�eae 4m e] taevd u, md-1 Tmnadidn Durran �. Re (R .... —n PNnned Communlry PareO `a- CUP # 05 - 06 107 N Kent St cuPows wwmpgpd.e <; F,M (E:vea�ve MpewagedeB D�adu) RS IReWemu�aeaeelweW commdl,nypman a Winchester, VA 22601 e,Y�+r+E tawBdreauceinn Garen Ra (awnl a.na Dlarcn ( 55B - A - 6) —.COFREDERICK.VA.US I—'---{— June 23.2006 (2:, Mt Bnduanal, up, a-.) IP (.—d-1.1 I——Garrcn Hilltop House Frederick County Dept of w .. E Planning & Development Nawneme Nseaneeryn..e. CUP # 05 - 06 107NKent V Stree[s - \ leruery a.ene Winchester. VA 22601 w Pnnury ftaaEs Nencneuer cny noeEa ( 55B -A - 6) —.CO,FREDERICK.VA US opHou.e I—Zy June 23, 2006 ®CdP0506 WIIII Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA . 0 1. Applicant (The applicantif the owner other) NAME: Po i n tc r Lcw I G Pim(,/ ADDRESS: TELEPHONE �O 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: Juonlfa '5m( -+h 10 C C'4 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) 1( ( Dcriw / Lane, C�-- r 4. The property has a road frontage of j 0-, f `v feet and a P P Y g d l/ C`�''r �=�r'�! depth of qS;?, feet and consists of acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by kJ0`;;J0� 1�.: vt'Y� ; f y as evidenced by deed from IASe(�- OJ-8(honol C-ch-,rnentS recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. )q on page 93c , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.���J���� Magisterial District Stunt -Voll Current Zoning PIP 7. Adjoining Property: USE, ZONING North 1/00 ao J /reS/ dee) &i k P East I South West A'e5/de 0ta/ W6rCl /13�� 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) rye fCic t-// 9. It is proposed that the f 11. wing buildings willbe constructed: C7ClGli`=lTl`�� �� 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, 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: NAME R I ve A L(m&eci fa b crs1'1 L; PROPERTY ID# 55B- A - t c16 hAwt 5 h'y)M 6v1S ADDRESS Po_b PROPERTY ID# 556— A ` H 6 963 Px; r; o I le- Pr KO - NAME kleh I t ; Sr. ADDRESS 'vv it &C -5t t , VA 33 LCO PROPERTY ID# S-5 ' A -5 JJ Pa NAME Ltwf�b 4 Pad h ` flo( '5or1 ADDRESS t?e boy- �« 1 VJ111COIC'5tr! IVA a;9"; U0`# PROPERTY ID# --A b NAME I CL410'' pb51`00 ADDRESS 13! Der��t�l_ure WInChCS f, VA 2z- t,0 PROPERTY ID#�56-A-11 NAME C 1ti �hel�r� Zacl�lco ADDRESS 15 t Cy11U LC�?e wiY1C'�eS�%r, Vf-I ;a:gdc03 PROPERTY ID# 5S � ' � ` � � I PcC1nq Lai1C NAME Gjf-i cher rI ADDRESS wIr, chec i , VA 3x6163 PROPERTY ID# ISI U� i�f►� C,C[�1E NME Shel-r\,i Z61c.1'16 C e ADDRESS WM(-hC5kt", VA 05 PROPERTY ID# A ` C . P7r )fit �j:30 fP� NAME�'�C�� �' AI�Al1 1-fa15 ADDRESS Foye5- i W! NAD PROPERTY ID# 556— A ` H NAME NO ov, iIQ r 11"110rf)IC 10r) ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# fD -A IS 333 i,,:'avcj A vt. NAME M �)/ . LLG ADDRESS lti'I�,CY S f, V SOI PROPERTY ID# S5 - A (z� NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY, ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# 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 meas(S;Ce!cafocvvc/ urements to all property lines. PJA 559L -A-7 27M A mum I NN 557-A-9 as On P. Au JOUA XXOT 2nim R. I as .774 P. /65 ag AV1IA( meat AP M. MGtNI �\ PJA 55:-A-.77 EX. SWM MMVYLW ASZMW POND PER 04 P. 568 iACILIfY aB 614 P. la7 r 201M Aff-7 `DZ are aua 9°Af£ ($tIt LYA*QW) cN_ v ..! PJA .£B -A-!/ I; 4� Rf) WA IAOM rgs� a as +moi P..m! za%& AP ag YAC"r � SOO 4328' 663.B3' NOO'384971 603.33 Au M"-7 RIE.4 I&M AW AMW as WP. X,? 1 1 ' aziswrY Ac s 79P&V MIM W W, AMUn" 8547YO' 5—� — 115-1217" 504274771 1g� 698.74' ,3�'�tR I PJA M"-78 < � � { I �o f PROP. PAMNG , A.r7/YG WY I t as SLIT Plip m i I�h O S7z'!11 52 5015 507► tp a� C CARE FACILtiY -j� { NOO 38'1671 =M 349.11' PAMMAC AbVW As 772 P. M 675 Afta A- IM REXV 7 V 150 0 150 166�� Scale 1 " = 150 ft 04/14/2006 12:45 54e66257c? PAINTERLEWIS PAGE 02 12. Additional comments, if any: -rnis purcb7w-ed 15ory,) Dourdtree DO � h i n ( r3qg f AYA 55 C3,- c.har6 5 W t slyer -7 a 550-A - y a,sl 5,P - A -1 _ S Y1e an ck o ah C o m p o fcr cA s, (-tn_s j-1 f(Vtjj) =j RSF LC (Joao l a5 t to } 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. Signatu a off', ,cant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address Owners' Telephone No. h TO 8E COMPLETED BY "ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: • �7 • WAIVER REQUEST c� JUDITH K. SHIFFLETT 4w Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: July 5, 2006 .,. Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 07/19/06 Pending Board of Supervisors: 07/26/06 Pending LOCATION: The properties are located 1,500 feet north of the intersection of Lauck Drive and Route 522. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 53A -A-36, 53A -A-37 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RP (Residential Performance) District Land Use: Residential and Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Vacant South: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential East: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Vacant SUBDIVISION WAIVER SPECIFICS: The applicant is requesting an exception of Chapter 144, Article V — Design Standards, § 144-24B — Lot Requirements; Chapter 165, Article VI — RP Residential Performance District, § 165-65(B)3,. § 165-65(D)5, and § 165-65(D)6 for a Boundary Line Adjustment and Consolidation of three parcels. Waiver Request — Judith K. Shifflett July 5, 2006 Page 2 Background: These parcels were created prior to Frederick County adopted zoning in 1967. The Frederick County historical zoning map shows this property was zoned R-2 (Residential General) District in1967. Frederick County amended its Ordinance in 1989 to change the R-2 zoning districts to the current RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District. There is no record of a Master Development Plan or Subdivision Design Plan for theses lots. Requested Waivers The Frederick County Code Chapter 144 requires that any new parcels that are created must meet the requirements of Chapter 165 Zoning of the County of Frederick Code. This chapter addresses lot area, minimum lot width and setbacks and other dimensional requirements. The applicant has sought an exception from these requirements, as the adjacent properties are of similar size and do not have these identified factors, and are comparable in lot size. The applicant is seeking an exception from the lot requirements of Section 144-24 B of the County of Frederick Code (Subdivision). Therefore, the applicant has requested a waiver from the following requirements: • The applicant is seeking a waiver from the minimum lot width requirements for parcel 53A -A-37 of 22,807 Sq ft. from the required 80 feet to 25 feet, Section 165-65B (3). • The applicant is seeking a waiver from the minimum lot width at setback from the required 60 feet to 48.46 feet as required by Section 165-65D (5) for parcel 53A -A-36; of 10,000 sq ft. • The applicant is seeking a waiver from the minimum lot width at road right-of- way from the required 30 feet to 25.45 feet as required by Section 165-65D (6); for parcel 53A -A-36 of 10,000 square feet. • The applicant will need a waiver from the pipestem requirement required by Section 165-65 P; for parcel 53A -A-37, Section 165-65P, limits pipestem to 5% of a project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 07/19/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: When considering the waiver requests, the Planning Commission should consider the surrounding properties and their existing improvements. Staff is seeking administrative approval authority; therefore, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors regarding the subdivision request is desired. The two (2) newly established parcels will be 10,000 square feet and 22,807 square feet respectfully, created though land actions of a Boundary Line Adjustment and Consolidation. These parcels would be consistent with the dimensional requirements lot sizes of the adjacent lots within this established neighborhood. Access to these proposed lots to be via Lauck Drive (Route 832). These properties are located within the UDA and SWSA as indicated in the 2003 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. Waiver Request — Judith K. Shifflett July 5, 2006 Page 3 Following the Planning Commission discussion, it would be appropriate to forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding these waiver requests as well as the subdivision request. All issues and concerns raised by the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. Staff would note that if any of the requested waivers are not granted, then the subdivision will not conform with ordinances and, therefore, would not be approved 53A A 29 MYRICK, JAY PAUL JR & JOYCE ANN 338 53A A 41B HARLES R. & BRENDA M- 0.91 rA 53A A 33 MCKEE, CHARLOTTE BUTLER & ETALS 1.37 53A A 34 A & 14r CONTRUCTION, LLC 2.2 ��T QRS R7CygRp as .3TC[/sTOp(gN �NFBFRV q 3E'T CqR a. 55 4 119 5 ;y R-" p` p 4p4 Ds_ gNAR 53A \ H7,ypKS'A \� 4N 4 d 41C s FVIY 53A A 76 �LF4fIA7 S?S MERRILL, NALDA B & GEORGE L JR 6{p4YJp "' \ �iSm surto /�a.cnm.ry Ra�ea Zonlnfl M2 nrwumerr mimm,u) n .lew /� TMnary Puetla 91 Q3u�n.... Nepnbanieeo DKrcn � MH1 11Vladbe Rvmw Dou.,wM Dnncn 40Vvn— aeetl� VAndpWrCYt Rmtlt 9]iHurinr.�. Ganury DrnrcnN$aduw$YppulDrru) N� �NMReq.Jue�nsnMkp . B9 (Bwmu. �wwnel Tranwm DiYricn = RI (Revmnuµ Punire cp�ununiry Duacn S ��Orn l�arwne m.ncru,,.:q a�n<,I iRs lrt.�mmwReuwrmw cemmunry Dwrcq i "�lwonerEmmwn ovnrn w.tnu�u.a.�Drrim r --------- t— c_'rrrn�a�.,�.r,kgn�D�arkn rw rw.b.m�u a.mm,,,m. DcIrW1 a m O ACV p14 ��`�f✓'& 71 p Cy SK4F d1 12 C �i4 ftow �evy( SM�CCwOp� 1 P4 Judith Shifflett Frederick County Dept of Planning & Oevelopment Wavier Request 107 N Kent St Q Winchester. VA 22601 ( 53A - A - 36, 37 —r- FREDrRICKVA.US July 5, 2006 !.- a / ct,J 1 - a'° a J � TF sc A r° Af mwmf4 K, YRAU JRRJU aANN N N. '. _ r i - o SQA Iv s �, -� ` ,�►. A8'WGONTRUCTION,11LUGM1 9 e •! �6CkPff' y A `r - f119 - r404 P � S9A A 41A �,1� GRI9NIAN,CFGkNLESfidORS NUANI, �.�-"ti4 ,�_"�,. �a S# I 0 _ .r KERN3 'JO FFH AP i ■i,j y., 0.8,E i 68A A 41AkQ/,sV q . k�y'rfM� ?3' KICKLIN6.Id4rl,. `J7 �C ` --'. i✓r G r�r- M d Y pl, NiERRlLL, NACDA B 6 tiNORpE ✓_J p•avr �� A I 0.6� 4a M%vtq. ! qW F Judith Shifflett Frederick County Deptof 1,157 sen awn ean., ^/ sew„m,y Ha.w w . -� c Planning S Development Sn0°ts Roa°° 5 Wavier Request Win107 N Kent S chester, VA 22601t 'OV I—, Haute®wau,°u°, eny HaeW ( 53A - A 36, 37) ,wiw.CO.FREDERICK.VA.US w.H,�saeensnm°n-1,� - July 5, 2006 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street ! Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 WAIVER/EXCEPTIONS REQUEST APPLICATION 1. Applicant: /�' Name: A)C'Vtq =L- AA - A4V-Z_- Telephone:����f'v(v%'moi Address: AYL7z G L+1i1 66CAC�:tt cy 5-i" Lzllac.1. -ret \14 2. Property owner (if different than above): LgaoL 7 K _ (.d ^till tt1�: Name: Ty r2rr44 i;. 514) 97T Telephone: Address: ' � --!� L A-UCV, 02 rye- W)-1G qit;� Te -P- k/,,4- - 2 (,D —3 3. Contact person (if other than above): 1111 1 e, ,zTZ o P - (o G �% • �,2 �� Name: J 1 A& -S 4 1 F ru'-n- Telephone: (olo'L� 4. Waiver request details (include specific ordinance requirements to be waived): 5. Property Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): 1,09'06- &D , 09'0b 6. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number `��� '7 �.�d ��C , --;, 7 Magisterial District: n.7,Us11-L-L_ 7. Property zoning and current use: Zoned: f-1;7 District ,q,?Ca, a ro�ir �r wl Current Use: 11+&et, 8. Attachments: Adjoining Property Owners List Existing/recorded and/ Proposed Plats OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $500 enclosed: Receipt #: 9. List of Adjoining Properties: The following names and addresses are all ofthe individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the waiver or exception is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear, and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application. NAME °l i4C V- P -Tt —'a� ev-( � U)()J fe_f -!S, R ickvxrc:-1 t -(Cir �d ► �� ke�l�, D��a Ker�S, 3t,6(f " L- I oZC� l c � i E f yam C";' � Address �� � �� CI'� � " k IN Z_2 -Z1 -D_ -, Property ID #} - _ Cf Address ' �'Cq Zz4eZO Property ID # S 3 �4 - JA -3 Address X23`7 Lc,_L C_K Dr ) r-1 C zc�; Property ID # f3 A -)q - R o Address � 3 3 Property ID # ti.3 A _ A - 40 j�/t i n Kms, E1 �► U �- Address 5(Q /�ixL K �r • I" } Z Z. . G3 Property ID # j �i�j - ;al t r C.ynC Address l U1 n Ch Ott tG.KDr • f VA Z_ Z_& L Property ID #j40 - 1 -1-11 ,fcI _�-c Co Cnd40 �_a�.,�CK. Or Address i y- � �,� A ZZ[c05 Property ID # 12, Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # - Page 2 - Artz * A5500ate5, P.L.C. 'J" !J 1`41 2 9 2006 1 6 East Piccadilly Street Wlnche5ter, VA 22601 540-667-3233 540-667-9 188 (Fax) Toll free 800-755-7320 mikeartz@5hentel.net June 28, 2006 Mark Cheran Subdivision & Zoning Administrator Frederick County RE: Waiver Request for Shifflett BLA and Consolidation, TM #53A -A-36 and 37. Mark, Please consider this letter a formal request for a Waiver of the following Sections of the Frederick County Subdivision and Zoning Code 1. Section 144-24 (B): a waiver is requested for minimum lot width for both lots as described in Zoning Code. 2. Section 165-65 (B)3: a waiver is requested for minimum lot width from required 80 feet to 25.45 feet for the 22,807 SF lot. 3. Section 165-65 (D)5: a waiver is requested for minimum lot width at setback from required 60 feet to 48.46 feet for the 10,000 SF lot. 4. Section 165-65 (D)6: a waiver is requested for minimum lot width at road right- of-way from required 30 feet to 25.45 feet for the 10,000 SF lot. Sincerely Michael M. Artz, L.S. 130 I T"ARY LINE ADJUSTMENT & CONSOLIDATION of THREE PARCELS Carole K. Lineburg & Judith K. Shifflett TM #53A -A-36 Deed Book 945, Page 15 —Parcel 1 TM #53A -A-37 Deed Book 945, Page 15 —Parcel 2 Unmapped Deed Book 945, Page 15 — Parcel 3 March 1, 2006 Stonewall District, Frederick County, Virginia VICINITY SKETCH SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: I, Michael M. Artz, a duly authorized land surveyor, do hereby certify that the land hereby adjusted and consolidated was acquired is in the name of Carole K. Lineburg & Judith K. Shifflett and as stated in the Owner's Certificate. I further certify that these tracts are properly and accurately described and are within the boundaries of the original tracts. Certified LL lanl/d Surveyor OWNER'S CERTIFICATE: The undersigned fee simple owners hereby certify that the land herein adjusted and consolidated is all of Parcels 1, 2 & 3 of the land acquired by Carole K. Lineburg & Judith K. Shifflett by deed dated August 17, 1999 and recorded in Deed Book 945, Page 15. Said deed being of record in the Clerk's Office of Frederick County, Virginia. This Boundary Line Adjustment and Consolidation as it appears on the accompanying plats is with the free consent and in accordance with the desires of the undersigned owners of said land and the same is hereby confirmed and submitted for record in the Clerk's Office of Frederick County, Virginia. K. K. NOTARY CERTIFICATE: STATE OF VIRGINIA; C�/COUNTY OF �' IL'^ ,fit% to -wit: The foregoing owners consent and dedication was acknowledged before me this / 3 day of i 1 20 C . My commission expires�_�J Notary Public CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL This Boundary Line Adjustment and Consolidation is approved by the undersigned in accordance with existing subdivision regulations and may be admitted to record. date Frederick County Subdivision Administrator SHEET 1 NOTES: 1. BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON WAS DETERMINED BY A FIELD RUN SURVEY PERFORATED BY ARTZ & ASSOCIATES ON JANUARY 26, 2006. 2. THIS PLAT IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 3. ALL PROPERTIES ARE ZONED RP. USES ARE RESIDENTIAL TM #53A -A-416 CHARLES R. & BRENDA M. CRISMAN 722/903 AREA TABULATION EXISTING: TM #53A -A-36 TM #53A -A-37 UNMAPPED PROPOSED: TM #53A -A-36 TM #53A -A-37 19,543 SF 10,256 SF 3009 SF TM #53A -A-45 SHEET 2 OF 2 MICHAEL J. TM #53A—A-45 AN 7/502 ROGER L. & LORRAINE REBAR 717/502 P. MILLER SE7 N 2619'37' E 72.65' 20021026 REBAR SET I I THIS PORTION OF DEED LINE 1 IS HEREBY 1 VACATED TM #53A—A-40A 1 I DANA R. REEDY N #050016017 22,807 5F 53A -A-37 10,000 SF (BY SURVEY) 22,807 SF (BY SURVEY) '�-P'vlH�of y90� MICHAEL M. ARTZ No. 1951 �1�7/o wl.�No suR`1��o� FINAL PLAT BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT and TM #53A—A-35 RICHARD L. WALTERS CUSTODIAN #050024303 io EXIST_ ❑ SHEDS. U 153A—A SF EXIST. DWLG. 2545 POINT 48.46' S 1g58'12, W LAUCK DRIVE (VA. RTE'40'3 R)W E (15PNG CONSOLIDATION of FREBAR OUND FOUND 3 PARCELS STONEWALL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: P' = 50' DATE: MARCH 1, 2006 REVISED 6/7/2006 PRESENT OWNER: CAROLE K. LINEBURG & JUDITH K. 5HIFFLETT TM #53A -A-36 DB 945, PG 15 N PARCEL 1 UNMAP ED 3DB 945 P� 15 15 APARCEL CEL 3 L 2 PROJECT J21641 53A -A-36 _ I m1 �i N THIS DEED LINE Is HEREBY VACATED REBAR SET 71.91 I IO IXI❑ST. I SHEDS 'o N 0 � 31 Iw to REBAR "47�- RESAR z SETN SET io EXIST_ ❑ SHEDS. U 153A—A SF EXIST. DWLG. 2545 POINT 48.46' S 1g58'12, W LAUCK DRIVE (VA. RTE'40'3 R)W E (15PNG CONSOLIDATION of FREBAR OUND FOUND 3 PARCELS STONEWALL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: P' = 50' DATE: MARCH 1, 2006 REVISED 6/7/2006 PRESENT OWNER: CAROLE K. LINEBURG & JUDITH K. 5HIFFLETT TM #53A -A-36 DB 945, PG 15 N PARCEL 1 UNMAP ED 3DB 945 P� 15 15 APARCEL CEL 3 L 2 PROJECT J21641 53A -A-36 _ I m1 �i N THIS DEED LINE Is HEREBY VACATED REBAR SET 71.91 L' 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Candice E. Perkins, Planner II DATE: July 5, 2006 RE: Discussion — New Gainesboro Elementary School At the July 19, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, staff will present the site plan for the new Gainesboro Elementary School to the Planning Commission for review. Customarily, projects that involve capital expenditures for public facilities are brought before the Planning Commission prior to site plan approval. A representative of the Frederick County Schools and Oliver, Webb, Pappas & Rhudy, Inc., will be present during the Planning Commission meeting. The new elementary school will be located on the western side of North Frederick Pike (Route 522) between Chestnut Grove Road (Route 681) and Gainesboro Road (Route 684). The school consists of a total of 96,368 square feet and has a capacity of 750 students. Action on the site plan is not required, but input from the Planning Commission is being sought. A smaller version of the site plan, as well as a location map, has been attached for your information. Please contact me if you would like to see the full version, or if you need any additional information. CEP/bad Attachments 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 WYNN, AN REA HITZl1 r P2 BAR10. SR . 30 A 6 175,25 �( A Ep70N, q1 21. GOLDIZEN, MAN Q h 23.88 c l �p24b P s�'o (y v h0I 30 9 J AW a nesyo F r`�d �vC�Rly 30 A 32 DEHAVEN, CDNARD W JR ® 9 Q 17.97 ON O 0 c M U p 4 Anke 4, 1? y41 ar $n n ; i' C y V .Z p' 0 N A u Cao m n 0 30 A 120 ASHALLEN PROPERTIES, LLC 16.15 �G ti ^^rj 4Q� 30 A 122 �, ¢ KAISER, GARY W 8 GLENDA GAIL 5�p w 86A7 Q' y t � x p .-1 m 29 A 1136 n yg ypR y COX, DAN R. 53.96 .�� 'y9 pt,0•� ry 3 M � y]5011 ewfer �v S.contlery Ra.tl. Zoning M1II pnau.ln.l Genar.l o.lnd) � st�.ts ^ '-��°• 91 anwsaNUEnhwnmanwrwo 10, V.nwwe nc,mn.n n.,nd, New Gsinesboro Frederick County Dept of M qe.n ez fenwn.... c.nemiaunrn 4W ms pswmiS,ryPon n.indl 0 i07NKent,nt NP w 6wo.®c. ..ee,nss ooi , ea ce w g E Elementsn� SCI1001 Planning &D7N ntSt wa„erwi Tnrxnion dmrrtq w fnw w, PNnn♦0 wmmmmb NG ) Elementary Winchester, VA 22601 c% q Ern lEm.eiwe uunw.n.nny ownwl f as...m.... paanuunu cnnvn.rwy ndr,wi (30 - A - 45C, 45F) waw. CO.FREDERICN.VP.US fth.r Eev —D—) naf, rn..,. dd,,.,) r—t,— J41y 5,2006 ftiJ M1 entlud,�l, Lrpel Dalncq pP fgeutl.nlui Pulemvnn pNnc9 ' 30 p • _ 30 A 50 VVWIYNN, ANDREA HITZ 'Q? EySOt1, B RRY A SR Y 30 A 6 17525 ro 2gp1 GOLDIZEN, VIM Q 'o4U 23.88 f-- �� 4F 9�0? p y q' 1 + SP qm p S S ry 3 a. h° qr �S cA ti .� ry°jyy0 y �P 9� j cqR 3p `♦ 'Q� Riy 30�R A 32 r DEHAVEN, CONARD W JR t'�r o 17.97 1 , ,, Qqv •� 10 C, O y O O t 4 ar A w U°' � ��'ir � • v 30 A 120 ASHALLEN PROPERTIES, LLC 16.15 ' r�4 QQ oris 30 A 122 ��? ~ p KAISER, GARY W 8 GLENDA GAIL LU 86.47 P z p F q=m �a mynw 29 A 1138 COX, DAN R. 53.96 �t� v� 10 Pxp`9 h s� b�]SOn sorter /�/srccm°ry �eee. zonlnp 4¢pna�.,n.i, Gsiwr•�ocmul h' sir.eta /. R.,a•ry s, teu.n..c, R.,yam:nma owzp i�w+, R+ae'r, R.me cu,unanay Du,ml New Gainesboro Frederick County Dept of ^OPP , Ra,a. 'm,an,u„car Rata. ux la...... c,o,niowmnl cru MS M.a ai sucuun oMnul w' E Planning B Development ®c.m..rorossmooi ea`yy`��11���� Elementary School 107 N Kent St ta�......i.—I T7n o,or,ul RaRt•amm. w,.a.e �,a�,,.nv aurnR s Wjncnester, VA 226D7 wmal #ns tR,w.n,R, R.arwunu conunuaq ow,gl (30 -A -45C, 45F) www.CO.FREDERICK,VA.US am,roo Rq trarnia... p,a„GI I--l.� JUtY s, 20D5 j .. .. A '{ . „ mss• � 0 �• rrk� '� • �d H A 32 1 - f DEHAVSN, CONARD W JR 17.97 -y�' h � A R Y• of +' f4•yc • f �' tr �o O h co /® ! x ror ,4 ? Q - 't�•- ' 30 A 170 ;r,-.,. . � ASHALLEN FROPER3lL,Crt� ' M}:` d G ' p;a FA.' Y 36 A' 122. KA]SEP"s" 'W&CLINDAGAILdWLWM 29 A ^1138 X. DAN R •M�*:: '(�� � ` � � f N 5tc�i`�� 3 4 r` /t1 ism axrer /�I se"."mry awa. Zaning nv Ma.unei. c."e..i om"a1 n J streets ,'� Tau.ry a".a. �.ar lew"... w,¢no.m..e-1.) 110 HI R...wb a""w c."""."q o.inal New Gainesboro Frederick County Dept of NI P""�.ry aoea. - van"nee.. cav r .a. g ex ta...... a.,,e„i—, tW ms mam,..i su n —, 'A' E Planning 8 Development 40eaaa""".".'"°" "eI-1�."D—) � a.me.�."m.rn."".ace"."...„aa.r,l -.5 Elementary School Winches107NI entSt '06 EM E.V.Crv.Me o.n.mgni.i alta.. ,m a.�..n " m." a�,w„ (30 - A - 45C, 45F) w.w�.CD.FREDERICK.VA°CJs [�F+as eva"e.Ea.�m"aa�.al an aiw... omm, ... July 5. 2ODS �mr �"a..m.r unm o:mal av (a..memei v.n.""."m a�"ul V o rn FTJA ]0 -A -2O 1 TY_ 70-A-21 606 PC 81T IIET /O.b02169fi Q RUSSELL O AN ANN B NERT ZONE RA - ZACHARY W. SMITH 20NE RA USEE RESIDENT., USE ftE51DENRAL ZONE RA V IOEIMINL ZONE RA USE RFSIpEKRAL DB 135 PG N NOTA M. BROWN - - - — — - GRAVEL USE RESIDENT- INST fc40p00025 JONATHAN B. DEHAVEN TONE RA USE RESIL T.M. 30-A-25 ;o- - T.Y. 3. ANO VA9LL j RAIPM HADRE EXISTING DEMO NEW OESCRIPTION RALPH K.. WHRAE WHITACRE iM. JO -A-27 ZONE RA V IOEIMINL ZONE RA USE RFSIpEKRAL DB 135 PG N NOTA M. BROWN - - - — — - GRAVEL USE RESIDENT- INST fc40p00025 JONATHAN B. DEHAVEN TONE RA USE RESIL - - — — — - PROPERTY UNE !"1 ZONE RA V,J VSE RESIDENTIAL 0 ;1 -/—W-. RO I I _ ;o- / s oda - - fl T.Y. 30 -A -45E DB 846 PC 910 ODTB. AND ELAA6 HA SIRBALGH ERNE RP 4 ZD USE RF510ENTNL O _ T.M- 3D -4-27A EXISTING DEMO NEW OESCRIPTION -2050- - —2050— CONTOURS INST JCSDW4177 . CONCRETE CURB .... .. CONCRETE CURB - k E TTER AVgIC KESSRGER T.M. 30 -A -29A PAVELIENT - - - — — - GRAVEL USE RESIDENT- INST fc40p00025 JONATHAN B. DEHAVEN L - - — — — - PROPERTY UNE !"1 ZONE RA V,J VSE RESIDENTIAL BENCHNMK T.M. 3p-A_]D CE 762 PG 646 OEM AND ETALS HOTT - _ NRMMA STATE RW1E 522 DROP IN= ZONE RA USE RESIDENINL T. 29-A-58 -I -��! - — )0 849 PG IL YD R. MCOONAID TO WNCHESTZR� ZONE RA _ _ iE RFSIDENRAL _._-.EXIST- X5673'01 _ _ _ YIRGNIA STATE gLiG1E 522 WETLAND ! . 56ty4'E Q o E _ 87 I T.M. 30-A-451 ZONE RP I 115E YPGANT �`-N532i2'00•Iy T.M. 30 -A -45E 49X16' 1 N 846 APISB 910 _ OENNIs B. AND ELIZABETH A swBAUGN _ ZONE RP — USE RESIOENML 60'MBLIt 1i4 is -II - -EXIST N ? PA4RK2NG"- — — --'..--, -- -60', MBL WETLAND SPACES STOR#WATER MANAGEMENT - - & WETLAND - AREA BUS LOOP ;o- / s oda - - fl T.Y. 30 -A -45E DB 846 PC 910 ODTB. AND ELAA6 HA SIRBALGH ERNE RP 4 ZD USE RF510ENTNL O _ LEGEND EXISTING DEMO NEW OESCRIPTION -2050- - —2050— CONTOURS .75.00 SPOT ELEVARONE . CONCRETE CURB .... .. CONCRETE CURB - k E TTER —CRETE PAD/YIALX PAVELIENT - - - — — - GRAVEL - BUILDING STE FEATURES - - — — — - PROPERTY UNE - CENTERLINE OR BASELINE BENCHNMK --_------ . . _.SO STORY SEWER UNE q.CURB INLET DROP IN= END SECTION / END WALL ® MANHOE G O GAS LINE ____S_____ ..:. .. .. _._... _. —SS— SANITARY SEWER a CO - • CO CLEANOUT Y!_____ __._-:; _-_ —K_ WATER SINE CAIS SALVE 'Lf IJ WATER METER IK FIRE HYDRANT _ L€y HANDICAP PARKING TREE UNE T SIGN T SIGNS BUS LOOP i ;o- C1.1 OVERALL SITE PUN o- SEE INSETS 0 9.[---I , ��---------- I I € o-- PLAN SHEETS T.N. 30-A-120 I� a OR DETAILS OF I -Uv PLANASHALLEN ASHAEN PROPERTIES. LLC. U ZONE RA � ALTERNATE IN USE RESIDENTIAL C7.1 GRACING PLAN THIS AREA - `— --.: E - BUS TO BUS PARKINS - 5ERV1 PROPOSED 750 STUDENT o_ Cs.1 EROSION CONTROL PLAN Fl LNG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL n LoA -A ' ' 2� }P}ARK€NG-SPaCFTS C5.1 ROUTE 522 NFRUVEMEHTS PUN i EXIST WELL C1.1 OVERALL SITE PUN TAY PKI JO -A -45C 20.000 ACRES DSI 133 PG 1755 ��---------- I I O — �JJlm T.N. 30-A-120 I� INST. fO40002749021 -Uv PLANASHALLEN ASHAEN PROPERTIES. LLC. U ZONE RA C2.2 URUTY DETAILS USE RESIDENTIAL C7.1 GRACING PLAN !I - C3.3 STORM DRAINAGE PROFILES AND DETAILS Cs.1 EROSION CONTROL PLAN PAVED FIRE LAN..E `� I PLAY / C4.4 WETLAND AIInCATICN DETAILS C5.1 ROUTE 522 NFRUVEMEHTS PUN NH a \ � I FIELD / � PLAY PAVED-. I P:QVEQI I I SIJ EQUIPMENT :.PLAY I PAI e: AREA I AREAPLAY I will ¢ - EQUIPMENT 100'-- I AREA ---wA5TEWATER a ppDmqL .. — - — - - — " TREATMENT PLANI -j BY ALLOWANCE L _ EXIST 1 L — — — -J '-, WETLAND l r T.M. SIU -A-122 INST. /020001153 GARY k GIENDA A iNNsm ZONE RA USE AGRICULTURAL / UNDEVELOPED T.Y. 311A-121 CH 561 PG 437 GARY & GLENDA A KAISER ZONE RA USE IWEOENTIAL I GENERAL PLAN NOTES L DWNER/OENELOPER: FREDERICK COUNTY SOHO- BOARD SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS 1415 AMM ERST STREET WNCHESTER, VA 2- 1510) 622-36116 2. ARCHITECT/ENGNEER: OUVER. WEBB. PAPPAS k RHUOY• INC. 200 GDUNTRY CLUS ORIYE PLAZA ONE, BUILDING'S BLACKSSURG. VA 2[060 1540) 552-2151 Fm (540) 951-0218 3. SITE AREA,- " SITE AREA 25.00 ACRES TOTAL DISTURBED SITE AREA 18.97 ACRES 4. ZONING RURAL AREAS (RA) 5. MACESTERIAL DISTRICT: GAINESBORO 5. BUILDING INFORMAnOHI BUILDING HEIGHT 1 STORY - 27-7' BUILDING USE EDUCATIONAL BUILDING AREA 96.358 SOFT. (INCLUDING ALTERNATES ROOK AREA RATIO . 009 7. SURVEY INFORMA60N SUPPLIED BY GREENWAY ENGINEERING. WNCHESTER HRGNIA DATED MARCH 25. 2006. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE A UCENEED LAND S1IRVEYOd RESET ANY SINCHMARK DISTURBED CJ INC CONSTRUCTION AND SHALLNOTE THE NEW LOCATION AND ELEVATION ON THE AS -BUILT DRAWNGS 9. ALL EKSTING SITE FEATURES DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF THE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIONS SHALL BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED AS DIRECTED BY THE ARGiITECT/ENGINEER AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OMER, 10. PROPERTY IOEH LYON NUMBER (PIN) 30 QA)3 450 11. ALL SIGNS TO BE INSTALLED ON THE SITE SHALL 0E iSEUEU A SIGN PERMIT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDNG INSPECTIONS PRIOR TO INSTAI-LATION: CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION OF THIS PERMIT ACOUIETION, PARKING SPACE CALCULATIONS 1 SPACE FOR EVERY 4 STUDENTS 750 STUDENTS = 1116 SPACES TOTAL PARKING REOUIREO 1110 SPACES TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED - 1110 SPACES TOTAL UL PARKING REWIRED = 6 SPACES TOTAL ryO PARKING PROMDED = 6 SPACES APPROVED BY – ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL SIGNATURE DATE OF APPROVAL • 'THIS SITE PLAN SHALL BE VALID FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE (5) YEARS FROM DATE OF APPROVAL. 50' 25• 0 50' Ina' 1 = 5n'-0' E•LTITIYTI•. T•] VICINITY MAP . NO SCALE —'1a Q. -i o CD 2 U cn Q v H � Z ' W z LEJ UW'o w O � F z m LiJ z C7 e� (SL Irl• 1`7 CIVIL PLAN SHEET TABLE OF CONTENTS C1.1 OVERALL SITE PUN AL Cl.2 DIMENSIONAL PIAN DIMENSIONAL F1 DETAILS T.N. 30-A-120 INST. fO40002749021 -Uv PLANASHALLEN ASHAEN PROPERTIES. LLC. U ZONE RA C2.2 URUTY DETAILS USE RESIDENTIAL C7.1 GRACING PLAN C1.2 STORM DRAINAGE PUN C3.3 STORM DRAINAGE PROFILES AND DETAILS Cs.1 EROSION CONTROL PLAN 1 CL.2 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS 04.3 KM -AND MITGAn- PUN C4.4 WETLAND AIInCATICN DETAILS C5.1 ROUTE 522 NFRUVEMEHTS PUN 50' 25• 0 50' Ina' 1 = 5n'-0' E•LTITIYTI•. T•] VICINITY MAP . NO SCALE —'1a Q. -i o CD 2 U cn Q v H � Z ' W z LEJ UW'o w O � F z m LiJ z C7 e� (SL Irl• 1`7 GRADING AND STORM DRAIN NOTES 1. NEW CONTOURS AND SPOT ELEVATWDNS SHOWN ON ME PLANS REPRESENT RM5HEB TIRADE ELEVATIONS. 2 ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN AT CURBS REFER TO THE TOP OF CURB. S CONTRACTOR'S FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS SHALL BE WITHIN ME TENTH OF A FOOT OF PLAN ELEVATIONS ♦. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A TOPO— GRAPHIC SURVEY OR OTHER DOCUMENTATION CERTIFIED BT A LICENSED LAND SURVEYDR VERIFYING THE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS ARE WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TOLERANCE 5. OR BE AROUND ALL BUILDINGS TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM ME BUILDING 6. CA BE ALL AREAS IN TIE WGMITY OF DROP INLETS TO PFOMCE POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARD THE INLET. T. PA BE INLET SHAPING AT ALL NEW MANHOLE AND CATCH BASINS IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAIL B. ME CONTRACTOR SHALL SPREAD AND FINE GRACE TOPSOIL, AND APPLY PERMANENT SEEDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECINCATIONS TO ALL DIMABEA UNPAVED AREAS. 9. ALL ROOF AND DO WMT GRAN LINES SHALL BE 6- DIAMETER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED AND SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT A MINIMUM SLOPE OF 1.001 AND WITH A u;NIMU. COVER OF 2 FEET. IM ALL GONG PADS SIDEWALKS. AND WA -)(NG TRAILS SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM LONGITUDINAL SLOPE OF 5.0R: AND A MAXIMUM CRCSS SLOPE Of 2.06% 11. DETENTION FACILITIES SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY ME CONTRACTOR UNRL PRO.ECT CBMPLERON. LONG TERM MAINTENANCEOF THE DETENTION FACILITIES SHALL BE ME RESPONSI BIUTY OF ME D.ER. o; _ /\ am � / 11 �1B T2 �aTB a Are 9 ;rt milli 4-1 T[910 2O .. 50' 25' 0 50' 100' ALTERNATE INSET 50' 2S' 0 50' 100' Z Q J IL C7 Z Q Q' CD C3.1 L 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator '- DATE: June 29, 2006 RE: Discussion — Subdivision of Eight (8) Lots within the Stonewall Industrial Park At the July 19, 2006, Planning Commission meeting, staff will present an eight (8) lot subdivision of 42 acres within the Stonewall Industrial Park for Planning Commission review. This is being presented to the Planning Commission due to its implications on the planned route for Route 37. The plans for Stonewall Industrial Park do not accommodate the Route 37 right-of-way. This proposed subdivision will occur along McGee Drive; the property is located near the proposed path of Route 37. In an effort to keep the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors apprised of the Route 37 right-of-way, site plans and subdivisions that impact the right-of-way will be presented for your review. A copy of a map that shows the proposed Route 37 right-of-way in regards to this property has been included in your agenda. Action on this subdivision is not required; this is being brought to you for informational purposes only. Comments and suggestions are appropriate and will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Please contact me if you if you need any additional information. MRC/bad Attachment 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 4127 c.4 View"W st�Ln 42 44 303 f • ^y u 65 IF `"JtljC[earview'br a •�I � Pro' c °j m � a ^�'• .:n t i +ia Umhb ;• C. r 43 A 77 83r 6 47.1 c. Sac 4 0 • ; �� c' • 4 ;' k S f�i ♦ d• ♦ � � f I A 43 A IDA ♦ • SronPc 7� 53.43 ac. r 1 N L ♦ et 43 A BOC+ I 42 A 262 {Fie dsi jj rt ✓ • ♦ Ct 11.69 ac. 42.89ac. J �Te �'`� ►1 43 A 67 _ 63.79 ac. A. It 43 A 11 :a 4 i dm3y. `�••ws���♦ / 84.5 ac. • ■ L \U f yf � 43 A 66 % .s ♦ TY `� 7 2.41 ac. I!„ P s°• ♦ ° � m s m a °+ 3 5 aq.s, �:, dmy9n ,♦♦ r � F�Pr, a �s • 9. •'ty .� y tAd. Q.•m � � o m y>>, .+ ti r Pyx /' C 43 A 63 • !. c ! 118.13ac. I e`♦ ! o-' yxl - r .68 �• t fr1" rV 4 10 � zt.679 1 �0 43 A 100 • ,..e,•. 1. r /I`s 1 ac.,, 51.12 ac. s .a 39.25 d4 s 9 3 ♦ � '34.5ac. 3 A 140 a To a I 85.27 as P rown L'n, i► . 1� 44 A 26 J, • h.. � � 4j' q N p RTs7N 37 37r� RTs75— � ♦ r f ..,.� �•♦ •` •� r 43 A B 50. 3ac.r - zoan. Seri ti• ,Ffi -� Redbud�Rd • �dc 2�3` Y'C[ 43 A 154 O• '- ,a. � / I•'�'o4s� 36.27 ac. Q� V � ♦ in v y"m Pxv � �Ce. � � ro '� a` j dm y �rPJ; �,.• �' • 1R, .III � d Q o d � y4 y �� rI r s i 0y,�:, !'iY.I• i ,7� >� q 124 ac. 3 4_�.jf • w `• � � ro .zi swi aP^ o 5�7 AQ'^ mein •i v. A 7. �eAv ♦L,i�. �A • ?gyp" •y.F'�O . �. ♦ -• � �; d g3 r ry yo-hb, .Imb'�hsh1 y. `s Rt370yp0.ss_ACj.t.enC041406 Str•sts '" RT 37 ROW ^� asm a�mv ^� s.�nn• u Preening County Dept of *awrv� p.6 Planning 8 Development 107N Kent S[ wncnw.r nay a..a. Lenoir City Property s Winchester. VA 22601 6vANq• www. CO.FREOERICK,VA.US ��rurcq�araav (43-19--2) N July 5, 2006 I T1xt NP- Real• RT 37 ROW Frederick County Dept of /�/ sson e�no ^/ s.m.e.,r Rua• P;ammng d Development L 107 N Kent St �'�"a Re.„. Lenoir City Property Wutcn s ester, VA 22601 �Bu•¢mp.—,CO.FREDERICK.VA.Us _5]RdM (43-19-2) July 6, 2006 erC•yC7 Rt076ypo.Jrgu.tm.n1041406 6h -m 7." NP, -nF . RT u 'ov-sart. �s.�.a.nnwe. 37 ROW FretlenokCcunryDeptOF _ Plannm0 a Development N nwia ., nm.n ao.u. Lenoir City Property " 6 ter, Kent 5t v+-.n.wr ary rs..a. s Wmonester, VA 22601 li v .CO.FREDBRICK.VA.US July 6, 2006 (43-19-2) Rt37bypass AdfustmantOd'1406 Strwts RT 37 ROW Fredehck County Dept of 35411 Barter anrvry ansa W E Planning 8 Development '�' "a"°° Lenoir City Property 107NKentSt �� a"' °'�°ry a°°°' s Winchester, VA 22601 Dern ercM a-—.CO.FREDERICK.VA.U6 I�i°u°CMCn_ (43-19-2) ._ _ ._ .° .°. July 6. 2006