The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 06-07-06 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia June 7, 2006 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) April 19, 2006 and May 3, 2006 Minutes......................................................................... (A) 2) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) 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 proffers. The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758), west of Hites Road (Route 625) and on both sides of Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and Shenandoah County, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). The properties are in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 83-A-109 and 90-A-23. Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (B) COMMISSION DISCUSSION 5) Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) Boundaries Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (C) 6) Other FILE COPY MEETING MINUTES CF THE FREDERICK COT_JJI:ITX PLANNING CChI1ViISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on April 19, 2006. PIR EsSENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Gary R Oates, Stonewall District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At - Large; Philip A. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: John H. Light, Stonewall District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRL -SENT: Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner; 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 Triplett, the minutes of the March 15, 2006 Planning Commission meeting were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORT S Economic Development Commission (EDC) — 04/07/06 Mtg. Commissioner Thomas reported that the EDC heard a presentation on existing land uses in Frederick County. He said the presentation included the results of a study which concluded that there is an insufficient amount of land zoned for industrial and commercial development in relationship to maintaining the County's tax base and the volume of residential growth. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1724 Minutes of April 19, 2006 D' b -2 - Sanitation Authority (SA) - 04/18/06 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that rainfalls in March were probably the worst the County has ever had with .11 inches of rain; typically rainfall in March is about three inches. He said the plants ran well, however, because there was hardly any infiltration. Commissioner Unger said the County purchased approximately two million gallons of water per day from the City of Winchester because of the poor rainfall. He added that the SA has received approval to upgrade the Diehl Plant on Route 7. Historic Resaurces Advisory Board (rl`RAB) — 04/18/06 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the HRAB intends to award ten historic plaques to residents at a Board of Supervisors meeting in June. He said the Winchester Star has been contacted about the possibility of featuring one historic house per week in the newspaper. Commissioner Oates added that research is being done on putting together a tour of the historic homes in the County. CI T IZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item that was not already on the Commission's agenda for this evening; however, no one came forward to speak. PUBLIC BEARINGS Rezoning 905-06 of Commonwealth Business Park, Lot 2, by Ventures I of Winchester, LLC, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone 12 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition) District to E2 (Business General) District with proffers. The property is located on Corimonwealth Court (Rt. 1167), north of the Route 11 and Route 37 interchange. This property is also identified with P.I.N. 75 -A -91B in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers Commissioner Manuel said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this rezoning due to a possible conflict of interest. Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, said the subject property, Lot 2 in the Commonwealth Business Park, is located within an area the Eastern Frederick County Long -Range Land Use Plan identifies for business and commercial land uses; he said it is within close proximity to the Interstate 81/ Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1725 Minutes of April 19, 2006 M o Mr - T -3— Route 37 interchange and the Route 11/ Route 37 interchange; and primary access will be via Commonwealth Boulevard, which intersects with Route 11. Mr. Ruddy explained that the adjacent parcel to the south, Parcel 75- A-1OA, has limited access due to some "limits of access" lines associated with the adjacent highway system. He said that in order to facilitate future access to this property, and to achieve inter -parcel connectivity, it is appropriate for the development of Lot 2 to accommodate public road access to this parcel. He added that the intersection of Commonwealth Court and Route 11 is not presently signalized, so in order to assure an appropriate level of service (LOS) at the intersection, signalization is addressed with this rezoning application. In addressing the transportation and the community facility impacts, Mr. Ruddy said the applicant has provided a proffer statement and a revised Generalized Development Plan (GDP), which includes: The extension and construction of Commonwealth Court, Route 1167, to the adjacent property to the south, identified with PIN 75 -A -10A. The reservation and ultimate dedication of approximately 1. 11 acres of land, the right-of-way presently identified by VDOT as being needed to facilitate the construction of a new ramp from Interstate 81 southbound to Route 37. The signalization of the intersection of Route 11 and Commonwealth Court, Route 1167. • The provision of a regional storm water management facility as requested by the County Engineer. The donation of a $1,000.00 monetary contribution to offset the impacts to fire control services. Commissioner Morris asked the staff if this development accommodates the County's future goals for the intersection of Commonwealth and Route 11, not only through signalization, but widening of the highway and bicycle lanes. He remarked that it was not uncommon for the Commission to look at "off-site" upgrades, particularly with a project of this magnitude. In addition, Commissioner Morris said there will be a significant amount of increased traffic accessing this site as a result of site development, and he would much prefer to see the signalization take place prior to the first occupancy. Mr. John Lewis with Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., representing Venture I of Winchester, LLC, responded that the proffer states the applicant will pay for the installation of the traffic signal; he pointed out that this was a significant financial contribution to the overall transportation corridor and Route 11. Mr. Lewis stated there will be increased traffic during construction; however, he believed the most significant traffic impact will occur after the new facility opens. He said that in order to get the traffic signal, the rezoning needs to take place, a user needs to be established on the property, and before the user opens their doors, the signal must be in place. Commissioner Unger asked Mr. Lewis if he anticipated any issues or problems with the installation of signs for these future businesses. Mr. Lewis replied the ordinance allows for a sign to be placed on the property; however, anyone in the retail business would want more signage on Route 11 for visibility. Commissioner Thomas asked if a monument -type sign was considered for these users and Mr. Lewis believed a sign was needed on Route 1 I in order to provide the visibility needed. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1726 Minutes of April 19, 2006� r 1.4 1q11 1FF A Mr. Lloyd Ingram with VDOT came forward to answer questions from the Commission. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Ingram if the southern parcel had access to Route 11. Mr. Ingram replied that there was limited access up to about 50-100' of Car Quest, due to an issue resulting from an off -ramp alignment from Route 37 to Route 11. Mr. Ingram said the public road access proposed by the applicant will provide a positive access for the southern parcel. Commissioner Morris asked about the turning radius at Commonwealth and Route 11 and if the future goals for Route 11 were accommodated by this application; Mr. Ingram believed Route 11 was fairly well accommodated. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. William (Bill) Broy was interested in placing a monument -style sign to accommodate the signage needs for these future businesses through his conditional use permit, which was tabled by the Planning Commission. No other members of the public wished to speak and the Chairman closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Commissioner Morris asked the staff to describe the difference in the expectation of traffic between a B2 and B3 use. Mr. Ruddy replied that in general terms, greater traffic could be expected with commercial (B2), as compared with industrial transition (133). Commissioner Thomas inquired if this project would come back to the Commission for master development plan (MDP) review and whether a traffic impact analysis (TIA) would be available for the Commission's review. Commissioner Thomas said that typically, the Commission would see more detailed traffic analysis at the rezoning level for a commercial property; he was interested in knowing the LOS on Route 11 with the traffic signal. Mr. Ruddy replied there is an existing MDP for Commonwealth Business Park; therefore, with the approval of the GDP, which shows the road connection, it was anticipated this would undergo an administrative amendment to the MDP. Mr. Ingram added that an intersection analysis would probably be required from the developer, rather than a traffic impact analysis, since all the detailed analysis had already been provided through the Kernstown and Crosspointe developments. Commissioner Morris was greatly concerned about the traffic along this section of Route 11; however, he thought the applicant had done all he could do to mitigate the impacts. He said that if VDOT was satisfied with the turning radius and signalization, he had no reason for objection. Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning 905-06 of Commonwealth Business Park, Lot 2, by Ventures I of Winchester, LLC, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone 12 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition) District to B2 (Business General) District with proffers. (Note: Commissioner Manual abstained from voting; Commissioners Light and Ours were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning CommissionPage 1727 Minutes of April 19, 2006 0 � I ! � � Aj -5 - Rezoning Application #06-06 of Cedar Meadows, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 29.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers for 140 single-family homes for an -ge-restricted community. The properties are located on the west side of White Oak Road (Rt. 636), approximately 0.6 miles south of the intersection of White Oak Road and Tasker Road (Rt. 642). These properties are farther identified with P.I.N. 75 -A -106,75 -A -107,75-A-114, 75-A-115, 75-A-116, and 86-A-153 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval of Waiver and Rezoning With Proffers Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the rezoning is for a proffered residential development of 140 single-family, age -restricted units; the parcels are located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and are within an area of the County's Long -Range Land Use Plan designated for residential land uses. Mr. Ruddy stated that the property fronts on White Oak Road, which is identified as an improved major collector road and should be addressed accordingly. He said the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) included an evaluation of the intersection of White Oak Road and Tasker Road and concluded that the traffic impacts associated with the Cedar Meadows application were acceptable and manageable. Mr. Ruddy continued, stating that the Cedar Meadows project is requesting a waiver to address Section 144-24C of the subdivision ordinance. Mr. Ruddy said the result of granting the waiver request would be to facilitate the proffered road layout identified in the GDP, which includes individual lots that are greater than 800 feet from a state -maintained road and provides for a gated community with one individual access to White Oak Road. Mr. Ruddy added that the applicant has proffered the dedication of an additional 20 feet along the frontage of their property to facilitate the ultimate right-of-way needs associated with an improved major collector road. However, he said the additional pedestrian/bicycle accommodations consistent with the adjacent section have not been provided along White Oak Road, nor have any additional frontage improvements been provided. Regarding the community facility impacts, Mr. Ruddy stated that since this is a proffered age - restricted community, the impacts associated with schools are not realized to the extent they would be if this was a traditional community. He explained that after subtracting the projected school impacts from the total impact amount, a balance of approximately $4,101.00 of impact remains that should be distributed to other community facilities. He said the application does not address this balance, but rather proposes a $1,500.00 monetary contribution per residential unit to be utilized for fire and rescue services. Commissioner Kriz asked if there was a bicycle/pedestrian facility currently on the right-hand side of White Oak Road and Mr. Ruddy replied no. Mr. Ruddy said there is nothing in this general location with regards to bicycle and pedestrian facilities; he pointed out the first sidewalk system associated with the Camp and the ten -foot multi -use trail north of this location, along Tasker Road. Commissioner Thomas inquired if there was a mechanism in the proffer model to tailor the dollar amounts for age -restricted communities and Mr. Ruddy replied no; he said there was nothing specific within the model. Commission members said they preferred to see the standard line -by-line monetary proffer totaling $4,100.00, rather than just doubling the proffer to fire and rescue. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering said he was representing Ms. Beverley B. Shoemaker, whose company will be both the developer and builder of the Cedar Meadows project. Mr. Wyatt also noted that they have employed J. Duggan and Associates, PC, landscape architects, to do the landscaping for Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1728 Minutes of April 19, 2006 u, , g —— the project. Regarding the landscaping plan, he said that a portion of the plantings will go on each individual lot, with the remainder reapportioned along the main street and park area. Mr. Wyatt next described the proposed project design to the Commission. Mr. Wyatt stated they have entered into a series of legally -recorded executed agreements with the Parks & Recreation Department, on behalf of the County, which are intended to assist the Parks Department with future development of the back portion of Sherando Park. He proceeded to describe some of the noteworthy agreements they made with the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Wyatt next addressed the transportation aspects of the development. He said the traffic study shows a Level of Service (LOS) "A" at their entrance and along White Oak Road; however, they are proffering a right -turn and taper lane and will fully fund traffic signalization at Tasker Road and White Oak Road. Regarding the monetary contribution, Mr. Wyatt stated that if the Planning Commission believes the standard line -by-line proffer contribution, totaling $4,100.00, for community facilities is more appropriate than doubling the contribution to fire and rescue, they would agree to make that change. Mr. Wyatt explained they were not in favor of constructing a bicycle path because there were no facilities planned for them to tie the path into; he said there were no plans along White Oak Road on the west side from Tasker Road along the Camp down to their property line to build a bicycle facility. In addition, he said the White Oak Major Collector Road Improvements are not listed on the County's Secondary Road Improvement Plan. Mr. Wyatt pointed out that, none -the -less, they have dedicated a 20 -foot right-of-way along the entire frontage of their property, in addition to the 50 -foot road efficiency buffer, so the right-of-way will be available for future road improvements and bicycle paths, if the community places this as a designated route on their bicycle plan sometime in the future. Commissioner Thomas had questions for Mr. Wyatt about the pond, concerning the embankment, the flow, and feeder. Commissioners had questions about the roads within the community, specifically, how they were constructed, who would maintain them, and who would own them. Mr. Wyatt responded that the waiver requires the developer to prove roads are constructed, both horizontally and vertically, to specified standards and there is a requirement for third parry verification, with the County Engineer and VDOT, that the road design meets those standards. Mr. Wyatt said the roads will be constructed to VDOT standards so that if, at some future time, the County requests that VDOT take over maintenance of the roads, VDOT will have the ability to do so Commissioner Mohn raised the issue of the developer possibly providing some seed money, in addition to what the homeo Amers would contribute, to initially insure a healthy financial balance for the HOA in case there are any unforeseen problems. Other Commission members agreed this would be a good idea and would put the homeowners in a much better position to meet maintenance expenses for the common amenities. Commissioner Oates was concerned about the safety aspect of having only one exit/entrance to the project. He asked Mr. Wyatt what the emergency back-up plan would be to get fire and rescue vehicles into the development, if the main entrance was blocked. Mr. Oates also thought it would be in the Park's best interest not to have any restrictions on their easement, in case they change their MDP in the future to allow their maintenance access to be a public entrance. Mr. Wyatt replied that the entrance was designed with a recovery area available for a vehicle to turn around; in addition, both the ingress and egress areas are over -sized. Mr. Wyatt said there is an opportunity to do an all-weather surface emergency access at the Sherando Park maintenance access drive, if the Commission desired to see that. Frederick County Planning Commission D Page 1729 Minutes of April 19, 2006 jU� -7 - Chairman Wilmot next called for citizen comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Paul Brown, a resident of the Shawnee Magisterial District, spoke in opposition to age - restricted communities because of the cost issue. Mr. Brown believed 140 units were not enough to support the long-term financial health of an age -restricted community. He said the homeowners incomes are not going to grow and he didn't see any assurances to guarantee the 140 units and the HOA could sustain the capital asset costs of maintaining the road system and other amenities contained within the design of the project. Mr. Brown also had concerns about the County's vision for age -restricted communities throughout the County; he said when the market falls out of age -restricted communities and this property is rezoned to a traditional housing development, the impact of the additional school children will be significant. In addition, he said that age - restricted communities do use a considerable amount of public services and he was in favor of having the monetary proffer distributed to all of the typical agencies. Mr. Elwood Buracker, an adjoining property owner in the Opequon District, said that somehow his property became boxed in by development. Mr. Buracker said he would like to keep the fence row undisturbed from Mr. Strosnider's property all the way across the back of his and his brother's properties, and then to the Camp, with pine trees planted alongside the old fence row. Mr. Buracker said last Thursday, he came home and a bulldozer was pushing out the fence and the trees on his property, without his prior knowledge. Mr. Buracker said that when all of this started, he thought the developer or someone would get in touch with him and let him know what was going on, but they haven't. Mr. Buracker requested that the developer let the fence remain and supplement it with the pine trees. Mr. Lynwood Buracker, Mr. Elwood Buracker's brother, said that he did not receive any notification that this was going to take place. Mr. Buracker also requested that the old fence row remain and that pine trees be planted. 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. Mr. Wyatt returned to the podium to address the adj scent property owners' desire to maintain the fence line. Pointing to the property boundaries of the citizens who spoke, Mr. Wyatt said that a residential separation buffer «rill be established along these property lines which includes a six-foot high fence, along with planted trees, which is required by the ordinance. Addressing the scenario of the age -restricted community becoming defunct, Mr. Wyatt said that before it could become a school-age, children -generating community, a rezoning application would have to be applied for. Mr. Wyatt said they fully support adjusting the monetary contribution for each of the community facility impacts and, because they feel strongly that fire and rescue would be the most impacted, they would stand by their commitment to doubling the amount of money offered for fire and rescue at $1,500; he calculated the sum of the monetary contribution to be $4,881.00 per unit. Mr. Wyatt said that they would also be willing to offer a start-up seed fund of $20,000 for the HOA to enable the HOA to be financially capable of meeting their fiscal responsibilities. In addition, he said they would incorporate the emergency access on the MDP or in the proffer statement, whichever the Commission prefers. He said the emergency access road would come off the maintenance access road they were constructing to the Sherando Park for the Department of Parks and Recreation. Mr. Wyatt was not in favor of widening White Oak Road because their traffic study indicated a LOS "A" at this location and they have designated appropriate right-of-way, for future improvements. Frederick County Planning Commission j �� Page 1730 Minutes of April 19, 2006 +� j Commissioner Unger urged Mr. Wyatt to meet with the Burackers and work with them on their fence and landscaping request. Commissioner Unger said he would like to see things worked out with the Burackers and Mr. Wyatt agreed to this. Commissioner Oates suggested to the staff that some further enhancement be done with the impact model for age -restricted communities to assist the Commission in determining what may be appropriate for each applicant to offer in terms of community facilities impacts. Commissioner Thomas also suggested that some research be done on the State's legal requirements for HOAs. Other Commission members agreed. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the waiver submitted for Rezoning Application 406-06 of Cedar Meadows. The vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL OF WAIVER): Mohn, Kerr, Triplett, Kriz, Thomas, Wilmot, Morris, Manuel, Watt, Unger NO: Oates (Commissioners Light and Ours were absent from the meeting.) Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kerr, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning Application 406-06 of Cedar Meadows with the proffer amendment offered by the applicant totaling $4,881.00 per residential unit and that an emergency access be included in the package that goes forward to the Board of Supervisors YES (TO REC. APPROVAL OF REZGl" NG): Mohn, Kerr, Triplett, Kriz, Thomas, Wilmot, Morris, Manuel, Watt, Unger NO: Oates (Commissioners Light and Ours were absent from the meeting.) Consideration of a request to revise the Round hill Community Land Use Plan, including the expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Round Hill area includes land generally located north and south of Northwestern Pike (Route 50), west of Route 37, and east of Crinoline Lane in the Gainesboro and Back Creek Districts. Action — Recommended Approval with Amendment Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1731 pw& Minutes of April 19, 2006 F MOM Senior Planner, Susan K. Eddy, said the Planning Commission previously considered this item on February 1, 2006, and she noted that this amendment began as a Board of Supervisors' initiated request. Ms. Eddy said the Board requested that the Planning Commission study expanding the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) to incorporate land up to and including properties adjacent to Poorhouse Road. Specifically, she said the Commission was told to look at the properties currently bisected by the SWSA line and to look at two churches, the Emmanuel Baptist Church and Rosedale Baptist Church. She noted that staff sought comments from the Frederick County Sanitation Authority about their expansion plans for this area. She said the Engineer/ Director of the Sanitation Authority, Mr. Wellington Jones recommended that the expansion of the SWSA to cover the Round Hill area not occur until 2009 at the earliest in order not to impact current capacity issues. At the February 1, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission agreed with the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee's (CPPS) recommendation to only include a small area, down to VDOT, into the SWSA based on capacity issues. Ms. Eddy continued, stating that the Board of Supervisors considered this item at their meeting on February 22, 2006 and expressed concern that their initial request to study water and sewer for the churches was not adequately addressed. She said the Board members agreed to hold a public hearing on the expansion of the SWSA to include the south side of Route 50, including the Emmanuel Baptist Church property, but not those properties on the North side of Route 50, and to also include the northernmost property line of Emmanuel Baptist Church to Poorhouse Road, then south on Poorhouse Road to old Route 50 East, to the existing SWSA line, totaling 171.3 acres. Ms. Eddy said that after further discussion involving design guidelines, the Board amended their motion to include the requirement to extend existing corridor design standards to correspond with the new SWSA line. Ms. Eddy added that expansion of the SWSA is a policy decision and is not a commitment by the County to actually extend the water and sewer lines. She further added that expansion of the SWSA allows for the future extension of water and sewer connections to those lines for non-residential uses and for existing residences in the SWSA; it does not allow access to water and sewer for new residences --that would require extension of the Urban Development Area (UDA). Commissioner Unger asked the staff if it was unusual to run sewer and water lines to an area not «rithin the UDA. Ms. Eddy replied that the largest SWSA area outside of the UDA is along Route 11 and Route 81 North. She said the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) has a significant amount of land that is not in the UDA, but is in the SWSA. Commissioner Kriz interjected that this is mostly commercial -zoned properties. Commissioner Unger wanted to know who would pay to run the lines, if this was approved. Ms. Eddy replied that the County is not committing to paying for running the lines; they are simply opening the "window of opportunity." Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Gregory Bishop, a resident of the Back Creek District, believed approval of this would create a magnet for development and both the development and the capacity would probably come together in three years; he said the Commission could control the development through the rezoning process. Mr. Bishop remarked that the reason to put this in the SWSA is not only for the churches, but the Round Hill Community Center as well; he said the Ruritan Club has been having problems with their sewer and the fire hall is outside the edge of the SWSA also. He said the Round Hill community consists of small -lot housing and the drainfields and wells are too close together. He believed there were a lot of problems that could be rectified by placing these properties within the SWSA. Mr. Bishop added that the County would not have to pay for lines; he said the commercial development would pay for it, if the window of opportunitywas opened. Mr. Don Jessup, a member and deacon of Rosedale Baptist Church, said he was asked by the pastor of Rosedale Baptist Church to represent the church in this matter. Mr. Jessup asked the Commission to seriously consider the approval of this request because the sewer and water service was so desperately needed by Frederick County Planning Commission L OPage 1732 Minutes of April 19, 2006 -10 - the church for the community -support activities they operate, such as a day care center, and for their expanding congregation. Mr. Jessup inquired about the possibility of state or federal funding assistance. Ms. Stacey Marean, a resident of the Gainesboro District and Mr. Gregory Bishop's daughter, also spoke in favor of expanding the SWSA. Ms. Marean asked about the specifics of an email that was sent by Mr. H. Wellington Jones, the Sanitation Authority's Engineer/ Director to a Mr. Don Stephens regarding the possibility of extra capacity. Rev. Steven Robert, the pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church, came forward to talk about the needs of his church. Rev. Robert said the Emmanuel Baptist Church has been in Frederick County for the past 40 years and for at least the last 15 years, they have been hearing that sewer and water would be extended to them. He said his church is at membership and building capacity and they do not have any place to expand according to the Health Department. Rev_ Robert talked about the various services his church performs for the community. He said in the immediate vicinity, the hotel has a desperate need for public water and sewer, along with Cathers Market, and two adjacent residences. He said the church has limited financial abilityto run the lines; however, he believed that if this area was placed within the SWSA, businesses would come in and help pave the way for this to occur. Mr. Gary Triggs, a resident on Poorhouse Road and member of the Emmanuel Baptist Church, said he has participated in various construction projects for the church. Mr. Triggs said it has taken five years to get to the point they are now trying to get water and sewer to their church; he said the Emmanuel Baptist Church has a desperate need now. He said they are preparing a site plan for the construction of multiple buildings on their ten acres of land; however, they cannot construct anything without water and sewer. He spoke about the affect of the quarry on the Round Hill area and all the commercial and residential development occurring around the Round Hill community that was using up the capacity of the treatment plants. He said it was beyond the church's financial ability to drill a 600 -foot well Mr. S am Herr, owner of a neighborhood store, said he would really like to have public water and sewer to serve his store. He added that the owners of the hotel and the churches are also in favor of this. Since everyone who wanted to speak had been given an opportunity to do so, Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Many issues and views were raised during the Planning Commission's discussion. Commissioner Kriz raised the issue of the unresolved Nutrient Reduction Regulations promulgated by Virginia's Bay Program and he believed the SWSA line should not be moved until these standards have been established. Commissioner Thomas remarked that this issue has been on the table for a very long time; he said if the rural community centers are to become workable, viable communities, then the SWSA needs to be extended. He believed it was time to provide the opportunity for putting plans in motion. Commissioner Thomas recommended, however, that properties on the north side of Route 50 be included as well. Commissioner Mohn also recognized the amount of time this issue has been on the table and he urged the expansion of the SWSA into this community center. Commissioner Mohn stated that expanding the SWSA line will not physically hook anyone up and will not result in any immediate impacts. He said this policy decision simply affirms the County's commitment to address this issue once resources become available. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 19, 2006 Page 1733 -11 - Commissioner Triplett was in favor of including the Methodist Church within the expansion area. Commissioner Unger voiced his support for expansion of the SWSA to serve the existing churches and residences. Commissioner Morris was in favor of accommodating the two churches, but cautioned that the County will need to quickly follow the expansion with a revised land use plan, so everyone is aware how this area is to be defined. Commissioner Morris was concerned by how the proposed SWSA line was drawn, particularly because it only included half of Round Hill, it excluded the fire company and properties on the north side of Route 50, and it excluded landowners who had expressed an interest in being included. He questioned whether there was some way to accommodate only the two churches, if they acquired financial assistance. In addition, Commissioner Morris raised the issue of "reserved capacity" and he cautioned that if the SWSA line keeps being extended in this fashion, there will not be capacity for the development already known to be coming. Commissioner Mohn said he was fine with the proposal because there was an established community land use plan and the proposed SWSA line did not deviate outside of the community center boundaries. He believed the proposal was well within the long-range land use plan envisioned for this corridor and the timing of development will be driven by the market and development opportunities. Chairman Wilmot reminded the Commission that development criteria and design principles for the Route 50 corridor will also need to be considered with this. It was Commissioner Oates' opinion that the SWSA expansion needed to stay close to Route 50 and he was concerned why the businesses on the north side of Route 50 were not included. Commissioner Oates said he was not in favor of moving the SWSA line too far south; however, if it did go that far south, then it should include the fire department. He suggested sending the proposal back to the CPPS to determine which properties need to be included in the expansion and to have the. Sanitation Authority determine where the trunk line needs to be. Regarding the design principles, Commissioner Oates suggested changing the word, "encourage" to "require" under Figure 13B. Commissioner Thomas pointed out that without extending the SWSA line to include other participants to help pay for the line, the churches are being given nothing but false hope. He added that everyone is aware of the long-standing problems in Round Hill with septic systems polluting groundwater and water wells becoming polluted and this was a way to do something about these problems. He commented that Round Hill was not a new community. He remarked that simply drawing a SWSA extension line does nothing except allow the people within that area, if they can get a group together to fund it, to pay to have lines extended. He said that no one is being given development rights; they are being given the opportunity to join together and improve their quality of life. Commissioner Thomas next made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed Round Hill SWSA expansion ATith the addition of the fire station on the south side of Route 50 and the commercial properties next to the Emmanuel Baptist Church. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Mohn. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the proposed revision to the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan, with the expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) as shown, with the addition of the fire station on the south side of Route 50 and the commercial properties next to the Emmanuel Baptist Church. Frederick County Planning CommissionD Minutes of April 19, 2006 P 0 0 Page 1734 A I The vote was as follows: VES (TGAPPROVE): Unger, Manuel, Oates, Thomas, Triplett, Kerr, Mohn NO: Morris, Wihnot, Kriz (Note: Commissioner Watt was absent for this item; Commissioners Light and Ours were absent from the meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING: Master Development Plan 902-06 for LLE, LLC Route 11 Property, submitted by Potesta and Associates, Inc., for commercial uses. The properties are located on Valley Pike (Rt. 11), near the intersection of Apple Valley Road. The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 63-A-89, 63 -A -89A, and 63-A-92 in the Back Creek District. Action – Recommended Approval Commissioner Manual said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item, due to a possible conflict of interest. Plainer Candice E. Perkins reported that the master development plan (MDP) for the LLE, LLC Route 11 Property is a proposal to develop approximately 3.7 acres of B2 (Business General) and B3 (Industrial Transition) property with retail and gasoline service station land uses. She reported that the site will be served via a full commercial entrance at the northern portion of the property and a right -in, right -out -only a little further south, both on Valley Pike (Rt. 11), which is a major collector road. Ms. Perkins stated that with this MDP, the applicant is requesting a waiver to allow for modifications in the screening requirements in the area where the B3 zoning adjoins the B2 Zoning. She explained that the applicant is not requesting that the distance or content of the buffer be waived, but simply to shift the buffer from between the B2 and B3 -zoned properties which are located near the full commercial entrance and place it at the northern property line. Ms. Perkins added that two actions are required by the Planning Commission for this application—one for the MDP and another for the waiver request. Commissioner Thomas believed the proposed use would have a significant impact on the Route 11 traffic and he noticed that VDOT had requested a traffic impact analysis (TIA) prior to the entrances being developed. Commissioner Thomas inquired if the TIA would be available to the Commission for review because he was interested in the degradation of service on Route 11. Mr. K. Joe Knechtel, P.E., with Potesta & Associates, Inc., the design company representing the applicant, stated that the trip generation figures have been submitted to VDOT and the analysis is currently in its second review; he said entrances have been designed with the proper radius required by VDOT. He added that the average daily trips per day were calculated to be 3,000 for the total site. Commissioner Unger asked the applicant about the possibility of lining up the entrance with the traffic signal at Apple Valley. Mr. Knechtel replied they looked into that and, unfortunately, it was not an option with the adjacent land owner. Frederick County Planning Commission W Page 1735 Minutes of April 19, 2006- 11 j j , -13 - Commissioner Morris did not support the entrance with the left-hand turn lane (Entrance A); he thought it would be extremely difficult to exit this site with a left-hand turn onto Valley Avenue without a traffic signal. Mr. Knechtel recognized the difficulty in making a left out; however, he said a full entrance for this site was determined to be necessary. Mr. Knechtel pointed out that a right -turn lane is proposed along the full frontage of this site. Mr. Lloyd Ingram with VDOT stated that the actual number of trips out would not meet the left - turn warrants for a traffic signal at the primary entrance. Mr. Ingram stated that evaluation of the potential amount of traffic projected to be generated by this facility determined that a LOS "C" will still remain at the Apple Valley intersection. Commissioner Morns asked if the County was in concert with the City of Winchester on the bike paths projected for these areas. Planning Director, Eric R Lawrence, replied that this plan is consistent with what is being done within the County, particularly with the Kemstown Commons MDP. He said this project and the Kernstown Commons project are the two major developments that are occurring along this corridor. Mr. Lawrence added that one of the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) top priorities is to conduct a Driveway Entrance and Access Management Study from the City of Winchester to the Town of Stephens City along Route 11; he said this will address the bike paths and access through this area. Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. David Ervin, President of Ervin Development and a co-owner of the property, stated that the architectural style of the proposed buildings will be in general conformance with the recently -enacted City guidelines; he said the buildings will look similar to those constructed at the Opequon Center, with masonry, dimensional shingles, and standing seam metal roves, to blend with the City's overlay. No other members of the public wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Commissioners commented that this was a good location for this type of project; however, the left-hand exit remained a concern to some members of the Commission. Upon motion by Cormmissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the request by the LLE, LLC Route 11 Property for a waiver of Section 165-3 7D(7) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to allow specific modifications in screening requirements where the B3 zoning adjoins the B2 Zoning on this property. (Note: Commissioner Manual abstained; Commissioner Watt was absent for this item; Commissioners Light and Ours were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission i p Page 1736 Minutes of April 19, 2006 M 19 V 4 U U Upon motion by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan 902-06 for the LLE, LLC Route 11 Property, submitted by Potesta and Associates, Inc., for commercial uses on Valley Pike (Rt. 11). (Note: Commissioner Manual abstained; Commissioner Watt was absent for this item; Commissioners Light and Ours were absent from the meeting.) DISCUSSION ITEMS Discussion of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, the RP (Residential Performance) District, Section 165-64A, Recreational Facilities, for a waiver provision for community centers in single-family, small -lot subdivisions. Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, stated that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) discussed a proposed change to Section 165-64A of the zoning ordinance to allow the possibility of a waiver by the Board of Supervisors of the community center requirement for subdivisions having less than 50 lots, provided an equivalent of three age-appropriate recreational units for each 30 dwelling units can be demonstrated. Mr. Cheran reported that the DRRS was in favor of this proposed change following their discussion on February 23, 2006. Mr. Cheran stated that this section of the ordinance was recently changed following the Westbury Commons Master Development Plan (MDP) to allow a community center waiver in proffered age - restricted projects; he said the belief was that the homeowners associations in this type of development may have difficulty keeping up with the maintenance of these facilities. Mr. Cheran said this revised change would include all single-family, small lot subdivisions, however, approval would still require equivalent recreational units to be provided. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt of Greenway Engineering had originally initiated this request for the Westbury Commons MDP and he came forward to address the Commission on this matter. Mr. Wyatt explained that this amendment will only provide the potential for a waiver to be granted for single-family, small -lot housing. He said that at some point after the Planning Commission's approval of the text amendment, the age -restricted language came into this and limited the waiver potential to only age -restricted communities. Mr. Wyatt said that his concern was that for single-family, small -lot developments, whether they are in a traditional single-family community or an age -restricted one, the issue still remains regarding how many units can sustain a community center. He said this revised amendment will address that issue. Mr. Wyatt added an additional observation in that the current text amendment had left out the term, "pro -rated," for the equivalent recreational value; he said he would prefer that particular language remain within the text, to state, "... The applicant is required to demonstrate how an equivalent recreational value of three recreational units for each 30 dwelling units, pro -rated, is being provided within the project... " He reasoned that without the term, "pro -rated," the recreational equivalents could technically be the same for a five -unit development as a 30 -lot subdivision, if the waiver was granted. Commissioner Thomas stated that this amendment clearly reflects the intent of the DRRS and the Commission and is merely cleaning up the ordinance. Frederick County Planning Commission r '1 nl Page 1737 Minutes of April 19, 2006 10 I t�('�1 (� -15 - Commissioner Oates questioned if any amendments should be considered at this time, since the County was in the middle of the Urban Development Area (UDA) Study. Other Commission members explained that the dollar amount value intended for the community center would go elsewhere within the development or into other recreational facilities; it was further noted that the purpose was to eliminate something that the homeowners might not be able to financially maintain. Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence provided some background information on the addition of the single-family, small -lot option within the zoning ordinance, which was adopted in 1999. Mr. Lawrence believed the initial intent of the single-family small -lot was to provide a housing type for a unique population, such as older persons. Examples provided were the Shenandoah project, the Cross Creek project, and the Woodbrook Village project. He said that if opportunities are created to "water down" the additional requirements that come with single-family small lots, then a more urbanized type of lot size is created, such as what is being discussed with the Urban Village Concept by the Urban Development Area Study Group. He recalled that the example utilized for the proposed community centers waiver was the Westbury Commons project, which has since been rezoned and is a proffered, age -restricted project; he noted that there is a history of age -restricted uses for single-family small lots. Regarding the inclusion of the term, "pro -rata," Commissioner Thomas did not believe the language could be misinterpreted the way it was written and he didn't have a problem leaving the term out. Commissioner Thomas did not think the single-family small -lot category should be restricted solely to age - restricted communities; he said a targeted population could be singles, aged 25-35. He believed the primary issue came dorm to how much of a burden was being created on the homeowners association and he questioned the benefit of having all the community centers in 20, 30, and 40 -house developments. He added that as long as the equivalent recreational units are being provided, the units are going to be more beneficial to the population and to the County. Since this was a discussion item, no action was needed or taken by the Commission at this time. AMENDMENT OF PLAN LING COMM1SSk ON BYLAWS Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence reported that the Ad -Hoc Bylaws Review Committee recommended that the Commission change the process by which the Planning Commission's bylaws are amended. He said that currently, the bylaws restrict amendments to only once a year, in November. He said the amendment would change that restriction to allow amendments at any time during the calendar year with a majority vote of the entire voting membership after 30 days prior notice. In addition, Mr. Lawrence said the proposed amendment includes a requirement that the bylaws be adopted by the Commission at the first meeting of each calendar year. Mr. Lawrence said this proposed amendment was presented to the Commission on March 15 to meet the 30 -day announcement notice and tonight it is being presented to the Planning Commission for consideration and adoption. Upon motion made by Connnissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously adopt the amendment to Article IX—Proposed Amendments, Sections 9-1, 9-2, and 9-3, of the bylaws of the Planning Commission to allow for amendments to the bylaws at any time during the calendar year after 30 days prior Frederick County Planning Commission —� Page 1738 Minutes of April 19, 2006 L1 i D, L) [pi y' a -16— notice, 16_ notice, to conduct an annual review of the bylaws in November of each calendar year, and to adopt the byiaws at the first meeting of each calendar year. URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA (UDA) STUD' UPDATE Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, presented a flyer that will be circulated throughout the community which highlights the next critical step in the Urban Development Area (UDA) Study process. He said that step is the public meetings and getting the public involved in the process. Mr. Ruddy said the first two public meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, May 9, at Greenwood Fire Hall, which will capture the Senseny Road corridor, and May 11, at Aylor Middle School, to capture the southern part of the County. He said these two meetings are the first in a series of four that will be followed up approximately one month later, building upon the work already accomplished by the UDA Study Group and the issues, concerns, and ideas that are received during the first two public meetings. Commissioner Kriz, the chairman of the UDA Study Group, said that during the study process, the work group has involved representatives of the school board and school administration, and the Parks and Recreation Department and they have made a commitment to attend both of the public meetings to answer questions. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the Commission adjourned at 10:15 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R Lawrence, Secretary Frederick CountyPlanningCommission p r-, Page 1739 Minutes of Apri19, 2006 d W M �I MEETING MINUTES OF THE FIRRE 721HRICK COUNTY PLANNING CGMMIiSS>!ON Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on May 3, 2006. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; George J. Kriz, Ganesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, 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; Philip A. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R_ Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS Urban Deveiopment Area WDA) Study Group Commissioner Kriz announced that the first meeting to explain the UDA Study to the public will be held on Tuesday, May 9, 2006, from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m., at Greenwood Fire Hall. He said a second meeting will be held on Thursday, May 11, 2006, from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m at Aylor Elementary School. Commissioner Kriz said the public is encouraged to attend the meetings to learn about the suggested changes being recommended for the UDA. He said that representatives from the School Board, School Administration, Parks and Recreation, the Planning Department, and subcommittee members will be available for questions. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of May 3, 2006 Rol 0 r Page 1741 rt -2— Developrr_ent Rev ew & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 04/27/06 Mtg. Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed two issues. The first issue was the length of cul-de-sacs in the rural areas (RA). He explained that when the ordinance on cul-de-sacs was developed, it was probably intended to apply only to RP areas and not necessarily the RA areas. However, the same cul-de- sac language was incorporated into the RA areas as well, and this is being studied. Commissioner Thomas said the second issue discussed by the DRRS was recycling in Frederick County. In particular, the DRRS discussed what would be allowed, the approach, and if the Commission should be involved with uses or if this should be left up to the Public Works Department. Transportation Committee Commissioner Kriz reported that the Transportation Committee discussed the possibility of establishing impact fees in Frederick County to pay for road improvements in the rural areas. He said Frederick County's population has reached the qualifying level whereby the County may charge developers with impact fees or continue to accept proffers_ Conservation Easement Authority WEA) Commissioner Light reported that the CEA voted to send forward to the Board of Supervisors a Memorandum of Understanding with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation which will accompany the first conservation easement application. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments; however, no one came forward to speak. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning 904-06 of Orrick Cemetery, Inc., submitted by Patton Harris Rust &G Associates (PHR&aA) to rezone 33.61 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District and 22.06 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers, for a mixed-use commercial and residential project. The property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Senseny Road (Rt. 657) and Greenwood Road (Rt. 656), with road frontage along both roadways. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 55-A-201 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval With Proffers g i M Al Page 1742 Frederick County Planning Commission �. Minutes of May 3, 2006 -3— Senior Planner Susan K. Eddy provided the background information. Ms. Eddy reported that the site is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), but is not within the limits of any small -area land use plans in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. She said this area was a focus of discussion with the Urban Development Area (UDA) Study Group as an area that could possibly be designated as a Neighborhood Center in the future. However, she said the County's current Eastern Long- Range Land Use Plan shows all of the Senseny Road area as residential use with neighborhood business uses in the vicinity of these residential uses. She said the applicant's proposal for commercial zoning on the western end of the site, if developed in a matter complimentary to the surrounding residences, would be consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. In addition, she said the applicant's proposal for multi -family housing in the center of the site provides a transition between the retail portion and the single-family portions of the site. Moving on to transportation issues, Ms. Eddy stated that the Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan designates Senseny Road and Greenwood Road as improved major collectors, which translates to a four -lane divided boulevard section. Ms. Eddy said appropriate features that should be included with this type of road section are raised medians vclth landscaping, landscaping along the edge of the right-of-way, and sidewalks. She reported that the applicant is providing a new lane and a bicycle trail along Senseny Road through his proffer, but does not commit to landscaping within the median, or any landscaping along Greenwood Road or Senseny Road. Ms. Eddy proceeded to review the applicant's other transportation proffers, noting the installation of traffic signalization, turn lanes, and the provision of inter -parcel connectors to surrounding sites. Ms. Eddy next reviewed the applicant's design proffers with the Commission; she said the staff is concerned that the design proffers are somewhat vague and the conceptual drawing lacks detail. In conclusion, Ms. Eddy stated that the County will need assurances that the multi -family units will be compatible with the neighboring single-family homes, which can best be assured through more detailed design proffers. She said the applicant should also carefully consider road standards and corridor appearance standards for the commercial component concerning: a median on Senseny Road; street trees; placement of buildings closer to the street; and, reduced signage. Mr. Patrick Sowers with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. (PHR&A), representing the Orrick Cemetery, Inc. rezoning application, began his presentation by talking about the proposed park area. He said the purpose of having the park open to the public was to include the surrounding communities and foster neighborly connections; he said the land could be dedicated to the County, if that is what is preferred. He commented that the 3.5 -acre park will not on its own meet the open space requirements; he noted that a mixed-use development, such as theirs, will need ten acres of open space. Mr. Sowers next explained the methodology used in their calculations for monetary contributions in their proffer. He explained that this project was unique in that it was a mixed-use, age -restricted development and as a result of the commercial component, this development will pay for itself, he said that 20 years from now, this project will still have a positive net fiscal impact. He added that this methodology is also reflected in the monetary contribution for regional transportation improvements to both Senseny and Greenwood Roads. Using a PowerPoint display, Mr. Sowers next presented the project layout and design details to the Commission. He noted the applicant's intention to use multiple -materials design methods and non - symmetrical massing for their building construction; their intent was to eliminate monolith -type structures and break up massing. He said that under the current ordinance, they cannot rezone to an R4 Mixed Use, because the property does not meet the 100 -acre minimum requirement; however, they still want to bring together the neighborhood, village -center concept. He explained the applicant's intent is to seek an amendment to the ordinance and their preference is to launch a pro -active step by having the design requirements already in place. Frederick County Planning Commission 1vlLin Ltec of Mny 3, 2006 Page 1743 ma Commissioners asked the applicant if he could use an alternate material or design for the asphalt parking lot. They were concerned not only for the aesthetics of a 12 -14 -acre asphalt parking lot, but also with the run-off that would occur. They asked the applicant about the possibility of using green design principles, such as paving brick with grass in between to allow for water infiltration, or breaking up the solid parking with areas of green strips. Mr. Sowers replied that the number of parking spaces and the curb and gutter requirements in the County's ordinance dictates what they can accomplish with the parking area. Mr. David Hamer of Paramount Development Corporation, the commercial developer, said he would be willing to work with the Commission and staff to work out the details of the parking lot and see what could be accomplished under the County's ordinance. Some Commission members were also concerned about having the 3.5 -acre park open to the public, but owned by the homeowners association (HOA). Commissioners questioned the financial ability of an HOA for an age -restricted community to pay large premiums for liability insurance, especially in light of the water feature within the park. Commissioners also questioned whether the park would be a source of conflict between the homeowners and those who live outside the development. Some of the Commissioners suggested that the park area be dedicated to the County. Mr. Earl Armiger, President of Orchard Development Corporation, the residential developer, came forward to address the Commission. Mr. Anniger talked about his company's previous projects, primarily in Maryland and Northern Virginia, and that they specialize in senior housing. He said that many of their projects have won awards. There were some questions from the Commission members about the amount of the monetary contribution, in light of what has been previously proffered by other developments. Mr. Sowers responded that in addition to the $475 per unit, they have proffered $1,500 per unit towards transportation improvements. He said the amount proffered was the actual amount projected by the County's new fiscal impact model; he commented that the amount is less than other developments because their project contains 15 8,000 square feet of commercial area. The staff commented that the applicant was accurate in their interpretation of the results. Commissioner Mohn said that while the project may pay for itself from a capital facilities perspective, it won't necessarily pay for road improvements from a regional perspective. Commissioner Mohn focused attention on the fact that one of the County's priorities is getting Senseny Road improved along its entire length through this corridor. Chairman Wilmot asked the applicant about his plans to seek ordinance amendments and the timing of the development. Mr. Sowers said that if the rezoning and master development plan were approved, that would allow site plans for all 22 acres of commercial to be open for use. In addition, any residential uses that are currently permitted by the ordinance would be allowed; for example, the age -restricted single-family housing could be built as the applicant takes the text amendment through the process. He said all of the commercial and some of the residential could come on line before the text amendment is approved. Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments. No one came forward to speak; therefore, Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Commissioner Moms asked if there was a community center requirement for this age -restricted community. Mr. Sowers replied that there will be some single-family, small -lot, age -restricted housing and he pointed out the location for the proposed community center to meet the requirement. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of May 3; 2006 Page 1744 -5 - Commission members were interested in enhancing the appearance ofthe County's corridors and they were supportive of the staff's recommendation for street trees and a median on Senseny Road, and street trees along Greenwood Road. Mr. Harper agreed to work with the staff during the design phase of the project to achieve an acceptable level of streetscape and to show the improvements on the MDP. Some Commissioners were not in favor of the park being open to the public, especially if the HOA had responsibility for maintenance and liability issues. Others were in favor of having the park dedicated to the County and maintair_ed by the Department of Parks and Recreation. The idea of a centrally -located green area being available to the surrounding community was thought to be a good one. Commissioners suggested that before this rezoning goes to the Board of Supervisors, that the applicant meet with the Department of Parks and Recreation to get their input. Members of the Commission also wanted to see a commitment from the applicant on improving the design of the parking lot for appearance and water infiltration. Mr. Harper said he was willing to work directly with members of the Commission or staff to come up with a solution before the meeting with the Board of Supervisors. Upon motion made by Commissioner Mohn and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning 404-06 of Orrick Cemetery, Inc., submitted by Patton Hams Rust & Associates (PHR&A) to rezone 33.61 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District and 22.06 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District for a mixed-use commercial and residential project, with proffers, and with enhanced corridor appearance to include trees along Senseny Road and Greenwood Road; with a commitment by the applicant to meet with the Parks and Recreation Department regarding the 3.5 -acre park; and with a commitment by the applicant to improving the design of the parking lot for appearance and water infiltration. (Note: Commissioner Ours was absent from the meeting.) WORKSESSIION SCZ�-1EDULED Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, announced a Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission Work Session scheduled for May 11, 2006 at 12:15 to talk about the Rural Transportation Funding Program. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of May 3, 2006 Page 1745 W:C ADJOU T'ZIENT Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours, seconded by Commissioner K.-iz, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission NL, notes of Mav 3, 2006 Page 1746 REZONING APPLICATION 903-06 O -N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) Staff Report for the Plarninng CemmissIlon Prepared: March 20, 2006 (Updated May 22, 2006) Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director 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 snaking a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning Awatter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughoi4 this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: April 5, 2006 Tabled 60 days June 7, 2006 Pending Board of Supervisors: June 28, 2006 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. LOCATION: The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758) and west and adjacent to Hites Road (Route 625). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). MAGISTERIAL DIST; T: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE: Undeveloped ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING &z PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential South: EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Use: Shenandoah County East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural 'PROPOSED USES: Quarry Rezoning #03-06 — O -N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIOle+TTS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 757. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Global Stone Chemstone Corporation rezoning application dated June 13, 2005 address transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I T E Trip Generation Manual Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization and off- site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Will not directly effect fire and rescue. Plan approval recommended. Department of Inspections: Demolition permit required prior to removing any existing structures. No additional comments required. Public Works Department: Refer to page 4, Environmental Features: The discussion indicated that an environmental report prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIL) was included with the impact statement as Appendix "A". A copy of this report was not included with our submittal. Please provide us with a copy of this report for our review. Refer to page 6, Soils/Geology: The geology discussion should be expanded to include hydrogeology and the impact of the project on the local groundwater. In particular, the subdivisions which rely on groundwater wells for their water supply. General: The impact analysis has not addressed one very important item related to a rezoning from RA to EM. That item is the impact or effect of blasting on adjacent residential buildings. This issue should also be expanded to include the impact of dust on adjacent residential dwellings. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comment. Sanitation Authority: The Frederick County Sanitation Authority supports this rezoning request. The Authority will use these pits, when abandoned, as a source of water supply under an agreement with Global Stone Chemstone Corporation, dated March 2, 2000. Larger pits will provide a more abundant supply and reliable source of water. Larger pits are also more cost effective for the Authority to develop as a water supply. That benefits the residents of Frederick County that depend upon the Authority for water service. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: The Health Department has no objection if there is to be no increase in water use which would require sewage disposal. GIS: No road/name requirements noted. Any road network that provides primary access to four or more occupied business structures shall be names. Numbering will be assigned as applicable. Rezoning #03-06 — O -N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 3 Department of Parks & Recreation: No comment. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon build -out. Winchester Regional Airport: Allowed uses under this rezoning should not effect airside operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Town of Middletown: The Middletown Planning Commission, while not opposed to the project, is opposed to the increase of truck traffic through Middletown and has concerns about the effect of excavation on the water table. Please see revised comment and resolution. Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letter dated March 27, 2006from Mr. Bob Mitchell. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Please seethe attached letter dated January 3, 2006, signed by Candice E. Perkins, Planner H. Planning & Zcning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Middletown Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use The property for which the rezoning is being requested is located within the Rural Areas of Frederick County. This land use designation is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as all areas outside of the designated Urban Development Area. The primary land uses in the Rural Areas are agriculture and forests. The primary growth pattern consisting of widely scattered, large lot residential development. Many residents of Frederick County are attracted to the natural beauty Rezoning 403-06 — O -N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 4 and special lifestyle found in rural portions of the County. Excessive or inappropriate development in these areas can reduce their value and attractiveness. At the same time, the rural areas play an important role in the County's economy through the income generated by agriculture. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-55] The subject property contains areas of prime agricultural soils which are generally located in the limestone belt running north -south through the County. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the value to the County's economy of the limestone resources within the County and the extraction of these natural resources. Within the Business and Industrial Area policies it is recognized that policies are needed and standards should be developed concerning how to deal with new requests for large mining operations [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-I1, 6-72]. The Rural Areas Conclusion states that most of the County will continue to be rural areas used for agriculture, forests, or low density residential uses. Certain types of business uses may be located at scattered rural locations if safe access is available, and if adverse impacts on surrounding uses and the rural enviromnent can be avoided. These rural business and industrial uses should be those that provided services to rural areas or that are more appropriate in rural areas than urban areas. The locations for such business would include major intersections or locations with recent or existing business activity [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-60] Two of the identified goals of the Rural Area policy are to maintain the rural character of areas outside the UDA and to protect the rural environment [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-76]. Environment After describing the physical characteristics of the County, the Environment Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan addresses Water Supply. Issues concerning water quality, quantity, use, and protection of water resources are directly related to land development activities. Water supplies are needed to support development, while surface and groundwater are potentially affected by development activities [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5-31. Major sources of water used in the County are groundwater and the North Fork of the Shenandoah River. In 2000, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority entered a seventy year lease with Global Stone Chemstone Corporation (Global). Global owns quarries at Clearbrook, Middletown, and Strasburg. The lease provides the water from these quarries as a source of supply and transfers title of the quarries to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority when the mining operations are complete. The agreement has provided a viable long term source of water for the County [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5-3] Groundwater is the major source of water supply in the rural portions of the County and provides a potential alternative source for urban areas. In all, over half the population of the County relies on groundwater as the sole source of water supply. The most productive aquifers in the County are the limestone -carbonate aquifers [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5-3, 5-4]. Rezoning #03-06 — O -N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 5 History The property for which the rezoning is being requested is located adjacent to Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield. Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield are historic sites in Frederick County that are listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. Cedar Creek is identified as one of six battlefields of great national importance that are located in Frederick County and Winchester. The Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County further identifies both sites as potentially significant properties. In addition, the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley shows a portion of the property as being within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek. Significant portions of Cedar Creek, along with Third Winchester and Kemstown battlefields provided the critical mass and the foundation for the Battlefield Network Plan which was adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on December 13, 1995, and subsequently incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Excerpts from the Battlefield Network Plan have been provided for your information. The Battlefield Network Plan and the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley were important catalysts for the designation of the regional Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District which was created by Congress in 1996. More recently, the efforts of the Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields Foundation and the National Park Service continue to further historic preservation efforts relating to the civil war battlefields located in Frederick County and the broader region. To address the historic preservation policy goal of protecting the historic resources in Frederick County, The Comprehensive Plan provides that the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) review development proposals which potentially impact significant historic resources and that the HRAB's information and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB facilitated the involvement of the historic preservation stakeholders in the review of this rezoning request. The recommendation of the HRAB accompanies this report and will be discussed in greater detail later in the report. Identified implementation methods for promoting the preservation and protection of Civil War Battlefield resources include the preservation and protection of the historical appearance and character of the key battlefield sites, their viewsheds, and their approaches, and the coordination of the battlefield efforts with efforts to protect and preserve natural, visual, and environmental resources [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 2-11-13]. Transportation The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan does not cover this portion of the County. The properties are located in the Rural Area of the County. A large portion of the roads within the County are currently inadequate to meet the needs of the areas they serve. There is a need to insure that improvements to existing rural roads continue to be made in a systematic way and that new rural roads are provided as needed [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 7-1]. Rezoning 403-06 — O -N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 6 In general, the Comprehensive Plan states that a Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better should be maintained on roads adjacent to and within new developments within the County. The applicants Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) seeks to address the transportation impacts associated with this rezoning request. 3) Site Suitabili /)Environment Both properties contain environmentally sensitive areas. The applicant has identified wetlands, streams, and floodplains, and areas of mature woodlands on the properties. Exhibits have been provided that depict these environmental features. Any disturbance of identified environmental resources would occur in conformance with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations. Watson Run and Middle Marsh Brook are the existing streams that traverse the subject properties. Both streams have associated floodplain designations. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Vir inia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Frederick-Poplimento-Oaklet soil association. Multiple soil types are located on the sites. The site contains soil types that are considered prime agricultural soils. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. It is recognized that the limestone deposits that underlie the properties provide the ideal geological conditions for Extractive Manufacturing use. In addition, the most productive aquifers in the County are the limestone -carbonate aquifers that are present in this area. 4) Potential Impacts Potential Impact Summau. In evaluating the O -N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application it is very important to recognize that the applicant has not proffered a commitment to the use of the property beyond those which would be enabled by the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. All land uses, meeting the applicable development standards, would be permitted within the district based upon the application as submitted. The County is familiar with the operation and practices of the existing Middletown Quarry operation and recognizes that the purpose of the rezoning request is to enable the expansion of the existing limestone ore extraction operation onto adjacent properties, utilizing this natural resource. However, lacking a commitment that seeks to further define the scope of operations, this application should be evaluated carefully and with the understanding that the use of the properties could be more intensive than that described in the applicant's impact statement. Rezoning 403-06 — O -N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 7 Consideration should be given to the maximum possible intensity of EM (Extractive Manufacturing) use identified in the County's Zoning Ordinance (a copy of the EM (Extractive Manufacturing District has been provided for your review). The impacts associated with this rezoning request may be significant and should be understood. The applicant should be prepared to address the mitigation of the impacts associated with this rezoning request, in particular, those impacts and issues identified by the reviewing agencies. Guarantees in the form of proffered conditions have not been offered to ensure that the impacts generated by this application are limited and consistent with the discussion in the Impact Statement. The applicant has the ability to address this through the Proffer Statement. When considering the acreage potential, the dimensional requirements, and the EM District uses, it is possible that facilities located adjacent to and with access from Chapel Road could result, as could facilities located within 50 feet of the adjacent RA zoned property surrounding the site. The scope of the impacts could exceed the projections identified and accommodated in the impact statement and TIA. A. Historic Resources The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the O -N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application during their December 20, 2005 meeting. Invited to attend the meeting by the HRAB were representatives of the various historical and cultural groups considered stakeholders in relationship to the historical resources in the vicinity of the rezoning. The following stakeholder groups were represented: Belle Grove, Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, National Park Service, and the Town of Middletown. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, information provided by the applicant as well as information provided by various groups that were in attendance of the meeting. The 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley shows a portion of the property in question as being located within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek. The property also contains the site where the Nieswanger Fort once stood. _Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns The HRAB expressed concern that the proposed rezoning was not protecting the viewshed of the battlefield and the Belle Grove property as well as the archeological resources present on the Cedar Creek Battlefield and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. The HRAB felt that the applicant still needs to address many issues with this rezoning before it should be considered by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB expressed that they could support the approval of this project if the suggestions offered as a result of the HRAB meeting are considered by the applicant in order to mitigate impacts on the historic resources (Please see HRAB letter dated January 3, 2006, signed by Candice E. Perkins, Planner II). Rezoning 903-06 — O -N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 8 The applicant has modified their rezoning application in an effort to address two of the nine comments suggested by the HRAB. However, many of the valid recommendations offered by the HRAB have not been addressed. Two of the most significant and constructive comments offered by the HRAB (the first two comments in the letter from the HRAB) should be further satisfied to ensure that the potential impacts associated of the rezoning are appropriately addressed. Presently, they have not been addressed in a manner that satisfies the concerns expressed by the HRAB. The opportunity has been provided for the applicant to work with the identified stakeholders, Belle Grove, Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, and the National Park Service, to prepare a view shed mitigation plan that addresses the unique view sheds and approaches critical to their particular points of view. Understanding their points of view, a tailored approach that integrates the natural landscape with customized berming and landscaping would promote an approach to the view shed management that mitigates the visual impacts of the mining operations in an effective manner. A customized approach to the buffering, berming, and landscaping would be more appropriate than the present approach proposed in the proffer statement. In certain locations, particularly on the southern property (90-A-23), designating areas of non disturbance would preserve the existing landscape and by taking advantage of the topography effectively mitigate the visual impacts of the mining operations. A strategic approach to the location and size of the waste stockpiles identified on the exhibits should also be a consideration. Current practice at the existing facility with regards to the stockpiling of overburden should be avoided in the future. Approaches to addressing the visual impacts of the proposed operations should be more detailed and should be incorporated into the proffer statement. The applicant has provided for the dedication to Belle Grove of approximately eight acres as an historic reserve. This is in an area where archeological resources associated with the Belle Grove Plantation have previously been identified. A time frame has been provided for the dedication of this acreage. The HRAB suggested that a Phase 1 Archeological Survey should be done on the property focusing on core battlefield areas and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. If warranted subsequent studies should be performed. The applicant has proffered to complete a Phase 1 Archeological Survey of the property in the future. However, no commitments have been made beyond a Phase 1 Survey. It should be clarified that the Survey would be applicable to parcel 90-A-23 in addition to the stated parcel 83-A-109. The goal of the HRAB comments is to enable the mining operations to expand in a manner which is not detrimental to the historical context of the surrounding landscape. Further, to promote an approach that is mutually beneficial to the applicant, historic preservation stakeholders, and th( adjacent community. The HRAB comments provide the opportunity for O -N Chemstone to continue to address the needs of the community, minimizing the impacts of their operations in a Rezoning #03-06 — O -N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 9 manner that is compatible with the surrounding community, in a manner described in their Impact Statement. S. Transportation Much of the analysis in the Impact Statement is based upon the continuation of the existing practices of the Middletown quarry operation. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and the impact statement suggests that the vehicle trips would increase by more than double from the existing count of 506 vehicles per day to 1,305 vehicle trips per day. A more significant increase in Global Stone truck traffic is anticipated in the TIA from 19 trucks per day to 80 per day and an increase of 56 customer truck trips per day. It should be recognized that a different combination or additional uses may further increase the traffic impacts associated with this request. As evidenced at the existing Strasburg facility, additional traffic impacts could be experienced from a more intensive use of the property than is currently envisioned. Primary access to the site is depicted as being from the existing site entrance along Route 625 (5th Street) to U.S. Route 11, Main Street in the Town of Middletown. The Town has expressed their opposition to the increase of truck traffic through Middletown. A significant amount of discussion regarding the inter -site transfer of materials via a conveyor belt system is offered in the impact statement. No mention of this approach has been provided in the Proffer Statement. Therefore, this approach should not presently be part of the consideration of this rezoning request. As demonstrated in the TIA, a level of service C or better would be achieved at the intersection of Route 11 and Route 625 (5th Street). Consideration should be given to the character of the traffic generated from the facility and utilizing the aforementioned intersection. B. Mining Operations and Community Impacts Associated with mining operations is the potential for a variety of impacts that may affect surrounding properties and land uses. The Division of Mineral Mining of the Virginia Department of Mines is responsible for permitting mining operations within the State of Virginia including the operations of O -N Chemstone at the Middletown Quarry. The EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance provides additional local requirements that seek to minimize the impacts associated with Extractive Manufacturing uses. Provisions and performance standards are provided to protect surrounding uses from adverse impacts. Appropriate landscaping or screening may be required by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission within any required yard setback area in order to reasonably protect adjacent uses from noise, sight, dust, or other adverse impacts. Rezoning #03-06 — O -N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 10 The County Engineer reviewed the request and provided input expressing concerns regarding the geological impacts and the potential hydrological impacts, in particular the impact of the project on the local groundwater which includes the adjacent subdivisions that rely on groundwater wells for their water supply. With regards to the geology discussion, the impact or effect of blasting on adjacent residential buildings should be fully considered as should the impact of dust from the mining operations on adjacent residential dwellings. The Impact Statement did not fully address these potential impacts. As a result of the input of the County Engineer the applicant has included proffers that seek to address the groundwater, dust, and blasting concerns associated with this rezoning request. In addition to the potential impacts of the proposed mining operations on the view shed from the historical perspective, serious consideration should be given to the visual impacts on the rural landscape from the perspective of the adjacent residential landowners and from the perspective of residents and visitors traveling along Chapel Lane which bisects parcel 83-A-109 and the proposed mining operation.. Summary of Impacts: - Potential impacts associated with more intensive use of properties - HRAB Concerns -View shed coordination and mitigation -Cultural Resource Surveys - Transportation impacts on Route 625 and its intersection with Route 11 - Potential groundwater, dust, and blasting controls on adjacent properties - Rural view shed. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated .Tune 13, 20115 and revised January 16, 2006, February 8, 2006, and February 17, 2006 The applicant has provided that the property shall be developed with Extractive Manufacturing Land uses. With regards to site development, the applicant has attempted to limit access to the existing site entrance, has proffered distance buffers, earthen berms, and landscaping to minimize the impacts to the view shed of the surrounding community. It should be understood that no minimum standards have been offered to ensure that the site development proffers will minimize the potential impacts of the mining operations and address the expressed concerns of the HRAB. An eight acre historic reserve to be dedicated to Belle Grove has been proffered by the applicant. Rezoning #03-06 — O -N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 11 A limited Phase 1 Archeological Survey has been proffered by the applicant. It should be clarified that this proffer is applicable to both parcels subject to the rezoning. The applicant has guaranteed to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority rights to the groundwater resources in accordance with existing agreements between the applicant and the FCSA. The proffer Statement should provide clarification that the future use of the property and the development offacilities to support the utilization of the groundwater resources are enabled by this rezoning request and Proffer Statement. The applicant has stated their intent to monitor, minimize the impacts, and remediate any impacts associated with groundwater, dust, and blasting. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 04/05/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The O -N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application addresses many of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. The Planning Commission should pay particular attention to the following: 1) The Potential impacts associated with more intensive use of properties. 2) The recommendations of the Historic Resources Advisory Board, particularly regarding view shed coordination and mitigation and Cultural Resource Surveys 3) The potential groundwater, dust, and blasting and view shed impacts on adjacent properties. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 04/05/06 MEETING: Planning Staff provided an overview of the application. This was followed by a presentation by the applicant of their project. During the Planning Commission's initial discussions, Commissioners wanted to know which State agency, the Department of Mines and Minerals (DMM) or the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), was responsible for overseeing aquifer protection, particularly, the quality and quantity protection measures. Commissioners suggested that a fund or bond be set up in escrow if a determination of responsibility for well damage had to be contested. In addition, they suggested that an agent of the County be assigned as a designated mediator in remediation situations. Berms were discussed and the case was made for smaller berms with flatter slopes in order to be more viewshed-friendly. Higher berms would be necessary in certain limited cases, while a minimum height was also suggested to conceal the height of a truck. It was suggested that the language should state, "...an average of 30 feet with higher berms as required for proper viewshed conditions." Rezoning 403-06 — O -N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 12 Commissioners commented that the applicant's proffer statement seemed to be too general and they would have preferred to see more specificity, particularly dealing with the placement and monitoring of seismographs, the eight -acre reserve area for Belle Grove, a detailed plan showing the berms, a detailed phasing plan, and buffer details. Due to the Commission's Bylaws requiring a mandatory 11:00 p.m. adjournment, the Planning Commission did not have enough time to hold the public comment portion of the hearing. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to table the rezoning for 60 days, until June 7, 2006. (All members of the Planning Commission were present.) PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE FOR 06/07/06 MEETING: Staff has not received any materials from the applicant in modification of the O -N Minerals Rezoning Application, RZ03-06. The concerns and issues identified during the Planning Commission's initial discussions regarding this application, and the issues identified in the initial staff report, remain un- addressed. The Public Hearing for this application was not held during the 04/05/06 Planning Commission meeting due to time constraints. As a result, the Commission should satisfy the Public Hearing requirements at the 06/07/06 meeting. The information offered during the Public Hearing should also be a consideration of the Planning Commission during their evaluation of this rezoning application. Since the initial 04/05/06 meeting at which the O -N Minerals Rezoning Application was considered, staff has been provided with numerous correspondence regarding this rezoning application. This additional public comment, in addition to an updated comment in the form of a resolution from the Town of Middletown, is included with this rezoning application package for your information. In addition, at the request of the applicant, staff met with Mr. David Benner, Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy to discuss the role his department plays in permitting and monitoring proposed and existing operations such as the Chemstone Middletown facility. Staff is confident that the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy will effectively carry out there responsibilities and duties. However, their responsibilities and duties are limited to the permitting and monitoring of the mining operations. It was made very clear that coordination with other State Agencies through the permitting process was minimal. Further, it was made clear that the Department's involvement with the adjacent property owners was limited and that in no way does the Department take a position in resolving conflicts that may arise between adjacent property owners and mining companies. The responsibility of addressing impacts that may be realized by properties in the vicinity of mining operations would rest with the affected property owner. The locality would have the responsibility of monitoring impacts and enforcing compliance in cases where the locality accepted proffered conditions aimed at mining operation impact mitigation. Rezoning 1/03-06 — O -N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 13 Please find attached to end of this report additional correspondence from various sources including The Town of Middletown, L. Preston Bryant, Commonwealth of Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources, and Mr. Woodward S. Bousquet. Following the requirer. rent for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the hoard of Supervisors concerninZ this rezoning application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adew:ateh address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. TOWN OF MID LETC€WN, VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONOPPOSING PROPOSED O -N MINERALS REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL TO EXTRACTIVE MANUFACTURING LAND USES. WHEREAS, O_•i`,! Minerals : hLm:-•tojie? has 'filed an application in Frederick County :o rezone 639 acres eS from r'11r al agricultural (RA) to extractive Ili=1Tiufact1_€ring Ct'.-...M) uses on _. site immediately west t of t :-1 s? historic I QwI I of Middletown, LiL.'-ig1 1i_k 4".1 as the official Gateway to the Cedar Creek and 'elle Grove National Historical Par'I y and WHEREAS, the is hemstone quarry site is adjacent to the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National His'tor'ical Park, recently named one of the ten most eni3:_riEig'.ered Civil War" battlefields in America, and clearly within the viewshed of historic Middletown; and WHEREAS, increased limestone mining at the Chemstons site will have .significant negative environmental impacts on the greater Middletown area, notably increased ire Pollution emissions, pollution of gr;II3_Ii+tdwater supplies: and erosion of the historic and rural setting of the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park; and WHE EAST increased limestone mining is projected to create significant negative traffic and noise impacts, with up to 1,400 industrial vehicles traveling through the designated historic district of Middletown each dayl which c?li7L11_[t'its to frCc:rly one truck jr e r" minute, 24 -hours •_t day, seven 1 WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning would permit other related heavy industries to .locate on the site, such as cement or asphalt plant, as has occurred on the Lhemstone quarry site at Clearbrook in northern Frederick County, where two cement plants have opened in the past fi 8 months, adding to air pollution from small particulates; and HEREASI the 2005 Middletown Comprehensive Plan calls for retaining the community's character by, more fully developing blain Street "with more shopping and eating establishment's" :,_arid for, retaining Route 11. as "major arterial roadway" that is also Ila historic, ,1 pedestrian -friendly= i•Tain Street", and WHEREAS, the 2005 Middletown Comprehensive Plan seeks to build +_€pan the T'own's ma.,jor economic resources, Lord Fairfax C:orlaln+_€nity College, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, `yr -rt the puede'; ` r-`�.]ir- 3 "� the WaysideWaysideTheater, thesm��ll-to€gin charactcharacterriendl.y environ91ient i and FEREAS, 'f;,'he 2005 Middletown Comprehensive Plan calls 1'or.' the town and 3,'y'itl'nty to identify and develop economic opportunities that unique �j .� historic M ��l_' n including compatible 1'r .k � are ' 1_ '.r I•_ � {M1 1' l 1 1 I'� 1� IJ LS 9 commerce and light industr yl in order to t;Y"osden the Local tax base; a n d RESOLUTION — PAGE TWO WHEREAS,the proposed rezoning of 639 acres from agricultural to uses close to town will generate air' water., heavy industrialt th t are clearly not compatible traffic noise and dust impacts a and other ' f Middletown's economic developmenta with the Town o community goals; NOW THEREFORE BE ITRES��LVED, by the Mayor and Common Council f the Town o'� Middletown, Virginia, that we hereby call on the or Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors 8—nto deny �its current form the application for rezoning of the Minerals (Chemstone) site. Adopted this 8th day of May, 2006 GPatricia 4J. M T -Is'- - -11C Clerk Martha H. Ingra:ft' Council Member Marshall J. Brown Council Member JoNn A. Copeland Council Member Gene T. Dicks Mayor Gerald Sinclair, Jr. Council Members ---�ld E Dona E. Breeden Council Member Mary L. Shull Council Member COUNTY of FREDERICK Board of Supervisors 540/665-5666 540/667-0370 fax Richard C. Shickle - Chairman Bill M. Ewing - Vice Chairman Opequon District Gene E. Fisher Shawnee District The Honorable Frank R Wolf United State Congress House of Representatives 241 Cannon Building Washington, D.C. 20515-4610 Dear Congressman Wolf. May 12, 2006 Thank you for sharing Ms. Clevenger's concerns with me. Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Stonewall District Gary W. Dove Gainesboro District Barbara E. Van Osten Back Creek District Philip A. Lemieux Red Bud District First and foremost, O -N Mineral Chemstone has a current mining operation that straddles the boundaries of Frederick and Shenandoah counties. The company owns 600 plus acres in Frederick County and has owned same for 51 years (U.S. Steel acquired the property in 1955 and sold same to O -N Minerals Chemstone in 1986). New development in this area of the county has occurred around this company's land and includes the National Park Service Land. Thirdly, the Company is now filing a rezoning petition with the County to now utilize said land that they own. With the aforementioned facts outlined, it is now the County's responsibility to hear the merits of the application, perform its due diligence based upon the facts presented, and render a decision. As you know this is a very public process that will involve both the Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. This will not be an easy process, but I can assure you it will be a fair one. Frederick County stands ready to listen to and address all concerns raised by its citizens to the best of its ability. I look forward to the dialogue and if Ms. Clevenger has further questions she may contact our Planning Department at 540-665-5651. RCS/jet Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to respond. Sincerely, V2_Z_—jZ Richard C. Shickle Chairman of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors 107 North Kent Street ® Winchester, Virginia 22601 C'1/ IM, M0.1 V -V EALT H o f VIRE-1� 1N .� Office of the Governor- JJ L. Preston &cant Secxetan of atu: it Rex)urces 1kpri1 26, 2006 NIS, Julie Clevenger 451 Westen3view Drive rArddletcw V 22645 Dear Ms. Clevenger: Thank you for writing Governor Kaine regarding the quarries proposed for development in the vicinity of 14fiddletouv. Governor Kaine has asked that I respond to you on his behalf. I understand that quarry excavation, and likely subsequent reservoir development, is proposed for several sites within an approximately 639 -acre tract in the vicinity of Cedar Creek and Meado«v Brook, just north of Nliddleto'wii ui Frederick County. The projects currently are in planning and rezoning stages and have not yet been coordinated with relevant state agencies, such as the Department of Envirorunental Quality and the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, which may have regulatory authority over the quarry excavation or water supply- aspects of this project. v To date, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has not received any permit applications, including, air and wetlands, for the proposed quarry expansion by O-1\ Chernstone. DEQ would not have a permit requirement unless the company decides to expand their crusher and conveyance systems, which would require changes to their existing air permit_ I have asked t'ne Virginia Departxx>enr of Game and hfland Fisheries (DGIr) to help me identiA, potential project impacts on the local wildlife and habitats. DGIF is the state tivildlife agency and has jurisdiction over the CoinmonwealtYs terrestrial wildlife, freshwater fish and other aquatic resources, and state or federally endangered or thzeatened species other than insects. DGIF is a consulting agency under the L. S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and it provides emdronmental analysis of projects or permit applications coordinated through DEQ, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, the Virginia Department of Transportation., the U.S_ Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and other state or federal agencies. DGIF's role in these procedures is to determine likely impacts upon fish and wildlife resources and habitat; and to recommend appropriate measures to avoid, reduce, or compensate for those impacts. Based on early DGIF research, it is my understanding that a variety of terrestrial and aquatic habitats N ould be affected by the proposed project. A prehminary review of DGIF's wildlife data suggests that wood turtles, a state threatened species, may occur in the project area. Patnck H4 n' Ruild:rq + 11:1 East 6roa3 Street * Ri&m&-nd, bir inia 232i • 804) 7 86�; N4 • T i Y f3C i 6-7�- 1112 FIs. Julie Clevenger April 26, 2006 Page 2 You also expressed concern that bald eagles, currently a federally threatened species, may nest on the tract as well. Arty information that you can provide to DGIF about eagle nests in this location would be greatly appreciated. DGIF's databases contain historic records of other imperiled bird species from this area, including the state threatened loggerhead shrike, Bewick's wren; and upland sandpiper. The nearby Meadow Brook is designated a Class V Coldwater Stream capable of supporting a stockable trout fishery. I have some concerns over potentially adverse impacts of the proposed project on these and other sensitive tivildlife resources and habitats on the site. Additional information is needed so that use may fiirther evaluate potential wildlife impacts. Additionally_ the Virginia Department of Historic Resources {DHR) has been tracking the rezoning application for several months. On December 20, 2005, DHR advised the Frederick County Department of Planning through its History Advisory Board that the proposal had the potential to result in significant adverse impacts on archaeological and historic resources located directly in the parcel in question. Accordingly, DHR recommended that the County require the applicant to conduct an assessment of all archaeological and historic architectural resources within the parcel before taking action on the rezoning application. Based on follow up discussions with the Cowatv's planning staff it is DHR's understanding that the County is likely to require 0-N Chemstone to undertake such an assessment. Be advised that if kvetlands are affected, such an investigation may be required of O -N Chemstone pursuant to Section 106 of the National Preservation ,pct of 1966, as amended, as a condition of receiving a federal wetlands permit from the Corps. If the project comes to be defined as a federal undertaking, the Corps would be required to consult,with DHR, and DHR would consider in its review and recommendations not only the effect of the project on historic resources located on the development parcel but also the potential 'c isual impacts of the development on nearby historic property such as the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation. Further; the Department of Conservation and Recreation has identified, in its 2002 Virginia Outdoors Plan, Cedar Creels in Shenandoah and Frederick Counties as a potential component of the State's scenic rivers system. And both DCR and the Virginia Department of Transportation have recently determined that U.S. Route 11 qualifies for designation as a Scenic Byway. It is my hope that County officials consider these items as they contemplate the quare- and its potential impacts on the region's significant scenic; natural, and cultural resources. Because the authority to regulate local land use is the prerogative of local government in Virginia and the ultimate decision to approve the rezoning application is Frederick County's to make, I strongly encourage you to continue expressing your concerns about this project directly to your local elected officials. I also recommend that you contact .Mr. Rion Stauffer of the Corps (703-221-6967) for further information on whether the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation act may be triggered in this case by a federal permit application as O -N Chemstone's development proposal moves forward. Governor Kaine and I are committed to conserving Virginia's rich natural diversity for all of its citizens. We also recognize that economic development and water supplies are vital to the Ms. Julie Clevenger April 26, 2006 Page. 3 region and that a balanced approach is needed to accommodate economic and environmental needs. My agencies and I are committed to working with you and other interested parties, including the County and the permit applicants, to ensure this balance is achieved, and we look forward to cooperating with you, your local government agencies, and other stakeholders in this regard. Again, I encourage you to contact David NNThitehurst, Director of DGIF7s Wildlife Diversity Division, and talk with him further about the role that the DGIF has in this project and the information that they have about wildlife resources. Mr. Whitehurst may be reached at 504-362-433 or via e-mail at Dai°id,Whitehurst!D.dgif virginia.g. Thank you for taking time to let Governor Kaine know about your concerns. We appreciate your interest in the natural resources of Virginia. Sincerely. L. Preston Bryant, Jr. .LPBJr, cbd SHENANDOAH V&I I UNIVERMY Mr. Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 re. Rezoning Application 903-06, O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Dear Mr. Ruddy: APR 2 5 2006 April 22, 2006 I attended the Frederick County Planning Commission's public hearing on April 5 regarding rezoning application #03-06 (O -N Minerals, Chemstone). In response to the request you made at the end of the meeting, I am submitting questions and comments about the application for consideration by the planning staff, the applicant, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors. These remariks are based upon my familiarity with Cedar Creek and its surrounding watershed that comes, in large part, from an ecological assessment that I conducted with four undergraduates in Shenandoah University's Environmental Studies Program in 2004. Our studies focused on evaluating water quality and on identifying ecological communities and habitats throughout the watershed in Frederick, Warren and Shenandoah Counties. We conducted these investigations in collaboration with the Potomac Conservancy, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Virginia Natural Heritage Program. Our findings are contained in Cedar Creek Revealed. A Study of the Ec®logical arld Ifistorie Coaitext of Cedar Creek, a report released by the Potomac Conservancy this past December. I have provided copies of this report to you, to Mr. Chuck Maddox (Patton Harris Rust & Associates) and to Mr. Karl Everett (Environmental Health and Safety Manager, O -N Minerals). I understand that the Potomac Conservancy has provided copies to members of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission. Additional copies are available from the Conservancy's Winchester office, 19 West Cork St., 667-3606. My interest in the area has continued since our 2004 project. Under my supervision, another group of Shenandoah undergraduates will begin a second round of studies in Cedar Creek and its watershed next month. The comments that follow are my personal questions and recommendations only; as such, they do not constitute an official_ position_ of Shenandoah University. 1460 University Drive, Winchester, VA 22601-5195 1 www.su.edu 1. Review evaluations. In regard to the review evaluations listed on pp. 2-3 of the planning staff report dated March 20, 2006, I am surprised that the VA Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF), the Virginia Natural Heritage Program, and the Army Corps of Engineers were not invited to review the Chemstone rezoning request. The project has potential impacts on water quality, wetlands, floodplains and terrestrial habitats. Question: Why weren't any of these agencies part of the review and evaluation process for a 600 -plus -acre rezoning application? Recommendation: Staff members in these agencies possess the expertise to identify and evaluate those environmental impacts and then advise the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors accordingly. These agencies need to be consulted in regard to a project of this magnitude. 2. Environmental protection goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan., The rezoning application and the report by the Frederick County planning staff makes several references to the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Among the elements of the Plan directly referenced are those pertaining to agriculture (Comprehensive Plan, p. 6-55), mining operations (p.p. 6-9-11- 72), rural businesses (p. 6-60), water supply (pp. 5-3-4), historic resources (pp. 2-11-13) and transportation (pp. 7-1). Other relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan are not addressed. These are provisions (pp. 5-8-9) that pertain to environmental quality. They include the following three goals: ® Protect the natural environment from damage due to development activity. Provide for development according to the capacity of the natural environment to carry that development. e Identify and protect important natural resources. Among the implementation methods and proposed actions listed in the Comprehensive Plan (pp. 5-8-9, 10-9) to achieve these goals are: re Avoid development in identified environmentally sensitive areas. Prohibit uses that damage or pollute the environment. Continue to require that information on carrying capacity be included with development proposals and use that information to evaluate the impacts of the proposals. Question: Why are these goals and implementation methods not specifically addressed in the staff report and rezoning application? Recommendation: Protecting environmental quality is an essential component of the Plan's primary goal, "to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County" (p. 1-1). It is also a worthwhile end for its own sake. Rezoning applications and staff reviews need to include greater attention to these commendable goals when, as in this case, the impacts are potentially substantial. 2 3. Impact analysis. The rezoning application provides an Impact Analysis Statement by Global Stone Chemstone Corporation dated February 2006. This document draws from the Potential Impact Analysis prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in August 2002 and included as Appendix A. Such analyses should enable the planning staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to determine how well a proposed rezoning or development enables the County to meet the three goals related to environmental protection that appear in the Comprehensive Plan (pp. 5-8-9). In fact, the Impact Analysis Statement (p. 4) states that the, "scope of the SAIC study is extensive, and is comparable to that of an environmental assessment (ES) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)." In my opinion, the Impact Analysis Statement and the appended SAIC study — whiie informative in many respects — are inadequate in others: a. Lack of limitations on the scope of operations. I agree with the planning staff's reservations (rezoning report, pp. 6-7) about the maximum scope of operations that could take place if the proposed rezoning is approved. Recommendations: First, I recommend that maps accompanying the rezoning application should designate specific areas that will not be disturbed, including not only historic sites but also stream beds, riparian zones, flood plains, steep slopes and distinctive ecological communities. Second, the applicant should be required to guarantee conditions that assure that the impacts resulting from the rezoning (if approved) will be limited to and consistent with those discussed in the SAIC Impact Statement and the additional impacts identified through further analyses I recommend in Item 1 above, and in Items 3b and 3c below). b. Inadequate analysis of steep slopes forests and other ecological features on the Northern Reserves. The SAIC's Potential Impact Analysis, Section 3.1 -Affected Environment (Forests) states: The Ncrthern Reserves property is difficult to access due to lack of roads, steep slopes and heavy vegetation. The site contains a larger Oak -Hickory Forest community ... [and this] site offers a larger and more contiguous forest than the Oak -Hickory Forest on the Middle Marsh property, and likely offers better biotic habitat for the variety of species described above. There are areas of dense Eastern red cedar of the upland portions of this site as well as Eastern red cedar pasture. [emphasis added] However, Global Stone's Impact Analysis Statement (p. 4) states that no steep slopes greater than 50% are present. Although I have not conducted actual slope measurements, a May 2005 kayak trip I made down Cedar Creek past the Northern Reserves, plus my examination of the topographic map and aerial photography, indicates that steep slopes are indeed present on the property. The limestone bluffs and cliffs that rise steeply from Cedar Creek's edge to the uplands above are one of the scenic, although little-known, gems of the Shenandoah Valley. Their ecological characteristics are also noteworthy. Our 2004 investigations at Cedar Creek Battlefield sites approximately a mile from the Northern Reserves showed that the limestone -based slopes and 3 the adjacent forested uplands represent some of the watershed's most diverse ecological communities. Distinctive bluff vegetation includes arborvitae trees (Thuja occidentalis) and the globally imperiled shrub Canby's mountain lover (Paristima canbyi). The deciduous forests above contain an impressive variety of plant species (over 100 in a single 400 square -meter plot, for instance) including five not previously recorded in Frederick County. Recommendation: It is probable that the scenic and ecological characteristics of the Northern Reserves are similar to the areas Shenandoah University investigated in 2004. The Northern Reserves and Middle Marsh properties need to be more thoroughly evaluated, and their environmental features identified. Such areas represent distinctive elements of Frederick County's natural heritage. They are likely to be compromised by the development that would follow the proposed rezoning. These scenic and ecological features need to be afforded the same protection that is proposed for historic resources and for environmental features already identified in the rezoning application. (The latter are discussed on pp. 4-5 of Global Stone Chemstone Corporation's Impact Analysis Statement.) c. Inadequate Analysis of Potential Impacts on Surface Water. The SAIC's Potential Impact Analysis, Section 4 -Streams (p. 6) states that an estimated 793 of 10,984 linear feet of stream channel in the Middle Marsh property (i.e., Watson Run and Middle Marsh Brook) could be impacted by quarrying and associated operations such as stockpiles, berms, spoil piles and buildings. A table in the Impact Analysis Statement by Global Stone Chemstone Corporation (p. 4) indicates that 0 of 8,921 linear feet of streams in the Northern Reserves (i.e., Cedar Creek) could be affected. The Impact Analysis Statement further states (pp. 4-5): Areas for excavation, processing and storage will be located and managed to protect identified environmental features from deleterious impact. ... Moreover, in any case where disturbance is proposed, appropriate mitigation strategies will be employed pursuant to the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Office and all applicable state and federal regulations. ... Encroachment within riparian areas will be limited [as per the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance] ... which vill likely result in a lesser impact on stream areas than projected in the SAIC study. Despite increasing development in the watershed, studies by Shenandoah University and by the Friends of the Shenandoah River show that Cedar Creek's water quality is among the best in the Shenandoah Valley. It is appropriate that the applicant's analyses for the Chemstone rezoning are designed to include the impacts not only of the quarrying itself but also of the associated buildings, roads, stockpiles and so forth. I also appreciate the fact that the applicant intends to limit encroachment in riparian areas. I found it difficult, however, to interpret the small (letter size) aerial photographs I examined that depicted the areas of potential impacts to t'..Ie t,�xfo sites. This limited my ability to evaluate discussions provided by the applicant and the planning staff. If the Chemstone rezoning is approved, my concerns are that the eventual impacts on surface water quality and stream habitats could be much greater than those identified in the rezoning application if actual excavation and associated operations extend beyond the areas "projected" 4 and "estimated" by the applicant. If the steep cliffs above Cedar Creek, for instance, are disturbed, the riparian zone and Cedar Creek could be severely compromised. If mitigation and erosion -sedimentation control measures along Watson Run and Middle Marsh Brook are inadequate, these streams could be compromised as well. Questions: What government agencies (local, federal, state) will monitor the construction, operation and reclamation of the quarrying operations on these two sites? How often will on-site inspection and environmental monitoring occur? Recommendations: First, if the applicant will not limit industrial operations to the type and extent described in the application (see p. 6 of the planning staff's rezoning report, and item 3a above), then the applicant should evaluate the maximum potential impacts on water quality and other characteristics that could occur after the rezoning, if approved. Second, the applicant should guarantee conditions that assure that the impacts resulting from the rezoning will be limited to and consistent with those discussed in the application. Without these evaluations and guaLantees, it does not appear possible to assure that streams and other features on and adjacent to the site will be adequately protected. 4. Impacts on the viewshed of Cedar Creek. Impacts on the viewshed from historic sites and the surrounding community are discussed in several parts of the application materials including the planning staff's rezoning report (pp. 6, 10) and the applicant's proffer statement (p. 2). However, impacts on the viewshed of Cedar Creek itself are not addressed. Cedar Creek's beauty and recreation potential, while they may be under -appreciated, have not gone unnoticed. For instance, Ed Grove's whitewater canoeing guidebook Classic Virginia Rivers (Eddy Out Press, 19:92) describes Cedar Creek as, "perhaps the best trip for shepherded novices in the state," and states that an adjacent stream section is "a positively delightful trip for all who love nature". Fishing occurs at many places along the creek. ,Recommendation: Cedar Creek's beauty and recreation potential should not be compromised. In considering the Chemstone rezoning application, the potential impacts on the viewshed from Cedar Creek should be given the same attention as other viewsheds, as should provisions to avoid damaging the creek's aesthetic and recreational qualities. 5. Nhtigatiang hnpacts an groundwater — In its proffer statement, O -N Minerals Chemstone Company (Section 5.2, p. 3) agrees to, "remediate any adverse impacts to wells located on surrounding properties caused by mining operations...." uestion: Although I teach environmental science courses, I am not a professional hydrologist. Nevertheless, I am curious about the burden of proof in the event that adjacent wells appear to be affected. Wells run dry for reasons other than adjacent quarrying operations. How will it be determined that impacts to wells are caused by miring operations? 5 Thank you for considering these observations, questions and recommendations. Please contact me if you would like further information. Sin erely, Woodward S. Bousque Professor of Environmental Studies and Biology Coordinator, Environmental Studies Program cc: Mr. Karl Everett, O -N Minerals Chemstone Operation Mr. Chuck Maddox, Patton Harris Rust & Associates Ms. Heather Richards, Potomac Conservancy Ms. June Wilmot, Frederick County Planning Commission 0 "Pruni mountain lop to mountain top-- Aprr15, 2006 Mr. Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Dear Mr. Ruddy and Members of the Planning Commission, The Greater Middletown Business Association would like to make the following comments concerning the Rezoning Application #03-06 for D -N Minerals (Chemstonne). Middletown, population 1200, has no industry, with the exception of Rt. 11 Potato Chips, and looks to its few retail businesses as its sole source of business tax income. These businesses range from live theater, to restaurants, hotels/motels, antique shops and gas station/convenience stores. They derive the majority of their income from visitors to Middletown rather than the residents themselves. With that in mind, it is critical to their livelihood, and ultimately to Middletown itself, that the community continues to be a desirable destination for people to visit. The rezoning of RA properties immediately west of Middletown would spell economic disaster for our member businesses. By increasing the number of vehicle trips to 1308 per day, that would equate to nearly one vehicle, every minute of the day. The addition of these heavy, commercial vehicles will envelop our community in a constant background roar of traffic that, with just the current number of trucks, is already intrusive. With the increased noise pollution comes the added air pollution from this commercial traffic that even now deposits a gray layer of fine limestone particles and diesel soot on most exterior surfaces. lnr-nediateiy adjacent to the southern boundary of Middletown lies our nation's newest national park, the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historic Park, established in 2002. Tourists and Virginia residents alike come to the Shenandoah Valley to escape the urbanized development and congestion of their cities and to enjoy our clean air and open vistas. Thanks to the last 100 years of dedicated conservationists, politicians, and landowners, we today enjoy one of the most incredible historical and natural resources within the eastern United States. With that in mind, we ask that you deny this application. June Lingwood -Brown President The Greater Middletown Business Association P.O. Box 252 1VTi(ldlntmnm tTirni nia 77 F.d5 April 5, 2006 Frederick County Planning CoLv=ssion 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Dear Members of the Commission, in the 20 March 2006 Stag' Report for the Planning Commission, the VDOT evaluation only addresses transportation impacts on an uninhabited 1/4 mile stretch of rural Route 757. But, there is a far, far greater impact. According to data provided by Chemstone in their June 2005 Impact Analysis Statement, the expanded strip mining at their Middletown facility will generate a total of 1305 vehicle Trips per day or nearly wi-e per tninrere, 24 t errs a day, six days a week, directly into the historic district of Middletown. Most of these trips will be made by 75 feet long, 80,000 pound, 450 horsepower diesel trucks. This continuous heavy duty industrial traffic will: Increase the potential for da -mage to historic structures and viewscapes Decrease d e quality of life for our rural and town residents by harming the air quality and increasing noise pollution or Permanently harm any attempts by Middletown to generate income through tourism in southern Frederick County and adversely affect current businesses 4 Increase the potential for death or injury in our nation's newest national park and Middletown's residential areas A conveyor belt system to minimize 'Traffic between the Strasburg & Middletown operations is referenced in ie application. But, on 18 October, during a tour by Mr. Spencer C. Stinson, General Manager of O -N Minerals Chemstone Operation. Mr. Stinson admitted that this was in a conceptuaI stage only with no plans for implementation in the near futbare. What Chemstone Lues plan is to subject southern Frederick County to over 1300 es tke level o pollen#:on of normal, clean air. The Environmental Protection Agency has stated the type of heavy-duty vehicles transiting Middletown account for one- third of nitrogen oxides emissions and one-quarter of articulate matter emissions from mobile sources, and is likely to be carcinogenic to humans. Studies show a 26% •�_ increase in mortality in people living in soot -polluted communities and that 70 percent of the total cancer risk was due to diesel particulate exposure. Other problems include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, aggravation of existing asthma, acute respiratory symptoms, chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung function, The average truck produces 40 decibels of noise as it passes on the highway. But, in the confined historic district of Middletown, it has a totally different impact. Shifting through 12 forward gears as they accelerate from a standing stop at 51h and Main Street, these vehicles are producing upwards of 90 decibels. What's the impact? According to Washington Hospital Center's Hearing and Speech Center, hearing loss for anyone continuously subjected to sounds of 80 decibels or higher. Even with walls packed with R19 insulation and modern doubled -paned windows, my wife and I cannot enjoy uninterrupted sleep — we're often roused throughout the night by this heavy industrial traffic. Other Middletown residents already complain of sleep loss at the current level of trips. The National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine reports that this lack of sleep increases the risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and heart attacks. It q A. IV" 3�1 tit -- ri a.rrf'r If ale U till' In rural southern Frederick County, overloaded limestone trucks are already using narrow, back roads to avoid the scales on Route 11 and I-81. This dangerous activity can only increase with the increased strip mining. Of interest, Chemstone has identified an additional crushing facility to be built on Chapel Road which was not part of the VDOT study. This will generate 100's of more trips directly into historic Middletown. I strongly urge you to recommend disapproval of this application. Sincerely, arshall J Town. Co cil Town of Middletown April 22, 2006 P 0 Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director Department of Planning and Development 107 Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Ruddy, As you are aware, the residents of Westernview Drive and other residents around the Middletown Chemstone Quarry are very unhappy about the possible rezoning of the quarry (Rezoning Application #03-06 for O -N Minerals). Most of us bought our property here 8 or 9 years ago. Originally a dairy farm, it was acquired, divided into minimum 5 - acre parcels and marketed by prominent Winchester realtor John Scu1y. We are now approximately 2.5 miles North of the Middletown facility; we can see the dust, feel and hear the blasting, and have watched the spoils pile grow rapidly. If the mining were closer to our homes, it truly would have a major impact on all of us. Chemstone recently erected a fence on the northern boundary of its property that clearly shows the extent of land Chemstone could mine if the application is approved. Because this is a different sort of rezoning issue of great magnitude and having such far reaching hnpacts, we are inviting each member of the Commission to visit us so as to develop a personal feel for the situation that our statements may not communicate. We would welcome your visit at any time. If we are not home, feel free to use our driveway and view the Chemstone property from our porch at 276 Westernwew Drive. We would be happy to facilitate your visit by accompanying you if you would be interested in seeing the quarry from the viewpoint of some neighboring properties. Please let us know if you are interested by phone (869-9744) or e-mail: rspangvisuallink.com. If you would prefer to tour alone we will be glad to provide directions to our home. Sincerely, Robert W. Spangler 276 Westernview Drive Middletown, Virginia 22645 April 26, 2006 P. O. Box 570 Strasburg, VA 22657 Frederick County Planning and Development Commission 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: O -N Minerals, Chemstone, and Middletown (Frederick County) Dear Sir or Madam: M AY I 2V 05 We are owners of property at 199 Racey Lane, Fishers Hill, Virginia, and we are very concerned about the possible rezoning of Middletown acreage owned by the O -N Minerals Chemstone. We wish to comment on the environmental impact of the Middletown rezoning request. This request by O -N Minerals, the parent company of Chemstone, has created the following concerns: 1. The environmental impact on Cedar Creek Battlefield, human life, livestock, domestic animals, wildlife, water quality and water supply 2. The increase in traffic related to the mining operations and the impact of heavy truck traffic on area roads 3. The increase in noise pollution for area residents, livestock, domestic animals and wildlife 4. The increase in airborne particles and dust which would be hazardous to humans, livestock, domestic animals, wildlife, trees, plants, crops and gardens 5. The decrease in property values due to the rezoning, mining and blasting Therefore, we request that an environmental impact study be done by the State of Virginia before the rezoning is approved, to determine what effect, if any, rezoning would have. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Judy V. Miller Stewart T. Brown cc: Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy OCOUNTY of s,7 ►T tT�z� Department of Plaiming and Developnit,eaat 540/665-::;651 TAX: 540/665-6395 January 3, 2006 Mr. Chuck Maddox, Jr. P.E. Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pe 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: O -N Minerals (Ch- enestone) Rezoning Proposal Location: The subject parcels are situated generally vest and adjacent to the Town of Middletown. Property Identification Numbers (PINs):53-A-90, 91 Zoning District: RA (Rural Areas) Dear Mr. Maddox: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting of December 20, 2005. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, information provided by the applicant as well as information provided by various groups that were in attendance of the meeting. Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns The 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley shows a portion of the property in question as being located within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek and the property (691 tn acres) also contains the site where the Nieswanger Fort once stood. It is the intent of the applicant to rezone this property to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Zoning District to accommodate the expansion of the quarry operation. I lie HRAB expressed concernthat the proposed rezoning was not pfuteulnig dhe vievvshed Oft uatticiieid a.iiu the Belle Grove property as well as the archeological resources present on the Cedar Creek Battlefield and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. The HRAB felt that the applicant still needs to address many issues with this rezoning before it should be considered by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB could support the approval of this project if the following suggestions are considered in order to mitigate impacts on the historic resources: A Phase I Archeological Survey needs to be done on the site, focusing on core battlefield areas and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. If warranted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, subsequent studies should be performed. (Phase I1/111). 0 A detailed Viewshed Mitigation Analysis/Plan needs to be completed that will show the effects of the new quarry operation from key points (critical areas and views/pull-offs to be determined by the National Park Service, Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation). This plan needs to be completed before any land disturbance is allowed on the site and implementation of any 107 )Worth Feast Street, Suite 20-7 a Winchester, Virginia 22601-500G Mr. Chuck Maddox Re: O -N Minerals Rezoning Proposal January 3, 2006 Page 2 suggestions that may result from the plan should be given a proffered timeline. In addition, the viewshed study should also ensure that views from Chapel Road are not impaired. • Cedar Creek should be bridged so that quarry trucks can use this route instead of going through historic Middletown and passing by the Belle Grove entrance. • The conveyer system being discussed should be studied further to ensure that it does not impact the viewshed or create noise issues. The amount of traffic this system will alleviate should be provided as well. The applicant should propose a plan for the conveyer system that will not have a huge visual impact on the surrounding landscape. • A timeline for the removal of the existing stockpile of dirt (overburden) that can be seen from the Cedar Creek Battlefield needs to be provided with this proposal. • Strategic landscaping needs to be looked at, as well as preserving natural existing landscaping, as opposed to high berms to try to screen the operation. A detailed landscaping study needs to be done for the site. • The location for the overburden from the new quarry operation needs to be provided so that large piles of dirt similar to the current operation are not present, maximum elevations for new berms need to be proffered. A documented plan for any new berms and overburden stockpiles needs to be provided. • Perimeter fencing and lighting details need to be provided so that they do not affect the adjacent historic uses. • The proffers provided to the HRAB included an eight acre reserve for Belle Grove. The proffer states that, "Said reserve shall be set aside for future dedication to Belle Grove Foundation". This proffer includes no timeline for the dedication of the property and as provided, the dedication could never happen. A specific timeline for the dedication of this property needs to be provided to ensure that the Foundation is given this property. Please contact ine with any questioi"ss coiice�,Iling mese contiliciitz!, iic an li7c HiRA D. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins Planner II CEP/bad cc: Rhoda. Kriz, Harold Lehman, HRAB Members Bill Ewing, Opequon District Supervisor Mike Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) THOMAS V. MONAH AN (1924-199 9 ) 7 S 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA O. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540-662-3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAX 540-662-4304 JAMES A. KLENKAR E-MAIL lawyers@ha0monahan.com STEVEN F. JACKSON DENNIS J. MGLOUGHLIN, JR. March 27, 2006 HAND DELIVERER D Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. BOX 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 Re: Chemstone - Middletown (O -N Minerals Chemstone Company) Proposed Proffer Statement Dear Mike: I have reviewed the above -referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. In the first sentence of the first paragraph, it is not clear what is being addressed by the language "shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto." I assume that this is referring to previous versions of this Proposed Proffer Statement. It should be made clear that it is not referring to previous proffers that may have been approved as a part of a rezoning on this or other property owned by the Applicant. Therefore, I would suggest the above quoted language be amended to read: "shall supersede all previous versions of this Proposed Proffer Statement." HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy March 27, 2006 Page 2 2. It does not appear that the second sentence of the second paragraph would be applicable to these proffers, and I would recommend that that sentence be deleted. 3. I have trouble with the third sentence of the second paragraph, which states "Any proffered conditions that would prevent the Applicant from conforming with State and/or Federal regulations shall be considered null and void." The Applicant is in a better position than the County to determine whether any of the proffered conditions would prevent the Applicant from conforming with State and Federal regulations. In my view, this sentence should be deleted. 4. The words "and shall include the following:" should be deleted from the end of the second paragraph. 5. In paragraph 1.1 of Section 1 (Land Use), the proposed proffer would not appear to be a proffer, as it does not propose to do anything otherwise required by the zoning ordinance or state law. If the Applicant is proposing to limit the uses permitted in the EM District, that needs to be clearly stated. 6. Section 2 (Site Development): a. This proffer in paragraph 2.2 appears to merely state that the width of the distance buffers on the property shall be more than that required by the zoning ordinance. However, it does not quantify in any way the extent to which it will exceed the distance buffers required. This proffer requirement could be met by a minimal increase in the distance buffer. I question why the width of the distance buffers cannot be shown on the Generalized Development Plan. Also, this proffer does not address the issue of what screening, if any, will be placed in the distance buffers. b. With respect to paragraph 2.3, does the zoning ordinance or State or Federal regulations require earthen berms around active quarry pits If not, then paragraph 2.3 should set forth a specific proffer that earthen berms will be HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN t& MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy March 27, 2006 Page 3 installed around active quarry pits. With respect to the landscaping of the earthen berms, the staff needs to determine whether the description of the landscaping in this proffer is sufficiently specific. 7. Section 3 (Historic Resources). a. The proffer in paragraph 3.1 proposes to create an 8 -acre "historic reserve", and then to "dedicate" the reserve to the Belle Grove Foundation. My assumption is that there is an 8 -acre portion of the property that the Applicant is going to deed to the Belle Grove Foundation. If that is the case, I question why it should take up to one year after the rezoning to make that conveyance. Also, since I was not provided with a copy of the GDP, I do not know where the 8 -acre parcel is located, and if it is located in the interior of the property, there should be included a proffer that a right of way will be conveyed, to go along with the conveyance of the 8 acres, for access by the Foundation to the 8 -acre parcel. b. 3.2 provides for a Phase I Archaeological Survey within one year of final rezoning or prior to any land disturbance on a portion of the property. However, the proffer does not address what protection will be afforded any historic sites, buildings, structures, or objects identified in the Archaeological Survey. It would seem that the preferrable chronology would be to have the Archaeological Survey done prior to the rezoning, so that any historic elements could be addressed as a part of the rezoning process. 8. Paragraph 4.1 of Section 4 (Rights to Water Supply) would not appear to constitute a proffer, in that it appears that the Frederick County Sanitation Authority already has the rights to the groundwater resources under the "existing agreements". Perhaps something more than this was intended to be proffered. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy March 27, 2006 Page 4 9. In paragraph 5.1 of Section 5 (Groundwater) the Applicant provides for the placement of three monitoring wells on the property. However, it would seem to me that the County should have access to the information, and that the proffer should provide that the County will have access to the monitoring wells and to the data from the monitoring wells. 10. The first two sentences of paragraph 7.1 of Section 7 (Blasting Control) would not seem to constitute a proffer, and merely state that blasting will be done in accordance with the Applicant's mining pen -nit. 11. While the second paragraph of the Proposed Proffer Statement identifies the Generalized Development Plan, there needs to be a sufficient proffer that the development of the property will be in substantial conformity with the GDP. Where in my above comments I have opined that a proposed proffer is really not a proffer, I have noted that to make the point that it does not propose to do anything above and beyond what is otherwise required. It does not necessarily mean that the statement needs to be deleted, if the County feels that it is helpful to emphasize that particular requirement. It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact me. yours, Robert T. Mitche RTM/ks EµT OF r PS lf��.. y` 1 NATIONAL United States Department o� the Interior , SEPARK RV CE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ., Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park In reply refer to: 7718 '/2 Main St., P.O. Box 700 Middletown, Virginia 22645 27 March 2006 Mr. Eric Lawrence, Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent St., 2nd Floor Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Lawrence: We are writing to transmit our comments regarding the O -N Minerals Chemstone Property Rezoning Request. The Chemstone property is adjacent to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park (NHP). O -N Minerals Chemstone provided us with a copy of their rezoning request and we in turn asked the National Park Service's Geologic Resources Division to prepare an analysis of the proposal. The Geologic Resources Division, based in Lakewood, Colorado, provides national leadership and specialized assistance for managing geologic resources and protecting park resources from the adverse effects of mineral development in and adjacent to national parks. The Division is staffed with geologists, minerals specialists, mining and petroleum engineers, policy and regulatory analysts, and natural resource specialists. They, in addition, consulted with an agency hydrologist to provide input on the potential impacts on water quantity. The attached memorandum references a photograph of Cedar Creek Battlefield taken in October 2005 during the annual reenactment of the Battle of Cedar Creek. A copy of the photograph is attached for your information. Please feel free to call me with any questions or concerns about the attached information. I may be reached at my office at (540) 868-9176. Sincerely, Signed, DLJacox Diann Jacox Superintendent Attachments: 1. Memorandum from Geological Resources Division, National Park Service. 2. Photograph taken during 2005 Reenactment of the Battle of Cedar Creek. Cc: Spencer Stinson, O -N Minerals Chemstone Kris Tierney, Assistant County Administrator Michael Ruddy, Frederick County Deputy Planning Director TAKE PRIDE® 4 'NAM E RI .-; United States Department Of the Interior NATIONAL PARI{ SERVICE Geologic Resources Division P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225 TRANSMITTED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL - NO HARDCOPY TO FOLLOW L2360 March 24, 2006 u-�ITRT11 1,1 To: Diann Jacox Superintendent, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park From: Carol McCoy Chief, Planning, Evaluation & Permits Branch Geologic Resources Division National Park Service Subject: O N Minerals Chemstone Property Rezoning Request in response to your request, the Geologic Resources Division (GRD) has reviewed several documents associated with O -N Minerals Chemstone's request to rezone 691 acres adjacent to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. Specifically, my staff reviewed Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement (June 2005), Chemstone's Rezoning Application Materials (Dec. 2005), Commonwealth of Virginia mining and mineral regulations, and Frederick County rezoning regulations and guidance. We believe that the rezoning documents submitted by O -N Minerals Chemstone do not adequately address Frederick County requirements or the impacts on the surrounding area, including the park. With this in mind, we offer the following comments for your consideration. General Comments The proposed rezoning and subsequent expansion of the limestone quarry on the O -N Minerals Chemstone Property (Chemstone) adjacent to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park may adversely impact park lands and resources. These resources include the "nationally significant Civil War landscape and antebellum plantation" and the "[t]he panoramic views of the mountains, natural areas, and waterways ... an inspiring setting of great natural beauty" (see 16 U.S.C. § 410iii-1). Unfortunately, we believe that Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement and Rezoning Application Materials do not fully address the likely impacts of the rezoning/expansion of the quarry on these valuable and unique resources. "F"AKE INAMRRI As you know, Congress directed the National Park Service (NPS) to "encourage conservation of the historic and natural resources within and in proximity of [Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical] Park by land owners, local governments, organizations, and businesses." In accordance with this mandate and NPS policies, we recommend that you work closely with Frederick County and the Commonwealth of Virginia in the rezoning and quarry expansion processes in order to avoid, mitigate, and resolve potential resource conflicts. Specific Comments Based on our review, Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement does not include several topics required by Frederick County. These topics include "the use of surrounding land and potential economic, physical, visual, nuisance, and other impacts on surrounding properties" (Code of Frederick County § 165-12(0)(1)), "the anticipated increase in potential population resulting from the rezoning" (Code of Frederick County § 165-12(C)(4)), "the projected additional demapd for ... public facilities" (Code of Frederick County § 165-12(C)(5)), and a full discussion of the impacts on historic structures and sites (Code of Frederick County § 165-12(C)(8)). Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement and Rezoning Application Materials also inadequately address the following topics: Air quality impacts from fugitive dust and equipment emissions — Chemstone's rezoning application documents do not include any analysis of possible air quality impacts. Dust generated from mining operations, crushers, conveyors, vehicles, or windblown dust from the large disturbed area is not mentioned nor is possible mitigation of dust -related issues addressed. These documents should also quantify emissions from mining equipment and haul trucks, including the proposed increase in haul trucks and any other mobile or point source. Increased Haul Truck Traffic — Chemstone's Traffic Impact Analysis modeling (March 2005) suggests that the mine expansion could result in an increase of 801 truck trips per day, for a total of 1,308 truck trips in Middletown, a town of 1,200 residents. This proposed increase may detract from the quality of life and be a threat to public safety. Increased truck traffic may also negatively impact those traveling to Frederick County to visit Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park and/or other area attractions. Chemstone has suggested that it could construct a conveyor system that would decrease the amount of truck traffic required by the mine expansion. Frederick County should be encouraged to require this conveyor system as a condition of Chemstone's rezoning proposal in order to avoid the impacts of increased truck traffic in Middletown and in Cedar Creek and Belle Grove NHP. Noise and vibration — Sources of noise and vibration are also not quantified in Chemstone's rezoning application documents. Noise generated by mining operations, crushers, conveyors, and haul trucks is likely to be significant and will not be confined to the existing or rezoned property. Blasting which may take place in quarry operations ,will not only generate noise impacts, but also carries with it potential vibration issues which pose a threat to adjacent structures. It is important to note that Belle Grove Plantation House, built in 1797, is a Historic Landmark and is included on the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, TAKE we suggest that Frederick County require that Chemstone submit a detailed noise and vibration study as part of its rezoning application to address impacts and mitigation measures for sensitive adjacent resources such as those found in Cedar Creek and Belie Grove National Historical Park. Night li hting — Chemstone's rezoning application documents did not specify if quarry operations are conducted 24 hours per day. However, if operational or security lighting is used at the quarry site, impacts to the night sky and the historical scene may occur. Dust or other particulate matter generated at the site will exacerbate night lighting impacts to surrounding properties. Property values and historical scene — Chemstone's rezoning application documents fail to address the existing and expanded project's impact on adjacent property values and the historic scene for which this area is well known. The "historic impact assessment" contained in the December 2005 Rezoning Application Materials document states that "[w]e cannot, and have not, and do not want to save all land where history 'happened."' Such a sweeping statement fails to analyze the impacts of Chemstone's quarry operations on the historic and natural resources of Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. A photograph obtained by GRD of the October 2005 historic battle reenactment at the park clearly shows the Chemstone quarry in the background, dramatically illustrating the striking impact of modern, large scale mining operations on historic properties. We believe that the "historic impact assessment" in Chemstone's rezoning application documents should fully analyze these impacts and present acceptable methods for mitigating them. Ground and surface waters -- The section of the Rezoning Application Materials pertaining to groundwater impacts does briefly mention the subject of aquifer drawdown due to possible interception of groundwater from quarry operations, but fails to address possible surface impacts associated with aquifer drawdown other than sinkhole formation. This document also does not discuss possible impacts on water rights or groundwater quality. Further, the text of the Rezoning Application Materials implies that only the 30 wells and septic systems within 1500 feet of the Chemstone property would be affected by aquifer drawdown. However, Plate 4 of this same document indicates that a 10 foot aquifer drawdown could occur at least 9,600 feet from the potential quarry areas. For all of these reasons, we believe that the groundwater analysis as it relates to off site impacts is extremely inadequate. Possible impacts due to the disposal of the anticipated large amount of intercepted groundwater into surface waterways should also be analyzed in detail. Proffer Statement — Based on my staff's interpretation of Virginia's mining and mineral regulations, most of the conditions included in Chemstone's proffer statement would likely be required I the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy as part of the mine expansion permit or by existing agreement. With the exception of the 8 -acre "historic reserve," we do not interpret the proffer statement as providing additional protection for the area's historic resources_ The Geologic Resources Division appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions or if we can be of any further assistance, please contact either berry Moss or Julia Brunner of my staff at 303-969-2634 or 303-969-2012, respectively. TAKE FR10 1"AMERI Photo taken by National Park Service on 15 October 2005 at the Battle of Cedar Creek Reenactment; digital camera; telephoto lens =4 V M. (Medical.....4-"c) j k� e No.m.m B2 (Busness GeneralDsiricU 7 R4(Restlenial,PlannedConmunlfyDst'cf) REZ # 03 - 06 t M na.nMom. 83(Bua nes., Induslr al hansfon D'sirict) () RS(Res dental Recreational Commun'ty DlslricU E {� i I I $` as ntedines EM (ExlfacCve Manufantur ng Olstelot) o R^`R.`a'A`ea,°strc° Dl HE (Higher Ed—ti 0 - N Minerals ( Chemstone ) Ed—tiEd—tisirct) Q RP (Res dent of Performance °str ct) QP'} ® "�• ,., V M7 OW -11M, LightDistrcp (83 - A -109, 90 - A - 23 ) r' M2(Intlastrlal General D'strct) `` c // (� -HI (Mo611e Home Cammun ty District) .��V3' 750 7,500 300D ,r� ` PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. # 03— Z* 6 Rural Areas (RA) to Extractive Manufacturing (EM) PROPERTY: 639.13 acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 83-A 109 & 90-A-23 (the "Properties") RECORD OWNER: O -N Minerals Chemstone Company APPLICANT: O -N Minerals Chemstone Company PROJECT NAME: Chemstone - Middletown ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: June 13, 2005 REVISION DATE (S): January 16, 2006 February 8, 2006 February 17, 2006 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property'), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced EM conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. Any proffered conditions that would prevent the Applicant from conforming with State and/or Federal regulations shall be considered null and void. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, O -N Minerals (Chemstone)" dated June 13, 2005 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: 1. Land Use 1.1 The Property shall be developed with extractive manufacturing land uses pursuant to the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining (DN" of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, and shall therefore conform to the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations for Mineral Mining of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Proffer Statement 2. Site Development Chemstone - Middletown 2.1 Site access via public secondary roads shall be limited to the existing quarry entrance on McCune Road (Route 757). Access by vehicles needed for periodic maintenance of the Property shall not be limited. 2.2 Distance buffers shall be provided along the perimeter of the Properties in addition to those required by the Zoning Ordinance. The depth of said buffers shall be determined at the time of site plan submission, and will vary based upon the topography of the site boundary. 2.3 Earthen berms installed around active quarry pits shall be landscaped to minimize impacts to the viewshed of the surrounding community. Such landscaping shall consist of a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings placed in a random manner in order to be consistent with existing vegetation patterns. Said berms shall be limited to a maximum height of 30 feet. 3. Historic Resources 3.1 The Applicant shall create an eight acre historic reserve as shown on the GDP, within which archeological resources associated with Belle Grove Plantation have been identified. Said reserve shall be dedicated to the Belle Grove Foundation within one year of final rezoning. 3.2 The Applicant shall complete a Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Property within one year of final rezoning or prior to any land disturbance of the portion of the Property identified as 83-A 109 by the GDP. Said survey shall locate, identify, and comprehensively record all historic sites, buildings, structures, and objects on the Property. Such survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines for a Phase 1 Survey as defined in the Virginia Department of I-Estoric Resources "GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY IN VIRGINIA - Chapter 7: Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Virginia", 1999 (Rev. Jan. 2003) . 4. Rights to Water Supply 4.1 The Applicant shall guarantee the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) rights to the groundwater resources available on the Properties in accordance with existing agreements negotiated between the Applicant and FCSA. 5. Groundwater 5.1 The Applicant shall install a minimum of three monitoring wells to effectively establish and monitor the groundwater level in order to avoid detrimental impacts to surrounding properties. Said wells shall be installed prior to any land disturbance of r:_a,na by GnP the portion of the Property l cnt;l��u as oz A �w� Uy 1-1 ��-� and shall be located within 500 feet of the Property boundaries. A minimum of one monitoring well shall be installed within 500 feet of the Northern Property boundary. February 17, 2006 Page 2 of 4 Proffer Statement Chemstone - Middletown 5.2 The Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to wells located on surrounding properties caused by mining operations on the Property. Costs associated with any required remediation shall be borne by the Applicant. Dust Control 6.1 Dust from drills, shot piles, material handling, screens, crushers, conveyors, feeders, hoppers, load -outs, and traffic areas shall be controlled by wet suppression or equivalent. The Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by dust associated with the mining operations on the Property. 6.2 All material being stockpiled shall be kept adequately moist to control dust during storage and handling or covered at all times to minimize emissions. 7. Blasting Control 7.1 All blasting associated with mining operations on the Property shall be limited by the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy. Peak Particle Velocities (PPV) associated with blasting on the Property shall not exceed the levels stipulated by said permit. Any damage to surrounding properties caused by blasting on the Property shall be remediated at the Applicant's expense. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES February 17, 2006 Page 3 of 4 Proffer Statement Respectfully submitted, • 1 •I I • ! • I STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: Chemstone - Middletown The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1 et,(Q 2006, by -' ,) i?v1C V r ,C;t'� My commission expires.-7WC Notary Public February 17, 2006 Page 4 of 4 r --1MTNEt��.S .r EMSTf7i +1 ,00 r+ - r. r. s 1 A 5 ` t ,�• � i t'4 �j C ' J .� ♦ }, �.�F� �� ,'+��'��` `" ,� of ,,o ,. a Lo NK "d000lk 11 \ / �,��r . ' �$r! � ✓ �� A�` a moi' ,�� a� yi ♦ `� � � �F ol its 'A ra. I i GLOBAL STONE CHEMSTONE CORPORATION IRIEZONING IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT February 2006 A. INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Frederick County by the conditional rezoning of a portion of parcels 83-A-109 ("Middle Marsh Property") and 90-A-23 ("Northern Reserve"), which total approximately 639 acres. The subject parcels are situated generally west of the Town of Middletown. Specifically, the Middle Marsh Property is located east and adjacent to Belle View Lane (Route 758), and west and adjacent to Hites Road (Route 625), and is further traversed by Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). The subject acreage is currently zoned RA (Rural Areas). This application proposes the rezoning of the 639 acres from RA to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. Global Stone Chemstone Corporation's ("Chemstone") existing Middletown plant and quarries are located adjacent to and between the subject properties. The property containing these facilities is zoned EM. The Northern Reserve site is further situated adjacent to Chemstone's Strasburg facility, which is located immediately south of Cedar Creek in Shenandoah County. The subject acreage contains mapped deposits of chemical grade limestone, the extraction of which is critical to the continued viability of the established quarry operation. Indeed, the mineral -rich nature of the properties and their value for future extraction activities was identified more than forty years ago, and the acreage has remained in the ownership of mining interests ever since. The requested rezoning will enable the appropriate use of the subject acreage consistent with its unique geological attributes, which will thereby assure the continued vitality of the Chemstone Middletown operation. The contents of this report will outline the role of the subject acreage in future Chemstone operations and further identify anticipated impacts as well as those strategies necessary for effective mitigation. The applicant is confident that the proposed rezoning includes a proffer program that will appropriately and effectively mitigate identified impacts. As such, this rezoning request merits favorable consideration and approval. Impact Analysis Statement Chemstone - Middletown B. COMPREHENSIVE POLICE' PLAN The subject acreage is not located within the boundaries of any small area study or land use plan included in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The properties are further located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Business and Industrial Areas policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan are relatively silent concerning natural resource extraction, except for acknowledgement that such uses exist in the County, in particular along the limestone belt west of Interstate 81, and that study is needed to establish appropriate guidelines for evaluation of proposals for new extractive manufacturing areas. To date, no such study has been undertaken. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-9, 6-72) C. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE State Requlation of Mineral Mining Operations The Code of Virginia requires the issuance of mineral mining permits for all mining operations within the Commonwealth. Mineral mining permits are issued by the Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy pursuant to the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations for Mineral Mining. To obtain a permit or add acreage to a mine operating under an existing permit, a plan of operation/mine permit map must be submitted for DMM approval and updated annually. The DMM possesses the authority to regulate an array of technical and operational issues through the permitting process and regular mine inspections. Issues controlled by the DMM include, but are not limited to, the following: grading and stabilization of quarry pits and berms, drainage, erosion and sediment control, screening of mine operations, blasting operations, and final reclamation and stabilization of the site. The Middletown quarry currently operates under mining permit number 05714AB. Should this rezoning be approved, the expansion of the mining operation to include the subject acreage would necessitate amendment of the existing permit. To secure DMM approval, the amended permit must be accompanied by a revised plan of operation/mine permit map demonstrating effective impact mitigation and conformance with state mining regulations. Scope of Proposed Use Chemstone intends to transfer limestone ore extracted from the subject properties to the Strasburg plant for processing, consist%nt with the practices of the existing Middletown quarry operation. The scope of the increased manufacturing use in Frederick County will therefore involve overburden removal, controlled blasting and ore extraction, crushing of ore for transport (via central 2 Impact Analysis Statement Chenzstone - Middletown crusher facility), and the loading of materials for transfer. The transfer of materials between the Middletown and Strasburg facilities will occur through the continued use of trucks and the adjoining CSX rail line. Long term facility plans include future implementation of an internal conveyor system that will ultimately eliminate the exclusive reliance on these existing modes for material transfer. The future role of the conveyor system in Chemstone operations is significant as it represents a method for minimizing truck traffic on the surrounding secondary road network. Availability of the conveyor system will effectively eliminate the need for truck transport of materials between Middletown and Strasburg by Chemstone. As such, the expanded mining operation would not result in any sustained intensification of truck traffic on the secondary roads serving the site. However, regardless of the ultimate implementation of the conveyor system, truck trips will continue to be generated by the facility due to the retrieval of raw materials directly from the site by quarry customers. An extensive network of earthen berms will be installed to screen active mining activities. Moreover, substantial buffers will be provided around the perimeter of the site sufficient to further separate adjoining properties and land uses from mining operations. The provision of perimeter buffers is assured by proffer.. Site and Land Use History The subject properties contain significant limestone deposits that are recognized for their exceptional purity and consistency. For over a century, limestone ore has been extracted and processed via the existing Middletown and Strasburg quarry facilities, which are located adjacent to the subject acreage. These facilities serve a diverse array of industrial, environmental, and municipal markets with four primary product groups - high calcium quicklime, hydrated lime, chemical grade limestone, and construction aggregates. The applications for these products are numerous, but most notably involve agriculture, pollution reduction technologies, national defense infrastructure, road building, and food processing. The existing Middletown quarry facilities have been in active operation since the late 1950's under various ownership interests, and were acquired by Global Stone Chemstone Corporation from Chemstone Corporation in the mid -1990's. The Strasburg plant has operated continuously since 1896. As noted in the introductory section of this report, the acreage proposed for rezoning is adjacent to these facilities and has been controlled by mining interests for the past forty years, which has assured the availability of extensive limestone ore reserves for eventual extraction. Thus, although the zoning of the subject acreage has remained RA, the acreage has historically been reserved for extractive manufacturing as its intended use. K Impact Analysis Statement Chemstone - Middletown The uneventful history of quarry operations in the Middletown and Strasburg areas has demonstrated the ability of such facilities to amicably co -exist with nearby residents and land uses. Open meetings have been held by quarry companies over the years to foster communication with citizens and local officials. Such meetings have allowed compatibility issues to be identified and addressed proactively, thus ensuring the operation of extractive manufacturing uses with minimal impact to the surrounding community. Open meetings will continue to serve a vital role in assuring that dialogue between Chemstone and the community is on-going and constructive. Environmental Features The Northern Reserve and Middle Marsh properties each contain environmentally sensitive areas. The following table identifies the environmental resources located on the properties, and further indicates the potential areas for mining activity and likely scope of impact for each resource. *Source: Science Applications International corporation vcroper Zuu /. The above data summarizes a study report generated by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) for Chemstone in October 2001, a complete copy of which is included with this impact statement as Appendix "A." The scope of the SAIC study is extensive, and is comparable to that of an environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Of the total acreage proposed for rezoning, it is projected that actual excavation will involve roughly i 0 acres, or only I 1 °0 of the area to be , ezoned. Areas adjoining the quarries will be devoted to materials processing and storage of said materials as well as discarded earth. Areas for excavation, processing and storage will be located and managed to protect identified environmental features C! Northern Reserve Middle Marsh Rezoning Property Property Total Acreage 158 acres 533 acres 691 acres Mining Area 24 acres 54 acres 78 acres quarry pits Area Impact Area Impact Area Impact Resource (%) Area (%) Area (a/°) Area Wetlands 1.9 acres <0.10 ac. 0.3 ac. None 2.2 acres <0.10 ac. 1.20% 0.06% 0.32% 8,921 10,984 793 19,905 793 Streams lineal ft. None lineal ft. lineal ft. lineal ft. lineal ft. 125 Flood Plain 36 acres (22.8%) 1.0 ac. 89 acres (16.7%) 3.0 ac. acres 4.0 ac. Steep Slopes None None None None None None (>50%) *Source: Science Applications International corporation vcroper Zuu /. The above data summarizes a study report generated by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) for Chemstone in October 2001, a complete copy of which is included with this impact statement as Appendix "A." The scope of the SAIC study is extensive, and is comparable to that of an environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Of the total acreage proposed for rezoning, it is projected that actual excavation will involve roughly i 0 acres, or only I 1 °0 of the area to be , ezoned. Areas adjoining the quarries will be devoted to materials processing and storage of said materials as well as discarded earth. Areas for excavation, processing and storage will be located and managed to protect identified environmental features C! Impact Analysis Statement Chemstone - Middletown from deleterious impact. Moreover, in any case where disturbance is proposed, appropriate mitigation strategies will be employed pursuant to the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and all applicable state and federal regulations. It is noted that the SAIC study indicates impacts to approximately 793 linear feet of natural waterways traversing the properties. As per the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, disturbance of natural waterways and riparian buffer areas is prohibited except for roads and/or public utilities and public facilities. Encroachment within riparian areas will be limited accordingly, which will likely result in a lesser impact on stream areas than projected by the SAIC study. The results of the environmental assessment of the subject acreage indicate that the identified conditions will neither preclude nor substantially hinder use of the properties for extractive manufacturing. Soils/Geology The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Frederick-Poplimento- Oaklet soil association. The following table identifies the multiple soil types present on each property: Northern Reserve (Map Sheet 54 of Soil Surve ihlap Symbol Soil Name Slopes (range) 5C Carbo silt loam 7 to 15 % 13C Frankstown channery silt loam 7 to 15 % 14C Frederick -Po limento loams 7 to 15 % 15E Frederick-Poplimento very ravel) loams 25 to 60 % 17C Frederick -Po limento-Rock outcrop complex 2 to 15 % 17E Frederick-Poplime_ nto- Rock outcrop complex 15 to 45 % 39C Swimley silt loam 7 to 15 % Middle Marsh (Map Sheet 51 of Soil Survey) Map Symbol I Soil Larne Slopes `range) 5B Carbo silt loam* 2 to 7 % 5C Carbo silt loam 7 to 15 % 6C Carbo-Oaklet silt loams, very rocky 2 to 15 % 7C Carbo-Oaklet- Rock outcrop complex 2 to 15 % 32C Oaklet silt loam 7 to 15 % 39B Swimley silt loam* 2 to 7 % 40B I Timberville silt loam* 2 to 7 % *Denotes soils classified as Prime Farmland (see Soil Survey, p. 123, Table 5). 5 Impact Analysis Statement Chemstone - Middletown The majority of the soil types comprising the subject acreage are not considered prime farmland. However, the Middle Marsh property does contain pockets of three soil types that are distinguished for their agricultural value. These soil types are identified in the table above with an asterisk (*). The unique geological characteristics that give the property its value for extractive manufacturing also produce areas of enhanced soil fertility, which, when existent over large contiguous areas, may be conducive to productive agriculture. In the case of the Middle Marsh property, the prime farmland soils are generally fragmented and dispersed throughout the site thereby limiting its overall agricultural value. The purity and consistency of the limestone deposits that underlie the subject properties constitute the ideal geologic conditions for extractive manufacturing use. The characteristics of the identified soil types and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. Access Public road access to the Middletown facility occurs from Route 757 (McCune Road) via Route 625 (Veterans Road — Frederick County, 5th Street — Town of Middletown), which is accessed from US Route 11 in the Town of Middletown. The site possesses direct access to the CSX rail line, which allows the extensive use of railroad facilities to transport materials between facilities. Moreover, a system of internal conveyors is planned for the transfer of materials between the Middletown and Strasburg plants, which will result in the operational integration of the Chemstone operations in Frederick and Shenandoah Counties. The utilization of such alternative modes of transportation and material transfer ensures an operational efficiency that minimizes impacts to the secondary road network. D. rRANSPORTATION The transport of extracted limestone ore from the subject acreage to the Strasburg processing facility will occur via three modes, which are: 1. Conveyor system (internal, directly linking quarries and Strasburg plant); 2. Rail (existing CSX rail line); and 3. Truck Studies conducted by Chemstone identify the conveyor system as the preferred method of material transport as it ensures the least impact to the surrounding road network and community. It is further recognized that this alternative requires the most significant investment in terms of both initial installation and long-term operation. Thus, while the conveyor system represents the long term goal for inter -plant material transfer, it is unlikely to be implemented as a short term improvement. As such, inter -plant transfer will continue to occur via rail and truck transport 6 Impact Analysis Statement Chemstone - Middletown Initial contact with state permitting agencies has indicated that future implementation of the proposed conveyor system would be feasible. At such time that it is installed, the crossing of the conveyor over Cedar Creek will be completely enclosed to preclude accidental loss of material into the waterway, and will further be screened to minimize visual impacts. As noted above, the inter -plant transfer of materials by train and truck will continue to occur to some degree regardless of the availability of the conveyor system. Given the potential for truck traffic on the surrounding road network, a traffic impact analysis (TIA) was completed for this application and is included with this statement as Appendix "B" (Traffic Impact Analysis of Chemstone, dated March 16, 2005). The TIA considers two transportation scenarios for this rezoning. The first scenario involves the exclusive reliance on trains and trucks for inter -plant material transfer, and therefore reflects impacts caused by increased traffic of all types. The second scenario assumes implementation of the proposed conveyor system and the corresponding de -emphasis of trucks for inter -plant material transfer. The scope of the analysis for each scenario was determined through consultation with VDOT, and focuses principally on the intersection of Route 625 (5th Street) and US Route 11 (Main Street) in the Town of Middletown. The existing Middletown facility generates a total of 506 vehicle trips per day (ADT), based on actual traffic counts. This traffic includes employee trips, customer trips, and Chemstone's inter -plant material transfer trips. The TIA projects anticipated traffic using trip generation data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition. Under the first transportation scenario, the TIA projects that the rezoning would result in an increase of 799 trips per day, totaling 1,305 ADT for the facility as a whole. Trips of all types are increased with this scenario, to include an approximate doubling of inter -plant truck trips. Under the second transportation scenario, which accounts for the future conveyor system, the rezoning would produce a net increase of only 186 trips per day, resulting in a total of 693 ADT for the expanded facility. The nominal increase in trips under this scenario is attributable to the elimination of truck trips for inter -plant material transfer from the trip generation projections. As such, trips produced by the expanded facility under this scenario would be limited exclusively to those of employees and customers. The TIA concludes that study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by the proposed rezoning at acceptable and manageable level of service conditions. Although the second transportation scenario is clearly of lesser overall impact, the TIA indicates that Level of Service Category C conditions or better are maintained at studied intersections under both of the scenarios analyzed, thus ensuring consistency with the transportation 7 Impact Analysis Statement Chemstone - Middletown objectives of the Comprehensive Policy Plan regardless of the ultimate mode(s) used for inter -plant material transfer. E. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY The Middletown facility is served by a private health system for on-site sewage disposal. No additional sewage facilities will be required by this rezoning. Water supply for the Middletown facility is obtained by quarry pit de -watering, which occurs through the mining process. This source will provide sufficient supply and pressure for the expanded mining use, to include dust control in and around the quarries. All de -watering activities will be performed pursuant to DMM requirements, and in accordance with the approved mining permit for the Middletown operation. F. DRAINAGE The plan of operation/mine permit map is required to include a drainage plan subject to DMM review and approval. The drainage plan must address several items, to include the following: (a) the directional flow of water on and away from the site, (b) location and specifications of constructed drainage ways, (c) the use of natural waterways for drainage, and (d) delineation of the streams or tributaries receiving the discharge. Should the requested rezoning be approved, the mining permit must be amended to include the subject acreage, which will involve preparation of a revised drainage plan that ensures effective incorporation of the expansion area into the facility's overall drainage system. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Solid waste generated by employee activities will be collected in dumpster facilities and removed from the site by commercial refuse carrier. Solid waste will be transferred to the Frederick County landfill for ultimate disposal by said carrier. Waste resulting from mining activities will be placed in spoil stockpiles and within berms used for facility screening. The storage and adaptive use of spoils will be addressed through the approval process for the amended mining permit, and will therefore be required to meet all DMM requirements. H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES The subject properties are located within the boundaries of the Cedar Creek Battiefieid, but are not identified as core battlefield resources. The Middle Marsh property is noted to contain ruins referred to on maps as "Nieswander's Fort." A detailed Historic Impact Assessment is included with this report as Appendix "C," which discusses both the role of the site in the referenced Civil War battle and Impact Analysis Statement Chemstone - Middletown the potential origin and significance of the ruins. The conclusions of this study indicate that significant historic resources will not be lost due to the proposed use. The site is located immediately west and adjacent to the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, the boundaries of which were established by federal law in 2002. To ensure that the visual impacts to this adjoining resource are mitigated, Chemstone intends to locate all processing equipment inside the quarry pits so that such facilities will not be visible. Moreover, berms surrounding the pits will be constructed with smooth lines and grades to preclude fragmentation of the park's viewshed. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model was run to assess the likely impact of the proposed project on capital facilities. The output module generated by this analysis indicated that the proposed land uses would result in a net positive fiscal impact. Such positive impacts are derived from increased revenue from real estate and machinery/tools taxes. 11 January 2006 Chemstone - Middletown TSWIR, UINME T_ IMPAC A,q-,,Q,.%E � ENT PETU � IONS T E 1VIII� I �� I i. iepared for - C: w Clifford A-s-a4C1ates Inc. . r 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Vi i cnester, V `irgi i s 22601 {r tet Auguss: . I S,� Prepared b � F- g h: fi, F 5 A eVt ��ty li =.✓ 3Ca�S ?plicat'onss Li -t i1�3.-.P,�i3 r icEd1G ..--;;•' % ;+moi _ - �f%'%� '- f :� �ir�e -av South, Suite 1 a- a, -...... . estnster,$7 POTENTIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF 1k,/1 -I TING OPEI' ATIONS AT THE MII3DL MARSH A14D RESERVES PROI'�:��RTIES FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Rewlewed. by: SAI- Ref. leo.: €11-1633-00-2190-000 Preparers for: G.W. Clifford Associates, Inc. 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Su to 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Prepared by: SCIENCE APPLICATIONS 11 TERNATIGNA!. CORTO A ION 1129 Business Parkw 2y Sonth, Saite 10 Westminster, Maryland 21157 August 2002 Submitted by: Eric S. Andreus, P.G. Ir khaiel D. Haufler, P.G. 73 � Project YLyarogeoldgiSt Senior Technical Maiager SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1 1.1 Scope of Study.................................................................................................................1 2.0 W�+�TLAhrDS....................................................................T.....................................................2 2.1 Affected Environment......................................................................................................2 2.2 Potential Impacts..............................................................................................................2 3.0 FORESTS..............................................................................................................................4 3.1 Affected Environment......................................................................................................4 3.2 Potential Impacts..............................................................................................................5 4.0 STREAMS.................................................m............................................................................6 4.1 Affected Environment......................................................................................................6 4.2 Potential Impacts..............................................................................................................6 5.4 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES ......................................................................................8 5.1 Affected Environment......................................................................................................8 5.2 Potential Impacts..............................................................................................................9 LJST OF FIGURES Figure1, Wetland.....................................................................................................Following Text Figure 2, Forested Areas..........................................................................................Following Text Figure 3, Streams and Floodplains...........................................................................Following Text Figure 4, Flydrogeologic Map...................................................................................Following Text SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis Aobal Chemstone 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Rezoning of the two Global Chemstone (GC) parcels north of the existing facility from the exist- ing agricultural use to future mineral extraction requires approval from Frederick County, Vir- ginia. The approval process, as outlined in the Rezoning Application Package from the Depart- ment of Planning and Development, requires assessment of potential impacts resulting from this change in land use. Potential groundwater impacts are of particular concern to local constituents and are a key focus of these assessments. There are two parcels included in this study, named by convention in accordance with a mining reserves report (Southeastern Geoscience, 1990, for Chemstone Corporation). The parcel to the north is termed the Middle Marsh property and the one to the south, adjacent to Cedar Creek, is termed Chemstone Northern Reserves property. 1.1 Scope of Study The potential impacts addressed by SAIC include wetlands, forests, streams, and groundwater. Our tasks coincide with County rezoning requirements and are completed at a level similar to that of an environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Specific details of the work are provided in each section. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis 31obal Chemstone 2.0 WETLANDS The assessment of the affected environment and potential impacts to existing wetlands includes the following: � Use of applicable National Wetlands Inventory Mapping. a Use of applicable USDA soils mapping. > Use of applicable 100 -year floodplain mapping. Field examination of potential wetlands. Mapping of the potentially affected environment. > Comparison of the mapping with potential open -pit mining areas. 2.1 Affected Environment Potential wetlands areas include those mapped as wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory Mapping and as hydric soils in USDA soils mapping. Flood -plain areas (based on 100 -year flood -plain mapping) and stream -side areas that could be considered waters of the United States were examined but are assessed in the Streams Section of this report. Based on field observations, true wetlands areas may be somewhat different than indicated in the mapping. Detailed, formal delineations are required as part of a separate permitting process. As indicated on Plate 1, the Middle Marsh and Northern Reserves properties contain approxi- mately 0.3 and 1.9 acres, respectively, of potential wetlands. 2.2 Potential Impacts Areas of potential impact include those where actual reserves exist and mining can take place. These areas are delineated in the reserve evaluation for the Middle Marsh property (Southeastern Geoscience, 1990). The potential impact area for the Northern Reserves property is estimated in this study from existing geologic mapping. The potential impact areas also include estimated stockpile, berm, spoils, and plant footprints. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis - ,lobal Chemstone 3 As shown on Plate 1, overlay of these zones on the affected environment indicates the potential impact areas for each parcel. This results in less than 0.4 acres of total potential wetlands that could be affected by the rezoning. This area should be considered an estimate, since formal wet- land delineations have not been completed. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis _31obal Chemstone 3.0 FORESTS The assessment of the affected environment and potential impacts to existing forest areas in- cludes the following: Selections of appropriate forest stand criteria were selected based on the existing land cover, including pasture and fallow fields, cedar, cedar (grazed), cedar/osage, and oak/hickory stands. Use of the oak/hickory forest community as an equivalent to the "mature woodlands" as considered by the County (these are not true biologically mature or virgin forests). > Field examination of forest area zones (without field marking) Field mapping of the potentially affected environment on aerial photographs. Comparison of the mapping with potential open -pit mining areas. 3.1 Affected Environment The five different vegetation covers found on the two parcels are shown on Plate 2. There is an area in the southern portion of the Middle Marsh property that can be described as an Oak -Hickory Forest. Species observed in this small forest island include red oak (Quercus ru- bra), white oak (Quercus alba), chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), mockernut hickory (Carya to- mentosa), and white pine (Pinus strobus) in the overstory, and sassafras (Sassafras albidum), dogwood (Cornus florida), and hop hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana) in the understory. This is likely a re -growth of abandoned farmland, as there is an almost complete lack of old dead snags, and/or decomposing trees, which would be indicative of an older, truly mature forest. Neverthe- less, this area provides habitat for Oak -Hickory biota, which likely include blue jays, wild tur- key, scarlet tanager, rose -breasted grosbeak, gray squirrel, fox squirrel, Northern flying squirrel, and Eastern chipmunk. The remainder of the Middle Marsh property is clearly agricultural and includes sharp delinea- tions between fallow agricultural and active agricultural land. Much of the fallow agricultural land is dominated by Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), which is an invasive, early - successional species that is relatively shade intolerant. Other species observed in these sections, SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis 31obal Chemstone 5 _ particularly along the creeks, include black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black walnut (Juglans nigra), osage orange (Maclura pomifera), Eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), and honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.). The area just to the north of the intersec- tion of Route 627 and Middle Marsh Creek is predominantly Eastern red cedar and is heavily grazed. The Northern Reserves property is difficult to access due to lack of roads, steep slopes, and heavy vegetation. The site contains a larger Oak -Hickory Forest community, as described above. This site offers a larger and more contiguous forest than the Oak -Hickory Forest on the Middle Marsh property, and likely offers better biotic habitat for the variety of species described above. There are areas of dense Eastern red cedar on the upland portions -of this site as well as Eastern red cedar pasture. 3.2 Potential Impacts Areas of potential impact include those where actual reserves exist and mining can take place. These areas are delineated in the reserve evaluation for the Middle Marsh property (Southeastern Geoscience, 1990). The potential impact area for the Northern Reserves property is estimated in this study from existing geologic mapping. The potential impact areas also include estimated stockpile, berm, spoils, and plant footprints. As shown on Plate 2, overlay of these zones on the affected environment indicates the potential impact areas for each parcel. This results in a total of eight acres of potential mature forests that could be affected by the rezoning. This area should be considered a maximum, since the term mature forest could be applied more stringently and significantly reduce the affected environ- ment areas accordingly. SCIENCE APPLICATIONs INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis ,Iobal Chemstone 6 4.0 STREAMS The assessment of the affected environment and potential impacts to existing streams includes the following: A Identification of perennial streams in the area. Estimation of watershed areas and potential flows using USGS data from local gauging stations. > Mapping of 100 -year floodplain areas. Mapping of the potentially affected environment. > Comparison of the mapping with potential open -pit mining areas. 4.1 Affected Environment As shown on Plate 3, the major stream in this area is Cedar Creek, which flows southeastward adjacent to the Northern Reserves property. Two tributaries to Cedar Creek cross the Middle Marsh property before joining Cedar Creek. Middle Marsh Brook and Watson Run flow in a southwesterly direction and have contributing drainage areas of approximately 1,105 and 826 acres respectively. They are not true perennial streams (they had no flow during the October 2001 field inspections). Using the Opequon Creek gauging station records, these streams are es- timated to have average flows of 0.69 to 0.52 cfs, respectively. Each creek is impacted by the agricultural nature of the surrounding area. There is cattle grazing in and near the creeks and the channels are vegetated with fortis, bearing evidence to the fact that there has not been enough water to scour out the vegetation in recent weeks or months. 4.2 Potential Impacts Areas of potential impact include those where actual reserves exist and mining can take place. These areas are delineated in the reserve evaluation for the Middle Marsh property (Southeastern Geoscience, 1990). The potential impact area for the Northern Reserves property is estimated in this study from existing geologic mapping. The potential impact areas also include estimated stockpile, berm, spoils, and plant footprints. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact AnalVsis global Chemstone 7 As shown on Plate 3, overlay of these zones on the affected environment indicates the potential impact areas for each parcel. This results in a total of 793 linear feet of potential stream channel that could be affected by the rezoning and a total of 13 acres of potentially affected 100 -year floodplain. These quantities should be considered maximums, since many potential impacts can be mitigated by avoidance. There should be little to no impacts to stream flow from the pro- posed operations since they will not use surface water for processing or dust control (provided by dewatering pumping). SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis lobal Chemstone 8 5.0 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES The assessment of the affected environment and potential impacts to groundwater resources in- cludes the following: ➢ Delineation of interconnected geologic formations based on existing mapping and field observations. > Delineation of potential zones of surface water and groundwater contribution based on topographic drainage catchments areas. ➢ Identification of photogeologic fracture traces as potential zones of increased groundwater flow. ➢ Inventory of potential groundwater users and wells within 1,500 feet of the property boundaries through the Frederick County Health Department, by field observation, by aerial photo analyses, and use of tax mapping parcel boundaries. ➢ Estimation of groundwater pumping for the existing pumping records and quarry con- figuration based on interviews with Global Chemstone personnel and aerial photo analysis. ➢ Estimation of zones and magnitudes of groundwater drawdown surrounding the poten- tial mining areas using a digital groundwater model and pumping rates extrapolated from existing operations and mining areas, maximum drawdown from the proposed mine depth, and aquifer parameters from pumping tests in the carbonate aquifer. 9 Identification of potential karst areas from existing State geologic publications and field inspection. ➢ Mapping of the potentially affected environment. Comparison of the mapping with potential groundwater impacts. 5.1 Affected Environment The parcels lie in the Shenandoah Valley portion of the Great Valley Physiographic Province. This area is underlain by carbonate rocks of the Great Valley sequence, which in this area in- cludes the $eekmantown, New Market, and Lincolnshire formations. The New Market Forma- SCIENCEAPPLICAnoNs INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis global Chemstone tion (Mosheim Formation) is a high calcium limestone and is the mineral resource identified for extraction. Where saturated, these formations constitute a local section of the carbonate rock aquifer system of the Great Valley. Recharge to the aquifer system is generally from local precipitation. In general, the carbonate rock aquifers of the Great Valley are highly productive and have relatively high rates of recharge. Groundwater moves through the rock through cracks, fissures, solution openings, and bedding partings in the rock mass. Based on drilling records in the Great Valley, the groundwater system extends to at least 700 feet in depth in this area. Groundwater use in the area is limited. The aggregate quarry between the two study parcels withdraws approximately 84,000 gpd on an annual average basis. There are 30 on-site well and septic systems within 1,500 feet of the property boundaries of the two parcels. Of these, domes- tic water use is generally between 200 and 400 gpd per unit, approximately 10 to 30 percent of which is consumptive. 5.2 Potential Impacts Potential impacts from mining in the two parcels originate from the dewatering required in the mining operation itself, as the extraction process extends below the water table. In general, as the mining process exposes water -bearing fractures, groundwater enters the mine and is pumped cut so that mining can continue. The resulting impacts a:e similar to those associated with a large -diameter groundwater well. Potential impacts are estimated using a single hydrogeologic computer model (Two Day). The parameters used in the model are as follows: ➢ .Pumping rate ➢ Depth to water table ➢ Water table drawdown ➢ Aquifer transmissivity Aquifer thickness SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis .lobal Chemstone 10 The depth of the mineral deposit (New Market Formation) determines the maximum potential depth of mining and water table intrusion. Based on geologic mapping performed for the min- eral resource study, the New Market Formation terminates at a relatively shallow depth, to an elevation of approximately 550 feet (Southeastern Geoscience, 1990), which greatly reduces the potential water table drawdown impact. The potential water table drawdown contour lines are shown on Plate 4. As shown, the estimated drawdown off-site in areas of existing wells is 10 to 20 feet. Since most wells in this region have in excess of 100 feet of available drawdown, the anticipated affect would likely be unnoticeable in such supplies. Therefore, based on this model and the assumptions therein, there should be few if any adverse impacts to existing water supplies in the Area. Since this is an area of poten- tial karst (sinkholes), changes in the water table cam accelerate the surface exposure of these ex- isting subsurface features. Although no mitigation measures appear to be warranted at this time, a groundwater and karst monitoring program should detect potential adverse impacts in advance such that appropriate mitigation can be provided. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Chemstone NoHhom Rotcrvo Total Area = <5!3 Acres Potw%al m.pact.Area - 45Acres Potent al Vh"and Area = Affc,,, Paternal WUand Impact = A Acre; 71 til 7 - NOME MARSH PROPERTY / Potu.r ;almi:• Lt A:::a 1Acre; - Ma:are 'W cc!ard Area '9 Acres f � P ilen!in: h t, ., A,, -w, Vane J Ems'{ -i - r/� I � \•.. �. >_k Chomstone Northern Reserve � 1 'c:a Ai,a - i58 Acre; 4 , tential Iniac: Area - 45 acres � � `��'= �, • ..la.isre ,VO nd4and Ar9a E3 AcrO.s Pn;Entiai lma2c: Area = 8 Acr85 r t �•T```� /�c<y-y l Y X714 i S^" Cyt n lS�HIO h07m, 1 - -- ....T-„ ... -... _ -., , .__,.:.. �..-•.: ,,. ..- ,- riW. Cl1FFOrTD k A34UC7AlYS � _ . ,_. a .,• ,,,, ....., - _ �z., .... n,-�... .. ..e.., ., FORM=MCAS t i r.rraw.-' 1 J1, 7c�3! 162 Acr��- MIDDLE MARSH PROPERTY A —3 A -es Potenfa. Mimm A,--3 = 35 Acres mtal A -fa `6 A- = 8.92' Feet Stream,'F 484 Feet = NDnc Potelliai skman- 7c3 F.af Fc-vJr'� Ajay = 36 ACIOS In pac,.kea J1, 7c�3! 162 Acr��- A Potenfa. Mimm A,--3 = 35 Acres = 8.92' Feet P-,trnt:al 81r e -,m irpa,' = NDnc Fc-vJr'� Ajay = 36 ACIOS In pac,.kea ww yf Ob 71 ww Janua7y 2006 Chemstone - Middletown . ISE 'D irt-IrISTORIC INIPA CT ANALYSIS Prepared by. Lynn Sims Ph.D. Military Historian Universityof Richmond CEDAR CREED REPORT The question is: "Will the quarry expansion interfere with the core battlefield of Cedar Creek or immir an understanding and internretation of what haapenecl there 19 October 18647 A problgm in Virginia is so much history happened here you could put a fence around the Valley as well as Eastern Virginia and call them both historical areas. We cannot, and have not, and do not want to save all land where history "happened." We can only save what we know to be significant. The property proposed for quarry operation was the land ridden over by Brig. Gen. George Custer's Third Division of the Cavalry Corps on the afternoon of 19 October 1864, part of the Federal counterattack against Confederates under Lieut. Gen. Tubal A. Early. The original morning offensive by the Confederates was a brilliant and complicated plan involving a three -column converging night attack supported by cavalry on both flanks. It was planned well, executed with force, gained the element of surprise, and pushed the Federals back. About 0930 the Confederate attack lost its momentum. The Federals were able to mount a counterattack about 3:30 that afternoon overwhelming the Confederates and reversing, not only Confederate success that day, but eliminating Confederate power in the Valley for the rest of the war. Part of the Federal counterattack was a cavalry charge of about 3,000 troopers under Custer which swept down on the Confederate left, or western, flank and mostly consolidated what Federal infantry already had captured in the way of wagons, cannons, prisoners of war, battle flags, and supplies_ When the former head historian for the National Park Service, Dr. Edwin C. Bearss laid out the battlefield, he included everything this side of the quarry to the Valley Pike as the core battlefield. Since that designation individuals have built homes on the core battlefield, Interstates have obliterated part of the battlefield used by Confederate troops moving to the attack. Also business establishments now stand on land where the battle took place, and Lord Fairfax Community College owns over 100 acres. Among the famous Federal personalities at the battle, Maj. Gen. Philip Sheridan the Commanding General operated in the middle and eastern part of the field near the Valley Pike. Two future presidents of the United States, Col. Rutherford B_ Hayes, and Cpt. William McKinley were both on the eastern side of the field, again near the Valley Pike. Custer's name is known by most Americans. He was there, and performed perhaps his best during the war. His tactics were pretty much the same through out his career. That is without much preparation, planning, or consideration of tactics and terrain, "Charge in fast, throw the enemy off balance, then react to what happens." These were his tactics for 12 years, until he charged into a large group of Sioux and Cheyenne along the Little Big Horn in present day Montana. Still, Custer was in this battle and it was one of his finest actions. Aside from part of the Federal cavalry charging across a piece of this land, nothing of significance happened on the land. By October 1864, everyone on both sides was a professional. The outstanding points of the battle of Cedar Creek are the Confederate plan and execution, the personal leadership of Sheridan and other officers, the stubborn resistance of pockets of troops on both sides, and the rout ofEarly's troops, which ended Confederate power in the Valley and ended Early's career. The accompanying map shows the route of Custer's charge and the proposed extension of the quarry. Quarry owners are mindful of keeping the integrity of the battlefield and are considering ways to minimize, and hide structures necessary for mining, as well as considering ways to -benefit -battlefield visitors understanding through the use of platforms and interpretive devices. In an aside, the battle was significant for Vermont units because by happenstance every unit from the "Green Mountain" State on active duty was at this battle. Hanging in their state capitgl-in Montpelier -is ahuge painting of Cedar Creek. Other fighting at the same time in 1864, east and south of Petersburg, also was significant as it caused Gen. Robert E. Lee to leave his trenches and move west until he was stopped at Appomattox Court House and surrender, 9 April 1865_ Without a doubt -if -Cedar Creek was in any other state, much would be made of the battle for out of the 53,000 soldiers engaged, there were 8,500 casualties. But there are only two unit markers on the battlefield, and only one visible to the public. There are several state markers along the Valley Pike which give an idea of the events for all who stop to read. For the historian who wants to see the battle as the participants saw it, ground level, or from horse back, that is still possible. Once the Confederate planners left Signal Knob on Massanutten Mountain, they too were at ground level. In summary, early in the day the Confederates attacked and forced the Federals to retreat. That retreat took place this side of the proposed quarry operation. Only Custer's sweeping counterattack later in the day crossed part of the land proposed to be quarried. I have flown over the land in a helicopter, driven, and walked the land, read after - action reports of the participants, as well as studied the pertinent maps in the Library of Virginia, the Virginia Historical Society, and in published books. I believe an accurate, complete and useful interpretation of the day's events can be viewed with the construction of the quarry. I further believe with the help of the mining company, the interpretation of the battle will be better understood than it is now. NIESWANDER' S FORT The question is; Wftat do we know abort the rains voted on maps "Nieswander's Fort?" The ruins now labeledNieswander's_1 Fort on maps probably date from 17754-1756, during the French and Indian War when the Lower Valley of Virginia experienced many Indian raids_ Although there is no record of a Nieswander Fort in the records of the time, there is evidence to infer the ruins came into existence as a result of Indian depredations, and fear among residents of the-LowerVaHey. Given the size of the site, most certainly the "fort," built over a spring, was a blockhouse. It was probably much like Hupp's Fort, his primary residence also built over a spring, and according to the state marker dates from 1755. One problem in researching this period in the Lower Valley is in 1781 practically all of the documents relating to theFrench and Indian War were destroyed in a fire at the Virginia State Library. Brothers Jacob and Christian Neuenschwandger came from Canton Bern, Switzerland to Lancaster County, PA in 1711. From there they moved into the Lower Valley between 21 October 1731 and 28 November 1732. Jacob was married to Susannah, and Christian to Maria Magdelena. Christian settled five miles south of Winchester, a h41f mile on the west side of the current Valley Turnpike, the old Indian war trail which became broadened by wagon traffic. Settlers moving through the area used it as the main thoroughfare. Jacob, who owned 435 acres purchased from Yost Fite 7 February 1738, settled three miles farther south near Stephens City, also close to the turnpike. The bTothers were -Men -no -the Anabaptist tradition and shunned warfare, militia service, and firearms. Their defense would be to avoid conflict by staying in a blockhouse until danger had passed. The settlement of Mennonites in the Lower Valley was encouraged by Virginia and was in the tradition ofNirgiriian's settlement of Scotch Irish -in the Upper -valley, Huguenots west of Richmond at Manakin Town on the James River, and Germans in Germanna, Orange County. Virginia winked at religious conformity to the Church of England in the case of frontiersmen. These groups were used as a "trip wire," or warning, as they would be the first casualties fi-omindian attacks. Nieswanders were among the first white settlers in the Valley. Jacob had a son named "Colonel" John Nicewanger, bom m 1742, a first generation American who became a military man. Often pacifist conviction died easily and early on the frontier because of close contact with warring -Indians. To understand these people we must understand the pioneer spirit. A frontiersman was a law unto himself, able to take care of his family, birth his children, set broken bones, protect his family, and raise a crop to survive. The pioneer spirit caused frontiersmen to keep on the frontier. -Seldom-did a frontiersman "settle" and allow others to nn-,-, him by to settle a further frontier When he could hear his neighbor's dog barking or see the smoke from another's chimney, he moved on further west. Without a doubt, Virginia Governor Dinwiddie was the strongest of the colonial governors in devising ways to protect Englishmen in North America. Even though there are no French and Indian War battle sites in present day Virginia, many killings and atrocities occurred here. The first hostile forces sent out in the war were Virginians, and - the first to shed bjood were Virginians. Records estimate over 3,000 people from the Valley died or were taken into captivity during this war. A problem surfaced after General Edward Braddock's force of 2,500, including George Washington and 250 Virginians, were ambushed traveling to Fort Duquesne, on the Monongahela River, in July, 1755. The Braddock Road was cut west toward the Ohio River but ran through the Lower Valley at Winchester. Unintentionally the road also was an avenue for Indian raiding parties traveling east who now perceived the English as cowards and poor fighters. The road ended in the Lower Valley at Winchester, foupded in March 1744. By 20 February 1755 George Washington had written to ask Governor Dinwiddie to increase the support to the frontier and to build a fort at Winchester. Washington said, "The inhabitants who now are in forts are greatly distressed for the want of ammunition and provisions and keep asking me for these. I have none to give and see people in forts without food." Such colonial military failures as Braddock's defeat always were followed by serious Indian raiding upon the frontier. After March 1756 there were twenty skirmishes and over 100 casualties. Washington's troops were spread as thin as two soldiers per mile on this frontier from 1754 to 1757. The years 1755 —1756 will be remembered as the most murderous of frontier life. Cabins and barns in the Valley burned like funeral pyres. Governor Dinwiddie made George Washington command-in-chief of the Virginia forces in August, 1757 and in charge of defenses in the Valley. Adding to Washington's problems was American general distrust of a standing army as well as the pacifist beliefs of the settlers. The solution hit upon was to stay on the defense by constructing a series of forts, blockhouses, anti stockades. This would allow small garrisons in conjunction with local people to protect the settlers. Few forts had been built prior to 1756 but that year saw completion of the majority of forts in the area. Forts were for depots, storage of food and fodder, and rallying points in times of danger. The presence of forts also encouraged people to move into the area. By September of 1757 Fort Loudoun was completed in Winchester on an half acre of land, 96 feet on a side and including four bastions. There were three classes of defensive structures on the frontier. The blockhouse was the most simple, usually a square two-story log building, with the second floor overhanging the first. There were numerous rifle holes in the logs. Nieswander's Fort was probably in this class. The stockade was much stronger than a blockhouse, often a double log structure two stories high, surrounded at a distance by a high fence of stakes or palisade. Forts were the ultimate structure, usually square having a blockhouse at each corner with eac4 blockhouse connected by a palisade fence. Stockades and forts were for garrisons with sleeping arrangements and served as places of refuge for many people. Blockhouses, when not designated to be built in an area, often were made by families. These blockhouse were fabricated by community labor and private funds, and therefore reserved for selected families in time of danger. A situation could arise where a dozen or fewer Indians might cause those owning the blockhouse to flee into it with the clothes on their backs and what they could grab. In March 1756 the Assembly of Virginia authorized the building of a cordon of forts on the frontier, the construction to be overseen by Captain Peter Hog. These structures usually were on the heads of creeks extending toward the Allegheny Mountains. There are several extant lists of these forts describing the number of militia to be stationed there, distance from one to mother, and the name the officer in charge. They all had name -s and geographical location descriptions. Some were built some were not. Fort Nieswander is not one of them. The name Nieswander, in all of its variations of spelling, is not mentioned in connection with this cordon of forts project. The closest was Stephen's Fort on Cedar Creek, ten or fifteen miles from Major Robert White's Fort near the Capon Jiver in the North Mountain neighborhood. Even though Washington thought the best defense was a good offense, he was unable to muster enough troops from the locals to take the offense. Washington wrote "Those who now remain are collected in small forts, out of which there is no prevailing on them to stir, end every plantation is deserted." Also there was no cooperation among settlements in the Lower Valley. When the people of Hampshire County appealed to Frederick County for help against an impending Indian attack, the people of Frederick County said, "Let Hampshire take care of itself as we will do if we are attacked_" In summary the ruins called Nieswander's Fort, if the ruins are of a blockhouse, was a private one reserved for the Nieswander family and friends. Its present location, on a part of the Cedar Creek Battlefield far from a main road, as well as its undocumented history, argue that saving the site would serve no historical purpose. January 2006 Chemstone - Middletown A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Located in Middletown, Virginia Prepared for: O -N Minerals Chemstone Operation 1646 Oranda Road P.O. Box 71 Strasburg, VA 22657 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Lcndscq:)eArchitects. 300 Foxcroff Avenue, Suite 200 Martinsburg, West Vi,ginia 25401 L T 304.264.2711 F 304.264.3671 March 15, 2005 GV1 RWE'Vil Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the rezoning of land parcels located adjacent to the existing Global Stone facility in Middletown, Virginia. Currently, the site accommodates 26 employees per day, 19 Global Stone trucks per day and 50 customer trucks per day. The proposed expansion could increase the number of employees by 14 per day, the number of Global Stone trucks by 80 per day and the number of customer trucks by 56 per day. This report also examines a scenario that would eliminate all Global Stone truck traffic by implementing a conveyer belt system across Cedar Creek. Primary access to the facility will be provided via a single site -driveway located west of the Route 625 (51h Street)/ US Route 11 (Main Street) intersection. The proposed development will be built - out over a single transportation phase by the year 2008. Figure I is provided to illustrate the location of the Global Stone with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Global Stone development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, • Calculation of trip generation for the Global Stone, • Distribution and assignment of the Global Stone generated trips onto the completed roadway network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the latest version of the highway capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR&A) conducted manual AM and PM peak hour vehicle classification counts at the intersection of Route 625 (5th Street)/ US Route 11 (Main Street) in Middletown, Virginia. ADT (Average Daily Trips) was established along each of the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 10%. Vigure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM/FM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Route 625 (5th Street)/ US Route 11 (Main Street). Figure 3 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone ` Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 Page 1 No Scale 5� SITE `a~fi Cb 625 Sill S� `ry��v + 4 ON, 11 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) JL � Figure 2 Existing Tracie Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 F March 15, 2005 L Page 3 No Scale r: Unsignaiized * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Dour) Figure Existing Laine Geometry and L e:gels of Service A Trak Impact Analysis of the Global Stone P-1 ? Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 n Page 4 2009 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Existing traffic volumes were increased along Route 11 using a conservative annual growth rate of two percent (2%) as determined based upon historic traffic growth for the area. Figure 4 shows the 2008 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Route 625 (5th Street)/ US Route 11 (Main Street). Figure 5 shows the respective 2008 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. TRIP GENERA'T'ION Currently, the Global Stone facility accommodates 26 employees per day, 19 Global Stone trucks per day and 50 customer trucks per day. As a result of the rezoning of adjacent land parcels, the development could increase (at a worst-case) by 14 employees per day,- 80 Global Stone trucks per day and 56 customer trucks per day. PHR+A has analyzed two (2) alternative scenarios for the site: 1) Scenario #1 assumes the implementation of a cofiveyer belt system that would transport material across Cedar Creek whereby eliminating the internal Global Stone truck traffic, 2) Scenario #2 assumes the existing metholdology for transporting material across Cedar Creek (via Global Stone trucks). The trip generation for the Global Stone facility was interpolated from existing traffic counts and assumptions based upon the current and proposed land uses. Table 1 shows the trip generation results for the Global Stone development. Table I Global Stone Trap Generation Summary _ A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone s Project Number: 11279-2-0 L March 15, 2005 Page 5 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ATT In out Total In Out Total xistinQ- 26 Employees 4 5 9 5 4 10 139 19 Global Trucks 3 3 7 4 3 7 101 50 Customer Trucks 8 9 17 11 8 18 267 Total Existing Trips 16 17 33 20 X15 u- 35 507 Scenario 1(via Convever Belt System) 40 Employees (+14) 2 3 5 3 2 5 75 0 Global Trucks (-19) -3 -3 -7 -4 -3 -7 -101 106 Customer Trucks (+56) 1 9 10 19 12 9 21 299 Worst-case Scenario I Trip Differential +9 +9 +18 +II +8 +19 +272 Total (Existing + Scenario 1) 25 26 51 31 23 54 779 Scenario 2 (via Global Stone trucks) 2 3 5 3 �t 2 5 75 40 Employees (+14) 99 Global Trucks (+80) 13 14 28 17 13 29 427 106 Customer Trucks (+56) 9 10 19 12 9 21 299 Worst-case Scenario 2 Trip Differential +25 +27 +52 +32 +24 +55 +801 Total (Existing + Scenario 2) �41 V 85 52 39 90 1,308 _ A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone s Project Number: 11279-2-0 L March 15, 2005 Page 5 No Scale g igw,re 4 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Dour) 2008 Background Traf�e Conditions, A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone p - c Project Number: 11279-2-0 Riivq,! `� / March 15, 2005 Page 6 No Scale SITE Un' 'sngna zed Intersection 525 Soh St S.L. J� �1 * Denotes Unsignaiized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 5 2008 Background Lane Geometry o-nd Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 Pp HYM= March 15, 2005 � L L Page 7 TRIP DISTILUB JTIOP1 AND 'i'RIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon existing travel patterns at the Route 11 (Main Street)/ Route 625 (5th Street) intersection. Figure 6 represents the trip distribution percentages into and out of the proposed Global Stone development. Figures 7a and 7b show the respective development -generated AM/PM_ peak hour trips and ADT assignments at the intersection of Route 625 / US Route 11 for Scenarios #1 and #2, respectively. 20€18 BUILD -CUT CCNDXTICNS Global Stone assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2008 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2008 build -out conditions. Figures 8a and Sb show the 2008 build -out ADT and AM/FM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Route 11 (Main Street)/ Route 625 (5th Street) for Scenarios #1 and #2, respectively. Figures 9a and 9b show the respective 2008 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the Global Stone development are acceptable and manageable. Based upon HCS -2000 results, the intersection of Route 11 (Main Street)/ Route 625 (56 Street) will operate with levels of service "B" or better during 2008 build- out conditions for Scenarios #1 and #2, respectively. L A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 Page 8 No Scale 60% SITE 625 'St11 S,t Jreet� 11 40'x® Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentages A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 Page 9 No Scale SITE Dote: Negative values are due to the elimination of Global Stone 4M Peak H[our(PM Peak Hour) trucks as result of the conveyor belt system Average Daily Tfips Figure "/a -r) . �E! ; y —�- cerna b #J: rip ASc.-ignilfl+ nts A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 Page 10 i� 1 No Scale SITE 6251 Sth Stet �l rI J p 'grog 09 b► � 11 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour -Average Daily Trips; Figure 7b L PH -:173-- Scenario #2.- 'Frio Assignments A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 Page 11 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone 1 Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 L Page 12 i+ No Scale SITE ~� 625 5th Str� q�b �M1j1� 14,V !r�'r AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 8b Scenario #2: 2008 Build -out Traffic Conditions )[�-V ATraffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone �, Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 L L Page 13 I No Scale SI -, F+ A nsignalized Intersection * Denotes Unsignaliaed Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 9a Scenario #1.: 2008 Build-ent. sane Gecy-me ry and L,eveis of "ervice A Traffic ffzc Impact Analysis of the Global Stone E Project Number: 11279-2-0 =$ March 15, 2005 L Page 14 No Scale UnsignaiizedSITE Intersection, --. 625 Std St reef r J 46 91 Dentes Unsigaalized Critical Movement _D+ _, AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure Sia Scenario #2: 2008 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service a G A Traffic Impact Anal sis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 t� March 15, 2005 Page 15 "'C - �000 V or",(Besets INTE)'?SECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS and LEVEL Ogg' SERVICE The most current analysis methodologies used for evaluating the capacity of intersections were developed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other members of the transportation profession. This methodology is represented in TRB Special Report Number 209, The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Computerized methods for conducting these analyses were developed by FHWA; and are the methods used in this report. The following brief explanations of the methodologies are adapted from the HCM. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - TWSC At an unsignalized two-way stop -controlled (TWSC) intersection, the major street has continuous right of way while the side street is controlled by a stop sign or yield sign. In operation, vehicles exiting the side street and crossing or turning into the main street flow must wait for "acceptable gaps" in the main street flow. The same is true of left -turning traffic from the main street that must cross the opposing flow. The analysis takes into account the probability of a gap in the main street traffic. The probability and number of acceptable gaps Js lower in higher volume flows. The acceptability of a gap is modified by physical factors,(sight distance, turning radius, etc.) and by characteristics of the traffic flow (percentage trucks, buses, etc.). In the analysis in these reports, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks (single unit and tractor -trailer), buses and motorcycles. The level of service for TWSC intersections is determined only for individual movements - not for the 'intersection as a whole. The total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last -in -queue position to the first -in - queue position. Level of Service Criteria far TWSC intersections Average Total Delay Level of Service sec/veh) A 510 B >10 and <15 C >15 and <_25 D >25 and «5 L >35 and 550 F >50 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - AWSC At an unsignalized all -way stop -controlled (AWSC) intersection, all directions are controlled by a stop sign. Operation of AWSC intersections requires that every vehicle stop at the intersection before proceeding. Since each driver is required to stop, the judgment as to whether to proceed into the intersection is a function of the traffic conditions on the other (opposing and conflicting) approaches. Therefore, a driver proceeds only after determining that there are no vehicles currently in the intersection and that it is safe to proceed. The analysis takes into account the problem of determining, under capacity conditions for a given approach, the factors that influence the rate at which vehicles can depart successfully from the STOP line. Traffic at other approaches, which increases potential conflict, translates directly into longer driver decision times and saturation headways. The saturation headways are also influenced by characteristics of the traffic flow (slow accelerating vehicles, left turns, etc.). In the analysis in this reports, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks (single unit and tractor -trailer), buses and motorcycles. The level of .service for AWSC intersections is determined only for individual movements - not for the intersection as a whole. The total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last -in -queue position to the first -in - queue position. Level of Service Criteria for AWSC Intersections Average Total Delay Level of Service sec/veh A <_10 B >10and515 C >15 and 525 D >25 and 53.5 E >35 and. 550 F >50 '31-GNALIZED INTl RLLc. C ONS The operation (and therefore the capacity) of a signalized intersection is complicated by the fact that the signal is allocating time between conflicting traffic movements - movements that must use the same physical space. The analysis, therefore, must not only look at the physical geometry of the intersection, but the signal timing aspects as well. In the analysis of signalized intersections, two terms are important: volume to capacity ratio (v/c) and; average stopped delay (seconds per vehicle). The theoretical capacity is based on the physical geometry, the available green time (often expressed as G/C), and the traffic mix (e.g. trucks use more capacity than cars). The average stopped delay may be calculated from the v/c ratio, cycle length, quality of progression on the arterial and available green time on each approach. In this report all the default values recommended by the HCM are used unless other specific information is available (percentage of trucks, pedestrians, etc.). Existing signal timings are observed and used whenever possible. When future signals are being evaluated, an "optional" signal tinting is calculated based on projected volumes. The level of service is based on the calculated average delay per vehicle for each approach and for the intersection as a whole. Based on extensive research studies, the maximum delay acceptable by the average driver is sixty seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection. This is defined as the upper limit on the possible range of delay/level of service criteria. The following criteria describe the full range of level of service: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Stopped Delay Level of Service per Vehicle (.sec) A <_10.0 B >10,0 and _<2O.0 C >20.0 and <35.0 D >35.0 and c55.0 E >55.0 and <_80.0 F >80.0 LEVEL OF SERVI, CE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIGNS Level of Service Descri tp ion A Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay, up to 10 sec per vehicle. This level of service occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. S Level of Service B describes operations with delay greater than 10 and up to 20 sec per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C Level Of Service C describes operations with delay greater than 20 and up to 35 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass though the intersection without stopping. D Level of Service D describes operations with delay greater than 35 and up to 55 sec per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, longer cycle lengths, or high We ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Level of Service E describes operations with delay greater than 55 and up to 80 sec per vehicle. This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. F Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 80 sec per vehicle. This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high We ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA "`7 l01 - The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: O -N Minerals (Cheinstone) Telephone: 540-465-6819 Address: 1696 Oranda Road, P.O. Box 71 Strasburg, Virginia 22657 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Address: 3. Contact person if other than above Telephone: Name: Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. (PHR+A) Telephone: 540-667-2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed of property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full diiselesure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: O -N Minerals (Chemstone) 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: See ?attached PARCEL ID NUMBER USE Undeveloped Quarry ZONING 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). The subject parcels are situated generally west of the Town of adjacent to Middletown. Specifically, the Middle Marsh Property is located east and Belle View Lane (Route 758), and west and adjacent to Hites Road Route 625), and is further traversed by Chapel Road (Route 627). The (Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). 2 ADJOINERS CHEYISTO - MIDDLETOWN Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property oa the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. name Address Property Identification dumber (PIS!) Name: Keith A. & Linda A. McNeely 443 Westernview Dr Property #: 84-6-10 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Mark A. & Karen Griffith 411 Westernview Dr Propert #: 84-6-9 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Fred & Shirley Potter 379 Westernview Dr Property #: 84-6-8 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Steven M. & Deborah M. Miller 357 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-7 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Donald J. & Donna W. Hopkins 325 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-6 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Lawrence E. & Wendy J. Hamilton 277 Westernview Dr 84-6-5 Middletown, VA 22645 -Property#; Name: Jeanne Rapa & Shellie L. Sellards 241 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-4 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Kevin D. & Elizabeth M. Barrington 205 Westernview Dr 84-6-3 Middletown, VA 22645 -Property#: Name: Gary S. & Dale A. Nichols 1405 Handley Ave Property#: 84-A-7 Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Richard A. & Janet S. Dye 11310 Vale Rd #: 84-A-12 Oakton, VA 22124 -Property Name: H & E, LC 1832 Chapel Rd Property#: 84-A-17 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Jennifer L. Nichols 1875 Hites Rd 84 -A -17A Middletown, VA 22645 -Property#: Name: Edith M. Renner 152 Veterans Rd Pro ert #: 91-A-7 Middletown, VA 22645 E Name: Garrett Farms, LLC 508 Veterans Rd Property #: 84-A-16 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Timothy D. & Lisa 10. Rickman Rt 1, Box 695 Property #: 91 -A-7A Swords Creek, VA 24649 Name: Carlton R. Boyer 156 N Eberly St Property #: 83-A-107 Strasburg, VA 22657 Name: Carlton R. Boyer 156 N Eberly St Property#: 83-A-1088 Strasburg, VA 22657 Name: Dennis F. Boyer 165 Drover Ln Property#: 83-A-1088 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Deborah R. Dorman 9345 River View Rd Property #: 83-A-106 Broomes Island, MD 20615 Name: Rock Builders, Inc P.O. Box 1146 Property #: 83-A-1038 Berryville, VA 22611 Name: Garrett Farms, LLC 508 Veterans Rd Property #: 90-A-20 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Richard A. McDonald 470 Meadow Mills Rd Property #: 90-A-30 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Meadow Mills Union Chapel RR 1 Box 446 Property #: 90-A-29 Edinburg, VA 22824 Name: Joseph L. & Frances Kenny 516 Meadow Mills Rd Property #: 90 -A -29A Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Thomas G. II & Cornelia E. Lekas 536 Meadow Mills Rd Property #: 90-A-28 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Albert H. Hodson 536 Meadow Mills Rd Property #: 90-A-27 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Ave NW Property#: 90-A-33 Washington, DC 20036 Name: Malcom & Mildred G. Brumback 420 Belle Grove Rd Property#: 90-A-26 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Barry L. Bowser P.O. Box 221 Property #: 90-A-25 Middletown, VA 22645 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the ;property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that, the sign issued where this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of any (our) knowledge. Applicant/ Owner Date 1�1D Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, ryVirgii»wa Frederick Pia nnMi g `Web Site:a�wxe rederlek.yaas Department of Planning do Development, County cf Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsitnile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Corporation (Phone) 540-465-6819 (Address) 1696 Oranda Road, P.O. Box 71, Strasburg, VA 22657 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Deed Book 620 on Page 186 and is described as Deed Book 476 on Page 105 and is described as Parcel: Lot: 109 Block: A Section: 83 Subdivision: Parcel: Lot: 23 Block: A Section: 90 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc. (Phone) 540-667-2139 kAddress) 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200, Winchester, Virginia 22601 To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in 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 X Rezoning (including proffers) _ Conditional Use Permits PVT -aster 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: N/A This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. �I In witness thereof, I have hereto set m our d and seal this �O day of �/, 200 , Signature(s) State of Virginia, City/County of 1, x+ -/ v`i-' a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction xeaid, certi that the person(s) o signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and Lias acknowledged the same before me in th jurisdiction aforesaid this day o`f , 20G; 2 . F- ✓' _ _G tr My Commission Expires: % 41 L6 �Io}tary Public F 44 yy. ,5 dej y�yrS� .G dist. YG,� r A t � S`n x ' K Mfr 1`•, H^ > x Its [' t „i ,�, .7 ,. - C a a /}/j y7J ! O.9 ri _ 'r.9. lu ✓ �,,.. , 1i ' �+ r1; -: GI. t: ;- �; " $5'3 Rt3t...:, ✓i,. \ �.�"" n �y kDl i5 �S err,''49 -4 } O—N Minerals Chemstone Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc Southern Reserve Boundary Exhibit 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 O a VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX; (540) 665-0493 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA yy. 149.25 Acres, E �T (p _VAii r ."N A t � S`n x ' K Mfr 1`•, H^ > x Its [' t „i ,�, .7 ,. - C a a /}/j y7J ! O.9 ri _ 'r.9. lu ✓ �,,.. , 1i ' �+ r1; -: GI. t: ;- �; " $5'3 Rt3t...:, ✓i,. \ �.�"" n �y kDl i5 �S err,''49 -4 } O—N Minerals Chemstone Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc Southern Reserve Boundary Exhibit 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 O a VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX; (540) 665-0493 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA NN / ggRLANp N/F ,lp /V �•�. PICKERALE \\B 277 PC DB 205, PC 151 � 48 L10 2�Q U 0 2 / �^ r cP 2 U CID C8 Q N �m co Z �o 'J� L74 J is J C73 L26 :f' OUTIC [ 9� L27 S48'30'1 4"W s 21 d RoCNAR� F I'8 S48'54'38"W �0 6 487 N47'21'22"W PO 6 p yf -..J S36'29'59"W C23 �g W C-4�92 O N m CQ_[26 co PORTION OF w� � IN 83 '�' z 22710 REMAINDER OF N 1p o PIN 83—A=109 J L 489.8812 AC �o Loo 2,159,280 SF J I o 49.57025 AC 3 Jt Z L2 r C3g� v� W LINE TABLE _ Q o NG EN GTH- L423. lv DBl566 N39 53I 03"E '' Z o ry TG N3B'51'18"E 6' 3C� 17 W cY N3932'58"E 640.55' r z m N39'56'01 "E 1296.56' r ' df o N58'34'51"W 24.61' �r N71'51'15"W 762.00' N48'1 0'25"E 1030.98' S42'53'33"E 198.00' N48'03'52"E 1774.42' S56'49'53"E 3699.27' /y S33'20'32"W 1675.02' S47'56'38"W 578.15' N44'53'23"W 954.20' S57'54'13"W 321.85' of 76.22' 1 NOTES: 53.16' 1 1. FREDERICK COUNTY PIN: 100.30' 1 83-A-109 L25 S4422'31 "E 966.26' L26 S44'22'31 "E 1655.16' L27 S48'30'1 4"W 834.12' I'8 S48'54'38"W 569.68' N47'21'22"W 1346.03' -..J S36'29'59"W 1490.67' iI L.52 I N29'54'46' W 1 196.47' IL33 N36'34'41 "E 1301.31' L34 N4130'31 "W 1917.08' 1629.81 2_ PROPERTY OUTLINE, ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, AND MERIDIAN SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON GRAPHIC SCALE 90 D 500 100D 2000 rn n N ( IN FEET) i I in = t000 rt. w of a THE PLAT ATTACHED TO DEED OF EXHIBIT Y BARGAIN AND SALE RECORDED IN A PORTION OF THE o DB 620, PG 186 AMONG THE LAND PROPERTY CONVEYED TO 3. RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, CMErSTOHE CORNORATiOP� } VIRGINIA. INFORMATION SHOWN !� HEREON IS NOT BASED ON A DEED BOOK 620, PAGE 186 CURRENT FIELD RUN SURVEY. BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT i FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA C 3. NO TITLE REPORT. SCALE: 1" = 1000' DATE: FEB. 15, 2006 c i Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc n Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. N 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 F- '. Winchester, Virginia 22601 0 r� T 540.667.2139 a +� — F 540.665.0493 SHEET 1 OF 1 1a/' § 165-83 ZONING § 165-85 Additional landscaped areas may be required to ensure that all unused areas are landscaped and to improve the general appearance and use of the site. In no case shall more than 25% of the site be required to be landscaped in the B2 Business General Zoning District. ARTICLE XI EM Extractive Manufacturing District § 165-84. Intent. The intent of the Extractive Manufacturing. District is to provide for mining and related industries, all of which rely on the extraction of.natural resources. Provisions and performance standards are provided to protect surrounding uses from adverse impacts. It is also the intent of this article to avoid the encroachment of incompatible uses on the borders of the EM District. § 165-85. Permitted uses. The following uses shall be allowed: A. Surface or subsurface mining of rock, metal and nonmetallic ores. B. Oil and natural gas extraction and/or pumping, including storage of production produced on the site, No refining is allowed. C. Sand and gravel mining and processing. D. Crushed stone operations. E. Manufacture and processing of cement, lime and gypsum. (Cont'd on page 16625) 16624.9 12-15-2004 § 165-85 ZONING § 165-88 F. Asphalt and concrete mixing plants. G. Brick, block and precast concrete products. H. Farming, agriculture, orchards, nurseries, horticulture, dairying and forestry. I. Accessory uses. J. Business and directional signs. K. Public utilities, including poles, lines, distribution transformers, pipes, meters and sewer facilities. § 165-86. Performance standards. All uses shall conform to applicable state or federal regulations governing noise and vibration. The Zoning Administrator may require the submission of a copy of data submitted to state or federal agencies pertaining to these performance standards with the required site plan. § 165-87. Landscaping. Appropriate landscaping or screening may be required by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission within any required yard setback area in order to reasonably protect adjacent uses from noise, sight, dust or other adverse impacts. § 165-88. Setback and yard requirements. A. Front setback. (1) All principle and accessory structures shall be set back seventy- five (75) feet from any road, street or highway right-of-way. (2) Excavations shall be no closer than one hundred (100) feet from any road, street or highway right-of-way. The Planning Commis- sion may reduce the required front setback for excavation to fifty (50) feet if it determines that, through the use of measures, such as landscaping or screening, the effective protection afforded to adjacent properties has not been reduced. 16625 § 165-88 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-90 B. Side and rear setbacks. All principle and accessory structures shall be set back at least twenty-five (25) feet from any side or rear property boundary. (1) No structure shall be closer than one hundred (100) feet from any property line zoned RA, RP, R4, R5 or MH 1. The Planning Commission may reduce this required setback to fifty (50) feet if it determines that, through the use of measures, such as landscaping or screening, the effective protection afforded to adjacent properties has not been reduced. (2) Excavations shall be no closer than one hundred (100) feet from any property zoned RA, RP, R4, R5 or MH 1. No excavation shall be located closer than two hundred (200) feet from any dwelling or platted residential subdivision. The Planning Commission may reduce these required setbacks to fifty (50) feet if it determines that, through the use of measures, such as landscaping or screening, the effective protection afforded to adjacent properties has not been reduced. (3) All crushing or screening machinery shall be set back at least three hundred (300) feet from any property boundary. If such equipment is fully enclosed within a building which maintains the effective protection afforded adjacent properties, the Planning Commission may reduce this yard requirement to a minimum of two hundred (200) feet. § 165-89. Fleight limitations. No structure shall exceed forty-five (45) feet in height. § 165-90. Additional requirements. All uses in the EM District must conform with all state, federal and local regulations. All mining operators shall submit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of the operations plan required by state agencies with the required site plan. 16626 Recommendations for Local Planning Significant intensification of uses should be avoided in the undevel- oped core battlefield areas of Cedar Creek, Third Winchester, and Kernstown, except where current Comprehensive Plans call for such an intensification. Undeveloped core battlefield areas currently outside of the Urban Development Area or other development designations should not be designated for urban development in Comprehensive Plans. Rezonings should be avoided in undeveloped core battlefield areas where those rezonings would result in uses not normally found in rural areas. Changes to more intensive uses in and around pristine battlefield core areas should involve the inclusion of the land in a historic overlay zoning district to control the appearance of such uses and to protect viewsheds. Special care should be taken to protect the key battlefield sites iden- tified by this plan and to avoid unnecessary distractions from the historic character of those sites. 22 Frederick County, there are approximately 12,000 acres of battlefield core areas that retain historic integrity. These core areas include some -fable 4 Battlefield Stud#3 and Core areas in Fuederick County and "Nineh,ciiw Battlefield Study Area (acres) Core Area (acres) Retaining Integrity (core acres) % Retaining Integrity (core area) Integrity Lost (core acres) % Integrity Lost (core area)' Cedar Creek �.Opequon 15,607 6,252 5,601 89.6% 651 10.40 I 11,670 4,914 2,321 47.2% 2,593 52.8%1 2nd Winchester 22,274 3,113 1,624 52.2% 1,489 47.8% 2nd Kernstown 5,861 2,203 1,098 49.8% 1,105 50.2% 1st Winchester 4,041 1,393 301 21.6% 1,092 78.40 1st Kernstown 4,029 1,554 1,097L 70.6% 457 29.4% Total r� 63,482 , 19,429 12,042 6?.0% 7,387 a�38.0% National Park Service, Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, ber, 1992 pristine areas where very significant battlefield events occurred. Cedar Creek After the Confederate defeat at the Third Battle of Winchester on Sep- tember 19 and at Fisher's Hill on September 22, 1864, Jubal Early knew that he must successfully engage General Philip Sheridan. Early knew that he needed to prevent Sheridan from returning detachments of his force to General Grant, who at the time was opposing General Robert E. Lee at Petersburg,. He knew that to accomplish this task, he would have to mount an offensive against Sheridan at Cedar Creek. In October of 1864, General Philip H. Sheridan was called to Wash- ington, leaving General Horatio G. Wright in command of a Union force of 45,000 men. General Jubal A. Early's Confederate force, now 18,000 strong, was monitoring the movements of the Union troops. Early on the morning of the 19th, hidden by fog, the Confederate forces attacked the Union VIII Corps with a terrifying rebel yell. The Union troops were quickly routed, with their southern flank battered by General J. B. Kershaw's Confederate troops coming north from Bowman's Mill. From the west, General G.C. Wharton's Confederate 24 Battle of Cedar Creek Battle Actions Confed. Movement Union Movement L -M, Confederate Positions Union Positions C"� Confederate Cavalry Ems! Union Cavalry Q Camps Ft`vd�ld[ Cou�ly F\•iWp 4 Dawlapn•nt VeMxsM; Vfg.tn SURE Ni FEET 34M 0 2400 4499 7200 8680 LLJ LI point. Fresh from his trip from Wash- ington the night before, Sheridan rode from Winchester to the bat- tlefield and arrived about 10:30 a.m. He established his com- mand post near the Valley Pike and began to reorganize his forces. The VI Corps was on the left, adjacent to the Valley Pike with the XIX Corps on the right. Sheridan rode along the reestab- lished battle line as the troops re- sponded with a mighty cheer. During the early afternoon, Early attacked along the Union line. Belle Grove, on the Cedar Creek Battlefield His failure to defeat the Union forces ear- lier in the day proved fatal as his troops were thrown back. At about 4:30 p.m., Sheridan ordered General Getty to lead an attack with the VI Corps. After much desperate fighting, Getty's troops broke the Confederate line. The entire Confederate army fled south back across Cedar Creek to Strasburg and beyond. The Union pursuit continued after dark, ending at Fisher's Hill. The Confederates suffered 2,910 casualties: 320 killed, 1,540 wounded, and 1,050 missing. The Union forces snatched victory from the jaws of defeat that day, but the price was high. The Union suffered 5,665 casualties: 644 killed, 3,430 wounded, and 1,591 missing. Early's defeat at Cedar Creek ended Confederate efforts to invade the north, and Sheridan's string of victories in the Shenandoah Valley 26 troops swept the Union XIX Corps to the northeast. At the far western end of the battle, General T. L. Rosser's cavalry encountered Custer's unit and drove them to the east. Colonel T. H. Carter's artillery, positioned on Hupp's Hill, bombarded Union positions. Most of the Union army panicked and fled. The only organized resistance the Confederates encountered was the Second Di- vision of the Union VI Corps led by General George W. Getty. The Second Division made three valiant stands: first at the southern end of the ridge at Cemetery Hill, then along Old Furnace Road running west, from where Lord Fairfax Community College is today, and eventually holding a line half a mile north of Old Furnace Road. Confederate victory seemed certain at this LLJ LI point. Fresh from his trip from Wash- ington the night before, Sheridan rode from Winchester to the bat- tlefield and arrived about 10:30 a.m. He established his com- mand post near the Valley Pike and began to reorganize his forces. The VI Corps was on the left, adjacent to the Valley Pike with the XIX Corps on the right. Sheridan rode along the reestab- lished battle line as the troops re- sponded with a mighty cheer. During the early afternoon, Early attacked along the Union line. Belle Grove, on the Cedar Creek Battlefield His failure to defeat the Union forces ear- lier in the day proved fatal as his troops were thrown back. At about 4:30 p.m., Sheridan ordered General Getty to lead an attack with the VI Corps. After much desperate fighting, Getty's troops broke the Confederate line. The entire Confederate army fled south back across Cedar Creek to Strasburg and beyond. The Union pursuit continued after dark, ending at Fisher's Hill. The Confederates suffered 2,910 casualties: 320 killed, 1,540 wounded, and 1,050 missing. The Union forces snatched victory from the jaws of defeat that day, but the price was high. The Union suffered 5,665 casualties: 644 killed, 3,430 wounded, and 1,591 missing. Early's defeat at Cedar Creek ended Confederate efforts to invade the north, and Sheridan's string of victories in the Shenandoah Valley 26 94 continued. The victory at Cedar Creek, along with the fall of Atlanta, helped reelect President Lincoln. The Cedar Creek battlefield area incorporates a long stretch of land along Route 11 South, from Cedar Creek to the north of Middletown. Focal points of fighting were at Belle Grove, the Heater House, Ceme- tery Hill, Dinges Farm, and the D. J. Miller House. The Cedar Creek Foundation has purchased 158 acres of the battlefield sites including land surrounding and to the immediate north of Belle Grove. This site includes the Heater House. Additional land to the south of Belle ;� Grove has been targeted for possible preservation to protect view - sheds, remaining earthworks, and other significant areas. Other sig- nificant areas include the historic Town of Middletown and areas to the west and north of Middletown. The Mount Carmel Cemetery on Cemetery Hill is a particularly significant. Much of the Cedar Creek core area remains undeveloped, rural and pristine. Scattered single family residential development has occurred. The Chemstone Corporation quarry is located and operated in the (�Strategies For Cedar Creek Provide funding and other support to the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation in their efforts to acquire, preserve and use battlefield land. Do not rezone land in the Cedar Creek battlefield core area for uses that are not nor- mally found in rural areas. Work closely with the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation to prepare a resource man- agement plan for the Cedar Creek battlefield which describes appropriate preservation treatment for structures, earthworks and other features. Such planning should include a professional evaluation of appropriate stabilization and preservation treatments. Work closely with the Town of Middletown to promote the Town as a center of visitor services and as a vital part of the historic interpretation. Work closely with the Chemstone Corporation to enlist their support and to address ap- pearance issues. Use Cedar Creek as an important deimonstration area to show the type of progress that can be made. 27 W,VI-0 All, i southwesternortions of the core area. p The Town of Middletown is �r central to the core area and retains significant historic character. Third Winchester / One On September 19, 1864, Union soldiers under the command of Gen- eral Philip H. Sheridan crossed the Opequon Creek along Berryville Pike with the hopes of destroying General Jubal Early's Confederate troops. General Early had sent General John Gordon and General Robert Rodes and their divisions to Martinsburg to launch attacks in Maryland, leaving the Confederate forces in Winchester at less than half strength. General Sheridan planned to have two cavalry divisions strike from the north and the VIII Corps from the south. The main attack was to come from the east, with the VI and XIX Corps, who had to navigate the narrow Berryville Canyon. The Un- ion infantry, with their wagons bogged down in the narrow confines of Berry- ville Canyon, dashed Sheridan's hopes of quickly taking Winchester. This kept - the XIX Corps in the canyon until after- noon. By this time, General Early had discovered the Union plans and had re- f called both Gordon and Rodes. Shunk launched its attack from the First Woods at Third Winchester First Woods, on the Nash, Caleb Heights, Huntsberry, and Regency properties, across the Middle Field, on the Huntsberry and Caleb Heights property, toward the Second Woods, where General Gordon's Confederate troops waited. Confederate artillery north of Redbud Run played havoc with the flanks of the Union attacking line. Birge's brigade reached the Second Woods, on the Hackwood, Caleb Heights, and Regency properties, and came upon General Gordon's main line and were staggered. 29 CEBE Land Status Legend Statu s 14 S.I.rasbirg 17. 23C5 ti 17. 23C5 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 5401665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director RE: UDA Study — UDA/SWSA Boundary modification exercise. DATE: May 24, 2006 The UDA and SWSA boundary exercise is a component of the on-going UDA Study. Prior to moving forward with the more creative and proactive land use policy efforts of the UDA Study it was determined that as an initial step the UDA and SWSA boundaries should appropriately reflect the current land use designations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. In addition, the UDA and SWSA boundaries should follow logical and consistent boundaries or features and relate to each other. Upon completing this exercise, the foundation will be in place from which to frame the recommendations of the UDA Study. At their May 8, 2006 meeting, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee discussed the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundary modification exercise. The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee endorsed the UDA/SWSA Boundary Modification Exercise with two suggestions. The first, the maintenance of the B2 portion of the Jordan Springs Monastery Properly within the SWSA, has been incorporated into the mapping and the other, the recognition of the Echo Village residential area, shall be incorporated into the policy language. Previously, the UDA and SWSA boundaries had been discussed at the 01/17/06 joint work session between the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission. 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 6,624 acres in the UDA 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. A more detailed view of the specific areas of modification is described and illustrated in the following breakdown and attached mapping. Enhancements to the Land Use policy language of the Comprehensive Policy Plan are being drafted to recognize current County policy and historical application of the policy. In general, the following graphic represents the three major components of the County's land use policy and how they relate to each other. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 RA (areas outside / of the SWSA and Staff will be available to discuss the proposed modifications to the boundaries and policy in greater detail at your Planning Commission meeting. The Boundary modifications will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their discussion and input. MTR/bad Attachments UDA and SWSA Boundary Modification Analysis Current UDA area is 22,822.481 acres (28,717.481— 5,895 acres adjusted for Winchester) Amount Reduced is 6,624.28 acres UDA area post -reduction is 16,219.96 acres Current SWSA area is 26,749 acres (32,689 — 5,895 acres adjusted for Winchester) Amount Reduced is 1,495.17 acres SWSA area post -reduction is 25,253.83 acres The following results are from the identified areas where the UDA and SWSA are being recommended for adjustment. Please refer to the attached maps which are labeled to correspond with each area. Area #1 North of Route 37 including the area known as Apple Pie Ridge, Spring Valley, and the Stonewall Industrial Park. Boundaries to reflect existing land use designations. Extension of SWSA to include existing public facilities connected to water and sewer. UDA: 3425 acres reduction SWSA: 564 acres reduction 136 acres addition 428 acre net reduction Area #2 Northeastern section of UDA, including part of the land that is adjacent to the Stephenson Village project. Consistent boundaries that follow property line. Retention of SWSA to include B2 portion of Monastery Property. UDA: 79.7 acre reduction CWfiA- 58.5 acre reduction Area #3 Eastern section of UDA including a proffered State conservation area and part of land adjacent to and north of Route 7. Route 7 consistent northern boundary. UDA: 85.3 acre reduction SWSA: 101.2 acre reduction Area #4 South East section south of Senseny Road, east of Greenwood Road, and north of Sulpher Spring Road. Boundary consistency. Property lines. UDA: 47.66 acre reduction 22.9 acre addition 24.76 acre net reduction SWSA: Same Area 45 East of Route 522, South of Route 50, and north of Justes Drive. Winchester Regional Airport, Carpers Valley Area. Also includes area north of Route 50 and South of Sulpher Springs Road. Extension of SWSA to include existing public facilities connected to water and sewer. UDA: 1,766.3 acre reduction SWSA: 0.83 acre reduction 43.5 acre addition 42.67 acre net reduction Area #6 Stephens City area. Removing County policy lines from within Town of Stephens City. Joint Land Use Plan provides guidance for the Town's future annexation and provision of sewer and water. Interstate 81 consistent western boundary of UDA/SWSA. UDA: 69 acre reduction SWSA: 864.8 acre reduction Area #7 Kernstown Area. Route 11 South and Shady Elm Drive. Land use designation conformance. Interstate 81 consistent western boundary to the UDA. Policy language recognition of Echo Village residential area to be noted within the plan UDA: 1104.75 acre reduction SWSA: Same Area #8 Route 50 West at the Route 37 interchange. Land use designation conformance. UDA: 47.7 acre reduction SWSA: Same UDA - Current 0 0.5 1 Z 1 Miles 14 f' L r i .e`��`.•y♦r♦,.a ``\t a `�f t` C �`•.. a r. • � . ,, / f♦ A I Winch;="erNA . .. %a ! I II I♦ A `d A `.. �A am' !yam \ LIt � 4 r tephens �.., Cid VA ; , t t tr r UDA - Current 0 0.5 1 Z 1 Miles 1'\/ UDA (current) V. U SWSA (current) f City/Town Boundary SWSA - Current N 0 0.5 1 2 we ENIIL�= Miles s 14 f' 1'\/ UDA (current) V. U SWSA (current) f City/Town Boundary SWSA - Current N 0 0.5 1 2 we ENIIL�= Miles s L r qtr ice. /� - `�f t` C �`•.. a r. • � . ,, �i! r�� yap A• l� ` %a ! I II I♦ A `d A `.. �A am' !yam \ LIt � 4 r 1'\/ UDA (current) V. U SWSA (current) f City/Town Boundary SWSA - Current N 0 0.5 1 2 we ENIIL�= Miles s I x.50 f r 2'• GdarNBxd "a p R° %`�I �t 3Q .•`.'`dsr ` ,se . t - g.1nt cl tr Rd 1 `-j J 4, E o' ��„t:.� �s > 7- Y > yw .. e1P,Ra 3425.7ac p( I x.50 f r 2'• `^ s< .. ♦� .'*" �, c� :mt• i ♦�� i r�B �t�k;lo Be Y Ile'A"e- Y VA f��4„l-,♦• J I4aodsr k \G � A ;: r 3Q .•`.'`dsr ` ,se . t - ♦• Vo e�"'s n 50 ar 4, E o' ��„t:.� �s > 7- Y > 3425.7ac re u cfionT o s i f h rt r W..&-, Dr _ o p r b ra 4 India II �.� 'a ( Woodmdc t'I �` ! if _ ri_ 37 e$> p / �Uh'rni• N1 r { c 8.. G♦1 p _ ♦♦�„ - x.50 f r 2'• `^ s< .. ♦� .'*" �, c� :mt• i ♦�� i r�B �t�k;lo Be Y Ile'A"e- Y VA f��4„l-,♦• J I4aodsr k \G � A ;: r 3Q .•`.'`dsr ` splen p ♦• Vo e�"'s n 50 ar 4, E o' ��„t:.� �s > 7- Y > I � 1 , I c( D I� l v L _ i Q C 564 a�! __ i c reduction Golds Hill Rd t r v i F l:n 36.7 ac Q � � ,� 1 / �' � addition < c \ \ n o i � � O T A. 37 �� "�y, ��a�✓ i `37 i s 37 C i,WRd bt LnJ v v a a O' '�4(h rra Mario Sty/ % �♦� \ \�. D`nPe S� - � .& � � Beao 9F '.•p` ka �_p UDA-Area 01 o 1,250 2s00 5,000 SWSA (proposed) ='' Parcels City/Town Boundary SWSA -Area 01 N Feet 00%00 UDA (proposed) [s� Adjusted Area o 1,zso z,5oo 5,00o w E Feet f S i � r 5 I sabe��n /r 58.5 i reduction [Uc1$e Ra^_ - �anstecy � I U DA - Area 02 0 500 1,000 2,000 -- Feet SWSA (proposed) Parcels UDA (proposed) Adjusted Area SWSA -Area 02 N 0 500 1,000 2,000 we Feet S 77 con Ct w7 t._ 1 r 1 3 .9 ac reduction - - 81.4 ac 3.1p, reduction �*ee l� , f -- A. � � e 4or �to Il \ i C r God / leekI[ U DA -Area 03 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet SWSA (proposed) ---% Parcels Oc%,vo UDA (proposed) u Adjusted Area SWSA -Area 03 N 0 500 1,000 2,000 we M Feet s God Cr - , ''+: � 17, : i+ / f r r: nR so t 1 � Rd Q Q � .... Y l p 8.3 ac �, e / addition a _ - foo®ooao�®os000s0000000e��+oogoso•0000®oo � off• .56 ac I -1�4$� } reduction -: 44.3 nc L ,- I reduction 2.8 ac ,1 reduction ca : U DA -Area 04 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet SWSA (proposed) UDA (proposed) �J . \, ' + nom. .-7 r ?T \. . God Cr - , ''+: � 17, : i+ / f r r: nR so t 1 � Rd Q Q � .... Y l p 8.3 ac �, e / addition a _ - foo®ooao�®os000s0000000e��+oogoso•0000®oo � off• .56 ac I -1�4$� } reduction -: 44.3 nc L ,- I reduction 2.8 ac ,1 reduction ca : U DA -Area 04 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet SWSA (proposed) UDA (proposed) I v 21, T -1r `) . Parcels SWSA - Area 04 N r Adjusted Area 0 500 1,000 2,000 ws Feet s \ 1 r r V� kn,a rL� r ?`� e �sGn r � Rd J - I v 21, T -1r `) . Parcels SWSA - Area 04 N r Adjusted Area 0 500 1,000 2,000 ws Feet s j y7' P k VAI o n � L.... _ "OC Q= _ 3 / 50 ;• 4 1766.3 ac 1+° � 1 reduction_,'4%'x% � d :. Laurcrr.oud llr F f SWSA (proposed) Parcels SWSA -Area 05 0 1,250 2,500 5,000 "" N ZZ31 .1 Feet ON(,e UDA (proposed) Adjusted Area 0 5001,000 2,000 _*I — M Feet �115 T / ,� /• � / 2 T .• hind! / \ \ �"*,. •� ' moi• 11 �� w c � �� , Ak 69 ac reduction r� �' � f s..✓ / �- �t S`�t` _+ { Ate/ �i ` ��yt � '-a �./ Y %'!y � ',�' � .� � � ;moi '•�, 1 V M•I P � j �� "w ,Ifs�yrt�G 'I ..•'0� t;,,.�•. �` _ �.` L' f -• F *�-. 4,.•Y' •a i JG , / (�r,..l.l Ct / i 5 27 U DA - Area 06 0 750 1,500 3,000 Feet N� _ YY •�� ul' �Ii •!a• j• � 1 �IId�, A a! to 864.8• oc atsr �� y, j`�' <a reduction 27 0 �. �•. ,.�.. Z4 P /. �•.I. � � e u r aD� {r_. t 8 /j I. IJY 4 Lei Xi,-- \�f `jj, , t'`,- SWSA (proposed) Parcels ori City/ Town Boundary SWSA -Area 06 000soe UDA (proposed) Adjusted Area 0 5001,000 2,000 � Feet j \ e� CVt , 1 r a 1104.7 ac reduction v; k i f 37 ri to Sty /Rd - W !� o°� _ f bq � •37� (- 37-\ 11 Bn,okneld Rd ,1 t JOVIr \ II \ % \ / 37 37 6 I. 37 37' � A y i Ar \ 1 r , y \ f ar+ 71 o- l" 41 U DA - Area 07 0 Iso 1,500 3,000 G• _ " SWSA (proposed) Parcels Cr,y'i City/Town Boundary SWSA -Area 07 N Feet O o UDA (proposed) Adjusted Area 0 5001,000 2,000 w E l� Feet S F 0, e e. U DA -Area 08 0 250 5001,000 SWSA(proposed) Parcels (V?. City/Town Boundary SWSA -Area 08 Feet CPO,,.* UDA (proposed) Adjusted Area 0 250 500 1,000 Feet 47.7 ac reduction z 37 37 P"'h' of Op , le PI i 40 A A 3 U DA -Area 08 0 250 5001,000 SWSA(proposed) Parcels (V?. City/Town Boundary SWSA -Area 08 Feet CPO,,.* UDA (proposed) Adjusted Area 0 250 500 1,000 Feet U DA - After 0 0.5 1 2 Miles �i UDA (proposed) SWSA (proposed) IfO City/Town Boundary SWSA - After N 0 0.5 1 2 wE Miles s