PC 01-05-05 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
January 5, 2005
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER
TAB
1) Election of Officers, Meeting Schedule & Committee Appointments for 2005...... (no tab)
2) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab)
3) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
4) Section 144-11, Preliminary Sketches, of the Subdivision of Land, Frederick County
Code, to bring this section into confonnance with current State Code requirements regarding
vested rights.
Mr. Cheran...................................................................................................................... (A)
PUBLIC MEETING
5) Waiver Request of Lisa Sarle Turner. This meeting is to consider an exception of §144-31
(3) of the Subdivision of Land to enable the subdivision of a parcel of land on a right-of-way
less than 50 feet. The property is located at 199 Vintage Lane, and is identified with Property
Identification Number 59-A-78 in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Mr. Cheran...................................................................................................................... (B)
DISCUSSION
6) Discussion of changes to Section 165-37 D (3) of the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance. This is a request from Greenway Engineering to change the requirements of
Section 165-37 D (3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to allow for waivers to the
buffer distance requirements.
Mr. Cheran...................................................................................................................... (C)
7) Discussion of the Rural Areas Study. Discussion of the conclusions from the Rural Areas
Study. Land use and development policies applicable to the rural areas will become a
component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and guide future development in the rural areas
of Frederick County.
Mrs. Eddy........................................................................................................................ (D)
8) Other
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
I MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator��
RE: Public Hearing: Section 144-11, Preliminary Sketches, Chapter 144 Subdivision of
Land, Frederick County Code Regarding Vested Rights
DATE: December 21, 2004
The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at its December 9, 2004 meeting
recommended changes to this section of Chapter 144 regarding preliminary sketches. This proposed
ordinance change is to bring this section into compliance with the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-
2307, and the vested rights adopted by Frederick County. These proposed changes are in bold below.
144-11. Preliminary sketches
A preliminary sketch may be required for any subdivision that does not require a Master
Development Plan. Within the Rural Areas (RA) Zone, a preliminary sketch shall be required for any
proposed subdivision which contains roads intended for dedication to the Virginia Department of
Transportation for state maintenance or rural preservation lots. Preliminary sketch plans, complete
with all materials required by Section 144-36 of this chapter, shall be submitted to the Subdivision
Administrator for review and comment prior to preparation of final plans. The review of and
comments on a preliminary sketch does not constitute a sufficient affirmative governmental act
under the Code of Virginia Section 15.2-2307.
This proposed ordinance amendment is presented as a public hearing to the Planning Commission.
Staff will be available to respond to your questions.
MRC/bad
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 e YJinchester, Virginia 22601-5000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
FROM: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator MI -e
RE: Waiver Request - Lisa Sarle Turner
DATE: December 21, 2004
Mrs. Lisa Sarle Turner is requesting a waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance requirement to enable the
subdivision of a parcel of land on a right-of-way less than 50 feet. The property is located at 199
Vintage Lane in the Back Creek Magisterial District. This proposed driveway access right-of-way is
illustrated on Exhibit "A."
Mrs. Turner has stated the reason for the waiver request is to provide relief from a 50 foot right-of-
way; they currently have a 30 foot right-of-way.
Included in the agenda is a letter dated June 7, 2004, from Mrs. Turner to the Big Horn Hunt Club
requesting them to grant, convey or sell her a 50 foot right-of-way. The Big Horn Board of Directors
declined all three requests.
The requested waiver would only apply to the creation of a single lot, as illustrated in Exhibit "A".
A recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors is requested.
MRC/bad
Attachments
107 North Kent Street, Smite 202 e Winchester, Vzrghnia 22601-5000
1;11,1%i
moi^ -
N Lisa Sarle Turner
W E Wavier Request 0 1 2 4 6 s
S (59 - A - 78) Miles
-
t k I,.sj{ 4. `�' k e"�r7� 1•t;M1 i} �'Ri �g y t: Y i"F ''t , ,r.• _ Pit''r1',-
x,N�-v x Y+ri• ,a.i.#y.
"y� Id f f . �grp.�F' r: s �i•_.�,'�r �f'li r�`ai f d ,,�:.. � -`� .,
RIV
,'
ti s rF 4
f
r r I
J ,
ec
' s t
ty� * ., •. ,,1 . .i.':,., r y' f �t
7'ox,
r , P
J It i t t ✓� � ,. r,}'rr.s .
1
7 x
r
Ie
,
�4 a.
ev.' ;{
71 '4 .. x' ° .} r 4. fix + • z —+. •^:
IN, f ..r�
x i
�' - •. k; i:. �. {.� 4•x1�r4 z>w`q'fk i� p�TTP`� ,,� k is z '1 �i� t :.y c�`e'l�Qr,�.r;ysyy � r. ,m let? ,f '
1
I
. f R
n
���E/���
7' •�a �• "a� v,`•�z {_ E'� yk .ti*r � � .a; �. �. 4>��'�' 'y.� b- ,tgii�@� ,� e',��`k ,! c
•} �i ' �s.'��$wX� �y`Ei! r x�So'<( 'i ! ,l, ,.tl �n r � '�o�' %� 44
f, :tt' r' �,� i �r: Vit,£' P���, '.i, a• '4�;f u r�' �� g ri., t �e,,;' �a `'������.,. I xtq �F
.. i 1 'I. er /! '� {�sAf'f kx �I•n"�:' I� T�.. :1 f; �'
j
x• '.-N,y..N¢jjti9.- + .'Y .n. �,.r^' •4 I ! .. yri �"}S'Y�
W6�
y r
..14
;,.
�! ar'-r r , � t s ." '�.. f r�r �: ea F�ap� _; . y, �, , •� r�;. ,,�.
i 1`rr 7 , i"'}4 W,� ,� r .f,�', r� �� .Fj e,,� f �2 .4 ''1 �d�`f�l ,� i eKfl;: Ale' �F i:•'x I Y'r i � q% +q �J�
�kpi',I'�.✓Y ,.e�`a..:, � r •.' to � t ,} �[� r ,._ ,1 � u�y..Ff �" .. i �r � '7`'.'* � � :A't; 3 f ,i.; s ! 1+, , 41 '�° { t : �. q'i1.
' r �.�„ r e a 3`. � 1' ''� .Pf � ' ¢. '� i ;} I + "A� P Av 3 k ! ' Y • F{{}• ,� :•.7
. I
i
�' �t,l� :Ya1 ` �• � �,.� a�� b'. p^p` ,! '` �° s,. I ! . d;�" i`' , � °4,¢!�e! i,3'$ ` M1�'s u g �'�` -
f s '
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6345
WAIVER/EXCEPTIONS REQUEST APPLICATION
1. Applicant:
Name: Lim �di I(He( Telephone: 5c(o K& cj g q q 1
W - 5K0 6&Z- g071
Address: Z-10 �r o nt(filts
2. Property owner (if different than above):
Name: Telephone:
Address:
3. Contact person (if other than above):
Name: Telephone:
4. Waiver request details (include specific ordinance requirements to be waived):
50 Cf
� o � r i l -4 0� - uJOL L/
5. Property Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and
distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers):
6. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number.69 - - -7 4S
Magisterial District: mac-{, C r P ,e K
7. Property zoning and current use: Zoned: ha_Ty I A.4, f e- District
Current Use: I ►v1eJ a
8. Attachments: Adjoining Property Owners List Existing/recorded and
Proposed Plats
OFFICE USED YFee: $500 enclosed:�500'w Receipt 9: 50 d �
9. List of Adjoining Properties: The following names and addresses are all of the individuals,
firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the waiver or exception
is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear, and in front of (across street from) the subject
property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this
application.
NAME
Charing-R,� )"eIn1 "x'54 1
Address (q� �i�l�A L ei� 6 ( l�" ZzbvZ
Property ID # Jr
i� �atn I' tY►'� C�w�
Address NeffeI rad+ 36 ! K
IAC- 2 6(J
Property ID # _ 1 -7
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
- Page 2 -
0 U.and Use Applications\Appliemion Fonnslwaiver request form wpd
NOTES:
1. BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON WAS DETERMINED BY A FIELD RUN SURVEY
PERFORMED BY ARTZ & ASSOCIATES ON JULY 7, 2004.
2. THIS PLAT IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
3. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 1 FEET. ELEVATIONS ARE ASSUMED.
4. PROPOSED WELL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
MEETING ALL HEALTH DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS DURING INSTALLATION.
-ALL PROPERTIES ZONED RA, USES ARE AS NOTED.
VINTAGE LANE ACROSS BIG HORN HUNT CLUB TO LAUREL GROVE ROAD
IS REPUTED TO BE 30' WIDE PER VERBAL AGREEMENT.
7. THIS DIVISION IS A FAMILY CONVEYENCE FROM CHARLES R. SARLE (FATHER)
TO LISA TURNER (DAUGHTER).
/ 30' WIDE
(SEE NOTE 6)
PROPOSED
WELL
NO
PROPOSED
DRAINFIELD�
I�3
1 111?
l
L — N Dz49'31" W
68.60' ` \
\so•
LINE
/ h
DISTANCE
L1
5 81'17'2-'(>W
357.34'
4.(�
/ L
N 14-1
I
8'55' E
61.13'
N 71'45'01 W
87.77
L4
N 39'20'30' E
83.43'
N 09'19'47" E
I
I
112.07'
65.19' r
I
306.34
N 01'3354 E
I
161.31'
116.07' �
a
PROPOSED
WELL
NO
PROPOSED
DRAINFIELD�
I�3
1 111?
l
L — N Dz49'31" W
68.60' ` \
\so•
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
L1
5 81'17'2-'(>W
357.34'
L2
S 58'33'53" W
82.41'
L3
N 71'45'01 W
87.77
L4
N 39'20'30' E
83.43'
L5
S 64'03'34" E
112.07'
L6
5 b9'36 52' E
306.34
L7
S 41'56'42" E
161.31'
LB
S 41'0318 W
89.55
L9
N ,',4r33- W
184.49
- 0 = REBAR SET UNLESS
NOTED OTHERWISE
MATCH LINE TM #59-A-77
BIGHORN HO T
CLUB, INC.
��• 558/704
F USE: AGRICULTURAL
�rIr AREA TABULATION
\ EXISTING:
\ TM 159-A-78
\ PROPOSED:
\ \O REBAR FOUND TM 159-A-78
FAMILY LOT
S
5.000
ACRES
m
FINAL PLAT, \ T RESIDUE 8
FAMILY SUBDIVISION 112.431 ACRES
SABLE LAND
1 BACK. CREEK DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
SCALE: P' =100' DATE: JULY 23, 2004
')RESENT OWNER: -
CHARLES R. SARLE
TM #59-A-78 DB 258, PG 79
PROJECT 120712
----- - — - -- Exhibit «A1,
117.431 AC.
112:431 AC.
5.000 AC.
�'�PtTH Of/Lr
MICHAEL M. ARTZ
No. 1951
tiill.A^'D SURyE�O.:
Artz and Associates, PLC
A Su6eldldr -'u( Valle " n PLC
DVA SURA M L MO nAENRG DEV OPMFW
16 Eea1 Mceodl( Sheet
WZESTM VA 22501-4740
111 510-667-3253 FM 540-Ul-9166
\.. _ TOLL FREE 1-600-755-7320 J
Lisa S. Turner
290 Fromans Road
Winchester, VA 22602
540-869-4441
June 7, 2004
Dick Nesselrodt
361 Bufllick Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Dear Mr. Nesselrodt:
I am writing to you concerning our conversation last week about obtaining a fifty foot
right-of-way to accsess the Sarle farm where my husband and I would like to build our
home. As you know the property has been in my family for forty-five years, and is land-
locked by the Big Horn Hunt Club.
Will the Big Horn Hunt Club grant us a 50 foot right-of-way? _yes /no
Will the Big Horn Hunt Club convey a 50 foot right-of-way? _yes no
Will the Big Horn Hunt Club sell us a 50 foot right-of-way? _yes no
My husband and I thank you and the members of the Big Horn Hunt Club for your
consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,°
Lisa S. Turner ell,
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator/0,<--
RE:
dministrator ,<--
RE: Discussion: Changes to Section 165-37 D (3) of the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance.
DATE: December 21, 2004
The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at its December 9, 2004, meeting
discussed a request from Greenway Engineering to amend Section 165-37 D (3) of the Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance to allow waiving of distance requirements from the zoning district buffers
requirements. Section 165-37 D (3) currently requires the establishment of a category "B" buffer
when B-1 and B-2 are developed adjacent to RA zoned properties primarily used for residential use.
The existing ordinance does not allow waivers for buffers and screening. All buffers and screening
must meet the zoning district requirements as noted in Section 165-37 D (1) (a). Staff would
recommend that any waivers be limited to distances, not to screening. The current and proposed
ordinance section(s) are included for your review. (See attachments)
This proposed ordinance amendment is presented as a discussion item to enable the Planning
Commission to raise issues and seek clarification. Staff will be available to respond to your
questions. Comments raised during this discussion will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for
their consideration.
MRC/bad
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 a Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Proposed Changes to Section 165-37 D (3)
(3) Whenever land is to be developed in the B-1 or B-2 Zoning District that is adjacent to land
primarily used in the RA Rural Areas Zoning District, a `B" category buffer shall be provided on the
land to be developed. The Planning Commission may waive with the consent the adjacent (affected)
property owners, the distance requirements of Section 165-37 D (1) (a), provided thelandscaping
requirements of this section are met.
§ 165-37 ZONING § 165-37
(2)
development plan as single-family lots and the non -single-
family structures.
Perimeter apartment or multiplex separation buffers.
(a) Wherever possible and practical, garden apartments and
multiplex structures shall not be placed adjacent to other
types of residential structures. If other types of residential
structures must be placed adjacent to garden apartments or
multiplex structures, the following buffers are required:
(3) Interior residential screening. This buffer shall be designated as a
continuous landscaped easement that will be placed between
single-family detached traditional and cluster dwellings and other
housing types. This landscaped easement shall be at least 10 feet
in depth and contain a double row of evergreen trees. Each row
of evergreen trees shall be a minimum of four feet in height at
time of planting and spaced no more than eight feet apart. If
natural barriers, topography or other features achieve the function
of an interior separation buffer, the requirement may be waived
by the Planning Commission.
D. Zoning district buffers. Buffers shall be placed on land to be developed
when it adjoins land in certain different zoning districts.
(1) Buffers shall be provided on the land to be developed according
to the categories in the following tables:
(a) Buffer categories:
16561 10-25-2001
Distance Buffer Required
Inactive
Active
Screening (Minimum)
(Maximum) Total
Provided
(feet)
(feet) (feet)
Full screen
75
25 100
Landscape screen
150
50 200
No screen
350
50 400
(b) Buffers shall be placed
between
the garden apartment or
multiplex structures and
the lot line of the lots containing the
other housing types.
(3) Interior residential screening. This buffer shall be designated as a
continuous landscaped easement that will be placed between
single-family detached traditional and cluster dwellings and other
housing types. This landscaped easement shall be at least 10 feet
in depth and contain a double row of evergreen trees. Each row
of evergreen trees shall be a minimum of four feet in height at
time of planting and spaced no more than eight feet apart. If
natural barriers, topography or other features achieve the function
of an interior separation buffer, the requirement may be waived
by the Planning Commission.
D. Zoning district buffers. Buffers shall be placed on land to be developed
when it adjoins land in certain different zoning districts.
(1) Buffers shall be provided on the land to be developed according
to the categories in the following tables:
(a) Buffer categories:
16561 10-25-2001
§ 165-37
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
§ 165-37 }
Zoning of Adjoining Land
Distance
Buffer Required
Developed
RP
R4
Inactive
Active
M2
EM
Screening
(Minimum)
(Maximum) Total
Category
Provided
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
A
Full screen
—
—
—
A
Landscape
—
--
—
-
screen
-
- A A A A
A
A
No screen
25
25
50
B
Full screen
25
25
50
B
Landscape
75
25
100
A
screen
B
B2
B
B
No screen
150
50
200
C
Full screen
75
25
100
C
Landscape
150
50
200
C
screen
C
C B B - -
-
C
No screen
350
50
400
(b) [Amended
9-12-2001] Buffer categories to be
provided on
land to be developed according to the zoning of the adjoining
land:
Zoning
of Land
To Be
Zoning of Adjoining Land
Developed
RP
R4
R5
MI -1111 131 B2 B3 M1
M2
EM
MS
RP
-
-
-
- A A A A
A
A
A
R4
-
-
-
- A A A A
A
A
A
R5
-
-
-
- A A A A
A
A
A
MH1
C
C
C
- B B B B
A
A
C
131
B
B
B
B - - A A
A
A
B
B2
B
B
B
B - - A A
A
A
B
B3
C
C
C
C B B - -
-
-
C
M1
C
C
C
C B B - -
-
-
C
16562 10-25-2001
§ 165-37
Zoning
of Land
To Be
Developed RP R4 R5
ZONING
Zoninq of Adioining Land
MH1 B1 B2 B3 M1
§ 165-37
M2 EM MS
M2 C C C C B B B B — — C
EM C C C C B B B B — — C
MS C C C C B B B B B C —
(2) If a lot being developed is adjacent to developed land which
would normally be required to be provided with a buffer but
which does not contain the buffer, the required buffer shall be
provided on the lot being developed. The buffer to be provided
shall be of the larger category required on either the lot being
developed or the adjacent land. Such buffer shall be in place of
the buffer normally required on the lot being developed. The
buffer may include required setbacks or buffers provided on the
adjacent land.
(3) Whenever land is to be -developed in the B1 or B2 Zoning District
that is adjacent to land primarily used for residential purposes in
the RA Rural Areas Zoning District, a B Category buffer shall be
provided on the land to be developed.
(4) Whenever land is to be developed in the 133, M1 or M2 Zoning
District that is adjacent to land primarily used for residential
purposes in the RA Rural Areas Zoning District, a C Category
buffer shall be provided on the land to be developed.
(5) Whenever land is to be developed in the MS Zoning District that
is adjacent to land primarily used for residential purposes in the
RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, a C Category buffer shall be
provided on the land to be developed.' Whenever land is to be
developed in the MS Zoning District that is adjacent to all other
land zoned RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, the requirements for
buffer and screening shall be provided in accordance with
§ 165-102 of this chapter. [Added 9-12-20013]
z Editors Note: An example of a C Category buffer is included at the end of this chapter.
3 Editor's Note: This ordinance also renumbered former Subsection D(5) through D(9) as D(6) through D(10),
respectively.
16563 10-25-2001
y'
§ 165-37 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-37
(6) The Planning Commission may waive any or all of the
requirements for the zoning district buffers on a particular site
plan when all uses shown on the cite plan ire allIc-A, d the
u ..aiw ui u�v uv vv U In the
zoning district in which the development is occurring and in the
adjoining zoning districts.
(7) [Added 4-12-19951 Where B3 (Industrial Transition) zoning
adjoins B2 (Business General) zoning on land contained within a
master development plan, the Planning Commission may allow
for specific modifications in screening requirements-.
(a) Such modifications shall be allowed at the Commission's
discretion, provided that all the following conditions are met.
[1 ] The property line for which the modification is requested
is internal to the land contained within the master
development plan.
[2] A specified use is proposed on the parcel for which the
modification is requested.
[3] The modification shall not involve a reduction to required
buffer distances.
[4] The proposed components of the buffer are clearly
indicated on a site plan for the parcel.
[5] The site plan is reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission.
(b) The approval of modified screening shall apply only for the
specified use approved. Any change in use of the parcel
including additions or site alterations will require review by
the Planning Staff and may require review by the Planning
Commission and may result in the Commission revoking the
modified screening approval.
(8) [Added 3-13-19961 Land proposed to be developed in the M1
Light Industrial District and the M2 Industrial General District may
be permitted to have a reduced buffer distance that is consistent
with the required side or rear building setback line, provided that
the following requirements are met:
(a) The property to be developed with a reduced buffer distance
is part of an approved master planned industrial park.
16564 10-25-2001
-A COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Susan K. Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner
DATE: December 27, 2004
RE: Discussion: Rural Area Study
The Comprehensive Plan and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) has been studying the rural areas
of Frederick County for the past year and a half. The CPPS at its meeting of December 13, 2004
endorsed new policies for the rural areas. It is intended that these policies form a component of
the Comprehensive Policy Plan and guide land use and development in the rural areas of
Frederick County.
Details of the CPPS proposals are attached to this memo. These proposals will also be the
subject of an informal work session of the Planning Commission scheduled for January 5, 2005
at 12:00 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room.
It is requested that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors consider the proposed
rural areas policies as a discussion item prior to their being advertised for public hearing. Such
discussion will provide a valuable_ opportunity for collective review of proposals while also
allowing members of the public to speak in advance of final policy consideration.
Please contact the Planning Department should you have any questions regarding this
information.
SKE/bad
Attachments
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Rural Areas Study
CPPS Policy Recommendation — December 2004
Overview:
Using the input gathered over the past year and a half from the public, stakeholders, and the
Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs
Subcommittee (CPPS) has been formulating policies to guide land use and development in the
rural areas.
The CPPS had recommended policies to the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission at
joint work sessions on August 31, 2004 and September 28, 2004. In October and November
these recommendations were presented to the public in a series of public and stakeholder
meetings. Following the public consultation, the CPPS reviewed all comments and revised its
proposals.
The CPPS at its meeting of December 13, 2004 endorsed revised policies for the rural areas.
These are being forwarded to the Planning Commission as a discussion item for their
consideration. These revised proposals are detailed below.
The Green Infrastructure Concept:
The Green Infrastructure concept is the framework around which the rural areas study will be
based. Green Infrastructure is defined as a contiguous network of open spaces and natural
resources. The Green Infrastructure of Frederick County is a diverse array of inter -connected
resources that gives the rural environment its valued landscape and scenic beauty.
At the core of the Green Infrastructure framework are "primary conservation resources" such as
flood plains, wetlands, steep slopes and riparian buffers. These features are already protected by
County ordinances.
The Green Infrastructure also incorporates other features of the landscape that are not currently
managed or protected by local ordinances, but are nevertheless valued by the community. These
features include forests, prime agricultural land, and parks, as well as scenic viewsheds. These
are referred to as "secondary conservation resources". Secondary resources also include heritage
and cultural features such as historic buildings and battlefields, which, while not part of the green
network, are important to the rural character. Secondary conservation resources will need to be
considered when making decisions involving land development. Secondary conservation
resources will not have the same development restrictions as primary resources. The County will
seek to have new developments designed in such a way that secondary conservation resources
are placed in the open space set-aside portion of the new developments.
The CPPS has articulated general features of the landscape that warrant designation as secondary
conservation resources and has drafted policies to promote their retention. A precise list of
secondary conservation resources, along with clear definitions, will need to be drafted for
inclusion in a future ordinance.
The CPPS is recommending that primary resources continue to count towards a site's overall
density. The subcommittee is also recommending that steep slopes, an important primary
resource, be consistently defined in the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance.
Information and a survey of the Primary and Secondary Conservation features will be required
with all developments which require a master development plan, subdivision design plan, site
plan, or preliminary sketch plan. A consideration of the Primary and Secondary Conservation
features of the surrounding area will also be required with all such developments.
Land Development:
The subdivision of land will likely have the greatest single impact on the future of the rural areas.
Particular concern was expressed at public and stakeholder workshops for reducing the impact of
large, suburban style developments, preserving large tracts of agricultural and open land,
preserving the five acre density and allowing farmers to sell off a few parcels in order to remain
in business.
The land development proposal recommended by the CPPS preserves the five acre density and
adds the phasing of subdivisions.
The phasing of subdivisions permits only a limited number of lots to be created from a given
parcel (the parent tract of record as of adoption of a new ordinance) over a fixed period of years.
This technique permits landowners to sell some of their land to meet occasional financial needs.
The CPPS is recommending a by -right allowance of ten new lots in any five year period. These
numbers give landowners much flexibility and recognize the fact that a few lots may need to be
sold just to cover the costs of engineering and road construction before any profit is realized.
The phasing of subdivisions discourages the creation of entire subdivisions and discourages land
speculation. The CPPS is aware however that some landowners may need to develop more than
10 lots at one time. Therefore, the CPPS is proposing a rezoning option. If a landowner wants to
subdivide more than ten lots in a five year period, a rezoning (to a new district) would be
required. It would be the landowner's decision whether to develop the property at a slower rate
by -right or to seek a rezoning to develop a site at a faster rate.
Process
Land owners seeking to subdivide one or two lots would only be required to submit a sketch
plan. These lots would count towards a parent tract's by -right allowance of 10 lots in any 5 year
period.
A land owner seeking to develop three or more lots would be required to submit a master
development plan (MDP). Similar to a master development plan in the Urban Development
Area (UDA), this plan would show the primary and secondary conservation features, the location
of roads, buffers and the general location of houses. While phasing of the houses would be
shown, this would be general phasing and would not commit either the property owner or the
2
County to construction of particular houses in any year. Land owners would be encouraged to
master plan together contiguous parcels in common ownership.
Land owners seeking to subdivide more than the by -right allowance of 10 lots in 5 years would
need a rezoning from the RA District to a new district.. This would require approval from the
County Board of Supervisors. All requests for rezonings to the new district would require the
submission of a master development plan and a report analyzing the impacts of the rezoning.
Rezonings would only be granted in cases where the impacts of the development, including the
impact on roads and capital facilities, such as schools, were mitigated. It is likely that rezonings
would also include a phasing plan.
Conservation Subdivision Design
The Green Infrastructure is the framework for the entire rural areas study. Conservation
subdivision design protects the Green Infrastructure. Therefore the CPPS recommends that
conservation subdivision design be mandatory for all residential development.
Conservation subdivision design describes residential development in which the natural features
of the site are maintained to the greatest extent possible. Conservation subdivision design
promotes cluster development, but differs from basic cluster design, such as the rural
preservation lots in the current Zoning Ordinance. It sets standards for the quality and
configuration of the open space to be preserved. It allows the County to exercise greater
influence on the design of new subdivisions.
Conservation subdivision design is accomplished through a four step process:
I . Conservation features are identified
2. House sites are located
3. Streets and trails are aligned
4. Lot lines are drawn
The CPPS is proposing that 60% of the land in a conservation design subdivision be an open set -
side. This will encourage the assemblage of greater open space. It is also proposed that the
minimum lots size be reduced to 1 acre to allow more design flexibility. It is not envisioned that
all lots would be 1 acre. There is likely a market for many different lot sizes.
The CPPS is also recommending that the restrictions on the open space set -asides be permanent
unless the property is brought into the Urban Development Area (UDA). If an open space set-
aside is brought into the UDA then the property owner would be eligible to seek a rezoning from
the Board of Supervisors.
It is proposed that uses compatible with a rural setting and not incompatible with rural residential
development be encouraged in the open space set -asides. These would likely include some types
of agriculture, forestry, passive and active recreation and equestrian activities. These uses help
to maintain the rural character and will provide affordable land for future farmers. Each
conservation set-aside will retain one residential development right from within the parent tract's
overall density of one dwelling per 5 acres. In many circumstances it will be an original house
3
on the set-aside lot. It is not intended that homeowner associations will own the conservation
set -asides. This will be possible though, as some uses, such as an equestrian establishment,
might lend themselves to a homeowners association.
State Roads
One or two new lot could directly access the existing secondary road system. Internal public
road access would be required for the third and consecutive new lots.
Buffer requirements
Buffer standards are recommended to increase to 150' for road corridor and 100' for perimeters.
Family Divisions Lots
Family division lots would be allowed by -right for up to two new lots. A waiver would be
required for the third or subsequent lots. Family division lots would count towards a parent
tract's overall density. In keeping with the new proposal for time -release subdivisions, the
recording of family lots would count towards a parent tract's by -right allowance of 10 lots in any
5 year period. The Zoning Ordinance may also need to be reviewed to require ownership for a set
period of time to discourage abuse of the family division lots.
Conservation Easements
A recurrent theme in both public participation phases of the rural areas study was the wish of
some rural landowners not to develop their land. Often they want to keep a working farm or
preserve a family's property to pass down to future generations. However, due to the changing
agricultural economy and personal circumstances, landowners often need to get value out of their
land. In order to preserve rural character and discourage further subdivision, the County should
encourage landowners to enter into conservation easements.
A conservation easement is a simple legal agreement between a landowner and a government
agency or a non-profit conservation organization that places permanent limits on the future
development of the property in order to protect the conservation value of the land. The easement
may also specifically protect natural, scenic or historic features of the property. Conservation
easements, while typically donated, can also be purchased by a government agency or a non-
profit conservation organization where funding is available.
The voluntary donation of a conservation easement is an excellent method of open space, natural
resource and heritage protection. The landowner who donates a conservation easement
permanently protects the land, while retaining ownership and enjoyment of the property. There
is no public access to conservation easement properties. In many cases the donation of a
conservation easement provides substantial federal, state and local tax advantages and estate
planning benefits to the landowner. The public benefits through the protection of important
natural and cultural resources and scenic vistas. In addition local taxpayers will never have to
pay for the expensive public services, such as schools, roads, police, etc., that a new residential
development would have demanded. Therefore, this County should commit itself to the
U
establishment of a conservation easement authority. This authority would have the power to
accept voluntary conservation easements. The County should also consider a conservation
easement purchase program. Funding for the purchase of these conservation easements could
come from grants and from tax-deductible cash donations to the authority.
Rural Economy:
The rural economy of the County plays a significant role in the life and livelihood of its
inhabitants. The County actively seeks a thriving rural economy. The rural areas are not scenic
backdrops for the urban areas. They provide jobs and a way of life worth preserving.
A,Qriculture
At the present time, agriculture is the basis for the rural economy. However, the role and extent
of agriculture is changing and the County must address these changes. Traditional large scale
farming operations are declining. Farm profits continue to decline. While Frederick County has
long been associated with the apple industry, apple growing is declining. The number of acres in
apple trees declined 17% in the last five years. Countering the decline in acreage for orchards is
an increase in land in forage, principally hay.
While the County should continue to promote and protect agriculture, alternative markets and
alternative crops must be explored. In addition commercial alternatives to agriculture must be
examined for those unable to continue with traditional farming.
Forestry
Forest land accounts for approximately 56% of the total land in Frederick County. However,
Frederick County's average annual timber harvest value ranks only 81" among the 98 counties in
Virginia. Despite its vast forests, Frederick County is not a major force in the Virginia timber
industry. Much more could be done to encourage forest management and increased timber
yields.
Equine Industry
Virginia is the 5th largest equine state in the U.S. The equine industry in Virginia is centered in
the Northern Region, which includes Frederick County, but is largely based in Loudoun and
Fauquier Counties. To date, Frederick County has not been a major force in the equine industry.
With the strength and growth of the equine industry in the northern region of Virginia and the
dominance of small, recreational facilities, Frederick County could take on a greater role in the
Virginia equine industry.
Tourism
Tourism is a growing industry in Virginia, expanding more than 47% from 1994 through 2002.
Frederick County's share of the Virginia tourism industry is small but growing. Some forms of
tourism particularly lend themselves to rural areas. These include scenic drives, hiking, wildlife
s
observation, equestrian activities, mountain biking, camps and bed and breakfast
accommodations, to name just a few. The County could take a stronger lead in promoting
tourism and recreation activities in the rural areas.
Rural Diversification
The County should complement its continued support of agriculture with support for economic
diversification. Economic activity which is compatible with agriculture should be encouraged
and promoted. Any activity must be compatible in terms of scale, use and intensity with the
rural environment. Land based tourism and recreation particularly lend themselves to the rural
environment, but their very success is contingent on the maintenance of the rural character.
The CPPS proposes that the County commit itself to the creation of a Rural Economy Task Force
to further study economic diversification. This task force should draw members from the local
farm community, local businesses, the Winchester Frederick County Economic Development
Commission, the Chamber of Commerce and others. The task force should examine in greater
detail the existing rural economy and explore alternatives to insure a vibrant rural economy.
One early task force undertaking could be to provide input to the Planning Commission in a
review of ordinances to enable rural diversification. It is recommended that the RA Rural Areas
District in the Zoning Ordinance be considerably revised to encourage a diverse rural economy.
This would help the County to encourage, not impede, appropriate rural economic development.
It is also recommended that the County create a dedicated economic development function,
either within the County government or in cooperation with surrounding counties or the
extension service that could provide a resource to encourage and facilitate new rural enterprises.
This person would work directly with rural landowners to explore both agriculture markets and
alternative economic activities. This person could also guide property owners through
administrative processes.
The County should also make the rural economy a significant focus of the Winchester Frederick
County Economic Development Commission.
Rural Community Centers:
Rural community centers are small activity nodes or small centers of development in the rural
areas of Frederick County. The current Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies eleven Rural
Community Centers. These are:
Gore Reynolds Store
Gainesboro Round Hill
Armel Shawneeland/North Mountain
Star Tannery Whitacre/Cross Junction
Albin Clearbrook/Brucetown
Stephenson
The CPPS examined the general roles of the eleven rural community centers. The rural
community centers have very different sizes and functions. It is recommended that detailed
studies of the rural community centers be undertaken to examine in detail development patterns
and trends and to formulate polices for their development. These studies and any resulting
policies should be developed with the close cooperation of the residents of those areas. It is
possible that two tiers of rural community centers may develop — 1) those centers that function
purely as a commercial crossroads, and 2) those centers that have a mix of uses and function
more as a village.
As these studies may take years to complete, an interim set of general policies for all of the rural
community centers is proposed. The proposed policies would allow for new commercial
development consistent in use, scale and intensity with the surrounding area. Possible small-
scale commercial uses could be a general store, a bank or a restaurant. In the areas of the rural
community centers covered by other plans, such as the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan,
commercial uses consistent with the uses in that plan would be appropriate. Governmental and
religious uses compatible with the area would be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Prior to the completion of a detailed study, increased residential development will not be
encouraged in any rural community center. Therefore the RA District residential standards will
continue to apply in the rural community centers.
Transportation:
In the past, development in the rural areas has rarely taken account of the capacity or condition
of the road network. The impact of development on the roads has only been mitigated when a
rezoning has occurred. Most residential development in the rural areas has been by -right and so
few road improvements have been made by developers. The County and the state are not in a
financial position to pay for costly road improvements; therefore, the CPPS believes that
developers should play a bigger part in mitigating the impacts of their development.
As mentioned in the land development section, a rezoning element is proposed by the CPPS for
rural subdivisions that exceed the by -right allowance of ten units in any 5 year period. Through
the rezoning process a developer would need to address the increase in traffic generated as a
result of the rezoning, the entrance locations, the changes in traffic patterns and the impact on the
capacity and efficiency of existing and planned roads. This is already a consideration for
rezonings in the UDA. In the rural areas, however, developers will also need to include a
consideration of other issues such as the movement of farm vehicles, the visual impact on a
scenic road, and the consequences of developing on rural rustic roads where a commitment has
been made by the County to restrict development. Rezonings would only be granted in cases
where the impacts of a development were mitigated.
Relationship of the Rural Areas to the Urban Development Areas (UDA):
The rural area study is anchored by the current Comprehensive Policy Plan principle that most
development, including most residential development, should be directed to the Urban
Development Area (UDA). The UDA is the appropriate location for urban and suburban
development. Through its designation of the UDA boundary, the County commits itself to
providing services including utilities, improved roads and other urban facilities for this type of
development. The UDA is intended to contain land to accommodate the urban and suburban
development that will occur throughout the next decade. The County annually reviews its UDA
boundaries to insure adequate land is set aside for growth. There is, therefore, no compelling
reason to accommodate urban or suburban development in the rural areas.
A foundation for all rural areas study policies will therefore be that the rural areas should not
include urban and suburban development. The County should not provide services such as
utilities in the rural area that will encourage urban and suburban development. It is not cost
effective for the County to provide such services in the rural areas when the County is committed
to providing and funding services in the UDA where growth is clearly directed. It is proposed
that the rural areas study clearly state that the extension of sewer and water lines into rural areas
outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) is
not appropriate.
8
J
•
J