PC 11-03-04 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
November 3, 2004
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) October 6, 2004 Minutes................................................................................................. (A)
2) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab)
3) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
4) Request submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust and Associates, to include approximately
178 acres of land into the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The properties are
located on the west side of Front Royal Pike (Route 522), south of Tasker Road, adjacent to
the Eastgate Commerce Center. The subject properties are identified by Property
Identification Numbers 76-A-42, 76-A-53, 76 -A -53G, 87-A-31, 87-A-34, 87-A-3413, 87 -A -
34A, 87-A-35, 87-A-36, 87-A-37, 76 -A -53E, 76 -A -53F, 76 -A -53A, and 76 -A -48A in the
Shawnee Magisterial District.
Mrs. Eddy........................................................................................................................ (B)
5) Ordinance Amendment - Section 165-50 to Include Local Government Services Office Use
in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District.
Mr. Cheran...................................................................................................................... (C)
6) Other
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on October 6, 2004.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red
Bud District; Robert A. Moms, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall
District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett,
Gainesboro District; Gary Dove, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors'
Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large (appointed to the Board of
Supervisors)
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator; Susan K.
Eddy, Senior Planner; David Beniamino, Planner; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the minutes
of August 18, 2004 were unanimously approved as presented.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the minutes
of September 1, 2004 were unanimously approved as presented.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1382
Draft Minutes of October 6, 2004
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee MRS) — 09%23/04 Mtg.
Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS has begun a review of the open space regulations
in the residential zoning ordinance; they are reviewing some of the permitted uses in the RA (Rural Areas)
District; and they have begun a preliminary review of the regulations concerning buffers, particularly the section
on shared buffers and setbacks.
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) — 09/28/04 Mtg.
Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS held a joint meeting with the Planning Commission
and the Board of Supervisors on the rural areas studies. He said the CPPS presented three options, which were
discussed at great length. Commissioner Light said that the CPPS is now preparing to hold public meetings.
Economic Development Commission (EDC) —10/01/04 Mtg.
Commissioner Thomas reported that the EDC discussed their participation in the Frederick
County Schools' Service Learning Program and they will continue to participate this year. He said the EDC
received a number of reports and one in particular, the economic condition and employment report for Frederick
County and the Winchester area, indicated an extremely low unemployment rate. He commented that although
low unemployment is very desirable, it does reduce our area's attractiveness for new businesses coming to the
area.
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit 919-04 of Rocky Keplinger for a Public Garage with body repair at 161
Woodchuck Lane (Rt. 654). This property, zoned RA (Rural Areas) District, is identified with P.I.N. 52-
A -262-B in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions
Planner David Beniamino stated that the applicant plans to repair and service a small number of
emergency vehicles on the site, as well as provide a limited number of emergency vehicles for sale as an accessory
use. He said the applicant has reported that the facility would not be available to the general public; all activity
would be made on an appointment -only basis; and 80% of repair work would be done off-site. Planner
Bemamino added that the applicant maintains an existing conditional use permit (CUP #03-89) for the property
located at 218 Woodchuck Lane for the same type of use. He further added that the applicant desires to keep this
existing conditional use permit valid, if the new conditional use permit is approved. In conclusion, Planner
Beniamino read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate.
Fredrick County Planning Commission rage -Yo.3
Draft Minutes of October 6, 2004
Mr. Rocky Keplinger, the applicant, pointed out on a display map his existing facility, located
southwest of the proposed new site, and he told the Commission he has been operating at his existing location for
17 years under a conditional use permit. Mr. Keplinger said he only received two complaints in all of that time
and he was found not to beat fault on Those complaints. He explained the reason for this move is bciause tbLe new
fire trucks have tilt cabs and he does not have the ceiling height needed at the existing location to work on them.
He said the McFarlands have made this new property available to him and the building has a higher ceiling height.
Mr. Keplinger stated that he owns eight service vehicles, including his pick-up. He added that fire trucks and
rescue vehicles for sale will not be displayed outside.
Chairman DeHaven asked Mr. Keplinger if he was comfortable with the conditions
recommended by the staff. Mr. Keplinger said that he was fine with Condition # 1, No more than five vehicles for
sale on the site and Condition #2, No more than ten vehicles waiting for repair; however, he preferred to modify
Condition #3 to state, "No more than 20 employee and company-owned vehicles on the site... " rather than the 15
vehicles stated.
Commission members discussed with Mr. Keplinger where the vehicles waiting for repair and
the employee and company-owned vehicles would be parked on the site. Members of the Commission also
advised Mr. Keplinger of the possibility of the conditional use permit being revoked, if complaints are received
and are not able to be resolved.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Kriz,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #19-04 of Rocky Keplinger for a public garage with body repair at 161
Woodchuck Lane (Rt. 654) with the following conditions:
1. No more than five vehicles for sale shall be located on site at any one time. All vehicles for sale shall be
associated with Emergency Services.
2. No more than ten vehicles awaiting repair shall be located on site at any one time.
3. No more than 20 employee and company-owned vehicles shall be located on site at any one time.
4. A buffer amounting to either a six-foot opaque fence or a double row of evergreens will beprovided along the
northern property line.
Any proposed business sign shall conform to the Cottage Occupation sign requirements and will not exceed
four square feet in size.
6. A minor site plan will be required, if the cumulative square footage of the structure on the site surpasses
20,000 square feet.
7. No more than 12 employees will be associated with this conditional use permit.
8. Any expansion or modification of this use shall require approval of a new conditional use permit.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1384
Draft Minutes of October 6, 2004
(Note: Commissioner Ours was absent; Commissioner Fisher appointed to the Board.)
Conditional Use Permit #22-04 of the Robert E. Rose Memorial Foundation, submitted by Mr. Lawton
Saunders, for an addition to the existing licensed home for adults and adult care facility located at 549
Valley Mill Road (Rt. 659). This property, zoned RP (Residential Performance) District, is identified with
P.I.N. 55-A-56 in the Red Bud Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions
Planner David Beniamino reported that this application is for a building expansion to an existing
26 -bed adult care facility located at 549 Valley Mill Road (Rt. 659) and which currently has an existing
conditional use permit (CUP #02-96). Planner Beniamino stated that the applicant plans to build a 5,600 square
foot addition, to be completed in three phases, and will include a new physical therapy room and eight additional
resident rooms. Planner Beniamino added that since the site's initial construction in 1996, Valley Mill Road has
been relocated as part of the Greenwood Road improvements project; he said the road relocation will allow
expansion to occur with minimal impact. Planner Beniamino next read a list of recommended conditions, should
the Commission find the use to be appropriate.
A member of the Commission expressed concern about the addition being constructed on a steep
hill.
Mr. Lawton Saunders, representing the Robert E. Rose Memorial Foundation, pointed out that
because the Valley Mill Road relocation basically cut off a portion of the property, this is the only area available
for the Foundation to expand. He said that he has prepared some preliminary contours which have determined
there is approximately a five -to -six foot cut and fill condition that will need to be terraced on the rear portion of
the property. Mr. Saunders noted that there is sufficient room to terrace down the hillside and, in addition, there
will need to be terracing for the road.
Another question from the Commission concerned possible impacts to Abrams Creek during and
after construction. Mr. Saunders believed that terracing the hillside would help the run-off situation, rather than
make it worse.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Gochenour and seconded by Commissioner Straub,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit 422-04 of the Robert E. Rose Memorial Foundation, submitted by Mr.
Lawton Saunders, for an addition to the existing licensed home for adults and adult care facility located at 549
Valley Mill Road (Rt. 659) with the following conditions:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. A site plan must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of any building permits.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1385
Draft Minutes of October 6, 2004
3. The applicant must comply with all requirements of the state and county codes pertaining to
adult care facilities at all times.
4. Any expansion or modification of this use shall require approval of a new site plan and a
conditional use permit.
(Note: Commissioner Ours was absent; Commissioner Fisher appointed to the Board.)
Rezoning Application #12-04 of the Butcher Property (Briarwood, LC), submitted by Gilbert W. Clifford
& Associates, Inc., to rezone 29.9891 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential
Performance) District. This property is located east of Greenwood Road (Rt. 656), south and adjacent to
the Briarwood Subdivision, and is identified with P.I.N. 55-A-200 in the Red Bud Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers
Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence stated that the land requested for rezoning is within the
Urban Development Area (UDA) and is generally consistent with the land use policies found in the
Comprehensive Policy Plan; the primary access to the site will occur via Farmington Boulevard and its
intersection with Greenwood Road. Director Lawrence summarized the applicant's proffers for this rezoning,
which included: assurance that the site will be developed to accommodate no more than 69 single-family detached
dwelling units; the provision of a monetary contribution of $10,206 per lot to lessen the impacts on capital
facilities; the applicant will enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT for the intersection of Farmington
Boulevard and Greenwood Road; and, the applicant will implement traffic calming techniques along Farmington
Boulevard.
Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., project engineer, introduced himself and Mr. David Holliday, the
purchaser of the Butcher property. Mr. Maddox said there is ample right-of-way and culvert sizing downstream
in the Briarwood plan to accommodate this development and storm water management can be handled easily due
to the natural stream channel which prevents drainage from leaving the site. He assured the Commission that the
storm water management will meet all Virginia handbook requirements.
Mr. Maddox added that they have met several times with VDOT; he said the most recent VDOT
comments, dated September 22, 2004, indicate that the mitigation proposed for this project is satisfactory. He
said that VDOT's primary concern was the prorated share cost participation of the stop light at the intersection of
Farmington and Greenwood Road. Mr. Maddox further added that all the roads will be public with curb and
gutter.
Commissioner Thomas inquired about the numerical analysis section of the traffic impact
analysis prepared by Patton, Harris & Rust, and, in particular, he asked how the conclusion was reached that
traffic would not be denigrated below Level of Service D. Mr. Maddox replied that this project links in with a
number of other projects that VDOT has previously received data on; he said that the same traffic consultant
doing this project had done the other projects as well.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1386
Draft Minutes of October 6, 2004
Commissioner Rosenberry raised his concern about the Public Works' comment advising that the
Greenwood solid waste dumpster site had exceeded capacity because of the recent development in the Senseny
Road/ Greenwood Road area. Commissioner Rosenberry asked Mr. Maddox for his opinion regarding Public
Works' recommendation that a curbside program be implemented by the homeowners' association to avoid the
long lines at the convenience site. It was Mr. Maddox's opinion that it was not appropriate to have a homeowners
association of this small size be responsible for day-to-day bill collection.
Commissioner Straub raised the issue of overcrowded schools in this area. Commissioner Straub
said that both Senseny Road Elementary School and Red Bud Run School are over capacity and she anticipated
that most of the students south of Senseny Road will probably be sent to the new elementary school, ten miles
away. She was not in favor of busing small children so far away to attend school. She believed the County
should attempt to locate schools where the growth is actually occurring and not in unpopulated areas where the
school would generate residential growth around it. Mr. Maddox replied that the fiscal impact model allows for
funds to be generated by this project as demands occur. He said the model predicts over $7,500 per lot, which
will equate to in excess of a half million dollars of capital input into the school construction budget. Mr. Maddox
said that he realized that it doesn't solve the near-term, immediate issue, but the houses will take a substantial
amount of time to build. Furthermore, he said it will take some time for the development to actually exert the
projected impacts.
Board Liaison Barbara VanOsten inquired whether traffic calming techniques were proffered for
both ends of Farmington Boulevard or just the northern end. Mr. Maddox replied that the particular location and
traffic -calming technique would be determined by VDOT during their review and the applicant would comply
with VDOT's recommendation. Ms. VanOsten also inquired about the intended lot sizes. Mr. Maddox replied
that 12,000 square -foot lots, consistent with Briarwood, would be used. He added that the density calculates to
2.3 units per acre, which will allow for 69 dwelling units.
Commissioner Unger inquired if there were any build -out projections for this project so that the
county could anticipate the capital facilities impacts. Mr. Maddox replied that a phasing plan was not proposed
because of the size of the project, however, he anticipated it taking approximately two years.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Ms. Brenda Vance, a resident at 690 Greenwood Road, said that in September of 2000, the
reconstruction of Greenwood Road (Rt. 656) began and much of her front yard was taken to widen Greenwood
Road to accommodate the increased traffic. Ms. Vance said that since that road was reconstructed, many
subdivisions have been approved and the traffic has returned to the volume it was in the Year 2000. She said the
homeowners are having difficulty getting out of their driveways and traffic accidents are occurring almost daily at
the intersection of Greenwood Road and Valley Mill Road. Ms. Vance was disturbed by the long lines at the
dumpsters and the fact that schools were overcapacity. She said the roads can not handle additional traffic. Ms.
Vance believed that this rezoning request needed to be placed on hold until the new school was constructed and
opened in 2006 or, until after the completion of the Rt. 37 Bypass. Ms. Vance asked the Commission to respond
to the needs of the residents of Greenwood Road.
Ms. Betty Winslow was concerned about the additional subdivisions coming to the Senseny
Road School area. Ms. Winslow was concerned about overcrowding of the schools and about busing the
elementary school children. She believed that Senseny Road School and Armel School will be redistricted when
the new elementary school opens in the Fall of 2006. Ms. Winslow asked that the County require the owner of
this development to delay selling lots until after the new elementary school opened in the Fall of 2006.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1387
Draft Minutes of October 6, 2004
Funding for the infrastructure necessary to accommodate all of the residential development in
this area remained an issue for some of the Commission members. They were concerned about future operating
expenses for schools, such as salaries for teachers and administrators, increased demands on the water and sewer
system, storm water management, and transportation issues. They also recognized that this particular applicant
had probably done as much as possible in the submitted proffers to mitigate the future impacts generated by this
development.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Kriz,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
Rezoning Application # 12-04 of the Butcher Property (Briarwood, LC), submitted by Gilbert W. Clifford &
Associates, Inc., to rezone 29.9891 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance)
District with proffers as submitted by the applicant, by the following majority vote:
YES (TO APPRO E : Watt, Unger, Morris, DeHaven, Thomas, Kriz, Triplett
NO: Straub, Gochenour, Light, Rosenberry
(Note: Commissioner Ours was absent; Commissioner Fisher appointed to the Board.)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 165, ZONING,
SECTION 165-48, CAR WASHES, REGARDING HOURS OF OPERATION FOR CAR WASHES IN
THE B2 (BUSINESS GENERAL) ZONING DISTRICT.
Action — Recommended Approval
Zoning Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that the Development Review and Regulations
Subcommittee (DRRS), at their meeting of May 27, 2004, recommended adding hours of operation for car
washes located in the B2 (Business General) Zoning District under Section 165-48 of the Frederick County
Zoning Ordinance. Administrator Cheran stated that the hours of operation would only apply to B2 property that
is adjacent to RA (Rural Area) land with residential dwellings, RP (Residential Performance), R4 (Residential
Planned Community), R5 (Residential Recreational Community), MS (Medical Support) with a residential
component, or MH 1 (Mobile Home Community) zoned land. He added that the DRRS's intent in adding hours of
operation was to make the B2 car washes consistent with the current zoning ordinance requirements for car
washes located in the B 1 (Neighborhood Business) Zoning District and, hopefully, would negate nuisance factors.
Chairman DeHaven raised the issue of whether the amendment should only apply to new
operations, from the time of adoption forward, and whether or not it should be considered for upgrades and/or
expansions of existing facilities. Chairman DeHaven was concerned that if some of the existing car washes were
upgraded to accommodate the new technologies, they would become even more intrusive. Chairman DeHaven
believed this was an issue that needed to be addressed and a consensus reached before the amendment went
forward. Members of the Commission believed it would be appropriate to apply the amendment to any new car
washes and those modifying existing car washes with upgrades.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1388
Draft Minutes of October 6, 2004
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak:
Mr. Jeff Miller, the co-owner and operator of two car washes in Frederick County, one on Aylor
R nad and one in Sunnyside, expressed his opposition to the possibility of the County regulating his hours of
operation. Mr. Miller's two car washes did not adjoin residential property and his use pre-existed the proposeu
ordinance change; therefore, he was grandfathered to the requirements at the point his occupancy permit was
issued. Mr. Miller told the Commission that the proposed ordinance would limit hours of operation on weekends
when car washes do the majority of their business. He said that most people only have the opportunity to use car
washes on weekends and he frequently has a lot full of customers on a Sunday morning at 7:00 a.m. Mr. Miller
was also opposed to eliminating car washes in the B 1 Zone. He said a consumer would not drive out of their way
to the back of a 132 -zoned industrial park to use a car wash; he said that is not where car washes function or
operate. In addition, Mr. Miller commented about 24-hour convenience stores; he said they are adjacent to
residential properties and could also be considered a nuisance.
Commissioner Morris expressed his opposition to singling out one business or one sic code, out
of all those that are permitted, to operate under restricted hours. He said that some other use that may be equally
noisy or offensive to a community would still be able to operate without restriction. Commissioner Morris
suggested that if car washes are determined to be a problem in B 1 Zoning Districts, then that particular SIC code
should be eliminated from B 1.
Commissioners who were members of the DRRS stated that this proposed amendment was only
an attempt to make the car washes in the B2 District consistent with the existing code for car washes in the B 1
District. It was pointed out that car washes in the B 1 District currently have restricted hours of operation.
Commission members also discussed the possibility of eliminating car washes from the B 1 Zone entirely.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of an
ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Section 165-48, Car Washes, regarding
hours of operation for car washes in the in B2 (Business General) Zoning District, as presented, by the following
majority vote:
YES (TO APPROVE): Straub, Gochenour, Watt, Unger, Light, DeHaven, Thomas, Kriz, Triplett, Rosenberry
NO: Morris
(Note: Commissioner Ours was absent; Commissioner Fisher appointed to the Board.)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 165, ZONING, TO
ADD THE MEDICAL SUPPORT DISTRICT TO SECTIONS 165-47C(1),165-133, and 165-134.
Action — Recommended Approval
Zoning Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, stated that this ordinance amendment would simply
include the approved MS (Medical Support) District into relevant sections of the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance. Administrator Cheran said that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS)
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1389
Draft Minutes of October 6, 2004
recommended approval of the amendment at their meeting of June 24, 2004. He said the proposed amendment
was discussed by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors and received support from both.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak.
No issues were raised by the Commission and they believed the amendment to be appropriate.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of an ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, to add the Medical Support
District to Sections 165-47C(1), 165-133, and 165-134, as presented.
(Note: Commissioner Ours was absent; Commissioner Fisher appointed to the Board.)
DISCUSSION
Request for extension of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) to include approximately 35 acres,
submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates. The properties are currently zoned RA (Rural Areas)
and are located on the west side of Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522), east of the Eastgate Commerce Center.
The subject properties are identified by P.I.N.s 87-A-31, 87-A-34, 87 -A -34A, 87 -A -34B, and 87-A-35 in the
Shawnee Magisterial District.
Senior Planner, Susan K. Eddy, reported that the applicant is requesting the expansion of the
Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) to incorporate approximately 35 acres, consisting of five parcels, which
she identified on a map. Planner Eddy stated that the applicant has indicated he would be seeking a rezoning to
business use for these properties. She said that expansion of the SWSA would effectively plan the area for
business and industrial uses consistent with the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan.
Planner Eddy added that the applicant had identified a different SWSA boundary than the staff,
which included the Home Depot Distribution Center and the entire Eastgate Commerce Center. Although the
staff was unable to find any record of this particular SWSA boundary, staff was aware that some of this area is
already served by sewer and water. Planner Eddy said that staff is proposing a simpler extension of the SWSA
boundary to include sites that are planned for industrial and business uses within the Eastern Frederick County
Long Range Land Use Plan section of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Planner Eddy identified those parcels for
the Commission, noting that some of the sites were already zoned M 1, B2, and B3, and all were adjacent to the
existing SWSA boundary. She said that inclusion of these properties would resolve the uncertainty of the SWSA
boundary in this area.
In conclusion, Planner Eddy stated that the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee
(CPPS) considered this request at their meeting of September 13, 2004. She said the committee members were
generally supportive of the request and the staffs proposal to include nearby commercial and industrial sites
within the SWSA to provide a more logical SWSA boundary.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1390
Draft Minutes of October 6, 2004
Commission members were in agreement that the applicant's SWSA expansion request was
appropriate and they were supportive of the staff's recommendation to include the adjacent properties within the
SWSA boundaries in order to resolve the uncertainty of the SWSA boundary in this area.
DISCUSSION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 165,
ZONING, TO AMEND SECTION 165-50, PERMITTED USES, TO INCLUDE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT SERVICES OFFICE USE IN THE RA (RURAL AREAS) ZONING DISTRICT.
Zoning Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, stated that the DRRS (Development Review and
Regulations Subcommittee) discussed the addition of local government services office use as a permitted use in
the RA Zoning District at their meeting on September 23, 2004. The local government services offices would be
owned, leased, or operated by Frederick County for services to the general public. Administrator Cheran said that
the DRRS recommended adding the definition of local government services office to the ordinance and including
local government services office use within Section 165-50, Permitted Uses, of the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance.
The Planning Commission agreed that it would be very appropriate to add this use to the
ordinance as presented by the DRRS and the staff. They noted that currently, the ordinance does not provide, for
example, a remote police station or satellite office out in the rural areas of the county.
DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER
165, ZONING, TO AMEND SECTION 165-63(C), OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS IN THE RP
(RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE) ZONING DISTRICT.
Zoning Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that the staff received a request by Greenway
Engineering to consider clarifications or reductions in the required open space for larger residential mixed-use
projects. Administrator Cheran stated that the DRRS (Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee) met
with Greenway Engineering to discuss the concept and, subsequently, drafted a proposed amendment that
achieved Greenway Engineering's goals while providing additional recreational amenities for future residents of a
project. Specifically, he said the proposed amendment would provide an opportunity for the property owner or
land design team to reduce the required open space by 50 percent, if significant recreational amenities were
provided for the development project.
Commissioner Thomas, a member of the DRRS, stated that the subcommittee spent considerable
time on this discussion. He said the proposed amendment is an attempt to offer an incentive for developers to
design a useable open space area, rather than simply providing an open plot of ground. Specifically, it gives the
developer the ability to increase the number of lots they have for sale, as long as a portion of the monetary return
goes back into the community to provide useable open space. Commissioner Thomas commented that depending
on how the incentives are implemented by developers, desirable recreational facilities could be provided within
the community that would be maintained by the homeowners association.
Fredrick County Planning Commission rage 1 jvi
Draft Minutes of October 6, 2004
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, stated that this proposal would provide an
opportunity to design more livable communities. He stated that a significant amount of land is being placed into
open space for no apparent reason. Referring to the ongoing rural areas studies, Mr. Wyatt suggested that while
the County is considering ways to uccicase uQ-nSALIcs "I LAIC rural areas, mectlious to make vewva us-, o .pan
development area should also be considered.
Commission members raised the issue of the possibility for developments that receive waivers
to exceed the density requirements of the ordinance; they believed the density requirements permitted by the
ordinance should not be exceeded. Commissioners also raised the issue of the possibility of large percentage
increases in density compared with only a small portion of that increase coming back in units of value to the
residents, while at the same time, the open space is reduced. They noted that the open space is partly aesthetic,
but also partly a relief valve for space between high-density developments. Another concern raised was the
possibility that a property would be rezoned based on a projected density which could drastically change with the
master development plan stage. Everyone agreed that the concept was worth pursuing, but they wanted to
proceed carefully. They suggested the possibility of looking at a few more scenarios to be certain the densities
were not being increased too much.
The Planning Staff commented that currently, many proposed projects do not achieve maximum
ordinance densities because the open space does not provide sufficient opportunity. Staff noted that this proposal
will give the development community the opportunity to utilize the maximum density allowed by the ordinance
and at the same time, provide additional recreational amenities for the residents in the new community. The
Planning Staff suggested the inclusion of a clause stating that under no circumstance will the developer exceed a
designated density. Regarding the issue of densities changing between the rezoning and master development plan
stages of development, they pointed out that proffer language during rezoning would govern the density.
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and the Planning Commission adjourned by a
unanimous vote at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
Eric R. La,"Tence, Secretary
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1392
Draft Minutes of October 6, 2004
SWSA EXPANSION REQUEST
�vcX cOo� EASTGATE COMMERCE CENTER AREA
w° Staff Report for the Planning Commission Public Hearing
Prepared: October 18, 2004
Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner
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 the discussion of this
request. It may also be useful to others interested in this comprehensive planning matter.
CPPS:
Planning Commission:
Board of Supervisors:
Planning Commission:
Board of Supervisors:
Reviewed
09/13/04
10/06/04 (Discussion)
10/12/04 (Discussion)
11/03/04 (Public Hearing)
11/10/04 (Public Hearing)
Action
Recommended for discussion
Comments offered to Board
Directed scheduling of Public
Hearing
Pending
Pending
PROPOSAL: To expand the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) by approximately 178
acres.
PLANNED USE: Business
LOCATION: The properties are located on the west side of Front Royal Pike (Route 522),
south of Tasker Road, adjacent to the Eastgate Commerce Center.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 76-A-42, 76-A-53, 76 -A -53G, 87-A-31, 87-A-34, 87 -A -34A,
87 -A -34B, 87-A-35, 87-A-36, 87-A-37, 76 -A -53E, 76 -A -53F, 76 -A -53A, and 76 -A -48A
PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION:
Existing Conditions
The subject sites are in a number of zoning districts. The sites within the Eastgate Commerce
Center are zoned M1 (Light Industrial District), B3 (Industrial Transitional District) and B2
(Business General District). Industrial and business uses are currently located in the Eastgate
Commerce Center. One of the subject parcels is south and west of the Eastgate Commerce
Center, is zoned RA (Rural Areas District) and is in agricultural use. Several of the subject
SWSA Expansion Request, Eastgate Commerce Center Area
October 18, 2004
Page 2
properties are east of the Eastgate Commerce Center. These properties are Zoned RA (Rural
Areas District) and are in residential or agricultural use.
The proposed expansion area is surrounded to the north by properties zoned Ml (Light Industrial
District), B3 (Industrial Transitional District) and B2 (Business General District) which are in
industrial and business use, and to the east, west and south by properties zoned RA (Rural Areas
District) which are in residential or agricultural use.
Comprehensive Policy Plan
Land Use Plan
The Comprehensive Policy Plan (CPP) in general encourages new business in the vicinity
of limited access interchanges, existing business and industrial areas, and the airport
(CPP 6-11, 6-12 & 6-71). The subject properties are not included in any of the small
study area land use plans included in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan.
The subject properties which are part of the Eastgate Commerce Center are identified on
the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan for industrial and business use.
The subject properties east of the Eastgate Commerce Center are within the general circle
identifying the Armel rural community center. The Comprehensive Policy Plan (CPP)
says to treat the Armel rural community center similarly to the surrounding areas (CPP 6-
45 & 6-75).
All of the subject parcels are within the Route 522/Route 277 "Triangle". The
preparation of a land use study of the triangle area is one of the priorities set for the
Planning Department.
Staff Comment: The applicant has indicated that he would be seeking a rezoning to
business use for the properties east of the Eastgate Commerce Center and west of Front
Royal Pike (Route 522). Expansion of the SWSA would effectively plan the entire area
for business and industrial uses. It would not be a commitment to provide sewer and
water lines to suburban residential uses. The Comprehensive Policy Plan (6-5) states that
new suburban residential development served by sewer and water will be located in the
UDA.
Transportation
Neither the Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, nor the Winchester
Area Transportation Study (WATS) Plan identifies improvements to Front Royal Pike
(Route 522) in this area.
Entrances to the subject properties east of the Eastgate Commerce Center should not be
located on Front Royal Pike (Route 522). Access to the subject sites should be from
Maranto Manor Drive, which currently accesses the Home Depot site.
SWSA Expansion Request, Eastgate Commerce Center Area
October 18, 2004
Page 3
Community Facilities and Service
The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) already serves much of this area.
The FCSA has indicated that they would be able to serve the subject parcels with public
water and sewer.
Staff Comments: The applicant, in his Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment (CPPA)
application, requested a SWSA expansion for five properties (87-A-31, 87-A-34, 87 -A -34A, 87-
A-3413, 87-A-35), all east of the Eastgate Commerce Center. The applicant at that time
identified a different SWSA boundary than staff. Staff was not able to find any record of the
SWSA boundary having been expanded to include the Home Depot Distribution Center and the
entire Eastgate Commerce Center. However, staff is aware that some of this area is already
served by sewer and water. Staff is proposing a simpler extension of the SWSA boundary to also
include sites that are planned for industrial and business uses in the Eastern Frederick County
Long Range Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan: Property ID Numbers: 76-A-53,
76 -A -53A, 76 -A -53E, 76 -A -53F, 76 -A -53G, 87-A-37, 87-A-36, 76 -A -48A (the section Zoned
Ml) and 76-A-42 (most of this property is already in the SWSA). Some of these sites are
already zoned M1 (Light Industrial District), B2 (Business General District) and B3 (Industrial
Transition District) and all are adjacent to the existing SWSA boundary. Inclusion of these
properties would resolve the uncertainty of the SWSA boundary in this area.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE (CPPS) SUMMARY
& ACTION OF 09/13/04 MEETING:
The CPPS was generally supportive of the SWSA expansion request. The CPPS was also
supportive of staff's suggestion to include a number of adjacent properties, some of which are
already served by sewer and water, within the SWSA to provide a more logical SWSA boundary.
Staff would note that Roger Thomas and William Rosenberry were absent from the September
13 CPPS meeting at which time this request was considered.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF 10/06/04
MEETING:
The Planning Commission was supportive of the SWSA expansion request. The Planning
Commission was also supportive of staff's suggestion to include a number of adjacent properties,
some of which are already served by sewer and water, within the SWSA to provide a more
logical SWSA boundary.
SWSA Expansion Request, Eastgate Commerce Center Area
October 18, 2004
Page 4
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISCUSSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF 10/12/04
MEETING:
The Board of Supervisors was supportive of the SWSA expansion request. The Board of
Supervisors was also supportive of staff's suggestion to include a number of adjacent properties,
some of which are already served by sewer and water, within the SWSA to provide a more
logical SWSA boundary. Supervisor Ewing introduced a motion to consider the applicant's
original Urban Development Area (UDA) expansion request along with this SWSA request at a
public hearing. A discussion concerning the procedures for Comprehensive Policy Plan
amendments followed. Discussion of the future UDA Study and the future "Triangle" Study also
followed. Supervisor Ewing's motion was split into two motions — one involving the SWSA
expansion and the other involving the UDA expansion. The Board of Supervisors voted to send
the SWSA expansion to public hearing. The Board of Supervisors voted not to send the UDA
expansion to public hearing.
YES (TO SCHEDULE FOR PUBLIC HEARING THE SWSA EXPANSION): Shickle, Van
Osten, Dove, Ewing, Forrester, Tyler, Fisher
YES (TO SCHEDULE FOR PUBLIC HEARING THE UDA EXPANSION):
The above motion failed by the following recorded vote:
Yes — Shickle, Dove, Ewing
No - Van Osten, Forrester, Tyler, Fisher
COMPREHENSIVE
POLICY
PLAN AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PACKAGE
TASKER WOODS
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Department of Planning and Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
PHONE: (540) 665-565 _FAX: (540) 665-6395
Website: www.co.frederick.va.us/PLimingAndDeveloment/PlanningAndDev.htm
(REVISED 02/25/04)
COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIATION REQUEST FORM
(Please type all information. The application will not be deemed complete unless all items
listed below have been submitted.)
A. Owner or Authorized Agent Information:.
1. Name: PHR+A c/o Chuck Maddox
Project Name: Tasker Woods
Mailing Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street
Winchester, VA 22601
4. Telephone Number: 540-667-2139
B. Legal interest in the property affected or reason for the request:
I
The UDA adiacent to this site is built out and established uses surrounding this site
are primarily residential
C. Proposed Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment — please provide the following
information.
[1. Fora map amendment:
Note: this application is for the Tasker Woods parcels only, however, the applicant
suggests the consideration of LJDA changes include properties with boundaries to Route
522 as shown on attached exhibits.
a. GPIN(s): 76-A-49, 76 -A -48A, 87-A-31, 34, 34A, 34B, 65, 36, 37
b. Parcel size (approximate acres): 133 acres
c. Plat of area proposed for CPPA amendment, including metes and bounds description.
d. Existing Comprehensive Plan land use classification(s): rural areas
e. Proposed Comprehensive Plan land use classification(s):
Urban Development & SWSA Area 165 acres SWSA areas 45 acres
f. Existing zoning and land use of the subject parcel: See attached
g. What use/zoning will be requested it amendment 'is approved?
Mixed uses — single family detached, single family attached and commercial
h. Describe (using text, photos, and maps as necessary) the existing zoning,
Comprehensive Policy Plan designations, and/or approved uses and densities along
with other characteristics of are within:
1/4 mile from the parcel(s) perimeter if the parcel is less than 20 acres in size;
mile is 21 —100 acres in size; or
• 1 mile if more than IOU acres in size.
i. The name, mailing address, and parcel number of all property owners within 200 ft. of
the subject parcel(s). see attached
2. For a text amendment:
Not applicable
a. Purpose and intent of amendment.
b. Cite Plan chapter, goal, policy and/or action text that is proposed to be amended.
c. Proposed new or revised text.
(Note: Please attach and specify text changes with additions underlined and
deletions crossed through.)
I Demonstrate how the proposal furthers the goals, policies/objectives, and action
strategies set forth in the Comprehensive Policy Plan chapter(s) relative to the
amendment request and why proposed revisions to said goals, policies, and action
strategies are appropriate.
e. Demonstrate how the proposal is internally consistent with other Comprehensive
Policy Plan components that are not the subject of the amendment.
f. What level of service impacts, if any, are associated with the request?
3. For all amendments:
a. Justification of proposed Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment (provide
attachments if necessary). Describe why the change to the Comprehensive policy Plan
if being proposed.
The LDA in adjacent portions southeast development area is fully developed. This is a
logical comprehensive plan expansion which increases housing stock in LDA and
provides needed expansion of business zoning for economic development in Frederick
b. How would the resultant changes impact or benefit Frederick County relative to:
(See attached)
1. Community Design
2. Cultural Resources
Economic Development
4. Environment
5. Fire and Rescue
6. Housing
7. Land Use
8. Libraries
9. Parks and open Space
10. Potable Water
11. Schools
12. Sewer
13. Telecommunications
14. Transportation
A. Other information as may be required by the Director of Planning, the Planning
Commission, or Board of County Supervisors during the review of the initiation request.
The applicant will be notified, in writing if additional information is required.
All applications must also contain the following items:
1. Special Power of Attorney Affidavit
2. Application Review Fee of $2,000 (payable to the Frederick County Treasurer)
Applicants should consult the Comprehensive policy Plan to identify goals, policies or action
strategies which are applicable to individual Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment requests,
Attachments
Tasker Woods
Property Owner Designation
(within %Z mile radius of property)
Tax ID #
Name
Address
Zonin
Use
76 -A -31A
Macedonia Cemetery Assoc.
1941 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663
RA
Religious
76-A-32
Macedonia Cemetery Assoc.
1941 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663
RA
Religious
76-A-86
George E. Bagley
2000 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663
RA
Residential
76-A-85
Lane M. Reed
2456 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Residential
76 -A -49D
Isabelle Kastak
2490 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Residential
76-A-84
Harry E & Phyliss J. Saville
2492 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Residential
76 -A -49B
Minnie Mae Butler
2584 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Residential
76 -A -49C
Roger L. & Joan F. Strosnider
2606 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Residential
76 -A -49A
David S. & Pamela B. Lehr
2678 Front Royal Pike, -Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Residential
76-A-51 C
Clifton R. Strosnider
173 Armel Road, Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Residential
76-A-48
Betty J. Tinsman
1804 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663
RA
Residential
76 -A -47B
William & Loretta Heflin
113 Tad ole Lane, White Post, VA 22663
RA
Residential
76-A-36
Richard & Catherine Palmer
1789 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663
RA
Residential
76-A-35
Wayne E. Wilkins
1847 Macedonia Church Road, White post, VA 22663
RA
Residential
76-A-34
Gary E. Whitacre
1861 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663
RA
Residential
76-5-55
Glen M. & Hattie P. Borrer
1873 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663
RA
Residential
76-5-59
Elizabeth Properties, LC
P.O. Box 480, Stephens City, VA 22655
RA
Residential
76-5-61
Elizabeth Properties, LC
P.O. Box 480, Stephens City, VA 22655
RA
Residential
76-5-62
Elizabeth Properties, LC
P.O. Box 480, Stephens City, VA 22655
RA
Residential
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Tasker Woods Addendum
Page 1 of 2
, Addendum
3b. How would the resultant changes impact or benefit Frederick County relative to:
1. Community Design — The community design as shown on the attained exhibit is
an extension of existing urban development area which has "built out" to the north
and east of this site. Canter Estates is near complete and the residential portion of
the Tasker Woods project is adjacent to and connected with the Canter Estates
project The project will offer improvement of the roadway systems, open space
and neighborhood recreational facilities. The sewer and water service area change
to the south is a logical extension to the business and industrial zoning district
The new roadway constructed as a part of the Home Depot distribution project
has provided access to this property. .
2. Cultural Resources — There are no known impacts on cultural resources as a result
of this project The residential contingent next to business office and business
retail uses at Eastgate will provide for good neighborhood design with an
interconnectivity by pedestrian systems.
3. Economic Development — The 43.01 acres of proposed rezoning to business use
will provide economic development advantages to Frederick County.
4. Environment — The environmental impacts created by this project are primarily
along the stream channel which passes through the residential portion of the site.
This channel will be disturbed in very minor ways having to do principally with
utilities and pathways. There are no other significant environmental impacts
identified as a result of this project.
5. Fire and Rescue — There will be impacts on fire and rescue services and a proposed
mitigation of these impacts will be by proffer in accordance with the Frederick
County Impact Model.
6. Housing — This project expands the housing stock and inventory in Frederick
County within the urban development area which helps implement the
comprehensive plan. The proximity of housing to business, churches and schools
provides excellent quality of life conditions for this expansion.
7, Land Use — The geologic and topographic conditions are ideal for the proposed
uses and do not result in the elimination of bona fide agricultural uses in exchange.
The business and residential mix provides a balance which is considered to be in
keeping with the comprehensive plan.
8. Libraries — A proffer will be extended to help fund libraries in accordance with the
Frederick County Impact Model.
9. Parks and Open Space — Open space will be provided within the development as
well as active recreational uses i.e. soccer fields. In addition, proffers will be
extended to help fund County parks and recreation development
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Tasker Woods Addendum
Page 2 of 2
10. Potable Water — Potable water lines owned and operated by the Frederick County
Sanitation Authority extend through the site at this time. Site pressures and water
availability are considered adequate for the proposed uses.
11. Schools — The location of this site is proximate to schools provided by the
Frederick County School Board. Armel Elementary and the new middle school are
to the north on Route 522 and Sherando High School is located with easy, access
from Tasker and Warrior Drives. Additionally a school proffer will be extended as
a part of the rezoning in accordance with the County's fiscal impact model.
12. Sewer — Sewer services exists in the Eastgate Industrial Park (a new sewage lift
station will be provided which will service all the residential contingent for this
project). Individual 13-3 uses will have sewer pumps that will pump to the existing
Eastgate sewer collection system. Sewer access is considered acceptable and
manageable for the proposed LDA and SWSA extensions.
13. Telecommunications — Telecommunication systems are available in the Eastgate
Industrial Park and in Canter Estates adjacent to the site. There are no known
adverse impacts as a result of this project on telecommunications.
14. Transportation — The proposed expanded UDA and SWSA areas have excellent
road transportation capacity with principle access to an improved Macedonia
Church Road, U.S. Route 522 and Tasker Road. The proposed business uses will
have very satisfactory access to U.S. Route 522 by the new roadway constructed as
a result of the Home Depot warehouse construction. Transportation systems
created by these expanded uses will be acceptable and manageable for Frederick
County.
Arm el
...�27
2%
4
SASTGATE- PROPERTIES gibe w. cfiffoM & as cdes
a division of
EXISTING ZONING PLAN Patton, Hans, Rust & Associates, pc
117 F. Ficadil* SL Thchester, ftirio 22601
FROCRICK COUNTY, 1IRGINIA YOM (540) 657-2139 FAX. (540) 665-0493
rigurl
.,aZj car u -r UO: ebp
c.w. clifford 6 assoc. 540-GGS-0493 p.?
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF FREDERICK
(TO BE COMPLETED BY ArrI TCANT)
,SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNERS AF MAVIT
County of Frederick, Virginia
Frederick Planning Web Site: www_co.rrOcrick_vi.ns
Tbi.s 20th day of May 2004
('pay) (Month) (Yeas)
Allan Hudson, ManaginggtMember, RealTech, LLC
(Owner/Contract Purchaser/Atrthoriwd Agent)
hereby make oath that the fist of property owners of the subject site, as s6miited with the application,
is a true and accurate list basest on the information provided by the Frederick Cotmty Comanssio❑cr of
the Revenue Office as taken from the calrrent real estate assessment records.
PwcbascalAuthorixcd Agcnt)
Q�Utr�
(circle one)
Sul>=ibed and sworn to before mt: this- cQ#i ay of � in my
County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed Principal)
KtLIC
My Commission expires: _ �L )0/,/, /
N
I
..-a -u vT VJ: cup
C.w. clifford 6 assoc. 540-GGS-0493 p.2
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF FREDERICK
This 20th
(Day)
(TO BE COMPLETED BY APrLICANI)
SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNERS AFMAVIT
County of Frederick, Virginia
Fred crick Planning Web Site: ww*w_co.rrGdcrick vi.ns
day of May 9 nn4
(Year)
L Allan Hudson, Managing Member, Allden, LLC
(Owner/Contavct Purchaser/Authorized Agent)
bcreby make oath that the list of property owners of the sAied site, as submitted with the application,
is a true and accurate list based on the information provided by the Frederick County Comrr,issioncr of
the: Revenue Office as taken from the current real estate assessment records.
I I . NO 11 1 -
Subscnbed ami sworn to before me this- "day of in my
County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed PrincipaL
Z'146ARY PUBLI
My Commission expires: T
i
N
nay cu u -t uJ:Jbp g,w. ciit-ford & assoc. 540-665-0493 p.2
:rs
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF FREDERICK
(TO BE CONIFLETEID BY APPLICAND
SiJBJE T PROPERTY OWNERS AFML&VTT
County of Frederick, Virginia
Frederick Planning Web Site: www-co.frederick-va.ns
This oa 014- day of — [Aa" t(A Z w4,
(Day) (Month) (Year)
L
Lbws QAn Lf
Purchaser/Authomw,d A
hereby make oath that the list of property owners of the subject site, as submitted with the application,
is a true and accurate list based on the information provided by the Frederick County Comuiissioncr of
the Revenue Office as taken from the current real estate assessment records.
(Owner/ zrtraci Pw - •ci/Authorized Agcnt)
(circle one)
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA_ ..
fp of
subscribed and cwom to before me this- C�21 day of -,2,2,!2 in my
County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed Princrpal-
PUB IC
My Commission expires: I
7
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
J
I, &TFAMN G. RITTER and 1, MARY M. RITTER, residing at 3022 Front Royal Pike,
Winchester, Virginia 22602, have made and constituted ALLAN B. HUDSON, of the County of
Fairfax, Virginia, my true .and lawful attorney-in-fact (hereinafter referred to as "my attorney',
who is hereby authorized for me and in my name to do the following specific acts:
1. To act for and in my behalf with respect to all applications relating to the property
herein described, including Rezoning, Proffers, Conditional Use Permits, Master Development
Plans (Preliminary and Final), Subdivisions, and Site Plans for the real property containing 4.7±
acres, known as Tax Map parcel 87-A-34, County of Frederick, Virginia, to -wit:
All of that certain tract or parcel of land containing 4.7 acres, more or less, lying
in the Opequon District of Frederick County, Virginia, and being the same land
that was conveyed to Steven G. Ritter and Mary M. Ritter by deed recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book
501 at Page 255.
2. To execute, acknowledge, and deliver any contract, or any other document, that
may, in the opinion of my attorney, be necessary or desirable in connection with the above;
3. To perform any other acts or execute any other documents that are necessary or,
in the opinion of my attorney, ought to be done in connection with the above;
4. This Special Power of Attorney is limited to the property described in Paragraph
1, and does not give my attorney authority to act on my behalf for any purpose not related to the
above described property.
5. 1 hereby confirm all lawful actions that may be taken by my attorney pursuant to
this Special Power of Attorney. An affidavit executed by my attorney, setting forth that at the
time of doing any act pursuant to this Special Power of Attorney, he did not have actual
knowledge or had not received notice of the revocation or termination of this Special Power of
Attorney by death, disability or otherwise, or had not received notice of any facts indicating
same, shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of the non -revocation or non -
termination of this Special Power of Attorney at such time. I further declare that, as against me
or persons claiming under me, everything that my attorney shall do pursuant to this Special
Power of Attorney shall be valid and binding in favor of any person or entity claiming the benefit
hereof who has not received written notice that this Special Power of Attorney has been revoked.
This Special Power of Attorney shall terminate one year from the date below, but may,
upon my written consent, be extended for an additional year for purposes of development.
This instrument is executed in more than one counterpart, any one of which shall, for all
purposes, be deemed an original.
WITNESS my signature and seal this day of -)\,on , 2004.
Stmeft G. Ritter
StEvj sE�
Mary M. 14tter
STATE OF V i rUYt�a-
CITY/COUNTY .mac to -wit:
&Ve—
' y The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me by Ritter this
1T" day of n 12004.
Notdry Public
My commission expires 3-51-03
OF
r
STATE OF Y �J,
CITY/COUNTY O-a�xiCk— , to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was swom to and subscribed before me by Mary M. Ritter this
1416 day of ho r, 1 12004.
My commission expires — -3l' o
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
I, JULIA LESKO BISHOP, residing at 114 Orchard Drive, Midwest City, Oklahoma,
73110, have made and constituted ALLAN B. HUDSON, of the County of Fairfax, Virginia, my
true and lawful attorney-in-fact (hereinafter referred to as "my attorney"),, who is hereby
authorized for me and in my name to do the following specific acts:
1. To act for and in my behalf with respect to all applications relating to the property
herein described, including Rezoning, Proffers, Conditional Use Permits, Master Development
Plans (Preliminary and Final), Subdivisions, and Site Plans for the real property known as Tax
Map parcels 87-A-31 and 87-A-32, located in the County of Frederick, Virginia, to -wit:
(1) All of that certain tract or parcel of land containing 14 acres, more or less,
lying and being situate about 8 miles South of Winchester, near Armel, in the
Opequon District of Frederick County, Virginia, and being the same land that was
conveyed to John S. Coe, et ux, by William D. Spicer, et ux, by deed dated April
10, 1948, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County,
Virginia in Deed Book 204, at Page 584, said deed including by specific reference
a 10 -foot right of way leading to the Front Royal Pike (U.S. Route 522).
(2) All of that certain tract or parcel of land containing 9 acres, more or less,
lying and being situate along the Northwestern side of Wright's Run, near Armel,
in the Opequon District of Frederick County, Virginia, and being the same land
that was conveyed to John S. Coe, et ux, by Stuart M. Perry, et al, by deed dated
January 15, 1949, of record in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 208, at Page 304.
Said parcels being the same land conveyed by deed of John S. Coe, et ux, to
Michael Lesko and Helen R. Lesko, his wife, with common law right of
survivorship, dated June 3, 1957, and recorded in - said Clerk's Office in Deed
Book 247, at Page 76.
2. To execute, acknowledge, and deliver any contract, or any other document, that
may, in the opinion of my attorney, be necessary or desirable in connection with the above;
To perform any other acts or execute any other documents that are necessary or,
in the opinion of my attorney, ought to be done in connection with the above;
4. This Special Power of Attorney is limited to the property described in Paragraph
1, and does not give my attorney authority to act on my behalf for any purpose not related to the
above described property.
5. I hereby confirm all lawful actions that may be taken by my attorney pursuant to
this Special Power of Attorney. An affidavit executed by my attorney, setting forth that at the
time of doing any act pursuant to this Special Power of Attorney, he did not have actual
knowledge or had not received notice of the revocation or termination of this Special Power of
Attorney by death, disability or otherwise, or had not received notice of any facts indicating
same, shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of the non -revocation or non -
termination of this Special Power of Attorney at such time. I further declare that, as against me
or persons claiming under me, everything that my attorney shall do pursuant to this Special
Power of Attorney shall be validandbinding in favor of any person or entity claiming the benefit
hereof who has not received written notice that this Special Power of Attorney has been revoked.
This Special Power of Attorney shall terminate one year from the date below, but may,
upon my written consent, be extended for an additional year for purposes of development.
This instrument is executed in more than one counterpart, any one of which shall, for all
purposes, be deemed an original.
WITNESS my signature and seal this ' 3 day oa�� L 2004.
2
STATE OF QkJ(Zlto,,-)-)cL_
CITY/COUNTY OF — J )LJQ JL 6,Mc to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me by JULIA LESKO
BISHOP this dl�6_day of 2004.
NofidY,Publi
My commission expires zemz =smol
INAND
•
:7
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 and Subdivision Administrator //�WC
Subject: Public Hearing: Section 165-50 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to include
local government services office use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District.
Date: October 20, 2004
The Frederick County Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at its meeting
on September 23, 2004, discussed adding local government services office use as a permitted use in
the RA Zoning District. Section 165-50 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance currently allows
schools, post offices, fire and rescue stations, and public utilities. Local government services offices
would be owned, leased or operated by Frederick County for services to the public in general. Staff
has included a definition of this proposed use and current permitted RA uses.
The Planning Commission discussed this amendment at its meeting of October 6, 2004 and was in
favor of the amendment as presented. This proposed ordinance amendment is presented as a
discussion item to enable the Board of Supervisors to raise issues and seek clarification. Staff would
recommend adding the definition of local government services office. to the Ordinance, and including
local government services office use with Section 165-50 of the Frederick.County Zoning Ordinance.
Proposed Definition:
Local Government Services Office — Offices and accessory facilities owned, leased, or operated by
local government agencies for services to the public in general.
Proposed Amendment, Section 165-50 BB:
BB. Local government services office.
107 North Kent Street, Smite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Discussion of Section 165-50 to include local government services office use in the RA
October 20, 2004
Page 2
Existing:
§165-50 Permitted uses.
Structures and land shall be used for one of the following uses:
A. Agriculture, farming, dairies and forestry.
B. Orchards, horticulture and the production of nursery stock and products.
C. Single-family dwellings.
D. Mobile homes.
E. Schools (without residential component)
F. Public parks and playgrounds.
G. Churches.
H. Home occupations.
I. Natural conservation areas.
J. Winchester Airport.
K. Group homes.
L. Fire stations, companies and rescue squads.
M. Frederick County sanitary landfill.
N. Commercial and institutional cemeteries with or without funeral homes or cemetery
office complexes.
O. Post office.
P. Radio and television towers and their accessory buildings
Q. Public utility generating, booster or relay stations, transformer substations, transmission
lines and towers, pipes, meters and other facilities, railroad facilities and sewer and water
facilities and lines owned by public utilities, railroad companies or public agencies.
R. Required off-street parking
S. Oil and natural gas exploration, provided that the following requirements are met:
(1) All requirements of the Code of Virginia, as amended, and all applicable federal,
state and local regulations shall be met.
(2) A site plan shall be reviewed and approved meeting all requirements of the
Frederick County Code.
(3) Approval of the site plan and use shall be for ninety (90) days, with subsequent
renewals being approved by the Planning Commission.
(4) In order to begin extraction of the resource, a rezoning to the EM (Extractive
Manufacturing) Zoning District will be required.
T. Museums, parks or historic sites used for educational or historic preservation purposes.
U. Business signs.
V. Directional signs.
W. Cottage occupation signs.
X. Accessory uses.
Y. Poultry farms and hatcheries and egg production.
Z. Fish hatcheries and fish production.
AA. Hog farming. It shall be unlawful for any person to have or maintain or to permit to be
erected, in the county, any hog pen that is located closer than two hundred (200) feet to a
residence or an adjoining property that is used for human habitation.