PC 12-04-02 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNT' PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
DECEMBER 4, 2002
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) November 6, 2002 Minutes ............................................... (A)
2) Committee Reports ................................................. (no tab)
3) Citizen Comments .................................................. (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
4) Conditional Use Permit #15-02 of Cynthia Lou Foglia for "Pet Watchers" Animal
Training Kennel. The property is located at 211 Bryarly Road and is identified with Property
Identification Number 42-A-134 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
(Ms. Ragsdale) ................... i.................................... (B)
5) Conditional Use Permit #16-02 of Shared Towers, Inc./White Tail Lane Tower, submitted
by Greenway Engineering, for a time extension to a previously -approved condition associated
with CUP #22-01 for a 195 -foot -high lattice -type telecommunications facility. This property
is located on White Tail Lane off of North Frederick Pike (Route 522N) and is identified with
Property Identification Number _19-A-27 in_the Gaineshoro Magisterial District. _
(Mr. Lawrence) ....................................................... (l)
6) Rezoning #12-02 of Kernstown United Methodist Church to rezone 1.621 acres from M2
(Industrial General) to B2 (Business Gene4l) District. This property is located at 3239 Valley
Pike and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 63-A-96 and 63 -A -107A in the
Shawnee Magisterial District.
(Mrs. Kennedy)....................................................... (D)
DISCUSSION ITEM
7) Discussion on a Proposal to Restrict Truck Traffic on Sections of Warrior Drive (Rt. 719);
Rest Church Road (Rt. 669); Welltown Road (Rt. 661); Burnt Factory Road (Rt. 659) and Old
Charles Town Road (Rt. 761).
(Mrs. Kennedy) ......................... (E)
8) 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 November 6, 2002.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Crde11 Watt,
Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Mari F: Straub,
Red Bud District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; William C.
Rosenberry, Shawnee District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; and Jay
Cook, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Robert Sager, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City
Liaison.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Christopher M. Mohn, Deputy Planning
Director, Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 2002
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Fisher, the minutes
of October 16, 2002 were unanimously approved as presented.
COMMIT'T'EE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 10/24/02 Mtg.
Commissioner Unger reported that the DRRS discussed woodlands and landscaping
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 6, 2002 Page 953
-2 -
regulations. He said that more discussion is needed before it is presented to the Commission.
Transportation Committtee - 11/05/02 Mtg.
Conunissioner Kriz reported that the Transportation Committee recommended approval of
three truck traffic restrictions on sections of Warrior Drive (Rt. 719), sections of Rest Church Road (Rt. 669),
and sections of Charles Town Road.
Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB)
Commissioner Gochenour stated that the HRAB has not met for several months and this
concerns her, she believed the HRAB should meet -more often: —
Economic Development Commission (EDC) - 11/01/02 Mtg.
Commissioner Thomas reported that new bylaws were discussed for the EDC. He also
reported that the EDC heard a presentation from the Shenandoah Valley Watershed Initiative (SVWI), which
includes the Counties of Augusta, Clarke, Frederick, Page, Rockingham, Shenandoah, Warren, and the Cities
ofHarrisonburg, Staunton, Waynesboro, and Winchester. Commissioner Thomas said the SVWI is conducting
a study on this region, which has experienced significant growth in the last 20 years, by identifying problems
and threats to the Potomac River and its watershed. He said the top threats to the water quality and the river
itself were identified; one threat was agricultural runoff, but the primary threat came from failing septic
systems. He said the study group is seeking ways to get people off septic systems and onto public treatment
systems. Commissioner Thomas added that the study will continue over the next several months; he will share
the final report with the Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit #12-02 of Shared Towers, Inc./Cross Junction Tower, submitted by Greenway
Engineering, for a time extension to a previously -approved condition associated with CUP #18-01. This
property is located near the intersection of Collinsville Road and Cross Junction Road, approximately
290 feet from North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522N), and is identified with Property Identification Number
J8 -A-38 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 6, 2002 Page 954
-3 -
Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence stated that this conditional use permit (CUP) and the
following CUP are similar in nature in that they both revisit CUPs the County issued earlier this year,
specifically, because of a condition requiring the telecommunications tower to be erected within 12 months of
the approval of the CUP. Director Lawrence stated that the applicant has requested a 12 -month extension to
that condition.
Director Lawrence proceeded to review the background information on both ofthe tower CUPS
for the Commission. He recalled for the Commission that in late 2001 and early 2002, a number of CUP
applications for towers along the Rt. 522 corridor were received; four were presented on behalf of Shared
Towers, Inc., this evening's applicant, and three were presented by Triton, PCS. He explained that the Triton,
PCS applications were deferred pending the outcome of the Shared Towers' CUP a plications. In addition,
he noted that the Planning Staff received a letter last week from Triton, PCS withdrawing their three CUP
applications. Director Lawrence stated that, at this point in time, there are no comp ing towers along the Rt.
522 corridor.
Director Lawrence continued, stating that both of the Shared Towers' CUP applications
presented forreviewthis evening will need to be essentially reaffirmed and this will start the -12 -month clock
over again. He added that no other changes have occurred along the Rt. 522 corridor as far as
telecommunication services, therefore, the staff believed there was still a demand in that area for service to be
provided.
Cominissioner Morris recalled an ordinance change, regarding an engineering requirement for
certification ofcollapse and collateral damage, that was enacted after the Shared Towers CUPS were approved.
Commissioner Morris inquired if the applicant would be required to meet this requirement at the time of
construction. Director Lawrence stated that these applications were the catalyst for that amendment and both
had included statements from the tower's engineer, therefore, the applicant has indirectly satisfied the
requirements that are on the books. Director Lawrence added that an additional condition could be placed on
the CUP, if the extension is recommended for approval.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, representing Shared Towers, Inc., stated that
the County decided that Rt. 522 is a corridor that needs service and CUPs have been approved. He said the
applicant immediately followed up on those approvals by submitting site plans for all four tower sites, all of
which were approved. Mr. Wyatt said a building permit has been issued for one site, Hunting Ridge, and the
tower is under construction. Mr. Wyatt stated that due to a down -turn in the economy which has affected the
telecommunications industry, the applicant is requesting an extension of the time frame to develop. He noted
that tower heights and locations remain the same and, in addition, they have no problems with the Commission
adding an additional condition requiring the engineer's certification.
There were no public comments.
The Commission believed this application for a commercial telecommunications facility was
still valid because a need for the facility, based on a lack of coverage and capacity in this part of the County,
had still been demonstrated; therefore, the Commission was amenable to granting the applicant an extension
of 12 months to construct the tower with the added condition for submittal of an engineer's certification of
collapse and collateral damage.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 6, 2002 Page 955
-4 -
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #12-02 of Shared Towers, Inc./Cross Junction Tower, submitted by
Greenway Engineering, for a 12 -month time extension to construct the Cross Junction Tower, previously -
approved under CUP #18-01, with the following conditions:
All Zoning Ordinance requirements and review agency comments shall be addressed and complied
with at all times.
2. The tower shall be available for co -locating personal wireless services providers.
3. A minor site plan shall be approved by the County.
I
4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within twelve (12) months of
abandonment of operation.
In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (12) months of the approval of
this Conditional Use Permit, then the CUP will be deemed invalid.
A certified Virginia engineer shall provide verification that the tower is designed, and will be
constructed, in a maturer that, should the tower collapse for any reason, the collapsed tower will be
contained in an area around the tower, with a radius equal to or lesser than the setback, measured from
the center line of the base of the tower.
Conditional Use Permit #13-02 of Shared Towers, Inc./Reynold's Store Tower, submitted by Greenway
Engineering, for a time extension to a previously -approved condition associated with CUP #20-01. This
property is located at 8926 North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522N) and is identified with Property Identification
Number 11-A-39 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions
Chairman DeHaven noted that this is the exact same request as the previous application, but
at a different location. Chairman DeHaven asked if anyone had questions or comments that were not addressed
earlier. No comments or questions were made.
There were no public comments.
The Commission believed this application for a commercial telecommunications facility was
still valid because a need for the facility, based on a lack of coverage and capacity in this part of the County,
had still been demonstrated; therefore, the Commission was amenable to granting the applicant an extension
of 12 months to construct the tower with the added condition for submittal of an engineer's certification of
collapse and collateral damage.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 6, 2002 Page 956
-5 -
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #13-02 of Shared Towers, Inc./Reynold's Store Tower, submitted by
Greenway Engineering, for a 12 -month time extension to construct the Reynold's Store Tower, previously -
approved under CUP 420-01, with the following conditions:
All Zoning Ordinance requirements and review agency comments shall be addressed and complied
with at all times.
2. The tower shall be available for co -locating personal wireless services providers.
3. A minor site plan shall be approved by the County.
4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within twelve (12) months of
abandonment of operation.
5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (J 2) months of the approval of
this Conditional Use Permit, then the CUP will be deemed invalid.
6. A certified Virginia engineer shall provide verification that the tower is designed, and will be
constructed, in a manner that, should the tower collapse for any reason, the collapsed tower will be
contained in an area around the tower, with a radius equal to or lesser than the setback, measured from
the center line of the base of the tower_
Rezoning 907-02 of Doris F. Casey (tabled from PC meetings of 7/01/02 & 8/21/02), submitted by
Greenway Engineering, to rezone 30.31 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance)
District. This property is located approximately 800 feet north of the intersection of Front Royal Pike
(Route 522 S.) and Papermill Road (Route 644) and is identified with Property Identification Number
64-A-23 in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Proffers
Senior Plamier Abbe S. Kennedy updated the Commission on actions that took place at the
Commission's July 1, 2002 and August 21, 2002 meetings. She also updated the Commission on the various
revisions submitted by the applicant since the Commission's August 21 meeting. Planner Kennedy said the
revised application appropriately meets county requirements and has addressed many concerns of the Planning
Commission, the public, and the staff. In particular, she pointed out that the applicant meets buffer
requirements along major collector roads and exceeds the zoning code requirements by providing a 50' buffer
along the entire southern property boundary adjacent to the Shenandoah Memorial Park; also included in the
proffer is a six-foot high fence, resembling a traditional iron fence, to be installed along the cemetery and
evergreen trees on 10' centers will be planted along the entire length of the property line; and an emergency
access connection to Rt. 644 (Papermill Road) has been shown on the general development plan.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 6, 2002 Page 957
Commissioner Gochenour inquired about the difference in the monetary contribution per lot
by the applicant and the net capital facilities impact shown by the output model. Planner Kennedy pointed out
that this rezoning application was received prior to the July 1, 2002 changes in the output model, therefore, the
standard proffers offered with the application were acceptable.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering came forward to represent the Doris F. Casey
rezoning application. Upon recapping the revisions that have taken place with this rezoning since it was
initially submitted, Mr. Wyatt first stated that they eliminated the B 1 zoning from the original RP and B 1
proposal because of the consensus that RP zoning was more fitting for this area. He next talked about the two
issues associated with the general development plan submitted as a proffer: access on Rt. 522 versus Rt. 644
(Papermill Rd.) and the impact to the Shenandoah Memorial Park cemetery. Mr. Wyatt reiterated again that
Rt. 522 was a four -lane major arterial with an existing center turn lane and capable of handling 10,000 vehicle
trips per day (tpd), whereas Rt. 644 was a two-lane road containing a 40' right-of-way with geometric pr�blems
and capable of handling only 6,500 vehicle tpd. Mr. Wyatt believed Rt. 522 was the better road and was lwhere
the primary access should be, with the emergency access on Papernill Rd. He said that because they were
able to provide the emergency access on Papermill, the connection to Westwood Drive was eliminated,
removing the proffered improvements to Westwood Drive. He said the current proposal does two things: it
- eliminates the connection to Westwood Drive and secondly, it provides -emergency access off of Papermill Road
for public safety. Regarding the second issue concerning the impact to the Shenandoah Memorial Park
cemetery, Mr. Wyatt said that they would provide a wrought iron -type fence along the property line with a 50'
buffer and a 10' planting scheme. He noted that the first 25' of buffer from the memorial park towards the
homes is solely the fence and trees and the remaining 25' is distance.
Mr. Wyatt next talked about the South Frederick Land Use Plan road improvements, described
in the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan, and the Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS) and how
their proposal fit in with the overall future road improvements planned for this area.
Commissioner Morris asked Mr. Wyatt for his opinion on what was in store for Westwood
Drive in the future, when the adjacent properties start to develop and other transportation links begin to come
to fruition. Mr. Wyatt described the scenario he thought would take place and the reasons he believed
connectivity should be encouraged for the overall well-being of the transportation system.
Commissioner Light commented that the generalized development plan does not show a right -in
turn access lane on Rt. 522. Mr. Wyatt said they have met with VDOT and are fairly confident a right -turn
lane is needed and will be provided. However, because they cannot mandate manipulation of VDOT's road
system, the terminology of the proffer needs to be such that the turn lane will not be built if, for some reason,
VDOT decides they don't want the turn lane.
Commissioner Fisher asked for the estimated time frame for build -out of the proposed 70
homes. Mr. Wyatt estimated a three -to -four-year window.
Commissioner Rosenberry was opposed to increased residential development because of the
timing and impacts to water availability, the transportation system, and schools. He also thought the impacts
on Papermill Road were going to be the same, whether traffic comes out directly onto Papermill or if it exited
on Rt. 522 and entered back onto Papermill. Commissioner Rosenberry requested that the applicant consider
constructing additional access/turn lanes on Rt. 522 for merging vehicles and traffic entering the proposed
development. Commissioner Rosenberry inquired as to who was the impetus behind the idea that there should
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 6, 2002 Page 958
-7 -
be no through road to Papermill; he inquired whether it was Greenway, the developer, or VDOT. Mr. Wyatt
replied that the revised VDOT continent stated that VDOT concurs with the approach and the proffer; he said
the designers and VDOT believe that having two access points is probably not a good idea. Mr. Wyatt also
believed that left turns out of the development would not be problematic. Commissioner Rosenberry asked Mr.
Wyatt if he was correct in stating that VDOT supports the "applicant's initiative" not to have a through road.
Mr. Rosenberry was of the opinion that the issue of not using Papermill Road (Rt. 644) as an access was not
a safety issue, but that the developer did not want to incur the extra cost for improvements to the road.
Mr. Jerry Copp, VDOT's resident engineer, came forward to answer questions from the
Commission. There were a number of questions for Mr. Copp from the Commissioners regarding the
possibility of using Papermill Road (Rt. 644) as an access road. Commissioner Triplett then raised the
question to Mr. Copp that, as far as safety was concerned, �II id Mr. Copp concur that the transportation design
presented was one of the best for this particular property. MM . Copp replied that VDOT was very satisfied with
the design and with the entrance on Rt. 522. Mr. Copp added that when a developer makes a connection to one
of VDOT's roads, VDOT will tell the developer what they need to do, such as turn lanes, in order to meet the
safety requirements.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Ms. Ann Cross, a guidance counselor at James Wood Middle School and an area resident,
came forward to address the issue of schools. Ms. Cross spoke about the overcrowding that is currently taking
place at James Wood Middle School. She was concerned about how many middle school students would be
generated by the proposed development.
Ms. Barbara Midkiff, a resident along Westwood Drive, inquired what a "temporary" cul-de-
sac was and why the applicant had proposed one next to Westwood Drive. Ms. Midkiff said she has been
doing considerable research of County records, but has failed to determine when the adjoining Swisher property
was zoned residential. She said the residents of Westwood Drive were still in opposition to the Casey rezoning
because it would disturb their way of life.
Ms. Brenda Dodd, a resident along Westwood Drive, spoke about the traffic congestion she
experiences in this area. She was concerned about the additional traffic from the proposed subdivision, plus
the impact of bus traffic from a proposed new middle school, mixing in with the existing traffic congestion. She
did not believe it was a workable situation.
Mr. Bob Van, an adjoining property owner, also was concerned about the possibility ofadding
to the existing traffic congestion problems. He described the area along Rt. 522, in the vicinity of the proposed
subdivision's entrance, Joe's Ocean Cove, and his driveway as being dangerous. Mr. Van said that everyone
also has to contend with tractor -trailer traffic. Mr. Van believed an entrance/exit on Papermill Road (Rt. 644)
was the way to go. Mr. Van also believed it was bad timing for this subdivision because it put extra burden
on the taxpayers and the water supply. He believed the whole plan was not a good one.
Mr. Michael Brooks, a resident along Westwood Drive, reminded the Commission about the
petition that was submitted at the last meeting with over 260 signatures of persons who were in opposition to
the proposed subdivision. Mr. Brooks said the traffic in this area was really getting bad.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 6, 2002 Page 959
-8 -
Mr. John Wineberg, the Regional Director of Construction and Development for Shenandoah
Memorial Park, asked for additional details on the buffer, including the fence, and landscaping, and how it was
going to be maintained.
Ms. Barbara Midkiff returned to the podium to ask who is responsible for the monetary
difference between what the applicant will pay per lot and the amount designated by the capital facilities impact
model.
Mr. Wyatt returned to the podium to address the concerns of the citizens who spoke.
Regarding the number of middle school-age children, Mr. Wyatt calculated .14 middle school students per
dwelling; he projected the total number of middle school-age children at build out to be ten. Regarding the
temporary cul-de-sac, Mr. Wyatt stated its purpose would be for VDOT's equipment and school buses to be
able to turn -around. In addition, he said that if the Swisher property develops, the cul-de-sac would be
extended through to Westwood Drive. Regarding the initial zoning of the property, Mr. Wyatt said that historic
zoning maps for Frederick County show a portion of the Swisher property as being zoned R1; he noted that
in 1983, the RIP Zoning classification_ replaced the R1, _R2, R3, and R6 Zones. He als_Qnoted that _according
to the Frederick County Code, the official zoning map is maintained by the Planning Department. Regarding
traffic, Mr. Wyatt believed that what they've provided is the appropriate transportation design, not only for
the internal workings of the property, but for the regional transportation system as well. Regarding the water
situation, Mr. Wyatt stated that continents from the Sanitation Authority indicates there is adequate source,
treatment, capacity, and transmission. In conclusion, he stated that the proffers are consistent with the
applications submitted up to July 1, 2002.
Commissioner Morris said that both of his concerns, appeasing the residents along Westwood
Drive and an emergency access point, have been addressed by the revisions. Commissioner Morris then moved
for approval. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas.
Although the majority of Commissioners believed the outstanding issues had been satisfactorily
addressed, some Commissioners still had issues with the timing of the proposal and its possible contribution
to the overcrowding of schools, increased property taxes, drainage problems on Westwood Drive, water
pressure problems, and concerns for available water capacity to serve the proposed development. Also
mentioned was the existing traffic congestion problems at Routes 50, 522, and I-81; it was noted that VDOT's
projected time table for correction of the problem was four -to -five years. In addition, it was mentioned that
VDOT's design capacities on Rt. 522 have already been exceeded to the Year 2010.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
Rezoning Application 407-02 of Doris F. Casey, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 30.31 acres
from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers, by the following majority vote:
YES (TO THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL): Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt,
DeHaven
NO: Rosenberry, Fisher, Gochenour, Straub
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 6, 2002 Page 960
M
DISCUSSION ITEMS
DISCUSSION ON RUSSELL FARM SWSA/UDA EXPANSION REQUEST. THIS PROPERTY IS
LOCATED EAST OF FRONT ROYAL PIKE (RT. 522 SO.) NEAR ITS INTERSECTION WITH
PAPERMILL ROAD (RT. 644).
Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence stated that the Planning Staff has received a request from
Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering fthe Planning Commission to consider incorporating the entire
Russell Farm within the Sewer and Water Se ice Area (SWSA) and a small portion of the farm into the Urban
Development Area (UDA). Director Lawrence said that approximately 149 acres of the 277 -acre farm is
presently within the SWSA; the request would include an addition of 128 acres to the SWSA. He said the
request would also include the addition of less than six acres to the UDA. He said the School. Board has—been
considering this property for a future middle school site and this is the catalyst behind the request.
Planning Director Lawrence stated that the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee
(CPPS) reviewed this request, not in terms of whether it was appropriate for a middle school site, but whether
or not it was appropriate to expand the SWSA at this location. He said the CPPS concluded that the request
was appropriate.
Director Lawrence further stated that the Russell Farm does not have direct access onto a state
road and the applicant has proposed to take a collector road system along the southern edge of the adjacent
MH1 property (Shenandoah Mobile Home Park) to provide access to the school site and the Russell properties
overall. He said the owner of the mobile home park has indicated the road would displace 15 mobile home
units, therefore, it is his intent to relocate the 15 units to an expanded portion of the mobile home park; the
UDA expansion is being sought in an effort to accommodate an MH1 rezoning petition that would ultimately
be filed with the County.
Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering came forward to speak, representing the application
as a part-owner of the Russell Farm and owner of the mobile home park. Mr. Smith pointed out on a map
where the sewer and water line would probably have to be run. He also stated that he wanted to move the 15
mobile home units in order to create an 80' right-of-way and an 80' buffer along the road that screens the
mobile home park. In response to a Commission member's question as to why the proposed school site was
so far away from the access, Mr. Smith replied that it was because of the topography; he said that two ravines
are in the area adjacent to the access.
The Planning Commission concurred with the CPPS' concern that the potential use ofthe site
for a middle school should not be part of the consideration as to whether or not to expand the SWSA boundary.
The Commission did feel that the request to expand the SWSA to include the entire farm in the service area
may be in good planning practice, and consistent with the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. The Commission
did caution that expansion of the SWSA may result in industrial rezoning applications and/or homes developed
on RA zoned property with public water and sewer. The potential use of the property, whether for residential
or non-residential use, would increase the water demands on the county's services.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 6, 2002 Page 961
-10 -
The Commission recognized the necessity to implement the planned road network identified
by various county documents. Therefore, the Commission was supportive in concept to the proposal to relocate
existing mobile homes that would be impacted by the planned collector road. The UDA could be expanded to
accommodate the relocation of the displaced mobile home units.
The Commission did suggest that if the driving force behind the SWSA expansion was to
accommodate a school site on public water and sewer, it might be appropriate for the County to grant privileges
only to enable the school site rights to the public water and sewer. Granting the rights to the school site may
not necessitate a SWSA expansion.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comnnent, however, no one came forward to speak.
Chairman DeHaven announced that this request would go to the Board of Supervisors for discussion at their
November 13, 2002 meeting.
OTHER
REOUEST FOR INFORMATION
Commissioner Thomas stated that, frequently,when the Commission reviews applications for
residential development, there is discussion on the impact to schools. Commissioner Thomas said he was not
necessarily convinced that the number of homes built had a direct relationship to an increase in the number of
students attending school. He asked if it would be possible for the staff to research, for example, the last 20
years, to arrive at statistics that would link population growth to the number of building permits issued for
residential housing to the number of students in schools. He said that a growth line for the number of
residential housing permits, the County population, and the population of students in school would be helpful.
Director Lawrence said the School Board may already have that information available and he
would look into it. Commissioner Thomas said that homes constructed in rural areas on five -acre lots do not
pay any dollar amounts as proffers; he said that 50% of the County's development takes place in these areas.
Commissioner Light believed it would be good to have a representative of the School Board
attend Planning Commission meetings when rezoning requests were discussed. He believed the detailed
information that was needed should come from the School Board.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 6, 2002 Page 962
ADJOURNMENT
unanimous vote.
-11 -
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. by a
Respectfully submitted,
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Charles S. Deflaven _Jr.,_Chairman
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of Novembcr 6, 2002 Page 963
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #15-02
Cynthia Lou Foglia
Staff Report for Planning Commission Discussion
Prepared: November 21, 2002
Staff Contact: Rebecca Ragsdale
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this
request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 12/04/02 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 01/08/03 Pending
LOCATION: This property is located at 211 Bryarly Road.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 42-A-134
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District;
Land Use: Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District;
Land Use: Residential and Agricultural
PROPOSED USE: "Pet Watchers" Animal Training Kennel
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The application for a conditional use permit for this
property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 789, the VDOT facility which
would provide access to the property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use.
However, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to
VDOT minimum standards.
Inspections Department: No comment required provided structures are not used.
CUP # 15-02, Cynthia L. Foglia ("Pet Watchers")
Page 2
November 21, 2002
Fire Marshal: Portable fire extinguishers and smoke detectors. No significant impact with
proposed usage of Fire Service. Plan approval is recommended.
Health Department: Talk to Dwight Sours, DEQ (540)-8928-2595, about kennel waste.
DEQ requires a permit if more than so many units. [*Note from applicant: There are no
units.] Sketch attached does not show drainfield location. Th Health Dept. has no
objections if clients are dropping off dogs and leaving. If clien s are staying around,
drainfield may need to be expanded.
Planning and Zoning: Dog kennels are a permitted use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning
District with an approved conditional- use permit -,(CUP). A --kennel is defined by -the -Zoning ----
Ordinance as a place prepared to house, board, breed, handle or otherwise keep or care for
dogs for sale or in return for compensation.
The applicant is proposing a kennel from her home located on 0.6 acres in the County. The
applicant is proposing to offer both dog training and pet watching services. The applicant is
proposing to conduct daytime dog training classes with a maximum class size of seven dogs
with their owners and week-long overnight training sessions with one dog at a time. The
applicant is also proposing pet -watching services that would involve boarding one additional
dog. There would be no more than two client dogs (total) boarded at one time. The applicant
currently owns six dogs that live on the property. The applicant has indicated that no dogs
would be left outdoors overnight and that dog training provided will focus on house manners.
There would be no employees associated with this business. There were no disapproving
agency review comments. There are adjoining residences located less than 100 feet from the
proposed kennel. Staff feels that the proposed use could potentially affect adjoining
properties based on the proximity to adjoining residences.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 12-04-02 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Should the Planning Commission determine that this request is appropriate, staff would suggest the
following conditions:
All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times.
2. No more than (2) two client dogs shall be boarded at this facility at any given time.
3. No more than (15) fifteen dogs, including those owned by the applicant, shall be allowed on
the property at any given time.
CUP # 15-02, Cynthia L. Foglia ("Pet Watchers")
Page 3
November 21, 2002
4. All dogs kept at the kennel must be controlled so as not to be a nuisance to any adjoining
property by barking or roaming free. All dogs must be placed inside a completely enclosed
building by 9:00 p.m.
5. All requirements of the Frederick County Code and the Code of Virginia pertaining to dog
kennels shall be complied with at all times.
6. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupatio sign requirements and
should not exceed four (4) square feet in size.
7. Any expansion or modification shall require approval of a new Conditional Use Permit.
0:4Agendas\COMMS-NTS\CUP's\2002%Cynthia Lou Foglia.wpd
42 A 132A
HARTMAN
RA
42 A 132
PEARCE
42 A 134
RA FOGLIA
RA
42 A 136
WHITACRE
RA
42 3 5
MCDANIEL
RA
42 3 6
CROSEN
RA
42 3 7
LINABURG
RA
42 A 239
MILLER
RA
xeui'
f
N Nf fttEOERtCN i
MVENNER TR
j
CUP #15-02
Location Map:
Cynthia Lou Foglia
PIN:
42-A-134
N
WH
S
0 50 100 Fee(
Nov. 6, 2002
1. Appii
NAME:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE
Submittal Deadline
P/C Meeting
BOS Meeting
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
(The applicant if the V owner
('ht %?lq � Q
other)
2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of
the property: , n
3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and
include the route number of your road or street)
e�/l ) kll'�'4 led/ 1vm
4. The property has a road frontage of li feet and a
depth of��`, .� feet and consists of acres.
(Please be exact)
� �r
5. The property is owned b 0 �/' f� Ta /✓ Gi as
evidenced by deed fro r' /\ recorded
4 . ( revious owner)
in deed book no. Cron page , � as recorded in the
records of the Clerk of the Circuit Cour County of
Frederick. �,�►4� Ile
�^,����►�
6. 14 -Digit Property Identif kation N ! r " d a % T
Magisterial District
Current Zoning
7. Adjoining Property:
SE ZONING
North Aa ^ la qS e KA
East --
South /` rRA
Wests' f r9c`'A
'03
71,
8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept.
before completing)
9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be
constructed: �7
i
10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or
corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear
and in front of (across sL-reet from) the property where the
requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if
necessary.) These people will be notified by mail o is-
application:
11Wh(Ir A
I NAME
PROPERTY ID# 4 - T I " 2"_
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
^ NAME
-12
1A fA Gi.
i
PROPERTY ID# -� -� ; / _-
NAME
PROPERTY
S NAME
PROPERTY
17
NAME
PROPERTY
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
PROPERTY ID# IJ -
ADDRESS 17���
ADDRESS
ADDRESS ��! /moi ,l/AG
ADDRESS r�6)0 �`lG� 1 Y
ADDRESS
ADDRESS 0 co
ADDRESS �l���CX�j
ADDRESS
11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show
proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including
measurements to all property lines.
,j /�/
/y ! , C
4�RU
r�o�' k
str'ee t'
blov'se
,Z&
12. Additional comments, if any: /(,Z
f
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make applications
and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to
allow the use described in this application. I understand that, the
sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed
at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the
first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after
the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a
Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick
County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and
Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed
use will be conducted.
e
Signature of Applicant
Signature of Owner
C v
Owners' Mailing Address
Owners' Telephone No.
TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
•
J
•
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION #16-02
SHARED TOWERS, INC./WHITE TAIL LANE TOWER
(Revision of CUP #22-01)
Staff Report for the Planning Commission Fleeting
Prepared: November 15, 2002
Staff contact: Eric R. Lawrence, Director
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this
application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter.
Reviewed Action
Planning Coininission: 12/04/02 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 01/08/03 Pending
LOCA�:ION:- This property is located on White Tail Lane offof%forth Frederick Pike (Route522). —
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 19-A-27
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District;
Land Use: Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District;
Land Use: Residential and Agricultural
PROPOSED USE: 195 -foot -high lattice -type commercial telecommunications facility.
Planning and Zoning:
This application is a request to revise a condition previously placed on Conditional Use Permit #22-01.
The condition stated that:
"5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (12) months of the
approval of this Conditional Use Permit, then the CUP will be deemd invalid."
Conditional Use Permit #22-01 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 23, 2002.
Therefore, Condition #5 requires that the tower be erected by January 23, 2003. The applicant does
not believe that the tower will be erected by the anniversary date of the CUP approval, and has requested
that this condition be revised to allow for an additional 12 months.
CUP #12-02 - Shared Towers, Inc./White Tail Lane Tower
Page 2
November 13, 2002
Background
In late 2001, the applicant ("Shared Towers, Inc.") submitted four (4) Conditional Use Permit
applications for telecommunication towers to be constructed along the Route 522 North corridor.
Shortly after Shared Towers, Inc. submitted the CUP applications, another applicant (SBA
Properties/Triton PCS) submitted three (3) CUP requests for competing sites along the corridor. Both
applicants provided documentation illustrating that the existing telecommunication network along the
Route 522 North corridor was inadequate, and that additional towers were warranted.
The Board of Supervisors ultimately granted the CUP tower requests to Shared Towers, Inc. following
extensive discussions with both Shared Towers, Inc. and SBA Properties/Triton PCS. A condition was
-lazed -on-the-approvedi ed—Shared—To-vers-,- c- request& -M- ing-thattth�e—towers were t e construe etc -
within a 12 -month period. It was believed that if the tower was not constructed, this condition would
enable the County to reevaluate the applicant's proposal, as well as the applications submitted by SBA
Properties/Triton PCS.
At the request of SBA Properties/Triton PCS, Board action on their three (3) Conditional Use Permit
applications had been deferred. These three applications were withdrawn by the applicant on October
29, 2002.
Site Plan
One condition placed on the approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP #22-01) was that a site plan be
submitted and approved by the County. This site plan illustrates the tower's location on the property,
setbacks, screening, and access. The site plan associated with CUP #22-01 for the White Tail Lane
Tower was approved on May 14, 2002. Approval of the site plan enabled the construction of a 195 -foot
lattice telecommunications tower.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 12-04-02 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Staff believes that this application for a Commercial Telecommunication Facility has adequately
addressed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in that need for this facility, based on a lack of
coverage and capacity in this part of the County, has been demonstrated. Should the Planning
Commission choose to recommend approval of this application, essentially granting the applicant an
extension of 12 months to construct the tower, the following conditions of approval would be
appropriate:
1. All Zoning Ordinance requirements and review agency comments shall be addressed and
complied with at all times.
2. The tower shall be available for co -locating personal wireless services providers.
CUP # 12-02 - Shared Towers, Inc./White Tail Lane Tower
Page 3
November 13, 2002
3. A nninor site plan shall be approved by the County.
4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within twelve (12)
months of abandonment of operation.
5. In the event a telecommunications tower' is not erected within twelve (12) months of the
approval of this Conditional Use Permi , then the CUP will be deemed invalid.
0:\P.gendas\COMMENTS\CUP's\2002\White Tail Ln time ext.wpd
� 5
5
WINCHESTER -FREDERICK COUNTY
CONSERVATION CLUB. INC
19 A 49
-
✓•,98�
�ry.F
F'
.GOQ
�Q.
.:..::..:....
Ty�O.mQ
�20
Zm
ra.� n
,f9 A
X,
- 19 e 2
SHANE
19 A 27
19 2 1
CHILD$
Cis 9
MCDONALO
19®29
® EATON
I9®51
CUP# 16 - 02
WINCHES ER -FR D COUNTY
H
CONS ERVAT"N CLU
CLUB, INC
19 A 27
®
Location Map:
White Tail Ln
-
WINCHESTER -FREDERICK
COUNTY
Tower
CONSERVATION CLUB, WC
19 A 52E
®
w
PIN:
522
19-A-27
-fff-
NAL WIN CHESERVATMCLUKCOUNTY
A 27A CONSERVATKNICLUB, INC
N
W ;' H
29A]TB0
419
300 600 FeetRHODES 4—
A 21
(pl
Nov 20, 2002
CUP #16-02 - WHITE TAIL LANE TOWER
Submittal Deadline Z11-6112,
P/C Meeting 12-04-02
BOS Meeting 01-08-03
-- -- -- — APPL--I£AT14DN-FOR-C- ONDMONAL-USE, PERMIT-------
FREDERICK
ERMITFREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
1. Applicant (The applicant if the ❑ owner X other)
NAME: Greenway Engaineering
ADDRESS: 1S1 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
TELEPHONE 540-662-4185
2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property:
Winchester -Frederick County Conservation Club, Inc.
3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of our road
or street)
White Tail Lane off of North Frederick Pike
4. The property has a road frontage of 1300.4 feet and a depth of 3750 feet and consists of 138.19
acres. (Please be exact)
5. The property is owned by Winchester -Frederick County Conservation Club Inc as evidenced by
deed from Betty S. Lockwood (previous owner) recorded as Instrument Number 020011507, as
recorded in the records of the clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick.
6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. 19-A-27
Magisterial District Gainesboro
Current Zoning RA
7. Adjoining Property:
USE ZONING
North Agriculture, Single Family RA
East Agriculture RA
South Agriculture RA
West Agriculture RA
8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dr. before completing)
Unmanned Commercial telecommunications facilities
9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: 195' tall lattice tower structure
rnsiR 100' -x100' leased area for ground equipmentlshelters to be placed on concrete pads. All
equipment and lattice will be secured b a fence.
10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both
sides and rear and in from of (across the street) the property where the requested use will be
conducted. (Continue on next page if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this
application:
NAME Kenneth Allen Childs,Jr ADDRESS 32668 Mount Weather
PROPERTY ID# 19-3-1 Rd Bluemont, VA
20135
NAME Samuel F. Shane ADDRESS 100 Sunset Drive
PROPERTY ID# 19-3-2 Winchester VA 22602
NAME Robert Sproal, Jr ADDRESS 4804 Melwood Rd
PROPERTY ID# 19-A-26 Upper Marlboro, MD
20772
NAME David & Tina Marie ADDRESS 1029 Allen Drive
PROPERTY ID# Mohn Winchester, VA 22601
19-3-4
NAME Shelby J. Go_chenour ADDRESS 6917 Haycock Road
PROPERTY ID# 19-3-6,8 Falls Church, VA 22043
NAME Weldon H. Smith & ADDRESS 197 Moose Road
PROPERTY ID# Tracy Rosenberger Berryville, VA 22611
19-3-9
NAME Winchester -Frederick
PROPERTY ID# County Conservation
Club
19-A-49, 52E
NAME Elwood W. Eaton
PROPERTY ID# 19-A-51
NAME Kenneth & Nelda
PROPERTY ID#
Gentry
19-A-37
NAME
Nancy Rhodes
PROPERTY ID.!
19-A-24
NAME
Kim & Jacqueline Nail
PROPERTY ID#
19 -A -27A
NAME
Winchester -Frederick
PROPERTY ID#
County Conservation
ADDRESS
Club c/o George
19-A-50
ADDRESS 1118 Martinsburg Pike
Winchester, VA 22603
ADDRESS
4736.N. Frederick Pike
Winchester, VA 22603
ADDRESS
2007 Collinsville Road
Cross Junction, VA
22625
ADDRESS
252 White Tail Lane
Winchester, VA 22603
ADDRESS
307 White Tail Lane
Winchester, VA 22603
ADDRESS
1435 Greystone Terrace
Winchester VA 22601
12. Additional comments, if any: -,__
SII
If (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of
Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued
to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days
prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors'
public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick
County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect
your property where the proposed use will be conducted.
Signature of Applicant ,C. U
Signature of Owner
President of Winchester-7redericK County Conservdt C1ub,Inc.
Owner's Mailing Address 1118 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603
Owner's Telephone No. 540-888-7913, 540-667-3082 (Dave Fahnestock)
TO BE COMPLETED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
EG
K;, 151 Windy I fill Lane
a.,
r„'...y!` Winchcster, Virginia 22601
November 8, 2002
Frederick County
Department of Planning and Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Attn: Eri� R. Lawrence, Planning Director
Re: Shared Towers Revised CUP —North Gainesboro (White "fail Lane) Tower
Dear Mr. Lawrence:
As you know, Shared Towers, Inc. has submitted a new conditional use permit application to request an
extension of time for the construction of a 195 -foot lattice telecommunication tower on parcel 19-A-27
owned by the Winchester -Frederick County Conservation Club, Inc. The condition for construction of this
tower expires on January 23, 2003; therefore, it is requested that the revised conditional use permit
application is included as an agenda item during the December 4, 2002 Planning Commission meeting and
the January 8, 2003 Board of Supervisors meeting.
Thank you for your assistance regarding this matter
Sincerely,
Greenway Engineering
Evan A. Iyatt, AICP
Cc: Kamal Doshi
RECEIVED
NOV 0 9 2002
FREDERICK COUNTY
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
I:nginzers sunkyors
le1cphone i4(1-662-41.85 I AX '40-722-9528
File #3295/EAW ����w. reemvayeng.<om
Shared Towers. Inc.
6501 Sandy Knoll Court
McLean, VA 22101
Thursdav, October 10, 2002
Mr. Eric P. Lawrence
Director. Planning and Development
County of Frederick
107 North Kent Street
Winchester. VA 22601
Dear Mr. Lawrence:
CUP # 22-01 for the White Tail Lane Telecommunications FacilitN
We are in need for an extension in the time allowed to complete construction of the telecommunication facility.
Until now_ I have made diligent efforts to attract the users of facility to make a commitment to the facility. In each
case, the response I am getting is that due to slowdown in telecommunications industry (as a result of financial
market conditions all are limiting their expenditures to improving existing services and cutting back on new
coverage areas) -tom are u bte�a comma o sp iine m it en tTiey wou urst�l-treir systems on the
proposed towers. They are also saying that ultimately they will cover Route 522 in Frederick County. it is a matter
of finding resources.
We have in the meantime, taken all the steps necessary (site plan approval. specifications ready.. bids obtained. etc)
to build promptly upon positive response from users.
We continue to spend money in good faith to bring telecommunications facilities to this section of the county. I
have obtained the building, permit, issued construction contract and purchase order for the tower steel for the tower
nearest to Winchester (Hunting Ridge). That tower should be constructed soon.
Since, the county requires empty towers to be taken down.. and for economic reasons, it is not prudent to build
towers and have them sit empty. At the same time, all indications are that these towers are needed and wireless
companies will install their services on them.
Hence.. I request processing of an application to extend the time granted by this CIP for a period of twelve months.
Sincerelv.
Kamal Doshi
President
OCT -11-2002 08:47
AM Shared
T^wers 7036282654 1 253 427 3800
P-02
10/11/2002 X9:16
5409843085
SHENANDOAH PCS
PAW 81/81
A.- WSHENTEL
iNNAIMOAH Ti�l,l:Col4lfiigUNFCnons
Mr. Kamal Doshi
Stared Towers, LLC
6301 Sandy Knoll Court
McLain, VA 22101
Re: Shared Towers Sitm - Route 522
Frederick County, Virginia
Dear Kamal:
PD, BmK 464 • Edribuq VNInla 22s244a0 a C=90"141
October 9, 2002
Sbenandoah Personal Communications Company (Shentel) coubinues to be intermetod its possibly
leasing space on the fs.cilities you aro developing along State Route 522 ljox'',h from Wirtche>rtet,
tbroagh Frederlek County, toward Berkeley Springs, West Virginia. ,Ax previously stated, this
interest is conditioned on the formal approval of Sheratel's Board for finds to expand into this
area, and the aft=turoe being emoted at aheight Suf£ciemt to allow 5hental to cae®ts its covers09
objectives. We are unable at this time to predict oux exact timetable fax the developmeet of Ws
area, but we would encourage you to obtain mi4cipal approval to Wend the permits for the
coastruction of these sites for as long a time period as povdblc, at the least jjntil tuna 20014.
bo not hesitate to contact me if you have any questiotw.
Sincerely yours,
Leonard L. Greiaz
LLG/tab Prodect Manager
ee:
Mr. William L. Pirtle
Mr. Neuf Fadely
9HE.NANDOA14 TELEp4oNe COMPANY CHENTEL SERVICE COMPANY • SHENANDOAH CABLE TELFVIgION CpMppNy
$M( NANCCu1hl LDNG DISTANCE COMPANY • Swi@NANdA4Fi'✓AILPY lEIwdVG COMPANY I BHENANDOAM MOBILE COINPANY
BHENANDOAN NUM49 COMPANY • SNFNnL CCMMUNICATIONI COM"
WE MUST 9ERV6 WILL TO PROSPER 4 WE MUST PROOPirIR To URVE WELL
OMN IP OI NT COM.r\IUN ICATI O N S CAP OPERATIONS, LLC
'le
iF.g 9 -Mob-A
November 6, 2002
Kamal Doshi, President
Shared Towers, Inc.
6501 Sandy Knoll Ct
McLean, VA 22101 Via Fax 1-253-423-3800
RE: Proposed Shared Towers Structures/ Tower Interest Acknowledgement
Site Address: White Tail Lane, North Frederick Pike, Winchester; VA
Latitude: 39-17-57 N
Longitude: 78-16-18 W
Structure Type: _.- - Tower -
Structure Height.- 195'
Site Address:
301 N. Frederick Pike, Cross Junction, VA
Latitude:
39-19-102N
Longitude:
78-17-37.7W
Structure Type:
Tower
Structure Height:
260'
Site Address:
8926 N. Frederick Pike, Cross Junction, VA
Latitude:
39-22-28.5N
Longitude:
78-17-39.7W
Structure Type:
Tower
Structure Height:
195'
To Whom It May Concern:
Omnipoint Communications CAP Operations, L.L.C., a subsidiary of T -Mobile U.S.A., Inc, f.k.a.
VoiceStream Wireless Corp. has performed a preliminary review of the sites listed above and find
that while we are not prepared to locate facilities at the locations listed above immediately, these
sites would likely meet future network objectives and integrate with other projected facilities
If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 240-264-8609.
Regards,
Bonnie Staves
Site Acquisition Supervisor
Baltimore/Washington DC
Omnipoint Communications CAP Operations, LLC
Bonnie. Staves2@voicestream.com
240-264-8609 fax 240-264-8610
REZONING APPLICATION x#18-02
KERNSTOWN UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting
Prepared: November 19, 2002
Staff contact: Abbe S. Kennedy, 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 making a decision on this
application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter.
i
RPVIPWd-d
Planning Commission: 12/04/02
Board of Supervisors: 01/08/03
Action
Pending
-----Pending-
PROPOSAL:
— Pending -
PROPOSAL: To rezone 1.621 acres from M2 (Industrial General) to B2 (Business General).
LOCATiiON: This property is located at 3239 Valley Pike.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 63-A-96, 63 -A -107A
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: M2 (Industrial General)
Present Use: Church
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North: Zoned B2 (Business General) District
South: Zoned M2 ( Industrial General) District
East: Zoned M2 ( Industrial General) District
Use: Commercial (Insurance Office)
Use: Industrial (Truck Terminal)
Use: Industrial (Truck Terminal)
West: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District Use: Residential
PROPOSED USE: Church
REZ #08-02, Kernstown United Methodist Church
Page 2
November 21, 2002
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No Comment.
Fire Marshal: The proposed rezoning of this parcel does not affect Fire and Rescue responses or
impact the services already in place.
County Engineer: We have no comments.
_Sanitation. Author>i : ND-Com_umeDt. _ .--
Health Department: The Health Department has no objection to the request.
Planning & Zoning:
1) Site History
The original Frederick County zoning map (USGS Winchester Quadrangle) shows the subje,
parcels in the M2 (Industrial General) District. The church, which was founded on this site in
1836, has operated from this location for more than 165 years. The sanctuary was rebuilt in
1978. No rezonings have occurred on the site. Parcel 63-A-96 is currently zoned M2 (Industrial
General) and the existing church is a legally nonconforming use. Parcel 63 -A -107A is also zoned
M2.
2) Location
The property is located on the east side of Valley Pike (Route 11) approximately 1,000' south of
Shawnee Drive (Rt. 652).
3) Comprehensive Policy Plan
The proposed B2 rezoning is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA). The request
for the church to down -zone from M2 to B2 is consistent with the goals of the Frederick County
Comprehensive Policy plan. The intent of the B2 request is to legitimize this longstanding use
as an integral part of the Route 11 business corridor in the Kernstown community. Churches are
not permitted in the M2 Zoning District but are permitted in the B2 Zoning District.
4) Site Suitability
The site is characterized by the church building, parking areas, landscaping and lawn. There are
no steep slopes or wetlands on the site. The site remains suitable for this use.
5) Intended Use
Continued use as a church.
REZ #08-02, Kernstown United Methodist Church
Page 3
November 21, 2002
6.) Potential Impacts
This is a down -zoning request to make the church site legally conforming, as churches are
permitted in the B2 district. There is no change to the impact on county services associated with
this rezoning request. There are no review agency comments objecting to this request.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 12/04/02 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN
The proposed rezoning is a request to down -zone from M2 (Industrial General) District to the B2
(Business General) District in order to alleviate the legally nonconforming status of the. existing church
use. A church is not permitted under any circumstance in the M2 District but is permitted by right in the
B2 District. As a legal nonconformity, the church is subject to limitations regarding its expansion on the
site. The proposed rezoning of the property would allow the church to operate without restriction
concerning possible future modifications or expansions which would be permitted by the requirements
of the B2 District. The subject property is located within the Urban Development Area, and the request
conforms with the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
O Agendas\COMMENTS\REZONING\Staff Report\2002\Kemstown UMC.wpd
63 A 33
STINE
I �
63 A 34
I
CARTER
63 A 31
63 A 35
STINE
Rp
63 A 32
63 A 36
STINE
RP
63 A 33
STINE
I �
63 A 34
I
CARTER
R�
63 A 35
ROY
�a
l J
63 A 36
i I
MINOR
RP
REZ##12-02
----Location Map:
Kernstown
United Methodist
Church
PIN:
63 - A - 96; 107
/ N
We 1
S ll
0 60 120 Feet
Nov. W 2002
RP -Zoning
I �
�
I
I
i I
i
REZ##12-02
----Location Map:
Kernstown
United Methodist
Church
PIN:
63 - A - 96; 107
/ N
We 1
S ll
0 60 120 Feet
Nov. W 2002
RP -Zoning
REZONING APPLICATION FORM
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
The following information shall be provided by the applicant: i
All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of
the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester.
-1. Applicant:. _ — — - - ---
Name:; n � � n t� zile t X f � �� /Telephone: 7 — 7,z `I €'
Address: .5 a 3 lc Z t f
["C , 1, 116 1 11_S - t C4 % C'. :7-
2. Property Owner (if differ nt than above)
Name:
Address:
3. Contact person if other than above
Telephone:
Name: /J-1 b, �%��C%<, _S Telephone :(c�� (� - / / � F"i
-12Z - 4S,2---5
4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application.
Location map
Plat
Deed to property t/
Verification of taxes paid ; ilA
11
Agency Comments
Fees
Impact Analysis Statement A/A
Proffer Statement 4A
RFCEIVED
F
PLAN
'fin?
S. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to
rezoning applications.
Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned:
<-,
-Cc
6. A) Current Use of the Property: CS
B) Proposed Use of the Property: 0 -C'- 4-
7. Adjoining Property:
PARCEL IB NUMBER
��— A —
t7
-ra-3;
'3
S - A -
%S �i''�
3 -- A
-7
USE
:EhISs
<
UC VP OTC
✓ClesI Ck ,,,C e
ZONING
•- -
OCA
f1/
2-
8.
8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance
from nearest/intersection, using road names and route/number/s'):
c/ f �� ��c s 5 r c✓� r il�� f i/�" �'
12
Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model
In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the
applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the
planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning
District as described on Page 9 of the application package.
9. Parcel Identification/]Location: Parcel Identification Number & 3 — A - `i -
Magisterial: _
Fire Service:
Rescue Service:
SHAWNEE
Districts
High School:
Middle School:
Elementary School:
10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested.
j.&-?"(,
1K
Acres Current Zoning
Requested
_Zoning
Total acreage to be rezoned
11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning
proposed :
Number of Units Proposed
Single Family homes:Townhome: Multi -Family:
Non -Residential Lots: C1' Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms:
Square Footage of Pro sed 11ses
Office:
Retail:
Restaurant:
13
Service Station:
Manufacturing:
Warehouse:
Other: '
Adjoining Property Owners
Rezoning
Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board
of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is a. -ay property
abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public
right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The
applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the
parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of
Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County
Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. �
15
12. Signature:
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick
County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map
of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the
property for site inspection purposes.
I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at
the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing
and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the
road right-of-way until the hearing.
I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and
accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge.
�j�
Applicant(s): /,�s cin dA,k) /' i�u ZI 6/,4v Date: Ac ;-' 1
Owner(s): -� 14�.� .
L.C4 i
k��J'1 S•��cl� 0'-
b l/ zcd,--
_
14
Date:
Date: lq-u 9. dv�
Date:
lac - 22 - AJO Z
2 f Z�
,;2,;z 1 ;)`& 7421 4
—
s2.
S33'37'00"W
23.76'
N56'41'26"W
23.18'
STEFHENS��ITy VIRGINIA
Revived:2-15AXPicnic Shelter Added)
_ U S. ROUTE
V ALLE 1 1
Y P lKE ; —
_ 1---- -
— — —
E 337.04 ,
S22'37'00" yy ,7 �
92.23' o
^ N46 34'21"E
44.00' 25.37'
t
v-
� � M
1.621 ACRES o
O
O i
No 10.10' ISI.
Z a ^� i
68.16' Cx
N Existing Church Building .
N 23.74' i
86.14'
S33.37'00" W °rki 9°sed 9'
23.76' Ek As <or oo — o p - Mz, r° 82..
A o ti� a
N56'41'26"W A PAT SHOWING
23.18' 1 o p" o� / OF A PROPOSED PARKING LOT
°11;,. Sed �� KERNSTOWN UNITED
78..
S32•S>� so.00 e/few 3.6T � METHODIST
E 6CHURCH
BACK CREEK DISTRICT
7s8, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
`
SCALE: 1"=50' FEBRUARY 2, 199Q
RITCHIE SURVEYS
STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA
Revised:2-16-9 (Picnic Shelter Added)
J
•
•
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMv iclilvTD UNI
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner4�
Subject: No Through Truck Traffic Policy C�
Date: November 18, 2002
Staff has received several requests to prohibit through truck traffic on various roads within the county.
The Transportation Committee met on November 5, 2002, to consider the following through truck
restrictions in response to citizen concerns regarding the opening of Warrior Drive, and concerns of
Stonewall District citizens regarding truck traffic en route to Stonewall Industrial Park and en route to
Route 7 East.
1.) Warrior Drive (Route 719) between Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and Tasker Road (Route 642).
2.) Rest Church Road (Route 669) from the Flying J Travel Plaza to Welltown Road (Route 66 1)
en route to the Stonewall Industrial Park, ending at McGhee Road.
3.) Old Charles Town Road (Route 76 1) from Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) to Jordan Springs Road
(Route 664) to Woods Mill Road (Route 660) to Route 7, and from Jordan Springs Road (Route
664Lfrom Woods Mill Road (Route 660)to Burnt Factory (Route 654) to Route 7.
Several steps have to occur before a road is posted for "No Through Truck Traffic." The first step
involves the adoption of a resolution by the Board of Supervisors through a public hearing process
requesting the implementation of these actions. Following the adopt Lon of the resolutions, the VDOT
Resident Engineer will program a detailed study of the road segments o determine if qualifying criteria
warrants prohibiting through trucks. The findings of this study are then presented to the Commonwealth
Transportation Board who approve or deny the request.
The Transportation Committee strongly recommended approval of the policy and directed staff to
address these concerns during presentations to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
Attached are maps depicting the proposed road segments identified for through truck restrictions. Staff
asks that the Planning Commission forward their recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
Please find attached the Guidelines for Considering Request for Restricting Through Trucks on
Secondary Highways adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Frederick County Planning Commission
No Through Truck Traffic Discussion
Page 2
November 21, 2002
Iters #1
Consideration to Restrict Through Trucks on Warrior Drive (Route 719)
from Fairfax Pike (Route 277) to Tasker Road (Route 642)
A request has been made to prohibit through truck traffic on Warrior Drive (Route 719) between Fairfax
Pike (Route 277) and Tasker Road (Route 642). Please find attached a map identifying existing truck
traffic and the proposed alternative route.
In order to prohibit through trucks on secondary roads, a reasonable alternative route must be available.
Staff has reviewed this request and analyzed alternative routes in response to citizen concerns, and is
hoping to have through truck restrictions in place for this segment of Warrior Drive. Alternate routes
exist for truck traffic via the north -south corridors of Interstate 81 and Route 522, which do provide
access to the commercial and industrial uses on both Tasker Road and Fairfax Pike. In addition, Fairfax
Pike provides east -west access between these two primary highways. Through the identified alternate
route, this segment of Warrior Drive between Fairfax Pike and Tasker Road can be predominately used
for local traffic. Through trucks on Tasker Road is presently prohibited.
U TOMM ITrEES\TRANSPORTATION\Projects\No Thm Tmcks\Discussion MEMO 12-4-02PCmpd
... ��t N
11
Items
3
522
i
11 642 y Ske�
,
v � f�01�
-_
719
522
Aj
i s e
\•'+a '\
Map Features
Interstate 81
�V Primary Highways
�r �V Secondary Roads
r Requested No Thru Trucks
- Proposed Alternate Route
0 1 Miles
Requested Through Truck Restriction
on Warrior Drive (Rt. 71.9)
DRAFT And Proposed /Alternate Route
Frederick County Planning Commission
No Through Truck Traffic Discussion
Page 3
November 21, 2002
Item #2
Consideration to Restrict Through Trucks on Rest Church Road (Route 669) to Welltown
Road (Route 661) to McGhee Road at Stonewall Industrial Park
A request has been made to prohibit through truck traffic traveling from the Flying J Travel Plaza to the
Stonewall Industrial Park via Rest Church Road (Route 669) and Welltown Road (Route 661), to
McGhee Road at Stonewall Industrial Park. This request was submitted by the Stonewall District
Supervisor in response to citizen concerns. Please find attached a map showing the identified routes.
In order to prohibit through truck traffic on secondary roads, a reasonable alternative route must be
available. A viable alternative route between Flying J and Stonewall Industrial Park exists on Interstate
81, and is the most direct route. The request to prohibit through truck traffic on Rest Church Road may
be appropriate, due to its functional classification as a local road. VDOT defines a local road as one that
collects traffic from driveways and individual land uses and provide access to maj or and minor collector
roads.
U\COMMITTEF.S\TRANSPORTATIOMProjects\No Thm Tmcks\Discussion MEMO 12-4-02PC.wpd
N
I -toe M-- g21
-!-
S
1 - 1
_
669 A
72;
6 67
2
-�, �
661,--- -
665
i
673 ° l
P .
761
Ifap�afures
Interstate 81
r Primary Highways
661; 662 Secondary Roads
Requested No Thru Trucks
3 - _
661 Proposed Alternate Route
1
0 Miles
-
Request to Restrict Through: Trucks on Rest church
Road (Rt. 669)1 and Welltown Road (Rt. 661) to
McGhee Read at Stonewall Industrial Park
And Proposed Alternative Route DRAFT
Frederick County Planning Commission
No Through Truck Traffic Discussion
Page 4
November 21, 2002
r
Item #3
Consideration of a Request to Restrict Through Trucks traveling from Route I1 to Charles Town
Road (Route 761) to Jordan Springs Road (Route 664) to Woods Mill Road (Route 660) to reach
Route 7, and from Jordan Springs Road (Route 664) from Woods Mill Road (Route 660) to Burnt
Factory (Route 654) to Route 7.
A request has been made to prohibit through truck traffic on Old Charles Town Road (Route 761),
Jordan Springs Road (Route 664) and Woods Mill Road (Route 660). Segments of the referenced
secondary roads are used by trucks to travel between Route 11 and Route 7. This request was submitted
by the Stonewall District Supervisor in response to citizen concerns. During the November
Transportation Committee meeting, VDOT expressed concern of trucks using Burnt Factory Road
(Route 654) to Route 7 if prohibited on Woods Mill Road. Burnt Factory Road at the intersection of
Route 7 would be a hazardous outlet, as there is no cut -through on Route 7 at this location to continue
eastward. The committee voted to include the request to restrict through trucks on Burnt Factory Road
from the intersection of Woods Mill and Jordan Springs Road to Route 7. Please find attached a map
showing the identified routes and the proposed alternate route.
In order to prohibit through trucks on secondary roads, a reasonable alternative route must be available.
A suitable alternative is available via Interstate 81, which is capable of moving truck traffic between
--Route 1 -1 --and Route 7—No-othersuitable-alternate-route has-been identified-scuth-of-OM-Charles-Tovii--- -- ---
Road in Frederick County to reach Route 7, as the other connecting roads are classified as local roads.
U:\COMn4ITl'EES\TRANSPORTATION\Projects\No Thm Tmcks\Discussion MEMO 12-4-02PC.wpd
74
Item #h ji
Map _Features
- Primary Highways
s:.
- /V Secondary Roads
Requested No Thru Trucks
Proposed Alternate Route
- - 1 Miles
Request to Restrict Through Trucks on Old Charles
Town Road (Rt. 761) to Jordan Springs Road(Rt 664)
to Woods Mill Road (Rt. 660)
or Burnt Factory Road (659)
®RAFT And (Proposed Alternate Route
GUIDELINES FOR CONSIDERING
REQUEST
RESTRICTING THROUGH TRUCKS
ON
SECONDARY HIGHWAY'S
Adopted by Commonwealth Transportation Board September 15, 1988
GUIDELINES FOR CONSIDERING REQUEST FOR
RESTRICTING THROUGH TRUCKS ON SECONDARY HIGHWAYS
Section 46.2-809 of the Code of Virginia provides:
"The Commonwealth Transportation Board in response to a formal request by a local
governing body, after said body has held public hearings, may, after due notice and a
proper hearing, prohibit or restrict the use by through traffic of any part of a
secondary highway if a reasonable alternate route is provided. Such restriction may
apply to any truck or truck and trailer or semi -trailer combination, except a pickup or
panel truck, as may be necessary to promote the health, safety and welfare of the
citizens of the Commonwealth. Nothing herein shall affect the validity of any city
charter provision or city ordinance heretofore adopted."
To conform to requirements of the Code, the local governing body must hold a public hearing
and make a formal request of the Department. To insure that all concerned have an opportunity to
provide input concerning the proposed restriction and alternate route, the following must be adhered
to:
(A) The public notices for the hearing must include a description of the proposed through
truck restriction and the alternate route with the same termini. A copy of the notices
must be provided.
(B) A public hearing must be held by the local governing body and a transcript of the
hearing must be provided with the resolution.
(C) The resolution must describe the proposed through truck restriction and a description
of the alternate, including termini.
Page 1
(D) The governing body must include in the resolution that it will use its good offices for
enforcement of the proposed restriction by the appropriate local law enforcement
agency.
Failure to comply with (A), (B), (C) and (D) will result in the request being returned.
It is the philosophy of the Commonwealth Transportation Board that all vehicles should have
access to the roads on which they are legally entitled to travel. Travel by any class of vehicle should
be restricted only upon demonstration that it will promote the health, safety and welfare of the
citizens of the Commonwealth. Following that philosophy, the Virginia Department of
Transportation staff and the Commonwealth Transportation Board will consider the following
criteria in reviewing a requested through truck restriction.
(1) Reasonable alternate routing is provided. To be considered "reasonable", the
alternate route(s) must be engineered to a standard sufficient for truck travel. The
effect on the alternate routing will be evaluated for traffic and safety related impacts.
If an alternate contains a Secondary route that must be upgraded, funds must be
provided from the county-secondary-constructionfunds. The -termini of the proposed - -
restriction must be identical to the alternate routing and effectively equivalent to
allow a time and distance comparison to be conducted between the two routings.
Also, the alternate routing must not create an undue hardship for trucks in reaching
their destination.
(2) The road requested for restriction is functionally classified as local or collector.
Page 2
(3) The character and/or frequency of the truck traffic on the route proposed for
restriction is not compatible with the affected area. Evaluation will include safety
and other traffic engineering related issues, and will take into account the volumes of
truck traffic in relation to the remaining traffic as indicated by the following table:
Total Traffic Volume Ranges Total Truck Volume Ranges
restriction indicate that it is not suitable for truck traffic.
(5) Within 150' of the existing or proposed roadway center line there must be at least 12
dwellings per 1000 feet of roadway.
Failure to satisfy at least three (3) of the five (5) criteria will normally result in the rejection
of the requested restriction.
The Commonwealth Transportation Board, from time to time as appropriate and when
deemed necessary, may modify and/or revise any provisions or criteria contained in these guidelines.
Page 3
4000+
200
2000-
4000
100- 200
1000-
2000
50- 100
400-
1000
20- 50
250-
400
13- 20
50-
250
3 - 13
(4) The engineering
of the roadway and/or the accident history of the route proposed for
restriction indicate that it is not suitable for truck traffic.
(5) Within 150' of the existing or proposed roadway center line there must be at least 12
dwellings per 1000 feet of roadway.
Failure to satisfy at least three (3) of the five (5) criteria will normally result in the rejection
of the requested restriction.
The Commonwealth Transportation Board, from time to time as appropriate and when
deemed necessary, may modify and/or revise any provisions or criteria contained in these guidelines.
Page 3
COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
EDINBURG RESIDENCY
14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE
EDINBURG. VA 22824
RAY D PETHTEL
INTERIM COMMISSIONER
Mr. John Riley
Frederick County Administrator
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear John:
April 17, 2002
JERRY A. COPP
RESIDENT ENGINEER
TEL (540) 984-5600
FAX (540) 984-5607
Ref: Warrior Road
Through Truck Restriction
At the public hearing, which Ed Strawsnyder conducted, several questions came
up about having a through truck restriction on Warrior Road between Rt. 277
and Rt. 642 (Tasker Road) when Warrior Road is completed.
I was questioned about this at the public hearing and told them that this
restriction should come after the road is constructed. After the meeting, I visited
this issue with our Traffic Engineering section in Richmond, and I found that we
can proceed with the request for the through truck restriction on Warrior Road at
this time should the County desire to do so.
I am attaching the policy on Restricting Through Trucks on Secondary Highways.
Should Frederick County desire to proceed, it would be necessary for you to go
through a public hearing and pass a resolution.
If the County decides to go forward, please provide both the
with the public hearing documentation to me, and the Virginia
Transportation will begin the process of making the formal study.
JAC/ch
Attachment
cc: Mr. Robert Sager
Sincerely,
. opp
Re • ent Engineer
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
resolution along
Department of