PC 01-03-01 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
JANUARY 3, 2001
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Election of Officers for 2001
2) November 15, 2000 Minutes ............................................. (A)
3) Committee Reports ................................................ (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments ................................................. (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
5) Conditional Use Permit #17-00 of Rhoda W. Kriz (continued from 11/l/00) for an
expansion to Conditional Use Permit #24-99 which permits a Cottage Occupation for a Bed
and Breakfast. The proposed expansion is to provide for weddings, wedding receptions and
other gatherings such as seminars, etc. This property is located at 547 Apple Pie Ridge Road
and is identified with Property Identification Number 42-A-206 in the Gainesboro Magisterial
District.
(Mr- Camp) .......................................................... (B)
6) Conditional Use Permit #18-00 of Donnie and Rachel Hamman for a Cottage Occupation
for sheet metal fabrication and storage of materials. This property is located at 160
Journeyman Lane and is identified with Property Identification Number 87-4-1 in the
Opequon Magisterial District.
(Mr. Camp)..........................................................(C)
7) Conditional Use Permit #19-00 of Fred H. Rhoton (B & F Home I.mprovem.ents) for a
Cottage Occupation to operate a Home Improvement Business. This property is located at
921 Hudson Hollow Road and is identified with Property Identification Number 86-A-196
in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
(Mr. Long) ...........................................................(D)
8) Conditional Use Permit #20-00 of Roy S. Spaid to operate a dog kennel. This property is
located at 198 Spaid Lane and is identified with Property Identification Number 37 -A -35C
in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
(Mr. Long) ...........................................................(E)
9) Rezoning #01-01 of Southern Hills, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to
rezone a 105 -acre tract of land from RA (Rural Areas) to (RP) Residential Performance to
establish 250 single-family residential lots. This property is located south of Stephens City,
east of Interstate 81; 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike on the east side of Town Run
Lane (Route 1012), and is identified with Property Identification Number 85-A-138 in the
Opequon Magisterial District.
(Mr. Wyatt).......................................................... (IF)
PUBLIC MEETING
10) Subdivision #01-01 of Butler Manufacturing Company, submitted by Painter -Lewis,
P.L.C., to subdivide a 33+ acre tract into two lots. This property is located on Woodbine
Road (Route 669) approximately 1,500 feet from the intersection of Route 11 and Route 669
and is identified with Property Identification Number 34 -A -6A in the Stonewall Magisterial
District.
(Mr. Lawrence) .......................................................(G)
DISCUSSION ITEM
11) Discussion on the 2001-2002 Capital Improvements Plan
(Mr. Wyatt) ..........................(H)
12) 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 15, 2000.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice -Chairman, Back
Creek District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Richard C. Ours,
Opequon District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; W. Wayne Miller, Gainesboro District; Robert A.
Morris, Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Gene E.
Fisher, Citizen at Large; Sidney A. Reyes, Board Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel.
STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director; Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director, Amy
M. Lohr, Planner II; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 11/13/00 Mtg.
Mr. Light reported that the CPPS had initial discussions on the 2001-2002 Capital
Improvements Plan.
Economic Development Commission EDC
Mr. Thomas reported that the EDC reviewed next year's work plan and also examined the
make-up of the EDC. Mr. Thomas said that they are planning to add six more members to the Commission
in order to get more representatives from industry.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2000 Page 578
-2 -
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Exception Request by David L. & Marie L. Shull from the requirements of Section 144-31C(3) of the
Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance requiring that easements providing access to lots within minor
rural subdivisions be a minimum of 50' in width.
Action - Recommend Approval
Mr. Kris Tierney, Planning Director, presented a letter from Mr. Scot Marsh, written on behalf
of Mr. David L. and Mrs. Marie L. Shull, the owners of 7.24 acres along Northwestern Pike (Rt. 50) in the
Back Creek Magisterial District, who wish to subdivide a two -acre lot for their son. Mr. Tierney said that the
Shulls have the required acreage, however, the five -acre lot resulting from the proposed division would be
served solely by an existing 30' easement. He said that the County Subdivision Ordinance requires that any
lot in a minor rural subdivision either have direct access to a state -maintained road or be served by a right-of-
way with a minimum width of 50'. He explained that the Shulls have attempted to obtain the additional right-
of-way needed to meet the requirement of Section 144-31(3), but have been unsuccessful.
Mr. Tierney continued, stating that the proposed five -acre lot contains the Shulls residence
which is presently accessed by the 30' right-of-way. He said that no further subdivision on the five -acre parcel
would be possible. Mr. Tierney added that the staff believes that given the fact that the existing residence on
the parcel is already served by the right-of-way and that no additional lots will be served by it, an exemption
to the 50' requirement is appropriate.
Mr. Unger inquired if 50' could be obtained going across Lot 2 out to the road.
Mr. Scot Marsh, land surveyor with Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C., representing
the Shull-, for the family variance, stated that Lot 2 does not have road frontage and they access by way of a
prescriptive ingrc: s/egress easement across a gravel driveway. Mr. Marsh said that the Shull's only road
frontage on Route 50 is a 30' -wide strip. They currently access their home through the gravel driveway; the
adjacent owners have no objection, however, they did not want to convey a 50' -wide ingress/egress easement.
Mr. Marsh added that Lot 1 has an approved drainfield site, therefore, both lots are adequate from a residential
standpoint.
Mr. Miller inquired if a road could be put in on the 30' frontage on Route 50 for Lot 1. Mr.
Marsh replied that the existing drainfield would make it difficult to construct a road through there.
Mr. Reyes asked what attempts had been made with the Sheldons to get the easement waiver.
Mr. Marsh said that contacts were made with the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Marsh said not only did they try to
acquire additional right-of-way and an easement, but also to buy additional frontage land. The adjacent owner
was not interested. In response to this, Mr. Reyes asked if this was all verbal and Mr. Marsh was not sure.
Mr. David Shull, the owner of the property, said that he personally spoke with the Sheldons
about purchasing property, however, they were not interested. Mr. Shull said this was for his son and he has
no intentions of selling this property.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2000 Page 579
-3 -
Because no further subdivision of the five -acre parcel would be possible and, given the fact
that the existing residence on the parcel is already served by the right-of-way and no additional lots will be
served by it, the Commission believed an exemption to the 50' requirement was appropriate.
Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of a request by David L. and Marie L. Shull for the granting of an exception from the requirements
of Section 144-31C(3) of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance requiring that easements providing
access to lots within minor rural subdivisions be a minimum of 50' in width.
Rezoning #04-00 of Mid -Atlantic Industrial & Tech Center, submitted by Greenway Engineering on
behalf of Shockey Industries, to rezone 208 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to MI (Light Industrial), and
239 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to M2 (Industrial General) for an Industrial and Technology Park.
This property is located east of Milburn Road (Rt. 662), south of Old Charles Town Road (Rt. 761), and
southwest of Jordan Springs Road (Rt. 664) and is identified with P.I.N.s 44-A-31, 44-A-292, and 44-A-
293 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action - Tabled at the Applicant's Request
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director, read the background information and review
agency comments. Mr. Wyatt stated that the property is located within the County's Sewer and Water Service
Area, it is within the portion of the Northeast Land Use Plan which recommends future industrial land use, it
is adjacent to the identified Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA), it contains a portion of the identified
core area of Stephenson's Depot, and it is within an area recommended as a potential rural historic
district which would qualify for the National Register of Historic Places. He said that the Northeast
Land Use Plan recommends that industrial land uses should only occur if impacted road systems
function at a grade "C"level of service (LOS) or better, that industrial land uses be developed with
public water and sewer service, and that industrial land uses should be adequately screened from
adjoining land uses to mitigate visual and noise impacts.
Mr. Wyatt said that the staff has identified several issues based on comments received
from various review agencies which involve impacts to the transportation system, water and sewer
service, historic resources, the regional landfill, and adjoining properties. Mr. Wyatt said that the
applicant has submitted a proffer statement in an attempt to mitigate the issues identified by staff. He
stated that proffered conditions include the elimination of specific land uses, studies and
improvements to the impacted road systems, the establishment of easements to preserve land areas and
protect viewsheds, the ability to research and relocate a potentially significant historic structure,
limitations of sign heights, and a monetary contribution for fire and rescue services.
Mr. Wyatt continued, stating that the development ofan industrial park and technology
center at this location will have an impact on existing residential land uses along Old Charles Town
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2000 Page 580
-4-
Road due to their proximity to this acreage, and could potentially have an impact to the viewshed
associated with the historic Stephenson Depot area. He said that the Frederick County-Winchester
Battlefield Network Plan sets forth strategies for Stephenson Depot which include working with land
owners to preserve key areas while allowing some development, ensuring that more intensive uses in
the core area provide means to protect viewsheds as a part of their development plans, to use Milburn
Road as a primary travel connection between Stephenson Depot and Third Winchester, and to work
with land owners to preserve views along Milburn Road using buffers, vegetation, and easements._
Mr. Wyatt next read a list of comments suggested by the staff that the applicant could
use to further mitigate the impacts of this development.
At this point, there were several questions from the Commission regarding options available
for sewer treatment and whether transportation improvements for this area may have been included in WATS.
Mr. Donald Shockey ofthe Shockey Companies came forward and introduced himselfand Mr.
John Goode, Treasurer of Shockey Companies, and Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering, the design
engineers for the project. Mr. Shockey spoke about the positive aspects of having a good industrial and
economic base in our community, the Shockey Companies involvement in the improvement of our community,
and their intentions of continuing this role into the future. He said that a good industrial and economic base
provides greater il-b security for individuals, it bolsters the community's financial health and security, it
strengthens the tax base, provides better schools for our children, it serves as a catalyst for reliable water and
sewer. He said that their proposed development is a continuum in this direction. Mr. Shockey next compared
the low tax rate in Frederick County to the higher rate of surrounding adjacent counties. Mr. Shockey said that
their development seeks a balance among the diverse interests ofthe community. He concluded by stating that
they have addressed the historic sensitivity of the area openly and properly.
Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering, the design/engineering firm for the development,
presented the details of the development to the Commission. Mr. Smith then reviewed each of the proposed
proffers with the Commission, particularly the entrance on Old Charles Town Road, the emergency access on
Stephenson Road, the signalization, intersection, and progressive improvements in coordination with VDOT,
the developmentally sensitive area easement details, the proposed elements for protection ofthe viewshed along
the ridge line which parallels Milburn Road, the establishment of a conservation easement along Hiatt's Run,
and finally, heights and limitations for signs. In addition, Mr. Smith stated that they conducted a mailing
campaign in the initial stages of this project to meet with the adjoining property owners, however, only two
people responded.
Commissioners asked Mr. Smith to discuss the entrances, the distribution of traffic, and how
the traffic would get to required destinations. They also asked Mr. Smith to discuss the rail connection and
Mr. Smith gave the details on this. Mr. Smith believed their proposed rail connection location was the best in
order to minimize visual impacts and to also function well for the park. Another Commissioner asked how
close the railroad spur would be to the Milburn Cemetery and Mr. Smith replied approximately 100'-150'.
Also discussed was the zoning line on the east side of the property. Commissioner Ours
inquired if the zoning line could be pulled back because the applicant had indicated that the property drops
down and is not readily useable. Mr. Smith replied that he could pull the zoning line back about 600; he had
drawn the line there because it hit natural features and made a clean cut. He said that their stormwater
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2000 Page 581
-5 -
management could still take place in this area, regardless of the zoning.
Commissioner Ours noted that there were a few uses allowed in the M2 that the applicant had
not proffered out; he believed that incinerators and fuel dealers, for instance, wouldn't be appropriate for this
area. He asked the applicant to explain their intentions for the M2. Mr. John Good, Treasurer for the Shockey
Companies, read a list of uses they believed would be suitable for this area. Mr. Good took note of the two
uses believed to'.; inappropriate.
Mr. Thomas asked the applicant to explain plans for management and maintenance of the
stormwater management areas and runoff quality after build -out. Mr. Smith explained that the regional ponds
will not be owned by a particular lot user, but will be owned and maintained by the park. He said that a pre-
determined dollar amount is collected per acre to cover this maintenance.
Mr. Morris asked how the five to six residences directly across Old Charles Town Road will
be protected from impacts. Mr. Smith said that he will visit those residents to see what is acceptable to them.
Mr. Smith proposed landscaping and screening and said that he will need to involve VDOT in the process.
Mr. Light asked how the project would be sewered and also inquired about any alignments to
Route 37. Mr. Smith said that no treatment plant is proposed; they will pump the sewer from this facility to
the Opcquon Wastewater Treatment Facility on Route 7. Mr. Smith proceeded to give the details ofthe process
to the Commission.
Chairman DeHaven next called for public comments and the following persons came forward
to speak:
Mr. Mark Stivers, a resident of Stephenson in the Woodsmill Subdivision, remarked that
various other subdi�risions and areas, for example, Woodsmill, the Opequon Ridges, Stephenson, Clearbrook,
Redbud Road, and the Route 11 area, had not been mentioned in the discussions. Mr. Slivers said that all the
persons present and those who have signed petitions against this development are sending a message to the
Board of Supervisors that the Board must pay attention to the wishes of the citizens of the community. He
continued, stating that he had the privilege of serving on the subcommittee that studied the northeastern portion
of the County and the subcommittee had recommended that the area proposed for rezoning not be included in
the Comprehensive Plan as industrial land. Mr. Stivers said that the Board of Supervisors ignored that
recommendation and said that the subcommittee did not have the authority to make this change.
Mr. James Stillwell, of 423 Highbanks Road in Stephenson, said that he had sent the
Commission a letter on November 7 outlining criteria he believed needed to be brought forward. Mr. Stillwell
believed the two main issues were the zoning and the Land Use Plan. He believed the applicant's plan should
be presented in detail, such as the road network, and be finalized. Mr. Stillwell believed that the minimum
setback requirements in the County for heavy industrial use were not adequate and needed upgrading. He said
that this proposal will impact not only the civil war sites, but also Jordan Springs and other archeological sites.
He also discussed limiting building heights; turning loading docks internally to the site; the need to address
truck traffic along Charles Town Road, Jordan Springs Road, and Woodsmill Road; and the applicant should
pay 100% of any improvements promised in the proffers. Mr. Stillwell stated the Land Use Plan did not call
for any M2 Zoning in this area. He said that since the Land Use Plan has already been accepted, this proposal
was in the wrong place and the rezoning request should be denied.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2000 Page 582
-6 -
Ms. Katherine Whitzell, resident of Back Creek District and Chairman of the Advisory Board
for the McCormick Civil War Institute at Shenandoah University, came forward and stated that she was
speaking for Dr. Brandon Beck, Chairman of the McCormick Civil War Institute at Shenandoah University,
who had to leave the meeting. Ms. Whitzell said they have been working on preserving Fort Collier which has
also been developed into an industrial area and they are having trouble getting grants because the civil war site
has been so diminished by industrial growth. Ms. Whitzell said that we do not need any more industrial growth
next to our battlefield sites, especially the core battlefield of Second Winchester. Ms. Whitzell also introduced
Private David Bockman of the 13th Virginia Volunteer Infantry, Company H, and said that Private Bockman,
like many other civil war buffs, totaling 35,000 nationally that are members of the Civil War Preservation
Trust, are very upset about the possibility of losing this site. Ms. Whitzell next read a statement by Dr.
Brandon Beck.
Mr. Glen Penton, an architect and a resident of Stonewall District, did not want all the land
in Frederick County filled up with industrial parks just to keep the tax base down. He believed there were
probably better ways to achieve that goal and provide balanced growth. Mr. Penton presented some graphics
of the site that he prepared pointing out the acreage designated for building and parking. He anticipated that
the facility would run 24 hours per day and there would be 26,000 trips per day. He said that the environment
in the Valley is on the verge of being polluted and questioned whether additional industry should be added
towards that. He said that a large portion of this land has already been clear cut, even in the erosion areas,
steep banks, and against people's homes. He believed the 100' setback buffer was inadequate and he did not
believe the proposal was reasonable.
Mr. Charles Weiss, President of the Winchester -Frederick County Chamber of Commerce,
stated that the Chamber represents 1,230 individual business members, ranging from small businesses to
commercial and industrial companies, and who employ approximately 40,000 people, supplying the bulk of
jobs in our county, as well as contribute 1 %z million dollars annually to the County's tax base. Mr. Weiss
explained that he was present on behalf of the Chamber membership, not to specifically comment on the
Shockey's development, but to address a movement which has recently surrounded the project. He made
reference to an advertisement that recently appeared in the Winchester Star, paid for by an organization he was
unfamiliar with, but which stated that "...one industry was stopped some time ago from relocating to Frederick
County—now stop the rest!" Mr. Weiss said that having businesses and industries in our County contributes
significantly to the quality of life for everyone. He asked what constitutes this quality of life and then stated
that scenic beauty of the area is certainly on the list, but not at the expense of having a job to go to or having
access to goods ana services in the County. He continued, stating not at the expense of having good schools
for our children to attend, nor at the expense of protection provided by the Sheriff and Fire Departments, as
well as good roads and other necessary infrastructure. He encouraged the Planning Commission and Board
of Supervisors to continue with smart and balanced growth as stated in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. David Darsie, a resident of Stonewall District in the Opequon Heights subdivision, stated
he lived 1 %2 miles from the proposed development and was concerned about the effects of the industrial
development on the value of his and his neighbors' homes and properties. Mr. Darsie was concerned about
noise and light pollution, that water treatment facilities will need to be upgraded on a large scale, and that the
life of the landfill will be shortened. Mr. Darsie was also concerned about the transportation problems at
various intersections, especially at the intersection of I-81 and Route 11 and at Clearbrook at the Old Stone
Restaurant, and said that this proposed industrial park will greatly stress these problematic intersections even
further. Mr. Darsie said that it was going to take a lot of money and time to build up the road network and the
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2000 Page 583
-7 -
County infrastructure would have to pay for the costs.
Mr. Jason Spitzer, a 14 -year-old youth and resident on McGuire Road, off ofApple Pie Ridge
Road, in the Gainesboro District, commented that the roads will need to be upgraded to handle the additional
traffic that will be generated by the proposed rezoning. Mr. Spitzer said that the roads need to be improved
before the development, not after, and he gave as an example the problem of the bridge at the Flying J truck
stop. Mr. Spitzer also commented that the residents of Stephenson are worried about their quality of life being
disrupted by possible noise and pollution.
Mr. Bill Meier, a soon-to-be resident of Woodsmill and a long-term resident of Frederick
County, spoke against industrial zoning at this proposed location. Mr. Meier was not happy with the way
roads and intersections have been planned and how they function throughout the County. He gave as examples
Route 11, Welltown Pike, and Route 37 and said that increased truck traffic will make the situation much
worse.
Mr. David Kollar, a property owner and business owner in western Frederick County, came
forward to speak in favor of the proposed rezoning. Mr. Kollar said that his family, his company, and himself
have benefitted greatly over the last 21 years in Frederick County. Mr. Kollar said that his company installs
equipment for manufacturing facilities and he employs 85 people. He said that his 85 employees have 153
children and all Li-, ; earned a good livelihood from the services his company provides to the various industrial
clients in our area. Mr. Kollar read a list he composed entitled, "Top Ten Truths We Can Hopefully Agree
On, But Not Necessarily Like," of which the overall message was that planned and balanced growth was
essential for the long-term success of the quality of life in our community and a diversified tax base was the
key to our community's infrastructure.
Ms. Andrea Kozel, an 18 -year old student at James Wood High School and a resident of
Matt's Run in Clearbrook, said that she was speaking for the youth of the community. Ms. Kozel said that
she and the other youths did not want to see this "park" polluted.
Mr. Bill Kinc, a resident of Stonewall District, stated that this proposal is irresponsible
development with very poor planning. Mr. Kinc said that this is squeezing a huge development between a very
sensitive historic area and residential housing. He commented that it would be difficult to find another place
in the County that was as sensitive and ill-suited as this one.
Ms. Susan Courneya, a resident along Redbud Road in the Stonewall District, predicted that
Redbud Road will become a short-cut from Route 11 to Route 7 and she was concerned about her children's
safety because they ride their bicycles on this road. She said that she rides her horses along this road and there
is considerable farm activity here. Ms. Courneya next proceeded to talk about the historical and archeological
significance of this property. She then spoke about the underlying water table and how it would be impacted
by impervious surfaces, use by industry, and run-off, which possibly, will be contaminated. She predicted that
everyone's quality of life will be assaulted; she said that M2 -zoned structures cannot be made to look beautiful
or appealing; there will be noise and air pollution; and the construction traffic, industry traffic, and road
overuse will pose a definite physical threat. Ms. Courneya asked Mr. Shockey to sell or donate his land to the
Civil War Foundation.
Ms. Sharon Boyd said that she has over 2,000 petitions from citizens who have signed and
Frederick County Planning Corruru cion
Minutes of November 15, 2000 Page 584
-8 -
want to oppose the rezoning of this land. Ms. Boyd said that the citizens of the community have asked her to
speak and convey their feelings and concerns. She conveyed the following feelings and concerns: that the
citizens dismiss the myth that industry will lower their taxes; they dismiss the notion that we need to create
more jobs, because unemployment is at an all-time low; they asked why another industrial park was needed
when there are already so many existing; they are concerned about environmental issues; their primary concern
is that of "quality of life," not money; and, they want to preserve our national historic treasures for future
generations.
Ms. Bessie Solenberger, a resident of Gainesboro District and Chairman of the Frederick
County Historic Resources Advisory Board, said that she was not very proud of the fact that she was chairman
of this committee because when they had their meeting to discuss and make a recommendation on this issue,
she was not aware of all the historic issues. Ms. Solenberger said that she was aware of the Byer House, but
not about the core battlefields and the rail line. She hoped her committee would get the opportunity to revisit
this issue and the committee would send the Planning Commission a completely different message. Ms.
Solenberger stated that our area is rich in heritage. She asked the Commission to look 50-75 years into the
future and foresee what this industrial park would look like then; she asked if there will be outdated old
buildings and runoff and will it be of any value then? Ms. Solenberger said that the County could make this
into an historical park; the older it gets the more valuable it gets, especially for tourism. She said that she bad
hoped Frederick County could capitalize more on our history through tourism and then, hotels, motels,
restaurants, and everybody would benefit. She concluded by asking why the industrial parks couldn't be
located closer to I-81 where the roads could accommodate the traffic.
Mr. Brandon Kuhn, a resident on 154 Gun Club Road in the Stonewall District, said that he
was 15 years old and a freshman at James Wood High School. Mr. Kuhn spoke about the importance of
preserving our historic resources for the education of future generations. Mr. Kuhn said that with
unemployment so low, he did not know where the employees for the industry would come from.
Ms. Gina. Forrester, a constituent of Stonewall District, stated that the proposed industrial park
will adversely affect the air quality in Frederick County. She said that presently, without bringing any
additional industries into operation, Frederick County does not meet State air quality standards and additional
industry will compound the existing problem. Ms. Forrester stated that 55% of our labor market already comes
from West Virginia and any new jobs generated by this industrial park will basically employ West Virginians.
She said that this will drive up labor rates for our existing companies who will be forced to compete for labor
in an already tight labor market. Ms. Forrester next spoke about the County's water supply and she named
special interest groups who have been battling for its protection. She said that additional industry would
compound our water difficulties at the taxpayers' expense. Ms. Forrester continued, speaking of the historical
importance of the property and that tourism brings clean revenue into the community while preserving our
heritage. She also spoke of how increased volumes of traffic and tractor trailers will further degrade the quality
of life in Frederick County. Ms. Forrester said that if this rezoning is approved, it will be another example of
the citizens best interests being set aside for developers' interests. She applauded the citizens who have filed
a suit against the County to fight this rezoning.
Mr. Todd Kern stated that this may be a good plan, but the people of Frederick County do not
want it; he said it may be better located in New Jersey. Mr. Kerns said that increased tax funding by industry
is a myth; industry just increases the burden. He said that all of the counties to the east of Frederick County
have higher tax rates because of industry and uncontrolled growth. He commented that fills, cuts, and berms
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2000 Page 585
-9 -
are going to change the entire outlook of this land; battles were not contained in nice, neat boundary lines. Mr.
Kern stated that all of First Winchester is developed, more than half of Third Winchester is developed; and
about half of Stephenson's Depot is developed. He believed these areas should be preserved for future
generations.
Mr. Douglas Cochran, a resident of Opequon Estates in the Stonewall District, spoke about
how he presented his concerns regarding traffic and road capacities to the Board of Supervisors during the
Flying J rezoning. Mr. Cochran said that our State and local tax dollars have been used to widen the road in
front of Flying J and to widen the northbound off ramp. He said that there are constant back-ups from Flying
J to Route 11 and all the off -ramps; he said that VDOT has indicated that more state and local tax dollars will
have to be spcn t:, replace the overpass due its the inability to handle the current volume of traffic. Mr.
Cochran continued, stating that the Mid -Atlantic Industrial & Tech Center rezoning will create traffic issues
ten times the magnitude of the Flying J. He mentioned about how the residents of the area will be affected by
the increased truck traffic during their day -today activities. Mr. Cochran believed that placing heavy industry
in the rural, residential area of the Route 11 corridor, with all the problems it invites, is a grave disservice to
the residents of northern Frederick County.
Mr. Mike Weber, a resident of Stonewall District, stated that his property borders the McCann
property on two sides; he commented that the McCann property is agricultural land and the County should
preserve some of the agricultural land. Mr. Weber believed the Board should hold the next public hearing in
a larger facility because many people were not able to be heard. Mr. Weber questioned whether the applicant
would pay for 50% or 100%ofthe lighted intersection at Old Charles Town Road and Route 11; he questioned
whether the public water would be available to both the residents of the community and the industrial
development, or would it be just for the industrial development; he believed an additional cemetery was located
near the barn where the proposed rail is to go; he believed the proposed plans for the development should be
finalized before the rezoning, particularly where water and sewer is planned to be run; and he raised concerns
about only one access for the proposed industrial park. Mr. Weber expressed concern about the increased
volume of traffic; he said that the Route 11 area near Crown, Cork & Seal is extremely dangerous and he has
witnessed ten wrecks here in the last two weeks; he predicted that the County would be losing watershed; he
predicted that the proposed industrial parl. will use up all of the sewer capacity that is available; he predicted
that additional industry will require additional houses, which will require additional services; he was concerned
that the quality of life and way of life in this area will be totally changed. Mr. Weber believed this was not the
place for an industrial park; he said that it was a residential and agricultural area. He spoke about property
taxes and assessment values. Mr. Weber was concerned about the diminishing agricultural business in the
County and he asked when the last time agriculture was subsidized; he gave examples and amounts of some
of the new industries that Frederick County had subsidized by comparison.
Mr. Don Smith, a resident of Opequon Ridge III in Stephenson, spoke in opposition to the
rezoning. Mr. Smith said that he has listened to many people who are opposed to this rezoning. Referring to
the Flying J operation, Mr. Smith said that the tax payers are asked to give up their money to fix the problems
that result. He raised concerns about the noise pollution and the increased traffic. He predicted that the
characteristics of the neighborhood would change. Mr. Smith believed we should protect our valuable land.
He suggested that Mr. Shockey donate his land to a preservation group.
Mr. Darrill Bean suggested that the Commission table this rezoning because there were too
many unanswered questions. Mr. Bean believed that Mr. Mark Smith could probably answer a lot of the
questions asked by those present because he has worked with Mr. Smith. He believed there could be a little
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2000 Page 586
sulm
better planning done on the roads and buffers.
Mr. Charles Ban spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning. Mr. Barr said that we are
stewards of this land and it is a bad idea to develop it with an industrial park. Mr. Ban said that he first saw
the Shenandoah Valley in 1972 and it impressed him so much that in 1975, he moved here and never left. He
said that industry growth begets industry. He did not believe that a large industrial base would lower our taxes.
Mr. D. Wayne Nicholas, a resident of the Shawnee District, expressed concern about -a
statement made during the staff report that the traffic portion of the impact analysis was not yet complete. Mr.
Nicholas believed that addressing truck traffic entry onto Route 11 with a simple traffic light was inadequate
and there needed to be a more efficient way of moving traffic. He was concerned how the local aquifer would
be affected, if two million gallons per day is used by industry; he believed that local residential wells would
be affected. He believed the quality of life for area residents would be affected by the traffic, the noise, and
the air pollution. Mr. Nicholas said he was insulted by the $20,000 proffered by the applicant for fire and
rescue services; he said that amount wasn't nearly enough to take care of fire and emergency services for an
industrial park. Mr. Nicholas disagreed with the statement that a railroad spur will decrease truck traffic; he
mentioned the inter -modal transport area in Warren County where every train coming in equals at least 55-60
trucks going out. Mr. Nicholas believed the rezoning should not be approved because there were too many
loose ends that had not yet been addressed.
Due to time restraints and other items remaining on the agenda, Chairman DeHaven closed
the public comment portion of the meeting. Chairman DeHaven said that additional public hearings will be
held until everyone has had an opportunity to share their views.
The owner/applicant, Mr. Shockey, acknowledged there were some refinements that needed
to be made to the proffers related to the comments received this evening. Mr. Shockey believed his proposal
was still solid and viable. He sated that they wanted to do things right and wanted the right things to be done.
Mr. Shockey requested that his rezoning be tabled and continued.
tabling.
Chairman DeHaven asked Mr. Shockey and Mr. Smith if they had a time period in mind for
Mr. Shockey asked that the rezoning be tabled until the next available meeting.
Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Kriz,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously table
Rezoning Application 404-00 of Mid -Atlantic Industrial & Tech Center (Shockey Companies) to rezone 208
acres from RA (Rural Areas) to M 1(Light Industrial) and 239 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to M2 (Industrial
General) for an industrial and technology park until the next available meeting.
Chairman DeHaven announced that this issue is tabled until the next available meeting when
it will be scheduled for a full public hearing. Chairman DeHaven said that the Commission will continue this
discussion and will continue to receive public input. He thanked everyone for their time, their patience, and
their demeanor during the meeting. He believed it had been a very productive meeting and many concerns had
been shared. He apologized to those who did not get an opportunity to speak or whom did not get an
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2000 Page 587
-11 -
opportunity to speak for as long as they would like. Chairman DeHaven suspected that the neat public hearing
concerning this issue would not occur in the Board Room. He apologized for that as well, stating that the
Commission had nor actually been able to perceive this amount of public participation when the meeting was
scheduled. He thanked everyone for their time and for their contributions.
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Wilson, the Commission unanimously
made the petitions pertaining to this issue, plus letters from Mr. Glen Penton, Mr. Brett Morgan, and Mr. Jim
Stillwell, a part of the official record.
PUBLIC MEETING
Master Development Plan 908-00 of Channing Drive, Land Bays 1-9, submitted by Greenway
Engineering for 846 single-family urban lots and 22 acres of commercial. This property is located on the
north side of Senseny Road, one mile east of Greenwood Road and is identified with P.I.N.s 55-A-206,
55-A-209, 55-A-211, 55-A-213, 65-A-30, 65-A-31, 65-A-39, 65 -A -39A, and 65-A-40 in the Stonewall
Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director, read the background information and review
agency comments. Mr. Wyatt said that the staffhas identified four potential issues: 1) Transportation Network
- the applicant should revise the Master Development Plan (MDP) to identify connections that will not occur
until the segments of Channing Drive and Madison Avenue are completed to serve as the primary means of
access to the various phases; those local streets include the Woodrow Road connection to Carlisle Heights, the
Morning Glory connection to Apple Ridge, and the Canyon Road connection to Senseny Glen; 2) Phase Plan -
the MDP should be revised to eliminate the land bay concept and to develop a phase plan accounting for the
total development of each section; 3) Environmental Features - information regarding the amount of each
feature of development proposed to be disturbed or incorporated into open space needs to be described within
a phase table of the MDP document; and, 4) Agency Comments - the Department of Public Works identified
a potential for stormwater impacts on adjacent subdivisions, therefore, they request that certain design features
be incorporated within the plan, including as -built drawings for required infrastructure improvements.
Mr. Claus Bader of Greenway Engineering, the design company representing the applicant,
came forward to address two questions from the Commission, whether the proposed phases would be in the
same areas as the land bays and second, what trigger mechanisms would be available in the phased approach.
Mr. Bader said that the phases would not be in the same areas as the land bays. He pointed out on a map
where Phase I would be, but indicated that locations for Phases 2, 3, and 4 would have to be a "best guess"
at this point ir. time. Mr. Bader said that his biggest trigger mechanism is tied to the 475th building permit, at
which time they will have to construct Channing Drive to Valley Mill. He said that other items will be
addressed through the regular review process. Mr. Bader said that they intend to comply with their proffer
package and they will revise the MDP to comply with all of staffs comments.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2000 Page 588
-12 -
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Mrs. Marie F. Straub, a resident on Morning Glory Drive in the Apple Ridge Subdivision and
a member of the Apple Ridge Subdivision Homeowners' Association, did not want to see Morning Glory Drive
extended as a "through street" into the new development. She was concerned about a possible safety hazard,
due to increased traffic and possible speeding. She said that her subdivision does not have sidewalks, curb and
gutter, nor street lights, and the neighborhood children are often in the streets playing. In addition, she asked
when and where a new elementary school was going to be built in this general vicinity to take care of the
increase in elementary school students.
Mr. Darrill Bean, representing his mother, was concerned that the ingress/egress to his
mother's property be protected throughout the construction process.
Mr. Randy Forrester, resident of the Apple Ridge Subdivision, believed that all the phases of
the MDP should be finalized during this stage of development. Mr. Forrester next addressed the capacity of
the schools and spoke about the difference between "physical" capacity and "practical" capacity. In addition,
he said that many of the residents of this area that were present for this agenda item have already gone home,
due to the lateness of the evening. Mr. Forrester suggested that no decision on this MDP be made until
everyone has had an opportunity to speak.
Ms. Trace Golden, resident on Morning Glory Drive, said that they have sold their land on
morning Glory Drive due to this proposed development; unfortunately, they bought their new land in the area
where the pending rezoning for the Mid -Atlantic Industrial & Tech Center is taking place. Ms. Golden said
that there are too many houses being built, there are not enough schools for the children, and safety is a big
concern with the parents and families here. Ms. Golden believed that the County representatives needed to
listen to the voters, not big business.
Mr. D. Wayne Nicholas, a resident of the Shawnee District, expressed concern about whether
or not the FEMA maps used by the applicant to address water run-off were current and actively reflecting
existing development. Mr. Nicholas was concerned about the impacts of development over the last 15 years
on the local water tables with regard to runoff, storm water treatment, flooding, and downstream impacts. He
asked who in Frederick County was responsible for monitoring development with regard to where stormwater
was going.
Mr. Bader came back to the podium to address some of the public comments. Mr. Bader said
that when they are ready to begin the design work for Channing Drive, they will meet with Mr. Bean to make
sure the Beans' access is maintained. In regards to Mr. Forrestor's concerns, Mr. Bader said that he is
confident that the existing layout for Phase I is accurate and, although he can point out the future phases of
development, the detailed design work has not yet begun for those areas. He said that it is possible that the
road location may shift slightly due to the layout, however, they hope to minimize any changes. Finally, Mr.
Bader addressed stormwater, stating that an aerial topo map was utilized; he stated that all of the design work
needs to comply with current county ordinances with respect to quantity control and adjoining property owners
can not be adversely impacted. Mr. Bader said that he will utilize the USGS quadsheets to determine overall
drainage divides and they will actually drive over the drainage area to identify ground cover and get an
accurate picture of the runoff leading to the lake.
Frederick Courq Planning Conimission
Minutes of November 15, 2000 Page 589
-13 -
Commissioner Fisher suggested that the Morning Glory Drive connection be reconsidered
because it created a direct access to Senseny Road. He was concerned that a speeding problem could result
because the connection to Senseny Road would be via fairly straight roads.
Other members of the Commission believed it was important to have local streets connect
whenever possible for a number of reasons. The reasons given were that the local connections provide
additional public safety enhancement, such as for school bus travel, mail delivery, and snow removal; the level
of service of the overall road network is improved by not forcing all of the traffic into one particular area; and
finally, there is convenience to the end-user, ie. the subdivision residents do not have to travel out onto a main
road and then back in when there is an obvious connection opportunity.
Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Wilson,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
Master Development Plan #08-00 of Channing Drive, Land Bays 1-9, submitted by Greenway Engineering for
846 single-famiiy urban lots and 22 acres of commercial with the stipulation that the review agency comments
be complied with, including the phase plan for the development.
This recommendation for approval was made by the following majority vote:
YES (TO APPROVE): Kriz, Miller, Ours, Thomas, Wilson, Marker, Light, Morris, Unger, DeHaven
NO: Fisher
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. by
unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2000 Page 590
PC REVIEW: 11/01/00 (tabled) & 01/03/01
BOS REVIEW: 01/24/01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #17-00
RHODA W. KRIZ
Expansion of Cottage Occupation - Bed and Breakfast (#24-99)
LOCATION: This property is located at 547 Apple Pie Ridge Road.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 42-A-206
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 Vacant
PROPOSED USE: Expansion of CUP #24-99 for a Cottage Occupation, Bed and Breakfast, to
provide for receptions and other gatherings such as seminars, etc.
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to conditional use permit for this 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 commercial standards.
Inspections Department: Area of the existing dwelling to be utilized shall comply with The
Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 305, Use Group E (Educational) and
Section 303, Use Group A (Assembly) of the BOCA National Building Code. Other code
that would apply is CABO A 117.1-92, Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. Please
submit a floor plan of the area at the time of permit application for Change of Use and please
note that a seal is required on the plan by a licensed Architect/Engineer for both A and E uses.
("E" use does not require a seal if occupancy load is under 50.) ADA parking and building
access and egress shall be provided according to CABO Al 17.1-92 and BOCA, Chapter 11,
along with accessible plumbing. Note Section 313, Mixed Use Groups of BOCA.
Rhoda W. Kriz CUP 417-00
Page 2
December 21, 2000
Fire Marshal: A parking plan for these types of events will identify Fire Department access
to the structure and curtilage. Plan approval is recommended.
Health Department: The Health Department has no objections to the addition of wedding
receptions and seminars. However, any food preparation should be catered from another
facility and brought in. No more 60 persons at one time should attend the wedding receptions
or seminars. The current permit for this property indicates a five -bedroom system design.
This system is designed to handle 600 g.p.d. of water; there is no implied guarantee of future
septic system performance by this department.
Planning and Zoning: This application is a request to amplify the intensity of an existing
cottage occupation. Currently, the property is being used as a bed and breakfast. If this
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is approved as requested, the property will also be used for
weddings, wedding receptions, and other gatherings. The proposed use meets the conditions
of a cottage occupation. A cottage occupation is allowed in the Rural Areas (RA) Zoning
District with an approved CUP.
The property is located along Apple Pie Ridge Road, approximately 1/3 of a mile north of
James Wood High School and Apple Pie Ridge Elementary School. The lot itself is 19.138
acres in size. All adjoining lots are either residential or vacant in use. The property currently
fits nicely into the residential nature of the surrounding area.
In conjunction with the Frederick County Department of Fire and Rescue, the planning staff
believes that the parking and access issue needs to be addressed in this request. In doing so,
the staff recommends restricting parking anywhere in the access road. The purpose for this
is to maintain complete circulation in the case a fire truck or ambulance is needed. In addition
to this, the owner will need to maintain a 14 -foot -high clearance throughout the access road.
Update: The Planning Commission tabled this item for 60 days at the November 1, 2000
public hearing because they requested more information about the nature of the proposed
expansion. Specifically, the Planning Commission requested that the applicant prepare a list
of rules and regulations to better show their intent. Since the November Planning
Commission meeting, staffhas added several conditions to the proposed CUP. The applicant
has also been in contact with the neighboring residents and has prepared a list of rules and
regulations which they intend to follow. Staff did not incorporate this list into the set of
conditions because it would not be consistent with the principle that a CUP should go with
the land, rather than the applicant. Other conditions may be added should the Planning
Commission or Board deem such conditions appropriate.
Rhoda W. Kriz CUP #17-00
Page 3
December 21, 2000
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11-01-00 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Approval of this conditional use permit would be appropriate with the following twelve conditions
(conditions 1-4 were placed on the bed and breakfast on December 8, 1999):
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. In accordance with Cottage Occupation sign requirements, signage for the proposed use may
not exceed (4) four square feet in area. A sign permit will need to be issued by the County
Building Inspections Department prior to the placement of a sign.
3. No more that (3) three bedrooms shall be utilized for the bed and breakfast operation.
4. Any expansion of the bed and breakfast shall require a new CUP.
5. Parking will not be permitted anywhere along the access road of the property if that parking
prevents complete internal circulation.
6. The owner is responsible for keeping the trees and vegetation cut to at least 14 feet in height
along the entire access road.
7. No more than 50 persons at one time may attend the weddings, wedding receptions, seminars,
or other gatherings.
8. Except for music used during wedding ceremonies, all forms of music and dance are to be
kept within the house. Music, whether performed or pre-recorded, should not be audible
beyond the property lines.
9. The existing natural screening between the house and the adjoining properties is to be
maintained in a healthy condition.
10. No wedding, reception or seminar will begin before 7:00 a.m. or last beyond 9:00 p.m.
Weddings and receptions are to be limited to three hours in duration.
11. Any change in the location of the gatherings shall require a new CUP.
O: \Agendas\COMMENTS\CUP's\2000\RhodaKriz2. CUP, wpd
ED
236
391
•� t
wr iii }
xF r IM4 RHODA W
42 A 207
¢ Ftp 392Al
r�+a 'hF t yc.. f •r+,' °4,yk.v
HILLYARD, PAUL W.
Kriz, Rhoda W.
'~427 , 3 547 42-A-206
Woodside PI
330
BALDWIN, RANDO
42'A 202
�.x
4.
5 yy4__� i ' r7d•,S
BERN, RICHARD S JR
A 203
g
G
LEWIS, HENRY
42 , A 204
U9
a3o
CUP # 17-00
Location Map
Kriz, Rhoda V
PIN:
42-A-206
For:
FARLEY, PHILIP C G
b 42 i:7 2
32z
42 A 205
Woodside PI
330
BALDWIN, RANDO
42'A 202
�.x
4.
5 yy4__� i ' r7d•,S
BERN, RICHARD S JR
A 203
g
G
LEWIS, HENRY
42 , A 204
U9
a3o
CUP # 17-00
Location Map
Kriz, Rhoda V
PIN:
42-A-206
For:
Conditional Use Permit
Submittal Deadline
P/C Meeting
BOS Meeting
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
#17-00
/0- •` O
fl n.0
1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner other)
0,11%faia
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE � 46) - 4,S(1 -- e, 3 41
I
6,03
2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of
the property:
J
3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and
include the route number of your road or street)
SIZA
06 Re f2- tj
i If
¢-t k'3.-8 v5,2,-2 z ,t/ aL 1 f-/ ” % -37 I
4. The property has a road frontage of C Z feet and a
depth of'�743,77jfeet and consists of jC,f-�r acres.
(Please be exact)
5. The property is owned by 07.041 a to, as
evidenced by deed from recorded
(previous owner)
in deed book no. on page / f , as recorded in the
records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of
Frederick.(gn I beck /Jo,63-2' en ope- -7z4 R5 .z, ,'Cf -z z�� fa�� e- Cf
Y1�Qif'�r-yG `ft; /ids v� c1 t...� • 1??�r t'��� x
6. 14—Digit Property Identification No.
Magisterial Districtj�,,=¢,��
Current Zoning
7. Adjoining Property:
USE ZONING
North iii c i�3 '. f! A
East
South
West
8. The type of use proposed is (consult with
before completing) �d„4 .L-,' aei- s ;P., n tr C
e Planning
r
9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be
constructed: �/
/(I -e-
10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or
corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear
and in front of (across street from) the property where the
requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if
necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this
application:
NAME VCi Yte�CQ. ► C� l� ? J �� r�r�i ADDRESS �a /� i / ,/'�-CI
L+1
in 64a" V-4,, Grp U
PROPERTY ID# 4 7 - z G' z.
NAME ADDRESS 6244 P%-�Ii"d'
PROPERTY TD# 4 A 0 W'"il tt�°4'rf VIg.,
NAME - /t�4 j^,� �� •�:_i i'S _ ADDRESS Z r
PROPERTY ID#
NAME mac`% a�
�,f�cic� .r
ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID#
4;-714- -2-,o S"
NAME
A9.5e- ,
ADDRESS
1"y�
cl r4 � U
PROPERTY ID#
42,E -2
NAMEi (,'
�c� r1�
ADDRESS
PROPERTY IDI-
4 2 `7 - 2-
NAME Patti( l /it r.
ADDRESS
0G4 Crf-j
-Z -2 &0
PROPERTY ID#
4 -7
NAME et,JbZ<ii
Fe #5K
ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID#_
7 -:1
.,-'
'�'�P�,�7Y
/ vAZ2,64
K c -e -,Ie—
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.
c
y., t
-� j F5 ✓� {� i' d'?.G, e s � �G i ?� CS %L � ,� �%�',. �( rte. � / "} �+��r �. j�� - � ! `, r e ti'..�t
. i •
5C�'Hti / 2
it „! 10 -6 _.5 Gj h 1: '{f ,'i'��i ,t� i .' r
4
12. Additional
comments,
if any: tL/j,,,
had
A
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application
and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to
allow the use described in this application. I understand that the
sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed
at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the
first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after
the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a
Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick
County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and
Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed
use will be conducted.
n
Signature of Applicant
Signature of Owner
Owners' Mailing Address -4i-`f `% � j106 )j=?
Owners' Telephone No. g(,a — 4-6-0— 0 �5 `[-/
TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
is
PC REVIEW: 1/03/01
BOS REVIEW: 1/24/01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #18-00
DONNIE AND RACHEL HAMMAN
Cottage Occupation - Sheet Metal Fabrication and Storage of Materials
LOCATION: This property is located at 160 Journeyman Lane.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 87-4-1'
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: Cottage Occupation for Sheet Metal Fabrication and Storage of Materials
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dent. of Transportation: No objection to conditional use permit for this 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 commercial standards.
Inspections Department: Existing building shall comply with The Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code and Section 304, Use Group B (Business)of the BOCA National
Building Code. Other code that would apply is CABO A117.1-92, Accessible and Usable
Buildings and Facilities. Please submit a floor plan of the area at the time of Change of Use
permit application. A certificate of use and occupancy shall be issued prior to operation.
Handicap parking and building access shall be provided.
Fire Marshal: Structure is unsecured with no doors. Approval recommended on closure to
unauthorized public. Plan approval is recommended.
Health Department: Please see attached tetter from Doug Dailey dated 9115100.
Donnie and Rachel Hamman CUP # 18-00
Page 2
December 21, 2000
Planning and Zoning: This application is a request to operate a cottage occupation in the
Rural Areas (RA) Zoning District. Specifically, the applicants would like to use an existing
barn on their property for sheet metal fabrication and the storage of business-related
materials. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for a cottage occupation in the RA
Zoning District with an approved CUP.
The circumstances leading up to this request for a CUP application have involved an active
violation case against the applicants and a court ruling on the matter. Staff opened a violation
case against the applicants in July, shortly after a county resident reported a complaint on the
matter. Then on October 31, 2000, the District Court ruled that the applicants were guilty
of the storage of trash and debris on their property, the storage of inoperable vehicles, as well
as the illegal operation of a business. The judge gave the applicants 30 days to comply with
the first two offenses, and 90 days to obtain an approved CUP or the business would have to
be removed. As of the most recent inspection by staff, prior to the preparation of this report,
violations still exist on the applicant's property.
The lot is approximately 8 '/z acres in size. Located on the property is the applicants primary
residence, a barn, and a couple storage sheds. The adjoining properties include residential,
agricultural, vacant, or mixture of the three. An industrial business would not be an
appropriate use in the area.
When assessing the ability for a sheet metal fabrication business to comply with the cottage
occupation definition, staff reviewed the cottage occupation definition. A cottage occupation
is defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance as:
"An occupation or profession customarily carried on in a dwelling or an accessory building,
which:
A. Actually is carried on wholly within the principal residential
building or an accessory building or structure.
B. Is carried on by no more than one (1) person other than
members of the family residing on the premises; and
C. Is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling
unit for residential purposes."
The applicants have informed staff that their business has two employees that do not live on
the premises. Occasionally, these employees would come to the property and assist in the
sheet metal fabrication process. Staff believes that the fabrication business is an industrial use
and is not appropriate as a cottage occupation. Additionally, the assistance of employees at
the subject property would not be in conformance with the cottage occupation definitions.
Therefore, staff believes that this request is inappropriate.
Donnie and Rachel Hamman CUP # 18-00
Page 3
December 21, 2000
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 1-03-01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Staff is of the opinion that this request for a CUP be denied for the following three reasons:
1. The proposed use is not allowed as a cottage occupation due to the number of
employees.
2. The property has been in violation for at least six months, and is currently still in
violation despite a court ruling on the matter.
3. The business is inconsistent with the nature of the surrounding area, and neighboring
residents may be adversely affected by the presence of this business.
O:IAgendaslCOlNMF_NZYCUP's120001HammwtWAMMAN CUP.wpd
REID
87 4 3
a
JOS' GUTHRIDGE
LIC87 HTE3 z
A 7 A r� 87 4 4
27
Q� P
1
u. LONG
Fa��aY MC NALD
k 87 4 2
PRICE
P `L� 87 A 2 HAMMAN, DONNIE W & RACHEL
87 4 1
O �
SMITH
�O
87 A 12D �
2
87 4 1
CUP # 18-00
Location Map For:
Hamman, Donnie &
Rachel
PIN:
87-4-1
Office of Mapping and GIS, 12/00, Agray
• � 3
Conditional Use Permit #18-00
Submittal Deadline
P/C Meeting
BOS Meeting /-24-01
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
1. Applicant (The applicant if the _ owner other)
NAME:
ADDRESS: 1toC �-e- re, -S oa a2 'C, LT
TELEPHONES
2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of
the property:
3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and
include the route number of your road or street)
d M�
�1l �' IL'k' a � }ff/1 1
AJ � fir\/ �
i ; 1 i � S � �- S � �• �' � I� d
f
dr•A /—A t
• 4> Lo ate'.,Z '�I i "'• ,',� �-`ilg Y't
LA" e'5 n % �� t � �
� � � � �`� ' 'L-� f ti � r � � ti "� !� ' � � �l i � •� 9 (� �
4.
The property
has a road
frontage of 2/- feet and a
depth of / q feet
and consists of ,! acres.
(Please be'exact)
5.
The property
is owned by
as
evidenced by
deed from
A j , -erecorded
3
(previous dwner)
in deed book
no.
on page 1tg,' , as recorded in the
records of
_*N`
the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of
Frederick.
6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.19�: L/
Magisterial District (;
Current Zoning
7. Adjoining Property:
r/') US�E� ZONING
North
East
South_sc{�raf��
West> ,
''tel Gig �4i.
8. The type of use prop sed is (consul, with the -Planning Dept.
before completing)ICY
v r L
� / V
9. It is proposed thatthe following buildings 11 e
constructed:
�. e
lo. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or
corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear
and in front of (across street from) the property where the
requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if
necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this
application:
NAME jADDRESSGiC �r
PROPERTY ID#— 7 �%
NAME ADDRESS Lal.,e
PROPERTY ID# 4 Y 3
NAME er, kre;vfv�,r,T ADDRESS 173 �l0u 1'vtj /vrvt.
I Uk
PROPERTY ID#_ 117-4-3 U�
NAME 4e,rj Z:fljc,j V ADDRESS a �� �Qvc�nl aKG3:v 1_c,
PROPERTY ID# 9'7'' A —
NAME �ri.,tl.� Qw A, [)W.5 ,ADDRESS 1!510
PROPERTY ID# 7 `e — 10--10
NAME r�
-� ,�,
.�.��r.
ADDRESS P' K
")
���'`�.
V:' ZZ -6(09
PROPERTY
ID#
.
— (�
NAME MC �. �rz,�:�
�, ala
ADDRESS ! ( -7 Cte V -k 2A
PROPERTY
ID#�
`
r `�
C t� y j �,� a a � 5s
NAME Pr(C' 0' j
&4n,z
ADDRESS
PC's
PROPERTY
ID#
14 — C.? -5
NAME�lil�i��a,lci 4
.j�c..y ADDRESS
iSSS �a•;`c.k
�.
PROPERTY
ID# �R 7 -
A
p -`f A
� pe5
NAME L� �A� � ��, l J i
. Sf
��a f�'� ( LiAjd
ADDRESS
� J R lAI.rr h,\
PROPERTY
ID#
NAME
ADDRESS
PROPERTY
ID,#
NAME
ADDRESS
PROPERTY
IDI
NAME
ADDRESS
PROPERTY
ID#
NAME
ADDRESS
PROPERTY
ID#
NAME
ADDRESS
PROPERTY
ID#
NAME
ADDRESS
PROPERTY
ID#
` NAME
ADDRESS
PROPERTY
ID#
NAME
ADDRESS
PROPERTY
ID#
NAME
ADDRESS
PROPERTY
ID#
NAME
ADDRESS
PROPERTY
ID#
NAME
ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID#
�LlVE 8i/�9�ZENDaNNER� wt -;w m s
1-act♦�i-c+�,� fEow i�
8oAR0 S�\'
9
20�
SiARN O >y gad
2'X23 �t�
w \'RICO/K
pl`. t 1 COO-z/u:Powr'
N31'Ball W l\� --i RRg
rau.m llarvis Rust d< Associates, pe Virgnia Beach,Ve.
119 Cieekside Lane Chantitlf,va.
Wincl+cstcr. Virginia 22602 winchecter.va.
'T83J1°�1
R.
L iLLlFit3
LicN,`�TeEZ ,�,
454201
',2p15,10'+C�v NOTES:
ttJ.Se,� r Ei Q4 1
i i 1NawKiOS
S F'/ L
aN R-)
St.F.
553 0 OS r 00 a F-
0201.a4t
M'aRK SNiot=st
G' Rlt�J4
0/H Powtx
5?3'131.56"E
3'I3.3G'
PO�•wR
�� Pa -r Rtc to
s.R.s. �� GUTIiRtDG>_
`145 /5,33
61
..3
L4
0
U
L EGENo
:A-=Fsmcs 1--4tNE
F,_= 1 KOPRRZY
ENG amcr-OF1C"MEMT
R/W=R%GtkT-OF-wa`!
U /G = U No EitGRo U.) 0
Q7Hk 0\1 tzllE Rn
C.J. RiHKIER, JR
CR1'U" ICA
N a
54-17-3(a)01058 ,
AUGUST 24, 1994
THE PROPER'.
ON ASSESSM]
IN THE NAM]
664 AT PAG]
COUNTY, VI]
2. THIS PLAT F
OF A TITLE
NECESSARILS
PROPERTY. yf
3. THE EXISTEI•
NEITHER INS
PREFORMANCF
4. THE PROPER4
ZONE "C" AF
FEDERAL INS
MAP NO. 51C
5. THE PROPERI
PLAT ENTITI
IN DEED BOC
THIS IS TO Cl
AN ACCURATE FI]
HEREON, THAT A]
EASEMENTS OF W]
OR NOTED. THAT
EITHER FROM SUY
OTHER THAN TIME
THE MINIMUM PRC
THE VIRGINIA BC
ENGINEERS, LANL
S
ra
/ 0.4
-i o
ra Q
��Jj�r�
oa{^z
aca� c
c��
0
CL
M�V�
it
o = Z
.l
Offices:
Falriax,va.
Bridgewatet.Va.
LeeaAurg,Va.
41
A oc i elllc.Ald.
rau.m llarvis Rust d< Associates, pe Virgnia Beach,Ve.
119 Cieekside Lane Chantitlf,va.
Wincl+cstcr. Virginia 22602 winchecter.va.
'T83J1°�1
R.
L iLLlFit3
LicN,`�TeEZ ,�,
454201
',2p15,10'+C�v NOTES:
ttJ.Se,� r Ei Q4 1
i i 1NawKiOS
S F'/ L
aN R-)
St.F.
553 0 OS r 00 a F-
0201.a4t
M'aRK SNiot=st
G' Rlt�J4
0/H Powtx
5?3'131.56"E
3'I3.3G'
PO�•wR
�� Pa -r Rtc to
s.R.s. �� GUTIiRtDG>_
`145 /5,33
61
..3
L4
0
U
L EGENo
:A-=Fsmcs 1--4tNE
F,_= 1 KOPRRZY
ENG amcr-OF1C"MEMT
R/W=R%GtkT-OF-wa`!
U /G = U No EitGRo U.) 0
Q7Hk 0\1 tzllE Rn
C.J. RiHKIER, JR
CR1'U" ICA
N a
54-17-3(a)01058 ,
AUGUST 24, 1994
THE PROPER'.
ON ASSESSM]
IN THE NAM]
664 AT PAG]
COUNTY, VI]
2. THIS PLAT F
OF A TITLE
NECESSARILS
PROPERTY. yf
3. THE EXISTEI•
NEITHER INS
PREFORMANCF
4. THE PROPER4
ZONE "C" AF
FEDERAL INS
MAP NO. 51C
5. THE PROPERI
PLAT ENTITI
IN DEED BOC
THIS IS TO Cl
AN ACCURATE FI]
HEREON, THAT A]
EASEMENTS OF W]
OR NOTED. THAT
EITHER FROM SUY
OTHER THAN TIME
THE MINIMUM PRC
THE VIRGINIA BC
ENGINEERS, LANL
S
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.
7-'- - <
f
12. Additional comments, if any:
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application
and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to
allow the use described in this application. I understand that the
sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed
at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the
first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after
the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a
Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick
County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and
Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed
use will be conducted.4a dlie, e 4
Signature of Applicant,
Signature of owner
owners' Mailing Address I )nw�1 Zr_-3'�c'>_ bj
Owners' Telephone No. a9— 3k 33
TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
PC REVIEW: 01/03/01
BOS REVIEW: 01/24/01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #19-00
FRED H. RHOTON
(B & F Home Improvements)
Cottage Occupation for Home Improvement Business
LOCATION: This property is located at 921 Hudson Hollow Road.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawme-
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 86-A-196
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use:
Residential and existing Home Improvement Business
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) and M2 (Industrial
General) Districts; Land Use: Residential, Vacant, Trucking Company, Agricultural, and a
County Park
PROPOSED USE: Cottage Occupation (Home Improvement Business)
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dent. of Transportation: No objection to conditional use permit for this 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 commercial standards.
Inspections Department: The area of the existing building to be utilized shall comply with
the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 304, Use Group B (Business) of
the BOCA National Building Code. Other code that applies is CABO Al 17.1-92, Accessible
and Usable Buildings and Facilities. Please submit a floor plan of the area of existing
structures to be utilized at the time of change of use building permit application. A permit
shall be issued and final inspection approved for the new use prior to operation.
Fred H. Rhoton CUP
Page 2
December 21, 2000
Fire Marshal: Access to storage buildings maintained clear. Additional access to storage
available from Fulton property. Plan approval is recommended.
Health Department: After discussing the situation with Mr. Rhoton concerning his business,
he assured us that there would be no employees inside his home; therefore, the Health
Department has no objection to Mr. Rhoton having a home improvement business at his
house. No employees are allowed to work at his home full-time, unless septic system has
been approved.
Planning and Zoning: The applicant has requested permission to operate a Cottage
Occupation from his property. Cottage Occupations are permitted in the RA (Rural Areas)
Zoning District upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Specifically, this request would
enable a home improvement business to operate from the subject property.
Cottage Occupation is defined by the Zoning Ordinance as:
An occupation or profession customarily carried on in a dwelling unit or an accessory
building, which:
A. Actually is carried on wholly within the principal residential building or an accessory
building or structure;
B. Is carried on by no more than one (1) person other than members of the family
residing on the premises; and
C. Is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling unit for residential
purposes.
The applicant intends to utilize two existing 12' x 12' buildings for storage of materials
related to the business. The use of these existing accessory structures for the business is the
catalyst necessitating the CUP for a Cottage Occupation. No individuals (beyond that
allowed by the Cottage Occupation definition) or vehicular traffic associated with the
business, are permitted at the property.
Based on the location of the property and the nature of the business, this request does not
appear to negatively impact the surrounding properties.
Fred H. Rhoton CUP
Page 3
December 21, 2000
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 01-03-01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Approval of this conditional use permit would be appropriate with the following conditions:
All review agency comments and requirements, and the definition of a cottage occupation
shall be complied with at all times.
2. In accordance with Cottage Occupation sign requirements, signage for the proposed use may
not exceed four (4) square feet .in area.
No outdoor storage of any material associated with the Cottage Occupation shall occur
outside a completely enclosed structure.
4. No more than one (1) employee and their vehicle shall be permitted on-site.
5. Any change of use or expansion of the approved Cottage Occupation shall require a new
Conditional Use Permit.
O: W gendas\COMMENTS\CUP's\2000\FredRhoton.wpd
/ SANDY,VL'�
Faux k
N, ARTHUR H & DOROTHY
RHOTEN, FRED H & g6 A 193
86 A 19
9
CI
a
CUP # 19-00
Location Map For:
Rhoton, Fred H.
PIN:
86 - A -196
Submittal Deadline
PJC Meeting
BOS Meeting
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FREDERICK COUNTY „ VIRGINIA
(The applicant if the `•j
CU P � / 9 00
owner other)
NAME: o w'
ADDRESS: 3� - I %d Gs.13 S 6 L o Ly
TELEPHONE ?d 5
2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of
the property:
F JR z 1) J4 h ja" o S'` P
3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and
include the route number of your road or street)
PT"
4. The property has a road frontage of a ;n- feet and a
depth of ,.� -) c feet and consists of 13 acres.
(Please be exact)
5. The property is owned by F cz, w as
evidenced by deed from recorded
(previous owner)
in deed book no.Z_ on page 05, -;LJ as recorded in the
records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of
Frederick. ��yy
6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. C?6 ' A — /?(p
Magisterial District
Current Zoning �Q
7. Adjoining Property:
USE ZONING
North -4-ac"" c . /h-;�
East f, Ca M_a
South 12A /-- ak,-a R4
West ^e-5 s ehCe- / reLcrz _R
r
8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept.
before completing)
Co hro-4 e one," �h
9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be
constructed: _
/1 a-71 -e-
10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or
corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear
and in front of (across street from) the property where the
requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if
necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this
application:
NAME � /i rc t ADDRESS I2 Z 13ek- /3/F
PROPERTY ID# l�(o �q % 3
NAME G kW -eo sa/n ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID# A Y 3
NAMEADDRESS "%�� `�' /7�i2s'd �'► if i/c�t,1
PROPERTY ID# f p
PROPERTY
IDI,
NAME
PROPERTY
ID#
NAME
PROPERTY
ID#
NAME
PROPERTY
ID#
NAME
PROPERTY
ID#
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
a
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.
ti
5
YZA
y
i
12. Additional comments, if any:
,at
�✓,�� ,dive �7aa�s' �Ji-C63r�G'��rT �s�cc �,
IK -11 r VP rj of i!
e4��I�s'
rIj
- 1,2'X /-2 t1 -
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application
and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to
allow the use described in this application. I understand that the
sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed
at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the
first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after
the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a
_Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick
County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and
Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed
use will be,conducted.
Signature of Applicant F /,3 4 #) H ri V a� ca
Signature of Owner
Owners' Mailing Address-�l.� S ry�
EE
Owners' Telephone No. :.5-114 6 - k 9 9 S '?
TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
PC REVIEW: 01/03/01
BOS REVIEW: 01/24/01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #20-00
ROY S. SPAID
Dog Kennel
LOCATION: This property is located 198 Spaid Lane.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 37 -A -35C
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 Vacant
PROPOSED USE: Dog Kennel (Non -Boarding)
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dent. of Transportation: No objection to conditional use permit for this 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 commercial standards.
Inspections Department: No comment required.
Fire Marshal: Recommend portable fire extinguishers. Tree limbs inhibit emergency vehicle
access to properties. A vertical clearance of 14.5 feet is required per NFPA 299 for the width
of roadway. A dry hydrant at the pond entering Spaid Lane would benefit all property owners
with adequate water supply for firefighting and reduced insurance. Plan approval is
recommended.
Health Department: The Health Department has no objection to Mr. Spaid's proposal since
Roy S. Spaid CUP
Page 2
December 21, 2000
he has stated that the facility will have no employees except family members living in the
existing house. Note that the Health Department cannot address the disposal of the dog
waste. Dog waste is considered a commercial and industrial waste and is regulated by the
Dept. of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Questions concerning the proper disposal of dog
waste should be directed to the DEQ (540) 574-7800.
Planning and Zoning: Dog kennels are a permitted use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning
District with an approved conditional use permit. This application is the result of a complaint
filed with this office. The applicant has advised that the kennel currently is only used for
housing and breeding dogs that belong to him.
This site consists of twenty (20) acres and is well screened from Back Creek Road (Route
704) by mature woodland and a steep terrain. The east side of the nearest kennel is 51 feet
from the adjoining property line, the west side of the nearest kennel is 240 feet from the
adjoining property line, and the south side of the nearest kennel is 420 feet from the adjoining
property line.
As with any kennel, noise from this type of business negatively impacting adjoining property
owners is a concern. Staff believes that the location of the property is appropriate for the
operation of a kennel with a number of conditions applied.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 01-03-01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Approval of this conditional use permit would be appropriate with the following conditions:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. This permit is for a kennel (non -boarding) only. Only dogs owned by the owner will be
boarded in the kennel at any time.
3. Inspection of the facilities by the Animal Control Officer shall be required to determine if the
the housing for the dogs is adequate and appropriate.
4. No more than twenty (20) dogs shall be boarded within the facility at any given time.
5. All associated materials and supplies shall be stored within an enclosed structure.
6. All dogs kept at the kennel must be controlled so as not to be a nuisance to any adjoining
Roy S. Spaid CUP
Page 3
December 21, 2000
property by either barking or roaming free.
7. All dogs at the kennel must be controlled to limit the impact on adjoining properties. All dogs
shall be kept within a fenced enclosure and must be placed inside a building after 8:00 p.m.
8. All requirements of the Frederick County Code and the Code of Virginia pertaining to dog
kennels shall be complied with at all times.
9. Any expansion of the kennel shall require approval of a new Conditional Use Permit.
0:\Agendas\COMMENTS\CUP's\2000\Roy Spaid.wpd
) D. & BRENDA S.
A 35A
SPAID, LARRY F. & SHIRLEY J.
37 A 35E
SPAID, ROY SAMUEL
37 A 35C
SPAID, RICHARD D. & BRENDA S.
37 A 35A
SPAID, ROY SAMUEL $:
37 A 35C
�QPO,
CUP #20-00
]Location Map For:
Roy S. Spaid
PIN:
37 - A - 35C
Office of Mapping and GIS, 12/00, A;y'av
Submittal Deadline
P/C Meeting
BOS Meeting
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner other)
NAME: {� OSI 5�c1Z I
ADDRESS: `7 8 5� TU Loa G)o-RE + �JG� X4,3-7
TELEPHONE 1 5L` Q) �J� S " 3(D (08 li/-• 6(e.2 - 3 y36
2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of
the property: \
2m��I E MESS
3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and
include theroutenumber of your road or street)
GONE . U . 10 Wi.� 704 - 4 mas oh o - F�EtiI
Rr6 dl ole
7 / 10 -`ns or a r l�
4. The property has a road frontage of Q feet and a
depth of 33(0.2"1 feet and consists of acres.
(Please be exact)
5. The property is owned by 6 S.SP I1� as
evidenced by deed from Cg&La A. 5P--trb recorded
(previous owner)
in deed book no. cJ Jc on page 55 -IS, as recorded in the
records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of
Frederick.
6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. 3 % -4- jte
Magisterial District
Current Zoning
7. Adjoining Property:
North
East
South
West
--- .Town
CEIVE
DEPT. OF PLANNING/DEVELORIENT
8.
9.
The type of use pi
before completing)
ed is (consult with the P
It is proposed that the following buildings will be
constructed:
10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or
corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear
and in front of (across street from) the property where the
requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if
necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this
application:
6Z_
NAME �rc�12�� ?�cU ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID# 3 9
GvlP
NAME E N L . ADDRESS 14 SCcd LqIJF- GXRF- I V2 .
PROPERTY ID# 3 % -,4- --?S 7:) �n-'j v a G %
NAME �•
PROP
NAME
PROPERTY ID# �� - j Z/
ADDRESS 142 � AOS VCRP-, UL1_
Gd re krl ;taG.71
ADDRESS A-20
6pr�, !//f
NAME l�Ae�. �,C0 ADDRESS QS fq • r �.
PROPERTY ID# -jf - 1-,Q
�jo ,.s C,• , a �G�'
NAME AV11A V..r ADDRESS
PROPERTY IDI_ 39 - /- fj%
NAME
PROPERTY -IDJ'
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
12. Additional comments, if any: T�ak La -4a C� an �WJLJCL 12Gs
1.
�oz ZD q6. aT --rJE sagLOCA 1.1.0
Tib T �kS
R64 LazzeJ TO k4r, -rrOO - -r
UOU-Lb 9F, eq P�BLQVI
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application
and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to
allow the use described in this application. I understand that the
sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed
at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the
first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after
the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a
Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick
County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and
Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed
use will be conducted.
Signature of Applicant
Signature of owner
Owners' Mailing Address I t8 qar�,
J
l
Owners' Telephone No. (510) 858- 3(�,8
. z
TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRA'Y°O�Z:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
5 a-
lea)OE .
GORE , V6. as 13.7
,. A RA Y SPA In i RR V SP•+4i.D E x 3 3 G. z 7
P
r11. Please use this age for yousketch of -the
property', Show
k
proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including,
measurements to all property lines.
b fb R�
R, h IV
N 2
r >
-T)
1
W
Ira
rn
1
cl
r
� �rn
I43
i rA t
' rr,
i
r
_ ..., -. -r -- -
r
a'1�G�S aa►ii��'�
• � 577
••�' {,'�rq' Wyk � t
soc• 5t5 FACE 5771►'�� CCS
At:G RIO.
S,
A 1
d
�. i� A11• p• �
•s ID
144 iso , ,. 0 ,. p • � �t,
• �Q by/. � / �r ti7� 3/.fit v � o Tr - t a
A0
� ' r}��� � .•0� ,"1L S6 y �• l.i O.a iII, �lJf \\ w •-4�t�Nt� � �y-+r ,�§o- � '�.
L 4
,1 / •^ 1, r ► L. _ � u� � `` ;
16 .� i � . i. Ill /.) � �•. ��� . .,,, s.R j r fi �, 61
. fit• l% r '1 ` fir �..��� � r r
' I.
•: R . , .��;� 20 ma40
w,\ '" ►)St f ,;
� . s• T � O� �'t /� ••'• tri ' i •r,.�myy , r � _ � �.
L _ A4.
Vb
.a1 ! •= 1 -
r.
•: •-}•r ,�� � �W (1•ti 1�'�'�� T LAS '�:
�f _ . �' ♦ e/• � •- f t 17 • %' �it� f.t�•�.:� 1 .tri
plat of • wrsy •adv rat Rs. snd r�ra. Cf+.ala a. SasU s1 • tt••t st law t
*• `Iytnq at-ul a a"" Savt'.,sst sr Lsr• to tns aastw cro"
�pV+tir Ytr9lnta. 11t41atstW sulci" •t rtrAtot 3t :.
�r^ Th1a L the *ase law tot .++ aawrspal is Cwlaa a. spot one no .10" iarsis�.
• his irlr%iti us" 1, rent" " a••a 6•iao pwitot 7:, itis t•sstiM In Dead all" "40 pe
rr N Ure Land ft-zordta N tna Cl•rr sr tr.s Clecult Cawrt st Itartsr►d CsM•tTs pirtL•�ts '
lJ , ey this svrray tt to snt1s14t#I" 1 t/•.•t s tv" my ►tr+ viii M •stsaiLiral�Qj • �,'- j
•nt R ¢ tue to tea. Y 1.1 w.+ r , t,pp s,w Hr • w Rts. 304141 ral lw►p ad►►<iN tam 1 01=1 x<
acr"rWl tau 0140""4 0. ti"61/ •nd tir"O t. 3J4.4t9 0441 ■trrt, �
�'" '° 1�,s Qstlt•so rir,�t:-or-r..g .f�°ren nsr«as r,e�s esc"rs++t s�andiMosa ,
t� b tin• txlaratsL4' ,
�; ,[ °lx�?t•'CuaoGtotrxti strca t43� and 3300 ssea tr+• V+a oa= o•a++rwtau a R. tsrt �.'•3. _
,�:, y L;zLd step► iat*p cpc^lr,aste►rtow3y ww sr rrsslAsvc+tttt,••ft
,• ••„ ,t7yer
�•. . SOrLili1+Q.Wt liRti�^Od• � : ax :i
i t =nh"yad /s.-t4t 10, 17?4 _:. . i�.�_� �..`�"M`►4�+,•, ?.�
�:• f`�LDt10.9ur+rrr•4 Oc4wb+r 2, 1l7�, '�'•� � ., �„F f '.
�,uc.c CJJ.irr• ��:r. •,t i �;.
Ti,4ins rurnsnl o writ u, w4�
s prod to lag wt
•. •.,•1•
,`Y ,.� tr'r',; ..�.r �.Cwr uii �f .�, itj���At� "1 � all • . r,y�::' `'' � �t 4
t, •�.,, anal! WWI rsrrtlicatr M aurnatr►s�lpa►dr►i xbure'w saat+fadwss �i�t;; •�;`:: ! �t`' a
IIAXIittadW ra;xvtl• 7aK ii�faur d oy
M,
boom P44 .tl ^&M4
El
yc 3 } r
f.•t rtLe. `u•W�
PC REVIEW DATE: 1/03/01
BOS REVIEW DATE: 1/24/01
REZONING APPLICATION #01-01
SOUTHERN HILLS
To rezone 105 acres from. RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance)
LOCATION: This property is located on the east side of Interstate 81, southeast of the Town of
Stephens City; 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) on the east side of Town Run Lane (Route
1012).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 85-A-138
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District
Land Use: Agricultural
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District
South: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District
East: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District
Land Use: Town of Stephens City Lagoons
Land Use: Residential; Agricultural
Land Use: Vacant
West: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District Land Use: Agricultural
PROPOSED USE: Residential Single -Family Subdivision
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See attached letter from Barry J. Sweitzer, Trans. Roadway
Engineer, dated 11121/00.
Southern Hills REZ #01-01
Page 2
December 22, 2000
Fire Marshal: Water supplies to meet requirements of Frederick County Chapter 90; avoid fire
hydrant placement at end of cul-de-sacs. Board of Supervisors approved proffer model at 100% for
Fire and Rescue; plan approval not recommended.
Stephens City Fire & Rescue Co.: At the present time there have been no corrections to the traffic
congestion concerns at the intersection of Fairfax Pike/Town Run Lane/Aylor Road/Interstate I-81.
The Stephens City Fire & Rescue Department cannot support any additional (residential or
commercial growth in this area until these concerns are addressed with a viable solution for the
response and access of emergency vehicles.
Sanitation Authority: We have water and sewer capacity to serve this project.
County Engineer: See attached letter from Harvey E. Strawsnyder, , Director of Public Works,
dated 11-29-2000.
Parks & Recreation: Plan appears to conform with the requirements established by the county.
However, with the developer's contribution for recreation being only 50% of the impact module,
consideration should be given to providing active recreation areas with the development.
Frederick Co. Public Schools: See attached letter from Al Orndorff, Admin. Asst. to the
Superintendent, dated 11/29/00.
County Attorney: Stickley Drive extended and paid for by whom? Once signed by owner, appears
alright.
Planning & Zoning_
1) Site History
The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephens City Quadrangle) depicts the
zoning for the parcel proposed for rezoning as A-2 (Agricultural General) District. The A-2
(Agricultural General) District zoning classification was modified to RA (Rural Areas) District
on February 14, 1990 during the comprehensive amendment to the county's Zoning
Ordinance.
The initial location of the county's Urban Development Area (UDA) traversed approximately
23 acres of the I05 -acre parcel. The applicant submitted a request to the county to
incorporate the entire acreage into the UDA. This request was recommended favorably by
the Planning Commission and approved by the Board of Supervisors during their October 25,
2000 meeting.
Southern Hills REZ #01-01
Page 3
December 22, 2000
2) Location
The 105 -acre parcel is located southeast of Interstate 81 Exit 307; approximately 3/4 mile
south of Fairfax Pike (Route 277); along the east side of Town Run Lane (Route 1012).
Fairfax Pike is classified as a minor arterial roadway, and Town Run Lane is classified as a
local road.
The 105 -acre parcel is located within the county's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the
Sewer and Water Service Area (S WSA). This acreage does not fall within the boundaries of
an adopted land use plan for the county.
The 105 -acre parcel is located in an area that is rural in nature. Adjoining properties include
large tracts that are utilized for agricultural purposes with a few large residential lots to the
south. The Scothorn tract immediately adjacent to the east is within the Double Church
Agricultural and Forestal District.
3) Site Suitability
The 105 -acre parcel contains areas of steep slope, streams, floodplain associated with
Stephens Run, and woodlands as defined by county ordinance. The general site development
plan calls for the provision of common open space within the floodplain areas and some of
the areas defined as steep slope. It is uncertain if this delineation will comply with the
maximum allowance for open space as permitted by county ordinance, as the applicant's
Impact Analysis Statement does not indicate percentages of the total site area proposed for
these set -asides.
The 105 -acre parcel has approximately %2 -mile of road frontage along Town Run Lane (Rt.
10 12) which is within the VDOT secondary system of roads. By policy, the parcel is entitled
to be served by public water and sewer. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority has
indicated that adequate capacities exist to serve the development proposal for this parcel.
The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey identifies structures within the proximity of
the 105 -acre parcel. None of these structures are identified as potentially significant historic
resources.
4) Proffer Statement
The applicant has submitted a proffer statement which has been signed by the owner,
notarized, and reviewed by the County Attorney's Office. The applicant has proffered to
Southern Hills REZ #01-01
Page 4
December 22, 2000
develop a maximum of 250 single family residential lots; to restrict the development of multi-
family units; to extend Stickley Drive (Rt. 1085) to connect with Town Run Lane (Rt. 1012);
and to provide a monetary contribution for each residential building lot to offset impacts to
county services.
5) Potential Impacts and Issues
a) Transportation
The applicant's traffic impact analysis statement indicates that the proposed
development of the 105racre tract will generate 2,500 daily vehicle trips on average.
The applicant recognizes that all of this traffic cannot be supported by Town Run
Lane (Rt. 10 12) and indicates that there will be a need to extend Stickley Drive (Rt.
1085) to Town Run Lane to facilitate traffic movement from this parcel to Fairfax
Pike (Route 277). The applicant indicates that the Town Run Lane connection to
Fairfax Pike will be severed as a result of the improvements to Interstate 81 Exit 307
and that VDOT will consider design alternatives which may result in the relocation
of the Exit 307 interchange to the south within the proximity of this parcel.
The VDOT comment, dated November 21, 2000, identifies that Town Run Lane
currently has an average daily traffic count of 210 vehicle trips. The VDOT comment
states that the existing road structure is inadequate to handle the projected traffic
volume generated by this site which will increase traffic by approximately 1,200% of
the current volume. VDOT believes that the applicant should provide a traffic impact
analysis which considers signalized intersections; the development of turn lanes and
tapers into the project site; and the improvement of Town Run Lane from the
intersection of Fairfax Pike to the project site.
The applicant's general development plan calls for the extension of Stickley Drive to
connect with Town Run Lane to the north of the 105 -acre tract. This design is
prudent, as the Level of Service at the intersection of Town Run Lane and Fairfax
Pike will decrease significantly as a result of this development. However, the
applicant's proposal does not indicate plans to provide, or participate in traffic
signalization at the Stickley Drive intersection with Fairfax Pike. The need for traffic
signalization along Fairfax Pike is paramount to facilitate left turn movements and
maintain the Level of Service along this road system. The applicant's traffic impact
analysis statement does not provide for current or future Level of Service details at
the proposed Stickley Drive intersection with Fairfax Pike; however, it would stand
to reason that a significant percentage of vehicle trips would make left turn
movements; therefore, this intersection would most likely operate at less than a Level
of Service C without traffic signalization.
Southern Hills REZ #01-01
Page 5
December 22, 2000
b) Community Facilities
Public Schools
The proposed residential development would increase student enrollment capacities,
thus impacting Middletown Elementary School; Robert E. Aylor Middle School; and
Sherando High School. The Frederick County Public School Administration
comment identifies that the school facilities within this area of the county are nearing
maximum design capacities. In order to project the number of school-age children
that could be expected to be generated from the project, staffhas utilized the averages
that are used as multipliers in the county's Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model.
Projected School Enrollment Impact
Total Building
Elementary
Middle School
High School
Total School -
Permits Issued
School Impact
Impact @. 14
Impact @ .17
Age Children
@.39
Pupils/Dwelling
Pupils/Dwelling
On Average
Pupils/Dwelling
250
98
35
43
176
Fire and Rescue Services
The comments received from the county's Fire and Rescue Department and Company
11 - Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company (the first response company) express
concerns pertaining to increased transportation volumes that would be generated by
any new residential development in this area, as well as the monetary proffer that is
being offered by the applicant to offset impacts to fire and rescue services.
The Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company is located on the west side of Interstate
81 and is required to cross the bridge at Interstate 81 Exit 307 to provide emergency
service to the residents and traveling public in this area of the county. The Fire and
Rescue Chief for Company 11 has requested that no new residential projects be
approved by the county in this area until a viable solution is in place for the response
and access of emergency vehicles.
Southern Hills REZ #01-01
Page 6
December 22, 2000
Solid Waste Disposal
The Department of Public Works has identified an impact to the citizen convenience
center site at the old weight scales near the Town of Middletown. The Department
of Public Works comment states that the proposed development will negatively
impact this facility and may require and expansion of this site to serve the future
residents of this project.
Parks and Recreation
The Department of Parks and Recreation comment identifies that the monetary
proffers received from new residential projects do not allow their department to keep
pace with the recreational demands of the county residents. Therefore, the
Department of Parks and Recreation has recommended that the developer establish
active recreational areas within the proposed development to provide on-site
opportunities for the future residential end users.
C) Ewing Fami� Cemetery
A family cemetery exists within the southeast portion of the 105 -acre parcel. This
cemetery, owned by the Ewing family is identified as circa 1750 and contains grave
sites dating to 1856. Staff met with representatives of the Ewing family and was
advised that the family actively maintains this area through an agreement with the
property owner. The applicant's general development plan calls for the development
of residential lots in the area in which the cemetery exists. Representatives of the
Ewing family advised staff that their concerns include the ability to maintain access
to, and continue the use of, this area.
In order to ensure that this desire is realized, the Ewing family requests that the
applicant establish a deeded area for this purpose; that access is maintained to the
family cemetery throughout the development phase process; that a curb cut is
established to ensure access to the family cemetery from the proposed public street
system; that the property owner provides the ability to identify any grave sites that
may fall outside of the currently established family cemetery area prior to
development; that the family cemetery be improved to be enclosed with a rod -iron
fence with an eight -foot wagon gate; and that a disclosure statement be established
within all property deeds advising future lot purchasers of the proximity of the family
cemetery and the right of the Ewing family to utilize and maintain the deeded area for
perpetuity.
Southern Hills REZ #01-01
Page 7
December 22, 2000
d) Adjoining Properties
As previously mentioned, the Scothorn parcel, and other parcels within close
proximity of the 105 -acre parcel, are within the county's Double Church Agricultural
and Forestal District. The applicant's general development plan identifies an area of
open space along the eastern property limits due to the location of Stephens Run
which will provide some separation between the agricultural land uses and the
proposed development. However, it would be prudent to require the developer to
provide a disclosure statement within all future property deeds and homeowner
covenants advising future purchasers of the proximity of this proposed development
to the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District, as well as the agricultural
land users rights as identified in the Right To Farm Act.
e) Proffer Statement
The applicant has proffered to extend Stickley Drive from its current terminus to the
east to connect with Town Run Lane (Rt. 1012). This extension would require the
applicant to develop a public roadway through a parcel owned by an adjoining
property owner (Stimpson). In order for this improvement to occur, the applicant
would need to obtain a deeded right-of-way easement through this property which
currently does not exist. Therefore, this component of the applicant's proffer
statement is not valid at this time.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 01/03/01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The 105 -acre parcel proposed for residential land use is located within the county's Urban
Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Comprehensive
Policy Plan states that suburban residential development must occur within the UDA. The 105 -acre
parcel has significant frontage along a state -maintained road and can be served with public water and
sewer with adequate capacities.
Several concerns have been expressed by the various review agencies regarding the rezoning of this
105 -acre parcel. These concerns include impacts to the road network system; impacts to public
school facilities; impacts to the solid waste disposal citizen's convenience site; and the difficulties of
providing fire and rescue service to residential land uses in this area of the county.
Southern Hills REZ #01-01
Page 8
December 22, 2000
The applicant has submitted a proffer statement to attempt to mitigate the impacts associated with
this residential rezoning proposal. The proffered conditions include a monetary offer to offset costs
associated with the capital facilities needs of various county service providers, the offer to limit the
number of residential units to 250 single family lots, and the offer to extend Stickley Drive to Town
Run Lane.
Staff believes that the applicant should adequately address the following issues to the satisfaction of
the Planning Commission prior to a recommendation being forwarded to the Board of Supervisors
regarding this proposal:
1) The applicant should demonstrate the current Level of Service (LOS) conditions at the
intersections of Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive with Fairfax Pike, and the future LOS
conditions assuming the build -out of this project.
2) The applicant should identify the scope of improvements that are planned for Town Run Lane
and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the
improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer
statement for this project.
3) The applicant should indicate what agreements exist to obtain a deeded easement from the
Stimpson parcel that provides for an adequate right-of-way width to allow for the extension
of Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane.
4) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if plans exist to provide for traffic
signalization at the Stickley Road intersection with Fairfax Pike, and indicate when the
improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those
commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project.
5) The applicant should address the concerns expressed by the Fire and Rescue Service division
regarding viable solutions for emergency vehicle access and regarding the proposed monetary
proffer to offset impacts to fire and rescue capital facilities costs.
6) The applicant should indicate how they can mitigate impacts associated with the increased use
of the citizens convenience center and the need to expand that facility.
7) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if there is the potential to provide for
active recreational areas within the proposed residential development.
8) The applicant should indicate how they plan to accommodate the desires of the Ewing family
to preserve access to and improve the area of the existing family cemetery.
9) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission how they plan to advise future lot
purchasers of on-site and adjoining property issues including the Ewing family cemetery, the
Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District, and the lagoon sites owned by the Town
of Stephens City and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority_
0 Wgmdas\COMMENTS\REZONING\Staff Report\SouthemHills.wpd
iL
ERRELL, WILLIAM HENRY
85 A 138
Frederick County, Virginia
Rezoning Application Materials
And
Impact Analysis Statement
For The
Dorothy Carbaugh Estate Property
SOUTHERN HILLS
Opequon Magisterial District
October 2000
Prepared by:
Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
200 North Cameron Street
1 Ourth I loor Winchester Towers
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Phone: 540-667-2131 Fax: 540-665-09493
E-mail: gwcliif cc)mnsinc.com
Summary
The following Impact Analvsis Statement is provided in summary form for the property known as
"Southern Hills". The property is located on Town Run Lane, south of VA Route 377, near Stephens
City, Virginia. The parcel to be rezoned totals 105 acres. The parcel is currently zoned Rural Area
(RA). The requested rezoning is to change the current 105 acres of RA to Residential Performance (RP)
zoning.
The property is shown on the attached generalized land use development plan.
The Impact Analysis Statement for Southern Hills is prepared as required by the Frederick County
Board of Supervisors for rezoning approval of the property. The model projects a negative fiscal
impact. The owners/developers have proffered an amount that will offset the projected negative fiscal
amounts projected by the Frederick County model.
There are residential units proposed as part of this rezoning request. The property will support
approximately 250 homes. The property is planned with interconnected subdivision streets that connect
at two points with Town Run Lane. An extension of Stickley Drive is planned and proffered to mitigate
traffic impacts.
The property proposed for RP zoning is located in the Urban Development Area (UDA) pursuant to
recent action by the Board of Supervisors and within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA).
Analysis of environmental and physical characteristics of this property to be rezoned indicated that there
J s opportunity for development as envisioned for the residential uses. Environmental features that limit
the development are identified and incorporated for design consideration.
Public sewer and water service are available to the property. Natural gas and electric serf ice are
available to the property.
The rezoning of the 105 acres of the Southern Hills property fits within the guidelines of present planned
policy for the area.
REZONING APPLICATION FORM
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
777e following information shall be provided by the applicant:
All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the
Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent
Street, Winchester.
1. Applicant:
Name: Dave Holliday Construction, Inc Telephone: 540-667-2120
Address: 205 N. Cameron St., Winchester VA 22601
2. Property Owner (if different than above)
Name: William H. Herrell
Address: 1680 Marlboro Road
Stephens City, VA 22655
3. Contact person if other than above
Telephone: 540-869-4235
Name: Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Telephone: 540-667-2139
G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc_
4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application.
Location Map X Agency Comments X
Plat X Fees X
Deep of property X Impact Analysis Statement X
Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X
5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation
to rezoning applications.
Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned:
William H. Herrell
6. A) Current Use of the Property:
B) Proposed Use of the Property:
7. Adjoining Property:
Agricultural
Residential Single Family Subdivision
PARCEL ID NUMBER
85-A-59
USE
Agricultural
ZONING
RA
85-A-60
Agricultural
RA
85-A-131
Agricultural
RA
85-A-137
Residential
RA
85-A-1375
Residential
RA
85 -A -137E
1 Residential
RA
85-A-139
Agricultural
RA
85-A-141
Local Gov't
RA
85-A-142
Local Gov't
RA
8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and
distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers).
South of Stephens City,east of Interstate 81: 0.8 miles south of Route 277 Fairfax
Pike) on the east side of Route 1012 (Town Run Lane)
I 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 of intensity scenario
for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package.
9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 85-A-138
Magisterial:
Fire Service:
Rescue Service
10. Zoning Change:
requested.
Opequon
Stephens Cit
Stephens Citi
Districts
High School:
Middle School:
Elementary School:
Sherando
R. E. Aylor
Middletown
List the acreage included in each new zoning category being
11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning
proposed:
Number of Units Proposed
Single Family home 250 Townhome 0 Multi -Family 0
Non -Residential Lots 0 Mobile Home 0 Hotel Rooms 0
Square Footage of Proposed Uses
Office 0 Service Station
Retail 0 Manufacturing
Restaurant 0 Warehouse
Other
C
0
9
U. 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.
Applicant(s): P,� 7 ?
1
Owner(s): r�
14
Date:
Date:
Date:3-ob
Date:
85-A-59
Dave Holliday Rezoning : u
Mary Virginia Stickley Estep c/o Robert M. Bushong
i,r�vz Jt. Stephens Place
Midlothian, VA 23113
85-A-60 -
William H. &Shirley A. Herren
1680 Marlboro Road
Stephens City, VA 22655
85-A-131
Ritenour Farm LP c/o Mary C. Ritenour
514 Peace & Plenty Lane
Stephens City. VA 22655
85-A-137
Henry F. Kent & Joyce E. Myers
625 Town Run Lane
Stephens C4, VA 22655
85 -A -137D
William L. & Elizabeth N. Ramey
824 Peace & Plenty Lane
Stephens City, VA 22655
85 -A -137E
William L. & Elizabeth N. Ramey
824 Peace & Plenty Lane
Stephens City, VA 22655
85-A-139
Gary L. Scothorn & Stephen P. Scothorn & Dennis A. Scothorn
506 Ewings Lane
-Stephens City, VA 22655
85-A-141
Frederick — Winchester Service Authority
P.O. Box 43
Winchester, VA 22604
85-A-142
Stephens City Town of
PO Box 250'
Stenhens City, VA 22655
REZONING REQUEST PROFFER
Property Identification Number 85-A-138
Opequon Magisterial District
DOROTHY CARBAUGH ESTATE PROPERTY
Preliminary Matters
Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 et. Sea., of the code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of
the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional rezoning, the undersigned applicant
hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve
Rezoning Application 4 01-01 for the rezoning of 105 acres from Rural Area (RA) to Residential
Performance (RP). Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and
conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently
amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these
proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon
the applicant and their legal successor or assigns.
Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development
The undersigned, who owns the above described property, hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board
of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 105 acres, with
frontage along Town Run Lane in the Opequon Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from
RA to RP, the undersigned will pay to Frederick County at the time a building permit is applied for and
issued the sum of $4,910.00 per lot.
This monetary proffer provides for $3,581.00 for Frederick County Schools; $598.00 for Frederick
County Parks and Recreation; $446.00 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue; $105.00 for Public
Library, $59.00 for Sheriff's Office and $121.00 for Administration Building.
General Development Plan
Voluntarily proffered is the attached Generalized Development Plan including the following
improvements:
1. On the 105 acres to be zoned RP no more than 250 single family dwelling units shall be constructed.
These units shall consist of single family home lots. No multi -family units shall be constructed on
this property.
2. Stickley Drive (SR 1085) shall be extended as shown to connect with Town Run Lane (SR 1012).
The conditions proffered above shu,:,, )e binding upon tht?heirs, executors- ministrators, assigns and
successors in interest of the Applicant and Owner. In the event the Frederick Countv Board of
Supervisors grant said rezoning and accepts these conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the
land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code.
Respectfully submitted.
PROPERTY OWNER
Bv:
Date-
STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE
FREDERICK COUNTY, To-�vit:
The forego ing,in5trument was acknowledged before me this 701 day of "Dt-ennboZ_
2000, by -David F t -kvhM�
i'w o,r�nissiE6 91 o
Notar:, Public
CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM
COMMISSIONER
J I �
COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
EDINBURG RESIDENCY
14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE
EDINBURG. VA 22824
November 21, 2000
Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P.
G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
200 North Cameron Stfeet
Winchester, VA 22601
JERRY A. COPP
RESIDENT ENGINFER
TELE(540)984-5600
FAX (540) 984-5607
Ref: Southern Hills, Holliday Concept Plan
Route 1012, Town Run Lane @ Route 277, Fairfax Pike & I-81 Interchange
Frederick County
Dear Chuck:
A VDOT review has been completed at the Edinburg Residency Office on the concept
plan and attendant rezoning request dated 10/26/00 for the referenced project.
The impact analysis addresses traffic issues in a general way. However, VDOT
concerns may be extended to other developments, both residential and commercial in
the general area of this proposed Southern Hills concept plan. A glimpse at the
Frederick County Index Map appears to reveal approximately three square miles of
residential performance: residential, recreational community and commercial areas
which have potential impacts on VDOT facility improvement studies in the vicinity of the
Southern Hills concept plan.
As indicated in a letter dated 08/24/00 from Mr. Steven A. Melnikoff to your office, the
portion of the Frederick County Rezoning Application addressing VDOT and County
needs under the Impact Analysis/Traffic (Pages 4, 5 & 6) should be included in the
Impact Analysis presented for VDOT review.
Among VDOT concerns which should be addressed are:
Improvement of Route 1012, Town Run Lane. The attached typical section indicating
the roadway width and pavement structure on existing Route 1012 demonstrate the
inadequacy of the existing structure to support the projected 2500 TPD anticipated to
access Southern Hills.
Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr.
November 21, 2000
Ref: Southern Hills Concept Plan
Page #2
The application to rezone should address how and who would provide the necessary
improvements to Route 1012:
a) County Six Year Plan
b) Developer participation in cost and/or construction
c) Other sources of participation
Please note the improvements should address the heavy increase in traffic volumes to
be generated onto the Route 1012 facility. Current VDOT estimate (1999) is at 210
AADT, the proposed 2500 TPD generated by Southern Hills represents a tremendous
impact on the existing typical section (copy attached).
Development of turn lanes and tapers should also be considered.
Traffic impact should include consideration of signalized intersections.
Since no VDOT improvement plan exists for the Route 1012 facility, the Southern Hills
concept should address improvements beginning at the Route 277 intersection with
Route 647.
Please note a copy of this letter and all previous correspondence regarding the
referenced project has been forwarded to our Staunton District, Office for their review
and information.
We look forward to receiving and reviewing a more complete rezoning package
whenever available.
If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
lam/ G7/(l�•( ! � �G�Jui
Barry J. Sweitzer, Trans. Roadway Engineer
For: Steven A. Melnikoff, Transportation Engineer
BJS/rf
Enclosure
xc: Mr. Jim Diamond, Attn:
Mr. Terry Jackson, Attn
Mr. Dave Heironimus
Mr. Kris Tierney, Attn:
Mr. Kelly Downs (w/ attachments)
Mr. Guy Tudor (w/ attachments)
Mr. Evan Wyatt
nlii Gi '
r� 5Ea1
:3: A 00 i0
vc*. th
_vr
,ce 0 �i
SDiI QC -2 4Z. 55 V-2 oil 21-
OCI, 0.30 l , Pe ,I Q�
N•�u�'l.
Ga e
!bs 5: o, �.25CCI ren f
CUVe'P�r !c� No 4�
!d
, �� ,nf b�• f,r"��r�� 25165. G
xg
, P/ y /%
VL
tic,mp 4-i C,
t C5 -1.
12TE.1012
5tc.
-�� � 5•to.
•�J( 5j, <CS -
__ --
---
T�"°�L 5Ec T low (FIN—EQ QA,'�4P ).----------.____------
pQo� �a1v�P ��� X12" 5' i��Mc�1NOU5 COK'CQE T E 345COUPSE TYPE H-3
')8fiUiw'NOuSCU�C�c E 81NDEt2 PCQ
COUI25E
;YFE N-2 4) 140 LB55?_
60 X8, 5UQF4CE CDUQ5 E i VFE -.3
v LX I V.
30' 1204 DVVA`(
c COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Public Works
540/665-5643
FAX: 540/678-0682
November 29, 2000
Mr. Chuck Maddox, P.E.
Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates, Inc.
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Rezoning for Southern Hills Subdivision
Frederick County,'Virginia
Dear Chuck:
Based on our review of the proposed rezoning request from RA to RP, we offer the following
comments related to the proposed Southern Hills project:
1) We concur with your analysis and offer to construct the extension of Stickley Drive as
part of planned improvements to mitigate traffic impacts. We recommend that this
extension be included in the initial phase of the project development.
2) The proposed stormwater ponds shall be constructed prior to the construction of the
roads and related site development. The stormwater ponds shall be designed to include
sediment control.
3) The county does not plan to provide a dumpster specifically for this project. The
project in general will have a negative impact on the county's citizens' convenience site
located near Middletown, Virginia. The proposed project may require an expansion of
this site to serve the residents that will occupy the additional 260 single family
dwellings.
The above comments should be reflected in the revised impact analysis.
Sincerely,
Harvey. . trawsnyder, Jr., P. .
Director of Public Works
HES/rls
cc: Frederick County Planning Department
file
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-000
Frederick Counly Public Schoors
Administrative Assistant to Visit us at w-xvw.frederick.k12.va.us
the Superintendent
November 29, 2000
Mr. Chuck Maddox
Gilbert W. CIifford & Associates. Inc.
200 N. Cameron St,
Winchester, VA 22601
REF: Rezoning Comments Southern Hills
Dear Mr. Maddox
e-mail.
omdorfaafredenck.kU va.us
I am in receipt of your request for rezoning comments concerning a parcel of land
containing 105 acres to be rezoned from RA to RP (Residential Performance). It is my
understanding the proposed rezoning from Ra to RP will allow for the construction of 250
homes. You have also indicated the land to be rezoned is 105 acres in size at the following
location:
South of Stephens City, east of Interstate 81; 0.8 miles
south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) on the east side of Route
1012 (Town Run Lane)
Residential development in this portion of Frederick County has resulted in the schools
serving this area having student enrollments nearing maximum design capacity. The proposed
monetary proffer of 53,581 per building permit will assist the county in addressing capital
improvement projects for future school facilities. The cumulative impact of this project and
others of a similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in
this area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate
increased student enrollment. The impact of the proposed rezoning on current and future school
needs should be considered during the approval process.
Sincerely,
Al Orndorff
Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent
PC- Dr. William C- Dean, Supenntendent of Schools
Mr- Robert W- Cleaver, Assistant Superintendent for Administration
AO -6623889 Ext 112 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 226042546
FAX 540-722-2788
L./Plannin^g/Southem Hills
Impact Analysis
Introduction
The site of Southern Hills is the Dorothy Carbaugh Estate Property located immediately south of the
former Stephens City Wastewater Treatment Facility and the Frederick County Wastewater Treatment
Facility. The site is accessed by way of Town Run Lane which has a direct connection to Route 277 at
the interchange with Interstate 81. A portion of this site has been included since the 1980's in the
comprehensive plan urban development area (UDA). Recently upon recommendation of the
comprehensive plan subcommittee of the Planning Commission, the unanimous recommendation of the
Planning Commission and action by the Board of Supervisors, this site has been deemed to be entirely
within the urban development area.
Site Suitability
The site is mostly cleared as shown on the attached photograph. A description of the property is
contained in Deed Book 163 Page 274 described as PIN 85-A-138. The site rises from a low elevation
along Stephens Run of 685 elevation to a high of 765. The site can best be described as gently rolling
with some steep slopes near the stream channel. A flood plain exists along the north and east side of the
project. Ample utilities exist within close proximity of the site. The site is underlain by Martinsburg
Shale characteristic of other lands within the urban development area of Frederick County.
Surrounding Properties
The site is bounded by undeveloped land along Interstate 81 on the west, farms on the south and east,
and the developed urban development area on the north including former wastewater treatment facilities,
as well as a townhouse development and emerging commercially zoned land. The site can be
adequately screened and buffered from all adjacent uses. Lands to the southeast are intensively farmed
and require consideration of a buffer of some type.
Traffic
Traffic impacts are a substantial issue in this proposed rezoning. The site will generate 2,500 trips per
day by the proffered density utilizing the ITE study. The intersection with Route 277 has been
designated as a problem intersection requiring substantial improvements both as Route 277 is widened
and also when Interstate 81 is improved. The Route 277 improvement project by VDOT calls for the
relocation of the Aylor Road intersection near Interstate 81 to a point east which aligns with Stickley
Drive. This activity will "take" the Wendy's restaurant and result in a relocation of Aylor Road to this
new intersection. The improvement of the Interstate 81 interchange will close the Town Run Lane
intersection and provide for access through Stickley Lane to the new Aylor Road intersection with Route
277 (see attached plan). A proffer of this rezoning is to provide the right-of-way and initial road
improvements necessary to establish this traffic pattern. This activity will eliminate the traffic impact on
the Route 277 stoplight at Town Run Lane. It also affords the opportunity to revise traffic patterns in
the area which may assist in the State study for Interstate access locations along the Interstate 81
corridor. Recent meetings with State officials has indicated a relocation of the Route 277 interchange to
a point south and lining up with the new Stickley Drive access road could be a better solution than
improvement of the existing interchange. A study of this alternative has been agreed to by VDOT at the
time 81 design studies are performed.
A full traffic analysis of this situation will be prepared at the time of master development plan approval
for comment by VDOT and local planning officials. Road improvements will be based on needs
established by this traffic analysis.
Sewage Conveyance and Treatment
The site can be served by gravity sewer extension to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority facilities
located to the north. The 250 houses on this site will generate approximately 50,000 gallons per day of
wastewater based on the monthly average water usage in the urban development area. As of the
September operating history of the Parkins Mill Facility, the plant is operating at 65% capacity allowing
space in the plant for this project. There are no known transmission line issues which would prevent
adequate service to this project.
Water Supply
Water service would be extended along Town Run Lane to this site. The water demand for this project
would be 50,000 gallons per day and there are no known deficiencies that would prevent adequate
service from being provided to this project subject to FCSA comment.
Site Drainage
Site drainage would go directly to the Stephens Run stream channel. Along the way stormwater
management facilities would be constructed to meet siltation control and stormwater peak flow
discharge requirements of the County and the State. The site storm system would be designed to VDOT
standards but that there are no unusual issues surrounding drainage that would affect utilization of the
site.
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
The solid waste would be handled by contract hauler or by owner access to dumpster locations provided
by the County. Each home would generate approximately 12 lbs. of solid waste per day for a total of
1.5 tons per day created by this project. Recent consultation with County officials would indicate that
there is no limitation to landfill facility that would prevent this project from being serviced.
Historic Sites and Structures
There are no known historic sites or structures on this site.
Impact on Community Facilities
Frederick County's capital impact model has been run to reflect the impacts associated with this project.
Proffers have been created that intend to mitigate the associated impacts as presented. A copy of the
impact model output is attached. The proffer amount of $4,910.00 is 50% of the predicted total impact
in all categories_
OUTPUT MODULE
APPLICANT PIN 85-A• 138
Nei Fiscal Impact
LAND USE TYPE Single Family
REAL EST VAL S32.775,000
Costs of impact Credit CM05 10 be Take
Re
Total Polenaai
Aolusimerl For
C�
So /p
FIRE 8 RESCUE 1 f
quired (entered in Cur Budget Cur Budget Cap. Ful -ire CIP/
Cap.tal Facdti es cal sum only) Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S. Taxes, Other
Tax Credits
Revenue-
Net Caphal
Net Cost Per
QO �
(Unadjusted)
Cost Balance
FaWilies Impact
Dwebtrg Unit
Fife and Rescue Department
$222.149
Elementary Schools
$1,019,969
SO
SO
5222 ,149
$889
Middle Schools
High Schools
$540,569 5126,010 $729,921
$831,664
$855,931
$601,733
$1,790.469
57,162
3 ��
Parks and Recreation
Publ c Library
$364,315 $93,181
566,714
$93,181
$65 508
$298.807
51,195
594
Sheriffs Offices5,044
547.020 S16.Stt SO
$20,044
$14,091
$52,623
$210
Administration Building
$8
58,663
$60,342
$25,174
517,698
529,322
$117342
Other Miscellaneous Facilities
SO
$76,717 $230,040 $46,291
SO
$0
$60,
5241 %_
$276,331
$194,265
$0
SO
SUBTOTAL $3,229,x59 5372,562 $776,211 $121,888
LESS. NET FISCAL IMPACT SO
$1,270,661
'$893.295
$2,336,164
$9,345
�[
�!
NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT
$0
SO
SO
SQ
�/ /I
$2.336,1641
345
/D
INDEX: '1 0" M Cap Equip included: 1.0
INDEX: '1.0' A Rev -Cost Bal, -0.0' if Ratio to Co Avg 0.0
Rev-Cosl Sal -
0.491
PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0
Ratio to Co Avg =
0.703
METHODOLOGY 1.
Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model
-
- '--
2.
Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column
(zero i1 negative); included are the one-time taxestfees for one year only at full value.
3.
NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts.
4.
NPV of future capilzt expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated In fiscal impacts.
5.
NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facif ties, as
calculated for each new facility.
B.
Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital
fazilibes requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues
from the projecl (actual, or as ratio to avg. for a'1 residential development).
NOTE: Protfer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do Include interest if the projects are debt financed -
NOTES: Model Run Date 10125100 EAw - `--`--'---'-- -'- --
P. I. N 85-A• 138 Rezoning: Assumes 250 Single Family Dwellings on 105 acres zoned RP District.
Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this
Output Module may not to valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date.
PC REVIEW: 01/03/01
BOS REVIEW: 01/24/01
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION #01-01
BUTLER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
LOCATION: The property is located on Woodbine Road (Route 669) approximately 1,500 feet
from intersection of Route 1 I and Route 669.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 34 -A -6A
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned M1 (Light Industrial) District; Land Use:
Manufacturing
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use:
Residential and Agricultural
SUBDIVISION SPECIFICS: Subdivision of 33+ acre tract into two lots
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to the subdivision of this property. Before
development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans for review.
Entrances will have to be constructed to VDOT minimum standards to allow for safe egress
and ingress of the property. See attached letter dated 11-28-00 from Barry J. Sweitzer,
Trans. Roadway Engineer with [DOT.
Inspections Department: All structures are 50+ feet from property lines. No comment
required at this time.
Fire Marshal: Requirements of Frederick County Chapter 90; water supplies for fire
fighting. Plan approval is recommended.
Public Works: We offer no comments at this time.
Butler Manufacturing Co. Subdivision
Page 2
December 21, 2000
Health Department: Before the Health Department proceeds, a written statement must be
submitted explaining exactly what the applicant is proposing. Approval cannot be given until
the owner is granted approval from the Office of Water Programs on both commercial
properties. According to the plat, there is no easement granted to parcel one to allow a force
main access to the existing system. A conference with the Environmental Supervisor I and
Environment 1 District Manager, must occur before approval can be determined. This mound
system currently will process 600 gallons per day. The owner must be clear on how much
sewage and water usage will be processed from Lot 2.
Planning and Zoning:
Public Meeting_ Requirement
The Subdivision Ordinance requires that land divisions in the Ml (Light Industrial) Zoning
District, without an approved master development plan, be presented to the Board of
Supervisors for final approval. This project is zoned M1 and does not contain an approved
MDP; therefore, Board review and action is necessary.
Staff Review
This parcel presently contains two buildings currently utilized for manufacturing. The
immediately surrounding properties are dominated by agricultural and residential uses.
The proposed division would establish two lots: Lot 1: 21.0483 acres and Lot 2: 12.8969
acres. As state road frontage is limited, the submitted plats indicate that aneasement would
be utilized for a shared entrance accessing the properties. Staff encourages this shared
entrance as no new entrances would need to be created on Woodbine Road.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 01-03-01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Staff
recommends approval of this subdivision application contingent upon the applicant's satisfying all
review agency comments.
O:\Agendas\COMMENTS\SUBDI VISION\BuderMmufacturing.0 pd
SUB x#01-01
Location Map For:
Butler Manufacturing
PIN:
34 -A -6A
Office of Mapping and GIS, 12100, Agray
APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST
SUBDIVISION
FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA
Date: tjlzilco Application # � � Fee Paid �Q
Applicant/Agent:
Address: 3 o Q 5 . r C�Jcf c c1L SLt S}.Sit
W ; v\'c 1ti,c 5 -4e f U A -a z u
Phone: 0 6-,4 Z t -P ca a- 57 q
Owners name: bliO-e
Address: -j M A To ,�J af.r
-70o knes Ja. ��5 C,�,,.�tp L,1o�c
Phone: `�- ( 1A - 5 3 1 - -'� 3a, 3 ',A, a o
Please list names of all owners, principals and /or majority
stockholders:
Contact Person: , I�. ;�-e, 5 �, �%_ U.A
Phone:
Name of Subdivision:
Number of Lots Total Acreage -Qi . 0 1- 5 3 t a . Fr9 9
Property
Location:
Rf. 11
(Give State Rt.#, name, distance and direction from intersection)
Magisterial District
Property Identification Number (PIN����L��
a
-;'1_11E
U LE C' 1 1 2000
DEPT. OF PLAN N1WDEVELOPMENT
Property zoning and present use: til. --
Adjoining property zoning and use:
Has a Master Development Plan been submitted for this project?
Yes No
If yes, has the final MDP been approved by the Board of
Supervisors?
Yes No
What was the MDP title?
Does the plat contain any changes from the approved MDP?
Yes No
If yes, specify what changes: ,
Minimum Lot Size (smallest lot) L64- a — ( 9,
Number and types of housing units in this development:
Number r-4 o �,
Types rs o A--v-
W"
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM
COMMISSIONER
Ms. Monica Butts
C/O Painter -Lewis, PLC
302 South Braddock Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Monica:
DEPAF:TM .NT OF TRANSPORTATION
EDINBURG RESIDENCY
14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE
EDINBURG, VA 22824
November 28, 2000
JERRY A. COPP
RESIDENT ENGINEER
TELE(540)984-5600
FAX(540)984-5607
Ref: Butler Manufacturing Company
Final Plat & Suudivision Comment
Route 669, Woodbine Road
Frederick County
A VDOT review has been completed on the final plat dated 10/17/00 for the referenced
project.
We have no objection to the subdivision of this property Before development, this
office will require a complete set of construction plans for review. The plan should
include a dedication to the Commonwealth of Virginia of an additional 5' wide strip of
right-of-way across the entire parcel fronting and adjacent to Route 669, Woodbine
Road, to meet the current VDOT minimum right-of-way on this type of facility.
Please provide VDOT with a revised final plat with a signature line for VDOT agent at
your earliest convenience.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
BJS/rf
Enclosure
xc: Mr. Dave Heironimus
Mr. Kris Tierney
Sincel
GJVz-tom/,o
,,
Barry J. Sweitzer
Trans. Roadway Engineer
For: Steven A. Melnikoff
Transportation Engineer
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
aCEN'a
DEPT. OF PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director %J
RE: 2001-2002 Capital Improvements Plan Discussion
DATE: December 20, 2000
The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) met with county department
representatives to discuss new project requests and project modification requests associated with
the 2001-2002 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). Following that discussion, the CPPS evaluated
all projects proposed for inclusion in the 2001-2002 CIP and established a prioritized list that was
forwarded out of committee with a unanimous recommendation.
Staff has requested an opportunity to present this information to the Planning Commission and the
Board of Supervisors as a discussion item prior to advertising the 2001-2002 CIP for public
hearing. This will provide an opportunity for the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
to review the proposed projects, ask questions, and determine if additional information is
necessary.
Please find included with this agenda item a summary of the 2001-2002 CIP; information
pertaining to new or modified department projects; the results of the 2001-2002 CIP project
evaluation by the CPPS; and a preliminary copy of the 2001-2002 CIP. Please contact our
department if you have any questions regarding this information.
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
2001-2002 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN SUMMARY
29 total projects compared to 28 projects from the previous CIP.
2. Total county cost of $145.0 million including $92.3 million estimated project costs and
$52.7 million estimated debt service compared to $106.5 million from the previous CIP.
3. New project requests include a new elementary school; a new middle school; renovations
to the transportation complex; and completion of the 3`d floor of the County Administration
Office.
4. The new library facility was the only project removed from the previous CIP.
5. The previous CIP project requesting additions to the NREP facility has been eliminated
as a CIP project by the School Board.
SUMMARY OF NEW PROJECT REQUESTS
AND PROJECT MODIFICATION REQUESTS
Frederick County Department of Public Works
Project
Type of
2000 Local
2001 Local
Difference in FY
Request
Expenditure
Expenditure
Local
Request
Request
Expenditure
Request
County
New
N/A
$800,000
+$800,000
Administration
Building - 3`d floor
completion
New Animal Shelter
Modification
$755,000
$855,000
+$100,000
Frederick County Public Schools
Project
Type of
2000 Local
2001 Local
Difference in FY
Request
Expenditure
Expenditure
Local
Request
Request
Expenditure
Request
Third County High
Modification
$32,000,000
$37,440,000
+$5,440,000
School Facility
Maintenance &
Modification
$9,000,000
$1,460,000
-$7,540,000
Warehouse Facility
,
Elementary School
New
N/A
$10,000,000
+$10,000,000
Construction
Middle School
New
N/A
$22,300,000
+$22,300,000
Construction
Transportation
New
N/A
$2,600,000
+$2,600,000
Complex Renovation
* Note: Cost estimates for Public School projects do not reflect debt service.
Frederick County Treasurer's Office
Project
Type of
2000 Local
2001 Local
Difference in FY
Request
Expenditure
Expenditure
Local
Request
Request
Expenditure
Request
New Satellite Office
Modification
N/A
$390,000
+$390,000
(land acquisition
and construction)
FY 2001-2002 Capital Improvement Plan Project Evaluation Results
ir
Project Title
Total Points
FY 2001-2002
Rank
CIP Previous
Rank
Public Safety Center
55.42
1
1
Third High School
54.14
2
8
Airport Road Relocation (Construction)
53.14
3
5
Airfield Lighting Upgrade
51.14
4
6
Western Parkland Acquisition
48.28
5
7
New Elementary School Land Acquisition
44.85
6
11
Maintenance/Warehouse Facility
44.57
7
3
County Office - 3`d Floor Completion
43.71
8
28
New Elementary School Construction
43.00
9
N/A
Softball Complex (SP)
42.71
10
13
Field House/Indoor Pool
41.85
11
4
New Middle School Land Acquisition
41.00
12
14
New Middle School Construction
40.85
13
N/A
Baseball Complex Renovation (SP)
39.85
14
22
Jaynes Wood Middle School Renovation
38.57t*
15
10
Airfield Maintenance Building
38.57t*
16
23
Transportation Complex Renovation
37.85t**
17
N/A
New Animal Shelter
37.85t**
18
9
Soccer Complex Renovation (SP)
33.71
19
16
Eastern Parkland Acquisition
33.57
20
21
Open Play Area (CB)
31.14
21
20
Tennis/Basketball Complex (CB)
29.85
22
15
New Gainesboro Elementary School
28.83t***
23
12
Project Title
if
Total Points
FY 2001-2002
Rank
CIP Previous
Rank
Maintenance Compound (SP)
28.83t***
24
18
Tennis/Picnic Area (SP)
27.28
25
25
Skateboard Park/In-line Hockey
25.00
26
27
Annex Facilities
24.66
27
19
Indian Hollow Elementary Addition
23.83
28
26
Shelter/Stage Seating
18.85
29
24
CVNyFi1es\Backup\CIP\2001-2002 CIP\2001-2002CIPProjectEvaluationPa kingTableUpdate.wpd
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
2001-2002
December 19, 2000
RE: CUP Application
Dear Commission Members,
Please note enclosed copy of the letter I sent to Rhoda Kriz regarding the
expansion of her `Bed and Breakfast" CUP.
I wanted the members of the Planning Commission also to be aware of my opinion
as an adjacent property owner in time for the January 3, 2001 meeting, since I will not be
able to attend.
Sincerely,
Mary G. Fetter
RECEIVED
Js L 2 BOO
DEPT, OF FLM 1\11i-lOiDEJELOPMENT
212 Woodcrest Drive
Winchester VA 22603
December 16, 2000
Rhoda W. Kriz
547 Apple Pie Ridge Road
Winchester 22603
Dear Rhoda,
I have read the Rules and Regulations that you have provided for our review.
While I appreciate your attempt to place some sort of control over your proposed
activities, that still does not override my belief that an expansion of your current CUP is further
advancing a commercial venture in a totally residential neighborhood. I find the introduction of a
facility that would offer seminars and wedding receptions to be inappropriate to the existing
complexion of this area.
I should also add that this situation has been the cause of considerable discussion and
anxiety among many of us who would be effected by the potential noise, activity and increased
traffic. It is my concern that you could not guarantee control over guests' behavior, noise level
and general activity level.
I4*6 this reason that I must state my opposition to the request for expansion of your
existing CUP.
Yours truly,
Mary G. Fetter
Dear Rhoda,
As promised, I said I would get back to you on your Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) request. First of all, I ask myself this question? If I had my preference, would I
want a business in my neighborhood? The answer is obviously no. Your CUP request is
to have seminars and weddings, along with the bed and breakfast. Could I live with this?
Probably. Only if I know the owners and could trust whether good judgment would be
used. I know Rhoda and George Kriz and I believe they would use proper discretion.
However, I emphatically state that there must be notarized conditions attached to the
CUP which are the following:
a. The CUP becomes null and void if the Krizs sell the property, if they become
incapacitated and can not manage the property themselves, or if they are deceased.
b. The CUP has to be re -certified every seven years.
c. The CUP can not be operated by their heirs or passed on to their heirs.
d. The CUP can not be expanded to anything else other than seminars, weddings or bed
and breakfast.
e. The CUP must include the documented rules that the Krizs defined in their letter to
the neighbors.
If these 5 conditions are made part of the CUP, I would not strongly oppose
the CUP. I am only speaking for myself and I can not speak for the other neighbors.
Sincerely,
Robert K. Fetter
/z1! Da
Rhoda W. Kriz CUP # 17-00
Page 3
January 3, 2001
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11-01-00 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Approval of this conditional use permit would be appropriate with the following twelve eleven
conditions (conditions 1-4 were placed on the bed and breakfast on December 8, 1999):
All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. In accordance with Cottage Occupation sign requirements, signage for the proposed use may
not exceed (4) four square feet in area. A sign permit will need to be issued by the County
Building Inspections Department prior to the placement of a sign.
3. No more that (3) three bedrooms shall be utilized for the bed and breakfast operation.
4. Any expansion of the bed and breakfast shall require a new CUP.
5. Parking will not be permitted anywhere along the access road of the property if that parking
prevents complete internal circulation.
6. The owner is responsible for keeping the trees and vegetation cut to at least i-4 provide a
minimum vertical clearance of 14.5 feet in height along the entire access road.
7 The maximum occupancy load during
any wedding, wedding reception, seminar, or other gathering shall be 50 persons.
Except for music used during wedding ceremonies, all forms of music and dance are to be
kept within the house. Music, whether performed or pre-recorded, should not be audible
beyond the property lines.
9. The existing natural screening between the house and the adjoining properties is to be
maintained in a healthy condition.
10. No wedding, reception or seminar will begin before 7:00 a.m. or last beyond 9:00 p.m.
Weddings and receptions are to be limited to three hours in duration.
11. All gatherings, other than wedding ceremonies are to be held within the house. Wedding
ceremonies shall be permitted within the lawn area directly in front of the house. Any change
in the location of the gatherings shall require a new CUP.
0: W gendas\COMMENTS\CUP's\2000\RhodaKriz2B.CUP.wpd
1/3/01
Department of Planning and Development
County of Frederick
Members of Department of Planning
We would like to express to you our feelings in regard to the Conditional
Use Permit requested by Rhoda Kriz. We feel, like some of the other concerned
parties, that it would not be in our best interest for such a request to be granted. In
addition to the issues already raised by our neighbors, we have a concern about the
precedent that would be set. If this permit is granted, what will happen when the
next individual decides to request a permit to start a business of some sort?
We understand that Mrs. Kriz intends to do all in her power to see that the
conditions she outlined will be adhered to. However, that may be more difficult
than she thinks.
We hate to have the privacy and peacefulness of this neighborhood
disrupted by a business such as requested.
Paul and a Hillyard
0 hiliyad ❖ ❖
G. W. Clifford &4ssociates, Inc
To: Mr Evan Wyatt, Planning Director
CC: Mr David Holliday
From: Charles E. Maddox, Jr PE
Date: 1/l/01
Re: Southern Hills, Staff Issues
The following are the requested applicant responses to staff comments
of Dec22. ,2000. Responses are in italic and under the staff comment,
for ease of review and reference
"Staff believes that the applicant should adequately address the
Mowing issues to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission prior
to a recommendation being forwarded to the Board of Supervisors
regarding this proposal:"
1) The applicant should demonstrate the current Level of
Service (LOS) conditions at the intersections of Town
Run Lane and Stickley Drive with Fairfax Pike, and the
.future LOS conditions assuming the build -out of this
project.
The intersection in question is scheduled by VDOT to
become the Primary intersection on Rt277 East of I-81
. It will support traffic from the relocated Aylor
Road as well as Stickley Drive. Further , it is VDOT's
Plan as presented in their Public Hearings on the Rte
277 design, to extend Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane,
thus allowing contolled access to Town Run Lane from
Rte 277 and the I-81 Interchange.It is obvious that
VDOT plans to provide stoplight control to the subject
intersection when the upgrade is performed. Also, the
(540) 667-2139
(540) 665-0493,/ax
1
January 1, 2001
Percentage of use of this expanded intersection by
Southern hills will be very small in relation to this
expanded use. Finally, any stoplight improvements done
now , because of Right of Way acquisition and shifts
In roadway centerlines ,will be replaced when the VDOT
Rte 277 project is constructed. In summary, it is the
applicants position that construction of Stickley
Drive extended and improvement of Town Run Lane are a
more than adequate "Fair Share" for mitgation of
traffic impacts. It improves the operating
characteristics immediately for traffic in the area
and it is felt that since Construction Drawings have
been prepared by VDOT then the ROW acquistion and
construction will be done well within the 5 to 10 year
design life of Southern Hills.
�? The applicant should identify the scope of
improvements that are planned for Town Run Lane and
indicate when the improvements will occur, who is
responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if
those commitments are planned to be incorporated into
the proffer statement for this project.
The proffer statement and generalized development plan
has been changed to reflect improvements to Town Run
Lane including overlay of 2" of Bituminous Concrete on
the existing prime and seal surface between Stickley
Drive and the first project entrance and the addition
of guardrails where needed, with work to be performed
prior to the issuance of the 50th occupancy permit.
Town Run Lane will be overlayed between the project
entrances when the second entrance is constructed.
3) The applicant should indicate what agreements exist to
obtain a deeded easement from the Stimpson parcel that
provides for an adequate right-of-way width to allow
for the extension of Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane.
We have sent to your office a letter , signed by Mr
Harry Stimpson, III, the owner, showing his intent to
provide the necessary rights of way and easements for
the applicant to construct Stickley Drive extension.
2
January 1, 2001
4) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if
plans exist to provide for traffic signalization at
the Stickley Road intersection with Fairfax Pike, and
indicate when the improvements will occur, who is
responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if
those commitments are planned to be incorporated into
the proffer statement for this project.
See applicants reply in 1 above. The applicant does
not voluntarily proffer improvements at this
intersection for the reasons stated.
5) The applicant should address the concerns expressed by
the Fire and Rescue Service division regarding viable
solutions for emergency vehicle access and regarding
the proposed monetary proffer to offset impacts to
fire and rescue capital facilities costs.
The applicant has received an updated reply for
comments from Chief Greg Locke of the Stephens City
Fire Company, stating that his Department now does not
object to the rezoning after review of the Stickley
Drive plan proposed by proffer.
With regard to proffer amount, the applicant proffered
the amount agreed to by the Board of Supervisors with
the Top of Virginia Builders Assoc., namely 501 of the
recently updated proffer model. In the case of Fire
and Rescue, this constituted an amount many times
previous proffers made by the applicant. Apparently,
the Dept of Emergency Services desires a 100-W proffer
Which raises the proffer from $15 to $880 per lot
(500$+)
3
January 1, 2001
6) The applicant should indicate how they can mitigate
impacts associated with the increased use of the
citizens convenience center and the need to expand
that facility.
The applicant believes that the Solid Waste Management
function of the County Public Works Dept. is operated
as an Enterprise activity where the fees charged pay
for the operation and capital improvements required.
With great respect for the administrators who operate
this important public service, we believe that this
effort will continue to be selfsupported and proffers
are not, therefore- , required.
7) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if
there is the potential to provide for active
recreational areas within the proposed residential
development.
This project will be all single family detached
housing which does not require active recreational
facilities. It is the applicants feeling that the
proffer made for Parks and Recreation will provide for
the needed facilities.
8) The applicant should indicate how they plan to
accommodate the desires of the Ewing family to
preserve access to and improve the area of the
existing family cemetery.
The Ewing family cemetery will be set aside as a
separate lot with public road access and deeded, if
possible, to the Ewing family with covenants for
future maintenance by the Ewing family.
4
January 1, 2001
9) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission
how they plan to advise future lot purchasers of on-
site and adjoining property issues including the Ewing
family cemetery, the Double Church Agricultural and
Forestal District, and the lagoon sites owned by the
Town of Stephens City and the Frederick County
Sanitation Authority.
Proffers have been added to notify homeowners by plat
and covenants of the nature of adjacent Ag Districts
and the wastewater treatment functions and their
position around the Southern hills subdivision.
Additional setbacks and tree cutting provisions have
been added after consultation with neighbors. Also,
the GDP has been revised to move the South project
entrance North on Town Run Lane In order to satisfy
property owner concerns to the South.
5
REZONING REQUEST PROFFER
Property Identification Number 85-A-138
Opequon Magisterial District
DOROTHY CARBAUGH ESTATE PROPERTY
Preliminary Matters
Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 et. Sea., of the code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of
the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional rezoning, the undersigned applicant
hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve
Rezoning Application # . 00 for the rezoning of 105 acres from Rural Area (RA) to Residential
Performance (RP). Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and
conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently
amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these
proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon
the applicant and their legal successor or assigns.
Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development
The undersigned, who owns the above described property, hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board
of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 105 acres, with
frontage along Town Run Lane in the Opequon Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from
RA to RP, the undersigned will pay to Frederick County at the time a building permit is applied for and
issued the sum of $4,910.00 per lot.
This monetary proffer provides for $3,581.00 for Frederick County Schools; $598.00 for Frederick
County Parks and Recreation; $446.00 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue; $105.00 for Public
Library; $59.00 for Sheriffs Office and $121.00 for Administration Building.
General Development Plan
Voluntarily proffered is the attached Generalized Development Plan including the following
improvements:
1. On the 105 acres to be zoned RP no more than 250 single family dwelling units shall be
constructed. These units shall consist of single family home lots. No multi -family units shall be
constructed on this property.
2. Stickley Drive (SR 1085) shall be extended as shown to connect with Town Run Lane (SR 10 12)
during the first phase of development(A to B).
3. Town Run Lane (SR 10 12) shall be overlayed with 2" SM 2A bituminous concrete surface from
B to C . Guard rail shall be installed right and left along Town Run Lane gill" areas greater than
7' vertical . This work shall be done prior to the issuance of the 50th occupancy permit.
4. Town Run Lane (SR 1012) shall be overlayed with 2" SM -2A bituminous concrete surface from
C to D during the phase where the entrance at `D" is constructed.
5. An easement shall be established 75' in depth along the South property line E to F. This
easement will be prominently shown on the final plat and will restrict construction of homes as
well as limiting the clear cutting of trees larger than 4" diameter.
6. A statement shall be added to the plat and covenants for all lots created by this project advising
that agricultural uses exist on the South and East , and, wastewater treatment facilities exist or
previously existed to the North of this site.
The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and
successors in interest of the Applicant and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors grant said rezoning and accepts these conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the
land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code.
Respectfully submitted,
PROPERTY OWNER
Date:
STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE
FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2000, by David B. Holliday.
My commission expires
Notary Public
� S f
. v Site Of Rezoning
From A'g`o RP
y 1.,05 Acres
h
All
7711
_ _. � i Jt� d � �` !Ea't•• 7d. ,sa1� xeassme.sr '`\ �` '\� ;
31i
"c... _ 0a� 1 t ;>Ir�'�"'<s5t "' ! � ✓�'I' ;/ h l�J '''ti ti," `� ,� t
Ca�\ t k * , �.,i �•., f `•ems Y .
�b
h
x`
nfit
REZONING REQUEST PROFFER
Property Identification Number 85-A-138
Opequon Magisterial District
DOROTHY CARBAUGH ESTATE PROPERTY
Preliminary Matters
Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 et. S% of the code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of
the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional rezoning, the undersigned applicant
hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve
Rezoning Application # '00 for the rezoning of 105 acres from Rural Area (RA) to Residential
Performance (RP). Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and
conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently
amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these
proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon
the applicant and their legal successor or assigns.
Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development
The undersigned, who owns the above described property, hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board
of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 105 acres, with
frontage along Town Run Lane in the Opequon Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from
RA to RP, the undersigned will pay to Frederick County at the time a building permit is applied for and
issued the sum of $4,910.00 per lot.
This monetary proffer provides for $3,581.00 for Frederick County Schools; $598.00 for Frederick
County Parks and Recreation; $446.00 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue; $105.00 for Public
Library; $59.00 for Sherilfs Office and $121.00 for Administration Building.
General Development Plan
Voluntarily proffered is the attached Generalized Development Plan including the following
improvements:
On the 105 acres to be zoned RP no more than 250 single family dwelling units shall be
constructed. These units shall consist of single family home lots. No multi -family units shall be
constructed on this property.
2. Stickley Drive (SR 1085) shall be extended as shown to connect with Town Run Lane (SR 1012)
during the first phase of development(A to B).
3. Town Run Lane (SR 1012) shall be overlayed with 2" SM 2A bituminous concrete surface from
B to C . Guard rail shall be installed right and left along Town Run Lane `Till" areas greater than
7' vertical . This work shall be done prior to the issuance of the 5e occupancy permit.
4. Town Run Lane (SR 1012) shall be overlayed with 2" SM -2A bituminous concrete surface from
C to D during the phase where the entrance at "D" is constructed.
5. An easement shall be established 75' in depth along the South property lime E to F. This
easement will be prominently shown on the final plat and will restrict construction of homes as
well as limiting the clear cutting of trees larger than 4" diameter.
6. A statement shall be added to the plat and covenants for all lots created by this project advising
that agricultural uses exist on the South and East , and, wastewater treatment facilities exist or
previously existed to the North of this site.
The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and
successors in interest of the Applicant 'and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors grant said rezoning and accepts these conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the
land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code.
Respectfully submitted,
PROPERTY OWNER
Date: 3
STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE
FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day o£ ,
200f, by David B. Holliday.
My commiion expires �Ci 02 3
Notary Public x:_.1-14 -
Lord ' Fairfax Environmental Health Distri
ct
107 N. Kent St.
_ pp° P. O. Box 2056
;1.,. Winchester, Virginia 22604
MR r (540) 722-3480 FAX (540) 722-3479
Counties of: Clarice, Frederick, Page, Shenandoah. Warren, and City of Winchester
To: Donnie and Rachel Hammon
160 Journeyman Lane
White Post, VA 22663
From: Doug Dailey, Frederick -Winchester Health Department/
Date: September 15, 2000
Subject: Conditional Use Permit Comments; Tax Map # 87-4-1
The health department has no objection to the new business as long as there are no
additional employees other than current residents and there is no additional water use.
The existing sewage disposal system serving the property was approved as a repair
system on June 6, 1986. This system appears to be approaching the wastewater loading
limit. Additional water use may cause the system to malfunction prematurely.
If additional toilet facilities are necessary at the building proposed for the business, a new
septic tank, pump tank, and force main will be required if health department approval is
requested. The new components must be installed a minimum of fifty feet from any well
or water supply. An application, fee (currently $75), and construction permit will be
required for such construction. The permit or the final construction may not be approved
if the system is malfunctioning.