PC 09-04-96 Meeting Agenda�,Vrw
per,
No 3'o'
AGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Old Frederick County Courthouse
Winchester, Virginia����
��• J�
SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 U� �► , I_ �1 YNX
br,
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB "tif
1) Minutes of July 17, 1996 Meeting ........................................ A
2) Bi -Monthly Report .................................................... B
3) Committee Reports ................................................... C
4) Citizen Comments .................................................... D
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5) Conditional Use Permit #007-96 of Robert C. Fowler to operate a commercial outdoor
recreation facility/shootingrange. The property is located at 840 N. Timber Ridge Road
in Cross Junction and identified with PIN 3-A-18 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
(Mr. Miller) ........................................... E
6) Conditional Use Permit #011-96 of Jake T. Miller to operate a breeding kennel for
dogs. The property is located at 140 Duck Run Lane in Star Tannery and identified with
PIN 70-1-1 in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
(Mr. Miller)......................................................... F
DISCUSSION ITEMS
7) Procedures for Discussion Items
(Mr. Wyatt) ......................................................... G
8) Other
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Courthouse in Winchester,
Virginia on July 17, 1996.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John H. Light,
Stonewall District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District;
Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Jimmie K Ellington, Gainesboro District; Robert
M. Sager, Board Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; Marjorie H.
Copenhaver, Back Creek District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Roger L. Thomas,
Opequon District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; and Vincent DiBenedetto,
Winchester City Liaison.
STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Interim Planning Director; Evan A. Wyatt,
Planner II; Eric R. Lawrence, Planner 1; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Minutes Recorder.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Mr. Ellington and seconded by Mr. Light, the
minutes of May 15, 1996 were unanimously approved as presented.
2
BIMONTHLY REPORT
Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's
information.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC)
Mr. Tierney reported that the CPPC held a public meeting last night, July
16, on the Route 11 North Corridor Study at the Stonewall District Ruritan Club to
present the transportation and land use proposal to the public. Mr. Tierney said that
there was good attendance at the meeting.
Kernstown Battlefield Association (KBA) - 07/01/96 Mtg.
Mr. Light said that the ICemstown Battlefield Association is meeting on a
weekly basis and has adopted a constitution, has established bylaws, and elected officers.
Mr. Light said that the KBA will have an open public meeting on August 11 at the
Opequon Presbyterian Church.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Mr. Stiles, a Stonewall District citizen, came forward to speak with the
Commission on several issues. First, Mr. Stiles asked about activity that was taking place
on the M 1 Westvaco property, which is next to the Carter Lumber Company. Mr. Stiles
next asked about the location of the crossing of Route 37 over Route 11 North. Mr.
Stiles said that the location of this crossing seems to create a great deal of disruption to
homes and businesses in that area and he suggested that the County consider another
location, north of McCann's Lane. He said that this is vacant land, zoned M 1, and no
houses would be affected. Mr. Stiles felt this route would reduce opposition and cost.
3
Also regarding Route 37, Mr. Stiles stated that it was crucial for there to
be an intersection with Warrior Drive on Route 37. He stated that this intersection is
absolutely critical to any solution to transportation problems in that entire section of the
County. Mr. Stiles said that all of the transportation planning that has been done has
been predicated on the fact that 1) there is nothing that can be done to improve the Rt.
277/I-81 intersection; and 2) there is a need to move traffic north and south without
funneling traffic to either 522, 81, or 11. Mr. Stiles felt that Warrior Drive was the
answer to the problem. He stated that if there is no connection to Rt. 37, then all that
would be accomplished was to move the problem, not solve it.
Regarding the public meeting on the Route 11 North area, Mr. Stiles felt
that one of the citizens made a good point about locating a small sewage treatment plant
in the northeastern section of the County, near the quarry. He said that sewer could
flow by gravity, rather than having to be pumped. Mr. Stiles said that in that quadrant,
the County could establish industrial development that would have virtually no
opposition. Mr. Stiles asked that the Commission give this some consideration.
In addition, Mr. Stiles said that he strongly supported the proposal to get
sewer under 81 and to the Route 11 North corridor, running along the railroad track
that eventually comes up to Buckley-Legges and Zuckermans. He said that this could
be a prime industrial site in Frederick County because of its good location and good
accessibility.
Another topic raised by Mr. Stiles was that he did not think it was good to
isolate businesses and residential areas into pockets, because it creates traffic problems.
Mr. Stiles felt that provisions needed to be made to locate businesses where people live.
Finally, Mr. Stiles felt that if the County was ever going to be able to solve
the sewer problems in the Stephenson community, it would be necessary to allow
development of the McCann property. He said that if someone would be willing to run
the line across the property, local citizens would then be able to afford the hookup fees.
He felt that if the residents understood this situation, more of them would be in favor
of it. He suggested the possibility of a door-to-door survey.
4
Discussion on Two Sewer Extension Requests: Faith Baptist Church, P.I.N. 86-A-
72 and First United Methodist Church, P.I.N. 42-(A)-198
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Tierney stated that the Planning Department received two requests for
sewer and water extensions which are located just beyond the bounds of the Sewer and
Water Service Area (SWSA). He explained that the extensions are to vacant land and
the intended use is to construct churches. Mr. Tierney said that one request is from
Faith Baptist Church and pertains to a 14 -acre site located on the east side of Double
Church Road, just south of the Route 277 intersection. He said that the property is
zoned RA (Rural Areas) and churches are a permitted use. Mr. Tierney stated that the
second request is from the First United Methodist Church and involves a 15 -acre parcel
owned by Mary Ellen Pope on Apple Pie Ridge. He said that this parcel is also zoned
RA and is surrounded on three sides by five -acre lot developments.
Mr. Tierney said that the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee
(CPPC) considered both of these requests on July 1 and recommended approval with the
stipulation that the extensions be sized solely for the uses described.
Mr. Charlie Watson and Mr. Fred Hudson of Faith Baptist Church were
available to answer questions from the Commission. Mr. Watson said that Mr. James
Bowman, the owner of the property, told him that he would be constructing the sewer
and water line extension further south along the west side of Route 641, for
continuation of development. He said that Mr. Bowman told him that he would put a
tap on the line that the church could tie into, if approved by the County.
Two issues were raised by the Planning Commission. One was the
precedent -setting situation that seemed to be establishing for businesses requesting sewer
and water extensions beyond the SWSA line, located along the east side of Route 641.
The second issue was the status of adjoining residential properties with failing septic
systems.
There was some concern about the exact location of the existing sewer line.
The Commissioners preferred to have the line come directly across the street, from the
west side of Route 641, to serve only this particular property and sized for this particular
use's needs only.
Mr. John C. Lewis, Chairman of the Building Committee for the First
C
J
United Methodist Church, presented the second request. He said that the property is
located across from Apple Pie Ridge School. Mr. Lewis said that the sewer line
terminates in front of the school, serving the Latter Day Saints church, as well as the
school. Mr. Lewis said that it was their hope that they could tap into the sewer on the
other side of Apple Pie Ridge Road and extend the line across the road.
Commissioners recognized that this property, owned by Mary Ellen Pope,
was the subject of a recent rezoning application that was turned down. They felt the
church was a better suited use for this parcel.
Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Morris,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission, upon
recommendation by the CPPC, does hereby recommend approval of the sewer and water
extension requests by Faith Baptist Church (P.I.N. 86-A-72) and First United Methodist
Church (PIN. 42-(A)-198) with restrictive use -sized sewer lines for a single use on each
parcel.
DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT ICERNSTOWN BATTLEFIELD PLAN
Mr. Eric Lawrence presented a draft copy of the ICernstown Battlefield
Resource Management Plan that was completed by West Main Design Collaborative
(WMDC), the firm selected to do the work on the plan for the Grim Farm property.
Mr. Lawrence said that the overwhelming theme of the plan is to protect, preserve, and
promote the historical and natural characteristics of the site for others to enjoy and learn
from. Mr. Lawrence proceeded to review the various elements of the plan with the
Commission. He requested that the Commissioners, after reviewing the plan, forward
any comments or suggestions to him.
The majority of the Commissioners felt that the plan as submitted was
worthy of their support and felt it carried broad positive implications, especially as a
potential economic resource. Another viewpoint was that battlefields may not be as
lucrative a tourist attraction as most people might assume, especially after acquisition,
staffing, and maintenance, and may end up costing the tax payers money.
M
Discussion Regarding a Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Planning
Commission Bylaws to Establish New Standards for Tabling Procedures
Mr. Wyatt said that during the Planning Commission's retreat last
February, it was suggested that new procedures be created for the tabling of various
development applications. Mr. Wyatt said that the Development Review and
Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) has had numerous discussions on this subject and
has suggested some new procedures for the Commission to consider. Mr. Wyatt said
that the new procedures give the Commission a greater amount of latitude to table an
agenda item, it limits the applicant's ability to continually request that an item be
tabled, and it requires that all the necessary leg work be completed before it comes back
to the Commission for review.
Mr. Wyatt said that the revision still limits the applicant to a one time
tabling, but then requires the Commission to decide with the applicant if. 1) the
applicant wishes the Commission to act on the request within an allotted 90 -day period;
or 2) if there is a desire to waive that option, the applicant may do so. This will give the
applicant time to do work, for example, with VDOT.
Mr. Wyatt said that the staff was interested in the Commission's input on
this discission item. He added that amendments to Planning Commission Bylaws do not
require Board of Supervisors' action.
Commissioners had positive comments about the revisions; however,
Chairman DeHaven felt that since only half of the Commission members were present
to provide input on this matter, it should be forwarded to the next meeting so that the
full Commission could share their views.
OTHER
Mr. Light suggested that Comprehensive Plans &- Programs Committee
(CPPC) review the possibility of allowing package treatment facilities to be privately
owned. The staff pointed out that County policy permits package treatment plants to
be privately owned, as long as they do not serve more than one use. Mr. Tierney said
that this policy is in cooperation with the Sanitation Authority. Mr. Tierney explained
that part of the concern is that when there is more than one use, a problem arises as to
who will be responsible for maintenance. He said that there are two separate categories--
residential, which is regulated by the Health Department; and over 1,000 gallons or
commercial, which is regulated by the Department of Environmental Quality. Mr. Light
felt that the County should be involved to a greater degree.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:40
p.m. by unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Kris C. Tierney, Interim Planning Director
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
BIMONTHLY REPORT OF PENDING APPLICATIONS
(printed August 22, 1996)
Application newly submitted.
REZONINGS:
Scully Ltd. (Rez #005-96)
Opeguon
F25.593 sf from Bl to B2
Location:
So. Side of 277, E of I-81/Stephens City Interchange
Submitted:
07/23/96
PC Review:
08/21/96 -Recommended Approval
BOS Review:
09/11/96
Valley Mill Estates
(Rez #004-96)
Stonewall 1.0731 acres from RA to RP
Location:
No. of Valle Mill Rd. (Rt. 659) 3/4 mi. east of Rt. 656
Submitted:
06/24/96
PC Review:
08/21/96 - Recommended Approval
BOS Review:
09/11/96
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS:
Chapel Hill (MDP #006-96)
Shawnee
SF Det. Urban Residential on
15.04 acres (RP)
Location:
East side of Rt. 522 So.; 700' south of Lon croft Rd.
Submitted:
06/10/96
PC
PC Review:
07/03/96
- recommended approval
BOS Review:
08/14/96
- approved
Admin. Approval.-
Awaiting
Completion of Review Agency Comments.
Mosby Station, Sect. I & H
(MDP #E005-96)
Opequon
SF Detached Residential on
36.12 acres (RP)
Location:
Between old Rt. 642 & relocated Rt. 642
Submitted:
05/02/96
PC Review:
06/05/96 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
07/10/96 - approved
Admin. Approved:
Awaiting completion of review agency comments
Hill Valley (MDP)
Stonewall
54 SF Det. Cluster; 26.123 Ac.
(RP)
Location:
N.W. Corner of Valley Mill & Greenwood Rds.
Submitted:
11/15/95
PC Review:
03/06/96 - Recommended Approval
BOS Review:
05/13/96 - Approved
Pending Admin. A royal:
Awaiting completion of staff & review agency comments
SUBDIVISIONS:
Greenwood Rd. (SUB ##007-
95)
Shawnee
Subdivision of 2.837 ac. into five
lots (RP)
Location:
W. Side of Greenwood Rd (Rt. 656) approx. 1,400'
north of Sensen Rd. (Rt. 657) intersection
Submitted.
07/22/96
PC Review:
08/21/96 - Recommended Approval
BOS Review:
09/11/96
Fredericktowne Est. Sect.
14 & 15 (SUB #004-96)
Opequon
33 SF Trad. Lots on 9.9804
Acres (RP)
Location:
East of Stephens City; N.E. of Sections 11-13
Submitted:
05/02/96
MDP #007-88
1 Approved 12/05/88
Admin. Approval:
1, Section 15 Pending; Section 14 Approved 07/30/96
Valley Mill Estates (SUB)
I Stonewall
21 SF Trad. Lots (RP)
Location:
No. Side of Valley Mill Rd. & East of Greenwood Rd.
Submitted:
10/23/95
MDP #001-95
Approved 04/26/95
Pending Admin. A royal:
Awaiting bonding, signed plats, & deed of dedication
Winc-Fred Co. IDC (SUB)
Back Creek
2 M1 Lots (0.552 acres & 20.285
acres)
Location:
Southeast side of Development Lane
Submitted:
09!08!95
MDP #003-87
Approved 07/08/87
Pending Admin. Approval
[Awaitingsigned plats.
RT&T Partnership (SUB)
Back Creek 1 1 Lot - 29.6 Acres (B2)
Location:
Valley Pike (Rt. 11 So.)
Submitted:
05/17/95
MDP #003-91
Approved 07/10/91
Pending Admin. A provah
Awaiting submission of signed 21at & deed of dedication
Briarwood Estates (SUB)
Stonewall
20 SF Det. Trad. Lots (RP)
Location:
Greenwood Rd.
Submitted:
01/03/94
MDP #005-93
jkp2roved 12/8/93
Pending Admin. Approval: J1
Being held at a licants r uest.
Abrams Point, Phase I
(SUB)
Shawnee 230 SF Cluster & Urban Lots
(RP)
Location:
South side of Rt. 659
Submitted:
05/02/90
PC Review:
06/06/90 Approved
BOS Review:
06/13/90 Approved
Pending Admin. Approval:
Awaiting deed of ded., letter of credit, and signed plat
Harry Stimpson (SUB)
Opeguon
Two B2 Lots
Location:
Town Run Lane
Submitted:
09/23/94
PC Review:
10/19/94 Approved
BOS Review:
1 10/26/94 Approved
Pending Admin. Approval:
Awaitingsi ned plat.
SITE PLANS:
Hardees Mobile Oil
Conven. Cntr (SP #050-95)
Back Creek
Conven. Cntr/Rest. on a 1.0727
ac. site (RA) (CUP #011-95)
Location:
Southeast corner of Rt. 50 W and Ward Avenue
Submitted:
12/20/95
Approved:
Pending completion of agency requirements.
IKohis Distribution Facility
(SP #034-96)
Shawnee Warehouse Distrib; 38 disturbed
ac. of 53.27 ac. site (Ml)
Location:
Airport Rd (Rt. 645) in the Airport Business Center
Submitted:
08/02/96
Approved:
Pending
Furlongs Sheet Metal (SP
#032-96) (132)
Stonewall
5,040 sf bldg on 0.569 ac. of
0.583 ac. site for refrig. re air
Location:
Southeastern side of Baker Lane
Submitted:
07/17/96
Approved:
Pending
Stimpson/Rt. 277 Oil &
Lube Service (SP #030-96)
Opequon
Oil & Lube Serv., Car Wash,
Drive-Thru on 2.97 ac. (132)
Location:
152 Fairfax Pk. (behind Red Apple Country Store)
Submitted:
07/03/96
Approved:
Pending
Stonewall Mini -Storage (SP
#028-96)
Gainesboro
Mini -storage on .25 ac. of a 2.56
ac. tract (Ml)
Location:
120 Lenoir Drive
Submitted:
06/20/96
Approved:
Pending
(SP #027-96)acres
The Corners RestaurantE06/10/96
Addition to a restaurant on 0.10
of a 1.245 ac. site (RA)
Location:
er Road
Submitted:
05/23/96
A roved.
Flying J Travel Plaza (SP
#026-96)
Stonewall Travel Plaza on 15 acres (B3)
Location:
S.W. corner of the intersection of I-81 & Rt. 669
Submitted:
05/23/96
Approved:
Pending
Cedar Creek Center (SP
#025-96)
Back Creek Museum on 0.485 ac. of a 3.210
acre parcel (BZ)
Location:
8437 Valley Pike (Rt. 11), Middletown
Submitted:
05/16/96
Approved:
Pending
AMOCO/House of Gifts
(SP #022-96)
Gainesboro Gas Pump Canopy 880 sq. ft.
area of a 0.916 acre arcel (RA)
Location:
3548 North Frederick Pike
Submitted:
05/08/96
Approved:
Pending
Dr. Raymond Fish (SP
#023-96'
Stonewall
Mini -Golf Facility on 5,000 sq.
ft. of a 15 acre parcel (B.2)
Location:
S.E. Corner of 1-81 /Hopewell Rd. Intersection
Submitted:
05/09/96
Approved:
Pending
Valley Mill Apts. (SP #020-
96)
Shawnee 76 -unit apartment development
on 7.684 acres (RP)
Location:
Corner of Rt. 658 & Rt. 659
Submitted:
04/12/96
Approved:
Pending
Stonewall Elem. School (SP
#019-96)
Stonewall
School Bldg; developing 8.22 ac.
of a 10.0122 ac. parcel (RA)
Location:
3165 Martinsburg Pike, Clearbrook
Submitted:
04/11/96
Approved:
Pending
American Legion Post #021
(SP #018-96)
Stonewall Addition to lodge building on
3.4255 acre site (132)
Location:
1730 Be ille Pike
Submitted:
04/10/96
Approved:
Pending
Dominion Knolls (SP #010-
96)
Stonewall
180 TH on 20.278 ac. (RP)
Location:
Intersection of Baker Lane and Gordon Street
Submitted:
02/21/96
Approved:
Pending
Pegasus Business Center,
Phase I (SP #007-96)
Shawnee Office, Misc. Retail, Business on
2.5 ac of a 6.0623 ac site (B2)
Location:
434 Bufflick Road
Submitted:
02/14/96
Approved:
Pending
D.K. Erectors & Main-
tenance, Inc. (SP #051-95)
Gainesboro Indust Sery/Steel Fabrication on
a 10 acre site (M2)
Location:
4530 Northwestern Pike
Submitted:
12/28/95
Approved:
Pending
Regency Lakes, Sect. E
(SP #043-95)
Stonewall
95 units on 28.0 acres (MH1)
Location:
North of Regency Lakes Drive
Submitted:
10/27/95
Approved:
08/21/96
Wheatlands Wastewater
Facility (SP #047-89)
Opequon
Treatment Facility on 5 Acres
(115)
Location:
So. West of Double Tollgate; adj. & west of Rt. 522
Submitted:
09/12/89
Note: 11
Being held at applicantls request.
Flex Tech (SP #057-90)
Stonewall
M1 Use on 11 Ac. (MI)
Location:
East side of Ft. Collier Rd.
Submitted:
10/25/90
Note:
Being held atapplicant's request.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
Jennifer B. Harris
(CUP #010-96)
Back Creek
Cottage Occupation/Tool
Sharpening (RA)
Location:
6671 Middle Road, Middletown
Submitted:
07/01/96
PC Review:
0$/21/96 - Recommended Approval
BUS Review:
109/11/96
Kenneth C. Poole, Jr.
(CUP /f009-96)
Gainesboro
Public Garage w/o body repair
(RA)
Location:
214 Ston Hill Road (Rt. 688)
Submitted:
06/27/96
PC Review:
--7[09/11/96
08/21/96 - Recommended Approval
BOS Review:
10
Robert C. Fowler (CUP
#007-96)
Gainesboro Comm. Outdoor Rec. Facility/
Shooting Range (RA)
Location:
840 North Timber Ridge Road
Submitted:
05/10/96
PC Review:
06/05/96 - tabled to 09/04/96
BOS Review:
10/09/96 - tentatively scheduled
VARIANCES:
Danny R. & Sheila L.
Maxwell (VAR 013-96)
Stonewall 6' front yd variance for a
covered orch
Location:
108 Camden Drive; AsburyTerrace
Submitted:
07/26/96
BZA Review:
08/20/96 - A roved
Richard A. Keeler (VAR
#012-96)
Stonewall 14" front yd, for cantilevered
overhang on constructed home
lAsburyTerrace,
Location:
Lot 10, 106 Camden Drive
Submitted:
07/19/96
BZA Review:
08/20/96 - Approved
Eddie R. Roberts, Sr.
(VAR #009-96)
10' side yd. for 24' X 24'
unattached garage (RA)
Location:
Stephenson Rd. (Rt. 664)
FoTabled;
Submitted:
BZA Review:
08/20/96 - Approved
11
PC REVIEW: 6/5/96; 9/4/96
BOS REVIEW: 10/9/96
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #007-96
ROBERT C. FOWLER
Outdoor Recreation Facility
Shooting Range
LOCATION: This property is located at 840 N. Timber Ridge Road in Cross Junction.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 3-A-18
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use:
Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Area) District; Land Uses:
Residential and Vacant
PROPOSED USE: To establish a commercial shooting range business.
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: Existing private entrance(s) is inadequate for
proposed use. Minimum sight distances are not obtainable at the property to allow for the
construction of a commercial entrance. Therefore, we cannot support a conditional use
permit for this property.
Additional comment sheet from Steve Melnicoff for W. H. Bushman at VDOT dated 6-3-
96 states "No objection to a conditional use permit for this property. However, prior to
operation of business, a commercial entrance must be constructed to our minimum
standards to allow safe egress and ingress of the property. Any work performed on the
State's right-of-way must be covered under a Land Use Permit. The permit is issued by
this office and requires an inspection for a surety bond coverage."
Health Department: See attached letter from John Dailey dated 4/24/96. Additional
comment sheet received from Steve Stiefel dated 7/3/96 states "Permanent pump and haul
Robert C. Fowler CUP #007-96
Page 2
August 23, 1996
is required. No objection to conditional use permit as long as pump and haul contract is
endorsed by County Administrator. The pump and haul holding facility would need to be
permitted and inspected before this facility is open. No pressurized water system and no
food to be served.
Inspections Department: No comment required at this time; will comment if buildings
are constructed in the future.
Fire Marshal: Proper barricades should be installed to stop the projectiles from the
firearms. Operating hours should be considerate to area residents due to the noise.
Planning and Zoning: Outdoor shooting ranges are allowed in the Rural Area Zoning
District with an approved conditional use permit. The ordinance requires that the
application include plans for appropriate site layout and design to protect the safety of the
public. These plans should show berms and other protective features. The plans
submitted with this application are not adequate to determine that proper safety can be
maintained. The property intended for the use is basically open with small scrub brush
covering most of it. It is completely surrounded by natural wooded areas but these
wooded areas are on the adjoining properties. The location of the proposed range is
approximately 1/4 mile off Timber Ridge Road, Route 696, and is accessed by a private
dirt driveway that is in very poor condition with a considerable number of potholes.
Entrance into the driveway when headed north is reasonably safe with good sight
visibility, and entrance when headed south is shielded because of the curvature of the
road. Entrance back onto 696 from the driveway is very hazardous because of the site
visibility; you cannot see traffic coming from the north until it is almost on top of you. A
health system to serve the public is not available. Although the proposed site has the
potential to accommodate this use, the other factors surrounding this application are very
negative.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 9/4/96 MEETING: There are too many major negative
issues surrounding this request to allow approval at this time. Staff believes this application
should be denied for the following reasons:
Poor sight visibility at the intersection of the private drive entrance and Timber Ridge
Road. VDOT also stated they could not support a CUP for this location because of the
inability to put a safe commercial entrance into the property.
2. The condition of the driveway into the property, while not an overriding factor, makes it
Robert C. Fowler CUP #007-96
Page 3
August 23, 1996
difficult to consider it a safe and reasonable access.
3. No approved health system to accommodate a public use.
4. Inadequate site development plan to provide proper protection to adjoining properties.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF 5/6/96: The staff said that they
had been contacted by Mr. Melnikoff of VDOT who stated that after meeting with the applicant
at the site, VDOT could now approve the entrance, with the stipulation that some other minor
work be accomplished. Staff felt that the site had the "potential" to be developed for the use;
however, they felt that several major issues needed to be taken care of, ie., the entrance, as stated
above, the condition of the dirt road, the health facilities, and the submission of a plan that would
show a properly constructed shooting range.
The applicant, Mr. Fowler, said that his proposal consisted of holding competitive shooting
matches using shotguns and four -inch target cards. Commissioners noted that this would be a
regulatory situation requiring permitting under code regulations. There were no public
comments. The Commission unanimously voted to table the application in order to give the
applicant time to clarify with the staff the VDOT agreement, the water and sanitation situation,
and the code requirements regarding the submittal of a plan. (Mr. Stone was absent.)
Staff Comments for September 4, 1996 Commission Meeting_: This application was tabled
on June 5, 1996 to allow more time for the applicant to address several issues that were not tied
down. A visit was made to the sight on August 19, 1996 to further evaluate the suitability of the
site to accommodate the proposed use. A new road has been partially constructed from North
Timber Ridge Road into the site. VDOT approved the entrance being in the new location;
however, the commercial entrance required is not yet completed. The entrance road is not yet
completed to a useable state. Construction of the proposed area for the shooting competition has
started but is in the very early rough stage. The County Administrator has advised that he would
approve a pump and haul septic for this location upon receipt of the proper application through
the Health Department. Although it appears feasible to conduct the desired activity at this
location, a considerable amount of work needs to be done before this activity could be open to
the public. The entrance, access road, parking area, shooting range and public restroom facility
must all be completed prior to public use.
Staff Recommendation for September 4, 1996 Commission Meeting Staff believes it would
be appropriate to approve this use with the following conditions:
Robert C. Fowler CUP #007-96
Page 4
August 23, 1996
1. The necessary facilities to properly accommodate this use must be constructed and
approved by the appropriate agency prior to any public use. This includes, but is not
limited to, the entrance, access road, parking area, public restroom facility and the
shooting range.
2. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
3. Once in operation, the shooting activity must be supervised at all times by the owner
or an individual representing the owner who is qualified for such supervision.
4. No alcoholic beverages will be allowed on the premises at any time.
5. No Sunday operation shall be allowed.
File: K:\WP\CMN\COMMENTS\FOWLER.CUP
Lord Fairfax Environmental Healtu District
800 Smithfield Avenue
P. O. Box 2056
Winchester, Virginia 22604
�p
(540) 722-3480 FAX (540) 722-3479
Counties of Clarke, Frederick, Page, Shenandoah, Warren, and City of Winchester
April 24, 1996
Robert C. Fowler
840 N. Timber Ridge Rd.
Cross Junction, Va. 22625
RE: Health Dept. comments concerning a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a
Commercial Outdoor Recreation Facility- Shooting Range for Robert C. Fowler;
Frederick Co. Tax Map 3-A-18.
Dear Mr. Fowler:
The Health Department has the following comments concerning this CUP:
1. A method of permanent sewage disposal must be available for the patrons of
the shooting range. Portable toilets are not acceptable for this proposed use.
Applications for a sewage disposal system are available at the Frederick Co.
Health Dept. located at 800 Smithfield Avenue.
2. According to the applicant, there is an existing well on the property. No
water is to be made available for public consumption unless this well meets the
requirements of a public water supply.
3. No food is to be served to the public unless the proper permits are obtained
through the health dept.
If you have any questions, call me at 722-3480.
Sincerely,
� 0-k C
jj
John Dailey
Environmental Health Specialist
A_
V
'IV va
MMI 040 7.
CUP #007-96 PIN: 3—A-18
Robert C. Fowler
,. c v ED
APR 1 01996Submittal Deadline
P/C Meeting
c BOS Meeting
Irl g'ATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
O-
1. applicant (The applicant if the owner other)
NAME:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE $r` �' z i 3r, _
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)
2 z ! ►r YYt (� �r
r.
3 6 (2�
.4. The property has a road frontage of ' feet and a
depth of 13 7 p,3� feet and consists of �� s73s� ,� acres.
(Please be exact)
5 . The property is owned by W11/10 Mk' UYh 10 - as
evidenced by deed from recorded
(previous owner)
in deed book no, .�02 on page�`, as recorded in the
records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of
Frederick.
6. 14 -Digit Property Idefiaj,"h
ification No. ? — --
Magisterial District AQ_
Current Zoning RA-
7. Adjoining Property:
- USE
North �
East
South-
West
ZONING
A
R
2s
S. The type -of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept.
before completing)
9. 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, rear and
in front of (also across street from) the property where
requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if
necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this
application: (PLEASE LIST COMPLETE 14 -DIGIT NUMBER.
NAME
:C
Address
Property
XD#
�0. Iu� �OP.raGf C �n
�r
Address
g07
Property
ID#
0,/� G"vt� L�aylrig. IVa Co.-0ifin
7
Address
C6 � a
,J<,,; r1
% L✓ �`.
Property
ID#
Address
Property
ID# ?
6c, 0 Pte) F-
/
Address
o N r v,',
Property
ID#
Address
Property
ID#
:C
3 tr
.0.4
�b
. U
V -�
N
0 V
O N
NN
as
�O
N
4-)�
a�
O .N
U O
N N N
N
U
14
N N W
W R O
.r, N
�kto
�
O
O V
� N
b
N � U
0,0 F.s
N d?
N W 14
� N N
a as
r4
Fl� po l e
GQrcL Gar i Ran�� �i rQG
S}OI`Ry �.Tt41 �Qr (^
Field
Woods
.
11 AC
X V
(OJ tu
Y'A
74
-V v1 -
AC.
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.
Signature of Applicant
Signature of Owner
Owners' Mailing Address
Owners' Telephone No.
TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
PC REVIEW: 9/4/96
BOS REVIEW: 10/9/96
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #011-96
JAKE T. MILLER
Breeding Kennel
LOCATION: This property is located at 140 Duck Run Lane in Star Tannery.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 70-1-1
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use:
Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Uses:
Agricultural, Residential and Vacant
PROPOSED USE: To operate a breeding kennel for dogs
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objections to a 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 is required at this time due to no construction of
new buildings. Permit shall be required if any further "structures" are constructed.
Jake T. Miller, CUP #011-96
Page 2
August 23, 1996
Fire Marshal: No comment.
Health Department: (1) An existing system evaluation was completed on 7-16-96 for lot
1 of Duck Run Subdivision. A permit and record of inspection is on file; therefore, the
system components were not uncovered for inspection. The drain field surface area was
walked over. I did not see any signs of failure, sewage on the ground surface or wetness.
No sewage odors were detected. (2) Health Department has no objection as long as there
are to be no other employees other than family members who currently reside at
residence. All animal waste is to be disposed of in a safe and sanitary manner so as not to
create any nuisance.
Planning and Zoning: Kennels are permitted in the RA district with an approved
conditional use permit. Applicant has advised that this is intended to be a breeding
kennel only and that he will have a maximum of 30 dogs at any one time. During a visit
to the site on August 5,1996, it was observed that there were nine dogs on the property at
the present time. The dogs are being kept in fenced enclosures on barren ground with
small plastic igloo type enclosures for protection from the elements. Staff suggests that it
would be appropriate to have the County Animal Control Officer inspect the arrangement
to determine if it is adequate for the intended purpose. The dogs currently on the
property were very noisy and barked almost continuously while I was on the property.
This may have been caused by my being a stranger on the premises but is also considered
a potential problem. The type of containment being used does not isolate the dogs so that
they cannot see everything that goes on in the neighborhood and consequently they are
prone to be incited to barking. The only residence close to the proposed kennel is across
the road (on Lot 14), and is approximately 100/150 yards away from the site where the
dogs are located. Staff believes the dogs need to be screened from the outside influences
that may incite them to bark and become a possible nuisance.
Staff Recommendation for 9/4/96: Staff believes it would be reasonable to permit this use with
the proper conditions. If approved, the following conditions are recommended:
1. The kennel will be a breeding kennel only, with a maximum of 30 dogs being allowed
on the premises at any one time.
2. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
Jake T. Miller, CUP #011-96
Page 3
August 13, 1996
3. Inspection of the facilities by the Animal Control Officer shall be required to
determine if the housing for the dogs is adequate and appropriate.
4. Screening must be provided to isolate the dogs from intrusions that incite them to
bark. Barking of the dogs must be controlled so as not to become a nuisance in the
neighborhood.
14
22A
228
0
0
co
22
21
23
25
0
24 ry 2619A 19
2
See 21
5 ,
6 4 3 v 28
i
v
Duck Run 2 1 29
07 �vne o
8
�o
9 14
10 0
O�
15
13
31 N---rl 2
Zoning: RA
32 33
17
Location Map for PIN: 70-1-1
CUP #011-96, Jake T. Miller
Submittal Deadline 91-7-v.
P/C Meeting o -t
BOS Meeting
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner other)
NAME: 0. 1•� i e. r
ADDRESS: 1 4 Q 0 Lk--c-L
TELEPHONE 2` 0-
2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of
the property:
3.
3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and
include the route number of your road or street)
-- �i- 55 ¢ res o T�;er rca lc(�
4. The property has a road frontage of S6 C." feet and a
depth of Za d / feet and consists of
(Please be exact) !p �3$ acres.
5. The property is owned by ; t CL C -1Z as
evidenced by deed from 80 M M 14 d � �� ,�,��„, 1Tr. recorded
(previous owner) in deed book no. 4 on page �L�p as recorded in the
records of the Cle.Lx of the Circuit Court, County of
Frederick.
6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. 4 -
Magisterial District C44
Current Zoning %2LAAAL, „QE
7. Adjoining Property: `; ✓''
USE ZONING
±, y
North`
East -,
South ie -"4 a , c_West
L./ R L O-A-� 7--
E. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept.
before completing)
E P— E=4 &)G k1 GE
9. It is proposed that the following buil •ngs will be
constructed: I L KLt
6 A4 _r4- L. L L t L LTD" '4J
10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or
corporations owning property adjacent to both sides, rear and
in front of (also across street from) the property where
requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if
necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this
application: (PLEASE LIST COMPLETE 14 --DIGIT NUMBER.
NAME
MecUIn
Hc! e -r\
kell£f Address
`�� annex
Lae)e_ Vk- -
Property ID# ,
Vi c+o r
�
nitUOIrlE
Bo
C- L-_beW
C_L__bdLU
Address5-r
�k_Gk P�� >��� �
lzi j2
►tea .
Property 10 #-7
D-. Charles ge-nne- r
Address
Property ID#
000 - I -ooGc. - o'-oa
tt
0. 1
J_
�Clnc_r8
CkCL�-�
Address'..
Property ID# 7� ,� c c• ,
N'la_r- � �
Y1 t
ht
�' �-�_JProperty
Address rr
3 `� j n'�' � }C'r d • �, fit. r
� � ..
ID#
s"
i,L �(
I
f ►
Address, �j �,! 'iz� 5�
Property ID# .7G�L
M
NAME
C e
VQ Car.
'?tCkgrV
Address
Property ID# 0
Address
_ ZZ65�
property ID#
Address
Property ID#
Address
Property ID#
Address
Property ID#
Address
Property ID#
Address
Property ID#
Address
Property ID#
Address
Property ID#
Address
Property ID#
Address
Property ID#
Address
Property ID#
i V
' Q i «V►t O • i
or
F
•
4. con
S hECZ7� ��. ��Yr'�►T,
S Z V57 -09'10E
Ir fit
p�j7�• 734�f�
sl
.r/
CA
�i 5-- S. o 547 Net
,.
0
N'i
7f
re, A c.
kc.A*ieL
par�O)/ AG A O 1-6
I
0
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.
Signature of Applicant
Signature of Owner
Owners' Mailing Address
`4 L
J
Owners' Telephone No.
TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
Additional Comments, Jake Miller CUP #011-96:
As a result of receiving additional information concerning this request, I visited this property
again on August 30, 1996 in the company of Commissioner Marker and Mrs. Douglas, Supervisor
for the Back Creek District.
During this visit it was determined that Mr. Miller currently has 18 dogs on the property. During
a previous visit he said that he had 9 dogs on the property but he did not include the 9 pups
belonging to a Dalmatian female housed in a storage building. When questioned about this he
stated that he intended to have 30 dogs on the property excluding the offspring. When questioned
as to what he intended to do with the pups he stated that he intended to sell them to pet stores or
any other place that he could.
There were two Boxer type dogs chained to trees in the front yard. These dogs barked almost
continuously while we were on the property and could be heard while we were visiting the
property across the road from the Miller's house. It has been reported that these dogs have often
broken the chains and were running free in the neighborhood. This is a bad situation and should
be corrected. Although Mr. Miller stated that these dogs were harmless, they are very threatening
and act as if they would not hesitate to bite anyone they are not accustomed to.
Mr. Miller stated that he intended to fence in a large portion of the property and to put in
concrete floors. Although his real intentions are somewhat vague, it would not be appropriate to
have pens for dogs in front of the house since they would be exposed to the roadway and would
be easily incited to barking.
By ordinance definition Mr. Miller is operating an illegal kennel at this time since he does not have
the required conditional use permit. Based on new information I now believe approval should be
considered only with very strict control through the placing of appropriate conditions on the
permit. Since this is in a five acre subdivision with three existing residences and one under
construction, the possible impacts on other residences must be considered.
If approval is recommended, the following conditions are recommended:
1. The kennel will be a breeding kennel only, with a maximum of 30 dogs being allowed
on the premises at any one time, this includes puppies.
2. A proper kennel must be constructed so that all of the dogs are in an enclosed facility
at all times. This facility must be located behind the house and be properly screened so
that outside influences will not incite the dogs to bark. Barking of the dogs must be
controlled so as not to become a nuisance in the neighborhood.
3. No dogs shall be allowed to run free and no dogs will be allowed to be tied in the front
yard area.
4. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times.
5. Inspection of the facilities by the County Animal Control Officer shall be required to
determine if the housing for the dogs is adequate and appropriate.
6. No further expansion of the kennel shall be allowed until the conditions of this permit
are complied with.
September 4, 1996, 7:00 p.m.
Public Hearing
Frederick County Courthouse
Statement of Mr. and Mrs. Victor D. Cubow
Residing on Lot #15, Duck Run Estates Subdivision
Concerning Conditional Use Permit ##011-96
Proposed for Lot ##1, Duck Run Estates Subdivision
Owned by Mr. and Mrs. Jake T. Miller
Good evening ladies and gentlemen, Zoning Administrator Miller, and
members of the Department of Planning &Development. Although some of
you are already well aware of our reasons for opposing the proposal in
question, we ask that you bear with us as we reiterate them in this
summary. Also, as I am "not accustomed to public speaking", as the
saying goes, we would like all present to have a written copy of this
summary in order to avoid any errors, misunderstandings, or confusion.
1. First and foremost, we wish to draw the Department's attention to
the fact that regardless of its agricultural status, the lots
comprising "Duck Run Estates" still represent a residential
subdivision with certain deed restrictions. The Duck Run Estates
Subdivision Deed clearly states - and I quote verbatim:
"Animals, with the exception of swine but including other farm
animals and household pets, may be kept on the premises so long
as they do not create a nuisance to the other residents of this
subdivision." As residents of this subdivision, we challenge
anyone in this room to look us in the eye and try to convince us
that 30 adult dogs producing Lord knows how many puppies will not
constitute a nuisance. In addition, we firmly believe that this
deed clearly outlines our legal rights in this matter, and we do
not understand how the Department of Planning & Development can
consider approving something in obvious violation of our legally
deeded rights.
2. Secondly, although we have only lived here for two years, we
understand that Mr. Jake Miller has been breeding dogs -
Dachshunds - for a number of years. In addition, when he
recently added a pair of Dalmations and a pair of Boxers to his
collection and began to breed them, we automatically assumed that
he must already have been in possession of some sort of kennel or
business license in order to be allowed to own and breed all of
the dogs he now has. Not only were we completely surprised to
find that this was not so, but we have since been informed by a
member of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that what Mr.
Jake Miller is currently doing is and has been illegal.
Therefore, even the possibility of approving this permit puzzles
us, as it seems to be an odd message for a government agency to
be sending - i.e. do something illegally for any length of time -
regardless of whether or not there have been any complaints - and
- 2 -
when we finally catch up with you, instead of prosecuting you and
rectifying the situation, we will reward you by legalizing your
activity and allowing you to perform it on an even larger scale.
With all due respect to the Department of Planning & Development,
this logic escapes us.
3. on Friday, August 23rd, I randomly selected and called three
Winchester -area real estate brokerages - anonymously, so as to
avoid any possibility of conflict of interest - and asked their
opinions as to what effect passage of this permit would have on
surrounding properties. It is interesting to note that all three
brokers unanimously_ stated the following:
a. If this permit is passed and we put our home on the market,
it is extremely doubtful that we will have an easy time
selling it. There are very few people around who would
knowingly purchase a home across the street from a dog -
breeding kennel.
b. If this permit is passed and we did manage to find a buyer
for our home, it is also extremely doubtful that we would be
able to obtain anywhere near its true worth, as a dog -
breeding kennel across the street would be a strong
negotiating point for any buyer.
C. If this permit is passed, it is extremely probable that any
mortgage -lender's appraisal would drop considerably due to
the fact that a large percentage of their computation is
based on surrounding properties. Again, the presence of a
dog -breeding kennel in a residential area is not considered
a plus.
All three realtors stressed that the above points could affect
all properties in the subdivision, not just the adjoining ones.
We do not feel we - and everyone else in the subdivision - should
be subjected to even the possibility of having to take a loss on
the sale of our property due to the whim of one homeowner.
4. On a personal rather than legal note, we would also like to bring
out the following:
a. We have personally seen Mr. Miller sit on his front steps
and watch his Dachshunds - which run loose - use our
property as a private bathroom. We do not believe that this
is an example of a responsible pet -owner or neighbor.
b. We have nearly run over Mr. Miller's Dachshunds in our own
driveway several times. Upon returning them to Mr. Miller,
we have been informed that it is "our fault that the dogs
are in our yard" because we are "too nice to them". Mr.
Miller claims that if we are "meaner" to his dogs when we
- 3 -
find them on our property, they will stop coming over. It
seems odd that we should be responsible both for keeping our
dogs in our yard, as well as his dogs out?
C. Mr. Miller's new Boxers are kept on chains in his front
yard. You can't even walk down to get your mail anymore.
Also, we understand that he has informed your Department
that these dogs have never been loose, and yet we have seen
one or the other of them running loose on three separate
occasions, dragging their broken chains behind them. If Mr.
Miller continues to deny this, we can easily get in touch
with the Potomac Edision supervisor who visited us recently
to make out a repair report. He advised me that he "nearly
had a heart attack" when one of Mr. Miller's Boxers broke
its chain and came across the road.
d, Mr. Miller appears to be completely deaf where the barking
of his own dogs is concerned, and yet he has the audacity to
complain about everyone else's pets. Just how is this going
to change when there are 30 adult breeding dogs and a couple
of hundred puppies barking their heads off - solid fence or
no solid fence?????
e. Where and how does Mr. Miller plan to market all of these
puppies?? In the past, he has told us that he moves his
Dachshunds via "word of mouth" and the infamous Valley
Trader advertising newspaper. Hundreds of Boxers and/or
Dalmations and/or Dachshunds are not going to disperse via
these methods. What happens to puppies that Mr. Miller
cannot sell?? Puppy mills all over the country are being
forced to close right and left due to increased legislation
against them - we do not want one opened up across the
street from us.
In closing, we would like to add the following for the record.
Neighbors are like relatives - you're stuck with them, but you don't
have to like them. There is no law that says that Mr. and Mrs. Miller
have to like us. My husband and I are not "perfect", and we don't
expect everyone else to be "perfect" either. However, we have always
had a philosophy of "live and let live", are not complainers, and have
always tried to be pleasant, respectful, and considerate of others.
In exchange, in the last several months we have been subjected to a
number of intimidating, unpleasant - and in one case even slanderous -
remarks from Mr. Miller that we do not believe we deserve. Whether
Mr. Miller launched this campaign with reference to his permit
request, we do not know - but we expect it to stop. Please note that
we hold Mrs. Miller blameless in this. In fact, we do not believe
that she is aware of many of her husband's actions and comments. We
would just like Mr. Miller to keep in mind that this hearing is only a
forum for all concerned to voice their rightful opinions on the matter
at hand. We do not make the ultimate decision - the Department of
Planning and Development does.
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/678-0682
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II 43
RE: Planning Commission Procedures
DATE: August 23, 1996
Staff has been asked to assist the Planning Commission in the development of procedures for the
consideration of development applications, policy issues, and ordinance amendment requests. It is
envisioned that these procedures would provide the Planning Commission with a means of
providing consistent direction to applicants and staff to ensure that requests are considered
appropriately. Staff presented a draft outline of procedural steps for each item to the Planning
Commission in July. It was suggested that these procedures be discussed at a subsequent
Planning Commission meeting when attendance was greater. Staff has provided the original draft
outline from the July meeting for review and discussion.
107 North rent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES
This item includes applications for rezonings, master development plans, site development plans,
subdivision design plans, and conditional use permits. The applicant and the staff would not
present development applications as a discussion item. Staff recommends the following
procedures:
a) The applicant has a preliminary review conference with staff.
b) Staff schedules the application to be considered by the Technical Review
Committee (TRC) as necessary.
c) Staff obtains required review agency comments and other pertinent information
from the applicant and schedules the application for formal review by the Planning
Commission.
Public Hearings for rezonings and conditional use permits.
Public Meetings for master development plans.
Public Meetings for site development plans and subdivision plans as
requested by the Planning Commission or at the discretion of staff. Staff
would present site development plans for community facility projects as an
information item which would not require action by the Planning
Commission.
d) Forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, table the application, or
request that staff reschedule the application with the TRC.
2) Policy Issues
This item would include issues related to land use policies, community facilities and services, and
the transportation system. Stam recommends the following procedures:
a) The applicant has a preliminary review conference with staff.
b) Staff schedules the request to be considered by the appropriate subcommittee of
the Planning Commission or committee of the Board of Supervisors.
Page -2-
PC Procedures
August 23, 1996
(Policy Issues Continued)
c) Staff reports to the full Planning Commission during the subsequent meeting to
advise the commission of the subcommittee or committee recommendation. The
Planning Commission advises staff to proceed in the following manner:
• Advertise for public hearing as required by Section 15.1-431 of the Code of
Vinzinia,
• Address comments of the Planning Commission and place the item on the
subsequent Planning Commission agenda for additional discussion.
• Direct staff to schedule a work session on the item based on the overall scope of
the request.
• Direct staff to take the item back to the appropriate subcommittee or committee
for additional consideration.
d) Forward a recommendation to Board of Supervisors, table the item, or direct staff
to take the item back to the appropriate subcommittee or committee for additional
consideration.
This item includes requests for amendments to Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, and Chapter
165, Zoning, of the Code of Frederick County. Staff recommends the following procedures:
a) Staff: receives the ordinance amendment request and forwards it to the
Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) for consideration.
b) Staff reports to the full Planning Commission during the subsequent meeting to
advise the commission of the DRRS recommendation. The Planning Commission
advises staff to proceed in the following manner:
The DRRS recommends in favor of the request:
Advertise for public hearing as required by Section 15.1-431 of the
Code of Vir "nia.
Page -3-
PC Procedures
August 23, 1996
(Ordinance Amendment Requests Continued)
The DRRS recommends denial of the request:
Advertise for public hearing as required by Section 15.1-431 of the
Code of Virginia,
Address comments of the Planning Commission and place the item
on the subsequent Planning Commission agenda for additional
discussion.
Direct staff to take the item back to the DRRS for additional
consideration.
c) Forward a recommendation to Board of Supervisors, table the item, or direct staff
to take the item back to the DRRS for additional consideration.