PC 12-02-92 Meeting AgendaFILE COPY
AGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Old Frederick County Courthouse
Winchester, Virginia
DECEMBER 2,-1992
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Meeting Minutes of October 21, 1992 ............................. A
2) Monthly and Bimonthly Reports ................................ B
3) Committee Reports ........................................ C
4) Citizen Comments .......................................... D
7:30 PM PUBLIC HEARINGS
5) Conditional Use Permit #014-92 of Tom C. Baker for Windy Hill Business
Park for an off premise business sign. This property is located at the
intersection of Route 522 South and Route 1370 in the Shawnee District.
(Mr. Miller) ............................................... E
Y503Un MISCELLAENOiJS
6) Informal discussion regarding the Preliminary Master Development Plan
for James R. Wilkins III. This property is located along Route 659
(Valley Mill Road) between Dowell J. Howard Vocational Center and
Brookland Heights Subdivision in the Shawnee District.
(Mr. Wyatt) ................................................ F
7) Resolutions regarding Route 37 Impacts and Route 642 Realignment.
(Mr. Watkins) ............................................. G
8) Summary of Comprehensive Plan Public Meetings.
(Mr. Tierney) .............................................. H
9) Other.
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on
October 21, 1992.
PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were- James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman; John
R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee
District; Todd D. Shenk, Gainesboro District; George L. Romine, Citizen at
Large; Ronald W. Carper, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon
District; Manuel C. DeHaven, Stonewall District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back
Creek District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; and Beverly Sherwood, Board
Liaison.
PlanningStaff taff present were: Robert W
Miller, Zoning Administrator; Lanny C
Planner II
CALL TO ORDER
MINUTES
Watkins, Planning Director; W. Wayne
Bise, II, Planner I; and Evan A. Wyatt,
Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
The first order of business was the consideration of the minutes of October 16,
1992. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the minutes of October
16, 1992 were unanimously approved as presented.
MONTHLY AND BIMONTHLY REPORTS
Chairman Golladay accepted the monthly and bimonthly reports for the
Commission's information.
2
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee
Mrs. Copenhaver reported that a meeting was held with Department Heads who
were going to participate in the upcoming Comprehensive Plan public meetings. She said that
there was a lot of enthusiasm from the participating department heads.
Mrs. Copenhaver also reported that a meeting was held on Monday, October 19,
by the Stephens City/Frederick County Joint Planning Committee and zoning districts were
discussed. Mrs. Copenhaver said that Stephens City would like us to adjust our business zone
by making it somewhat deeper (using the railroad tracks as a buffer instead of the ridge of
ground on Route 11 N. from Stephens City to Bartonsville).
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS)
Mr. Wyatt reported that the DRRS conducted a van tour on October 8 with the
planning staff and viewed various commercial and industrial areas in the county.
Sanitation Authority
Mrs. Copenhaver said that the Sanitation Authority met on Monday, October 12,
and reported that this was the second quarter with an increase in lots approved for water and
sewer connections.
Mrs. Copenhaver said that the Authority has prepared a cost estimate of
$1,270,500 for the Route 522 South Sewer Project. This line would provide sewer from
Bufflick Road to Route 644 and would serve Southview, Westview, Bufflick Heights,
Shenandoah Mobile Home Court, and homes fronting along Route 522 South.
Mrs. Copenhaver also reported that the Route 522 South water line has been bid
to Route 644 and service will be available to all homes along Route 522, but no distribution lines
will be extended into subdivisions. Mrs. Copenhaver commented that this line will not solve the
problem of groundwater pollution, which is caused by failing septic systems in the area.
Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB'
Mr. Lilley reported that the HRAB met on October 20 and discussed two main
issues: 1) The HRAB would like to have an informal discussion with the Planning Commission
on November 4 concerning procedures to recognize historic resource factors when considering
master development plans and rezoning applications; and 2) The Committee discussed the plaque
program and the possibility of the high school conducting a design project to design the plaque.
SUBDIVISIONS
Subdivision Application #009-92 of Preston Place to create two lots from 19.949 acres.
This property is located on the east side of U -S. Route 522 and is identified with PIN
#640000A000045B.
Action - Approved
Mr. Duane Brown, Chief Surveyor for G. W. Clifford & Associates, was
representing this subdivision request.
Chairman Golladay asked if the right-of-way shown on the plan would remain.
Mr. Brown explained that the driveway located on Parcel #1 goes back to an existing residence.
He said that Parcel #1 has been approved for garden apartments. He said that a provision has
been incorporated into the transportation system for the garden apartments that allows for access
to the existing driveway.
Chairman Golladay inquired if there were plans for Parcel #2. Mr. Brown said
that there are no plans for Parcel #2 at this time. He said that the owners, Silver Communities,
Inc., have contracted with a company (Castle Development Corporation) to build the garden
apartments on Parcel #l. Mr. Brown said that they do not need or desire the entire property,
so the only purpose for this subdivision is so that the current owners can retain possession of
Parcel #2 once they sell everything else to the developers of the apartments.
Mr. Watkins said that in order to develop Parcel #2, a revised master development
plan would need to be submitted.
Upon motion made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
approve Subdivision Application #009-92 of Preston Place to create two lots (Parcel #1 - 17.277
acres and Parcel #2 - 2.672 acres) from 19.949 acres in the Shawnee District.
4
1993-1994 SIX YEAR SECONDARY_ ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN DISCUSSION
Mr. Wyatt said that a public meeting was held by the Transportation Committee
on September 14th to discuss the 1993-1994 Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan. Mr.
Wyatt said that no new projects were added and there was no change in order. He said that the
Transportation Committee has recommended approval of the plan.
Mrs. Copenhaver inquired about Item #17 under Incidental Construction which
was the bridge over Opequon Creek. Mrs. Copenhaver said she thought the money had been set
aside for that project. Mr. Wyatt said that Mr. Bushman of VDOT will be addressing the Board
of Supervisors on this project at the Board's October 28th meeting. He said that apparently, a
study turned up some historical significance in that area and VDOT was instructed to conduct
archeological and historical surveys.
Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. DeHaven,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the 1993-1994 Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan as presented
by the Transportation Committee.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Conditional Use Permit #012-92 of Jill R. Holden for a cottage occupation for book
binding. This property is located two miles beyond Cedar Grove Road on Route 654, and
is identified by PIN #210000A0000780 in the Gainesboro District.
Action - Approved
Mr. Miller said that the Cat Tail Run Book Bindery is solely operated by Mrs.
Holden and there are no plans for additional employees. Mr. Miller said that the work deals
with restoration of old books and produces no waste, noise, or traffic. Mr. Miller said that Mrs.
Holden's decision to go forward with this application was based on her desire to maintain the
existing cottage occupation sign she has along Route 654.
Mrs. Billie M. Johnson, mother of the applicant, Jill R. Holden, was present to
answer questions from the Commission.
Mrs. Melanie Nesselrodt, an adjoining property owner, was present to speak in
favor of Mrs. Holden's business.
Upon motion made by Mr. Carper and seconded by Mr. Light,
0
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend
approval of CUP #012-92 of Jill Holden for a cottage occupation for a book bindery with the
following conditions:
1) Signage will be limited to ordinance requirements for a cottage occupation sign.
2) Any expansion of the residence to specifically accommodate this use will require a new
conditional use permit.
Conditional Use Permit #009-92 of Charles and Faye Grady for a dog kennel located on
Route 709 and identified with PIN #850000A0000130 in the Opequon District.
Action - Approved
Mr. Miller said that this CUP was tabled on August 5 in order to determine if Mr.
and Mrs. Grady were in compliance with the concerns of the Dog Warden's Office. The
application was tabled again on September 2 in order to work out additional problems
Mr. Miller read a letter from Dog Warden, Harold Whitacre, dated September 23,
1992. The letter stated that the condition of the property was in good order; the outside animals
were individually licensed in compliance with past requests; all waste was in compost; all
conditions were satisfactory and no violations were noted.
Mrs. Copenhaver asked if the Gradys were still exceeding the number of dogs
allowed by their kennel permit.
Mr. Charles Grady, the applicant, said that he has reduced the number of dogs
from 57 to 30 and plans to reduce that number even further. He said that he has 15 dogs of
breeding age and the other 15 are older dogs he no longer breeds.
Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Shenk,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of CUP #009-92 of Charles and Faye Grady for a dog kennel on Route 709
in the Opequon District with the following conditions:
1) All review agency comments must be complied with.
2) Any change in use or expansion of facilities to accommodate this use will require a new
conditional use permit.
3) All associated materials shall be stored indoors.
I
4) If a sign is displayed, a sign permit will be required.
5) All requirements of the Frederick County Code and the Code of Virginia pertaining to
the operation of dog kennels must be complied with.
ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS PRESENTED BY PROFESSORS HOFSTRA
AND GEIER
Professors Warren Hofstra and Clarence Geier were present to review their
findings and recommendations on the second completed Archeological Survey. No action was
taken by the Commission.
VIRGINIA SCENIC BYWAYS PROGRAM DISCUSSION
Mr. Bise said that the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee investigated
the Virginia Scenic Byways Program as requested by the Planning Commission. (This request
was made in response to a request by the Citizens for a Quality Community to endorse the
designation of a number of rural routes in Frederick County as Virginia Byways.) Mr. Bise said
that the Committee's feeling was that the program did not accomplish anything that the county
could not do through the creation and adoption of local regulations. He said that the Committee
was concerned about the possibility of a planned road improvement being delayed due to a
decision being made at the State level to acquire additional right-of-way to protect a designated
byway. It was, therefore, the consensus of the Committee that the County should not endorse
the proposed designation.
After reviewing the informational material concerning the program, Mr. Thomas
felt that the Committee's conclusion not to endorse scenic byways was inconsistent with the
information the staff gathered from other localities; who stated that they had experienced no
negative impacts. Mr. Thomas felt the county should support a program that had the potential
of improving roadways and access ways into the city and county and yet would not require a lot
of effort and money on the county's part.
Other commissioners had concerns about protection of individuals' property rights.
For example, they felt there might be complications if someone wanted to cut timber from their
property or apply for a conditional use permit that was not quite appropriate in the view of scenic
byway advocates.
Mr. Bise mentioned that if a road is on the Six Year Road Improvement Plan and
scenic byway advocates raise concerns in. Edinburg, the resident engineer could require additional
right-of-way to do the road improvements.
Mrs. Copenhaver suggested that every property owner along the proposed scenic
byway be notified_
Mrs. Martha Wolfe, from the Citizens for a Quality Community, read a prepared
statement. Highlights of the statement were that a meeting was held and Department of
Recreation and Resources' Darrell Jones and VDOT's Bill Baker were in attendance. These two
gentlemen had stated that other counties were also skeptical; the program did not involve land
use regulations; any locality can withdraw at any time; no locality has ever had a complaint
about the program; scenic byways may or may not appear on a map; and a maximum 3%
increase in traffic could be expected.
Chairman Golladay suggested that the program be reviewed by the Historic
Resources Advisory Board (HRAB). Mr. Watkins said that if the HRAB reviewed the proposal,
it should be in the context of historic goals, which is the Board's area of expertise. The
commissioners felt that a cooperative effort between the CPPC and the HRAB might be
appropriate.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the scenic byways program should
be sent back to both the CPPC and the HRAB for more study and to prepare a recommendation
to the Commission.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET AND WORK SCHEDULE
Mr. Watkins presented information on the Planning Department's current work
and budget for discussion. Some of the items discussed were the County Management Study
dealing with the Planning Department; the Planning Department's current work including specific
work carried out by individual staff members; and a summary of the Planning Department's
budget trends over the past several years. No action was required by the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
No further business was discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m..
Respectfully submitted,
Robert W. Watkins, Secretary
James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Frederick County Planning
Commission
Opeq
FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary
Grace Brethren Church
SUBJECT: Bimonthly Report
Shaw
church
DATE: November 19, 1992
10/25/90
Ston
(1) Rezonings Pending: (dates are
submittal dates)
12/18/90
Twin Lakes 4/04/90
(Shaw)
(RA to B2/RP)
(2) Rezonin s Approved: dates are
BOS meeting
dates
None
(3) Rezonin s Denied: dates are DOS meeting dates
None
(4) Conditional Use Permits Pending:
dates are
submittal dates
Independent Order of
Lodge Hall,
Odd Fellows 09/11/92
BkCk
Community Park
and Shelter
Windy Hill Business Pk 09/28/92
Shaw
Off Premise Sign
Kenneth R. Heishman 11/12/92
Shaw
Furniture Building
(5) Conditional Use Permits Approved:. dates are approval dates
Charles & Faye Grady 11/12/92 Opeq Dog Kennel
Jill Holden 11/12/92 Gain Book Binding
(6) Site Plans Pending: dates are submittal dates
Wheatlands Wastewater
Fac. 9/12/89
Opeq
trmt.facil
Grace Brethren Church
6/08/90
Shaw
church
Flex Tech
10/25/90
Ston
Lgt. Industrial
Hampton Chase
12/18/90
Ston
S.F. & T.H.
Lake Centre
05/15/91
Shaw
Townhouses
2
Red Star Express Lines 05/24/91 Ston Whse. Addition
Freeton 04/27/92 Opeq Townhouses
Winchester Church of God 07/29/92 BkCk Church
Salem Church of Breth. 09/25/92 Opeq Social Hall
(7) Site Plans Approved: (dates are approval dates)
Red Apple Deli 10/27/92 Opeq relocte gas tanks
Kraft Addition 11/12/92 Ston Mfg. addition
Southeast Container 11/12/92 Stan Mfg. addition
(8) Subdivisions Pending: (dates are submittal dates)
Preston Place
09/14/92
Shawnee
(9) Subdivisions Pending Final Admin. Approval: (P/C approval
dates
Abrams Point, Phase I
6/13/90
Shawnee
Hampton Chase
02/27/91
Stonewall
Lake Centre
06/19/91
Shawnee
Fredericktowne Est.
10/16/91
Opequon
(sections 5, 6 and 7)
Coventry Courts
12/04/91
Shawnee
Senseny Glen
12/04/91
Shawnee
Freeton
05/20/92
Opequon
Fairfax Drive Ext.
08/05/92
Opequon
Deer Run @ Sherando
08/19/92
Opequon
Ft. Collier Lot 28
09/16/92
Stonewall
(10) PMDP Pending: (dates are submittal dates)
James R. Wilkins III 11/02/92
Shawnee
(11) FMDP Pending Administrative Approval: (dates are BOS approval
dates
Battlefield Partnership 04/08/92 Back Creek
Hampton Chase (revised) 05/27/92 Stonewall
(12) FMDP Administ. Approved (dates are admin. approval dates)
Freeton 10/30/92 Opequon
Preston Place 11/18/92 Shawnee
3
(13) Board of Zoning Appeals Applications Pending•(submit dates)
Perry Cooper 10/26/92 Shaw Adm Appeal
Robert Russell 11/13/92 Ston 2.51 front -porch
Cracker Barrel 11/16/92 Shaw Sign -Height &
Size
(14) BZA Applications.Approved: (approval dates)
James Jordan
David Jenkins
Michael Linster
Salem Church
Granville Kerns
Eugene Johnston
(15) BZA Applications Denied•
None
11/17/92
Shaw
5.2' carport
11/17/92
Gain
978' width tc
depth ratio
11/17/92
Ston
2.4' side/ 8"
front -existing house
11/17/92
Opeq
20' fellowship
hall
11/12/92
Shaw
4.4' side -house
11/12/92
Opeq
144'-sq.footage
for
an accessory bldg.
(16) PLANS RECD. FOR REVIEW FROM CITY OF WINCHESTER
None
MOt4't'i1J,Y IZII'OR'i' Comparisonof- ncctunulati-ve Moul_1):Ly .L'otells
7.vn i ntt JANUARY-OC`i'OI3I R-1-9-92 --- - _
1'ot_r-1 - I—In 1 -fin 1-I0 1_
-- -- _ 1�I�IUAIY=_OCTS2B>! R 1 9 9 I 't'o t,1 _ 1990 1 9 8 9 1988
19f
-I
O IV,
r.
O ra [ l H p
H
H O �� O Er H
U) UM H H H O p O
OO >+ U) U W Z H H H
Cw H [,' r,t a O
p U rT GJ ` Y tD01 7r
0 a U) p p rC Er :C E-4
U U v) aJ to p' O O p
U U U U
�rc)�rnr, rr;rzra tars nr.�— — O U _
PIZOVI1) FOR ZONING
Mt,I
251 256 217 261 280 1265 233 255 185 314 402 1389 1665 1697 1672 1795 115
ti—r,r„i] y 2 13
0 36 48 99 7 12 0 39 51
----- ------ 10 9 212 2 2 0 17 9 2 2 7
---------------
- - ,> t.ny 1 -c -Family ----- - _-- _ 3
dwellings — ----
88 72 46 86 54 346 71 36 54123 51
.
3. Mobie 1101nes 335 409 605 558 564 40
17 39 10 3 11 80 28 37 15 2
New U11iL--s 8 15 7 - 20 102 121 111 135 155 13.
0 6 ReI)Lacements 36 19 15 11 2 14 61 65 7
9 24 3 3 5 5
47 54 44 -
9 22 4 0 6 41
4. In74 57 70 7
dustrial 7;
0 2 0 0 0 2 l 16 0 3 1
5. Conunercial 21 25 17 0 1 5
0 0 0 2 1
6. Miscellaneous 3 8 6 5 8 5
32 121 42 113 96 39
144 130'161 134 166 735 118 148 111 139 274 790 777 702 687 752 542
PI;IZMI'I'S - County To:al
1600
1200
— I .
800 —
400
i
0 — — — — — — -- — .
1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991
1992
-COUNTY TOTAL -RESIDENTIAL
-COMMERCIAT_, & INDUSTRIAL
`IONTHLY REPORT
Comparison of
Individual.
Montlily Totals
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCTOBER
1992
t'ot.ril
OCTOBER
1991
'Total
90
89
88
87
86
�
rL
0
{ a
1}
0
O
31
&4
H
HO
C
4 7
O
�_
[� �
t
W
p
H
H
H
E-{
c�
H
W
U
0
�.�
H
Q
p1
1
U
it
O�
?a
>4
G1
H
O
U
ot
W
EA
i
U
to
!n
U)O
U
0
u1
W
in
p
O
OU
U
U
TOTAT, PEIUIITS AP-
PROVED FOR ZONING
22
24
18
15
25
104
36
39
21
23
24
143
120
130
192
285
17-6
1. multi -family
0
0
0
0
8
8
0
8
0
0
0
8
0
8
38
130
12
2. SiiigJ e -family
dwellings
8
10
6
2
3
29
10
7
9
7
5
38
16
61
50
55
58
3. Mobile homes
3
4
1
0
0
8
4
4
0
0
2
_lam(
�
19_
25
28
- Now Units
1
2
1
0
0
4_
1
1
0
0
2
4
3
_
10
_
4
15
4
- Replacements
2
2
0
0
0
4
3
3
0
0
0
6
6
1
15
10
24
4. industrial
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
5. Coimnercial
0
0
0
0
0
0_
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
4
7
3
7
G. Miscellaneous
11
10
11
13
14
59
22
20
12
16
17
87
83
43
78
72
71
l'RRMI.TS - County Total
400-
300
200
100
0�— —.—.—.—..—. . —.
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
COUNTY TOTAL-RESIDEN`"-AL -COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL
tIOIJ'1'III,Y I2.i.J.OR'1'
Coml'ar. i_sote
of ncctuut.tl.ati-tee Mott titl.y 'i'otrU.r
]-ANU11LtY-S1rT1:MI3L:I2_._19-_.
,�.,>�_.;,.I�j�j��Z�Y__�li1
11,(�
'"' �1-��`��
cvLai
- 1-9
1-9
1-9
1-9
1=9
1990
_
1989
1988
198
198(
`
p
(4 Fa
O
U
I1
r�
E'
O
v'j
U
O
e
��
P'
F4
'd
H
H
H
EH
H
H
U
t
01
�
[>>
LD
H
,
EOi
;,
Z
004
TA
U)
0U
t t
�;.
n'
U
Cil
to
p
O
U
O
p
p
p
O
1'O'1'11I, PI PM:I'P , ISP-
U
-
U
U
U
U
PItOV111) FOIZ ZONING
229 232
199
246
255
1161
197
216
164
291
378
1246
1545
1567
1480
151
I. Mitl1--l-family
-98
-
7. Single-family
2 13
0
36
40
917
_
4
0
39
51
101
212
212
141
9
2
dwellings
80 62
40
84
51
317
61
29
45
116
46
297
-
393
544
508
50
34
I' rt"t'i]`' ii""'�'
14 35
9
3
11
72
24
33
15
2
18
- tido Units
7 13
'60
92
112
100
116
13
10
6
32
-���-�
- 12cI>laCelll('ntS
-
�--T21�1
4. Industrial
0
2
0
0
0
2
1
16
0
3
1
21
23
14
0
1
5
5. Coltunercial
0 0
0
2
1
3
8
6
5
8
532
111
38
106
93
32
G. Miscellaneous
133 120'
150
121
152
676
96
128
99
123
257
703
694
659
609
680
471
PIRMI'1'S - County
'Total
1600-
600-
1200
1200 -
800-
00-400---0
400----
0
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990—
1991
1992
--- --"-COUNTY TOTAL
_RESIDENTIAL
---
-COMMERCIAL
&
INDUSTRIAL
MONTHLY REPORT
__
Comparison of
Individual
1,4onl-111 7'ot:als
I, r, n .i n c J
SEP'T'EMBER
---
—---
-9 9 0
9 _8 9-9
L"
-_9 L$-
--9 _8.6
Q f
�'
OP,0F
I
�3
E
3
a
w
�
H
O
tr7
W
R.
W
O
H
H
O
O
O
b
0
>,
ti
U
�
O
>+
>+
>+
>+
�
c�7
min
W
O
O
U
U
F
U)a1
C
>
a,
0
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
U
U
U
U
U
U
_
TOTAL PERMI'T'S AP-
PROVED FOIZ ZONING
24
39
29
21
23
136
26
34
18
26
49
153
194
159
163
190
123
1. Multi -family
2
5
0
0
0
7
0
4
0
0
19
23
24
22
12
9
0
2. S.in�lle-family
_
dwellings
10
10
5
2
5
32
8
3
4
13
3
31
58
55
60
63
46
3. Mobi.].e domes
3
5
3
1
2
14
3
5
0
0
2
10
11
9
27
25
15
- New U,r is
1
1
1
0
L
1--3
0
0
2
6
7
.5_
14_
5
5
- Replacements
2
4
2
1
1
10
2
2
0
0
0
4
4
4
13
20
10
I. Industrial
5. Conunercial
0
0
0
0
0
0_
0
1
0
3
0
4
4
5
9
11
5
G. Miscellaneous
9
18
21
18
16
82
15
18
14
10
25
82
93
65
55
81
55
PERMITS - County Total
400 —
i
300 —
200
i
100 -
1986 1987 1988 1989 19 0 19 1 A92
-COUNTY TOTAL-RESIDENTT"L — •-COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL
h10N'I'IILY REPORT
7,on .ny
Comparison
of
_Monthly
7.'oLzils
crt
u)
pU
AUGUST
1992
_
JARY
-AUGUST
1991
8
1�-� 8
8
-y
8VARY
1[F'
tal89887
90
89O
g6
193
170
225
232
1025
_
171
182
146
265
32 9
1093
1351
1408
1317
W,
01
y,
Multi -family
r+.
p
H
rp
y
W
H
H
r
_t-,3r
U G
>4
O
u
R
1.
Z
pEA
H
'E
-f
1-4
E+
0
84
p
U
l
E'
i.
78
188
--
p
>+
+
88
H
�+
U
t
[,1
f14
0
U,
Oft
H
+
v)m
u)
0
U
0 11
C
0
P,
n
53
26
J
103
7'f)'I`71L 1'I,I2Mi'1'S AI'-
crt
u)
pU
p
U
U
p
U
O
U
O
U
PRovL•;1) FOR 'ZONING
205
193
170
225
232
1025
_
171
182
146
265
32 9
1093
1351
1408
1317
I.
Multi -family
0
$
1320
858
1.
Sir)yle-family
0
36
40
84
7
0
0
39
32
78
188
--
190
129
88
25
dwellings
3.
Ptobil.e
70
52
35
82
46
285
53
26
41
103
43
266
335
489
448
446
298
domes
11
30
6
2
9
58
21
28
15
2
16
- New units
6
12-
82
101
91
89
105
89
- Replacements
5
1
1
0
2
S
4
28 _
30
17
11
11
2
10
1
37
39
47
57
48 5
4.
Industrial
-
4
17
4
0
6
31
64
52
42
48
44
5.
Commercial
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
13
0
3
1
18
19
11
0
0
3
6.
Mi-scellaneous
0
0
0
2
1
3_
8
5
5
5
5
28
- 107
33
97
82
27
124
102
129
103
136
594
81
110
85
113
232
621
601
594
554
PPRMITS - County To Lal
559
416
1600-
60012.00_800
1200-
800
,400-
00-o1986
0-
1986
1987
1988
1989----•
1990
_
—
1991
1992
---'---_ -COUNTY
TOTAL
-RESIDENTIAL
—
—
-COMMERCIAL &
INDUSTRIAL
MONTHLY REPORT
Comparison of Individual Monthly
Totals
7 gni ruI
AUGUST
1992
-- --
_AUGUST
---U -----
1991
Total
8 90
8 89
8 88
-8-TS-7-87-86-
O
:.
_
Ir
H
�'?
U
R
s -a
[[W,�.�
H
�
H
H
H
H
U
U
[�
U
E,
tY
[il
H
>,
>,
N
0
O
vi
U
rr
t�]
t -t
OI
mM
U)
o
U
0
ui
a,
O
0
u
u
U
u
U
U
u
u
U
0
u
TOTAL PERMITS AP-
PROVED FOR ZONING
28
39
27
29
25
148
26
29
19
36
46
156
159
230
186
215
124
1. Multi -family
0
0
0
12
0
12
0
0
0
8
13
21
10
52
13
0
0
2. Single-family
dwellings
10
12
7
5
9
43
9
6
3
18
13
49
36
72
63
80
44
1
5
1
0
1
8
5
10
4
1
2
22
18
11
17
18
11
_ 1
2
1
0
0_
5
3
1
2
14
8
4_
8
16
4
- Replacements----
ci�i.aceme'it`''
0
3
0
0
1
4
2
5
1
0
0
8
_
10
7
9
2
7
4. Industrial
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
4
0
0
1
5. Commercial
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
3
9
8
22
6
4
G. Miscellaneous
17
22
19
11
15
84
11
12
11
9
18
61
79
83
71
111
64
PERMITS - County 'Total
400 —
300
200
100 —
1986 1987 1988 19RQ 1990 1991 1992
-COUNTY TOTAL -TtRSIDEN'7'IAL —. -- -COMMERC:TAD & TNDUSTRTRT,
MONTHLY REPORT
153
0
Comparison
of
Accumulative
Total
Monthly
Zoning
JANUARY
-
JULY 1992'Total
O
[W�
JANUA
H
177
154
143
196.207
H
877
�l
r
0
8
0
Op�
tQ
a
f
[a
N
72
'z
25
Ei
O
H
O
P�
O
254
72
87
U
[ a
Oro
33
4637
[
H
[,�
o
U oz
28
a
37
Ei
N
23
C�1
U
KA
� j
p
352
O
U
~� O
U)
5
2
8
50
- New Units
5
1(l
4
TOTAL PERMI'T'S AP-
153
0
1-7
1-7
- JULY 1991
Total
199]0
PROVED FOR ZONING
178
138
80
O
[W�
U
H
H
177
154
143
196.207
H
877
I. Multi -family
0
8
0
24
40
72
2. Single-family
25
385
366
254
72
87
dwellings
39
41
33
4637
0
60
40
28
77
37
242
3. Mobi.l.e homes
23
483
488
352
10
25
5
2
8
50
- New Units
5
1(l
4
- Replacements
5
15
1
0
2
5
326
4. Industrial
0
1
0
0
0
1
5. Commercial
0
0
1
1_
2
6. Miscellaneous
- i 107 80 110 92
PERMITS - County Total
1000-
750
500
250
:als
153
0
1-7
1-7
- JULY 1991
Total
199]0
198(
178
138
80
O
[W�
U
H
H
H
U w Z
O
7
H
01
U
U
E-4
ro� to O
U U
734
O
145
7
153
0
127
0
229283
31
19
937
57
11921178
1 14
178
138
44 20 38 85 30
217
299417
11988
16
18
11
1 14
60
83
80
70
1-7
1-7
1-7
11988
1987,a
1986
H
U
o
O
H
E-+
H
7
H
U
U
O
U
1131
1072
734
116
88
25
385
366
254
72
87
78
39
41
33
4637
0
0
2
75
43
23
483
488
352
0
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
1991 1992
"'---- -COUNTY TOTAL -RESIDENTIAL —
-COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL
MONTHLY REPORT
Comparison of Individual Monthly Totals
zoning
JULY 1992
Tota]
_J�7L_Y_1991
Total
7 0
��
7 9.
7 88
�—�
7 7
7 6
/8
TOTIVL PERMITS AP-
0
0 a WW
OH
O a
0
H
0
Q
H
25
al FC U W O
W SH
�A
ccgn ?
133
22
�'
�+
>
>a
166
217
151
i� a �D
170
153
z
z
H
H
H x a
C7 u) al cn O
o
U
� wn
c7 rn m rr,
o
0
0
0
0
0 I
PERMITS - County Total
400
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
`�—� -COUNTY TOTAL-RESIL-,,TIAL — — -COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL
TOTIVL PERMITS AP-
PROVED FOR ZONING
28
25
24
28
28
133
22
29
30
55
30
166
217
151
201
170
153
1. Multi -family
0
0
0
0
6
6
0
0
0
12
0
12
40
8
35
0
3
2. Single-family
dwellings
9
9
3
7
2
30
6
3
9
20
2
40
41
57
48
54
47
3. Mobile homes
3
7
2
0
0
12
2
2
2
0
4
10
15
15
10
14
17
- New Units
2
4
1
0
0
7
2
2
1
n
- Replacements
4. Industrial
0
0
5. Commercial
6. Miscellaneous
16
9
19
21
20
85
14
20
18
22
24
9811111
1
67
103
87
81
PERMITS - County Total
400
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
`�—� -COUNTY TOTAL-RESIL-,,TIAL — — -COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL
E. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - ACTIVITY REPORT #20
1. House Numberin 911 S stem
Continued update of House Numbering Project through use
of ACAD11, dBase IV and general inquiry. Bob Watkins, Kris
Tierney, Mark Lemasters, and Evan Wyatt met with John Warwick of
Overman & Associates to discuss the history of problems with the
house numbering project.
2. Corridor Appearance/Stephens Cit Planning
Bob Watkins and Ron Lilley attended the Lord Fairfax
Planning District Local Planners Network. Planning in Stephens
City and corridor appearance issues were discussed.
3. Capital__Improvements Plan
Lanny Bise has begun data collection for the upcoming CIP
process.
4. Site Plan Reviews
Evan Wyatt conducted the following site plan reviews:
On October 5, met with Steven Gyurisin to conduct a
preliminary review of a site along Route 647 (Aylor Road).
On October 6, provided final site plan approval for
Hershey Pasta (Phase II). This site plan was for the proposed
Miller Milling project.
On October 7, met with representatives of Delta
Associates to finalize requirements for the relocation of Route 728
(Victory Lane).
On October 9, provided final site plan approval for the
Winchester Regional Airport Authority to allow the relocation of a
portion of Route 728 (Victory Lane) and widening of the
intersection with Route 645 (Airport Road).
5. Joint Frederick Count Ste hens City Planning Committee
Lanny Bise prepared maps for the Joint Frederick
County/Stephens City Planning Committee.
6. Violations
Lanny Bise inspected several zoning violation complaints.
7. Alternative Wastewater Treatment Study
Lanny Bise prepared maps for the Rural Community Center
Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems Committee meeting. Kris
and Lanny attended the RCC Alternative Wastewater Systems Committee
meeting held on October 13, 1992. The Committee discussed the
results of the sanitary survey.
8. Top of Virginia Home Builders
Bob Watkins addressed the Top of Virginia Home Builders
Association on current work in the Planning Department.
E. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT --ACTIVITY REPORT #21
1. Route 642
On November 13, Kris Tierney and Chuck Maddox met with
the Sargents to again discuss the proposed alignment of Route 642.
Kris and Chuck took along with them a copy of the most up-to-date
plans which showed in detail not only the location of the right-of-
way needed across the Sargent's property, but also the easements
that will be required for grading and maintenance (Kris has copies
of this information for each of the parcels along the route). Kris
and Chuck also went to Mr. Heflin's (the other property owner which
the county will have to purchase land from) and left copies of the
detailed plans.
2. Geographic Information System -(GIS) Needs Assessment
A meeting was held with the GIS consultant to review the
draft GIS plan with representatives of interested departments
3. Comprehensive Plan U date
Lanny Bise is continuing with updating information in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Comprehensive Plan.,. Public Meetings
The second Comprehensive Plan Public Meeting was held on
November 2 at Indian Hollow Elementary School. Only 16 members of
the public were in attendance.
5. House Numberin 911 System
Staff is continuing with the update of the House
Numbering Project through the use of ACAD11, dBase IV, and general
inquiry.
6. Site Plan Reviews
Evan Wyatt conducted the following site plan reviews:
On November 4, met with Mr. David McClure to review
revisions to the Salvation Army site plan. This site is located in
the Fort Collier Industrial Park.
On November 6, met with Mr. David Ganse and John Trenary
to discuss ADA requirements associated with Acculite. This site is
located in one of the former Capitol Records Buildings.
On November 12, met with Mr. Bruce Edens to conduct a
preliminary review of the proposed Green Bay Packaging site plan.
This site is located in the Fort Collier Industrial Park.
On November 12, met with Mr. Steven Gyurisin to discuss
master development plan requirements for a 33 -acre site located
along Route 641 (Double Church Road), south of Route 277 (Fairfax
Pike).
Lanny Bise conducted the following site plan reviews:
Attended the Technical Review Committee meeting to
discuss the proposed Cracker Barrel site plan.
7. Archeological Reports
On November 10, Bob Watkins and Kris Tierney met with Dr,
Geier and Professor Hofstra to discuss ways in which to utilize the
information provided in their Archeological Reports on Frederick
County.
8. 1992 Annual Conference of the Rural Planning Caucus
Kris Tierney attended the 1992 Annual Conference of the
Rural Planning Caucus of Virginia on November 4 and 5. Speakers of
note included Fauquir County Administrator and member of the Growth
Commission, Bob Lee, discussing proposed legislation from the
Growth Commission and Anthony Redman of Redman\Johnston Associates
and Brian David from the Isle of Wight County Planning Department
speaking on preservation of rural character.
9. Violations
Lanny Bise has begun entering 1992 violation information
into the plan review database.
10. Other
Bob Watkins met with a marketing class at James Wood High
School. The class is undertaking a project to study some aspect of
the Route 37 project.
Lanny Bise continued to enter employment data into the
Lotus Database. Lanny has also provided comments to the Chamber of
Commerce's Bill Shendow on the revision to this year's Top of
Virginia publication.
P/C Review Date: 12/02/92
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #014-92
WINDY HILL BUSINESS PARK
Thomas C. Baker
Off Premise Business Sign
LOCATION: At the intersection of Route 522 South and Route 1370
(Windy Hill Drive), across from Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBER 64BOOOA0001300
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE• Zoned B-2 (Business General) - land
use - commercial
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING Sc PRESENT USE: Zoned B-2 (Business
General), land use - commercial
PROPOSED USE: Off premise business sign
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation: In accordance with the
laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, no private advertisement
sign can be placed on the State's right-of-way. Prior to
erection on private property, a permit may have to be applied
for through our District Office in Staunton.
Inspections Department• Sign shall comply with the Virginia
Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 311, Use Group U
(Utility & Miscellaneous) of the BOCA National Building
Code/1990. Permits required would be building with structural
detailed plans and site location.
Planning Department: Proposed sign would meet allowed
ordinance dimensions if no larger than the indicated 10' X
101. The sign must be setback at least 10' from the road
right of way and is restricted to a maximum height of 351. A
building permit and a permit from VDOT is required for this
sign.
Page 2
Windy Hill Business Park
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DECEMBER 2, 1992 PC MEETING: Approval
with the following conditions:
1. That the sign be installed and maintained in compliance
with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance.
2. That the sign be properly permitted as required by the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
Submittal Deadline
P/C Meeting
BOS Meeting
fYl/ APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner X other)
NAME: Thomas C. Baker T/A Windy Hill Business Park
ADDRESS: P O Box 3243 Winchester, Virginia 22604
TELEPHONE ( 703) 662 - 2270
2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of
the property:
Garber Ice Cream Co./Donald Garber
3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions)
Rt 522 South and Rt 1370 (Windy Hill Drive) across from Ferguson
Enterprises, Inc.
4. The property has a road frontage of 45 feet and a
depth of 180 feet and consists of 18 acres.
(Please be exact)
5. The property is owned by Garber Ice Cream Company as
evidenced by deed from Char es Gar er recorded
(previous owner)
in deed book no. 592 on page 520 registry of the
County of Frederick.
0
14 -Digit Property Identification No.
Magisterial District Shawnee
Current Zoning B2
7. Adjoining
Property:
USE
North
Resident rental
East
Business
South
Business
West
RnG; naGq
64BA130
ZONING
B2
B2
B2
page -2-
CUP Application
August, 1990
8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept.
before completing) off premise business sign
9. It is -proposed that the following buildings will be
constructed: a sign no larger than a total of 10 ft x 10 ft
on property for The Windy Hill Business Park.
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 sought to be
permitted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people
will be notified by mail of this application: (PLEASE LIST
COMPLETE 14 -DIGIT NUMBER.
NAME
Garber Ice Cream Co.
Address
P O
Box 3265 Winchester VA 22601
Property ID#
64BOOA140
Browner Cates
Address
3455
Forest Valley Road Winchester VA
Property ID#
64BOOA120
DML of Winchester, Inc.
Address
425 Millwood Ave Winchester, VA 22601
Property ID#640OA41
Wolseley - Hughes
Acquisition
c/o Ferguson Enterprises, In
Address
P O
Box 307 Herndon VA 22070
Property ID#
640OA4E
Address
Property ID#
Address
Property ID#
rJ/ '
page -3-
CUP Application
August, 1990
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.
//VI) \/ ice//Z-
l/siN ---755
,�F7T :�-2 Z S
page -4-
CUP Application
August, 1990
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 maintain so as to be visible until after
the Board of Supervisors' pu4l� Baring.
Signature of Applicant=
Signature of Owner
Owners' Mailing Address
Owners' Telephone No. -7L Z, /, 2 - -"Zl Z C
/imSC RT 540 \\,1� 11 ,�•,
Ity� / v / 110
11�
113 1, 117
CITY OF 1 114
WINCHESTER // N �* , / A
JA
101
4A U.. - e Qo� 112 sz•--.r. � /� i '�»�--Ir. k!
4C 101
' v r �
10 -3
.moi: IOOA B9A
r G wl,
732— "?
� r
-- 89
�\
( i 6 1 116 } 22?
% qH I 9-121
7
/ /�� \� / 86 83A
94 . 1
84
9
87A
10
f /
INSERT
12
N
A
I -1 "`• nh
78
x
C 79 80,; •-
V � so
ly �
40
44
\\
Winchester
/
18 Airport
8.1 .712
16
IgSERT 44C \
N\\\\\� � 39A
R
Rt 785, �6
z.z-f.z ys �
44 542 �
44
„q
Al B °7D ., 4
20 .: 6
/^�+/
19 5-127 z.s�'z,._„r / 0. 11. 3
- - �. Ivo � /
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703 /665-5651
Fax 703/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
Frederick County Planning Commission
Planning Staff
Informal Discussion of Wilkins Master Development Plan
November 18, 1992
Mr. H. Bruce Edens of Greenway Engineering will be present to discuss a proposal for the
development of apartments and townhouse units. The Preliminary Master Development
Plan proposes 76 apartment units and 86 townhouses on 18.684 acres owned by James R.
Wilkins III. The site is located along Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) between Dowell J.
Howard Vocational Center and Brookland Heights subdivision.
9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester. VA 22601 117;nrhact— 11n 110414
lkl[ E NM a >R A >Q u lug
To: Planning Commission Members
From: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director.
Re: Resolutions Regarding the Eastern Loop of Route 37 and the Realignment
of Route 642
Date: November 20, 1992
Attached is a resolution concerning the location of the proposed eastern loop of Route 37
which will be on the December 9th Board of Supervisors agenda. The Planning Commission
may wish to endorse the resolution.
Also attached is a draft resolution concerning the realignment of Route 642. At the time
of this mailing we have not gotten confirmation that the resolution contains the necessary
wording. As with the Route 37 resolution, this will go to the Board at their December
meeting. The Commission may wish to endorse this resolution as well
Please call if you have any questions
KCT/slk.
9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
RESOLUTION
ROUTE 37 IMPACTS
At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia, held on
the 9th day of December, 1992, in the Board Room of the Frederick County Court House on
Loudoun Street in Winchester, Virginia, it was duly moved and seconded that the following
resolution be adopted:
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors is sponsoring the Route 37 Corridor
Study; and,
WHEREAS, the intent of the Study is to provide for the future travel needs of Frederick County
in a fashion that will provide the highest benefit and the least harm; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors maintains a policy of supporting existing businesses and
protecting neighborhoods,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors will not support any
Route 37 East alternative that severely disrupts or significantly removes existing residential
neighborhoods, businesses or commercial areas.
FURTHER, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that because of the concern for existing commercial
areas, the Board of Supervisors will not support any alternative that disrupts or removes the
mai ority of businesses at the existing Route 11 North interchange on Interstate 81 or other similar
locations.
This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard G. Dick
Chairman
James L. Longerbeam
Robert M. Sager
W. Harrington Smith, Jr.
Vice Chairman
Beverly J. Sherwood
Charles W. Orndoft, Sr.
A Copy Teste:
John R. Riley, Jr.
Frederick County Administrator
DRAFT
RESOLUTION
ROUTE 642 REALIGNMENT
At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia, held
on the 9th day of December, 1992, in the Board Room of the Frederick County Court
House on Loudoun Street in Winchester, Virginia, it was duly moved and seconded that the
following resolution be adopted:
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to participate
in the Virginia Department of Transportation's Revenue Sharing Program on April 12, 1989
for the purpose of improving the alignment of Route 642; and
WHEREAS, the initial plans called for the improvements to begin with the section of Route
642 between the Opequon bridge and the intersection of Routes 642 and 647; and
WHEREAS, conditions have changed since the initial plans were formulated such that it is
now the desire of Frederick County to begin the realignment project with the section of
Route 642 lying between and including the intersection of Route 642 with State Route 1031
(Oak Ridge Drive) east to the planned intersection of Route 642 with Route 522 South; and
WHEREAS, construction drawings for the realignment of Route 642 from its intersection
with State Route 1031 to its proposed intersection with Route 522 South, and the
improvements to the intersection of Routes 642 and 647 have been prepared and have been
tentatively approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors
does hereby request that the Virginia Department of Transportation officially recognize the
County's intention to have the first phase of the realignment project be as described herein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED; that this resolution supersedes the resolution of the
Frederick County Board of Supervisors dated May 10, 1989.
This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard G. Dick
Chairman
James L. Longerbeam
Robert M. Sager
W. Harrington Smith, Jr.
Vice Chairman
Beverly J. Sherwood
Charles W. Orndoff, Sr.
A Copy Teste:
John R. Riley, Jr.
Frederick County Administrator
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703 / 665-5651
Fax 703 / 678-0682
MEMQRAND>1J`M<
To: Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission Members
From: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Direct917
Re: Fall Public Meetings
Date: November 13, 1992
As most of you know, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee held its annual
fall meetings this year on October 26 and November 2. The format of this years meetings
was different than in past years. The Subcommittee invited numerous other County
Departments and Agencies to participate. Those which were involved included the Parks
and Recreation, Engineering and Inspections, Economic Development, Sanitation Authority,
Health Department, School Board, and of course, Planning and Development.
Each organization set up a display which was intended to focus on future planning efforts.
Members of the public were free to browse and take in the various exhibits.
The first of the two meetings was held at Armel Elementary School. The attendance was
estimated to be about forty members of the public. Questions and discussion included
support for the proposed sewer extension down Route 522, (which appeared to be the
dominant topic) the proposed Byways designation and the effect of the proposed eastern
loop of Route 37 on the site of the Third Battle of Winchester
The second meeting was held at Indian Hollow Elementary. The attendance at this meeting
consisted of only 16 members of the public. The comments received at this meeting
included a need for improved school transportation, the bond referendums on the November
ballot, and concerns about the impacts of growth on the western portions of the County,
specifically on roads such as Route 614, and on schools.
Though the attendance at the meetings was low, of those who did attend, the reaction to the
new format was very positive. We received numerous comments from people who liked
being able to go to the displays that they were interested in and not having to speak out in
front of a room full of people to ask a question or make a comment.
We plan to continue with this format and hopefully refine and improve upon it. Our
greatest struggle continues to be that of getting people out to the meetings.
KCT/slk
9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester. SIA 29604 'k11* --1.----- 4'4