PC 03-04-92 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Old Frederick County Courthouse
Winchester, Virginia
March 4, 1992
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAR
1) Meeting Minutes - February 5, 1992 .............................. A
2) Bimonthly Report...........................................B
3) Committee Reports ......................................... C
4) Citizen Comments .......................................... D
5) Review of Conditional Use Permits. (Mr. Miller) .................... E
6) Work Program 1992-1993. (Mr. Watkins) .......................... F
7) Discussion regarding the study of the impact of rezonings
on capital facilities. (Mr. Watkins) ............................. G
OTHER
8) Other (no attachment) . ...................................... H
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester,
Virginia on February 5, 1992.
PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman;
Manual C. DeHaven, Stonewall District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee
District; John R. Marker, Back Creek District; Todd D. Shenk,
Gainesboro District; Ronald W. Carper, Gainesboro District; George
Romine, Shawnee District; Marjorie Copenhaver, Back Creek District;
Roger Thomas, Opequon District; Beverly Sherwood, Board Liaison and
James Barnett, City Liaison.
Planning Staff present were: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary; Kris C.
Tierney, Deputy Planning Director; and W. Wayne Miller, Zoning
Administrator
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m.
ELECTION OF VICE CHAIRMAN
ACTION - ELECTION OF JOHN R. MARKER, VICE CHAIRMAN
A motion was made by Mrs. Copehaver and seconded by Mr. Romine to
nominate John R. Marker as Vice Chairman of the Frederick County Planning
Commission for 1992.
Mr. Thomas moved that nominations be closed and this motion was
unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously elect John R. Marker as Vice Chairman of said Commission for the vear of
1992.
2
MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 4, 1991 AND DECEMBER 18, 1991
Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Marker, the
minutes of December 4, 1991 were unanimously approved as presented.
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mrs. Copenhaver, the
minutes of December 18, 1991 were unanimously approved as presented.
MONTHLY AND BIMONTHLY REPORTS
Chairman Golladay accepted the Monthly and Bimonthly Reports for the
Commission's information.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Appointment of Todd D. Shenk as liaison to the Winchester City Planning Commission
Chairman Golladay appointed Todd D. Shenk, Gainesboro District, as the
Commissions liaison to the Winchester City Planning Commission.
Historic Resources Advisory Board Meeting of 1/8/92
Mr. Tierney reported that the HRAB discussed some of the issues involved
in the development of locally significant recognition of historic properties. Mr. Tierney
said that the HRAB has arranged to have a member of the Historic Preservation
Committee of Leesburg at their next meeting to discuss a program initiated by Leesburg.
Mr. Tierney said that the HRAB's tentative time schedule for the next three to six
months is to try and work out a detailed proposal that would be presented to both the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
I
Transportation Committee
Mr. Thomas reported that the main topic of discussion was a presentation
by Mr. Romine concerning the traffic conditions at the 1-81, Route 37, Route 11 North
and Route 661 Industrial Intersection. Mr. Thomas said that the intersection is in poor
condition and VDOT has been studying it for improvements.
PC and BOS Worksession - Rt. 37 Corridor Study
Chairman Golladay stated that a joint worksession between the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors has been scheduled for February 24 at 7:30
pm. The purpose of the worksession is to review and discuss the five initial alternatives
for the Route 37 Corridor and to narrow the selections down to three.
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS:
Revised Master Development Plan #004-91 of Wakeland Manor for single family
detached and multi -family dwellings in the Shawnee District.
ACTION - APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
Mr. H. Edmunds Coleman, II1, attorney representing the developers, Ralph
and Rex Wakeman, presented the master plan to the Commission. Mr. Coleman said
that this master plan was previously denied by the Planning Commission because
Golladay Road was not connected to any of the internal roads within the subdivision.
Mr. Coleman said that they have now shown an internal road network that would
incorporate Golladay Road into a phased development of the Wakeman property.
Mr. Thomas referred to Mr. Coleman's January 7, 1992 letter to Kris
Tierney, Deputy Director, which contained the Wakeman's proposed construction plan
for Golladay Road and the phased development of the subdivision. Mr. Thomas
recommended that wording be added to paragraph 3A to state that upon commencement
of development of Phase 4 and any subse vent phases the collector roads would have to
be developed. Mr. Thomas felt that Phases 1, 2, and 3 could be built without the
collector roads, but any further development would require the construction of the
collector road. Mr. Coleman had no problem with changing the wording to reflect this.
Mr. Tierney said that the planning staff supports the phased construction as
4
described in Mr. Coleman's January 7, 1992 letter; however, there was some concern
about paragraphs 4 & 5. Mr. Tierney said that in subsequent discussions with the
developer, he felt that an agreement had been reached as to the wording that needed to
be placed into paragraph 4 and the need to eliminate paragraph 5. Paragraph 5 implies
that construction of Golladay Road will be the responsibility of some entity other than
the applicant. He said that while it may be that the actual construction of the road is
done by a subsequent owner or developer, in no event will the County undertake
construction of the road. Mr. Tierney said that assuming the additional information in
terms of the review agencies is provided and the language is revised in the letter and
placed on the master development plan itself, the staff is prepared to recommend
approval of the plan contingent upon that information being provided.
A discussion next ensued on who would be responsible for construction of
Golladay Road if adjoining property was developed and required the road's completion
for access. The Commission felt that if that situation occurred, the two property owners
would need to reach an agreement on payment for the road, as Frederick County would
not pay for it.
There were no public comments.
Upon motion made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously approve the revised master development plan, #004-91, of Wakeland
Manor contingent upon the following changes:
1) Change the wording in the letter from Mr. H. Edmund Coleman, III of
January 7, 1992 to Kris C. Tierney, paragraph 3 (a) to state that "Upon
commencement of development of Phase 4 and any subsequent phases,
Wakeman shall dedicate and construct that portion of Golladay Road
beginning in the south at Route 642 and running generally north to the
intersection with proposed Craig Drive Extended, and Wakeman shall
dedicate and construct that portion of proposed Craig Drive Extended
running from the proposed intersection with future Golladay Road in a
generally eastward direction to the proposed intersection of Craig Drive
Extended and the 50' right-of-way (which right-of-way intersects Route
642)."
2) Eliminate paragraph S.
3) Satisfactorily address all staff and review agency comments including Parks
and Recreation and the County Engineer with those revisions being placed
on the master development plan.
5
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit #001-92 of Kim A. Nail for retail sales of archery equipment
(cottage occupation) in the Gainesboro District.
ACTION - APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
Mr. Miller said that the activity is planned to be conducted in an accessory
building located adjacent to the applicant's residence which is approximately one fourth
of a mile off Route 522 North. Mr. Miller said that the applicant does not own the
property, but the landowner has agreed to allow this use on the property. He said that
the staff's recommendations are for approval with conditions.
Mr. Kim A. Nail, the applicant said that he will work on and tune bows at
this location. He said that he has a designated area for shooting bows.
There was no public comment.
Upon motion made by Mr. Carper and seconded by Mr. Shenk,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Board of Supervisors does hereby
unanimously recommend approval of conditional use permit #001-92 of Kim A. Nail for
retail sales of archery equipment (cottage occupation) with the conditions listed below.
This property is located off of Route 522 North, in the Gainesboro District, and is
identified as GPIN 190000A0000027.
1. All outstanding comments from review agencies must be adequately
addressed.
2. If the use changes or intensifies to the point of causing traffic problems, a
new conditional use permit will be required.
Conditional Use Permit #002-92 of Kim A. Nail for an off premise sign (cottage
occupation) in the Gainesboro District.
ACTION - APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
Mr. Miller said that the applicant originally erected a sign for his archery
6
sales business on the Virginia Department of Transportation's right-of-way.
VDOT directed Mr. Nail to remove the sign and Mr. Nail acquired permission from an
adjoining property owner to locate his sign on the adjoiner's property. Mr. Miller said
that since Route 522 is a federally aided highway, VDOT requirements dictate that the
maximum allowable sign size be 2' x 2'.
Mr. Kim A. Nail, the applicant, said that he did have a 4' x 8' sign erected
on the VDOT right-of-way, which he was directed to remove. Mr. Nail said that he has
since erected a 1' x 2' sign and placed it 55' off the VDOT's right-of-way.
There was no public comment.
Upon motion made by Mr. Shenk and seconded by Mr. Carper,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously recommend approval for conditional use permit #002-92 of Kim A. Nail for
an off premise sign (cottage occupation) with the conditions listed below. This property
is located off of Route 522 North, in the Gainesboro District, and is identified as GPIN
190000A0000027.
The sign shall be maintained in accordance with the requirements of the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
2. If the dimensions of the sign are changed, a new conditional use permit
will be required.
Conditional Use Permit #003-92 of John D. Mayhew for the repair and sales of guns
(cottage occupation) in the Back Creek District.
ACTION - APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
Mr. Miller stated that the activity will be conducted in an accessory
building adjacent to the applicant's residence. Mr. Miller said that the applicant has
advised that he will not be selling gun powder of any type, but will sell ammunition. He
said that adequate off-street parking exits. Mr. Miller further stated that the staff felt
the activity would not significantly alter the neighborhood and staff would recommend
approval with conditions.
Mr. John D. Mayhew, the applicant, stated that he will not carry black
powder. He said that he will carry ammunition, black powder supplies and he would like
to carry smokeless powder, if the county had no objections or special requirements.
After some discussion on Mr. Mayhew's intentions on his proposed sales,
Chairman Golladay informed the applicant that both the Fire Marshal and the Building
Code Official would be in contact with him.
There was no public comment.
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mrs. Copenhaver,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously recommend approval of conditional use permit #00392 of John D. Mayhew
for repairs and sales of guns (cottage occupation) with the conditions listed below. This
property is located 2.5 miles south of Route 50 West on Route 259, in the Back Creek
District, and is identified as GPIN 370000A0000710.
1. The applicant will adequately address all review agency comments and
comply as required.
2. The existing sign will be maintained in accordance with the requirements
of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance.
3. If the current use expands or significantly intensifies, a new conditional use
permit will be required.
OTHER
1991 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
Mr. Watkins presented the 1991 Annual Report of the Frederick County
Department of Planning and Development for the Commission's information.
REPORT ON THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE UPPER,OPEQUON
An archaeological study of the Upper Opequon Creek watershed was
conducted from December 1, 1990 through March of 1991. The survey was funded in
part through a matching grant from the Virginia Division of Historic Resources,
Frederick County, Shenandoah University, and James Madison University.
The study was headed by Dr. Clarence Geier, an Anthropology Professor at James
Madison University and Dr. Warren Hofstra, Associate Professor of History at
Shenandoah University.
Drs. Geier and Hofstra were present to speak on the numerous sites of
historic and prehistoric activity that were discovered and documented and to review their
recommendations regarding those findings.
The Commissioners requested that the report be sent to the HRAB to get
their recommendations on how the report could be used by the Commission and Board
of Supervisors for land use and planning.
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 pm.
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
FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary
SUBJECT: Bimonthly Report
DATE: February 20, 1992
(1) Rezonings Pending: (dates are submittal dates)
Twin Lakes
4/04/90
(Shaw)
(RA to B2/RP)
Marshall Williams
3/12/91
(Shaw)
(RA to M2)
Zuckerman Co.
12/04/91
(Ston)
(M1 to M2)
(2)
Rezonings Approved:
(dates are
BOS approval dates)
None
(3)
Conditional Use Permits Pendin
dates are submittal dates
Kim Nail
1/07/92
Gaines
Retail Sales-
-Archery Equipment
Kim Nail
1/07/92
Gaines
Off Premise Sign
John Mayhew
1/14/92
Bk Ck
Gun sales &
repairs
(4)
Conditional Use Permits Approved: dates
are aipproval dates
None
(5)
Site Plans Pending:
dates are
submittal
dates
Wheatlands Wastewater
Fac. 9/12/89
(Opeq)
trmt.facil
Grace Brethren Church
6/08/90
(Shaw)
church
Winc. Warehousing
9/05/90
(Ston)
warehouse --
Flex Tech
10/25/90
(Ston)
Lgt. Industrial
1h
Hampton Chase
12/18/90
(Ston)
S.F. & T.H.
Lake Centre
05/15/91
(Shaw)
Townhouses
Red Star Express Lines
05/24/91
(Ston)
Whse. Addition
Youth Development Ctr.
09/11/91
(Shaw)
Youth meeting
facilities
X
Sherando Softball Complex 12/31/91 (Opeq)
Softball fields
Dr. Thomas Gromling
Hershey Pasta Group
Fred. Co. Landfill
2
01/03/92 (Opeq)
01/13/92 (Ston)
02/20/92 (Shaw)
Medical Of c.
Addition
Pasta Production
Facility
New Scale House
(6) Site Plans Approved: (dates are approval dates)
Valley Bible Church 2/7/92 Opeq Church
Timber Ridge School 2/20/92 Gain Academic Bldg.
(7) Subdivisions Pending: (dates are submittal dates)
None
(8) Subdivisions Pending Final Admin. Approval: (PJC approval
dates
Abrams Point, Phase I
6/13/90
Shawnee
Frederick Woods
5/16/90
Opequon
Hampton Chase
02/27/91
Stonwall
Lake Centre
06/19/91
Shawnee
Hershey Property
10/02/91
Stonewall
Fredericktowne Est.
10/16/91
Opequon
(sections 5, 6 and 7)
Covenrty Courts
12/04/91
Shawnee
Senseny Glen
12/04/91
Shawnee
JIC Ltd.
02/12/92
Shawnee
(9) PMDP Pending: (dates are submittal dates)
Wakeland Manor (revised) 06/05/91 (Shaw)
(10) FMDP Pending Administrative Approval: (dates are BOS approval
dates
None
(11) FMDP Administ. Approved (dates are admin. approval dates)
None
3
(12) Board of Zoning Appeals Applications Pending•(submit dates)
None
(13) BZA Applications Approved: (approval dates)
Schenck Foods Co . , Inc 2/18/92 BkCk 7 . 2 ' s i d e
(existing house)
(14) BZA Applications Denied•
None
(15) PLANS RECD. FOR REVIEW FROM CITY OF WINCHESTER
None
i COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703/665-5651
FAX 7031/678-06821
MEMORANDUM
TO: All Members, Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator K
RE: Annual Review of Conditional Use Permits
DATE: February 20, 1992
Attached, for your information and review, is the current list of
all Conditional Use Permits (CUP'S). Request you review this
listing with special emphasis on the listing from your Magisterial
District. Also attached is a comment sheet in the form of a memo
for you to list those CUP'S that you want checked out or
investigated by the staff. Please complete the memo and return it
to me.
I respectfully request that you review the list carefully and list
any permits that you know are not active and/or you would like us
to look at for use or compliance. As soon as I receive your input
I will consolidate the lists and formally present them to you for
your recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for their
consideration under our annual review and renewal process.
Your prompt attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.
I will be available to answer any questions you may have.
THE COURTHOUSE COMMONS
9 N. Loudoun Street - P- 0. Box 601 - Winchester, Vir-2inia - 22601
I COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703%665-5651
FAX 703/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator
FROM:
RE: Annual Review of Conditional Use Permits
DATE:
Request the following Conditional Use Permits be investigated for
the reason indicated:
1. Permit Number: Reason:
2. Permit Number:
3. Permit Number:
4. Permit Number:
5. Permit Number:
Additional Comments:
Reason:
Reason:
Reason:
Reason:
THE COURTHOUSE COMMONS
9 N_ I_rnicioun Street - P n ox ki01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
BACK CREEK DISTRICT
PERMIT NUMBER
NAME ROUTE NUMBER
033-74
Earl Armel - Mobile Home Park
608
050-75
Dowling Co., Inc. - Off Site Sign
11S
068-76
Betty Peacemaker - Beauty Shop
628
004-77
Emory Wilson - Small Engine Repair
652
006-77
Ralph W. Poe - Campground
1317
018-78
Francis & Helen Kowalski -
50W
Antique Shop
022-78
Round Hill Ruritan Club - Sign
50W
012-79
Alfred L. & Annie Jane Hicks -
628
Wheel Balancing Shop
015-79
Loring R. Nail - Lawnmower Sales
50W
021-79
Ralph W. Poe - Campground, Motorhome,
50W
Trailer Sales
003-80
Albert & Sandra Poore - Public Garage
600
008-80
Melvin E. Nail - Fix -It Shop
614
010-80
Ralph & Veronica Machotka - Sign Shop
621
025-80
Robert S. Hawkins - Public Garage
622
009-81
Margaret Brown - Beauty Shop
652
013-81
Patricia A. Abbott - Beauty Shop
616
002-84
Raymond R. Lickliter, Sr. - Kennel
611
012-86
John 0. Hahn - Re-establish a Legal
621
Nonconforming Use
011-87
Ann Marie Beach - Beauty Salon
652
005-88
Raymond E. Brill - Sand Mine
603
006-88
Gary Ray Hunt - Motorcycle Repair
50W
and Sales
008-88
Steven P. Williams - Equipment Sales
50W
Back Creek District CUP List
Page 2
003-89
Keplinger Repair Service - Garage
and Repair Facility
011-89
Richard L. & Margaret Goodwin -
Public Garage
006-90
Gregory Investments - Recreational
Facility/Golf Driving Range
008-90
Cacapon Valley Child Care Center -
Community Center/Child Care
011-90
Allen E. Rogers - Lawn Care Office
and Warehouse
001-91
Clifton Brill - Fish Hatchery
003-91
Marietta & Kim Walls - Veterinary
Office and Hospital
006-91
Alice V. Burleson - Silk Flower
Arrangements
007-91
Charles Munneke - Off Premise Sign
008-91
Ray George - Machine Shop
011-91
Larry Earhart - Truck Repair Service
654
50W
11S
50W/704
620
604
622
Shawneeland
11S
600
631
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
OPEQUON DISTRICT
PERMIT NUMBER
NAME
ROUTE NUMBER
018-74
Ray VanDyke, T. G. Adams -
636
Forest Lake Mobile Home Park
019-74
Leslie Mogle - Bike Shop
647
034-75
National Trust for Historic
727
Preservation, Mobile Homes
005-77
James K. Cornell, Battle of Cedar
11S
Creek Campground
020-78
James L. & Donna Powell, Auto
11S
Repair and Body Shop
004-80
Ernest C. Layman, Public Garage
11S
019-80
Richard J. Scherzinger, Small
179 Meadow
Engine Repair
020-80
M. Lucy Luttrel & Ruth A. Whetzel,
628
Antique Shop
022-80
Thomas & Barbara Conrad, Convalescent 11S
and Nursing Home
024-80
Lawrence Johnson, Shoe Repair Shop
277
014-81
William D. & Charlotte A. Payne,
522
Engine Repair Shop
008-82
Gilbert C. Mills, Sawmill
522
016-82
John H. Wert, Gas Station
11S
012-83
James Lofton, CB Repair & Install
277
006-85
Iva H. Petre, Grocery Store
11S
012-85
Raymond W. Davis, Jr., Clothing
522
and Misc. Retail Sales
003-86
Richard S. Russell, Used Car
ilS
Display
010-86
Charles & Fay Grady, Kennel
625
Opequon District CUP List
Page 2
013-87
Holiday Motel, Motel Sign
11 & 627
014-87
Roger L. Mogle, Small Engine
647
Repair
016-87
Harry A. Downard, Farm Supply Sales
842
002-89
Thomas J. Gillespie, Auto Repairs
522
017-89
Richard A. Keeler, Convenience Store
11S & 634
001-90
Roy & Patricia Beatty - Garage and
body repair
11
015-90
Kenneth D. & Theresa Kovack - Office
1041
and Workshop
017-90
White Oak Trading Post - Country
277
Store and Campground
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
STONEWALL DISTRICT
PERMIT NUMBER
NAME ROUTE NUMBER
026-74
Stanford & Inge Co. - Off Site Sign
11&I-81
055-76
National Advertising Co. - Sign
7&I-81
009-77
Margaret A. Carter - Beauty Shap
661
014-78
Marcus W. Reid - Antique Shop
672
017-78
Frederick County Fair Assc. -
11N
Camping, etc.
019-78
Linwood Heironimus, Jr. - CB/Scanner
672
and Misc. Sales
003-79
Union Hall, IAMAW Local 2335 - Union
11N
Hall
004-79
Eston L. Keeler - Antique Shop
672
005-79
Eston L. Keeler - Sign
672
010-79
David Grim - Home occupation/
11N
Photography
017-79
Denny's Inc. - Off Site Sign
7E
016-81
Bernard & Sally McClung - Model Home
739
003-82
Jerry & Cathy Harris - TV/Video Rental
661
005-82
Lloyd & Carolyn Roberts - Beauty Shop
1208
020-82
Joseph C. Smith - Commercial Sign
11N
002-83
Glenwood Nicholson - Sign
522N
003-83
Chester S. Webber - Small Engine
661
Repair
004-83
Marvin D. Hoffman - Saw Sharpening
721
Shop
008-83
R.D. Brown (Bauserman Oil) - Off
I-81
Site Signs
004-84
Wayne M. Brandt, III - Welding Shop
664
Stonewall District CUP List
Page 2
008-84
Nerangis Enterprises Inc. - Off
11N
Site Sign
009-84
Merle L. & Mary A. Swartz - Candy
11N
Making and Sales
002-85
Charles W. & Adriennel L. Schnabel -
670
Art Studio
009-85
Nansford, Houston, DeWeese - Small
Greenfield
Woodstain Packaging
013-85
Roger Fitzwater - Public Garage
Warner
001-86
Cheryl L. Anderson - Kennel
836
Ammended: 10/24/90 - Expansion
013-86
Joseph C. Smith - Group Adult
7E
Retirement Home
007-87
Regency Lakes Associates - Off
7E
Site Sign
008-87
Regency Lakes Associates - Off
7E
Site Sign
004-88
Joseph C. Smith - Adult Home
7E
013-88
Cheryl Anderson - Off Site Sign
11N&836
008-89
Health Equity Resources of
1025 PA
Winchester, Inc. - Addition to
Avenue
Personal Care Home
019-89
Joanne R. Happ - Art Studio
661
004-90
Shirley Wilson - Cottage Occupation
and Sign
11N
005-90
Winchester Skating Center -
7E
Off Premise Sign
020-90
Vickie Patterson - Artist Studio
670
014-91
Robert & Mary Turben - Locksmith
522N
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
GAINESBORO DISTRICT
PERMIT NUMBER
NAME
ROUTE NUMBER
010-74
Frederick County Fruit Growers
522N
Ag. Workers Housing
002-78
Lake Holiday Country Club - Sign
522N
006-78
Edward T. & Carol B. Place -
654
Auction House
009-78
Joseph A. Helsley - Auction House
690
010-78
Jack and Donna Black - Fruit Market
50W
001-79
Robert E. DeHaven - Country Grocery
522N
005-80
Wayne & Betty J. Kerns -
692
Public Garage
011-80
Charles W. Omps (Ralph Poe) -
50W
Off Site Sign
005-81
Charles A. Strother, Sr. - Used Car
654
Parts and Sales
018-81
Elmer H. Lauck - Public Garage
522
010-82
Joseph s. & Lynda DuBose - Garage
522N
Farm Equipment and Auto Repair
015-82
Peter G. & Crystal M. Dassler -
50W
Construction & Sales of Utility Bldgs.
018-82
Jacob Puffenberger - Public Garage
696
010-83
Talbert F. DeHaven, Jr. - Gun Shop
608
006-84
Phillip E. Wine - Public Garage
692
007-84
Shenadoah Valley Oil Co. -
522N
Service Station
004-85
Glenn C. Whitacre - Sawmill, Type B
127
008-85
Charles E. Cochran, Jr. - Small
654
Engine Repair/Outdoor Equip. Sales
002-86
Kenneth Reed, Jr. - Sign
Fox Dr.
007-86
Ronald J. DeHaven - Public Garage
522N
Gainesboro
District CUP List
Page 2
008-86
Robert & Jeanne Spaid - Antique Shop
50W
002--87
Janet Bissell - Dog Kennel
522N
004-87
Wray D. & Darlene T. Kimmel -
522N
Boarding Kennel
009-87
Lloyd R. Renner - Off Premise Sign
522N
010-87
C. Joe Lizer - Off Premise Sign
522N
012-87
ADG,Inc. - Commercial Outdoor
694
Recreation Center "AKA"
017-87
Douglas L. Owens - Country General
50W
Store/Gas Pumps/Private Residence
018-87
Theodore P. Hoover - Public Garage
654
and Body Shop
003-88
Westminister - Canterbury - Sign
522N
007-88
Ronald E. Gordon - Automobile Repair
789
011-88
Holt Corporation - Radio Station
50W
001-89
Charles & Nancy Thompson - Garden
739
Supplies and rentals
004-89
William E. Gill - Heating and Air
852
Conditioning business
005-89
John E. & Delphia J. Shelly -
522N
Retail Sales and Groceries
012-89
Charles & Dolores Middleton -
522N
VCR Repair Shop
013-89
Richard Dale & Merle D. Kerns -
600/690
Country General Store
014-89
Robert R. Sheehan, Jr. - Sign Shop
50W
007-90
Roger Lee Jenkins - Auto Repair
608
Garage
016-90
Christopher Chisholm & Stephanie
522N
Slonaker - Dog Grooming
018-90
Ernest W. Creek - Public Garage
701
Gainesboro District CUP List
Page 3
004-91 Luther H. Combs - Auto Repair w/o 654
Body Repair
005-91 Leda J. Lizer - Beauty Salon 789
009-91 Otis Goodwin - "Outreach to Asia" 522N
Office
012-91 Roger & Betty DeHaven - Well Drilling 682
Business
013-91 Dick Ballenger - Off Premise Sign 522N
PERMIT NUMBER
007-74
040-75
023-78
011-79
024-79
025-79
001-81
002-81
008-81
007-82
005-83
001-85
005-85
007-85
004-86
005-86
009-86
006-87
006-89
010-89
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
SHAWNEE DISTRICT
NAME ROUTE NUMBER
Orrlick Cemetary - Cemetary
656
Boyd Unger - Gift Shop
5225
Charles W. Bush - Bookkeeping
779
Ervin D. & Margie Nates - Home
657
Occupation/Day Care
Dr. Robert Kapp - Replace Mobile Home
Dodge Ave.
Powlen Equipment Co. - Construction
728
Equipment Distribution and Sales
Gary A. Wygal - Income Tax Service
744
Robert Ziegler, Inc. - Off Site Sign
7E
Wesley L. Spangler - Antique Shop
50E
Stephen & Sue Culbert - Silk Flower
657
Arranging
Michael D. Hockman - Ambulance Service
522S
John W.H. & Gloria M. Collins -
645
Public Garage
David E. & Nancy M. Ritter -
1225
Consignment Shop
Timber Ridge Ministeries Inc. -
522S
Radio Station
Ronald M. Mowbray - Mobile Home
642
Orville R. Comer - Excavation Business
5225
Charles A. Mercer - Gas Pumps
7E
R. Thomas & Carolyn G. Malcolm -
657
Beauty Shop
Kathryn M. Perry - Open Mine Shale Pit
50E
Nicholas P. Turner - Landscape & Lawn
645
Service
Shawnee District CUP List
Page 2
018-89
Lake Centre (Dave Holiday) - Day Care
642
Facility
020-89
Ann Riddle - Beauty Parlor
644
003-90
Mariette Zucchi - Day Care Center
522S
009-90
Edwin & Laura Stewart - Wood Craft
50E
Business
012-90
Warren D. Golightly - Tax and
723
Bookkeeping Service Office
019-90
Michelle Brogger - Catering Service
847
002-91
Larry A. Welsh - Public Garage With
645
Body Repair
010-91
John Murtagh - Office
645
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703!665-5651
FAX 703!678 -068 -
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Planning Director
SUBJECT: 1992-1993 Work Program
DATE: February 21, 1992
Attached is the 1992-1993 Work Program of the Department of Planning and Development.
We would appreciate any suggestions or changes you could offer.
RWW/slk
THE COURTHOUSE COMMONS
9 N. Loudoun Street - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601
1292-1993 WORK PROGRAM
COUNTY OF FREDERICK
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
I. DEPARTMENT GOALS
The Department of Planning and Development works to implement the following goals:
- To maintain an effective planning process to manage growth and development in
Frederick County.
- To initiate actions to put planning policies into effect.
- To solve problems concerning land use and development.
- To provide information and advice to the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission,
County Administrator, public agencies, developers, citizens of the County, and the
general public.
- To provide user friendly customer service.
- To provide opportunities for public involvement in the planning process.
- To educate the public on planning issues.
Specific policies for land use and development are contained in the Frederick Cpunnly,
Comprehensive Policy Plan. Specific activities are proposed by the Action Program in
the Comprehensive Plan. Many of the activities proposed in this work program are
recommended by the Action Program.
There is a particular need to intensify efforts to educate the public on planning issues and
to increase public involvement in planning.
II. THE 1992-93 PROGRAM
A. ADMINISTRATION - Administrative tasks will include the following:
1
Violations and Complaints.
2. Requests for Information.
3. Support to Three Boards, One Commission, and Seven Committees
(10-15 agendas per month) .
4. Coordination with Agencies_
5. Record Keeping and Administrative Improvements - The staff will
continue to work on improvements to record keeping and administrative
procedures. A special effort is underway to automate record keeping on
land development applications.
6. Planning Commission By -Laws - There is a need this year to again look
at Planning Commission operations and procedures.
7. Capital Facilities Impact Model - Substantial efforts will be required to
maintain and use the impact model.
B. HOUSE NUMBERING AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM -
Substantial additional work will be required to implement and maintain the house
numbering system. We need to find ways to bring the various kinds of
information that are being generated in the County (assessments, building permits,
house numbering, sewer and water, mapping, etc.) into an information system that
can be used for planning and decision making. We will begin the implementation
of a comprehensive geographic information system to accomplish this.
C. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - the staff will continue to review the following
types of development proposals:
Rezonings
Conditional Use Permits
Master Development Plans
Site Plans
Subdivisions
Variances
Land Disturbance Permits
Building Permits
The staff will continue to work to improve these development review procedures.
6
D. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING - The Comprehensive Plans and Programs
Subcommittee will review the Comprehensive Plan following the annual review
process. The comprehensive planning work items will be as follows:
1. Alternative Rural Community Center Sewage Disposal Methods -
Following the study that is underway, efforts will continue concerning the
implementation of alternative approaches to provide sewage disposal
methods to rural centers and areas in a manner that does not degrade the
environment.
2. Corridor/Interchange Plans - Work will begin on the development of
small area plans for the Route 50 East and Route 7 corridors and
interchange areas. The plans will be used to address economic
development, land use, appearance, traffic and other issues. Property
owners in these areas will need to be involved in the process.
3. Housing Issues - The 2020 Report recommends the preparation of a
comprehensive housing plan for the City and County. Discussions with
the City will be initiated on proceeding with this recommendation. The
preparation of such a plan will begin as directed by the Planning
Commissions. Special efforts will be directed at examining incentives to
encourage the inclusion of affordable housing in new residential
developments.
4. Stephens City - The Town of Stephens City is in the process of updating
their Comprehensive Plan. Coordination with the County concerning the
Town and surrounding areas would be appropriate.
5. Projection Methods - Discussions are needed concerning uniform
projection methods to be used by various agencies in the County. Such
methods should be tied to the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
6. Neighborhood Planning - The staff will continue to assist the planning
subcommittee of the Shawneeland Sanitary District Advisory Committee
in there efforts to plan for the Shawneeland neighborhood. There is also
a need to develop better methods to define and plan for neighborhoods and
community centers. Such methods should include substantial public
involvement.
7. Eastern Road Plan - The eastern road plan will need to be reviewed and
revised based on the results of the Winchester Area Transportation Study
and the Route 37 Study.
3
E. ORDINANCE REVIEW - In addition to routine requests, ordinance review
activities of the Development Regulations and Review Subcommittee will include
the following:
1. Zoning Ordinance Review - The 1989 Zoning Ordinance will be
reviewed to insure that the intent is being met. Particular attention will
be given to the R-4, Planned Development,,, District and to the use of
conditional use permits. The Subcommittee will monitor the effectiveness
of the rural amendments and will recommend any adjustments.
2. Development Review - The Subcommittee will review specific
development issues in relation to particular developments as needed.
F. TRANSPORTATION - Transportation planning work will include the following:
1. Winchester Area Transportation Study - The staff will obtain the traffic
model used by the study and will work to insure that the model can
continue to be used to project traffic needs and the traffic impacts of
development proposals.
2. Route 37 Location Study - Substantial efforts will be required to support
and supervise this project.
3. Transportation Committee - Routine, annual work will continue.
4. Transportation Planning Committee - The staff will provide support to
this joint committee of the City and County Planning Commissions.
G. HISTORIC PRESERVATION - Work will continue to evaluate sites and
implement the preservation policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Support will
continue to the architectural and archeological surveys that are underway. The
Historic Resources Advisory Board will continue to work on a system for local
recognition of significant sites. Work will continue on a comprehensive system
to protect historic sites and to use them to support tourism and education.
H. OTHER
1. Capital Improvements Plan - The staff will work with the
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee to maintain and
�eC
improve uic �. rn
.
4
2. Citizen Participation and Education - Special emphasis is needed to
provide better opportunities to allow citizens to participate in the planning
process. Improved efforts to educate the public on planning issues are
needed. Better public communication and meeting methods will be
considered.
5
1992-93 WORK PROGRAM SUMMARY
FREDERICK COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
WORK PROGRAM ITEM:
PROJECTED
COMPLETION DATE:
A. Administration
Violations and Complaints ...................... Ongoing
Requests for Information ....................... Ongoing
Agendas, Minutes, Budgets, Reports
Correspondence ............................. Ongoing
Record Keeping Improvements ................... Ongoing
B. House Numbering and Geographic Information System
House Numbering Ongoing
Geographic Information System ................... Ongoing
C. Development Review
Review of Plans and Proposals ................... Ongoing
Evaluation of Review Procedures .................. Ongoing
D. Comprehensive Planning
Review of Comprehensive Plan ................... Ongoing
Rural Community Sewage Alternatives ............... 1992-93
2
Corridor/ Interchange Plans ...................... Ongoing
Housing Issues ............................. Ongoing
Stephens City 1992-93
Projection Methods .......................... 1992-93
E. Ordinance Review
Zoning Ordinance Review ...................... 1992-93
F. Transportation Planning
Winchester Area Transportation Study ............... Ongoing
Route 37 Location Study ....................... 1992-93
Transportation Committee Activities ................ Ongoing
Transportation Planning Committee ................. Ongoing
G. Historic Preservation ........................... Ongoing
H. Other
Capital Improvements Plan ...................... Ongoing
Citizen Participation and Education ................. Ongoing
7
STAFF RESPONSIBILITIES
1992-93 WORK PROGRAM
Dep. Zoning Plan. Plan. Plan. Graph. Off. Clerk
TASK
Dir.
Dir.
Adman.
II
I
I
Tech.
Mgr.
Typ.
Department
*
X
X
X
Management
Ord. Ad-
X
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
minis-
tration
General
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Inquiries
Violations
*
X
X
General
*
X
Corres-
pondence
Minutes
X
X
X
X
*
X
Agendas
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*
X
House
X
X
X
X
X
*
X
Numbers
Mapping
X
X
X
X
Graphics
X
X
X
X
X
*
X
Trans.
X
*
X
X
X
Committee
Rezoning
X
*
X
X
X
X
Review
CUP
*
X
X
X
X
Review
Masterplan
X
*
X
X
X
Review
Site Plan
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
Review
* Lead Role
8
TASK
Dir.
Dep.
Dir.
STAFF RESPONSIBILITIES
1992-93 WORK PROGRAM
Zoning Plan. Plan. Plan.
Admin. II I I
Graph.
Tech.
Off.
Mgr.
Clerk
Typ.
Subdivi-
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
sion Review
and Admin.
Permit
*
X
X
X
Review
BZA
X
X
*
X
X
Zoning
X
X
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
Ord.
Review
Develop.
X
X
*
X
X
X
X
Review
Subcomm.
Improve
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
Plan
Review
Comp.
X
*
X
X
X
X
Plan
Subcomm.
Improve
*
X
X
X
violation
Procedures
Record
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*
X
Keeping
Improve-
ments
Maintain
X
X
Impact
Model
RCC Sewage
*
X
X
X
X
Disposal
*Lead Role
E
TASK
Dir.
Dep.
Dir.
STAFF RESPONSIBILITIES
1992-93 WORK PROGRAM
Zoning Plan. Plan. Plan.
Admin. II I I
Graph.
Tech.
Off.
Mgr.
Clerk
Typ.
Neigborhood
X
X
X * X
X
X
X
Planning
Stephens
X
X
X *
X
X
City
Projection
X
X
X
Methods
Housing
*
X
X X X
X
X
Issues
Corridor
X
X
X *
X
X
X
Plans
Road
X
X
* X
X
Plans
* Lead Role
10
Plan
Update
EDC
X
X
STAFF RESPONSIBILITIES
Area
*
X
Trans
1992-93 WORK
PROGRAM
Plan
Route
*
Dep.
Zoning Plan.
Plan. Plan.
Graph.
Off.
Clerk
TASK
Dir.
Dir.
Admin. II
I I
Tech.
Mgr.
Typ.
Historic
*
X
X
X
X
X
Resources
*
X
Part.
& Ed.
Database
X
X
X X
X X
X
*
X
Managemt.
Geo.
*
X
X
X X
X
Database
Annual
X
X
*
X
X
X
Report
Comp.
X
X
X
* X
X
*
X
Plan
Update
EDC
X
X
Support
Area
*
X
Trans
Plan
Route
*
X
37
Trans.
X
X
Committee
CIP
X
X
Trans.
X
Planning
Comm.
Public
*
X
Part.
& Ed.
* Lead Role
* X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
11
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
MEMORANDUM
Frederick County Planning Commission
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703/665-5651
FAX 703/678-0682
Robert W. Watkins, Planning Directory'
Development Impact Model for Rezonings
February 21, 1992
The firm of Hammer, Siler, George Associates has completed the development of a
methodology and computer model for Frederick County which measures the impact of
rezonings on the costs of capital facilities. A copy of a description of the methodology is
attached. The staff has provided a discussion of the implications of the method as follows:
FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Page 43 of the adopted Comprehensive Plan contains the following language:
It is not the case that requests for rzonings for urban and suburban uses in the
Urban Development areas will be automatically approved. In order for new areas
of urban and suburban uses to be established in the Urban Development Area, roads
and public facilities of sufficient capacity should be provided to serve the new urban
areas. Before new urban areas are established, new or improved roads and facilities
should be provided or planned to be provided in coordination with the scheduled
development. The owners of the new development will be expected to contribute a
reasonable portion of the costs of new road and facility capacity needed to serve new
urban development. Such contributions can be in the form of cash, dedicated land,
or constructed improvements.
On page 61 the following is stated:
Special efforts should be undertaken to provide roads and facilities with sufficient
capacity in the Urban Development Area. New urban development should be
approved in the Urban Development Area only when facilities, utilities and roads
with sufficient capacity have been provided.
THE COURTHOUSE COMMONS
9 N. Loudoun Street - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601
Page 101 through 103 of the plan contain Community Facility and Service Policies, including
the following:
Goal - Appropriate services and facilities shall be provided to serve planned land
uses and development.
Goal - Facilities and services should be carefully planned to meet projected needs.
Strategy 10 - Require that the impacts of new developments on facilities be described
and require that the impacts are addressed through proffers and other means.
The Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee will be reviewing these and other related provisions
this year. However, it is important to note the following:
It is the opinion of the staff that the above adopted policies provide the County with the latitude
to decry rezoningr if sufficient facilities are not provided to support the potential development.
RPzonings can be denied if there are demonstrated negative impacts on the costs of public
facilities and if those impacts are not adequately addressed
CONDITIONAL ZONING
In 1989, the General Assembly adopted 15.1-491.2:1 of the Code of Virginia which gave to
Frederick County additional powers to accept proffered conditions as a part of rezoning
applications. The Code states that the proffers are voluntary. As specified, the proffers
must meet the following criteria:
(i) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions;
(ii) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning;
(iii) all such conditions are in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan...
The section also states the following:
In the event proffered conditions include the dedication of real property or payment
of cash, such property shall not transfer and such payment of cash shall not be made
until the facilities for which such property is dedicated or cash is tendered are
included in the capital improvement program, provided that nothing herein shall
prevent a county, city, or town from accepting proffered conditions which are not
normally included in such capital improvement program.
The general interpretation of these provisions has been that proffers can be accepted
concerning the development of the site or concerning the facilities that will be needed to
2
support the new development. Case law in the nation is clear that exactions should have
a reasonable relationship to the impacts of the specific development.
The Code is clear that provisions should be made in cash proffers concerning the return of
proffers that are not used. Special funds should be created for cash proffers received.
There is a clause at the end of the above paragraph concerning "conditions not normally
included in" the CIP. This is certainly subject to interpretation; but potential examples
discussed have included secondary road improvements, which counties identify by using the
six year plan, not the CIP.
It is important to note that some Counties, such as Loudoun County, are operating under
different legislation in the Code. Conditional zoning in Loudoun comes under section 15.1-
491.(a) which refers to "reasonable conditions" without any of the other language above
which applies to Frederick County. This legislation has generally been interpreted to
provide broader powers than the legislation that applies to Frederick County. Therefore,
Frederick County needs to be careful about adopting conditional zoning procedures used
by other counties without examining how they relate to the applicable legislation.
It is the opinion of the staff that under the provisions of the Codef Vragim Frederick County
can accept proffers that are used to address the impacts of rezonings on public facilities:
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MODEL FOR REZONINGS
Hammer, Siler, George Associates has developed methods and a computer model for
Frederick County which measures the fiscal impact of rezonings on capital facilities. These
methods can be used to provide information to the rezoning applicant concerning what
impacts need to be addressed through the proffer process. Proffers are voluntary, so it is
the opinion of the staff that it should be left to the applicant to develop a proffer package
that will adequately address the projected impacts.
The impact model uses a variety of data and formulas to measure the impacts that a
rezoning will have on the county budget for schools, parks, and fire and rescue facilities.
Only those costs that will affect the County budget are included.
The model measures the new capacity that will be needed in facilities as a result of the
rezoning. Units of demand, which have been derived from various sources, are used
including school children per dwelling, fire calls per square feet of building, or residents per
dwelling. The rezoning is then evaluated as follows:
Unit of Demand X Projected New Units = New Demand
3
Example:
Students per Dwelling X Dwellings = New Students
Costs per unit of demand are derived from the CIP and other sources and used as follows:
Cost per Unit X New Demand = New Facility Costs
Example:
Cost per Student X New Students = New School Costs
New developments will provide revenues as well as costs, so credits are given as follows:
Credit is given for the net positive fiscal impact of the development on capital and
operating costs.
Credit is given for taxes that will be paid by the development that will be specifically
allocated for funding or debt service for the capital facilities examined.
The final formula for the net impact calculation is as follows:
New Facility Costs - Net Fiscal Impact Credit - Capital Revenue Credit = Net Impact
The overall fiscal impact credit is only used if there is a net overall fiscal surplus from the
project. If there is no net surplus from the development or if there is a negative overall
impact, no fiscal impact credit is given. These factors are used to ensure that all potential
positive financial impacts of the project are taken into consideration.
The model is extremely specific and takes into consideration a number of factors, including
the school attendance or fire response districts in which the rezoning is located. Because
of this specificity, keeping the model up to date will be a significant work item each year.
It is a significant, though perhaps obvious, finding of this study that only residential
rezonings will have a net negative financial impact on the County's capital budget.
Nonresidential projects will produce a net fiscal impact and capital facilities revenue that
will offset any new facility costs.
One of the issues associated with the model will be to determine how many dwellings or
square feet of nonresidential uses will be involved. The staff will have to determine what
factors to use to analyze any rezoning request. Generally, a worst case analysis should be
0
used unless proffers are used to lessen the impacts. For instance, maximum densities should
be used for residential rezonings unless lesser densities are proffered.
The costs described are based on facilities that are in the CIP. As projects are completed
or new projects added to the CIP, the results of the model could change significantly.
The Development Impact Model for Rezon&W can be used to measure the facility cost impacts
of rezonings and can be used by the applicants as a basis for developing proffer packager
SCHOOL CHILDREN PER DWELLING
Hammer, Siler, George Associates included the following factors in the model to describe
the number of school children per dwelling that would result from rezonings:
PUPILS PER DWELLING
School Level Single Family
Multi -Family
Townhouse
Mobile Home
Elementary .386
.109
.244
.109
Middle .174
.041
.092
.041
High .235
.038
.110
.038
It is the opinion of the staff that the above factors measure the average number of school
age children in existing dwellings. However, they do not measure the relationship between new
dwellings and new pupils. The above factors tell us how many children are in each existing
dwelling. They do not tell us how many new children will result from the addition of a new
dwelling.
Because of this, the staff has performed a linear regression analysis which measures the
relationship between the increasing number of dwellings in the County between 1960 and
1990 and the number of pupils enrolled in public schools. The following describes the
actual number of new pupils that can be expected per dwelling based on the relationship
measured:
School Level
Projected New Pupils Per New Dwelling
Elementary
.124
Middle
.044
High
.084
W
It should be noted that the analysis did not show a very high correlation between new
dwellings and increasing school enrollment. The numbers of dwellings in the County have
risen steadily while school enrollments have risen, fallen and risen again. This suggests that
increasing school enrollment must be explained by other factors than just residential
construction alone.
The staff used the previously used relationships between pupils per dwelling and housing
types to derive a table that describes the increase in enrollment that can be projected per
new dwelling for each type of housing.
PROJECTED NEW SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
RESULTING FROM EACH NEW
DWELLING, BY DWELLING TYPE
School Level
Single Family
Multi -Family
Townhouse
Mobile Home
Elementary
.156
.048
.107
.048
Middle
.060
.014
.032
.014
High
.119
.019
.055
.019
These factors were substituted into the model for the ones previously used.
2
MODEL EXAMPLES
The following are examples describing the results of the model using certain basic
assumptions.
1. EXAMPLE ONE:
Assume:
Greenwood Fire and Rescue District
Senseny Road Elementary School District
Frederick County Middle School District
James Wood High School District
100 Acres are proposed to be rezoned to RP
A maximum of 200 dwellings is proffered
Results:
Infrastructure
Capital Costs
Net
Credit for
Net Impact
Fiscal
Taxes to
Impact
Capital
Credit
Costs
Fire Department
$587
Rescue Department
$998
$4,189
$0
Elementary Schools
$275,475
Middle Schools
$79,988
High Schools
$240,099
$73,398
$522,164
Parks & Recreation
$113,118
$4,363
$108,755
Total
$710,265
$0
$81,950
$628,315
This would result in a net impact of $3,142 per dwelling.
7
2. EXAMPLE TWO:
Assume:
Stephens City Fire and Rescue District
Bass Hoover Elementary School District
Aylor Middle School District
Sherando High School District
100 Acres are proposed to be rezoned to RP
A maximum of 200 dwellings is proffered
Results:
Infrastructure
Capital Costs
Net
Fiscal
Impact
Credit
Credit for
Taxes to
Capital
Costs
Net Impact
Fire Department
$464
$4,189
$0
Rescue Department
$632
Elementary Schools
$256,220
$73,398
$595,685
Middle Schools
$99,271
High Schools
$313,592
Parks & Recreation
$113,118
$4,363
$108,755
Total
$783,297 1
$0
$81,950
$701,347
This would result in a net impact of $3,507 per dwelling.
3. EXAMPLE THREE:
Assume:
Stephens City Fire and Rescue District
Bass Hoover Elementary School District
Aylor Middle School District
Sherando High School District
100 Acres are proposed to be rezoned to RP
A maximum of 300 dwellings is proffered, 100 single family and 200 apartments
Results:
Infrastructure
Capital Costs
Net
Fiscal
Impact
Credit
Credit for
Taxes to
Capital
Costs
Net Impact
Fire Department
$232
$6,283
$0
Rescue Department
$948
Elementary Schools
$206,268
$81,929
$405,043
Middle Schools
$73,304
High Schools
$207,400
Parks & Recreation
$1691677
$4,870
$164,807
Total
$657,829
$0
$93,082
$564,747
This would result in a net impact of $1,882 per dwelling.
M
4. EXAMPLE FOUR:
Assume:
Stephens City Fire and Rescue District
Bass Hoover Elementary School District
Aylor Middle School District
Sherando High School District
100 Acres are proposed to be rezoned to R4
A maximum of 300 dwellings is proffered,
25,000 square feet of retail space proffered
Results:
100 single family and 200 apartments
Infrastructure
Capital Costs
Net
Fiscal
Impact
Credit
Credit for
Taxes to
Capital
Costs
Net Impact
Fire Department
$255
$6,420
$0
Rescue Department
$1,021
Elementary Schools
$206,268
$122,116
$364,856
Middle Schools
$73,304
High Schools
$207,400
Parks & Recreation
$169,677
$7,259
$162,418
Total
$657,925
$0
$135,795
$522,130
This would result in a net impact of $1,740 per dwelling.
10
5. EXAMPLE FIVE:
Assume:
Stephens City Fire and Rescue District
Bass Hoover Elementary School District
Aylor Middle School District
Sherando High School District
100 Acres are proposed to be rezoned to R4
A maximum of 300 dwellings is proffered, 100 single family and 200 apartments
75,000 square feet of retail space proffered
Results:
Infrastructure
Capital Costs
Net Fiscal
Impact
Credit
Credit for
Taxes to
Capital
Costs
Net Impacts
Fire Department
$302
$6,693
$0
11
Rescue Department
$1,166
Elementary Schools
$206,268
$202,490
$284,482
Middle Schools
$73,304
High Schools
$207,400
Parks & Recreation
$169,677
$12,036
$157,640
Total
$658,117
$474,473
$221,220 1
$0
No net impacts.
11
Obviously, residential developments produce greater net impacts. However, the model
allows for the evaluation of mixed use projects. In such projects, the nonresidential uses
offset the impacts of the residential uses. The model approach will promote balanced,
mixed use projects.
The model contains a large number of data items and key factors. These include value per
square feet, pupils per dwelling, square feet per fire or rescue call, cost per call, new school
cost per pupil, and park facility standards. These have generally been derived from
information received from each agency. They are certainly subject to review and updating.
Changes in these factors can greatly affect the results of the model.
The Development Impact Model for Rezonings can be used on a continuous basis but will
require review and updating each year. Revising of Planning Department procedures and
application forms will be required
FIRE AND RESCUE IMPACTS
Fire and rescue impacts are inherently different from the school and parks impacts
measured. The capital costs examined for schools and parks are totally funded through the
county budget. However, fire and rescue capital costs are only partly funded from county
contributions. Most of the capital costs of the fire and rescue companies are funded through
private contributions.
The model, however, only measures the impact of rezonings on the county budget in terms
of county contributions for fire and rescue capital costs. The model suggests that fire and
rescue costs are greater for nonresidential than residential uses. However, the revenues
generated by nonresidential uses clearly exceed the capital costs to the County under current
contribution practices.
12
Therefore, the Planning Staff has added an addendum to the model which measures the new
capital cost of rezonings to fire and rescue companies which are not paid for by county
contributions. We simply subtracted the county contribution for capital costs estimated by
the model from the total new capital costs resulting from rezonings to derive the additional
costs as follows:
Estimated New Fire and Rescue Capital Costs
Resulting from Rezonings and Not Paid by County
Contributions
FIRE
RESCUE
Example 1
$3,157
$5,372
Example 2
$922
$1,255
Example 3
$461
$1,883
Example 4
$599
$2,316
Example 5
$786
$2,979
It is the opinion of the staff that cash proffers used to address these additionalfire and rescue
costs could be accepted as proffers for items not normally included in such capital improvement
Program," as stated by the Code of Virginia Such proffers would have to be structured as
specified by the Code and would need to be made to special capital improvements funds for
each company.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The following are some of the issues that should be discussed:
A. Use of the Model: Some of the most difficult remaining issues concern how the
results of the model should be interpreted. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors has
a great deal of legislative discretion to decide which rezonings should be approved.
Should the Board insist on the receipt of proffers in the amounts specified by the model
or is there room for negotiation and variation in how the impacts are addressed?
13
B. Affordable Housing: Cash proffers that fully address the cost impacts will
influence the cost of dwellings in particular developments. The need for affordable
housing is closely linked to the need for economic development. The staff would
suggest that at some point the County may wish to consider incentives for the
provision of affordable housing. Can the conditional zoning approach be used to
encourage new affordable housing?
C. Balanced Development: The serious use of the model will encourage development
that is balanced in terms of the costs and revenues created. Rezoning proposals
combining residential with nonresidential categories will be encouraged. However,
although the model suggests that example 5 would be balanced in fiscal sense, it may
not be balanced in other ways.
The model projects that example 5 would create 475 jobs. However, it would only
provide 300 dwellings. With the model approach, we may be encouraging
developments that are not balanced from the standpoint of housing. What policies
should the County institute to promote balanced growth and development?
In conclusion, it is the opinion of the staff that the model gives as accurate a picture of
capital facilities impacts as is currently possible. However, there may already be changes
or revisions that need to be made. Important questions remain concerning how to use the
information provided.
RWW/dds
Attachment
14
METHODOLOGY OF THE
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MODEL
FOR REZONING
FREDERICK COUNTY. VIRGINIA
Prepared for
Frederick County Department of Planning
Winchester, Virginia
July, 1991
Prepared by
HAMMER, SILER, GEORGE ASSOCIATES
Atlanta/Denver/Silver Spring/Washington
1111 Bonifant Street
Silver Spring, Maryland -20910
FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA REZONING
IMPACTS MODEL METHODOLOGY
Section I. SUMMARY OF FREDERICK COUNTY REZONING IMPACTS MODEL
Introduction
This model calculates the impacts for capital costs attributable to
a proposed development being rezoned within Frederick County. The amount
of the impact for a given development depends on the specific location
and specific land uses. Impacts are calculated in three steps. Each step
is described below.
The first step is to determine the total capital cost of required new
facilities generated by a new development, for the departments being
considered. In this case, schools, fire and rescue service, as well as
parks are included.
The second step is to determine if the development warrants a credit
based on its overall net fiscal impact due to taxes that will be paid in
the future. If there is a positive net fiscal impact, this net fiscal
impact credit is subtracted from total capital costs generated by the
development and determined in the first step. A negative net fiscal
impact does not increase the capital cost estimate, but is treated as a
zero.
The third step is to determine the credit for taxes that will be paid
in the future that will go to fund existing debt service. This credit
1
- SILER - GEORGE -
applies -only to those departments for which a proffer charge is being
calculated. The proportion of taxes that go to fund these capital costs
and debt services for existing development is credited against the total
new capital cost estimate.
The output from these three steps is a net rezoning impact. The net
rezoning impact is shown on Table I. As this table shows, only
residential uses have a rezoning impact. This is due to the large amount
of positive fiscal impact associated with nonresidential land uses, as
well as the school costs being charged only to residential units.
Table 1. NET INFRASTRUCTURE REZONING IMPACT
OF COMPONENT LAND USES 1/
(EXCLUDING ANY DEVELOPMENT FEES
Net Positive
Land Use Proffer Charge
Residential
(Per Unit)
SF Detached $4,431
Townhouse 54,428
Apartment $4,425
Nonresidential
(Per 1,000 S.F.)
Office
$0
Retail
$0
Manufacturing
$0
Warehouse,
$0
Hotel
$0
1/ Assuming Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Districts,
Apple Pie Ridge Elementary School,
Frederick County Middle School and
James Wood High School.
Source: Hammier, Siler, George Associates.
N
MER - S1LER • GEORGE -
A summary of the methodology is presented below.
CAPITAL COSTS INCLUDED
School s
- Fire Protection
Rescue Service
Parks
CAPITAL COSTS NOT INCLUDED
- County administration building
- land fill
- roads -
- libraries
- water and sewer
- jails
- other
DEMAND FOR SCHOOLS
- new school district boundaries are used, and calculations are
made for each district;
- school child yield per housing unit is calculated for FY 1990/91
based on Frederick County estimates of children per dwelling unit
by grade level and housing type.
- existing capacity of each school is calculated based on current
enrollment and practical capacity of the school.
COSTS FOR NEW SCHOOL CAPACITY
- capital costs for additional schools is based on the cost for a
new school (elementary, middle and high school) for those now
being planned;
- cost per student is calculated by multiplying existing school
occupancy percentages by the number of students to be added and
by the cost of a new school per pupil;
- costs per elementary school child capacity is $10,000, for middle
school is $9,700 and for a senior high is $10,000.
3
• SILER + GEORGE
DEMAND FOR FIRE SERVICE
- The number of calls per fire department was used for 1990;
- total building square footage for all land uses was estimated by
district based on both the preliminary 1990 Census housing counts
as well as County land use inventories;
the number of calls generated by each 1,000 square feet of
building area was calculated for each fire district.
COST OF FIRE SERVICE
- The capital costs for each fire company was estimated based on
the financial statements, a survey of companies, as well as the
County contribution;
- The capital cost per call was calculated by dividing the total
capital cost by the number of calls, which averages around $200,
and anywhere from $36 to $883 depending on the district;
- The cost for a given development is based on the calls per 1,000
square feet multiplied by the square feet in the development,
and the cost per call.
- The cost per 1,000 square feet ranges from $.95 to $98.80 (see
Table 2) .
Table 2. TYPICAL COSTS BEFORE CREDITS FIRE COMPANIES
County CaDital Sg. Ft. Cost Per
Fire District Cost Per Call Per Call 1,000 SQ. Ft.
Clearbrook
$59.76
42,280
$1.41
Gainesboro
266.53
23,581
11.30
Gore
116.20
6,389
18.19
Greenwood
36.40
25,204
1.44
Middletown
67.50
6,739
10.02
North Mountain
129.48
12,259
.95
Reynolds Store
381.93
13,161
29.02
Round Hill
57.11
10,712
5.33
Star Tannery
883.10
8,938
98.80
Stephens City
38.05
25,927
1.47
Source: Hammer, Siler, George Associates.
4
• SILER . GEORGE -
DEMAND FOR RESCUE SERVICE
- The number of calls per rescue department was used for 1990;
- total population and employment was estimated by district based
on both the preliminary 1990 Census housing counts and average
household size, as well as employment estimated from building
square footage and square feet per employee estimates;
- the number of calls generated per capita for each area was
calculated for each rescue district.
COST OF RESCUE SERVICE
- The capital costs for each rescue company was estimated based on
the financial statements, a survey of companies, as well as the
County contribution on a Countywide basis;
- The capital cost per call was calculated by dividing the total
capital cost by the number of calls, averaging around $200 total,
and for the County contribution anywhere from $36 to $467
depending on the rescue district;
- The cost for a given development is based on the calls per capita
multiplied by the population and employment in the development,
and the cost per call.
- The cost per capita ranges from $1.53 to $46.72 (see table 3).
5
HAMMER • SILER • GEORGE
Table 3. TYPICAL COSTS BEFORE CREDITS RESCUE COMPANIES
Source: Hammer, Siler, George Associates.
DEMAND FOR AND COST OF PARKS FACILITIES
- The Parks and Recreation Department has begun a major upgrade in
the level of services provided to the County, with over $5
million in a capital improvements program;
- the capital cost to upgrade the parks system was divided by the
number of households, yielding about $300 per household;
- total cost to provide facilities for a new household at the
desired future standard would be $862; based on the Parks and
Recreation Department's analysis.
- a credit for the new capital facilities that will be paid for out
of taxes and which is not yet an existing level of service was
made of about $300, resulting in a cost per new unit of about
$565.
FISCAL IMPACT CREDIT
- applied when net impact of all land uses is positive
- discounted over 10 years
- discount rate 12 percent
- appreciation rate of development five percent
- assumes 1990-91 tax rates and level of expenditures per
capital/per employee
R
FR . SILER - GFnRGF •
Population
County Caoital
Employment
Cost Per
Rescue District
Cost Per Call
Per Call
Capita
Clearbrook
$59.76
39
$1.53
Gore
116.20
19
6.11
Greenwood
36.40
16
2.28
Middletown
67.50
7
9.64
North Mountain
129.48
33
3.92
Round Hill
57.11
27
2.11
Stephens City
38.05
21
1.81
Strasburg
467.15
10
46.72
Timberidge
116.79
25
4.67
Source: Hammer, Siler, George Associates.
DEMAND FOR AND COST OF PARKS FACILITIES
- The Parks and Recreation Department has begun a major upgrade in
the level of services provided to the County, with over $5
million in a capital improvements program;
- the capital cost to upgrade the parks system was divided by the
number of households, yielding about $300 per household;
- total cost to provide facilities for a new household at the
desired future standard would be $862; based on the Parks and
Recreation Department's analysis.
- a credit for the new capital facilities that will be paid for out
of taxes and which is not yet an existing level of service was
made of about $300, resulting in a cost per new unit of about
$565.
FISCAL IMPACT CREDIT
- applied when net impact of all land uses is positive
- discounted over 10 years
- discount rate 12 percent
- appreciation rate of development five percent
- assumes 1990-91 tax rates and level of expenditures per
capital/per employee
R
FR . SILER - GFnRGF •
CREDIT FOR CONTRIBUTION TO CAPITAL COSTS THROUGH TAXES
- applied only for schools, fire, rescue and parks
- discounted over 10 years
- discount rate at 12 percent
- appreciation rate of development at five percent
- applied to all land uses
- assumes 1990-91 tax rates
An example of the results of these steps are shown in Tables 4-6.
Table 4.
MARGINAL INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS FOR COMPONENT
LAND USES,
FREDERICK COUNTY,
VIRGINIA J
EXCLUDING
ANY DEVELOPMENT
FEES)
Fire
&
Parks and
Land Use
Rescue Schools
Recreation
Total
Residential
(Per Unit)
SF Detached
$5
4,130
$564
$4,699
Townhouse
$4
4,130
$564
$4,699
Apartment
$4
4,130
$564
$4,698
Nonresidential
(Per 1,000 S.F.)
Office
$4
--
--
$4
Retail
$4
--
--
$4
Manufacturing
$3
__
__
$3
Warehouse
$Z
__
__
$2
Hotel
$3
__
__
$3
I/ Assuming Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Districts,
Apple Pie Ridge Elementary School, Frederick
County Middle School and James Wood High School.
Note: Numbers may not add to indicated totals due to rounding.
Source: Hammer, Siler, George Associates.
7
SILER • GEORGE
Table 5. NET POSITIVE FISCAL IMPACT CREDIT
- OF COMPONENT LAND USES I/
(EXCLUDING ANY DEVELOPMENT FEES)
Net Positive
Land Use Fiscal Imoact
Residential
(Per Unit)
SF Detached $0
Townhouse $0
Apartment $0
Nonresidential
(Per 1,000 S.F.)
Office
$11,290
Retail
$24,826
Manufacturing
$3,850
Warehouse
$3,184
Hotel
$9,816
1J Assuming Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Districts,
Apple Pie Ridge Elementary School,
Frederick County Middle School and
James Wood High School.
Source: Hammer, Siler, George Associates.
0
ER • S1LER • GEORGE
Table 6.
Land Use
Residential
(Per Unit)
SF Detached
Townhouse
Apartment
Nonresidential
(Per 1,000 S.F.)
Office
Retail
Manufacturing
Warehouse
Hotel
LUMF'UNENT LAND USES FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA 1/
(EXCLUDING ANY DEVELOPMENT FEES)
Fire & Parks and
Rescue Schools Recreation Total
$21 $236
$14 $271
$21 $236
$14 $271
$21 $236
$14 $271
$9 --
-- $9
$7 --
-- $7
$4 --
-- $4
$2 --
-- $2
$4 --
-- $4
1/ Assuming Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Districts,
Apple Pie Ridge Elementary School, Frederick
County Middle School and James Wood High School.
Note: Numbers may not add to indicated totals due to rounding.
Source: Hammer, Siler, George Associates.
w7
SILER • GEORGE
Section II. DETAILED METHODOLOGY
Marginal_ Infrastructure Costs
The methodology used to determine the capital costs for each
governmental service included i n the model is provided below. The output,
by land use is shown in Table 1.
Capital Costs Related to Fire Service
The demand for fire service was determined by dividing the total
calls in a given district by the total square footage of buildings of all
types within the district. The building square feet per call was then
calculated. In this case all land uses would yield the same number of
calls per 1,000 square feet, since data was not available on calls to
different types of land uses. The calls per 1,000 square feet are shown
on Table 2.
The capital costs for service was estimated by examining the
financial statements of each volunteer Fire District. These were
supplemented by a survey of the volunteer companies. Where survey data
was not returned, an estimate based on other companies was used. The
financial statements Were analyzed to determine total budget, share of
budget allocated to capital costs and debt service, and the County
contribution to the District. This information yielded the total capital
cost borne by the County, and the cost per call could then be calculated.
The cost per call by area is also shown on Table 2.
10
SILER • GEORGE
When the Fire District is selected in the model, the number of new
calls is calculated by dividing the square footage of the proposed
development by the fire call factor. Total new calls are multiplied by
the current cost per call to yield total additional costs generated by the
development. Total new costs are multiplied by the share contributed by
the County of the volunteer company's capital costs. This results in the
estimate of the County's additional capital costs (including debt service)
generated by the new project. This amount is used in the Output Module.
Capital Costs Related to Rescue Service
These calculations work exactly as do the Fire District calculations
except service is based in total population and employment served rather
than total square footage served.
Most of the volunteer fire companies are also the volunteer rescue
companies, although the district boundaries may differ. For these
companies that provide both fire and rescue services, the total budget was
allocated to either fire or rescue based upon the number of fire and
rescue calls received. For the two rescue districts for which no data was
received and are not associated with a fire district, the average of all
other rescue districts was used to determine costs.
Capital Costs Related to Schools
Like fire and rescue districts, each elementary, middle and high
school has unique code number in the model's Input Module. Information
for each school was provided regarding capacity and 1991 enrollment. The
11
HAMMIER • SILER 9 GEORGE -
per pupi-1 development cost of a new school was estimated based on the
experience of other school districts in Virginia, when not available for
Frederick County.
Total new pupils added as a result of the new development was
determined by multiplying number of new housing units by the school child
yield factor per housing type. Existing school occupancy is multiplied
by children added by the new development, which is multiplied by the per
pupil cost of a new school. This amount is used as the school capital
cost in the output tables.
It should be noted that the enrollment and capacity information in
the model should be updated as new information becomes available.
Capital Costs Related to Parks and Recreation
The County has embarked on a capital improvements program to bring
the County closer to its preferred standards per resident for park and
recreation facilities. This $5.3 million program equates to approximately
$300 per existing dwelling unit. The County has estimated that it will
cost approximately $862 in new capital facilities per new housing unit to
provide desired service standards.
New households, like all households, will be paying a proportionate
share of the $5.3 million program through their ongoing tax payments.
Therefore for the purposes of this analysis, new households are credited
for these costs by subtracting the $300 per household cost from the $862
required for each new dwelling unit. This cost is then multiplied by the
12
HAMMER • $IL.ER • GEORGE
total number of dwelling units planned in the new development to determine
the new capital costs for parks and recreation associated with the new
development.
Net Fiscal Impact Credit
New projects are credited for any fiscal benefit that results from
the new project against new capital costs that are generated by the
project. The concept of this credit is that if a land use generates a net
tax surplus, that surplus should be recognized by a credit against the
proposed impacts. This is being done by a number of Virginia
jurisdictions. The methodology used to determine this credit is described
below and the output by land use is provided in Table S.
The amount of credit is the amount of initial development fees and
permit fees plus the net present value of the ongoing revenues derived by
the project over 10 years. This net present value method is used to
provide a single dollar amount of revenues received over the ten-year
period. Revenues are assumed to increase by an inflation factor of five
percent per year and future revenues are discounted to present value at
12 percent, a discount rate reflecting the risk to the County associated
with the costs and revenues of the new development.
Development fees are calculated based on the development fee schedule
provided by the County. The model user specifies which development fees
are paid and the model calculates the fee based on acreage, housing units,
square footage or other basis used to calculate the fee.
13
$[LER • GEORGE
Net fiscal impact is comprised of County costs and revenues only.
Money received from other sources such as the state or federal government
are not included. The methodology used to determine each is provided
below.
Revenues
Revenues are the sum of ongoing tax revenues by land use in the
project. Each revenue category is described below.
Real Property Tax. This is the tax rate multiplied by the value of
development by land use in the project. Development value is determined
in the model based on the assessment values by land use as provided by the
County. These values are provided in the model and can be changed as new
information is made available to the County.
Personal Property Tax. The County estimates that 77 percent of
personal property taxes are from residents and the remainder from
businesses. Of the $5.3 million expected to be collected, this is $228
per household and $93 per employee. These figures are applied to each
land use in the project to yield total personal property tax collected.
Business License. This new tax is expected to collect approximately
$450,000 per year. Using information from the 1987 Census of Retail
Trade, Manufacturing ''and Services regarding number of businesses,
employment and volume in Frederick County, Hammer, Siler, George
Associates has estimated per employee revenues by land use type. These
rates are multiplied by number of employees by land use types. As
information is developed from actual tax collections, these per employee
rates can be changed to reflect actual experience.
14
• SILER - GEORGE -
Utility Tax. Approximately $1.5 million is collected for this tax;
however, the distribution among sources (dwelling units, employees) is not
known. As a result, a single measure of utility tax is used to reflect
total population and employment in the County. For each new resident or
employee, $32.82 is collected in utility taxes.
Retail Sales Tax. Over $2.5 million was collected from the 900,000
square feet of retail space in the County, or $2.83 per square foot. This
rate is applied to restaurant, service station and retail space in the
project.
Transient Tax. $215,000 is collected from the hotels, motels, and
inns with a total of 1,277 rooms in the County. This yields $172 per
room, which is applied to the number of hotel rooms in the project to
yield transient tax revenues.
Meals Tax. The County collects $750,000 from the 127,000 square feet
of restaurant space, or $5.91 per square foot of space. This is applied
to the square footage of restaurant space in the project to yield meals
tax revenues.
Expenditures
Expenditures are'the sum of the costs to each operating department
of new land uses in the proposed project. Hammer, Siler, George
Associates prepared a detailed analysis of the FY1991 operating
expenditures by department. Evaluated in this analysis was the share of
the operating expenditures that were paid out of local sources and the
share of the local source operating expenditure attributable to
15
Sit F-12 . C.FnRC.F
residential development versus employment-related development. For each
department, the dollar amount of expenditures paid for locally and related
to residents and employees was estimated and converted to a per dwelling
unit and per employee costs. Each department was then arrayed by land
use and the per employee or dwelling unit cost of new development was
multiplied by the number of new employees or dwelling units to determine
total new expenditures by land use.
Credit for Taxes Paid that are attributable to Capital Costs
Like operating expenditures, credit is also given for taxes that are
paid that are used to pay existing debt or capital expenses. The concept
of this credit is that a new development should not be charged twice for
a service, once as a proffer and again in ongoing taxes. This is being
done in other Virginia jurisdictions. A credit is given for future tax
payments equal to the amount that would go to pay for these capital
facilities, discounted to a single current year figure. Output by land
use for this credit is shown in Table 6.
Hammer, Siler, George Associates evaluated the budgets of each
department to determine the capital costs paid out of local funds. These
costs were apportioned to residential and commercial uses on a population
or employment basis. The same shares were used as in the operating
expenditures. The net present value of the costs discounted over 10 years
was calculated. These net present values were then multiplied by new
employees or dwelling units to determine the total credit for capital
costs generated by the new development.
• SILER • GEORGE • ASSOCI
Credit is provided only for those departments (or divisions of
departments in the case of fire and rescue services) for which capital
costs exist. This includes fire and rescue, schools, and parks and
recreation. In addition, credit was provided to account for the County's
current contribution to capital facilities for fire and rescue services
as part of the County's contributions to all fire and rescue companies.
17
SILER • GEORGE
Section III. OVERVIEW OF CASH PROFFERS IN VIRGINIA
Introduction
Virginia jurisdictions had been hamstrung compared with many other
high growth areas across the country, even neighbors in Maryland, in
obtaining cash from developers to help pay for needed infrastructure. The
system in place in much of Virginia prior to recent legislation has been
one of in-kind proffers of land or facilities such as roads, community
facilities or open space which applied to those properties seeking
rezoning. This system did not allow for cash to be paid. While the
contributions of land for public facilities and the construction of roads
has been very helpful, the cash can be used for a broader range of
purposes, and can be obtained from developments where land is not needed,
and can vary directly with the size of the development. It still applies
only to properties undergoing rezoning, after July 1990 in selected
Virginia jurisdictions. With Virginia experiencing a downturn in its
economy like much of the Mid Atlantic and New England states, this source
of funding will be much needed to make up the gap in revenues.
The Commonwealth of Virginia has recently passed legislation
enabling certain jurisdictions to receive cash from developers as a
condition of rezoning .in order to help pay for capital facilities. As of
July 1, 1990 counties or cities that have experienced more than 10 percent
growth in population since the last census can receive these proffers, as
can certain adjacent jurisdictions.
M
HANINIER • SILER • GEORGE
Thee cash proffers are different from impact fees. They apply only
to rezonings after July, 1990. Most other jurisdictions that have impact
fees charge them to all development, including those that do not require
rezoning.
This section outlines conditions for using these proffers, as well
as other issues relating to setting cash proffers. Other issues of the
effects of these systems are also discussed.
Conditions for the Use of Cash Proffers
The legislation provides for some protection for developers and
regulations on the use of the funds so that the cash payments are directly
related to the service demands that the new development places on the
local jurisdiction. These three conditions are:
1. The rezoning gives rise to the need for the facilities;
2. The cash or non cash payments have a "reasonable relation" to the
rezoning, and
3. They are in conformity with the comprehensive plan.
Other issues that are of importance are that the facilities funded
by the cash proffer or the real property must be in the Capital
Improvements Program at the time they are dedicated or paid. Also, there
must be a method for the disposition of the payment or property if it is
not used for the purpose for which it is proffered.
19
MER • SILER • GEORGE • Assoc
Protection Against Down,zoning
Another clause of this legislation allows for protection from down
zoning in the future of the property if the proffers include cash or
facilities "the need for which is not generated solely by the rezoning
itself." In other words, if the developer makes up for existing
deficiencies, adds capacity not used by the development itself, etc. then
they are protected from reductions in density or restrictions in use.
Key Issues
As Frederick County is in the process of developing such a system,
some key issues must be considered. Key technical issues related to how
these have been formulated and implemented include the following:
- what land uses are covered, and is there differentiation based
on the specific characteristics of the use (price, density, etc.)
- to what extent do the proffers cover the complete cost of capital
improvements;
- for what type of capital improvements are the funds used;
- are the cash proffers phased in over time;
- are the amounts updated over time;
- how are credits for fiscal impact or past tax payments accounted
for;
- when during the development process is the cash paid.
These issues are handled differently in each of the jurisdictions
that have adopted legislation on cash proffers.
20
HAN(MER . $ILEA • GEORGE
Benefits of Cash Proffers
Growth in Virginia, especially northern Virginia and the Tidewater
area has been very high during most of the 1980's. This legislation is
being used by many of the counties that have had the most severe impact
of growth on their counties. The benefits of the approach are:
- it allows high growth areas a mechanism to help pay for
infrastructure;
- it is a step towards making sure that needed services are
provided in high growth communities;
- developers know ahead of time what the costs of proffers will be
for their planned development, making the financial issues more
predictable;
- The system is more equitable between developers, with everyone
bearing the same level of burden;
- it may lessen the concern on the part of existing residents that
the quality of services will be negatively affected by growth.
- often allows some dialogue between the development community and
the local government on how the system is put together.
Possible Negative Effects of Cash Proffers
However, some concerns can be raised about these cash proffers, many
of which are similar to those concerning impact fees. These include:
- increasing the cost of housing for the final consumer;
- increasing the cash requirements of developers in the front end
of development;
21
SILER • GEORGE
making it more possible in years of a downturn in the economy
-that developers will go bankrupt and not be able to complete the
development. This is reportedly a problem in several of the
large planned communities in Loudoun County where the proffer
system was used aggressively.
Also of concern is that the system only applies to rezonings after
the date of July, 199o. Frederick County has numerous lots already
approved that will not pay cash proffers. This has a negative effect on
both the local government who cannot collect the funds from these
developers, and it puts the developer seeking a rezoning at a competitive
disadvantage in pricing of units. This effect is mitigated by having the
cash proffer phased in over time.
22
• SILER . GEORGE .