PC 05-06-92 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Old Frederick County Courthouse
Winchester, Virginia
May 6, 1992
7.00 P.1VL CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Meeting Minutes - March 18 and April 1, 1992 ..................... A
2) Bimonthly Report ...........................................B
3) Committee Reports ......................................... C
4) Citizen Comments .......................................... D
5) Revised master development pian #003-92 of Hampton Chase
for townhouses and single family homes. This property is located
northeast of Battle Avenue and Van Fossen Street in the Stonewall
District. (Mr. Tierney) ........................................ E
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6) Rezoning application #003-91 of Marshall D. Williams to rezone 3.1
acres from RA (Rural Areas) to M-2 (General Industrial) for waste and
trash collection, and recycling. This property is located on the east
side of Sulphur Springs Road in the Shawnee District.
(Mr. Tierney) .. ............................................. F
7) An amendment to Chapter 21, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code,
Article IX, Business and Industrial Districts to allow tire retreading
for wholesale purposes as an allowed use in the M-1 (Light Industrial) - G
Zoning District. (Mr. Wyatt)..................................
g) Memo and map regarding revisions to the 1992 Frederick County
Comprehensive Policy Plan (Mr. Tierney) ......... • . • ... • . • • • • • • - H
OTHER
9) Memo re: the potential for relocation of Warrior Road ............... I
10) Other (no attachment) ........................................ J
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester,
Virginia on March 18, 1992.
PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman;
Manuel C. DeHaven, Stonewall District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee
District; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman; Back Creek District; Todd D.
Shenk, Gainesboro District; George Romine, Shawnee District; Marjorie
Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Roger Thomas, Opequon District; John
H. Light, Stonewall District; Ronald W. Carper, Gainesboro District;
Beverly Sherwood, Board Liaison and James Barnett, City Liaison.
PlanningStaff taff present were: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary; W. Wayne
Miller, Zoning Administrator; and Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19 1992
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. DeHaven, the
minutes of February 19, 1992 were unanimously approved as presented.
2
MONTHLY AND BIMONTHLY REPORTS
Chairman Golladay accepted the monthly and bimonthly reports for the
Commission's information.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans and Programs - 3/9/92 Mtg.
Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the Comprehensive Plans and Programs
Subcommittee proposed one insert be added to the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
additions states that "any sewer or water main six inches or over in diameter, extended or
existing, within an area proposed for inclusion within the County's sewer and water
service area or Urban Development Area, shall be dedicated as a public line to be
owned and maintained by the County's Sanitation Authority or the City of =Winchester
when appropriate.
Development Review and Regulations - 3 OLK
Mr. Thomas reported that the committee planned their agenda for the
year, selecting several discussion items, and discussed potential improvements to the
Conditional Use Permit process.
Winchester Planning Commission - 3/17192
Mr. Shenk reported that the main topic of discussion was a ten lot
subdivision request for York Avenue. There was also a request from the Frederick
County Public Schools to place three additional temporary trailers at Frederick County
Middle School and three temporary trailers at James Wood Amherst Campus. moth
items were approved by the Winchester Planning Commission.
3
Sanitation Authori - 3/16/92
Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the Sanitation Authority has been trying to
negotiate with the City of Winchester on a merger of the two water systems. Mrs.
Copenhaver stated that a decision had been made to proceed with the expansion of the
Parkins Mill sewage treatment plant and with the plans for the water treatment plant at
the quarry near Stephens City.
Following the approval of Virginia Resources Authority loan, several
projects will be started including the Fort Collier Water Line, the Route 522 project
(Bufflick Road to Papermill Road) and the treatment plant.
Historic Resources Advisory Board - 3/17/92 Mt .
Mr. Carper reported that the committee is continuing to work on the
historic plaque program. The cornrnittee is involved in developing the application and
creating a design for the plaque. The committee has proposed an application fee of
approximately $25.00 to $35.00. Mr. Carper said that the committee also discussed ways
to define a historic structure.
Economic Development Commission
Mr. Romine said that the Local Industry Committee has been very active
and is planning to recognize local industries on a regular basis.
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS
Preliminajy Master Development Plan 001-92 of Battlefield Partnership,zoned B-2
Business General for commercial uses in the Back Creek District.
ACTION - APPROVED
Mr. Wyatt stated that the most significant agency comments, submitted by
the County Engineer and VDOT, relate to drainage. Issues concerning the staff were
4
the need for a maintenance agreement for the storm detention pond. Mr. Wyatt noted
that a drainage easement goes through parcel 12 and adjoins the proposed storm
detention pond therefore, future development of that parcel could be fairly difficult due
to the drainage easement.
Mr. Ralph Gregory, representative for Battlefield Partnership, was present
to answer questions from the Commission. Mr. Gregory stated that a master
development plan was not required at the start of this project and that the intention was
to bring the project into compliance.
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mrs. Copenhaver,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously approve the preliminary master development plan, #001-92, of Battlefield
Partnership for commercial uses. This property is located between Route 11 South and
I-81 in the Back Creek District and is identified as GPIN's 75000030000110 and
7500003000011B.
Revised Master Development Plan #002-92 of Village at Sherando for single family
detached homes, townhouses. patio homes and commercial uses in the Opequon District.
ACTION - APPROVED
Due to a possible conflict of interest Mr. Golladay turned the Chair over
to Mr. Marker.
Mr. Wyatt gave background information. He called the Commission's
attention to the Fire Marshal's concerns on the need for a stop light in this area. Mr.
Wyatt stated that the School Board and VDOT are also looking at this issue which will
be addressed at the Transportation`Committee meeting in April.
Mr. Wyatt explained that the revision to this plan will modify what was
originally 17 single family cluster lots to 32 patio home lots, increasing the overall units
in the proposed development from 164 to 183 or 4.4 units per acre. The plan also shows
pedestrian access ways, which were not shown on the original plan, and a temporary
sales office is shown in the B-2 zoned area which will be removed by November 1, 1992.
Primary concern of the staff was open space. The total gross area of RP
zoning for this development is 38.65 acres, which would require 11.60 acres of open
space. The applicant is providing 9.73 acres of open space. Staff was also concerned
that one of the three required recreational units in the townhouse area was not shown on
the revised master development plan.
W
Mr. Ron Mislowsky, representative from G.W. Clifford & Associates, was
present to answer questions from the Commission. Mr. Mislowsky said that the existing
Warrior Road right-of-way does not line up with the existing entrance to Sherando High
School. The right-of-way needed is in a life estate and will not be available until the
owner of the property, Mr. Snyder, is deceased.
According to Mr. Mislowsky, the revisions to this MDP are basically the
patio homes and the pedestrian walkways. The revised MDP still shows the 25% open
space which was approved for the original MDP. In a letter from Frederick County
Parks and Recreation, Jim Doran recommended that the 25% open space be allowed to
remain and that one recreational area be provided. Mr. Doran recommended that since
the developer was putting in a walkway, and a chosen area was already designated for
recreation, a recreational unit in the townhouse section could be deleted. Money from
the deleted recreational area will be used to build the walkway.
Mr. Thomas noted that there are no walkways either through the patio
home area or at the northern end of the single family home area.
Mr. Thomas was concerned about the need to move vehicular and
pedestrian traffic through the development safely and requested that walkways.be
provided in the cul-de-sac areas that did not already include walkways.
Mr. Mislowsky stated that he thought these walkways could be provided.
Mrs. Sherwood stated that she felt the addition of walkways is an asset.
Mr. Thomas asked what was the status of the signal light at Route 277 and
Warrior Road and Mr. Watkins explained that the School Board was sending another
request to VDOT to consider the issue. Mr. Watkins stated that stop lights are generally
installed when warranted.
Mr. Marker called for citizen comments.
Nancy Colantonio, property owner of lot 5, Fredericktowne Estates,
questioned the Commission as to when Warrior Road would join Route 277. Mrs
Colantonio was concerned that Warrior Road would be a thoroughfare from
Westmoreland Drive to Route 277.
Mr. Greg McGhee, resident of Westmoreland Drive, expressed concerns
regarding vehicular speed and the potential increase in traffic through Fredericktowne
Estates.
Mr. Rick Ours, property owner of lot 41, Fredericktowne Estates, shared
the concerns of Mr. McGhee regarding traffic due to the increase in population density.
C7
Mr. Ours also expressed concern in the reduction of open space.
Ms. Chris Unger, resident of Warrior Road, stated that her driveway
directly accesses Warrior Road and she was concerned about the increase in traffic and
the possibility that traffic would not comply with the 25 mile per hour speed limit.
Mr. Richard Hartman, a potential homeowner in Jefferson Village, had
concerns about the open space issue.
Mr. Watkins stated his concerns regarding the potential impact Warrior
Drive could have on Fredericktowne Estates. He added that there was the option of
looping it around Fredericktowne Estates instead of curving it north. Mr. Watkins told
the Commission that this might be a matter to consider further with the developers, the
Parks and Recreation Dept., and any one else involved.
Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously approve the revised master development plan #002-92 for ViAage at
Sherando with the conditions listed below. This property is located north and.adjacent
to State Route 277, east of Stephens City and Route 641, in the Opequon District, and is
identified as GPIN 860000A0001020.
1. Incorporated staff comments
2. Put walkways on both sides of the connection on Warrior Drive to Route
277 and add a walkway on one side of the temporary connection of
Warrior Drive to Route 277.
(J. Golladay abstained)
OTHER
1992 Primary Road Improvement Plan
Mr. Wyatt said that the Transportation Committee reviewed the 1992 Six
Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan at their March 2 meeting and revised the
proposed plan to place item numbers 1, 2, and 3 ahead of the Eastern by-pass loop. Mr.
Wyatt stated that the staff believes that item numbers 1 and 2 are in appropriate order
5
Mr. Ron Mislowsky, representative from G.W. Clifford & Associates, was
present to answer questions from the Commission. Mr. Mislowsky said that the existing
Warrior Road right-of-way does not line up with the existing entrance to Sherando High
School. The right-of-way needed is in a life estate and will not be available until the
owner of the property, Mr. Snyder, is deceased.
According to Mr. Mislowsky, the revisions to this MDP are basically the
patio homes and the pedestrian walkways. The revised MDP still shows the 25% open
space which was approved for the original MDP. In a letter from Frederick County
Parks and Recreation, Jim Doran recommended that the 255% open space be allowed to
remain and that one recreational area be provided. Mr. Doran recommended that since
the developer was putting in a walkway, and a chosen area was already designated for
recreation, a recreational unit in the townhouse section could be deleted. Money from
the deleted recreational area will be used to build the walkway.
Mr. Thomas noted that there are no walkways either through the patio
home area or at the northern end of the single family home area.
Mr. Thomas was concerned about the need to move vehicular and
pedestrian traffic through the development safely and requested that walkw'ays.be
provided in the cul-de-sac areas that did not already include walkways.
Mr. Mislowsky stated that he thought these walkways could be provided.
Mrs. Sherwood stated that she felt the addition of walkways is an asset.
Mr. Thomas asked what was the status of the signal light at Route 277 and
Warrior Road and Mr. Watkins explained that the School Board was sending another
request to VDOT to consider the issue. Mr. Watkins stated that stop lights are generally
installed when warranted.
Mr. Marker called for citizen comments.
Nancy Colantonio, property owner of lot 5, Fredericktowne Estates,
questioned the Commission as to when Warrior Road would join Route 277. Mrs
Colantonio was concerned that Warrior Road would be a thoroughfare from
Westmoreland Drive to Route 277.
Mr. Greg McGhee, resident of Westmoreland Drive, expressed concerns
regarding vehicular speed and the potential increase in traffic through Fredericktowne
Estates.
Mr. Rick Ours, property owner of lot 41, Fredericktowne Estates, shared
the concerns of Mr. McGhee regarding traffic due to the increase in population density.
Col
Mr. Ours also expressed concern in the reduction of open space.
Ms. Chris Unger, resident of Warrior Road, stated that her driveway
directly accesses Warrior Road and she was concerned about the increase in traffic and
the possibility that traffic would not comply with the 25 mile per hour speed limit.
Mr. Richard Hartman, a potential homeowner in Jefferson Village, had
concerns about the open space issue.
Mr. Watkins stated his concerns regarding the potential impact Warrior
Drive could have on Fredericktowne Estates. He added that there was the option of
looping it around Fredericktowne Estates instead of curving it north. Mr. Watkins told
the Commission that this might be a matter to consider further with the developers, the
Parks and Recreation Dept., and any one else involved.
Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously approve the revised master development plan #002-92 for Village at
Sherando with the conditions listed below. This property is located north and,adjacent
to State Route 277, east of Stephens City and Route 641, in the Opequon District, and is
identified as GPIN 860000A0001020.
1. Incorporated staff comments
2. Put walkways on both sides of the connection on Warrior Drive to Route
277 and add a walkway on one side of the temporary connection of
Warrior Drive to Route 277.
(J. Golladay abstained)
OTHER
1992 Primary Road Improvement Plan
Mr. Wyatt said that the Transportation Committee reviewed the 1992 Six
Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan at their March 2 meeting and revised the
proposed plan to place item numbers 1, 2, and 3 ahead of the Eastern by-pass loop. Mr.
Wyatt stated that the staff believes that item numbers 1 and 2 are in appropriate order
7
as Route 522 south is currently funded for construction and the Winchester Area
Transportation Study is evaluating the I-81/11 North/37/661 intersection. Mr. Wyatt
added that the staff believes that the Eastern by-pass/loop needs to be placed ahead of
the Route 277 project as a priority item.
Mr. Wyatt listed the recommended revisions to last years plan as follows:
1) Route 522 North has been omitted, as it is scheduled for completion
this year.
2) Route 522 south has been moved from item #7 to item #1.
3) I-81/11 North /37/661 intersection has been moved from item #8
to item #2.
4) Route 277 has been moved from item #9 to item #3.
5) The Eastern by-pass/loop has been moved from item #2 to item
#4.
6) Improvements to major intersections has been incorporated into
other road improvement item numbers.
The Commission felt that the Eastern by-pass loop should be moved ahead
of Route 277 in order to be consistent with the County's presentations to date.
Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously recommend forwarding the 1992 Primary Road Improvement Plan to the
Frederick County Board of Supervisors with the change in priority stated and the
addition of the wording "and conydn cction" after "right-of-way" to the Eastern by-
pass/loop item
Adjournment
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert W. Watkins, Secretary
James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on
April 1, 1992
PRESENT: Planning Commissioners resent were- James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman; John
R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; Manual C. DeHaven, Stonewall
District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Ronald W. Carper, Gainesboro
District; George L. Romine, Shawnee District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back
Creek District; Todd D. Shenk, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon
District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Beverly Sherwood, Board Liaison;
and James Barnett, City Liaison.
Planning Staff present were: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary; Kris C. Tierney,
Deputy Planning Director; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator;
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Marker, the minutes of
March 4, 1992 were unanimously approved as presented.
BIMONTHLY AND MONTHLY REPORTS
Chairman Golladay 'accepted the Bimonthly and Monthly Reports for the
Coinmission's information.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Winchester -Frederick Counly Joint Transportation Committee - 3/30/92 Mt .
Mr. Tierney reported that the Joint Transportation Committee reviewed the WATS
study at their last meeting. He said that the Committee discussed the identified deficiencies and
the corridor studies and recommendations, and they formulated an informal reaction to the
2
corridor reports
Preallocation Hearings - Staunton - 3/30/92
Mrs. Sherwood reported that Mr. Sager, Board member, and the Planning Staff
attended the Preallocation Hearings in Staunton on March 30, 1992. She said that their
presentation was well received.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Informal Discussion with Representatives of the Donald B. Rice Tire Retreading
Operation Regarding a Possible Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Mr. Miller explained that the Donald B. Rice retreading operation, located on
South Loudoun Street, recently burned and they need to relocate their business. Mr. Miller said
that the company's desire to relocate is urgent because any major delay may seriously_ erode their
customer base and also, a significant number of their people are now unemployed.
Mr. Miller said that they are interested in relocating at the Stonewall Industrial
Park in a lease building owned by Mr. Doug Toan, which is zoned M1. He said that the
Planning Staff determined that tire retreading is not a permitted use in the M1 (Industrial
Limited) Zoning District, but is a permitted use in the M2 (Industrial General) Zoning District.
Mr. Miller said that the staff felt this use would be appropriate in the Ml Zone with proper
controls, but would require an ordinance amendment. Mr. Miller said that Donald B. Rice
Company is looking for some indication of the Commission's acceptance of this proposal.
Mr. Carl Koester, Vice President of Operations for Donald B. Rice Tire
Company, said that unlike their former facility, the proposed new facility would not be retail.
Mr: Koester said that his facility would pick up wom out tires from trucking companies, run
them through an assembly line -type operation, and deliver the finished products back to the
customer. He said that the main customer base is in the Baltimore/Washington area. Mr.
Koester said that the building Mr. Toan has available meets their specific needs.
Upon discussion concerning the operation, it was determined that omissions/waste
products would be handled by state-of-the-art equipment and the only outside storage would be
a cyclone attached to the exterior of the building. Staff suggested that the use be allowed with
the specification, "for wholesale use only" to avoid any retailing. The consensus of the
Commission was that the amendment request would be supported.
3
Outdoor Storage Facilities
Chairman Golladay requested that the Development Review and Regulations
Committee examine the ordinance for placement of outside storage facilities in residential areas.
Chairman Golladay cited Georgetown Court Townhouses as an example of how the placement
of these buildings can create an unsightly appearance.
SUBDIVISIONS
Subdivision Application #002-92 of Lot 26 (5.741 acres), zoned M 1, in the Fort Collier
Industrial Park. This property is located on the northwest side of the Brooke Road cul-
de-sac in the Stonewall District and is identified as GPIN #540000A0000810.
Action - Approved
Mr. Miller read the background information, review agency comments, and the
staff recommendations. Mr. Miller said that the Shenandoah Gas Engineering Department
reviewed this proposal since the 50' access strip across the property would contain a gas line
easement. He said that Shenandoah Gas had no problems with the plat as presented. Staff
recommendations were for approval on the condition that all review agency comments be
addressed prior to approval of final plats.
Referring to VDOT's letter dated January 17, 1992, Mr. Thomas asked about
VDOT's comments that they would not accept the connection road off Brooke Road into the
State's system because it was only a 50' right-of-way.
Mr. Bruce Edens, with Greenway Engineering & Surveying, felt that VDOT's
concerns were that someone might assume the 50' strip was a "street" and request that it be state -
maintained. He said that the 50' stem is actually a part of Lot 26 (a flag lot) and will not be
dedicated to the State's system for maintenance.
Upon motion made by Mr. DeHaven and seconded by Mr. Wilson,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
approve Subdivision Application #002-92 for Lot 26 (5.741 acres), zoned M1, in the Fort Collier
Industrial Park for a lease building. This property is identified as GPIN #540000A0000810 in
the Stonewall District.
4
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Conditional Use Permit #004-92 of David A. Darnell for a Cottage Occupation for a tool
and die shop. This property, zoned RA, is located on the west side of Route 11, seven
miles from Winchester, across from Clearbrook Park and is identified as GPIN
#330000A000164B.
Action - Approved
Mr. Miller said that the use should not impact the existing character and pattern
of land use in the area, however, the property is currently in violation of the zoning ordinance
for approximately 12 inoperable vehicles and trash, junk, and other debris. Mr. Miller said that
adequate parking currently exists for approximately four vehicles.
Mr. David A. Darnell, the applicant, stated that the vehicles and debris are located
on an adjacent property which is for sale. He also stated that not all of the vehicles belonged
to him. Mr. Darnell described his operation as lathing and milling to fabricate bushings,
bearings, bolts, fixtures, and other products for industry.
The Commission asked Mr. Darnell how he planned to dispose #of metal filings
and cutting oils. Mr. Darnell replied that filings would be delivered to Zuckermans Scrap Yard
and oils to Route 11 EXXON for recycling. Mr. Darnell said that his machines are self-
contained and use very little oil. He said that all metals and materials would be stored inside.
There were no public comments.
Upon motion by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. DeHaven,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #004-92 of David A. Darnell for a Cottage
Occupation for a tool and die shop with the following conditions:
Any change in use shall require a new conditional use permit.
2. All materials and equipment associated with this business shall be kept indoors.
3. No more than one sign shall be allowed and it shall be limited to eight square feet.
4. The property must be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance within 30 days of
receiving conditional use permit approval. Any future noncompliance will result in the
revocation of this conditional use permit.
5. No structures shall be expanded to contain the use nor new structures constructed for the
5
use unless a revised conditional use permit is obtained.
6. No employees other than members of the family residing on the premises shall be
allowed.
Conditional Use Permit #005-92 of Margaret and John Keeler for a dog kennel to be
located at the intersection of Route 639 and 675 in southeast Frederick County near the
Warren County line. This property, zoned RA, is identified as #930000A0000054 in the
Opequon District.
Action - Approved
Mr. Miller said that this application is for an existing kennel operation that was
unknowingly operating illegally on Senseny Road in the RP District. The applicant is proposing
to move the kennel operation to her mother's property located in the RA District. This move
would not change the character and established pattern of development in the area. There is a
vacant, pre-existing kennel facility on the property that is a substantial distance away from
surrounding properties, adequately shielding them from both sight and noise.
Mr. Miller said that this is a small kennel with approximately 12 dogs. He said
that the existing driveway area provides adequate parking for three to four vehicles. Since
overnight boarding of dogs is not proposed and since the site is well buffered from adjoining
properties, noise is not expected to be a problem. The operation will mainly be for the raising
and sale of dogs and for grooming.
Mr. and Mrs. John Keeler, the applicants, explained that they breed, raise, and
sell pomeranians. Mrs. Keeler said that she has 12-15 dogs on a normal basis and, although the
kennel holds up to 40 dogs, they do not plan to operate on a large scale.
Mr. Shenk asked how the applicant planned to dispose of dog wastes. Mr. Keeler
said that they are installing an E.P.A approved Rider's Underground Pyramid Digester, which
is a- four- square foot hole in the ground lined with concrete block. He said that enzymes are
added to the dog wastes, converting the wastes to liquid and allowing them to leach into the
ground.
The Commission discussed what constituted a dog kennel and the number of dogs
proposed for this operation.
. Chairman Golladay called for public comments and the following person came
forward:
Mrs. Cheryl Anderson, owner and operator of Aberdeen Acres dog kennel, came
0
forward and said that she was the complainant on this proposal. Mrs. Anderson said that over
the past three years, she had come before the Planning Commission on numerous occasions
regarding her own kennel operation. She said that she was required to submit a site plan, to
complete an engineering study on noise, and to install $4,000 worth of insulation in eight -inch
block walls to control noise. Mrs. Anderson felt that the Commission set the standards with her
operation and that other kennel operations should have to comply with identical standards. She
also felt that tighter restrictions should be placed on kennel operations to help eliminate abuse
to animals resulting from unclean conditions.
Mrs. Sherwood pointed out that the degree of Mrs. Anderson's business was much
larger than that proposed by the Keelers and, therefore, the impact on the surrounding neighbors
and county was significantly different.
The staff pointed out that the Commission's involvement in kennel operations was
not the treatment of animals, but the impact on the surrounding area.
Upon motion by Mr. Shenk and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #005-92 of Margaret and John Keeler for a dog
kennel with the following conditions:
Any change in use shall require a new conditional use permit.
2. All materials and equipment associated with this business will be kept indoors.
3. No more than one sign shall be allowed and it shall be limited to eight square feet.
4. All dogs will be locked inside by 9:00 p.m.
5. No structures shall be expanded to contain the use nor new structures constructed for the
use unless a revised conditional use permit is obtained.
Informal Discussion by Mr. Eugene Johnston regarding a proposed rezoning of 12ropeEty
from RA to B3.
Mr. Tierney said that Mr. Eugene Johnston was present to discuss a potential
rezoning of a parcel of land located adjacent to the east side of Route 81, just south of the
Middletown interchange, from RA to B3. He said that Mr. Johnston is interested in constructing
a building to house and maintain a number of tractor trailers which he owns and leases.
Mr. Eugene Johnston said that the parcel they wish to purchase would meet his
6
needs to construct a home and a 60' X 100' garage for his trucking business. He said that the
parcel contains 4.3 acres and is divided by Route 842. The northern portion of the property,
containing just over one acre and located on the west side of Route 842, would need to be
rezoned to B3 for his garage. Mr. Johnston said that the garage would be used for repair of his
trucks and trailers. He said that at any given time, there should only be a few tractors or trailers
on the property because the majority of his vehicles are on the road. Mr. Johnston said that he
presently has eight trucks and 13 trailers.
Upon questioning by the Commission, Mr. Johnston described the uses of the
surrounding adjoining properties and the location of nearest residences. Mr. Johnston's plans
were to possibly sell the three acres on the east side of 842. He also said that sewer was not
available to this property.
The Commission felt that even though this was an interchange area, there were
a lot of residences in the vicinity that this operation would not be compatible with. The
Commission did not want to set a precedent for rezonings in this area because of the number of
residences located here. There was also concern about the feasibility of locating the house, the
garage, and the health system on the one acre lot and stili being able to meet all the setbacks.
The quality and width of the roads were also mentioned.
t.
The conclusion was for the staff to work further with Mr. Johnston on his
situation.
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:30
p.m. by unanimous vote.
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: April 24, 1992
(1) Rezonin s Pending: dates are submittal dates
Twin Lakes 4/04/90 (Shaw) (RA to B2/RP)
Marshall Williams 3/12/91 (Shaw) (RA to M2)
(2) Rezonings Approved: (dates are BOS approval dates)
None
r
(3) Conditional Use Permits Pending: dates are submittal dates
None
(4) Conditional Use Permits Approved: dates are approval dates
David A. Darnell 4/22/92 Stone Tool & Die Shop
Margaret & John Keeler 4/22/92 Opeq Dog Kennel
(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
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
Winchester Airport
03/02/92
(Shaw)
Increased safety
zone/road relocation
Negleyland
04/01/92
(Ston)
Office/Commercial
(6) Site Plans Approved:
dates are
approval
dates
None
2
(7) Subdivisions Pending: (dates are submittal dates)
None
(8) Subdivisions Pending Final Admin. Approval: (P/C approval
dates
Abrams Point, Phase I
6/13/90
Shawnee
Frederick Woods
5/16/90
Opequon
Hampton Chase
02/27/91
Stonewall
Lake Centre
06/19/91
Shawnee
Hershey Property
10/02/91
Stonewall
Fredericktowne Est.
10/16/91
Opequon
(sections 5, 6 and 7)
Coventry Courts
12/04/91
Shawnee
Senseny Glen
12/04/91
Shawnee
(9) PMDP Pending: (dates are submittal_ dates
Hampton Chase (revised) 03/31/92 Stonewall
(10) FMDP Pending Administrative Approval: (dates are HOS approval
dates
Battlefield Partnership 04/08/92 Back Creek
Village At Sherando (revised) 04/08/92 Opequon
(11) FMDP Admini.st. Approved (dates are admin. approval dates)
None
(12) Board of Zoning Appeals Applications Pending:(submit. dates)
Kenneth & Tambera Weib 04/20/92 Shaw 5' rear
(addition)
Marjorie Gunter 04/24/92 Ston 50' lot width
(13) BZA Applications Approved: (approval dates)
Ray Goode 04/21/92 Shaw 1 0' s i d e
(temporary Bldg)
John Barker 04/21/92 Shaw 3' side (garage)
James T. Anderson 04/21/92 Gain 5' side (garage)
3
(14) BZA Applications Denied•
None
(15) PLANS REC D. FOR REVIEW FROM CITY OF WINCHESTER
Farmers & Merchants Site Plan
T
r.
P/C review date: 05/06/92
REVISED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
HAMPTON CHASE
#003-92
22.345 ACRES
LOCATION: Adjacent to the City/County Line, just northeast of
Battle Avenue and Van Fossen Street
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 540000A0000940
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance),
land use vacant.
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING: Zoned M--1 (Light Industrial), M-2
(General Industrial), RP (Residential Performance)
PROPOSED USES: Townhouses and single family homes
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No overall objections to
preliminary master development plan. However, prior to making
any further comments this office will require a complete set
of revised site plans -and drainage calculations for review.
City of Winchester: No comments.
Planning and Zoning• The revision being requested is the
elimination of the connection between the development and
Apple Street. The area where the connection was shown would
remain vacant (the area would not be used for an additional
lot). Neither the VDOT nor the City of Winchester have
expressed any opposition to the removal of this connection.
Staff does not feel that the elimination of the connection
will have a significant impact on traffic patterns in the
area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 05106/92 P/C MTG.: Approval
APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST
REVISED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Frederick County
Virginia
Date:_1 Aoril 1992 Application # -
OWNERS NAME: Dave Holliday Construction Inc
P.O. Box 2715
Winchester, Va 22601
David B. Holliday
(Please list the name of all owners or parties in inte'Vest)
APPLICANT/AGENT: G.W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc
Address: 200 N. Cameron St.
Winchester, Va 22601
Phone Number: (703) 667-2139
DESIGNER/DESIGN COMPANY:
Address:
Phone Number
Contact Name: Duane Brown
REVISED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CHECKLIST
The following checklist is intended to assist the applicant in
insuring that all required information is provided and to insure
that all information is available to allow review by the County.
This form must be completed by the applicant and submitted with
the master development plan. All required items must be provided
on the master development plan.
Background Information:
1. Development's name: HAMPTON CHASE
2. Location of property: Located adjacent to City/County Line
lust northeast of Battle Avenue & Van Fossen Street
3. Total area of property: 22.345 Acres
4. Property identification numbers:
Tax map: 54
Tax parcel: 944
Tax ID #: -5-4-A-94
5. Property zoning and present use: RP (Vacant)
6. Adjoining property zoning and present use: RS -3
Residential M-2 M-1 & RP Townhouses
7. Proposed Uses: Townh ses & Single Family Zero Lot line
8. Magisterial District: Stonewall
9. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan?
Original Amended --X_
General Inf ormat i on :
1. Have the following items been included?
North arrow
Yes_X—No
% Disturbed
Area in
Scale
Yes_X_
No
Legend
Yes_X_
0
No
Boundary Survey
Yes—X—
0
No
Total Area
Yes
X_
No
Topography
Yes_X_,_,
0
No
Project Title
Yes�X,
0
No
Preparation and Revision Date
Yes—X—
No
Applicant Name
Yes—X—
No
2. Number of phases proposed? One (1)
3. Are the proposed phases shown on the Master Development Plan?
Yes No—X-
4. Are the uses of adjoining properties clearly designated?
Yes—X— No
5. Is an inset map provided showing the location of the project
and all public roads within 2,000 feet.
Yes_X_ No
6. Are all land uses clearly shown? Yes_X_ No
7. Are environmental features clearly shown?
Yes No—
X-
8. Describe the following environmental features:
Total Area
% Disturbed
Area in
Open Space
Floodplains
0
0
—0—
Lakes and ponds
0
0
0
Natural retention areas
0
0
0
Steep slopes (15% +)
0
0
0
Woodlands
0
0
0
9. Are the following shown on the master development plan?
Street layout
Yes
_X_No
Entrances
Yes_X_No
Parking areas
Yes
Utilities (mains)
Yes
_X_No
X
No
10. Has a conceptual stormwater management plan been provided?
Ye s_X_No
11. Have all historical structures been identified?
Yes No_X_
12. The plan should include signature lines for the Director of
Planning and the County Administrator. Have the signature
lines been included. Yes X No
Residential Uses
If the Master Development Plan includes any land zonedi-aP,
(Residential Performance) or any residential uses, the following
items should be completed.
1. What housing types are proposed? Townhouses & Single Family
Zero Lot Line
2. Is a schedule provided describing each of the following in
each phase:
Open space acreage Yes _X_No
Acreage in each housing type Yes _X_No
Acreage in streets and right of ways Yes No_X_
Total acreage Yes _X_No
Number of dwellings of each type Yes_X_No
3. What percentage of the total site is to be placed in common
open space? 34.75%
4. Are recreational facilities required? Yes_X_No
5. What types of recreational facilities are proposed?
Tot Lots .& Gazebo Areas
6. Are separation buffers required? Yes X No
7. Are road efficiency buffers required? Yes No_X_
8. Are landscaping or landscaped screens required?
Ye s_X_No
9. Are required buffers, screens, and landscaping described by
the plan with profiles or examples? Yes_X_No
Please list all o= the individuals, firms, or corporations owning
property adjacen` to both sides, to the rear, and in front
(across the street) of the property in question. Please list the
name, address, and most importantly, the complete 21 -digit
property identification number. This information may be obtained
from the Commissioner of Revenue's office.
Name: Winchester Warehousing Inc
Address: P.O. Box 765 Winchester Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 54-A-73
Name: The Salvation Army
Address: 303 South Loudoun St. Winchester VA 22601
Property I.D.#: 54 -A -36F
Name:
Peter P. Weidlein
Address: 12313 Blair Ridge Road Fairfax Va 22033
Property I.D.#: 54-A-95
CITY OF WINCHESTER ADJOINING OWNERS:
Name: James J. Myers
Address: 320 Green St. Winchester VA 22601
Name: John D. Zjhambers
Address: 400 Green St. Winchester VA 22601
Name: William Polstcn
Address: 404 Green St. Winchester VA 22601
Name: Charles W. Stansfield
Address: 408 Green St. Winchester VA 22601
Name: Bruce F. Cartwriaht
Address: 412 Green St. Winchester, VA 22601
Name: Mark T. McNulty
Address: 500 Green St. Winchester, VA 22601
Name: Paul M. Hough
Address: 504 Green St. Winchester, VA 22601
Name: Allen W. Cartwright
Address: 508 Green St. Winchester, VA 22601
Name: Stanley Butler
Address: 512 Green St. Winchester, VA 22601
Name: Lewis A. Carter
Address: 516 Green St. Winchester, VA 22601 :r-..__
Name: Julian L. Patterson
Address: 600 Green St. Winchester, VA 22601
Name: Ruby N. Lupton
Address: 604 Green St. Winchester, VA 22601
Name: Herminia-S. Gonzalez
Address: 608 Green St. Winchester, VA 22601
Name: Richard S. Shade
Address: Rt. 8, Box 1036 Winchester, VA 22601
Name: Herman R. & Gilbert Kline
Address: P.O. Box 1309 Winchester, VA 22601
Name: Timothy A. & Patricia B. Dane
Address: 702 Battle Ave. Winchester, VA 22601
Name: Delbert B. Combs
Address: 703 Battle Ave. Winchester VA 22601
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703/665-5651
FAX 703/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Directo
RE: Recommendation of Comprehensive Plan Committee Concerning Williams
Rezoning Request
DATE: April 23, 1992
The Marshall Williams rezoning was referred to the Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee to
consider the desirability of establishing industrial zoning along Sulfur Springs Road. The
County's Comprehensive Plan does not call for industrial zoning in this area, therefore an
amendment to the plan would be required in order to approve the rezoning application.
Following lengthy discussion, the recommendation from the subcommittee was against the
rezoning. The decision was based on the lack of infrastructure present to accommodate
traffic and sewer and water demands typically associated with industrial zoning.
If there are any questions concerning the Subcommittees recommendation please let me
know.
KCT/slk
THE COURTHOUSE COMMONS
9 N. Loudoun Street - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601
P/C review date: 5/01/91
P/C review date: 5/06/92
REZONING APPLICATION #003-91
MARSHALL D. & HELEN V. WILLIAMS
To Rezone 3.1 Acres
From RA (Rural Areas)
To M2 (General Industrial)
LOCATION: Three miles east of Winchester on the east side of
Sulphur Springs Road about one mile north of Route 50 East.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 650000A0000910
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas), present use
residential and junk yard
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas),
present use - vacant land and residential
PROPOSED USE: Williams Waste and Trash Collection Service (waste,
trash collection and recycling)
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation• No objection to rezoning of
this property. However, we feel the debris on the property is
too close to the edge of the Route 655 pavement to allow for
safe passage. Therefore, in order to create a buffer we
recommend the proposed 8' privacy fence be installed 10'
outside the normal right-of-way line (25' from the centerline
of the roadway). This offset would also allow for the
construction of a commercial entrance in the future, if such
was warranted.
Fire Marshal: See attached memo dated July 9, 1991
Health Department: No objection as long as Mr. Williams
connects his office to the existing sewage disposal system
located on the Ruble property he recently purchased, which is
a part of the rezoning.
Sanitation Authority• The nearest gravity sewer is
Page 2
Williams Rezoning
approximately 1000' north of the SR 655 and US 50
intersection. It is an 8" line. It is on the west side of US
50 (across the road.) The nearest water is approximately 1500
feet to the south of the SR 655 and US 50 intersection. It
too is on the west side of US 50. It is an 8" line. Water
and sewer capacity are available.
Planning and Zoning: The following issues should be
considered:
Location - The site is located in the urban development area.
All land along Sulphur Springs Road is currently zoned RA,
Rural Areas. Land currently zoned M-1, Light Industrial, is
currently located within 1200 feet to the south. Between the
site and the land zoned M-1 is County land containing the
former landfill. It is our understanding that the County land
will not be useable for anything other than outdoor
recreational uses because of the landfill.
Sulphur Springs Road serves as the access road to the County
land fill. Nothing in the Comprehensive Plan either rules out
or proposes industrial uses on Sulphur Springs Road. We would
suggest that addition residential areas will occur to the
north of the Road. However, industrial areas south of the
road down to the existing industrial areas on Route 50 might
be appropriate in the future.
Site Suitability - The site is in the Sulphur Springs Run
stream valley. The lots in question have an average depth of
approximately 300 feet, sloping gradually down to the stream.
According to the HUD Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the 100
hundred year flood plain covers the rear portions of the site
for a depth of between 150 and 250 feet. The M-2, General
Industrial District, requires a 75 foot front setback. This
would not leave much --land that is suitable for development.
The applicant has provided the staff with a plat prepared by
Dove and Associates dated July 28, 1987. It is stamped with
the following notation:
No portion of this property is located in a Flood Hazard
Zone Per H.U.D. Map Numbers.
However, according to Article XIII, Flood Plain Districts of
the Zoning Ordinance, the delineation of any floodplain as
specified by the federal maps may be revised by the County
only with studies undertaken by the Arley Corps of Engineers or
other qualified agency or individual. Such changes must be
approved by the Federal Insurance Administration. To modify
floodplains or flood plain boundaries, we require hydrologic
studies that must at least be approved by the County Engineer.
Page 3
Williams Rezoning
The plat provided shows no elevations, contours or other
information concerning how any conclusions were made regarding
flood levels. The plat does not even locate the stream. The
notation refers to a "flood hazard zone" which is not a term
used by our zoning ordinance nor by the flood insurance rate
maps. Therefore, it is the staff's opinion that no
information has been provided that would indicate that most of
the site is not in the 100 year flood plain as shown by the
flood insurance rate map. A floodplain study for the site
would be appropriate to show actual floodplain boundaries and
characteristics.
It is possible that the applicant has sufficiently altered the
flood plain to change the boundaries. However, such
alterations often change the flooding potential for other
properties. That is why great care is needed in such
situations.
Potential Impacts - Rezoning approximately 3 acres of land to
M-2, General Industrial, will produce some increased traffic,
but traffic impacts will probably be minimal. The applicant
has proffered that the site will be used for a waste and trash
collection service with waste collection and recycling and for
the existing residence. This use proffer will limit potential
traffic impacts.
Concern should be expressed for the visual impact of the
proposed use on surrounding properties. There is a residence
on an immediately adjoining property. The site is probably
visible from few other nearby residences. However, the use is
clearly visible from the public road. The applicant has
proffered to provide an eight foot high privacy fence to
screen the use. Such a fence should conform with the VDOT
comment.
However, there are residences in the Sulphur Springs Road area
that might be affected by any additional M-2, rezonings.
There is a concern that such a rezoning might lead to
additional M-2 rezonings. These would not be compatible with
residential uses in the area. Perhaps such rezonings could be
limited to the south side of Sulphur Springs Road where
residences are relatively few.
Concern should also be expressed for the potential impact of
the proposed use on the floodplain area. Such a use has
changed and would continue to change the hydrologic
characteristics of the floodplain. This will potentially
impact other properties. In addition, such a use is not
allowed in the designated floodplain.
Conclusions - The Comprehensive Plan does not rule out this
Page 4
Williams Rezoning
site for industrial uses. The Planning Commission needs to
give some thought to what the best uses are for the portions
of the Urban Development Area between Sulphur Springs Road and
the business and industrial areas along Route 50. However,
the site is not suitable for the use proffered. The staff has
concerns about the potential impacts of the use on the
floodplain. These concerns could possibly be addressed
through a formal flood plain study.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 5/1/91 P/C MEETING: Denial
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS OF 5/1/92 MEETING: Tabled for
six months to allow the Commission, staff and applicant to meet on-
site to discuss a possible solution
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 5/6/92 P/C MEETING: Denial.
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA
FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT
21 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia 2260
Thomas W. Owens 1/7 7 (ti,
Director ---- -- - -- - .—
J! !L t D !491
!!M E M O R A N D U M
TD: Robert Watkins
Director of Planning
VIA: Tom Owens, Director
Fire and Rescue Department
FROM: Douglas A. Kiracofe, Fire Marshal
Fire and Rescue Department
SUBJECT: Rezoning - Marshall Williams
DATE: July 9, 1991
Douglas A. Kiracofe
Fire Marshal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the small tract of land involved and the existing
nature of Mr. Williams' recycling business, Greenwood Vol. Fire
Dept. did not request proffers on this rezoning request. At the
time I commented on this application, I requested a condition of
approval be compliance with the Virginia State Fire Prevention
Code for outside storage. (Copy attached)
Since this application has been tabled and is being reviewed
by sub -committee, I wanted to take the opportunity to reiterate
the Fire Department's position an this matter. There have been
at least two fires at this location in the past and a lack of
access and lack of water supply create a very unsafe environment
for fire ground operations. Ineffectiveness in fire suppression
operations result in longer hours on the scene and greater fire
.damage. Separation of storage with adequate access is imperative
for firefighting operations.
Currently Mr. Williams is constructing a fence along Rt. 655
(Sulphur Springs Road). A gate will be necessary in this fence
at some location for access of emergency vehicles. I would
suggest a site plan showing all points of egress as well as
storage configuration on the property for approval.
DIRECTOR - (703) 665-5618 FIRE MARSHAL - (703) 665-6350 FAX - (703) 667-0370
Memorandum
July 9, 1991
Page 2 of 2
Whether the re -zoning is approved or a conditional use
Permit is sought, Greenwood V.F.D. and this office would like the
opportunity to discuss Fire Dept. issues with the applicant to
ensure an effective, safe fire ground operation should the need
arise.
If I can assist further in this issue, please contact me at
703-665-6350.
DAK:ila
cc: Clinton.Ritter, Attorney at Law
Eddie Keeler, Chief 18
q' -
File
1
ty only; and all
)ment shall be
ARTICLE 20
_
4 inch (6 mm)
:oeused for the
VEHICLE-WRECKING YARDS, JUNK YARDS
AND WASTE MATERIAL-HANDLING PLANTS
:e fabric en-
"'d structure.
2tween the en-
it of approved '
pported struc-
official. Such `
order and shad
SECTION F-2000.0 GENERAL
traine the
the coae offs-
F-2000.1 Scope: The equipment, processes and operation of vehicle-wrecking
yards, junk yards and waste material-handling plants shall comply with the ap-
plicable requirements of this code and with the detailed provisions of this article.
F-2000.2 Permit required: A permit shall be obtained from the code official to
conductor maintain any wrecking yard, junk yard or waste material-handling plant.
F-20003 Location: A vehicle-wrecking yard, junk yard or waste material-handling
plant shall be located so as not to represent a serious exposure hazard to adjoining
or adjacent properties. Before issuing a permit for any building or structure for use
in connection with a wrecking yard, junk yard or waste material-handling plant,
the building code official shall obtain the approval of the code official under this
section.
SECTION F-2001.0 FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
F-2001.1 Fire access: Approved aisles, driveways and uniform passageways shall
be provided to permit access for firefighting operations. This shall include areas
where stripped vehicle bodies are stored.
F-2001.2 Picking rooms: Picking rooms shall be provided with exhaust systems
of sufficient capacity to remove dust and lint_
F-20013 Burning operations: The burning of wrecked or discarded vehicles, or
any parts thereof, or any junk or waste materials shall be prohibited unless specifi-
cally approved.
111
y7y< x
-dons or
-mative
in con -
purpose
ier than
cultural
agricul-
>n is not
as been
;s are to
writing
,uch in -
in, as a
nature
e place;
I not be
nade to
-e. Fires
:ss than
Lste dis-
the fuel
its.
qtly at-
avail -
n burn -
is when
'ie code
rtment,
situa-
I
idering
ito any
Y com-
)tac les.
-id out-
ry case
rtition.
GENERAL PRECAUTIONS AGAINST FIRE
SECTION F-303.0 TORCHES FOR REMOVING PAINT
F-303.1 General: Any person using a torch or other flame -producing device for
removing paint from any building or structure shall provide one approved portable
fire extinguisher or water hose connected to the water supply on the premises where
such burning is done. In all cases, the person doing the burning shall remain on the
premises 1 hour after each use of the torch or flame -producing device.
F-303.2 Permit required: Prior to use of a torch or flame -producing device to
remove paint from any building or structure, a permit shall be secured from the
code official.
SECTION F-304.0 ACCUMULATIONS OF WASTE
F-304.1 General: Accumulations of wastepaper, wood, hay, straw, weeds, litter or
combustible or flammable waste or rubbish of any kind shall not be permitted'%to
remain upon any roof or in any court, yard, vacant lot, alley, parking lot, open space,
beneath a grandstand, pier, wharf or other similar structure. All weeds, grass, vines
or other growth, when same endangers property or is liable to be fired, shall be cut
down and removed by the owner or occupant of the property. All combustible rub-
bish, oily rags or waste material, when kept within a building, shall be stored in ap-
proved containers. Storage shall not produce conditions that, in the opinion and
judgement of the code official, will tend to create a nuisance or a hazard to the
public health, safety or welfare.
SECTION F-305.0 MATERIALS STORAGE
F-305.1 General: The storage of combustible or flammable materials shall be con-
fined to approved storage areas.
F-305.2 Permit required: A person shall not store in any building or upon any
premises in excess of 2,500 cubic feet (70 m3) gross volume of combustible empty
packing cases, boxes, barrels or similar containers; or rubber tires, baled cotton,
tubber, cork or other similarly combustible material without having obtained a per-
mit from the code official.
F-305.3 Inside storage: Storage in buildings and structures shall be orderly, shall
not be within 2 feet (6 10 mm) of the ceiling, and shall be located so as not to obstruct
egress from the building.
F-305.4 Outside storage: The outside storage of combustible or flammable
materials shall not be more than 20 feet (6096 mm) in height and shall be compact
and orderly. Such storage shall be located so as not to constitute a hazard and shall
not be less than 15 feet (4572 mm) from any other building on the site or from a
lot line.
SECTION F-306.0 DECORATIVE MATERIALS
F-306.1 General: Flammable materials such as cotton batting, straw, dry vines,
leaves, trees, artificial flowers or shrubbery and foam plastic materials shall not be
used for decorative purposes in show windows or other parts of buildings in such
a quantity as to constitute a fire hazard, unless such material is flameproofed in an
31
RXZ03WJG APPLIC LTZON !ORX
PREDIMXCZ COUNTY, VXRGX XA
-----r----------i-----------------------------------------------
To be completed by Planning Staff:
Zoning Amendment Numbern q/ Date Received
Submittal Deadline Application Date
PC Hearing Date_ 5-1-91 BOS Hearing Date
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following information shall be provided by the applicant:
All parcel numbers, tax map numbers, deed book pages and numbers
may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, 9
Court Square, Winchester.
1. Applicant:
Name: Marshall D. Williams and Helen V. Williams
Address:Rou�`Box 215, Sulphur Springs Road, Winchester,
S
Virginia, 22601
Telephone: 667-3254
Z. Ovner:
Name: Marshall
D.
Williams
and Helen V.
Williams
Address: Route
6
Box 215,
Sulphur Springs
Road Winchester,
Virginia, 22601
Telephone: 667-3254
in addition, the Code of Virginia allows us to request full
disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications.
Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to
be rezoned:
Marshall D. Williams and Helen V. Williams
3. Zoning Change: It is requested that the zoning of the property
be changed from _ RA to M-2
4. Location: The property is located at (give exact directions):
Situate 3 miles east of Winchester, Virginia in the Shawnee
Magisterial District fronting on the east side of Sulphur Spring
s
Road about 1 mile north of Route 50 Fast. (plat attached)
S. Parcel Identification:
21 Digit Tax Parcel Number: 65-000-AO0-QQ-OMQ-QO91-Q
6. Magisterial District: Shawnee
7. Property Dimensions: The dimensions of the property to be
rezoned.
Total Area: 3-.1 Acres
The area of each portion to be rezoned to a different zoning
district category should be noted:
3.1 Acres Rezoned to M-2
Acres Rezoned to—
Acres
o—Acres Rezoned to
Acres Rezoned to
Frontage: 414' Feet (plat attached)
Depth* approximately 300' Feet
S. Deed Reference: The ownership of the property is referenced by
the following deed: Deed Book
Conveyed from: Philip Williams, et ux _ 299
Marshall Williams, et ux 432
Deed Page: Valley Mortgage 647
H. Harold Lehman 664
Deed Book Number:
6
Page
573
726
719
9. Proposed Use: It is proposed that the property will be put to
the following uses.
10. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included
with this application.
Location map
X
Survey or plat
X
Deed to property
X
Statement verifying taxes
X
Sign receipt
X
Agency Comments
X
Fees
X
Impact Analysis Statement
X
Proffer Statement
X
11. Signature:
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby make application and
petition the governing body to amend the zoning ordinance and
to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia and do
hereby certify that the application and accompanying materials
are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge.
Applicant: L-,A� 0.��'��r
Marshall D. Williams and Helen V. Williams
Owner:
MarshaWilliams and Helen V. Williams
12. Representation:
If the application is being represented by someone other than
the owner or application and if questions about the
application should be direc o that repr ative, please
list the following.
Representative's Name: �
Clinton R. Ritter
Representative's Phone Number: (703)662-7175
7
nnaon FIXG BAopZRTr OWXZ3L$
owners of property adjoining the land will be motif ied of the
public hearing. For the purposes of this application, adjoining
property is any property abutting the requested property on the
side or rear or any property directly across a road from the
requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the fol-
lowing information on each adjoining properly -including the
.21 -digit tax parcel identification number which may be obtained
from the office of the commissioner of Revenue.
Name
Address and Property Identification
1 Jerry A. and Helen D. Morris
Address: Route 6, Box 212, Sulphur Springs
Road, Winchester, VA 22601
Property ID: 65-000- 2
2 County of Frederick
Address: Winchester -Frederick Judicial Center
5 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601
Property ID: 65-000-A00-0000-0000-0096-0
3 County of Frederick
Address • Winchester -Frederick Judicial Center
5 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601
Property ID: 65C-00-001- DODO -0000-000G -0
4 County of Frederick
Address: Winchester -Frederick Judicial Cente.
5 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601
Property ID: 65-000-A00-0000-0000- DO95-0
5 H. Harold and Carol Lehman
Address: 12608 Oxon Road, Herndon, VA 22071
Property ID: 64 -000 -ADO -0000-0000--0128-0
6
Address:
Property ID17 :
Address:
Property ID:
8 -a
Address:
Property ID:
9
Address:
Property ID:
10
Address:
'
Property ID:
f?
' NO P"uRTION DF TYLO
OPERTY '
IS L��ATED IN AHAZARD fiiZ10, ER N.U.D.UkSERS t9l�iY1/�YISTPFiTo�
--
:
erw
-2 y.
�ql A O - 0
p' \:
01
tPs S' p /dRRCEL i4"
s
2.00000 RC.
i%CEO BoO.r ZJS � `pGg5T39
ar o O z87g tPr SEEP 800
,V
�
frti 423T �0' A A . '
1N.,8 -C RG.
to S.77.So•.�
h
' . iPES/�IJE
� DEED BDo,� S�5
e
t S 2S 47 SS t✓ % ` ---
ftiLTH
707Af�iPEl�1 / S6_ 0 3' P ,Z O� y f
-. - •.3.t�69o.Qc_ -DEF�- r3ook':344. �.4GF 3/9 ;;_� 'x
THIS SURVEY HAS BEEN PREPAR U D. E. WILD
COM?V 7-,-,f WITHOUT TN' BFNEFIT of A TITC 001129
= OF r'%5lwff'oS 01— REPORT AND DOES NOf NECESSA Y 1
lfrfRPSHRLL 17. E h'ELE�v 1i W1LLIt9YT5 THE
IND• CATE PROPERTYENCllMBF�raCES ON 04
0EL-47-z300K 2 ins, tph'GE 57.3 SAD SURVF'Ar
�
a 647 0
Try I horeby certify that the propr r: shows hao2 n ha
I bean cerc-fu!ly surveyed wit+: a ' -,,err-Td r 'cdol 2
'� SHfIGt/�VE�" /y%9G/5'T�-,�r.StL �isT.Prcr
{ F.PEDE•P/GC C&V(VrY
`• .Tvc.t` �8 . /�B7 Sc.-rL�: /" _ X74 °
DOVE e ASSOC IA-rE-5
�9'�' CK4iIv8RIDGE LOAD
Rt,�F,4 X s �Iri'G/n!/.a ZZo3o
f
and that, untess Othcnvi;� .'•:�:vC. iinere ani ro
vacancias. ovgrl3ps. oe 0w4ozchmQnts.
7-ZE-- 7
DA, rF GA ,'10 >=.'r,ILDER
VA.i,LS(3A) No. 01129
FIVGII`/EERtNG P.r�NNI NG SlJRvE YrnrG
.3078�5H. 4 WNEE DfF/VE
P0. BOX 2033
��NCN Tf=R , VIRGINIA zz6U/
(�b3) /o3
a /
NCHESTEA
1UNICIPAL
AIRPORT
LOCATION MAP
Grecnwood Hcj&;
Road
COMMUNITY -PANEL NUMBER FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
510063 0115 B
FREDERICK COUNTY,
VIRGINIA
/ TTITTIT PIAT'�r�•+ • w...� _ --
cl,
B -Z
1p
76
RA
Marshall D. Williams and Helen V. Williams, Rezoning
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE:
A certified survey plat of the properties requesting rezoning is
attached to this Impact Analysis Statement, and by this reference hereby
made a part hereof.
The applicants believe that a small portion of any of the total 3.193
acres may be affected by the 100 -year flood plain. A copy of the
floodplain map is also included in the applicants' rezoning package and
indicates a width of about 25 feet on each side of Sulphur Springs Run. The
applicants have a certified engineering firm in Winchester who has done a
recent survey of a portion of the 3.1 acres, and that survey indicates that
the property requesting rezoning is not, in fact, in the flood plain. The
applicants would further state that they have lived on the property since
World War II, which is more than forty years, and very little, if any, of
the property has been affected by high water or flood rains. The
applicants would further state that to their knowledge, there are no
wetlands involved on this property. A small portion of Parcels D and B and
all of Parcel A are primary mature woodlands and a small portion of
Parcels D, B, and A are affected by steep slopes of more than fifteen
percent. A portion of the entire 3.1 acres could be prime agricultural
soil since it is bottomland, however, for the last forty years, it has been
used for a trash collection and resalvaging business. The applicants
would further state that to their knowledge the soil or bedrock conditions
are such that it should not create construction difficulties, nor should
there be any hazards. The applicant feels that approximately 75% of the
entire 3.193 acres can be used for the purposes sought in the rezoning
application. The remaining portion would be used as a buffer between the
sight and adjoining neighbors.
B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
Your applicants state and aver that on the North, the property is owned
by Harold Leyman, and it is a cleared field used for agricultural purposes.
Your applicants would further state and aver that on the West side of
Sulphur Springs Road, directly West of the applicants' property, this
property is also used for agricultural purposes and is owned by Harold and
Carol Leyman. Your applicants would further state and aver that the
Leyman's are well aware of the applicants' intended use of the property, in
fact, have consented to the applicants using the property for the purposes
sought in the rezoning application only with the condition that the
applicants build a privacy fence. The property on the East, which adjoins
the applicants property, is owned by the County of Frederick, and in fact
was the old County Landfill. The property on the South is owned by Jerry
A. and Helen D. Morris, and they have been neighbors with your applicants
for a number of years.
Your applicants are not aware of any noise, glare, fumes, pollution,
smells or other nuisance factors which would be created or caused by this
intended use.
C. TRAFFIC:
There should be no traffic impact or increase in traffic impact because
of the applicants' intended rezoning. They have several trash collection
trucks which leave the sight early in the morning and do not return to the
sight until late in the evening. Most of the deliveries that the trash
collection trucks make are to the County Landfill and when they return to
the premises, they are in fact empty. Smaller trucks and vehicles may be
used from time to time by family members for the purpose of delivering
recycled materials to the sight, such as aluminum cans and glass. It is
the applicants' opinion that this rezoning will not in any way increase the
traffic generated by 5000 average daily trips ended or more that fifty
percent (50%).
D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT:
The opinion of the applicants is that this rezoning request will in no
way affect sewage conveyance or treatment or as to the sewage flows which
come from the property since it is a family -held business with few
employees. There is no intent for the rezoning to build a plant or factory
which would employ hundreds of people. It will remain a small family
business operation with a few employees on sight, and there should be no
affect on sewage disposal by this rezoning whatsoever.
E. WATER SUPPLY:
Again, the applicants believe that the requested rezoning will not
affect the water supply because of it being a family -held business with few
employees and will not put any demand on the water supply systems for
Winchester and Frederick County.
F. EDUCATION FACILITIES:
Since this is a M-2 rezoning request, and not a residential, the
applicants believe that this rezoning will have no affect upon educational
facilities.
G. COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES:
Since this is a rezoning request for M-2 zoning, the applicants believe
that this requested rezoning will have no impact whatsoever on County Parks
and County Recreation facilities,
H. DRAINAGE:
This property does fall on the East side of Sulphur Springs Road and
Sulphur Springs runs through the property, however, the applicants believe
that the intended use of the property will not affect the drainage or the
streams in any way whatsoever. The applicants would further state and aver
that any new buildings to be built upon the property will be set back at
least 75 feet from Sulphur Springs. The materials being stored are mostly
glass and recycled metals, and therefore should have no affect on the soil
or Sulphur Springs.
I. EMERGENCY SERVICES:
The property requested to be rezoned is approximately two miles from
the Greenwood Firehall, and approximately four miles from the Winchester
Rescue Squad. Your applicants would further state that as far as their
Capital Improvements are concerned on the property requested to be rezoned,
there will be a large building constructed on Parcel E for the purpose of
recycling materials indoors. (Building to be constructed in the future.)
J. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES:
The requested rezoning should not increase the amounts of solid waste
to be generated each year since this is a small family -operated business
and no new employees will be taken upon the premises at this time.
K. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES:
To the applicants' knowledge, there are no historic sites or structures
located within at least a mile of the requested site. This site for
recycling materials does adjoin the County Landfill property, which is used
as the County dump.
L. ENVIRONMENT:
As far as the environmental features of the applicants' property are
concerned, there are some mature woodlands on the eastern portion of the
property, on the east side of Sulphur Springs. There are no wetlands or
sinkholes located on the property to the applicants' knowledge, nor are
there any unique wildlife habitats except your standard habitat for
squirrels, birds and occasional deer crossing from one farm to the next.
The only unique natural area or feature to the property would in fact be
Sulphur Springs. The applicants would further state that to their
knowledge, there intended use of the property, which is the same use they
have conducted for the last forty-five years, will not affect the
groundwater, surface water, or air quality of the area.
M. LIBRARIES:
Since this application is a request for rezoning to M-2, and is not a
residential rezoning request, the applicants feel that their rezoning
request will have no affect upon the library facilities for Winchester or
Frederick County.
N. FISCAL:
Since this is a rezoning request for M-2 zoning, and is not a
residential rezoning request, the applicants feel that the Impact Analysis
Statement should not have to address fiscal issues.
0. OTHER IMPACTS:
The applicants would further state and aver that they feel their
rezoning request is inconformative with other zoning in the area and
services a great need for the citizens of Frederick County. Certainly, a
location of a landfill or recycling facilities for trash is not the most
desirable business to be located upon any zoning classification; however,
it is an issue which every community must deal with. There is a need for
landfills and there must be site locations chosen for them; and there is a
need for recycling materials, and rezoning sites must be chosen for this.
It is the applicants' opinion that the most logical site for recycling
facilities is adjacent to or near landfill projects and other M-1 and M-2
zoned areas. Your applicants feel that the zoning in this area for M-1 and
M-2 zoning with Perry Engineering and the landfill has been well
established and this rezoning request simply makes the applicants'
property, which has been used for this purpose for the last forty-five
years, conform to the existing Zoning Ordinances of Frederick ounty.
Marshall D. Williams
Helen V. Williams
AMENDMENT
FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
Approvals:
Planning Commission May 6, 1992
Board of Supervisors
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
#003-91 OF MARSHALL WILLIAMS
WHEREAS, Rezoning application #003-91 of Marshall Williams to rezone 3.1 acres from RA
(Rural Areas) to M-2 (General Industrial) located three miles east of Winchester on Sulphur
Springs Road, in the Shawnee District, and identified as GPIN 650000OA0000910, was referred
to the Planning Commission on May 6, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on May 6,
1992; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a draft statement of conditions proffered prior
to the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this application on
and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors received a signed statement of conditions proffered prior
to the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds this rezoning to be in the best
interest of the public health, safety, welfare, convenience and good zoning practice;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as
follows:
That Chapter 21 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning Ordinance, is amended to revise the
Zoning District Map to change 3.1 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to M-2 (General Industrial)
located three miles east of Winchester on Sulphur Springs Road, in the Shawnee District, and
identified as GPIN 650000OA0000910 as described by the application and plat submitted, subject
to the following conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and property owner
as follows:
I PROFFER
Rezoning Application No.
Applicant: Marshall D. Williams, and Helen V. Williams
Property Location: 3.1 acres, Sulfur Springs Road, just North of U.S. 50 East of
Winchester, in the Shawnee Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia
The undersigned, sole owners of land to be rezoned under Rezoning Request
No. , referred to as the Marshall D. and Helen V. Williams rezoning, and the
applicant for said rezoning, hereby voluntarily proffers the following
conditions. The conditions proffered shall be binding upon the assigns and
successors in interest of both the applicant and owner. In the event the
Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants said rezoning and accepts the
conditions, the following proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in
addition to the other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code:
1. There will be an eight --foot high privacy fence installed along the East
side of Sulfur Springs Road beginning at point one (1) on the attached plat to
this proffer, and continuing Northwest 77 degrees, 30 minutes and 18 seconds,
West 234 feet to an iron pin, and then a privacy fence of the same height will be
constructed in an Eastward direction adjoining the H. Harrold and Carol Lehman
property towards a stream which runs parallel with Sulfur Springs Road. However,
the fence will stop approximately 75 feet short of the stream so that it will not
create a blockage in the event of high water. Also, a similar privacy fence will
be constructed from point one on the attached plat along the parcel indicated as
Parcel C and B to the aforesaid stream, however, the fence on the south side of
said property will also have a required setback line 75 feet from the stream so it
will not create a water blockage.
2. In the event the property is rezoned M-2, it will be used for purposes as
indicated on the rezoning appliction, except as to the residence located thereon.
C
� ��SEAL)
Marshall D. Williams
V C�J�(SEAL)
Helen V. Williams
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that on the 7 day of C
1990, I have
delivered a true and correct copy of the foregoing Proffer to Lawrence R.
Ambrogi, Esquire, Attorney for the County of Frederick 'County, Virginia,
Winchester/Frederick County Judicial Center, 5 North Rent Street, Winchester,
Virginia, 22601.
Marshall D. Williams
Helen V. Willi ms
This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage.
Passed this (date) day of (Month), (Year).
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
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner IIS
RE: Amendment To Chapter 21, Zoning Ordinance, of the Frederick County Code
DATE: April 22, 1992
The Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) entertained a request from
the Donald B. Rice Tire Company to allow tire retreading operations in the M-1, Light
Industrial Zoning District. Tire retreading operations are included in` the Standard
Industrial Classification Manual (SIC) within Major Group 75 - Automotive Repair,
Services, and Parking. The DRRC felt it was appropriate to allow tire retreading operations
in the M-1 Zoning District, but not the major group as a whole. The proposed amendment
would read as follows:
ALLOWED USE STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION (SIC)
Tire Retreading 7534
Staff recommends approval of the3roposed amendment to the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance and asks that the Planning Commission provide a recommendation during their
regular meeting of May 6, 1992.
THE COURTHOUSE COMMONS
9 N. Loudoun Street - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601
AMENDMENT
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
ZONING ORDINANCE
Planning Commission May 6 1992
Board of Supervisors
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
CHAPTER 21 ZONING ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 21, Zoning, Article
IX, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, was referred to the Planning Commission on May
6, 1992; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance amendment on May 6,
1992; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance amendment on
199_; and
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors find this ordinance amendment to
be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare convenience and in good zoning
practice;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors as follows:
That Chapter 21 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning Ordinance, is amended to revise Article
IX, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Section 9-1-4, as described on the following
attachment.
9-1-4 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, M-1
ALLOWED USE STANDARD INDUSTRIAL
CLASSIFICATION (SIC)
Tire Retreading 7534
This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage.
Passed this day of , 199_
A COPY TESTE
John R. Riley, Jr.
Frederick County Administrator
i COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703/665-5651
FAX 703/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Commission Members
From: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director 4� sK
Re: Recommended Update of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan
for 1992-93.
Date: April 27, 1992
The Comprehensive Plans and Policies Subcommittee (formally Comprehensive Plan
Subcommittee) has finalized its recommended update of the County's 1992-93
Comprehensive Policy Plan. The major changes consist of annual statistical updates such
as population and housing data, along with additional information in the areas of economic
development and stormwater management policies.
The Subcommittee also considered a number of requests to expand the sewer and water
service area and the urban development area. A summary of these requests along with the
subcommittees recommendations are listed below.
1) Ralph Gregory, Route 11 south - This request was for an area along Route 11 South
that lies just outside the Urban Development Area consisting of roughly 250 acres.
Mr. Gregory requested that either the Urban Development Area be expanded or the
Route 11 South business corridor be expanded to include this property.
The main issue discussed with regard to this request was how to extend water and
sewer without opening this area up to residential development. The Subcommittee
felt if sewer and water were extended, the lines serving the area must be dedicated
to the County. The Subcommittee recommendation is that the sewer and water
service area be expanded to include this area. The area would be an extension of
the Route 11 South business corridor. The committee has also added language to
the Comprehensive Plan that would require that any sewer and water line six inches
or larger be dedicated to the County. (This language would apply extensions
anywhere in the County, not just to the area along Route 11)
THE COURTHOUSE COMMONS
9 N. Loudoun Street - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601
Page 2
Comp. Plan update
April 27, 1992
2) Louise Brim, Route 11 South - This request was for sewer and water in an area
encompassed by the Gregory request. Mrs. Brim's request was for three specific
parcels along Route 11 South near the Shackleford Farm (now Marathon Bank, etc.)
and the Mountain View Church of Christ. The Subcommittee has recommended the
extension of the Sewer and Water Service Area in response to the Gregory request,
therefore Mrs. Brim's request is in affect also being approved.
3) Ryland Carper, Route 723 - This request involved approximately 210 acres located
off of Route 723 near Route 50 East. The Subcommittee feels that the inclusion of
this land in the Urban Development Area at this time is not appropriate due to the
fact that it would open up thousands of acres in Eastern Frederick County for
development.
4) Signal Station Associates, Round Hill - This request was for the County to grant one
of two requests:
a. Extension of sewer from Merriman's Lane up to Abrams drainage -way to
serve the entire Round Hill Community Center. This would involve
approximately 1000 acres.
b. Establishment of a community sanitary system to serve the Round Hill
Community.
i
The Subcommittee felt that it would be premature to extend water and sewer west
of Route 37 at this time. The Subcommittee has not ruled out the possibility of the
Round Hill Community eventually going to an alternative sewage disposal method.
The Subcommittee recommends waiting until the results of the investigation
(currently underway) of possible alternatives for waste water treatment in Rural
Community Centers is completed. This study is scheduled to be completed in
October of this year.
5) James Marlow, Routes 661, 662, 838 - This request was for an extension of the
Urban Development Area to include approximately 350 acres bordering on Route
661, 662, 838 and the B&O Railroad near the I-81 and Route 11 North intersection.
Mr. Marlow wishes to rezone this land for industrial use. The Subcommittee felt that
the issues of access and impacts on the Stephenson's Farm Battlefield need to be
addressed prior to inclusion within the Urban Development Area. It is believed that
Mr. Marlow is in the process of preparing an impact statement.
Page 3
Comp. Plan update
April 27, 1992
6) Residents of 522 South/Shenandoah Mobile Home Park - This request was
considered together since they are in the same geographic area. The Subcommittee
was concerned about the large amount of agricultural land in the area. The
extension of sewer and water would open approximately 1728 acres up for
development. Consequently, the Subcommittee recommended denial. This request
was later modified to approximately 687 acres as opposed to the original 1728. Of
this acreage, approximately 330 would be open to development. There are
approximately 200 houses within the area and the Subcommittee is concerned about
the potential of a failing septic system problem. The applicants and the County have
been in contact with the Health Department and they have agreed to conduct a
survey of the septic problems. Depending on the outcome, the Subcommittee may
consider extending the Sewer and Water Service Area as opposed to extending the
Urban Development Area. One issue that the Subcommittee is looking into is the
question of whether we can extend sewer and water for the existing homes, but not
allow new construction to tap on.
7) Billy Joe Tisinger, Realigned Route 642 - This request was on behalf of Fred L.
Glaize III, Jasbo, Inc., Oakcrest Builders, Inc., and Wrights Run Limited Partnership.
The proposal is that the Urban Development Area be expanded to include
approximately 200 acres of land north of the realigned Route 642 and bounded by
Route 522 on the east and old Route 642 on the west and north sides. It would be
the intent of this group to immediately rezone and proffer $150,000 toward the
realignment of Route 642.
Although it is anticipated that the Urban Development Area will be expanded to
include this area at some point in time, the Subcommittee is concerned that the
timing is not right to open up more land for residential development. However, the
Subcommittee did not ruled_out the possibility of industrial zoning in this area. At
this point it is uncertain whether the landowners intend to propose an expansion of
the sewer and water service area to accommodate industrial zoning of the area.
If there are any questions on the updated Comprehensive Policies Plan or the requests for
expansion of the Urban Development Area, please contact me or Lanny Bise.
_ URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA
G EX=NSON REQUESTS
1991-92
52Z
�f
epherts Cfif
i
/Ah,
4y�z
-- ---/ -
ftrren Courr14.
6
Bruce,
4oym
R.
7
Cl ante Co vn4y
344
/1• RALPH GREGORY
2. LOUISE BRIM
3. RYLAND CARPER
/ A. SIGNAL STATIO�ASSOC.
5. JAMES MARLOW
6. SHEN. MOBILE HOME PARK
7. BILLY JOE TISINGER
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703/665-5651
FAX 7031678 -068 --
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Directo�,
RE: Potential for Relocation of Warrior Road
DATE: April 20, 1992
As you are know, the current location of Warrior Road (formerly Golladay Road) passes
through a portion of Fredericktowne Estates. Some residents of Fredericktowne have
expressed their concern and opposition to the road traveling through their gilbdivision. As
Warrior Road is presently located, there are six lots within Section II of Fredericktowne that
front on it. There is one other lot that adjoins Warrior Road but has frontage on
Westmoreland Drive.
HISTORY
Prior to the time that the concept of a new north -south collector road between Routes 277
and 642 evolved into an element of the County's road planning effort, there was significant
development activity taking place in the vicinity of Fredericktowne Estates. Final Master
Development Plans for Jefferson Village and Georgetown Court were both approved in the
late fall of 1988. The Capital Properties rezoning of 22+ acres from RA to B-2, on the
south side of Route 277, was approved in the fall of 1989. Subdivision plats for Sections I
and 'II of Fredericktowne Estates were approved in May of 1989.
The original design of Georgetown, Court and Jefferson Village had a north -south
connection between the two that would have also functioned as an access to Route 277 for
Fredericktowne and Fredericktowne Estates. By the time of the design of Village at
Sherando, the need for a north -south collector between Routes 277 and 642 had been
recognized and planning was well under way. At the time the County was considering the
rezoning of the Evans\Snyder tract (Village at Sherando), the owner of Fredericktowne
Estates agreed to provide a through connection to this tract. This access, combined with the
continuation of the north -south road through the Village at Sherando and the commercial
area to its south, provides a more direct connection for Fredericktowne and Fredericktowne
THE COURTHOUSE COMMONS
9 N, Loudoun Street - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601
4\20\92 Warrior Road Memo page 2
Estates to Route 277. This through connection also eliminated the need for the more
circuitous connection between Georgetown Court and Jefferson Village. Unfortunately, by
the time this development took place, some lots fronting on what was then Surrey Drive had
already been sold.
When the connection through Fredericktowne Estates was made it appeared to be the only
means of providing the much needed, direct north -south collector.
CURRENTLY
Following meetings and or discussions with representatives of The Village at Sherando,
Frederick County Parks and Recreation, and G. W. Clifford and Associates, staff has
developed the following information concerning a proposal for alternate routing of Warrior
Road through the eastern edge of Sherando Park, thereby avoiding Fredericktowne Estates.
From an engineering stand point it would be possible, and arguably preferable, to shift the
segment of Warrior Road currently within Fredericktowne Estates, to that east, onto the
western edge of Sherando Park. The current owner of the Village at Sherando has agreed
to make the necessary alignment changes and construct the section of road within his
property up to the point that the new alignment would begin to exceed the costs of the
presently approved alignment.
This relocation would involve roughly 4.5 to 5 acres of park land, and require the (presently
unfunded) construction of approximately 2500 feet of road. More importantly, it would
require the cooperation of the Parks and Recreation Commission and approval of the
Department of the Interior since Federal Grant money was used for purchase of the park
land.
There are very detailed federal requirements that would have to be met in order for the
change in use of the park property to even be considered. Among other things, the County
would have to acquire an equivalent amount of acreage to be substituted for the land that
would be taken for the road. A possible solution to this requirement would be to utilize
acreage from the JASBO parcel which adjoins the northern edge of the park. This parcel
contains approximately 95 acres and is zoned RP. The five acres could in turn count toward
a portion of the required open space that would be required at the time the property was
developed.
Owners of the JASBO property have not yet been approached about this proposal. No
contact or inquiry has been made to the relevant State or Federal agencies concerning the
likelihood of acceptance of this proposal.
4\20\92 Warrior Road Memo page 3
Attached is an area map which depicts the area involved.
If you have any questions concerning the above please,let me know.
KCT/slk
attachment
COMPOSITE MAP OF PROPOSED RELOCATION
OF
WARRIOR ROAD - - 11 �ti
ss
z yr '• �= ' '\ _��'�-- - 1 �.' _ __ " M / �� w•�a.c.x�'-`
W RIOR ROAD �. SHE
--?SOY VIL U "• w, snvGCE FAMrzr — �
--� � J,ca �' .• _� � = ..�'•— 3�5. 'roc "• 1 Il . / �.' �T . i`_ �' �� ' -
LA6
' •I ; '-' V - T SHS
/ o"
`G`cORGcl0VM COURT
"T
JF
�j0 ,/C C per`• - - 6 `,SC c'/' _ fiP �•. _ `�=_ / ___.T•-� _ -
/` -- RPS--- � _ -�_ _ 141
_•� .^,ti � , 4G � --_ k
' ` � • � -_ `¢A I - f ��%'� L'/!.' '. X8.7 ZONE � !
-------------- W
F � _ t �i(r'_- ---. --- ------------------ /ice -
,./.
_— � � � � '.' ETATt rr�tfTE ZTY — `-_ . _ _ . - _- .------- _• i