The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 03-18-20 Meeting Agenda AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia March 18, 2020 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission should adopt the Agenda for the meeting ................................................................ (no tab) 2) October 2, 2019, October 16, 2019, November 6, 2019, December 4, 2019 and December 18, 2019 Meeting Minutes ............................................................................................... (A) 3) Committee Reports .................................................................................................. (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments ................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) Conditional Use Permit #01-20 for J K Lee Services, submitted for the expansion of an existing assisted living structure adding six (6) beds. The property is located at 549 Valley Mill Road, Winchester, Virginia and is identified with Property Identification Number 55-A- 56 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran ....................................................................................................................... (B) INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS 6) Development Review Fees for CUP Mr. Klein .......................................................................................................................... (C) 7) Zoning Violation Penalties Mr. Klein .......................................................................................................................... (D) 8) SmartScale Update Mr. Bishop ....................................................................................................................... (E) 9) Annual Report Mr. Klein .......................................................................................................................... (F) Other Adjourn Commonly Used Planning Agenda Terms Meeting format Citizen Comments – The portion of the meeting agenda offering an opportunity for the public to provide comment to the Planning Commission on any items not scheduled as public hearing items. Public Hearing– A specific type of agenda item, required by State law, which incorporates public comment as a part of that item prior to Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors action. Public hearings are held for items such as: Comprehensive Plan policies and amendments; Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance amendments; and Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit applications. Following the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission will take action on the item (see below). Action Item–There are both public hearing and non-public hearing items on which the Planning Commission takes action. Depending on the actual item, the Planning Commission may approve, deny, table, or forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the agenda item. No public comment is accepted during the Action Item portion of the agenda. Information/Discussion Item– The portion of the meeting agenda where items are presented to the Planning Commission for information and discussion. The Planning Commission may offer comments and suggestions, but does not take action on the agenda item. No public comment is accepted during the Information/Discussion Item portion of the agenda. Planning Terminology Urban Development Area or UDA – The UDA is the county’s urban growth boundary identified in the Comprehensive Plan in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. The UDA is an area of the county where community facilities and public services are more readily available and are provided more economically. Sewer and Water Service Area or SWSA – The SWSA is the boundary identified in the Comprehensive Plan in which public water and sewer is or can be provided. The SWSA is consistent with the UDA in many locations; however the SWSA may extend beyond the UDA to promote commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses in area where residential land uses are not desirable. Land Use – Land Use is the nomenclature which refers to the type of activity which may occur on an area of land. Common land use categories include: agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial. Zoning District - Zoning district refers to a specific geographic area that is subject to land use standards. Frederick County designates these areas, and establishes policies and ordinances over types of land uses, density, and lot requirements in each zone. Zoning is the main planning tool of local government to manage the future development of a community, protect neighborhoods, concentrate retail business and industry, and channel traffic. Rezoning – Rezoning is the process by which a property owner seeks to implement or modify the permitted land use activities on their land. A rezoning changes the permitted land use activities within the categories listed above under Land Use. Conditional Use Permit or CUP - A CUP allows special land uses which may be desirable, but are not always appropriate based on a location and surrounding land uses. The CUP requested use, which is not allowed as a matter of right within a zoning district, is considered through a public hearing process and usually contains conditions to minimize any impacts on surrounding properties. Ordinance Amendment – The process by which the County Code is revised. Often the revisions are the result of a citizen request with substantial justification supporting the change. Amendments ultimately proceed through a public hearing prior to the PC forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. County Bodies Involved Board of Supervisors or BOS - Frederick County is governed by an elected Board of Supervisors composed of seven members, one from each magisterial district, and one chairman-at-large. The Board of Supervisors is the policy-making body of the county. Functions of the Board of Supervisors related to planning include making land use decisions, and establishing growth and development policies. Planning Commission or PC - The PC is composed of 13 members, two from each magisterial districts and one at-large, appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the Board of Supervisors which then takes final action on all planning, zoning, and land use matters. Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee or CPPC – The CPPC is a major committee of the PC whose primary responsibility is to formulate land use policies that shape the location and timing of development throughout the County. Included in the work are studies of specific areas to develop guidelines for future land use within those areas. The CPPC also considers requests for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Decisions by CPPC are then forwarded to the PC for consideration. Development Review and Regulations Committee or DRRC – The DRRC is the second major committee of the PC whose primary responsibilities involve the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan in the form of Zoning and Subdivision ordinance requirements. Requests to amend the ordinances to the DRRC are made by the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, local citizens, businesses, or organizations. DRRC decisions are also forwarded to the PC for consideration. A Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3656 Minutes of October 2, 2019 MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on October 2, 2019. PRESENT: Kevin Kenney, Chairman; Roger L. Thomas, Vice -Chairman, Opequon, District; Robert S. Molden, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; William H. Cline, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Alan L. Morrison, Member at Large; Kathleen Dawson, Red Bud District ; and Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney. ABSENT: Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Rhodes Marston, Back Creek District. STAFF PRESENT: Michael T. Ruddy, Director; M. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner; Kathy Smith, Secretary. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Kenney called the October 2, 2019 meeting of the Frederick County Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Kenney commenced the meeting by inviting everyone to join in a moment of silence. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Cline, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Manuel the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the minutes from the July 17, 2019 and August 7, 2019 meetings. ------------- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3657 Minutes of October 2, 2019 COMMITTEE REPORTS Transportation Committee – Mtg. 9/30/19 Commissioner Oates reported the Committee was brought up to date on the area projects and they heard a request from a resident living on McCubbin Road to be considered for the paving list; the Committee approved the request to be added to the next paving list. Frederick Water – Mtg. 9/24/19 Commissioner Unger reported the Committee discussed the Capital Budget request. Development Review and Regulations Committee – Mtg. 9/26/19 Commissioner Unger reported that the items discussed are on tonight’s agenda. Historic Resources Advisory Board – Mtg. 9/17/19 Commissioner Molden reported the HRAB discussed election of Chairman and Vice- Chairman, minutes from August 2018 were approved, and a review of a Conditional Use Permit for an outdoor shooting range located at 6519 Valley Pike. The HRAB was not in favor of the CUP because of the closeness to the Vaucluse property. City of Winchester – Mtg. 9/17/19 Commissioner Tagnesi, Winchester City Planning Commission Liaison, reported the approval of a Rezoning of 0.2 acres at East Fairfax Lane and National Avenue from a HR-1 District to B- 1 District. The Rezoning would allow the builder to go from 44 to 47 units. Board of Supervisors – Mtg. 9/25/19 Chairman Kenney reported the Frederick County Public Schools bond sale for $3.2 million for the replacement of Robert E. Aylor Middle School was approved as was an outdoor festival permit request for Waveland Farm. Also discussed was the Proposed Ordinance Amendment for Public Utilities and Conditional Uses in the RA Zoning District. ------------ CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Kenney called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the Planning Commission’s agenda or any item that is solely a discussion item for the Commission. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public comments portion of the meeting. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3658 Minutes of October 2, 2019 PUBLIC HEARING Landscaping, buffers & screening, off-street parking and requirements for certain uses – discussion of a request by a Planning Commissioner to amend certain sections of Frederick County Zoning Ordinance including: additional regulations for specific uses (“storage facilities, self-service,” “tractor truck and tractor truck trailer parking,” “ special event facilities”), off-street parking, landscaping requirements, and buffers and screening requirements. Action – Recommend Approval Mr. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner, presented an overview of the proposed amendment to Chapter 165 – Zoning Ordinance to “clean up” inconsistencies within certain sections and to clarify or reduce requirements for certain uses; Specifically, amendments are proposed to the following sections: §165-204.18 Storage facilities, self-storage The proposed changes correct landscaping and planting inconsistencies regarding plant size in this section with other sections of the Zoning Ordinance and provides relief on screening requirements that do not otherwise meet the intent of the section to “screen the use”. §165-204.24 Tractor truck and tractor trailer truck parking The proposed changes prevent the siting of the above use adjacent to residential uses, while enabling the location of these types of facilities where they are most appropriate (i.e. adjacent to major roadways and/or in the vicinity of other business and industrial uses), provides a consistent hard surface standard for the use (gravel parking) that is consistent with the temporary nature of the use and, changes to this section also corrects inconsistences with this section planting requirements with other sections of the Zoning Ordinance. §165-204.30 Special event facilities The proposed changes provide clarity with certain practices in the County, specifically that the Building Official (Department of Building Inspections) is responsible for determining if a building or structure (existing or to-be-constructed) is agriculturally exempt from the Virginia Building Code requirements or requires a building permit review. §165-202.01 Off-street parking; parking lots The proposed changes correct inconsistencies with the required width of driveways serving parking lots in this section with other sections of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and County Code (Fire Code). §165-203.01 Landscaping requirements The proposed changes correct inconsistencies with plant size in this section with other sections of the Zoning Ordinance, further clarifies requirements to prohibit plantings from being located within utility easements and eliminates certain plant species. §165-203.02 Buffer and Screening requirements The proposed changes seek to allow for the higher utilization of limited business and industrial land by eliminating the buffer requirement where a VDOT classified interstate, arterial, or collector roadway otherwise effectively creates “distance” between business/industrial uses and adjacent residential uses. Front setbacks and parking area landscaping requirements, which remains unchanged for the business and industrial zoning district, further provides a “buffer” in lieu of zoning district buffer require ments. The proposed changes also correct inconsistencies in this section with other sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3659 Minutes of October 2, 2019 Mr. Klein concluded, the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) discussed this item at their July 25th, August 22nd, and September 26th regular meetings and generally supported the proposed changes. Chairman Kenney called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing to come forward at this time. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Thomas commented regarding the gravel parking lot would increase gravel being carried onto the roadway. Mr. Klein replied, that part of the site plan application is for VDOT review that would require a commercial entrance. Chairman Kenney commented about the language “temporary” that had been discussed before. Mr. Klein commented he did not believe the Committee came to a consensus on the definition. Staff recommended that the sentence “These uses may be temporary” under the first paragraph sentence be removed BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of this Ordinance Amendment with “These uses may be temporary” under the first paragraph was unclear or inexact and recommended the sentence be removed. (Note: Commissioners Triplett, Mohn, and Marston were absent from the meeting) Telecommunications facilities, commercial - Discussion of a request by the County Attorney to amend §165-204.19 to permit commercial telecommunication small cell facilities by-right in certain zoning districts and codify changes from the Code of Virginia governing local regulation of such facilities. Action – Recommend Approval Mr. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner, reported on the proposed amendment to Chapter 165- Zoning Ordinance is to enable smaller commercial telecommunications facilities in certain Zoning Districts by-right: codify changes to the state code, creating a two-track process for approval and enable communication facilities by-right in OM (Office-Manufacturing Park) and HE (Higher Education) zoning districts. The changes to telecommunication facilities are wholesale and include new definitions and changes to the additional regulations for specific uses outlined in §165-204.19. Mr. Klein continued, this is a two-track process of administrative review on eligible projects and standard process projects. Mr. Klein concluded, this item was proposed by the County Attorney, Staff, and discussed by the DRRC at their September 26th regular meeting. The DRRC agreed with the proposed changes. Commissioner Thomas asked for the definition of “Small Cell”. Mr. Klein replied it is a wireless facility that must meet certain qualifications. BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval and amendment to Zoning Ordinance §165-204.19 to permit commercial telecommunication small cell facilities by-right in certain zoning districts and codify changes from the Code of Virginia governing local regulation of such facilities. (Note: Commissioners Triplett, Mohn, and Marston were absent from the meeting) Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3660 Minutes of October 2, 2019 ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner Oates to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Manuel and unanimously passed. The meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________ Kevin W. Kenney, Chairman ____________________________ Michael T. Ruddy, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3661 Minutes of October 16, 2019 MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on October 16, 2019. PRESENT: Kevin Kenney, Chairman; Roger L. Thomas, Vice -Chairman, Opequon, District; Robert S. Molden, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; William H. Cline, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; J. Rhodes Marston, Back Creek District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Alan L. Morrison, Member at Large; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Kathleen Dawson, Red Bud District; and Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney. ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Michael T. Ruddy, Director; Candice E. Perkins, Assistant Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; M. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner; Shannon L Conner, Administrative Assistant. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Kenney called the October 16, 2019 meeting of the Frederick County Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Kenney commenced the meeting by inviting everyone to join in a moment of silence. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Cline the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Cline the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the minutes from the September 4, 2019 meeting. ------------- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3662 Minutes of October 16, 2019 COMMITTEE REPORTS City of Winchester – Mtg. 10/15/19 Commissioner Tagnesi, Winchester City Planning Commission Liaison, reported the Commission held a work session to discuss and review the Comprehensive Plan. Board of Supervisors – Mtg. 10/09/19 Board of Supervisors’ Liaison, Supervisor Trout reported the Board discussed an item pertaining to Landscaping, Buffers, Screening, and off street parking. Also discussed were commercial Telecommunications facilities. ------------ CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Kenney called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the Planning Commission’s agenda or any item that is solely a discussion item for the Commission. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public comments portion of the meeting. ------------- PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #03-19 for Berlin Steel and Dennis Ridings, submitted by Painter-Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone 15.3933+/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. The properties are on the eastern side of Ridings Lane, which intersects with Route 277 in the Opequon Magisterial District and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 86-A-179C and 87-A-12. Action – Postponed 60 days Candice E. Perkins, Assistant Director, reported this is an application to rezone two parcels of land that total 15.3933+/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers and the subject properties are located on the eastern side of Ridings Lane which intersects with Route 277. She presented a locations map of the property. Ms. Perkins continued, the site is located within the limits of the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and depicts the subject properties with an industrial land use designation. She stated, the proposed M1 zoning is generally consistent with the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan as it relates to this area and these properties are not located within the limits of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Ms. Perkins explained, the Comprehensive Plan states that it is expected that the land uses within the UDA and SWSA will be served by public water and sewer, however, as this site it is contiguous to existing M1 zoning and is intended to facilitate an expansion to an existing business (Berlin Steel), this request to rezone property outside of the SWSA may be appropriate. Ms. Perkins shared Staff concerns: Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3663 Minutes of October 16, 2019 • The Southern Frederick Plan shows a new minor collector roadway planned through this site. This is a planned roadway and not designed at this time and the location may be subject to future modifications. • VDOT stated that the turn lane analysis submitted indicated the need for turn lane in the future. This has not been addressed in the rezoning. Ms. Perkins concluded, with this request, the Applicant has proffered: • The land and any improvements thereto will be expressly used for a metal fabrication business as permitted under the M1 zoning. • Monetary Contribution – The owner will donate $1,000 for impacts to Fire and Rescue services. Mr. John Lewis of Painter-Lewis, P.L.C, representing the Applicant came forward and presented a brief overview of the Applicant’s request. Commissioner Unger asked where the future road is in regard to this land. Mr. Lewis noted, the road does not touch the property. Commissioner Thomas inquired if VDOT requires a left turn lane into the property what will the Applicant do. Mr. Lewis stated the owner would have to find the funds to do so. Commissioner Morrison commented there is not enough information at this point to warrant a turn lane however it could be in the future. Mr. Lewis stated as traffic increases later, he would advise his client to do a traffic study. Commissioner Oates stated it appears the planned road is going thru the property. Mr. Lewis stated the road going thru the property would impact operations and he was not aware of the connector road. Commissioner Oates requested a proffer for the turn lane. Mr. Lewis stated that could be accomplished. Commissioner Thomas suggested possibly relocating the connector road to benefit the owner and the County and find a better location. Commissioners Unger and Oates agreed with this idea. Chairman Kenney asked if the Applicant would be submitting a site plan. Mr. Lewis stated not at this time. The Applicant came forward and explained the alternate route if needed has already been worked out. Chairman Kenney called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing to come forward at this time. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Upon Motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Mohn to postpone for 60 days BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend postponement of 60 days for Rezoning #03-19 for Berlin Steel and Dennis Ridings, submitted by Painter- Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone 15.3933+/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. The properties are on the eastern side of Ridings Lane, which intersects with Route 277 in the Opequon Magisterial District and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 86-A-179C and 87-A-12. Conditional Use Permit #07-19 for Middletown Firearms, submitted for establishment of a commercial shooting range outdoors in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. The property is located at 6519 Valley Pike, Middletown, Virginia and is identified with Property Identification Number 85-A-10 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action – Postponed 60 days Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3664 Minutes of October 16, 2019 Mr. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner, reported this application is submitted for the establishment of an outdoor commercial shooting range in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District and the property is located at 6519 Valley Pike, Middletown and is in the Back Creek Magisterial District. He presented a locations map of the property. Mr. Klein shared the Applicant’s plans for the shooting range: • Four (4) separate gun ranges with covered shooting bays: o A 25-yard range (enclosed) with eight (8) shooting lanes and a concreate floor for tactical training o A 25-yard range with eight (8) shooting lanes o A 50-yard range with six (6) shooting lanes o A 100-yard range with six (6) shooting lanes • Side berms 8-feet in height and 6-feet wide, and a rear berm 16-feet in height • Range support buildings including: A classroom and storage building, restrooms and/or a small check-in area with ammunitions, targets, and cleaning supplies for sale Mr. Klein reported, the property is surrounded by other RA (Rural Areas) zoned property, which includes open space, agricultural/forestal uses, and single-family detached residences north of the property and across Valley Pike. He continued; commercial shooting ranges outdoor are permitted in the RA Zoning District with an approved CUP. He noted, additional regulations for Specific Uses (outlined in §165-204.15 provide specific siting and screening requirements for commercial shooting ranges. Mr. Klein shared an illustrative sketch plan provided by the Applicant along with a range layout design also provided by the Applicant. Mr. Klein concluded by presenting the conditions recommended by Staff: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times 2. An engineered site plan, in accordance with the requirements of Article VIII of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, shall be submitted to and subject to approval by Frederick county prior to the establishment of the use, The site plan shall address additional regulations for specific uses outlined in §165-204.15 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance 3. The hours of operation for shooting range activities shall be limited to: a. Monday through Saturday – 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. b. Sunday – 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. 4. Shooting activities shall be supervised by qualified personnel at all times 5. One (10 monument style sign with a maximum sign area not to exceed 50 square feet and not to exceed 10 feet in height is permitted) 6. Any expansion or modification of this use will require the approval of a new CUP Mr. Evan Wyatt, of Greenway Engineering and the Applicant Mr. Travis Dodson came forward to provide an overview of the project. They shared mapping of the proposed location and noted this meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance for surrounding properties. They also addressed the noise impacts of this application. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3665 Minutes of October 16, 2019 Mr. Travis Dodson, the applicant explained the layout of the facility as well as the berms, parking, check-in, standard operating procedures, and a safety check of all firearms. Commissioner Oates inquired if pole sheds were considered to help with the sound. Mr. Dodson stated this can be discussed as they have looked at several options. Commissioner Mohn stated he appreciates the effort to gather noise level data and would like to see other options to help with the noise. Mr. Dodson commented baffles are being planned to help with noise. Commissioner Triplett asked how close the end of the 100’ range would be to I-81. Mr. Wyatt noted it would be about 1068’ from the back of I-81 earth berm. Commissioner Unger commented most of the concerns appear to be related to the noise. Mr. Dodson noted, he is going to try to mitigate the noise and keep the impacts to a minimum. Chairman Kenney stated his concerns are the high caliber guns that could be used and the elevation of the range in regard to I-81. Mr. Wyatt explained the concept of the design is for the range to be sloped and shoot downhill which the topography will force. Chairman Kenney asked if they have 1,000 members, how many will be allowed at one time. Mr. Wyatt noted the maximum capacity will be 60-70 people at a time. Chairman Kenney called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing to come forward at this time. There were numerous citizens that spoke in position of the application and they shared their concerns of: noise, safety, a historical property, properties in the area value decrease, will destroy the quality of life, too close to an elementary school, a college, a church , and not a good location. A few citizens spoke in support of the application noting the noise will not be bad if ste ps are taken to help, this could bring revenue to the County, and it meets safety expectations. No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Oates commented, possibly make it enclosed to help with the noise and a sound test should be completed by a professional. Upon Motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Marston BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend postponement of 60 days for Conditional Use Permit #07-19 for Middletown Firearms, submitted for establishment of a commercial shooting range outdoors in the RA (Rur al Areas) Zoning District. The property is located at 6519 Valley Pike, Middletown, Virginia and is identified with Property Identification Number 85-A-10 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS; AMENDMENTS; AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, Part 101 – General Provisions - §165-101.02 Definitions and Word Usage; ARTICLE II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS; PARKING; BUFFERS; AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES, Part 204 – Additional Regulations for Specific Uses; §165-204.26. Public Utilities; ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Part 401 – RA Rural Areas District - §165- 401.02. Permitted Uses; Part 402 – RP Residential Performance District §165-402.02. Permitted Uses; Part 403 – Mobile Home Community District - §165-403.02. Permitted Uses; ARTICLE V PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS, Part 502 – R5 Residential Recreation Community Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3666 Minutes of October 16, 2019 District - §165-502.04. Permitted Uses; ARTICLE VI BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, Part 602 – B1 Neighborhood Business District - §165-602.02. Allowed Uses; Part 603 – B2 General Business District - §165-603.02. Allowed Uses; Part 604 – B3 Industrial Transition District - §165-604.02. Allowed Uses; Part 606 – M1 Light Industrial District - §165-606.02. Allowed Uses; Part 608 – EM Extractive Manufacturing District - §165-608.02. Permitted Uses; Part 609 – HE Higher Education District - §165-609.02 Permitted Uses. Revision to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to include a definition for Public Utilities that includes utility-scale solar power generating facilities and amendments to the supplemental use regulation for public utilities. Action – Recommend Approval Mr. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner, reported this is a proposed amendment to Chapter 165 – Zoning Ordinance to provide: Definitions for “Public Utilities” (including utility-scale solar power energy generating facilities), “utility-scale solar power generating facilities,” and “decommissioning;” Additional regulations for specific uses that requires utility-scale solar generating energy facilities to make arrangements, including financial security, for decommissioning consistent with/as required by the Code of Virginia, and site plan review/approval only for utility-scale solar power generating facilities. Mr. Klein continued, the intent of this text amendment is to codify a determination that “utility -scale solar power generating facilities” would be considered a “public utility” and to codify recent changes to the Code of Virginia to include the decommissioning of solar energy facilities. He noted, the text amendment also cleans up terminology for “public utilities” throughout the Zoning Ordinance ; the text amendment does not amend requirements for other types of public utilities, including those facilities owned/operated by Frederick Water. Mr. Klein concluded, the DRRC discussed this item at their June 27th, July 25th, and August 22nd regular meetings and supported the proposed changes; the Planning Commission discussed this on September 4th and the Board of Supervisors on September 25th, and the Board of Supervisors requested additional definitions. Chairman Kenney called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing to come forward at this time. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Upon Motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Manuel BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS; AMENDMENTS; AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, Part 101 – General Provisions - §165-101.02 Definitions and Word Usage; ARTICLE II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS; PARKING; BUFFERS; AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES, Part 204 – Additional Regulations for Specific Uses; §165-204.26. Public Utilities; ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Part 401 – RA Rural Areas District - §165- 401.02. Permitted Uses; Part 402 – RP Residential Performance District §165-402.02. Permitted Uses; Part 403 – Mobile Home Community District - §165-403.02. Permitted Uses; ARTICLE V PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS, Part 502 – R5 Residential Recreation Community District - §165-502.04. Permitted Uses; ARTICLE VI BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, Part 602 – B1 Neighborhood Business District - §165-602.02. Allowed Uses; Part 603 – B2 General Business District - §165-603.02. Allowed Uses; Part 604 – B3 Industrial Transition District - §165-604.02. Allowed Uses; Part 606 – M1 Light Industrial District - §165-606.02. Allowed Uses; Part 608 – EM Extractive Manufacturing District - §165-608.02. Permitted Uses; Part 609 – HE Higher Education District - §165- 609.02 Permitted Uses. Revision to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to include a definition for Public Utilities that includes utility-scale solar power generating facilities and amendments to the supplemental use regulation for public utilities. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3667 Minutes of October 16, 2019 Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISION; AMENDMENTS; AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS; Part 101 – General Provisions, §165-101.02. Definitions and Word Usage, Part 103 – Conditional Use Permits, §165-103.03. Conditions; ARTICLE II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS; PARKING; BUFFER AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES, Part 204 – Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, §165-204.32. Country General Store Without Fuel Sales; ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Part 401 – RA Rural Areas District, §165- 401.02. Permitted Uses, §165-401.03. Conditional Uses; Revision to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance that the Conditional Use in the RA District is that the uses, and scale of the uses, are appropriate for the zoning district in which they are identified. Action – Recommend Approval Mr. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner, reported the purpose of the proposed amendment is to: Add clarity to specific uses where the intensity of a given use is important in considering its appropriateness for a CUP; and to provide consistency in allowance and implementation of certain uses. He continued, the Board of Supervisors directed the Planning Commission to evaluate the CUP process and those listed conditional uses to ensure that the uses and scale of the uses were appropriate for the zoning district in which they are allowed. Mr. Klein explained this proposed amendment to Chapter 165 – Zoning Ordinance: 1. Further defines the conditional use country general store to exclude all fuel sales and cap the square footage allowed at 3,500 square feet. 2. Provide additional regulations for specific uses (i.e. country general store). 3. Eliminates, combines, and refines certain conditional uses. 4. Codifies Zoning Determinations relating to home occupations, cottage occupations, and kennels to reduce the number of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) applications. Mr. Klein concluded, the DRRC discussed this item at their August 22 nd regular meeting and supported the proposed changes; this items was discussed by the Planning Commission on September 4the and the Board of Supervisors on September 25th. Chairman Kenney called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing to come forward at this time. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Oates noted, Taxidermy uses was moved under permitted but is also still showing under conditional uses. Mr. Klein explained the intent was to remove from conditional use list, he will verify and make the proper correction. Upon Motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Oates BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISION; AMENDMENTS; AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS; Part 101 – General Provisions, §165-101.02. Definitions and Word Usage, Part 103 – Conditional Use Permits, §165-103.03. Conditions; ARTICLE II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS; PARKING; BUFFER AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES, Part 204 – Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, §165- 204.32. Country General Store Without Fuel Sales; ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Part 401 – RA Rural Areas District, §165-401.02. Permitted Uses, §165- 401.03. Conditional Uses; Revision to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance that the Conditional Use Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3668 Minutes of October 16, 2019 in the RA District is that the uses, and scale of the uses, are appropriate for the zoning district in which they are identified. ------------- ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner Oates to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously passed. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________ Kevin W. Kenney, Chairman ____________________________ Michael T. Ruddy, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3669 Minutes of November 6, 2019 MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on November 6, 2019. PRESENT: Kevin Kenney, Chairman; Roger L. Thomas, Vice -Chairman, Opequon, District Robert S. Molden, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; William H. Cline, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District;, Alan L. Morrison, Member at Large; Kathleen Dawson, Red Bud District, Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District, Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District and Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney. ABSENT: J. Rhodes Marston, Back Creek District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District. STAFF PRESENT: Michael T. Ruddy, Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator, M. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner; Kathy Smith, Secretary. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Kenney called the November 6, 2019 meeting of the Frederick County Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Kenney commenced the meeting by inviting everyone to join in a moment of silence. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Cline, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting. ------------ Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3670 Minutes of November 6, 2019 COMMITTEE REPORTS Frederick Water – Mtg. 10/22/19 Commissioner Oates reported the Committee discussed: the audit for the year ending June 30, 2019, which was accepted without any issues; A Resolution authorizing the issuance of revenue bond was approved. The naming of the new ballfields that Frederick Water is constructing on Stephenson Road has been named ‘Stonewall Park” as recommended by the Board of Supervisors. City of Winchester – Mtg. 11/5/19 Winchester City Planning Commissioner Liaison, Commissioner Pifer reported, the approval of a Conditional Use Permit request from Esterly Schneider & Associates to allow a flat roof structure and unbroken wall plane of 24 feet or greater in length at 604 Cedar Creek Grade. Also discussed was a request from Epic Lofts for green space on Piccadilly Street, a text amendment update pertaining to telecommunication facilities including small cell, and the update to the Comprehensive Plan. Board of Supervisors – Mtg. 10/23/19 Board of Supervisors’ Liaison, Supervisor Trout reported Frederick County Public Schools bond sale for $3.2 million for the replacement of Robert E. Aylor Middle School was approved as were several other fund supplemental appropriations that included the approval of funds for 10 new buses for FCPS and maintenance and operations of the Sunnyside Plaza. ------------ CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Kenney called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the Planning Commission’s agenda or any item that is solely a discussion item for the Commission. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public comments portion of the meeting. ------------- PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, ARTICLE II Supplementary Use Regulations; Parking; Buffers; and Regulations for Specific Uses; Part 204 Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, §165-204.18. Storage facilities, self-services; §165-204.24. Tractor truck and tractor trailer parking; §165-204.30 Special event facilities; Part 202 Off-Street Parking, Loading and Access, §165-202.01 Off-street parking; parking lots; Part 203 Buffers and Landscaping, §165-203.01. Landscaping requirements; Part 203 Buffer and Landscaping, §165-203.02 Buffer and screening requirements. Revisions to the Frederick County Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3671 Minutes of November 6, 2019 Zoning Ordinance to improve consistency within certain sections and to clarify or reduce requirements for certain uses. Action – Recommend Approval Mr. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner, presented an overview of the proposed amendment to Chapter 165 – Zoning Ordinance to provide consistency within certain sections and to clarify or reduce requirements for certain uses. The Zoning Ordinance sections amended are storage facilities, self-storage, tractor track, tractor trailer truck parking, special event facilities, off -street parking, parking lots, landscaping requirements buffer and screening requirements. • §165-204.18 Storage facilities, self-storage. The proposed changes prevent the sitting of the above use adjacent to residential uses, while enabling the location of these types of facilities where they are most appropriate (i.e. adjacent to major roadways and/or landscaping and planting inconsistency regarding plant size in this section with other sections of the Zoning Ordinance and modifies requirements for screening of the use. • §165-204.24 Tractor truck and tractor trailer truck parking. The proposed changes prevent the siting of the above use adjacent to residential uses, while enabling the location of these types of facilities where they are most appropriate (i.e. adjacent to major roadways and/or in the vicinity of other business and industrial uses), provides a consistent hard surface standard (gravel parking) that is consistent with the temporary nature of the use and, also provides consistency with this section planting requirements with other sections of the Zoning Ordinance. • §165-204.30 Special event facilities. The proposed changes provide clarity with certain practices in the County, specifically that the Building Official (Department of Building Inspections) is responsible for determining if a building or structure (existing or to-be-constructed) is agriculturally exempt from the Virginia Building Code requirements or requires a building permit review. • §165-202.01 Off-street parking; parking lots. The proposed changes provide consistency with the required width of the driveways serving parking lots in this section with the other sections of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and County Code (Fire Code). • §165-203.01 Landscaping requirements. The proposed changes provide consistency with plant size in this section with other sections of the Zoning Ordinance, further clarifies requirements to prohibit plantings from being located within utility easements and eliminates certain plant species. • §165-203.02 Buffer and Screening requirements. The proposed change modifies what activities are allowed in inactive and active distance buffers, modifies landscape screen planting requirements, amends the requirements for buffers where the land to-be-developed is adjacent to a state road right-of-way with a designated functional Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3672 Minutes of November 6, 2019 classification of interstate, arterial or collector roadway, and amends what zoning districts are allowed to request a reduced buffer distance if certain requirements are met. Mr. Klein concluded, the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) discussed this item at their July 25th, August 22nd, and September 26th regular meetings and generally supported the proposed changes. The Planning Commission discussed this item on October 2nd and the Board of Supervisors discussed this item October 9th. Chairman Kenney called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing to come forward at this time. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the Public Hearing Commissioner Thomas suggested to amend a change in language for Article II Part 204 165-204.24 item A to “shall utilize pavement or gravel surface”. Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney agreed with the change in language. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas to amend a change in the language and seconded by Commissioner Morrison BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of this Ordinance Amendment, with “shall utilize pavement or gravel surfaces” replacing “may utilize a gravel surface” to the Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, ARTICLE II Supplementary Use Regulations; Parking; Buffers; and Regulations for Specific Uses; Part 204 Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, §165-204.18. Storage facilities, self-services; §165-204.24. Tractor truck and tractor trailer parking; §165-204.30 Special event facilities; Part 202 Off- Street Parking, Loading and Access, §165-202.01 Off-street parking; parking lots; Part 203 Buffers and Landscaping, §165-203.01. Landscaping requirements; Part 203 Buffer and Landscaping, §165-203.02 Buffer and screening requirements. (Note: Commissioners Unger and Marston were absent from the meeting.) Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, ARTICLE I General Provisions; Amendments; and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 General Provisions, §165-101.02 Definitions and word usage, ARTICLE II Supplementary Use Regulations; Parking; Buffers; and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204 Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, §165-204.19. Telecommunication facilities, commercial; ARTICLE VI Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 605 OM Office-Manufacturing Park District, §165-605.02 Permitted Uses; Part 609 HE Higher Education District, §165-609.02. Permitted Uses. Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to §165-204.19 to permit commercial telecommunication small cell facilities by-right in certain zoning districts and codify changes from the Code of Virginia governing local regulation of such facilities. Action – Recommend Approval Mr. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner, reported on the proposed amendment to Chapter 165- Zoning Ordinance is to enable smaller commercial telecommunications facilities in certain Zoning Districts by-right: codify changes to the state code, creating a two-track process for approval and enable Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3673 Minutes of November 6, 2019 communication facilities by-right in OM (Office-Manufacturing Park) and HE (Higher Education) Zoning Districts. The changes to telecommunication facilities are wholesale and include new definitions and changes to the additional regulations for specific uses outlined in §165-204.19. Mr. Klein continued with the Zoning Ordinance currently allows commercial telecommunication facilities in most zoning districts only with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The new two-track process of administrative review on eligible projects and standard process projects. The Administrative review-eligible projects are intended to enable smaller telecommunication facilities by-right in order to enable better broadband to serve the underserved areas of the County. Mr. Klein concluded that this item was proposed by the County Attorney, Staff, and discussed by the DRRC at their September 25th regular meeting. The DRRC agreed with the proposed changes. The Planning Commission discussed this item on October 2nd and the Board of Supervisor discussed this item October 9th. Commissioner Oates commented, numerous emails had been received from residents about the Code Amendment with some incorrect information. He reiterated that tonight’s Code Amendment is for commercial structures not private structures. Commissioner Thomas added to be clear, no restrictions are being added to construct a commercial tower in the County with this Amendment. This Code Amendment is for any tower over 50 feet will continue to need a CUP, and those under the 50 feet will be approved administratively by the Zoning Administrator. Commissioner Triplett commented, he is glad it was explained no one is being restricted from having broadband service. Chairman Kenney called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing to come forward at this time. Approximately 20 residents came forward to speak in objection to the proposed amendment. Those in the Back Creek District complained about the quality of their current broadband service and mistakenly believed that existing towers over 50 feet would be taken down and that additional restrictions would be added. Some residents suggested raising the by-right use height from 50 to 100 feet or more to get good broadband service in some areas of the County . Others suggested they would rather see a couple of larger towers instead of the smaller ones. No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Thomas commented a lot of misinformation has been given out about the existing towers, they are not being removed. Commissioner Oates commented, with the towers over 50 feet, they may need a flashing light for aviation purposes which is part of the CUP process. Commissioner Oates concluded, to have the Board of Supervisors review the CUP’s process to include the fee schedules for towers. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Oates Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3674 Minutes of November 6, 2019 BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, ARTICLE I General Provisions; Amendments; and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 General Provisions, §165-101.02 Definitions and word usage, ARTICLE II Supplementary Use Regulations; Parking; Buffers; and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204 Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, §165-204.19. Telecommunication facilities, commercial; ARTICLE VI Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 605 OM Office-Manufacturing Park District, §165-605.02Permitted Uses; Part 609 HE Higher Education District, §165-609.02. Permitted Uses. YES: Kenney, Triplett, Cline, Thomas, Oates, Morrison, Mohn No: Ambrogi, Manuel, Molden, Dawson (Note: Commissioners Unger and Marston were absent from the meeting.) ------------- Cancelation of the regular meeting Chairman Kenney announced that the Board Room will be unavailable due to the IT Department upgrade for the Planning Commission’s November 20, 2019 meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Oates to cancel the November 20, 2019 meeting of the Planning Commission. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously passed. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner Oates to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously passed. The meeting adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________ Kevin W. Kenney, Chairman ____________________________ Michael T. Ruddy, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3675 Minutes of December 4, 2019 MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on December 4, 2019. PRESENT: Kevin Kenney, Chairman; Roger L. Thomas, Vice -Chairman, Opequon District Robert S. Molden, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; William H. Cline, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Alan L. Morrison, Member at Large; Kathleen Dawson, Red Bud District, Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro Di strict, and Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney. ABSENT: J. Rhodes Marston, Back Creek District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek, District; and Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District. STAFF PRESENT: Michael T. Ruddy, Director; Candice E. Perkins, Assistant Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Pam Deeter, Secretary. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Kenney called the December 4, 2019 meeting of the Frederick County Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Kenney commenced the meeting by inviting everyone to join in a moment of silence. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Cline, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting. ------------ Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3676 Minutes of December 4, 2019 COMMITTEE REPORTS Transportation Committee – Mtg. 11/25/19 Commissioner Oates reported the Committee discussed the update of the Capital Improvement Plan and the Road Plan. The Road Plan has a few revisions. The revisions will move forward to the CPPC on December 9, 2019 and then to the Planning Commission in January. There was a discussion of a truck road restriction on Cedar Hill Road. The truck road restriction did not pass. City of Winchester – Mtg. 12/03/19 Winchester City Planning Commissioner Liaison, Commissioner Pifer, reported three Conditional Use Permit requests were discussed during their work session; Short Term Rental, Front Yard Accessory Structure and Winchester Baseball utilizing Blue & Gray commercial space. A discussion was held for the zoning ordinance amendment for small cell antennas. ------------ CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Kenney called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the Planning Commission’s agenda or any item that is solely a discussion item for the Commission. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public comments portion of the meeting. ------------- PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #04-19 for Perry Properties, LLC., submitted by Greenway Engineering, Inc. to rezone 6.18+/- acres from the M1 (Light Industrial) District to the B2 (General Business) District with proffers. The property is located on the north side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 East) and t he west side of Constitution Drive in the Shawnee Magisterial District and is identified by Property Identification Number 64-A-158. Action – Recommend Approval Ms. Candice E. Perkins, Assistant Director, presented an overview of the proposed request to rezone 6.18+/- acres of a 44.979+/- tract of land from the M1 (Light Industrial) District to the B2 (General Business) District with proffers. The property is located on the north side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 East) and the west side of Constitution Drive. A location map was presented by Ms. Perkins. This parcel is within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and is within the Senseny/Eastern Urban Area Plan of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan classifies this property with an industrial land use designation. The proposed request is inconsistent with the current land use. The adjoining property to the south and to the east is zoned commercial. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3677 Minutes of December 4, 2019 Ms. Perkins presented the proffer associated with this rezoning request: • Improve Constitution southbound travel lanes, dedicate ROW and easements • Construction of a full access commercial entrance on Constitution • Right in/right out on Route 50, construct a right turn lane along Millwood • ROW dedication on Route 50 • 10’ asphalt path on Route 50 • Utilize current ITE Trip Generation Manual projections for the identified land use on each Site Plan within the B-2 District portion of the property to determine when the cumulative traffic volume of development projects exceed 3,000 VPD. The Owner proffers to submit traffic studies as a component of all Site Plans within the B-2 District portion of the property when cumulative traffic volumes exceed 3,000 VPD to determine traffic impacts to the Millwood Pike/Constitution Drive intersection or to the portion of Constitution Drive serving the B-2 District portion of the property. • The Owner will be responsible for the construction of improvements to the Millwood Pike/Constitution Drive intersection or to the portion of Constitution Drive serving the B-2 District portion of the property identified in the traffic study for each Site Plan prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy permit for each Site Plan. • Require all Site Plans for parcels within the B-2 District portion of the property that have Millwood Pike frontage to provide landscaping that is in addition to the Zoning Ordinance as shown on the proffered exhibit. Ms. Perkins noted that a monetary contribution in the amount of $0.10 per developed building square foot for the Fire and Rescue service. Commissioner Manuel requested clarification of the letter dated August 14, 2019 from Frederick Water stating the Westview Pump Station would need upgrades. Ms. Perkins replied this would be addressed at the site plan stage. Mr. Evan Wyatt of Greenway Engineering, LLC, representing the Applicant came forward. Mr. Wyatt stressed that the Applicant, VDOT and Greenway Engineering worked to present acceptable proffers to the County. Mr. Wyatt reiterated that the Westview Pump Station will be addressed at the site plan stage. Chairman Kenney called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing to come forward at this time. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the comment portion of the hearing Commissioner Manuel commented he thought this would be the best use of the property and would fit in with the commercial adjoining parcels. Upon a motion made by Commissioner Manuel and seconded by Commissioner Ambrog. BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning #04-19 for Perry Properties, LLC submitted by Greenway Engineering, Inc., to rezone 6.18+/- acres from the M1 (Light Industrial) District to the B2 (General Business) Dis trict with proffers. The property is located on the north side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 East) and the west side of Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3678 Minutes of December 4, 2019 Constitution Drive in the Shawnee Magisterial District and is identified by Property Identification Number 64-A-158. ------------- ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner Oates to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously passed. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________ Kevin W. Kenney, Chairman ____________________________ Michael T. Ruddy, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3679 Minutes of December 18, 2019 MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on December 18, 2019 PRESENT: Kevin Kenney, Chairman; Robert S. Molden, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; William H. Cline, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; J. Rhodes Marston, Back Creek District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Alan L. Morrison, Member at Large; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Kathleen Dawson, Red Bud District; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney. ABSENT: Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District, Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District. STAFF PRESENT: Michael T. Ruddy, Director; John A. Bishop, Assistant Director Transportation; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; M. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner; Kathy Smith, Secretary. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Kenney called the December 18, 2019 meeting of the Frederick County Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Kenney commenced the meeting by inviting everyone to join in a moment of silence. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Cline, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting. ------------- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3680 Minutes of December 18, 2019 COMMITTEE REPORTS Frederick Water - Mtg. 12/17/19 Commissioner Oates reported the Committee discussed the updates to the Opequon Water Supply Plan Site Plan for a water treatment plant that is tentatively scheduled to be ready for bid by the end of January 2020 or the first of February 2020 with an award to construct in March 2020. Also discussed was the Resolution amending and restating a prior Resolution authorization of the issuance of a Revenue Bond to cover the cost of construction for the Opequon Water Supply Plan to be paid off in 10 years. Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC) – Mtg. 12/9/19 Commissioner Mohn reported the Committee discussed the 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) with a favorable outcome. The CIP will to be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors at the first of the year. City of Winchester – Mtg. 12/17/19 Winchester City Planning Commissioner Liaison, Commissioner Pifer, reported the following Public Hearings were discussed for Conditional Use Permits (CUP). The first was a request to allow short-term rental at 346 Virginia Ave., that CUP was denied. The other CUP’s discussed were for a dumper pad on Bellview Ave., that was also denied and Winchester Bambino League (D/B/A Winchester Baseball) for a private club at 2640 Valley Ave that was approved. The Ordinance to amend the recent State and Federal legislation establishing new provisions to streamline the review and permitting process for telecommunication facilities was discussed. Also discussed, was the Comprehensive Plan -Chapter 7- Housing. ------------- CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Kenney called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the Planning Commission’s agenda or any item that is solely a discussion item for the Commission. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public comments portion of the meeting. ------------- PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #05-19 for Martinsburg Pike, LLC., submitted by Painter-Lewis, P.L.C. to rezone 1.724+/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2 (General Business) District with proffers. The properties are located at 2674 and 2682 Martinsburg Pike approximately 1,000 feet south of Stephenson Road in the Stonewall Magisterial District and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 44-A-58, 44-A-59 and 44-A-60. Action – Recommend Approval Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3681 Minutes of December 18, 2019 Commissioner Manuel would abstain from all discussion on this item. John A. Bishop, Assistant Director Transportation, reported this application is to rezone 1.724+/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2 (General Business) District with proffers. The site contains three properties; one contains a nonconforming structure that was once operated as a store but has been closed, one parcel is vacant, and one parcel contains a single-family dwelling. The subject properties are located at 2674 and 2682 Martinsburg Pike. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan identifies these with a mixed use industrial/office land use. The owner intends to operate a restaurant in the existing commercial structure. Mr. Bishop continued that with this request, the Applicant has proffered the following: • The existing interior lot lines will be vacated, and the three parcels will be consolidated into one lot. • The driveway connection from the existing residential use to Route 11 will be eliminated. • The owner will provide 6.5’ of right of way dedication for future road improvements along Route 11. • The owner will reserve 12’ of right of way for future road improvements. Ownership of this reservation area will be ceded to Frederick County upon demand to accommodate future road improvements along Route 11. • The owners of this property will donate or will cause to be donated to Frederick County the sum of $310.40 ($0.10 per square foot of commercial space) for impacts to fire and rescue services. Mr. Bishop concluded, the Applicant Mr. Donato Lanzetta and Mr. John Lewis were present for any questions the Commission may have. Commissioner Morrison asked Mr. Bishop if the right-of-way in the proffers is enough per VDOT for any expansions. Mr. Bishop explained that it is enough per the discussions with VDOT. Commissioner Morrison asked if a turn lane would ever be needed. Mr. Bishop replied it would not for this use. Mr. John Lewis of Painter-Lewis, P.L.C, representing the applicant came forward to add this is for a sixteen (16) seat restaurant. It is anticipated that most of the orders will be take -out with the surrounding developments. Mr. Lewis concluded that it is a great reuse of the property. Chairman Kenney commented that the proffer amount of $0.10 per square foot is very low for the revenue that this property will generate. Chairman Kenney called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing to come forward at this time. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Upon motion made by Commissioner Cline and seconded by Commissioner Oates BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the Rezoning #05-19 for Martinsburg Pike, LLC. The property is located at 2674 and 2682 Martinsburg Pike approximately 1,000 feet south of Stephenson Road in the Stonewall Magisterial District and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 44-A-58, 44-A-59 and 44-A-60. (Note: Commissioners Unger and Thomas were absent from the meeting) Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3682 Minutes of December 18, 2019 Rezoning #07-19 for Gentle Harvest LC., submitted by Thomas Lawson, P.C. to rezone 1.204 acres from the B2 (General Business) District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District with proffers. The property is located at 120 Front Royal Pike in the Shawnee Magisterial District and is identified by Property Identification Number 64-A-1C. Action – Recommend Approval Commissioner Manuel would abstain from all discussion on this item. M. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner gave an overview of this application to rezone 1.204+/- acres from the B2 (General Business) District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District with proffers. The site was previously utilized for a restaurant which is now closed and the intended user for this site is Discount Tire. The property is located at 120 Front Royal Pike. Mr. Klein continued that the site is located within the limits of the Senseny/Eastern Urban Area Plan of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and identifies this property with commercial land use designation. In general, the existing B2 zoning and proposed B3 zoning are consistent with the current land use supported by the Comprehensive Plan, however, the Plan states that this area should be designed specifically to accommodate and promote commercial land use. Tyler concluded with this request the Applicant has proffered the following: Land Use Restrictions (The following are prohibited): • Landscape and Horticultural Services (SIC 078) • Local and Suburban Transit Services (SIC 41) • Motor Freight Transportation & Warehousing (SIC 42) • Transportation by Air (SIC 45) • Utility Facilities and their Accessory Uses (SIC 49) • Drive-In Motion Picture Theaters (SIC 7833) • Tractor Truck & Tractor Truck Trailer Parking (No SIC) When used in these proffers, the “Preliminary Landscape Plan”, shall refer to the plan entitled “Preliminary Landscape Plan” dated September 24, 2019. The Preliminary Landscape Plan shall be incorporated by reference herein as “Exhibit 1”. The Owner proffers that its development of the Property will be in substantial conformity with the Preliminary Landscape Plan. The Owner hereby proffers to provide a monetary contribution of $0.10 per developed building square foot for County Fire and Rescue Services. Mr. Klein turned the meeting over to Mr. Ty Lawson who is representing Discount Tire. Mr. Lawson said no mechanical work will be performed at the site or nor will any hazard waste such as oil or antifreeze be handled at the site. The customer transactions will be completed in 30 to 45 minutes per vehicle with no unattended or overnight vehicles. The hours of operation are proposed as Monday – Friday 8a.m. to 6p.m, Saturday 8a.m. to 5p.m. and closed on Sunday. Also, Civil Engineers of the Kimley-Horn Planning and Design Consultants presented an overview of the proposed new building design with landscaping. The bays will be facing Front Royal Pike. The building is set back about 150 ft. from the road. They concluded that the new building will be set back further than the existing building. Chairman Kenney called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing to come forward at this time. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3683 Minutes of December 18, 2019 Mr. Steve Parrish, Senior Vice President for the Aikens Group commented against the rezoning to the Industrial Transition District on behalf of the surrounding owners’ properties. Mr. Parrish continued that the zoning allows various uses that could be harmful to their property values. Ms. Becky Morrison came forward and shared her concerns about the used tire recycling procedures. The Kimley-Horn representatives said that Discount Tire has a vendor that will be picking- up the used tires to be recycled and no tires will be stored outside. The proposed building will have an area for storage of the used tires until they are picked up for recycling. No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Ambrogi commented, on the length of time that the building has been vacant. Mr. Klein responded that it has been a few years. Commissioner Ambrogi asked about how traffic will access the property. Mr. Lawson said the access is a paved road that was dedicated to the County back in the 80’s with less trips than the previous owner because of the different use. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ambrogi and seconded by Commissioner Oates BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning# 07-19 for Gentle Harvest, LC, submitted by Thomas Lawson, P.C. to rezone 1.204 acres from the B2 (General Business) District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District with proffers. The property is located at 120 Front Royal Pike in the Shawnee Magisterial District and is identified by Property Identification Number 64-A-1C. YES: Marston, Oates, Ambrogi, Triplett, Cline, Kenney NO: Morrison, Molden, Dawson, Mohn Absent: Thomas, Unger Abstain: Manuel ACTION ITEM Rezoning #03-19 for Berlin Steel and Dennis Ridings, submitted by Painter-Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone 15.3933+/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with Proffers. The properties are on the eastern side of Ridings Lane, which intersects with Route 277 in the Opequon Magisterial District and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 86 -A-179C and 87-A-12. Action – Recommend Approval Michael T. Ruddy, Director presented an overview of this application to rezone 15.3933+/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. The subject properties are located on the eastern side of Ridings Lane which intersects with Route 277. Mr. Ruddy continued with a site map of the property. The site is located within the limits of the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and depicts the subject properties with an industrial land use designation. The proposed M1 Zoning is generally consistent with the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan as it relates to this area. These properties are not located within the limits of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Comprehensive Plan states that it is expected that the land uses within the UDA and SWSA will be served by public water and sewer. However, as this site is contiguous to existing M1 Zoning and is intended to facilitate an expansion to an existing business Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3684 Minutes of December 18, 2019 (Berlin Steel), this request to rezone the property outside of the SWSA may be appropriate. Mr. Ruddy addressed concerns that the Southern Frederick Area Plan shows a new minor collector roadway planned through this site. This is a planned roadway and not designed at this time and the location may be subject to future modifications. VDOT has stated that the turn lane analysis submitted indicated the need for a turn lane in the future. This is something that has been addressed in the Rezoning. With this request by the Planning Commission, the Applicant has proffered the following: • The land and any improvements thereto will be expressly used for a metal fabrication business as permitted under the M1 Zoning. • Prior to approval of the next site plan for any facility or structure on these subject lands, the owner will conduct a traffic count on Route 277 to determine the need for any turn lanes from Route 277 into the site via Ridings Lane. The method used to conduct the traffic count and design of any resultant improvement to Route 277 will be subject to VDOT approval. • As shown on the Generalized Development Plan, a 100’ wide strip of land will be reserved on the subject lands for future road network improvements. No permanent buildings will be erected within this area. • Monetary Contribution – The owners will donate $1,000 for impacts to fire and rescue services. Commissioner Oates commented on the improvements on Route 277 by the Applicant can at no time block or take away from any neighboring property owner. Mr. Ruddy said that is correct, if VDOT warranted the improvements the Applicant would need to get an endorsement from the property owners. Commissioner Morrison commented about the improvements to Route 277 with a traffic study, if it is not needed today but, in the future, when business traffic picks up who would be responsible to cover the cost. Mr. Ruddy said any expansion of the business the Applicant would need to complete a Site Plan application and be responsible for the cost of those improvements. Mr. John Lewis, of Painter-Lewis representing the Applicant gave an overview since the October 16, 2019 meeting the item was tabled for 60 days to allow the Applicant additional time to address the transportation concerns. The Applicant has added a Proffer that will be committed to constructing a turn lane if needed. Also, provisions to a reservation area that will still allow a road to be constructed that is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant will donate $1,000.00 to the Fire & Rescue Department. Upon motion made by Commissioner Molden and seconded by Commissioner Mohn BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning# 03-19 for Berlin Steel Real Estate Inc., submitted by Painter-Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone 15.3933+/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. The properties are on the eastern side of Ridings Lane, which intersects with Route 277 in Opequon Magisterial District and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 86-A-179C and 87- A-12. Note: Commissioners Unger and Thomas were absent from the meeting) Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3685 Minutes of December 18, 2019 Rezoning #06-19 Winchester Medical Center, Inc., submitted by Valley Engineering, PLC to revise the proffered Generalized Development Plan approved with Rezoning #02-03 for 37.5424+/- acres zoned B2 (General Business) District and 51.8675+/- acres zoned MS (Medical Support) District to the MS (Medical Support) District. The property is on the northern side of Route 50 West and west of Route 37 and is identified by Property Identification Number 53-A-68. Action – Recommend Approval Commissioner Manuel would abstain from all discussion on this item. Mr. Ruddy, Director presented this proposed minor proffer amendment for minor text revisions and revisions to approved Generalized Development Plan (GDP) associated with Rezoning #02 - 03. This application rezoned parcel 53-A-68 to the B2 (General Business) and MS (Medical Support) Districts with proffers. The site consists of 37.542+/- acres zoned B2 (General Business) District and 51.8675+/- acres zoned MS (Medical Support) District. The subject property is on the northern side of Route 50 west and west of Route 37. Mr. Ruddy redirected the attention to the rezoning map of the property. He explained, the approved GDP labeled individual land bays with specific use; the Applicant is proposing to remove Proffer 3 from the landscape design features which required a l andscaped roundabout. This feature was removed, and the internal road system has already been constructed therefore this proffer is unnecessary. The Applicant has added a reference to the right -of way and limited access control changes for Route 37 and Campus Boulevard Interchange which was shown on the maps. Mr. Ruddy concluded, the impacts associated with the change of use are very limited, with no additional impacts to Frederick County or the surrounding property owners. Commissioner Morrison asked if at any time would the north end circle connector be opened to traffic. Mr. Ruddy said the Commonwealth Transportation Board granted limited use and access and has not changed at this time. Daniel Michael, Valley Engineering, PLC representative for the Applicant came forward to reiterate that nothing is changing other than Proffers mentioned previously. The Applicant must maintain the 14,000 trips per day and have a system to maintain that is a requirement. He noted a traffic study needs to be done before any Site Plans are submitted. Commissioner Morrison asked if any improvements will be done with the traffic issues on Route 50. Mr. Michael commented that the traffic improvements to Route 50 have been completed as with the 2003 Rezoning requirements. Mr. Michael commented that a gate will be installed at the roundabout to limit the trips. Upon motion made by Commissioner Triplett and seconded by Commissioner Oates BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning #06-19 Winchester Medical Center, Inc., submitted by Valley Engineering, PLC to revise the proffered Generalized Development Plan approved with Rezoning #02-03 for 37.5424+/- acres zoned B2 (General Business) District and 51.8675+/- acres zoned MS (Medical Support) District to the MS (Medical Support) District. The property is on the northern side of Route 50 West and west of Route 37 and is identified by Property Identification Number 53-A-68. Note: Commissioners Unger and Thomas were absent from the meeting) ------------- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3686 Minutes of December 18, 2019 PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, ARTICLE I General Provisions; Amendments; and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 General Provisions, §165-101.02 Definitions and word usage; ARTICLE II Supplementary Use Regulations; Parking; Buffers; and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204 Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, §165-204.26 Public Utilities; ARTICLE IV Agricultural and Residential Districts Part 401 RA Rural Areas District, §165-401.02 Permitted Uses; §165-401.03 Conditional Uses; Part 402 RP Residential Performance District, §165-402.02 Permitted Uses; Part 403 MH1 Mobile Home Community District, §165- 403.02 Permitted Uses; ARTICLE V Planned Development Districts, Part 502 R5 Residential Recreational Community District, §165-502.04 Permitted Uses; ARTICLE VI Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 602 B1 Neighborhood Business District §165-602.02 Allowed Uses; Part 603 B2 General Business District, §165-603.02 Allowed Uses; Part 604 B3 Industrial Transition District, §165-604.02 Allowed Uses; Part 606 M1 Light Industrial District, §165-606.02 Allowed Uses; Part 608 EM Extractive Manufacturing District, §165-608.02 Permitted Uses; Part 609 HE Higher Education District, §165-609.02 Permitted Uses. Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning to include a definition for Public Utilities that includes utility-scale solar power generating facilities and amendments to the supplemental use regulation for public utilities. Action – Recommend Denial M. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner gave an overview of the Ordinance Amendment and noted the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing and discussed the item on October 16, 2019. It was forwarded to Board of Supervisors with approval and at the November 13, 2019 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing on this item it was requested that the “utility-scale solar power generating facilities” be revised to a conditional use in the RA Zoning District. This is a proposed amendment to Chapter 165 – Zoning Ordinance to: • Add definitions for “Public Utilities” (including utility-scale solar power energy generating facilities), “utility-scale solar power generating facilities,” & “decommissioning” • Add additional regulations for specific uses that requires utility-scale solar generating energy facilities to make arrangements, including financial security, for decommissioning consistent with/as required by the Code of Virginia, and site plan review/approval only for utility-scale solar power generating facilities • Require “utility-scale solar power generating facilities” as a conditional use in the RA Zoning District. Mr. Klein continued, the intent of this text amendment is to codify “utility-scale solar power generating facilities’ as an allowed use with a CUP and to codify recent changes to the Code of Virginia to include the decommissioning of solar energy facilities. He noted, the text amendment cleans up terminology for “public utilities” throughout the Zoning Ordinance. The text amendment does not amend requirements for other types of public utilities, including those facilities owned/operated by Frederick Water. Mr. Klein concluded, the DRRC discussed this item at their June 27th, July 25th, and August 22nd regular meetings; the DRRC supported the proposed changes. This item was discussed by the Planning Commission on September 4th and the Board of Supervisors on September 25th; the Board of Supervisors requested additional definitions. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on October 16th and recommended approval and the Board of Supervisors, after holding a Public Hearing on November 13th, requested “utility-scale solar power generating facilities” be revised to a conditional use in the RA Zoning District. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3687 Minutes of December 18, 2019 Chairman Kenney called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing to come forward at this time. No one came forward to speak an d Chairman Kenney closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Oates recommended denial on the requested change, noting the Board of Supervisors have requested to limit the Conditional Use Permits in the RA Zoning District and this item is not a nuisance and should be a by right use as agreed upon by the Planning Commission at the October 16th meeting. Commissioner Mohn has a concern of the impact these panels could have on neighboring properties and understands why a CUP would be beneficial. Commissioner Morrison has a concern of the scope of the Solar Panels and feels a review of a CUP would be helpful. Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Triplett to deny moving forward with the “utility -scale power generating facilities” as a Conditional Use in the RA Zoning District BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend Denial of the Ordinance Amendment “utility -scale power generating facilities” as a Conditional Use in the RA Zoning District. YES: Marston, Oates, Ambrogi, Manuel, Triplett, Molden, Cline, Dawson, Kenney NO: Morrison, Mohn Absent: Thomas, Unger Abstain: Manuel ------------- Cancelation of the regular meeting Chairman Kenney announced the January 1, 2020 meeting will be canceled. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner Oates to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously passed. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________ Kevin W. Kenney, Chairman ____________________________ Michael T. Ruddy, Secretary B CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #01-20 J K Lee Services Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: March 5, 2020 Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 03/18/20 Pending Board of Supervisors: 04/08/20 Pending EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the expansion of the existing assisted living structure. CUP #22-04 was approved in 2004 which allowed for 34 beds. Should the Planning Commission find this application to be appropriate, Staff recommends that the following conditions be attached to the CUP: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. Applicant must comply with all requirements of the State and County codes pertaining to adult care facilities at all times. 3. Any expansion or modification of this use shall require approval of a new site plan and a Conditional Use Permit. The expansion would bring the total number of beds to 40. Following this public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors. Page 2 CUP #01-20, J K Lee Services March 5, 2020 LOCATION: The subject property is located at 549 Valley Mill Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 55-A-56 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Assisted Living Care Facility ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential South: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential East: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential PROPOSED USE: The Applicant proposes expansion of an assisted living care facility. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The entrances are adequate for the proposed expansion. Frederick County Fire Marshal: Approved. Winchester-Frederick County Health Department: The subject property is served by municipal water and sewer. No objections to the proposed addition. Frederick Water: No comments at this time. Frederick County Inspections Department: Building shall comply with The 2015 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 308 – I-Institutional Use Group. Other Code that applies is 2015 Virginia Existing Building, ICC/ANSI A117.1-09 Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities, 2015 Virginia Energy Code, 2015 Virginia Mechanical Code, 2015 Virginia Plumbing Code, and 2015 Virginia Fire Code. Plans submitted for permits shall be sealed by a Virginia Licensed Design Professional. Existing I-1 & I-2 Institutional Use Group. Additional area cannot create noncompliance as it relates to new construction in the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Existing buildin gs height and area shall comply with T506 with allowable increases for proposed use. Institutional Page 3 CUP #01-20, J K Lee Services March 5, 2020 Use Group require a full NFPA 13 Suppression system. Sleeping rooms and restrooms shall meet ANSI A117.1-2009 for type of sleeping room. An accessible route shall be provided to the main entrance. Van accessible parking and unloading provided. Max slope for parking and unloading area is 2%. Maximum slope for walkway to main entrance is 5%. Maximum threshold at door is ½. Van accessible signage shall be provided per USBC Section 1106.8. All required exists shall be accessible. Exterior exit doors shall lead directly to the exit discharge or the public way. Winchester Regional Airport: None City of Winchester: No comments. Planning and Zoning: This application is for an expansion of an existing adult care facility. An adult care facility is an allowed use in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP). This facility was first approved under CUP #02-96 for a 26-bed facility. This facility was constructed in 1996, utilizing a Community Development Block Grant. Subsequently, this facility is operating under and subject to the conditions of CUP #22-04. This CUP allowed for a 5600 square foot addition to the facility. This addition included a new physical therapy room and eight (8) additional resident rooms to the facility, for a total of thirty- four (34) beds. The conditions associated with CUP #22-04 are below: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. A site plan must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of any building permits. 3. Applicant must comply with all requirements of the state and county codes pertaining to adult care facilities at all times. 4. Any expansion or modification of this use shall require approval of a new site plan and a Conditional Use Permit. All of the conditions of the CUP #22-04 have been met. This CUP 01-20 will add six (6) additional resident rooms, enabling the facility to expand to a total of forty (40) beds. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 03/18/20 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the expansion of the existing assisted living structure. CUP #22-04 was approved in 2004 which allowed for 34 beds. Should the Page 4 CUP #01-20, J K Lee Services March 5, 2020 Planning Commission find this application to be appropriate, Staff recommends that the following conditions be attached to the CUP: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. Applicant must comply with all requirements of the State and County codes pertaining to adult care facilities at all times. 3. Any expansion or modification of this use shall require approval of a new site plan and a Conditional Use Permit. The expansion would bring the total number of beds to 40. Following this public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors. 55 A 56 55 A 56 107VANBUREN PL 116WOODYS PL 114WOODYS PL 113WOODYS PL 109WOODYS PL 107WOODYS PL 112WOODYS PL 110WOODYS PL138PEBBLEBROOK LN 136PEBBLEBROOK LN 140PEBBLEBROOK LN 108WOODYS PL 106WOODYS PL 104WOODYS PL 102WOODYS PL 139PEBBLEBROOK LN 100WOODYS PL 100VANBUREN CT 137PEBBLEBROOK LN 104VANBUREN CT 105VANBUREN CT 543VALLEYMILL RD 107HILLVALLEY DR 105HILLVALLEY DR 103HILLVALLEY DR VALLEY MILL RD WO O D Y S P L Application Parcels Sewer and Water Service Area RP (Residential Performance District)µ Frederick County Planning & Development107 N Kent StWinchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: February 24, 2020 VALLEY MILL R D GR E E N W O O D R D AS B U R Y R D JENI C T ELAI N E D R HILL V A L L E Y D R E M I L Y L N PEBBLE BRO O K L N WO O D Y S P L HU N T E R R U N R D WI N D C R E S T C I R EVE R E T T E P L T U C K S C I R WILL I A M S O N R D 0 120 24060 Feet CUP # 01 - 20: J K Lee ServicesPIN: 55 - A - 56Assisted Living FacilityZoning Map CUP #01-20 55 A 56 55 A 56 107VANBUREN PL 116WOODYS PL 114WOODYS PL 113WOODYS PL 109WOODYS PL 107WOODYS PL 112WOODYS PL 110WOODYS PL138PEBBLEBROOK LN 136PEBBLEBROOK LN 140PEBBLEBROOK LN 108WOODYS PL 106WOODYS PL 104WOODYS PL 102WOODYS PL 139PEBBLEBROOK LN 100WOODYS PL 100VANBUREN CT 137PEBBLEBROOK LN 104VANBUREN CT 105VANBUREN CT 543VALLEYMILL RD 107HILLVALLEY DR 105HILLVALLEY DR 103HILLVALLEY DR VALLEY MILL RD WO O D Y S P L Application Parcels Sewer and Water Service Area µ Frederick County Planning & Development107 N Kent StWinchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: February 24, 2020 VALLEY MILL R D GR E E N W O O D R D AS B U R Y R D JENI C T ELAI N E D R HILL V A L L E Y D R E M I L Y L N PEBBLE BRO O K L N WO O D Y S P L HU N T E R R U N R D WI N D C R E S T C I R EVE R E T T E P L T U C K S C I R WILL I A M S O N R D 0 120 24060 Feet CUP # 01 - 20: J K Lee ServicesPIN: 55 - A - 56Assisted Living FacilityLocation Map CUP #01-20 S u b m i t t a l D e a d l i n e P / C M e e t m g B O S M e e t i n g A P P L I C A T I O N F O R C O N D I T I O N A L U S E P E R M I T F R E D E R I C K C O U N T Y , V I R G I N I A 1 . A p p l i c a n t ( c h e c k o n e ) : P r o p e r t y O w n e r - - - - J R 1 - O t h e r 0 N A M E : ' : J \ ( _ _ " ' - - e e s ~ r \ J ) ( _ ~ " : ; . A D D R E S S : = H < : i \ j . , , l \ ~ 1 { \ \ , \ \ R J T E L E P H O N E : ' 1 c : , ? : ; ) 7 ~ a - - l . \ l o I \ . o 2 . P l e a s e l i s t a l l o w n e r s , o c c u p a n t s , o r p a r t i e s i n i n t e r e s t o f t h e p r o p e r t y : c _ - - · J P 1 \ . I · , < : . . . . - - e . ' $ \ : - 1 . / • & > / v • . · · , 1 _ , _ . . . , f • , < - > ' ' - ' - " " - 4 l ~ l - X v J . : , 3 . T h e p r o p e r t y i s l o c a t e d a t : ( p l e a s e g i v e e x a c t d i r e c t i o n s a n d i n c l u d e t h e r o u t e n u m b e r o f y o u r r o a d o r s t r e e t ) 4 . T h e p r o p e r t y h a s a r o a d f r o n t a g e o f b 4 ' ° ' 0 f e e t a n d a d e p t h o f · : : s o ~ f e e t a n d c o n s i s t s o f : . 3 , , a / 2 . . a c r e s . ( P l e a s e b e e x a c t ) 5 . T h e p r o p e r t y i s o w n e d b y _ J - \ ( _ l e - e _ 5 - e f " u ~ 0 e 5 a s 6 . e v i d e n c e d b y d e e d f r o m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( p r e v i o u s o w n e r ) r e c o r d e d i n d e e d b o o k n o . 8 n 2 - o n p a g e \ ~ C j , a s r e c o r d e d i n t h e r e c o r d s o f t h e C l e r k o f t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t , C o u n t y o f F r e d e r i c k . s s - { = \ - - ' $ { p P r o p ~ r t y _ I d e n ~ i f i ~ a t i o n i ' h e r ( P 1 . . _ N . ) M a g 1 s t e n a l ~ 1 s t n c t ~ d b 0 d C u r r e n t Z o n m g _ _ _ - > - L - - ' - r ' . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5 7 . A d j o i n i n g P r o p e r t y : N o r t h E a s t S o u t h W e s t U S E a - Y " f a { . p • • - - - - : . 1 5 : ; - · > - j - . - - Z O N ~ 1 ~ - ~ f { : f 8 . T h e t y p e o f u s e _ p ~ p o ~ e d i s ( c o n s u l t w _ i t h t - ~ e P l a n n i n g D e p t . b e f o r e c o m p l e t i n g ) : L \ - : , 5 - S \ . - , . ! k , v \ ) : - < ' - - - \ 9 . I t i s p r o p o s e d t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g b u i l d i n g s w i l l b e c o n s t r u c t e d : 1 0 . T h e f o l l o w i n g a r e a l l o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l s , f i r m s , o r c o r p o r a t i o n s o w n i n g p r o p e r t y a d j a c e n t t o b o t h s i d e s a n d r e a r a n d i n f r o n t o f ( a c r o s s s t r e e t f r o m ) t h e p r o p e r t y w h e r e t h e r e q u e s t e d u s e w i l l b e c o n d u c t e d . ( C o n t i n u e o n b a c k i f n e c e s s a r y . ) T h e s e p e o p l e w i l l b e n o t i f i e d b y m a i l o f t h i s a I i c a t i o n : N a m e a n d P r o p e r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n N u m b e r A d d r e s s N a m e P r o p e r t y # N a m e S P r o p e r t y # N a m e 6 N a m e a n d P r o p e r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n N u m b e r N a m e N a m e P r o p e r t y # , N a m e P r o p e r t y # N a m e P r o p e r t y # N a m e P r o p e r t y # N a m e P r o p e r t y # N a m e P r o p e r t y # N a m e P r o p e r t y # N a m e P r o p e r t y # 7 A d d r e s s . ( . ) l t v 1 C - q · t . / > i - · : ) . ) . , € , 0 , . J J r o { ) < J ( r f ~ l ' } v r C M ~ f ' t / , e ' / I , . { ) M - ~ < l , c , 1 1 . P l e a s e u s e t h i s p a g e f o r y o u r s k e t c h o f t h e p r o p e r t y . S h o w p r o p o s e d a n d / o r e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s o n t h e p r o p e r t y , i n c l u d i n g m e a s u r e m e n t s t o a l l p r o p e r t y l i n e s . 8 - , v - - - - 1 · - , ' I B i i i r n ~ I ~ ~ L , , , - - ! m / . . • . - . D , . / ' 1 2 . A d d i t i o n a l c o m m e n t s , i f a n y : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I ( w e ) , t h e u n d e r s i g n e d , d o h e r e b y r e s p e c t f u l l y m a k e a p p l i c a t i o n a n d p e t i t i o n t h e g o v e r n i n g b o d y o f F r e d e r i c k C o u n t y , V i r g i n i a t o a l l o w t h e u s e d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n . I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e s i g n i s s u e d t o m e w h e n t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n i s s u b m i t t e d m u s t b e p l a c e d a t t h e f r o n t p r o p e r t y l i n e a t l e a s t s e v e n ( 7 ) d a y s p r i o r t o t h e f i r s t p u b l i c h e a r i n g a n d m a i n t a i n e d s o a s t o b e v i s i b l e u n t i l a f t e r t h e B o a r d o f S u p e r v i s o r s ' p u b l i c h e a r i n g . Y o u r a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a C o n d i t i o n a l U s e P e r m i t a u t h o r i z e s a n y m e m b e r o f t h e F r e d e r i c k C o u n t y P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n , B o a r d o f S u p e r v i s o r s o r P l a n n i n g a n d D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t t o i n s p e c t y o u r p r o p e r t y w h e r e t h e p r o p o s e d u s e w i l l b e c o n d u c t e d . S i g n a t u r e o f A p p l i c a n t - , - - S i g n a t u r e o f O w n e r · ~ ~ O w n e r s ' M a i l i n g A d d r e s - s - - . \ \ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ 5 _ c ( _ £ ' . i _ l j _ - e _ ( . 6 - 1 l . A _ l _ , l - l - ~ - - \ J - l , ~ - ~ • · - ~ V 1 ' \ J l ' 1 - G ( \ _ 3 . ) _ - - ' - - { ~ , ~ ~ z _ ( o ~ O w n e r s ' T e l e p h o n e N o . T O B E C O M P L E T E D B Y T H E Z O N I N G A D M I N I S T R A T O R : U S E C O D E : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R E N E W A L D A T E : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 S p e c i a l L i m i t e d P o w e r o f A t t o r n e y C o u n t y o f F r e d e r i c k , V i r g i n i a F r e d e r i c k P l a n n i n g W e b s i t e : w w w . f c v a . u s D e p a r t m e n t o f P l a n n i n g & D e v e l o p m e n t , C o u n t y o f F r e d e r i c k , V i r g i n i a 1 0 7 N o r t h K e n t S t r e e t , W i n c h e s t e r , V i r g i n i a 2 2 6 0 1 P h o n e ( 5 4 0 ) 6 6 5 - 5 6 5 1 F a c s i m i l e ( 5 4 0 ) 6 6 5 - 6 3 9 5 K n o w A l l M e n B y T h e s e P r e s e n t s T h a t : ~ L L u _ . S e o 1 , - u c ; l . k r r ~ / t : ~ - - N a m e o f r n p e r t y O w n e r / A p p l i c a n t I P l e a s e n o t e : I f t h e p r o p e r t y o w n e r / a p p l i c a n t i s a n e n t i t y , t h e n a m e o f t h e e n t i t y s h o u l d a p p e a r a b o v e . r I L I f r 1 7 - u l t i p l e , p t ; r ~ o n s o . t h e p r 9 1 1 e r t y o r a . r e a p p } i c r u ~ t s a n e x e c u \ e . 9 ~ o w e r o f a t t o r n e y f i · o m e a c h o w n e r w i l l b e n e e d e d . - : > ' 1 f l / l i i / V l . 1 / I · ( ) A L I , I A J 0 1 t ~ l · / I # - 2 - ~ 0 2 . - ~ 9 . : ; ; ; , ' 1 ? ; > ~ - ~ ~ l ~ M a i l i n g A d d r e s s o f r o p e r t y O w n e r / A p i c a n t T e l e p h o n e N u m b e r a s o w n e r o f , o r a p p l i c a n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o , t h e t r a c t ( s ) o r p a r c e l ( s ) o f l a n d i n F r e d e r i c k C o u n t y , V i r g i n i a , i d e n t i f i e d b y f o l l o w i n g p r o p e r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n n u m b e r s : ; - - - · - - d o h e r e b y m a k e , c o n s t i t u t e , a n d a p p o i n t : N a m e o f A t t o r n e y - I n - F a c t M a i l i n g A d d r e s s o f A t t o r n e y - I n - F a c t T e l e p h o n e N u m b e r < . ' c ( , : , o ' ~ t o a c t a s m y t r u e a n d l a w f u l a t t o r n e y - i n - f a c t f o r a n d i n m y n a m e , p l a c e , a n d s t e a d , w i t h t h e s a m e f u l l p o w e r a n d a u t h o r i t y I w o u l d h a v e i f a c t i n g p e r s o n a l l y , t o m e a n d a c t o n m y b e h a l f w i t h r e s p e c t t o a p p l i i f · i · o n w i t h F r e d e r i c k C o u n t y , V i r g i n i a f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g , f o r t h e a b o v e i d e n t i f i e d p r o p e r t y : , . . R e z o n i n g D S u b d i v i s i o n C o n d i t i o n a l U s e P e r m i t D S i t e P l a n M a s t e r D e v e l o p m e n t P l a n ( p r e l i m . o r f i n a l ) D V a r i a n c e o r Z o n i n g A p p e a l a n d , f u r t h e r , m y a t t o r n e y - i n - f a c t s h a l l h a v e t h e a u t h o r i t y t o o f f e r p r o f f e r e d c o n d i t i o n s a n d t o m a k e a m e n d m e n t s t o p r e v i o u s l y a p p r o v e d p r o f f e r e d c o n d i t i o n s e x c e p t a s f o l l o w s : T h i s a p p o i n t m e n t s h a l l e x p i r e o n e y e a r f r o m t h e d a y t h a t i t i s s i g n e d , o r a t s u c h s o o n e r t i m e a s I o t h e r w i s e r e s c i n d o r d i f y i t . / / 7 . S i g n a t u r e - - - ~ , L / / L ~ ! - 1 - , , , " - - - ' C . ~ _ _ : _ - - = - - - - - - : : _ _ . _ , . _ - + = c ~ - - . . - - T i t l e ( i f s i g n i n g o n S t a t e o f v · , r g , o · , C L , 8 i t y o f [ v e c l < . : x ' 1 C L , T o w i t : I , K r J h l L J . O 0 - S t n i J - ) , , a N o t a r y P u b l i c i n a n d f o r t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a f o r e s a i d , c e r t i f y t h a t t h e p e r s o n ~ o s i g n e d t h e f o r e g o i n g i n s t r u m e n t p e r s o n a l l y a p p e a r e d b e f o r e m e a n d h a s a c k n o w l e d g e d t h e s a m b e f o r e m e i n · · s d i c t i o n a f o r e s a i d t h i s J o - ' 4 1 d a y o f f e b r t 1 a . r y , 2 0 . ; ; ( ) •~F'R I I I I '\. \ I I \ \ JOSE Jc GLORIA AYALA PIN/: 55C-7-5-26 INST./: -04-21344 ZONED: RP USE: SINGLE-FAM/LY RESIOENnAL 0.27 ACRES I I I I I C O M M O N W E A L T H O F V I R G I N I A P I N / : 5 5 C - 8 - 1 - t O B : 9 4 5 P G : 1 1 2 6 Z O N E D : R P U S £ : V D O T \ \ \ C COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: M. Tyler Klein, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment – Development Review Fees for Commercial Telecommunication Facilities CUPs DATE: March 10, 2020 During consideration of the ordinance amendment to create a two -track process for review and approval of commercial telecommunication facilities (which was subsequently approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 12, 2019), the Board discussed the fee schedule for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) applications. Fees for these types of uses were identified as a potential barrier to local service providers in applying for telecommunication facility permits. The current CUP application fee for telecommunication facilities is $7,000 (adopted by the BOS in 2011) which was intended to cover Staff review, potential third-party expert and legal review, legal advertisement and adjoining property notifications for CUP applications. In January, the Board further directed Staff to re-evaluate the fees with the intention of reducing the fee. This is a proposed amendment to Chapter 165 – Zoning Ordinance and to the Development Review Fee Schedule to reduce the fee for a Conditional Use Permit for commercial telecommunication facilities. The purpose of this reduction in fees is to encourage commercial telecommunication facilities to locate in underserved areas of the County, specifically those rural areas west of Interstate 81. The Board discussed this approach as a potential solution in lieu of any further changes to by-right tower height allowance at this time. This may be revisited in the future. The Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) discussed this item at their February 27th meeting. At that meeting, Staff proposed a new fee of $750, consistent with all “other” CUP applications (less “cottage occupations” which have a $75 fee), and as directed by the Board of Supervisors. This fee reduction would cover only those costs associated with legal advertisement and adjoining property notifications. The DRRC stated that the proposed fee, $750, was insufficient given the complexity of telecommunication applications and that the fee should reflect to the type of facility (based on height) under review. The DRRC further commented that towers 51’ to 100’ in height would likely be “personal” towers for individual property owner for broadband service or small local service providers. The DRRC noted towers in excess of 100’ would be mainly for large commercial telecommunication companies (such as AT&T or Verizon), and would require more Staff time and review than smaller towers. The DRRC proposed a revised fee schedule for CUPs for commercial telecommunication facilities as follows: • Towers 51’-100’ in height - $1,500 • Towers 101’ and up in height - $7,000 (current fee) The DRRC generally supported the modified fees, outlined above; however, two (2) DRRC members expressed concern with maintaining the highest fee ($7,000) for towers in excess of 100’. Ultimately the consensus of the DRRC was to send the item forward to the Planning Commission for discussion. The attached documents show the existing ordinance with the proposed changes as proposed by the DRRC (with bold italic for text added). Staff is seeking direction from the Planning Commission on this Zoning Ordinance text amendment. Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics. 2. Revised development review fee schedule with additions shown in bold underlined italics. MTK/pd Revised 02/27/2020 Page 1 of 3 ARTICLE II Supplementary Use Regulations; Parking; Buffers; and Regulations for Specific Uses Part 204 Additional Regulations for Specific Uses § 165-204.19. Telecommunication facilities, commercial. A. Standard process projects. 1. Except as provided in subsection B, no wireless facility or wireless support structure shall be sited, constructed, or operated except pursuant to a conditional use permit issued through the process defined in Part 103 of Article I of this Chapter. The issuance of a conditional use permit for the siting, construction, and operation of a wireless facility is permitted within the zoning districts specified in this Chapter, provided that, pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-2232(A), the general location or approximate location, character, and extent of such facilities are substantially in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof and that adjoining properties, surrounding residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas, and properties of significant historic value are not negatively impacted. [based on current intro to County Code § 165-204.19] 2. Any person seeking to install a facility or structure pursuant to this subsection shall make application to the Zoning Administrator, accompanied by payment of a fee of $1500 for towers 51’ to 100’ in height or $7,000 for towers greater than 100’ in height. [Va. Code § 15.2- 2316.4:1(B)(2) (“the fee shall not exceed the actual direct costs to process the application, including permits and inspection”)] The application shall be subject to consideration as follows and include the indicated information: a. The Board of Supervisors shall approve or disapprove the application within 150 days of receipt of the complete application by the Zoning Administrator or such shorter period as required by federal law, unless the applicant and the Board agree to a longer period for approval or disapproval of the application. Within 10 days after receipt of an application and a valid electronic mail address for the applicant, the Zoning Administrator shall notify the applicant by electronic mail whether the application is incomplete and specify any missing information; otherwise, the application shall be deemed complete. [Va. Code § 15.2- 2316.4:1(C)] b. Information to be included with application: i. A map depicting the search area used in siting the proposed facility or structure [Va. Code § 15.2-2316.4:2(D); based on current 165-204.19(A)(2)]; ii. Identification of all service providers and commercial telecommunications facility infrastructure within the search area [Va. Code § 15.2-2316.4:2(D); based on current 165-204.19(A)(3)]; iii. Confirmation that attempts to co-locate on existing structures have been made and, if such attempts were unsuccessful, the reasons so [Va. Code § 15.2-2316.4:2(D); based on current 165-204.19(A)(3)]; iv. Documentation issued by the Federal Communications Commission indicating that the proposed facility is in compliance with the Federal Communications Commission’s established ANSI/IEEE standards for electromagnetic field levels and radio frequency radiation [based on current 165-204.19(A)(4)]; Revised 02/27/2020 Page 2 of 3 v. An affidavit signed by the landowner and by the owner of the facility or structure stating that they are aware that either or both of them may be held responsible for the removal of the facility or structure as stated in subsection E [based on current 165- 204.19(A)(5)]; and vi. The applicant may voluntarily submit, and the Board may accept, conditions that address potential visual or aesthetic effects resulting from the placement of the facility or structure. [Va. Code § 15.2-2316.4:2(C)] 3. If the Board of Supervisors grants a conditional use permit under this subsection, the following standards shall then apply to any property on which a wireless facility or wireless support structure is sited, in order to promote orderly development and mitigate the negative impacts to adjoining properties, residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas, and properties of significant historic value: a. The Board may reduce the required setback distance for the wireless facility or wireless support structure as required by § 165-201.03(B)(8) of this Code if it can be demonstrated that the location is of equal or lesser impact. When a reduced setback is requested for a distance less than the height of the tower, a certified Virginia engineer shall provide verification to the Board that the wireless facility or wireless support structure is designed, and will be constructed, in a manner that if the wireless facility or wireless support structure collapsed the wireless facility or wireless support structure will be contained in an area around the wireless facility or wireless support structure with a radius equal to or lesser than the setback, measured from the center line of the base of the wireless facility or wireless support structure. In no case shall the setback distance be reduced to less than 1/2 the distance of the height of the wireless facility or wireless support structure. b. Monopole-type construction shall be required for any new wireless facility or wireless support structure. The Board may allow lattice-type construction when existing or planned residential areas will not be impacted and when the site is not adjacent to identified historic resources. c. No more than two signs shall be permitted on any wireless facility or wireless support structure. Such signs shall be limited to 1.5 square feet in area and shall be posted no higher than 10 feet above grade. d. When lighting is required for a wireless facility or wireless support structure, dual lighting shall be utilized which provides daytime white strobe lighting and nighttime red pulsating lighting unless otherwise mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications Commission. Strobe lighting shall be shielded from ground view to mitigate illumination to neighboring properties. Equipment buildings and other accessory structures operated in conjunction with the wireless facility or wireless support structure shall utilize infrared lighting and motion-detector lighting to prevent continuous illumination. e. Every wireless facility and wireless support structure shall be constructed with materials of a galvanized finish or be of a non-contrasting blue or gray unless otherwise mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications Commission. f. Every wireless facility and wireless support structure shall be adequately enclosed to prevent access by persons other than employees of the service provider. Appropriate landscaping and opaque screening shall be provided to ensure that equipment buildings and other accessory Revised 02/27/2020 Page 3 of 3 structures are not visible from adjoining properties, roads, or other rights-of-way. [the entirety of the above subsection C(3) is based on current 165-204.19(B)] 4. If the Board of Supervisors denies a conditional use permit under this subsection, the Board shall: a. Provide applicant with a written statement of the reasons for the denial [Va. Code § 15.2- 2316.4:1(E)(1)]; b. Identify any modifications of which the County is aware that would permit it to approve the conditional use permit [Va. Code § 15.2-2316.4:1(E)(2)]; and c. Have supporting substantial record evidence in a written record publicly released within 30 days of denial [Va. Code § 15.2-2316.4:1(F)(2)]. B. Maintenance of existing facilities and/or structures and replacement of existing facilities and/or structures within a 6-foot perimeter with substantially similar or same size or smaller facilities and/or structures is exempt from fees and permitting requirements under this section. [Va. Code § 15.2- 2316.4:3(A)] C. Any facility or structure permitted by this section that is not operated or used for a continuous period of 12 months shall be considered abandoned, and the owner of such facility or structure shall remove same within 90 days of receipt of notice from the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. If the facility or structure is not removed within the ninety-day period, the County may remove the facility and a lien may be placed to recover expenses. [Va. Code § 15.2-2316.4(B)(6); based on current County Code § 165-204.19(B)(7)] FREDERICK COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES Adopted April 23, 2008 – Effective May 1, 2008, Revised 2/24/2010, 4/28/2010, 5/2011, 1/25/2012, 2/27/2020 **Planning & Development Staff recommended Telecommunication Towers application fee of $750.** COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN $ 3,000 non-refundable REZONING $ 1,000 – Proffer amendments not requiring a public hearing $ 5,000 base + $100/acre – 2 acres or less $ 10,000 base + $100/acre more than 2, less than 150 $ 10,000 base + $100/acre first 150 + $50/acre over 150 acres SUBDIVISION Non-Residential $1,000 base Design Plan $ 200/lot Plat $ 100/lot Residential (RP, R4, R5) Design Plan $ 2,500/base $100/lot Plat $ 200/lot to 50 lots $ 100/lot over 50 lots Rural Areas (RA) Sketch (Design) $ 2,500 base $200/acre Plat $ 200/lot Rural Areas (RA) Minor – 3 lots or less $ 200/lot Lot Consolidation $ 200/lot Boundary Line Adj. $ 200/lot VARIANCE $ 400 BZA APPEAL $ 250 ZONING CERTIFICATION LETTER $ 250 ZONING DETERMINATION LETTER $ 100 SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE EXCEPTION $ 500 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN $ 3,000 base + $100/acre for first 150 +$50/acre over 150 acres CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Cottage Occupation $ 75 Telecommunication Tower (51’ to 100’) $1,500 Telecommunication Tower (100’ or more) $ 7,000 Other $ 750 SITE PLAN Non-residential $ 2,500 base $ 200/acre to 5 acres $ 100/acre over 5 acres Residential $ 3,500 base $ 300/unit to 20 units $ 100/unit over 20 units Minor Site Plan $ 500 for revision that increases existing structure area by 20% or less & does not exceed 5,000sf of disturbed area. POSTPONEMENT of any Public Hearing or Public Meeting by Applicant after Advertisement, to include Applicant requests to TABLE an agenda item $ 500/occurrence. THIRD & SUBSEQUENT PLAN REVIEWS (including County Attorney review) for a single development application $ 500/review. BOND MANAGEMENT Establishment of bond $ 500 Reduction/Release $ 300 Replacement $ 500 TDR PROGRAM TDR Application Review $300 (*Review includes TDR Letter of Intent) TDR Certificate $200 Certificate Ownership Transfer $50 Receiving Property Approval $200 Review of Sending Property Deed Covenant $100 Review of Deed of Transfer (Extinguishment Document) $100 CHAPTER 161 FEES Installation License $300 Septic Haulers Permit $200 Residential Pump and Haul $50 Commercial Pump and Haul $500 D COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: M. Tyler Klein, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment – Zoning Enforcement, Violations & Penalties DATE: March 10, 2020 The Board of Supervisors directed Staff and the Planning Commission to propose ordinance revisions to maximize the penalties for zoning violations. At present, the County enforces the zoning ordinance through the misdemeanor process, but state law also permits the use of civil penalties. If the County adopted civil penalties for specified violations, state law would require the County to pursue civil penalties for those violations, up to an accumulated fine limit of $5,000, before pursuing the misdemeanor process for those violations. The civil penalty process permits an initial fine of $200 and a $500 for each 10-day period thereafter for which the violation is not remedied. The misdemeanor process permits fines of $1,000, $1,500, and $2,000 for each successive 10-day period of noncompliance with an initial court directive to remedy a violation (following an initial fine of up to $1,000 for a violation), and a fine of $2,000 for every 10-day period of noncompliance thereafter. The County Code does not currently reflect these subsequent misdemeanor fines, as the General Assembly updated the enabling legislation to include them on multiple occasions since the County’s adoption of its current zoning ordinance in 1990. In theory, then, adoption of civil penalties would essentially require the County to go through 10 iterations of a $500 fine every 10 days before then proceeding to the misdemeanor process, which permits much more robust fines, culminating in the potential of a $2,000 fine every 10 days. If the objective for revisions to the zoning ordinance is to maximize fines in such a way to create a disincentive for violations, proceeding sooner to the $1,000, $1,500, and then repeated $2,000 fines for the subsequent 10-day periods a violation remains unremedied is seemingly the most effective approach. The Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) discussed this item at their February 27th meeting. The DRRC generally supported increasing the fees under the current misdemeanor process outlined in §165-101.08(A) and the item was sent forward to the Planning Commission for discussion. The attached documents show the existing ordinance with the proposed changes as proposed by the County Attorney (with bold italic for text added). Staff is seeking direction from the Planning Commission on this Zoning Ordinance text amendment. Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics. 2. Zoning Violation Enforcement comparison chart. 3. Code of Virginia §15.2-2209, Civil penalties for violations of zoning ordinance. 4. Code of Virginia §15.2-2286, Permitted provisions in zoning ordinances; amendments; applicant to pay delinquent taxes; penalties. MTK/pd CHAPTER 165 ZONING Article I General Provisions; Amendments; and Conditional Use Permits § 165-101.08 Violations and penalties; enforcement. It shall be a violation of this chapter to make any use of land in a fashion not expressly permitted by this chapter. A. Misdemeanor. Any person(s), firm or corporation, whether owner, lessee, principal, agent, employee or otherwise, who violates any provision of this chapter or who uses land or constructs or alters structures in a fashion that is not in conformance with the requirements and procedures in this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon conviction of such misdemeanor, such person(s), firm or corporation shall be subject to punishment by a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $1,000. If this violation is uncorrected at the time of conviction, the court shall order the violator to abate or remedy such violation in compliance with the zoning ordinance, within a time period established by the court. Failure to remove or abate a zoning violation within a specified time period shall constitute a separate misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $1,000, and any such failure during any succeeding thirty-day period shall constitute a separate misdemeanor offense for each thirty-day period, punishable by a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $1,000 ; any such failure during a succeeding 10-day period shall constitute a separate misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $1,500; and any such failure during any succeeding 10-day period shall constitute a separate misdemeanor offense for each 10 -day period punishable by a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $2,000. B. Complaints. Whenever a violation of this chapter occurs or is alleged to have occurred, any person may file a complaint to the Zoning Administrator, stating fully the case and basis of the complaint. The Zoning Administrator shall record such complaint immediately and investigate and take action as provided by this chapter. C. Notification. When the Zoning Administrator determines that a violation has occurred, a notice of the violation shall be served to the person committing or permitting the violation. The notice of the violation shall specify the nature of the violation and shall order that the violation cease within a reasonable time specified by the Zoning Administrator. D. Appeal. The interpretation of the Zoning Administrator that a violation has occurred may be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals following proce dures set forth in this chapter. The order to cease the violation may be stayed until the appeal is heard, provided that the appeal is filed on a timely basis. E. Enforcement. If the violation continues after the time period specified in the notice of violation expires, the Zoning Administrator may initiate injunction, mandamus or any other appropriate action to ensure compliance with this chapter. In addition, the Frederick County Attorney or other prosecuting attorney appointed by the Board of Supervisors shall proceed to prosecute the violation. F. Civil penalties. The Board of Supervisors may adopt an ordinance which establishes a uniform schedule of civil penalties for violations of specific provisions of this chapter according to the provisions of the Code of Virginia, as amended. Such schedule of offenses shall not include any zoning violation resulting in injury to any person or persons. In such cases, the The civil penalty shall be a fine established by the schedule. The fine shall be in lieu of criminal sanctions, and except for any violation resulting in injury to any person or persons, such designation shall preclude the prosecution of a violation as a criminal misdemeanor. G. Any person summoned for a scheduled violation subject to a civil penalty may provide a waiver of trial and admission of liability and pay the civil penalty to the County Treasurer. Such persons shall be informed of their right to stand trial and that an admission of liability will have the same effect as a judgment of the court. If a person charged with a scheduled violation does not elect to enter a waiver of trial and admission of liability, the violation shall be tried in the General District Court as provided for by law. An admission of liability or finding of liability shall not be a criminal conviction. H. The remedies provided for in this section are cumulative, not exclusive, and shall be in addition to any other remedies provided by law. ZO N I N G V I O L A T I O N E N F O R C E M E N T – W h a t d o e s s t a t e l a w e n a b l e ? C i v i l P e n a l t i e s M i s d e m e a n o r s I n j u n c t i v e R e l i e f No t i c e o f v i o l a t i o n re q u i r e m e n t / p e r i o d ? Ye s – 3 0 d a y s Y e s – 3 0 d a y s Y e s – 3 0 d a y s Ap p e a l o f N O V ? Y e s – t o B Z A (s e e n o t e 1 a t e n d r e B Z A ap p e a l s ) Ye s – t o B Z A (s e e n o t e 1 a t e n d r e B Z A ap p e a l s ) Ye s – t o B Z A (s e e n o t e 1 a t e n d r e B Z A ap p e a l s ) Me a n s o f i n i t i a t i n g , af t e r N O V , i f n o co m p l i a n c e Is s u a n c e o f c i v i l p e n a l t y n o t i c e ; i f no t p a i d w i t h s p e c i f i e d p e r i o d , fi l i n g o f w a r r a n t i n d e b t i n G e n e r a l Di s t r i c t C o u r t Fi l i n g o f c h a r g e s i n G e n e r a l Di s t r i c t C o u r t Fi l i n g o f s u i t i n C i r c u i t C o u r t Ma x i m u m p e n a l t y f o r fi r s t c i t a t i o n f o r t h e vi o l a t i o n $2 0 0 c i v i l f i n e $ 1 , 0 0 0 c r i m i n a l f i n e a n d o r d e r t o co m p l y Or d e r t o c o m p l y Ma x i m u m p e n a l t y f o r ad d i t i o n a l c i t a t i o n s f o r th e s a m e v i o l a t i o n $5 0 0 c i v i l f i n e ( n o t m o r e fr e q u e n t l y t h a n e v e r y 1 0 d a y s ) Fo r e a c h 1 0 d a y s n o n c o m p l i a n c e (s e e n o t e 2 a t e n d r e s t a t e c o d e am e n d m e n t s ) : 1 st t i m e - $ 1 , 0 0 0 c r i m i n a l f i n e 2 nd t i m e - $ 1 , 5 0 0 c r i m i n a l f i n e 3 rd a n d s u b s e q u e n t t i m e s - $2 , 0 0 0 c r i m i n a l f i n e Co n t e m p t o f c o u r t (t h e o r e t i c a l l y , j a i l a b l e ) Cu m u l a t i v e m a x i m u m pe n a l t i e s f o r s a m e vi o l a t i o n $5 , 0 0 0 N o l i m i t N / A Re m e d y i f v i o l a t i o n co n t i n u e s t h e r e a f t e r Ma y p r o s e c u t e a s m i s d e m e a n o r C o n t i n u e d n o n c o m p l i a n c e a t a n y po i n t c o u l d a l s o t h e o r e t i c a l l y b e j ai l a b l e c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t Se e a b o v e r e m a x i m u m p e n a l t y Do e s c o u r t pr o c e e d i n g i n c l u d e or d e r t o c o m p l y ? No Y e s Y e s Co u n t y ’ s b u r d e n o f pr o v i n g t h e v i o l a t i o n i n co u r t Pr e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e (t h a t i s , “ m o r e l i k e l y t h a n n o t t h a t th e v i o l a t i o n o c c u r r e d ” ) Pr o o f b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t (t h i s i s t h e h i g h e s t a n d m o s t di f f i c u l t s t a n d a r d t o m e e t ) Pr e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e (t h a t i s , “ m o r e l i k e l y t h a n n o t t h a t th e v i o l a t i o n o c c u r r e d ” ) Wh e n c a n t h e p r o c e s s be u s e d ? If e n a c t e d b y l o c a l i t y , t h i s p r o c e s s is e x c l u s i v e , u n l e s s v i o l a t i o n re s u l t e d i n i n j u r y t o p e r s o n ( s ) o r cu m u l a t i v e f i n e a m o u n t r e a c h e d . If c i v i l p e n a l t i e s e n a c t e d , o n l y i f vi o l a t i o n r e s u l t e d i n i n j u r y t o pe r s o n ( s ) o r t h e m a x i m u m c i v i l pe n a l t i e s r e a c h e d . Fo r a n y v i o l a t i o n , b u t t h i s p r o c e s s is m o s t u s e f u l f o r “ c o n d u c t ” vi o l a t i o n s ( e . g . , i l l e g a l bu s i n e s s e s ) . Th i s p r o c e s s i s a l s o u s e f u l w h e r e we n e e d a n o r d e r f o r t h e C o u n t y to e n t e r t h e p r o p e r t y t o r e m e d y th e v i o l a t i o n ( e . g . , e x t r e m e c l e a n up s i t u a t i o n s ) . Ex p l a n a t o r y i n f o r m a t i o n : 1 . B Z A a p p e a l s – A p r o p e r t y o w ne r c a n , t h e o r e t i c a l l y , d e l a y a l l t h r e e o f t h e e n f o r c e m e n t p r o c e ss e s b y u p t o a n a d d i t i o n a l 6 0 days by pu r s u i n g a B Z A a p p e a l ( t h e B Z A i s s u p p o s e d t o d e c i d e t h e a p p e a l i n 6 0 d a y s ) . T h e p r o p e r t y o w n e r c a n a p p e a l f u r t h e r t o t h e C i r cuit Court, but th a t f u r t h e r a p p e a l d o e s n o t s t a y en f o r c e m e n t f u r t h e r , u n l e s s t he C i r c u i t C o u r t g r a n t s a r e q u e s t b y t h e o w n e r f o r a f u r t h e r s t ay of enforcement. 2 . S u b s e q u e n t v i o l a t i o n s – m i s d e m e a n o r e n f o r c e m e n t – S i n c e t h e o r i g i n a l e n a c t m e n t o f t h e C o u n t y ’ s c u r r e n t z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e i n 1990, th e s t a t e c o d e h a s b e e n a m e n d e d on d i f f e r e n t o c c a s i o n s t o a d d p ro v i s i o n s a l l o w i n g f o r i n c r e a s i n g p r o g r e s s i v e f i n e s f o r u n r e m e d ied violations. Th e C o u n t y h a s n o t t o d a t e o p t e d t o a d d t h e s e a l l o w a n c e s t o i t s z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e . 3 . C o n s i d e r a t i o n o f c i v i l p e n a l t i e s r a i s e s a r e l a t e d i s s u e r e g ar d i n g b u i l d i n g c o d e v i o l a t i o n s . A t p r e s e n t , t h e C o u n t y u s e s t he misdemeanor pr o c e s s t o e n f o r c e a g a i n s t b u i l d i n g c o d e v i o l a t i o n s ( a l t h o u g h s ta t e l a w l i k e w i s e p e r m i t s c i v il p e n a l t i e s f o r b u i l d i n g c o d e e n f orcement). The County fr e q u e n t l y e n c o u n t e r s b u i l d i n g c od e v i o l a t i o n s c o n c u r r e n t w i t h zo n i n g v i o l a t i o n s a t t h e s a m e p r op e r t y a n d i s t y p i c a l l y a b l e t o prosecute both vi o l a t i o n s a t t h e s a m e t i m e t h r o u g h t h e m i s d e m e a n o r p r o c e s s . 4 . Z o n i n g v i o l a t i o n s g e n e r a ll y t a k e o n e o f t w o f o r m s : x “ C o n d i t i o n ” v i o l a t i o n – a p r o p e r ty i s k e p t i n a c o n d i t i o n t h a t v i o l a t e s t h e z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e , s uc h a s w h e n a p e r s o n k e e p s j u n k cars or de b r i s o n a p r o p e r t y x “ C o n d u c t ” v i o l a t i o n – a p r o p e r ty i s u s e d f o r a n o n g o i n g o r r e p ea t e d c o u r s e o f c o n d u c t t h a t v i o l a t e s t h e z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e , s u c h as use of t h e p r o p e r t y f o r a n i l l e g a l b u s i n e s s Code of Virginia Title 15.2. Counties, Cities and Towns Chapter 22. Planning, Subdivision of Land and Zoning § 15.2-2209. Civil penalties for violations of zoning ordinance Notwithstanding subdivision A 5 of § 15.2-2286, any locality may adopt an ordinance which establishes a uniform schedule of civil penalties for violations of specified provisions of the zoning ordinance. The schedule of offenses shall not include any zoning violation resulting in injury to any persons, and the existence of a civil penalty shall not preclude action by the zoning administrator under subdivision A 4 of § 15.2-2286 or action by the governing body under § 15.2- 2208. This schedule of civil penalties shall be uniform for each type of specified violation, and the penalty for any one violation shall be a civil penalty of not more than $200 for the initial summons and not more than $500 for each additional summons. Each day during which the violation is found to have existed shall constitute a separate offense. However, specified violations arising from the same operative set of facts shall not be charged more frequently than once in any 10-day period, and a series of specified violations arising from the same operative set of facts shall not result in civil penalties which exceed a total of $5,000. Designation of a particular zoning ordinance violation for a civil penalty pursuant to this section shall be in lieu of criminal sanctions, and except for any violation resulting in injury to persons, such designation shall preclude the prosecution of a violation as a criminal misdemeanor, provided, however, that when such civil penalties total $5,000 or more, the violation may be prosecuted as a criminal misdemeanor. The zoning administrator or his deputy may issue a civil summons as provided by law for a scheduled violation. Any person summoned or issued a ticket for a scheduled violation may make an appearance in person or in writing by mail to the department of finance or the treasurer of the locality prior to the date fixed for trial in court. Any person so appearing may enter a waiver of trial, admit liability, and pay the civil penalty established for the offense charged. Such persons shall be informed of their right to stand trial and that a signature to an admission of liability will have the same force and effect as a judgment of court. If a person charged with a scheduled violation does not elect to enter a waiver of trial and admit liability, the violation shall be tried in the general district court in the same manner and with the same right of appeal as provided for by law. In any trial for a scheduled violation authorized by this section, it shall be the burden of the locality to show the liability of the violator by a preponderance of the evidence. If the violation remains uncorrected at the time of the admission of liability or finding of liability, the court may order the violator to abate or remedy the violation in order to comply with the zoning ordinance. Except as otherwise provided by the court for good cause shown, any such violator shall abate or remedy the violation within a period of time as determined by the court, but not later than six months of the date of admission of liability or finding of liability. Each day during which the violation continues after the court-ordered abatement period has ended shall constitute a separate offense. An admission of liability or finding of liability shall not be a criminal conviction for any purpose. No provision herein shall be construed to allow the imposition of civil penalties (i) for activities related to land development or (ii) for violation of any provision of a local zoning ordinance 1 2/27/2020 relating to the posting of signs on public property or public rights-of-way. 1985, c. 417, § 15.1-499.1; 1986, c. 97; 1987, cc. 78, 99; 1988, cc. 513, 813, 869, 895; 1989, c. 566; 1990, cc. 473, 495; 1992, c. 298; 1993, c. 823; 1994, c. 342;1995, c. 494;1996, c. 421;1997, c. 587; 2003, c. 192;2006, c. 248;2008, c. 727. The chapters of the acts of assembly referenced in the historical citation at the end of this section may not constitute a comprehensive list of such chapters and may exclude chapters whose provisions have expired. 2 2/27/2020 Code of Virginia Title 15.2. Counties, Cities and Towns Chapter 22. Planning, Subdivision of Land and Zoning This section has more than one version with varying effective dates. Scroll down to see all versions. § 15.2-2286. (Effective until October 1, 2019) Permittedprovisions in zoning ordinances; amendments; applicant to paydelinquent taxes; penalties A. A zoning ordinance may include, among other things, reasonable regulations and provisions as to any or all of the following matters: 1. For variances or special exceptions, as defined in § 15.2-2201, to the general regulations in any district. 2. For the temporary application of the ordinance to any property coming into the territorial jurisdiction of the governing body by annexation or otherwise, subsequent to the adoption of the zoning ordinance, and pending the orderly amendment of the ordinance. 3. For the granting of special exceptions under suitable regulations and safeguards; notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, the governing body of any locality may reserve unto itself the right to issue such special exceptions. Conditions imposed in connection with residential special use permits, wherein the applicant proposes affordable housing, shall be consistent with the objective of providing affordable housing. When imposing conditions on residential projects specifying materials and methods of construction or specific design features, the approving body shall consider the impact of the conditions upon the affordability of housing. The governing body or the board of zoning appeals of the City of Norfolk may impose a condition upon any special exception relating to retail alcoholic beverage control licensees which provides that such special exception will automatically expire upon a change of ownership of the property, a change in possession, a change in the operation or management of a facility or upon the passage of a specific period of time. The governing body of the City of Richmond may impose a condition upon any special use permit issued after July 1, 2000, relating to retail alcoholic beverage licensees which provides that such special use permit shall be subject to an automatic review by the governing body upon a change in possession, a change in the owner of the business, or a transfer of majority control of the business entity. Upon review by the governing body, it may either amend or revoke the special use permit after notice and a public hearing as required by § 15.2-2206. 4. For the administration and enforcement of the ordinance including the appointment or designation of a zoning administrator who may also hold another office in the locality. The zoning administrator shall have all necessary authority on behalf of the governing body to administer and enforce the zoning ordinance. His authority shall include (i) ordering in writing the remedying of any condition found in violation of the ordinance; (ii) insuring compliance with the ordinance, bringing legal action, including injunction, abatement, or other appropriate action or proceeding subject to appeal pursuant to § 15.2-2311;and (iii) in specific cases, making findings of fact and, with concurrence of the attorney for the governing body, conclusions of law regarding determinations of rights accruing under § 15.2-2307 or subsection C of § 15.2-2311. 1 2/27/2020 177; 1978, c. 543; 1979, c. 182; 1982, c. 44; 1983, c. 392; 1984, c. 238; 1987, c. 8; 1988, cc. 481, 856; 1989, cc. 359, 384; 1990, cc. 672, 868; 1992, c. 380; 1993, c. 672; 1994, c. 802;1995, cc. 351, 475, 584, 603;1996, c. 451;1997, cc. 529, 543, 587;1998, c. 385;1999, c. 792;2000, cc. 764, 817; 2001, c. 240;2002, cc. 547, 703;2005, cc. 625, 677;2006, cc. 304, 514, 533, 903;2007, cc. 821, 937; 2008, cc. 297, 317, 343, 581, 593, 720, 777;2009, c. 721;2012, cc. 304, 318;2014, c. 354;2017, c. 398;2018, c. 726. The chapters of the acts of assembly referenced in the historical citation at the end of this section may not constitute a comprehensive list of such chapters and may exclude chapters whose provisions have expired. § 15.2-2286. (Effective October 1, 2019) Permitted provisions inzoning ordinances; amendments; applicant to pay delinquenttaxes; penalties A. A zoning ordinance may include, among other things, reasonable regulations and provisions as to any or all of the following matters: 1. For variances or special exceptions, as defined in § 15.2-2201, to the general regulations in any district. 2. For the temporary application of the ordinance to any property coming into the territorial jurisdiction of the governing body by annexation or otherwise, subsequent to the adoption of the zoning ordinance, and pending the orderly amendment of the ordinance. 3. For the granting of special exceptions under suitable regulations and safeguards; notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, the governing body of any locality may reserve unto itself the right to issue such special exceptions. Conditions imposed in connection with residential special use permits, wherein the applicant proposes affordable housing, shall be consistent with the objective of providing affordable housing. When imposing conditions on residential projects specifying materials and methods of construction or specific design features, the approving body shall consider the impact of the conditions upon the affordability of housing. The governing body or the board of zoning appeals of the City of Norfolk may impose a condition upon any special exception relating to retail alcoholic beverage control licensees which provides that such special exception will automatically expire upon a change of ownership of the property, a change in possession, a change in the operation or management of a facility or upon the passage of a specific period of time. The governing body of the City of Richmond may impose a condition upon any special use permit issued after July 1, 2000, relating to retail alcoholic beverage licensees which provides that such special use permit shall be subject to an automatic review by the governing body upon a change in possession, a change in the owner of the business, or a transfer of majority control of the business entity. Upon review by the governing body, it may either amend or revoke the special use permit after notice and a public hearing as required by § 15.2-2206. 4. For the administration and enforcement of the ordinance including the appointment or designation of a zoning administrator who may also hold another office in the locality. The zoning administrator shall have all necessary authority on behalf of the governing body to administer and enforce the zoning ordinance. His authority shall include (i) ordering in writing the remedying of any condition found in violation of the ordinance; (ii) insuring compliance with 5 2/27/2020 the ordinance, bringing legal action, including injunction, abatement, or other appropriate action or proceeding subject to appeal pursuant to § 15.2-2311;and (iii) in specific cases, making findings of fact and, with concurrence of the attorney for the governing body, conclusions of law regarding determinations of rights accruing under § 15.2-2307 or subsection C of § 15.2-2311. Whenever the zoning administrator has reasonable cause to believe that any person has engaged in or is engaging in any violation of a zoning ordinance that limits occupancy in a residential dwelling unit, which is subject to a civil penalty that may be imposed in accordance with the provisions of § 15.2-2209, and the zoning administrator, after a good faith effort to obtain the data or information necessary to determine whether a violation has occurred, has been unable to obtain such information, he may request that the attorney for the locality petition the judge of the general district court for his jurisdiction for a subpoena duces tecum against any such person refusing to produce such data or information. The judge of the court, upon good cause shown, may cause the subpoena to be issued. Any person failing to comply with such subpoena shall be subject to punishment for contempt by the court issuing the subpoena. Any person so subpoenaed may apply to the judge who issued the subpoena to quash it. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 15.2-2311, a zoning ordinance may prescribe an appeal period of less than 30 days, but not less than 10 days, for a notice of violation involving temporary or seasonal commercial uses, parking of commercial trucks in residential zoning districts, maximum occupancy limitations of a residential dwelling unit, or similar short-term, recurring violations. Where provided by ordinance, the zoning administrator may be authorized to grant a modification from any provision contained in the zoning ordinance with respect to physical requirements on a lot or parcel of land, including but not limited to size, height, location or features of or related to any building, structure, or improvements, if the administrator finds in writing that: (i) the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; (ii) such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; and (iii) the authorization of the modification will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and the character of the zoning district will not be changed by the granting of the modification. Prior to the granting of a modification, the zoning administrator shall give, or require the applicant to give, all adjoining property owners written notice of the request for modification, and an opportunity to respond to the request within 21 days of the date of the notice. The zoning administrator shall make a decision on the application for modification and issue a written decision with a copy provided to the applicant and any adjoining landowner who responded in writing to the notice sent pursuant to this paragraph. The decision of the zoning administrator shall constitute a decision within the purview of § 15.2-2311, and may be appealed to the board of zoning appeals as provided by that section. Decisions of the board of zoning appeals may be appealed to the circuit court as provided by § 15.2-2314. The zoning administrator shall respond within 90 days of a request for a decision or determination on zoning matters within the scope of his authority unless the requester has agreed to a longer period. 5. For the imposition of penalties upon conviction of any violation of the zoning ordinance. Any such violation shall be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000. If the violation is uncorrected at the time of the conviction, the court shall order the violator to abate or remedy the violation in compliance with the zoning ordinance, within a time period established by the court. Failure to remove or abate a zoning violation within the specified time 6 2/27/2020 period shall constitute a separate misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000; any such failure during a succeeding 10-day period shall constitute a separate misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of not more than $1,500; and any such failure during any succeeding 10-day period shall constitute a separate misdemeanor offense for each 10-day period punishable by a fine of not more than $2,000. However, any conviction resulting from a violation of provisions regulating the number of unrelated persons in single-family residential dwellings shall be punishable by a fine of up to $2,000. Failure to abate the violation within the specified time period shall be punishable by a fine of up to $5,000, and any such failure during any succeeding 10-day period shall constitute a separate misdemeanor offense for each 10-day period punishable by a fine of up to $7,500. However, no such fine shall accrue against an owner or managing agent of a single-family residential dwelling unit during the pendency of any legal action commenced by such owner or managing agent of such dwelling unit against a tenant to eliminate an overcrowding condition in accordance with the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (§ 55.1-1200 et seq.). A conviction resulting from a violation of provisions regulating the number of unrelated persons in single-family residential dwellings shall not be punishable by a jail term. 6. For the collection of fees to cover the cost of making inspections, issuing permits, advertising of notices and other expenses incident to the administration of a zoning ordinance or to the filing or processing of any appeal or amendment thereto. 7. For the amendment of the regulations or district maps from time to time, or for their repeal. Whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice requires, the governing body may by ordinance amend, supplement, or change the regulations, district boundaries, or classifications of property. Any such amendment may be initiated (i) by resolution of the governing body; (ii) by motion of the local planning commission; or (iii) by petition of the owner, contract purchaser with the owner's written consent, or the owner's agent therefor, of the property which is the subject of the proposed zoning map amendment, addressed to the governing body or the local planning commission, who shall forward such petition to the governing body; however, the ordinance may provide for the consideration of proposed amendments only at specified intervals of time, and may further provide that substantially the same petition will not be reconsidered within a specific period, not exceeding one year. Any such resolution or motion by such governing body or commission proposing the rezoning shall state the above public purposes therefor. In any county having adopted such zoning ordinance, all motions, resolutions or petitions for amendment to the zoning ordinance, and/or map shall be acted upon and a decision made within such reasonable time as may be necessary which shall not exceed 12 months unless the applicant requests or consents to action beyond such period or unless the applicant withdraws his motion, resolution or petition for amendment to the zoning ordinance or map, or both. In the event of and upon such withdrawal, processing of the motion, resolution or petition shall cease without further action as otherwise would be required by this subdivision. 8. For the submission and approval of a plan of development prior to the issuance of building permits to assure compliance with regulations contained in such zoning ordinance. 9. For areas and districts designated for mixed use developments or planned unit developments as defined in § 15.2-2201. 7 2/27/2020 10. For the administration of incentive zoning as defined in § 15.2-2201. 11. For provisions allowing the locality to enter into a voluntary agreement with a landowner that would result in the downzoning of the landowner's undeveloped or underdeveloped property in exchange for a tax credit equal to the amount of excess real estate taxes that the landowner has paid due to the higher zoning classification. The locality may establish reasonable guidelines for determining the amount of excess real estate tax collected and the method and duration for applying the tax credit. For purposes of this section, "downzoning" means a zoning action by a locality that results in a reduction in a formerly permitted land use intensity or density. 12. Provisions for requiring and considering Phase I environmental site assessments based on the anticipated use of the property proposed for the subdivision or development that meet generally accepted national standards for such assessments, such as those developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials, and Phase II environmental site assessments, that also meet accepted national standards, such as, but not limited to, those developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials, if the locality deems such to be reasonably necessary, based on findings in the Phase I assessment, and in accordance with regulations of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the American Society for Testing and Materials. A reasonable fee may be charged for the review of such environmental assessments. Such fees shall not exceed an amount commensurate with the services rendered, taking into consideration the time, skill, and administrative expense involved in such review. 13. Provisions for requiring disclosure and remediation of contamination and other adverse environmental conditions of the property prior to approval of subdivision and development plans. 14. For the enforcement of provisions of the zoning ordinance that regulate the number of persons permitted to occupy a single-family residential dwelling unit, provided such enforcement is in compliance with applicable local, state and federal fair housing laws. 15. For the issuance of inspection warrants by a magistrate or court of competent jurisdiction. The zoning administrator or his agent may make an affidavit under oath before a magistrate or court of competent jurisdiction and, if such affidavit establishes probable cause that a zoning ordinance violation has occurred, request that the magistrate or court grant the zoning administrator or his agent an inspection warrant to enable the zoning administrator or his agent to enter the subject dwelling for the purpose of determining whether violations of the zoning ordinance exist. After issuing a warrant under this section, the magistrate or judge shall file the affidavit in the manner prescribed by § 19.2-54. After executing the warrant, the zoning administrator or his agents shall return the warrant to the clerk of the circuit court of the city or county wherein the inspection was made. The zoning administrator or his agent shall make a reasonable effort to obtain consent from the owner or tenant of the subject dwelling prior to seeking the issuance of an inspection warrant under this section. B. Prior to the initiation of an application by the owner of the subject property, the owner's agent, or any entity in which the owner holds an ownership interest greater than 50 percent, for a special exception, special use permit, variance, rezoning or other land disturbing permit, including building permits and erosion and sediment control permits, or prior to the issuance of final approval, the authorizing body may require the applicant to produce satisfactory evidence that any delinquent real estate taxes, nuisance charges, stormwater management utility fees, and any other charges that constitute a lien on the subject property, that are owed to the locality and 8 2/27/2020 have been properly assessed against the subject property, have been paid, unless otherwise authorized by the treasurer. Code 1950, § 15-968.5; 1962, c. 407, § 15.1-491; 1964, c. 564; 1966, c. 455; 1968, cc. 543, 595; 1973, c. 286; 1974, c. 547; 1975, cc. 99, 575, 579, 582, 641; 1976, cc. 71, 409, 470, 683; 1977, c. 177; 1978, c. 543; 1979, c. 182; 1982, c. 44; 1983, c. 392; 1984, c. 238; 1987, c. 8; 1988, cc. 481, 856; 1989, cc. 359, 384; 1990, cc. 672, 868; 1992, c. 380; 1993, c. 672; 1994, c. 802;1995, cc. 351, 475, 584, 603;1996, c. 451;1997, cc. 529, 543, 587;1998, c. 385;1999, c. 792;2000, cc. 764, 817; 2001, c. 240;2002, cc. 547, 703;2005, cc. 625, 677;2006, cc. 304, 514, 533, 903;2007, cc. 821, 937; 2008, cc. 297, 317, 343, 581, 593, 720, 777;2009, c. 721;2012, cc. 304, 318;2014, c. 354;2017, c. 398;2018, c. 726. The chapters of the acts of assembly referenced in the historical citation at the end of this section may not constitute a comprehensive list of such chapters and may exclude chapters whose provisions have expired. 9 2/27/2020 E COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Assistant Director - Transportation SUBJECT: SmartScale Update DATE: March 10, 2020 John will be providing an informational presentation regarding the upcoming round of SmartScale applications. JB/dlw F 2019 Annual Report of the Frederick County, Virginia Planning Commission Prepared By: The Department of Planning and Development January 2020 1 This page was intentionally left blank. 2 2019 Annual Report Executive Summary The Department of Planning and Development is pleased to present the 2019 Annual Report on behalf of the Frederick County, Virginia Planning Commission. The Annual Report summarizes the planning and development activities for calendar year 2019. The Department of Planning and Development, in support of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, leads the development of policies and procedures pertaining to all aspects of community growth and development, as well as, administers existing policies and procedures fairly and accurately. Our primary responsibilities are: comprehensive planning, zoning, subdivision of land, transportation planning, land management, data and mapping, Board and Commission support and customer service (online and in-person citizen inquiries). One significant accomplishment in 2019 was the development and Board of Supervisors adoption of an improved capital impact model to assist County Staff in reviewing applications for rezoning and determining the impact to County services and level of service for County facilities. 2019 By the Numbers Application Type Applications Received Applications Approved Rezonings (REZ) 7 2 Master Development Plans (MDP) 4 4 Subdivisions (SUB – RA, RP, R4 & R5) 3 5 (298 lots) Site Plans (SP) 49 58 Conditional Use Permits (CUP) 8 4 Zoning Violations 79 NA Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPPA) 2 0 Variances 8 8 * “Applications Approved” reflects all approvals (legislative or administrative) in calendar year 2019; some of these applications may have been “received” in prior calendar years. Staff would like to thank the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, and County Administration for their support of the Department and our efforts. 3 Forecast for the Future Frederick County’s 2035 Comprehensive Policy Plan (“Comprehensive Plan”), adopted in January 2017, forecasts future population growth. Each year, Planning and Development Staff provides the most recent population estimates from the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service as part of the Annual Report. Frederick County’s 2019 population estimate was 88, 830. Virginia’s population has grown by 6.5 percent since 2010; Frederick County’s growth is about 12.1 percent during that same period, nearly double the state average. Understanding future population growth is critical to planning for the additional residential housing units and capital investment (infrastructure, parks, schools, and County services) and also expanding, retaining and attracting businesses. In 2020 a decennial census will be conducted across the United States. The census aims to count the entire population of the Country, and at the location where each person usually lives. Federal funds, grants and support to states, counties and communities are based on population totals and demographic information (sex, age, race, and other factors) counted during the decennial census. Census data informs economic development, public safety and emergency preparedness. Census data will also serve as a baseline for projecting future population growth (beyond 2020) in Frederick County. Year Population 2000 59,209 2010 78,305 2019 88,830* 2020 90,115** 2030 104,608** 2040 117,452** *July 1, 2019 Population Estimates for Virginia and its Counties and Cities published by the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service Demographics Research Group, published January 27, 2020. **Population Projections for Virginia and its Localities, 2020, 2030, 2040 published by the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service Demographics Research Group, June 2019. 2000 & 2010 reflects official Census record. 4 Residential Housing Unit Permits New residential housing unit permits are a strong indicator of population growth. Frederick County issued a total of 781 new residential building permits for new residential units in calendar year 2019. A table of the number of permits issued by each housing type is provided below. Housing Type Number of Building Permits Issued Single-Family Detached (SFD – RA, RP, R4, & R5 zoning districts) 521 Single-Family Attached (SFA – townhomes, duplexes, or age-restricted) 137 Modular (MD) 10 Mobile Home (MH) 17 Multi-Family (MF – apartments) 96 Total as of December 31, 2019 781 In 2019, most residential building permits issued for new residential housing units were in the Opequon and Stonewall Magisterial Districts. The number of new residential housing unit building permits issued in 2019 remains slightly more than 2018 and reflects a trend of steady growth in new residential building permits. Eighty-three percent of all new residential building permits constructed in 2019 were within the County’s Urban Development Area (UDA). The line chart below illustrates the total number of new residential unit permits issued since 2007. Number of New Residential Housing Permits Issues by Year 900 777 781 800 709 714 710 700 600 515 500 400 275 279 300 200 100 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20 17 2018 2019 5 Frederick County maintains an Urban Development Area (UDA) Report. Based on this report, there is a potential for 15,165 additional residential housing units in Frederick County’s urban areas (see map on following page) as of December 31, 2019. This includes vacant land with no approved generalized development plans (GDP), zoned land with approved GDPs, Master Development Plan (MDP) projects, and residential subdivisions under development including those lots platted, and vacant lots (i.e. Lake Frederick and Snowden Bridge communities). Note: A complete analysis of residential building permits and potential for additional housing units is available in the Urban Development Area (UDA) Report, updated at the end of each month. 6 Frederick County's Urban & Rural Areas C) Frederick County C_:) Town and City Boundary :•.::• Urban Development A r ea ,,,_,..,, Future Rt 37 Bypass Sewer and Wate r Se r vice A rea C:> Rural Community Center Copyright 2013 National Geographic Soaety, i-cubed I 2035 Comprehensive Policy Plan Map O 0 .5 1 3 Miles Adopted January 25, 2017 t---+---+--1 7 Rezoning Applications (REZ) Zoning regulations are the rules that determine how parcels of land may be used. When owners want to develop or use their property in ways that do not conform to their current zoning regulations, they must apply for a change to their zoning classification, also commonly referred to as a rezoning. Rezonings should seek to implement the land use outlined in the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. In calendar year 2019 there were seven (7) rezoning applications submitted to the Board of Supervisors. Two (2) applications were approved by the Board of Supervisors (including one (1) application submitted during the prior calendar year that was not approved until 2019). The Board of Supervisors had seen a steady decrease in the number of rezoning applications approved since a peak in 2016. A summary of rezoning applications approved in calendar year 2019 is provided below. Application Number Name Description Approval Date District #04-18 Tasker Road & Warrior Drive Commercial 35.67-acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (General Business) zoning district with revised proffers.2/13/2019 Opequon #02-19 CB Ventures, LLC 1.04-acres from B2 (General Business) to B3 (Industrial Transition) zoning district with proffers.9/11/2019 Stonewall REZ Approvals by Year 14 12 13 10 10 8 6 6 4 .... .... 4 2 •-•- 2 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 8 Master Development Plans (MDP) A master development plan is a general plan of development approved administratively for new developments in certain zoning districts before a subdivision or site plan can be approved. MDP’s are presented to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for information/discussion. In calendar year 2019 there were a total of four (4) MDP applications submitted for review. Four (4) MDPs were approved, including one MDP submitted in calendar year 2018. The number of MDP’s approved each year has remained consistent since 2015. A summary of the approved MDPs approved in 2019 is provided below. Application Number Name Description Approval Date District #06-18 Snowden Bridge - Revision #6 R4 (Planned Residential) zoning district - revisions to internal strees and mix of unit types in Sections 13 & 14. . 2/14/2019 Stonewall #01-19 Trex M1 (Light Industrial) zoning district - adding acreage and building #6. 12/11/2019 Shawnee #02-19 Snowden Bridge - Revision #7 R4 (Planned Residential) zoning district - revisions to internal strees and mix of unit types in Sections 15 & 16. 10/22/2019 Stonewall #03-19 Raven Oaks RP (Residential Performance zoning district - revision to street layout and unit types. 11/14/2019 Shawnee 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 3 2015 MOP Approvals by Year 7 5 3 ,.._ 2016 2017 2018 4 ·- .... •- 2019 9 Subdivision of Land (SUB) A subdivision is the act of dividing land into pieces that are easier to sell or otherwise develop, usually via a plat. If it is used for housing it is typically known as a housing subdivision or housing development, although some developers tend to call these areas communities. Subdivisions may also be for the purpose of commercial or industrial development, and the results vary from retail shopping malls with independently owned out parcels, to industrial parks. All land divisions shall require the submittal of a subdivision plat for review and approval/recordation. Unless specifically exempt, all residential subdivisions and their associated amenities shall be required to submit a subdivision design plan for review and approval prior to final plats approval. The number of lots created in the County is determined as a result of subdivision applications (urban) and administrative subdivisions (rural) that were approved in 2019. A subdivision or section of a subdivision is not considered approved until plats for the properties in that subdivision/section are approved and recorded; therefore, the numbers below reflect only lots approved and platted in 2019. As shown in the table a total of 298 residential lots were created (i.e. approved) in the RA, RP, R4, and R5 Zoning Districts of Frederick County 2019. A summary of the approved SUBs approved in 2019 is provided below. Application Number Name Number of Lots Approval Date District #02-18 Snowden Bridge - Sections 13B & 14 B 47 7/1/2019 & 7/24/2019 Stonewall #04-18 Lake Frederick - Phase 8A & 9A 171 12/5/2019 Opequon #01-19 Snowden Bridge - Section 15 69 11/25/2019 Stonewall #01-19 (RA)Cedar Creek Estates 4 10/31/2019 Back Creek #02-19 (RA)Paxton Ridge Estates 7 5/8/2019 Back Creek 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Number of Residential SUB (RA, RP, R4 & RS} Lots Approved 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 10 Site Plans (SP) A site plan is a detailed engineering drawing of proposed improvements to a given lot. A site plan usually shows a building footprint, travel ways, parking, drainage facilities, sanitary sewer lines, water lines, trails, and lighting, landscaping and property lines. There were 49 site plan applications submitted for review in calendar year 2019. A total of 58 applications were approved (including pending applications from prior years). For comparison, 37 applications were approved in calendar year 2018. A complete list of applications approved in 2019 is included on the next page. Highlights include approval of approximately 2,265,848 square feet (SF) of commercial (retail/office/restaurant) and industrial uses. One other project highlight was the approval of the Aylor Middle School replacement, currently under construction. 2019 Site Plan Approval by District Stonewall, 47% 70 60 so 40 44 30 20 10 0 2015 Back Creek, 17% Shawnee, 19% Opeqoun, 10% Red Bud, 2% Site Plan Approvals by Year 58 47 38 37 2016 2017 2018 2019 11 Application Number Name Description Approval Date District 13-18 Miller Supplies at Work Loading dock addition 4/24/2019 Back Creek 16-18 WP Business Park 77,000 SF self-storage facility 3/11/2019 Opequon 18-18 Clear Brook Shell (H.N. Funkhouser) Fuel canopy with convenience store (4,734 SF) and drive-thru 2/1/2019 Stonewall 20-18 County Line Self-Storage 57,300 SF self-storage facility (10 buildings) & outdoor storage 4/30/2019 Stonewall 22-18 Spring Run 15 lot Townhouse Subdivision 1/10/2019 Red Bud 23-18 Liberty Chase 17 lot Townhouse Subdivision 4/25/2019 Opequon 27-18 Frederick Water (Stonewall Ballpark) Five (5) ballfields, concession stand, restrooms & parking 3/19/2019 Stonewall 31-18 Home Paramount Development of parking lot and driveway 1/30/2019 Stonewall 35-18 Route 37 Storage 29,100 SF (3 buildings) self-storage facility 1/16/2019 Back Creek 37-18 Cornerstone United Pentecostal Church 9,975 SF sanctuary addition and 66 parking spaces addition 4/5/2019 Stonewall 38-18 Moe's Southwest Grill - Rutherford Crossing 3,033 SF restaurant with drive-thru 3/19/2019 Stonewall 39-18 Starbucks - Stephens City Restaurant with drive-thru 1/31/2019 Opequon 40-18 Northeastern Supply 35,000 SF warehouse + 56 parking spaces 11/26/2019 Stonewall 41-18 Foxe Towne Plaza 10,460 SF retail store (furniture/carpet sales)1/22/2019 Stonewall 42-18 Graystone Industrial Park (Graystone Corp.) 902,100 SF warehouse + 144 loading spaces & 280 parking spaces 8/14/2019 Stonewall 43-18 Carmeuse Natural Chemicals Berms C & D conformance with REZ #05-17 1/10/2019 Back Creek 44-18 TSM, Inc. 22,000 SF Office-Warehouse with outdoor storage 2/13/2019 Stonewall 45-18 Navy Federal Credit Union Campus Trail Phase II - 0.9-miles plus gazebos, picnic area & fitness features 5/2/2019 Shawnee 46-18 The Pruitt Corporation (Airport Business Park - Bldg. E) 88,000 SF Warehouse + parking and loading spaces 1/23/2019 Shawnee 47-18 ARI 80,000 SF warehouse addition & truck access/parking 1/22/2019 Stonewall 01-19 Frederick County Parks & Recreation Clearbrook Park - parking expansion 2/15/2019 Stonewall 02-19 Frederick Water Lake Frederick elevated water tank 3/26/2019 Opequon 03-19 CW Wright Construction Vocational School (Training Yard)10/8/2019 Shawnee 04-19 Spotswood Mobile Home Park 17 mobile home units (addition)4/24/2019 Opequon 05-19 Frederick County Animal Shelter 2,190 SF building addition to existing animal shelter; 7 new parking spaces 3/26/2019 Stonewall 06-19 Middletown Data Center Demolish portion of parking area (80 spaces) and building (2,283 SF) to accommodate addition of concrete pads for equipment operation & storage 5/9/2019 Back Creek 07-19 Kernstown Commons (Lot 3 - Building B)6,480 SF retail/restaurant building 4/23/2019 Back Creek 08-19 The Dawson Group 131 Dawson Drive - add 189 spaces 5/7/2019 Back Creek 09-19 Thermo Fisher Scientific Parking space addition striping plan 4/25/2019 Back Creek 10-19 New Life Christian Church Overflow parking area 6/19/2019 Gainesboro 11-19 Rutherford Crossing - Coffeehouse (Starbucks)6,615 sf restaurant/retail building with drive-thru 11/19/2019 Stonewall 13-19 Texas Roadhouse 300 SF building addition to existing restaurant 8/14/2019 Stonewall 14-19 Navy Federal Credit Union Building 3 - revisions to sidewalks 6/5/2019 Shawnee 15-19 Golden Path Academy 12,159 SF day care facility with playgrounds 5/31/2019 Stonewall 16-19 Frederick County Public Schools Security Enhancements - Millbrook HS (279 SF)6/27/2019 Stonewall 17-19 Frederick County Public Schools Security Enhancements - Apple Pie Ridge ES (107 SF)6/27/2019 Gainesboro 12 18-19 Frederick County Public Schools Security Enhancements - Sherando HS (294 SF)6/27/2019 Opequon 19-19 Trailer Drop, LLC Tractor trailer truck parking area (99 spaces)6/25/2019 Stonewall 20-19 Winchester Church of God (WINCOG)Building expansion - enclose foyer 7/16/2019 Gainesboro 21-19 Graystone 81 Logistics Center 348,500 SF warehouse distribution center (Lot 3)8/26/2019 Stonewall 22-19 B&B Omps, LLC 7,200 SF office/warehouse 7/15/2019 Stonewall 23-19 Holtzman Oil Corporation 4,800 SF redevelopment to gas/convenience store (Rt. 522 N)8/26/2019 Stonewall 24-19 Geodis Tractor trailer truck parking addition (40) & guard shack 7/18/2019 Stonewall 25-19 Frederick County Public Schools (Aylor)147,611 SF middle school building 10/2/2019 Shawnee 26-19 Graystone Industrial Center Phase I - 228,760 SF warehouse (2 buildings)10/30/2019 Stonewall 27-19 TSM, Inc. Phase 2 Building - 20,000 SF office/warehouse 8/29/2019 Stonewall 28-19 Winchester Self-Storage 87,727 SF self-storage facility 11/21/2019 Stonewall 29-19 Trex 187,660 SF manufacturing & office building # 6 12/11/2019 Shawnee 30-19 Trex Rail & storage yard revisions 10/8/2019 Shawnee 31-19 Navy Federal Credit Union Building # 1 entry and walk-way rennovation 10/2/2019 Shawnee 32-19 Robbies Autobody 1,664 SF building addition to autobody shop 11/15/2019 Back Creek 33-19 Miller's Supplies at Work Pavement addition for tractor truck trailer deliveries 10/9/2019 Back Creek 34-19 Safford of Winchester 6160 SF parts/office/storage building addition 10/18/2019 Stonewall 35-19 FedEx Ground facility expansion #2 10/9/2019 Back Creek 36-19 Golden Corral 10,402 SF building redevelopment 11/26/2019 Shawnee 38-19 CB Ventures/NTB 6,159 SF autorepair building 10/23/2019 Stonewall 40-19 Valvoline Instant Oil Change Minor site plan revision - 2,078SF auto repair facility 12/11/2019 Shawnee 41-19 Aerocenter Business Park - B.I. Chemical Silo addition & concrete unloading pad 11/14/2019 Shawnee 13 Conditional Use Permits (CUP) A conditional use permit (CUP) is a legislatively approved application to undertake certain uses on a property that are not permitted by-right but it may be appropriate as a conditional use. As part of the application, a public hearing is required by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. In calendar year 2019, 8 CUPs were scheduled for public hearing. Four (4) applications were approved (including those submitted in prior calendar years). Three (3) applications were withdrawn. A summary of the approved applications is provided below. Application Number Name Description Approval Date District #02-19 Connie & Lance Moss Expansion of existing dog kennel up to 25 dogs. 5/8/2019 Back Creek #03-19 Arthur Nelson Sisk Landscape contracting business parking area.7/10/2019 Gainesboro #04-19 Jonathan DeHaven Establishment of a public garage without engine repair (speciality auto shop).8/14/2019 Gainesboro #06-19 Landfall Lodge Special event facility.9/11/2019 Gainesboro The number of CUP applications approved in 2019 was slightly less than the previous year’s application approval totals. CUP Approvals by Year 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 14 Zoning Violations Zoning enforcement involves responding to inquiries and complaints concerning land use and development. Formal complaints are registered, investigated, and appropriate enforcement action taken. These complaints range in topic from inoperable vehicles, to high grass, to junk/debris, to illegal uses on a property. Department Staff attempts to work with landowners to ensure compliance of an ordinance violation; however, some of the violations cannot be resolved and criminal charges are filed. Once criminal charges are filed, resolution of the violation is determined by the court system. Staff changed practices during 2015 to engage landowners to a greater extent to resolve zoning violation complaints. Many complaints are resolved without a formal violation and may not be reflected in the numbers below. There was a total of 79 Zoning Ordinance violation complaints issued by Frederick County in 2019 (see table and chart below). 45 complaints received in 2019 are still under “active” investigation, and 36 violations have been “closed” and the complaint has been resolved. For comparison, there were a total of 151 violations recorded in 2018. The tables below outline the total number of violations by type and by Magisterial District for calendar year 2019. Violation Type Count Inoperable Vehicles 37 Junk Property 8 Tall Grass (mowing completed by County) 2 Trash 4 Other (Animals, Illegal Uses, Illegal Structures, etc.) 28 Twenty-two (22) tall grass “notices” were issued and were subsequently resolved by the property owner prior to issuance of a formal “Zoning Violation.’’ Tall grass complaints resolved in this manner are not reflected in the above “Zoning Violations by Year” numbers. Zoning Violations by Year HiO 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Zoning Violations by District Back Creek • Gainesboro • Opeqoun • Red Bud • Shawnee • Stonewall 15 Other Planning Applications Waivers, Variances and Exceptions A variance is a deviation, granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) from the provisions regulating the shape, size, or area of a lot or parcel of land, or the size, height, area, massing (bulk) or location of a building or structure. There were 8 variance requests submitted for review to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) in calendar year 2019, 8 were approved. A summary of the approved variances is provided below. Number Name Request Approval Date District 01-19 Diane & David Hyman Variance 4/16/2019 Back Creek 02-19 Carl & Joanna Fertig Variance 4/16/2019 Stonewall 03-19 Armin & Renee Wessel Variance 4/16/2019 Gainesboro 04-19 William Stewart Variance 4/16/2019 Stonewall 05-19 Willamag, LLC Variance 5/21/2019 Gainesboro 06-19 Willamag, LLC Variance 5/21/2019 Gainesboro 07-19 Southeastern Container Variance 6/18/2019 Stonewall 08-19 CMH Homes, Inc Variance 9/17/2019 Gainesboro Comprehensive Policy Plans Amendments (CPPA) Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments (CPPA) are incremental changes to the approved 2035 Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and/or Long-Range Land Use Plan (LRLUP). CPPAs are evaluated by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC, see below) and go through discussion and public hearings by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. There were two (2) Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments (CPPA’s) submitted during calendar year 2019. Name Description of Request Status Blackburn Farm, LLC Expand Urban Development Area (UDA) and amend Kernstown Area Plan. Denied – 5/12/2019 Woodside Business Park Expand Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and amend land use designation. Not moved forward for further study by CPPC 16 Committees & Other Department Functions Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC) The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC) is a Committee of the Planning Commission whose primary responsibility is to formulate land use policies that shape the location, and timing of development throughout the County. In addition, the CPPC conducts studies of specific areas to develop guidelines for future land use within those areas. The CPPC also considers requests for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The CPPC was involved in several projects during 2019. There were two (2) Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPPA) applications submitted and reviewed in 2019. The CPPC also reviewed the proposed 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) The Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) is a Committee of the Planning Commission whose primary responsibility is to assess and formulate proposed changes to the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances that ranged from a variety of issues. This year, the DRRC reviewed four (4) items including: Modifying requirements for public utilities (including utility-scale solar power generating facilities); amending the conditional use (CUP) list in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District; modifying requirements for landscaping, buffers, screening, parking and requirements for certain uses; and updating the commercial telecommunication facilities supplemental use regulations to reflect changes to the Code of Virginia. Proposed changes, as supported by the DRRC, may go forward to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for additional discussion and action. Transportation Committee (TC) The Transportation Committee (TC) is responsible for transportation planning on a continuous basis and dealing with any additional transportation planning or implementation issues as they arise or are assigned by the Board of Supervisors. Some of the issues considered by the Transportation Committee in calendar year 2019 included: • Update of Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Plans. • Render input on VDOT Six Year Improvement Plan. • Render input on MPO Unified Planning Work Program. • Transportation Section of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). • Coordination with VDOT and public safety officials on transportation safety concerns • Consideration of truck restrictions on roadways • Oversight of County transportation projects including: • Crossover Boulevard (formerly Tevis Street extended) o Northern “Y” o Renaissance Drive 17 o Jubal Early Drive • Coordinate with VDOT and render input on I-81 Corridor Study • Coordinate with VDOT and render input on VTRANS Update • Address safety concerns by numerous citizens throughout the County • SmartScale application development • Revenue Sharing Application for Renaissance Drive • Hosted 5th Annual Transportation Forum on October 28, 2019. The Transportation Committee met monthly throughout 2019. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) is a subcommittee that was established by the Board of Supervisors. It consists of nine (9) members, including one from each Magisterial District in the County, two “At- Large” members, and a C hairman. Also serving on the Committee are a Planning Commission liaison and an architectural historian. The HRAB reviews land use applications that involve properties that are historically significant or may impact historic resources. Rezoning, master development plan, and conditional use permit applications that may have a potential impact on historical resources are reviewed by the HRAB. The HRAB met, as needed, in 2019. Conservation Easement Authority (CEA) The Conservation Easement Authority was established in 2005 by the Board of Supervisors. It contains nine (9) members, including one Planning Commissioner and one Board Member. Historically, the Authority's primary role focus has been conservation easement education for landowners; however, in 2008 the Authority also took on the task of managing the County's Purchase of Development Rights Program which is funded through a state grant. The CEA met, as needed, in 2019. Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) The function of the Board of Zoning Appeals is to hear appeals from citizens relevant to zoning matters as established by the zoning ordinances of the County Code and interpreted by the Zoning Administrator. The Board of Zoning Appeals is composed of seven (7) members. A summary of applications approved by the BZA is provided in the preceding section. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) GIS in Planning and Development continues to offer mapping and database support for Department projects and public inquiries. There are online mapping applications available to both the planning staff and public 18 that allow any user to look up relevant information for any question. These applications are constantly in a state of development and advancement to better assist the user, whether it is a staff member or citizen. Going into another year with the Mobile GIS application that allows users to easily search parcel information, newer applications are constantly in development that will continue to aid in the daily operations of the S taff. One application that is available is an updated Planning Access Terminal map. Along with viewing property information and planning layers (ex. Zoning, Land Use, Agricultural & Forestal Districts, TDR Properties, and Conservation Easements), the public can view current Planning Applications and their corresponding documents. A new feature that was implemented this year was ArcGIS Story Maps. Story Maps are a way to tell a story digitally, and can include interactive maps, static maps, photos, and more. Our most popular Story Map is the Transportation Projects Story Map, which shows the current transportation projects within the County. Other Story Maps produced this year were Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), 2035 Comprehensive Plan, 2035 Comprehensive Plan Appendix I, and 2035 Comprehensive Plan Appendix II. Below is a partial list of GIS projects completed this year: • Updates to the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) • Participation in the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program • Zoning and Re-Zoning GIS updates Street (Road) Sign Replacement Program Frederick County maintains and re-installs missing or vandalized street name signs throughout the County. In 2019 86 signs were replaced through this program, including 48 units installed (units include the road signs plus mounting poles). Citizens may report missing or damaged street signs through the County's At Your Service feature on the website or by contacting the Department of Planning and Development directly. 19 2019 Frederick County Planning Commission The Frederick County Planning Commission is composed of members appointed by the Board of Supervisors serving four-year staggered terms including two from each magisterial district, one member-at-large, a liaison from the Board of Supervisors, and a liaison from the City of Winchester. The Planning Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the Board of Supervisors on all planning, zoning, and land use matters. Kevin W. Kenney Chairman, Member-at-Large Roger L. Thomas Vice Chairman- Opequon Magisterial District J. Rhodes Marston Back Creek Magisterial District Greg L. Unger Back Creek Magisterial District Charles E. Triplett Gainesboro Magisterial District Alan L. Morrison Gainesboro Magisterial District Robert S. Molden Opequon Magisterial District Christopher Mohn Red Bud Magisterial District Kathleen M. Dawson Red Bud Magisterial District Lawrence R. Ambrogi Shawnee Magisterial District H. Paige Manuel Shawnee Magisterial District Gary R. Oates Stonewall Magisterial District William H. Cline Stonewall Magisterial District Shannon Trout (non-member) BOS Liaison- Shawnee Magisterial District Rod B. Williams (non-member) Legal Counsel The regularly scheduled meetings for the Planning Commission are the first and third Wednesdays of each month, Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 107 North Kent Street, County Administration Building. 20 2019 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Frederick County is governed by an elected Board of Supervisors composed of seven members, one from each magisterial district - Shawnee, Opequon, Gainesboro, Stonewall, Back Creek and Red Bud, and one Chairman- at-large. Supervisors are elected for four-year terms which are staggered at two-year intervals. The Board of Supervisors is the policy-making body of the County and is officially known as the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. It is vested with all policy-making powers and responsibilities conferred by general law on county governing bodies. Functions of the Board of Supervisors include making land use decisions, establishing growth and development policies, setting operational policies, and reviewing and adopting the County's operational and capital budgets which set spending priorities. Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Chairman-at-large Gary A. Lofton Vice-Chairman, Back Creek Magisterial District Supervisor Robert W. Wells Opequon Magisterial District Supervisor Shannon G. Trout Shawnee Magisterial District Supervisor Blaine P. Dunn Red Bud Magisterial District Supervisor J. Douglas McCarthy Gainesboro Magisterial District Supervisor Judith McCann-Slaughter Stonewall Magisterial District Supervisor The regularly scheduled meetings for the Board of Supervisors are the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month, Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 107 North Kent Street, County Administration Building. 21 This page was intentionally left blank.