The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 05-06-20 Meeting Agenda AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia May 6, 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, December 18, 2019, and January 15, 2020 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 facility adding six (6) beds for a total of forty (40) 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) Master Development Plan #02-20 Heritage Commons submitted by Pennoni Associates for R-150 SPE, LLC., to develop 1.75-acres +/- of land zoned R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for a mixed-use community with up to 645 multi-family residential housing units and a minimum of 107,500 square feet of commercial development. The subject properties are located generally west of Route 522 and east of Interstate 81 and north and south of (future) Crossover Boulevard and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 63-A-15, 64-A-10 and 64-A-12. Please note this item is presented for informational purposes_only. Mr. Klein .......................................................................................................................... (C) 7)Development Review fees for Commercial Telecommunication Facilities CUPs. Mr. Klein .......................................................................................................................... (D) 8)Zoning Enforcement, Violations, and Penalties Mr. Klein .......................................................................................................................... (E) 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 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3688 Minutes of January 15, 2020 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 January 15, 2020 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; 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: None STAFF PRESENT: Michael T. Ruddy, Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; M. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner; Pam Deeter, Secretary. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Kenney called the January 15, 2020 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 3689 Minutes of January 15, 2020 ELECTION OF OFFICERS, MEETING SCHEDULE, AND ADOPTION OF BYLAWS AND RULES & RESPONSIBILITIES FOR 2020 Director Michael T. Ruddy presided over the election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman for 2020. Election of Kevin W. Kenney, Chairman for 2020 Director Michael T. Ruddy declared nominations open for Chairman for the 2020 calendar year. The nomination of Mr. Kevin W. Kenney for Chairman was made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Triplett. BE IT RESOLVED, that by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby elect Mr. Kevin W. Kenney as Chairman of the Planning Commission for the calendar year 2020. Election of Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman for 2020 Director Michael T. Ruddy declared nominations open for Vice Chairmen for the 2020 calendar year. The nomination of Mr. Roger L. Thomas was made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Triplett. BE IT RESOLVED, that by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby elect Mr. Roger L. Thomas as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for the calendar year 2020. Election of Michael T. Ruddy, Secretary for 2020 Chairman Kenney declared nominations open for Secretary for the 2020 calendar year. The nomination of Mr. Michael T. Ruddy was made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Cline. BE IT RESOLVED, that by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby elect Mr. Michael T. Ruddy as Secretary of the Planning Commission for the calendar year 2020. ------------- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3690 Minutes of January 15, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS AND ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES AND MEETING SCHEDULES FOR 2020 Director Michael T. Ruddy stated the Planning Commission’s Bylaws and Roles and Responsibilities and Meeting Schedules have been reviewed by the Commission and are ready for the Commission’s consideration and adoption. Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously adopt the Planning Commission’s Bylaws and the Roles & Responsibilities and Meeting Schedules for the calendar year of 2020 as presented. COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS Regarding committee assignments for the calendar year 2020, Chairman Kenney asked the Planning Commission members to remain in their current committee assignments until notified otherwise. ------------- COMMITTEE REPORTS City of Winchester Commissioner Brandon Pifer, Winchester City Planning Commission Liaison, reported the scheduled work session was not held due to the weather conditions. ------------- 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 3691 Minutes of January 15, 2020 PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit #08-19 for TowerCo, submitted by Thomas Moore Lawson, P.C. to construct a commercial telecommunication facility consisting of a 195-foot monopole telecommunication facility and accessory structures. The property is located at 107 Emory Court, Stephens City, Virginia and is identified with Property Identification Number 75-A-118 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action – Recommend Denial Mr. Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator, reported this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a commercial telecommunication facility consisting of a 195 foot monopole telecommunication facility and accessory structures. He continued, the property is located on a 4+/- acre property that is zoned RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District and the property is located within the UDA and SWSA as well as being located within the Southern Frederick Area Plan. Mr. Cheran presented location maps of the property. He noted, the plan identifies this area as a recreational resource with the area north to remain residential in character. Mr. Cheran explained the Zoning Ordinance requires commercial telecommunication towers over 50’ in height to have a Conditional Use Permit. He continued, the properties immediately adjacent to this proposed CUP are currently zoned RA (Rural Areas) and RP (Residential Performance) are located to the north of this site; the Zoning Ordinance requires that all proposed telecommunication facilities be subject to additional performance standards in order to promote orderly economic development and mitigate the negative impacts to adjoining properties, residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas and properties of significant historic value. Mr. Cheran reported, the Zoning Ordinance requires an Applicant to provide confirmation that an attempt was made to collocate on an existing telecommunication facility, and possible collocation structures. He noted, the Applicant has provided an inventory of existing telecommunication facilities, and no other telecommunication facility or possible collocation opportunity structures exist in this area; should this facility be approved this commercial telecommunication facility will be positioned to provide the existing and future land uses in this area of the County with telecommunication needs. Mr. Cheran presented the following conditions as recommended by Staff: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. The tower shall be available for collocating personal wireless service providers. 3. A minor site plan shall be approved by Frederick County. 4. The tower shall be removed by the Applicant or property within 12 months of abandonment of operation. 5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within 12 months of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, the CUP will be deemed invalid. 6. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Thomas “Ty” Lawson, P.C. came forward representing the Applicant. He provided a brief overview of the application. Mr. David Hockey, of TowerCo came forward and shared what TowerCo is and what they do. He explained, they were approached by Shentel to build a tower at this Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3692 Minutes of January 15, 2020 location. He provided mapping of the property and the proposed location of the tower. Regarding the tower height, he noted it was originally planned to be 195 feet and has been reduced to 150 feet. Commissioner Thomas commented regarding the topography of the site; if the tower is moved farther south it will be moving it closer to the park property. Mr. Hockey stated that is correct. Commissioner Thomas asked if the topography is the same farther south as it is in the center of the site or does the topography drop off. Mr. Hockey commented the parcel is generally flat and moving it south would be moving it a little farther from the housing. Commissioner Triplett asked if these monopoles are designed to collapse down rather than fall over. Mr. Hockey stated that is correct; when the towers are designed, they have what is called collapse zones that are within the tower. Mr. Lawson provided an aerial view of the property noting trees will be planted in the surrounding area where some of the trees are missing. He reported, there have been attempts by Shentel to find other sites that have been unsuccessful. Ms. Jessie Wilmer, representing Shentel came forward and provided a brief overview of Shentel and their history. She shared the objectives of Shentel in providing coverage in the area. Ms. Wilmer provided the reasons as to why they need the tower. She explained the balloon testing that was performed for this project and shared photos. Commissioner Oates asked if a light will be required on top if it is at 150 feet. Mr. Lawson responded no; it would have to be above 200 feet according to the FAA. He noted, the Applicant would put a light if it were needed. Chairman Kenney called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing to come forward at this time. Approximately 18 to 20 citizens came forward and shared their concerns which consisted of: A negative impact on property values; an eye sore from surrounding homes; it will be hard to sell homes in Dominion Greens; health impacts the tower could have; bike and walking trails will be affected; a danger to children in recreational area; a light on top would be a nuisance. One citizen spoke in favor of the tower and shared: the need for communication; need more cell towers to cover the capacity and Shentel has done a great job of finding locations; colocation will be beneficial to other carriers. Supervisor Bob Wells came forward and offered to speak with citizens after the meeting. No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Lawson shared; the FAA determination does not require a light. He noted the sensitivity to the needs and views of the neighbors and Shentel will do their best to accommodate. Commissioner Thomas thanked everyone for coming and speaking. He noted the Applicants willingness to compromise the height of the tower and there are some sacrifices that have to be made. He understands this is a tough issue however there are limited areas this can be located. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3693 Minutes of January 15, 2020 Commissioner Mohn commented he struggles to support the justification and the impacts on the neighbors but yet there is a real need for a tower near there. A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas to approve however there was not a second. Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates to deny and seconded by Commissioner Molden BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does recommend denial of Conditional Use Permit #08-19 for TowerCo, submitted by Thomas Moore Lawson, P.C. to construct a commercial telecommunication facility consisting of a 195-foot monopole telecommunication facility and accessory structures. The property is located at 107 Emory Court, Stephens City, Virginia and is identified with Property Identification Number 75-A-118 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Yes: Marston, Ambrogi, Manuel, Cline, Oates, Kenney, Molden, Mohn, Dawson, Morrison, Triplett No: Thomas 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, §165-204.19, Telecommunication facilities, commercial. Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to §165-204.19 to allow telecommunication structures up to 100-feet above ground level as administrative review-eligible projects in certain areas of the County. Recommend – Denial Mr. M. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner, reported the Board of Supervisors adopted the proposed changes to the telecommunication facilities, commercial requirements on December 11, 2019 which created a two-track process for review and approval of commercial telecommunication facilities. He continued, following approval of the proposed ordinance amendment, the Board directed Staff to draft a subsequent amendment to further allow telecommunications facilities up to 100 feet in height by-right in certain areas of the County. Mr. Klein explained, the purpose of the amendment to Chapter 165 – Zoning Ordinance is to: Enable telecommunication structures, up to 100 feet in height by-right in areas of the County west of Interstate 81; All other requirements of the newly adopted telecommunications facilities, commercial section of the Zoning Ordinance remain unchanged. He provided mapping showing the new area. Mr. Klein concluded, this item was proposed by the Board of Supervisors at their December 11, 2019 meeting and subsequently drafted by the County Attorney and Planning and Development Staff. Commissioner Thomas asked if the language could possibly be changed to read “outside of the Urban Development Area”. Mr. Klein commented, it is not that clear of a line and Staff went by the explicit direction of a Board Member to use this language. Commissioner Oates asked if the Board of Supervisors directed this item to come straight to a Public Hearing rather than hold a discussion. Mr. Klein noted that is correct. Commissioner Oates commented if it had gone to the DRRC things may have been ironed out a bit and as the item is now, he cannot support it. Chairman Kenney called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing to come forward at this time. Numerous citizens spoke in opposition of this Ordinance Amendment siting concerns such as: a tower being too close to homes; need a CUP for this type of tower; use the existing Verizon tower; close to a home’s septic system; 100 foot tower is too large for this area. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3694 Minutes of January 15, 2020 A couple citizens spoke in favor of this Ordinance Amendment siting the need for better service in the area and the by-right abilities. No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates seconded by Commissioner Thomas BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does unanimously recommend denial of 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, §165-204.19, Telecommunication facilities, commercial. Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to §165-204.19 to allow telecommunication structures up to 100-feet above ground level as administrative review-eligible projects in certain areas of the County. ------------- ACTION ITEM 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP is a prioritized list of capital projects requested by various County Department and Agencies. The Plan is created as an information document to assist in the development of the County’s annual budget. If adopted, the CIP is a component of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Recommend – Approval Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Director, reported the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a document that consists of a schedule of major capital expenditures for the County for the ensuing five- year period, as well as a category for long term projects (6+ years out). He continued; the inclusion of projects is in no way an indication that Frederick County will be undertaking these projects. Mr. Ruddy noted, the CIP is strictly advisory; it is intended for use as a capital facilities planning document, not for requesting funding allocations. He explained, once adopted, project priorities and cost estimates may change throughout the year based on changing circumstances. It is also possible that particular projects may not be funded during the year that is indicated in the CIP. Mr. Ruddy reported, this year’s CIP continues to reinforce the connection between the CIP, the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, and future rezoning applications; the total number of projects is 82. He concluded, the CPPC endorsed the 2020 – 2025 CIP in December 2019 and determined the CIP is in conformance with the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Oates commented, each year we look at the CIP and the departments are to be looking at this as to what they need rather than what they want; however, it is not a document being funded by the County and it does meet the requirements of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Thomas noted, sometimes the CIP gives the department unwarranted expectations; some things on the list will never happen. He wishes we could come up with a more realistic CIP based on income and what we can actually afford to spend and not have a “wish list”. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas seconded by Commissioner Manuel Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3695 Minutes of January 15, 2020 BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP is a prioritized list of capital projects requested by various County Department and Agencies. The Plan is created as an information document to assist in the development of the County’s annual budget. If adopted, the CIP is a component of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. ------------- CANCELATION OF REGULAR MEETING Chairman Kenney announced there were no pending items for the Planning Commission’s February 5, 2020 meeting and it 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 Thomas and unanimously passed. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 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: April 21, 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: 05/06/20 Pending Board of Supervisors: 05/27/20 Pending EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the expansion of the existing assisted living facility use. CUP #22-04 was approved in 2004 which allowed for 34 beds. This CUP, 01- 20, requests the addition of six (6) additional resident rooms. The expansion would bring the total number of beds in the facility to 40. 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. 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 April 21, 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 Page 3 CUP #01-20, J K Lee Services April 21, 2020 height and area shall comply with T506 with allowable increases for proposed use. Institutional 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. Page 4 CUP #01-20, J K Lee Services April 21, 2020 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 05/06/20 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the expansion of the existing assisted living facility use. CUP #22-04 was approved in 2004 which allowed for 34 beds. This CUP, 01- 20, requests the addition of six (6) additional resident rooms. The expansion would bring the total number of beds in the facility to 40. 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. 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 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #02-20 Heritage Commons Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: April 27, 2020 Staff Contact: M. Tyler Klein, AICP, Senior Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 05/06/20 Pending Board of Supervisors: 05/27/20 Pending PROPOSAL: The Applicant seeks to develop 141.75-acres +/- of land zoned R4 (Residential Planned Community) Zoning District property for a mixed-use community with up to 645 multi-family residential housing units and a minimum of 107,500 square feet (SF) of commercial development. The development also includes 4.28-acres +/- of right-of-way for future Warrior Drive north extended, 11.94-acres +/- of preserved environmental features (Buffalo Lick Run) to-be-used for recreation, and future inter-parcel connectivity with the Madison Village residential community. The property is bisected by Crossover Boulevard, a new major collector roadway connecting the City of Winchester and Route 522, providing access to planned land bays. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 63-A-150, 64-A-10, & 64-A-12 LOCATION: The properties are located generally west of Route 522 and east of Interstate 81 and north and south of (future) Crossover Boulevard. PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: R4 (Residential Planned Community) Use: Undeveloped/Vacant ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES: North: RP (Residential Performance) District Use: Vacant/Residential B2 (General Business) District Use: Vacant South: RP (Residential Performance) District Use: Residential (Madison Village) RA (Rural Areas) District Use: Vacant/Agricultural East: RP (Residential Performance) District Use: Residential Route 522 Use: Route 522 West: Interstate 81 Use: Interstate 81 MDP #02-20, Heritage Commons April 27, 2020 Page 2 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 05/06/20 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Master Development Plan (MDP) for Heritage Commons appears to be consistent with the approved Rezoning (REZ) application #10-15 (proffers) and with the requirements of Article VIII, Master Development Plan, of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and this MDP is in a form that is administratively approvable. All of the issues brought forth by the Planning Commission should be appropriately addressed by the Applicant. It appears that the application meets all requirements. Following presentation of the application to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, and the incorporation of your comments, Staff is prepared to proceed to approval of the application. MDP #02-20, Heritage Commons April 27, 2020 Page 3 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: . The County Approved Generalized Development Plan (GDP) included an inter-parcel connection between landbay two and landbay three. This connection has not been included in the MDP. Other than this change, we have no objection to the MDP. Please revise and submit back to this office for final review. See comment letter (email) dated February 25, 2020. Frederick County Fire Marshal: Approved. See approval letter dated February 4, 2020. Frederick County Public Works: Through the development of Crossover Boulevard road project, Frederick County, the owner of property (MMA/ Hunt) and VDOT have a written agreement regarding stormwater management. We are constructing stormwater management facilities that will handle the water quantity for the entire development. The owner has a cost share agreement with the County and they are paying for a large portion of the costs to develop ponds as we construct the road. Once the road project is complete, the owners have full ownership of the ponds and will have to maintain the ponds into the future. In regard to meeting the water quality portion of the regulations, the owners will have to provide water quality compliance with the regulations as they obtain permit coverage. This is outlined in the agreement between Frederick County and owners. See approval letter dated February 28, 2020. Frederick County Inspections: Master Development Plan for future subdivision. Alternations adjacent to FEMA Floodplain shall be approved. Buildings or structures located in or adjacent to floodplain shall be required as per the 2015 Virginia Residential Code. No additional comments at this time. See comment letter dated February 3, 2020. Frederick Water: Frederick Water has reviewed and approves the MDP submission, signed and sealed by David Frank on April 15, 2020. Please note that a detailed review will be conducted with the site plan submission. See comment letter dated April 15, 2020. Frederick County Public Schools: Frederick County Public Schools has reviewed the Heritage Commons Master Development Plan submitted to us on February 4, 2020. We offer the following comment: 1. It is noted that some streets will be private. As our buses don’t travel down private lanes, students who live on these streets will need to walk to a public street to meet the bus at a location to be designated by our Transportation Department. 2. We would like to work with you so that buses have a place to turn around at every phase of development. Ideally, the location of turnarounds would be convenient to residential areas. MDP #02-20, Heritage Commons April 27, 2020 Page 4 See comment letter dated February 25, 2020. Frederick County Parks and Recreation: Parks and Recreation recommends modifying the Buffalo Lick Run trail aligning to connect to Warrior Drive. More specifically to the plan shared -use path along the Warrior Drive alignment. See comment letter dated February 18, 2020. Winchester Regional Airport: See comment letter dated March 9, 2020 and supporting documentation. Planning & Zoning: A) Master Development Plan Requirement A Master Development Plan (MDP) is required prior to development of this property. Before a MDP can be approved, it must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and all relevant review agencies. Approval may only be granted if the MDP conforms to all requirements of the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The purpose of the MDP is to promote orderly and planned development of the property within Frederick County that suits the characteristics of the land, is harmonious with adjoining property and is in the best interest of the general public. B) Site History The properties subject to the MDP were part of Rezoning (REZ) application #10-15, approved December 9, 2015 with proffers. The approved proffer statement allows up to 645 multi-family residential units and require 107,500 square feet (SF) of commercial development. Additionally, the approved proffers included a “Design Modification Document” that revised certain Zoning Ordinance requirements for building setbacks, building height, buffers & landscaping, and open space to allow for the creation of a higher density mixed-use community. The MDP is generally in conformance with the approved proffer statement, including the “Design Modification Document,” and Generalized Development Plan (GDP) approved with the rezoning. C) Site Suitability & Project Scope Comprehensive Plan: The 2035 Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the Community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this Plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. Land Use Compatibility: The parcels comprising this MDP, Heritage Commons, are located within the County’s Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The UDA defines the general area in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. In addition, the Heritage Commons property is located within the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan. MDP #02-20, Heritage Commons April 27, 2020 Page 5 This land use plan calls for the area north of Buffalo Lick Run and between I-81 and the future Warrior Drive to be developed with Employment (commercial) land uses and the area south of Buffalo Lick Run for High-Density Residential. Site Access and Transportation: Access, as shown on the MDP, will be provided to the site via Crossover Boulevard (under construction) from the City of Winchester and from Route 522 (Northwestern Pike). Right-of-way for future Warrior Drive north extended is also provided. Internal streets will provide circulation throughout the development. Sidewalks will also be provided on either side of internal streets for pedestrian connectivity within the development. The Applicant will also provide a 10’ trail along Buffalo Lick Run for recreation. Zoning Ordinance: The site is in conformance with the applicable Zoning Ordinance standards for the R4 (Residential Planned Community) Zoning District. The MDP also addresses the required buffers, screening, and landscaping elements required by Code. Site Plans for individual lots within the development will need to be submitted and reviewed by Frederick County prior to the establishment of particular uses. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 05/06/20 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Master Development Plan (MDP) for Heritage Commons appears to be consistent with the approved Rezoning (REZ) application #10-15 (proffers) and with the requirements of Article VIII, Master Development Plan, of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and this MDP is in a form that is administratively approvable. All of the issues brought forth by the Planning Commission should be appropriately addressed by the Applicant. It appears that the application meets all requirements. Following presentation of the application to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, and the incorporation of your comments, Staff is prepared to proceed to approval of the application. MADISONVILLAGESubdivision AIRPORTBUSINESS CENTERSubdivision WINCH ESTERREGIONAL AIRPORTSubdivision PRESTONBUSINESS PARKSubdivision WINDY H ILLSubdivision £¤522 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 Winchester 64 A 12 64 A 12 64 A 10 64 A 10 63 A 150 3364PAPERMILL RD 103LONGCROFT RD 109LONGCROFT RD 119LONGCROFT RD 190ADMIRALBYRD DR 3306PAPERMILL RD3312PAPERMILL RD 110BULMER LOOP 110BULMER LOOP 110BULMERLOOP 910FRONT ROYALPIKE 949FRONTROYAL PIKE 116ELMWOOD RD 120ELMWOOD RD 124ELMWOOD RD123LONGCROFT RD 3290PAPERMILL RD 3318PAPERMILL RD 107ELMWOOD RD 3300PAPERMILL RD 921FRONT ROYALPIKE 791FRONT ROYALPIKE 109ELMWOOD RD115ELMWOOD RD 125ELMWOOD RD127ELMWOOD RD 3272PAPERMILL RD 3279PAPERMILL RD 170MUSKOKA CT 867FRONTROYAL PIKE 124CASTLEBRIDGE CT 124CASTLEBRIDGE CT831FRONTROYAL PIKE 781FRONTROYAL PIKE 749FRONTROYAL PIKE 238AIRPORT RD 236AIRPORT RD 721FRONT ROYALPIKE 230AIRPORT RD 699FRONT ROYALPIKE 113BRIGSTOCK DR 201BRIGSTOCK DR 112AVIATOR PL 655FRONT ROYALPIKE673FRONTROYAL PIKE 649FRONTROYAL PIKE 609FRONTROYAL PIKE 641FRONT ROYALPIKE 155ROYALAVE137ROYALAVE 628FRONTROYAL PIKE 615FRONT ROYALPIKE 226BUFFLICK RD 256BUFFLICK RD 244BUFFLICK RD 179FRONT DR 138FRONT DR 192BUFFLICK RD 210BUFFLICK RD 233BUFFLICK RD243BUFFLICK RD 578FRONTROYAL PIKE 578FRONTROYAL PIKE 154BUFFLICK RD 140BUFFLICK RD 171BUFFLICK RD 223BUFFLICK RD203BUFFLICK RD 188FRONT DR 545FRONTROYAL PIKE 125BUFFLICK RD 133PREMIER PL 100PREMIER PL 497FRONTROYAL PIKE 501FRONTROYAL PIKE 474FRONTROYAL PIKE 473FRONT ROYALPIKE 466FRONTROYAL PIKE 422FRONTROYAL PIKE 425FRONT ROYALPIKE 431FRONTROYAL PIKE 186WINCREST DR 186WINCREST DR 423FRONTROYAL PIKE 388FRONT ROYALPIKE 360FRONT ROYAL PIKE P A P E R M I L L R D SUMMITAVE SULGRAVECT P A N A Y W A Y LONGVIEWAVE C A S T L E B R I D G E C T RENABELL DR LEAFIELD CTBALDWIN S T E TEVIS ST P R E M I E R P L B R O A D V I E W S T P A L A W A N P L NETHERFIELD CT ROYAL AVE CIRCLE DR R H O N D A D R AIRPORT RD FRONT DR ROYAL ST BULMER LOOP B R I G S T O C K D R S H A W N E E D R L E G G E B L V D WINCREST DR IMPERIAL ST E L M W O O D R D S U N D A C I R BUFFLICK RD SUPERIOR AVE F R O N T R O Y A L P I K E Application Parcels Sewer and Water Service A rea B1 (Neighborhood Business District) B2 (General Business District) B3 (Industr ial Transition District) M1 (Light Industrial District) M2 (Industr ial General Distr ict) R4 (Residential Planned Com munity Distr ict) RP (Residential Per form ance District)µ Frederick C ounty Planning & Development107 N Kent StWinchester, V A 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: April 24, 2020 Winchester F R O N T R O Y A L P I K E V A L L E Y A V E P A P E R M IL L R D AIRPORT RD TEVIS ST S H A W N E E D R BUFFLICK RD B A T T A I L E D R L E G G E B L V D TRAVIS CT SUMMIT AVE COVERSTONE DR WINCREST DR S U N D A C I R F R O N T R O Y A L P I K E 0 880 1,760440 Feet MD P #02-20 MDP # 02 - 20: Heritage CommonsPINs: 63 - A - 150, 64 - A - 10, 64 - A - 12141.75 Acre Mixed-Use DevelopmentZoning Map MDP #02-20 MD P #02-20 MD P #02-20 MD P #02-20 §¨¦81 MADISONVILLAGESubdivision AIRPORTBUSINESS CENTERSubdivision WINCH ESTERREGIONAL AIRPORTSubdivision PRESTONBUSINESS PARKSubdivision WINDY H ILLSubdivision £¤522 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 Winchester 64 A 12 64 A 12 64 A 10 64 A 10 63 A 150 3364PAPERMILL RD 103LONGCROFT RD 109LONGCROFT RD 119LONGCROFT RD 190ADMIRALBYRD DR 3306PAPERMILL RD3312PAPERMILL RD 110BULMER LOOP 110BULMER LOOP 110BULMERLOOP 910FRONT ROYALPIKE 949FRONTROYAL PIKE 116ELMWOOD RD 120ELMWOOD RD 124ELMWOOD RD123LONGCROFT RD 3290PAPERMILL RD 3318PAPERMILL RD 107ELMWOOD RD 3300PAPERMILL RD 921FRONT ROYALPIKE 791FRONT ROYALPIKE 109ELMWOOD RD115ELMWOOD RD 125ELMWOOD RD127ELMWOOD RD 3272PAPERMILL RD 3279PAPERMILL RD 170MUSKOKA CT 867FRONTROYAL PIKE 124CASTLEBRIDGE CT 124CASTLEBRIDGE CT831FRONTROYAL PIKE 781FRONTROYAL PIKE 749FRONTROYAL PIKE 238AIRPORT RD 236AIRPORT RD 721FRONT ROYALPIKE 230AIRPORT RD 699FRONT ROYALPIKE 113BRIGSTOCK DR 201BRIGSTOCK DR 112AVIATOR PL 655FRONT ROYALPIKE673FRONTROYAL PIKE 649FRONTROYAL PIKE 609FRONTROYAL PIKE 641FRONT ROYALPIKE 155ROYALAVE137ROYALAVE 628FRONTROYAL PIKE 615FRONT ROYALPIKE 226BUFFLICK RD 256BUFFLICK RD 244BUFFLICK RD 179FRONT DR 138FRONT DR 192BUFFLICK RD 210BUFFLICK RD 233BUFFLICK RD243BUFFLICK RD 578FRONTROYAL PIKE 578FRONTROYAL PIKE 154BUFFLICK RD 140BUFFLICK RD 171BUFFLICK RD 223BUFFLICK RD203BUFFLICK RD 188FRONT DR 545FRONTROYAL PIKE 125BUFFLICK RD 133PREMIER PL 100PREMIER PL 497FRONTROYAL PIKE 501FRONTROYAL PIKE 474FRONTROYAL PIKE 473FRONT ROYALPIKE 466FRONTROYAL PIKE 422FRONTROYAL PIKE 425FRONT ROYALPIKE 431FRONTROYAL PIKE 186WINCREST DR 186WINCREST DR 423FRONTROYAL PIKE 388FRONT ROYALPIKE 360FRONT ROYAL PIKE P A P E R M I L L R D SUMMITAVE SULGRAVECT P A N A Y W A Y LONGVIEWAVE C A S T L E B R I D G E C T RENABELL DR LEAFIELD CTBALDWIN S T E TEVIS ST P R E M I E R P L B R O A D V I E W S T P A L A W A N P L NETHERFIELD CT ROYAL AVE CIRCLE DR R H O N D A D R AIRPORT RD FRONT DR ROYAL ST BULMER LOOP B R I G S T O C K D R S H A W N E E D R L E G G E B L V D WINCREST DR IMPERIAL ST E L M W O O D R D S U N D A C I R BUFFLICK RD SUPERIOR AVE F R O N T R O Y A L P I K E Application Parcels Sewer and Water Service A rea µ Frederick C ounty Planning & Development107 N Kent StWinchester, V A 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: April 24, 2020 Winchester F R O N T R O Y A L P I K E V A L L E Y A V E P A P E R M IL L R D AIRPORT RD TEVIS ST S H A W N E E D R BUFFLICK RD B A T T A I L E D R L E G G E B L V D TRAVIS CT SUMMIT AVE COVERSTONE DR WINCREST DR S U N D A C I R F R O N T R O Y A L P I K E 0 880 1,760440 Feet MD P #02-20 MDP # 02 - 20: Heritage CommonsPINs: 63 - A - 150, 64 - A - 10, 64 - A - 12141.75 Acre Mixed-Use DevelopmentLocation Map MDP #02-20 MD P #02-20 MD P #02-20 MD P #02-20 §¨¦81 7 4 0 7 3 6 7 3 8 7 4 2 7 4 4 74 6 73 0 740 73 2 734 736 738 742 744 746 7 4 6 7 4 6 730 740 724 72 6 72872 8 728 732734736 738 742 744 7 4 6 730 7 4 0 740 74 0 74 0 74 0 73 2 7 3 4 73 6 738 7 3 8 73 8 73 8 73 8 738 73 8 74 2 68 0 68 0 69 0 69 0 70 0 70 0 71 0 72 0 6 8 2 68 2 68 4 68 4 68 6 68 6 68 8 68 8 69 2 69 2 69 4 69 4 69 6 69 6 69 8 69 8 70 2 70 2 70 4 70 6 70 8 712 7147 1 4 714 716 718 7 0 0 7 1 0 6 9 4 6 9 6 69 8 70 2 7 0 4 70 6 7 0 8 71 2 71 4 7 1 0 7 2 0 7 0 4 7 0 6 70 8 7 1 2 7 1 4 7 1 6 718 72 2 TAX MAP 64-A-12 R 150 SPE, LLC INST. NO. 120008564 114.378 AC. TAX MAP 63-A-150 INST. NO. 120008564 0.309 AC. TAX MAP 64-A-12 R 150 SPE, LLC INST. NO. 120008564 114.378 AC. FU N K H O U S E R A D D I T I O N D B . 1 8 3 P G . 4 8 R E S I D E N T I A L ZO N E : R P T. M . 6 4 - A - 1 0 - A VA C A N T ZO N E : R A TAX MAP 64-A-10 R 150 SPE, LLC INST. NO. 120008564 INST. NO. 180009156 27.129 AC. 3 5 ' S E T B A C K 5 0 ' S E T B A C K 3 5 ' S E T B A C K 35' SETBAC K 3 5 ' S E T B A C K 3 5 ' S E T B A C K INT E R S T A T E 8 1 (N. B . L . ) (S.B . L . ) B L O C K W E L L H O U S E E X I S T I N G S A N . S E W E R T O B E R E M O V E D FEM A F L O O D H A Z A R D A R E A "ZO N E A " BUFFA L O L I C K R U N TAX MAP 63-A-123-A VACANT ZONE: RA MADISON VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL ZONE: RP T.M. 64-A-73 CHURCH ZONE: B2 T.M. 64B-A-73B VACANT ZONE: RP T.M. 64-A-9 VACANT ZONE: B2 50' SETBACK 35 ' S E T B A C K F R O N T R O Y A L P I K E F R O N T R O Y A L P I K E RENA B E L L D R I V E R H O N D A D R I V E LAND BAY 2 45.2934 AC. WARRIOR RES. = 2.5848 AC. COMMERCIAL = 10.6763 AC. (25%) RESIDENTIAL = 32.0289 AC. (75%) LAND BAY 1 31.6945 AC. COMMERCIAL (100%) F U T U R E W A R R I O R D R . 92' R / W M A J O R C O L L E C T O R - U 4 D LAND BAY 3 52.5913 AC. WARRIOR RES. = 1.7000 AC. COMMERCIAL = 40.7120 AC. (80%) RESIDENTIAL = 10.1780 AC. (20%) CROS S O V E R B L V D . MAJO R C O L L E C T O R LAND BAY BUFFALO LICK RUN 11.9486 AC. INTERPARCEL CONNE C T O R RENA BELL DR. PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION PROFFER G9 PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION PROFFER G9 (LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED) FINAL LOC A T I O N T O B E DETERMINED WIT H P R O F F E R G 6 PUMP STATION FORCE MAIN FORCE MAIN CONNECT TO EX SMH (TO RT-50 PS) CONNECTION TO MADISON VILLAGE WATERLINE "J" WATERLINE CONNECTION SWM SWM SWM SWM SWM SWM SWM SWM SWM SWM SWM SWM PRO F F E R F 1 10' P E D E S T R I A N & B I C Y C L E T R A I L APP R O X I M A T E L O C A T I O N LA N D B A Y 2 CO M M E R C I A L LA N D B A Y 2 RE S I D E N T I A L LA N D B A Y 3 CO M M E R C I A L LAND BAY 2 RESIDENTIAL LAND BAY 2 RESIDENTIAL LAND BAY 2 COMMERCIAL LA N D B A Y 1 CO M M E R C I A L LAND BAY 1 COMMERCIAL LAND BAY 3 COMMERCIAL LAND BAY 3 RESIDENTIAL F U T U R E N O R T H E R N " Y " R O A D 9 2 ' R / W M A J O R C O L L E C T O R - U 4 D SEC . 1 6 5 - 2 0 3 . 0 2 ( D ) ZON I N G D I S T R I C T B U F F E R S E C . 1 6 5 - 2 0 3 . 0 2 ( C ) R E S I D E N T I A L S E P A R A T I O N B U F F E R SEC. 165-203.02 (E) ROAD EFFICIENCY BUFFER SEC. 1 6 5 - 2 0 3 . 0 2 (E) ROA D E F F I C I E N C Y B U F F E R SEC. 165-2 0 3 . 0 2 (E) ROA D E F F I C I E N C Y B U F F E R SEC . 1 6 5 - 2 0 3 . 0 2 ( E ) RO A D E F F I C I E N C Y B U F F E R FUT U R E W A R R I O R INT E R S T A T E I - 8 1 ROA D E F F I C I E N C Y B U F F E R SE C 1 6 5 - 2 0 3 . 0 2 ( D ) ZO N I N G D I S T R I C T B U F F E R SEC 165-203.02 (D) ZONING DISTRICT BUFFER SE C 1 6 5 - 2 0 3 . 0 2 ( D ) ZO N I N G D I S T R I C T B U F F E R PER PROFFER C-5, PROPERTY BOUNDARY WITH TAX MAP PARCELS 64-A-12 AND 14 SHALL PROVIDE A COMMON SHARED BUFFER SHOULD THIS PORTION OF THE LANDBAY DEVELOP AS MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. K: \ P r o j e c t s \ M M C M \ M M C M 1 6 0 1 - M M A R u s s e l l 1 5 0 \ D E S I G N \ _ P U B L I S H \ C S \ M D P \ C S 0 0 3 . d w g PL O T T E D : 4/ 1 5 / 2 0 2 0 1 0 : 2 1 A M , B Y : Da v i d F r a n k PL O T S T Y L E : Pe n n o n i N C S . s t b PR O J E C T S T A T U S : MD P CS003 BY NO . DA T E RE V I S I O N S MMCM1601 AS NOTED CJM 2019-11-25 RAM SHEET APPROVED BY OF4 5 DRAWN BY DRAWING SCALE DATE PROJECT ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR REPRESENTED TO BE SUITABLE FOR REUSE BY OWNER OR OTHERS ON THE EXTENSIONS OF THE PROJECT OR ON ANY OTHER PROJECT. ANY REUSE WITHOUT WRITTEN VERIFICATION OR ADAPTATION BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE INTENDED WILL BE AT OWNERS SOLE RISK AND WITHOUT LIABILITY OR LEGAL EXPOSURE TO PENNONI ASSOCIATES; AND OWNER SHALL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS PENNONI ASSOCIATES FROM ALL CLAIMS, DAMAGES, LOSSES AND EXPENSES ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING THEREFROM. AL L D I M E N S I O N S M U S T B E V E R I F I E D B Y C O N T R A C T O R AN D O W N E R M U S T B E N O T I F I E D O F A N Y DI S C R E P A N C I E S B E F O R E P R O C E E D I N G W I T H W O R K 00 150'300' 03 - 1 6 - 2 0 2 0 1 AD D R E S S A G E N C Y C O M M E N T S DL F 03 - 3 1 - 2 0 2 0 2 AD D R E S S A G E N C Y C O M M E N T S ( P L A N N I N G ) DL F PE N N O N I A S S O C I A T E S I N C . 11 7 E a s t P i c c a d i l l y S t r e e t Wi n c h e s t e r , V A 2 2 6 0 1 T 54 0 . 6 6 7 . 2 1 3 9 F 54 0 . 6 6 5 . 0 4 9 3 NORTH NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION OR BIDDING R- 1 5 0 S P E , L L C 36 0 0 O ' D O N N E L L S T . | S U I T E 6 0 0 BA L T I M O R E , M D . 2 1 2 2 4 FR O N T R O Y A L P I K E | WI N C H E S T E R , V A SH A W N E E M A G I S T E R I A L D I S T R I C T | Z O N I N G : R 4 OV E R A L L P L A N HE R I T A G E C O M M O N S MA S T E R D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N 4-15-2020 LEGEND WATERLINE GAS LINES ELECTRIC LINES SANITARY (GRAVITY) SANITARY (FORCE) DAVID L. FRANK Lic. No.1061 NOTES: 1.DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT ADJOINING EXISTING RESIDENTIAL LAND USE SHALL COMPLY WITH THE BUFFERS AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS PER SECTIONS 165-203.02(C), 165-203.02(D) AND 165-203.02(E) OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE. 2.THE LOCATIONS OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES AND THE REQUIRED SETBACKS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES WITHIN EACH LAND BAY SHALL BE GOVERNED PER THE APPROVED PROFFERS AND DESIGN MODIFICATIONS OF RZ#10-15 AND, WHERE NOT MODIFIED, THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE. THE APPROVED PROFFERS SPECIFICALLY ALLOW ANY AREAS WITHIN LAND BAYS 2 AND 3 TO BE EITHER RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL PROVIDED THE TOTAL OF EACH TYPE OF LAND USE REMAINS WITHIN ITS PROFFERED MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM LAND AREA FOR EACH LAND BAY. 3.INTER PARCEL VEHICULAR CONNECTIONS ARE REQUIRED WITHIN EACH LAND BAY TO PROVIDE SHARED ACCESS POINTS WITHIN EACH LAND BAY TO ADJACENT COLLECTOR AND ARTERIAL ROADS. From:Timothy Rhodes To:dfrank@pennoni.com Cc:John Bishop; Tyler Klein; Rhonda Funkhouser; Matthew Smith; Bradley Riggleman Subject:Heritage Commons MDP Date:Tuesday, February 25, 2020 1:38:46 PM David, We have completed our review of the Heritage Commons Master Development Plan (MDP) signature dated January 28, 2020. The County Approved Generalized Development Plan (GDP) included an inter-parcel connection between landbay two and landbay three. This connection has not been included in the MDP. Other than this change, we have no objection to the MDP. Please revise and submit back to this office for final review. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thanks, Timothy Rhodes VDOT~Land Development Engineer Clarke, Frederick, Shenandoah & Warren Counties 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA. 22824 (540)-984-5630 From:Tyler Klein To:Pam Deeter Subject:FW: Heritage Commons Master Development Plan Comments Date:Thursday, April 23, 2020 11:03:00 AM From: Joe Wilder <jwilder@fcva.us> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2020 1:32 PM To: Tyler Klein <tklein@fcva.us> Cc: Joseph Johnson <joseph.johnson@fcva.us>; Karen Orndorff <korndorf@fcva.us>; Mike Ruddy <mruddy@fcva.us>; John Bishop <jbishop@fcva.us> Subject: RE: Heritage Commons Master Development Plan Comments Through the development of Crossover Boulevard road project, Frederick County, the owner of property (MMA/ Hunt) and VDOT have a written agreement regarding stormwater management. We are constructing stormwater management facilities that will handle the water quantity for the entire development. The owner has a cost share agreement with the County and they are paying for a large portion of the costs to develop ponds as we construct the road. Once the road project is complete, the owners have full ownership of the ponds and will have to maintain the ponds into the future. In regard to meeting the water quality portion of the regulations, the owners will have to provide water quality compliance with the regulations as they obtain permit coverage. This is outlined in the agreement between Frederick County and owners. Mr. Bishop can provide you copies of that agreement if you need to see the exact language or answer any questions about the agreement and cost share. Hope this helps, Joe C. Wilder Director of Public Works Frederick County, Virginia 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone: 540-722-8215 Email: jwilder@fcva.us From: Karen Orndorff <korndorf@fcva.us> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2020 9:27 AM To: David Frank <DFrank@Pennoni.com> Cc: Candice Perkins <cperkins@fcva.us>; Mark Cheran <mcheran@fcva.us>; Tyler Klein <tklein@fcva.us> Subject: Heritage Commons Master Development Plan Comments Good Morning, I have attached a copy of public works' comments for the subject project. Do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions. Karen Orndorff Administrative Assistant Department of Public Works 540-722-8221 540-678-0682 (fax) **Please visit the Frederick County Public Works website for updated Land Disturbance/VSMP forms effective July 1, 2019** 31 REQUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS Frederick Water Comment Mail to: Frederick Water Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Hand deliver to: Frederick Water 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia 22655 Phone: (540) 868-1061 Applicant's Name: _____________________________ Telephone: __________________ Mailing Address: _________________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ Name of development and/or description of the request: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Location of Property: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Frederick Water Comments: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach two (2) copies of the Master Development Plan with this sheet. -FREDERICK WATER USE ONLY- Date Received ____________ Review Number 1 2 3 4 5 (circle one) Date Reviewed ____________ Revision Required _________ Date Approved ________________ Signature & Date: _________________________________________________________ ** Please Return Form to Applicant** Pennoni Associates, Inc.540-667-2139 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Heritage Commons Along the west side of State Route 522 Front Royal Pike Road at the intersection of Airport Road 4/15/2020 4/15/2020 4/15/2020 No Planning Office Wayne Lee, Coordinator of Planning and Development leew@fcpsk12.net February 25, 2020 Mr. David Frank Pennoni Associates, Inc. 117 E. Piccadilly St., Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Heritage Commons – Master Development Plan Dear David: Frederick County Public Schools has reviewed the Heritage Commons Master Development Plan submitted to us on February 4, 2020. We offer the following comment: 1. It is noted that some streets will be private. As our buses don’t travel down private lanes, students who live on these streets will need to walk to a public street to meet the bus at a location to be designated by our Transportation Department. 2. We would like to work with you so that buses have a place to turn around at every phase of development. Ideally, the location of the turnarounds would be convenient to residential areas. Please feel free to contact me at leew@fcpsk12.net or 540-662-3888 x88249 if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, K. Wayne Lee, Jr., ALEP, LEED AP Coordinator of Planning and Development Cc: Dr. David Sovine, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Al Orndorff, Assistant Superintendent for Administration Mr. John Grubbs, Transportation Director Mrs. Beth Brown, Supervisor of Driver Operations 1415 Amherst Street www.frederick.k12.va.us 540-662-3889 ext. 88249 P.O. Box 3508 Winchester, Virginia 22604-2546 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 – Development Review Fees for Commercial Telecommunication Facilities CUPs DATE: April 27, 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 E 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: April 27, 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