PC 09-15-21 Meeting Agenda1.Call to Order
2.Adoption of Agenda – Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission
should adopt the Agenda for the meeting.
3.Meeting Minutes
3.A.August 18, 2021 Meeting Minutes
4.Committee Reports
5.Citizen Comments
6.Public Hearings
6.A.Ordinance Amendment - Opaque Fencing Requirement (Waiver) - (Mr.
Klein)
Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, ARTICLE
II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS; PARKING; BUFFERS; AND
REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES PART 201 – SUPPLEMENTARY USE
REGULATIONS PART 203 – BUFFERS AND LANDSCAPING PART 204 –
ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES - Revision to the Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance to modify requirements for “opaque fence” to allow chain link
fence with slats to satisfy screening requirements for certain uses and to fulfill zoning
district buffer screening requirements where a waiver may be granted by the Board of
Supervisors.
6.B.Ordinance Amendment - Master Development Plans (Approval Process) -
(Mr. Klein)
Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, ARTICLE
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2021
7:00 PM
THE BOARD ROOM
FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
PC09-15-21MinutesAugust18.pdf
PC09-15-21OpaqueFencingRequirementsWaiver.pdf
1
IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; PART 402 – RP
RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT §165-402.01 INTENT; ARTICLE VIII
DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND APPROVALS; PART 801 – MASTER DEVELOPMENT
PLANS §165-801.02 WHEN REQUIRED §165-801.03 WAIVERS §165-801.06
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMISSION §165-801.07 FINAL MASTER
DEVELOPMENT PLAN - Revision to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to
remove requirement that Master Development Plans (MDP) be presented to the
Planning Commission (PC) and Board of Supervisors (BOS) at a public meeting as
information item prior to administrative approval.
6.C.Sewer and Water Area Expansion for the Southern Frederick and Double
Tollgate Areas - (Ms. Perkins)
Proposed Sewer and Water Service Area expansion within the Southern Frederick Area
Plan (SoFred) of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and 350 acres within Clarke County in
the Double Tollgate area.
7.Other
7.A.Current Planning Applications
7.B.Planning Commission Size Evaluation
8.Adjourn
PC09-15-21OAMasterDevelopmentPlans.pdf
PC09-15-21ClarkeCountyRequestforWater&SewerService_Redacted.pdf
2
Planning Commission
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: September 15, 2021
Agenda Section: Meeting Minutes
Title: August 18, 2021 Meeting Minutes
Attachments:
PC09-15-21MinutesAugust18.pdf
3
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3840
Minutes of August 18, 2021
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 August 18, 2021.
PRESENT: Kevin Kenney, Chairman; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Robert S.
Molden, Opequon District; William H. Cline, Stonewall District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District;
Elizabeth D. Kozel, Shawnee District; Betsy Brumback, Back Creek District; John F. Jewell, Back Creek
District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Kathleen Dawson, Red Bud District; Alan L. Morrison,
Member at Large; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney.
ABSENT: Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District.
STAFF PRESENT: Wyatt G. Pearson, Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator;
Kathy Smith, Secretary.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Kenney called the August 18, 2021 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 Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Mohn the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting.
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Jewell,
the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the minutes from the July 21, 2021 meeting.
-------------
4
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3841
Minutes of August 18, 2021
COMMITTEES
Frederick Water – Mtg. 08/10/21
Commissioner Jewell reported, the North Fork Shenandoah River is experiencing
Harmful Algal Blooms (HAB) that result in unhealthy water quality. The City of Winchester draws its
raw water from this river. While tests currently indicate the City’s water remains safe once properly
treated, Frederick Water will halt its daily water purchase from the City upon learning any test result
indicates unsafe conditions. This halting of purchase from the City will preserve the safe integrity of the
Frederick Water system. Frederick Water draws most of its daily water from its quarries and wells which
remain safe to drink and are not affected by HAB. The Frederick Water Board directed implementation
of water conservation measures to reduce daily customer water demand and to enable its quarries and
wells to recharge. Frederick Water strives to be positioned to not only continue to provide its customers
with safe drinking water, but to also be positioned to provide City customers with safe drinking water in
the event that the HAB affects the health of the City water. Mr. Jewell presented the operations report for
July: customer base is nearly 18,000 connections; monthly water production averages 7.22 MGD; the
quarries are in excellent shape; rainfall in July was 4.38”, up slightly from June’s 3.17”.
City of Winchester – Mtg. 08/17/21
Commissioner David Ray, Winchester City Planning Commission Liaison, reported the
Commission considered the following:
1. The rezoning of 0.68 acres, 3 properties on Hockman Ave. to MR (Medium
Residential) – recommend approval.
2. An application for a Rescue Mission CUP has been tabled.
3. An ordinance to rezone 4.3 acres on Pleasant Valley Road for Residential Office
and planned unit development for 25 townhouse lots - recommend approval.
4. A CUP for a nursing and rehab facility and corridor enhancement certificate of
appropriateness on Cedar Creek Grade, adjacent to the city/county line –
recommend approval.
5. A request for a CUP to allow for a short term rental use on North Pleasant Valley
Road in and MR district – recommend approval.
6. An ordinance amendment pertaining to off-street parking in B-1 and RB-1
districts has been initiated.
7. The String Street Development was reviewed due to changes that include moving
and changing the maintenance/mail building and truck access to the dumpster;
the Commission does not believe the changes to be significant and the Planning
Dept. will be making neighbors adjacent to the properties aware of the changes.
8. The Planning Department will be hosting an open house and the Planning
Commission will hold a public hearing August 31.
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.
5
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3842
Minutes of August 18, 2021
PUBLIC HEARING
CUP #06-21 for Kelrock, LLC submitted to allow for a Sawmill/Planing Mill (Type B). The subject
property is located at 161 Woodchuck Lane with Property Identification Number 52-A-262B in the
Back Creek Magisterial District.
Action – Recommend Approval
Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator, reported this is a request for a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to establish a Sawmill/Planing Mill (Type B) on a two-acre parcel located
at 161 Woodchuck Lane, Winchester, in the Back Creek Magisterial District. He noted, a
“Sawmill/Planing Mill (Type B) is defined as: A mill for sawing or processing of standing trees or their
wood or timber. Mr. Cheran shared a locations map of the property. He continued, the subject property
is zoned RA and is surrounded by other RA zoned property, which includes residential uses to the north
and west and the existing McFarland’s Mill to the east. He noted, McFarland’s Mill has been in business
since 1948. Mr. Cheran explained, the property contains one existing 9,100 sf structure and all milling
activities are proposed to be conducted within the structure. He continued, the property currently has an
approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP #19-04) for the operation of a public garage; should this
application be approved, CUP #19-04 will be void. Mr. Cheran explained, this site is located within the
limits of the Round Hill Rural Community Center as depicted in the Round Hill Community Land Use
Plan. The development pattern established within the core of the Round Hill Rural Community Center
consist of small lot residential uses along Round Hill Road, Poorhouse Road, and Woodchuck Lane; the
land use plan encourages the continuation of this residential pattern. Mr. Cheran presented the conditions
for this CUP as recommended by Staff; he noted, updated conditions have been provided to each
Member:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all
times.
2. An illustrative sketch plan shall be submitted to and approved by Frederick
County and all improvements completed prior to the establishment of the use.
3. All milling operations shall occur within the existing enclosed structure on the
property, and all outdoor storage shall be screened.
4. All deliveries via tractor trailer shall occur solely from Round Hill Road through
PIN 52-A-267; no tractor trailer deliveries shall occur via Woodchuck Lane.
5. One non-illuminated freestanding monument business sign shall be allowed with
this Conditional Use Permit. Signage shall not exceed twenty (20) square feet in
area and ten (10) feet in height.
6. Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., seven (7) days a week.
7. No more than six (6) employees shall be permitted with this use.
8. Conditional Use Permit #19-04 shall be void upon approval of this Conditional
Use Permit.
9. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Thomas inquired, with the changes in condition #3 and #4, will we be
voting on the revised conditions and does that need to be indicated in the motion. Mr. Cheran stated that
would be appropriate. Commissioner Brumback asked if the signage would be on Woodchuck Lane. Mr.
Cheran noted, yes that is correct. Commissioner Brumback inquired if sanding and planing is being done
in another structure at this time. Mrs. Stephanie See, attending with the Applicant stated that is correct.
Commissioner Jewell commented in regards to the hours of operation, looking at the
additional comments it specifically lists the hours as Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday 7 a.m. to
6
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3843
Minutes of August 18, 2021
4 p.m., Thursday 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. and Saturday 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. and closed for major holidays; why aren’t
we limiting this CUP to the six days a week, because if approved as is they could be open on Sundays,
and he doesn’t feel that is appropriate. Mr. Cheran stated they are currently operating at those hours
however the Planning Commission can make a change to that condition. Chairman Kenney asked if they
will be allowed retail sales in this building. Mr. Cheran explained, they have a very small retail part of
this. He noted, they are basically moving the planing mill to this site. Commissioner Manuel asked if
there will be mulch operations at this site. Mr. Cheran stated no, the mulch operations are on the
McFarland’s Mill parcel. Commissioner Mohn asked if there have been any issues with traffic brought
forth with the event facility that was approved located a short distance down Woodchuck Lane. Mr.
Cheran stated there have been no issues brought forth for the facility.
Mr. Rocky Keplinger, the applicant, and Mrs. Stephanie See, who is purchasing the land
and is the owner of McFarland’s Mill came forward. Mr. Keplinger explained, there is nothing that will
really be changing, and the traffic should be a little less than what his business generated. He noted,
McFarland’s Mill is looking to expand, and this is an opportunity for this to happen and to keep the
properties together. Mrs. See commented the mulch operation is on the McFarland’s Mill property. She
stated, regarding the hours of operation, Monday thru Saturday is what she originally requested.
Commissioner Thomas asked if they will be having a drying kiln on the property. Mrs. See stated no they
would not. Commissioner Morrison commented he would prefer that there be no Sunday hours due to
noise concerns. Mrs. See agreed to no Sunday hours.
Commissioner Jewell requested clarification on what hours are needed. Mrs. See
commented she would like the hours to be Monday thru Saturday 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Chairman Kenney
noted condition #6 states 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. and seven days a week. Mrs. See confirmed she is interested in
it just being the six days Monday thru Saturday. Commissioner Brumback commented she feels this will
be an excellent use of the location.
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 a motion made by Commissioner Jewell and seconded by Commissioner Brumback
with amended Condition #3 that all outdoor storage shall be screened, Condition #4 all deliveries via
tractor trailer shall occur solely from Round Hill Road through PIN 52-A-267; no tractor trailer deliveries
shall occur via Woodchuck Lane, and #6 with the hours of operation being 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. (6) days a
week and no Sunday operations.
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does unanimously recommend approval
of CUP #06-21 for Kelrock, LLC submitted to allow for a Sawmill/Planing Mill (type B). The subject
property is located at 161 Woodchuck Lane with Property Identification Number 52-A-262B in the Back
Creek Magisterial District.
(Note: Commissioner Oates and Commissioner Triplett were absent from the meeting.)
OTHER
Mr. Wyatt G. Pearson, Director, shared there will be a joint work session on September 1,
2021 at 5:30 p.m. prior to the scheduled Planning Commission meeting. He noted, there are two
upcoming items; REZ #04-21 for Orrick Commons; and an Update to the Frederick County
Comprehensive Plan.
7
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3844
Minutes of August 18, 2021
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner
Thomas to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Morrison and unanimously
passed. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Kevin W. Kenney, Chairman
___________________________
Roderick B. Williams, Secretary
8
Planning Commission
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: September 15, 2021
Agenda Section: Public Hearings
Title: Ordinance Amendment - Opaque Fencing Requirement (Waiver) - (Mr. Klein)
Attachments:
PC09-15-21OpaqueFencingRequirementsWaiver.pdf
9
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: Discussion - Ordinance Amendment – Opaque Fence Requirements
DATE: August 26, 2021
Ordinance Amendment Proposal:
This is a proposal to amend Chapter 165 – Zoning Ordinance to allow double-walled winged slats
and chain-link fence to satisfy the opaque fence requirement for zoning district buffers through a
waiver if granted by the Board of Supervisors. To be eligible for a waiver, the
applicant/owner/developer requesting a waiver obtain written consent from the adjoining
(affected) property owners to proceed. Additionally, the proposed amendment would also allow
chain-link fence with slats for the screening of certain uses in the County’s business and industrial
districts. These uses include outdoor storage and processing, motor vehicle uses, automotive repair
shops, public garages, trash storage, and storage/self-storage facilities.
Current Zoning Ordinance Standard:
The Zoning Ordinance defines an opaque fence as: “a fence that is constructed to visually obscure
structures, outdoor storage areas, and other uses. A chain link fence with slats shall not constitute
an opaque fence” (§165-101.02). The opaque fence requirement is also referenced in other sections
of the Zoning Ordinance including:
§165-201.10 Outdoor storage and processing.
§165-203.02 Buffer and screening requirements.
§165-204.11 Landfills, junkyards, trash disposal and inoperable vehicles (dumpster enclosures).
§165-204.12 Motor vehicle service uses, automotive repair shops and public garages.
§165-204.18 Storage facilities, self-service.
Background:
In satisfying the requirements for an opaque fence in the above sections, a 6-foot (FT) tall board-
on-board fence, hedge, wall, or a berm is typically required. However, a chain link fence with an
opaque vinyl tarp attached to it has also been allowed to satisfy the “opaque fence” requirement
through a Zoning Administrator review for uses in the County’s business and industrial districts.
For certain uses in these zoning districts, chain link is the preferred type of fence for security.
10
OA – Opaque Fence Requirements – Public Hearing
August 26, 2021
Page 2
Zoning district buffers and residential separation buffers also require an opaque fence to screen
differing land-uses on adjoining properties. The elements fulfilling the requirements for a “full
screen” buffer are landscape plantings, plus a 6-FT tall opaque wall, fence, hedge or berm. The
full screen components were expanded in 2019 through a text amendment approved by the Board
of Supervisors, to allow an additional two (2) rows of evergreen trees that are six feet tall at time
of planting in lieu of an opaque fence.
Summary of DRRC, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors Discussion:
The DRRC discussed the proposed ordinance amendment as amended by the Board of Supervisors
at their meeting on June 24, 2021. The DRRC offered no changes to the revised text. The DRRC
did express concern with requiring a waiver to go before the Board of Supervisors when the
consent of neighboring (affected) property owners had already been provided in writing and
recommended it be changed to a Zoning Administrator action (waiver).
The Planning Commission discussed this amendment at their meeting on July 21, 2021. The
Planning Commission offered no comments and sent the item forward to the Board of Supervisors
for discussion.
The Board of Supervisors discussed this amendment at their meeting on August 11, 2021. The
Board of Supervisors offered no comments and sent the item forward for public hearing.
Conclusion and Requested Action:
The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by the
DRRC and Planning Commission (with bold italic for text added). This item is presented for
public hearing. Staff is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission to
forward to the Board of Supervisors on this proposed ordinance amendment.
MTK/pd
Attachment: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics.
11
Proposed Changes – Opaque Fence Requirements
Revised May 25, 2021; DRRC endorsed June 24, 2021
ARTICLE II
Supplementary Use Regulations; Parking; Buffers; and Regulations for Specific Uses
Part 201
Supplementary Use Regulations
§165-201.10 Outdoor storage and processing.
The outdoor storage or processing of products, equipment or raw materials is allowed in the business and
industrial districts or in association with business uses allowed in any other zoning district only if the
outdoor storage is directly associated with the primary uses of the property.
A. In such cases, the outdoor storage or processing shall be completely screened from the view of road
and street right-of-way and from surrounding properties by a six-foot-tall opaque fence, wall, berm
or evergreen screen. In no case shall chain-link fencing with slats be utilized for screening.
a. Chain-link fencing with slats, with a privacy factor of 90% or greater may be utilized to
satisfy the opaque fence requirements when the adjoining properties are in the B-2
(General Business), B-3 (Industrial Transition), M-1 (Light Industrial), M-2 (Industrial
General), OM (Office-Manufacturing), EM (Extractive Manufacturing), MS (Medical
Support) Districts, or other zoning districts where the proposed use is also allowed.
b. Chain-link fencing with slats shall consist of double-walled winged slats; or equivalent
if approved by the Zoning Administrator.
c. Chain-link fencing with slats shall only utilize the following colors: dark green, brown,
black, or tan. The use of wood slats or plastic slats without interlocking wings and
double walls shall be prohibited.
d. Chain-link fencing with slats shall not be permitted to be used as a screen along primary,
arterial, or collector roadways.
Part 203
Buffers and Landscaping
§165-203.02 Buffer and screening requirements.
It is the intent of the regulations of this section to encourage proper design of a site in order to protect
adjacent existing uses and to protect proposed uses within the site. Certain types of uses must be buffered
from other types in order to ensure a desirable living environment. Additionally, appropriate distances
must be maintained between commercial, industrial, and residential uses and roads.
D. Zoning district buffers. Buffers shall be placed on land to be developed when it adjoins land in
certain zoning districts.
11. The Board of Supervisors may grant a waiver to allow chain-link fence with slats to satisfy
the opaque fence requirements for zoning district buffers between land primarily used for
residential purposes and land located in the B-1 (Neighborhood, Business) or B-2 (General
Business) Zoning District with the consent of the adjacent (affected) property owners. A
chain-link fence with slats shall meet the following criteria:
a. Chain-link fencing with slats must have a privacy factor of 90% or greater.
b. Chain-link fencing with slats shall consist of double-walled winged slats.
12
Proposed Changes – Opaque Fence Requirements
Revised May 25, 2021; DRRC endorsed June 24, 2021
c. Chain-link fencing with slats shall only utilize the following colors: dark green,
brown, black, or tan.
d. The use of wood slats or plastic slats without interlocking wings and double walls
shall be prohibited.
Part 204
Additional Regulations for Specific Uses
§165-204.12 Motor vehicle service uses, automotive repair shops and public garages.
B. All exterior storage of parts and equipment shall be screened from view of surrounding properties
by an opaque fence or screen at least six feet in height. This fence or screen shall be adequately
maintained.
a. Chain-link fencing with slats, with a privacy factor of 90% or greater may be utilized to
satisfy the opaque fence requirements when the adjoining properties are in the B-2
(General Business), B-3 (Industrial Transition), M-1 (Light Industrial), M-2
(Industrial General), OM (Office-Manufacturing), EM (Extractive Manufacturing),
MS (Medical Support) Districts, or other zoning districts where the proposed use is also
allowed.
b. Chain-link fencing with slats shall consist of double-walled winged slats; or equivalent
if approved by the Zoning Administrator.
c. Chain-link fencing with slats shall only utilize the following colors: dark green, brown,
black, or tan. The use of wood slats or plastic slats without interlocking wings and
double walls shall be prohibited.
d. Chain-link fencing with slats shall not be permitted to be used as a screen along
primary, arterial, or collector roadways.
§165-204.18 Storage facilities, self-storage.
F. Self-storage facilities shall meet the following landscaping or screening requirements.
4) The installation of an opaque wall or fence that is a minimum of six feet in height may
substitute for required landscaped areas in all zoning districts.
a. A solid building wall, free of windows or doors, is not required to be screened.
b. Chain-link fencing with slats, with a privacy factor of 90% or greater may be
utilized to satisfy the opaque fence requirements when the adjoining properties are
in the B-2 (General Business), B-3 (Industrial Transition), M-1 (Light Industrial),
M-2 (Industrial General), OM (Office-Manufacturing), EM (Extractive
Manufacturing), MS (Medical Support) Districts, or other zoning districts where
the proposed use is also allowed.
c. Chain-link fencing with slats shall consist of double-walled winged slats, or
equivalent approved by the Zoning Administrator.
d. Chain-link fencing with slats shall only utilize the following colors: dark green,
brown, black, or tan. The use of wood slats or plastic slats without interlocking
wings and double walls shall be prohibited.
e. Chain-link fencing with slats shall not be permitted to be used as a screen along
primary, arterial, or collector roadways.
13
Planning Commission
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: September 15, 2021
Agenda Section: Public Hearings
Title: Ordinance Amendment - Master Development Plans (Approval Process) - (Mr.
Klein)
Attachments:
PC09-15-21OAMasterDevelopmentPlans.pdf
14
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: Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment – Master Development Plans
DATE: August 26, 2021
Ordinance Amendment Proposal:
This is a proposal to amend Chapter 165 – Zoning Ordinance to remove the requirement that Master
Development Plans (MDP) be presented to the Planning Commission (PC) and Board of Supervisors
(BOS) at a public meeting as an information item prior to administrative approval. With this proposed
amendment, when MDP’s are administratively approvable (i.e., plans are in conformance with the
Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, have been approved by all applicable agencies
of the County, and approved by outside entities such as Frederick Water and/or VDOT), the MDP
would proceed directly for signature (approval) by the Planning Director and County Administrator.
Current Zoning Ordinance Standard:
The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (§165-801) states: a preliminary master development plan
(MDP) shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Development and shall be presented to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors as an informational item. Ultimately, the MDP
must receive administrative approval from the Director of Planning and Development an d the County
Administrator prior to any subdivision or development of property.
Background:
MDP’s are typically required after a rezoning is approved by the Board of Supervisors and before a
site plan or subdivision design plan may be submitted for administrative review/approval by the Zoning
Administrator. MDP’s are conceptual in nature and depict the basic layout of a project, including
roadways, access, buffers/screening, recreation amenities (if required), development phasing, and open
space. The more specific details of the site, including lot layouts, the location of utilities, and grading,
are handled at the site plan or subdivision design plan stage of development.
The submission of a MDP prior to development of a site has been a requirement since adoption of the
1973 Zoning Ordinance. Initially, MDP’s were reviewed by the Planning Commission who forwarded
a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, who ultimately approved or denied the MDP; public
notices such as adjoiner notifications were also provided. In 2013 the Zoning Ordinance was amended
to eliminate the requirement to approve or deny a MDP and specified that these documents were to be
presented to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as informational items only. The
purpose of this 2013 amendment was to clarify that MDP’s are documents that demonstrate compliance
with County Ordinances and proffers and therefore should not be denied once approved by all
reviewing departments and agencies. Adjoiner notifications were also eliminated from the process due
to the misconception that these plans could be denied. Presenting MDPs as an informational item places
15
OA – Master Development Plans – Public Hearing
August 26, 2021
Page 2
the applicant’s proposal in a holding pattern for 2 -4 weeks until the MDP can clear both the Planning
Commission and Board presentation requirements, adding time to the development process.
Staff would note the Code of Virginia (§15.2-2204) does not specify that localities must require MDPs
prior to a site plan or subdivision design plan submission nor does the Code of Virginia require public
notices for items such as MDPs. Public notices are only required for legislati ve actions such as rezoning
applications, conditional use permit (CUP) applications, or amendments to the Code of Frederick
County.
Summary of DRRC, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors Discussion:
The Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) discussed this item on June 24, 2021.
The DRRC supported the amendment to remove the public meeting requirement for MDP’s. The
DRRC noted in their comments that in lieu of presentations to the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors, Planning and Development staff should make projects easily accessible to the public for
review through the website or other means and provide a report to the Planning Commission on
pending or recently approved land use applications, including MDPs.
The Planning Commission discussed this amendment at their meeting on July 21, 2021. The Planning
Commission offered no comments and sent the item forward to the Board of Supervisors for discussion.
The Board of Supervisors discussed this amendment at their meeting on August 11, 2021. The Board
of Supervisors offered no comments and sent the item forward for public hearing.
Conclusion and Requested Action:
To address concerns regarding the public availability of current projects and application materials,
Planning and Development staff has launched a dedicated current projects page on the department
website with information on current land use applications, including MDPs, which is easily accessible
to the public. Additionally, staff will be providing a link to the new web page under the “Other” section
of the Planning Commission agenda and are willing to do the same for Board of Supervisors agenda
which lists all current and recently approved applications, including those that are administratively
reviewed/approved.
The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by the
DRRC and Planning Commission (with bold italic for text added). This item is presented for public
hearing. Staff is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission to forward to the
Board of Supervisors on this proposed ordinance amendment.
MTK/pd
Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics.
16
Proposed Changes – Master Development Plans
Draft May 25, 2021; DRRC endorsed June 24, 2021; revised July 14, 2021
ARTICLE IV
Agricultural and Residential Districts
Part 402
RP Residential Performance District
§165-402.01 Intent.
B. Within this Part 402, a number of general performance requirements are identified. When a
housing development has satisfied these requirements, this Part 402 is intended to provide a large
degree of flexibility in development and housing design. This design process is accomplished
through a master development plan which is designed in cooperation with the County staff and
Planning Commission and reviewed by the Board of Supervisors. The layout, phasing, density
and intensity of a development is determined through the adoption of the master plan by the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
ARTICLE VIII
Development Plans and Approvals
Part 801
Master Development Plans
§165-801.02 When required.
A. A preliminary master development plan (MDP) shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and
Development. and shall be presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors
as an informational item. Ultimately, the MDP must receive administrative approval from the
Director of Planning and Development and the County Administrator prior to any subdivision or
development of property in any of the following zoning districts:
17
Proposed Changes – Master Development Plans
Draft May 25, 2021; DRRC endorsed June 24, 2021; revised July 14, 2021
§165-801.03 Waivers.
A. RP, R4, R5, and MH1 Districts. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the
requirements of a MDP in the RP (Residential Performance), the R4 (Residential Planned
Community), the R5 (Residential Recreational Community), and the MH1 (Mobile Home
Community) Zoning Districts if the proposed property for subdivision or development:
1) Contains 10 or fewer single-family detached rural traditional, single-family detached
traditional or single-family detached urban dwelling units (all other permitted housing types
shall require a MDP);
2) Is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development or
subdivision;
3) Is planned to be developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties and
land uses; and
4) Does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of its zoning district and the intent of this
article.
5) A MDP may also be waived if the applicant chooses to process a site plan in lieu of a MDP.
The site plan must contain all information generally required on a MDP and a site plan. Once
the site plan is in an administratively approvable form, the plan will be presented to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors per § 165-801.06.
RP Residential Performance District
R4 Residential Planned Community District
R5 Residential Recreational Community District
MH1 Mobile Home Community District
HE High Education District
MS Medical Support District
B1 Neighborhood Business District
B2 Business General District
B3 Industrial Transition District
OM Office-Manufacturing Park District
M1 Industrial Light District
M2 Industrial General District
EM Extractive Manufacturing District
18
Proposed Changes – Master Development Plans
Draft May 25, 2021; DRRC endorsed June 24, 2021; revised July 14, 2021
B. M1, EM and M2 Districts. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the
requirement of a MDP in the M1 (Light Industrial), the EM (Extractive Manufacturing), or the
M2 (Industrial General) Zoning Districts if the proposed subdivision or development:
1) Includes no new streets, roads or rights-of-way, does not further extend any existing or
dedicated street, road or rights-of-way and does not significantly change the layout of any
existing or dedicated street, road or rights-of-way;
2) Does not propose any stormwater management system designed to serve more than one
lot and does not necessitate significant changes to existing stormwater management
systems designed to serve more than one lot;
3) Is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development or
subdivision;
4) Is planned to be developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties
and land uses; and
5) That such development does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of this
chapter.
6) A MDP may also be waived if the applicant chooses to process a site plan in lieu of a
MDP. The site plan must contain all information generally required on a MDP and a site
plan. Once the site plan is in an administratively approvable form, the plan will be
presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors per § 165-801.06.
C. B1, B2, B3, MS and HE Districts. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the
requirement of a master development plan in the B1 (Neighborhood Business), B2 (General
Business), B3 (Industrial Transition), MS (Medical Support) or HE (Higher Education) Zoning
Districts if the proposed subdivision or development:
1) Contains less than five acres in the B1 District and less than 10 acres in the B2, B3, MS
or HE District;
2) Includes no new streets, roads or rights-of-way, does not further extend any existing or
dedicated street and does not significantly change the layout of any existing or dedicated
street;
3) Does not propose any stormwater management system designed to serve more than one
lot and does not necessitate significant changes to existing stormwater management
systems designed to serve more than one lot;
4) Is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development or
subdivision;
5) Is planned to be developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties
and land uses; and
6) That such development does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of this
chapter.
7) A MDP may also be waived if the applicant chooses to process a site plan in lieu of a
MDP. The site plan must contain all information generally required on a MDP and a site
plan. Once the site plan is in an administratively approvable form, the plan will be
presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors per § 165-801.06.
19
Proposed Changes – Master Development Plans
Draft May 25, 2021; DRRC endorsed June 24, 2021; revised July 14, 2021
§165-801.06 Master development plan submission.
Applicants shall submit the number of copies of the preliminary MDP to the Department of Planning and
Development specified by the Department of Planning and Development MDP application, together with
completed application materials required by the Department of Planning and Development.
A. Applicants shall provide approval comments on the proposed development from various review
agencies or departments as required by the Department of Planning and Development. The
submission shall be complete and the application shall commence through the public meeting
process when the plans, application materials and review agency approval comments have been
received by the Director of Planning and Development.
B. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be prepared and submitted to the Department of Planning
and Development with all MDP applications in accordance with the adopted Traffic Impact
Analysis Standards.
C. When the submission is complete, the Director of Planning and Development shall submit the
plans, application materials and review agency approval comments to the Planning Commission
as an informational item.
D. Following the informational presentation of the MDP to the Planning Commission, copies of the
plan, application materials and agency comments shall be submitted to the Board of Supervisors
as an informational item.
E. The preliminary MDP submitted to the Board of Supervisors for review shall not be substantially
changed from plans reviewed by the Planning Commission. Changes may be made that were
discussed by the Planning Commission. Other substantial changes to the plan shall require that
the Planning Commission review the plan as a new MDP.
F. C. Site plans or final subdivision plats may be submitted concurrently with preliminary master
development plans for review according to the procedures set forth in this chapter and Chapter
144, Subdivision of Land, of the County Code.
20
Proposed Changes – Master Development Plans
Draft May 25, 2021; DRRC endorsed June 24, 2021; revised July 14, 2021
Master Development Plan Approval Process
§165-801.07 Final master development plan.
A. The final MDP shall conform to all requirements of the County Code.
B. Applicants shall submit a minimum of five copies of the final MDP to the Department of
Planning and Development. Final approval of the final MDP shall be given by the Director of
Planning and Development and the County Administrator.
C. The Director shall approve the final MDP if all requirements of the County Code and all review
agencies have been met. and if a preliminary MDP was presented to the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors.
D. A MDP shall not be considered final until it is signed by the Director of Planning and
Development and the County Administrator.
Preapplication Conference with Staff if
required or requested
Applicant submits completed MDP application
to Staff, including all agency approval
comments.
MDP is presented to the Planning Commission
as an information item. All comments are
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
MDP is presented to the Board of Supervisors
as an informational item.
Final MDP approval by Staff.
Final subdivision or site plan can be submitted
for review.
21
Planning Commission
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: September 15, 2021
Agenda Section: Public Hearings
Title: Sewer and Water Area Expansion for the Southern Frederick and Double Tollgate
Areas - (Ms. Perkins)
Attachments:
PC09-15-21ClarkeCountyRequestforWater&SewerService_Redacted.pdf
22
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director
RE: Public Hearing – Sewer and Water Service Area expansion within the Southern
Frederick Area Plan of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, including 350 acres within Clarke
County in the Double Tollgate area
DATE: September 7, 2021
Frederick County has received a request from Clarke County to authorize Frederick Water to provide
public water and sewer service for approximately 350+/- acres (zoned Highway Commercial) in the
Double Tollgate area. Specifically, this area is located at the intersection of Stonewall Jackson
Highway (Route 522), Lord Fairfax Highway (Route 340) and Fairfax Pike (Route 277). The requested
water and sewer capacity is 150,000 gallons per day. Currently, Frederick Water provides public
water service to the former “Camp 7 State Correction Facility” property in Clarke County.
Frederick County’s Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) is a growth boundary, and as outlined in
the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, it designates the limit of where public water and sewer could be
extended. The County’s current SWSA boundary for this area surrounds only the Lake Frederick
development. The Crooked Run Wastewater Treatment Plant (CR-WWTP) provides sewer service to
Lake Frederick and is located within this development. A 12” water main currently exists along Route
277 to the Clarke County line and the new elevated water tank is also located in the vicinity.
In reviewing this request, Staff worked with Frederick Water to analyze scenarios to facilitate the
provision of services to Clarke County as well as areas within the County’s Southern Frederick Land
Use Plan (SFLUP) which are planned for future commercial and industrial land use. Three scenarios
were initially discussed:
Scenario 1: Only the requested properties in Clarke County– 350 acres at Double Toll Gate,
150,000 GPD – utilizing the CR-WWTP.
Scenario 2: Clarke County properties and the area south of Route 277 that adjoins the
Crooked Run SWSA (approx. 200 acres).
Scenario 3: Clarke County properties and the Route 277 triangle area – all effluent would go
to the PM-WWTP.
At the Board of Supervisors meeting on August 11, 2021, Scenario 3 was sent forward for public
hearing. Scenario 3 addresses Clarke County’s request for 150,000 gallons per day (GPD) of water
and sewer services and includes the potential for water and sewer to support a SWSA-expansion
23
Public Hearing: Southern Frederick Area Plan
Sewer and Water Service Area & Clarke County Request
September 7, 2021
Page 2
within the general area identified as the Route 277 Triangle Centers of Economy as outlined in the
Southern Frederick Area Plan (SoFred) of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. It was acknowledged that
the intent of this SWSA expansion was to focus on areas planned for future commercial and industrial
uses. The Route 277 Triangle Centers of Economy is designed to be a significant area of commercial
and industrial opportunity. The broader area within the SoFred which are also currently outside the
limits of the SWSA include three future neighborhood villages. It should be noted that the SoFred
outlines that residential uses would only be permitted as an accessory component to these areas.
Furthermore, these neighborhood villages would continue to remain outside the limits of the Urban
Development Area (UDA) which defines the general area in which more intensive forms of residential
development will occur. Therefore, this proposed SWSA expansion for the SoFred area would
facilitate the future development of solely commercial and industrial land uses.
Application History:
The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC) discussed this request at their meeting
on May 10, 2021. The CPPC discussed the three scenarios presented and the consensus of the
Committee was support for Scenario 3 which would potentially facilitate future growth in an area
designed in the SFLUP for industrial uses (Route 277 Triangle area). The Committee, while it did
support the provision of services to Clarke County, felt that opportunities for properties in Frederick
County should also be a focus. With Scenario 1, the Crooked Run Plant even if expanded, could only
accommodate the acreage of the Clarke County properties. The Committee felt that Scenario 2, for
service to Clarke County and the 200 acres at the corner of Route 522 and Route 277 in Frederick
County that are outside the current limits of the SWSA, would not be a viable option due to the cost
to extend lines to the Parkins Mill Treatment Plant. The Committee acknowledged that Scenario 3,
while having a large associated cost, is the preferred option due to the potential for economic
opportunities that could be developed in an area that has been planned for industrial uses for many
years.
The Planning Commission discussed this request at their June 16, 2021, meeting. The Commission
when discussing scenario 1, questioned whether 150,000 gallons per day as requested by Clarke
County would be sufficient. It was noted that if additional capacity is desired in the future, it would
need to be considered by the Board of Supervisors. The current limited capacity at the Crooked Run
Plant and the agreements and upgrades that would be necessary were also discussed. With scenario
3, the Commission noted the CPPC’s endorsement as well as the focus only for areas planned for
commercial and industrial uses. The Board of Supervisors discussed this request at their meeting on
August 11, 2021 and sent scenario 3 forward for public hearing.
Staff Conclusion:
This is a proposed SWSA expansion for areas identified in the Southern Frederick Area Plan (SoFred)
to accommodate future commercial and industrial land uses, including the provision for water and
sewer service for 350 acres within Clarke County in the Double Tollgate area. This amendment is
presented to the Planning Commission as a public hearing item. Staff is seeking a recommendation
24
Public Hearing: Southern Frederick Area Plan
Sewer and Water Service Area & Clarke County Request
September 7, 2021
Page 3
from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors on this SWSA expansion within the
Southern Frederick Area Plan of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan.
Please contact Staff should you have any questions.
Please find attached the following:
1. Location map outlining Scenario 3.
2. Comments from Frederick Water.
3. Correspondence from Clarke County.
25
£¤11
£¤522
£¤522
§¨¦81
¬«277
¬«277
WHITEPOST RDKAT
HARBRI
NE LNRAY OF
HOPE LN GUN BARREL RDSILVER RIDGE LNCHRISMORE RD
NATIONS SPRING RD
F
E
A
T
H
E
R
B
E
D R
DDOUBLE CHURCH RDTASKER RD
RACHEL CARSON DRFAIRFA
X ST
H U D S O N H O L L O W R DHUDSON HOLLOW RDW HITE O AK RDWARRIOR DRD
O
U
BLE
C
H
U
R
C
H R
DTOWN RUN LNSALEM CHURCH RD AYLOR RDMARLBORO RD
TASKER RD
C A N TERBU RG RD RACHEL CARSON DRLAKE FREDERICK DRWARRIOR DRWHITE OAK RDVALLEYPIKESALEMCHURCH RDFAIRFAX PIKE
A R M E L R D
VALLEYPIKEGRIM RDGRIM RDFAIRFA
X PIKE
PEACE AND PLENTY LN
Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN)
Wate r and Sewer Extens ion Re quest - Clarke County
Scenario 3 - New SWSA Area
Map Produced by Frederick County Planning and Development Dept.September 7, 2021 0 0.8 1.60.4 Miles
I
New SWS A Area
Curre nt SWSA
Proposed SWSA
SWSA Extension - Clarke County
Clarke County Parcels
Parcels
F
R
ONT
R
OY
AL
P
I
K
E
STONEWALLJACKSONHWY26
£¤11
£¤522
£¤522
§¨¦81
¬«277
¬«277
WHITEPOST RDKAT
HARBRI
NE LNRAY OF
HOPE LN GUN BARREL RDSILVER RIDGE LNCHRISMORE RD
NATIONS SPRING RD
F
E
A
T
H
E
R
B
E
D R
DDOUBLE CHURCH RDTASKER RD
RACHEL CARSON DRFAIRFA
X ST
H U D S O N H O L L O W R DHUDSON HOLLOW RDW HITE O AK RDWARRIOR DRD
O
U
BLE
C
H
U
R
C
H R
DTOWN RUN LNSALEM CHURCH RD AYLOR RDMARLBORO RD
TASKER RD
C A N TERBU RG RD RACHEL CARSON DRLAKE FREDERICK DRWARRIOR DRWHITE OAK RDVALLEYPIKESALEMCHURCH RDFAIRFAX PIKE
A R M E L R D
VALLEYPIKEGRIM RDGRIM RDFAIRFA
X PIKE
PEACE AND PLENTY LN
Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN)
Wate r and Sewer Extens ion Re quest - Clarke County
Scenario 3
Map Produced by Frederick County Planning and Development Dept.September 7, 2021 0 0.8 1.60.4 Miles
I
Curre nt SWSA
Proposed SWSA
SWSA Extension - Clarke County
Clarke County Parcels
ParcelsLong Range Land Use
Neighborhood Village
Urban Center
Mo bile Home Community
Business
Highway Commercial
Mixed-Use
Mixed Use Commercial/O ffice
Mixed Use Industrial/O ffice
Industrial
Commercial Rec
Rural Community Center
Institutional
Planned Unit Development
Park
Recreation
Residential, 4 u/a
High-Density Residential, 6 u/a
Environmental & Recreational Resources
F
R
ONT
R
OY
AL
P
I
K
E
STONEWALLJACKSONHWY27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Planning Commission
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: September 15, 2021
Agenda Section: Other
Title: Current Planning Applications
Attachments:
37
Planning Commission
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: September 15, 2021
Agenda Section: Other
Title: Planning Commission Size Evaluation
Attachments:
38