HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-22 Comments
315 Tasker Road PH (540) 868-1061 Eric R. Lawrence
Stephens City, Virginia 22655 Fax (540) 868-1429 Executive Director
www.FrederickWater.com
Water At Your Service
February 24, 2022
Tim Stowe
Stowe Engineering, PLC
103 Heath Court
Winchester, Virginia 22602
RE: Rezoning Application Comment
R&J Development, LLC - Dollar General Store
Tax Map Numbers: 33-A-123
1.444 acres
Dear Mr. Stowe:
Thank you for the opportunity to offer review comments on the R&J Land Development (Dollar
General Store) commercial rezoning application package, dated February 7, 2022, and received
at Frederick Water on February 18, 2022. Frederick Water offers comments limited to the
anticipated impact/effect upon Frederick Water’s public water and sanitary sewer system and
the demands thereon.
The project parcel is located within the sewer and water service area (SWSA), and therefore by
county policy, Frederick Water’s water and sewer services are available. The application’s
Impact Statement is silent on the projected quantities of water and sewer generation from the
proposed land use, but the zoning districts (existing B3 and proposed B3) suggest demands will
be similar to potential demands under the existing land use permitted by the underlying zoning.
It is noted that neither the potential square footage nor the water and sewer demand
projections are included in a proffer statement, so actual water and sewer demands could vary
significantly based upon ultimate land use.
Water service is available via existing 6- and 12-inch water mains located on properties south of
the site. The applicant will need to obtain easements. Adequate drinking water supply
presently exists.
Page 2
R&J Development LLC commercial rezoning application
Tim Stowe
February 24, 2022
A Frederick Water sanitary sewer forcemain exists on the property to the south, which serves
the existing building on Jeffs Way. The applicant will need to obtain easements. This forcemain
contributes to a forcemain that ultimately flows to the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility
(OWRF). Treatment capacity does presently exist at the OWRF.
Water and sanitary sewers are to be constructed in accordance with Frederick Water standards
and specifications. Easements will be required to accommodate infrastructure that is dedicated
to Frederick Water. Please be aware that Frederick Water is offering these review comments
without the benefit or knowledge of a proffered proposed use and water and sewer demands
for the site.
Please keep in mind that water supplies and sanitary sewer conveyance capacities change daily;
with each new customer connection bring additional demands and generated flows. Additional
upgrades to the sanitary sewer system may be necessary for the project to connect and
contribute to the system once the site’s sanitary sewer generations are known. This letter does
not guarantee system capacities to accommodate your development proposal.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer review comments.
Sincerely,
Eric R. Lawrence
Executive Director
COUNTY OF FREDERICK
Roderick B. Williams
County Attorney
540/722-8383
Fax 540/667-0370
E-mail rwillia@fcva.us
April 1, 2022
VIA EMAIL
Mr. Tim Stowe
Stowe Engineering, PLC
103 Heath Court
Winchester, VA 22602
Re: Rezoning Application – R&J Land Development/Dollar General Rezoning
Tax Parcel Numbers 33-A-122A, 33-A-123, 33-A-123C, 33-A-123D – 16.89±
Acres (the “Property”)
Proposed Proffer Statement (the “Proffer Statement”)
(Amendment to Proffer Statement for Rezoning #01-06)
Dear Tim:
You have submitted to Frederick County for review the Proffer Statement, for the
proposed rezoning of the Property, 16.89± acres in the Stonewall Magisterial District, from the
B3 (Industrial Transition) District with proffers to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District with
revised proffers (15.444± acres) and from the B3 (Industrial Transition) District with proffers to
the B2 (General Business) District with proffers (1.444± acres), by R&J Land Development,
LLC (the “Owner”). I have now reviewed the Proffer Statement and it is my opinion that the
Proffer Statement would be in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and would be legally sufficient as a proffer statement,
subject to the following comments:
The approach of treating this as an overall amendment of the proffers from Rezoning
#01-06 is a good one. It does, however, constitute a new rezoning and, toward that end:
o References to “amended” in the heading and in the first paragraph should be deleted.
o Rezoning number references should be to whatever number is assigned to the current
matter and not to #01-06.
o The original date of the proffers can refer to the 2006 document, but should be to
March 2, 2006, the date of the actual proffers that the Board accepted. Any prior dates
Mr. Tim Stowe
April 1, 2022
Page 2
are of drafts that are, at this point, lost to history, not meaningful, and only end up
creating confusion.
o Any previously satisfied proffer obligations may be noted with a bracketed reference
after each: [Obligation has previously been satisfied]. I believe this may be the case
for Proffers A.1.b and A.1.e.
o Also, while we are perhaps engaging in some clean up exercises, I believe that the use
of the sub “i.” level in the text may be deleted as there are no sub “ii.” items (except
in Proffer A.3.a.), and the text for each may simply appear following the respective
current headings.
The acreage references in the heading and in the first paragraph have an extraneous dash
that may be deleted.
The parcel numbers are not correct; they should be 33-A-122A, 33-A-123, 33-A-123C,
and 33-A-123D.
For clarity, as an additional paragraph after the second paragraph should state to the
effect: References herein to the “the property” or “this property” are to the 16.89± acres
comprised of parcels 33-A-122A, 33-A-123, 33-A-123C, and 33-A-123D.
In Proffer A.1.a., there is an extraneous “3” in the last sentence.
In Proffer A.1.b., the words “frontage” and “road” have been reversed.
In Proffer A.1.c., “long” should be “along” in the first sentence.
In Proffer A.1.d., “prorate” should be “prorated” in the first sentence.
In Proffer A.5., there are two typographical errors: “Mop bile” and “20,0-00”.
In Proffer A.8.c., to improve clarity from the 2006 version, “will erect” might better read
“may erect” and “tenants” might better read “businesses operating on the property”.
I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable
and appropriate for this specific development, as my understanding is that review will be done by
staff and the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
Roderick B. Williams
County Attorney
cc: Department of Planning & Development
EDINBURG RESIDENCY
LAND USE MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 16, 2022
TO: Tim Stowe, P.E., Stowe Engineering
FROM: Bradley S. Riggleman, P.E., Area Land Use Engineer
RE: Rezoning Comments – R&J Land Development
_________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Stowe,
This office received an application on February 15, 2022 for a proposed 1.444-acre rezoning for a
portion of TM 33 A 123 from B3 to B2 w/conditions for R&J Land Development. This property is
located at the corner of US Rt. 11 and Jeff’s Way, in northern Frederick County. A rezoning application
(signed 2/7/2022), impact analysis statement (dated 2/5/22), Traffic Impact Analysis (dated 2/9/22),
and proffer letter (dated 2/9/22) are the subject of this review. Comments are as follows:
Impact and Traffic Analysis
• The Impact and Traffic Analysis appear to be complete and acceptable from a transportation
perspective.
Rezoning Application
• The proposed change from B3 to B2 w/conditions should not have a significant impact the
roadway network. The proffer statement prohibits the use of quick-service restaurant with
drive-thru lanes and gas/fueling station, with or without a convenience store, which are high
traffic generators. Given these restrictive proffers, there would be minimum change to the
traffic generation potential compared to the existing zoning.
General Comments:
• Access to this site will need to be designed in accordance to the most current revisions of the
VDOT Road Design Manual, Road and Bridge Standards & Specifications, the Virginia Work
Area Protection Manual, and all other applicable manuals, regulations, and standards. Site
access will be evaluated during site plan review.
VDOT appreciates the opportunity to provide input on this potential rezoning. Please feel free to
contact me at 540-534-3223 if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Bradley S. Riggleman, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer – Edinburg Residency
Cc: John Bishop, Frederick County, Assistant Director, Transportation
Tyler Klein, Frederick County, Senior Planner
File
From:John Bishop
To:Tim Stowe
Subject:R&J Land Development Rezoning
Date:Thursday, March 24, 2022 12:41:52 PM
Tim,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the R&J land development rezoning package. At this time I do not
have anything to add to VDOT’s comment, which was submitted on March 16, 2022. Should conditions change
through the rezoning process or new information come too light, I reserve the right to update this comment.
thank you
John
John Bishop
Assistant Director-Transportation
Frederick County Planning and Development
COUNTY OF FREDERICK
Roderick B. Williams
County Attorney
540/722-8383
Fax 540/667-0370
E-mail rwillia@fcva.us
February 24, 2022
VIA EMAIL
Mr. Tim Stowe
Stowe Engineering, PLC
103 Heath Court
Winchester, VA 22602
Re: Rezoning Application – R&J Land Development/Dollar General Rezoning
Tax Parcel Number 33-A-123, 1.44± Acre Portion (the “Property”)
Proposed Proffer Statement (the “Proffer Statement”)
Dear Tim:
You have submitted to Frederick County for review the Proffer Statement, for the
proposed rezoning of the Property, 1.44± acres in the Stonewall Magisterial District, from the B3
(Industrial Transition) District to the B2 (General Business) District, with proffers, by R&J Land
Development, LLC (the “Owner”). I have now reviewed the Proffer Statement and it is my
opinion that the Proffer Statement would be in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and would be legally sufficient as a proffer
statement, subject to the following comments:
The Proffer Statement should contain a title at the top of the first page that says, “Proffer
Statement”.
Stowe Engineering is not the applicant. Only a property’s owner can apply for a rezoning.
The “APPLICANT” line is in fact not necessary. Along similar lines, within the text of
the Proffer Statement, all references to “Applicant” should be to “Owner”
To meet Clerk’s Office recording requirements, please have the name of the Owner –
“R&J Land Development, LLC” – appear underlined and in bold type.
Proffers A and B – Other than noting a zoning buffer waiver granted in 2015 for the
northern boundary of the Property, which is already a matter of record and does not need
to be shown, I do not see that the Generalized Development Plan (GDP) in any way
Mr. Tim Stowe
February 24, 2022
Page 2
defines the nature of the development of the Property. Because, however, the proposed
rezoning would result in a split zoning of the Property, what the GDP shows – metes and
bounds of the area proposed for rezoning – is still needed, to accompany the Proffer
Statement. Therefore:
o Retitle the GDP as “Rezoning Plat” (or similar title).
o In the first paragraph of Proffer A, the 4th line, “subject properties” should be “subject
property, as shown on the Rezoning Plat attached hereto and incorporated by
reference as ‘Exhibit A’.”.
o Delete the second paragraph of Proffer A and delete Proffer B.
Proffer C – Because the Zoning Ordinance generally uses SIC codes to define uses in the
B2 District, it may be best to make some reference to the SIC codes, to the extent viable.
So, the introductory language should be: “The Owner voluntarily prohibits the following
uses on the Property:”.
o Also, the first proposed exclusion presents a question. Is the intent of the exclusion
just to exclude a drive-through at a restaurant? If so, then perhaps the exclusion could
simply say: “Drive-though service in connection with any restaurant (SIC 58)”.
o As to the second proposed exclusion, it might best read: “Gasoline/fueling/service
stations (SIC 5541), whether with or without convenience markets.”
Proffer F should be designated as Proffer D – As well, because the payment would be to
the County, the heading should instead read “Contribution for Fire and Rescue Purposes”.
The Proffer should also clarify that this provision supersedes the corresponding proffer
from the previous rezoning of the Property (please see the discussion in the last main
bullet point below regarding the interplay between the currently proposed rezoning and
the previous rezoning).
Proffer J should be designated as Proffer E.
To avoid any potential confusion relative to specific provisions of the proffers in force
pursuant to the approval of Rezoning Number 01-06 (the “REZ 01-06 Proffers”) and
which are applicable to the Property, and to clarify that, except as otherwise provided, the
currently proposed rezoning and the Proffer Statement do not supersede the REZ 01-06
Proffers, the Proffer Statement would best include provisions along the following lines:
o A provision that nothing in the Proffer Statement changes the requirement, in Proffer
A1a of the REZ 01-06 Proffers, that all access to the property subject to the REZ 01-
06 Proffers, including the Property, shall be from a single commercial entrance (this
being the internal right-of-way dedicated to the County by Instrument Number
180001000), and not directly from Route 11.
Mr. Tim Stowe
February 24, 2022
Page 3
o As part of Proffer C (discussed above), a provision that uses under SIC Codes 5231
and 79 are prohibited, if the Owner intends to prohibit them now, as Proffer A3 of the
REZ 01-06 Proffers prohibited these uses, which are otherwise by right in the B2
District (the other uses prohibited per the REZ 01-06 Proffers are either otherwise
proposed to be prohibited or are not by right in the B2 District).
o A provision that any building square footage on the Property counts against the
building square footage limitations in Proffers A5 and A6 of the REZ 01-06 Proffers
(the limitations in Proffer A4 of those proffers would not be relevant because the B2
District does not permit those uses and so they may be left unaddressed now).
o A provision restating the limitations of Proffer A8 of the REZ 01-06 Proffers, that the
split rail fence must remain, that no parking lot shall be between any building on the
Property and Route 11, and that any sign for a use on the Property must be as part of a
sign with all other uses on the properties subject to the REZ 01-06 Proffers.
As well, staff should ascertain whether the current proposed rezoning in any way impacts
the signalization provisions in Proffer 1d of the REZ 01-06 Proffers and, if it does, what
corrective actions may be necessary. Similarly, the same Proffer 1d of the REZ 01-06
Proffers provides for an additional $2,500 payment. Staff will want to confirm that the
Owner has made that payment, as development on the relevant property has taken place
since the approval of Rezoning Number 01-06, and if the Owner had not made the
payment, how to address the same.
I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable
and appropriate for this specific development, as my understanding is that review will be done by
staff and the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
Roderick B. Williams
County Attorney
cc: Candice E. Perkins, Assistant Director of Planning & Development, Frederick County
(via email)
John Bishop, Assistant Director of Planning & Development – Transportation, Frederick
County (via email)