HomeMy WebLinkAbout136-74 136 Essanee (C.L. Smith & L.A. Elliott) - 38.967 Ac M-L - R1-R2, B2 - ZMAP board approved - Backfiley'
•� R �' E"R/Cfr COC/NTY v/R G//V/.q
L � F/70iY1 SURVEY NECO%%Of0
QFF/CE os' F.9EDEf�/Oif C47,/VAI7
aoavovsrr saB✓ECT ro A/s
"� 01✓NER OEl�EL O.oE�Q
3 lO417.PINS 3Q.9L7 0,1 AtV srorfo
ESSANEE LAND CORP
Lors ,qqE ao �T sETB,vC�s
S sv�/raRr
.
sc�✓ER vvo �✓,vr�
• - l'ERriF/EO LAiYO SUR4Ej'OR
.0 �L AT/ON .VAP
!/NOZ
/
"s �sCAtE r-_p000
SSA cv' 29-E 7
lop
r a i
/ter, 40,0 so F� -
' � Lam. _
r•r 1 _ / yy�
a
�. 4��r},,
Iva
+y`
•
—
d ism` ise
"1!ffF�
•
// -.� �
3�
,�,,•
+yet.
Y. F"
.40
rAl SEI✓j V.V
V9LYE
-. --� W.lTEq L/.YEjG A/R REL/EF /%�LvE
67S
A4--��' - 7
ESSANEE REZONING
The property for rezoning is 39 acres in Shawnee Magisterial District with 769
feet of frontage on Route 657, Senseny Road. This property is owned by Carlin Smith
and Lester Elliott who request rezoning from Residential (R-1) to Residential (R-2)
i
and Business (B-2) for multi -family dwellings and cortmercial buildings.
LOCATION:
This property is East of Fairway Estates and was part of the Lewis Lamp property.
There has been such a strong public opposition to this application that comments
are not really necessary. Suffice to say this development could bring 289 families,
or 644 people on only 39 acres, or a density of 16.5 people per acre.
NO.
-w- ;71
DATE 9 — 7
Application for Rezoning...
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGIN IA:
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Governing
Body to amend the Zoning Ordinance and to change the Zoning Map of
FREDERICK COUNTY as hereinafter requested, and
in support of this application, the following facts are shown:
1. The propert ought to be rezoned is to ted at
on the South side of Senseny Ro
(Route 65�7� and consists or 38.967 Acres
between Street and Street on the
side of the street and known as lot (s) Number
It has a
frontage of feet and a depth of feet.
CARLIN L.SMITH and LESTER A.ELLI
2. The property sought to be rezoned is owned by:doina business as ESSANEE, a Par
as evidenced by deed from LEWIS ANDREW LAMP, JR. , et ux
recorded in Book 293 , Page 178 , Registry off"WF Frederick County
This property is presently under Contract of Sale to Real Estat
3. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned
General Cor
FROM TO
R-1 R-2 and B-2
4. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent
to both sides and rear,and the property in front of (across street from)the property sought to be
rezoned:
NAME STREET ADDRESS
(a) on the West — Fairway Estates
(b) on the South —C. A. LAMP
(c) on the East — Underwood Subdivision
(d) on the North —Route 657
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
G)
(Use reverse side if necessary and look up the names in the office of
in the Courthouse, if they are not known.)
T,
shi-1
rati
5. It is proposed that the property will be put to the following use:
(a) approximately 172,500 square feet Commercial (B-2); (b)
13 twelve unit apartments; (c) 116 Townhouses; (d) 17 single
family dwellings, all as more particularly set forth on the preli nary
scheme attached ere o and by this re erence made a par ereof a
if set out in full.
6. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed:
(a) Small service business buildings in Commercial Zone; (b) 116
Townhouses 13 twelve unit apartments and 17 single family dwellin
in R-2 Area.
7. It is proposed that the following setbacks and offstreet parking provisions will be made:
Those required by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinances.
E
By:-TXtor/.
8. Attached is a copy of a Vicinity Map. y
REAL "LUUE C Y(ORATIONne
of
TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
This petition for rezoning property within the jurisdiction of the
of
was held on
was received on , a public hearing
, and the Planning Commission wishes to make the following
recommendations to the Governing Body.
By
PLANNING COMMISSION
Secretary
ACT N OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
On (-I j i the Governing Body took the following action
on attached peti ion for rezoning:
Z60 SCALE
MILLER LAND eoo -- Z
C N—�,--� - LARGE oAK FAIRWAY ESTATES LOTS o--- 3 57 20
NIz 'X N 3609'30 W-g31.73j -- oosT-,
-+ Q, -� --
�tie/
LINE -• � 41%
i
/ o
P s
r
esr
D yl0 �� moo/
4 C� /
s.
�4
4 C
C7,
Z 1' fn �� > �0-1r
O
p
wc)
1 �y C
-- 20' R-O-W— .
O
S 5 Of 24 E—1328.57
UNDERWOOD SUBDIVISION
O
N 0 . DATE
Application for Rezoning...
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Governing
Body to amend the Zoning Ordinance and to change the Zoning Map of
FREDERICK COUNTY as hereinafter requested, and
in support of this application, the following facts are shown:
1. The property sought to be rezoned is located at
Road (Route 657).
between Street and
on the South side of Senseny
Street on the
side of the street and known as lot (s) Number . It has a
frontage of feet and a depth of feet.
CARLIN L.SMITH and LESTER A.ELL
2. The property sought to be rezoned is owned by: rani ncZ husi nPss as RSSANRF . a pt
as evidenced by deed from LEWIS ANDREW LAMP, JR. , et ux
recorded in Book 293 , Page 178, Registry of)fi,,�j# Frederick County.
This property is presently under Contract of Sale to Real Estate
3. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned General Cor
FROM TO
R-1 R-2 and B-2
4. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent
to both sides and rear, and the property in front of (across street from)the property sought to be
rezoned:
NAME STREET ADDRESS
(a) On the West — Fairway Estates
(b) On the South — C . A. Lamp
(c) On the Fast- — tind _rwood Subdivision
vi sion
(d) On the North — Route 657
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(Use reverse side if necessary and look up the names in the office of
in the Courthouse, if they are not known.)
T,
hip.
ationl
5. It is proposed that the property will be put to the following use:
(a) Al2proximately 172,500 square feet Commercial (B-2); (b)
13 twelve unit apartments; (c) 116 Townhouses; (d) 17 single
family dwellings,all as more particularly set forth on preliminar
scheme attached hereto and 5-y-TIis re erence mace a par ereof
as if.set out in full.
6. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed:
(a) Small service business buildings in Commercial Zonq; (b) 116
Townhouses 13 twelve unit apartments and 17 single family dwelling
in R-2 Area.
7. It is proposed that the following setbacks and offstreet parking provisions will be made:
Those required by the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinances.
8. Attached is a copy of a Vicinity Map. i a ure of ppliga t
', Address of Applicant
TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
This petition for rezoning property within the jurisdiction of the
of
was received on
, a public hearing
was held on , and the Planning Commission wishes to make the following
recommendations to the Governing Body.
By
ACTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
On
on the attached petition for rezoning:
PLANNING COMMISSION
Secretary
the Governing Body took the following action
• ���` � 3 v MI` n / Y;� / . ; � (r1[ ` --". -r.� __ � - `- �1� ICI 'iZ
J 1 1 i' J !
• i - ^ 7.5 ,�., i _.�� i 1 tlrY • i �4�1 h'�'.',�� l!' i/ i�tlr ,7 �ajT f ��� ! -. -- e a'
1 d I I h Sc.tiWood
,I
�• \ ! 1 �J
d ,tho r .J r
_/ �� ui !✓o JCer� i Al
!'i 1 ,ii.� NT�RI>cjNG� $1 1/'I •u 1
C pn L_,
t-"�, i �F•�.� ` 1! r� ;.I� 1 1, •� f \�_� Bt �� .y, €Y ^f ...:lr. ( ,1,%• ..�\ _ •,t �.• y.. ilti J-••'"z
9s j 1Q f �r; o
.AA_ � f .`� � . � �'. �9'0`i� .� ,;.. }�.-1 .rp9 'i � ':, � ` -��• �:, - wF /•f� __ Bfd � 1 - to❑ � 'r `"-i • 1�.,,�_� � t.. • .�,� eg' n �2
! �Cv �� �' `/ i �/ �; J �� II , r I • !�!i �� 1 t'— , �� 11-(Ity
'�.
j al ,l�tt ': Btd �i Yr •\- �• Zo,
L •F Vj 11 �t..T ��` • �" 714 I �n Y t' Q�
j � -� i {'
'li'.�...� .)•. �� a , i I � �/ �� ,,' 1, os[it@I £+.kK ,.; � �,, ,. �,�� ;
�\\ . •, �. f I i. F it (!- ,c" ?_ F �!����� - - �. /F1THe �o� l7/�]� � t�, � f o `� �yy(e� i I' � �
.I f .-.,-_. ,.W �� • ".�
�a ,l. l �` l�l��) i .,l1;j15� tit: _ 'a r�5 -'�' _I /'� �%�.d
'
C .
lyRe
-�,'2�-.�f
�•J flandP
�:• m-
dy Q �. /� !
�� ..i r ,�iigh Sch -� /�.� /-:
w rti.
; i
�I ./ tF - dam{ fir- 1 6.i \ `T J �, - ' 43.,
�� (/ � � .tip5!� epit .f, %j `�'� j�Jl' �;-1�;,1[� �h•;��,ly it � ' .��.r �r � +(�F re de 11 c k
�' J, 7 r 1l•.i ��' �! .� �'' %fi/ / incheeter �� l';3'' �' 1('1k]it5
T o v� '• \ • . Fib 'ti• ; 9
/ lsi• r �. � -t l�- � .:, % f / � J Coun Club // � •
/ -1 / ,riff •� ?� \` l BhY P� J� J 0. ,/ .�� `�(, ,irll��1 .�.
! \� -7 Lr' o ♦ t F t ) Y 1 yob,4�� y -,,,,y I.•r
/ it j 'd f 1' _ ' \, __ . P� r� 7 ;v i \!/' , tt� 50 (. e, i 1 t
W.
y..Vi �� ,:r j f •' c"�- �. ��� t.� �) ll ��', 1� '.
` L�r �, xet'9) <� - :�- ll� / _t Z `, F.• $ ena, oah`�� � ( ? � I • �• •� q4-" _ ---
Jto\y
L ;/ / ) l`.�.^� ij$� 98 .. �_ �v) o r • (" rr �ifAF cry �'7 ! '1� _ J���=�'��`'C. ��1. ) �s`� = •� `(;>:(! 10'
i l J "� •� h e/. i // � • � _ a e C e rt J •B M"' � , I � : �//`x _ _ I " �'% a h � •
M " \ ��� li% /� II_(�� �) � 111! ' o � f \ .• P c/ L
�� 4 ' • ti ° x' �)� I� �� r^ V �.�J ( INTERC'IE1Y iJ E�� i
ov
C•�fV i �(ipppinB`v • 1 I. ../ �� ���� '' �• . ,i '_� -.��,N ��, 'A �� _....--
,• C::; Gem r t, 1 8 nvetin ��°/�
✓; ✓� -ii,i i" "r ,�,�� I SIV�)Theater •�r� ! �� �� -
1) l a ,Y '!• �l ppl
-u`,o • �• 1 �91 • P4a� rnentaJ!$ta•��-. i l� l ��/ `�
1 93 r x 56
kqb eon Memorial. Seh�1 ��
! ---•' �t � �w= ' I 1! has. _ •\j� �/i J;/ '" r.'� l '���i_' � .i l.j ��a�,�-'
' � ` • \.,�' , i � \ :`�� � • -- - � 4 s � sty `n 1 • ,
l
P
,•,� ' V� 11 �• P.'�,'• a �� f ](/ �. �•Ctpws.Valley ✓. / If b $ha
A.
r I 1 �• 614 !�: . L �...
150 (� •.• ' �., ` d J0 cm
2
,3-L 1
Z. A'. N. G
-z
Z.,4, N c o
K Z
2.A.N• YcS
I R- z
Z.A.t•l• /S
B -I K-Z_
z.H•N 2
S_ / 1
_z
•Z,A,i,(. 4G
Z.A.H %/ It
M-2 Iz,A-n/-.ao
M•. a
7AH -7
�� � w •I Yi`�r��^` f^ .-1. .ter.
�,I� ��� 'i ` _ 1,
i#� .F � � 1 J �
_-, f'•' 'Y ail `
'.i ..
4 � �
r.` � ..
i
•�- `, ± ..
\ _ 1
\ per, \
I
O W
\\
� �
��/ � v
Lr`\ y �
� , �,� �,
' ---�' ��
i e
'���-t_
r �i ` � l �1� ' � 1
� _,s . \\
.__ _._.
_,
r
I � -P <t " (I
TF-
2 -Xz - � IC-V
---L- --
a
K/ f-
(6a
1
�I
t
�'
� :, i s . n � Q� ern C � L t/ .� = � �. y /H �► � is —/
j
i
i
} I
.Q ` � ,�
I
_l
it
�
:�
�
--�-
�
�.
�
� �,
� /
-
--
e
o
E
I
I #
i
1
_ 1
is
ti
}
--/ 4Z . 4JV, -7- -_ /`i P&H- r I.-C-_ L-Z .,S--------
s I
Rt. 6 Box 319
Shockey Drive
Winchester, Va. 22601
June 30, 1973
Mr. H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission
9 Court Square
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Mr. Berg:
I would like to voice my disapproval of the proposed rezoning
of the approximately 33h acres of the land located on the south
side of Senseny Road and east of Fairway Estates. The addition
of a high density housing/business development in this area
would only add to the already dangerous traffic level.
As you are aware, the close proximity of this tract to the
Senseny Road School would further expose the children attending
that school to vehicular traffic. In addition, this locale
has numerous school bus pick-up points for those children
attending Frederick County schools and also Powhatan School.
I have observed large groups of children along the roadside
between the area in question and the city line, with large
groups congregating especially at the entrance to Fairway
Estates and at Country Club Drive.
It would further appear to me that high density housing with
its attendant high tax base and presumably its dependence on
city water and sewers this close to the city line would make
this entire area highly desirable to the city for further
annexation in several years. Many of us have no desire to see
this happen.
I strongly urge that this property retain its Residential (R-1)
classification.
Sincerely,
John F. Imhof
{
/ -'dr
I? //
FREDERICK-WINCHESTER HEALTH DEPARTMENT
150 COMMERCIAL STREET
P. O. BOX 262
IN COOPERATION WITH THE WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601 PHONE 662-0319
STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
June 21, 1973
14r. H. Ronald Berg, Planning Director
Frederick County Department of Planning and Development
9 Court Square
Winchester, Virginia 22601
TiROUGH: W. H. Hatfield, M.D., Director, Lord Fairfax Health District
Dear Xr. Berg:
'ie have examined the proposed Zoning Ordinance and we would like
to compliment you for an outstanding job. We are very much in favor
of the increased lot size which will make the design of an individual
sewage system much easier. Also, the requirements on trailer parks
are within reason and will make for better sanitation practices in
these park locations.
We appreciate your sending us a cony of the proposed ordinance
for our inspection and we will be glad to work with you at any time.
Sincerely yours,,,
R. Wesley i�i1 'ams,
Acting Admin;trative Supervisor
Y;F,,1/wM/ra
FRED L. GLAIZE III
BOX 59H
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601
June 26, 1973
Mr. H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission
9 Court Square
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Mr. Berg:
As a property owner in Fairway Estates, I would like to
protest the rezoning application of Carlin L. Smith and Lester A.
Elliott doing business as ESSANES to rezone their property containing
thirty-three acres from R-1 to Residential R-2 and Business B-2. I
feel that the added congestion of traffic would result, proving
hazardous along Senseny Road and would be detrimental to adjoining
property values.
I further feel that there is a proper balance of R-1 and
R-2 at this time and any more density of population is not warranted.
Very truly yours,
Fred L. Glaize, III
FLGIII/srs
OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT
r r /
O'SULLIVAN RUBBER CORPORATION `
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
June 26, 1973
Mr. & Mrs. Ralph Herring
Fairway Estates
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Herring:
Confirming my conversation with Mrs. Herring
last night, I certainly would be interested in partici-
pating in any action the Fairway homeowners would take
in the rezoning of the 33 acres adjoining the Fairway
Estates property. If I can be of any assistance, please
do not hesitate to call on me. I will be out of town
until July loth., however, if need be my office can reach
me if you will contact them.
JJA/em
Sincerely,
i#hn . strong
i
/, � � ZX
FRED L. GLAIZE III
BOX 598
I
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 j
June 26, 1973
Mr. H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission
9 Court Square
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Mr. Berg:
As a property owner in Fairway Estates, I would like to j
protest the rezoning application of Carlin L. Smith and Lester A.
Elliott doing business as ESSANEE to rezone their property containing
thirty-three acres from R-1 to Residential R-2 and Business B-2. I
feel that the added congestion of traffic would result, proving
hazardous along Senseny Road and would be detrimental to adjoining
property values.
I further feel that there is a proper balance of R-1 and
R-2 at this time and any more density of population is not warranted.
Very truly yours,
Fred L. Glaize, III
FLGIII/srs
I
(5) The application of Fred L. Glaize, III et al to rezone
approximately 123.610 acres of land; located East of Route 81
on Route 647 in the Opequon ;:agisterial District; from
Agricultural (A-2) to Residential (R-2).
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (703) 667-8700 (TWX) 710-833-0734
RUBBERMAID
COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTS INC.
June 28, 1973
Mr. H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission
9 Court Square
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Mr. Berg:
As a resident of Fairway Estates in Frederick County, I would like to go
on record as apposing the rezoning of approximately 33.4 acres of land
located on the south side of Rt. 657 and just east of Fairway Estates from
Residential (R-1) to Residential (R-2) and Business (B-2).
Senseny Road right now is highly congested and the exit from Fairway
Estates onto Senseny Road is most difficult at this time. There is some
question of adequate sewage and certainly an additional danger to children
attending Senseny School and the ability of the road to safely handle the
anticipated additional traffic.
I have no objections whatsoever to seeing this property Residential (R-1)
classification.
Very fE my yours
r D. GANS
esident
JDG:bs
Route 6 - Box 325
Winchester, Virginia 22601
June 28, 1973
Mr. H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission
9 Court Square
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Mr. Berg:
We oppose the rezoning to business and multiple residences of the plot on
Senseny Road adjoining Fairway Estates. Our reasons are:
1. The Senseny Road School is nearby, and the heavy, fast-moving
traffic makes it unsafe for children to walk to and from school
on this road. The county school system insists —and rightfully
so —that even children who live only a block or two from the
school ride a school bus. The proposed rezoning will add more
traffic and will make conditions even more dangerous for children
in this vicinity. Also, congestion will be increased for the many
school buses entering and leaving the school grounds.
2. Even with the recent improvements to Senseny Road, it is, in our
opinion, extremely dangerous to exit from Meade Drive onto this
road. The same is true of entering Meade Drive or Fairway
Estates when driving west on Senseny Road. To add commercial
establishments and/or apartments will increase these dangers
to the point where someone might easily be killed when trying
to enter or exit from these roads.
3. We question whether Senseny Road can handle increased traffic at
this point, due to the existing narrow roads, the line -of -sight
distances, and the nature of the hilly terrain. In addition,
this road is not maintained properly during snowstorms, and
many accidents and traffic stoppages occur when it snows.
4. Is there a need for additional commercial enterprises to support
this residential area, since it is already near to existing
establishments and to the business district? Would not the
location of new enterprises further east serve the entire com-
munity more effectively?
Mr. H. Ronald Berg -2- June 28, 1973
We believe the time has come to recognize the traffic hazards existing in
the vicinity of Senseny Road School. This subject has been discussed
within the community many times. The safety and welfare of our community's
children should come first, and more traffic congestion should not be added
to what already exists. Also, recognition should be given to the inade-
quacies of Senseny Road —even with the recent improvements. Additional
traffic will certainly cause accidents and possibly even fatalities. We
feel that if some time is spent observing the road conditions, the traffic
congestion, particularly during school hours, and the safety of the children
in the community, you would certainly agree that the area under consideration
should be zoned for single-family dwellings only.
Sincerely,
i
Mr. and Mrs. J. Kenneth Kramer
JKK:sm
cc: Mr. Donald R. Hodgson
JAMES D. SHOCKEY, JR.
P. O. BOX 767 4
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
22601
June 29, 1973
itr. H. Ronald Berg
Secretary of The Frederick
County Planning Commission
9 Court Square
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Mr. Berg:
This is in reference to the rezoning application of ESSANEE regarding
approximately 33 acres of land located on the south side of route 657 and
east of Fairway Estates in the Shawnee 1"agisterial District from residential
(R-1) to residential (R-2) and business (B-2).
I feel the traffic congestion along Senseny Road would be detrimentally
affected by changing the zoning. During the past several years the constant
increase of traffic on Senseny Road is already beginning to cause problems.
The changing of the zoning would certainly more than compound the situation.
Further more, a change in zoning from R-1 to R-2 and B-2 will certainly
reduce the value of the homes, lots, and the other acreage on which R-1
developments exist and/or future ones being planned.
For the above reasons being a landowner in that vacinitysand as a resident
and tax payer of Frederick County, I feel the rezoning change would be a
detriment to traffic, as well as being unfair to existing landowners and
residents; thus, I am apposed to the application being approved.
Sincerely,
James D. Shockey, Jr.
JDS,JR. /d j c
W. 11. Clement
M8 A Oalz Ridge Road Rt. 6
Winchester, Virginia 22601
July 2, 1973
�c
Mr. H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission
9 Court Square
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Mr. Berg:
As a resident of Fairway Estates in Frederick County,
I would like to go on record as opposing the rezoning
of approximately 33.4 acres of land located on the
south side of Route 657 and just east of Fairway Es-
tates from Residential R1 to Residential R2 and Busi-
ness B2.
Senseny Road is highly congested and the exit from
Fairway Estates onto Senseny Road is most difficult
at this time. There is also a question of adequate
sewage, as well as additional danger to children at-
tending Senseny School. It would appear that a de-
velopment of this size would also contribute to addi-
tional pressure on the existing school system.
I sincerely recommend that the property remain Resi-
dential R1 zoning.
Sincerely yo r
W. H. CLEMENT
WHC/cp
JOHN J. ARMSTRONG
July 2, 1973 Re
-(
Mr. H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission
9 Court Square
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Mr. Berg:
As a resident of Fairway Estates in Frederick County,
I would like to go on record as opposing the rezoning
of approximately 33.4 acres of land located on the
south side of Route 657 and just east of Fairway Es-
tates from Residential R1 to Residential R2 and Busi-
ness B2.
Senseny Road is highly congested and the exit from
Fairway Estates onto Senseny Road is most difficult
at this time. There is also a question of adequate
sewage, as well as additional danger to children at-
tending Senseny School. It would appear that a de-
velopment of this size would also contribute to addi-
tional pressure on the existing school system.
I sincerely recommend that the property remain Resi-
dential R1 zoning.
Sincerely yours,
JOHN J. ARMSTRONG
Route 6, Shockey Drive
Winchester, Virginia 22601
JJA/cp
Fairway Estates
Winchester, Va. 22601
July 3, 1973
Mr. H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission
9 Court Square
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Mr. Berg:
As a resident of Fairway Estates in Frederick County,
I would like to go on record as opposing the rezoning
of approximately 33.4 acres of land located on the
south side of Route 657 and just east of Fairway Es-
tates from Residential R1 to Residential R2 and Busi-
ness B2.
Senseny Road is highly congested and the exit from
Fairway Estates onto Senseny Road is most difficult
at this time. There is also a question of adequate
sewage, as well as additional danger to children at-
tending Senseny School. It would appear that a de-
velopment of this size would also contribute to addi-
tional pressure on the existing school system.
I sincerely recommend that the property remain as zoned,
Residential R1.
Sincerely yours,
T. T. LEWANDOWSKI
TTL/cp
PHILIP B. GLAIZE
WINCHESTER. VA.
July 3, 1973
Mr. H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
The Frederick County Planning Commission
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Mr. Berg:
I wish to refer to notice of public hearing pertaining to the
rezoning application of Mr. Carlin L. Smith and Mr. Lester A.
Elliott doing business as ESSANEE covering their property on
Senseny Road.
I am the owner of two lots located in Fairway Estates and
therefore feel that this rezoning would affect the future
development and value of these lots.
There are three subdivisions immediately adjacent or across
the road from the property of ESSANEE which have been developed
to very attractive and valuable homes. These are all high tax
producing properties bringing in considerable income to the
County.
As is well known, traffic on the Senseny Road in and out of
Winchester has become very heavy due to developments farther
east and this will continue to become worse.
At present there are several stores and small businesses
farther east serving the area. Any need for general business
is not necessary.
As before mentioned this entire area has been developed into
medium and high priced homes. Any change to apartments and
townhouses crowding the area would only tend to devalue the
present developed properties.
Very truly yours,
1
Philip B. Glaize
- 1-2/
Rt. 6, Box 311
Fairway Estates
Winchester, Virginia
July 4, 1973
Mr. H. Ronald Berg, Secretary'
Frederick County Planning Commission
9 Court Square
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Rezoning of approx. 331i acres Senseny Rd.
Smith/Elliott Land
Dear Mr. Berg:
We oppose the proposed re -zoning of the above land to multi -family and
Commercial.
Since our home backs up to Senseny Road, we feel we are in a position to
state just how bad the traffic is becoming on Senseny Road. From 3:30
in the afternoon to about 11:00 at night, it is pretty much a steady
stream with speeding and no traffic controls yet. This has been requested
by us and I understand by others also. The new road was built, but really
was no asset as far as safety is concerned. It is quite dangerous coming
and going from Fairway and Rolling Fields. I feel we can be safe is saying
that this road will not be changed in the near future to handle all of the
traffic.
We also feel that unless the development of this tract of land is
property controlled and restricted, the value of the property of the
residents of Fairway Estates will be jeopardized.
We recommend Single Family with restrictions comparable to the area
around.
Sincerely,
Ralp�?and Rut�err
July 4, 1973
Mr. H. Ronald Berg, SEC.
FredericKCounty Planning Commission
9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia
Dear Mr. Berg,
We the resident property owners of Miller Heights are writing
this letter to the County Planning Commission in opposition to the
proposed rezoning of the property along Senseny Road adjacent to
Pairway estates from R-1 residential to R-2 and B-2 Business.
While we are not directly adjacent to this property theclose
proainity andfuture effects of any rezoning in this area is our
concern,
Our understanding of the proposed future use of this parcel
(33/ acres) of land is for Townhouses and Apartments with a
smattering; of single residences.
Why is it necessary for HIGH DENSITY living to be forced into
a beautiful SINGLE FAMILY residential area?
Neglecting all of the normal objections to this type of
proposal, what possible logic would prove the need for so many
APARTMENTS and ROWHOUSES in Frederick County let alone this area?
Where are the residents comming from?
The plans also call for a 4 acre shopping center almost across
the street from Senseny Road SCHOuL. This is contrary to almost all
Zoning Practices and poor planning from a Safety angle.
We would like to see Frederic County develope in a logical
well planned way, not by the "SPOT REZONING" method which creates
the EYESORE COMMUNITIES aparent in and around our cities today.
We voice our objection to this proposal as being unneeded
in our area.
THE HOMEOWNERS OF MILLER HEIGHTS;
IL.7 OY7
I elz4ao 4011�
�
1?
/-t� - /L� ? 6,
At,4,
,1<vt� �i 9v
Mr. H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission
9 Court Square
Winchester, Virginia 226ol
July 4, 1973
Dear Sir:
We wish to register our opposition to the proposed
rezoning of approximately 33.417 acres of land, known as the
Elliot land and located on the South side of Route 657 (Senseny
Road) and east of Fairway Estates from Residential (R-1) to
Residential (R-2) and Business (13-2) for the following reasons:
1. A proposed development of this magnitude should
not be undertaken at this time without careful study and consideration
of the County's long range development plans.
2. This proposed multiple occupancy and business
development would permanently alter the attractive residential
atmosphere of the Senseny Road area and detract seriously from
the potential value of this area for Winchester suburban expansion.
3. The proposed project would detract from the value
of many of the single family homes which exist in the area.
4. The addition of a large number of multiple occupancy
dwellings to the area would impose a substantial additional burden
on County facilities without generating a proportionate addition
to the County tax base.
5. A multiple occupancy project of this size should
not be permitted anywhere in the county in the absense of specific
limitations on the number and size of houses, town houses and
apartments to be constructed and specific strictures as to the
amount of green area and recreational space to be provided. If
this is permitted without contractual agreement as to the nature
of the construction it is likely that economic necessity or other
factors would force the developer to abandon his good intentions
and build apartments or other units which are entirely unacceptable
to the community.
i� /V
2
6. Construction of 147 or more dwellings on a tract of
this size would result in disproportionate population density in the
area and create hazardous traffic conditions especially around the
Senseny Road School.
7. The high number of multiple occupancy dwellings pro-
posed would result in a marked increase in the number of small children
in the area and would overtax the already fully utilized facilities
of Senseny Road School.
In light of all of the foregoing we feel most strongly
that this application should not be approved at the present time.
Respectfully submitted,
Boris M. Luts
Sandra L. Luts
Route 6 Box 329
Winchester, VA 22601
cc Messrs: Raymond C. Sandy
Donald R. Hodgson
A. HOSZOWSKI
GREEN ACRES
July 5, I973
ZONING COMMISSION
FREDERICK COUNTY
Dear Sirs,
Upon being informed of the proposed rezoning of the SMITH ELLIOT LAND adjacent
to FAIRWAY ESTATES, I was made aware of the projected development of this area.
As a result of my findings, I would like to be placed on record as being opposed
to the rezoning of these lands for the following reasons which would directly
affect me and my neighbours in nearby Green Acres :
I - Although the proposed development calls for expensive townhouses to be
erected on this site, it is my opinion that a lack of interest in these type
dwellings in an area as expansive and undeveloped as Frederick County, could
degenerate (once rezoned) into a high density apartment complex. Such an occurence
could result in an undesirable element near the Senseny Road Elementary School
which may be conductive to increased drug traffic and a general poor influence
on our youngsters attending that school.
2 - Whether or not the development goes as planned, a high density living
complex in this area would mean increased auto traffic, particularly if the
shopping center is erected. Such traffic must be a hazard to the children
attending the Elememtary School. It would also mean increased automobile traffic
through Green Acres, as Wilkins Drive (already too heavily traveled for a
residential area) would serve as an access road to the facilities on Route 7.
3 - Such a development could only mean increased problems to our already plagued
water and sewage difficulties in this area.
A host of other objections could be listed, the preceding list enumerating only
a few. On this basis, I urge the Zoning Commission to deny the rezoning request,
or at least temporarily postpone a decision so that my neighbours in Green Acres
may be made aware of the proposal and their ideas be polled at a public hearing.
Frederick County can and should be a beautiful and profitable area through
planned expansion and those of us who, through residence have a vested interest
in these affairs should be heard.
Respectfull y urs,
H(Jd
STZSKI
G. BORG
GREEN ACRES
JULY 5, 1973
ZONING COMMISSION
FREDERICK COUNTY
Dear Sirs,
As a resident and neighbor of Mr. HOSZOWSKI I am in complete agreement with his
comments on this development matter. I would also like to go on record as being
opposed to it, until it can be further investigated.
Sincerely yours,
GERALD BORG
July 5, 1973
MEMORANDUM TO Mr. H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM Ralph L. Herring
We attach herewith letters from the following property owners of Fairway
Estates in connection with the proposed re -zoning of the approximate
331, acres on Senseny Road (Elliott/Smith tract) :
1, John F. Imhof
2. John D. Gans
3. J. Kenneth Kramer
4. John J. Armstrong
5. Ralph L. Herring
Some of the above people will be present at the hearing today, but some
are out of town.
GC.•
RECEIVED J IL 1 S 1973.
A'.ff' 7rM (7, TM mi1 I0 ml U 'fir ]I
to
PETITION DATED JULY 16, 1973
The subject land (38. 9 acres) is near existing areas zoned for multiple
dwellings. The proposed large addition of high density dwellings (up to
1000 occupants) would impose a substantial disproportionate added burden
on Frederick County facilities in this area.
Roadways: Virginia Highway Department counts indicate Senseny Road traf-
fic increasing approximately eight percent annually, currently approaching
recommended maximums for this type road. The subject land plan could con-
centrate over 400 additional vehicles using a relatively small frontal area of
this road. This substantial increase in usage could pose a threat to the safety
of local residents and school children and might necessitate expansion of
Senseny Road.
Water - Sanitary and Storm Sewers: We question the availability and ade-
quacy of existing systems to absorb this concentrated added burden.
Schools: Addition of this proposed high density dwelling zone could sub-
stantially increase this area's seriously loaded school facilities.
General: We doubt the desirability of frequent medium sized commercial
facilities scattered along Senseny Road in contrast to planned master arrange-
ment for such services. This additional commercial or service area directly
opposite an elementary school contains safety and other factors with which
to be concerned.
The proposed plan would influence zoning in the large adjacent undeveloped
area tending to propagate this type of zoning and concentrate high density
dwellings in this small area of the county.
The plan would also seriously detract from existing developed land and
dwelling values and be a deterrent to the expansion of such single family
dwellings whose taxable values could be maintained at a level commensurate
with the established character of this area.
THEREFORE: In light of the foregoing we feel most strongly that this applica-
tion should not be recommended for approval at this time.
T, L'u 1] K 31 II 6S. T T
to th%'.
FREDERICK COI;;: Tv FL.1\ TNINC GOMI/lIS-ION
Date-- July 16, 1973
WL, tho undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia are strongly
opposed to the propo-e:d ;rezoning of. at _proximately 38.9 acres of land, k:no%vn as the Smith -
Elliott laand and located on the suuth.side of Route 657 (S�-:nsery Road) and cast of
F�;irv,i' a;,^s; fry>>n existing classification ;:es:;.denti.al R-1 to Residential R-2 and
Pusi.n<,ss B2 zcr reasons set forth in Attachment 7 i , a part of this petitici .
NAME
Firs t Mid dIe
Last
ADDRESS
W. •
13 � - 7Y
IF, Ell IFi[71I1:Q)711T
to the
FREDERICK COUNTY PIANNILNIG COMMISSION
Date July 16, 1973
WE, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia are strongly
opposed to the proposes' rezoning of approximately 38. 9 acres of land, known as -the Srr:it'.-
Elliott land and located on the south side of Route 657 (Senseny Road) and east of
Fa_r vay rst:,i es, "roll)�• .ictinc� ciassi-fication Residential. R--1 to Residential R-2 and
Business B--2 fof reason:: set fort'L in Attachment #1, a part of this petition.
NAMR
First Middla
r
Last
ADDRESS
DATE
W91WA--TA WlAWAP-��0-IiIN!llfAIFA%f.
q
7
�._ .ice__
1-73
/ 3,� - 1141
TF P" 11, R 'Ar ] O TN!
to the
FREDEI:ICi' COUNTY PLANNING COMIv1ISSION
Date____ Tuly 16, 1973 _ ` _
WE, the undersigned res-Idents of Frederick County, Virginia are st_vongly
opposed to the proposed rczotning of. approximately .38.9 acres of land, 1,nown as flfie Smith -
Elliott land and located ot, the south side of Route 657 (Senseny Road) and east of
he �„ fr ct� 1 'f ij C 3f.ip?1 'fln i�l „-1 ',D "r lA i 1 P—) and
i �.ii`t :"l:A j' T.�ti i. ice .. �..�, O ._i., in c_as _ .... S1C.?F?T?t:___ �. 1-', is ii 1%i_
Business B-2 for reasons sot forth in Attachment #-1, a part of this petition.
NAME
Mi.ddIc Last
ADDRESS
_j_
DATE
M 3 eo
3.
-7 3
13,E - 7 y
to the
FREDERICK COUNTY Pfd'!NNING COMMIISSION
Date July 16, 1973
WE, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia are strongly
opposed to the proposed rezoning of approximately 36.9 acres of land, knov,7n as the Smith-
Flliott land and located on the south side of Route 657 (Senseny Road.) and e�: t of
Ta.rva,istat.w, fron- ,c_acs f_ica�i n e—I-
fentp1 to R-2 and
Business B-2 for reasons set forrh in, Attachi:lent �l , a part of this petition.
NAME
DATE
i y
i
Ii I ri• Aw
nA1`
1
1,3� - 7�1
I _-,
r,
ft, 1,1 jr r, Ti, (o)
to the
FT,'.E-D!,RTGK COU.,N'rj' fl)L?�iNNHATG GOIA-UHSSION
Date- jLily 16, 1973
WE, Ono unders-,v,,c-ri T-esidents of Frc-Accick Goun}y, Virginia arc strcn-91Y
opposed to the, rC;1,or)IPC; Of approximatcl-y- 38.9 acres of land, known. as she SMith-
.,.Ilio',.t land and located on the south si(2,(n. c)f Route 6S7 is ensony Road', and east of
em-s1J".ct'On PdentialI to Ros idiential R-2 and
T'driva, E.1 ,�; t11,is
Business Pi for reasons set feith in Attachment -,+!, a part o[ this petition..1
NAME AT)DRESS DATE
711 r s t Middle Last
T
1-3
-:-L.
1-5 � - ';?>
RII I Ir ff If IT CID BY
to the
FREIDER-I'C11". GO-UN'IY PLANNING CON4MISSION
Date- July 16, 1973
WE, the und-or-signed residents of Frederick County, Virginia are st-corgi.-Y,
opposed to the proposed rezoning of ap.0,70x1mately 38.9 acres of land, known as the
Elliott land and located on the south slide of R,jute 657 (Sensony Road) and east of
i rvvay Estntcs; from existing Je,-.Id,-mtja" !,-I to Resior;ntial R-2 and
Business B-2 for rcasrnis set for-ih in -�ttachrnent Sri., a part of this p�;tition.
First
NAME
N /1"i d (I I e
=111131210-10 0
11,
ADDRESS
DATE
.3 .0 - /y
Ii" M 11 N 'T 11 (( ""3
to the
FRE DERICK COUNTY PIliNNING COt,,IMTSSION
DateJuly 16, 1973
WE, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia are strongly
opposed to the proposed rezoning of approximately 33.9 acres of land, known as the Smith -
Elliott land and locat,-d on the south. side of Route: 657 (Senseny Road) and east of
Mir ,Jay EsUlLeS; 11.01h (;XIS-iII(j classificati" P.�..�ldc.���icZl R-1 to RcsidC3i:ti .). I'-2 ?'�.�)
Business B-2 for reasons set forth in Attachment #l, a part of this petition.
First
ADDRESS
Last
k2_.
DATE
7 7� _.
/7-e
.a % -
�.___.WY
P; IG; 'II' I( iT if (D IE1
to the
FREDI:RICK COUNTY PLANI-41NO COMMISSION
Date July 16, 1973
VtijL, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia are strongly
opposed to the z:roGaosed rezoning of approximately 38.9 acres of land, known, as the Sr:li:il-
Eli.ict', lend and located on the) south sieE; of Route 657 (Senseny Road) and east of
fro2r oY,.iS' :err (-JFtS!7i.fic;0Jon Ree';.dential R-1 to Pesidentla). R-2 and
BUsinetis B-2 fo;- reasons set forth in Attachment #1, a part of this petition.
DATE
/36 �y
Ili 7;'li7i'1TChiM11
to th@
FREDERICK' COUNTY PIANNING COMMILSSIUN
Date July 16, 1973
WE, the undersigned residents of: Frederick County, Virginia are strongly
opi:osed to the proposed rezoning of approximatel; 32,9 acres of land, known as the Si-:ith-
Elliott lend and located on the south side of Route 657 (Sensony Road) and east of
}.'�.].;`..'�:�'::t�.t^f fr�.'n n: ti .� rl :c�jfi,� fj-nn 1?�`r,jrinlptj.Al i'-1 i:C� 'Z� fi1dE'.nt:Lc_1 R-2 and
_ � ,^ c- - " `'-- - � ` this e'tltlOn.
Business B�-2 for reF_sons set forth jr, Aitacnment #1, a part o� s p
NAME
First lvljddle
_k MAL_
.a} _
,a%A-
i
ei■llr�
ADDRESS i DATE
Last E
IL
171
An
.............,......-..,._..�......�...._. ._. r._..w. .w�-�.�...�. ...-._y. _ ......ter... ..., _.. ............... �..�.. .�
111i A 1,.'j
Last
ADDRESS
DATE
T., Il IT if
to the
FFEDUTC!, COUNTY PLANNING COMIMISSION
Date- July 16, 1973
WE, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia are strongly
c)pp,-,Q(--::cl to the prop,-..-"-cl razc)nin( of appro.ximately 138 - 9- acn?s of 'Land. known as, t1he SM t
ll-
Elliott lard and locale-d on the south side, of Route 657 (Senseny Road) and easi- of
2 a n cl - -
ey�jsting clas
sification Rcc-icicnt.icjl R-1 to 1 !"1
Business B-2 for reasons set forth in Attu chment 5'1-1, a part of this petition.
First
/-�? t'l" - /'�/
to the
FREDERiCK C%OUN-N PLANNING COI1' MISSfON
Date _- July 16, 19 I3
Wthe undersigned residEmts of Freder,.ck County, Virginia %;re strongly
opposed to: the proposed rezoning of approximately 38.9 acres of land, known as the Smith --
Elliott la..d and located on the south side of Route 657 (Se-nseny Road) and cast of
Fairway Est,�tcs; from cxisting classification Residential \. o Kesid�.,ntj3- I R-2 and
Business B-2, for reaso is set forth in Attachment 41, a part of this petition.
NAME
ADDRYSS
DATE
First Middle Last
7-3
13
71
RD if: '.1T lI IT Ti (D) i if
to the
FREDERTCi1" COUNTY Pfl1 N.NTNG COMM!ISSTON
Date July 16, 1973--- _
WE, the undcrsigne d residants of Frederick County, Virginia are, strongly
opposed to the propos ,j rezoning of approximately 33.9 acres of land, known as th% Smith -
Elliott lend and to sated on ilie south side of Route 657 (Senseny Road) and _ a t of
y'4irtr�. Est^tee.- fi-!7'll f`S'?�iiri;7 (-Ji �'J_i Lion Residential. R-1 to Residential R-2 and
Business B-2 for reasons scr forth in Attachment �Fl, a part of this petition.
First
1
NAME ADDRESS
Middle La st _
_._r +..._v n_nra,ut_�.�.ae�f_u.•.new.3raswa�2}:-Knn•.1_'m._�.trm.+_.a.. n_.w_. _'�M..�w..w eawvr__�-..� e..+..._er._rwn_m+.w�'/�c.rs._rx..•w..�w..w.rw+v+e
DATE
e7�
7-.
I Ia
L." 'K; 'T It `1I' IT Q) MU
to the
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING vOMi:-?ISSIOIJ
Date JuI.V 16 ; 1973
WL, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia are strongly
opposed to the proposed rezoning of approximately 38.9 acres of land, known as the Smfth-
Elliott land mid located on the south side. of Route 657 (Senseny Road) and east of
Fairway Estates; frorn existing classification Residential R-1 to Residential R--2 and
Business G-2 for re«sons set forth in Attachment 41, a part of this petition.
First
N'AMADDRESS
Middle Last
�d._.�.. _ ..._____ _....._.._._..._.. ._....�.`?°ors � �°►� .88 ».
b
'Z- G i9
C
DATE
19
lc ,,III, 71' fC lir ?f (0) ]mod
to the
YREDURICK COUNTY PLANNING COMM16SION
Date--- July_ 16 , 1973
WE, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virai.nia are stror:gl;r
opposed to i:i;e proposed rle7o�ning of aj)jJlQ-1 `Lmat�-.ly 33. 9 acres of land, I!ii-own as tl�,a Sn it .-
Elliott !and and located on the south side cf Route 657 (Sei?ser.'Y P.oad) 11-ld cast of.
Ft3.l'T:Vcl.' �= T';i'E from 'Y:� ')T n C;li?5c f'.Ca�j: Z 1?F�><]Clf:i'ltl,�� R-J. to I1Csid(,Mtj' - 'IZ-� ?liC1
Bu,;iaess B-2 fc-r reasons set forth in Attachment T-1, a part of this petltton-.
N IM E
FiI.G�'...__.�..ITast
a
ADDR?;33
DATE
_..uses C.'r/ _d
,/ _ Z777
4/
...w�z4._`�_.1
1-2
r ,/
Ifi is F TI TC Il Cap Ih
to the
FREDERICK COUNTY PI..ANNING COAL IMISSION
Date_ July 16, 1973
WE, the a .fined residents of. Frederick County, Virginia are strongly
opposed to the propol �ezo ing of approximately 38.9 acres of land, known as the Smith -
Elliott lard and located on the south side of Route 657 (Senseny Road) and east of
F3ir:va-, Est&tes; from existing classifirati.. n Residential R-1 to Residential R-2 and
Business B-2 for reasons set forth in Attachment #1, a part of this petition.
NAME ADDRESS
DATE
First -Middle Last
—17-73
-
/ i / / .•WIN
I
i ��' !' .1 /'/1./-,. / r•A,
�. rim . r�
/ / '
14/
/ ,
�� /out L •
to the
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Date July 16, 1973
WE, the undersigned residents of. Frederick County, Virginia are strcrigly
or -posed to the. proposed rezoning of approximately 38.9 acres of land, known as t'_he Smith -
Elliott land arld located on the south side of Route 657 (Senseny Road) and east of
i llVoi'iy' E tatcs; from exi.` tin�T clac;ri_fi_�,'ation Pegi.denticai R-) to Residnnti.al R--2 and
Business B-2 for reasons set forth. in. Attachment #1, a part of this petition.
NAME,
first Mt dle
Lust
ADDRESS
DATE
. Po,! 33-3 - / A
7. - 7 3 _
it ii I i
3
7
_
t; `. .
fez_
,2i - 73
71
July 30, 1973
Mr. IT. Ronald Berg, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission
9 Court Square
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Subject: Proposed Rezoning of Smith -Elliott Land
Dear Mr. Berg:
As you know, there is widespread opposition among the residents of the
Senseny Road area to the proposed rezoning of approximately 38.9 acres of
land, known as the Smith -Elliott land and located on the south side of Route
657 (Senseny Road) and east of Fairway Estates, from existing classification
Residential R-1 to Residential R-2 and Business B-2.
This opposition is so strong that a petition has been circulated among the
residents of the Senseny Road area. Enclosed are copies of this petition
containing approximately 365 signatures of residents who are willing to go on
record as being opposed to this application. The 365 signatures on this peti-
tion represent a large percentage of voters in the Senseny Road area and in-
clude substantial representation from the following neighborhoods:
Frederick Heights
Greenwood Heights
Fairway Heights
Miller Heights
Green Acres
Senseny Road
Country Club Estates
Rolling Fields
We feel that the proposed rezoning is not in the best interest of Frederick
County for the reasons stated in the petition. Furthermore, a majority of
the residents feel (given the number of properties already approved and/or
- �7y
July 30, 1973
Mr. H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
Page 2
under development for high density residences and commercial purposes on
Senseny Road and throughout the Frederick County area) that further high
density or business zoning along Senseny Road is undesirable at the present
time and that, for the time being, further development in this area should be
limited to single family residences.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of
the signers of the petition,
Frank E . 'day// er
Route 6,GU 330
Winchester, Va. 22601
r`Zr��GI
Boris M. Luts
Route 6, Box 329
Winchester, Va. 22601
cc: Members of the Frederick
County Planning Commission
w/copy petition form
Members of the Frederick
County Board of Supervisors
w/copy petition form
P,czo»ia�t - Smith Elliott: Land
I visited the office of the developer "Douse of Lords" of the suUject land
and from information given have prepared a layout- ::bowing their proposed
development --- and its relationship to adjoining Faiinaay Estates.
From this visit, the following facts and questions are developed and sub-
mitted for consideration of other interested parties:
1. The plan is a major development in town houses, apartments, a 4 acre
shopping area r.nd a single row of single dwellings adjacent- to Fairway
Estates to serve as a buffer zone,
The planned ratio of dwellings:
117 - Town houses in groups of 9 approximately
12-13 - Apnrir;cnt units
17 - Single dwellings (lo+:s 100' x 125')
2. Each town house is 25' wic'e by 35' deep on a strip of land approximately
140' dacp. This places 9 families in .^n area 2.25 feet wide by 140 feet
deep, approximately 4 times the density of: single dwellings.
3, lie expects to build $60-70,000 houses ira the zone of single dwellings
which will face town houses across the street priced around $45-55,000.
4. As you work away from the buffer zone, town house values will decline.
5. lie is going on the theory that Winchester contains many people %rlio e:ill
leave homes and enjoy the confined living of the town houses with the
lesser maintenance.
6. Ube decor and architecture of the project is heavily colonial.
From my visit I'm satisfied the man has good taste and an attraction to
quality, as apposed to being purely commercial.
These questions come to mind:
1. Is it wise to introduce additional areas of.'multipl.e dwellings, apart-
ments, etc, so near to one already under 'development just east of this area?
2. 1 question the desirability of unplanned locations of shopping centers,
and so near the school.
3. Are the c>s:is+inn sewer systems in th=s area c•1n_ahle of 2 mulf-i-le
dwell.ing areas?
4. W'bat are the school problems associated with such a program of expansion?
5. How do you control the project in terms of completing as planned? He
claims it is only the trust of the developer. The plan once approved
could degenerate.
6. Is the developer realistic in expecting people to invest $70,000 in
single dwellings facing row type town houses, despite their value at
$45-55,000?
7. Will people who are attracted to the open type living of. Frederick
County, lock themselves in row houses of high value?
8. Is Frederick County so developed that we must at this time consider
compressed type dwellings?
9. If the project must- proceed, it would be a more realistic approach
to the zoning gradation of single, town house and apartment dwellings
with each area zoned individually.
Provide a greater percentage of single dwellings which will permit
n gradolJon in Oieir valya s similar to the planned value scalinl; or
the town houses.
Two rows of single dwellings might have a chance, but a single row
facing acres of town houses in my opinion does not.
1.0. The road vrrr.ngoment will draw heavy traffic past the most desirable
areas, These should be protected by havin3 the major entrances off
the planned side road.
From my discu:;sion with 1-fr. Eccles, there is apparent flexibility in his
planning. lie appears willing to alter the plan to c,.ccoi::-1odatc objections
from adjacent land owners, providing it remains reali.sti.c.
For example, he recognized the vale; of a double row of single dwellings.
It would seem in our best ?.ittcr.cst to follow up ca the orijinal suggestion
of Mr. Hcrring, to di rcus. tlii :; as a group, and present a recO i sti c plan
of opposition or alt:cration, or individutally filing letters of protest.
Since the Toaid meeting is 11n:rs:day, ; ai.lAng is not possible this: k.
It, therefore, would be ::ppraciated if those wishi.og to c::pr:_ss ," '(":as
or objections to the change in zoninL;, to deliver them to rie it: F.I.
OVER
PAGE 2
Fstates, lion )nl,,icon in Millar 11cic.hCs, Ccne Isorg or A. lio.smowski. in
Crecn ".crc::; wha 'Al i. sco.. tl•nt they <ire to t:l:e 7.oni19 T?oai:cl
Ser..r^tnr Ad fi vour 2cttar. to Mr. 11. Ronald ;)erg, Socrctary,
Frederick 4:n.:. Plan.ion, n Coul.t Square, Winchester.
Your letter s7 euld c•z;"Ces:: your _easons for ob.jccting to t'l (c change
from Sir.,;lc ;:csi.d^r:cc:; l0 2hllLipTa Resi fences and husi.ncss.
iliis letter is not intc:ndc,d to i.nflue:ncc your position on the subject,
it is merely c. pru entation of. t,,e `acts as I have determined then: to be.
I mr, aysi 1, bl c to revic; the l ayuut which represents tlic a»prO);irUItC
plan Onl-y, and detzii l c: of my meeLi.•:g with Mr. Eccles. I c- -,n be reaclzed
at 6O2-6/41,10 or 062-3871.
F. Y. Tayic>>.
Rt. 6, Bo:.. 330
Winchestc):, Va.
22601.
662-6499
7/9/'73
T0: CONCI-XNL•'D RESIDENTS OF FREDERICK COUNTY
Re: Proposed Smith-Ial.iottLand Rezoning.
O V E R
This bulletin is for those not aware of the pro-
posed rezoning and development plans for the above land on
Senseny Road between the Country Store and Fairway Estates.
It is also a resume for those previously informed and par-
ticipating.
1. A request had been filed to rezone this land
from its present single residence restriction to one
permitting business, apartments, town houses, and some
single residences.
2. One resident of an adjacent area met the land
developer and was generally informed of the plan. See
attached visit report.
3. A number of residents from Green Acres, Fairway
Estates and Miller Heights filed letters of opinio:= re-
garding the rezoning.
4. 20 - 30 residents of these areas attended the
July 5 County Planning Commission meeting. Boris Luts
was appointed group spokesman for the meeting.
5. The land developer's representative requested
a delay on the rezoning request: (a) They had failed
to include 5.5 acres in the land description notice.
(b) They had not had time to discuss their plan with
adjacent or nearby property owners.
6. Commission Chairman Golladay noted that cus-
tomary procedure is to review plans first with interested
property owners before filing with the Commission.
7. The Chairman noted for the record, the extensive
representation of interested residents, requesting a show
of hzlnds to substantiate the extent of opposition. The
Commission accepted and recorded the extensive file of
letters from the residents.
R, nin land developer was inst m eted to withdraw
the existing request to rezone, and refi le sh owing the
additional 5.5 acres. If resubmitted, the application
will be reviewed at the August 2 meeting of the Commission.
9. Mr. Golladay requested the attending residents
file a petition stating their position on this application
for rezoning. (See Action section - this bulletin)
10. The land developer invited those present to
review the "plan" in the Court House. A copy of the
plan was given to Boris Luts for the group's use and
study.
From this review with the developer, these observations are made:
1. After comparison with the resident's earlier
"visit report" (included with this bulletin) the following
is noted:
(a) The stated density had increased from
approximately 4.5 units per acre to
approximately 7.4
(b) Prc2osed singlehome valncv had decreased
from $60,000 - $70,000 to $40,000 - $50,000
on lots 100 X 125 feet (12,500 sq. ft.)
(c) Town Iiouse values had decreased from $45,000-
$55,000 to $35,000
(d) Town B ouses are now three-story, %..ith
garages beneath reached by a ramp from
the street. The rolling terrain would
be used to advantage where possible, but
extensive "surface re -engineering" would
admittedly be required.
(e) The almost continuous row of Town. Houses
was again recognized together with the
relatively small area for single dwellings.
(f) The plan prepared from the resident's
earlier visit was inaccurate, failing to
properly identify the 1.3 apa.rtment buildings
containing 156 units and the n:nal.l size
of the recreation area containing a 30 x 60 pool.
PACE 2
2. The "Mini Park", proposed as a Gr.evi) Barrier a
to the adjacent residential area seems accurately described
considering the potential number of residents in.the
39 plus acres.
3. Other items raised and unresolved were:
(a) Impact on Senseny Road traffic already
approaching 5,000 cars per day and in-
creasing at an estimated•£31 annually.
(b) Added loadings on overtaxed school system.
(c) Storm water run off aggravated when land
is developed plusthe loading on existing
sanitary sewer and disposal system.
•
(d) Proof of proposed building values to be
installed and guarantee the program would
follow this or any plan.
A. The developer i.naicated sonic. possible flexi.hility
in his planning, expressed willingness to aecomodate area
residents and pointed out factors and consequences if the
area reverted to all single homes.
In summarv, the group's concensus after meeting with
the proposed developer seems to be as follows:
(a) The plan proposed additional high density
development (up to 1,000 persons - a
relatively high percentage of present
Winchester population) in a residential
area which presently has two sections
already planned for Town Houses and
apartments (on the other side of Senseny
Road).
(b) It would be in the area's best interest
to retain single dwellings on the land in
question with adequately sized land lots,
developed in a cost range that supports
or improves the value of nearby existing
single residential property.
(c) ..L' C;hoUlCi i:{s reco-jnizud, i l this 3xd
and very large section of land is allow-
ed to go Town House and Apartment, the
large adjoining vacant land areas will
have difficulty developing single house
sites in the future - the multi -dwelling
system will tend to propogate.
(d) The developer commented on the lush -high
quality of the Smith-Elliottland and
adjacent home areas -- all the more reason
to not cover the land with high density
dwelling units.
(e) Remarks were made about "THE RAPE OF
LEESBURG" - it would be worthwhile to take
a loot: at the areas of Row Houses, partic-
ularly the rears, and apartments in that town.
Action Planned
1. Each nearby area is requested to establish a
repre:;entative. He will be given details of the present
plan:. for your. revic.a.
2. When the developer resubmits his rezoning
appl_icatiori, interested residents in each area will be
inforiaed of its contents.
3. If the application again proposes high density,
multiple occupancy dwellings, a petition will. be circu-
lated for your signature stating the position of the area
residents in respect to the "plan".
4. You will be kept advised through your area
volunt.cer in preparation for attendance at the August 2
Commission mcccing.
Note: in addition to the petition., attendance at
the August mczting ::ill be very important.
Further details are available by calling
Boris M. Luts or F. E. Taylor
662-6203 662-6499
NO`I'ICF : REZONING SMITH-ELLIOTT LANI)
We have just determined that the land developers have
refiled, requesting rezoning of the subject land as previous-
ly outlined -- adding 5.5 acres to the original 33.4.
Petitions therefore will be prepared immediataly by
i . LutS dIM W , tE . layier and given to eac'i area von iarl .eer for
circulation and securin.3 si_ynatu__es.
Petit:ioiio should be in your area by Friday.
F.E.T.
/ J
RECE�`ED� G ? 1s73
MCKEE AND 1 ITTLP:R
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
WINCHESTER,VIROINIA 22601
It SOUTH CAMERON STREET
PETER K.McKEE (1934-1967) AREA CODE 703
BENJAMIN M.BUTLER TELEPHONE 662.3486
STEPHEN G. BUTLER December 5, 1973
H. Ronald Berg, Planning Director
Department of Planning and Development
9 Court Square
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Re: My File No. 2778B
Real Estate General Corporation
Dear Ron:
With respect to the petition filed in the name
of Real Estate General Corporation and Essanee requesting
rezoning of certain land described therein from R-1 to R-2
and B-2, it is respectfully requested that petition be
amended so as to delete the request for rezoning to R-2
and the petitioners desire to go ahead only with the request
for rezoning of 172,500 square feet from R-1 to B-2 in order
to use the land for small service businesses and office
buildings.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
McKEE and BUTLER
BENJAMIN M. BUTLER
cc: Mr. J. O. Reynolds
Mr. Raymond C. Sandy
1.
. 2bO SCALE
MILLER LAND
860
-LA WHITE FAIRWAY ESTATES LOTS
N3 5-r20-W-482-64'--
O/Z N,3*
OD 091 l/
30 9 31.13-1
/-u C5,
GAS S/7 LINE -
V,
/kpo's
4)0,
� 41 63 fS
i(o (4" cl)
cb /.0
oJ.
o/
W
"oC)
11>7 S,5 .4
Rq c T C4,9,0,rR
ID >
l)-
0-
cb
t = ti
a
(:b
br
UNDERWOOD SUBDIVISION
0
1-7
M-A Q,
"60 SCALE
MILLER LAND a6o z
- LARGE WHITE OAK 3 _7Fr,� FAIRWAY ESTATES LOTS
3 -0
ol 0� 6 4
/I _W_.9 S, js/ POST-
69'
tu
V
LINE - c�
Ln
Po p Ay
44 'r __
CA C)
C5
�/ S
> co
4 C
>
z
C)
.0-w
0
�DDo
iU)
U)
�o
(b
C6
IV
20' R-O-W—
__S�5`6_lT2_4n_E—1328-57
UNDERWOOD SUBDIVISION
O
v
w . . -
� •rLaiia.:
,`v
Q
o� 3
l.S6'a I 4� M
38.G67�
�T
6S) `
3� 10,
N I`
1
Q
H�
•,.
M0
n N �VJ
W
e Y
3 �Z
cI
I
W
J
N
x OD
3'�f
Wi(il
�
�JO
IN
rl
W U
'
M
IZ
33.417 AC.
0 T g�45„ w`4g2.
00,
� -4
C. A. LAMP LAND
z
0
LA
co
D
N
0
0
0
cr
W
0
z
•
/3,6- �Y
�'� -�
1Y 0( ri •. /- • ► / .' *`I J l`-` ,>. 1. a4, C c' . -C .typ'L.- l`) 4.142
• � ir. ' laces:;:_ .;.•;;,�a.;i.,' .:.:7� d•> „�jlb •'"tvNl. ! ✓ ,i ,1 7 �� i � �J1� ��, �. ',� . �'r' i `
- ; \ ' �.. � >�, . ) �! r,� ;��•�`•,.,� � l: ' ; ' J�.,7 ; � 11�;i �1: �.���[[[i;, .l / !%'.:' ��;J� i7' � . � :1 (� , 4,. , _ l,'. ' _ 1: , `. } `!l (
! h c, ', :G /��! �I/c ,I; )) �� ,� ,'' - C I % i� �a4+�t.. ^.S//J I, ! �y) / +' • �0 84 " /) � � >\ t �•! W /
V l �.J / •� 1 I .II y{h tic•It /S I �� I t t'r �� _f l�H. -.� i/,';. 4� y lifl )'t•� � i��, /q;�J l� ` „! Y .Cl,�y;nl � c.\,1,` e1
y�J i U 1 7f !({'a ti�:r1'i!J 'al+�:l (( 1� Y' r ;(� /2 J;v' r• Ii J•
t',4 •� , - M%u d erTll:: 'r.d�. '/'%. •• `'/ Fs. �..?� "` .� d�fi ` � % t •i4,•�F �.. )�` •I � q't-d ed � ��• ✓' � _ 1°
J 1� _ �/ ,, V .•I. /. J /' 1 4 f j\\• \' \r'/ W
i'�`\ cJs' ✓=R(. NT�dG - L.0 � °•
,1 / ' c�/ I `'l�t / l ' ;�� i„/ �� �V � c/��-�";;, `�, qy, Lf .:;! Eil�1' f �::1 - t� 1� ,.,.�r" w•P �'�:. �,--\,''••1' o �,
• L ! �.� i � - � j � � ���! i� � r/ ''.7�j �ti. r �' f3fa � . / ,� � r' � ^ K y t"o"5� �ys,. jr±' � :f •I r zY �y!�� 1 �•d .' 2
-, i/ il. f (( �. �I , r _•� - (l� 1 , I ) i''1. 1 ..4 {-� �2 r .�t4_I1
� � � , , •7` � ,/,' �: . i�. ✓ 1 1 !��^%i I, -C' //, �:.(('Y) l `uhnh,/� !, ` rf a. � i' � `� , :i`�-'� ��r' - f• � c t{ Q �41
! � �� ) I 11 1 �; ( _.:.� { �; � �L'�i� /� '^`�R..._ ' N,`" :.�}-!' _ e,__-.•�:sr.t..• . I .F� �2 4-G
ZN
l;j � , ., � •I �,. �, { I ��� ��. � � '�' hhh ,//�J �_ ?.fir r'•' r:.t, x� _/� : �'IJ- ' � 1 /. ( 1 J J,� � _
1, � w ' �/:• l7- 1 i. t. /r \ , '�% ;,,,. {�._ �,;,:=.- ar. z
,, � � L %.i /. 1 I V �s ��4 �-, is ^T F1t'�etl on• / � tr t', 3tic: '� C:�..r I: o. r.
\l) �•\ Q ! ) ! �� i. �/:.� 'l._... � � "r- �e�r�.w _� / � /Ceg7e,[ � �r �'x 4n.�. ji ,]i � �, �;It• .�b.,J�if l �•.'• ,1 it Z.�. /V GO
J • � \.,I 'W �7d"< J� S ll - '� _ ,�:� � �// L � �f � --�.{{ ...1-` ,K: ..,3�3 ��4 w ,i;-i i ! ' r. \ hzZ
pr'•- j � �/ '..%-&.. 1 r.,. .J� .��..::U/ 1�,,. •.f.-
i ,C,p'Iiny o J l' R. ,1.�_.( ___ _ a k),/J .z :.) l� «,' `' �_ a „' (t )1 (. EJ'- Z. N. 2
f'/fil�• / 1 • i \ ('. r� - a �� �/ �:
A. IV.
\ �. •TS
/ -�.� v'/� 1 ( ) l .'�`�i i!�<"� i It Sch /�.' 7��� / v/i, 1 r /' ��a• :.J 'eJr�'62��,.
. }; l r r . j / ' i \ E" �, � ( � " i � � \ �Qfi _:x •+i (\� � � '�, � i•"�•'r�Y /��' .. J_ e' '�} 1,9 tt l l�' �N - y� _ .%
+/' �,"' •\ _ F,p' \r %-�.:�/� .,t/ � �1'�. ,, lK,i � / `;.-+�;c4'�: �y/�4�� :�' '� •''�.. r� ,v, t(\ ^-/I'C'IYii.1�n lt)., t.,'<c�
N` 1r / �.-� 1 \mil. f \ �`f g / \Y as L i� ✓" / �{
fl• / a � d •'J 1J1 • i . � (r ll •rJ '//`�`� >�, P � ['I`:.'• �, Q r � C.'� (.," + ,\� • �f. )_-' �W It. i ) ..•,.l, t :. �t
-
1 n i _ / �/: _T , ! @£ 4f (1 f?Tj: 0 f Y• / Q l �Q % �� .1',' . i �\ . l . UI
7. 'I.`> �) i ���3 fpl.;-r' [`` (• -.J - 1 ,(i{. CP.M <V �1`•r }�V �.=;�`7' •� •i .l�'�:' `1 )�f
( - ! - �� ��' -'. ft �, �ya,.� y _ti' .� f.f r';h�,. �' •� .,--•'' �''••. C ,%' •��� I .�,: � �/ /) ...y;,,. 1. S i 4340
l,' -i -� \S epic. f( � ! �t+,:1 '1 r �.,k� i:/ '� �f�o, l,`,�.5 Ir• / '/,�'�� ,� -
7J l 1 , !' ('�� ,Ki\ -( r' ) / � �-�'i7 ��\ a `a� 7- + -•�` - - -F1+�'.• i \'� .1(C -.f f_c.
_/ '3'r'.: ' ^fo / / \`'� -' � .,�5-,.�.' �- .', � .��I I i • • v - ••�;',� •+ � ,1'a:. , 'i'�C ,oj`!•`�'
��� (Cr �'� ihSh�ste tu:- irs�,l
l''f ^. .� P�� `,./ ' �;•; - !• .� j%'COUn CIUt7 . .
`., ) . ; I , i , ,t 'l ..�-^ J N 'ti � 1. ./ �� l �5.5/,� ` t• 'C •t // �t i..J 'i.' �� ),i t •l
�` �' 1 ! 7 ! ��� \. C7 0 ,.•♦ \\ II T 1
j i;7' ,f, ' x 1 W
� a i8 .! ���• �iv 1 •.`; J t �t 1 C I✓ig ��
�\ % o O (�� r ;• i morY ( '\ \ --I)) \ yU/ 'r`',I t� i��, lfis•^. • ,.' A �irE ` �!-I•+ -
g. J / •+ : Ce"i7! _ JJJ jj
/Jfr (,i't m` !,_ - n/ .i.+• I- ' /r 10
I,/ ,i, ' ).)`f•�\`. -'�• 3 -{.r : ; .8yy KS• ./- ` �' ' W t r •) �.' _ J L i l 4 / ilJ �, : '\ .II "c{� �/
...,,J .J�i,r V'' I �,/! 'J _ .. 694'% /i \' '•. i lO. ))jfl I' �; 1 �f r,-/�' • t• �'�.:.( \ I � 2..C.lV• S.•i1
( t L - U'�'s� � ..� l / . L.•` '� T J<� -„� � I. ����.� ,_� /i/ IJ' � 1, � tl ' I y,� r T ,
. ..{'� �j .,r. L _�'•• f i!�) .,�V. •�� tii• / ' �� / -� '1�('� .. J i \ ' / .✓ Yj' -�\ f I \• 1 ,I,.
i/ �- � �', p� . r �7sr irl•, I• •.f., ., ` � t _, � �-•� �. • � �/! ((� ''�.�.� �. %�.'' �. J (• INTf(2 1 ���/ �i � _ � ; .-Ii ...i ,C L 1
) p.P � /!•o,�• .•. , 11 ( f �,,♦- Q 4. �, G Ca��l/(,(� f..�J. `,11 ''• I \ ��..
?_F111
I ` i•r %' f , I! �' \ i (f �, :•` i i) j G� ( C.� Ci".. ' 1/•' p \' I
,J v of )� 1 t ` •l 1 6'r� 1 of l /Ih 1 U / i I 1 .- ..
%jj"7f' r'f
. , 1 •/ �i (aj t I �/ ,'�.�•t 4/ ''f�a } •� � �i ��� .i'�/' �''(' is/��L,�.`. -.,� .\ ,' �. i�5.`.. !� �1' , �•.yJ \ 1l t � % /,'Yl i \ i `,I .NI i � J� - ,
l' ' �I'17 I / r' l• ` r l3Mo xPamental �O_ .�`
is6 t. T • _. Q - ,,*r 71 it l��i i
it b non bfemorla( Sch U llfl / 1, 1 1 1• l.� ILA
�) / ^4 / 4338
4-Z
.I :�l � .\.'�`C.•. 1_4J +�• �� � 1�, % 1. •J .•'i� r t_, �.�.. /.-vr,•.`.,, ./1 �',II 700 � 1 , f,, ;; A.�
!•; ,l.J i �' �'`!' -'� �� �)%�� .t c��/ �. Y- 0/ `,' 1 \ .1/ Iy l )y .r �, t ! %�. ( I, '!. •Z.
J P9..
� / ( 1/)11ffP 1 fQ •\ �. �•. ) / ). '�1�.'C :. \.. 1i .�/ 1r / �rV 1..` /t `2
J o
• R r y 40,6
Z.
), `' J -.1 .i r•�!'r 11. ��!.�,- %3•1`,•J%'..t (xn!'l i„ 1 l a•'.yy \"!•,;. �' ��� 1 ` ;\
1,J •' r• .!. •:1��,I a r�- � - �1 - . 1. �. r( i '- \� i,'' d �, � r,- „ / .1 .7I,Ia IQ )t. //' '� / I' J t. � \
,I ' , ♦'• �� l `• 4 t T J / S } t. • J �'/li • ��i'• ■': 1. • •,/ t,,, / �cq. : r •\`., y /' / , - ,J) , , / /• 1. < 7[' r .-.�...•...•�...��
i' C`d •fl' l,;�'d/tC.�/ 1 �•-'•a.:' '' ) {. 644 /�f� '.' 'r lt, ), c l9If.CIvb a�
•1! ''1�+ :- ,_�1____-1_�f.� ,l_. LT.7r _.. .. . .._�. '. •''_ , .I• _ ��,-.__.'..� ��-� `.... _ .\. " - ''• - ' -r iL.. �.�t�'L. • -a1 i, __ _
13 �, -7Y
It
1
•4142
via•• FQ m) Ij
4A.
%
L.y
PQ ,AA,L
v
I�W4j✓ &
N/.317 . NTER
GA&I V/
\ ( f P/ / �'1/, 1.hI
l, II tl y
lyi
2,
CNI
7')
jj
V
-y y 4 4
10
••
Z. A. A/.J, 'C' Go
,. I ��� `"/ r 1 11 1 \ �.( l ', ��. ,( �' ,)17/ MCf�•"�` .v"l `` �• ,p ��5,•ryi` ♦ ` _ ..�,J 1• ,: i—A
J Cl -.�" �►�� � ( \.: l r r ) �i. i. \`ir' ��� I ca� r' ��•.) ` .<_T��" „ �l s 4Y J•�., � ♦ �, �( `�, i a11� � 1 it/ '' / •r . �I�... � t ''gU.:
All,
tr
yff�
41VA�-
usq
rAk
1!,- 4340
"k,
4
I JjV
"vft7
v
tup
0 jill
r j'
W,
al i; 1, v, \"�.� D). _ ego %y.y' .i' 6
�T
I NTCRd-A
", 7
;�.. ,,... . + '� 1 ; it ;'Y , �,
I
Q C • j
jv
( Lp i,
6; T4 Ile, )YO- ..t!
46 t� V
��/
4 'ej. 14V P I ki 11
til,
]I\ 4338
71
J
Rob son 110111orl;Q1 Scl
-3. �11-N,
C.
T6
( } '' ,�'•�,�
14/ CZ
`, i l +S� ts, \J'\ llf � • r •.�r/l .yt• 1. � 6Ji /•t.�e C „ � 1 \\ '\ ,. t 1, Pot 1: �-11v
R—i I
Z.A.N. /S
�7
Z-A-N -2
4t; - Z
-2`-A-Al
z AIN 7/
A1-2
2.4 &/.
/��r �
��
��
i •
�REL /M/NAi4Y
F'L AT
sroNE67ATE
ZAV49 CQRp
L' E _4' r/F/Elm L iY 0 tS'v�4 vEy0.4
IV
\S E� r. /pl /_9
L OL'AT/O/i/ �L1'�4f
�5
� � t
�, � s�•vsE-n.r ..a.
�aTEs
/, �' F�90/YI--SUF-�I�FJ� f�EG'Di90EO /iY
OFf /CE o� FEEDER/�1f COUy 7-X
2. Bo�/tio,9F�Y svBUEcr 77,2
/y O.B. ,j/ �o ,� 9/.S f `` !�O// ALA 7
3. 4 e rW 7;9/if/S /4
�. LD7--j .9RE 80 T tisET��C.Y L
-17 �S//iY/T�iF ` �5Els/E� .9A/O lt/.9TEfi�
UA/OER
'S
�''� - - �30 0� •.moo •� �