Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07-02 Doris F. Casey - Shawnee - Backfile
CASH �, 7 - 07_ CO2680 u Date Received From W � P v Zz (Address figf o< 1 lars For 5ACCOUNT r' ow U n HOW PAID V S�- CASH ffAFE JC CH By MDNIY P CREDIT D 0 0 10 0 REZONING TRACKING SHEET Check List: Application Form Proffer Statement Impact Analysis Adjoiner List DATE Application received/file opened l30�rs i(-o v Fee & Sign Deposit _ Deed Plat/Survey Taxes Paid Statement Impact Model Run _ Reference manual updated/number assigned D-base updated Copy of adjoiner list given to staff member for verification Four sets of adjoiner labels ordered from data processing One 8`/2" x I I" black and white location map ordered from Mapping File given to office manager to update Application Action Summary T bled -Fo+r GO CIoayS� "riCP4 PC public hearing date / ACTION: T ✓ L re tO L) BOS public hearing date ACTION: D _lq.J E U Signed copy of resolution for amendment of ordinance, with conditions proffered [if applicable], received from County Administrator's office and given to office manager for placement in the Proffers Notebook. (Note: If rezoning has no proffers, resolution goes in Amendments Without Proffers Notebook.) Action letter mailed to applicant Reference mahual and ll=base updated l - 1- 03 J t ile given to office manager to update Application Action Summary (final action) File given to Mapping/GIS to update zoning map /V Zoning map amended U �CAr01\Commae\tr"fkg rez Revised 05/09/02 GRID MERIDIAN NAD83 VA NORTH ZONE PER GPS OBSERVATION TM 63—((A))-124 EFG /NVESTMENTS, LLC DB. 955 PG. 724 (TRACT ELEVEN) N 06,23 � E � IRF TM 64-((A))-18 POST MANFRED G. KOKORSKY FOUND DB. 468 PG. 350 ' 95� .73 /z ACREAGE OF hi RA ZONED PORRON 13.8596 ACRES iN m TM 64-((A))-20 y co 18.4661 ACRES (total ra' � ZONE RA i 577.08 ) ►vu' �. (S 82'57 58" 1 RP n 1 1 ACREAGE OF (RP ZONED PORTION IRF14 . i 1'. -• 4.6065 ACR£5 .nr S 04'57 46" E 205.91' SHED IRF w L5 In O Q $ r— (0 ' 4 m IRF 0 OIRF a y 10 O, tN 11 ou L6 m . IR 12 � Le 13L9 IRF L 11 ... 713.01 L 11 DRIVE POST TM 64-((A)j-19 IRF - 56' Rey ��• FOUND 2.2021 ACCRES h CONC. 1000 * 10 ��6 '� • N 84'S724 ` �, 14 MON' fRONT ROYAE Rlk `�S• /y K N 85'05'37" W FOUND Rr 522 TM 63-((A))-146 260.22' 238.63' THOMAS W. R LOVE & IRF IPF '" - MABEL L. BREEDLOVE DB. 401 PG. 672 / TM 64-((A))-23 DORIS Al CASEY WILL BOOK 91 PC. 596 200 0 200 SEE SHEET 2 GRAPHIC SCALE FOR NOTESNOTE:LINE TABLE, (IN FEEV LEGEND &, KEY TO ADJOINING ZONING EXHIBIT SHOWING EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY ON THE LAND OF ��Off oF� STEVE A. DuBRUELER, RAY N. DuBRUELER & frp MADELINE F. DuBRUELER G�� G> SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VJR INA RICHARD A. EDENS SCALE: 1 " = 200' 1 DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2003 No.002550 GREENWAYYENG ENGINEERING Engineers VMCHW 8, VL 22502 SURF Surveyors TKITHONE: (640) ee2-4186 FAX.- (640) 722-9628 rounded in 1971 www.ersenwayenm,com 3370 SHT 1 of 2 c c c 4 � E_ GENQ IRF = 1/2" IRON REW FOUND IRS - 112" IRON RF_BdR W/ CAP SET CONC. MON. - CONCRETE MMONUMENT FOUND IPF = 3/4" IRON PIPE FOUND Ol TY 64D-((A))-3 CLEVELAND N. A TURNER & MARGARET D. TURNER DB. 697 PG. 473 ®TAT 64D-((A))-7 & 8 HINKLE B. GOOD & AUDREY C. GOOD DB. 375 PG. 8 0TY 64D-((A))-12 F/VINKLIN L. MYERS, SR. do REBECCA MYERS DB. 592 PG. 683 (TRACT A) ® TM 64D-((2))-(A)-10 CARL EUGENE BAYLISS & SARA C. BAYLISS DB. 396 PG. 177 © TM 64D-((2))-(A)-7 MAURICE W. OATES DB. 907 PG. 114 R TM 64D-((A))-15 W 1, JACKSON, JR. & BETTY J. JACKSON DR. 355 PG. 455 (TRACT 2) LINE DATA LINE BEARING DISTANCE L 1 S 82'5758" W 45.00 L2 N 2735'40 E 13.70' L3 N 80'1320" W 158,80, L4 S 13'20 39" W 61.02' L5 S 82'57'58" W 116.02' L6 I S 82'34 56" W 120.00' L7 S 0725'04 " E 129.51 ' L8 S 85'09'02" E 122.80' L9 S 85'09 02" E 138.10 L 10 S 28' 17'58" W 61.00' L l l N 85'09'02 W 90.00' L 12 S 04'50 58" W 1 150.34 , L I3 I N 8753'48" E 1 84.00' 22) TY 64D-((A))-5 MARTIN D. DELPH & FRANCES M. DELPH DB. 490 PG. 716 TM 64D-((A))-14 FRMKIJN L. MYERS, SR. & REBECC4 MYERS DB. 592 PG. 683 (TRACT B) ( 7M 64D-((2))-(A)-12 . ILLIAM' 1. JACKSON, JR. & BETTY J. JACKSON DB. 938 PG. 474 © TM 64D-((2))-(A)-9 CARL EUGENE 84YUSS & SAR4 C. BAYLISS DB. 396 PG. 177 R TM 64D-((1))-(B)-A OBERT 0. DETLEFSEN & MILDRED L. DETLEFSEN DB. 541 PG. 691 Q TM 64D-((A))-4 SANKEY EDWARDS DB. 383 PG. 204 © T711 64D-((A))-10 ASAKO WHITACRE DB. 337 PG. 413 (SEE WILL BOOK 81 PG. 331) (9)TM 64D-((2))-(A)-11 ILLIAM I. JACKSON, JR. & BETTY J. JACKSON DB. 355 PG. 455 (TRACT 1) © I'M 64D-((2))-(A)-8 JUDITH L. MORRISON INST. NO. 000012995 a5 TM .64 -((A)) -2 1A RAYMOND LLOYD MORRISON & JUDITH LLOYD MORRISON DB. 589 PG. 660 SEE DB. 614 PG. 25 1. NO T17LE REPORT FURNISHED. EASEMENTS OTHER TWN SHOWN MAY EXIST. 2. THE BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS RASED ON A PREVIOUS BOUNDARY SURVEY BY THIS FIRM, DATED NOVEMBER 1, 2002. 3. CURRENT OWNER OF RECORD: SIEVE A. DuBRUELER, RAY N. DuBRUELER & 94DELINE F. DuBRUELER - INSTR. 1020018296 4. THE LOCATION OF THE ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY RESEARCH OF THE HISTORICAL ZONING MAPS AWNTA/NED BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVEXOPMENT AND /S IN ACCORDANCE WITH A LETTER DATED JANUARY 16, 2003 FROM EVAN A. WYATT, A/CP TO SAID DEPARTMENT WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED BY ERIC R. LAWRENCE, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ON JANUARY 17, 2003. ZONING EXHIBIT LTH p SHOWING EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY ON THE LAND OF STEVE A. DuBRUELER, RAY N. DuBRUELER & MADELINE F. DuBRUELER��, G' SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRG/NM U RICHARD A. EDENS SCALE: NIA I DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2003 No.002550 IF ee SUR GREENWAY ENGINEERING ���o o�, Surveyors TELE'HONS: (640) 882-4185 FAX. (640) 722-9628 Founded in 197i www.vreenwayvng.com 3370 SHT 2_of 2 N • I 'VIRGIN7Ik, FRP-DERICK COUNTY, SCI. This irlWuart6t of wri*S was producgd to ate A F,b. �ti! aDo,y at. .. and with ocRific2te of acknoMcd*ment thereto Alinexed was admitted to sccm4. T imposed by Sec. J8.1-802 of S , and U.1-801 bale been paid, if askurbk 4 � perk 030003286 I, Richard A. Edens, on this the 1 Ith day of February 2003 do hereby certify that the plat entitled "Zoning Exhibit Showing Existing Zoning District Boundary on the Land of Steve A. DuBrueler, Ray N. DuBrucler and Madeline F. Dubrueler" and description (if requested) attached hereto is a true copy of a zoning exhibit made by me on February 11, 2003 of all of the land conveyed to Steve A. DuBrueler, Ray N. DuBrueler and Madeline F. Dubrueler by Deed dated October 24, 2002 recorded among the Land Records of Frederick County, Virginia as Instrument No. 020018296. The said land lies in Shawnee District, Frederick County, Virginia. Surveyor STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF O"F FREDERICK, TO WIT: ,Tc�Y1t l2 I, (. • S{e, a Notary Public in and for the State of Virginia and County of Frederick, do hereby certify that this day personally appeared before me Fj C,b t A • Eder' 5, whose name is signed to the foregoing instrument dated 1 hay of � 2003. Given under my hand this 11+11 day of Frlovuaru , 2003. Z1_— My commission expires Fa YjUart.t 2q 200 �Ot• tary Public • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 January 6, 2003 Mr. Mark D. Smith Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: REZONING #07-02 OF DORIS F. CASEY Dear Mark: This letter serves to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting on December 17, 2002. The Board denied your request to rezone 30.31 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) District. This property is located approximately 800 feet north of the intersection of Front Royal Pike (Route 522) and Paper Mill Road (Route 644) and is identified with Property Identification Number 64-A-23 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Section 165-11 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum period of 12 months to elapse before the consideration of another application for rezoning of substantially the same land to the same zoning district designation. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions regarding the denial of this rezoning application. Sincerely, Abbe S. Kennedy Senior Planner ASK\cih cc: Mrs. Doris Casey Harrington Smith, Shawnee District Supervisor Jane Anderson, Real Estate em: William Rosenberry and Mr. Robert Morris, Shawnee District Planning Commissioners O `Agendas\Apprwal (a denial) ltrs\KU's0ws Casey RI-2 wpd by rEc�l�cs+.� G J 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 9 REZONING APPLICATION #07-02 DORIS F. CASEY Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Meeting Prepared: November 21, 2002 Staff: Abbe S. Kennedy This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Planning Commission: 07/01/02 Planning Commission: 08/21/02 Planning Commission: 11/06/02 Board of Supervisors: 12/11/02 PROPOSAL: Action Tabled Tabled 60 Days Recommended Approval Pending • To rezone 30.31 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District to RP (Residential Performance) District. LOCATION: This property is located west on Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), approximately 800 ft. north of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 644 (Paper Mill Road). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 64-A-23 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Agricultural and Nonconforming Commercial (Shenandoah Florist) ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District Use: Agricultural RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District Residential 0 • REZ 407-02, Doris F. Casey Page 2 December 2, 2002 South: RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District B2 (Business General) Zoning District East: B2 (Business General District) Zoning District RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District Use: Cemetery Funeral Parlor Use: Commercial Residential West: RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District Use: Agriculture PROPOSED USE: 70 Single Family Detached Urban 12,000 SF lots REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 522 and 822. Routes 522 and 822 are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Doris F. Casey property rezoning application dated May 9, 2002 (revised) addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition, for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Recommendation: Residential sprinkler system. Additional comment: Extension of municipal water for fire fighting. Plan approval recommended. Millwood Station Volunteer Fire & Rescue: Normal proffer model for fire/rescue/residential. Frederick County Department of Inspections: No comment required at this time; will comment at the time of site plan or subdivision plan. Counly Engineer: We have no comments at this time. We reserve the right to perform a detailed review at the time of the submission of the site plan and subdivision plans. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the Casey property rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic properties. No comments on this rezoning request. REZ #07-02, Doris F. Casey Page 3 December 2, 2002 Sanitation Authority: Water and sewer are available to this site. There is adequate capacity. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the 70 new residences will yield 35 new students to be served by Frederick County Public Schools. Residential growth in this portion of Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollment near or exceeding their design capacity. The cumulative impact of this project, and others of a similar nature, will necessitate the fixture construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the application process. Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation.: The $600/lot proffer proposed for Parks and Recreation is adequate to meet 50% of the impact the county has projected this development will have on parks and recreation. County Attorney_ The proffer statement appears to be in proper form. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (USGS Winchester, VA Quadrangle) depicts the zoning of the subject parcel as R-1 (Residential Limited) District. During the comprehensive down -zoning of October 10, 1980, parcel 63 A 23 was changed from R-1 to A-2. On Feb. 14, 1990, the A-2 and A-1 were modified to the R-A zoning classification. 2) Location The proposed site is located west of Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), approximately 800 ft. north of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 644 (Paper Mill Road). 3) Comprehensive Policy Plan The subject property is included in the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan, a study within the County's 2000 Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Plan does not specifically identify the future land use for this site. The subject property is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Urban Development Area (UDA) is intended to accommodate suburban residential development. The subject site also has road frontage on Routes 522 and 644. Route 522 is classified as a minor arterial and Route 644 is major collector road according to the VDOT functional classifications. 4) Site Suitability Environmental Features 9 0 REZ 407-02, Doris F. Casey Page 4 December 2, 2002 The entire site is located as "Zone C" area outside the 100-year flood plain. The site does not contain areas of steep slopes or woodlands as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The soil types located on maps 63 and 64 show that 77.5% of the site is 9B,Clearbrook Channery silt loam, typically having a high water table and depth to bedrock, limiting this soil for community development; 22% of the site is 3B, Blairton Silt loam, identified soils as prime farmland, well -suited to cultivated crops, hay and pasture, and tree productivity. Seasonal high water table and depth to bedrock and potential frost action are the main limitations to use of soil for community development; and .5% of the site is 41D, Weikert-Berbs Channery silt loam, poorly suited to hay and pasture. There are approximately .35 acres of wetlands present on the site. Any disturbance of this area will be in conformance with Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Environmental Quality permitting procedures. Access The site has a manmade boundary created by Route 522 (Front Royal Pike) on the eastern edge of the tract and Route 644 (Paper Mill Rd) on the western edge of the tract. One entrance is proposed on Route 522 to provide access to the residential property. A connection to Westwood Drive is proposed to occur form the residential property through the Swisher parcel. Access to Route 644 (Paper Mill Road) is not proposed due to traffic flow concerns identified by VDOT. 5) Potential Impacts & Issues a.) Tianspoi-tation Impact Analysis Statement For the proposed 30.31 acre property to be rezoned from RA to RP, the access will be on Route 522, Analysis of the residential land use indicates a worst -case scenario impact to Route 522 as follows: Existing Traffic on Route 522 = 10,000 VPD (Based on the 2000 VDOT Average Daily Traffic Volumes Manual) Average Vehicle Trips = 9.57 VPD Projected Traffic Increase =670 VPD Percentage of increase to the traffic pattern of Route 522 = 6.7% The complete build out of this project will increase the traffic on Route 522 by 6.7% of the year 2000 VPD. Route 522 is a five -lane major arterial road with two travel lanes in each direction 0 0 REZ #07-02, Doris F. Casey Page 5 December 2, 2002 and a center turn lane to facilitate left turn movements. The increase in traffic volume from this rezoning proposal can be accommodated by this road facility. Revieiv Agency Comment VDOT concurs with the transportation analysis offered in the rezoning application. Staff Comment The primary access for the 70-single-family lots will be provided through the extension of a state road constructed from Route 522. This proposed state road will not have a connection with Papermill Road. The applicant has indicated that a road connection to Westwood Drive (Route 822) on the Swisher property, P.I.N. 64-A-20 will be provided to the subject property. If access is acquired, pavement widening on the existing portion of Westwood Drive to Route 522 will be paid for and installed by the applicant in the dimensional widths as directed by VDOT, when the coruiection to Westwood Drive through the Swisher property occurs. There have been numerous comments of concern by property owners in the adjoining development along Westwood Drive. There are concerns regarding the widening of their street, drainage concerns, and concern of the impacts of the potential fixture development of the R2 Swisher parcel the Casey parcel and their neighborhood adjoins. The applicant has provided a number of transportation related proffered conditions. These conditions are reviewed in the Section 6 of this report. b.) Water & Sewer Imvact Analysis Statement There will be public water and sewer serving the site. An existing eight -inch sewer main is currently in place on the west side of Route 522. The proposed sanitary sewer system will run along the north boundary of the property in a west -to -east flow pattern, towards the existing main. It will then be comiected to the main in accordance with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority regulations. An eight -inch water main is currently in place on the west side of Route 522 and is available to service the site. The impact of rezoning the 30.31-acre parcel from RA to RP on sewage conveyance is based on a development schedule of 70 dwellings. At an estimated 275 gpd, the build -out impact on sewage conveyance would be 19,250 gpd. These figures are based on the Frederick County 0 0 REZ 407-02, Doris F. Casey Page 6 December 2, 2002 Sanitation Authority's Water and Sewer Standards and Specifications. Revieit, Agency Comments There is an adequate capacity of sewer and water available to this site. StgEComnments The applicant's discussions with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority indicate adequate capacities in the water and sewer transmission lines, adequate capacity at the water and sewer treatment facilities, and adequate water supply resources to serve the proposed project. The FCSA comment dated March 19, 2002, states that water and sewer are available to the site and that there is adequate capacity. c.) Solid Waste Disposal Impact Analysis Statement The impact on solid waste disposal facilities is based on an average annual per household consumption of landfill volume figure of 5.4 cubic yards. Based on the proffered density of 70 dwellings at 5.4 Cu. Yd. per dwelling the daily volume = 378 Cu. Yd. Staff Comments Staff feels the applicant has adequately addressed the impact of solid waste. d.) Historical Sites and Structures Impact Analysis Statement The applicant noted the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks showed the Duncan Farmhouse and the Evandale School in the vicinity of the subject site. The Winchester Regional Preservation Office Department of Historic Resources said there were no archeological artifacts found on the site. Rei,ietin Agency Comments A response letter dated February 6, 2002, states that the Doris F. Casey property does not significantly impact any historic properties. 0 • REZ 407-02, Doris F. Casey Page 7 December 2, 2002 Staff Comments Staff feels the applicant has adequately addressed the impact to historic structures. 6) Proffer Statement The applicant has submitted a proffered condition statement, signed by the property owners, that provides the following: • Limit the total lots for the RP acreage to 70 single-family lots. • Restrict the 70 single-family dwellings to SF Detached Urban, 12,000 SF lots, and prohibit all other housing types allowed in Section 165-65. • The applicant proffers to install a turn lane at the primary entrance on US Route 522, if warranted by VDOT. • The applicant proffers to dedicate right-of-way to the Commonwealth of Virginia adjacent to the property on US Rt. 522 and Rt. 644 as determined by VDOT. • A connection to Westwood Drive (Route 822) onto the Swisher property (P.I.N. 64-A-20 and 21) will be provided to the subject property. Pavement widening on the existing portion of Westwood Drive to Route 522 will be installed by the applicant in the dimensional widths as directed by VDOT. These improvements will be installed when the connection to Westwood Drive through the Swisher property occurs. • The applicant proffers to develop the 30.31-acre property in substantial conformance with the General Development Plan approved as part of the rezoning application. The General Development Plan is intended to delineate the road systems that will serve the 70 single-family lots and the connection to Westwood Drive through the Swisher property. • Provide a 50-foot buffer along the entire southern property line against the Shenandoah Memorial Park. An earth berm with a single row of evergreen trees planted on 10-foot centers will be developed within the first 25 feet closest to the Shenandoah Memorial Park property. A 10-foot non-exclusive easement will be provided within the remaining portion of the 50-foot buffer for the future development of a bicycle and pedestrian facility by others. • Provide a 10-foot non-exclusive easement for the fixture development of a bicycle and pedestrian facility by others within the established road efficiency buffer along Papennill Road (Route 644). • The applicant has offered the following monetary contributions to offset the impact of development: REZ 407-02, Doris F. Casey Page 8 December 2, 2002 a. $700/lot to offset the impact to Frederick County Fire and Rescue b. $600/lot to Frederick County Parks and Recreation c. $3,600/lot for Frederick County Public Schools d. $210/lot for Frederick County Library e. $120/lot for Frederick County Sheriff's Office f. $245/lot for Frederick County Administration Building This payment, totaling $5,475/lot, is intended to offset additional costs to Frederick County due to the increased demand on public services and will be paid at the time of issuance of the building permit. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF 07/01/02 MEETING The original rezoning Application #07-02 of Doris Casey, submitted by Greenway Engineering to rezone 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP; and 3.31 acres from RA to B2 came before the Planning Commission on July 1, 2002. The Planning Commission tabled the action and waived time restraints to allow Greenway Engineering to address the concerns raised and to revise their proposal. At the July 1, 2002 meeting, comments from Frederick County Parks and Recreation noted that the impact of this development was not adequately mitigated. Comments from Frederick County Public Schools advised that the cumulative impact of this project and others of a similar nature will necessitate the fixture construction of additional school facilities. In regards to the comments from Parks and Recreation Department, Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering explained that the Capital Facilities Impact Model indicated a positive impact from this development because of the B2/RP zoning. Planning commissioners had concerns about residents having to drive through the middle of the B2 area to get to their residences, and suggested limiting the neighborhood transition area to B1, or eliminating the intensive uses allowed in B2. They pointed out that some commercial uses may not be compatible with respect to the adjoining cemetery. Chairman DeHaven inquired about buffering against the cemetery property, and Mr. Smith could see no problems with placing additional buffering and screening. Five area residents came forward with public comments. Adjacent landowners were concerned about numerous issues. One issue was the concern about the compatibility of business uses with the cemetery, especially since Patsy Cline is buried in this cemetery. Maintaining the integrity of the adjoining cemetery was emphatically stated by three citizens. Neighborhood residents of Westwood Drive felt further improvements to Westwood Drive to accommodate future developments would disrupt the quality of life in their neighborhood. Neighboring residents of Westwood Drive who were not adjoiners to the Doris Casey property, expressed disappointment that they were not notified of the public hearing. Other expressed concerns were water runoff and flooding. Planning Commission members requested that the applicant become more creative with the inter -parcel design. Commissioner Light recognized the traffic congestion currently in the area, and believed the drainage could be better controlled if the proposal were all residential. He also felt B1 or B2 would disrupt the flow of the residential neighborhood and negatively impact the funeral/cemetery area. • REZ #07-02, Doris F. Casey Page 9 December 2, 2002 UPDATE SINCE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON 07/01/02 In response to concerns raised during the Planning Commission meeting on July 1, 2002, the applicant has attempted to address the concerns in a revised general development plan and proffer statement. This revised proffer statement provides fora residential use restriction for 70 single family detached urban lots, no commercial rezoning request, a 50-foot buffer along the entire southern property line against the Shenandoah Memorial Park, with an earthen berm and evergreen screening. The revised general development plan is intended to delineate the road systems that serve the 70 single-family lots and the connection to Westwood Drive. Revised monetary contributions to offset the impact of development to Frederick County are included. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 08/21/02 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The revised application for the rezoning of the Doris Casey property appropriately meets county requirements and has addressed many concerns of the Planning Commissioners, public comment, and staff. The subject parcel is located within the UDA and the SWSA. The Urban Development Area (UDA) is intended to accommodate suburban residential development. After any further concerns of the Planning Commission are addressed, staff suggests that a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to address any concerns raised in this report, as well as the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF 08/21/02 MEETING The August 21, 2002 meeting of the Planning Commission had nine citizens speak regarding the potential rezoning for the Doris Casey property. One resident presented a petition of 260 names opposed to the rezoning because of traffic concerns. Neighboring Westwood Drive residents expressed concerns regarding construction traffic, traffic congestion, and increased drainage problems and flooding that would disrupt the quality of life in their neighborhood. Other specific concerns expressed by neighboring residents included the concern that a precedent would be set for even more development in their area; the need for a barrier to protect the integrity of the adjacent cemetery; disturbance of wetlands and wildlife habitat; experiencing decreased water pressure because of other recent developments; the ability to supply sufficient infrastructure to support the proposed development; and sufficient water capacity to serve future development. Commissioners discussed with VDOT representatives the feasibility of using Papermill Road as the primary or secondary access for the development. VDOT representatives described the extensive improvements that would be needed to Papermill if it was used as the primary access, such as left and right turn lanes, transition lanes, right-of-way acquisition, and vertical alignment. • 0 REZ #07-02, Doris F. Casey Page 10 December 2, 2002 The applicant addressed numerous issues raised by the Commission, including whether there was sufficient width available to allow a right -turn lane on Rt. 522; the possibility of accommodating the access to the Swisher property as "emergency use only;" the inclusion of a physical barrier, such as a fence, along the adjacent cemetery; and confirmation that the Swisher property owns a 50' right -of way extension to Westwood Drive. There were many varying points of view among Commissioners regarding the outcome of the proposal. Some members pointed out that this property is within the Urban Development Area, with sewer and water, and has been designated for development; those Commissioners were seeking some way to make the proposed development compatible with the existing residents in the area. Other members of the Commission were not in favor of the development at this time based on the County's current Transportation Plan, the County's potentially limited water supply, and the possible necessity of additional school construction. There were also varying points of view regarding the number of access points to the development, whether or not Papermill Road or Rt. 522 should be the primary access, and wether or not Westwood Drive should be a restricted access for "emergency vehicles only." There was agreement that the buffer against the Shenandoah Memorial Park should include a fence in lieu of an earth berm and that any connection to Westwood Drive should not be allowed until construction was completed, to eliminate construction traffic on Westwood Drive. Five motions were made on the rezoning, all of which either died, were defeated, or failed because of tie votes. A sixth motion was made to table the rezoning for 60 days in the hope that all voting members of the Commission would be present, in order to break any tie votes. This motion passed by the following vote: YES (TO APPROVE THE MOTION TO TABLE): Straub, Gochenour, Unger, Light, DeHaven, Fisher, Rosenberry NO: Morris, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Triplett (Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.) UPDATE SINCE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON 08/21/02 The applicant has submitted a revised proffer statement to address issues of concern. The revised proffer statement, signed by the owner on October 10, 2002, and approved by the County Attorney provides for the following: • 70 Single -Family Detached Urban 12,000 SF lots. • Primary access for the 70 SF lots through a single access point on Route 522, with a right -turn lane if warranted by VDOT • Right-of-way dedication to the Commonwealth of Virginia adjacent to the property on US Route 522 and State Route 644 (Papermill Rd.) as determined by VDOT. REZ #07-02, Doris F. Casey Page 11 December 2, 2002 • Emergency access connection to State Route 644 (Papermill Road) in a location that is consistent with the General Development Plan. • To develop the 30.31-acre property in substantial conformance with the General Development Plan approved as part of the rezoning application. • Provide a 50-foot buffer along the entire southern property line against the Shenandoah Memorial Park Property. The 50-foot buffer will not contain any portion of residential lots. A fence that is a minimum of six feet high, resembling a traditional iron fence style for cemetery enclosures, will be provided. • A single row of evergreen trees planted on 10-foot centers will be provided within the first 25 feet of the entire buffer, and a 10-foot non-exclusive easement will be provided within the remaining portion of the 50-foot buffer for the future development of a bicycle and pedestrian path by others. • Route 644 (Papermill Road) will have a 10-foot non-exclusive easement for the fixture development of a bicycle and pedestrian path by others within the established road efficiency buffer- along Route 644. • Monetary contributions to Frederick County, totaling $5,475/lot is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services and will be paid at the time of the building permit according to the following breakdown: • $3,600/lot for Frederick County Public Schools • $600/lot for Frederick County Parks and Recreation • $700/lot for Frederick County Fire and Rescue • $210/lot for Public Library • $120/lot for Frederick County Sheriff's Office • $245/lot for Frederick County Administration Building STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/06/02 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The revised application for the rezoning of the Doris Casey property appropriately meets county requirements and has addressed many concerns of the Planning Commissioners, public comment, and staff. The subject parcel is located within the UDA and the SWSA. The Urban Development Area (UDA) is intended to accommodate suburban residential development. The applicant meets buffer requirements along major collector roads, and exceeds the zoning code requirements by providing a 50-foot buffer along the entire southern property boundary adjacent to the Shenandoah Memorial Park. A six-foot high fence resembling a traditional iron fence along the cemetery and a planting of evergreen trees on 10-foot centers along the entire length of the property line is offered REZ #07-02, Doris F. Casey Page 12 December 2, 2002 in the proffer statement. No buffer is required by the Frederick County zoning code in this area adjacent to the RA zoned property. The applicant has provided an emergency access connection to Route 644 (Papermill Road) as shown on the General Development Plan. The rezoning proposal was first submitted in March of 2002, prior to the July 1, 2002 changes in the output model; therefore, includes the standard proffers. The application was first reviewed by the Planning Commission in July of 2002. After any further concerns of the Planning Commission are addressed, staff suggests that a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to address any concerns raised in this report, as well as the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF 11/06/02 MEETING Five citizens, consisting of one adjoining property owner and four residents of Westwood Drive, came forward to express opposition to the rezoning. Their concerns included: existing overcrowded conditions at James Wood Middle School and the impact of additional middle -school children from the proposed development; disturbance of the existing residents' quality of life; and, the existing vehicular and truck traffic congestion in this area. Additional traffic from a proposed new middle school in the area, and the impact of added traffic from the proposed development, was of concern. One resident believed it was bad timing for this development because of the possibility of placing extra burden on taxpayers and the water supply. VDOT's resident engineer was available and answered questions from the Commission regarding the issue of using Papermill Road as an access. VDOT's resident engineer said that VDOT was satisfied with the overall design presented by the applicant and the entrance onto Route 522. Although the majority of the Commissioners believed the outstanding issues had been satisfactorily addressed, such as appeasing the residents along Westwood Drive and inclusion of an emergency access on Papermill Road, some Commission members still had issues with the timing of the proposal and its possible contribution to the overcrowding of schools, increased property taxes, drainage problems on Westwood Drive, water pressure problems, and concerns for available water capacity to serve the proposed development. Also mentioned was the existing traffic congestion problems at Routes 50, 522, and I-81 and that VDOT's design capacities for Rt. 522 have already been exceeded to the Year 2010. By a majority vote, the Commission recommended approval of the rezoning with the revised proffers as submitted by the applicant. The vote was as follows: YES (TO THE MOTION OF APPROVAL): Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt, DeHaven NO: Rosenberry, Gochenour, Straub RCZ #07-02, Doris F. Casey Page 13 December 2, 2002 UPDATE SINCE THE NOVEMBER 6 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The applicant has not submitted further revised proffers or additional materials to staff since the planning commission meeting of November 6, 2002. However, the applicant has clarified a staff inquiry regarding the plans for removing the business use of Shenandoah Florist to comply with the RP rezoning request. The applicant's representative, Mr. Wyatt, stated that the plan was to allow the tenants to utilize the building until the development begins. The tenant will have been given adequate notice to relocate and the existing structure will be razed, as it is not going to be utilized as a residence. 0 \Agcndas\CO\1\TENTS\RC70NING\.StifrRcport\2002\Doris CmcyUOS.wpd REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff.• Fee Amount Paid, Zoning Amendment Number CM' 0% bate Receive PC Hearing Date - t - Q BOS Hearing Date PN'. S •ZI. 02 The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Greenway Engineerine Telephone: (540)-662-4185 Address: 151 Wince Hill Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 2. Property Owner (if different from above) Name: Doris F. Casey Telephone: Not Available Address: 404 Imperial St., Winchester, VA 22601 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Mark Smith Telephone: (540)-662-4185 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map x Agency Comments Plat x Fees ❑x Deed to Property x Impact Analysis Statement x Verification of taxes paid x Proffer Statement x • 5, The Code of Virginia allows us to request frill disclosure of ownersliip in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Doris F. Casey 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Agriculture RA B) Proposed Use of the Property: Residential RP Business General B2 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 64D- A -30 Single Family Residential RP 641)- A -27 Single Family Residential RP 64D- A -28 Single Family Residential RP 64D- 2 -A-1 Single Family Residential RP 64D- 2 -2 Single Family Residential RP 64D- 2 -A-3 Single Fan-ffly Residential RP 64D- 2 -A-4 Single Family Residential RP 64D- 2 -A-5 Single Family Residential RP 64D- 2 -A-6 Single Family Residential RP 63- A -146 Single Farnfly Residential _ RP 64D- 1 -B-A Single Family Residential RP 64- A -20&21 Single Family Residential RP 64- 3 -A Commercial Cemetery B2 64- 3 -A-1 Single Family Residential RP 64- 2 -D2 Restaurant B2 64D- 4 -1 Single Family Residential RA 64D- 4 -2 Single Family Residential RA 64D- 4 -3 Single Family Residential RA 64D- 4 -4 Single Family Residential RA 64D- 4 -5 Single Family Residential RA 64- A -24 Agricultural/Undeveloped RA 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route number): West on Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), approximately 800 ft. north of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 644 (Paper Mill Road). Information to be Submitted for Caoital Facilities Imoact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 8. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 64- A))-23 Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service: 10. 11. Shawnee Millwood Station Millwood Station Districts High School: Middle School: 131ementary School: Sherando James Wood Armel Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 27 RA RP 3.31 RA 132 30.31 Total Acre age to be rezoned The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: 63 Townhome: Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Office: Retail: Restaurant: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station: Manufacturing: Warehouse: Other Multi -Family Hotel Rooms: 40,000 sf combined retail/ofGcc 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zon ng map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the bet of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s) Dater % 2 Date: Owner (s): 4 111,1 ' J • CAII-1221, Date: 5 0� Date: 46 ! Adjoining Property Owners NAMI- TAX MAP # ADDRI]SS Ann S. Cross 64D-((A))-30 1.170 Front Royal Pike, Winc. 22602 c- Louise C. Etals Madigan 64D-((A))-28+27 1154 Front Royal Pike, Winc. 22602 Robert M. & Patsy O. 64D-((2))-A-1 141 Westwwod Dr., Winc. 22602 Largent Jeffrey B. & Brenda 64D-((2))-2 155 Westwood Dr., Winc. 22602 Dodd Raymond H. & L. Jean 64D-((2))-A-3 366 Singhass Rd., Winc. 22602 Mayhew Barbara L. Midkiff 64D-((2))-A-4 179 Westwood Dr., Winc. 22602 Paul D. & Willene C. 64D-((2))-A-5 224 Quail Run Lane, Winc. 22602 Brooks Jonny H. Anderson 64D-((2))-A-6 197 Westwood Dr., Winc. 22602 -Thomas W. & Mabel 63-((A))-146 3575 Papermill Rd., Winc. 22602 Breedlove Robert O. & Mildred 64D-((1))-B-A 207 Westwood Dr., Winc. 22602 Deticfson Claudia Jean Swisher 64-((A))-20+21 116 Pinetop Rd., Gore, VA 22637 Shenandoah Memorial 64-((3))-A 155 Rittenhouse Cir., Bristol, >/ Park Inc. PA 19007 J U C A P A L C 64-((3))-A-1 1600 Amherst St., Winc. 22601 Robert P. & Dorothy I. 64D-((4))-1 1215 Front Royal Pike, Winc 22602 Elliott �---Llwood H. & Turessa K. Fox 64D-((4))-2,3,4,5 Paul M Haldeman, Jr 64-((A))-24 Joseph Bugarski 64-((2))-D2 1231 Front Royal Pike, Winc 22602 PO Box 2751, Winc 22604 I'O Box 2791, Winc 22604 Pile 113230/MDS/dls 0 0 July 9, 2002 PIN MLNAM MFNAM MADD1 MADD2 MZIP5 64D A 15 JACKSON, WILLIAM 132 WESTWOOD Cl WINCHESTER, VA 22,602.00 64D 2 A 12 JACKSON, WILLIAM. 132 WESTWOOD Cl WINCHESTER, VA 22,602.00 64D 2 A 11 JACKSON, WILLIAM 132 WESTWOOD Cl WINCHESTER, VA 22,602.00 64D 2 A 10 BAYLISS, CARL EUc 125 WESTWOOD Cl WINCHESTER, VA. 22,602.00 64D 2 A 13 BROWN, RICKY A & 120 WESTWOOD Cl WINCHESTER, VA 22,602.00 64D 2 A 9 BAYLISS, CARL EUc 125 WESTWOOD Cl WINCHESTER, VA. 22,602.00 64D 2 A 14 DRIVER, JOHN L & i 112 WESTWOOD Cl WINCHESTER, VA 22,602.00 64D 2 A 8 MORRISON, JUDITF 117 WESTWOOD Cl WINCHESTER, VA. 22,602.00 64D 2 A 7 OATES, MAURICE V 202 WESTWOOD DI WINCHESTER, VA 22,602.00 64D 2 A 15 DRIVER, JOHN L & 1 112 WESTWOOD Cl WINCHESTER, VA 22,602.00 64 A 21A MORRISON, JUDITF 117 WESTWOOD Cl WINCHESTER, VA. 22,602.00 64D A 26 THOMPSON, JUDY 1140 FRONT ROYAL WINCHESTER, VA 22,602.00 64D A 25 WINGFIELD, ALLEN 122 WESTWOOD DI WINCHESTER, VA 22,602.00 64D A 23 ARBUTHNOT, DEAL 150 WESTWOOD DI WINCHESTER, VA 22,602.00 1 AMENDMENT Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: November 06, 2002 - Recommended Approval BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: December 17, 2002 ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING #07-02 OF DORIS F. CASEY WHEREAS, Rezoning #07-02 of Doris F. Casey, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 30.31 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) District. This property is located approximately 800 feet north of the intersection of Front Royal Pike (Route 522) and Paper Mill Road (Route 644) and is identified with Property Identification Number 64-A-23 in the Shawnee Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on November 6, 2002;and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on December 17, 2002;and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to rezone 30.31 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) District; as described by the application and plat submitted, subject to the attached conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owner. PDRes a32-02 • 0 This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Massed this 17°i day of December, 2002 by the following recorded vote: Denied Motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr. to deny this request, seconded by Gina Forrester. Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye Sidney A. Reyes Aye Gina A. Forrester- Aye Margaret B. Douglas Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Robert M. Sager- Aye Aye A COPY ATTEST John . Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator I'DRes. a32-02 O UgaiJat\CO\fA1GN I'S1RGl.ONINO\Rcsulutn\Doris Cascy RIi7.,,i d Greenway Engineering Preliminary Matters ifMarch 18, 2002 Revised May I, 2002 Revised May 9, 2002 July 11, 2002 September 25, 2002 41—ris F. Casey Property Rezoning DORIS F. CASEY PROPERTY REZONING Tax Parcels #64-((A))-23 Shawnee Magisterial District Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Ft. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # 07-02 for the rezoning of 30.31 acres fi•otn the Rural Areas (RA) District to Residential Performance (RP) District. Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be cleetned withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property, more particularly described as the lands owned by Doris F. Casey being all of Tax Map Parcel 64-((A))-23 and further described by Boundary Survey Plat prepared by Darren S. Foltz, L.S., dated .January 9, 2002 (see attached Boundary Survey Plat). A.) Residential Use Restriction 1. The applicant hereby proffers that the 30.31-acre property shall be developed as Single -Family Detached Urban 12,000 SF lots. All other housing types allowed in Section 165-65 are Increby prohibited. 2. The applicant hereby proffers to limit the total number of Single -Family Detached Urban lots to 70. B.) Transportation 1.) Access to Route 522 The primary access for the 70 single-family lots of this rezoning will be provided through a single access point on Route 522. File #3230/1%4DS/cave oi- a 44 Greenway Engineering if March 18, 2002 v s P. Casey Property Revised May I, 2002 Rezoning Revised May 9, 2002 July 11, 2002 September 25, 2002 2.) Turn lane — US Route 522 The applicant hereby proffers to install a right -turn lane at the primary entrance on Route 522, if warranted by VDOT 3.) Right-of-way Dedication The applicant hereby proffers to dedicate a right-of-way to the CoillIlloIlwcaltil of Virginia adjacent to the property on US Route 522 and State Route 644 as determined by VDOT. 4.) Emergency Access The applicant hereby proffers to construct an emergency access connection to State Route 644 in a location that is consistent with the General Development Plan. The emergency access will be developed during the construction of the road system serving the 70 single-family lots and will be designed to the minimum detail standard provided on the General Development Plan. Tile final construction standard for the emergency access connection will be approved by VDOT as a component of the Subdivision Design Plan. C.) General Development Plan 1. The applicant hereby proffers to develop the 30.31-acre property in substantial conformance with a General Development Plan approved as part of the rezoning application. The General Development Plan is intended to delineate the road systems that will serve the 70 single-family lots and the emergency access connection to Route 644. D.) Shenandoah Memorial Park Buffer The applicant hereby proffers to provide a 50-foot buffer along the entire southern property line against the Shenandoah Memorial Park. The 50-foot buffer will not contain any portion of residential lots developed within the 30.31-acre property. A fence that Is a i-ninimurn of six feet In height, resembling a traditional Iron fence style for cemetery enclosures with a single row of evergreen trees planted on 10- foot centers will be developed within the first 25 feet of the entire buffer along the Shenandoah Memorial Park property. A 10-foot non-exclusive easement will be provided within the remaining portion of the 50-foot buffer for the fixture development of a bicycle and pedestrian facility by others. Pile 113230NDS/caw 2 Greenway Engineering March 18, 2002 44u_-is F. Casey Property Revised May 1, 2002 Rezoning Revised May 9, 2002 July 11, 2002 September 25, 2002 E.) Route 644 Road Efficiency Buffer Casement The applicant hereby proffers to provide a 10-foot non-exclusive easement for the future development of a bicycle and pedestrian facility by others within the established road efficiency buffer along Route 644. F.) Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned owners of the above -described property hereby voluntarily proffer that in the event rezoning application 4 07-02 is approved, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia the following amount: $ 3,600/lot for Frederick County Public Schools $ 600/lot for Frederick County Parks and Recreation $ 700/lot for Frederick County Fire and Rescue $ 210/lot for Public Library $ 120/lot for Frederick County Sheriff's Office $ 245/lot for Frederick County Administration Building This payment, totaling $5,475/lot is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased dcmand on public services and will be paid at the time of the building permit. Pile 113230/-IDS/eaw 3 Greenway) ngineering G.) Signatures March 18, 2002 Revised May 1, 2002 Revised May 9, 2002 July 11, 2002 September 25, 2002 \4 - Duris F. Cascy Property Rezoning The cond1t10ns proffered above shall be binding up011 the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: Id �D OZ e,,-,-isF. Casey Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City/ bunty f Flcedeu^I c.L To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this �4ilay of CtJDb---tr 200Z.by F Case Ivey Commission Expires Fe byvavt 2q 2LYOA-- Notary P L -1 f. OF PLAIMIWIOEVELOPMEM' File 113230/MUS/eaw 4 Greenway Engineering Preliminary Matters • March 18, 2002 Revised May 1, 2002 Revised May 9, 2002 July 11, 2002 �T' -is F. Casey Property Rezoning DORIS F. CASEY PROPERTY REZONING Tax Parcels #64-((A))-23 Shawnee Magisterial District Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # for the rezoning of 30.31 acres from the Rural Areas (RA) District to Resi entia Performance (RP) District. Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property, more particularly described as the lands owned by Doris F. Casey being all of Tax Map Parcel 64-((A))-23 and further described by Boundary Survey Plat prepared by Darren S. Foltz, L.S., dated January 9, 2002 (see attached Boundary Survey Plat). A.) Residential Use Restriction 1. The applicant hereby proffers that the 30.31-acre property shall be developed as Single -Family Detached Urban 12,000 SF lots. All other housing types allowed in Section 165-65 are hereby prohibited. 2. The applicant hereby proffers to limit the total number of Single -Family Detached Urban lots to 70. B.) Transportation 1.) Access to Route 522 The primary access for the 70 single-family lots of this rezoning will be provided through a single access point on Route 522. File #3230/MDS/dls ME Greenway Engineering • March 18, 2002 or'-ris F. Casey Property Revised May 1, 2002 Rezoning Revised May 9, 2002 July 11, 2002 2.) Turn lane — US Route 522 The applicant hereby proffers to install a right -turn lane at the primary entrance on Route 522, if warranted by VDOT 3.) Right-of-way Dedication The applicant hereby proffers to dedicate a right-of-way to the Commonwealth of Virginia adjacent to the property on US Route 522 and State Route 644 as determined by VDOT. 4.) Westwood Drive A connection to Westwood Drive (Route 822) onto the Swisher property ("fax Map 64-((A))-20 and 21) will be provided to the subject property. Pavement widening on the existing portion of Westwood Drive to Route 522 will be paid for and installed by the applicant in the dimensional widths as directed by VDOT. These improvements will be installed when the connection to Westwood Drive through the Swisher property occurs. C.) General Development Plan The applicant hereby proffers to develop the 30.31-acre property in substantial conformance with a General Development Plan approved as part of the rezoning application. The General Development Plan is intended to delineate the road systems that will serve the 70 single-family lots and the connection to Westwood Drive through the Swisher property. D.) Shenandoah Memorial Park Buffer The applicant hereby proffers to provide a 50-foot buffer along the entire southern property line against the Shenandoah Memorial Park. An earth berm with a single row of evergreen trees planted on 10-foot centers will be developed within the first 25 feet closest to the Shenandoah Memorial Park property. A 10-foot non- exclusive easement will be provided within the remaining portion of the 50-foot buffer for the future development of a bicycle and pedestrian facility by others. E.) Route 644 Road Efficiency Buffer Easement The applicant hereby proffers to provide a 10-foot non-exclusive easement for the future development of a bicycle and pedestrian facility by others within the established road efficiency buffer along Route 644. File 113230/MDS/dls Greenway Engineering March 18, 2002 Doris F. Casey Property Revised May 1, 2002 Rezoning Revised May 9, 2002 July 11, 2002 F.) Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned owners of the above -described property hereby voluntarily proffer that in the event rezoning application # is approved, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia the following amount: $ 3,600/lot for Frederick County Public Schools $ 600/lot for Frederick County Parks and Recreation $ 700/lot for Frederick County Fire and Rescue $ 210/lot for Public Library $ 120/lot for Frederick County Sheriff's Office $ 245/lot for Frederick County Administration Building This payment, totaling $5,475/lot is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services and will be paid at the time of the building permit. G.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: �/o d-, &C";i_" Doris F. Casey V Date Commonwealth of Virginia, Ci County f FC264e.-(_I CL To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this A ay of Jy Iq 20C�_ by co se Notary My Commission Expires t-etov-Lw . 2-01, ZvOL{— File 113230/N1DS/dis Greenway Engineering S March 18, 2002 Revised May 1, 2002 Revised May 9, 2002 July 11, 2002 DORIS F. CASEY PROPERTY REZONING Tax Parcels #64-((A))-23 Shawnee Magisterial District Preliminary Matters Doris F. Casey Property Rezoning f, Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # for the rezoning of 30.31acres from the Rural Areas (RA) District to Residential Performance (RP) District. Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property, more particularly described as the lands owned by Doris F. Casey being all of Tax Map Parcel 64-((A))-23 and further described by zoning plat prepared by Darren S. Foltz, L.S., dated March 18, 2002 (see attached Zoning Plat). A.) Residential Use Restriction 1. The applicant hereby proffers that the 30.31-acre property will shall be developed as Single -Family Detached Urban 12,000 SF lots. All other housing types allowed in Section 165-65 are hereby prohibited. 2. The applicant hereby proffers to limit the total number of single family lots to 70. B.) Transportation 1.) Access to Route 522 The primary access . for the 70 single-family lots of this rezoning will be provided through a single access point on Route 522. File N3230/MDs/dls 1 Greenway Engineering • March 18, 2002 Doris F. Casey Property Revised May 1, 2002 Rezoning Revised May 9, 2002 July 11, 2002 2.) Turn lane — US Route 522 The applicant hereby proffers to install a right -turn lane at the primary entrance on Route 522, if warranted by VDOT 3.) Right-of-way Dedication The applicant hereby proffers to dedicate right-of-way to the Commonwealth of Virginia adjacent to the property on US Route 522 and State Route 644 as determined by VDOT. 4.) Westwood Drive A connection to Westwood Drive (Route 822) onto the Swisher property (tax map 64- ((A))-20 and 21) will be provided to the subject property. Pavement widening on the existing portion of Westwood Drive to Route 522 will be paid for and installed by the applicant in the dimensional widths as directed by VDOT. These improvements will be installed when the connection to Westwood Drive through the Swisher property occurs. C.) General Development Plan 1. The applicant hereby proffers to develop the 30.31-acre property in substantial conformance with a General Development Plan approved as part of the rezoning application. The General Development Plan is intended to delineate the road systems that will serve the 70 single-family lots and the connection to Westwood Drive through the Swisher property. D.) Shenandoah Memorial Park Buffer 1. The applicant hereby proffers to provide a 50-foot buffer along the entire southern property Tune against the Shenandoah Memorial Park. Ali earth berm with a single row of evergreen trees planted on 10-foot centers will be developed within the first 25 feet closest to the Shenandoah Memorial Park property. A 10-foot non- exclusive easement will be provided within the remaining portion of the 50-foot buffer for the future development of a bicycle and pedestrian facility by others. E.) Route 644 Road Efficiency Buffer Easement The applicant hereby proffers to provide a 10-foot non-exclusive easement for the future development of a bicycle and pedestrian facility by others within the established rod efficiency buffer along Route 644. File #3230/MDS/dls 2 Grcenway Engineering . March 18, 2002 Doris F. Casey Property Revised May 1, 2002 Rezoning Revised May 9, 2002 July 11, 2002 F.) Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigrned owners of the above -described property hereby voluntarily proffer that in the event rezoning application # is approved, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia the following amount: $ 3,600/lot for Frederick County Public Schools $ 600/lot for Frederick County Parks and Recreation $ 700/lot for Frederick County Fire and Rescue $ 210/lot for the Handley Public Library $ 120/lot for Frederick County Sheriffs Office $ 245/lot for Frederick County Administration Building This payment, totaling $5,475/lot is untended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services and will be paid at the time of the building permit. G.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the }ncirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: Doris F. Casey Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20_ by Notary Public My Commission Expires File N3230/MDS/dls 3 OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: PIN 64-A-23 Net Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPE Residential Costs of Impact Credit: INPUT MODULE/Credits to be Take Total Potential Adjustment For REAL EST VAL 59,177,000 Required (entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIPI Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per FIRE & RESCUE 6 Capital Faciltiies col sum only) Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S. Taxes, Other (Unadjusted) Cost Balance Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit Fire and Rescue Department 548,956 SO SO S48,956 $699 Elementary Schools S285,591 - - Middle Schools $151,359 $35,283 5204,378 $239.661 $168y485 S501,331 $7,162 High Schools S232,866 - - Parks and Recreation 5102,008 526,091 526,091 $18,342 ' 583,666 S1,195 Public Library 518,680 $5,612 S5,612 S3,946 514,735 $210 Sheriffs Offices 513,166 S4,623 SO $2.426 S7,049 S4,955 S8,210 $117 Administration Building S16,896 SO SO SO S16,896 S241 Other Miscellaneous Facilities 521,481 564,411 S12,961 $77.373 554,394 SO SO SUBTOTAL 5891,003 S104,317 S217,339 534,129 S355,785 $250.123 S640,880 59,155 LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT SO SO SO $4 S0 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT 640,880 9,155 0 INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Av g: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 0.491 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg = 0.703 METHODOLOGY 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative): included are the one-time taxes /fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Date 7/10/02 ERL P.I.N. 64-A-23 Rezoning: As sumes 70 dwellings on 30 acres zoned RP 0 Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County. the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 day s from the model run date. Greenway Engineering • March 18, 2002 • Doris F. Casey Property Revised May 1, 2002 Rezoning Revised May 9, 2002 DORIS F. CASEY PROPERTY REZONING Tax Parcels #64-((A))-23 Shawnee Magisterial District Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # 07-0 for the rezoning of 30.31 acres from the Rural Agricultural (RA) zoning district to 3.31 acres Business General (132) and 27 acres Residential Performance (RP). Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property, more particularly described as the lands owned by Doris F. Casey being all of Tax Map Parcel 64-((A))-23 and further described by zoning plat prepared by Darren S. Foltz, L.S., dated March 18, 2002 (see attached Zoning Plat). A.) Maximum Build -out The applicant hereby proffers to limit the total build -out as follows: 40,000 SF total for the B2 acreage 63 single-family lots for the RP acreage B.) Prohibited Uses The following uses shall not be permitted on the proposed B2 Business General District parcel: Description Electric, Gas and Other Utility Facilities Automotive Dealers and Gasoline Service Stations Car Washes Golf Driving Ranges and Miniature Golf Courses File #3230/MDS/dls Sic 49 55 7542 7999 I Greenway Engineering March 18, 2002 • Doris P. Casey Property Revised May 1, 2002 Rezoning Revised May 9, 2002 Commercial Batting Cages operated outdoors ----- Adult Retail Uses ----- The location of all parking lots associated with development on the B2 District parcel will be setback a minimum of 20 feet from Route 522. All business signs located between Route 522 and the parking lot areas will be monument signs with a maximum height of 10 feet. Free business signs will not be permitted on the B2 District parcel. C.) Residential Use Restriction The applicant hereby proffers the 63 single-family dwellings shall be developed as Single -Family Detached Urban 12,000 SF lots. All other housing types allowed in Section 165-65 are hereby prohibited. D.) Transportation 1.) Access to Route 522 The primary access for the 63 single-family lots of this rezoning will be provided through the extension of a state road constructed from Route 522 through the B2 parcel. This state road will not have a connection with Route 644 (Papermill Road). 2.) Turn lane — US Route 522 The applicant hereby proffers to install a right -turn lane at the entrance of the B2 parcel, if warranted by VDOT 3.) Right-of-way Dedication The applicant hereby proffers to dedicate right -or -way to the Commonwealth of Virginia adjacent to the property on US Route 522 and State Route 644 as determined by VDOT 4.) Westwood Drive A comiection to Westwood Drive (Route 822) onto the Swisher property (tax map 64- ((A))-20 and 21) will be provided to the subject property. Pavement widening on the existing portion of Westwood Drive to Route 522 will be paid for and installed by the applicant in the dimensional widths as directed by Pile /13230/N1DS/dls )I\ Greenway Engineering • March 18, 2002 • Doris F. Casey Property Revised May 1, 2002 Rezoning Revised May 9, 2002 VDOT. These improvements will be installed when the connection to Westwood Drive through the Swisher property occurs. E.) Recycling Proffer Recycling programs will be implemented on the B2 General Business parcel to ensure appropriate waste reduction, disposal, and recycling of any waste or byproduct material. This program will be reviewed and approved by the Frederick County Recycling Coordinator prior to final occupancy permit. F.) Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned owners of the above -described property hereby voluntarily proffer that in the event rezoning application # 0 `-a Q Z, is approved, and the property is subsequently developed within a B2 zone, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia the following amount: $ 20,000 for Frederick County Public Schools $ 10,000 for Frederick County Parks and Recreation $ 10,000 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue This payment is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services and will be paid at the time of the issuance of the first building permit for development within the B2 District. Pile #3230/N4DS/dls Greenway Engineering 0 March 18, 2002 46 Doris F. Casey Property Revised May 1, 2002 Rezoning Revised May 9, 2002 G.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the hews, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County I3oard of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: Doris F. Casey Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City Cou f iFveJev'(c L To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this q4 1day of �'U 20CV—by My Commission Expires ` -e byt tzg4 Z-q 2oc4' Notary P Pile 113230/MDS/dls X Greenway Engineering March 18, 2002 AF. Casey Property Rezoning DORIS F. CASEY PROPERTY REZONING Tax Parcels #64-((A))-23 Shawnee Magisterial District Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # for the rezoning of 30.31acres from the Rural Agricultural (RA) zoning district to 3.31 acres Business General (132) and 27 acres Residential Performance (RP). Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property, more particularly described as the lands owned by Doris F. Casey being all of Tax Map Parcel 64-((A))-23 and further described by zoning plat prepared by Darren S. Foltz, L.S., dated March 18, 2002 (see attached Zoning Plat). A.) Maximum Build -out The applicant hereby proffers to limit the total build -out as follows: 40,000 SF total for the B2 parcel 63 single-family lots for the RP parcel B.) Prohibited Uses The following uses shall not be permitted on the proposed B2 Business General District parcel: Description Sic Automotive Dealers and Gasoline Service Stations 55 Commercial Batting Cages operated outdoors ----- File#3230/MDS/dls 1 �� 6 0 Greenway Engineering March 18, 2002 Doris F. Casey Property Rezoning C.) Residential Use Restriction The applicant hereby proffers the 63 single-family dwellings shall conform to the minimum standards of Section 165-65C Single -Family Detached Urban 12,000 SF lots. All other housing types allowed in Section 165-65 are hereby prohibited. D.) Transportation 1.) Turn lanes — Route 644 The applicant hereby proffers to install a right -turn lane and left -turn lane at the proposed entrance on Papermill Road (Route 644) in the geometric configuration as warranted by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 2.) Turn lane — US Route 522 The applicant hereby proffers to install a right -turn lane at the entrance of the B2 parcel, if warranted by VDOT. The turn lane, if warranted, will be made part of the site plan submitted for the B2 parcel. 3.) Right-of-way The applicant hereby proffers to dedicate right -of way to the Commonwealth of Virginia adjacent to the property on US Route 522 and State Route 644 as determined by VDOT E.) Recycling Proffer Recycling programs will be implemented on the B2 General Business parcel to ensure appropriate waste reduction, disposal, and recycling of any waste or byproduct material. This program will be reviewed and approved by the Frederick County Recycling Coordinator prior to final occupancy permit. F.) Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned owners of the above -described property hereby voluntarily proffer that in the event rezoning application # is approved, and the property is subsequently developed within a B2 zone, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia the following amount: $ for Frederick County Public Schools $ for Frederick County Parks and Recreation $ for Frederick County Fire and Rescue File #3230/MDS/dls 2 4 DO Greenway Engineering March 18, 2002 DoW Casey Property Rezoning This payment is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services and will be paid at the time of the building permit. G.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: Doris F. Casey Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20_ by Notary Public My Commission Expires File #3230/MDs/als 3 ®�u�l INSERT 64-D v INS r� 0 SITE � Rt. � I 0 3p 3p nando - Laurel wood D ive = M iol Park <- ZONING LEGEND.^'-�'-� RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT 8-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT 0= 7� , L i N m W N Z °L Cuo o� Y (U Q= L u') N y yr 6� co Z y l V 3t au� W C a x G� �'3 �� = L LO S � � v N W h r ofD SMITH 2837 N N LID Us z i E-0 za z o� W C/)o O Wa } �w W U) Q U DATE, MAY 2002 SCALE- 1'=500' DESIGNED BY-MDS/JNT JOB NO, 3230 SHEET 1 OF I �r �y :� W7('j(--)j \ C' a `0 cu i t Z J L ID T o � Y \ %_ = Ill -53 (U 0 0 W L 3 Q. W v' C w x 0- L �O X L S w T O j —'ems Q wL N p TH Op t MARK D. SMITH No.022837 \\ � INSERT 64D SITE Me rial Pork Laurelwood Dt ve N N Lo H I~ cc �Q H az �a z z Cc z N 0 W U a C7 Q w O x U U a wD a �w a wa �w VJ Q U DATE- MAY 2002 SCALE, V=5W DESIGNED BY, MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I OF 1 �0 VO x G�e WEII AWS LEGM EMMM WETLANDS SIT NSERT 64D enand6 M 'ial Park 0 !i b L La wood D ive enandoaj__WP d� O c.� Z N N L j Z d � 1 d [ a N CD °n N Z 1 1 0 J L L'n a Q = L NfNU N >� n NI Z W cy ] r ry N L x d� C W N MARK D. SMITH No.022837 N N LO F— a E- ~z ~5 � Q w CC W o ^ � U C7 O U Q� W 'W vJ �Q V DATE, 01/14/02 SCALE, 4 -5W DESIGNED BY, MDS/JNT JOB NIL 3230 SHEET I [IF I M 'Al O 9C 4113 YTL t� 3B �O sB SITE`% � L..encndo M Lial Park e-o--, SO LS LEGEND 7 3B-BLAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 913-CLEARBROOK CHANNERY e..T LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 41D-WEIKERT-BERBS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 15-28% SLOPES Rt. 9 IN i O Laurelwood Dive 41C / Shenandoah l 4V c� Z N W N m W N z � ' N [ N Z 'n •J J> om �u N cu 3 +� c 'o Z c s y v i.i 3r Qua W d X P L L L O S >. C N �L Ld L W 7 V N TH OP I, f HARK D. SMITH No.022837 S1ONAL - N M� 1,L U az � Qs cc z oo W co z O� U) cr Mw QW W a �LLI VJ Q U DATE 01/14/02 SCALE, 1'=500' DESIGNED BY-MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I pF I NSERT 64D SITE 0 ZONING LEGEND�.�'M RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT -A- nando M ial Park (� 1-1II'll 11 Laurelwood D ivejz�:- v cD �_ Z 7CD WL .r m Z 10 5 ID N O, (tl Q = i N ry y r' 3 p + C ro Z c y o a W 3 r aN W C W x c� ir3 rv� N In i W OT � Ol L C i W VI V TH OF D (71NO.022837 ARK D. SMITH A N to CC E- ~z F as i E A5 ` a z LA- C) W V)o N Q UPI U Z O ^� U ul :D W Ill �1 W Qa W� a W Q U DATE- MAY 2002 SCALE- V-500' DESIGNED BY- MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I CE I ��u dINIDHIA '.[. NflOD XDIHSGSHd 'IviHaISIO` 8ZS6-dZL-OiS XVJ sJoAanJng da ,tip _ ~ ,LOIHJISIQ A Hria(IS I A auo a sJaau6u SBI4-299-Ot•S 4 1 1 1 3 � 1L6T 4 P�P�� 20922 olul6Jln 'Ja}satPul^ y+ A N < F 7 7 C • I d A 18 3 d O H d A 3 S d O cu < m rn auo� 111H APul/0 TSi g V V �/ x — W ON1833NION3 J�dMOE Z _ � ��� a 4 z W o o Li LIHIHX3 OHIHOZ QaSOdOHd I 'm 1 H 1 A - H PIKERS ts y liar P oPe< z w U) Q�QOc l V a u V V W a V_ F H = W z m 0 Z N w < CL i w o: m F5 INSERT 64D enando M ial Park LaureNv-cod Dfive enandoah c.� Z cv � W W c N � C 7 Z c a J L cu Pu In O� Q L W �N n Z a 3 V o� C N LA WW Ck= C x �Ll H tA s d 0, C c W y MARK A SMITH " NaO22837 P5 cm LO ECc U ~z A� w W coo a. Ll C7 O U cr �w a Aa W Aa w a W U) Q U DATE, 01/14/02 SCALE- 4 -5W DESIGNED BY. NDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF 1 0 e�� 'A SOILS LEGEND 313-13LAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 813-CLEARBROOK CHANNERY 8:'..T LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 41D-WEIKERT-BERBS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 16-25% SLOPES 5 3B O SIT G QO Cl P" �r1- • � 1 enando LoL lwood D ive M rial \ Park 41C Shenandoah c� Z cu C>✓ LWI N CO W N Z � � C7 a c Nm Z a Co DoN 1 -J l I!) o� a Z c y t v W 3 U a CL L x C0 ANm L L LO i T L 3 0 L W N TH op `f �i MARK D. SMITH I No.022837 R: N Lo H cc az E 2a CC z 0o W cf)o a CS 0 F x L) cr �D � Qw W� W Q U DATE- 01/14/02 SCALE, 1'=500' DESIGNED BY-KDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF I 0 9f ZONING LEGEND t—�."-'�"�' RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT \y INSERT 64-D SITE 7M rial ,� Park7�z� �'I,,,I'-, Laurel wood D ivefi��5v Z cu C= n U, W (u m W ti Z a � C' ° . ao Z o .n N c J j m I < Q ti = L u, N y a,n 3 c o Z g LA 0 w s v i. c 3t Qua W u wX C' > LZ L L L C N T�l CD Q>+ r L L W 3 TH Op D I,p MARK D. SMITH Na,022837 ZONAL N N Lo MF-: LL U -< az �a E- 0 w � Q> z a4 a o r, W co o N ^ U z O U � �w wa aw W Q U DATE- MAY 2002 SCALE, 1'=500' DESIGNED BY-MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF 1 ZONING LEGEND nF-77 �-- RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT NSERT 64D . �e%:jam III ► Lei aim nend� _J�_____ M iol Park ` O Laurelwood Dive •'F •�i•. ' ii�i c-01 Z n, ID W ti Z c ' c� c IDN v� ti Q = L (U y yn �� Lo Z ca ry Io W 3 c dx 03 a,< P N L i O S N T v N Q L C 3 W h TH op I� .y MARK D. SMITH �:No.022837 N N Lo F: E cc ua az �a z z Cc z N� U a c5 Q w O x U a Mw �Q o a m a w 'W vJ Q U DATE- MAY 2002 SCALE, 1'=500' DESIGNED BY-MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF I K\e 0 /''' 0- nN WETLANDS LEGEND EXISTING WETLANDS INSERT 64D enna M aial Park orl L�v �� � RIM7 on._4 LaureGv od Drive Shenandoah �-61 _Z nl tl fU N L.J N m W � Z d i Z O Oi Zo N 1 J i I to > a� Q = na v 3 1co Z cy tv L .j W C d X !Y40 � 3 F- ti L O t N � LL � 3 W N MARK D. SMITH No. 022837 N M�M I.L U pq �; z A� w CC W c000 a. c O U C ppqq w t$o) a. m wa W 4/ DATE, 01/14/02 SCALE, V-500' DESIGNED BY,MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF I I a- cn _-- .�/ 9 9B SOILS LEGEND 3B-BLAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 6B-CLEARBROOK CHANNERY ei'. T LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 41D-WEIKERT-KERBS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 15-25% SLOPES Nenondo M rial Park � 1 1 Z ry 0 N W ru N m W N Z a � i (U m Z m 1 N r 7 U ti Q = i (U y yn 3 T Y i t Z ry Lfjcy LLiJ 3 u mc a x C-D 3 1 � \ Fz T W i i S o' � C > i 3 W � � Op D !� - i� L) MARK D. SMITH ANo022837 SloNAL N Lo --- a z � c� a � Qs 4 C Z co W o C7 zx Laurel wood D ive mCc a mW W Q C1 G4 41C 1 (n � Q Shenandoah F DATE 01/14/02 SCALE, 1'=500' DESIGNED BY- MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I OF I c� -- ------ - - Z Cu _ o -O W ° o y N 00 ID O� N it Z J L I i I Q = L N ' W n a,t 7 a W 3 c aN L. J U W x a L LA L L O C �-. ✓ m L O V W H TH of `f l NARK D. SMITH No,022837 a1�e' INSERT 64D b`<�� SITE , 4Rt 3p 1p ZONING LEGEND.•^ M ial Park <( Laurel wood Dive RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT i M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT Shenandoah P 04 LO .. M� I.L E 4 E- -z - z o Jx z ow W o N ^ U z O U CE- cr �D W Q W Wa �W^^ vJ T U DATE, MAY 2002 SCALE, 1'=500' DESIGNED BY,MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF I �J l �^ O 0 ZONING LEGEND RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT I.<j N1�M INSERT 64-D O nando _7 Laurelwood D ive M rial Park T- cD Z N 0 ID W N dp W N Z _o C7 ° N W Z C a7 ID (U W > to m _ I N Q = L N W f` 3 -0+. C o Z C y L v W ?u ox >.. Li �'3 Hl¢i = L L i O S >, v L 0+ �N Y'r o pSMITH 837 X I I I I I I I I I N I I N I ' ^ H cr F-F w F- z zo CC O0 W N Ca w 0 O /Y L1. LL O cz a W Q U DATE MAY 200 SCALE 1'=500' DESIGNED BYE MD wa 1x � i 2 S/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I OF I C4 WETLANDS LEGEND EXISTING WETLANDS INSERT 64D enando M ial Park 0 Lauri�Iwood Dive enandoah F <--C�j MARK D. SMITH " N0.022837 1:5 N cc "z A� w W cno 0- 0 U cc �w a Aa W j to W Gt. a W CD Q I DATEt 01/14/02 SCALE] d'-500' DESIGNED BY- MDS/JNT JOB NI). 3230 SHEET 1 OF 1 O C�- V SIT 313-BLAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 8B-CLEARBROOK CHANNERY e;',T LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 41D-WEIKERT-BERBS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 16-26X SLOPES - - - - -- - -- -- ---- - �- 41D enanoo M rial Park ca Z_ N \ I 4 N m Z v V [ N Z a nN 117 i 1 .J I o _ I r = i N N n 3 u ter. 4�. W dx caf L iz P L i j N 0 cb> c i W 3 4 N OF I! MARK D. SMITH N0.022837 S�ONAL i 313 1- INS - z � U) a � 00 W OCO i 0 � H pU �x Laurelwood Dive �, % �W $U) Wa - 04 w - / W 41C (n Q � f U Shenandoah P DATES 01/14/02 SCALE 1'=500' I III I DESIGNED BY- MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 -- - -- -- SHEET 1 OF 1 K\e �O �s. 0 11116 ZONING LEGEND.^-�-�- RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 UGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT NSERT 64-D SITE lY M ial Park (, W. NEW* O La wood D ivefi�5v %fCr/��i5 c' Z N C3= I L-1 N m W v Z a G� c N m Z o O0 I N j o� Y u Q = L � N N W n 3 �� Lo Z C y 01 W 3c °x w L L L 0 s >' c i a � L 3 W N TH Op� I� MARK D. SMITH INO.022837 ANAL N N LO u� V� zx W. zoo o1:' W N C co U O F t� W q W Wa W Q U DATE- MAY 2002 SCALE, 1'=500' DESIGNED BY- MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I OF I �e �O ex\ a� ZONING LEGEND.�^��--- RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT INSERT 6<<D nand M ial - Park Lci lwood D ive r Shenandoah P N N Lo az E� �x z F— z CC w U) O x U 0. M CC � W a CL Q� W Q U DATE, MAY 2002 SCALE, 1'=500' DESIGNED BY- MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I OF I INSERT 64D Laurelvrood Shenandoah G mac. C) �-C� c� Z a 1130 W N coLaj Z a i C- am Z d �N W Lo > � p, o� fU Q = i (U 3 T" aP, Z ca �v x G0=7 �3 �-LZ L LOT S d CZ IC L L W H V MARK D. SMITH No.022837 N N Lo H cc U� z cCC �a A5 w W a wo Q. V U C7 O U U C �w a mW } �w W Q U DATE- 01/14/02 SCALE, V-5W DESIGNED BY, MDS/JNT JOB NO, 3230 SHEET 1 OF I 'Al SOLS LEGM 0 0' 6' 313-BLAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 98-CLEARBROOK CHANNERY S]'. LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 41D-WEIKERT-BERBS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 15-25% SLOPES 9c (: / fT ', 41B B� 41 1G d 10 101 W ''\\ M 9B ; enando M \ial Park �-, 0 c� -- Z ru t r S2 ro 411 z clu j ! Z J % N LWJ L I p 1 L u"� N a a 3 �� co Z cy tv G w 3 u °a x =, � �i 4� c') Q�, r L L L O N �L W 3 V y - TH Op `f U MARK A SMITH r/ \ "I NO,022837 pr 38 i 1B LO MH LL U - I a U0 a / aQ4 cc z �D pp W �� �r o z p x Laurelwood D ive i�j cc 41C 1 ` 1 (o iE4 U Shenandoah P i DATE- 01/14/02 I III I 41c SCALE 1'=500' DESIGNED BY,MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF I / f� ZONING LEGEND .^-- RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT L� RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT i M-1 UGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT 4 0 9,. NSERT 64D SITE M riol Park C" 0 1. NEVIS O Laurel wood jDive c� Z cu _ o L—j N m W Z C I [ (U OD Z o N In � o � * l N � cc i fU y yn 3 T� L " z in oa W CCV x CD rLZ P L AN L L �0, A"'v C L \ C)) L C 3 lJ N Op D CMARK D. SMITH am! 7� No.022837 Est TONAL s' N N Lo ac us V� z� cc w z o� W �o N C U z OU CC w Wa W Q U DATE- MAY 2002 SCALE- 1'=500' DESIGNED BY-MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF I c� N O rz N m Ir N Q it Z ° v Ol ID N Z _j L �D L, \ O ru = L jr)N Q vim, x W W Z �N OV 0 0' 'r _ ° tin cl W 3 c dx N L L L Nx C s d X c d 0 L W ti 4 TH 0 D I,p 2 MARK D. SMITH Owe%! \� No.022837 a �011AL' INSERT 64-D N N LO � ~ - INS E- U a 0R. SITE Rt. z 1s� z zap W� �� W 0 o CL � Q O U o a CC :Dw o as Q yp nanJo _7 Laurel wood D ive a� M ial / W Park ZONING LEGEND,�'�- U RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT DATE MAY 2002 B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT SCALE 1'=500' i M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT --- Shenandoah P DESIGNED BY-HDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I OF I 6 ' 0 WETLANDS LEGEND EXISTING WETLANDS s INSERT 64D enc�ndi M rial Park C�2 I :`i IN Lc:1Flwood D ive Shenandoah c.D z o L. j N Z a O) Z a L � i Dm N Ln J j I Q= L �m ul N (U Z C p, Wr, L 7 L- J 3 L Or-,O x 0 � �3 �LZ O P L d0 c MARK D. SMITH Na022B37 N N LO H Q� w W o CC �w a wW Q W G� a LIJ Q DATE, 01/14/02 SCALE, V-5W DESIGNED BY- MDS/JNT JOB NQ 3230 SHEET 1 OF 1 IN 1A BOLL LEGI MD l B 313-BLAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 613-CLEARBROOK CHANNERY LOAM, 2-7% SLOPE8 41D-WEIKERT-BERBS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 15-25% SLOPES i� 5 3B �i O 0 SIT 98 Nenando M rial Park `� 0 Z_ N \ ca_- c W N W N r d [ N Z a W �N - W -JL o� Y N = L �N Q U1 ate, C.D 3 L i L� S d T � C d O L � L W 3 N �c TH Op I, 4 K MARK D. SMITH No.022837 -�OAIAL ,3B \ I 1B \ INS -_ N _ LO l Laurelwood D ive i i I M U az_ U0 � QS oo W coo 0 a c7 x z p U Qw W � LU 41C v, 18 Shenandoah P DATE 01/14/02 i �In CC SCALE, 1'=500' DESIGNED BY- HDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF I �. Q= 1 / L.J N co 0CD Z o L n� o� cu (U Q O � 3 � A C o O ? LAJ yx \ U 3 l� L L L O C L C)L3 TH Op D MARK D. SMITH No.022837 INSERT 64D -o �o SITE 0 na 1 0 =� M ial Park ZONING LEGEND.•-4- RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT I Laurel wood D ive N L)z �• PQ i E- 0 zx z H� ow W v� o N ^ U O � W IF Q W W 04 x C=. W Q U DATE- MAY 2002 SCALE- 1'=500' DESIGtED BY, MDS/JNT JOB NO, 3230 SHEET 1 OF 1 INSERT 64D nand- Me ial Park ZONING LEGEND RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT 116 �/� Lci lwood D ive c� Z N ID N !7 r fU m Z c a Z O Of N r r JL ID o' o' U N Q = L 'f N y yr. 3 L o z C y = v r r 3 r a� W c y x C-D LZ P 0 L i 0 S y a c y C 0) L W 7 4 to TH Op .y (1114o.022837 ARK D. SMITH RC N H uza H i E Va z N� oo V)U � C7 Q w O x U a °Q w 0 � �w a w� a v! Q U DATE, MAY 2002 SCALE- 1'=500' DESIGNED BY-MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I OF 1 INSERT 64D enaao M ial Park ,n� WETLANDS LEGEND PueNn EXISTING WETLANDS m �I I III Laurelwood Dive enandoa�P G d O C-7 Z cu aE C13 W N W Z O I L1 C W `D N Z a .D uU W — I J aO Q = L N W ) V wx x � �i w < L d S � T C > mL L 3 W y V Hop` r D. SMITH 22837 9 CV N to H Cc �� z Z5 A� CC C=. W co O ^ �U C7 O U CC �w a ww Q W� Cl)V / U DATE, 01/14/02 SCALEo I'-500' DESIGNED BY- MDS/JNT JOB N0. 3230 SHEET I OF 1 0 SOBS LEGEND 3B-BLAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES II 813-CLEARBROOK CHANNERY e:',T LOAM, 2-77. SLOPES 41D-WEIKERT-BERBS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 15-25% SLOPES 41C B, 5 � 3B 0 0 0 0- SIT as ; enando J� M riol Park `� I c� z o — \ .D co Li, N m Z O � L� d C N OD 0 OD ID N Z o W J m o `r (Uf = L (U G L—J 3 c d x C1) 3 r° P UI L L S 0,0 v W W I CL �, Li a T OF t' wt MARK D. SMITH � r/ No. 022837 JONAL / 1 i \ 38 1B \ INS - N - Lo �. a: - xz E-0 a � Q5 �a L xz OO Wcoo a x Laurel wood D ive i U) �W Q~ " W 41C (n Q 1 U Shenandoah P DATES 01/14/02 r—t 4 1: crAl V. 1•=%M' SHEET I Or I 0 W_ N N co i it 6 IDN W J 1 O, o n w Q d n v Z cy =v 0 0_ 3 y W u x L L y °, �L �\ Q V O W N TH Op DfA � h ` 'Gf MARK D. SMITH owe' T No,022837 (� TONAL INSERT 64-D D � N N Lo ~ - INS +� .� az -10 SITE Rt. zIx CC Xz Z0 w ON ^ O O 9 �. E cn �D w r�r mw E� Q nando Laurel wood D ive M ial W Park .^ ZONING LEGENDas RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT DATEo MAY 2002 B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT SCALES 1'=500' -- —^ M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT Shenandoah P k DESIGNED BY-MDS/JNT JOB NO, 3230 SHEET 1 OF 1 NSERT 64-D SITE ZONING LEGEND,' RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT 8-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. DISTRICT I nand= M ial = Park 0 mm omme `A mom l" O Lc lwood D ive Wj�I�I��eV��.I����I�.I� s' • ���'Is•I�a'IOI OIOIpj�i'Is'� c.r) z fu �D ir) W N m W � Z ° i C7 ° Ww c — ID Z ° LL `° � L.WI J� I p o� V [U Q = i ) N N n > 4, C Z L d t Y W 3 C dx C �3 r� L 61 L O S d T a cd c-> c L W ti MARK D. SMITH rP No.022837 Z.10NAL'I N N Lo I-- Us H az i E� �a z N44 W U w 0x U a �D a a w� 'W vJ Q U DATE, MAY 2002 SCALE- 1'=500' DESIGNED BY-MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I OF 1 SITK WETLANDS LEGEND r-", EXISTING WETLANDS INSERT 64D Qen(indo . L ial Park I <�BNh BHh IN Laure, yibod Wive nandoah Z cu E2 'Col L&J N co1 L& Z a i Z 65co �m fU I. J J i I In pD O% Q= L Al 3 ` , Z ad Co W U y� x C-D �3 �� L d s � C Cb L C 3 W vJ KNO.0 �o A SMITH 22837 R, \\ N N Cc �a Q5 � W rO ^ coo �U 0 O �U Cc �w i a. � �W Q W W U DATE- 01/14/02 SCALE- V-5W DESIGNED BY-NDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I OF I � '/ 9 0 T 3B-BLAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 9B-CLEARBROOK CHANNERY £'i'. T LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 41D-WEIKERT-BERBS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 15-25% SLOPES c� — Z N tY ru Z � � L) C N m Z o m '0N W _j 1 Y7 � o 0, 7 � N � = l to N J �y So G W 3 u a, dir; O = "� i �d o' C i 3 Ld C�r TH 0 41C v MARK D. SMITH i N S L R T 6 4 D No 022837 t �OIVAL 3B 1B N INS - � Ez � (� w I-- g x 4 _ oo W U)o z� enando Laurel wood D ive I � P4a �ial �� Q W Park a w w 41C - (n i Q Shenandoah P DATE 01/14/02 / I1 I IIT f 41C SCALE, 1'=500' DESIGNED BY- MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 -- -- -- SHEET 1 OF I ti 0 ZONING LEGEND�.'��`' RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT 3 M-1 UGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT NSERT 64-D nand\ M ial Park CJ�■i�` , ` , PIy � COI Laurelwood D ive —�\ I cD Z N W N OD W Z o � Z c ui � N o� ~ Q N N y yr. 3 a C o Z cd 0 ' r 3 L Qua W f yx � �3 rye P N L L � S y � L > O L L 3 W N TH op I, .y MARK D. SMITH N0.022837 TONAL N N Lo OC r) s E— zP4 a: w z o� W V)0o N C U O H cr 04 W wa v! Q U DATE, MAY 2002 SCALE- 1'-500' DESIGNED BY,MDS/JNT JOB NO, 3230 SHEET 1 OF 1 0 0 ZONING LEGEND.^^� RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT INSERT 64D SITE M ial Park 1111 NETS Lci lw=d D ive c01 z N 0 10 1 LA-J N m W Z a I ZO. 11DN 1. 1 J L I In N Q = L Ln N y wn co Z C y o v U) W 3 ox C-D �� L. a L LO S d a L W ArN cL C j W H 4 TH op �A MARK D. SMITH ) I No.022837 pC N N Lo Us E az z N W U)U � c) w x U O a- �q Illw a a w� W v/ Q U DATE- MAY 2002 SCALE, 1'=5D0' DESIGNED BY.MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF 1 - 0 WETLANDS LEGEND EXISTING WETLANDS INSERT 64D 5enonao M ial Park 0 'BHh 1)�� �\\` ME ---\�-�I Laur'Rlv�6od Dkive enandoah c.� Z N DC .00 W N T W � Z I Z o 0° � N of 'I,'N Q=r nN T� I z d Ca � . 3 s am d x �3 F-L, N L i0 S d >' a d OL 1- 3 Liy V � Qp (' t� K A SMITH22837 P5 N LO cc O CC E� C=. W rn O ^ � U O �U cc �w r a. Qw rW v! C)`Q DATE, 01/14/02 SCALE- 4'-5W DESIGNED BY, NDS/JN1 JOB Na 3230 SHEET 1 OF I Na j . a 9C a- 418 'ex 9 SOLS LEGEND 38-BLAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 613-CLEARBROOK CHANNERY e;',T LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 41D-WEIKERT-BERBS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 15-25% SLOPES SIT -i i .sue_ `\\' 9a ; encnao M rial;::: Park c� Z_ ru C]` o \ \ W N m W N Z c v Z LL D IN / W J of v ti � L LO n N z c a 0v LiJ 3 C ? x Q_ C-D o rL L O b T n [ N 3 W N 4 - v MARK D. SMITH 283 No.027 S10NAL \ i 3B \ 1E3 111 \ N INS N Lo - -- - F- E- E� a � Q5 w F- U) a z oo W coo CL " x Laurelwood Dive j co cc M a Tom_' Q� , f1c " lco l Q Shenandoah P , DATES 01/14/02 hln 41G } I I I I I SCALE, 1'=500' DESIGNED BY, MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF I NSERT 64D M ial �= Park ZONING LEGEND 216 .^-••-- Im RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT ----- --- M-1 ................: LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT JI :INr'-. NEWS Shenandoah C-D Z ru 0 c W cu m W N L ao •D (Wu ID �. o Jj om Yu >— = i LoN Q or n 3 a+ co Z_ cy of W 3 ° x C F-L- L i P S or 0>, O N co > � L 3 W H TH 0p D t,� iy MARK D. SMITH 'I No.022837 i5 N N F: cc uz H m i V� W z H� o� �o CV ^ U O H cr M W q W W � lx Cam. W Q U DATE- MAY 2002 SCALE- 1'=500' DESIGNED BY.MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I OF 1 INSERT 64D <I NEWS N= I MIN SITE Rt. t . . . . . ......... ......... t O nando Laurel wood D ive M ial 1 Park ZONING LEGEND,�•� ---• RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT rr- �x cD Z_ N 0 Q_ 10 W ti W � b N c — ,0 ao Z ° � o� W J> op, Nl Q =Ln i (U b 0,n 3 -04- C O Z cy =v � . 3 c Qua C b x C-D 3 r� iz L L b L O i � e C 4' � L C L W 3 V N r OpSMITH 837 it N N LO �za i E0 a z ~ c E� z N� W/� U)0 cL C7 Q w Ox U a CC ma a � w �w a w� � a W Q U DATE- MAY 2002 SCALE, 1'=500' DESIGNED BY- MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I O I �e �O \\ 0/0 C' \O \ el �%Ij WETLANDS LEGEND EXISTING WETLANDS INSERT 64D Nenundo M rial Park G h Laurel enandoah lmv ve c.� Z N CD W N m W v Z c i Jo t InN j o v` _ U U N Q v � n Z N Oa G LAJW L In Jr. x O N N L v � d CD > C L W 7 KTH op A SMITH 22837J5 N LO CC U o C a w W O C a Q W 'W vJ Q DATE, 01/14/02 SCALE, V-500' DESIGNED BY. NDS/, JOB N0. 3230 SHEET I OF I c� Z ry 0 � W 1., N N W N N [ N U C - � m m _ o lu v =i `�a a a, 3 Tr Ci Z cy o L W 3 u w>1 DC t x P L iO s a,> v � W C4> C L W 3 MARK D. SMITH No. 022837 ul aX 00 0 z E U) N N Lo F- cc 1 W a. O Cc a. w U DATE- 01/14/02 SCALE, 1'=500' DESIGNED BY,MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF 1 <"e ae_\\z ZONING LEGEND, �---• RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT NSERT 64-D SITE 0 M ial /= Park ` ♦i a Iio♦ �O♦�e♦o,�,, ������ � ♦`�I♦ elO1'�♦e1III♦ _ - `-rD. SMITH Laurel wood D ive Shenandoah N N L0 as as i E- 0 zaCCz o42 w V)o N ^ U z 0 �U Vim] LL � W Q W W a a Lz. W v/ Q U DATE, MAY 2002 SCALE, 1'=50(Y DESIGNED BY- MDS/JNT JOB NO, 3230 SHEET 1 (IF 1 �e e ■ 1I l ZONING LEGEND.^^ RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT 9-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT ........ .......i M-1 UGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT I.j NI��'�' INSERT 64D SITE K Rt C D nend0 = Laurelwood D ive M ial Park " c� Z N 0 W N S W N D Z a � C c N 00 Z CD IN 1 1 J L 1 1/'I � o � _ I QN = L � N y yn C o Z cy 0 L.J 3 u a � a, x iz L L L O j N X = N m C L W 7 i�J V N TH op D 1� MARK D. SMITN No.022837 10MAL N N Lo E Cr E- uz F �- V) CS z N W W V) W Ox U a �w a a. Q W Q U DATE, MAY 2002 SCALE- 1'=500' DESIGNED BY,NDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET l OF 1 ,(\ep VO Go�a� 0 WETLANDS LEGEND Q) EXISTING WETLANDS INSERT 64D enanao M ial Park BHh r La wood D ive enandoah P MARK A SMITH No.022837 N LO /H LL U ~z � �a A5 04 o CC W cao C7 O U CC x w v� a. w W a W v / U DATE- 01/14/02 SCALES 4'-300' DESIGNED BY, KDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF 1 0 0' 41 "'� X ' SOILS LECIM 38-BLAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 6B-CLEARBROOK CHANNERY LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 41D-WEIKERT-BERBS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 16-25% SLOPES - -- �O 0 o-. SIT ' _'z ' 41D/ sa ; enondo M Qiol Park \• �N -- z o Ln 1i r 00 Z v Z a rn IDCU J W � a, _ o� 7 N 3 Ln 6 n o Z N L 7 LAJC W 3 c dX C7 v'3 f� L' C) LL S b T \ a � > L C L w \ N MARK D. SMITH No.022837 \ s�aIVAL \ 3B j 1B N INS - _ LO CC U Rt. I W. Ca � Qs X Cc z oo W Ino zx Laurelwood D ive `, E_ Aar W G4 '- W 41C 18 V Shenandoah P DATES 01/14/02 i 4 scALE� 1•=500• DESIGNED BY-MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I OF 1 ILL / f ' ZONING LEGEND RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT i M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT INSERT 64-D SITE M ial /L Park I Oi Laurelwood D ive m enandoah C 1 . 1 N W L—i Z a i C' L ti ID Z o co ID N W J i p a, _ Y I (U Q = L n W N n 3 a� Co r v L j 3 c Nckf rLZ �. L i L � O L � 3 Op Iy MARK D, SMITH ;'.o22837�IOtUAL3 N N az oa i E- 0 za CC az ow W �o N C U z 0 � U L^.L. � CF/� CL W q W W a � G4 �w v! Q U DATE, MAY 2002 SCALE- 1'=500' DESIGNED BY-NDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I OF I ,� :_ ,��,r�, vr�"�o�. �.. INSERT 64D Lei i II rm enand- Me ial - Park ZONING LEGEND RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT INNER NEWS W-. om Laurelwood D ive OI O! OI O OI,j OI�y 0I„COI„�O¢ r OpDSMITH B37 {r N N Lo H za cr- N O a. A w O a cr- o a_ a a W Q U DATE, MAY 2002 SCALE- 1'=500' DESIGNED BY, MD! �e �O e\\ Go\a� e, <f9i -�3� \ Q� c 0 WETLANDS LECOMEND EXISTM WETLANDS INSERT 64D enanao M ial Park �i BHh I Laure4lwood D ive enondoot--wP MARK D. SMITH N0. 022837 CNIVAL N N Lo H az co �x 0 o W pU - pry W E-co Q W W � a W DATE, 01/14/02 SCALE, 1'-300' DESIGNED BY,MDS/JNT JOB NO, 3230 SHEET I OF 1 9 i a JC 1 C B / Aic- ,e,z 9 8OL8 LEGEND =:1 313-BLAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 613-CLEARBROOK CHANNERY e."•. , LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 41D-WEIKERT-BERBS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 16-25% SLOPES -- — -- - — - — Si NSER_T_ 64D 9B ; gnon.ao;�Mial Park� Rt. c' Z_ N W N n L . i N co Z c � c t ao Z a 00 �0 � W J — J v " N 3 T i,tA t n N L 7 N W 3 C dx —• Cl— C� r LZ Qom. P L L a, \ �3 _ i OFrTH 41t' MARK D. SMITH H ��NO,1122BJ ZONAL 1B N INS Lci lwood D ive / T/ 41C - Shenandoah P 41C �M LL U xz m I V0 a � Q5 �a c 00ow Lu z O L) tom/] CQ W. ^r W Q w� W I Q DATE- 01/14/02 SCALE 1'=500' �; r3 DESIGNED BY-MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF I �e �O ��e\\zx/ 0 Cp Ip ZONING LEGEND RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT L J B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 UGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT INSERT 64D Rol I fee III M iol Park O� move �OWommom O La wood D ive enand C) Z N 0 O L•� N W W v Z_ _d C' C & N CD Z CD �o fU J t In j o o` vul N Q = l LoN a mn 3 c O Z cy Ztn . L—i 3 s n U) W C � C x �3 r--L� m h VL i O T v N w i W 3 N TH of D I� MARK D. SMITH g No.022837 FK N N Lo u;l az w i U� Q5 � z ow W F'0 v, N ^ U O U) CL q W W a W Q U DATE- MAY 2002 SCALE- 1'=500' DESIGNED BY, MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I OF I INSERT 64D ZONING LEGEND RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT 8-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT W-Murms Z N f� D N W N Cp W N Z a z dm oN W '> o� �u N Q = i � N W n 3 6 o o Z cy Lv W 3 c dx �3 �� P tn L i O v Or �> � L W 3 V H TH OF I, f MARK D. SMITH 1 No.022837 N N cc H w zo Cc N0 W La w O cc a o� a W a U DATES MAY 2002 SCALE. 1'=500' DESIGNED BY- MD wa aw S/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I OF 1 CO 0- WETLANDS LEGEND } EXISTING WETLANDS J INSERT 64D enna M orial Pork 0 ``i1 5 �m Lc:lwood D ive Shenandoah c-1) z o d. W �o N W Z a � i Z W [ o OD i N ID N 1!1 1 . j J Q = L �N 3 Z W T� y n C� r v W 3c un °x C-D F--L, P L L i rp � p J1, V y MARK A SMITH No. D22837 N LO H Cc az > A5 w W U)o a. C7 O U 'W vJ Q U I DATEi 01/14/02 SCALE- 4 -5W DESIGNED BY- MDS/JNT JOB Na 3230 SHEET 1 l 0 Q' 9 C SOLS LEGM 38-BLAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 913-CLEARBROOK CHANNERY a;" T LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 41D-WEIKERT-BERBS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 15-25% SLOPES SITK N S;E R_1- _ 6 4 D ea ; enondo M dial Park r> Z N — 0 lZ cO Ln W_ N N _O ID Z o OD ID N i W J fU Q = L u (U i. � 3t Qua G � a. O ° Ln L L L O > \ L W N V of `f J \ 41C MARK D. SMITH No.022837 \�DIVAL 38 1B 111 - N INS NLO . FMM- t. az I U �a � QS 4 . ccaz �D 0o W O cn 0 a z� C7 Laurelwood D ive i 0 Ma W Q w� 41C (n i Shenandoah P DATES 01/14/02 / 41C SCALE, 1.-500 DESIGNED BY-KDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 ❑r I -J INSERT 64-D ti 0 9.► ZONING LEGEND,^-� -- RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT Nmwo im—wo wN -Orram A zo � Z N � c L-�-1 N m W N Z e � Z O ID Cu W J j o m vu N Q = i � N y yn 3 T-e C� Z cy �ocVC, W 3 c wx t o S d T N a CD t W N TH Op D iy MARK D. SMITH No.022837 7�IVAL N N Lo -z E-0 za CC z o� W V)o N ^ U z OU VCC�w Wa ��w v! Q U DATE- MAY 2002 SCALE, 1'=500' DESIGNED BY,MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF I c-D --- -- - --- -- - - - — Z (U e cl c3r__ ID W N m 1 N % Z O N .DN W J� , ol� p �N 3 i o Z c d = a QL If O V P Ln kn � L L 7 X 0'1 TH OpNt"_ %,`` SMITH022837n (HARKD, L ti INSERT 64D - CV - _ N Lo - INS CC E- - a z m,. SITEz Rt. az ri �a CC 0p �D oU O C7 � O' Q w x U a CCww O = No Lc lwood Dive a enando M ial %� W Park vJ ZONING LEGEND Uhl RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT DATES MAY 2002 B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT SCALE 1'=500' M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. DISTRICT Shenandoah P DESIGNED BY-MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 (F 1 1\ ea�xx� w C/ V WETLANDS LEGEND EXISTING WETLANDS SIT INSERT 64D enondo M ial Park 0 Laurel wood D ive Shenandoah �—C� ca z o W N m L+..I Z a � Z o �ll ll 1. 1 J i I Y O V � N W n 3 Tn 0 0 cD W 3 v Cl DC � x �LZ L i0 C � > L W H TH �' r� MARK A SMITH N0.022837 N cm to cc z w CC W UFjo O V cc �w �W W Q U DATE- 01/14/02 SCALE- V-5W DESIGNED BY- NDS/JNT JOB NIL 3230 SHEET I OF I i O 9C / I l- -41G ' ex gT / 1 C \-- L ET] SITE`%� � L,,.ernicndo M pil Park i 38-BLAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 8B-CLEARBROOK CHANNERY e:',T LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 41D-WEIKERT-BERBS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 15-25% SLOPES Rt. c� N 0 \ \ D n W N m U, N OD Z 0 ID N W �� ClT � a (U 0, n W_ 3 n� � �\ �\ u w � x C D iz L L s °' 0 > 6 W Vi V y TH op 41c MARK D. SMITH NO. 022837 \ SNVAL 36 ` INS - N LaureIwo od D ive I Tom" 41C f-- �he� ah P 41C LLJ aE- �� I az � Q5 LA- 0o W �o 0� E ^a: �, W a i LV i Q 1t (� DATE- 01/14/02 SCALE- 1'=500' DESIGNED BY-MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 Of I 0 ID Cu c &IDN 1 1 d i �0 O O � }- = L �N Q xv yn a a y C-D �3 F-t� h i L O b O Q i 3 lv H � � TH OF D J� %`` < MARK D. SMITH N0.022837 ���aIVAL INSERT 64-D N N LO INS E- z ma SITE Rt. > Q5 za Wz O o�WU)o N ^L _0 L.� x z O u V) �D w p nando 7 Laurel wood D ive a Me rial / W Park Q ZONING LEGEND`.-'"� �� U RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT DATES MAY 2002 B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT SCALES 1'=500' i M-1 UGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT Shenandoah P DESIGNED BYE MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF I INSERT 64D SITE ZONING LEGEND.•-• �•�- RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT ------ --- - M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT M ial 1� Park Rt. Laurelwood D ive Shenandoah P I CV N I � H �I az a tc a C7 Q w U) O x U a �D ww a W Q U DATE, MAY 2002 SCALE, 1'=500' DESIGNED BY- MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I IE 1 NSERT 64D del encndo M ial Park /s' 8Hh WETLANDS LEGEND QE=TNa WETLANDS I \ ' . I Laurehwood Dive enandoah CD Z cu 2iE 'Col L—i cu L. j cu Z o CD Z CS0° � N 1. 1 J L I N O O, _ I LoN z LA LO W > °a' x � --9 -6 < c� L L L 0 i � � a L 3 W N MARK D. SMITH s No.022837 (i, N CC E- ` co ~5 A CC W f0 a. �a C7 O v CC �w AW W� W Q U DATE, 01/14/02 SCALE- 1'-5W DESIGNED BY- MDS/JNT JOB No. 3230 SHEET I OF I O SOILS LEGEND / 4 II) 3B-BLAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES / 8B-CLEARBROOK CHANNERY e;.T LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 41D-WEIKERT-BERBS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 16-25% SLOPES r- enando M �ial Park �� Z N 00 tWi N Z o v Z d 00 ID Ll W -J� 1 m _ o, 7 fU U Q L N G, 1! 1 w 3c ax � C-D LZ � o a t v C 3 W vJ aF MARK D, SMITH N0.022037 S10 AL \ 1B INS _ N LO CC U Rt_ R I E-0 LaureIwo od D ive i� 41C i\ Shenandoah P n\ ' ; 410 Ua Q5 W asF- CCz 0o W � a C7 0 x z p U a Qw W� W Q DATE- 01/14/02 SCALE- 1'=500' 4rf DESIGNED BY-MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF I NSERT 64D �o �o SITE Rt. 1/ I O eft � 1 \ M rial Park (- ZONING LEGEND RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT i M-1 UGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT Laurelwood D ive henandoah Z_ to 0 ID Lo N m W Z a c—') a c N a)Z o O1 �N • J j . m of _ vN Q L cu 3 -0+• co Z c y t v W 3 c dx G7 L L LO i >' a L L 3 W N V TH OF MARK D. SMITH No.022837 70IVAL` N N Lo �z E- E-0 W��z za � ' � OW Y)o Z � U /L►0 cf) I.L �D W Qw w� �w vJ Q U DATE, MAY 2002 SCALE, 1'=500' DESIGNED BY-MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I OF 1 c.� — - Z cu W N n cl 6 L •D Iff W o �� I p, f \ = t 0cu Z N W L N Y O 3 c dx ,< � L L O � > L 4 W � �7 Q X J Op rTH D, SMITH m 9\ ZONING LEGEND w�,^�•� RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-t UGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT NSERT 64D ►_..N WE .K SITE Rt. enando - Laurel wood D ive M ial Park Shenandoah N N cr uS H i az E� a z CC z N r.. W CL U U Q w � O� U a �D a w� Lw'^ vJ Q U DATE, MAY 2002 SCALE, 1'=500' DESIGNED BY,MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OE 1 ti 0 0' wETuwcs UOM PUBHh EMTM WETAPOS r,. INSERT 64D enanao 1r1 ial Park I i b IN Lau �lwood D ive Shenandoah c� z W 'Col N W z d � I Li N C N N ZJ L 1 100 O _ I >— i LO N n IO C ?' x C-0 Ir " " j L L d 0 N d � L C L W 3 � y MARK D. SMITH No.022B37 N N LO H a: � �z i A�j } w W coU p �U as W A j a W G4 ��W VJ Q U DATEi 01/14/02 SCALEi 1 -5W DESIGNED BY- MDS/JNT JOB NIL 3230 SHEET I OF I �Icl' 1 V 6� 41C - 'A 80iL8 LEGEND 3B-BLAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 8B-CLEARBROOK CHANNERY es'.T LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 41D-WEIKERT-BERBS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 15-25% SLOPES - 41D NSERT 64D Sa ; enando M Qial Park t. Laurel wood D ive i T 41C 1 Shenandoah M P n i 41C c� Z cu 0 LZ LO W ti W N z N [ N Z a ID N W -1 L 1 In Cl 7 N Lf) (L1 Z_ Cy Lv W 3 wx P L L L o b >. d > C L L 3 V � RK D. SMI '9 MANo. 22837TH A N LO t`- Wz �a u oow W o H p x U $v) W W. W � W U) U DATE- 01/14/02 SCALE- 1'=500' DESIGNED BY-MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF 1 ZONING LEGEND.�-� RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT 8-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT INSERT 64-D SITE MEN& WARM �rmv LaNlwood D; i � i I �Alm -Shenandoah c.� Z Rl 0 Ck= cu co W r m W N Z e d N -Ca ID Z 6 L 10 (U W J 1 O, lu_ 1 O = i � cu Q Y V n 3 �+. co Z C y V L—J 3 t aN L -j L x P h i L O v C > � L t 3 W N 4 r olp SMITH 2837 N N LO H E az w E- ` A5 z F0 OOW w � O N ^ U O O U M/ mX Q- QW Wa w Q U DATE- MAY 2002 SCALE- P=500' DESIGNED BY- MDS/JNT JOB NIL 3230 SHEET 1 IE I yp ZONING LEGEND RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT INSERT 6LD M iol Park <I 10M andoah c� Z N 0 ID � W N m W N Z o Nm Z Of ID N t+i �j om al N Q = t � N ry y r� Z cd 0v 4 3 u x c x P N i 4, O S d X at C 3 W N V MARK D. SMITH No.022837 �Va.�WAL N N Lo F E- a i F v � w � za � a NO W W v] O c � a � a a d. a � a w W Q U a w DATE, MAY 2002 SCALE, I'=500' DESIGNED BY.MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF 1 1A0 WETLANDS LEGEND D Pue�+n EXISTING WETLANDS INSERT 64D Nmaial Park 0 N La)W10,odD ive Shenandoah c� Z N Ct= � L J N 4J Z c a �N Z c o CD W i— > � T N Q= L W)N 3 n Z C y LO W 3 L Qlff W C L X r°i- < in L t N � d � c W N V MARK A SMITH N04e2837 N N to Cc ~ P�q z � �a A5 oCC W �o �w c� C7 O U cc �w a lQ W W Q U DATE- 01/14/02 SCALEi 1'-30W DESIGNED BY- MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I [IF I 7� -)3 _ (t/a Q^' J V Y B.� 6) ._. 41G- -- 41C jNSLRT 64D \� 1 .`3s 1B 8OL8 LEGEND __71 3B-BLAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES C� 8B-CLEARBROOK CHANNERY e.""•,T LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 41D-WEIKERT-BERBS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 15-28% SLOPES _ 8a I enondo M ial Park 11 N _ o NN co a C N OD C 0) ID (U -1 L D Ln � o � Y 1 N - = L � N 7 d O C c y 0" 3 c !x L L0 S d >' a t d CC L W 7 � N op L MARK D. SMITH No,022837 Q, INS % N . LO cc us — az � 0 �a Q 5 �a Cc az oo W U)o z x U Laurel wood D ive E- � W wa / Q U -Shenandoah P DATE 01/14/02 41C SCALE, 1'=500' DESIGNED BY,HDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I - OF 1 _ ZONING LEGEND RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT MEN& INSERT 64-D 1n �� - IN �o SITE Rt D La wood jDive enandooh KX/.r '� 1 c� Z cu I W N m W N C7 d NW Z c O° I'D ti O � a N = L 0 cu 3 6 C o Z cy o W 3 u u� c x �L" L L i O d >' a t O, co > c W 3 H 4 TH O "Ills MA"Opi iAL AL- R& 'ot NN DATE, MAY 2002 SCALE, 1'=500' DESIGNED BY- MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 [IF 1 \�O e\\ a� ZONING LEGEND RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT 8-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 UGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT INSERT 64D SITE M ial Park <( 0 MAE I'j�7lp'I'Olp it AM..�..��` II IIIIIIi•I IIII ��r�1�' III �.IjII jIII.I�IOI� � , I�•II�I�iI�•�I�•IPI a�1 O Lo lwood Dive henandoah c� Z cv L—j W m N Li C Cu Cp N L—i J� c >— (U Q = i � (ll w wn 3 �� 0o Z Cy ry L j 3 r CL W c w X P V L i O S w �. c w �> � L W 3 N D MARKNo,:A N N U) cc az a z z Cc z NW W u)U Q a C7 W Ox � U � W a w� a 0 cc vJ Q U DATE- MAY 2002 SCALE- 1'=500' DESIGNED BY,MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF 1 0' C Q O�e PIJBHh ap \a INSERT 64D �0 GBH INS 5 ' x Rt. 0 0' k P SIT enando Lau I od D ive M Jal Park WETLANDS DS LEGEND weNn EX18TN(i WETLANDS Shenandoah F �n Z cu W N m W v Z o i G.7 a m Z c `o 'U W J� I v Q = i N d n 3 '+ cc z a Ol � as �� c X C-D �3 �< L L L d O S X C > c L 3 W Vj MARK A SMITH NO.022837 cm N LO H- CC s "z A� O ^ � U cc W ^ �W W Q U DATE, 01/14/02 SCALE, 4'-300' DESIGNED BY-MDS/JNT JOB NQ 3230 SHEET 1 OF I M -)3 i /r 41B MC- 5 38 ti °o CID O 0 0 o-. SITE \\ SOILS LEGEND 3B-BLAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 88-CLEARBROOK CHANNERY S:'.T LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 41D-WEIKERT-BERBS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 15-25% SLOPES - - - - — - c� Z cv -- W N OJ 41( W N ° � a tim z aQ D ! W —J� p, O � *N Q= L I cu 3 Ty C I Z c y r v u d x L Q� O N �L S N T > CbL N N S L R T 6 4 D Q -_ \ 36 TH OPV MARK D. SMITH 7% N0.022837 IONAL \� 1B N ` INS -__ c\l =' _ to Uz Qs • '� Z 0o W coo a v � zx enando M ial Laurelwood Dive i �W Park Q 'U Shenandoah P DATES 01/14/02 nIF] ; 41C SCALE, 1'=500' DESIGNED BY-MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF 1 - - - - - - - - - - ----- - — - yfu Z N 0= I N m I L In J - I Q W n 3 c I / W 3 u v� x C � L> � -9 r� iz L L L 0 CDL �. 4 W V) — O 4 Z7 ti TEI op D MARK D. SMITH \� No.022837 a "WAL ' INSERT 64D N N Lo D ~ - IN -� E- az SITE Rt. za cr Xz �- I w o0 O ON ^ z OU W nando La wood D ive Q M ial 7 w Park U) Q ZONING LEGENDas �.^�'� U RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT DATE- MAY 2002 B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT SCALE. 1' =500' — ` M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT Shenandoah P .........._.._: = DESIGNED BY - MD /JN JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I OF 1 c� v cD W ti m Zv (� A \ _ O I L & p N -i 1 � of ' � >- 2 If) N Q W n Z c y 0 1 3t a� rT W_ P L L L a,O am Cl C,L 3 I� MARK D. SMITH No.0,2837 «"SS,OIVAL INSERT 64D N N to D - INS U� -- az i E-0 4 x w Q5 SITE Rt. z F- az z 04 N O w ul U C/] a rro � w a Q_ �w nando Laurel wood D ive x�" M ial 7 w Park w ZONING LEGEND RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT DATE MAY 2002 B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT SCALE- 1'=500' M-1 UGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT Shenandoah P -.: DESIGNED BY- MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 (IF 1 e �O 44 C'; aO 11) WETLANDS LEGEND PuaHn EXISTING WETLANDS SIT INSERT 64D encmao M ial Park F550 c� BHh G Q� c IN Lau\ I ood D ive </ N N LO H cc z Z5 cri A� w W co ^ Z5 U C 7 /C) LL w � QaW W W� ''W vJ !Q nandoah r DATE, 01/14/02 II I SCALE, V-50W DESIGNED BY- NDS/JNT JOB NIL 3230 SHEET 1 OF 1 0 ',e'l 9 38-BLAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 9B-CLEARBROOK CHANNERY V'T LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 41D-WEIKERT-BERBS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 15-25% SLOPES B 5 3B O - I 9B 0 0 � D SIT enando M rial Park Ill — — cZ> Z N ' cnt� $ N L- I N co \ ii I 4!i Z 6 I \ Z d L 'oN W -J� m o � v N _ � L If) N N t` u� 3 L.J C °x Qom. O L L t w \ �3 \_-- 41C - —_ - MARK D. SMITH No.022837 AL INS _ N Lo LL U Xz U_ a co o LjJ U) o �x Laurelwood D ive i aaW Ili Waa Q sib V ) U Shenandoah P DATE 01/14/02 41C �II II I SCALE, 1'=500' I DESIGNED BY-HDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 -- - - -- - - - SHEET 1 OF 1 / f ' ZONING LEGEND,^�'� RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT NSERT 64D SATE �-���" 7M ial� Park 7� C� NEVIN Laurelwood D ive Z N N CD W Z _a G7 ° 1 NW Z O Co I N > T q. < tn N Q = L (U d0 n 3 6 r- O Z C G t 7 N W 3 L vx a L L L O S d >, a L � L t W 3 V N t� .y MARK TH of D D. SMITH 9 W.022837 N N Lo CC E s az as i E z ~ a� za � z ow W mo z 0 ucr�w � QW wa w Q U DATE- MAY 2002 SCALE- 1'=500' DESIGNED BY, MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF I 5 O ZONING LEGEND „�.^�•� u RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT 8-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT INSERT 64D SITE M ial Park NEWS Laurelwood D ive Shenandoah H N N H CCE- b z w a E— Va � Q�r z CC az NFar, W coo a C7 Q � O � a CC �w a a w� a W U) Q U DATE- MAY 2002 SCALE, V-500' DESIGNED BY,MDS/JNT JOB NO, 3230 SHEET I OF 1 K 'e �O Go�a� 9 M :i b INSERT 64D enando Laurelwood D ive j M ial Park r-Shenandoah P G C) C-D z o CID L4J N W v Z e i Z c cnj "0 OD N W J mo v Q N f = L � (Ij a y r� 3 �* co Z ca 0 i.� 3s ,LO W 11 d x c in— ac C-DIn Ln 3 �� yL O S � � c > c L C 7 W h V NARK A SMITH 5 NU.022837 Al N LO cc Uz i � c0 C0x A5 o CC cl- C7 O U cc � W ^ W 'W vJ Q U DATE- 01/14/02 SCALE- 1 -5W DESIGNED BY- NDS/JNT JOB NIL 3230 SHEET I of 1 Na del 8OL8 LEGIM 0 9c 4116 ee0000" 5 38 �O 0 0 o- C SITES �\ 3B-BLAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES GB-CLEARBROOK CHANNERY ev!.,T LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 41D-WEIKERT-BERBS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 15-25% SLOPES �— — JNSE-R_T_ 64D 9B enando M dal Park c� Z_ ry W N m Lil N Z o v C7 d c Nm c— o Z c m `n L, W j m _ o Y fU Q I L F) cu w 0, n co Z cy sv i . 3 c a�n LAJ u d x C r LZ r L L L 0 � N T y > �L � L F �f \ 4iG NARK D. SMITH No.022837 �aIVAL 3B 1B N -�� INS - N LO Laurel wood D ive I 41C - i Shenandoah P I III I i' 41C U -_ az � Q5 V)a LA- �� W �o z O � i W Q wa W Q U DATE- 01/14/02 SCALE, 1'=500' DESIGNED BY- HDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 — - - - -- SHEET 1 pF 1 NSERT 64D SITE 0 ZONING LEGEND.-• RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT ►A-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT M ial� Park 0 movie O Laurelwood Dive en c� Z cu Li1 N W W ti (U m Z o0 o ti d J j m o� vN Q = i lu a vn Z ca rc Ln W ? u x CD '3 r< a L iO to > i W 7 V N nDSMITH N N Cc ~za as i c W T �a za Cc z o� W V)o N ^ U O Ems-• CC(n W Wa W Q U DATE, MAY 2002 SCALE 1'=500' DESIGNED BY- MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF I o � ZINZSERT c '-7``� M ial _ Park ZONING LEGEND„'-4- RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT kol _...can Laurelwood D ive no C.D Z cv 0 fZID L—N� m W ti Z c C' _ c I co ru Z J L IO N 5; T o � Q = L ni y wn 3 c o Z C y o v W 3 u a U7 W c mx �3 F-Ll L LO m> C i W 3 E H N N Lo E- Cc us az a z N� W U w O x U a �D a � �w a w� a ��W vJ Q U DATE- MAY 2002 SCALE, 1'=500' DESIGNED BY-MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I OF 1 r� WETLANDS LEG EM EXISTING WETLANDS Z NSERT 64D ean ndo M ial Park — 0 IN Laurelwood Dive enandoah c- Z a I� r W W N Z d � I CON NW W J > C T _ < I �L �N Q 3 W '* n Co }� x oc �< uL L L d O v T r Q coL L 3 W V Vj MARK D. SMITH No.022837 N Cc z A� w W coo a�v C7 O U M a as W Q W G� a ''W vJ Q U DATEi 01/14/02 SCALE, V-500' DESIGNED BY- MDS/JNT JOB NIL 3230 SHEET I OF I °a JC T_ 41B 414Ic ate, XX �e\\ \ INSLRT 64D _ 1B S 5 3B \ as R t 0 vt a _ ' SIT enando Laurel wood D ive Park I SOILS LEGEND 38-BLAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 88-CLEARBROOK CHANNERY e;'. T LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 41D-WEIKERT-BERBS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 16-25% SLOPES - 40 itt c� Z_ N Cl= D u-) W N m W N Z a � N [ N LD C _ �m Z a � L W _j m o� 7 Q =i NNN WQ,n 3 �v Co Z cd 0 L-i 3 r aUA L—i _ N x P L i L O t w T v G ' C w) 3 LiN i 40 TH of MARK D. SMITH g No-022837 N CC 0� ' az E-0 a �a c o LJ.I V) o C v F O x U v� Cc w w wa W Q U I \ Shenandoah P 1 DATE- 01/14/02 i 41Ci SCALE, 1._500. DESIGNED BY,NDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 — - — SHEET 1 OF I _ ___ __ _____ o r% t•, cu a N Z C �^ �N, "1 C �� CUW Z a °' j 1Y LWI -J — p > O 2 i N Q N Y o- r a" W u ? x c � < P L N CD 0 L W N O TH Op D 0 %!! MARK D. SMITH OC` \i T N0.022837 Z%��faiVAL` INSERT 64-D N I Lo H - INS / E- U - E- z E- CS SITE R t. H z 04z P4 � W ow O ON ^ Z 0 �U �p Qa W � W Q— W q p nando Laurel wood D ive w }- � M rial 7 W Park C ZONING LEGEND„�,�'�-- U RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT DATES MAY 2002 8-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT SCALES 1'=500' i M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT Shenandoah P ............ DESIGNED BY, MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET I OF 1 0 5 �^ O 0 0 9� ZONING LEGEND RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT ... -......... M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT NSERT 64D SITE nando - M ial Park ran cD cu - o r� I W N m W N Z e to Z (u W J> pa,, au (u Q = i m N y y r� L i Z C y 0 v 3u nun W C dx CD �3 �LZ L L L O i 0D L C 3 Liy V MARK D. SMITH � No.022837 At 4 -ONAL 7 7 N LO F cc U 6 z �a � Q5 zz a Cc z 0o N W o a L)C Q . O L) a �D a Q- e,w Laure �ej �o Goe ">Kl 1A WETLANDS LEGEND ruer,n EXISTING WETLANDS INSERT 64D m 8 ii IN Laur"iRlrvood Drive enandooh cD Z cu tY .2o L+j N L—i Z e i Z CCD cl �oN W 1j cT v� Q = i �N y v� T Ln C Z d c In L WW 3 L x � �Cl f � O N T L N � i W 7 HC P t K D.SMITH 22937 g N N LO H cc A� CO o cc W W� o Cz, v�i CS O U a mW 0 W Q DATE, 01/14/02 SCALE, DESIGNED BY- MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 [IF I 0 9C l L 41E �e �O INSLR!64 . e/ 9 t: l SIT 9B 3B-BLAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES i 8B-CLEARBROOK CHANNERY e;!. T LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 41D-WEIKERT-BER88 CHANNERY SILT LOAM, /' J� 15-25% SLOPES enando M ial Park 0 c� Z N — \ \ 11 N m Z a vj "' m Z a ID N LWJ -i I m o r N C 1 c v N ate. 0 P L i S d T d �> � t W 3 4 h 4 Tx o 1C --- -,` HARK D. SMITH 1 NOL0221137 V IaNAL I 38 j \ 18 CV INS N _ Lo L,L U �z rx � Q5 �a Cc�z oo0 W o x Laurelwood D ive I � �W CL 41C ---- � Q Shenandoah P / Fill—] 41C DATES 01/14/02 SCALE- V=500' DESIGNED BY-HDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF I v�Relonii,,; Comments Virginia Department of Transportation Mail to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 (540)984-5600 Hand deliver to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 1550 Commerce Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Virginia Department of Transportation with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: West on Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), approximately 800 feet north of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 644 (Paper Mill Road). Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 30.31 Virginia Department of Transportation Comments: v See attached comments from VDOT dated September 27, 2002. IV VDOT Signature & Date: 09/27/02 Transportation AsVoltant Resident Engineer Notice to VDOT — Please Return This Form to the Applicant •ic.:,/irnz��'v COMMONWEALTH of VIR QINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY Philip A. Shucet 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE COMMISSIONER EDINBURG, VA 22824 September 27, 2002 Comments to Proposed Rezoning Ref: Doris F. Casey Property Routes 11, 822 Frederick County JERRYA. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL (540) 984-5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 522 & 822. Routes 522 & 822 are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Doris F. Casey Property Rezoning Application dated September 25, 2002 (revised) addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Generation Manual, Sixth Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off - site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of- way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Homer F. Coffmig Transportation Assistant Resident Engineer VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING ..!.zoning Continents Frederick County Attorney Mail to: Frederick County Attorney Co. Administration Bldg., Suite 202 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia, 22601 (540) 665-6383 Hand deliver- to: Frederick County Attorney Co. Adnnistration Bldg., Suite 202 -107 North Kent Street Fourth floor Winchester, Virginia (540) 665-5651 tnl 'cease �11t oU. the u�Larmatrvn as acctixatel �t ossztalc to c�xd�x to assxsf tie Count :......... .:.::::...:.:::::::..:::::.:::::::::::::::.:.:::::::.::::::::.::::..:::::.:::...:::::::.::.::::::::.::.:..::.Y:::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:..::::::::::::::.::::::::.::::::.:: ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Attorne ;: :o:f Ge::;w t1thU :> :e ew:::::AttAeh: a::cr�. : ;:;of::...ot� ieation:for?m :Iocatiol::: a ::>::: �.._::...:a.....::::::.:1 :'......5............................-.......... .::::::::::::.:::::::..::.::.::...........:.........:.>.:::::.:::::::::.:: .:::.:.:::::::::. Y.;..........................................................................................n........y..............t�t...................................................................... z........... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. o e tit �II78I1 21 i'C >ana I '''i3zrd::dI1.::::ot1Le >`s )C'I' C 1 olnlltlC�I1::::::::::::?:::::::...........::::::................... z:. f .:s................: zz...: .....:.... :s .:......:...... ::.:........::.....: t. z ... ::.......:.:..... R.....:........:.::::.:::::::::::.::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::. �W:.. Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: West along Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), approximately 800 feet north of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 644 (Paper Mill Road. Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP Acreagc: 30.31 County Attorney' C4 e ts: ��� ,/ /, /,h / I Assistant County Attorney's Signature & Date:aZ- Notice to County Attorney i — Please Return This Form to the Applicant I 1,6 d � Rezoning Comments Frederick County Attorney Mail to: Frederick County Attorney Co. Administration Bldg., Suite 202 107 North Kent Street Winchester. Virginia. 22601 (540) 665-6383 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Attorney Co. Administration Bldg., Suite 202 107 North Kent Street Fourth Floor Winchester, Virginia (540) 665-5651 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the County Attorney's office with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windv hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: West along Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), approximately 800 feet north of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 644 (Paper NMI Road). Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: B2 & RP Acreage: 30.31 County A to ney's Comments:,, L �i r ; c tj/ // ,v ;✓ 0 cc� �' rCjT 9 ,�cr � ; �r � � ,-� • r� r/ 7�i� ram_ Assistant County Attorney's Signature & Date: Notice to County Atto -`ney I /1 _ 7 i — Please Return This Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments Frederick County Attorney Mail to: r)�e eri—cc County Attorney Co. Administration Bldg., Suite 202 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia, 22601 (540) 665-6383 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Attorney Co. Administration Bldg., Suite 202 107 North Kent Street Fourth Floor Winchester, Virginia (540) 665-5651 J 6M Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the County Attorney's office with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: West along Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), approximately 800 feet north of the intersection of Route 522 and Route apex Mill Roaa). Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 30.31 County Attorney's Comments: 61 �a Pe'l Assistant County Attorneys 2 , Signature & Date: Notice to County Attorney — WZease Return This Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments Virginia Department of Transportation Mail to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 (540) 984-5600 0 Hand deliver to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 1550 Commerce Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Virginia Department of Transportation with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windv Hill Lane Winchester. VA 22602 Location of property: West along Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), approximately 800 feet north of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 644 (Paper Mill Road). Current zonint-: RA Zoning requested: B2 & RP Acreage: 30.31 Virginia Department of Transportation Comments: See attached VDOT Comments dated May 28, 2002. VDOT Signature & Date: -d-02 Notice to VDOT — Please Return This Form to the Applicant � � • +�: l{.max • COMMONWEA LTH o f `vII��CINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY Philip A. Shucet 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE COMMISSIONER EDINBURG, VA 22824 May 28, 2002 Comments to Proposed Rezoning Ref: Doris F. Casey Property Routes 11, 822 Frederick County JERRYA. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL (540) 984-5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 522 & 822, Routes 522 & 822 are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Doris F. Casey Property Rezoning Application dated May 9, 2002 (revised) addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off - site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of- way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment, Steven A. Melnikoff Transportation Engineer VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Rezoning Comments •:i%!!•i::%%!:!+ii?:!i:!!:!:.:%:!:ly.::c':!!!r:.r%%f%v/!!^%l/%' �rr�!r.•�vr!r ir.r ::::v:::::::: vim•::: :•:: xv:i%�:: /:.� il:�lifii`:5�%v: /✓/fi:' i."%//.�!//.i /.. ../, v l..l... l . . ,. ,,,l..,fl:/,,.,.f, Frederick County Fire Marshal Mail to: Frederick County Fire Marshall Attn: County Planner 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia, 22601 (540) 665-6350 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Tire & Rescue Dept. Attn: Fire Marshal County Administration Bldg., V Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia —� i::::!..:;`__:..:.:i:::::"iii'..>_:.;::::..:.:.!:;!:;!i::.'>i:!a:>.^;:.;;:yi;i;i;:y:<:::>;;:xi:i:::%?;ii:>r>:<ii;:i::;ii::.;;;>i:``<><iiii2<<:: A.... hcant ::eas..c.fi.c�ut �ha crrziatlo asC4ur�itel.::#� :cztir:::.t4t�i;:::::;:<::::: PP ..:.:..:::.:.: .:.:.:.....; :.:::.;::;: ;`k.;.;:.i::.i: s ed r ek::Coufrt: <:Fare:Marshall:::with::.their:revle .R Attack:::a:>.eo of:> ..vm a [ atxo for is : < :: ::.:.::.:.......:::.::::::.::..::.:.::::::::::::.::...::::.:::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::.:::::::::::.:::::::::::::. cat�n ::rna ro %rislatert�ent im act.:ana sis.: a�nd:::a�t:.>:.ofher: erfiriert in ormi�ttiin > > ................ Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windv Hill Lane Winchester. VA 22602 Location of property: West anon., Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), approximatelly 800 ft. north of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 644 (Paper MITI Road). Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: B2 & RP Acreage: 30.31 Fire Marshal's Comments: i Fire Marshal's Signature &Date: -��-a Notice to Fire Marshal — Please Return This Form to the Applicant Control number RZ02.0005 Project Name Doris Casey Rezoning Address 151 Windy Hill Lane Type Application Rezoning Current Zoning Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department Office of the Fire Marshal, Plan Review and Comments Date received 3/19/02 city Winchester Tax ID Number 64-A-23 Date reviewed 3/26/02 Applicant Greenway Engineering State Zip VA 22602 Date Revised Applicant Ph 540.662.4185 Fire District Rescue District 21 21 RA Recommendations Automatic Sprinkler System Automatic Fire Alarm Syste No No Other recommendion Emergency Vehicle Access Not Identified Siamese Location Not Identified Requirements Hydrant Location Not Identified Roadway/Aisieway Width Not Identified Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Fire Lanes required. Access Comments Additional Comments xter.sion of municipal water for fire fighting. Election District Shawnee Residential Sprinkler System Yes Fire Lane Required Yes Special Hazards Yes Plan Approval Recommended Reviewed By Signiture Yes Timothy L. Welsh Titles Rezoning Comments Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Mail to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia, 22601 (540) 665-5678 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation County Administration Bldg., 2°d Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: '�40-662-4185 ivlailing Address: 151 Windv hill Lane Winchester. VA 22602 Location of property: West along Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), appromimately 800 feet north of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 644 (Paper N[iU Road). Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: B2 & RP Acreage: 30.31 Department of Parks & Recreation Comments: The $10 000 lump sum proffer proposed for Parks and Recreation is less than adequate to meet 50% of the impact the county has projected this development will have on parks and recreation. Pks. & Rec. Signature & Date: 29/02 Notice to Department of Pa & Recreation — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 15 Y J ' l' - • Comments Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia, 22601 (540) 665-1061 0 FILE Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia Applicant's Name: Greenway En ing eering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: West along Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), approximately 800 ft. north of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 644 (Paper Mill Road Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP & B2 Acreage: 30.31 Sanitation Authority Comments: Sanatation Authority Signature & Date: Notice to Sanitation AuthoA6 — Please Return This Form to the Applicant • • Rezoning Comments f"ri;:;;:r:% / r / .»:�.:�r rr/ r r y y ////i / %ii�%ir,i•,i;:;iri:4::r;.�, i. �i':i f%'::' •'./.;��r :/; iiri rii•/r�//jj/i/,r,�r/ice/i/r'n.nr/i/ice/i/,`r����,�.�f,///.r� ��i/,/i��. Frederick County Department of Public Works Mail to: Frederick County Dept. of Public Works Attn: Director of Engineering 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia, 22601 (540) 665-5643 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Dept. of Public Works Attn: Director of Engineering County Administration Bldg., 4" Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: West on Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), approximately 800 feet north of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 644 (Paper Mill Roydl Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP & B2 Acreage: 30.31 acres Department of Public Work's Comments: - �(P w e V` se wr- 1kq, trvn,\ a Public Works Signature & Date: C Notice to Dept. of Public Works \P ease Return This Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments • • Frederick County Department of Inspections Mail to: Frederick County Dept. of Inspections Attn: Director of Inspections 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia, 22601 (540) 665-5656 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Dept. of Inspections Attn: Director of Inspections County Administration Bldg., 4`h Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia -- =_ ct•r ..... Sst::I rtt..:::P......::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::......:::..........::::<:::.:.::.::..;..: t ..0 ::.:::. �i of>. our sIi`c t a far :.... 1?:e ar:t3li�tit:.ol Ind.cTlc�ns.;:::�rutth::alYetr:;ieview:;;;.:t:.;#x:=..:.:.:::.:::.;:..:.:.:'...::.::.:::..::...:.:::::::.:::..:::::::::.::.:..�.::::::::::::.::.:::. Iocatiori: mn >:: roffer:si te,tierit ins pact: an il: s3> `< ari �i.i ::: o ter.::: .e� timn :: txfc rrti tlb> ; '. Applicant's Name: Greemvay Engincerina Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester. VA 22602 Location of property: West on Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), , - roxirnately 800 it. north of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 644 (Paper Mill Road). Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP & B2 Acreage: 30.31 Department of Inspection's Conunents: 'Id 7rn L 7 L C6)iY1 /,�n F v T .4 'T' 711 t i 1 lyl S TE c> S iS I wv /' Cal• i i Public Works Signature &Date: Notice to Department of In' ections — Please Return This xm to the Applicant i 7`17-1,A17-�*11-111, RECEIVED MAR 19 2002 t FREDERICK COUNPI WBUC WORK & INSPECTIONS Rezoning Comments Fire and Rescue Company Name of Fire & Rescue Company: Address & Phone Millwood Station Volunteer Fire & P.O. Box 3037 Rescue Station Winchester, VA 22604 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Fire. and Rescue Squad with their review. Attach a copy of your application form,, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of Property: West alone Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), approximately 800 ft. north of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 644 (Paper Mill Road). Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: B2 & RP Acreage: 30.31 Fire and Rescue Comaany's Comments: IN � 1i Z) ,-Jyti/ 7CrULiiZ»,a� N/i).rf7:v; �r��Gi '6 :- » -/ t 4 74 OAJ A1P.=2 "njj [- 1214 ,Ia LirL cr-.1-1 %/G'rLrrr ?� /�� i�'. ✓hit/ / Fire & Rescue Com any's Signature & Date: Z/ z Notice to Fire & Rescue Company - Please Return This Form to the Applicant :7 Rezoning Comments Superintendent of Frederick County Public Schools it Frederick County Public Schools Attn: Superintendent P.O. Box 3508 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 662-3888 • Hand deliver to: Frederick County Public Schools Attn: Superintendent School Administration Building 1415 Amherst Street Winchester, Virginia Apphcant: Please fill quf{ t 'tn r nation as accurately as possible in order to assist the y....�,. Superuttendentlof PubiictScb&Ts�with-his review. Attach a copy of your application form;-, location: map, proffer s atement1 impact analysis, and any other pertinent information - Applicant's Name: K E E.�u.'q �,���a E'��.�f� Telephone: `�40 (clv Z -4/( 35 Mailing Address: rlL- 1 Ak"F— t.c�%� Location of property: 1.� �`�T c A: �Gu `� Z 2��v�. iYl�(. �! FEEr. N L)<,7+ CC 71�r_ o n,' j E_SEc-Rc rJ C i`�ocr 5Z Z A.%'_Q F�v(J_F Current zoning: 12/� Zoning requested: RP +- 6- Acreage: 30. 3 Superintendent of Public Schools' Comments: See attached letter. Superintendent's Signature & Date: Notice to School Superintendent - Please Return This Form to the Applicant 24 y`U�gp45 �In F�c�in IFCPY o Fi-edellck CountyFubhc Schools .-administrative .-assistant to Visit us at www.frederick.1<12.va.us e-mail: the Superintendent orndorfa@frederick.k12.va.u5 May 13, 2002 Evan Wyatt Greemvay Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: Rezoning Property West on Route 522, Immediately North of the Intersection of 522 & 644 Dear Mr. Wyatt: This letter is in response to your request for comments concerning the planning application for rezoning property located west on Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), approximately 800 feet North of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 644 (Paper Mill Road). Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the 63 new residences will yield 32 new students to be served by Frederick County Public Schools. Residential growth in this portion of Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollment near or exceeding their design capacity. The cumulative impact of this project, and others of a similar nature, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the application process. Respectfully Yours, Al Orndorff Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent Copy: William C. Dean, Ph.D., Superintendent of Schools Robert W. Cleaver, Assistant Superintendent for Administration 540-662-3889 Ext 112 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604-2546 FAX 540-722-2788 L:/Planning/2001-02/CascyRczoning-Grccnway COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAY: 540/665-6395 February 6, 2002 Mr. Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S. 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: Request for Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) Comments Casey Property Rezoning - Route 522 Dear ivlark: Upon review of the Casey property rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic properties. HRAB comment is not needed and this item will not be scheduled for review at the HRAB's next meeting. Thank you for the chance to comment on this application. Please call if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Rebecca Ragsdale Planner I RAR/kac U:`.CO\IAUrIE-SUiRAU\Rcconmi ndations\CascyRZ.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 T74 OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: 64-A-23 Net Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPE Doris Casey RE Costs of Impact Credit: Credits_to_be Take Total Potential Adjustment For REAL EST VAL S9,177,000 Required (entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per FIRE & RESCUE 6 Capital_Eaciltiies col sum only) Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt-S. Taxes,_Other (Unadjusted) Cost Balance Facilities -impact Dwelling-U-nit Fire and Rescue Department S45,095 SO SO S45,095 S644 Elementary Schools S300,138 - - Middle Schools S176,554 $49,109 $238,393 5287,502 S205,545 $529,975 S7,571 High Schools S258,828 - - Parks and Recreation S107,450 524,216 524,216 517,313 S90,137 S1,288 Public Library 518,680 S5,224 S5,224 S3,735 S14,945 S213 Sheriffs Offices $11,056 S9,059 SO $2,258 $11,317 $8,091 S2,965 S42 Administration Building S14,188 SO SO SO $14,188 S203 Other Miscellaneous Facilities S18,101 S17,455 519,272 S36,727 S26,257 SO SO SUBTOTAL S950,090 $75,623 S257,665 $31,698 S364,985 $260,941 5689,148 $9,845 LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT SO SO SO SO SO NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT 689,148 S9,9745 0 INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Av g: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 0.533 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg = 0.715 METHODOLOGY 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes /fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth colas calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Date 08/07/02 as k Project Description: Assumes 70 Single Family Dwellings on 30.31acres zoned RP District a, Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County , the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 day s from the model run date. 2001 MODEL IMPACT STATEMENT DORIS F. CASEY REZONING Shawnee District Frederick County, Virginia TM 64-((A))-23 30.31Acres March 18, 2002 Revised July 11, 2002 Current Owner: Doris F. Casey Contact Person: Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S. Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 540-662-4185 File #3230/MDS/dls f Greenway Engineering March 18, 2002 Doris F. Casey Revised May 8, 2002 Rezoning Revised July 11, 2002 DORIS F. CASEY REZONING INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the inpact on Fredrick County by the proffered rezoning of a 30.31-acre parcel owned by Doris F. Casey. The subject site is located on the west side of US Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), and approximately 800 feet north of the intersection of US Route 522 and Route 644 (Paper Mill Road). The current zoning is RA (Rural Areas) District. Doris F. Casey proposes to rezone the 30.31 acres from Rik to RP (Residential Performance) District. See attached Proposed and Existing Zoning Maps. Basic information Location: Magisterial District: Property ID Numbers: Current Zoning: Current Use: Proposed Use: Proposed Zoning: Total rezoning area: Proposed build -out COMPREHENSIVE PLAN West of US Route 522 and north of the intersection of US Route 522 & Route 644 Shawnee 64-((A))-23 RA Agricultural and Shenandoah Florist Single Family Residential RP 30.31 acres 70 single-family lots for the RP parcel The proposed site is being developed in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, Southern Frederick Land Use Plan (SFLUP) adopted -in 1999. Within the limits of the study, the property is located along a developing corridor (Route 522) which proposes mixed commercial and residential land use, planned unit development and industrial land use. 1. Urban Development Area Expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. 2. Sewer and Water Service Area Expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. File 113230/NSDs/dls 2 Grcenway Engineerinds March 18, 2002 Doris F. Casey Revised May 8, 2002 Rezoning Revised July 11, 2002 A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Access The subject site, tax parcel 64-((A))-23, is located on a manmade boundary created by Route 522 (Front Royal Pike) on the eastern edge of the tract and Route 644 (Paper Mill Road) on the western edge of the tract. One entrance is proposed on Route 522 to provide access to the residential property. A connection to Westwood Drive is proposed to occur from the residential project through the Swisher parcel. Access to Route 644 is not proposed due to traffic flow concerns and ID constraints identified by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Flood Plains The subject site is located on the FEMA NFIP map #510063-0200 -B. All of the site is located as "Zone C", area outside the 100-year flood plain. Wetlands There are 0.35-acres of wetlands on this site. Any disturbance of this area will be in conformance with Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Environmental Quality permitting procedures. See attached Existing Wetlands Exhibit. Soil Types The soil types contained in this tract have been obtained from the Frederick County GIS Soils Maps and are located on maps 63 and 64 (see attached Existing Soils Exhibit). This parcel contains the following three soil types: 9B-Clearbrook Channery silt loam — 2-7% slope, covers 77.5% of site 313-Blairton Silt loam — 2-7% slope, covers 22% of site 41D-Weikert-Berbs Channery silt loam—15-25% slope, covers 0.5% of site Table 5 on page 123 of The Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia, identifies the Blairton Silt loam soils as prime farmland. The remaining soil types on site are not identified within this table. Other Environmental Features The site does not contain areas of steep slope or woodlands as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Pile #3230/1VIDS/dls 3 Greenway Engineering March 18, 2002 Doris F. Casey Revised May 8, 2002 Rezoning Revised July 11, 2002 B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AdJollllllo-property zoning and present use (see existing 7.ollln� map North: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District and RA (Rural Area) District South: Zoned RA (Rural Area) District and B2 (Business General) District East: Zoned RA (Rural Area) District, B2 (Business General) District, and RP (Residential Performance) District West: Zoned RA (Rural Area) District All adjoinilg properties to the north and east of the site are utilized for residential and bushiess use. The Shenandoah Memorial Park is located to the south of the site which contains a commercial cemetery. The adlolnnlg property to the west is used for agricultural purposes. C. TRAFFIC IMPACT 1.) For the proposed 30.31-acre property that will be rezoned from RA to RP, the access will be on Route 522. According to the VDOT Functional Classification located in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan, Route 522 is classified as a major arterial road. The I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 6`f' Edition on page 263 states an average of 9.57 VPD per single-family dwelling. The proposed change in zoning would allow for the 70 single-family detached houses, which would create an increase in the traffic pattern along ROute522. The proceeding numbers signify the amount of volume increase that will be generated by such an increase in dwelling units. Number of Dwelling Units = 70 Houses Route 522 Traffic = 10,000 VPD Average Vehicle Trips = 9.57 VPD Projected Traffic Increase = 670 VPD The complete build out of this project will increase the traffic on Route 522 by 6.7% of the year 2000 VPD. Route 522 is alive -lane major arterial road with two travel lanes in each direction and a center turn lane to facilitate left turn movements. The increase in traffic volume from this rezoning proposal can be accommodated by this road facility. File g3230/I%1Ds/dls 4 Greenway Engineering March 18, 2002 Doris F. Casey Revised May 8, 2002 Rezoning Revised July 11, 2002 D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY The subject site is located in the southeastern portion of the Sewer and Water Service Area. An 8" sewer maul is currently in place on the west side of Route 522. The new system will run along the northern boundary of the property in a west to east flow pattern, towards the existing main. It will then be connected to the main in accordance with Frederick County Sanitation Authority (F.C.S.A) regulations. An 8" water main is currently in place on the west side of Route 522 to service the site. 1. The impact of this proposed rezoning, of the 30.31-acre parcel from RA to RP, on sewage conveyance is based on a development schedule of 70 dwellings. F.C.S.A design figures show an estimated 275 GPD per single-family unit. The 15gures below represent the impact these dwellings would have to the sewage conveyance system at full build -out. Q = 275 GPD per dwelling Q = 275 GPD x 70 dwellings Q = 19,250 GPD These numbers are based upon the F.C.S.A.'s Water and Sewer Standards and Specifications on page 6. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (F.C.S.A.) comment dated March 19, 2002 states that water and sewer are available to the site and that there is adequate capacity. Discussions with the F.C.S.A. indicate that the terminology of adequate capacities includes adequate capacity in the water and sewer transmission lines, adequate capacity at the water and sewer treatment facilities and adequate water supply resources to serve the proposed project.- F. DRAINAGE The 30.31-acre site has a topographic high spot approximately half way between US Route 522 and Route 644 with approximately 20 acres of the site draining towards Route 522 and approximately 10 acres draining towards Route 644. Two onsite storm water management ponds are proposed to control the increased run-off. In both drainage sheds it is anticipated that the post -development time of concentration shall be 5 minutes. s File 413230/bfDS/dis Greenway Engineering G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL March 18, 2002 � Doris F. Casey Revised May 8, 2002 Rezoning Revised July 11, 2002 The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual per household consumption of landfill volume figure of 5.4 cubic yards (This number can be found in the Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4`" edition). The following figures show the increase in daily volume based on the proffered density of 70 dwellings. DV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. per dwelling DV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. s 70 dwellings DV = 378 Cu. Yd. H. HISTORICAL, SITES AND STRUCTURES 1. Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks Two historic landmarks were inventoried by the Virginia Division of Iistoric Landmarks (see attached exhibits): a.) Duncan Farmhouse, file #34-432. b.) Evandale School, file #34-433. 2. Winchester Regional Preservation Office Department of Historic Resources There were no archeological artifacts found on the site. A request for Historic Resources Advisory Board connments was submitted to the Frederick County Planning Department. A response letter dated February 6, 2002, states that the Doris F. Casey property does not significantly impact any historic properties. Pile 13230NDS/dIs 6 • IMPACT STATEMENT DORIS F. CASEY REZONING Shawnee District Frederick County, Virginia TM 64-((A))-23 30.31Acres March 18, 2002 Current Owner: Doris F. Casey Contact Person: Marls A Smith, P.E., L.S. Greenway_ Engineering 151 Windy Hill LaIIe Winchester, VA 22602 540-662-4185 Pile #3230/iv1DS/dls Greenway Engineer March 18, 2002 • Doris F. Casey Revised May 8, 2002 Rezoning DORIS F. CASEY REZONING INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County by the proffered rezoning of a 30.31-acre parcel owned by Doris F. Casey. The subject site is located on the west side of US Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), and approximately 800 feet north of the intersection of US Route 522 and Route 644 (Paper Mill Road). The current zoning is RA (Rural Areas) District. Doris F. Casey proposes to rezone 30.31 acres from RA to 3.31 acres B2 (Business General) and 27 acres RP (Residential Performance) District. See attached Proposed and Existing Zoning Maps. Basic information Location: West of US Route 522 and north of the intersection Of US Route 522 & Route 644 Magisterial District: Shawnee Property ID Numbers: 64-((A))-23 Current Zoning: RA Current Use: Agricultural and Shenandoah Florist Proposed Use: Retail/Office and Single Family Residential Proposed Zoning: B2 & RP Total rezoning area: 30.31 acre Proposed build -out 40,000 SF for the B2 parcel 63 single-family lots for the RP parcel COiVIPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed site is being developed in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, Southern Frederick Land Use Plan (SFLUP) adopted in 1999. Within the limits of the study, the property is located along a developing corridor (Route 522) which proposes mixed commercial and residential land use, planned unit development and industrial land use. 1. Urban Development Area Expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. 2. Sewer and Water Service Area Expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. File 43230/YIDS/dls 2 Greenway Enginee� March 18, 2002 Doris F. Casey Revised May 8, 2002 Rezoning A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Access The subject site, tax parcel 64-((A))-23, is located on a manmade boundary created by Route 522 (Front Royal Pike) on the eastern edge of the tract and Route 644 (Paper Mill Road) on the western edge of the tract. One entrance is proposed on Route 522 to provide access to the commercial property and for the residential property. A connection to Westwood Drive is proposed to occur from the residential property through the Swisher parcel. Access to Route 644 is not proposed due to traffic flow concerns identified by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Pinnrl Plninc The subject site is located on the FEMA NFIP map #510063-0200 -B. All of the site is located as "Zone C", area outside the 100-year flood plain. Wetlands There are 0.35-acres of wetlands on this site. Any disturbance of this area will be in conformance with Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Environmental Quality permitting procedures. See attached Existing Wetlands Exhibit. Soil Types The soil types contained in this tract have been obtained from the Frederick County GIS Soils Maps and are located on maps 63 and 64 (see attached Existing Soils Exhibit). This parcel contains the following three soil types: 913-Clearbrook Channery silt loam — 2-7% slope, covers 77.5% of site 313-Blairton Silt loam — 2-7% slope, covers 22% of site 41D-Weikert-Berbs Channery silt loam — 15-25% slope, covers 0.5% of site Table 5 on page 123 of The Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia, identifies the Blairton Silt loam soils as prime farmland. The remaining soil types on site are not identified within this table. Other Environmental Features The site does not contain areas of steep slope or woodlands as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. File iJ3230/iMS/dis 3 Greenway Engineer• March 18, 2002 Revised May 8, 2002 B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ` Doris F. Casey Rezoning Adjoining property zoning and present use (see existing zoning map): North: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District and RA (Rural Area) District South: Zoned RA (Rural Area) District and B2 (Business General) District East: Zoned RA (Rural Area) District, B2 (Business General) District, and RP (Residential Performance) District West: Zoned RA (Rural Area) District All adjoining properties to the north and east of the site are utilized for residential and business use. The Shenandoah Memorial Park is located to the south of the site which contains a commercial cemetery. The adjoining property to the west is used for agricultural put -poses. C. TRAFFIC IMPACT 1. For the proposed 3.31-acre section of the property that will be rezoned from RA to B2, one point of access will be utilized on US Route 522. According to the VDOT Functional Classification located in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan, Route 522 is classified as a major arterial road. The proposed change in zoning will allow the opportunity for the existing business to change its form of operation to an accepted B2 Zoning classification style of business. The 2000 Virginia Department of Transportation Average Daily Traffic Volumes Manuel identifies 10,000 vehicles trips per day (VPD) on Route 522,-along a 2.43-mile section between Route 644 and Route 50/17. The rezoning proposal proffers a maximum of 40,000 square feet of commercial/office for the 3.31-acre portion of the property. The commercial/office uses are not known at this time; therefore, a worst -case traffic generation scenario for a shopping center with Saturday traffic volumes has been utilized to determine traffic impacts as follows: Square Footage of Business = 40,000 sq. £t. Route 522 Traffic = 10,000 VPD Average vehicle Trips = 4997 VPD' Projected Traffic = 1,999 VPD This figure is in accordance to the I.T.E., Trip Generation Manual, 6`l' Edition, and is projected for a shopping center, as per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area, on a Saturday (page 1340 in the manual). Pile '3230/,%4Ds/d1s 4 Greenway Engineer ivlarch 18, 2002 • Doris F. Casey Revised May 8, 2002 Rezoning 2. For the proposed 27-acre section of the property that will be rezoned from RA to RP, the access will be on Route 522. According to the VDOT Functional Classification located in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan, Route 522 is classified as a major arterial road. The LT.E. Trip Generation Manual, 61h Edition on page 263 states an average of 9.57 VPD per single-family dwelling. The proposed change in zoning would allow for the 63 single-family detached houses, which would create an increase in the traffic pattern along Route522. The proceeding numbers signify the amount of vohune increase that will be generated by such an increase in dwelling units. Number of Divelling Units = 63 Houses Route 522 Traffic = 10,000 VPD Average Vehicle Trips = 9.57 VPD Projected Traffic Increase = 603 VPD Analysis of the mixed commercial and residential land use indicates a worst -case scenario impact to Route 522 as follows: Projected Traffic Increase = 2,602 VPD Percentage oj*increase to the traff c pattern of Route 522 = 26.02% Route 522 is a five -lane major arterial road with two travel lanes in each direction and a center turn lane to facilitate left turn movements. The increase in traffic volume from this rezoning proposal can be accommodated by this road facility. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY The subject site is located in the southeastern portion of the Sewer and Water Service Area. An 8" sewer main is currently in place on the west side of Route 522. The new system will run along the northern boundary of the property in a west to east flow pattern, towards the existing main. It will then be comiected to the main in accordance with F.C.S.A regulations. An 8" water main is currently in place on the west side of Route 522 to service the site. File #3230/Mnstdis s Greenway Engineer March 18, 2002 • Doris F. Casey Revised May 8, 2002 Rezoning 1. The impact of this proposed rezoning, of the 27-acre parcel from RA to RP, on sewage conveyance is based on a development schedule of 63 dwellings. F.C.S.A design figures show an estimated 275 GPD per single-family unit. The figures below represent the impact these dwellings would have to the sewage conveyance system at full build -out. Q = 275 GPD per dwelling Q = 275 GPD x 63 dwellings Q = 17,325 GPD These numbers are based upon the F.C.S.A.'s Water and Sewer Standards and Specifications on page 6. 2. The impact of this proposed rezoning, of the 3.31-acre parcel from RA to B-2, on sewage conveyance is based on the square footage of the existing business being 40,000 SF. Design figures show an estimated 200 GPD per 1,000 square feet of ultimate floor space (these numbers are in reference to the Land Development Handbook). The figures below represent the impact that the current business has on the sewage conveyance system, and also represents the amount of sewage conveyance that occurs in the area of the site. The numbers clearly represent that any increase in the size to the existing business would have a minor impact on the sewage conveyance system. Q = 200 GPD per 1,000 Sq. Ft. Q = 200 GPD x 40 (1,000 sq. ft.) Q = 8000 GPD The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (F.C.S.A.) comment dated March 19, 2002 states that water and sewer are available to the site and that there is adequate capacity. Discussions with the F.C.S.A. indicate that the terminology of adequate capacities includes adequate capacity in the water and sewer transmission lines, adequate capacity at the water and sewer treatment facilities and adequate water supply resources to serve the proposed project. F. DRAINAGE The 30-acre site has a topographic high spot approximately half way between US Route 522 and Route 644 with approximately 20 acres of the site draining towards Route 522 and approximately 10 acres draining towards Route 644. Two onsite storm water management ponds are proposed to control the increased run-off. In both drainage sheds it is anticipated that the post -development time of concentration shall be 5 minutes. / File 113230/MDS/dIs Greenway Engineer Nlarch 18, 2002 . Doris F. Casey Revised May 8, 2002 Rezoning G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual per household consumption of landfill volume figure of 5.4 cubic yards (This number can be found in the Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4`t' edition). The following figures show the increase in daily volume are based on the proffered density of 63 dwellings. DV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. per dwelling DV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. x 63 dwellings DV = 340.2 Cu. Yd. The proposed business parcel will have a minimal impact landfill use. Within the proffer statement a recycling proffer has been written to ensure good stewardship of landfill resources. H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES 1. Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks Two historic landmarks were inventoried by the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks (see attached e:dlibits): a.) Duncan Farmhouse, file 434-432. b.) Evandale School, file .434-433. 2. Winchester Regional Preservation Office Department of Historic Resources There were no archeological artifacts found on the site. A request for Historic Resources Advisory Board comments was submitted to the Frederick County Planning Department. A response letter dated February 6, 2002, states that the Doris F. Casey property does not significantly impact any historic properties. File'i3230/1IDs/dls OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: PIN 04-A-23 NO Fscal Irnpix(A LAND USE TYPE Ftasidun8al / Co Costs of b■lpalUCn:dil: INPUT LMOWLE Ctr?etits to LD-L-lro REAL EST VAL 310.802.835 Required (entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Futuna CIP/ FIRE & RESCUE 6 C W11aLFasdltile�i cal sum only) QpaLQaREqulp ExWtrdfi111S. Ia=5- Ott, Fire and Rescuo Department 564,713 Efementary ScBoets $257,032 MlddleSd-lools $136.27-3 $31.755 $IB3940 High schools 5209,570 Parks and Recroallon 391,807 $23.462 Public Library 316,812 35.051 Sherttrs Offices $11,B49 54.956 3o $2,183 Adninlstrallon Building 315,20s 30 Other Miscellaneous FacIlllles $19,333 $07.188 513.520 SUBTOTAL 51122.555 $103,8wi 3197.480 530,716 LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $999,965 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT Total Polentlal Arljustrnuut Fur Tax Credits Revunue- Nut Capital Net Cost Per tUaasllusledl Cn_al Ba11un-pa Earilill dmpsds'd miellin411LA 5o so S64,713 S1.027 $215.695 $215.695 $387,140 $9,145 $23.482 $23,482 $68.326 S1,085 $5.051 $5,1151 $11.761 $1B7 57,139 $7,139 44.710 i75 40 $0 $15.208 5241 $80.709 3W,709 w U $332,075 $332.075 S"0,480 S7,7115 $999,965 $999,965 999.995 15.872 D INDEX'1,0" If Cap. Equip IrAWed: 1.0 INDEX '1.0" if Rov-Cast Bad, -01r if Ratio to Cc Avg_ 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 1.000 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Cc Avg = 1.433 METHODOLOGY 1. Capital facilities requlrornents are bylut to the lust colunu, as c;ak algid In the modal. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations cal utalions i.-s input in ia„ 101-11 of :,eoond Column (zero it negalivu): included ale lire one -lime taxeslfees full one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future open cap equip taxes paki in thfid column as cafcufated in rascal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid fix fourth c:A as ca"latad In fiscal [Wads. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new fadlitleS, as raiculated for each new fadlily. 6. Columns ttLree Urrough five aro added as potential cradils against the cakluWed capllcl fa itias requirernznis. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by lice revenuers horn ttla project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all rasidential development). NOTE Proffer calcufation3 do not Include Include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do incfude interest if the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Date-HIM2 ERL P.I.RL 64-A-23 Reznr111tg: Assumes 53 dtrellings on 27 arras zoned RP; 40,000 sgaura feet retail on 3.31 aues zoried B2 Due to changing conddlons associated with development In the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. m Ln m co N M L9 IJ Ln r-� Ln Ln m Dn LT Ln Ln W LD Ln m N CS) M cD \ ID u) iWW N W W [ N G.i C- ,�W 00 N Z L O �1' _J � o W 0' I N Q y yn co 5c a x C Diz V L L �7 S T C > CW L ] W N V �Z TH OF D 2 MARK D. SMITH G�\a N S E R; 6 4 D N0, 022637 l S�ONAL 04 INS LO 5 �- °� cc Rt. E� °� zx F—z w� N O W In 8 U SITE" ena-1do Laurel wood D ive a CC MW :Mark a ial P a Q w a wa r W V Q ZONING LEGEND.^��-- U ^ ' 1V RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT Shenandoah P DATES 01/14/02 B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT SCALE- 1'=500' M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT DESIGNED BY, MDS/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF 1 NAD 83 (1991) ::. POST (3.23 ROUW �pRIES. 99 TM 64-((A))-146 599 R� ,;:: THOMAS W. BREEDLOVE 250 0 125 250 8 `� & MABEL L. BREEDLOVE POND N�D.B. 401, PG. 672 GRAPHIC SCALE N 2 �, ZONED: RA (IN FEET) m IPF (0.31 NOTES: 1. THIS PLAT IS FOR ZONING LINE DETERMINATION ONLY. N 2. ORIGINAL AREA = 30.3100 AC. AREA IN RP = 26.8733 AC. o AREA IN 82 = 3.4367 AC. I o POWER COMPANY �RGIN A EASEMENT NORmEROTRIC 285 � _ E 06I3,P I -0-- TiN 64—((A))-23 o DORIS F. CASEY TM 64-((3))-A N W.B. 91, PG. 596 SHENANDOAH 30.3100 ACRES MEMORIAL PARK, INC. co D.B. 934, PG. 694 ZONED: B2 IRF RP 26.8733 AC. o N clj ZONING LINE' =I IRF S 02 35'01 " E IPF MON. EX ! IRF 460.08L3 BUILDING G liE EX. TM 64 - ((3)) -A 1 BUILDING IRF �IB2 D.B1 955,ALC. cOPG. 37 I 3.4367 AC., BUILXDIN . ZONED: B2-- IRS- j L7 � L6 � L5'' IRS L 1 EX, 20' SAN. SEWER ESMr. D.B. 902, PG. 1356 ROUTE 522 R/W VARIES N N TM 64D-((A))-30 ANN S. CROSS D. B. 761, PG. 512 - ZONED: RP LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L l S 05'39'03" E 16.96' L7 S 0520'02" E 166.64' L2 N 85'0537" W 298.53' L8 S 87'08'20" W 189.81, L3 S 03'4637" E 236.38' L9 S 86'5825" W 66.67' L4 N 86'4 1'23" E JO 1.46' L 10 N 80 21 '42" W 73.13' L5 S 05'39'03" E 159.94' L l l N 31 '07'41 " W L6 S 06 20'44" E 152. 12' PLAT FOR ZONING LINE DETERMINATION OF THE_ LAND STANDING IN THE NAME OF DORIS F: C.ASEY SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISI RIC7, FREDERIC_K COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1" = 250' _:] DATE: MARCH 18, 2002 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 WINDY HILL LANE Engineers WINCHESI`ER, VA. 22602 Surveyors TEIXPRONE: (640) 662-•418 5 FAX: (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.green-wayeng.com TFI -r ti ARREN S. FOL No,002257 3230 SHEET 1 OF 1 — amamg RP matA RA 0 — - �J I Westwood�� I RP -RP P < Gwo e S illRP RP <`RP ° RP e m RA ais 64 A 24 HALDEMAN RA i e P v' Pa s�BurNonw MSNwut vunc. n¢ RA :IRP,o ar+asu B2 _Yne In a z o RP RA wow 2 RA 6%4 D RA _I 64D 4 4 RA Gov a s B �I B4e 4 5 RA lucAm Fo% 82 I l Page'mi11 iI- NORTH BASED ON VIRGINIA GRID NAD 81 (1991) PER GPS 0BSERVAR0N POST (J.2J 44 01� DIES 99� R� R/W R 599 / �... 203,08 CEX POND IPF / (0.J1) o) 0 3 R N TM 64—((J))—A N SHENANDOAH MEMORIAL PARK, INC. D. B. 9J4, PG. 694 V) .IRF o o 0 U. 15' p �JIRF GRAVEL ROAD..'`' TM 64—((J))—A 1 IRYl JUCAPA LC. D. B. 955, PG. J7 III TM 64—((A))-146 THOMAS W. BREEDLOVE & MABEL L. BREEDLOVE D.B. 401, PG. 672 ti m . OWER COMPANY IfNr yIRGINIA RE�EMENT NOR TMCTRIC UNPG. 285 p 6. 13, o TW 64—((A))-23 DORIS F. CASEY W.B. 91, PG. 596 30.3100 ACRES IPF MON. LJ IRS L7 L6 �L51RS EX. 20' SW ROUTE 522 SEWER ESMT. R/W VARIES D.B. 902, PG. 1 J56 250 0 125 250 GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET) L1 TM 64D—((A))—JO ANN S. CROSS D. B. 761, PG. 512 SEE SHEET 2 FOR NOTES, LEGEND, AND LINE TABLE BOUNDARY SURVEY OF 30.3100 ACRES STANDING IN THE NAME OF DORIS F. CASEY SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1" = 250' 1 DATE: JANUARY 9, 2002 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 WINDY HILL LANE Engineers WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 Surveyors TELEPHONE: (640) 662-4166 y FAX: (640) 722-9525 r, urded in 1971 www.greeiiwayeng.com srw� T o,- wl DARREN S. FOL No.002257 3230 SHEET 1 OF 2 I d0 I I33HS oszs oN gof IW/AYS:AH Q3N MU .o0z-.i awos zooz HHHOdoo:a.I,va n d c x d o 0 Q �d m Rj z, ro lyso . tsazzo ON IDS a XM 'NOLLVIH0dSNyHI AO IN3Y+I.LHvdHQ VINI )HIA HfU AS 'IVAOUddV ONR MNIOH3 JVNIA 3H.L AO IWISSH V Sy xnDDO AYR SNOLLVDOq DVS-HQ-'IfID QNV Mn.LVAHM QVOH H.LON3'I QVOH HHI Ol S.LN3➢USnf(V HONI31 'NOI.LVd.LSflTII 3H.L HIIA 3DNV➢IHOANOD TUINVISHnS NI Q3dO'IHAHQ :49 Ol QHQN3.LNI SI NV'Id IN:MdO'I3A3Q qY-dHN30 3H.L NO J flOArl C V J2I Q3SOdOHd HH.L :HION mania ns AuvjL3 uj3O muvd IVIUOLM31M HVOa Nd'N3 HS SOS w 0 irryw ,:e URAdfig '09 0 WHISAS QVOH A2iVI^II2i 3CINHDHI O o [Ma .Os wrw: -IT--.O� 1 31VOf Ol ION 1R/130 SS300V A0NROa3W3 UNWHO /M SOtlVl1V9 M0113A' A-IN0 NH101H3A AON301A3493 aOd BSVHD OAMIGAN13a r Date: 1/14102 COUNTY OF FREDERICK Time: 15:10:19 fMSNSVMM LISA HUMMER ® 000020631 Gust.Transsctions: Trans. Type: PAY Dept/Bill#: RE2001 00048350002 P/I Date: 1/14/2002 1/14/2002 Name: CASEY, DORIS F B111 Date: 12/06/2001 Ha1T: 2 Name 2: Address: Map#: 64 A 23 404 IMPERIAL ST MMMMMDDSSLLLLS wINGH STER. VA Acreage: 30.33 Zip: 22601 - 4223 Mortg.Co. : Dose: 30,33 ACRES SSN : 000 - QQ - 0000 000 - 00 - 0000 Status: Land : $267, 1 00 Improve: $62, 900 Use: S36, 659 Original Bill: $370.75 Credits: $370.75 Discount: 5.00 Penalty Paid: $.00 Int Paid: $.00 Last Date: 11/19/2001 Amount Owed: $.00 Other: $.00 Total Owed: $.00 Penalty: $.00 Interest: $.00 Prin. being Paid: Aging: 9s Dp-tJAct ode Penalty being Paid: Interest being Paid: Total Amount Paid: Promise to Pay Da -to: F1=Ant Tender F2=Next Ticket F3=Exit F10=Funct Menu i a. 134. WILL AND ORDER OF PROBATE OF ROBERT E. CASEY, DEC'D. eoo� 731RCE131 4006 LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT HHW/bfa OF 2/10/78 ROBERT E. CASEY I, Robert E. Casey, of Winchester, Virginia, being of sound and disposing mind and memory, do hereby make, publish, and declare this to be my Last Will and Testament, hereby revoking any and all other wills and codicils heretofore made by me. FIRSTf I hereby direct that my Executor hereinafter named, shall pay all of my just debts, taxes and funeral expen- ses, as soon after the date of my death as may be practicable, using good judgment and discretion as to the time, manner and place of such payment. I do further direct that all taxes payable by reason of my death, whether death, inheritance, estate, succession or I other such taxes be paid from the residue of my estate without apportionment against the share of any individual beneficiary. SECOND: In the event that I am survived by my wife, Doris H. Casey, then I give, devise, and bequeath unto her all of the rest, residue and remainder of my estate wheresoever situate, howsoever held and over which I shall have any power of - disposal by will. THIRD: In the event that I am not survived by my wife, Doris H. Casey: (a) I devise and bequeath my farm of 30.63 acres in Frederick County, Virginia, which I acquired by deed dated the 4th day of November, 1967, from flumes J. Franklin, at al and recorded in the Frederick County Circuit Clerk's Office in Deed Book 359 as Instrument No. 2538 to my daughter, Robin L. Casey, and (b) All'the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, wheresoever situate, howsoever held and over which I Ar M 1./ bOOK 9.1 17•Gf 5,97 loci 10 FAN 13J shall have any power of disposal by will, I do hereby give, devise and bequeath equally to my two children, Robin L. Casey and Jeffrey Lee Casey. , FOURTHS My Executor is hereby expressly authorized and empowered at such times, upon such terms and conditions, and in such manner as each, exercising uncontrolled discretion, may deem advisable to act as follows with my estate: I A. To exercise any and all powers as provided in Virginia Code Section 64.1-57, which powers are incorporated herein by reference. B. To exercise sole and absolute discretion as to the necessity for sale and application of the proceeds of any real estate forming part of my estate at my death. C. To exterid the payment date of any estate, inheritance or succession taxes, or to borrow funds for the payment of such taxes, if deemed advisable. D. To purchase any assets of•this estate personally at appraised value or to bid on them at public auction, notwith- standing any fiduciary status with respect to my estate. E. To exercise such available tax elections as may be deemed advisable, but there shall be no adjustment between corpus and income as a result of any such elections. FIFTH: I hereby nominate and appoint my wife, Doris ' M. Casey, as Executrix of this my Last Will and Testament and I direct that no surety be required upon her bond as such fiduciary Should my wife, Doris M. Casey fail to qualify or, having qualifi d, later fail or cease to act, then I nominate and appoint my childr n, Robin L. Casey and Jeffrey Lee Casey as Executors and I direct that no surety be required upon their bond as such fiduciaries. SIXTH: Throughout this Will, the neuter, masculine and feminine gender shall be deemed each to embrace the other and the singular the plural, and vice versa, where the context so indicates. The term "executor" as used in this Will is to be construed to mean the executor or executors then serving hereunder. This Will is written upon three (3) typewritten pages, II upon each of which I have not my signature. -2- I iPA 9 / / S97 H 0 136 . B butnc :�.1 �ai� �38 I not 70 M 336 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand and seal at Winchester, Virginia this may of February, 1978. 47 9_0%'� (SEAL) obert E. Casey The foregoing instrument was subscribed, sealed, pub- lished, and declared by Robert E. Casey as and for his Last Will and Testament, in our presence, and in the presence of each of us, and we at the same time, at his request, in his presence, and in the presence of each other, believing him to be of sound mind and under no constraint, have hereunto subscribed our names TM and residences as attesting witnesses this day of February, 1978. (SEAL) (SEAL) 7 -3- lo S( SEAL) A i ..� 9/- A-9'."� _>99 137. Bunn 91 f111;E eocx A fac! i37 STATE OF VIRGINIA i. OF , �Ezr- To -wit Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared /Robert E. Casey,_ �. `. •��� + known to me to be the Testator and the witnesses, respectively, whose names are signed to the attached or foregoing instrument and, all of these persons being by me first duly sworn, Robert E. Casey, the Testator, declared to me and to the witnesses in my presence that the said instrument is his Last Will and Testament and that he had willingly signed or directed another to sign the same for him, and executed it in the presence of said witnesses as his free and voluntary act for the purposes therein expressed; that said witnesses stated before me that the foregoi Will was executed and acknowledged by the Testator as his Last Will and Testament in the presence of said witnesses who, in his presence and at his request, and in the presence of each other, did subscribe their names thereto as attesting witnesses on the day of the date of said Will; and that the Testator, at the time of the execution of said Will, was over the age of eighteen (18) years and of sound and disposing mind and memory. (p `Lt•a0(SEAL) `�)� .., i c �. J r (SEAL) Zoert E. Casey 'fitness (SEAL) ��ul __,(SEAL) Witness fitness Subscribed, sworn an acknowledged before me by Robert E. Jas y, the, T itayjor, and ;) .�. '• ._6Q2 ive')k and e w tnesses, this_ h s_� .ay of February, 978. _1 ILI- Notary Public r' ,,;My�commission expires 41 /cam 4 i 138. _ ,._. __...._..__..._._.... ._...... _............_. .... eooK 70 wE 1.33 IN THE CLERK"S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA ON May 29, 1986, THE FOLLOWING ORDER WAS ENTERED: A writing, bearing date of February 13, 1978, purporting to be the true last will and testament of Robert E. Casey, deceased, was produced before the Clerk and it being signed by Robert E. Casey and witnessed by Kimm W. Bennsky , Jo Ann Anderson, and Barbara G. Sambol, the subscribing witnesses thereto, but duly acknowledged and sworn to before Rebecca r. Smith, a Notary Public of this State, according to Section 64.1-87.1, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, it is Ordered that the said paper be admitted to probate as and for the true last• will and testament of Robert E. Casey, and it it is Ordered to be recorded. A —C-txrrk-Deputy clerk i 001 tsuuK rl.l t 601 State of Virginia, City of Winchester, to -wit: I, Bettie Winslow, Deputy Clerk Circuit Court for the City of Winchester, Virginia, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Will and Order of Probate of Robert E. Casey, deceased. Said Will and Order of Probate being recorded in Will Book 70 page 134. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 23rd day of April,1987. . Lj Deputy Clerk 002 • BM 1,91 im W2 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK,TO-WIT: A certified copy of the last will and testament of Robert E. Casey was this 23rd day of April , 19 87 , produced before the Clerk of this Court; and on the motion of DQT,j, M Casey, widow it is admitted to record on this _ 23rd— day of April 1987 10111#1 WAMAMM&A 1161 Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARIN PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #09-02 OF FROG EYE FIBER EMPORIUM, SUBMITTED BY MARY S. GROUNDWATER, FOR A COTTAGE OCCUPATION -INSTRUCTIONAL CLASSES AND RETAIL SALES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 347 SCHOOLMARM LANE AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS 62-A-22 AND 62-A-21A IN THE BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED Plaimer II Rebecca Ragsdale presented this request to the Board advising that the Plaiming Continission reconnnended approval. There was no public continent. Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Smith, CUP #09-02 was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING #03-02 OF HAZEL LAMBERT, SUBMITTED BY GREENWAY ENGINEERING, TO REZONE.73 ACRES FROM RP (RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE) TO B2 (BUSINESS GENERAL) DISTRICT. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF SENSENY ROAD (ROUTE 657) AND GREENWOOD ROAD (RT. 656), AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS 65A-7-8 AND 65A- 7-9 IN THE SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED Plaimer II Jeremy Camp presented this request to the Board advising the Planning Continission recontinended approval. Supervisor Tyler had some questions concerning buffering. Mark Smith representing the request appeared before the Board to respond to their questions. He advised the owner was not 100% sure of exactly what would be going at this location, but thought it would be similar to what is located across the street as far as the strip mall is concerned. Supervisor Sager advised that the lighting and noise concerned him. Supervisor Reyes asked how much acreage was at the site? Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 07/10/02 162 Mark Smith advised 1.3 acres. Supervisor Forrester asked about proffers for fire and rescue. Planner Camp explained the model calculations. Blaine Dunn, area resident, appeared before the Board and advised that he was neither for nor against this request, he did have some concerns with public issues such as zoning, trash etc. Pat Gochenour, area resident and member of the Planning Commission, is not in favor of this request as she feels the Board should know exactly what is going at the site before approving it. George Sempeles, Stonewall District, felt that anything that would be put there would be an improvement over what is currently there. Bill Rosenberry, Shawnee District and member of the Planning Commission, advised at the Planning Commission meeting, a neighbor, to the back of the property, in adjacent subdivision, expressed concern about a two story building being built on the site, but he too feels this plan would be an improvement. Supervisor Sager asked if the Board could revisit this again. Administrator Riley advised they could ask; however, he would caution against it. Supervisor Forrester asked about the requirements for a two story building. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Douglas, rezoning #03-02 of Hazel Lambert was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Nay Lynda J. Tyler - Nay Gina A. Forrester - Nay PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING #04-02 OF KIMERLY G. HENRY, SUBMITTED BY PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C., TO REZONE .557 ACRES FROM B2 (BUSINESS GENERAL)TO B3 INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION) DISTRICT, AND .765 ACRES FROM B3 (INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION) TO B2 (BUSINESS GENERAL) DISTRICT. THE PARCELS ARE LOCATED ON FORT COLLIER ROAD BETWEEN BAKER LANE AND HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SUBDIVISION AND ARE IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS 54-8-41, 42, 23, 24, 25 & 26 IN THE STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED Director Lawrence presented this request to the Board advising that the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval. There was no public comment. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 07/10/02 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 rounded in 1971 T R AN S M I TTA'L. Project Name: Doris Casey Rezoning File No.: 3230 Date: June 6, 2002 To: PC Planning Attn: Eric Lawrence From: Ivan Wyatt/ds GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Pax: 540-722-9528 Copied: Remarks: Urgent U- For Your Review ri As You Requested U Please Comment Message: Eric, Attached are the following for the above rezoning: -Rezoning Application,, -Application fee check I'��� -Deed -Payment of taxes JUN J 0 7..00'l., -Impact Statement -Proffers DE:PT, OF PEANNINGIDEVROPMF.Nl' -Exhibits 62 copies each of our color exhibits arc also included for distribution. Call with any concerns UN EIngll1CCI'S Surveyors })F_PT.OFPUAZING,i)F.vEwWENl' Telephone 540-662-4185 PAX 540-722-9528 greenway@visuallink. com GREENWAY ENGI MEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane %47 Winchester, Virginia 22602 Founded in 1971 TRANSMITTAL Project Name: Doris Casey Rezoning File No.: 3230 Date: July 26, 2002 To: FC Planning Attn: Abbe Kennedy Copied: From: Evan Wyatt GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Fax: 540-722-9528 Remarks: !-- Urgent 1— For Your Review !-- As You Requested 1— Please Comment essage: Hi Abbe, Please find attached the following information: • Revised Proffer Statement with signature and notary (original copy). • Boundary Survey Plat (eliminates Zoning District Plat) 0 New County Attorney comment (all comments have been addressed). • Revised Impact Analysis Statement. • 60 color copies of the proffered General Development Plan. Please advise me if you need any additional information for the August 21, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. Have a good weekend! Evan JUL 2 IM Engineers Surveyors Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528 greenway@visuallink.com d-NGREENWAY ENCERING 151 Windy IIill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Founded in 1971 TRANS M I TTAL Project Name: Doris Casey Rezoning File No.: #3230 Date: July 12, 2002 To: FC Planning Attn: Abbe Kennedy Copied: From: Evan Wyatt GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Fax: 540-722-9528 Remarks: r Urgent rl For Your Review r As You Requested ri Please Comment Message: Hi Abbe, Please Pend attached the revised proffer statement based on our conversation this morning. We have forwarded this revision to Jay Cook for comment. Please contact me (or Mark next week) if you need anything else at this time. Once again, we will shoot for the August 21, 2002 PC meeting deadluie. Thank you for your assistance! Evan JUL 1 2002 Engineers Surveyors Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528 ,orcenway@visuaflhik.com visualluik.com (D Avoa-r cmm Fo fL--m P novC� d Li � o S «AJa7vk- ��� l P ►. C ( 'i ror'1-1LM C lJ \ /L n c t— l , '� `� u Z� RP wF--zik .l L1,i,U..1J't -'-? q cJt , cJItJ��I �F i C Ov\0dk. <oJTh1c.-i L(��n USF. >;v✓�-� S�Lu� v Q-U&A(_ "2 A h-"S: v A. S tj ( rR' t- --- cl 00ZCAMIDI �ou) An 13. S��no✓J�.,ALr- �I-% C- t-,--Pn-'- I- pp I� /z0drr Sd / S %mil/u/,✓oorJ `lkc r tjor' JUOAL �i/?`� r)• - QZ- —rhjir fc fmoutn 3 e�13riri aF LrTAi l_ Ge -er,)Vr 'fP • 5*v_optr - d ttlroncJ:.T'04 oN �17�a�,- Ccavnc,�r� vL S-EIj m I hnPK -r- df 1 5CL-ACApAc. kr7 PA-cT —• � ��-'7S o t 1 QU(�C,(C. �O,o l �..T 1 lY S ? c �� V✓ A-S �� � S�' Z 100713 XSyrP l 0' 622. SlcT�AL�c f? -vK 1rs _-. �o � • � /•ram PS �m u ��*- J l �. �` IbOT 1 S G IVe-S ` PQA 111 / r- ( ` L- • 0 facsimile TRANSMITTAL Name: Mark Smith Fax: 722-9528 From: Eric Lawrence Date: March 20, 2002 Subject: Casey Rezoning Pages: 3 Comments: Mark- Attached are the Capital Facilities Impact Model runs for the Casey property. The model projects impacts of $9,155 per unit based on the 63 single family dwellings proposed. As for the proposed business rezoning, the model projects an impact of $20,652 on the fire and rescue department. I hope you find this information useful. Let me know if you have any questions. -Eric Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, CZA Deputy Planning Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 540.665.5651 540.665.6395 fax elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: PIN 64-A-23 Net Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPE Residential Costs of Impact Credit: INPUT MODULE_Credits_to_be.Take Total Potential Adjustment For REAL EST VAL S8,259,300 Required (entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per FIRE & RESCUE 6 Capital_Faciltiies col sum only) Oper_Cap_Equip Expend/Debt_S, Taxes, Other (Unadjusted) Cost Balance Facilities_ Impact Dwelling Unit Fire and Rescue Department S44,061 SO SO S44,061 $699 Elementary Schools S257,032 - - Middle Schools S136,223 S31,755 S183,940 S215,695 S151,637 S451,198 S7,162 High Schools S209,579 - - Parks and Recreation S91,807 $23,482 S23,482 S16,508 S75,299 S1,195 Public Library $16,812 S5,051 S5,051 $3,551 S13,261 $210 Sheriffs Offices $11,849 $4,161 SO $2,183 S6,344 $4,460 S7,389 $117 Building S15,206 SO SO SO $15,206 $241 •Administration Other Miscellaneous Facilities S19,333 S57,970 $11,665 S69,635 S48,955 SO SO SUBTOTAL $801,903 $93,886 $195,605 S30,716 S320,207 S225,110 S576,792 S9,155 LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT SO SO SO SO $0 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT 1 $576,7921 $9.1551 INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included: 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 0.491 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg = 0.703 METHODOLOGY 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through rive are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). . NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Date 3/20/02 ERL P.I.N. 64-A-23 Rezoning: Assumes 63 dwellings on 27 acres zoned RP Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: PIN 64-A-23 Net Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPE Business Costs of Impact Credit: INPUT M_0DULE Credits_to_be Take REAL EST VAL $2,603,535 Required (entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ FIRE & RESCUE 6 Capital Faciltiies col sum only) Oper Cap. Equip Expend/Debt S. Taxes, Other Fire and Rescue Department 520,652 Elementary Schools SO Middle Schools SO SO SO High Schools SO Parks and Recreation SO SO Public Library SO SO Sheriffs Offices SO $795 SO SO Administration Building SO SO Other Miscellaneous Facilities SO $9,218 S1,855 SUBTOTAL 520,652 510,013 $1,855 SO LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $1,557,983 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT Total Potential Adjustment For Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per (Unadjusted) Cost -Balance Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit SO SO S20.652 ERR SO SO SO ERR SO S0 SO ERR SO SO SO ERR $795 S795 SO ERR SO SO SO ERR $11,073 S11,073 SO ERR S11,868 S11,868 $8,784 ERR $1,557,983 51,557,983 (S1,557,983) ERR Sol ERR INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included: 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 1.000 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg = 1.433 METHODOLOGY 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). - NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Date 3/20/02 ERL P.I.N. 64-A-23 Rezoning: Assumes 40,000 square feet retail on a 3.31 acre site zoned 62 Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. 0 0 Rezoning Comments //%%'/r" %/{i�i;%.%%': ./y.:�%;::i :.'f;< •,,�:•� •?/.:.rr%.. %F l:.r. i.:: .:%;i. :>/i:..: �/ ,. �/ �%1F: //�: . r :� Planning Department Mail to: Department of Planning and Development Attn: County Planner 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia, 22601 (540) 665-5651 Hand deliver to: 107 North Kent Street Fourth Floor Winchester, Virginia (540) 665-5651 Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: West along Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), approximately 800 ft. north of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 644 (Paper Mill Royal. Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: B2 & RP Acreage: 30.31 Planning Department Comnents: Superintendent's Signature & Da Notice to Planning Department — Please Return This Form to the Applicant • • �nA� Aa COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 March 29, 2002 Mr. Mark Smith Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Doris F. Casey Rezoning Dear Mark: I am in receipt of your preliminary materials for the above reference project, received in this office March 19, 2002. I would offer the following comments for your consideration. Rezoning Application Form. Include the property owner's signature. 2. Impact Analysis Statement, dated March 18, 2002. a. Introduction. Page 2. 1. What is intended by "Agricultural Undeveloped." If you are referencing the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, please make changes. 2. What is intended by "Single Family Residential -Suburban?" If you are referencing the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District, please make changes. 3. You indicate that the current use of the property is "Agricultural Undeveloped." Please revise to reflect that the current uses include agricultural and commercial (florist). b. Comprehensive Plan. Page 2. 1. Revise to reflect the accurate land use plan name: Southern Frederick Land Use Plan (SFLUP). C. Suitability of the Site. Page 3 1. Provide a statement regarding woodlands and if soil types are appropriate for agricultural uses. d. Surrounding Properties. Page 3. 1. Provide the present uses of the adjoining properties. 2. Provide the zoning and uses for properties located across roadways. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 R � • Page 2 Mark Smith, Greenway Engineering Re: Doris F. Casey Rezoning March 29, 2002 e. Traffic Impact. Page 4. 1. Your first paragraph makes reference to Jubal Early Drive. I believe you are actually referencing Millwood Pike. Please revise as appropriate. 2. The traffic projections for the proposed B2 portion of the site should be based on the maximum intensity of development. Therefore, the traffic analysis should utilize retail generators, not office. Please revise accordingly. f. Sewage Conveyance and Water Supply. Page 5. 1. Provide information on existing capacity of sewer and water mains that will service this site. 2. Describe the impact the project will have on the existing utility's capacity. 3. Exhibits. The adjoining property to the south (Shenandoah Memorial Cemetery) is zoned RA. The Omps Funeral Home parcel is zoned B2. Please revise the illustrative accordingly. 4. Review Agency Comments. Please obtain review comments from the following agencies: Frederick County Attorney, Virginia Department of Transportation, Historic Resources Advisory Board, Public Works, Fire Marshal, Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Schools, Sanitation Authority, and the Millwood Fire and Rescue Company. 5. Rezoning Application Fee. The application fee for this petition will be $1,660.85. [ (base fee of $550.00) + ($1,060.85=$35.00/acre x 30.31 acres) + ($50.00 refundable sign fee)] Thank you for the opportunity to review these materials. S Eric R. Lawrence, AICP Deputy Director ERL/bah U:\Eric\Common\Rezonings\2002\Casey\review.vvpd 0 TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME 05/08/2002 16:16 NAME FRED CO PLANNING DEP FAX 5406656395 TEL 5406655651 SER.0 BROC2J178677 DATE, TIME 05/08 16: 15 FAX NO. /NAIv1E 97229528 DURATION 00:00:36 PAGE(S) 02 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM TRANSMITTAL Name: Evan Wyatt Fax: 722-9528 From: Eric Lawrence Date: May 8, 2002 Subject: Casey Rezoning Pages: 2 Comments: Ili Evan. Attached is a revised run of the Capital Facilities Impact Model ;For the Casey property. The run assumes: 27 acres of RP with 63 single family units; and 3.31 acres of B2 with 40,000 square feet retail. I hope you find t1li.s information to be usefal. Thanks. -Eric facsimile TRANSMITTAL Name: Evan Wyatt Fax: 722-9528 From: Eric Lawrence Date: May 8, 2002 Subject: Casey Rezoning Pages: 2 Comments: Hi Evan. Attached is a revised run of the Capital Facilities Impact Model for the Casey property. The run assumes: 27 acres of RP with 63 single family units; and 3.31 acres of B2 with 40,000 square feet retail. I hope you find this information to be useful. Thanks. -Eric Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, CZA Interim Planning Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 540.665.5651 540.665.6395 fax elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT PIN 64-A-23 Net Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPE Residential f Co Costs of Impact Credit. INPUT MODULE Credits to be Take Total Potential Adjustment For REAL EST VAL $10,862.835 Required (entered in Cur Budget Cur Budget Cap Future CIP/ Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per FIRE 8 RESCUE 6 Capital Faciltiies col sum only) Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S Taxes. Other (Unadjusted) Cost Balance Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit Fire and Rescue Department S64.713 SO So $64,713 $1,027 Elementary Schools $257.032 ---- ---- Middle Schools $136,223 $31,755 $183,940 $215,695 $215.695 $387.140 $6.145 High Schools S209.579 ---- ---- Parks and Recreation $91,807 S23,482 $23.482 $23,482 $68.326 $1,085 Public Library $16.812 S5,051 $5.051 $5,051 $11,761 S187 Sheriffs Offices $11,849 $4.956 SO S2,183 $7,139 $7.139 S4,710 $75 Administration Building $15,206 $0 $0 $0 $15,206 S241 Other Miscellaneous Facilities $19.333 $67,188 $13,520 W.709 $80,709 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL $822,555 $103,899 $197.460 $30,716 $332,075 $332,075 S490.480 S7,785 LESS NET FISCAL IMPACT $999.965 $999,965 $999,965 $999.965 $15,872 NET CAP FACILITIES IMPACT 0 0 INDEX: '1.0' If Cap Equip Included 1.0 INDEX. '1 0' if Rev -Cost Bal, '0 0' if Ratio to Co Avg 00 Rev -Cost Bal = 1 000 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg = 1 433 METHODOLOGY 1 Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model 2 Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative). included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value 3 NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts 4 NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts 5 NPV of future taxes paid to bnng current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility 6 Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg for all residential development). NOTEProffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front Credits do incude interest f the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Date 5/8/02 ERL P I N 64-A-23 Rezoning: Assumes 63 dwellings on 27 acres zoned RP. 40,000 sqaure feet retail on 3 31 acres zoned B2 Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a penod of 90 days from the model run date. is t August 21, 2002 Frederick County Planning Commission 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Commission Members: Attached is a petition which has 200+ signatures opposing Rezoning #07-02 of Doris F. CAsLey from RA (Rural Areas) to (Residential Performance). Any consideration you may give to this petition is greatly appreciated by the residents of Westwood Subdivision. Sincerely, Residents of Westwood Sudivision: Mr. & Mrs. Allen Wingfield, 122 Westwood Dr. Mrs. Barbara Kerns, 136 Westwood Dr. Mr. & Mrs. Robert Largent, 141 Westwood Dr. Mr. & Mrs. Dean Arbuthnot, 150 Westwood Dr. Mr. & Mrs. Jeffrey Dodd, 155 Westwood Dr. Mrs. Barbara MidkifT, 179 Westwood Dr. Mr. Michael Brooks, 187 Westwood Dr. Mr. & Mrs. John Anderson, 197 Westwood Dr. Mr. Maurice Oats, 202 Westwood Dr. Mr. & Mrs. Robert Detlefsen, 207 Westwood Dr. Mr. & Mrs. John Driver, 112 Westwood Circle Ms. Judy Morrison, 117 Westwood Circle Mr. Carl Bayliss, Sr., 125 Westwood Circle Mr. & Mrs. William Jackson, 132 Westwood Circle Mr. Robert Van & Mrs. Ann Cross, 1170 Front Royal Pike out m �3 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). This property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriffs department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to fin-ther overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. If this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. We strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the application (Rezoning 907-02) made by Doi -is Casey. &�iq J41w.,5 . 6 NAME I Y ADDRESS DATE I a 5 �_ .� 1_g— ) a - CD L NAME ADDRESS DATE . NVAE ADDRESS DATE F :�A)Q IAJL�A c7k ic N ADDRESS J DAT � o �! 1'' �ifr1i?/I:IP_I►1����%7��r_ Lam' ��JI �Lf.���ji`� • ADDRESS DATE • NAME .DD. DATE ADDRESS /��Z5, DATE a PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). This property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff's department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. If this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. We strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the application (Rezoning #07-02) made by Doris Casey. S�•Clair�d�_ nc, 2z�03 -1� QZ N�11E ADDRESS DATE NAME bty-t-- - NAME ADDRESS tiV1Jr%r✓013 "ti r r- ADDRESS ADDRESS IT/ (Ad ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS — AME 1 ADDRESS N ME ADDRESS N—, - --- AME ADDRESS k[ 3 Y— /3- aLZ DATE 0Z DATE DATE //54-2v Y14 10&; v2 DATE i DATE DATF f - DATE 45 DATE PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). This property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff's department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. If this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. We strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the application (Rezoning n07-02) made by Doris Casey. NAME ADDRESS DATE N�W ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE 4114,21 ITT AMEA ADDRESS ` DATE X�d' /.�Jjj9Ps N4S_ - do( J 1 ADDRESS DATE N NAME �jm 2'u11 L txj_� 13 1) :9 lJ /'1 NAJVfE ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS 9 DATE PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (B2). This property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriffs department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. If this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. We strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the application (Rezoning #07-02) made by Doris Casey. ADDRESS DA NAI&/ °/" - J ADDRESS 0 DATF NAME �T ADDRESS li�r�CI l ADDRESS ADDRESS 7 A l'E DA' g/z©2 ATE DATE PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). This property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff's department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. If this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. We strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the application (Re. ing #07-02=abyDorisCasey. m��\vc- _WC � NAME ADDRESS DATE y� t41C(1V1t e wjy g- c7- U 2 ADDRESS DATE s�� [•sz Mc.C.ts�rr� c�-�''Q' � O2� Na ADDRESS DATE 7- CC, IMAM O ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS �kUb NAME DDRESS - ADDRESS ADDRESS _ 121) "7 15A ZZ.b o -Z 94 TE o ! q `L DAT l� 5T/ , DATE DAT DA ADDRB9S DATE -Z— q -b 3 — 1 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). This property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff's department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. If this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. We strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the application (RAzrnri�ig #07-02) mask by Doi -is Casey. � ' (�(r 7 OfG NAME ADDRESS �s DATE — ooc V ADDRESS VA - NAME ADDRESS _.t. DAT If NAME ADDRESS DATE i6A CALL -\AQ aa.b oa g 4 I o�. NAME ADDRESS DATE N ADDRESS DATE '' q ^ t> 0 2 ADDRESS DATE b Of D / D �� _.. vim w, i✓c ��z �d' - O� a NAME ADDRESS DATE �/U�II/�, / 7-�/ ✓ S6A/ /i2i DOt� j�G�, (�V /N�'i;l�.� 8 — 9 — nZ NAME ADDRESS DATE T / /� ��'.'L GEC✓ Il.� ffOK.Gr.✓�II �Q/`/ v`C/ 8'���' U 2� /N10 ME ADDRESS DATE 1 t3 sts".�(,.) L*, C- 8f „ 6;�L- I'EA'g"HON we, the undersigned residents of' Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres Rom RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). "Phis property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Idemonal Park, front Royal Pile, and Papermill Road. As residents, ive are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (lire, sheriff's department, emergency rescue, etc). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded, Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. if this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. We strongly request that (lie Frederick County Planning Commission deify (he Ipplica(ion (Rezoning H07-02) made by Doris Casey. :� � Oc_.gc�-! So I'1'�-I�ce-1 -br-,___ _ Rttc Uc44 .�, V 4 _ V - G - 0 2 NAIL ADDRESS DATE NAN'IE ADDRESS DATE- L NAX E ADDRESS _ DATE: NAME ADDRESS DATE- 40Y D 26 ZQ_4_:::_ NAME ADDRESS DA 1 L 1\1E ADDRESS( DA l' N � Tn\1C ADDRESS DA'fL N: INII / ADDRESS DATE NAME- ADDRESS DATE MANIC ADDRESS �A"1 PEA-`1'VION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, arc opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning Of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). This property is directly adjacent to S}lenancloah i\icillonal Park, Front Royal Pile, and Papernlill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result III all increased (IClllalld fOl' OUr already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff's department, enlergency rescue, etc.). 2. if this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools arc already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening Of this situation. 4. If this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Profit Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. 7'he residents in tills area are already experiencing a eh -op in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only slake this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. We strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny file application (Rezoning 1107-02) made by Doris Casey. -1-.� z - DA I IJ R I I ADDI Lss AN1 C nDDRF SS DATE �r� Ar 1%/k NA\91 w- ' ADDRESS 61 DATE (AA /uj /I1L ADDRESS / �NAI`9E NA NATv1E C) L(-e- NAME NANIE ADDRESS ADDRESS 386,a vac ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRI Ss 15 /_ ADDRESS k;4"'Z Ay -.>, -), (�- q"s- IJATE g 7 0� DATE - 916 _L___ DATE f -,�- U >~ DATE- DATE DATE PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). This property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff's department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. If this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. We strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the application (Rezoning#07-02) made by Doris Casey. c A,, ,,,,,I_ -1- QlUlaVia- ' /�� '/ GU I a d' l� 4a N ADDRESS DATE t , ADDRESS �f I5�� DATE 1i Ml��11 v0lml )rw NAME ` ADDRESS V V�. , Q DATE' M160 A4K LL ff /Ti NAME ADDRESS DAT) ry(�� c n 1u re, iJ�� 1 �, 1 Y' c Y NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE /1 a Gcd C-1 V1'9 NAME ADDRESS DATE PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). This property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff's department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. If this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. We strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the application (Rezoning 407-02) made by Doris Casey. .a�Z �oz «�io,� Imo._ l;t�.x�.;_uS1-QZ NAIVZE ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS GO ems— [tZ zz6oz1).�TE NAM ADDRESS DATE aogvel AJU- NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS J DATE X0 a NAAE ADDRESS :l DATE U J, n NAME ADDRES IDAfE 6 s� c� F-�%6 °Z N ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS J DATE PETITION We, the undersigned residents of rrederick county, virginia, are opposea to Me appiicauUn SLIUMIiLeu by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). This property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff's department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. If this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. We strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the application (Rezoning #07-02) made by Doi -is Casey. m�U / 6 / S 7 / 1 (4 e F 7-w_ NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRE S DATE . NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE N 1 ADDRESS DATE N ADDRESS DATE NT AD RESS Dc ,ATE% 1S / �Q d v XAME ADDRESS DATE AANffi ./ M, �iCts a� 37 f L f /4 /� // �• "� a - 6 ADDRESS DATE V',�!OC>k, 31`i0�i M,LL ID io 02- NAME ADDRESS DATE PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). This property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff's department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. If this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. We strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the application (Rezoning 907-02) made by Doris Casey. ------- LO NAME ADDRESS DATE . t �, �8 ADDRESS DATE '30S /-/Z, 571/0/d --l— NAAME j/ ADDRESS DATE Peulw 3,�, . if ( lo NAME ADDRESS DATE aM.I U10 I'm lo5 at�>��yD $,/z��� ADDRESS DATE D TE ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS �"/ 7ATE 6L NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE PETITION We, the undersigned residents or rreaericx "UHLy, vn-iiiia, a]U vJJPU�CU LU L„F� aYYi,k,aiiv,i DUV111JLL., by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). This property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff's department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. If this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. We strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the application (Rezoning #07-02) made by Doris Casey. NAME ADDRESS DATE NAADDRESS D TE/ NAME ADDRESS DATE C_ &Y- NAM ADDRESS DATE NA1\2E ADDRESS DATE �l�xcrt. NAME ADDRESS DA E NAME ADDRESS DATE P NJ uMA7 k k I fflb DATE PETITION t \\,c, the undersi ned residents of Frederick COMM',nVirginia arc ilppused to the application submitted _ b�' Doris Casey (Rezoning Al 07-02) requestul`s the rerani11" of 27 acres front Ri\ (Rural ;lrcas) to ' Residential Performa lice, and 3.31 acres fr0rll RA to Business Gc11(21, Periclrnlance (132). I his propel-t\' is directly adjacent to Sticnandoah i\Ienlorlal Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. AS residents, \ve are concerned that: 1. Ifthis request is `ranted it \\'ill result in an increased Cleillalld 101 l)UI' ;llleadj' 0\'C'rbUrdeiled publlC ser\.ices (lire. sherift's department, emergency rescue, etc.). ?. if this request is granted, it Will result in increased propert\' la\CS to pay f I the ser\ ices pro\ idCci to the residents of the proposed SubdiVision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already 0\'ercrowdcd. Addlllolml homes \\'ill lead to I'urther O\CI'CrO\Vd'I)L, a11d \\'0I-SCillllg 01 th'S SItU111011. 4. if this request is granted, there Will he increased tral'lic on 1-r0nt RO\ al Pike and all adjacent roads -I-here is rlothinL, in the rerOning request that'lddre>SCS this. i. 1 he resicents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since se\ Oral subdivisions have been connected to the plain line. \nilther subdivision \\-ill only make thi. situation \\arse. Further, we are concerned about the Mliklbilit�' ul \\atcr for the l'uture. We stroll<-ly request that the Frederick County Plannin Commission den ' the ,Ipplic•;Itiun ,(Rezonin<g'f07-02) made by Doris Case}•. �Z(/2 \AAN-1E ;1DDRESS \ANIE 1DDRI,SS 71 ADDRESS DATE Z��a NXIME ADDRESS D 1 I E N IME ADDRI SS DATE .\DDRf;SS,;;-2 7 7 4_6 2-, 0/ \MIME i � r�:11)1)RESS ---- DATE_ DATFi / DAIL- \.1\IE :\DI�RI:SS NANII :\DDRI1SS D:11 E PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). This property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff's department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. if this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the fixture. Ale strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the application (Rezoning 807-02) made by Doris Casey. ^NAME ^ / � ADDRESS � I DATE l�7 N NAME NA ME NAME CA�i ADY�FS7_ ADDRESS ADDRESS ADD ASS ADDRESS 114ce—, ADDRESS J<4 DATE C4> DATE G C2 _ DATE .'//�� DATE o� DATE DATE._ DATE PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning 11 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres fi-om RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). This properly is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff's department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. if this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of Neater for- the future. `j'e strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the lP1)1ication (Rezoning,107-02) made by Doris Casey. NAME ADDRESS DATE NAN ADDRESS DATE . �Ile 2- NAME ADDRESS DATE NpM p�ft��� ADDRESS DATE N ADDRESS DATE _001- 4E ADDRESS DATE � 1 AME _ ADDRESS ` DATE —�--a-- DATE NAME ADDRESS 5 f Gti© p y l Cii NAME ADDRESS DA"rE __.__..cx NAME ADDRESS DATE PETITION \\'e, the undcrsignecl residents of Frederick County, Virginia, arc clpposecl to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning fl 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres From RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). 'I•his property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Iron( Royal Pile, and Papernull Road. As residents, we are concerned that: I. ll'this recluest is granted, it will result in an increased cicnlanci 1()r our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff's department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this reclucst is granted it will result in increased properly taxes to pay tot' the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools arc already ovcrc.owftd. Additional homes will lead to further ovcrcrowdlllg alld wol-sciling of this situation. 4. 11,11iis request is granted, there will be increased traffic on I-.ront Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in file I,Czoning request that addresses this. S. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions llave beell connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make (Ills situation worse. further, we arc concCl I about the availability of wale(' for file fillurc. We strongly reduesl that tile. Frederick County PhInning Commission dell) (he applica(ioll (Rezoning 1107-02) ninde by Doris (-',Iscy. NAME' AD1)RI3SS DATI 3 AI I, ADDRI SS DA'I'f o NAI\'1P ADI)RI SS DATE 0-'— NAME. AA -A AM13 ADDRF'SS Au1)RISS Id 1 DA'I l_; CSC A/ OL�2 DAT1 DATF' 1 L(2 NAi\1L AI)DItLSS DATF NAN, ADDRI SS DA'i'I NA ,� ADDRESS DA I L c NAM� AI)DRLSS PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). This property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff's depaiiment, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. If this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions leave been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. We strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the application (Rezoning 907-02) made by Doris Casey. ADDRESS DATE &/wf 3 c5 Z— >\:��1E .ADDRESS DATE \.A,N1E ADDRESS DA 1 E gon i\AN1E ADDRESS `L tT9 E 1 AME DRESS DATE NiWE ADDRESS DATE ��� � � ,��� � �-►� w � as � v �- \:��IE ADDRESS DATE 06 Pa,jiY& oe C n . Il i tn�•�les4 e r�U A a ac�a N.."IE ADDRESS DATE we%tJi ✓�C�s ��� (% aid, N"A. IE ADDRESS DATE PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). This property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff's department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. If this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. We strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the application (Rezoning #07-02) made by Donis Casey. &_elxib 66r- A/A )&Z� NAME ADDRESS DATE r1ce G S T /e<�P/C &, .2o2 66z- NAME ADDRESS DATE y/s Se ^ e2re i ui.�/e- aV. y 09- 93"H 'ADDRESS e 2 sef ,U,�O,'le DATE :S cf 9 -o 9-- ADDRESS DATE 1(mulfZ - 9' -00 NAME ovADDRESS DATE �'0/0_2A )M 13 NAME r ADDRESS DATE � Z��7 Jmen 4J, ADDRESS DATE Aet, n J VA ;L?(,o.� 4410o' ADDRESS DATE - lok Cod4k- 60,4c A 2 z (oo r 6242- JqAM:E ADDRESS DATE I dald J-E2�jcd Rc- J)R ZZ AME ADDRESS DATE PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). This property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff's department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. If this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. We strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the application ( ning #07-02) made by Doris Casey. 0-%A6 �- C NAME ADDRESS i----�=-` 1 In C DATE NAME ADDRESS �� U7 D./\TE NAME ADDRESS � DATE ADDRESS DATE (lam ADDRESS DATE NAME �)� �_ �_ d ADDRESS DATE fa /60 1 1 �� ,tee da - 1(9'Oa N ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE � leD9 a iyc S , Pcheshr ADDRESS 0 a DATE NAME ADDRESS -.. DATE PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). This property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff s department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. If this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. We strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the application (Rezoning #07-0 made by Doris Casey. AME ADDRESS D E NXME ADDRESS DATE A T���sT ME ADDRESS DATE Y .z;-/ k.1u �✓ram �1 . -Zz�_ �7� Z— NAME ADDRESS DATE We V, I"A Im C'oo ioicTf/ CT sT �/f�✓1 ��ry,. j/% Z26_ NAME ADDRESS DATE f—Li, Or rv,4t)m ADDRESS DATE /At4 c C < < L( z ( C{ NPAE ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE &4, r, ax Z L ( 1, 0 -a, e2 N ADDRESS DATE Z1-0-4W19V%J 91d NA 1E ADDRESS DATE PETITION NVe, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). This property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff's department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased propeily taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. If this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. �1,c strongly reyucst that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the application (R('zon' g W-02) made b Doris Casey. 1 NA1v1E- - - A DRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE . NAME ADDRESS _ DATE NAME/ IAllllIEJJ lif" n 64J�2& Gdf'�C � � /'fa fKdn /" 4 yo L � r/� f// 6 /o Z AME N ADDRESS ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME U' v ADDRESS NAME _s �. - -- -/__ i_::: �;_ ADDRESS DATE rya-. ._._ DATE a;11 DATE DATE !Ill.,-,�',► : /j7� PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). This property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff's department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to finther overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. If this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. We. strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the application (Rezoning #07-02) made by Doi -is Casey. �e 9 9 12uaAar NAME A ADDRESS DATE N 1 NAME �E ' �.� S tn,' -..I a V1 l NAME q�� 'AME NAME NAME lrvsnw Locl Owl ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS �- ADDRE S ,nc F AbM�Ess 1, -s C WSJ°' ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS 9// 7 -i?/2 DATE �71 Cl DATE CclNi�6i� �,� �2bnZ DATE t -f - C) �_ DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (B2). This property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriffs department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. If this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. We strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the application (Rezoning #07-02) made by Doris Casey. NAME. ADDRESS • MW NAME AftRESS�• 1 v i,r NAME ADDRESS bATE 1 NAME '--)kDDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE PU;`ITl'ION \Ve, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (I32). `Phis property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff's department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. lfthis request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. ji'e strongly request that the Frederick County 11huming Commission deny the application ezoning #07-02) made by Doris Casey. AME AD1)RESS DA' E AMF ADDRESS DATE 16 Ida, h nDD�SATE _�U &) UutA c V 203 8� I NAME NAME NAME NAI\1E NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS -S- IS-bZ DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE _ I PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). Tllis property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff's department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. If this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. We strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the application (Rezoning H07 04 made by Doris Casey. �- ADDRESS h' /� — © a-- NAME ADDRESS DATE �3s� L G_szr 1�a, Z Z 6 3 7- J? "/ o'b O� NAMF ADDRESS DATE 10,356,4 7�— NAME ADDRESS DATE 7'lS� U� NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME - ADDRESS �._ DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS I91S1510 NAME ADDRES S DATE J PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (B2). This property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff's department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. If this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. We strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the application (Rezoning #07-02) made by Doris Casey. �U i.WWA�lu NAME -f NAME 11 H.UL I�r, J J ADDRESS / ADDRESS ADDRESS 7if It ' ADDRESS ADDRESS DATE A L L-7 J DATE DATE r S a%1 D � ATE DATE ' DATE Pd. Qk1T(-V-4 le z DATE 4A ;W— DATE Z I n kz PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). This property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. If this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff's department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. If this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. We strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the application (Rezoning #07-02) made by Doris Casey. )'-� W - '30 LL I, �a --t 0 �- NAME ADDRESS D. E _ tSD C.le47 -7 q NAME ADDRESS DA E ��, 11 � �i� s 1 . N' )Tip, NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE PETITION t We, the undersigned residents of Frederick County, Virginia, are opposed to the application submitted by Doris Casey (Rezoning # 07-02) requesting the rezoning of 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Residential Performance, and 3.31 acres from RA to Business General Performance (132). This property is directly adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, Front Royal Pike, and Papermill Road. As residents, we are concerned that: 1. if this request is granted, it will result in an increased demand for our already overburdened public services (fire, sheriff's department, emergency rescue, etc.). 2. If this request is granted, it will result in increased property taxes to pay for the services provided to the residents of the proposed subdivision. 3. Frederick County Schools are already overcrowded. Additional homes will lead to further overcrowding and worsening of this situation. 4. If this request is granted, there will be increased traffic on Front Royal Pike and all adjacent roads. There is nothing in the rezoning request that addresses this. 5. The residents in this area are already experiencing a drop in their water pressure since several subdivisions have been connected to the main line. Another subdivision will only make this situation worse. Further, we are concerned about the availability of water for the future. We strongly request that the Frederick County Planning Commission deny the application (Rezoning #07-02) made by Doris Casey. NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS 4X'a_ ldl��e_ �Leil� DATE i % ',- I- .l ,= - r DATE DATE I i k qhtl( q, &f&LWd_ 00 N MeNA-P ADDRESS DATE I 1 ..�� I . n r �:� I. W Y o, DATE X 101 0-04Y !V Q g �jS -7 7 5.' C L d-' b 6 tl (2a'2 -) % J' 0 1 D NAME ADDRESS DATE 21f, NAME ADDRESS i/'U /a"Z' DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE Caste Rezon/n5 AQk A cis 4 .7 / t O, q 01 0 � tic,) 1 C,=A n-)cc� ���Art I V t J jI �__ W]log, AN URGENT MESSAGE FOR RESIDENTS ALONG THE RT. 522 CORRIDOR • The Frederick County Planning Commission recently approved an application for a 30-acre, 70 home subdivision in your area. This development borders Shenandoah Memorial Park on Rt. 522 South. The Public Hearing Rezoning is this Wednesday. • This developer is proffering $5,475 per lot to mitigate the impacts of his development on schools, parks, fire and rescue, library, sheriffs' office. The current impact fee has been calculated at $9,155. He should increase his proffer an additional $3,680 per lot. This is one reason your taxes may go up $.34 or 56% next year. This development will add 35 to 49 new students to a "near or exceeding design capacity" for our current school system. • VDOT says this development will have a "significant measurable impact on Rt. 522". This development will add 670 additional vehicle trips per day. The developer should have to upgrade Papermill Road as a secondary entrance and exit road. This would give traffic access to a traffic light onto Rt. 522. This traffic should not be allowed to go through existing neighborhoods. • This project has one entrance and exit only. There is an emergency access road through a designated wetland area. Emergency Services resources say they do not like this type of access road because they are not adequately maintained and accessible when needed, and cars park there on a regular basis. • 77% of the soil on this site is silt loam having a "high water table limiting soil for community development". Why allow development where inadequate drainage and potential frost limitations will occur? • The Casey Property opens the door to an even larger development planned for the adjoining Swisher tract to its north and west. WHAT CAN YOU DO? • VOTE IN THE NEXT ELECTION FOR SUPERVISORS WHO CARE ABOUT OUR COUNTY AND OUR HOMES • CALL YOUR SUPERVISOR AND'TELL HIM YOU OPPOSE THIS PROJECT AND WILL BE WATCHING HIS ACTIONS — CALL ALL SUPERVISORS IF TIME PERMITS, ATTEND THE MEETINGS AND/OR SPEAK OUT • WRITE LETTERS TO THE EDITORS AND CALL AND EDUCATE FRIENDS AND NEIGI-IBORS ABOUT THIS BAD PROJECT BRING SPRAWL TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOODS • VOLUNTEER TO HELP VOTERS TO STOP SPRAWL (CALL 888-0209, OR 869-8691) • DONATE TO VOTERS TO STOP SPRAWL SO WE CAN GET THE ANTI -SPRAWL MESSAGE OUT. SEND CONTRIBUTIONS TO: TREASURER — VSS, P.O. BOX 2491, WINCHESTER, VA 22604, • IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE NOTIFIED OF SIGNI ICANT MEETINGS AND VOTES WHERE YOUR PRESENCE WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE, PLEASE CALL 888-0209 OR 869-8691. VOTERS TO STOP SPRAWL is a non -partisan Political Action Committee of Frederick County residents that believe that overly rapid, poorly planned and uncontrolled residential growth, or SPRAWL, is harmful and costly to our tax base, our environment and our way of life. We are not politicians nor do we seek gain of any kind. We work only for the betterment of our community. Authorized and paid for by Voters to Stop Sprawl of Frederick County (VSS), PACK VA-01-028. Contributions to V S S are not tax deduetible. Fw: Rezoning or Doris Cascy Property next to Shenandoah Memorial Park10 40 Subject: Fw: Rezoning of Doris Casey Pi-operty next to Shenandoah Nlemorial Park Date: Mon, 1 1 Nov 2002 13:27: l2 -0500 F►-om: "bdodd" <bdodd@visuallink.com> To: <rschicklc@shcntcl.nct>, <ctanncr@co.frcdcrick.va.LIS>, <bosltyler@yahoo.com>, <bobsagcr@shcntcl.nct>, <SrcycS@V1Sual1lnk.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: bdodd To: rschickle(o-)shentel.net ; ctanner@co.frederick.va.us ; bosltyler@yahoo.com ; bobsager .shentel.net ; sreyes(.visuallink.com ; Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 7:36 PM Subject: Rezoning of Doris Casey Property next to Shenandoah Memorial Park Mr. Chairman and Board Members I am Brenda Dodd,a resident of Westwood Drive. The Planning Commission, at the meeting of Nov 6, voted to allow rezoning of the 30 acres of land adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, This property belongs to Doris Casey. As a resident of Westwood Drive, I would like to express my disappointment with the decision of the Commission. The original plans called for Westwood Drive to be used as an access way to the development. Greenway was sent back to propose plans for an access not using Westwood Drive. They did as the Commission requested but all that was really accomplished was a temporary solution for using Westwood. 20 acres adjoining the Casey property is owned by Swisher and has access to Westwood. Greenway simply placed a temporary cul-de-sac at the connection site of the 2 properties until the Swisher property comes up for rezoning. This process is already underway. Irregardless of the access to Westwood, there are other issues that need to be addressed. This is a relatively small parcel of land to be developed but by allowing this development there is a domino effect to the adjoining properties that do not have access to state maintained road. These 30 acres (70 houses) will easily become 50 plus acres to be developed. There is the issue of water and the apparent lack of. As I know you are aware, we have to purchase water from the City of Winchester now. I feel, as do many of the residents of Frederick County, the water situation should be resolved before any more developments are approved. Also, as I know you are aware, there is a major traffic problem along 522 South. It is a heavily traveled area used by many tractor -trailers since the drivers are no longer allowed to use Rt. 50 to Rt. 17 over to 166. Many times the drivers using 522 are avoiding the scales on 181 due to the fact that they are over state weight regulations. These drivers, unfortunately, travel at high rates of speed on many occasions, in excess of 65 mph. The time it takes to turn left onto 522 South heading toward Winchester is at times excessive. The property owners from Red Fox Run are using the center turn lane as an lane to advance into traffic if they are turning left and heading toward Paper Mill Road. I do not feel any consideration has been given to the fact that a new school is proposed less than 1/2 mile from this property and the increased school bus traffic this will cause. There is also the additional burden on the schools. The children in this development would attend James Wood Middle which is over capacity and will be another 2 to 3 years before it can accommodate the current student population. There is also the additional tax burden on the residents of Frederick County. Taxes are having to be raised now to properly take care of the current residents of the county. t\%: Reioning of Doris Casey Property next to Shenandoah fvlemorial Park is 0 I realize the property owner has a right to dispose of her property as she so chooses but I also feel the rights of the neighboring properties and people, some of whom have lived in this area for as long as 40 years should be considered also. I know that growth is inevitable but I feel the county should be allowed to "catch up" with the building projects already on the books. I am requesting that you consider this matter carefully when it comes before you on Dec 11. Thank you. Brenda Dodd August 9, 2002 Frederick County Planning Commission 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Commission Members: As evidenced by our presence and strong opposition at the hearing on July 1, 2002, regarding Rezoning 907-02 of Doris F. Casey, we are again appealing to the Commission Members regarding this rezoning. To reiterate, our concerns are as follows: (1) If this housing development comes to fruition, and if the entrance continues to be from Rt. 522 connecting to Westwood Drive, this action would be extremely detrimental to the residents of this area. There are only 15 houses on this road, occupied mainly by senior citizens, some of who have been here for almost 40 years. Why destroy the character of the entire neighborhood in order to benefit one or two individuals? The additional traffic from 63 housing units would significantly affect our way of life as far as noise control and safety (construction traffic, large trucks, etc.) are concerned. In addition, by widening Westwood Drive, utility poles, a fire hydrant, mailboxes, fences, etc., would have to be removed and/or replaced, whatever the case may be. Some residents would also lose a considerable amount of yard frontage rendering these homes very close to the road. If the developer has the entrance off Papermill Road, this will not adversely affect any human being or any one else's property; just the adjustment of widening the road, etc. (2) Additionally, there are 20 acres at the end of Westwood Drive privately owned by Claudia Swisher and part of this acreage has already been zoned residential. This, along with the proposed rezoning of 27+ acres behind Westwood Drive, could possibly lead to an estimated 120+ homes. Various properties are experiencing flooding during heavy rains and additional housing would adversely affect the natural drainage. As we all know, our roads and schools are already overcrowded, water and water pressure is a constant issue in the county, and taxes will have to be raised to compensate for the increased population. (3) With regard to this development adjacent to Shenandoah Memorial Park, the proposal is to have a buffer of trees only between the gravesites and the houses. Some of us, being property owners of cemetery property, as well as residents of Westwood Drive, do not want children playing on top of our burial sites or riding over them with bicycles, scooters, skate boards, etc. TREES ARE NOT GOING TO PREVENT THE CEMETERY FROM BECOMING A NEARBY PLAYGROUND. Fencing the perimeter of the development would help prevent any misuse of the cemetery. Perhaps, before a final decision is made by the Commission Members, an on -site visit would help you understand our concerns. Any resident of Westwood Drive/Circle would be more than happy to accommodate you through our area. Sincerely, Residents of Westwood Subdivision: Mr. & Mrs. Allen Wingfield, 122 Westwood Dr. Mrs. Barbara Kern, 136 Westwood Dr. Mr. & Mrs. Jeffrey Dodd, 155 Westwood Dr. Mr. & Mrs. Robert Largent, 141 Westwood Dr. Mr. & Mrs. Dean Arbuthnot, 150 Westwood Dr. Mrs. Barbara Midkiff, 179 Westwood Dr. Mr. Michael Brooks, 187 Westwood Dr. Mr. & Mrs. John Anderson, 197 Westwood Dr. Mr. Maurice Oats, 202 Westwood Drive Mr. & Mrs. Robert Detlefsen, 207 Westwood Dr. Mr. & Mrs. John Driver, 112 Westwood Circle Ms. Judy Morrison, 117 Westwood Circle Mr. Carl Bayliss, Sr., 125 Westwood Circle Mr. & Mrs. William Jackson, 132 Westwood Circle Mr. Robert Van & Mrs. Ann Cross, 1170 Front Royal Pike Note: A copy of this letter has been sent to the Commission Office in Winchester, as well as an individual copy to each member's residence. f] - E-0, F V N 1E,D AUG I � 200z DEPT. OF PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT • Frederick County Planning Commission 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Va. 22601 Dear Commission Members It was with dismay that we learned from a neighbor that a developer is going to put a major access road through our small residential area. This is to be done by widening Westwood Drive. The area to be developed is 30 acres. There is an additional adjoining 20 acres to be developed. It does not make sense to disturb an existing comfortable community, nor is it safe to have traffic from the development exiting on Rt. 522. Traffic is rapidly increasing on Rt 522. With the planned businesses and housing along South 522, traffic will continue to grow. It is more logical to move the traffic to the Icss-traveled Papermill Road. The land owner should have the right to sell her land; the developer should have the right to make a profit. But, the Planning Commission should ensure that the citizens of the county (who pay for infrastructure to support the developers) will not be hurt. Respectiiilly, / �Iohn Lq iver (/ 112 Westwood Circle Carol W Driver` 112 Westwood Circle Winchester, Va. 22602 cc; Indi I DEVELOPMENT — AT WHAT COST? As a resident and tax payer of Frederick County, Virginia for over 20 years, I'm very disturbed by the direction our planning and re --zoning- commissions seem to be headed. One of the considerations for re -locating here was the rural atmosphere and attitudes. That wholesome feeling seems to be rapidly disappearing. Upon attending the Re -Zoning Board meeting of July 1,2002, that f6eiing has intensified! I came away with the distinct impression that many of our Board Members want to re -zone and develop property to become a satellite community of D.C. or Baltimore, regardless of the impact on the current residents and their life styles.While, I am not anti -growth, it's my opinion that more consideration should be given on the impact this over development is having on our community. If the statistics provided at the July 1,2002 meeting are accurate,we are already OVER EXTENDED and that doesn't include the 1300+ houses already approved and awaiting construction! Too much traffic,over —crowded schools,insufficient public services and personnel, low water pressure, accelerating taxes and the list goes on! Describes conditions of our more populace northern citieslls that what we really want for NVINCBESTER? In addition to the over -development, have we become so greedy,zealous and indifferent that we now sacrifice our sacred grounds? Case in point---SI3ENANDOA-I MEMORIAL GARDENS. Can you imagine having a.business adjacent to the cemetery? Can you hear the chin —chino, of gas pumps,the honk -honk of cars or the blaring of loud speakers asking if you'd like something else to go with that 47 Combo? Can you pictLire having over 60 houses crowded on that same location? Or how about children and pets playing, riding their bicycles over the graves, cars driving through, drug deals or beer and alcohol containers littering those same graves? Oh yes, there could well be a buffer of earthworks and trees to diminish the blight! Would you want your loved ones buried there? Attend a funeral? Why not just have a free-for-all??? The thought sickens me! Call me old fashioned, but, I was taught to have respect for our dead! ! Let's not overlook the fact that the developer would also like to use 522 South as an entry to this menagerie and link -up with Westwood Drive (currently a dead- end) instead of the less congested Papermill Road. Would that have any thing to do with the water and sewer lines already in place on 522 South and VDOT is not interested in financing and improving Papermill Road? Personally, the developer's net profit isn't my concern! Supposedly, again figures presented at the meeting, only an additional 25 cars would be added to the area. STRANGE ---If statistics are correct: Each household has an average of 2.5 automobiles and 2.7 children. Guess there's a new math! Already, it often takes 10 or more minutes to make a left or right hand turn onto 522 and VDOT has no plans to install additional traffic lights in this area. If this link -up to Westwood Drive is successfiul, what happens to the 20 acres of undeveloped land just north of Westwood Drive? It too, can be developed and part of that acreage has already been re -zoned. Where are the streets for it and who's going to pay for it? Our taxes are already high enough! Another more personal concern that affects my opposition to the above plan ------ If the proposed development is approved, not only would there be a negative impact on 522 South: Every residence in the quiet neighborhood of Westwood will be adversely affected. Why isn't it OUR BUSINESS to be notified and our concerns seriously considered when it's our property and lives being disrupted? We have no desire to become a "trans-sitional' neighborhood repeating the long and hard wore necessary to accomplish what we already have- A lovely, quiet and well maintained area of primarily retired persons that hope to spend our remaining years here. Personally, I feel the language of the law for notification has been used to circumvent our awareness and involvement! In all fairness to free enterprise, I have tried to find just one good reason for this particular pacel on the agenda for re -zoning and development would be "for the good of the community" and its residents. Thus far, it's been unsuccessful! Surely, if it's so .important--oAevb-1ep every piece of empty space- There is something more dignified aanst opriat r this properly! Please consider the huge impact on all of us before reid:erkg a decision on this matter and on future proposals. All concerned citizens are urged to attend the next meeting tentatively sche for August 21, 2002 at the County Building on Kent Street or contact the - ZONING BOARD AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. Thank You, Judith Morrison Westwood Circle Frederick County, Va. r= NED j�EpT, OF ?LAN'PIG 91ELO?P" ENl11 August 6, 2002 Greenway Engineering Attn: Evan Wyatt 151 Windy Hill Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 Dear Mr. Wyatt: My wife and I own lots 9 and 10 located on Westwood Circle in Westwood subdivision. We have been informed that your firm is seeking rezoning of some of the farmland located above and behind our property, on behalf of your client, Doris F. Casey. We wish to make you aware of a very serious surface water drainage problem caused by surface water from some of the land you wish to have rezoned. At this time, this water has no place to go except, across our back yard and septic field area. The drainage ditch originally constructed by the developer to handle surface water runoff from the adjoining property is currently clogged up with silt, dirt, weeds and other debris. For your information, this drainage ditch was originally constructed in the late 1960,s, at the direction of Mrs. Pauline Goode, the developer. Its purpose was to keep surface water drainage from her adjoining property from flooding the back yards and septic field areas of homes constructed on lots 7, 8, 9 and 10, on Westwood Circle. Enclosed is a map showing the location of this existing clogged up drainage ditch. Mrs. Goode arranged for the maintenance of this drainage ditch while she was alive. Following the death of Mrs. Goode, Claudia Swisher, granddaughter and owner, of the adjoining property on which the drainage ditch is located, has refused our repeated written and verbal requests to allow us to maintain and keep the drainage ditch clean, at no cost to her and her family. Whenever we have a hard rain or thunderstorm, our back yard and septic field area is flooded with surface water runoff from the adjoining property. The planned construction of streets and houses on the rezoned property, and the resultant loss of natural ground cover to help hold and absorb the increased surface water runoff, will make our present flooding and potential health problems much worse. We also have serious safety concerns about the large volume of traffic that will be generated by the construction of streets and houses on the Casey and Swisher properties, if Westwood Drive is the planned route for this traffic to reach U. S. Route 522. We understand that Mrs. Swisher has a conditional sales contract on her property. Has any consideration been given to having access to the rezoned property from U. S. Route 522 or Papermill Road? Westwood Drive and Grindstone Drive intersect U. S. Route 522 at the same location. Has any provision been made for a traffic control signal at this location? We must object to Mrs. Casey's rezoning request at this time. To lengthen and widen Westwood Drive will create to many safety and health problems for current residents of Westwood. We shall look forward to hearing from you regarding your thoughts about a solution to keeping surface water drainage from the adjoining Swisher property from flooding our backyard and septic field area. The existing drainage ditch could be cleaned and maintained. Sincerely, PAl � Jl E. Bayliss, Sr. 1 Cc: Virginia Department of Highways Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development Doris F. Casey Legal Counsel N17-01 1;f.PT. OF PLANNING!DEVROPMEN i ' t - ,• .yY �°raj `�"t' h ��'��s 1 • Zcr 45 in IA' 85 ` 13. 0 OO/ �26• ta] Q a 6 01 0 S► 05 E :� R-50` /=rw>• a WESTWOOD CIRCLE ";� 0.:, 150.01 to w y o n o �' in14 13to' 0 -15 f ' CD O 1 CD y Z 2 0' DRL1 N 0 10 Q 4 01 �, ►14.a' es.o ga.5 as a �, -" 5 1 ° 03' 5 ! 17 E S 1 °0-2,► I50'4' 'W f �o BUTLER RINKER RUSSELL - A ELrz 4.1 La 0 � i 2 N O cs !1 O + ;� ! oo,� 1 SCALE IN FEET •a Wm �! FINAL PLAT GTION '�A„ „ V: c ST WOc�o _j � MRS. PA,IJ•.rlN•FOOQ_ w - i ABOUT 3 MILES SOUTH OF R. IN CPEQUON DISTRICT. <,IJ!7FJL f ` I27 a p_ti o r. Q62 RICHARD U. GOODE , C.L." APPROVED By'. WINCHESTE F • : se• 5 COUNTY i�EALTN DEQ W Rt 3 r, SANITARIAN ui HEALTH DIRECTOR • �i 50Y' .N APPROVED BY . VA_ DEPT. OF HIGHW -. DEVELOPMENT — AT WHAT COST? As a resident and tax payer of Frederick County, Virginia for over 20 years, I'm very disturbed by the direction our planning and re -zoning. commissions seem to be headed. One of the considerations for re -locating here was the rural atmosphere and attitudes. That wholesome feeling seems to be rapidly disappearing. Upon attending the Re -Zoning Board meeting of July 1,2002, that feeling has intensified! I came away with the distinct impression that many of our Board Members want to re -zone and develop property to become a satellite community of D.C. or Baltimore, regardless of the impact on the current residents and their life styles.While, I am not anti -growth, it's my opinion that more consideration should be given on the impact this over development is having on our community. If the statistics provided at the July 1,2002 meeting are accurate,we are already OVER -EXTENDED and that doesn't include the 1300+ houses already approved and awaiting construction! Too much traffic,over —crowded schools, insufficient public services and personnel, low water pressure, accelerating taxes and the list goes on! Describes conditions of our more populace northern cities! Is that what we really want for WINCHESTER? In addition to the over -development, have we become so greedy,zealous and indifferent that we now sacrifice our sacred grounds? Case in point --- SHENANDOAH MEMORIAL GARDENS. Can you imagine having a.business adjacent to the cemetery? Can you hear the ching-ching of gas pumps,the honk -honk of cars or the blaring of loud speakers asking if you'd like something else to go with that 47 Combo? Can you picture having over 60 houses crowded on that same location? Or how about children and pets playing, riding their bicycles over the graves, cars driving through, drug deals or beer and alcohol containers littering those same graves? Oh yes, there could well be a buffer of earthworks and trees to diminish the blight! Would you want your loved ones buried there? Attend a fiuneral? Why not just have a free-for-all??? The thought sickens me! Call me old fashioned, but, I was taught to have respect for our dead!! Let's not overlook the fact that the developer would also like to use 522 South as an entry to this menagerie and link -up with Westwood Drive (currently a dead- end) instead of the less congested Papermill Road. Would that have any thing to do with the water and sewer lines already in place on 522 South and VDOT is not interested in financing and improving Papermill Road? Personally, the developer's net profit isn't my concern! Supposedly, again figures presented at the meeting, only an additional 25 cars would be added to the area. STRANGE ---If statistics are correct: Each household has an average of 2.5 automobiles and 2.7 children. Guess there's a new math! Already, it often takes 10 or more minutes to make a left or right hand turn onto 522 and VDOT has no plans to install additional traffic lights in this area. If this link -up to Westwood Drive is successful, what happens to the 20 acres of undeveloped land just north of Westwood Drive? It too, can be developed and part of that acreage has already been re -zoned. Where are the streets for it and who's going to pay for it? Our taxes are already high enough! Another more personal concern that affects my opposition to the above plan ------ If the proposed development is approved, not only would there be a negative r-M r CEFZ/CTARLEM (CEFPROZI L)ZSpngx � cod s f- 46 Yll � (z -k, . -T-)ct,�ot �c, �,) oc.ot,ADo/� CEFZ/CSUSPE E2-P049L-5-00 (C E F P R 0 Z I L) impact on 522 South: Every residence in the quiet neighborhood of Westwood will be adversely affected. Why isn't it OUR BUSINESS to be notified and our concerns seriously considered when it's our property and lives being disrupted? We have no desire to become a "trans-sitional' neighborhood repeating the long and hard work necessary to accomplish what we already have- A lovely, quiet and well maintained area of primarily retired persons that hope to spend our remaining years here. Personally, I feel the language of the law for notification has been used to circumvent our awareness and involvement! In all fairness to free enterprise , I have tried to find just one good reason for this particular parcel on the agenda for re -zoning and development would be "for the good of the community" and its residents. Thus far, it's been unsuccessful! Surely, if it's so important -to Jedd4op every piece of empty space- There is something more dignified and -Appropriate -for this property! Please consider the huge impact on all of us before rendering a decision on this matter and on future proposals. All concerned citizens are urged to attend the next meeting tentatively sched;uW for August 21, 2002 at the County Building on Kent Street or contact the RE- ZONING BOARD AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. Thank You, Judith Morrison Westwood Circle Frederick County, Va. .JGO�"1007. D)RT, OF PIA,` NG,1DEV&OPP"4EMl 6 • DEVELOPMENT — AT WHAT COST? As a resident and tax payer of Frederick County, Virginia for over 20 years, I'm very disturbed by the direction our planning and re -zoning, commissions seem to be headed. One of the considerations for re -locating here was the rural atmosphere and attitudes. That wholesome feeling seems to be rapidly disappearing. Upon attending the Re -Zoning Board meeting of July 1,2002, that feeling has intensified! I came away with the distinct impression that many of our Board Members want to re -zone and develop property to become a satellite community of D.C. or Baltimore, regardless of the impact on the current residents and their life styles.While, I am not anti -growth, it's my opinion that more consideration should be given on the impact this over development is having on our community. If the statistics provided at the July 1,2002 meeting are accurate,we are already OVER -EXTENDED and that doesn't include the 1300+ houses already approved and awaiting construction! Too much traffic,over --crowded schools,insuffzcient public services and personnel, low water pressure, accelerating taxes and the list goes on! Describes conditions of our more populace northern cities!Is that what we really want for WINCHESTER? In addition to the over -development, have we become so greedy,zealous and indifferent that we now sacrifice our sacred grounds? Case in point --- SHHENNANDOAH MEMORIAL GARDENS. Can you imagine having a.business adjacent to the cemetery? Can you hear the chines Ching of gas pumps,the honk -honk of cars or the blaring of loud speakers asking if you'd like something else to go with that 47 Combo? Can you picture having over 60 houses crowded on that same location? Or how about children and pets playing, riding their bicycles over the graves, cars driving through, drug deals or beer and alcohol containers littering those same graves? Oh yes, there could well be a buffer of earthworks and trees to diminish the blight! Would you want your loved ones buried there? Attend a funeral? Why not just have a free-for-all??? The thought sickens me! Call me old fashioned, but, I was taught to have respect for our dead! i Let's not overlook the fact that the developer would also like to use 522 South as an entry to this menagerie and link -up with Westwood Drive (currently a dead- end) instead of the less congested Papermill Road. Would that have any thing to do with the water and sewer lines already in place on 522 South and VDOT is not interested in financing and improving Papermill Road? Personally, the developer's net profit isn't my concern! Supposedly, again figures presented at the meeting, only an additional 25 cars would be added to the area. STRANGE ---If statistics are correct: Each household has an average of 2.5 automobiles and 2.7 children. Guess there's a new math! Already, it often takes 10 or more minutes to make a left or right hand turn onto 522 and VDOT has no plans to install additional traffic lights in this area. If this link -up to Westwood Drive is successfiil, what happens to the 20 acres of undeveloped land just north of Westwood Drive? It too, can be developed and part of that acreage has already been re -zoned. Where are the streets for it and who's going to pay for it? Our taxes are already high enough! Another more personal concern that affects my opposition to the above plan ------ If the proposed development is approved, not only would there be a negative impact on 522 South: Every residence in the quiet neighborhood of Westwood will be adversely affected. Why isn't it OUR BUSINESS to be notified and our concerns seriously considered when it's our property and lives being disrupted? We have no desire to become a "trans-sitional' neighborhood repeating the long and hard work necessary to accomplish what we already have- A lovely, quiet and well maintained area of primarily retired persons that hope to spend our remaining years here. Personally, I feel the language of the law for notification has been used to circumvent our awareness and involvement! In all fairness to free enterprise , I have tried to find just one good reason for this particular parcel on the agenda for re -zoning and development would be "for the good of the community" and its residents. Thus far, it's been unsuccessful! Surely, if it's so important-to4evemp every piece of empty space- There is something more dignified andt,appropriaie-for this property! Please consider the huge impact on all of us before reiicleg a decision on this matter and on future proposals. All concerned citizens are urged to attend the next meeting tentatively scd�lo d for August 21, 2002 at the County Building on Kent Street or contact the RE- .Z(G BOARD AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. Thank You, Judith Morrison Westwood Circle Frederick County, Va. N .JG 0 Z002 iOFPT. OF PL*\nNGMEV&ORAE�1T August 6, 2002 Greenway Engineering Attn: Evan Wyatt 151 Windy Hill Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 Dear Mr. Wyatt: My wife and I own lots 9 and 10 located on Westwood Circle in Westwood subdivision. We have been informed that your firm is seeking rezoning of some of the farmland located above and behind our property, on behalf of your client, Doris F. Casey. We wish to make you aware of a very serious surface water drainage problem caused by surface water from some of the land you wish to have rezoned. At this time, this water has no place to go except, across our back yard and septic field area. The drainage ditch originally constructed by the developer to handle surface water runoff from the adjoining property is currently clogged up with silt, dirt, weeds and other debris. For your information, this drainage ditch was originally constructed in the late 1960,s, at the direction of Mrs. Pauline Goode, the developer. Its purpose was to keep surface water drainage from her adjoining property from flooding the back yards and septic field areas of homes constructed on lots 7, 8, 9 and 10, on Westwood Circle. Enclosed is a map showing the location of this existing clogged up drainage ditch. Mrs. Goode arranged for the maintenance of this drainage ditch while she was alive. Following the death of Mrs. Goode, Claudia Swisher, granddaughter and owner, of the adjoining property on which the drainage ditch is located, has refused our repeated written and verbal requests to allow us to maintain and keep the drainage ditch clean, at no cost to her and her family. Whenever we have a hard rain or thunderstorm, our back yard and septic field area is flooded with surface water runoff fi•om the adjoining property. The planned construction of streets and houses on the rezoned property, and the resultant loss of natural ground cover to help hold and absorb the increased surface water runoff, will make our present flooding and potential health problems much worse. We also have serious safety concerns about the large volume of traffic that will be generated by the construction of streets and houses on the Casey and Swisher properties, if Westwood Drive is the planned route for this traffic to reach U. S. Route 522. We understand that Mrs. Swisher has a conditional sales contract on her property. Has any consideration been given to having access to the rezoned property from U. S. Route 522 or Papermill Road? Westwood Drive and Grindstone Drive intersect U. S. Route 522 at the same location. Has any provision been made for a traffic control signal at this location? We must object to Mrs. Casey's rezoning request at this time. To lengthen and widen Westwood Drive will create to many safety and health problems for current residents of Westwood. We shall look forward to hearing from you regarding your thoughts about a solution to keeping surface water drainage from the adjoining Swisher property from flooding our backyard and septic field area. The existing drainage ditch could be cleaned and maintained. Sincerely, Oar Bayliss, Sr&�')" Cc: Virginia Department of Highways Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development Doris F. Casey Legal Counsel ,"'G. ,IT i , OF f�U�i�1�II�G'�EVEl.OP14C=1� i PP�P� �. is y • �� . rM,� - y , ,r lief I ZW A 169.4' v_ oY, • r IE .00 o si 100.0' A of p S 1 05 E j, R=50 I Al a W E ST W OOD CIRCLE � c r N- Q S11•II.W l �W NI°05'W 'a ui a, C t t> {SO.p' r 65.0' —--8S-0'— 41. '9� b� 4,40 • c>7 41 o ; { ► I t' w -15 '^ t 4 13 ° 12 v ` 1 � a , O U,^ _� l�, co _ r' rAlk o .>' v► _ Z _ 20' Z DRAINAGE _Z - .UM 4 o f 3 la! 114. 4' 8 5. 0' 6 8. 5' 45.0 107 S{1 T of S 19 05 11 IN' S 10 17 E S 10024! W • a v '� 150.0' i v © ` BUTLER " RINKER RUSSELL. El S Z t^ h Q $ r° N $ r %n N O Site r) 1 Ai Q ', •' ; a W W SCALE I N FEET •,. s tj FINAL PLAT '{ •� "' OF 49 SECTION A Y.ESTwOt U " a . -' MRS. PALI! INE, FOOD- x i .�► w � fx , ABOUT 3 MILES SOUTH OF ER' IN CPEQUON DISTRICT 1200-11 o 1962 RICHARD U. G ODE . C,L S. . + _ 8 Y . WINCHESTER - F'REDEA1 , +23 + APPROVED COUNTY HEAL �ER.T. 3 rR c SANITARIAN t r a= - O • u% 0 I x 4 a4din 1 HEALTH DIRECTOR A ry 50' p w - APPROVED BY. VA. DEPT. OF HIG �d D. ,GA V w r �r • k August 6, 2002 Greenway Engineering Attn: Evan Wyatt 151 Windy Hill Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 Dear Mr. Wyatt: My wife and I own lots 9 and 10 located on Westwood Circle in Westwood subdivision. We have been informed that your firm is seeking rezoning of some of the farmland located above and behind our property, on behalf of your client, Doris F. Casey. We wish to make you aware of a very serious surface water drainage problem caused by surface water from some of the land you wish to have rezoned. At this time, this water has no place to go except, across our back yard and septic field area. The drainage ditch originally constructed by the developer to handle surface water runoff from the adjoining property is currently clogged up with silt, dirt, weeds and other debris. For your information, this drainage ditch was originally constructed in the late 1960,s, at the direction of Mrs. Pauline Goode, the developer. Its purpose was to keep surface water drainage from her adjoining property from flooding the back yards and septic field areas of homes constructed on lots 7, 8, 9 and 10, on Westwood Circle. Enclosed is a map showing the location of this existing clogged up drainage ditch. Mrs. Goode arranged for the maintenance of this drainage ditch while she was alive. Following the death of Mrs. Goode, Claudia Swisher, granddaughter and owner, of the adjoining property on which the drainage ditch is located, has refused our repeated written and verbal requests to allow us to maintain and keep the drainage ditch clean, at no cost to her and her family. Whenever we have a hard rain or thunderstorm, our back yard and septic field area is flooded with surface water runoff from the adjoining property. The planned construction of streets and houses on the rezoned property, and the resultant loss of natural ground cover to help hold and absorb the increased surface water runoff, will make our present flooding and potential health problems much worse. We also have serious safety concerns about the large volume of traffic that will be generated by the construction of streets and houses on the Casey and Swisher properties, if Westwood Drive is the planned route for this traffic to reach U. S. Route 522. We understand that Mrs. Swisher has a conditional sales contract on her property. Has any consideration been given to having access to the rezoned property from U. S. Route 522 or Papermill Road? Westwood Drive and Grindstone Drive intersect U. S. Route 522 at the same location. Has any provision been made for a traffic control signal at this location? We must object to Mrs. Casey's rezoning request at this time. To lengthen and widen Westwood Drive will create to many safety and health problems for current residents of Westwood. We shall look forward to hearing from you regarding your thoughts about a solution to keeping surface water drainage from the adjoining Swisher property from flooding our backyard and septic field area. The existing drainage ditch could be cleaned and maintained. Sincerely, �artff(�Bayh.sss, SrtL�GC��/skit . Cc: Virginia Department of Highways Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development Doris F. Casey Legal Counsel L.-PT, OF PLMININDEVR-OPMEN i r e . , 70.E I •r - 3' 109.4 '. `' �H� LINE o a` y a to z 'cit , , ' N ka30� ens , -i: e 2w1 `� ;�• _ o si IOOA' 65. ` ! 0A �2 w a 6 of G St 05 E w! a WEST WOOD CIRCLE J Sit* `j N 1 ° 0 5' W / / o 150.p' J — 85.o' — -- 85.0'— 41.0 '° o W y c o c S t lot,, to; 15 h 14 m � 13 °� °.� 12 _ 0 a f 50• p , o 'n �' Q 4 o! 3 4.1 114 . a' e s. o' a a. 5 45. r oco Z'DRAINAGE o r • <: Sl1•11'!jr S 1°05, 5! 17 E St°.0?` qt w 30. < 1'50•0' � BUTLER' RINKER RUSSELL ELSE 0 Silcl!'W + 3 !� �SCALE ,IN FEET _ . � � S o 0 ►. � v - •.mot a~*� ti' FINAL PLAT SECTION „A„ „ V.ESTWOOD o x;' PARS. PAU;.1N-• -a - i ABOUT 3 MILES SOUTH OF r,• rYj +� ER IN CPEQUON DISTRICT., s t 27 b o`ti o 1962 RICHARD U. GQ00E . C.L 5. !2� 5 APPROVED BY: WINGHESTE FREDERI COUNTY HEALTi DEP.seo .T�,�}ky z 3 r. cr SANITARIAN tea. f,: •=,r, .. O 0 it TOR HEALTH DIREC r 11t 50' o .. N APPROVED By YA. DEPT. OF HIGHWAY ` z • K GAULDEN • JR. V + ." . r- n n t• r, " , ! /` /1 ' t7 r1 A '1 !1 i DEVELOPMENT — AT WHAT COST? As a resident and tax payer of Frederick County, Virginia for over 20 years, I'm very disturbed by the direction our planning and rezoning. commissions seem to be headed. One of the considerations for re -locating here was the rural atmosphere and attitudes. That wholesome feeling seems to be rapidly disappearing. Upon attending the Re -Zoning Board meeting of July 1,2002, that feeling has intensified! I came away with the distinct impression that many of our Board Members want to re -zone and develop property to become a satellite community of D.C. or Baltimore, regardless of the impact on the current residents and their life styles.While, I am not anti -growth, it's my opinion that more consideration should be given on the impact this over development is having on our community. If the statistics provided at the July 1,2002 meeting are accurate,we are already OVER -EXTENDED and that doesn't include the 1300+ houses already approved and awaiting construction! Too much traffic,over —crowded schools,insuffccient public services and personnel, low water pressure, accelerating taxes and the list goes on! Describes conditions of our more populace northern cities!Is that what we really want for WINCBESTER? In addition to the over -development, have we become so greedy,zealous and indifferent that we now sacrifice our sacred grounds? Case in point --- S i1Ar]DOAH MEMORIAL, GARDENS. Can you imagine having a.business adjacent to the cemetery? Can you hear the ching-ching of gas pumps,the honk -hone of cars or the blaring of loud speakers asking if you'd like something else to go viith that 47 Combo? Can you picture having over 60 houses crowded on that same location? Or how about children and pets playing, riding their bicycles over the graves, cars driving through, drug deals or beer and alcohol containers littering those same graves? Oh yes, there could well be a buffer of earthworks and trees to diminish the blight! Would you want your loved ones buried there? Attend a funeral? Why not just have a free-for-all??? The thought sickens me! Call me old fashioned, but, I was taught to have respect for our dead! ! Let's not overlook the fact that the developer would also like to use 522 South as an entry to this menagerie and link -up with Westwood Drive (currently a dead- end) instead of the less congested Papermill Road. Would that have any thing to do with the water and sewer lines already in place on 522 South and VDOT is not interested in financing and improving Papermill Road? Personally, the developer's net profit isn't my concern! Supposedly, again figures presented at the meeting, only an additional 25 cars would be added to the area. STRANGE ---If statistics are correct: Each household has an average of 2.5 automobiles and 2.7 children. Guess there's a new math! Already, it often takes 10 or more minutes to make a left or right hand turn onto 522 and VDOT has no plans to install additional traffic lights in this area. If this link -up to Westwood Drive is successful, what happens to the 20 acres of undeveloped land just north of Westwood Drive? It too, can be developed and part of that acreage has already been re -zoned. Where are the streets for it and who's going to pay for it? Our taxes are already high enough! Another more personal concern that affects my opposition to the above plan ------ If the proposed development is approved, not only would there be a negative 0 0 impact on 522 South: Every residence in the quiet neighborhood of Westwood will be adversely affected. V1ny isn't it OUR BUSINESS to be notified and our concerns seriously considered when it's our property and lives being disrupted? We have no desire to become a "trans-sitional' neighborhood repeating the long and hard work necessary to accomplish what we already have- A lovely, quiet and well maintained area of primarily retired persons that hope to spend our remaining years here. Personally, I feel the language of the law for notification has been used to circumvent our awareness and involvement! In all fairness to free enterprise , I have tried to fiend just one good reason for this particular parcel on the agenda for re -zoning and development would be `Tor the goad ofthe community" and its residents. Thaas far, it's been unsuccessful! Surely, if it's so .hmpottsnt-to4evaW every piece of empty space- There is something more dignified anAL,appanpriate-kr this property! Please consider the huge impact on all of us before redg a decision on this matter and on future proposals. All concerned citizens are urged to attend the next meeting tentatively sc�dpled for August 21, 2002 at the County Building on Dent Street or contact the RE- ZONING BOARD AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. Thank You, Judith Morrison Westwood Circle Frederick County, Ala. ti ED , JG 0 2002 )FPi. OF Pw�l�Ilh!ri�=rl�LOP�,IFP1T DEVELOPMENT — AT WHAT COST? As a resident and tax payer of Frederick County, Virginia for over 20 years, I'm very disturbed by the direction our planning and rzp--zoning, commissions seem to be headed. One of the considerations for re -locating here was the rural atmosphere and attitudes. That wholesome feeling seems to be rapidly disappearing. Upon attending the Re -Zoning Board meeting of July 1,2002, that feeling has intensified! I came away with the distinct impression that many of our Board Members want to re -zone and develop property to become a satellite community of D.C. or Baltimore, regardless of the impact on the current residents and their life styles.While, I am not anti -growth, it's my opinion that more consideration should be given on the impact this over development is having on our community. If the statistics provided at the July 1,2002 meeting are accurate,we are already OVER -EXTENDED and that doesn't include the 1300+ houses already approved and awaiting construction! Too much traffic,over —crowded schools,insufficient public services and personnel, low water pressure,accelerating taxes and the list goes on! Describes conditions of our more populace northern cities! Is that what we really want for WINCBESTER? In addition to the over -development, have we became so greedy,zealous and indifferent that we now sacrifice our sacred grounds? Case in point --- SEENAXDOAH MEMORIAL GARDENS. Can you imagine having a.business adjacent to the cemetery? Can you hear the chino-ching of gas pumps,the honk -honk of cars or the blaring of loud speakers asking if you'd life something else to go with that 47 Combo? Can you picture having over 60 houses crowded on that same location? Or how about children and pets playing, riding their bicycles over the graves, cars driving through, drug deals or beer and alcohol containers littering those same graves? Oh yes, there could well be a buffer of earthworks and trees to diminish the blight! Would you want your loved ones buried there? Attend a funeral? Why not just have a free-for-allV? The thought sickens me! Call me old fashioned, but, I was taught to have respect for our dead! ! Let's not overlook the fact that the developer would also like to use 522 South as an entry to this menagerie and link -up with Westwood Drive (currently a dead- end) instead of the less congested Papermill Road. Would that have any thing to do with the water and sewer lines already in place on 522 South and VDOT is not interested in financing and improving Papermill Road? Personally, the developer's net profit isn't my concern! Supposedly, again figures presented at the meeting, only an additional 25 cars would be added to the area. STRANGE ---If statistics are correct: Each household has an average of 2.5 automobiles and 2.7 children. Guess there's a new math! Already, it often takes 10 or more minutes to make a left or right hand turn onto 522 and VDOT has no plans to install additional traffic lights in this area. If this link -up to Westwood Drive is successful, what happens to the 20 acres of undeveloped land just north of Westwood Drive? It too, can be developed and part of that acreage has already been re -zoned. Where are the streets for it and who's going to pay for it? Our taxes are already high enough! Another more personal concern that affects my opposition to the above plan ------ If the proposed development is approved, not only would there be a negative 0 • impact on 522 South.: ]Every residence in the quiet neighborhood of Westwood will be adversely affected. W'hy isn't it OUR BUSINESS to be notified and our concerns seriously considered when it's our property and lives being disrupted? We have no desire to become a "trans-sitional' neighborhood repeating the long and hard work necessary to accomplish what we already have- A lovely, quiet and well maintained area of primarily retired persons that hope to spend our remaining years here. Personally, I feel the language of the law for notification has been used to circumvent our awareness and involvement! In all fairness to free enterprise , I have tried to find just one good reason for this particular parcel on the agenda for re -zoning and development would be "for the good of the community" and its residents. Thus far, it's been unsuccessful! Surely, if it's so .imporfmt-lo4ev&p every piece of empty space- There is something more dignified an(t,ap,propriata-kr this property! Please consider the huge impact on all of us before reisie Mg a decision on this matter and on future proposals. All concerned citizens are urged to attend the next meeting tentatively sch! dO,u ed for August 21, 2002 at the County Building on Dent Street or contact the IE- Z IG BOARD AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. Thank You, Judith Morrison Westwood Circle Frederick County, Va. gFPT, OF P��Ii ll�lG!CE�IELOP�,�Ci 1T 0 DEVELOPTIVIENT T — AT WHAT COST? As a resident and tax payer of Frederick County, Virginia for over 20 years, I'm very disturbed by the direction our planning and rezoning_ commissions seem to be headed. One of the considerations for re -locating here was the rural atmosphere and attitudes. That wholesome feeling seems to be rapidly disappearing. Upon attending the Re -Zoning Board meeting of July 1,2002, that feeling has intensified! I came away with the distinct impression that many of our Board Members want to re -zone and develop property to become a satellite community of D.C. or Baltimore, regardless of the impact on the current residents and their life styles. While, I am not anti -growth, it's my opinion that more consideration should be given on the impact this over development is having on our community. If the statistics provided at the July 1,2002 meeting are accurate,we are already OVER -EXTENDED and that doesn't include the 1300+ houses already approved and awaiting construction! Too much traffic,over —crowded schools,insuffcient public services and personnel, low water pressure,accelerating taxes and the list goes on! Describes conditions of our more populace northern cities!Is that what we really want for WINCHESTER? In addition to the over -development, have we became so greedy,zealous and indifferent that we now sacrifice our sacred grounds? Case in point --- SHENAI"tDOAH MEMORIAL GARDENS. Can you imagine having a.business adjacent to the cemetery? Can you hear the chin- ching of gas pumps,the honk -honk of cars or the blaring of loud speakers asking if you'd like something else to go with that 47 Combo? Can you picture having over 60 houses crowded on that same location? Or how about children and pets playing, riding their bicycles over the graves, cars driving through, drug deals or beer and alcohol containers littering those same graves? Oh yes, there could well be a buffer of earthworks and trees to diminish the blight! Would you want your loved ones buried there? Attend a funeral? Why not just have a free-for-allV? The thought sickens me! Call me old fashioned, but, I was taught to have respect for our dead!! Let's not overlook the fact that the developer would also like to use 522 South as an entry to this menagerie and link -up with Westwood Drive (currently a dead- end) instead of the less congested Papermill Road. Would that have any thing to do with the water and sewer lines already in place on 522 South and VDOT is not interested in financing and improving Papermill Road? Personally, the developer's net profit isn't my concern! Supposedly, again figures presented at the meeting, only an additional 25 cars would be added to the area. STRANGE ---If statistics are correct: Each household has an average of 2.5 automobiles and 2.7 children. Guess there's a new math! Already, it often takes 10 or more minutes to make a left or right hand turn onto 522 and VDOT has no plans to install additional traffic lights in this area. If this linkup to Westwood Drive is successful, what happens to the 20 acres of undeveloped land just north of Westwood Drive? It too, can be developed and part of that acreage has already been re -zoned. Where are the streets for it and who's going to pay for it? Our taxes are already high enough! Another more personal concern that affects my opposition to the above plan ------ If the proposed development is approved, not only would there be a negative impact on 522 South: Every residence in the quiet neighborhood of Westwood wM be adversely affected. A.May isn't it OUR BUSINESS to be notified and our concerns seriously considered when it's our property and lives being disrupted? We have no desire to become a "trans-sitional' neighborhood repeating the long and hard work necessary to accomplish what we already have- A lovely, quiet and well maintained area of primarily retired persons that hope to spend our remaining years here. Personally, I feel the language ofthe law for notification has been used to circurmrent our awareness and involvement! In all fairness to free enterprise , I have tried to find just one good reason for this particular pawel on the agenda for re -zoning and development would be "for the good of the comity" and its residents. Thaws far, it's been unsuccessful! Surely, if it's so .in tto Javb&p every piece of empty space- There is something more dignified an&,appropriate-'fiar this property! Please consider the huge impact on all of us before raiidefmg a decision on this matter and on faaturz proposals. All concerned citizens are urged to attend the next meeting tentatively sc dpW for August 21, 2002 at the County Building on Dent Street or contact the RE- ZONING BOARD AND BOAID OF SUPERVISORS. Thank You, Judith Morrison Westwood Circle Frederick County, Ala. G' D, NE OFPT, OF PLl��1� ili�lGlC�yPLOP1i�Fi`1T DEVELOPIVIENT — AT WHAT COST? As a resident and tax payer of Frederick County, Virginia for over 20 years, I'm very disturbed by the direction our planning and ram -zoning commissions seem to be headed. One of the considerations for re -locating here was the rural atmosphere and attitudes. That wholesome feeling seems to be rapidly disappearing. Upon attending the Re -Zoning Board meeting of July 1,2002, that feeling has intensified! I came away with the distinct impression that many of our Board Members want to re -zone and develop property to become a satellite community of D.C. or Baltimore, regardless of the impact on the current residents and their life styles. While, I am not anti growth, it's my opinion that more consideration should be given on the impact this over development is having on our community. If the statistics provided at the July 1,2002 meeting are accurate,we are already OVER -EXTENDED and that doesn't include the 1300+ houses already approved and awaiting construction! Too much traffic,over —crowded schools,insufficient public services and personnel, low water pressure, accelerating taxes and the list goes on! Describes conditions of our more populace northern cities! Is that what we really want for WINCBESTER? In addition to the over -development, have we become so greedy,zealous and indifferent that we now sacrifice our sacred grounds? Case in point --- SI-E1VANDOAH MEMORIAL GARDENS. Can you imagine having a.business adjacent to the cemetery? Can you hear the chin;-ching of gas pumps,the honk -honk of cars or the blaring of loud speakers asking if you'd like something else to go with that 47 Combo? Can you picture having over 60 houses crowded on that same location? Or how about children and pets playing, riding their bicycles over the graves, cars driving through, drug deals or beer and alcohol containers littering those same graves? Oh yes, there could well be a buffer of earthworks and trees to diminish the blight! Would you want your loved ones buried there? Attend a funeral? Why not Just have a free-for-all??? The thought sickens me! Call me old fashioned, but, I was taught to have respect for our dead! ! Let's not overlook the fact that the developer would also like to use 522 South as an entry to this menagerie and link -up with Westwood Drive (currently a dead- end) instead of the less congested Papermill Road. Would that have any thing to do with the water and sewer lines already in place on 522 South and VDOT is not interested in financing and improving Papermill Road? Personally, the developer's net profit isn't my concern! Supposedly, again figures presented at the meeting, only an additional 25 cars would be added to the area. STRANGE ---If statistics are correct: Each household has an average of 2.5 automobiles and 2.7 children. Guess there's a new math! Already, it often takes 10 or more minutes to make a left or right hand turn onto 522 and VDOT has no plans to install additional traffic lights in this area. If this link -up to Westwood Drive is successful, what happens to the 20 acres of undeveloped land just north of Westwood Drive? It too, can be developed and part of that acreage has already been re -zoned. Where are the streets for it and who's going to pay for it? Our taxes are already high enough! Another more personal concern that affects my opposition to the above plan ------ If the proposed development is approved, not only would there be a negative impact on 522 South: Every residence in the quiet neighborhood of Westwood will be adversely affected. Vihy isn't it OUR BUSINESS to be notified and our concerns seriously considered when it's our property and lives being disrupted? We have no desire to become a "trans-sitional' neighborhood repeating the long and hard work necessary to accomplish what we already have- A. lovely, quiet and well maintained area of primarily retired persons that hope to spud our remaining years here. Personally, I feel the language of the lave for notification has been used to circumvent our awareness and involvement! In all fairness to free enterprise, I have tried to find just one good reason for this particular parcel on the agenda for re -zoning and development would be "for the goad of the community" and its residents. Thaws far, it's been unsuccessful! Surely, if it's so .impoAant-Io ZevaW every piece of empty space- There is something more dignified an&,appropri ' r this property! Please consider the huge impact on all of us before reidering a decision on this matter and on future proposals. All concerned citizens are urged to attend the next meeting tentatively scl d W for August 21, 2002 at the County Building on Dent Street or contact the RE- ZONING BOARD AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. Thank You, Judith Morrison Wesh-vood Circle Frederick County, Va. ..JGC)2OE �)FP i . OF PL��Ii;I�1GICE IELOP�;i�PIC DEVELOPiV1ENT — AT WHAT COST? As a resident and tax payer of Frederick County, Virginia for over 20 years, I'm very disturbed by the direction our planning and re -zoning. commissions seem to be headed. One of the considerations for re -locating here was the rural atmosphere and attitudes. That wholesome feeling seems to be rapidly disappearing. Upon attending the Re -Zoning Board meeting of July 1,2002, that feeling has intensified! I came away with the distinct impression that many of our Board Members want to re -zone and develop property to become a satellite community of D.C. or Baltimore, regardless of the impact on the current residents and their life styles.While, I am not anti -growth, it's my opinion that more consideration should be given on the impact this over development is having on our community. If the statistics provided at the July 1,2002 meeting are accurate,we are already OVER -EXTENDED and that doesn't include the 1300+ houses already approved and awaiting construction! Too much traffic,over —crowded schools,insuffzcient public services and personnel, low water pressure, accelerating taxes and the list goes on! Describes conditions of our more populace northern cities!Is that what we really want for WINCBESTER? In addition to the over -development, have we become so greedy,zealous and indifferent that we now sacrifice our sacred grounds? Case in point---SHENAIKDOAH MEMORIAL GARDENS. Can you imagine hawing a.business adjacent to the cemetery? Can you hear the chino ching of gas pumps,the honk -honk of cars or the blaring of loud speakers asking if you'd like something else to go with that 47 Combo? Can you picture having over 60 houses crowded on that same location? Or how about children and pets playing, riding their bicycles over the graves, cars driving through, drug deals or beer and alcohol containers littering those same graves? Oh yes, there could well be a buffer of earthworks and trees to diminish the blight! Would you want your loved ones buried there? Attend a funeral? Why not just have a free-for-all??? The thought sickens me! Call me old fashioned, but, I was taught to have respect for our dead!! Let's not overlook the fact that the developer would also like to use 522 South as an entry to this menagerie and link -up with Westwood Drive (currently a dead- end) instead of the less congested Papermill Road. Would that have any thing to do with the water and sewer lines already in place on 522 South and VDOT is not interested in financing and improving Papermill Road? Personally, the developer's net profit isn't my concern! Supposedly, again figures presented at the meeting, only an additional 25 cars would be added to the area. STRANGE ---If statistics are correct: Each household has an average of 2.5 automobiles and 2.7 children. Guess there's a new math! Already, it often takes 10 or more minutes to make a left or right hand turn onto 522 and VDOT has no plans to install additional traffic lights in this area. If this link -up to Westwood Drive is successfiil, what happens to the 20 acres of undeveloped land just north of Westwood Drive? It too, can be developed and part of that acreage has already been re -zoned. Where are the streets for it and who's going to pay for it? Our taxes are already high enough! Another more personal concern that affects my opposition to the above plan ------ If the proposed development is approved, not only would there be a negative impact on 522 South.: Every residence in the quiet neighborhood of WesMaod will b adversely affected. Ifflhy isn't it OUR BUSINESS to be notified and our concerns seriously considered when it's our property and lives being disrupted? We have no desire to become a "trans-sitional' neighborhood repeating the long and hard work necessary to accomplish what we already have- A lovely, quiet and well maintained area of primarily retired persons that hope to spend our remaining years here. Personally, I feel the language ofthe law for notification has been used to circumvent our awareness and involvement! In all fairness to free enterprise, I have tried to find just one good reason for this particular parcel on the agenda for re -zoning and development would be "for the goad of the copy" and its residents. Thus far, it's been unsuccessful! Surely, if it's so t-loAevetp every piece of empty space- There is something more dignified and~, W,opriateikr this property! Please consider the huge impact on all of us before reidg a decision on this roamer and on future proposals. All concerned citizens are urged to attend the next meeting tentatively scle .,duW for August 21, 2002 at the County Building on Dent Street or contact the RE- Z IG BOARD AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. Than?s'You, kdith Morrison Westwood Circle Frederick County, Va. ` tD JG 200E KEPT.OFPLA�Ii!I�IG10EIJMFIN I 0 DEVELOPiVIENT — AT WHAT COST? As a resident and tax payer of Frederick County, Virginia for over 20 years, I'm very disturbed by the direction our planning and re- zoning. commissions seem to be -headed. One ofthe considerations for re -locating here was the rural atmosphere and attitudes. That wholesome feeling seems to be rapidly disappearing. Upon attending the Re -Zoning Board meeting of July 1,2002, that feeling has intensified! I came away with the distinct impression that many of our Board Members want to re -zone and develop property to become a satellite community of D.C. or Baltimore, regardless of the impact on the current residents and their life styles.While, I am not anti -growth, it's my opinion that more consideration should be given on the impact this over development is having on our community. If the statistics provided at the July 1,2002 meeting are accurate,we are already OVER -EXTENDED and that doesn't include the 1300+ houses already approved and awaiting construction! Too much traffic,over —crowded schools,insuffecient public services and personnel, low water pressure,accelerating taxes and the list goes on! Describes conditions of our more populace northern cities!Is that what we really want for WINCBESTER? In addition to the over -development, have we became so greedy,zealous and indifferent that we now sacrifice our sacred grounds? Case in point --- SEENNNDOAU MEMORIAL GARDENS. Can you imagine having a.business adjacent to the cemetery? Can you hear the chin- ching of gas pumps,the honk -honk of cars or the blaring of loud speakers asking if you'd like something else to go with that 47 Combo? Can you picture having over 60 houses crowded on that same location? Or how about children and pets playing, riding their bicycles over the graves, cars driving through, drug deals or beer and alcohol containers littering those same graves? Oh yes, there could well be a buffer of earthworks and trees to diminish the blight! Would you want your loved ones buried there? Altend a funeral? Why not just have a free-for-all??? The thought sickens me! Call me old fashioned, but, I was taught to have respect for our dead! ! Let's not overlook the fact that the developer would also like to use 522 South as an entry to this menagerie and link -up with Westwood Drive (currently a dead- end) instead of the less congested Papermill Road. Would that have any thing to do with the water and sewer lines already in place on 522 South and VDOT is not interested in financing and improving Papermill Road? Personally, the developer's net profit isn't my concem! Supposedly, again figures presented at the meeting, only an additional 25 cars would be added to the area. STRANGE ---If statistics are correct: Each household has an average of 2.5 automobiles and 2.7 children. Guess there's a new math! Already, it often takes 10 or more minutes to make a left or right hand tun onto 522 and VDOT has no plans to install additional traffic lights in this area. If this link -up to Westwood Drive is successfiil, what happens to the 20 acres of undeveloped land just north of Westwood Drive? It too, can be developed and part of that acreage has already been re -zoned. Where are the streets for it and who's going to pay for it? Our taxes are already high enough! Another more personal concern that affects my opposition to the above plan ------ if the proposed development is approved, not only would there be a negative impact on 522 South.: Every residence in the quiet neighborhood of Westwood wiE be adversely affected. Why isn't it OUR BUSINESS to be notified and our concerns seriously considered when it's our property and lives being disrupted? We have no desire to become a "trans-sitional' neighborhood repeating the long and hard work necessary to accomplish what we already have- A lovely, quiet and well maintained area of primarily retired persons that hope to spend our remaining years here. Personally, I feel the language of the law for notification has been used to circumvent our awareness and involvement! In all fairness to free enterprise , I have tried to find just one good reason for this particular parcel on the agenda for re -zoning and development would be `Tor the good of the comet y" and its residents. Thus far, it's been unsuccessful.! Surely, if it's so po-#mt-to Jew p every piece of empty space- There is something more dignified anct,appropriatelkr this property! Please consider the huge impact on all of us before reideg a decision on this matter and on future proposals. All concerned citizens are urged to attend the next meeting tentatively schgo for August 21, 2002 at the County Building on Dent Street or contact the RE- ZONNG BOARD AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. Thank You, Judith Morrison Westwood Circle Frederick County, Va. ..JG 0 20�Z 0FPT, OF pLA�I� lIP1G!CEtiIELOP�.��Pa� DEVELOPiVlENT — AT WHAT COST? As a resident and tax payer of Frederick County, Virginia for over 20 years, I'm very disturbed by the direction our planning and rezoning, commissions seem to be headed. One of the considerations for re -locating here was the rural atmosphere and attitudes. That wholesome feeling seems to be rapidly disappearing. Upon attending the Re -Zoning Board meeting of July 1,2002, that fling has intensified! I came away with the distinct impression that many of our Board Members want to re -zone and develop property to become a satellite community of D.C. or Baltimore, regardless of the impact on the current residents and their life styles.While, I am not anti -growth, it's my opinion that more consideration should be given on the impact this over development is having on our community. If the statistics provided at the July 1,2002 meeting are accurate,we are already OVER -EXTENDED and that doesn't include the 1300+ houses already approved and awaiting construction! Too much traffic,over —crowded schools,insuffecient public services and personnel, low water pressure, accelerating taxes and the list goes on! Describes conditions of our more populace northern cities!Is that what we really want for WINCBESTER? In addition to the over -development, have we become so greedy,zealous and indifferent that we now sacrifice our sacred grounds? Case in point---SlEilA1,TDOAH MEMORIAL GARDENS. Can you imagine having a.business adjacent to the cemetery? Can you hear the Ching -Ching of gas pumps,the honk -honk of cars or the blaring of loud speakers asking if you'd like something else to go with that 47 Combo? Can you picture ha-ving over 60 houses crowded on that same location? Or how about children and pets playing, riding their bicycles over the graves, cars driving through, drug deals or beer and alcohol containers littering those same graves? Oh yes, there could well be a buffer of earthworks and trees to diminish the blight! Would you want your loved ones buried there? Attend a funeral? Why not Just have a free-for-all??? The thought sickens me! Call me old fashioned, but, I was taught to have respect for our dead!! Let's not overlook the fact that the developer would also like to use 522 South as an entry to this menagerie and link -up with Westwood Drive (currently a dead- end) instead of the less congested Papermill Road. Would that have any thing to do with the water and sewer lines already in place on 522 South and VDOT is not interested in financing and improving Papermill Road? Personally, the developer's net profit isn't my concern! Supposedly, again figures presented at the meeting, only an additional 25 cars would be added to the area. STRANGE ---If statistics are correct: Each household has an average of 2.5 automobiles and 2.7 children. Guess there's a new math! Already, it often takes 10 or more minutes to make a left or right hand turn onto 522 and VDOT has no plans to install additional traffic lights in this area. If this link -up to Westwood Drive is successfiil, what happens to the 20 acres of undeveloped land just north of Westwood Drive? It too, can be developed and part of that acreage has already been re -zoned. Where are the streets for it and who's going to pay for it? Our taxes are already high enough! Another more personal concern that affects my opposition to the above plan ------ If the proposed development is approved, not only would there be a negative impact on 522 South: Every residence in the quiet neighborhood of Westwood will be adversely affected. VThy isn't it OUR BUSINESS to be notified and our concerns seriously considered when it's our property and lives being disrupted? We have no desire to become a "trans-sitional' neighborhood repeating the long and hard work necessary to accomplish what we already have A lovely, quiet and well maintained area of primarily retired persons that hope to spend our remaining years here. Personally, I feel the language of the la-, r for notification has been used to circumvent our awareness and involvement! In all fairness to free enterprise, I have tried to find just one good reason for this particular parcel on the agenda for re -zoning and development would be "for the goad of the community" and its residents. Thus far, it's been unsuccessful! Surely, if it's so imp:t-loAcvb-kp every piece of empty space- There is something more dignified anct,aWopriatellbr this property! Please consider the huge impact on all of us before reiide&g a decision on this matter and on future proposals. All concerned citizens are urged to attend the next meeting tentatively scb�dd for August 21, 2002 at the County Building on Dent Street or contact the RE- ZONING r BOARD AND BOARD OF SUPERV SORS. Thank You, Judith Morriscn Westwood Circle Frederick County, Va. AG fl 2flfl2 �)FpT. OF PL�i�lz!!�!G!CE�IELOP�;j�i!� DEVELOPMENT — AT WHAT COST? As a resident and tax payer of Frederick County, Virginia for over 20 years, I'm very disturbed by the direction our planning and re --zoning, commissions seem to be headed. One of the considerations for re -locating here was the rural atmosphere and attitudes. That wholesome feeling seems to be rapidly disappearing. Upon attending the Re -Zoning Board meeting of July 1,2002, that fbelinb has intensified! I came away with the distinct impression that many of our Board Members want to re -zone and develop property to become a satellite community of D.C. or Baltimore, regardless of the impact on the current residents and their life styles.While, I am not anti -growth, it's my opinion that more consideration should be given on the impact this over development is having on our community. If the statistics provided at the July 1,2002 meeting are accurate,we are already OVER EXTENDED and that doesn't include the 1300+ houses already approved and awaiting construction! Too much traffic,over —crowded schools,insufficient public services and personnel, low water pressure, accelerating taxes and the list goes on! Describes conditions of our more populace northern cities! Is that what we really want for WINCBESTER? In addition to the over -development, have we become so greedy,zealous and indifferent that we now sacrifice our sacred grounds? Case in point --- SI3ENAT]DOAH MEMORIAL GARDENS. Can you imagine having a.business adjacent to the cemetery? Can you hear the chin- clung of gas pumps,the honk -honk of cars or the blaring of loud speakers asking if you'd litre something else to go with that #7 Combo? Can you picture having over 60 houses crowded on that same location? Or how about children and pets playing, riding their bicycles over the graves, cars driving through, drug deals or beer and alcohol containers littering those same graves? Oh yes, there could well be a buffer of earthworks and trees to diminish the blight! Would you want your loved ones buried there? Attend a funeral? Why not Just have a free-for-all??? The thought sickens me! Call me old fashioned, but, I was taught to have respect for our dead! ! Let's not overlook the fact that the developer would also like to use 522 South as an entry to this menagerie and link -up with Westwood Drive (currently a dead- end) instead of the less congested Papermill Road. Would that have any thing to do with the water and sewer lines already in place on 522 South and VDOT is not interested in financing and improving Papermill Road? Personally, the developer's net profit isn't my concern! Supposedly, again figures presented at the meeting, only an additional 25 cars would be added to the area. STRANGE ---If statistics are correct: Each household has an average of 2.5 automobiles and 2.7 children. Guess there's a new math! Already, it often takes 10 or more minutes to make a left or right hand turn onto 522 and VDOT has no plans to install additional traffic lights in this area. If this link -up to Westwood Drive is successfiil, what happens to the 20 acres of undeveloped land just north of Westwood Drive? It too, can be developed and part of that acreage has already been re -zoned. Where are the streets for it and who's going to pay for it? Our taxes are already high enough! Another more personal concern that affects my opposition to the above plan ------ If the proposed development is approved, not only would there be a negative impact on 522 South: Every residence in the quiet neighborhood of Westwood will be adversely affected. I.A by isn't it OUR BUSINESS to be notified and our concerns seriously considered when it's our property and lives being disrupted? We have no desire to become a "trans-sitional' neighborhood repeating the long and hard work necessary to accomplish what we already have- A lovely, quiet and well maintained area of primarily retired persons that hope to spend our remaining years here. Personally, I feel the language ofthe law for notification has been used to circumvent our awareness and involvement! In all fairness to free enterprise, I have tried to find just one good reason for this particular parcel on the agenda for re -zoning and development would be `for the good ofthe community" and its residents. Thus far, it's been unsuccessful.! Surely, if it's so important-toAevb-kp every piece of empty space- There is something more dignified an&,appropriate-'&rthis property! Please consider the huge impact on all. of -as before rendering a decision on this matter and on future proposals. All concerned citizens are urged to attend the next meeting tentatively sc d d for August 21, 2002 at the County Building on Dent Street or contact the RE- . ZOWMG BOARD AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. Thank You, Judith Morrison Westwood Circle Frederick Coimvj, Va. ..�JG U � 20� ,)F.PT, OF PLEiN�lI�1GI�E�IEI 0A�1�P1T 0 DEVELOPTVIEhlT — AT WITAT COST? As a resident and tax payer of Frederick County, Virginia for over 20 years, I'm very disturbed by the direction our playing and re -zoning, commissions seem to be headed. One of the considerations for re -locating here was the rural atmosphere and attitudes. That wholesome feeling seems to be rapidly disappearing. Upon attending the Re -Zoning Board meeting of July 1,2002, that feeling has intensified! I came away with the distinct impression that many of our Board Members want to re -zone and develop property to become a satellite community of D.C. or Baltimore, regardless of the impact on the current residents and their life styles.While, I am not anti -growth, it's my opinion that more consideration should be given on the impact this over development is having on our community. If the statistics provided at the July 1,2002 meeting are accurate,we are already OVER -EXTENDED and that doesn't include the 1300+ houses already approved and awaiting construction! Too much traffic,over —crowded schools,insu_fficient public services and personnel, low water pressure,accelerating taxes and the list goes on! Describes conditions of our more populace northern cities!Is that what we really want for WINCHESTER? In addition to the over -development, have we became so greedy,zealous and indifferent that we now sacrifice our sacred grounds? Case in point --- SBENAI*MOAH MEMORIAL GARDENS. Can you imagine having a.business adjacent to the cemetery? Can you hear the ching--ching of gas pumps,the honk -honk of cars or the blaring of loud speakers as',ring if you'd like something else to go with that 47 Combo? Can you picture having over 60 houses crowded on that same location? Or how about children and pets playing, riding their bicycles over the graves, cars driving through, drug deals or beer and alcohol containers littering those same graves? Oh yes, there could well be a buffer of earthworks and trees to diminish the blight! Would you want your loved ones buried there? Attend a funeral? Why not just have a free-for-all??? The thought sickens me! Call me old fashioned, but, I was taught to have respect for our dead!! Let's not overlook the fact that the developer would also like to use 522 South as an entry to this menagerie and link -up with Westwood Drive (currently a dead- end) instead of the less congested Papermill Road. Would that have any thing to do with the water and sewer lines already in place on 522 South and VDOT is not interested in financing and improving Papermill Road? Personally, the developer's net profit isn't my concern! Supposedly, again figures presented at the meeting, only an additional 25 cars would be added to the area. STRANGE ---If statistics are correct: Each household has an average of 2.5 automobiles and 2.7 children. Guess there's a new math! Already, it often takes 10 or more minutes to make a left or right hand turn onto 522 and VDOT has no plans to install additional traffic lights in this area. If this link -up to Westwood Drive is successfiil, what happens to the 20 acres of undeveloped land just north of Westwood Drive? It too, can be developed and part of that acreage has already been re -zoned. Where are the streets for it and who's going to pay for it? Our taxes are already high enough! Another more personal concern that affects my opposition to the above plan ------ If the proposed development is approved, not only would there be a negative impact on. 522 Seth: Every residence in the quiet neighborhood of Westwood will be adversely affected. V%hy isn't it OUR BUSINESS to be -notified and our concerns seriously considered when it's our property and lives being disrupted? We have no desire to become a "trans-sitional' neighborhood repeating the long and hard work necessary to accomplish what we already have- A lovely, quiet and well maintained area of primarily retired persons that hope to spend our remaining years here. Personally, I feel the language of the law for notification has been used to circumvent our awareness and involvement! In all fairness to free enterprise , I have tried to find just one good reason for this particular pawel on the agenda for re -zoning and development would be `Tor the good of the copy" and its residents. Thus far, it's been unsuccessful! Surely, if it's so impoAant-to ZevaW every piece of empty space- There is something more dignified a ,apyr®priate-'&r this property! Please consider the huge impact on all of us before reiderhag a decision on this matter and on fature proposals. All concerned citizens are urged to attend the next meeting tentatively sch.c4jiW for August 21, 2002 at the County Building on Dent Street or contact the RE- ZONING BOARD AND BOAR OF SUPERVISORS. Thank You, Judith Morrison Westwood Circle Frederick County, Va. i EGH'� i�F�T. OF PL��I�dIP!GICEULOP�i1�`!T DEVELOPTIV1ENT — AT WHAT COST? As a resident and tax payer of Frederick County, Virginia for over 20 years, I'm very disturbed by the direction our planning and ram -zoning. commissions seem to be headed. One ofthe considerations for re -locating here was the rural atmosphere and attitudes. That wholesome feeling seems to be rapidly disappearing. Upon attending the Re -Zoning Board meeting of July 1,2002, that feeling has intensified! I came away with the distinct impression that many of our Board Members want to re -zone and develop property to become a satellite community of D.C. or Baltimore, regardless of the impact on the current residents and their life styles. While, I am not anti -growth, it's my opinion that more consideration should be given on the impact this over development is having on our community. If the statistics provided at the July 1,2002 meeting are accurate,we are already OVER -EXTENDED and that doesn't include the 1300+ houses already approved and awaiting construction! Too much traffic,over —crowded schools,insuffcient public services and personnel, low water pressure,accelerating taxes and the list goes on! Describes conditions of our more populace northern cities!Is that what we really want for WINCHESTER? In addition to the over -development, have we became so greedy,zealous and indifferent that we now sacrifice our sacred grounds? Case in point --- Slii AIIIDOAIJ MEMORIAL GARDENS. Can you imagine having a.business adjacent to the cemetery? Can you hear the ching-ching of gas pumps,the honk -honk of cars or the blaring of loud speakers asking if you'd like something else to go with that 47 Combo? Can you picture having over 60 houses crowded on that same location? Or how about children and pets playing, riding their bicycles over the graves, cars driving through, drug deals or beer and alcohol containers littering those same graves? Oh yes, there could well be a buffer of earthworks and trees to diminish the blight! Would you want your loved ones buried there? Attend a funeral? Why not just have a free-for-all??? The thought sickens me! Call me old fashioned, but, I was taught to have respect for our dead!! Let's not overlook the fact that the developer would also like to use 522 South as an entry to this menagerie and link -up with Westwood Drive (currently a dead- end) instead of the less congested Papermill Road. Would that have any thing to do with the water and sewer lines already in place on 522 South and VDOT is not interested in financing and improving Papermill Road? Personally, the developer's net profit isn't my concern! Supposedly, again figures presented at the meeting, only an additional 25 cars would be added to the area. STRANGE ---If statistics are correct: Each household has an average of 2.5 automobiles and 2.7 children. Guess there's a new math! Already, it often takes 10 or more minutes to make a left or right hand turn onto 522 and VDOT has no plans to install additional traffic lights in this area. If this link -up to Westwood Drive is successful, what happens to the 20 acres of undeveloped land just north of Westwood Drive? It too, can be developed and part of that acreage has already been re -zoned. Where are the streets for it and who's going to pay for it? Our taxes are already high enough! Another more personal concern that affects my opposition to the above plan ------ If the proposed development is approved, not only would there be a negative impact on 522 South: Every residence in the quiet neighborhood of Vlestwood will be adversely affected. l by isn't it OUR BUSINESS to be notified and our concerns seriously considered when it's our property and lives being disrupted? We have no desire to become a "trans-sitional' neighborhood repeating the long and hard work necessary to accomplish what we already have- A lovely, quiet and well maintained area of primarily retired persons that hope to spend our remaining years here. Personally, I feel the language of the law for notification has been used to circumvent our awareness and involvement! In all fairness to free enterprise , I have tried to find just one good reason for this particular parcel on the agenda for re -zoning and development would be "for the good of the copy" and its residents. Thus far, it's been unsuccessf-d! Surely, if it's so .importantloevdV every piece of empty space- There is something more dignified anct,aWcpriate-lbr this property! Please consider the huge impact on all of -as before reidg a decision on this matter and on future proposals. All concerned citizens are urged to attend the next meeting tentatively sc ,qj ed for August 21, 2002 at the County Building on Dent Street or contact the RE- ZGNING BOARD AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. Thank You, Judith Monism Westwood Circle Frederick County, "Ia. ��FP I.OF PI�P!� ili�!G!CE�IPLOPit1PP1T 0 0 DEVELOPIMENIT — AT WHAT COST? As a resident and tax payer of Frederick County, Virginia for over 20 years, I'm very disturbed by the direction our planning and re --zoning, commissions seem to be headed. One of the considerations for re -locating here was the rural atmosphere and attitudes. That wholesome feeling seems to be rapidly disappearing. Upon attending the Re -Zoning Board meeting of July 1,2002, that feeling has intensified! I came away with the distinct impression that many of our Board Members want to re -zone and develop property to become a satellite community of D.C. or Baltimore, regardless of the impact on the current residents and their life styles.While, I am not anti -growth, it's my opinion that more consideration should be given on the impact this over development is having on our community. If the statistics provided at the July 1,2002 meeting are accurate,we are already OVEREXTENDED and that doesn't include the 1300+ houses already approved and awaiting construction! Too much traffic,over --crowded schools,insufficient public services and personnel, low water pressure, accelerating taxes and the list goes on! Describes conditions of our more populace northern cities!Is that what we really want for WINCBESTEIi? In addition to the over -development, have we become so greedy,zealous and indifferent that we now sacrifice our sacred grounds? Case in point --- SIM—INA1, DOAH MEMORIAL GARDENS. Can you imagine having a.business adjacent to the cemetery? Can you hear the chino ching of gas pumps,the honk -honk of cars or the blaring of loud speakers asking if you'd like something else to go with that 47 Combo? Can you picture ha Ang over 60 houses crowded on that same location? Or how about children and pets playing, riding their bicycles over the graves, cars driving through, drug deals or beer and alcohol containers littering those same graves? Oh yes, there could well be a buffer of earthworks and trees to diminish the blight! Would you want your loved ones buried there? Attend a funeral? Why not just have a free-for-all??? The thought sickens me! Call me old fashioned, but, I was taught to have respect for our dead!! Let's not overlook the fact that the developer would also like to use 522 South as an entry to this menagerie and link -up with Westwood Drive (currently a dead- end) instead of the less congested Papermill Road. Would that have any thing to do with the water and sewer lines already in place on 522 South and VDOT is not interested in financing and improving Papermill Road? Personally, the developer's net profit isn't my concern! Supposedly, again figures presented at the meeting, only an additional 25 cars would be added to the area. STRANGE ---If statistics are correct: Each household has an average of 2.5 automobiles and 2.7 children. Guess there's a new math! Already, it often takes 10 or more minutes to make a left or right hand turn onto 522 and VDOT has no plans to install additional traffic lights in this area. If this link -up to Westwood Drive is successful what happens to the 20 acres of undeveloped land just north of Westwood Drive? It too, can be developed and part of that acreage has already been re -zoned. Where are the streets for it and who's going to pay for it? Our taxes are already high enough! Another more personal concern that affects my opposition to the above plan ------ If the proposed development is approved, not only would there be a negative w impact on 522 South: Every residence in the quiet neighborhood of Westwood wiH be adversely affected. VI'ny isn't it OUR BUSINESS to be notified and our concerns seriously considered when it's our property and lives being disrupted? We have no desire to become a "trans-sitional' neighborhood repeating the long and hard work necessary to accomplish what we already have- A lovely, quiet and well maintained area of primarily retired persons that hope to spend our remaining years here. Personally, I feel the language ofthe law for notification has been used to circumvent our awareness and involvement! In all fairness to free enterprise, I have tried to find just one gaud reason for this particular panel on the agenda for re -zoning and development would be `Tor the good of the comity" and its residents. Thus far, it's been unsuccessful! Surely, if it's so .impoitmt-1oAevb-k9 every piece of empty space- There is something more dignnified anct,app®pria#s,-�r this property! Please consider the huge impact on all of ins before rei Bering a decision on this matter and on future proposals. All concerned citizens are urged to attend the next meeting tentatively scl ed d for August 21, 2002 at the County Building on Dent Street or contact the RE- Zt�,PING BOARD AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. Thank You, Judith Morrison Westwood Circle Frederick County, Ala. JC ZOE ��FpT.OFPJA\w!I c-,]CE E OPI.IEi1T DEVELOPi✓1ENT - AT WHAT COST? As a resident and tax payer of Frederick County, Virginia for over 20 years, I'm very disturbed by the direction our planning and rezoning_ commissions seem to be headed. One of the considerations for re -locating here was the rural atmosphere and attitudes. That wholesome feeling seems to be rapidly disappearing. Upon attending the Re -Zoning Board meeting of July 1,2002, that feeling has intensified! I came away with the distinct impression that many of our Board Members want to re -zone and develop property to become a satellite community of D.C. or Baltimore, regardless of the impact on the current residents and their life styles.While, I am not anti -growth, it's my opinion that more consideration should be given on the impact this over development is having on our community. If the statistics provided at the July 1,2002 meeting are accurate,we are already OVEREXTENDED and that doesn't include the 1300+ houses already approved and awaiting construction! Too much traffic,over -crowded schools,insufficient public services and personnel, low water pressure, accelerating taxes and the list goes on! Describes conditions of our more populace northern cities! Is that what we really want for WINCHESTER? In addition to the over -development, have we became so greedy,zealous and indifferent'that we now sacrifice our sacred grounds? Case in point --- SITNATlDOAH MEMORIAL GARDENS. Can you imagine having a.business adjacent to the cemetery? Can you hear the ching--ching of gas pumps,the honk -hone of cars or the blaring of loud speakers asking if you'd like something else to go with that 47 Combo? Can you picture having over 60 houses crowded on that same location? Or how about children and pets playing, riding their bicycles over the graves, cars driving through, drug deals or beer and alcohol containers littering those same graves? Oh yes, there could well be a buffer of earthworks and trees to diminish the blight! Would you want your loved ones buried there? Attend a funeral? Why not just have a free-for-all??? The thought sickens me! Call me old fashioned, but, I was taught to have respect for our dead!! Let's not overlook the fact that the developer would also like to use 522 South as an entry to this menagerie and link -up with Westwood Drive (currently a dead- end) instead of the less congested Papermill Road. Would that have any thing to do with the water and sewer lines already in place on 522 South and VDOT is not interested in financing and improving Papermill Road? Personally, the developer's net profit isn't my concern! Supposedly, again figures presented at the meeting, only an additional 25 cars would be added to the area. STRANGE ---If statistics are correct: Each household has an average of 2.5 automobiles and 2.7 children. Guess there's a new math! Already, it often takes 10 or more minutes to make a left or right hand turn onto 522 and VDOT has no plans to install additional traffic lights in this area. If this link -up to Westwood Drive is successK what happens to the 20 acres of undeveloped land just north of Westwood Drive? It too, can be developed and part of that acreage has already been re -zoned. Where are the streets for it and who's going to pay for it? Our taxes are already high enough! Another more personal concern that affects my opposition to the above plan ------ If the proposed development is approved, not only would there be a negative impact on 522 South: ]Every residence in the quiet neighborhood of Westwood will be adversely affected. Why isn't it OUR BUSEgESS to be notified and our concerns seriously considered when it's our property and lives being disrupted? We have no desire to become a "trans-sitional' neighborhood repeating the long and hard work necessary to accomplish what we already have- A lovely, quiet and well maintained area of primarily retired persons that hope to spend our remaining years here. Personally, I feel the language of the law for notification has been used to circumvent our awareness and involvement! In all fair3mess to free enterprise , I have tried to find just one good reason for this particular parcel on the agenda for re -zoning and development would be "for the good of the community" and its residents. Thus far, it's been unsuccessful! Surely, if it's so impo "o every piece of empty space- There is something more dignified an&AjTropriate-ibr this property! Please consider the huge impact on all of ass before reidexing a decision on this matter and on faturz proposals. All concerned citizens are urged to attend the next meeting tentatively schi�djled for August 21, 2002 at the County Building on Dent Street or contact the RE- ZONING BOARD AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. Thank You, Judith Morrison Westwood Circle Frederick County, Va. ED ZOE ..JG U '.) 0E'F, OF pLFitiP11h1GICEVELOP�;1�i lC a �W�W) oa W W trl CL Cr WIN _ 1 1 _ _ •-�:". t.-�1..'ls..a:�::�iL:�4.'iaiii�'�3ti125is ic_a:.:1.'• °°�+�-�r�?i6ra. •...-`t $L �_als[fi���-- y'"+A_..�. _. mean v_f!�.•.. , - - ;i,•..« ..a�:a_i_•Sis�.���e �;`te'�as:i c�akrY�i�f rar,c i ul i • 0 file://U:\Candice\DSCN3323.JPG 11/4/2002 Ce4''- • 0 COUNTY of FREDRRICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 imunr uvioi,sl or PUBLIC. 'WEAkW IG October 23, 2002 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION 807-02 OF DORIS F. CASEY (tabled at the 8/21/02 mtg.) On bchal f of the Frederick County Plalllling Coniiiiissio11, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on November 6, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the board room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 N. Dent Street, Winchester, Virginia. This hearing is to consider Rezoning #07-02 of Doris F. Casey, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 30.31 acres fi-om RA (Rural Areas) to (Residential Performance) District. This property is located approximately 800 feet north of the intersection of Front Royal Pike (Route 522) and Paper Mill Road (Route 644) and is identified with Property Identification Number 64-A-23 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia. Sincerely, Abbe S. Kennet y Senior Planner ASI</cih O Ag-,Ln \J)omcr I.1s17002 Rczonmes 1) ns Crecy wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on l0 — Z 3 - from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 64D - 2- A- 5- 640 - A- - 30- BROOKS, PAUL D. & WILLENE C. CROSS, ANN S 224 QUAIL RUN LN 1170 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.1961 WINCHESTER,VA 22602.4411 64D - 2• A• 6- 64D • A- . 27• ANDERSON, JOHNNY H. MADIGAN, LOUISE CRAIG ETALS 197 WESTWOOD OR WINCHESTER, VA. 22602.4464 1154 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4411 63 • A• - 146- BREEDLOVE, THOMAS W. & MABEL 64D • 2• A- 1- LARGENT, ROBERT M & PATSY 0 3575 PAPERMILL RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4448 141 WESTWOOD DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4464 64D • 1- B• A- 64D - 2- . 2- DETLEFSEN, ROBERT 0. & MILDRED DODD, JEFFREY B & BRENDA S 207 WESTWOOD DR 155 WESTWOOD OR WINCHESTER, VA. 22602.4465 WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4464 64 . A. • 20• �Z1 64D • 2- A• 3- SWISHER, CLAUDIA JEAN MAYHEW, RAYMOND H & E JEAN 116 PINETOP RD 366 SINGHASS RD GORE, VA 22637.2939 WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2137 64D - 2- A• 4- MIDKIFF, BARBARA L 179 WESTWOOD DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4464 Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner l� Frederick County Planning Dept. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK I,�h (inn Na I I , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated . a 3-C)Q , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this a� day of (DojoUw My commission expires on n inn 64 • A• • 23- A ql--- CASEY, F l7L 404 IMPERIAL ST WINCHESTER, VA 22601.4223 ARY PUBLIC Mr. Mark D. Smith, P.L., L.S. Greenway Lngincering 151 Windy Hill Lanc Winchester, VA 22602 1 • 64 - 3- - A- SHENANDOAH MEMORIAL PARK, INC CIO CORNERSTONE FAMILY SERVICE 155 RITTENHOUSE CIR BRISTOL, PA 19007.1617 64 - 3- - A-1 JUCAPA,LC 1600 AMHERST ST WINCHESTER, VA 22601.2805 64 -2- - D2- BUGARSKI, JOSEPH TRUSTOR PO BOX 2791 WINCHESTER, VA 22604.1991 64D - 4- - 1- ELLIOTT, ROBERT P & DOROTHY E 1215 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4425 64D - 4- - 2. 3 `+- 5 FOX, ELWOOD H & TURESSA K 1231 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER,VA 22602.4425 64 - A- - 24- HALDEMAN, PAUL M JR PO BOX 2751 WINCHESTER, VA 22604.1951 _ TO: Barbara in Data Processing P-T ( FROM: Carol - Planning Department Please rint oZ sets of labels b : _ P Y 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Doris F. Casey 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Agriculture RA B) Proposed Use of the Property: Residential RP Business General B2 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 64D- A -30 Single Family Residential RP 64D- A -27 Single Family Residential RP 64D- A -28 Single Family Residential RP 64D- 2 -A-1 Single Family Residential RP 64D- 2 -2 Single Family Residential RP 64D- 2 -A-3 Single Family Residential RP 64D- 2 -A-4 Single Family Residential RP 64D- 2 -A-5 Single Family Residential RP 64D- 2 -A-6 Single Family Residential RP 63- A -146 Single Family Residential RP 64D- 1 -B-A Sin& Family -Residential RP 64- A -20&21 Single Family Residential RP 64- 3 -A Commercial Cemetery 132 64- 3 -A-1 Single Family Residential RP 64- 2 -D2 Restaurant 132 - 64D- 4 -1 Single Family Residential RA 64D- 4 -2 Single Family Residential RA - 64D- 4 -3 Single Family Residential RA 64D- 4 -4 Single Family Residential RA 64D- 4 -5 Single Family Residential RA �--64-((A))-24 ricultural/Undevelo ed RA r, 0,- G4_A-23 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route number): West on Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), approximately 800 ft. north of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 644 (Paper Mill Road). Ll COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 i*407IrICPVION Or PUBLIC 0- t"WRI IG August 8, 2002 TO: THE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS(S) RE: REVISED REZONING APPLICATION 1/07-02 OF DORIS F. CASEY On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on August 21, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the board room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. This hearing is to consider Rezoning #07-02 of Doris F. Casey, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 30.31 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to (Residential Performance) District. This property is located approximately 800 feet north of the intersection of Front Royal Pike (Route 522) and Paper Mill Road (Route 644) and is identified with Property Identification Number 64-A-23 in the Shawnec Magisterial District. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia. Sincerely, Abbe S. Kennedy Senior Planner ASK/ch O \Agcndu\Adjoincr Lm\2002\Rc7onings\Doris Cascy.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on — n 7i- from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 64D - 2- A- 5- BROOKS, PAUL D. & WILLENE C. 64D - A- - 30- ✓ CROSS, ANN S 224 QUAIL RUN LN 1170 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602 1961 WINCHESTER, VA 22602-4411 64D - A- - 27- MADIGAN, LOUISE CRAIG ETALS 1154 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4411 64D - 2- A- 6- ✓ ANDERSON, JOHNNY H. 197 WESTWOOD DR WINCHESTER, VA. 22602.4464 63 A- - 146- BREEDLOVE, THOMAS W. & MABEL 64D - 2- A- 1- LARGENT, ROBERT M & PATSY 0 3575 PAPERMILL RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602-4448 141 WESTWOOD DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4464 64D - 2- - 2 DODD, JEFFREY B & BRENDA S 155 WESTWOOD DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-4464 64D - 2- A- 3- MAYHEW, RAYMOND H & E JEAN 366 SINGHASS RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2137 64D - 2- A- 4. MIDKIFF, BARBARA L 179 WESTWOOD DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4464 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK 640 - 1- B- A- DETLEFSEN, ROBERT 0. & MILDRED 207 WESTWOOD DR WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 4465 Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner Frederick County Planning Dept. I, 6e�h f�nn �AG 11 , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated ` l has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this _ ( day of My commission expires on ��1t'7 q �NARY PUBLIC 64 - A- - 20- SWISHER, CLAUDIA 116 PINETOP RD GORE, VA 22637-2939 64D - A- - 21- MOWERY, RAY A 1134 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602-4411 64 - 3- - A- SHENANDOAH MEMORIAL PARK, INC CIO CORNERSTONE FAMILY SERVICE 155 RITTENHOUSE CIR BRISTOL, PA 19007-1617 64 - 3- - A-1 JUCAPA, LC 1600 AMHERST ST WINCHESTER, VA 22601-2805 64 - 2- - D2- BUGARSKI, JOSEPH TRUSTOR PO BOX 2791 WINCHESTER, VA 22604.1991 64D - 4- - 1- ELLIOTT, ROBERT P & DOROTHY E 1215 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602-4425 64D - 4- - 2-,4-) FOX, ELWOOD H & TURESSA K 1231 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602-4425 64 - A- - 24- HALOEMAN, PAUL M JR PO BOX 2751 WINCHESTER, VA 22604-1951 64 - A- - 23- CASEY, BORISF 404 IMPERIAL ST WINCHESTER, VA 22601-4223 64D - A- - 15- . JACKSON, WILLIAM I. & BETTY J. 132 WESTWOOD CIR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-4461 64D - 2- A- 10-mh4 9 BAYLISS, CARL EUGENE & SARA C. 125 WESTWOOD CIR WINCHESTER, VA. 22602-4461 •64D - 2- A- 13- BROWN, RICKY A & PATSY J CIO ESTATE OF DAVID C DEREN 120 WESTWOOD CIR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-4461 64D - 2- A- 14- a v�j 1-5 DRIVER, JOHN L & CAROL W 112 WESTWOOD CIR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-4461 64D - 2- A- 8- (r p\( b T-A-Zr Q (( MORRISON, JUDITH L 117 WESTWOOD CIR WINCHESTER, VA. 22602-4461 64D - 2- A- 7- OATES, MAURICE W 202 WESTWOOD DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4463 64 - A- - 21 Md JUDITH L WESTWOOD CIR ' WINCHESTER, VA. 22602.4461 64D - A- - 26- THOMPSON, JUDY E 1140 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602-4411 64D - A- - 25- WINGFIELD, ALLEN G. 122 WESTWOOD DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-4462 64D - A- - 23- ARBUTHNOT, DEAN J & NANCY J 150 WESTWOOD DR WINCHESTER,VA 22602-4462 Greenway Engineering Attn: Evan Wyatt 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 TO: Barbara in to Processing O FROM; Carol HuflWPlanning Department P ase pri . t I-1 sets of labels by: THANK YOUII July 9, 2002 PIN MLNAM MFNAM MADD1 MADD2 MZIP5 64D A 15 JACKSON, WILLIAM 132 WESTWOOD CI WINCHESTER, VA 22,602.00 64D 2 A 12 JACKSON, WILLIAM 132 WESTWOOD CI WINCHESTER, VA 22,602.00 64D 2 A 11 JACKSON, WILLIAM 132 WESTWOOD CI WINCHESTER, VA 22,602.00 64D 2 A 10 BAYLISS, CARL EUc 125 WESTWOOD CI WINCHESTER, VA. 22,602.00 64D 2 A 13 BROWN, RICKY A & 120 WESTWOOD CI WINCHESTER, VA 22,602.00 64D 2 A 9 BAYLISS, CARL EUc 125 WESTWOOD CI WINCHESTER, VA. 22,602.00 64D 2 A 14 DRIVER, JOHN L & ( 112 WESTWOOD CI WINCHESTER, VA 22,602.00 64D 2 A 8 MORRISON, JUDITF 117 WESTWOOD CI WINCHESTER, VA. 22,602.00 64D 2 A 7 OATES, MAURICE V 202 WESTWOOD DI WINCHESTER, VA 22,602.00 64D 2 A 15 - DRIVER, JOHN L & i 112 WESTWOOD CI WINCHESTER, VA 22,602.00 64 A 21A. MORRISON, JUDITF 117 WESTWOOD CI WINCHESTER, VA. 22,602.00 64D A 26 THOMPSON, JUDY 1140 FRONT ROYAL WINCHESTER, VA 22,602.00 64D A 25 WINGFIELD, ALLEN 122 WESTWOOD DI WINCHESTER, VA 22,602.00 64D A 23 ARBUTHNOT, DEA< 150 WESTWOOD DI WINCHESTER, VA 22,602.00 Crc(lcf � -li on R �oI )qers I 9 • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 i`i iriF1r10iN1 JF PJ3L I FIEAkk HNIr November 26, 2002 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #07-02 OF DORIS F. CASEY On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on December 11, 2002, at 5:00 p.m.* in the board room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. This hearing is to consider Rezoning #07-02 of Doris F. Casey, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 30.31 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) District. This property is located approximately 800 feet north of the intersection of Front Royal Pike (Route 522) and Paper Mill Road (Route 644) and is identified with Property Identification Number 64-A-23 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia. Sincerely, Abbe S. Kennedy Senior Planner ASK/cih * NOTE: Board of Supervisors' meetings normally begin at 7:15 p.m.; however, due to the length of the agenda for the 12/11/02 meeting, the time has been moved up to 5:00 p.m. For a closer approximation of the time this item will be heard, please contact the County Administrator's office at (540) 665-5683 after December 4, 2002. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 is This is to certify that the attac //-17-0Z, County, Virginia: 64D - 2- A- 14- DRIVER, JOHN L & CAROL W 112 WESTWOOD CIR WINCHESTER,VA 64D 2- A. 8- 64 MORRISON, JUDITH L 117 WESTWOOD CIR WINCHESTER,VA. 640 - 2- A- 7. OATES, MAURICE W hed correspondence was mailed to the following on from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick 64p- �1764D -A- 15- JACKSON, WILLIAM I. & BETTY J. 132 WESTWOOD CIR WINCHESTER,VA 22602-4461 64D - 2 A- 13- 22602.4461 BROWN, RICKY A & PATSY J CIO ESTATE OF DAVID C DEREN -fj- 214 120 WESTWOOD CIR WINCHESTER,VA 22602-4461 22602.4461 64D - A- - 26 THOMPSON, JUDY E 1140 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER,VA 22602-4411 202 WESTWOOD OR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4463 640 - 2- A- 10-� y BAYLISS, CARL EUGENE & SARA C. 64D A- - 23- ARBUTHNOT, DEAN J & NANCY J 150 WESTWOOD DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-4462 125 WESTWOOD CIR / WINCHESTER,VA. 22602.4461 Co�r�MC� oh bac,K A- - 21-A 7MO JUDITH L WESTW D CIR WINCHESTER,VA. 22602.4461 64D - A- - 25- WINGFIELD, ALLEN G. 122 WESTWOOD OR Abbe``. Kennedy, Seniok Planner WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4462 Frederick County Planning Dept. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK I. r ) i 1 f 11 1 �1, l I � , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated I i , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this I day of I I CAM My commission expires on hi l it f.y c j N ARY PUBLIC 64D-A-30 CROSS, ANN S 1170 FRONT ROYAL PI WINCHESTER, VA 22602 64D-A-27 MADIGAN, LOUISE CRAIG ETALS 1154 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602 64D-A-A-1 LARGENT, ROBERT M & PATSY O 141 WESTWOOD DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602 64D-2-2 DODD, JEFFREY B & BRENDA S 155 WESTWOOD DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602 64D-2-A-3 MAYHEW, RAYMOND H & E JEAN 366 SINGHASS RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602 64-A-20 & 21 SWISHER, CLAUDIA JEAN 116 PINETOP RD GORE, VA 22637 64D-A-21 MOWERY, RAY A 1134 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602 64-3-A SHENANDOAH MEMORIAL PARK, INC C/O CORNERSTONE FAMILY SERVICE 155 RITTENHOUSE CIR BRISTOL, PA 19007-1617 64D-2-A-4 MIDKIFF, BARBARA L 179 WESTWOOD DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602 64D-2-A-5 BROOKS, PUAL D. & WILLENE C 224 QUAIL RUN LN WINCHESTER, VA 22602 64D-2-A-6 ANDERSON, JOHNNY H 197 WESTWOOD DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602 63-A-146 BREEDLOVE, THOMAS W & MABEL 3575 PAPERMILL RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602 64D-1-B-A DETLEFSEN, ROBERT O & MILDRED 207 WESTWOOD DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602 64-A-23 CASEY, DORIS Fes' 404 IMPERIAL ST WINCHESTER, VA 22601 64-A-24 HALDEMAN, PAUL M JR PO BOX 2751 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 64D-4-2, 4 & 5 FOX, ELWOOD H & TURESSA K 1231 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602 64D-4-1 ELLIOTT, ROBERT P & DOROTHY E 1215 FRONT ROYAL PIKE • WINCHESTER, VA 22602 fQ 64-2-D2 BUGARSKI, JOSEPH TRUSTOR PO BOX 2791 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 64-3-A-1 JUCAPA, LC 1600 AMHERST ST WINCHESTER, VA 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 11071r"Ir,A f10111 or PU3- IC rl�ARI'IN IG June 17, 2002 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS(S) RE: REVISED REZONING APPLICATION 407-02 OF DORIS F. CASEY On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on July 1, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the board room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. This hearing is to consider Rezoning #07-02 of Donis F. Casey, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to (Residential Performance); and 3.31 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) District. This property is located approximately 800 feet north of the intersection of Front Royal Pike (Route 522) and Paper Mill Road (Route 644) and is identified with Property Identification Number 64-A-23 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia. Sincerely, Abbe . Kennedy Senior Planner ASK/ch O V%gcndasUdjoincr Casey m,IA 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on Fu e- n, a[-cQ from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 64D - A- - 30- CROSS, ANN S 1170 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4411 64D • A• . 27- MADIGAN, LOUISE CRAIG ETALS 1154 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4411 64D - A- - 28- MADIGAN, LOUISE C ETALS 1154 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4411 64D - 2- A- 1- LARGENT, ROBERT M & PATSY 0 141 WESTWOOD DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4464 64D - 2• • 2- DODD, JEFFREY B & BRENDA S 155 WESTWOOD OR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4464 64D • 2• A• 3• MAYHEW, RAYMOND H & E JEAN 64D 2A- 4• - - MIDKIFF, BARBARA L 179 WESTWOOD DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4464 64D - 2- A- 5- BROOKS, PAUL D. & WILLENE C. 224 QUAIL RUN LN WINCHESTER, VA 22602.1961 64D - 2- A- 6- ANDERSON, JOHNNY H. 197 WESTWOOD DR WINCHESTER, VA. 22602.4464 63 - A- - 146- BREEDLOVE, THOMAS W. & MABEL 3575 PAPERMILL RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4448 640 - 1- B- A- DETLEFSEN, ROBERT 0. & MILDRED 207 WESTWOOD DR WINCHESTER, VA. 22602.4465 366 SINGHASS RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2137 �C � J Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Plar Iles' Frederick County Planning Dept. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK 1, , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated I1.) - Ij. (-)a , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this ihday of S��n P�`oc-) SS My commission expires on (�{(� (u (36()(—'(Y� -O A,- ARY PUBLIC 64 - A- - 20- SWISHER, CLAUDIA JEA16 116 PINETOP RD GORE, VA 22637.2939 64D - A- - 21- MOWERY, RAY A 1134 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4411 64 -3- - A- SHENANDOAH MEMORIAL PARK, INC CIO CORNERSTONE FAMILY SERVICE 155 RITTENHOUSE CIR BRISTOL, PA 19007.1617 64 - 3- - A-1 JUCAPA,LC 1600 AMHERST ST WINCHESTER, VA 22601.2805 64 -2- - D2- BUGARSKI, JOSEPH TRUSTOR PO BOX 2791 WINCHESTER, VA 22604.1991 64D - 4- - 1- ELLIOTT, ROBERT P & DOROTHY E 1215 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602-4425 64D - 4- - 2- FOX, ELWOOD H & TURESSA K 1231 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER,VA 22602.4425 64D - 4- - 3- FOX, ELWOOD H & TURESSA K 1231 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER,VA 22602.4425 64D - 4- - 4- FOX, ELWOOD H & TURESSA K 1231 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER,VA 22602.4425 64D - 4- - 5- FOX, ELWOOD H SR & TURESSA K 1231 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602-4425 64 - A- - 24- HALDEMAN, PAUL M JR PO BOX 2751 WINCHESTER,VA 22604.1951 64 - A- - 23- CASEY, DORIS F 404 IMPERIAL ST WINCHESTER, VA 22601.4223 Doris F. Casey 0—by) 404 Imperial Street e►P60n Winchester, Virginia 22601 Greenway Engineering Attn: Evan Wyatt QN `Qcn� 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 -J,'� r� Westwood a-_ RP RP RP aic..ns� B2 ------ RP RA RA AA I . s RA JUCAPA IL ' fOx PePer"Oo Rd REZ # 07 - 02 Location Map For: Doris F. Casey PIN: 64-A-23 0 90 180 Feet