HomeMy WebLinkAbout051-70 Lake Holiday - Backfile&X,nd bq �iiDn
der Loy)e,1��1 d
A�5-6 �i) U:S/
PETER H. MCREE (1934-1967)
BENJAMIN M.13UTLER
STEPHEN G. BUTLER
McKEE AND BUTLER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
WINCHESTER,VIRGINIA 22601
11 SOUTH CAMERON STREET
December 14, 1970
Mr. Thomas B. Rosenberger, Chairman
Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Mountain Falls Route
Winchester, Virginia
Re: My File No. 2243A
Frederick County Planning Commission
Dear Tom:
AREA CODE 703
TELEPHONE 662-3486
Please find enclosed the statement issued by the Frederick
County Planning Commission, pursuant to meeting with Lake Holiday
Estates, Inc. on November 20, 1970.
The purpose of sending this statement is stated in the
draft.
I would appreciate it if you would file this in the Board of
Supervisors' file.
Thank you for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
McKEE and BUTLER
BE AMIN M. BUTLER
BMB: j s
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Jaynes W. Golladay, Chairman
Frederick County Planning Commission
P &9RAFT
On November 20, 1970, the Frederick County Planning Commission
and officers of Lake Holiday Estates, Inc. met to discuss the letter or the
Planning Commission of {October 9, 1970, which was quoted in part in uze press
on November 10, 1970. Triat letter indicated that certain members of the
Planning Commission had heard reports which Indicated that certain Lake
i:o1:..ay plans r;resented criginaliy to tk:e "lannirag Commission were not being
properly pursued.
After reviewing all the facts, plans and documents presented at the
meeting by Harold'Moss, President of Lake Holiday Estates, including a status
report by Lake Holiday's engineers, the Commission concluded that some
reports had no basis in fact; that the Lane Lioliday officials and associates
had acted throughout in good faith and consequently no criticism should be
directed at them. That the questions raised by the Frederick County Planning
Commission have been satisfactorily resolved by the parties involved and are
now considered closed; and that the Board of Supervisors would be Infol-med
accordingly. It was agreed also 'that-2his-'statement would be released for
.----
publication. in the V'inchester Evening Star, the Northern Virginia Daily and
for announcement over the local radio stations.
r
e�l
GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB
P.O.BOX 90/CROSS JUNCTION, VIRGINIA 22625/PHONE (703)888-2631
December, 2, 1970
Mr. L. Harold Moss
Mr. C. E. Bayliss
Mr. J. A. Bayliss
Gentlemen:
You are hereby authorized to act fully in my behalf, based
upon medical advise, at the meeting with the Frederick County
Planning Commission at 3:00 p.m. today; the subject of which is
to discuss a certain Zoning and Subdivision Petition submitted
by me to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors and to the
Frederick County Planning Commission sometime ago.
You may refer, in this mattero—t"e Power of Attorney
given you by me and dated November 2`1`1970.
SEAL
Donald L. Bay' -;"Is
r
DLB/djs
LOCATED JUST 12 MILES NORTHWEST OF HISTORIC WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA. GATEWAY TO THE BEAUTIFUL
SHENANDOAH VALLEY - A SAFE DISTANCE FROM POLLUTION AND A WONDERFUL PLACE TO RETIRE.
SYSTEM
CENTRAL WATER = ' • APPROX. 30OACRE PURE LAKE DESIGNED FOR SKIING, SWIMMING, BOATING AND FISHING LARGE
�
RECREATION CENTER FEATURING CLUB HOUSE WITH DINING AND DANCING, SWIMMING POOLS, TENNIS COURTS, BADMINTON, SKATING,
VOLLEY BALL, ETC. • 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE • WHITE SANDY. BEACHES • SEPERATE TROUT AND BASS LAKES FOR FISHING ONLY
PERMANENT HOMES WILL BE IN A SEPARATE AREA. BEST RESTRICTIONS • SECOND HOMES ALSO FEATURE GOOD RESTRICTIONS
DESIGNED FOR THE PENEFIT OF ALL MEMBERS 0 SUPERB SCENERY 0 FANTASTIC VIEWS-HUGH TREES-80% OF ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT
IS HEAVILY WOODED
.r
l'
TO BE RELEASED TO PRESS AND RADIO
STATTONS - December 2, 1970
Frederick County Planning Commission
Winchester., Virginia
Gentlemen:
T have elected to personally appear before this commission
for several reasons, as listed below:
1. The subject petition of today's meeting is not a
petition by Lake Holiday Estates, but is a petition by Donald L.
Bayliss, citizen, taxpayer of Frederick County, to,repeat, not Lake
Holiday Estates, as has appeared in past newspaper media and more
specifically in yesterday's Winchester Evening Star, Page 2. Also
kindly refer to my letter of October 17, 1970, to Mr. James Golli.day,
Chairman, Frederick County Planning Commission, which clearly states
that the petition was submitted by Donald L. Bayliss as a citizen and
taxpayer.
2. To explain to the best of my ability the purposes of
the suggested zoning and subdivision amendments, these reasons are set
forth in Attachment I.
3. T offer the subject petition as a public service! Not
for personal gain; not for profit of Lake Holiday Estates or other
properties in which I have an interest; notto usurp power of any county
or state official.
4. T am hopeful my proposed amendment will help prevent
any future misinterpretation or misunderstandings as to the exac.t
11
Page 2
meani.nn of our present zoning and subdivision ordinance, and with the
hope that this petition as presented can be acted upon, and hopefully
adopted and used as a stepping stone for a complete and generll over-
hauling and updating of our present zoning subdivision laws.
5. -Further, I ask simply that the zoning and subdivision
laws of Frederick County he put in Black and White in order that every
taxpayer and land owner in this county will know precisely what He Can
or Cannot Do with his land and that said zoning laws be uniformly and
impartially applied in each district of Frederick County under heavy
penalty for violations.
6. 7 believe Frederick County now needs vast revenue if it
is to keep pace with other counties in this state. I further believe that
a major part of this revenue can be derived by the proper development
of our strategically located, scenic and beloved Frederick County, and
without an over -abundance of outdoor privies.
I think all of us know of the unfortunate and apparent mistakes
made in the past years in certain subdivisions where no central water or
central sewer was required. But yet we all know of subdivisions, even
of the recreational. type, which were approved not too long ago, with no
central water and no central sewage. Is this to be allowed to continue?
I further understand there is one or more existing sub-
division which plans to create a large.lake within the development. T
personally think it would be a good suggestion that if central sewage
I
Pane 3
is not installed in these developments, that all percolation tests be
made by registered, professional engineers, and that the results be
published in the news media and then made a matter of public •recor.d
in our Court House.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
sincerely,
Donald L. Bayliss
Citizen
Frederick County
Attachment
u
i
0
ATTACHMENT I
Referring now.to our new and revised pe-tition.
ARTTCT.E V - General Renul.ati.ons as it pertains to Paragraph 5.(a)
Lot Size - The present subdivision ordinance reads that for residential
lots with both public water and sewer shall be '80' or more in width
at the building line and 10,000 square feet or more in area.
Our proposed amendment reads that for lots with both public
water and sewer that lots in this section have a minimum frontage of
70' or more in width at the building line. Our reasoning behind this
proposed change mainly concerns those lots which are pie -shaped in
nature or which have pipe stem entrances. This allows an individual
property owner to make better use of his land and to give himttnre
choice in locating a residence on this land.
Paragraph 5.(b) Lot Sizes =--iblic Water or Sewer. The
present subdivision ordinance requires residential lots served by only
one of public water or sewer system shall be 100 feet or more in width
at the building line and 15,000 square feet in area.
our proposed amendment for lot sizes with either public
water or public sewer that lots in this section have a minimum width
of 80 feet at the building line. Our reasoning for this change pertains-_
again to the lots which are pie -shaped in nature or which have pipe
stem entrances. This allows a property owner to make better use of his
land and to give him more choice in locating a residence on this land.
Paragraph 5.(c) The present subdivision ordinance requires
that lots with neither public water nor public sewer shall be 100 feet
or more in width at the building line or 20,000 square feet or more in
area.
Our proposed amendment to this paragraph is that for lot
sire, excluding subdivisions of three acres or more or individual
scattered lots outside of any subdivision (which does not constitute a
subdivision of 2 houses or more) assuming that these scatter lots meet
the criteria for soil evaluation as prescribed by a competent soil
scientist, registered professional engineer and in conjunction with the
local and state health department and local ordinance. Our reasoning
for requesting 1his amendment is to protect the health of the public in
not having a subdivision with a concentration of lots of a minimum of
20,000 square feet, which is bound to cause contamination and other
health problems.
ARTICLE V - General Regulations -`-Paragraph 2, Sub -paragraph
8 - The present subdivision ordinance states, public water and/or public
sewer is available within 200f of the boundary line of the subdivision
the service shall be extended to all lots within said subdivision.
Our proposed amendment listed as 8.1 (a) is: In all sub-
divisions of more than 20 lots a central water system shall be provided
to serve all of said lots.
8.1 (b) There shall be no requirements for a development to
install a central sewer system in'any subdivision assuming each lot
6S/
Attachment T
Pane 3
meets the criteria for soil evaluation as prescribed by competent
soil scientists, professional engineers, the health department J. rules
and regulations and local ordinances.
8.1 (c) Should the said developers engineer determine that
a sewage system is economically feasible; then such sewage system shall
be required to meet the Staters minimum secondary treatment standards.
8.1 (d) The prior or future rezoning of any land to R-1 or
R-2 does not automatically require the developer to install a central
sewage system, but will require the developer to install a central water
system and further soils must meet the criteria of Articla v - l(c).
Our reasons for promoting these changes are to require that
al.l subdivisions be required to have a central water system which would
Prevent contamination of the water supply, by individual septic systems
and further that it would assure that all developers would have to make
studies by competent registered, professional engineers to determine if
a central sewage system could be economically feasible and if it is
feasible, to meet those standards required by the state for treatment of
effluent to be discharged into a given stream or river at a given location.
Paragraph 3 - 30. Cul-de-sacs— Generally, minor terminal
streets designed to have one end permanently closed Nith a turn around
of not less than 100 feet (one -hundred feet) in diameter, the length
will be determined by.topography and good engineering practices.
Our reasoning for proposing this change in Cul-de-Sacs is to
allow for the proper utilization of the land, taking into consideration
the natural terrain features, and utilizing sound engineering practices
t
Attachment T
Page 4
without being restricted to a given number of feet.
Paragraph 4 - Tt is recommended that a complete general
over -hauling and iip-dating of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances be
accomplished as soon as Possible to avoid any possible misinterpretation
of their Provisions.
my reason for Proposing this amendment is the fact that the
present subdivision ordinance is the only subdivision ordinance that
Frederick County has had andj as in the case of all written d(,cuments-)
should he amended periodically to reflect the best interest of the public
and to correct any ambiguity contained therein.
Paragraph S - Tt is also recommended that the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances be amended to include a provision for the uniform
and equal. enforcement of our Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances in all
-districts of Frederick County under proper penalties for violations.
Our reasons for requesting this amendment should be very
clear in the wording of this paragraph.
LI
i
. i
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM''
TO: E. EUGENE GUNTER, Spokesmen
PURPOSE: TO BE USED IN EXPLAINING PLANNING
COMMISSION'S POSITION AT JOINT MEETING ON NOVEMBER;
20, 1970
I .
That the Planning Commission as a body takes the posit:un in
the following respects:
1. In regard to the stl in t e letter of October 9, 1.970,
conce7 the alle ZZI
ropo al of r�-�, f� znrn additional lots,- the Planning
g g P
Commission, without admitting libelous matter, will retract the same to the
satisfaction of Lake Holiday Estates on condition that Lake Holiday Estates issues
a joint statement whereby they agree that Lake Holiday Estates, its successors
or assigY-is, will not petition the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors
of Frederick County, Virginia, in the future, to approve any lot(s), or section(s)
of lots, unless the same will be serviced by both central water and central sewage
systems approved by the Water Control Board.
II.
The Planning Commission has certain statments, issues and questions
to resolve with the said Lake Holiday Estates, which are as follows:
1. Concerning the news release wherein the officials of Lake
Holiday Estates made allegations that the Planning Commission's secretary's
i
office refused to disclose minutes, wh"'the actual situation was as follows:
Tuesday, November 10, 1970, Jim Bayliss, of Lake Holiday Estates, called
my office and asked to speak with me. The secretary told -Mr. Bayliss that I was
in Circuit Court on a jury trial, but that she would take a message and have me
return the call. Mr. Bayliss told my secretary that he wanted copies of the
minutes,of the September, October and November meetings of the Planning
Mr. Bayliss that she wasn't certain she could have them ready for him by that
time, since she didn't know when I would get back from court and she could ask
me for authority to copy the minutes. Mr. Bayliss then told my secretary that if we
did not have copying facilities he would be glad to pick up the minutes and copy them
because they (Lake Holiday Estates) had all the necessary copying equipment. My
secretary told Mr. Bayliss it was not a question of having the copying equipment, it
was just that she could not release any information or papers from this office until
I authorized it. He then left two numbers for me to call him. Later that same
afternoon, H. H. Tavenner and Jim Bayliss came to my office and asked for the
minutes. The secretary again told him that I had not returned from court and for
that reason she was unable to give me the message. Jim Bayliss proceeded to tell
my secretary that the minutes of the Planning Commission were public records and
the law stated that they should be availabie-to 01,2 public at all times. .The secretary
y told Jim Bayliss that she was not disputing the fact that they were public records,
she was only telling him she could not release the copies he wanted until I authorized
it. At this point, Mr. Tavenner told Mr. Bayliss that the secretary could not let them
have the minutes until she checked with me. Again, Mr. Bayliss started telling the
secretary they were public records and that he wanted the copies that afternoon. The
secretary told him that if I authorized it, he most certainly could have them that
evening, but, it all depended upon when I returned from court. Mr. Tavenner again
told Mr. Bayliss that they would have to wait until the secretary could check with me.
There was never any request to read the minutes, but only to have them taken out
of the office for copying purposes or to have them copied in the office.
2. The allegation of secrecy of the matters as set out in the telegram
dated November 11, 1970, should be clarified. The Planning Commission did not
feel that the letter, or matters contained therein, were secret, but felt then, and
�Uti��Q�/
r_ � �u � �.'��y
feel now, that they had a vital interest in matters concerning the subject matter
and that their concern was in good faith, and that the Planning Commission in
light of Mr. Dewberry's letter of. September 16, 1970, to James W..Goll day,
and further in light of the Board of Supervisors passage of la deed of dedication
of one hundred fifty lots (150) on a separate sewage system basis for each lot
with certain conditions, honestly believed they had a duty of correspondence with
the Board of Supervisors, who had a corresponding interest or duty in the matter.
ITT.
The PlanningCommission feels that an com laint concerning the P.
Y P g
project of Lake Holiday Estates and Frederick County should be made directly`
to the Planning Commission or to the Board of Supervisors, as the case may be,
and the Planning Commission considered it an aggravation of the matter to refer
the matter to the Frederick County Taxpayers' Association, or to any other
3 non -governmental interest group not directly concerned.
IV.
The Planning Commission feels that a public statement should be
drawn up before adjournment today concerning the matters occurring thus far.;
Tf-I
QOL-
f4d
WAP-t
v s/
Iz 0 A
GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB
P.O.BOX 90/CROSS JUNCTION, VIRGINIA 22625/PHONE (703)888-2631
November 4, 1970
Benjamin M. Butler, Esq.
Secretary, Frederick County
Planning Commission
20 Rouss Avenue
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Mr. Butler:
Attached is a copy of the amended and complete
petition as per your letter of October 29, 1970, which we
wish to file for consideration by the Frederick County Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Also our check in the
amount of $80.00 is enclosed to cover the cost of advertising.
We appreciate your prompt response to our petition
as I am sure that we all have the best interests of all the
taxpayers of Frederick County at heart in this very important
matter. Since it has been decreed that Winchester will soon
annex a big portion of the revenue producing areas of Frederick
County, it becomes imperative that governing officials plan and
act wisely to compensate for this loss and to attract good and
systematic developments; industries to Frederick County. We
believe our petition to be the proper springboard to make
Frederick County a "model" and classic example of things which
can be accomplished by 'prompt action, sound planning and fore-
sight within a very few years.
Continued on Page 2 . . .
LOCATED JUST 12 MILES NORTHWEST OF HISTORIC WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA, GATEWAY TO THE BEAUTIFUL
SHENANDOAH VALL Y — A SAFE DISTANCE FROM POLLUTION AND A WONDERFUL PLACE TO RETIRE.
CENTRAL WATER s • APPROX. 300-ACRE PURE LAKE DESIGNED FOR SKIING, SWIMMING, BOATING AND FISHING • LARGE
RECREATION CENTER FEATURING CLUB HOUSE WITH DINING AND DANCING, SWIMMING POOLS, TENNIS COURTS, BADMINTON, SKATING,
VOLLEY BALL, ETC. 0 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE • WHITE SANDY BEACHES 0 SEPERATE TROUT AND BASS LAKES FOR FISHING ONLY
PERMANENT HOMES WILL BE IN A SEPARATE AREA. BEST RESTRICTIONS a SECOND HOMES ALSO FEATURE GOOD RESTRICTIONS -
DESIGNED FOR THE PENEFIT OF ALL MEMBERS • SUPERB SCENERY • FANTASTIC VIEWS-HUGH TREES-80% OF ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT
IS HEAVILY WOODED
O's%
Benjamin M. Butler, Esq.
November 4, 1970
Page 2
We shall all be looking forward to presenting our
views at the public hearing.
Very truly yours,
LAKE HOLIDAY ESTATES, INC.
Donald L. Bayliss
President
Attachment
ccs: T. M. Rosenberger, Chairman
Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Mr. James Golliday, Chairman of the Board
Frederick County Planning Commission
Mr. Leonard Ellis, President
Frederick County Taxpayers Association
Mr. Robert Luttrell, Chairman - Board of Directors
Frederick County Taxpayers Association
D LB/amm
P E T I T I O N
TO: T. M. Rosenberger, Chairman
Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia
Benjamin M. Butler, Esq., Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission
PURPOSE: To amend the Subdivision Ordinance as follows:
That not a single lot or group of lots or any type of
final plat for new or existing subdivisions or developments be
approved by the Board of Supervisors or the Frederick County
Health Department until the following proposed amendments have
been considered and adopted by the Board:
ARTICLE V - General Regulations
1. 5. (a) Lot Size - Public Water and Sewer -
That lots in this section have a minimum frontage
of 70 feet or more in width at the building line.
(b) Lot Size - Public Water or Sewer -
That lots in this section have a minimum width of
80 feet at the building line.
(c) Lot Size - Excluding subdivisions of three
acres or more and individual scattered lots outside
of any subdivision (which does not constitute a
subdivision of two (2) houses or more) assuming
that these scattered lots meet the criteria for soil
evaluation as prescribed by a competent soil scientist,
registered professional engineer, and in conjunction
with our local and state Health Departments and local
ordinances.
2. 8.1 (a) In all subdivisions of more than 20 lots,
a central water system shall be provided to serve
all of said lots.
(b) There shall be no requirement for a developer
to install a central sewage system in any subdivision,
assuming each lot meets -the criteria for soil eval-
uation as prescribed by competent soil scientists,
professional engineers, the Health Department rules
and regulations and local ordinances.
(c) Should the said developer's engineers
determine that a sewage system is economically
feasible, then such sewage system shall be required
to meet the State's minimum secondary treatment
standards.
4
- 2 -
(d) The prior or future rezoning of any land
to R-1 or R-2 does not automatically require the
developer to install a central sewage system. but
will require the developer to install a central
water system, and further soils must meet the
criteria of Article V - 1 (c).
3• 30. Cul-De-Sacs - Generally, minor terminal streets
(cul-de-sacs) designed to have one end permanently
closed with a turn around of not less than one
hundred (100) feet- in diameter, the length will be
determined by topography and good engineering practices.
4. It is recommended that a complete general over-
hauling and up -dating of the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances be accomplished as soon as possible to
avoid any possible misinterpretation of their
provisions.
5. It is also recommended that the Zoning and Sub-
division Ordinances be amended to include a pro-
vision for the uniform and equal enforcement of
our Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances in all dis-
tricts of Frederick County under proper penalties
for violations.
Donald L'. Bavl
1D 3
,�_!/��� :,•,�.,L/ cam'' _Lu
RECEIVED FROM
C�Gc,��i' �
Z 100
Account Total $
Amount Paid $
Balance Due S
"THE EFFICIENCYO LINE"
ATro rinrY Coll THE 001rMONIV7.AI.TII
AtlE/ETANT ATLOXXIMT rO71 7" 006EMOXWIRAYMN
I:. F KMN-r7{ ILDIN li C0AI111Olti'�i'I,.A.I.7IH OF VIRGINIA
Ttu zrsr ncn.nlno
1rIYO)ZII8TEM. VLAOLVIA 12401
_. COUNTY OF FIIIM IBIOK
AI:llA Cor,:: 706
TuMIPIIC'.114 (167.4049 `1Il It,4
}�
October 21, 1970
LAWRENOE 11. AMBRO01
TXi Ln1JT EUII.OINO
WINUNEeTE=. VMGLVFIA XM401
AREA OODA 708
TnLwrnoNE 667.4040
Benjamin M. Butler, Esquire
Secretary of Frederick County Planning Commission
11 South Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Lake Holiday Estates
Dear Mr. Butler:
Thank you for your letter of October 9, 1970. That
letter was very informative.
At the regular meeting of the Frederick County Board
of Supervisors oil October 12, 19701 representatives of
Lake Holiday Estates orfered certain amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of Frederick
County. These amendments were referred to the Frederick
County Planning Commission for your recommendations.
Please determine whether or not these recommended
amendments are intended to serve -the personal interests
of the parties interested in Lake Holiday Estates or
whether these amendments would be to the benefit: or the
general public welfare. In this regard, T suggest that
Roy W. Will.i.alns of- the Winchester -Frederick County Health
Department r.Iould he of some assistance.
At the present tine, it is the feeling of the Frederick
County Board o.i Supervisors that the action taken in
approving Section One of Lake Holiday Estates, which
includes 150 Lots, on the conditional basis that each lot
be approved by the Winchester -Frederick County Health
Department., cannot Ise r(-sclnded.
Benjamin NI. Butler, Esquire
October 21, 1970
Page 2
As far as future approval of additional lots in Lake
Holiday Estates is concerned, Z am positive that the
Board will strongly consider the recommendations of
the Frederick County Ptanning Commission.
Thant; you for your keen interest in this matter.
Sincerely yours ,
E. Eugene Gunter
County Attorney of Frederick County
EEG : bm
CC: lair. James W. Golliday, Chairman
Frederick County Planning Commission
Step ens City, Virginia
h Thomas B. Rosenberger, Chairman
Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Mountain Falls Route
Winchester, Virginia 22601
0 S /
� ✓
�I �., �i
,�irll
--GOLF '.'i ✓ \. J �.i"\ �-�^gyp C/ V Ng�\/® j,/�\/ � � � �./� \✓ \� �/ \✓ `\i' �.J
TRY
P.O.BOX 90/CROSS JUNCTION, VIRGINIA 22625/PHONE (703)888-2631
October 17, 1970
Mr. James Golliday
Chairman of the Board
Frederick County Planning Commission
Stephens City, Virginia 22655
Dear Mr. Golliday:
I was pleased to learn that the Frederick County
Board of Supervisors had -referred our proposed amendments to
the Zoning and Subdivisions Ordinances to the Frederick County
Planning Commission for their consideration. I was also shocked
to learn that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors had not
adopted and made a matter of law the first paragraph of our
petition while the Planning Commission was considering said
petition. This said paragraph was designed for a specific and
self-explanatory purpose, "that not a single lot or group of lots
or any type of final plat for new or existing subdivisions or
developments be approved by the Frederick County Board of Super-
visors or the Frederick County Health Department until the following
proposed amendments have been considered."
As a matter of fact we have discovered there has
been a mass recording of final plats since the last Board Meeting,
apparently everyone being in great haste to get their plats on
record before any changes to the good of the County are adopted.
I would like to make it absolutely clear that I
originated these amendments, changes, modifications to our zoning
and subdivision ordinances as my duty as a citizen and tax payer,
builder and developer of Frederick County. I am also pleased to
state that these amendments were thoroughly explained to the
Frederick County Taxpayers Association sometime ago, and that I
received the unanimous backing and support from the Taxpayers
Association, which I believe will clearly benefit every tax payer
and citizen in Frederick County, and will be a credit to the State
of Virginia.
Continued on Page 2 .
LOCATED JUST 12 MILES NORTHWEST OF HISTORIC WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA, GATEWAY TO THE BEAUTIFUL
SHENANDOAH VALLEY — A SAFE DISTANCE FROM POLLUTION AND A WONDERFUL PLACE TO RETIRE.
Z: 5'E�
CENTRAL WATER !r'-" , O APPROX. 300,-ACRE PURE LAKE DESIGNED FOR SKIING, SWIMMING, BOATING AND FISHING O LARGE
RECREATION CENTER FEATURING CLUB HOUSE WITH DINING AND DANCING, SWIMMING POOLS, TENNIS COURTS, BADMINTON, SKATING,
VOLLEY BALL, ETC. O 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE o WHITE SANDY BEACHES O SEPERATE TROUT AND BASS LAKES FOR FISHING ONLY
PERMANENT HOMES WILL BE IN A SEPARATE AREA. BEST RESTRICTIONS o SECOND HOMES ALSO FEATURE GOOD RESTRICTIONS -
DESIGNED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL MEMBERS O SUPERB SCENERY O FANTASTIC VIEWS-HUGH TREES-80% OF ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT
;S HEAVILY WOODED
Mr. James Golliday
October 17, 1970
Page 2
The petition which I originated and had our attorney
submit to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on my behalf,
(during my illness) was not exactly what we had desired and which
was published in the Winchester Evening Star, therefore I would
like to make the necessary clarifications to my petition at this
time.
Clarifications to my Petition.
1. First Paragraph of Petition - Article V - General Regulations.
Item 1 (c), now -reads 'clot size - neither public water
nor sewer -- no change", and was intended to read: "lot size -
excluding subdivisions of*three acres or more and individual
scattered lots outside of any subdivision in Frederick County,
assuming that these scattered lots or three acre tracts, or larger,
meet the criteria for soil evaluation as prescribed by a competent
soil scientist, registered professional engineer, and in conjunction
with our local and state HeahriDepartments and local ordinances."
2. Article V - General Regulations.
Item 2 (b) now reads: "there shall be no -requirement
for a developer to install a central sewage system in any sub-
division -unless it is economically feasible as determined by duly
licensed engineers provided by developer", and it should read:
"There shall be no requirement for a developer to install a central
sewage system in any subdivision,, assuming each lot meets the
criteria for soil evaluation as prescribed by competent soil
scientists, professional engineers, the Health Department rules
and -regulations and local ordinances."
3. It was also our intention to include an amendment as was pub-
lished in Page 2, September 17, 1970 of the Winchester Evening Star:
"I would recommend a complete general overhauling and updating of
the zoning and subdivision ordinances to avoid all possible mis-
interpretation."
4. Our amendments should have included a provision for the uniform
and equal enforcement of our zoning ordinances in all districts of
Frederick County under proper penalties for violations.
In other words, Mr. Golliday, we are simply asking
that our present zoning and subdivision ordinances be clearly put
in black and white to prevent any misinterpretation by any local
official, either elected or appointed, and primarily so that every
land owner in Frederick County will know what he can or cannot do
with his land, without conflicting views and opinions by any officials.
Continued on Page 3 . . .
�sl
Mr. James Golliday
October 17, 1970
Pag e
I am certain you realize that we have had only one
subdivision and zoning ordinance in Frederick County, which I
believe was first enacted into law the latter part of 1966, and
I believe is as outdated as the horse and buggy, and is saturated
with material which can easily be used as a basis for conflicting
opinions to the detriment of Frederick County as a whole.
Again, Mr. Golliday, I certainly do not want to usurp
power or any type of authority from our elected or appointed
officials. However, we feel this matter to be of great importance
and should be considered most urgent, as the time for action is
now, otherwise we feel that in the years ahead Frederick County
will not progress equally with other counties. In our opinion it
would be a tremendous error on the part of any County official to
allow Frederick County to lag behind by not using the proper foresight
and good solid planning. We further feel that Frederick County is
unquestionably in a superior position because of its natural beauty,
proximity to the metropolitan areas and its strategic location.
With proper vision, foresight and planning on the part of our officials
we are convinced that Frederick County can be a shining and classic
example within a short period of time of things that can be achieved
and which would make it equal in quality to any county in the State.
We are perfectly willing to help you, if desired by
the Planning Commission, in every way possible to obtain the ultimate
goal of preventing another tax increase in Frederick County without
proper and sufficient justi.fication.-
I would like to have you read publicly at your next
Planning Commission hearing the content of this letter, and to have
this letter serve as our legal clarification in conjunction with
our original petition.
Continued on Page 4 . . .
Mr. James Gollida
October 17, 1970
Page 2
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
LAKE HOLIDAY ESTATES, INC.
Donald L. Bayliss
President
Enclosure
cc: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Frederick County Health Department
Mr. Eric H. Bartsch, State Department of Health
Director, State Water Control Board
Mr. Leonard Ellis, President, Frederick Co. Taxpayers Assoc.
Mr. Robert Luttrell, President, Board of Directors, Frederick
Co. Taxpayers Assoc.
Harrison & Johnston, Attorneys at Law
DLB/amm
0S
,1
GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB
P.0.BOX 90/CROSS JUNCTION, VIRGIN IA 22625/PHONE (703)888-2631
October 17, 1970
Mr. Eric Bartsch
Division of Engineering
State Department of Health
P. 0. Box 915
Lexington, Virginia 24450
Re: Frederick County Proposed
Zoning and Subdivision Amendments
Dear Mr. Bartsch:
Thank you for your letter of October 8, 1970 stating
your comments on our proposed amendments to Frederick County zoning
and subdivision ordinances.
With reference to Page 2, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of your
letter, it is now clearly visible why you state that our proposed
amendments conflict directly with the State health laws and the
State water control laws. I find that after reviewing the petition
which my attorney submitted to the Frederick County Board of Super-
visors (during my illness) there were several amendments left out
entirely, and a couple were not as I had requested and as were pub-
lished in the Winchester Evening Star sometime ago.
I am trying to be objective and impartial in our
proposals, and I'certainly do not wish to usurp power or authority
from the Frederick County officials or the State officials in any
way. Therefore I am pleased to enclose a copy of a letter I have
just written to Mr. James Golliday, Chairman of the Board of the
Frederick County Planning Commission. I am confident you will find
this letter self-explanatory, and it certainly will serve to clarify
our proposed zoning and subdivision amendments.
Continued on Page 2 . . .
LOCATED JUST 12 MILES NORTHWEST OF HISTORIC WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA, GATEWAY TO THE BEAUTIFUL
SHENANDOAH VALLEY - A SAFE DISTANCE FROM POLLUTION AND A WONDERFUL PLACE TO RETIRE.
CENTRAL WATER MTZ-� 0 APPROX. 300-ACRE PURE LAKE DESIGNED FOR SKIING, SWIMMING, BOATING AND FISHING 0 LARGE
RECREATION CENTER FEATURING CLUB HOUSE WITH DINING AND DANCING, SWIMMING POOLS, TENNIS COURTS, BADMINTON, SKATING,
VOLLEY BALL, ETC. 0 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE 0 WHITE SANDY BEACHES G SEPERATE TROUT AND BASS LAKES FOR FISHING ONLY
PERMANENT HOMES WILL BE IN A SEPARATE AREA. BEST RESTRICTIONS O SECOND HOMES ALSO FEATURE GOOD RESTRICTIONS -
DESIGNED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL MEMBERS 0 SUPERB SCENERY O FANTASTIC VIEWS-HUGH TREES-80% OF ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT
IS HEAVILY WOODED
o 5—/
Mr. Eric Bartsch
October 17, 1970
Page 2
I greatly appreciate your opinions and assistance
in bringing these conflicts to my attention, and I look forward
to your continued valuable assistance in the future.
Sincerely yours,
LAKE HOLIDAY ESTATES, INC.
Donald L. Bayliss
President
Enclosure
ccs: Frederick Co. Board of Supervisorsc%
Frederick Co. Health Department
State Water Control Board, Richmond
Frederick Co. Planning Commission
Mr. James Golliday
Harrison & Johnston, Attorneys at Law
DLB/amm
iNIC KE11. AND 13 TT'1'LE R
ATTORNEYS AT LA\V
NVINCHESTL'R,VIRUINIA 22601
11 SOUTH CAMERON STREET
PETE11 K.DICKEE (1934-1967) AREA Com, 703
B ENJ AM IN N1. BU T 1.HR Timi. i,noNR 663-3486
STEP1113N G. 13u•r/.im October 9, 19/0
Mr. Thomas B. Rosenberger, Chairman
Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Mt. Falls Route
Winchester, Virginia
Re: Frederick County Planning Commission
Dear Mr. Rosenberger:
As Secretary of the Frederick County Planning Commission, I
have been directed by that body to write a letter stating the displeasure
which the Planning Commission feels towards the Lake Holiday Estates
Golf and Country Club, Incorporated being allowed to continue with its
proposed project without water and sewer, as had previously been repre-
sented to the Planning Commission.
The rezoning recommended by the Frederick County Planning
Commission at its April 1st meeting was based on representation by Mr.
Donald Bayliss and his attorney, Joseph A. Massie, Jr, , that central water
and sewer would be provided. Indeed, quoting from the exact words of our
Resolution, the same was as follows:
"BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recom-
mend to the Board of Supervisors to approve the petition of
Holiday Lake Estates, in Gainesboro District, to rezone
approximately 1600 Acres from A-1 to R-2, subject to water
control board approval. "
Said motion was passed by vote of 5 to 1, Elmer Venskoske
voting against.
It is the feeling of the Frederick County Planning Commission that
Lake Holiday Estates has misrepresented certain facts to the County of Frederick
in obtaining the rezoning desired. It is our understanding that the Frederick
County Board of Supervisors approved a plat of some 150 lots, which lots had
not been approved by the State Water Control Board.
Mr. Thomas B. Rosenberger, Chairman
October 9, 1970
Page 2
It is further our understanding that there was no central sewer system
provided for t he aforesaid 150 lots.
Certain members of the Planning Commission have further learned
that it is proposed that 300 additional lots will be submitted to the Board of
Supervisors for approval.
In view of the above, there are some members that have certain doubts
as to whether Lake Holiday Estates ever had the intention of having central water
and sewer in the area and further, we urge the Frederick County Board of Super-
visors in the strongest terms possible, not to approve any additional lots of Lake
Holiday Estates unless the same conform to the plans submitted for rezoning.
In addition, we would ask the Frederick County Board of Supervisors
to investigate the legal possibilities of rezoning the 1600 Acres back to their
original A-1 in view of what we feel were misrepresentations to our Committee.
Thank you for your consideration into these matters.
Very truly yours,
C �
BE JAMIN M. BUTLER,
CCRETARY, FREDERICK
OUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
BMB: dj
cc: E. Eugene Gunter, Esquire
Attorney for Frederick County
Board of Supervisors
James W. Golladay, Chairman
Frederick County Planning Commission
w
6V
G01,,1MpN WEALT F{.
MACK 1, SHANHOLTZ. M. D.
COMMISSIONER
OF Vlpc,-,
IN IA-
DE�PA.RxTMENTXoF HE)= LT
WX 915
Lexington• Virginia
24450
october 8. 1970
SUBJZCT a PREDBRICK CWNTY
Water & 3ewsrage - Lake HOl iday
Estates
Mr. C. Eugene Bayliss
Fxecyttive vice President
Lake Holiday Estates, Inc.
P. 0. Box 90
Cross Junction, Virginia 22625
Dear Ar. Bayliss;
,,.To are in receipt of your letter dated 5eptwnber 24. 1970, con-
cerning water and sewerage facilities for Lake Holiday Estates ire
Frederick County.
was are glad to hear that you are definitely a o isaitted to the
developomt and construction of a central water system to serve
Lake Holiday Estates and it is hoped that you will also develop a
central sevoMe system. We can not help but feel that if the
entire project were to be served with septic tank drain fields
that a substantial health hazard could develop in the reservoir
being planned on Isaac's Greek. We state this without intent of
usurping the preview of the Local Health Department with regard
to approval of septic tank drain field installationso We make
this statexwmt concerning the potential health hazard based on
past experience in similar situations,
cwe do not dispute the fact that tertiary treatment of sewerage
effluents is a costly endeavor. ijowever, the State inter Control
Board must base its decision concerning its degree of treatment to
be provided on stream standards and not an the cost to the owner
of the systea►.
Mr. C. Eugene Bayliss
October So 1970
2
Although this Departneat has no authority over the adion earl
enforasmwet of local ordinances, we would like to GoMMMt on your
proposed a 11 =ts to the Frederick County zoning and Subdivision
ordinances. Speelfic reference will be safe to the nowbsrsd pwa-
graphs as follow:
�-jgauranh 2a This paragraph conflicts directly with
local health laws and with the state water Control law.
The approval or disapproval of septic tank drain fiel4a
is the direct preview of the Local Health Departef4M*
If the Local Health Department feels that the soil is
not suitable for septic tank drain field installations•
an Cher Ate, such as a central sewerage system iA a
large dwslopewot. is the only altsrnativ e. Vhs Stato
dater Control Blond is the state agency that 40AS r+inss
the degree of setiewge treatt zjscessary. AS stated
previously# the degree of treatment required is determined
by the stream standards for the particular seveivfng stream
In question.
MIrmrar�h 3: Again, our camunt concerns Itself with the
degree of sewage treatment necessary. state law requires
a mninim= of secondary treatment but in no way does the
law insinuate that secondary treatment will be sufficient
in all instances.
If you have any questions or if we can be of any further services
please dD not hesitate to call upon us.
'fiery truly yours*
Norman Phillips. Jr., Director
Bureau of sanitary MKinesriag
By , �k
Eric H. Bartsdi
EHW817 Regional Engineer
CC State waterr Control aoard
State water Control Board - Front Royal
Frederick County Health Department
f'redaarick County Board of Supwvisore ;_,
0SI
U
*CLUBGOLF AND COUNTRY
P.O. BOX 90/CROSS JUNCTION, VIRGINIA 22625/PHONE (703)888-2631
September 28, 1970
Mr. Tom Rosenberger
Chairman
Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Tom:
Attached to this letter you will find the Petition
for changes to the general regulations of the Zoning and Sub-
division Ordinances of Frederick County.
We would appreciate it very much if you would
present this Pettion to the Board at your next regular meeting.
We feel that these proposed amendments are in the best interests
of all of the citizens and taxpayers of Frederick County.
Sincerely yours,
LAKE HOLIDAY ESTATES, INC.
O
Donald L. Bayliss
President
Attachment
ccs: C. E. Bayliss
H. Moss
H. D. Carter
Joseph A. Massie, Jr., Esq.
E. G. Williams, Esq.
W. H. Glasscock, Esq.
DLB/amm
LOCATED JUST 12 MILES NORTHWEST OF HISTORIC WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA, GATEWAY TO THE BEAUTIFUL
SHENANDOAH VALLEY - A SAFE DISTANCE FROM POLLUTION AND A WONDERFUL PLACE TO RETIRE.
i
CENTRAL WATER • APPROX. 300-ACRE PURE LAKE DESIGNED FOR SKIING, SWIMMING, BOATING AND FISHING * LARGE
RECREATION CENTER FEATURING CLUB HOUSE WITH DINING AND DANCING, SWIMMING POOLS, TENNIS COURTS, BADMINTON, SKATING,
VOLLEY BALL, ETC. 0 IS HOLE GOLF COURSE • WHITE SANDY BEACHES • SEPERATE TROUT AND BASS LAKES FOR FISHING ONLY
PERMANENT HOMES WILL BE IN A SEPARATE AREA. BEST RESTRICTIONS • SECOND HOMES ALSO FEATURE GOOD RESTRICTIONS -
DESIGNED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL MEMBERS • SUPERB SCENERY • FANTASTIC VIEWS-HUGH TREES-BO% OF ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT
IS HEAVILY WOODED
V
C,S/
GOLF AND COUNTRY *CLUB
P.0.BOX 90/CROSS JUNCTION, VIRGIN IA 22625/PHONE (703)888-2631
STATEMENT OF POSITION - SEWERAGE FACILITIES
LAKE HOLIDAY .ESTATES, INC.
In our proposal for rezoning before the Planning Commission
and the Board of Supervisors we prososed to construct a
"secondary" treatment plant on Isaacs Creek to provide adequate
treatment facilities for the project. This we are still willing
to do, however, on June 26, 1970 new regulations were put into
effect by the Commonwealth of Virginia which will make "tertiary"
treatment a requirement for discharge into Isaacs Creek and will
double the cost of treatment plant facilities. The published
requirements for discharge into Isaacs Creek at the time our
proposal was made called for "secondary" treatment.
Our original plat for Section 1 was planned for 101000-12,000
square foot lots to take advantage of the proposed central water
and sewerage by having smaller lots and of course having more
lots in Section 1. when our Engineers wer^ unable to secure
a discharge point into Isaacs Creek for us sing "secondary"
treatment and the various methods of improving "secondary"
treatment we made two trips to Richmond to discuss the problem
with the State Health Department and the State water Control
Board. we were advised by staff members that since the new
regulations were in effect, that it would take full "tertiary"
treatment for discharge into Isaacs Creek.
In view of the above we were forced to reconsider our planning
and to go to great expense to have our plan for Section 1 redrawn
so that we would have lots with a minimum of 15,000 square feet
to comply with the /-oning Urdinance of Frederick County for
lots with central water and individual septic systems. Mr. Roy
williams, Winchester -Frederick County was advised of the proposed
change by letter on August 18, 1970 and a request was made for
assistance if possible
G )
LOCATED JUST 12 MILES NORTHWEST OF HISTORIC WIrICHESTER, VIRGINIA, GATEWAY TO THE SEAUTWUL
INNHANDOAH VALLEY - A SAFE DISTANCE FROM POLLUTION AND A WONDERFUL PLACE TO RETIRE.
C'ONTRAL WATER AND SEWAGE • APPROX. 30(YACRE PURE LAKE DESIGNED FOR SKIING, SWIMMING, BOATING AND FISHING 0 LARGE
R*CMATION CENTER FEATURING CLUB HOUSE WITH DINING AND DANCING, SWIMMING POOLS, TENNIS COURTS, BADMINTON, SKATING,
VMUIY MALL, ETC. • IS HOLE GOLF COLiRSE • WHITE SANDY BEACHES 0 SEPERATE TROUT AND BASS LAKES FOR FISHING ONLY
#�MANENT HOMES WILL BE IN A SEPARATE AREA. BEST RESTRICTIONS • SECOND HOMES ALSO FEATURE GOOD RESTRICTIONS -
01MIGNED -OR THE dENEF1T OF ALL MEMBERS S SUPERB SCENERY! FANTASTIC VIEWS-HUGH TREES-50% OF ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT
Ilk 4WO.VILt WOODED
STitTEMENT OF POSITION - SL*bR.AGU FACILITIES
LAKE HOLIuAY ESTATES, INC.
Our lake will provide excellent recreational facilities and
we are assured that due to the tremendous watershed that we
have (8,570 acres) that there will be no danger of contamination
of the lake water. This amount of watershed is more than twice
as much as Desired by the best Engineering practices.
(1) Since we now have permanent residence type developments in
Frederick County and (2) other lake developments that now have
lakes or are proposing to build lakes for recreational purposes
who are being granted the necessary authority for individual
wells and individual septic systems we feel that we have done
everything possible to comply with the Frederick County zoning
ordinance and even more so by the proposed use of a central
water system. we now have one well already bored that is
producing in excess of 125 gallons per minute and are in the
process of drilling the second well.
In the event that it can be determined that it is economically
feasible for us to construct a central sewerage system we will
make the necessary provisions for those people who have individual
septic systems to hook on and be included in the system, on the
same basis as others.
Basically all of Lake Holiday property is of yellow shale and
sandstone. Before purchasing these properties we took the
precaution of making our own soil analysis with qualified people.
I have personally made many tests thru-out the development and
concluded that 95% of Lake Holiday land offered extremely
satisfactory perculation. we are willing to have the County Health
Officer assist, verify, etc. at any time satisfactory to him.
we were advised by our legal consul, Mr. Massie and other attorneys
prior to our rezoning we would in no way be bound to either central
water or sewerage by R-2 zoning. we were advised that according
to the zoning Ordinance this would permit us, if desired to go
down to 10,000 square feet per lot as stated in the zoning Ozdina e.
If either water or sewerage was installed by us the minimum square j
feet per lot would be 15,000 square feet. If neither water or
sewerage was installed by us, no rezoning at all would be necessary
as per the zoning Ordinance. In this case the lot size would be
20,000 square feet, and we could use both individual wells and
individual septic systems as is now being dome by many developer",:'
and developments. %',
1, r- I
STHTEMt_'VI' OF POSITION - SEwERAGE FHI.ILITIES
LAKE HUi, !UAY ESTATES, INC:.
In brief aentlemen, we are asking for no special favors. we are
only asking for what the Frederick County z-onina Ordinance
provides, and only desire to he accorded the same treatment as
Other land developers in Frederick County.
Si ncereIy•,
UC)nald L. Bayliss
PETITION
TO: T. M. Rosenberger, Chairman
Board of Supervisors of Frederick
County, Virginia
Purpose: To amend the subdivision ordinance as follows:
That not a single lot or group of lots or any type of
single plat for new or existing subdivisions or developments
be approved by the Board of Supervisors or the Frederick County
Health Department until the following proposed amendments have
been considered and adopted by the Board:
Article V - General Regulations
1. 5. (a) Lot Size - Public Water and Sewer -
That lots in this section have a minimum frontage
of 70 feet or more in width at the building line.
(b) Lot Size - Public Water or Sewer -
That lots in this section have a minimum width
of 80 feet at the building line.
(c) Lot Size - Neither Public Water Nor Sewer -
No change.
2. 8.1 (a) In all subdivisions of more than 20 lots,
a central water system shall be provided to serve
all of said lots.
(b) There shall be no requirement for a developer
to install a central sewage system in any subdivision
unless it is economically feasible as determined
by duly licensed professional engineers provided
by the developer.
(c) Should the said developer's engineers
determine that a sewage system is economically
feasible, then such sewage system shall be required
to meet the State's minimum secondary treatment
standards.
MASSIE AND SNARR (d) The prior or future rezoning of any land to
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
YIINCN ESTE R, VAR G�N�A R-1 or R-2 does not automatically require the
II developer to install a central sewage system.
0
3. 30. Cut -De -Sacs - Generally, minor terminal
streets (cut de sacs) designed to have one end
permanently closed with a turn around of not
less than one hundred (100) feet in diameter,
the length to be determined by topographyand
good engineering practices.
LAKE HOLIDAY ESTATES, INC.
By /' ' L'.
Donald L. Baylis KI,
President
MASSIE AHD SNARR
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA