HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-23 CommentsFrom:Rod Williams
To:Ronald A. Mislowsky
Cc:Wyatt Pearson; John Bishop; Tyler Klein
Subject:Rezoning Application - Round Hill Crossing Phase 2 - Tax Parcel 52-A-B (the "Property")
Date:Sunday, October 29, 2023 3:59:53 PM
Dear Ron:
You have submitted to Frederick County for review a proposed proffer
statement amendment (the “Proffer Statement Amendment”) for the proposed proffer
condition rezoning of the Property, 28.17± acres in the Gainesboro Magisterial
District, zoned in the B2 (General Business) Zoning District. I have now reviewed the
Proffer Statement and it is my opinion that the Proffer Statement would be in a form to
meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of
Virginia, and would be legally sufficient as a proffer statement, subject to the following
comments:
Item 6 of the Application does call for identification of persons holding interests
in the entities owning the property (but only their names and not their respective
ownership shares). The draft shows a response of “N/A”.
As written, the heading of the Proffer Statement Amendment refers to the 2016
rezoning, but the relevant text relates to the 2003 rezoning. The best practice
may be to reference both the 2003 and 2016 proffer statements in the heading
information. Thus, perhaps the title should be: “Proffer Statement Amendment /
Rezoning #s 03-03 and 08-16 / Round Hill Crossing Phase 2”. Likewise, for the
“Original Date of Proffers”, it might work best if that item just identified the final
adopted versions for both previous proffer statements, such as by indicating:
“Rezoning # 03-03 – June 20, 2003 // Rezoning # 08-16 – October 3, 2016”.
The magisterial district for the rezoning is Gainesboro and not Back Creek. The
area of the Property has not been moved to a different district.
Because the language of the Proffer Statement Amendment refers to the GDP
and to an attached exhibit, addition of the following clarifying language may be
appropriate, after the language at the bottom of page 1: “Other than with respect
to designating entrance connections to U.S. Route 50, neither this proffer
statement amendment nor its attached exhibit in any way otherwise modifies
any GDP or MDP previously approved for the property.”
I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are
suitable and appropriate for this specific development, as my understanding is that
review will be done by staff and the Planning Commission.
Sincerely yours,
Rod