PC 11-06-24 Work Session AgendaWork Session Call to Order
Information/Discussion Items
Zoning Ordinance Diagnostic - (Mr. Pearson)
Staff will present a Zoning Ordinance Diagnostic performed by the Berkley Group. The Zoning
Ordinance was assessed for compliance with the Code of Virginia and analyzed for potential
improvements to structure and content.
Western Frederick Land Use Plan - (Mr. Klein)
Staff will present the Western Frederick Land Use Plan (WFLUP) and discuss changes to plan
policy and the future land use map.
Adjourn to Regular Meeting
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2024
5:00 PM
THE BOARD ROOM
FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
PC11-06-24ZoningOrdinanceDiagnostic.pdf
PC11-06-24WesternFrederickLandUsePlan.pdf
1
Planning Commission
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: November 6, 2024
Agenda Section: Information/Discussion Items
Title: Zoning Ordinance Diagnostic - (Mr. Pearson)
Attachments:
PC11-06-24ZoningOrdinanceDiagnostic.pdf
2
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Frederick County Planning & Development
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Diagnostic
DATE: October 24, 2024
Project Background
This is a presentation on a Zoning Ordinance Diagnostic performed by the Berkley Group. The Zoning
Ordinance was assessed for compliance with the Code of Virginia and analyzed for potential improvements
to structure and content. Additionally, a broad review of Frederick County’s Comprehensive Plan (2021)
identified opportunities to implement policies and strategies through a Zoning Ordinance update. A report
was produced to identify actions that could be taken to strengthen the Ordinance and ensure complete
compliance with the Code of Virginia.
Conclusion
This item is presented for information/discussion. Following delivery of a final report, Planning and
Development staff will prioritize future ordinance amendments for inclusion in the departments work
program.
Questions regarding the diagnostic may be directed to staff.
MTK/ks
Attachments: 1. Narrative Report & Supporting Appendices
3
Frederick County
Zoning Ordinance Evaluation
November 6, 2024
4
Overview................................................3
Key Findings...........................................5
Federal and State Compliance.................6
Organization..........................................8
Administration.......................................9
Permits and Applications......................10
District Standards.................................11
Overlay Districts...................................13
Uses and Definitions.............................14
Use Permissions....................................15
Use Performance Standards..................16
Community Design Standards...............19
Nonconformities...................................22
Comprehensive Plan Findings...............23
Priority Items.......................................24
Recommended Next Steps.....................25
Conclusion............................................26
Appendix..............................................27
2 Table of Contents
Table of Contents
5
3Overview
Purpose and Scope Process
The Zoning Ordinance is one of the key tools Virginia localities use
to regulate the use and development of land. As part of Frederick
County’s full review of its Zoning Ordinance, the County commissioned
a diagnostic study to examine the Ordinance for compliance with the
Code of Virginia and other land use and development best practices.
Berkley Group, a Virginia-based local government consulting firm,
completed this assessment, which included the following tasks:
• Analyze the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 165, found in the Code
of Ordinances for Frederick County, Virginia, for compliance with
the Code of Virginia;
• Provide best practice recommendations, along with
recommendations for alignment with the County’s
Comprehensive Plan;
• Incorporate known Ordinance strengths and weaknesses as
provided by County staff knowledgeable with zoning regulations;
and
• Conduct a focus group with individuals who have a thorough
working knowledge of the County’s Zoning Ordinance, including
developers, engineers, and builders.
The diagnostic process began in July 2024 with a kick-off meeting
between the Berkley Group project team and County staff to discuss
broad community goals and specific issues with the County’s Zoning
Ordinance. In September 2024, Berkley Group facilitated a focus group
to gain an in-depth perspective on how the zoning regulations affect
stakeholder organizations or businesses, along with what changes they
would recommend (see Appendix C for a full summary of the discussion).
Focus group participants included representatives from local developers,
engineers, land use-oriented committees, and the County Planning
Commission. Feedback received from staff and focus group participants
was considered in tandem with a comprehensive review of the Zoning
Ordinance to assess how the regulations provided for in this Ordinance
comply with applicable state requirements and achieve the County’s
stated land use and development goals.
The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance was assessed for compliance
with each pertinent section of the Code of Virginia Title 15.2, Chapter
22: Planning, Subdivision of Land and Zoning and analyzed for potential
improvements to structure and content. Additionally, a broad review of
Frederick County’s current Comprehensive Plan identified opportunities
to implement policies and strategies through a Zoning Ordinance update.
These diagnostic matrices are included as Appendices A and B for easy
reference and examination.
This report identifies actions Frederick County should take to
strengthen the Ordinance and ensure complete compliance with the
Code of Virginia. Specific actions are also recommended to improve
the consistency, clarity, and completeness of the Zoning Ordinance.
These recommended changes will improve the ability of public officials,
citizens, and other stakeholders to better understand, administer, and
use the Ordinance in practice.
Overview
6
4 Overview
Zoning Ordinance
Diagnostic Matrix
+
Final Report
Comprehensive Plan
Diagnostic Matrix
=
+
Focus Group Feedback
+
County Staff Feedback
7
5Key Findings
Key Findings
Frederick County’s Zoning Ordinance should be revised to reflect current best practices in zoning
and land use; to strengthen and enhance the ability to implement the strategies and priority items of
the current Comprehensive Plan; and to improve clarity and ease of use with the following actions,
in no particular order:
• The Zoning Ordinance should be reorganized and streamlined into a user-friendly, clearly
written document. This is to aid staff with administration and enforcement and the
community with general interpretation and use.
• The Zoning Ordinance should be updated to achieve full compliance with the Code of
Virginia, as detailed in the recommendations of Appendix A.
• All application and notice procedures should be consolidated into a single article, including
the procedure for the advertisement and notification of public hearings.
• Dimensional standards in all primary zoning districts should be reviewed and updated to
ensure that they are clear and fully facilitate the type of development that meets each
district’s stated intent. All zoning districts should have clear and consistently applied
dimensional standards. For ease of use, dimensional standards should be organized in a
table format.
• The Zoning Ordinance would benefit from updated graphical representations coupled with
including additional types of graphics. This includes tables and charts to convey information,
such as a use permissions matrix, district standards table, and design standards illustrations,
among others.
• The Zoning Ordinance should be reviewed and updated annually with the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors. This is a best practice technique which ensures that
the ordinance not only remains compliant with the Code of Virginia, but also relevant and
responsive to community needs and priorities.
8
6 Federal & State Compliance
The Zoning Ordinance is the local
code that provides regulations
and requirements for the use and
development of land in Frederick
County. Zoning divides a locality
into specific districts and establishes
regulations concerning the use,
placement, spacing, and size of land
and buildings within the respective
districts. The Zoning Ordinance is the
primary instrument used by localities
to implement the long-range vision
found in the Comprehensive Plan.
Frederick County’s Zoning Ordinance
can be updated and improved to
better manage land development
activities, enhance clarity, and
ensure compliance with the Code of
Virginia. Specific recommendations
for state code compliance are included
in Appendix A and summarized
throughout this report.
Federal and State Compliance
Any Zoning Ordinance update should incorporate current Code of Virginia references and address
recent amendments to the Code. The Ordinance does not account for several recent updates to
the Code of Virginia, including those related to public noticing, Ordinance administration, and solar
photovoltaic and energy storage project approvals. The Zoning Ordinance diagnostic (Appendix A)
itemizes each state code section that must be addressed. Charts depicting the compliance with
each pertinent section of the Code of Virginia are included on the following page.
9
7Federal & State Compliance
This set of diagrams showcases
the Zoning Ordinance’s overall
applicability and compliance with the
Code of Virginia’s zoning regulations.
A detailed analysis of each code
section in provided in Appendix A;
these charts offer a broad look at
Frederick County’s standing.
Chart 1 highlights the percentages
of the Code of Virginia regulations
that are and are not applicable to
the Zoning Ordinance. The applicable
percentage includes both mandatory
and optional provisions.
Chart 2 highlights the collective
percentage of the Zoning Ordinance
that fully complies, does not
comply, or partially complies with
the mandatory sections of Code of
Virginia.
Chart 3 highlights the percentage of
optional provisions that are included,
not included, or partially included in
the Zoning Ordinance.
Chart 3
Optional* Provisions Usage
Chart 2
Compliance with
Mandatory Sections*
*Total Optional provisions = 23% of all provisions
Chart 1
Applicability of
Code of Virginia Sections
*Chart does not include Optional or Not Applicable percentages
10
8 Organization
Berkley Group typically
recommends the following
structure for zoning ordinances:
1. In General
2. Administration
3. Permits and Applications
4. Primary Zoning Districts
5. Overlay Zoning Districts
6. Use Matrix
7. Use Standards
8. Community Design
Standards
9. Nonconformities
10. Definitions
The County’s Subdivision
Ordinance can also be added as an
article to promote cohesiveness
and transparency, if desired.
Organization
The Zoning Ordinance has not been wholly updated since 1990, instead being amended as needed
through the years. This has led to ambiguity and conflicting provisions, making administration and
interpretation burdensome. The Ordinance should be reorganized and streamlined for clarity, with
conflicting or redundant provisions removed. A restructuring may also be necessary to ensure “like”
provisions are included in the appropriate Article or Division.
The current Ordinance tends to utilize lengthy paragraphs, making it difficult to follow more complex
requirements. Future updates should seek to streamline text, avoiding the use of jargon if possible
and using concise multi-level lists to replace overly lengthy text. In some instances, tables could be
used to entirely replace bodies of text; this would improve readability and expedite the process of
making future text amendments.
11
9Administration
The current Zoning Ordinance lacks information
regarding the specific powers and procedures of
the Board of Supervisors as related to zoning and
the Planning Commission. The Administration
article of the Ordinance should include a section
to codify the powers, duties, and procedures as
they are assigned in the County, and ultimately
dictated by the Code of Virginia. This section
would also house the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA) language from Article X of the current
Ordinance. Additionally, it could include the
powers and duties of the Historic Resources
Advisory Board (HRAB).
Currently, there are many instances where
provisions of the Ordinance can be waived or
modified after a public hearing before the Board
of Supervisors. While allowing some flexibility
in Ordinance standards can be positive, minor
modifications may not always warrant a full
public hearing process. The County should
consider where administrative waivers and/or
modifications can be utilized in lieu of waivers
before the Board to reduce the time and
cost burden for an applicant and the Board’s
workload.
Civil Penalties
Frederick County amended the Zoning
Ordinance in 2020 to update enforcement
procedures to align more closely with the Code
of Virginia. The Ordinance does not currently
provide procedures for civil penalties for zoning
violations in the Ordinance, although the
Ordinance includes a provision authorizing the
Board of Supervisors to adopt civil penalties.
As a best practice, the County should introduce
civil penalties and implement such penalties as
a first line of defense, moving to misdemeanors
as appropriate. Utilizing this more gradual
approach will ease the burden of enforcement,
save the County time and money, and allow the
most effort to be put towards repeat or serious
violations. A uniform schedule and summons
procedure should be applied for civil penalties as
detailed in the Code of Virginia. Procedures for
civil penalties, along with other procedures for
code enforcement, would be addressed under
the Administration article of the Ordinance.
Cash Proffers
The Code of Virginia allows localities to accept
cash proffers with development applications
to mitigate impacts or provide for certain
improvements, provided that specific criteria
are met. Frederick County’s Zoning Ordinance
does include language for the acceptance of
cash proffers, although it should be revised to
better align with Code of Virginia § 15.2-2297.
State code requires cash proffers to be directly
related to the specific development being
permitted, which is not explicitly included in
the current Ordinance. It is recommended to
include direct reference to applicable sections
of the Code of Virginia and state that acceptance
and expenditure of cash proffers will comply
with said state code.
Administration
12
10 Permits and Applications
Procedures and standards for permits and
applications are a major component of a Zoning
Ordinance. Additionally, having clear and
consistently applied standards for permits and
applications can also signal Frederick County
as a business-friendly community. County staff
has received negative feedback regarding the
site plan, minor site plan, and illustrative sketch
requirements. Berkley Group recommends
multiple changes to these requirements
to reduce confusion and ensure zoning
requirements are consistently applied.
The Ordinance currently states either a site
plan or illustrative sketch plan is required for
a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) only, and the
Zoning Administrator is given broad authority
to not only determine which type of plan is
required, but to waive or alter requirements.
As a best practice to reduce the time and cost
burden of the application process, and to remove
inconsistently applied standards, Berkley
Group recommends eliminating the site plan
requirement at the application stage and only
requiring an illustrative sketch plan. This should
be applied consistently across all rezoning, CUP,
and variance applications, regardless of the use
or zoning district. Site plans should then be
uniformly required for all development after any
required zoning approval has been granted but
before construction has commenced. If desired,
some flexibility can be provided by including a
provision that the Zoning Administrator may
Permits and Applications
require a site plan if review of a sketch plan
reveals that the application is overly complex.
This provision could include specific parameters
for when this is required, such as traffic counts
and acreage. Some localities also choose to
waive site plans for agricultural uses and single-
family residential development that is not part
of a larger development.
Additionally, the Ordinance states that
applicants shall provide comments on the site
plan from various agencies; as a best practice,
County staff should be coordinating the process
of reviewing and compiling comments from
other agencies. The Ordinance also states
that the Zoning Administrator may submit site
plans to the Planning Commission for review
and recommendation, but only provides vague
criteria for what would warrant this more
extensive review. If the Planning Commission
desires to continue review and recommendation
of site plans, this should either be required for
all site plans, or more specific circumstances
articulated as to when this type of review should
occur.
Minor site plans are commonly utilized around
Virginia for development that does not have
as significant of a disturbance. However, some
localities have found that it is best to only have
one type of site plan to ease the burden of staff
review. If Frederick County decides to eliminate
a minor site plan requirement, coordination
should occur first against applicable MS4 and
erosion and sediment control (E&S) ordinances
to ensure there would not be gaps created in
the application process.
Frederick County also currently includes a
master development plan (MDP) process in its
Ordinance, which serves as an intermediate
plan between a conceptual plan and a full site
plan. The purpose of the MDP is to demonstrate
the characteristics of the property proposed for
subdivision and/or development and ensure
that all applicable Ordinance requirements
have been satisfied. However, applicants are
currently permitted to waive an MDP if a
site plan is submitted, although the site plan
requirements are more stringent than those of
an MDP and so the two should not be considered
interchangeable. If the County requires a
conceptual sketch at the application stage,
and then a site plan prior to construction, the
need for an MDP would be eliminated, which
would provide greater clarity to applicants.
One component of an MDP submittal that
the County may choose to retain is the
preapplication conference provision, which
can be either recommended or required for all
zoning approvals and site plan submittals. If a
preapplication conference is required, it should
be either required for all zoning applications or
be completely clear as to what circumstances
warrant the preapplication conference.
13
11District Standards
District Standards
The Zoning Ordinance establishes district
standards that address height, area, setbacks,
and lot coverage. These district standards
should be evaluated to ensure consistency and
that the standards are promoting the desired
type of development in each district, with
changes being made where necessary.
District standards for each specific zoning
district are included throughout the Ordinance,
with additional relevant regulations in Part
201, Supplementary Use Regulations. As
utilized in § 165-601.02 of the Ordinance, all
district standards should be organized in a
tabular format broken out by district type (e.g.,
agricultural, residential, industrial, planned
development). Focus group participants
expressed concern with the standards for
the Residential Performance (RP) district in
particular. Introducing graphics and tables is
a fundamental improvement that improves
usability and serves as a helpful exercise to
identify and eliminate potentially conflicting
standards. The use of updated and additional
graphics may also help to illustrate how certain
dimensional standards, such as maximum
height, are measured.
Additionally, both County staff and focus
group participants noted the lack of residential
rezonings over the last decade. As Frederick
County is projected to continue growing, zoning
requirements should be proactive in ensuring
that any new residential growth is not only
feasible in targeted growth areas, but high-
quality and appropriate for the context of the
surrounding area. One implementation step
in facilitating this is reducing the minimum
overall required development area of planned
development districts to allow thoughtful
development to occur on smaller tracts of land.
Height
The current height requirements were identified
by both County staff and focus group participants
as a frequent limiting factor in development;
therefore, maximum permitted heights
for all zoning districts should be evaluated
with changes being made where necessary.
These limitations cause issues with attracting
development in the commercial and industrial
districts, and can also inhibit redevelopment,
particularly for stacked townhouses and other
forms of “missing middle” housing development
such as duplexes and triplexes.
Setbacks
County staff and focus group participants noted
the need to closely review the setbacks in all
zoning districts, but especially the residential
and industrial districts. Setback requirements
for all districts should be stated clearly and
consistently; there is currently ambiguity as to
where and how setbacks are measured. For
example, in the RA district, setbacks are applied
based on the primary use of the adjoining parcel,
which is not a best practice and should be applied
based on the primary use of the subject parcel.
Additionally, current setbacks are not always in
line with the type of development envisioned
by each underlying zoning district; this is a
barrier to achieve residential infill development
and other land use goals as envisioned by the
County’s Comprehensive Plan. Setbacks should
therefore be updated to ensure that they are
easily applied, appropriate, and in line with the
goals and desires of the County and its residents.
Example setback measurement graphic | Spotsylvania
County, VA (draft Ordinance)
14
12 District Standards
Transfer of Development Rights
Article III of the current Zoning Ordinance encompasses Frederick County’s Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program regulations. This program
allows property owners in rural areas to sell the development rights to their land as credits that can be applied in designated areas of Frederick County.
The Ordinance includes most definitions and provisions provided by Code of Virginia §§ 15.2-2316.1 and 15.2-2316.2; however, it should also define
“severance of development rights” as provided in state code. Additionally, the definition of “development rights” should be updated to better align with
what is provided in the Code of Virginia. All other TDR related definitions and provisions should be reviewed and updated as needed.
Cluster Subdivisions
Frederick County allows for cluster subdivisions as required by Code of Virginia § 15.2-2286.1. The County’s Zoning Ordinance currently permits cluster
subdivisions by-right in the Rural Areas (RA) and Residential Performance (RP) districts. The cluster provisions included in the RA district are currently
vague and should be explicitly stated as cluster requirements; this may help implementation in practice. Cluster provisions in both the RA and RP
districts can also provide more clear guidance for open space and provide smaller minimum lot sizes. This applies mainly in the RA district, where
a decrease to one acre would likely be appropriate in a
cluster development and align more closely with the
provided setbacks. Additionally, it is worth noting that
the RP district requires no more than 50% of the required
open space to be within lakes and ponds, floodplain,
wetlands, or steep slopes, even for clustered residential
development. However, per state code, localities are not
permitted to require delineation of slopes or riparian areas
in the open space included in a cluster development.
It may be useful for the County to consolidate all cluster
provisions into an individual section or table for ease of
use, administration, and future amendments.
Example cluster development standards table| King George County, VA
15
13Overlay Districts
Frederick County’s Zoning Ordinance establishes
five overlay districts in Article VII; specifically,
the specifically the Airport (AP1), Floodplain
Districts (FP), Historic Area (HA), Interstate Area
(IA), and Traditional Neighborhood Design-
Business (TNDB) Overlay Districts. Although
they are included in the Ordinance, none have
been applied to any specific areas or parcels in
the County and designated on the Zoning Map,
with the exception of the IA overlay district.
Frederick County should undertake a County-
initiated map amendment to apply all overlay
zoning districts to appropriate areas. This is a
best practice seen in most Virginia localities,
as is not typical to expect developers to apply
for both an overlay and a primary district due
to the significant time and cost burdens. This
map amendment process will prevent spot
applications of overlays, which works against
providing cohesive, high-quality development
that achieves specific and often hyperlocal
goals.
These overlay districts should also undergo a
review with updates where needed and desired.
Several recommendations for the County’s
overlay districts include reviewing the AP1 and
FP district language against the state model
ordinances and aligning overlay districts with
updated uses and permissions. Additionally, the
TNDB district was specifically identified by focus
group participants as a zoning district in need of
Overlay Districts
greater flexibility for design requirements such
as landscaping, off-street parking, and open
space. Design requirements can also address
blocks and streets, materiality, and colors.
County staff identified the HA district as one
that appears overly restrictive. While the
language in this district is largely consistent
with similar overlays in other Virginia localities,
one potential improvement that would improve
implementation is applying the HA district to any
designated local, state, and/or federal historic
districts; this eliminates the need for applying
district boundaries based on criteria that could
be more subjective in nature. Once these
are designated, the list of criteria for future
designations should then be shortened for
brevity. The Historic Resources Advisory Board
(HRAB) could also be tasked with conducting
the bulk of research and analysis in processing
applications; some localities choose to use this
approach. It may also be helpful to create a clear
division for Certificate of Appropriateness (CA)
that guides development in these areas upon
designation; some localities also choose to allow
exemptions for certain development in historic
overlays, such as signage and agricultural or
horicultural uses. Exemptions are currently not
provided for in the Ordinance.
16
14 Uses and Definitions
Uses and Definitions
Definitions
The definitions section of the Zoning Ordinance
should be reviewed and updated for consistency,
clarity, and ease of interpretation. The County
should ensure that every land use permitted
in the Ordinance has an accompanying
definition, and that all definitions are clear to
avoid interpretation issues. All terms and uses
required by the Code of Virginia and pertinent
to Frederick County should be included with
an accompanying reference to the appropriate
section of the Code; for example, “affordable
housing” and “incentive zoning”. Terms that are
not pertinent to the County, such as “military
installation”, “working waterfront”, and
“working waterfront development area”, do
not need to be included. Currently, many uses
identified in the Ordinance are not defined,
such as “car wash” and “gasoline station”;
additionally, many of the Code-mandated use
terms are not included, such as “family day
home.” Focus group participants noted this
as an issue in understanding and applying the
Ordinance.
Uses
Definitions should be closely reviewed for
opportunities to consolidate similar uses under
more general use types for easier administration,
interpretation, and flexibility. Some uses can
be streamlined to eliminate redundancy and
combine specific terms into broad categories.
The County initiated text amendments in
late 2023 and early 2024 to align the uses in
commercial and industrial districts with the
North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS). This was a significant step in modernizing
the Zoning Ordinance and implementing the
goals of the County’s Economic Development
Authority (EDA); however, all uses, regardless of
where they are permitted, should be reviewed
and modernized to provide flexibility to adapt
to new uses. This eases administration and
development while also reducing requests for
zoning text amendments; this also serves to
benefit the County’s economic development
goals. Examples of outdated uses include
“rooming/boarding house” and “mobile home.”
Examples of modern uses seen in many Virginia
localities that should be introduced are “mobile
restaurant”, “data center”, and “brewery.”
Additionally, County staff and focus group
participants also identified the need to
introduce additional housing types, along with
clear and appropriate definitions, such as back-
to-back townhomes, quadplexes, and 2-over-
2 units. Expanding the defined and permitted
housing types in the County will help to provide
a broader selection of housing for the County’s
workforce.
Some uses can be streamlined
to eliminate redundancy and
combine specific terms into
broad categories. For example,
“data entry, data processing,
data verification, and optional
canning data services” and
“Finance and Insurance, Holding,
and Office of Real Estate”
can be combined into “Office,
General.” Additionally, the
“library” use could be combined
with the “public buildings” use
that is included in the current
Zoning Ordinance.
17
15Use Permissions
Use Permissions
Currently, use regulations are provided as lists in district-by-district articles of the Zoning Ordinance. As a best practice, many localities utilize a composite
use matrix that shows all districts, uses, and how those uses are regulated. Berkley Group recommends adding at least one use matrix to the Ordinance
as a fundamental improvement in lieu of listing uses in each district article. If a use matrix – or matrices – are incorporated, it provides a user with a
location to easily identify where a use is permitted, either “by right” or “by conditional use permit” without looking in multiple sections of the Zoning
Ordinance. The use matrix can also identify if a use has associated performance standards, and where in the Ordinance those standards are located.
This is particularly useful for potential businesses considering locating or relocating in Frederick County. Utilizing a use matrix also makes it easy for the
County to ensure uses are appropriately permitted, to avoid conflicts or repetition, and to streamline the process of adding new uses in the future. All
existing uses should be reviewed to make sure they are permitted in appropriate zoning districts.
Example use matrix | City of Emporia, VA
18
16 Use Performance Standards
Use performance standards are additional
regulations above and beyond what is required
by the underlying zoning district to enhance
the quality and character of development
and to limit adverse impacts on potentially
incompatible uses. Uses that are largely
permitted by right but that may have more
significant impacts – for example, a gas station
adjacent to a residential district – should be
given appropriate use standards to help ensure
a business-friendly development process while
simultaneously addressing potential conflicts
between uses.
The existing Zoning Ordinance includes use
performance standards for some permitted
uses, but not all. All uses permitted in the
Ordinance should be reviewed and given use
performance standards as needed. County staff
has specifically noted the need for additional
performance standards for self-service storage
facilities. Often, performance standards can be
utilized in lieu of Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
requirements. This means that a use requested
frequently for a conditional use permit can
be changed to a by-right use and customary
conditions of the permits would be inserted
as regulations within the use performance
standards article. Establishing use performance
standards in lieu of a conditional use process
for commonly requested uses can alleviate
staff, Planning Commission, and Board time
on repeated applications while still ensuring
Use Performance Standards
impacts on neighboring properties are
minimized. This also demonstrates the County’s
commitment to being a business-friendly
community.
It is also recommended to consolidate all use
performance standards in a singular article and
organize by use category (e.g., agricultural use
standards, residential use standards, industrial
use standards) for ease of administration and
to avoid redundancy. Currently, performance
standards are scattered throughout the
Ordinance, including within some use
definitions; this organizational approach makes
it difficult for a user to understand requirements
and can increase the risk of conflicts and
redundancies when amendments are made.
Accessory Structures and Dwellings
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are an easy
tool for Frederick County to support general
housing availability and flexibility where
appropriate. The Zoning Ordinance includes
setbacks for accessory structures but does not
include definitions for the terms “accessory
structure” or “accessory dwelling unit.”
Accessory structures and ADUs – both detached
and attached – should be clearly differentiated
to clarify the difference between a structure
that is meant as a live-in unit and a structure
that is meant for non-residential purposes, such
as a shed or workspace. Additionally, ADUs
Use performance standards
are a valuable tool to enhance
the quality and character of
development while limiting
adverse impacts on potentially
incompatible uses. The below
uses are examples of ones that
often benefit from additional
performance standards:
• Campgrounds
• Data Centers
• Event Venues
• Manufactured Home Parks
• Short-Term Rentals
• Smoke / Vape Shops
• Truck Stops
• Utility-Scale Solar Energy
Facilities
19
17Use Performance Standards
should be permitted by-right with performance
standards in appropriate residential districts.
These standards can be tailored to the specific
impacts of ADUs and address items such as
minimum and maximum floor area and size –
which is already partially addressed – parking,
location, and the amount of ADUs permitted
per parcel. The use performance standards
must carefully address impacts without stifling
housing development.
Affordable Dwelling Units
County staff has noted the potential importance
of addressing affordable dwelling units through
the Zoning Ordinance; this would be most
effective and easily implementable when
coupled with adding new residential uses and
further addressing ADUs. A best practice for
facilitating the provision of affordable dwelling
units is through implementing density bonuses,
which allow for a specified increase above
and beyond the maximum density if certain
development criteria are met. This allows
for flexibility and high-quality development
while being less demanding than a traditional
affordable dwelling unit ordinance. If a
traditional ordinance is desired, Code of Virginia
§ 15.2-2305 would govern and require the
ordinance to address housing needs, provide
a full range of housing choices, and encourage
the construction and continued existence of
housing affordable to low- and moderate-
income residents. The County would also be
permitted to provide for density bonuses,
establish enforcement mechanisms, and
establish qualifying County-wide affordable
dwelling unit sales prices based on local market
conditions, among other items.
Kennels
County staff has specifically noted the need
to better differentiate between kennels;
specifically, those used primarily for breeding
versus those used primarily for boarding. The
lack of separate terms and definitions has caused
challenges in administration and enforcement.
Berkley Group recommends defining two
separate kennel uses, one commercial and
one private. The differentiation between the
two is based both on the number of dogs and
whether the activity is occurring in exchange
for monetary compensation. This is because
breeding and boarding both have similar
impacts. This will provide the County with
flexibility to apply different use performance
standards for different intensities of the use,
preventing undue regulation on smaller kennels
where animal keeping is not conducted in
exchange for compensation. Berkley Group
typically recommends incorporating standards
for both types of kennels that address additional
setbacks, minimum lot area, screening, and
waste cleanup. If animal welfare is a concern,
performance standards for commercial kennels
can also address the maximum number of
animals allowed to be kept on the premises at
any one point in time.
Green Infrastructure
Accessory uses such as small-scale or rooftop
solar facilities, in addition to electric vehicle
chargers, can all be incorporated into the
Zoning Ordinance to provide the community
with alternative energy sources while helping
Frederick County move towards a greener and
more resilient community. Furthermore, while
the County’s Director of Public Works has full
discretion over low-impact development (LID)
practices, the Ordinance’s requirements relating
to LID and stormwater management should
be clarified to help promote more sustainable
practices and clear confusion. Additional
community design standard recommendations
can be found on page 19.
Example of Low-Impact Development (LID) Measure
Photo Credit: H2OC Stormwater Program
20
18 Use Performance Standards
Solar Energy Facilities
Solar energy facilities have emerged in the
past decade as a new and considerable use in
localities throughout Virginia. Between 2020
and 2023, the Board of Supervisors considered
and approved four utility-scale solar facilities.
The Ordinance should ensure compliance
with all state code elements relating to solar
projects, as several new regulations have been
added in recent years. All current language and
references to the Code of Virginia provided
in the Ordinance should be reviewed and
amended to ensure that the correct sections are
being integrated into the County’s regulations.
All definitions and siting agreement language
should be incorporated into the Zoning
Ordinance as provided by state code.
The County currently conditionally permits
utility-scale solar facilities. Use performance
standards for solar energy facilities are not
required by the Code of Virginia; however,
proactively establishing such standards in
addition to the customary conditions of CUPs
would benefit the County. Berkley Group
typically recommends the inclusion of standards
to address decommissioning and bonding; open
space and wildlife corridors; noise; setbacks;
landscaping and screening; maintenance; and
emergency ingress/egress. Given the scale and
extent of these types of uses, as well as their
impact on rural and agricultural landscapes,
performance standards can help to further
mitigate potentially adverse impacts on
surrounding areas. This also helps to facilitate
a baseline consistency across applications,
regardless of their individual size or location.
Battery Energy Storage Facilities
Like data centers, battery energy storage
facilities are becoming an increasingly desirable
use, both as a principal use and as accessory to
utility-scale solar energy facilities to capture,
store, and release excess energy. The County’s
Zoning Ordinance does not address this use. It is
recommended that Frederick County proactively
define, permit, and provide standards for
battery energy storage facilities to prepare for
potential applications. Use standards for these
facilities often address noise, screening, fire
protection, and setbacks.
Data Centers
Data centers are becoming increasingly common
in Virginia, and Frederick County has seen
growing interest in data center development
in recent years. The Zoning Ordinance lightly
addresses data centers through the intent
statement of the Technology-Manufacturing
Park district, but otherwise does not specifically
define or regulate the use. However, County
staff is currently working on a text amendment
to address this and provide clear guidance
for data centers. As part of the upcoming text
amendment, data centers should be clearly
defined and permitted. Use performance
standards to mitigate impacts of data centers
should also be included as desired to align with
current industry best practices. Implementing
Data Center in Haymarket, Virginia
Photo Credit: Virginia Mercury (Hugh Kenny)
appropriate use standards for data centers
can address various concerns around this use,
including noise, water quality, landscaping and
screening, façade design, security fencing and
lighting, decommissioning, and connecting to
transmission lines.
21
19Community Design Standards
Community Design Standards
Landscaping, Buffers, and Screening
Landscaping requirements are one of the
tools Virginia localities have available to them
to enhance community character, protect
environmental resources, and reduce the
impact of potentially incompatible uses. Local
ordinances often require landscaping and
screening as part of development or land
disturbing activities. These requirements are
typically reviewed through an application
which includes a landscape plan submitted as
a part of any development approval. Specific
requirements focus on site design, transitional
areas, and screening.
Frederick County’s Zoning Ordinance currently
addresses landscaping, buffers, and screening
requirements in Article II of the Zoning Ordinance.
Focus group participants identified the need for
clearer standards relating to landscaping bonds
and their release. Additionally, Article XI, Buffer
and Screening Diagrams, states that diagrams
are included at the end of the chapter; however,
no diagrams appear to be included. This should
be reconciled through a reorganization of
the landscaping provisions, relocating all to
a single article that contains all community
design standards including, but not limited to,
landscaping, signs, and parking. Diagrams and
plates are beneficial in providing visual examples
and should be clearly integrated once updates
to the structure and content of Ordinance
regulations have occurred. Included in a review
and update of landscaping provisions should be
a review of the approved plantings/species list
and the minimum sizes to determine if these
regulations achieve the overall intent of the
County’s landscaping requirements.
In some cases, landscaping and buffering are
required based on the underlying use, not the
base district. Recommend applying landscaping
and buffering on the underlying zoning district.
This is because if a use changes, but the zoning
stays the same, the property owner – or adjacent
property owner – does not have to completely
alter buffering for a use that is likely similar in
nature.
Signs
There are many community benefits to regulating
the physical qualities of signs, including reducing
clutter, minimizing distractions to drivers, and
enhancing community aesthetics. The County
amended its sign regulations in 2023 to conform
with Virginia’s model ordinance, although the
dimensional standards for signs remained
relatively unchanged. Focus group participants
specifically noted that the Ordinance language
for the height measurement of entry monument
signs is vague and unclear and would benefit
from clarification. Sign regulations can also be
communicated effectively using graphics and
tables; recommend including additional graphic
components to visualize sign dimensional
standards and permissions, improving the ability
of the general public to use and understand the
Ordinance.
Example sign graphic | King George County, VA
22
20 Community Design Standards
Open Space
Frederick County’s Ordinance provides
open space requirements for certain zoning
districts, such as the Residential Performance
(RP), Residential Planned Community (R-
4), and Medical Support (MS) districts. It
is recommended to review all open space
provisions throughout the Ordinance to ensure
the appropriate type of development. As a
specific example, the current Ordinance states
that no more than 50 percent of the required
open space in the R-4 district can be located
within environmental areas such as lakes and
ponds; wetlands; and steep slopes. The County
should assess this requirement and consider
reducing it to a lower percentage, or introduce
language that encourages these lakes, ponds,
and wetlands to be integrated as features in
the development. The County can also consider
designating minimum percentages of active
and passive recreational areas within the open
space.
Sidewalks
Sidewalk standards, and when they are
required, were identified by both County staff
and focus group participants as an area in
need of significant improvement. The current
Ordinance’s sidewalk regulations have resulted
in undesirable occurrences of “sidewalks to
nowhere.” This term refers to disconnected
sidewalks that have no connecting sections or
meaningful destinations. A potential solution
to prevent this type of development pattern
could be to consider establishing sidewalk
requirements for the community as a whole in
lieu of an individual, first come-first serve basis.
Another option is to allow payments in lieu
of construction. This may be appropriate in
circumstances where the site’s topography
makes sidewalk development impractical or if
the County has determined that sidewalks are
unnecessary in the specific area but needed
elsewhere. Code of Virginia § 15.2-2241
states that this is permissible in a Subdivision
Ordinance. However, if this approach is utilized,
the payments would eventually have to be used
on construction improvements reasonably
relevant to the property the fee was initially
collected from. The Subdivision Ordinance
would also need to clearly articulate conditions
under which payment in lieu is acceptable, how
fees are calculated, and how the fees will be
expended. It is also recommended to amend
the Comprehensive Plan to include robust
language supporting the continued expansion of
pedestrian infrastructure, including designation
of specific locations. In any case, development
of a payment in lieu system should occur in
tandem with the County’s Finance Department
to discuss establishing, holding, and release of
funds.
Parking
The Zoning Ordinance currently provides
minimum parking requirements largely based
on floor area and number of employees,
depending on the use; these should be closely
reviewed and updated as needed. The residential
parking requirements are currently located in
the specific zoning districts’ section rather than
being included in the table of minimum required
parking spaces. It is recommended to relocate
the residential parking requirements to the table
provided in § 165-202.01 of the Ordinance, so
all off-street parking requirements are clearly
organized and communicated.
Parking requirements should reflect updated
uses, ensuring that new uses have parking
standards as appropriate and any uses that
have been either consolidated or eliminated
are removed from parking standards. Modern
parking solutions, such as bicycle parking
and electric vehicle (EV) charging stations,
should also be addressed in off-street parking
standards. Both bicycle parking and EV charging
stations should be required in mixed-use,
commercial, and industrial districts to address
increasing demand for alternative methods
of transportation; this is usually included as a
minimum percentage based on the total square
footage of parking area.
23
21Community Design Standards
Another way to modernize parking is through
revising shared parking requirements. Shared
parking requirements should prescribe a
maximum distance that off-site spaces can
be from the subject use. Shared parking
requirements should also be determined based
on a calculation that factors in time of day, land
use type, and the minimum parking required,
rather than simply basing it on the sum of the
minimum required for multiple uses. Credits
can be provided towards shared parking based
on availability of bicycle parking, municipal
parking facilities, other off-site parking facilities,
and/or sidewalks.
Frederick County may consider the feasibility
of introducing allowances for on-street parking
in relation to the minimum parking required
for a development. On-street parking should
be credited toward the minimum parking
requirements for development but should also
place a cap on the amount of linear feet of off-
street parking that is able to be credited. For
each side of the street where on-street parking
is utilized, the Ordinance should require an
increase in road width to accommodate both
parked vehicles and allow for the safe passage
of traffic, including emergency vehicles. Any
on-street parking spaces used to count towards
minimum parking should also be clearly striped.
Additionally, the County can explore the option
of utilizing parking maximums to promote
development, limit sprawl, and reduce
stormwater runoff by eliminating expanses
of pavement; this was noted by County staff
as a potential change. As Frederick County
remains a largely car-dependent locality,
parking maximums are likely only appropriate
within mixed-use, commercial, and industrial
areas within the UDA, where sidewalks, bike
lanes, and public transit are more likely to be
provided in future years. These maximums can
be calculated as a ratio based on the gross floor
area of the use; additional considerations for
peak demand can be added into the formula.
The County can include a provision that allows
exceptions to be granted administratively, if
desired.
Regarding the layout of parking lots, the
current regulations for minimum parking area
dimensions and parallel parking dimensions
are overly specific and should be simplified.
Consideration should also be given to
exempting all parking lots in the RA district
from landscaping requirements. Additionally,
perimeter landscaping requirements should
be based on the length of contiguous property
line and not square footage. Provisions for
shrubs should also be introduced to perimeter
landscaping requirements in lieu of the hedge/
berm requirement; this will increase flexibility
and creativity in perimeter landscaping. For
interior landscaping, consideration should be
given to only requiring interior landscaping for
parking lots with fifty or more spaces to ease
the burden on property owners of smaller,
less intensive uses. Another recommendation
that provides greater flexibility with future
development and stormwater reduction is
introducing standards for acceptable permeable
surfaces in parking lots.
Parking Modernization
Checklist:
9 Reorganize and consolidate all
parking requirements into a
single table
9 Ensure new uses are reflected
in requirements
9 Introduce bicycle parking & EV
parking standards
9 Adjust shared parking
standards
9 Introduce on-street parking
allowances, with safety &
design standards
9 Explore options for introducing
parking maximums
9 Adjust parking area dimensions
9 Provide greater flexibility
& simplicity in parking lot
landscaping requirements
24
22 Nonconformities
Nonconformities
Legally nonconforming lots, structures, and
uses are those which were legally established
according to applicable zoning laws at the time
the lot, structure, or use began, but which
do not meet current zoning regulations. The
Code of Virginia allows localities to permit
nonconforming lots, structures, and uses to
continue, provided they are not enlarged,
extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered
unless such changes comply with current zoning
regulations.
The Zoning Ordinance provides nonconformities
language in Article IX, which is largely in
compliance with Code of Virginia requirements.
However, there is state-mandated language
regarding vested rights that is not included.
The missing language should be included in the
Zoning Ordinance to achieve full compliance
with the Code of Virginia. It is also best practice
to clearly state that occasional, temporary, or
illegal use of land or buildings is not sufficient
to establish the existence of a nonconforming
use. This helps increase legal protection for the
County.
25
23Comprehensive Plan Findings
Comprehensive Plan Findings
The 2035 Frederick County Comprehensive
Plan was adopted in 2017 and last amended
in 2021. The Plan includes goals and strategies
for eight main plan elements: Urban Areas;
Rural Areas; Residential Development; Business
Development; Transportation; Public Facilities;
Natural Resources; and Historical Resources.
As the County’s primary land use tool, the Zoning
Ordinance is the primary means of implementing
the goals, objectives, and implementation
strategies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Amendments would therefore allow the Zoning
Ordinance to be a more responsive document,
increasing successful implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan.
A list of selected strategies from the
Comprehensive Plan, along with potential
Ordinance amendments that could serve
to implement each strategy, is included in
Appendix B. However, it should be noted that the
provided appendix is not a comprehensive look
at all goals and strategies provided within the
Comprehensive Plan; some goals and strategies
are shared among various plan elements or
simply not directly relevant to the Zoning
Ordinance. The included goals and strategies
were chosen to highlight the key themes
and strategies most relevant to the Zoning
Ordinance. The following are several examples
of recommended Ordinance amendments
to achieve closer alignment between the
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan:
• Reduce the minimum size of the
R-4 and R-5 districts to facilitate the
development of master planned
communities on smaller acreages.
• Adjust the gross densities listed in the
Residential Performance (RP) district
to apply evenly and better facilitate
a more diverse variety of residential
development.
• Identify, define, and appropriately
permit new economic development-
oriented uses, including but not limited
to data centers, live-work units, electric
vehicle (EV) stations, and small-scale
manufacturing or makers’ spaces.
• Continue to review permitted uses in
the office, manufacturing, industrial,
and mixed-use zoning districts to ensure
alignment with economic development
goals and reflect changes to industry
types.
• Similarly, consolidate “like”
manufacturing and industrial uses
for simplicity and to allow for greater
flexibility as technology advances and
new industries emerge.
• Introduce additional guidelines for sign
materiality, landscaping, and color to the
County’s overlay districts.
• Review street tree permissions
in the TNDB overlay to ensure a
balance between providing enhanced
landscaping and being overly restrictive.
• Review and amend landscape buffers;
apply all required buffers based on the
underlying zoning districts rather than
uses.
• Review the Zoning Ordinance annually;
consider including representatives
from the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) and/or WinFred
Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) when evaluating possible changes
relating to transportation infrastructure
requirements.
26
24 Priority Items
The following items, in no particular order, should be prioritized in future Zoning Ordinance updates:
Organization, Structure, Administration, and Code of Virginia Compliance
• Ensure that all required items of the Code of Virginia are clearly incorporated into the Zoning
Ordinance. Applicable optional provisions should be incorporated, as desired by the County.
• Clearly define all uses and incorporate any missing Code of Virginia use definitions. Examples
of Code-supplied use terms that need to be introduced into the Ordinance include “family day
home”.
• Consolidate the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances into a single, clearly organized document. This
should include a comprehensive review of the Subdivision Ordinance’s regulations along with any
updates as needed.
• Use clear and concise language in a multi-level list format, avoiding the use of jargon and
paragraphs of text whenever possible.
• Provide clear procedures and powers for Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors as
related to zoning.
Districts, Uses, and Performance Standards
• Review and update district standards to ensure they are facilitating the type of desired
development in Frederick County’s growth area. Specific and high-priority updates include
reviewing and revising purpose and intent statements, ensuring that setback and height standards
are facilitating desirable development, and reducing the minimum lot size for districts to better
facilitate both infill and new development on small to medium-sized tracts of land.
• Undertake a County-initiated map amendment to apply all overlay zoning districts to appropriate
areas. Review all overlay zoning districts and amend as needed to ensure they are facilitating the
type and quality of development envisioned in each respective area.
• Reorganize use performance standards into a single Article of the Ordinance. Ensure all use
performance standards are clearly articulated, especially for higher-impact uses. Consider where
use performance standards can be used in lieu of conditional use permits with lengthy conditions.
• Update community design standards for clarity and to eliminate overly complex and onerous
requirements, such as those related to buffering and sidewalks.
Priority Items for an Ordinance Update
27
25Next Steps
Berkley Group will present the findings of this diagnostic report to Frederick County staff, Planning
Commission, and Board of Supervisors in November 2024. Reviewing and discussing this report will
help build a strong foundation for future updates to the County’s Zoning Ordinance.
Public engagement is a necessary component of drafting land use regulations. Public engagement
should occur as the first step to an update process, prior to any drafting and editing. By doing so,
Frederick County can ensure that its regulations are truly able to address the community’s needs.
Engagement with the public can also benefit the County by serving to build trust in government and
establish transparency in the drafting process.
Effective public engagement is facilitated through providing opportunities for in-person engagement
through workshops, open houses, or interactive pop-up meetings, as well as virtual engagement
through surveys, interactive mapping, or online meetings. The frequency and style of engagement
can be tailored depending on project schedule and budget, but regardless of time and financial
constraints, it is important to ensure that all community members are aware of the intended
Ordinance changes and have available opportunities to participate.
The immediate next steps for Frederick County are as follows:
• Determine which components of this report will be prioritized for inclusion in future
updates to the Zoning Ordinance. Planning and Development staff will include amendments
in future work programs.
• Determine whether the County would like to undergo a full Ordinance update or a partial
update to address the highest priority items.
• Conduct additional public engagement with the community to determine community goals
and priorities.
Recommended Next Steps
28
26 Conclusion
Frederick County should be commended for its efforts to ensure an effective, efficient, and State-
compliant Zoning Ordinance. As noted in this report, the County’s Zoning Ordinance will require
revision and restructuring for conformity with the Code of Virginia, as well as modern best practices
related to zoning, land use, and development.
The recommendations outlined in this report constitute a detailed analysis of the County’s Zoning
Ordinance. Revising the County’s zoning regulations according to these recommendations will ensure
that the Ordinance is legally defensible, eases administrative burden for staff, facilitates a balance
between supporting development growth while preserving rural character, and reduces impacts
from differing or incompatible uses. An updated Zoning Ordinance will also ensure modernity
with new uses and aid in fully realizing the future envisioned in Frederick County’s Comprehensive
Plan. Keeping this land use tool up-to-date and in compliance with the Code of Virginia should
be a commitment the County upholds on an ongoing basis, including periodic reviews and text
amendments.
Berkley Group looks forward to supporting Frederick County as it continues to achieve its land use
and development goals and priorities.
Conclusion
29
27Appendix
APPENDIX
Appendix A: Code of
Virginia Diagnostic Matrix 28
Appendix B: Comprehensive
Plan Diagnostic Matrix 81
Appendix C: Focus Group
Summary 93
30
Appendix A:
Code of Virginia
Diagnostic Matrix
31
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 1 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
1. 2200 Declaration of legislative
intent
Yes § 165-101.01 This section of the Code of Virginia provides the purpose of Chapter 22 of the
Code of Virginia, which is subsequently the purpose for each of the tools
discussed therein (Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances).
Article I of the Zoning Ordinance incorporates this requirement through direct
reference to this section of state code, as amended.
The Zoning Ordinance complies with this section of the Code of Virginia.
2. 2201 Definitions Partial § 165-101.02 This section of the Code of Virginia provides foundational definitions for terms
used throughout the Chapter 22 regulations of the Code of Virginia and in
locality Zoning Ordinances.
Section 16-101.02 of the Zoning Ordinance includes some of the terms and
definitions provided by this section of the Code of Virginia but does not include
all the terms.
Frederick County should compare their definitions to those provided in this
section of the Code of Virginia and update accordingly to better align with that
which is provided in § 15.2-2201. Examples of definitions that could be
introduced into the Zoning Ordinance are “ “incentive zoning” and “affordable
housing.” Terms that do not apply to Frederick County, such as “military
installation” and “working waterfront development area”, do not need to be
included.
32
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 2 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
3. 2202 Duties of state agencies;
electric utilities
N/A N/A This section of the Code of Virginia states that any department, board, bureau,
commission, or other agency of the Commonwealth that proposes a project in
any locality shall, upon the request of the local Planning Commission, furnish
reasonable information requested by the local Planning Commission relative to
the proposed plans.
This section of the Code of Virginia does not need to be included in the Zoning
Ordinance, but the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission should be
aware of this Section of the Code.
4. 2203 Existing Planning
Commissions and boards of
zoning appeals; validation of
plans previously adopted
Partial § 165-1001.01
§ 165-1001.02
This section of the Code of Virginia states that upon adoption of Chapter 22 of
the Code of Virginia, already established Planning Commissions and boards of
zoning appeals would continue to operate as if they were created under the
terms of Chapter 22.
Article X provides for the establishment, organization, powers, and duties of
the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). While § 165-1001.01 makes a general
reference to state code, as a best practice, § 15.2-2203 of the Code should be
cited to allow for automatic incorporation of future amendments.
Statutory provisions of the Planning Commission are not included in the Zoning
Ordinance.
Recommend including direct reference to this section of state code, as
amended.
33
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 3 of 57
5. 2204 Advertisement of plans,
ordinances, etc.
Yes § 165-102.02
§ 165-102.03
§ 165-102.04
Plans or ordinances, or amendments thereof, recommended or adopted under
the powers conferred by this chapter need not be advertised in full, but may be
advertised by reference.
This section of the Code of Virginia was updated in 2023 and 2024 to streamline
advertising and notice requirements for plans and ordinance amendments.
Notably, the requirements related to “descriptive summaries” of subject
parcels and the length of time required to advertise have been revised. The
2024 update changed the timeframe for advertising public hearings in some
newspaper published or having general circulation in the locality: the first
notice is now required to appear no more than 28 days before the public
hearing and the second notice must not appear less than seven days before the
date of the public hearing.
The Zoning Ordinance complies with this section of the Code of Virginia through
stating that all necessary public notices shall be given as required by § 15.2-
2204.
While the Zoning Ordinance complies with the requirements of the Code of
Virginia, recommend strengthening the Ordinance through:
• Consolidating all application and notice procedures – including those
for variances, appeals, rezonings, and CUPs – into a singular division of
the Ordinance.
• Providing greater clarity for sign posting requirements, including when
multiple signs may be necessary and when they must be posted in
advance of a public hearing (see Line 6, below).
• Consider enabling an optional provision that in the case of a
condominium or a cooperative, the written notice may be mailed to
the unit owners' association or proprietary lessees' association,
respectively, in lieu of each individual unit owner. State code allows this
written notice to be mailed registered, certified, or first class; if this
optional provision is included, Frederick County should specify their
procedure.
34
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 4 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
6. 2205 Additional notice of
planning or zoning matters
Optional,
Yes
§ 165-102.02
This section of the Code of Virginia allows a locality, in addition to specific notice
required by law, to provide notice by any method on any planning or zoning
matter that it deems appropriate for notice.
§ 165-102.02 requires applicants to post an easily visible sign on the property
stating that zoning action is pending.
7. 2206 When locality may require
applicant to give notice;
how given
Optional,
Not Included
No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia allows for a locality to require the applicant
of any application to the local governing body, local Planning Commission, or
board of zoning appeals to be responsible for all required notices.
The Zoning Ordinance does not incorporate this optional provision.
If Frederick would like to include this optional provision, recommend
incorporating text and include reference to this section of the Code of Virginia.
8. 2207 Public notice of juvenile
residential care facilities in
certain localities
N/A N/A This section of the Code of Virginia allows a locality (which does not have an
applicable zoning ordinance) to require public notice and hearing for any
applicant who wishes to establish a public or private detention home, group
home or other residential care facility for children in need of services or for
delinquent youth.
This section of the Code of Virginia does not apply to Frederick County, as there
is an existing Zoning Ordinance in effect. This Ordinance update will address the
public hearing process requirement for these facilities.
35
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 5 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
9. 2208 Restraining violations of the
chapter [Chapter 22 of the
Code of Virginia]
Yes § 165-101.08
This section of the Code of Virginia allows any violation or attempted violation
of the Zoning Ordinance to be restrained, corrected, or abated by injunction or
other appropriate proceeding.
Frederick County includes this requirement in the Ordinance. See Line 12 for
additional information and recommendations regarding civil penalties.
Recommend including direct reference to this section of state code.
10. 2208.1 Damages for
unconstitutional grant or
denial by locality of certain
permits and approvals
Yes No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia states that any applicant aggrieved by a grant
or denial of any zoning-related approval or permit – when such grant or denial
was unconstitutional pursuant to either federal or state law – shall be entitled
to compensatory damages.
While appeals by aggrieved parties are briefly mentioned as related to the
Board of Zoning Appeals in § 165-1001.02, the Zoning Ordinance does not
include language specifically addressing damages for an unconstitutional grant
or denial; however, these determinations are likely occurring in practice in the
event of an appeal by an aggrieved party.
This section of the Code of Virginia does not need to be included in the Zoning
Ordinance, but the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission should be
aware of this provision to ensure compliance with Code of Virginia in practice.
11. 2208.2 Damages for an
enforcement action
undertaken by a locality
with willful disregard for
applicable law
Yes No Reference Code of Virginia § 15.2-2208.2 states that anyone against whom an
enforcement action is carried out by a locality – where the enforcement action
was based upon willful disregard for applicable law – shall be entitled to an
award of compensatory damages.
This section of the Code of Virginia does not need to be included in the Zoning
Ordinance, but the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission should be
aware of this provision to ensure compliance with Code of Virginia in practice.
36
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 6 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
12. 2209 Civil penalties for violations
of zoning ordinance
Optional
Partially
Included
§ 165-101.08 This section of Code of Virginia states that this schedule of civil penalties shall
be uniform for each type of specified violation, and the penalty for any one
violation shall be a civil penalty of not more than $200 for the initial summons
and not more than $500 for each additional summons. Each day during which
the violation is found to have existed shall constitute a separate offense.
However, specified violations arising from the same operative set of facts shall
not be charged more frequently than once in any 10-day period, and a series of
specified violations arising from the same operative set of facts shall not result
in civil penalties which exceed a total of $5,000.
Section 165-101.08 states that failure to comply with the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance will result in a misdemeanor, with fines of not less than $10
or more than $1,000. Further failure to remove or abate the zoning violation
within a specified time will result in a separate misdemeanor with additional
fines of not less than $10 or more than $1,500. Violations related to exceeding
the maximum number of unrelated persons in a single-family dwelling may be
fined up to $2,000, with failure to abate the violation punishable by additional
fines. This same section also authorizes the Board of Supervisors to adopt an
ordinance to establish civil penalties in accordance with state code, but it is
unclear whether Frederick County has acted upon this provision.
If the County has not done so already, recommend establishing civil penalties,
in accordance with this section of the Code of Virginia, as a first line of defense
for violations of the Zoning Ordinance. This streamlines the process for simple,
non-recurring violations and, coupled with misdemeanors, allows a multi-level
approach to enforcement that many localities find useful. Additionally,
recommend including direct reference to §15.2-2209, as amended; this is a best
practice for transparency in enforcement if civil penalties have already been
adopted.
37
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 7 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
13. 2209.1 Extension of approvals to
address housing crisis
N/A N/A To assist in addressing the housing crisis of the late 2000s and 2010s, Code of
Virginia § 15.2-2209.1 extended the approval of final site plans, special
exceptions, special use permits, and rezonings (if valid as of January 1, 2017) to
July 1, 2020, and allows further extensions of approval by the locality.
The extension period has passed; this does not need to be addressed in the
Zoning Ordinance and it is not recommended to further extend the approval
period as described in this section of state code. See Lines 14 and 16 for
additional extension provisions in the Code of Virginia.
14. 2209.1:1 Extension of approvals to
address the COVID-19
pandemic.
Yes No Reference To address impacts on the development industry resulting from the COVID-19
pandemic, this section of the Code of Virginia extends approvals of plats, final
site plans, special exceptions, special use permits, and rezonings (if valid as of
July 1, 2020) to July 1, 2025, and allows further extensions of approval by the
locality.
A text amendment is not necessary to comply with this section of the Code of
Virginia, but Frederick County should be implementing this in practice.
15. 2209.1:2(A) Period of validity for solar
photovoltaic and energy
storage projects
No No Reference Initial approval of a special permit for a solar photovoltaic or energy storage
project shall provide the landowner or developer with a minimum of three years
to commence the project. Applications for minor modifications to the permit
do not constitute a waiver of the provisions and do not extend the period of
validity.
This section of the Code of Virginia went into effect on July 1, 2024; Frederick
County has not yet incorporated this into the Zoning Ordinance.
Recommend including the text as provided for in this section of the Code of
Virginia.
38
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 8 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
16. 2209.1:2(B) Extension of land use
approvals for solar
photovoltaic and energy
storage projects
Yes No Reference Code of Virginia § 15.2-2209.1:2 allows any valid special exception, special use
permit, conditional use permit, or any modifications of these for a solar
photovoltaic or energy storage project outstanding as of July 1, 2023, any
deadline in the permit or Ordinance requiring the project to commence within
a certain time may be extended by a resolution from governing body until July
1, 2026, or longer as agreed to by the locality.
A text amendment is not necessary to comply with this section of the Code of
Virginia, but Frederick County can consider whether to implement in practice.
17. 2209.2 Public infrastructure
maintenance bonds
N/A N/A
This section of the Code of Virginia applies only to the City of Charlottesville.
18. 2209.3 Residential land
development and
construction fee
transparency; annual report
Yes No Reference Each locality with a population greater than 3,500 must submit an annual report
by March 1 of each year to the Department of Housing and Community
Development (DHCD) totaling the revenue collected by the locality over the
preceding calendar year in connection with residential land development and
construction activities.
This section of the Code of Virginia applies to Frederick County, as its population
is greater than 3,500.
A text amendment is not necessary to comply with this section of the Code of
Virginia, but County staff should be aware of this section of the Code and plan
to submit annual reports by March 1 as required.
39
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 9 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
19. 2210 - 2222 Local Planning Commissions Yes Various
These sections of the Code of Virginia regulate the required establishment,
authority, purpose, and procedures of local Planning Commissions.
Various sections throughout the Zoning Ordinance state the role and
responsibility of the Planning Commission during various processes
(amendments, application hearings, etc.); however, the Zoning Ordinance does
not provide a dedicated section with powers and regulations for the Planning
Commission. This is likely because this is addressed at least partially in Part I,
Chapter 21 of the County Code of Ordinances, which includes direct reference
to Code of Virginia § 15.2-2212 and § 15.2-2217.
While evaluation of Part I, Chapter 21 is not included in this diagnostic report,
recommend additional review of this Chapter by the County Attorney to ensure
complete alignment of these provisions with the Zoning Ordinance and current
Code of Virginia language.
20. 2222.1 Coordination of state and
local transportation
planning
Yes No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia requires the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) to review comprehensive plan amendments and
rezonings that will substantially affect transportation on state-controlled
highways.
A text amendment is not necessary to comply with this section of the Code of
Virginia, but Frederick County should be implementing this in practice.
21. 2223 - 2232 The comprehensive plan N/A N/A Code of Virginia §§ 15.2-2223 through 15.2-2232 regulate the requirements
and provisions for comprehensive plans.
These sections of the Code of Virginia are not relevant to this diagnostic but are
included to reflect the full list of sections provided in Chapter 22 of Title 15.2 of
the Code of Virginia.
40
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 10 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
22. 2233 - 2238 The official map Yes § 165-101.05 Code of Virginia §§ 15.2-2233 through 15.2-2238 provide the requirements for
a locality’s official map. These sections grant Planning Commissions the
authority to request a map be made that shows streets, waterways, and public
spaces. For localities without an official map, these sections regulate the
process for adoption and certification of the official map. Where an official map
is already adopted, these sections regulate map amendments and
modifications. Copies of the adopted official map must be sent to the
Commonwealth Transportation Board.
The Zoning Ordinance satisfies the fundamental requirements set forth in the
Code of Virginia for managing and amending official zoning maps. Frederick
County should be implementing these sections of the Code of Virginia in
practice during any consideration involving the official map.
23. 2239 Capital improvement plan
(CIP)
N/A N/A Code of Virginia § 15.2-2239 authorizes the Planning Commission to prepare a
CIP based on a locality’s comprehensive plan.
Inclusion of this section is not applicable to the Zoning Ordinance; however, it
is listed here as it is another important land use tool for the County to utilize.
24. 2240 - 2245;
2247 - 2257;
2260 - 2269;
2271 - 2279
Land subdivision and
development
N/A N/A Code of Virginia §§ 15.2-2240 through 15.2-2279 regulate land subdivisions and
development. Every locality must have a subdivision ordinance and ensure the
orderly subdivision of land. The County’s Subdivision Ordinance is a separate
chapter of County Code (Chapter 144) outside of the Zoning Ordinance.
These sections of the Code of Virginia regarding subdivisions are not relevant to
this diagnostic but are included to reflect the full list of sections provided in
Chapter 22 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia.
Recommend separate review of the Subdivision Ordinance to confirm
compliance with current Code of Virginia language.
41
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 11 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
25. 2246 Site plans submitted in
accordance with the zoning
ordinance
No § 165-802.01 The Code of Virginia requires that site plans submitted for compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance must also comply with the Code of Virginia bonding and
performance release requirements.
This section of the Zoning Ordinance can be strengthened with a purpose
statement that clearly specifies that the purpose is to ensure compliance with
the Zoning Ordinance, with a reference to this section of the Code of Virginia.
26. 2258 Site plan requirements for
submission for approval
No § 165-802.03 This section of the Code of Virginia requires that a site plan include the locations
of drainage districts, dam break zones, graves/burial sites, and areas of joint
locality control.
The Zoning Ordinance does not address dam break zones, graves/burial sites,
nor areas of joint control as it relates to site plan requirements.
Recommend requiring dam break zones, graves/burial sites, and any areas of
joint control to be delineated on site plans.
27. 2259 Local Planning Commission
or other agent to act on site
plan or plan of development
No No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia establishes a required timeline for the
review and approval or disapproval of site plans and plans of development.
Generally, a plan must be approved or disapproved within 60 calendar days of
the first submittal, and within 45 calendar days of resubmittals, except where
state agency reviews require longer timeframes in accordance with § 15.2-
2222.1. Plans requiring state agency review must be transmitted within 10
business days of receipt. As of July 1, 2024, this process must be the same for
both residential development projects and commercial development projects.
The Zoning Ordinance does not address the timeframe for review and approval
or disapproval of development plans.
Recommend including the text as written in this section of the Code of Virginia.
A direct reference to § 15.2-2259, as amended, can also be utilized.
42
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 12 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
28. 2270 Vacation of interests
granted to a locality as a
condition of site plan
approval
No No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia provides two methods that allow a locality
to vacate any interest in streets, alleys, easements for public rights of
passage, easements for drainage, and easements for a public utility that were
granted as a condition of a site plan approval.
While the County’s Subdivision Ordinance references this Section of state
code, there are no references in the Zoning Ordinance. Recommend
including a reference to § 15.2-2270 for vacating such interests to the County
that were granted as a condition of site plan approval.
29. 2280 Zoning general description Partial § 165-101.04
Article 4,
Various
§ 165-702.01
This section of the Code of Virginia allows for localities to regulate items such
as the use of structures, buildings, and land; size, height, area, etc. of
buildings; the area of land, water, and air space; and the excavation or mining
of soil or other natural resources.
Section 165-101.04 references the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to
address the use of land, lot dimensions, and other supplementary
development regulations. The purpose and intent of each zoning district is
specified in individual sections of Article 4; the floodplain district also has a
specified purpose & intent with direct reference to this section of state code.
The Zoning Ordinance partially complies with this section of the Code of
Virginia. Full compliance can be achieved through editing language to more
closely align with what is established in Code of Virginia § 15.2 2280, and
including a direct reference to this Section. Also recommend establishing this
language in the general purpose and intent of all County overlay districts,
rather than in the floodplain district alone.
43
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 13 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
30. 2281 Zoning jurisdiction of
localities
No
No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia states that a county shall have jurisdiction
over unincorporated areas and a municipality shall have jurisdiction over any
incorporated areas.
While this may be inferred, recommend adding a reference to this section of
the Code of Virginia in Article 1, Part 101 that states Frederick County shall
have jurisdiction over its unincorporated areas.
31. 2282 Uniformity of regulations Partial Various This section of the Code of Virginia states that regulations within a district
must be uniform for each class or kind of building and use, but the regulations
in one district may differ from those in other districts.
Articles IV – VI generally comply with this requirement, but this is inferred;
specific reference to the provisions of this section of the Code of Virginia is
not provided.
Recommend explicitly stating that regulations set by the Zoning Ordinance
within each district shall apply uniformly to each class or kind of structure or
land. Recommend clearly defining the classes of residential dwellings and
basing standards on the individual lot size.
32. 2283 Purpose of zoning,
mandatory provisions:
(See Lines 32-44)
33. i. Provide for adequate light,
air, convenience of access,
and safety from fire, flood,
impounding structure
failure, crime and other
dangers
No No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia states that regulations within a district
must provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access, and safety from
fire, flood, impounding structure failure, crime, and other dangers.
Recommend including text as provided for in this section of the Code of
Virginia.
44
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 14 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
34. ii. Reduce or prevent
congestion in the public
streets
No No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia states that regulations within a district
must reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets.
Recommend including text as provided for in this section of the Code of
Virginia.
35. iii. Facilitate the creation of a
convenient, attractive, and
harmonious community
No No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia states that regulations within a district
must facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive, and harmonious
community.
Recommend including text as provided for in this section of the Code of
Virginia.
36. iv. Facilitate the provision of
adequate police and fire
protection, disaster
evacuation, civil defense,
transportation, water,
sewerage, flood protection,
schools, parks, forests,
playgrounds, recreational
facilities, airports and other
public requirements
No No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia states that regulations within a district
must facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster
evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection,
schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports, and other
public requirements.
Recommend including text as provided for in this section of the Code of
Virginia.
37. v. Protect against destruction
of or encroachment upon
historic areas and working
waterfront development
areas
No No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia states that regulations within a district
must protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas and
working waterfront development areas.
As an inland locality, Frederick County does not have any established working
waterfront development areas, so it is unnecessary to include reference to
those. However, reference to historic areas should be included; recommend
including text as provided for historic areas in this section of the Code of
Virginia.
45
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 15 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
38. vi. Protect against one or more
of the following:
overcrowding of land,
undue density of population
in relation to the
community facilities existing
or available, obstruction of
light and air, danger and
congestion in travel and
transportation, or loss of
life, health, or property
from fire, flood, impounding
structure failure, panic or
other dangers
No No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia states that regulations within a district
must protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land,
undue density of population in relation to the community facilities existing or
available, obstruction of light and air, danger and congestion in travel and
transportation, or loss of life, health, or property from fire, flood, impounding
structure failure, panic, or other dangers.
Recommend including text as provided for in this section of the Code of
Virginia.
39. vii. Encourage economic
development activities that
provide desirable
employment and enlarge
the tax base
No No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia states that regulations within a district
must encourage economic development activities that provide desirable
employment and enlarge the tax base.
Recommend including text as provided for in this section of the Code of
Virginia.
40. viii. Provide for the preservation
of agricultural and forestal
lands and other lands of
significance for the
protection of the natural
environment
No No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia states that regulations within a district
must provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other
lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment.
Recommend including text as provided for in this section of the Code of
Virginia.
46
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 16 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
41. ix. Protect approach slopes
and other safety areas of
licensed airports, including
United States government
and military air facilities
No No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia states that regulations within a district
must protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed airports,
including United States government and military air facilities.
Recommend including text as provided for in this section of the Code of
Virginia.
42. x. Promote the creation and
preservation of affordable
housing suitable for
meeting the current and
future needs of the locality
as well as a reasonable
proportion of the current
and future needs of the
planning district within
which the locality is situated
No No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia states that regulations within a district
must promote the creation and preservation of affordable housing suitable
for meeting the current and future needs of the locality as well as a
reasonable proportion of the current and future.
Recommend including text as provided for in this section of the Code of
Virginia.
43. xi. Provide reasonable
protection against
encroachment upon military
bases, military installations,
and military airports and
their adjacent safety areas,
excluding armories
operated by the Virginia
National Guard
N/A No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia states that regulations within a district must
provide reasonable protection against encroachment upon military bases,
military installations, and military airports and their adjacent safety areas,
excluding armories operated by the Virginia National Guard.
Neither Frederick County nor its adjacent jurisdictions have military bases,
installations, or airports; therefore, it is unnecessary to include reference to
these.
47
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 17 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
44. xii. Reasonable modifications in
accordance with the
Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §
12131 et seq.) or state and
federal fair housing laws, as
applicable
No No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia states that regulations within a district must
provide reasonable modifications in accordance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.) or state and federal fair
housing laws, as applicable.
Recommend including text as provided for in this section of the Code of Virginia.
45. - Such ordinance may also
include reasonable
provisions, not inconsistent
with applicable state water
quality standards, to protect
surface water and ground
water
No N/A This section of the Code of Virginia states that regulations within a district must
include reasonable provisions, not inconsistent with applicable state water
quality standards, to protect surface water and ground water.
Recommend including text as provided for in this section of the Code of Virginia.
46. 2283.1 Sexual offender treatment
services prohibition in
residential area
Yes No Reference The Zoning Ordinance does not list this use as permitted in residential districts,
therefore it is not permitted and complies with this section of the Code of
Virginia.
47. 2284 Matters to be considered in
drawing and applying
zoning ordinances and
districts
No No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia states the basis and considerations for how
zoning ordinances, districts, and amendments thereof should be determined.
The Zoning Ordinance neither includes a reference to this section of state code
nor includes applicable language from this section.
Recommend including the text as written in this section of the Code of Virginia.
48
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 18 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
48. 2285 Zoning ordinance and map
development, adoption, and
amendments - process
Yes § 165-101.05
Part 102,
Various
This section of the Code of Virginia specifies the process for a Planning
Commission to prepare and adopt a proposed zoning ordinance and/or official
map, and amendments thereto.
Section 165-101.05 establishes the official Zoning Map. Part 102 addresses the
process for zoning text map amendments, including requirements for public
notice in accordance with Code of Virginia §15.2-2204.
While this section of the Code of Virginia allows up to 100 days for the Planning
Commission to review and make a recommendation to the governing body,
Frederick County provides a 90-day timeframe. The Zoning Ordinance complies
with this Section of the Code of Virginia, but recommend amending the
timeframe from 90 days to 100 days to allow for the full amount of time
permitted by state code. Additionally, recommend providing greater clarity for
the process of zoning text amendments.
49. 2286
(A)
Permitted provisions in
zoning ordinances:
(See Lines 49-64)
This Section of the Code of Virginia provides optional provisions. Frederick County should consider the
provisions listed below for inclusion in the updated ordinance, if not already included.
50. 1. Variances and special
exceptions
Optional,
Included
§ 165-702.21
Part 103,
Various
The Zoning Ordinance allows for variances and conditional use permits. Part
103 provides that the Planning Commission must make a recommendation for
conditional use permits, and such recommendation must be taken to the Board
of Supervisors for approval or disapproval. The Board of Zoning Appeals hears
and decides variance requests.
The Zoning Ordinance can be enhanced by clearly integrating specific
provisions into sections related to administrative procedures and special
approvals, such as Article I – Part 102, Article I – Part 103, and Article X – Part
1001. These sections typically define the conditions under which variances and
special exceptions can be approved, the application process for such approvals,
and the criteria required for consideration. Strengthening these areas will help
ensure consistency and clarity in the zoning approval process.
49
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 19 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
51. 2. Annexation or boundary
adjustment provision
Optional,
Not Included
No Reference This item of the Code of Virginia allows a locality to temporarily apply the
Zoning Ordinance to any property coming into the jurisdiction by annexation or
otherwise.
Recommend including this provision to allow the temporary application of the
ordinance to any property coming into the territorial jurisdiction of Frederick
County – by annexation or otherwise.
52. 3. Governing body special
exception permits
Optional,
Included
§ 165-103.03 This item allows a locality to impose conditions with special use permits and
specifies provisions for special use permits related to affordable housing. Such
conditions may include a period of validity; a July 1, 2024 state code
amendment requires that for residential projects, the period of validity must
be at least three years.
Part 103 of the Zoning Ordinance provides for conditional use permits and
allows conditions to be imposed. The Zoning Ordinance does not address
period of validity for CUPs; Frederick County is likely addressing this in practice
on a case-by-case basis. Specific language related to affordable housing CUP
conditions is not included in the Ordinance. While affordable housing
conditional use provisions are not required to be included in the Zoning
Ordinance, Frederick County should be aware of this Code section and carefully
evaluate the potential impacts of any conditions associated with a proposed
affordable housing development. Language as provided for in this Section of
the Code of Virginia could also be directly incorporated into the Ordinance, if
desired by the County.
50
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 20 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
53. 4. Zoning administrator
authorities, provisions, and
processes
Optional,
Partially
Included
§ 165-101.06 This item provides for the administration and enforcement of the Ordinance
including the appointment or designation of a Zoning Administrator.
Article 1 – Part 101 provides the establishment and duties of the Zoning
Administrator, including some language verbatim from this Section of state
code.
Recommend updating the powers and duties of the Zoning Administrator and
all relevant processes in accordance with this section of the Code of Virginia.
Also recommend providing all language from this section of state code in a
singular Administration Article of the Zoning Ordinance.
54. 5. Imposition of penalties -
misdemeanor fines
Optional,
Partially
Included
§ 165-101.08 This section of the Code of Virginia allows localities to impose penalties, in the
form of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of no more than $1,000, for
violations of the zoning ordinance. Additional penalties are specified for failure
to abate a violation and for violations regarding too many unrelated people
living in a single-family dwelling.
Frederick County’s Zoning Ordinance includes this language in § 165-101.08.
However, the Zoning Ordinance does not address penalties related to
residential occupancy. Additionally, while civil penalties are briefly mentioned
in the Ordinance, it is unclear whether the Board of Supervisors has adopted
such penalties as an enforcement mechanism, and when these are leveraged
as opposed to misdemeanors (see Line 12).
Recommend including a direct reference to this section of the Code of Virginia,
as amended, in the Zoning Ordinance. As a best practice, if the County has not
done so already, introduce civil penalties for zoning violations, and consolidate
civil penalties and misdemeanor penalties into a single section and including a
reference to the Code of Virginia sections. Civil penalties should be used as the
first line of defense; the County can then move to misdemeanors as
appropriate.
51
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 21 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
55. 6. Collection of fees Optional,
Included
§ 165-102.02 This section of the Code of Virginia authorizes the collection of fees to offset
the costs of inspections, permitting, advertising, and other expenses directly
related to administering the Zoning Ordinance.
Frederick County’s fees for zoning-related items are included in a separate fee
schedule; this is referenced in § 165-102.02.
The Zoning Ordinance has incorporated this section of the Code of Virginia.
56. 7. Zoning ordinance
amendment timelines and
process
Optional,
Included
§ 165-102.01
§ 165-102.04
This section of the Code of Virginia states that the governing body may by
ordinance amend, supplement, or change the regulations, district boundaries,
or classifications of property. The governing body must also decide within 12
months unless postponed or withdrawn by the applicant.
Section 165-102.01 states that amendments may be initiated by the Board of
Supervisors, the Planning Commission, or a property owner. Section 165-
102.04 further states that “The Board shall act on rezoning petitions within 12
months of the time when the petition was received by the Zoning
Administrator. Should a request for a rezoning be disapproved by the Board of
Supervisors, at least 12 months shall expire before another application for
rezoning of substantially the same land to the same zoning district designation
shall be considered.”
The Zoning Ordinance has incorporated this section of the Code of Virginia.
57. 8. Plan of development
submission and approval
Optional,
Included
Part 801
Part 802
This provision allows for the submission and approval of a plan of development
prior to the issuance of building permits to assure compliance with regulations
contained in such zoning ordinance.
Frederick County refers to this as the Master Development Plan. Site plans are
also required for specified projects.
The Zoning Ordinance has incorporated this section of the Code of Virginia.
52
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 22 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
58. 9. Mixed use or PUD
developments
Optional,
Included
Article V Article V of the Zoning Ordinance establishes three planned development
zoning districts: Residential Planned Community (R4), Residential Recreational
Community (R5), and Medical Support (MS).
The Zoning Ordinance has incorporated this section of the Code of Virginia.
59. 10. Incentive zoning
administration
Optional,
Not Included
§ 165-302.03 This provision allows for the administration of incentive zoning as appropriate,
to accomplish a locality’s development goals. An example would be increased
project density or other benefit in return for the developer meeting certain
criteria for environmentally sustainable and energy-efficient building design,
affordable housing creation and preservation, or historical preservation.
While the County, to some degree, incentivizes flexibility in residential
development through the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, the
County does not otherwise provide for incentive zoning in the Ordinance.
Incentives/bonuses may be considered by Frederick County, if desired, to
facilitate higher residential densities where appropriate; enhanced site design;
and affordable housing in residential, planned unit, and mixed-use districts.
60. 11. Downzoning tax credit Optional,
Not included
No Reference This provision allows for the downzoning of a landowner’s undeveloped or
underdeveloped property in exchange for tax credits. This can be used to defer
development.
While the County, to some degree, utilizes a “credit” system through the
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, the County does not otherwise
provide for downzoning tax credits in the Ordinance.
Frederick County should consider whether additional downzoning tax credit
provisions are an appropriate land use tool to introduce into the Zoning
Ordinance, although this is not a common practice.
53
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 23 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
61. 12. Environmental site
assessments and review
Optional,
Not included
No Reference This provision allows localities to require Phase I environmental site
assessments (ESAs) in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s regulations and the standards of the American Society for Testing and
Materials.
Frederick County should consider requiring Phase I Environmental Site
Assessments (ESAs) for large developments or uses that may adversely impact
the natural environment to identify potential environmental contamination
before development. This helps protect public health, ensure safe land use, and
mitigate liability for both the locality and developers by adhering to established
environmental standards and regulations.
62. 13. Safety standards for solar
panels and battery
technologies
Optional,
Not Included
No Reference
This provision allows localities to incorporate safety standards for solar panels
and battery technologies used as part of solar energy facilities.
Frederick County allows for utility-scale solar energy facilities as a conditional
use. Battery storage uses/projects are not addressed in the Ordinance. Specific
use performance standards or other requirements for utility-scale solar energy
facilities are not clearly articulated.
Recommend incorporating provisions for nationally accepted environmental
protection and product safety standards for solar panels and battery
technologies to ensure the safety, reliability, and efficiency of solar photovoltaic
projects. This promotes sustainable energy development, protects public health
and the environment, and provides clear guidelines for developers, aligning
local projects with established best practices and industry standards.
54
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 24 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
63. 14. Environmental disclosure
and remediation
Optional,
Not Included
No Reference This provision allows localities to require the disclosure and remediation of
contamination and other adverse environmental conditions of a property prior
to approval of subdivision and development plans. This requirement is typically
applicable for industrial redevelopment projects, or sites once occupied by gas
stations, dry cleaners, etc.
Recommend incorporating this language as part of the Site Plan and Master
Development Plan requirements.
64. 15. Single-family residential
occupancy regulations
Optional,
Included
§ 165-101.02 This section of the Code of Virginia allows for the enforcement of provisions of
the zoning ordinance that regulate the number of persons permitted to occupy
a single-family residential dwelling unit, provided such enforcement complies
with applicable local, state, and federal fair housing laws.
Section 165-101.02 defines single-family as “A single person, or two or more
persons related by blood or marriage occupying a dwelling, living together and
maintaining a household, which may include not more than one unrelated
person; however, not more than four unrelated persons occupying a dwelling,
living together and maintaining a household shall be deemed to constitute a
single family.”
The Zoning Ordinance has incorporated this section of the Code of Virginia.
55
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 25 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
65. 16. Zoning inspection warrants Optional,
Not included
No Reference It is a best practice to include this provision, as it allows for a locality to acquire
a warrant if there is a suspected Zoning Ordinance violation.
The Zoning Ordinance does not include this provision.
Recommend adopting this provision as allowed by the Code of Virginia. The
intent of this provision is to prevent unethical searches of private property. If
the County is receiving repeated complaints, but is not able to gain access to
the property, this is a provision that can be utilized. Frederick County can also
implement this in practice without a text amendment, but including direct
reference in the Zoning Ordinance helps provide greater transparency to the
public.
66. 2286
(B)
Payment of outstanding
debt, taxes, fees
Optional,
Partially
Included
§ 165-102.02
This provision allows for a locality to require applicants for special use permits,
rezonings, variances, and permits to first prove all taxes have been paid and
there are no other outstanding charges that constitute a lien on the property.
The Ordinance establishes the requirement for rezonings but not for other
provisions.
The Zoning Ordinance can be strengthened by including a direct reference to
this section of state code. Additionally, it is recommended to include this
requirement for all applicable application types and not just rezonings.
56
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 26 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
67. 2286.1 Open space provision,
cluster dwellings
Partial § 165-402.07
§ 165-402.09
This section of the Code of Virginia regulates residential cluster developments
to preserve open space. These provisions apply to localities with growth rates
of 10% or more, but not to localities with population densities greater than
2,000 per square mile. Frederick County’s growth from 2010 to 2020 was 16.7%
and density is 219.76 per square mile; therefore, this section of the Code of
Virginia applies.
Cluster subdivisions are permitted in the RP and RA districts, which also allows
for their development in subsequent residential zoning districts. However, the
RP district requires no more than 50% of the required open space to be within
lakes and ponds, floodplain, wetlands, or steep slopes, even for clustered
residential development. However, per state code, localities are not permitted
to require delineation of slopes or riparian areas in the open space included in
a cluster development.
Recommend reviewing and updating cluster provisions for clarity. Recommend
removing the open space requirement mentioned above for cluster
development in the RP/subsequent districts.
68. 2287 Optional requirement
regarding property interest
of local officials
Optional,
Not included
No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia requires that applicants disclose any
members of the planning commission or governing body that have a vested
interest in property being considered for zoning action.
Recommend adopting this optional provision as outlined in the Code of Virginia
to clarify and to increase transparency in the application and review process.
69. 2287.1 Disclosures in land use
proceedings
N/A N/A This section of the Code of Virginia only applies to Loudoun County.
57
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 27 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
70. 2288 Localities may not require
special exception permits
for certain agriculture
activities
Yes § 165-401.02 This provision specifies that special use permits may not be required for
production agriculture or silviculture activity in an area that is zoned as an
agricultural district or classification.
Frederick County does not require conditional use permits for
agricultural/silvicultural activities in the RA district.
The Zoning Ordinance complies with this Section of the Code of Virginia.
71. 2288.01 Localities may not require
special exception permits
for small biomass
conversion
Yes No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia restricts localities from requiring a special
use permit for small-scale conversion of biomass to alternative fuel.
The Zoning Ordinance does not mention biomass conversion, meaning it is a
prohibited use and would not require a conditional use permit.
Recommend defining small-scale conversion of biomass and including as a
permitted use in appropriate districts. Additionally, if the use is introduced, the
development of use performance standards would clearly address impacts on
adjoining properties.
72. 2288.1 Localities may not require a
special use permit for
certain residential uses
Yes Article IV
Various
This section of the Code of Virginia states that no local ordinance shall require
a special use permit for development and construction of residential dwellings
at the use, height, and density permitted by right under the local zoning
ordinance. Special use permits may be used for certain developments that
exceed density requirements, involve nonresidential uses, or are located in
areas of steep slopes.
The Zoning Ordinance permits various types of residential units by right in each
residential district as appropriate and does not require a conditional use permit
for any particular density. The Zoning Ordinance complies with this section of
the Code of Virginia.
58
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 28 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
73. 2288.2 Localities may not require
special exception permits
for certain temporary
structures (tents)
Yes No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia restricts localities from requiring a special
use permit for a temporary (less than three days) tent to be constructed on
private property that will be primarily used for private or family-related events.
The Zoning Ordinance does not require conditional use permits for temporary
structures; temporary structures are not directly addressed. The Zoning
Ordinance therefore complies with this section of the Code of Virginia, but if
temporary uses/structures are introduced into the Zoning Ordinance,
recommend specifying that private/family-oriented tents are excluded from
conditional use permit requirements.
74. 2288.3 Localities may not unduly
regulate farm wineries
Yes § 165-204.22
§ 165-401.02
This section of the Code of Virginia restricts localities from unduly regulating
licensed farm wineries.
Frederick County defines “farm winery” in the Ordinance and references the
section of the Code of Virginia. The use is also permitted by-right in the RA
district. The Ordinance does include performance standards for farm wineries;
however, because these standards are intended to mitigate adverse impacts,
they do not unduly regulate the use.
The Zoning Ordinance complies with this section of the Code of Virginia.
75. 2288.3:1 Limited brewery license;
local regulation of certain
activities
Yes § 165-204.22
§ 165-401.02
This section of the Code of Virginia states that local restrictions upon activities
of legally licensed breweries to market and sell their products shall be
reasonable and shall consider the economic impact on such activities.
Frederick County defines “farm brewery” in the Ordinance and references the
Code of Virginia. The use is also permitted by-right in the RA district.
The Zoning Ordinance complies with this section of the Code of Virginia.
59
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 29 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
76. 2288.3:2 Limited distiller’s license;
local regulation of certain
activities.
Yes § 165-204.22
§ 165-401.02
This section of the Code of Virginia states that local restrictions upon activities
of legally licensed distilleries to market and sell their products shall be
reasonable and shall consider the economic impact on such activities.
Frederick County defines “farm distillery” in the Ordinance and references the
Code of Virginia. The use is also permitted by-right in the RA district.
The Zoning Ordinance complies with this section of the Code of Virginia.
77. 2288.4 Extension of expiration
dates for special use
permits
N/A N/A
This section of the Code of Virginia expired in 2011 and therefore does not
apply.
78. 2288.5 Definition and uses of
cemetery
Partial § 165-401.02 This section of the Code of Virginia clarifies the meaning of cemetery and
includes secondary uses that must be included in their approval. Applicable
zoning regulations still apply.
The Zoning Ordinance permits cemeteries in the RA district but does not
provide a definition for cemetery.
Recommend adding a definition of cemetery that aligns with the definition
provided in this section of the Code of Virginia.
79. 2288.6 Agricultural operations;
local regulation of certain
activities
Yes § 165-101.02
§ 165-401.02
This section of the Code of Virginia restricts localities from regulating
agricultural operations such as agritourism and the processing/sale of products.
The Zoning Ordinance allows for agritourism as a by-right use in the RA zoning
district and defines agritourism as provided in § 3.2-6400 of the Code of Virginia.
The Zoning Ordinance complies with this section of the Code of Virginia.
60
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 30 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
80. 2288.7 Solar facilities; local
regulation
Partial § 165-201.03
§ 165-401.02
This section of the Code of Virginia speaks to allowing small-scale solar facilities,
which are typically mounted over a building, parking lot, or other previously
disturbed areas and have a disturbance of less than two acres.
Frederick County allows for small-scale solar facilities, although they are not
clearly defined/identified with applicable performance standards.
It is recommended to introduce roof-mounted and ground-mounted solar
(accessory or small-scale solar) as distinct, standalone uses in the zoning
ordinance with clear definitions. Additionally, the County should assess and
determine in which zoning districts these solar facilities could be allowed by-
right. This approach would establish clear guidelines for solar energy systems
and streamline the approval process for solar projects in appropriate areas,
aligning with the County’s sustainability goals.
81. 2288.8 Special exceptions for solar
photovoltaic projects
Optional,
Partially
Included
§ 165-201.03
§ 165-401.02
This section of the Code of Virginia enables localities to grant special exceptions
for electric energy or energy storage projects and localities may grant
conditions of the dedication of real property or cash payments for construction
of public improvements.
The Zoning Ordinance permits utility-scale solar power generating facilities
conditionally. Other energy storage projects are not defined or discussed in the
Ordinance. The Ordinance does not incorporate the optional provision to grant
conditions of the dedication of real property or cash payments.
Recommend identifying, defining, and appropriately permitting battery energy
storage facilities. The County can consider whether it would like to specify that
it accepts the dedication of real property or cash payments for construction of
public improvements as conditions of a CUP.
61
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 31 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
82. 2289 Optional requirement of
disclosure of real parties in
interest for special
exception permits, special
use permits, amendments
to the zoning ordinance, or
variances
Optional,
Included
§ 165-101.09 This section of the Code of Virginia allows a locality to require any application
for a special use permit, zoning text or map amendment, or variance to disclose
the equitable ownership of the land to be included in the application and all
parties of interest.
Frederick County’s Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, and Board of
Zoning Appeals can require full ownership disclosure from applicants, except
for publicly traded corporations with over 500 shareholders.
The Zoning Ordinance has incorporated this section of the Code of Virginia.
Recommend including direct reference to this section of state code to
strengthen the Ordinance.
83. 2290 Manufactured housing
uniformity (by-right in Ag
areas)
Partial § 165-401.02 This section of the Code of Virginia requires that the placement of
manufactured houses on a permanent foundation and on individual lots be
permitted in all agricultural districts, subject to development standards.
Frederick County allows mobile homes by-right in the RA district. Technically
speaking, mobile home refers to housing with a non-permanent foundation that
was constructed before new, nationwide regulatory guidance was enacted in
1976. Manufactured housing is the correct terminology, as pre-1976 mobile
homes should be either phased out or brought up to standard.
While Frederick County is likely allowing manufactured housing on a permanent
foundation by-right in the RA district in practice, the Zoning Ordinance should
still be updated to reflect the correct terminology and achieve full compliance
with this section of the Code of Virginia. A direct reference to state code can
also be included, if desired. District regulations and performance standards
identified in the MH1 District (Part 403) should also be reviewed.
62
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 32 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
84. 2291 Assisted living and group
homes of 8 or fewer
residents
Yes § 165-101.02
§ 165-401.02
§ 165-402.02
§ 165-504.02
This provision restricts localities from prohibiting up to 8 unrelated persons
residing in a single household, provided they meet they meet certain disability
requirements.
Group home is defined in the Ordinance and is permitted by-right in the RP,
MS, and subsequent residential districts, while adult care residences and
assisted living facilities are listed as conditional uses in the RP district (meaning
they are similarly permitted in subsequent residential districts). Adult care
residences and assisted living facility are both defined; however, amendments
should be made to reflect the most recent language from state code.
Additionally, based on the definition of adult care residence, it seems to be
considered as assisted living and therefore should not be permitted
conditionally.
Recommend reviewing definitions of group home, adult care residence, and
assisted living facility to include reference to the Code of Virginia. Use
permissions should also be updated accordingly, particularly for adult care
residences.
63
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 33 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
85. 2292 Zoning provision/definition
family day home
Partial No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia supplies provisions for home-based
daycares serving up to four children and 5-12 children. If serving 1-4 children,
the family day home shall be considered residential occupancy by a single
family. If serving 5-12 children, the family day home may be approved
administratively after a 30-day period for adjacent property owners to be
notified and present any objections.
The Zoning Ordinance neither identifies family day home as a use nor defines
the term, although the definition of day-care facility specifies that it would be
more than five children.
Recommend introducing family day home as a permitted use in the Zoning
Ordinance, with a definition guided by state code. This is typically best done
through splitting the use into two – one for 1-4 children and the other for 5-12
children – to allow for conditional use permits and/or performance standards
for the larger day home use if desired. Both family day home uses should be
permitted in all zoning districts that allow single-family homes.
86. 2292.1 Provision for temporary
family health care structure
Yes § 165-101.02
§ 165-204.27
This provision states that temporary family health care structures shall be
considered as a permitted accessory use in a single-family residential zoning
district.
Temporary family health care structure is defined in the Ordinance and given
use performance standards, which use language verbatim from this section of
the Code of Virginia. The use is also permitted by-right in the RA, RP, R4, and
R5 zoning districts.
The Zoning Ordinance complies with this section of the Code of Virginia.
64
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 34 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
87. 2292.2 Waiver of zoning permit
requirements; child day
programs
Optional,
Not Included
No Reference Allows localities to waive requirements for zoning permits for a child day care
in an office building, as long as such facility meets the requirements for state
licensure as a child day program.
This is a new and optional state code provision that went into effect on July 1,
2024. Frederick County should consider whether they would like to incorporate
this into the Zoning Ordinance.
88. 2293 Airspace subject to zoning
ordinances
No No Reference This provision states that a Zoning Ordinance shall be applicable to the
superjacent airspace of any nonpublic-owned land area.
The Zoning Ordinance does not include language that subjects the airspace to
the regulations of the Ordinance, though this Code of Virginia provision would
still apply, along with any applicable regulations from the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA).
Recommend including this language as written in the Code of Virginia.
89. 2293.1 Amateur radio antenna
placement
No No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia states that amateur radio antennas shall be
reasonably accommodated with the minimum regulation necessary. In
localities having a population density of 120 persons or less per square mile
according to the 1990 United States census, no local ordinance shall (i) restrict
amateur radio antenna height to less than 75 feet above ground level or (ii)
restrict the number of support structures.
Frederick County’s population density was approximately 109.9 persons per
square mile according to the 1990 U.S. Census; therefore, this section of state
code applies. However, the Zoning Ordinance neither defines amateur radio
antennas nor permits it as a use.
Recommend defining and appropriately permitting amateur radio antenna as a
use, in alignment with this section of the Code of Virginia.
65
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 35 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
90. 2293.2 Regulation of helicopter use Yes § 165-502.04 This section of the Code of Virginia provides for localities to require special use
permits for repetitive helicopter landings and departures on the same parcel of
land.
The R5 district permits heliports by-right, which complies with this section of
state code, but the Ordinance lacks a definition and specific performance
standards for them.
Recommend introducing a definition for heliport; use performance standards
may be added if desired to help mitigate impacts on adjacent properties. The
County should also consider whether it would like to permit heliports
conditionally rather than by-right, as is allowed by this Section of the Code of
Virginia.
91. 2294 Airport safety zoning Yes § 165-701.02 This section of the Code of Virginia requires that any locality that hosts a
licensed airport or United States government or military air facility is located,
or approach slopes and other safety zones of a licensed airport shall provide for
the regulation of the height of structures and natural growth. The Code of
Virginia allows this to be a standalone ordinance, or through an overlay
district/zone within the Zoning Ordinance.
The Ordinance establishes the AP1 Airport Overlay District, which includes all
of the land and airspace of Frederick County with elevations equal to and above
the approach surfaces, transitional surfaces, horizontal surfaces and conical
surfaces as they apply to the Winchester Regional Airport.
The Zoning Ordinance complies with this section of the Code of Virginia.
66
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 36 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
92. 2295 Optional aircraft noise
attenuation ordinances
Optional,
Included
§ 165-701.05 This section of the Code of Virginia provides that a locality may enforce building
regulations relating to the provision and installation of acoustical treatment
measures. Additionally, this section of the Code of Virginia allows a locality to
adopt a noise overlay zone that regulates noise and sounds differently than
base districts.
The Zoning Ordinance has incorporated this section of the Code of Virginia.
93. 2295.1 Optional mountain ridge
construction ordinances
Optional,
Not Included
No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia allows a locality with a protected mountain
ridge to impose additional restrictions as part of an overlay zoning district to
those mountain ridges to regulate the height and location new development.
Frederick County likely has a protected mountain ridge(s) as defined by this
section of the Code of Virginia but does not include a protection mountain ridge
construction overlay in the Zoning Ordinance.
Frederick County may consider creating a mountain ridge overlay zoning
district to preserve the natural landscape, protect sensitive ecosystems,
maintain scenic views, mitigate erosion and landslide risks, and ensure the
safety of residents and properties in mountainous areas. These regulations aim
to balance development needs with environmental conservation and
community safety concerns specific to mountainous terrain.
67
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 37 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
94. 2295.2 Optional authority to create
zoning modification in dam
break inundation zones
Optional,
Not Included
No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia allows a locality to, by ordinance, require
modification of an application for zoning modification or a special use permit
for the area of a development that is proposed within a mapped dam break
inundation zone.
Frederick County has several dam break inundation zones, according to the
Virginia Flood Risk Information System (VFRIS). However, there is no overlay to
address development in these zones, nor are these zones required to be
delineated as part of a site plan or master development plan.
Frederick County should require all applications for development to indicate if
they are located within a dam break inundation zone to enhance public safety
and minimize risk. This would be done through requiring delineation of a dam
break inundation zone on a site plan and master development plan.
95. 2296 Conditional zoning -
legislative policy
Yes § 165-102.06 The Zoning Ordinance provides for conditional zoning at the time of rezoning
and therefore complies with this section of the Code of Virginia.
To further strengthen compliance with state code, recommend adding the
following language to a new section under § 165-102.06 that provides the
purpose and intent of conditional zoning: As authorized under the Code of
Virginia §§ 15.2-2296 through 15.2-2303, as amended, reasonable conditions
may be voluntarily proffered for the protection of the community when
combined with existing Zoning Ordinance district regulations.
68
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 38 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
96. 2297 Conditional zoning -
rezoning/map amendments
Optional,
Partially
Included
§ 165-102.06 This provision allows for voluntary proffers as part of rezoning applications,
provided that certain conditions are met. Cash proffers and public dedications
to the locality as restricted.
Section 165-102.06 of the Zoning Ordinance provides for property owners to
voluntarily proffer conditions with a rezoning application and has incorporated
some, but not all, of the language from this section of the Code of Virginia. The
Ordinance also gives examples of types of conditions that may be proffered.
One of these conditions states “Cash contributions for road improvements or
for planned facilities identified in the Frederick County Capital Improvements
Plan”; however, per state code, cash contributions cannot be made for
improvements that are not directly related to the specific development.
Recommend updating current proffer language to better align with what is
provided for in this section of the Code of Virginia, including a direct reference
to state code, as amended.
69
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 39 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
97. 2298 Conditional zoning - high-
growth amendments
Yes § 165-102.06 This section of the Code of Virginia establishes that the Zoning Ordinance must
provide for the voluntary proffering of reasonable conditions, by the owner,
prior to a public hearing before the governing body provided that (i) the
rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; (ii) the conditions have
a reasonable relation to the rezoning; and (iii) all conditions are in conformity
with the comprehensive plan as defined in § 15.2-2223.
This section applies to (i) any locality which has had population growth of 5% or
more from the next-to-latest to latest decennial census year; (ii) any city
adjoining such city or county; (iii) any towns located within such county; and
(iv) any county contiguous with at least three such counties and any town
located in that county.
This section applies to Frederick County, as the growth rate was approximately
16.75% from 2010-2020. See Lines 95-96 and 98-102 for additional proffer
comments.
The Zoning Ordinance complies with this section of the Code of Virginia.
98. 2299 Conditional zoning -
enforcement
Yes § 165-102.06 This provision specifies the authority of the Zoning Administrator to administer
and enforce proffers.
Section 165-102.06 specifies that the Zoning Administrator has the authority to
enforce any conditions attached to a rezoning.
The Zoning Ordinance complies with this section of the Code of Virginia,
although including a direct reference to this section of state code could
strengthen the Ordinance.
70
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 40 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
99. 2300 Conditional zoning - records Partial § 165-102.06 This provision specifies how zoning map amendments and proffers must be
retained for public record.
Section 165-102.06 includes some of the provided language; however, it is
lacking information related to updating the index annually by November 30.
Recommend adding all applicable language from, and general reference to, this
section of the Code of Virginia.
100. 2301 Conditional zoning -
petitions for review of
decision
No No Reference This provision specifies the process for aggrieved parties to petition a decision
of the Zoning Administrator.
Section § 165-102.06 discusses appeals to the BZA by aggrieved parties, but
there is no other related language in the context of conditional zoning.
Recommend adding all applicable language from, and general reference to, this
section of the Code of Virginia.
101. 2302 Conditional zoning -
amendments and variations
Partial § 165-102.06 This section of the Code of Virginia specifies the process for proffer
amendments.
Section 165-102.06 includes direct reference to, and some language verbatim
from, this Section of the Code of Virginia. However, the Ordinance is not clear
that proffers can undergo nonsubstantive amendments prior to the public
hearing. The Ordinance also states that the Board of Supervisors may amend
proffered conditions “when the proposed amendment provides a benefit to the
County”, which is not a state code-provided situation for when proffer
amendments are acceptable.
Recommend updating the Zoning Ordinance to more closely align with the
language as provided for in this Section of the Code of Virginia.
71
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 41 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
102. 2303 Conditional zoning - certain
localities
N/A N/A This section of the Code of Virginia applies to:
• counties where the urban county executive form of government is in
effect; or
• cities/towns/counties adjacent to or completely surrounded by such a
county; and
• counties east of the Chesapeake Bay.
This section of the Code of Virginia does not apply to Frederick County.
103. 2303.1 Binding development
agreements - certain
localities
N/A N/A This section of the Code of Virginia only applies to New Kent County.
104. 2303.1:1 Cash proffer collected -
process
No No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia provides that per-unit cash proffers cannot
be accepted until after final inspection and prior to certificate of occupancy.
Frederick County accepts cash proffers under state code and as related to
impacts. The Zoning Ordinance does not include specific language related to
timing/acceptance of cash proffers.
Recommend including this language to conform with this section of the Code
of Virginia.
72
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 42 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
105. 2303.2 Proffered cash payments
and expenditures - process
No No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia requires localities that accept cash proffers
to begin construction, site work, engineering, right-of-way acquisition,
surveying, or utility relocation on the improvements for which the cash
payments were proffered within 12 years of receiving full payment.
Frederick County accepts cash proffers; however, this language from the Code
of Virginia is not reflected in the Zoning Ordinance.
Recommend including a statement in the Zoning Ordinance that states
“Frederick County shall expend, track, and monitor cash proffers in accordance
with § 15.2-2303.2 of the Code of Virginia.”
106. 2303.3 Cash proffers requested or
accepted by a locality -
process
No No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia restricts localities from requiring cash
proffer payments prior to issuance of building permits and specifies that cash
proffers amounts scheduled to increase annually shall not exceed the annual
rate of inflation.
The Zoning Ordinance does not include this language.
Recommend incorporating the requirements for a locality to accept a cash
proffer, as outlined in this section of the Code of Virginia.
107. 2303.4 Provisions applicable to
certain proffers
No No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia provides that no locality can require an
unreasonable proffer for residential development or uses, but allows on-site
and off-site proffers that the applicant deems reasonable.
The Zoning Ordinance does not include this language.
Recommend incorporating the language from this section of the Code of
Virginia and providing a reference in the Zoning Ordinance as a best practice.
73
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 43 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
108. 2304 Affordable dwelling
ordinances - certain
localities
N/A N/A This section of the Code of Virginia is only applicable to the Counties of Fairfax,
Arlington, Albemarle, and Loudoun, and the Cities of Alexandria and Fairfax.
109. 2305 Affordable dwelling
ordinances
Optional,
Not included
No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia allows localities to establish an affordable
housing dwelling unit program to address housing needs. The Zoning Ordinance
does not address affordable housing.
This section of the Code of Virginia is an optional provision that may be
considered for inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance.
110. 2306 Optional historical site
preservation
Optional,
Partially
Included
Part 703 This section of the Code of Virginia allows localities to adopt ordinances
protecting historic resources and/or create a historic district. The governing
body may also appoint a review board to administer the ordinance. As of July 1,
2024, localities are also permitted to establish a civil penalty for the razing,
demolition, or moving of a building or structure that occurs in violation of a
historic ordinance.
Frederick County has adopted a Historic Area Overlay Zone (HA) that satisfies
the intent of this Section of the Code of Virginia, but this overlay has not yet
been applied in practice. The County also provides for a Historic Resources
Advisory Board (HRAB) that administers the Ordinance.
Consider a County-initiated zoning map amendment to apply the HA overlay
zone in desired areas. Frederick County should also establish civil penalties, if
not established already by the Board of Supervisors, as provided for in this
Section of the Code of Virginia (see Line 12).
111. 2306.1 Establishment of working
waterfront development
areas
N/A N/A There are no designated working waterfronts in Frederick County.
74
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 44 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
112. 2307 Protection of vested rights
for non-conforming uses
Partial Article IX,
Various
This section of the Code of Virginia regulates vested rights in properties with
nonconforming structures or uses.
Article IX of the Zoning Ordinance provides for nonconforming uses, lots, and
structures; however, it does not include all language related to vested rights
that is provided in this Section of state code.
Recommend including all language from, and direct reference to, this Section
of the Code of Virginia.
113. 2307.1 Commercial fishing N/A N/A This section of the Code of Virginia requires that registered commercial
fishermen and seafood buyers who have operated their businesses from their
waterfront residences for 20+ years shall not be prohibited from continuing
their businesses.
As an inland locality, these provisions do not apply to Frederick County.
114. 2308 Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA)
Yes § 165-1001.01
§ 165-1001.02
This section of the Code of Virginia provides for the establishment of Boards of
Zoning Appeals (BZAs).
The Zoning Ordinance provides information related to the establishment of the
BZA.
Recommend updating these provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to include
direct reference to this section of the Code of Virginia.
75
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 45 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
115. 2308.1 Boards of zoning appeals, ex
parte communications,
proceedings
No No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia regulates ex parte communications between
the BZA and non-legal staff or applicants.
The Zoning Ordinance does not address ex parte communications, although this
may be occurring in practice.
Recommend adding this language and a reference to this section of the Code
of Virginia.
116. 2309 Zoning appeal board powers
and duties
Partial § 165-1001.01
§ 165-1001.02
This section of the Code of Virginia establishes the powers and duties of the
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Article X establishes the establishment, organization, powers, and duties of the
BZA. Section 165-1001.01 states that the BZA will “organize and conduct itself
according to all requirements of the Code of Virginia” but otherwise does not
reference this Section and does not include all of the language.
Recommend including language from, and direct reference to, this section of
the Code of Virginia.
117. 2310 Application for special
exceptions and variance
Partial Part 103,
Various
§ 165-1001.02
This section of the Code of Virginia specifies application procedures for special
exceptions/special use permits and variances.
Part 103 provides the application procedures for conditional use permits.
Variances are addressed in § 165-1001.02. However, the Zoning Ordinance
does not address reconsideration of variance/CUP applications that are
materially the same as an original submittal.
Recommend including language from, and direct reference to, this section of
the Code of Virginia.
76
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 46 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
118. 2311 Optional appeals to Board
of Zoning Appeals - process
Yes § 165-1001.02 This section of the Code of Virginia specifies the application process for appeals
to the BZA.
These provisions are largely reflected in § 165-1001.02.
The Zoning Ordinance has incorporated this section of the Code of Virginia.
119. 2312 Appeals to Board procedure
- process
Yes § 165-1001.02 This section of the Code of Virginia specifies the review procedures for appeals
to the BZA.
Section 165-1001.02 provides that the Board of Zoning Appeals shall decide on
an appeal within 60 days. This 60-day timeframe is less than the maximum 90-
day timeframe provided; therefore, the Zoning Ordinance complies with this
section of the Code of Virginia. However, Frederick County can consider
updating the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the maximum 90-day timeframe for
a decision on an appeal.; this allows the BZA more time and flexibility for
decision-making.
120. 2313 Prevention of construction
not in accordance with
ordinance - process
No No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia allows the court to hear issues regarding
building construction that may be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance without
going to the BZA.
Recommend including the language provided in this section of the Code of
Virginia.
121. 2314 Writ of Certiorari to review
Board's decision
No No Reference The Zoning Ordinance does not include this language.
Recommend including direct reference to this section of the Code of Virginia.
77
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 47 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
122. 2315 Conflict of state and local
ordinance
Yes § 165-101.04 Where there are conflicts with other statutes, ordinances, or regulations, the
more restrictive provision shall apply.
Language in § 165-101.04 meets the intent of this section.
Recommend adding direct reference to this Section of the Code of Virginia.
123. 2316 Validation of ordinances
prior to 1971
N/A N/A Frederick County’s Zoning Ordinance was adopted on February 14, 1990;
therefore, this section of the Code of Virginia does not apply.
124. 2316.1 Definitions regarding
transfer of development
rights (TDRs)
Optional,
Partially
Included
§ 165-101.02
§ 165-301.03
This section of the Code of Virginia establishes the definitions for Transfer of
Development Rights programs.
Most of the definitions provided for in this Section of the Code of Virginia are
included in § 165-101.02, with the exception of severance of development
rights. Additionally, the definition of development rights does not include uses,
which is included in state code.
Recommend adding the state code definition of severance of development
rights to the Zoning Ordinance. Recommend reviewing all definitions and
updating as needed to align with those provided in this Section of the Code of
Virginia.
125. 2316.2 Optional provisions for
transfer of development
rights
Optional,
Included
Article 3 This section of the Code of Virginia allows localities the option to establish TDR
programs, in which a locality may designate receiving areas/properties that
shall receive development rights only from certain sending areas/properties.
This is typically used by counties as a rural area preservation tool.
Article 3 establishes Frederick County’s TDR program. Direct reference to this
Section of the Code of Virginia, as well as Code of Virginia § 15.2-2316.1, is
included in the purpose statement.
The Zoning Ordinance has incorporated this section of the Code of Virginia.
78
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 48 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
126. 2316.3 Definitions regarding small
cell facilities
Yes § 165-204.19 This section of the Code of Virginia establishes the definitions for
telecommunications facilities.
The Zoning Ordinance complies with this section of the Code of Virginia by
including a direct reference. However, to promote usability of the Ordinance,
recommend incorporating all terms and definitions from this Section of state
code into the definitions article of the Ordinance.
127. 2316.4 Permitting and review of
small cell facilities
Yes § 165-204.19 This section of the Code of Virginia establishes the permitting/review processes
for small cell facilities and establishes administrative review requirements when
conditions are met.
The Zoning Ordinance complies with this section of the Code of Virginia through
the inclusion of both direct references and verbatim language.
128. 2316.4:1 Zoning; Other wireless
facilities
Yes § 165-204.19 This section of the Code of Virginia requires that localities cannot require a
special use permit, special exception, or a variance for “administrative-review
eligible projects.”
The Zoning Ordinance complies with this section of the Code of Virginia through
the inclusion of both direct references and verbatim language. For clarity,
however, recommend adding a definition of administrative review-eligible
projects and establishing them as a by-right use in applicable districts.
129. 2316.4:2 Application reviews for
small cell facilities
Yes § 165-204.19 This section of the Code of Virginia establishes the guidelines for the review of
applications for small cell facilities. It explicitly prevents applications from being
denied for various reasons and states the type of requirements that localities
cannot require in their applications.
The Zoning Ordinance complies with this section of the Code of Virginia; also
see Lines 126, 127, and 128 for recommendations.
79
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 49 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
130. 2316.4:3 Additional provisions for
zoning applications of
telecommunications
facilities
Partial § 165-204.19 This section of the Code of Virginia establishes that localities cannot require
zoning approval for routine maintenance or for the replacement of existing
wireless facilities.
This is partially included in § 165-204.19; however, recommend adding
language from (B) of this Section of state code that addresses limitations on
the number of new structures of wireless facilities that can be installed in a
specific location.
131. 2316.5 Moratorium on zoning
applications from wireless
service providers prohibited
Yes
No Reference Frederick County does not have a moratorium on zoning applications from
wireless service providers. The Zoning Ordinance therefore complies with this
section of the Code of Virginia.
132. 2316.6 Siting of solar projects and
energy storage projects –
definitions
No No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia provides definitions that pertain to § 15.2-
2316.6 et. seq. of the Code of Virginia.
The Zoning Ordinance does not include these terms and definitions.
Recommend incorporating the definitions as provided by this section of the
Code of Virginia.
80
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 50 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
133. 2316.7 Negotiations; siting
agreement
Partial § 165-204.26 This section of the Code of Virginia requires that any applicant for a solar project
or an energy storage project give written notice to the locality and request a
meeting, where applicant and locality shall discuss and negotiate a sitting
agreement. This section of the Code of Virginia also provides language for siting
agreements contents.
The Zoning Ordinance appears to have attempted compliance through
incorporating a direct reference to the Code of Virginia in § 165-204.26, but the
Section referenced in the Zoning Ordinance is incorrect as it addresses
mandatory provisions of a subdivision ordinance.
Recommend including direct reference to this Section of the Code of Virginia
to achieve full compliance.
134. 2316.8 Powers of host localities N/A N/A This section of the Code of Virginia states the powers of localities regarding the
siting of solar facilities. Powers include hiring consultants, discussing a siting
agreement with an applicant, entering into a binding siting agreement, and
presenting the agreement at a public hearing.
No action is required for compliance; Frederick County only needs to be aware
of it.
81
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 51 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
135. 2316.9 Effect of executed siting
agreement; land use
approval
No No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia states that all land use approvals shall be
necessary for a solar facility; a siting agreement shall deem the project in
accordance with a Comprehensive Plan, but other land use approvals will be
required; and that a governing body cannot deny approval solely based on the
absence of a siting agreement. This section of the Code also only applies for
sites larger than 5 MW.
The Zoning Ordinance does not include this language; also see Line 133.
Recommend including a section to provide regulations specifically for siting of
solar projects, following the outline of the provisions of § 15.2-2316.6 et. seq.
of the Code of Virginia. Recommend including these provisions as provided in
§15.2-2316.9 of the Code of Virginia.
136. 2317 Road Impact Fees -
Applicable to 20k persons
+5% growth, or 15% growth
Optional,
Not Included
No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia speaks to road impact fees. It is applicable
to localities with a population of 20,000 and at least a 5% growth rate, or any
locality with at least 15% growth rate.
Frederick County exceeds both the population and growth rate thresholds but
has not adopted road impact fees. See Lines 137--146 for additional items
related to road impact fees.
137. 2318 Definitions Required if
Road Impact
Fees
Ordinance
Adopted
No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia includes definitions for terms relating to
road impact fees.
Frederick County has not adopted regulations that govern road impact fees.
138. 2319 Impact fee authority No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia allows applicable localities to impose road
impact fees on new developments to pay all or part of the cost of reasonable
road improvements that benefit new development.
Frederick County has not adopted regulations that govern road impact fees.
82
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 52 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
139. 2320 Impact fee service area
establishment
Required if
Road Impact
Fees
Ordinance
Adopted
No Reference
This section of the Code of Virginia states that applicable localities shall
delineate one or more impact fee service areas within its comprehensive plan.
Frederick County has not adopted regulations that govern road impact fees.
140. 2321 Adoption of road
improvement program
(must be done prior to
impact fee adoption)
No Reference
This section of the Code of Virginia requires that prior to adopting any system
of impact fees, road improvements needs must be assessed – and adopt a road
improvements plan after a public hearing.
Frederick County has not adopted regulations that govern road impact fees.
141. 2322 Adoption of impact fee,
schedule
No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia requires that an adopted ordinance or
regulation for impact fees contain a schedule of fees.
Frederick County has not adopted regulations that govern road impact fees.
142. 2323 Applicability of fees No Reference
This section of the Code of Virginia requires that an adopted ordinance or
regulation for impact fees contain a schedule of fees.
Frederick County has not adopted regulations that govern road impact fees.
143. 2324 Credit against fees No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia requires that the value of any dedication,
contribution, or construction from the developer for off-site road or other
transportation improvements benefiting the impact fee service area shall be
treated as a credit against the impact fees project.
Frederick County has not adopted regulations that govern road impact fees.
144. 2325 Updating plan of impact fee No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia requires that the road improvement plan,
that is the basis of the impact fees, be updated every two years; with
amendments to impact fee schedule, as appropriate.
Frederick County has not adopted regulations that govern road impact fees.
83
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 53 of 57
VA Code
Section
15.2-
Intent Compliance Existing ZO
Section Consultant Comments/Recommendations
145. 2326 Proceeds use
Required if
Road Impact
Fees
Ordinance
Adopted
No Reference
This section of the Code of Virginia requires that a road improvement account
be established for the impact fee service area and all funds collected through
impact fees shall be deposited in an interest-bearing account. Interest earned
on deposits becomes funds of the account. The use of the funds shall be for
road improvements benefiting the impact fee service area.
Frederick County has not adopted regulations that govern road impact fees.
146. 2327 Refund of impact fee No Reference This section of the Code of Virginia requires that a locality refund any impact
fee for which construction of a project is not completed within a reasonable
period, not to exceed fifteen years.
Frederick County has not adopted regulations that govern road impact fees.
147. 2328 Applicability of Impact Fees N/A N/A This article of the Code of Virginia applies to “urban counties” that have
established an urban transportation service district in accordance with § 15.2-
2403.1 prior to December 31, 2008. An “urban county” in this context had a
population greater than 90,000 according to the 2000 Census and did not
maintain its roads as of January 1, 2007.
148. 2329 Imposition of impact fees N/A N/A See Line 147.
84
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 54 of 57
Additional Comments Consultant Recommendations
A. General Comments In Frederick County, while some sections of the Zoning Ordinance have been updated to align with recent Code of Virginia
requirements, many parts of the Ordinance remain unchanged. Although Frederick County may be following current Code
provisions in practice, the Zoning Ordinance would benefit from incorporating clear references to all mandatory requirements
of the Code of Virginia, including revised language as applicable.
B. Organization The Zoning Ordinance could greatly benefit from a reorganization of the content. Berkley Group’s suggested improvements
include:
• Consolidate all application and notice procedures into a single article, which should include the language for all
application processes and procedures, including the procedure for advertisement and notification of public hearings.
• Create one article to contain all responsible bodies and their compositions, powers, and duties (Board of Supervisors,
Planning Commission, and Board of Zoning Appeals). Ensure all provided language from the Code of Virginia is clearly
incorporated.
• Create one article for use performance standards for all uses; ensure use performance standards are consolidated in
this article and removed from any definitions or district standards (also see G, below).
• Consider consolidating the Subdivision Ordinance into a standalone article of the Zoning Ordinance. This helps to ease
administration of land use-related regulations.
• Use structured multi-level lists in lieu of lengthy paragraphs to improve readability and ease the process of making
future text amendments.
• The current flowcharts and plates in the Zoning Ordinance are helpful visual aids but are dated and will likely need to
be updated as text amendments are made. Consider where other visuals, such as flowcharts, graphics, and tables, can
be incorporated to help break down complex regulations.
Berkley Group typically recommends the following organization: General (effective date, severability, applicability,
jurisdiction, conflict, etc.); Administration; Permits & Applications; Primary Districts (including dimensional standards); Overlay
Districts; Use Matrix; Use Performance Standards; Community Design Standards; Nonconformities; Subdivision; and
Definitions. This can be modified with consideration of the specific administration needs identified by County staff.
C. In General and
Administration
The current Ordinance’s largest compliance issues are related to provisions of the Code of Virginia that outline the purpose
and intent of zoning ordinances, as well as administrative procedures. A future update should prioritize clearly articulating the
following items, as guided by state code:
• Purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance;
• Powers and duties of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission;
• Ex parte communications; and
• Other enforcement procedures, such as civil penalties (see E, below) and optional warrants.
85
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 55 of 57
Additional Comments Consultant Recommendations
D. Definitions It is recommended to update or add definitions for all permitted uses and state-mandated uses/terms to ease administration
of the Ordinance and reduce the need for interpretations. The following definitions and/or uses should be introduced into the
Zoning Ordinance: cemetery, small- and medium-scale solar facility, amateur radio tower, small cell facility, administrative
review only project, and small biomass conversion.
E. Enforcement The Ordinance includes language authorizing the Board of Supervisors to adopt a schedule for civil penalties in line with the
Code of Virginia; however, it is unclear whether this has occurred and if civil penalties are being administered in practice. If
civil penalties have not been established, recommend establishing these types of penalties as a first step for violations of the
Zoning Ordinance, pursuant to Code of Virginia § 15.2-2209. This eases the burden of administration for minor violations.
Regardless of whether or not civil penalties have been established, the Zoning Ordinance should clearly spell out the process
for administering these types of penalties, and when misdemeanors can be pursued as an enforcement mechanism. This
allows for transparency in the administration and enforcement of the Ordinance.
F. Uses/Use Matrix Uses for each district should be comprehensively updated and streamlined for all permitted and conditional uses. Outdated
use terms should be eliminated, and modern, relevant uses should be incorporated. It is also recommended to consolidate
specific terms into broader categories to simplify regulations.
Many localities utilize a composite use matrix that shows all districts, uses, and how those uses are regulated. As a fundamental
improvement, Berkley Group recommends utilizing this use matrix in lieu of listing permitted and conditionally permitted uses
in each district section.
86
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 56 of 57
Additional Comments Consultant Recommendations
G. Use Standards Use standards provided in the current Ordinance should be evaluated to determine where use standards should be introduced
to ensure greater control over certain by-right uses, promote aesthetically pleasing development, and mitigate negative
external impacts on surrounding properties. Frederick County staff has specifically noted the potential need to introduce use
standards for self-storage facilities.
The Zoning Ordinance establishes use standards for certain terms that are clearly defined and recognized as permitted uses.
However, some terms, such as cemeteries and family day homes, are not specifically defined or listed as allowable uses in any
of the district regulations, leaving ambiguity around how they should be regulated. All use standards should be organized into
one article to create a user-friendly Ordinance and ease administration. Additionally, this will ensure that standards are
consistently applied for uses. Some of the definitions in Article I, along with individual district standards, contain use standards,
which as noted by staff, have created inconsistencies and difficulties in applying the Ordinance.
During the process of updating the Zoning Ordinance, the specific standards for how land can be used, as well as the types of
uses allowed, will change over time. These changes will be informed by feedback from both the staff working on the update
and the community members, who will express what kinds of uses (such as residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) are needed.
Additionally, the input will help determine how much regulation is necessary to maintain a fair balance between different
interests and ensure that development benefits the entire community.
H. Solar Energy Facilities While utility-scale solar energy facilities are not as commonly requested of a use as they have been in previous years, Frederick
County still needs to ensure compliance with all required state code elements for solar projects. The currently included Code
of Virginia references should be reviewed and amended to ensure the correct sections are being integrated. Additionally, all
definitions and siting agreement language should be incorporated as provided for in the Code of Virginia.
While not required by the Code of Virginia, Frederick County should clearly articulate use performance standards for solar
uses. Berkley Group typically recommends including standards that address decommissioning and bonding; open space and
wildlife corridors; noise; setbacks, landscaping, and screening; maintenance; and emergency ingress/egress.
87
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix A: Code of Virginia Diagnostic
Appendix A | Page 57 of 57
Additional Comments Consultant Recommendations
I. Setback and Site
Dimension Chart
Recommend consolidating all setback and site dimension information into one table for each zoning district, which can include
maximum height, setbacks, lot size, lot width, etc. This organization method provides the reader one place for each districts’
dimension information. Additionally, dimensional standards for each zoning district should be assessed to ensure they are
appropriate and in line with the goals and desires of the County and its residents. County staff and focus group stakeholders
specifically noted that minimum setbacks and maximum height should be closely evaluated for all districts, but especially for
residential and industrial districts.
Provisions related to subdivisions should be addressed in the Subdivision Ordinance, not the Zoning Ordinance, for clarity. The
exception is standards for cluster development, which should be consolidated into a singular section for usability and
administration (see Line K).
J. Overlay Districts Frederick County currently has five overlay zoning districts established in the Zoning Ordinance; however, none of them have
been applied to specific parcels/areas through a zoning map amendment, although the floodplain overlay and airport overlay
are likely being administered in practice due to their incorporation of federal regulations. Frederick County should undergo a
County-initiated map amendment to apply all overlay zoning districts. Putting the onus on the property owner to apply for
rezonings for both a base district and an overlay district is not a commonly used best practice as it can inhibit good
development through the higher time and cost burden.
K. Cluster Subdivisions Cluster subdivisions are currently permitted by-right in the Rural Areas (RA) and Residential Performance (RP) district; however,
the RA cluster standards are unclear and need to be stated explicitly. Cluster provisions in both the RA and RP districts can also
provide more clear guidance for open space and provide smaller minimum lot sizes. It may be useful for the County to
consolidate all cluster provisions into an individual section or table for ease of use, administration, and future amendments.
L. Community Design
Standards
The Zoning Ordinance includes standards for landscaping/screening, lighting, and signage, but these standards are unclear and
would benefit from a review and a reorganization. Recommend introducing more comprehensive standards for walls/fences,
open space, visibility clearance, and utilities. Sidewalk and street standards should align with Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) standards whenever possible.
M. Ordinance Review As a best practice, the Zoning Ordinance should be reviewed annually by County Staff and Planning Commission to incorporate
updates that reflect new provisions of the Code of Virginia, identify new uses, and identify and remedy problematic regulations
and processes. If desired, the Board of Supervisors could also participate in the review process. This maintenance technique is
a best practice to keep Frederick County’s land use tools relevant and responsive to the needs of the community.
Source: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title15.2/chapter22/
88
29
Appendix B:
Comprehensive Plan
Diagnostic Matrix
89
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix B: Comprehensive Plan Diagnostic Matrix
Appendix B | Page 1 of 9
A Comprehensive Plan is the policy tool that lays the groundwork for how a community would like to develop over time. As the primary tool to implement the Comprehensive
Plan, the Zoning Ordinance should align with the Plan to the extent possible.
The following chart outlines the implementation strategies in The Comprehensive Plan for Frederick County (as adopted on November 10, 2021), that are most relevant to
zoning regulations1. The chart also details specific regulatory actions that would serve to implement each strategy.
Plan Element Page
#: Corresponding Strategy: Action to be Taken in ZO Update:
Urban Areas
5 Focus new growth in the Urban Development Area (UDA) and
Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA).
• Consider increasing the minimum lot area of rural preservation lots in
the RA district.
• Require that all new development in districts except the RA district
connect to public utilities where available and provide utility
connections where utilities are not available.
• Require certain high-intensity uses, such as data centers and mixed-
use development, to occur on public water and sewer.
6
Provide for various densities within the urban areas to
encourage concentrated growth. Support a range of housing
options in suburban areas, neighborhood villages and urban
centers.
• Require at least two different types of housing in the R-4 and R-5
districts, even if single-family detached residential is not provided.
• Consider permitting tiny homes and cottage court communities with
appropriate definitions and design standards.
• Consider developing a density bonus point system (separate from the
County’s transfer of development rights program) to encourage
housing supply while ensuring high-quality and sustainable
development patterns.
• Ensure definitions of residential uses are clear; for example,
“multiplex” and “accessory dwelling”.
• Reduce the minimum size of the R-4 and R-5 districts to facilitate the
development of master planned communities on smaller acreages.
• Adjust the gross densities listed in the RP district to apply evenly and
better facilitate a more diverse variety of residential development.
6
Ensure land use applications incorporate the principles of
Neighborhood Design identified in this chapter for
neighborhood villages and urban centers.
• Consider establishing form-based zoning regulations in certain districts
– or amending the TNDB overlay to introduce elements of form-based
zoning – that prioritize the physical form and appearance of
developments.
• Consider introducing density bonuses, reduced parking requirements,
or expedited permitting for projects that incorporate mixed-use
development, higher-density housing, and public spaces, as outlined
in the Neighborhood Design chapter.
1 This assessment does not include all goals and strategies provided within the Comprehensive Plan; some strategies are shared among differing Plan elements while others are not directly relevant to the Zoning Ordinance.
90
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix B: Comprehensive Plan Diagnostic Matrix
Appendix B | Page 2 of 9
Plan Element Page
#: Corresponding Strategy: Action to be Taken in ZO Update:
Urban Areas
(cont.)
6 Promote the location of community facilities as focal points
within neighborhood villages and urban centers.
• Review use permissions to allow a wider variety of community
facilities and gathering spaces in the RP, R-5, and B-1 zoning districts.
• Provide more clear siting guidelines for community facilities and
similar gathering spaces in predominately residential areas.
6 Support high quality and innovative community designs within
neighborhood villages and urban centers.
• Provide greater specificity for low-impact development (LID) and best
management practices (BMPs).
• Consider if and where green building techniques and energy-efficient
designs should be required or incentivized.
• Set standards for creating functional and inviting public spaces, such
as parks and plazas, particularly in the TNDB overlay and planned
development districts.
6 Encourage new developments to provide interconnected trail
networks and on street shared travel ways.
• Provide clear standards for the design, surface material, and
accessibility of trails, sidewalks, and shared-use paths to ensure they
are safe, usable, and meet community needs.
• Clearly state requirements for safety features, such as lighting and
signage, along trails, sidewalks, and shared-use paths.
7 Seek to attract uses that will generate the desired tax revenue
and employment opportunities for the County.
• Identify, define, and appropriately permit new economic
development-oriented uses, including but not limited to data centers,
live-work units, electric vehicle (EV) stations, pharmaceutical support
services, and small-scale manufacturing or makers’ spaces.
• Consider creating an expedited review process for commercial and
industrial site plans that meet certain criteria.
Rural Areas
15
Preserve the desired physical characteristics of the rural areas.
Avoid prime soils, minimize land disturbance and grading and
minimize drainage changes.
• Consolidate cluster development standards into a single section to
promote clarity. Review standards to ensure the efficient use of land
in rural areas.
• Clarify language related to cluster development in the RA District.
15 Maintain transition areas between different uses, most
importantly, between the rural and urban areas.
• Remove the provision that allows Board of Supervisors waivers or
modifications of buffers; allow modifications administratively.
• Ensure larger and more impactful uses (e.g., utility-scale solar) have
performance standards to support additional screening and setbacks
between incompatible uses.
91
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix B: Comprehensive Plan Diagnostic Matrix
Appendix B | Page 3 of 9
Plan Element Page
#: Corresponding Strategy: Action to be Taken in ZO Update:
Rural Areas
(cont.)
15 Continue helping property owners find ways to keep properties
intact rather than subdividing.
• Address family member subdivisions in the Subdivision Ordinance for
greater clarity.
• Consider increasing the minimum lot size for non-family member
subdivisions in Rural Areas (RA); ensure the minimum lot size district-
wide is adjusted as needed for consistency.
• Continue the County’s Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program;
ensure optional elements of state code are wholly integrated into the
Ordinance for increased clarity and transparency (see Appendix A).
16 Follow changes to state code that would enable new land
preservation tools.
• Integrate all missing elements of state code that are required;
consider including missing optional provisions, such as adaptive reuse
incentives for historic properties (see Appendix A).
16
Support the agricultural economy in Frederick County and
adapt to evolving practices and new agricultural opportunities
such as value-added activities and uses on farms that are a
logical extension of the agricultural use.
• Continue to allow agritourism by-right; consider including
performance standards to mitigate impacts such as heavy traffic,
noise, and parking.
• Clearly define and permit micro-
breweries/wineries/cideries/distilleries.
• Clearly define and permit residential agriculture/domestic livestock
(i.e., chickens, pigs).
16 Identify and support local, regional, and national rural
recreation opportunities within the County’s rural areas.
• Update the Ordinance to identify and appropriately permit uses such
as small-scale outdoor recreation, event venues, and adventure and
eco-tourism parks.
Residential
Development
21
Higher density residential development is encouraged in close
proximity to or mixed with commercial areas to enhance
walkable access to employment,
• Consider increasing the minimum percentage of commercial areas to
be included in R-4 and R-5 district development.
• Enhance the R5 district by increasing flexibility for a mix of residential
and commercial uses, promoting diverse development patterns and
fostering walkable, mixed-use communities.
• Require bike parking areas to be installed at all new commercial,
industrial, and mixed-use development.
22
New residential neighborhoods should incorporate focal points,
landscaping, recreational amenities, open space amenities
(active, passive, and natural), located in close proximity to all
dwellings, with an emphasis on the provision of usable open
space that facilitates community interaction and promote a
quality neighborhood development.
• Establish specific requirements for the amount and type of usable
open space (e.g., active parks, passive green areas, and natural
spaces) that must be integrated into new residential developments.
• Review use permissions to allow a wider variety of community
facilities and gathering spaces in the RP, R-5, and B-1 zoning districts.
• Provide clearer siting guidelines for community facilities and similar
gathering spaces in predominately residential areas.
92
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix B: Comprehensive Plan Diagnostic Matrix
Appendix B | Page 4 of 9
Plan Element Page
#: Corresponding Strategy: Action to be Taken in ZO Update:
Residential
Development
(cont.)
22
Residential housing types and design guidelines should be
flexible to accommodate evolving demographic trends, and to
ensure that housing choices are maximized.
• Allow at least two different types of housing in the R-4 and R-5
districts, even if single-family detached residential is not provided.
• Consider permitting tiny homes and cottage court communities with
appropriate definitions and design standards.
• Consider establishing form-based zoning regulations in certain districts
– or amending the TNDB overlay to introduce elements of form-based
zoning – that prioritize the physical form and appearance of.
22
Ensure that adequate housing options are available to the
development community through the Zoning Ordinance.
Investigate additional opportunities such as new or expanded
manufactured housing developments and accessory units to
help expand the housing supply and help meet the County’s
affordable housing needs.
• Introduce additional performance standards for accessory dwelling
units (ADUs) to provide greater clarity and facilitate compatibility with
existing neighborhoods; for example, off-street parking requirements
and setbacks.
• Consider allowing detached ADUs in the RP district.
• Consider permitting tiny homes and cottage court communities with
appropriate definitions and design standards.
Business
Development
30
The rezoning process should be examined and streamlined as
appropriate in order to encourage landowners of properties
identified in Area Plans (see Appendix I) to proceed with
rezoning.
• Ensure all timeframes for application and site plan review align with
Code of Virginia requirements (See Appendix A).
• Identify where conditionally permitted uses can instead be permitted
by-right with performance standards to expedite development and
reduce time and cost for property owners.
• Evaluate where waivers and modifications can be handled
administratively rather than through a Board of Supervisors public
hearing process.
30 Review and revise the office and manufacturing zoning districts
to further encourage development of targeted industries.
• Increase maximum building heights in commercial and industrial zones
to enable more dense and efficient development.
• Ensure permitted uses in the office, manufacturing, industrial, and
mixed-use zoning districts align with economic development goals.
• Consolidate “like” manufacturing and industrial uses for simplicity and
to allow for greater flexibility as technology advances and new
industries emerge.
32
Promote enhanced architectural/design requirements for
future retail development, including structure appearance,
landscaping, and signage.
• Introduce additional guidelines for sign materiality, landscaping, and
color to the County’s overlay districts.
• Review street tree permissions in the TNDB overlay to ensure a
balance between providing enhanced landscaping and being overly
restrictive.
• Review and amend landscape buffers; apply all required buffers based
on the underlying zoning districts rather than uses.
93
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix B: Comprehensive Plan Diagnostic Matrix
Appendix B | Page 5 of 9
Plan Element Page
#: Corresponding Strategy: Action to be Taken in ZO Update:
Business
Development
(cont.)
32 Encourage mixed use developments for future residential and
commercial developments.
• Revise the Ordinance to allow mixed-use developments by-right in
designated zones, specifying permissible combinations of residential
and commercial uses.
• Define criteria for integrating residential and commercial spaces
within the same project and establish design standards that ensure
compatibility and functionality.
34
Focus development in compact centers, using Neighborhood
Design guidelines, and keeping the rural, agricultural landscape
as part of the visitor experience in Frederick County.
• Revise zoning regulations to concentrate development in designated
compact centers, incorporating Neighborhood Design guidelines that
emphasize walkability, mixed-use environments, and preservation of
surrounding rural and agricultural landscapes.
• Require the use of vernacular materials for new development or
redevelopment within the HA overlay.
36
Value added processes and support businesses should be
examined for location within the Rural Area. These processes
currently are permitted in the business districts.
• Review the list of permitted uses in the RA district and amend to
permit support businesses by-right.
• Eliminate the conditional use permit (CUP) process for uses that do
not overly detract from the surrounding character of RA districts.
37
Continue to regulate solar facilities through the Conditional Use
Permit process to protect adjacent properties and the
agricultural/rural character of these areas.
• Continue the practice as stated in the strategy; also introduce
potentially associated uses such as battery energy storage facilities
and data centers and permit appropriately.
37
The County should ensure that the siting of new solar facilities
do not detract from the agricultural and rural character within
its rural areas and will protect agricultural and rural land for
future use once decommissioned.
• Provide more robust use performance standards for utility-scale solar
energy facilities to better limit impacts on surrounding areas. These
could include, but not be limited to: enhanced buffering and setbacks,
requirements for wildlife corridors, and perimeter landscaping.
• Codify decommissioning requirements that integrate current industry
best practices in addition to any applicable state code requirements.
Transportation
42
Match desired form of development to roadway classification
to simplify the determination of which roadways receive which
treatment. That is, different types of streets for different land
uses. For example, some roadways would require a separate
bicycle and pedestrian trail in order to be more accessible to
bicyclists and pedestrians. In rural areas a wider shoulder
section may be more appropriate.
• Update zoning and transportation plans to align development forms
with roadway classifications, specifying requirements such as separate
bicycle and pedestrian trails for urban roads and wider shoulders for
rural roads.
43
Continue to monitor the County ordinances to ensure they
meet the shifting needs of facility planning and VDOT
standards.
• Review the Zoning Ordinance annually; consider including
representatives from the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) and/or the WinFred Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) when evaluating possible changes relating to transportation
infrastructure requirements.
94
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix B: Comprehensive Plan Diagnostic Matrix
Appendix B | Page 6 of 9
Plan Element Page
#: Corresponding Strategy: Action to be Taken in ZO Update:
Transportation
(cont.)
Work with new development and redevelopment to implement
the Eastern Road Plan through construction and preservation of
rights-of- way.
• Require the easement/conceptual area, as applicable, to be
delineated on a site and master development plan.
• Integrate relevant zoning-related recommendations from the ongoing
Eastern Frederick County Transportation Study into the Ordinance.
44
Work with VDOT to create roadway design plans that meet
standards while beautifying local gateways and commercial
corridors.
• Recognize the potential of the TNDB overlay to be used as a tool in
enhancing the functionality and aesthetic benefits of Frederick
County’s major corridors; initiate a zoning map amendment to apply
the TNDB to specific parcels as guided by the intent statement.
• Clearly define and permit appropriate uses in the TNDB, along with
use performance standards, if different than those allowable in the
underlying zoning district.
• Provide greater specificity in landscaping, off-street parking, and open
space requirements in the TNDB.
• Introduce more robust design guidelines for signs in the TNDB,
including materials and height.
• Provide greater specificity in materials and color requirements for
development in the TNDB.
44
Through the Transportation Committee, develop a plan and
actively promote corridor beautification. This should include
working with local institutions to create more attractive County
entrances into their facilities.
• Amend the Ordinance to strengthen corridor beautification guidelines,
including requirements for landscaping, signage, and façade
improvements along key routes and gateways. Specifically, this should
occur in the HA (Historic Area), TNDB (Town and Neighborhood
Development Business), and IA (Industrial Area) overlays.
45
Analyze driving, road, and parking standards and actively seek
the Fire and Rescue Department input for driveways and roads
to ensure that all approved developments are accessible by fire
equipment.
• Include fire access requirements, such as minimum road widths,
driveway dimensions, and parking regulations as use performance
standards for uses that may require a higher level of emergency
response and security (e.g., special events, data centers).
Public Facilities
61
Community facilities should generally be located within urban
areas such as the County’s Urban Development Area, Sewer
and Water Service Area, and/or areas identified as future Urban
Centers.
• Review use permissions to allow a wider variety of community
facilities and gathering spaces in the RP, R-5, and B-1 zoning districts.
• Provide clearer siting guidelines for community facilities and similar
gathering spaces in predominantly residential areas.
• Clearly define and permit public uses and other private community
gathering spaces, such as clubs, recreational facilities, event venues,
and cultural spaces.
95
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix B: Comprehensive Plan Diagnostic Matrix
Appendix B | Page 7 of 9
Plan Element Page
#: Corresponding Strategy: Action to be Taken in ZO Update:
Public Facilities
(cont.)
62 Encourage collaboration with the private sector to provide
integrated infrastructure in the most efficient way possible.
• Ensure requirements and procedures for proffered rezonings align
with required elements of state code (see Appendix A).
• Continue to provide flexibility in the provision of open space,
pedestrian paths, and recreational areas.
• Consider requiring an impact analysis for R4 and R5 district
development.
69
Review land development regulations to ensure that
appropriate standards are provided for open space
recreational facilities in new developments.
• Provide greater flexibility in the types and amount of active recreation
required in residential development.
• Require minimum percentages for active versus passive recreation;
ensure active and passive recreation are clearly defined.
73
Locate fire and rescue stations on sites of between two and five
acres to allow for future expansion. Sites may be smaller when
developed as part of a Neighborhood Design in an Urban
Center or Neighborhood Village.
• Identify emergency facilities as a permitted and defined use; establish
the lot area guideline identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a use
performance standard.
73 Select and design sites to minimize the adverse impact of sirens
and other noise on residential areas.
• Include performance standards for facilities with sirens and other
noise-generating activities that serve to mitigate impacts, including
but not limited to increased setbacks, enhanced landscaping, or other
sound-buffering measures.
82
Support and facilitate the development of high-speed wired
and wireless telecommunication networks, including
broadband technology, to support rural businesses and
residents.
• Continue reviewing and permitting telecommunications facilities in
accordance with Code of Virginia regulations; amend regulations as
needed to achieve full compliance with the Code (see Appendix A).
Natural
Resources
86 Water conservation and efficiency practices should be
encouraged and practiced throughout the County.
• Consider allowing permeable surface materials for parking areas
within the Sewer and Water Service Area; provide clear guidance as to
what materials are considered acceptable.
87
Watershed management throughout the County should
encourage forested or vegetated streamside buffers to filter
pollutants, stabilize stream banks and provide wildlife habitat.
• Implement regulations that prohibit or restrict development activities
within designated buffer zones to protect and maintain their
ecological functions.
90
Protect floodplains and steep slopes from unsuitable uses and
continue to recognize their value for stormwater management
and ecological functions.
• Ensure zoning regulations protect floodplains and steep slopes from
inappropriate uses.
• Establish a development prohibition in the Ordinance for slopes
exceeding 15-20%.
90
Special consideration should be given in areas known for karst
terrain prior to changes in land use. Prior to any development
activities in areas known to have karst terrain, a geotechnical
analysis should be performed by a certified geotechnical
engineer and submitted to the Public Works Department for
review.
• Require a geotechnical analysis for commercial, industrial, and large
residential in known karst areas. Require submissions of these
analyses to the Public Works Department for review and approval
before issuing development permits.
96
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix B: Comprehensive Plan Diagnostic Matrix
Appendix B | Page 8 of 9
Plan Element Page
#: Corresponding Strategy: Action to be Taken in ZO Update:
Natural
Resources
(cont.)
90
Update all Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements to
ensure that dam break inundation zones are identified to
minimize potential impacts resulting from future development.
• Require dam break inundation zones to be delineated on site plans
and master development plans (see Appendix A).
94
Encourage the use of semi-pervious or pervious surfaces and
other low impact development techniques, where appropriate.
Shared parking areas and reduced parking requirements for
developments should be utilized to reduce impervious areas.
• Permit the use of permeable surfaces in off-street parking areas; this
could also be leveraged as a density incentive.
• Increase parking lot landscaping requirements, including specification
of the amount of interior landscaping that must be shade-giving trees.
• Specify a requirement for all off-street parking areas to be properly
maintained, with adequate drainage facilities.
94
Encourage the use of bio-retention whenever possible. Large
impervious areas should take advantage of bio-retention in
their parking lots.
• Establish standards for passive open space in the Ordinance that
encourage the integration of bio-retention areas and other low-
impact development (LID) features as functional and aesthetic
components of open space.
97 Ensure that when new developments are planned, connectivity
of greenways is included through the project.
• Define standards for the design and placement of greenways, ensuring
they are connected to existing networks and accessible to residents.
• Consider offering incentives such as density bonuses or expedited
review processes for developments that include significant greenway
connections.
• Implement easements or agreements within development approvals
to ensure ongoing maintenance and connectivity of greenways.
99
The County should seek to reduce habitat fragmentation by
maintaining large contiguous areas of forests, meadows,
wetlands and streams.
• Consider developing a conservation zoning district to protect large
areas of forests, meadows, wetlands, and streams from development.
• Enforce larger minimum lot sizes or density restrictions in the RA
district as a means of maintaining habitat connectivity.
• Require wide buffer zones around sensitive natural features like
wetlands and streams to preserve their ecological functions and
reduce edge effects.
• Clarify language related to cluster development in the RA District.
99 Large scale clearing of mature woodlands should be avoided
during development activities.
• Establish clear and straightforward requirements in the Ordinance for
preserving mature woodlands, including restrictions on the amount of
tree removal and requirements for replanting.
• Require buffer zones around mature woodlands to protect them from
development activities and mitigate edge effects.
97
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix B: Comprehensive Plan Diagnostic Matrix
Appendix B | Page 9 of 9
Plan Element Page
#: Corresponding Strategy: Action to be Taken in ZO Update:
Historic
Resources
104
Archaeological surveys should be conducted prior to
development, particularly any that involve battlefield areas,
homesteads, Native American encampments, and waterways.
• Ensure the Ordinance requires archaeological surveys before
development for new development or redevelopment in the Historic
District Overlay or adjacent to known battlefields.
• Require known grave/burial sites and battlefields to be marked on site
plans and master development plans (see Appendix A).
104
Support the reuse and rehabilitation of historic structures to
maintain character of community, both residential and
business.
• Add “adaptive reuse” as a permitted use in the Ordinance with a
definition and performance standards.
• Introduce civil penalties and fines for unapproved alteration or
demolition of historic structures.
98
30
Appendix C:
Focus Group
Summary
99
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix C: Focus Group Summary
Appendix C | Page 1 of 5
A Focus Group is a form of public engagement designed to gain input from agencies, organizations, and businesses that have an interest in and experience
with development and land use tools. The purpose of the focus group meeting was to gain detailed insight about how Frederick County’s zoning regulations
impact stakeholders’ organizations or businesses and what changes they would recommend.
On September 9, 2024, Berkley Group facilitated a focus group with seven participants who have a thorough working knowledge of the County’s Zoning
Ordinance. Participants included members of the regional development community, including developers, engineers, and builders. The County’s Planning
Commission Chairman also participated; several members of the Planning and Development Department were in attendance to listen and answer questions
or provide context as necessary.
The meeting began with Berkley Group presenting participants with an overview of the diagnostic process, including what will be evaluated for the final
report. The participants were then asked a series of questions about the County’s Zoning Ordinance with respect to development review processes,
permitted uses, zoning districts, and community design standards. The following is a summary of the discussion:
General Comments and Organization
• The Zoning Ordinance is unique in how it’s set up, in that it bases densities on unit types and mixes rather than districts.
• This Ordinance isn’t terribly burdensome to figure out.
• Utilities are pushed outside of the right-of-way, but Frederick Water doesn’t like locating their equipment in easements.
• The Zoning Ordinance does a good job of designating areas for denser growth, but the County could improve the facilitation within the
designated Urban Development Area (UDA).
• The recent Ordinance change from Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) for uses
was a good improvement and opened development a little more.
• The general preference is to have as many references to the Code of Virginia as possible, especially for definitions.
• Many commissioners and members of the public are not familiar with the Ordinance and need additional education and help interpreting the
Ordinance.
• If the goal is to attract businesses and grow the County’s tax base, the Ordinance’s regulations need to make it easier for them to locate in the
County.
Permits and Applications
• The Site Plan process needs to be assessed for improvement.
• The administrative determination process outlined in the Zoning Ordinance is consistent and simple to follow.
100
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix C: Focus Group Summary
Appendix C | Page 2 of 5
• The rezoning process is generally okay but could explore a more user-friendly approach to approval; there haven’t been many residential
rezonings in the County – the most recent being 2015.
• It seems that rezonings are approved easier outside of the UDA, rather than inside which is counterintuitive to the purpose.
• There is a need to dovetail the land disturbance and building permit processes between zoning types. Consider introducing a requirement to
prohibit an occupancy permit until curb and gutter have been installed.
• Overall, guidance for simultaneous review of multiple permits and applications should be more clearly articulated.
• Determine if it’s legally necessary for the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) or County Sanitation to sign off on plats, and if not,
consider removing this requirement – Frederick County currently requires this which adds another layer to the process.
• There is some hesitation with big businesses operating under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). With larger, higher-cost developments, it’s more
beneficial to rezone to a more appropriate zoning district to allow by-right operation.
o There is additional hesitation with CUPs due to their nature in that they grant the property owner a right that could be taken away at a
later date.
o There should be fewer CUPs for uses that are supporting agriculture.
• The rezoning process involves many outside opinions (e.g., Frederick Water, VDOT, etc.) which are outside the County’s control; this also creates
inconsistencies between requirements. Some of the Ordinance’s current standards for utility placement and roads do not align with what
Frederick Water and VDOT require.
• Site Plan requirements to justify traffic counts are cumbersome and are sometimes not worth it.
Zoning Districts and District Standards
• Height limitations are a frequent issue in attracting development in the commercial and industrial districts. These limitations also inhibit
redevelopment, particularly for stacked townhouses and other forms of “missing middle” development.
• The use of waivers by the Board of Supervisors to modify certain district standards seems unnecessary; evaluate where changes could be made
to allow administrative approval instead.
• The residential piece of the Residential Performance (RP) district is, overall, functional, and desirable to extend to other zoning districts.
• Consider amending certain zoning districts to allow for lot sizes between ¾ of an acre and 1 acre – currently only permitted in RP and Rural Areas
(RA) districts.
• The RP zoning district needs to clarify how to complete recreation units and what exactly is being required.
• The Traditional Neighborhood Design-Business (TND-B) overlay zoning district needs to incorporate more flexibility – there are currently no
properties in the County utilizing this overlay district.
• Consider amending existing zoning districts to allow for more staff review and flexibility, with the goal of increasing the appeal for infill
development – Winchester could be a potential place to look for model language.
101
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix C: Focus Group Summary
Appendix C | Page 3 of 5
• The Sunnyside area, which has older housing stock, is an area of anticipated redevelopment in the next 20 years; this area is also inside the UDA.
Consider how greater flexibility in development could be achieved in this area.
• The current Zoning Ordinance makes it difficult to meet setbacks and densities in relation to infill development. If the house’s footprint is
smaller, setbacks should be reduced accordingly.
Uses and Use Standards
• There should be a general review of all definitions included in the Ordinance. Some definitions are from the Code of Virginia, and some have
been tailored more toward Frederick County’s vision for a specific use. The County should be using state-code provided definitions whenever
applicable.
• Some of the existing definitions are unclear and confusing – for example, “structure” and “recreation units” – and should be reviewed and
revised to add additional clarity.
• The Zoning Ordinance’s regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) should be reviewed – their development can be difficult due to the 25%
maximum gross floor area.
o There should be a difference between ADUs in the RP district and ADUs on rural lots, because of the lot size difference.
o The recent Ordinance amendment to address floor area of an ADU in relation to the floor area of the primary residential structure has
been beneficial in providing greater clarity and appropriately sized ADUs.
• Consider allowing developers to create their own housing unit type, creating flexibility for rezoning applications, which could help with issues
presented by unique properties.
o The R-4 district does this, but the minimum lot size is 100 acres, which is restricting – consider reducing that minimum requirement.
• Consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to define and permit additional housing unit types such as back-to-back townhomes, 2-over-2 units,
quadplexes – especially for increasing the supply of workforce housing. This gives the County some level of flexibility for housing types that may
not exist in the County yet.
• There is general support to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow for tiny homes and/or tiny home communities in appropriate areas of the
County.
• Allow residential dwellings over retail (vertical mixed-use) by-right in appropriate areas of the County.
• Uses in the B-2 district should be reviewed for compatibility.
• The Zoning Ordinance lacks coordination with VDOT in relation to design standards; the current standards make R-4 development difficult due to
conflicting regulations between the Ordinance and VDOT standards.
o The current Ordinance makes it difficult to accommodate density with cul-de-sacs, turnarounds, etc.
• Consider allowing private streets with standards for R-4 development, which would eliminate the need for additional VDOT review. A
homeowners’ association (HOA) could be responsible for maintaining private roads.
102
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix C: Focus Group Summary
Appendix C | Page 4 of 5
• The setbacks are restricting in some circumstances, such as a townhome development in the RP district surrounded by single-family. Consider
eliminating the setback requirement between different residential types and apply one consistent setback requirement.
• The Zoning Ordinance should consider additional, more modern uses such as last-mile delivery services, which is the final phase of a delivery
process where a shipment is delivered from a small, office-sized distribution center directly to a customer’s home.
• Utilizing CUPs instead of rezonings for agricultural land may be more fitting, although this would require the establishment of appropriate
development thresholds.
o CUPs come down to how long the permit is good for, which is determined on a case-by-case basis.
• Incorporate flexibility for where facilities built for residents of a neighborhood (e.g., clubhouse with a restaurant) can be located. The Ordinance
should be sure these uses and associated standards are clearly articulated.
Community Design
• Review landscaping requirements for the commercial and industrial zoning districts to incorporate more flexibility.
• Consider looking at landscaping requirements for the entire project, rather than individual lots – this gives some flexibility with the placement of
the required trees.
• Street trees cause issues due to current setbacks – sight distance issues and utility problems occur.
• Small lot residential developments require trees, but the Ordinance does not specify how many are required.
• The Zoning District Buffer and Housing Type Buffer requirements significantly increase the cost of a development, and coupled with market
conditions, makes it difficult to deliver higher density multi-family developments.
o Consider focusing more on the quality of the buffer rather than the buffer width and length; additionally, these buffer requirements
could potentially be removed in some circumstances such as a mixed-use development.
o Prince William County utilizes performance thresholds that are focused more on commercial development; these could be a good
example for Frederick County.
• The inactive buffer can house underground conduit, and the active buffer can accommodate parking – Seems like some of these requirements
can be shifted around to provide developments with more flexibility.
• Assess the definition of the active road buffer for potential clarification.
• Evaluate the possibility of implementing a parking credit for unusable land.
• Evaluate the minimum size of a parking space and increase as needed – cars aren’t getting any smaller, and current requirements are
additionally unclear. On-street parking should be credited as part of meeting minimum parking requirements; there could be a provision
included in the Ordinance that requires wider roads if on-street parking is used to meet minimum requirements.
• Consider allowing intersection lighting rather than requiring lighting on individual lots.
103
Frederick County, Virginia
Appendix C: Focus Group Summary
Appendix C | Page 5 of 5
• Introduce Electric Vehicle (EV) charging space and equipment requirements – not necessarily require them, but at least be prepared with
standards for developments that decide to include them. There has been more of a demand for this use recently.
• Revise height measurement for entry monument signs; the current language is vague and would benefit from clarification.
• Consider allowing for the adjustment of signage, height, etc. through CUPs.
• The Zoning Ordinance should provide clearer standards for landscaping bonds and their release.
• Consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to require developers to provide the right-of-way for future sidewalks instead of requiring sidewalks to
be installed. This approach will help decrease the “sidewalks to nowhere” that are currently present in the County.
• Establish sidewalk requirements for the community as a whole instead of on an individual, first come-first serve basis.
104
Planning Commission
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: November 6, 2024
Agenda Section: Information/Discussion Items
Title: Western Frederick Land Use Plan - (Mr. Klein)
Attachments:
PC11-06-24WesternFrederickLandUsePlan.pdf
105
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Frederick County Planning & Development
SUBJECT: Western Frederick Land Use Plan (WFLUP)
DATE: October 24, 2024
Project Background, Timeline & Engagement Summary
The Western Frederick study area of the County is envisioned to provide “a planned transition from the
urban and suburban nature of the City of Winchester and the rural areas west of Route 37.”
The study (planning) area encompasses approximately +/-6,229-acres of the County generally west of the
City of Winchester, including areas east and west of Route 37, north and south of Route 522 (North
Frederick Pike), north and south of Route 50 (Northwestern Turnpike), and north from Cedar Creek Grade
(Route 622). The western most sections of the study area extend along Route 50 to Poorhouse Road (Route
654) and just east of Wardensville Grade (Route 608). Properties included in the study area are also within
the Stonewall, Gainesboro, and Back Creek Magisterial Districts. The Western Frederick Land Use Plan
incorporates three previously studied planning areas: Round Hill Community (last updated 2010), Western
Jubal Early (2006), Route 37 West (1997) and includes the area between the City of Winchester and Route
37 and north/south of Route 522 known as “Sunnyside” (area not previously studied).
The project has been on-going since the Spring of 2023. During that time, staff have conducted field
surveying and undertaken extensive outreach and community engagement to discuss the study area and
future planned land uses with the public. This included interviews with landowners and key stakeholders
(VDOT, Frederick Water, Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation (SVBF), FCPS, Parks and
Recreation); two (2) online preference surveys (January/February 2024 and July/August 2024), fourteen
106
WFLUP – Project Update
Page 2
(14) town hall meetings with various organizations and communities (January/February 2024), and two (2)
community meetings (August 2024). During that time staff collected more than 300 survey responses and
connected in person with more than 400 members of the community.
The common theme expressed in public outreach is concern with the timing, pace and location of future
growth in this area of the County and a stated desire to keep areas not already planned for development
primarily rural. The draft plan, particularly the recommendations for future development patterns, reflects
to the extent possible public feedback received and planning best practices.
Summary of Proposed Changes
Included with this summary memo is the draft plan, and draft maps (both revised September 2024). Key
map and text changes are summarized by each planning sub-area below:
Sunnyside
A change in land use designation from primarily planned “residential” and “business” to a mix of “urban
center and residential.” Text was included that outlines guiding policies for future urban center
development, the integration of existing residential neighborhoods with a future “urban center,” and
redevelopment/infill development policies.
Connectivity, particularly pedestrian connectivity between residential and commercial area s, is also
outlined in plan policies.
Albin (formerly Route 37 West)
The map and plan policies further define boundaries of Albin Rural Community Center (RCC). This aligns
with broader Comprehensive Plan policies to designate rural growth within the RCC. Significant areas of
“recreation” land use are delineated on the map, encompassing core battlefield and historic properties. Plan
policies supporting this land use designation are also provided. This area continues to be primarily “rural.”
Round Hill
An expansion of sewer and water service area (SWSA) is proposed to conform to boundaries of Round Hill
Rural Community Center. This reflects broader Comprehensive Plan policies to establish public utility
systems, where feasible, around the designated rural community centers. Accompanying this SWSA
expansion. Plan policies have been included for future development within designated rural community
center to better conform to adopted Comprehensive Plan for limiting new commercial and residential
development with the rural community centers.
Minor revisions to planned roadways were made north of Route 50 to conform to proffered improvements
associated with planned developments. Ward Ave (Route 1317) is proposed as a newly designated future
“improved minor collector roadway” to expand planned future secondary circulation south of Route 50 in
areas designated for future “business” uses. Plan policies to address road improvements associated with
Route 50 STARS study.
There were no changes to future land use designations for this area of the county.
Note: A previous version of the plan proposed changes to the future land use designation for Rock Harbor
Golf Course properties. As a result of public feedback, including a separate in-person meeting with
residents of the Roscommon community, the future land use designation was left unaltered from what is
currently envisioned (“commercial recreation”).
Western Jubal Early
The plan proposes a change in land use designation from primarily “residential” with limited areas of
“business” to “planned unit development (PUD).” Plan text was included with guiding policies for the
future PUD including providing for a mix of housing types, where neighborhood scale commercial uses
107
WFLUP – Project Update
Page 3
would be appropriate, desired high-quality architecture and site design, guidance for walkable
neighborhoods, the preservation of the Abrams Creek Wetlands, and interconnection with the Willow Run
community.
Transportation improvements in the Western Jubal Early sub-planning area include affirming the County’s
planned improvement of a new Route 37 interchange with Merrimans Lane, a future east/west collector
from the City of Winchester boundary (West Jubal Ear ly extended) to the proposed new interchange, and
a new north/south collector roadway from Merrimans Lane south to a planned intersection with Cedar Creek
Grade.
Conclusion
Staff are presenting this item for information/discussion on the proposed map and text changes. Following
the joint work session, staff would like to proceed with scheduling public hearings on the proposed Western
Frederick Land Use Plan (TBD).
Questions regarding the area plan update may be directed to staff.
MTK/ks
Attachments: 1. Western Frederick Land Use Plan – Draft Text
2. Draft Maps
3. Summary of Public Outreach – July/August 2024.
108
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
1
Western Frederick Land Use Plan
WESTERN FREDERICK LAND USE PLAN
WFLUP
Draft Revised 09-13-2024
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Adopted XX-XX-XXXX
109
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
2
Western Frederick Land Use Plan
WESTERN FREDERICK LAND USE PLAN (WFLUP)
STUDY AREA AND PLAN PURPOSE
The study area encompasses approximately 6,229-acres of the County generally west of the
City of Winchester, including areas inside and out of Route 37, north and south of Route 522
(North Frederick Pike), north and south of Route 50 (Northwestern Turnpike), and north from
Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622). The western most sections extend along Route 50 to
Poorhouse Road (Route 654) and immediately east of Wardensville Grade (Route 608).
This new Western Frederick Land Use Plan (WFLUP) incorporates three previously studied
planning areas: Round Hill Community (adopted 2010), Western Jubal Early (2006), Route
37 West (1997; now referred to herein as “Albin”) and includes the area between the City of
Winchester and Route 37 and north/south of Route 522 known as “Sunnyside” (not previously
studied). Each of the above planning areas is detailed separately in the subsections below.
The Plan reflects community values, a shared vision, and aspirations gathered through
extensive public outreach and surveying conducted in the winter and summer of 2024. The
Western Frederick study area of the County provides a planned transition from the urban and
suburban nature of the City of Winchester and eastern Frederick County and the rural areas
west of Route 37. The Western Frederick Land Use Plan builds upon existing community assets
and identifies opportunities to integrate land use and transportation, address infrastructure
and housing needs, and expand the County’s goals for economic development. The intent of
the plan is to preserve rural lands, natural and historic resources, and views west of Route
37. The plan envisions concentrating new growth, particularly new residential growth, and
higher density development in areas within the limits of the Urban Development Area (UDA)
and served by public utilities (within the limits of the Sewer and Water Service Area or SWSA)
and other County services. New planning policies, and plan implementation strategies have
been included to achieve the above intent.
Figure 1: Western Frederick Study Area
A series of maps have been prepared which identify future land uses, transportation, historical
resources, natural resources, and community facilities within the study area.
110
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
3
Western Frederick Land Use Plan
EXISTING CONDITIONS &FUTURE LAND USE
Sunnyside Planning Area
This northernmost planning area is bounded by the City of Winchester to the east and Route
37 to the west. Sunnyside contains a mix of existing business and residential uses. The
housing stock is primarily older (pre-2000), single-family detached (SFD) homes on small lots
served by public utilities (both Frederick Water and the City of Winchester). Duplexes,
apartments and townhomes are also mixed in but are not the predominate housing type.
Residential neighborhoods are siloed and not well integrated or connected. Age-restricted
housing (including multi-family) exists in the County and straddles the City of Winchester
limits (Shenandoah Valley Westminster-Canterbury, SVWC). This age-restricted community
has its own diverse set of needs. The commercial core, situated north and south along Route
522 (North Frederick Pike), includes a shopping center (Stonewall Plaza) with a grocery store
anchor, other small convenience and retail uses, gas stations, restaurants with drive-thru
facilities, and a hotel. Frederick County Government also owns a 70,614 square foot (SF)
former shopping center (known as “Sunnyside Plaza”) on the south side of Route 522 and
east of Fox Drive (Route 767). The shopping center is mostly vacant with few tenants
remaining under existing lease agreements. An office park adjoining Route 37 serves as an
employment hub for financial, legal, and medical offices. The Route 522 corridor serves as an
entryway to the City of Winchester from areas to the north and west.
Sunnyside is envisioned to be a new “urban center” of mixed residential and commercial
(business) development and redevelopment harmonizing with existing residential
neighborhoods north of Route 522. These existing neighborhoods are planned to remain
“residential.” This area of the County should be an accessible semi-urban area with a vibrant
commercial core along Route 522, higher residential densities for new development and
include a community focal point. The urban center should also be well-integrated with the
surrounding community through inter-parcel connections that allows for circulation away from
Route 522. New urban center development or redevelopment should be linked to existing
residential neighborhoods (such as Star Fort and Darlington subdivisions) and retail centers
by sidewalks and trails. Development directly fronting Route 522 should be of a high-quality
design and building materials (i.e. brick, stone, and concrete facades) and of an appropriate
scale, creating a seamless transition to the City of Winchester. New multi-story mixed-use
buildings should be located along the roadway with parking behind the buildings. Parking lots
should not be the predominate view from Route 522. New housing types should be prioritized
to address a variety of income types (especially low income, affordable and workforce
housing) and preferences (apartments, duplex, triplex, and townhomes) of the community.
Given the planning area’s inclusion in the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and
Water Service Area (SWSA) and proximity to the City’s newly designated design district,
Sunnyside should be viewed as a prime location for infill (i.e. new building on vacant or
underutilized lots) and redevelopment through the consolidation of small lots, including higher
density residential (multi-family) and mixed-use residential development over commercial
spaces.
Frederick County Government is working to identify what County services and other support
services may utilize former Sunnyside Plaza. At the time of plan writing (2024), a space needs
assessment has been conducted, and County staff will evaluate reuse of the vacant shopping
111
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
4
Western Frederick Land Use Plan
center structures or complete redevelopment of the site. The County’s Voting Registrar has
already relocated to Sunnyside Plaza. Redevelopment of the shopping center may spur other
commercial redevelopment and/or additional residential units in the vicinity and serve as a
focal point and community hub of the Sunnyside urban center.
Plan Implementation Strategy
To implement this urban center designation, Frederick County may consider a
comprehensive “upzoning” process to properties along Route 522 using the TNDB
(Traditional Neighborhood Design-Business) Overlay District. Rezoning property
with the TNDB Overlay District may require a phased approach. Revisions to the RP
(Residential Performance) Zoning District may also be required to expand the
available housing types and residential densities to achieve desired land use
policies. New ordinance standards to address the challenges of small lot
assemblage, including revisions to the TNDB Overlay District as necessary, and infill
may also be further studied.
Albin (formerly Route 37 West) Planning Area
This area is bounded by Route 522 to the north, Route 37 to the east, the Round Hill planning
area to the south, and a definitive ridge line (Round Hill, elevation 1,381 feet) and Poorhouse
Road (Route 654) to the west. The predominant land use is agricultural, open space and a
core area of the Second Battle of Winchester. At the northernmost point of the planning area
is the Albin Rural Community Center, a historic hinterlands crossroads community; James
Wood High School (JWHS) and Apple Pie Ridge Elementary School (APRES) serve as another
community focal point.
Properties, including those within the newly defined limits of the Albin Rural Community
Center, should remain in their current rural condition, continuing the present land use of
agriculture and orchards while preserving the historic integrity of the battlefield, as well as
historic properties identified in the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey. A significant
portion of the planning area has been designated with the “recreation” land use, this includes
properties identified as core battlefield and the former Frederick County Poorhouse property.
Where public-private partnership opportunities exist for use of historic and rural properties,
walking and interpretive recreation amenities may serve not only the residents of western
Frederick County but the larger County population and visitors as well. Expansion of the SWSA
west of Route 37 and north along Route 522 should not be a priority, as development of this
area of the County should be prohibited to maintain existing views, natural systems, historic
properties, open space, forestal land and viable agricultural lands.
Round Hill Planning Area
The Round Hill Planning Area has three (3) distinct areas, the long-established Round Hill
Rural Community Center clustered along Round Hill Road (Route 803), the established
commercial area along Route 50 (Northwestern Pike) and the Route 37 interchange, and
properties south of Route 50 which includes a livestock exchange, an existing extractive
mining (quarry) operation (Stuart M. Perry, Inc.), a 36-hole golf course (Rock Harbor Golf
Course), and a rural residential (estate) subdivision (Roscommon).
112
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
5
Western Frederick Land Use Plan
The core of the long-established Round Hill Rural Community Center consists primarily of
small lot residences. Most residential lots in the Round Hill Rural Community Center are less
than one-half acre. These residential lots contain single-family detached housing on wells and
septic systems with reduced front yard setbacks that do not conform to modern Zoning
Ordinance standards. Several small businesses such gas stations and other convenience type
uses also exist but struggle to compete with new commercial areas to the east. The
development pattern established in the Round Hill Rural Community Center consists of both
small lots along Round Hill Road, Poorhouse Road, Woodchuck Lane and other roads, and the
larger lots and small farms on the periphery. This pattern of development should remain
unchanged, and primarily rural.
The Round Hill Rural Community Center has been included within the limits of the Sewer and
Water Service Area (SWSA). Inclusion in the SWSA is intended to allow for those small
residential lots to connect to public utilities, at such time private systems are no longer a
viable option and where public utilities have been extended. Future residential and commercial
development within the rural community center, outside of those areas not already identified
with a “business” land use designation, should be limited in scale and intensity to maintain
the historic fabric and rural nature of this area of the County. The extension of public utilities
will be driven by demand and end users’ willingness to pay for the connection to be made.
This should be viewed as a very long-term vision for this area of the County.
Plan Implementation Strategy
The creation of a new overlay district should be further evaluated to accommodate
infill development within the designated rural community center that is appropriate
for the character and scale of the Round Hill community. Such a district may address
desired housing types (including duplexes), lot sizes, setbacks and allowed uses.
Allowed commercial uses permitted within this new zoning district should be of a
neighborhood-scale limited to general retail, restaurants (without drive-thru
facilities), personal services, land surveying and offices, and other uses
complementary to rural property owners. The new zoning district should also
address design standards that create a more livable place (street trees, curb-side
parking, discreet signage, site lighting and underground utilities, etc.).
Historically, highway commercial uses have located along Route 50 (Northwestern Pike).
These uses include gas stations, restaurants, and small retail establishments. In more recent
years, Round Hill Crossing (including the large Wal-Mart center) has developed on the north
side of Route 50 and serves as a commercial hub along the corridor. Future planned
commercial areas were also approved with The Village at Orchard Ridge (TVOR) development.
The objective of this plan is to create an attractive, functional commercial area with limited
access to Route 50. Consolidated entrances are strongly encouraged to avoid impeding traffic
flows along Route 50 and maintain entrance spacing requirements. A planned secondary
roadway system will also link the future commercial uses at TVOR with the Round Hill Crossing
shopping center. The new development in the identified “business” areas along Route 50
should also include pedestrian accommodations, including sidewalks and/or trails, where
appropriate and be interconnected through a well-planned road and trail network to TVOR.
113
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
6
Western Frederick Land Use Plan
The quarry property, south of Route 50 and Round Hill Road, is planned to remain “extractive
mining.” While the quarry itself may not expand beyond the current boundary, upgrades to
the facility and equipment should be expected in the future to maintain operations. Rock
Harbor Golf Course (previously studied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, adopted 2010,
and now identified with a future “business” land use designation) is envisioned as commercial
area and have a balance of land uses that promote the recreational component as the primary
land use and enhances the economic development opportunities of the area. Compatible
commercial ventures such as conference/event facilities, lodging opportunities (hotel),
restaurants, and limited accessory retail may also be appropriate. These new uses should be
clustered around the existing course clubhouse and driving range, providing for a significant
setback (physical separation) from neighboring residences to the south and west. High quality
building designs and materials are expected within the identified mixed-use area, low impact
design for stormwater management along with substantial areas of open space that provide
a transition to the rural areas to the west of the planning area and mitigate potential negative
impacts of new commercial development. Access to future uses should be thoroughly studied
to identify impacts to the transportation network, and it is likely significant improvements will
need to be made to handle increased traffic and manage circulation. Future expansion of
activity to the Rock Harbor Golf Course should also be mindful of the rural residential (estate)
subdivision to the south and include enhanced buffers and screening and ensure open space
is maintained along common boundaries to mitigate impacts to existing residences.
Western Jubal Early Planning Area
The land included within the Western Jubal Early planning area represents transitional area
between the urban and suburban density in the City of Winchester and the rural areas of
western Frederick County. A dominant feature of the planning area is the Abrams Creek
wetland (watershed).
The Western Jubal Early planning area is envisioned as “planned unit development” (PUD)
with a defined, well-planned cluster of suburban style residential development and limited
neighborhood-scale commercial development at major intersections (outlined below). A PUD
designation provides flexibility to future development of these areas and elevates the land to
the highest use given the area’s inclusion within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and
Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The PUD designation is intended to continue the
established land use pattern in the vicinity of the planning area, including a mix of residential
housing types and densities like those in the City of Winchester and the City’s new design
districts along Cedar Creek Grade and Route 11.
The Western Jubal Early area is one of the last large property assemblages without entitlement
(approved rezoning) available for development within the Urban Development Area. The
development of these properties should be done comprehensively, and be well-integrated
with the City of Winchester, of a high-quality architectural design, and maximize the potential
residential density available. Piecemeal development of individual lots, without consideration
to the wider planning area, should be avoided. Careful consideration should be given to
building types, height, dimensions, design, setbacks, and lot coverage to harmonize with
existing development east and west of the future PUD but also achieve desired densities and
housing types.
114
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
7
Western Frederick Land Use Plan
The PUD will be linked by an efficient road system including an extended north/south
connector from existing Merrimans Lane and a new roundabout intersection with Cedar Creek
Grade and new east/west extension of Jubal Early Drive from the City of Winchester to Route
37. Multi-purpose trails and sidewalks should accompany all roadways and provide an efficient
network for pedestrians and bicyclists. Sensitive natural areas (Abrams Creek wetland
watershed) should be preserved by significant buffers and may serve as a recreation amenity
for residents through new trail connectivity around the wetlands and to the existing Green
Circle Trail in the City of Winchester. Development that encroaches on Abrams Creek, limits
or does not provide access to the sensitive natural area or reduces the ability of the wetlands
to continue to function as a vital “ecosystem” should be discouraged.
The commercial component is envisioned to consist of neighborhood-scale commercial uses
along Cedar Creek Grade at the interchange with Route 37 and the intersection of Merriman’s
Lane and West Jubal Early Drive extended. Priority should be given to neighborhood scale
commercial uses (retail and personal services) with high-quality architecture and attractive
site design as these will serve the needs of residents and create focal points for the new
community. High-quality building materials such as brick, stone, glass and wood should be
the predominant feature for new commercial building facades, along with attractive
landscaping and site design. Big box retail, self-storage, and other non-neighborhood scale
uses are strongly discouraged. Consolidated (shared) entrances will be encouraged to avoid
multiple entrances along Jubal Early Drive, Cedar Creek Grade, and the new collector road.
Plan Implementation Strategy
When considering rezoning applications in the Western Jubal Early planning area,
elevations, design proposals, and patterns books should be provided by potential
applicants/developers and reviewed by staff to ensure high-quality architecture and
building materials, attractive site design, and cohesion are addressed. Collaboration
between property owners in the development process is crucial to implementing the
plan.
TRANSPORTATION
Sunnyside Planning Area
The County’s Eastern Road Plan (a Comprehensive Plan element) identifies Route 522
(Northwestern Pike) through the Sunnyside planning area to be an improved four-lane divided
minor arterial roadway from the limits of the City of Winchester west through the interchange
with Route 37 and out to Indian Hollow Road (Route 679). Redevelopment of small lot
commercial along the corridor should incorporate consolidated entrances to reduce the
number of entrances to and from Route 522. The south side of Route 522 should include a
new minimum 10-foot (FT) wide multi-use trail, and the north side of Route 522 should include
new 5-FT wide sidewalks. Some segments of this pedestrian network already exist.
Crosswalks across Route 522 should be prioritized to provide appropriate accommodation to
all users, including the elderly and those with physical disabilities. A pedestrian connection
should also be made along Route 522, north to Apple Pie Ridge Road and connect James Wood
High School (JWHS) with the Sunnyside planning area. Thoughtful consideration should be
115
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
8
Western Frederick Land Use Plan
given to this pedestrian amenity to ensure pedestrian, student, and vehicle safety and avoid
impeding the signalized intersection of Route 522 and Apple Pie Ridge Road. Given the
income, demographics, residential density, and the destination and convenience retail nature
of the commercial core along Route 522, bicycle and pedestrian connectivity is critical for all
new development and redevelopment. A future study identifying opportunities for transit
connectivity through Sunnyside should also be considered.
Plan Implementation Strategy
Frederick County may consider Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) funding
through the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to accelerate sidewalk
and trail infrastructure in the Sunnyside planning area and provide much needed
connectivity to existing users along the Route 522 corridor.
Albin (formerly Route 37 West) Planning Area
Improvements may need to be made to the intersection of Apple Pie Ridge Road and Route
522 to enhance safety and traffic flows for residents and school traffic. Limited commercial
entrances along Route 522 heading north should also be prioritized to maintain flow of traffic
consistent with the transportation chapter of the County’s Comprehensive Plan.
Round Hill Planning Area
The Eastern Road Plan designates Route 50 to be improved to a six-lane divided (grass
median) minor arterial road between Route 37 and Poorhouse Road (Route 654). West of
Poorhouse Road, Route 50 is planned as a four-lane divided minor arterial roadway.
Sidewalks are planned on the south side of Route 50 and multi-purpose trails on the north
side. Developments along Route 50 will be expected to incorporate these road and pedestrian
improvements.
An east/west collector road, north of and parallel to Route 50 is also included in the Eastern
Road Plan. A section of this road, Petticoat Gap Lane, will be built with subsequent phases of
the Round Hill Crossing development. Ultimately this roadway will connect from Botanical
Boulevard, the Round Hill Crossing Shopping center to National Lutheran Boulevard to the
west. This road is envisioned as an urban roadway that includes landscaped medians,
controlled left turns, street trees, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities, to enhance
transportation on the north side of Route 50. Future development proposals will need to
accommodate the continuation of this collector road to ensure completion. A future study
identifying opportunities for transit connectivity to the Valley Health West Medical Campus
(WMC) should also be considered.
A Route 37 Jubal Early interchange improvement is also proposed providing access to the
Rock Harbor Golf Course, rural residences, and to the east to the Western Jubal Early planning
area and future planned unit development (PUD). This project was previously proffered
(funded by a developer/privately funded) as part of the Willow Run rezoning, including right-
of-way (ROW) dedication. Significant study is still required before such a project would be
implemented.
116
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
9
Western Frederick Land Use Plan
As noted in the Comprehensive Plan, as all road projects and development or redevelopment
take place, the development and associated transportation facilities should be accessible to
all users (including bicyclists and pedestrians). In addition to sidewalks and trails along major
roadways, a new multi-purpose trail system is planned through the Round Hill Community to
serve the area and provide access and connectivity with the West Jubal Early Community and
ultimately to the City of Winchester’s Green Circle Trail. The location of the proposed trail
shown on the plan is general, with the precise location of the trail connection still undecided.
The development of new road systems, new signalization and improvements to existing road
systems are all elements of this plan. It will be the responsibility of private property owners
and developers to ensure that these improvements are made.
Western Jubal Early Planning Area
The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Plan calls for the extension of Jubal Early Drive
to the west through the planning area to Route 37, a new north/south connector, and a new
interchange at Route 37 and future Jubal Early Drive extended (this also aligns with the City
of Winchester’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2022). The extension of Jubal Early Drive
and the future interchange at Route 37 are critical to providing connectivity within the
planning area, the City of Winchester, and to the west toward the Round Hill Community.
Future study to determine the timing of the new interchange will still be required. The
extension of Jubal Early Drive is envisioned as a divided four-lane roadway that includes
landscaped medians and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. A new major north/south collector
road is planned to facilitate traffic movement between Jubal Early Drive extended and Cedar
Creek Grade. This boulevard style road is envisioned as an urban divided four-lane roadway
that includes landscaped medians as well as pedestrian and bicycle facilities. A roundabout is
proposed to connect the new north/south collector roadway to Cedar Creek Grade to facilitate
the efficient movement of traffic in this area of the County.
Plan Implementation Strategy
Coordination with the City of Winchester and the Virginia Department of
Transportation is critically important to ensure expanded north/south and
east/west connections through the planning area to serve new mixed-use planned
unit development (PUD). Additional study, including updating regional
transportation modeling, will be required prior to any implementation of the
planned unit development policies.
Cedar Creek Grade is planned to be widened to a four-lane collector roadway from the City of
Winchester west to Route 37, with signalized ramps planned at the intersection of Cedar Creek
Grade and Route 37. The Comprehensive Plan also identifies Cedar Creek Grade as a short-
term destination route for cyclists. Therefore, this plan incorporates improvements to Cedar
Creek Grade, to a four-lane divided major collector road with a bicycle lane or ideally a
separate bike path, and improvements to the interchange at Route 37 and Cedar Creek Grade.
117
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
10
Western Frederick Land Use Plan
WATER AND SEWER
Sunnyside Planning Area
The Sunnyside planning area is within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and new
development and redevelopment may be served by public utilities owned and operated by
Frederick Water. Existing developments may continue to be served by the City of Winchester,
where currently connected. However, limited water and sewer capacity from Frederick Water
can be expected due to topography challenges in extending public utilities. Frederick Water
policy states that new development is responsible for paying for the cost of utility extension
and upgrades to existing facilities. Those physical impediments, costs for new or expanded
service, and the current Frederick Water policies may hinder development and
redevelopment, especially for new residential, in the short term.
Albin (formerly Route 37 West) Planning Area
The Albin planning area is primarily outside of the limits of the SWSA (JWHS and APES are
within the SWSA). Rural Community Center (RCC) policies elsewhere in the plan envision
community water and sewer systems to support RCC properties where failing private systems
may no longer be viable. Expansion of the SWSA along Route 522 to include the Albin Rural
Community Center is not envisioned at this time. Caution should be taken to any future
discussions about SWSA expansion west of Route 37, including to support additional
commercial opportunities along Route 522, and if extension of the SWSA furthers policies
outlined elsewhere in the WFLUP.
Round Hill Planning Area
The Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) extends west from Route 37 and encompasses
the planned business parcels in the planning area, including Round Hill Crossing, planned
areas south of Route 50 and Rock Harbor Golf Course. The area immediately west of Route
37, including Winchester Medical Center – West Campus and Round Hill Crossing are currently
served by the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. The transmission lines serving this facility
have limited capacity. Therefore, future development south of Route 50 and also west of
Round Hill Crossing are planned to be served by the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Future development proposals will need to demonstrate that sufficient sewer capacity exists
(or what upgrades may be required at the expense of the developer). Water lines exist along
Route 50 and through Round Hill Crossing and the Winchester Medical Center – West Campus
and along Route 37. These water lines have sufficient capacity to provide the volume of water
to serve planned land uses identified in the plan; however, they do not have sufficient
pressure. To provide adequate pressure, existing line pressure will have to be boosted and
water storage provided. Expansion of the SWSA, specifically sewer service, as envisioned to
include the Round Hill Rural Community Center, will require significant additional
improvements. Costs for those improvements are borne by the end users. The SWSA
boundary expansion is included and intended to expand currently adopted Comprehensive
Plan policy for the identified Rural Community Centers and is a very long-term element of the
area plan study.
Western Jubal Early Planning Area
The Western Jubal Early planning area is within the limits of the Sewer and Water Service
Area (SWSA) and Urban Development Area (UDA) and is envisioned to be developed primarily
118
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
11
Western Frederick Land Use Plan
for residential uses through a new planned unit development (PUD). The developer of Willow
Run will make improvements necessary to serve their 300-unit residential development,
including upgrades to the pump station north of Cedar Creek Grade. However, any additional
residential development will require substantial upgrades to the sewer network to provide
adequate service. Improvements to the network will be completed by the developer, and in
the short term may be a barrier to any additional residential and commercial development
beyond what is already approved (Willow Run).
NATURAL RESOURCES, HISTORIC RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Sunnyside Planning Area
Star Fort is one of the last remaining earthen defensive forts surrounding the City of
Winchester, located north of the intersection of Route 522 and Fortress Drive (designated
recreation and sensitive natural area). During the Civil War, Star Fort played a major role in
the defense of Winchester and today visitors can still see the remains of star-shaped
earthworks, magazine pits, and artillery platforms. Several interpretive markers explain the
significance of the fort and the role it played during the Second and Third Battle of Winchester.
The Star Fort site is owned and preserved by the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation
(SVBF).
Development of vacant parcels, infill, and redevelopment of existing lots within the planned
urban center, should be carefully evaluated to assess new demand to public and community
facilities, including schools, fire and rescue services and parks for residents of the
developments and which may benefit the broader community.
Albin (formerly Route 37 West) Planning Area
Areas to the north and west should remain in their present, rural condition, continuing the
present land use of agriculture while preserving the historic integrity of the battlefield, as well
as historic properties identified in the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey. Rural
properties (privately owned) within the core battlefield may be conserved in partnership with
the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation (SVBF) and may be used as recreational areas
for the community. Individual property owners should pursue these partnerships with SVBF
and Frederick County Parks and Recreation. One significant historic resource in this planning
area is the Frederick County Poor Farm Complex, erected in 1820 and closed in 1947. The
Frederick County Poor Farm property is now in private ownership, with the buildings currently
being used for storage. In 1993, the complex was added to the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP Reference Number 93000823). The property may serve as a historic site
accessible for public use in the future in coordination with other recreation amenities.
James Wood High School (JWHS) and Apple Pie Ridge Elementary School (APRES) continue
to serve as community focal points. JWHS is receiving substantial internal and external
renovations, anticipated to be completed in 2025, allowing the facility to continue to serve
the Frederick County community.
119
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
12
Western Frederick Land Use Plan
Round Hill Planning Area
The area is dominated by two major natural features – Round Hill itself, which is west of
Poorhouse Road (Route 654) and a north/south ridgeline. The ridgeline, west of the Round
Hill Crossing shopping center, is highly visible and should be sensitively developed. This
topographic feature, which also has connections to Civil War history, could potentially be a
future recreation opportunity serving the Round Hill community (the previous community park
facility was closed when the fire company relocated to The Village at Orchard Ridge). Ponds,
streams and floodplains are present and will need to be taken into consideration so as to
minimize and/or mitigate negative impacts with any future development. These natural areas
provide an obvious location for a trail system.
Round Hill (rural community center) is one of the older settlements in Frederick County. The
original village was located at the base of Round Hill. The community today includes a small
number of eighteenth and nineteenth century dwellings. Approximately 30 late-nineteenth
century and early-to-mid twentieth century houses, primarily American Foursquares and I-
houses are in the area. The mid-nineteenth century Round Hill Presbyterian Church and the
early-twentieth century Round Hill School (now used as a residence) are also located in this
community. Protection of these historic structures is encouraged.
Western Jubal Early Planning Area
The Western Jubal Early planning area designates environmental resources associated with
the Abrams Creek corridor as sensitive natural areas (SNA). These areas should be preserved
through the development process with improvements limited to required road crossings and
enhance recreational amenities such as walking trails. A portion of the City of Winchester’s
Green Circle Trail has been constructed on the north side of the Winchester Western Railroad.
The above transportation section envisions completion of connection to the trail out to
Merrimans Lane. Additionally, a connector trail should be developed that extends from the
existing trail to Cedar Creek Grade as an enhancement to the Green Circle Trail. The
connecting trail should be located to enhance the interaction of the user with any
environmental features or view sheds that are conserved through implementation of the plan.
One notable historic house located in the southwestern corner of the Western Jubal Early
planning area is the Stuart Brown House. The house is identified in the Lake’s Atlas of 1885
and has been identified as a potentially significant property in the Frederick County Rural
Landmarks Survey Protection of this structure is encouraged.
The Western Jubal Early planning area envisions the majority of this land to be developed for
residential uses through a new planned unit development (PUD). It will be incumbent upon
future development within the planning area to provide adequate community facilities, and
adequately mitigate other capital costs to fire and rescue services and public schools, to serve
any new residential development within the PUD. Recreational amenities, including a new
neighborhood park and multi-use trails, should be part of any such development proposals.
This is consistent with the Community Facilities and Services policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
120
City of Winchester§¨¦81§¨¦81§¨¦81§¨¦81§¨¦81§¨¦81£¤522£¤50£¤50£¤11£¤50£¤522£¤522£¤50£¤11¬«7¬«37¬«37SINGHASS RDCOSTELLODRMILLER RDAMHERST STNEWLINS HILL RDN FREDERICK PIKEAPPLE PIE RIDGE RDDICKS HOLLOW RDROUNDHILLRDPOORHOUSE RDFOXDRPRINCEFREDERICKDRBAKER LNSENSENY RDMCDONALDRDMIDDLE RDJONES RDMARTINSBURG PIKEFORTRESSDRW E S T M IN STER-CANTERBURYDRBRYA RLY RDFAIR LNMARPLE RDFORT COLLIER RDLENOIR DRMILLWOODPIKERETAILBLVDPAPERMILLRDBETHE LG R A N G E R D WEEMSLNPARKCENTERDRGLENDOBBIN RDMERRIMANS LNS PLEASANT VALLEY RDFRONTROYALPIKEREDBUDRDNORTHWESTERNPIKEWARDENSVILLE GRINDIAN HOLLOW RDGOLDS HILL RDBRICK KILN RDWOODCHUCK LNNATIONALLUTHERANBLVDWELLTOWN RDMAGICMOUNTAINRDBROOKE RDMCGHEERDCEDAR CREEK GRTYSON DRWBROOKERDBURNTCHURCHRDμWestern FrederickProposed Land Use PlanArea PlanThe Comprehensive PlanDraftSunnysideUrban CenterPlanned Unit DevelopmentDraft Sewer and Water Service AreaUrban Development AreaLand Use LegendResidentialBusinessExtractive MiningInstitutional00.510.25 MilesRecreationWesternJubal EarlyAlbinRound HillCommunityRound HillRural CommunityCenterAlbinRural CommunityCenterMap Revised: September 11, 2024Draft Eastern Road PlanImproved Major ArterialNew Minor ArterialImproved Minor ArterialNew Major CollectorImproved Major CollectorNew Minor CollectorImproved Minor CollectorRampRoundaboutRural Community CenterSensitive Natural AreasCurrent Acreages Proposed AcreagesBusiness 1,108.41 844.29Commercial Rec 266.42 315.40Extractive Mining 424.47 424.64Institutional 84.72 80.90PUD 0 489.68Recreation 0 786.80Residential 977.28 373.32Rural Community Center 1,172.12 1,453.07SNA 38.91 56.14Urban Center 0 413.71Rural Areas 2,899.82 2,085.23
121
City of Winchester§¨¦81§¨¦81§¨¦81§¨¦81§¨¦81§¨¦81£¤522£¤50£¤50£¤11£¤50£¤522£¤522£¤50£¤11¬«7¬«37¬«37SINGHASS RDCOSTELLODRMILLER RDAMHERST STNEWLINS HILL RDN FREDERICK PIKEAPPLE PIE RIDGE RDDICKS HOLLOW RDROUNDHILLRDPOORHOUSE RDFOXDRPRINCEFREDERICKDRBAKER LNSENSENY RDMCDONALDRDMIDDLE RDJONES RDMARTINSBURG PIKEFORTRESSDRW E S T M IN STER-CANTERBURYDRBRYA RLY RDFAIR LNMARPLE RDFORT COLLIER RDLENOIR DRMILLWOODPIKERETAILBLVDPAPERMILLRDBETHE LG R A N G E R D WEEMSLNPARKCENTERDRGLENDOBBIN RDMERRIMANS LNS PLEASANT VALLEY RDFRONTROYALPIKEREDBUDRDNORTHWESTERNPIKEWARDENSVILLE GRINDIAN HOLLOW RDGOLDS HILL RDBRICK KILN RDWOODCHUCK LNNATIONALLUTHERANBLVDWELLTOWN RDMAGICMOUNTAINRDBROOKE RDMCGHEERDCEDAR CREEK GRTYSON DRWBROOKERDBURNTCHURCHRDμWestern FrederickProposed Land Use PlanDraft Transportation MapArea PlanThe Comprehensive PlanDraftSunnysideDraft Sewer and Water Service AreaUrban Development Area00.510.25 MilesWesternJubal EarlyAlbinRound HillCommunityRound HillRural CommunityCenterAlbinRural CommunityCenterMap Revised: September 11, 2024Bike - Pedestrian PathsBicycle OnlyMulti-UsePedestrian OnlyDraft Eastern Road PlanImproved Major ArterialNew Minor ArterialImproved Minor ArterialNew Major CollectorImproved Major CollectorNew Minor CollectorImproved Minor CollectorRampRoundaboutTrails122
City of Winchester§¨¦81§¨¦81§¨¦81§¨¦81§¨¦81§¨¦81£¤522£¤50£¤50£¤11£¤50£¤522£¤522£¤50£¤11¬«7¬«37¬«37GreystoneFarmStar FortRound HillPresbyterianChurchValley SchoolTokes' InnLindenBaker HouseGold HouseMertz HouseOld HomeOrchardGlass-Rinker-CooperMillBond HouseGarber FarmHodgson,Abner HouseManuel HouseBellevilleBrown,StuartHouseHouse,Rt. 522RichardsHouseGlendobbinGlass-RinkerHouseFrederickCountyPoor HouseMiller FarmLog HouseFrederickCountyCourt HouseLiberty HallStoney AcresStine HouseRound HillSchoolLong GreenHomespunHomespunWalnut GroveHodgson HouseBungalow,Rt. 672Aspen ShadeRetirementRosedaleFruitHill FarmSolenbergerOrchardLupton-BondHouseClevenger-McKown HouseFort CollierμWestern FrederickProposed Land Use PlanDraft Historic and NaturalResourcesArea PlanThe Comprehensive PlanDraftSunnysideDraft Sewer and Water Service AreaUrban Development Area00.510.25 MilesWesternJubal EarlyAlbinRound HillCommunityRound HillRural CommunityCenterAlbinRural CommunityCenterMap Revised: September 11, 2024Draft Eastern Road PlanImproved Major ArterialNew Minor ArterialImproved Minor ArterialNew Major CollectorImproved Major CollectorNew Minor CollectorImproved Minor CollectorRampRoundaboutFacilities³nElementary School³nHigh School#Historic Rural Landmarks89:sFire StationCommunity FacilitiesNatural Resources & RecreationSensitive Natural AreasBattlefields123
Summary of Community
Survey Responses
September 4, 2024
124
51%
7%
27%
15%
Do you live or work in the study area?
Live Work Both I do not live or work in the study area.
125
65%
25%
10%
The intent of the Western Frederick Land Use Plan (WFLUP) is to preserve rural lands, resources, and views west of Route 37,
and concentrate new growth, particularly new residential growth within the urbanized areas of the County, generally east of
Route 37 and those areas served by public utilities and near other services such as fire and rescue response and public
schools.
Agree Disagree No Opinion 126
51%38%
11%
The Plan proposes changing the land use designation for the Sunnyside planning area from primarily "residential" and "business"
to "urban center." The urban center designation is envisioned to be a walkable, mixed-use area, along Route 522, that provides for
business opportunity to further support the tax base and new residences, including residences over commercial and retail
spaces, to support a growing population.
Agree Disagree No Opinion 127
66%
19%
15%
The Plan proposes designating a significant portion of the Albin planning area as "recreation." Use of these historic and rural
properties for recreation purposes may serve the larger County population and visitors as well as residents of western Frederick
County. Residential or commercial growth west of Route 37 into the Albin planning area should be prohibited.
Agree Disagree No Opinion 128
59%28%
13%
The Round Hill Rural Community Center has been designated for future public utility service. This designation is intended only to
allow small residential lots to connect to public utilities, at such time private systems are no longer a viable option. Future residential
and commercial growth within this rural community center should be limited in scale and intensity to maintain the rural nature of this
area of the County.
Agree Disagree No Opinion 129
44%
38%
18%
The Plan proposes changing the land use designation for the Western Jubal Early planning area from "residential"
and "commercial" to "planned unit development (PUD)." This change in the type of residential development
envisioned is to provide flexibility for these areas close to the City of Winchester, allowing for a variety of housing
types where public utility service already exists, to ensure a cohesive and connected pattern of development, and
limited neighborhood scale retail to support a balanced tax base and help to off-set the cost of development.
Agree Disagree No Opinion 130
36%
2%
62%
On the proposed changes for this area of Frederick County overall, what
is your level of support for the Plan as presented?
Do Not Support No Opinion Support 131
What is your Zip
Code?
Do you live or work
in the study area?
Do you agree, disagree, or have no opinion on the
following statement?
The intent of the Western Frederick Land Use Plan
(WFLUP) is to preserve rural lands, resources, and
views west of Route 37, and concentrate new growth,
particularly new residential growth within the
urbanized areas of the County, generally east of
Route 37 and those areas served by public utilities
and near other services such as fire and rescue
response and public schools.
Do you agree, disagree, or have no opinion on the
following change to the future planned land use?
The Plan proposes changing the land use designation
for the Sunnyside planning area from primarily
"residential" and "business" to "urban center." The
urban center designation is envisioned to be a
walkable, mixed-use area, along Route 522, that
provides for business opportunity to further support
the tax base and new residences, including
residences over commercial and retail spaces, to
support a growing population.
Do you agree, disagree, or have no opinion on the
following change to the future planned land use?
The Plan proposes designating a significant portion of
the Albin planning area as "recreation." Use of these
historic and rural properties for recreation purposes
may serve the larger County population and visitors as
well as residents of western Frederick County.
Residential or commercial growth west of Route 37
into the Albin planning area should be prohibited.
Do you agree, disagree, or have no opinion on the following change to
the future planned land use?
The Round Hill Rural Community Center has been designated for future
public utility service. This designation is intended only to allow small
residential lots to connect to public utilities, at such time private
systems are no longer a viable option. Future residential and
commercial growth within this rural community center should be
limited in scale and intensity to maintain the rural nature of this area of
the County.
Do you agree, disagree, or have no opinion on the following change to the
future planned land use?
The Plan proposes changing the land use designation for the Western
Jubal Early planning area from "residential" and "commercial" to "planned
unit development (PUD)." This change in the type of residential
development envisioned is to provide flexibility for these areas close to
the City of Winchester, allowing for a variety of housing types where
public utility service already exists, to ensure a cohesive and connected
pattern of development, and limited neighborhood scale retail to support
a balanced tax base and help to off-set the cost of development.
On the proposed changes for this area of Frederick
County overall, what is your level of support for the
Plan as presented? (select only one)
Please provide any additional feedback on the proposed Western Frederick
Land Use Plan. Your comments will inform staff and officials about the
community's shared vision for this area of the County.
22603 Both Agree Disagree Agree Agree No opinion 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
22601 Both Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
22603 Both Agree Agree Agree Disagree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
22603 Both Agree Agree Agree No opinion Agree 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes
The County should sell the Sunnyside property currently being used as a voter
sight.
22602 Both Agree Agree Agree Disagree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes N/A
22601 Both Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
The SWSA changes alone will massively ( largest City homeowner cost )
increase tax / cost burdens - no estimates or timelines offered - while
subsidizing builder profits. Developer and FC VA Administrative GREED is not
a moral high ground on which to base the future
22603 Both No opinion Disagree No opinion No opinion No opinion 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
What happens to home owners in the “Urban†area? I’m afraid this
may try to push me out of my home.
22603 Both Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
You're tearing down hundreds of homes in a housing crisis. All you're getting is
a burner email and rude comments.
22637 Both Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree 2 - I do not support the proposed changes
As a conservationist… stop developing land and bloody protect and preserve
the local biodiversity. It would be nice to see more area designated as critical
habitat. It would be nice to see some help with wildlife corridors to help with
wildlife habitat fragmentation and safety for mitigating or lessening both
humans/wildlife vehicle collisions. This county could benefit from highlighting
things like areas for wildlife viewing and other nature activities to bring in
tourists money rather than growing the population.
22655 Both Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes Until we elect better leaders, and less greedy opportunists, I will not approve!
22603 Both Agree Agree Agree Agree No opinion 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
22603 Both No opinion Disagree Agree Disagree No opinion 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
Allowing public utilities will not slow growth. Building permits need to be
halted right now and a several year study needs to happen you are way behind.
22602 Both Agree Agree Agree No opinion No opinion 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
Once land is developed it is very difficult to go back. I strongly support a plan
that keeps the rural charm of the Winchester area. The mass housing projects
are a mistake, in my opinion.
22602 Both Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
22602a Both Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes Lies
22637 Both Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
I came out here with my family to escape leftist policies and the city. I want my
kid to have a small town concervative life. I see mass importation of illegal
aliens to the area and I do not want my tax dollars to go to accommodate
them. I see people wanting to move to the area to escape all the things listed
above and have that quiet concervative lifestyle I spoke of. I've driven around
town and have seen a number of vacant shopping centers and buildings etc.
Why not make better use of what you have access to instead of destroying an
untouched area to pseudo boost the economy. I've seen town hall meeting
talking about the need to increase taxes for growth and it's laughable. Cut
spending create a lottery system for public service likened to jury duty that
needs to be attended to on a weekly rotation. That's what being a citizen is
involvement in government and controlling your own fate.
22601 Both Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
Keep Winchester RURAL, quit putting $ into the already fat pockets of the
developers. All the developers want is a bigger profit!
22601 Both Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
Winchester is beautiful country and needs to stay that way, protected from
greedy developers. If people want development they should move to Fairfax or
Arlington
22602 Both Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
22602 Both Agree Agree Agree Agree No opinion 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
22603 Both Agree No opinion Agree Agree No opinion 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
Entire county needs to slow growth tremendously. It affects all of us. More
people does not mean more taxes. It means higher taxes.
22603 Both No opinion Disagree Agree Agree No opinion 2 - I do not support the proposed changes
22602 Both Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
Growth of residential and business should be strictly limited. We have so many
empty lots to use for new business. Residential is already overcrowded and we
don't need any more town homes. If houses are built, they should have a
minimum of 2+ acres required. No more rezoning to pack people in. The roads
need fixing and we need actual grocery stores that are able to remain stocked.
22602 Both Disagree No opinion Disagree Agree Agree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
I strongly oppose changing the zoning of the Rock Harbor Golf Course from
recreational to commercial
132
22603 Both Agree Agree No opinion No opinion Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
The Sunnyside shopping center is currently not serving the community where it
is located
22601 Both Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
Under no circumstances should another townhouse be built in Frederick
County or Winchester. The only housing I would support for Western Frederick
County is affordable retirement communities that are age-restricted. W.
Frederick County is near Valley Health, where most doctors' offices are
located. Retirement communities are less burden on the school system and
generate very little extra traffic.
22603 Both Agree No opinion Agree Agree No opinion 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
I strongly oppose large housing developments Iike Snowden Village in western
Frederick County.. Zoning more homes equals more schools,services,and
Taxes.
22602 Both Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes
22602 Both Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes
22602 Both Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
22603 Both Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree 2 - I do not support the proposed changes Stop sprawl!
22601 Both Agree Agree No opinion Agree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
I believe it needs to be stated that land use taxation for active farming to
produce income needed to support families will be maintained. Other types of
support may be considered to insure the land remains undeveloped if the
landowner needs to sell to meet financial obligations in order to avoid
foreclosure.
22603 Both Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
I will be in touch. I vote for a tree study to be apart of the planning first. I do not
agree with the need for a developer to be apart of the future ideas for the
county, nor any REITs to help offset the costs. I have an alternative vision for
future economic growth, which is agro and eco tourism,- more small local
businesses and green spaces. I vote for the preservation of trees, farms and
our history, not corporate outsiders and foreign interests. I was the general
contractor and designer, for our net-zero energy farmhouse in 2020 with local
subcontractors. This type of local building is more thoughtful and artistic. I see
the need for lot sizes to include energy self-sufficiency, shade trees, fruit trees
and food security for all. This plan is continuing to put profits above the needs
of the people. My tax dollars will only increase more for the NoVA + small group
of local developer’s and REITs profits, along with the heartbreaking crime
and food insecurity, less trees/cooling and more heat on our farmer’s failed
crops, more tax dollars spent on cooling our service buildings. I value your time
and I know this is a difficult job. This article has scared me. Please, let’s
grow a better future.
https://www.richmondfed.org/region_communities/regional_data_analysis/reg
ional_matters/2024/rm_02_15_24_unlocking_housing_supply and the last line
on our community article from them, on Winchester, made me think
corporations are reading, “opportunities to be seized.†.. and ready to line
up here. I need more trees, creek protections and more site building
regulations/green spaces, like their Talbot County, MD example.
22602 Both Agree No opinion Agree Agree Disagree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
My concern regards the development of the Rock Harbor Golf Course into a
busier and more commercial area which will negatively impact residential
communities nearby. I strongly oppose the planned new interchange off of
route 37 which is an unnecessary encumbrance on local residents. This will
create noise and air pollution, travel and personal safety issues. These rural
roadways are commonly used for jogging and biking by local residents and are
essential for efficient access to WMC by the many hospital personell living in
these neighborhoods.
22602 Both Agree No opinion Agree Agree Disagree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
My husband & I share the same concerns regarding the proposed development
of the Rock Harbor Golf Course area into a busier and more commercial region,
which will negatively impact the residential communities nearby. We strongly
oppose the planned new interchange off of route 37 which is an unnecessary
encumbrance on local residents. This will create both noise and air pollution,
and cause concerning travel and personal safety issues. These rural roadways
are commonly used for jogging and biking by local residents, and are essential
for efficient (and urgent in emergencies) access to WMC by the many hospital
personnel living in these neighborhoods - physicians, nurse anesthetists, nurse
practitioners, and registered nurses, et cetera. Many hospital staff CHOSE to
live in this area because of the ease of rapid access to WMC. Thank you for
considering these important issues.
22603 I do not live or work in Agree Agree No opinion Agree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
If growth is expected in business or residential capacity, the planning
commission needs to also ensure adequate internet services can be provided
for all new growth.
22603 I do not live or work in Agree Agree Agree Agree No opinion 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes
This proposed land use plan will allow continued controlled development
within Frederick County, while still allowing for the open space and rural
nature of the western part of the county. I encourage the Board of Supervisors
to approved this draft plan, and to not allow development to occur outside the
proposed limits. I am also very discouraged by the amount of development
approved many years ago that is now present and not contained within
reasonable boundaries.
22655 I do not live or work in Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes
22602 I do not live or work in Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes
22655 I do not live or work in Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
133
22624 I do not live or work in Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
Preserving the rural nature of the area with more natural and limited growth is
more important to the character of the county. Dense developments and urban
growth is not what the residents want.
22624 I do not live or work in Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
Keep Frederick county more rural. Stop the dense developments, townhomes,
and urbanization of the county.
22656 I do not live or work in Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
Stop building as we already have water source issues. Many presumably would
prefer to remain small town aka rural. The excessive building increases our
taxes too much already & many don’t have children in the schools now nor
ever. Please may we keep the small town small. Thank you
22603 I do not live or work in Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes
22637 I do not live or work in Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
Our area has to stop growing!! The Winchester-Frederick County area has
become so overgrown that our infrastructure simply cannot handle the
population as it is now. Government officials do nothing to help manage the
flow of traffic in this area. Synchronize our traffic lights to help manage the flow
of traffic and keep traffic moving. It's become absolutely ridiculous the number
of intersections that get bogged down, and how often one has to stop at back-
to-back-to-back traffic lights. Amherst street is one of the worse.
22637 I do not live or work in Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
22602 I do not live or work in Agree Agree No opinion Agree No opinion 2 - I do not support the proposed changes
Changes need transition areas between residential and business. We do not
need exits and entrances to 37 every mile. Nor do we need more gas stations.
22637 I do not live or work in Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
22602 I do not live or work in No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion 3 - I have no opinion on the proposed changes Boo Boo’s Butt
22625 I do not live or work in Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
22602 I do not live or work in Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
Leave Rt 522 n corridor alone. Give Albin area homeowners the choice to hook
up to county water and sewer if their septic system is not failing
22602 I do not live or work in Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes
22602 I do not live or work in Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
22625 I do not live or work in Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
22637 Live Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
Although your professed intent is to preserve rural land, the reality is that rural
preservation is not a priority and development drives everything you do. The
traffic, the congestion, the ridiculous price of housing, the endless approval of
one major development after another, the expressed concern for farming
without doing anything to support it, you are ruining the quality of life in
Frederick County and turning it into another Fairfax or other unbearable county
in northern VA. If you sincerely want to preserve farming and the rural quality of
life in Frederick County, eliminate the Economic Development Authority, since
it exists only to industrialize the County, and devote those funds to assisting
and promoting agriculture.
22602 Live Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
if there were business's looking to buy land for an event center in western
frederick county, would that fit in with the rural / recreational tag that is
proposed for the western part of the county?
22603 Live Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes
22602 Live Agree Disagree Agree Agree No opinion 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
No new communities west of Hwy 37. Limited commercial building on that
area.
22603 Live Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
22603 Live Agree Agree Agree Disagree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
As a resident, I support maintaining the rural nature of Western Frederick
County and agree with the majority of the proposed changes to the Western
Frederick Land Use Plan, especially limiting residential and commercial
growth. I would like more insight on why private systems are being
discouraged in the Round Hill Community, as well as more information on the
“recreation†plans for the historical and rural properties in Albin before I
would fully support those changes.
22602 Live Agree Agree No opinion Agree Agree 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes
22603 Live Agree Agree No opinion No opinion Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
Smart growth is just that, Smart growth. Plan now for more schools because
more homes mean more students. Also, our teachers are leaving at a higher
rate every year for Loudoun. We can’t match them salary for salary but we
have to pay our teachers more to retain the best, even if we raise taxes.
Policemen as well.
22602 Live Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes what would be my cost to hook up to water and sewer
22603 Live Disagree Disagree No opinion No opinion Disagree 2 - I do not support the proposed changes
I would be interested to know if any consideration for data centers has been
entertained. These buildings result in high revenue with little impact to traffic
due to minimal employees needed. Frederick County needs to consider
infrastructure before adding the abundance of residential units. Snowden
bridge is a perfect example, the traffic in this area is horrific. It is time to be
proactive instead of reactive.
22602 Live No opinion Agree Agree Disagree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
22601 Live Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree 2 - I do not support the proposed changes
22602 Live Disagree Disagree No opinion Disagree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes Area is already too populated
134
22603 Live Disagree Disagree Agree No opinion Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
I think that City of Winchester needs to fix issues like public transportation,
safety, take care of empty big buildings within or close the Historical Zone area
that are a waste of space and useful area, and other issues prior think or
approve more development. Change land use/zones to increase construction
development without solve the current issues will create more problems than
solutions. The Sunnyside area has a green area which has wildlife, you can see
deers and other animals. People will never agree with the destruction of the
green area. I suggest you to add the definition of the land use so people can
have a clear understanding of the meaning and proposal
22603 Live Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
22603 Live Disagree Disagree Agree No opinion Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
Stop building housing developments. That's all the community wants.
Frederick County is unfortunently becoming the next Loudon and Fairfax
County. All the beautiful nature of the Shenandoah Valley that made Frederick
County unique is rapidly being destroyed. Not to mention the countless
historical properties that are being torn down for these massive eyesore
developments. These are two of the main reasons I moved to Frederick County
30 years ago. It deeply saddens me to see what Frederick County and
Winchester has become.
22602 Live Agree No opinion Agree Agree Agree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
i do not support the change of Rock Harbor to business nor the expansion of
Merrimans.
22655 Live No opinion Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree 2 - I do not support the proposed changes
22603 Live Disagree Disagree Agree Agree No opinion 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
22603 Live Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
22603 Live Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
22603 Live Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
Leave it alone. We can’t support new residents with schools, ambulance,
hospital, police. No growth!!!
22601 Live Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
Western Frederick County is the last bit of "rural" we have. Opening any
possibility of even small growth paves the way for sprawl. People moving to
Winchester/Frederick County typically commute, so any further development
should be relegated to the county's east side (Rt. 7) where the sprawl has
taken over anyway. We didn't even want WaWa on Amherst so there is no way
we want more houses, traffic, or any other commercial buildings. Leave the
west side alone to give everyone in Frederick County a place to escape to the
country. If you want Northern Va. living, then move to Northern Va. Leave our
Valley alone.
22603 Live Disagree Disagree No opinion No opinion No opinion 2 - I do not support the proposed changes
22602 Live Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
I moved to this area because it’s rural and beautiful. We do not need to fix
what isn’t broken.
22601 Live Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
While this plan appears comprehensive, what is missing is an overall good
reason to develop this area. Our infrastructure is already over burdened (i.e.,
you can't get a doctors appointment for months, it will increase traffic and
congestion in an area that wasn't designed to handle it, etc.). I live down the
block from the area being considered for development and I can tell you there
are deer, wild turkeys, bald eagles, foxes, bees, and many other amazing
wildlife living in that area whose habitat will be destroyed thereby displacing
them or outright killing them. I moved to Winchester from the Dallas, TX area
primarily because of the over building going on driven by developers either in
public office or due to their "successful" lobbying efforts. Temperatures have
risen there by several degrees due to lack of green space, flooding in
residential areas is occurring as more and more trees that absorb water are cut
down, and weather patterns are changing including more violent storms. I am
not sure this could be called progress under any circumstances as the citizens
of Winchester and Fredrick county don't seem to benefit from this at all unless
it is to line the pockets of developers who know the Winchester area is in
demand and are looking to take advantage. In the coming years those areas
that kept their building to a minimum, valued their open spaces, and preserved
nature, will be considered ahead of their time and places like Dallas will be
considered unnatural and undesirable. In other words, the less developed the
more valuable not the other way around. Please don't let that happen here!
22602 Live Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
22602 Live Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes The plan seems balanced and sensible to me.
22602 Live Agree No opinion No opinion Disagree Disagree 2 - I do not support the proposed changes
I agree with the intent of the Western Frederick Land Use Plan but believe the
plan will have the opposite effect and falls far short of the goal. How many
trees will be taken down east of Route 37 in the Western Jubal Early area? This
will likely have a major increase in noise on the west side of Route 37. Will
sound barriers be installed to help with the noise pollution that will most
certainly effect those on St. Andrew's Court and Parkins Lane? How much will
traffic increase at the Merrimans Lane and Meadow Branch intersection by
CVS? At certain times of day, it is nearly impossible to turn left at this
intersection heading toward Amherst.
22601 Live Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
22601 Live Agree Agree Agree Agree No opinion 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes
The Sunnyside intersections need street lamps, especially at the 37
intersections.
135
22603 Live Agree Agree Agree No opinion Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
Consider infrastructure, ie roads, bike and walking paths, limited # of
stoplights, school capacity, fire and rescue. Apple Pie Ridge Rd gets a lot of
bicycle traffic, which is unsafe for both the cyclist and the auto driver. I
appreciate conservation of the ag and orchard areas as well as historical
landmarks. Traffic on Rt 11 at 81 north and Welltown Rd near Rutherford is
unacceptable and unsafe. We do not want that same lack of planning on this
side near Sunnyside. If we build an urban area, make it visually appealing,
walkable, and ensure that traffic patterns and plans keep up with the growth.
As it stands, there is already an inordinate amount of evening rush hour traffic
in Sunnyside when there is an accident on 81 or an event at JWHS; it can take
10-20 minutes to go two miles on Rt 522 north at Fox drive around 5pm.
22603 Live No opinion No opinion No opinion Disagree Disagree 2 - I do not support the proposed changes
I have lived at my present address for 54 years and why can 't you include our
place in your plans, for water and sewer?
22603 Live Agree Agree Agree No opinion Agree 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes
Lands west of Route 37 need to be preserved as rural areas at all costs. No
commercial or residential neighborhoods/areas should be erected in this area
as it is the only remaining land in the county that has not yet been destroyed by
the influx of migrants from the Northern Virginia region.
22603 Live Agree Disagree Agree Agree No opinion 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes
I am in full support of the Western Frederick Land Use Plan. As a current
resident of this area, I feel very strongly about protecting our space from the
increasing growth of Frederick County. Our area is renowned for its natural
beauty, tranquility, and unique character, which are increasingly at risk due to
new developments. The preservation of these qualities is crucial not only for
the well-being of current residents but also for future generations who will
cherish the serene landscapes and rich biodiversity that define our community.
I urge you to consider the long-term impact of further development on our
environment and quality of life. Protecting our natural spaces and maintaining
the peacefulness of our surroundings should be a priority. I believe that careful
planning and a commitment to preserving our local heritage will benefit both
our community and the environment in the years to come.
22603 Live Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
There should be nothing considered "urban" in any planning. We have way too
many random odd businesses, no where near enough supermarket
competition, & we cannot have communities that limit driving through them by
unreasonably lowering speed limits, narrowing roads to auto traffic & creating
bike lanes. Truck traffic however, needs greater limitation. All highway
underpasses & associated traffic lights are consistantly backed up when
18wheelers exit 37& 81.
22603 Live Agree Agree No opinion Agree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
22603 Live Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes Where’s the water coming from for all these developments?
22602 Live Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
22603 Live Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree 2 - I do not support the proposed changes Stop new housing developments.
22602 Live Agree Disagree Agree Agree No opinion 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
Strongly Do NOT support interchange with RT 37 on Merriman's Lane. Strongly
do NOT support change in designation of Rock Harbor to Business. Strongly do
NOT support any use of Rock Harbor that would impact traffic on Merriman's
Lane. Would strongly NOT support any future connection of Robinson Drive to
Rock Harbor for any purpose. Need t maintain this as a cul-de-sac.
22602 Live No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion 3 - I have no opinion on the proposed changes
22603 Live Disagree Disagree Disagree No opinion Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
Already crowded area in Sunnyside with roads unable to support more growth
here and not enough grocery stores for the amount of people already present.
Our schools are overcrowded, not enough teachers or bus drivers to get our
children to and from school at a decent time! We do NOT want the city
here!!!!!
22602 Live No opinion No opinion No opinion Agree No opinion 3 - I have no opinion on the proposed changes
22602 Live Agree No opinion No opinion Agree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
No engine brake use by large trucks. Use only in an emergency on Route 50
west coming into the city, starting at VDOT.
22603 Live Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
Have you cleared this with Glaize, Solenberger, Perry, Wilkins, et al?
If not, you are wasting your time and my $$.
22603 Live Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes
22603 Live Agree Agree No opinion Agree No opinion 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
22602 Live Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes
2637 Live Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
It will not stop at this. This will only justify continued development and
destruction of the rural character of Frederick County. The Board of
Supervisors loyalty is to the developers not the citizens.
22603 Live Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes
I look forward to having water and sewer service but I realize it won’t
happen until there is more support or a bigger need.
22602 Live Agree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree 2 - I do not support the proposed changes
22602 Live Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes
We need help with the Route 7 and I-81 intersection. It's time for the county to
plan a bridge and widen Route 7. An additional bridge is also needed at the
intersection of Route 7 and Greenwood Road.
136
22603 Live Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes I would like to see urban growth contained in Winchester City.
22602 Live No opinion Agree Agree Agree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
We are unclear of the implications of development around Rt 37 and
Merrimans Lane: especially the extra traffic, consumption, noise, and
pollution. For example, what are the implications to the aquifer in this area
that already provides water for myriad residences west of 37? Can the aquifer
sustain this level of new development? What if there is an underground tank
leak at the proposed gas station...could this contaminate the aquifer? How
many extra vehicles will burden this area each day ? How many residences are
being proposed in the area just east of Rt 37 and Merrimans?
22602 Live No opinion Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 2 - I do not support the proposed changes
Somewhat concerned about this statement regarding Round Hill: "This
designation is intended only to allow small residential lots to connect to public
utilities, at such time private systems are no longer a viable option." The
dramatic development in other areas of Western FredCo could make the
private well/sewage systems in Roscommon be declared non-viable (i.e. by
overtaxing the aquifer or affecting sewage/drainage run-off options) thereby
forcing Roscommon residences to connect to public utilities.
22603 Live Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes None
22603 Live Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes
22601 Live Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
Although I think the plan is good. The continued growth of residential building
in the county is putting a burden on the existing water supply. We have
experienced drought conditions over the last several years without any
significant amount of water getting into our ground water system which is the
main water supply for the county. I think that a study of a moratorium on the
continued building anywhere in the county be studied.
22602 Live Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes Limit residential development
22603 Live Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree No opinion 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes Please keep everything the way it is, preserve.
22603 Live Agree No opinion Agree No opinion No opinion 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
22603 Live No opinion Disagree Agree Agree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
I live in the Sunnyside area, Star Fort neighborhood. I've been here since 2010.
Already, I have significantly increased my online shopping, rather than
supporting local business, due to the increase traffic volume. If it can't be done
before 10 a.m., it's done online. Further increasing development, be it
commercial or residential, will not improve quality of life here, it can only get
worse. Preserving open spaces, making them accessible for people to get away
and get some breathing room from the ever-increasing congestion of
Winchester is so important to the quality of life here.
22602 Live Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
22603 Live Agree Agree No opinion Agree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
It would be nice if there was a concerted effort with future development to
make these area more bikeable/connected; its great that the intent of
sunnyside is to be more walk-able; however outside connections to the
walkable area via dedicated bike paths/trail, bus connections, etc would
greatly increase its accessibility; also connections to Winchesters Green
Circle; would increase this accessibility to these future areas.
22602 Live Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes Keep the building in the eastern portion of the county that is already ruined.
22602 Live Agree Agree Agree Disagree Agree 2 - I do not support the proposed changes I do not want to connect to provided water or sewer.
22602 Work Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes
I think that it is imperative that the agricultural industry in our region be
protected along with the natural resources and beauty that contribute to the
type of lifestyle provided here.
22655 Work Agree Agree Agree No opinion Agree 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes
22637 Work Disagree No opinion Disagree Disagree Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
You're pushing too much west of 37. Shawneeland already does not have the
water to sustain it and you want to add more business and housing to that
area. PUD is just a fancy way of getting around rezoning in the future. I moved
west of winchester to be away from the city. Not to have the city move to me
22603 Work No opinion Disagree Agree Agree Disagree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
We don't need any more quickie marts or junk houses. If you're going to tear
down the blight buildings that are there and build something nice then I might
could agree. If you are just reusing the ugly stuff there or putting up junk then
no, don't waste your time.
22603 Work Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes
I strongly support the expansion of water and sewer down route 50. There are
several churches that would benefit greatly from this.
22601 Work Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes
Urban centers like Sunnyside should we walkable, with sidewalks and street
trees to promote health and safety for bikers and walkers, not just drivers.
People who live and work there should be able to walk and/or bike to get
groceries, go out to eat, go to the gym, etc.
22601 Work Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 5 - I strongly support the proposed changes
Having a revised WFLUP to accommodate the inevitable growth in Frederick
County is prudent and reasonable. Keeping areas west of Rt.37 rural (as much
as possible) just makes sense. It strikes a balance between healthy growth
and diversified tax base while preserving some rural "green space" that most
residents prefer for a healthy way of life.
137
22601 Work Disagree Disagree Agree No opinion Disagree 1 - I strongly do not support the proposed changes
I'm impressed by your all's abilites the destroy the rural landscape and
farmland that once made Frederick County so great. We are furtunate enough
to live in an area so rich in history, but the land use plan shows that a lot of
these sites will ultimatey be bulldozed and paved over for eyesore
developments, warehouses, and and other massive businesses. Unfortunently,
it seems Frederick County is becoming the next Fairfax and Loudon County. I
definitely do not support the construction of new houses, warehouses, or
businesses anywhere in Frederick County.
26865 Work Agree Agree Agree Disagree Agree 4 - I somewhat support the proposed changes
138