CPPC 02-09-09 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
TO: Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC)
FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Director
RE: February Meeting
DATE: February 3, 2009
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
The Frederick County Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC) will be meeting on
Monday, February 9, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the first floor conference room (purple room) of the
County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia.
The CPPS will discuss the following agenda items:
AGENDA
1) Planning Commission Retreat Overview
Staff will provide an overview of subjects presented and discussions held during the 2009
Planning Commission Retreat held on January 31, 2009. Please find an attached copy of the
2.008 Annual Report for your information (digital only).
2) CPPC Standing Committee Briefs
a) Community Area Plans Subcommittee
b) Community Facility Subcommittee
c) Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee
3) Other
Access to this building is limited daring the evening hours. Therefore, it will be necessary to enter
the building through the rear door of the four-story wing. I would encourage committee members
and interested citizens to park in the County parking lot located behind the new addition or in the
joint Judicial Center parking lot andfollow the sidewalk to the back door of the four-story wing.
Attach -tents
MTR/bad
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
E iAnnual Report
Frederick County Department of Planning & Development
Frederick County Planning Commission
2
2008 Highlights
3
Quick Facts
4
Location
5
Magisterial Districts
5
Population
5
Households & Families
----LL--
6
- -
Income
fi
Employment
6
Public School Enrollment
7
Subdivisions
Overall Lots Created
8
Residential Lots Created
8
Residential Building Permits
9
Department ..
Organizational Structure
10
Planning Efforts
11
Zoning Enforcement
11
Application
Rezonings
12
Master Development Plans
13
Subdivisions
13
Conditional Use Permits
13
Waivers & Exceptions
14
Site Plans
14
Variances & Appeals
14
Rural Preservation Subdivisions
14
Major Rural Subdivisions
15
Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments
15
Zoning Violations
15
UDA Report
Committee Activities
16
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee
17
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee
17
Transportation Committee u �17
Conservation Easement Authority
18
Historic Resources Advisory Board
18
GIS/IT Division of Planning and Development
18
2008 Frederick County Planning Commission
June Wilmot, Chairman
Member At Largo
11/1412005-1111412009
Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman
Opequon District
0611412005 - 0611412009
Cordell Watt
Back Creek District
2/22/2005 - 212212009
Greg L. Unger
Back Creek District
0112612008 - 0112612012
George J. Kriz
Gainesboro District
0112612008 - 0112612012
Charles E. Triplett
Gainesboro District
0212612005 - 0212612009
Rick C. Ours
Opequon District
04/07/2005 - 0410712009
Gregory S. Kerr
Red Bud District
01 /1112006-0111112010
—2—
Christopher Mohn
Red Bud District
0111112006-0111112010
Lawrence R. Ambrogi
Shawnee District
0112312008 - 04128/2009
H. Paige Manuel
Shawnee District
0112612008 - 0112612012
Gary R. Oates
Stonewall District
01/1112006-0111112010
Richard A. Ruckman
Stonewall District
0211 212008 - 0211 2/20 12
Gary A. Lofton
BOS Liaison
Winchester City Planning Department
City Liaison
Roderick B. Williams (non-member)
County Attorney
Legal Counsel
Eric R. Lawrence (non-member)
Staff Contact &Secretary
2008 Highlights
The 2008 Frederick County Annual Report is compiled to
provide the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of
Supervisors, Administrative Agencies, and members of the
community with information on planning activities. This report
reviews the demographics of the County as well as the
planning activities throughout the County over the course of
2008. It also provides information about Frederick County's
short and long range planning.
Route 277 Triangle and Urban Center Land Use Plan
In August of 2008, the Board of Supervisors approved the
Route 277 Triangle and Urban Center Land Use Plan. Based
on the principles of 'New Urbanism' or Traditional
Neighborhood Design promoted in the Comprehensive Plan,
the planned Route 277 Urban Center focuses on the creation
of a pedestrian -friendly, urban area that is well integrated with
the surrounding community. The plan includes a large
commercial core, a relatively dense mix of residential housing
types, an interconnected street system, and public open space
around which the urban center is designed. The Route 277
project also incorporates new mixed-use zoning districts that
encourage a fusion of higher -density residential and
commercial uses, and of office and technology 1 (low -impact)
industrial uses.
In addition to the existing High School and Sherando Park, a
new Elementary School will help provide a focal point for the
urban center and surrounding community. The Route 277 plan
also includes a series of substantial short and long term
transportation goals for the area. This includes the addition of
round -about intersections along improved roadways, as well as
the relocation of Interstate 81, Exit 307, and construction of a
new arterial road designed as a limited access parkway. The
parkway will then relieve much of the through traffic now using
the existing route 277.
Traditional Neighborhood Design,
Business Overlay District
The first of the mixed-use districts from the 277 Plan to be
adopted by the Board of Supervisors was the Business
Traditional Neighborhood Design -Business Overlay District
(TND). This option, which can be established through a
rezoning process on B1 and B2 properties from two to twenty
acres in size, is intended as an infill option within areas of the
UDA that have been identified as a potential urban center or
neighborhood village. In addition to their location within a
potential urban center or neighborhood village, parcels within
this district should be located along major roadways and
prominent road intersections that are located in close proximity
to existing or planned residential areas.
The design criteria for this district is intended to provide
developers with the flexibility to create spaces inspired by a
traditional neighborhood structure that features high quality
architectural and urban design, and promotes sustainability
and environmental quality. One of the more prominent aspects
of the TND is the integration of residential uses on the second
and third floor of commercial structures. This new design
option is expected to expand the availability and variety of
housing types and of affordable housing options within the
County. The increased residential density also acts as an
-3-
incentive for developers of the project and could enhance the
health and vitality of future commercial tenants. Finally,
another design standard unique to the TND is its allowance for
structures fronting along a road to be within twenty or forty feet
of the right-of-way (depending on road type); this provides
developers with more developable land, and encourages a
more visually appealing and pedestrian -oriented streetscape.
Additional overlay districts are planned for further study and
possible adoption within the upcoming year.
Rural Areas Study
In 2008, the Board of Supervisors began considering possible
methods of addressing the causes and consequences of the
strong, residential development pressures within the rural
areas of the County. Initially, the Board requested that a
potential change to both the Rural Area (RA) zoning district's
lot size and density be considered by the Planning commission
at a public hearing in July. After overwhelming public
response, the Board established the Rural Areas
Subcommittee and charged them with identifying the growth
and development trends and related issues within the rural
areas of the County; gathering ideas to address those issues;
and forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
While the Rural Areas Subcommittee is still in the process of
developing a set of recommendations for the Board of
Supervisors, it is clear that the group recognizes that a broader
range of tools may be more appropriate for managing the
negative impacts associated with residential developments in
the rural area. The committee has identified several state -
enabled tools which the County may implement or adjust in
order to manage development impacts. These tools were
explored through bi-monthly committee meetings, and through
three public out -reach meetings, and all the information
associated with the committee's activities and research are
included on a special Rural Areas webpage.
Of the many state enabled tools investigated, subdivision
layout and lot size requirements, Transfer of Development
Rights and Purchase of Development Rights programs were
identified as having the potential to promote agricultural
economy and viewshed preservation. Two state -enabled tools,
residential density policy, and health system design and
maintenance requirements were identified as having the
potential to mitigate the environmental and fiscal impacts to the
County. The subcommittee is expected to present their
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors in the first half of
2009, after which point it will be necessary to design a policy
and draft ordinance for public review.
Planning Review
In 2008, a total of 127 development -related applications were
submitted to the Department of Planning and Development for
review. These applications included site plans, variances,
master plans, conditional use permits, waivers, subdivisions,
rezonings, and rural subdivisions. Information regarding each
of these application types, as well as information about the
number of lots created in the County, and the number of
residential building permits issued is also included in this
report.
2008 Quick Facts
Population
2000 US Decennial Census_
59,209
2005 US American Communities Survey
68,200
2007 US American Communities_ Survey
72,949
2010 US Census Projections
77.864-
2020
95,648
2030
114,539*
* Figures are projections from the US Census
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 US Census
2007 Estimated Income
Median Household Income
$66,114
Mean Household Income
$74,028
Median Family Income
$72,938
Mean Family Income
$79,552
Source: 2007 U.S. American Community Survey
2008 Buildina Permits (New Construction
Total Residential Building Permits
370
Single Family, Detached
272
Building Permits
0
Townhouse /Duplex /Multiplex
25
Single Family Attached, Building
47
Permits
Mobile Homes
44
Modular Homes
7
Source: Frederick County Inspections Dept.
Public Education_
Total Enrollment 12_,905
Schools Above Program Capacity
Cost per Student
Number of Schools
SAT I Math Scores
SAT I Critical Reading Test
SAT I Writing Test
Diplomas Earned
Percentage of 12th graders graduating in
2008
$10,215
18
507
507
483
930
97%°
Source: Frederick County School Board, November 2007
Data
Labor Force
Average Unemployment Rate* 3.89%
Average Available labor force* y 42,219
*October 2007 — October 2008
Source: Virginia Employment Commission
-4-
Start-up Firms
3rd Quarter 2007
18
4th Quarter 2007 - - - -
15
1 St Quarter 2008
0
2nd Quarter 2008
25
Source: Virginia Employment Commission
Employment by l
I Agriculture, Fore
Mining _
Utilities** _
Construction
Manufacturin
193
121
Wholesale Trade 1,191
Retail Trade 2,468
Transportation & Warehousing 1,092
Information 175
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 756
Services
Government
5,779
4,612
** No data, Source: Virginia Employment Commission
Quarterly Census of Employment & Wages, 2"d Quarter
2008
Major Employers*
1. Shockey Brothers, Inc.
2. Lord Fairfax Community College
3. Kraft Foods
4. H.P. Hood, Inc.
5. U.S. Department of Homeland Defense
6. Navy Federal Credit Union
7. Westminster Canterbury
8. GE Lighting
9. Kohl's Department Stores
10. World Wide Automotive LLC
*Excludes the school board and local government as
employers, Source: Virginia Employment Commission,
Quarterly Census of Employment & Wages, 2°d Quarter
2008.
Demographics
Location
Frederick County is located at the Northern end of the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia and is bordered by the state of West Virginia to
the North and West, Clarke County to the east and Shenandoah and Warren Counties to the south. The County contains a range of
landscapes, exhibiting everything from suburban development in the East, around the City of Winchester and the Interstate 81 corridor,
to rolling hills, farms, orchards, and wooded mountains to the West. The County seat is situated in the historic City of Winchester, the
oldest city west of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Numerous cultural and historic attractions make the County a popular destination for
tourists, while Frederick County's location along the Interstate 81 corridor, just 75 miles from the Nation's capital, has helped to create
an attractive location for business and industry.
Magisterial Districts
Frederick County is divided into six Magisterial Districts, each of which is represented by one elected member to the Frederick County
Board of Supervisors and the Chairman of the Board, who is elected at large. The Board of Supervisors holds revolving elections and
each board member serves for four years. The supervisors from the Red Bud, Shawnee, and Stonewall Districts each began a four
year term in January of 2006. The supervisors from the Gainesboro and Qpequon Districts, as well as the Chairman at Large, were re-
elected to their positions in November of 2007. The newly elected supervisor from the Back Creek District began a three year term in
January of 2008. The Board of Supervisors appoints members from each of the six districts to various County Committees, Boards,
and Commissions, as required by the Codes of Virginia, and Frederick County.
Population
Trends:
Frederick County continues to experience steady population growth at a faster rate than the City of Winchester and surrounding
counties. As of January 2008, the Weldon Cooper Center estimated Frederick County's population to be 72,949. This represents a
23.2 percent increase from the 2000 census. In 2000, Frederick County's population was 59,209, a 29 percent increase from
1990.
According to the Weldon Cooper Center, Frederick County is one of eleven counties in Virginia to experience a growth of more
than 10,000 people between the 2000 Census and 2006. According to the Census Bureau, Frederick County was the 25th most
populated geographic area out of 134 possible locations in the Commonwealth (Cities and Counties included). Population
projections since the 2000 census show Frederick County as the sixteenth (16th) fastest growing county in the Commonwealth.
The following chart shows the growth patterns of Frederick County and surrounding localities since the 2000 Census:
Frederick County
59,209
61,216
62,937
64,820
66,696
68,809
71,084
72,949
Clarke County
12,652
13,050
13,215
13,421
13,840
14,175
14,032
14,175
Warren County
31,584
32,227
33,051
33,844
34,494
34,734
35,301
35,829
4 City of Winchester
23,585
24,078
24,348
24,337
24,862
25,780
25,878
25,896
*United States Census, **
Estimate,
Source; Weldon Cooper Center
Population Projections
-5-
Projections
The Virginia Employment Commission
projects that the 2010 population of
Frederick County will be 77,864. This
represents a relatively rapid rate of
population growth between 2000 and
2010, when compared to the projected
rate of growth in the years following
2010.
Frederick County 45,723 59,209
77,864
95,648
114,539
f City of Winchester 21,947 23,585
26,511
29,339
32,458
Area Total 67,670 82,794
104,375
124,987
146,997
Source: Virginia Employment Commission
-5-
Projections
The Virginia Employment Commission
projects that the 2010 population of
Frederick County will be 77,864. This
represents a relatively rapid rate of
population growth between 2000 and
2010, when compared to the projected
rate of growth in the years following
2010.
Households & Families: Number & Size of Households
1960
21,941
6,045
3.63
1970
_ 24,107
8,570
2.81
1980
33,934
11,467
2.98
1990
45,723
16,470
2.78 _
2000
59,209
23,319
2.64
2001
61,315
23,950
2,56 _
2002
62,905
24,560
2.56
2003
64,640
25,386
2.55 -
2004
66,611
26,182
2.54
2005
68,809
25,960
2.63
2006
71,187
27,336
2.54
2007
72,983
26,699
2.72
Source: 2007 American Community Survey
Household Income
•;alel 'Jt9¢+
Family Households 19,980 20,021
Median family income
$62,472
$72,938
Mean family income
$79,648
$79,552
Nonfamily households
7,356
6,678 a
Median nonfamily income
$33,651
$46,536
Mean nonfamily income
$40,002
$50,527 _
Percentage of population whose
income in the past 12 months was
8.5%
6.5%
below poverty line
Top Ten Employers in Frederick County
1. Frederick County School Board
2. County of Frederick
3. Shockey Brothers, Inc.
4. Lord Fairfax Community College _
5. Kraft Foods _
6. H.P. Hood, Inc.
7. U.S. Department of Homeland Defense
8. Navy Federal Credit Union
9. Westminster Canterbury
10. GE Lighting
Commuter Patterns in the
Frederick County -Winchester Area
Live & Work 25,500
In -Commute 9,434
Out -Commute 8,150
Source: Virginia Employment Commission
Households & Families
The US Census Bureau defines a family as two or more persons
related by adoption, birth, or marriage whereas a household
consists of all people occupying a housing unit. The most recent
data available is from the 2007 American Community Survey
which estimated that the number of households in Frederick
County for 2007 was 26,699. The average household size
increased in 2007 to 2.72; however, the number of persons within
a household has continued to decline throughout the decades in
Frederick County. Based on the same survey, there are
approximately 20,021 families in Frederick County. The average
family size is indicated as 3.10 persons.
Income
Based on the same 2007 American Community Surrey of
Frederick County, the median household income was $66,114.
The median family income was $72,938 and the median non -
family income was $46,536. According to this survey, there were
6,678 non -family households in Frederick County in 2007, a
decline from the 7,356 non -family households in 2006. Median
household income differs from median family income in that it
includes the income of all persons fifteen years or older, living in
a single household, whether they are related or not.
Employment
Employment in Frederick County for both the private and public
sectors totaled 23,924 in the second quarter of 2008 compared to
approximately 21,926 in 2006, based on data from the Virginia
Employment Commission. According to the Virginia Employment
Commission, the unemployment rate for Frederick County was
highest in September (4.4 percent) and August (4.7 percent) of
2008. April of 2008 had the lowest rate of the year with 3.4
percent. While Frederick County remains consistently below the
national average, there has been a marked increase in
unemployment since 2007 when the highest rate was 3.2
percent.
The largest employment sectors in Frederick County continued to
be government, manufacturing, and the service industries
throughout 2007 and 2008. Services include a range of
employment: industries such as finance and insurance,
management, administrative, accommodations and food
services, and miscellaneous services such as Public
Administration,
Commuter Patterns in Frederick
Within the Frederick County -Winchester Area, 42,219 people
either live and work, or commute to or from work. Of those, about
25,500 people (60 percent) live and work in the Frederick
County -Winchester Area. Of the 42,219 people, only about 19
percent are commuting outside of the area. The majority of these
commuters work in Loudon County, Fairfax County, and Clarke
County.
-6-
Public School Enrollment
According to the Frederick County School Board, the total
enrollment in kindergarten through twelfth grade for the 2008-
2009 school year was 12,905 students, a 0.29 percent increase
from the 2007 enrollment of 12,868. At the end of the 2007-
2008 school year, 930 students earned diplomas. Of those
graduating, 84 percent are pursuing continuing education of
some kind. In contrast with the forty-one new positions created
during the 2008 fiscal year, Frederick County Public Schools
currently employ 2,114.4 full -time -equivalent (FTE) employees, a
decrease of about 16.5 FTE positions.
In late 2007, the Frederick County School Board and Board of
Supervisors established a location of a twelfth County
Elementary School in the Red Bud District, which should be
open for the 2009-2010 school year.
Even as development slows, many of the County's schools are
approaching or exceeding their Practical Capacity. Thus, it will
be necessary to plan for the new school locations. The chart
below outlines each school's enrollment information.
2007-2008 Public School Enrollment in Frederick County Public Schools
Apple Pie Ridge Elem.
1974
K-5
563
517
Armel Elem.
1991
K-5
644
577
89.6%
Bass -Hoover Elem.
1975
K-5
662
598
90.3%
Evendale Elem.
2006
K-5
644
729
113.2%
Gainesboro Elem,
2007
K-5
750
521
69.5%
Indian Hollow Elem.
1988
K-5
528
421
79.7%
Middletown Elem.
1989
K-5
644
546
84.8%
Orchard View Elem.
2000
K-5
528
451
85.4%
Redbud Run Elem.
1996
K-5
644
596
92.5%
Senseny Road Elem.
1966
K-5
495
435
87.9%
Stonewall Elem.
1997
K-5
528
442
83.7% -
Total Elementary School
K-5
6,630
5,732
86.5%
Adm. Richard E. Byrd Middle
2005
6-8
850
825
97.1%
Robert E. Aylor Middle
1969
6-8
850
606
71.3%
Frederick County Middle
1965
6-8
730
694
95.1%
James Wood Middle
1950
6-8
850
790
92.9%
Total Middle School
6-8
3,280
2,952
90.0%
James Wood High
1980
9-12
1,400
1,345
96.1%
Millbrook High
2003
9-12
1,250
1,260
100,8%
Sherando High
1993
9-12
1,400
1,524
108.9% -
Total High School
9-12
4,050
4,184
103.3%
Total Enrollment
K-12
13,044
13,408
99.7%
Source: Frederick County School Board Enrollment Data
—7—
Subdivisions & Permitting
Overall Lots Created
The number of lots created in the County is determined as a result of subdivision applications (urban) and administrative subdivisions
(rural) that were approved in 2008. A subdivision or section of a subdivision is not considered approved until plats for the properties in
that subdivision/section are approved; therefore, the numbers below reflect only lots approved and platted lots in 2008. These figures
also include lots which were planned before 2008, but did not receive final approval until 2008. As shown by the table below, the
majority of lots created in the County are residential; however, in 2008 there were fourteen lots created in the B2 (General Business)
Zoning District, one lot created in the B3, Industrial Transition District, and two lots created in the M1, Light Industrial District.
Lots Created in 2008 by Magisterial District & Zoning District
_ agistenal District
RA RP R5
R4
Bi
82 133 M1 M2 EM 1MH1 MS HE Total
Back Creek
26 0 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
Gainesboro
68 0 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68
Red Bud
1 68 0
0
0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0_ 0 73
Shawnee
1 0 0
0
0
2 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 3
Stonewall
32 0 0
0
0
8 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 43
Opequon
39 92 51
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 182
Totals
967 160 51
0
0
14 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 395
Source, Frederick County Dept. of Planning & Development
1100
Residential Lots Created
■ HE
As shown in the table above, the majority of the 395 total lots created
1050
in Frederick County during 2008 were located in the Opequon, Red
1000
Bud, and Gainesboro Districts. This is largely due to the two large
■ MS
residential subdivisions (Brookland Manor, and Shenandoah), as well
950
as to many smaller subdivisions throughout the County's rural areas.
900
■ MH1
In total, 378 residential lots were created in the RP, RA and R5
zoning districts in Frederick County in 2008. This represents a
850
significant decrease from the total number of residential lots created
800
■ EM
in the County in 2007 (with 674 lots) and 2006 (with 1072 lots). While
the decline in residential lots created from 2006 to 2007 was
750
associated primarily with a drop-off in RA district activity, there was a
El M2
sharp decline in both the RA and RP zoning districts from 2007 to
700
2008.
650
■ M1
Lots created in the RA Zoning District are classified as either a minor
600
rural subdivision, major rural subdivision, or rural preservation
subdivision. Of the 167 lots, seventy-three were rural preservation
550
-
■ 133
lots, thirty-seven were major rural subdivision lots and seventy-two
were minor rural subdivision lots. Of the minor rural subdivisions,
500
fifteen were considered "family lot subdivisions" which involve the
132
gifting of a parcel to an immediate family member.
450
400
U B1
Residential Lots Created by Year in RP & RA Districts
350
Residential Performance
. r • . r
300
—
0 R
Percentage .
•
250
—
��LotsN •
_ ",
Created
200
—
■ R5
2000 311 57% 235 43%
2001 571 73% 206 27%
150
—
_
2002 536 70% 226 30%
RP
2003 456 67% 226 33%
100
—
2004 507 63% 312 37%
50—
2005 550 64% 310 360/c
RA
2006 427 48% 456 52%
0
2007 419 65% 224 35%
2006
2007 2008
2008 160 49% 167 51%
–8–
New Residential Buildinq Permits
2000
506
52
81
639
2001 -
632
113
108
853
2002
777
163
64
1004
2003
731
107
67
905
2004
945
120
71
1136
2005
1017
172
72
1261
2006
746
110
78
934
2007
397
61
57
515
2008
272
47
44
363
Total Residential Building Permits Issued (2000 through 2008)
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
2008 Single Family Detached
Buildina Permits Issued
Back Creek
19
0
0
37
Gainesboro
15
1
0
6
Opequon_
5
57
0
14
Red Bud
1
27
0
0
Shawnee
7
46
0
0
Stonewall
5
4
27
0
TOTALS
53
135
27
57
2008 Building Permits Issued for
lion-Sinale Familv Homes
Single I Modular Mobile Multi -
Magisterial Family Dwelling Home Family
District Attached Permits Permits Permits
Permits
Back Creek r 2 5 r
..o r 2 3 r
Opeguon 11 2 15 r
:d Bud 16 r 4 r
Shawnee r r 2 r
Stonewall r 1 15 r
—9-
Residential Building Permits Issued
Frederick County issued a total of 272 single
family detached residential building permits,
forty-seven attached single family permits and
forty-four mobile home permits in 2008. These
figures, in combination with additional types of
residential building permits (seven modular
and zero multi -family), accounted for the total
370 new residential permits issued in 2008.
As shown in the graph at left, the decline in the
number of residential building permits issued
in 2008 is consistent with downward trend that
began in 2005. Since that point, the number
of permits issued annually has fallen 73
percent. Also worth noting is that just 55
percent of all residential building permits
issued were located within the designated
areas for growth (the RP and R5 zoning
districts).
For 2008, the majority of single family
detached residential building permits were
issued in the RA zoned portion of the Back
Creek Magisterial District.
For 2008, the majority of non -single family
residential building permits were issued in the
Opequon Magisterial District.
The Department of Planning & Development
Eric R. Lawrence, AICP
Planning Director
Michael T. Ruddy, AICP
Deputy Director
John A. Bishop, AICP
Deputy Director, Transportation
Mark R. Cheran
Zoning Administrator
Organizational Structure
Zoning Administrator
Zoning Inspector
Candice E. Perkins, AICP
Senior Planner
Dana M. Johnston
Zoning Inspector
Alexander J. Grey
GIS Technician
Deputy Director -
Land Use
Administrative
Assistant
Senior Planner
Planner EI
Planner
Planning Technician
Planning Director
—10—
Deputy Director -
Transportation
Transportation Planner
GIS Analyst
Renee' S. Arlotta
Administrative Assistant
Beverly H. Dellinger
Secretary 111
Diane L. Walsh
Secretary 1
Pamala S. Deeter
Office Assistant 11
Secretary III
Secretary
Office Ass
Planning Efforts
The Department of Planning and Development is responsible for all short and long-range planning within Frederick County. The
Department prepares the updates to the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan, Capital Improvements Plan, and the Primary and
Secondary Road Improvement Plans. Department staff works with numerous committees responding to a wide range of issues
affecting the County, assist in economic development efforts and lend technical support to various community groups.
In addition to major planning efforts and code enforcement, the Department of Planning and Development reviews all land use
applications within the County. Department personnel have the authority to act on certain types of applications, such as site plans and
rural subdivisions, while other applications require approval by the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors, or the Board of
Zoning Appeals. In cases where applications must go before one of these bodies, the staff assists the applicant in understanding the
formal review process and prepares a written review and recommendation on the completed application package.
Zoning Enforcement
The Department of Planning & Development is also responsible for enforcing the Frederick County Zoning & Subdivision Ordinances.
All land within the County is classified as being within one of the County's thirteen zoning classifications, identified on the Official
Frederick County Zoning Map, which is available from the Department of Planning & Development. The thirteen zoning classifications,
and their associated land use colors, applied to land in Frederick County are as follows:
131 (Business, Neighborhood District)
62 (Business, General District)
B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District)
EM (Extractive Manufacturing District)
EHE (Higher Education District)
M1 (Industrial, Light District)
J M2 (Industrial, General District)
MH1 (Mobile Horne Community District)
® MS (Medical Support District)
R4 (Residential, Planned Community District)
R5 (Residential Recreational Community District)
0 RA (Rural Areas District)
RP (Residential Performance District)
Each zoning district has a list of land uses which are permitted with no special approval required to perform those uses. These uses
are referred to as "by -right" uses. Zones are established in any given area to protect residents and landowners within the zone from
intrusion by incompatible neighboring land uses. The zoning ordinance also establishes performance standards for each zoning district
which dictate a variety of standards including placement, height, and Floor Area Ratio of structures.
—11—
Application Reviews
Peaking in 2005, Frederick County has since seen a marked decline in the overall number of development -related applications it has
received; however, this decline is consistent with state and national trends as well.
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Rezonings
300
4
250
Overall Number of
200
Development -Related
150
Applications Received
12
by Frederick County
100
4
50
6
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Rezonings
15
4
11
12
14
14
17
22
12
16*
master
4
8
6
5
10
12
11
14
15
10
Development Plans
Subdivisions
29
14
26
23
21
25
36
22
19
7
Conditional Use Permits
30
20
22
16
13
25
10
11
8
11
Subdivision Waivers
10
10
11
2
2—
7
�93
4
5
5
Site Plans
_7
68
65
57
52
53
72
83
88
64
Variances/Appeals
10
18
21
17
16
9
28
25
25
2
Rural Preservation
q
q
5
14
12
14
21
11
7
8
Subdivisions
Major Rural Subdivisions
2
2
4
9
2
10
10
2
0
2
CCPA Requests
-
1
2
2
4
11
11
7
11
2
'Four of the sixteen applications
were
submissions seeking revision to existing proffers.
–12-
2008 Rezoning Applications Rezonings
The chart at left reflects the number of submitted rezoning applications in 2008.
Magisterial'• • •' For the 2008 year, there were 16 applications submitted; of those, seven were
Back Creek 1 approved and nine are pending action by the Board of Supervisors. In addition to
Gainesboro 1 these applications, two rezoning applications from 2007 were approved by the
Opequon 0 Board of Supervisors in 2008. Four of the applications sought modifications to
Red Bud 4 existing proffers. Six applications sought to rezone RA land to B2, B3, RP, and R4
Shawnee 6 uses, and four applications sought to rezone RP land to B2 and B3 uses. Finally,
one application sought to rezone from B2 to B3, and the airport sought to rezone
Stonewall 4 land from M1 and R4 to RA. The chart in this section includes only those
rezonings which were submitted in 2008, regardless of their current status
2008 MDP Applications
Back Creek
Gainesboro
Opequon
Red Bud
Shawnee
Stonewall
2008 Subdivision
Back Creek
Gainesboro
Opequon
Red Bud
Shawnee
Stonewall
2
0
0
1
2
Master Development Plans
There were ten MDP applications submitted in 2008, as compared to the
seventeen submissions in 2006 and fifteen in 2007. Of the ten submitted, five
were approved, one was withdrawn, and four are still pending. The pending
applications are scheduled for public meeting with the Planning Commission or
Board of Supervisors early in January 2009. Five of the ten MDPs submitted this
past year were from the Stonewall Magisterial District. Additionally, there were four
applications from 2007 which were approved in 2008; however, they are not
included in the chart below. The chart at left reflects the trends per district for
2008.
Subdivisions
ications _ There were seven subdivision applications submitted in 2008 which represents a
M :0 decline from the 23 submitted in 2006, and the nineteen submitted in 2007. All of
0 these applications are still pending full administrative approval. mote that approval
0 of a subdivision is not considered complete until final plats have been approved
0 and recorded. Six applications did received final approval in 2008. Two from 2007
4 and 2006 were approved, one from 2005 was withdrawn, and one from 2004 was
1 approved. In contrast with previous years, the majority of the seven submitted
2 subdivision applications were located in the Red Bud Magisterial District. The
chart at left reflects only the applications submitted in 2008.
2008 Conditional Use Permit
Back Creek 3
Gainesboro 4
Opequon - 0
Red Bud 0
Shawnee 1
Stonewall 3
ications Conditional Use Permits
Eleven Conditional Use Permit (CUP) applications were submitted for review in
2008. Of these, seven were approved, one was withdrawn and four are pending
action by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. In addition to the 2008
applications, one application from 2007 was withdrawn and one was approved. Of
the applications received this year, the majority were located in the Gainesboro
Magisterial Districts. The chart at left reflects the number of CUP applications
submitter! in 2008.
—13—
2008 Subdivision Waivers &
Back Creek
- - --3
Gainesboro
i
Opequon
0
Red Bud
0
Shawnee
1
Stonewall
0
Subdivision Waivers & Exceptions
In 2008, there were five waiver applications submitted for review. Of these five
applications, one was approved, one was denied, and three are scheduled for a
Public Meeting with the Board of Supervisors in early 2009. These applications
sought waivers from the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance's cul-de-sac
length limits and the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance's fifty foot right-of-
way requirement. Back Creek Magisterial District saw the most activity in waiver
applications; however, the overall number of applications submitted was quite low.
The chart at left shows the breakdown of waiver applications per district.
2008 Site Plans Applications
Site Plans
• "MGM
In 2008, there were sixty-four site plan applications submitted for review, a marked
'
Back Creek 5
decline from the eighty-eight applications received in 2007. Of those received,
-
forty-five were approved, eighteen are pending, and one was withdrawn. There
Gainesboro 8
were several applications from previous years which were approved or withdrawn
Opequon 3
during 2008, including seventeen applications from 2007, (fifteen were approved,
Red Bud 6 _
and two were withdrawn); four applications from 2006 (two were approved and two
Shawnee 23
were withdrawn); and one application from 2005 which was also approved. Note
Stonewall 19
that the chart at left reflects only those applications which were submitted in 2008.
2007 Variance/A99. eals A plications
Variances & Appeals
UMWINUUM _'_"
There was one variance and one appeal application submitted in 2008 for review
Back Creek 1
by staff and the Board of Zoning Appeals. The small number of variance and
Gainesboro 0
appeal applications received in this past year stands in stark contrast to the twenty-
Opequon 0
six received on 2007. The variance application received in 2008 was approved,
Red Bud 1
and the appeal application was withdrawn. There was also one variance
Shawnee 0
application from 2007 approved during 2008; however, the chart at left reflects only
Stonewall 0
those applications submitted to the department during 2008.
2008 Rural Preservation
Rural Preservation Subdivisions
Subdivision Applications
Consistent with 2007, there were eight Rural Preservation Subdivisions submitted
" =
in 2008. Of these, three were approved and five are still pending. Note that
Back Creek 1 I
approval of a rural preservation subdivision is not considered final until plats are
5
approved and recorded. The Gainesboro Magisterial District Remains the most
_Gainesboro
Opequon 0
common location for Rural Preservation Subdivisions in the County, and this is
Red Bud 0
likely a result of the district's rural nature. In addition to the applications received in
Shawnee 1
2008, seven subdivisions submitted before 2008 were also approved / platted.
Stonewall 0
The chart at left reflects only those subdivisions which were submitted in 2008 for
-
initial review.
-14-
2008 Major Rural Subdivision Applications
T . • , ° °
Back Creek 1 Major Rural Subdivisions
Gainesboro 0 Indicative of slowing residential growth through 2007 and 2008, there were just two
Opequon 0 major rural subdivisions submitted this year from the Stonewall and Back Creek
Red Bud 0 Magisterial Districts. Neither of these applications have been fully approved/
Shawnee 0 plated, nor were any of the applications received in previous years platted during
-
Stonewall 1 2008.
2008 CPPA Applications Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments
Magisterial Applications There were just two Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments requests
District Ajf�, submitted in 2008, as compared to eleven submitted in 2007. The application
Back Creek 0 seeking to expand the SWSA to accommodate industrial development was
Gainesboro 0 recommended for further study as a part of the new Northeast Land Use Plan
Opequon 1 Study. The decision regarding the other application (which sought to include land
Red Bud 0 in the SWSA for commercial development) was postponed until after a decision on
the Route 277 Land Use Plan has been made, and it was recommended that the
Shawnee 0 area in question be developed according to the 277 Land Use Plan. It should be
Stonewall 1 noted that the chart at left reflects only the number of applications submitted, not
the number approved.
Zoning Violations
Zoning enforcement involves responding to inquiries and complaints concerning land use and development. Formal complaints are
registered, investigated, and when appropriate, enforcement action is taken. These complaints range from potential inoperable
vehicles violations to the illegal use of a property. Department staff attempt to work with landowners to ensure compliance with the
County zoning ordinance: however, some of the violations handled by the Planning & Development Department cannot be resolved and
criminal charges are filed. Once criminal charges are filed, resolution of the violation is determined by the court system. The charts
below outline the validated complaints filed in 2008. However, it should be noted that the County also receives several dozen invalid
complaints each year, as well as repeated complaints associated with a single violation.
2008 Valid Zoning Violations b
Type
2008 Valid Z_onin Violations 4
District
Inoperable Vehicles 56
47%
Back Creek 8
7%
Junk Property 24
20%
Gainesboro 15
13% -
Illegal Business 6
5%
Opequon 12
10%
Illegal Structures 1
1%
Red Bud 33
28%
Tall Grass 23
19%
Shawnee 34
29%
Other 4
_
3%
Stonewall 17
14%
Total 119
Total 119
_
Violations by Complaint Type:
Violations by Magisterial District
The majority of complaints received in
2008 involved
In 2008, the Districts from which the
most complaints
inoperable vehicles (defined as not being
in operating
originated were Shawnee and Redbud, with thirty-four and
condition and/or without proper plates,
tags, or valid
thirty-three valid complaints respectively.
inspection/county stickers)
-15-
2008 Review of Residentially Zoned Development within the Urban Development Area
Vacant Land - No Approved GDPs
2,352 Potential units based on permitted densities
396 Acres of vacant land
Zoned Land -Approved GDPs.
4,202 Units (maximum yield based on proffered densities)
1,201 Acres
Master Development Planned Projects
4,336 Total residential lots/units planned
1,053 Single family lots planned
900 Townhouse, duplex, multiplex lots/units planned
372 Multi -family units planned
2,011 Mixed units planned
(Current Status) Residential Subdivisions Under Development - vacant lots
2,766 Total residential lots/units available
2,149 Single family -detached lots available
573 Townhouse, duplex, multiplex lots available
44 Multi -family units available
Grand Total: 13,656 approved, planned, or potential residential lots/units.
135 Single Family -Detached permits have been issued in 2008 within the UDA
47 Town ho uselDuplex/Multiplex permits have been issued in 2008 within the UDA
Notes:
1,134 Vacant single family -detached lots are within six of the single-family residential subdivisions which currently
have approved subdivision plans within the UDA. (Abrams Pointe, Lynnehaven, Meadows Edge, Old
Dominion Greens, Red Bud Run, and Sovereign Village)
407 The number of building permits issued for the Channing Drive Rezoning (Lynnehaven, Sovereign Village, and
Twin Lakes Overlook), A proffered condition of the project requires the completion of Channing Drive (road)
before the 475th building permit is issued.
4,281 The number of lots planned within Age -Restricted communities
3,560 Vacant lots within Age -Restricted Communities
5,931 The number of vacant lots within the R5 zoned residential communities in the western portion of Frederick
County, outside the UDA. These communities (Lake Holiday, Shawneeland, and Wild Acres) contain a total
of 7,917 recorded lots,
The Shenandoah development is located outside the Urban Development Area on the south side of Fairfax
Pike; however, the proximity of the UDA will directly impact land development decisions in the County's
development area. The Shenandoah MDP calls for an age -restricted community of 2,130 residential units,
including 1,891 single family, detached homes and 239 multifamily units on 926.26 acres.
Activities During 2008
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee
The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC)
is a committee of the Planning Commission whose primary
responsibility is to formulate land use policies that shape the
location and timing of development throughout the County.
The CPPC conducts studies of specific areas to develop
guidelines for future land use within those areas. The CPPC
also considers requests for amendments to the
Comprehensive Policy Plan.
The CPPC completed a major restructuring during 2008 in an
effort to effectively and efficiently accomplish the County's long
range community planning goals and move the departmental
work program forward. In addition, the reorganization is aimed
at better utilizing the skills and knowledge of the many citizen
planners who volunteer their time to assist with the County's
planning efforts. The Comprehensive Plans and Programs
Executive Committee will oversee the efforts of the following
three standing committees:
1. Community Facilities
2. Community Area Plans
3. Comprehensive Plan
The most significant planning project completed by the CPPC
was the Route 277 Triangle and Route 277 Urban Center
Study. The Route 277 Study effort identified opportunities to
create new communities, integrate land use and transportation
choices, address community infrastructure needs, and expand
the County's goals for economic development. A thorough
public input process and a well attended public meeting held in
the spring of 2008 benefited the final plan. Ultimately, the
Route 277 Triangle and Route 277 Urban Center Study was
adopted by the Board of Supervisors in the Fall of 2008.
In addition to this study, the CPPC initiated an update to the
Route 11 North, NELUP plan. Guided by the Community Area
Subcommittee, this update to the NELUP plan seeks to ensure
that transportation and Land Use elements will be prominent
features of the studies and the water and sewer needs of the
area are understood. This effort is likely to continue into early
2009.
During the above planning studies, the CPPC facilitated work
sessions with the Transportation Committee to ensure the land
use planning and transportation planning efforts of the
community continue to be integrally related.
Each year, the CPPC reviews the Capital Improvements Plan
(CIP). The CIP includes all capital facility projects such as new
schools, public safety facilities, and improvements to the park
system. The role of the CPPC is to ensure that the project
requests are consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
The 2009-2010 Capital Improvements Plan included 71
projects.
-17-
Development Review and Regulations Committee
This year, the Development Review & Regulations Committee
(DRRC) reviewed twelve agenda items dealing with proposed
changes to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance that
ranged from a variety of issues. Some of the DRRC
applications dealt with outdoor lighting, interstate overlay sign
regulations, age -restricted housing, continuing care retirement
communities, B3 District height requirement, railroad buffer
requirements as well as the SIC to NAICS conversions. Of the
agenda items presented to the DRRC, some are still being
reviewed by the DRRC or are pending action from the Board of
Supervisors.
Some of the most significant projects for the DRRC in 2008
were the continuation of the Traditional Neighborhood Design -
Business (TNDB) Overlay District. Discussions on this overlay
district began in early 2007 and the overlay was ultimately
adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2008. The DRRC also
worked on another new district called the Office -Manufacturing
Park (OM) District. This district was designed to provide areas
for research and development centers, office parks, and
minimal impact industrial and assembly uses and was
ultimately adopted by the Board of Supervisors in late 2008.
The DRRC also began working on a new Traditional
Neighborhood Design (TND) District and it is anticipated that
this new district will be presented to the Board of Supervisors
in early 2009.
Transportation Committee
The Transportation Committee, since its conversion to a
standing Board Committee in 2006, meets monthly.
Responsibilities of the Committee include transportation
planning on a continuous basis and dealing with any additional
transportation planning or implementation issues as they arise
or are assigned by the Board of Supervisors.
Some issues considered by the Transportation Committee in
2008 were as follows:
1. Update of the Interstate, Secondary, and Primary Road
Improvement Plans
2. Review of the Route 37 access management study
3. Triangle Area Land Use Plan
4. Review of changes to the Transportation Impact Fee
legislation
5. Review of transportation authorities
6. Monitoring of Metropolitan Planning Organization
activities
7. Review and recommendation on Statewide Access
Management standards
8. Recommend and review updates to the Development
Impact Model for Transportation
9. Work on photo enforcement at red lights
10. Development of Traffic Impact Analysis standards for
the County
Conservation Easement Authority
The conservation Easement Authority was established in 2005
by the Board of Supervisors. It contains nine members,
including one Planning Commissioner and one Board Member.
Historically, the Authority's primary role focus has been
conservation easement education for landowners; however, in
2008 the Authority also took on the task of managing the
County's Purchase of Development Rights Program which is
funded through a state grant. Thus, in addition to its ongoing
education efforts, the Authority announced their first call for
applications in August of 2008. The authority is now perusing
acquisition of a conservation easement which it will co -hold
with the Potomac Conservancy. The second round of
applications is now under consideration by the authority.
In the past year, Authority members have experienced a wider
degree of awareness and interest from the public regarding
conservation easements as a tool for agricultural preservation.
In addition to growing public interest and support, the role of
conservation easements as one tool for protecting rural
character and the local agricultural economy has led to greater
interest at both the local, state and federal levels of
government. Yet even as conservation easements become
more common, broader economic conditions have greatly
impacted the availability of public funds for purchase programs.
Thus, it is the donation, rather than the purchase, of
easements that is likely to be the long-term focus of the
Conservation Easement Authority's educational and acquisition
activities.
_18—
Historic Resources Advisory Board
The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) is a
subcommittee that was established by the Board of
Supervisors. It consists of nine members, including one from
each Magisterial District in the County, two "At -Large"
members, and a chairman, Also serving on the Committee are
a Planning Commission liaison and an architectural historian.
The HRAB reviews land use applications that involve
properties that are historically significant or may impact historic
resources. The Department of Planning and Development
provides staff support to the Committee and over the past year,
the Planning Department has assisted the HRAB in taking a
more active role in historic preservation in Frederick County.
Similar to years past, Planning and Development staff
coordinated meetings between the development community
and the HRAB to provide recommendations to the applicants
on ways to protect and preserve historic land and structures.
Rezoning and conditional use permit applications that may
have a potential impact on historical resources are reviewed by
the HRAB. The HRAB was given the ability to comment and
make recommendations on three applications in 2008, two of
which amended their rezoning packages to account for the
impact to historic resources based upon recommendations by
the HRAB.
In addition to the regular review of rezoning and conditional
use permit proposals, the HRAB also participated in the
ongoing Route 11 North Study, assuring that key historic sites
and properties were identified as preservation priorities early -
on in the planning process,
GIS ! IT Division of Planning and Development
The GIS 1 IT Division has spent much time this year working
together with the County's Web committee on redeveloping the
website for both the county and the Department of Planning
and Development. The Website went live this past November
in time for the annual GIS Day and e -Government Day.
The staff within the GIS 1 IT Division has trained several office
staff to use of the large format scanner that was appropriated
last year. It is being used weekly for the scanning of large
plans for the County's document imaging initiative. It's also
been very useful for making copies of plans for the public.
Map creation and GIS data management is an ongoing effort.
The Department also acquired presentation development
software for use in preparing the County's planning -related
documents and publications. The use of Sketchup has also
expanded in the past year and has become an important
Illustrative tool in both the plan review process and the
ordinance development process.
GIS staff as also assisted in the creation, mapping and
analysis of the new Route 277 land use project and is also
currently assisting in a reworking of the County's defined
Planning Areas in the eastern part of the County. GIS staff is
also currently using defined planning area data to help project
future water usage within and around the current SWSA.