Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-89 Wheatlands (Has Been Revised) (Intergate Co) - Stonewall - Backfile
COUNTY of FREDERICK IDepartment of Planning and Development 703/665-5650 FAX 703/667-0370 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKLIST The Master Development Plan application is not complete if the items listed below are not present. If any items are missing the application will be returned to the applicant. It is recommended that the applicant meet with a member of the planning staff when submitting applications in order to review the materials for completeness. MDP Package Two sets of comment sheets from the following agencies along with any marked copies o�fy the plan; % VDOT City of Winchester Co. San. Auth. Co. Hlth. Dept. f0 Inspections Dept. % U Parks & Rec. 7 G Fire Marshall q41 � Airport Authority 2 copies of the MDP application 25 copies of the plan on a single sheet 1 reproducible copy of the plan (if required) a 35mm. slide of the plan * One copy of the application and comment sheets, three copies of the plan and the marked plans from the review agencies should be enclosed in a package which will be forwarded to the County Engineer. -f- r4, q .48 L) ,r 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 RECEIPT 022660 AMOUNT UUE ,i $ �j, '� i `3.y ' AMOUNT PAID $ r 'j ; ) BALANCE DUE PAID BY ❑ CASH El CHECK OTHER r FREDERICK COUNTY DEPT. OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT P.O. BOX 601 r 9 COURT SQUARE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 DATE RECEIVED FROM /;�.�T G(2 ADDRESS ) �5 3 Y¢,�+ i THE SUM 011` - "'1/niti- J'1. l"O'ld t .�':''il�ri �t.,(,V1'�(;l ZJ52 i iDOLLARS V FOR i7 ! 7oocio ! C[' LC.a - <l �� x J. I✓CL'. /['"`�� )70 %) "-) Ttsy + 0 0 to - BY DAY -TIMERS RE -ORDER No. 3221 —Printed in USA 1• 97000-A00-0000-0000-0102-0 GLAIZE# FRED L. III ✓ & JAS80t INC. P. 0. BOX 6 STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655 W. P. ROAD 140.50 R5 AG 1559700 49300 • 87000-A00-0000-0000-CI03-0 JASBOP INC. MILL=R 769.02 R5 AG 675r200 / C FRED L. GLAIZE III P. C. BOX 6 STEPHENS CITYr VA. 22655. --- -----_ 37000-A00-0000-0000-0095-A CATLETT, RALPH L. - W. P. ROAD - ___ 1.37 A 2 AG b9 40 0_..- -- -- 399 900 RT. 1 BOX 87 WHITE POSTt VA. 22663 0-nn,l-n+�i)n_n 00_+��! -!1 R.APCZYKt HAROLD E. W. P. ROAD 10.20 A2 RS 259400 & BERNICE A. RT. 1 BOX 98 WHITE POST, VA. 2 2 6 6 3----... --- -----------__-------- -- 87000-A00-0000-0000-0098-0 CORRWELL r RAN1LP H. - -- - -----..-----_-._.- _ M. P. ROAD A D �-��T--�-� -- � 5- ---- - -- --� r ���_ -_.__ 7 t 5 0 0 R. BOX 88 WHITE PG'STr VA. - — - --- ------ --- - - - -- - ----------- - - - - - ----- - - • 22663 - -- --- 87000-A00-0000-0000-0099-0 CDRNWELLt JOHN W.- C 0ELPHIA - W. P. ROAD---------------�_.__----- - ---. 4--� -----------�� C CARCLYN ELIZABETH i R3UTE 1 - --- WHITE POST, VA. --------- 22663 -- -- - w • 17000-400-OOOn-00':)0-0100-C CLARK, ISAAC GARDNER C BERTIE - W. P. ROAD lo25 BOX 89 -- - - ------ W+aITE PDSTr VA. i 22663 .7000-A00-0(?On-Oi)1n-0101-�? APPLE TOWlVFr INC. W. P. ROAD - �__ _ _ -I-�5�0-- A lS P.O. BOX 3068 WI VCHE.S7ER, VA. --- 2 2 6 01 - - ----- ---- _ - - -- 86000-400-0000-0000-012(3-0 SANDY, ROBERT L. 6 JANIE S. We P. ROAD_ - _ - ��-_� ._�� _. 79000 RT. 1 BOX 85 -.l W H I T F P D S T r V A. 83000 10*600 2830k' 24r200 2bt700 22663 - - -- - — __.._.� ___w.. __— ..---- --- -- ---_ — • 6�0_ 4 0 000 0100-0107-0 STICKLEYr STEVEN ALLt?� CRbSS READS _ _ _ - _ - . a n_ r _0 , . t 33r600 _ -� BARBARA K RT. 1 BOX 347-- _ - -- STEPHEN.S C TTYt VA. — ------------ --___ 22655 g1000-A00-0000-0000 0123-0 HEADLEY# J. DAVID 6 DIRMA V. MIDDLETOWtV_-_.__._.._.__- ---------- _.._._.-------- .._ - 37075 A 2 AG---- • C/O R A L P H G R E G O R Y 6 CARTER DRIVE — ---- WIRCHESTER, --- — ------ - - - -- - __ -- - ----- __ __ ---- -- ------------- - __ VA. -- I• 9 RUN DATE: 07/13/39 FREDERICK COUNTYP VIRGINIA PAGE 9 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT LABEL LIST NAME/ PROPERTY LAND IMPROV. 2 MAP NO. /ADDRESS - DESCRIPTION --- ACREAGE _ ZONE U/C VALUE VALUE 13 14 — — — — — — 37000-A00-O000-0000-0103-A — — — — — — — -- -- — ----- , —>—�— s MILLER 4.01 A2 AG 14#000 53s800 HEADLEYv DAVID A. BOX 72 WHITE POSTS VA. 71 22663_--- _-- -- - 94000-A00-0000-0000-0001-0 WILLIAMS, JEFFREY E. -- F. R. ROAD 3.00 A2 RS 121000 739600 9 c BOX 87 STEPHENS C.ITYt VA- - 22655 _1116 2 _ g4A00-001-0001- '?0- 000011-0 GRADYs MAtRY MARGARET NINEVAH .25 RP AG 2s500 800 _ ROUTE 1 - - - LOT 11 BLOCK 1 NMI It rug 1 ! VA- 22663 - 94A00-001-0012-000A-0010-0 -- DOVELL�- ESTHER. H. RIDGEWAY HEIGHTS L10 012 SA RP AG 51000 21000 17 P. 0. 30X 8 0 — 8 18 WHIT_ POST♦ VA. 19 94A00-001-0011-0000-0020-0 GRADY, ALBERT M. & TER.RI L. NINEVAH - RP AG TOO 2#700 21 BOIX 442 LOT 20 $L0CK 11 < - - 122 STEPHENS CITY9 VA. -- - 23 22655 za 94000-A00-0000-0000-0006-0 TOLAANs NORMAN No NINEVAH 71.00 A2 AG 569800 3#600 125 £ CONSTANCE H. I26 4712 RESERVOIR R€J. N.W. 27 DASH I NGTON• D.C. 28 - ------ ------ 20007 � -- -- _ 129 ?6000-A00-0000-0000-0273-0 OAK R_I_OGE PROPERTIESi INC- MILLER 75.14 A2 AG 601100 30 --- P. O. B 0 X 885 --- - 31 WINCHESTERs VA. 32 2260.1 - 33 - 86000-AOO-0000-0000-0273-C GIBSONv BOBBY W. £ GLADYS E. - -MILLER 22.59 A2 RS 27#600 37s100 a RT. 1 BOX 270-A 35 STEPHENS CITYY VA* (36 22655 137 86000-A00-0000-0000-0273-8 CAMPBELLv LEE E. MILLER 2.61 A2 AG 7v900 ---- - 62*200 38 RT. 1 BOX 270-M - --- 39 ------- ---- STEPHENS CITYs VA. ao ----- 86000-A00-0000-0000-0272-0 B_AILEYt LORETTA D. MILLER 5.81 A2 AG IOT800 629400 42 £ HAROLD L. 43 R.T. 1 BbX 270-3 a - STEPHENS CITYi VA. - - - - has 46 - 22655 86000-AOO-0000-0000-0223-0rGTIBOW P.O. 3 O X, 6 STEPHENS CITYt VA. SARGENT 56*50 A2 AG 52,000 35s200 147 48 a9 _ _---.._ _._. 2 2 6 5 5 50 84 rion6 -0 605 -6 66-A MADIGAN. PATRICK'C: CANTERBU G 3.50 A2 RS 10,000 77#400 51 E LILLIAN Co ---------- - — RT. 1 BOX 163 53 STEPHENS CITY* VA. I54 22655 -- - s :1�.3rin-AOO-0f 00 0000-0220-0 _ L_EWIS• WALTER F. & DAISY M - SARGENT 10.40 A2 RS 179300 321100 ss - --RT. 1 BOX 272 57 STEPHENS CITY, VA. .22655 FREDERICK COUNTY# VIRGINIA PLANNING E DEVELOPMENT LABEL LIST PAGE 10 z _ i MAP Nei. --.---.-- 86000-AOO-0{300-0-!nO-u218-0 _ _- --- ---------NAME/ /ADDRESS -----.------ LE_IGHTt -JOHN MAX -& LILLIAN JOANN G. 5 0 3 7 M A S S I E STREET. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ----.------- We P. ROAD ACREAGE - - - - - - - 94.00 ZONE - - - - A2 U/G - - AG LAND VALUE .----- 759200 IMPROV. VALUE - - - - - - - 2 3 3 4 4 5 i5 6 16 7----_____--. i 7 8 STEPHENS CITY9 VA. 18 9 ------ to 3o D—A1'�-L1200-0000-0015-0 h14 87000-A00--0000-0000-0616-$ 17' --------- BOWMANi JAMES L. £ JANE P. Ce BOX 6 STEPHENS CITYt VA. GIBSON-i MONTIE We PEARL E. 1 BOX 155 WINCHESTERt VA. 22655 H. - S. CITY W*P. RCAO 1.96 154.05 81 Al RS D 42t700 158#800 9 Ito 11 12 459600 i14 5 76 117 i 10 87000-AOO-0 ?+10-C1 00-f'OP6-0— 12o 2,'.:.C/� 2I— 221 231 _. 1241 �22601 COOKE GILES RJ-sS ROBERT L. E MARY JUNE COOKE RlB'=iT L. C��i� — — RT. 2 BOX 278 S T E P H E N S C I T Y r VA. — - 22655 We P. ROAD — — -- — -- ----- ---- —_-`. ----------- ----- 20.63 _ - A2 AG — 23t700 19700 -- ,e i 19 20 21 22 23 24 25' 25 26I 27, 27 8! �23 130 31 _ . :31 2 321 I32 • 33 4' 3 4 35.: - �35 36 f36 38 138 • 39 39 401 140 41 �41 • 42 �42 -- 43 - `431 '44 ---- 45 46 46 ---47• 48 48 9 „ 4 9 50 150 51 51 52 52 53, 1 53 ri 54 56 7 8 .. ......w...,...z., ..._ 55 56� 57 58 ;59 ACREAGE CALCULA-nONN • • • ACREAGE CALCI II.A'naric • • • +r a r .F .• r TrE ZECRETARY OF THE INTEP104 �•^ �'� II 01 WASHINGTON June 19, 1990 Honorable Peter H# Kostmaver Chairman, subcommittee on General oversight and Investigations Committee on interior and Insular Affairs House of Rep.resentativey Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of March 29, 1990. 1 am pleased to tratismiL a copy of a national Park Service (,NPS) Laukgruuitd paper prepared Lo answer questions about the controversy surrounding the +•heatiands Lake, Virginia, Land and Water Conservation Fund grant (L&WCF Project No. 51-00289). Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding to your latter, but we needed to have the allegations regarding this matter carefully reviewed by the 'IPS Mid -Atlantic Regional Office. The regional office has been generally aware of issues raised in the Commonwealth Coalition's petition since J%.V 1989, and has been monitoring the situation in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation since that time. However, a preliminary proposal from the residential developer of the private land surrounding Wheatlands Lake was not available for review until November. Initially, we believe it is important to understand the role of NPS in this matter. Federal financial assistance was provided to the Commonwealth of Virginia under the provisions of the L&WCF Act pursuant to a grant agreement. This agreement provided, among other things, that the WheaLlands Lake project wou14 have to be managed and administered for public outdoor recreation use. Other uses, including private uses, could not be permitted unless NIPS agreed to an amendment of that grant contract. Furthermore, our discretion in allowing anend-aents to an agreement has been significantly proscribed by Cong* ess in section 6(f) of the L&W(;F Act, 16 l',.S.C• § 4601-8(f), and Np5 regulations at 3b CFR Part 59. The courts have also Addressed similar conversion issues. See Friends of Shau•angunks v Clark, 754 F.2d 446 (1st Cir. 1985), and Maryland Conservation Council v Gi c rist 80S F.2d 1u39 (4th Cir. L986). v In swanary, this paper finds that no conversion has occurred at the grant - assisted site. The facility is open to the public for the purposes identified in the original grant application and grant agreement, public access Is currently adequate, an(, no evidence exists of fraud, waste or abuse by the grantee at any stage of :he project. However, the report also identifies several serious concerns about possible future conversions as a result of the proposed use by the developer of the access road to the pr`)4ec" Though Lhese co�tctrns vvrt ube of Lhe ecCUS', toad are still speculative, they 11ave been called to the attenciOn Of 1:LedeYiuk County by Lhe Commonwealth uC �'xrgi�tila• Celebrarin� the United States Cons:itutivn P Honorable Peter H. Kostmayer 2 The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fi..sheries - the grant recipient - reviewed the developer's preliminary master plan in November and communi- cated these and a number of related concerns to the Frederick County Planning Commission, including the fact that portions of the proposed development would be prohibited by the L&WCF grant. The Planning Commission subsequently tabled action on the develOpeLs' plan and requested tl-lat they supply additional information about impacts on Wheatlands Lake and related issues. The enclosed paper, whidh responds to all issues raised in the Commonwealth Coalition's petition, is being provided to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Hanv of Lhe poLeiltial problems related to future private developments may be prevented through careful planning and coordination involving the Frederick County Planning Commission, the private developer and the grantee agency. Virginia's Department of Came and Inland Fisheries is also being encouraged to neet and negotiate with those parties on a mutually -acceptable ,a,aster plan that conforms to the contours of the grant agreement and the T,uWCF Act. we believe that the enclosed Background Paper answers most of the questions raised 1n your letter. Responses to three UT your questions not covered e:tiplicizly in the paper are also enclosed. The Vid-ktlantic Region of NPS will, continue to monitor proposed developments at Wheatlands Lake, and it will work with the State agencies involved to assure full compliance with anti. -conversion and public access mandates of the L&WCF program. 1i c':is regard we would note thar. the Commonwealth is proceeding with phase II o' t!-E project, as discussed in prior correspondence with the Service. re appreciate your continuing interest in the Department's recreation and conservation progra�iis. Sincerely, Enclosures cc: Honorable Barbara Vucanovich 'anking !2inority Member ubcomnittee on General oversight and Investigations t om-..iittee on Interior and Insular Affairs souse of Representatives Wasl�in�an, D.C, 20513 0 0 ANSWERS TO THE THREE QUESTIONS NOT COVERED IN BACKGROUND PAPER Question 7. At the time of the grant, was the Department aware of Virginia officials` concerns regarding the property and/or the procedure by which it was donated to them? Answer. No, but the review uncovered no evidence of improprieties or irregulaxities in the donation process or in the grantee's plans for use of the grant site. Question 8. When and how did the Department first become aware of the donors' development plans? Answer. As indicated in the attached chronology, the first information on a possible conversion problem was received by the NPS Regional Office in Philadelphia during the second week of July 1989. The initial contacts were from a local news reporter and a staff member of the Frederick County Planning Commission. These contacts were followed up by routine telephonic requests for more information and monitoring to cooperating L&WCF administrators in the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. Further follow ups occurred in October in response to inquiries from Senator Robert Syrd and Congressmen Bruce VenLo dnd Frank Slaughter. No details on the developer's plans were available until Novemher 9, when the Department of Game and Fisheries reviewed and commented on a preliminary master plan. Concerns about possible future violations of section 6(f)(3) of the L&WCF ACL were formally expressed in written comments to Mr. Robert W. Watkins of the Frederick County Department of Planning and DevelopmenL at that time. Question 10. Why was a site visit not conducted to verify the assertions made in Lhe close-out form submitted by Virginia on September 18, 19877? Answer. In accord with standard program procedures, a State completion report on the Wheatlands Lake project was received and reviewed by NPS in September 1981; it included an inspection report, photographs and other documentary evidence that the construction work covered by the grant agreement had been satisfactorily corapleLed. On the five-year inspection schedule maintained by NPS for all 34,000 completed L&WCF projects to ensure compliance with section 6(f)(3) and other mandates, an inspection of this site is scheduled for April 1992. We agree that the normal expectation is for a L&WCF-assisted recreation site to be open to the public as soon as constructioni work is completed. However, the Wheatlands Lake project has a primary recreation purpose - fishing - which can be reasonably linked to biological management objectives. The time that elapsed between completion of dam repairs and opening of the Lake to the public in January 1990 is justified by the grantee based on the time needed to fill the lake, stock appropriate fish species, and allow them to mature tc a catchable size. BACKGROUND PAPER May 4, 1990 The Commonwealth Coalition has petitioned the Secretary of the Interior for enforcement for the terms of L&WCF Grant Project #51-00289, Wheatlands Lake, Frederick County, Virginia. nescrintinn of the Area: Wheatlands Lake is a 190 acre publicly owned recreational area, managed by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries in Frederick County, Virginia. it consists of a 130 acre lake, behind a dam, with a 50 ft, wide buffer surrounding the lake. The recreation area is located approximately 1-1/2 hours drive west of Washington, DC, and 9 miles south of Winchester, Virginia. The County and surrounding areas are fairly prosperous, rapidly growing, and undergoing substantial land use change, with considerable new existing or planned residential and commercial development in and around the grant project. There is a gravel access road from adjacent highway US Routes #340 and #532, with a 50 ft. wide right-of-way to the dam site and parking area. There are no other recreational or support facilities within the project area. The State submitted project #51-00289 OIL JU1141 8, 1984, (LhdL subiALLdl dlau withdrew a previous project at the same site). The scope of the project agreement is "acquisition by donation of 60 t acres surrounding a 130 f acre lake and dam renovation". The DNF identified the facilities as (G.03) fishing access, and (S.00) lake impoundment. The environmental assessment states that "the initial public access area will be small in scope and include gravel road, parking area, and ramp with planned future development to follow". This final development, not part of the project scope, is identified in the program narrative as an expanded fishing access area (parking area, boat ramp, fishing pier), storage building, access road improvements, and miscellaneous improvements (well, septic, sign, fencing, electric service). The Wheatland! Lake project was approved on August 10, 1984, Project Costs were: L&WCF S 528,695 State s 528,695 TOTAL $1,057,390 1 The project period was December 29, 1981, to December 31, 1985. The value of the donated 190 acre site was used as the State match for fund assistance for dam renovation. The State acquired the property in fee simple. The signed agreement was transmitted to the State by letter dated August 17, 1984. The letter states: "Please note that the Park Service understands Phase II development of the site including access roads and boat launch to be a high priority objective for making wheatlands Lake a truly viable recreational area open and accessible to the general public. Accordingly, the acceptance of the L&WCF assistance for the restoration of the dam will be considered a commitment on the part of the Commonwealth to undertake Phase T1 development as soon a9 possible". The August 17, 1984, letter also provided a waiver of retroactivity to December 29, 1981, in order to allow for the eligibility of the donated value of the site. In 1994, the projeiCt Cost was amended (iricreased 3119hL1y) Lo cuvet indlLec:L costs. in 1986, a one year time extension was requested and approved. By letter dated September 18, 1981, the State submitted closeout documentation, including a final performance report, final on -site inspection plan, photograph of the Fund sign, and a list of facilities developed and acres acquired. The closeout report was accepted by the Service by letter of February 1, 1188, to the State. The project manager, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF), states that the dam was completed in 1966, the lake began filling with water and a fishery development (stocking) program got underway. This program continued through 1969 when sampling indicated that the fishery was ready for public use. In 1989, DGIF allocated funds for construction of a boat ramp, fishing pier and concession building, and its consultant completed a preliminary plan for .lake development. A construction contract for the access road to the Lake was awarded. By 1990, the access road and signage were completed, and the Lake opened to the public in January. We have been advised by the State that it has funds available for Phase IT developments and is proceeding with these developments as mentioned in the Service's letter of August 17, 1984. This State effort effectively moots any argument that the State has not fulfilled its promises with respect to the future development of the project when the original grant agreement was signed. During 1989, the Service became aware of a growing controversy concerning proposed residential development around they 19a acre Wheatlands Lake project. The landowners who had donated the site to the State and who still own considerable surrounding acreage have entered into an agreement to sell that 2 acreage to a development corporation. The corporation had submitted a preliminary master plan to Frederick County. The plan shows intensive residential use completely surrounding the recreation area (the existing 50 foot wide public right-of-way around the Lake would continue to provide public access). Density would be 3.4 units per acre, average lot size - 12,000 square feet, with a computed maximum density of 7,408 persons. The site plan shows 1,760 single family lots, 40 townnouses at 8 units per acre, one or more community centers, a school site and areas for future development. A waste treatment facility is shown in close proximity and downstream of the dam site. Perimeter roads are shown for transportation, with a series of interior roads ending in cul de sacs. A key concern is that the preliminary master plan appears to indicate that the existing 50 foot wide Lake access road - mr-rmi rPd am parr of the Qrant - would be used AM A joinr access road for the re3ien l al areas, and that one perimeter collector road would cut across that same right-of-way. If this plan is accurate, it would constitute a proposal for conversion of a portion of the L&WCF project. (NOTE: As of late April, 1990, the developer had withdrawn, and is reported to be revising, its preliminary master plan.) Adding to the controversy is the belief on the part of petitioners that in 1981 or 1982 local officials assured Commonwealth representatives that the development of lands surrounding Wheatlands Lake would be limited to a maximum of 300 homes, and that the State and National Park Service relied upon those assurances as they might relate to project approval. Further, the dam was constructed in 1976 by the current landowners, was damaged shortly thereafter, and then in 1981 donated to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth then proceeded to renovate the dam as part of the L&WCF project. Petitioners allege that the plans for the 1,800 unit residential development would in effect "privatize" the lake, i.e., the recreation area would be surrounded by this private development; this situation would substantially deter, if not completely preclude, public use. As part of the controversy, it is also reported that the lake would be used to supply process water for the residential (downstream) waste treatment facility. The Frederick County Planning Commission reviewed the developer's preliminary plan and requested additional information concerning protection of the Lake, buffering and roadway configurations. Further, DGIF provided the County with comments on the proposed residential development (by letter of 11/9/89). DGTF`s letter raised concerns about impacts to the Lake, erosion and sedimentation, flooding easements and the public buffering zone. it also specifically informed the County that it had no agreement with anyone for joint use of its Lake access road, nor for allowing road crossings on DGI£ property, and that the,mix of residential and Lake access traffic could compromise its goal of providing a public fishing lake. DGIF also noted that the joint access development would violate section 6(f)(3) of the L&WCF Act. 3 Petitioners include nine reasons for seeking review by the Secretary (see items 33 through 41). The last item, #41, deals with State compliance with the grant agreement at the present time; the remaining eight items deal with the proposed residential development as it might have influenced project approval or would effect deCisions concerning future cumpliduce with the grant agreement. �. •UOTOT171911US !!• -0 a. Signage - The project closeout photograph clearly shows a Land and Water Conservation Fund sign. That sign was removed. However, we understand that the State has replaced the sign. Finding: Placement of a Land and water conservation Fund sign at the site brings the State into compliance with this issue. b. Phase II Development - Phase II development is a= part of the scope of project #51-00289. Project scope is clearly limited to acquisition and dam renovation, with a gravel road and parking area as support facilities (reference grant agreement and project narrative). The August 17, 1984, letter to the State, transmitting the signed project agreement, states that the service considers acceptance by the Commonwealth of Land and Water Conservation Fund assistance as a commitment on the part of the Commonwealth to Phase ii as soon as possible. The Service still believes that Phase ii development should be completed as soon as possible. The access improvements expected in the next stage of development will improve useability of the site. However, Phase II is not included as a part the project agreement, per se, nor is any schedule or deadline for completion of Phase II development incorporated. Since the State has completed the basic development called for in the grant agreement, it is in compliance with its contract. Furthermore, the State's funding for and initiation of phase iI of the project effectively eliminates this concern. E1nd" : Facility development at wheatlands Lake is in compliance with the grant agreement. The site is a viable, albeit basic, publiC outdoor recreation area.. C. Coat Sharing - band and Water Conservation Fund assistance has not exceeded 50 percent of the cost of this project. FFfadlna: There is no violation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act concerning matching Fund assistance. d. Public Access - currently the public has access to the site through an existing 50 ft. road right-of-way. 4 0 • Eroding: There is no violation of public access requirements of the Land and water Conservation Fund program. a. Item #33 - There is no evidence that the National Park Service, at the time of approval, relied upon information or assurances that development of the surrounding area would be limited to a maximum of 300 homes. Fin` ing: NPS project approval was proper and appropriate with respect to this issue. b. Item #34 - Land values surrounding the 190 ± residential recreation area may have been substantially increased by the L&WCF grant. However, increases in land values are often found adjacent to park areas, whether Fund- assisted or not. Finding: if they occurred, increased land values in areas surrounding this Fund -assisted site are not by themselves inconsistent or improper with respect to any Fund regulation. C. Items #33-37 - In these three items, petitioners allege that 1) residential development would convert the lake to the private benefit and use of the development's future residents; 2) the Lake would be used to support a waste treatment facility that would have adverse effects on recreational use; and 3) use of the lake for waste treated purposes would constitute a section 6(f) conversion. d. Items #38-40 - The National Park Service has not been requested to approve a conversion, nor have any section 6(f) decisions been made with respect to whether a conversion would be consistent with the State comprehensive outdoor Recreation Plan or would meet other specific land replacement requirements of section 6(f). 1. Development of some portions of the preliminary muster plan would constitute a section 6(f)(3) conversion, in whole or in part, of the Fund - assisted project site, as identified in DGIF correspondence to the County and in the discussion above. One of the proposed entrance roads to the residential development would make use of a Fund -acquired parcel constituting an existing, So -foot wide public access road to the Lake. Also, one of the perimeter/collector roads would cross and make use of the same right-of-way. Such uses would constitute a conversion. If entrance or collector roads should sever, substantially reduce or intrude upon public recreation use of wheatlands Lake, the entire project might be considered a section 6(f)(3) conversion. 2. Development of land outside the section 6(f) boundary of the Wheatlands Lake project, as proposed, would not constitute, in and of itself, a section 5 6(f) conversion, Public use would continue to be provided via the existing Lake access road from Route #340/#532, owned in fee -simple by the Commonwealth, pravidPct that the proposed residential development does not intrude upon nor make use of that access road. Legal access by recreationists across the lake and within the 50 ft. wide strip around it is similarly assured. The purposes for which this grant project was approved are not altered or diminished by the fact that surrounding lands may be intensely developed. At the time of grant approval, it would have been expected that the surrounding lands would some day undergo land use change. The fact that surrounding landowners may frequently use the public recreation area is not a basis for determining that a conversion would occur; such land owners are part uL Lhe "public" when they are using WhE,atlands Lake. This type of situation - a public lake with a relatively thin buffer of land around it that Wright together encompass a recreation area or park - is not uncommon in many parts of the country and in the L&WCF program. Experience elsewhere indicates that the public, particularly boaters and fishermen, will use such areas in large numbers, and not be inhibited because of surrounding land uses. Provided that currently available public access is not diminished, we can expect growing use of wheatlands Lake by the general public. 3. Adjacent activity which disturbs the surface area protected by section 6(f), results in physical encroachments, or denies public use may indeed result in a conversion and trigger the remedies provided by law. Residential development around the lake will pose substantial potential for future conversions: surrounding landowners may encroach upon the public property with fences, piers, or other private structures; public accessibility to the lake may be eliminated or restricted; and the water quality of the lake be effected by surface runoff and/or the proposed treatment plant and could result in a conversion. Strict monitoring -by the State will be necessary to preclude a costly conversion at a later date. Clearly a residential development of another configuration, design, and/or density might avoid potential negative impacts and/or have positive benefits to wheatl.ands Lake. For example, cul de sacs and public roadways might be developed to provide additional access to Wheatlands Lake, additional lands might be incorporated into the public area, cluster development or redesign of lots might provide more open space amenities and/or the buffer area might be expanded. The -County and State should be encouraged to make such changes. in the future, should a conversion request be received, the National Park Service would review the situation and make decisions consistent with Fund program regulations. No immediate action is required because the Commonwealth currently is in compliance with grant conditions. However, the Service should notify the Commonwealth of its findings in this background report, and urge that the 6 i • Department of Game and Inland Fisheries work actively with the County Planning Cor=ission and the residential developer on a master plan that will eliminate or reduce potentially negative future impacts. The Service will continue to monitor the situation and be prepared to enforce section 6(f)(3) and other compliance requirements as appropriate through its grant contract with the State. 7 0 • WHIATLA=S CHRONOLOGX(LSNCY Project No. 51-00289) 1994 JUN 8 Buehler to Coleman - Revised proposal of Site, withdrew original project, requested waiver of retroactivity so appraisal could be utilized. JUN 12 Proposal processed - Adequate documentation. JUN 17 Project Appiuved uLlllzing 60 acre donation, around 130 acre lake plus dam renovation. AUG 17 McCoy to Buehler - Program narrative identifies Phase II development. Approval letter - urging Phase II initiation ASAP. LI APR 26 Increased fund assistance (indirect costs) approved. JAN 7 Buehler to Coleman - One year time extension requested. ,TAN 23 Time extension approved. SEP 18 Buehler to Coleman - Closeout requested. Documentation included inspection 4/17/87 with photo, and support documentation. FEE 1 Chaplick to Buehler - Closeout approved underrun of $20,378.67 to reapportionment account. .3, XU JUL 10 Krouse to Whitney - Requested project file. JUL 10 Whitney to Krouse - (FAX) 18 pages of above referenced dor- mQnts . JUL 12 Johnson (Clark Co. Planners) to Whitney - Telecon - Expreaaed concern for proposed 2000 house development adjacent to funded site. JUL 16 Krouse article - Winchescg„r Rtdr following phone interview with Whitney. JIIL 17 Krouse to Whitney - News articles published in WinnhaNter Atn= June 3 to July 7. 6 JUL 21 Krouse to Whitney - Preliminary Site Plan on abutting development. JUL 28 Received copy of JD Hardesty (Clark Co. Supervisor Chairman) and An Dunning (Co. Planning Chairman) to Senator Byrd and Representative vento - regarding "possible misuse of federal funds". JUL 29 Whitney to Hall - WASO fax copy of Hardesty/Dunning letter. AUG 10 Gordon/Whitney to Hall - Information/briefing and 18 pages of project documentation sent to WASO. SEP 22 Stewart (NPS-WASO) to Representative Slaughter - responding to Hardesty/Dunning letter. OCT 13 Whitney to L6fnhan - responses io letter of concern and thank you for Frederick County publication. OCT 16 Clark County Administrator Lee to Buehler - Concern with Grants not complying with LWCF Regulation. NOV 9 va. Dept. of Game 6 Inland Fisheries to Frederick Co. Written comments on preliminary master plan of Intergate Company, Inc. for proposed residential development surrounding Wheatlands Lake. Concerns expressed about various environmental issues and conversions under section 6(f)(3). DEC 19 Claudia Bear - Citizens for Quality Community to Director EPA - concerned with impact and sanitary system for 1800 houses - requests EiS. DEC 27 Winchsster Star article (7/22/89) with internal state memoranda. JAN 17 Received FOIA from Chabot via WASO and draft letter for Director. JAN 22 Whitney to Howard (Washington Post) - Interviewed on project and LWCF procedures. JAN 26 Coleman to Chabot - supplemented information to Director's letter. FEB 1 Received copy of Howard's article in Washin=on Post (1/27/90). FEB 13 Ridenour to Chabot letter (2/2/90) responding to original FOIA (same as draft). 9 9 !ag 20 WASO staff to Whitney - article in Washington po4t (2/15/90) that Commonwealth Coalition petitioning DOI Secretary Lujan to investigate excess development adjacent: to project. MAR 19 Hall to Gordon/Whitney - fax from Solicitor's office for background brief. MAR 20 Copy of Commonwealth Coalition petition received. 10 -12 v.r L n I11WT'Ciaw Investment Builders May 25, 1990 Bob Watkins Planning Director FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.n. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Bob, Please accept this letter as the withdrawal by InterGate as co -applicant on the Master Development Plan application now pending before the Frederick County Planning Commission in Frederick County, Virginia. Very truly iyours, ;resident ome C. O'Connell The InterGate Company, Inc. Washington Dulles International P.O. Box 17533 Washington, D.C. 20041 (703) 471-0400 Fax # 471-5069 PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #006-89 WHEATLANDS Zoned R-5 (Residential Recreational) 926.266 acres LOCATION: 3.5 miles+ east of Stephens City & I miler southwest of Double Tollgate; adjacent & southside of VA. Rt. 277; adjacent & west side of VA. Rt. 522. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon ADJACENT LAND USE & ZONING: RA Zoning & residential & vacant land use. PROPOSED USE & IMPROVEMENTS: 1760 Single-family and 40 townhouse units, village centers, school site & future development REVIEW EVALUATIONS: VA. Dept. of Transportation: See letters dated August 30, 1989 and September 27, 1989. Department of Game and Inland Fisheries - See attached letter date 11/9/89. Sanitation Authority: Items marked on plans need to be addressed. Health Department:. No objection as long as project serviced by approved central water & sewage facilities. Parks & Recreation: See attached letter dated 6/5/89. Fire Marshal: Chapter 10 requires one hydrant within 300' of each structure when there are three to five dwelling units per structure. Two hydrants are required within 300' of each structure when there are six or more dwelling units per structure. Actual approval of hydrant locations and/or fire lanes will be done on site plans or construction drawings as each phase progresses. Inspections Department: Shall comply to Use Group "R" (Residential) of -the BOCA Building Code. Will comment on other proposed areas at time of plans review, in order to determine proper use group. Planning & Zonip_q_.- The proposed single family, townhouse and village center uses are permitted in the R-5 zoning district. DENSITY The maximum population density for a development in the R-5 zone is 8 people per acre including open space and village center areas. Multipliers established by the zoning ordinance are 3.7 people per single family unit and 3 people per townhouse unit. The ordinance also states that no more than 120 of the residential units within a R-5 development may be townhouses and/or multifamily units. Given a maximum overall density of 8 people per acre, on 926 acres the maximum number of residents allowed in the development is 7408. Working backwards, using the multipliers of 3.7 persons for single family and 3.0 for townhouses, as well as a maximum of 12% multifamily units, the maximum number of single family units allowed on this parcel would be 1802 and 245 townhouse units. The Wheatlands proposal is for 1800 units total with 40 of these units being townhouses. OPEN SPACE A minimum of 350 open space is required or in this case, 324 acres. Open space areas will need to be covered in a deed of dedication to insure that these areas will not be encroached upon in the future. To avoid confusion, phase lines should be redrawn to exclude the lake and the fifty foot (50') strip along the shoreline. COMMERCIAL USE The maximum acreage allowed for commercial uses is -twelve (12) acres per 1000 lot owners, or 21 acres. If the number of lots is later reduced, the commercial acreage might be affected. All commercial uses must be located -within designated village centers. Any commercial use within the "community center" would have to be directly associated with the development. Additional information on the nature of the "marketing center/offices" will. need to be provided. The ten acres situated to the north of the route 277 entrance should be labeled as village center rather than "commercial center". Additional information will also be required for the areas labeled as "future development". Pre.sently 64 acres of the site has no land use designation. TRAFFIC IMPACTS Traffic impact data supplied by -the applicant indicates a total trip generation from the development of 20,940 ADT. Information on the resulting level of service for routes 277, 340, and 522 are provided, however, impacts on route 636 are not indicated and need to be addressed. The interpolated 1987 traffic count for the section of route 636 running from route 277 to one and a half miles south is 510. Given the existing design and condition of route 636, the likely addition of a significant amount of traffic from the development is an area of concern to the county. The information supplied by the applicants indicates a level of service "B" after development, at all interchanges, with the exception of traffic turning left out of the northern entrance, which shows a level of service "C". The cumulative effects of other development in the area should be considered when projecting future ADT through this road network. The location of entrances on routes 340 and 277 need to be specified. A minimum of three public, state maintained entrance locations, two being on Rt. 340, need to be shown and a satisfactory arrangement established for the county to have input and approval of all entrance locations before they are finalized. Within the site a number of streets ending in cul-de-sacs are excessive in length. Connections should be considered where possible to eliminate these;'long dead end streets. All Virginia Department of Transportation requirements will have to be satisfied prior to final MDP approval. SEWER AND WATER The plans include a 1/4 million gallon per. day waste water treatment facility (expandable to 1/2ml. gpd.) Information needs to be provided on who pays for this future expansion, and a formal agreement reached. Staff would recommend that the Board of Supervisor's pass a resolution requesting the Service Authority accept, the plant if it meets their design review criteria. MISCELLANEOUS The adjoining parcels zoning shown on the plan should be changed from A-2 to RA (Rural Areas) to reflect the amended designation. A satisfactory Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, as well as Storm Water Management Plan will have to be submitted at the subdivision stage. Impacts of the development on the lake in terms of run off as well as impacts on Sherando Park, the landfill and area Fire and Rescue Services should be considered including the possible future dedication of a site for a Fire and Rescue Station and provision for solid waste collection site or pick up service. Two state maintained entrances on Rt. 340 need to be located and approved. Provision for the perpetuation of the required open space. The Board of Supervisor's need to pass a resolution requesting that the Service Authority take over maintenance of the sewer treatment facility. If the Authority accepts then C11 satisfactory agreement must be reached addressing the costs of future expansion of the plant. Finally, all review agency comments will need to be addressed prior to final approval. Staff Recommendation: (for 11/15/89) Table, so that the applicant can gather and supply information which satisfactorily addresses the following: 1. Information needs to be provided on traffic impacts to Rt. 636 with assurances that an appropriate level of service be maintained. 2. A satisfactory description of areas designated as "future development" be provided. 3. Concerns expressed by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries need to be addressed. 10 WILLIAM B. HANES ROBERT E. SEVILA RICHARD R. SAUNDERS, JR. BURKE F. McCAHILL DOUGLAS L. FLEMING, JR. JON D. HUDDLESTON CRAIG E. WHITE LAW OFFICES HANES, SEVILA, SAUNDERS 8 MCCAHILL A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION POST OFFICE BOX 678 LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 22075 January 23, 1990 Mr. Robert Watkins Director of Planning of Frederick County 9 Court Square P.O.Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Wheatlands Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Watkins: 30 NORTH KING STREET (703)777-5700 METRO 471-9800 FAX (703) 771-4161 JAN 2 5 1990 The application of Intergate Company for the Wheatlands Master Development Plan is scheduled to come before the Frederick County Planning Commission in February, 1990. Intergate respectfully requests that this matter be continued to the first regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting in March. Please let me know if there is any problem rescheduling the meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, HANES, EVILA, SAUNDERS & McCAHILL, P.C. i' Robert E. Sevila RES/ess cc: Mr. Brian Cullen The Intergate Company 0 L" WILLIAM B HANES ROBERT E. SEVILA RICHARD R. SAUNDERS, JR. BURKE F. MCCAHILL DOUGLAS L. FLEMING, JR. JON D, HUDDLE57FON CRAIG E. WHITE LAW OFFICES HANES, SEVILA, SAUNDERS 8 MCCAHILL A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION P05T OFFICE BOX 678 LEE5BURG, VIRGINIA 22075 December 18, 1989 Mr. Robert Watkins Director of Planning of Frederick County 9 Court Square P.O. Dox 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Watkins: 30 NORTH KING STREET (703)777-5700 METRO 471-9800 FAX (703) 771-4161 GOI B- �rl i, � MI D . DEC 2 ► 19R9 Re: Wheatlands Frederick County, Virginia The application of Intergate Company for the Wheatlands Master Development Plan approval is before the Frederick County Planning Commission on January 3, 1990. Intergate respectfully requests that this matter be continued to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting in January. Please let me know if there is any problem rescheduling the meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, HANES SEVILA, S UNDERS & McCAHILL, P.C. Robert E. Sc ilia RES/ess cc: Mr. Brian Cullen The Intergate Company COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRCjINIA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 WEST BROAD STREET BOX 11104 RICHMOND, VA 23230 1-800-252-7717 (V/TDD) (804) 367-1000 (V/TDD) December 14, 1989 Mr. Kris C. Tierney Deputy Director, County of Frederick Dept. of Planning & Development 9 Court Square Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Preliminary Master Development Plan Wheatlands - Frederick County Dear Mr. Tierney: ULU7 2 1 1989 1 II Thank you for your letter of November 30, 1989, inquiring if a representative of this agency could be present during the January 3, 1990 meeting of the Frederick County Planning Commission, in connection with the subject matter. Subject to favorable driving conditions, we plan to have at least one (1) representative of our Department attend the subject meeting. Sincerely, e James A. emin on Director JAR/dc CC: Mr. Eli Jones, Jr., Chairman, DGIF Board Mr. Lewis M. Costello, Member, DGIF Board Equal Opportunity Employment, Programs and Facilities RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER illy COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 EDINBURG, 22024 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN 7'03 / 98 /, -/ 1 q •y RESIDENT ENGINEER .August 30, 1989 Re: Lake Frederick/Wheat- lands Master Plan Frederick and Clarke Counties C. 1W. Clifford and Associates Attention: Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.F, P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Chuck: This is in reference to the preliminary site plan previously submitted to our office for review, Based upon the information seat us, the department has made and initial site impact assessment. 'IFindi.ngs" have been identified based upon the information furnished. I have listed them here. I must stress these are of a rough cut nature, We would very much like to have as detailed a traffic analysis as you can provide. Please include trips per day and directional movements, I am sure the elements of our review will cause some questions on you and your clients part, We will be ,glad to sit down with you to discuss them in further detail with you when the additional information is available. 1'' DERICK COVtM: Route 636: Reconstruct the existing facility to provide a 24' roadway with improved vertical and horizontal alignment. - Continued - TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY Lake Frederick Preliminary Master Plan, August 30, 1989 Page 2 Route 277: a Reconstruct the existing facility to provide a 4-lane roadway from I-81 to the site entrance, o Install traffic light at site entrance. 0 Provide double right turn lanes on the Route 277 EB approach at the site entrance, o Provide a separate WB left turn lane at the site entrance, Clarke Countys Intersection Routes 277, 340, & 522: Provide a separate left tarn lane on the Route 277 EB approach, Routes 340/522 Q North & South site entrances): a Install traffic signals 0 Provide separate left turn lanes (NB) 0 Provide separate right turn lanes (SB) For further review a complete traffic impact analysis should be submitted. This analysis should include: Existing network capacity and operational analysis. (Including route 636) A.M. and P.M. peak hour build/no build status. Traffic loads resulting from the public fishing lake. Approximate construction phasing of the proposed development. Sincerely, 31k� William H. Bushman, P.E. Resident Engineer Cy: Mr. Robert L. Moore Mr. Don E. Ripley Mr, J. B. Diamond Mr, John R. Riley, Jr. Mr. Robert Watkins Mr. Robert B. Childress LA J I \ 1.ll f' V VW SEP 1989 r.. RECEIVED COMMONWEALTH I of VIRGINIA b DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBU G, 22824 BUSHMAN RAY D. P I;� cat WILLIAM COMMISSIONER ( 7 0 3) 9 8 4^ 4 1 3 ii�51DENT ENGINEER September 27, 1989 Route 277 Frederick County G. W. Clifford & Associates Attention: Mr. Charles E. Maddox, ,7r., P.E., V.P. P.O. Pox 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Chuck: This is in reference to my letter to you dated August 30, concerning the impact of traffic on the existing road system generated by the proposed development by Intergate at Wheatlands. The information furnished did not address any specific elements of the preliminary master plan. Pertaining to the proposed entrance on route 277, our initial assessment is the location is acceptable. This is predicated upon receiving future detailed engineering plans. These, of course, must meet the design requirements required by capacity analysis and be in concert with approved entrancd(s) on routes 340/522 in Clarke and/or Warren counties. Several findings in my previous letter involved so called off- site impacts. These included an apparent need to 4-lane route 277 from 1-81 to Route 340/522. To clarify our feelings on this element, we cannot require this improvement because it it off -site. We also do not foresee this as a need from bay One of the project. We feel, due to the designation of this region for urban development in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, it is an improvement which will be r'equized for proper functioning of the Plan vis a, vis the tither areas identified for subdivision development, whether Wheatlands is built or not. To this end the Depattment is prepared. to develop with the Frederick County Planning staff an appropriate urban type multilane design for route 277 in keeping with the predicates of the Comprehensive Plan. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY s 0 I hope this clarifies our previous letter in the area of the route 277 corridor improvement. We will await your more definitive traffic capacity analysis from John Callow. in the meantime if you have any questions lot me know. Sincerely, William R. Bushman, F.E. Resident Engineer Cy: Mr. Robert L. Moore Mr. Don E. Ripley Mr. J. B, Diamond Mr. John R. Riley, Jr. Mr. Robert Watkins Mr. Robert B. Childress a COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjINIA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 WEST BROAD STREET BOX 11104 RICHMOND, VA 23230 /7 1-800-252-7717 (V/TDD) tt (804) 367-1000 (V/TDD) NOV 16 November 9, 1989 �''` Mr. Robert W. Watkins Planning Director Dept. of Planning & Development County of Frederick P. 0. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Preliminary Master Development Plan Wheatlands, Frederick County Dear Mr. Watkins: We have reviewed the subject plan of the Intergate Company, Inc. which was provided to us by your office. We have a number of concerns with this plan: 1. Impact on the Lake: We are concerned about the potential adverse impact of the proposed development on the quality of the water and the aquatic life in the lake, and the ability of the dam structure to accommodate the increased runoff. Specifically, the control and the management of the runoff and sediment during and after the construction period will be critical for maintaining the water quality, fisheries resources, and the longevity and integrity of the lake for public fishing and other recreatiopal purposes. Necessary plans for soil erosion control and storm -water management must be prepared and implemented. Furthermore, steps should be taken to establish a monitoring process to ensure the Developer(s) compliance with these plans and the effectiveness of the implemented techniques. The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) requests the opportunity to (1) review and comment on the soil erosion control plans and the storm -water management plans for the proposed development, and (2) be part of the monitoring process to ensure compliance. The DGIF also concurs with your consulting firm of Harris, Smariga, Orsillo, Inc.'s Equal Opportunity Employment, Programs and Facilities Mr. Robert Watkins Page Two suggestion, contained in their letter of August 22, 1989, to study the impact of the additional runoff on the ability of the existing dam structure. 2. Buffer Zone: The DGIF has fee simple ownership of a fifty (50) foot wide buffer strip around the lake. This strip will also guarantee public access to the entire shoreline of the lake for fishing, walking, or other compatible public uses. The adjacent property owners will have no rights beyond those of the general public to use the public property and the planned facilities at the lake. The open space designation adjacent to the lake on the preliminary plan includes DGIF-owned property. It appears that the DGIF-owned property may be included in the calculation of the open space requirements for the proposed development. Please note that we have no agreement with the Developer(s) in this regard. The DGIF recommends that necessary conservation set -back strips (along the lake shoreline), located on Developer's property, be included in the master plans to mitigate adverse impact of the additional runoff caused by the development. 3. Flooding Easements: The DGIF has requested the subject Developer(s) to provide flooding easements along the lake shorelines to accommodate high water levels in the lake. These easements would follow the elevation at the top of the dam. Regardless of the results of our efforts, these areas should go on record as being prone to flooding during a storm and should be set aside for no to limited development. 4. Proposed Fishing Pier: The preliminary plan proposes a fishing pier as one of development's recreational facilities. Any fishing pier constructed on the DGIF-owned lake must be licensed by the DGIF. A license for a fishing pier has not been issued to the subject Developer by the DGIF. 5. Access• The preliminary plan does not designate the property lines of a fifty ( 50 ) foot wide parcel owned by the DGIF in fee simple. The DGIF intends to utlize this parcel for developing public access to the lake off Route 522. The lake will be open to the public regardless of residence. Mr. Robert W. Watkins Page Three The preliminary plan shows a joint access road for lake and development off Route 522, as well as a collector road crossing the DGIF-owned parcel. Please note that the DGIF has no agreements with the Developer(s) for a joint access or for crossing of the DGIF-owned property. At the request of the Developer(s), we did review joint access proposals and concluded that the mixing of the residential traffic with the lake traffic (vehicles with boats/trailers, etc.), may compromise our goal of providing a much needed public fishing lake serving all citizens of the Commonwealth. Furthermore, the Virginia Division of Planning and Recreation Services has advised us that it appears that Section 6(f)(3) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (L&WCF) provisions would prohibit the joint access development. The DGIF utilized these grant funds for the development of the lake project. Adioining Property Owners List: The DGIF is not listed as an adjoining property owner in the plan. This deficiency should be corrected to ensure proper notification of actions related to this development. Please add the following to the property owners list: Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries 4010 West Broad Street Richmond, VA 23230 (Attn: Dinesh V. Tiwari) Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the subject plan. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Dinesh V. Tiwari (804/367-8864), if there are any questions regarding this communication. Sincerely,, C� James A. Remingt in Director JAR: DVT:ly CC: Mr. Eli Jones, Jr., Chairman, DGIF Board Mr. Lewis M. Costello, Member, DGIF Board Mr. Brian J. Cullen, Vice President, The Intergate Co., Inc. Mr. Art Buehler, Jr., Dir/VA. Div. of Planning & Rec. Svcs. Mr. B. C. Leynes, Jr., Dir/Dept. of Conservation & Historic Resources Mr. Larry G.Hart, Acting Assistant Director/DGIF Mr. Dinesh V. Tiwari, Chief, Lands & Engineering/DGIF COUNTY of FREDERICK Parks and Recreation Department James M. Doran, Director 703/665-5678 - FAX:703/667-0370 June 5 1989 Mr. Tom Price G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, VA 22601" -Dear Mr. Price: After discussing this development with Intergate Company, Inc., it appears that the developer is willing to work with the County to insure that recreationah areas are provided for its residents.;-- Amenities such as tennis ,courfs., ,multi purpose courts,_basketball courts, . small .playground. areas, a o,,commun ty•"center-,-ia25-meter, swimming pool,~ andr-h1ke, trails;.were-=discussed as being desirable additions to this community. This department wouldrdeommend that the plans for this development reflect' the recreational areas and facilities that have been discussed. Also, I would encourage the developer to continue to communicate with this department regarding recreational needs for Lake Frederick. Because of the impact that this community will have on our regional park in southern Frederick County, I would request that consideration be given to assisting with the development of .a major facility at Sherando Park. I have attached a copy of the Sherando Park master plan for your review and if you should have any.questious,.please.give me a call. Sincerely, ---— - James M. Doran --------- -- Director JMD/hj 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 • 11 to Wheatlands PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN County of Frederick, Virginia Stonewall Magisterial District Prepared for Intergate Company, Inc. Washington -Dulles P.O. Box 17533 Washington, D.C. 20041 July 1989 by gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. FREDERICKSBURG - WINCHESTER t & 0 11 APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Frederick County Virginia Date: 17 July 1989 Application #: 006-% I OWNERS NAME: Fred L. Glaize III & Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, Va 22655 (Please list the name of all owners or parties in interest) APPLICANT/AGENT: Intergate Company, Inc. Washington -Dulles P.O. Box 17533 Washington, D.C. 20041 • Phone Number: (703) 471-0400 DESIGNER/DESIGN COMPANY: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Phone Number: (703) 667-2139 Contact Name: Tom Price or Chuck Maddox • • U • 9 • • 0 PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKLIST The following checklist is intended to assist the applicant in insuring that all required information is provided and to insure that all information is available to allow review by the County. This form must be completed by the applicant and submitted with the master development plan. All required items must be provided on the master development plan. 1. Development's name:JAM FREDERICK 2. Location of property:3 5 mi ± east of Stelhens City & 1 mi ± southwest of Double Tollgate Adjacent & southside of Va Rte 277 Adjacent and west side of Va Rte 522_._ 3. Total area of property:926 266 Ac (Frederick County Land) 4. Property identification numbers: Tax map: 87 Tax parcel: 102 & 103 Tax ID # (21 Digit): 87000-A00-0000-0000-01020 87000-A00-0000-0000-01030 5. .Property zoning and present use: R-5 (Vacant w/Lake) 6. Adjoining property zoning and present use:A-2 (Single Family & Vacant) 7. Proposed Uses: Single Family„ Townhouses, Village Centers,School & Future Development 8. Magisterial District: Opequon 9. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original Amended XX 0 11 General Information: 1. Have the following items been included? North arrow Yes_X_ No Scale Yes_X_ No Legend Yes X No Boundary Survey Yes_X_ No Total Area Yes X No Topography Yes_X_ No Project Title Yes_X_ No Preparation and Revision Date Yes_X_ No Applicant Name Yes X_ No 2. Number of phases proposed? Nine (9) 3. Are the proposed phases shown on the Master Development Plan? Yes_XX_ No 4. Are the uses of adjoining properties clearly designated? Yes_XX_ No 5. Is an -inset map provided showing the location of the project and all public roads within 2,000 feet. Yes_XX_ No 6. Are all land uses clearly shown? Yes XX_ No 7. Are environmental features clearly shown? Yes_XX_ No Note•Separate Colored Plans have been submitted along with this application for environmental features 8. Describe the following environmental features: Total Area o Disturbed Area in Open Space Floodplains 0 0 0 Lakes and ponds _ 0 0 _ 0 Natural retention areas 0 0 0 Steep slopes (15 0 +) 222 23 112 Woodlands 856 210 218 • e 9. Are the following shown on the master development plan? Street layout Yes _X_No Entrances Yes_X_No Parking areas Yes No_X_ Utilities (mains) Yes X No 10. Has a conceptual stormwater management plan been provided? Yes_X No 11. Have all historical structures been identified? Yes No X_ 12. The plan should include signature lines for the Director of Planning and the County Administrator. Have the signature lines been included. Yes X No If the Master Development Plan includes any land zoned RP, (Residential Performance) or any residential uses, the following items should be completed. 1. What housing types are proposed?Single Family Detached & Townhouses 2. Is a schedule provided describing each of the following in each phase: Open space acreage Yes X No Acreage in each housing type Yes Acreage in streets and right of ways Yes _N_No _X_No Total acreage Yes_X_No Number of dwellings of each type Yes_X No 3. What percentage of the total site is to be placed in common open space? 350 4. Are recreational facilities required? Yes No_X 5. What types of recreational facilities are proposed? Community Center (Phase 1) includes Exercise Room, Fishing Pier, 25m Pool,etc - Tennis & Swim Center (Phase 4) includes 4 Tennis Courts, Pavilion, 15m Pool, Volleyball, Tot Lot, etc - Neighbor- hood Pool & Tot Lot (Phase 7) includes 2 Tennis Courts, Pool Pavilion, Tot Lot, Volleyball, etc. 6. Are separation buffers required? Yes No_X 7. Are road efficiency buffers required? Yes No X_ Note: 70' R/W includes 25' Buffer each side w Earthberms or Evergreen Landscaping or both. 8. Are landscaping or landscaped screens required? Yes No_X_ 9. Are required buffers, screens, and landscaping described by the plan with profiles or examples? Yes_X No 10. Are any of the following bonus improvements proposed to be used? Recreational Facilities Yes No_X_ Energy Conservation Yes No__X_ Pedestrian or Bikeway System Yes No Underground Utilities Yes No__X X_ _ Street Design Yes No X_ 11. How many bonus factors have been earned? NZA 12. How will the bonus factors be used? N/A 0 Please list all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides, to the rear, and in front (across the street) of the property in question. Please list the name, address, and most importantly, the complete 21-digit property identification number. This information may be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue's office. Name: Ralph L. & Stella M. Catlett Address: Rt.1,Box 87 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-0096A Name: Harold E. & Bernice A. Rapczyk Address: Rt.1,Box 98 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-001-0000-0000-000BO Name: Randolph H. Cornwell Address: 4372 Lakeview Court Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-00980 Name: John W. & Delphia E. Cornwell Address: Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-00990 Name: Isaac Gardner & Bertie Clark Address: Rt.1,Box 89 white Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-01000 Name: Appletowne, Inc. Address: P.O. Box 3068 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-01010 Name: Robert L. & Janie S. Sandy Address: Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-01230 Name: Boyd D. & Candace L. Ritter Address: Rt. 1,Box 401-A Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-01070 Name: J. David & Dirma V. Headlye Address: c/o Ralph Gregory 606 Carter Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 91000-A00-0000-0000-01230 Name: David A. Headley Address: Box 72 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-0103A Name: Jeffrey E. Williams Address: Box 87 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 94000-A00-0000-0000-00010 Name: Mary Margaret Grady Address: Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 94A00-001-0001-0000-00110 Name: Esther H. Dovell Address: P,.O. Box 80-B White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 94A00-001-0012-000A-00100 Name: Albert M. & Terri L. Grady Address: Box 442 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 94A00-001-0011-0000-00200 Name: Norman N. & Constance N. Tolken Address: 4712 Reservoir Road N.W. Wash. D.C. 20007 'Property I.D.#: 94000-A00-0000-0000-00060 Name: Oak Ridge Properties Address: P.O. Box 885 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-0273D Name: Bobby W. & Gladys E. Gibson Address: Rt. 1,Box 270-A Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-0273C E Name: John Charles Campbell Address: 2566 Chain Bridge Rd Apt. T-4 Vienna, Va 22180 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-0273B Name: Loretta D. & Howard L. Bailey Address: Rt. 1,Box 270-B Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-02720 Name: Roy S. & Margaret I. Madigan Address: Rt.1, Box 273-A Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-02230 Name: Patrick C. & Lillian C. Madigan Address: Rt. 1,Box 163 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-0266A Name: Walter F. & Daisey M. Lewis Address: Rt.1,Box 272 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-02200 Name: John Max Leight & Joann G. Lillian Address: 5037 Massie St. Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-02180 Name: Milton K. & Beatrice Apperson Address: Rt.1,Box 93 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-00150 Name: Montie W. & Pearl E. Gibson Address: Rt. 1,Box 155 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-0016B Name: Ross Giles Cooke & Robert L. Cooke.& Mary Jane Cooper Address: Rt. 2,Box 278 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-00960 i owe CIA. DePf of �ame- Tr,lGrad. fisheries f}7TAI, D1nesh 77ulari �goy)3&7,7 y qo,o Wesf Bro-a- S�• Richrno-,)d , VA. 23Z30. • SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 1, 1979 C 2 7 1989 Informational Attachments Wheatlands Correspondence Downzoning for Reassessment Proposal Notice of Public Meeting Letter of Thanks 0 0 IMP l�if(!11 �1J(JI.7T:'t�1L.i 2- APPLI• .. hl (?;� 3. )Tti s. NV)4t:?. - - _ CANTS _ `_'' L' �" 9-437-043 APPLI- Ih-:(F(• 1. 7Yf r-t FKMIC.tiIIM Or LJ b. t1ATi: _ a. DATE Yrcr an, e ACTION X LJ A -LICAT104 CATIOt# )•ir r+on•A 2 J IiZI! y 79 5 21 (hGrrAn,,. L� rlotl�;wiTlo cF I:;T£'li 0� t) pro�rw:• 19 - rslcn_� 19 --- L•osr b�z) Q rar(1RT OF iEDZRAL Acro:i atun3• �__ . LEGAL APYLICAIIT/r FC"IPIENf 5. YZ:)=nAL VA?LOYE IDS TIF1CaTt0 1.G0- P. Applicant ?lamb = Rob R. B1 ackmore, Director b.01:ant:,tio,U,,lr Commission of Outdoor Recreation C. s:r»v�.o. uo: Eighth & Franklin Sts . 11 �5 [- 14 10 j0 1 d. city : Richmond V. couey : N/A b. Tt"I- Outdoor Recreation I. S:,:, .t :Virginia X. ZIP c,: 23235 Acquisition, Devel opmen N. conl•n PN300 (ream, Charles J. Reed, Grants Chief and Planning - •: 804- 786-1217 6 7. TITLE AND D:SCKIP11014 OF AP?L.ICAN7'S P.',OJcCT S. Tf?c OF AP?LiCAI4-;J:2ECI?I-l1r tj Wheatl ands Fishing Lake (A&D) C_:-:-rttal► k- . 1- 1:ilt,u E=i•tiN,�; ra++r:ai;ys C-SJ:+!.a:► 1-InJ,a.aTr2Ss -Acquisition of a 130 acre lake and dam and Dia:Act K-11:.1�r (S�,ciiY3: ( adjacent 60 acres of land in Frederick County.`'"(a^ E-c;y Development will consist of renovation of existing dam and spillway. 9. TYPE OF ASSISTANCE O - PrS :j: f,Tant,t Crant E-Cthvr Sa:..c. cy7rr MA Yi 10. AREA Or PROJECT IMPACT (Hansa of ci:i.., c3vr,:u{, 11. ESTIMATF r:U`.t- 12. TYPE OF' 1.??LICATIOri Stata{, o:e.) EER OF PERSONS A tie r F�r.iri» Ear nZt:cs - Frederick Co. Va . , 8_N r'tTtNO N/A �Prn`,,raT D-Ci-i!irua;;on _ 13. PRO?OSEO TUND)ING 24. CONG. !_SSi N.,L DISTRICTS OF: 15. T;?E Or CH:-tlGz. (For S:c ar l:e) h t-::cara D3:i:n F o::st (srcilr): 5 Ce n>ts D::I,ra a. FFDE23E $ 0 j a. A?: LI �t YT b. ??J; "T 3rd 7th o- c[a;faC�r�sl%_nra N/A a. r2PIICArfT o) c. STATE > I5. PROJECT START 17. P?.3JFCT E Gacstlxica DATE Year r•.o r'y tc D'J ATI'J I Ea rr c 77"r d. LOCAL i CD 19 79 . 8 l� 24 Ifo,:h> �*�:s [z[_arf:j L� s. D71iER • 03 1D. EST1!.1ATED DATE TO Ycar month 1.0v _ 19. EXISTING FEO RAL ID NTIF:CAUC.'t rfl:}ty=r 8=' SUEiMMSED TO FEDEa iL AGENCY 19 79 7 15_ NIA t. TOTAL W,040,468 Al.) 20. FEDMAL AGENCY TO RECEIVE PFQUEST (tia� s,Ci:y,S:c.,2lYc Lr) Heritage Conservation 21- PEM^R'CS A]]�_D & Recreation Service N. E. Region, Philadelphia, Pa. 19106Y» p r(o 22. N. 70 tha Lsat cl ny Sr.:wia3a and hNO. b. it *y WA3 Ci-ular A-15 th!s %xi-u!�n:t:rl, ycrw>nt to ra- ilarj.- o Ca:a Ia Liia .:• z.-A a:) r.apor•.s34 a:• a:h:Sa.'.: �!^CLL�d �( THE trus and tarract, tha tzu cant `ns b:aa - APPLICANT CERTIFiES Euly au!h:,4:W by Ih. �-cvwn?i_- L->ef 0 tha and V�v zN*.iunt a,::l cm7tr (I) State Clearinghouse ❑ D t` tha It tla t1 THAT(* with att,64 =_W,an•.� ara:a:- Lord Fairfax PDC ❑ ❑ r. 23. n. 7Y?c0 rWE A:i1) TiTLE b. SIC`iAT;;�!_ c.D?1TE S!C!i_D REMEYI iG Art Buehler, Asst. Director ray h ��vTATIV� Va. Comm. of Outdoor Recrea i '� _ 19 %g 5 21 T 2ti, AC=NCY T:AFL :r 23. r.?J'�IC1i- y�:r cw�J. r_'ay TI O tit _ +- - TECEty_D 19 25. On-GAN17ATIONAL UNIT 27. A7S INISTPATIVE OF ^- 2,k Fc:1=P.AC • n ID�TI F:��f10.y 23. ADDRESS 37. FcDc?A! C.ZAYT - j�;; i5 --- IDZNTtFMAT10?+ �' 31. ACTION TA)«N -- 32- FUND;ND Y•�- na �1 c?cy �_ 3'c-s► eaoat . eiy `t s. A AY D:D .. FED=7Jil S .001 33. f.CTIO_a D.3TE ti 19 SrAttTIDATE N(' 1' b. Y. IECTEO -- -- --- - - b. LF?LI +4T OD 35. CON.A� T FOR AUDIT:ONA_ INFORMA- - 710Y 3� �( ENE)INC 1 ❑ C. P•FTU3.YcD F03 c. STATE ,G3 _ n.�Tr 1r1 :-'Ir-hD)AE'fT d. 10C-11. .U3 37. R=uA7�:(3 10,7 D >: u C. CcFEft7ED ►. Cifl_R CWJ --- •i ., (j •. Yi1T)ID?a•N.Y _ f. Tr;U.I S .PJ (J Yaa -FINa 311- _ •. in Ljli.[ aar > V,n a�f C>-ILW, ro •I,rl fern e:es:i i:- r i-,r> C.I. N. F J=7--- f _:N Y ?5 Ci`aCtRL - -- - •:d.r>o. II >jr•<. r••;•>+.. L C FEDERAL AGENCY is r-.a L• -: or i, t :aa n,d>. I-DS ACTION t23-)p1 St.\�U�JO `O�v S;i 5:CM-1 1`I—}i M ARKS (T'l.wc relere.. ht proper iieta ttwr,,rr jrU ;t .eiicC;vnj !, He ll, q ay;J!ieeule) This project represents a partial donation of 60 acres of land and 130 acre.lake and dam as follows: $520,234 Virginia Outdoors Fund (Federal Trust) "= 502,470 Donation from Land Owner 17,764 Commission.of Game and Inland Fisheries $1,040,468 - �G "DPB Form 46 i s : Attached Not Required x ,+~' 39. AUTH 41'7Y REOUESTED TO: o. E-1 SC! I;,:T ') -CCE?T b. E] DOxcT13.vi S'F ; S K3 GRANTS El OTtt_R 40. TtliS Paoi:-cr INCLUDE.', FUNDS FOR- 41. Th; F':t,^,j=CT 42 FU.IDI>Zy 0= THIS ►POJ=G: is B A. Ct.atrel S!Cff Aj-.ncy 1,—:rrcl Coals k h3; o: Etfa:t P.o.:s'.ans A. Cis►+1.3+axa D. A. ency Ind;,,+e1 Co:ts D. :Yil1 T±:n:inwe .•;I's h3 for Src:-r 8. Letlzr of Cred:t C. f.t.2::ccnt Aceney Fr:nrz Dz:.zlile N/A C. Ire �acd to S-SstZ ent F ± - c - D. D. y ��za }o: 5: �:_ p,..i _*t/A C. P.e:n-S�rserniaT »!:cent :.ttncy /.uC4s D. is Po:l of F¢CuCI rl!och G--o! tV, (� > E••t�r op?ropr:ai /NNri• L_�__LLJ -- £ar:t c>yoi�:�rs /t.•.'rs �[ t t _ E•nlui c»:o��i�/� /sllri t�j t3_ A;o.cy cod"')- A»tour o: on Co: --a) ---� — — P.M ttarn).rGi 437 t- .a 4, IY rtUCTIOv : _ F.c-art n, nn:•.I h-r,.l •.• [n• »prr.rJ of [ni• ro7•r»t wlil ••�_; (_.�01-- IN. Z.—CV, In >ny con,rrt:tsnsn•• e.plt-Tt or t•tayll>at- !or Wr•�y•.nt:it•: r.n opt n,t ��., ;,Iy r-o-.roo De tore, no-1h+r.!n, not 1• th ..�t•ncy cOmnIrT-J in --t a,•>r str.r t1• o.ptra;lan J•t. oC t. a>yrtT•g1 projrl to c0ntlnv+ t!t. pr:y;•.rn w;.parr,f !.y I.M. .w>r J. /t 7,'..0+>1 of L:•► r--;�:•; t!a.r. n-•- co n.:hu1 s»ro.+t or po••a:ort •�>st!1hc»fast Oattl>ya, Or t•:h+r sctlenr lOr ..+11ch y.c1Yv r-v: +�-. i• ,7 r�.:Ao•+1• lrrna;.. :: L:v. of ;4> a0v•�- of f• n.'. •. • For in.:l;•rtion. or 111 �t..r F.duc+tine n.,iy: 7h• �t.t, Co•tnch of 11{�>,r educ :!o-. w.r In!nrr...d o► pro>»rd p.c•Ja.n o. p>�.:on or n..+pro�rsm. 45. ---! C.f•:.ftir.•Er:: GF : LI•t:N:\v :.NJ �'%�Gc7 �:,. ----- GFFiCc Or TN. GG'/ck:/J3 C.••a•:•,C.>•.t r..•I d Wy.r ..•a d.1,H Drr. - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Frederick County Lake )escrivtion of the Proposed Action The Commission of. Game and Inland Fisheries proposes to acquire approximately .90 acres of:land containing Wheatlands Lake, a 130-acre fishing'lake in Frederick :panty, Virginia. The Commission also proposes to modify the dam and spillway to : :he lake,.. develop a fishing access area, and make miscellaneous improvements to icco-_=odate__tha general sporting public. The tract of land will encompass ,the lake, 1 50' (mote::or less). buffer strip around the lake,' the dam, a 12-acre concession area,:::,* and the 50'."right-of-way for an access road to the lake, and an undetermined amouat _ :)f- area for --:flood easement. In order -.to finance this project. the -Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries tas requested_matching:funds..from the Commission of Outdoor Recreation in-coopera- :_ _ _. = :ion kith.=the _tIeritage_ Consen ation and Recreation Service from. the Land and rater Conservation Fund.'._ The acquisition and development of this fishing lake rill agree -with the -overall plan or advocation for a public fishing lake.for ;henandoah.Valley, designated -by the Virginia Outdoors Plan of 1974 as Recreation 'lanniag Region C6.. Contact person for the Commission of Gage and Inland Fisheries will be - 'erry G. Fouse, Land Coordinator, 4010 Jest Broad Street, Richmnond, Virginia; '.804) 2a7-1000.. This site is located approximately 2.5 miles from Frederick Cou nty's 300-acre Yark near Stephen's City. As.a result of coordination with the County, it was realized that our facilities, both.existing and planned, will not duplicate each )ther's efforts. The initial public access area will be small in scope and include gravel road, parking area, and ramp with planned future developments to follow. )escription of the Environment Wheatlands Lake is located in the Opequon 11-agisterial District in Frederick :ounty, Virginia. It is west of U-S. 340 and 522,*east of State Secondary 636, ind south of Primary Route 277. The area is approximately seven miles from Front loyal and eight miles from Winchester. The location is easily reached and is in relatively close proximity to several high population centers. The area is -ocated in the scenic Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. The area is in Virginia Tanning District #7 and the Shenandoah Valley Recreation Planning Region 06 as iesignated by the Virginia Outdoor Recreation Commission. The general land use has been agricultural in nature, but the trend of tevelopment recently has been toward residential. The County has a growing !conomy and anticipates a moderate population growth. The specific area is zoned R-5--Residential, Recreational, and Community Development. It is rural, jith a large area of wooded, undeveloped land adjacent to it on the west and scattered farms and residences elsewhere. A portion of the area adjacent to the :tact on the east side is cleared or brushlar.a. The topography of the area is gently rolling except the pronounced slopes to the creek bottomland that the lake now floods. The stream impounded is Crooked Run of the Shenandoah River watershed. The soils association in the contiguous lake area is that of blue or lime shale. The lake is located just west of the transition line between major shale and limestone formations. The general soil quality is fair with an average susceptibility to erosion. The air and water quality is good. The elevation of Crooked Run in the area impounded ranges from 580 to 610� above mean.sea level and normal pool elevation of the lake is at elevation 616.. The centerline elevation of.the dam is 626 and the elevation of the control crest of the spillway is 619.75. .: •mac,::..•*'-����. ' :• ::•.:.: :.'-•.•^:,,:_. � _.._. - '[; .__ -- :•'•_._ •-_-I:+._»fir-�.:.-_-." The earth dam was 'built for J. L.-..Bowman and :Fred Glaze area-busi.nessmea to the design of Gilbert Clifford and Associates of Fredericksburg_ The present. -- intake structure has. been severely damaged. by ice ,and the. emergency . spillway_ needs upgrading to current -standards ..-.The normal:pool elevation has been lowered approximately: fifteen- feet. Modifications to the-impoundr-ent will be performed -�_-:_K, to comply with the-- Provisions • of Public Law 94-367 "concerning. dam safety under.--.-.: the jurisdiction of: the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Virginia State-.�':= `�=::==< -=: Water Control Board.. - Wildlife indigenous to the area are primarily small game such as rabbits, .squirrels, and quail and furbearers like mink and muskrat_- There are no known large game animals or endangered species inhabiting the locality- There is no existing information as to the fish species existing in the la"Ke, native or stocked. However, the lake has a good watershed to lake surface area ratio and should prove ideal for fish, management purposes. - Flora of the environment consist primarily of Virginia pine an:d various hard- wood tree species, interspersed with prolific growths of herbaceous and perennial.•- plants in cleared or brushy areas.. _. See attached "Report on Wheatlands Dam" for additional information. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action The dam and a primitive access road have already been constructed. The largest portion of soil and water disturbing activities have occurred during dam construction and land clearing. - The principle feature of the darn repair involves --- construction of concrete intake structure to replace the present damaged metal structure. This will involve excavating a relatively small part of the existing _== dam to this purpose and use of some specialized heavy equipment and vehicles. r' + An anti -seepage collar may be constructed if necessary. If required, the spill- way will also be upgraded. Also, a concession/storage building with a pavilion and comfort station, a boat launching ramp, and permanently stabilized parking area and access road will be constructed near the emergency spillway. Construc- tion of these facilities will involve soil disturbance of a temporary nature and permanent destruction of some vegetation and natural topography. Natural grasses and cover vegetation will be removed and the site landscaped and stabilized. Drainage measures will be provided to handle natural runoff. The removal of cover vegetation and stabilization of the area will account for m:rrcL water drainage to adjacent areas and less absorption or water retention in the affected area. 2 Erosion and sediment control measures as stipulated by the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook will minimize the temporary and permanent damagea- fo- the affected area and the adjacent areas. The wildness of the land in the conces- sion area and nearby will be altered. Most higher animals or wildlife will dis- perse into the surrounding areas. A well water system, sanitary septic system, and electric utility will be developed and used. Traffic control measures such as signs, -fencing, and bumper..posts will be provided. �= The influx of the sporting public will adversely affect the original wild- ness of the area permanently. Air and noise pollution will not be a long-term 'problem at Wheatlands Lake; a short run problem will exist during the construction_ -_ Game• -Commission policy will allow no gasoline powered craft or.;swi.mming at. the lake.by the public.,. The project will have no affect on adjoining land use except to provide an incentive for additional residential -developpeat and only -a moderate beneficial"affect"on the local economy.. Local employment will not be affected_ No archaeologically or historically significant sites or structures in-the.aXea twill be= affected by=the project- Wheatlands .Lake' will be -.managed by the Fish Division of - the Corrnission�of Came and .Inland Fisheries. The concession will be. operated by Fred erick- Couaty or a private concern._-'The'Commission will provide. -for the maintenance of the facility and for trash disposal.- During construction all applicable local or y _ state building, health, and erosion control laws will be complied with. Fishing will be subject to Virginia regulations. As a result of the property not being donated in total, it is anticipated that development of the following facilities will be planned for the future_ Future Development Fishing access area (expanded) (parking area, boat ramp, and fishing pier) $-30,000. Concession/storage building (with pavilion and comfort station) 81,250 .5 mile access road primed and double-sealed---- (to V.D.H.T.-specifications) - '60"000 =- Miscellaneous improvements (well water system, septic system, electric service underground, signs, fencing, and bumper posts) 17,500 $188,750 This will provide sufficient additional time for the Commission of Came and Inland Fisheries to rebuild the dam and spillways and apply -for State Recreational Access Read Funds. It is anticipated that these State funds,plus additional State funds from the Commission of Came and Inland. Fisheries, will be used to complete planned future developments. 3 Mitiga*ing Measures Included in the Proposed Action As previously stated, all local and state codes will be complied with in repairing the dam and constructing the fishing access facility. Erosion and sediment control will be stressed in all phases of work. The fishing access area will be planned and designed to preserve and enhance the natural qualities it the site and.%to balance the necessary cut and file. The buf fer .zone surrounding <:_;;•` :3: the lake will be retained for trails for bank fishing and any encroachment from adjacent landowners will be averted. Most existing large trees will be pre- served when feasible. All disturbed areaswill be permanently stabilized mechan- ically or. vegetatively. Traffic control will provide for orderly vehicular. move--- - meat and parking. Utility lines will be buried beneath the ground -surface_ Barriers will restrict vehicles and*people from certain areas,duch.as adjacent landowners_.._: Overnight camping,. swimming, and picnici.ng are contrary to Game Commission policy and will not be provided for in this area. Revenue from tale concession.. operation will partially offset the loss of tar base due to public - -'.-o1JMership_';::Y.ost important, the opening of Wheatlands Lake- will. benefit they--'� ._ .__4Z � fishing public'by providing a convenient; professionally managed fishing lake .-a region designated as needing one by the,1974 Virginia Outdoors Plan_ - Re a.irin '� the intake structure will allow fish biologists to manage the lake -fishery--. Opening Wheatlands Lake will alleviate angling pressure on other public and vate waters and provide an alternate fishing source for the region__` -. Any Adverse Environment Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided Should theProposedBe Implemented The removal of vegetation, 'alteration of the topography, erosion and sedimenta tion, and loss of resident wildlife account for the unavoidable adverse environ- mental impact of the project, discounting the area previously inundated by the lake or altered by the dam. The actual area of land affected by tine proposed action amounts to 2t acres.. The vegetation removed consists of grasses, small trees and ,brush, while preservation of larger treeswill be stressed._ A minimum of excavation, embankment, and grading will be a major criterion for design. The loss of wildlife will be permanent for most species but temporary for others. A portion of the existing fish population and its habitat will be lost during repair of the dam. The County will lose $858 per year in taxes as a result of public ownership of -.this property• The Relationship Between Local Short -Term -Us -es of ISan's Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Terra Productivityy The long-term productivity of this project is the availability of quality sport fishing by the public as measured by man -days of recreation and numbers of" fish produced per acre of water. Improved habitat and fishery managedientwill _ result-in"a 'long-term increase of recreational fishing in Wheatlands Lake. Public ownership will allow greater utilization for a larger segment of the public at the lake. Improvement of the dam insures downstream safety, Flood control, and good water quality downstream. No families will be resettled or farms lost in the affected area. The affected area has always been marginal in value and use prior to construction of the lake. The increase of vehicular traffic to the lake will result in higher air and noise pollution. However, this pollution will not degrade the environment appreciably. The long-term benefits also include the 4 preservation of this area for future generations as dedicated in accordance with the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. The facility will also be used for - indirect types of recreation, such as ice skating, hiking, bird watching, canoeing, and boating. Any Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented Time -and money have been committed to a feasibility study of the Wheatlands _ r. Lake project. The dam has been built and its construction would have been the major cost -had the Commission built it. The savings in time and money to the State for.*'that purpose will be considerable. Most of the environmental destruc- tion occurred'during construction of the lake by the_private cciricern. The erosion, and sedimentation resulting from this project, while mitigated, will result'in some irreversible losses. The alteration of the wildness-irc the access area will be permanent. Also, the loss of the tax revenues to Frederick County will result, in a ,loss -;of resources- to the County over the long -and short -terms. _ Conversely,.,, :��- should the.,.Game Commission not - implement its plans for Wheatlands Lake,.a- = - `potentially`productive and useful recreational facility would not be available_ _ to the public.' _ Alternatives to the Proposed Action Alternatives include completely abandoning plans -for acquisition and develop— ment of Wheatlands Lake or to acquire and develop the 2roperty on condition that the dam be modified by the present owner. Should the proposed action be abandoned, time and money will have been lost and a potentially. valuable recreational resource remain unavailable to the public. This time and money could have been diverted to other goals. If the lake and property were acquired following'•repai-�ofthe - dam, the acquisition costs may prove too high and/or the workmanship of the repair may prove faulty. Furthermore, the private concern may renege on its offer - at a later date. The Game Commission has investigated other lake sites in .-.Frederick County and its region; however, no other sites with suitable watershed to lake surface area ratios were available at prices the Coumi.ssion could afford. In preparation of this assessment, the following agencies and disciplines -we're contacted:_... .. State Water Control Board Soil Conservation Service Clifford and Associates, Consulting Engineers Soil Consultants,Construction Inspectors Frederick County Commission of Outdoor Recreation Current Landowners Virginia Department of Intergovernmental Affairs Division of Engineering and Buildings Department of Planning and Budget professional Fish Division of the Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries John Kane, Supervising Soil Technician, SCS (retired) Other agencies and organizations included in A-95 review process. 5 `� •:' • �rl �: :.• 'f �/, `�117 {(i ( Y,7� (-ISEUE11ICk Jr�Y <j ti'�•��^1�> /. ' e l S `/ S _ i ( ti.....;,•: n; .l . •ty. • ' l' 1r rr,// .Pilo r,wy.•nP�r •� ' Il �.,. f�I a' -� J`t t •% 1 -,S '�' MT. AIRY r7�► . r• •• 171 11 `'~ ` r•�f` T,11.1•Mr• ' , � IU •, IS •1 C►►. w.t •�Y. o•Irney (9 .rri �w.w,. 176 {aa4) • ' a r� i �:��rr ••' O•u•...•+:aL •• a �'• / •l �i� I,/ J. ar+r. 7 ;IT/t. r%�J. J' L1r.rlw �r'(O \:1 /rr. w - �� .e,4G•w.� •,., yr• /e..•A•. •ltl} f/ / • SII - Il •� ♦ flit r+. f+ a T 1 » / S b , r 1 • f l t \. ) I IS ►'' ti.t' • t7, �� )' r. V.•_� t• •,•sr_W • 7•� ,f tl w;-:••, t-•• •:)> r �� :; � 1"a%lj l•.•l•w• �!i .s \ �� I< W H E ATL AN R /D -xr- 1:! 01" r�..e.\e�/ - W.r..rw. •� T, 1� � , \ f r /r �� Star , af:::^•1 / . a.w rr- LAK V}lINCHESTED.: %; cw wtr.."w Ai 'i:�_ : • (S(Y ,,w._. o.t,I....t,.•:p ., , �� „� a p,,rc•11.Itt. , ! lot v r..,, rT•_..w••+1. , a , - r ; ♦• J.S % K•:.` ,I��•.7 1 •r)1 el. • � a . .,.t •�.•'•rSS IrSti Dn•^>�• i7 Clr/ '�•7• [KA•V )Y I] '•.1 `l ROCKVILL•y� )w' v l • of vl.......r•. • t1^// `S lir r..,l :S�IZ O U �L ANw• �/ V �i •'�e�' • l • mil~ j ro' s • _ •t31. ).lit a ':. r_. �, .���` �+ / Y.•rl_•w � • //a.•►r L.• (C11, is 17T, \r.r;•'.Y ar, r.... h l [j`�/ .• /.� //►"� s rh e, err• L / _ .-a+ r -. �) ' QETHLSO_A u _... 1 SI,1 R R ,J '�_� '- _ve•....ur— w..... H.rnden-air y » •I I .! 11 e° �•n• .M •ddteM+r a s A� ; �w../'�0�. ,'� 'IT' ]J - - y, O:.• /:sue sa)t,u. �' A E' e .- =r -L/ 1iy rr e 17..E area rT. -� r%• %,i•� J< 1 j lr h`r•3 ao. TiVlEVVA• - !`ti, ARU--i( SS i+r)>r7 Lo• \• .rt ! ) . 'r{_ F ,i1, C.+r' • J.r T: G / ROYAL \S i `+".'." •nnam • 15 h- •}T I e rcG1E�.1. ` _ r .• `.' i••w.c t •-%•�>•\ 0 ' L r• ,l • ,rr G•1 / ,,..[ s ►I.w• �: f• tee. 1,, tl7 / a .. ; .i• �( •, �.,.•.•' ) -alo/< tt e• /..•► S IBC �....+C,�URr.H� I •� � 1:• • q WooQ+lack'•♦ .' •!•_{ enra+.c G. Mtr71!aY �`•,c r entr..atee�?�" • lr >-i � • � +T�• ,s _),I.w.....M.rt 1` / bW E N A Hc" r i, a w(e.�w. , �- )\\� PT..... 's=: ' �� MANASSAS_,��.�, f/� N EC"wbu.: ear y , •;% t oanyre.w 2 i �°IS3 • NV.n.s.i. `r•� PARi<✓- l �acr UIER �' f t .V=�..F UO II • a\�• `\ Cj FAX-•: /" a a z: . r r�I /'- , tt -_ 1+. 9•I r.e.. ' MANASSAr:' F A Se. • ♦.• `!. •, Q/>a'.,;J�A.1. r•:1• ,i+✓alll • - •.._ irl rl � 1 :-a.` /, i. ((( � e •�• •wa .:•r'• Cor••rr )'., B•w I �) �- I••Lrr `!•rrw 9^r"• r - rr lony,w.----:�•i7,•a ry1' t`♦ .?r J:'. t'' r r �• , .ra N.r•wf r. ? 0,.'0•w o f , (ylL yC►So`o__f._ it ) n•a w•+r1lw T r ♦ j\'/ �� : IT • I� ♦ !!' •! w '.y ,..or./ •i �) ;njr `� \D•'a ,.,,1t •'1 ~ -S !1•'. W 1,iwytony n' ,Sr ,% �J `'>(. a <a: • •�• 17.. Ai.ew.t. .Tr.• 1$. _, ;i '-ARAPP ANNOCK �'' a :a . ' ... , P 1N E /` I•' o. h` 11 C �.�� • • •..:u '7 C•u•n - <'S\W f tLI A -:A D••. C•w•1'�er'r' • yyooQb•idq.. .Vra•r 1.n:."J1'lr[ }� /J,/ , D.rry.:r• z ., n I S'i > Tt.t Ind •olrnle+.�'R� _Ho^ C. v�M+ ^•^'re•"�_,N x`J� fN•.+ 1Aar4.) _..= �> • •Ss.' l - / f tt •.,I no'1'\ • c. w.nNr- �n,�•.• _ c<s .>tr LW•N� I ?�• /_i�7,Y �`a. t. • r �J •f1•nfytow� O •1 `hl:bl•wR ,n•• r \ \•'•/•,rar /ir •Y r•1�r�• TeL...-.• > •'• s•I • i.. r\ �- ! �. D>I[ )\/�•.rIKO a\` 7. rs. Nr� j v h ) •w►t. ( �i-"jwv • �'.' WepL.R• CUrP•FPER /�--�� ) t.• :y:r•'r)�r'•'A r• n V. fr•� \ la1< -C I j�I tI s j�s \• •- \� ` '��' `T •ei`9te :_.. >IS iH r'A 1V I Ste<,Je9 •'1-?lr: •, • `�♦ Y x r.,'T) K '\w�•�••<�Y:l�QuanYcv ti M••rr a !Ln" 6dt IB.t. �,� (� \ / Bortew ( > i r \ A,w.•.t •,ice:• 'r_• --•.. rc a S, - /•- . ` t�.r • r r`` •_rf�yAV.•T/Or��J' !• \ • ow s.0•✓ � J r ri.•O:J Rae?!r. , Cah'De � oa •Me.r:a.�r t'/o, a• t r`w ' ram•. �:� vJ7•! R ram- / .. 1 YS" •9,.,,4 ,{!';1� � o�_ .rt�/� � "��a,�••: Wren• - u� le new ? 3 Cup• J Go+r:•+ "S" ws..•�( %� -- O'-Q�'.T ,_-�' ,:'�- Sr..• t it �.�,. I to / Iro \ r \\•' �-- .D � pr,Vr. ); .., \ R•r r.: n � � ST �FFQRA -1 4 I5 1RG 1. h Y' SMn•ndoal. 2116 <. ? ]/ o Q J } ! B• u ) r-� • 7 •\ f Q��•n ) ♦ St�No!d C ! L .v O t•r• J r,,,:•.'. V.4.e/ ! U -;: •=i i _ Cam•%. 2I1 Pn \ vyw:errc\t3 IS :' %r •�%r..sl�. (7'_•tl,.Js r ESk)o.� �.j �( _ \> [. '•^w�1R.-. t , trl A Oru•.. jl �/ a / _ I ^ R o d an t 1 • +-. - : cv.. _ �r-� J M••:row= �15j)• ,I D• .a• , . �.�fi.,,.•_�.'::- r Y �a • a , n r1 C•ywr.hrn.r,• Yiad•rw••a :/ t._. •. - fwITO,•ilf• I Br•cw.: • %J.• �,y<f.-• Z./ •'>\, 1,' ��.^ a cer;rye A "�S rr y...►YIr)r'�wey C.r._i r� I _b• .. -•� /� •y locr+t Dd•'.�.TI I�j 7rcn>wuno<a..ai a. al• _ ��J r'Me.:e.•ei• �:/r Fee r. � �''- Nooe •l:' < � ]] a r / '�R•D:OIw locwt G.o.r• I:1 � � G,7 is::-• ;Iy r/ 9 , /''"�`� 1 �*` .'?• 3LIRG_ / I� s,rar<•r..e.ys .a r RED_ERICKS '1 .. •, " .r _+ •i 2 •E'�S♦onrre•ntee•.wrr r �w_��_{C rc.•. �" �� Peew«M ASa C•i oa . + • •. ••nlr l.•N• Mrw•. N•r :<• �rtJ �..• • t G•.•?•�� j •r•'•r •_Yeo.f lley'I,1)TK 1 Sl•w•fQ,j«• ) E •- wo. >W. —II. t'T') �.. ��. _7y(�r 1 -`• a •••'• a V_ / / J M.41iry J•.r!•' TeAQa '-\�a-±� .r -i /• lJ a I71 ..J • vw rh J M.nR_.r T•...n - } . Fes.-. rj)•j �;. Grpnoaa.: G•R:E E 23 <.or•n9e'•'RO'iT_ • •t a,e ..i .ali� ': Tr7.^r ti�rwi•. ll ale <f% _ ..11 C., \• Hx:ew+.a1.'p •en.iwn�+ Ta r J ._ RA ANGE)1 » s7L'V_�- s�,�rr..r.:.� - ♦ • a SoT I a 'i • • �\ \ li ^\ Ton !! 7tJ� '� }i..•..le►>t. :t'1} .� • - 1,•wo.• r a mow=e.•e••••• -\\\ �"� \'•--- ;t�IZ( r A . L:/ •M ry w w B••e••r7 •.l.r"' i• A r-- � iiil s•>n elrr Cre•• 5=•�>. j ./�.li,.,a- y�� \ ,el . ._:._ 3 i,i•.•1a :---i 1! , •,r•.�a. T� • Pa. �� 7 r. .�—.I\` �.w.,or. R; •e •o I > .eews•N, j �s - ,.• \ 10 ff • `\1 =Thy } IhNr �: Gordon)viRe �� • i >•+ -• x r�'•'�Y',w+lr,•.r il�! ;:<"?-�� �1•\� 'f j�'.S 0 �7SYr"VA s.F �L.`l E R � E f r A IWAYNESSORO , + \\ •t7'}-�•et:e,Q _ T- ` f w•rr M fr. ••.�-j rti,•,owl Cam: ,r • ` -�. [S.JSi+ n /":5~ 0. ) •bw. rfGra+o •c' ` 1•►�'ri�.I Gn: •( •ra =i rr .-1 rL `-v'=�: (.• II ]) I', • l• pia^ a..� .L,a / >;iz7l`�•'. •^_\ '[ -57 1^ 1• •��-i •- �.:'. ,y �J_/ , IIr V•r •�( CtOtT. Fo •ram.. .�.\�; Dew•t: f �•�MY• ,_� <' • �r ra I l Olorrsa .w ra _,:,' Ly•,.<, - a �� _�- s 1 rS 0 4IIARLOTTESV{LCc" ,yam •' •'S ..'..'V = � V 0 ``T ti �^•l •t • l N r ' •Lg< a r.r.rwwr / •c `.•7.+.• •0 � 1 S ►o. ?H:' cal:`..1,^�. � c>,•-« \ Dr•-%. •.:1 tsl•).+.. a , •` y..:.w.. StI •.. .. �I • tCRhJ. \\ //7I},4 •� r••l...e•...�1 Sn,,. ... �.•w.. o �_ , � � •:t. �' r f • Cr• C..r ff / � •-1 � \�. • / � 1��1 11• � `c � � '�� f� �l� } - �"' `Ae<Iw •�� 70 r ,\ � e,,w• u /..wc ` // r (l TI�{�wal 1~ �.Si� �A.:± T `l%•"/v-�� 4 r• •� � '�' •r)• G:7t / S, 'S [ nr• T / I 111 tl•1. •..w. ���\ ( �. ;�~ ,S t J - �p •S'1 • �I . yt . ••a,. S zS•� y r<wnrr• .1 /�(.e,e elT.i:J: �S • 1 r•\/' tSS: h T •i�. • 1�� •1 • �a wr•••' T„"i" �c t .r•.R sir • �) ♦F U v ' N N r ii ,lal WA.n.• ` lam. - iMowr�:• :' �,t :. •� , •.. ._. l atl-, > I7 11:1 v' •Jy�� 1. »\l / ljll c• L r > Sa, ::Ir r t .• M: > C O 0 • -n-• .I. 39 dt 5<I+,a. c . o J .• :'.' )••a l+:el..w.t•-. • �� M,( ( tloc•a.�: ••rl,.y Ja `.�.:'.-:• :"��:°�.\�• -l...w:w } = �_\ i •r h-L.s.p.. N 0 s T' ,2 p A• V Jt 1 �t� %l •J�cl,.l+oaw N•-•N� ,a >'•• .1i .I,� �_�..• ,It,...• ) ;��• •� • ) ti.;• �•'�c11 \_ ���a .r..r•.►Y-s ^�_ Y ` > ..��.� •/' �' y! 1'cr�'�\�...,,,.e.,.r-...r �. .0 r l`iT r/ C -, } n FF • + ..t .`\. 4•w!•� � ',1•• ,;ISSI- �, ~'Arvm,.i:. •'t r91 •r-/�`�t+ii �. 1 �`,* I�T71 tt.�-�� Lill 1�� a.;1 •-u < • � • t'/... •••'9'•" itill' . J ' > S `1'. r\ r.erS • \ <'3 a•+� l a +. 1 t0 J r 1 f ..e •. ( \ -•C. `' t S 1 Itr1 '� r Y.•L' ,� w •. ., :/:' .,.yw hI• •;''• of• 'iIJI cr,r.rr..r�J' .,`- `.• 4♦ / (1 ) t t 1... _••-{" t. ..` (`_�, Ott , . 1>,., . �," , 7\l • I I::11> (+ t(1•� I A T .$Ill-: r �• )< ►-�`� O U G 1(`1 N C•\ FI• rI •M �1(\��`>, l--�a ♦ \[ttCHM(�NU • c• may- / ,\`� ••1 \ - ��•+�. .. •... f... .. l \ V "•V' 'J r , •rT w Pen Nt +rJ ►� r �+�+ - �_ s•.r-�.. Yt ;l ram% �l� a.� r-. ♦ i.�leJ �. ��1 `.'i ! .1 c....L.�..� p'1 ram. j!_ ��%•. �- t.►i}/ V ./ ' � J � 1. 1 0 / ` )7TS / i• �!•� art �•. . rl t�j+K-, ]^7 , ''-'�� 50 Zi 37 ss YA 609 62. ,yet ••a'1 -.. _ I `T — J t •all a 1i5 sC G� •1 ) .• 7� _ )q� � bit h / � . . \J . I wu.ChESiER •7 ` � �'.GS./~?'� � .%;a,,j Otst —♦ , .� • ��-(j \/ � � {'• {I c,.«../ .� " , wit'- - -:=i S^I' � •4 z .• _ SO aye T/ — — Ste - 91) /�r,�i'I I�'•f�'�`2L�t� -. �` '-a �' a �•: b•r '_ 7—f=�`'Y♦%'�'��_'�"••) ;.� r)� ' i ' a.rl .w• ^7 / �iLO/% 7 i s+ .. d tit v., o ; f I7 R ST C�• ,,:-:_.. a• 3 j TO RTLS!O O a••'� .o QS .q •,rr...: �• / bat Mgr, a{. s .I 3 77 4 !� \ G ` o '\t/ i t '•e � � dad ' II O v / t i cz a 19 6r5 r a• tlp 5.40 WHEATLAN DS LAKE 1 / 'Jt� f U li W _4re4$Xich TInuntu Repartment of Planning arlbr Q[a}sm�n PLANNING DIRECTOR DOROTHEA L. STEFEN ZONING ADMINISTRATOR July 3, 1979 Mr. Jerry Fause Virginia Commission of Game & Inland Fisheries 4010 West Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 22320 Dear Mr. Fause: P. O. Box 601 9 Coulrr SOUARK WINCHESTER. Vlarssml& 2260? In belated response to your query regarding your proposed-aurchase of the lake at Wheatlands, we have attached a copy of the applicable Zoning regulations for R-5, Residential Recreational Community District_ Your attention is directed to Sec. 21-85. Open -Space (a), the last sentence of which makes it quite clear that the lake can only be conveyed to a non-profit corporate owner or association of the. individual owners in the development. Sincerely, Dorothea L. Stefen, Zoning +administrator DLS:bjs CC: Mr. J. O. Renalds, County Administrator 703/652-4532 A ,§ 21-86 Frederick County Code § �22-88 maintain said common open space in a reasonable condition, the county may continue to maintain said common space during the next succeedingyear andbe: subject to a similar hearing and determination in each year thereafter-_ The decision of the county in any such case shall constitute a final adm3rtistr.ative decision subject to appeal for judicial review. (c) The cost of such maintenance by the county shaMba assessed rat- ably against the properties within -the residential recreational comnvanit_* and _ shall become a tax lien.me on said properties. The county, at the- of entering.- upon said common open space for the purpose of maintenance, shall Me a notice - of such lien in the office of the county clerk upon the properties affected by such lien within the planned unit development. r Sec.' 2L 86:-?!`Streets-t.androad6=- (a) :..Streets and roads within the developed area shall effecticreiy,serve all subdivided residential lots and all other facilities therein and shall r!"cited for public use and accepted by the Virginia DepartmentofHigh`�ays, meet- ,_ "the requirement of the county (b) 'Private streets;and��oad�s� which shall also effectively serve aiL=- subdivided. residential lots and other facilities in the area are perrni.tted - Wheii private streets and roads are used the county shall not be bound iruz a,-tg way to — provide public services to the recreational communitg and suciL stree is as aze= indicated on the recorded plats-sha�11 recite the,-fact;theyar o dect`-ecf. ., ...-, general..publlc�usek- and such private roads and streets shall not be require�a_ meet state or county requirements.. --- - (c) All dedicated public streets shown'on the final -plan shall zaeet-alt: requirements of the Virginia Department of Highways Standards_ Be:bore-atp, . proval of any -final plan, the resident engineer shall so certify: _ See. 21-87^. Cul-de-sacs _ _.. Generally, minor terminal streets (cul-de-sacs) are designed tohaveone_ end permanently closed. Each ,cul-de-sac must be terminated -by, an adequatq- turn-around . Sec. 21-88. . Off-street parking-: S• !�/ L - .r._�. The off-street parking requirements as stipulated in article II shall apply - except there shall be no requirements for off-street parking for single Earthy_ residential use. 228 .�rE�tEYtt�i �t.II1tIItU Pryartment of 191anning anbr PEheEapment H. RONALD BERG PLANNING DIR[CTOR P. O. BOX 601 DOROTHEA L. STEREN 9 COURT SQUARK Wi"cmESTSR. VIRGtNiA 2260t ZONING ADMINISTRATOR July 17, 1979 Mr. Jerry Fouse Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 West Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23230 1 Dear Mr. Fouse: We need to be sure you received our letter dated July 3, 1979, concerning the effect of Section 21-85 of the Zoning Ordinance of Frederick County on your proposed purchase of the lake at Wheatlands. The code seems to make it clear that you cannot legally purchase the lake because it states that such open spacecommon area. can be conveyed only to an association of the individual o*rsners in the development. Please confirm your understanding of this_ Yours very truly, Dorothea L. Ste en, Zoning Administrator DLS:bjs cc: J. O. Renalds, III, County administrator 703/ 662-4532 pit= • �- 7 • wh,eafl,and.s. LakeTOrchase-Tabled; Violate County Zo'ing Ordinance By Charlotte Eller The Frederick C.ounty Planning Commission unanimously decided Wednesday to table action on a ,request for county ap- proval of an application:by the Commission on Outdoor Recreation for over $500,000 in federal funds'to purchase the W heatlands fishing lake. The federal funds, which would be nearly matched,by, state funds, would then 'be, turned over to the Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries for its ac- quisition of the 130=acre lake; and an additional 60 acres . from the developers of the planned mammoth recrea- tional subdivision, located at the intersection of U:S. 522 and U.S. 340, southeast of Winchester. In deciding to delay con- sideration of the request for county approval of the grant application, the planning commission asked the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission, which must also approve all applica- tions for federal funds for use within its boundaries, to delay action on the applica tion. The county planning com- mission voted to inform all those governmental agencies involved in the', possible acquisition of the recreational fishing lake by the state, that such a purchase by the Commis- sion on Game and Inland Fisheries may be in viola- tion of the county zoning or- dinance, which provides that only an association of landowners in the develop- ment, ..zoned for-recrea- tional-residential use, . can own the lake. . ' ",I am suggesting that the state or the federal govern- ment can't legally buy it under our zoning ordi- nance," said Interim Coun- ty Planner- Dor'othea Steffen, who brought the issue to the commission's attention. `.`If-, the . state bought it, it could be in violation of the zoning ordi- nance." Not only does the acquisi- tion by. the state commis- sion appear to be prohibited under terms of the zoning ordinance, but the action would not follow guidelines of the county's comprehen- sive plan. Ms. Stefen said. .The county planners decided to ask the county tax assessors to their next meeting to discuss the effect that particular zoning categories may have on the value of county property now being reassessed. That reassessment will go into effect as the basis for figur ing a 100 percent tax rate.in 1981. That invitation followed a discussion with Commis- sioner of Revenue Esten 0. ents Turn Troup Hcme service if they had to stay at, when reminded that the Timber Ridge. He pointed Virginia Freedom of Infor- ! out that the communities to motion Act prohibited such Rudolph Jr., ,who said that during the present reassess- ment, for the first time, the appraisers will have to put the classification and the zoning category for each tract of land "on the books." "All -this has to be shown. now," Rudolph said, adding that citizens are expected to be taxed according to the zoning category, as well as on -other considerations, under current state law. Noting that this wasn't done in the last reassess- ment, Rudolph said he was not sure yet just how much bearing the zonin.g classification will have on the final tax rate imposed,. but. that the Board of Assessors will have to deter- mine the value of the higher density classifications. Rudolph said that this is the time to make correc- tions in' zoning classifica- tions. He saidthat some i people were, n all likeli- hood, rezoned who "didn't want it and never will want it." He suggested an idea that the commission had touched on momentarily, that con- sideration be given to "down -zoning" tracts of land affected in such ins- tances when requests are made on a voluntary basis, by citizens. The, appraisers started work the first of July, Rudolph said, and are cur- rently at work on agricultural areas. Roy Parks of Environ mental Interface Ltd., of Charlottesville, was told by Commission Chairman Langdon Gordon that the commission was'"not ready to say no" to his proposal for a more simplified ver- Zeropack Break -In tnvestiga.ted Winchester p o l i c e building were ransacked Wednesday were investigat a,nd several vending former R.A. farm, he said. Commission Frank. Brumbac was concerned proximity of th development to .nearby -orchards. Several con members voice about the effec development wo traffic congestio would empty o north of Winche same spot .as tr the.nearby Gilpi Park, at Va. 661. Herbert L. Sl department rep to the commissi both central sewer should be,. for the subdiv Parks said that "no way the . ec that would work. Ms. Stefen s order to be terry ned Unit Develo proposal would h central water an sion of a Planned United Development. "Butt we're not ready to say yes to it by any. means," he said, adding that the commission needed "time to think about it." Suggesting that Parks, who represented developers Robert Solenberger and George Yeakley, "come back later,". Gordon said that the plans to put 88 to 90 units in neighborhood clusters on 205 acres ap- peared to be "in conflict with the comprehensive land use plan." Parks noted that the. - tract, lying on Va. 663 near Welltown Acres, is divided into two zoning classifica- tions. A total of 65 acres lies in residential, R-3, zoning, while the remainder. in agricultural, he said. Existing farmlands and orchards 'surround the site, he said, and developers pro- posed to -maintain the "rural quality that exists there" by "nestling the houses in the woods," at the end of dead-end streets Brumback p coming off state -maintained that such faciliti roads that cross through the required of the development "where _ they and that to ought to be," rather than on different tours A grid system. for this tract Pointing out that the risk reversing development isn't a large cycle of planni Planned United Develop- area." ment; Parks said that "this i land can't be farmed. It is In other actin going to be - developed. mission recom .There is no question about proval of the sull that. This is better than cut- two 2-1/2-acre to ting it up into three and five- for . Ed Rhode acre parcels, he said. mended appro A third of the acreage rezoning of near Would be left "green" as of land on U.S. part of, efforts to maintain Winchester so t the rural character of the L. Miller can 41 area, he explained. the land display area f in question is part of the sales busines mended appr above -ground an undergr-ju tank for James to sue for his tr� •ness east of Ste 'ease Tab -led; May Ordinance at sion of a Planned United' s- Development. "But we're ie not ready to say yes to it by it any means," he said, to adding that the commission h needed "time to think about " it." n Suggesting that Parks, g who represented developers o Robert Solenberger and e George Yeakley, "come s back later," Gordon said that the plans to put 88 to 90 units in neighborhood t clusters on 205 acres ap- peared to be "in conflict s with the comprehensive land use plan." Ir Parks noted that the 1 tract, lying on Va. 663 near Welltown Acres, is divided f into two zoning classifica- tions. A total of 65 acres lies in residential, R-3, zoning, while the remainder in agricultural, he said. Existing farmlands and orchards 'surround the site, he said, and developers pro- posed to -maintain the "rural quality that exists there" by "nestling the houses in the woods," at the end of dead-end streets coming off state -maintained roads that cross through the development "where they ought to be," rather than on a grid system. Pointing out that the development isn't a large Planned United Develop- ment; Parks said that "this land Gan't be farmed. It is going to be developed. There is no question about that. This is better than cut- ting it up into three and five - acre parcels, he said. A third of the acreage would be left "green" as part of efforts to maintain the rural character of the area, he explained. the land in question is part of the -In Investigated building former R.A. Campbell farm, he said: . . Commission Member Frank. Brumback, said he was concerned about the proximity of the proposed development to numerous nearby orchards. Several commission' members voiced concern about the effect that,the development.would have on traffic congestion, since it would empty onto U.S. 11 north of Winchester at the same spot .as traffic from the nearby'Gilpin Industrial Park, at Va. 661. Herbert L. Slu der, health department representative to the commission, said that both "central water and sewer should be'invesigated for the subdivision, but Parks said that there was "no way the econonics of that would work." Ms. Stefen said that in order to be termed a Plan- ned Unit Development, the proposal would have to have central water and sewer. Brumback pointed out that such facilities had been required of the Gilpin tract and that to permit a different course of action for this tract would be to risk reversing "the whole cycle of planning in this area. In other action, the com- mission recommended ap- proval of the subdivision of two 2-1/2-acre lots on Va. 681 for,Ed Rhodes; recom- mended approval for the rezoning of nearly one acre of land on U.S. 522 south of Winchester so that George L. Miller can explain the display area for his car sales business; recom- nended approval of'an ibove-ground rather than. in underground storage ank, for James L. Bowman o sue for his truckina.busi- i • Northern Virginia Daily, Friday, August 3, 1979 9 STEVEN E. LONG Taxpayers Association 'Outraged' At Wheatlands Purchase Attempt, By Charlotte J. Eller The executive board of the Frederick County Tax- payers Association said it is "outraged" at the actions of two state officials- over the attempted state acquisition of the 130-acre Wheatlands fishing lake and 60 acres surrounding the lake. In an official resolution passed by the board Thurs- day, the Association was highly critical of J.W. Engle Jr., chief of the lands and engineering division of the Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, and of Jerry Fause, land ac- quisition officer for the same Commission. ig Vows Spoken groom's parents, Mr. an Mrs. Samuel Davis reside a 1386 Hawthorne, Ypsilanti M ich. The couple repeated their vows after the Rev. Harry J. Patterson and the Rev. Herbert A ford. Double ring pledges were exchanged. A program of wedding music was played by Miss Frances Richard, organist. Given in marriage by her Inharmed �cident daughters,. T:-acey and Teresa, an9 a 17-year-old passenger, George Nethers Jr., all complained of minor injuries, according to Trooper E.E. Foltz. Around the same time, a woman dr'.ver who fell asleep at the wheel escaped injury when her southbound car struck a utility nrdp non [he weighing scales on In- terstate 81, j-ist north of the ;dales. About $560 damage was done to her car, accord- ng to Trooper J.D. Zirkle. Atkins Keynotes Harnfest Reginald D. Atkins, inter- erence officEr for the Na- ional Radio Astronomy Gb- ervatory, Green Bank, V.Va., will be the featured peaker at the banquet held aturday night as part of his weekend's annual Hamfesl" in Winchester. The weekend -long "Ham- ?st," being held for the 29th onseculive year, is spon- ored by the Shenandoah alley Amateur Radio Club le. According to Richard E. d father, the bride wore a tra. t ditional style gown of white satin with a satin organza overlay. Double edged French imported lace decorated the dress, made by the bride's grandmother, Mrs. Arlie Bailey Sr. of Front Royal. Her fingertip veil, edged in lace, fell from a headpiece fashioned of silk daisies. Blue and white daisies cascaded in her bri- dal bouquet. Ms. Ruth Sonner, aunt of the bride, was matron of honor. She wore an aqua blue dotted swiss gown com- plemented with a white pic- ture hat and bouquet of blue and white daisies. Bridesmaids were Miss Kristine Beineman of Arlington and Miss Charlene Loy of Route 4, Winchester. White picture hats and bouquets of blue and white daisies comple- mented their medium blue dotted swiss gowns. Vicki Payne of Front Royal, cousin of the bride was flower girl. %ial k VT UMiie of Wayne, Mich. served as best man. Ushers were Archie D. Bailey III and Donald A. Bailey, both of Front Royal. Paul Barrett of Mountain Falls Route was ring bearer. A reception was held in the social hall of the church following the ceremony. Following a wedding trip to Virginia Beach, the cou- ple will reside in Winchester. Mrs. Long is a graduate of James Wood High School and is employed by the Fre- derick County Extension Of- fice. Mr. Long is a graduate of Ypsilanti High School, Yp- silanti. Mich., and is employed by Guy Clatter - buck Trucking of Front Royal. Dower Outage, The Frederick Coun Planning Commission vot unanimously Wednesday table action on a request f county approval of an a plication by the Virgin Commission on Outdo Recreation for over $500,0 in federal funds to purcha the Wheatlands fishing lak The federal funds, whic would be nearly matched b state funds from the Co mission on Outdoor Recre tion, would then be turne over to the Commission o Game and Inland Fisherie for its acquisition of the lak in the mammoth 1,100-acre recreational subdivisio► under development by Fred Glaize III and James L. Bowman. The tract lies near the in- tersection of U.S. 522 and U.S. 340, just south of Dou- ble Toll Gate and southeast of Winchester. In deciding to delay con- sideration of the request for county approval of the grant application, the county planning commission asked the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission, which must also approve all ap- plications for federal funds for use within its boundaries to delay action on the ap- Coleman To Address Frederick Fair Virginia Attorney General J. Marshall Cole- man will give the opening address Monday night at the Frederick County Youth Fair at 7:30 p.m. Coleman, a Staunton na- tive, was elected attorney general in 1977. A Repub- lican. Coleman rlpfen-tea in_ cupibent Frank Nolen, in the state 24th Senatorial District race in 1975. In 1971 Coleman began the first of two terms in the Virginia House of Deleg- a tes. U.S. Senator John W. Warner is expected to visit the fair on Thursday night after he attends the annual Farm Bureau summer pic- nic. Also participating in opening night ceremonies at the fair will be Brenda McIntire, a Future Home- makers of American mem- ber who was selected to par- ticipate by the fair commit- tee to representative local Youth. The opening ceremonies precede the Miss Frederick County Youth Fair c;,ntest in which 14 girls are com- peting for the title. tY plication. ed The county commission to also decided to inform- all or governmental agencies in- p- volved with the project that is the possible acquisition of or the lake by the state could 00- be a violation of the county se zoning ordinance. e. The tract was rezoned h R-5, for recreational-resi- Y dential use, after considera- ble public controversy, a several years ago. Under d the R-5 designation, Interim f County Planner Dorothea s Stefen told the planning e commission Wednesday e that purchase of the lake and surrounding land by the state commission may be a violation of the county zon- ing ordinance, which states that only lot -owners could own the lake. The action would also not be in accord with guidelines of the coun- ty's comprehensive land use plan, she said. In a statement released by the board of the Taxpayers, Association, the group said . it is outraged that "two highly paid state bureaucrats, J.W. Engle, Jr... and Jerry Fause,". would be part of what the Association called ''a million -dollar boondoggle." The Association chaVed that if the two men were "earning their salaries," they would know that there are "20 better lake sites in Frederick County. And they would know that the Wheat - lands lake is in the.middle of a giant R-5 zoned subdivi- sion where 3,000 quarter - acre lots can be sold." The Association state- ment called a 50-foot wide buffer separation to be ac- quired with the lake, "a laugh," and said that the ap- proval of this acquisition by both the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Commission on Out- uoor Recreation "shows the need for voters' rights of in- itiative, referendum and. recall in Virginia." Initial announcement of a grant from the Commission on Outdoor Recreation to the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries for ac- quisition of the lake was made public on May 30. But on June 5, Engle said that the announcement only dealt with "preliminary' stages of the planned purchase. He stressed that no final agreement had been reached nor had any con- tract yet been signed with the two developers. An obviously disturbed Engle said Frederick Coun- ty was a high priority area on the Commission's list for additional fishing waters and that the Commission had been trying to acquire the lake since the ?arly t o 171%- AtKII16 Ceynole lamfest Regina'10 D. Atkins, inter- rence t,ffic( r for the Na- )nal Radio Astronomy Ob- �rvator_; , Green Bank, .Va., will be the featured ,eaker at the banquet held iturday night as part of ii:; weekend's annual i:an►fest" in Winchester. The weekend -long "Ham- -st," being held for the 29th )nsecutive year, is spon- rred by the Shenandoah alley Amateur Radio Club ic. According to Richard E. Dick" Rush, chairman of he Saturday night banquet, Akins will speak on "The iuiet Zone.' Prior to joining th- Obser- Fitory staff, Atkins served n the U.S. Navy in �ecironics, worked for eras Instruments Inc., and erved with the Bendix ,ield Engineering Corpora- ln in the Manned Space ight Network and at the loddari' Space Flight enter. GGiving Hie "ham" radio $erator's point of view on 'The Quiet Zone" at the pnquet will be Darrell 'inger, a "ham" operator imself, who is a ,larksburg, W.Va., at- jrney. :hThe banquet, to be held in e Pagoda Room of Duff's ebe'. Restaurant, will gin with a social hour at 6 m. and dinner at 7 p.m. On Sunday, the "Ham st" activities will move to e Clarke County Ruritan iirgrounds, on Va. 7, just st of Berryville, for an I -day exhibit, exchange, d chicken barbecue din - Ham radio operators om throughout a wide ea are expected to be on ind for the event, where a imber of prizes will be warded and a non-com- iercial display of arts, !afts and games is plan- ucal, A reception was held in the social hall of t�hurch following the cere. y• Following a wed iiig trip to Virginia Beach, the cou- ple will reside in Winchester. Mrs. Long is a graduate of James Wood High School and is employed by the Fre- derick County Extension Of- fice. Mr. Long is a graduate of Ypsilanti High School, Yp- silanti, Mich., and is employed by Guy Clatter - buck Trucking of Front Royal. Breakfast will be served the grounds, which open 7 a.m. The public is invited to at- nd. Those wishing more oi-mation may write the enandoah Valley nateur Radio Club at P.O. bx 139, Winchester, Va., ;601, or may call Dick ash at 703-662-7968. Power Outage, Accident Reported A power outage left parts of eastern Winchester in darkness Thursday night while a traffic accident sent several persons to the hospi- tal City police reported that the power outage occurred around 11:15 p.m. in the area of Allen Drive, Orchard Avenue and Woodstock Lane. The cause of the outage had not yet been determined late Thurs- day night. About the same time, the Winchester Volunteer Rescue Squad and State Police were called to a traffic accident on Va. 646 just off U.S. 522, south of Winchester. Quarterly Gains At Heritage U.S, Senator John w. Warner is expected to visit the fair or, Thursday night after lie attends the annual Farm Bureau surorner pic- nic. Also participating in opening night ceremonies at the fair will be Brenda McIntire, a Future Home- makers of American mem- ber who was selected to par- ticipate by the fair commit- tee to representative local youth. The opening ceremonies precede the Miss Frederick County Youth Fair contest in which 14 girls are com- peting for the title. Heritage Financial Corp. has reported* unauddited conslidated net earnings of $415,948 or 22 cents per share for the second quarter, compared with $397,024 or 21 cents per share for the same period a year ago. The company, which has an office in Winchester, also announced that an agree- ment and plan of exchange between Heritage and Mount Vernon Savings and Loan Association of Alex- andria has been extended by the boards of directors of the corporations. The original plan calls for completion of the transac- tion by June 30 but this has been extended until Sept. 30. Further extensions may be necessary, according to a spokesman. and Inland Fisheries for ac- quis► � 'i of the lake was ma oblic on May 30. Burn June 5, Engle said that the announcement only dealt with "preliminary' stages of the planned purchase. He stressed that no final agreement had been reached nor had any con- tract yet been signed with the two devewpers. An obviously disturbed Engle said Frederick Coun- ty was a high priority area on the Commission's list for additional fishing waters and that the Commission had been trying to acquire the lake since the early 1970s. Stephens City Town Hall To Be Dedicated By Deborah Brumback Dedication ceremonies for the new Stephens City Town Hall are scheduled for Aug. 26 from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. at the town hall. Stephens City Mayor Lynn Comer said at a work session of the Town Council Wednesday night that Rep. J. Kenneth Robinson would be invited to present the dedication address. Also.during the work ses- sion Chuck Maddox of the consulting engineering firm of G.W. Clifford Associates Inc. explained the status of the Stephens City and Stephens Run treatment facilities. Maddox said a study of the two facilities was com- missioned in 1975. Since that time the plan for the next 20 years, which his firm pre- sented, has been revised and updated to meet new state standards, increases in populations and inflation. Maddox recommended what he termed an innova- tive technology that would use a screening method in- stead of chemicals to treat waste. He said the cost would be $740,000, which is an increase of $190,000 for the original plan. But Maddox said the operational cost of the screening method would save money. The engineer pointed out that his report was at odds with the size recommended by the State Water Control Board, which recommends a .35 million -gallon -per -day facility. Maddox said that by considering present use and future population in- crease a .54 million -gallon - per -day facility was necess- ary. He told the council that even if the State Water Con- trol Board and the Environ- mental Protection Agency stood firm on their recom- mendation and granted only the amount of money for the smaller facility, the addi- tional cost to the town would be approximately $45,000 for the larger gallon -per - day capacity. Maddox explained that the updating of the Stephens Run and Stephens City facilities will most likely be split from the plans for the regional treatment facility for Frederick County and Winchester. The separation would allow for work on the two Stephens City area facilities to proceed and to perhaps be in operation by 1981. Town Manager Bruce Edens explained that the Stephens City facility is now owned by the town and the Stephens Run facility by the Frederick County Sanita- tion Authority. The plan calls to combine the two facilities, which are separated by only a short distance into one facility managed by one operating authority. for a Quality Community '. O. Box 2558, Winchester, VA 22601 0 DEC 2 7 December 19, 1989 Director, EPA Region 3 6th & Walnut Streets Philadelphia, PA 19106 Dear Sir, RE: Wheatlands "high priority" state fishing lake in Frederick County, Virginia We are concerned about the quality of water in this 121 acre lake and the Crooked Run wet -weather stream which runs 7.5 miles from this lake to the Shenandoah River. The Wheatlands 1800 quarter -acre -lot subdivision is now being planned to surround this lake, with lots separated from the lake by a fifty -foot wide buffer strip. This would be a modern urban subdivision (not a "retirement/vacation" community) whose homeowners can be expected to tend their lawns, etc. with herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers. In this steep terrain surface runoff will quickly flow into the lake. There it will join runoff and effluent being discharged from the old 111-unit Sandy's mobile home park a half -mile upstream. Several farms and about 71 houses also exist in this lake's 1970-acre watershed. EPA has reported that sewage treatment facilities across the nation fail to meet "clean water" standards most of the time. The runoff from Wheatlands 1800 homes added to the existing effluent and runoff threatens public use of the lake in which $.2 million of our state taxes and $.5 million of our federal taxes (from NPS) have been invested, with another $.5 million requested. Sewage from Wheatlands' 1800 homes is proposed to be treated in an oxidation ditch (presently approved by the Va. State Water Control Board for .25 mgd) behind the dam. Discharge would be into Crooked Run where it consists of 1000 gpd of dam seepage water (except in flood condition). At the 450 gpd/household sewage treatment volume now required by our health department, the 1800 homes planned should require a .81 mgd treatment facility, and Crooked Run would be 99.9% effluent most of the time (at .25 mgd the stream would be only 99.6% effluent). In light of these threats to our public investment and to property owners downstream, we ask for a complete Statement of the projected 1800-home development's Environmental Impact on this lake and Crooked Run. Claudia A. Bean, president 311 A • Izaak Walton League Winchester Chapter P. O. Box 2954 Winchester, Virginia of America 22601 89 18 December 1989 Frederick County Planning Commission 9 Court Square Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Wheatlands Master Plan Submittal Gentlemen: As a result of the 15 Nov 89 Planning Commission meeting, and a 16 Nov 89 meeting of our organization, I would like to offer the following comments regarding the Master Plan as submitted. It appears the project may have gone too far to legally stop, so the Izaak Walton League is trying to create a more usable facility for the sportsmen of the State of Virgina who are the intended users of the lake and park. (1) Add public parking areas at several accessible areas around the lake. Since the majority of fishermen do not own boats, a seven mile shoreline with only one access point is totally unacceptable. These areas can be as austere as an improved parking area for approximately 30 cars (approximately 10,000 SF), a small picnic area, and a cleared easement for walking to the 50 foot state property line. Boat launching would not be anticipated at these areas, just bank fishing. The enclosed marked up site plan shows six recommended sites. Final selection should be made by a more detailed study of the topography and bank conditions for accessibility. We have been told that streets will be public so there will be no restrictions to public access to these parking areas. (2) Request the open space that is adjacent to the 50 foot state property be maintained at a minimum of 50 feet. This would provide 100 feet of undisturbed vegetation buffer strip which more closely meets Best Management Practice (BMP's) recommendations. EPA shows between 66 and 99 feet. This open space adjacent to state property should be left in natural vegetation with no improvements allowed such as bike trails or tot lots. Ask for written guarantee of this. There is an apparent misunderstanding between "open" space and "undisturbed" space. (3) During your 15 Nov 89 meeting, several commission members stated the homeowners would have no more rights for use of the lake and state land than the public has. This should be stated in writing and in deed restrictions for lots adjoining state property, that landowners shall not be allowed to use the 50 foot state property for storage, docks, overnight tying of boats, or transporting boats across this land or cutting any vegetation. Access for boats for landowners shall be limited to those required for public. I can visualize all landowners facing the lake as treating the lakefront land as "theirs". Agreement should be obtained that State may fence the property line if required. See enclosed site plan for recreation amenity #1. Developer is proposing a gazebo and a fishing pier on state property. This cannot be allowed. This is the exact free use of State land by private owners referred to above. (4) Developer shall refrain from referring to the lake and park when listing ammenities and open space "they" are providing. This is done at least six times in the submittal. All this does is make it sound like the developer is providing the ammenities, when in fact the lake and park is not theirs to offer. (5) Change reference to "easement" shown on site plan in the acreage calculations. The 50 foot Game Commission tract referred to is land owned, not an easement granted by the developer. (6) Need to see what proposed restrictions are on tree cutting. Report states "wooded nature" shall be preserved in the open space. What are requirements on individual developed lots for clearing. We would like to see strong restrictions on tree cutting in both open space and private lots. The wooded nature surrounding lake must be preserved. (7) The area growth trends portion of the master plan references "favorable infrastructure patterns". The wording of this statement seems meaningless, especially when you consider the water, sewer, schools, police, rescue, and roads in Frederick County, all of which are strained, not favorable. (8) Developer's reference to high income levels in area does nothing for making project more acceptable, only telling us where his priorities are. (9) The site plan shows the area for the sewage plant and the back slope of the dam as open space. This should not be allowed in calculations. This is an area that cannot be used for any public or recreational purposes. (10) Verify the 15 acres set aside for school use, meets recommended state size standards for the particular type school planned (High, Middle, Elementary). i r (11) Are pools, tennis courts, bike trails, etc. allowed in definition of open space? If these are built, it is no longer open. (12) There is little reference to errosion control. Due to the slopes around the lake, there needs to be a written requirement for control of runoff from individual lots during construction, as well as during road, sewer, and water construction. (13) We have serious concerns about the discharge into Crooked Run from the sewage plant. Although the Water Control Board has approved design, something is wrong with policy that allows 90-95% of the stream flow to be effluent. (14) The Master Plan Summary makes statements such as a "clear need for new housing, area residents desire for growth, filling the desires of the community". I wish to refer to the 3300 plus area citizens who have signed a petitioin against this project as a more accurate summary. Thank you for considering our recommendations, and listening to our concerns. We sincerely hope you will use these recommendations in making firm, sound decisions by your office prior to the January commission meeting. Enclosure CF: Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries Sincerely, James H. Madden Winchester Chapter Izaak Walton League 0 E nEC 1 8 1989 f COMMONWEALTH ®f VI]E Q Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 WEST BROAD STREET BOX 11104 RICHMOND, VA 23230 1-800-252-7717 (V/T DD) (804) 367-1000 (V/TDD) December 13, 1989 Mr. James H. Madden Izaak Walton League Winchester Chapter P.O. Box 2954 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Proposed Wheatlands Development Frederick County Dear Mr. Madden: In reviewing the minutes of the November 15, 1989 meeting of the Frederick County Planning Commission, I noted the following statement attributed to you on page number seven (7): '...the Izaak Walton League does not approve of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries' acceptance of the Wheatlands Project...' I realiza that this may be a vase of misquote or perhaps over generalization of your comments. However, I thought it was important that we communicate with you to provide further clarification related to our position. We had the opportunity to review the Preliminary Master Development Plan proposed by the InterGate Company, Inc. Our comments and concerns regarding this proposal were submitted to the Frederick County on November 9, 1989. A copy of that communication is attached for your information. These comments reaffirm our commitment to protecting the water quality, fisheries resources and the public use of the lake. Equal Opportunity Employment, Programs and Facilities In Page 2 As I advised you earlier, the regulation of the development and the population density remains outside the jurisdiction of this Agency. As such, we do not accept or reject the proposed development. However, as a trustee of an adjoining public lake and as the public agency charged with the responsibility of protecting and promoting the wildlife and outdoor recreation in the Commonwealth, we are concerned about the potential negative impact of the proposed development on the lake, and we intend to work diligently to mitigate any and all such concerns. I trust that this communication will help substantiate our position regarding the subject matter. We are very appreciative of the continued cooperation and the support of the Izaak Walton League to accomplish our common goals and objectives. If we can be of any service to you please do not hesitate to contact us. Best wishes to you and yours for the Holidays. ncerely, James Remington Director Attachment JAR/dc cc. 'Mr. Eli Jones, Jr., Chairman, DGIF Board Mr. Lewis M. Costello, Member, DGIF Board ,/Mr. Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director, Dept. of Planning and Development, Frederick County 1 IF COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 COMMISSIONER (703) 984-4133 December 12, 1989 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIDENT ENGINEER Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Vice President Ref.: Wheatlands/ C/O G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Lake Frederick Development 20 South Cameron Street P. 0. Box 2104 Winchester, VA 22601. Dear Chuck: Attached are comments relative to the Traffic Impact Study you furnished previously. Before additional recommendations can be analysed, we will need the areas listed addressed. Please let us know if you have any questions. WHB/sl attach. xc: Mr. Robert L. Moore Mr. J. B. Diamond Mr. D. E. Ripley Mr. R. B. Childress Mr. Robert Watkins / /3 v William H. Bushman, P.E. Resident Engineer TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY "1 0 0 0 XV -,&q� VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO Mr. D. E. Ripley Staunton, Virginia FROM J. B. Diamond December 8, 1989 SUBJECT: Traffic Impact Study Rte. 340/522/277 Wheatlands - Clarke, Frederick & Warren Co. The traffic impact study provided by the developer has been reviewed by the Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering Divisions and we believe it would be appropriate to respond to the developer and include the following comments: 1) Provide site plan for entire development. The master site plan originally submitted does not agree with traffic impact study or vice versa. 2) Establish a "build -out" year to reflect completion of entire development. 3) Forecast traffic volumes and perform capacity analysis on existing roadway network for the "build -out" year with and without site traffic (build and no build condition). Capacity analysis should include rural 2-lane and 4-lane arterial procedures as appropriate. 4) The lower than average trip rates utilized in the study should be justified by the developer. 5) Trip distribution background information should be provided to substantiate the selected distribution of trips. 6) A site plan with an internal roadway network should be provided to substantiate trip assignment to the proposed entrances. The original Master Plan indicated an internal ring road around the lake connecting with the Virginia Game and Inland Fisheries access road. Indications are that the connection to the access road may not be permitted. This could have a significant impact on the distribution of traffic and anticipated flow of traffic within the development. 7) The selected roadway improvements necessary to accommodate the generated traffic should be clearly identified. L'Cy l rr_ l_ r Mr. D. E. Ripley • Page 2 December 8, 1989 After the developer has provided a more complete and thorough traffic impact study, we will re --submit to the Central Office for review. J. B. Diamond District Traffic Engineer By:'K. B. Downs Transportation Engineer KBD/sc cc: Mr. Robert L. Moore Mr. W. H. Bushman 6 19 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703 / 667-0370 WHEATLANDS Issues to be Addressed on Master Development Plan Sewage Treatment Plant: - Needs to be clear that the plant is being designed strictly for the use of the development with sufficient capacity only for the development. - Needs, to be clear that approval is only on the condition that the Board of Supervisors resolves to have the plant accepted by the Service Authority and that it is accepted. - Approval needs to be on the condition that there acceptable guarantees or agreements are made with the Service Authority concerning future exapansions of the plant to meet the needs of the development. - Downstream impacts on water quality should be addressed, in detail. Traffic Impacts: - Approval should be conditioned on there being one or two state maintained entrances on Route 522. - Detailed information is needed concerning impacts to Rt. 636. - Guarantees should be provided concerning improvements of Route 636 and the intersection with Rt. 277 as the development proceeds. Game and Inland Fisheries: - All land owned by Game and Inland Fisheries should be clearly shown on the plan as being seperate from the development. - Detailed information should be provided on impacts of the development on water quality within the lake. - Flood easements should be provided. 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia 22601 - Approval should be on the condition that Game and Inland Fisheries review soil erosion and sedimentation plans and storm water management plans. It should also be on condition that they play a specific role in monitoring implementation of the plans. Public Access to the Lake: - Additional access points to the lake should be considered. Future Development Area: - More detailed information should be provided on the use of future development areas. Phasing Plan: - Phasing should be drawn in 50 to 100 unit increments. Plan should state one phase per year. Number of Units: - The maximum number of dwelling units by type to be provided should be clearly specified. Fire and Rescue: - A site with specific acreage should be provided and noted for fire and rescue station. Community Center: - A statement should be provided limiting use of the community center to appropriate/allowed uses. dIF r- SUBJECT: WHEATLANDS 4 December 1989 Suggest the following issues be discussed: 1. Since the Wheatlands development will essentially be a small town, (1800 houses, 5000-8000 population, 900-1000 school age children), suggest streel lights for security, sidewalks for channelization and saftey of pedestrian traffic, and curbs and gutters for control of sheet flow of storm drainage be provided. Curbs and gutters would help channel the storm water that would be contaminated with ice control chemicals, gasoline spills, oils, tars and other soluble/insoluble traffic pollutants downstream from the lake. 2. Suggest an additional 5o feet adjacent to the state land around the lake be dedicated as open space and covenants allow for public use of this area. This way it could still be used in the developers calculation for required open space but would also allow public use for walking and access to other parts of lake shore. 3. Suggest a second public boat launch area be provided, at no cost, around the northern area of the lake. Developer would need to provide an access road and a flat area for a small parking lot 10-12 cars. 4. Additional information must be provided on the impact of the increased water flow in the downstream area due to the treated effluent, both---ecologically/quality and quantity. 5. Provide an impact statement concerning the effect of the increased school age children will have on the school system. Impact analysis should include a projected distrubition by grade, special education requirements, and a cost impact to the school budget (new teachers, facilities, transportation, or possibly a cost per student). 6. Size of sewage treatment plant is questionable, use of current average flows to area plants should not be used to project flows that would be expected from a new planned community. New developments will typically use more water and produce more effluent than older housing connections ---due to more bathrooms, automatic dishwashers, garbage disposals, cloths. washers, other modern conviences in each new unit, that are water users and waste water producers. Size should be reasonably planned for now, not be a surprise later. The plant should still be built in increments as needed, but all increments should be indicated and planned now, not as a after thought._ A reasonable figure for planning would be 350 gal per living unit connection, (350 X 1800=630,000 GPD) plus a percentage/estimated quantity for recreational use, school, etc. 7. Suggest the developer offer to build the boat launch areas for the state, at no cost to the taxpayers. If we wait for the state to build them we may not live that long. 8. Suggest the developer offer money to the county school construction budget to help fund new school construction. Contribution could be annually, based on the number of houses sold. 9. Suggest the developer offer/commit to construct the firestation at the 50% build out stage, then dedicate the facility to the fire company or whoever, at no cost. 10. Suggest the devoloper offer to reduce the number of mulit- family units to no more than 5% of the total number of residences. Jim, I'm sure I'll think of somemore between now and their next presentation, however these are my quick thoughts. Roger Thomas • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 November 30, 1989 Mr. James A. Remington, Director Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries 4010 West Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23230 RE: Wheatlands, Frederick County Dear Mr: Remington: As you know, Frederick County is presently considering a development proposal on 926 acres which surrounds the state owned Wheatlands Lake. The ,Master Development Plan submitted by the Intergate Company, Inc. went before the Frederick County Planning Commission on November 15, 1989. In light of the various issues raised by the county staff, commission members, and your department, the Planning Commission took no action on the proposal at that time. Consideration of the matter was tabled until the Commission's January 3rd, 1990 meeting. The comments provided by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries have generated a significant amount of discussion among commission members. During the November 15th public hearing various questions were raised involving the effects of, the proposed development on the lake. Your review points out a number of valid concerns which the County agrees need to be.addressed. Given the technical. nature of evaluating potential impacts of such a development on the lake, the Planning Commission felt it might be helpful to have a representative of your department present at their next meeting. The meeting is scheduled for 7:00pm January 3rd, 1990 in the Old Frederick County Courthouse, 9 Court.Square, Winchester, Virginia. Please let me know if it would be possible for you or a member of your staff to attend the meeting. Your consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely; �'t2l1� Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia. - 22601 SUPERVISORS RUSSELL VOTING DISTRICT JOHN D. HARDESTY Chairman Tel.: 955-2127 MILLWOOD VOTING DISTRICT JAMES E. CLARK. III Tel.: 837-2152 WHITE POST VOTING DISTRICT A. R. DUNNING. JR. Tel.: 837-1719 November 16, 1989 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR G. ROBERT LEE Tel.: 955 3269 Mr. Roland B. Geddes, Director Division of Soil and Water Conservation Suite 206 203 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Dear Mr. Geddes: SUPERVISORS BERRYVILLE VOTING DISTR!-- RALEIGH H. WATSON. JR. Vice Chairman Tel.: 955-1189 BENJAMIN B. LONGERBEAM Tel. 955 1030 The Commonwealth of Virginia owns a public fishing lake (130+ acres) together with a fifty foot (501) buffer strip in Frederick County, Virginia. Now, a development syndicate proposes to completely encircle this public lake with approximately 1800 single family detached homes and an elaborate network of roads. The USGS topographic map (Stephens City Quadrangle) for this area evidences steep slopes from the shoreline of the lake. Recently, representatives from Clarke County appeared before the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District to inquire regarding the erosion, sediment, and stormwater control plans for the aforesaid development proposal, locally known as Wheatlands Lake. Clarke County representatives were informed by the staff and elected members of the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservaticn District that no erosion, sediment, or stormwater control plans have been filed with the District for the Wheatlands project. Several members of the Districtlamented that the County of Frederick never refers any E & S plans or Stormwater Control plans to the District for review and comment. Now, therefore, on behalf of the County of Clarke, I respectfully request that the Division of Soil and Water Conservation request from Frederick County all pertinent documents and plans for stormwater management and erosion and sediment control for the Wheatlands Lake project. Further, I respectfully request that the Division thoroughly review the aforesaid documents and plans and provide both Frederick and A O. Box 169 BERRYVILLE, VIRGINIA 22611 Mr. Roland B. Geddes November 16, 1989 Page 2 Clarke Counties with written comments regarding the adequacy of the proposed conservation practices and conformance to the requirements of state law. Your attention to this matter is appreciated, and I look forward to your response to this entreaty. Si,.ncerely, CJ hn D. 'Hardesty, Chair an JDH/bl1 cc: Lord Fairfax Soil & Water Conservation District Members Dept. of Game & Inland Fishers Board Department of Game & Inland Fisheries - Attn: James A. Remington Division of Planning and Recreation Resources - Attn: Arthur Buehler Frederick County Administrative Offices November 15, 1989 Gentlemen, I am Claudia Bean, President of Citizens for a Quality Community of Frederick County and the City of Winchester. On behalf of all of it's signers, I would like to present you with copies of the petition to place a moratorium on the Wheatlands project. We are still collecting signatures on this petition. Copies of this petition will be sent to Delegate Al Smith and the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. In the interests of environmental responsibility, the copies are two-sided. There are approximately 3,000 signatures here -- people who, like yourselves, do not want Frederick County and Winchester to become another Fairfax. And the interests of Frederick County and Winchester in this matter are inseparable. 2,500 of these signatures were obtained at the polls last week, in both the city and the county. We did not staff all of the polls, but went for a sampling. There are also 170 signatures here which were gathered by the members of the James Wood.Ridge Campus FFA Conservation Committee. These concerned students obtained signatures from parents and their fellow students, your future constituents. As the representative of all of these people, I ask you to turn down Wheatlands Master Development Plan #006-89 until the plan is scaled back to 200 - 300 housing units and the impact of the development on natural and recreational resources, traffic, and schools are greatly decreased. Citizens for a Quality Community believes that the majority of citizens of Frederick County and Winchester agree that: 1. The current planned density of 1,800 units is unacceptable 2. That access as currently planned will create significant transport- ation problems in both Frederick and Clarke Counties 3. That the impact of the sewage and water treatment facilities required to support the project will have a detrimental impact on the environment -- in particular streams and groundwater. 4. That adequate primary and secondary educational facilities are not available and cannot be made available without increasing the tax burden on all of the citizens of Frederick County. 5. We believe that the constraints this project will place on the public use of a recreational lake which has been improved with taxpayers' money are morally indefensible. and 6. This project lies far outside the boundaries of the Urban Development Area as defined by the County's own Comprehensive Plan. We expect the County to adhere to the Comprehensive Plan and not to violate its commitment to the people of Frederick County. We'do not accept, and will not accept, the contention that "nothing can be done." We expect the Planning Commission and our elected Board of Supervisors to stand up for the interests of the people of Frederick County and to reaffirm that, in Frederick County, the purpose of planning is the benefit of all the people and not the profit of a selected few. LAWRENCE R. AMBROGI Commonwealth Attorney DAVID S. WHITACRE Assistant Commonwealth Attorney JAY D. COOK, III Assistant Commonwealth Attorney GLENN R. WILLIAMSON Assistant Commonwealth Attorney Vo COUNTY OF FREDERICK`� 0r� OFFICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY FREDERICK-WINCHESTER JUDICIAL CENTER 5 NORTH KENT STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (703) 667- 5770 (703) 667- 5792 November 10, 1989 Mr. John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator for Frederick County 9 Court Square Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Wheatlands Development Dear John: CHARLES W. STANSFIELD Administrative Assistant CAROL A. CAMPBELL Secretary JANET P. DICK Secretary As you know, the above -captioned matter is scheduled to come before the Board of Supervisors for consideration of the developer's master plan. Unfortunately, under the case.law and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, there is very little the local governing body can, at this point, do other than require strict compliance with all local subdivision ordinances. The land in question was rezoned to R-5 (residential community) in the early to mid 19701s. Under that zoning category, the local governing body cannot'limit or control denisty of develop- ment as it can under R-P (residential performance) zoning. However, the R-P category did not exist when the Wheatlands real estate was rezoned. Although there had been no develop- ment on the site at the time of the county -wide downzoning, the land remained zoned R-5. I will be glad to discuss this opinion in more detail and answer any questions at your request. Sincer , t La�encX. A�mbro i g LRA/ca l lh qle November 10, 1989 Mr. Charles E. Maddox G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Master Development Plan for Wheatlands Dear Chuck: Upon review of our files, we became aware that the fees for the above referenced subdivision/master plan have not yet been paid. Listed below is a breakdown of the fees owed: $24,719.48 Total Fee Due $700 (base) + $23,156.65 (926.266 acres @ $25/acre) + $862.83 (Engineer) Before we can final approve your subdivision plat or master plan, the above fees need to be paid to this office. Please make your check payable to the Frederick County Treasurer and mail to the Frederick County Planning Department, P.O. Box 601, Winchester, Virginia, 22601. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Renee' Arlotta Office Manager RIC r 1*-9147 P. 2/3 COMMONWEAILTH of VIRGINIA De1wriment of Game and Inland Fislwries 4010 WEST BACAD STREET bOX 11104 RICHMOND, VA 232"30 1-80D-262--,-717 tV/TDD) i804) 367--1GLR.) (V,700') November 9., 1989 N.r. Roberis 'N . W a ---, k- j. n s -Pla-nning Pirector Dept. of Planning & IDevelop"ient lf?s VA 2 6 0 1 k4E' Preliminary Master Development Plan Frederick County 1076, tns-, L'3 .- nave reviewed the subject plan or the Intergate Colmpany, Inc, was Provided to us by Vour office. We nave -a number of tl 5 w J, 11- V t n ji -, P I a 1" . 1Ap4q.t -on----rhe Lake-, We are concerned about the potential. adverse impa, proposed deve1opment on the quality of the wa',-�,, acnuat'jic, "Life in the lake, and the ability of, th, to Acconnitodate the sn(-T-Pased -iunoff. 01;,' control and the management of the run. off and zind ..-,tter the copstruction period wiii L-: L nta'4n'4nq the water quality, tisheries re tqt?vity and Intearity of the lake for .=!r recreational pzirposes. Neco-ssary Glans- !t,'- .rol and storm -water manAapment wart, Lemented. Furthermore, steps should be 1'. oni"Iaring process to ensure the Devp.'L,-)-.,. -n these plans an-4 the eftectivener-, c- 'n-je Df�i----i-tiytent of Game and Ill la!-td Fisherie,s the review and comment contri DarS --ind T-he t. o r m - w a - 2, w - P a�' px 0 p c-, s e -1 it e v o c w o. ri t an d ( -2, A L iProcess,- to The, L m -:7 k, Watkilic zugoestion, contained in their August 22, 1989, to d y the impact of the additional zunoff on the ability of the f-xistinq dam structu-'re. Bulter Zone; The DGlF has fee simple ownership of a fifty foot wide. r" t i7l r i -,- -'), _rOtlyl ip will guarantee (i the laek. T.h j s str U!: ce; to the entire shoreline of the f o r f is, h i n q or other compatible public use- The adlu-.,--ent -oh o, e owners wna cre nae no rie4hts be t, s e r , to use the public property and the I,-) n -d T open .7. desigpati;a adiacent, to the lake on t .1 C It f:,Limirjary plan , .dudes D"" ?- owned property. appear: _.gat. the DGIF-owned propertv may be includod in the c,alculation of the open spate for the pr:-posed deveiopment. Please note that we have no agreement with the Jpeloper(s) i.n vAiA.,; regard, DGIF recommd s ei that necessary conservation set-ba(,,k ,-rips (alone the lake shoreline , located on oerty, be included in ttie master plaris to mitir4ate ')aot of the additional runoff caused by the developi;iF,,i. �odiqo Easements. e DGTV has requested the subject to -.0odJnq easements alont the lake L�horellnes to ins mlo Oatt ft, i qh water levels in the lake. T b e s e easement's w o,,,i -! d 11.) w the elevation at. the top of the dare. Regardles,-, the -esul-1-s of our efforts, these areas should go on being prone to flooding durino a storm and should he for ric, to sieve1-opment. x. P.ropo,,;ed Fishinq Pier., The pl-el.iminary plan proposes a fishinq pier deveiooment's recreational facilities. A rvz f --nst-ructed on the DGIF-owned lake 'must be -'Licen-s 47S license for a fishing pier has not been i,��� Developer by tbe T.)GTF. The preliminary plan does not designate the a firt-v (50' toot wide parcel owned by the Dclfr' -Ln t The L'YIF intends to utl i ze thi s parcel for di to the lake off Route 522. The w.,," tlh,e r. 1)3 ic. reqardless of residence. P. 4/3 W f:t t k i- n s _.j preliminary plan shows a ;oint road -f o r -L a k e P C." development f t Route. 522., .5 wp I I a s 11 C, c t a r d t In -c- .1GI'r -owned parcel .e note that, the DGII with the .Develop©- for a joir ."ess fir, DGIF-owned propu, %f the Developer(s) we r, j I TI U 8 C C I, r te resider i d e n t i cone IL t� I that the CA .4 la� rat Vehicles Wi 1-_t JU-o a trailers, 'al Of Prov:Ldinq e M oil se VI I cit i,zetls ,I.f the 17', rc: i . rl 1 ci ;_JIon of Plannincl a n L aL 10 lea" t it appear;� r-hat Sectil.. 6 Con,�:r�vation Fund (L&WC' p r o v is n ,-fie 'Jand �_�d ill 1, J K) r o)i t t? of n t, - c c e -; s development. The D�Y�L'IF J L,,lizecl. th-. .4Ei aral,L funds for the devellopment or tre lakc� 6 A ii J21 i Owners List., an av� :ning property owner -,n t.-Itz; 1 C1, I r-;, C V uld be. corrected to easure i,,ropar T h i sho, Lic,atio_ri r action,-; ri.-lated to -this developyuent. ;-ead:"..._* e the 4.gp_e own j_. IV'irgini& Department of Game. & TnIand 4010 West Broad Street Richmond, VA 23230 ,At.l,,Y,-. Dinesh V. Tiv.4ari) ThanX you for giving us the opportunity to coiPtinent o.n -1 �D Please do not ht-sitate to contact me or 1, - '=I r -Y - J. o n e g a. 1: on4/ 36/-8864 1. f them r- r any q Ij e S Y James A. R e m n g t n Director Veffber, DGIF Buai 1 e .-I J -;.4. n J f� d e, n t., Th r Ar t B o, e h, ARE IMl IF C Mr, .-pfoering/DGIF 6 G W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 20 South Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 November 3, 1989 Mr. Don Ripley, Resident Engineer VDOT Mechanic Street Luray, Va. 22835 Re: Wheatlands Project Warren County Entrance Dear Don, Thank you for our phone conversation on November 2 where we discussed the present status of entrance design approval on Route 340 for the above project. We understand that you have just received our transportation study on October 24 and that the state traffic design people are in review of that analysis at this time. It is our understanding that when findings are available at the state level then a review of our previously submitted preliminary plans can be performed and comments returned to us to allow for the proper final design of the subject roadway improvements. We would be pleased to meet with you and your engineers at the time comments are available in order to exchange comments, questions and ideas on the appropriate solution. Thank you for your reference to code section 33.1-197 & 198 in the code of Virginia. The application for permit which we intend to file with you when plans are approved will be for this type entrance and be privately owned and maintained. This code section indicates that the Highway Commissioner "shall" permit this entrance to the roadway when the requirements of your commercial standards and highway design specifications are met. Based on our reviews, conversations and meetings thus far we are proceeding as if such technical aspects can be adequately addressed at the time of final design. Thank you for your continued assistance and we look forward to your comments. Sincerely urs, addox, Jr., P.E. V.P. G. W. Clifford & Associa , c. cc: Mr. Brian Cullen 71F Mr. Bob Watkins, Frederick CountyMr. Bob Sevila .. 6Mr. Bill Bushman, VDOT VRPM C EM/ckd G. W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 20 South Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 7 0 3 - 6 6 7 - 2 1 3 9 October 25, 1989 Mr. Don Ripley, Resident Engineer VDOT Mechanics Street Luray, Va. 22835 Re: Wheatlands Warren County Entrance Dear Don, We have received approval from Warren county to proceed with a private commercial entrance, 4 lane style intersection, as per the preliminary plans submitted to your office. These are the same drawings discussed with you at the Staunton District office meeting last month. Since we intend to apply for an entrance permit soon, we would appreciate any comments you have on our submission, so that we can assemble the necessary attachments for the permit. We look forward to your reply. cc: Mr. Bob Watkins Mr. Herold Derflinger Mr. Bill Bushman Mr. Brian Cullen CEM/ckd Sincerely yours, L41 C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Up. LE OCT 2 5 m9 )OT 10: 1-703-984-9761 Se*<>,89 7:58 No.002 P.01 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINI,A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. 0. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 COMMISSIONER (7 0 3) 9 8 4- 413 3 September 27, 1989 G. W. Clifford & Associates Attention: Mr. Charles E. P.O, sox 2104 Winchester, Virginia Dear Chuck: Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. 22601 ,LEI SEP 281989 V 'J WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIDENT ENGINEER Route 277 Frederick County This is in reference to my letter to you dated August 30, concerning the impact of traffic on the existing road system generated by the proposed development by Intergate at Wheatlands. The information furnished did not address any specific elements of the preliminary master plan. Pertaining to the proposed entrance on route 277, our initial assessment is the location is acceptable. This is predicated upon receiving future detailed engineering plans. These, of course, must meet the design requirements required by capacity analysis and be in concert with approved entrance(s) on routes 340/522 in Clarke and/or Warren counties. Several findings in my previous letter involved so called off- site impacts. These included an apparent need to 4-lane route 277 from I-81 to Route 340/522. To clarify our feelings on this element, we cannot require this improvement because it is off -site. We also do not foresee this as a need from Day One of the project. We feel, due to the designation of this region for urban development in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, it is an improvement which will be required for proper functioning of the Plan vis a' vis the other areas identified for subdivision development, whether Wheatlands is built or not. To this end the Department is prepared to develop with the Frederick County Planning staff an appropriate urban type multilane design for route 277 in keeping with the predicates of the Comprehensive Plan. Hint) g Residency VDOT � 1-703-984-9761 8e8',89 7.58 No.002 P.02 I 'hope this clarifies our previous letter in the area of the route 277 corridor improvement. We will await your more definitive traffic capacity analysis from Jahn Callow. In'the meantime if you have any question's let me know. Sincerely, William H. Bushman, P.E. Resident Engineer' Cy: Mr. Robert L. Moore Mr. von E. Ripley Mr. J. B. Diamond Mr. Jahn R. Riley, Jr. Mr. Robert Watkins Mr. Robert B. Childress TRIP GENERATION TABLE AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR CODE ----------------_----------------- USE AMOUNT IN OUT IN OUT ADT 210 SINGLE i-AM. 15-,8 I ------- I ------- 1 262 1 I 708 1 ------- I ------- 894 1 I -------I 113,332 I 230 TOWNHOUSE 258 1 18 1 96 1 93 1 46 1 11429 1 820 RETAIL 140,000 SF 1 86 1 36 1 210 1 218 1 5,363 1 710 ---------------------------------- OFFICE 50,000 SF 1 96 1 I ------- ------- 14 1 18 1 94 1 816 1 TOTAL I 1 462 1 I 854 1 ------- I ------- 1,215 1 883 I ------- I 12-09940 1 CALLOW Figure 1. Trip Generation Table ASSOCIATES INC. 0 9 a+ 27 Signalized L.O.S. = B(B) � A (A) (A) A -4-- 1 N T N (B) B V Z 1-- Z W 522 Signalized B(B) L.O.S. = BFB) 522 A (A N. ENTRANCEOnsignalized (D) B (A)A�1 (B)A A (A) S. ENTRANQ signalized (B) B� (B) A L.O.S. = B (B) CALLOW Figure 5. Future Level of Service and Lane Geometry. ASSOCIATES INC. 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION.,ROUTE 277/ENTRANCE 1 AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... MARCUS A. ROSSON DATE .......... 9/20/89 TIME.......... AM PEAK HOUR COMMENT....... TOTAL FUTURE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT C> 131 109 ci : T 12.C) L 12.0 L 12.ci 12.C� TH 165 177 C) 0 R 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.(--) 12.0 RT 59 0 178 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.G 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.ci 12,U 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.0 12.o ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PK:G BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE M (7) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2 . C)C i N C ) 0 0.90 CG N 11. ' WB 0.00 2.00 N ci 0 0.90 0 N 11.E _71 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 ci N 19.8 _ SB 0 . C ►0 2.00 N 0 C ) 0. 90 0 N -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19.8 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 56.0 PH-1 PH-2 F'H--- PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-? PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH X TH RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X SB LT TH X TH RT RT PD F'D GREEN 3. 5 .0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 GREEN 15.0 O . C C► . 0 O .0 YELLOW '.C) 0,0 ci,C) 0.0 YELLOW ?,C) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0,0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB T 0.165 0.625 2.8 A ?.8 A R 0.069 0.625 2.7 A WB L ci.189 0.625 ',4 A 3.1 A T 0. 177 (--) . 625 2.9 A NB L C) . 299 (-) . 268 12 . 5 B 12. 1 B R 0. 487 C ) . 268 11.8 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 6.2 (sec/veh) V/C = (-).278 LOS = B 7.� "3 obi A c 4y F'a j • • ' ' J 11 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..ROUTE 277/ENTRANCE 1 AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... MARCUS A. ROSSON DATE .......... 9/20/89 TIME.......... PM PEAK: HOUR COMMENT....... TOTAL FUTURE VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------- GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 279 120 0 : T 12).0 L 12.0 L 12.0 12.0 TH 296 193 0 0 : R 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 RT 164 C) 199 0 : 12.0 12 . C) 1.2 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 . 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.C� 12.0 12.0 12.C) -------------------------------------------------------------- 12.0 12.(- 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV A D J PK:G BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE M (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2 , C) C) N 0 0.90 0 N 11.3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 11.3 NB 0. 00 2 . SC ) N o 0 c i . 90 0 N 19.8 SB C).OS 2.00 ------------------------------------------------------- N 0 0 0.90 0 _ N 19.8 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 56.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH -= PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH X TH RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X SB LT TH X TH RT RT PD PD GREEN 35. 0 0.0 C) . O C) , C) GREEN 15.0 0.0 S . C) 0.0 YELLOW ci,u ------------------------------------------------------- 0•0 O.CI YELLOW 7-T,.C) 0.0 C�,ci C1,C► LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. L 0 S ED T 0.295 0.625 .,2 A 3.1 A R 0.192 0.625 2.9 A WB L 0.567 0.625 5.7 B 4.5 A T 0.193. 0.625 2.9 A NB L 0. 29 0,268 12.7 B 12,5 B R 0.545 ------------------------------------------------------- 0.268 12.4 B INTERSECTION: Delay = 6.0 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.561 LOS = B AD V N�Tu � L 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION. ROUTE 277 AND ROUTE 340/ROUTE 522/340 (DOUBLETOLL) AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... MARCUS A. ROSSON DATE .......... 9/20/89 TIME.......... AM PEAK HOUR COMMENT....... TOTAL FUTURE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 104 127 41 38 : L 12.0 L 12 . 0 L 12 . C) L 12 . C� TH 218 20 306 1-7 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 1,2 RT 21 58 205 64 , 12.0 12.0 T 12.Ci T 1") RR 0 C) 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.C) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.C"� 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PPG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (7) (7) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.0C) 2.00 N 0 0 0,90 0 N 31.8 _ WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 C).90 0 N 31.8 NB 0.00 2.00 N cj 0 0.90 0 N 13.8 SB O, C) C) 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 1.' . 8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 76.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-._ F'H-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-.' PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 3c i , C) 0. 0 0. 0 0.0 GREEN 40 . C-) 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 C) . C) 0. 0 YELLOW 3.0 c i , 0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. L 0 S EB L ,289 0.395 12.1 B 11.1 B TR 0.383 C).395 10.7 B WB L 0.3736 0.'95 12.4 B 11.5 B TR 0.426 0.395 11.0 B NB L 0.068 � i. 526 6.7 S 6. 3 B T 0.181 0.526 6.1 B R 0.286 C) . 526 6.5 B SB L 0.093 0.526 6.8 B 5.9 B T 0,081 0.526 5.8 B R 0.089 C) . 526 5.8 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: DEAa = , e / V/=_0.346 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..ROUTE 277 AND ROUTE 340/ROUTE 522/7-140 (DOUBLETOLL) AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... MARCUS A. ROSSON DATE .......... 9 / 2(_) / 89 TIME.......... PM PEAK HOUR COMMENT....... TOTAL FUTURE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY ER WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 127 292 56 93 : L 12 . C) L 12.0 L 12 . C) L 12 . C� TH 18 275 "'lei 471 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.C) RT 78 57 186 161 : 12.0 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 R 12.C) R 12.0 12.0 12.ci 12.ci 12.0 12.0 12.0 12. Ci -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PPG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE M (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.C10 2.000 N 0 CG C),90 0 N '1.8 _ WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 C) 0.90 0 N 1 .8 _ NB ci,C)C) 2,C�d N 0 0 0.9CG 0 N 13.8 3 SB 0.00 2. GC> N 0 0 C). 90 0 N 17.8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 76.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH F'H-4 PH-1 F'H-2 PH 3. PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X FT X F'D PD WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 45. 0 0.0 0.0 C) . CG GREEN 25 . 0. 0 YELLOW 3.0 i 0.0 0.0 0. C) YELLOW . 0 0 .0 O. 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.2=9 0.592 5.6 B 5.6 B TR 0.430 0.592 5.6 B WB L 0.611 0.592 9.0 B 7.0 B TR 0.359 0.592 5.3 B NB L o.298 C) .. 29 14.7 B 12. 7 B T 0.266 0._29 12.1 B R 0.415 Ci.729 13.1 B SB L 0.?66 0. 7. 29 15.2 C 131._ B T 0.446 0.729 13.1 B R 0.359 0.-T29 12.7 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 9.9 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.552 LOS = B AN , n 1W 1. 1" � �� 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..SOUTH ENTRANCE/ROUTE 522 AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... MARCUS A. ROSSON DATE .......... 8/20/89 TIME.......... AM PEAK' HOUR COMMENT....... TOTAL FUTURE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 27� Ci 72 Ci ; L 12,0 12.C) L 111 T 12.0 TH 0 0 ?C �2 R 12. C 12 . 0 T 12. T 12 . C) RT 122 0 C) 96 12.C� 12.0 T 12.C) R 171 RR C) 0 0 U 12.0 12.0 1�.0 12.0 123.0 12.0 12.0 12.�� -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.0 12.0 12.0 1�.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE M M Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB O.00i C) C) N 0 C>.90 0 N 25.8 _ WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 25.8 NB Cl,d0 2.00 N 0 O 0.90 0 N 11.E SB 0.00 2.00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- N 0 0 .90 0 N 11.? SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 56.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH- PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-:3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH TH X RT X RT PD PD WB LT SB LT TH TH X RT RT X PD PD GREEN 2Ci . C) 0 . CU 0. 0 0.0 GREEN ?CU . O 0 . C) 0.0 C i , Ci YELLOW . 0 0 .O -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 , C) 0 , 0 YELLOW "Ci O.0 C). C> 0 , Ci LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APF'. L 0 S EB L 0.561 C).3.57 12.C> B 10.8 B R ).251 0.357 8. _ B NB L 0.124 (-).5?6 4.9 A 4.4 A T 0.1-6 0.536 4.2) A SB T 0.118 0.53.6 4.2 A 4.2 A R 0.17-1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.536 4.2 A INTERSECTION: Delay = 6.9 (sec/veh) V/C = O.(-)6 LOS = B Aid'• YLiiA 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION -SOUTH ENTRANCE/ROUTE 522 AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... MARCUS A. ROSSON DATE .......... 8/20/89 TIME.......... PM PEAK HOUR COMMENT....... TOTAL FUTURE -------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 280 0 218 0 : L 12.0 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 TH 0 C) 279 _729 R 12.0 12.0 T 12 .0 T 12 . C) RT 1-]r0 0 .71 12.0 12.C) T 12.0 R 12.0 RR 0 0 0 U 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.CU 12..0 12,C) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 12.C) 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV A D J PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT, ARR. TYPE M M Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 ci N 25.8 WB C) . 00 2.0Ci N 0 0 0. 90 G N 25. 8 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0, 9C i 0 N 11 . SB O . C)0 2 . C) -------------------------------------------------------------------- N 0 0 0.90 0 N 11.7 _ SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 56.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-' PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH--7 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH TH X RT X RT PD PD WB LT SB LT TH TH X RT RT X PD PD GREEN 2C).C) 0.0 C),C) 0.0 GREEN 0. 0.0 C) C) YELLOW '.0 0.<> ----------------------------------------------------------------- 0,Ci 0.0 YELLOW "C) C�,O Ci,C) Ci,Ci LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. L 0 S EB L 0.575 0.3,57 12.2 B 11.0 B R C).267 0.357 8- - B NB L 0 . 603 0. 5,6 8.6 B 6.31 B T 0.139 0. 53.6 4.2 A SB T 0.191 0.5'6 4.4 A 4.9 A R 0.455 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.5?6 5.4 B INTERSECTION: Delay = 6.9 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.592 LOS = B p tijn p3i 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 40 PEAK: HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 15()(')00 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... NORTH ENTRANCE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROUTE 522 NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. MARCUS A. ROSSON DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 9/20/89 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM PEAK HOUR OTHER INFORMATION.... TOTAL FUTURE INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- ED WB NB SB LEFT 67 -- 22 0 THRU 0 -- 484 210 RIGHT 88 -- 0 75 NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---------------------------- LANES 2 -- � }. UL ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ----------------------------------------- Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE —GRADE— ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS -------- EASTBOUND 0 .cis i 9 �_� 2 �d _____ — N WESTBOUND ----- --- NORTHBOUND 0. 00 9c i 2 i -- N SOUTHBOUND 0 . C)0 90 .,C) N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S -- ------------- VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND i i i) ------------- C i WESTBOUND --- —__ NORTHBOUND 0 0 SOUTHBOUND C) C i CRITICAL GAPS ------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL —(Table —1C�_2) --- VALUE -------- ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAF NOR RIGHTS ----------- ------------ EB 5.90 5.90 c7.00� 5.90 MAJOR LEFTS NB 5.70 5. 70 0 , 0C ) 5.7C) MINOR LEFTS EB 7.60 7.60 C, , c=�� i 7.60 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------------ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NORTH -------------------- ENTRANCE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROUTE 522 DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 9/20/89 . AM PEAK HOUR OTHER INFORMATION.... TOTAL FUTURE CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-.= --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------------------------------------------------ --- MINOR STREET ED LEFT 74 251 2`46 '246 RIGHT 97 8722 8721 872 MAJOR STREET NB LEFT 2)4 772 772) 772) IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NORTH ENTRANCE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROUTE 52'2 DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 9/220/89 AM PEAS:: HOUR OTHER INFORMATION.... TOTAL FUTURE • 172 D 775 A 748 A 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 40 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... NORTH ENTRANCE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROUTE 522 NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. MARCUS A. ROSSON DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 9/20/89 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. PM PEAK HOUR OTHER INFORMATION.... TOTAL FUTURE INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ----------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ---------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB --- LEFT 50 -- 56 C) THRU 0 -- 463 596 RIGHT 65 145 NUMBER OF LANES ------------------------------------------------ EB WB ND SB ---------------------------- LANES 2 ON 'Pit ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE ------- ---------- FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND C) . C 0 9C) ---------------- "C) ----------------- N WESTBOUND ----- --- --- _ NORTHBOUND 00 i qC ) 2 ) N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 ?C) N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCK'S % COMBINATION AND RV"S ----------- VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND ------------- 0 C) ------------- 0 WESTBOUND --- --- --- NORTHBOUND C) 0 0 SOUTHBOUND C) 0 C) CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) -------------- VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS -------- ----------- ------------ EB 5.9(--) 5.90 5,9(i MAJOR LEFTS NB 5. 70 5. 70 0.00 5.70 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.60 7 .6C) 0 . C)c_) 7.60 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NORTH ENTRANCE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROUTE 522 DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 9/2(.-)/89 ; PM PEAK HOUR OTHER INFORMATION.... TOTAL FUTURE CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------------------------------------------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 55 11` 102 102 RIGHT 72 66.7 66- 663 MAJOR STREET NB LEFT 62 4.38 4.8 4.?8 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NORTH ENTRANCE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROUTE 522 DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 9/20/89 PM PEAK. HOUR OTHER INFORMATION.... TOTAL FUTURE 47 E 591 A 776 B 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 40 PEAK' HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... NORTH ENTRANCE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROUTE 5?2) NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. MARCUS A. ROSSON DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 9/—?(-)/89 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. PM PEAK: HOUR OTHER INFORMATION.... TOTAL FUTURE GAP ADJUST INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T—INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ------------------------------------------------- EB WD NB SE? LEFT 50 -- 56 ci THRU 0 -- -255 4�:.1 RIGHT 65 -- ci 145 NUMBER OF LANES -------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ----`-- ------- -----^-------- LANES L I`• 4 V ADJUSTMENT -------------------------------------------------------------------- FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURES RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE ------- ---------- FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND C ) . c)c_) 90 ---------------- ?C ----------------- N WESTBOUND ----- --- --- _ NORTHBOUND C) . C) C) 9C) 2C) N SOUTHBOUND c=) . c ) ) 9C) 2C ) N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S ----------- VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND ------------- C) C) ------------- C) WESTBOUND --- --- NORTHBOUND 0 C) C) SOUTHBOUND C) C) C) CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) -------------- VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS -------- ----------- ------------ EB 5.90 5,9C) ci,C►C) 5,9C) MAJOR LEFTS MINOR LEFTS NB 5.70 i 5. 70 c ) , C )C) 5. 7(--) EB 7.60 7.60 V.C)C) 7.60 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NORTH ENTRANCE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROUTE 522 DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 9/2C)/89 PM PEAK. HOUR OTHER INFORMATION.... TOTAL FUTURE GAF' ADJUST CAPACITY AND LEVEL —OF —SERVICE Page-3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN— ACTUAL FLOW— TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c — v LOS p M SH R SH ------------------------------------------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 55 224 2)i►8 2n8 RIGHT 72 7.77 7. 7?7 MAJOR STREET ND LEFT 62 542 542 542 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NORTH ENTRANCE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROUTE 522 DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 9/20/89 ; PM PEAK HOUR OTHER INFORMATION.... TOTAL FUTURE GAP ADJUST 15� D 665 A 481 A + L.-m ��Eli 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 40 PEAK. HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 15c_ii �c_�i NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... NORTH ENTRANCE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROUTE 522 NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. MARCUS A. ROSSON DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 9/2ci/89 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM PEAK HOUR OTHER INFORMATION.... TOTAL FUTURE GAP ADJUST INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ---------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T—INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ---------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 67 THRU i) -- 249 141 RIGHT 88 -- ci 75 rim ➢fJM. NUMBER OF LANES ------------------------------------------------------------------ EB WB NB SB ---------------------------- LANES 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS F'age---:, --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT FIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS --------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0 . A � 9O ?(- N WESTBOUND ----- --- NORTHBOUND 0 . C )c i 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND c_) . C)C) qC N VEHICLE COMPOSITION -------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- -------------- ------------- EASTBOUND C) WESTBOUND --- NORTHBOUND 0 C) i SOUTHBOUND C) Ci i CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAF' -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.90 5.90 0 . C) C) 5.90 MAJOR LEFTS MINOR LEFTS NB 5. 70 5.70 C) . 00 5.70 EB 7.60 7.60 0.C)O 7.60 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NORTH ENTRANCE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROUTE 5-2? DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 9/'2C)/89 ; AM PEAK HOUR OTHER INFORMATION.... TOTAL FUTURE GAF' ADJUST CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE F'age --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------------------------------------------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 74 416 4(=)9 409 RIGHT 97 907 9(:)7 907 MAJOR STREET NB LEFT 24 87 8=7 8:-7 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NORTH ENTRANCE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROUTE 522 DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 9/20/89 AM PEAK. HOUR OTHER INFORMATION.... TOTAL FUTURE GAP ADJUST --c' B 81 C) A E T �jk` •I4 h • 9 d The Vwgima Pub' Oc Lake That �t r Rederick County s Best -Kept Secret a Controversy, ,Stars n tract surrounding it to Intergate, a Loudoun By Alison Howard $o Wuhington Post Staff Writer County company that plans to build at least 1,800 houses there. For the opposition, that is This is the story of a fishing lake 75 miles where the story begins. from Washington, donated to the state in 1981 Critics, represented by the same Common - by two Frederick County, Va., developers, im- wealth Coalition that took on the now -closed, proved with $700,000 in state and federal funds, Avtex fiber plant on the Shenandoah River, con - stocked with bass and bluegill—but fitted out tend that the public lake could not help but be-. with a No Trespassing sign, come the private preserve of the new commu- It is also the story of two Winchester report-, nity's roughly 7,000 residents. ers who tried to get someone in Richmond or : Coalition members find it relevant that the Washington to object to the fact that a public state finally accepted the lake in 1984—and lake was closed to the public, sought a grant from the U.S, Department of the Today, the 132-acre lake that has been'called- Interior to repair its leaky dam —after the orig-. "the best -kept secret in Frederick County" is due . inal developers gave assurances, according to, to open to anyone who wants to fish from its internal state memos, that they would build no banks or bring a car -top boat, and construction is more than 300 houses around it. , 4 to begin this spring on boat ramps, restroome The state Attorney General's Office said In an «. and a pier, opinion last summer that those assurances were BY BILL a,LLON_TMB WUNIMMON ►oBT And that, it would seem, is where the story informal and not enforceable. Reporters Ned Burks, below, and Peter Krouse, ought to have a happy ending. Billy J. Tisinger, a Winchester lawyer repre-, who first investigated the donated lake, are shown But the same developers who gave away the senting the two original developers, said this by a state sign marking it off limits to the public. lake last year, sold the 1,000-acre Wheatlands See LAKE, B5, Col.1 THE WASIH r Va. Lake irs Up CO Between � i LAKE, From B1 week that his clients "never mad such an agreement." Smith said he helped persuad the then -new administration of Govi Charles S. Robb to accept the lake which had been donated as Gov John N. Dalton was leaving office. But Smith said he made no assur ances about limiting development the memos notwithstanding. i "I couldn't assure anybody o that," Smith said yesterday. "I'n' sure I said that if there isn't [public] water and sewer [at the site], then you don't have to worry about more than 300 houses. But they had to know that after water went in [last year], that would have to change." The memos, written by Cabinet - level state officials, came to light through the efforts of Ned Burks and Peter Krouse, Winchester Star reporters who unearthed enough government documents about Wheatlands and produced enough stories to fill a small lake. • A handful of detractors com- plained to the paper that the report- ers went too zealously after the two prominent local developers, Fred L. Glaize III and James L. Bowman, p �evelo ers ,and Del. Alson H. Smith Jr. (D- Winchester), who helped broker their donation of the lake to the state, according to the memos. But the Star's managing editor, Ron Morris, said he heard from many more people who thanked the paper, published by Thomas T. Byrd of Virginia's Byrd family, for the reporters' work. "It was a story about ... public money and public property that needed to be writ- ten," Morris said. Now, based on Burks's and Krouse's reporting and its own le- gal research, the Commonwealth Coalition has announced that it will petition the U.S. Department of the Interior to review how the state ob- tained and spent the $500,000 fed- eral grant for the dam renovation. If a review does not yield timely or satisfying results, coalition law- yer Philip Chabot Jr. said, the group will consider seeking an injunction in federal court to prevent the pub- lic lake from being converted, in practice if not in name, to private use. Chabot said the grant's rules pro- hibit such a conversion unless the public gets another, comparable lake nearby. ntroversy and Critics Intergate officials did not return The Post's telephone calls for com- ment. Earle Whitney, a National Park Service official who oversees the lake grant for Interior, said he learned about Intergate's plans last, fall from Krouse at the Star. Interior, Whitney said, has "very distinct concerns" about the pro- ject's impact on the lake ("suppose everybody fertilizes their grass on the same day and the next day it, rains?") and the people who will use it ("the recreational experience) does not include looking up a hill and seeing 27 houses in a row"). Whitney said he is still waiting for the state to assess the likely ef- fects of 1,800 houses. Depending ; on the report, he confirmed, Inte- rior could declare that they would . turn the lake into "a private pond, and the state would have to replace it in kind." In an internal 1978 memo ob- tained by the Star, however, a state Game and Inland Fisheries Depart- ment official, urging caution in ac- cepting the lake, said, "The only real reason to consider this project is that it is in our high -priority area [for a public lake], and we have not —Crooked Run, a Shenandoah tributary that Is often dry, would take run-off from sewage treatment plant below the lake. 1' IL 6, It Intergate will provide more public roads to the lake. The only public access planned now is one state-owned road —still a rutted dirt path —off U.S. 340. The commission is also con- cerned that the development's sew- age treatment plant below the dam will not be big enough, an issue that alarms the Commonwealth Coali- tion as much as —or more than — who will use the lake. The plant will discharge into Crooked Run, a "wet - weather" Shenandoah tributary that often sits stagnant or dry, area res- idents say. State Water Control Board offi- cials said that means treated sew- age will have to meet water -quality standards, at considerable expense, as it leaves the plant, not after it is diluted. Those standards would be tightened in very dry weather, they said, unless water is released from the lake to flush Crooked Run. None of this comforts residents of neighboring Clarke County, just downstream and perpetually anx- ious about their fragile groundwa- ter supply. But Clarke officials, who also fear traffic from 1,800 houses, were turned down when they asked for an outside review of the ruling that any assurances about 300 houses were unenforceable. The ruling was made last June by 109 f );ls hlo YXI. igni )6 ons i. 4t� 't!I z 129 3116 flue ' &f� 3 fs sdf 'td _tO ►ml a deputy to state Attorney General 'I Mary Sue Terry. Clarke Supervisor fl-3 A.R. (Pete) Dunning Jr. said he stif wanted another arbiter because .Toa Alson Smith, the delegate who state 16ib officials said relayed Glaize and jiai Bowman's assurances, was Terry's )Puy finance chairman during her suc- cessful reelection campaign last year. .gut Last fall, almost three years after 9rff he began covering the story, Burks 'nil moved to Montana to write a novel `r after six years at the Winchester . y paper as a reporter and editor. Krouse, a five-year Star employee, is still covering the story. y . "I always felt there was some- thing wrong about it," Burks said last week. "At the point I left, I was'', a little frustrated" by official disin- clination to investigate more thor- oughly. "But I did feel we'd alerted the public to something." And now that the coalition has -- picked up the ball, he added, "who knows?" - Coalition convener Thomas A. AA Lewis, the new editor of Civil War Magazine, said the group came late t,1v to the Wheatlands fight because "it ,r looked like a done deal .... Now," »jm Lewis said, "it may not be possible !b'1 for the state of Virginia and the In- L'o^ terior Department to dust their TON POST SATURDAY, JANUARY 27,1990 65 a> This 132-acre Frederick County lake, enriched with $700,000 in state and federal funds, will open to the public today. been able to find a suitable alter- nate site." That official, Jack M. Hoffman, said last week that a 50-foot perim- eter around the lake, included in the donation, gives his department enough real estate to operate it publicly, even with 1,800 houses. He said its opening was delayed not by the development debate but by complicated dam repairs and dry weather that slowed the filling of the lake. "It was certainly a gentleman's agreement" that there would be no more than 300 houses, he said, 'but we have no binding document to that effect. Now it's up to the local governing bodies to decide what they want." Frederick County officials say their druthers are moot because In- tergate's proposal complies with the property's zoning, changed in 1975 from agricultural to residen- tial. The county's attempt in 1980 to change the zoning back was abandoned after Glaize and Bow- man threatened to sue. But Deputy Planning Director Kris Tierney said Intergate had temporarily withdrawn its prelim- inary site plan to address some con- cerns raised by the county Planning Commission, among them whether hands." r • COUNTY of FREDERICK Mr. John D. Hardesty Chairman, Clarke County Board of Supervisors Route 1, Box 240 Berryville, VA 22611 Dear Mr. Hardesty: John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 703/665-5666 FAX: 703 / 667-0370 December 1, 1989 D,------------ nr7c - 4 1989 I The courtesy of copying Frederick County on your November 16 letter to the Director of Soil and Water Conservation is appreciated. Your interest in the Wheatlands project's erosion, sediment, and stormwater control plans is also appreciated, although a bit premature. Like most local governments, such plans are not required to be submitted until the subdivision or site plan stage. Frederick County is now in the process of reviewing the Wheatlands master plan. Frederick County has hired a consulting engineering firm, Harris Smariga and Orsillo, Inc. of Fairfax, to assist with plan review and special projects. They will review and comment on the Wheatlands E&S plans once subdivision and site plans are submitted. The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries will also be invited to comment on the Wheatlands plans given their expertise in the protection of aquatic life and interest in the lake. In closing, it would certainly be appropriate for you and the rest of the Clarke County delegation to check your facts before indiscriminately sending correspondence to regulatory agencies. Believe it or not, Frederick County is certainly capable of controlling its own affairs. rn)e�l y, John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator JRR:clt cc: Beard of Supervisors Aobert W. Watkins 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK IDepartment of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 FAX 703 / 667-0370 M E M O R A N D U M TO: William H. Bushman, Virginia Department of Transportation Wellington Jones, Frederick County Sanitation Authority Paul A. Bernard, P.E., Harris, Smariga, Orsillo, Inc. Homer Sanders, Frederick County Emergency Services James Doran, Director, Parks and Recreation Department Charles E. Maddox, P.E., G. W. Clifford & Associates FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director SUBJECT: Design Review Meeting - Wheatlands Master Development Plan DATE: September 20, 1989 A design review meeting to discuss the Wheatlands Master Development Plan has been scheduled for Thursday, September 28, at 1:00 p.m. and will be held in the TREASURER'S OFFICE CONFERENCE ROOM, at 9 Court Square in Winchester. Enclosed is the Wheatlands master plan application and related information. If you have any questions prior to this meeting, please do not hesitate to call me. KCT/rsa cc: Frederick County Planning Commission John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator Robert W. Watkins, Planning Director 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. 0. BOX 308 RAY D. PETHTEL LURAY, 22835 COMMISSIONER 7 0 3- 7 4 3- 6 5 8 5 September 13, 1989 RE: Wheatlands Project Mr. C. E. Maddox, Jr. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. P. 0. Box 2104 Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Chuck: From the information and preliminary plans -you sent me on the entrance into Wheatlands off of Routes 340 and 522 in Clarke County, I am only in a position to advise you that the location of this entrance is satisfactory for sight distance. All of the geometrics, pavement design, traffic control devices and right of way cannot be determined at this time because you have not provided adequate information. Continuous piecemealing of this information concerning this entrance is not going to be acceptable because we need a complete overall concept so that we can determine designs, traffic control devices and right of way. Very truly yours, on E. Ripley Resident.Engineer DER/wsa CC: Mr. Kelly .Downs Mr..George.Hay.field Mr, Gilbert Campbell D. E. RIPLEY RESIDENT ENGINEER TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY r �i RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER u�AUG 3 1 COMMONWEALTH of VIRCj NIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. 0. BOX 278 EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN ( 703) 984-4133 RESIDENT ENGINEER August 30, 1989 Re: Lake Frederick/Wheat- lands Master Plan Frederick and Clarke Counties G. W. Clifford and Associates Attention: Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. P.O. Box .2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Chuck: This is in reference to the preliminary site plan previously submitted to our office for review. Based upon the information sent us, the department has made and initial site impact assessment. "Findings" have been identified based upon the information furnished. I have listed them here. I must stress these are of a rough cut nature. We would very much like to have as detailed a traffic analysis as you can provide. Please include trips per day and directional movements. I am sure the elements of our review will cause some questions on you and your clients part. We will be glad to sit down with you to discuss them in further detail with you when the additional information is available. in the meantime, feel free to call if you have any questions. FREDERICK COUNTY: Route 636: Reconstruct the existing facility to provide a 24, roadway with improved vertical and horizontal alignment. - Continued - TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY fK 1 Lake Frederick Preliminary Master Plan August 30, 1989 Page 2 Route 277: o Reconstruct the existing facility to provide a 4-lane roadway from I-81 to the site entrance. o Install traffic light at site entrance. o Provide double right turn lanes on the Route 277 EB approach at the site entrance. o Provide a separate WB left turn lane at the site entrance. Clarke County: Intersection Routes 277, 340, & 522: Provide a separate left turn lane on the Route 277 EB approach. Routes 340/522 (@ North & South site entrances): o Install traffic signals o Provide separate left turn lanes (NB) o Provide separate right turn lanes (SB) For further review a complete traffic impact analysis should be submitted. This analysis should include: Existing network capacity and operational analysis. (Including route 636) A.M. and P.M. peak hour build/no build status. Traffic loads resulting from the public fishing lake. Approximate construction phasing of the proposed development. Sincerely, William H. Bushman, P.E. Resident Engineer Cy: Mr. Robert L. Moore Mr. Don E. Ripley Mr. J. B. Diamond Mr. John R. Riley, Jr. Mr. Robert Watkins Mr. Robert B. Childress Hanis� S� � Q!!ii O� I11C. Planners/Engineers/Surveyors Fair Center/11240 Waples Mill Road/Suite 100/Fairfax, VA 22030 (703) 385-3566,Manassas, VA (703) 368-3124 August 22, 1989 Kris Tierney, Deputy Director Frederick County Planning Department 9 Court Square P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Wheatlands P.M.D.P. 1st Submission HSO 72106-1-0017 Dear Kris, ! AUG 2 3 M I have completed my review of the Preliminary Master Development Plan for Wheatlands for primary civil engineering issues. I do not have any major problems with this plan as generally proposed and can recommend approval of the preliminary MDP at this time. I do offer the following comments which will need to be adequately addressed in subsequent submittals. 1. Lot densities may need to be reduced to meet lot frontage and size requirements in some phases. For example - the southern portion of phase 5 which shows 50 single family lots on a single cul-de-sac with what looks like 10 to 11 acres. Other conditions similar to this may exist in the development. 2. Is the indicated 50 foot easement around the lake considered in the open space tabulation? Is this area part of the development or part of the lake property belonging to the State? 3. The proposed entrance alternate #3 will have an apparent impact on the wastewater treatment plant indicated in the southern corner. This alternate was not indicated on the plan reviewed by the F.C.S.A., and I feel it would warrant their response. Additionally, it wouldn't seem that this would be the most aesthetic entrance for a development of this type. Alternates 1 and 2 would seem more appropriate. 4. The proposed road right-of-ways and minimum design standards such as design speed limit, minimum vertical and horizontal sight distances, and curve radius should be determined Harris, &natiga&Associates, hw_ Han is, Srnat*, Matz, Inc. Frederick, MD/(301) 662-4488 Baltimore, MD/(301) 486-1511 based on projected traffic generation. 5. What areas are planned for the two proposed 50 foot right-of-ways indicated as Type I and Type II? 6. As indicated on the plan, a detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan will be required. 7. This project will be a major development. The additional runoff as a result of this development will ultimately go to the existing lake. The impact of this runoff will need to be determined, such as the water surface elevation for 10 year and 100 year storm, the capacity of the spillway, the ability of the dam structure to accommodate the ultimate design flows, and methods of stabilization. These are the major items identified during this review that need to be addressed or considered in preparation of the development plans. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. cc: Chuck Maddox PB:dlc 7S)iey, aul A. Bernard, P.E. (� I= � M OWE AUG' 2 3 M I U Farris Smari a OrsitoInc. Surveyors • Engineers • Landscape Architects • Planners FAIR CENTER-11240 WAPLES MILL ROAD FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030 (703) 368-3124 Kris Tierney, Deputy Director Frederick County Planning Department 9 Court Square, P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Va. 22601 August 22, 1989 INVOICE # PROJECT#72106-1-0017 PROJECT: Wheatlands PMDP FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED THRU: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HRS. RATE AMOUNT Principal 1.0 48.00 48.00 Project Manager 8.5 33.25 282.63 Admin. Assistant 1.0 14.50 14.50 Total Direct 345.13 Total Indirect 517.70 TOTAL THIS INVOICE 0 �011 Please Return Yellow Copy With Remittance A Finance Charge Will Be Applied On Unpaid Invo $862.83 V AUG 2 3 IM D COUNTY of FREDERICK I: Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703 / 667-0370 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission ,Frederick County Board of Supervisors FROM: Robert Watkins, Director SUBJECT: i Wheatlands Master Development Plan DATE: July 27, 1989 Please be informed that the Planning Department has received a master development plan application for the Wheatlands development. The plan is currently undergoing extensive staff review. Please feel free to come to the planning office to review the plan. Please let us know if you have any questions. 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 A. R. "PETE" DUNNING, JR. CAVELAND FARM BOYCE, VIRGINIA 22620 �� N 1989 FREDERICY, ptf�ce pdmfn�strator� G BY� REGISTERED MAIL 9_ June 15, 1989 The Honorable Mary Sue Terry Attorney General's Office Supreme Court Building, Fifth Floor Richmond, Virginia 23219 Dear Ms. Terry: The County of Clarke is aghast that the Commonwealth of Virginia is not moving to rigorously enforce development restrictions at the Lake Frederick (a.k.a. Wheatlands Lake) site in Frederick County, Virginia. My review of official state records clearly indicates that owners of the property that surround Lake Frederick proffered to limit residential development to 200-300 units as a condition of state acceptance of the lake as a publicly owned fishing lake. Since acceptance of the aforesaid lake and limited property adjacent to the lake, the state has spent more than $700,000 of public funds on this project principally for repair of a failed dam. Now, almost a decade after the state took title to this property, the public still has no access to this fishing lake. This situation is appalling! My consternation was exacerbated when I recently learned that the land developers are not being held to their voluntary development restrictions. Currently, preliminary development plans for approximately 2,000 residential units on the subject property are being submitted to planning officials in Clarke and Frederick Counties. I am forwarding several pertinent public documents for your consideration. After review of these documents, I am certain that you will concur that a thorough investigation of this matter should be conducted by independent legal counsel commissioned by your office. This matter continues to make headlines in the Shenandoah Valley and expeditious disclosure of the factual context will be in the public interest. Honorable Mary Sue Terry June 16, 1989 Page 2 Please contact me if you do not agree with my recommendation for. a complete investigation of the state posture in this important regional land use matter. Sincerel nning, ARD/bll Enclosures cc: Governor Baliles Senator Warner Senator Robb Congressman Slaughter Senator Truban Delegate Guest Delegate Smith John N. Daniels James Remington Clarke Co. Board of Supervisors Frederick Co. Board of Supervisors COMMONWEALTH of VIRC Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 WEST BROAD STREET BOX 11104 RICHMOND, VA 23230 June 13, 1989 Mr. James H. Madden President, Winchester chapter Izaak Walton League P. 0. Box 2954 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Madden: Thank you for your letter of June 9 with regards to the Wheatlands Lake issue. The employees of this agency are certainly in sympathy with your general concerns for degradation of the natural waters o,f the state and as you know with the help of hundreds of volunteers such as the members of your organization, many positive results have been achieved over the years in maintaining and restoring the lakes and waters of the state to their maximum'productivity. We believe that all state agencies have a public trust that is established with their creation by the General Assembly and our Board and staff members are very diligent and conscientious in their efforts to meet that responsibility in every way possible. When it comes to "overdevelopment of the land surrounding this [Wheatland] Lake", the difficult question is what constitutes overdevelopment. Overdevelopment would take on different proportions depending on the viewpoint of each individual. From this agency's standpoint, however, our primary concern is for the maintenance of the aquatic ecosystem and therefore housing density in and of itself may not pose a problem. In addition, we are always desirous that our facilities can be enjoyed by the maximum number of the public, but again, we have no specific evidence that urban development around a fishing lake negatively impacts the use of that lake by the public as long as the water quality is maintained. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER • I would certainly agree that there is a limit to the carrying capacity of all of our lands with regard to people and wildlife, but limiting population is a soc-ial issue and one outside of the jurisdiction of this agency and*so we are limited in our wildlife management to accommodating the wildlife and habitat as best we can to our growing population. You may rest assured that -by statue and by commitment, we will seek to find the best balance for the wildlife and outddor recreation on a case -by -case basis. Sincerely James A. Remin on Director JPR/JAR/h cc: Lewis M. Costello The Honorable John W. Daniel, II The Honorable Alson H. Smith, Jr. Henry A/. Thomas J 1'"be lzaak Walton Lea g-- ue of America DEFENDERS OF SOIL, AIR, WOODS, WATERS, AND WILDLIFE WINCHESTER CHAPTER 0 P.O. BOX 2954 • WINCHESTER, VA 22601 June 9, 1989 Mr. James A. Remington Director Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 West Broad Street Box 11104 Richmond, Virginia 23230 Dear Mr. Remington: I am writing to you as president of the Winchester Chapter of the Izaak Walton League, on behalf of our nearly 700 members. On May 25, 1988 you wrote to me thanking our members for the great amount of volunteer time they have spent constructing underwater fish attractors at Wheatlands Lake. We are only too happy to help you and commission members when it comes to wildlife and conservation. Now we would like your help on this same project. The northern Shenandoah Valley has for decades tolerated the abuses of the Shenandoah River by the American Viscose and Avtex, and the resultant loss in fishing quality. Just as progress is being made regarding Avtex, the PCB warnings are issued on the Shenandoah. This coupled with the continuing loss of access to streams for trout stocking have succeeded in devastating the quality of sport fishing in this part of the state. We have anticipated the opening of the Wheatlands Lake as a partial solution to the problem of finding a peaceful, clean, a,z!cessibla area in which to enjoy the great sport of fishing. I am sure that you, as a fisherman, understand that most of the enjoyment of fishing is the escape from the urban setting and just "getting away from it all". This leads to the object to our request. We strongly urge you to use all the legal powers of your office to prevent the overdevelopment of the land surrounding this lake. The media is stating the number of houses anywhere from 130 to 2000. This could mean as many as 8000 people living around it. Please do not retreat from any verbal or written agreements your department made with the developers regarding this maximum number of houses. Of 4F -14 -2- Remember, there is a limit to the carrying capacity of the land with regards to people and wildlife. We will be anxiously following the events as they develop. We just hope that our efforts and concern for all sportsmen are not wasted for the financial benefit of a handful of developers. They surely cannot argue they need the money. Sincerely, James H. Madden President, Winchester Chapter Izaak Walton League CF: Lewis Costello Alson H. Smith, Jr. Harrington Smith Robert Watkins, Fred. Co. -Planning Comm. COMMONWEALTH of V1RCjINIA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 WEST BROAD STREET BOX 11104 RICHMOND, VA 23230 June 13, 1989 Mr. James H. Madden President, Winchester chapter Izaak Walton League P. O. Box 2954 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Madden: Thank you for your letter of June 9 with regards to the Wheatlands Lake issue. The employees of this agency are certainly in sympathy with your general concerns for degradation of the natural waters of the state and as you know with the help of hundreds of volunteers such as the members of your organization, many positive results have been achieved over the years in maintaining and restoring the lakes and waters of the state to their maximum productivity. We believe that all state agencies have a public trust that is established with their creation by the General Assembly and our Board and staff members are very diligent and conscientious in their efforts to meet that responsibility in every way possible. When it comes to "overdevelopment of the land surrounding this ;Wheatland] Lake"- the difficult question is what constitutes ov-�rdevelopj„ent. Overdevelopm-,nt would take on different proportions depending on the viewpoint of each individual. From this agency's standpoint, however, cur pi:imary concern is for the maintenance of the aquatic ecosystem and therefore housing density in and of itself may not pose a problem. In addition, we are always desirous that our facilities can be enjoyed by the maximum number of the public, but again, we have no specific evidence that urban development around a fishing lake negatively impacts the use of that lake by the public as long as the water quality is maintained. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 0 r4 Mr. James H. Madden Page 2 June 13, 1989 I would certainly agree that there is a limit to the carrying capacity of all of our lands with regard to people and wildlife, but limiting population is a social issue and one outside of the jurisdiction of this agency and so we are limited in our wildlife management to accommodating the wildlife and habitat as best we can to our growing population. You may rest assured that by statue and by commitment, we will seek to find the best balance for the wildlife and outdoor recreation on a case -by -case basis. Sincerely .G James A. ReminGon Director JPR/JAR/h cc: Lewis M. Costello The Honorable John W. Daniel, II The Honorable Alson H. Smith, Jr. Henry A. Thomas EJ COUNTY of FREDERICK ��� 11 . I John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 703/665-5666 FAX: 703/667-0370 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Board of Supervisors Planning Commission FROM: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator✓ DATE: June 6, 1989 RE: Wheatlands Project Attached for your information are a series of docu- ments on the Wheatlands development project: 1. Board and Planning Commission minutes of the rezoning from Agriculture to Recreational Subdivision. 2. J. 0. Renalds and Dorothea Stephen's opinion on the donation of the lake property to the Commonwealth. 3. John Horne's opinion as to the donation of the lake to the Commonwealth and various responses from the Commonwealth. 4. John Riley's letter to the Commonwealth advising the County's current position. It should be noted that at no time did anyone from the County staff advise anyone from the Commonwealth in writing of any density requirements of this development and its impact on the lake. I have been advised that there are several internal memoranda circulated by staff members for the Commonwealth that indicate a density of 200 to 300 lots. I have requested those documents. The advisability of transfer of this property by Mr. Horne and the legal requirements to meet the intent of the zoning ordinance appear to be correct to the writer. As long as the owner understood that the open space require- ment would have to be recalculated for the entire project and shown on the final master plan, the lake could be deleted from the plan. If the lake were to remain a part of the Wheatlands Project, then obviously it could not be transferred to the Commonwealth. 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 . t • «.' Memorandum - Board of Supervisors Planning Commission June 6, 1989 Page 2 .: -4- 4'Y way Department approved the subdivision, Recommended Approval Mr. Berg showed the exact location of the proposed subdiv- ision to the Members, Mr. Berg read the following telegram to the Members from Mr. David Zeiger: "Per your letter of -June 24, I am pleased to report the following; Topographic characteristics of this property both from an engineering and sanitation standpoint preclude any alternative design. Care ful and thorough engineering studies conclude that the submitted design is the only proper way to pro- vide adequate drainfields for the lots in question. And the Health Department has concurred that this design satisfies their requirements. Cordially and Sincerely, Is/ David L, Zeiger" Mr. Berg stated that the lots meet all zoning and frontage regulations.. Mr. Gordon asked how many lots had been approved up to date, Mr. Zeiger stated that there have been 15 lots approved. Upon motion made by Richard Madigan, seconded by Langdon Gordon and approved unanimously, r BE IT RESOLVED, That the'Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does hereby 'recommend approval, PUBLIC HEARINGS AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPT- ED NOVEMBER 1, 1973 TO REZONE 1144,297 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OF J. L. BOWMAN AND F, L, GLAIZE, III, FRONTING 920,57 FEET ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE 277 (BEGINNING APPROXIMATELY 1.45 MILES EAST OF INTERSECTION WITH ROUTE 636) AND BOUNDED BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY-CLARKE COUNTY LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 6000 FEET, MORE OR LESS, (BEGINNING APPROXIMATELY .53 MILES SOUTH OF ROUTE 277); IN OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT; FROM AGRICULTURAL, GENERAL (A-2) TO RESIDENTIAL RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY (R-5), Recommended Approval Mr, Madigan stated that there will probably be some legal questions that will need to be answered by the Planning Commis- CT 57H sion's attorney, therefore the following motion was made; Upon motion made by Richard Madigan, seconded by Elmer Venskoske and approved unanimously, including the Chairman, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does hereby send for our attorney and have him present during this meeting, Mr. Berg stated that the office was notified this morning that the Commission's attorney would not be present, Upon motion made by Richard Madigan, seconded by James Goll- aday and unanimously approved, including the Chairman, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does hereby move that the Commission in- form the Board of Supervisors of our request for a county attorney and ask them to make provisions to furnish us with an attorney at all of our meetings, especially our Public Hearings. Mr. Berg read the application of James L..Bowman and Fred L. Glaize, III to the Members, Mr, Billy J. Tisinger appeared before the Commission repre- Co senting Mr. J. L. Bowman and Mr, M. L, Glaize,Ill in their re- quest for rezoning from Agricultural, General (A-2) to Residential Recreational Community (R-5), Mr. Tisinger stated that a Master Plan for the development-----�'-� has been drawn. The frontage is approximately 900 feet on Route`s 277 between Stephens City and Double Tollgate and approximately 6000 feet on Route 522 in Clarke County. He also stated that there are 1196 acres with approximately 1144 acres in Frederick County and approximately 50-60 acres in Clarke County. He further stated that this appears to be the first application to the new Zoning Ordinance with someone attempting to rezone from Agricul- tural to R-5 (Residential-Recreata.nal__C.ommunity), Mr. Tisinger added that a requirement of this Section is that a master plan 'be presented to the Commission for a recommendation; then sent on to _:/3 C) 0 the Board of Supervisors for approval or disapproval. Mr, Tis, finger stated that, if approved, that developers will appear be- fore the Planning Commission with preliminary plans to show how the Master Plan can be implemented, He said that the Master Plan is thensent to the Board of Supervisors for final approval. Mr. Tisinger stated that a dam is presently being construct- ed that will provide approximately 135 acres of lake, He further stated that, as required, 35% of the entire area will be set a- side for recreational or open space, Mr, Tisinger stated that some 350 acres, if approved, would be set aside for recreational or open -land areas. c% -Z JN' `__ . Mr, Tis ni ger s a ed that it is con emplaced —that the area will be served by a central water and sewer system to be located on the property, He said that something -may be worked out with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority if the development it- self and the'neighboring area would justify the extension of water and sewer lines. Mr. Tisinger stated that the developers do not anticipate this becoming a permanent home residence area; but rather, that Ad it be attractive -for those who wanta second home, Mr..Tisinger further stated that forty (40) acres will be set aside initially for townhouses and multi -family dewllings (2 areas of 20.acres each), He said the developers will change their plans should these townhouses not be attractive or compat- ible. He further stated that there are two six (6)-acre village centers planned, He added that the developers intend to preserve the environment within their application, Mr, Tisinger stated that the dam is approximately 70% com- plete and the developers hope it.will be finished in 1 to 1-1/2 years. He added that there will be about 7-1/2 miles of shore f I • -7-, a , frontage on the lake, Richard Madigan asked of the possibility of condominiums, Mr. Tisinger replied that this possibility has not yet been discussed, Mr, Madigan asked for d description of the village centers, Mr, Tisinger replied that they will contain supporting -type services; such as shops and small grocery stores, Mr, Madigan asked the number of individual lots planned, Mr, Tisinger replied that there will be approximately 1500 to 1800 lots including the itownhouses, The Chairman asked about the "area impact" anticipated with this project and the amount of time before completion, Mr, Fred Glaize, III stated that it would be many years be- fore total completion, He also stated that it is too large an area to submit final plans at this time for the entire tract --it will be developed in portions, Mr, Richard Madigan asked for a Master Plan in relation to impact, He also asked for a Master Plan in relation to antici- pated County services required and anticipated County profit po- tential (taxes less services equalling profit potential) per year, r " Mr, Richard Madigan asked about the restrictive.covenants. Mr. Tisinger stated that the only way to provide.proper pro tection for the people in the subdivision is to put restrictive .covenants in the deed. James Bowman stated that the plan to put in a sewage system to serve the entire area would include approximately 2000 acres >� (everything south of Route 277). He further stated they intend �f to ask the Sanitation Authority to build a sewage plant after guaranteed feasibility is g.rov.en.. He added that the proven feas- ibility would have to include adjoining landowners, Mr, Bowman --i-�i -8 • also said that the same procedure would be used for water lines that would be laid down Route.--27-7-.,- The Chairman asked if these facilities were to be public or private. Mr. Bowman stated that these facilities were anticipated to be public, Richard Madigan stated that he would like to have a Flow Process Chart as soon as possible to use as a tentative schedule of development plans, Mr, Tisinger stated that he would be glad to supply this information of the "concept", (These are not either prelimin- ary or final plans.) etc, Langdon Gordon asked the number of lots planned per block, Mr, Tisinger replied that the answer will be incorporated in the Flow Process Chart, OPPOSITION Virgil Bates stated his opinion that there should be an amendment to the application for rezoning of approximately 6000 feet of frontage in Clarke County. / Mr. Bates asked if the sewage leakage from Sandy's Trailer Park would contaminate the proposed lake and what would happen to Sandy's lagoon, Roy Williams (Health Department) stated that he was not aware of the contamination problem, Mr. Bates asked what would happen to the dam if this appli- cation is disapproved or sewage plant is not approved, He stated C.- that Mr, Brad Chewning of State Water Control Board (as of 1:15 PM today) had stated that there are no State standards for dam struc- tural specifications and no governing body with the authority of h -9- 'i approval, Charles H. Shockley asked about water pollution resulting, James Giles (sp) stated that the dam has stopped the flow of water to the stream that is his water source. James Bowman stated that there is no water anywhere --the stream is dried up, Mason Larwood asked what effect the projects would have on Route 636 and adjacent roads, James Bowman stated that there would be two (2) entrances: Route 277 entrance and Route 522 entrance, He added that Route 636 is a temporary construction entrance, Virgil Bates stated that "concepts" are extremely dangerous in his opinion without everything being detailed for decision makers, He added that the market is declining from second home projects. Mr, Bates questioned the theory that security need not be provided from outside the complex. He stated that the Sheriff's Department of Clarke County spends 2/3 of its time.in Greenway (sp) District which lies along the Warren.County border where Shenandoah Farms, Shenandoah Shores, Shenandoah River of Lake River. Estates are located. He said that these communities have a great problem with vandalism and burglary, He further stated that it was his feeling.that the surrounding landowners experienced increased vulnerability to these crimes without the private security force of the complex for protection, He said that Shenandoah Farms no longer has its own security force because of the expense. He asked if there would be a "binding" for 100 years, for example. He also said that a never-ending entity (or comparable) providing for security may be necessary as well as an explanation of how to' r. finance the security force, e -10- 0 He also said that the exceptions would be bankruptcy and sqecific arrangements with the property owners within the subdivision, Bill Tisinger stated that the land could be developed in five (5)-acre tracts and not have to go through this problem, Richard Madigan stated that they can develop the land in / large tracts without asking for approval and feels that it is best to achieve the best possible method of development, Upon motion made by Richard Madigan, seconded by James W,- Golladay, and unanimously approved, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does hereby recommend to the Board of Supervisors the approval of the master plan for Wheatland Re- creational Subdivision R-5 with these stipulations: That they provide information to the Planning Commission a flow process chart projecting the development stages of pop- ulation impactff-tax revenues and cost of services, sectional )�?development, plans on sewer and water, roads and other amenities within the subdivision, SHACKELFORD REZONING AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPT- ED NOVEMBER 1, 1973 TO REZONE 12;692_ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OF S, L, SHACKELFORD ESTATE, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 642, APPROX- IMATELY SIX -TENTHS (6/10) MILES SOUTH OF KERNSTOWN INTERCHANGE 79; IN BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT; FROM RESIDENTIAL, LIMITED (R-2) TO BUSINESS, GENERAL (B-2), Recommended Denial H. Ronald Berg stated that he had been on the site and that no sign was posted, Mr, Richard Madigan stated that he would not participate in any way with this application 'for rezoning. The Chairman asked if a sign was posted on the property, Herbert Shackelford appeared before the Commission stating that it was posted on Wednesday, July 16th, He further stated 0 that the application was made on Friday, July llth; check was ��� ; � �r t r i t' f F ;usr r j H Cr C 41 ginia, does herein approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of this Board held on September 24, 1975. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. !I APPROVAL OF BILLS Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson, i BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein approve the payment of the following bills: 1. Randolph M. Underwood - Painting Courthouse Check Number 11808 - Amount $7,875.00 2. Treasurer of Virginia - Purchase of Dump Truck for Parks and Recreation Department - Check Number 11607 - Amount $1,100.00 The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, (Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis Tt Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard i F. Madigan, Aye. I .RESOLUTION REQUESTING ADDITION OF A PORTION OFF ROUTE 655 (LANDFILL ROAD) TO SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM - APPROVED Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, i BE IT RESOLVED, That the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation is - !hereby requested to add a section of road from Route 655 to the Frederick -Winchester Sanitary Landfill, a distance of 0.5 miles, to the Secondary System of Frederick County pursuant to Section 33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this Board does guarantee the Commonwealth of Vir- ginia an unrestricted right-of-way of sixty (60) feet with necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; recorded in Deed Book 436, Page 112 dated June 27, 1974, Deed Book 436, Page 116 dated June 6, 1974, Deed Book 436, Page 120 dated May 23, 1974, land Deed Book 436, Page 124 dated June 16, 1979. The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard F. Madigan, Aye. 'I AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1, 1973, TO REZONE 1144.297 ACRES OF J. L. BOWMAN AND F. L. GLAIZE, III IN OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM AGRICULTURAL, GENERAL (A-2) TO RESIDENTIAL RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY (R-5)- APPROVED i Mr. Billy Jo Tisinger appeared before the Board representing Mr. J. L. Bowman and j Mr. F. L. Glaize, III in their rezoning application. He stated that the Board had re ceived copies of a memorandum of position prepared by the petitioners. Mr. Tisinger requested the Board to correct the fifth line in said statement to read "development" larea rather than "drainage" area. Mr. Tisinger stated that the questions raised at the last public hearing had been (before the Planning Commission and this was the third appearance before the Board and !that the petitioners had attempted to answer these questions as best they could in i !their statement of position. He emphasized that the proposed development is at this time a concept and should it be approved, the Board of Supervisors would have the con- tinuing policing authority of the development to see that the developers carry out the project as they have promised to do. Mr. Tisinger stated that they had tried in good faith to present the plans for this development and answer all questions. He request- ed a vote of approval on this rezoning request. j 0 Mr. Rosser Payne answered that they could not guarantee that 338 of this subdivi- sion would be recreational, 338 would be residential and 338 would be retirement as set forth in their projections but that these figures were based on studies made of other recreational developments very similar to the proposed one in similar areas. He ifurther stated that the intent of the developers is to construct a recreational subdi- ;vision and that in the recreational subdivisions studied, the number of permanent homes �I Ilwas far less than 338 including the two located in Frederick County. Mr. Payne ex- plained the process of reassessment of the property including three reassessments with- in a 10 year period. He then explained the taxing of the residential lots in the sub- division should it be approved. Mr. Cole stated that he felt the location of the property would make it conducive to a permanent subdivision and he did not feel it could be compared with The Summit and Shawneeland. He then asked if an environmental impact study had been made on this development. Mr. Tisinger stated that an environmental impact study had not been made inasmuch as the ordinance does not require it. '- Mr. Sandy asked if there was any breakdown as to how many acres would be platted in the first section submitted for approval and Mr. Tisinger answered that the subdi- vision would be developed in sections but the number of acres in each section had not yet been developed. He stated that when the master plan is presented for approval the deed of dedication would be presented including the restrictions. Mr. Sandy stated that if the subdivision is developed in sections the Board would have some control over the method of development. Mr. Mason Larwood stated that considering the alternatives, this project seems to 'be the most feasible approach but he felt there must be continuing monitoring by the County in order to insure that the intent of the R-5 zoning district is adhered to. Mr. E. E. Bayliss stated that he was in favor of this project and that he felt it was very well located and would be most successful. r, Mrs. Ann Nuri stated that she felt the property would lose its beauty if it is developed in 1/2 acre lots. She stated that there is ample property to develop the i project into 5 acre lots thereby preserving the natural beauty of the area. Mrs. Nuri stated that she felt the developers should request rezoning and develop perhaps sever- al hundred acres initially to see if the project is successful. Mrs. Nuri stated that she was opposed to rezoning of this magnitude. i Mr. Joseph Athey stated that he felt the Board should consider the fact that our�.� i natural beauty is disappearing through development in Frederick County. I Mrs. Margaret Starliper asked if the impact of this development would require an -- other school and Mr. Sandy answered that it could and this was why the Board was so concerned about the type of homes constructed inthe development. !I I Mr. Madigan stated that he had conducted an impact study on this proposed develop- ment and when it is totally sold out there will be 49.35 children. He stated that the lake and other recreational amenities and the security force provided by the subdivi- sion would create less impact on County services of this type. He further stated that he could see less impact on our welfare program inasmuch as the people moving into !!this development would not be in the low income category, and that he felt the develop - would produce a high revenue for the County. Mr. Madigan stated that he did not see how the Board could prove that it would Nnot be a recreational subdivision. He then presented his projections of revenue for Y u . _properties the County has are the two recreational subdivisions now located here. He I ,pointed out that the residents in these recreational subdivisions pay six times the F(� ! amount other County residents pay for the services they receive from the County. I Mr. Madigan further stated that if the County did not have these two recreational 4 ,subdivisions, we would be paying 20 cents more per hundred on our taxes and the income - -. in this County could not stand a big tax increase. I Mr. Cole stated that he did not feel the Board knew enough about the proposed de- / velopment to make a decision at this time. He further stated that he had talked with I '!several i people in his district and that some saw it as a recreational subdivision but ithe c� majority saw it as a residential subdivision and the impact of an additional 9000 ' - people in this County over the next few years would be quite significant. I Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by J. Robert Russell, - BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, - idoes herein approve, on third and final reading, the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER ! 1, 1973, TO REZONE 1144.297 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OF J. L. BOWMAN AND F. L. ' �. GLAIZE, III, FRONTING 920.57 FEET ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE 277 (BEGINNING APPROXIMATELY 1.45 MILES EAST OF INTERSECTION WITH ROUTE 636) AND BOUNDED BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY-CLARKE COUNTY LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 6000 FEET, MORE OR LESS, (BEGINNING APPROXIMATELY .53 MILES SOUTH OF ROUTE 277); IN OPEQUON MAG- ISTERIAL DISTRICT; FROM AGRICULTURAL, GENERAL (A-2) TO RESIDENTIAL RECREATION- AL COMMUNITY (R-5). ¢X i The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, E Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; Richard F. Madigan, Aye; and I Dennis T. Cole, Nay. i AMENDMENT TO SOLENBERGER HARDWARE SITE PLAN - APPROVED Mr. Cole stated that he had reviewed the amendment to the Solenberger Hardware :Site Plan as presented at the last meeting and was in favor of said amendment. - - Upon motion made by Dennis T. Cole and seconded by J. Robert Russell, BE IT RESLOVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein approve the amendment to the Solenberger Hardware Site Plan, locat- ed on Route 7, to amend the driveway entrance to said property from 50 feet to 35 feet - r as recommended by the Virginia Department of Highways. - C The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, - !Aye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Dennis T. Cole, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; and Richard - "- F. Madigan, Aye. AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN - DENNY'S FURNITURE - APPROVED Mr. Berg presented an amendment to the Site Plan for Denny's Furniture stating Cthat the applicant was requesting the relocation of the building on the property. - Upon motion made by Richard F. Madigan and seconded by Donald R. Hodgson, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Vir- ginia, does herein approve the amendment to the Site Plan for Denny's Furniture locat- - :ed on Route 7 for the relocation of the building on the property in accordance with ithe site plan presented this date. - - The above resolution was passed by the following recorded vote: Raymond C. Sandy, !JAye; J. Robert Russell, Aye; Donald R. Hodgson, Aye; Richard F. Madigan, Aye; and 1Dennis T. Cole, Abstaining. {STONEBROOK FARMS SUBDIVISION - SECTIONS 4 AND 5 - APPROVED Mr. Berg presented the plat of Stonebrook Farms Subdivision, Section 4 and 5 and 'stated that these sections contain 14 lots and all approvals have been received. He J • • r 'J M E M O R A N D U M TO: Boar of Supervisors FROM: J. O. enJ�� III Count Administrator DATE: September 30, 1975 SUBJECT: Wheatlands Impact Statement de H. Ronald Berg, Secretary Planning Commission Although certain discrepancies exist in the Impact Statement with regard to the analysis of the 1975-1976 County Budget, they are due to certain changes made by the Board after the Fiscal Plan was printed and after the Budget Hearing and the overall impact analysis is affected very little. However, the use of one fiscal year's budget to perform an analysis must be kept in mind as to the accuracy of projections since most County major expenditures are spread over several years and certain large expenditures may or may not appear in any one year's fiscal plan. Also, projections in this case must be made without a currently approved capital facilities plan so this limitation must be kept in mind. The fiscal impact statement for Wheatlands is based upon three (3) assumptions that are not supported by the facts presented. The statement is made (Page 40 of the report) and I quote, "Wheatlands should experience a population growth and demographic profile similar to that in other recreational communities with similar locational parameters." Why should that be the case --what is the supporting evidence? Wheatlands will have central water and sewer and it will be close to Front Royal, Kernstown and Winchester. Further, the lot prices will not be significantly higher than standard subdivisions that do not offer the amenities projected ($7500 compared with $10,000) A second assumption is that the population characteristics of Wheatlands will be 1/3 second homes, 1/3 retirement homes, and 1/3 permanent homes. This breakdown is at best a rough guess and diffi- cult to document. By using this particular breakdown, the study is heavily slanted away from, "'permanent home' oriented general fund expenditures for parks and recreation, education, school building program and jail construction;" therefore putting the project in the best possible light. Even if the facts presented prove to be correct, how can it be said that a retirement population will not require public services. Florida communities have certainly not found this to be the case. Memorandum .Re: Wheatlands Impact Statement September 30, 1975 Page 2. It must be borne in mind as well that recreational lot sales have tended to drop off from the experience of recent years. This trend may continue and if so the number of second homes in Wheat - lands may decrease proportionately from the assumed 1/3 of the total. Thus, a greater number of permanent homes may be built at an increased cost to the County for services, especially schools. On Page 47 the statement is made and I quote, "the County will be receiving real estate.taxes from the property in the amount of $7820 with no real County outlay." Is that actually the case? Who will bear the cost of water and sewer mains to serve this area? More importantly, what will be the cost of service to adjacent development that will be able to make use of these same mains? To elaborate further on this point, the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority is studying the area east and south of Stephens. City, including the town, for sewerage service using EPA grant funds. Should the determination be made by the Authority, the - - State Water Control Board, or others, that a regional plant on Crooked Run near the junction of Stephens Run as called for in the already adopted Metropolitan Regional Water Quality Manage- ment Plan, is the best alternative for sewerage service for the area of Stephens City and parts of.the County east, then a large area is opened up to development. Not only will "Wheatlands" be. in an area that can be served but also the Van Dyke Trailer Park (currently in litigation) and other large tracts of land. We must bear in mind the case of the -Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County versus Williams where the Court held that sewer service must be granted where it is planned and installed and that lack of capabity7 - in a sewage treatment plant was not a defense to stop development. There could be significant costs to the County for the future which are not even foreseen by the Impact Study on "Wheatlands" currently. before you. For years subdivision developers.claimed that development built. the tax base and brought income to the County. That did not prove •true. Is the evidence conclusive enough to claim that this is.not the case again? JOR:HRB:akk 0 ki ?[Prh Natrfax 'ptanntng DistridC�aant tt tint 103 East Sixth Street Front Royal, Virginia 22630 Telephone 703-635.4146 R. Edward Duncan Executive Director MEMORANDUM September 28, 1979 Mr. J. 0. Renalds, III, County Administrator From: R. Edward Duncan, Executive Director Subject: Wheatlands Fishing Lake Project At its meeting of September 26, 1979, the Executive Committee of the Lord Fairfax Planning Commission again tabled action on the pro- posed Wheatlands Fishing Lake Project which was submitted for A-95 Re- view by the Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation. This action was taken inasmuch as there has been no recommendation concerning this pro- ject from Frederick County. The Committee expressed the concern that, due to the length of time which has elapsed since its initial submission, any comments the County Commission may wish to make concerni_rig this project may not be in- corporated in the consideration of this project by the Heritage Conserva- tion and Recreation Service. R. E. D. e Clarke County Page County Warren County Town of Luray Frederick County Shenandoah County Town of Front Royal City of Winchester J..O. FZENALD08 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR . x$Ii.erir ? Gauntu October 11, 1979 Mr. R. Edward Duncan Executive Director Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission 103 East Sixth Street Front Royal, Virginia 22630 M O. Box 601 9 COURT SQUIRE WYNCHErSTER, VIRGINIA 2.2601 Dear Mr. Duncan: In regard to Frederick County's position on Wheatlands, this letter is submitted. In.accordance with Section 21-85, Subparagraph (a) of, the Frederick County.Code, the proposed Wheatlands bake can only be conveyed to a non-profit corporate owner or association of the individual owners in the development. As a result, the County's position is that the Wheatlands project as proposed by the Com- mission of.Game and Inland Fisheries, cannot be built. and operated as proposed because.it would be in direct violation with.the Code of the County of Frederick, Virginia. For this reason the County Board of Supervisors can onlly be opposed to the furtherance of this project. Should you require further information, please contact me. Sincerely yours, 9 J. 0. Renalds, III JOR:akk cc - Planning and Development Director - Public Works Director — Board of Supervisors 703 - 667-2365 rc ''' yx�I�PXT��i tiLII1TI2t�1 department of Thanning anb �3r�relapracnt PLANNING DIRECTOR P. O. S0X 601 9 COURT SOUARE ZONING A INL. STATOR WI`iCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR July 3, 1979 Mr. Jerry Fause Virginia Commission of Game & Inland Fisheries 4010 West Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 22320 Dear Mr. Fause: In belated response to your query regarding your proposed purchase of the lake at Wheatlands, we have attached a copy of the applicable Zoning regulations for R-5, Residential Recreational Community District_ Your attention is directed to Sec. 21-85. Open Space (a), the last sentence of which makes it quite clear that the lake can only be conveyed to a non-profit corporate owner or association of the individual owners in the development. Sincerely, Dorothea L. Stefen, Zoning Administrator DLS:bjs CC: Mr. J. O. Renalds, County Administrator 703/662-4532 • • § 21-84 Zoning - § 21-85 C) Sec. 21-84. Special regulations. (a) No more than eight townhouses shall be included in any townhouse grouping. (b) The facades of dwelling units in a townhouse- development shall be varied by changing front yards by not less than two feet and variation- in mate- rials or design, so that no more than four abutting units will have the same front yard depth or the same or essentially the same architecturaEl treatment of facades and roof lines. 21-85 Opens space (a) Open space roads, shall be maintained by and be the sole :respon- sibility of the developer/owner of the recreation development until suclh time as the developer/owner conveys or sells such common area to a norr-profit cor- porate owner or association whose members shall be all of the individuaia�vFrers - in the development. .Said Aland `shall only be conveyed to aid be izei b `said: nori-profitcorporateowner.orassociationofthemciividuaLQxsers"ia- menty (b) In the event that the organization established to owrr and-mmdntain common open space, or any successor organization, shall at anytime after es- tablishment of the residential recreational community fail, irz ra i I -rL- .the com7- mon open space in reasonable order and condition in accordance with the plan, the county may serve written notice upon such organization or upotLthe_resi- dents and owners of the planned unit development setting forth the M- A"' ner-in which the organization has failed to maintain the common open space ia meason- able condition, and said notice shall include a demand that siu der mdencies or maintenance be cured within thirty days thereof_ If the deficiencies set forth in the original notice or in the modifications thereof are not cured_witb n said thirty days, or any extension thereof, the county in order to preserve the taxable values of the properties within the residential recreational caartaivaity and to prevent the common open space from becoming a public rLuisanae .may _ enter upon said common open space and maintain the same for a-peria&,af one year. Said entry and maintenance shall not vest in the public any .:,:!4 to- use - the common open space except when the same. is voluntarily dedicate —to:the ,- :> county by the residents and owners. Before: the expiration of said=ye$r the V= county shall, upon its initiative or upon the request of the organization:thereto fore responsible for the maintenance of the common space, call a public liearing upon notice to such organization, or the residents and owners of the plannedunit development to be held by the board, at which hearing such organization or the - residents and owners of the residential recreational community shall show cause why such maintenance by the county shall not, at the election- of the county, continue for a succeeding year. If the county shall determine that such organiza- =' tion is ready and able to maintain said common open space in reasonable condi- tion, the county shall cease to maintain said common open space: at the end of said year. If the county shall determine such organization is not ready and able to y. 227 �J 0 . , § . 21-86 Frederick County Code § 21-88 maintain said common open space in a reasonable condition, the county may continue to maintain said common space during the next succeeding year and be subject to a similar hearing and determination in each year thereafter_ The decision of the county in any such case shall constitute a final administrative decision subject to appeal for judicial review. (c) The cost of such maintenance by the county shall be assessed rat -- ably against the properties within the residential recreational community and shall become a tax lien on said properties. The county, at the time of entering - upon said common open space for the purpose of maintenance, shall file a notice of such lien in the office of the county clerk upon the properties affected by such lien within the planned unit development. ' Sec ��21"-86`',t!r Streets.-and:,roads (a) :..Streets and roads within the developed area shall effectively serve all subdivided residential lots and all other facilities therein and shall, cated for public.useland accepted by the Virginia Departmentof Highways; meet the requirements of the county. (b) Private :streets -and roads; which shall also effectively serve alI _ subdivided residentialots land other facilities in the area are permitted- When private streets and roads are used the county shall not be bound in any way to =- provide public services to the recreational community and such streets as are indicated on the recorded plats shall�recrte .the fact they are -nct dedicated is .. .._ .�... general:publicaus and such private roads and streets shall not be required- to meet state or county requirements (c) All dedicated public streets shown on the final plan shall meet all requirements of the Virginia Department of Highways Standards _ Before- ap- - proval of any -final plan, the resident engineer shall so certify - See. 21-87 . Cul-de-sacs Generally, minor terminal streets (cul-de-sacs) are designed tvhave one end permanently closed. Each cul-de-sac must be terminated by an adequate turn -around - - Sec. 21-88. Off-street parking. The off-street parking requirements as stipulated in article II shall apply except there shall be no requirements for off-street._oarking for single family residential use. 228 Y`^ r� fy v c�. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development John T.P. Horne - Planning Director Stephen M. Gyurisin - Deputy Director 703/662-4532 January 7, 1983 Mr. Jerry G. Fouse Land Coordinator Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries P.O. Box 1104 Richmond, Virginia 23230-1104 Dear Mr. Fouse: Enclosed you will find a copy of•a letter sent to Mr. Larry Hart of your office in December of 1981 concerning the proposed development of the Wheatlands Lake area as a fishing lake. In lieu of restating the position of this.county concerning your development, I would like to refer -you ' to this previous letter. If you have any questions concerning that letter, please don't hesitate to contact me. The only item I would like to reiterate for the possible benefit of. the State Water Control Board is that the zoning around the proposed Wheatlands Lake is on Residential Recreational Community and the downstream zoning is currently Agricultural. The letter from Mr. Constantine is somewhat vague as to the information that the State Water Control Board would like to have.and therefore, I will only offer to provide any further information that the Water Control Board may want upon a somewhat more specific request. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please don't hesi- tate to contact me. Sincerely, ohn T. P. Horne Director' JTPH/rsa ourt Square - P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia ;- „ ; 22601 Pgartnunt of 11Ittnning anbr p.efr.eloynterd DIRECTOR P. O. Box 601 9 COURT SQUARE JOHN T. P. HORNE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 December 3, 1981 Mr. Larry Hart, Chief Lands and Engineerings Division Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries P.O. Box 1104 Richmond, Virginia 23230-1104 Dear Mr.. Hart: This letter is in response to the telephone call I received from yourself on November 25, 1981, concerning the Wheatlands Property in Frederick County. At that time, I indicated that I believed there could be.a problem with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance in relation to your plans to obtain the lake on the Wheatlands Property for a State controlled recreational facility. The land surrounding this lake is zoned for. a Residential Recreational Community under the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and under the provisions of -that ordinance, it would be used as part of the open space to be available to the residents of the property for their use. Since our telephone conversation, I have reviewed the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance=in detail and determined that there would be in fact no conflict with the Zoning Ordinance or any Ordinances of Frederick County if.the State of Virginia were to obtain this lake for a recreational facility. This detemination of no conflict is based on two assumptions: 1. The remaining acreage in the"Wheatland Property, after the transfer of the lake and any adjoining property to the State, would be at least five hundred acres. 2. Since the transfer of the lake to ownership of the State would remove it from the Wheatland's Property, it could not be used for the required 35% open space in the residential recreational community. Therefore, the development of the remaining property would have to leave a minimum of 35% in open space. These two assumptions or requirements are not directly related to the concerns of your office, but should be considered by the owners of the property. We are working with those owners to make.sure they understand these provisions before any transfer of the lake takes place. 703/662-4532 Nam- aT. ` f Hart Letter Page Two I'm very happy to be able to state that there would not be any road blocks to your acquisition and development of the lake for recreational facilities from the County's point of view. We welcome this development and think the plans that you have could be of great benefit to the residents of Frederick County. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, PXX 41 FnT6.P. Horne 6irector JTPH:dll cc: Mr. James Bowman Mr. Fred Glaize, III Mr. James M. White, County Administrator e • � � ��Z �� is r1,, ,j.g ,JA�a$:�N, .111. A(JMA W-5';AI(ul Council on the Environment May 19, 1982 Mr. Larry G. Hart chiof, Lands and Engineering Division Conission of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 West Broad Street dctrmond, Virginia 23230 Dear Mr. Hart: 903 NINTH STREET OFFICE BUILDING RICH :'OND 23219 804-786 4500 119. V �rili�i if 4Z C The Council on the Environment has completed its review of your environmental assessment for the Wheatlands Lake project ill Frederick County. The following agencies participated in this review: Commission of Outdoor Recreation Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Department of Conservation and Economic Development Department of Highways and Transportation State Water Control Board Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission Virginia Research Center for Archaeology Virginia Soil and Plater Conservation Commission Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission The Council on the Environment has no objection to the acquisition of land and development of facilities at Wheatlands Lake, provided that such development is undertaken pursuant to stipulations made in your response to State Water Control Board concerns and that it follows review of an archaeological survey report by the Virginia Research Center for Archaeology (see attachments). Your response to the Water Board was found to be satisfactory. The well water system and sanitary septic system mentioned on paUi� 3 of the assessment may encounter difficulties stemming from thJ: high shale content of the soil underlying the site. This means that wells drilled into the shale may be so acidic as to preclude th(.) use of copper or galvanized pipe. Drain fields may not be a satisfactory disposal method for the same reason. Larry G. Hart May 19, .1982 . `P&ge Two The lake will help meet significant neds for water -based recrea- tion in the northwestern part.of the state.. However, the incentive that the project provides for additional land development will, according to the Frederick County planning director, be tempered by the need for County approval for residential development through a master plan process. As I indicated to you on March 12, an archaeological survey will be needed prior to any construction work. Results of the survey should be sent to the Virginia Research Center for Archaeology for review. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Sincerely, Charles H..Ellis III Environmental Impact Coordinator CHE:gcj Enclosures cc: The.Honorable Betty J. Diener, Secretary -of Commerce and Resources Mr. Brian D. Harrison, State Water Control Board Mr. Bruce J. Larson, Virginia Research Center for Archaeology Mr.. John R. Davy, Jr., Commission of outdoor Recreation vl�ir. R. Edward Duncan, Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission Mr. J. Stuart Barret, Division of Engineering and Buildings a d PHONE 703-635-4146 FRANK F. EVEREST. JR., CHAIRMAN s �BgX 168, SPRINGFIELD 22150 WALTER J. LEVERIDGE. VICE-CHAIRMAN ?t P.O. BOX 5511, VIRGINIA BEACH 23455 J.D. BOWIE BOX 1078, BRISTOL 24201 W. FRANK CHAPMAN, JR. �,' ��E���y� P.O. BOX CH PM N, JR. SALEM 24153 �`!" aArvv j a�nr� yFiirfax Planning DiStria (>Inmmifisinn ALLAN A. HOFFMAN, M.D. 1040 MAIN ST.. DANVILLE 24541 JAMES R. KNIGHT, JR., D.D.S. �� �� q ��� R. EDWARD DIRECT R EAST SIXTH STREET BOX 438, POTTER RSAW 22572 1\\YI I EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA 22630 I. LEE POTTER , 3120 N. WAKEFIELD ST., ARLINGTON 22207 GP.O. EDX4 1,WINCHESTER2 601 COMMISSION OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES R.H. CROSS, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RICHARD T. SPAIN 4010 WEST BROAD STREET BOX 47A, WAVERLY 23890 BOX 11104 BOX 11104 FRANK T. SUTTON, III Richmond, 23230-1104 RICHMOND, 23230 200 SO. THIRD ST., RICHMOND 23219 January 4, 1982 Mr. John Horne Frederick County Department of Planning 9 Court Square Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Horne: Enclosed is a copy of the plat you requested. The area which -you are interested in is described as. Tract "C".. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, %, Jerr Fouse —) Land Coordinator JGF/ac Enclosures .4 COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 703/665-5666 FAX: 703/667-0370 June 6, 1989 Jerry G. Fouse, Assistant Chief Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Lands and Engineering Division P. 0. Box 11104 Richmond, VA 23230 Dear Mr. Fouse: Thank you for talking with me on June 5, 1989 with reference to the Wheatlands/Intergate public fishing...lake. project beingconstr'uctect by' the`'" Oominonwealth:" It is my position that the County will hold all approval actions on this project until the Commonwealth researches this issue and provides the County with its - official position on same.. It would be appreciated if you could provide.me with the'Commonwealth's background material -provided to the local newspaper.on this subject.: please..advise .me. if additional information.,is. required by the Commonwealth. With kindest regards, I am JRR/tjp cc: Wheatlands File' 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 Sinc ly, John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator Winchester, Virginia - 22601 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK IParks and Recreation Department James M. Doran, Director 703 / 665-5678 - FAX: 703 / 667-0370 June 5, 1989 Mr. Tom Price G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Price: After discussing this development with Intergate Company, Inc., it appears that the developer is willing to work with the County to insure that -recreational areas are provided for its residents.- Amenities such as tennis courts,,multi-purpose courts, basketball courts, small playground areas, a,. --community-center, -a �25-meter swimming pool, and, hike trails°were=discussed as being desirable additions to this community. 10 This department would -recommend that the plans for this development reflect the recreational areas and facilities that have been discussed. Also, I would encourage the developer to continue to communicate with this department regarding recreational needs for Lake Frederick. Because of the impact that this community will have on our regional park in southern Frederick County, I would request that consideration be given to assisting with the development of a major facility at Sherando Park. I have attached a copy of the Sherando Park master plan for your review and if you should have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, James M. Doran Director JMD/hj 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - N-linchester, Virginia - 22601 G. W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 20 South Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 April 7, 1989 Mr. Robert Watkins Frederick County Planning Commission 9 Court Square Winchesier, Va. 22601 Re: Lake Frederick Project (Wheatlands) Dear Bob, We want to take this opportunity to thank the planning commission for hearing our preliminary proposal for Master Plan at the Lake Frederick project. I also appreciate our phone conversation Thursday morning relating to an issue that arose at that conference. The owner and I wanted to send you this letter in order to clarify our position regarding Lake Frederick plan approval status before Frederick County. It was too much of a subject to discuss in the short period of time available the other night, however; in light of actions taken by the Commission and potential actions by the Board at their next meeting it is necessary for us to quickly clarify this status. The owner believes that he is purchasing the accumulated parcels of land formally known as Wheatlands Development which is an R-5 zone in Frederick County. The zoning regulation involved is 8-3-3 which states "Upon approval by the Board of Supervisors of the "master plan" the residential recreational community shall be deemed established. After approval, the master plan may not be altered without approval of the board of supervisors but the preliminary plans shall be superseded by the final plans herein provided for." From our reading of this regulation we believe it implies a Wasier Plan" had to be approved at the time zoning of the property was established. We in fact are in possession of a plan done by Trico Associates of Winchester that shows a single family development very similar to the one presented the other evening. For that reason, our comment at the podium was that our plan is a technical revision of this previously approved plan which is still in effect. Now, let us say what our position on this does not mean. We have previously indicated to you our desire to utilize RP dimensional requirements for lots and lot density. We continue to stipulate this and our plan that we presented the other evening is designed around the RP zone requirements. This claim is not an attempt to undermine or reduce the requirements of the master plan ordinance in effect at the time this plan is presented. The M requirement to pay a fee of roughly $22,000.00 ja an issue that we feel goes _beyond what we expected and came as a surprise to us that evening. If your Board and you believe that payment of this fee is appropriate and is something we lawfully should do, based on the information presented above, we will conform to your wishes, in the Community's interest. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. We will not be filing an amended plan of any sort in order to meet a deadline stipulated by this new regulation. We will proceed with our planning in normal fashion towards the best plan possible for this site and for Frederick County. Thank you for your continued assistance. cc: Mr. Brian Cullen, Intergate Company C EM/ckd Sincerel y rs, addox, Jr., P.E., V.P. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Ref:: Public Hearing Intergate Development My name is Fred Williams 201 Beechcroft Road Winchester, Virginia I represent Mr. and Mrs. Milton K. Apperson - Rt. #1 Box 93, White Post, Va. Residents of Frederick County. Mr. Apperson is unable to attend this hearing and asked that I present his statement. QUOTE: This is a message from a member of the silent majority, who also has rights and votes. The issue here is to take notice and remember our previous constitutional right to invest in, and to enjoy, the independent market place planned by the founding fathers which should now be respected by our present officials. The voice of political activist negative groups should not be allowed to drown -out that of the majority. We must be allowed to enjoy the provisions of our highest law in a very basic form, such as to buy and sell our property, and never be denied by groups attempting to control the property of others, simply by placing their names on a petition without any valid status, qualification, or entitlement to do so. Let our officials protect our heritage. The property owner must not suffer erosion of his rights by negative activist groups and by unqualified petitions, after paying taxes for years upon his property. This is the issue! UNQUOTE 2 a o REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN COMMENTS Virginia Department of Transportation ATTN: William H. Bushman, Resident Engineer P.O. Box 278, Edinburg, Virginia 22824-0278 (703) 984-4133 The local office of the Transportation Department is located at 1550 Commerce Street, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Abnlicant:Fred L. Glaize,III & Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, Vca 22655 Aaent: G.W. CLIFFORD & ASSOC, 20 S. Cameron St. Winchester, Va 22601 Attn:Tom Price Name of development and/or decription of the request: Location: 3.5 mi± east of Stephens City & 1 mi.± southwest of Double Toll- gate. Adjacent and southside of Va Rte 277 Adjacent and west side of Va Rte 522, Transportation Department Comments: commercial entrance requirements. VDOT SianatiirP and DafiP (NOTICE TO VDOT - PLEASE RETURN TnIS"FORM TO THE AGENT.) C NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attache THREE copies of your plans and/or application form. REQUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS Frederick County Inspections Department ATTN: Kenneth L. Coffelt, Director P.O. Box 601, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5651 -- - ----- ---The F-rederic-k--County--In-specti-on-s--Depa-r--tment---is--- loc-ated---a-t-9-Cou-r-t-------- Squard in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Intergate Company, Inc P.O. Box 17533 Washington, D.C. 20041 (703)471-0400- AGENT• G W Clifford & Assoc P.O. Box 2104_ Winchester, Va 22601 Attn_:Tom Price Name of development and/or description of the request: LAKE FREDERICK Location: •= :-,South side and Adjacent to Va State Route•,277 & West side and ad- acent to U.S. Route 340 in'Double Tollgate Vicinity. Inspections Department Comments:` v 7` o r & a,�-/ Will - /,Q— Inspect. Signature & Date: -� d _� (NOTICE TO INSPECTIONS - PL AS�RE THIS FO TO AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. • REQUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS Doug Kiracofe, Frederick County Fire Marshall P.O. Box 601, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5651 -- -------The Freder-ick-C-oun-ty-Fir-e-Ma-rs-h-a-1-1-- is- located ---at 21---Cou-r-t -Square in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Intergate Company, Inc. P.O. Box 17533 Washington, D.C. 20041 (703)471-0400 AGENT: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104_ Winchester, Va 22601 Attn:Tom Prime Name of development and/or description of the request: Location: South side and'Adjacent to Va State Route 277 &.West side and ad- 1 1acent-to U.S. Route 340 in Double Tollgate --Vicinity. Fire Marshall Comments: Fire Marshall Signature & Date: / �9 (NOTICE TO FIRE MARSHALL - PLEASE URN S IFORM TO AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach TWO copies of your plans and/or application form. i May 15, 1989 Fire Marshall's Comments -Re.' ---Lake -Frederick 1.) Regarding your note on fire hydrants. You stated "two fire hydrants to be located'withih .400" of all Multi- --fami-ly-structures-11, -Th-i-s-i-s-indeed-veTy-good-but -Freder-ic-k--- County Chapter -10 Article 2-3-5.2 only ..requires one '(1) hydrant when there are three to five::,I.dwelling units per structure. -However, it must be within 3001. 'When.there are six or more dwelling units per structure,.two '(2) hydrants are required within 3001. 2.) Actual approval of fire hydrant locations and/or fire lanes will be ' done on site plans or construction drawings as each phase progresses. REQUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS Winchester Regional Airport ATTN: Kenneth F. Wiegand, Executive Director Route 1, Box 208-A, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 662-2422 The Winchester Regional Airport is located on Route 645, off of Route 522 South, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: I_ntergate Company, Inc. P.O. Box 17533 Washington, D.C. 20041 (703)471-0400 AGENT: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn:Tom Price Name of development and/or description of the request: Location: :.South -side•.and:',Adjacent to Va State Route-2,7.7 & West ,side and ad- jacent 'to U.'S': Route 340 in Double Tollgate Vicinity Winchester Regional Airport Comments: Airport Signature & Date: r-2' Y-(,GO ) )-`i Ida (NOTICE TO AIRPORT - PLEASE RETURN THIS FROM TO THE AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. 0 ECEIVED MAY ' 1 1989 r� REQUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS City of Winchester, Virginia ATTN: Tim Youmans, Planning Director 15 N. Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 667-1815 The City of Winchester offices are located in Rouss City Hall at 15 North Cameron Street in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: ,•j'` Intergate Company, Inc. P.O. Box 17533 3, Washington, D.C. 20041 (703) 471-0400 AGENT: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 d�1 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn:Tom Price sti Name of=�development and/or description of the request: I, / f' f LAKE FREDERICK Location: South side and Adjacent to Va State Route 277 & West side and ad- �� -acent to U.S. Route 340 in Double Tollgate Vicinity. City of Winchester Comments: City Signature and Date: (NOTICE TO CITY - PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO THE AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please also attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. C:3C���M 4V JUL I 0 1989 U i 40 REQUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS Frederick -Winchester Health Department ATTN: Herbert -L. Sluder, Sanitation_Engineer P.O. Box 2056, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 667-9747 The Frederick -Winchester Health Department is located at the intersection of Smithfield Avenueand Brick Kiln Road, if y-ou____ prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Interaate Company, Inc P.O. Box 17533 Washinaton, D.C.20041 (703)471-0400 AGENT: G.W. Clifford & Assoc P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn•Tom Price Name of development and/or description of the request: Location: South side and Adjacent to Va State Route 277 & West side and ad- lacent to U.S. Route 340"i'n Double Tollgate Vicinity Health Department Comments: Health Signature and Date: V, s", 5-- 13 (NOTICE TO HEALTH DEPT. - PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possb-l--e in -or -der-- to -assist- the -agen-cy- with -their --review : -Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. Y_w-sf 0 REQUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN I Frederick County Sanitation Authority ATTN: Wellington Jones, Engineer/Director P.O. Box 618, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5690 11 1989 The Frederick County Sanitation Authority is located on the second floor of the Old Frederick County Courthouse in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Intergate Company, Inc. P.O. Box 17533 Washington, D.C. 20041 (703)471-0400 AGENT: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn:Tom Price Name of development and/or description of the request: 0 Location: South side and Adjacent to Va State Route 277 & West side and ad- jacent to U.S. Route 340 in Double Tollgate Vicinity. Sanitation Authority Comments: R,e%f11AW /r Sanit. Signature & Date: (NOTICE TO SANITATION LEASE THIS FORM P(57AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach TWO copies of your plans and/or application form. 40 • REQUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS Frederick County Parks & Recreation Department ATTN: James Doran, Director. P.O. Box 601, Winchester, Virginia 22601 -(703) 665-5678- The Frederick County Parks .& Recreation Department is located on the second floor of the Frederick County Administration Building, 9 Court Square, Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this Applicant's name, address and phone number: Intercrate Company, Inc. P.O. Box 17533 Washington, D.C. 20041 (703)471-0400 AGENT: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn:Tom Price Name of development and/or description of the request: Location: )-.111-South side:- and Adjacent -- too Va State Route- 277 &--West—side -and', ad to U.S. Route 340 in Double Tollgate Vicinity. -,P arks & Recreation Department Comments: See Attached Letter Parks Signature and Date: (N7O' CE To PARKS - PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO THE AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT' It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. 4# i z.<;Z�Ulo- K1.REQUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMEVirginia Department of TransportationATTN: William H. Bushman, Resident Engineer,Q P.O. Box 278, Edinburg, Virginia 22824-0278Q (703) 984-4133 The local office of the Transportation Department is located at 1550 Commerce Street, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Intergate Company, Inc. P.O. Box 17533 Washington, D.C. 20041 (703)471-0400 AGENT: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn:Tom Price Name of development and/or description of the request: . Location: South side and Adjacent to Va State Route 277 & West side and ad- jacent to U.S. Route 340 in Double Tollgate Vicinity. 0 Transportation Department Comments: Master Development Plan has been reviewed at local and district level. However, because of the scope of the development and the fact it lays in two (2) residencies, it has been forwarded to our Central Office in Richmond for review. xc: Mr. Gilbert Campbell, Luray Residency VDOT Signature and Date: (NOTICE TO VDOT - PLEASE RETURN TH S FORM TO THE AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attache THREE copies of your plans and/or application form. oIr%I COUNTY of FREDERICK I. Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703 / 667-0370 November 1, 1989 To The Applicant(s) and/or Adjoining Property Owner(s) The Application Of: Wheatlands Preliminary Master Development Plan For: Single Family, Townhouses, Village Centers, School and Future Develpment, zoned R-5, 926.266 acres, located 3.5 miles east of Stephens City and 1 mile southwest of Double Tollgate. Adjacent and southside of Va. Route 277. Adjacent and west side of Va. Route 522, in the Opequon Magisterial District. This preliminary master development plan will be considered by the Frederick County Planning Commission at their meeting of November 15, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Va. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. Since/rely, Kris Tierney Deputy Director KCT/slk 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 HEAOLEY# 1DAVID A. • BOX 72 WHITE POST# VA. 22663 WILLIAMS# JEFFREY E. BOX 87 STEPHENS CITY# VA. 22655 GRADY# MARY MARGARET ROUTE 1 WHITE POST* VA, 22663 DOVELL# ESTHER He P. 0. BOX 80-6 WHITE POST• VA* 22663 GRADY• ALBERT M. & TERRI L. BOX 442 STEPHENS CITY• VA. 22655 TOLKAN# NORMAN N. & CONSTANCE H. 4712 RESERVOIR RD. N.W. WASHINGTON# D.C. 20007 OAK RIDGE PROPERTIES# INC. P. 0, BOX 885 WINCHESTER# VA. 22601 GIB.SON# BO3BY W. & GLADYS E. RT. 1 BOX 270-A STEPHENS CITY# VA. 22655 John Charles Ca.mDbe l l 2566 Chain Bridge,Apt. T-4 Vienna, Va. 22180 CAMPBELLI LEE E. RT. 1 BOX 270-M STEPHENS CITY• VA. 22655 BAILEY# LORETTA D. & HAROLD L. RT. 1 BOX 270-8 STEPHENS CITY# VA. 22655 Roy S. & Margaret T. Madigan Rt. 1, Boo. 273-A Stephens City, Va. 22655 TIBOW P.O. BOX 6 STEPHENS CITY# VA. 22655 MADIGAN# PATRICK C. & LILLIAN C. RT. 1 BOX 163 STEPHENS CITY# VA. LEWIS# WALTER� & DAISY M. RT. 1 BOX 272 STEPHENS CITY# VA. 22655 LEIGHT# JOHN MAX & LILLIAN JOANN G. 5037 MASSIE STREET STEPHENS CITY# VA. 22655 Milton K. & Beatrice A.person Rt. 1, Box 93 White Post, Va. 22.663 BOWMAN• JAMES L. & JANE H. P. 0. BOX 6 STEPHENS CITY# VA. 22655 GIBSON# MONTIE W. & PEARL E. RT. 1 BOX 155 WINCHESTER, VA. 22601 COOKE# GILES ROSS & ROBERT L. & MARY JUNE COOKE C/o ROBERT L. COOKE RT. 2 BOX 278 STEPHENS CITY# VA, 22655 Dinesh Tiware Va. Dept of Game & Inland Fi_s17-. 4010 West Broad St. Richmond, Va. 23230 Intergate Co.,Inc. washi_ngton-Dulles P.O. Box 17533 Washington, DC 20041 G. W. Clifford & Assoc.,Inc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va. 22507- 1/rT • Appt of irr,� .� land she e eS #7791. 1;t)e-ssh Ti u)a r/ I/D/D kksi broad .5t. 7�16htn6nd, vA. 232,30 22655 A This is to certify that0he attached correspondence was Wed to the following on November 1, 1989 from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: - - - - - CLARK't ISAS\C GAS�,LlaNER f alERTIC I � GLAIZEy FRED L. III JASBOv INCe i RTo 1 DUA Ol WHITE POSTv VA* Pe 0* BOX 6 22663 j STEPHENS CITY„ VAa 22655 E INC � drLv 8 �ayyPPLgg)){��g'ClWNE�> CATLE-IT"P RALP11 L i W INCHEST RP VA. S T E i_ t_ A P-s , 1 - 22601 - — . 'q' WHITE_ POS1'-� VA. y D l RCBERT L� IA JANIE S:., _ - 2,266.3.__ I RT. l BOX 85 1 HITL- PEST? VA. RAPC.7_YICj, HAROLD E 22663 i & BERNIC3 .A,- RT' 1 BG'3 WHITE POST., VA., I + Boyd D. & Candace L. Rit-ter 22663 I Rt. �, Bow 40J_ -A - - uV.in.chestar, Va. 22601 CORINFELL"? ;ANDOL.PI] i!� - -- - R Tv I Bf„ X R.8 WHITE POS-Tr VA,, I � "S'TICKLEY a STEVEN ALLEN t~3 &'E3,lR1;Al1A 22 iG:3 R*T. 1 BOX 347 - - I STE:PHENS C I TY9 VA, Randolph H. Cornwell I -- - 22655 4.372 Lakeview Court Steph.en� City, HEADLEY-F J.a DAVID F, DIRPIA V� �, Va. 22655 C✓0 RALPH GR,EG'ti• RY i 606 CARTER DRIVE iM#LLt Y,F _,& DLLPHI WINCHESTER* V/.0 22601 IZABETH ROUTE 1 - -- - - -- - - WHITE P(IS'1-7 VAZ i !, - 22663 is C. rn , Deputy Dire ederick unty Dept y-a'f��anning STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTYAF FREDEMCK I, r=LjVXW;:- , a Notary Public in and for the state and county aforesaid, do hereby certify that Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director, for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated &z has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my state and county foresaid. Given under my hand this — day of 1989. My commission expires on .NOTARY PUBLIC COUNTY of FREDERICK IDepartment of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 October 4, 1989 Mr. James A. Remmington Game & Inland Fisheries 4010 West Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23230 Dear Mr. Remmington: Enclosed is information on the master development plan that has been submitted for Wheatlands. We would welcome any comments or questions that you have. Sincerely, Robert W. Watkins Planning Director RWW/rsa Enclosures cc: Lewis M. Costello, Attorney 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 PLANNING COUNTY OF FREDERICK 9 COURT SOUARE P. O. Box 601 WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601 wAN RETURN TO WRITER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED NO FORWARDING ORDER ON FILE Boyd D. & Candace 1,. Ritter Rt. 1, box 401-A Winchester, Va. 22601 U.S)OU IAGE NOV -1'89 0.25 VA, B. IETEA r7 , M � f ) "'J(09-4 a COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 November 1, 1989 To The Applicant(s) and/or Adjoining Property Owner(s) The Application Of: Wheatlands Preliminary Master Development Plan For: Single Family, Townhouses, Village Centers, School and Future Develpment, zoned R-5, 926.266 acres, located 3.5 miles east of Stephens City and 1 mile southwest of Double Tollgate. Adjacent and southside of Va. Route 277. Adjacent and west side of Va. Route 522, in the Opequon Magisterial District. This preliminary master development plan will be considered by the Frederick County Planning Commission at their meeting of November 15, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Va. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. Sincerely, Kris Tierney Deputy Director KCT/slk 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK IDepartment of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 WHEATLANDS Issues to be Addressed on Master Development Plan Sewage Treatment Plant: - Needs to be clear that the plant is being designed strictly for the use of the development with sufficient capacity only for the development. - Needs to be clear that approval is only on the condition that the Board of Supervisors resolves to have the plant accepted by the Service Authority and that it is accepted. - Approval needs to be on the condition that there acceptable guarantees or agreements are made with the Service Authority concerning future exapansions of the plant to meet the need of the development. - Downstream impacts on water quality should be addressed in detail. 'Vvi�A 2k5ed j�'6c� Traffic Impacts: --f - Approval should be conditioned on there being one or two state maintained entrances on Route 522. - Detailed information is needed concerning impacts to Rt. ies d n 636. ,,ploo�d a1-� --sur>�:tze1�<r_P*Z4� - Guarantees should be provided concerning improvements of Route 636 and the intersection with Rt. 277 as the development proceeds. Game and Inland Fisheries: - All land owned by Game and Inland Fisheries should be clearly shown on the plan as being seperate from the development. - Detailed information should be provided on impacts of the development on water quality within the lake. - Flood easements should be provided. 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 - Approval should be on the condition that Game and Inland Fisheries review soil erosion and sedimentation plans and storm water management plans. It should also be on condition that they play a specific role in monitoring implementation of the plans. Public Access to the Lake: - Additional access points to the lake should be considered. Future Development Area: - More detailed information should be provided on the use of future development areas. Phasing Plan: �J - Phasing should be drawn in 50 to 100 unit increments. Plan should state one phase per year j,e l Number of Units: - The maximum number of dwelling units by type to be provided should be clearly specified. Fire and Rescue: - A site with specific acreage should be provided and noted for fire and rescue station. Community Center: - A statement should be provided limiting use of the community center to appropriate/allowed uses. 40 SUBJECT: WHEATLANDS Suggest the following issues be discussed: 4 December 1989 1. Since the Wheatlands development will essentially be a small town, (1800 houses, 5000-8000 population, 900-1000 school age children), suggest streel lights for security, sidewalks for channelization and saftey of pedestrian traffic, and curbs and gutters for control of sheet flow of storm drainage be provided. Curbs and gutters would help channel the storm water that would be contaminated with ice control chemicals, gasoline spills, oils, tars and other soluble/insoluble traffic pollutants downstream from the lake. 2. Suggest an additional 50 feet adjacent to the state land - around the lake be dedicated as open space and covenants allow for public use of this area. This way it could still be used in the developers calculation for required open space but would also allow public use for walking and access to other parts of lake shore. 3. Suggest a second public boat launch area be provided, at no cost, around the northern area of the lake. Developer would need to provide an access'road and a flat area for a small parking lot 10-12 cars. 4. Additional information must be provided on the impact of the increased water flow in the downstream area due to the treated effluent, both---ecologically/quality and quantity. 5. Provide'an impact statement concerning the effect of the increased .'school age children will have on the school system. Impact analysis should include a projected distrubition by grade, special- education requirements, and a cost impact to the school budget (new teachers, facilities, transportation, or possibly a cost per student). 6. Size of sewage treatment plant isquestionable, use of current average.flows to area plants should not be used to project flows that would be expected from a new planned community. New developments will typically use more water and produce more effluent than older housing connections ---due to more bathrooms, automatic dishwashers, garbage disposals, cloths -washers, other modern conviences in each new unit, that are water users and waste water producers. Size should be reasonably planned for now, not be a surprise later. The plant should still be built in increments as needed, but all increments should be indicated and planned now, not as a after thought. A reasonable figure for planning would be 350 gal per living unit connection, (350 X 1800=630,000 GPD) plus a percentage/estimated quantity for recreational use, school, etc. ----2---- 7. Suggest the developer offer to build the boat launch areas for the state, at no cost to the taxpayers. If we wait for the state to build them we may not live that long. 8. Suggest the developer offer money to the county school construction budget to help fund new school construction. Contribution could be annually, based on the number of houses sold. 9. Suggest the developer offer/commit to construct the firestation at the 50% build out stage, then dedicate the facility to the fire company or whoever, at no cost. 10. Suggest the devoloper offer to reduce the number of mulit- family units to no more than 5% of the total number of residences. Jim, I'm sure I'll think of somemore between now and their next presentation, however these are my quick thoughts. Roger Thomas 9 /z /6 1 1� 1 ;240»,�n y 0 VA / jz --� C,-w eAArtt5l� - "'�5 �� -, � 1 de n 3 `� -f -%e G4. G I�, 'j e o,-, . � y,-+� zlee % v�' w� �•�p yam_ GYM � ..� ) ii�.l � � � ) 4v- o PAW_ cfe ®� 7 �pL/ Q��, �� 2. 2 re. )-l.1 W c�.c. � 5 �-� d �^ w��� Cis o �--n t)::�� 3-2 J��,4 Hi if-Dp,,,ole, ten;-i�s ►�-� � v ate. C-��3, t'-c-,Z Le- L ,,� -� - / (a I,- f 4-41�llp llz,� -Ae o V--, ,,� -J, � ,�jrv,-8 ;5,;�4j C�,L- 51 J• l io Q J- qkn�\rl. zl- Q�6- I Y-0 _3A/ R_fD § 33.1-199 HIGHWAY LAWS HIG1 Highway District Engineer and Resident in the event the said Commissioner more than $1,000 s Engineers. I All commercial entrances whether or payment of said claims or dem 1950, § 33-117.1; 1970, c. 322.); ;on any 1 such privatA , not constructed under this section shall be z work of ordinary n maintained by the owner of the premises I at all times in a manner satisfactory to the § 33.1-200.1. Removal of sno from drivewa done on any such p of this s Commonwealth Transportation Commis- sinner. volunteer YQ t{ie provisions the- Commissioner ma3 Any person violating the provisions of ments and r sc of the council of any toy of less than 1,500 this section shall be guilty of a misde- meanor, and, upon conviction, shall be squads. u on . of such town, improve or roads t erei fined not less than $5 nor more than $100 for each offense. Following a conviction The State Department of Trans righway from streets System. As to town, no certific` and fifteen days for correction, each day during which the violation shall remove snow the drive -'a entrances on the roads under the such supervisors or depo- ° continues shall constitute a separate and distinct offense and be punishable as such. Such J tion of the State Department of tation of volunteer fire departgien , or done by the Co person shall be civilly liable to the Common- volunteer rescue squads when the" any individual volunteer fire dap" of t only be done wthe provisions of {� ith the equ wealth for actual damage sustained by the Commonwealth by reason of his wrongful or the head of any individual vo of the Commonwe: o rd. (Code 1950 act. (Code 1950, § 33-116.1; 1956, c. 91; 1966, 378; rescue squad, makes a written re .qu such snow removal service; 3.Booaa c. 1970, c. 322.) provtd such service shall only be perform` ... 'I § 33.1-199. Replacing entrances such service can be performed d normal course of snow removal 64 •202. Landowners n .11 and maintain destroyed by Com- of the State Department of Transpo d across prival missioner. without interfering with, or othe �. The Commonwealth Transportation conveniencing, such snow removal' ties; provided further, that suclj�' • rson owningland o others hava riv Commissioner shall replace any entrance shall not extend to any parking lofs way may, except when destroyed by him in the repair or construc- cent to such driveways and entrap provided by contract, erec tion of his highways and replace any such not normally used by the volun gates across such roads entrance and leave any such entrance in department or volunteer rescue sq ut all points at which fenct the same condition as it was prior to such hicles as their direct driveway or en ' roads on each side theree repair or improvement. (Code 1950, (1976, c. 221.) that a court of comp § 33-117; 1970, c. 322.) t may, upon petition, i § 33.1-201. Improving cent and proved by petition, have been § 33.1-200. Paying for damages vate roads and willfully and 'inay require the said le sustained to personal tain town stree "such changes therein property by reason roads. and reasonable in thf' of work projects, etc. f's for; both the landown( The Commonwealth Trans po per. (Code 1950, § 33-1 1970 c. The Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner may, in his discretio 322.) Commissioner is authorized and empow- the request of the board of supe ered, in his discretion, to pay and settle claims and demands against the Common- other governing body of any county. the expense of the owner of th. . Consideration. �� Otherwise Provided by wealth arising as a result of damages improve private roads giving direct, burl l GENERAL CONSIDERM sustained to personal property by reason of from the home or other central work projects or the operation of state- owned or operated equipment when en- on the property along the shortest cal route to the nearest public hi to that he "templates owlaon each sect erson gaged in the construction, reconstruction provided, however, that: the gates shall owns rid c or right-of-way, and have or maintenance of the State Highway (1) The Commissioner shall in . tO ouch roads on each side thf System, unless said claims or demands undertake any such work until i, on the claimant to show thF arise as a result of negligence of the person tion is made by the board of supe ions of the statute. Where hf iag or persons asserting such claims or de- mands. Nothing herein contained shall be other governing body that the P ., owner cannot secure the service he has no right to ere ...;, Meadows, 143 Va. 98, construed as imposing any legal liability private contractor to perform the woh anon not u on the State to P pay such claims or demands, nor as giving the consent of the osl then until the owner has dap oust him a certified check in the am o prevented o g n: ne aide of way. — Two gate Private Commonwealth to be sued in any action or mated by the Commissioner as the, = right-of-way a ppurtA wand, over g he adjoining la d suit to recover on such claims or demands the work; as in a fence erected entir'i 358 tractor or any persons el ,n on any contract executed this chapter, after June 30, 'ers on any claim arising from nce of the contract by the co ess the claimant shall have the review process provi&4 86. Further, no such action d cght unless the same shy within twelve months from the decision of the Commis epartment of T therein on hall any delayherrn o ontractor be construed as a .nding the time within which action must be brought. 4 >n 33.1-192 of this Code steal 1 full force and effect as to coa i into prior to July 1, 1% arising therefrom. (1976, 647.) -193. Closing highways fa safety of public or proper completion construction; injut to barriers, signs, shall appear to the Comm ;ary for the safety of the trap or for proper completion VI is being performed to close an9 ;hway coming under his Jun i traffic or any class of traffic nissioner may close, or cause`' 1, the whole or any portion'4 or highway deemed necessary ,ded from public travel and d all or any class of traffic frou such d portion. While any `5. way, or portion thereof, is so clo e any such road or highway, di eof, is in process of construct Ztenance, the Commissioner tor, under authority from the G er, may erect, or cause to be able barriers or obstructions t post, or cause to be posted, a notices to the erect that the' sway, or portion, is closed a :e warning signs, lights and such road or highway, or When for g e safety of the trave ection in processrvidedninnthis sect ice, asspo -son who willfully breaks dow o new construction work, rerr es or destroys any such bI rriers or obstructions, tears c eves, or destroys any such HIGHWAYS, BRIDG 1Dguishes, removes, injures or destroys y such warning lights or lantern of posted or placed shall be guilty ,;emeanor. (Code 1950, § 33-109; 68,c 547; 1968, c. 162; 1970, c. 322.) a,j,. Providing road de- 33.1.194• tours. the Commissioner Whenever necessary, Vselect, lay out, maintain and keep in repair as possible suitable detours, the most practical route, while the ways or roads are being improved or tructed and he shall place or cause to 0-placed explicit directions to the travel - public during repair of any such high - �or road under process of construction. !,Ie 1950, § 33-110; 1970, c. 322.) ES AND FERRIES 10 § 33.1-198 shall pay to the Commonwealth Transpor- tation Board the cost of such oiling. This section does apply to any highway which is a part of the State Highway System or the secondary system of state highways. (Code 1950, § 33-112; 1970, c. 322.) § 33.1-197. Connections over shoulders of high- ways for intersecting private roads. The Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner shall permit, at places where private roads leading to and from private homes intersect improved high- ways, suitable connections from such points of intersection, over and across the shoulders and unimproved parts of such highways to the paved or otherwise im- ;1-195. Sale of materials to, proved parts thereof, so as to provide for and use of equipment the users of such prn: ate roads safe and by, cities, towns, convenient means of ingress and egress counties and school with motor vehicles to and from the paved tt boards. or otherwise improved parts of such high- '� " ways. (Code 1950, § 33-116; 1970, c. 322.) ie Board may lend or rent equipment sell materials and supplies used in the ding or repairing of rooadscand streets board, ny city, town, county, n such terms and conditions as may be eed upon by the Board and such city, n; county, or school board. Provided the erning body of such city, town, county, .School board submits to the Board a Ncate setting forth that the material quipment cannot be furnished from Irate sources within a reasonable time. ovided, further, that the foregoing pro- d' shall not apply to towns with a tion of less than 3,500 inhabitants the purchase of paint for traffic g purposes by any city, town, or school board. (Code 1950, 11; 1952, c. 337; 1954, c. 349; 1956, 9;'1970, c. 322.) 1196. Oiling of highways. § 33.1-198. Connections shoulders lders of high- ways for intersecting commercial establish- ment entrances. Commonwealth Transportation may oil the highways in any town in State upon request of the council )f and may oil the highways in any y of this State, the secondary roads n which are not a part of the secon- ,system of state highways, upon re - :.Of the board of supervisors or other rg body thereof; provided that such or such board of supervisors or governing body, as the case may be, The Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner shall permit, at places where commercial establishment en- trances are desired to intersect improved highways, suitable connections from such points of intersection over and across the shoulders and unimproved parts of such highways to the paved or otherwise im- proved parts thereof, so as to provide for the users of such entrances safe and conve- nient means of ingress and egress with motor vehicles to and from the paved or otherwise improved parts of such high- ways; provided, however, that any person desiring such an entrance shall first be required to obtain a permit there:: ;r from the Commonwealth Transportation Com- missioner and shall provide the entrance at his expense and construct or have constructed the same, including such safety structures as are required by the Commonwealth Transportation Commis- sioner, pursuant to "Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways" on file in the Department of Transportation, Rich- mond, Virginia, and in the office of the 357 s f > Betty J. Diener secretary or cornmrc• and Resources MEMORANDUM COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Office of the Governor Richmond 23279 July 25, 1984 TO: The Honorable Andrew B. Fogarty FROM: Betty J. Diener SUBJECT: Wheatlands Fishing Lake I am concerned about the cost estimates for work needed at Wheatlands Fishing Lake. In March, 1982, I was advised that Glaizbo, a developer in Frederick County, wanted to donate to the state a 130-acre lake site plus 60 acres of land. It would be necessary, however, to do the following work to make the lake operational: - renovate the dam - build an access road - construct restrooms and a concession building - build a boat ramp Funds were in the following 80-82 and 82-84 budgets to cover the above projects: Game and Inland Fisheries $137,575 Va. Outdoors Foundation 491,075 Highway Department 80,000 At the time there was oFposition to this Lake from the "Taxpayers Association" who feared that more than 300 lots would be developed. The matter was resolved when we were assured by the developer and the county planner that no more than 300 lots would be developed. I recommended that the state accept the donation. r Now, I see that the figures are revised to: March July 82 84 Game & Inland Fisheries 137,575 $161,394 Virginia Outdoors 491,075 528,695 Foundation Total $628,650 $690,089 In addition, there appears to be a "cap" of $500,000 for the project. The following are my questions: 1. Will the $690,089 pay for all the items specified in March, 1982? If not, what is required? 2. If we knew in March, 1982 that the project would exceed $600,000, why was the $500,000 cap instituted? 3. Do the plans still call for 300 or fewer units to be developed? I suggest that we need answers to these questions before we decide to increase the cap and accept the gift. I, like you, do not want to be in a position of allowing unlimited spending on behalf of property improvements for private citizens (as well, I know, as for public fishing). It is important to increase public fishing opportunities, and there is a documented need for them in this area. Hopefully we can develop the public fishing at reasonable cost. I suggest that D. B. Smit be asked to explore these issues and report his findings to us as quickly as possible. Keech will coordinate this in my absence. BJD/mbh cc: D. B. Smit Dick Cross Keech leGrand MIS W, sAoAD SMG• ROOM 101 RICHMOND =19 6/sYi. x pj r-mgmeering and flullding! January 11, 1984 Mr. Larry G. Hart, Chief Lands and Engineering Division Commission of Game & Inland Fisheries 4010 West Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23230 Re: CO-2, Property Improvements: Water Impoundments Frederick County Lake Renovation Project Code 12699, Task Code 807-01 C-35 (82-84) Dear Mr. Hart: Pursuant to our telephone conversation of January 10, 1984, 1 reviewed the status of this project to try to move it along to some rational conclusion. rnEP►gr{ &X 7W3M In going through the file, I discovered a copy of your letter of December 15, 19831 to Messrs. Bowman and Glaize, which characterized the status of the r as "wal-l_o "in re a -wi�fhout belaboring history, I ' woul like to inquire and take issue wi__certain of its s atements: December, 1981 - How could the Commission take title to t `� ' property without the Governor's approval which was not conditionall he �- until March, 1982? �r-_ � �v.�� � _ Y granted ; August, 1983 - Why were preliminary plans withheld from review by , the Department of General Services/Division of Engineering and Buildings DGS/DEB) since December, 1982? Who would not "allow" this submittal to us at an earlier date? "Current Status" - You state that you were awaiting comments from DGS/DEB. Comments were mailed to you on December 12, 1983. You had indicated in your November 14, 1983 letter to Mr. Barret that you "were reviewing the project in-house to decide if we (CGIF) wish to continue with the project in light of the new estimate." Until you called yesterday, we had no indication whether you wished to continue. , OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR • DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION • DIVISION OF ENGINEERING & BUILDINGS DIVISION OF PURCHASES & SUPPLY • DIVISION OF CONSOLIDATED LABORATORY SERVICES •OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT .. � _f :-. �-- --- - xn�w.ta • U►*R.t OF hgll a' �s .�....�. wa►�ar.r.a �� properry required- that final acceptance by condittoned upon the restoration work costing less than $500, 000. The _obvious reason for this was to avoid having a "white elephant." The status of t.he December 1981 "taking�i the _d� facceptance_ gmu dTe __con_O The two estimates, �1._6 million by St��� Law Engineering, confirm our Initial concerns regarding excessivefiQye cost. This brings Us to the current question as to how to proceed. On your Form COS dated December 151982 total project budget remains unchanged from the original Form CO2.to The form is also unsigned on behalf of the agency. Should the project move forward, updated forms COS should be submitted. They should show a budget adequate to defray estimated cost and should be signed for the agency. (Original forms are returned herewith.) CGIF should have Law Engineering discuss with R. Stuart Royer the difference in their estimates to settle on some believable current estimate, or to identify areas of disagreement. If no consensus can be reached, CGIF should have another estimate prepared by a professional estimator. If it appears that the total cost of the project is going to exceed $500,000, then CGIF shall obtain the consent of the Secretary of Commerce and Resources and agreement from the Outdoor Recreation Services of the Division of Parks, Department of Conservation and Economic Development to proceed with the higher cost project. Until these matters are dealt with we cannot authorize expendit re of additional funds to complete working drawings. y Please call me if you want to discuss this further. Sincerely, R. D. Justice Assistant Director R DJ/If/0111 /7 cc: J. Stuart Barret Carl Smith COMMONWEALTH of VIRQRNIA Betty J. Diener Secretary of Commerce 2� Pesources MEMORANDUM Office of the Governor Richmond 23279 TO: Betty J. Diener FROM: Keech leGrand SUBJECT: Wheatland's Fishing Lake Wheatlands Fishing Lake is being offered to the C0-=0n-w`alth as a gift .by Glaizbo, a developer in Frederick County. ^tee i�t consists of a 130 acre lake site plus 60 acres of i g r appraised price of $293,000. a at an In order to make the fishing lake operational, so ... e work needs to be done. The existing dam needs renovation, an access road must be built, and restrooms, a concession buildir.g and boat ramp must -be constructed. Nongeneral funds to cover this work are in the FY 8C-82 and 82-84 budgets, and the agencies involved have agreed to _proceed with this project. Game and Inland Fisheries will sp Virginia Outdoors Foundation will spend $491,0752na an".t3e�Hi5hwa Department will spend between'$60,000 g y $80,000 0 a-_ `.e access road. I did some checking, and found that o L:: coming from the Frederick County Taxpayers Associat_os.p`Oject was The developer is planning to sell lots around the la'-e. was concerned that small lots would be sold aa ^_h' Association t rj= acre. However, the master plan that Glaizbo t current--e o= 3 lots per tly working under calls for 200 5-acre lots and also leaves 3�= o- as open space. the land TrTe checked with the Taxpayers Association, and tn_:• o-,Il With as many as 300 lots. G- 'd be satisfied have legal assurance that theedeveloperlisslim0ncer. -s that they 300 lots. The way the land is zoned now, the deedtoQYo more than subdivide the land into over 2,000 10 ts. ,E1 "'- could legally - rage I� Delegate Al Smith is very interested in this I project, and has assured me that the developer will adhere plan of 200 lots. to his current master I also spoke with both the developer and the county planner and I am satisfied that it is their intention to develop 5-acre lots. The gift has been offered .to the State, but it requires your approval to accept the gift. recommend that we accept it. ..cam.-..+�..�ia+- v_...... .:::4 ... ..._._ _ ... - ._ _. _ n�-. _ ... _ . .�.....c.... . .1....�f .... � :cim1: •�..f..........., .. ..:N � ..:L$:..f �> .:n.abar.:.,.,_.,'�.^io. .. .. �, .... ., .. ]QL Fx�Krti+lr�. tom;-w:� ;►-.:ice::�;w�'JfIS_ . el;,�,'i"�'F' COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjI IA Betty J. Uener Secretary of Commerce and Resources MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Office of the Governor Richmond 23279 March 23, 1982 J. Stuart Barret j Betty J. Diener J Gift of Wheatlands Fishing Lake to Commonwealth /�' Neiss! 1 -vn 431�i3J38 As per your request of February 25, 1982, it is my recommendation to you that the State accept the gift of Wheatlands Fishing Lake. This recommendation is agreed to by the Directors of the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Commission of Outdoor Recreation (see attached). In addition, this Office has been in direct contact with the Frederick County Taxpayers Azsociation, Fred GlaiZQ e of the deve opers ot the Wheatlands-project), and John Horne (the Frederick County Director of Planning) We ave been assure at e�vise-- plans for the development call for ' unit/3-5 acres, and that those plans are acceptbl-e to both the County and the Taxpa_yers Associa ion. Thus, any controversy surroun ing t e s ould be minimized-- Thanks. \,e ' A N����� Attachment cc: R. H. Cross, Jr.v-'� Keech leGra9d -_— - _. •i<:�u.:..�..*a..,,...r,. �.::� v.Ge .:.i+,a ::t_.:uuz... , _.. s ... .t:....,....Ydr.L4i.ii� °r3� COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Betty J. Diener Ofce of the Governor &Kr.hry of Commrc..n0 R..ourc.. Richmond 23219 July 25, 1984 MEMORANDUM - TO: The Honorable Andrew B. Fogarty FROM: Betty J. Diener SUBJECT: Wheatlands Fishing Lake I am concerned about the cost estimates for work needed at Wheatlands Fishing Lake. In March, 1982, I was advised that Glaizbo, a developer in Frederick County, wanted to donate to the state a 130-acre lake site plus 60 acres of land. It would-be necessary, however, to do the following work to make the lake operational: renovate the dam build an access road construct restrooms and a concession building build a boat ramp Funds were in the following 80-82 and 82-84 budgets to cover the above projects: Game and Inland Fisheries $137,575 Va. Outdoors Foundation 491,000,075 Highway Department At the time there was opposition to this Lake from the "Taxpayers Association" who feared that more than 300 lots would be developed. The matter was resolved when we were assured by the developer and the county planner that no more than 300 lots would be developed. I recommended that the state accept the donation. • - --- �••�� --•_= llgures are revised to: March July 82 84 Game & Inland Fisheries 137,575 Virginia Outdoors 491,075 Foundation Total 161,394 528,695 $690,089 In addition, there appears to be a "cap" of $500,000 for the project. The following are my questions: 1. Will the $690,089 pay for all the items specified in March, 1982? If not, what is required? 2. If we knew in March, 1982 that the project would exceed $600•,000, why was the $500,000 cap instituted? 3. Do the plans still call for 300 or fewer units to be developed? I suggest that we need answers to these questions before we decide to increase the cap and accept the gift. I, like you, do not want to be in a position of allowing unlimited spending on behalf of property improvements for private citizens (as well, I know, as for public fishing). It is important to increase public fishing opportunities, and there is a documented need for them in this area: Hopefully we can develop the public fishing at reasonable cost. I suggest that D. B. Smit be asked to explore these issues and report his findings to us as quickly as possible. Keech will coordinate this in my absence. BJD/mbh cc: D. B. Smit Dick Cross Keech leGrand PAUI W TIBALAPfCK DIRECTOR is MEMORANDUM COMMONWEALTH of V1Rg1N1k: ; Department of Planning and Budget Auqust 3. 1984 TO: The Honorable Betty J. Diener The Honorable Andrew B. Fogarty FROM: D. B. Smit_ SUBJECT: Wheatlands Lake Project POST OFFICE 8OX 1422 RICHMONO 23211 (804) 7W7455 In response to Secretary Diener's July 25, 1984 request related to the Wheatlands Lake Project, I have talked with Larry Hart of the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, Dick Justice of the Division of Engineering and Buildings and John Horne, Planning Director for Frederick County. I have also visited the project site. This memo is intended to answer the three questions posed in the July 25 memo as well as to provide additional information and my recommendation; all of which may help you in reaching your decision. Will the $690,089 pay for all the items specified in March 1982? The $690,089 will cover costs associated with construction of the dam only. In March, 1982, the total cost of constructing the dam was estimated at $441,000. As a result, the dam construction costs will exceed original estimates by about $249,089. There are several factors that explain the difference between the original project estimates and the current estimate. Among these are the following: 1. The engineering firm that originally studied the project underestimated the cost at $441,000. 2. The State Water Control Board inspected the project site and required certain changes that increased the cost of the project. For example, SWCB required that the dam be raised by two feet to prevent the probable maximum flood from flowing over the top of the darn. This change requires more work and materials and will cost an additional $47,000. 3. Inflation, while low in recent years, may be responsible for as much as $92.000 in cost increases. The original estimate was made in Fall 1981, nearly three years ago. x� The Honorable Andrew B. Fogarty August 3. 1984 Page 2 In addition to the cost of dam construction, the Game Commission is planning for projects which will enhance the utilization of the lake by the sporting public. Following is a break down of these ancillar originally estimated and as currently estimated: Y Projects as Original Estimate Access Road ; 60,500 Boat Ramp 40,000 Concession Building 85 000 Parking Lot ' $185,500 Early correspondence sometimes combined ancillary projects. This, I believe has led included in the project in March, 1982. Current Estimate $ 90,000 30,000 60,000 20,000 $200,000 the dam construction with the to some confusion as to what was If we knew in March 1982 that the ro'ect would exceed 6 ;500.000 cap insti*uted? H In March 1982. the dam construction project was estimated at $441,000. This estimate came from the engineering study conducted by a private engineering firm. The $500,000 cap was placed only on the dam project. The cap did not apply to the ancillary projects. According to Dick Justice, the cap was placed on the project because Engineering and Buildings questioned the engineering firm's cost estimate. Engineering and Buildings wanted to protect the State against the that unanticipated costs would make this that ,the cap as a mechanism where, if the actualrconst nrcost effective. They saw property cou a re u ned to the original agreeme►-tj tiowner (under aroved negoated e It should be noted that if the dam construction estimate of $44*1,000, the original ancillary project total of $185,000 and projs of $62,650 were combined (as they were in Keech leGrand'scmemo nofnMarch e22, 1984), it could be construed that the project estimate exceeded the $500,000 cap, in March 1982. However, as I have indicated above, the $500,000 cap was placed solely on the dam construction project. Do plans still call for 300 or fewer units to be developed��'��� In order to answer this Director for Frederick County. Mr. Horneatold mehthat runder ccurrent�zoning, the area could be developed from low density to a density of 6 to 8 dwellings ' l— I Rar xonorao i e decry j. ul ener a' The Honorable Andr8. Fogarty August 3, 1984 s� Page 3 per acre. Further, Mr. Horne says that the developer has not submitted a master development plan. As a result, he (Horne) does not know how the developer intends to use the land around the lake property. On the other hand, Hr. Horne indicated that two factors work in favor of low density development: T. The County has no plans to extend water and sewer services to the Wheatlands area (Horne told me that services to the areas is not conceivable before the year 2000). A water and sewer system would have to be built by the developer. Such a system for a high density development may be cost prohibitive. 2. The county has � in place, and will enforce, some stringent open space P D requirements on the developer. These open space requirements should reduce the number of dwellings per acre that otherwise might have been completed. (The developer, by the way will not be allowed to include the lake or the land deeded to the Game Commission as part of the open space requirement.) Conclusion The following is a list of conclusions that may be of help to you: 1. The land that makes up the Frederick County Lake project had been sought by the Game Commission since 1972 and is also included in the Virginia Outdoors plan. The donation of the land by the developers will allow the Game Commission to build a much desired project at a lesser cost. 2. Through Game Commission ownership, this lake project will be available to sportsmen and women throughout Virginia. Had the developers completed the project, use of the lake could have been restricted. 3. I believe (and it is the consensus of those to whom I have talked) that all relevant State policies and procedures have been followed in th development of this project. 4. The Frederick County Lake project is not unlike other Game Commission Projects in other Counties such as Stafford, Fauquier, Nelson and Fluvanna. These are Game Commission lake projects around which development has occured. t � - � � A r - • y. The Honorable ener l The Honorable Andrew S. Fogarty August 3, 1984 Page 4 5. The Game Commission will own land around the entire circumference of the lake. extending 50ft. from shore. In addition, the Commission will own an access road and land on which the parking lot and concession building will be constructed. This is important becase no one will be allowed to restrict the publics access to the lake from any where on shore or on the lake. 6. There is apparently no opposition to the project at this time. Mr. Horne told me that even the leader of the tax payers group (the group originally reported to have opposed the project) is not opposed to the project. Further the Frederick County Board of Supervisors supports the project and feels that the lake is a substantial public benefit. Recommendation I recommend acceptance of the best qualified bidder and completion of the project. DBS/#7257/AWPBDE/vld cc: Paul W. Timmreck Ray Sorrell Richard H. Cross,, Jr. Keech leGrand Larry G. Hart Richard 0. Justice COMMONWEALTH of VIRCINIA Betty J.Oiener SICIV r, of C011,rcy a-.=esowces MEMORANDUM Office of the Gouernor TO: Betty J. Diener Richmond 23219 FROM: Keech leGrandaok SUBJECT: Wheatland's Fishing Lake Wheatlands Fishing Lake is being offered to the Co-= i a gift by Glaizbo, a developer in Frederick Co•_,nty. -*-e giftas consists of a 130 acre lake site plus 60 acres of 1=,� appraised price of $293,000. - t an In order to make the fishing lake operational, so-:e ,orc needs to be done. The existing dam needs renovation, an access road must be built, and restrooms, a concession build -in; an boat ramp must be constructed. Nongeneral funds to cover this work are in the Fy 8 -82 and 82-84 budgets, and the agencies involved have agreed to c=.c=e=a w; th this project. Game and Inland Fisheries will semen_ c,,," , Virginia Outdoors Foundation will spend $491,075 an_✓t-e�Highway Department will spend between $60,000 - $80,000 0 t_�e a, _cess road. I did some checking, and found that opposition to _s project wascoming from the Frederick County Taxpayers Asse =_cn. The developer is planning to sell lots around the la% was concerned that small lots would be sold at _ ssociation acre. However, the master plan that Glaizbo is ,, �-3 lots per workingunder calls for 200 5-acre lots and also leave_ �_ �- as open space. _ 3- = o= . .e land i-ti'o checked with the Taxpayers Association, ara with as many as 300 lots. The Associations' conce_nps `i-".be they satisfied have legal assurance that the developer is liMite.d to c ore than they 300 lots. The way the land is zoned nowthe e ,cercould legally subdivide the land into over 2,000 lots. age IDelegate Al Smith is very interested in this p=oject, and has assured me that the developer will adhere to his current master plan of 200 lots. I also spo %e with both the developer and the county planner and I am satisfied that it is their intention to develop 5-acre lots. The gift has been offered to the State, but it requires your approval to accept the gift. p I recommend that we accept it. COMMONWEALTH of V1 RCj1NJA Charles S. Robb Office of the Governor oe.e Richmond 23219 March 25 1982 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMISSION OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES Authorization granted to acquire, through gift, approximately 192 acres more or less and improvements thereon, known as Wheatlands Lake in Frederick County, for the purpose of operating a fishing lake. It is understood that it is the intent of the Commission to repair and upgrade the existing dam and to provide certain other ancillary facilities including an access road and parking lot. This authorization is conditioned upon the assumption that the dam and lake restoration-p-l-lase can be accomnlisTed_-fnr�__tal cost not to exceed $500,000 a_nd r that t pert reverts to the original owners should tfi Commission a unable to enter a construction contract o ring e to-M-zest-of dam and lake restor- ations wit in t is amount. It is understood that prio�o accepting the property the Commission shall obtain acknowledgment of the availability of construction funds from the Department of Planning and Budget and shall comply with any requirements generated by the Environmental Impact Assessment. Submit to the Division of Engineering and Building a copy of the recorded deed and plat. ` for Governor by'Secretary of Administration and 7 Finance V,� 1 Director Division bF Engineering and Buil gs Director Department of General Services Director Department of Planning and Budget CAS/0325/L/1 COMMONWEALTHof A �� IN � � I Office of the Governor Betty J. Uene. se"o)" J' COM.'erce a.d R!50"rCes MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Richmond 2.3219 March 23, 1982 a� J. Stuart Barret Betty J. Diener Gift of Wheatlands Fishing Lake to Commonwealth As per your request of February 25, 1982, it is my recommendation to you that the State accept the gift of Wheatlands Fishing Lake. This recorLm.endation is agreed to by the Directors of the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Coranission of Outdoor Recreation (see attached) . In addition, this_ Office has been in direct contact _with _the Frederick County Taxpayers Association, Fred Glaiz e of the developers -of the Wheatlands�roect , and John Horne (the Frederick Count' Director of Planning) . We have been assure3-tFiat re 'is plans for the development call for unit/3-5 acres, and that those plans are accenta l to both the County and the Taxpayers Association. Thus, any controversy surrounding tie -gtft--should be min m zi eT:---- Thanks. Attachment CC: R. H. Cross, Jr.v--� Keech leGrand 'i,a4K F. EVEREST. JR., CHAIRMAN 'rf i 'l''BOX Iasi, S�PRt!JGFIELD 22150 ',• t ;r } ' -.•J �,1�.;� , WAL7i'Ff"J LEV FRIDGE, VICE-CHAIRMAN BOX 5511, VIRGINIA BEACH 23455 -lti•}`..J.D.BOWIE .. -' BOX 1078. BRISTOL 24201 v _,' e • t �, { + W. FRANK CHAPMAN; JR. +', BOX 350. 120 BLVD.. SALEM 24153 P.O. 'f •�� :f,y�� y' r ` A. HOFFMAN, M.D. - t 1040 MAIN•ST., DANVILLE 24541All `JAMES R. KNIGHT. JR.. D D.S. BOX RSAW 22572 A T r ��} py'' COMMONWEALTH WEALT O f VIR 1N1NN i . � 1. LEE POTTER VV"YY11�1" V� LEE POTTER ". 3120 N. WAKEFIELD ST., ARLINGTON 22207 k c GEORGE L. SHEPPARD, JR., M.D. - ' • - - .. - t' P.O. EOXA DT31.WINCHESTER22501 COMMISSION OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES RH.'CROSS,JR EXECUTIVE DIRECTC RICHBOX 11104 I y' 4010 WEST BROAD STREET BOX 47A. WAVERLY 23890 FRANK T. SUTTON, III , BOX 11104 200 SO. THIRD ST., RICHMOND 23219 Richmond, 2323111104 RICHMOND.23230 i r , , �t Decemb.er.31, 1981 - } 4 Mr. James L. Bowman A and Mr. Fred L. Glaize, III 302 North Cameron Street t r r Winchester VA: 22601 >a' Re: Deed of Gift_of Three (3)'Parcels of Land at "Wheatlands" to i' -: Virginia Game ' Commission y) Gentlemen: �.' 01 This: will state the .intention of Game Commission to improve c^ Tract C, access parcel, between Routes 522 and 340 to' Tiact`A"; according to Virginia Department of Highways standards existing at the time improvements are made, and to grant an easement 'to. the Virginia Department. 'of'Highways, over the entire length and,width ' C• of Tract and to.commence a repair , , p project on the dam. on thd. k.: conveyed land within two (2) years from the date of Deed convey- ` ing the land to the Commission. 1 J Sincerely, F Larry G. art, Chief Lands and Engineering Division` l •r X,.,�, r5 I _ t r ... _ .. . :'.' �1�Fa � r }�T��i �,�•i-'s d ��i�t`�yc�,•,kt 54�,it��y- 1 ? rl�:. �, r'•}i��y }fi.y 'tj r� '..n` �It'k'f'z. Y L �, � f ' { i' 1 , / I~'%y� I E•✓r r c 4. m4 r't�yr f rt,l�� Vi • t ea:i t �, t• 114• 1i Jkij {.. $Jf •% �1� s � .. .+7F��y9� �r k . (� fi,� i"Z Y}4Yy. a. y4 11r,�1� ., > 3 I -A il��, �i �• ir7�'4' '�•,,reri�Ytf"t�+ rt'�„iy pYi'>,�siRS �i^'y��r�.+•'�;��'A� to ,r , F. _ "1'Ki5•i SfX �� °y f° a r4.g'}r�1J;}s4 ,r,.J ���i 1 _ ? ;'4itr�{_£F� �33",, g�. r , .�► p?{ ji�Lfl .`�,Yr�• tx � =� .!'`frtji''7r1F ± *fi7 ,` V�+£, 4'/p`�='•X,:,h^•